New Article by John Armstrong

[Jim Hargrove]

11 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

No, Jim puts forth what John Armstrong has been writing for 20 years.  

I read it carefully, and show its flaws.  For example, in that Texas DPS report that Jim posted, Mrs. Bozarth claimed that "none of this evidence would any long exist due to normal purging procedures of the agency."

What?  The DPS purges its records how often?   Neither the date of the report, the date of the license, or the date of the alleged purge of the evidence was offered by Jim's post!

Who just buys this stuff at face value?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

All of this nit-picking is, of course, completely irrelevant.  Mr. Trejo knows full well there was never an adequate investigation into this case or the real biography of “Lee Harvey Oswald.” The point Mr. Trejo doesn’t want to admit is that multiple workers at the Texas Department of Public Safety License Records Dept. said that “Lee Harvey Oswald” had a Texas driver’s license and that it was returned to the office less than a week after the assassination.

Mr. Trejo writes that because the license was worn and stained, as if carried in a wallet for some time, it was probably not carried by Classic Oswald®, who only lived in Texas for a short time before the assassination.  And that is reasonable.  Many people, including Marina, Robert, and both Paines said Classic Oswald® did not have a driver’s license and did not drive.

The man who DID have a diver’s license was the man born as “Lee Harvey Oswald,” who was active in the U.S. working with anti-Castro paramilitary forces while Classic Oswald® (Harvey) was in the Soviet Union.  The same American-born "Lee Harvey Oswald" worked with Jack Ruby in Dallas in 1963 while Harvey and Marina were in New Orleans.  For details on the Russia/U.S. Oswalds,  see:

Harvey in Russia... Lee in the USA

Lee framed Harvey for the assassination of JFK.  That is what John Armstrong’s new write-up is about.  Read it here:

Setting up HARVEY Oswald as the “Patsy”

 

[Jim Hargrove]

11 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jim,

The video in which Jack White presents your photo as FAKE is on YouTube at this URL:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LClaOlzslJk

Start the video at minute 27:45, and watch for about 5 minutes (until about minute 33:00).

Jack White recognized that the alleged "Marine" photograph which you display, is taken from an original that massively enlarges Lee Harvey Oswald's head.   It's photographically altered. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Paul,

Jack White doesn't say that that photo is fake. (A couple of the others are.) He says it is not a photo of the Oswald we know. It is a photo of another Oswald.

H&L researchers know that that person is LEE Oswald, the one not shot by Ruby. He is the one who was deeply involved with Ruby. And looks like the guy at Ruby's club in the photograph above posted by Jim Hargrove.

 

Thanks, Sandy.  I knew Mr. Trejo’s statement couldn’t possibly be true because there was no greater support of Harvey and Lee than the late, great Jack White.  I miss him enormously.

Mr. Trejo typically uses evidence of a second “Lee Harvey Oswald” to declare the evidence invalid because he insists there was only one Oswald and evidence is therefore wrong.  This technique will no doubt fool Michael Walton, but it won’t fool me (or you)!

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Thanks Paul very well said. And the comedy continues with DJ posting a smiling LHO to an unsmiling one and asking in all seriousness  why we've  not seen any more smiling teeth photos! It reminds me of the other funny bit - that one LHO's mom was thin and smiled a lot where the other was dumpy and never smiled. OMG!

Give them credit for one thing in that they know how to be consistent in their comedic routine LOL

Read about the Marguerite who never smiled here:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/marguerite-never-smiled.html

[Michael Walton]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Read about the Marguerite who never smiled here:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/marguerite-never-smiled.html

Thanks  Tracy good one.

[Paul Trejo]

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Paul,

Jack White doesn't say that that photo is fake. (A couple of the others are.) He says it is not a photo of the Oswald we know. It is a photo of another Oswald.

H&L researchers know that that person is LEE Oswald, the one not shot by Ruby. He is the one who was deeply involved with Ruby. And looks like the guy at Ruby's club in the photograph above posted by Jim Hargrove.

Sandy,

Extending Jack White's careful analysis of FAKE photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald, especially his interesting technique of splitting a photograph in two, and then combining the left side with a flip-over of the left side --- or combining the right-side with a flip-over of the right-side --- or making the joining strip slightly larger or slightly smaller than in real life, experts can produce some interesting photographic effects.

This is interesting -- and perhaps Tom Hume would support Jack White's analysis with some experiments -- since he's very good at this on the Internet.

1.  Take any photograph -- say of oneself -- and then split it the way Jack White did -- and make two photographs.  One with two left-sides -- and one with two right-sides.

2.  Notice how different the two photographs can look, because as Jack White says, nobody's face is perfectly symmetrical.  It looks like the same person -- but it doesn't -- like an optical illusion.

3.  It is that disturbing symmetry of Lee Harvey Oswald's face in the so-called Marine photograph of Oswald supplied by Jim Hargrove -- that's what I noticed.  His whole head is elongated.  It seems that Jack White was suggesting this when he compared a normal head-size against the original of the "Marine" photograph.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 8, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Tom Hume]

Paul Trejo wrote: “This is interesting - and perhaps Tom Hume would support Jack White’s analysis with some experiments - since he’s very good at this on the internet.”

Thanks for the compliment, Paul, but I’m very new and not adept at manipulating photos. I only got involved in this because of my hypothesis that Richard Case Nagell was they guy running Lee Harvey Oswald and his “twin”. Richard, first as an Army Intelligence Officer, and later as an under-cover CIA type, had merged the identities of the two men in his charge. According to my hypothesis, Richard’s merging included official paperwork, impersonations, and, photographs.

I have a great deal of respect for the late Jack White and I miss him too. I’m certainly no expert on his enormous photographic contributions, but do plan to study him when time permits. But since I’m getting most of my “information” from Richard Case Nagell’s puzzle system, it’s my current belief that from the time he entered the Marines until his death, most of the extant Oswald portraits are composites of Marina’s husband’s ears, and the face of his doppelganger. I am working on a future thread that will explain the reasons for my beliefs. 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Tom Hume

[Michael Clark]

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

Extending Jack White's careful analysis of FAKE photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald, especially his interesting technique of splitting a photograph in two, and then combining the left side with a flip-over of the left side --- or combining the right-side with a flip-over of the right-side --- or making the joining strip slightly larger or slightly smaller than in real life, experts can produce some interesting photographic effects.

This is interesting -- and perhaps Tom Hume would support Jack White's analysis with some experiments -- since he's very good at this on the Internet.

1.  Take any photograph -- say of oneself -- and then split it the way Jack White did -- and make two photographs.  One with two left-sides -- and one with two right-sides.

2.  Notice how different the two photographs can look, because as Jack White says, nobody's face is perfectly symmetrical.  It looks like the same person -- but it doesn't -- like an optical illusion.

3.  It is that disturbing symmetry of Lee Harvey Oswald's face in the so-called Marine photograph of Oswald supplied by Jim Hargrove -- that's what I noticed.  His whole head is elongated.  It seems that Jack White was suggesting this when he compared a normal head-size against the original of the "Marine" photograph.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Poooooofffff! Like a puff of smoke, Paul Trejo, the wannabe dialectic prestigitator (and oft-times prognosticator) pretends that he explained-away his false statement. Rather than admit to being wrong or hasty in making his claim he prefers to don the hat of the prevaricator, thinking that no one will notice.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Walton]

This goes back to that ridiculous claim on the GEMS thread about how the large nosed LHO's picture that appeared in the paper was altered because - well, it was for some scary sinister reason.  I pointed out a more plausible and much more practical reason. Back in the days before digital printing they did this for a variety of reasons.

So I watching a show about the Kennedys and came across this scene showing the three Kennedys as their photo appeared in the newspaper. Touch ups like this happened all the time as it was a regular part of publishing back then.  But of course the Hardly Lee crowd thinks that one single photo of LHO was something mysterious and sinister.  Not so.

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Poooooofffff! Like a puff of smoke, Paul Trejo, the wannabe dialectic prestigitator (and oft-times prognosticator) pretends that he explained-away his false statement. Rather than admit to being wrong or hasty in making his claim he prefers to don the hat of the prevaricator, thinking that no one will notice.

 

You are right Michael, Paul was attempting to obfuscate the error he'd made.

It's nice to see that there are people here, like you, who actually understand what is being said and don't shoot from the hip because of their preconceived notions.

 

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You are right Michael, Paul was attempting to obfuscate the error he'd made.

It's nice to see that there are people here, like you, who actually understand what is being said and don't shoot from the hip because of their preconceived notions.

Sandy,

You claim you want to see evidence, and not mere opinions.  So, I offered a link from YouTube featuring Jack White himself.  Here it is again:   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LClaOlzslJk

Start the video at minute 27:45, and watch for about 5 minutes (until about minute 33:00).

Jack White here recognizes that the alleged "Marine" photograph which Jim displayed, is taken from an original that massively enlarges Lee Harvey Oswald's head.   It's photographically altered. 

Do you deny that?   The "enormously enlarged head" of Lee Harvey Oswald is the ORIGINAL of the alleged "Marine" photograph that Jim presented.   Do you deny that?  If so, tell me why.  You asked for material evidence and I presented it.    Instead of paying attention to it, you go off into Michael's opinions.   Do you want evidence or not?   If so, please stick to the issues, and try to avoid personal insults.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 9, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Jim Hargrove]

13 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

This goes back to that ridiculous claim on the GEMS thread about how the large nosed LHO's picture that appeared in the paper was altered because - well, it was for some scary sinister reason.  I pointed out a more plausible and much more practical reason. Back in the days before digital printing they did this for a variety of reasons.

So I watching a show about the Kennedys and came across this scene showing the three Kennedys as their photo appeared in the newspaper. Touch ups like this happened all the time as it was a regular part of publishing back then.

Mr. Walton would like us to believe that the mug shot of "Lee Harvey Oswald" published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram at the time of Harvey Oswald's defection is normal.  See, says Mr. Walton, posting pictures of Elvis Presley, Donald Duck, and the Man on the Moon, there is nothing unusual here. They just couldn't do any better in 1959.  This is the spittin' image of "Lee Harvey Oswald," eh?

 

And here's the "retransmitted" AP/WWP photo.  Looks just like "Lee Harvey Oswald," doesn't it?  Mr. Walton assures us this sort of thing is completely normal.  Just ask him!  Maybe he can post pictures of Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster to show us how normal this is.

Mr. Walton doesn't want to even think about the real reason the photo published in the paper is so terrible, and that reason is this: The man born as Lee Harvey Oswald was not the Russian-speaking teenager who assumed his identity and worked as a U.S. spy in Moscow and Minsk from 1959 to 1962. But a few people in the Dallas/Fort Worth area might have known the man born as LEE Harvey Oswald well enough to see that a clear picture of the man who took his identity, HARVEY Oswald, looked slightly different.  And so we have a picture that Mr. Walton tries endlessly to 'splain with no success.

[Michael Walton]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Walton doesn't want to even think about the real reason the photo published in the paper is so terrible, and that reason is this: The man born as Lee Harvey Oswald was not the Russian-speaking teenager who assumed his identity and worked as a U.S. spy in Moscow and Minsk from 1959 to 1962. But a few people in the Dallas/Fort Worth area might have known the man born as LEE Harvey Oswald well enough to see that a clear picture of the man who took his identity, HARVEY Oswald, looked slightly different.  And so we have a picture that Mr. Walton tries endlessly to 'splain with no success.

It is one of the worst touch up jobs I've ever seen.  But that's all it is Jim just a horrible touch up job.

But ask yourself - the original photo was taken with LHO standing in front of a clapboard building of some kind, right? Why in the world would they remove that from the touch up? What sinister implication or reason would that be? It's simple - most probably the clapboards' thin lines probably would not print well so they made it a solid background.

That's all it was.  I've shown the Elvis in Coffin and Kid on Dad's Shoulder examples and now the Kennedys one above. Touch ups were a normal part of publishing. The LHO one is no different though I'd love to actually meet the guy who did the touch up on that mangled photo.

But that's all it is.  The Hardly Lee crowd is just once again like they love to do, speculate and twist and turn perfectly normal reasons for things into the Hardly fairy tale.

UPDATE - links to my other post about touch up jobs:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=363519

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=364317

Edited December 9, 2017 by Michael Walton

[Michael Walton]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Do you deny that?   The "enormously enlarged head" of Lee Harvey Oswald is the ORIGINAL of the alleged "Marine" photograph that Jim presented.   Do you deny that?  If so, tell me why.  You asked for material evidence and I presented it.    Instead of paying attention to it, you go off into Michael's opinions.   Do you want evidence or not?   If so, please stick to the issues, and try to avoid personal insults.

Paul, I don't know if you know this but just an FYI - Sandy Larsen claims to be agnostic about this whole case.  In other words, he claims that he still has not decided if there was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy or not.  He claims he's still "studying" the evidence if you can believe that.

But to give you an idea of how he weighs the evidence he reads here and elsewhere, a long while back, he actually claimed that one of the bystanders down on the knoll was holding a "black object," meaning a pistol.  He claimed to see this in one of the films (either Muchmore or Nix...can't remember which one).  So to summarize, he actually believed that one of the old guys may have been involved in shooting Kennedy.  When I called him out on it, he actually said he was joking ("heh heh") which I'm assuming after giving it more thought, knew that his outrageous claim was a complete out in left field bogus theory.

Of course Sandy is also a 100% supporter of the Hardly Lee story too. So I just wanted to let you know what kind of "researcher" you're working with here.

Regards - Michael Walton

[Michael Clark]

 

13 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Paul, I don't know if you know this but just an FYI - Sandy Larsen claims to be agnostic about this whole case.  In other words, he claims that he still has not decided if there was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy or not.  He claims he's still "studying" the evidence if you can believe that.

But to give you an idea of how he weighs the evidence he reads here and elsewhere, a long while back, he actually claimed that one of the bystanders down on the knoll was holding a "black object," meaning a pistol.  He claimed to see this in one of the films (either Muchmore or Nix...can't remember which one).  So to summarize, he actually believed that one of the old guys may have been involved in shooting Kennedy.  When I called him out on it, he actually said he was joking ("heh heh") which I'm assuming after giving it more thought, knew that his outrageous claim was a complete out in left field bogus theory.

Of course Sandy is also a 100% supporter of the Hardly Lee story too. So I just wanted to let you know what kind of "researcher" you're working with here.

Regards - Michael Walton

Typical garbage from Michael "Oh-so-hurt!" Walton. Sandy must have not noticed Walton's genius at some point and so he now, repeatedly, over and over, takes something that Sandy said and fabricates a story around it, making stuff up, in an effort to mock Sandy.  Michael here is making a bogus synopsis of Sandy's thoughts feelings and opinions and it is totally out of place. He does similar things to me. He should be banned from this forum, all he does is critcize and fabricate slander about other members.

 

The "hurt" in Michael Walton is pathetic, as seen in this gem...

On 5/20/2017 at 8:32 AM, Michael Walton said:

Mike Clark - why would you bring this thread back to life after four years?  I mean, I made a thread months ago and it got zilch views.  I put a lot of effort into it, not making up some pie-in-the-sky story like this. Why don't you bring it up again and discuss it?  I mean really look at it and think it through and see if it has any interesting debate to it instead of this nonsensical thread here?

You probably won't though because I know you think I'm the playground bully here.  You want me and others to think everything under the sun is a conspiracy like you do, and when we don't then we're bullies.

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Walton would like us to believe that the mug shot of "Lee Harvey Oswald" published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram at the time of Harvey Oswald's defection is normal.  See, says Mr. Walton, posting pictures of Elvis Presley, Donald Duck, and the Man on the Moon, there is nothing unusual here. They just couldn't do any better in 1959.  This is the spittin' image of "Lee Harvey Oswald," eh?

And here's the "retransmitted" AP/WWP photo.  Looks just like "Lee Harvey Oswald," doesn't it?  Mr. Walton assures us this sort of thing is completely normal.  Just ask him!  Maybe he can post pictures of Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster to show us how normal this is.

Mr. Walton doesn't want to even think about the real reason the photo published in the paper is so terrible, and that reason is this: The man born as Lee Harvey Oswald was not the Russian-speaking teenager who assumed his identity and worked as a U.S. spy in Moscow and Minsk from 1959 to 1962. But a few people in the Dallas/Fort Worth area might have known the man born as LEE Harvey Oswald well enough to see that a clear picture of the man who took his identity, HARVEY Oswald, looked slightly different.  And so we have a picture that Mr. Walton tries endlessly to 'splain with no success.

Jim,

Like many of the H&L doctrines about LHO photographs, y'all make no mention of the fact that photographic and print technology in 1963 was very basic, and prone to countless touch-ups, out of focus prints, smudges, and so forth.

You try to take every photograph as "literal."   You are photographic "literalists" and this is the weakest part of the H&L doctrine of LHO photographs.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo