Anyone want to discuss HARVEY & LEE?

[Drew Phipps]

Comparing Marguerites:

Here are some digital comparisons between the lady that Jim says John A believes is the "Marguerite imposter."




and this one:



Using pixel measurements to compare the proportions (ratios) of facial measurements, we get for the "top Marguerite":

Between pupils: 45 pixels
Nose length from top to bottom: 41 pixels Ratio: 45/41 = 1.098
Distance from bottom of nose to top of lip: 14 pixels Ratio: 45/14 = 3.214




And the bottom Marguerite

Between pupils: 54 pixels
Nose length from top to bottom: 44 pixels Ratio: 54/44 = 1.227
Distance from bottom of nose to top of lip: 15 pixels Ratio: 54/15 = 3.600


Ratio difference 1.098/1.227 = 89%
3.214/3.600 = 89%

Clearly these do not belong to the same individual. The "top Marguerite"'s eyes are set much closer together in proportion to the rest of her face. John's "imposter" does not match my informal biometric comparisons with the "famous" Marguerite.


Control Comparison

Now lets compare the bottom Marguerite with another picture of the same person as a "control" for this pixel ration comparison.






New measurements:

Second bottom Marguerite

Between pupils: 51 pixels
Nose length from top to bottom: 42 pixels Ratio: 51/42 = 1.214
Distance from bottom of nose to top of lip: 14 pixels Ratio: 51/14 = 3.624

Again the "bottom Marguerite"

Between pupils: 54 pixels
Nose length from top to bottom: 44 pixels Ratio: 54/44 = 1.227
Distance from bottom of nose to top of lip: 15 pixels Ratio: 54/15 = 3.600

Ratio Difference (for control purposes) 1.214/1.227 = 99%
3.624/3.600 = 101%

so it would seem that pixel counting proportions is accurate within +- 1%


Now lets do the same test with height:




She's wearing heels, so my best measurement is

Between pupils 45 pixels
Eyes to toes 1,182 pixels
Ratio: 1182/45 = 26.27


And this one:




Her feet aren't visible, so my best estimate:

Between pupils 12 pixels
Eyes to toes 216 pixels
Ratio: 216/12 = 18

The real Marguerite is much shorter than the woman Jim says John thinks is the "imposter Marguerite"that testified. The "top Marguerite," if she was in that picture with Salandria, would tower over Salandria.


The Final Comparison:


Here's the woman John A. says is LEE's mother from "Harvey and Lee"



Doing the facial ratios again:

Between pupils: 39 pixels
Nose length top to bottom: 33 pixels
Bottom of nose to top of lip 10 pixels

Ratios: 39/33 = 1.18
39/10 = 3.90


Comparing ratios: 1.18/1.214 = 97%
With Bottom Marguerite 3.9/3.624 = 108%

Not as good as our previous comparison, but there might be a fair bit more time between photos that we have used for comparison in the last comparison.


It is by far and away more likely that the "Marguerite Oswald" that John A. insists is "LEE's mother" is in fact the same lady, (though she didn't age very gracefully), as the "Marguerite Oswald" that testified; than it is that she is this other woman (Keating) that John has pictures of. John apparently thinks that "LEE" and "HARVEY" don't have the same mother, yet (in at least my informal and amateur biometrics) the same woman John says is LEE's mother is in fact the Marguerite that testified.

The way I read "Harvey and Lee," that fact is fatal to John's hypothesis. "LEE's mother" (according to John A) = the famous Marguerite, who claims to be the mother of "HARVEY" Oswald, who was killed by Jack Ruby.

Which do you seriously and honestly suppose is more likely, that the entire Oswald family committed perjury and is engaged in covering up a CIA identical twin intelligence operation, or that Robert and John Pic are/were simply tired of dealing with JFK conspiracy theorists (of which their own mother was the first)?