EVIDENCE FOR HARVEY AND LEE (Please debate the specifics right here. Don't just claim someone else has debunked it!)

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

It doesn't take a dentist or expert to see that Lee Oswald on the right has a missing front tooth and Harvey Oswald on the left has all of his front teeth.

It takes a 'Harvey and Lee' believer to interpret a small dark patch on a photograph as a missing tooth instead of, say, a shadow or a photographic artefact. If that's the only difference Mr Butler can see, it's clear that both photographs must show the same person: the real-life, historical, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald.

In Mr Butler's opinion, which facial features are specific to 'Harvey', and which are specific to 'Lee'? Are their noses different, as David Josephs has claimed? He thinks they are "obviously very different". If so, how exactly does the appearance of their noses differ? If not, why is Mr Josephs imagining things? What about their mouths: are they different? Their eyebrows? Their ears? What consistent differences can 'Harvey and Lee' believers see that others cannot?

If the two fictional characters really are unrelated and from different parts of the world, as the 'Harvey and Lee' theory claims,  what does Mr Butler think are the chances that they turned out to look identical a decade or so after they were chosen as boys for the top-secret doppelganger project? It would be very unlikely indeed, wouldn't it?

The two fictional characters cannot realistically have looked identical. They must have looked different. We would expect the photographic record to show consistent differences between the facial features of the two fictional characters. But it doesn't, does it? I wonder why that could be.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Corrrected an over-hastily written typo

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I'm not sure what point Jim Hargrove is trying to make with the images he has provided, unless it is the obvious point that some of the photos of Oswald are of very poor quality, or the equally obvious point that press photographs are often touched up before publication.

If he thinks these images reveal facial features that are specific to each of his fictional characters, perhaps he could tell us:

(a) which facial features are specific to the fictional character 'Harvey';

(b) which facial features are specific to the fictional character 'Lee'; and

(c) which of the other photographs in the montage demonstrate each of those facial features.

For example, if he is claiming that the 'Harvey' character has a long, thin nose and the 'Lee' character has a short, wide nose, it should be possible to list all the numbered photographs which demonstrate each type of nose. He could do the same for the differences in each fictional character's mouth, ears, eyebrows, and so on, if he thinks that any such differences actually exist. Let's see what he comes up with. To quote Jim: Please debate the specifics right here.

Once we have taken account of variables such as lighting conditions, poses, shadows, quality of photographic reproduction, and normal physical changes over the years, what differences are there in the faces of 'Harvey' and 'Lee'? So far, all we have is a poorly defined "the nose is obviously very different". (In what way is it different? If it really is "very different", this difference should be clearly visible in several other photographs. Which photos depict the nose of 'Harvey', and which depict the very different nose of 'Lee'?)

Since the faces in the photographs appear to possess no differences that don't have everyday alternative explanations, we are left with two choices. Either the fictional characters 'Harvey' and 'Lee' were identical, a possibility that is so unlikely that we can dismiss it as a fantasy, or the photographs are of just one person: the real-life, historical Lee Harvey Oswald.

[Jim Hargrove]

Again, Mr. Bojczuk insists that I micro-analyze  a visual record that has clearly been falsified and manipulated.  What a waste of time.

For another example, here is the image of Lee Harvey Oswald the Fort Worth Star-Telegram ran at the time of the 1959 “defection.”  

Years later, John Armstrong wrote to Associated Press/Wide World Photos and asked to purchase the best available version of the photograph reproduced so poorly in the Star-Telegram. Below is the image he received directly from AP/World Wide Photos.  The typed label to the left indicates: "This is a retransmission of FW1 of Nov. 1 to provide better copy."  

Spitting image of “Lee Harvey Oswald,” eh?  

Again, Mr. Bojczuk insists all the images below are of the same person.  

Whatever you do, don't believe your own lying eyes!

Finally, in his post at the top of this page, Mr. Bojczuk makes three links labeled “Harvey and Lee” that do not lead to the Harvey and Lee website.  Here is the real link:

Harvey and Lee
 

[John Butler]

"In Mr Butler's opinion, which facial features are specific to 'Harvey', and which are specific to 'Lee'? Are their noses different, as David Josephs has claimed? He thinks they are "obviously very different". If so, how exactly does the appearance of their noses differ? If not, why is Mr Josephs imagining things? What about their mouths: are they different? Their eyebrows? Their ears? What consistent differences can 'Harvey and Lee' believers see that others cannot?"

If you do your research considering past threads on the Forum, you will see I have posted my take on the Harvey/Lee features for photo identification based on the mugshot of Harvey Oswald at the Dallas Police Station taken after the assassination.  I believe I have posted this more than once.  Or, at least various parts of that list of identification features as certain photos were discussed over time.  I still use it and have done so recently.

This has been available for a considerable length of time.  I haven't mentioned this detailed description since nothing will satisfy you, Mr. Bojczuk.  If you think this response is directed to you Mr. Bojczuk, then you are wrong.  It is addressed to the general reader who might be interested in this topic.

Edited February 17, 2020 by John Butler

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

Mr. Bojczuk insists that I micro-analyze  a visual record that has clearly been falsified and manipulated.

There's no need to "micro-analyze" the photographic record. If the facial features of the fictional characters 'Harvey' and 'Lee' were not identical, it should be easy to identify each fictional character's specific facial features, because those features will appear consistently in the many photographs of Oswald.

Take, for example, the two photographs provided by John Butler on page 52. He seems convinced that one of them shows 'Harvey' and the other shows 'Lee'. What facial features in those two photographs are distinctive of each fictional character? The differences should be obvious.

To my untrained eye, the facial features look remarkably similar. Even the noses appear to be identical, although we are told by David Josephs that the noses of the two fictional characters are "obviously very different". You know, I'm beginning to suspect that these two photographs, taken several years apart, may actually show the same person, in different poses and different lighting conditions.

Would Jim (or any other 'Harvey and Lee' believer) care to point out the characteristic features of 'Harvey' and 'Lee' in these two photographs? No answers? It's the same person, isn't it?

At this point, Jim will want to remind us of the most important element of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory: if a piece of evidence contradicts the theory, the evidence must be fake (which, according to some unkind people, makes the theory unfalsifiable and hence worthless).

It's possible that the reason both of these photographs show the same person is because they have been carefully faked, no doubt by the same lizard people who went on to fake the moon landings photographs a few years later, although why they would bother to laboriously manipulate inconvenient photos rather than simply destroy them is a mystery.

But surely the 70-odd photographs in Jim's montage on page 48 can't all be fakes, can they?

There must be plenty of genuine photographs which will demonstrate, for example, the "obviously very different" noses of the two fictional characters. Which photographs show the nose of 'Harvey', and which show the nose of 'Lee'? Jim won't need micro-analysis for this simple, two-minute task. Come on, Jim! It's easy! The noses are "obviously very different"! Which photos show which nose?

It can't just be the noses of the two fictional characters that differ. What about their mouths? But there aren't any obvious differences between the mouths. Admittedly, we can't rule out the possibility that those two unrelated boys grew up to have one facial feature that looks identical throughout the photographic record. It's unlikely, but possible.

But what about their ears, eyebrows, and other facial features? Surely all of those features can't have turned out to look identical as well. That would be extremely unlikely. The differences should be easy to spot, because they would be shown consistently across the photographic record. No micro-analysis is required - just list the numbered photographs (from Jim's montage on page 48) which show the distinctive noses, ears, eyebrows, etc, of each fictional character.

This game is open to anyone, by the way, not just Jim, even though he is keen to "debate the specifics right here" (or he used to be; he isn't quite so keen now, for some reason). Let's start with something easy: the noses, which are "obviously very different". Can anyone spot two consistent types of nose in the montage on page 48? Which numbered images show one type of nose, and which show the other type of nose?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

John Butler writes:

Quote

I haven't mentioned this detailed description since nothing will satisfy you

On the contrary, it won't take much to satisfy me. All I'm asking for is a short list of the facial features that are specific to each of the fictional characters, 'Harvey' and 'Lee'. It might go something like this:

- 'Harvey': narrower mouth, thinner lips, longer nose, straight eyebrows, eyes closer together, smaller ears.

- 'Lee': wider mouth, fatter lips, shorter nose, curved eyebrows, eyes wider apart, larger ears.

That shouldn't take very long to compile, should it?

Once you have produced your list, all we need to do is check it against Jim's mugshot montage on page 48. If the photographic record really does show two people, the differences between them should be visible consistently across the photographic record.

[Jim Hargrove]

As an adult, Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald was 5’9’ while, also as an adult, American-born Lee Oswald was 5’11” and quite a bit heavier.

Although there are scattered references to “Oswald’s” height at 5’5”, 5’6” 5’8”, and two at 5’10”, the vast majority of documents list his height at either 5’9” or 5’11”.

To take just three examples: The autopsy report of “Lee Harvey Oswald” lists his height as 5’9”, exactly matching the height listed on many other documents.  But the 9/3/59 USMC medical exam and the 10/12/59 Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge both list his height at 5’11”.  None of these measurements are self-reported.

Harvey Oswald had all his front teeth intact, as shown in the exhumation photos.

Lee Oswald lost at least one front tooth in a 9th grade school yard fight.

These are clear physical differences between the adult Oswalds.

Comparing noses or chins on various “Oswald” photographs is silly when, for example, different sources tell us all the mugshots below are of “Lee Harvey Oswald.” 

Let’s play the game anyway on at least on physical feature.  Years ago, John Armstrong collected and organized various mugshots of the two Oswalds, arranging them in rows that, according to the available biographical information, should show American-born Lee Oswald in the top row, and Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald in the bottom row.  It is interesting to note that, following the 1954 image of his missing front tooth, none of the images of Lee show his teeth.

Compare the necks of the two Oswalds shown above.   Note how much thicker the neck appears to be in the top row of Oswalds (Lee) than in the bottom row (Harvey).

John Pic hadn't seen his half brother since 1953, but the on several occasions, “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” half brother told the Warren Commission that photographs he was shown of Classic Oswald® didn’t appear to be those of his brother. 

When asked, "How did he look to you physically as compared with when you had seen him last?" Pic replied (emphasis added), "I would have never recognized him, sir ..... he was much thinner than I had remembered him. He didn't have as much hair ..... His face features were somewhat different, being his eyes were set back maybe, you know like in these army pictures, they looked different that I remembered him. His face was rounder. Marilyn had described him to me when he went in the Marine Corps as having a bull neck. This I didn't notice at all."

Mr. Bojczuk recently started asking to point out physical differences between the two Oswalds, which I have done repeatedly in this thread, other thread, and in this very post.  By the same token, for at least the eighth time in this very topic, I’ve asked Mr. Bojczuk to discuss the following points of evidence proving the existence of two “Lee Harvey Oswalds,” which he always fails to do.  Why is that?

• For the fall semester of the 1953-54 school year,  one Oswald attended Beauregard JHS in New Orleans for 89 school days while the other was enrolled in Public School 44 in New York City, where he was present for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days.
• For the next semester, one Oswald was at Beauregard JHS in New Orleans while the other Oswald attended Stripling School in Texas.
• One Oswald lost a front tooth during a fight at Beauregard JHS in the fall of 1954, but the Oswald exhumed decades later obviously had all his front teeth intact.
• The Social Security Administration did not include ANY of “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” teen-aged employment income in his “Lifetime Earnings Report” indicating in a cover letter it was including “Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report re employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps.”
• One Oswald departed for Taiwan aboard the USS Skagit on Sept. 14, 1958 and was stationed in Ping Tung, Taiwan on Oct. 6, 1958, at the very same time the other Oswald was being treated for venereal disease at Atsugi, Japan, nearly 1500 miles away.
• One Oswald appeared at the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans while the other was in the Soviet Union.
• One Oswald had a driver’s license and was seen by many witnesses driving a car, and the other Oswald could not drive.
• On November 22, 1963, one Oswald left the Texas School Book Depository on a bus and then a taxi, and the other left in a Nash Rambler.

Mr. Bojczuk is happy to tell readers that someone else somewhere else has "debunked" the above, but he will not do so himself in his own words right here.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

42 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Bojczuk is happy to tell readers that someone else somewhere else has "debunked" the above, but he will not do so himself in his own words right here.

He and several others have debunked the theory repeatedly. One example-the 1956 photo above of "Lee" in the MC was used in the HSCA photo analysis lone before H&L existed. They said it and other photos showed the same individual. So, all you can't say is "they were in on it." Also, despite your lengthy post, you didn't answer Jeremy's question. That's because you can't.

[John Butler]

Jim,

You really can't discuss this with these fellows.  Anything that you say is wrong.  However, I understand why you are replying to them.

Other then that, the classroom photo of Lee sure does appear to have two incisors missing rather than one.  That is a large void for just one incisor. 

According to those fellows, the gaping void between Lee's teeth is simply not there.  Those fellows will just simply say something like that's a camera or film defect after seeing this void in the front part of Lee's mouth for a second time.

Here's another feature that they can look for and scoff at.  It's a crucial aspect of the appearance of Harvey Oswald.  Lee does not have these traits.

c

1.  In the upper rim of Harvey's left ear are two bends or crooks that make the appearance of Harvey's left ear fairly unique.  Other people have these, but their occurrence is rare.  Artists see this kind of detail and use it in their work. 

2.  The second trait of Harvey's ear is that he has unattached ear lobes.  As versus, folks who have an ear that has attached ear lobes.  Everyone has one or the other trait or some version of the two.  It seems to be some kind of genetic trait which is thought to be non-heritable.  These two traits Lee doesn't have.

These two features are generally visible in a photo of Harvey unless he is turned the wrong way, or in photos too blurred to see these features, or distant imagery where the representation is to small and blurred to recognize.  If you don't find these features then it is not Harvey.

Does this look like the man who was shot by Jack Ruby?

I'm wasting my time with this.  Water off the back of ducks.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by John Butler

[Jim Hargrove]

John,

Ed Forum posts are fully indexed on Google and other search engines, and typically get high rankings in the results pages.  That's the only reason I bother arguing here.

[John Butler]

5 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

John,

Ed Forum posts are fully indexed on Google and other search engines, and typically get high rankings in the results pages.  That's the only reason I bother arguing here.

Yeah, I was really surprised when I first saw one of the things I have suggested about a photo in a Google search. 

That is an entirely good point.  Sterling.  I hadn't thought of that.  I will keep that in mind.

But, as far as Parnell and Bojczuk are concerned, that's another matter. 

[John Kowalski]

Some of the Blair papers have been copied. My contact did not have time to copy everything so he will return another time and copy some more. 

https://archive.org/details/blair-papers-folder-1

 

 

[John Kowalski]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Ed Forum posts are fully indexed on Google and other search engines, and typically get high rankings in the results pages.  That's the only reason I bother arguing here.

I was wondering why you were spending so much time with discussing H & L with people who will never ever accept John Armstrong's theory.

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, John Kowalski said:

Some of the Blair papers have been copied. My contact did not have time to copy everything so he will return another time and copy some more. 

https://archive.org/details/blair-papers-folder-1

Great news, John!  Looks like your above link leads, already, to some of the scans your contact made.  It that correct?

Although this is probably a long shot, I'm already getting excited about this.  MEGATHANKS!!!

I'll try to start studying this first thing tomorrow!

Edited February 19, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Congratulations to Mr Butler for identifying the only facial feature that distinguishes 'Harvey' from 'Lee'! One ear in a photograph looks marginally different to one ear in ... a drawing. Oh well. And the shadow on one ear in a second photograph is slightly different from the shadow on the same person's ear in a third photograph.

I can never work out if Mr Butler is being serious, or if he is having a laugh at the expense of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory. Just in case Mr Butler is being serious, could he confirm that all the other facial features of 'Harvey' and 'Lee' - eyes, eyebrows, mouth, nose, etc - are identical?

Or, if he really thinks there are consistent differences, could he point out a few examples in the mugshot montage on page 48? They are all the same person, aren't they?