Was it really just a MOLE HUNT about "Oswald?"

[James Norwood]

36 minutes ago, John Butler said:

So, who was the hazel-eyed Oswald?

John,

Thanks for your post.  I haven't spent much time in studying either the height or the eye color of Oswald.  But the young man who enlisted in the Marines on October 24, 1956 was identified as having Hazel eyes.  This is definitely Harvey Oswald.  The Marine enlistment certificate must be distinguished from the “APPLICATION FOR ENLISTMENT AND INDIVIDUAL DATA CARD” that is in possession of the Chidgey family.  I'm presently in the process of attempting to locate that document because it lists the addresses in which Oswald lived after age twelve that are written in his own hand.

James

[John Butler]

16 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

John,

Thanks for your post.  I haven't spent much time in studying either the height or the eye color of Oswald.  But the young man who enlisted in the Marines on October 24, 1956 was identified as having Hazel eyes.  This is definitely Harvey Oswald.  The Marine enlistment certificate must be distinguished from the “APPLICATION FOR ENLISTMENT AND INDIVIDUAL DATA CARD” that is in possession of the Chidgey family.  I'm presently in the process of attempting to locate that document because it lists the addresses in which Oswald lived after age twelve that are written in his own hand.

James

James,

Either SGT Chidgey made a mistake or that is not Harvey Oswald.  Harvey Oswald did not have hazel eyes.  He had blue-grey eyes.  It looks like further info is need to decide the point.

It would have been nice if there was a photo involved with SGT Chidgey's application. 

OBTW, if you have any doubt has to who Harvey is in a photo look at his left ear.  It's a pretty good identifier.

Edited July 13, 2020 by John Butler

[Sandy Larsen]

In my neck of the woods, eye colors are said to be brown, green, blue, or hazel. That's it. So if they aren't brown, green, or blue, then they are said to be hazel.

Here we can see that Oswald's eyes are gray, just as John B. said. Gray is an uncommon eye color, and I suspect that that is the reason it got lumped in with the true hazels. (A true hazel is when there is a mixture of colors.) If someone were to see gray eyes, and wonder what color designation to give them -- having never heard the phrase "gray eyes"before  --- he might be inclined to say they are hazel. Because they are definitely not brown, blue, or green.

 

 

 

BTW, on this page showing the common eye colors, I found the following:

Hazel

 

Gray

 

Compare the hazel eye to Oswald's eyes, above. They look quite similar, wouldn't you say?

 

[John Butler]

Thanks Sandy,

Here are more examples:

[David Josephs]

15 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

He is saying that the whole of the photographic record from Dealey Plaza is self-authenticating. Dozens of people were taking photographs and home movies in Dealey Plaza, and many of those images overlap. Photograph A was taken at the same time as, and included part of the same scene as, Home Movie B, which was taken at the same time as, and included part of the same scene as, Photograph C. And so on.

Because there is a mass of interacting images, altering one image is likely to generate discrepancies with other images, which would give the game away. The nefarious alteration of Image X is likely to require the alteration of Image Y, which will then require the alteration of Image Z. And so on.

Have you done a single thing on your own?  Have you even bothered to check into what Josh is saying?

How many photographs of the assassination sequence do you think there are?  100's?

FFS.... here is a graphic showing ALL the photos taken and the items within their field of view... 
 how many actually capture anything between z161 and z400?

Betzner, Willis and Croft catch the limo before Z200  (If you don't understand the Towner to Zapruder sync - go do some research please)
Altgens at 255 or so....
Moorman, Muchmore (whose FBI report states she did not take any film of the assassination shots - see below)
Bond - all after the limo leaves

Moorman is the only photo of the assassination occurring at an important time.... (edit: got to include Altgens as important but only the Zfilm has another image of that instant...  quite a MASS, huh?)

In terms of films... Towner, Muchmore, Nix, Zapruder, Bronson....  how about you give us the chain of custody for all these films and their copies....
Or explain how they were set to frame rates in the low 20's and high teens... as opposed to actual camera settings of 16 and 48 frames per second

So explain how Moorman's photo is "self-authenticating"... as compared to which other photo/film and synced up how?
(if you read the MATH RULES thread you'd have a small clue)

As you can see there is no MASS of interacting images....   Muchmore doesn't contradict Zapruder or the others as a real shot did hit somewhere in that area give or take about 4 feet....
The FBI had months to pull this all together....  WCD298 does just that... and is filled with information which betrays what the FBI did.

Then again you STILL aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know...  so, whatever... right?

Generalities and non-sequitur is no way for you boys to be making your case... using COINTELPRO tactics whether with awareness or not doesn't change the tactic or result.
Acting dumb simply because the evidence and authentication process is not to your liking... asking for more and more proof of the same things.... it goes on and on Jeremy
If you're not here to disrupt, what would you call it?

Present authenticated evidence....  and try to explain your reply on your own....  which MASS of interaction are you looking at?

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by David Josephs

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

David Josephs writes:

Quote

In terms of films... Towner, Muchmore, Nix, Zapruder, Bronson....  how about you give us the chain of custody for all these films and their copies....
Or explain how they were set to frame rates in the low 20's and high teens... as opposed to actual camera settings of 16 and 48 frames per second

Then again you STILL aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know...  so, whatever... right?

Yes, I know, all the films were faked. Everything's a fake.

Quote

How many photographs of the assassination sequence do you think there are?

The point is: how many images from Dealey Plaza did the authorities think there were?

As well as explaining the mechanism of a self-authenticating photo record, Thompson pointed out that the authorities had no way of knowing how many photos and home movies actually existed. Contrary to popular belief, there was no mass harvesting of films and cameras. Many people left Dealey Plaza with their films and cameras intact, as I pointed out in this post. Some of these photographers remained unknown to the authorities until months or even years later.

And that's just the ones we know about. Others may still be unknown. The woman popularly known as the Babushka Lady is the most obvious example. She's standing close to JFK as he is shot, and is pointing a still or movie camera at him. What happened to her film? Is it out there somewhere, waiting to be discovered? Probably not, but who can say for certain? If you were going to fake, say, the Zapruder film, you'd want to eliminate that possibility, wouldn't you? And you'd want to eliminate the possibility of other images turning up, too, but you can't because you don't know how many there might be.

The authorities had no idea how many photos or home movies might turn up in the future to expose any alterations they might make to the images they knew about. Given that a single obvious discrepancy would blow the whole photo-fakery plot wide open, how many alterations would it be safe to make? You might get away with, say, spotting out a small blemish on the back of JFK's head in the Zapruder film to hide an exit wound (as has been suggested, though the Zavada report shows that this couldn't have happened). Mass fakery of home movies and still images? Come on!

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Tracy Parnell writes:

Quote

I've often said that using the H&L logic there could be a hundred Oswalds if you consider all of the discrepancies and false sightings.

As well as height discrepancies and false sightings, we mustn't forget the photographs. Jack "the moon landings were faked" White's montage contains 70-odd images. Using 'Harvey and Lee' logic, there are dozens of different Oswalds in there.

Simple variations in Oswald's pose are taken to define a new Oswald. In this picture, he's got normal shoulders; in that picture, he's got sloping shoulders. Those pictures show two different Oswalds! There's no other possible explanation!

In this other picture, he's standing some distance in front of a height chart, which gives the impression that he's got a 13-inch head! That's much bigger than most people's heads! That means one of the hundreds of Oswalds had an extra-large head! There's no other possible explanation!

And so on. The 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense is just one aspect of the paranoid, anomaly-hunting mentality that has infected this subject. Oswald was a fake; his mother was a fake; the Zapruder film is a fake; the Altgens 6 photograph is a fake; the wounds on JFK's body were fakes; the Jack Ruby who shot one of the fake Oswalds was a fake. Everything is a fake.

Put yourself in the shoes of an outsider who comes across this sort of nonsense for the first time. You'd probably conclude that everyone who's interested in the JFK assassination is a lunatic, wouldn't you?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

James Norwood writes:

Quote

When you engage in name-calling like the expression "paranoid fantasists" for those of us writing about the two Oswalds

I'm not sure about the clinical definition of 'paranoid', but the popular definition surely covers people who take a series of anomalies in written documents, witness statements and photographs, and construct a far-fetched long-term doppelganger scheme run by all-powerful evil overlords in which two unrelated boys from different parts of the world magically grow up to look virtually identical years later, and each doppelganger boy has a virtually identical-looking (apart from their eyebrows) mother, and one of the doppelganger boys frames the other for the JFK assassination, and one of the imaginary boy doppelgangers and one of the imaginary mother doppelgangers each vanishes into thin air immediately after the assassination, and all the rest of it.

As well as all the far-fetched nonsense, we mustn't forget the standard 'Harvey and Lee' explanation for any item of evidence that contradicts doctrine. "It's a fake!" Paranoid, in its popular definition, is a pretty accurate word in the 'Harvey and Lee' context, I think.

Quote

Harvey and Lee was published in 2003. ... It is also important that the reader approach the material with a healthy skepticism and draw conclusions based on the evidence, as opposed to the words of the author.

I agree. Unfortunately, skepticism of the holy text is exactly what 'Harvey and Lee' believers are lacking. Take, for example, the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, and the fact that this item of evidence contradicts a central part of Armstrong's theory. How many 'Harvey and Lee' believers have expressed skepticism about Armstrong's treatment of this evidence? I think you'll find it's only the critics who have brought it up. The believers have run away from it. Indeed, it was the desire to avoid discussing the mastoidectomy defect that turned this thread into a discussion of the Stripling evidence, as you'll see if you go back to the top of page 12 and follow things from there.

Let's see how skeptical the 'Harvey and Lee' believers really are. Armstrong knew about the scientists' report that mentioned the existence of the mastoidectomy defect. The report was published two decades before Harvey and Lee, and he cited it in his book. He must have known that the defect contradicted the doppelgangers' biographies that he had carefully constructed. He specifically claimed that the doppelganger who had undergone the operation was not the one who was buried in the grave.

Yet he didn't mention the crucial fact in his book. He misled his readers. A skeptic might say that Armstrong was being dishonest by not mentioning to his readers that a central element of his theory had been debunked two decades earlier. What do you think? Was Armstrong being dishonest? And how would you, in skeptical mode, resolve the contradiction between the mastoidectomy defect and standard 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine?

[Jim Hargrove]

On 7/12/2020 at 4:11 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

That’s a two-inch difference, and none of these measurements are self-reported.

 

On 7/12/2020 at 5:49 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Been discussed a million times and alternative explanations provided-see here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1380-the-great-oswald-height-debate

 

On 7/13/2020 at 8:07 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Do you even bother to read the silly stuff on Greg Parker’s site when you reference them here?  In the page you linked, Mr. Parker wrote, “The simpler and saner explanation is that where the record shows height as 5' 11", it is an estimate by someone else, or an an exaggeration by Oswald.”

Do you really think Marine Corps medical exams and reports had just estimates of height and weight, or that they allowed recruits to “exaggerate” their physical characteristics?  Is Mr. Parker’s silly excuse what you refer to as an “alternative explanation?”  That’s like an “alternative fact,” right?

I can see why you always claim someone else somewhere else has presented these “alternative facts.”  If you stated them here, we would all see how silly they are, and how silly your claims are.

 

On 7/13/2020 at 8:17 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Yes, I have and they are all much more plausible than the 2 Oswald theory.

I see. So both you and Greg Parker believe that the U.S. Marine Corps in its medical reports allowed recruits to make estimates of their own height and weight, and even allowed recruits to “exaggerate” their physical characteristics?  Do you know how stupid that sounds?

No wonder you NEVER, EVER make Mr. Parker's arguments here.  You just post a link with a few dismissive comments and hope no one takes the time to actually read the nonsense you have linked.

[David Josephs]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I see. So both you and Greg Parker believe that the U.S. Marine Corps in its medical reports allowed recruits to make estimates of their own height and weight, and even allowed recruits to “exaggerate” their physical characteristics?  Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Uh, Tracy....   then why would they bother taking a photo against a height scale?  Despite how FUBAR it is...

You want a crack at explaining this?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

So, the idea is to create two people who can pass for each other, but one of them has a head 50% larger than the other?  Is that your argument?

Um... sure, that makes sense.  Nobody will ever notice that.

Or the heads are the same size, and yet another H&L canard ends up in the circular file.

“Never mind the quality, feel the width.”

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

On 7/5/2020 at 10:02 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

As you should be able to tell from reading the excerpts from H&L I reproduced above, the conversation with Mr. Galindo was just the start of John’s research on Stripling School. His talk with Mr. Galindo led quickly to Ralph Waller and Billy Sills of the Fort Worth Independent School District, a list of 41 former Stripling teachers, Frank Kudlaty and others.  John was looking for eyewitnesses to LHO’s Stripling School attendance, not for a definition of “common knowledge” which you only pretend is an unknown term.

So, Galindo led to a further 41 former Stripling teachers, all of whom a thorough John Armstrong tracked down and quizzed....  

Excellent.

How many of them verified that it was “common knowledge” LHO attended Stripling?

Because if the “six” witnesses you claim to have - but don’t - is the extent of those who claim LHO attended Stripling, this “common knowledge” is much like the “common sense” on display here.

Not common at all, it would seem.

Words still do have meaning, Jim. 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

No wonder you NEVER, EVER make Mr. Parker's arguments here.  You just post a link with a few dismissive comments and hope no one takes the time to actually read the nonsense you have linked.

As we've pointed out in the past, what's the problem with posting links? That's what the web is all about. Jim himself seems happy to post links to one particular website, so why shouldn't others do the same?

Here's a link Jim might like to follow. It's to a thread dedicated to him personally, which he is welcome to participate in, if he feels brave enough:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2209p25-dear-jim#33894

In this case, I'll "make Mr. Parker's arguments here", as Jim demands. Greg makes four points:

(a) The official measurements were approximate. He provides a link (Oh no! A link! Bring the smelling salts!) to http://www.militaryspot.com/marines/height-and-weight-requirements-marine-corps, which explains that "height measurement will be recorded to the nearest inch. If height fraction is less than ½ inch, round down to the nearest inch. If height fraction is ½ inch or more, round up."

(b) Marines had their heights measured so that their overall fitness could be judged. That wouldn't matter for someone leaving the service. If Jim is claiming that official measurements were taken on exit as well as on entry, where's the photograph of our 5' 11" doppelganger standing against a height chart?

(c) Is Jim really claiming that the authorities decided that the best way to keep the top-secret doppelganger scheme secret was to provide records of one doppelganger entering the Marines and the other doppelganger leaving the Marines? Greg expresses this point well, but in terms that might not be acceptable here. I suggest you click on that link and read it for yourself.

(d) Stop with this latest distraction and face up to the problems with the Stripling witnesses, or rather the lack of witnesses.

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

In this case, I'll "make Mr. Parker's arguments here", as Jim demands. Greg makes four points:

(a) The official measurements were approximate. He provides a link (Oh no! A link! Bring the smelling salts!) to http://www.militaryspot.com/marines/height-and-weight-requirements-marine-corps, which explains that "height measurement will be recorded to the nearest inch. If height fraction is less than ½ inch, round down to the nearest inch. If height fraction is ½ inch or more, round up."

(b) Marines had their heights measured so that their overall fitness could be judged. That wouldn't matter for someone leaving the service. If Jim is claiming that official measurements were taken on exit as well as on entry, where's the photograph of our 5' 11" doppelganger standing against a height chart?

Oh, goodie.  Someone is actually stating right here the silly argument made on Mr. Parker’s site.  That way, we can judge the quality of Mr. Parker's argument for ourselves.  Let’s take a look at the EVIDENCE, shall we?

The 9/3/59 USMC medical exam and the 10/12/59 Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge both list LHO’s height as 5’11”. That’s two inches taller than the Oswald measured on the slab in the Dallas Morgue, and none of these measurements are self-reported.

 

Mr. Bojczuk and Mr. Parker try to tell us about how Marine Corps regs state that "height measurement will be recorded to the nearest inch. If height fraction is less than ½ inch, round down to the nearest inch. If height fraction is ½ inch or more, round up."  This is their excuse du jour for a TWO INCH HEIGHT DISCREPANCY!

By the regulations they cite, according to two USMC docs, LHO’s height was between five feet ten and a half inches and five feet eleven and a half inches.  Yet the H&L critics want us to believe those measurements are the same as LHOs five foot nine inch height measured in the Dallas Morgue.  The difference isn’t profound, but it is real enough and measured by professionals, despite whatever spin the critics try to put on it.  More nonsense from Team Parker®.

Wonderful thing when H&L critics stop hiding behind endless links to Mr. Parker's website and actually make his argument here!
 

[David Josephs]

16 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

So, the idea is to create two people who can pass for each other, but one of them has a head 50% larger than the other?  Is that your argument?

Um... sure, that makes sense.  Nobody will ever notice that.

You're being funny, right Robert... cause nobody that ignorant.

Do you understand the image on the right is not possible... period.   whether these are the same man is not the point...

how do you explain the size difference assuming they are the same man?   

Do you know what's wrong with the photo on the right... or you just being you...