Deep Politics Forum

Jack,

I don't want to beg any questions, but I take it whether or not these
photographs are of the same person remains a matter of discussion:




Sometimes those differences might possibly result from scanning over
and over, where Judyth has presented this rather striking illustration:



You have been extraordinarily uncharitable toward Judyth, even when she has had
reasonable explanations, such as the mafia betting line. I notice that one of these
women is wearing low heels, the other is in slippers. And how do we even know
WHEN these photos were taken or the CONTEXT that is so crucial for making the
kinds of claims that you have advanced? We are going to need a lot more proof.

Jim

Jack White Wrote:

Linda Minor Wrote:

Jack White Wrote:For those who have not read Armstrong and who do not believe that there were two Marguerites:

Jack, I see as much similarity between the two Marguerites as I do between the two Jack Whites when I compare the photo of you on this forum with that on the other one.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....ntry187742

But the two photos WERE TAKEN ABOUT FORTY YEARS APART!
Photos taken 40 years apart obviously will look different. The
photos of the two Marguerites were taken about 1957.

Can you not understand the difference?

Jack

JIM...the two LHO photos are WELL KNOWN. One is the first passport
photo of LHO. The other is the DPD mug shot of the man shot by Jack
Ruby. The scans are exactly like the photos. THE PHOTOS SHOW TWO
MEN WITH HEADS THAT ARE DIFFERENT SHAPES. Skulls do not change
shape. These photos show TWO DIFFERENT MEN. This does not remain
a question open for discussion.

Jack

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Jack,

I don't want to beg any questions, but I take it whether or not these
photographs are of the same person remains a matter of discussion:




Sometimes those differences might possibly result from scanning over
and over, where Judyth has presented this rather striking illustration:



You have been extraordinarily uncharitable toward Judyth, even when she has had
reasonable explanations, such as the mafia betting line. I notice that one of these
women is wearing low heels, the other is in slippers. And how do we even know
WHEN these photos were taken or the CONTEXT that is so crucial for making the
kinds of claims that you have advanced? We are going to need a lot more proof.

Jim

Jack White Wrote:

Linda Minor Wrote:

Jack White Wrote:For those who have not read Armstrong and who do not believe that there were two Marguerites:

Jack, I see as much similarity between the two Marguerites as I do between the two Jack Whites when I compare the photo of you on this forum with that on the other one.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....ntry187742

But the two photos WERE TAKEN ABOUT FORTY YEARS APART!
Photos taken 40 years apart obviously will look different. The
photos of the two Marguerites were taken about 1957.

Can you not understand the difference?

Jack

Judyth comments on Jack's photograph:

We cannot see how ‘slender’ marguerite actually is in the ‘tall, slender’ photo because
that feature is obscured by the skirts and arms of women on both sides…Look closely
and you will see that the skirt’s actual width is obscured. It is more of an optical
illusion than a verified fact about how ‘slender’ marguerite is in the photo to the right.
Also, in the photo shown for comparison, we have already discussed the creation
of a potbelly due to thyroid disorder syndrome.

Inquires about Armstrong's methodology:

A question Judyth has raised but not sent specifically for posting concerns Armstrong's
methodology. Is it the case, Jack, that Armstrong accepts all the records and photographs
he collected as being true? Because Judyth has noticed some points about Lee in New York,
which, in her opinion, John did not understand. If he ran across a student's report that she
(Judyth) had pee'd in her pants, for example, would he have known that it was actually
mouse urine or taken it at face value?

I have raised this question before but not heard an answer. Since the greater the number of
documents and photographs he collected, the greater the probability that some of them are
forgeries or fakes, what principle or methods did he employ to sort out the authentic from
the inauthentic? As you know from our research together, this case is littered with phony
photos, reports, documents and films. Was it his belief that everything he accumulated
was free from all fault and genuine?

jack white Wrote:for those who have not read armstrong and who do not believe that there were two marguerites:

"Well known", no doubt. But what generation is the passport photo?
Judyth has already demonstrated that, by copying a photo over and
over again, the shape of the image can be substantially distorted as
in the case of the Carlos Bringuire photo below. How do you know
the image in this case has not been affected by repeated scanning?
It does not appear to be the original. So how do you know it is an
accurate image of its subject?

Jack White Wrote:JIM...the two LHO photos are WELL KNOWN. One is the first passport
photo of LHO. The other is the DPD mug shot of the man shot by Jack
Ruby. The scans are exactly like the photos. THE PHOTOS SHOW TWO
MEN WITH HEADS THAT ARE DIFFERENT SHAPES. Skulls do not change
shape. These photos show TWO DIFFERENT MEN. This does not remain
a question open for discussion.

Jack

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Jack,

I don't want to beg any questions, but I take it whether or not these
photographs are of the same person remains a matter of discussion:




Sometimes those differences might possibly result from scanning over
and over, where Judyth has presented this rather striking illustration:



You have been extraordinarily uncharitable toward Judyth, even when she has had
reasonable explanations, such as the mafia betting line. I notice that one of these
women is wearing low heels, the other is in slippers. And how do we even know
WHEN these photos were taken or the CONTEXT that is so crucial for making the
kinds of claims that you have advanced? We are going to need a lot more proof.

Jim

Jack White Wrote:

Linda Minor Wrote:Jack, I see as much similarity between the two Marguerites as I do between the two Jack Whites when I compare the photo of you on this forum with that on the other one.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....ntry187742

But the two photos WERE TAKEN ABOUT FORTY YEARS APART!
Photos taken 40 years apart obviously will look different. The
photos of the two Marguerites were taken about 1957.

Can you not understand the difference?

Jack

Both of the LHO photos are identical to other versions of the
same photos that have been in JFK books and the WR for
many years, and are faithful reproductions.

The two Bringuier photos are identical except one is sepia tone
and the other is b/w.

This is getting very tiresome. The questions you ask sound like
they come from a "newbie".

James H. Fetzer Wrote:"Well known", no doubt. But what generation is the passport photo?
Judyth has already demonstrated that, by copying a photo over and
over again, the shape of the image can be substantially distorted as
in the case of the Carlos Bringuire photo below. How do you know
the image in this case has not been affected by repeated scanning?
It does not appear to be the original. So how do you know it is an
accurate image of its subject?

Jack White Wrote:JIM...the two LHO photos are WELL KNOWN. One is the first passport
photo of LHO. The other is the DPD mug shot of the man shot by Jack
Ruby. The scans are exactly like the photos. THE PHOTOS SHOW TWO
MEN WITH HEADS THAT ARE DIFFERENT SHAPES. Skulls do not change
shape. These photos show TWO DIFFERENT MEN. This does not remain
a question open for discussion.

Jack

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Jack,

I don't want to beg any questions, but I take it whether or not these
photographs are of the same person remains a matter of discussion:




Sometimes those differences might possibly result from scanning over
and over, where Judyth has presented this rather striking illustration:



You have been extraordinarily uncharitable toward Judyth, even when she has had
reasonable explanations, such as the mafia betting line. I notice that one of these
women is wearing low heels, the other is in slippers. And how do we even know
WHEN these photos were taken or the CONTEXT that is so crucial for making the
kinds of claims that you have advanced? We are going to need a lot more proof.

Jim

Jack White Wrote:But the two photos WERE TAKEN ABOUT FORTY YEARS APART!
Photos taken 40 years apart obviously will look different. The
photos of the two Marguerites were taken about 1957.

Can you not understand the difference?

Jack

These latest questions are unworthy of any newbie to the case.

Mouse urine, indeed!

Thanks for your notes. The Bringuire photos are NOT identical, which of course is the point. The right image has a distorted face due to repeated scanning, which introduced a roughly 10% exaggeration. And, in many ways, I am a "newbie" to this aspect of the case, but sometimes a pair of fresh eyes can see things that others have missed. There are photographs of me at different stages of my life, for example, that anyone but me might have a hard time recognizing. But they are photographs of me.

On the Oswald photos, there seem to me to be a lot of SIMILARITIES in the kinds of features that you usually are eager to measure and compare, including the shape of the ears and distance between eyebrows and things like that. You are the EXPERT and I am the amateur, but I have to sort it all out for myself. And a lot of this goes back to "The Many Faces of Lee Harvey Oswald". Judyth has challenged the conclusion by suggesting a series of interpolations:



I know I have wandered off the reservation in the minds of some. I have always followed logic and evidence to the bitter end, once I have opened my mind to tackling a research project, including, for example, video fakery and no planes on 9/11. This Judyth thing fascinates me because she knows so much and has a lot of supporting evidence. I don't even know if I wish it weren't so, but I believe her and I believe in her and there's really not much I can do about it until the evidence leads me in a different direction. I have a great deal more to learn, but I am doing my best to sort things out.

That's just the way I am when I am studying a case. I do not take for granted that she is right about everything any more than I have taken for granted that you are right about everything. But my interactions with her have been so detailed and so extensive that, if she is not "the real deal", then I am at a loss. Some of your objections to Judyth's story may even be well-founded, but your mind is so massively closed on this subject that I am having a hard time taking you seriously. It seems to me that you are disposed to discount virtually EVERYTHING she has had to tell us, though I do appreciate your list of things about her that you take to be true.

I really wish we were on the same side, but obviously that is not how this is playing out. My questions about John's work, by the way, are quite sincere. After all of our work proving the FAKERY of photographs and films and other forms of planted proof in this case, how do we know which documents and records are real and which are not? I think that is a rather important question, where I am just the least bit floored that you would think asking about how he determined which were real and which are not is out of the ballpark. That seems to me to be a rather basic question.

I have the sense from what you have said before that John vacuumed up all the documents are records he could find and put them together in his book. No doubt, there had to be more to it than that, but what is that MORE? Of course, I am only getting my feet wet here, because I have never explored this aspect of the case before. But I trust you no more doubt my sincerity than I do yours. It seems to me that you are not exercising your critical faculties in this case as you have in the past, but then of course that is what you think is happening with me.

The mouse thing was relevant because that is an actual event where a student reported that Judyth had pee'd on herself when she was doing lab work and it had come from a mouse. The story has hung around forever and she has had to deal with it again and again over the years. She wrote me that, after thinking about John's modus operandi, she supposed the story she had pee'd on herself would have been immortalized in his book, had he included anything about her at all. That he did not bothers me.

I want to believe that he was more circumspect about what he included than he was in dismissing her on the basis of a superficial encounter. Why don't we both think about how MOST of Judyth's story and MOST of John's research might all be true together? I am impressed by HARVEY & LEE but I am also impressed by Judyth--and it has nothing to do with infatuation. I am not going to let this go, and I trust our friendship is going to survive. I can also use your help if figuring out how all of these pieces fit together.

Jack White Wrote:These latest questions are unworthy of any newbie to the case.

Mouse urine, indeed!

Jack White Wrote:What JVB IGNORES is the timeline involved!

TWO MARGUERITES lived AT THE SAME TIME, one in Fort Worth
and one in New Orleans. This is DOCUMENTED. There were
two DIFFERENT WOMEN using the name Marguerite Oswald
and each had a son in junior high school AT THE SAME TIME!
The Fort Worth Marguerite worked at Paul's Shoe Store on
Houston Street; the New Orleans Marguerite worked at a hosiery
store on Canal Street. The Fort Worth LHO attended Stripling
Junior High School; the New Orleans LHO attended Beauregard
Junior High School. This is documented!

JVB is MISREPRESENTING the research of John Armstrong!

Jack

This is really getting OLD. I will be happy to read a critical review of Armstrong's work after his book has been READ. It is indeed Judyth's (rightful) claim that people attack her without having viewed her evidence. Now she is guilty of doing the same thing here on this forum. Just like Armstrong presents COUNTLESS examples of two LHOs he aslo presents countless examples of two Marguerites. As Jack says documented accounts . I do not understand just WHY Judyth is so anxious to argue over this. How does this even relate to her story? It is in fact irrelevent to her story as she has her truth and Armstrong has his. They are two different matters entirely. Please please please do the research then comment. All this protestation is becomming quite odd to me. I am glad to see that Jim is sending her Harvey and Lee.

Dawn

Jack White Wrote:For those who have not read Armstrong and who do not believe that there were two Marguerites:

Thanks Jack...please keep posting for readers who do not have this book...
Short accounts and pics. Adults do not suddenly GROW several inches, especially six inches. Harvey's mother seemed to have just dropped off the universe. (I have forgotten the date, not looking at the book at the moment, deep in jury trial prep.) But I did try to find an obit or something more a few months back and came up cold.

Dawn

Greg, Interesting suggestion. I am starting to put together the personality and character of "the two Oswalds", neither of whom, as I understand it, would appear to have Asperger syndrome. Dawn has described the one known as "Lee" as hot-tempered and non-intellectual, having no interest in Marxism and incapable of speaking Russian. The one known as "Harvey", by contrast, is of a calm and intellectual demeanor, fluent in Russian and interested in political philosophy. Moreover, "Harvey", in particular, had a wife and even a girlfriend, from what Judyth has to tell us, which does not support the notion that he was socially inept. There still appears to be considerable room for questions about these identifications. Judyth, for example, who (according to Jack) knew the one called "Harvey" in New Orleans (who called himself "Lee") had a Cajun accent and hated the name "Harvey". According to Jack, however, Judyth knew "Harvey" who was Hungarian and liked the name "Harvey". It would appear that they cannot both be right, even about "Harvey". If dyslexia is a learning disorder that manifests itself as a difficulty with reading, spelling, and sometimes mathematics, it suggests that either "Harvey" didn't read or he wasn't dyslexic. This looks like an area of inquiry that warrants further exploration.

Asperger syndrome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asperger syndrome
Classification and external resources

Seated boy facing 3/4 away from camera, looking at a ball-and-stick model of a molecular structure. The model is made of colored magnets and steel balls.

People with Asperger's often display intense interests, such as this boy's fascination with molecular structure.
ICD-10 F84.5
ICD-9 299.80
OMIM 608638
DiseasesDB 31268
MedlinePlus 001549
eMedicine ped/147
MeSH F03.550.325.100

Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder, and people with it therefore show significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development. Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported.[1][2]

Asperger syndrome is named for the Austrian pediatrician Hans Asperger who, in 1944, described children in his practice who lacked nonverbal communication skills, demonstrated limited empathy with their peers, and were physically clumsy.[3] Fifty years later, it was standardized as a diagnosis, but many questions remain about aspects of the disorder.[4] For example, there is doubt about whether it is distinct from high-functioning autism (HFA);[5] partly because of this, its prevalence is not firmly established.[1] The diagnosis of Asperger's has been proposed to be eliminated, replaced by a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder on a severity scale.[6]

The exact cause is unknown, although research supports the likelihood of a genetic basis; brain imaging techniques have not identified a clear common pathology.[1] There is no single treatment, and the effectiveness of particular interventions is supported by only limited data.[1] Intervention is aimed at improving symptoms and function. The mainstay of management is behavioral therapy, focusing on specific deficits to address poor communication skills, obsessive or repetitive routines, and physical clumsiness.[7] Most individuals improve over time, but difficulties with communication, social adjustment and independent living continue into adulthood.[4] Some researchers and people with Asperger's have advocated a shift in attitudes toward the view that it is a difference, rather than a disability that must be treated or cured.[8]

[quote name='Greg Parker' post='187787' date='Mar 25 2010, 07:08 AM'][quote name='Jack White' post='187641' date='Mar 24 2010, 02:13 PM'][quote name='Kathleen Collins' post='187634' date='Mar 24 2010, 02:30 AM'][quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='187621' date='Mar 24 2010, 02:17 AM']The only source of which I am aware for the information that Lee Harvey Oswald was dyslexic is Judyth Vary Baker.][/quote]

Sorry, Professor Fetzer. Norman Mailer wrote about Oswald's dyslexia in his book Oswald's Tale, published in 1995.

And I did respond to Judyth.

Kathy C
[/quote]

Mary Ferrell told me that LHO was dyslexic in 1975. I had to ask what the word meant,
and she explained. Mary discovered it by having read every writing attributed to him.
It is reported in many books.

Jack
[/quote]

This is my one and only entry into this quagmire.

Oswald was never diagnosed as dyslexic. I'd say there was good reason for this: he wasn't. It is primarily a READING disability. Any spelling problems are secondary to that - if they exist at all. A tell-tale sign of dyslexia in adults is avoidance of reading. Does that sound like Oswald to anyone?

In my opinion - and bear in mind that I'm not qualified enough to even legally tie my own shoelaces, so take it as you will - Oswald had Asperger's Syndrome. At least this explains ALL of Oswald's peccadillos - unlike dyslexia which would have to include a problem he did NOT have in order for it to be even a semi-valid diagnosis.

So why wasn't he diagnosed with this syndrome, I hear you cry? Simply because it was not recognised in the US until the '70s.

Any disputes over who stated he had dyslexia first is like wanting to lay claim to being the first to say the beatles would be a flop.

If you want to understand Oswald ( a ) research Asperger's & ( b ) look at the qualities and experiences he had which would make him attractive to certain types running certain operations - and then look at what operations were occuring at certain times which would fit Oswald's movements & actions.
[/quote]