Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The only study I've ever seen statistically examining photos of "Lee Harvey Oswald" in fine detail is here:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14916-Pixel-Counting-Biometric-Comparison-of-Oswald-photos

The attorney who used the pixel counting software to make a series of facial measurements concluded that "there is some evidence that there is more than one individual here."

Then they must have looked almost identical.

Do you agree?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 581
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No, I don't agree.  I’m not very good with faces, which someone here called a cop-out, but it’s true.  At movies, I always have to ask, is that the same guy who...?”  But Sandy says he can distinguish between the two Oswalds in the images the attorney analyzed.  I think American-born LEE had a dramatically receding hairline and either started wearing a toupee as early as 1957 or 1958 (while still a teenager) or his hair was retouched in photos. A prime example of that is this shot in Ruby's club:

LEE_at_CC.jpg

 

It is abundantly clear that American-born Lee Oswald was two inches taller and 20 lbs or so heavier than Russian-speaking Harvey.  And, it is clear that LEE got a front tooth or two punched out in a school yard fight.  

H&L%20multiple.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

NO!!! You actually wrote..."My point in saying that was that I understand this issue more than anybody else posting in this thread. And that that does give me some level of authority"....That was copy and pasted from just two posts up.

 

That is what I wrote to Tom Neal correcting his earlier mischaracterization of what I'd said. And it means the very same thing (in context) as what I originally wrote.

What you wrote was a gross mischaracterization of what I'd written both times.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

And you did say that Tom's dentists was wrong.

 

That's right, and I'll say it again. Not because I am an authority over them in dentistry, but because I have Oswald's chart right here in front of me and they don't.

If Tom's dentists claim the Oswald's 1958 dental chart is supposed to be marked up to show restorations or prostheses, they are wrong. We know that because the instructions for the chart clearly state that the following are to be charted:  Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities.

Look for yourself, directly above the left chart:

dental_record_1958-03-27.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

And you have stated that you have the highest IQ on this forum...presumably that too gives you more authority.

 

I never said I have the highest IQ on the forum. When challenged by Lance Payette regarding credentials and intelligence level, he gave me a list of his and I responded by giving I gave a list of mine, including my IQ.

I'm not sure, but I believe it was you who made  big deal of it at the time.

 

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

 

That is what I wrote to Tom Neal correcting his earlier mischaracterization of what I'd said. And it means the very same thing (in context) as what I originally wrote.

What you wrote was a gross mischaracterization of what I'd written both times.

 

 

I copied and pasted YOUR words!!!!

"My point in saying that was that I understand this issue more than anybody else posting in this thread. And that that does give me some level of authority"

Did you write that sentence? If yes then I have mischaracterised NOTHING.

I've just held a mirror up to your insufferable arrogance and you clearly don't like the reflection. Not my fault. Deal with it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

I copied and pasted YOUR words!!!!

"My point in saying that was that I understand this issue more than anybody else posting in this thread. And that that does give me some level of authority"

Did you write that sentence? If yes then I have mischaracterised NOTHING.

 

Yes I wrote that. It was part of my response to what Tom had written. You took it out of that context and mischaracterized it as follows:

 

On 3/12/2018 at 2:43 AM, Bernie Laverick said:

I understand this issue more than anybody else posting in this thread. And that that does give me some level of authority. - Sandy Larsen

Says it all. You can't argue against this kind of pig-headed arrogance. Because Sandy has declared himself ultra knowledgeable he has also decided that we must also accept his self given  authority. He says he knows more than anyone else on this thread about the subject in hand, so we MUST believe him and listen to the one and only voice on this. That's what Sandy is thinking, so we should follow the clever man's lead and listen to what he has to teach us....

You can't argue with this level psychotic delusion.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing "more than anybody else", by definition, makes you "ultra knowledgeable". No mischaracterisation there. 

"We Must believe you" because you have just declared yourself "more knowledgeable than anybody else". You are the self -declared 'go-to' man on this. The whole point of stressing to anyone who will listen how knowledgeable you are on this subject is a cheap way of claiming some high ground; that is, the high ground you can't occupy with the evidence. It's a pathetic attempt to claim some sort of superiority on the subject, which, in your mind, would mean you are less likely to be wrong than others who know much less. Including a military dentist!

This is how much confidence you lack in the argument at hand. It's such a give away! You have to bolster this story by ramming the credentials of your supposed superior knowledge and intelligence down our throats, as if that makes up for the gigantic deficit in the whole saga. It's like saying... "look, I know there's jack xxxx to go on, but trust me when I say I'm right because on this subject I'm more knowledgeable than anybody else and my superior intelligence (which at the top .2% almost certainly makes me cleverer than anyone else here) gives me a free ride and you lot should just listen and not criticise".

You cannot reason with such delusion...

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn’t matter what any of the CIA-defending H&L critics here say they think of Sandy Larsen.  Nor does it matter how many insults they hurl at him.

All that matters is the EVIDENCE about Harvey Oswald and Lee Oswald.

And Sandy discovered some significant evidence that the rest of us had overlooked.

That evidence Sandy found was a clear notation of a failed prosthesis on a dental form ostensibly for “Lee Harvey Oswald” even though there is no indication that the Oswald  shot by Jack Ruby and exhumed at Rose Hill Cemetery ever had a false tooth.  

But another Oswald sure needed a false tooth.  Who could that Oswald be?

life_magazine_missing_tooth_closeup.jpg

 

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

All that matters is the EVIDENCE about Harvey Oswald and Lee Oswald.


That's right.
 

Let's review the evidence we have so far, just for the missing front tooth:

  1. Ed Voebel recalled that Lee lost a tooth in the fist fight.
     
  2. Aunt Lillian said that Lee's mother took him to the dentist right after the fight, and that she (Lillian) paid the bill.
     
  3. Ed Voebel took a photo showing the missing tooth:

    life_magazine_missing_tooth_closeup.jpg

     
  4. Lee's 3/27/1958 dental record indicates that his dental bridge has broken. (Is that what Aunt Lillian paid for four years earlier??)
     
  5. The failed bridge explains the discolored and shortened front teeth we see in this 1958 photo of Lee:

    LHO-1957.jpg
     

 

Isn't it amazing all the evidence we have of Lee having lost his front tooth? Well, not so amazing for those of us who accept that the evidence is overwhelming and that -- statistically speaking -- Lee indeed had to have lost that tooth. The odds are simply too great against the idea that all that evidence is flawed and merely coincidental.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and by the way, let's not forget the other tooth-related evidence that there were two Oswalds:

The x-ray of LEE's teeth below shows that molar #30 was indeed missing, just as his chart indicated. The image shows that a molar will fit in the space if the molars behind it are straightened back up. (Adjacent teeth tend to tip down into empty spaces.)

 

LEE's 1958 X-Ray
marines_x-ray_fit_tooth.jpg



In contrast, HARVEY's teeth had no missing molar #30. There is no place to fit that extra molar.

 

HARVEY's Exhumed X-Ray
x-ray_fit_tooth.jpg

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2018 at 7:39 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

But Sandy says he can distinguish between the two Oswalds in the images the attorney analyzed.  I

I can distinguish  different photos too. But funnily my conclusions always  convince me I'm  looking  at the same person...that of the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

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

That's right, and I'll say it again. Not because I am an authority over them in dentistry, but because I have Oswald's chart right here in front of me and they don't.

Yep that's  the  chart alright. And I'm still waiting  for that X to magically appear on the front tooth showing  it  was missing.

And then I'll  have to  wait  for the same  front  tooth  to magically   disappear  in the exhumation  photos.

Edited by Michael Walton
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Sandy Larsen changed the title to Indisputable Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a FRONT TOOTH, but his exhumed body was not! NEW EVIDENCE FOUND.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...