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

[Bernie Laverick]

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Pixel Counting Biometric

Comparison of Oswald photos

H&L critics on this forum do go on and on with their attacks, but they sure don't have much luck explaining how “Lee Harvey Oswald” went to school in New York City and New Orleans at the same time, or New York City and Fort Worth at the same time, or how he happened to be aboard the USS Skagit and in Taiwan at the same time he was being treated for VD in Japan, or how he visited the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans while he was in Minsk. The sheer amount of evidence supporting John Armstrong’s work is just overwhelming. 

As one example, a couple of years ago on another forum, a Dallas attorney named Drew Phipps, familiar with facial recognition techniques, did a detailed series of posts he titled: “Pixel Counting Biometric Comparison of Oswald photos.”

Mr. Phipps measured, in various pictures of “Oswald,” the ratios of the distances between a number of different facials features in photos. He described his analytical method as follows:

The ratios I will use are: “pupil-to-pupil / width of eye” (called P/W hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / length of nose” (called P/N hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / nose-to-top-lip” (called P/L hereafter) and “pupil-to-pupil / earlobe-to-earlobe” (called P/E hereafter). The use of ratios (instead of actual measurements) will make it unnecessary to know more about the distance from lens to face, or the type of camera, etc., since the proportions of the face of the same person should stay the same regardless of those other factors.

In his series of posts, Mr. Phipps went into considerable detail about the photos he was using and how he made and interpreted his measurements. I think you have to be a member of the forum to be able to see the actual graphics but the written descriptions of his work, and his conclusions, are visible to non-members. At any rate, here are Mr. Phipps’ final conclusions.

Visual Conclusions: Unless there is something terribly wrong with my methodology, (or my spreadsheet skills), or the photos are simply too low resolution for a significant biometric comparison, there is some evidence that there is more than one individual here. 

If I had to clump the photos in two different piles, it looks to me like photos 1, 2, 3, 9 and 13 are the same individual, and photos 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are the same individual.

I realize this is not the same narrative as "Harvey and Lee". It is still my opinion that it is far more likely that the paper trail of discrepancies surrounding Oswald is the result of deliberate tampering with his records (in an attempt to catch a mole, or deceive a communist spy organization). But the biometric discrepancies are starting to make me wonder. 

CLICK HERE to see Mr. Phipps’ study.
 

"If I had to clump the photos in two different piles, it looks to me like photos 1, 2, 3, 9 and 13 are the same individual, and photos 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are the same individual."

So are you now officially declaring that the ONLY way you can tell these two individuals apart is by Pixel Counting Biometrics? 

To the casual observer then they must have looked identical. If not, why the need for such an in depth pixel study?

So there we have it. Finally. The official admission comes out: that the two unrelated boys picked out at 13 for some unspecified espionage plot coincidentally turned out to be so identical as adults (mastoidectomy scar included!) that the only way you can tell them apart is by using some sophisticated photo analysis.

Watch them now all scream about how much bigger 'Lee' was, and how is sloping shoulders are a give away, and how much thinner 'Harvey's' neck was...No they looked nothing like each other...

You do realise that people read ALL the pages Jim, not just the one we are presently on, but all the others too. They can see your cut and paste dumps when you're cornered because you've been careless and reckless with them this time. The only thing you have is how identical 'they' looked. I agree. Lee Harvey Oswald IS almost identical to Lee Harvey Oswald. Because there was just the one of them, that's why!

Now let me tell you this story about a pig...

 

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Bernie Laverick
typo

[Jim Hargrove]

Mr. Laverick ignores the central point of the “Comparison of Oswald photos” study linked above.  In the examination, a Texas attorney used a series of computer-assisted measurements common in facial recognition studies to analyze more than a dozen photographs of “Lee Harvey Oswald.” The attorney concluded that, despite some clear limitations to his study, “… there is some evidence that there is more than one individual here.”  He goes on to suggest that five photos appear to be of one individual and seven appear to be of another.

That is what the study summarized above lead the attorney to conclude.  Anything else Mr. Laverick has to say is irrelevant spin.

[Michael Walton]

I simply cannot understand how anyone in the HL community can think these are two different people. The eyes match, the hairline, the eye brows. Even in black and white, you can even see the shading for his eye color is the same and both have that curled in ear shape. The signature in the book is even his.

I'm assuming that the HL people cannot understand that people do change over time.  Oswald obviously bulked up a little while in the military, probably eating three squares and working out while in the military. Fast forward to the day he was arrested in Dallas. He obviously slimmed down and aged as well. You can even tell how skinny he was in that morgue photo I posted up above. Also in that morgue photo with his mouth agape, he had that very narrow shaped inner mouth which tends to make people look like they have an overbite.

In the GIF below - and because of that overbite - his mouth puckers out perfectly in both images. I really would find it very hard to believe that the secret agents would be able to find a clone with *this many* matching facial features. It seems that it'd have to be a 1 in a billion chance to get that many features that perfectly.

NOTE ABOUT ANIMATED GIF BELOW.  It's a large file and may take a little while to load before it displays, especially on mobile devices:

 

Edited September 24, 2017 by Michael Walton

[Jim Hargrove]

Michael,

Why was "Oswald" 5' 11" (71 inches) on his military discharge...
 

 

and 5' 11" (71 inches) on his DoD ID card...

but only 5' 9" (69 inches) on the slab in the Dallas morgue?

 

It would be one thing if these height discrepancies were indicated by casual observers, but they're not.  They are medical measurements.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

26 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

They are medical measurements.

Number one, you don't know that. Number two, it has been explained to you many times why there could be height differences. Different footwear, body posture, height changes throughout the day as is a proven fact and so on. As Joe Nick Patoski said, if there were two Oswalds there would be abundant physical proof of it and there isn't. But there is abundant scientific proof against the idea.

[Bernie Laverick]

25 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Michael,

Why was "Oswald" 5' 11" (71 inches) on his military discharge...
 

 

and 5' 11" (71 inches) on his DoD ID card...

but only 5' 9" (69 inches) on the slab in the Dallas morgue?

 

It would be one thing if these height discrepancies were indicated by casual observers, but they're not.  They are medical measurements.

"Watch them now all scream about how much bigger 'Lee' was..." (two posts up)

So predictable Jim. And then, without a hint of self irony...

"It would be one thing if these xxxx discrepancies were indicated by casual observers..."

Precisely! And that's why we get cross, because the whole H&L LN story is built on observations by casual observers. And you have now confirmed that you too see a problem with that. Only when the distorted testimony fits your preconceived narrative do these "casual observers" then become star witnesses! 

Why does a height discrepancy have any bearing on the glaringly obvious fact that 'their' faces are identical? If they are not why are you referring us to a scientific pixel study to determine the difference?

I now predict that cool dude DJ will try and tell us 'they' didn't look like each other at all. (It's happened before...several times!)

H&L = LN

 

[Jim Hargrove]

5 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

And that's why we get cross, because the whole H&L LN story is built on observations by casual observers.

No, Bernie, a lot of the H&L CIA-did-it story is based on official documents that show, for example....

“Oswald” simultaneously attended PS 44 in NYC and Beauregard JHS in New Orleans; he sailed the high seas and was stationed in Taiwan while simultaneously being treated for VD in Japan; that he both did and didn’t have a valid Texas driver’s license; that he both did and didn't shoot himself in the arm in the Marines; that his own half-brother told the WC photos of him weren't of his brother, and so on.

Obviously, I'm going to have to work at reposting some of this information, since you clearly missed it.  Hold on....

[Tom Hume]

Opinion: I don’t speak for the H&L people, nor do I imagine they would want me to. But I think that many of the Oswald photos are of two different men, two under-cover look-a-likes impersonating each other. I think that some of the Oswald photos are composites of these same two guys. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

On 9/23/2017 at 8:11 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

The differences Michael are:

1) You did and still do have a preconceived notion that the theory is, as you say, "a fairy tale."

2) You have not studied and understood the evidence, other than perhaps the exhumation.

1. I just described how I'm following the evidence like for example, DJ's "Oswald wasn't in MC" story.

This thread is about the Harvey  & Lee theory, not the Mexico City trip.

 

[Michael Walton]

Jim, I hardly think that 5-9 and 5-11 are a significant difference.  You can hold your fingers up to measure two inches and it's really small.  There is a weight difference on those documents as well so if you want to start measuring apples and oranges to "prove" that there was a clone, which is the right weight - 145 or 150?

But much more importantly, if you really want to get into the proving game, though, I highly encourage you to read Bill Simpich's chapter 1 of State Secret.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter1.html

There, you will find that both Robert Webster's and Oswald's legends were being developed as they both did their fake defections. To fast forward chapter 1 to 11/22/63, within 15 minutes of the assassination, someone gave a dispatcher in the DPD to broadcast that very same description of the suspect (5-11 160). You have to ask yourself - how could that happen? No one at the time knew the suspect was going to be LHO.

This has far more plausibility and the ring of truth to it to the overall narrative because if we are to believe that LHO was set up to be the patsy, there is additional evidence showing that this same LHO was impersonated in MC.

So to summarize, LHO's legend was being established when he "defected" and then he came back, was sheep dipped when they got him to to hand out leaflets and get into a fight in NO, was impersonated in MC, steered him into his job at the TSBD, took the fall as patsy, and then was gunned down by Ruby.

Nowhere in this complex - yet quite simple - narrative is there any room whatsoever for the clone story to fit in from way back in 1953 until that November weekend. As I and others have said, the simplest narratives tend to be the correct ones. 

Sandy - I'm aware of that.  I was making the point that there is a good evidence-based narrative to how LHO was set up to be the patsy. Further, my additional point that if you follow this tight narrative, there is simply no room for the HL story to fit it.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

50 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

No, Bernie, a lot of the H&L CIA-did-it story is based on official documents that show, for example....

“Oswald” simultaneously attended PS 44 in NYC and Beauregard JHS in New Orleans; he sailed the high seas and was stationed in Taiwan while simultaneously being treated for VD in Japan; that he both did and didn’t have a valid Texas driver’s license; that he both did and didn't shoot himself in the arm in the Marines; that his own half-brother told the WC photos of him weren't of his brother, and so on.

Obviously, I'm going to have to work at reposting some of this information, since you clearly missed it.  Hold on....

The H&L theory is based entirely on "cherrypicked" evidence and in fact ignores scientific evidence that refutes it. And no, we don't need any more "data dumps" we have seen it all before.

[Jim Hargrove]

Many of the details of Harvey and Lee are discovered from evidence the U.S. Government, primarily Hoover’s FBI, neglected to alter or suppress.  It isn’t easy making an entire life disappear from the public record, and the FBI, despite the talent of its director and its massive manpower in 1963 and 1964, wasn’t able to do it.  We can learn much about the two Oswalds from the FBI’s mistakes in covering up, for example, medical and military records, and more from eyewitnesses who were intimately involved with them… and a few who were casual observers.

Since Mr. Laverick and apparently other H&L critics want us to believe that “the whole H&L LN story is built on observations by casual observers,” it’s quite obvious that I need to demonstrate just how wrong he is.  Mr. Parnell wants us to believe that Greg Parker has debunked everything, but that we can’t see those so-called debunkings here so that can we debate them here.  I want to see Mr. Parnell say that again and again, because he currently has no other real arguments against the most direct and simple elements of the Harvey and Lee evidence.   

I’ll be making my future write-ups as brief as possible to avoid wasting our host’s bandwidth.  I’m already bringing in all the images of medical and military documents, for example, from other servers, most from a server I pay for myself.  There is no rush, but I can assure you that this will continue.  You will call my most detailed posts “data dumps,” of course, but they are really just EVIDENCE!

[Jim Hargrove]

8 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

So to summarize, LHO's legend was being established when he "defected" and then he came back, was sheep dipped when they got him to to hand out leaflets and get into a fight in NO, was impersonated in MC, steered him into his job at the TSBD, took the fall as patsy, and then was gunned down by Ruby.

For once, Michael, I agree with you, at least with the paragraph above.  LHO's "defection" had nothing to do with JFK's assassination, though.  You know that, right?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

12 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Parnell wants us to believe that Greg Parker has debunked everything, but that we can’t see those so-called debunkings here so that can we debate them here.  I want to see Mr. Parnell say that again and again, because he currently has no other real arguments against the most direct and simple elements of the Harvey and Lee evidence.   

I’ll be making my future write-ups as brief as possible to avoid wasting our host’s bandwidth.

No, I never said Greg Parker or myself or anyone has "debunked everything." I have said repeatedly that there are things that will likely be unexplained to everyone's satisfaction. But there are "outliers" in any collection of data and especially with a collection as large as we are dealing with here. That is the difference, Jim is telling you the H&L theory can explain all but it can't.

BTW, why worry about bandwidth at this point after a million "data dumps?" Perhaps the powers that be here at EF are fed up?

[David Josephs]

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 6:40 AM, Michael Walton said:

Good for you, Sandy. I'm happy for you that the "strength of the evidence" has changed your mind.  It has done the same for me - it shows that the shoehorning of this evidence to fit a clone narrative just isn't plausible and doesn't have the ring of truth to it.

Have you read the book or not Michael?

Visited the Baylor Poage site and see any one of the notebooks there?

Browse thru the CD which comes with the book containing hundreds of exhibits?

Just wondering how much actual work with the evidence and the book itself you have... versus
just being another add-on critic assuming that knowing 1/100th of the info gives you carte blanche to attack the entire thing...