Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

I found the source. It's from the Marshall News Messenger, September 24, 1968.

But remember that we are looking at there is a digital image. We are not holding a 49 year old newspaper in our hands. The identification occurs at the bottom:

So, digitally, the only thing they would have to change to come up with that is the name. I am going to see if I can buy an original newsprint of it. But, if I can, and even if it appears that way, it wouldn't change anything. The incompatibility of that image to the yearbook images of James Bookhout makes it impossible for him to be Bookhout. 

And let's recognize that something like this could never be definitive because people are incorrectly identified in newspapers all the time. It's not unusual. What would be definitive is if say there was a family photo of James Bookhout, holding his son, Jim Bookhout, and say with his wife Charlotte next to him, and they could be identified. Now, that would be definitive. And doesn't it seem like Jim Bookhout should have such a photo?

I mentioned last evening Bookhout's tendency to be puffy in the face, and you can see it in his son too.

That's an unusual father and son collage since the father is much younger than the son. But, you can certainly see that they look alike. Notice how similar the eyes are. So, what do you figure? That these two are father and son?

Why don't you wake up and smell the fucking coffee. That guy on the left is NOT Jim Bookhout's father.