Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON KATHY'S CATCH ON TWO PHOTOGRAPHS

[NOTE: I am going to verify with Judyth that I have this post right.]

WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

KATHY C. MADE SOME GOOD REMARKS ABOUT THE PHOTO TO THE
LEFT OF LEE OSWALD OF NOV. 22 –TAKEN WHEN HE WAS YOUNGER.

I DECIDED TO COPY A MORE PRISTINE PHOTO ON THE INTERNET.



IN FACT, IT IS FROM JACK WHITE’S COLLECTION – A PASTICHE THAT
INCLUDES A COUPLE OF PHOTOS, SOME OF WHICH I DO NOT ACCEPT
AND WANT TO KNOW THEIR TRUE PROVENANCE.



THE PHOTO SHOWN ON THE LEFT IS THE ONE JACK WHITE POSTED AT
THE EDUCATION FORUM.

1) IT HAS BEEN COPIED SO MUCH THAT MANY DETAILS THAT ARE ON
THE PHOTO TO LEFT ARE MISSING. MANY OF THESE DETAILS (WASHED
OUT) WOULD HAVE MATCHED TO THE NOV. 22 PHOTO OF LEE H. OSWALD.

THAT WAS SHOWN NEXT TO IT. THE DETAILS CAN BE SEEN JUST FINE
IN THE MORE PRISTINE PHOTO.

2) THIS PHOTO, OF ‘LEE’ TOO, IS TOO WIDE, AGAIN BY ABOUT 10% --
BUT CURIOUSLY, THIS TIME THE EXTRA WIDTH BEGINS JUST WHERE THE
‘LINE’ IS SHOWN (MUCH MORE CLEARLY, FOR SOME REASON, IN PHOTO
TO THE LEFT)…WHERE THIS LINE, IN FACT, SHOULD HAVE FADED OUT MORE,
AS DID OTHER DETAILS. INSTEAD, THIS LINE IS STRONGER. AND NOT ONE
BUT TWO LINES ARE VISIBLE.

3) THE TRULY DISTURBING THING IS THAT ONLY A SECTION OF THIS PHOTO
HAS BEEN WIDENED — AN AREA EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY AT THE JUNCTION
WHERE EARS ATTACH AT THE TOP OF THE EARS TO THE HEAD, AND JUST BELOW
THE LINE OF THE LOWER LIP, CENTER. THE DISTORTION ENHANCES THE WIDTH
OF THE FACE IN JUST THIS AREA, MAKING ONLY HIS PART OF THE FACE MARKEDLY
WIDER THAN THE ORIGINAL PRISTINE PHOTO.



THE DIFFERENCE CAN BE SEEN BY THE UNAIDED EYE.

THE HUMAN EYE SCANS THIS LENGTH DIFFERENCE AUTOMATICALLY.

A LONGER DISTANCE RADICALLY CHANGES IDENTIFICATION FACTORS
FOR PEOPLE.

4) TAKE A RULER AND SEE FOR YOURSELF. IT’S AMAZING, ACTUALLY.

5) THIS KIND OF DISTORTION COULD NOT BE MADE UNDER A SCANNER,
OR BY PHOTOS REPHOTOGRAPHED TOO MANY TIMES. THE DISORTION IS
ACROSS ONLY A CERTAIN AREA — NOT THE WHOLE PHOTO — WHICH IS A
PHOTOSHOP EFFECT.

THE CHANGES FROM THE PRISTINE PHOTO ARE SO EXTREME THAT THE PHOTO
JACK SUPPLIED SHOULD BE DISCARDED AS HOPELESSLY DISTORTED FOR ID
PURPOSES.

6) I HAVE NOW SEEN THREE INSTANCES OF DISTORTED OR MISREPRESENTED
PHOTOS:

1) THE FEET OF MARGUERITE NOT LINED UP PROPERLY TO ACCOUNT FOR
WEARING HEELS IN ONE PHOTO AND FLOPPY SLIPPERS IN THE OTHER…



IN ADDITION, A STATEMENT SAYING BOTH WERE TAKEN IN 1947 WAS NOT
CORRECT. THE WOMAN ON THE LEFT ON THE ORIGINAL DUAL PASTICHE WAS
MARGUERITE SHORLY AFTER NOV. 22, 1963.

2) THE NOV. 22 PHOTO OF LEE WAS DISTORTED 10% -- WHICH MADE HIS FACE
LOOK TOO FAT AND THUS DID NOT MATCH THE PHOTO HERE AT UPPER RIGHT.

WHEN CORRECTED, THERE WAS A BETTER MATCH…THEN KATHY POINTED OUT THE
ODDITIES OF THE PHOTO ON THE UPPER LEFT.

3) SURE ENOUGH, SHE WAS RIGHT. THE LINE SHOLD HAVE BEEN FADED OUT.
IT’S ALMOST AS IF SOMEBODY CUT THE PHOTO THERE AND BLEW THAT PART
UP AND THEN CONNECED IT AGAIN, USING PHOTOSHOP OR A LITERAL PRINTOUT
THAT WAS CUT.

THAT MAY NOT BE EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, BUT SOMETHING HAPPENED TO IT.

THE PHOTO AT THE UPPER LEFT, HERE, HAS BEEN DISORTED IN A VERY PARTICULAR
SECTION. WHEN CORRECTED (BY REMOVING THE EXTRA WIDTH OF THE DISTORTED
SECTION), HOWEVER, IT THEN MATCHES THE PRISTINE PHOTO’S SECTION.

7) PRINT THIS OUT 3 TIMES, CUT OUT THE PHOTOS, REMOVE THE EXTRA LIP AMOUNT
(USE RULER) AND THEN THE FEAURES OF BOTH PHOTOS LINE UP JUST FINE.

8) WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FADED-OUT EDUCATION FORUM PHOTO THAT IT HAS
SIGNIFICANT DISTORTION IN A KEY FACIAL I.D. AREA, FORENSICALLY SPEAKING?

NOW I HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE PROVENANCE AND HANDLING OF THESE
PHOTOS.

WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?

WHY ARE THEY DIFFERENT FROM EARLIER, CLEARER PHOTOS?

WHO GAVE THEM TO JACK WHITE, OR TO JOHN ARMSTRONG?

JVB

[quote name='Kathleen Collins' post='187871' date='Mar 26 2010, 12:33 AM']

The photo on the left, in my very humble opinion, has been fooled with. The line right under the eyes tells me it's been tampered with. This is a fake picture. I believe the weight on the face is contrived, as is the hair. This is not Lee Oswald, imo.

Kathy C[/quote]