LHO Image Legend

This is dynamic, so any additions, corrections, clarifications, comments or improvements, let me know and I'll revise.

Nice work, Stan. The only other addition I can think of that might need distinguishing on its own is the Pasted on Fucked up Photo on FWST re: Armstrong Files:



Just a suggestion of course, as is my title description.

Stan Dane wrote:This is dynamic, so any additions, corrections, clarifications, comments or improvements, let me know and I'll revise.

Nice job, Stan (as always)

Thanks Greg.

Paul Klein wrote:Nice work, Stan. The only other addition I can think of that might need distinguishing on its own is the Pasted on Fucked up Photo on FWST re: Armstrong Files:



Just a suggestion of course, as is my title description.

Paul:

I see what you're saying, but I'm having a hard time distinguishing this image from LHO-3 (L). Other than slight differences in quality, they look the same to me. Also, they come from the same source—Armstrong. Maybe we should refer to situations in the description as such and such image "and variations" or similar (i.e,. identical images from the same source with slight variations in quality that could be explained if one image was photocopied more that another, etc.).

Agree/disagree?

Stan Dane wrote:

Paul Klein wrote:Nice work, Stan. The only other addition I can think of that might need distinguishing on its own is the Pasted on Fucked up Photo on FWST re: Armstrong Files:



Just a suggestion of course, as is my title description.

Paul:

I see what you're saying, but I'm having a hard time distinguishing this image from LHO-3 (L). Other than slight differences in quality, they look the same to me. Also, they come from the same source—Armstrong. Maybe we should refer to situations in the description as such and such image "and variations" or similar (i.e,. identical images from the same source with slight variations in quality that could be explained if one image was photocopied more that another, etc.).

Agree/disagree?

Its the same image, Stan. I just thought it might be best to show it in its original context (article and all) as a standalone image as it was originally sourced from Armstrongs collection.
Like I said, its just a suggestion. I only offer it because this fucked up photo pasted on the FWST article seems to be what the whole debate is going to be about and why it was done.
I'll agree with anything you decide mate.

Stan Dane wrote:Paul:

I see what you're saying, but I'm having a hard time distinguishing this image from LHO-3 (L). Other than slight differences in quality, they look the same to me. Also, they come from the same source—Armstrong. Maybe we should refer to situations in the description as such and such image "and variations" or similar (i.e,. identical images from the same source with slight variations in quality that could be explained if one image was photocopied more that another, etc.).

Agree/disagree?

I agree. Like the five brightness variations of LHO-1 from Armstrong. They would all be LHO-1 but maybe listed as:

LHO-1, brightness variant 1

And if the original photo comes to light, IT would be LHO-1 and the one from the paper would be LHO-1, FWST 11.1.59 edition. Until then, the newspaper edition will retain the LHO-1 designation.

Of course, the wording, etc, of the variant listing would fall on Stan to create and control.

I have an idea that will accommodate Paul and Terry without complicating things. I'll tackle it tomorrow after I get some sleep.

Stan Dane wrote:This is dynamic, so any additions, corrections, clarifications, comments or improvements, let me know and I'll revise.

Stan, I agree with Paul re the double image (LHO3); needs to be separated for ID of EACH (separately). (that is, as in your question about the right-side image, being 2nd photo from Atsugi) Since there's plenty of questions about it, as well as LHO4 (both being doctored or questionable -- but what the hell isn't?) Anyway, they're likely a set is what I'm trying to say goddamit.

Then since the same image (face) as in LHO3 is the one we originally started on, I agree with Paul that it needs to be stand-alone also, and in its orginal context (newspaper article), so we don't get further confused.

Hell I don't know. I was actually going to suggest once everything else was sorted out that ease of reference might be designations like, FWST59 (LHO1); FWST62 (LHO2); BZ (LHO5); and so on. But from what I've skimmed of what Lee's posted today, I'm not going to make any further suggestions so we don't get confused trying to do too much too soon with ever-growing material.

Great work. Looks like those Drago blocks are really working for you.

I'll try what I have in mind tomorrow and see if that helps. I think it will but I've been wrong before.

Looks like those Drago blocks are really working for you.

Warning label stipulates: Represents choking hazard for under 3's and anal hazard for rugged outdoor types.

Stan Dane wrote:I'll try what I have in mind tomorrow and see if that helps. I think it will but I've been wrong before.

When?

I can't find it.

(maybe whoever told you that, lied)

greg parker wrote:

Looks like those Drago blocks are really working for you.

Warning label stipulates: Represents choking hazard for under 3's and anal hazard for rugged outdoor types.

 

I grouped variations of the same image (as I see them) under a particular image ID#. I split out the full body portion of the right half of the former LHO-3 image because I thought it was different enough to stand on its own. Whatcha think?

Stan Dane wrote:I grouped variations of the same image (as I see them) under a particular image ID#. I split out the full body portion of the right half of the former LHO-3 image because I thought it was different enough to stand on its own. Whatcha think?

It looks great, Stan.

Simple enough even for me to use 

I don't know about you guys but, IMO, this is the most important photo out of all of them:



It is important because Armstrong got it from somewhere.  From what I can make out after reading the jumbled mess that is the article from acorn.net he is claiming he got it from the Fort Worth Star-Herald before finding out from AP that they did not have the original.  This photo shows a fuller figure of the person and has the accompanying typed card:



Would it be an idea to give this photo and card its own number?

Hello Hello wrote:I don't know about you guys but, IMO, this is the most important photo out of all of them:



It is important because Armstrong got it from somewhere.  From what I can make out after reading the jumbled mess that is the article from acorn.net he is claiming he got it from the Fort Worth Star-Herald before finding out from AP that they did not have the original.  This photo shows a fuller figure of the person and has the accompanying typed card:



Would it be an idea to give this photo and card its own number?

Lee,

I would agree that this is probably the most important of it's type but it should not be a separate designation IMO.

Perhaps THIS one should be LHO-3 and the others (second generations from this larger original) should become a subset, like Stan has for the others like the brightness variations of LHO-1.

What does everyone else think?

Revision 2. I agree the image deserves more attention and looks to be the mother of the other LHO-3 images. When you look at it blown up, it certainly has more "artistic detail."  The last in the series of LHO-3 images in Rev 1 was this photo. I starred it to draw more attention here. I think this should be sufficient, but if you disagree, lemme know and Rev 3 will be on the way.