Albert Doyle Wrote:I don't think what I wrote either conflicts with what Jan writes or deserves the gross overreaction Jan commits.


I backed-off answering your Chapman reply at the time because I thought it wasn't worth it. However I believe it was based on putting words in my mouth and overblowing minor points. I believe Chapman was a CIA-programmed assassin. I don't see the giant offense Jan is trying to force through semantics and distortion of meanings. I'm perfectly capable of explaining my views on Chapman. I'm failing to see what offense Jan is showing here or how I've muddied the waters? My self-MKULTRA programming point was made hypothetically. I think Jan was so anxious to disagree with me that he failed to fathom the context. The context was besides CIA programming self-induced programming under LSD was the only other option. However my other clearly seen information shows that there was much evidence to show CIA manipulation. God, Jan, bash me over the head for making a simple hypothetical point!


I'd like to enter a protest of moderator abuse and a certain poster being allowed to re-appear and do the things he was moderated for.

Charles Drago Wrote:Of course in the case of LHO doppelgangers we're dealing with visual IDs. But consider the extant photo(s) of ostensible Oswald doubles John Thomas Masen, William Seymour, Billy Lovelady, Steve Wilson, etc.

Albert Rossi Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:My informed guess is that children of similar age and somatotype were selected and monitored/directed. Those who developed striking facial and physique similarities that lasted into their teens and early adult years were utilized accordingly.

Hmm. Charles, you make a good point here. What I am saying might be something like the question which the weak anthropic principle tries to address: why is the universe the way it is? Of course, because that's the universe we're observing. What you suggest is that if the "match" hadn't panned out, they would have abandoned this particular doubling. In other words, there's a teleological fallacy inherent in my question.

Certainly there are a lot of problems raised by John which are difficult to answer except by positing two distinct individuals sharing or partially sharing an identity. I'm still not entirely sold, but I think I need to reframe my question.

All I was trying to do was inject a little common sense. But, then, what did Einstein write? "Common sense is the collection of prejudices held by age 18."

Albert Rossi Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:Of course in the case of LHO doppelgangers we're dealing with visual IDs. But consider the extant photo(s) of ostensible Oswald doubles John Thomas Masen, William Seymour, Billy Lovelady, Steve Wilson, etc.

I think we were sort of walking over the same ground here. What I was originally saying was that exact physical matches are not necessary to do the kind of counterintel operations which seemed to have been afoot in late summer and fall of 1963. But one of John's analytical tacks is to take actual photos purportedly of LHO and compare them, suggesting they can be sorted out into Lee and Harvey. I personally have a hard time with this, because, with the exception of that really distorted photo with the widow's peak, the differences are so subtle to my eye at least as to make me question that they really exist. When I focus on the nose, lips and chin, I see very little difference. It's not like, say, the chin of the backyard photos, which is clearly different. I don't know enough about photographic measurement analysis to tell whether superpositions of photos prove anything or not. So I have trouble with this evidence.

The stronger evidence I think rests in the documentary contradictions, the existence of LHO in NO and Fort Worth (or North Dakota) at overlapping times, the two Marine careers, etc., etc., etc.

Marlene Zenker Wrote:

Albert Rossi Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:Of course in the case of LHO doppelgangers we're dealing with visual IDs. But consider the extant photo(s) of ostensible Oswald doubles John Thomas Masen, William Seymour, Billy Lovelady, Steve Wilson, etc.

I think we were sort of walking over the same ground here. What I was originally saying was that exact physical matches are not necessary to do the kind of counterintel operations which seemed to have been afoot in late summer and fall of 1963. But one of John's analytical tacks is to take actual photos purportedly of LHO and compare them, suggesting they can be sorted out into Lee and Harvey. I personally have a hard time with this, because, with the exception of that really distorted photo with the widow's peak, the differences are so subtle to my eye at least as to make me question that they really exist. When I focus on the nose, lips and chin, I see very little difference. It's not like, say, the chin of the backyard photos, which is clearly different. I don't know enough about photographic measurement analysis to tell whether superpositions of photos prove anything or not. So I have trouble with this evidence.

The stronger evidence I think rests in the documentary contradictions, the existence of LHO in NO and Fort Worth (or North Dakota) at overlapping times, the two Marine careers, etc., etc., etc.

I have no, nada, zilch, photo expertise - so this is just an observation. I have trouble with the photos too - but one thing that occurs to me is that men's faces generally get fuller, puffier with age. Since Harvey and Lee (most likely) didn't live past age 24 neither of them were old enough for their faces to get puffier. Yet, in the photos one (Lee in my opinion) always has that fuller face and Harvey's is very thin. I always try to compare the ears as well - but in most of the pictures it's very hard to tell. A side view of them would be better. I don't know if any of this is true or relevant - just my two cents.

Albert Rossi Wrote:

Marlene Zenker Wrote:

Albert Rossi Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:Of course in the case of LHO doppelgangers we're dealing with visual IDs. But consider the extant photo(s) of ostensible Oswald doubles John Thomas Masen, William Seymour, Billy Lovelady, Steve Wilson, etc.

I think we were sort of walking over the same ground here. What I was originally saying was that exact physical matches are not necessary to do the kind of counterintel operations which seemed to have been afoot in late summer and fall of 1963. But one of John's analytical tacks is to take actual photos purportedly of LHO and compare them, suggesting they can be sorted out into Lee and Harvey. I personally have a hard time with this, because, with the exception of that really distorted photo with the widow's peak, the differences are so subtle to my eye at least as to make me question that they really exist. When I focus on the nose, lips and chin, I see very little difference. It's not like, say, the chin of the backyard photos, which is clearly different. I don't know enough about photographic measurement analysis to tell whether superpositions of photos prove anything or not. So I have trouble with this evidence.

The stronger evidence I think rests in the documentary contradictions, the existence of LHO in NO and Fort Worth (or North Dakota) at overlapping times, the two Marine careers, etc., etc., etc.

I have no, nada, zilch, photo expertise - so this is just an observation. I have trouble with the photos too - but one thing that occurs to me is that men's faces generally get fuller, puffier with age. Since Harvey and Lee (most likely) didn't live past age 24 neither of them were old enough for their faces to get puffier. Yet, in the photos one (Lee in my opinion) always has that fuller face and Harvey's is very thin. I always try to compare the ears as well - but in most of the pictures it's very hard to tell. A side view of them would be better. I don't know if any of this is true or relevant - just my two cents.

Yes, Marlene, I think this is part of the problem with relying too much on intuitive interpretations of photographic evidence. What is needed in some measurable, quantifiable way of distinguishing features in photos, adequately compensating for grain, texture, angle, lighting, etc. I'm not ruling out that John might actually be on to something. All I'm saying is that what is subject to interpretation is certainly not strong proof (to restate the obvious). This reminds me of the Weberman/Canfield controversy, where photographic analysis of one of the tramp's ears showed they matched those of a photo of Howard Hunt. Do we really want to rely on that kind of evidence? John certainly doesn't rely on it, thank goodness.

David Healy Wrote:when it comes to LHO pix best take a look here: http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/po-jfkwhite

Marlene Zenker Wrote:I have no, nada, zilch, photo expertise - so this is just an observation. I have trouble with the photos too - but one thing that occurs to me is that men's faces generally get fuller, puffier with age. Since Harvey and Lee (most likely) didn't live past age 24 neither of them were old enough for their faces to get puffier. Yet, in the photos one (Lee in my opinion) always has that fuller face and Harvey's is very thin. I always try to compare the ears as well - but in most of the pictures it's very hard to tell. A side view of them would be better. I don't know if any of this is true or relevant - just my two cents.

Ray Mitcham Wrote:

Marlene Zenker Wrote:[quote=Albert Rossi][quote=Charles Drago]


I have no, nada, zilch, photo expertise - so this is just an observation. I have trouble with the photos too - but one thing that occurs to me is that men's faces generally get fuller, puffier with age. Since Harvey and Lee (most likely) didn't live past age 24 neither of them were old enough for their faces to get puffier. Yet, in the photos one (Lee in my opinion) always has that fuller face and Harvey's is very thin. I always try to compare the ears as well - but in most of the pictures it's very hard to tell. A side view of them would be better. I don't know if any of this is true or relevant - just my two cents.

I agree Marlene. Ears are a very easy way of distinguishing different faces.

In these two photos of `os, the noses and lips have been lined up correctly but the ears don't.
Note also the "hooded" appearance of Oswald's eyes in one photo compared to the other.

[url=http://<a href=&quot;http://s46.photobucket.com/user/Fourbrick/media/po-jfkwhite_banner2_zps4938badb.jpg.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;></a>]http://[/url]

Albert Rossi Wrote:

Ray Mitcham Wrote:[quote=Marlene Zenker][quote=Albert Rossi]

I agree Marlene. Ears are a very easy way of distinguishing different faces.

In these two photos of `os, the noses and lips have been lined up correctly but the ears don't.
Note also the "hooded" appearance of Oswald's eyes in one photo compared to the other.

[url=http://<a href=&quot;http://s46.photobucket.com/user/Fourbrick/media/po-jfkwhite_banner2_zps4938badb.jpg.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;></a>]http://[/url]

So, these differences cannot be accounted for by the rotational angle of the head to the shutter plane, focal length, etc., or the time difference between the two photos?