Kathleen Collins

The photo shows "Lee" Oswald in color. Blow it up and see the brown tooth and the color of his eyes.

Kathy C

One more thing about what dentists sometimes did for a person missing a front or easily-seen tooth. They made the patient a "flipper." A flipper was not a good device. It had a roof to it and the fake tooth would replace the missing one. It was a horrible contraption -- you might as well wear dentures. And when they didn't fit -- oh my God.

Kathy C

Kathleen,

Is this like a bridge?

Mike

I am trying to keep up with these posts. I believe I explained what a bridge is. Above I am describing this weird thing. It had a plastic, pinkish roof to hold a fake tooth in, I guess, with suction. I don't think dentists resort to that now. It seems nowadays that a root canal and crown are mandatory and expensive.

Kathy C

In looking at this photo, I think it quite possible that it is of Lee before he reached puberty. Boys shoot up so fast around that time.

Kathy C

[/b]

LEE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXHUMED, MARINA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH ALL OF THIS, EXCEPT FOR EVERYONE

INSISTING 'HARVEY' WAS NOT LEE, THAT (HARVEY/LEE) HAD A MISSING TOOTH AND -- WORSE -- THAT THE MUMMIFICATION

PROCESS THAT HELD TOGETHER THE SKULL WOULD BE INTERPRETED TO MAKE A MORTICIAN (WHO IS NOT A DOCTOR OR A

FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST) THINK THE CRANITOMY NEVER HAPPENED AND THAT THIS MUST BE SOMEBODY ELSE'S SKULL,

BECAUSE IT DID NOT FALL APART.

THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS THAT I EXPLAINED IN AN EARLIER POST ABOUT PARTIAL MUMMIFICATION AND

CALCIFICATION THAT SEALS UP SUTURES.

I BELIEVE THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES AND THAT THE INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT.

PLEASE REREAD WHAT IMPLICATIONS ARE AT STAKE HERE.

THE HARVEY AND LEE MATTER -- WE NEED TO FIND OUT MUCH MORE ABOUT INTERVIEWS, ETC.

I AM CONCERNED THAT MYRA D WAS GUIDED TO SOME OF HER STATEMENTS, SUCH AS SAYING LEE WANTED TO BE CALLED

"HARVEY", SINCE LEE'S FRIEND, ED VOEBEL, CALLED HIM "LEE".

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE....

SOMEONE WISER THAN I AM CAN PERHAPS EXPLAIN WHY LEE WOULD HAVE ASKED HER TO CALL HIM 'HARVEY,' AS I KNOW LEE

DISLIKED HIS MIDDLE NAME.

I HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE RECORDS AT STRIPLING AND BEAUREGARD WHICH WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED YET.

I guess my analysis of the mummification process, and how calcification of the cranial suture where the bone was sawed, and

jellyfying of the scalp tissues in the partial mummification would hide the suture and also hold the top of the cranium secure with

the rest of the cranium...was not absorbed the readers...The exhumation should not have taken place if people had understood

how blood drained from the face changes the contours of the face drasically...the TERRIBLE job done by the mortician I shall not

comment further upon...But in the end, they exhumed poor Lee...

JVB

I have to use these pictures but I want to focus on only one of them. The picture on the lowest row, second from right is supposedly Lee Oswald. "Coincidentally," he has a brown front tooth. I had this photo in color, but apparently lost it when I had to buy a new CPU. In the photo if memory is correct, "Lee" had dark eyes.

Also -- Robert Oswald is alive and living in southern Texas. I can supply an address and phone number if someone wants to question Robert and pursue the idea that Robert was impersonating Lee, his "brother" and was successful. This might be a new piece of the puzzle. Something so obvious we missed it. Also if we could get his DNA. But I still believe in Harvey and Lee. And I think it's a work that was never discussed fully.

Kathy C

One more thing about what dentists sometimes did for a person missing a front or easily-seen tooth. They made the patient a "flipper." A flipper was not a good device. It had a roof to it and the fake tooth would replace the missing one. It was a horrible contraption -- you might as well wear dentures. And when they didn't fit -- oh my God.

Kathy C

which appears to be contradicted by the denture of the skull that was later exhumed:

"There was some worry that the

tooth would turn black, but it did not. It was saved." [Judyth]

I never saw a tooth turn black or heard of one before this. If the nerve died it would turn brown.

I'm glad you blew up the picture. For the first time I noticed Lee had a pen in his right hand, possibly making him right-handed. But Harvey -- was he also right-handed or left-handed?

Kathy C

Voebel meet LEE in the fall of 1954. Voebel talks about how LEE loved to fight--not to

start them, but to finish them--and that he thought LEE had lost a

tooth in one of the first fights he knew him to have. He was hit in

the mouth by a boy named Robin Riley.

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON A PROBLEM WITH "HARVEY & LEE" AND THEIR MISSING TEETH

NOTE: Hopefully, in the course of my posting, I have kept everything straight and Jack White

will come back to explain all this away on behalf of his and John's theory of "Harvey & Lee".

Otherwise, it would appear to be a problem with the history of Harvey and Lee's missing teeth.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

There is something peculiar going on here.....

According to Jack White's statements:

1. LEE Oswald (taller) is supposed to have stayed in New York when Marguerite brought "Harvey" (shrimp) back with her.

2. "Harvey" is enrolled at Beauregard, not Lee, where, to support this, Jack has told us that:

a ) Myra D, girls' gym teacher, stated the boy was a shrimp and asked to be called "Harvey" even though his friend,

b ) We have a record that Lee Oswald was a student there and had a homeroom on the 9th floor, but Myra D says no, her

homeroom had Lee in it, in the basement...her word against the record

c ) Armstrong asks if Oswald shrank some 6-8 inches

3. But then we are shown a photo of "LEE" (It HAS to be Lee because this is no "shrimp"-- and he has had a tooth knocked

out...It's described by Ed Voebel, by the way, who therefore HAD TO KNOW BOTH HARVEY AND LEE IF MYRA D'S FILMED

INTERVIEW IS TO BE BELIEVED.

4. But what? We have BOTH HARVEY AND LEE ENROLLED AT BEAUREGARD? What about the records brought up earlier

about other schools, showing Oswald could not be in both at once? Now we have BOTH Oswalds in the SAME school at once?

5. Then we are shown a photo of Lee -- er -- Harvey -- 'also' with a tooth out and told it is in a different location. However,

this photo on the left appears to have come from the Ferrie-Oswald camp-out photo....And when you blow that up, please

correct me if I'm wrong, but where's the missing tooth?

This is very strange, people.

Are we to believe that BOTH of these youngsters EACH lost a permanent tooth?

What about the exhumation photo that shows a rotated tooth, but no lost tooth?

We need to see satements from the book, ID's about the provenance of this photo supposedly showing HARVEY with a

DIFFERENT tooth out, and we have to ask ourselves why has nobody noticed that LEE and HARVEY are thereby attending

the same school-Beauregard.

And anyone who states that this thread is of no imporance when we are uncovering so many problems with HARVEY and

LEE simply isn't reading the thread. Those, too, who say I have not answered the questions thrown my way, have simply

not read the threads. This is not some game where people decide whether to 'believe' me or not. This is deadly serious,

and the truth will be buried unless somebody stands up and says, "Wait a minute. The truth is more important than my

feelings. The truth is more important than whether you like me or not. The truth is even more important than friendships."

The truth can mean we can get the case solved instead of saing it can never be solved.

Unless you bury the witnesses who speak the truth.

Look closely at this post, people. HOW MANY OSWALDS ATTENDED BEAUREGARD? IS IT POSSIBLE THEY BOTH LOST

A PERMANENT TOOTH? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT BOTH BOYS ARE REALLY THE SAME PERSON AND THAT SOMEBODY HAS

CREATED AN ENORMOUS BOOK BASED UPON A LOT OF INTERVIEWS AND PHOTOS, BUT WITHOUT MAKING PROPER

DISTINCTIONS, SUCH AS THAT BOTH BOYS COULD NOT BE A BEAUREGARD AT THE SAME TIME, BOTH COULD NOT

HAVE LOST PERMANENT TEETH AT THE SAME TIME. AND IT SEEMS THAT SOMEBODY IS RETOUCHING PHOTOS HERE,

BLOATING PHOTOS THERE. AND IN GENERAL, SOMEBODY HAS BEEN DUPED BY SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE.

NAYSAYERS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THIS THREAD. CALL ME NAMES LATER. BUT JUST FOR NOW, PLEASE LET US

WORK TOGETHER TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.

JVB

quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188900' date='Apr 5 2010, 05:24 PM']

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON JIM'S RESPONSE TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH"

NOTE: Jack writes in post #912 about the "blockbuster" post,

Just what is this blockbuster post about a missing tooth?

It is covered in great detail in Harvey & Lee...pages 91-92. Jim and

Judyth may be surprised to learn that it was LEE who had the

missing tooth...NOT HARVEY. (It was Harvey that JVB knew.)

So what is the JVB blockbuster? Armstrong DOCUMENTS IT

BY INTERVIEWING A CLASSMATE, Ed Voebel, who was present

during the fight between LEE and Robin Riley, who punched

Lee in the mouth. If the JVB version of the blockbuster differs

from this, it is FALSE.

Voebel told John that Riley knocked out an LHO tooth. It was on

the schoolyard of Beauregard Junior High School. That's it.

Jack

In post #914, he posts this graphic attributed to J. Pruitt in 2002:

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

Believe it or not, the 'blockbuster' matter is here, because one of the persons -- 'Harvey' or "Lee' -- was supposed to

have no front tooth. Yet we have no later photos showing a missing front tooth in either 'collection' so far as I am aware.

IT'S A BIG DEAL THAT LEE SAVED HIS TOOTH BECAUSE THIS SHOWS NO 'TOOTH' DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'HARVEY'

AND 'LEE' AFTER ALL...

The argument is that "Harvey" was returned to New Orleans. The photo at he school cannot be "Lee" as Armstrong

says a puny "Harvey" is going to school here. Yet the boy in the photo with the tooth out is obviously a big boy.

Here is the argument as I see it so far:

1) Armstrong says the teacher Myra D describes a small, puny boy who wants to be called "Harvey" -- but she is shaky

on other memories, such as homeroom record showing "Harvey" in a different classroom for home room, describing

"Exhchange Alley" and a "ballroom" instead of pool hall...She also mentions Voebel as "Harvey's" friend -- who always

called Lee "Lee."

So this is shaky to use as 'evidence' that "Harvey" is at Beauregard.

2) We have the photo of Lee Oswald and Dave Ferrie at camp, showing a "Harvey" who has grown a heck of a lot in a

short period of time...In fact, he is at the New York height....

3) We have the earlier photo of who is supposed to be "Harvey" showing off his lost tooth at Beauregard...But now, he is

called LEE -- because he is obviously not a shrimp?

Please tell me what is going on here. I do not have the book. Is Armstrong saying that "Harvey" returned from New York

with Marguerite, and is described as a "shrimp" by the elderly teacher, and as wanting to be called "Harvey" but somehow

in the same school we have "Lee" showing off a missing tooth?

Or is this supposed to be "Harvey" showing off a missing tooth?

I am curious to know, because the person in the photo is Lee H. Oswald, and he is not a shrimp. Can Jack explain what

we are looking at here, better, so I can understand? Because he said LEE was left behind in New York, and LEE and HARVEY

are registered at different schools...etc.

Can Jack make us a timeline?

For I have information about the school records that is quite different. It is based on information Lee gave about why they

left New york, when they left, and when thy arrived in New Orleans.

Meanwhile, this issue is important because....

LEE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXHUMED, MARINA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH ALL OF THIS, EXCEPT FOR EVERYONE

INSISTING 'HARVEY' WAS NOT LEE, THAT (HARVEY/LEE) HAD A MISSING TOOTH AND -- WORSE -- THAT THE MUMMIFICATION

PROCESS THAT HELD TOGETHER THE SKULL WOULD BE INTERPRETED TO MAKE A MORTICIAN (WHO IS NOT A DOCTOR OR A

FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST) THINK THE CRANITOMY NEVER HAPPENED AND THAT THIS MUST BE SOMEBODY ELSE'S SKULL,

BECAUSE IT DID NOT FALL APART.

THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS THAT I EXPLAINED IN AN EARLIER POST ABOUT PARTIAL MUMMIFICATION AND

CALCIFICATION THAT SEALS UP SUTURES.

I BELIEVE THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES AND THAT THE INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT.

PLEASE REREAD WHAT IMPLICATIONS ARE AT STAKE HERE.

THE HARVEY AND LEE MATTER -- WE NEED TO FIND OUT MUCH MORE ABOUT INTERVIEWS, ETC.

I AM CONCERNED THAT MYRA D WAS GUIDED TO SOME OF HER STATEMENTS, SUCH AS SAYING LEE WANTED TO BE CALLED

"HARVEY", SINCE LEE'S FRIEND, ED VOEBEL, CALLED HIM "LEE".

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE....

SOMEONE WISER THAN I AM CAN PERHAPS EXPLAIN WHY LEE WOULD HAVE ASKED HER TO CALL HIM 'HARVEY,' AS I KNOW LEE

DISLIKED HIS MIDDLE NAME.

I HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE RECORDS AT STRIPLING AND BEAUREGARD WHICH WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED YET.

I guess my analysis of the mummification process, and how calcification of the cranial suture where the bone was sawed, and

jellyfying of the scalp tissues in the partial mummification would hide the suture and also hold the top of the cranium secure with

the rest of the cranium...was not absorbed the readers...The exhumation should not have taken place if people had understood

how blood drained from the face changes the contours of the face drasically...the TERRIBLE job done by the mortician I shall not

comment further upon...But in the end, they exhumed poor Lee...

JVB

JIM REPLIES TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH" AND MUCH, MUCH MORE

I have now read pages 91-92 of HARVEY & LEE, which seem to imply that "Lee" suffered a permanent

loss of tooth. What struck me is that the alleged difference between "Lee" and "Harvey" is explainable

by the scenrio Judyth has sketched of the tooth having been restored. Are there records of either of

the alleged "Oswalds" having a false tooth? Are there adult photos of "Lee" as opposed to "Harvey",

because I have considerable reservations about the photo studies that have been discussed, where it

seems to me, apart from a few that do not belong in these sets, they may all be of the same person.

Reading more of HARVEY & LEE, I am getting a better sense for why Jack finds it impossible to even

talk about these things without making explicit his reference to "Lee" or to "Harvey", because John is

relentless in his usage of those names. It seems to me that Judyth's knowledge of the man she knew

in New Orleans--whom Jack and John call "Harvey"--does not depend on the refutation of the possible

existence of the other, but clearly does call into question some of the traits attributed to him, including

his place of birth, whether he could drive, and such, but not necessarily refuting their entire scenario.

It would certainly be a good idea, however, if one or the other of you were more responsive to some

of the points upon which Judyth appears to possess superior knowledge, such as Jack's false claim

that he was "undesirably discharged" (post #904), his false claim about the "index" in his attempt to

shield John from my criticism (posts #777 and #925), his false claim that we do not know how Lee

traveled to New Orleans (post #926), and his false claim about "Harvey" being unable to drive (post

#928), for example, which undermines any prospect for rational discussion of all of this (post #785).

I also believe that Judyth has raised legitimate questions about the photographic record that should not

be swept under the rug, as post #704, #830, #876, and #878, are serious contributions. I know her to

extremely gifted and knowledgeable about the man she knew in New Orleans and her arguments, such

as her eye color study in post #736, are brilliant and deserve to be acknowledged. I am deeply troubled

Robert's role in all of this has not been examined with more diligence. Posts as early as #469, #676, #679,

#689, #800, and especially #813 offer indications of the reasons for my suspicions. Perhaps David Lifton

will take pains to track Robert's role relative to his brother, which appears to me to be the key to the case.

There are obvious disadvantages to my becoming involved in this, since I have not been exposed to the

interrogations of Judyth in the past. For that very reason, however, I believe I have a contribution that

others cannot make. Sometimes a fresh look with a new pair of eyes can make a difference. I believe

that she has not been given a fair shake in the past, which I am attempting to provide here. And that I

am not immersed in the conception of "Harvey & Lee" also grants the intellectual freedom to consider a

different pair of "Oswalds", Robert and Lee, which I would like to believe may provide the stimulus for a

new look at the other brother who, in my estimation, is the ideal candidate to have impersonated Lee.

So why did you bring it up again now, right after this blockbuster about Lee's missing tooth? You trade in trivia, while Judyth is making major contributions. Linda has it right: You post nothing significant because you have nothing significant to post. Your conduct here is utterly transparent.

Oh please. There are many issues being discussed in this thread. I was responding to something Pamela said ... and used that as an example for her to tell us all how I "cherrypick" ... as I had posted it many many pages and posts ago, so it was already here.

But, I do stand in awe ... for you actually seem unaware that the debate over the "two Oswald's" .... Harvey vs Lee, the 2 schools, etc... and yes, the tooth ... is very old news! Your "blockbuster" has been discussed and discussed over the years. How can you really not already know this stuff ... and that it has been hotly debated over the years? Funny ... I even found an exchange Doug Weldon and I had on the issue in 1999 ... when someone else mentioned putting a tooth in milk so it could be put back into the socket. Ah, but it's Judyth's "blockbuster" that is the news and importance here, you'll say!

But this is not the first time Judyth has written/spoken about this ... she has on Rich's forum, on BlackOp and on the moderated group. Back as far as at least 2002.

It really astounds me that you seem to think this is some new groundbreaking news on Judyth's part ... and that you are so unaware of her story over the years. Yet you chastise others as if you are teaching them!

Her story was a little different then ... changed in midstream when a problem with her chronology was pointed out. First she had LHO telling her all about how Ferrie had slugged him and at least loosened the tooth after a CAP gathering at Ferrie's house (in her post here now she says LHO rode with Ferrie on a Harley to Ferrie's house after a CAP gathering) and then a week later it was knocked out by someone at school. She notes there was a famous photo showing it. The problem is that the photo was taken, and the school incident occurred, months before LHO attended CAP meetings and met Ferrie.

At one point she has Ferrie telling LHO about milk, at another time she has an unnamed person at school advising him to put the tooth in milk.

I did a post in 2004 that includes a chronology of it all ... something Dave Reitzes had put together of quotes and posted in 2002. Looks like most of this story was related by Judyth on the jfkResearch forum ... and Dave had those posts.

It is long, so here is the link for anyone who is interested. I could post it all here, but if this works for everyone, there is no need.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...r%3Ajunkkarinen

Kind of a wonder that Judyth wanted to delve back into this one, especially with the new change, though she did now say she may have mixed up some small details. :-)

I'm trying to wade through all this. I was a dental assistant for 3 years. You put the tooth in milk. And the dentist sews it back in. -- old days. Today, they would implant the tooth or cement a fake tooth along with a root-canaled good tooth or 2 and then crown them. In other words the dentist would make a bridge. If the root canal didn't take in the other 1 or 2 teeth, it would turn brown. --Or else the broken tooth would stay in and probably turn brown.

It is my belief that the "missing" tooth belonged to Lee, not Harvey.

Kathy C

And now Kathy is making extremely strong claims about Robert not having been

Lee's brother when they are actually virtually identical twins. You don't have to

be a geneticist to see that something VERY STRANGE is going on here. I think

the boat is being rocked and there are those who are very, very upset about it.

Just give it a little more thought.

Jim

It's my opinion that the photo of the 2 "brothers" standing near a table with Marina in the picture is fake. I had a good source for this statement. That's all I can say. I wonder if Jack agrees.

Kathy C

I am very disappointed in my friend Jim, who purchased the book Harvey & Lee...but

WITHOUT READING IT, thinks he knows what is in it.

He keeps imagining that it is based on "faked documents" which John "vacuumed up"

when that is untrue. John relied largely on PERSONAL INTERVIEWS OF PEOPLE WHO

KNEW LHO.

Read pages 91-92 about the fight between LHO and Riley which knocked out a tooth.

Why Jim resists reading the book, I cannot fathom. I guess he is afraid of learning that

some of his fervent adoration of JVB might be baseless.

Jack

(The graphic below was posted on the internet in 2002 by J. Pruitt)

In my opinion the 2 photos are of Lee (of Harvey and Lee).

Professor Fetzer, there are other photos there that are not LHO. In the second row, #2 is the faked Lee photo, #3 is Lee Oswald (of Harvey and Lee) -- a faked photo. There was someone on this forum who removed the top layer of whatever was used on that photo and it wasn't Harvey. IMO it was Lee.

Uh...what?

Please read Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong. There were 2 Lee Harvey Oswalds. Ruby shot Harvey and Lee was in on that and escaped. He may have been given another identification.

Kathy C

Kathy,

This is quite fascinating. You are appear to be convinced beyond any doubt that

Robert, who looked exactly like Lee, and Lee, who looked exactly like Robert,

were nonetheless NOT brothers. That rather astounds me. Are you a student

of genetics? Do you think this kind of match could have been purely random?

I am also struck by your definitive identifications of the images in the photo

line up. Having just reviewed "The Many Faces of Lee Harvey Oswald" to be

sure I had not forgotten anything Jack explains there, how do you know who

is who in these photos? Where did they come from and how do you know?

Bear in mind, it would not surprise me at all if Judyth were wrong about some

of these identifications. It is not quite an exact science, even though I think

she is approaching it scientifically. And her vision is not very good. But how

in the world did you figure all this out? How can you possibly be so certain?

Jim

I can't see Robert and Harvey as looking much alike. If possible, Harvey was better looking than Robert.

I have a habit of asserting things and forgetting to say "In My Opinion." Basically, John Armstrong said who was who in each picture of Lee/Harvey. The photos in the military cap are not Lee/Harvey; Rich DellaRosa told me those photos were of Robert in his opinion. The picture of Lee missing a tooth in a fight and sitting in the classroom fooling around is Lee. Lee had a brown tooth later on. I'm suspecting that the young marine at bottom was Lee too, but I could be wrong.

In any event, they are the homliest-looking men I've ever seen in my life. Robert is borderline disgusting. That's why when I first heard there was a woman claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald's lover before the assassination I- ROTFLMAO. Of all the people in history to say was your lover... But then I got used to a lot of oddities. And began to sympathize with Judyth, though she probably doesn't think so now.

Both Harvey and Lee have strange little mouths, which you must have noticed. Look at the Lee with his brothers and notice how his mouth looks. He's got the same mouth in the Civil Air Patrol. Harvey had a strange, small mouth, which he used to grimace with -- like someone with no teeth. Kathy C

WE HAVE SOME “OVER-PROCESSED” SEPIA-TINTED PHOTOS PURPORTING TO BE

“HARVEY” AND “LEE”. THESE ARE “FUZZY” HOWEVER, COMPARED TO THE BLACK

AND WHITE EXAMPLES BELOW. OF SPECIAL CONCERN IS THAT THE ADULT PHOTOS

ARE NOT SHOWN AT THE SAME HEAD SIZE.

THE BLACK-AND-WHITE PHOTOS AVAILABLE ARE NOT NEARLY AS “FUZZY” AND

HAVE MUCH MORE DETAIL. WE WILL USE THESE CLEARER PHOTOS, OR ONES

IDENTICAL TO THEM, FOR OUR COMPARISON WORK.

FIRST OF ALL, WE WILL ELIMINATE THOSE PHOTOS WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT

LEE H. OSWALD. SOMEBODY MAY HAVE SAID THAT THEY WERE OF OSWALD:

THE PROVENANCE OF THESE DISPUTED EXAMPLES MUST BE MADE KNOWN TO US.

THERE ARE ONLY TWO PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE COLLECTION ABOVE THAT ARE NOT

LEE H. OSWALD: ONE IS IN THE 2ND ROW, CENTER. THE OTHER IS IN THE FIFTH

ROW, SECOND FROM THE RIGHT.

BOTH PHOTOS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHERS. THE “HARVEY” PHOTO

SHOWN IN THIS COLLECTION (ROW FOUR, SECOND FRONM RIGHT), HOWEVER, IS

THE ‘BLOATED’ ONE OF REAL CONCERN. IT SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH THE TRUE,

UNBLOATED VERSION.

WE HAVE MANY MORE “BLOATED PHOTOS” IN THE ABOVE COLLECTION. HOW DID

THIS HAPPEN? IT IS A MATTER OF CONCERN. THE FOLLOWING PHOTOS ARE ‘BLOATED”:

ROW ONE: SECOND FROM LEFT, THIRD FROM LEFT, FOURTH FROM LEFT. (3)

ROW TWO: ALL OKAY, EXCEPT REMOVE THE BOGUS PHOTO, THIRD FROM THE LEFT.

ROW THREE: ALL OF THESE PHOTOS HAVE SUFFERED SOME ‘BLOATING’ DISTORTIONS (5)

ROW FOUR: THIRD FROM THE LEFT AND SECOND FROM THE RIGHT ARE BOTH ‘BLOATED’ (2)

ROW FIVE: ALL OKAY. EXCEPT REMOVE THE BOGUS PHOTO, SECOND FROM THE RIGHT.

TEN OF THE 25 PHOTOS HAVE BEEN DISTORTED IN THIS COLLECTION. TWO OTHERS ARE

BOGUS.

WE WILL USE THE “PRISTINE” PHOTO OF LEE H. OSWALD AS A GUIDE TO CORRECT HEAD

WIDTHS, AS THE WIDTH OF THE HUMAN SKULL CHANGES VERY LITTLE.

Professor Fetzer, there are other photos there that are not LHO. In the second row, #2 is the faked Lee photo, #3 is Lee Oswald (of Harvey and Lee) -- a faked photo. There was someone on this forum who removed the top layer of whatever was used on that photo and it wasn't Harvey. IMO it was Lee. #4 is Robert Oswald.

In the 4th row #1 (left) is of Lee (of Harvey and Lee) IMO.

Another researcher told me about Robert Oswald. It certainly isn't Harvey whom Ruby shot.

The bottom row, #4, doesn't look like Harvey. His eyes are dark, but he's got a brown tooth, which is consistent to Lee Oswald in high school, having had a front tooth punched from his mouth. They may have replanted it. A brown tooth means it's dead. (I was a dental asst.) Look at the sepia-toned ones. Top row, #2 -- Lee Oswald.

While we're there the first row, #1, is of Lee (Harvey and Lee.) Lee is also seen in the civil air patrol picture (not shown here) with David Ferrie. And with the 3 brothers, shown earlier.

Kathy C

It will take a while to do all of these. I am quitting for the night now.

Had a long and tiring day.

Jack

I think the picture on the left is Lee Oswald of Harvey and Lee

Kathy C

FROM ROBERT'S "FRONTLINE" INTERVIEW ABOUT HIS BROTHER, "THE ASSASSIN":

In your mind, are there questions about whether Lee shot President Kennedy?

There is no question in my mind that Lee was responsible for the three shots fired,

two of the shots hitting the president and killing him. There is no question in my mind

that he also shot Officer Tippit. How can you explain one without the other? I think

they're inseparable. I'm talking about the police officer being shot and the president.

You look at the factual data, you look at the rifle, you look at the pistol ownership,

you look at his note about the Walker shooting. You look at the general opportunity

-- he was present. He wasn't present when they took a head count [at the Texas

School Book Depository].

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ews/oswald.html

This, of course, is Jack's work and Jack's caption and, in case anyone has

missed it, I suspect Robert of playing a key role--both as an impersonator

and as a conspirator--implicating his brother for a crime he did not commit.

Jim..."suspicions" are not good research nor good history.

There is NO reason to suspect that Robert ever impersonated his brother.

There is NO reason to suspect that Robert ever functioned as a "conspirator"

Those may be interesting HYPOTHESES to consider in looking at evidence,

but NO EVIDENCE OF YOUR SUSPICIONS HAVE EVER SURFACED.

On the other hand, it is clear that Robert WAS AWARE that his mother

had volunteered his brother Lee to lend his identity to the government

to use in a false defector program. Lee was AWARE that an impostor

was using Lee's name and identity...and in fact, as part of this imposture,

Robert actually met the impostor and Marina at the THANKSGIVING

REUNION on November 22, 1962.

Therefore, it was a shock and great dilemma to Robert when the impostor

was named and the assassin. Robert testified that he went for a long

nighttime drive to think things over and sort things out.

During this drive, he decided that it would be imprudent to expose

the impostor since this would EXPOSE THE SECRET DEFECTION PROGRAM,

so he decided to keep quite. And anyway, he KNEW THAT THE IMPOSTOR

WAS NOT HIS BROTHER, so he decided to go along with whatever the

SECRET SERVICE TOLD HIM TO DO.

If Jim were to investigate Robert Edward Lee Oswald and prove his

"suspicions" correct, that would indeed be a startling new development

in the case. But I think Jim will find that Robert was just an ordinary

hard working family man who was a brick salesman...who got caught

up in an avalanche which was beyond his control.

But he KNOWS. He could still confirm what really happened. But he will

never tell.

Jack

I agree with Jack here. Robert Oswald ddn't implicate his brother because Robert and the man shot by Ruby were not brothers. Robert was sending Harvey to his death, a Russian man who was not related to him. Did the real Lee defect to Russia and not come back? Or did he come back under an assumed name and later talk to Mae Brussels (as Bill Kelly will tell you)?

There is much here to be confused about. And I think that's what the planners were trying to do.

Kathy C

WE HAVE SOME “OVER-PROCESSED” SEPIA-TINTED PHOTOS PURPORTING TO BE

“HARVEY” AND “LEE”. THESE ARE “FUZZY” HOWEVER, COMPARED TO THE BLACK

AND WHITE EXAMPLES BELOW. OF SPECIAL CONCERN IS THAT THE ADULT PHOTOS

ARE NOT SHOWN AT THE SAME HEAD SIZE.

THE BLACK-AND-WHITE PHOTOS AVAILABLE ARE NOT NEARLY AS “FUZZY” AND

HAVE MUCH MORE DETAIL. WE WILL USE THESE CLEARER PHOTOS, OR ONES

IDENTICAL TO THEM, FOR OUR COMPARISON WORK.

FIRST OF ALL, WE WILL ELIMINATE THOSE PHOTOS WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT

LEE H. OSWALD. SOMEBODY MAY HAVE SAID THAT THEY WERE OF OSWALD:

THE PROVENANCE OF THESE DISPUTED EXAMPLES MUST BE MADE KNOWN TO US.

THERE ARE ONLY TWO PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE COLLECTION ABOVE THAT ARE NOT

LEE H. OSWALD: ONE IS IN THE 2ND ROW, CENTER. THE OTHER IS IN THE FIFTH

ROW, SECOND FROM THE RIGHT.

BOTH PHOTOS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHERS. THE “HARVEY” PHOTO

SHOWN IN THIS COLLECTION (ROW FOUR, SECOND FRONM RIGHT), HOWEVER, IS

THE ‘BLOATED’ ONE OF REAL CONCERN. IT SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH THE TRUE,

UNBLOATED VERSION.

WE HAVE MANY MORE “BLOATED PHOTOS” IN THE ABOVE COLLECTION. HOW DID

THIS HAPPEN? IT IS A MATTER OF CONCERN. THE FOLLOWING PHOTOS ARE ‘BLOATED”:

ROW ONE: SECOND FROM LEFT, THIRD FROM LEFT, FOURTH FROM LEFT. (3)

ROW TWO: ALL OKAY, EXCEPT REMOVE THE BOGUS PHOTO, THIRD FROM THE LEFT.

ROW THREE: ALL OF THESE PHOTOS HAVE SUFFERED SOME ‘BLOATING’ DISTORTIONS (5)

ROW FOUR: THIRD FROM THE LEFT AND SECOND FROM THE RIGHT ARE BOTH ‘BLOATED’ (2)

ROW FIVE: ALL OKAY. EXCEPT REMOVE THE BOGUS PHOTO, SECOND FROM THE RIGHT.

TEN OF THE 25 PHOTOS HAVE BEEN DISTORTED IN THIS COLLECTION. TWO OTHERS ARE

BOGUS.

WE WILL USE THE “PRISTINE” PHOTO OF LEE H. OSWALD AS A GUIDE TO CORRECT HEAD

WIDTHS, AS THE WIDTH OF THE HUMAN SKULL CHANGES VERY LITTLE.

Professor Fetzer, there are other photos there that are not LHO. In the second row, #2 is the faked Lee photo, #3 is Lee Oswald (of Harvey and Lee) -- a faked photo. There was someone on this forum who removed the top layer of whatever was used on that photo and it wasn't Harvey. IMO it was Lee. #4 is Robert Oswald.

In the 4th row #1 (left) is of Lee (of Harvey and Lee) IMO.

Another researcher told me about Robert Oswald. It certainly isn't Harvey whom Ruby shot.

The bottom row, #4, doesn't look like Harvey. His eyes are dark, but he's got a brown tooth, which is consistent to Lee Oswald in high school, having had a front tooth punched from his mouth. They may have replanted it. A brown tooth means it's dead. (I was a dental asst.) Look at the sepia-toned ones. Top row, #2 -- Lee Oswald.

While we're there the first row, #1, is of Lee (Harvey and Lee.) Lee is also seen in the civil air patrol picture (not shown here) with David Ferrie. And with the 3 brothers, shown earlier.

Kathy C

I recently read a thread started by Duncan McRae who was asking for an ID on the photo of a young lad walking away from the TSBD. The topic centered around whether this chap was in fact Lee's friend, Ron Lewis. Duncan used a cropped version of the photo.

When looking at the uncropped version the man outlined in the attached photograph is visible. Is this the same guy seen in the more popular photo purporting to be GHWB outside the depository building?

The guy you picked out, who you think is GHWB, doesn't look anything like that boob.

Kathy C

JIM RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT "HARVEY & LEE"

Let me say that I am just the least bit taken aback by your cavalier attitude

toward the "hunting photo", which has been among those you have used to

establish the existence of "Lee" as a person separate from "Harvey", whom

you insist was the person Judyth knew in New Orleans--the one who was

born in Hungary, could not drive, intellectual and interested in philosophy,

and all that, while "Lee" was the one who was hot-tempered, uninterested

in Marxism and could not speak Russian. You observe that the man in the

"hunting photo" does not look like "Harvey", which is true, but then almost

any random photo of an adult male would not look very much like "Harvey":

The "hunting photo" is NOT my photo, but was a personal photo allegedly

taken by Robert when he took Lee hunting just before Lee "departed

for New Orleans" for his defection. I copied the photo from LEE, written

by Robert Oswald. The way a Marine handles a rifle is not necessarily

indicative of what he would do when out hunting. Not everyone behaves

according to any preconceived notion. I have no opinion on the veracity

of the photo. It may be genuine, it may be faked. But it does not resemble

the LHO of Dealey Plaza.

Can someone post the "hunting photo"?

Kathy C

What DRIVER'S LICENSE? LHO could not drive and did not have a driver's license.

If JVB has a copy of one...THAT IS BIG NEWS.

Lee knew how to drive. Harvey didn't. Maybe in those days, many Russians didn't have cars.

Kathy C

Gary Mack tells me the boy on the left is Robert and the other boy on the right is John Pic. You can see the resemblance between Robert and John, but Lee looks less like them. Thanks, Gary.

Kathy C

Kathy;

here are two links, one to Allan Grant of Life magazine...his photographs of Marina and...family and anoth

er to his story of finding them the weekend of the assassination, when she they were interviewed by authorities, in the hotel, there are a few other hotel photos with Robert in them, which i do not see in this link but if followed they will probably be found, i post what i have of robert in thehOTEL ROOM, YOU WILL SEE I BELIEVE THE RESEMBLANCE WITH HIS BROTHER LEE.that's robert at the table.....PLEASE excuse the caps...thanks...b

http://www.allangrant.com/newsevents7.htm

story http://www.allangrant.com/oswaldstory.htm.

.

Thanks, Bernice. I am using a relatively new computer, but I seem to have lost a lot of photos from my old drive. I am trying to find the picture of Robert, Lee and John Pic as children. Lee is in the middle, the real Lee.

Yes, there is some resemblance to LHO. But they're all so dorky looking. quote ''Where do they get these people? I take it you don't believe in John Armstrong's work?''Kathy C

wherever did you get the thought that I

don't believe in Armstrongs work? I said nothing to even

indicate such..Do not assume, anything about what I nor anyone may or may not believe,

each to their own, and none others should or should not assume to say anything pertaining to their beliefs..

AND AFTER BEING TOGETHER AT RICH'S FOR YEARS AS WELL AS NOW HERE FOR SOME TIME, YOU MUST HAVE MISSED MANY A THREAD IN THE PAST...sorry caps...fingers slipped again....txs..

perhaps this comp...contains what you are looking for.wrong photo replaced..i hope this is correct....b

Yes, this is the picture. Supposedly Robert's on the right and Lee is in the middle. This, in my opinion, is the real Lee, not the one shot by Ruby. I don't see a tremendous resemblance between them.

I found the picture in my computer a little while ago. I didn't know it was posted. Thank you. I was finding it hard to attach it to the site here. Anyway, don't be angry about me asking you if you followed the Harvey/Lee scenario. I do, pretty much. I wish John Armstrong would find Lee, the survivor (as far as we know). He's got the money and the time.

Kathy C

Jack,

Related to the idea that the LHO in Russia was not the defector is an item in another thread that was news to me. When LHO and Marina met at a dance, Marina thought from the way he talked that he was from the Baltics. Did LHO not tell Marina that he was an American? When did she find out? When he decided to go back to America?

Do the Baltics (Lithuania, etc.) sound like New Yorkers?

JVB has made several postings scoffing at the notion of a FALSE DEFECTOR PROGRAM, and that

Harvey was a part of it.

James J. Angleton of the CIA was in charge of the defector program. He also managed the Nosenko

affair, in which a Russian "defector" defected to the US, coming to tell that THE KGB HAD NO

OPERATIONAL INTEREST in the defector "Lee Harvey Oswald" (when all indications are that they

were immediately aware of the "false defector" and placed him under full time surveillance and perhaps

more). The HSCA was extremely interested in Nosenko.

At the time of Nosenko's defection, the CIA split into 2 factions...pro-Nosenko and anti-Nosenko. Angleton

believed that Nosenko himself was a false defector, and had him placed in solitary confinement for

several years where he underwent "enhanced interrogation" to "break him". Nosenko could have

potentially exposed Angleton's program, and Angleton wanted to know whether the KGB had substituted

a doppelganger for his false defector. The KGB's Nosenko operation put them in the position of "protesting

too much" to distance the Soviet Union from the assassination.

The question was WHETHER THE LHO WHO RETURNED FROM RUSSIA WAS THE SAME ONE

WHO DEFECTED. Either way, it does NOT materially affect the Harvey and Lee story, but adds an EXTRA

dimension. Either way, it is the one point on which I do not fully agree with Armstrong. I have always

believed that the LHO who returned from Russia was NOT the same LHO who defected. I have always

believed that the Soviets replaced the original defector with one of their own. There is much evidence

to support this. John decided NOT to include this possibility (though he was aware of it) in his book for

several reasons:

1. There was NO documentation for the KGB doing this. John wrote nothing without documentation.

2. A whole book would be needed devoted only to this portion, and he did not have space or time.

3. Even if the original defector was replaced by the KGB, it does not negate the Lee & Harvey documentation;

it only means that someone else was substituted for the original Harvey.

4. It would complicate the story of the original false defector by adding that a false defector had been

replaced by a "double agent"...so was he working for the CIA or the KGB? Since no documentation exists,

this would make the story impossible to tell without speculation and years more of research. He decided

to put his book to bed with only what he could DOCUMENT, with no distracting speculation. I agreed

with his decision...though we both recognized that there perhaps was much more to the story. On the

same grounds, he decided not to do a chapter on Donald O. Norton...because it involved speculation

which, though documented, was not proof. He threw out at least a year of research for lack of TWO SOURCES

of documentation.

If the KGB was interested enough in the false defection to send Nosenko to say that the Soviets were

not interested in LHO, this aspect of the defection is worthy of investigation.

In this thread I will attempt to document some of the evidence that the LHO in Russia was not the same

one who defected. However, this does not mean that the original defector was not the same one who

returned. It is a very confusing story which is unlikely to be conclusive. There are NO records of

what the KGB did concerning LHO's time in Minsk.

I will start with the Ziger sisters. Their father was head of the radio factory in Minsk where LHO

worked. Mr. Ziger acted as an overseer of LHO, and he visited the Ziger home frequently, becoming

well acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Ziger and their two daughters. John Armstrong tracked down

the Ziger sisters, by then living in Argentina. John flew to Argentina to interview them about their

remembrances of LHO. Since they spoke only Russian and Spanish, he hired an interpreter to

help with the interview. He found many interesting things, but perhaps the most interesting was

that the LHO that they knew was VERY SHORT, perhaps about 5'2"! This was very puzzling since

the defector was 5'9" and LHO was once listed in Marine records as 5'11". A photo of the Zigers

with "Lee" shows a very short person. There are other conflicting photos. The possibility exists

that the KGB furnished or tampered with ALL photos of the Russian period. John decided that

he could not depend solely on the word of the Ziger sisters, since no other documentation supported

their stories. He decided correctly that he could not depend solely on photos of dubious provenance

to back up the story told by the sisters. So all of the information provided by the Zigers is not in the book.

I will start with a clipping which John obtained from the Ziger sisters in an Argentina newspaper.

I will follow with other photos from the Russian period which strongly suggest that the LHO

who was in Russia was neither Harvey or Lee.

Jack

I've been saying all along that the one who came back from Russia was Russian Harvey. Listen to the tape available somewhere online of Harvey reading English. When I bring this up, some people will say to me that if I heard all of the tape, I would realize that Harvey was teaching his Russian friend English. Where's the rest of the tape? No one seems to know. And his stupid "brother," Robert, declared about Harvey: "I couldn't believe how much hair he lost!" So we have a dead Harvey, a Robert, an escaped Lee Oswald and the emergence of Donald O. Norton. And so many pctures of men who look like Harvey, but aren't.

There was a man on this forum who could scrape away a photograph of someone's face and find the real face underneath. Where is that man?

Kathy C

Kathy;

here are two links, one to Allan Grant of Life magazine...his photographs of Marina and...family and anoth

er to his story of finding them the weekend of the assassination, when she they were interviewed by authorities, in the hotel, there are a few other hotel photos with Robert in them, which i do not see in this link but if followed they will probably be found, i post what i have of robert in thehOTEL ROOM, YOU WILL SEE I BELIEVE THE RESEMBLANCE WITH HIS BROTHER LEE.that's robert at the table.....PLEASE excuse the caps...thanks...b

http://www.allangrant.com/newsevents7.htm

story http://www.allangrant.com/oswaldstory.htm.

.

Thanks, Bernice. I am using a relatively new computer, but I seem to have lost a lot of photos from my old drive. I am trying to find the picture of Robert, Lee and John Pic as children. Lee is in the middle, the real Lee.

Yes, there is some resemblance to LHO. But they're all so dorky looking. Where do they get these people? I take it you don't believe in John Armstrong's work?

Kathy C

Too bad this conference couldn't be put on video and played on youtube. During the COPA conference I missed Walt Brown. And there was a question and answer period with John Armstrong that was deliberately not filmed. The cameraman shut off the camera when Armstrong was ready to answer questions.

Kathy C

Harvey had a NEW YORK (BROOKLYN) type of accent, not Cajun. He

was raised in New York, not Louisiana. Brooklyn accents are often

mistaken for Cajun. Cajun is a corruption of Arcadian, as many

Louisiana residents were Arcadians (from Canada) who spoke French.

As they learned English, it was with a French accent, which is close

to Brooklynese. As for hating the name Harvey, JVB is unfamiliar

with the teacher at Beauregard Junior High interviewed by John,

Myra LaRouse, who remembered LHO well, and insisted that she

call him Harvey.

I have to comment here. I believe there were 2 LHOs. But Harvey did not have a "Brooklynese" accent. We can hear him speak on 2 radio programs, a tape made in Russia and at the Dallas police dept.

In this I am an expert. I have the most "Brooklynese" accent you'd ever want to hear. I grew up in West New York, NJ which is across the Hudson river from mid-town Manhattan. My parents came from Jersey City. In no way did Harvey speak like a New Yorker.

A French accent speaking English sounds like a NY accent? My family came from Ireland. I don't know how our accents became what they were, but it's not French. I studied French in school. I recognize the accent. Not New York.

Kathy C

William Timmer, who knew HARVEY when he was briefly in North Dakota, said that he spoke with a New York accent.

You could take this man's word for it, but listen to the 2 radio programs and the tape from Russia where he's stumbling over English words. Listen to him speak as cops dragged him past the reporters. That's no Brooklyn accent I hear.

Kathy C

Harvey had a NEW YORK (BROOKLYN) type of accent, not Cajun. He

was raised in New York, not Louisiana. Brooklyn accents are often

mistaken for Cajun. Cajun is a corruption of Arcadian, as many

Louisiana residents were Arcadians (from Canada) who spoke French.

As they learned English, it was with a French accent, which is close

to Brooklynese. As for hating the name Harvey, JVB is unfamiliar

with the teacher at Beauregard Junior High interviewed by John,

Myra LaRouse, who remembered LHO well, and insisted that she

call him Harvey.

I have to comment here. I believe there were 2 LHOs. But Harvey did not have a "Brooklynese" accent. We can hear him speak on 2 radio programs, a tape made in Russia and at the Dallas police dept.

In this I am an expert. I have the most "Brooklynese" accent you'd ever want to hear. I grew up in West New York, NJ which is across the Hudson river from mid-town Manhattan. My parents came from Jersey City. In no way did Harvey speak like a New Yorker.

A French accent speaking English sounds like a NY accent? My family came from Ireland. I don't know how our accents became what they were, but it's not French. I studied French in school. I recognize the accent. Not New York.

Kathy C