Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

First topic message reminder :

I was asked on FB what I thought of the H & L theory.

After some to-and-froing, I asked what the best piece of evidence was for the theory.

The answer came back in a flash -- Jack white's "all the faces of Oswald" montage. I was then asked if I thought all those pictures were of the same person.

My response to that question has never changed. The only one I have a problem with is this one:



Since it is clearly not Oswald -- in either incarnation of Lee or "Harvey", it has to be "Oswald" - to include this photo as evidence of a CIA doppelganger is surely an act meant to convey that 3 such identities existed.

My question back was pretty straight forward. Where did this photo come from and who was it who first claimed it was supposed to be LHO?

I never got an answer. As generally happens when debating L & H theory, a genuine inquiry was met with a change in subject.

Can anyone here shed any light on the background of this photo? 

Oh, and the person also pointed out that the background behind the head is "faked". What the hell is that about?

greg parker wrote:Taking stock, what do know as facts?
 
What are further likely facts?

That 

• LHO-3 originated with Jack White
  

What we still don't know

• Why LHO-3 was made
  

I can understand (and agree with) everything else you've mentioned but I do not understand the Jack White connection.

Did I miss something in another post - or another thread?

greg parker wrote:

Alan Dixon wrote:Out of curiosity, has anything from this thread been discussed on the H&L fb page?

Can't tell you, Alan. They kicked me out and immediately closed the group from public view.

I have however just posted the most basic part of it to another fb group where some of the H & L group are also members. 
  https://www.facebook.com/groups/322749987858423/

Never bothered with fb, quite frankly i don't trust it. If possible, could you let us know how your posts there are received.

Terry,

Greg recently posted this segment from an acorn.net article by John Armstrong concerning the discovery of the wax-headed Harvey, or Lee, or whothefuckever:

"Oswald refused to state why he was "defecting." Mosby's most memorable quotation of the young turncoat would run all over the world: "I will never return to the United States for any reason" (Ibid., 8-9). The UPI story about Oswald's "defection" ran in the Fort Worth Star Telegram, accompanied by a photo that John Armstrong says "appears to be Lee Oswald, recognizable to residents of Fort Worth (White #26). Harvey Oswald's photograph did not appear in Fort Worth newspapers in 1959 -- no one would have recognized him as 'Lee Oswald."

The article ran on November 1, 1959, the day after Oswald appeared at the American Embassy in Moscow and had his confrontation with Richard Snyder. The photograph (White #26) may have originated with UPI. The author believes that this is actually a retouched and greatly (but unintentionally) distorted version of the outdoors photograph taken by George Wilkins at Atsugi (White #25), the original of which is of poor quality. This photograph bears virtually no resemblance to either Lee or Harvey Oswald. Jack White has noted the similarity to #25, but does not suggest it was the basis for #26. Such details as the hairline and eyes are compelling evidence that George Wilkins' photo fell into the hands of a retouch artist with inexplicably poor eyesight or abilities or both. If in a charitable mood, one can see how the artist misinterpreted shadows in the photo to make the AP Oswald's nose far too large, but the AP Oswald's chin borders on the inhuman, and relates in no way to the Wilkins photo. The shape of Oswald's head is further distorted by an undisguised cropping of the background, probably to remove the edge of the hut seen behind Oswald in the Wilkins photo. This photograph should be disregarded as a true representation of Lee Harvey Oswald; however, no sinister overtones need be attached to its alteration. Retouching is the rule, not the exception, in print media. This is in all probability is an unbelievably incompetent example; there is no apparent purpose served by the severe distortion of the subject's appearance; in fact, it could only raise suspicions among those who knew him."

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace../03/JA/DR/.DR1/.Orig/.dr10.txt

This reads to me that waxy-headed LHO-3 originated with Jack White (Jack White #26) although Armstrong is a pretty poor writer and it can be quite confusing what the fuck he's talking about on occasion.  However, given what is written we do have to allow for the fact that Armstrong isn't claiming that JW#26 or LHO-3 is Harvey or Lee.  That does seem to sit squarely with Jim Hargrove.  But the fact that this was pasted onto the FWSH article does seem to rest with Armstrong seeing as how his documents is the only place where the fake version seems to appear.

He claims that the LHO-3 or Jack White #26 came from UPI but received a reply from them saying they didn't have it in their files so I'm confused as to where he got the copy that has the typed caption to the left of the version I posted yesterday.

Thanks, Lee, that clears it up for me.

On the photo you posted yesterday, it is a little odd that the card at the left reads "TURNS RED" and the article has "seeks Red".

So the culprit for the photo is either White, Armstrong, or Hargrove. Could be a triple play, or at least a quinella.

And we still have no doppelgangers!!

Terry,

another factor is that I've heard two different versions of what got Armstrong started.

Version 1 has it that it was the statement of Palmer McBride that did it.

Version 2 has it that it was White's Oswald photo montage. Which seems to indicate that White had LHO-3 before Armstrong formulated his theory.

And don't forget what started thread. It was because when I asked one of the supporters what the best evidence for the theory was  - he said that's easy - and posted the Hargrove version of the FW ST story replete with LHO-3 pasted onto it.

greg parker wrote:...another factor is that I've heard two different versions of what got Armstrong started.

Version 1 has it that it was the statement of Palmer McBride that did it.

Version 2 has it that it was White's Oswald photo montage. Which seems to indicate that White had LHO-3 before Armstrong formulated his theory.

Two versions, two Oswalds. The universe remains in balance.

Stan Dane wrote:

greg parker wrote:...another factor is that I've heard two different versions of what got Armstrong started.

Version 1 has it that it was the statement of Palmer McBride that did it.

Version 2 has it that it was White's Oswald photo montage. Which seems to indicate that White had LHO-3 before Armstrong formulated his theory.

Two versions, two Oswalds. The universe remains in balance.

Greg,

The force is strong in this one, no?
Next, Stan will be needing his own light saber.

terlin wrote:

Stan Dane wrote:

greg parker wrote:...another factor is that I've heard two different versions of what got Armstrong started.

Version 1 has it that it was the statement of Palmer McBride that did it.

Version 2 has it that it was White's Oswald photo montage. Which seems to indicate that White had LHO-3 before Armstrong formulated his theory.

Two versions, two Oswalds. The universe remains in balance.

Greg,

The force is strong in this one, no?
Next, Stan will be needing his own light saber.

As another member here would say... O' Lordy...

Some members of the Foo Foo are creaming their drawers because in this clip Sturgis cements the 2 Oswalds for them. I expect the members of this forum may take a different view.

Thanks steely,

Someone posted a larger excerpt. He is putting forth the idea that the KGB sent an imposter to do the deed.

The interview itself was with O'Reilly and therefore is during the period when he was investigating the assassination. This means the interview was very likely done after Eddowes crapola came out -- and Sturgis has jumped on board like any good little CIA pet continuing to try and frame false sponsors.

Deep Foo Fooers will jump on board anything that they think will help garnish their Oswald Rabbit Stew. 

Volume 2 of LHOCW will continue showing the idiocy of their claims, and how the records have been twisted and contorted to fit their bullshit.

The flies have found a turd, Greg. I watched the long version but thought that 25 seconds was more than enough for here

steely dan wrote:The flies have found a turd, Greg. I watched the long version but thought that 25 seconds was more than enough for here

Fuck. I just read the whole thread and now I have to disinfect my eyes.

I haven't seen leaps of logic like this since Sharknado II.

It has nothing to do with any perceived vendetta against any of them when I say they should be quarantined in FooFooLand and not be allowed to interact with the rest of the internet, let alone the physical world.

greg parker wrote:

steely dan wrote:The flies have found a turd, Greg. I watched the long version but thought that 25 seconds was more than enough for here

Fuck. I just read the whole thread and now I have to disinfect my eyes.

I haven't seen leaps of logic like this since Sharknado II.

It has nothing to do with any perceived vendetta against any of them when I say they should be quarantined in FooFooLand and not be allowed to interact with the rest of the internet, let alone the physical world.

Just in from Jim Hargrove....."This thread is either on fire or going down in flames"......fetch the water, Greg

steely dan wrote:

greg parker wrote:

steely dan wrote:The flies have found a turd, Greg. I watched the long version but thought that 25 seconds was more than enough for here

Fuck. I just read the whole thread and now I have to disinfect my eyes.

I haven't seen leaps of logic like this since Sharknado II.

It has nothing to do with any perceived vendetta against any of them when I say they should be quarantined in FooFooLand and not be allowed to interact with the rest of the internet, let alone the physical world.

Just in from Jim Hargrove....."This thread is either on fire or going down in flames"......fetch the water, Greg

Roger that. Just as soon as I scratch my balls and meditate on it for a while, I'm on it!

"And speaking of bs, there has been so much of it surrounding the assassination it would be hard for the truth to be recognized if it were delivered from Mount Olympus on dancing stone tablets". .......a deadpan delivery from Hargrove.

Steely, would those be the same stone tablets I saw over on Burnham's forum?

No Terry, dancing is strictly forbidden on Der Forum

steely dan wrote:"And speaking of bs, there has been so much of it surrounding the assassination it would be hard for the truth to be recognized if it were delivered from Mount Olympus on dancing stone tablets". .......a deadpan delivery from Hargrove.

He is conversing with Scott Kaiser - a person who interviewed a BOP veteran who happened to be named Molina. Kaiser spouted on FB that this Molina and Joe Molina of the TSBD were one and the same.

I eventually got through to him it was two different people - but not without putting myself through the torture of his "pro" arguments for what seemed like hours - mostly consisting of "of course I'm right. I spoke to him!"

It appears we are trying to tell the difference between shit and shite

steely dan wrote:Some members of the Foo Foo are creaming their drawers because in this clip Sturgis cements the 2 Oswalds for them. I expect the members of this forum may take a different view.

Check out the bulbous nose!. Zoom in and check the teeth! (cunningly hidden behind a mustache)
Put a wig on this man and a pair of shitty glasses........

We are on to are second helping of humble pie

Two Oswald theory ironically requires half a brain to be believable...
Pie never so humbled as H&L

H&L needs Ralph Cinque! It's the teeth yanno.....
If Brian didn't spend so much time worshiping Grace Slick he could bust this case wide open.

Ed. Ledoux wrote:

Two Oswald theory ironically requires half a brain to be believable...
Pie never so humbled as H&L

This nose has yet to finish it's long journey. Check out the 1946 MO photo Hargrove has posted. It's clearly the nose that H&L cultists have picked.

Apologies to the late Mr Sturgis. I mistook his nose for a pyramid.

steely dan wrote:Apologies to the late Mr Sturgis. I mistook his nose for a pyramid.

Understandable. I believe he did a lot of excavating there.