Frankenstein Oswald

[Bernie Laverick]

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?

He was clearly capable of brazenly lying about the status of his relationship with Kudlaty. I'll try and find the topic and post a link so you can see for yourself. It's a car crash!

I never took Jack seriously after that. He went all Fetzerish. Maybe it's disrespectful of us to question his integrity when he's not here to defend himself. But where would that leave us? Would the work of Cinque or Fetzer be out of bounds and never to be criticised if or when they die? Did Jack make a policy of not criticising the work or the integrity of previous passed away researchers? Of course he didn't, and neither should we.

If that's where the evidence leads us Don, then we need to know. Burying our heads in the sand out of some misplaced sense of righteous indignation is yet another trait of the H&L fraternity...

[David Lifton]

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.

There are (probably) many things I disagreed with Jack White about, but he and I got along fine, and there were clearly many things we agreed upon. Also, Jack White, being from Texas, was clearly skeptical of the character and motivations of Lyndon Johnson, years--if not decades--before it became "fashionable" to go down that path.

Bottom line, and FWIW: I don't think Jack White would ever alter a photograph to advance his own, or another's research. That was simply not in his character.

He might disagree with you on the interpretation of something, but he would never alter evidence. FWIW: That's my opinion.

DSL

5/18/15 - 5:55 p.m.

Los Angeles, California

Edited May 19, 2015 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

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?

I would assume--and its just an assumption on my part--that when Robert Oswald was interviewed, he supplied some photos ('snapshots" as they were called, in those days) of Lee.

Robert would have had photos of Lee taken while Lee was in the Marines; and he almost certainly had photos of Lee from when he had visited--on one occasion or another--while he was in the Marines.

DSL

5/18/15 - 6 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, Ca

[David Lifton]

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?

Robert Oswald had thoroughly imperfect recollections of where his brother attended various schools.

For example: in early news interviews (in Oct/November 1959, when Lee's defection first become public), Robert was interviewed and incorrectly stated that Lee attended Arlington Heights High School for a year--that's right, for a year.

In fact, after Lee and his mother moved from New Orleans to Fort Worth on July 1, 1956, Lee signed up for school at Arlington Heights High School on September 5, 1956, and then withdrew on September 28--that's three weeks plus 2 calendar days. Yet, for whatever reason, Robert erroneously recollected that his brother attended Arlington Heights H.S. for a year.

So, when Robert said--and I believe he did--in a 1959 newspaper interview that Lee had attended Stripling, then of course the FBI--having seen that statement--might very well have called at Stripling (in good faith) to retrieve such records.

Robert Oswald's statements about Lee's attendance at Stripling and about attending Arlington Heights H.S. (for a year) are both incorrect.

Lee never attended Stripling; and he was only registered at Arlington Heights HS for about 3 weeks.

But, to followers of John Armstrong, the assumption is made (or the presumption is made) that whatever Robert said was the truth; and (therefore) that the existing records were false or were doctored to hide something. In other words, for Armstrong followers, this kind of thing constitutes "evidence" that something is being hidden, that there was a "second Oswald" etc etc.

This kind of "reasoning" occurs with Stripling, with tax records,. .whatever. Whenever Armstrong wants to make the evidence "go away," he argues it was falsified.

I had some intense personal contact with Armstrong for a few months in 1995, and I found this persistent inability to explain practically any inconsistency in terms other than a "second Oswald" as really annoying.

Let me spell this out: if two people look at the President's windshield at two different times, and each is a credentialed observer, and one sees a hole and the other doesn't, then that may well constitute credible evidence of a windshield switch. And the same applies when credible observers differ on the President's wounds, and both were looking at the same body, but the observations were separated by, say , 5 hours.

However: when Robert Oswald "says" his brother attended Stripling, and that is not supported by the documentary record; then he was simply in error. When Robert Oswald says that his brother attended Arlington Heights H.S. "for a year" but the record clearly establishes that he was registered there for only 23 days, then the documentary record is the better evidence--and one should not taking Robert Oswald's erroneous observations as the "truth" and constructing a "second Oswald" out of that data.

And, my favorite example: when Palmer McBride --who worked with Oswald at pfisterer Dental Labs in the Spring of 1956--mistakenly said that he knew Lee Oswald in 1958, when the employment and tax records at Pfisterer Dental Labs clearly indicate that the year was 1956, one should not be postulating a "second Oswald."

But this is the sort of thing that is spread across page after page of "Harvey and Lee" and constitutes the "evidence" for Armstrong's various hypotheses.

Sometimes I wish that those who have immersed themselves in such "data" and have spent years constructing different rooms in this castle in the air, would have attended law school and taken a good course in "Evidence" or had read a good book on Evidence.

From personal experience, I can say that Armstrong is someone who simply mines the records for inconsistencies, and uses them to shape and support his various hypotheses.

I've maintained that for years, and my position is no different today.

Yes, I'm aware that here and there, he comes up with some factoids that are useful--even, in some cases, important--but basically, what i have described is essentially the way he functions, and that's why his overall theory has little validity (or relevance).

For the most part, it could be used as a textbook for a graduate school history seminar, on how "not" to analyze evidence.

DSL

5/18/15 - 6:30 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

[Greg Parker]

I would assume--and its just an assumption on my part--that when Robert Oswald was interviewed, he supplied some photos ('snapshots" as they were called, in those days) of Lee.

Robert would have had photos of Lee taken while Lee was in the Marines; and he almost certainly had photos of Lee from when he had visited--on one occasion or another--while he was in the Marines.

Thank you, Professor. I have only made that same point a half a dozen times so far!

[Greg Parker]

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.

There are (probably) many things I disagreed with Jack White about, but he and I got along fine, and there were clearly many things we agreed upon. Also, Jack White, being from Texas, was clearly skeptical of the character and motivations of Lyndon Johnson, years--if not decades--before it became "fashionable" to go down that path.

Bottom line, and FWIW: I don't think Jack White would ever alter a photograph to advance his own, or another's research. That was simply not in his character.

He might disagree with you on the interpretation of something, but he would never alter evidence. FWIW: That's my opinion.

DSL

5/18/15 - 5:55 p.m.

Los Angeles, California

Thank you for your opinion.

But the evidence says otherwise.

The jig is now in the vertical position.

[Greg Parker]

Stan Dane posted this over at ROKC a few weeks ago. It shows how the "Frankenstein" Oswald doesn't fit with other images of Lee Harvey Oswald. And I think he also did a nice job of showing how the various images of Oswald do fit together, meaning they are of the same person.

Playing around with this a little more. (Had to postpone my exit today, but I'm being careful!) I added two more pictures to the mix, #1 & #2.

Using the same approach (distance between pupils as a sizing reference) I note that #2 – #5 match up very well. (We need to keep in mind these are just images taken off the Internet and for all we know, they could have been tweaked with themselves.) I added #1 (the Jack White "Frankenstein") because we've had discussions in that past on how unnatural this image looks and how it was inserted by White to bolster the Harvey & Lee fiction. I added #2 for another data point.

If #1 is an image of Lee Oswald, it is a distorted one. The shape/appearance of the ears in #2 – #5 look the same to me, but the ears in #1 do not (besides being much wider apart). The mouth is wider in #1 too (but that might be because he is smiling). #1 clearly doesn't fit with the rest.

Bottom line: #1 was consciously inserted in place of the original one in the news article. We know why.

Thanks for reminding me about's Stan's work on this.

[Greg Parker]

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?

He was clearly capable of brazenly lying about the status of his relationship with Kudlaty. I'll try and find the topic and post a link so you can see for yourself. It's a car crash!

I never took Jack seriously after that. He went all Fetzerish. Maybe it's disrespectful of us to question his integrity when he's not here to defend himself. But where would that leave us? Would the work of Cinque or Fetzer be out of bounds and never to be criticised if or when they die? Did Jack make a policy of not criticising the work or the integrity of previous passed away researchers? Of course he didn't, and neither should we.

If that's where the evidence leads us Don, then we need to know. Burying our heads in the sand out of some misplaced sense of righteous indignation is yet another trait of the H&L fraternity...

Here's the first one, though there were more after it.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9297

[Jim Hargrove]

Regarding the altered Fort Worth newspaper photo that used to appear on the Harvey and Lee website, all I can say is that I made a mistake, I acknowledged it, and I fixed it. I've been running the website, off and on (but mostly on), since 1999, and I simply don't remember how I acquired the photo. I just checked, and it does not appear among the many images included in the 1959 section of the CD that accompanies Harvey and Lee. It does appear, unmodified, in the online John Armstrong collection run by the library at Baylor University.

This issue has clearly given people an additional opportunity to discuss and criticize the presented evidence and conclusions of Harvey and Lee, and that's fine! Everyone's work on a subject as controversial as the Kennedy Assassination deserves scrutiny.

But to any objective observer, on this site and elsewhere, the barrage of criticism directed at Harvey and Lee goes far, far beyond what would be expected as normal give and take even in an area as controversial as this one, and it's been going on relentlessly since the 1990s, soon after John first began making speeches to JFK researchers.

Why would that be? I can't imagine a possible explanation.

[Chris Davidson]

http://www75.zippyshare.com/v/jOvByMH0/file.html

It's not frankenstein, but another for the collection, if you are unfamiliar with it.

chris

[David Josephs]

David

In post # 39 there looks like a wooden board behind LHO's head and in another photo the board is missing. ????? THANKS gaal

Indeed Steve - one is the original and the other the published image. Maybe part of the "touch up" process? IDK but that square behind his head has always been kinda weird just hangin there - like the black sharpie square covering the back of JFK's head at Z323.

DJ

[David Josephs]

Stan Dane posted this over at ROKC a few weeks ago. It shows how the "Frankenstein" Oswald doesn't fit with other images of Lee Harvey Oswald. And I think he also did a nice job of showing how the various images of Oswald do fit together, meaning they are of the same person.

Playing around with this a little more. (Had to postpone my exit today, but I'm being careful!) I added two more pictures to the mix, #1 & #2.

Using the same approach (distance between pupils as a sizing reference) I note that #2 – #5 match up very well. (We need to keep in mind these are just images taken off the Internet and for all we know, they could have been tweaked with themselves.) I added #1 (the Jack White "Frankenstein") because we've had discussions in that past on how unnatural this image looks and how it was inserted by White to bolster the Harvey & Lee fiction. I added #2 for another data point.

If #1 is an image of Lee Oswald, it is a distorted one. The shape/appearance of the ears in #2 – #5 look the same to me, but the ears in #1 do not (besides being much wider apart). The mouth is wider in #1 too (but that might be because he is smiling). #1 clearly doesn't fit with the rest.

Bottom line: #1 was consciously inserted in place of the original one in the news article. We know why.

Thanks for reminding me about's Stan's work on this.

[Ray Mitcham]

Stan Dane posted this over at ROKC a few weeks ago. It shows how the "Frankenstein" Oswald doesn't fit with other images of Lee Harvey Oswald. And I think he also did a nice job of showing how the various images of Oswald do fit together, meaning they are of the same person.

Playing around with this a little more. (Had to postpone my exit today, but I'm being careful!) I added two more pictures to the mix, #1 & #2.

Using the same approach (distance between pupils as a sizing reference) I note that #2 – #5 match up very well. (We need to keep in mind these are just images taken off the Internet and for all we know, they could have been tweaked with themselves.) I added #1 (the Jack White "Frankenstein") because we've had discussions in that past on how unnatural this image looks and how it was inserted by White to bolster the Harvey & Lee fiction. I added #2 for another data point.

If #1 is an image of Lee Oswald, it is a distorted one. The shape/appearance of the ears in #2 – #5 look the same to me, but the ears in #1 do not (besides being much wider apart). The mouth is wider in #1 too (but that might be because he is smiling). #1 clearly doesn't fit with the rest.

Bottom line: #1 was consciously inserted in place of the original one in the news article. We know why.

Thanks for reminding me about's Stan's work on this.

Two different guys to me.

Look at the ear levels. (And the different chins.)

Edited May 19, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[David Josephs]

Oswald was 68" when he entered the USMC on Oct 24, 1956 (WH V19 - Folsom Exhibit page #1)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0337b.htm

yet is 71" when he is discharged on Sept 11, 1959

Rose's autopsy sheet has him at 5'9"

I have yet to get an answer from GP on how he shrinks 2 inches from age 20 to 24 other than GP's claim the USMC does not know how to use a tape measure - he claims that there is no official document that does not use Oswald's own words related to his height...

Gorsky seems to be talking about someone else entirely... was Gorsky a personal friend of Amstrong too?

[Bernie Laverick]

Oswald was 68" when he entered the USMC on Oct 24, 1956 (WH V19 - Folsom Exhibit page #1)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0337b.htm

yet is 71" when he is discharged on Sept 11, 1959

Rose's autopsy sheet has him at 5'9"

I have yet to get an answer from GP on how he shrinks 2 inches from age 20 to 24 other than GP's claim the USMC does not know how to use a tape measure - he claims that there is no official document that does not use Oswald's own words related to his height...

Gorsky seems to be talking about someone else entirely... was Gorsky a personal friend of Amstrong too?

David, have you now become a bit bored with the subject of this thread?

I have seen this tactic employed so many times now there should be some ruling on it. This topic is about a spurious image that may have fraudulently entered into the evidence by one of Armstrong's researchers and collaborators to back up his H&L theory.

When cornered on any single aspect of this theory its supporters do exactly what David has attempted to do now. Change the subject. It's not about his height, but it does take the heat off trying to explain this photo. And if anyone took the bait and subsequently nailed you on the height issue too, you would simply change tack and bang on about his schooling records, and so on and so on. Whack-a-mole!