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:Sorry... meant I can't find it at the Star Telegram archives.

Sorry you're having trouble. Could be a localized thing again which will eventually sort itself out... but if anyone else is having the same issue, let me know.

Yeah, I couldn't find anything there either.

The localized problem usually doesn't bother me (I learned months ago to copy my post before I hit send so I could paste it after re-logging in). It's only when I have to preview and edit my post does it become a real pain. I whine a little but then I get over it.  

terlin wrote:

Paul Klein wrote:I'll say it again. Some aspects of the JFK research community has made me think twice about everything I read or see about this case. My patience is wearing thin and I guess  that might be the whole point of it all. I considered the Armstrong 2 Oswald theory for a short while and now I feel like a fucking idiot about it. Not that I ever subscribed to it but there were elements of the book that I took as facts. Facts that I didn't bother to check on. I was going to bring up some of the stuff Armstrong said on a recent thread about the Imperial Reflex camera but I am too scared to do it now. This has been a learning experience for me but I am not sure how much more bullshit I can take.

Sometimes new leads and directions in a case - especially one as old as this one, though not quite "cold" - get people really excited. I am certain that a new "break" in the case would lead a researcher to a very big case of "wishful thinking" rather than being overly cautious about the evidence and its provenance.

That being said, a legitimate researcher will point out the evidence in support as well as opposing evidence and then tell the reader why he chose the direction he did. A really good researcher is completely transparent and lets the reader know the "other side" as well.

Fakers and frauds will find (or create) evidence as needed and not tell about the non-supportive evidences. Many people are misled for years until a whistleblower comes along and shows them for the frauds they are. And even after the unmasking, many of the faithful cling to the empty husk in the vain hopes that something, however small, can come along and resurrect the carcass. Perhaps its the Christians among the group but they somehow believe the resurrection-thingy extends to all sorts of things, not just gods.

As the JFK community has plenty of history, we are finding that history is littered with quite a few quacks (please, no offense intended to our web-footed friends) and fakers over the years. Many theories, cherished by many, are being revealed for what they are: more of the same old dis-/mis-information we have come to expect from the CIA.

There is nothing wrong in posting information you have about some aspect of the case but as long as you mention the provenance - as people around here do - its validity will be verified or challenged by others with more information on the subject.

That's what a research community does. EF or DeepForum might make you afraid to post something you believe (or question) but you should be afraid to do so here. If it is wrong - and you have not proclaimed loudly and stuck a sword in the ground, in your foot, or up your ass - people will politely tell you so and give you a link to the data.

Anyway, don't get upset. We've all bought into some pie-in-the-sky theory over the years.

(well, perhaps all of us except Lee and Greg)

Cheers, Terry. I wouldn't dare not mention the provenance of anything I cite. My problem now lies with the confidence I have in it. I was going to cite Armstrong in regards to Oswald's cameras but I don't think I will now till I check it all. After that BS photo I don't trust anything the cunt claims.

greg parker wrote:Here is the photo used by the Star Telegram

 
http://cdm16084.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16084coll6/id/26/rec/21

Question. Could the head of this photo have been pasted on to the body of the above?

greg parker wrote:

greg parker wrote:Here is the photo used by the Star Telegram

 
http://cdm16084.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p16084coll6/id/26/rec/21

Question. Could the head of this photo have been pasted on to the body of the above?

You mean the Atsugi photo, Greg? They look very similar to me.


This is getting very interesting.

Sorry Paul. I goofed. 

I meant was the head of this one



pasted onto this one:

Maybe not - but they look to have at least been taken on the same day.

greg parker wrote:Maybe not - but they look to have at least been taken on the same day.

Now that you mention it, it does seem like its the same day. They look very,very similar, but the smile appears slightly more pronounced in the closeup photo IMHO.
Have a look at the background for the photo on the right where there is an obvious patch:


And then have a look at the background on this one.



This is getting fucking weird to me.

Weird? Same here, mate. I don't think it's Oswald, btw - though I admit it might be.

I would still like to know the background to the White/Armstrong photo and news clip.

greg parker wrote:Weird? Same here, mate. I don't think it's Oswald, btw - though I admit it might be.

I admit I don't fucking know anymore, Greg.

greg parker wrote:I would still like to know the background to the White/Armstrong photo and news clip.

Me too. I am desperately trying to track down the newspaper. Shenanigans methinks.

 
There is something differently roundish looking to me with the face on the left. It is weird.

greg parker wrote:Weird? Same here, mate. I don't think it's Oswald, btw - though I admit it might be.

I think the photo you provided of Oswald on his return, is a closeup of the original photo (right) that you first presented that has been bastardized. The backgrounds match up if you look closely. I have little doubt about that.

Stan Dane wrote:
 
There is something differently roundish looking to me with the face on the left. It is weird.

Stan, does it remind you of anything? Like the quality of photogrphy of the "National Enquirer" back in the day? It's the first thing that came to my mind since it was so similar & I could never figure out back then what was wrong with their photographs (especially on the covers).


It was like they always did some strange touch-up. This is not the best but it's the only example I could find (and is typically classy).

I also took the liberty of using your avatar for some experimenting. I first blew up the original by 500%:


Then I applied fish-eye distortion:   (cute kid btw)


Kinda similar effect to the face in question. Lop off the below-the-neck area and we can start a fine discussion about "Dane, the other boy." Just a FWIW, Greg, but these examples of (presumably Jack's) collage work sure are interesting, aren't they?

Also thought Stan would appreciate some other distortions. Have a good day or night all.


Gotta admit this one's my favorite:

dwdunn(akaDan) wrote:Stan, does it remind you of anything? Like the quality of photogrphy of the "National Enquirer" back in the day? It's the first thing that came to my mind since it was so similar & I could never figure out back then what was wrong with their photographs (especially on the covers).

Yes, Dan, that's it!
 
I remember seeing the National Enquirer in supermarket checkout isles over the years with cheap looking black and white pictures of space aliens, celebrities and other weird things. Some of the pictures were hilariously funny; others gory looking, but all of them obviously fake.
 
This picture of Oswald(?) looks like it came off the pages of an early copy of the National Enquirer.

Stan, I've given this some more thought and think I've come up with an explanation for the quality of the National Enquirer photos, and what bearing that could have on the Ozzie photo in question.

If a person was low-life scum who stood to make a lot of money by getting a photo of Elvis in his casket, he couldn't just walk up and snap a picture. (He would be quickly surrounded and have his camera confiscated and destroyed, etc, and he himself might not survive the event.) So he'd have to take the photo surreptitiously, likely with some kind of miniature camera apparatus hidden somehow. If the quality of the resulting photographic image was unsuitable for publication (for any number of reasons -- lighting, clarity, having to be blown up to extremes so details become less and less distinct, etc), then the solution would probably be to draw in or "trace" the photo to make it publishable. And since we both remember the photos (covers especially) being really odd-looking, it's probable this tracing on piss-poor quality photos was done a lot. And the reason they looked so weird and not like "real photos" was due to this technique? They weren't "fakes" in other words, but sort of photograph/drawing hybrids, with a strange "unreal" look to them?
(for the sake of unity, I'll concede this may not have been the case for space aliens)   

I'd say this seems also the most likely explanation for the photo in question (note the very distinct [unrealistic] outline on the left ear, which as someone previously mentioned looks like a reverse image of the right ear), partly because a similar issue arose about one of Jack White's collages some months ago. (Just a dab'll do ya sometimes.) My example on your avatar was just that, an example of how an image could be fish-eye-distorted while maintaining some resemblance but with different facial dimensions. Some kind of tracing work with shadowing could work just as well.

I think I'll leave it at that, other than to mention once again that this type of thing keeps coming up (thanks a lot Greg) in debates about H & L et al, which seem to be with many of the same people who argue that there's been quite a lot of photo & film alteration. Ironic.

I think you may be onto something, This is the type of work that Jack White would have done at his agency in Fort Worth. There is no reason to believe his touch-up work would be any better than that seen in the National Inquirer. To me, the chin/jawline as a minimum, has been added to the original to change the appearance. Possibly hairline and ears as well. The theory needed something to bolster the idea that it was a different person who went to (or came from?) the Soviet Union so this photo was lifted from another Star Telegram photo, altered and pasted over the photo in the story we now see in the Harvey and lee site. 

In the past, I have at times been taken to task for appearing to attack the reputation of someone no longer here to defend themselves. But the fact is, I never resiled from from confronting Jack when he was alive, and I'm not going to bury what I believe to be true just because he's no longer with us. 

There is no way that White and Armstrong did not know the photo was a fake, but instead of questioning it, they simply labelled it as "Lee". I've searched (and asked on FB for) an innocent explanation. I have neither found nor received one.


Armstrong adds this caption:The Fort Worth Star Telegram Published LEE's Picture when HARVEY "Defected" 

I do not find the research by John Armstrong to have been made in an objective manner. It's my belief that it was a one-time project commissioned by the advertising agency in which Fort Worth photographer, the late Jack White, was a partner; perhaps on behalf of a client of White's agency. They were involved in public relations work for various Fort Worth businesses, including the company Ekdahl worked for when he lived there. Linda Minor, August 18, 2012.  

I wonder if it was made using the old style photo-fit method of sliding various facial features across to make a whole?

Alan Dixon wrote:I wonder if it was made using the old style photo-fit method of sliding various facial features across to make a whole?

That's possible, Alan. I'm no expert in this field.

The bigger question is why? Why was it done? And if not by White, then by Who? And if not by White, why didn't he immediately identify it as fake?

Greg, i'm no expert either but with this photo you don't need to be. I guess the question were tip-toeing around is...was it made to push a theory that became a book. It's a possibility.
.

Alan Dixon wrote:Greg, i'm no expert either but with this photo you don't need to be. I guess the question were tip-toeing around is...was it made to push a theory that became a book. It's a possibility.
.

I'll say it, Alan. Armstrong is a cunt for passing this off as evidence.

Alan Dixon wrote:Greg, i'm no expert either but with this photo you don't need to be. I guess the question were tip-toeing around is...was it made to push a theory that became a book. It's a possibility.
.

Yep. That's what I'm driving at, in the absence of any other explanation.

Paul Klein wrote:

greg parker wrote:Maybe not - but they look to have at least been taken on the same day.

Now that you mention it, it does seem like its the same day. They look very,very similar, but the smile appears slightly more pronounced in the closeup photo IMHO.
Have a look at the background for the photo on the right where there is an obvious patch:


And then have a look at the background on this one.



This is getting fucking weird to me.

I've been mulling this over all day before responding.

Looks to me like someone's been fucking around with the photo.

However, if someone would do me the honour of posting the Oswald at the Bronx Zoo photo while I get some shut eye and I'll post further tomorrow morning...

Thanks Paul... was just about to grab it as well. Saved me the trouble!

There is certainly a resemblance between the Bronx photo and the Marines photo particularly around the nose and mouth.