A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

[David Josephs]

This Ft Worth Star image does not have the window blocked out...

While the other is....

they are obviously the same photo....

Any explanations?

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by David Josephs

[Jim Hargrove]

DJ,

I don't see the window in the Forth Worth newspaper photo.  Do you?

Edited November 6, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[Sandy Larsen]

On 11/5/2017 at 4:49 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

You guys have to interpret the evidence in your own way for H&L to exist at all.

There is no interpretation on our part at all. The Beauregard Junior High school report shows that Oswald went to school there in the fall of '53. The Public School #44 report shows he attended school there at the same time.

It is only Greg Parker who tries to re-interpret the reports.

 

On 11/5/2017 at 4:49 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Another explanation, offered by Greg Parker, is that the Beauregard records reflect LHO's attendance in both NY and Louisiana.

That's what you claim. But you won't explain it here because even you can't make sense of it.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 11/5/2017 at 5:13 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

Without any evidence whatsoever, Mr. Parnell says Mr. Parker claims that the 89 days in the top “Re-Ad” column of the Beauregard cumulative record includes days Oswald attended PS 44 in New York City.

Even if that were true it would make no sense. What Parker is saying is that Oswald left PS 44 in New York City before the semester ended, and transferred his his days attended to Beauregard in New Orleans. If a student does that, he won't get grades for the classes he left unfinished (he will get "incompletes") and he will have to make up his unfinished work at the new school. But if you look at Oswalds PS 44 records, it shows that he passed all his classes. He was given credit for them and scores. There was nothing to transfer to Beauregard. Nothing.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Exactly!  The anti-H&L folks can grasp at all the straws they can conjure, but this one has always been a slam dunk.  No data from PS 44 is shown in the Beauregard file on “Lee Harvey Oswald.” 

The only mention of PS 44 in the Beauregard file is in a record that indicates Oswald previously attended “PS #44-Byron Junior High" in New York City, which does not exist.  With PS 44’s in four or five different boroughs of NYC, how would Beauregard have requested course information from an incorrectly identified school?

And if somehow they did get information about Oswald's course work and attendance in NYC from a school they couldn't identify, why was Oswald in New Orleans given a passing grade in an entirely different course from the NYC courses he supposedly took, and passed, that very semester? The answer is simple: the records show two different Oswalds.

"Oswald's" passing grades in the first semester at Beauregard had nothing to do with New York City.  And it all fits the continuing pattern of two Oswalds.  The very next semester, one Oswald attends Beauregard School in New Orleans and the other Oswald attends Stripling School in Fort Worth, Texas, as discussed by all those witnesses the anti-H&L folks say are lying!  

[Guest]

On 11/6/2017 at 10:48 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

Yep. Interesting thread.  I didn't notice it for quite a while, and when I did, the rest is history.  I'm quite sure that his bogus claim that my link to the following image contained a virus is what got Mr. Parker banned from this forum.  He didn't want anyone to see the AP/Wide World Photos file copy of "Frankenstein Oswald" and so, instead, we didn't see Mr. Parker any more.

Still waiting for someone to explain why American newspapers hid the face of "Lee Harvey Oswald" in 1959.  

 

Don't give yourself too much credit on this, it was not you but Richard Gilbride's lies that got Greg in hot water.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Bart Kamp

[David Josephs]

23 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

DJ,

I don't see the window in the Forth Worth newspaper photo.  Do you?

No I don't Jim....

I was told this was bought from the Star Telegram...  Multi-generation copying?

[Chris Davidson]

David,

Printed in the Ft.Worth Press- June 8, 1962 ?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rbqP3Q2VGZaVvx5rPmkIARWf5BNxsBaI/view?usp=sharing

 

[Jim Hargrove]

DJ and Chris,

John has a good copy of the ‘59 Star-Telegraph article, which has what must be a deliberately washed out version of the photo to obscure LEE Oswald’s image. The photo was supplied by Wide World Photos, now owned by Associated Press.  You can tell that the window was never in the ‘59 FW newspaper photo by comparing it to the AP/Wide World Photos file copy, which is much clearer but also has the window removed.  In other words, the retouching was done prior to the original publication, and not in Fort Worth.

I’ll bet some “elite media asset” got Wide World to wire the washed out version of of Hans Wilkins’ photo to the Star-Telegraph.  The file copy John purchased includes this on the typed label next to the altered image: “This is a retransmission of FWI of Nov. 1 to provide better copy.”  I'd also bet that it was ever really retransmitted.

The 1962 newspaper image Chris Davidson linked above is interesting because it is obviously the same photo—much more clearly reproduced—and without the background masking. Perhaps with the Russian assignment over, American intel and its media assets no longer worried as much about the identification of these guys.

 

 

[Michael Walton]

On 11/5/2017 at 9:46 AM, Michael Walton said:

I wanted to mention Jim's comment about why that photo of LHO is so poorly done with the horrible tacked on nose and goofy smile.  There's nothing sinister about it as it's just a bad touch up job. I've been looking for other examples but the only one I could find was the Elvis in his coffin one.  

The Elvis touch up was obviously a much better touch up than the Oswald one. But believe me when I say I've seen in the past some pretty bad touch up jobs for photos in newspapers and other publications. If I come across more will post here.  But here's a quote from a guy who worked in that industry before digital retouching:

"A photographer's job was to produce an image that needed no retouching. When it did, typically an oversize print was made (at least twice the size needed for the final reproduction) and it would be airbrushed to perfection, then color separated for the printing plates."

The key to this quote is if the photo was taken with a cheap home camera, then the blow up process may screw it up for publication, requiring touch up. But blowing up a cheap print will be distorted requiring more work for the touch up person. Whoever did that LHO photo touch up should have been fired as it was horribly done.  They should have brought in the crew who did the touch up for the BYP - LOL.

But there's nothing sinister about - it's NOT a matter of "Oh, this was Lee and they tried to cover it up to make it look like the clone" or whatever.

Bumping this because no one said anything about it but it basically explains the Frankenstein photo of LHO.

And also take a look at this. A wirephoto in two different publications. The kid in one looks like his eyes are closed, other it does not.  The jagged looking pattern on the player's arm. The kid himself looks like he's painted onto the ball player. The point is - there was nothing sinister about the Frankenstein photo.  It was not edited by the government or some such silliness.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Michael,

Thanks for posting this and I completely agree with you. There are any number of innocent explanations for this and other H&L assertions, none of which are ever considered by the H&L gang.

[David Josephs]

On ‎11‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 3:51 PM, Chris Davidson said:

David,

Printed in the Ft.Worth Press- June 8, 1962 ?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rbqP3Q2VGZaVvx5rPmkIARWf5BNxsBaI/view?usp=sharing

 

June 8, 1962... via a rubber stamp

Chris...  JUN 8

 

[David Josephs]

6 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Michael,

Thanks for posting this and I completely agree with you. There are any number of innocent explanations for this and other H&L assertions, none of which are ever considered by the H&L gang.

Of course there are Tracy...  innocence abounds....

The entire JFK case is just a series of unfortunate, innocent events.... misinterpreted by all;

'cept you

Edited November 17, 2017 by David Josephs

[Chris Davidson]

On 11/7/2017 at 3:51 PM, Chris Davidson said:

David,

Printed in the Ft.Worth Press- June 8, 1962 ?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rbqP3Q2VGZaVvx5rPmkIARWf5BNxsBaI/view?usp=sharing

 

Hence the question mark (?) after the date.

The crop marks match.

Original print date, if known?

chris

 

[Michael Walton]

12 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Of course there are Tracy...  innocence abounds....

The entire JFK case is just a series of unfortunate, innocent events.... misinterpreted by all;

'cept you

David, I think that's a leap.  I know that Tracy is a LNer which is fine - it's his right to believe that. I'm not.  As I've said, I'm a CT-er. But to think that everything in this case has been altered or manipulated is quite a stretch.

So yes, there ARE innocent explanations that can explain what happened to that photo. But obviously the entire CASE is not one big innocent explanation, as you've shown with your MC article, as Bill Simpich has shown in SS, as J Thompson has shown in his book, and and Meagher, and so on.

Plus Greg Parker did an excellent job of showing how that photo was altered by Jack White in this thread. I personally believe the photo was touched up, not to cover up anything, but to clean it up for the wire service. But then White - as Parker has shown - revealed that it was manipulated by White.

I do wish you would sometimes show just a little bit of humility in your writings like Simpich does.  He wrote an outstanding, incisive piece in SS but he also knows that even a very good narrative has some weaknesses and he admits to it.  I've never seen you show a one ounce of humility in your writings.  It's all in for you like a wild-eyed, crazed preacher LOL

One other thing - elsewhere on here I clicked on a link about the fraud Judy Baker.  You had posted it and for a second I thought "OMG - don't tell me Josephs believes even in the ridiculous Baker story."  But you don't - your story is called "Poking Holes."

So you see.  Not everything is a conspiracy in this case, even for you. If anything, you seem to now buy into the SS story, as you've been mentioning it quite a bit elsewhere on EF.  So you may want to ask yourself "Self - if SS is a solid, plausible story, how in the world does the funny clone story fit in?"

You're obviously a smart guy and if you really did this, did some good self-reflection, you might discover that the Harvey and Lee story really is a ridiculous fraud but it in no way impacts all of the other work you've done in the case.

Think about it...

 

 

Edited November 18, 2017 by Michael Walton