I do not disagree with that, but what is the basis for it? IT'S BECAUSE THEY ALTER THE PHOTOS. If they didn't alter the photos, if all the photographic evidence we have was valid, then it could not possibly do anything but help. That is: help shine light on the whole situation. It's because of photo alteration that the photographic record is like a mine field.
And, the writer included the falsification of documents in his discussion, which again, is a photographic alteration. Alteration. Alteration. Alteration.
So, I couldn't agree more that we have to be constantly vigilant for photographic alteration. And, it makes determining the source of a photo highly important. And it's why I say that the photo of Marguerite from the outside Paul's Shoes is so important because of the source, which was John Armstrong getting it directly from an employee who worked with her at the store.
It wasn't from Robert Oswald. It wasn't from the FBI. It wasn't from Officialdom. Officialdom didn't know about it. Officialdom had nothing to do with it. It fell through the cracks. So, we can be confident it provides an authentic image of the real Marguerite.
To downplay the importance of photos is a mistake. Imagine if John Armstrong had written his book and there were no photos distinguishing Harvey and Lee. None. The result would have been: "there's something fishy going on here" rather than "there were definitely two young men living as Lee Harvey Oswald."
Even though photo alteration was rampant, it doesn't mean that all the photos were altered. And even an altered photo may still reveal something valuable. Take for instance the wedding photo. We use this photo to establish the rather tall height of the real Marguerite. Obviously, the pipsqueak Marguerite of fame could never have stood this tall alongside the nearly 6 foot Ekdahl. So, this in itself proves the two Marguerites. But, I think the face may have been altered. Look how large her face and head look compared to his. They were standing the same distance from the camera. Either he had a micro head or she had a macro head. Look at the proportion of the size of his head to the width of his shoulders. Compared to her, he's got massively wide shoulders and a small head, whereas she has got tiny shoulders and a big huge humongous head.
In the image below, you don't see that misproportion.
And in the photo below with Robert E. Lee Oswald, you don't see it either, if use him as a proxy for Ekdahl. The rule is: men have bigger heads than women.
So, I consider this face suspect:
Where is her jaw line there? Start at the point of her chin. There should be a continuous line going from the point of her chin to just inside her ear.
She's got two lines there, but the first one is too high high to be her jawline (it goes to her cheek) and the second one is too low (it goes below her chin). The jaw is a bone, so it has got to start from the chin, and then it goes to just inside the ear. Compare on these women:
You can't produce that effect just from smiling. Look, I think that face was altered, that it is NOT a reliable image. And if you disagree, DON'T flap your lips; you find another image like it.
But, the point is that we still have the height.
No way was the Marguerite of fame that tall. So, the image is still extremely valuable, even though it's altered.
So, I am not in favor of disparaging images overall. What's needed is to be constantly on the lookout for photographic alteration, to be ever vigilant for it. Remember: the JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event of all time. But still, we should exploit the images as much as we can and wring as much information as we can from them.