Comparing LEE's 1959 passport image to supposed "split" image - 2 different people

[David Josephs]

5 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

That 2nd overlay titled " Harvey superimposed over Lee" is the famous 1/22 mugshot and the Marine induction photo.

No it is not Chris... I would never compare Harvey to himself...  only to photos of LEE... and that overlay is made like the first, against the 1959 passport photo, just anchored on his left eye instead of right ear.

Let's be clear... all you've shown that Harvey at 17 and Harvey at 24 matches...

5 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

 I will do a comp of the passport and other photo.

Harvey on the left... Lee on the right (before the 1959 passport photo)

[David Josephs]

6 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

That 2nd overlay titled " Harvey superimposed over Lee" is the famous 1/22 mugshot and the Marine induction photo.

No it is not Chris... I would never compare Harvey to himself...  only to photos of LEE... and that overlay is made like the first, against the 1959 passport photo, just anchored on his left eye instead of right ear.

Let's be clear... all you've shown that Harvey at 17 and Harvey at 24 matches...

6 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

 I will do a comp of the passport and other photo.

Harvey on the left... Lee on the right (before the 1959 passport photo)

[David Josephs]

6 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

That 2nd overlay titled " Harvey superimposed over Lee" is the famous 1/22 mugshot and the Marine induction photo.

No it is not Chris... I would never compare Harvey to himself...  only to photos of LEE... and that overlay is made like the first, against the 1959 passport photo, just anchored on his left eye instead of right ear.

Let's be clear... all you've shown that Harvey at 17 and Harvey at 24 matches...

6 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

 I will do a comp of the passport and other photo.

Harvey on the left... Lee on the right (before the 1959 passport photo)

[Jonathan Cohen]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Jeremy,

Mocking a forum member's work violates forum rules. Kindly remove those remarks from your post.

 

This is ridiculous. Since you keep changing the goal posts, how would you suggest one member critique the work of another when there are legitimate logical and methodological issues with said work?

[Guest]

On 2/5/2023 at 10:41 AM, Jonathan Cohen said:

This is ridiculous. Since you keep changing the goal posts, how would you suggest one member critique the work of another when there are legitimate logical and methodological issues with said work?

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Chris Bristow]

10 hours ago, David Josephs said:

No it is not Chris... I would never compare Harvey to himself...  only to photos of LEE... and that overlay is made like the first, against the 1959 passport photo, just anchored on his left eye instead of right ear.

Let's be clear... all you've shown that Harvey at 17 and Harvey at 24 matches...

Harvey on the left... Lee on the right (before the 1959 passport photo)

I get confused on who is Harvey and who is Lee.
 Here are the two images I used and in the middle is your "Harvey and Lee superimposed" comp from page 1. The red circles and arrows show the match of artifacts and other elements in both the image on the left and your comparison. There are also matching horizontal scratches slightly visible on the nose but I did not mark them in red.
The blue arrows show the matching elements of the mug shot on the right with your comp. The two photos I used which I refer to as the induction and 1/22 mug shot photos are absolutely the two images that make up your "Harvey and Lee superimposed. 

Edited February 6, 2023 by Chris Bristow

[Chris Bristow]

Here is the passport comp. Everything matches well except the ear position which has already been addressed and is due to the slight forward head tilt in the passport image.. But there is a weird thing and that is the passport ears are bigger and further apart than the other photo. There is a possible explanation if the camera for the passport photo was taken from farther away. That does change the relative magnification of objects at different distances from the camera. The difference in width can happen with even a slight turn of the head. The passport image is looking dead ahead but the other is looking a few degrees to his left. There are possible explanation for the differences but I have not tested them.
 On the right is an interesting comp. The image on the right is rotated down approx 10 degrees(Maybe a little to much). The photos are aligned at the eyes. The nose obviously swings downward and will distort any comp when one head is pointing down more. But what is interesting is that the top of the philtrum and the lips are shifted down slightly too. So when we compare two photos that do not have equal head tilt we can expect to see a mismatch of the lips and the philtrum. We do see this in the passport comps.

[Chris Bristow]

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thanks Chris.

I'm pretty sure that the one on the left is a drawing. I'm also pretty sure that the one on the left and one on the right are from the same source. They are almost identical.

 

Yes definitely both are from the same original source. I don't  know if it was a drawing or just a poor image with too much contrast.

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Yes definitely both are from the same original source. I don't  know if it was a drawing or just a poor image with too much contrast.

So in other words, Chris, based on your conclusions, all of these images are of the same person, ie., the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald? I certainly believe that to be the case, and I'm on record as believing the Harvey and Lee theory to be absolute nonsense, but just wanted to clarify your position.

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

So in other words, Chris, based on your conclusions, all of these images are of the same person, ie., the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald? I certainly believe that to be the case, and I'm on record as believing the Harvey and Lee theory to be absolute nonsense, but just wanted to clarify your position.

I am only weighing in on the photo comparisons. As to the Harvey and Lee theory I have no conclusive opinion. Body doubles have been used before like Saddam's doubles, so I don't rule out our intelligence agencies using body doubles.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

Mocking a forum member's work violates forum rules. Kindly remove those remarks from your post.

What exactly does Sandy find objectionable? That I described David Josephs' claims as "unintentionally hilarious"? Or that I described his evidence for those claims as "laughably flimsy"?

Both of my remarks were accurate, and neither of them insulted David personally. What's the problem?

David's first claim was that photos exist which show Oswald's shoulders sloping at different angles, and that this demonstrates that the photos are of different people. David clearly didn't bother to consider any of the obvious explanations for what we see in the photos. He thought that drawing lines on those photos, to emphasise that the angles were different, was all he needed to do.

His second claim was that photos of Oswald show "different size heads". I posted a link which explained clearly why David's claim about "different size heads" was mistaken, for the benefit of anyone who couldn't work it out for themselves or who wasn't aware that the HSCA explained the phenomenon decades ago.

David made two mistaken interpretations of that photographic evidence. In each case, the mistake should have been obvious to anyone who looked at that evidence objectively, which David clearly didn't do. The mistakes were so obvious, and the evidence so flimsy, that any sensible, open-minded person who read David's claims would find them unintentionally amusing.

Again, what exactly does Sandy find objectionable about this?

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

David's first claim was that photos exist which show Oswald's shoulders sloping at different angles, and that this demonstrates that the photos are of different people. David clearly didn't bother to consider any of the obvious explanations for what we see in the photos. He thought that drawing lines on those photos, to emphasise that the angles were different, was all he needed to do.

His second claim was that photos of Oswald show "different size heads". I posted a link which explained clearly why David's claim about "different size heads" was mistaken, for the benefit of anyone who couldn't work it out for themselves or who wasn't aware that the HSCA explained the phenomenon decades ago.

David made two mistaken interpretations of that photographic evidence. In each case, the mistake should have been obvious to anyone who looked at that evidence objectively, which David clearly didn't do. The mistakes were so obvious, and the evidence so flimsy, that any sensible, open-minded person who read David's claims would find them unintentionally amusing.

13 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Again, what exactly does Sandy find objectionable about this?

 

I find nothing objectionable about it.... now that you've removed the parts where you were mocking David's work.

Which means you do indeed know that you were mocking David.

Now kindly go and fix the original post.