Greg Parker Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) 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 Jack White gave two very different stories on the nature of his relationship with an Armstrong "witness". The first story was meant to support the integrity of said "witness". The contradictory story which followed was meant to play down the now exposed undeclared friendship between White and "witness" which amounted to a conflict of interest - akin to say the Secretary of Industry approving and funding a nuclear power plant without declaring shares in the company signed up to build and run it. So DSL - don't dare tell me what he was and wasn't capable of. The above is in this forum for all to see and clearly shows the depths he was willing to go to. Edited June 3, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Does the man in the FWST photo look ANYTHING like a man who was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald? As I have asked this several times now, only to be met with abuse, so I'll try in language that may be more understandable. ================================================================= Does the man in the FWST photo look ANYTHING like a man who was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald? ========================================================== _+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 No one answering you at the other thread so maybe here Bernie? Let's look at your question a little... Does the man in the FWST photo look ANYTHING like a man who was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald? Bernie - that is the photo the FWST used to illustrate Lee Harvey Oswald the defector even though there are journalists and photographers in Russia at the time of this interview. Why use a old photo of a Marine when you can take a current photo of a defector to go hand in hand with the story? As i posted earlier - these are the photos of Oswald in Russia - does the FWST image look anything at all like our Oswald? does our Oswald look at all like the 2 photos of this Oswald at Atsugi or the altered FWST image ? You can conclude whatever obtuse thing you want Bernie.... just like the question. FWST looks more like the real LEE Oswald than the man playing the Harvey married to Marina part... and is why no photo was taken for that story - written by a CIA asset and submitted with an obviously altered photo... wonder who could have done that ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Largey Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 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". Thanks Tracy, I must say, it sounds to me like that was the first time Robert noticed the masked window, so any idea who showed him the fuller photo and when? Blogger provides no details on that except that it was posted in 2012. I guess the "they" Robert is referring to would be the newspaper. Do you Tracy know where the fuller masked photo came from and when you first saw it? Also you said you had experience in selling photos, can you think of a good technical reason to block those windows? I am struggling to come up with a reason other than one of disguise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 Does the man in the FWST photo look ANYTHING like a man who was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald? Begging the question. Illogical rubbish when you have your conclusion embedded in your question. Why use a old photo of a Marine when you can take a current photo of a defector to go hand in hand with the story? Maybe because that's the one you were given during an interview by the brother of the "defector"? You can conclude whatever obtuse thing you want Bernie.... just like the question. FWST looks more like the real LEE Oswald than the man playing the Harvey married to Marina part... and is why no photo was taken for that story - written by a CIA asset and submitted with an obviously altered photo... wonder who could have done that ??? You and Steve really are in a special class of stupid. He looks like Lee Oswald like you look like Lee Oswald. So... the story now is, they couldn't take a photo of him in Moscow because...well... photos in Moscow can't be altered. Only old Marine photos can be altered. Comedy gold! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Largey Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Karl and Greg, That Judyth Baker in exile thread is two hundred pages long, could you recommend a good page to start so I can find out exactly what Jack White said about this "witness" for myself please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Karl and Greg, That Judyth Baker in exile thread is two hundred pages long, could you recommend a good page to start so I can find out exactly what Jack White said about this "witness" for myself please? Sorry Clive, I haven't mentioned the Judyth Baker thread so I'm not entirely sure what witness you're talking about. Edited June 3, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Largey Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) 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. If I may Greg and Tracy will have to forgive me for this but, I was a little confused by some of what Tracy said regarding this and if he himself still thought Frankie could be the result of a bad copy and he mentioned the switch to digital as one possible explanation. I myself am in no doubt that it's been retouched by hand and in his blog he seems to feel the same but it did seem to me that from what he said here at least Tracy could still be undecided. Edited June 3, 2015 by Clive Largey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Largey Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Greg, you quoted Karl's last post above so I just assumed you were both talking about the same event, obviously not, sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 Greg, you quoted Karl's last post above so I just assumed you were both talking about the same event, obviously not, sorry about that. What I was talking about was this http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9297 You should read all 3 pages, but the problem is picked up on the last, and it carried on over a number of threads over a number of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 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". Thanks Tracy, I must say, it sounds to me like that was the first time Robert noticed the masked window, so any idea who showed him the fuller photo and when? Blogger provides no details on that except that it was posted in 2012. I guess the "they" Robert is referring to would be the newspaper. Do you Tracy know where the fuller masked photo came from and when you first saw it? Also you said you had experience in selling photos, can you think of a good technical reason to block those windows? I am struggling to come up with a reason other than one of disguise. That's all I know about the photos, but I suspect more information may come to light at some point. The only reason to block out the windows is to get a better background which they apparently did on the closeup photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) 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. If I may Greg and Tracy will have to forgive me for this but, I was a little confused by some of what Tracy said regarding this and if he himself still thought Frankie could be the result of a bad copy and he mentioned the switch to digital as one possible explanation. I myself am in no doubt that it's been retouched by hand and in his blog he seems to feel the same but it did seem to me that from what he said here at least Tracy could still be undecided. I am undecided on what happened to the photo and who did it and why. There is no doubt that the H&L people are using it to their advantage as Greg first pointed out. I will be updating my blog when this gets sorted out. Edited June 3, 2015 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Thanks for posting that old thread, Greg. It confirmed what I remembered- that there was nothing sinister or inconsistent in what Jack White said about his friendship with Kudlaty. Friends and classmates often go their separate ways, but still consider themselves "friends." Yet you jumped all over Jack's comment that he hadn't seen Kudlaty in decades, but had been friends with him all that time. I have lots of good friends that I haven't seen for many years, usually because we don't live in the same area, but we still talk and I would never consider them not to be friends just because we hadn't seen each other. You also questioned how Jack could have known Kudlaty's wife better than Kudlaty. The only purpose in this desperate effort was to try to make him look inconsistent- which you didn't, and he wasn't. How would knowing his wife better discredit Armstrong's theory? One would think that Armstrong's theory destroyed your own theory, or discredited your own work. This is clearly not the case. Why is this so personal with you? Why is it so important to you? As it is with most of your arguments against Harvey and Lee, you are stretching credulity to the breaking point here, in trying to poke holes in the theory. Not to mention, of course, making outrageous attacks upon a good man's character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Thanks for posting that old thread, Greg. It confirmed what I remembered- that there was nothing sinister or inconsistent in what Jack White said about his friendship with Kudlaty. Friends and classmates often go their separate ways, but still consider themselves "friends." Yet you jumped all over Jack's comment that he hadn't seen Kudlaty in decades, but had been friends with him all that time. I have lots of good friends that I haven't seen for many years, usually because we don't live in the same area, but we still talk and I would never consider them not to be friends just because we hadn't seen each other. You also questioned how Jack could have known Kudlaty's wife better than Kudlaty. The only purpose in this desperate effort was to try to make him look inconsistent- which you didn't, and he wasn't. How would knowing his wife better discredit Armstrong's theory? One would think that Armstrong's theory destroyed your own theory, or discredited your own work. This is clearly not the case. Why is this so personal with you? Why is it so important to you? As it is with most of your arguments against Harvey and Lee, you are stretching credulity to the breaking point here, in trying to poke holes in the theory. Not to mention, of course, making outrageous attacks upon a good man's character So no intervention when being called a xxxx, a minion, sheep, donkey, and all the other childish BS DJ throws but you are motivated to write yet another diatribe against Greg who you hate with a passion? And now you too Don want to distort the objections being made. Jack originally said he knew Kudlaty very well, so well that he could vouch for his integrity and thus we should believe what Kudlaty says. When challenged on this obvious conflict of interest that is not acknowledged in Armstrong's book he back tracked and said he had only seen him 3 or 4 times in 50 years. How can you possibly vouch for the integrity of someone you have only seen three times in half a century? But that's not the point is it Don? You just want to use your moderator's clout to have a cheap pop at a member who's ideas you disagree with but don't have the tools to rebut. Shameful. Edited June 4, 2015 by Bernie Laverick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Thanks for posting that old thread, Greg. It confirmed what I remembered- that there was nothing sinister or inconsistent in what Jack White said about his friendship with Kudlaty. Friends and classmates often go their separate ways, but still consider themselves "friends." Yet you jumped all over Jack's comment that he hadn't seen Kudlaty in decades, but had been friends with him all that time. I have lots of good friends that I haven't seen for many years, usually because we don't live in the same area, but we still talk and I would never consider them not to be friends just because we hadn't seen each other. You also questioned how Jack could have known Kudlaty's wife better than Kudlaty. The only purpose in this desperate effort was to try to make him look inconsistent- which you didn't, and he wasn't. How would knowing his wife better discredit Armstrong's theory? One would think that Armstrong's theory destroyed your own theory, or discredited your own work. This is clearly not the case. Why is this so personal with you? Why is it so important to you? As it is with most of your arguments against Harvey and Lee, you are stretching credulity to the breaking point here, in trying to poke holes in the theory. Not to mention, of course, making outrageous attacks upon a good man's character. Here we go again... White Exhibit One - Statement in defense of Kudlaty's honesty: "None of the interviewees were seeking any fame or reward. Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty. White Exhibit Two - Statement of White (from same thread) expressing his preference for concise language reflecting accuracy. "I prefer strict use of grammar for concise communication." White Exhibit Three - Statement distancing himself from Frank Kudlaty after the possible conflict of interest was pointed out "I was not present when John interviewed Frank Kudlaty. I don't know where you got that idea. At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her." In regard to the first part of the quote, what is being referred to is my questioning if he was present when Kudlaty was interviewed. White responded wondering how on earth I got that idea. As with everything else, it came from Jack himself when he stated "I was present for many of his interviews given above in 'example 1'". Example One was all about the witnesses for Oswald being at Stripling. He would later claim to have been present for only two or three interviews in TOTAL. So much for the claim to being present for "many' in just reference to Stripling alone. But I digress. The stretch in claiming that someone whom you knew briefly in college because you attended the same classes as his wife and then without seeing that person for 50 years, you can unequivocally call them a friend of 50 years standing and can therefore vouch for their honesty and integrity, defies credulity. But now that I have your attention - is it open season here, or there special rules for 'special" people? Edited June 4, 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