How could Oswald's hair contradict itself? In Johnston, his hair is coiffed and GQ'd, and he's got a lot more of it. But, in other images, including this film image, his hair looks nothing like that.
How can that be the same hair when he has much deeper recession on the right, when his hair is longer and wavier on the left. Obviously, he has much more complete coverage on the left. At first glance, the image on the right shows a guy with a receding hairline, while the image on the left does not. How can it be the same nose when the shape of the nostrils are so different?
Here's the Johnston/Beers comparison. Obviously, his hair is flatter in Beers, and he's got that huge cowlick in back, which you don't see anywhere else. He's also got an extremely wide part in Beers which you don't see elsewhere. Again, the noses don't match, with much more flare in the shape of the nostril in Johnston and larger tip cartilage.
Here's the comparison going from Johnston to Jackson. What happened to the stiff right collar he had in Johnston?
Again, we have the higher, longer, wavier, coiffed hair in Johnston and the flatter, lower hair in Jackson. His eyebrows are much longer in Johnston. His eyebrow is half gone in Jackson.
So, how did Oswald really look? We don't know because there is no image of him that we can be certain is untouched. There was so much photographic manipulation, the question is: was ANY image of him not manipulated, and if so, which one? At this point in time, I can't tell you. There is no image of him that I can be sure wasn't manipulated. And of course, in some cases, the question is whether the image is really him at all.
I don't think two two images can be reconciled. I don't doubt that the guy on the left is Oswald, but is the guy on the right?