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

[Michael Walton]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Care to cite any EVIDENCE for your claim that Ed Voebel and LEE Harvey Oswald

8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

That photo was artificially retouched.   You keep posting it as though it was a scientific artifact -- it's not.  It was a teenage prank.

Prove it!

Cite any EVIDENCE at all for your claim that Ed Voebel and LEE Harvey Oswald conspired to fake evidence of a missing tooth in the classroom photo Ed took.  Tell us how they did this so that Ed Voebel could commit perjury about the missing tooth before the Warren Commission in 1964. Did they also pay off Aunt Lillian to pay a dental bill for Lee? Tell us how they managed to fake Marine Corps dental records in 1958. Do you also think Ed Voebel wrote the prosthesis failed notation on Oswald's Marine records?  Clever fellow, that Voebel!  No wonder he died so young at the Ochnser Clinic.  Just too smart for his own good, eh?

Your desperation to come up with an explanation--any explanation--is quite obvious.

I'm going to disagree with Paul here.  I don't think it was touched up.  But amazingly this is the same photo I've mentioned numerous times where the photo clearly shows a blackened tooth being there.  It's very obvious because of the camera flash light bounce on it.

As I've said before, I think LHO was clowning around and I wouldn't be surprised if he took a pencil and blacked out one of his teeth.  I remember doing that too as well as a nail or two after watching The Munsters after school

Kids do the darnedest things but there's no tooth missing just like the charts a few years later show no X-s on the front teeth showing that they were missing.  The exhumation photos show teeth in the skull. Of course the Hardly Gang will play whack a mole (what about this...what about that...) and we'll go round and round some more

 

[Michael Walton]

9 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Wiki? Everyone knows it's a CIA front.

Then I guess I'm CIA LOL.  Because I contributed to this page. Can you tell which one is my addition to it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._McCord_Jr.

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker said:

They have gone from asking if I was suggesting tooth 30 was a wisdom tooth to claiming that was exactly what I said. What a shock!

 

The whole point of what I sent was that anyone who expects the dental chart of a person pre-wisdom teeth to perfectly match post-wisdom teeth is not looking for answers, but for conspiracies.  All sorts of things can happen through every stage of getting adult teeth, including the drifting and crowding of teeth, 2nd molars erupting behind first molars, impacted teeth  and even extra wisdom teeth in the case of 2% of the population. 
 

But not once have I seen anyone from H & L refer to texts on the subject -- only to what they subjectively see in Oswald's charts and forms. And Sandy Larsen and Jim Hargrove both make it abundantly clear that they prefer readers to take their word and not do any thinking, let alone digging into actual dental science.
 

They  know the bubble will bust the minute they bring in actual dentists to look at the material.  There are commonsense scientific answers - not just here but for every piece of evidence from all facets of the H & L theory waved around by them - even where it is not immediately apparent.  The lack of  valid methodology in searching for and ruling alternative explanations is a red flag to those not afflicted by such broken epistemology.  We know who they are. They are the ones questioning the lack of science.

I would be a WC supporter if not for knowing Oswald had an airtight alibi,  the background on certain individuals who entered his life and the abysmal record of the Dallas authorities in framing innocent people. All else is just bloviating chest thumping defense of BS theories. I mean, it's a bit like which team you root for. Even when that team is going through a losing streak and is in danger of being kicked out of the competition, you feel compelled to continue support. In Conspiracy-Land, it's even worse than that because some have gambled their reputations and life's

work on someone else's lucid fantasy. 

Of course, some know full well what they are doing. They just don't want the game to end. 

 

Greg,

 

I couldn't agree more with you on this.

No sarcasm intended, but IMHO Sandy would have been much better served if he'd never gotten involved in the "Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites" can of worms, but had continued his fine work showing us how Gloria Calvery was standing just to the left of John Templin in the Z-Film, and how she was "captured" in Couch-Darnell talking to Billy Lovelady on the TSBD steps 20 to 25 seconds later.

Sandy's doing so might have at least contributed to the eventual answering of the question "Who killed JFK?"

As it is, I fear that he will end up being a "fringe"-oriented laughingstock in the JFK Assassination community.

Pity that.  And he's such a bright lad, too...

 

--  Tommy 

Edited March 16, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Jim Hargrove]

9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

That photo was artificially retouched.   You keep posting it as though it was a scientific artifact -- it's not.  It was a teenage prank.

 

22 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

I'm going to disagree with Paul here.  I don't think it was touched up.  But amazingly this is the same photo I've mentioned numerous times where the photo clearly shows a blackened tooth being there.  It's very obvious because of the camera flash light bounce on it.

 

So, Paul says it was a touched-up photo, Michael says it was a blackened tooth, Tracy says whatever Parker tells him to say, Tommy says nothing relevant at all, but not one of you guys will admit to what it clearly seems to be: a kid showing off a missing front tooth.

 

 

 

You want us to believe that Ed Voebel and LEE Harvey Oswald made up an elaborate classroom prank for reasons unknown, that Voebel committed perjury to support that classroom prank for reasons unknown, that Aunt Lillian threw her support behind the prank by claiming to arrange for dental care for Lee for reasons unknown, and that Marine Corps dentists were so enchanted by unknown motives that they immortalized the whole saga by saying a false tooth (prosthesis) failed on an official USMC dental form.

Do ANY of you want to consider the SLIGHTLY more likely possibility that LEE Oswald simply lost a front tooth in a fight?  Nah, I didn’t think you would.

[Michael Clark]

On 3/13/2018 at 1:11 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

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:
   
   
   
    
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:
   
   
    

 

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.

 

Sandy or Jim, could one of you post the second pic, above, in isolation? It is the clincher, for me, that Sandy's analysis is correct. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by Michael Clark

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Why did the dentist note that Oswald needed a prosthesis?

Sandy,

There's no such note.  There's a box marked, "Prosthesis Required?   If 'Yes,' explain briefly," and it's marked "FAILED, 5-5-58".

It's simply your subjective opinion that "FAILED" there meant that "Oswald needed a prosthesis."

It's your leap of faith.   You believe in your own subjective interpretation.  But self-belief is never "indisputable."

It's just as likely that "FAILED" meant that the dentist conducted a test on Oswald, as to whether he needed a prosthesis, and the test FAILED.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

 

Problem is Paul, there is no such thing as a "prosthesis required test." And a non-existent test cannot failed.

On the other hand, prostheses do fail:  Fixed Bridges -- Top 5 Reasons They Fail.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Sandy or Jim, could one of you post the second pic, above, in isolation? It is the clincher, for me, that Sandy's analysis is correct. 

Not sure how this adds anything to the copy above, Michael, but here it is again....

[Michael Clark]

 

8 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Not sure how this adds anything to the copy above, Michael, but here it is again....

Thanks Jim. It just makes it easer to present when I repost it. I don't have to steer the reader to it or give it some kind of name. I can say... " in this pic....."

this pic makes me think that one or both teeth were compromised in some way after the fight and that, perhaps, his right tooth was bonded in someway to his left tooth, until it "failed" in '58.

Also, and very importantly, it points out the foolishness is Paul Trej's claim that the photo was altered by Oswald, or friends, when they were kids.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Michael Clark

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker said:

They have gone from asking if I was suggesting tooth 30 was a wisdom tooth to claiming that was exactly what I said. What a shock!

 

The whole point of what I sent was that anyone who expects the dental chart of a person pre-wisdom teeth to perfectly match post-wisdom teeth is not looking for answers, but for conspiracies.  All sorts of things can happen through every stage of getting adult teeth, including the drifting and crowding of teeth, 2nd molars erupting behind first molars, impacted teeth  and even extra wisdom teeth in the case of 2% of the population. 
 

But not once have I seen anyone from H & L refer to texts on the subject -- only to what they subjectively see in Oswald's charts and forms. And Sandy Larsen and Jim Hargrove both make it abundantly clear that they prefer readers to take their word and not do any thinking, let alone digging into actual dental science.
 

They  know the bubble will bust the minute they bring in actual dentists to look at the material.  There are commonsense scientific answers - not just here but for every piece of evidence from all facets of the H & L theory waved around by them - even where it is not immediately apparent.  The lack of  valid methodology in searching for and ruling alternative explanations is a red flag to those not afflicted by such broken epistemology.  We know who they are. They are the ones questioning the lack of science.

I would be a WC supporter if not for knowing Oswald had an airtight alibi,  the background on certain individuals who entered his life and the abysmal record of the Dallas authorities in framing innocent people. All else is just bloviating chest thumping defense of BS theories. I mean, it's a bit like which team you root for. Even when that team is going through a losing streak and is in danger of being kicked out of the competition, you feel compelled to continue support. In Conspiracy-Land, it's even worse than that because some have gambled their reputations and life's

work on someone else's lucid fantasy. 

Of course, some know full well what they are doing. They just don't want the game to end. 

 

Greg Parker makes a valid point, that as wisdom teeth mature and erupt, the jaw bone around them and adjacent teeth move too. This is necessarily so, and something that has not been lost on me. But it is something that is mostly irrelevant in Oswald's case. I'll explain.

Pretend for a moment the following two x-rays are from the same Oswald:

1958  (from Marine Corps)

 

1953  (from Exhumation)

To aid in the comparisons, Ive drawn in the jawlines the best I could make out.

The 1958 x-ray shows that the wisdom tooth (the one to the far left) is fully mature and mostly -- if not fully-- erupted. There is not much more movement for that tooth to make. And so it won't be moving the tooth next to it around by much. If it erupts further, it looks like it will further tip the molar next to it.

Beyond that, there is no reason why the two molars behind missing #30 molar would spontaneously move 1/4" toward the front in a TRANSLATIONAL manner. In other words, without tipping. Orthodontic treatment would be required to accomplish that feat. Because that is the only way forces could be applied to move the roots forward. Chewing cannot do that.

Finally, regarding the second molar from the rear, there is no reason why the root shape would have changed from being fused (or nearly fused) to being wide open.

The bottom line is that those two x-rays are too different from each other to consider them to be from the same person.

Now, if you look at the pair of x-rays from the OPPOSITE (left) side of the mouth and compare them, you will see what changes can be expected in the five years, from 1958 to 1963. Because those two particular x-rays ARE from the same person... HARVEY. If we were having a serious discussion here I'd go to the effort of posting them for all to see, but we're not. There are some noticeable changes in the teeth location over the five years, but only minor and nowhere near as radical as what we see here in the x-rays I posted above.

 

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Not sure how this adds anything to the copy above, Michael, but here it is again....

This photo was also retouched.    The "missing tooth" theory really isn't new.   It's an H&L ploy.   (The H&L CT, by the way, is more than 20 years old, having first appeared in an article in Probe Magazine (1995), written by John Armstrong.)

Proof will take time -- because H&L people play with photography.  In time I will prove it, because it's clearly photograph trickery -- probably being used to seek a Hollywood contract for a movie deal.   It's an affront to JFK Research, so I take this personally.

I disagree sharply with Jim and with Mike on this point, because the missing "space" between the teeth in Ed Voebel's photo of LHO was large enough for 2.5 teeth.  

Also, an honest (unretouched) blowup of the original shows black ink marks.   

In order to prove it, I'll need to get hold of ORIGINAL copies of Ed Voebel's photograph -- because I can't trust the H&L folks with photographic "evidence" anymore.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 16, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

This photo was also retouched.    The "missing tooth" theory really isn't new.   It's an H&L ploy.   (The H&L CT, by the way, is more than 20 years old, having first appeared in an article in Probe Magazine (1995), written by John Armstrong.)

Proof will take time -- because H&L people play with photography.  In time I will prove it, because it's clearly photograph trickery -- probably being used to seek a Hollywood contract for a movie deal.   It's an affront to JFK Research, so I take this personally.

I disagree sharply with Jim and with Mike on this point, because the missing "space" between the teeth in Ed Voebel's photo of LHO was large enough for 2.5 teeth.  

Also, an honest (unretouched) blowup of the original shows black ink marks.   

In order to prove it, I'll need to get hold of ORIGINAL copies of Ed Voebel's photograph -- because I can't trust the H&L folks with photographic "evidence" anymore.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

This post deserves to be remembered. It's fantastic.

[Michael Walton]

7 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Thanks Jim. It just makes it easer to present when I repost it. I don't have to steer the reader to it or give it some kind of name. I can say... " in this pic....."

Maybe learn how to copy and paste an image URL? It's  not hard to do.

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by Michael Walton

[Michael Walton]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

This post deserves to be remembered. It's fantastic

Can you  explain  why you  think  it's  fantastic?

[Jim Hargrove]

8 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

 

Thanks Jim. It just makes it easer to present when I repost it. I don't have to steer the reader to it or give it some kind of name. I can say... " in this pic....."

this pic makes me think that one or both teeth were compromised in some way after the fight and that, perhaps, his right tooth was bonded in someway to his left tooth, until it "failed" in '58.

Also, and very importantly, it points out the foolishness is Paul Trej's claim that the photo was altered by Oswald, or friends, when they were kids.

Mr. Trejo seems to be claiming that the "H&L folks" altered this photo, along with the LIFE magazine photo.  We'll see where that accusation leads.

[Jim Hargrove]

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Also, an honest (unretouched) blowup of the original shows black ink marks.   

In order to prove it, I'll need to get hold of ORIGINAL copies of Ed Voebel's photograph -- because I can't trust the H&L folks with photographic "evidence" anymore.

Oh, this is rich!

Paul Trejo is accusing John A. or me or Sandy or someone among the “H&L folks” of going back in time to 1964 and messing with the Feb. 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine, which can be easily purchased online by anyone interested in Mr. Trejo’s accusation.  Here, again, is the cover of my copy of that edition of the magazine.

 

The good quality halftone print of the image that I copied with my Nexus 6P cell phone camera is shown on pp. 70-71 of the magazine.

 

Here’s an unretouched closeup of the image above showing LEE Harvey Oswald’s missing front tooth.

 

Any reader who believes that anyone among the “H&L folks” may have retouched this photograph—as Mr. Trejo is clearly claiming--is urged to buy or borrow a copy of the Feb. 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine and make their own judgment.  This isn’t rocket science.

Get your hands on the magazine and look for yourself!