Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Jim Hargrove

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jim Hargrove

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,800 profile views
  1. LOL! Mr. Parker’s attempted rebuttal involves calling a liquid sealant a dental prosthetic and a couple of paraphrased reports about the fight, including one by a kid who didn’t know Oswald. He tries to use this to overcome the clear, sworn testimony of Oswald’s friend, the kid who took the photo of the missing tooth and tried to treat Oswald's wound in the boys' room after the fight. To explain why Lillian Murett had to pay a dentist to treat Lee Oswald’s wound, Mr. Parker says... nothing. Notice that no H&L critic has the courage to summarize Mr. Parker’s argument and put it here. It's too embarrassing for them. Just look at the LIFE mag pictures!
  2. Isn’t it amusing that the anti-H&L folks here indulge in lots of insults, plenty of psycho-babble, and all sorts of irrelevant prose, but they simply are unable to refute the evidence. To those who read this but don’t participate, why not just follow the evidence? No matter what the CIA defenders and H&L critics say, they can't make the evidence go away.
  3. A statement like the above is why I so often urge people to find a copy of the 2/21/64 edition of LIFE magazine, which published the photo on pp. 70-71. Here’s the cover of my copy of that edition: And here’s the full two-page spread from the magazine with Ed Voebel’s picture of LEE Oswald showing off his missing front tooth. Even though I just snapped the two pictures above with my cell phone, if you look closely you can see the damage to Oswald’s front teeth in the second photo. If the photo was retouched, how strange that it matches the sworn testimony of the original photographer, who said he thought Oswald got a bloody lip and lost a tooth during the encounter. How strange that it matches the evidence from the U.S. Marine Corps that Lee Oswald had a dental prosthetic. How strange that it matches the evidence of the 1958 photo of LEE Oswald in Japan, which shows either one or two upper front teeth decidedly different from the others. Sandy’s theory that the image’s darker and possibly crumbling upper front teeth might actually be a picture of the failed prosthesis is bolstered by the fact that both the photo and the dental report were made in 1958. Observations such as these compel the usual H&L critics to make the usual ad hominem attacks against us. No matter what the critics say, though, the evidence doesn’t go away.
  4. Oh for cryin' out loud. And here's how the kid who took the photo of LEE Oswald and tended to his wounds in the boys room after the second fight testified to the WC: Mr. JENNER. Tell me the circumstances of that, please. Mr. VOEBEL. Well, the day before, maybe a couple of days before, Lee had a fight with a couple of boys. Mr. JENNER. Do you know their names? Mr. VOEBEL. They were the Neumeyer boys, John and Mike. Mr. JENNER. John and Mike? Mr. VOEBEL. Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER. They were classmates? Mr. VOEBEL. Yes. Well, I think one of them was in the same grade as Lee. One was older than the other one. The younger one was maybe a grade or two below Lee, and Lee was in a fight with John, the older one. Mr. JENNER. Let's see, if I have that straight now. Lee was in a fight with the elder of two Neumeyer brothers; is that right? Mr. VOEBEL. Right. He was in a fight with John Neumeyer. The fight, I think started on the school ground, and it sort of wandered down the street in the direction naturally in which I was going. Mr. JENNER. Was it a protracted fight? Mr. VOEBEL. Protracted? Mr. JENNER. Yes; did it keep going on? Mr. VOEBEL. Yes, it kept going on, across lawns and sidewalks, and people would run them off, and they would only run to the next place, and it continued that way from block to block, and as people would run them off of one block, they would go on to the next. Mr. JENNER. That was fisticuffs; is that right? Mr. VOEBEL. Right. Mr. JENNER. Were they about the same age? Mr. VOEBEL. Oswald and John? Mr. JENNER. Yes. Mr. VOEBEL. I don't know; I guess so. Mr. JENNER. How about size? Mr. VOEBEL. I think John was a little smaller, a little shorter than Lee. Mr. JENNER. Do you know what caused the fight? Mr. VOEBEL. No; I don't. I don't remember that. Mr. JENNER. But you followed this fight from place to place, did you not? Mr. VOEBEL. Yes. Mr. JENNER. Why, were you curious? Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; and well, it was also on my way home, going that way. The fight traveled my route home. Mr. JENNER. All right, what happened as this fight progressed down the street? Mr. VOEBEL. Well, I think Oswald was getting the best of John, and the little brother sticking by his brother, stepped in too, and then it was two against one, so with that Oswald just seemed to give one good punch to the little brother's jaw, and his mouth started bleeding. Mr. JENNER. Whose mouth? Mr. VOEBEL. Mike Neumeyer. Mr. JENNER. The little boy? Mr. VOEBEL. Yes, sir. Mike's mouth started bleeding, and when that happened, the whole sympathy of the crowd turned against Oswald for some reason, which I didn't understand, because it was two against one, and Oswald had a right to defend himself. In a way, I felt that this boy got what he deserved, and in fact, later on I found out that this boy that got his mouth cut had been in the habit of biting his lip. Oswald might have hit him on the shoulder or something, and the boy might have hit his lip, and it might have looked like Oswald hit him in the mouth, but anyway, somebody else came out and ran everybody off then, and the whole sympathy of the crowd was against Lee at that time because he had punched little Mike in the mouth and made his mouth bleed. I don't remember anything that happened after that, but I think I just went on home and everybody went their way, and then the next day or a couple of days later we were coming out of school in the evening, and Oswald I think, was a little in front of me and I was a couple of paces behind him, and I was talking with some other people, and I didn't actually see what happened because it all happened so quick. Some big guy, probably from a high school--he looked like a tremendous football player--punched Lee right square in the mouth, and without him really knowing or seeing really who did it. I don't know who he was, and he ran off. That's when we ran after Lee to see if we could help him. Mr. JENNER. He just swung one lick and ran? Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; that's what they call passing the post. He passed the post on him. Mr. JENNER. Passed the post, what's that? Mr. VOEBEL. That's when somebody walks up to you and punches you. That's what's called punching the post, and someone passed the post on Lee at that time. Mr. JENNER. You think that might have happened because of the squabble he had with the two Neumeyer boys a day or two before? Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; 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, so that's when I felt sympathy toward Lee for something like this happening, and a couple of other boys and I--I don't remember who they were, but they brought him back in the restroom and tried to fix him up, and that's when our friendship, or semi-friendship, you might say, began. We weren't really buddy-buddy, but it was just a friendship, I would say. 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.
  5. Thank you Sandy, Jim, and Paz. It sounds like good advice.
  6. Once again, I suggest to any lurkers wondering about all this that they JUST get themselves a copy of the February 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine. The remarkably good photo of LEE Oswald taken by Ed Voebel is shown on pp. 70-71 of the magazine. You don't even need a magnifying glass to see Oswald's missing tooth/teeth. Don't just believe or disbelieve me, but by all means, look for yourself! Then read the sworn testimony of Ed Voebel, the kid who took the picture; the kid who watched the entire fight and described it in great detail during his testimony; the same kid who testified that he thought Oswald lost a tooth in the fight. How do we know Voebel was right and Greg Parker is wrong? JUST LOOK AT THE PICTURE! It's that simple.
  7. LOL! Someone sure knows his Classic Oswald timetable. Also, DJ, let's not forget Paul's E.A. Ekdahl excuse. So, for the record on that, Ekdahl and Marguerite got hitched on May 4, 1945 and they separated just a year later. All that time for young LEE to become a sophisticated traveler and lose his Southern accent? Sheesh!
  8. That's interesting. I had always figured that the front tooth or two were normal prosthetics that were just a little darker than his natural teeth, but I hadn't noticed that they do indeed look a little shorter as well. (I have several capped teeth, and they are brighter than my natural teeth are now, and so I suppose some dentists might make false teeth slightly darker than the natural ones so they would look match more closely after a few years.) But your theory is interesting because it accounts for the shorter front teeth, which I hadn't noticed before. This is the sort of thing that would constitute a truly failed prosthetic, eh, as opposed to certain silly theories involving liquids, eh? LOL!
  9. Indeed! Do you think I should send this to Mr. DiMaio?
  10. In a pig’s eye, boys! You can dress up that pig in all the ribbons and bows and pretty dresses you can find, but it will still be a pig. Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell want us to believe that a man who for years had these teeth…. … would check in with a USMC dentist who would indicate that a “prosthesis failed” and that the dentist would be referring to liquid sealant as the failed prosthesis. I can hear that dentist’s report even after all these years…. SSgt Dentist: “Sir, Private Oswald’s dental sealant has failed!” 1stLt Parker: “How did that happen, Staff Sergeant?” SSgt Dentist: “Because he has no front teeth to hold the sealant, Sir!” LOL! Search for all the obscure arguments you can find on the net. Your arguments are still hogwash! Look up images of dental prosthetics on the net. You’ll find things like these…. https://www.canstockphoto.com/images-photos/dental-prosthesis.html You guys will have a real handle on things... when pigs fly! LOL.
  11. Sandy, I agree that the missing tooth/teeth are much more visible in the contrast adjusted image, and I often show both it and the one I snapped off the LIFE page with my cell phone, together, as I do below. The anti-H&L crowd shouldn't be allowed to claim we have "doctored" the photos in any way. The original closeup I took with my cell phone directly off p. 70 of my copy of LIFE magazine is shown immediately below. The enhanced contrast edition Sandy posted on page 1 of this thread is shown immediately below it. Both images make our point quite nicely! As always, I urge interested people to buy the Feb 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine and look for themselves. I bought my copy online a few years ago and it didn't cost much. Isn't it interesting that the 1958 photo of LEE Oswald in Japan show his front tooth (or two) a slightly different color than the rest of his upper teeth visible in the photo. What a remarkable coincidence that the slightly different colored teeth seem to exactly match the missing tooth or teeth in Voebel's photo!
  12. Oh for crying out loud. Use ANY reproduction of the photo you want. Do what I did and buy yourself a copy of the 2/21/1964 edition of LIFE magazine—it still only costs a few bucks. You guys all whine about whether there was one or two or two and a half missing teeth or merely a “gaping whole” in his teeth as if this changes the clear fact that LEE Oswald’s mouth and teeth were seriously damaged in this fight and that he CLEARLY, OBVIOUSLY lost one or two teeth from it. Look at the picture, any version of it, and whine all you want. This evidence is not going away, no matter how Tracy Parnell or Greg Parker or Paul Trejo or Michael Walton try to talk about super glue and split lips treated by dentists. Be honest! At the very least, admit that you can’t explain Voebel’s picture or his testimony. Relying on obscure references to liquid sealants doesn’t even begin to cut it. And by the way, while you guys are trying to explain away the clear, obvious evidence of LEE Oswald’s lost teeth, take a look at this 1958 photo of LEE Oswald in Japan. Note that his two front teeth are slightly but clearly colored differently from his other visible teeth. Isn’t it amazing that those are the same two teeth shown knocked out in Voebel’s camera.