Was there an Oswald double at the TSBD during the assassination?

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Thanks Jim. I’d say Wilcott’s testimony should absolutely and carefully studied and verified before we make any concrete claims regarding what he testified to the HSCA.

What's disturbing, though, is that it is quite obvious that the HSCA's Michael Goldsmith simply would not allow Wilcott to testify about certain things that he knew. Note the last few highlighted lines in this additional page (below) from the HSCA notes.  It indicated that Goldsmith had a "desire to insure secrecy of Wilcott testimony." It added that "Goldsmith said Committee did not want any public revelation on his committee appearance."

Wilcott and his attorney apparently refused these conditions but "Agreed to not reveal specifics of specific questions."  You know, questions like, What was the cryptonym of the CIA's Oswald Project?  In the official transcript of his HSCA testimony, Wilcott apparently said, "I don't remember." But the staff notes (see previous page) indicate that he did remember, didn't he?

 

Edited April 20, 2018 by Jim Hargrove

[B. A. Copeland]

7 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

What's disturbing, though, is that it is quite obvious that the HSCA's Michael Goldsmith simply would not allow Wilcott to testify about certain things that he knew. Note the last few highlighted lines in this additional page (below) from the HSCA notes.  It indicated that Goldsmith had a "desire to insure secrecy of Wilcott testimony." It added that "Goldsmith said Committee did not want any public revelation on his committee appearance."

Wilcott and his attorney apparently refused these conditions but "Agreed to not reveal specifics of specific questions."  You know, questions like, What was the cryptonym of the CIA's Oswald Project?  In the official transcript of his HSCA testimony, Wilcott apparently said, "I don't remember." But the staff notes (see previous page) indicate that he did remember, didn't he?

 

Definitely back to the drawing board for me lol.

[John Butler]

Jim,

To answer your question, the problem with the photo of the New York youth is that it has been retouched.  Paint has been used to reshape the chin of the young man from a broad chin to a narrow chin.  The chin is very narrow and pointed at the end.  His broad nose is pretty much as shown.

Why is his chin retouched?  I don't know.  But, here is how it was done.  The unnatural aspect of this is the highlight under his jawline.  It works under the left jawbone (picture right) due to the light source coming in from the picture right.  But, it doesn't work on the right jawbone side (picture left) because there is no light source to show a highlight there from picture left.

The highlight under his right jawbone (picture left) has been painted in with brush.  You can see the brush strokes and thickened paint.  Usually paint used to retouch photos is very thin.  This paint used on his right jawbone is thick and stands out.

As far as the fellow who advised you to not encourage me, well, I just ignore him and I advise you to do the same.

However, that's your choice and I am comfortable with whatever you decide.  All I ask is you just look at the photos and decide for yourself.  Do not allow "experts" to make your decisions.

As for the other fellow's comments, I would advise him to take an art course.  There, the Art Instructor will advise him on how to look at the details of an object and the things that go into identifying the details of an object.

Here is one last photo for you to look at and maybe it will be helpful in identifying Oswalds.  Having or not having earlobes is genetic.  It does not change in a persons lifetime.  There are 3 characters I am using to identify different Oswalds.  1.) earlobes or not  2.) broad or narrow chin  3.)  broad or narrow nose

 

 

If you look at Harvey Oswald's neck, it is very broad from side to side as shown in the photo above.  But, if you look at other photos that show Harvey's neck in a front to back view then his neck is narrow and does not at all match the front view.

One last comment-  You are one hell of a researcher.  Keep up the good work.  I have enjoyed reading your posts.

Edited June 19, 2018 by John Butler

[Steve Thomas]

5 hours ago, John Butler said:

Jim,

To answer your question, the problem with the photo of the New York youth is that it has been retouched.  Paint has been used to reshape the chin of the young man from a broad chin to a narrow chin.  The chin is very narrow and pointed at the end.  His broad nose is pretty much as shown.

 

John,

 

To me, it looked like his right eyebrow had been painted on, but I'm not a photo expert.

 

Steve Thomas

[Jim Hargrove]

John,

I’ll have to double check on this when I have a little more time, but I think the photo of Oswald in the striped shirt above (labeled “Harvey Oswald”)  was actually provided by John Pic, who identified it as his brother while saying he didn’t recognize the Bronx Zoo fellow.  The chin does look a little strange to my untrained eye, but I’m no expert.  Pic did say, I believe, that this was how his brother looked in NYC in 1952.  Pic seemed to suspect that something weird was going on, but that's impossible to prove.  When John Armstrong tried to interview him, he just said, "I stand by my Warren Commission testimony."

Now, let’s go back to this photo that you presented on the last page….

 

As much as I admire DJ’s research skills, I don’t necessarily agree with him that the earlobe cutout is surely an anomaly caused by pixelation and generations of copies. It could be, I suppose, but I’m far from convinced. On the image above and on Jack White’s poster it appears to me that something else may well be going on there.  I don’t know if that is very significant—in LHO lore the “Alfred of Cuba” photo is not very important, but I do agree that it is a very strange anomaly, almost suggesting something was cut out, but, like Steve, I've got to admit that I'm far from a photo expert.   

[John Butler]

Jim,

Not being a photo expert is an excuse first used at the HSCA hearings not allowing Jack White to testify about the things he could demonstrate.  It is used by folks that do not have a good argument concerning what they are saying such as the fellows other than yourself have said.  Their arguments are generally silly refutation arguments.  But, they do have an argument they hope people will pay attention to.

Whenever you see straight lines involving the human figure in a photo you know you are dealing with a cutout.  The human body does not have any straight lines.  When you look at the last post on pixelization you can see straight lines in the hair, both sides, and on the ear.

All in all, the pixelization argument is nonsense because the pixelization does not apply to all of the photograph.  It applies only to the cut and paste areas.  It may even be added to particularly on the forehead.  On the picture left is a very sharp, distinct line demarcating the pixilization area from the rest of the photo.  

Edited April 22, 2018 by John Butler
cleaning up errors

[Jim Hargrove]

John.... The HSCA tried to both prohibit some and blunt other aspects of Jack White's testimony because they were more interested in protecting WC conclusions than in looking for the truth.  Jack’s White’s extensive graphic work DID make him an expert, at least in my opinion, and who cares what “photogrammetrical” or whatever was the ridiculous word really means?  Jack was a seeker, the last thing the HSCA sought.

I’m not a photo expert, but I know that weird artifacts can be introduced into photos, at least into digitized ones, even through innocent attempts to simply brighten or darken or adjust the contrast of digital images.  I saw that with my own eyes when a photo I took from LIFE magazine of LEE Oswald with a missing front tooth was darkened and contrast enhanced.  A strange, very rectangular black blob appeared in the reproduction, seemingly from nowhere.  Perhaps some real digital photo expert could explain it, but I can't.

We don’t know the real history of most of the LHO photos now in the public record.  Some I am quite certain were deliberately messed with.  But some may just have oddities introduced in otherwise innocent processing techniques.  At the moment, at least, I can fathom no reason to mess with LHO’s ear in the “Alfred of Cuba” photograph. A minor artifact can, of course, be an indication of larger image treachery, but a lack of expertise is also a real detriment when questioning the legitimacy of at least some of these photos.  Just my opinion....

[John Butler]

Jim,

I don't know the significance of this photo also.  I suspect there is some purpose otherwise why alter the photo to show an unknown as Oswald? 

I speculate the purpose was to show Oswald had Cuban connections in Minsk or developed Cuban connections in Minsk.  If the photo was altered in Minsk then the purpose would be to put Oswald in the frame for the upcoming assassination.  If it was altered after Oswald's return then it would serve the same purpose.

My original thought on this was that the unknown person was part of the Project but, did not closely resemble Oswald.  There were many people moving in and out of the Oswald identity in Minsk.  What they were up to is anybody's guess.  Oswald face masks seem to be a favored technique of the editors.  It is now demonstrated in Russia, and in New Orleans, and lastly in Dallas.

 

[John Butler]

One last thing.  If anyone has a 1st generation copy of this photo "Alfred of Cuba" then post a high resolution copy and let's compare and seen if there are differences.

Or, you can use the "Unger Method" and use software to smooth out a photo and claim it is a better copy.

[Jim Hargrove]

John,

Interesting theory.  It would be helpful to know how that photo got associated with "Alfred of Cuba."  My guess is something was written on the back.  John might remember, but he is traveling abroad and I won't be able to ask him for nearly a month.