Frankenstein Oswald

[Jim Hargrove]

First YOU tell us how YOU think the Frankenstein image is the spittin' image of YOUR "Lee Harvey Oswald" since it is YOUR claim that Frankenstein was created for the EXPRESS purpose of fooling those who knew your "Lee Harvey Oswald" in FW.

Ah…. But that IS a picture of American-born Lee Oswald, though clearly not a very becoming one. Compare it to the photo from Robert's book at the top left of the H&L home page.

The nose is weird, though. Don't know the story there, though I suppose it could be caused by a fairly wide-angle lens set up too close to the face.

And if it was MADE for that purpose, why was it never USED for that purpose? In fact, why was it never published or used by anyone ever - EXCEPT by you, White and Armstrong?

It was used for PRECISELY that purpose, and placed in the Ft. Worth newspaper on Nov 1, and then again on Nov 16, both times in such a washed out form that hardly anyone would notice the difference if images of the two Oswalds were later compared. Aren't you paying attention here?

And if there was such a need to FOOL the good burghers of FW, why was the paper allowed to use a very clear, untouched version of the photo for the RETURN story in '62?

Who knows? Ask the spymasters who set up this not-so-excellent Mission to Moscow adventure in the first place. Maybe they just didnt' care anymore after everything failed so miserably.

And finally, why is there no apology in your updated story for 2 decades of misrepresentations surrounding the Frankenstein image - which is not only nothing like the historic Oswald - it is also not a good portrayal of the actual image being pasted over?

Excuse me? All John did was place the actual Wide World wire photo, which was a “retransmission” to “provide better copy” in its proper place on top of the original washed-out photo, which is what the newspaper should have done in the first place. He should be thanked for giving researchers a true look at the retransmitted photo that was unnoticed for all these years.

That said, John and I want everyone to know just how helpful you have been in making our Marines to Minsk page so much better than it was just a few weeks ago. We genuinely thank you for that! I'm in the process of making a little mini-page that will feature only the defection photos, and a description of the spy game that unfolded right there! You'll see it linked prominently right here as early as tomorrow or the following day. Thanks again, amigo!

STAY TUNED FOR THE ALL-NEW 1959 “DEFECTION” PHOTO WEB PAGE, AS INSPIRED BY OUR FRIEND GREG PARKER!

[Greg Parker]

First YOU tell us how YOU think the Frankenstein image is the spittin' image of YOUR "Lee Harvey Oswald" since it is YOUR claim that Frankenstein was created for the EXPRESS purpose of fooling those who knew your "Lee Harvey Oswald" in FW.

Ah…. But that IS a picture of American-born Lee Oswald, though clearly not a very becoming one. Compare it to the photo from Robert's book at the top left of the H&L home page.

The nose is weird, though. Don't know the story there, though I suppose it could be caused by a fairly wide-angle lens set up too close to the face.

And if it was MADE for that purpose, why was it never USED for that purpose? In fact, why was it never published or used by anyone ever - EXCEPT by you, White and Armstrong?

It was used for PRECISELY that purpose, and placed in the Ft. Worth newspaper on Nov 1, and then again on Nov 16, both times in such a washed out form that hardly anyone would notice the difference if images of the two Oswalds were later compared. Aren't you paying attention here?

And if there was such a need to FOOL the good burghers of FW, why was the paper allowed to use a very clear, untouched version of the photo for the RETURN story in '62?

Who knows? Ask the spymasters who set up this not-so-excellent Mission to Moscow adventure in the first place. Maybe they just didnt' care anymore after everything failed so miserably.

And finally, why is there no apology in your updated story for 2 decades of misrepresentations surrounding the Frankenstein image - which is not only nothing like the historic Oswald - it is also not a good portrayal of the actual image being pasted over?

Excuse me? All John did was place the actual Wide World wire photo, which was a “retransmission” to “provide better copy” in its proper place on top of the original washed-out photo, which is what the newspaper should have done in the first place. He should be thanked for giving researchers a true look at the retransmitted photo that was unnoticed for all these years.

That said, John and I want everyone to know just how helpful you have been in making our Marines to Minsk page so much better than it was just a few weeks ago. We genuinely thank you for that! I'm in the process of making a little mini-page that will feature only the defection photos, and a description of the spy game that unfolded right there! You'll see it linked prominently right here as early as tomorrow or the following day. Thanks again, amigo!

STAY TUNED FOR THE ALL-NEW 1959 “DEFECTION” PHOTO WEB PAGE, AS INSPIRED BY OUR FRIEND GREG PARKER!

What do you interpret a "retransmission" copy to be? How can a photo IMPROVE as a result of being "retransmitted?"

The jawline has been materially altered (possibly other features as well) in Frankenstein and if you go back to the start of this thread, you'll note that NO ONE - including Josephs - was disputing that Frankenstein was the result of retouching.

The jawline can be clearly seen as can much of the neck up to the ear. Some of which was visible neck has now been added to the jawline.

The original, and much clearer photo published by the same paper

in 1962 shows the jawline exactly as shown the in the photo published

in 1961.

To say or suggest that Frankenstein is just a clearer version of the one published is a shameful attempt by you and Armstrong to worm out of this. I have news for you and it's all bad. You'll worm out of it only over my dead carcass.

And let me add - EVEN IF IT WAS JUST A CLEARER VERSION OF THE SAME PHOTO, THERE IS NO - ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE FOR NOT TELLING ANYONE AT THE TIME IT WAS DONE. IT IS DECEPTION ANY WHICH WAY YOU LOOK AT IT.

You and Armstrong can shove you phony "thank-you's" where the sun don't shine. No one is buying it as genuine. No one is fooled by what you are doing.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Steven Gaal]

You and Armstrong can shove you phony "thank-you's" where the sun don't shine PARKER

=========================================================================

Will your kindle come with a disclaimer X RATED NO CHILDREN ALLOWED ?? Gaal

[Jim Hargrove]

You and Armstrong can shove you phony "thank-you's" where the sun don't shine. No one is buying it as genuine. No one is fooled by what you are doing.

Gee, Greg, you should do something about your obvious Anger Issues!

We still LOVE YOU! And we do appreciate your help improving the H&L Website!!!!! You really have helped us by asking tough questions about the 1959 "defection" photos.

As a personal THANK YOU, and even though it is far from ready, I am hereby offering the Greg Parker Memorial "1959 Defection Photo" Website to everyone here on the Education Forum right now!! Here is the link, still obviously a work in progress and so far, far from perfect:

http://harveyandlee.net/Marines/Defection.html

Thanks to Greg Parker, this site will be so much better very soon. Thanks again to Greg Parker!

[Jim Hargrove]

No doubt Greg Parker will soon declare he has been attacked by numerous viruses.

He seems to make fast recoveries, but I nevertheless wish him Good Health!

Thanks again, Greg!

[Greg Parker]

You and Armstrong can shove you phony "thank-you's" where the sun don't shine PARKER

=========================================================================

Will your kindle come with a disclaimer X RATED NO CHILDREN ALLOWED ?? Gaal

NO. It will come with a warning not to read if you prefer fairy tales like Harvey and Lee.

But good on you for asking.

All these JFK forums are soooooooo concerned about the kiddies and what they read.... it's heartwarming.

[Greg Parker]

You and Armstrong can shove you phony "thank-you's" where the sun don't shine. No one is buying it as genuine. No one is fooled by what you are doing.

Gee, Greg, you should do something about your obvious Anger Issues!

We still LOVE YOU! And we do appreciate your help improving the H&L Website!!!!! You really have helped us by asking tough questions about the 1959 "defection" photos.

As a personal THANK YOU, and even though it is far from ready, I am hereby offering the Greg Parker Memorial "1959 Defection Photo" Website to everyone here on the Education Forum right now!! Here is the link, still obviously a work in progress and so far, far from perfect:

http://harveyandlee.net/Marines/Defection.html

Thanks to Greg Parker, this site will be so much better very soon. Thanks again to Greg Parker!

I'm not angry, Jim

I could no more be angry at you and Armstrong for what you do than I could be angry at a buzzard for being ugly or a skunk for stinking. You are what you are.

The fact that you want to taunt me instead of actually addressing the differences which show tampering in the photos proves what you are. Like I said.... no one is fooled.

[Bernie Laverick]

Forum Mods

Now Don Jeffries has effectively given a protective green light to anyone who wants to have a cheap pop at Greg, is someone going to show some integrity and stop this blatant argumentative baiting by Hargrove.

Should Don even be a moderator on here? His behaviour on this thread has been absolutely appalling. He has openly admitted his outright personal antipathy to Greg and that has been noted by a few other posters too. Let's face it, Don cannot abide Greg. It's possible that he hates him with a passion

So why does he get to moderate on a thread, sorry, poke his stick into the hornet's nest with inflammatory baiting language, then disappear while his confederates carry on with what he has just chided Greg for?

I would implore James to study Don's contribution on here. there is no addition to the questions or discussion in hand; it is a blatantly one sided personal attack on somebody who's ideas he disagrees with. He even goes so far as to plead with those who don't agree with H&L to just "let it go" and follow another topic.

And this is a moderator!

[Clive Largey]

Steve,

Thanks for the reply. You say Greg postulates that Robert gave FWST the photo and that makes sense to me. But is that what the H&L gangs thinks as well?

If you guys can stomach another opinion from a newbie,

I think the blocked out window is significant so here's three possibilities that might explain it;

1. Robert gave a reporter the photo but insisted it was disguised in print so his brother would not recognise it's source.

2. Robert refused to give one up but after a visit to Roberts's home the photo just happened to find it's way into a reporter's pocket, "the reporter" had no choice but to make sure it was disguised before it was printed.

3. It came direct from Lee's possessions, once again, stolen, so the newspaper was told to disguise it or it was manipulated by the thief before it swapped hands.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Clive,

One small clue about the blocked out window comes from the following website:

http://oswald-photos.blogspot.com/

The comments there are attributed to Robert Oswald. The photo with the masking behind his head is commented on as follows (last photo):

"Used in Fort worth Star Telegram,1959,they masked around his face area"

Of course, the question remains who is "they".

[Jim Hargrove]

What do you interpret a "retransmission" copy to be? How can a photo IMPROVE as a result of being "retransmitted?"

The jawline has been materially altered (possibly other features as well) in Frankenstein and if you go back to the start of this thread, you'll note that NO ONE - including Josephs - was disputing that Frankenstein was the result of retouching.

Rather than talk about the "jawline" and "possibly other features as well," why don't you just point out that the entire background has been removed? An entire set of windows is gone. Retouched? DUH!! Ask the CIA media asset who surely slipped this photo into the public record why the picture was doctored. John suspects Hugh Aynesworth. And while you're on your excellent mission of discovery....

Why don't you see if you can discover where Wide World Photos/Associated Press is located and send them a letter? Ask them to send you the best image available of the 1959 "Lee Harvey Oswald" "defection" photo that appeared in the Nov 1 and Nov 16, 1959 editions of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram. Why don't you ask the wire service what a "retransmission" to "provide better copy" means; that's what the print label attached by Wide World Photos/AP says. You just posted the photo on page 15 of this thread. Don't you even read what you post?

Thank you again for your help improving the Harvey and Lee website!

[Bernie Laverick]

Thank you again for your help improving the Harvey and Lee website!

Which when translated goes like this...Because you have uncovered deception and lies at the heart of our un-provable theory we have had to remove a few things and give a different explanation for a few others.

I notice you seem to be a bit reluctant to take on Tracy who is meticulously pulling out, one by one, all of H&L's stitches leaving your theory looking like a sorry pile of rags.

You seem a bit scared to take him on Jim, so best if you just carry on baiting Greg eh? Hopefully no one will notice.

Managed to send that e mail yet...? Or did the CIA-run Ed Forum plot to prevent it?

[Karl Kinaski]

Greg,

You've made serious allegations against a researcher who spent decades studying the photographic record of this case. I can't believe I'm the only one on this forum who is outraged by your efforts to besmirch his reputation, especially when he is no longer able to defend himself. I contacted the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and they provided me with the image that is in their archives. I find the photograph to be of dubious quality, and I think it looks "Frankenstein" enough without any additional doctoring.

I don't expect you to admit that you're wrong. If I had to venture a guess, I would say that Armstrong used a lower quality copy of the photograph, which may have caused even further distortion in the image. You claim not to like conspiracy theories; that's a far simpler explanation than speculating that Jack White amateurishly butchered the photo to support someone else's research.

I'll let the rest of you debate this; as I said, I find most discussions of photographic interpretation to be pointless. But I do hope that someone else here will speak up for Jack White. I can't be the only one on this forum who respects his memory and resents these scurrilous allegations against him.

There are (probably) many things I disagreed with Jack White about, but he and I got along fine, and there were clearly many things we agreed upon. Also, Jack White, being from Texas, was clearly skeptical of the character and motivations of Lyndon Johnson, years--if not decades--before it became "fashionable" to go down that path.

Bottom line, and FWIW: I don't think Jack White would ever alter a photograph to advance his own, or another's research. That was simply not in his character.

He might disagree with you on the interpretation of something, but he would never alter evidence. FWIW: That's my opinion.

DSL

5/18/15 - 5:55 p.m.

Los Angeles, California

Jack White was an ardent supporter of Armstrongs "Two Ossis only" Theory (which adds nothing to solve the crime in Dallas, and distracts attention away from it.). To which dubious degree, everybody can check in the famous "Judyth Baker in exile" thread of this forum. White got lost in Armstrongs trap...

KK

[Greg Parker]

What do you interpret a "retransmission" copy to be? How can a photo IMPROVE as a result of being "retransmitted?"

The jawline has been materially altered (possibly other features as well) in Frankenstein and if you go back to the start of this thread, you'll note that NO ONE - including Josephs - was disputing that Frankenstein was the result of retouching.

Rather than talk about the "jawline" and "possibly other features as well," why don't you just point out that the entire background has been removed? An entire set of windows is gone. Retouched? DUH!! Ask the CIA media asset who surely slipped this photo into the public record why the picture was doctored. John suspects Hugh Aynesworth. And while you're on your excellent mission of discovery....

Why don't you see if you can discover where Wide World Photos/Associated Press is located and send them a letter? Ask them to send you the best image available of the 1959 "Lee Harvey Oswald" "defection" photo that appeared in the Nov 1 and Nov 16, 1959 editions of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram. Why don't you ask the wire service what a "retransmission" to "provide better copy" means; that's what the print label attached by Wide World Photos/AP says. You just posted the photo on page 15 of this thread. Don't you even read what you post?

Thank you again for your help improving the Harvey and Lee website!

I'm not talking about the photo used by the FW ST. Yes, as Robert said,they masked around the window. The actual person IN the photograph has been retouched in the Frankenstein image. You seem to be claiming now that no retouching was done - that this was merely an "unflattering" shot of Lee Harvey Oswald (as you put it. Yet the untouched photo as published in 1962 by the same paper looks nothing like Frankenstein.

YOU are advertising that the photo is "the best photo" available due to "retransmission" but you can't explain what that means or how it could improve the quality of a photo?

I agree I have improved your site by forcing you to remove some of the egregious errors. There is a LOT more to go. That should make you DELIRIOUSLY happy, no?

Edited June 3, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

Thank you again for your help improving the Harvey and Lee website!

Which when translated goes like this...Because you have uncovered deception and lies at the heart of our un-provable theory we have had to remove a few things and give a different explanation for a few others.

I notice you seem to be a bit reluctant to take on Tracy who is meticulously pulling out, one by one, all of H&L's stitches leaving your theory looking like a sorry pile of rags.

You seem a bit scared to take him on Jim, so best if you just carry on baiting Greg eh? Hopefully no one will notice.

Managed to send that e mail yet...? Or did the CIA-run Ed Forum plot to prevent it?

Here is the terrain they dare not venture into.

http://wtracyparnell.com/

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-the-harvey-lee-evidence