David Josephs

Then Greg - post the photogramatical analysis of all those photos stating/showing they are the same... or a link... Who did the work, where was it done... etc.

John, that is my work... the 2nd one over is a 70/30 mix one way while the 3rd one is a 30/70 mix the other to show the shoulders, position of features, etc... You are correct, these are not the same man yet since there are so many here who feel it there sorn duty in life to argue the obvious, it continues. Look what they teach in 7th grade History... when that changes to "WCR the lie" and "Oswald was not there", then we might have a chance... wonder what they teach in Australian school about that day? Did Ozzie do it in every country's history books taught in grade school?

CE985 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1135#relPageId=484&tab=page

Bernie - it is you and the others who want to prove the USMC simply used the man's word for his height... so prove it. We posted the USMC discharge document which gives his current information... Greg argued that during basic the marine would get bigger and taller - simply from going from age 17 to 18 in some cases and that's only a few months.. this is 3 years later. Greg doesn't remember this now? He can argue how he got bigger, but needs us to show how the Marines work... sorry Bernie, that's your job. We stand by what the Evidence attempts to show, a 5'11" man dies and shrinks 2 inches over 4 years - helluva trick!

Just the kind of half-baked work we'd expect from you Greg... Another one of those Lamson tricks with photography shameless referred to as complete work... Maybe if you move the blond another 3 feet to her left she'd be even shorter! Oswald's right heel is barely more than Marina's foot away from the wall - you can fit the entire brunette between the blond and the wall.. Talk about a Fraud...

Simply not true Paul... they were either in the Military or they were foreign nationals... please name a few "civilians" involved who did not have ties to the military either directly or via the CIA what you have yet to do to date is to put forth a coherent argument to support your conclusions - only your conclusions. You don't know who the JFK cover-up team was, exactly You don't know who the JFK Kill Team was, exactly Yet you can state they were enemies and 180 degress apart from each other. How does one do that without any of the relevant info other than to make a guess?

To me, with those John Woods images that David shared, it looks like the newspaper knew full well that the photo was going to look bad in print so they attempted to improve it beforehand but the experiments were not used except the blocking of the windows. Jack White only had the newspaper and was left with no choice but to extract what he could from it. What he brought out was not that bad when compared to what David posted on the right, in fact it's beautiful but the interpretation window was quite large. It's a good job he wasn't trying to extract a black man. So there was no fraud on Jack's part, it's a genuine misinterpretation garnered from extremely limited data. The image in the article itself in many respects is far worse, so it's actually a case two Frankenstein's monsters. Well put Clive... As I say, for every one of "them" who wants to pretend this is too hard to grasp, there are 100 of you who get it easily. Thank you for your comment... now hopefully you wont be next on the hit list... Take care DJ

So.... The minions have finally banded together - did you all get the complimentary overalls and shoes? We ARE at EF Bart... and I have found that those that behave as GP does don't understand any other approach... all they want is a fight and some attention So sorry you have such a tough time with the images... you want to look at that and claim he is 8" taller than she is - fine. You also want to claim the USMC does not know how to measure or record a man's height - also fine. What you read or don't, what you see or don't is up to you... I'm not here to convince you of anything, nor do I need your stamp of approval to post what I want... When do you get around to doing any of your own work on the photos? You think you can show that the man in that image is 8" taller than the woman... have at it But if all you got is a critique of my work without anything other than your opinions and words - who cares? Anyone can say, "You're wrong" and then walk away... Do something yourself... post your own photographic analsis to support what you think... or can you only critque others? When and if he ever gets to HIS WORK - which I have found and will be posting and commenting on, something to do with "Radionics" and conclusions he reaches as a result - we can see where it goes... Someone spending such an amazing amount of time avoiding his own work in favor of arguing certainly appears to have some agenda - yet that too must remain lost to the minions. It's sad that focusing on his/your own work remains so unrewarding that H&L has become a 24/7 obsession... Asperger's, tonsils and the USMC cannot measure - helluva great set of rebutal arguments. Don't like my stuff? Don't read it. Post some original work/research of yours and make a case - you have a combined 80 posts on both this and the DPF forum... I've been doing this for over 10 years watching the coming and going of sourceless, argumentative trolls pretending to be researchers for the sole purpose of disrupting forum communities - not that I think you fall into that category in the least... if you spend time dealing with them as I have, one wonders if there is any reason for their existence other than to cause problems for people trying to have discussions and share info. If you or he or anyone thinks there are H&L problems, and can prove them... write your own dam book, article, essay and get someone to publish it... or publish yourself like JA did. While a select few whine about insults and implied curse words, the rest of us do the research, provide the sources and links and make the arguments the trolls feed off of and critique to maintain some self perceived level of importance and involvement... {YAWN} Jim starts an H&L passage with "JOHN BELIEVES..." and you post well done Bart - the word BELIEVES usually conveys to the reader that this is speculation based on the information offered... but not to you and Parker and the rest of the ROKC minions? The word LIKELY does the same thing. It offers a conclusion based on available info and makes a case for it... As for Mark, I posted the sources that tell a complete story, not some half-baked statement about the olden days... regrowth with a mean of 30 months after the age of 5... a tiny fraction of a % even experiencing the regrowth from those they KNEW performed partial operations... you have no idea what was performed on Oswald - just as much a chance it was a complete, well-perfromed operation - only Greg's SPECULATION that it wasn't is what you go on while accepting it as fact... well done Mark. If you or the other minions ever actually get around to doing something of your own, let us know... we can all take turns ripping it to shreds... It takes some level of bravery to keep posting one's work and thoughts when getting attacked - bravery we see none of you seem to show... unless it's about someone else's work... Class Bart, real class.

Thanks David. Not quite what this was about. DJ was complaining that I should post my work online "for others to rip apart". Weird really, because Armstrong doesn't do that. I have been doing that for 15 years. So yes - you don't have to fork $100 for his book. But even that's not Armstrong's doing. "Weird really, because Armstrong doesn't do that" So harveyandlee.net is not highlights from the book presented in webpage form with updates for anyone to read - most specifically, you. Convince us you haven't gotten most of your ammunition from that website - a public place - and been trying to sell your Asperger's and tonsil regrowth theories for years on end with few if any takers... since you still have not actually read the book Other than that few paragraphs offering Dr. Lee's work about Asia... what have you shown of your own work from this groundbreaking book series? the point remains Greg, you'd rather spend time attacking H&L then presenting your own work - keeps you from having to defend yourself or the work you've done. (and I finally did find some of your work... all good things in all good time... turnabout will of course be fair play) Any tme you post sources in your H&L attacks they wind up being worthless - representing either the wrong years or the wrong people... Yet you keep making the same tired old arguments - now it's that the USMC simply asks marines their height - why bother measuring, right? Since you forgot, I will remind you that I agreed the passage about the tonsils is written to be absolute when there is a VERY SMALL CHANCE that some of it regrew... but then again the Russian doctors see normal tonsils - so your regrowth theory remains such - a theory with very poor odds of occurring after the first 3 years of the operation... and it is much more likely that when combined with all the other H&L evidence that one man had tonsils (Harvey) and one didn't. =================== Now back to the subject at hand - the creation of one Oswald record from two men... You still think they just asked all the Marines how tall they were when discharged...? (Like asking them if they were on that boat so they could fill out the Unit Diaries - what world do you live in?) You think the following shows a 5'11" man next to his 5'3" wife? The 8" difference is 12.7% of her height. Even with a slight drop in the pavement, there is more than 6 inches to make up... they are both wearing low heeled shoes... The image in that newspaper article was LIKELY created by others or is a very bad photo of LEE. Not the man shown below. Try again GP... I'd think discussing your own work would become more important to you at some point... then being shown how wrong you are over and over... but that's up to you.

As is your right Paul. I simply cannot agree given the amount I've read proving the opposite. You can cherry-pick the JBS aspects or you can read what the book is really telling us. You might also read Rockefeller's Drug Wars for a taste of how the elite works around the rules created to keep everyone else in line. Appreciate the discussion... take care DJ

You appear to be giving it your best shot... Get in touch with White's estate and John Armstrong and sue them... What exaclty constitutes your pound of flesh on this one Greg - looks to me like there is no one on this forum or even the internet who you desire to speak to about the subject. White is gone and JA doesn't care who you are... you're just spitting into the wind... maybe, just maybe if you worked on your own stuff and posted it for others to rip apart there would be a little balance here.

Randy.. Unless you are going to use photogrammetry these illustrations of Stan's measuring distances on a 2d surface representing 3d space are woefully inadequate to form any real conclusions. I do not offer measurements since we do not know the scale of each photo - I simply show the slope of shoulders or the differences when overlaying the faces... One with a hat and one with a beard is what makes conluding these images are the same person so hard. The images I posted do not have those differences - Photogrammetry is as old as modern photography, can be dated to the mid-nineteenth century, and its detection component has been emerging from radiolocation, multilateration and radiometry while its 3-D positioning estimative component (based on modeling) employs methods related to triangulation, trilateration and multidimensional scaling. In the simplest example, the distance between two points that lie on a plane parallel to the photographic image plane can be determined by measuring their distance on the image, if the scale (s) of the image is known. This is done by multiplying the measured distance by 1/s. Algorithms for photogrammetry typically attempt to minimize the sum of the squares of errors over the coordinates and relative displacements of the reference points Can you tell us the distance from the camera in each, the focal length, the lenses used, etc...? Without them it's just a matter of resizing the photos to match and placing some lines on the images. 2d images of 3d life cannot be reconciled with pixel counts and same length lines... simply does not work that way. I take the subjectivity out of it by not making measurement claims - just observational claims and overlays. I took your two images and lined up the red and green vertical lilnes and then put black bars at the top of each line. As you can see, the yellow lines do not remain in the same place - this is not indicative of them being different people but of the impossibility of using 2d lines to measure 3d space. I can resize the image from the right to match - but that's the whole point.. we do not know the history of the photos or how they relate to each other... The BYP are a little better since it's the same camera yet the focal lengths are different, slightly, so there is no way to get the photos to match exactly. It is these "quick and dirty" methods of comparison that winds up leading to incorrect conclusions.

That's amusing Bernie - I thought you were not interested in what I wrote and was not going to engage... Just can't help yourself I guess. I am far from cornered - Only those with very limited sight can't see how so much of these issues are connected. I posted everything there was not know about that image. The original and why it was not on the H&L.net site and what was done to create that clear final image. It obviously did not appear in the paper like that. That it was pasted atop the actual image in that paper is the result of someone's work to understand what was going on - (like the image of Ozzie and Robert with the baby - Robert was added in after the fact) What you still have not bothered addressing is the bone in GP's throat - that the CIA was the LIKELY SOURCE for the image used in that article. (That the website has the pasted version up is a situation Jim is changing... at the core though the overlay IS the same image as in that paper... as John Woods' images I posted shows. DSL claims it was Robert in possession of his brother's photos from the Marines... but there is no proof for that at all. Furthermore, the image is obviously not our little Oswald, not even close. The photo in Sept 1959 of LEE holding a rifle comes from that time before Harvey leaves for Russia (top right in collage) and when Lee was with Robert. If Robert has any photos they are of LEE and not the man in Russia or who Ruby killed. So it is your contention that the man at the top right and the top left are the same person.... Shoulders, size and all...

Thanks Mark.... Do you know when "no longer used" began? Do you know how much of the tonsil grows back? "Given the amount of time it takes for tissue to regenerate and a naturally limited growth period, it is unlikely that, should your tonsils grow back, they will ever grow back to their original size" http://ent.about.com/od/entdisorderssu/f/Can-Your-Tonsils-Grow-Back-After-A-Tonsillectomy.htm Were you aware of this study with REAL stats... seems regrow occurs in the first 2.5 years after removal... did Oswald's history show signs of regrowth and Tonsilitis between age 7 and 16? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24388693 OBJECTIVE:We investigated the long-term effects of partial tonsillectomy, and potential risk factors for tonsillar regrowth in children with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS). METHODS:Children affected by OSAHS with obstructive hypertrophic tonsils underwent partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy with radiofrequency coblation. Polysomnography was performed prior to and 5 years following surgery. Blood samples from all participants were taken prior to and 1 month following surgery to assess immune function. All participants were interviewed 5 years following surgery to ascertain effects of the surgery, rate of tonsillar regrowth, and potential risk factors. RESULTS:All parents reported alleviation of breathing obstruction. Postoperative hemorrhage did not occur in the partial tonsillectomy group compared to 3.76% in the total tonsillectomy group. Tonsillar regrowth occurred in 6.1% (5/82) in children following partial tonsillectomy. Palatine tonsil regrowth occurred a mean of 30.2 months following surgery, and 80% of children with tonsillar regrowth were younger than 5 years of age. All five patients had a recurrence of acute tonsillitis prior to enlargement of the tonsils. Four of the five had an upper respiratory tract allergy prior to regrowth of palatine tonsils. There were no differences in IgG, IgM, IgA, C3, or C4 levels following partial tonsillectomy or total tonsillectomy. CONCLUSION:Partial tonsillectomy is sufficient to relieve obstruction while maintaining immunological function. This procedure has several post-operative advantages. Palatine tonsils infrequently regrow. Risk factors include young age, upper respiratory tract infections, history of allergy, and history of acute tonsillitis prior to regrowth. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved

I didn't see your response Greg... In the Russian hospital Oswald was taken to, he is shown to have "tonsils not enlarged". Even if the operation did not remove all the tonsil tissue, IF they regrow they do not come close in size to the originals - or will you be arguing that too? Seems to me they are saying his tonsils were normal yet you claim they grew back enough as to be the cause of all sorts of problems. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0308a.htm is the first page of a number addressing the Cold/Sore Throat/Tonsillitis. So let's keep arguing about a 1945 operation to remove tonsils which you say 1) was not done by a real doctor and 2) slightly grow back yet the man in Russia appears to have normal tonsils, the USMC record has this man treated for tonsillitis Talk about "moronic - adjective: So senseless as to be laughable:" Did tonsillitis cause him to shrink those 2 inches as well?

Oswald was 68" when he entered the USMC on Oct 24, 1956 (WH V19 - Folsom Exhibit page #1) http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0337b.htm yet is 71" when he is discharged on Sept 11, 1959 Rose's autopsy sheet has him at 5'9" I have yet to get an answer from GP on how he shrinks 2 inches from age 20 to 24 other than GP's claim the USMC does not know how to use a tape measure - he claims that there is no official document that does not use Oswald's own words related to his height... Gorsky seems to be talking about someone else entirely... was Gorsky a personal friend of Amstrong too?

Well, David, basically you're right about this. I was pushing too hard that the hours before 3pm CST were the crucial hours for the FBI position on the "Lone Nut" theory -- and now I do have to take those words back. So, OK, I was mistaken. Appreciated Paul – theories are best presented here just for that purpose, proof or not. Maybe in the future you acquire the docs and evidence first then state a theory based on them. Makes it easier for everyone I still think that Bill Simpich's State Secret (2014) absolves the CIA high-command from a JFK murder plot -- but now I cannot absolve Hoover as quickly as I expected. Simply because a mole-hunt was potentially in process in Mexico, there is no connection to the absolution of the CIA in JFK’s death? How do you make that connection? The actions Oswald was either steered toward or fabricated in the evidence were easily duplicitous. Had Vallee been Oswald, Ozzie’s FPCC infiltration and other “intel” duties would have continued. But since that did not happen, these same actions which could be seen as benign to self-incrimination at the time could easily be turned against him. My new focus for Hoover will be the events leading up to the 11/23/1963 FBI mandate to stop looking for other suspects because, "they have the man." If you’re in a position to offer what Hoover and gang did during the evening of 11/22 I’d be very interested. I do know that Rowley had a Zfilm and that a top FBI staffer claims to have seen the film after midnight in DC. The FBI is at Kleins all night where in one doc Waldman puts the microfilm into a safe, in another he gives it to the FBI at that time, the FBI printing the “order blank and envelope” themselves. You and Larry have both focused on calls from LBJ later on 11/22/1963 as important factors in that decision. Please be more specific regarding your sources. Does the Mary Ferrell web site also host those documents? What were the exact hours of the day you had in mind? Yet I still think you must answer the question -- if Hoover ordered the FBI to stop looking beyond Oswald on 11/23/1963, then why did Hoover himself express doubts (as you claim) weeks later? This is not a claim Paul – YOU claim the letter he writes on the 12th was for cover yet you offer nothing to substantiate this. Until you do, it means what it says – Rankin says THEY want a conclusion in the FBI report that it was Ozzie alone – Hoover says he did not want to do this and LBJ could not help him. What else do you want? That is, insofar as Hoover by 11/23/1963 mandated a "Lone Nut" theory of Oswald -- why would he contradict this in writing unless this was a trick on his part to manipulate subordinates? I still think that must be answered cogently. You are making stuff up again Paul. You have yet to prove “as Hoover by 11/23/1963 mandated a "Lone Nut" theory of Oswald” all he did was pull back on all the other bush beating since they had their man “according to the DPD”. But something definitely happens over the night of 11/22 to stop him from pursuing a conspiracy – the Katzenbach memo maybe? I have always said that we have "knowledge of the inner workings of Hoover’s mind" only by reading his own words in his own memoranda. I never claimed to be a mind-reader. I'd always based my argument on memoranda -- and Dr. Wrone's interpretation of that same memoranda. As for "looking deeply into documents," Americans have been doing this for 50 years -- and myself, 20. It is not enough to put in the time -- one must also develop the logic. Lots of folks have put in more decades than I into this reading -- but some of them don't work enough with the logic. So, David, this round goes to you. Congratulations. I will no longer say that Hoover created the Lone Nut solution by 3pm CST on 11/22/1963, and called McGeorge Bundy about it at that time to tell LBJ on AF-1. You have my word. I do believe until proven that this is a more accurate statement of what occurred. Nevertheless, I now with to dig more deeply into those specific 11/22/1963 and 11/23/1963 documents. My first question is -- what was the EXACT content of the Bundy phone call to AF-1 -- does anybody know with exactitude? http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/03/off-tapes-whats-missing-from-af1-radio.html Theodore.H. White, author of the The Making of the President series of books, who first described Jackie Kennedy’s “Camelot,” wrote in The Making of a President 1964, "There is a tape recording in the archives of the government which best recaptures the sound of the hours as it waited for leadership. It is a recording of all the conversations in the air, monitored by the Signal Corps Midwestern center ‘Liberty,’ between Air Force One in Dallas, the Cabinet plane over the Pacific, and the Joint Chiefs’ Communications Center in Washington….On the flight the party learned that there was no conspiracy, learned the identity of Oswald and his arrest; and the President’s mind turned to the duties of consoling the stricken and guiding the quick." 2) White, T. H. Making of a President 1964. Once that is clear, then I'd like to see all documentation that happens after 3pm CST on 11/22/1963, for the next 36 hours. Get in line – lol. There are complete lists of communications but who knows how complete. I too would like to find the first use of LONE NUT but my gut tells me it was a Media thing… Finally, David, as for your theory that LBJ and Hoover were "toeing the company line" of masters above them who were pulling their strings -- I feel justified in my skepticism -- and I now ask for your sources. A while back I needed to get away from “JFK assassination all the time” thinking and look at things from a different POV. I went into the history of spying, intelligence, banking and lawyers… I found that the first spies were all from very wealthy families since they could pay their own way. These “elite” – the sons of the wealthiest, created their own networks throughout the world and did their best to keep the Military, Industry and Congress (who was run by their families) informed. As I searched the fringe of JFK I remembered the Bell helicopter situation and felt that the buying of Bell MAY lead to the “Sponsor” level to use a DPF term. I came to find and research a company called TEXTRON which bought Bell in June 1960 after the VP of the Bank of Boston speaks with CIA general Cabell (yes, his brother) about the prospects of helicopter use in SE Asia. (Nixon was the presumed next POTUS at this point). TEXTRON was formed by Arthur Little’s nephew Royal Little to disrupt the US NE Textile industry by buying up the companies and tearing them apart to open the way for UK imports. The players involved are at the top of the food chain: Bank of England, Sun Life of London/Montreal, Bank of Boston, Boston Fabians, Prudential Life, John Hancock Life (JP Morgan), Cravath-Swaine-Moore, Choate-Hall-Stewart, Dillon-Reade, G. William Miller…. TEXTRON was the world’s first conglomerate and moved from textiles to defense with the formation of American Research and Development Corp in 1946 (the year after the FBI’s SIS was disbanded in favor of the OSS). With the recommendation of General Cabell, and a most unusual loan from Prudential Life (6-year grace period on payments, unsecured loan). At the time of purchase, Bell was in the red by $100M yet the Textron chairman stated their objective from this purchase was a 25% pretax profit – from Day 1. While business boomed in ’61 & ’62 as SE Asia heated up but did not burst out until after 11/22/63. This in turn led me to the key players of the game of MICC influence. When a Senator, LBJ may have been more in tune with the MICC and might have been one of the reasons he was added to the ticket – MICC representation (remember he was stepping down from the most powerful Congressional position to the least powerful spot in DC). Hoover had never been a MICC insider. Even the CIA is a major step below the Military in this equation and in my opinion the CIA is the Military’s watchdog and frontline protector while the FBI performs the same function inside the US. Have you or have you not read “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” Paul? If you have not then the 80 pages and couple hours it will take will change your world view. If you have, then I fail to see how you are not somewhat in tune with the CFR and NSC players . Bundy (After World War II, during which Bundy served as an intelligence officer, in 1949 he was selected for the Council on Foreign Relations. He worked with a study team on implementation of the Marshall Plan. He was appointed as a professor of government at Harvard University, and in 1953 as its youngest dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, working to develop Harvard as a merit-based university. In 1961 he joined Kennedy's administration. After serving at the Ford Foundation, in 1979 he returned to academia as professor of history at New York University, and later as scholar in residence at the Carnegie Corporation) Cravath-Swaine-Moore partners: John McCloy (brought firm lawyers to Germany to run Occupation) & Roswell Gilpatrick (#2 at DoD under McNamara) Textron expanded into computers, aviation and defense with gusto firmly entrenching the owners of the MICC within the revolving door of Military to Industry to Congress and back around again. When one begins to see this virtual line between the “Sponsors” (those in a position to influence/create policy without approval and the power to remain unscathed by any back-lash) and the Facilitator (those on the ground creating/facilitating the plans to the perceived desired end of the Sponsor while not really knowing the purpose behind it) and the Mechanics who just do the work. There is nothing offered that places Hoover or LBJ into this company of leaders of the world but as top level Facilitators carrying out the wishes of the Sponsor/Facilitators who run things on the ground. Bundy, Harriman, (the other 5 Wise Men), Senators/Congressmen, CEO’s and owners of Industry, and the JCS ( and other key assets) who can give orders and CYA. There is no “source” for all this other than books that try: None Dare & The Wise Men help give a glimpse – I accumulated over 500 files and a gig of data as I prepped for a book I want to write on the History of Bankers and Lawyers – How the World is Run. During this I see over and over the taking advantage (as well as guiding and creating) of world events to their best interest. Sorry for the long winded explanation Paul. The subject is near and dear to me. There remains a façade that most simply do not perceive. Our government, its institutions and policies are guided by the needs of the MICC and their successful future. JFK was given the opportunity to go along to get along yet that simply was not his way. Do you honestly believe that Hoover was in a position to decide on MLK’s death? That if he was so powerful and connected LBJ would not have stayed on in 1968 – against Nixon – when we both know that Nixon was the MICC;s golden boy. Look at his VP’s. Paul, it will remain up to you to show a connection between Hoover and the real power in the USA/World. I don’t see it. I see a man fighting communism while ignoring the evils of everyday crime and having his department actually performing criminal activity daily in the name of “protecting the US citizen”. He was a bulldog for his masters, nothing more. With respect, please prove me wrong DJ Regards, --Paul Trejo

Thanks for reminding me about's Stan's work on this.

Indeed Steve - one is the original and the other the published image. Maybe part of the "touch up" process? IDK but that square behind his head has always been kinda weird just hangin there - like the black sharpie square covering the back of JFK's head at Z323. DJ

In true WCR format... conspiracy? "that was what they FIRST said"

The original from the file image on the left, enhanced as best I could to bring out some detail on the right, and the "White" improvement overlay I get the impression that the Lee Oswald photo in the woods collage top right was not Oswald - Oswald's nose was NEVER that wide.. The idea here Greg, is that the CIA or someone provided this photo in such poor resolution on purpose. The woods collage alos suggests this image was created and is why it looks so strange when White isolated and improved it. But the overlay is obviously from THAT image.... At some point it seems there was a much better version....

Um, David, Frankenstein has clearly been posted over the top of the original photo in an attempt to "differentiate" "Lee" from "Harvey"This is from the book: Why weren't you aware that Armstrong claims the photo came from the CIA? Which is just rubbish. It has to be the work of Jack White. Re the statement: "Priscilla Johnson was the 2nd person to interview Oswald, but not until November 15, and there was no indication she took a photograph of Oswald." Priscilla Johnson's interview with Oswald was on Monday evening, November 16. Re the photograph: I don't believe that the CIA provided any photographs of Oswald at the time of his defection. It has always been my understanding that Mosby took a picture of Oswald on either 10/31 when she first called upon him, at his hotel; or on Saturday, 11/14, when she met with him a second time (and which was the basis for the next day's article ("Fort Worth Defector Confirms Red Beliefs"--doing this from memory). The picture of Oswald dressed in a nice suit is currently owned--I believe--by UPI. They have the wrong date on it (11/17, as I recall). I believe I have seen the picture of Lee Oswald (hands on hips) standing against the background of the frame house, and that it was associated with the original publicity concerning the defection (i.e., 10/31 or in the days immediately following). DSL 5/15/15 - 8 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California DSL - The photo taken on Oct 31, if there was one, would not be the same as one taken in Japan while in the marines, right? The Marine photo had to have been acquired somewhere... from Oswald? the photographer? how would that photo have gotten to that newspaper? Did Oswald bring his USMC clothes to Russia?

Hey there Greg... On page 455 of CE985 is the translation for Oswald's visit to a Russian Hospital. It includes the words: "tonsils not enlarged". If what you claim is true, and the small amount of tissue that was left allowed a tiny version of the tonsils to regrow (we both read the same articles that said they don't grow back anywhere near the size of the originals) wouldn't the observation be "tonsils undersized" or "small regrowth tonsils"... they were checking for the normal enlargment that may occur... So LEE has them removed yet HARVEY in Russia has a full set... and dies at least 2 inches shorter than the man the USMC measured in Sept 1959... Do tell.....

No Greg... given that there is a possibility that the tonsils can grow back, there is a chance that Lee Oswald's did just that enough to cause him the pain we see treated in the USMC record. I don't speak for John, I speak with him. Does the chance that they did grow back negate the one and only thing which suggests the existence of the two men? do we agree that this is not the only conflict in who-what-where-when-how stated within the USMC/FBI/CIA/etc records and it was these same USMC Discharge documents which state he was 71" and 150 lbs in Sept 1959.... is that not official enough? do we agree the man ruby killed was not 71" nor 150 lbs - or do I need to post the autopsy too... See, you posted the first half argument already - the photo of the marine getting bigger after basic... Ozzie gets bigger in the marines and from 17 to 20 as any man would... but the getting smaller part over the next few years, you don't seem to say much about that Greg. Your argument is that there is no official measurement of Oswald at 71"... I posted the image. What else ? =========== You're definitely right, by reading that passage one would think the conflict was a slam dunk...two men. not quite and thank you for posting it. Will your response to the height issue will be based on a better probability of occurring then tonsil regrowth? "You're definitely right, by reading that passage one would think the conflict was a slam dunk...two men. not quite and thank you for posting it." Greg - why do you go back and ask me again about this passage when I replied and asked you how to reconcile the height reduction after the USMC measured him at 71"... to his death height of 68"-69" How did he get shorter in those 4 years?