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

[Sandy Larsen]

44 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Sandy,

Here is a post from the old JFK Research forum explaining how the distance from the chart can affect the head size. Also included is a photo of a man from Australia that a member found in a magazine which was reporting on the guy because he had triplets. He also had a 13 inch head.

-----------------------

Posted by dennis bartholomew ® , Aug 17,2000,01:59 Post ReplyForum

Jack and Kate,
I saw Kate's note on 13-inch head.
If one is photographed standing a few feet in front of the chart, one's head
will cover more of the chart on the photo, than if he or she had his head
actually against the chart. To verify this I had my wife stand in front of a
chart on the wall - her head covered about 10 inches. Then I moved her about 4
feet away from the wall, and to my eye, and the camera's eye, her head covered
about 15 inches on the chart.
Perhaps the photo of Oswald with the 13 inch head can also be explained this
way.

Tracy,

You do realize, don't you, that what this person is saying is precisely what I wrote in my post? That standing closer to the camera will make the head look bigger.

And BTW, as I said, "it is a flawed debunking because it doesn't take the resulting false-height-reading into account "

 

[Sandy Larsen]

27 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Sandy,

Here is a post from the old JFK Research forum explaining how the distance from the chart can affect the head size. Also included is a photo of a man from Australia that a member found in a magazine which was reporting on the guy because he had triplets. He also had a 13 inch head.

-----------------------

Posted by dennis bartholomew ® , Aug 17,2000,01:59 Post ReplyForum

Jack and Kate,
I saw Kate's note on 13-inch head.
If one is photographed standing a few feet in front of the chart, one's head
will cover more of the chart on the photo, than if he or she had his head
actually against the chart. To verify this I had my wife stand in front of a
chart on the wall - her head covered about 10 inches. Then I moved her about 4
feet away from the wall, and to my eye, and the camera's eye, her head covered
about 15 inches on the chart.
Perhaps the photo of Oswald with the 13 inch head can also be explained this
way.

 

And BTW, this guy's head is 10.5" or 11" in height, not 13". You're not supposed to include hair in a height measurement.

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[W. Tracy Parnell]

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tracy,

You do realize, don't you, that what this person is saying is precisely what I wrote in my post? That standing closer to the camera will make the head look bigger.

And BTW, as I said, "it is a flawed debunking because it doesn't take the resulting false-height-reading into account "

 

It is obvious that what happened is there was a camera setup with the chart perhaps 2 feet from a line where the men were told to stand. The recorded height would not be affected by the distance but the apparent size of the head was. Even though an explanation has been offered, you think you have a mystery on your hands here. LHO and many other people including JFK's brother have 13 inch heads. Jack White thought it was a "secret identifier" indicating intelligence connections. What do you think is the significance of the 13 inch heads?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Greg Parker has found the explanation:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1412-the-13-inch-head-explained-for-sandy

 

Mr. GOLDSMITH - I would ask you at this time. Sergeant Kirk, to refer to what has been marked as JFK F-564, which is the exhibit on the right, and I would ask you to explain how the photographic evidence panel addressed the issue of Oswald's purported 13-inch head. 
Sergeant KIRK - Well, the exhibit on the right is a demonstration conducted at Metropolitan Police Headquarters. It depicts a Metropolitan Police officer, W.W. Lee. The photograph on the extreme left of the three photos shows Officer Lee with his back against a height chart. It indicates that he is a little over 69 inches tall. The second photograph shows Officer Lee, who has walked away from the wall, a mere 7 inches. The height scale to Officer Lee's right, your left as you look at it, shows that Officer Lee still stays 69 inches tall but the height scale in the background, which is 7 inches away from the gentleman, shows he is starting to grow in height. Indeed, in this photograph he has a 13-inch head, if you count the inches in the background, but when you count the inches that are next to his head, his head size stays the same. The photograph on the right of the exhibit, Officer Lee has now moved out 14 inches away from the height scale, he has grown considerably taller, if you look at the height scale in the background, and his head has also increased in length, but as the height scale that has moved out with Officer Lee shows he remains at 69 inches tall and his head size has not changed. 
Mr. GOLDSMITH - I realize you have indicated that the subject in the photographs has moved away from the height chart. Are you able to explain in more detail what factors account for the Apparent 13-inch head in one of these photographs and also for the disparity in his indicated height? 
Sergeant KIRK - Yes, sir. It was determined that at the time these photographs were taken, an ID camera, much used in the military as well as other types of the Government, was a type of camera that was mounted on a dolly, with the lights and the camera and the numbering chart affixed where it could be pushed out of the way when not in use. So if Mr. Oswald was brought into the induction center to be photographed and told to stand next to the height chart, it didn't really make any difference to the photographer whether or not Mr. Oswald was standing next to the height chart or not, because he could move the camera up or away from Oswald to get the photograph that he wanted. This chart on the right demonstrates the fact that unless Mr. Oswald was standing directly with his back against the wall and the camera was at the correct distance, it would not be an accurate recording of his true height. 
Mr. GOLDSMITH - I am sorry, I did not catch your last sentence. 
Sergeant KIRK - It is unreasonable to assume that this photograph is the actual recording of his true height. I should add if it is an actual recording of his true height, then it would be an inaccurate recording of his head size.

Edited April 12, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

What do you think is the significance of the 13 inch heads?

I'm studying the possibility that the person being measured stands at a line that is some distance from the chart. And that the chart is lower to the floor to compensate for the incorrect height reading. This would account for the large head reading.

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

It is obvious that what happened is there was a camera setup with the chart perhaps 2 feet from a line where the men were told to stand. The recorded height would not be affected by the distance but the apparent size of the head was.

Yes, Tracy, the height reading would be affected. It would indicate that the person is taller than he really is.That is the problem.

But, as I said, I'm looking at the possibility that the chart was lowered closer to the floor to compensate.
 

11 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

 Even though an explanation has been offered, you think you have a mystery on your hands here.

You haven't offered any explanation. I don't think you even understand the problem, the way you keep going on with this.

 

[Ray Mitcham]

Surely the height, in relation to the chart, depends on where the camera is and the height of  the centre of the lens.

If for example, the lens centre is at chin height and the subject is 2 Feet from the chart,  then  the height shown will be different to that if the camera lens is at forehead height.

I always understood that when police line-up photos were taken the subject was back against the chart wall,  and the camera was set so the centre of the lens was at the same height as the middle of the subjects face, to avoid any confusion.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Ray Mitcham

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker has found the explanation:

 

Mr. GOLDSMITH - I would ask you at this time. Sergeant Kirk, to refer to what has been marked as JFK F-564, which is the exhibit on the right, and I would ask you to explain how the photographic evidence panel addressed the issue of Oswald's purported 13-inch head. 
Sergeant KIRK - Well, the exhibit on the right is a demonstration conducted at Metropolitan Police Headquarters. It depicts a Metropolitan Police officer, W.W. Lee. The photograph on the extreme left of the three photos shows Officer Lee with his back against a height chart. It indicates that he is a little over 69 inches tall. The second photograph shows Officer Lee, who has walked away from the wall, a mere 7 inches. The height scale to Officer Lee's right, your left as you look at it, shows that Officer Lee still stays 69 inches tall but the height scale in the background, which is 7 inches away from the gentleman, shows he is starting to grow in height. Indeed, in this photograph he has a 13-inch head, if you count the inches in the background, but when you count the inches that are next to his head, his head size stays the same. The photograph on the right of the exhibit, Officer Lee has now moved out 14 inches away from the height scale, he has grown considerably taller, if you look at the height scale in the background, and his head has also increased in length, but as the height scale that has moved out with Officer Lee shows he remains at 69 inches tall and his head size has not changed. 
Mr. GOLDSMITH - I realize you have indicated that the subject in the photographs has moved away from the height chart. Are you able to explain in more detail what factors account for the Apparent 13-inch head in one of these photographs and also for the disparity in his indicated height? 
Sergeant KIRK - Yes, sir. It was determined that at the time these photographs were taken, an ID camera, much used in the military as well as other types of the Government, was a type of camera that was mounted on a dolly, with the lights and the camera and the numbering chart affixed where it could be pushed out of the way when not in use. So if Mr. Oswald was brought into the induction center to be photographed and told to stand next to the height chart, it didn't really make any difference to the photographer whether or not Mr. Oswald was standing next to the height chart or not, because he could move the camera up or away from Oswald to get the photograph that he wanted. This chart on the right demonstrates the fact that unless Mr. Oswald was standing directly with his back against the wall and the camera was at the correct distance, it would not be an accurate recording of his true height. 
Mr. GOLDSMITH - I am sorry, I did not catch your last sentence. 
Sergeant KIRK - It is unreasonable to assume that this photograph is the actual recording of his true height. I should add if it is an actual recording of his true height, then it would be an inaccurate recording of his head size.

 

Oh lordy.

The above testimony explains precisely what I've been saying. That standing away from the height chart will make the head look bigger and the height of the person greater. And so doing so will give an incorrect  height reading.

You highlighted just about everything in Mr. Kirk's testimony but his conclusion. I highlight his pertinent statements here:

Mr. GOLDSMITH - I realize you have indicated that the subject in the photographs has moved away from the height chart. Are you able to explain in more detail what factors account for the Apparent 13-inch head in one of these photographs and also for the disparity in his indicated height? 
Sergeant KIRK - Yes, sir. It was determined that at the time these photographs were taken, an ID camera, much used in the military as well as other types of the Government, was a type of camera that was mounted on a dolly, with the lights and the camera and the numbering chart affixed where it could be pushed out of the way when not in use. So if Mr. Oswald was brought into the induction center to be photographed and told to stand next to the height chart, it didn't really make any difference to the photographer whether or not Mr. Oswald was standing next to the height chart or not, because he could move the camera up or away from Oswald to get the photograph that he wanted. This chart on the right demonstrates the fact that unless Mr. Oswald was standing directly with his back against the wall and the camera was at the correct distance, it would not be an accurate recording of his true height. 
Mr. GOLDSMITH - I am sorry, I did not catch your last sentence. 
Sergeant KIRK - It is unreasonable to assume that this photograph is the actual recording of his true height. I should add if it is an actual recording of his true height, then it would be an inaccurate recording of his head size.

In the snippet of Mr. Kirk's testimony that you quoted and highlighted, he explains that if the person isn't standing against the height chart, his head will appear enlarged. In the snippet I highlighted, he says that the height reading will be wrong too.

What Mr. Kirk doesn't do is explain how Oswald's head could appear to be 13" and at the same time an accurate reading of Oswald's height be shown. This is impossible under normal circumstances.

If we are to believe that Oswald's head appears to be 13" because Oswald wasn't standing against the height chart, then we have to accept that the 5' 9" height reading is much greater than his true height. (If we assume the height chart hasn't been raised to compensate. Or some other unusual step taken.)

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

 

13 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Surely the height, in relation to the chart, depends on where the camera is and the height of  the centre of the lens.

If for example, the lens centre is at chin height and the subject is 2 Feet from the chart,  then  the height shown will be different to that if the camera lens is at forehead height.

I always understood that when police line-up photos were taken the subject was back against the chart wall,  and the camera was set so the centre of the lens was at the same height as the middle of the subjects face, to avoid any confusion.

Yes, you are right Ray. If the subject isn't standing right up against the wall (height chart), the apparent height will vary depending upon how far from the floor and chart  the camera is, and the up/down angle of the camera. This is called parallax.error.

Here is an example of where parallax error can be a problem. Most people have seen meters like this:

 

If you don't look perfectly straight at the needle, you'll get an inaccurate reading. The above meter isn't meant to give highly accurate readings. Meters designed to give  precise readings will have a mirror located behind the needle, as with this one:

 

The mirror helps you look straight down at the needle. You know you're looking straight down when the reflection of the needle disappears. It disappears because it it directly behind and hidden by the needle.

BTW, in the case of the Oswald photo, the same principle could be used to get an accurate height reading in spite of the fact that Oswald was standing away from the wall/chart. Simply raise the camera so that the center of the lens is at the same height as Oswald. If that were done, then the 5' 9" reading would be correct.

 

[David Josephs]

On ‎4‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 5:50 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

For example, one of the central elements of the theory is that the 'Harvey' character, who survived the assassination weekend, had undergone a mastoidectomy operation at the age of six, and that the 'Lee' character, whose body was buried in Oswald's grave, had not undergone the operation.

HARVEY was buried since it was HARVEY who Ruby shot.

LEE has a record of a Mastoidectomy.  There was also a bullet wound to LEE that was not seen on Harvey...  Dr. Rose made no notation of a Mastoid scar on the Fact sheet either.

 

 

It truly is not that hard...  While similar, these two are not the same men

If you're going to "mock" the author - maybe read his book first?... maybe take a little time to learn about the subject?  maybe extract foot from mouth and start over?

As we've learned in this case - you can just as easily defend one side or the other if you know enough about the evidence and case.

Edited January 23, 2018 by David Josephs

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I should add if it is an actual recording of his true height, then it would be an inaccurate recording of his head size.

I am assuming the whole point of this is you are trying to say the height recorded is incorrect probably since this is supposed to be "Lee" who is taller (another strike against H&L).  Kirk is saying either the height or head size is correct and not both. Therefore, we know it is an inaccurate recording of his head size, we should assume it is an accurate recoding of his height or very close. Especially when you consider other sources that show he was 5'9" or very close such as the exhumation and the NO booking photo. This type of measurement was apparently discontinued because it took a certain amount of skill to perform.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

52 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

If you're going to "mock" the author - maybe read his book first?... maybe take a little time to learn about the subject?

Not trying to speak for Jeremy, but this was just a typo. He is well aware that "Lee" had the mastoid operation that showed up on "Harvey."

[David Josephs]

Tracy... why didn't Rose make note of it and the bullet scar just above the elbow on the back side in his diagram if they were there?

Are you of the opinion that the intelligence community could not create a scar which appears like a mastoid operation?
Or that two kids in the US in the mid 40's could not both have a mastoidectomy?  Give your penchant for coincidence I'd think this was an easy one to see.

I still would be interested to know if he read the book, checked the notebooks and/or seen the CD-ROM...

Why doesn't HARVEY have the elbow scar and mastoid scar noted when scars as small as 3/4" x 3/8" are noted....?
 

 

Edited January 23, 2018 by David Josephs

[W. Tracy Parnell]

13 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Tracy... why didn't Rose make note of it and the bullet scar just above the elbow on the back side in his diagram if they were there?

Are you of the opinion that the intelligence community could not create a scar which appears like a mastoid operation?
Or that two kids in the US in the mid 40's could not both have a mastoidectomy?  Give your penchant for coincidence I'd think this was an easy one to see.

I still would be interested to know if he read the book, checked the notebooks and/or seen the CD-ROM...

Rose admitted he could have missed some things but he was very confident that he autopsied the one and only LHO. No, they could not have faked the scar since it had the smoothed appearance that indicated it was not freshly made. Sure you can say they had the same operation at the same time as Hargrove has been pushing here. That is all you can say. But why did Armstrong not even attempt to offer an explanation in the book and in fact not even bother to mention it?

Edit: In a perfect world Rose would have ascertained what major scars LHO had and looked for them. But he had fingerprints and felt that was sufficient for an ID.

Edited April 12, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Sandy Larsen]

39 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I am assuming the whole point of this is you are trying to say the height recorded is incorrect probably since this is supposed to be "Lee" who is taller (another strike against H&L).

No, this has nothing to do with Harvey and Lee.

In fact, if the reason for Oswalds big head is that he wasn't standing back against the height chart, then the height reading is LARGER than it should be. And therefore Oswald is not really 5' 9", but is much shorter. Probably less than 5 feet tall. Which, of course, can't be true.

The fact that the height comes out accurate (or fairly accurate) while the head is too big is what makes this a mystery.

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Sandy Larsen