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

[Thomas Graves]

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Lance,

Rather than trying to distract readers from my very simple proof of two Oswalds with a bunch or psychological mumbo jumbo, why not just attack the proof itself?

Tell us... what's wrong with the evidence that is so plain to see and easy to understand, right there on Oswald's dental 1958 dental record? Which is inconsistent with Oswald's 1981 exhumed teeth?

I'll give you a clue... there is only ONE alternative interpretation that will save you from having to admit defeat. Can you figure it out?

 

Here is the VERY simple proof that there were two Oswalds.

The following is a closeup of the "Prosthesis Required?" field on Oswald's 1958 dental record.

 

The dentist is instructed to "explain briefly" if yes, a prosthesis is required. The dentist explained by saying that an existing prosthesis failed. It failed on May 5, 1958.

A prosthesis is a false tooth. So from the dental record we know that Oswald needed a false tooth.

However, photos of Oswald's teeth (below) that were exhumed in 1981 show NO false teeth and NO SPACE where a false tooth can fit.

Therefore the 1958-Oswald and exhumed-Oswald were not the same person.

 

Front View

 

Top Inside View

 

Bottom Inside View

 

Sandy,

With all due respect, what are you trying to prove?  That neither those nice KGB Ruskies (who installed expendable, blackmail-able, "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president) nor Fidel Castro (who hated both Khrushchev and Kennedy) killed Kennedy, but that your favorite punching bag, the evil, evil, evil CIA dood da deed?

LOL

(You really disappoint me, you "genius," you.)

--  Tommy 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

With all due respect, what are you trying to prove?

 

That there were two boy Oswalds.

Though I'm not TRYING to prove that... I HAVE proven that.

Of course, there's a ton of corroborating evidence indicating the same thing, as discovered and presented by John Armstrong, Jim Hargrove, and David Josephs.

 

3 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

  That neither those nice KGB Ruskies (who installed expendable, blackmail-able, "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president) nor Fidel Castro (who hated both Khrushchev and Kennedy) killed Kennedy, but that your favorite punching bag, the evil, evil, evil CIA food da deed?

LOL

(You really disappoint me, you "genius," you.)

--  Tommy 

 

Belongs on another thread.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Knowing what we know on this forum, I wonder who still believes the world is flat on here and who believes it's round - LOL!

Isn’t it amusing that the anti-H&L folks here indulge in lots of insults, plenty of psycho-babble, and all sorts of irrelevant prose, but they simply are unable to refute the evidence.

To those who read this but don’t participate, why not just follow the evidence?  No matter what the CIA defenders and H&L critics say, they can't make the evidence go away.

 

 

[Thomas Graves]

On 2/25/2018 at 7:30 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

That there were two boy Oswalds.

Though I'm not TRYING to prove that... I HAVE proven that.

Of course, there's a ton of corroborating evidence indicating the same thing, as discovered and presented by John Armstrong, Jim Hargrove, and David Josephs.

 

 

Belongs on another thread.

 

 

Sandy,

I wrote:  (Are you trying to prove) that neither those nice KGB Ruskies, who installed expendable, blackmail-able, "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president, nor Fidel Castro, who hated both Khrushchev and Kennedy, killed Kennedy, but that your favorite punching bag, the evil, evil, evil CIA dood da deed?

LOL

(You really disappoint me, you "genius," you.)

--  Tommy   "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

With all due respect ... belongs on another thread?

How so?

By the way, you haven't proved jack you-know-what.

--  Tommy 

PS  Greg Parker's explanation for the notations on that form / those forms is eminently logical and understandable.

Perhaps you should give up and start concentrating on Gloria Calvery, again.

More your cup of tea, one would think.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

PS  Greg Parker's explanation for the notations on that form / those forms is eminently logical and understandable.

LOL!

Mr. Parker’s attempted rebuttal involves calling a liquid sealant a dental prosthetic and a couple of paraphrased reports about the fight, including one by a kid who didn’t know Oswald. He tries to use this to overcome the clear, sworn testimony of Oswald’s friend, the kid who took the photo of the missing tooth and tried to treat Oswald's wound in the boys' room after the fight.  To explain why Lillian Murett had to pay a dentist to treat Lee Oswald’s wound, Mr. Parker says... nothing.

Notice that no H&L critic has the courage to summarize Mr. Parker’s argument and put it here.  It's too embarrassing for them.  Just look at the LIFE mag pictures!

 

[Thomas Graves]

56 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

LOL!

Mr. Parker’s attempted rebuttal involves calling a liquid sealant a dental prosthetic and a couple of paraphrased reports about the fight, including one by a kid who didn’t know Oswald. He tries to use this to overcome the clear, sworn testimony of Oswald’s friend, the kid who took the photo of the missing tooth and tried to treat Oswald's wound in the boys' room after the fight.  To explain why Lillian Murett had to pay a dentist to treat Lee Oswald’s wound, Mr. Parker says... nothing.

Notice that no H&L critic has the courage to summarize Mr. Parker’s argument and put it here.  It's too embarrassing for them.  Just look at the LIFE mag pictures!

 

James,

With all due respect, do you think "dental sealant" should have its own special category, all by it widdle self? 

How many other special categories do you think there should there be on that limited-space-for-writing form?

(LOL)

--  Tommy 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

PS  Greg Parker's explanation for the notations on that form / those forms is eminently logical and understandable.

 

So you do indeed believe Greg Parker's incredibly stupid claim that "Prosthesis Required?" means both that AND "Sealant Required?"

Well, then, answer this: How is a dentist reading this part of the chart (below) supposed to figure out whether the patient needs a new prosthesis or a new sealant?

He can't. Which is just one reason that Parker's claim is incredibly stupid.

 

 

Of course, the truth is that "Prosthesis Required?" means only that. But Greg and his followers will believe incredibly stupid things rather than admit that Oswald had a failed prosthesis.

 

[Paul Trejo]

Nobody has adequately replied to my proposition that the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald in middle school, showing 2.5 missing teeth, was retouched.

On another note -- it is futile to pretend to criticize the CT Community, as if for the first time in the past half-century.    The CT Community has largely been a CIA-did-it CT Community since the days of Jim Garrison.

Jim Garrison failed to make his case.   This spawned at least another dozen CIA-did-it CT's -- many are spin-offs specifically from Probe Magazine (ca. 1991-1998), and this includes the Hardly Lee CT.   (Sorry, I just really like Michael's tag.)

This means that our own James Di Eugenio (former Editor of Probe Magazine) is one of the most influential CTers in the world.   It isn't about psychology this or psychology that.  It's really about the fame of James Di Eugenio, as I see it, and about the dozens of readers on this Forum who will say and do just about anything to prop up his CIA-did-it CT -- regardless of the nonsense involved.

Oh, and by the way -- did I mention that nobody has adequately replied to my proposition that the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald in middle school, showing 2.5 missing teeth, was retouched?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 26, 2018 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Michael Walton]

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Though I'm not TRYING to prove that... I HAVE proven that.

But all in jest just case, right, Sandy?

 

[Michael Walton]

10 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

(Sorry, I just really like Michael's tag.)

Paul

FWIW credit where credit is due. I saw that on Parker's forum, loved it and stole it from him.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

14 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Nobody has adequately replied to my proposition that the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald in middle school, showing 2.5 missing teeth, was retouched.

On another note -- it is futile to pretend to criticize the CT Community, as if for the first time in the past half-century.    The CT Community has largely been a CIA-did-it CT Community since the days of Jim Garrison.

Jim Garrison failed to make his case.   This spawned at least another dozen CIA-did-it CT's -- many are spin-offs specifically from Probe Magazine (ca. 1991-1998), and this includes the Hardly Lee CT.   (Sorry, I just really like Michael's tag.)

This means that our own James Di Eugenio (former Editor of Probe Magazine) is one of the most influential CTers in the world.   It isn't about psychology this or psychology that.  It's really about the fame of James Di Eugenio, as I see it, and about the dozens of readers on this Forum who will say and do just about anything to prop up his CIA-did-it CT -- regardless of the nonsense involved.

Oh, and by the way -- did I mention that nobody has adequately replied to my proposition that the photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald in middle school, showing 2.5 missing teeth, was retouched?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

It is hardly surprising that ever-present CIA defenders have to resort to name calling and character assassination to defend the undefendible . Jim DiEugenio has skillfully followed the evidence in this case.  To my knowledge he was one of the first scholars on earth to both understand and fully and publicly describe the breadth and depth of American Intel’s media war against Jim Garrison, and to show how his case, from both external sabotage and clandestine infiltration of his staff by U.S. Intel assets, was doomed from the start.

And now, of course, faced with yet another researcher who has presented evidence that members of the CIA were intimately involved in the plot to assassinate JFK, Mr. Trejo does whatever he can to discredit that evidence, in this case evidence of an intel operation designed to send a Russian-speaking young man apparently with an American birth certificate to Moscow.  How utterly predictable.

As I’ve said several times right here in answer to Mr. Trejo’s latest accusation, anyone who thinks this photo is retouched should get a copy of the 2/21/64 edition of LIFE magazine, and look at the photo on pp. 70-71.   Well over half a century ago, it appeared exactly on the pages of LIFE magazine as it appears here today. 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Jim Hargrove

[Paul Trejo]

26 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

It is hardly surprising that ever-present CIA defenders have to resort to name calling and character assassination to defend the undefendible . Jim DiEugenio has skillfully followed the evidence in this case.  To my knowledge he was one of the first scholars on earth to both understand and fully and publicly describe the breadth and depth of American Intel’s media war against Jim Garrison, and to show how his case, from both external sabotage and clandestine infiltration of his staff by U.S. Intel assets, was doomed from the start.

And now, of course, faced with yet another researcher who has presented evidence that members of the CIA were intimately involved in the plot to assassinate JFK, Mr. Trejo does whatever he can to discredit that evidence, in this case evidence of an intel operation designed to send a Russian-speaking young man apparently with an American birth certificate to Moscow...  

Jim,

You mischaracterize me.  I'm not defending the CIA.   I have no interest in them.   My project is to accuse the correct killers of JFK, namely, General Walker and the Radical Right in Dallas, including officials in the Dallas Police and Sheriff's offices.

The CIA-did-it CTers seem to be willing to move heaven and earth to prevent any attention going to the Dallas Police and Sheriff's offices.   Yet the Warren Commission testimony of so many of their members is as fishy as a coastal dock.

By the way -- you again evaded my challenge -- the middle-school photo of LHO missing 2.5 teeth looks retouched.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 26, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Ron Ecker]

4 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

The CIA-did-it CTers seem to be willing to move heaven and earth to prevent any attention going to the Dallas Police and Sheriff's offices.  

By the way -- you again evaded my challenge -- the middle-school photo of LHO missing 2.5 teeth looks retouched.

 

Does complicity within the DPD and Sheriff's office exonerate the CIA?

How about the RFK hit? LAPD seems to have moved heaven and earth to blame it on Sirhan. Does that mean LAPD did it (perhaps for General Walker or someone like that)? I don't think so. I think LAPD was complicit, in service of some powerful larger entity like the CIA.

On the "missing 2.5 teeth," I do find that photo confusing. This thread is about "a missing front tooth," though I haven't read every post, so perhaps I am missing the truth about the tooth. Did young Oswald have one very large front tooth, instead of two front teeth like normal people? There is certainly more than one tooth missing in that photo from my perspective.

 

 

 

[Paul Trejo]

17 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

(1) Does complicity within the DPD and Sheriff's office exonerate the CIA?  How about the RFK hit? LAPD seems to have moved heaven and earth to blame it on Sirhan. Does that mean LAPD did it (perhaps for General Walker or someone like that)? I don't think so. I think LAPD was complicit, in service of some powerful larger entity like the CIA.

(2) On the "missing 2.5 teeth," I do find that photo confusing. This thread is about "a missing front tooth," though I haven't read every post, so perhaps I am missing the truth about the tooth. Did young Oswald have one very large front tooth, instead of two front teeth like normal people? There is certainly more than one tooth missing in that photo from my perspective.

Ron,

I realize that we're talking about two widely different CT's here.

(1) Although a guilty DPD and Sheriff's office does not exonerate the CIA, it does reduce their footprint.   I tend to agree with the HSCA, which admitted that "rogue" elements from US Agencies could have played a role, but the Agency heads themselves did not.

(1.1.)  I find this CT confirmed by Bill Simpich, who in 2014 discovered a Mexico City CIA Mole Hunt demonstrating that CIA heads did not know who Impersonated LHO in Mexico City on 10/01/1963.  This, in my view, does exonerate the CIA heads.   I admit that CIA, FBI and SS "rogues" roamed Dallas as well as Mexico City.

(1.2.)   Again, I have zero interest in defending the CIA.  I only want to find the real JFK killers, and the Hardly Lee fiction is the silliest CT ever invented.  It rests on nonsense.

(1.3.)  I realize that E. Howard Hunt confessed -- and so did David Morales.   So I argue that they were "rogues" supporting the Radical Right in the USA, and ultimately in Dallas.

(1.4.)  I further argue that the leader in Dallas, namely General Walker, would allow no other leaders besides himself, and would select all the Dallas players himself.   He was a former US Army General, for goodness sake, with 30 years of WW2, Korea and Cold War experience.   Why would he trust mere kids?

(2)  As for the missing 2.5 teeth -- I'm glad to have some confirmation of my perspective.   That hole is FAR LARGER than a single tooth.

(2.1.)  If that LHO middle school photo was retouched, then this collapses Sandy's alleged "indisputable proof" for the H&L CT, because in my view he's already lost the Dental FORM debate, and all he has left is this photo.   Game Over.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 26, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

22 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So you do indeed believe Greg Parker's incredibly stupid claim that "Prosthesis Required?" means both that AND "Sealant Required?"

Well, then, answer this: How is a dentist reading this part of the chart (below) supposed to figure out whether the patient needs a new prosthesis or a new sealant?

He can't. Which is just one reason that Parker's claim is incredibly stupid.

Of course, the truth is that "Prosthesis Required?" means only that. But Greg and his followers will believe incredibly stupid things rather than admit that Oswald had a failed prosthesis.

Sandy,

When you use such emphatic language, it does not strengthen your case, rather, it weakens your case.   It reveals an insecurity on your part.   The ambiguity of the single word, "FAILED" in that Dental FORM, was plain from the very start.

Greg Parker argued ably that "Prosthesis" had multiple meanings in 1963 Army Regulations, including Dental Sealants.   If another column was required for Dental Sealants, then why wasn't one provided?   Answer: because Dental Sealants were classified as Dental Prosthetics.

The ambiguity of the word, FAILED, there, is plain for everybody to see -- and your emotional defense of your own interpretation of the word, FAILED, is also plain for everybody to see.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo