Greg Parker Posted May 18, 2015 Author 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. That is just not the case. Go back and look at the images side by side as posted by Randolph. You are simply trying to excuse or limit culpability. White never used the original photo. He used what almost certainly was a creation of his own hands pasted over the original. Deal with reality. For once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Greg, You've made serious allegations against a researcher who spent decades studying the photographic record of this case. I can't believe I'm the only one on this forum who is outraged by your efforts to besmirch his reputation, especially when he is no longer able to defend himself. I contacted the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and they provided me with the image that is in their archives. I find the photograph to be of dubious quality, and I think it looks "Frankenstein" enough without any additional doctoring. I don't expect you to admit that you're wrong. If I had to venture a guess, I would say that Armstrong used a lower quality copy of the photograph, which may have caused even further distortion in the image. You claim not to like conspiracy theories; that's a far simpler explanation than speculating that Jack White amateurishly butchered the photo to support someone else's research. I'll let the rest of you debate this; as I said, I find most discussions of photographic interpretation to be pointless. But I do hope that someone else here will speak up for Jack White. I can't be the only one on this forum who respects his memory and resents these scurrilous allegations against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) Greg, You've made serious allegations against a researcher who spent decades studying the photographic record of this case. I can't believe I'm the only one on this forum who is outraged by your efforts to besmirch his reputation, especially when he is no longer able to defend himself. I contacted the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and they provided me with the image that is in their archives. I find the photograph to be of dubious quality, and I think it looks "Frankenstein" enough without any additional doctoring. I don't expect you to admit that you're wrong. If I had to venture a guess, I would say that Armstrong used a lower quality copy of the photograph, which may have caused even further distortion in the image. You claim not to like conspiracy theories; that's a far simpler explanation than speculating that Jack White amateurishly butchered the photo to support someone else's research. I'll let the rest of you debate this; as I said, I find most discussions of photographic interpretation to be pointless. But I do hope that someone else here will speak up for Jack White. I can't be the only one on this forum who respects his memory and resents these scurrilous allegations against him. You are either ignoring what I said, or just didn't bother reading it. I pointed out that there are issues with the original photo. But that is a separate issue. The issue here is the image pasted OVER the top of that and then misrepresented by White as being THE photo that was used. It was not. It was a severely tampered with version of that photo in order to differentiate "Lee" from "Harvey". Rest assured, had I found out about any of this while White was still alive, I would have confronted him - just as I did about Kudlaty, so your pleas to get people angry at me are just another attempt to muddy the waters and change the subject. David has done his usual runner when the heat gets turned up - and things have gone deathly quite in the Harvey and Lee thread at DeepFooFoo. I don't think there is any need to explain why. Your efforts to whip people into a frenzy are falling on deaf ears because they can see the problem. And they know there is no way around it. Edited May 18, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) There is a discrepancy in the shoulder slope indicating two different individuals. Newspaper photo high shoulder slope LEE. Low slope in other photos ,Harvey. Gaal ================================= see http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2014/03/on-left-is-latest-known-image-we-have.html Edited May 18, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 There is a discrepancy in the shoulder slope indicating two different individuals. Newspaper photo high shoulder slope LEE. Low slope in other photos ,Harvey. Gaal ================================= see http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2014/03/on-left-is-latest-known-image-we-have.html Wow. That's really telling me. We're back to the shoulder slope. This has to be a joke, right? Deal with the issues presented or stay out of the way like Don says he is going to (despite his faux outrage) and like David is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) Deal with the issues presented or stay out of the way like Don says he is going to (despite his faux outrage) and like David is. =================================================================================================== Shoulder slope is seen in the photo and shoulder slope is a Harvey and Lee issue, thus pertinent. GAAL ================================================= Edited May 18, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 Deal with the issues presented or stay out of the way like Don says he is going to (despite his faux outrage) and like David is. =================================================================================================== Shoulder slope is seen in the photo and shoulder slope is a Harvey and Lee issue, thus pertinent. GAAL ================================================= I said I would deal with the original photo at a later date. Once again - the issue here is the fraudulent use by Jack White of a faked image pasted over the original photo used in the story. The reason for his doing this was to further the theory of his friend, John Armstrong. White had to know Armstrong had the original story with the original photo. Armstrong had to know White was using a faked image pasted over that original. Deal with that or stay out. If you continue to post on other issues, I will report it and request it be removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 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 DSL - The photo taken on Oct 31, if there was one, would not be the same as one taken in Japan while in the marines, right? The Marine photo had to have been acquired somewhere... from Oswald? the photographer? how would that photo have gotten to that newspaper? Did Oswald bring his USMC clothes to Russia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 The original from the file image on the left, enhanced as best I could to bring out some detail on the right, and the "White" improvement overlay I get the impression that the Lee Oswald photo in the woods collage top right was not Oswald - Oswald's nose was NEVER that wide.. The idea here Greg, is that the CIA or someone provided this photo in such poor resolution on purpose. The woods collage alos suggests this image was created and is why it looks so strange when White isolated and improved it. But the overlay is obviously from THAT image.... At some point it seems there was a much better version.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I remember the thread were Jack White was nailed bang to rights for his duplicity regarding his dubious involvement with Kudlaty. To defend the man's integrity and thus bolster his credibility as a witness Jack let slip that he had personally known Frank Kudlaty for nearly 50 years. Jack used this association with a witness, a witness he boasted he had known for a very long time, in order to stress just what an honest bloke Frank was, and thus should be believed. When challenged further on this "close" association Jack, realising he had now seriously compromised himself, did a complete U-turn and claimed he had only actually seen Kudlaty on two or three occasions in all that period. It is utterly ridiculous that we should not discuss the methods employed by researchers, alive or dead, who may have been selective with their presentation in order to promote a theory that we now can see may be false, or worse, faked. Don, should we never criticise the now deceased Arlon Specter's magic bullet theory and the duplicity involved in that? Of course we should. I often see Garrison's methods and conclusions being attacked on this forum. And why not? So to say that Jack White is out of bounds when subsequent research turns up a potentially explosive example of possible fraud is clutching at straws. As much as some interested/obsessed parties may want to wish this away either by ignoring it or using emotional manipulation as a diversion, others can see it for what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mark Valenti Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I remember that too Bernie. It was right around the time when Jack White was promoting the idea that the rain sensors in DP were CIA listening devices. I'm all for honoring first generation researchers, but imo, Jack White is right up there with Fetzer for staining honest research with garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 David In post # 39 there looks like a wooden board behind LHO's head and in another photo the board is missing. ????? THANKS gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I would hope that David and Jim Hargrove can do a better job than I can of explaining the photo in question. I got the newspaper to send me a pdf of the version that first appeared in their paper in 1959. That's about all I can do. Jack White's relationship with Kudlaty doesn't change the fact that the FBI asked for Oswald's Stripling school records the day after the assassination. The official narrative maintains that Oswald never attended Stripling. Is it that inconceivable that Jack White would have known some of the people involved in all this, given that he lived in Texas? Kudlaty's story should be viewed apart from the fact he knew Jack White, no matter how close they were. My main issue with this picture are the allegations that White knowingly altered it. That's a serious charge, and I can't believe no one else on this forum is defending him. Does your silence suggest that you believe Jack White was capable of such chicanery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 19, 2015 Author Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) The original from the file image on the left, enhanced as best I could to bring out some detail on the right, and the "White" improvement overlay I get the impression that the Lee Oswald photo in the woods collage top right was not Oswald - Oswald's nose was NEVER that wide.. The idea here Greg, is that the CIA or someone provided this photo in such poor resolution on purpose. The woods collage alos suggests this image was created and is why it looks so strange when White isolated and improved it. But the overlay is obviously from THAT image.... At some point it seems there was a much better version.... Absolutely disgraceful. The photo on the right above is the worst possible rendition of the photo used in the paper. For anyone trying to follow this, go back through the thread and you will find the image is much better than that. White did NOT improve it, HE CHANGED THE APPEARANCE OF THE PERSON DEPICTED THEREIN. If he were merely trying to enhance a poor quality photo, not only did he do a horrendous job of it, he broke a cardinal rule by not declaring he had retouched it for that purpose. His silence screams the truth - as it did regarding his friendship with Kudlaty. Edited May 19, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 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. Don: Just open an account at "photobucket" on the web. James Gordon explained that to me, and I did it. Its easy. Then you have a "link" which you can paste into your post. Click on the link, and up comes the image. DSL 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