Frankenstein Oswald

[David Andrews]

Harvey and Lee is available here,

https://app.box.com/s/8b408e6999f8799dfd0a

thanks to Robert Morrow, who linked to his book box in this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19886

Thanks David. Not quite what this was about.

DJ was complaining that I should post my work online "for others to rip apart". Weird really, because Armstrong doesn't do that. I have been doing that for 15 years. So yes - you don't have to fork $100 for his book. But even that's not Armstrong's doing.

Was long available only after some expense and doing. Maybe a wider read by Forum members will produce some critical insight, though never consensus. Time, gentlemen.

Edited May 20, 2015 by David Andrews

[Steven Gaal]

The Warren Commission was correct when it reported that LEE Oswald and his mother were living at 1454 St. Marys from early 1954 through the spring of 1955 and then moved to 126 Exchange Alley. But what Myra DaRouse told us was more important. She said that she drove her favorite student, HARVEY Oswald, to his home at 126 Exchange Alley after having him examined at the Monte Lepre Clinic in the spring of 1954. This means that HARVEY and the Marguerite Oswald impostor lived at 126 Exchange Place from Sept 1953 through the summer of 1954. In the spring of 1955, LEE and his tall, nice-looking mother moved into 126 Exchange and remained there until June, 1956. In July 1955 they were visited by Robert Oswald, who remembered that his brother LEE was working for an import/export company (Tujague's).

In the fall of 1954, LEE entered the 9th grade at Beauregard JHS and soon became involved in a fight with Johnny Neumeyer. Ed Voebel was standing nearby and, after the fight, helped LEE Oswald to clean up. Voebel and LEE Oswald became friends and it was Voebel who took the "classroom photo" of Oswald which he later sold to LIFE Magazine. The following summer LEE Oswald and Ed Voebel joined the CAP. While LEE was in the 9th grade at Beauregard JHS (fall 1954), HARVEY was in the 9th grade at Stripling Junior High in Ft. Worth.

From Robert Oswald's Warren Commission testimony:

Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please. In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then.

Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School.

Mr. JENNER. As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School, he entered W. C. Stripling High School, as a seventh grader?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir--junior high school.

Mr. JENNER. Now, the condition that you described as to Lee shifting for himself during the daytime, when your mother was away working and you were away working, and your brother John was in the Coast Guard, continued, I take it, when he began attendance and while he was attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

--Warren Commission, Vol. 1, p. 299

LEE Oswald's older brother, Robert, told the Warren Commission that the alleged assassin of President Kennedy attended W.C. Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth, Texas. In two interviews with the Fort Worth Star Telegram, one in October 1959 when Oswald defected, the other in June 1962 when he returned, Robert repeated his recollection that his brother had attended Stripling JHS in Fort Worth. Robert Oswald knew about HARVEY Oswald as early as 1953, when he took the photo of HARVEY at the Bronx Zoo. In 1956 Robert Oswald lived with HARVEY and the Marguerite Oswald impostor at 4936 Collinwood in Ft. Worth prior to HARVEY's departure for the Marines in October and prior to Robert's marriage to Vada Mercer in November.

Francetta Schubert, a year behind Oswald at Stripling in the fall of 1954, recalled watching HARVEY Oswald walk home and remembered discussing him with her friends. She remembered that Oswald lived at 2220 Thomas Place, across the street from Stripling, which was the same house the Marguerite Oswald impostor lived in at the time of the assassination. In a videotaped interview, first shown during John Armstrong's 1997 November in Dallas presentation, Fran pointed to the house as the camcorder panned to indicate its close proximity to Stripling (click here for YouTube interview).

In another videotaped interview (also currently online), the assistant principal at Stripling in 1963, Frank Kudlaty, recalled his boss calling him early on Saturday morning, the day after the assassination. Frank was told to go to the school, locate school records for Oswald, and give them to FBI agents who would meet him at Stripling. While waiting for the FBI agents to arrive, Frank looked over Oswald's records and remembered that Oswald had attended "not quite a semester" in the ninth grade (click here for YouTube interview).

Frank gave Oswald's Stripling school records to the FBI agents, but where, oh where, have those records gone? John Armstrong reported: "Don't bother to look for Oswald's Stripling records in the Warren volumes, and don't waste your time filing a Freedom of Information request with the FBI--the FBI denies any knowledge of Stripling records." The word "Stripling" appears nowhere in the Warren Report. In the Warren Volumes it appears only in Robert Oswald's testimony. Why? Because the Warren Commission published LEE Oswald's school records that show he attended the 9th grade at Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans in 1954-55.

========

Never ever have I seen any proof of fraud re Frank Kudlaty. Opinion yes of fraud but no proof. GAAL

Edited May 20, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Bernie Laverick]

The Warren Commission was correct when it reported that LEE Oswald and his mother were living at 1454 St. Marys from early 1954 through the spring of 1955 and then moved to 126 Exchange Alley. But what Myra DaRouse told us was more important. She said that she drove her favorite student, HARVEY Oswald, to his home at 126 Exchange Alley after having him examined at the Monte Lepre Clinic in the spring of 1954. This means that HARVEY and the Marguerite Oswald impostor lived at 126 Exchange Place from Sept 1953 through the summer of 1954. In the spring of 1955, LEE and his tall, nice-looking mother moved into 126 Exchange and remained there until June, 1956. In July 1955 they were visited by Robert Oswald, who remembered that his brother LEE was working for an import/export company (Tujague's).

In the fall of 1954, LEE entered the 9th grade at Beauregard JHS and soon became involved in a fight with Johnny Neumeyer. Ed Voebel was standing nearby and, after the fight, helped LEE Oswald to clean up. Voebel and LEE Oswald became friends and it was Voebel who took the "classroom photo" of Oswald which he later sold to LIFE Magazine. The following summer LEE Oswald and Ed Voebel joined the CAP. While LEE was in the 9th grade at Beauregard JHS (fall 1954), HARVEY was in the 9th grade at Stripling Junior High in Ft. Worth.

From Robert Oswald's Warren Commission testimony:

Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please. In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then.

Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School.

Mr. JENNER. As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School, he entered W. C. Stripling High School, as a seventh grader?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir--junior high school.

Mr. JENNER. Now, the condition that you described as to Lee shifting for himself during the daytime, when your mother was away working and you were away working, and your brother John was in the Coast Guard, continued, I take it, when he began attendance and while he was attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

--Warren Commission, Vol. 1, p. 299

LEE Oswald's older brother, Robert, told the Warren Commission that the alleged assassin of President Kennedy attended W.C. Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth, Texas. In two interviews with the Fort Worth Star Telegram, one in October 1959 when Oswald defected, the other in June 1962 when he returned, Robert repeated his recollection that his brother had attended Stripling JHS in Fort Worth. Robert Oswald knew about HARVEY Oswald as early as 1953, when he took the photo of HARVEY at the Bronx Zoo. In 1956 Robert Oswald lived with HARVEY and the Marguerite Oswald impostor at 4936 Collinwood in Ft. Worth prior to HARVEY's departure for the Marines in October and prior to Robert's marriage to Vada Mercer in November.

Francetta Schubert, a year behind Oswald at Stripling in the fall of 1954, recalled watching HARVEY Oswald walk home and remembered discussing him with her friends. She remembered that Oswald lived at 2220 Thomas Place, across the street from Stripling, which was the same house the Marguerite Oswald impostor lived in at the time of the assassination. In a videotaped interview, first shown during John Armstrong's 1997 November in Dallas presentation, Fran pointed to the house as the camcorder panned to indicate its close proximity to Stripling (click here for YouTube interview).

In another videotaped interview (also currently online), the assistant principal at Stripling in 1963, Frank Kudlaty, recalled his boss calling him early on Saturday morning, the day after the assassination. Frank was told to go to the school, locate school records for Oswald, and give them to FBI agents who would meet him at Stripling. While waiting for the FBI agents to arrive, Frank looked over Oswald's records and remembered that Oswald had attended "not quite a semester" in the ninth grade (click here for YouTube interview).

Frank gave Oswald's Stripling school records to the FBI agents, but where, oh where, have those records gone? John Armstrong reported: "Don't bother to look for Oswald's Stripling records in the Warren volumes, and don't waste your time filing a Freedom of Information request with the FBI--the FBI denies any knowledge of Stripling records." The word "Stripling" appears nowhere in the Warren Report. In the Warren Volumes it appears only in Robert Oswald's testimony. Why? Because the Warren Commission published LEE Oswald's school records that show he attended the 9th grade at Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans in 1954-55.

========

Never ever have I seen any proof of fraud re Frank Kudlaty. Opinion yes of fraud but no proof. GAAL

"Never ever have I seen any proof of fraud re Frank Kudlaty." Correct. There isn't any.

"Opinion yes of fraud but no proof. GAAL" No Steven you haven't even seen any opinion of his fraud. Because NO ONE has ever accused him of that. Do you ever read any of these posts?

We are suggesting that Jack White is the guilty party for touching up a photo so as to make a 'better' distinction between the 'two Oswalds'. Armstrong had the original photo image that Jack worked from and therefore must have known that the one posted on the H&L website was incorrect, but he said nothing.

Now deal with that.

Plus, you earlier casted aspersions about the reliability of data that proves men in particular over-report their height. You were shown multiple links that prove just this point.

But you guys have just two responses when faced with facts and evidence.

Run away. Or change the subject.

[Thomas Graves]

The Warren Commission was correct when it reported that LEE Oswald and his mother were living at 1454 St. Marys from early 1954 through the spring of 1955 and then moved to 126 Exchange Alley. But what Myra DaRouse told us was more important. She said that she drove her favorite student, HARVEY Oswald, to his home at 126 Exchange Alley after having him examined at the Monte Lepre Clinic in the spring of 1954. This means that HARVEY and the Marguerite Oswald impostor lived at 126 Exchange Place from Sept 1953 through the summer of 1954. In the spring of 1955, LEE and his tall, nice-looking mother moved into 126 Exchange and remained there until June, 1956. In July 1955 they were visited by Robert Oswald, who remembered that his brother LEE was working for an import/export company (Tujague's).

In the fall of 1954, LEE entered the 9th grade at Beauregard JHS and soon became involved in a fight with Johnny Neumeyer. Ed Voebel was standing nearby and, after the fight, helped LEE Oswald to clean up. Voebel and LEE Oswald became friends and it was Voebel who took the "classroom photo" of Oswald which he later sold to LIFE Magazine. The following summer LEE Oswald and Ed Voebel joined the CAP. While LEE was in the 9th grade at Beauregard JHS (fall 1954), HARVEY was in the 9th grade at Stripling Junior High in Ft. Worth.

From Robert Oswald's Warren Commission testimony:

Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please. In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then.

Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School.

Mr. JENNER. As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School, he entered W. C. Stripling High School, as a seventh grader?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir--junior high school.

Mr. JENNER. Now, the condition that you described as to Lee shifting for himself during the daytime, when your mother was away working and you were away working, and your brother John was in the Coast Guard, continued, I take it, when he began attendance and while he was attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

--Warren Commission, Vol. 1, p. 299

LEE Oswald's older brother, Robert, told the Warren Commission that the alleged assassin of President Kennedy attended W.C. Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth, Texas. In two interviews with the Fort Worth Star Telegram, one in October 1959 when Oswald defected, the other in June 1962 when he returned, Robert repeated his recollection that his brother had attended Stripling JHS in Fort Worth. Robert Oswald knew about HARVEY Oswald as early as 1953, when he took the photo of HARVEY at the Bronx Zoo. In 1956 Robert Oswald lived with HARVEY and the Marguerite Oswald impostor at 4936 Collinwood in Ft. Worth prior to HARVEY's departure for the Marines in October and prior to Robert's marriage to Vada Mercer in November.

Francetta Schubert, a year behind Oswald at Stripling in the fall of 1954, recalled watching HARVEY Oswald walk home and remembered discussing him with her friends. She remembered that Oswald lived at 2220 Thomas Place, across the street from Stripling, which was the same house the Marguerite Oswald impostor lived in at the time of the assassination. In a videotaped interview, first shown during John Armstrong's 1997 November in Dallas presentation, Fran pointed to the house as the camcorder panned to indicate its close proximity to Stripling (click here for YouTube interview).

In another videotaped interview (also currently online), the assistant principal at Stripling in 1963, Frank Kudlaty, recalled his boss calling him early on Saturday morning, the day after the assassination. Frank was told to go to the school, locate school records for Oswald, and give them to FBI agents who would meet him at Stripling. While waiting for the FBI agents to arrive, Frank looked over Oswald's records and remembered that Oswald had attended "not quite a semester" in the ninth grade (click here for YouTube interview).

Frank gave Oswald's Stripling school records to the FBI agents, but where, oh where, have those records gone? John Armstrong reported: "Don't bother to look for Oswald's Stripling records in the Warren volumes, and don't waste your time filing a Freedom of Information request with the FBI--the FBI denies any knowledge of Stripling records." The word "Stripling" appears nowhere in the Warren Report. In the Warren Volumes it appears only in Robert Oswald's testimony. Why? Because the Warren Commission published LEE Oswald's school records that show he attended the 9th grade at Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans in 1954-55.

========

Never ever have I seen any proof of fraud re Frank Kudlaty. Opinion yes of fraud but no proof. GAAL

"Never ever have I seen any proof of fraud re Frank Kudlaty." Correct. There isn't any.

"Opinion yes of fraud but no proof. GAAL" No Steven you haven't even seen any opinion of his fraud. Because NO ONE has ever accused him of that. Do you ever read any of these posts?

We are suggesting that Jack White is the guilty party for touching up a photo so as to make a 'better' distinction between the 'two Oswalds'. Armstrong had the original photo image that Jack worked from and therefore must have known that the one posted on the H&L website was incorrect, but he said nothing.

Now deal with that.

Plus, you earlier casted aspersions about the reliability of data that proves men in particular over-report their height. You were shown multiple links that prove just this point.

But you guys have just two responses when faced with facts and evidence.

Run away. Or change the subject.

Not being sarcastic here. Just trying to interject a little fact-based humor.

I maxed out at 6' 4 3/4" (six-feet, four-and-three-quarter inches) when I was 17, but I always told people that I was 6'5".

I'm an even bigger exaggerator now because I'm 65 years old and I've shrunk down to 6'3" but I shamelessly tell people that I'm 6'4".

It must be really tough for a macho marine-type guy (like Lee Harvey Oswald) who is only 5' 9" to admit to other people that he's only ... 5' 9" tall. Why not exaggerate a bit and maybe even put some "lifts" in your shoes and tell people that you're a skyscraping 5' 10" or even the occasional 5' 11" ?

LOL

--Tommy

Remember Randy Newman's song: "Short people got no reason to live..."

Edited May 20, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

Harvey and Lee is available here,

https://app.box.com/s/8b408e6999f8799dfd0a

thanks to Robert Morrow, who linked to his book box in this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19886

Thanks David. Not quite what this was about.

DJ was complaining that I should post my work online "for others to rip apart". Weird really, because Armstrong doesn't do that. I have been doing that for 15 years. So yes - you don't have to fork $100 for his book. But even that's not Armstrong's doing.

"Weird really, because Armstrong doesn't do that"

So harveyandlee.net is not highlights from the book presented in webpage form with updates for anyone to read - most specifically, you.

Convince us you haven't gotten most of your ammunition from that website - a public place - and been trying to sell your Asperger's and tonsil regrowth theories for years on end with few if any takers...

since you still have not actually read the book

Other than that few paragraphs offering Dr. Lee's work about Asia... what have you shown of your own work from this groundbreaking book series?

the point remains Greg, you'd rather spend time attacking H&L then presenting your own work - keeps you from having to defend yourself or the work you've done.

(and I finally did find some of your work... all good things in all good time... turnabout will of course be fair play)

Any tme you post sources in your H&L attacks they wind up being worthless - representing either the wrong years or the wrong people...

Yet you keep making the same tired old arguments - now it's that the USMC simply asks marines their height - why bother measuring, right?

Since you forgot, I will remind you that I agreed the passage about the tonsils is written to be absolute when there is a VERY SMALL CHANCE that some of it regrew... but then again the Russian doctors see normal tonsils - so your regrowth theory remains such - a theory with very poor odds of occurring after the first 3 years of the operation... and it is much more likely that when combined with all the other H&L evidence that one man had tonsils (Harvey) and one didn't.

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

Now back to the subject at hand - the creation of one Oswald record from two men...

You still think they just asked all the Marines how tall they were when discharged...? (Like asking them if they were on that boat so they could fill out the Unit Diaries - what world do you live in?)

You think the following shows a 5'11" man next to his 5'3" wife?

The 8" difference is 12.7% of her height. Even with a slight drop in the pavement, there is more than 6 inches to make up... they are both wearing low heeled shoes...

The image in that newspaper article was LIKELY created by others or is a very bad photo of LEE. Not the man shown below.

Try again GP... I'd think discussing your own work would become more important to you at some point... then being shown how wrong you are over and over...

but that's up to you.

[Bernie Laverick]

"...so your regrowth theory remains such - a theory with very poor odds of occurring after the first 3 years of the operation... and it is much more likely that when combined with all the other H&L evidence that one man had tonsils (Harvey) and one didn't..." DJ

You may close your eyes and cover your ears when confronted with 'awkward' facts but readers of this thread will see exactly what has been presented. That is, copious evidence that tonsils do grow back. And most within months of the operation. So where do you get your "with very poor odds of occurring after the first 3 years of the operation." when so many examples have been posted of people right now complaining of full tonsil regrowth?

"Russian doctors see normal tonsils" Actually, Russian doctors saw Oswald's tonsils were "not enlarged", according to a translation of unknown origin. This is not pedantry. They weren't checking them to see if they had grown back. They were checking them to rule out tonsillitis. And what they found was that weren't "enlarged". Even though those examples we posted earlier on prove conclusively that tonsils do indeed grow back to full size.

That you don't want to see this evidence doesn't mean other readers will do the same. They have no axe to grind either way. They will either accept your interpretation of two tonsillectomies as being proof of an elaborate Cold War plot involving doppelgangers (one with tonsils and one without) and doppelganger's mothers (tonsil status unknown) covering a decade of two adolescents' lives, who coincidentally grow into adulthood with identical facial features, with a vague plot to set one of them up for an assassination that hadn't then even been plotted. OR...they may conclude that Oswald was one of the 1,000's of people who's tonsils simply grew back. I'll leave it to the intelligence of those looking on here for some historical truths to make their own minds up.

"You still think they just asked all the Marines how tall they were when discharged...?" Once again, just for good measure David throws another curveball into the mud with the height issue. Why not concentrate and stick to one subject at a time? Is it because when you do the whole H&L just crumbles to dust? You'll now bang on about the height issues until someone asks you, once again, to provide evidence that they were measured by USMC, and then you'll go on a sabbatical, returning only to harangue us about the Stripling records, or Taiwan or anything but the information asked for.

So where's the cite that says they were measured...?

[David Josephs]

Bart: I bet you have been warned quite a few times at EF, one wonders why you have not been harnessed over here

Bernie: So where's the cite that says they were measured...?

Mark: You're not paying attention to the scoreboard.

Greg: The alternative of course, is to do nothing and hope I go away. But we both know that's not going to happen.

So....

The minions have finally banded together - did you all get the complimentary overalls and shoes?

We ARE at EF Bart... and I have found that those that behave as GP does don't understand any other approach... all they want is a fight and some attention

So sorry you have such a tough time with the images... you want to look at that and claim he is 8" taller than she is - fine.

You also want to claim the USMC does not know how to measure or record a man's height - also fine.

What you read or don't, what you see or don't is up to you... I'm not here to convince you of anything, nor do I need your stamp of approval to post what I want...

When do you get around to doing any of your own work on the photos? You think you can show that the man in that image is 8" taller than the woman... have at it

But if all you got is a critique of my work without anything other than your opinions and words - who cares?

Anyone can say, "You're wrong" and then walk away...

Do something yourself... post your own photographic analsis to support what you think... or can you only critque others?

When and if he ever gets to HIS WORK - which I have found and will be posting and commenting on, something to do with "Radionics" and conclusions he reaches as a result - we can see where it goes... Someone spending such an amazing amount of time avoiding his own work in favor of arguing certainly appears to have some agenda - yet that too must remain lost to the minions.

It's sad that focusing on his/your own work remains so unrewarding that H&L has become a 24/7 obsession... Asperger's, tonsils and the USMC cannot measure - helluva great set of rebutal arguments.

Don't like my stuff? Don't read it.

Post some original work/research of yours and make a case - you have a combined 80 posts on both this and the DPF forum...

I've been doing this for over 10 years watching the coming and going of sourceless, argumentative trolls pretending to be researchers for the sole purpose of disrupting forum communities - not that I think you fall into that category in the least... if you spend time dealing with them as I have, one wonders if there is any reason for their existence other than to cause problems for people trying to have discussions and share info.

If you or he or anyone thinks there are H&L problems, and can prove them... write your own dam book, article, essay and get someone to publish it... or publish yourself like JA did.

While a select few whine about insults and implied curse words, the rest of us do the research, provide the sources and links and make the arguments the trolls feed off of and critique to maintain some self perceived level of importance and involvement...

{YAWN}

Jim starts an H&L passage with "JOHN BELIEVES..." and you post

Sorry but this is pure speculation.

well done Bart - the word BELIEVES usually conveys to the reader that this is speculation based on the information offered... but not to you and Parker and the rest of the ROKC minions?

The word LIKELY does the same thing. It offers a conclusion based on available info and makes a case for it...

As for Mark, I posted the sources that tell a complete story, not some half-baked statement about the olden days... regrowth with a mean of 30 months after the age of 5... a tiny fraction of a % even experiencing the regrowth from those they KNEW performed partial operations... you have no idea what was performed on Oswald - just as much a chance it was a complete, well-perfromed operation - only Greg's SPECULATION that it wasn't is what you go on while accepting it as fact... well done Mark.

If you or the other minions ever actually get around to doing something of your own, let us know... we can all take turns ripping it to shreds...

It takes some level of bravery to keep posting one's work and thoughts when getting attacked - bravery we see none of you seem to show... unless it's about someone else's work...

Class Bart, real class.

[Bernie Laverick]

Wow! Class hissifit!

Nigel Farage did this a few days before our recent general election. Farage is the leader of the far right UK Independence Party and he appeared on a live BBC debate with all the other party leaders. Every time he said something utterly ridiculous or bigoted like "Foreigners come here to get free HIV treatment" the audience were predictably disgusted and groaned, or booed. Frustrated by this response he went on a hissifit rant and whinged that the BBC had hand selected a " biased, left wing audience".

Rather than just simply accepting he was speaking a load of tosh that no one was buying into, he lashed out at them and insulted their integrity instead. He didn't win his seat!

And you haven't won this one David. In fact, in parliamentary parlance - you've lost your deposit!

[Clive Largey]

_{The original from the file image on the left, enhanced as best I could to bring out some detail on the right, and the "White" improvement overlay}

_{I get the impression that the Lee Oswald photo in the woods collage top right was not Oswald - Oswald's nose was NEVER that wide..}

_{The idea here Greg, is that the CIA or someone provided this photo in such poor resolution on purpose. The woods collage alos suggests this image was created and is why it looks so strange when White isolated and improved it.}

_{But the overlay is obviously from THAT image.... At some point it seems there was a much better version....}

To me, with those John Woods images that David shared, it looks like the newspaper knew full well that the photo was going to look bad in print so they attempted to improve it beforehand but the experiments were not used except the blocking of the windows.

Jack White only had the newspaper and was left with no choice but to extract what he could from it.

What he brought out was not that bad when compared to what David posted on the right, in fact it's beautiful but the interpretation window was quite large. It's a good job he wasn't trying to extract a black man.

So there was no fraud on Jack's part, it's a genuine misinterpretation garnered from extremely limited data.

The image in the article itself in many respects is far worse, so it's actually a case two Frankenstein's monsters.

[David Josephs]

_{The original from the file image on the left, enhanced as best I could to bring out some detail on the right, and the "White" improvement overlay}

_{I get the impression that the Lee Oswald photo in the woods collage top right was not Oswald - Oswald's nose was NEVER that wide..}

_{The idea here Greg, is that the CIA or someone provided this photo in such poor resolution on purpose. The woods collage alos suggests this image was created and is why it looks so strange when White isolated and improved it.}

_{But the overlay is obviously from THAT image.... At some point it seems there was a much better version....}

To me, with those John Woods images that David shared, it looks like the newspaper knew full well that the photo was going to look bad in print so they attempted to improve it beforehand but the experiments were not used except the blocking of the windows.

Jack White only had the newspaper and was left with no choice but to extract what he could from it.

What he brought out was not that bad when compared to what David posted on the right, in fact it's beautiful but the interpretation window was quite large. It's a good job he wasn't trying to extract a black man.

So there was no fraud on Jack's part, it's a genuine misinterpretation garnered from extremely limited data.

The image in the article itself in many respects is far worse, so it's actually a case two Frankenstein's monsters.

Well put Clive...

As I say, for every one of "them" who wants to pretend this is too hard to grasp, there are 100 of you who get it easily.

Thank you for your comment... now hopefully you wont be next on the hit list...

Take care

DJ

[Steven Gaal]

"Never ever have I seen any proof of fraud re Frank Kudlaty." Correct. There isn't any.

"Opinion yes of fraud but no proof. GAAL" No Steven you haven't even seen any opinion of his fraud. Because NO ONE has ever accused him of that. Do you ever read any of these posts?

We are suggesting that Jack White is the guilty party for touching up a photo so as to make a 'better' distinction between the 'two Oswalds'. Armstrong had the original photo image that Jack worked from and therefore must have known that the one posted on the H&L website was incorrect, but he said nothing.

Now deal with that.

Plus, you earlier casted aspersions about the reliability of data that proves men in particular over-report their height. You were shown multiple links that prove just this point.

But you guys have just two responses when faced with facts and evidence.

Run away. Or change the subject //.Posted by Bernie Laverick

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

Frankenstein Oswald

Posted by Bernie Laverick on Yesterday, 12:02 AM in JFK Assassination Debate

I remember the thread were Jack White was nailed bang to rights for his duplicity regarding his dubious involvement with Kudlaty. To defend the man's integrity and thus bolster his credibility as a witness Jack let slip that he had personally known Frank Kudlaty for nearly 50 years.

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

bolster his credibility as a witness //LAVERICK

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

THE IMPLICATION IS THAT KUDATY IS A FRAUDSTER BY YOU LAVERICK ,who needs his credibility bolstered. // GAAL not changes subject or running away

Edited May 20, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Greg Parker]

Harvey and Lee is available here,

https://app.box.com/s/8b408e6999f8799dfd0a

thanks to Robert Morrow, who linked to his book box in this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19886

Thanks David. Not quite what this was about.

DJ was complaining that I should post my work online "for others to rip apart". Weird really, because Armstrong doesn't do that. I have been doing that for 15 years. So yes - you don't have to fork $100 for his book. But even that's not Armstrong's doing.

"Weird really, because Armstrong doesn't do that"

So harveyandlee.net is not highlights from the book presented in webpage form with updates for anyone to read - most specifically, you.

Convince us you haven't gotten most of your ammunition from that website - a public place - and been trying to sell your Asperger's and tonsil regrowth theories for years on end with few if any takers...

since you still have not actually read the book

Other than that few paragraphs offering Dr. Lee's work about Asia... what have you shown of your own work from this groundbreaking book series?

the point remains Greg, you'd rather spend time attacking H&L then presenting your own work - keeps you from having to defend yourself or the work you've done.

(and I finally did find some of your work... all good things in all good time... turnabout will of course be fair play)

Any tme you post sources in your H&L attacks they wind up being worthless - representing either the wrong years or the wrong people...

Yet you keep making the same tired old arguments - now it's that the USMC simply asks marines their height - why bother measuring, right?

Since you forgot, I will remind you that I agreed the passage about the tonsils is written to be absolute when there is a VERY SMALL CHANCE that some of it regrew... but then again the Russian doctors see normal tonsils - so your regrowth theory remains such - a theory with very poor odds of occurring after the first 3 years of the operation... and it is much more likely that when combined with all the other H&L evidence that one man had tonsils (Harvey) and one didn't.

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

Now back to the subject at hand - the creation of one Oswald record from two men...

You still think they just asked all the Marines how tall they were when discharged...? (Like asking them if they were on that boat so they could fill out the Unit Diaries - what world do you live in?)

You think the following shows a 5'11" man next to his 5'3" wife?

The 8" difference is 12.7% of her height. Even with a slight drop in the pavement, there is more than 6 inches to make up... they are both wearing low heeled shoes...

The image in that newspaper article was LIKELY created by others or is a very bad photo of LEE. Not the man shown below.

Try again GP... I'd think discussing your own work would become more important to you at some point... then being shown how wrong you are over and over...

but that's up to you.

This was debunked ages ago

http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/discrep.htm

[Greg Parker]

_{The original from the file image on the left, enhanced as best I could to bring out some detail on the right, and the "White" improvement overlay}

_{I get the impression that the Lee Oswald photo in the woods collage top right was not Oswald - Oswald's nose was NEVER that wide..}

_{The idea here Greg, is that the CIA or someone provided this photo in such poor resolution on purpose. The woods collage alos suggests this image was created and is why it looks so strange when White isolated and improved it.}

_{But the overlay is obviously from THAT image.... At some point it seems there was a much better version....}

To me, with those John Woods images that David shared, it looks like the newspaper knew full well that the photo was going to look bad in print so they attempted to improve it beforehand but the experiments were not used except the blocking of the windows.

Jack White only had the newspaper and was left with no choice but to extract what he could from it.

What he brought out was not that bad when compared to what David posted on the right, in fact it's beautiful but the interpretation window was quite large. It's a good job he wasn't trying to extract a black man.

So there was no fraud on Jack's part, it's a genuine misinterpretation garnered from extremely limited data.

The image in the article itself in many respects is far worse, so it's actually a case two Frankenstein's monsters.

1. As I pointed out when this was posted previously, it is the worst possible sample of the photo David could find. Why is that? The photo in the actual story is of considerably better quality.

2. If Jack White retouched it for the reasons you claim, he should have informed his readers of that he had done so. His silence reeks of other motives.

edit to ad: the dishonesty is such that even his biggest fans initially tried to deny that White had done anything to the photo at all. That has now shifted to - yes, he did retouch it but only to enhance the quality. Which is just more utter garbage.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Bernie Laverick]

I've been doing this for over 10 years watching the coming and going of sourceless, argumentative trolls pretending to be researchers for the sole purpose of disrupting forum communities - not that I think you fall into that category in the least... if you spend time dealing with them as I have, one wonders if there is any reason for their existence other than to cause problems for people trying to have discussions and share info.

Tactic number 32. Start shrieking the word "xxxxx" when you can't provide the evidence to support your conclusions.

Why is it such a toxic question to ask you to support the premise that the USMC were definitely measured (as opposed to a self reported measurement) with some citation? It's your theory. It's up to you to defend it. But you don't want to be challenged on this theory. You feel grossly offended that others can even think of pointing out the many obstacles in its way and that you should be given a free ride.

"Don't like my stuff? Don't read it. "

Great advice. But wouldn't that make having a forum pointless? Do you not make comments on threads that promote a theory you profoundly disagree with? Of course you do. So why can't I? That this one has many more posts and members that disagree with you is not evidence of some COINTELPRO op, or that it is a "hand-picked biased audience"; you just aren't convincing people that you're theory has any legs, let alone any integrity.

[Greg Parker]

From the H & L Webmaster, who has apparently fled the kitchen and has posted over at the Foo his support for Brian Doyle's lies about what I had said about the license issue:

Hey, Albert [brian]. Thanks for keeping an eye on things over there. It's almost impossible to keep up with his zillions of posts, much less untangle them. But I did give you a shout-out for the driver's license tip... though it's no doubt buried under more bs by now.

Brian (aka "Albert") had posted that I claimed the Dept of Public Safety employees had found registration papers - not a driver's license. More garbage. What I said was that what they described (as being dirty and stained like it had been kept in a wallet for a length of time) sounded very much like the form LHO completed for his learner's permit. I will add now that this was not officially lodged, but was claimed to have been found among his belongings at his alleged residence. If those employees saw it - then it was lodged but given to investigators - who then lied about where it was obtained. Those same employees fours years worth of office scuttlebutt later, would remember it incorrectly as a license. Texas licenses at that time, were not laminated cards. They were paper... just like the learner's application form.

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?5545-Anyone-want-to-discuss-HARVEY-amp-LEE&p=99848#post99848

Edited May 20, 2015 by Greg Parker