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

Sandy Larsen

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sandy Larsen

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday 11/18/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,376 profile views
  1. I don't trust anything Marina said before the Warren Commission.
  2. Well I know that. And that furthermore -- in your opinion -- that wasn't to be expected. Which is what I was refuting. Yeah I saw that and I wanted to respond. But I got so frustrated that I gave up. I have an awful memory for names, and because of stupid PhotoBucket replacing photos with their logo when they did, I can no longer easily tie the names of those people to their photos. But my understanding is that the woman being interviewed in Bart's video is claiming that that blond headed woman is Gloria Calvery, and that she is a red head. Which is wrong on at least one count. I've never seen a red head who hair is so light that it comes out looking blond in B&W. Besides, we know that Gloria Calvery's hair is dark, not blond. I thought it was a dark brown, but I suppose it could be a darker shade of red. But I'm not sure I would trust even that information from the woman interviewed in Bart's video. She misidentified Gloria Calvery for sure, and I think she misidentified herself. Then she says Oswald and the others ate lunch on the second floor, when all indications are that they ate lunch on the first floor in the domino room. Can we trust anything this woman says? (It's beyond me how she could get the lunchroom wrong. Could it be that she's the only one who's got it right?) Anyway I think I've got to get serious about recovering my photos from PhotoBucket before they decide to purge their hard drives.
  3. Tommy, You said: "....when he came to the U.S., how are we to explain, then, the fact that "Harvey" spoke such grammatically-correct, Hungarian and Russian accent-free English later in life?" Or maybe she's an example is what should be expected of kids in her and Harvey's situation... having moved to the U.S. at a young age and then fully immersed in an English speaking environment for several years straight. I believe that the key to the grammatically correct, accent free, learning of my ex-wife and Harvey is the total language immersion in both cases.
  4. The Two Oswald Phenomena Explained

    Just now came across this (IMHO) important thread which Greg Parker started back in 2011 ... BUMP Greg Parker cherry-picked the three least convincing among the arguments for two Oswalds. Here are some highly convincing classes of evidence that he ignored: 1. Documented evidence that proves Oswald was in two places at the same time. For example, attending two schools simultaneously and receiving grades from both. And being treated for VD in Japan while at the same time working in Taiwan. Of course, there were really two Oswalds in both cases. 2. Several items of evidence indicatng Oswald lost a tooth in a fist fight -- including a photo showing the lost tooth. And a dentist's notation that his dental bridge had failed -- again including a photo showing the dental bridge falling apart. This alone proves there were two Oswalds, as the one who shot Ruby had no missing teeth or bridges. 3. A 1958 USMC dental x-ray showing a missing molar -- this belonging to one of the Oswalds -- and a NON-MATCHING 1981 exhumed dental x-ray showing NO missing molar -- this belonging to the other Oswald. Again, his alone proves that there were two Oswalds. I'm sure that Jim Hargrove could add to this list. This list covers only the evidence I am most familiar with.
  5. A timely bump? We've been through this before Tommy. A person who moves to another country early in life has a good chance of losing their accent, in particular when they are removed from their first-language environment. I don't have a reference for that, just my personal experience. My first wife was a South Korean orphan who move to the U.S. when she was about seven. She was nineteen when I met here and she had absolutely no accept and spoke excellent English, better than most native born Americans. Another example: My wife works at a small manufacturing company where illegal Mexicans have historically been able to get jobs. One of my wife's friends who works there is an illegal Mexican. About ten years ago her son, age 15, suddenly appeared. He had remained behind in Mexico till that time. My wife spent some time with him and informed me that he spoke no English. Though I wondered if he had taken English classes when in Mexico. Because I met him about four years later and he spoke English well, and with no accent. He had lived in an English speaking foster home during much of those four years. Admittedly, this guy's case is unusual.
  6. Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    Ron, that's a good point. I just looked at the slats again to see if I can see the outline of the car outside. I don't. The light we see shining through is from the ground. Some of it is possibly from the lower part of the car... on the driver's side. (The car outside is facing to the left.)
  7. Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    Don't the photos above tend to show that Mrs. Randle could not have seen Oswald put the package in the car? Unless she walked up to the wood slats in the carport and peeked between their cracks?
  8. Greg Parker makes a valid point, that as wisdom teeth mature and erupt, the jaw bone around them and adjacent teeth move too. This is necessarily so, and something that has not been lost on me. But it is something that is mostly irrelevant in Oswald's case. I'll explain. Pretend for a moment the following two x-rays are from the same Oswald: 1958 (from Marine Corps) 1953 (from Exhumation) To aid in the comparisons, Ive drawn in the jawlines the best I could make out. The 1958 x-ray shows that the wisdom tooth (the one to the far left) is fully mature and mostly -- if not fully-- erupted. There is not much more movement for that tooth to make. And so it won't be moving the tooth next to it around by much. If it erupts further, it looks like it will further tip the molar next to it. Beyond that, there is no reason why the two molars behind missing #30 molar would spontaneously move 1/4" toward the front in a TRANSLATIONAL manner. In other words, without tipping. Orthodontic treatment would be required to accomplish that feat. Because that is the only way forces could be applied to move the roots forward. Chewing cannot do that. Finally, regarding the second molar from the rear, there is no reason why the root shape would have changed from being fused (or nearly fused) to being wide open. The bottom line is that those two x-rays are too different from each other to consider them to be from the same person. Now, if you look at the pair of x-rays from the OPPOSITE (left) side of the mouth and compare them, you will see what changes can be expected in the five years, from 1958 to 1963. Because those two particular x-rays ARE from the same person... HARVEY. If we were having a serious discussion here I'd go to the effort of posting them for all to see, but we're not. There are some noticeable changes in the teeth location over the five years, but only minor and nowhere near as radical as what we see here in the x-rays I posted above.
  9. Sandy, There's no such note. There's a box marked, "Prosthesis Required? If 'Yes,' explain briefly," and it's marked "FAILED, 5-5-58". It's simply your subjective opinion that "FAILED" there meant that "Oswald needed a prosthesis." It's your leap of faith. You believe in your own subjective interpretation. But self-belief is never "indisputable." It's just as likely that "FAILED" meant that the dentist conducted a test on Oswald, as to whether he needed a prosthesis, and the test FAILED. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Problem is Paul, there is no such thing as a "prosthesis required test." And a non-existent test cannot failed. On the other hand, prostheses do fail: Fixed Bridges -- Top 5 Reasons They Fail.
  10. Maybe if you ignore the evil evidence long enough it will go away.
  11. Tommy, How do you explain the fact that the dentist noted that Oswald needed a prosthesis (false tooth) when in fact he had no missing teeth?
  12. That's just speculation. The only way to know is to ask him but I'm sure he's no longer around so it's easy for missing teeth supporters to make open-ended speculateve statements like this. It's easy to assume that just because there's no X written on the tooth but there IS the word MISSING written that the two are somehow related. The fact remains that the Prosthesis Required notation means that there was a missing tooth and a prosthesis to replace it. So for some reason the doctor didn't mark the missing tooth. Apparently you believe that Oswald required a prosthesis (false tooth) even though he had no missing teeth. Please explain that.