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

1 minute ago, Thomas Graves said:

Michael,

With all due respect, why stoop to his level?

I'm actually not.  I thought that commercial was always cute and happy and the lady in it is very beautiful too and does a great job in her role. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stoop?   :lol:  and sure I love me some emoticons....   welcome to the 21st century boys.

   and you both still have yet to post anything worth more than a warm bucket of spit...  your mama's must be so proud

:up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2018 at 9:00 PM, Michael Walton said:

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...

Michael,

Thanks for this.   Good detail in your analysis.   Nice concluding argument.   

All this reminds me of the dangers of using photographs as evidence in the JFK Assassination case.   With all the sophisticated tools we have for photographs today --- compared with the late 1950's and early 1960's -- it's way too easy for people to PhotoShop any photo they want to skew it this way and that.   

Thanks to Bart, that black rectangle in the first photo that Jim shared, now jumps out at me.   It's absence in this second photo makes me wonder.   

Now the black rectangle is gone, but you pointed out a white streak in the "blackened space" while now jumps out at me.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is remarkable about Sandy’s presentation in this thread is the absurdity of the arguments against it that have been presented here by the usual anti-H&L, CIA defenders here.

They want us to believe that LEE Oswald and Ed Voebel more than 60 years ago concocted a plot to blacken one of LEE Oswald’s teeth, photograph Oswald showing off the blackened tooth, and that Voebel would years later perjure himself in front of the Warren Commission by saying he thought Oswald lost a tooth.

What’s more, they want us to believe that the clear indication on a Marine Corps dental form that Oswald had a false tooth that failed in 1958 was actually a reference to liquid dental sealant, which absolutely no one defines as a prosthesis. Why?

Because the Norton Report showed that “Lee Harvey Oswald” had no false teeth.  Case closed. 

failed_prosthesis.jpg

 

life_magazine_missing_tooth.jpg

 

life_magazine_missing_tooth_closeup.jpg

 

missing_tooth_adjusted.jpg

 

LO_CU.jpg

 

Share this post


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

What is remarkable about Sandy’s presentation in this thread is the absurdity of the arguments against it that have been presented here by the usual anti-H&L, CIA defenders here.

They want us to believe that LEE Oswald and Ed Voebel more than 60 years ago concocted a plot to blacken one of LEE Oswald’s teeth, photograph Oswald showing off the blackened tooth, and that Voebel would years later perjure himself in front of the Warren Commission by saying he thought Oswald lost a tooth.

life_magazine_missing_tooth.jpg

 

life_magazine_missing_tooth_closeup.jpg

FWIW...

I think a somewhat reasonable interpretation of the above photo of Schoolboy Oswald is....

He's "mugging" for the camera with his head tilted slightly backward, as if he's deliberately trying to show off and display his smiling teeth.

Now, if Lee Oswald REALLY had one or more of his FRONT TEETH missing, what are the chances he would have a desire to "mug" and "ham it up" for a camera that he knows is pointed right at him? Was he PROUD of having some front teeth missing? Most people, given that unfortunate dental circumstance, would be trying their darndest to AVOID any cameras....and they'd be keeping their mouth SHUT most of the time to try and hide (as best they can) their dental predicament.

But, here, Lee Oswald is wanting to SHOW OFF his "deformity" (so to speak).

Therefore, I think at least one reasonable take on that picture (and on Oswald's possible, but not proven, seeming lack of front teeth in the photograph) is that Oswald's teeth have been artificially "blacked out" (licorice anyone?) and 15-year-old Lee was just having a little innocent fun in 9th-grade English class that day.

(If someone else here in this discussion has said essentially the same thing I just said above, my apologies for the redundancy. But I haven't read any of this thread--except for the last post I'm responding to now.)

Regards and Godspeed,

DVP

P.S. ....

BTW, as a side note for the people who continue to incorrectly believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was lefthanded....

Please take note of which of Oswald's two hands is holding his pencil.

BTW #2, here's the complete February 21, 1964, LIFE Magazine article featuring the Schoolboy Oswald picture. It's a fascinating portrait and bio on Oswald's life:

https://books.google.com/books?id=SVQEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA1&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=true

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Now, if Lee Oswald REALLY had one or more of his FRONT TEETH missing, what are the chances he would have a desire to "mug" and "ham it up" for a camera that he knows is pointed right at him? Was he PROUD of having some front teeth missing? Most people, given that unfortunate dental circumstance, would be trying their darndest to AVOID any cameras....and they'd be keeping their mouth SHUT most of the time to try and hide (as best they can) their dental predicament.


Wow David, I'm surprised by your take on the photo. Because right away I can think of boys from three groups of kids in my 9th grade class who would have proudly shown off a broken tooth or any other kind of significant injury. The "jocks," the "xxxx kickers," and the "hoods." LEE Oswald would have fit in with the jocks.

BTW, it has now been proven that LEE was fitted with a bridge or crown. Most likely it was a bridge used to replace the missing front tooth. Read Post #1 for the proof.

 

 

Share this post


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

Wow David, I'm surprised by your take on the photo. Because right away I can think of boys from three groups of kids in my 9th grade class who would have proudly shown off a broken tooth or any other kind of significant injury. The "jocks," the "xxxx kickers," and the "hoods." LEE Oswald would have fit in with the jocks.

So, you're saying a "jock" would be happy and proud and full of glee about having his picture taken to advertise the fact that he, in essence, LOST A FIGHT to another boy and had a couple of teeth knocked clean out of his head by THE OTHER BOY, eh?

Call me Mr. Strange, but that type of attitude seems mighty odd to this writer---even for a "jock".

But, then, what do I know?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Wow David, I'm surprised by your take on the photo. Because right away I can think of boys from three groups of kids in my 9th grade class who would have proudly shown off a broken tooth or any other kind of significant injury. The "jocks," the "xxxx kickers," and the "hoods." LEE Oswald would have fit in with the jocks.

So, you're saying a "jock" would be happy and proud and full of glee about having his picture taken to advertise the fact that he, in essence, LOST A FIGHT to another boy and had a couple of teeth knocked clean out of his head by THE OTHER BOY, eh?



A broken tooth was a "badge of honor." It doesn't prove that you lost a fight. Being afraid of showing it is precisely what a tough guy wouldn't do, as that would be showing weakness.

 

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


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

A broken tooth was a "badge of honor." It doesn't prove that you lost a fight. Being afraid of showing it is precisely what a tough guy wouldn't do, as that would be showing weakness.

Okay. Whatever you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:



A broken tooth was a "badge of honor." It doesn't prove that you lost a fight. Being afraid of showing it is precisely what a tough guy wouldn't do, as that would be showing weakness.

 

 

Sandy,

Believe it or not, I agree with you on this point.

Back in the day, a "tough guy" like Lee Harvey Oswald would have been very proud indeed to have survived having two and one-half teeth knocked out in a fight.

(lol)

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke a retired dentist friend  of mine this morning. He said that a sealant would never have been classed as a prosthetic. Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I spoke a retired dentist friend  of mine this morning. He said that a sealant would never have been classed as a prosthetic. Just my 2 cents.

How old is your friend?

Was he a military dentist in the 1950s?

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

How old is your friend?

Was he a military dentist in the 1950s?

--  Tommy  :sun

 

Ha ha ha ha. This thread reminds me of the movie "The Desperate Hours."

BTW I knew a beautiful girl who liked to take out her bridge and show off her missing front teeth. She just thought it was good for a laugh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ron Ecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

 

Ha ha ha ha. This thread reminds me of the movie "The Desperate Hours."

BTW I knew a beautiful girl who liked to take out her bridge and show off her missing front teeth. She just thought it was good for a laugh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ron,

With all due respect, was that "A Bridge Too Far"?

--  Tommy  :sun

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Ron,

With all due respect, was that "A Bridge Too Far"?

--  Tommy  :sun

 

 

I don't think so. She claimed that taking out the bridge actually improved her sex life.

 

 

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...