Sandy Larsen Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! Lee Harvey Oswald's body was exhumed in 1981 to determine whether it truly was that of Oswald's, or that of a Soviet spy. A panel of experts headed by Dr. Linda Norton determined that the body was indeed that of Lee Harvey Oswald's. The proceedings and findings of the event were recorded in the Norton Report. I have discovered substantial inconsistencies in the Norton Report which indicate 1) that two different sets of dental x-rays were involved in the analysis, and 2) the teeth of the exhumed Oswald do not fully match the dental records kept of Lee Harvey Oswald by the Marine Corps. Marine Corps records indicate that Oswald was missing one of his non-wisdom-tooth molars, specifically the front-most molar on his lower right side. According to the Norton Report that tooth had been extracted. And yet the tooth appears to be present among the exhumed teeth. Tooth Gaps Lead to Tipping Teeth When a tooth is missing, the teeth behind it will often drift forward and tip down into the gap. If significant bone loss has occurred at the site of the gap, the adjacent tooth can tip over to the point of completely filling the gap. This occurs due to forces applied from the opposing teeth (upper or lower) during mastication. Here are some examples of where this has happened: The Norton Panel Mistakenly Accepted that the Molar was Missing. I have carefully compared the photographs and x-rays of the exhumed teeth with Oswald's Marine Corps dental records and x-rays and have found them to be largely consistent. But with one exception... the supposedly missing molar. It is my contention that the Norton Panel talked themselves into believing the molar was missing on the exhumed body. It had to be. Nearly everything else checked out and there was no way of explaining the lack of a missing molar. The missing molar had been reported on several dental charts, and so it couldn't be a case of mistaken charting. Let's take a look at where the molar was supposed to have been missing. Here is one view: Tooth #30 is the one that is supposed to be missing. So the Norton Panel numbered the teeth as shown here. There is a small gap there, better seen from a side view: Now admittedly, when I first saw that gap, I wondered if a molar had indeed been extracted and that the two molars behind it somehow shifted over quite a distance without tipping down. Because molars #31 and 32 are not tipping at all. Rather, they are at an angle only because the jawbone that far back is tilted... at the same angle. For us to accept that tooth #30 had been extracted, we'd have to believe that afterward #31 and 32 moved straight toward #29 by roughly 1/4 inch. Not by tipping, but by moving straight. (Technically speaking, this would be called a "translational" or "rectilinear " movement.) And that the sockets the roots fit into did the same. This is hard to believe. Imagine driving a post into the ground and then trying to move it over a significant distance relative to its height. Tipping the post over would be relatively easy, especially with the use of a hammer. But moving it straight over by much would be nearly impossible. What forces could there have been in Oswald's mouth that could move roots and sockets over by 1/4"? None, I determined. And so I decided to study missing tooth #30 further. Am I ever glad I did! My Discovery of the True Missing-Molar X-Ray As I pondered what I needed for my study, the obvious came to mind quickly. If it were true that the exhumed Oswald had a tooth #30 in place, then there must have been another Oswald who truly was missing #30. What I needed more than anything else was an x-ray from that Oswald showing the missing tooth. With that in hand, I should be able to see a gap where the tooth had been, and possibly a tooth or two behind it tipping down into the gap. Problem is, in my search for dental records the only x-rays I'd seen were the ones published in the Norton Report. It occurred to me that I hadn't yet taken a close look at that particular x-ray in the Norton Report taken from the Marine Corps records. I had saved that for last, because it was of the only quadrant of the teeth that appeared suspect. For a fleeting moment I thought, wouldn't it be great if THAT particular x-ray were from the OTHER Oswald? The x-ray that I needed more than any other? Well, of course, that was too much to hope for. But I took a look anyway. Ha! I couldn't believe my eyes at first, but I actually had -- printed right there in the Norton Report -- the x-ray of the teeth surrounding tooth #30 from the other Oswald! The x-ray I needed more than any other. And, as I expected, this x-ray shows definite signs of a missing molar. Here it is: Marine Corps I could see right away the large gap left behind from molar #30, and the adjacent molar tipping down into it. The reader may not see these things himself, given his unfamiliarity with this material. I will demonstrate them momentarily. For the remainder of this presentation I will compare this x-ray from the Marine Corps to the one of the exhumed body and show that they are not from the same person. Preparation for My Comparison In order to make the x-ray comparison easy to follow, I created one composite x-ray and made a few minor adjustments, as I will describe here. All the photos and x-rays come from the following high quality scan of the Norton Report: Norton Report The photos are on pages 27 through 30, and the x-rays on page 31. The x-rays printed in the report are notated with black and white text, arrows, and lines. Please ignore these as you continue reading my presentation. My notations will be in color. What I did for the Marine Corps x-ray is widen the gap a little between the upper and lower teeth, so that they can easily be distinguished. In addition, there is one tooth whose roots are darkened in the x-ray, and I pasted therein a copy of the same tooth from the exhumed x-ray in order to make the roots visible. I gave the tooth a shade of red so that it would be remembered that it is not in the original x-ray. I ended up with this: Marine Corps X-Ray For the x-ray of the exhumed teeth, I had to combine two adjacent x-rays into one. They share a molar in both, so I was able to align them perfectly. I then rotated the whole image so that it was at the same angle as the photograph depicting the same (exhumed) teeth. Unfortunately the original x-rays are cropped and don't show the full length of the roots. But this doesn't affect my analysis. Exhumation X-Ray For the photograph corresponding to the exhumation x-ray, I combined the upper and lower teeth onto one image, using the above composite x-ray as a guide for alignment. Exhumation Photo Notice how well the teeth in the exhumed x-ray match those in the exhumed photograph, as they should. To aid in the x-ray comparisons, I drew in linear piecewise jawlines the best I could make out. Here they are: Marine Corps Exhumation Now I can proceed to compare the Marine Corps x-ray to the exhumed teeth x-ray. Marine Corps X-Ray versus Exhumation X-Ray Molar Tipping Lets look at the degree of tipping of the molars adjacent to the #30 molar extraction site. The green lines illustrate the degree of tipping relative to the jawline: Marine Corps Tipping of both remaining molars in the Marine Corps x-ray is easily seen. However, tipping is not so great as to completely close the gap left behind from the missing molar. I estimate that there is still a 1/4 inch gap remaining between crowns of teeth #29 and #31. Exhumation There is no tipping of the molars at all in the exhumed teeth. They are perfectly square with the jawline. This is in stark contrast to the tipping that is so prominent in the Marine Corps x-ray. Notice also how the left-most molar in the Marine Corps x-ray is tipping down into the side of molar to its right. In contrast, the tops of the two molars in the exhumed x-ray align nicely with each other. That is, one molar is not tipping down into the other. One has to wonder how the expected tipping we see in the earlier Marine Corps teeth could have corrected itself to the point of what we see in the exhumed teeth. Downward forces from the upper teeth should have kept those teeth tipped over. Gap Spacing In this caparison, I want to imagine straightening up the tipping teeth and re-inserting the lost molar. Is there actually enough room for the molar to fit in? There should be! Following are images I prepared for this exercise. First let's look at one of the example x-rays I showed earlier. To be clear, these are not Oswald's teeth: In this example, significant jaw bone loss has allowed not only the right-most molar tip down into the gap, but has allowed the molar to its left to tip down too. As can be seen, If both teeth are straightened up, the lost molar will fit into the resulting space. Note that the axis of rotation/tipping is the root of the tooth. Now let's look at Oswald's Marine Corps x-ray: Again we see that a missing molar will easily fit once the tipped teeth are straightened up. (Remember, the axis of rotation is the root of the tooth.) But what about the exhumed teeth? Remember, those two molars on the left are not tipping. But even if we pretend they are for the sake of argument, and allow more space for the missing molar by "straightening" them up, there is still no room for that missing molar to fit! Far from it. This is yet another indication that there was never an adjacent molar that had been extracted. There was no missing molar among the exhumed teeth. Another Differences Between the Marines X-Ray and Exhumation X-Ray There is one other difference between the teeth of the Marine Corps Oswald and the exhumed Oswald that is quite glaring. And that is the root style of one of the molars. Here are examples of molars whose roots are spread out, normal, and narrowed to the point of being fused together: Lets compare the root spread of what is supposed to be the same tooth in the Marine Corps x-ray and the exhumed teeth x-ray: Marine Corps Exhumation These are obviously not the same tooth. The tooth from the Marine Corps has a narrow root spread, and the one from the exhumed body has a medium/wide spread. They are teeth from two different Oswalds. There are other differences as well. For example, compare the shapes of the fillings in the circled teeth above. The filling in the Marine Corps x-ray goes quite deep down into the tooth, whereas the (supposedly same) filling in the exhumed x-ray is relatively shallow. The first has the shape of a biscuit, the latter closer to the shape of a pancake. I'll leave it to the reader to look for other differences. Conclusions The Marine Corps x-ray examined here does NOT belong to the exhumed body of Lee Harvey Oswald. In order for us to accept that it does, we would have to believe the following: Oswald had his first lower molar on his right side extracted some time before entering the Marine Corps. Subsequently the two molars behind it began tipping over into the gap of the missing molar. In the five year span from when the Marine Corps x-ray was taken to the death of Oswald, the two tipping molars inexplicably straightened themselves back up. In addition to straightening up, the two molars -- root, socket, and all -- moved about 1/4 inch straight into the gap left by the extraction. They did this without any forces applied at the necessary points, in the necessary direction, and with the necessary force to attain such a movement. (As could be done by an orthodontist using braces.) And in the meantime, the roots AND socket of one of those molars spontaneously straightened up, changing themselves from having a narrow root style to a medium-wide one. (In addition, the filling in the one molar became significantly thinner.) The last three items in this list simply do not belong to the realm of possibility. Yet if we unlink the Marine Corps x-ray from the exhumation x-ray, it all makes sense. The Marine Corps x-ray is precisely what we'd expect to see after a #30 molar extraction. The exhumation x-ray is not. And it's completely understandable that the root shapes of those two molars are different. We are left with no other choice than to conclude that the Marines Corps x-rays came from a different Oswald than the Oswald whose remains were exhumed from the tomb. And that the Marine Corps Oswald was the one with the missing molar. We conclude therefore that there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds. The one in the Marines and the one shot by Jack Ruby. (This is not to say, however, that the Oswald shot by Ruby had not served in the Marines as well.) Edited October 26, 2018 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 5, 2018 Author Share Posted February 5, 2018 [reserved] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 5, 2018 Author Share Posted February 5, 2018 [reserved] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 FASCINATING, Sandy... THANK YOU! This is NEW EVIDENCE showing that the EXHUMATION graphics prove there were TWO DIFERENT OSWALDS, both in the USMC in the late 1950s! The NORTON TEAM should be questioned directly about this! Are any of them sill alive? Tracy.... Do you have an email address for Ms. Norton... or anyone else from her team? If you do, please forward Sandy's post to them and ask for comments, or tell me how to reach them. Assuming you won't try to help us reach Ms. Norton or her associates, I'll make an attempt to locate the surviving members. Won't you help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! ... Sandy, Well, I guess that settles it. The evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK. By utilizing a top-secret, fifteen-years in the making, Double Oswald / Double Marguerite program! Dang. (Whatever happened to "Lee," btw? No trace?) -- Tommy Edited February 5, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 5, 2018 Author Share Posted February 5, 2018 31 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: FASCINATING, Sandy... THANK YOU! This is NEW EVIDENCE showing that the EXHUMATION graphics prove there were TWO DIFERENT OSWALDS, both in the USMC in the late 1950s! The NORTON TEAM should be questioned directly about this! Are any of them sill alive? Tracy.... Do you have an email address for Ms. Norton... or anyone else from her team? If you do, please forward Sandy's post to them and ask for comments, or tell me how to reach them. Assuming you won't try to help us reach Ms. Norton or her associates, I'll make an attempt to locate the surviving members. Won't you help? Thanks, Jim. I doubt that any member of the Norton team would admit making a mistake. But I would love to hear them explain how the teeth magically straightened up and then moved. And especially how the roots of that one molar don't match. For the former, my guess is that they will say that the before (Marine Corps) and after (exhumation) x-rays prove that that is what happened. That the teeth straightened up and then moved. I can't imagine what excuse they'd come up for the latter. Maybe the same... that the before and after x-rays prove that the roots changed. What else can they do. Admit that they made a mistake? Maybe a brave one, in his old age, would admit the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) Would anyone who knows how to reach a surviving member of the Norton team kindly email me at... jimbotopia@gmail.com Thank you!! Jim Edited February 5, 2018 by Jim Hargrove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hume Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) A couple of posts back Thomas Graves asked: “(Whatever happened to “Lee, btw? No trace?)” Good question, Tommy. Here’s my guess: According to: http://sortedbybirthdate.com/pages/19391126.html "IGOR VAGANOV was born 26 November 1939, received Social Security number 191-30-7672 (indicating Pennsylvania) and, Death Master File says, died 23 May 2006." It's also my guess that "Igor Vaganov" was not his real name. As Jim said, "Fascinating work, Sandy." Edited February 5, 2018 by Tom Hume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Thanks, Jim. I doubt that any member of the Norton team would admit making a mistake. But I would love to hear them explain how the teeth magically straightened up and then moved. And especially how the roots of that one molar don't match. For the former, my guess is that they will say that the before (Marine Corps) and after (exhumation) x-rays prove that that is what happened. That the teeth straightened up and then moved. I can't imagine what excuse they'd come up for the latter. Maybe the same... that the before and after x-rays prove that the roots changed. What else can they do. Admit that they made a mistake? Maybe a brave one, in his old age, would admit the truth. That sounds pretty logical, but I think they should be confronted about this. Do you think the dental records given to the Norton team were a mix of records from both Oswalds? To my mind, these are the two money shots from Sandy’s article. The Marine Corps x-ray clearly shows room for a wide molar to have once been in place, even though the adjacent molars are tipped: But in the photo of the exhumed teeth, there clearly is insufficient space and the adjacent molars are NOT tipped! The different root spreads of the adjacent molar(s) is also a tell. Thanks again for this careful work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) Sandy, What nonsense! Sandy Larsen is now an expert on forensic dentistry? You already admit there is a gap where a tooth could be missing. I'll say the same thing I have been-if you think you have some kind of "proof" of something, take it to an expert (which you are not) and have it verified. When an expert agrees with your findings, you will have something. Of course, when you explain your alternate theory, that there were two Oswalds, they will no doubt run for cover. As I have said,, perhaps someone will prove some sort of conspiracy in the JFK case someday-nearly anything is possible. But what is impossible is the two Oswald theory of John Armstrong-it didn't happen. Edited February 5, 2018 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: FASCINATING, Sandy... THANK YOU! This is NEW EVIDENCE showing that the EXHUMATION graphics prove there were TWO DIFERENT OSWALDS, both in the USMC in the late 1950s! The NORTON TEAM should be questioned directly about this! Are any of them sill alive? Tracy.... Do you have an email address for Ms. Norton... or anyone else from her team? If you do, please forward Sandy's post to them and ask for comments, or tell me how to reach them. Assuming you won't try to help us reach Ms. Norton or her associates, I'll make an attempt to locate the surviving members. Won't you help? I have never spoken to Ms. Norton, only to DiMaio. But try this link Jim: https://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-linda-norton-w83qn But I really hope you don't bother her and I am certainly not going to. She has better things to do I'm sure than to respond to this nonsense and she had two of the best dental experts in the country at the time. Dentistry is not her specialty anyway. A better tactic, as I suggested above, would be to get an independent forensic dentist to verify Sandy's "findings." I wouldn't hold my breath for that though. You could also take your case to an investigative reporter as I have suggested in the past. Perhaps this new "information" will put your case over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 47 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: You already admit there is a gap where a tooth could be missing. All you can do is mischaracterize the evidence? The “gap where a tooth could be missing” is clearly shown on the Marine Corps x-rays, and is clearly missing on the exhumation photo. As always, you tell us to consult the “experts” and to disbelieve our own lying eyes. As you well know, the Norton team was looking for evidence of a second Oswald who was substituted for the original one after the so-called “defection.” They were not told about the evidence that both Oswalds were in the USMC at roughly the same. Nor were they asked to look for evidence that the health records were compiled from two different subjects. Thank you for the information on Dr. Norton, which does at least say what hospital she works at. Do you have contact information for Vincent DiMaio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 If you do take it to a dentist, whatever you do, do not tell them its the JFK case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paz Marverde Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said: If you do take it to a dentist, whatever you do, do not tell them its the JFK case. Exactly. Very good suggestion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 29 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: Do you have contact information for Vincent DiMaio? No, I don't have current information on him, he may be retired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now