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

35 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Bart... I'm fairly sure it's simply a generational thing...

Blacks and whites get so crushed as the generations pile up and/or the images we work with are not from a negative but multiple (digital) generations and 72dpi

Also... the "blob" does not bother to cover where the tooth is missing...  as opposed to this other blob which does cover something important..

DJ,

Not sure how many generations there are to these prints, but I snapped the images I sent Sandy directly from pp. 70-71 of my copy of the Feb. 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine.  I used the camera from my Nexus 6P, which many people regard as one of the best phone cameras out there.  My suspicion is that there are artifacts from the little dots in the halftone printing process combined with the anti-aliasing features of modern cameras and computer displays.

Again, I urge anyone interested to go online and buy (I paid only a few bucks) a copy of the 2/21/64 LIFE mag and look at the picture.  It is big and clear.  You can easily see Oswald’s missing tooth without a magnifying glass.  With even modest magnification, you can see the little dots that make up the halftone image.  It’s really clear when you look at the printed page directly, although I think it’s pretty clear in these images.

There is a long, detailed article on Oswald in this issue, and it is worth the information even if the photo wasn't there.  Charged with creating a biography of "Lee Harvey Oswald," the Warren Commission's John Ely complained he was getting more information from LIFE than from the FBI.  This was a very influential edition of the magazine, which was supposed to convince the public that Oswald was the lone gunman.  Now, it is the entrance to many other questions.  And look at the photo on pages 70-71.

Edited by Jim Hargrove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

And that non darkened version is the correct version? The one without any proper contrast?

For who Michael? You? Everything you say in the post above can be given a 180 and used against you. You do understand that don't you.

Now there's a surprise!

A paint job is always different compared to artefacts from a transfer from video. Please do your homework and adjust your beliefs accordingly. 

For the record I do not give a hoot about H&L.

 

And Tom stop fantasising dude, this forum is filled to the brim with your 'dreams' ,  enough already.

 

Bart,

With all due respect, are you so paranoid and such a bad reader as to think that I was somehow trying to support the Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites "theory" in my last post?

Did that photo appear in the school's yearbook, or not?  If so, I've offered a plausible explanation as to how such an amateurish touch up / photo alteration job was done on it (probably by a student) in an attempt to "show" that Oswald had lost one or two teeth, but did such a lousy job that it looks as though he lost 2.5 of them, and that he had some kind of horrible shin cancer on his lower lip, as well (nice "find," by the way).

 

Btw,  ... Ever find Gloria Calvery in Zapruder?

Do you believe Nosenko was a true defector?  (lol)

Why did Duran and Azcue describe a (probably imaginary) Oswald impostor in such a way as to so closely resemble KGB colonel Nikolai Leonov?  Hmm?

 

Etc, etc,

--  Tommy  :sun

 

PS  As far as I'm concerned, you can take your crummy, Josephs-like attitude and ..... it up your ....... ... .

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

A paint job is always different compared to artefacts from a transfer from video. Please do your homework and adjust your beliefs accordingly.

Come on Bart nothing has been painted in. Someone took the photo and darkened it and when they did it darkened all of the other subtler shades too causing  the blob.

Do I  really need to  explain this after  all of the BS posted  about  PM?  You  should  know  better  than that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

HAVE YOU NOTICED BART?

THE CHILDREN ARE GETTING UPPITY..

Why of course we are! We know better and can distinguish  fact from fiction!

LOL!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

HAVE YOU NOTICED BART?

THE CHILDREN ARE GETTING UPPITY...   :zzz

 

13 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Why of course we are!

:up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Nexus 6P doesn’t have a macro mode, but earlier today I put the phone as close to page 70 of LIFE mag’s 2/21/64 edition as would focus in the natural light, and took the following shot.  The halftone dots are clearly visible. I’m wondering if it isn’t the tip of LEE Oswald’s tongue that is visible behind his missing tooth.  No doubt H&L critics will whine and cry and disagree.


LO_CU.jpg

 


Here’s the full image….


life_magazine_missing_tooth.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, David Josephs said:

.......

 

HAVE YOU NOTICED BART?

THE CHILDREN ARE GETTING UPPITY..  -- posted by David Joseph 4 hours ago

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

 

David,

 

With all due respect, what could be more childish than (paranoiacally?) tilting ones head down at such a sharp angle as to not even be close to looking towards the camera for your JFK Assassination Debate "profile" photo, "yelling" in upper-case letters, flooding posts with different kinds of silly emoticons (plural), and trying to belittle your opponent by writing the first letter of his or her name with a lower-case letter?

 

--  Tommy  :sun

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim - thanks for using the better photo not the artificially darkened one.  The blow up and the regular sized one confirm for me several things.  First, the camera definitely had a flash on it.  Look at the girl sitting next to LHO and you can see the stark shadows from it. The flash also was not powerful enough to illuminate the entire room which is why further in the BG the lighting of the room gets dimmer.

The blow up confirms several things for me as well.  The photo is made up of dots - as is to be expected - but there's still plenty of detail; for example, you can see a glimmer/shine in LHO's eyes.  This means they're not blobs but actual shine, most probably from the flash. And most telling of all, there is NOT a missing tooth.  You can clearly see where the camera flash caught a tooth where the Hardly Gang thinks there's a missing one. Yes it's dark but my guess is maybe he colored his tooth with a pencil blacking it out.  It's also why you see him hamming it up as the photo was taken.

If he had NOT blackened his tooth, then he would not have had a reason to give a clownish pose and smile like that. But he darkened his tooth then made his goofy pose revealing his colored in tooth for this photo.  As Tracy Parnell says here numerous times, the much simpler explanations have the more "ring of truth" in them.

And no matter what Larson says to create further subterfuge here, two different dental charts DO NOT show X's on any of the front teeth, and the exhumation photos show teeth in the skull. Meaning one thing - no missing teeth. Meaning something else - only one LHO.

Of course the Hardly Gang, being that you're all living in your alternative universe, will not agree with this. Which is fine but just remember - when you throw the REC switch in an automobile, you're not turning on a magic gas-guzzling motor in your car; the "ring of truth" explanation is the correct one - you're just recirculating the same air again to make it colder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Yes it's dark but my guess is maybe he colored his tooth with a pencil blacking it out.  It's also why you see him hamming it up as the photo was taken.

If he had NOT blackened his tooth, then he would not have had a reason to give a clownish pose and smile like that. But he darkened his tooth then made his goofy pose revealing his colored in tooth for this photo.  As Tracy Parnell says here numerous times, the much simpler explanations have the more "ring of truth" in them


Actually, you are the one who has to come up with weird explanations again and again.  Either that, or you have to admit that a lot of evidence for two Oswalds slipped through J. Edgar Hoover’s dragnet.  In this case, here’s what you have to believe:

Ed Voebel and LEE Oswald made a gag photo by darkening Oswald’s tooth so that... uh... hmmm... years later Voebel would get the opportunity to perjure himself at the Warren Commission by saying he thought Oswald lost a tooth in the attack.

You also have to take a cue from Greg Parker and claim that U.S. Marine Corps dentists classified liquid dental sealants as false teeth (prosthetics), as you say they did right here:

failed_prosthesis.jpg

 

You also have to assume that it’s just a wacky coincidence that two of Oswald’s upper front teeth in a photo taken the exact same year as the prosthetics failed notation looked like this:

LHO-1957.jpg

 


To read Sandy’s interesting theory about that, CLICK HERE.

The rest of your “analysis” and your usual name-calling is irrelevant.  If Voebel took the classroom with a flash, rather than available light, why is the front of the room as bright as the objects closest to the camera?  The inverse square law states, as one example, that the intensity of illumination changes in inverse proportion to the square of the distance from the source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

To read Sandy’s interesting theory about that, CLICK HERE.

The rest of your “analysis” and your usual name-calling is irrelevant.  If Voebel took the classroom with a flash, rather than available light, why is the front of the room as bright as the objects closest to the camera?  The inverse square law states, as one example, that the intensity of illumination changes in inverse proportion to the square of the distance from the source.

It was with a flash Jim.  If you can't see it, then you (and others) are simply blind and I'm not going to take time to put an arrow in the photo to point it out because you and others STILL won't see the light, so to speak.

And this pretty much sums up the entire "he said, she said" narrative of the Hardly story, Jim. You won't even admit now that the photo was taken with a flash (and therefore, maybe...just maybe I'm right about the shine on a darkened tooth). You won't admit it even when it's plain as day.  So if you can't even admit this, there's no way we can ever expect you or others to admit that your Hardly story is full of malarkey.

Everyone has called each other names on here, Jim. You're no exception so it's pretty much par for the course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

HAVE YOU NOTICED BART?

THE CHILDREN ARE GETTING UPPITY..  -- posted by David Joseph 4 hours ago

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

 

David,

 

With all due respect, what could be more childish than (paranoiacally?) tilting ones head down at such a sharp angle as to not even be close to looking towards the camera for your JFK Assassination Debate "profile" photo, "yelling" in upper-case letters, flooding posts with different kinds of silly emoticons (plural), and trying to belittle your opponent by writing the first letter of his or her name with a lower-case letter?

 

--  Tommy  :sun

 

tommy...   belittle... me?  :sun

you seem a bit fixated on my profile, posting, image, and style good buddy...  whereas most come here to discuss a topic within the JFK case...

you, it seems - with only the respect you deserve - have barely 1 thing to say, just the 1, and you repeat it as if it 1) needed to be so maybe you'd be taken seriously or
2) you were adding anything to the conversation to begin with...

Maybe instead of trying and failing to be witty with every post, you could try for interesting, helpful and/or informative instead?  :pop

Then maybe people wouldn't feel so imposed upon or annoyed each time you and your buddy in perpetual confusion, enter a thread

:up

as for the emoticons and you being upset about EVERY - LITTLE - THING I do...

spongebob-worlds-smallest-violin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

ou seem a bit fixated on my profile, posting, image, and style good buddy...  wh

You really do like your emoticons - LOL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

You really do like your emoticons - LOL

 

 

Michael,

With all due respect, why stoop to his level?

--  Tommy  :sun

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

×
×
  • Create New...