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?

Does the right hand (left as we look) appear odd....ie more fingers than you would expect Agreed, the mouth and nose are pasted

Alan Dixon wrote:Does the right hand (left as we look) appear odd....ie more fingers than you would expect Agreed, the mouth and nose are pasted

Alan, I see what you mean, but on blowing it up, I think what we're seeing as a finger/thumb is actually a part of the ironwork.

OK i will concede the thumb. That still leaves us with Jimmy Durantes nose and Robbie Rotten's jawline

Alan Dixon wrote:OK i will concede the thumb. That still leaves us with Jimmy Durantes nose and Robbie Rotten's jawline

Indeed. I await to see what our resident Liverpudlian has to say on it.

I can't see anything odd with the zoo photo to be honest. Maybe the head is too big but that may be because he is propping it forward

Well, were neighbours, so to speak and both bluenoses.

It would seem that the face is what was pasted onto the other photograph, at least in the broad strokes.

In the Bronx Zoo shot, the thumb on the left hand seems to be invisible - although he could be pushing down with his thumb really hard causing it to vanish and it seems the tip of the thumb is showing underneath the bar.

The right hand is a little stranger... the pinky seems detached from the hand altogether and grips the bar on its lonesome.

And that is why I am not a photo debunker. Oh, my eyesight!

Paul Klein wrote:I can't see anything odd with the zoo photo to be honest. Maybe the head is too big but that may be because he is propping it forward

Paul,

it's possible the nose was transplanted from the Bronx photo onto the USMC pic. But again, I'm no expert - that's just eyeballing.

Alan may have separate concerns regarding the nose on the zoo pic itself. I don't know. I can't see any reason for that to have been tampered with, but the whole family is a little suspect so you never know....

I believe the nose came from the zoo, after that your on your own.

Alan Dixon wrote:I believe the nose came from the zoo, after that your on your own.

All I can think of after that comment was about the Nose Exhibit at the Zoo...

Not only are my eyes going, my mind is slipping as well. Maybe its all that playing with the Dragos or maybe canning four dozen pints of jam today. That's enough to drive anyone around the bend.

I think this photo is of Oswald:


I think these photos were initially from the above photo of Oswald, but were deliberately butchered:

That is as far as I am able to take it. It might be they were tampered with so as to discern Harvey from Lee but someone has obviously fucked around with them.

Alan Dixon wrote:I believe the nose came from the zoo, after that your on your own.

I can understand what you're saying here... I was heading in that direction. 

But let's step back and consider the ramifications. If were saying the actual photo used by the Star Telegram was faked, it means someone faked it before they obtained it - or they faked it themselves which means they also had the zoo photo. What makes it improbable is the lack of any reason to do such a thing. I mean, there might be one - but I'm damned if I can think of it. It doesn't even make sense within the Harvey & Lee framework. Not to me, anyway - tho I'm sure one of the followers could construct some tortured excuse why it had to be. 

The other thing is, if this was done, it was a far better job than we see with the White/Armstrong photo. Not only is that one a standout as a faked photo - there actually is a probable reason for it to have been done.

greg parker wrote:

Alan Dixon wrote:I believe the nose came from the zoo, after that your on your own.

I can understand what you're saying here... I was heading in that direction. 

But let's step back and consider the ramifications. If were saying the actual photo used by the Star Telegram was faked, it means someone faked it before they obtained it - or they faked it themselves which means they also had the zoo photo. What makes it improbable is the lack of any reason to do such a thing. I mean, there might be one - but I'm damned if I can think of it. It doesn't even make sense within the Harvey & Lee framework. Not to me, anyway - tho I'm sure one of the followers could construct some tortured excuse why it had to be. 

The other thing is, if this was done, it was a far better job than we see with the White/Armstrong photo. Not only is that one a standout as a faked photo - there actually is a probable reason for it to have been done.

Those who follow Harvey & Lee, Greg, must be doing it blindly if they can't see how fake those photos are.

I'll be damned. So that's why the kid's face didn't look right.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t713-wtf-is-this-supposed-to-be

And why the right eyebrow looked painted.

greg parker wrote:Sorry Paul. I goofed. 

I meant was the head of this one



pasted onto this one:

In other words, the angle of the head on the top (outstretched arms) photo is similar to the angle of the kid's head (tilted left), so where the hell does it all begin?

I'm with Alan on the nose and mouth (originating from the top photo here & applied to the kid?) and with Paul on the straight-up photo here (being transferred). And with Greg on the Why? I ....... shit, who the fuck knows

Paul Klein wrote:I am not sure about the windows on either of the photos, Greg and Terry. The Atsugi photo on first glance seemed to me to have a fake head imposed on the body. The neck appears too long. I am sure I've seen that head before on another photo of Oswald but I am not 100% sure on it or if its just my suspicion. Its a much better job (if it is fake) than the other one.

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.

I should have known when I uploaded the Bronx photo. Thanks Dan for doing my job.
I am going to take a break before I start seeing Oswald, Harvey & Lee on my toast.

Guys, can someone come up with some sort of id system for these photos so we (at at least I) can follow which pic is under discussion? Not that I'm TOTALLY confused... but I can see it coming!

greg parker wrote:Guys, can someone come up with some sort of id system for these photos so we (at at least I) can follow which pic is under discussion? Not that I'm TOTALLY confused... but I can see it coming!

If nobody does it by late tomorrow morning (in 12 hours), I'll do it. Signing off...good night, all.

greg parker wrote:Guys, can someone come up with some sort of id system for these photos so we (at at least I) can follow which pic is under discussion? Not that I'm TOTALLY confused... but I can see it coming!

Ok, I'd recommend stashing Jack's more obvious collage work (images and link in my "I'll be damned" post) in a supplemental reference category/folder. (to be ID'd or numbered last). Probably be best to refer by numbers or maybe acronym (or both), like 3BZ (for the Bronx Zoo image Paul posted)? The yellowed newspaper image might be 1FW, if it's agreed to be the most likely to be the most original of all others? But I suppose it's less important to try to get the "order of appearance" right than just the most basic ID for each; we can argue the order of appearance as we move on.

Greg, the more I've looked at the images I posted, the more I don't think it's just a nose and mouth paste job; it looks for all the fucking world like the internal facial features (and maybe the whole damned head) of a youthful Oswald with outstretched arms has been transferred onto the head of a child at the Bronx Zoo (which we have absolutely no reason to think is even the child Lee Harvey Oswald, which would help account for the stockier build, especially the arms). Jesus H. Christ, what the hell were they up to???? I need sleep, good night

Goodnight to you and Stan. Your system seems okay to me. We'll work on it.

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

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

greg parker wrote:Sorry Paul. I goofed. 

I meant was the head of this one



pasted onto this one:

Unless someone from the Harvey & Lee cult can find a copy of the Star-Telegram that contains the Jack White version of the Oswald photo then someone has got some splainin' to do.

The Gospel according to John Armstrong took great pains to promote the denials of Lee Oswald's brother, John Pic, that the Bronx Zoo photo was a photograph of Lee.

The top photograph in Greg's post above (fist pumping Marine Oswald) was also accompanied by John Pic denials that it was Lee.  John Pic actually claimed it looked more like Robert Oswald:

Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those? 
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't. 
Mr. JENNER - Neither one of them? 
Mr. PIC - No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never guess that that would be Lee, sir. 


Pic also denied the classic helmeted Marine photo of Oswald was him.  Here are both photos from CE287 that Pic was referring to in his Warren Commission testimony segment I have quoted above:



I don't know what Armstrong and White were up to but at this point in time it looks shady as fuck to me...

Yes, the whole thing looks shady. Maybe it was Robert, maybe someone else.

I am surprised no one else has pointed out some other strange things, like:


Stretching a point here but as grainy as most of these photos are (and those of "Harvey" seem to be a lot clearer) I think a lot of it is open to interpretation.

That said, as Lee points out, the H&L cult need to provide a better trail of evidence than we have seen.

And the head of the raised hands photo (I don't recall which number it is at the moment - I'll need to make a crib sheet) does not look completely like it was pasted on the other as the shadows are different. The hair line and nose are close enough, so maybe someone merely lightened one side of the face to ease up the shading??

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.