Harvey, Lee... and Ozzie...

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.

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

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

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

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

Alan Dixon wrote:What about a physic fund raising night?. Then we can ask Jack.

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

Alan Dixon wrote:Straight 'A's for the bash street kids then Greg

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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=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.

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.

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)