Indisputable Evidence for Harvey & Lee

[John Mytton]

BTW John, I'm still waiting for you to explain how it is that the 1958 Oswald required a false tooth (prosthesis) according to his dental record, yet the 1981 exhumed Oswald had neither a false tooth nor any place where a false tooth could fit?

Why don't you morph on that for a while. LOL

Sorry, Oswald's dental record doesn't show any missing teeth.





JohnM

[Chris Douglas]

Yes, I can see inside his mouth. And I can see that he's missing a front tooth.

I still see a missing tooth as well... not that I agree with the Harvey/Lee imposter theory...

[Sandy Larsen]

Sorry, Oswald's dental record doesn't show any missing teeth.

JohnM

Oswald's 3/27/1958 dental record shows that he required a false tooth, otherwise known as a dental prosthesis.

When I first created this thread, I posted a link to a presentation I'd written that ultimately leads to my discovery of the prosthesis. Repeat, I posted a LINK.... I did not post the presentation itself.

I just now discovered that somehow my link was replaced with a copy of the presentation. Problem is, this forum software lops off the right side of large graphics. And so I think a lot of readers are unaware of the prosthesis discovery.

Here's the link again:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24630-indisputable-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-front-tooth-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not-new-evidence-found/

The new discovery proves that there were two Oswalds. Because Oswald's 1958 dental chart indicates that he required a false tooth (dental prosthesis), yet his exhumed teeth showed not only that he had no false teeth, but that there was no room for a false tooth to fit.

According to the dental record, Oswald needed the prosthesis because the original "failed." That is, it broke. The first part of the presentation explains why it is Oswald had a prosthesis to begin with. It is because he lost a tooth in a 9th grade fist fight.

John Mytton has come up with all kinds of graphs attempting to show that Oswald had not lost a tooth. What he doesn't realize is that that doesn't matter. The dental record in conjunction with the exhumed teeth prove that the 1958 Oswald was not the same as the exhumed Oswald.

If John Mytton is correct, that Oswald didn't lose a tooth in that fight, that serves only to make the case more mysterious. Because then we have to answer why Oswald needed the prosthesis (the one that broke) to begin with.

Why don't we keep it simple and just accept that the tooth was lost in the fist fight? There is ample evidence for that being the case. We have no need for John Mytton turning this into a mystery.

[John Mytton]

Oswald's 3/27/1958 dental record shows that he required a false tooth, otherwise known as a dental prosthesis.

When I first created this thread, I posted a link to a presentation I'd written that ultimately leads to my discovery of the prosthesis. Repeat, I posted a LINK.... I did not post the presentation itself.

I just now discovered that somehow my link was replaced with a copy of the presentation. Problem is, this forum software lops off the right side of large graphics. And so I think a lot of readers are unaware of the prosthesis discovery.

Here's the link again:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24630-indisputable-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-front-tooth-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not-new-evidence-found/

The new discovery proves that there were two Oswalds. Because Oswald's 1958 dental chart indicates that he required a false tooth (dental prosthesis), yet his exhumed teeth showed not only that he had no false teeth, but that there was no room for a false tooth to fit.

According to the dental record, Oswald needed the prosthesis because the original "failed." That is, it broke. The first part of the presentation explains why it is Oswald had a prosthesis to begin with. It is because he lost a tooth in a 9th grade fist fight.

John Mytton has come up with all kinds of graphs attempting to show that Oswald had not lost a tooth. What he doesn't realize is that that doesn't matter. The dental record in conjunction with the exhumed teeth prove that the 1958 Oswald was not the same as the exhumed Oswald.

If John Mytton is correct, that Oswald didn't lose a tooth in that fight, that serves only to make the case more mysterious. Because then we have to answer why Oswald needed the prosthesis (the one that broke) to begin with.

Why don't we keep it simple and just accept that the tooth was lost in the fist fight? There is ample evidence for that being the case. We have no need for John Mytton turning this into a mystery.

It's really quite simple Sandy, the following graphic showing that your best examples of "Lee and Harvey" is the exact same person, absolutely destroys "Harvey and Lee".





JohnM

[John Mytton]

I just had a look over at the Ed Forum to see if there were any updates to this saga and some guy posted the following colour photo of one of the Oswald's and claims that his teeth are crumbling at the bottom so this must be the schoolboy toothless Oswald with crumbling prosthetics but a quick check and we see that the teeth as per usual are a perfect match to Marine Oswald's teeth, who in turn matches the Exhumed Oswald's teeth without prosthetics.



Btw the above depth mapped morph is a sophisticated variation of Apple's Face ID technique below which is used on their latest high end iPhones where they project a grid of dots to create a unique depth map of your face and because this is stored in 3D, the phone can compare your face from virtually any front facing angle and see if the new depth map matches the 3d data in memory and if so your phone unlocks.



Here's JFK from a boy into a man and we see that Kennedy's depth mapped face holds all the major landmarks in their relatively correct position but as a man JFK's face has filled out.





JohnM

[Tom Scully]

I just had a look over at the Ed Forum to see if there were any updates to this saga and some guy posted the following colour photo of one of the Oswald's .......

..........
JohnM

How many Oswalds ......?  I hate BS and Armstrong/Larsen/Caprio sized contempt for the truth and reasonable assumptions.:

[John Mytton]

Over at the Ed Forum David Josephs put an oversized and oddly centered tooth into the school class photo of Oswald where he and his mates think it appears to be missing, so logically if it exists in 3D space as a tooth then when the two depth maps are compared then the tooth must fit in both photos as the same tooth but it doesn't fit because we are looking up at the bottom of Oswald's teeth and the white square is actually better placed to be up towards the palate, the roof of the mouth.










JohnM

[Tim Nickerson]

Over at the Ed Forum David Josephs put an oversized and oddly centered tooth into the school class photo of Oswald where he and his mates think it appears to be missing, so logically if it exists in 3D space as a tooth then when the two depth maps are compared then the tooth must fit in both photos as the same tooth but it doesn't fit because we are looking up at the bottom of Oswald's teeth and the white square is actually better placed to be up towards the palate, the roof of the mouth.







JohnM