JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Sandy Larsen on February 07, 2018, 10:23:59 PM
-
Not only was Oswald missing missing a molar, he was missing a front tooth as well. And yet his exhumed body was not!
Oswald was missing a front tooth, but his exhumed body was not!
New evidence is presented here.
This topic has been debated before. But I have since discovered evidence that proves young Oswald had a
prosthetic (artificial) tooth, held in place with a dental bridge. This in spite of the fact that the
Oswald killed by Jack Ruby had all natural teeth and no place where a prosthetic tooth could fit. We
know this because his body was exhumed in 1981 and we can see in the exhumation photographs that his
teeth were all natural and still in place.
It is of no surprise to me that Oswald had a prosthetic tooth. After all, there is plenty of evidence
that his front incisor was knocked out in a fist fight when he was in 9th grade. Before presenting the
new evidence for the prosthesis, I will summarize the evidence for Oswald's tooth being knocked out.
Those who are aware of the missing-tooth evidence can skip over this summary.
Ed Voebel Testified that Oswald Lost a Tooth
Ed Voebel was Oswald's best friend in 9th grade. He testified as follows before the Warren Commission:
Mr. JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that
occasion; is that right?
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was
knocked out.
Now, it sounds as if Voebel wasn't certain Oswald got his lip cut and lost a tooth. But that probably
was not the case. After all, he explained later how some of the other boys took Oswald into the boys
restroom and patched him up. Does that sound like he wasn't sure Oswald had gotten his lip cut?
Ed Voebel used the phrase "I think" numerous times in his testimony, even in cases where he surely would
have known. Like when he said, "I think I just went on home and everybody went their way" after an
altercation that occurred the day prior. Was he really not sure he went home? And that the other boys
went their way?
Here's a sampling of Voebel's use of the phrase:
"Yes. Well, I think one of them was in the same grade as Lee."
"The fight, I think started on the school ground"
"I think John was a little smaller, a little shorter than Lee."
"Well, I think Oswald was getting the best of John"
"but I think I just went on home and everybody went their way"
"and Oswald I think, was a little in front of me"
"I think that was what brought it all about. I think this was sort of a revenge thing on the part of the
Neumeyer boys"
"I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out"
"I don't think he was that good"
"I don't think he was a great pool player"
"I think I met her one time"
"I think the legal age here is 18"
"I think in a way I understood him better than most of the other kids"
"I think they have gotten worse"
"I think we were in the same grade, I think we were."
.... and on and on. Ed Voebel said ?I think? or ?think? nearly a hundred times during his testimony. It
seems to have been a part of the way he talked.
But be that as it may, there is more evidence of a lost tooth.
Lillian Murret Testified that Oswald Went to See a Dentist
Oswald's Aunt Lillian testified as follows before the Warren Commission:
"Another time they were coming out of school at 3 o'clock, and there were boys in back of him and one of
them called his name, and he said, "Lee," and when he turned around, this boy punched him in the mouth
and ran, and it ran his tooth through the lip, so she [Marguerite] had to go over to the school and take
him to the dentist, and I paid for the dentist bill myself, and that's all I know about that, and he was
not supposed to have started any of that at that time."
Now why would Oswald have to see a dentist if he hadn't lost a tooth?
Okay, it's conceivable that the tooth was merely loosened. However, that goes against Ed Voebel's
recollection. And besides, there is further evidence that Oswald lost a tooth. Photographic evidence and
more.
A Photo Printed in Life Magazine Shows That the Tooth is Missing
Oswald's 9th grade friend, Ed Voebel, was tasked with taking photos to be included in the school
yearbook. He later sold one of those photos to Life Magazine, which published the photo in their
February 21, 1964 issue. Here it is:
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/life_magazine_missing_tooth.jpg)
Here is a close up showing that Oswald's front tooth was missing. In fact, there might be two missing teeth:
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/life_magazine_missing_tooth_closeup.jpg)
It is easier to see in this contrast-adjusted version of the photo:
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/missing_tooth_adjusted.jpg)
New Evidence: Oswald Had a Prosthetic Tooth!
When we were last discussing this topic I wondered what Oswald might have done about his missing tooth.
David Josephs posted a couple of his dental charts and it occurred to me that Oswald's Marine Corps
records might indicate something about a bridge or a denture. So I dug through John Armstrong's
collection at Baylor University and numerous files at the Mary Ferrell website to see what I could find.
To my great surprise I did find something! Apparently overlooked till now. In the chart for Oswald's
dental exam dated March 27, 1958, is a field where the questions is asked, "Prosthetic Required?" The
dentist is instructed to "explain briefly" if the answer is yes. And that is precisely what Oswald's
dentist did. He wrote "FAILED 5-5-58." In other words, Oswald required a prosthesis because the one he
currently had failed on May 5, 1958. (Or maybe that was the date Oswald reported the failure.)
Here's the dental chart:
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/dental_record_1958-03-27.png)
And here's a closeup of the "Prosthesis Required" field:
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/failed_prosthesis.jpg)
So, at some point in time Oswald got a prosthesis for his missing tooth, and it broke while he was in
the Marines.
Now, one might ask how we know that the prosthesis was for Oswald's front tooth, the tooth we know was
missing. My short answer would be that it doesn't really matter. Because photographs and x-rays of
Oswald's exhumed teeth show that all his teeth were natural and that there was no room for a prosthesis
to fit! (See the exhumed teeth photos below.) And so right away we realize that the Lee Harvey Oswald in
the tomb was not the same Lee Harvey Oswald who had the dental exam on March 27, 1958.
But rather than speculate that the young Oswald lost not only his front tooth but yet another -- for
which he was fitted the prosthesis -- let's keep it simple and admit that in all likelihood he got the
prosthesis for the tooth in which we have considerable evidence he lost... his front tooth. Occam's
razor calls for us to make that conclusion. (Again, not that it matters.)
There is an interesting question we might ask, though it is irrelevant to the conclusions made in this
presentation. And that is, what type of prosthesis did Oswald have? He might have had a removable
denture like this one:
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/denture.jpg)
Or he might have had a fixed dental bridge, like this one (except for his top front teeth, of course):
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/dental_bridge.jpg)
In my opinion, Oswald was fitted with a dental bridge. Because had he worn a denture, the dentist would
have asked him to remove it before his examination. And his dental chart would show a missing tooth
there, which it does not.
But the Exhumed Oswald Had no Missing or Prosthetic Teeth
The reader can see for himself that the Oswald killed by Jack Ruby had no fake teeth and no room for a
prosthesis at all. All his teeth were natural. Here are the teeth of the exhumed body:
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/teeth_front_view.jpg)
Front View
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/top_teeth_inside_view.jpg)
Top Inside View
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/bottom_teeth_inside_view.jpg)
Bottom Inside View
Conclusion
No other conclusion can be drawn from this evidence other than the Oswald shot by Ruby was not the same
Oswald who lost his front tooth in a 9th grade fist fight and was thereafter fitted with a prosthesis to
replace the tooth.
In other words, the Oswald shot by Ruby was an imposter.
Given that this imposter shared the same siblings with the real Oswald, it can be concluded that he had
been an imposter since childhood. And we thereby have further proof of the Harvey and Lee story as
written about by John Armstrong.
-
Excellent work Sandy. You don't even need experts. Experts come in all colors.
-
I haven't yet read Harvey & Lee, do your findings corroborate mortician Paul Groody's claims that the head was switched in between 63 and the 81' exhumation?
-
While looking for some early Oswald photos it seems that for whatever reason he was reluctant to give a big toothy grin, in fact he mainly covered his top teeth with his top lip.
(http://afflictor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/oswaldchild1.jpg)
(https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/fadf470839.jpg)
(https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-ZE178_1005Os_MV_20131004144955.jpg)
A habit that followed him into adulthood.
(http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKoswald5.jpg)
Upon closer examination of the "toothless" photo it looks like Oswald is again pulling his top lip over his top teeth and what we see is just shadows inside his mouth.
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/life_magazine_missing_tooth.jpg)
So I made a quick morph and it becomes obvious to me that in the classroom photo we can see Oswald straining his top lip over his gums and teeth to bring his lip forward.
(https://s17.postimg.org/hqp91bfin/Ossytoplip.gif)
Kinda like this.
(http://cdn1-www.comingsoon.net/assets/uploads/2017/07/remakes-watching-slide-890Z-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600.jpg)
JohnM
-
Just talked with a Prof of Orthodontics. I just related the basic details of a missing premolar and the relevant ages of the individual no mention of who it was. His answer was emphatic....there is no way that the teeth will restraighten once tipped without application of some device to correct it.
-
There's no way a toothless Russian was walking around pretending to be Lee Harvey Oswald and his family didn't notice. They woulda spotted the teeth right away.
-
(https://s17.postimg.org/hqp91bfin/Ossytoplip.gif)
No wonder Marina would no longer let him touch her.
-
There's no way a toothless Russian was walking around pretending to be Lee Harvey Oswald and his family didn't notice. They woulda spotted the teeth right away.
There's no way a toothless Russian was walking around...
(https://i.imgur.com/N9sX3Tl.gif)
-
You must admit Bill, the whole Harvey and Lee thing is just too much.
-
You must admit Bill, the whole Harvey and Lee thing is just too much.
I absolutely agree, John.
Thing is, in that 9th grade classroom photo, Oswald is not missing a tooth. The dark spot is the roof of his mouth unobstructed by his front teeth.
-
Excellent work Sandy. You don't even need experts. Experts come in all colors.
Thanks Michael.
-
I haven't yet read Harvey & Lee, do your findings corroborate mortician Paul Groody's claims that the head was switched in between 63 and the 81' exhumation?
Robert,
I have no reason to believe that there was any funny business going on with Oswald's corpse. I studied the Norton Report carefully and found everything to be in order with the exception on one of the x-rays. It is obvious that that x-ray came from the other Oswald... the one we call Lee. Of course there was no way for the Norton Panel to be aware of the other Oswald. I'm sure that that one incorrect x-ray raised eyebrows. But it wasn't enough for the Panel to make any other conclusion than the body was that of Lee Harvey Oswald's.
I do agree with the conclusions of the Norton Panel.
-
Robert,
I have no reason to believe that there was any funny business going on with Oswald's corpse. I studied the Norton Report carefully and found everything to be in order with the exception on one of the x-rays. It is obvious that that x-ray came from the other Oswald... the one we call Lee. Of course there was no way for the Norton Panel to be aware of the other Oswald. I'm sure that that one incorrect x-ray raised eyebrows. But it wasn't enough for the Panel to make any other conclusion than the body was that of Lee Harvey Oswald's.
I do agree with the conclusions of the Norton Panel.
How should I put this, oh, THERE WERE NO TWO OSWALD'S. The two Oswald theory is absolute hogwash. Amazing that people are sucked in by this nonsense.
-
While looking for some early Oswald photos it seems that for whatever reason he was reluctant to give a big toothy grin, in fact he mainly covered his top teeth with his top lip.
(http://afflictor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/oswaldchild1.jpg)
(https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/fadf470839.jpg)
(https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-ZE178_1005Os_MV_20131004144955.jpg)
A habit that followed him into adulthood.
(http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKoswald5.jpg)
John,
The above photos are all of HARVEY, the Oswald that was exhumed. He wasn't missing any teeth. (Not counting wisdom teeth, which I haven't studied yet.)
It was the other Oswald -- LEE -- who was missing the front tooth. As well as a the molar.
-
John,
The above photos are all of HARVEY, the Oswald that was exhumed. He wasn't missing any teeth. (Not counting wisdom teeth, which I haven't studied yet.)
It was the other Oswald -- LEE -- who was missing the front tooth. As well as a the molar.
Do you have any photos of "LEE"?
JohnM
-
Just talked with a Prof of Orthodontics. I just related the basic details of a missing premolar and the relevant ages of the individual no mention of who it was. His answer was emphatic....there is no way that the teeth will restraighten once tipped without application of some device to correct it.
Colin,
Thanks for checking that out with an expert. It only makes sense that teeth don't straighten back up after tipping, as there is no force present to push the teeth back up. In contrast, the opposing teeth -- the top ones in this case -- continue to apply force down on he tipped teeth.
-
Colin,
Thanks for checking that out with an expert. It only makes sense that teeth don't straighten back up after tipping, as there is no force present to push the teeth back up. In contrast, the opposing teeth -- the top ones in this case -- continue to apply force down on he tipped teeth.
Apparently it is also force from the teeth "behind" that cause the tipping. Due to imbalance of loss of opposing force "in front".
Happy to assist Sandy.
-
Quote from: John Anderson on Today at 04:20:22 PM
You must admit Bill, the whole Harvey and Lee thing is just too much.
I absolutely agree, John.
Bill,
Here's a very simple question for you:
How do you explain that, according to his 1958 dental record, Oswald had a prosthesis (false tooth). But the exhumed Oswald had all natural teeth and no room for a prosthesis?
-
How should I put this, oh, THERE WERE NO TWO OSWALD'S. The two Oswald theory is absolute hogwash. Amazing that people are sucked in by this nonsense.
Paul,
Here's a very simple question for you:
How do you explain that, according to his 1958 dental record, Oswald had a prosthesis (false tooth). But the exhumed Oswald had all natural teeth and no room for a prosthesis?
-
Do you have any photos of "LEE"?
JohnM
Here's one that shows that LEE did smile showing his teeth. (LEE's on the left.) (Which kinda blows your theory.) In fact, this one looks a lot like the one of him showing the lost tooth when he was younger:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QXuRfnxf2qc/hqdefault.jpg)
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/missing_tooth_adjusted.jpg)
-
Here's one that shows that LEE did smile showing his teeth. (LEE's on the left.) (Which kinda blows your theory.) In fact, this one looks a lot like the one of him showing the lost tooth when he was younger:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QXuRfnxf2qc/hqdefault.jpg)
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/missing_tooth_adjusted.jpg)
Here's one that shows that LEE did smile showing his teeth. (LEE's on the left.)
Here's your HARVEY directly compared to LEE and they are the SAME person.
The ratio of eyes to cheekbones to facial muscles to ears to nose to lips to chin are totally consistent.
The ears considered to be like fingerprints are both exactly the same with the same position, shape and folds.
(https://s17.postimg.org/lds54rjz3/comparing_young_oswalda.gif)
(Which kinda blows your theory.)
Ummm, what theory?
In fact, this one looks a lot like the one of him showing the lost tooth when he was younger:
Of course, they are the same person.
There is no missing teeth, in the following gif of the same person you're just seeing inside Oswald's mouth.
(https://s17.postimg.org/hqp91bfin/Ossytoplip.gif)
Btw every photo you've posted of Harvey and LEE are all the same person, Lee Harvey Oswald.
JohnM
-
Bill,
Here's a very simple question for you:
How do you explain that, according to his 1958 dental record, Oswald had a prosthesis (false tooth). But the exhumed Oswald had all natural teeth and no room for a prosthesis?
Hi Sandy.
First, can you explain to me how a dental report from March of 1958 can possibly list May 5th, 1958 as the date that a prosthesis failed? Am I missing something?
From your original post (below)....
In the chart for Oswald's dental exam dated March 27, 1958, is a field where the questions is asked, "Prosthetic Required?"
The dentist is instructed to "explain briefly" if the answer is yes. And that is precisely what Oswald's
dentist did. He wrote "FAILED 5-5-58." In other words, Oswald required a prosthesis because the one he
currently had failed on May 5, 1958.
-
Here's your HARVEY directly compared to LEE and they are the SAME person.
The ratio of eyes to cheekbones to facial muscles to ears to nose to lips to chin are totally consistent.
The ears considered to be like fingerprints are both exactly the same with the same position, shape and folds.
(https://s17.postimg.org/lds54rjz3/comparing_young_oswalda.gif)
Ummm, what theory?
Of course, they are the same person.
There is no missing teeth, in the following gif of the same person you're just seeing inside Oswald's mouth.
(https://s17.postimg.org/hqp91bfin/Ossytoplip.gif)
Btw every photo you've posted of Harvey and LEE are all the same person, Lee Harvey Oswald.
JohnM
My apologies.... the top two of the four Oswald photos you posted earlier are LEE. I thought they were HARVEY.
So the photos you have morphed above are all of LEE.
-
There is no missing teeth, in the following gif of the same person you're just seeing inside Oswald's mouth.
(https://s17.postimg.org/hqp91bfin/Ossytoplip.gif)
JohnM
Yes, I can see inside his mouth. And I can see that he's missing a front tooth.
-
Hi Sandy.
First, can you explain to me how a dental report from March of 1958 can possibly list May 5th, 1958 as the date that a prosthesis failed? Am I missing something?
Bill,
Oswald apparently saw a new dentist on March 27, 1958. At that time the dentist performed an examination and reported his findings on a chart where he is instructed to show problems that needed fixing. Two cavities were found.
Oswald returned on April 30 and May 14 to have those cavities treated. The dentist reported those treatments on another chart located on the same form.
At some point in time Oswald reported to the dentist that the prosthesis had failed. The date the dentist wrote next to the failure notation was May 5. I don't know if that is the date of the failure, or if it is the date Oswald reported it, or both. But as you can see, the dentist was still adding information to the form up through May 14.
It appears to me that this same form would be marked up as long as Oswald was seeing that particular dentist. He wouldn't get a new form with each exam.
-
Bill,
Oswald apparently saw a new dentist on March 27, 1958. At that time the dentist performed an examination and reported his findings on a chart where he is instructed to show problems that needed fixing. Two cavities were found.
Oswald returned on April 30 and May 14 to have those cavities treated. The dentist reported those treatments on another chart located on the same form.
At some point in time Oswald reported to the dentist that the prosthesis had failed. The date the dentist wrote next to the failure notation was May 5. I don't know if that is the date of the failure, or if it is the date Oswald reported it, or both. But as you can see, the dentist was still adding information to the form up through May 14.
It appears to me that this same form would be marked up as long as Oswald was seeing that particular dentist. He wouldn't get a new form with each exam.
Thanks for the clarification, Sandy. Much appreciated.
-
What do you make of this, Sandy?
https://books.google.com/books?id=psRyCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=oswald+lost+tooth&source=bl&ots=7xfQ3hYnsU&sig=0x_ZcvE_N4BQ6eHy7zrEF3xKtGA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU6KCynZjZAhXRuFkKHfYqDxAQ6AEIZzAM#v=onepage&q=oswald%20lost%20tooth&f=false
-
My apologies.... the top two of the four Oswald photos you posted earlier are LEE. I thought they were HARVEY.
So the photos you have morphed above are all of LEE.
Who's who in the Zoo?
Could you post a photo of LEE next to HARVEY?
Btw isn't a patient dental chart supposed to show what's going on with your teeth like fillings, damage, prosthetics and etc?,
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/dental_record_1958-03-27.png)
You know just in case of an unidentifiable Marine body the dental records can be used for identification but Oswald's dental record reflect that of an 18 year old man with reasonably good and no missing front teeth?
(http://medical.tpub.com/14275/img/14275_69_1.jpg)
And while we're at it, if Oswald required Prosthetics wouldn't the dentist would write yes and then detail the work required?
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/failed_prosthesis.jpg)
JohnM
-
Oswald's dug up top teeth show a tooth that sticks out and in Oswald's school photo he is stretching his top lip over this stuck out tooth and we can see the respective distortion and resulting specular highlight.
(https://s17.postimg.org/kfu5ls09r/young_ossy_crooked_tooth.jpg)
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/missing_tooth_adjusted.jpg)
JohnM
-
Paul,
Here's a very simple question for you:
How do you explain that, according to his 1958 dental record, Oswald had a prosthesis (false tooth). But the exhumed Oswald had all natural teeth and no room for a prosthesis?
I am not going to get into a big debate here with you Sandy since that is already happening over at EF:
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/
But I will point out that your claim that LHO had a partial denture is based solely on your interpretation of something written on his dental chart. You them conveniently ignore the fact that the chart does not show the alleged denture. As I explained to you at EF, it is usually indicated with an "X" and a line between the outline of the tooth and the number of the teeth that were replaced. The chart does indeed show other teeth that are missing with an "X." But there is neither an "X" or a horizontal line indicated for the front teeth you believe were missing.
As for the photo, I agree with the posters here that say the tooth was simply covered by the upper lip-that has always ben my feeling. Another explanation is it is simply an artifact of the photographic process. But the point is there are no witnesses-none- to LHO wearing a denture or partial denture. And the fact that "Lee" is underrepresented in photographs allows the H&L crowd to get way with murder in this instance and many others.
-
Here's one that shows that LEE did smile showing his teeth. (LEE's on the left.) (Which kinda blows your theory.) In fact, this one looks a lot like the one of him showing the lost tooth when he was younger:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/QXuRfnxf2qc/hqdefault.jpg)
Sandy,
I once read that ears are as unique as fingerprints. I don't know if that is true or not, but do you have any way of rotating that picture on the left so that the left ears are superimposed?
To my untrained eye, it doesn't look like they would match.
Steve Thomas
-
In my opinion, Oswald was fitted with a dental bridge. Because had he worn a denture, the dentist would
have asked him to remove it before his examination. And his dental chart would show a missing tooth
there, which it does not.
Oswald was not fitted with a dental bridge. See the dental symbol for a dental bridge in the following chart. If he was fitted with a dental bridge then Oswald's dental chart would have shown a symbol identical or similar to what is depicted in this diagram.
(https://i.imgur.com/idu6gp1.png)
Also the testimony which you have presented is very vague and therefore cannot be relied upon. The image of Oswald at school with the so called missing tooth is very grainy and also cannot be relied upon. As I have already stated the Harvey and Lee theory is a complete fabrication and pardon the pun is completely of the charts.
-
What do you make of this, Sandy?
https://books.google.com/books?id=psRyCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=oswald+lost+tooth&source=bl&ots=7xfQ3hYnsU&sig=0x_ZcvE_N4BQ6eHy7zrEF3xKtGA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU6KCynZjZAhXRuFkKHfYqDxAQ6AEIZzAM#v=onepage&q=oswald%20lost%20tooth&f=false
Bill,
That is a book by Greg Parker, one in his series on Lee Harvey Oswald. Greg absolutely hates John Armstrong, the author of the Harvey & Lee book. He and Jim Hargrove (a Harvey & Lee believer with a website on the subject) have had numerous debates over the years on the Harvey & Lee thesis.
The things Greg wrote on the page you linked to are covered in my presentation (in Post #1).
After studying the evidence myself and watching the debates for months, I determined that Greg Parker is wrong. There is simply too much evidence for the two Oswalds for it to be a fluke. Though Greg claims that he debunks the evidence, I have seen almost none of that. Jim Hargrove almost always gets the better of him.
So far Greg hasn't said a word about the latest evidence I have presented. Like most the other evidence, it is impossible to explain. I mean with reasonable explanations.
Greg and his allies usually have to resort to saying that the evidence is nothing more than clerical errors. I'm sure that that is what he's going to claim about the dental prosthesis evidence I found, which supports the missing front tooth evidence. He'll just say that that prosthesis notation was accidentally written on Oswald's chart.
Greg will have us believe the following are all true:
1. Oswald's friend was wrong when he recalled that the tooth had fallen out.
2. Oswald's Aunt took him to the dentist to get his cut lip treated.
3. The missing tooth in the photo is a flaw in the film.
4 And, that prosthesis notation belonged on somebody else's chart.
He actually wrote #2 in his book. It's a ridiculous thing to say, so let's change it to something reasonable:
2. Oswald's Aunt took him to the dentist because the tooth was loosened. But it ultimately healed on it's own.
In a future presentation I will compute the odds against all of those things happening to a single person whose been hit on the mouth. I will show how unlikely it would be that those four things would just happen to happen to someone, making it look like the person lost a tooth when in fact he did not.
-
Who's who in the Zoo?
Could you post a photo of LEE next to HARVEY?
Why don't we stick to the topic? Thanks.
Btw isn't a patient dental chart supposed to show what's going on with your teeth like fillings, damage, prosthetics and etc?,
It depends upon the purpose of the chart. Oswald's record has two chart's. The one on the left is for charting thing's that need fixing or might need fixing. It states right above that chart that the following are to be charted: "Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities." There is no need -- or request -- for charting other things. Like existing fillings, crowns, and prostheses.
The other chart on the form is for charting Dental Treatments Accomplished
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/dental_record_1958-03-27.png)
You know just in case of an unidentifiable Marine body the dental records can be used for identification but Oswald's dental record reflect that of an 18 year old man with reasonably good and no missing front teeth?
What you're talking about is a forensic chart. Oswald's chart is not a forensic chart.
A forensic chart is made by compiling data from as many existing dental records that can be found, and record the findings on a single chart. That's the forensic chart.
]
(http://medical.tpub.com/14275/img/14275_69_1.jpg)
And while we're at it, if Oswald required Prosthetics wouldn't the dentist would write yes and then detail the work required?
No, because that is opposite of what the dentist is instructed to do.
The instructions on the chart are these:
PROSTHETIC REQUIRED? If "yes" explain briefly"
It doesn't say to write "yes." It says to explain if the answer is yes. It doesn't say to give details. It says to explain briefly
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/failed_prosthesis.jpg)
JohnM
-
I am not going to get into a big debate here with you Sandy since that is already happening over at EF:
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/
But I will point out that your claim that LHO had a partial denture is based solely on your interpretation of something written on his dental chart. You them conveniently ignore the fact that the chart does not show the alleged denture. As I explained to you at EF, it is usually indicated with an "X" and a line between the outline of the tooth and the number of the teeth that were replaced. The chart does indeed show other teeth that are missing with an "X." But there is neither an "X" or a horizontal line indicated for the front teeth you believe were missing.
Look Tracy,
It is very easy to figure out what "FAILED 5-5-58" means on the chart.
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/failed_prosthesis.jpg)
Obviously some dental procedure or device failed on May 5, 1958. (Or was reported as failed on that date.) And obviously whatever failed required a new prosthesis.
Lets look at ALL possible dental procedures and devices that could fail, and see which ones would require a prosthesis:
Failed Filling: This would require a new filling, not a prosthesis.
Failed Root Canal: This would require anther root canal, or an extraction. Not a prosthesis.
Failed Crown: This would require a new crown, not a prosthesis.
Failed Prosthesis: This would require a new prosthesis. BINGO!
So we know that it was a prosthesis that failed. Oswald had been fitted with a prosthesis. He therefore had a missing natural tooth.
The reason there is no missing tooth marked on the chart is most likely because his prosthesis was a fixed bridge. The tooth was no longer missing because it had been replaced with a permanent fake one.
-
Bill,
That is a book by Greg Parker, one in his series on Lee Harvey Oswald. Greg absolutely hates John Armstrong, the author of the Harvey & Lee book. He and Jim Hargrove (a Harvey & Lee believer with a website on the subject) have had numerous debates over the years on the Harvey & Lee thesis.
The things Greg wrote on the page you linked to are covered in my presentation (in Post #1).
After studying the evidence myself and watching the debates for months, I determined that Greg Parker is wrong. There is simply too much evidence for the two Oswalds for it to be a fluke. Though Greg claims that he debunks the evidence, I have seen almost none of that. Jim Hargrove almost always gets the better of him.
So far Greg hasn't said a word about the latest evidence I have presented. Like most the other evidence, it is impossible to explain. I mean with reasonable explanations.
Greg and his allies usually have to resort to saying that the evidence is nothing more than clerical errors. I'm sure that that is what he's going to claim about the dental prosthesis evidence I found, which supports the missing front tooth evidence. He'll just say that that prosthesis notation was accidentally written on Oswald's chart.
Greg will have us believe the following are all true:
1. Oswald's friend was wrong when he recalled that the tooth had fallen out.
2. Oswald's Aunt took him to the dentist to get his cut lip treated.
3. The missing tooth in the photo is a flaw in the film.
4 And, that prosthesis notation belonged on somebody else's chart.
He actually wrote #2 in his book. It's a ridiculous thing to say, so let's change it to something reasonable:
2. Oswald's Aunt took him to the dentist because the tooth was loosened. But it ultimately healed on it's own.
In a future presentation I will compute the odds against all of those things happening to a single person whose been hit on the mouth. I will show how unlikely it would be that those four things would just happen to happen to someone, making it look like the person lost a tooth when in fact he did not.
After studying the evidence myself and watching the debates for months, I determined that Greg Parker is wrong. There is simply too much evidence for the two Oswalds for it to be a fluke. Though Greg claims that he debunks the evidence, I have seen almost none of that. Jim Hargrove almost always gets the better of him.
That doesn't surprise me. Greg Parker is weak.
Even though I find it very difficult to swallow the Harvey & Lee theory, I'll follow your posts with keen interest for now.
Thanks for the reply.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/idu6gp1.png)
Oswald was not fitted with a dental bridge. See the dental symbol for a dental bridge in the following chart. If he was fitted with a dental bridge then Oswald's dental chart would have shown a symbol identical or similar to what is depicted in this diagram.
Oswald's record has two chart's. The one on the left is for charting thing's that need fixing or might need fixing. It states right above that chart that the following are to be charted: "Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities." There is no need -- or request -- for charting other things. Like existing fillings, crowns, and dental bridges.
The other chart on the form is for charting Dental Treatments Accomplished.
Also the testimony which you have presented is very vague and therefore cannot be relied upon. The image of Oswald at school with the so called missing tooth is very grainy and also cannot be relied upon. As I have already stated the Harvey and Lee theory is a complete fabrication and pardon the pun is completely of the charts.
So forget about all that other CORROBORATING evidence if you want. That notation regarding the failed prosthesis on Oswald's chart is all that is needed to prove that the exhumed teeth don't match those of the Oswald in the Marines.
-
Sandy,
I once read that ears are as unique as fingerprints. I don't know if that is true or not, but do you have any way of rotating that picture on the left so that the left ears are superimposed?
To my untrained eye, it doesn't look like they would match.
Steve Thomas
Hi Steve,
No, I have idea how to rotate that image.
It certainly would be interesting to compare the ears. But I just looked and couldn't find any profile photos of LEE.
-
Bill,
That is a book by Greg Parker, one in his series on Lee Harvey Oswald. Greg absolutely hates John Armstrong, the author of the Harvey & Lee book. He and Jim Hargrove (a Harvey & Lee believer with a website on the subject) have had numerous debates over the years on the Harvey & Lee thesis.
The things Greg wrote on the page you linked to are covered in my presentation (in Post #1).
After studying the evidence myself and watching the debates for months, I determined that Greg Parker is wrong. There is simply too much evidence for the two Oswalds for it to be a fluke. Though Greg claims that he debunks the evidence, I have seen almost none of that. Jim Hargrove almost always gets the better of him.
So far Greg hasn't said a word about the latest evidence I have presented. Like most the other evidence, it is impossible to explain. I mean with reasonable explanations.
Greg and his allies usually have to resort to saying that the evidence is nothing more than clerical errors. I'm sure that that is what he's going to claim about the dental prosthesis evidence I found, which supports the missing front tooth evidence. He'll just say that that prosthesis notation was accidentally written on Oswald's chart.
Greg will have us believe the following are all true:
1. Oswald's friend was wrong when he recalled that the tooth had fallen out.
2. Oswald's Aunt took him to the dentist to get his cut lip treated.
3. The missing tooth in the photo is a flaw in the film.
4 And, that prosthesis notation belonged on somebody else's chart.
He actually wrote #2 in his book. It's a ridiculous thing to say, so let's change it to something reasonable:
2. Oswald's Aunt took him to the dentist because the tooth was loosened. But it ultimately healed on it's own.
In a future presentation I will compute the odds against all of those things happening to a single person whose been hit on the mouth. I will show how unlikely it would be that those four things would just happen to happen to someone, making it look like the person lost a tooth when in fact he did not.
Do you think that Bill did not know who the author was?
-
Were Oswald's mum and brothers in on it?
-
Were Oswald's mum and brothers in on it?
According to the H&L theory, there were not only two Oswalds, but two mothers. As for the brothers, Robert was in on it and John Pic was aware of it which is why he did not recognize certain photos. All of which is nonsense of course.
-
According to the H&L theory, there were not only two Oswalds, but two mothers. As for the brothers, Robert was in on it and John Pic was aware of it which is why he did not recognize certain photos. All of which is nonsense of course.
Nonsense ....that serves very well to paint all critics ( CTs) of the official tale as "Kooks"....
I've noticed that many of the outrageous books like H&L and Mortal Error were well distributed....
Normally such trash would have a hard time finding a publisher....but that's not the case when it comes to the assassination.... Makes me wonder who actually published the books.
-
I am not going to get into a big debate here with you Sandy since that is already happening over at EF:
Obviously this topic just shows how crazy alot of the conspiracy moment is. Because of your post I went to the EF and skimmed through the thread. James DiEugenio had maybe the greatest post in history on that thread. . I honestly think that one post proved he should be institutionalized. Great stuff.
-
The Education Forum has a strange choice of name.
-
Obviously this topic just shows how crazy alot of the conspiracy moment is. Because of your post I went to the EF and skimmed through the thread. James DiEugenio had maybe the greatest post in history on that thread. . I honestly think that one post proved he should be institutionalized. Great stuff.
Brian, are you referring to this quote:
"If you do take it to a dentist, whatever you do, do not tell them its the JFK case."
Jim's advice was spot-on.
Brian, you "honestly think that one post proved he should be institutionalized" for posting that?
That is a fairy low bar for determining whether someone should be institutionalized. It is common knowledge that you very well may be denied access to resources which you would otherwise not, or to resources which you have every right to access, if you tell that you are researching the JFK case.
Do you think I am lying? Or will you, like you did to Jim, claim that the parties which denied me access to material, which I have every right to see, were as savvy as you in your determination that I am somehow, in some way, not eligible to see such resources because I should be in an institution?
Brian, once again, is it your assertion that a researcher who advises another researcher that "If you do take it to a dentist, whatever you do, do not tell them its the JFK case" is worthy of institutionalization?
-
Brian, are you referring to this quote:
"If you do take it to a dentist, whatever you do, do not tell them its the JFK case."
Jim's advice was spot-on.
Brian, you "honestly think that one post proved he should be institutionalized" for posting that?
That is a fairy low bar for determining whether someone should be institutionalized. It is common knowledge that you very well may be denied access to resources which you would otherwise not, or to resources which you have every right to access, if you tell that you are researching the JFK case.
Do you think I am lying? Or will you, like you did to Jim, claim that the parties which denied me access to material, which I have every right to see, were as savvy as you in your determination that I am somehow, in some way, not eligible to see such resources because I should be in an institution?
Brian, once again, is it your assertion that a researcher who advises another researcher that "If you do take it to a dentist, whatever you do, do not tell them its the JFK case" is worthy of institutionalization?
My answer is yes. If someone is seriously worried about a random dentist actually being involved in the conspiracy cover up then they are a complete nutcase. They are paranoid and they are living in a fantasy world. There is no way around that.
This has nothing to do with being denied anything.
Now what access were you denied?
-
My answer is yes. If someone is seriously worried about a random dentist actually being involved in the conspiracy cover up then they are a complete nutcase. They are paranoid and they are living in a fantasy world. There is no way around that.
This has nothing to do with being denied anything.
Now what access were you denied?
I did take it to a Prof of Orthodontics and purposely did not mention Oswald. The reason is simply that I know many professionals/experts do not wish to become associated in any way with the case. I know this for a fact when I have spoken with forensic scientists and crime scene investigators many years ago.
-
I did take it to a Prof of Orthodontics and purposely did not mention Oswald. The reason is simply that I know many professionals/experts do not wish to become associated in any way with the case. I know this for a fact when I have spoken with forensic scientists and crime scene investigators many years ago.
So in 2018 you know dentists who do not want to answer questions from patients about LHO's teeth? Come on...You are a great poster but that is just silly, How many dentists do you believe are even aware or care about any of the conspiracy stuff? Do you honestly believe that a dentist would be scared to give an honest and straight forward answer to a question that would be obvious to any dentist?
The advice I would give is don't explain the Harvey and Lee theory to them. They would still most likely give you the obvious answer you are looking for but they would probably think you are a really out there. I am sure the office would get a chuckle out of it
-
So in 2018 you know dentists who do not want to answer questions from patients about LHO's teeth? Come on...You are a great poster but that is just silly, How many dentists do you believe are even aware or care about any of the conspiracy stuff? Do you honestly believe that a dentists would have scared to give an honest and straight forward answer to a question that would be obvious to any dentist?
Brian, I told you what I did and why I did it. For the information that was requested, the movement of teeth following premolar extraction in a teenager it added nothing to say if it was Oswald or not.
If you want to know what the forensic guys said......the DPD were crap.....there you go.
-
Do you think that Bill did not know who the author was?
I had no idea, Colin. I know Greg, but I don't know who Bill is.
-
So in 2018 you know dentists who do not want to answer questions from patients about LHO's teeth? Come on...You are a great poster but that is just silly, How many dentists do you believe are even aware or care about any of the conspiracy stuff? Do you honestly believe that a dentist would be scared to give an honest and straight forward answer to a question that would be obvious to any dentist?
The advice I would give is don't explain the Harvey and Lee theory to them. They would still most likely give you the obvious answer you are looking for but they would probably think you are a really out there. I am sure the office would get a chuckle out of it
You think Jim D should be institutionalized for using caution with regard to whom you request information, yet you say that it is "silly" to think that people might think that there may be negative ramifications for investigating the case? Do you see the contradiction?
-
You think Jim D should be institutionalized for using caution with regard to whom you request information, yet you say that it is "silly" to think that people might think that there may be negative ramifications for investigating the case? Do you see the contradiction?
No I don't. Jim D was obviously pointing out that a dentist may be in on the conspiracy or would be concerned with information he gave out. Jim is not giving out advice on how not to appear like a wackjob. That obviously is not a concern of his.
-
I don't think it has anything to do with a concern that a dentist is "in on the conspiracy", whatever that means. The idea is to get an unbiased opinion based purely on the evidence and not influenced by any preconceptions.
-
I'd like to see what a dentist who perhaps has some appropriate experience with the Marine's has to say?
Anyway I just had another fresh look and here's some observations and opinions.
(https://s17.postimg.org/duxiftj67/oswald_teeth_chart.jpg)
1. A Marine's dental record is essential in establishing identity in case of death.
2. The first examination on the 27/3/58 was to give details of Oswald's teeth and differentiate him from the next Marine.
3. Oswald went back on the 30/4 and the 14/5 and on these two occasions had fillings for respectively #20 and #10.
4. On the chart any missing teeth would be noted.
5. If Oswald needed a prosthetic then that would be noted as a yes and the missing teeth number# and details of repair would be written.
6. Oswald saw the dentist on the 14/5 after the "failure" which was written as the 5/5 and the dentist did no prosthetic repairs?
7. Oswald left the Marines the next year in September 1959, why wouldn't he have his prosthetic fixed for free during those sixteen months?
8. But we are still left with "FAILED 5-5-58", something was described as "FAILED" that was dated between appointments? FIIK!
JohnM
-
I'd like to see what a dentist who perhaps has some appropriate experience with the Marine's has to say?
Anyway I just had another fresh look and here's some observations and opinions.
(https://s17.postimg.org/duxiftj67/oswald_teeth_chart.jpg)
1. A Marine's dental record is essential in establishing identity in case of death.
2. The first examination on the 27/3/58 was to give details of Oswald's teeth and differentiate him from the next Marine.
3. Oswald went back on the 30/4 and the 14/5 and on these two occasions had fillings for respectively #20 and #10.
4. On the chart any missing teeth would be noted.
5. If Oswald needed a prosthetic then that would be noted as a yes and the missing teeth number# and details of repair would be written.
6. Oswald saw the dentist on the 14/5 after the "failure" which was written as the 5/5 and the dentist did no prosthetic repairs?
7. Oswald left the Marines the next year in September 1959, why wouldn't he have his prosthetic fixed for free during those sixteen months?
8. But we are still left with "FAILED 5-5-58", something was described as "FAILED" that was dated between appointments? FIIK!
JohnM
John,
Oswald's March 27, 1958 dental record indicates that on or around May 5, 1958 a failure occurred that required Oswald to get a new prosthesis (false tooth). The record lists all treatments performed by that particular dentist. The new prosthesis is not listed. Obviously either another dentist provided the prosthesis, or Oswald never got one.
Regardless, if you look at the teeth of exhumed Oswald, you will see that all his teeth are natural, that he has no prostheses, and that there is no place for prosthesis to fit. Which is strange, to say the least, for a person who needed a prosthesis.
Photos of Oswalds exhumed teeth can be found on page 27 of the Norton Report:
http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/norton_report_with_high_quality_images.pdf (http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/norton_report_with_high_quality_images.pdf)
You say that, "If Oswald needed a prosthetic then that would be noted as a yes and the missing teeth number# and details of repair would be written."
That is an assumption you are making that is demonstrably untrue. It states right there in the "Prosthesis Required?" field that if the answer is "yes," the dentist is to indicate so by writing a brief description. No need to write "yes." No need to give details.
I can only guess why details would not be requested or needed. Perhaps the Marine Corps used specialists for any treatment more sophisticated than treating cavities. Indeed, I recall the days when one had to see a specialist just to get a root canal.
-
(http://www.classroomhelp.com/lessons/Presidents/Kennedy_Assasination/Oswald_Marine.jpg)
-
John,
Oswald's March 27, 1958 dental record indicates that on or around May 5, 1958 a failure occurred that required Oswald to get a new prosthesis (false tooth). The record lists all treatments performed by that particular dentist. The new prosthesis is not listed. Obviously either another dentist provided the prosthesis, or Oswald never got one.
Regardless, if you look at the teeth of exhumed Oswald, you will see that all his teeth are natural, that he has no prostheses, and that there is no place for prosthesis to fit. Which is strange, to say the least, for a person who needed a prosthesis.
Photos of Oswalds exhumed teeth can be found on page 27 of the Norton Report:
http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/norton_report_with_high_quality_images.pdf (http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/norton_report_with_high_quality_images.pdf)
You say that, "If Oswald needed a prosthetic then that would be noted as a yes and the missing teeth number# and details of repair would be written."
That is an assumption you are making that is demonstrably untrue. It states right there in the "Prosthesis Required?" field that if the answer is "yes," the dentist is to indicate so by writing a brief description. No need to write "yes." No need to give details.
I can only guess why details would not be requested or needed. Perhaps the Marine Corps used specialists for any treatment more sophisticated than treating cavities. Indeed, I recall the days when one had to see a specialist just to get a root canal.
Just a guess, I haven?t looked closely at the debate regarding the missing tooth, but could "failed" refer to a failure to attend on 5/5? That?s why he attended 9 days later. Normally this is recorded as an FTA. Apologies if I am a doofus.
-
John,
Oswald's March 27, 1958 dental record indicates that on or around May 5, 1958 a failure occurred that required Oswald to get a new prosthesis (false tooth). The record lists all treatments performed by that particular dentist. The new prosthesis is not listed. Obviously either another dentist provided the prosthesis, or Oswald never got one.
Regardless, if you look at the teeth of exhumed Oswald, you will see that all his teeth are natural, that he has no prostheses, and that there is no place for prosthesis to fit. Which is strange, to say the least, for a person who needed a prosthesis.
Photos of Oswalds exhumed teeth can be found on page 27 of the Norton Report:
http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/norton_report_with_high_quality_images.pdf (http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/norton_report_with_high_quality_images.pdf)
You say that, "If Oswald needed a prosthetic then that would be noted as a yes and the missing teeth number# and details of repair would be written."
That is an assumption you are making that is demonstrably untrue. It states right there in the "Prosthesis Required?" field that if the answer is "yes," the dentist is to indicate so by writing a brief description. No need to write "yes." No need to give details.
I can only guess why details would not be requested or needed. Perhaps the Marine Corps used specialists for any treatment more sophisticated than treating cavities. Indeed, I recall the days when one had to see a specialist just to get a root canal.
Hi Sandy, I had another look at the school photo and matched up some teeth which even though were perfect and needed a little perspective correction you can see what teeth were visible in the Oswald school photo. I'm sure if someone digitized a 3D set of teeth from the exhumed Oswald we would have a close to perfect match.
(https://s17.postimg.org/gn47macbz/ozzyteetha.gif)
(https://s17.postimg.org/hqp91bfin/Ossytoplip.gif)
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/teeth_front_view.jpg)
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/top_teeth_inside_view.jpg)
JohnM
-
Hi Sandy, I had another look at the school photo and matched up some teeth which even though were perfect and needed a little perspective correction you can see what teeth were visible in the Oswald school photo. I'm sure if someone digitized a 3D set of teeth from the exhumed Oswald we would have a close to perfect match.
(https://s17.postimg.org/gn47macbz/ozzyteetha.gif)
JohnM
John,
That's interesting. I don't buy it because of the corroborating evidence, but it's interesting.
Regardless, for argument's sake I will concede. Because the loss-of-tooth evidence isn't even necessary for my proof.
How do you explain that in 1958 Oswald was missing a tooth and needed a fake one (a prosthesis) to replace it, but in 1981 no longer needed it? Did a tooth grow back while he was dead?
-
Hi Sandy, I had another look at the school photo and matched up some teeth which even though were perfect and needed a little perspective correction you can see what teeth were visible in the Oswald school photo. I'm sure if someone digitized a 3D set of teeth from the exhumed Oswald we would have a close to perfect match.
(https://s17.postimg.org/gn47macbz/ozzyteetha.gif)
(https://s17.postimg.org/hqp91bfin/Ossytoplip.gif)
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/teeth_front_view.jpg)
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/top_teeth_inside_view.jpg)
JohnM
Yet another of Mytton's clever deceptions. This time though his animation doesn't work as you can see the teeth just behind his top lip. Nice try. Mytton.
-
Yet another of Mytton's clever deceptions. This time though his animation doesn't work as you can see the teeth just behind his top lip. Nice try. Mytton.
Who's trying to deceive who!?, all I'm doing is showing that they're all Oswald.
Here's the schoolboy photo of Oswald No.1 who apparently has the missing teeth and needed prosthetics Vs Oswald No.2 as a Marine with the teeth that match the Exhumed Oswald without missing teeth.
As the image rotates we again see perfect synchronicity in all the relative positions of each of Oswald's facial features proving they're both the same person and now we can determine beyond all doubt that the teeth that can be seen in the school photo are underneath.
(https://s17.postimg.org/r3rb2ikgv/ossy_teethh_marine_schoola.gif)
(https://s17.postimg.org/hqp91bfin/Ossytoplip.gif)
(https://s17.postimg.org/j4cspjqgv/ossymarineexhumedteeth.jpg)
JohnM
-
As the image rotates we again see perfect synchronicity in all the relative positions of each of Oswald's facial features proving they're both the same person and now we can determine beyond all doubt that the teeth that can be seen in the school photo are underneath.
(https://s17.postimg.org/3ka0cv8bz/ossyteeth60.gif)
JohnM
As the image changes we again see perfect synchronicity in all the relative positions of each of Ted Cruz's facial features, proving they're both the same person. And now we have determined beyond all doubt that MORPHING can be used in attempts to fool people.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/Lbc9OkdMjd43K/giphy.gif)
-
JohnM
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
-
As the image changes we again see perfect synchronicity in all the relative positions of each of Ted Cruz's facial features, proving they're both the same person. And now we have determined beyond all doubt that MORPHING can be used in attempts to fool people.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/Lbc9OkdMjd43K/giphy.gif)
I was waiting for this comeback, when you morph two different people with their own unique depth mapping as in your example all you're doing is smearing everything in a two dimensional plane whereas the same person in different perspectives gives you a clean three dimensional rotation with all the facial features rotating in synchronicity.
In your example we can see immediately that they are different people because all the facial features are moving independently the bone structure is different and the head shape is different, thanks!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/Lbc9OkdMjd43K/giphy.gif)
Now here is Ted Cruz looking up and down and because all of his features are in the same position in 3D space so again like ALL the Oswald's have perfect rotation as opposed to the random smearing in your example above.
(https://s17.postimg.org/oq1z1xd3j/ted_cruzz.gif)
And here's Grandpa and when it's the same person the rotation is perfect.
(https://s17.postimg.org/5sqy2nyun/mustersgrandpa.gif)
And finally here's Cruz and Grandpa showing no rotating synchronicity because even though they are similar at the end of the day the ears, nose, cheekbones and general structure are all vastly different, so opposed to the smooth coordinated movement of the above, the following just looks like the faces are being pulled in random 2D directions, essentially proving they are different.
(https://s17.postimg.org/sb2fz5etb/cruz_grandpa.gif)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/088f1d213910347509fac95deb8b509a/tumblr_o96onpP5In1rp0vkjo1_500.gif)
JohnM
-
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.
(https://s17.postimg.org/dx3nks7z3/no_missing_teeth.jpg)
JohnM
-
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...
-
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/ (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.
-
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/ (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".
(https://s17.postimg.org/r3rb2ikgv/ossy_teethh_marine_schoola.gif)
JohnM
-
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.
(https://s17.postimg.org/92nbw8h67/1957.marine.oswald.gif)
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.
(https://mydigitalmate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/shutterstock_723081874-796x420.jpg)
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.
(https://s17.postimg.org/71wsb12wv/jfk_young_old.gif)
JohnM
-
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.:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/JohnArmstrongVSrealityBarneyMiller.jpg)
-
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.
(https://s17.postimg.org/3lz78pi3z/aaaz.jpg)
(https://s17.postimg.org/71mq4dd27/josephs_toof.gif)
(http://www.awaltzthroughdisney.com/uploads/6/2/7/6/6276678/6503881_orig.jpg)
JohnM
-
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.
(https://s17.postimg.org/3lz78pi3z/aaaz.jpg)
(https://s17.postimg.org/71mq4dd27/josephs_toof.gif)
(http://www.awaltzthroughdisney.com/uploads/6/2/7/6/6276678/6503881_orig.jpg)
JohnM
(https://i.imgur.com/1dbaOit.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/1dbaOit.jpg)
Hahaha!
I always liked Walter's comedic style and the ending of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three was brilliant.
JohnM
-
I just checked the original thread and Bart posted an autopsy version of Oswald and Jim posted the best copy of the Life Magazine article that he could photograph and what do you know, from this angle Oswald's teeth at the front had the same symmetry with an apparent space in the same place and then this space when compounded with what appears to be Oswald's swollen lip or he could be just stretching his top lip which blocks out those front teeth and gives the appearance of missing teeth.
So unlike Josephs added tooth above which doesn't fit the following gif shows that all the teeth fit into place!
(https://s17.postimg.org/6ushnsyfj/Oswald_s_toofa.gif)
(http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Oswald-Lee-4_1-file-mind-the-gap-2.jpg)
The following composited teeth are perfect unlike Oswald's asymmetrical crooked teeth but seeing the above gif you should get the general idea.
(https://s17.postimg.org/gn47macbz/ozzyteetha.gif)
(https://www.healthwhoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/swollen-lips-photo.jpg)
Conclusion.
There was no alteration.
There was no missing teeth.
The teeth we see are either the very edge or underneath.
So there!
JohnM
-
Conclusion.
There was no alteration.
There was no missing teeth.
The teeth we see are either the very edge or underneath.
So there!
JohnM
100 percent correct. Notice also how the eyebrows and nose of "Harvey" and "Lee" match perfectly in your graphic which would not be the case with two unique individuals.
-
100 percent correct. Notice also how the eyebrows and nose of "Harvey" and "Lee" match perfectly
Even the nostrils?
-
Even the nostrils?
When David Phillips was working in Guatemala to overthrow Arbenz he used fake nostrils as a disguise. There's a long history of CIA people using them.
Yes, I read it in a conspiracy book so it must be true.
-
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/oswald/ambulancegate.png)
Some years ago I addressed a nostril claim with this graphic.
Inadvertently, I noticed the nose-tip was off-center to the subject's left-side. This helped to show why the nose shadow fall in the BY photos were off-center, as well.
John Mytton's Classroom/Autopsy morph-animation confirms the nose-tip is off-center in both of those pictures.
-
Even the nostrils?
I miss Herbert. Does anyone know what happened to him?
-
When David Phillips was working in Guatemala to overthrow Arbenz he used fake nostrils as a disguise. There's a long history of CIA people using them.
Yes, I read it in a conspiracy book so it must be true.
There was a conspiracy?
-
I miss Herbert. Does anyone know what happened to him?
After looking for Herbert's very useful "WC numbered exhibits" website where he had photo links to all 3000+ exhibits with an easy to use search engine and noticing his absence from this Forum which in itself was very unusual, I started a "Where's Herbert?" thread at the old Forum and never had a reply.
WHERE'S HERBERT?
JohnM
-
Nobody nose.
-
Nobody nose.
Maybe Nostrildamas knows?
JohnM
-
After looking for Herbert's very useful "WC numbered exhibits" website where he had photo links to all 3000+ exhibits with an easy to use search engine and noticing his absence from this Forum which in itself was very unusual, I started a "Where's Herbert?" thread at the old Forum and never had a reply.
WHERE'S HERBERT?
JohnM
Herbert and our beloved president are of the same borough, came up about the same time. Though sidelined tragically by bone spurs,
our president somehow caught up with and passed Herbert, outranking him, currently.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/HerbertDBlenner1968.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/HerbertDBlenner1969.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/Trump1973.jpg)
(....."believe me....I am the least racist person.".....)
Fred Trump, 1954:
TOMASELLO v. TRUMP | 30 Misc.2d 643 (1961) | sc2d6431542 ...
https://www.leagle.com/decision/196167330misc2d6431542
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case. Friedman & Friedman ( Hyman R. Friedman and Michael L. Friedman of counsel), for plaintiffs. Halperin Natanson Shivitz Scholer & Steingut for Fred C. Trump and others, defendants. Lindenbaum & Young for Beach Haven Apartments, No. 1, Inc., and other defendants.
TOMASELLO v. TRUMP | 29 Misc.2d 713 (1961) | sc2d7131477 ...
https://www.leagle.com/decision/196174229misc2d7131477
... amended complaint to be served by the plaintiff. 6. This branch of the motion is to dismiss the amended complaint with respect to the defendant Beach Haven Shopping Center, Inc., on the ground of legal insufficiency. The plaintiff has consented to the dismissal stating that the inclusion of this defendant was an oversight.
Fred Trump 1954 06 18 senate interview of Fred ... - Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../1954-06-18-senate-interview-of-fred-trump.pdf
1Kr. Simon, Mr. Trump, what is your connectn witr. Beach Haven Apartments, Inc.s? Mr-o Tramp. I am Pr'esident of Boach Raven Apartments. 14r S imon. Who are the stockholders of Beach Haven? Mr.' Trump, Fred C. Tivinp and William Tomasello. ?e, 81cor. Roughly speaking, vhatt 49roportion of the stock do you own?
-
100 percent correct. Notice also how the eyebrows and nose of "Harvey" and "Lee" match perfectly in your graphic which would not be the case with two unique individuals.
Yep W., the latest from Sandy is a genuine classic, paraphrasing "there is no missing teeth on the dental charts because they were replaced with prosthetic teeth"!? :o
It's pretty clear to me that the Marine Dental facility served two functions, they wanted all the Marines to have problem free teeth and at the same time they also had an accurate dental forensic record in case of some sort of tragedy.
Anyway this is apparently the best representation of the two different men, Harvey and Lee.
(http://i44.tinypic.com/16bxzkz.jpg)
So naturally I wanted to see if there was any similarities and the first step is to do a simple overlay. I've got to wonder if anyone on team "Harvey and Lee" did this essential comparison because before any further analysis, all the facial features and overall head shape and size are virtually perfect.
(https://s17.postimg.org/6i4ekhfrj/harvey_lee_layered.jpg)
To get a better idea of what's going on I made an animation and because both views are slightly offset we can see if everything fits in 3D space and as usual because it's the same person we have equal relative depth maps.
The shape of the head is the same, the ears, eyes, nose, lips are all the same shape and in the same position, you can even see where his hair was and watch it recede. After all this facial analysis I'm getting very familiar with Oswald's unique face like his pointed top lip, his pouting bottom lip and minor blemishes like the triangular shape of the acne type scars on Oswald's chin and the divot to his left side.
(https://s17.postimg.org/jm9yx603j/lee_and_harvey.gif)
JohnM
-
Thanks John, I'll post this over at EF.
-
Strange that the later photo of Oswald (the one on the right) shows him with much thicker sideburns that the earlier one. How often does that happen?
And the younger Oswald has much larger ears than the older one on the right.
-
Strange that the later photo of Oswald (the one on the right) shows him with much thicker sideburns that the earlier one. How often does that happen?
And the younger Oswald has much larger ears than the older one on the right.
Strange that the later photo of Oswald (the one on the right) shows him with much thicker sideburns that the earlier one. How often does that happen?
Shaving? Haircut?
And the younger Oswald has much larger ears than the older one on the right.
No.
The two heads are not on the same plane, in relation to the camera. In other words, one head (and therefore one set of ears) is closer to the camera than the other head (and the other set of ears).
-
Strange that the later photo of Oswald (the one on the right) shows him with much thicker sideburns that the earlier one. How often does that happen?
And the younger Oswald has much larger ears than the older one on the right.
Strange that the later photo of Oswald (the one on the right) shows him with much thicker sideburns that the earlier one. How often does that happen?
Wow, your first attempt of refutation is that Oswald had a haircut!?
And the younger Oswald has much larger ears than the older one on the right.
As Bill has already mentioned Oswald's ears are 3D shapes and will have a different appearance due to the camera angle.
Another consideration is that the camera distance will also have a effect
(https://i1.wp.com/neurosciencenews.com/files/2012/09/perception-distance.jpg?fit=350%2C264)
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1e7e0110ab612a29851202706b3f3084-c)
But anyway enough of the petty observations and let's get down and dirty with how likely it is to find an exact double.
(http://www.ilovegetsmart.com/king.jpg)
In the following comparison we see an Obama dead ringer that won a lookalike competition, in the here and now with access to such a large sample base finding close lookalikes must be far easier than the FBI/CIA searching for a double in the 1950's.
(https://s17.postimg.org/ypj9z2b4v/image.jpg)
But a closer analysis shows a multitude of flaws, the eyes are a different distance apart, the ears are a different shape, the facial laugh lines show a different life, the cheekbones are higher, the forehead is wider and the overall head shape is not the same.
(https://s17.postimg.org/t031ee9zz/obamalookalike.gif)
This Matt Damon impersonator is very close but again upon closer examination the differences are obvious.
(https://s17.postimg.org/qwsm74fgf/matt-damon-660-5.jpg)
The eyes again are a different distance apart, the ears go inwards, the lips are more poutier, the forehead has a bony protrusion, he has a broken nose, the front teeth are relatively moved about 2mm to his left and his chin is a lot wider.
(https://s17.postimg.org/xlz5moy33/matt_damon.gif)
Conclusion.
Finding a double with the following level of precision would have to be impossible.
(https://s17.postimg.org/jm9yx603j/lee_and_harvey.gif)
JohnM
-
Wow, your first attempt of refutation is that Oswald had a haircut!?
As Bill has already mentioned Oswald's ears are 3D shapes and will have a different appearance due to the camera angle.
Another consideration is that the camera distance will also have a effect
(https://i1.wp.com/neurosciencenews.com/files/2012/09/perception-distance.jpg?fit=350%2C264)
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1e7e0110ab612a29851202706b3f3084-c)
But anyway enough of the petty observations and let's get down and dirty with how likely it is to find an exact double.
(http://www.ilovegetsmart.com/king.jpg)
In the following comparison we see an Obama dead ringer that won a lookalike competition, in the here and now with access to such a large sample base finding close lookalikes must be far easier than the FBI/CIA searching for a double in the 1950's.
(https://s17.postimg.org/ypj9z2b4v/image.jpg)
But a closer analysis shows a multitude of flaws, the eyes are a different distance apart, the ears are a different shape, the facial laugh lines show a different life, the cheekbones are higher, the forehead is wider and the overall head shape is not the same.
(https://s17.postimg.org/t031ee9zz/obamalookalike.gif)
This Matt Damon impersonator is very close but again upon closer examination the differences are obvious.
(https://s17.postimg.org/qwsm74fgf/matt-damon-660-5.jpg)
The eyes again are a different distance apart, the ears go inwards, the lips are more poutier, the forehead has a bony protrusion, he has a broken nose, the front teeth are relatively moved about 5mm to his left and his chin is a lot wider.
(https://s17.postimg.org/xlz5moy33/matt_damon.gif)
Conclusion.
Finding a double with the following level of precision would have to be impossible.
(https://s17.postimg.org/jm9yx603j/lee_and_harvey.gif)
JohnM
Jason Bourne. The man of many identities. ;D
-
Thanks John, I'll post this over at EF.
No worries, here's the latest off the wall theory, that this guy isn't Oswald because the teeth look wrong.
(http://harveyandlee.net/Marines/LHO-1957.jpg)
But a direct comparison with the dug up Oswald again presents a perfect match, even though the following sets of teeth were photographed at slightly different angles it's clear that Oswald's teeth were uniquely asymmetrical with off center front teeth which along with the shape, position and angle of each of Oswald's sawtooth like teeth can only possibly be Oswald.
(https://s17.postimg.org/sldejok5b/ozzy_teethh.gif)
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/top_teeth_inside_view.jpg)
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/teeth_front_view.jpg)
JohnM
-
"perfect match". LOL.
-
While looking for some early Oswald photos it seems that for whatever reason he was reluctant to give a big toothy grin, in fact he mainly covered his top teeth with his top lip. A habit that followed him into adulthood. Oswald is again pulling his top lip over his top teeth and what we see is just shadows inside his mouth.
So I made a quick morph and it becomes obvious to me that in the classroom photo we can see Oswald straining his top lip over his gums and teeth to bring his lip forward.
Kinda like this................................
(http://hnn.us/sites/default/files/154036-Lee_Harvey_Oswald-USMC.jpg)
So, I guess the historical records are wrong then, and this is not really Lee Oswald.
-
(http://hnn.us/sites/default/files/154036-Lee_Harvey_Oswald-USMC.jpg)
So, I guess the historical records are wrong then, and this is not really Lee Oswald.
Considering the change of angle, the match of tooth size and overall spacing is virtually identical.
(http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth2/teeth_front_view.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/xm5zvaoaz/young_ossy_crooked_teeth.gif)
JohnM
-
Another example of the LNer doing the necessary science and analysis, in response to yet another casually-tossed-out off-the-cuff gut-feeling CT claim.
Funny how some CTs claim their group are the ones more interested in research, analysis and satisfying curiosity.
-
Considering the change of angle, the match of tooth size and overall spacing is virtually identical.
Now we have a resident forensic dentist in our midst!
And a rush to kudos from his com-padres.
Loves the word virtual -----
almost, nearly, close to, verging on, just about, essentially, roughly, approximately
But not exactly....not precisely matching.
Nice try though................(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
Now we have a resident forensic dentist in our midst!
And a rush to kudos from his com-padres.
Loves the word virtual -----But not exactly....not precisely matching.
You have a unending propensity for stating the bleeding obvious.
How can images of overlayed teeth line up perfectly when both sets of front teeth were not photographed at the same angle? But what you can't hide is the very specific non-symmetrical arrangement of Oswald's teeth with the same spacing, position and size.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/xm5zvaoaz/young_ossy_crooked_teeth.gif)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/u6wpogrd7/young_ossy_crooked_teeth_morph.gif)
JohnM
-
More of the same. "Mytton" morphs two things together, just declares that they are identical, and expects that to be the end of it. If they are not identical, he just repeats the claim that they are identical.
-
... it seems that for whatever reason he was reluctant to give a big toothy grin, in fact he mainly covered his top teeth with his top lip.
Posting therein Oswald's police mug shot...demonstrating a failure there to smile with a big fat wide grin...like so--- ;D
-
Posting therein Oswald's police mug shot...demonstrating a failure there to smile with a big fat wide grin...like so--- ;D
JohnM "... it seems that for whatever reason he was reluctant to give a big toothy grin, in fact he mainly covered his top teeth with his top lip."
(http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Oswald/headshots.jpg)
JohnM
-
More of the same.
Yep, and again comes your rinse wash and repeat response, you are a machine John you think you are the Terminator but you're really just the Robot from Lost in Space! Warning Warning!
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VC1_a2KhE7E/VgCn64_Se8I/AAAAAAAAOa8/sWKhU8XeBSY/s1600/Robot.gif)
"Mytton" morphs two things together, just declares that they are identical, and expects that to be the end of it. If they are not identical, he just repeats the claim that they are identical.
Where did I declare anything?, I don't need to because as they say in the classics a picture is worth a thousand words therefore a morph is worth a million!
(https://s15.postimg.cc/u6wpogrd7/young_ossy_crooked_teeth_morph.gif)
JohnM
-
.. morph is worth a million!
Wouldn't give two cents. :D That morph looks like a gangsta' rapper! :D
-
Wouldn't give two cents. :D That morph looks like a gangsta' rapper! :D
Wouldn't give two cents.
I don't need your money.
That morph looks like a gangsta' rapper!
To me it looks like one of those ads where you are told to brush your teeth or face these consequences.
Yes Mrs Marsh it does get in!
JohnM
-
Where did I declare anything?, I don't need to because as they say in the classics a picture is worth a thousand words therefore a morph is worth a million!
A million what? Pounds of BS?
-
A million what? Pounds of BS?
Don't you get anything right?
JohnM
-
There is more than just missing teeth missing-------
The Warren defenders only seem to be able to josh away questions that can't be answered like how could Lee Harvey Oswald be living a life in the Soviet Union and still be a stateside champion for Cuba?...
(http://harveyandlee.net/Comrade/Hoover.jpg)
On January 20, 1961, a man calling himself "Lee Oswald" met with Fred Sewell, manager of Bolton Ford Truck center in New Orleans. Oswald and another man told Mr. Sewell they wanted to buy trucks to send to Cuba. Sewell provided Oswald with a written proposal and the purchaser was listed as "Friends of Democratic Cuba." The Bolton sales order form listed FDC and the name "Oswald."
(http://harveyandlee.net/Comrade/Bolton.gif)
How many guns was in that van when it was shipped?
(http://harveyandlee.net/Comrade/Friends.gif)
Guy Banister?! How did that slimy weasel get into this picture?
Where does the timeline say Oswald was in January 1961?
January 4, 1961: LHO rejects Soviet citizenship, but asks that his residence permit be extended. In his diary, he confides thoughts of leaving Russia for the first time.
BTW---about this diary...when did Oswald decide to start keeping a diary...when did he decide to stop?
-
Bolton Ford Incident:
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1408-the-bolton-ford-incident
Impostor using LHO BC:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html
-
I don't know where [topic starter] Sandy Larson has been.
I have seen him previously over on the Ed forum.
I certainly would have not titled John-Armstrongism as 'indisputable'.
(https://debunked.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/oswaldbirthrecord3.jpg)
A certified copy of Lee Oswald’s actual Louisiana birth certificate, issued in 1963 and withheld until 1994.
https://debunked.wordpress.com/the-possessions-of-lee-harvey-oswald-identification-documents/
Why was Oswald's birth certificate "withheld until 1994"?
Why was it necessary to certify a certificate? And again... withhold it?
From that (References & links to websites which contain pornographic images and/or abusive content directed at members of this Forum is strictly prohibited ) site that Mr Parnell linked...
(https://i.servimg.com/u/f58/17/60/28/90/bolton10.png)
Of course the very-very strangest matter of this document and the Bolton Motors bid sheet posted above are the words Oswald- New Orleans-Cuba
What are the chances? Amazing is Mr Deslatte found that three yr old form.
-
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CNDsB60x89I/WHe0G_EITrI/AAAAAAAAANU/fvoDxkWPacg2N2GIkqKwQrkstgbpgk9UgCPcB/s320/New%2BHarvey%2BOswald%2BAffidavit.jpg)
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html
A copy of Oswald's birth certificate that isn't reversed. Kind of small but that's OK.
Well I'll Swanee ...my own is reversed!
If someone can obtain a birth certificate then someone else can too. Oswald was said to have taken his original birth certificate with him when he went to the USSR. What happened to it?
-
The Harvey and Lee twin/clone caper is one of the most shameful - if not THE most shameful - and embarrassing "theories" of the JFK case. To rehash for newbies that come here, here's what folks are expected to believe:
Right after WWII, some American secret agents were in Hungary and found a kid wandering the streets there. Lo and behold he looked exactly like the American born Lee Harvey Oswald, who was at the time around 7 years of age.
Somehow, these secret agents tracked down this kid's Mom and again - lo and behold - they discovered that his Mother looked exactly like the American born Oswald's Mom EXCEPT - gasp! - she never smiled and had a unibrow. Close enough.
So they bring both of these people back to the U.S. and, together with Lee and his Mom, trained them to become secret agents too. Keep in mind that this all was taking place for around 10 whole years before Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.
The proof of all of this happening, as explained ad naseum by true believers of the caper, was that Harvey the European boy and Lee the American one, were seen at various schools, in the military and around various towns living parallel lives. For example, Lee was going to school in LA while Harvey was going to school in NYC. And so on and so forth...
Meanwhile, the secret agents were keeping both versions of the boys and their Moms on the back burner for 10 whole years. For what nefarious reason only the secret agents and the god your choice only know.
Then on Nov 22, 1963, the hatch was sprung - one twin did the shooting of Kennedy while the other took the fall for the crime. He was picked up at the theater and was gunned down in the police station, while the other led the first one to the theater, went out the back door of the movie house and was never heard from again.
THAT is what folks are expected to believe what happened to JFK in '63. It's truly a frightening story not because it's false, but because many, many folks out there - you know the folks you walk past and see in stores and coffee shops - are the same people who actually have fallen for this story and get raving mad at you when you tell them the story is a load of bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns.
-
Brian, it's good to read that you have finally revealed that you DO have a sense of humor. Kudos to you.
-
One theory forwarded was that Oswald was a "Manchurian Candidate" hypnotized to assassinate the president. [The same was said about Sirhan Sirhan]
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10673#relPageId=81&tab=page
Pages 76-89
There is no evidence that Oswald was stalking Pres Kennedy.
-
JohnM "... it seems that for whatever reason he was reluctant to give a big toothy grin, in fact he mainly covered his top teeth with his top lip."
(http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Oswald/headshots.jpg)
JohnM
The only one of the Oswalds that appears to have a full ear to ear grin is strangely the one in the 2nd row and center column with the big nose not anything close to similar to all the other Oswald photos
And his mouth seems to be artificially darkened and his hair is opposite combed with receding hair portion opposite side also
-
The only one of the Oswalds that appears to have a full ear to ear grin is strangely the one in the 2nd row and center column with the big nose not anything close to similar to all the other Oswald photos
And his mouth seems to be artificially darkened and his hair is opposite combed with receding hair portion opposite side also
He is smiling in row 4 ( down from top) far right.
Teeth look good.
Armstrong (Harvey and Lee ) is right up there with Posner, Lifton, Bugliosi, Dale Myers, Thomas Mallon, Patricia McMillan...
Let's reach a conclusion/hypothesis, and then try to prove it. By omitting certain facts, inventing/misrepresenting others, etc.
-
He is smiling in row 4 ( down from top) far right.
Teeth look good.
Armstrong (Harvey and Lee ) is right up there with Posner, Lifton, Bugliosi, Dale Myers, Thomas Mallon, Patricia McMillan...
Let's reach a conclusion/hypothesis, and then try to prove it. By omitting certain facts, inventing/misrepresenting others, etc.
Amen! Whatever evidence Armstrong, Hargrove, Josephs, or Sandy, and recently, Butler cannot find, becomes a declaration somehow proving their conclusions.
Opposite of a fact finding process!
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/armstrong-evolving-landesberg-theory.html
W. Tracy Parnell: John Armstrong and His Evolving ...wtracyparnell.blogspot.com › armstrong-evolving-landesberg-theory
Jan 6, 2017 - Even Armstrong admits that Rizzuto was Landesberg the student. ... FBI document located by researcher Tom Scully, we now have a detailed ...
They "learned" this, (about the postal money order) from my research, but of course, they credit themselves for disproving the faulty research and conclusion I actually disproved.
I have no use for their indifference to their predictably misleading pattern of presentation.... :
https://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html
.....NOTE: Wilmouth's statement, "Postal money orders sent to Kansas City" is interesting. We previously learned that after January 5, 1963 postal money orders were sent to Washington, DC. (Prior to January 5, 1963 they were sent to Kansas City.) As VP of one of the countries largest banks Wilmouth should have known this, and not made the mistake of saying the money orders were sent to Kansas City. However, if this report was fabricated, and Wilmouth's statement was concocted by the FBI, then it was the author of this FBI report who made the mistake of saying that postal money orders were sent to Kansas City.
Hargrove simply lifted this component of my research from my post quoted below, and used it without attribution in a face saving effort for Armstrong.
They intend to disincentivize anyone else from doing what Tracey Parnell, myself, and too few others are doing.... actual fact finding.
Verifiable facts frustrate and annoy them.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160120181748/http://jfk.education/node/11
Sorry Brian, Jean, and DVP, Banks Did Not Key-Punch 1963 P.O. Money Orders
Submitted by Admin (Tom Scully) on Tue, 11/10/2015 - 06:47
Updated November 19, 2015:
.....
(https://web.archive.org/web/20160120181748im_/http://jfk.education/images/POkeypunchedNotBank.jpg)
David Josephs went on Black Op radio, claiming the Arlington, VA archivist who located the Klein's money order there on Saturday evening, 11/23/63, did not exist. They are thin skinned self promoters, putting their gullible readers last, as far as accurately informing them!
They never actually admit their errors or recant their BS claims, or ever apologize! None of the gullible, CT faithful ever confront any of these self promoting clowns, encouraging them to continue being frequently wrong and in reaction to the actual facts, staging face saving withdrawals from their previous crap claims!
Armstrong's cadre and DiEugenio are never challenged by the rubes they victimize intellectually, and thus deserve all of the assaults on the truth they are open to being influenced by....
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22439-yes-postal-money-orders-do-require-bank-endorsements/page/10/?tab=comments#comment-319112
David Von Pein Posted November 21, 2015 (edited)
In a related "Money Order" matter....
DAVID JOSEPHS SAID [iN THE AUDIO CLIP BELOW]:
http://box.com/David Josephs On "Black Op Radio" (11/19/15)(Excerpt)
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In the above audio excerpt, David Josephs says that Robert Jackson's home address in Alexandria, Virginia, "does not exist".
But Tom Scully, himself a conspiracy theorist(!), has once again unearthed a document that tends to debunk some of the nonsense constantly being spouted by CTers about the money order and Oswald's purchase of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766. In this instance, Scully's research would seem to refute David Josephs' claim that Mr. Jackson's address does not exist at all.
On this webpage, Scully posted a photo of the death certificate of Robert Henry Jackson, one of the men who was involved in the initial retrieving and handling of the CE788 Hidell money order on November 23, 1963 [see CD87]. Jackson died in January 1977, and his residence is shown on his death certificate as "6108 Leewood Drive" in Alexandria, Virginia, the same city, located just 7 miles south of downtown Washington, D.C., where the Hidell money order was found on 11/23/63....
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uJi5ru1Xxag/VlAdUUhN6AI/AAAAAAABIOE/DkH4l2FWWWQ/s1600/Robert-Jackson-Death-Certificate.jpg)
-
Every single time I see the word indisputable from a conspiracy type, somehow it never turns out to be. Fact.
-
How this absurd garbage is considered reasonable and likely is an insult to intelligent people and is not worthy of discussion. Apologies to CT’s.
Mr. May: these garbage conspiracy theories - Harvey and Lee, Lifton, etc. - make the whole research community look like a bunch of tinfoil hat loons.
For the record, I am skeptical about the official story. I am not skeptical about the "grassy knoll" crowd. No, I am outright dismissive of these nuts. While I think we disagree about the Assassination, though I am not sure, I think agree on one thing: facts.
And those seem to be sorely lacking from these folks.
Thank you.
Good day!
-
I don't need your money.
To me it looks like one of those ads where you are told to brush your teeth or face these consequences.
Yes Mrs Marsh it does get in!
JohnM
'If someone offers a penny for your thoughts and you put in your two cents worth, who gets the extra penny?' -- Steven Wright
-
This theory is a big pile of trash. Even as a work of fiction it is quite ridiculous. Makes a mockery of the case and discredits legitimate theories.
Fred
-
Mr. May: these garbage conspiracy theories - Harvey and Lee, Lifton, etc. - make the whole research community look like a bunch of tinfoil hat loons.
For the record, I am skeptical about the official story. I am not skeptical about the "grassy knoll" crowd. No, I am outright dismissive of these nuts. While I think we disagree about the Assassination, though I am not sure, I think agree on one thing: facts.
And those seem to be sorely lacking from these folks.
Thank you.
Good day!
John, apologies for delay in response. Just saw your posting and I agree completely.
-
Mr. May: these garbage conspiracy theories - Harvey and Lee, Lifton, etc. - make the whole research community look like a bunch of tinfoil hat loons.
For the record, I am skeptical about the official story. I am not skeptical about the "grassy knoll" crowd. No, I am outright dismissive of these nuts. While I think we disagree about the Assassination, though I am not sure, I think agree on one thing: facts.
And those seem to be sorely lacking from these folks.
Thank you.
Good day!
I did not answer the other part of your question. I’ve maintained my position for years. I believe Oswald and ONLY Oswald fired 3 times on 11/22 to the exclusion of anybody else killing JFK at ZAP 312-313. I cannot rule out the possibility another individual(s) and or/organization(s) were working with Oswald so a potential conspiracy is possible yet not provable to this day nor will it ever be.
-
So out of those 24 photos, only the Helmet Oswald grinning has all his teeth visible.
And only 3 out of 24, have Oswald grinning, one of which (fat nose in 2nd row down )has his teeth darkened out completely, and the other, (teenager Oswald )missing a tooth.
Could that USMC photo be Oswald with his false tooth in place, so as to look his best for that brief time where he might have considered it an important photo?
-
Quote from: John Tonkovich on July 04, 2020, 04:02:50 PM
. . . these garbage conspiracy theories - Harvey and Lee, Lifton, etc. - make the whole research community look like a bunch of tinfoil hat loons.
Actually, Lifton's theory has received powerful confirmation from ARRB-released documents and from other disclosures and research over the last decade. You might want to read the five-volume work Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, written by Doug Horne, who was the ARRB's chief analyst of military records.
As for the Harvey and Lee theory, I think the problem with it is not that there is no evidence for it (there is plenty) but that it sounds so wild and exotic and has some profoundly disturbing implications. I must admit that for a very long time, I ignored the theory because it seemed so fantastic, like something out of an overly imaginative spy novel. But, like it or not, there is solid evidence for the theory.
The Oswald autopsy, far from debunking the two Oswalds theory, actually constitutes evidence for the theory. Investigative journalist Dick Russell discusses the autopsy in chapter 18 of his book On the Trail of the JFK Assassins (2008).
When journalist and author Joe Patoski decided to write an article about the two Oswalds theory for Texas Monthly, he did so only because he thought the theory was ludicrous and crazy. But, after spending some time looking at the evidence, he came away stunned by some of it and concluded that there might be something to it. Patoski was impressed by two pieces of evidence: Hoover's 1960 memo about someone possibly using Oswald's birth certificate and the account of Frank Kudlaty that Oswald attended a junior high school in Fort Worth and that he handed over Oswald's school records to the FBI. Patoski tracked Kudlaty, and Kudlaty confirmed the account:
There is in fact a memo from J. Edgar Hoover written in 1960 saying “there is a possibility that an impostor is using Oswald’s birth certificate.” But an even more intriguing moment occurred for me when Armstrong began talking about Frank Kudlaty. Kudlaty was the vice principal at Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth, where I was a student on November 22, 1963. Kudlaty told Armstrong of handing over Oswald’s school records to two agents from the FBI the day after the assassination. According to the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald attended junior high schools in New York and New Orleans but not in Fort Worth. The FBI denies the existence of the Stripling records.
I tracked down Kudlaty in Waco, where he now lives in retirement after a lengthy career as a school administrator in several Texas cities. He related the incident that turned out to be his brush with infamy. The day after the assassination, Mr. Wylie, Stripling’s principal, asked him to pull Oswald’s records and hand them over to FBI agents. Kudlaty recalled those events and briefly examined the records before handing them over. “I do recall the grades were not good,” he told me. That has bothered him ever since. “A person of that mind could teach himself Russian and pass himself as Russian? I don’t think so,” Kudlaty said.
The Hoover memo and that short conversation with Kudlaty put more doubt in my mind than the two days I spent with Armstrong and his blizzard of documents. Is there a good explanation for what happened to those records? Was Kudlaty wrong? And what was Hoover talking about in that memo, and what’s the story behind it? I don’t know the answers and I’m not going to devote my life to finding out. But here was one undeniable, strange, and tantalizing fact in the memo and the personal testimony of a man I knew and respected, and that almost had me going. It was enough to let me understand why a man like Armstrong has fallen under the spell of the Two Oswalds. (https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-two-oswalds/)