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

There was no circumstance in which 17 year old LHO was standing in front of a height chart for a picture, and if there were such a circumstance, he certainly would not have brandished a cold ruthless expression like this:

It is just ART. Evil art. It is dis-info. They were just painting a portrait of Oswald as this delinquent young man, already headed for a life of crime. There is nothing remotely photographic about this image. And just compare it to the other one taken about the same time. It at least looks like a photograph. 

  Oswald was not in any trouble at that age, so what reason would he have had to have such an intense and evil-eye look as this?

There is no rational for this except propaganda. And there is no reason why anyone who is a real Oswald defender should want to defend it. There is no reason why a real Oswald defender should want to defend the whole photographic record of Lee Harvey Oswald, including this image:

It was Professor James Norwood who pointed out to me how phony this image of Oswald is, with the long tubular neck. He compared it to an image of someone on a football card. The Lee Harvey Oswald of fame certainly did not have a bull neck like that. 

The framing of Lee Harvey Oswald included publishing false images of him, and if you can't admit that then you should STOP calling yourself an Oswald defender because you are not an Oswald defender.