A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

[Jim Hargrove]

55 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

When comparing decomposited photos, one needs to keep in mind that Oswald didn't face 100% directly into the camera. His head would have been tilted in any of the three different dimensions. Because of this, there is going to be some distortion in the reconstructions. For example, a skinny or wide forehead, nose, or chin. Ears that stick out too far or not fare enough.

When the composites were made, the hair was touched up. So the hair needs to be ignore when comparing. Therefore I cut off the top part of LEE's photos so that his hair doesn't show. I didn't cut it off for HARVEY because his hair just happens to match... there must have been very little touch up done on that side of the composite.

Note that I didn't want to spend a lot of time on this. So I made just simple vertical cuts and tried to fit the halves together as best as possible.

To make for a fair comparison, I took LEE's photo, cut off its right half, and attached the remaining left half to the the mirror image of itself. I did the same for HARVEYs' right half. Here is what I got:

 

Now here are the reconstructed photos from the left and right halves of the ID photo, respectively:

 

To me, HARVEY on the right is an easy-to-recognize match. The left ID photo doesn't look at all like HARVEY. But it does look similar to the LEE photo above it. They both have than intense look in their eyes.

 

Now, to anybody still unconvinced that the left ID photo looks like LEE, consider this question: Why then doesn't it look like HARVEY?

 

Awesome, Sandy!  Thanks so much for setting up those images.  For the first time ever, I actually see what John and Jack were talking about in the split composite mug shot.

If memory serves, John Pic and others talked about Lee Oswald’s “bull neck,” and you can see it here.  I’m going to try to get John to take a look at your post.  If he wants to, can we use your work on the website?

[David Josephs]

FWIW... the cover of the book is explained as a composite of Harvey and Lee's face...  not a doubled sided composite of the same person.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

9 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

FWIW... the cover of the book is explained as a composite of Harvey and Lee's face...  not a doubled sided composite of the same person.

But do you understand, David, that I am using the doubled sided composite of the same person only as a reference to compare the reconstituted photo to? Because once the composite photo has been decomposed and the two original photos reconstituted from it, what you really have are two (Harvey and Lee) doubled sided composites of the same person.

And so you can make fair comparisons.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

43 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

FWIW... the cover of the book is explained as a composite of Harvey and Lee's face...  not a doubled sided composite of the same person.

 

 

Here again is the reconstituted photo made from the left half of the DoD ID card:  (The side I say is LEE.)

 

 

Let's compare that to the reconstituted photo made from the left half of the defection photo, from the back cover of the book (see above).

 

Oops! I didn't have enough of that half-photo, and so he's lost a slice down the middle of his nose and lips. (It makes his lips look a little pursed.) But see how this photo compares favorably with the left half reconstitution from the DoD ID card above?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Awesome, Sandy!  Thanks so much for setting up those images.  For the first time ever, I actually see what John and Jack were talking about in the split composite mug shot.

If memory serves, John Pic and others talked about Lee Oswald’s “bull neck,” and you can see it here.  I’m going to try to get John to take a look at your post.  If he wants to, can we use your work on the website?

Sure Jim, use those if you want. I can do the same for you with better originals if you want. If you have better originals.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

If memory serves, John Pic and others talked about Lee Oswald’s “bull neck,” and you can see it here.

Yes, you can.

But be cautious. As I said, the reconstituted photo can be (actually, WILL be) distorted due to Oswald not facing the camera at a perfectly straight angle. Because of that, the left and right halves need to be tilted in order to aligned the two. And that would either narrow or broaden the neck beyond its real width.

As it turns out, on the LEE part of the DoD ID card I had to tilt the halves in order to widen the forehead and eyes. Doing this actually narrowed the neck a bit. On the other hand I may have made the chin a little too wide (by separating the two halves) and doing this broadened the neck a bit. I'd say those two things are close to a wash, and so the neck is about right.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

It’s becoming increasingly obvious why John chose to make that DoD ID card  the entire front cover of Harvey and Lee.  The more you look into this thing, the more and more it appears like a microcosm of the entire “Lee Harvey Oswald” mystery, filled with contradictions and absurdities and the kind of smoke and mirrors most of us associate with intelligence operations.

If we could figure out how Harvey got that card, either before or after the photo modification, we would probably learn a lot.   Why on earth was what was probably a photo processed in the USSR used on this thing?  And if Harvey mocked it up himself using some Russian doc he brought back from the USSR, how did he get the card of the 5'11" Oswald to work with?

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

If we could figure out how Harvey got that [military ID] card, either before or after the photo modification, we would probably learn a lot.

Naturally I'm going with my current hypothesis, which I laid out on the other thread:
 

What the hypothesis doesn't explain is:

1. Why LEE's photo was (presumably) originally used on the card.
2. Who removed that photo and why, and replaced it with the Minsk ID photo. And stamped the ID with gibberish in order to camouflage the photo's old stamp.
3. How it came about that a seeming HARVEY/LEE composite photo found its way onto a Russian ID card. (The card that would later be used as described in #2.)

For #3 I would say that HARVEY perhaps took a small stock of HARVEY/LEE composite photos with him to Russia.

For #2 I would say that perhaps one of HARVEY's handlers retrieved and kept his ID cards along with other materials. And later this came in handy when making a second Oswald wallet that could be found by the DPD. He changed the photo because the one of LEE doesn't look like HARVEY.

#1 still has me stumped.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

I’m not saying it is impossible, but it doesn’t seem likely to me that the CIA just got a blank dependent ID card and filled it in to get Oswald’s passport moving for the upcoming “defection.”  If they had, why wouldn’t they have filled in Oswald’s actual height as 5’9”?  It’s pretty clear the Oswald killed by Jack Ruby was 5’9” tall.  This height is shown on his application at Leslie Welding, Goldrings, Jobco, Weiner Lumber, and the Texas School Book Depository, and on a Texas Employment Commission record, a NOLA police department report, his Texas drivers license application, the autopsy report and in his answer to the DPD interrogation on 11/23/63.

The 5’11” Oswald does appear in a number of USMC records and a few other places, but Classic Oswald® was CLEARLY 5’8”.  Chris seems to be trying to keep the Harvey and Lee controversy out of the Military ID Card thread, but it really is the 10,000 pound elephant quietly stalking that whole discussion. The fact that John reports he was unable to see the original ID card at NARA speaks volumes, in my opinion.

I'm more inclined to think the original ID card was that of 5'11" LEE Oswald, that the original photo didn't look enough like HARVEY, and so it was replaced by the split composite, sort of an evidentiary compromise.     

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I’m not saying it is impossible, but it doesn’t seem likely to me that the CIA just got a blank dependent ID card and filled it in to get Oswald’s passport moving for the upcoming “defection.”  If they had, why wouldn’t they have filled in Oswald’s actual height as 5’9”?  It’s pretty clear the Oswald killed by Jack Ruby was 5’9” tall.  This height is shown on his application at Leslie Welding, Goldrings, Jobco, Weiner Lumber, and the Texas School Book Depository, and on a Texas Employment Commission record, a NOLA police department report, his Texas drivers license application, the autopsy report and in his answer to the DPD interrogation on 11/23/63.

The 5’11” Oswald does appear in a number of USMC records and a few other places, but Classic Oswald® was CLEARLY 5’8”.  Chris seems to be trying to keep the Harvey and Lee controversy out of the Military ID Card thread, but it really is the 10,000 pound elephant quietly stalking that whole discussion. The fact that John reports he was unable to see the original ID card at NARA speaks volumes, in my opinion.

I'm more inclined to think the original ID card was that of 5'11" LEE Oswald, that the original photo didn't look enough like HARVEY, and so it was replaced by the split composite, sort of an evidentiary compromise.     

 

I agree. I just can't figure out why the CIA would use a LEE ID card, to get a LEE passport, only for HARVEY to use that passport.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Hypothesis -- Oswald's Military ID Card

Following is my complete hypothesis regarding Oswald's military ID card. It fits all the pieces of evidence together and is, in my opinion, the most likely explanation.

The one thing I haven't been able to figure out is why the CIA would use a LEE ID card, to get a LEE passport, only to have HARVEY use that passport to go to Russia.

Part 1

Oswald was to be discharged from the Marine Corps on the Sept. 11, 1959. The CIA wanted him to get his passport (for his fake defection) as soon as possible. Problem was, active servicemen are not allowed to have U.S. passports. So what the CIA did was get a blank dependent ID card and fill it out as though Oswald were an inactive member of the Service. (CIA employees who needed to enter military bases were issued the tan dependent ID card.) The card was issued to Oswald on (or just before) Sept. 4, but was postdated to Sept. 11, Oswald's discharge date.

On Sept. 4, Oswald applied for his passport and appeared before the County Clerk to take the oath of allegiance. He showed his Active military ID (for which he wouldn't be eligible for a passport), his postdated Inactive military ID (for which he would be eligible for a passport, though not till Sept. 11), and the following affidavit:

 

4 Sept 1959                 

Separation Section, H&HS., MCAS., El Toro, Santa Ana, California

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

This is to certify that PFC (E-2) Lee Harvey OSWALD, 1653230, U.S. Marine Corps is scheduled to be released from Active Duty and Transferred to the Marine Corps Reserve (Inactive) on 11 September 1959.

                           [signed by P(?) Stout 1st Sgt]
                           A. G. Ayers, JR
                           1stLt.    USMCR

This affidavit and the postdated ID card were accepted by the County clerk as valid ID and proof that Oswald would be Inactive on Sept. 11. The clerk typed on Oswald's passport application the number from his postdated ID card.

And so, this explains how Oswald was able to use his military ID card a week before it was issued.

The passport was mailed to Marguerite's home in Fort Worth on Sept. 10.

The military has very strict measures designed to keep people from stealing ID cards. But based on Gary Powers' military ID -- which was the same kind as Oswald's -- it seems likely that the CIA was allowed to issue cards to their employees. The evidence for that is that the dates typed on Powers' card are in a format that definitely would not have been found on a military issued card. For example, his birth date is typed as "17 Aug 1929." On a military issued card the date would have been typed as "17Aug29."

It is likely that the CIA had an agreement with the uniformed services whereby they could issue these dependent ID cards to their employees. That explains how the CIA got one for Oswald.

The military requires that all ID cards be laminated in plastic. However, Oswald's card needed no lamination given that its sole purpose was to quickly get a passport for him. And so it wasn't laminated.

The ID card and affidavit were supposedly signed by a 1st Sgt. Stout for his superior officer, 1st Lt. A. G. Ayers. However, Lt. Ayers remembers no Sgt.  Stout in his office. In addition, in an exhaustive search performed by researcher Chris Newton, no evidence of a Sgt. Stout was turned up. Therefore it seems likely that Sgt. Stout was a fictitious character used by the CIA to get the ID card and affidavit issued to Oswald.

After Oswald used his DoD ID card to get his 1959 passport, his handler took the card and kept it.

Part 2: 

Harvey & Lee:  When HARVEY set sail for Europe and ultimately Russia, he took with him a composite photo of him and LEE. When in Russia he paid a photographer to make Russian ID-style photographs from the composite. He also had some ID photos made for Marina. Several of these photos would later be found in Oswald's belongings.

Russian style photos of the era had a semicircular area of white in the lower-right corner of the photo. Once attached to the card, a security stamp was used to make a circular imprint that extended from the card and onto the lower-right portion of the photo. The object of the stamp was to prevent people from illegally swapping in photos of other people.

When Oswald returned to the United States, he handed over to his CIA handler any Russian ID cards still in his possession.

Part 3

EDIT: This part of the hypothesis has been rendered invalid due to the discovery that the photos on Oswald's DoD dependent ID card and Nagell's copy are actually identical, other than some alterations made to the photo on Nagell's copy.

Some time after Oswald's usefulness in Russia wore off, the CIA gave certain Oswald impostors a copy of the Oswald military ID, with their own photo attached and their own Lee Harvey Oswald signature. Richard Case Nagell was one of those impostors. The CIA held onto the original card.

With the assassination clock ticking, someone in the CIA decided that an Oswald wallet needed to be assembled, just in case it was needed for the Big Event. One of the military ID cards (perhaps the original) happened to be in their bag of tricks. They ripped the photo off because it wasn't of Oswald, and pasted in its place the only ID style photo they had... one from one of Oswald's Russian ID cards. They "silly-stamped" it (that is, stamped it with useless circles and dates) to camouflage the photo's Russian security stamp, and inserted the ID into the wallet. (BTW, was the card found in the Tippit-location wallet? Or the theater wallet?)

And that is why we see the card in the condition we do today. And why Nagell had a copy of it, but without the "silly stamps."

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Chris Newton]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Chris seems to be trying to keep the Harvey and Lee controversy out of the Military ID Card thread, but it really is the 10,000 pound elephant quietly stalking that whole discussion.

Hey, If you can prove that an Oswald imposter had the DD 1173, then go for it. And after providing some reasonable explanation, you feel the desire to call the imposter Harvey or lee  or whatever, I'm cool with that. On the other hand, if your H&L scenario is not valid, the questions surrounding this evidence still remain ...so I'm not in favor of you guys using the H&L scenario as a shoe-horn to make things fit which are otherwise unexplained. Does that make my position clear?

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Chris Newton
some punctuation

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Chris seems to be trying to keep the Harvey and Lee controversy out of the Military ID Card thread, but it really is the 10,000 pound elephant quietly stalking that whole discussion.

Hey, If you can prove that an Oswald imposter had the DD 1173, then go for it. And after providing some reasonable explanation, you feel the desire to call the imposter Harvey or lee  or whatever, I'm cool with that. On the other hand if your H&L scenario is not valid, the questions surrounding this evidence still remain so I'm not in favor of you guys using the H&L scenario as a shoe-horn to make things fit which are otherwise unexplained. Does that make my position clear?

Chris,

I don't know if you are aware of this, but I didn't write what your post quotes me of saying. I don't know how that sentence got attributed to me.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Hey Jim,

I don't know if you read my complete hypothesis or if you noticed, but it does explain how the "Minsk" photo could have been a composite of HARVEY and LEE.

 

[Chris Newton]

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Chris,

I don't know if you are aware of this, but I didn't write what your post quotes me of saying. I don't know how that sentence got attributed to me.

You were quoting Jim and I was reading your hypothesis so things got jumbled. Secondary source issues

Good start with the hypothesis, by the way. I'm with you on about 95% of it, so far.