W. Tracy Parnell

Rose admitted he could have missed some things but he was very confident that he autopsied the one and only LHO. No, they could not have faked the scar since it had the smoothed appearance that indicated it was not freshly made. Sure you can say they had the same operation at the same time as Hargrove has been pushing here. That is all you can say. But why did Armstrong not even attempt to offer an explanation in the book and in fact not even bother to mention it? Edit: In a perfect world Rose would have ascertained what major scars LHO had and looked for them. But he had fingerprints and felt that was sufficient for an ID.

Not trying to speak for Jeremy, but this was just a typo. He is well aware that "Lee" had the mastoid operation that showed up on "Harvey."

I am assuming the whole point of this is you are trying to say the height recorded is incorrect probably since this is supposed to be "Lee" who is taller (another strike against H&L). Kirk is saying either the height or head size is correct and not both. Therefore, we know it is an inaccurate recording of his head size, we should assume it is an accurate recoding of his height or very close. Especially when you consider other sources that show he was 5'9" or very close such as the exhumation and the NO booking photo. This type of measurement was apparently discontinued because it took a certain amount of skill to perform.

Greg Parker has found the explanation: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1412-the-13-inch-head-explained-for-sandy Mr. GOLDSMITH - I would ask you at this time. Sergeant Kirk, to refer to what has been marked as JFK F-564, which is the exhibit on the right, and I would ask you to explain how the photographic evidence panel addressed the issue of Oswald's purported 13-inch head. Sergeant KIRK - Well, the exhibit on the right is a demonstration conducted at Metropolitan Police Headquarters. It depicts a Metropolitan Police officer, W.W. Lee. The photograph on the extreme left of the three photos shows Officer Lee with his back against a height chart. It indicates that he is a little over 69 inches tall. The second photograph shows Officer Lee, who has walked away from the wall, a mere 7 inches. The height scale to Officer Lee's right, your left as you look at it, shows that Officer Lee still stays 69 inches tall but the height scale in the background, which is 7 inches away from the gentleman, shows he is starting to grow in height. Indeed, in this photograph he has a 13-inch head, if you count the inches in the background, but when you count the inches that are next to his head, his head size stays the same. The photograph on the right of the exhibit, Officer Lee has now moved out 14 inches away from the height scale, he has grown considerably taller, if you look at the height scale in the background, and his head has also increased in length, but as the height scale that has moved out with Officer Lee shows he remains at 69 inches tall and his head size has not changed. Mr. GOLDSMITH - I realize you have indicated that the subject in the photographs has moved away from the height chart. Are you able to explain in more detail what factors account for the Apparent 13-inch head in one of these photographs and also for the disparity in his indicated height? Sergeant KIRK - Yes, sir. It was determined that at the time these photographs were taken, an ID camera, much used in the military as well as other types of the Government, was a type of camera that was mounted on a dolly, with the lights and the camera and the numbering chart affixed where it could be pushed out of the way when not in use. So if Mr. Oswald was brought into the induction center to be photographed and told to stand next to the height chart, it didn't really make any difference to the photographer whether or not Mr. Oswald was standing next to the height chart or not, because he could move the camera up or away from Oswald to get the photograph that he wanted. This chart on the right demonstrates the fact that unless Mr. Oswald was standing directly with his back against the wall and the camera was at the correct distance, it would not be an accurate recording of his true height. Mr. GOLDSMITH - I am sorry, I did not catch your last sentence. Sergeant KIRK - It is unreasonable to assume that this photograph is the actual recording of his true height. I should add if it is an actual recording of his true height, then it would be an inaccurate recording of his head size.

It is obvious that what happened is there was a camera setup with the chart perhaps 2 feet from a line where the men were told to stand. The recorded height would not be affected by the distance but the apparent size of the head was. Even though an explanation has been offered, you think you have a mystery on your hands here. LHO and many other people including JFK's brother have 13 inch heads. Jack White thought it was a "secret identifier" indicating intelligence connections. What do you think is the significance of the 13 inch heads?

Sandy, Here is a post from the old JFK Research forum explaining how the distance from the chart can affect the head size. Also included is a photo of a man from Australia that a member found in a magazine which was reporting on the guy because he had triplets. He also had a 13 inch head. ----------------------- Posted by dennis bartholomew ® , Aug 17,2000,01:59 Post ReplyForum Jack and Kate, I saw Kate's note on 13-inch head. If one is photographed standing a few feet in front of the chart, one's head will cover more of the chart on the photo, than if he or she had his head actually against the chart. To verify this I had my wife stand in front of a chart on the wall - her head covered about 10 inches. Then I moved her about 4 feet away from the wall, and to my eye, and the camera's eye, her head covered about 15 inches on the chart. Perhaps the photo of Oswald with the 13 inch head can also be explained this way.

Sandy, I was referring to the "13 inch head" thing in general has been debunked or explained if you prefer and many years ago at that. I found a post I made on McAdams' forum in 2001 referring to the fact that it had been debunked. Jack White wrote articles discussing the subject and postulating that individuals with "intelligence connections" had 13 inch heads for some sinister unknown reason. The problem is as I mentioned, every photo of this kind I have seen shows an oversized head including Joseph Kennedy Jr., some unknown people and coincidentally, LHO. It is safe to assume that it was a part of the process and a result of the distance from the camera. Someone had discovered the exact process and reported on it but I can't find it now. Now, as with so many things to do with this silly theory, you have been given an explanation although not a specific one because I no longer have the information. If you want to believe that something funny is going on you certainly may. But I would say that in order to have proof you need thousands of these photos that show a normal head size and that LHO's and Joseph Kennedy Jr.'s were different for some reason. Edit: The 13 inch head was a "secret identifier" indicating intelligence connections according to a forum post by White I found.

Jack White promoted the "13 inch head" thing for years but it was debunked a long time ago. I can't remember the details, but It is simply a result of the process they used to take the photo. Researchers found several of these photos including one of Joseph Kennedy Jr. and they all had 13 inch heads. Finding JFK's older brother sort of killed the conspiracy angle of it for most people and it is usually not mentioned anymore. EDIT: Parker says it was the distance from the camera.

As I mentioned before, this poster really has no bearing on the H&L theory. Jack White thought there were 3 or 4 Marguerites and perhaps as many or more Oswalds as evidenced by the text preceding the photos. Most of the photos are "Harvey" yet White thought something was strange about all of the photos. So this really does nothing to promote the theory.

I would like Jim Hargrove to make a list of all the second Oswald sightings and make all of those fit into the H&L theory. If he is unable to do that, then he must admit that at least some of those sightings are bogus. At that point he may come to the realization that perhaps many of the sightings, including some that he uses to support the H&L theory are bogus. Many people thought they saw LHO in situations where he could not have been. Some of these people are sincere and just mistaken, but others are liars. This happens after a publicized event and law enforcement and investigators understand this. But Jim Hargrove and Armstrong shamelessly use these sightings to promote their already disproven theory.

Parker has replied: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1409-hargrove-misrepresents-petrov

Parker on Vladimir Petrov: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1409-hargrove-misrepresents-petrov

OK, you don't believe the government can be trusted. Then why do you see citation after citation in H&L that reference the HSCA, WC, FBI, Secret Service and so on?

Yes, but I don't really see the point of this poster. For example, the entire first row is all "Lee" as far as I know. Then there are 8 photos of "Harvey" after the assassination. So what is the point? Are you claiming there are more Oswalds?

It has been explained, you just don't agree with the explanation. It is interesting that you accept Mr. Phipps "study" quickly, yet reject the work of the HSCA experts. One other thing I keep forgetting to mention is a study of ears that was done by an expert. The idea is that no two ears are the same as with fingerprints. The guy (can't remember he name) found, of course, there was only one Oswald. But I have never been able to get a hold of the full study so I don't know how or if it would relate to H&L since they used photos and I don't know which ones.

Nope. She wasn't rich but she got by with penny pinching and begging. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/marguerites-finances.html As far as what marguerite told people, she lied continually-where do you think LHO got it from?

Excellent post Jeremy. An interesting fact is that Armstrong actually mentions the exhumation in his book. He laments the fact that a DNA test could not be performed on "Harvey" as that would have proved if he was related to Robert or not. But Armstrong doesn't bother to inform the reader that his theory is destroyed by the exhumation result. The idea that "Harvey" was given a mastoid operation while in NY is a recent invention by Jim Hargrove, perhaps with Armstrong's blessing, to try and explain away the issue. My other point is after Michael Eddowes theory was disproved he was soon back at it working on another angle. Armstrong would undoubtedly do the same thing if a DNA test ever were performed which we know would show "Harvey" was the one and only LHO.

It's proof that four people saw someone who looked to them like Oswald.

Another document that is a "lie." I used to wonder how Armstrong figured out what documents and witnesses and other evidence to rely on. After all, he thinks the FBI faked just about everything. Jim and Sandy say much of what the HSCA did was forged. But yet you go through the citations in H&L and you see the FBI, HSCA, and all the other official sources listed. Then one day I figured it out. Anything that supports the H&L theory wherever it comes from is legitimate. And anything that doesn't support H&L is fake. BTW, Parker is replying to Jim and Sandy: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1399-the-skagit-according-to-a-former-crew-member

There were people not just in Dealey plaza, but in many places who thought they saw someone that looked like Oswald-correct.

But if two men are not twins, how do you put their photos together and make a new ID? Or are you saying you are not defending H&L?

As far as H&L they are identical when the theory requires it and non-identical when it better fits the theory. As far as the photo you posted, I stand by my comment that nobody would think these were identical twins or twins of any kind. Things like the ears would give it away. That is just something for newspapers and websites to use to fill up space.

As I predicted, Sandy says the HSCA scientific evidence was fake. But what else can he say? And my other question remains-hoe do you put together two photos of men who are not identical twins and fool people with it?

The point is they are saying that there were two boys who the CIA somehow found. These two boys at one point in time didn't look that much alike. One was taller and husky. One was shorter and looked like he had been in a concentration camp. Yet they selected these boys for a project whose ultimate goal wasn't even known. And somehow the CIA knew that these boys would grow up to look enough alike to put their photos together and make a new ID that would fool everybody. How likely does that seem?

Why don't you do us all a favor Ray. Go get a photo of your twin and then take a photo of yourself. Then see if you can cut the photos in half and put them together to make a new photo that will fool everybody here.