A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

In my 62 years, I have never before mentioned to ANYBODY that:

• My maternal grandfather wore false teeth.
• My older brother wore false teeth.
• My other brother has a bridge.
• A coworker of mine lost one of his front teeth.
• My mother lost one of her front teeth.

Not that I've been hiding anything. It's  just that, after the initial surprise of somebody losing a tooth, it's not a particularly interesting topic. It comes to mind only when the topic arises.

In addition, in my 62 years I do not recall anybody outside of my family informing me that somebody they knew wore false teeth or had a bridge.

That is surely the reason that nobody mentioned Lee's missing tooth. Or the bridge or false tooth he probably wore.

 

Yes and had one of the above been accused of assassinating JFK but there was a possibility of there being a doppelganger....It might,  just might, become in that context a bit important wouldn't you think? 

You mentioned a variation of this before. Do you remember? Then it was just the one friend who had a tooth missing and that apparently no one ever mentioned it, (except for you in that post!!) But of course you would remember it. As you did. And of course you would mention it. As you did. This is Sandy telling us about a guy with a missing tooth and that no one ever mentions it....Not even you? Right now? Jeez! Give me strength!

 

Which is the reason I said in mt OP:

".... it's not a particularly interesting topic. It comes to mind only when the topic arises."

The topic has arisen, Bernie.

 

[David Josephs]

7 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

I do believe I've found something a bit more compelling related to these teeth..

The Marines did a dental exam when Oswald entered service.  They noted in the Donabedian report, that Oswald was missing all 4 wisdom teeth and tooth #30 on the lower right near the back.

The Norton report also did a dental exam.  Except their exam shows all 4 wisdom teeth intact as well as the return of the missing tooth.

Lee Oswald, the person from whom this examination applies,  instead of the normal 32 teeth, only had 27...  4 wisdom teeth removed and a molar on the lower right.

Yet the man in the grave has 31 with no space for where the lower right tooth was extracted....

Why don't the number of teeth match?

you see, according to his induction exam:  he is missing 4 teeth... they are X'd out at the lower half of the report...

Teeth # 1, 17, 18, & 30 are "MISSING"   yet they're not missing in 1981....

The man in the grave with a full compliment of teeth is not LEE Oswald...
The man in the grave did not have a LEFT mastoid scar when ROSE performed his autopsy...  In fact the only mention of "MASTOID" (btw - since Rose does mention this tiny scratch behind Oswald's right ear... you really think he just skipped the left or is it more likely the man on his table and in that grave was not born Lee Oswald...

 

How do we know Lee had a mastoid scar?  He told the Marines about his 1946 operation and they noted it down.

Lee also had a 3" Mastoid scar according to the Marine records of his enlistment.  (Donabedian Ex #1 p590)  

So not only does the original LEE OSWALD not have wisdom teeth or one of his molars.... his right front tooth was knocked out...

There's no tooth there...  

 

You will also notice that any images of LEE you can find - with the last image of LEE being his Sept 4 1959 passport photo - you can't see his teeth.

 

bumped to next page

[Bernie Laverick]

50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Why would the assassination of President Kennedy make Lee's dental bridge any more important, Bernie? Could it have been used as the murder weapon?  LOL

 

So he had a dental bridge did he? Is that a fact Sandy? Or are you just riffing with the melody a bit? You have no proof nor evidence or even any hearsay that he had a dental bridge. You've just plucked that from thin air and then presented it as fact.

H&L is like a virtual story isn't it? Lots and lots of inter-changeable plastic parts that you can put together in different ways to fob off any objections.

Did you miss the irony of telling us all about your relative's teeth in a post designed to illustrate how nobody ever mentions your relative's teeth?

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Why don't the number of teeth match?

Already explained as charting errors in the Norton Report.

[Bernie Laverick]

Thanks for providing the blow up version. Can you confirm though, was LHO hit by a fist?

Or was it a bullet from a Magnum!

There's hardly any of his mouth left!!!

[Kathleen Collins]

On 9/12/2017 at 7:33 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Harvey Oswald’s Photo”

This photo was concocted.  Look right under the eyes.  There's a cut there.  The hair and the heft of him have been amplified.  This photo is phony.

Kathy C

 

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, David Josephs said:

10 hours ago, David Josephs said:

I do believe I've found something a bit more compelling related to these teeth..

The Marines did a dental exam when Oswald entered service.  They noted in the Donabedian report, that Oswald was missing all 4 wisdom teeth and tooth #30 on the lower right near the back.

The Norton report also did a dental exam.  Except their exam shows all 4 wisdom teeth intact as well as the return of the missing tooth.

Lee Oswald, the person from whom this examination applies,  instead of the normal 32 teeth, only had 27...  4 wisdom teeth removed and a molar on the lower right.

Yet the man in the grave has 31 with no space for where the lower right tooth was extracted....

Why don't the number of teeth match?

you see, according to his induction exam:  he is missing 4 teeth... they are X'd out at the lower half of the report...

Teeth # 1, 17, 18, & 30 are "MISSING"   yet they're not missing in 1981....

 

 

David,

In your bottom-most photo -- the lower jaw of teeth -- the teeth are misnumbered. The number 25 is skipped. Once you straighten that out it is easier to understand the missing tooth, #30.

Renumber those teeth as follows:  Beginning at #24, the next one is 25, then 26, 27, 28, 29, and 31. Note that I skipped #30.

Here's the reason I skipped #30: The Norton panel had to explain how it could be that tooth #30 is missing in all the dental reports on Oswald, and yet the tooth is apparently present on the corpse. What they concluded is that the two molars rear of #30 must have migrated forward over time and filled the gap where #30 once had been.

Something like this can actually happen. It is called "mesial drift." (If you look closely at the the Norton Panel's periodontal chart for Oswald, you will see that they noted the mesial drift just below tooth #30.) Molars and premolars tend to continually drift forward, and this is what keeps the space between these teeth tight.

But if there is a missing molar or premolar, then yes, the teeth behind it can move forward and fill the gap.

However, their forward movement is limited. For a large gap, the molars behind it primarily tilt forward. They have to tilt forward a great deal before finally filling the large gap left behind by a missing molar. Notice in the following x-ray the tilting of the bottom molars that resulted from the missing molar just to the front (right) of them. You can also see that bone loss in the surrounding jaw is associated with this phenomenon.
 

 

I don't believe that tooth #30 in the corpse is missing. Just looking at the photo it is plain to see that there is very little distance between the root of tooth #29 and the root of tooth #31. I believe that "mesial drift" was the only plausible explanation the Norton panel could come up with, and so they went with it.

I will describe tomorrow what I think explains the mystery of tooth #30. I suspect you will find what I have come up with to be pretty interesting. A thing or two more for the deniers to sweep under the rug.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Why would the assassination of President Kennedy make Lee's dental bridge any more important, Bernie? Could it have been used as the murder weapon?  LOL

 

So he had a dental bridge did he? Is that a fact Sandy? Or are you just riffing with the melody a bit? You have no proof nor evidence or even any hearsay that he had a dental bridge.

 

Okay, have it your way Bernie... Lee just walked around for years with a broken tooth. Makes no difference to me.

Except for the fact that the Marine Corps dental records don't show a missing front tooth. So apparently I was right after all. He must have gotten a dental bridge and prosthetic tooth before entering the Corps. 

 

[Michael Walton]

Of shoulders and contrast.  Here's my masterpiece. Thank me on the way out

And I'm throwing this back on here too as it didn't get enough vigorous debate from the HL supporters. The coffin teeth obviously match the smiling Marine photo teeth and NO TEETH were missing in the coffin.

[Jim Hargrove]

I’m not sure what Mr. Walton is trying to show in his “masterpiece.”  In the top row of pictures, the shot at left shows Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald after his arrest in New Orleans for the phony pro- Cuba altercation.  The photo at right is also of Harvey Oswald, this time in the custody of Dallas police.  In the middle animation, the infamous “13 inch head” Marine Corps shot of Lee Oswald is blended with Harvey Oswald’s Dallas mug shot.  The two men don’t look the same to me.  Note how different the positions of the mouths and chins are in relation to the eyes.

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

David,

In your bottom-most photo -- the lower jaw of teeth -- the teeth are misnumbered. The number 25 is skipped. Once you straighten that out it is easier to understand the missing tooth, #30.

Renumber those teeth as follows:  Beginning at #24, the next one is 25, then 26, 27, 28, 29, and 31. Note that I skipped #30.

Here's the reason I skipped #30: The Norton panel had to explain how it could be that tooth #30 is missing in all the dental reports on Oswald, and yet the tooth is apparently present on the corpse. What they concluded is that the two molars rear of #30 must have migrated forward over time and filled the gap where #30 once had been.

Something like this can actually happen. It is called "mesial drift." (If you look closely at the the Norton Panel's periodontal chart for Oswald, you will see that they noted the mesial drift just below tooth #30.) Molars and premolars tend to continually drift forward, and this is what keeps the space between these teeth tight.

But if there is a missing molar or premolar, then yes, the teeth behind it can move forward and fill the gap.

However, their forward movement is limited. For a large gap, the molars behind it primarily tilt forward. They have to tilt forward a great deal before finally filling the large gap left behind by a missing molar. Notice in the following x-ray the tilting of the bottom molars that resulted from the missing molar just to the front (right) of them. You can also see that bone loss in the surrounding jaw is associated with this phenomenon.
 

 

I don't believe that tooth #30 in the corpse is missing. Just looking at the photo it is plain to see that there is very little distance between the root of tooth #29 and the root of tooth #31. I believe that "mesial drift" was the only plausible explanation the Norton panel could come up with, and so they went with it.

I will describe tomorrow what I think explains the mystery of tooth #30. I suspect you will find what I have come up with to be pretty interesting. A thing or two more for the deniers to sweep under the rug.

 

It seems to me that most of the missing teeth DJ points out are actually wisdom teeth that had not grown in when Harvey Oswald was in the USMC.  He was, after all, a teenager.  By 1963, they had grown in.  Tooth No. 30 is the mystery here, and so I'm looking forward to your explanation.

What can’t be explained, however, is how that missing front tooth Ed Voebel photographed grew back!  That’s pretty good proof that the Oswald Ed Voebel photographed was not the same man exhumed in 1981.

[Michael Walton]

32 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I’m not sure what Mr. Walton is trying to show in his “masterpiece.”  In the top row of pictures, the shot at left shows Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald after his arrest in New Orleans for the phony pro- Cuba altercation.  The photo at right is also of Harvey Oswald, this time in the custody of Dallas police.  In the middle animation, the infamous “13 inch head” Marine Corps shot of Lee Oswald is blended with Harvey Oswald’s Dallas mug shot.  The two men don’t look the same to me.  Note how different the positions of the mouths and chins are in relation to the eyes.

Looks like you couldn't figure it out Jim.  The illustrations I posted show that it's all one person it's as simple as that. If you watch the transformation from one to other, you can see how his head was tilted downward for the middle photo, and his head tilts upward in Dallas.  The point being - it's the same person. The ears, eyes, brows, and nose all match up.  Any person with even decent eyesight can tell this.  But I know of course you will deny it, even with overwhelming evidence right before you.  I know the book and CDs need to be preserved so no amount of visual evidence is going to sway you that the HL is wrong. 

[Michael Walton]

And Jim - no comment on David Josephs sloping shoulders expertise? The funniest thing about his nonsense on this was he actually posted a photo of TWO DIFFERENT SLOPES of sloping shoulders - one steep and one shallow - in the very same illustration showing his sloping shoulders analogy.  I've pointed that out in my own little ski illustration.

And no comment on the teeth? The Smiling Marine Oswald photo shows many matches with the skull photo of his teeth.

[Jim Hargrove]

Good grief, how many times do we have to explain the "Smiling Marine Oswald" photo to you?

This is the picture of Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald taken near Santa Ana in 1958 as he was preparing for his so-called "defection."  You are comparing the teeth of HARVEY Oswald's cadaver with the teeth of HARVEY Oswald at the time he was stationed in California.  Of course they look similar.

As to the shoulder slope business, John isn't terribly impressed by it either, but I think DJ may be on to something.  Anyone can shrug their shoulders and completely change the slope, but in a relaxed, natural position, I think it may be a tell.
 

[Jim Hargrove]

6 hours ago, Kathleen Collins said:

On 9/12/2017 at 6:33 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Harvey Oswald’s Photo”

 

6 hours ago, Kathleen Collins said:

This photo was concocted.  Look right under the eyes.  There's a cut there.  The hair and the heft of him have been amplified.  This photo is phony.

Ms. Collins is correct that the photo was "concocted."  Here is the actual DoD card found in one of the wallets alleged to belong to HARVEY Oswald.  Since the card lists Oswald's height as 71 inches (5'11") it clearly describes 5'11" LEE Oswald, not 5'9" HARVEY. But the picture on the card allegedly found in HARVEY's wallet was of HARVEY, not LEE, as you can see here.

Ms. Collins was confused by an image David Josephs prepared to show how the card would have appeared had it contained LEE Oswald's passport photo. She shows the b&w image above, indicating I said it was "Harvey Oswald's Photo."  But I said no such thing.  The image shown by Ms. Collins is of LEE Oswald--it's actually LEE's photo appearing on HARVEY Oswald's 1959 passport.  The "cut" she describes "under the eyes" is actually part of a U.S. Seal embossed on the image.

There is a long thread on the Ed Forum in which many people, including Jim DiEugenio, Chris Newton, David Josephs, Sandy Larsen and me, discuss the oddities of the DoD card.  I have a lengthy summary of it on page 73 of this thread.