Ray Mitcham Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) I see you took lessons from the Lamson school of evidence presentation... couldn't crop those photos any closer? Don't try anything photographic Greg, you're very poor at it. - but thanks for helping to show the difference in the facial features of both men... you're a champ Well done Ray... even when he wants to make a point he fails miserably Edited May 22, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I see you took lessons from the Lamson school of evidence presentation... couldn't crop those photos any closer? Don't try anything photographic Greg, you're very poor at it. - but thanks for helping to show the difference in the facial features of both men... you're a champ Well done Ray... even when he wants to make a point he fails miserably This is ridiculous! This is a combination of two simple things. One - The left image has his hands in front of him, the right image has them behind his back; different postures. Add to that...David's sneakiness in pinching a few mm here and a few mm there to make the gradient seemingly more acute. Note how he chooses the top of the collars as his start point. Very sneaky. The left image's collar is flat and therefore lower, along with both arms being in front of him, this gives a square-ish appearance. However, by starting the line on the right image half way up his neck (on top of the much higher collar), and along with the natural 'sloping' that occurs when you 'stand at ease' he gets to see what he wants to see. Who on this forum knows anyone with shoulders like that!? Other than on a Cluedo board! (That's a game people play with their kids...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Listen up.... John Armstrong has little interest in "internet chat rooms," as he keeps calling them, and so I seldom mention much about them to him, even though we talk frequently. But today I managed to get his attention when I said something like: "They're blaming the composite photo on Jack White. They're calling it a 'fraud.'" His immediate response was, "What!? Aw, for chris-sakes!" Here's what he said actually happened. Years ago, John contacted the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram asking for the best possible photograph of "Lee Harvey Oswald" at the time of the so-called "defection." The Star-Telegram said he should contact World-Wide Photos in New York City. John ordered the photo from World-Wide, paid $25 or so, and then we posted the photo on the internet. This was the photo that was on my website until this week. John still has the orginal photo sent to him by World-Wide Photos, along with other proof in this matter, and he will have access to all his original files early next week. Jack White has nothing to do with this! About 30 minutes ago, I made electronic and print copies of all the posts in this thread so far, and I intend to try and get John to read them so he can see what people are saying about him here. I'll be in touch again about this matter next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Laverick Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Listen up.... John Armstrong has little interest in "internet chat rooms," as he keeps calling them, and so I seldom mention much about them to him, even though we talk frequently. But today I managed to get his attention when I said something like: "They're blaming the composite photo on Jack White. They're calling it a 'fraud.'" His immediate response was, "What!? Aw, for chris-sakes!" Here's what he said actually happened. Years ago, John contacted the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram asking for the best possible photograph of "Lee Harvey Oswald" at the time of the so-called "defection." The Star-Telegram said he should contact World-Wide Photos in New York City. John ordered the photo from World-Wide, paid $25 or so, and then we posted the photo on the internet. This was the photo that was on my website until this week. John still has the orginal photo sent to him by World-Wide Photos, along with other proof in this matter, and he will have access to all his original files early next week. Jack White has nothing to do with this! About 30 minutes ago, I made electronic and print copies of all the posts in this thread so far, and I intend to try and get John to read them so he can see what people are saying about him here. I'll be in touch again about this matter next week. Oh no! He's gone an told the gaffer! Some of us may be doing a bit of detention next week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I understand the rules as to opinions. Everybody has one. Experts have expert opinions. Take Michael Baden, for example. I also understand the rule as to facts. No one is entitled to his or her own facts. As I read this thread, I'm struck by several things. First, David Josephs's list of anomalies. Second, the lack of a historical record as to the FrankenOswald photo. Third a debate among non-ENT-physicians as to whether tonsils grow back. I don't maintain non-physicians are not permitted to opine on factual medical matters. I do maintain any opinion of importance should be offered with a full supporting suite of assumptions. For example, is the assumption that the tonsils were removed entirely? Or only partially? Why is that particular assumption made? Because of standard medical procedures at the time? As to the assumptions about tonsil removal, what are the data as to frequency and extent of re-growth? Seems to me the objective of a thread such as this, where everyone is on the same side of the fence and is acting in good faith, ought to be to reach agreement on core facts, identify facts in dispute, and to offer opinion without hurling or receiving slings and arrows. On the other hand, I do enjoy the barbs and insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 22, 2015 Author Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) Listen up.... John Armstrong has little interest in "internet chat rooms," as he keeps calling them, and so I seldom mention much about them to him, even though we talk frequently. But today I managed to get his attention when I said something like: "They're blaming the composite photo on Jack White. They're calling it a 'fraud.'" His immediate response was, "What!? Aw, for chris-sakes!" Here's what he said actually happened. Years ago, John contacted the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram asking for the best possible photograph of "Lee Harvey Oswald" at the time of the so-called "defection." The Star-Telegram said he should contact World-Wide Photos in New York City. John ordered the photo from World-Wide, paid $25 or so, and then we posted the photo on the internet. This was the photo that was on my website until this week. John still has the orginal photo sent to him by World-Wide Photos, along with other proof in this matter, and he will have access to all his original files early next week. Jack White has nothing to do with this! About 30 minutes ago, I made electronic and print copies of all the posts in this thread so far, and I intend to try and get John to read them so he can see what people are saying about him here. I'll be in touch again about this matter next week. Oh no! He's gone an told the gaffer! Some of us may be doing a bit of detention next week! <---- The gaffer "Listen up..." RAOFLMAO! Now YOU "listen up". That explanation, whether true or not ( a ) makes no sense and ( b ) doesn't exonerate anyone from fraud. Under ( a ) file the fact that the photo is not a "defection" photo. It is from the Marines - and - it is very clearly NOT the best example of a "defection" photo OR a Marine photo. If I had requested the "best defection photo" and received that abomination, I would have demaned my $25.00 back and told them in no uncertain terms that that is not a genuine untouched - let alone clear photo - as had been requested. We also know that the newspaper which was ORIGINALLY contacted - had a much better AND untouched copy of the photo. We know BECAUSE THEY USED THAT PHOTO ON A STORY ABOUT LHO's RETURN TO THE US. This was it: Under ( b ) file the fact that - REGARDLESS OF WHO MADE IT - the Frankenstein image was pasted over the top of the original Star-Telegram image, copied and presented as being the original photo used in the news story. That is FRAUD by either Armstrong, White or someone acting on their behalf. White also for years, presented the Frankenstein image in his collage of Oswald photos presenting it as a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald. No mention that it was retouched. That is fraud. Edited May 23, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 22, 2015 Author Share Posted May 22, 2015 Ray, I would have hoped you knew better than to pull a stunt like this. Try again with the lines actually at the same level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 I understand the rules as to opinions. Everybody has one. Experts have expert opinions. Take Michael Baden, for example. I also understand the rule as to facts. No one is entitled to his or her own facts. As I read this thread, I'm struck by several things. First, David Josephs's list of anomalies. Second, the lack of a historical record as to the FrankenOswald photo. Third a debate among non-ENT-physicians as to whether tonsils grow back. I don't maintain non-physicians are not permitted to opine on factual medical matters. I do maintain any opinion of importance should be offered with a full supporting suite of assumptions. For example, is the assumption that the tonsils were removed entirely? Or only partially? Why is that particular assumption made? Because of standard medical procedures at the time? As to the assumptions about tonsil removal, what are the data as to frequency and extent of re-growth? Seems to me the objective of a thread such as this, where everyone is on the same side of the fence and is acting in good faith, ought to be to reach agreement on core facts, identify facts in dispute, and to offer opinion without hurling or receiving slings and arrows. On the other hand, I do enjoy the barbs and insults. The facts are very simple, Jon. Unlike the mastoidectomy, the tonsillectomy has no medical records supporting it actually happened. The doctor who allegedly performed the tonsillectomy belonged to a group of "doctors" who were routinely filing false medical insurance claims. So it stops right there if you are seeking agreed upon facts because we are never going to agree that there is ample evidence of the operation ever being performed. On the other hand, there is evidence of vast fraudulent insurance clams by osteopaths. Beyond that, the argument is made moot by the fact that tonsils can and do grow back in some cases. Arguments about the frequency of that are just a smokescreen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Ray, I would have hoped you knew better than to pull a stunt like this. Try again with the lines actually at the same level. Let me help you out, Ray. having the lines at the top and bottom of the ear doesn't work because the heads are tilted at slightly different angles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Greg, Frequency of occurrence is significant. It goes to the mathematical probability an event will occur. If for example, 1,000 identical "cases" are studied and among the 1,000 cases a certain event occurs 223 times, it's appropriate to say the probability the event will occur in a given case is 0.223. That's not a negligible probability. But it's quite different, for example, from a probability of 0.74 or 0.08. Given that there are so few verifiable facts in the JFK case, probability theory becomes a rational way to analyze the case. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Largey Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I should have said "I'm not big on Oswald" and Chris was correct that I had no idea what photo that mug shot I last posted came from but I hope you got my point about what Jack may have had to work with, if it was him. Regarding what Jim said and Greg's response, here direct from the book: The Star-Telegram published a front-page article titled "Brother's Turn to Reds Puzzles Fort Worth Man." On page 2 there is a photograph of a husky young man with a thick neck and a wide nose who appears to be wearing a Marine uniform-Lee Oswald. Any resident of Fort Worth who saw this photograph and knew the real Lee Oswald would probably recognize him.I located a copy of Lee Oswald's photo in the archives of the Fort Worth Star Telegram. There was no notation as to the origin or source of this photo, yet it was published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram only one day after Oswald's "defection." When I asked for a copy of the photo, I was told to get in touch with Wide World Photos, Rockefeller Plaza, New York City. I wrote a letter and asked Wide World Photos if they knew the source of the photo. They responded and said they did not know the source of the photo. So, how did the Fort Worth Star-Telegram get this photo only one day after Oswald's "defection"? No mention of a monster or even a composite but a recognisable Lee. The photo in the defection article is not recognisable to me in any condition as Lee/Harvey but the one with the windows back in place on the return , yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) Regarding what Jim said and Greg's response, here direct from the book: Quote The Star-Telegram published a front-page article titled "Brother's Turn to Reds Puzzles Fort Worth Man." On page 2 there is a photograph of a husky young man with a thick neck and a wide nose who appears to be wearing a Marine uniform-Lee Oswald. Any resident of Fort Worth who saw this photograph and knew the real Lee Oswald would probably recognize him.I located a copy of Lee Oswald's photo in the archives of the Fort Worth Star Telegram. There was no notation as to the origin or source of this photo, yet it was published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram only one day after Oswald's "defection." When I asked for a copy of the photo, I was told to get in touch with Wide World Photos, Rockefeller Plaza, New York City. I wrote a letter and asked Wide World Photos if they knew the source of the photo. They responded and said they did not know the source of the photo. So, how did the Fort Worth Star-Telegram get this photo only one day after Oswald's "defection"? No mention of a monster or even a composite but a recognisable Lee. The photo in the defection article is not recognisable to me in any condition as Lee/Harvey but the one with the windows back in place on the return , yes. CLIVE LARGEY ########################################################Clive the anti H & L crowd says it was brother Robert who may have given photo to the paper. Seems even GREG PARKER thinks Robert may have ONI connections Gee so the photo history is kinda spooky, NO ?? GAAL Edited May 23, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Ray, I would have hoped you knew better than to pull a stunt like this. Try again with the lines actually at the same level. Let me help you out, Ray. having the lines at the top and bottom of the ear doesn't work because the heads are tilted at slightly different angles. So you say. If they are the same guy, perhaps you can explain the different chins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 Greg, Frequency of occurrence is significant. It goes to the mathematical probability an event will occur. If for example, 1,000 identical "cases" are studied and among the 1,000 cases a certain event occurs 223 times, it's appropriate to say the probability the event will occur in a given case is 0.223. That's not a negligible probability. But it's quite different, for example, from a probability of 0.74 or 0.08. Given that there are so few verifiable facts in the JFK case, probability theory becomes a rational way to analyze the case. That's all. No probability factor needed. I told you before. You wanted agreed upon facts. I don't agree that it has been proven he ever had a tonsillectomy. I can only add that the idea of using "probability" on something KNOWN to have happened is absurd. He did have tonsillitis in the Marines. It was not a mere theoretical probability. Your methodology is only valid to predict the chances that a particular event might happen. Apply it to the CIA using doppelgangers developed from an early. From known cases, the probability is zero. 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