Jim Hargrove

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

Oh for Pete's sake! A prosthesis was required because one failed on or by May 5, 1958, as is clearly reported on the form. What prosthesis could have possibly failed on a man with these teeth? Will the CIA defending H&L critics soon claim that Ed Voebel sneaked into the Marines and wrote the failed prosthesis notation?

Anyone who claims tooth #30 is a wisdom tooth is simply not paying attention or trying to be deliberately obtuse.

You're quite right. Simultaneous appearances far apart happened all the time with the Amazing "Lee Harvey Oswald." Earlier in this very thread are documented examples, including written evidence from the National Archives, such as the following: He attended public school in New York City and New Orleans simultaneously.... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=358669 In the Marines he was treated for VD in Japan at the same time he was more than 1400 miles away in Taiwan... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=348691 While living in Minsk in the Soviet Union, he visited the Bolton Ford truck dealership in New Orleans... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=349244 A more thorough look at the Bolton Ford incident is here: http://harveyandlee.net/Misc/Bolton.html For the mother lode of examples, read Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong or visit my website: HarveyandLee.net If Harvey and Lee critics here claim any of the above has been debunked, don't believe it! Be sure to look at any EVIDENCE they claim to have and judge for yourself!

To see how desperate the HSCA was to deny evidence of Two Oswalds, see the following post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=348691

Yeah, right, and anyone without bias can tell the HSCA was the most dishonest of all the government investigations of the assassination. I can't imagine why anyone who believes the WC and the HSCA would even bother to be here. One of the HSCA's pictures of "Oswald" is actually a pencil drawing! LOL!

Everyone has an opinion, but the only serious study I've seen of LHO photographs using modern biometric comparison techniques found evidence of two different Oswalds in the existing visual data. And the study was conducted by an H&L skeptic. Again, the whole analysis can be seen here.... https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14916-Pixel-Counting-Biometric-Comparison-of-Oswald-photos

Sandy's evidence about the Magic Molar also supports Harvey and Lee. His full report can be reviewed at the link below....

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?

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: 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.

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."

Interesting analysis, Tom. One of the most basic questions about this evidence is why on earth would a failed prosthesis be noted on a form while the location of the failed prosthesis is not noted on the very same form, or group of forms? Your suggested possibility that the failed prosthesis notation may have been put on the wrong form is the only innocent explanation I can fathom for Sandy’s discovery, but it seems unlikely to me that a dentist or dental technician would make such an error with the tooth diagrams right in front of him. But it might be far more possible for someone unfamiliar with dentistry in general and a prosthesis in particular, who was simply combining information from two different soldiers on to a single form, to make this kind of an error. I have made numerous posts showing how the FBI altered witness testimony, and invented and/or altered page after page of documentary evidence. I’ll be happy to start posting that evidence again for anyone who wants to deny the FBI’s treachery in this case. John A. has a complete set of the FBI "Series 2" microfilm series from UMI, which includes all or at least many of the FBI documents from the assassination, including many which were breathlessly “released” decades after they were quietly released on this microfilm set. I spent hours and hours skimming through just one of the many reels a couple of years ago, and I THINK I saw, among documents from Secret Service, Treasury, USPS, private organizations, even some documents from the Marines, but I’m not a hundred percent sure of that. I’ll try to ask John if he recalls seeing Marine Corps in the FBI collection. If these Marine documents were filtered through the FBI before reaching the Warren Commission, just about anything is possible.

Thanks, Sandy! Asking Drew Phipps for some sort of permission to save his study somewhere, like at HarveyandLee.net, sounds like good advice indeed! I'll make an attempt to contact him tomorrow. May I send him your post above and ask for his comment? Pls let me know.... --Jim

Give it up, Bernie. Or don't! You can misrepresent the views and statements of H&L witnesses and H&L proponents to your heart's content, but what you say means nothing at all. The type of statistical comparisons Mr. Phipps made are the same types of measurements most facial recognition procedures use. One of the purposes of this sort of thing is to take the guesswork and opinions out of the equation... something your side can't afford to do But by all means, Bernie, write endless screeds declaring facial recognition procedures meaningless. Sometimes I need a good laugh!

On the Deep Politics Forum a few years ago, a Dallas attorney named Drew Phipps, an H&L skeptic, used pixel counting software to measure various facial distance ratios of more than a dozen pictures of "Lee Harvey Oswald." Mr. Phipps wrote, "The ratios I will use are: “pupil-to-pupil / width of eye” (called P/W hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / length of nose” (called P/N hereafter), “pupil-to-pupil / nose-to-top-lip” (called P/L hereafter) and “pupil-to-pupil / earlobe-to-earlobe” (called P/E hereafter). The use of ratios (instead of actual measurements) will make it unnecessary to know more about the distance from lens to face, or the type of camera, etc., since the proportions of the face of the same person should stay the same regardless of those other factors." His conclusion was as follows: Visual Conclusions: Unless there is something terribly wrong with my methodology, (or my spreadsheet skills), or the photos are simply too low resolution for a significant biometric comparison, there is some evidence that there is more than one individual here. If I had to clump the photos in two different piles, it looks to me like photos 1, 2, 3, 9 and 13 are the same individual, and photos 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are the same individual. I realize this is not the same narrative as "Harvey and Lee". It is still my opinion that it is far more likely that the paper trail of discrepancies surrounding Oswald is the result of deliberate tampering with his records (in an attempt to catch a mole, or deceive a communist spy organization). But the biometric discrepancies are starting to make me wonder. The full thread can be read here: https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14916-Pixel-Counting-Biometric-Comparison-of-Oswald-photos

Of Xs and Pros …. Tom Neal writes that the lack of a missing tooth being marked on Oswald’s USMC dental charts indicates that he did NOT have a false tooth. Since Tom says he asked an ex-army dentist about this and the dentist agreed, we certainly have to consider his argument. A few months ago, I was genuinely surprised when Sandy wrote about his discovery of the failed prosthesis notation in Oswald’s USMC records. In a box clearly labeled: “PROSTHESIS REQUIRED? (If ‘yes’ explain briefly)” a dentist wrote, “FAILED 5-5-58.” I can’t imagine any of us needing to go to dental school to see the significance of that entry. No critic of Sandy’s proof has come close to explaining it to my satisfaction. Unless the dentist was hallucinating, that entry alone proves this was not the “Lee Harvey Oswald” exhumed in 1981, since the medical examiners overseeing the exhumation declared all the decedent's teeth were natural. When I reviewed the dental charts after reading Tom’s original post, it did strike me as a little strange that none of the charts showed a prosthetic. But I don’t see how we can claim that a notation on a chart that ISN’T made can negate a notation that IS made, namely, that a prosthetic failed on or by May 5, 1958. Sandy offers a number of suggestions why the tooth wasn’t X’d out on the charts, and he's studied this issue a lot more fully than I have. I’d only add that you really don’t need a chart to see what the problem is with a man’s teeth that look like this:

I enlarged the photo on my desktop. What I see there looks like a needle stuck through her eye. Maybe Ed Voebel came back from the dead and faked that needle, eh? Also.... It surely is a space, just as the kid who took the picture and helped clean up Oswald in the boys room after the attack testified. What you call a "gleam" could be anything... including the tip of his tongue behind the missing tooth.

Oh, puh-lease…. Here’s the woman born as Marguerite Claverie in 1937…. and in 1942 …. … and 1945 …. … and in 1960…. Do show us the mole under her eye! … Oh wait. Here it is! Belonging to the woman who testified as “Marguerite Oswald”

To Tom Neal…. Thanks for your post. You make a reasonable point about there being no missing front teeth marked on the USMC dental charts, and we do need to consider all the evidence…. The material I’m working from is downloaded from the online Armstrong Collection at Baylor University. There is a 28 page file there with a cover page called “Dental Records” that includes three pages of dental files from the USMC and a copy of the Norton Report. In the USMC docs there are a total of six dental charts, none of which show a front tooth with an “X” on it. The page that includes the “PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58” notation includes two charts, one entitled “CARIES, DENTAL DISEASE, MISSING TEETH, ABNORMALITIES,” and the other “DENTAL TREATMENT ACCOMPLISHED.” Without having the opportunity to question Marine dentists from the era, Sandy’s explanation sounds possible to me. Another chart, however, is entitled “MISSING TEETH AND EXISTING RESTORATIONS,” and that, it would seem to me, should have had an “X” marked on a front tooth, which it doesn’t. Again, though, I think we should consider all the evidence. The “PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58” seems awfully specific to have been written in error. The only explanation H&L critics have offered for it is that it was a reference to dental sealants, which I do not think is reasonable. How would you explain that notation? For me, though, the best evidence of the missing tooth has always been the photo of it published in LIFE magazine and the sworn testimony of Edward Voebel, the kid who took the photo at school. Ed testified that he thought Oswald got a bloody lip and lost a tooth from the attack. It is true that some other people also said they thought Oswald had a tooth pushed through his lip, or words to that effect. While none of them said directly that Oswald lost a tooth, none of them were so close to Oswald that they helped clean him up in the boys room after the fight. But Ed Voebel did. I don’t have a ready explanation for the lack of an “X” on a front tooth in at least one of the USMC dental charts, but I do believe the picture speaks for itself.

Well, that settles it then, eh? Mr. Parnell wants us to believe the Warren Commission and the HSCA because, well gosh, he does believe them! He seldom, if ever, debates the details of what he calls “’outliers’ in a large data set.” The best he seems able to do is act as an errand boy for Greg Parker by posting here comments written by Parker, who is banned from this and another JFK forum. If Tracy Parnell doesn’t discuss the specific evidence, what is clear from this thread is that Parker simply invents evidence: dental sealants are dental prosthetics; Ed Voebel and LEE Oswald conspired to create a picture faking Oswald’s missing tooth; Voebel perjured himself in front of the WC to hide the fakery, and on and on. For years, Tracy Parnell posted links to various write-ups on Parker’s website claiming they “debunked” various aspects of the H&L evidence presented here. For years I challenged him to put Parker’s arguments right here so all could see how empty they were. He has finally done so, and we can all see the result. The usual H&L critics/CIA defenders will howl otherwise, but what could possibly be more obvious than the absurdity of Parker’s claims. Dental sealants are dental prosthetics like my arse is the Mona Lisa. BTW, John has just completed a major update to the Two Marguerites page on my website. See it here: http://harveyandlee.net/Moms/Moms.html

What is truly remarkable in this thread is how the anti-H&L CIA defenders here simply cannot look at this evidence and say something like, “Well, that’s interesting…. let’s see if there is any other evidence pointing to a serious problem in the official biography of ‘Lee Harvey Oswald.’” They will not, or they cannot, let that happen. Instead, they fight tooth and nail, dreaming up all kinds of elaborate excuses to “explain” the simple evidence that one LHO lost a tooth and had a prosthesis, and the other didn’t. But watch their howls of protest continue, despite the obvious proof. Don't believe your lying eyes while they hope that all their rhetorical nonsense will somehow prevail.

To Kathleen and Ray.... I’ve been urging people interested in the Kennedy assassination to find a way to buy the February 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine. Not only does it have an excellent reproduction of Ed Voebel’s photo of LEE Oswald showing off his missing tooth, it also has fascinating material on “Lee Harvey Oswald.” Here’s one example. Richard Garrett was a student in Mrs. Darsey’s 5th grade class at Ridglea West Elementary in the fall of 1950. So was LEE Oswald, whose family lived near the Garrett’s at 4928 Penrose. On p. 72 of the LIFE article on Oswald, Richard Garrett is quoted as saying that Oswald was the “tallest, the dominant member of our group in grammar school.” Three years later, Garrett met HARVEY Oswald at Arlington High School. LIFE quoted Garrett as saying, "I remember I had to look down to talk to him, and it seemed strange, because he had been the tallest, the dominant member of our group in grammar school. He looked like he was just lost. He was very different from the way I remember him." Although this LIFE magazine article was a major step in the USG/US media campaign to convince the public that “Lee Harvey Oswald” was the lone assassin, it has a number of fascinating insights. Little wonder that the WC’s John Hart Ely, charged with creating a biography of ‘Lee Harvey Oswald” and family, wrote, "We're getting more information from Life Magazine than we are from the FBI." In another memo, Ely wrote, "Once again let me urge that we should not have to rely upon Life Magazine for such a list. The FBI should undertake a systematic identification and interview of Oswald's closest school friends."

Isn't it odd, then, that the form said "PROSTHESIS," not "SEALANT." These endless excuses from the anti-H&L CIA defenders are pitiful. They just want some alternate explanation, ANY explanation, to attempt to turn attention away from the obvious truth of Sandy's presentation. Their description of Ed Voebel and LEE Oswald conspiring to show a blackened tooth, and make it seem missing, is a riot!

What a hoot! Back on Feb. 21, Tracy Parnell posted here in this very thread these words of wisdom from Parker: Jim is being disingenuous in his vague and misleading responses. No one said said that "the only prosthesis this kid needed was liquid sealant". What was said was that sealants and prosthetics are both classified (along with bridges etc) as "restorations" of teeth and that as such, are "lumped" together on the forms. Which is to say, according to Parker, that sealants are “lumped” together with prosthetics on the form. Parker can write all the gobbledegook and weasel words he can muster. His unfounded claim that sealants and prosthetics were “lumped together” on the form is still ridiculous. Let's all consider how different "classified as" is from "lumped together." LOL! The simple truth is the anti-H&L CIA defenders here cannot accept the obvious truth of Sandy's proof of two Oswalds, but they are ashamed to admit how stupid their arguments are. Here, again, is what they want us to believe: Even though the photograph taken by LEE Oswald’s friend Ed Voebel clearly shows a missing tooth or two, it really doesn’t because, either Ed and LEE photographed a "blacked out" front tooth on LEE, or the photo was actually retouched more than 50 years ago by LEE Oswald and Ed Voebel to make it appear that LEE Oswald had a missing tooth, even though he didn’t. Even though Ed Voebel testified under oath that he thought Oswald got a bloody lip and lost a tooth from the fight, he was just making it up to continue the funny gag he and Lee conspired about years earlier. Even though a U.S. Marine dentist indicated that LEE Oswald had a PROSTHESIS that failed on or by 5-5-58, it was really just liquid DENTAL SEALANT that failed, and not the most obvious type of prosthesis; namely, false teeth. Asked again and again to provide evidence that USMC dentists classified dental sealants as prosthetics, the anti-H&L folks have been unable to do so. Even though a photograph of LEE Oswald in Japan taken in 1958 seems to show two slightly dark and partially crumbling upper front teeth, clearly suggestive of a failed prosthesis involving the upper two front teeth the same year of the failed prosthesis notation, that’s just a complete coincidence.

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.