John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee

[David Healy]

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.

when it comes to LHO pix best take a look here: http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm...o-jfkwhite