Greg Parker Posted May 16, 2015 Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) His book has been sold as "speculation free" and only evidence with multiple sources used. Really? Where Greg.... please show us the Ad or whatever it is you think offered that description ... Not at harveyandlee.net and not at Amazon... back your accusation up with something real so it can, for once, actually be believed. Is this like you stating that JA says the Star photo was supplied from the CIA, when what he wrote was it was "LIKELY"... which in our world equates to speculation... Pathetic Nevertheless, it is what he wanted his readers to believe. As for the "speculation free" part, here is what Jack White said in 2010 at the foo forum. If it is not supposedly speculation free, why throw away a years worth of research for lack of more than one citation? If he can speculate without any evidence whatsoever that the CIA was the source of the Frankenstein photo that he claims was what was published (even tho he had a copy of the story showing it was NOT what was published), then why throw away research that has at least one source for it? Edited May 16, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 His book has been sold as "speculation free" and only evidence with multiple sources used. Really? Where Greg.... please show us the Ad or whatever it is you think offered that description ... Not at harveyandlee.net and not at Amazon... back your accusation up with something real so it can, for once, actually be believed. Is this like you stating that JA says the Star photo was supplied from the CIA, when what he wrote was it was "LIKELY"... which in our world equates to speculation... xxxxx Nevertheless, it is what he wanted his readers to believe. As for the "speculation free" part, here is what Jack White said in 2010 at the foo forum. If it is not supposedly speculation free, why throw away a years worth of research for lack of more than one citation? If he can speculate without any evidence whatsoever that the CIA was the source of the Frankenstein photo that he claims was what was published (even tho he had a copy of the story showing it was NOT what was published), then why throw away research that has at least one source for it? I don't know Greg, I'll ask him, ok? If he can speculate without any evidence whatsoever that the CIA was the source of the Frankenstein photo you see, "without any evidence" is simply not true. YOU posted the passage. We all know the CIA is the go to when it came to manipulation of images, video, words... In literally no time this image is printed with the story, Oswald would be in Russia for international intel, no one else. The Military doesn't create images. The FBI wouldn't do it. With no evidence as to where it came from, LIKELY it was the CIA is that far out on a limb? OK Greg. if you say so. Have you found out where it came from ? again... the normal, default understanding of things when the CIA is literally running amok out there...is that these people are working the angles in every direction in order to stem the tide of communism... the image is so bad that you cannot even say what he looks like - which has to be the point since a simple photo or negative with the story and the paper prints a picture of what that man in Russia looks like, not some Marine from who knows when who looks more like Lee than Harvey, if you believe that sort of thing... I'd lay odds it came from Angleton's group but who knows? LIKELY is the correct word to use Greg. I also posted the page from John's notebook on the subject showing the unaltered newspaper... Jim explains that files sometimes get mixed up... what is posted, if Jack's work, is an enhancement of that terrible image to show the lengths taken to hide the face. May not be perfect but it's close. And I showed you Woods' contribution which adds even more mystery to it and IMO makes it more LIKELY it was CIA sourced. But then I have a very suspicious mind... as did everyone else in that world in 1960,1,2,3 ==================== John is a good man with good intentions and did an amazing job compiling the info from which we can even be having these conversations. We enjoyed two years discussing and working to quantify the conflicts raised by the evidence and while I did not accept quite a lot for it being speculative and prematurely conclusive, I cannot ignore there are conflicts that simple answers cannot address. I find there to be more compelling proof in the conflicts, evidence, testimonies, accounts as well as the actions of the intelligence services to hide this strange fact than can be simply dismissed. Greg... why did it matter to the FBI where Oswald worked in 1957 at all? So what some guy says he worked with him 6 years before... why is following up on Palmer so terribly important to the FBI within a few days of the killing and now Oswald is dead too... why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) 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... Um, David, Frankenstein has clearly been posted over the top of the original photo in an attempt to "differentiate" "Lee" from "Harvey"This is from the book: Origin Of The FWS-T Photo The first reporter who attempted to interview Oswald in Moscow was Abe Goldberg, early in the afternoon of Oct. 31, shortly after Oswald left the U.S. Embassy. Goldberg told the FBI that he did not take a photograph of Oswald. Robert Korengold spoke briefly with Oswald at the door to his room at the Hotel Metropole, but took no photographs. Aline Mosby was the first person to actually interview Oswald in mid- afternoon of Oct. 31, but there is no indication from her notes or testimony that she tok a photograph of Oswald. Priscilla Johnson was the 2nd person to interview Oswald, but not until November 15, and there was no indication she took a photograph of Oswald. The photo of LEE Oswald that appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on November 1, 1959 appeared again in the November 26th issue of the Evening Star in Washington D.C. This time the photo was credited to the the Associated Press (AP), yet they claim to have no record of it's origin. The origin of this photo, published within 24 hours of Aline Mosby's interview with Oswald in Moscow remains unknown. (Once again information about Oswald, in this case a photo, was given to the media by an unidentified source only one day after his "defection." The most LIKELY souce was a CIA media asset. Why weren't you aware that Armstrong claims the photo came from the CIA? Which is just rubbish. It has to be the work of Jack White. Re the statement: "Priscilla Johnson was the 2nd person to interview Oswald, but not until November 15, and there was no indication she took a photograph of Oswald." Priscilla Johnson's interview with Oswald was on Monday evening, November 16. Re the photograph: I don't believe that the CIA provided any photographs of Oswald at the time of his defection. It has always been my understanding that Mosby took a picture of Oswald on either 10/31 when she first called upon him, at his hotel; or on Saturday, 11/14, when she met with him a second time (and which was the basis for the next day's article ("Fort Worth Defector Confirms Red Beliefs"--doing this from memory). The picture of Oswald dressed in a nice suit is currently owned--I believe--by UPI. They have the wrong date on it (11/17, as I recall). I believe I have seen the picture of Lee Oswald (hands on hips) standing against the background of the frame house, and that it was associated with the original publicity concerning the defection (i.e., 10/31 or in the days immediately following). DSL 5/15/15 - 8 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California Edited May 16, 2015 by David Lifton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 16, 2015 Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) 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... Um, David, Frankenstein has clearly been posted over the top of the original photo in an attempt to "differentiate" "Lee" from "Harvey"This is from the book: Origin Of The FWS-T Photo The first reporter who attempted to interview Oswald in Moscow was Abe Goldberg, early in the afternoon of Oct. 31, shortly after Oswald left the U.S. Embassy. Goldberg told the FBI that he did not take a photograph of Oswald. Robert Korengold spoke briefly with Oswald at the door to his room at the Hotel Metropole, but took no photographs. Aline Mosby was the first person to actually interview Oswald in mid- afternoon of Oct. 31, but there is no indication from her notes or testimony that she tok a photograph of Oswald. Priscilla Johnson was the 2nd person to interview Oswald, but not until November 15, and there was no indication she took a photograph of Oswald. The photo of LEE Oswald that appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on November 1, 1959 appeared again in the November 26th issue of the Evening Star in Washington D.C. This time the photo was credited to the the Associated Press (AP), yet they claim to have no record of it's origin. The origin of this photo, published within 24 hours of Aline Mosby's interview with Oswald in Moscow remains unknown. (Once again information about Oswald, in this case a photo, was given to the media by an unidentified source only one day after his "defection." The most LIKELY souce was a CIA media asset. Why weren't you aware that Armstrong claims the photo came from the CIA? Which is just rubbish. It has to be the work of Jack White. Re the statement: "Priscilla Johnson was the 2nd person to interview Oswald, but not until November 15, and there was no indication she took a photograph of Oswald." Priscilla Johnson's interview with Oswald was on Monday evening, November 16. Re the photograph: I don't believe that the CIA provided any photographs of Oswald at the time of his defection. It has always been my understanding that Mosby took a picture of Oswald on either 10/31 when she first called upon him, at his hotel; or on Saturday, 11/14, when she met with him a second time (and which was the basis for the next day's article ("Fort Worth Defector Confirms Red Beliefs"--doing this from memory). The picture of Oswald dressed in a nice suit is currently owned--I believe--by UPI. They have the wrong date on it (11/17, as I recall). I believe I have seen the picture of Lee Oswald (hands on hips) standing against the background of the frame house, and that it was associated with the original publicity concerning the defection (i.e., 10/31 or in the days immediately following). DSL 5/15/15 - 8 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California That is not the photo used in the Fort Worth story. It shows him in Marine uniform on a base. The issue is that someone pasted a faked photo over the original photo used and presented copies of the story with the pasted on fake photo as being what was originally published. This faked photo (which I refer to as Frankenstein Oswald) can be seen in Jack White's Oswald photo compilation and has always been represented as being "Lee" (as opposed to a giant invisible rabbit). As for where the REAL photo came from that WAS used... I'd suggest it was supplied by Robert Oswald who was interviewed for the story...but I guess it's much more fun to speculate that it was the CIA. Edited May 16, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share Posted May 17, 2015 Greg, So now you mimic John Armstrong's theory by referring to it as "Hardly Lee.nut?" That's some argument. Be careful- Thomas Graves is very sensitive to this kind of thing. This may cause him to reconsider his recent theory that others here are baiting you. Ridicule is all the theory deserves. You are among the baiters. In fact, you may well be the master... It is telling how you turn up in these debates to chastise me while ignoring everything else that's going on. And now you score yourself a double bait by bringing Tommy into it. Tommy is his own man. Unlike others here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 Greg, I'm not trying to bait you or anyone. I'm pointing out the flaws in your own theory that the Oswald impersonations were not tied to conspiratorial efforts, pre-assassination, to frame him. As for Thomas Graves, nearly every one of his short, sarcastic replies can be interpreted as baiting. You're right- I do tend to respond to your posts more than I do to anyone else's. It's just your cocksure attitude when you post what I consider to be unreasonable speculation, and the fact that only a few others on this forum will confront you. But you are figuratively following John Armstrong all over this and other forums, to "chastise" his research. I've never met or communicated with Armstrong, and have no dog in this hunt, so there is no knee-jerk reason for me to irrationally defend him or his theory. I do admit to reacting emotionally when you continue to theorize that Jack White knowingly forged a photograph and presented it to the research community as genuine. I still consider Jack White to have been one of the most important posters on this or any other forum. I don't post much on the forums about this case because my views are pretty well known, unless I have something new to offer. For the record, I don't blame you for plugging your book whenever you can (I certainly do), and whatever you do for a living has no bearing on the discussions here. I agree with you that all work has value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 The full Star-Telegraph article is available for all to see on the online John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University. To see it, use this link and go to page 7 or 8: http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/30199/rec/13 I didn't realize the image on my website was a composite, and I will replace it as soon as possible. I do, however, want to get the best copy I can of that article, because the image still proves our point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) Greg, I'm not trying to bait you or anyone. I'm pointing out the flaws in your own theory that the Oswald impersonations were not tied to conspiratorial efforts, pre-assassination, to frame him. As for Thomas Graves, nearly every one of his short, sarcastic replies can be interpreted as baiting. You're right- I do tend to respond to your posts more than I do to anyone else's. It's just your cocksure attitude when you post what I consider to be unreasonable speculation, and the fact that only a few others on this forum will confront you. But you are figuratively following John Armstrong all over this and other forums, to "chastise" his research. I've never met or communicated with Armstrong, and have no dog in this hunt, so there is no knee-jerk reason for me to irrationally defend him or his theory. I do admit to reacting emotionally when you continue to theorize that Jack White knowingly forged a photograph and presented it to the research community as genuine. I still consider Jack White to have been one of the most important posters on this or any other forum. I don't post much on the forums about this case because my views are pretty well known, unless I have something new to offer. For the record, I don't blame you for plugging your book whenever you can (I certainly do), and whatever you do for a living has no bearing on the discussions here. I agree with you that all work has value. What "flaws" have you pointed out? Saying "you're wrong" and "of course this is how the CIA works" is not proof of anything save the way YOU view things. As for being cocksure - it's not me who refers to a made up character as if he a real, proven historical figure. Here are the facts. Armstrong has long held a copy (possibly the only original available anywhere) of the FW story. Despite that, Jack White has used the Frankenstein image in his compilation, claiming it is "Lee" when it should be "Harvey". That is not the doing of the CIA. That is not an "innocent" error. Not when he knows the real photo used was nothing like the one he has. And as for the provenance of the real photo used.... instead of looking to the CIA, how about looking to Robert Oswald, who did provide a photo of himself, so why not one of his brother, as well? You can debate as much as you want whether it is actually a true photo of Lee or not, but that is a separate issue to what I have brought up in this thread. What I have demonstrated beyond all doubt is that Jack White was knowingly using a fake image to further the Two Oswald theory. Edited May 17, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) The full Star-Telegraph article is available for all to see on the online John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University. To see it, use this link and go to page 7 or 8: http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/30199/rec/13 I didn't realize the image on my website was a composite, and I will replace it as soon as possible. I do, however, want to get the best copy I can of that article, because the image still proves our point. You didn't realize? Come on. How dumb do you expect anyone to believe you are? No-one who hasn't been horribly disfigured has a face like that. You can even see where it has been pasted over the top of the original for crying out loud. Your pleas of innocent error are just not credible. You and Armstrong need to explain everything you know about this. And especially how, for all those years, White was hawking this as the photo used in the story while Armstrong sat on a copy of the story showing the real photo used. It is FRAUD. There is no other way to put it. And none of you are going wiggle out of it. Edited May 17, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 17, 2015 Author Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) accidental dual post deleted Edited May 17, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Well, Greg, how long have you known about this superimposed photo that you say is so easy to spot? You have argued at great length, on multiple websites, about any number of the topics presented on the "Marines to Minsk" page at HarveyandLee.net, which is where the photo in question appears. You've argued about evidence on that page that "Lee Harvey Oswald" was in and en route to Taiwan at the same time he was treated for veneral disease in in Japan. You've argued about the Boris Godounov N.O. Opera pamphlet that appears on that page. You have obviously read that page many times. And yet you wait until now to tell us about this "horribly disfigured face"? You can even see the photo has been "pasted over the top of the original for crying out loud." It's an easy mistake to make, and I'm in the process of fixing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) Well, Greg, how long have you known about this superimposed photo that you say is so easy to spot? http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t908-harvey-lee-and-ozzie Yes, it is easy to spot. Let's look at it again, shall we? You really can't tell that monstrosity is covering the original photo? You have argued at great length, on multiple websites, about any number of the topics presented on the "Marines to Minsk" page at HarveyandLee.net, which is where the photo in question appears. You've argued about evidence on that page that "Lee Harvey Oswald" was in and en route to Taiwan at the same time he was treated for veneral disease in in Japan. You've argued about the Boris Godounov N.O. Opera pamphlet that appears on that page. Take another look at those arguments. They were not started by me. Every time David got in trouble arguing about the schools are others issues, his tactic was to switch to the Marines. The same happened with the opera. I didn't start it. It was started by someone else to divert from the fact that they were getting clobbered on other subjects. You have obviously read that page many times. Nope. Only when absolutely necessary in a debate or in writing a debunking piece. Why would I subject myself to it otherwise? And yet you wait until now to tell us about this "horribly disfigured face"? You can even see the photo has been "pasted over the top of the original for crying out loud." Nope. First post on it was July last year. I would have eventually raised it at deepfoofoo if I hadn't been kicked out for daring to discuss a subject you all claim you want to discuss. It's an easy mistake to make, and I'm in the process of fixing it. No. Like I said, you're not wiggling out of it that easily. Nor is Armstrong. Before, when caught with errors on that site you have sourght to distance Armstrong from them. You can't do that any more because you have publically stated Armstrong has gained in the site. Let's go over it again. Armstrong has in his holdings, possibly the only copy of the original story with the original picture used*. Meanwhile his closest confidente, Jack White was hawking a compliation of Oswald photos purportedly showing two different people. The Frankenstein image was proclaimed as being Lee when it should have been Harvey. But because the original was with Armstrong, White had to know that the Frankenstein image was not the one in the story. This brings him to the forefront as the most logical forger of it - all in furtherence of Armstrong's theory. If there is an innocent explanation (and please, it actually has to make sense and take into account all the facts laid out here) then I would love to hear it. Are there issues with the photo that actually was used? You bet. But again - that is an entirely separate issue. It is one I will deal with at some other time. Same with the (alleged) Bronx Zoo photo. *I say his is possibly the only copy because the Star-Telegram archives does not havit it. Edited May 18, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I contacted an editor of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. He sent me a scan of the front page of the November 1, 1959 issue, where Oswald's picture first appeared. I would like to share it here, so everyone can judge for themselves. However, it is a pdf and I can't figure out how to paste it here, or to paste the pdf file that can be clicked and opened. In my view, it looks like pretty much of a "Frankenstein" image, but I'm sure opinions may differ. If anyone can help me figure out how to share this, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Schmidt Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Don, you should be able to upload it for free on this site: http://postimage.org/; it will give you a link to the url of the image. Then once you're ready to post it on this thread, click the image icon and paste the url. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Thanks, Brian. I had some difficulty with this, but here's a link where you can view the front page that is in the newspaper's archives: http://postimg.org/image/vfthluhxd/ Gary Mack also sent me a link to the Armstrong version, which came from what Gary said was a different edition, but should still be considered an official page of record. I freely admit to not being an "expert," however one qualifies as such, in photo interpretation. However, it is my uneducated opinion that this photo of Oswald was, from the beginning, very muddy and "Frankenstein" like in appearance. I don't know why the newspaper wouldn't have requested, and used, the best possible image in all cases, but it looks like the picture was of the same dubious quality long before either Jack White or John Armstrong got their hands on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now