Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

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

Recommended Posts

Could the person in the photo be posing with blacked-out teeth? It seems to me that more than one tooth is missing or perhaps one is missing and one is chipped? 

 

Edited by Mervyn Hagger
to realign text and insert photo example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

But since your entire thesis rests upon #8 and #9 to square with the picture shown in Life magazine, you have to be a lot more meticulous in discovery of evidence than what has been shown to date.

 

Mervyn,

I have been extremely meticulous in my discovery of the evidence.

All of the teeth from the exhumed corpse are natural teeth. My source for that is the Norton Report. With all due respect, the problem lies not with me but in the fact that you don't know how to read the dental information contained within the Norton Report. Which is fine and understandable, but please don't lay the blame at my feet.

The chart on page 33 of the report gives a summary of information on all the teeth. The tables following that give greater detail. These are forensic charts and tables that list everything abnormal or corrected for every tooth. The finding for tooth #8 is that it was "normal" antemortem but had "mesial caries" (a cavity) postmortem. The finding for tooth #9 is that it was "rotated" antemortem and was "rotated distally" postmortem. If either of these teeth had a filling, root canal, crown, bridge, or was missing, it would have been notated as such.

Look at every tooth if you wish. Some have "restorations" (fillings), some have cavities, at least one has a root canal, and some have abnormalities. But there are no crowns or bridges. Which means that all the teeth we see are natural.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sandy. Yes, I can read and understand. I just asked you where it said that all teeth are natural teeth. However, as you can see, I raised a second question. How do you know that the Life magazine photo was not posed by a person just goofing off? It looks as if the person is goofing off and it looks as if you are supposed to notice the teeth. So how do you know that the person in the photo was not posing with blacked-out teeth? It seems to me that this is the first and most logical and uncomplicated explanation. It does not destroy the thesis that there may have been two people posing as LHO, which is another matter entirely.

33 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Mervyn,

I have been extremely meticulous in my discovery of the evidence.

All of the teeth from the exhumed corpse are natural teeth. My source for that is the Norton Report. With all due respect, the problem lies not with me but in the fact that you don't know how to read the dental information contained within the Norton Report. Which is fine and understandable, but please don't lay the blame at my feet.

The chart on page 33 of the report gives a summary of information on all the teeth. The tables following that give greater detail. These are forensic charts and tables that list everything abnormal or corrected for every tooth. The finding for tooth #8 is that it was "normal" antemortem but had "mesial caries" (a cavity) postmortem. The finding for tooth #9 is that it was "rotated" antemortem and was "rotated distally" postmortem. If either of these teeth had a filling, root canal, crown, bridge, or was missing, it would have been notated as such.

Look at every tooth if you wish. Some have "restorations" (fillings), some have cavities, at least one has a root canal, and some have abnormalities. But there are no crowns or bridges. Which means that all the teeth we see are natural.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What LHO's aunt Lillian Murrett testified was that his tooth "went through  his lip."   

So, it was a pierced lip that LHO suffered -- not a broken tooth.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

How do you know that the Life magazine photo was not posed by a person just goofing off? It looks as if the person is goofing off and it looks as if you are supposed to notice the teeth. So how do you know that the person in the photo was not posing with blacked-out teeth? It seems to me that this is the first and most logical and uncomplicated explanation. It does not destroy the thesis that there may have been two people posing as LHO, which is another matter entirely.

 

Mervyn,

Oswald was hit in the mouth not long before that photo was taken. His good friend who witnessed it said he thought Oswald lost his tooth. Under those circumstances it seems likely that we are seeing what Oswald's friend remembered, not something entirely different and quite unlikely. (How often does someone paint their front tooth black and has his friend take a picture of it?)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

What LHO's aunt Lillian Murrett testified was that his tooth "went through  his lip."

 

Aunt Lillian also testified that she paid the dentist who treated it.

Since when do kids go to a dentist for a split lip, Paul?

Obviously Oswald got both a split lip and a broken tooth.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arguments trying to explain the missing front tooth change so fast it makes my head spin.  

First the missing tooth was replaced with an implant, then it surely was a cap, and then, with the benefit of a new thread, the tooth was never lost in the first place, but Oswald deliberately blackened it for the famous photo, for which the evidence is an unrelated comedy skit by Lucille Ball.  

Just as Ricky Ricardo discovered weekly, when you have to ask Lucy to “”splain,” you’re in real trouble.

The fact that the kid who took the picture swore that he thought Oswald lost a tooth means nothing when you have Lucy to turn to, eh?  The fact that Oswald's aunt swore she paid a dentist to treat it also means nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the Oswald photo is just him covering his upper teeth with his tongue, like if he was trying to make a silly face?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Mervyn,

Oswald was hit in the mouth not long before that photo was taken. His good friend who witnessed it said he thought Oswald lost his tooth. Under those circumstances it seems likely that we are seeing what Oswald's friend remembered, not something entirely different and quite unlikely. (How often does someone paint their front tooth black and has his friend take a picture of it?)

 

How often? How often does a class clown turn around and have his picture taken in the middle of a class? How often do class clowns do weird things? All the time in every age and in every school. There is always at least one or two or three people who don't conform and disturb the set circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

What if the Oswald photo is just him covering his upper teeth with his tongue, like if he was trying to make a silly face?

That's not what seems to be shown, although the photo is not clear for anyone to say for certain what it shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The arguments trying to explain the missing front tooth change so fast it makes my head spin.  

First the missing tooth was replaced with an implant, then it surely was a cap, and then, with the benefit of a new thread, the tooth was never lost in the first place, but Oswald deliberately blackened it for the famous photo, for which the evidence is an unrelated comedy skit by Lucille Ball.  

Just as Ricky Ricardo discovered weekly, when you have to ask Lucy to “”splain,” you’re in real trouble.

The fact that the kid who took the picture swore that he thought Oswald lost a tooth means nothing when you have Lucy to turn to, eh?  The fact that Oswald's aunt swore she paid a dentist to treat it also means nothing.

 

Exactly!

These people hate the evidence so much that they manufacture their own versions of the evidence.

Trejo claims that Ed Voebel made up the story of the tooth breaking. Mervyn claims that Oswald painted his tooth black for the photo. Neither have any evidence to support their clams. They just simply make it up as they go.

And as usual Walton cheers them on regardless of how ridiculous their posts are.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The arguments trying to explain the missing front tooth change so fast it makes my head spin.  

First the missing tooth was replaced with an implant, then it surely was a cap, and then, with the benefit of a new thread, the tooth was never lost in the first place, but Oswald deliberately blackened it for the famous photo, for which the evidence is an unrelated comedy skit by Lucille Ball.  

Just as Ricky Ricardo discovered weekly, when you have to ask Lucy to “”splain,” you’re in real trouble.

The fact that the kid who took the picture swore that he thought Oswald lost a tooth means nothing when you have Lucy to turn to, eh?  The fact that Oswald's aunt swore she paid a dentist to treat it also means nothing.

Jim, someone is trying make a definitive statement based upon this hazy photo and the hearsay comments of someone whose testimony is uncorroborated. So the first thing was to accept what was presented and to be told that the exhumation did not reveal missing teeth. Okay, then the next step after crowns, is to ask, is there any other possible explanation? Well, when you go back to that photo all kinds of questions arise about who took it and how and why and since it is murky, could the class clown have used the pen in his hand to blacken his teeth? It's possible, but anything is possible with that picture because it can't be used to prove anything. Not only that we have no chain of custody to prove who took it and when it was taken and why it was taken. The questions become a mountain of doubt that the picture can be used to prove anything at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

These people hate the evidence so much that they manufacture their own versions of the evidence.

 

Now add Micah to the list.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Exactly!

These people hate the evidence so much that they manufacture their own versions of the evidence.

Trejo claims that Ed Voebel made up the story of the tooth breaking. Mervyn claims that Oswald painted his tooth black for the photo. Neither have any evidence to support their clams. They just simply make it up as they go.

And as usual Walton cheers them on regardless of how ridiculous their posts are.

 

No, after you proved your point and I accepted it, I went back to your source photograph and I realized we are discussing a non-issue because the photo proves nothing at all other than a class clown was once caught disrupting a class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×