David Josephs

Very good Tracy..., Now explain how a 13 year old has an 11.5" head... and the 18 year old has a 13" head... both over 50% too big... You gonna try to sell me a bridge next? I hear the GW is up for sale... and Bernie... don't hurt yourself thinking/asking about the who, what, where, when & how. your little brain might simply explode. omg... you truly are a lost cause... keep posting PLEASE... you representing the antithesis is more than we could have ever desired...

Of course I tried it dude... just look at the image... your "measurement" of Oswald at 5'4" requires the boy to have a HUGE head... YOUR technique produces a child with a 13 inch head. Sorry, not possible... what you call "data dump" the rest call "offering corroboration thru evidence"... only you and little Bernie can't tell the difference. But go ahead Tracy, explain how the boy had a 13" head using that wonderful measuring technique... Or can't you see that 5'4" minus 4'6" equals 10 inches and that's not even to his chin? Here you go again... we can try and go slower if you need..... you wrote: "Try it yourself and see what you get using your own 18 reference for the iron railing"... uh, Tracy... that's what I'm doing here... do you see the 3rd 18" that makes 54" ... 4 feet = 48 inches so 54" = 4'6" Explain to the viewing audience how it's still another 10" to the top of his head from the 4'6" height.... or how that doesn't create a boy with a 13" head... on the other hand... if he is say... 59" tall / 4'11" and from the 4'6" mark represented a 5" distance... we get an 7-8" face (normal) times 7.5 = 52" to 60" Or how the marine Oswald image also shows a 13" head... and why that was created that way... All you have are your opinions which grow out of poor analysis. You can't stand the NYC records cause you can't explain them away beyond "mistakes were made"... Are you claiming that Carro was simply too stupid to do his job properly to know which grade someone was in? Are you claiming that summer school gets counted as "attendance" despite the child not attending? Are you claiming the child's permanent school record should not contain his stay at YOUTH HOUSE? Tracy - after going to your blog and seeing the extremely poor analytics you employ to create your "conclusions" I truly hope everyone gets a chance to chuckle at what is your interesting attempt at analysis and critique. That blog is a monument to the anti-H&L paranoia you live in daily... be hey, at least John's book gave your life some meaning... The great thing is, if you bring attention to H&L the more people get to find out for themselves... which was John's entire point in the first place... Really Tracy, isn't there something better you can be shedding some light on than boring us to tears with each uncorroborated hail mary post in the hope it dents the H&L evidence enough to satisfy some sense of duty you have to the subject? Bernie thankfully has music... I have more interests than you'd care to think about... but you Tracy. I'm reminded of Thoreau “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.”

Problem being that Woosley should have conveyed the name Lee HENRY, not HARVEY.... since it was this cc'd memo that reached him... On 10-18 Clark Anderson sends a cable to Hoover reiterating Win Scott's verbiage... and that it was Lee HENRY From what I have, the FBI doesn't tell Mexico that it's Lee HARVEY until 10-22 when the linking to his imaginary drinking starts...

Very astute George... this is the key to the entire thing... Odio was correct in stating Oswald was at her door Friday night... whoever it is Azcue and Duran met that one and only day, it was not Lee Harvey. ------------------------ Pardon me for butting into the discussion James and Mathias... There was a call on Oct 3 attributed to Oswald as well.... but to the one at 10:35am on Oct 1: 4 minutes earlier, another call was first made to the Soviet Military Attache 15-69-87... a number whose connection to Oswald is a mystery... he is given the correct number 15-60-55 and a call is made. Man Outside (OSWALD): ....But I don't remember the name of the consul OBYEDKOV: KOSTIKOV. He is dark /hair or skin?/. MAN: Yes. My name is OSWALD. MAN: Have they done anything? OBY: Yes, they say that a request has been sent out, but nothing has been received yet. MAN: And what....? /OBY hangs up/. This suggests that between the /.../ are the transcriber's action notes and thoughts.... from the pattern it doesn't appear that "hair and skin?" were said out loud... they would know the Russian word for either, yes? So all we have is "KOSTIKOV. He is dark." "Yes. My name is OSWALD." Isn't strange that OBY hangs up on the man? ---------------------------------------- On the LADILLINGER Oct 8 CIA Cable we get from OCT 1 "WHOM HE BELIEVED BE KOSTIKOV" and the OCT 2 & 4 images/description of Mystery Man On the 10th we get the NAVY/STATE/FBI Message and the reply back to MX - BOTH without mentioning "KOSTIKOV" The NAVY message even puts DOB: 10/18/39 and "American approx. 35 years old" a sentence apart. Now I understand keeping KOSTIKOV from prying eyes or as the ace in the hole... but Win Scott's letter to Ambassador Mann on Oct 16th is cc'd to just about everyone... If it was Angleton's plan to use KOSTIKOV as a silencer... is Win Scott here playing his FBI loyalty card? The FBI is not cc'd here but he MUST believe Hoover would get the info from the list of CC's To me THIS is the confusing part of the puzzle... did Scott use Lee HENRY in this Oct letter to see who would forward the info onto the FBI?

I don't think there is distance between the top CIA guys and the JCS. I don't know who might have initiated the plans, but Harvey may have carried them out. David - Could you elaborate a bit? As I see it Paul... The OSS was created out of the Military and the Elite... prior to that is was the rich who were the spies as they could afford the travel and lifestyle well-before the US decided to put it's will behind spying. I see the CIA as the Doberman out front of Military Intelligence/NSA. The CIA takes the heat, can weather the storm, can break laws (murder and deal drugs) with immunity... can always be the "Bad cop" to every ones else's good cop. When was the last time anyone hears about the intel work of ONI, MID, etc...? My feeling about this remains firmly in the "Military did it" camp. Bethesda happens for the same reason the SS takes JFK from Parkland... from what I can see, there is no CIA connection to that action but only the Secret Service and the orders of Chief Rowley... then again both Kellerman and Greer were ex-military as was Rowley. I think we can agree that without Bethesda (and/or Walter Reed) and the specter of court-martial hanging overhead, the reverse engineering of the Best Evidence would have been much more difficult. Given what we now know we can't even imagine an Earl Rose TX autopsy of JFK.... or an uninterrupted journey for the Zapruder film with the NPIC that weekend. The CIA created the reports which fanned the flames of the Cold War which untied the purse-strings in Congress to spend more on the Military who sent the CIA out in the first place... one thing I feel certain - Allen Dulles did not tell General LeMay or anyone else in the JCS or Defense Dept what to do. and Personally I believe more clout was carried in the halls of Military "Industry" and "Military" than ever would be in the CIA. A brief History: The FBI was initially tasked with Western Hemisphere espionage via it's SIS. It grew pretty well over the 5 years of the war from 1940-45. But then the war ended and the OSS's work in the Eastern Hemisphere leads to the movement of Nazi's into Central and South America... We'll need a peacetime Intel unit... and while Hoover pitched the SIS, already in place with assets and a stream of intel as well as operational success... the OSS and the Military were - IMHO - creating a public face for the Military "Dark work" that needed to be done... as well as the DRUG BUSINESS per PD Scott's work. Initially much of the stay behind forces in Europe were to protect and take over the Drug business... (the one and true reason the French were in SE Asia) The CIA was staffed with OSS, Elite and Military men. Virtually EVERYONE went thru the military or had a livelihood supported by the Military bases and/or activities. The first CIA Directors were ex Military Intel. The first non-military Director was the Sec of State's brother. ONI and MID do not fade away either... nor do the FBI's SIS assets... so what we have are 3 and 4 different intelligence agencies intermingling with the State department's Ambassadors at the different consulates/embassies around the world. The CIA provides all these other entities a firewall of perceived protection since any and all DARK WORK would be done by those crazy CIA people... when in most cases it was the Military funding as well as manning a good many of these missions. But we need a step back... there was also the CIG - Central Intelligence Group which Truman created for 2 purposes: 1. Strategic warning & 2. coordinate clandestine activity. (Headed by the Navy's Rear Admiral Sidney Souers.) Within the Navy and Army we had ONI and MID (G-2) who were the US's first spying groups. OSS was an extension of these 2 groups. While Truman wanted to remove the OSS entirely, the "non-military" portions of OSS were to be preserved in the new SSU (Strategic Services Unit) on recommendation of John J McCloy who was a friend to Donovan, OSS's creator. McCloy wanted to keep SSU out of the MID (G-2) It was the JCS who proposed a National Intelligence Agency (NIA) under which the SSU assets would be transferred... JCS Chairman Leahy transmitted the JCS plan to Sec's of Navy and War and finally to State. who sat on it for a while... the plan for this new Agency included, (quote)...such services of common concern as the NIA determines can be more efficiently accomplished by a common agency, including the direct procurement of intelligence (end quote... JCS 1181/5) and was gaining support at top levels of government. Effectively, Donovan and McCloy insured the intelligence UNITS of the OSS were kept together and folded into the CIG... 2 years later the CIG becomes the CIA. McCloy remains as one of the "Wise Men" and the wheels on the bus go round and round... DJ Hope that elaboration wasn't too long winded... lol

WTP, Your personal level of "un-impressiveness" is literally the last thing anyone here cares about.... if at all. Your claim about "thin air" only applies to your rebuttals... if you paid any attention at all you'd know that the wall of evidence supporting H&L and "air" have nothing at all in common. You can't BS your way out of those witnesses to Oswald at Stripling or at 2220 Thomas... You can't claim it was "thin air" when the Marine's own Diaries offer the timing conflicts You can't rebut Allen Felde's timeline You obviously can't add to 127, 200 or 210 You know nothing about school records You probably buy Judyth Baker's story... ======================== Let's revisit "unimpressed" for a second... from you blog: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-bronx-zoo-photo.html you write: "The height in inches of the known object is divided by the same object’s size in the photo. This gives a “ratio” by which the questioned object may be multiplied to find its true height." You believe that the physical measurement on a photo tells you something about the actual distance within the photo? I posted this as reference... So you're claiming that from the 4'6" notch between his nose and mouth, to the top of his head is another 10" to reach 5'4"? Do you realize how big that makes his head? yep, about the same size as the Marine photo below... 13"... once again Tracy you prove yourself incapable of an honest presentation of information or a thorough job. The measurements on a photo are ESTIMATES at best. It works with the Bronx zoo photo since his shoulders and the railing are just about in line with each other... Your "estimation" of this boy at 5'4" is simply indicative of the work you put out and the underhanded manner in which you try to debunk that with which you are so unfamiliar. You do the same to Palmer... do you post the letter back to Lifton? of course not... yet you so easily claim victory Let's actually follow your work thru to its conclusions.... Even a cursorysearch into body ratios tells us that an ADULT HEAD is on average 9" long. That this length is reached by age 15 or so. and an adult's height is 7.5x to 8x the length of the head... at age 10 the head is 7.5" and the child is about 7 heads tall. Look it up... 1st thing that should strike you is the 13" head of the OSWALD MARINE PICTURE. This photo is a deception. Oswald is standing well in front of the wall behind him causing his head to be way over sized... why in the world would THAT photo need to be a forgery? lol. This person with a 13" head and normal ratios (you like ratios) would be over 8 feet tall. and in this instance the measurement is given... just not the deception. So you see Tracy... wading thru the swamp you call a blog for no more than a couple steps I find the same lack of follow-through as you post here. You want so badly for H&L not to affect your buddy's book deals that you throw junk science and bad math at it repeatedly... ============================================ Let's take one more look at this "work"... The report of social worker Evelyn Strickman Siegel is one of the most perceptive assessments of the psychology of Lee Harvey Oswald and his mother Marguerite ever produced. The report was prepared by Siegel as a part of LHO’s treatment program after he was remanded to Youth House in New York City for truancy in 1953. Siegel was particularly critical of Marguerite who she found to be a “defensive, rigid, self-involved person.” You go on and on about this report.... how in your "professional" opinion: Siegel is one of the most perceptive assessments of the psychology of Lee Harvey Oswald and his mother Marguerite ever produced ?? yet she finds the historically upbeat and happy Marguerite somewhat different - and so much more like the historic descriptions of this other woman taking care of Harvey. but put that aside; So we agree that this boy was at YOUTH HOUSE in Apr/May 1953 for 17 days in fact... yes? He started school on March 23, 1953 and went into YOUTH HOUSE on April 15th. He started school again on May 8 missing 17 school days There are only 70 TOTAL DAYS available between 3/23/53 and 6/26/53 for this boy to go to school There are 54 days of summer between Monday 6/29 and Friday 9/11/53. He starts again on 9/14/53 109 3/2 + 15 3/2 = 127 days which equals all the school days from 3/23 to 6/26 PLUS all the summer days thru 9/11/53... plus 2. This boy did not attend summer school - the Bronx zoo photo was Aug 1953 according to Robert who supposedly took it. Carro writes that upon returning from YOUTH HOUSE he goes into 9th grade... this is repeated in a number of reports and by Marge as well... If he RE-ENTERS 9th grade... then he STARTED 9th GRADE in Sept 1952.... WTP - how dat? we go back and start to see the pivotal move to NYC and the complete change in both the boy and his mother... Do you even bother to tell your readers there were 3 PS44's? That Pic describes a school in Manhattan. No Tracy, you don't. You do half-way work and post opinions rather than conclusions.... and YOU'RE unimpressed? that's a laugh Now see, this would make sense since LEE was attending PS 44 in Manhattan while HARVEY is in the Bronx... the following record is a snapshot of the NYC attendance records... After YOUTH HOUSE one sees an entirely different boy... and I do mean entirely different as this boy attends class, is well liked and a general leader as LEE was in elementary school - take a look. So not only do you botch the realities of photogrammetry but you can't add or subtract any group of numbers to justify the FBI's creation of copied attendance records. Tracy... At the core I appreciate the opportunity to post the accurate counterpoint to your deceptive offerings. Bernie is obviously worthless to your effort as all he does is get all worked up parroting what you say as he tries in vain to attack me.... squawk !!! So - after showing the first 2 blog entries of yours I looked at and tore apart - I can't see how anyone takes you seriously.... You can't even add.....

Bernie, that you can even read is amazing. That you understand nothing you muddle thru on these pages is obvious. You haven't been included in any BIG BOY conversations as you wind up wetting yourself, screaming like a child and then holding your breath as you scratch your head in wonder.... you've not contributed one addition thing to these forums other than illustrating yourself as the uninformed, opinionated buffoon you remain after all these years. You and Tracy remain the only ones babbling on and on about work you truly cannot grasp... about evidence that eludes you, about a history you simply don't like or want to accept... Babble on buddy - your representation of the antithesis POV so illustrates the level of thought and consideration you boys put into your work.... At least Tracy and Greg DO SOMETHING... WTF do you do..... other than criticize that which remains so far above your comprehension ? You do nothing Bernie, add nothing but the parroting of your betters while patting yourself on the back for being so "insightful"... maybe a little less self-pleasuring and some actual research and you wouldn't come off on these pages as a complete fool. Go back to the stage... sing your melodies and rock on forever... the tunes you pitch here are worthless... always have been. Until you learn what it means not to be so "half-assed" about the little research in which you do engage and maybe do your homework BEFORE you insert foot into mouth... you'll forever be a lost little boy tugging at the apron strings of understanding this case. but hey... it's all in good fun and for the cause of learning... Love ya buddy... keep up the great "work"

Not sure but you may be talking about this that was debunked a while back...

I decide Tracy... And if you don't read the book and don't bother to follow things up... why should I give your opinion any weight? As for Parker's Asperger's theory... exactly... a working theory for which he offer anecdotes... no evidence. As for John's conclusions... again... who the eff are you? How many of the same witnesses did YOU talk to? How visits to the archives to do research for YOUR rebuttals? Ever even SEEN the CD that comes with the book? Tracy... like so many here all you care about it your little bit of attention... the only way to get that attention it appears is to critique others rather than offer your own research time and effort and conclusions up for scrutiny... What do you bring to the table that we've not already heard ad nausea in rebuttal to the mountain of evidence showing the conflicts brought on by the existence of these two men? Nothing Tracy... A bit fact prayer - and as addressed by Sandy... a poorly presented prayer at that... Without H&L and Armstrong... you think anyone would give your postings or Parker's books a second look? As many here have noticed... I've posted and published on virtually every subject in this case... I take the time necessary to research a thing then present it... I've had a great number of authors/researchers whom you probably know send kudos for the Mexico City work I published proving the FBI and the Gobernacion manipulated evidence to supply proof of a journey that was never taken. H&L claims this person was "LEE". After my research I find that this assumption was correct as of the evidence available at the time. The extreme compartmentalization of the project caused conflicts in the way the "evidence" was constructed.... but at no time do I conclude this was LEE... At the same time Tracy... how do you explain all the Alice TX and South Texas sightings of Oswald with a foreign wife and 2 children during the same time? Never mind Tracy... again... rhetorical question... your opinion-based responses truly hold no interest for me...

And as is customary for you, Bernie and others; vague generalities, pronouns, and adjectives... News flash Tracy... that which is "not necessary" is not by definition (other than your own), incorrect. Finally, "belief" has nothing to do with the evidence which supports the two men's existence. One needs to partake in "believability" when one has so little to offer in support of one's position... FACT: LHO was impersonated. FACT: The records disclose the existence of two men whose pasts were merged into one story to explain away the newly minted LONE NUT explanation. FACT: You have not done a fraction of the work nor spoken to a fraction of the people Armstrong did over the course of this 10-year project. You jump to conclusions, you offer little to no supporting documentation or evidence for you position, Bottom line Tracy, you are simply not qualified to offer opinionated criticism... Stick with the exhumation and Asperger's as your pillars... The rest of us will continue to deal with the reality of the evidence...

More and more info about 2-3 visits Oswald supposedly had to MEXICO CITY prior to the dates questioned. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=147166&search=mexico#relPageId=9&tab=page My favorite is the DISCLAIMER at the top: "The source DOES NOT HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE..... BUT.... " Does anyone think that Gilberto P. Lopez was the Oswald in Mexico? Does anyone have the photo mentioned in #2? (I think I found one - thanks Wim) http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/rwaters_1/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxOTgwOTQ5Nw==/?ref= https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1994#relPageId=3&tab=page And isn't amazing how easily they can trace his travel from Dallas to Cuba - yet so much trouble with Oswald. Just sayin'

I think he means "Wilderness of Mirrors" - an amazing book about Harvey and Angleton.... by David Martin So I ask myself... if HARVEY was the planner... what leverage is there against those at Bethesda to get them to cooperate... LeMay? Burkley? Galloway? I just don't get the feeling that the CIA players told the Military players what to do... but vice versa.

You mean "no it isn't, believe me" from their side does not mean we're debating.... ?? I post to keep the playing field level.... anyone can spout off opinions and claim them as facts... we have an entire administration based on that con-cept. Those reading threads like this ought to go investigate the source documents themselves.... and then find the other documents those who argue against us prefer we not post: Their entire argument hinges on the hope that Palmer here was wrong... that Allen Felde (CE1961/62) was mistaken despite the FBI taking months and writing reports on the wrong person. These are conflicting records, side-by-side people. On the left is what the US Government says Oswald did, on the right - someone actually WITH HIM during the time.... These records also confirm he did go to and return from Ping Tung and was being treated for STDs simultaneously... The anti-H&L crowd is losing their grip... that's why they hang their hat on the exhumation and an 18 year gap.

I'm finding things on June Cobb (LICOOKY-1) I didn't have before... nothing amazing yet... Also read a report that says Duran stapled the photos to each visa application she typed... Where's the other staple? and why does Azcue claim Oswald was there Tues/Wed of that week?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146943&search=mexico#relPageId=28&tab=page LICOOKY-1 = June Cobb, the woman who helped start the rumors about Oswald and Duran. Yeah, I doubt it... Read how she describes the Oswald character... (Azcue claims he was at the embassy 2-3 days prior to the Visa App...) And why isn't there a staple or two in the photo on the left?

Curious Jeremy... Which paranoid delusions of conspiracy related to the history of this species do YOU subscribe to? If you're not even a bit aware of the actual history of "man" and his constant quest to screw over his fellow man... WTF are you doing here? So tell us... are you claiming that YOU PERSONALLY are aware of the TRUTH which occurred within the events of US History? You know conspiracy from truth? What training are you pulling from to give you such power? For it surely is not a complete analysis of the H&L evidence but only a micro-peek at the few things those in disagreement offer.... You and they can't deal with evidence related to people like Allen Felde, or John Ely, or Gorsky, or Delgado, without losing it. It amazes me that you can see how the FBI/CIA altered, destroyed and covered up most everywhere else... just not here? There are thousands of documents trying to place Oswald in Mexico - he was never there and those who know my work, know I prove it using the evidence offered. Finding this note from Hoover only corroborates it. Jeremy - get over yourself already... you don't have the history, information or aptitude to present a coherent argument let alone understand the depth of H&L... Maybe ask yourself... why would J. Edgar cover for the CIA in Mexico understanding that Oswald was in Dallas with 2 Cubans at Odio's that Friday night the 27th? Hoover HATED the CIA.... for they had taken his SIS division away (the SIS ran intel ops from 1940-1945 in the Western Hemisphere under Hoover. His pitch to run US Intel abroad lost to the OSS's control of the newborn CIA via military control) Read some of Larry Hancock's books Jeremy... LEARN something about history before you stick your other foot down your throat... k? Are you so privy to the inner working of the CIA planners that you KNOW history that well ? That "conspiracy" and all its related CYA was NOT part of this US history? If so Jeremy, than I feel sorry for you. You are obviously one of those with his head stuck so far into the sand you don't know which way is up. Y'know Jeremy... how about reading a bit about spying and US history... what we Americans have done to fellow Americans as well as to the rest of the inhabitants of this planet is criminal. Lost souls such as yourself who cannot fathom much beyond your own small imagination, wind up being the largest hurdle in this discovery process. It's AS IF you were planted here for the sole purpose of reminding us how far above your head this information remains... And then whining like a child while relating JFK and H&L to fake moon landings and the Loch Ness Monster... you are promoting pure disinformation and to be honest with you, it's disgusting. We're all sorry you don't have desire or ability to understand the documents or the evidence Jeremy... From that last post of yours... I'm not too worried about who looks foolish....

You done whining yet? And if you and Tracy are so blind that you cannot see what your own overlay shows... that remains your problem not the rest of ours. Change the size so it matches Mike... or do you only have "overlay" skills? If the left eyes are sized and overlaid correctly, the rest of the man's face doesn't fit.... fix the position of the mouth, ears and eyes and the rest wont be anchored... 2 different men: sorry boys... back to the drawing board for youse....

Stop being a jerk Mike... You did not create that gif to try and prove they were the same? You say so in your post... or are you so addle-minded that you forgot what you wrote? =========================== "Meanwhile, I also put up a head shot comparison. Keep in mind the young Oswald photo is supposed to be the HL crazies' clone and then the mug shot is the other. Birds tweet...crickets chirp. Not a single reply except Larsen saying "You do know that that's a line drawing." I was like - WTF?! Anyone with sense and decent eye sight can tell these photos are of the same person. Nope. Not for the crazies." ============================ But anchoring on the left eye and making sure it was sized correctly was NOT something you did? It just magically aligned to the left eye? You've become so full of it you can't see thru the blinders. and now you're denying something you just did...

Now you've just lost it buddy. Is this an attack of the info or of the man? Moderators?

It's called contrast buddy... it's used to illustrate the point you made about the images not being different... Sadly for you and your rebuttal, they are. and here they are with more color contrast so even you and Tracy and Bernie's bad eyes can see the difference... It's truly sad that grown men like yourself cannot admit they're wrong - especially since it was your own photoshop work which proved the point... So go ahead and try to resize Harvey to match Lee... the left eye no longer matches... bummer, right?

You truly cannot be blind to your own work... can you?

Do you not even bother reading posts with which you disagree? Your own GIF proves they are not the same person... - duh. This is the first and last frames of your GIF with 50% transparency... If they're the same person why don't the features line up? and now, just for fun, we can compare LEE in the Marines with the BYP of Harvey... shadow analysis In these images the shadow thrown to the ground is virtually identical in terms of angle from the body yet the shadows on the noses betrays the composite nature of the BYP... Ya see? a little H&L will take you where you're going...

yeah, it kinda sucks when you make the case for the other side as you did Mike... especially since you were trying to prove the opposite... at least it shut the anti-H&L crowd up for a few hours... now explain how what you did was not really what you did

Thank for proving the point Mike! Here's the overlay with some transparency... While the left eye lines up (which I do too btw) the rest of the man does not... Mouth, ears, other eye, skull shape... nothing is the same. Well done Mike! Harvey arrested, Lee in the Marines... That T-shirt reveals a lot... Harvey barely fills it out, the man on the right is larger, wider, taller and more muscular.. The gif on the right shows how these two people also do not match.... same as yours Mike Putting this to bed now... one of the Parker minions illustrates above how these two people are not the same... Next stop? 6th floor: back-peddling, excuses and rationalizations for having proven the point...