Post by Rob Caprio on Jan 8, 2024 20:47:55 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
cdn.videos.rollcall.com/blogs/sites/2/2015/08/Attic-Assassinations-22-091910.jpg
content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2019_05/1763568731_LHOEvoPoster-smallforposting.thumb.jpg.8b275baf18b0c65e3cc2bf50635655c2.jpg
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) looked into many issues the Warren Commission (WC) did not bother to explore since they followed their preconceived conclusion of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) acting alone on November 22, 1963. One such issue has been looked into for a long time since there were so many sightings of LHO when it was known where he was at that particular moment.
The HSCA says…The Second Oswald Theory.
*********************************************
The HSCA said that the time the LHO double appeared on the scene was between the time of LHO’s defection to the Soviet Union and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK). In terms of dates this means October 16, 1959 to November 22, 1963. One of the main tools the committee would use to evaluate the theory of a second LHO (and keep in mind, this is a separate issue from the one of impersonation) were photographs. They wrote the following in their volumes.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0140b.jpg
(733) Is there any photographic evidence of an Oswald imposter?
(734) 3. MATERIALS
The collection of photographs pertaining to the Kennedy assassination and Warren Commission investigation includes several dozen of Oswald (or, possibly, his double). As one might expect, they vary widely in pose, facial expression, lens-subject distance, and image quality. From these, it was possible to select nine in which (1) the facial features were fairly well defined, (2) the pose was either nearly full-face or true profile, and (3) represented the subject. During various key episodes of his life from the time he was a Marine until the assassination. (See figs. IV-60, IV-61, JFK exhibits 556 557.) (HSCA VI, p. 274)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0140b.htm
Quote off
They then provide us with the photographs they evaluated. First we will look at figure IV-60. Look at those six photographs. You will see a photograph of his Unites States Marine Corps (USMC) days. Look at it as shows him standing in front of a chart that measured height. He is clearly 5’9” in this photograph, yet, many other official documents and reports listed his height at either 5’10” or 5’11”. Why is that? The next three seem to be from his time in the Soviet Union, but I could be wrong on that. Finally, you will see the two photographs known as the “Backyard Photographs” as they were allegedly taken in the backyard of the house LHO allegedly rented in March 1963 on Neeley St. in Dallas, Texas. (Note: LHO denied that he ever stayed at this house and the evidence supports him. A future "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" will show you that there is no evidence for him staying there.)
Look at this, especially the chin, and you will see it does NOT look like the one in the other photographs. The chin issue has been a point of contention since the BYPs first came to the attention of researchers. The WC, and the HSCA, blame poor lighting for the chin issue, but how can they say that when they were taken on a bright sunny day outdoors when the other photographs were taken indoors? Wouldn’t you think the BYPs would have the best lighting of them all? I sure do. Speaking of sunny days, research into this matter has shown March 31, 1963, the day they were supposedly taken, was NOT a fully sunny day as it was overcast, so why do these photographs show so much sunlight?
Furthermore, the excuse the HSCA gave for why the BYPs had inferior value is simply not true.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0141a.jpg
In addition, two photographs of definitely poorer quality were selected for analysis. These were two of the controversial "backyard photographs;" they differ from the others in that the direction of lighting was from almost directly overhead and the facial image was somewhat more poorly defined. (See figs. IV-18 and IV—20.) (Ibid., p. 725)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0141a.htm
Quote off
This is totally false as if the sun was OVERHEAD as they claimed, why did the body cast a shadow that was conducive to a time of 10:00 a.m. and was shown leaning to the right in the photographs? Yes, the chin shadow showed an overhead shadow, but the body did NOT, thus, this is an incorrect statement by the HSCA. Also, as I have stated already, how can a bright sunny day offer less light than any indoor photograph?
The BYPs clearly show a SQUARE chin and LHO was known to have a cleft chin. NO number of excuses can change that, and it fits in with what LHO said happened — somebody (he even said the Dallas Police Department (DPD) may have been the somebody) put his head onto someone else’s body. These two photographs have never been shown to be genuine and they are the ONLY link the WC could present to link LHO to the alleged murder weapons of JFK and Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit (JDT).
In Figure IV-61 we see a pair of photographs of LHO when he was arrested in New Orleans on August 9, 1963, for disturbing the peace. We then see three photographs of him from the time of his arrest in New Orleans, Louisiana, until the time of the assassination of JFK. The final photograph is of Billy Lovelady as the HSCA said he was included due to his “strong physical resemblance” to LHO.
These photographs look more consistent to me as no photograph stands out as much as the BYPs did as the man in those does NOT look like the LHO in the other photographs IMO. There are differences however if we look at them closely. Take the top one on the left from his arrest in New Orleans and compare it to the one below it from the time of the Dallas arrest. The New Orleans picture depicts a man who appears to be better looking than the other one in the photograph below it. Furthermore, notice the mustache five o’clock shadow in each photograph. On the top one from New Orleans it seems to flare out from each nostril, but in the bottom photograph from Dallas it goes completely across his upper lip. His lips are pursed in each photograph so what could cause such a difference in the mustache dark shadow?
The middle two photographs have some difference too, but they are not exact in body position to compare them based on that. In the top one from New Orleans he is in full profile while the bottom one from Dallas he appears to be in ¾ profile as he is not fully facing the side to me. Due to what appears to be a shadow on the back of LHO’s neck it makes it hard to see where the hairline in the back of the neck ends to compare where the collar could have come up to in the Dallas photograph. The main difference I see in these two is the nose in profile or partial profile. The top one from New Orleans seems to have a slight slope to it (a la Bob Hope) while the bottom one from Dallas seems to depict a perfectly straight nose. What do you think?
The HSCA looked at photographs from five periods of LHO’s life, but one of them is highly questionable (BYP) for the reasons already given.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0141b.gif
(739) To apply this method to the present problem, the index data was grouped chronologically to represent Oswald at various significant periods of his life:
1. Marine Corps.
2. Russia.
3. Backyard (Dallas).
4. New Orleans.
5. Arrest (Dallas).
(740) The data were then studied to determine whether the face of the individual shown in the Oswald photographs, taken during any one of the first four of these periods (Marine Corps, Russia, backyard, New Orleans), differed morphologically from the face of the man who was arrested in Dallas after the assassination. If such a difference was found, it might suggest that a double was involved. (Ibid., p. 276)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0141b.htm
Quote off
Based on the fact that the man in the BYPs has a different chin from the other photographs of LHO we should see an immediate example of either tampering/superimposing, or a double being used, but the HSCA would not see it that way.
Quote on
5.CONCLUSIONS
(741) There are no biological inconsistencies in the Oswald photographs examined that would support the theory that a second person, or double, was involved. The variation observed is that expected in an array of photographs taken by different cameras with varying lens, camera angles, lighting, and other technical differences. (Ibid.)
Quote off
This is simply not true as I showed differences, and I did not even use any sophisticated equipment to do so. Lighting, camera angles and varying lenses do NOT cause people to have slopes in their noses and square chins when they don’t have one. If so, then we would see these things in more than the two BYPs and the one New Orleans profile photograph.
The HSCA then began to disqualify their own finding for us.
Quote on
(742) It is not, however, possible totally to dismiss the "second Oswald" hypothesis on the basis of this negative finding. For example, it is possible that, a double--if one existed--may not have been included in the series of photographs examined. There is also a possibility, however remote, that such a double was such a perfect twin of Oswald that no detectable metric or morphological differences are discernible in the photographic record. (Ibid.)
Quote off
Exactly. If you only include photographs of the known LHO then of course you won’t find a double. Likewise, if you ignore what the BYPs show us then again, you won’t find a double. The HSCA would put their morphological findings into a chart and label it IV-62.
JFK IV-62: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0142b.gif
The HSCA said it all when they wrote this one sentence.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0142a.gif
(743) ...Of the latter, the backyard photographs are the most divergent. (Ibid., p. 277)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0142a.htm
Quote off
Despite this “divergent” difference the HSCA seemed to have no problem proclaiming that LHO is seen in the BYPs. Why? On pages 279-280 we get an overview of what they looked at in the photographs examined.
Page 279: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0143a.gif
Page 280: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0143b.gif
The HSCA acknowledged that many researchers have called into question the height and facial characteristics of the LHO depicted in various photographs.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0144a.gif
(749) Several Warren Commission critics have alleged that substantial differences exist in the reported heights and facial characteristics among different photos and other measurements purported to represent Lee Harvey Oswald. For example, differences of as much as 2 inches in height exist between an early Marine Corps induction photo Oswald in front of a height chart (see fig. IV-63, JFK exhibit F-166), reported height measurements of Oswald, measurements of the Oswald corpse in Dallas, and another height chart photograph of Oswald (see fig. IV-64). The Marine photograph, which allegedly depicts Oswald with a 13-tach head (measuring from the bottom of his chin to the top of his head), is also said to be inconsistent with his true facial measurements. (See fig. IV-63). On this basis, it has been alleged that these differences are evidence of different individuals purporting to be Lee Harvey Oswald. (Ibid., p. 281)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0144a.htm
Quote off
I don’t know about the facial characteristics issue that much, but I do know that many researchers and critics of the WC have had issues with the height of LHO and these were not due to the photographs solely as claimed. We see LHO’s height (and eye color) changing constantly in many official documents including his USMC records. It happened way too many times to simply be chalked up to a “mistake” as some official narrative defenders have claimed. Obviously the HSCA had access to these records and reports too but seem willing to place the onus on photographs alone. Why? We know the man who was shot in Dallas was listed as being only 5’9”, but in official records and reports we have seen LHO listed as either 5’10” or 5’11”. How do we explain this when we see it over and over again?
The HSCA then posed this question for us.
Quote on
(750) Are the differences in Oswald's body measurements, as detected from photographs of him standing against a height chart, probative in any way of an Oswald imposter theory? (Ibid.)
Quote off
How could they not be? That particular photograph shows his height as 5’9”, and yet, many official documents and reports list his height as either 5’10” or 5’11”. Either LHO had mastered the art of growing and shrinking or someone else was being measured on different occasions. Instead of admitting that the LHO shot and killed in Dallas was listed as 5’9” as he appears in the first photograph of IV-60 shows, they launch into this display of doublespeak.
Quote on
(751) Two members of the photographic evidence panel were directed to take an independent series of photographs involving an individual of known height standing against a height chart. For each series of pictures, each person was to be photographed at different distances in relation to the height chart. The vertical orientation of the camera and its distance to the height chart was also subject to change at the photographer's discretion, but the camera was kept essentially horizontal at all times so that optical axis was level, that parallel to the ground.)
(752) In addition, the forensic anthropologists on the photographic evidence panel were asked to provide information concerning discrepancies between measured and reported heights. (Ibid.)
Quote off
They are making the chart and the distances of the camera the issue when the issue was really LHO’s height being listed differently in official documents and reports that were NOT using a camera and height chart. Thus, they were making an issue of something that was NOT an issue in order to justify when he appears to be of different height at different times in his life according to others who saw him and wrote about him. Their conclusion for these areas is also irrelevant and off base to the point of the height issue.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0144b.gif
3. CONCLUSION
(753) No probative weight should be given to an Oswald imposter theory based upon differences in Oswald's body measurements that have been detected from photographs of him standing against a height chart. (Ibid., p.282)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0144b.htm
Quote off
They kept making the height differences about photographs when that is NOT the main issue in this area. The real question is why was LHO’s height constantly reported to be different in so many official documents and reports? This is suggestive of someone else being viewed by that person. Once or twice it could be a mistake, but these reports and documents are written by different people so it can’t be the same person making a mistake as claimed by some. We would get this ridiculous claim after a bunch of verbiage from the HSCA.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0145a.gif
(758) Finally, the photographic evidence panel's board of forensic anthropologists advised that a diurnal variation in height of half an inch or more is common during the course of a day, with the subject generally being taller in the morning when the spine has been less compressed. The board also cited to the panel an anthropological study by Robert M. White and Edmund Churchill ("The Body Size of Soldiers," U.S. Army Natic Laboratories, technical report 72-51-CE, 1971), which measured heights of 6,682 army personnel versus the heights these individuals reported for themselves. Typical discrepancies in height were 1.1 inches. Generally, men of average height (5 feet 9 inches) reported themselves 1.1 inches taller than their measured stature; relatively short, men reported themselves about 0.8 inch taller; and relatively tall men reported themselves 1.2 inches taller. (Ibid., p. 283)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0145a.htm
Quote off
Both of these comments are ridiculous and not pertaining to the issue. First of all, the claim that we are a ½ of an inch shorter later on in the day is silly, especially for a young man like LHO. Perhaps older people may be smaller later in the day (I know we lose some height as we get much older), but I don’t even know if this is true for sure. Should a man in his early twenties lose height as the day goes on? I doubt it. Look at the absurd lengths the HSCA would go to in order to avoid the issue of a second Oswald.
The other claim is about men giving false heights and I don’t doubt some do this, but we are talking about OFFICIAL documents and reports that had access to his USMC records, therefore, could easily obtain his official height. Or in some cases, LHO was measured by the person writing the document, thus, it seems impossible for them to get the height incorrect. Neither of these excuses explain the differences for me. How about you?
Here is a larger version of the USMC photograph in front of the height chart.
IV-63: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0145b.jpg
The HSCA itself said for the height to be accurate in a photograph the camera must be “level and its optical axis must be level with the top of the head.” (Ibid., p. 283 notation) If we look at this larger picture one thing is clear to me—the camera is not off axis enough to give us a wrong height IMO. IF it was off it was NOT to the point of making him look shorter than he was, but would seem to be in the area of making him look taller than he was as the camera seems to be slightly pointing up to me. It is very a slight degree however as it appears for the most part to be dead on, therefore, the height is 5’9” as we also see in this New Orleans photograph.
IV-64: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0146a.jpg
To me the issue is NOT what height the LHO shot dead in Dallas was as we know that was 5’9”, but how do we explain all the references to his height being 5’10” or 5’11”? This issue the HSCA never ventured near. Nor did they seem to bother to explain why LHO looks so different in the BYPs (something they admit) IF it was him. Sure, they gave us excuses involving the lighting, but that does not make someone’s chin square when it is not. Look at the low lighting in IV-64 and LHO’s chin is NOT square as we see in depicted in the BYPs.
To me the HSCA did nothing to show the possibility of a “second Oswald” never occurred or wasn’t possible and they even admitted this fact, thus, it makes one wonder why they even bothered to look into this topic since they did NOT seem willing to fully explore the issue.
What do you think about the second LHO theory now that we have Jim Marrs’ and John Armstrong’s great research on this issue?
cdn.videos.rollcall.com/blogs/sites/2/2015/08/Attic-Assassinations-22-091910.jpg
content.invisioncic.com/r16296/monthly_2019_05/1763568731_LHOEvoPoster-smallforposting.thumb.jpg.8b275baf18b0c65e3cc2bf50635655c2.jpg
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) looked into many issues the Warren Commission (WC) did not bother to explore since they followed their preconceived conclusion of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) acting alone on November 22, 1963. One such issue has been looked into for a long time since there were so many sightings of LHO when it was known where he was at that particular moment.
The HSCA says…The Second Oswald Theory.
*********************************************
The HSCA said that the time the LHO double appeared on the scene was between the time of LHO’s defection to the Soviet Union and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK). In terms of dates this means October 16, 1959 to November 22, 1963. One of the main tools the committee would use to evaluate the theory of a second LHO (and keep in mind, this is a separate issue from the one of impersonation) were photographs. They wrote the following in their volumes.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0140b.jpg
(733) Is there any photographic evidence of an Oswald imposter?
(734) 3. MATERIALS
The collection of photographs pertaining to the Kennedy assassination and Warren Commission investigation includes several dozen of Oswald (or, possibly, his double). As one might expect, they vary widely in pose, facial expression, lens-subject distance, and image quality. From these, it was possible to select nine in which (1) the facial features were fairly well defined, (2) the pose was either nearly full-face or true profile, and (3) represented the subject. During various key episodes of his life from the time he was a Marine until the assassination. (See figs. IV-60, IV-61, JFK exhibits 556 557.) (HSCA VI, p. 274)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0140b.htm
Quote off
They then provide us with the photographs they evaluated. First we will look at figure IV-60. Look at those six photographs. You will see a photograph of his Unites States Marine Corps (USMC) days. Look at it as shows him standing in front of a chart that measured height. He is clearly 5’9” in this photograph, yet, many other official documents and reports listed his height at either 5’10” or 5’11”. Why is that? The next three seem to be from his time in the Soviet Union, but I could be wrong on that. Finally, you will see the two photographs known as the “Backyard Photographs” as they were allegedly taken in the backyard of the house LHO allegedly rented in March 1963 on Neeley St. in Dallas, Texas. (Note: LHO denied that he ever stayed at this house and the evidence supports him. A future "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" will show you that there is no evidence for him staying there.)
Look at this, especially the chin, and you will see it does NOT look like the one in the other photographs. The chin issue has been a point of contention since the BYPs first came to the attention of researchers. The WC, and the HSCA, blame poor lighting for the chin issue, but how can they say that when they were taken on a bright sunny day outdoors when the other photographs were taken indoors? Wouldn’t you think the BYPs would have the best lighting of them all? I sure do. Speaking of sunny days, research into this matter has shown March 31, 1963, the day they were supposedly taken, was NOT a fully sunny day as it was overcast, so why do these photographs show so much sunlight?
Furthermore, the excuse the HSCA gave for why the BYPs had inferior value is simply not true.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0141a.jpg
In addition, two photographs of definitely poorer quality were selected for analysis. These were two of the controversial "backyard photographs;" they differ from the others in that the direction of lighting was from almost directly overhead and the facial image was somewhat more poorly defined. (See figs. IV-18 and IV—20.) (Ibid., p. 725)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0141a.htm
Quote off
This is totally false as if the sun was OVERHEAD as they claimed, why did the body cast a shadow that was conducive to a time of 10:00 a.m. and was shown leaning to the right in the photographs? Yes, the chin shadow showed an overhead shadow, but the body did NOT, thus, this is an incorrect statement by the HSCA. Also, as I have stated already, how can a bright sunny day offer less light than any indoor photograph?
The BYPs clearly show a SQUARE chin and LHO was known to have a cleft chin. NO number of excuses can change that, and it fits in with what LHO said happened — somebody (he even said the Dallas Police Department (DPD) may have been the somebody) put his head onto someone else’s body. These two photographs have never been shown to be genuine and they are the ONLY link the WC could present to link LHO to the alleged murder weapons of JFK and Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit (JDT).
In Figure IV-61 we see a pair of photographs of LHO when he was arrested in New Orleans on August 9, 1963, for disturbing the peace. We then see three photographs of him from the time of his arrest in New Orleans, Louisiana, until the time of the assassination of JFK. The final photograph is of Billy Lovelady as the HSCA said he was included due to his “strong physical resemblance” to LHO.
These photographs look more consistent to me as no photograph stands out as much as the BYPs did as the man in those does NOT look like the LHO in the other photographs IMO. There are differences however if we look at them closely. Take the top one on the left from his arrest in New Orleans and compare it to the one below it from the time of the Dallas arrest. The New Orleans picture depicts a man who appears to be better looking than the other one in the photograph below it. Furthermore, notice the mustache five o’clock shadow in each photograph. On the top one from New Orleans it seems to flare out from each nostril, but in the bottom photograph from Dallas it goes completely across his upper lip. His lips are pursed in each photograph so what could cause such a difference in the mustache dark shadow?
The middle two photographs have some difference too, but they are not exact in body position to compare them based on that. In the top one from New Orleans he is in full profile while the bottom one from Dallas he appears to be in ¾ profile as he is not fully facing the side to me. Due to what appears to be a shadow on the back of LHO’s neck it makes it hard to see where the hairline in the back of the neck ends to compare where the collar could have come up to in the Dallas photograph. The main difference I see in these two is the nose in profile or partial profile. The top one from New Orleans seems to have a slight slope to it (a la Bob Hope) while the bottom one from Dallas seems to depict a perfectly straight nose. What do you think?
The HSCA looked at photographs from five periods of LHO’s life, but one of them is highly questionable (BYP) for the reasons already given.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0141b.gif
(739) To apply this method to the present problem, the index data was grouped chronologically to represent Oswald at various significant periods of his life:
1. Marine Corps.
2. Russia.
3. Backyard (Dallas).
4. New Orleans.
5. Arrest (Dallas).
(740) The data were then studied to determine whether the face of the individual shown in the Oswald photographs, taken during any one of the first four of these periods (Marine Corps, Russia, backyard, New Orleans), differed morphologically from the face of the man who was arrested in Dallas after the assassination. If such a difference was found, it might suggest that a double was involved. (Ibid., p. 276)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0141b.htm
Quote off
Based on the fact that the man in the BYPs has a different chin from the other photographs of LHO we should see an immediate example of either tampering/superimposing, or a double being used, but the HSCA would not see it that way.
Quote on
5.CONCLUSIONS
(741) There are no biological inconsistencies in the Oswald photographs examined that would support the theory that a second person, or double, was involved. The variation observed is that expected in an array of photographs taken by different cameras with varying lens, camera angles, lighting, and other technical differences. (Ibid.)
Quote off
This is simply not true as I showed differences, and I did not even use any sophisticated equipment to do so. Lighting, camera angles and varying lenses do NOT cause people to have slopes in their noses and square chins when they don’t have one. If so, then we would see these things in more than the two BYPs and the one New Orleans profile photograph.
The HSCA then began to disqualify their own finding for us.
Quote on
(742) It is not, however, possible totally to dismiss the "second Oswald" hypothesis on the basis of this negative finding. For example, it is possible that, a double--if one existed--may not have been included in the series of photographs examined. There is also a possibility, however remote, that such a double was such a perfect twin of Oswald that no detectable metric or morphological differences are discernible in the photographic record. (Ibid.)
Quote off
Exactly. If you only include photographs of the known LHO then of course you won’t find a double. Likewise, if you ignore what the BYPs show us then again, you won’t find a double. The HSCA would put their morphological findings into a chart and label it IV-62.
JFK IV-62: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0142b.gif
The HSCA said it all when they wrote this one sentence.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0142a.gif
(743) ...Of the latter, the backyard photographs are the most divergent. (Ibid., p. 277)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0142a.htm
Quote off
Despite this “divergent” difference the HSCA seemed to have no problem proclaiming that LHO is seen in the BYPs. Why? On pages 279-280 we get an overview of what they looked at in the photographs examined.
Page 279: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0143a.gif
Page 280: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0143b.gif
The HSCA acknowledged that many researchers have called into question the height and facial characteristics of the LHO depicted in various photographs.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0144a.gif
(749) Several Warren Commission critics have alleged that substantial differences exist in the reported heights and facial characteristics among different photos and other measurements purported to represent Lee Harvey Oswald. For example, differences of as much as 2 inches in height exist between an early Marine Corps induction photo Oswald in front of a height chart (see fig. IV-63, JFK exhibit F-166), reported height measurements of Oswald, measurements of the Oswald corpse in Dallas, and another height chart photograph of Oswald (see fig. IV-64). The Marine photograph, which allegedly depicts Oswald with a 13-tach head (measuring from the bottom of his chin to the top of his head), is also said to be inconsistent with his true facial measurements. (See fig. IV-63). On this basis, it has been alleged that these differences are evidence of different individuals purporting to be Lee Harvey Oswald. (Ibid., p. 281)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0144a.htm
Quote off
I don’t know about the facial characteristics issue that much, but I do know that many researchers and critics of the WC have had issues with the height of LHO and these were not due to the photographs solely as claimed. We see LHO’s height (and eye color) changing constantly in many official documents including his USMC records. It happened way too many times to simply be chalked up to a “mistake” as some official narrative defenders have claimed. Obviously the HSCA had access to these records and reports too but seem willing to place the onus on photographs alone. Why? We know the man who was shot in Dallas was listed as being only 5’9”, but in official records and reports we have seen LHO listed as either 5’10” or 5’11”. How do we explain this when we see it over and over again?
The HSCA then posed this question for us.
Quote on
(750) Are the differences in Oswald's body measurements, as detected from photographs of him standing against a height chart, probative in any way of an Oswald imposter theory? (Ibid.)
Quote off
How could they not be? That particular photograph shows his height as 5’9”, and yet, many official documents and reports list his height as either 5’10” or 5’11”. Either LHO had mastered the art of growing and shrinking or someone else was being measured on different occasions. Instead of admitting that the LHO shot and killed in Dallas was listed as 5’9” as he appears in the first photograph of IV-60 shows, they launch into this display of doublespeak.
Quote on
(751) Two members of the photographic evidence panel were directed to take an independent series of photographs involving an individual of known height standing against a height chart. For each series of pictures, each person was to be photographed at different distances in relation to the height chart. The vertical orientation of the camera and its distance to the height chart was also subject to change at the photographer's discretion, but the camera was kept essentially horizontal at all times so that optical axis was level, that parallel to the ground.)
(752) In addition, the forensic anthropologists on the photographic evidence panel were asked to provide information concerning discrepancies between measured and reported heights. (Ibid.)
Quote off
They are making the chart and the distances of the camera the issue when the issue was really LHO’s height being listed differently in official documents and reports that were NOT using a camera and height chart. Thus, they were making an issue of something that was NOT an issue in order to justify when he appears to be of different height at different times in his life according to others who saw him and wrote about him. Their conclusion for these areas is also irrelevant and off base to the point of the height issue.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0144b.gif
3. CONCLUSION
(753) No probative weight should be given to an Oswald imposter theory based upon differences in Oswald's body measurements that have been detected from photographs of him standing against a height chart. (Ibid., p.282)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0144b.htm
Quote off
They kept making the height differences about photographs when that is NOT the main issue in this area. The real question is why was LHO’s height constantly reported to be different in so many official documents and reports? This is suggestive of someone else being viewed by that person. Once or twice it could be a mistake, but these reports and documents are written by different people so it can’t be the same person making a mistake as claimed by some. We would get this ridiculous claim after a bunch of verbiage from the HSCA.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0145a.gif
(758) Finally, the photographic evidence panel's board of forensic anthropologists advised that a diurnal variation in height of half an inch or more is common during the course of a day, with the subject generally being taller in the morning when the spine has been less compressed. The board also cited to the panel an anthropological study by Robert M. White and Edmund Churchill ("The Body Size of Soldiers," U.S. Army Natic Laboratories, technical report 72-51-CE, 1971), which measured heights of 6,682 army personnel versus the heights these individuals reported for themselves. Typical discrepancies in height were 1.1 inches. Generally, men of average height (5 feet 9 inches) reported themselves 1.1 inches taller than their measured stature; relatively short, men reported themselves about 0.8 inch taller; and relatively tall men reported themselves 1.2 inches taller. (Ibid., p. 283)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0145a.htm
Quote off
Both of these comments are ridiculous and not pertaining to the issue. First of all, the claim that we are a ½ of an inch shorter later on in the day is silly, especially for a young man like LHO. Perhaps older people may be smaller later in the day (I know we lose some height as we get much older), but I don’t even know if this is true for sure. Should a man in his early twenties lose height as the day goes on? I doubt it. Look at the absurd lengths the HSCA would go to in order to avoid the issue of a second Oswald.
The other claim is about men giving false heights and I don’t doubt some do this, but we are talking about OFFICIAL documents and reports that had access to his USMC records, therefore, could easily obtain his official height. Or in some cases, LHO was measured by the person writing the document, thus, it seems impossible for them to get the height incorrect. Neither of these excuses explain the differences for me. How about you?
Here is a larger version of the USMC photograph in front of the height chart.
IV-63: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0145b.jpg
The HSCA itself said for the height to be accurate in a photograph the camera must be “level and its optical axis must be level with the top of the head.” (Ibid., p. 283 notation) If we look at this larger picture one thing is clear to me—the camera is not off axis enough to give us a wrong height IMO. IF it was off it was NOT to the point of making him look shorter than he was, but would seem to be in the area of making him look taller than he was as the camera seems to be slightly pointing up to me. It is very a slight degree however as it appears for the most part to be dead on, therefore, the height is 5’9” as we also see in this New Orleans photograph.
IV-64: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0146a.jpg
To me the issue is NOT what height the LHO shot dead in Dallas was as we know that was 5’9”, but how do we explain all the references to his height being 5’10” or 5’11”? This issue the HSCA never ventured near. Nor did they seem to bother to explain why LHO looks so different in the BYPs (something they admit) IF it was him. Sure, they gave us excuses involving the lighting, but that does not make someone’s chin square when it is not. Look at the low lighting in IV-64 and LHO’s chin is NOT square as we see in depicted in the BYPs.
To me the HSCA did nothing to show the possibility of a “second Oswald” never occurred or wasn’t possible and they even admitted this fact, thus, it makes one wonder why they even bothered to look into this topic since they did NOT seem willing to fully explore the issue.
What do you think about the second LHO theory now that we have Jim Marrs’ and John Armstrong’s great research on this issue?