Clive Largey Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 Thank you David and Tracy, that's enough 101 for now I'll get back to reading, cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 To Mr. Parnell Can you explain the height changes? 68" upon entry October 1956, 71" upon leaving 3 years later, 69" at his death 4 years later. The USMC provided documents expressing these figures. They also said he scored a 212 and 191 at shooting tests... did the USMC just ask the marine how they did and write a number down? Unit Diaries... when a group of US Marines boards a ship or is transfered somewhere... do they keep records of such a thing? Can you prove any other USMC records are so badly in conflict with the men who accompanied him as those of Oswald's? We all appreciate you finding the handful of items which you feel are questionable and exploring them... there are thousands of points being made in that work... but why do you never address those which are not questionable, like the height and scar issues? the multiple witnesses to Ruby and Lee together in Dallas while Oswald is in New Orleans with Bannister and friends? The entire Alice Texas and related trip sightings... Making this about an accurate or inaccurate statement about Landes specifically is really not the point now it is. It's not a matter of why ROSE didn't see it, it's why have all his autopsy photos disappeared so it cannot be verified? Why has the Klein's microfilm disappeared when we could use it to check the original order blanks for accuracy as well as SOP for other C20-T750 orders...? Why are so many records that should not be missing, missing, and wind up being some of the easiest to use evidence to support the FBI's conclusions... ?? Address the MEAT AND POTATOS of the argument, not the fringe supporting ideas and theories... I posted a list of a couple dozen conflicts in the H&L evidence without once mentioning Landes... will the anti-H&L group ever get to addressing those? A 5'4" boy in 1951 becomes a 4'10" boy in 1953... how does that happen Mr. Parnell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 To Mr. Parnell Can you explain the height changes? 68" upon entry October 1956, 71" upon leaving 3 years later, 69" at his death 4 years later. The USMC provided documents expressing these figures. They also said he scored a 212 and 191 at shooting tests... did the USMC just ask the marine how they did and write a number down? Unit Diaries... when a group of US Marines boards a ship or is transfered somewhere... do they keep records of such a thing? Can you prove any other USMC records are so badly in conflict with the men who accompanied him as those of Oswald's? We all appreciate you finding the handful of items which you feel are questionable and exploring them... there are thousands of points being made in that work... but why do you never address those which are not questionable, like the height and scar issues? the multiple witnesses to Ruby and Lee together in Dallas while Oswald is in New Orleans with Bannister and friends? The entire Alice Texas and related trip sightings... Making this about an accurate or inaccurate statement about Landes specifically is really not the point now it is. It's not a matter of why ROSE didn't see it, it's why have all his autopsy photos disappeared so it cannot be verified? Why has the Klein's microfilm disappeared when we could use it to check the original order blanks for accuracy as well as SOP for other C20-T750 orders...? Why are so many records that should not be missing, missing, and wind up being some of the easiest to use evidence to support the FBI's conclusions... ?? Address the MEAT AND POTATOS of the argument, not the fringe supporting ideas and theories... I posted a list of a couple dozen conflicts in the H&L evidence without once mentioning Landes... will the anti-H&L group ever get to addressing those? A 5'4" boy in 1951 becomes a 4'10" boy in 1953... how does that happen Mr. Parnell? what is this a "bump" the posts you don't like out of the way campaign? Bumps - and moderators correct me if I'm wrong - are usually reserved for topics which have not been addressed for a while... this topic has plenty of activity... It is not necessary to "bump" it for any other reason than to try and push my post farther down... I was aking Tracy a question, he is fully capable of addressing it. so how about "bumping" yourself off... and leave the heavy lifting and addressing of question on the topic to others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 To Mr. Parnell Can you explain the height changes? 68" upon entry October 1956, 71" upon leaving 3 years later, 69" at his death 4 years later. The USMC provided documents expressing these figures. They also said he scored a 212 and 191 at shooting tests... did the USMC just ask the marine how they did and write a number down? Unit Diaries... when a group of US Marines boards a ship or is transfered somewhere... do they keep records of such a thing? Can you prove any other USMC records are so badly in conflict with the men who accompanied him as those of Oswald's? We all appreciate you finding the handful of items which you feel are questionable and exploring them... there are thousands of points being made in that work... but why do you never address those which are not questionable, like the height and scar issues? the multiple witnesses to Ruby and Lee together in Dallas while Oswald is in New Orleans with Bannister and friends? The entire Alice Texas and related trip sightings... Making this about an accurate or inaccurate statement about Landes specifically is really not the point now it is. It's not a matter of why ROSE didn't see it, it's why have all his autopsy photos disappeared so it cannot be verified? Why has the Klein's microfilm disappeared when we could use it to check the original order blanks for accuracy as well as SOP for other C20-T750 orders...? Why are so many records that should not be missing, missing, and wind up being some of the easiest to use evidence to support the FBI's conclusions... ?? Address the MEAT AND POTATOS of the argument, not the fringe supporting ideas and theories... I posted a list of a couple dozen conflicts in the H&L evidence without once mentioning Landes... will the anti-H&L group ever get to addressing those? A 5'4" boy in 1951 becomes a 4'10" boy in 1953... how does that happen Mr. Parnell? The answer is he didn't change heights, it is only discrepancies in the record. I find it believable that someone would ask him his height, as long as it wasn't too far off and a couple inches qualifies in my book. Of course, they are not going to do that with something like a shooting score for obvious reasons. I go by Occam's razor-the simplest explanation is usually correct. In the case of anyone's records there will be discrepancies because people make mistakes. In all cases where LHO was photographed with a height chart or such as at autopsy where accuracy was needed he was 5' 9" tall, in other words instances where we know he was measured. As others have said here previously, men will lie about their height-I have done it myself, although I only added an inch. I don't pretend to know the answer to every discrepancy in the record. But I am unwilling to accept the H&L theory to get my answers. Earl Rose stated that he could have overlooked the mastoid scar and IDed the body through fingerprints and x-rays. It is a different thing to not find a scar and to say it doesn't exist. As for witnesses, it is a known fact that after a publicized event people will say they have seen someone somewhere when it could not have happened. I would say the number of sightings of LHO that have any merit at all are maybe 3 or 4 and I am not saying they happened, only that they could have such as Odio and a couple others. Alice Texas I don't buy at all. I am unaware of any autopsy photos that are missing for Oswald. The key point with Landesberg is that they found something and tried to make it fit the scenario they had developed rather than letting the evidence guide them. And that is one of the problems with H&L is square pegs in round holes. There is always an alternate explanation for any of the discrepancies in the record other than the H&L theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 30, 2015 Author Share Posted May 30, 2015 The answer is he didn't change heights, it is only discrepancies in the record. I find it believable that someone would ask him his height, as long as it wasn't too far off and a couple inches qualifies in my book. Of course, they are not going to do that with something like a shooting score for obvious reasons. I go by Occam's razor-the simplest explanation is usually correct. In the case of anyone's records there will be discrepancies because people make mistakes. In all cases where LHO was photographed with a height chart or such as at autopsy where accuracy was needed he was 5' 9" tall, in other words instances where we know he was measured. As others have said here previously, men will lie about their height-I have done it myself, although I only added an inch. I don't pretend to know the answer to every discrepancy in the record. But I am unwilling to accept the H&L theory to get my answers. Earl Rose stated that he could have overlooked the mastoid scar and IDed the body through fingerprints and x-rays. It is a different thing to not find a scar and to say it doesn't exist. As for witnesses, it is a known fact that after a publicized event people will say they have seen someone somewhere when it could not have happened. I would say the number of sightings of LHO that have any merit at all are maybe 3 or 4 and I am not saying they happened, only that they could have such as Odio and a couple others. Alice Texas I don't buy at all. I am unaware of any autopsy photos that are missing for Oswald. The key point with Landesberg is that they found something and tried to make it fit the scenario they had developed rather than letting the evidence guide them. And that is one of the problems with H&L is square pegs in round holes. There is always an alternate explanation for any of the discrepancies in the record other than the H&L theory. The procedure for mastoidectomy takes place under general anesthesia administered by a Anesthesiologist and takes approximately two to three hours. An incision is made just behind the ear. This incision is typically very well masked within an existing skin crease, and the resulting scar usually heals to the point of being imperceptible to the naked eye. Oswald's body upon exhumation was in advanced decay. It would be reasonable to suggest that the scar would stand out more under those conditions with the epidermis no longer there. In short, it did not disappear and then reappear - it just became more visible due to natural causes. No magic. No dopplegangers. Just science. -------------------------------- There are no discrepencies in the school record heights. "54'" has been misread as "64'". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 (edited) Some years back John Armstrong copied the photo and text of LHO from the 11/1/59 edition of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram. He thought the image of LHO was such poor quality that he visited the Star-Telegram and asked for the best image they had of the "defection" photo of "Lee Harvey Oswald" as it appeared in the November 1, 1959 edition of their newspaper. The Star-Telegram said he should contact Wide World Photos in New York City. John did so, paid a fee of $25, and received a print of the photo. He then used this photo in his presentations in Dallas, for the benefit of fellow researchers. I spoke to John a couple of days ago and he located in his files the original photo sent to him by Wide World. He scanned the front and back and sent the files to me. The image files are too large to upload here, but here are links to high-quality scans of both which can be compared to the original version that appeared in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram of 11/1/59. (Note that the two Wide World Photo scans are quite large and may take several minutes to download into your browser.) Original 11/1/59 Image Wide World Photo Front Wide World Photo Back As you can see, Wide World's photo of "Lee Harvey Oswald" is NEARLY identical to the so-called "Frankenstein" face that has caused such consternation here. I say NEARLY identical because AP/Wide World Photos indicates, on the back of the original print: "This is a retransmission of FWI of Nov. 1 to provide better copy." This photo WAS THE ONLY PHOTO PROVIDED BY WIDE WORLD PHOTOS, AND LIKELY REPRESENTS the best version of the washed out image published BY THE FWST in 1959. Also in his files John found a copy of the original FWST article with the washed out photo and a resized print of the Wide World photo pasted on top of it. John said he did this himself so that during his presentations (and later his book) other researchers could see the clearest image possible of the so-called "defection" photo. It was meant to clarify and be of help to researchers, not deceive. The real deception occurred in 1959, when a barely visible image of American-born Lee Oswald was published so that people in the Dallas area who knew him wouldn't notice that this wasn't the guy who had just "defected." This deception continued when split images of Oswald (1/2 HARVEY and 1/2 LEE) appeared in various newspapers. John asked me to thank researchers for their interest in the deceptive photo published in 11/1/59 FWST. Since writing his book, he has learned much more about the deception related to the taller, huskier American-born Lee Oswald in Japan. This began with John's multi-hour interview with Richard Bullock, who is still very much alive and living in Egg Harbor, NJ. After Bullock saw numerous photos of Harvey Oswald after the assassination, he knew immediately that this was not the man he served with in Japan. For the next half century, he told friends and family that this was not the man he served with in Japan. When Bullock met JFK researcher Bill Kelly some years ago, before John interviewed him, Bullock told Bill the same thing. The interest in this deceptive 1959 photo has prompted John to share additional information with researchers. The write-up will be put up on HarveyandLee.net in the next few weeks. Edited May 30, 2015 by Jim Hargrove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 30, 2015 Author Share Posted May 30, 2015 Some years back John Armstrong copied the photo and text of LHO from the 11/1/59 edition of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram. He thought the image of LHO was such poor quality that he visited the Star-Telegram and asked for the best image they had of the "defection" photo of "Lee Harvey Oswald" as it appeared in the November 1, 1959 edition of their newspaper. The Star-Telegram said he should contact Wide World Photos in New York City. John did so, paid a fee of $25, and received a print of the photo. He then used this photo in his presentations in Dallas, for the benefit of fellow researchers. I spoke to John a couple of days ago and he located in his files the original photo sent to him by Wide World. He scanned the front and back and sent the files to me. The image files are too large to upload here, but here are links to high-quality scans of both which can be compared to the original version that appeared in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram of 11/1/59. (Note that the two Wide World Photo scans are quite large and may take several minutes to download into your browser.) Original 11/1/59 Image Wide World Photo Front Wide World Photo Back As you can see, Wide World's photo of "Lee Harvey Oswald" is NEARLY identical to the so-called "Frankenstein" face that has caused such consternation here. I say NEARLY identical because AP/Wide World Photos indicates, on the back of the original print: "This is a retransmission of FWI of Nov. 1 to provide better copy." This photo WAS THE ONLY PHOTO PROVIDED BY WIDE WORLD PHOTOS, AND LIKELY REPRESENTS the best version of the washed out image published BY THE FWST in 1959. Also in his files John found a copy of the original FWST article with the washed out photo and a resized print of the Wide World photo pasted on top of it. John said he did this himself so that during his presentations (and later his book) other researchers could see the clearest image possible of the so-called "defection" photo. It was meant to clarify and be of help to researchers, not deceive. The real deception occurred in 1959, when a barely visible image of American-born Lee Oswald was published so that people in the Dallas area who knew him wouldn't notice that this wasn't the guy who had just "defected." This deception continued when split images of Oswald (1/2 HARVEY and 1/2 LEE) appeared in various newspapers. John asked me to thank researchers for their interest in the deceptive photo published in 11/1/59 FWST. Since writing his book, he has learned much more about the deception related to the taller, huskier American-born Lee Oswald in Japan. This began with John's multi-hour interview with Richard Bullock, who is still very much alive and living in Egg Harbor, NJ. After Bullock saw numerous photos of Harvey Oswald after the assassination, he knew immediately that this was not the man he served with in Japan. For the next half century, he told friends and family that this was not the man he served with in Japan. When Bullock met JFK researcher Bill Kelly some years ago, before John interviewed him, Bullock told Bill the same thing. The interest in this deceptive 1959 photo has prompted John to share additional information with researchers. The write-up will be put up on HarveyandLee.net in the next few weeks. WARNING_ DO NOT OPEN THESE LINKS. YOUR COMPUTER WILL BECOME INFECTED WITH THE DELTA HOME VIRUS. Thanks a bunch for that Hargroves... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 (edited) Some years back John Armstrong copied the photo and text of LHO from the 11/1/59 edition of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram. He thought the image of LHO was such poor quality that he visited the Star-Telegram and asked for the best image they had of the "defection" photo of "Lee Harvey Oswald" as it appeared in the November 1, 1959 edition of their newspaper. The Star-Telegram said he should contact Wide World Photos in New York City. John did so, paid a fee of $25, and received a print of the photo. He then used this photo in his presentations in Dallas, for the benefit of fellow researchers. I spoke to John a couple of days ago and he located in his files the original photo sent to him by Wide World. He scanned the front and back and sent the files to me. The image files are too large to upload here, but here are links to high-quality scans of both which can be compared to the original version that appeared in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram of 11/1/59. (Note that the two Wide World Photo scans are quite large and may take several minutes to download into your browser.) Original 11/1/59 Image Wide World Photo Front Wide World Photo Back As you can see, Wide World's photo of "Lee Harvey Oswald" is NEARLY identical to the so-called "Frankenstein" face that has caused such consternation here. I say NEARLY identical because AP/Wide World Photos indicates, on the back of the original print: "This is a retransmission of FWI of Nov. 1 to provide better copy." This photo WAS THE ONLY PHOTO PROVIDED BY WIDE WORLD PHOTOS, AND LIKELY REPRESENTS the best version of the washed out image published BY THE FWST in 1959. Also in his files John found a copy of the original FWST article with the washed out photo and a resized print of the Wide World photo pasted on top of it. John said he did this himself so that during his presentations (and later his book) other researchers could see the clearest image possible of the so-called "defection" photo. It was meant to clarify and be of help to researchers, not deceive. The real deception occurred in 1959, when a barely visible image of American-born Lee Oswald was published so that people in the Dallas area who knew him wouldn't notice that this wasn't the guy who had just "defected." This deception continued when split images of Oswald (1/2 HARVEY and 1/2 LEE) appeared in various newspapers. John asked me to thank researchers for their interest in the deceptive photo published in 11/1/59 FWST. Since writing his book, he has learned much more about the deception related to the taller, huskier American-born Lee Oswald in Japan. This began with John's multi-hour interview with Richard Bullock, who is still very much alive and living in Egg Harbor, NJ. After Bullock saw numerous photos of Harvey Oswald after the assassination, he knew immediately that this was not the man he served with in Japan. For the next half century, he told friends and family that this was not the man he served with in Japan. When Bullock met JFK researcher Bill Kelly some years ago, before John interviewed him, Bullock told Bill the same thing. The interest in this deceptive 1959 photo has prompted John to share additional information with researchers. The write-up will be put up on HarveyandLee.net in the next few weeks. WARNING_ DO NOT OPEN THESE LINKS. YOUR COMPUTER WILL BECOME INFECTED WITH THE DELTA HOME VIRUS. Thanks a bunch for that Hargroves... (Gtreg Parker) Mr. Hargrove, Let me get this straight -- The deceptive photo was published so that newspaper's readers who happened to know American-born Lee Harvey Oswald wouldn't know that he (Lee Harvey Oswald) wasn't the "Oswald" who had defected to Russia? Sounds pretty complicated. Wouldn't it have been much simpler if the bad guys hadn't published any photos at all? --Tommy PS Thanks for the warning, Greg. Edited May 30, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 To Mr. Parnell Can you explain the height changes? 68" upon entry October 1956, 71" upon leaving 3 years later, 69" at his death 4 years later. The USMC provided documents expressing these figures. They also said he scored a 212 and 191 at shooting tests... did the USMC just ask the marine how they did and write a number down? Unit Diaries... when a group of US Marines boards a ship or is transfered somewhere... do they keep records of such a thing? Can you prove any other USMC records are so badly in conflict with the men who accompanied him as those of Oswald's? We all appreciate you finding the handful of items which you feel are questionable and exploring them... there are thousands of points being made in that work... but why do you never address those which are not questionable, like the height and scar issues? the multiple witnesses to Ruby and Lee together in Dallas while Oswald is in New Orleans with Bannister and friends? The entire Alice Texas and related trip sightings... Making this about an accurate or inaccurate statement about Landes specifically is really not the point now it is. It's not a matter of why ROSE didn't see it, it's why have all his autopsy photos disappeared so it cannot be verified? Why has the Klein's microfilm disappeared when we could use it to check the original order blanks for accuracy as well as SOP for other C20-T750 orders...? Why are so many records that should not be missing, missing, and wind up being some of the easiest to use evidence to support the FBI's conclusions... ?? Address the MEAT AND POTATOS of the argument, not the fringe supporting ideas and theories... I posted a list of a couple dozen conflicts in the H&L evidence without once mentioning Landes... will the anti-H&L group ever get to addressing those? A 5'4" boy in 1951 becomes a 4'10" boy in 1953... how does that happen Mr. Parnell? The answer is he didn't change heights, it is only discrepancies in the record. I find it believable that someone would ask him his height, as long as it wasn't too far off and a couple inches qualifies in my book. Of course, they are not going to do that with something like a shooting score for obvious reasons. I go by Occam's razor-the simplest explanation is usually correct. In the case of anyone's records there will be discrepancies because people make mistakes. In all cases where LHO was photographed with a height chart or such as at autopsy where accuracy was needed he was 5' 9" tall, in other words instances where we know he was measured. As others have said here previously, men will lie about their height-I have done it myself, although I only added an inch. I don't pretend to know the answer to every discrepancy in the record. But I am unwilling to accept the H&L theory to get my answers. Earl Rose stated that he could have overlooked the mastoid scar and IDed the body through fingerprints and x-rays. It is a different thing to not find a scar and to say it doesn't exist. As for witnesses, it is a known fact that after a publicized event people will say they have seen someone somewhere when it could not have happened. I would say the number of sightings of LHO that have any merit at all are maybe 3 or 4 and I am not saying they happened, only that they could have such as Odio and a couple others. Alice Texas I don't buy at all. I am unaware of any autopsy photos that are missing for Oswald. The key point with Landesberg is that they found something and tried to make it fit the scenario they had developed rather than letting the evidence guide them. And that is one of the problems with H&L is square pegs in round holes. There is always an alternate explanation for any of the discrepancies in the record other than the H&L theory. Thanks Tracy... appreciate the response... isn't the real point about the mastoid scar and his autopsy that the photos that were taken cannot be seen to prove it one way or another... like so much of the "original" evidence? (You may want to google the discussion about the 30 or so photos taken by another doctor at the time to record the autopsy process... taken away, cataloged yet gone to history) There are a few out there but they are mostly poor - as if a doctor not a photographer took them http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/02/JilM.html and many of course are missing... Do we really need to contact the USMC to see if they ever simply took the word of the marine for their vital stats documentation? And we are of course talking about more than just the marine records related to his height discrepancies... Was it the same "take your word for it" problem between 1951 and 1953 when he goes from 5'4" to 4'10" while Robert says he took the photo while Pic says that's not his brother... Kids usually don't shrink by 6 inches between ages 12 and 14.... while witnesses/documentation along the way that tells us of this scrawny, loner which conflicts with Lee, the class president and leader of kids... the little one also did not speak with a southern accent when he returned to New Orleans, and Ft. Worth... while Lee was teased for his accent while in NYC... This to me, remains one of the more difficult to resolve conflicts... since Pic goes on to correctly choose H from L in every case. Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 To Mr. Parnell Can you explain the height changes? 68" upon entry October 1956, 71" upon leaving 3 years later, 69" at his death 4 years later. The USMC provided documents expressing these figures. They also said he scored a 212 and 191 at shooting tests... did the USMC just ask the marine how they did and write a number down? Unit Diaries... when a group of US Marines boards a ship or is transfered somewhere... do they keep records of such a thing? Can you prove any other USMC records are so badly in conflict with the men who accompanied him as those of Oswald's? We all appreciate you finding the handful of items which you feel are questionable and exploring them... there are thousands of points being made in that work... but why do you never address those which are not questionable, like the height and scar issues? the multiple witnesses to Ruby and Lee together in Dallas while Oswald is in New Orleans with Bannister and friends? The entire Alice Texas and related trip sightings... Making this about an accurate or inaccurate statement about Landes specifically is really not the point now it is. It's not a matter of why ROSE didn't see it, it's why have all his autopsy photos disappeared so it cannot be verified? Why has the Klein's microfilm disappeared when we could use it to check the original order blanks for accuracy as well as SOP for other C20-T750 orders...? Why are so many records that should not be missing, missing, and wind up being some of the easiest to use evidence to support the FBI's conclusions... ?? Address the MEAT AND POTATOS of the argument, not the fringe supporting ideas and theories... I posted a list of a couple dozen conflicts in the H&L evidence without once mentioning Landes... will the anti-H&L group ever get to addressing those? A 5'4" boy in 1951 becomes a 4'10" boy in 1953... how does that happen Mr. Parnell? The answer is he didn't change heights, it is only discrepancies in the record. I find it believable that someone would ask him his height, as long as it wasn't too far off and a couple inches qualifies in my book. Of course, they are not going to do that with something like a shooting score for obvious reasons. I go by Occam's razor-the simplest explanation is usually correct. In the case of anyone's records there will be discrepancies because people make mistakes. In all cases where LHO was photographed with a height chart or such as at autopsy where accuracy was needed he was 5' 9" tall, in other words instances where we know he was measured. As others have said here previously, men will lie about their height-I have done it myself, although I only added an inch. I don't pretend to know the answer to every discrepancy in the record. But I am unwilling to accept the H&L theory to get my answers. Earl Rose stated that he could have overlooked the mastoid scar and IDed the body through fingerprints and x-rays. It is a different thing to not find a scar and to say it doesn't exist. As for witnesses, it is a known fact that after a publicized event people will say they have seen someone somewhere when it could not have happened. I would say the number of sightings of LHO that have any merit at all are maybe 3 or 4 and I am not saying they happened, only that they could have such as Odio and a couple others. Alice Texas I don't buy at all. I am unaware of any autopsy photos that are missing for Oswald. The key point with Landesberg is that they found something and tried to make it fit the scenario they had developed rather than letting the evidence guide them. And that is one of the problems with H&L is square pegs in round holes. There is always an alternate explanation for any of the discrepancies in the record other than the H&L theory. Thanks Tracy... appreciate the response... isn't the real point about the mastoid scar and his autopsy that the photos that were taken cannot be seen to prove it one way or another... like so much of the "original" evidence? (You may want to google the discussion about the 30 or so photos taken by another doctor at the time to record the autopsy process... taken away, cataloged yet gone to history) There are a few out there but they are mostly poor - as if a doctor not a photographer took them http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/02/JilM.html and many of course are missing... Do we really need to contact the USMC to see if they ever simply took the word of the marine for their vital stats documentation? And we are of course talking about more than just the marine records related to his height discrepancies... Was it the same "take your word for it" problem between 1951 and 1953 when he goes from 5'4" to 4'10" while Robert says he took the photo while Pic says that's not his brother... Kids usually don't shrink by 6 inches between ages 12 and 14.... while witnesses/documentation along the way that tells us of this scrawny, loner which conflicts with Lee, the class president and leader of kids... the little one also did not speak with a southern accent when he returned to New Orleans, and Ft. Worth... while Lee was teased for his accent while in NYC... This to me, remains one of the more difficult to resolve conflicts... since Pic goes on to correctly choose H from L in every case. Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir. A photo was taken by Rose of course of the back of the head. But the scar was probably hidden in the hair as Rose and others have postulated. As for the quality, they could be better-I believe Rose did take them and somewhere stated that some were overexposed. I am writing this from memory so I may be wrong about some of it. I will check the thread about the other photos you say were taken when I get time. In my view, the exhumation settled all issues about the identity of the person in the grave. Remember, the whole purpose of the exhumation was to answer a conspiracy theory by Eddowes. So this was not a whitewash by the government or anything like that. Eddowes picked the experts, who were among the best in the country at the time. And they identified Oswald and found the Mastoid defect. So anyone who disputes that is left with claiming the evidence was altered and I don't believe that was possible. I would be happy to discuss the exhumation with anyone here as I am very familiar with that evidence. Of course, the people who did the measuring in the MC were undoubtedly not supposed to just ask the individual what their height was. But it is possible they did so to save time. There are other possibilities such as they measured wrong or wrote it down wrong or LHO had footwear with a heel. The point is there are other possibilities. Same for the zoo photo and I understand you called about the height of the railing. But you would have to admit that is not a scientific method of determining someone's height. For example, he could be leaning backwards which would change the measurement. And to my knowledge, Pic never said it wasn't his brother, just that the photo did not look like him and indeed it is not a great picture. And Armstrong contacted Pic so he had the opportunity to tell him at that time if he had these type of suspicions about his brother. BTW, I forgot to mention David that you or anyone from the Armstrong camp are welcome to go to my site and post comments. I will be happy to give you wide latitude in any discussions or refutations you wish to add. I think if you know anything about me you will know that I am very fair in my dealings with other researchers. I readily admit I don't have all the answers and may not be able to refute everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Some years back John Armstrong copied the photo and text of LHO from the 11/1/59 edition of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram. He thought the image of LHO was such poor quality that he visited the Star-Telegram and asked for the best image they had of the "defection" photo of "Lee Harvey Oswald" as it appeared in the November 1, 1959 edition of their newspaper. The Star-Telegram said he should contact Wide World Photos in New York City. John did so, paid a fee of $25, and received a print of the photo. He then used this photo in his presentations in Dallas, for the benefit of fellow researchers. I spoke to John a couple of days ago and he located in his files the original photo sent to him by Wide World. He scanned the front and back and sent the files to me. The image files are too large to upload here, but here are links to high-quality scans of both which can be compared to the original version that appeared in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram of 11/1/59. (Note that the two Wide World Photo scans are quite large and may take several minutes to download into your browser.) Original 11/1/59 Image Wide World Photo Front Wide World Photo Back As you can see, Wide World's photo of "Lee Harvey Oswald" is NEARLY identical to the so-called "Frankenstein" face that has caused such consternation here. I say NEARLY identical because AP/Wide World Photos indicates, on the back of the original print: "This is a retransmission of FWI of Nov. 1 to provide better copy." This photo WAS THE ONLY PHOTO PROVIDED BY WIDE WORLD PHOTOS, AND LIKELY REPRESENTS the best version of the washed out image published BY THE FWST in 1959. Also in his files John found a copy of the original FWST article with the washed out photo and a resized print of the Wide World photo pasted on top of it. John said he did this himself so that during his presentations (and later his book) other researchers could see the clearest image possible of the so-called "defection" photo. It was meant to clarify and be of help to researchers, not deceive. The real deception occurred in 1959, when a barely visible image of American-born Lee Oswald was published so that people in the Dallas area who knew him wouldn't notice that this wasn't the guy who had just "defected." This deception continued when split images of Oswald (1/2 HARVEY and 1/2 LEE) appeared in various newspapers. John asked me to thank researchers for their interest in the deceptive photo published in 11/1/59 FWST. Since writing his book, he has learned much more about the deception related to the taller, huskier American-born Lee Oswald in Japan. This began with John's multi-hour interview with Richard Bullock, who is still very much alive and living in Egg Harbor, NJ. After Bullock saw numerous photos of Harvey Oswald after the assassination, he knew immediately that this was not the man he served with in Japan. For the next half century, he told friends and family that this was not the man he served with in Japan. When Bullock met JFK researcher Bill Kelly some years ago, before John interviewed him, Bullock told Bill the same thing. The interest in this deceptive 1959 photo has prompted John to share additional information with researchers. The write-up will be put up on HarveyandLee.net in the next few weeks. WARNING_ DO NOT OPEN THESE LINKS. YOUR COMPUTER WILL BECOME INFECTED WITH THE DELTA HOME VIRUS. Thanks a bunch for that Hargroves... Wow! Someone really wants to stop people from looking at these images! First of all, before put any files up on my website, I always check them with ClamAV, the a major open source malware detector for Linux-based machines. ClamAV reported "No Threat" for each of the three files. Second, as soon as I read Paker's "warning," I found a Windows machine and downloaded all three files using both Chrome and Internet Explorer browsers. Then I rebooted Windows to see if there was any indication that the Delta Home Virus had hijacked either browser's home page, which it hadn't. Signature files of the Delta Home malware also did not appear in Windows' list of running processes and apps. These are clear indications that the malware was not included in any of the three files. Finally, I double-checked with the host of HarveyandLee.net, a large Web hosting service called Bluehost.com. Here are selected portions of my chat with technical service: Chat ID: 4590482. Question: Provider: Bluehost - My Domain is: "HarveyandLee.net" Hi, I put up three .jpg files in a temporary directory this morning, and someone who doesn't like me claims they contain the Delta Homes virus. I see no evidence this is true. Is there anyway your server checks for this? The files are in the directory xxxxx/Temp and are named: FWST.jpg WW-Photo-1.jpg WW-Photo-2.jpg .... 11:24:53amJames Okay you are verified. Let us see what I can do for you. Give me just a moment to look at them, and see what I can find. I'll also get a malware scan running if I don't see anything directly. 11:25:33amJim Hargrove Thank you! I ran the latest version of ClamAV on all three files before uploading, and came up "no threats" 11:27:59amJames They don't seem to look bad to me, either. Just a moment, making sure with a scan. 11:34:12amJames Other than them being very interesting from a historical standpoint, I'm not seeing any evidence of malware or a virus on them. Let me get Terms of Service to run a deeper scan, see if there's something else. Will take me a moment to contact them. .... 12:04:45pmJames Scan's aren't showing any malware, from what we're seeing. So. Sure looks to me that the claim of malware in those files is BS, but if you think Parker is telling you the truth, then by all means don't download them. Personally, though, I think Parker doesn't want yoo see them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Jim, I am satisfied that the "Frankenstein" photo was indeed as provided by WWP as I stated previously in this thread. However, you can't blame Greg for being suspicious when someone obviously did paste "Frankenstein" over the '59 article. I don't believe that someone was you and you did the right thing by removing it. But there is a history with Armstrong of deception and you have apparently removed several things because of this. So apparently, you are more honest and careful in this regard than the boss and I give you credit for that. According to information on the old Dellarosa forum, at one point, Jim Marrs was considering writing Harvey & Lee and I think it would have been a much better book if he had. I think Armstrong spent a great deal of time and money and wanted to write the book as he saw fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Mr. Parnell , you seem a very reasonable man would it be impertinent to ask for your CV ?? THANK You Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 (edited) Some years back John Armstrong copied the photo and text of LHO from the 11/1/59 edition of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram. He thought the image of LHO was such poor quality that he visited the Star-Telegram and asked for the best image they had of the "defection" photo of "Lee Harvey Oswald" as it appeared in the November 1, 1959 edition of their newspaper. The Star-Telegram said he should contact Wide World Photos in New York City. John did so, paid a fee of $25, and received a print of the photo. He then used this photo in his presentations in Dallas, for the benefit of fellow researchers. I spoke to John a couple of days ago and he located in his files the original photo sent to him by Wide World. He scanned the front and back and sent the files to me. The image files are too large to upload here, but here are links to high-quality scans of both which can be compared to the original version that appeared in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram of 11/1/59. (Note that the two Wide World Photo scans are quite large and may take several minutes to download into your browser.) Original 11/1/59 Image Wide World Photo Front Wide World Photo Back As you can see, Wide World's photo of "Lee Harvey Oswald" is NEARLY identical to the so-called "Frankenstein" face that has caused such consternation here. I say NEARLY identical because AP/Wide World Photos indicates, on the back of the original print: "This is a retransmission of FWI of Nov. 1 to provide better copy." This photo WAS THE ONLY PHOTO PROVIDED BY WIDE WORLD PHOTOS, AND LIKELY REPRESENTS the best version of the washed out image published BY THE FWST in 1959. Also in his files John found a copy of the original FWST article with the washed out photo and a resized print of the Wide World photo pasted on top of it. John said he did this himself so that during his presentations (and later his book) other researchers could see the clearest image possible of the so-called "defection" photo. It was meant to clarify and be of help to researchers, not deceive. The real deception occurred in 1959, when a barely visible image of American-born Lee Oswald was published so that people in the Dallas area who knew him wouldn't notice that this wasn't the guy who had just "defected." This deception continued when split images of Oswald (1/2 HARVEY and 1/2 LEE) appeared in various newspapers. John asked me to thank researchers for their interest in the deceptive photo published in 11/1/59 FWST. Since writing his book, he has learned much more about the deception related to the taller, huskier American-born Lee Oswald in Japan. This began with John's multi-hour interview with Richard Bullock, who is still very much alive and living in Egg Harbor, NJ. After Bullock saw numerous photos of Harvey Oswald after the assassination, he knew immediately that this was not the man he served with in Japan. For the next half century, he told friends and family that this was not the man he served with in Japan. When Bullock met JFK researcher Bill Kelly some years ago, before John interviewed him, Bullock told Bill the same thing. The interest in this deceptive 1959 photo has prompted John to share additional information with researchers. The write-up will be put up on HarveyandLee.net in the next few weeks. WARNING_ DO NOT OPEN THESE LINKS. YOUR COMPUTER WILL BECOME INFECTED WITH THE DELTA HOME VIRUS. Thanks a bunch for that Hargroves... (Gtreg Parker) Mr. Hargrove, Let me get this straight -- A deceptive, "barely visible image" of American-born Lee Harvey Oswald was published in a Fort Worth newspaper so that those readers who happened to know Oswald wouldn't know that he wasn't the "Oswald" who had defected to Russia? Huh? That sounds complicated, Wouldn't it have been much simpler to not publish any photos at all? --Tommy PS Thanks for the warning, Greg. edited and bumped Edited June 2, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 31, 2015 Author Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) In 1959 live interviews of people involved in the current events, such as Oswald's "defection," were rare. Harvey may have successfully replaced Lee and "defected" to Russia, but there were still risks that the "defector's" identity would be questioned by people who lived in Fort Worth who knew the real Lee Oswald up to age 12. This problem was solved, or at least in Fort Worth, when a photograph of LEE Oswald (not Harvey) was published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on November 1, 1959. The S-T 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. The author located a copy of LEE Oswald's photo in the archives of the FWS-T. 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 the author was asked for a copy of the photo, he was told to get in touch with Wide World Photos, Rockefeller Plaza, New York City. He wrote a letter and asked WWP 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?" Origin Of The FWS-T Photo The first reporter who attempted to interview Oswald in Moscow was Abe Goldberg, early in the afternoon of Oct. 31, shortly after Oswald left the U.S. Embassy. Goldberg told the FBI that he did not take a photograph of Oswald. Robert Korengold spoke briefly with Oswald at the door to his room at the Hotel Metropole, but took no photographs. Aline Mosby was the first person to actually interview Oswald in mid-afternoon of Oct. 31, but there is no indication from her notes or testimony that she tok a photograph of Oswald. 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. The photo of LEE Oswald that appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on November 1, 1959 appeared again in the November 26th issue of the Evening Star in Washington D.C. This time the photo was credited to the the Associated Press (AP), yet they claim to have no record of it's origin. The origin of this photo, published within 24 hours of Aline Mosby's interview with Oswald in Moscow remains unknown. (Once again information about Oswald, in this case a photo, was given to the media by an unidentified source only one day after his "defection." The most LIKELY souce was a CIA media asset. Harvey and Lee pp269-73 Can someone please point out where in there it says the photo I am showing you is not the actual photo used by the FWST. It has been heavily retouched. Moreover, can someone please explain the logic in suggesting the Frankenstein Oswald would be recognised as Lee Harvey Oswald in FW? Robert Oswald was the most likely source. Too simple for you guys? Also in his files John found a copy of the original FWST article with the washed out photo and a resized print of the Wide World photo pasted on top of it. John said he did this himself so that during his presentations (and later his book) other researchers could see the clearest image possible of the so-called "defection" photo. It was meant to clarify and be of help to researchers, not deceive. The real deception occurred in 1959, when a barely visible image of American-born Lee Oswald was published so that people in the Dallas area who knew him wouldn't notice that this wasn't the guy who had just "defected." This deception continued when split images of Oswald (1/2 HARVEY and 1/2 LEE) appeared in various newspapers. John asked me to thank researchers for their interest in the deceptive photo published in 11/1/59 FWST. Since writing his book, he has learned much more about the deception related to the taller, huskier American-born Lee Oswald in Japan. This began with John's multi-hour interview with Richard Bullock, who is still very much alive and living in Egg Harbor, NJ. After Bullock saw numerous photos of Harvey Oswald after the assassination, he knew immediately that this was not the man he served with in Japan. For the next half century, he told friends and family that this was not the man he served with in Japan. Yet failed to tell a single soul that this is what he had done. And despite Frankenstein looking nothing like the original print used, Armstrong allowed the deception by Jack White to carry on for years that Frankenstien was what was published. To call this deception a case of trying to HELP other researchers just shows a hell of a lot of gall. I mean, even though he has known about the paper lightly touching up the original photo, he is now thanking me for bringing it his attention so he can belatedly address it? Give me a break. Let's get this straight. Regardless of who actually made the Frankenstein photo, it was used fraudulently to deceive, NOT as Armstrong claims, to help other researchers. The proof of that claim is in the fact that he never told anyone he'd pasted it over the top of the original, he doesn't say so in his book, and he allowed Jack White and Jim Hargrove to carry on the deceit in his name for 2 decades - even if in the case of Hargrove, he was ignorant of the facts as we now know them. Edited May 31, 2015 by Greg Parker 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