Bernie Laverick Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 "Never ever have I seen any proof of fraud re Frank Kudlaty." Correct. There isn't any. "Opinion yes of fraud but no proof. GAAL" No Steven you haven't even seen any opinion of his fraud. Because NO ONE has ever accused him of that. Do you ever read any of these posts? We are suggesting that Jack White is the guilty party for touching up a photo so as to make a 'better' distinction between the 'two Oswalds'. Armstrong had the original photo image that Jack worked from and therefore must have known that the one posted on the H&L website was incorrect, but he said nothing. Now deal with that. Plus, you earlier casted aspersions about the reliability of data that proves men in particular over-report their height. You were shown multiple links that prove just this point. But you guys have just two responses when faced with facts and evidence. Run away. Or change the subject //.Posted by Bernie Laverick =========================================================== Frankenstein Oswald Posted by Bernie Laverick on Yesterday, 12:02 AM in JFK Assassination Debate I remember the thread were Jack White was nailed bang to rights for his duplicity regarding his dubious involvement with Kudlaty. To defend the man's integrity and thus bolster his credibility as a witness Jack let slip that he had personally known Frank Kudlaty for nearly 50 years. ========================================================================================== bolster his credibility as a witness //LAVERICK ######################################################################## THE IMPLICATION IS THAT KUDATY IS A FRAUDSTER BY YOU LAVERICK ,who needs his credibility bolstered. // GAAL not changes subject or running away I know I'm not allowed to use the word moronic so I won't go there. Can some moderator please take a look at this. It is just making this forum a laughing stock. Do we have to put up with this deliberate baiting? Listen carefully Steven. I am saying JACK WHITE tried to bolster Kudlaty's credibility among some of this theory's detractors on here by saying he had known him for 50 years and could personally vouch for his integrity. I believe him, there is no reason to suspect Kudlaty of anything improper, but what do I know? I know this much, the person telling me this about Kudlaty was a chief collaborator of Armstrong's who supported the two Oswald theory and personally knew the witness in question for over 50 years. PLEASE FIND THE DISCLOSURE IN H&L THAT CONFIRMS THIS ASSOCIATION. The word "Fraud" was originally used in reference to the doctored photo Jack white used...as you well know. Should there be a minimum level of comprehension skills allowed on this forum surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) This was debunked ages ago http://www.russianbo...ald/discrep.htm 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... Edited May 20, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) Bernie posts: Why is it such a toxic question to ask you to support the premise that the USMC were definitely measured (as opposed to a self reported measurement) with some citation? It's your theory. It's up to you to defend it. But you don't want to be challenged on this theory. You feel grossly offended that others can even think of pointing out the many obstacles in its way and that you should be given a free ride. 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! Edited May 20, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I have no dog in the fight over Jack White. But as to this set of photos -- -- I believe the individual depicted on the far right is not the same as the individual depicted on the far left. I don't know from where the middle two gradations came, but they are gradations, meant to convince one that all four depictions are depictions of the same individual. But all of this is a distraction for researchers and students. The American people don't know about these depictions and could care less. The American people, to the extent they believe the Warren Commission, believe Marina's husband fired exactly three rounds from a rusted rifle in about 6.0 seconds. Hitting JFK twice. Stop arguing among yourselfs. It's self abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 This was debunked ages ago http://www.russianbo...ald/discrep.htm 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... This is the tonsils defense all over again. "Yes, tonsils can grow back... but you didn't prove it with Oswald" Yes, lots of things can change how tall someone looks in a photo... but you didn't prove it with this photo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I have no dog in the fight over Jack White. But as to this set of photos -- -- I believe the individual depicted on the far right is not the same as the individual depicted on the far left. I don't know from where the middle two gradations came, but they are gradations, meant to convince one that all four depictions are depictions of the same individual. But all of this is a distraction for researchers and students. The American people don't know about these depictions and could care less. The American people, to the extent they believe the Warren Commission, believe Marina's husband fired exactly three rounds from a rusted rifle in about 6.0 seconds. Hitting JFK twice. Stop arguing among yourselfs. It's self abuse. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) I have no dog in the fight over Jack White. But as to this set of photos -- -- I believe the individual depicted on the far right is not the same as the individual depicted on the far left. I don't know from where the middle two gradations came, but they are gradations, meant to convince one that all four depictions are depictions of the same individual. But all of this is a distraction for researchers and students. The American people don't know about these depictions and could care less. The American people, to the extent they believe the Warren Commission, believe Marina's husband fired exactly three rounds from a rusted rifle in about 6.0 seconds. Hitting JFK twice. Stop arguing among yourselfs. It's self abuse. Your entitled to your opinion, Jon. Mine is that everyone should have a dog in this fight. Using fraudulent means to build a case is no better than what the WC did. And the person who made the above is on YOUR side of this. His name is David Josephs. What has been shown beyond all doubt is that the facial measurements are exactly the same in each photo used by White - with the singular exception of his own faked Frankenstein image. Nice trick by the CIA to pick 2 boys whose facial measurements would end up exactly the same when they grew to adulthood. Edited May 20, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Largey Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 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.... 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. 1. As I pointed out when this was posted previously, it is the worst possible sample of the photo David could find. Why is that? The photo in the actual story is of considerably better quality. 2. If Jack White retouched it for the reasons you claim, he should have informed his readers of that he had done so. His silence reeks of other motives. edit to ad: the dishonesty is such that even his biggest fans initially tried to deny that White had done anything to the photo at all. That has now shifted to - yes, he did retouch it but only to enhance the quality. Which is just more utter garbage. I just think that Jacks' source would have been the newspaper because of the way the windows are blocked out and you would think if he was trying to get the best out of it he would have sought the best photocopy of that newspaper to work with but I suspect that from what he got he was already convinced it wasn't LHO so why would he try and make it look like him? And if he was trying to support the HARVEY/LEE issue surely he would have brought it more in line with that but it doesn't fit unless you put it with the embassy photos of someone that is "again" clearly not LHO. Honestly I don't know and I don't know what Jacks' photocopy looked like but as is obvious I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and I'd do the same for anyone as interested in this case as you guys here. Surely a pre digital photocopy of a newspaper will look worse compared to a modern scan, so what exactly was Jack working with? I don't think it was easy, probably took him hours and in the end he was way off but he wasn't to know with only the newspaper to work with. If it was originally related to and designed to support H&L surely he would have brought it in line? As it is it's a complete oddity but I'm glad now to know it's origins. Your correct too Greg, by rights Jack should have published the source but as I say compared to any version of that article, it's a valid interpretation so who would have pulled him on it? I have the book but not read it yet btw, just so you know where I'm coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) What has been shown beyond all doubt is that the facial measurements are exactly the same in each photo used by White - with the singular exception of his own faked Frankenstein image. 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. Edited May 20, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) 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.... 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. 1. As I pointed out when this was posted previously, it is the worst possible sample of the photo David could find. Why is that? The photo in the actual story is of considerably better quality. 2. If Jack White retouched it for the reasons you claim, he should have informed his readers of that he had done so. His silence reeks of other motives. edit to ad: the dishonesty is such that even his biggest fans initially tried to deny that White had done anything to the photo at all. That has now shifted to - yes, he did retouch it but only to enhance the quality. Which is just more utter garbage. I just think that Jacks' source would have been the newspaper because of the way the windows are blocked out and you would think if he was trying to get the best out of it he would have sought the best photocopy of that newspaper to work with but I suspect that from what he got he was already convinced it wasn't LHO so why would he try and make it look like him? And if he was trying to support the HARVEY/LEE issue surely he would have brought it more in line with that but it doesn't fit unless you put it with the embassy photos of someone that is "again" clearly not LHO. Honestly I don't know and I don't know what Jacks' photocopy looked like but as is obvious I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt and I'd do the same for anyone as interested in this case as you guys here. Surely a pre digital photocopy of a newspaper will look worse compared to a modern scan, so what exactly was Jack working with? I don't think it was easy, probably took him hours and in the end he was way off but he wasn't to know with only the newspaper to work with. If it was originally related to and designed to support H&L surely he would have brought it in line? As it is it's a complete oddity but I'm glad now to know it's origins. Your correct too Greg, by rights Jack should have published the source but as I say compared to any version of that article, it's a valid interpretation so who would have pulled him on it? I have the book but not read it yet btw, just so you know where I'm coming from. Clive, he clearly was using to further the H & L theory. The claim made was that it was "Lee" and not Harvey. The reason given by Armstrong and White? The CIA swtched a photo of "Harvey" for one of "Lee" because no one in Fort Worth would recognize "Harvey" - the inference being that they would recognise "Frankenstein Oswald" as being "Lee". It makes no sense of course because it looks nothing like Lee. But nevertheless, that was their claim and it was based on a fraud - and it has gone decades unchallenged, until now. I can understand giving benefit of the doubt. I give it constantly when I can find doubt. I can't find any to give here. Edited May 20, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 What has been shown beyond all doubt is that the facial measurements are exactly the same in each photo used by White - with the singular exception of his own faked Frankenstein image. 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. It has already been posted here. You failed to rebut it then. You want to try now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) It has already been posted here. You failed to rebut it then. You want to try now? Once again Greg... post a link to a photogrammical analysis of each of White's photos - no one offered such an analysis on these pages... they tried some lines to represent 3d space on a 2d image, but no photogrammetry was done... "the facial measurements are exactly the same in each photo used by White" - this is your comment... right? Edited May 20, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 It has already been posted here. You failed to rebut it then. You want to try now? Once again Greg... post a link to a photogrammical analysis of each of White's photos - no one offered such an analysis on these pages... they tried some lines to represent 3d space on a 2d image, but no photogrammetry was done... "the facial measurements are exactly the same in each photo used by White" - this is your comment... right? I think you misunderstand what photogrammetry is. This is what it is used for: http://www.wb.psu.edu/Academics/Degrees/32273.htm The work produced by Stan Dane and reproduced here By Randy S shows that the distances between various facial markers in all the photos is exactly the same. With the single exception noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 21, 2015 Author Share Posted May 21, 2015 (edited) Let's see what has been quietly removed from the HardlyLee.nut site as a direct result of research I have posted. The comparison to Ekdahl's height - gone - not even a mention of Ekdahl now http://harveyandlee.net/Mommies_Dearest/Mommies_Dearest.html While the Magic Tonsillectomy lives on at the old site, it has gone from the new one. http://harveyandlee.net/Early/Early.html And... Frankenstein Oswald has been removed http://harveyandlee.net/Marines/Marines.html None of the removed items have been replaced by any explanation whatsoever for the action. That's the way these guys roll. Remove. Never admit. Pretend it was never there. Three items is a start at least. Lot more to go, In all honesty, all they should be left with at the end of any real evaluation of the claims would be the neon banners. Edited May 21, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 It has already been posted here. You failed to rebut it then. You want to try now? Once again Greg... post a link to a photogrammical analysis of each of White's photos - no one offered such an analysis on these pages... they tried some lines to represent 3d space on a 2d image, but no photogrammetry was done... "the facial measurements are exactly the same in each photo used by White" - this is your comment... right? I think you misunderstand what photogrammetry is. This is what it is used for: http://www.wb.psu.edu/Academics/Degrees/32273.htm The work produced by Stan Dane and reproduced here By Randy S shows that the distances between various facial markers in all the photos is exactly the same. With the single exception noted. As explained Greg... lines (or # of pixels) on a 2d image of 3d reality cannot be used for measuring anything within two or more photos... But you can make as many excuses for saying one thing and delivering another as you like... you have plenty of experience... What's worse is that you believe that all those images of his face are even comparable... without knowing some key facts about the creation of each image... all Stan did was place some lines on some photos... get back to us when you have some science behind you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now