New Information on Oswald in Mexico City

[John Butler]

This is my comparison of the two photos based upon characteristic traits found in his mug shot at the Dallas Police Station that I developed some years ago.  

Similarities:

1. The hair pattern of a balding male is the same in both photos.

2. The eyes and eyebrows are the same.

3.  The left ear is the same in structure showing the characteristic two folds in the upper rim.

4.  The neck can be said to be the same.  But, I don't think it is because it is less wider than Harvey's in the mug shot.  This is particularly so on the left side of the neck for the passport photo.

Differences:

1.  The right ear appears different.  It appears like a reverse of the left ear.  It too has two folds, but shouldn't.

2.  The face mask alignment of the nose to the mouth is off and not aligned correctly.

3.  Shadows may have been added to make the jawlines similar in the two photos.

I might add a note here on the study of anatomy.  An organism's parts or features must be exactly precise or other structure and function comes into play indicating something different.  

Edited October 18, 2021 by John Butler

[Jonathan Cohen]

40 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I will not go into the discussion of whether this is a photo of Harvey Oswald or a face mask of Harvey Oswald.  Generally, you see a light copy of Harvey in his sweater, and not a darker photo which gives away the mask outlines.  The left hand mug shot of Harvey is ok.

But there's no discussion to go into because, of course, there is no such person as "Harvey Oswald," much less a "face mask" of him.

[Karl Hilliard]

   

       Rather than go off on a tangent of absolutes [absolutely was a Harvey...absolutely was no such person] I would like to stick with the topic at hand. On a search [this forum] --there are pages of Oswald in Mexico discussions and I viewed just one that states as do others...that  "Silvia Duran's name and telephone number appears in Oswald's notebook". Superficially, that is only sort of true.  Ms Duran's name was located in the notebook. However, the phone number was written along with the Cuban consulate address and Silvia's name was written below that... as an apparent afternote. The FBI was known to have fiddled with that address book. They [Hoover?] didn't like it that SA Jim Hosty's name also appears in it. I will provide a link which shows that light on the matter. A C-Span article on the top of the page----

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=301625911020337

 

 

[David Josephs]

20 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

But there's no discussion to go into because, of course, there is no such person as "Harvey Oswald," much less a "face mask" of him.

So says the self proclaimed expert having never read a book or done any research so the opinions he spouts are uninformed and pedantic.  
 

what purpose are you serving here besides the ignorant critic of subject matter far beyond your comprehension ?  Every post of urs is a waste of time and thought…

but hey, you’re a shining example of how not to behave on an intellectual forum, everyone is good for something.

[Jonathan Cohen]

10 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

So says the self proclaimed expert having never read a book or done any research so the opinions he spouts are uninformed and pedantic.  
 

what purpose are you serving here besides the ignorant critic of subject matter far beyond your comprehension ?  Every post of urs is a waste of time and thought…

but hey, you’re a shining example of how not to behave on an intellectual forum, everyone is good for something.

Oooh, someone woke up on the wrong side of the doppelganger today, didn't they?

It's par for the course for you to make breathtakingly ignorant comments about people on this forum, but just this once, I'll set you straight and do the work for you: I've been researching this case for more than 30 years and have been a featured speaker and presenter at some of the most respected research symposiums dedicated to the Kennedy assassination. I've swapped research, knowledge and correspondence with Mary Ferrell, Harold Weisberg, Gary Aguilar, Gary Shaw, David Mantik and Josiah Thompson. Don't let that stop you from accusing me of "having never read a book or done any research," though. I won't hold my breath for your retraction.

As for the purpose I serve here? It's to call BS on preposterous theories like "Harvey and Lee," which are an embarrassment to serious study of this case and are clearly not taken seriously by a majority of researchers. Talk about a "waste of time and thought" ... 

[Sean Coleman]

I think Devil’s advocates are a necessity in debates- I always enjoyed reading DVP’s & JMcA’s opinions and rebukes- sometimes they were right, more often wrong, but it was good to read an intelligent well written argument- hear two sides of the story, weigh up the facts and make a personal decision on the matter being debated.

But….JC, your rebukes and rebuttals seem to be solely aimed at JB and have a personal, bullying edge with no rational argument to opinion- just a sneering put down. I’m interested in your opinions and arguments no-everyone’s opinions and arguments, but as DJ says, you don’t offer any? 
just sayin what I see….   
 

Edited October 19, 2021 by Sean Coleman

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Sean Coleman said:

I’m interested in your opinions and arguments no-everyone’s opinions and arguments, but as DJ says, you don’t offer any? 
just sayin what I see….   
 

Sean, my opinion is that “Harvey and Lee” is a ludicrous and laughable interpretation of the evidence, and that it is an embarrassment to the assassination research community. Nearly every aspect of it has a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation that doesn’t involve long-term doppelgängers and/or has been debunked time and time again both on this and other forums and by researchers such as Tracy Parnell. I am in as vigorous disagreement with the theory that every film and photo taken in Dealey Plaza is faked - especially when it is based on one person’s wild speculation about random anomalies for which there are numerous alternative explanations. At least John Butler sometimes admits when he is wrong, as he did in the “Jackie on the trunk” thread. More often than not, he advocates for an impossibly wide-ranging conspiracy requiring every piece of evidence to have been forged or altered. I will continue to challenge his interpretations of the evidence with facts and logic.

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

I think Devil’s advocates are a necessity in debates- I always enjoyed reading DVP’s & JMcA’s opinions and rebukes- sometimes they were right, more often wrong, but it was good to read an intelligent well written argument- hear two sides of the story, weigh up the facts and make a personal decision on the matter being debated.

But….JC, your rebukes and rebuttals seem to be solely aimed at JB and have a personal, bullying edge with no rational argument to opinion- just a sneering put down. I’m interested in your opinions and arguments no-everyone’s opinions and arguments, but as DJ says, you don’t offer any? 
just sayin what I see….   
 

Sean,

Thanks for your kind words.  JC does have that negative comment habit which would be completely worse if the editors allowed.  I believe he or Jeremy B has been scolded about their negative approach to making comments here on the forum.

Comments on this forum should be about your work or a rebuttal of someone else's with facts, opinions and speculations clearly labelled as such.  JC does seem to be a persistent critic of mine, but I don't really pay that much attention.  I answer occasionally, as far as really considering what he has to say?  Nope.

Edited October 19, 2021 by John Butler

[John Butler]

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

So says the self proclaimed expert having never read a book or done any research so the opinions he spouts are uninformed and pedantic.  
 

what purpose are you serving here besides the ignorant critic of subject matter far beyond your comprehension ?  Every post of urs is a waste of time and thought…

but hey, you’re a shining example of how not to behave on an intellectual forum, everyone is good for something.

David,

JC has these things to say which seem to me to be mantras.  It's like he is kneeling before a stone image and chanting:  That's just speculation, there's no evidence, and there is no solid proof in a loud voice.  It doesn't seem to matter whether there is or not.  It just the thing one keeps hearing from him.

JC says he has all this experience and credentials, but he is not demonstrating anything but the mantras I have suggested.  Maybe someone would take him more seriously if he did. 

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by John Butler

[Jonathan Cohen]

32 minutes ago, John Butler said:

David,

JC has these things to say which seem to me to be mantras.  It's like he is kneeling before a stone image and chanting:  That's just speculation, there's no evidence, and there is no solid proof in a loud voice.  It doesn't seem to matter whether there is or not.  It just the thing one keeps hearing from him.

JC says he has all this experience and credentials, but he is not demonstrating anything but the mantras I have suggested.  Maybe someone would take him more seriously if he did. 

 

John, what is there to demonstrate? I believe the theories you espouse are provably wrong, and I also believe these same theories have been debunked over and over or explained in perfectly logical ways that don't require doppelgangers. Do you really want me to repeatedly post the same debunkings and alternative explanations on this forum?

[Joseph McBride]

Nasty attacks on other researchers using hostile language 

do not advance the cause of understanding this case but

drag it down. Informed disagreement, citing evidence to

support one's viewpoint, is another matter altogether.

Edited October 19, 2021 by Joseph McBride

[Ron Bulman]

Well this thread had degenerated into disarray.  It was somewhat interesting earlier.  But I started ignoring John after his JFK shot on Main Street claims when he joined the site and if Jonathan is relying on Parnell . . .  What should one think?   

[David Josephs]

20 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Oooh, someone woke up on the wrong side of the doppelganger today, didn't they?

It's par for the course for you to make breathtakingly ignorant comments about people on this forum, but just this once, I'll set you straight and do the work for you: I've been researching this case for more than 30 years and have been a featured speaker and presenter at some of the most respected research symposiums dedicated to the Kennedy assassination. I've swapped research, knowledge and correspondence with Mary Ferrell, Harold Weisberg, Gary Aguilar, Gary Shaw, David Mantik and Josiah Thompson. Don't let that stop you from accusing me of "having never read a book or done any research," though. I won't hold my breath for your retraction.

As for the purpose I serve here? It's to call BS on preposterous theories like "Harvey and Lee," which are an embarrassment to serious study of this case and are clearly not taken seriously by a majority of researchers. Talk about a "waste of time and thought" ... 

again big brain… what have u done to investigate the hundreds of conflicts showing the existence of these 2 men?

been doing this just as long, spoken with and collaborated with many u mention and many more.

if you actually have something to offer in rebuttal other than your pathetic opinion, you would.  But since you can’t be bothered with actual research, actual evidence, actual documentation all you do is appoint yourself opinion N A Z I and pollute these pages… 

Maybe try looking into Allen Felde and John Ely and what they say about our man Ozzie.

C’mon Jon, show us that big brain and use more than ur opinion to debate/refute what is offered.  Why is John Ely so confused and Rankin/Jenner so insistent?

Finally oh sage of the forum, are u even aware that El Toro and Santa Ana were 2 separate and distinct bases… not one big base….   But u knew that right? You have all this research and analysis at ur fingertips, RIGHT?

Edited October 20, 2021 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

17 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

John, what is there to demonstrate? I believe the theories you espouse are provably wrong, and I also believe these same theories have been debunked over and over or explained in perfectly logical ways that don't require doppelgangers. Do you really want me to repeatedly post the same debunkings and alternative explanations on this forum?

Here is something simple for u…. Explain how these are the same person and what is the DoD doing with that induction photo?  Please provide something more than ur opinions 

[David Josephs]

7 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Well this thread had degenerated into disarray.  It was somewhat interesting earlier.  But I started ignoring John after his JFK shot on Main Street claims when he joined the site and if Jonathan is relying on Parnell . . .  What should one think?   

Agreed…. Go look at the evidence for oneself and come to one’s own conclusion.

John has some far out there hypotheses which may come off as his statements in fact…. If Chris didn’t turn everything on its edge and make far reaching hypotheses AND THEN PROVE THEM, we wouldn’t have a fairly detailed map of how we arrive at just over 6 feet of viewable film on a 25ft roll of film spliced in 6 places… the so called “original or “master” as the SS called it.

As for Tracy, much of his rebuttal centers around, “why would it be that way when it could be this way”? And shrugging repeated cases of official evidence off as mistakes…. As if the military doesn’t know who they are sending where.

tracy at least presents a case and in some areas his rebuttals are spot on… I too do not agree with every page written about H&L… but there has yet to be an explanation for what I posted above.

Or the obvious differences in the 2 men’s physiques.  

Back to back, one CE directly conflicts with the next….  John Ely was right.