Frankenstein Oswald

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas,

you picked up on the one thing that we probably all agree on, those two images most likely come from as Bart put it, the same session.

David Josephs pointed to some more earlier in the thread:

The middle photo shows the same building in the background as the Oswald photo https://www.maryferr...eId=26&tab=page and is listed as "Marine friend of Oswald" on page 2. (This is the same batch of photos which includes Roscoe White (p25)

[lost upon editing; luckily I had saved it in my word processing program] --

Yes he did, Clive. In post # 174 to be exact.

It only took me half an hour to find it.

Thanks.

So they were taken during the same "session."

Great!

That should help us determine, from context, whether all of the photos taken of "Oswald" during that session were taken of your "Harvey" or your "Lee." The problem is, it's hard to know what you think your "Lee" looked like. All I've heard from the H&L folks so far is, "Well, since it would have been impossible for the bad guys to chose two unrelated boys who would just happen to grow up looking just like each other several years later, Harvey and Lee must have looked just barely enough alike to fool a whole lot of people."

Question: What did "Lee" tell his friends, family, and acquaintances in the U.S. during the period of time that he was supposed to still be in the U.S.S.R.? "I just came back for a short visit. I'll be going back to Minsk in a couple of days?"

The original photo that "Frankenstein Oswald" was based on looks to me a lot like the guy Jon Tidd calls "Marina's husband," whom I've always thought was Lee Harvey Oswwald, but you believe was "Harvey." The lame theory is that the bad guys altered it so that the friends and relatives of "Lee" in Fort Worth wouldn't not recognize him in the "Frankenstein" photo, and also in order to start conditions the public's minds to believe that the returning "Harvey" was really the returning "Lee."

Something doesn't add up here. How can "Harvey" look so darn much like "Lee" at times, but so dissimilar at other times?

I say that "Marina's husband" was Lee Harvey Oswald.

We could go round and round in circles forever on this.

Question: Have any of the Harvey and Lee crowd put together a two lists of photographs, one of "Harvey" and one of "Lee"?

Or is that something that's impossible to do?

Are there any photographs of "Oswald" in existence which are problematic for the Harvey and Lee people in that regard? In other words, photos of "Oswald" which the H & L folks don't know if they should put in the "Harvey" folder or the "Lee" folder?

That would be interesting, but I seriously doubt it. Because "Harvey" and "Lee" could at any time look sufficiently alike each other, or sufficiently unalike each other, in order to fit into the Harvey and Lee theory, or at least not contradict it too much.

--Tommy

Edited June 29, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Thomas Graves said:

Something doesn't add up here. How can "Harvey" look so darn much like "Lee" in this instance, but so dissimilar in other situations?

You have hit the nail square here Thomas, this is one of the problems with the theory. The two men look almost exactly alike, enough so that their photos can be put together to create one that ether could use. Except in other cases when they really don't look that much alike. In reality, I would defy them to find any two individuals whose photos could be put together. Everyone seems to think Lovelady and LHO looked alike, I wonder if they could do it with him? I'll bet not because the whole thing is nonsense. Back on the Frankenstein thing, I still say something happened to the photo, probably as a result of Wide World doing something non-sinister that caused the photo to look funny. Armstrong and co. simply used this to advantage like they did so many other anomalies and inconsistencies.

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas,

you picked up on the one thing that we probably all agree on, those two images most likely come from as Bart put it, the same session.

David Josephs pointed to some more earlier in the thread:

The middle photo shows the same building in the background as the Oswald photo https://www.maryferr...eId=26&tab=page and is listed as "Marine friend of Oswald" on page 2. (This is the same batch of photos which includes Roscoe White (p25)

[lost upon editing; luckily I had saved it in my word processing program] --

Yes he did, Clive. In post # 174 to be exact.

It only took me half an hour to find it.

Thanks.

So they were taken during the same "session."

Great!

That should help us determine, from context, whether all of the photos taken of "Oswald" during that session were taken of your "Harvey" or your "Lee." The problem is, it's hard to know what you think your "Lee" looked like. All I've heard from the H&L folks so far is, "Well, since it would have been impossible for the bad guys to chose two unrelated boys who would grow up to look just like each other several years later, it's obvious that Harvey and Lee must have looked just barely enough alike to fool a whole lot of people."

Question: What did "Lee" tell his friends, family, and acquaintances in the U.S. during the period of time that he was supposed to still be in the U.S.S.R.? "I just came back for a short visit. I'll be going back to Minsk in a couple of days?"

Question: Did the bad guys wash out and alter the "Frankenstein" photo of Lee so that people in Russia who subscribed to the Fort Worth Star Telegram would think that defector ("Harvey") was the person whose photo was in the paper and that his name was therefore "Lee Harvey Oswald"? Or do you contend that the fat-nosed, large-mouthed Oswald in the "Frankenstein" photo was what "Lee" really looked like?

Something doesn't add up here. How can "Harvey" look so darn much like "Lee" at times, but so dissimilar at other times?

I say that "Marina's husband" was Lee Harvey Oswald and that there was no "Harvey."

But we could go round and round in circles forever on it. And we would never convince each other would we.

Question: Have any of the Harvey and Lee crowd put together a two lists of photographs, one of "Harvey" and one of "Lee"?

Or is that something that's impossible to do, except based on their respective timelines and when each photograph was taken and where?

If they looked sufficiently dissimilar that their photographs can be sorted correctly just by looking at them, are there any photographs of them in existence which are problematic for the Harvey and Lee people in that regard? In other words, photos of an "Oswald" which the H & L folks don't know if they should put in the "Harvey" folder or the "Lee" folder?

That would be interesting, but I seriously doubt it. Because the beautiful thing about the Harvey and Lee theory is that it's so doggone flexible, and that "Harvey" and "Lee" could at any time look sufficiently alike, or sufficiently unalike to fulfill it's requirements.

--Tommy

Thanks, Tracy.

now let me bump this because the original got lost and I had to reconstruct it

Edited June 29, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

Edit: Whatever it was you said, Greg, I completely agree.

LOL

--Tommy

PS -- A question for the H&L crowd:

What did "Lee" tell his friends and acquaintances in the U.S. when he was sill supposed to be in the U.S.S.R.?

"I'm just visiting for a couple of days. I'm going back to Minsk next week?"

Edited June 29, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Clive Largey]

.... Back on the Frankenstein thing, I still say something happened to the photo, probably as a result of Wide World doing something non-sinister that caused the photo to look funny. Armstrong and co. simply used this to advantage like they did so many other anomalies and inconsistencies.

Tracy,

please explain how they took advantage of this specific photo.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

.... Back on the Frankenstein thing, I still say something happened to the photo, probably as a result of Wide World doing something non-sinister that caused the photo to look funny. Armstrong and co. simply used this to advantage like they did so many other anomalies and inconsistencies.

Tracy,

please explain how they took advantage of this specific photo.

Hi Clive,

Because something happened to the photo, it is easier to state that it represents "Lee" as distinct from "Harvey". They took advantage of the odd look of the photo to make a case for two men. I am referring to the page as it used to exist-it has been changed.

[Clive Largey]

Thomas,

you picked up on the one thing that we probably all agree on, those two images most likely come from as Bart put it, the same session.

David Josephs pointed to some more earlier in the thread:

The middle photo shows the same building in the background as the Oswald photo https://www.maryferr...eId=26&tab=page and is listed as "Marine friend of Oswald" on page 2. (This is the same batch of photos which includes Roscoe White (p25)

[lost upon editing; luckily I had saved it in my word processing program] --

Yes he did, Clive. In post # 174 to be exact.

It only took me half an hour to find it.

Thanks.

So they were taken during the same "session."

Great!

Thomas, I made a mistake when editing my link to David's post and quite honestly didn't think it mattered since the link to the images was still there, sorry if I wasted your time in going back to look for the original.

Those two of Lee may have been from the same session, or the same day, week or even month, how could we tell when someone looks and dresses the same every day?

Regarding the window panes, yes as Tracy suggested it could have been an editor's decision, he liked a clean background, something he did automatically.

What I couldn't understand is why would they bother when the picture looks so bad in the actual newspaper it made zero difference but just like CNN flipping the other photo, once it's in their hands it theirs and they do what they like with it, they have no concern for accuracy in that sense. Did you ever see the limo going the wrong way up Elm St? Same type of thing, perhaps, maybe.

[Clive Largey]

.... Back on the Frankenstein thing, I still say something happened to the photo, probably as a result of Wide World doing something non-sinister that caused the photo to look funny. Armstrong and co. simply used this to advantage like they did so many other anomalies and inconsistencies.

Tracy,

please explain how they took advantage of this specific photo.

Hi Clive,

Because something happened to the photo, it is easier to state that it represents "Lee" as distinct from "Harvey". They took advantage of the odd look of the photo to make a case for two men. I am referring to the page as it used to exist-it has been changed.

Hi Tracy,

it's tricky since even the poor image in the original FWST article looks less like the infamous OSWALD than Frankie does.

If what you say is true and that was their sole purpose then "mistake" was an understatement.

For me I didn't see it from that POV, hence the question and the last thing I thought when I first saw it was "oh, there's another LHO".

I actually first thought it could have been Oswald himself (who messed with the image)

and anyone who thought "that's a real human being" and trusted the Frankie photo is really not worth protecting.

[Paul Brancato]

Thomas suggested a thread called the two Marguerites. I agree. The H and L theory hinges on their being two very different Marguerite Oswalds. Let's see it!!!

[Thomas Graves]

Not really sure why Jim H did not go with the image that is found in one of John's notebooks of the original Ft Worth paper..

And also thanks to John Wood who years back sent me the image with what looks like the emulsion over the face is removed...

Nothing nefarious, just a better version of the paper's image - but I would suggest it side-by-side, not superimposed.

panties can be unbunched now Greg...

According to Harvey and Lee, the two photos in the center show what the real "Lee Oswald" may have looked like, as compared to the Russian-speaking "Harvey Oswald" who "defected" to the U.S.S.R., married Marina Prusakova, and brought her and their daughter to the U.S. when he returned in 1962. [Question: Which of the two center photos do the Harvey and Lee people think represent what "Lee Oswald" really looked like? Both photos? Neither photo? The one on the left with the compressed head? The one next to it (the traditional "Frankenstein Oswald" photo) ?]

The two photos on the right and the slightly faded newspaper photo captioned "Lee Harvey Oswald; ...seeks Red citizenship" looks like a young (17-18 year old), smiling "version" of the guy Jon Tidd refers to as "Marina's husband," but John Armstrong has the gall to tell us that it isn't a photo of "Harvey" / "Marina's future husband," but instead of the mysterious "Lee Oswald," who apparently stayed in the U.S. while "Harvey" was in Russia for two and one-half years!

It seems to me that Jack White (or whomever) created, through alteration, the Frankenstein Oswald Photo so it could be published in Armstrong's book and then Harvey and Lee devotees could point to it and say, "Look! This proves that there was a Harvey and a Lee! Look how different they are!"

LOL

--Tommy

PS What did "Lee Oswald" tell his family members, friends, and acquaintances during the two and one-half hears that he was supposed to be in Russia? "I'm just here for a short visit. I'm going back to Minsk in a couple of days." ? Or were they all "in the know" because they, too, were part of "the doppelganger project?"

Edited July 11, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Greg Parker]

the doppelganger project?

I didn't want to have to be a whistleblower on this but, but the doppelganger project was real. I have seen the blueprints for the CIA cloning gun. Don't get me wrong, There were some glitches. We see this in the photographic evidence. Some heads got shrunk. Some got Frankensteinized. Some grew red beards (including the tall, good looking Marguerite, God rest Her Soul).

But all in all, it was an amazing success, don't you agree?

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas suggested a thread called the two Marguerites. I agree. The H and L theory hinges on their being two very different Marguerite Oswalds. Let's see it!!!

Paul,

I would also like to see a documented, verifiable timeline for the life of the mysterious "Lee Oswald."

And I would like to see some photos of "Lee Oswald" so I'll know how closely he did or did not resemble "Harvey Oswald" / "Marina's husband". The problem is, every time the Harvey and Lee people show me a photo of "Lee Oswald," I think they're showing me a photo of the guy I know as "Lee Harvey Oswald" / "Marina's husband" / the guy whom Jack Ruby killed on 11/24/63!

If "Harvey" and "Lee" indeed resembled each other so closely as to be able to fool me, then I gotta ask how did the bad guys choose them so many years earlier? How did the bad guys know that those two boys would grow up looking so much alike as to be able to fool people like me into thinking that all of the photos of them were of the same person?

Paul, you do know who I'm talking about when I say "Lee Oswald," right? The Texan who so closely resembled Russian-speaking "Harvey Oswald" that he fooled many, many people into thinking after the assassination that they had interacted with "Harvey"? You know, "Lee Oswald," the guy who didn't "defect" to Russia and marry a Russian woman, etc, etc?

--Tommy

Edited July 11, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Paul,

I would also like to see a documented, verifiable timeline for the life of the mysterious "Lee Oswald."

David Josephs has an Excel spreadsheet, perhaps he would make it available even to those of us who doubt the theory?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Thomas suggested a thread called the two Marguerites. I agree. The H and L theory hinges on their being two very different Marguerite Oswalds. Let's see it!!!

I am working on a blog post that we can use to start just such a thread.