Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Similar topics
Latest topics
» The Facts about Connally's Wounds
Today at 11:23 am by Paul Francisco Paso

» ROKC Lampoon
Today at 10:12 am by Stan Dane

» What strange affidavits these are!
Yesterday at 11:43 pm by Ed. Ledoux

»  How Jack Ruby's Entry Could Have Been Coordinated
Sun 04 Dec 2016, 9:59 pm by Vinny

» JFK Conference
Sun 04 Dec 2016, 9:55 pm by Vinny

» Kennedys and King website
Sat 03 Dec 2016, 6:05 pm by Paul Francisco Paso

» Kent Courtney
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:47 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» a ramble in and around Pine St, NO
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:45 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» Anatomy Of A Second Floor Encounter
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:01 pm by barto

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Page 4 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 8:14 am

This has always been one of the main problems of work connected to photographic analysis.  Provenance of the photos themselves and version control.

We know Life magazine printed a lot of these photos of a young Lee Oswald in January/February 1964 and we know from the Backyard Photos that they certainly liked to touch things up a bit.

The blob-faced-Oswald from Jack White is most certainly derived from the photo published (possibly of Robert) in Life.  That Life photo bears no resemblance to the White version and so Armstrong needs to tell everyone where the fuck it came from and why it was placed over a different photo from a newspaper article to make it appear that some fucked up Oswald non-lookalike had come back from Russia.

Just when you think things can't get any worse...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 8:18 am

greg parker wrote:Firstly, thanks to all who've contributed - I think we're making progress.

The Star Telegram interviewed Robert for those stories, so it is reasonable to assume he was the source of the photos used. With regard to the White/Armstrong "Frankenstein" creation photo, it is all but impossible to believe Robert would be the source of that since it looks nothing like Lee - and what would be his purpose anyway? 

On the other hand, I can understand him handing over photos of himself in the Marines and passing them off as Lee in circumstances where he had no recent photos of his brother and a payment was in the offing for such photos. 

Lee is right - Armstrong has some 'spaining to do. At this stage, it looks for all the world that the White/Armstrong team has doctored a photo purportedly of Lee (but really of Robert) and placed it over the top of the actual photo used by the Star Telegram. The other oddity is the whereabouts of that story, since it does not appear to be in the Star Telegram Archives.

Very plausible Greg. And for a few dollars more Robert will appear on TV.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by greg parker on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 8:29 am

Let's also bring some science into this.

Since the nose in the various photos has been discussed.. here are the physiological facts...

"Noses are considered fully grown in most females by age 16-17, and by ages 17-18 in males.  The nose continues to change as we age but does not continue to grow, rather the ligaments holding the nasal cartilage weaken and the nasal tip tends to widen and droop with age."
http://www.realself.com/question/nose-growing-affect-outcome-rhinoplasty


FWIW to this discussion...

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 8:35 am

That would make "lee" a 75 year old teenager.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by greg parker on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 8:44 am

Alan Dixon wrote: That would make "lee" a 75 year old teenager.
 Very Happy

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 8:48 am

Do most here believe this is a photo of Lee Oswald, Robert Oswald or whatever the fuck?


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Stan Dane on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 8:50 am

Paul Klein wrote:Do most here believe this is a photo of Lee Oswald, Robert Oswald or whatever the fuck?

Whatever the Harvey fuck.

Stan Dane

Posts : 2329
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 8:52 am

I should add that there can be exceptions. Bob the Belle of Bumfucks nose appears to grow each time he posts.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Stan Dane on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 8:54 am

Paul Klein wrote:Do most here believe this is a photo of Lee Oswald, Robert Oswald or whatever the fuck?

I wonder if Craig Lamson would say it's an unidentifiable mass of pixels.

Stan Dane

Posts : 2329
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 8:59 am

What about a physic fund raising night?. Then we can ask Jack.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 9:20 am

Paul Klein wrote:Do most here believe this is a photo of Lee Oswald, Robert Oswald or whatever the fuck?


Paul,

If I was forced to choose.  That is Lee Harvey Oswald.

I could, if I had the inclination, go and get 10 photos of myself where I look very different in each one across my 20's.  Greg and I have had quite of few of these "is it him" conversations before about certain photos.  They generally lead nowhere.

 

Armstrong says that the guy on the left above is Lee Oswald.  The guy on the right is Harvey Oswald.  When they're both the same fucking person.

Staring at these photos will send us all stark raving bonkers and then where would we be.  Deep Foo Foo, that's where.

Greg should continue to pursue getting answers concerning the Star-Telegram photo though.  That's the important thing to go after

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 9:27 am

Alan Dixon wrote:What about a physic fund raising night?. Then we can ask Jack.
I am sure we aren't the only ones who have noticed the hatchet job. Surely. He should have been taken to task on this.
I googled and found the gigantic JVB thread at DPF goes somewhat into the photographs of Harvey and Lee and Jack White has a starring role in it.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?3292-Judyth-Vary-Baker-Living-in-Exile#.U7x8prEdhhc
I am at work now but I'll give it a look later to see if we can add further to this.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 9:45 am

Paul, it began with Badgeman. A hopelessly degraded portion of a photo suddenly became Lucian Sarte, with Gordon Arnold and the guy in the hard hat from the Village People as co- stars

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by greg parker on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 9:51 am

Overview of Oswald Photos 

A UPI story about Oswald's "defection" ran in the Fort Worth Star
Telegram (285), 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" (286).

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://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.o-dr.html

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 10:18 am

Straight 'A's for the bash street kids then Greg

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by greg parker on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 10:55 am

Alan Dixon wrote:Straight 'A's for the bash street kids then Greg
Had to look that up, Alan. I take it as a reference to us here at ROKC?

If so, does that make DeepFooFoo the Blob Street kids?

-------------------

What is said in that old article by Armstrong makes bugger-all sense. In the first paragraph, he attempts to make the case that the original photo in the Star Telegram was of Harvey but because no-one in FW would recognize it as the real LHO, the photo was switched to a photo which was recognizably LHO.

But then he completely tosses that idea out in the next paragraph without any apparent awareness of the contradiction, by admitting it looks nothing like either Lee or the mythical Harvey. The guy is a complete moron. Which makes his followers totally brain dead. 

And blaming those amateur retouchers UPI??? No sale. Unless the original story can be found showing that photo...it has to be seen as the work of White and/or Armstrong.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 11:20 am

Hello Hello wrote:
Paul Klein wrote:Do most here believe this is a photo of Lee Oswald, Robert Oswald or whatever the fuck?


Paul,

If I was forced to choose.  That is Lee Harvey Oswald.

I could, if I had the inclination, go and get 10 photos of myself where I look very different in each one across my 20's.  Greg and I have had quite of few of these "is it him" conversations before about certain photos.  They generally lead nowhere.

 

Armstrong says that the guy on the left above is Lee Oswald.  The guy on the right is Harvey Oswald.  When they're both the same fucking person.

Staring at these photos will send us all stark raving bonkers and then where would we be.  Deep Foo Foo, that's where.

Greg should continue to pursue getting answers concerning the Star-Telegram photo though.  That's the important thing to go after
Lee, its enough to drive you fucking mental. I swear I went to bed last night hoping I wasn't about to dream of Harvey & Lee and their fucking noses and chins.
I also reckon its Oswald but you're right, that Star Telegram article, that I am starting to suspect, is vital. I tried finding the fucker but to no avail.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 11:31 am

greg parker wrote:
Overview of Oswald Photos 

A UPI story about Oswald's "defection" ran in the Fort Worth Star
Telegram (285), 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" (286).

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://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.o-dr.html
What a bunch of fucking bullshit. This photo here:


has been deliberately inserted over the original. Why didn't the Star Telegram originally use the  touch upped photo?


Last edited by Paul Klein on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 11:36 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Better expression to get my point across.)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 11:51 am

We are the bash street kids. Armstrong would have still produced a book, but without Whites fake pics, its like Bob the Belle's posts about the rifle. Millions of words about fuck all.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 11:55 am

greg parker wrote:
Alan Dixon wrote:Straight 'A's for the bash street kids then Greg
Had to look that up, Alan. I take it as a reference to us here at ROKC?

If so, does that make DeepFooFoo the Blob Street kids?

-------------------

What is said in that old article by Armstrong makes bugger-all sense. In the first paragraph, he attempts to make the case that the original photo in the Star Telegram was of Harvey but because no-one in FW would recognize it as the real LHO, the photo was switched to a photo which was recognizably LHO.

But then he completely tosses that idea out in the next paragraph without any apparent awareness of the contradiction, by admitting it looks nothing like either Lee or the mythical Harvey. The guy is a complete moron. Which makes his followers totally brain dead. 

And blaming those amateur retouchers UPI??? No sale. Unless the original story can be found showing that photo...it has to be seen as the work of White and/or Armstrong.
Fucking oath, Greg. Those 2 pricks have some explaining to do. It doesn't even look like the original texture of the newspaper. Its obvious it was a backyard job.
How fucking stupid they must think people are. And they are which is the sad thing.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 12:00 pm

Alan Dixon wrote:We are the bash street kids. Armstrong would have still produced a book, but without Whites fake pics, its like Bob the Belle's posts about the rifle. Millions of words about fuck all.
He not only produced a book, Alan, he created a cult in the process. Over at DPF there are fuckwits going around saying "this is Harvey and this is Lee"
He must be laughing his fucking head off.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 1:30 pm

Paul Klein wrote:
greg parker wrote: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?
I am no photographic expert and to comment on the authenticity of the photo I don't feel I need to be to state unequivocally that this is a fake. The square blank background behind his head tells me it was crudely cropped from another photo on to the body. It is pretty obvious to me.
I have been rethinking this photo (ozzie.1) and my initial post.


I now believe (eating my "unequivocally") this photo is not totally a fake and the head crudely cropped from another photo on to the body. It seems to have been altered and retouched for sure, for reasons unknown, but I am guessing the obvious patch is a method employed to negate the background and focus on the portrait of the face for close up purposes.
I believe that this photo(ozzie.4)

is the true close up of the above original (ozzie.1) without the patch, retouches or alterations.
This doesn't explain the Star Telegram insert. In fact, I suspect that the above (ozzie.4)photo is originally the one that has been obviously inserted over by this one(ozzie.2):


(the altered close up of ozzie.1 perhaps?) in this article. But until we find the fucking thing we won't know for sure.
I am going to give up for a little while. This is doing my head in.


Last edited by Paul Klein on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 1:37 pm; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : forgot to add "not totally a fake")

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by dwdunn(akaDan) on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 1:59 pm

Paul Klein wrote:
dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:Ok, after a little nap, then some coffee, this is what I've got for starters. Tried to identify as much as posssible where things came from etc.


Thread Page 1:

1.  ozzie #1 (Greg's 1st post)  double picture frm JW's montage; National Enquirer face on our left, full-body pic on our right (with crayon squarish background from shoulders up) -- smile looks broader and more natural than in face on left

2.  ozzie #2 (Paul's post re Fort Worth Star Telegram defection story, via h & l.net/Marines); face shot identical to our-left above image

3.  ozzie #3 (Greg's post @ Atsugi) full-body pic of Oswald -- head tilted left, arms out-stretched (same building background in distance as full-body pic in #1)

4.  ozzie #4 (Greg's post of yellowed Star Telegram photo clipping) Oswald frm upper abdomen up, broad smile as in full-body pic in 1 above but with narrower face (looks like to me), original background windows instead of crayon square background


Thread Page 4

5. ozzie #5 (Paul's post of Lee's requested Bronx Zoo photo, looks like "original" whatever the hell that means in this context) alleged "Harvey" sighting, grown-up facial features with broad smile -- head-tilt, facial expression commensurate with #3 Atsugi? body looks more robust than "Lee" (i.e., photos of Lee Harvey Oswald as a kid that WEREN'T subjected to experiments in a fucking lab)



Thread Page 5

6. a. ozzie collages 1 & 2 (my "i'll be damned" post, from images at Greg's "WTF" thread:

[url=http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t713- wtf-is-this-supposed-to-be]http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t713- wtf-is-this-supposed-to-be[/url] 



That's about as far as I can go with it, but at least we know there's really only 5 relevant images for now; should be easier to reference as long as we keep Fort Worth Star Telegram stories-pics straight.
Thanks Dan. A bit of order was in order. I can work with that.
You're welcome Paul. I'm hesitant to post anything (at all) because I'm afraid it would be followed by 17 hours of complete forum silence. However, when I did this earlier this morning I was under the impression I was only helping out Stan (or you, or anyone else) in getting things in order for actual ID designations (easier to find the photos for reference, and so I could be cross-checked on if I'd missed anything). In other words, this would be Stage I so it would be easier for someone else to do the actual ID's of Stage II. It probably would've helped if I'd SAID that instead of drowsily assuming everyone can read my mind. rabbit 

I guess my point is we need something better to refer to than my initial ordering job of 1.ozzie, 2.ozzie, 3.potato, go
It's likely to be at least as confusing as before.

dwdunn(akaDan)

Posts : 304
Join date : 2013-06-22
Age : 53
Location : among the hills of southern Indiana, USA

View user profile http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by dwdunn(akaDan) on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 2:09 pm

Hello Hello wrote:
Paul Klein wrote:Do most here believe this is a photo of Lee Oswald, Robert Oswald or whatever the fuck?


Paul,

If I was forced to choose.  That is Lee Harvey Oswald.

I could, if I had the inclination, go and get 10 photos of myself where I look very different in each one across my 20's.  Greg and I have had quite of few of these "is it him" conversations before about certain photos.  They generally lead nowhere.

 

Armstrong says that the guy on the left above is Lee Oswald.  The guy on the right is Harvey Oswald.  When they're both the same fucking person.
But the hats are different.


(I'd say more but I don't want to be met with 20 hours of complete silence)

dwdunn(akaDan)

Posts : 304
Join date : 2013-06-22
Age : 53
Location : among the hills of southern Indiana, USA

View user profile http://xefdisposable.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by greg parker on Wed 09 Jul 2014, 2:13 pm

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:
Hello Hello wrote:
Paul Klein wrote:Do most here believe this is a photo of Lee Oswald, Robert Oswald or whatever the fuck?


Paul,

If I was forced to choose.  That is Lee Harvey Oswald.

I could, if I had the inclination, go and get 10 photos of myself where I look very different in each one across my 20's.  Greg and I have had quite of few of these "is it him" conversations before about certain photos.  They generally lead nowhere.

 

Armstrong says that the guy on the left above is Lee Oswald.  The guy on the right is Harvey Oswald.  When they're both the same fucking person.
But the hats are different.


(I'd say more but I don't want to be met with 20 hours of complete silence)
Oh go on, be a devil and risk it.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3443
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

Post by Sponsored content Today at 9:09 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum