Frankenstein Oswald

[Greg Parker]

I should have said "I'm not big on Oswald" and Chris was correct that I had no idea what photo that mug shot I last posted came from but I hope you got my point about what Jack may have had to work with, if it was him.

Regarding what Jim said and Greg's response, here direct from the book:

The Star-Telegram published a front-page article titled "Brother's Turn to Reds Puzzles Fort Worth Man." On page 2 there is a photograph of a husky young man with a thick neck and a wide nose who appears to be wearing a Marine uniform-Lee Oswald. Any resident of Fort Worth who saw this photograph and knew the real Lee Oswald would probably recognize him.

I located a copy of Lee Oswald's photo in the archives of the Fort Worth Star Telegram. There was no notation as to the origin or source of this photo, yet it was published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram only one day after Oswald's "defection." When I asked for a copy of the photo, I was told to get in touch with Wide World Photos, Rockefeller Plaza, New York City. I wrote a letter and asked Wide World Photos if they knew the source of the photo. They responded and said they did not know the source of the photo. So, how did the Fort Worth Star-Telegram get this photo only one day after Oswald's "defection"?

No mention of a monster or even a composite but a recognisable Lee.

The photo in the defection article is not recognisable to me in any condition as Lee/Harvey but the one with the windows back in place on the return , yes.

Clive, there are three iterations of the photo.

What appears to be the original photo used in the return story.

A retouched version used on the "defection" story preceding the above story by nearly 3 years.

The Frankenstein version hawked by White and on the HardlyLee.nut website as being THE photo used in the "defection" story. To support that nonsense, someone placed Frankenstein over the retouched "defection" version in the story itself and photocopied it.

I am not interested right now in the retouched version used in the original story - that's for another day. This is about the Frankenstein version which White and the hardlyLee.nut website falsely and fraudulently claimed was what was used by the Star-Telegram.

I note too, that we now have two versions of events. According to the book, Armstrong specifically requested the photo used in the defection story. In his current version, he requested the best "defection" photo they had.

Maybe if we just ask a straight-farward question for Jim to put to John.

Which version of the photo are you claiming to have received for your $25.00 - the actual version used by the Star Telegram in the defection story, or the frankenstein version?

We may as well also ask when he received a copy of the full "defection" story showing the mildly retouched version actually used, why he did not advise White to cease representing the Frankenstein version as what was used?

Edited May 24, 2015 by Greg Parker

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Greg,

To answer your question, it appears Armstrong indeed received the "Frankenstein" version and then at some point someone pasted it over the original article to create a composite. This is from my website:

http://wtracyparnell.com/frankenstein-oswald/

In 1997, when I started researching Oswald, I wrote to Armstrong and asked him about his theory and research and expressed my interest in Oswald’s life. He replied and gave me some general advice, described his research to that point and enclosed a copy of “Frankenstein” which I made a photocopy of. The following is verbatim from his letter to me of August 11, 1997:

This photograph is from 1959 (the same time the “helmet” photograph was taken). I obtained my copy from Wide World Photos (Rockefeller Center, NY). This photo of LHO appeared in the November 1, 1959 issue of the Fort Worth Star telegram. There was an accompanying article about Oswald’s defection to Russia. I would appreciate your returning this photograph as soon as possible.

So Armstrong’s story on the photo today matches what he told me in 1997. As I recall, the image was on quality photo paper and did indeed look like it probably came right from the stock photo house. It is well known that Armstrong has limited computer skills and this was certainly even more true in 1997. It is very doubtful that he manipulated the image in any way. Of course, this would not preclude the possibility of someone else manipulating the image for him, but I would guess the fault was with Wide World themselves.

However, none of this changes the fact that someone in the Armstrong camp created a composite image at some point by pasting “Frankenstein” over the original article and Parker is certainly correct on that point and Hargrove’s removal of the image is confirmation. So the bottom line is the Armstrong camp is caught with their hand in the “cookie jar” again, although we will probably never know who actually created the composite that once appeared on Hargrove’s site.

[David Josephs]

So the bottom line is the Armstrong camp is caught with their hand in the “cookie jar” again, although we will probably never know who actually created the composite that once appeared on Hargrove’s site

The point of the matter was the origin of the photo... and how it was obviously altered in some way... Some suggest ROBERT provided it yet while he talks of the telegram printed in that article, no mention is made of the photo he is suppose to have provided while discussing the Star Telegram edition it appears in... Robert is asked many questions about photos, yet none related to that article or that image...

If Robert does not provide the image... how again does the Star get it between the time of the writing of the story and its publishing?

What JA wrote was that it was LIKELY that the CIA originated it and funneled it thru thru Newspaper assets so that the man in Russia was not revealed... only Lee's marine image is...

The only people trying to deceive are those that provided the altered image to begin with.... and claimed this was the man in Russia..

it was not - as I posted the Russian images and they could not be less similar.

Mr. OSWALD. After we were notified that Lee was in Russia.

Mr. JENNER. Who notified you?

Mr. OSWALD. Star Telegram reporter in Fort Worth, Tex

Mr. JENNER. I take it from that you do not have copies?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir.

However, they are printed in their entirety in the next edition of the Star Telegram, which I believe would be November 1st edition

Mr. JENNER. There is a reference in your brother's letter of November 8 to his reluctance to engage in a telephone conversation. Had you attempted to reach him by telephone?

Mr. OSWALD. I had decided to try to reach him by telephone on Sunday, November 1, 1959. I did not.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

David,

There are really three issues here. Hargrove had a composite image on his site (since removed) with "Frankenstein" pasted over the original newspaper article. As Greg Parker has pointed out, this was done in an apparent attempt to differentiate between "Harvey" and "Lee". Hargrove has removed the photo and replaced it with the original which is an admission of the existence of the composite. He says he doesn't know how it got that way and that is fine he may be telling the truth and he has done the right thing. This issue is what this thread was originally created by Parker to discuss.

The second issue here is if "Frankenstein" (as opposed to Hargrove's composite) was created by someone in the Armstrong camp. I have stated my belief that "Frankenstein" was a creation of the stock photo house, either a poor quality copy or whatever. But even if that is the case, it was used to advantage by someone in the Armstrong camp.

The third issue is where did the photos from the Marine Corps "shoot" come from? I don't have the slightest idea, although the suggestion that Robert Oswald provided them seems reasonable.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Greg,

You argue that because "he" had tonsillitis in the marines...and then I cease to follow your reasoning.

If you disbelieve that as a boy Marina's husband had his tonsils removed, fine. No quarrel from me.

But if you grant the same boy may have had his tonsils removed, and then maintain the tonsils must have grown back, as tonsils have been known to do, then the frequency and extent of grow-back become significant. In judging how likely it was the tonsils grew back to such a size as to become susceptible to infection.

It's one thing if tonsils routinely grew back in a way and to a size that made them susceptible to infection. It's another if tonsils only occasionally grew back and then only occasionally grew back to such a size as to become susceptible to infection.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Bernie Laverick]

Greg,

You argue that because "he" had tonsillitis in the marines...and then I cease to follow your reasoning.

If you disbelieve that as a boy Marina's husband had his tonsils removed, fine. No quarrel from me.

But if you grant the same boy may have had his tonsils removed, but then maintain the tonsils must have grown back, as tonsils have been known to do, then the frequency and extent of grow-back become significant. In judging how likely it was the tonsils grew back to such a size as to become susceptible to infection.

It's one thing if tonsils routinely grew back in a way and to a size that made them susceptible to infection. It's another if tonsils only occasionally grew back and then only occasionally grew back to such a size as to become susceptible to infection.

Jon I don't think the issue here is whether A - there's no proof that he ever had a tonsillectomy or B - he did but they grew back, like many do, and big enough that further infection can require yet another operation.

You're missing the point. Opponents of H&L are simply trying to establish that there are much easier solutions to what seem like anomalies but more likely, as in this case, have a far more simpler explanation (either A or B ) than the wild assertions and conclusions drawn by H&L supporters.

We have established now that they do grow back. David even accepted that by grudgingly noting that it "only happens in less than 15% of the time". So for every million children who have their tonsils removed, 150,000 will experience regrowth.

So can we now have the proof that Oswald's were ever removed in the first place?

Edited May 24, 2015 by Bernie Laverick

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

You argue that because "he" had tonsillitis in the marines...and then I cease to follow your reasoning.

If you disbelieve that as a boy Marina's husband had his tonsils removed, fine. No quarrel from me.

But if you grant the same boy may have had his tonsils removed, but then maintain the tonsils must have grown back, as tonsils have been known to do, then the frequency and extent of grow-back become significant. In judging how likely it was the tonsils grew back to such a size as to become susceptible to infection.

It's one thing if tonsils routinely grew back in a way and to a size that made them susceptible to infection. It's another if tonsils only occasionally grew back and then only occasionally grew back to such a size as to become susceptible to infection.

Jon I don't think the issue here is whether A - there's no proof that he ever had a tonsillectomy or B - he did but they grew back, like many do, and big enough that further infection can require yet another operation.

You're missing the point. Opponents of H&L are simply trying to establish that there are MUCH easier solutions to what seem like anomalies but more likely, as in this case, have a far more simpler explanation than the wild assertions and conclusions drawn by H&L supporters.

We have established now that they do grow back. David even accepted that by grudgingly noting that it "only happens in less than 15% of the time". So for every million children who have their tonsils removed, 150,000 will experience regrowth.

So can we now have the proof that Oswald's were ever removed in the first place?

Thanks Bernie. I guess we are at an impasse. I don't understand Jon's reasoning. He doesn't believe "Marina's husband" was American born - therefore he doesn't believe the kid who had the tonsillectomy was "Marina's husband". To me, they are all (Jon included) trying desparately to make the facts fit the theory.

Here are the facts.

1. There are no medical records proving Lee Harvey Oswald ever had a tonsillectomy.

2. Lee Harvey Oswald had tonsillitis while in the Marines.

3. Tonsils are known to grow back.

Those are the only rock solid facts we have to go on.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

Regarding what Jim said and Greg's response, here direct from the book:

Quote

The Star-Telegram published a front-page article titled "Brother's Turn to Reds Puzzles Fort Worth Man." On page 2 there is a photograph of a husky young man with a thick neck and a wide nose who appears to be wearing a Marine uniform-Lee Oswald. Any resident of Fort Worth who saw this photograph and knew the real Lee Oswald would probably recognize him.

I located a copy of Lee Oswald's photo in the archives of the Fort Worth Star Telegram. There was no notation as to the origin or source of this photo, yet it was published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram only one day after Oswald's "defection." When I asked for a copy of the photo, I was told to get in touch with Wide World Photos, Rockefeller Plaza, New York City. I wrote a letter and asked Wide World Photos if they knew the source of the photo. They responded and said they did not know the source of the photo. So, how did the Fort Worth Star-Telegram get this photo only one day after Oswald's "defection"?

No mention of a monster or even a composite but a recognisable Lee.

The photo in the defection article is not recognisable to me in any condition as Lee/Harvey but the one with the windows back in place on the return , yes.

CLIVE LARGEY

########################################################

Clive the anti H & L crowd says it was brother Robert who may have given photo to the paper.

Seems even GREG PARKER thinks Robert may have ONI connections

Gee so the photo history is kinda spooky, NO ?? GAAL

The more you guys try to clear this up, the more bizarre it gets.

Here we have Armstrong going to the Star Telegram and finding in their archives a "photograph of a husky young man with a thick neck and a wide nose who appears to be wearing a Marine uniform."

This should have been the original, untouched version of the photo since it was used in the story of Oswald's return. Yet Armstrong wants us to believe he paid $25.00 to World Wide Photos for "the best defection photo of Oswald they had" and receives the obviously heavily retouched Frankenstein version. But Armstrong doesn't bat an eye.

After that, someone pasted it over the defection story photo and white and the Hardlylee.nut website start claiming it was THE defection photo used. Meanwhile, Armstrong acquires a copy of the defection story showing the Frankenstein image was definitely not the image used -- but says nothing. By then, he most likely also had the "return" story from the Star Telegram showing the completely untouched version.

The whole thing stinks and none of the explanations are any where near satifactory.

As for Robert... what I suggested was that he supplied the original untouched version.That's just a plain common sense, logical explanation since he was interviewed for the story and also supplied a photo of himself for it , but I can't help it if you guys are allergic to logic.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Clive Largey]

Hi Tracy,

could you please show us the copy you made of the photo John sent you?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Hi Tracy,

could you please show us the copy you made of the photo John sent you?

Clive,

I added it to my blog, I wasn't sure how to do an attachment since I am finding my way around still. This is a copy of a copy so the quality is bad, but I think you can see that it is Frankenstein. I cropped off the writing on the left which is just to remind me of what it was.

http://wtracyparnell.com/frankenstein-oswald/

[Clive Largey]

Much obliged Tracy,

one of your comments had me wondering,

"I have stated my belief that "Frankenstein" was a creation of the stock photo house, either a poor quality copy or whatever"

but there is no doubt about it, that person's face has been severely messed with by hand and to echo what Greg said, you can hardly describe what Armstrong did with it as using it to his advantage. Firstly it doesn't fit but receiving an image of an infamous assassin in that fraudulent condition from a respected source deserves it's own investigation, or at least a full chapter in the book. Well, not from me but you too get the point Greg is making here I hope.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Bernie @ post #160

I understand the preference for a simpler explanation. I really do. In fact, I often think of a book, "The Copernican Revolution," in this regard. The Polish monk Copernicus came to the conclusion and argued persuasively that the earth orbited the sun, not vice versa. He preferred this model to the Ptolemaic model because his model was simpler. Seeking simpler (more elegant) explanations is a general hallmark of post-Copernican science.

So you get no argument from me on the preference for simplicity -- when it comes to matters of natural occurrence.

The JFK assassination is no such matter IMO. It was carefully and highly contrived.

Or one can prefer the simpler explanations offered by DVP.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Clive Largey]

Tracy

just reading what you wrote alongside the image you supplied on your blog and I now see that you too have no doubts about it being a manipulated photo.

Anyway,

if the monster really did come from the WWP then it's placement over the original newspaper image on the website would be a little more forgivable, no? Why not put it back up and explain it's from a legitimate source who were clearly manipulating images of Oswald before he went into enemy territory?

[Bernie Laverick]

Bernie @ post #160

I understand the preference for a simpler explanation. I really do. In fact, I often think of a book, "The Copernican Revolution," in this regard. The Polish monk Copernicus came to the conclusion and argued persuasively that the earth orbited the sun, not vice versa. He preferred this model to the Ptolemaic model because his model was simpler. Seeking simpler (more elegant) explanations is a general hallmark of post-Copernican science.

So you get no argument from me on the preference for simplicity -- when it comes to matters of natural occurrence.

The JFK assassination is no such matter IMO. It was carefully and highly contrived.

Or one can prefer the simpler explanations offered by DVP.

Or one can prefer the simpler explanations offered by DVP

Hi Jon

So, if you don't buy into the H&L theory that automatically puts you in the DVP camp? Seriously?

You mention highly contrived but conclude that there are only two explanations - H&L or Lone Nutter. It's kind of insulting and exactly the mentality of cult-like behaviour.

"You're either with us or you are against us!"

This is a constant theme from some of the more vocal H&L group. That if you criticise any aspect of the H&L theory as described on their website or from their own contributions on here you will inevitably be labelled a LN or COINTELPRO.

"In the Ptolemaic system, each planet is moved by a system of two spheres" (Wiki)

Sounds familiar....(Is one of the spheres Hungarian?)

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Tracy

just reading what you wrote alongside the image you supplied on your blog and I now see that you too have no doubts about it being a manipulated photo.

Anyway,

if the monster really did come from the WWP then it's placement over the original newspaper image on the website would be a little more forgivable, no? Why not put it back up and explain it's from a legitimate source who were clearly manipulating images of Oswald before he went into enemy territory?

It is certainly more forgivable than if they had both created Frankenstein and pasted it over the article. But as Parker says, it is still a form of research fraud and Hargrove was right to remove it and I give him credit for that. I don't believe WWP was manipulating anything. I just think it was a poor quality image for some unknown reason. The possibility still exists that White or someone else altered it, but that is less likely for the reasons I have explained.