Indisputable Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a FRONT TOOTH, but his exhumed body was not! NEW EVIDENCE FOUND.

[Michael Walton]

7 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Sandy, that's easy to say, but the resemblance is strong enough that the WC, all of its proponents, and official history say that these pics are of one and the same man. If that's not strong resemblance, it's certainly strong something.

The ears and eyes do it for me.  What Sandy fails to understand is people do change over a period of time.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

The ears and eyes do it for me.  What Sandy fails to understand is people do change over a period of time.

Right, and it's easy to see if you want to. The ears look slightly different in the photos Ray alludes to because the tilt of the head is different.  An ear study was done but I have not been able to find it to see how it relates to H&L. There are relatively few instances of "Lee" (photographically and otherwise) and that is one way Armstrong and friends get away with so much.

[Jim Hargrove]

On the Deep Politics Forum a few years ago, a Dallas attorney named Drew Phipps, an H&L skeptic, used pixel counting software to measure various facial distance ratios of more than a dozen pictures of "Lee Harvey Oswald."  Mr. Phipps wrote, "The ratios I will use are: “pupil-to-pupil / width of eye” (called P/W hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / length of nose” (called P/N hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / nose-to-top-lip” (called P/L hereafter) and “pupil-to-pupil / earlobe-to-earlobe” (called P/E hereafter). The use of ratios (instead of actual measurements) will make it unnecessary to know more about the distance from lens to face, or the type of camera, etc., since the proportions of the face of the same person should stay the same regardless of those other factors."

His conclusion was as follows:

Visual Conclusions: Unless there is something terribly wrong with my methodology, (or my spreadsheet skills), or the photos are simply too low resolution for a significant biometric comparison, there is some evidence that there is more than one individual here. 

If I had to clump the photos in two different piles, it looks to me like photos 1, 2, 3, 9 and 13 are the same individual, and photos 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are the same individual.

I realize this is not the same narrative as "Harvey and Lee". It is still my opinion that it is far more likely that the paper trail of discrepancies surrounding Oswald is the result of deliberate tampering with his records (in an attempt to catch a mole, or deceive a communist spy organization). But the biometric discrepancies are starting to make me wonder. 

The full thread can be read here:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14916-Pixel-Counting-Biometric-Comparison-of-Oswald-photos

[Bernie Laverick]

4 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

On the Deep Politics Forum a few years ago, a Dallas attorney named Drew Phipps, an H&L skeptic, used pixel counting software to measure various facial distance ratios of more than a dozen pictures of "Lee Harvey Oswald."  Mr. Phipps wrote, "The ratios I will use are: “pupil-to-pupil / width of eye” (called P/W hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / length of nose” (called P/N hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / nose-to-top-lip” (called P/L hereafter) and “pupil-to-pupil / earlobe-to-earlobe” (called P/E hereafter). The use of ratios (instead of actual measurements) will make it unnecessary to know more about the distance from lens to face, or the type of camera, etc., since the proportions of the face of the same person should stay the same regardless of those other factors."

His conclusion was as follows:

Visual Conclusions: Unless there is something terribly wrong with my methodology, (or my spreadsheet skills), or the photos are simply too low resolution for a significant biometric comparison, there is some evidence that there is more than one individual here. 

If I had to clump the photos in two different piles, it looks to me like photos 1, 2, 3, 9 and 13 are the same individual, and photos 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are the same individual.

I realize this is not the same narrative as "Harvey and Lee". It is still my opinion that it is far more likely that the paper trail of discrepancies surrounding Oswald is the result of deliberate tampering with his records (in an attempt to catch a mole, or deceive a communist spy organization). But the biometric discrepancies are starting to make me wonder. 

The full thread can be read here:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14916-Pixel-Counting-Biometric-Comparison-of-Oswald-photos

So you admit that it takes this level of sophisticated biometric analysis to be able to tell the two apart. That must mean that they were remarkably similar, or why the need for such an in depth analysis?

But you have categorically stated, as have all your cohorts, that they looked nothing like each other! Sandy has even done it on this thread!

David Josephs will post, yet again, the sloping shoulders photo to demonstrate how dissimilar they really were. Yet apparently it takes a biometric test in order to scientifically sort out 'Harvey' from 'Lee'. 

The H&L witness testimonies are adamant that they saw LHO when he was actually in Russia. They said it was the same man they saw being gunned down by Ruby. If they are correct, and you obviously believe them to be, rather than attention seekers or just plain wrong, then it means that H&L were almost IDENTICAL! But you will never admit that will you? You'll say that's not true. Because you have to!

You'll even say how dissimilar they really were on a post showing us how it needed a biometric test to tell them apart!

But you won't ever agree they looked almost identical. Why is that?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

On the Deep Politics Forum a few years ago, a Dallas attorney named Drew Phipps, an H&L skeptic, used pixel counting software to measure various facial distance ratios of more than a dozen pictures of "Lee Harvey Oswald."  Mr. Phipps wrote, "The ratios I will use are: “pupil-to-pupil / width of eye” (called P/W hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / length of nose” (called P/N hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / nose-to-top-lip” (called P/L hereafter) and “pupil-to-pupil / earlobe-to-earlobe” (called P/E hereafter). The use of ratios (instead of actual measurements) will make it unnecessary to know more about the distance from lens to face, or the type of camera, etc., since the proportions of the face of the same person should stay the same regardless of those other factors."

His conclusion was as follows:

Visual Conclusions: Unless there is something terribly wrong with my methodology, (or my spreadsheet skills), or the photos are simply too low resolution for a significant biometric comparison, there is some evidence that there is more than one individual here. 

If I had to clump the photos in two different piles, it looks to me like photos 1, 2, 3, 9 and 13 are the same individual, and photos 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are the same individual.

I realize this is not the same narrative as "Harvey and Lee". It is still my opinion that it is far more likely that the paper trail of discrepancies surrounding Oswald is the result of deliberate tampering with his records (in an attempt to catch a mole, or deceive a communist spy organization). But the biometric discrepancies are starting to make me wonder. 

The full thread can be read here:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14916-Pixel-Counting-Biometric-Comparison-of-Oswald-photos

 

Jim,

Drew Phipps is obviously a very bright guy and very methodical. You should ask him for rights to copy his work over to your website, lest it be lost forever in a server crash or some other calamity.

I thought it would be interesting to see how my own identifications would stack up against Drew's. Here is how I identify each of the photos just by eye... that is, without any measuring:

1. Harvey
2. Harvey
3. Harvey
4. Lee
5. Composite
6. Composite
7. Lee
8. Lee
9. Harvey
10. Lee
11. Composite
12. Composite
 

"Composites" are the photos I believe were made from left/right halves of both Harvey and Lee. Notably this includes the Minsk photo, which I showed in another thread had to have been carried into the Soviet Union by Harvey. (That is to say, the composite was made in the U.S. prior to Oswald's defection. I documented this here. See "Part 2.")

I didn't attempt to identify the young kids of photo #13.

Here is how my identifications compare to those made by Drew Phipps using his feature measurement methodology:

PHIPPS' PERSON 1     (photos 1, 2, 3, 9 and 13)

1. Harvey
2. Harvey
3. Harvey
9. Harvey
 

PHIPPS' PERSON 2     (photos 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12)

4. Lee
5. Composite
6. Composite
7. Lee
8. Lee
11. Composite
12. Composite

Surprisingly, a perfect match!

It was easy for me to tell the photos apart among the ones Phipps selected. So I wasn't surprised about that. What surprised me is that Phipps methodology worked so well.

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

But you have categorically stated, as have all your cohorts, that they looked nothing like each other! Sandy has even done it on this thread!

 

 

I never said the two Oswalds look nothing like each other. I said that there wasn't a strong resemblance. And the context of that was that I could compare them side by side.

Had I seen one of the Oswalds one day, and then shown a photo of the other on another day, I may well have wondered if they were not the same person.

There certainly is some resemblance.

 

[Bernie Laverick]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I never said the two Oswalds look nothing like each other. I said that there wasn't a strong resemblance. And the context of that was that I could compare them side by side.

Had I seen one of the Oswalds one day, and then shown a photo of the other on another day, I may well have wondered if they were not the same person.

There certainly is some resemblance.

 

Ha ha ha!!! What a joke. It took a biometric test to sort them out and you don't even think there is a strong resemblance. Ha ha ha!!!

Scientific-Sandy bolsters up this stupidity and informs us that by using his self-declared superior intelligence he also came to the same 'independent' conclusion. Well who would have thought that???

"There certainly is some resemblance." Jesus Christ, is there any end to this madness. YOUR OWN witnesses says they looked identical!! These are the very people you have built this silly little web from, the ones you ram down our throats as proof that the two characters existed. They ALL go a lot further than just saying there was just "some resemblance" though don't they Sandy? Wouldn't "some resemblance" include at least another one million people nationwide...?

How have you built this fantasy based on witness testimony declaring the subject showed only "some resemblance" to the accused assassin? People came forward after the event and after they had seen LHO on their TVs and swore that that was the same person they had interacted with. Without hesitation. Are you now saying that these witnesses were mistaken? Are you now saying they came forward because they remembered only "some resemblance" of a person they saw a few years previously? 

At last, we can now discount all the witness testimony of H&L story because Sandy, the new H&L Golden Boy (and hotly tipped to win the JA sycophant of the year award) has decided that these witnesses must have been wrong. They said he was the same man shot by Ruby. But Sandy says that can't be true because they weren't the same, they just had some "some resemblance", so the witnesses must have been mistaken... (that is... very witnesses he relies on to make him and others who promote it feel super important about themselves and how they have cracked the most devilishly intricate plot of the century). 

This forum has nothing to do with the JFK assassination and everything to do with slightly disturbed and possibly psychotic middle aged males.

The Ed forum used to be THE place to come and be informed about new developments with cutting edge research from highly respected individuals. Now it has just become a playground for social outliers and exotically odd individuals who have trashed the spirit of enlightenment and learning and replaced it with aggressively-driven tin foil hat high school conspiracy theories.

When they can't even agree with themselves about whether H&L were almost identical, had a strong resemblance,  just some resemblance, or - as has seriously been suggested before by some of the H&L crowd - had "NO" resemblance, we can know that this is a sophisticated diversion project intent on tying down genuine researchers  in tar and treacle to deliberately slow down their progress.

LNs do this all the time.

 

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Give it up, Bernie. Or don't!

You can misrepresent the views and statements of H&L witnesses and H&L proponents to your heart's content, but what you say means nothing at all.  The type of statistical comparisons Mr. Phipps made are the same types of measurements most facial recognition procedures use.  One of the purposes of this sort of thing is to take the guesswork and opinions out of the equation... something your side can't afford to do

But by all means, Bernie, write endless screeds declaring facial recognition procedures meaningless. Sometimes I need a good laugh!

[Jim Hargrove]

9 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

On the Deep Politics Forum a few years ago, a Dallas attorney named Drew Phipps, an H&L skeptic, used pixel counting software to measure various facial distance ratios of more than a dozen pictures of "Lee Harvey Oswald."  Mr. Phipps wrote, "The ratios I will use are: “pupil-to-pupil / width of eye” (called P/W hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / length of nose” (called P/N hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / nose-to-top-lip” (called P/L hereafter) and “pupil-to-pupil / earlobe-to-earlobe” (called P/E hereafter). The use of ratios (instead of actual measurements) will make it unnecessary to know more about the distance from lens to face, or the type of camera, etc., since the proportions of the face of the same person should stay the same regardless of those other factors."

His conclusion was as follows:

Visual Conclusions: Unless there is something terribly wrong with my methodology, (or my spreadsheet skills), or the photos are simply too low resolution for a significant biometric comparison, there is some evidence that there is more than one individual here. 

If I had to clump the photos in two different piles, it looks to me like photos 1, 2, 3, 9 and 13 are the same individual, and photos 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are the same individual.

I realize this is not the same narrative as "Harvey and Lee". It is still my opinion that it is far more likely that the paper trail of discrepancies surrounding Oswald is the result of deliberate tampering with his records (in an attempt to catch a mole, or deceive a communist spy organization). But the biometric discrepancies are starting to make me wonder. 

The full thread can be read here:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14916-Pixel-Counting-Biometric-Comparison-of-Oswald-photos

 

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Jim,

Drew Phipps is obviously a very bright guy and very methodical. You should ask him for rights to copy his work over to your website, lest it be lost forever in a server crash or some other calamity.

I thought it would be interesting to see how my own identifications would stack up against Drew's. Here is how I identify each of the photos just by eye... that is, without any measuring:

1. Harvey
2. Harvey
3. Harvey
4. Lee
5. Composite
6. Composite
7. Lee
8. Lee
9. Harvey
10. Lee
11. Composite
12. Composite
 

"Composites" are the photos I believe were made from left/right halves of both Harvey and Lee. Notably this includes the Minsk photo, which I showed in another thread had to have been carried into the Soviet Union by Harvey. (That is to say, the composite was made in the U.S. prior to Oswald's defection. I documented this here. See "Part 2.")

I didn't attempt to identify the young kids of photo #13.

Here is how my identifications compare to those made by Drew Phipps using his feature measurement methodology:

PHIPPS' PERSON 1     (photos 1, 2, 3, 9 and 13)

1. Harvey
2. Harvey
3. Harvey
9. Harvey
 

PHIPPS' PERSON 2     (photos 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12)

4. Lee
5. Composite
6. Composite
7. Lee
8. Lee
11. Composite
12. Composite

Surprisingly, a perfect match!

It was easy for me to tell the photos apart among the ones Phipps selected. So I wasn't surprised about that. What surprised me is that Phipps methodology worked so well.

 

Thanks, Sandy!  Asking Drew Phipps for some sort of permission to save his study somewhere, like at HarveyandLee.net, sounds like good advice indeed!  I'll make an attempt to contact him tomorrow.

May I send him your post above and ask for his comment?  Pls let me know....

--Jim

[James DiEugenio]

This will be the third time I note something like this that has popped up here of late:

Bernie: This forum has nothing to do with the JFK assassination and everything to do with slightly disturbed and possibly psychotic middle aged males.

I really do not understand these kinds of cheap, personal smears.  Sandy, from what I can see, has always been an aboveboard, honest and polite person.  Maybe its because of where he lives. But he really does not act like he is from New York City.  So how does he merit this kind of insinuation, that he is a possible "psychotic"?

I really do hope the mods intercede here.  This is really over the top.   Sandy is a valuable poster here.  I appreciate almost all of what he says.  I hope he does not think twice about frequenting EF over this kind of crap.

[Bernie Laverick]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This will be the third time I note something like this that has popped up here of late:

Bernie: This forum has nothing to do with the JFK assassination and everything to do with slightly disturbed and possibly psychotic middle aged males.

I really do not understand these kinds of cheap, personal smears.  Sandy, from what I can see, has always been an aboveboard, honest and polite person.  Maybe its because of where he lives. But he really does not act like he is from New York City.  So how does he merit this kind of insinuation, that he is a possible "psychotic"?

I really do hope the mods intercede here.  This is really over the top.   Sandy is a valuable poster here.  I appreciate almost all of what he says.  I hope he does not think twice about frequenting EF over this kind of crap.

Funny that Jim, I don't recall you intervening when I was called "vermin" and when my wife and daughter were disgustingly used as a weapon to attack me. Funny that you only see this as being a one way street. This must be the tenth time you have made a short post knocking those who criticise H&L, but we never hear YOUR opinion on the subject.

Do you believe those photos show two separate individuals? If not then the entire H&L story has to go out of the window. How can you not see this? 

If you think they ARE two different people then you have to go ALL the way down the rabbit hole and swallow the rest. You can't just agree with some of it. Either there were two Oswalds as per JA, or there weren't; there is no middle ground. Shame you never feel brave enough to nail your colours to the mast and openly come out and tell us where you stand. Simply poking a stick at its critics is a bit cowardly I think...

We're not here to 'appreciate' other posters we're here to get to the truth. I can only assume that your appreciation is due to what Sandy says and the theory he promotes. Fine, so he has convinced you that there were two unrelated boys chosen as 11yr olds (along with two separate mothers) for an unspecified future espionage plot and twelve years later they ended up looking almost identical, mastoid scar included. Identical enough that H&L's own witnesses were adamant that it was the same man shot by Ruby, and that they need a biometric test to tell them apart! You really believe that? Seriously Jim? You too?

What definitive proof would it take to convince you that it didn't happen? And when that definitive proof turns up (like the autopsy report for instance), would you not feel that an awful lot of time has been deliberately wasted splitting the research community by chasing this well placed re herring here there and everywhere?

Why would you "appreciate" that?

 

 

[Thomas Graves]

41 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Funny that Jim, I don't recall you intervening when I was called "vermin" and when my wife and daughter were disgustingly used as a weapon to attack me. Funny that you only see this as being a one way street. This must be the tenth time you have made a short post knocking those who criticise H&L, but we never hear YOUR opinion on the subject.

Do you believe those photos show two separate individuals? If not then the entire H&L story has to go out of the window. How can you not see this? 

If you think they ARE two different people then you have to go ALL the way down the rabbit hole and swallow the rest. You can't just agree with some of it. Either there were two Oswalds as per JA, or there weren't; there is no middle ground. Shame you never feel brave enough to nail your colours to the mast and openly come out and tell us where you stand. Simply poking a stick at its critics is a bit cowardly I think...

We're not here to 'appreciate' other posters we're here to get to the truth. I can only assume that your appreciation is due to what Sandy says and the theory he promotes. Fine, so he has convinced you that there were two unrelated boys chosen as 11yr olds (along with two separate mothers) for an unspecified future espionage plot and twelve years later they ended up looking almost identical, mastoid scar included. Identical enough that H&L's own witnesses were adamant that it was the same man shot by Ruby, and that they need a biometric test to tell them apart! You really believe that? Seriously Jim? You too?

What definitive proof would it take to convince you that it didn't happen? And when that definitive proof turns up (like the autopsy report for instance), would you not feel that an awful lot of time has been deliberately wasted splitting the research community by chasing this well placed re herring here there and everywhere?

Why would you "appreciate" that?

 

 

Bernie,

I don't know about you, but I'm seriously beginning to think that "Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites" is an "active measures" counterintelligence op.

With so many gullible people believing in it, it's no wonder we ended up with a "useful idiot" president.

--  Tommy 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Tom Neal]

On 3/8/2018 at 4:30 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

Of Xs and Pros ….

Tom Neal writes that the lack of a missing tooth being marked on Oswald’s USMC dental charts indicates that he did NOT have a false tooth.  Since Tom says he asked an ex-army dentist about this and the dentist agreed, we certainly have to consider his argument. 

A few months ago, I was genuinely surprised when Sandy wrote about his discovery of the failed prosthesis notation in Oswald’s USMC records.  In a box clearly labeled: “PROSTHESIS REQUIRED? (If ‘yes’ explain briefly)” a dentist wrote, “FAILED 5-5-58.”  I can’t imagine any of us needing to go to dental school to see the significance of that entry.  No critic of Sandy’s proof has come close to explaining it to my satisfaction.

Unless the dentist was hallucinating, that entry alone proves this was not the “Lee Harvey Oswald” exhumed in 1981, since the medical examiners overseeing the exhumation declared all the decedent's teeth were natural. When I reviewed the dental charts after reading Tom’s original post, it did strike me as a little strange that none of the charts showed a prosthetic.  But I don’t see how we can claim that a notation on a chart that ISN’T made can negate a notation that IS made, namely, that a prosthetic failed on or by May 5, 1958.

Sandy offers a number of suggestions why the tooth wasn’t X’d out on the charts, and he's studied this issue a lot more fully than I have.  I’d only add that you really don’t need a chart to see what the problem is with a man’s teeth that look like this:

 

Jim,

Thanks for the support and for adding some sanity and the Scientific Method to the conversation.

I'd like to repeat: I have stated that I am only referring to the the dental records in my statements NOT the entirety of the case for H&L. If someone chooses to say that Lee lost a tooth and THIS dental record is unquestionable proof of this fact then I disagree. I have further stated that this evidence should NOT be thrown out - it should be lowered from unquestionable proof to supporting "evidence" of the existence of H&L.

If one chooses to accept that a particular record was altered because all, or many of the records were altered, then ANY document can support ANY theory you want. This records must FIRST be judged ON ITS OWN. That method is science.

I did consult 3 dentists. One was army trained, and has decades of civilian practice. If Larsen has bothered to ask a single dental professional I missed it in his post. He has gone so far as to state that my dentist, not dentists, are wrong and he is right because he has studied this for 30 days. Does anyone think that these guys have more than 30 days experience reading a dental chart?

I have lived in a large number of states and several countries. In EVERY instance, the initial exam recorded my missing tooth by placing an X on the chart. In every case the bridge is described and placed on the diagrams, not JUST on the MISSING TEETH, etc. diagram. This is also true of my Navy records. You can't get closer to the Marines than the Navy. When my missing tooth was replaced with a dental implant it is still regarded as a MISSING TOOTH, and the implant is clearly marked on the chart.

These records could not be confiscated by the FBI as someone has suggested. They have no jurisdiction over the military. Due to LHO's sortie to Russia, ONI/G2 had full control over any MC records. The FBI would only see what ONI wanted them to see.

Larsen's "explanations" are that the dentist "forgot" to mark the missing tooth on the diagram. Considering the number of markings on the chart, I hardly think that the MOST obvious defect in LHO's teeth was completely forgotten on at least 3 diagrams. His other explanation is that "missing teeth are not marked on the chart because they have been replaced by a bridge." The 3 dental professionals are in agreement that this is simply not true in the military or civilian world. If anyone prefers to believe Larson's 30 day experience is superior to these professionals, then there is no sense arguing with you.

Where is the record stating the replacement of the bridge? Fillings, sealant, etc. are stated but NOT the replacement of an expensive bridge? This is LHO's permanent medical record. What would a dentist think when LHO was in Japan? The missing tooth and bridge are not marked on the initial exam so he didn't have a missing tooth upon entry to the MC, and there is no record of a prosthesis install, so what does a single FAILED notation in the prosthesis box mean?

If this is Harvey's record altered to suit Lee, then Lee must not have ANY dental records at all. Why not? No where else in the dental record is there  ANY indication of a missing tooth and replacement, and there certainly would be. The sole purpose of altering the record is to remove ALL indications of a missing tooth. If you accept Larsen's two "explanations" then you have to accept that there was no need to mention the missing tooth/prosthesis in the entire dental record. So how exactly was this entire record altered?
1. All info regarding a missing tooth was literally erased from every  page. In this case missing words, etc. would be obvious. Unlikely to say the least.
2. Certainly ONI/G2 could obtain a BLANK record. Why not fill them in and not mention the missing tooth/prosthesis at all? Well... You have to now accept that despite the fact that the SOLE purpose of alteration was to remove any mention of a missing tooth someone from ONI, or FBI (as postulated) stupidly copied information into a box labelled PROSTHESIS and no one checked the form and no one  noticed. ONI and FBI with all their experience and resources couldn't find anyone with dental credentials to alter this VITAL record? No one who knew what a prosthesis was, or was willing to ask what it was?

If you can accept the error stated in #2 above, then you must accept that even a professional can make an outrageous error. Is it any more difficult to accept that this FAILED comment was simply placed on the WRONG dental chart? 

In summary, despite what has been posted, I am looking at this as a standalone document, not a statement that the H&L theory is BS. Putting this record into the entirety of the case for H&L this is noteworthy, but is in no way "INDISPUTABLE" NEW evidence.

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

2. Certainly ONI/G2 could obtain a BLANK record. Why not fill them in and not mention the missing tooth/prosthesis at all? Well... You have to now accept that despite the fact that the SOLE purpose of alteration was to remove any mention of a missing tooth someone from ONI, or FBI (as postulated) stupidly copied information into a box labelled PROSTHESIS and no one checked the form and no one  noticed. ONI and FBI with all their experience and resources couldn't find anyone with dental credentials to alter this VITAL record? No one who knew what a prosthesis was, or was willing to ask what it was?

If you can accept the error stated in #2 above, then you must accept that even a professional can make an outrageous error. Is it any more difficult to accept that this FAILED comment was simply placed on the WRONG dental chart? 

In summary, despite what has been posted, I am looking at this as a standalone document, not a statement that the H&L theory is BS. Putting this record into the entirety of the case for H&L this is noteworthy, but is in no way "INDISPUTABLE" NEW evidence.

Interesting analysis, Tom.  One of the most basic questions about this evidence is why on earth would a failed prosthesis be noted on a form while the location of the failed prosthesis is not noted on the very same form, or group of forms?  Your suggested possibility that the failed prosthesis notation may have been put on the wrong form is the only innocent explanation I can fathom for Sandy’s discovery, but it seems unlikely to me that a dentist or dental technician would make such an error with the tooth diagrams right in front of him.

But it might be far more possible for someone unfamiliar with dentistry in general and a prosthesis in particular, who was simply combining information from two different soldiers on to a single form, to make this kind of an error.  I have made numerous posts showing how the FBI altered witness testimony, and invented and/or altered page after page of documentary evidence.  I’ll be happy to start posting that evidence again for anyone who wants to deny the FBI’s treachery in this case.

John A. has a complete set of the FBI "Series 2" microfilm series from UMI, which includes all or at least many of the FBI documents from the assassination, including many which were breathlessly “released” decades after they were quietly released on this microfilm set.  I spent hours and hours skimming through just one of the many reels a couple of years ago, and I THINK I saw, among documents from Secret Service, Treasury, USPS, private organizations, even some documents from the Marines, but I’m not a hundred percent sure of that.  I’ll try to ask John if he recalls seeing Marine Corps in the FBI collection.  If these Marine documents were filtered through the FBI before reaching the Warren Commission, just about anything is possible.

[Michael Clark]

I think Tom's points are good ones.This important discussion that Sandy has raised should be viewed in isolation from the H&L story. Tie them together if you want but Sandy's analysis is either correct or incorrect, independent of Armstrong's theory.

What keeps coming to my mind is the picture of a smiling, red-eyed picture of LHO, with the one discolored tooth. Could it be that two teeth were compromised, one more so than the other, during the fight, and some measure was taken, to bond those teeth together, and that is what eventually failed, in the spring of 58? 

I knew a kid who lost a front tooth, and it was not properly taken care of. He could, and did, take the tooth out on occasion, and stick it back in, as a gag. 

In the end, however, the corpse has healthy, natural incisors.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Michael Clark