1959 Newspaper Photos of "Lee Harvey Oswald"

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

DJ and John B,

John A. put together a page on my website called Evolution of the "Defection" Photo.  The "face mask" photo is there along with a number of others.  I think we all agree that the image was originally that of Lee Oswald.  The bulbous nose appears to be in the original photo that the masked photo was sourced from but, of course, what appears to be the original photo could itself have been altered.

What do you guys think of the theory that a recognizable image of Harvey Oswald could not have been placed in a newspaper near the Dallas/Fort Worth area because some reader might have known Lee Oswald well enough to realize that the picture didn't show him?

That would be my take on that. 

I am suspicious of newspapers in Dallas.  I think (with not much evidence on this) that at least the Dallas Morning News may have been part of the conspiracy.  The notion of Altgens being with that newspaper, and later publishing one of Phil Willis' slide photos as there own in I believe the late 70s has made me suspicious.

I can easily see that particular paper doing what they could to help confuse the situation after the assassination.   

Edited February 19, 2020 by John Butler

[Stephen Lavin]

Although there are disputes about the accuracy of bio metrics and facial recognition software and its use in society, I believe it has been established that the main bio metric features of the face ie the dimensions between the eyes, ears, nose, lips, chin and ears stay the same.

Has anyone made such a study on the photos that have been presented as L.H.O over the years? 

With regard to the photo in question - is this not a case of 1. a digital copy of 2. an analogue copy of 3. a copy of 4. a blow up of 5. a poor quality original?

is it not feasible that any alterations were made purely to provide a printable image? 

Have other readers ever had to work with photocopies of photocopies of original sources and found things do not show up as expected? I have on numerous occasions in my career in education.

Obviously this is not journalism of a high standard merely a reproduction of another report but this was clearly not a major story at the time and would not warrant using resources to track down a quality image.

[David Josephs]

13 minutes ago, Stephen Lavin said:

Has anyone made such a study on the photos that have been presented as L.H.O over the years? 

October 1951 on the left.... Aug 1953 on the right... 6 inches shorter and 20 lbs lighter, almost 2 years into puberty....
Boys get shorter and lighter ??

  I hope this addresses some of your concerns Stephen

 

The above composite shows the marine induction image and the arrest in Nov 63

These two images are taken a week apart....

 

 

The above 1959 passport photo and 1963 Harvey

 

Here are "impersonators" and "look a-likes" as opposed to "duplicity"

 

If you can explain how this is even possible - many here would like to here a better explanation...

How can these be the same man?  how can the image on the right - his official military induction photo - be real?  a 13 inch head?

  

 

[Jim Hargrove]

15 hours ago, Stephen Lavin said:

Although there are disputes about the accuracy of bio metrics and facial recognition software and its use in society, I believe it has been established that the main bio metric features of the face ie the dimensions between the eyes, ears, nose, lips, chin and ears stay the same.

Has anyone made such a study on the photos that have been presented as L.H.O over the years? 

Yes. The study was published on the Deep Politics Forum four or five years ago but, unfortunately, the link to it below no longer seems to work. Here's an edited post I made here in 2017 about it:

Pixel Counting Biometric

Comparison of Oswald photos

A couple of years ago on another forum, a Dallas attorney named Drew Phipps, familiar with facial recognition techniques, did a detailed series of posts he titled: “Pixel Counting Biometric Comparison of Oswald photos.”

Mr. Phipps measured, in various pictures of “Oswald,” the ratios of the distances between a number of different facials features in photos. He described his analytical method as follows:

The ratios I will use are: “pupil-to-pupil / width of eye” (called P/W hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / length of nose” (called P/N hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / nose-to-top-lip” (called P/L hereafter) and “pupil-to-pupil / earlobe-to-earlobe” (called P/E hereafter). The use of ratios (instead of actual measurements) will make it unnecessary to know more about the distance from lens to face, or the type of camera, etc., since the proportions of the face of the same person should stay the same regardless of those other factors.

In his series of posts, Mr. Phipps went into considerable detail about the photos he was using and how he made and interpreted his measurements. I think you have to be a member of the forum to be able to see the actual graphics but the written descriptions of his work, and his conclusions, are visible to non-members. At any rate, here are Mr. Phipps’ final conclusions.

Visual Conclusions: Unless there is something terribly wrong with my methodology, (or my spreadsheet skills), or the photos are simply too low resolution for a significant biometric comparison, there is some evidence that there is more than one individual here. 

If I had to clump the photos in two different piles, it looks to me like photos 1, 2, 3, 9 and 13 are the same individual, and photos 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are the same individual.

I realize this is not the same narrative as "Harvey and Lee". It is still my opinion that it is far more likely that the paper trail of discrepancies surrounding Oswald is the result of deliberate tampering with his records (in an attempt to catch a mole, or deceive a communist spy organization). But the biometric discrepancies are starting to make me wonder. 

CLICK HERE to see Mr. Phipps’ study.

UPDATE: Here is a link to Mr. Phipps' study that seems to work.  However, if you are not a member of the Deep Politics Forum, you will not be able to see the graphics and the posts will look very disjointed.  Joining is free.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[Chris Bristow]

On 2/19/2020 at 3:47 PM, Stephen Lavin said:

Although there are disputes about the accuracy of bio metrics and facial recognition software and its use in society, I believe it has been established that the main bio metric features of the face ie the dimensions between the eyes, ears, nose, lips, chin and ears stay the same.

Has anyone made such a study on the photos that have been presented as L.H.O over the years? 

With regard to the photo in question - is this not a case of 1. a digital copy of 2. an analogue copy of 3. a copy of 4. a blow up of 5. a poor quality original?

is it not feasible that any alterations were made purely to provide a printable image? 

Have other readers ever had to work with photocopies of photocopies of original sources and found things do not show up as expected? I have on numerous occasions in my career in education.

Obviously this is not journalism of a high standard merely a reproduction of another report but this was clearly not a major story at the time and would not warrant using resources to track down a quality image.

Stephen, I compared the pupillary distance in about 20 photos of Oswald. I had been an optician for many years and measured over 10,000 patients PD's by hand. Oswald right eye sits 1 mm farther out from the bridge of the nose then his left eye. All of Oswald measurements were very accurate but I'm not saying that proves them  to be real. Although in maybe half the photos Oswald's head was turned very slightly to the side by as little as 2°. That changes the pupillary distance significantly and you can take it into account. But you still end up with some guesswork. I used multiple pictures of myself and others to determine just how much to compensate for the slightly rotated head. I never found any big errors and the size of his Iris was always pretty consistent.