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 an email 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

4,724 profile views
  1. Oswald’s Proficiency in the Russian Language

    Well then, what was your point in bringing up Karl Marx's extraordinary Russian learning ability, if not to compare it to Oswald's? I object, your honor! I mean... who said I was was trying to "play lawyer?" I was merely pointing out your apparent self-contradiction. There's no need to be a lawyer to do that.
  2. Joe, It seems to me that a photographic expert is what you need. As for me, I'm satisfied with the preponderance of the evidence. There is so much evidence for there being two Oswalds that the photo showing the tooth missing is of little significance on it's own. Of course, if it could be proven beyond doubt that the tooth is missing in the photo, and that the photo was taken the day after the tooth was lost or later, this would be absolute proof of two Oswald boys. But no matter what, there is always going to be some doubt over the photo. There is always going to be some possibility that there is a defect on the photographic film where the tooth appears to be missing. And there is always going to be some possibility that Ed Voebel just happened to have his camera at school the day of the fight, and thereby got a picture before the tooth was reset, and was able to patch up Oswald's lip in the boys room, get the photo taken without any blood showing, take Oswald to the school's main office, have Marguerite called, wait for Marguerite to arrive, and still get Oswald to a dentist in time to have his tooth successfully reset. But I go by the odds. Odds are that that Ed Voebel is right about Oswald losing his tooth because Aunt Lillian corroborates that narrative. Odds are that the photo does indeed show a missing tooth because, after all, the odds show that Oswald did indeed lose a tooth. Plus odds are that there doesn't just happen to be a film defect that makes it look like a tooth is missing. Odds are that the photo was NOT taken the day the tooth was lost, because 1) kids don't routinely take cameras to school and so Ed Likely did not have his that day; and 2) because there is no indication in the photo that Oswald had just been in a fight.... no blood, no paper towels or toilet paper dressing the wound, etc. And since the odds are the photo was taken a day or more after the tooth was lost, odds are that the tooth could not have been successfully reset. (Even these days one needs to get to a dentist within an hour of losing a tooth to have much hope of having it successfully reset.) There is only one conceivable reason a person would bet against all those odds, and that is if he knows for a fact that there was only one boy Oswald. Problem is, the odds are also high that there were two boy Oswalds. The fact that the school records show him attending two schools simultaneously. The fact that navy medical records show him in Japan when other navy records show him to be in Taiwan. And the list goes on and on. The odds are greatly in my favor. The odds are greatly against the anti-H&L gang. But they don't recognize that because they simple cannot accept the possibility that the CIA would go to such lengths as to groom a future spy beginning at childhood. I'll bet that these same folks would also deny the other fantastical things the U.S. has engaged in if they weren't widely accepted facts. Like the CIA's illegal and unethical LSD experiments on U.S. citizens. Like the proposed Operation Northwoods.
  3. Excellent catch and point, Jim. I think you're right. I think that Ed really did know that Oswald's lip was cut, and that he really did lose his tooth. BTW, I've noticed that a lot of commentators and people interviewed on news station routinely proceed many of their statements with the phrase, "I think." I've wondered if it is because they fear making an unintentional false statement and then being called on it.
  4. When Voebel told the story to the WC, why didn't he say, "and BTW I know for a fact he had missing teeth from that incident?" Instead he made the qualified statement that he thought he had a missing tooth. Because he wasn't sure. It had happened a long time ago.
  5. That's a simple question to ask, but would certainly be hard to answer very definitively unless one were to retrace Armstrong's steps. I know there are a few minor things I disagree with, because I recall thinking that I disagreed. Unfortunately I cannot remember specifically what those things were. If the right topic were to come up, I would recall how I disagree. But I can't do so off the cuff. However, I should point out that I have barely scratched the Harvey and Lee research surface. I've read only isolated parts of the book. There is so much information that I'm making timelines so I can make sense of it. There's a lot more to work with on the JFK assassination compared to Harvey & Lee. There are tens of thousands of released documents that are still being gone over with a fine tooth comb. And new analyses made. Even amateurs like myself can find new, significant things. For example, Thomas Graves and I discovered where Gloria Calvery was before and right after the assassination. (The work of others like Chris Davidson was instrumental in what we found.) Because of this we could compare the affidavits and WC testimonies of Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley with what we could see on film. We were able to prove that they both lied in their WC testimonies. Their first-day affidavits, on the other hand, appeared to be true as far as we could tell. Compare those FBI document to the ones related to Harvey & Lee. The FBI, of course, did not investigate the Harvey & Lee angle. Anything they did discover, they tried reconciling so that it described only one Oswald. Inevitably they overlooked a few things, like the semester where Oswald attended two schools. Armstrong has found most of those relevant documents, I'm sure. Unlike with the JFK assassination, there aren't thousands of FBI document to scour. Most of the H&L research had to be done by an Oswald researcher, and it was Armstrong who did it. Time is ticking and there is very little more research that can be done for Harvey & Lee. Witnesses are dead, or old and dying. Memories are failing. The JFK assassination, on the other hand, has already been researched and documented. Those documents will continue to be read and analyzed for many years to come. You're right, I've found nothing new. There have been a time or two I thought I found something new, but no... afterward I found it was already in Armstrong's book. Oh wait... I actually did add a little bit. Chris Newton and I discovered that the "Minsk photo" on Oswald's DoD card has a white semicircular area used for ID photos in Russia and other European countries, and that the so called "postal stamp" on it was actually put there (probably by Harvey) in order to camouflage an old security stamp in the white area. And that Richard Case Nagell got a photocopy of that, removed the "postal stamp," and camouflaged the old security stamp by drawing a suit coat over Oswald's shirt. I discovered that the "Minsk photo" is really a composite of Harvey and Lee, and so that photo must have been taken to Russia by Harvey. I later discovered that Armstrong had already found the photo to be a composite of Harvey and Lee. There's a whole lot more to this story. Chris did most the research work and we both did analysis. So yeah, I have added some. Not a lot. There might be other small things I've added. I don't know. But apparently nothing has been found. Bernie, I'm just an amateur investigator. The only investigating I do is look for clues in documents. I don't interview anybody, look for anybody, or even call anybody. I don't have the resources, time, energy, or desire to be a real researcher. (I am an analysis guy, though.) It doesn't matter much to me how Lee and Marguerite disappeared. It would be nice to know what happened to them, but it's not something that is necessary. Obviously they did disappear. Maybe they were placed in some sort of witness protection program. I don't know. Armstrong had only a couple names to work with, and he did attempt to find them. He writes about his search in his book. He couldn't find one at all, and found too many of the other. (Multiple men with the same name.) One of those seem to fit the bill, but he's not certain. I don't think there is any more that can be done on this. Same thing looking for Lee and Marguerite. Even if I were a real investigator, I wouldn't waste my time on that angle. That was 65 years ago! Who would remember a tooth incident that far in the past? Even Ed Voebel was uncertain and that was 54 years years ago. I'm sure there is more that can be found. But Armstrong didn't leave much, it seems.
  6. As I have tried to explain, in any collection of data or evidence you will find things that do not fit. In a case in New York, over 2000 people "saw" 2 escaped convicts where they could not have been. That didn't prove they were there, it proves people will say anything for various reasons. Jim lists 10 things that "prove" 2 Oswalds. But it would be surprising if you didn't find that many anomalies out of the millions of pieces of Information in this case. Yeah, I'm sure most of us have school records indicating that we attended two schools simultaneously, and several other records indicating we were in two places at once. Etc., etc., etc.
  7. You have been provided with alternative explanations over and over again and you simply refuse to accept them. And don't bother asking me to provide them, they have been provided continually on this forum dating back to 2015. But these discussions serve a purpose for you. They provide attention and a chance to get new converts such as Sandy. I came to accept the theory because the evidence Jim provided was solid, while the arguments (alternative explanations) refuting it were mostly weak or non-existent.
  8. And how many of Oswald's acquaintances knew that Oswald got his tooth knocked out.... before he got a false tooth to replace it? Thirty? How many of those were asked to testify? Two? And How many years had passed between then and the assassination? Ten? People do forget things. But regardless of that, even if a number of witnesses remembered the missing tooth, and then saw Oswald on TV with a tooth, wouldn't they just figure that Oswald was wearing a false tooth?
  9. Ever hear of false teeth, Bernie? We talked about this pages ago. You're way behind.
  10. So by your logic, if something isn't mentioned , it didn't happen. Aunt Lillian said Lee was taken to the dentist. She didn't say why. According to you, then, Lee was taken to the dentist because nothing happened to his teeth. Greg said that maybe the picture shows the tooth pushed back into the shadow. If so, that pretty much means the tooth was knocked out. It has to come out of the socket before it will bend back like that. But that's a moot point because odds are that the photo was taken sometime later, like maybe the following day. Because kids back then didn't take their cameras to school indiscriminately or every day. Ed probably took it the following day, or a few days later, for the sole purpose of getting a picture of Lee's broken tooth.
  11. I have no doubt that it was well known among Lee's teacher and classmates. Even Ed Voebel. I don't know why you think that word would get back to us. Most of Lee's classmates didn't testify for the WC.
  12. Just to clarify, I didn't "push" that position. I said it was one of a number of possibilities.
  13. Well Bernie, if you ever come across some of those devastating arguments that tipped the scales for you against Harvey & Lee, I hope you will share them with us. Because so far I haven't seen any of that. Just a bunch of yap yap yap is what I've seen for the most part.
  14. Jim, The funny things is that Tracy and the others have no choice but to accept all those impossibilities as facts. We, on the other hand, explain them all with one simple explanation... there were two Oswalds. One Oswald = Numerous Impossibiities Two Oswalds = No Impossibilities
  15. This is rich! Mr. Laverick seems to be under the impression that someone (me?) is in charge here. Mr. Laverick would LIKE to be in charge, and sometimes acts like he THINKS he is, but he isn't either. No one is. Bernie is one confused puppy, isn't he.