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

[Jim Hargrove]

8 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Not sure how this adds anything to the copy above, Michael, but here it is again....

 

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

This photo was also retouched.    The "missing tooth" theory really isn't new.   It's an H&L ploy.   (The H&L CT, by the way, is more than 20 years old, having first appeared in an article in Probe Magazine (1995), written by John Armstrong.)

Proof will take time -- because H&L people play with photography.  In time I will prove it, because it's clearly photograph trickery -- probably being used to seek a Hollywood contract for a movie deal.   It's an affront to JFK Research, so I take this personally.

I disagree sharply with Jim and with Mike on this point, because the missing "space" between the teeth in Ed Voebel's photo of LHO was large enough for 2.5 teeth.  

Also, an honest (unretouched) blowup of the original shows black ink marks.   

In order to prove it, I'll need to get hold of ORIGINAL copies of Ed Voebel's photograph -- because I can't trust the H&L folks with photographic "evidence" anymore.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

I just want to get the above accusation by Mr. Trejo on the record here, so that it can't be altered.

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Trejo seems to be claiming that the "H&L folks" altered this photo, along with the LIFE magazine photo.  We'll see where that accusation leads.

I certainly don't think the H&L folks altered the LIFE magazine photo -- because it was before your time.

Yet all LIFE magazine photos are famous for being retouched by the LIFE magazine photographic department.   It's a well-known fact.

No, when it comes to the Ed Voebel photograph -- I say that was first modified by LHO and Ed Voebel (before the LIFE magazine retouch)

I demand to see the ORIGINAL.

But when it comes to that other photograph of LHO, showing him with a dark brown tooth -- that was retouched RECENTLY, in my opinion.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 16, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

...Here’s an unretouched closeup of the image above showing LEE Harvey Oswald’s missing front tooth.

...This isn’t rocket science....Get your hands on the magazine and look for yourself!

JIm,

Once again, that's NOT a "missing tooth" -- it's at least 2.5 missing teeth.   You keep evading the obvious fact.   Maybe if you keep denying the facts they will go away.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 16, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Ray Mitcham]

edited

Edited March 16, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[Jim Hargrove]

28 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I certainly don't think the H&L folks altered the LIFE magazine photo -- because it was before your time.

Yet all LIFE magazine photos are famous for being retouched by the LIFE magazine photographic department.   It's a well-known fact.

No, when it comes to the Ed Voebel photograph -- I say that was first modified by LHO and Ed Voebel (before the LIFE magazine retouch)

So, Mr. Trejo is now claiming that the classroom photo of LEE Oswald's missing tooth was retouched by, count them...

1. LEE Harvey Oswald
2. Edward Voebel
3. LIFE magazine editors

What a conspiracy!  All done to create the illusion of a missing tooth or teeth???  This just gets better and better.

31 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I demand to see the ORIGINAL.

Good luck, Mr. Trejo.  The last person I'm aware of allowed to directly examine large numbers of LHO "original" evidence at the National Archives was John Armstrong. John has said many times that there was little original documentation there; mostly b&w copies. 

But the LIFE magazine published halftone prints do comprise evidence.  The photo was apparently acquired from Voebel via WDSU Television in New Orleans, and published by LIFE just a few months after the assassination, untouched by the FBI or the Warren Commission.

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

So, Mr. Trejo is now claiming that the classroom photo of LEE Oswald's missing tooth was retouched by, count them...

1. LEE Harvey Oswald
2. Edward Voebel
3. LIFE magazine editors

What a conspiracy!  All done to create the illusion of a missing tooth or teeth???  This just gets better and better.

Good luck, Mr. Trejo.  The last person I'm aware of allowed to directly examine large numbers of LHO "original" evidence at the National Archives was John Armstrong. John has said many times that there was little original documentation there; mostly b&w copies. 

But the LIFE magazine published halftone prints do comprise evidence.  The photo was apparently acquired from Voebel via WDSU Television in New Orleans, and published by LIFE just a few months after the assassination, untouched by the FBI or the Warren Commission.

Jim,

Your writing is overdramatic.   I never said that LHO, Voebel and LIFE were plotting a conspiracy.    I said LHO and Voebel were two kids making a prank.  (On this I agree fully with Michael Walton.)   As for LIFE magazine, they are famous for retouching all the photos that they print.

In fact, retouching was one of the most common aspects of photography in the 1930's to 1970's.    For example, that mole underneath Marguerite Oswald's right eye was almost always retouched out of existence.    Yet you mistake that as "evidence" of two Marguerite Oswalds!

Thus, I disagree flatly that LIFE magazine retouched photographs comprise evidence!   That's utter nonsense.  No retouching is ever evidence.   Just like -- the scope on LHO's rifle in that front page of LIFE magazine was retouched out of existence, simply because it clashed with the type of paper medium that they used!

RETOUCHING IS NEVER EVIDENCE !!!

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 16, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Jim Hargrove]

Sorry to be overdramatic, Paul, but I’m just stunned at the lengths you guys will go to to deny what is right in front of your eyes.  Do you seriously expect me to believe that LIFE magazine editors called for the LHO classroom photo to be retouched to give the illusion LEE was missing a front tooth or two?  Seriously?  Otherwise, why  do you bring this up?

The LIFE magazine photo is evidence because we know the FBI altered other evidence (ask me for proof, please!!!) and this photo apparently was never in the hands of the FBI, at least not before LIFE published it.  If you can prove LIFE magazine retouched the photo to make a tooth or two disappear, then that retouched photo would be evidence indeed!  But, of course, just about everything you write trying to make this missing tooth business go away is just wild speculation.
 

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

I demand to see the ORIGINAL.

You can demand to see anything you want about this case, but making your demand on an internet discussion forum is not the way to succeed.  You have to do what John did, spend months at the National Archives, travel across the U.S. to visit court houses and state and county offices, visit living eyewitnesses, even if they’ve moved overseas, and do the hard work to do real research.  You demand to see original evidence on the Education Forum, and you claim I’m overdramatic?  

 

16 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

This photo was also retouched.    The "missing tooth" theory really isn't new.   It's an H&L ploy.   (The H&L CT, by the way, is more than 20 years old, having first appeared in an article in Probe Magazine (1995), written by John Armstrong.)

Proof will take time -- because H&L people play with photography.  In time I will prove it, because it's clearly photograph trickery -- probably being used to seek a Hollywood contract for a movie deal.   It's an affront to JFK Research, so I take this personally.

This photo has been in the National Archives for decades.  John got himself a copy and had it reproduced it in the 2003 CD that accompanied Harvey and Lee.  Have you even bothered to look at the photo at the Archives, or request a high-quality color copy via mail?  Of course not.  You just make wild accusations here about “photographic trickery.”

I’m simply stunned at the foolish lengths you guys go to trying to deny the simple and plain truth in front of your eyes.  

Edited March 16, 2018 by Jim Hargrove

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Speaking of the above photo, John Mytton has a new post at Duncan Macrae's forum that shows the resemblance between the teeth of "Lee" and "Harvey" (reply #93).

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,207.90.html

[Thomas Graves]

14 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Speaking of the above photo, John Mytton has a new post at Duncan Macrae's forum that shows the resemblance between the teeth of "Lee" and "Harvey" (reply #93).

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,207.90.html

 

Tracy,

I just now went there and took a look at that post and a few of the others on that page.  In my humble opinion, Mytton has done some excellent work there. Thanks for sharing the link.

--  TG

[W. Tracy Parnell]

22 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Tracy,

I just now went there and took a look at that post and a few of the others on that page.  In my humble opinion, Mytton has done some excellent work there. Thanks for sharing the link.

--  TG

You're welcome Tommy. Mytton has indeed done some good work and his talent with graphics far exceeds my own.

[Jim Hargrove]

If you guys want to convince yourselves those morphing pictures of appearing and disappearing teeth actually prove anything at all, by all means go for it!

Have you figured out yet how Oswald's cadaver regrew a front tooth in his coffin?