Jim Hargrove

Actually, you are the one who has to come up with weird explanations again and again. Either that, or you have to admit that a lot of evidence for two Oswalds slipped through J. Edgar Hoover’s dragnet. In this case, here’s what you have to believe: Ed Voebel and LEE Oswald made a gag photo by darkening Oswald’s tooth so that... uh... hmmm... years later Voebel would get the opportunity to perjure himself at the Warren Commission by saying he thought Oswald lost a tooth in the attack. You also have to take a cue from Greg Parker and claim that U.S. Marine Corps dentists classified liquid dental sealants as false teeth (prosthetics), as you say they did right here: You also have to assume that it’s just a wacky coincidence that two of Oswald’s upper front teeth in a photo taken the exact same year as the prosthetics failed notation looked like this: To read Sandy’s interesting theory about that, CLICK HERE. The rest of your “analysis” and your usual name-calling is irrelevant. If Voebel took the classroom with a flash, rather than available light, why is the front of the room as bright as the objects closest to the camera? The inverse square law states, as one example, that the intensity of illumination changes in inverse proportion to the square of the distance from the source.

My Nexus 6P doesn’t have a macro mode, but earlier today I put the phone as close to page 70 of LIFE mag’s 2/21/64 edition as would focus in the natural light, and took the following shot. The halftone dots are clearly visible. I’m wondering if it isn’t the tip of LEE Oswald’s tongue that is visible behind his missing tooth. No doubt H&L critics will whine and cry and disagree. Here’s the full image….

Don't forget that in 1975 McLendon and David Atlee Phillips formed the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO). McLendon and Phillips were friends since childhood.

DJ, Not sure how many generations there are to these prints, but I snapped the images I sent Sandy directly from pp. 70-71 of my copy of the Feb. 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine. I used the camera from my Nexus 6P, which many people regard as one of the best phone cameras out there. My suspicion is that there are artifacts from the little dots in the halftone printing process combined with the anti-aliasing features of modern cameras and computer displays. Again, I urge anyone interested to go online and buy (I paid only a few bucks) a copy of the 2/21/64 LIFE mag and look at the picture. It is big and clear. You can easily see Oswald’s missing tooth without a magnifying glass. With even modest magnification, you can see the little dots that make up the halftone image. It’s really clear when you look at the printed page directly, although I think it’s pretty clear in these images. There is a long, detailed article on Oswald in this issue, and it is worth the information even if the photo wasn't there. Charged with creating a biography of "Lee Harvey Oswald," the Warren Commission's John Ely complained he was getting more information from LIFE than from the FBI. This was a very influential edition of the magazine, which was supposed to convince the public that Oswald was the lone gunman. Now, it is the entrance to many other questions. And look at the photo on pages 70-71.

Are you kidding? I HAVE to shout! I’m trying to give you geniuses the credit you deserve for discovering the LEE Oswald/Ed Voebel conspiracy to “invent” Oswald’s “lost tooth” issue. It was even more remarkable since the Terrible Twosome obviously concocted this plot more than a half century before the lost tooth became an issue. Your discovery has time-traveling consequences! I’m just trying to promote your remarkably convincing work here. Be proud!

H&L Critics DISCOVER a Long Hidden LEE Oswald / Ed Voebel CONSPIRACY! Historians will be AMAZED! OK, so let me get this straight. Here's what the anti-H&L people claim 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 it 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. WOW. ARE YOU GUYS ARE SO DESPERATE ITS FUNNY!!!

Beats me Bart. Where's his front tooth?

Excellent questions, Ron. I've always thought LEE Oswald was showing off his missing tooth or teeth in that photo.

Nice try, Paul, but Ed Voebel died in 1971, long before the missing tooth became a controversy. His father told the HSCA that his son died under mysterious circumstances. From Harvey and Lee .... NOTE: In May 1971, Ed Voebel suddenly became ill and was taken to the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans. A physician called his family and asked if he (Voebel) had been exposed to "insecticide poisons. " Family members told the physician he had not been exposed to any poisons. After spending the night in the hospital Voebel called home, said he was feeling much better, and expected to be home within a day. But that evening Voebel died suddenly of a "blot clot, "after allegedly suffering an attack of pneumonia. Voebel, according to his sister, died in the Ochsner clinic (Dr. Alton Ochsner, as we shall see, was a member of the CIA-sponsored Information Council of the Americas). Voebel's death certificate, however, shows that he died at Foundation Hospital in Metairie, La. In 1978 Voebel's father told the HSCA, even though he had no proof, that he believed his son died under mysterious circumstances. --From Harvey and Lee, pp. 121-122, Copyright © 2003 by John Armstrong. All rights reserved. As for your claim that the photo looks retouched, I've said this before, but here it is again.... There are everyday reasons for minor anomalies in images greatly enlarged from photographic halftones reproduced using modern cameras and computer displays. Look up how mass produced ink and paper photo reproductions were produced using what is called the “halftone” printing process, as LIFE magazine and virtually all print publishers used in the 1960s and still use today. Read about all the little dots in the photos, the enlarged historical counterparts of today’s electronic pixels. Then look up “anti-aliasing,” a process used by modern cameras and computer displays which actually smooths out the little dots produced in ink and paper printed “halftones.” In the case of the classroom photo showing Oswald’s missing tooth or teeth, small anomalies in this major enlargement are to be expected. That hardly changes the fact that the photo clearly shows that LEE Oswald was missing an upper front tooth or two. Whine about it all you want, it doesn’t change the EVIDENCE!

Mr. Parker can quote himself with all the colorized, bolded, underlined text he can cook up. Now show us EVIDENCE that Marine Corps dentists in 1958 classified liquid dental sealants as prosthetics!

Ed Voebel, the kid who took this photo, swore under oath: "Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out."

Again, to see what prosthetics really are, just search on Google or... CLICK HERE.

Anyone?

I’m not being paranoid, Paul. I want anyone who happens to read this thread to understand why CIA defenders such as you and Greg Parker are so desperate to explain away Sandy’s important discovery of the prosthesis failed 5-5-58 notation on LEE Oswald’s USMC form. Unless you can prove right here that in 1958 USMC dentists treated liquid dental sealants as prosthetics, which is exceptionally unlikely, Sandy’s ten-second proof shows that there were indeed two Oswalds, just as so many researchers have long suspected. The purpose of this subterfuge was to give a Russian-speaking young man a U.S. identity and send him to the USSR as a spy.

Paul, You and Greg Parker do NOTHING ELSE other than defend the CIA, whose officers ordered the death of JFK. Do you want to argue about this....?... 20 Facts Indicating the Oswald Project Was Run by the CIA 1. CIA accountant James Wilcott said he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.” 2. Antonio Veciana said he saw LHO meeting with CIA’s Maurice Bishop/David Atlee Phillips in Dallas in August 1963. 3. A 1978 CIA memo indicates that a CIA operations officer “had run an agent into the USSR, that man having met a Russian girl and eventually marrying her,” a case very similar to Oswald’s and clearly indicating that the Agency ran a “false defector” program in the 1950s. 4. Robert Webster and LHO "defected" a few months apart in 1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both returned to the United States in the spring of 1962. 5. Richard Sprague, Richard Schweiker, and CIA agents Donald Norton and Joseph Newbrough all said LHO was associated with the CIA. 6. CIA employee Donald Deneslya said he read reports of a CIA "contact" who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child. 7. Kenneth Porter, employee of CIA-connected Collins Radio, left his family to marry (and probably monitor) Marina Oswald after LHO’s death. 8. George Joannides, case officer and paymaster for DRE (which LHO had attempted to infiltrate) was put in charge of lying to the HSCA and never told them of his relationship to DRE. 9. For his achievements, Joannides was given a medal by the CIA. 10. FBI took Oswald off the watch list at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health, weeks after Oswald’s New Orleans arrest and less than two months before the assassination. 11. Oswald’s lengthy “Lives of Russian Workers” essay reads like a pretty good intelligence report. 12. Oswald’s possessions were searched for microdots. 13. Oswald owned an expensive Minox spy camera, which the FBI tried to make disappear. 14. Even the official cover story of the radar operator near American U-2 planes defecting to Russia, saying he would give away all his secrets, and returning home without penalty smells like a spy story. 15. CIA Richard Case Nagell clearly knew about the plot to assassinate JFK and LHO’s relation to it, and he said that the CIA and the FBI ignored his warnings. 16. LHO always seemed poor as a church mouse, until it was time to go “on assignment.” For his Russian adventure, we’re to believe he saved all the money he needed for first class European hotels and private tour guides in Moscow from the non-convertible USMC script he saved. In the summer of 1963, he once again seemed to have enough money to travel abroad to Communist nations. 17. To this day, the CIA claims it never interacted with Oswald, that it didn’t even bother debriefing him after the “defection.” What utter bs…. 18. After he “defected” to the Soviet Union in 1959, bragging to U.S. embassy personnel in Moscow that he would tell the Russians everything he knew about U.S. military secrets, he returns to the U.S. without punishment and is then in 1963 given the OK to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union again! 19. Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by JFK, and the Warren Commission clearly wanted the truth hidden from the public to protect sources and methods of intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Earl Warren said, “Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security.” 20. CIA's Ann Egerter, who worked for J.J. Angleton's Counterintelligence Special Interest Group (CI/SIG), opened a "201" file on Oswald on December 9, 1960. Egerter testified to the HSCA: "We were charged with the investigation of Agency personnel....” When asked if the purpose was to "investigate Agency employees," she answered, "That is correct." When asked, "Would there be any other reason for opening up a file?" she answered, "No, I can't think of one." 21. President Kennedy and the CIA clearly were at war with each other in the weeks immediately before his assassination, as evidenced by Arthur Krock's infamous defense of the Agency in the Oct. 3, 1963 New York Times. “Oswald” was the CIA’s pawn.

LOL! Let's see if Greg, or Paul, or Tracy or anyone else can argue your simple point. Needless to say, Mr. Walton isn't among the players. LOL!

OMG! I really don't pay much attention to Mr. Parker because I debated him here before he was banned and I know how problematic the truth is for him. Did he completely invent the liquid sealant/prosthesis link? Ha-hah-hah-hah-hah.....

The lack of X's on Oswald's front teeth which were replaced by PROSTHETICS has been explained to you at least a dozen times. Can you read? Sheesh! For people who can’t buy a clue, there are everyday reasons for minor anomalies in images greatly enlarged from photographic halftones reproduced using modern cameras and computer displays. Look up how mass produced ink and paper photo reproductions were produced using what is called the “halftone” printing process, as LIFE magazine and virtually all print publishers used in the 1960s and still use today. Read about all the little dots in the photos, the enlarged historical counterparts of today’s electronic pixels. Then look up “anti-aliasing,” a process used by modern cameras and computer displays which actually smooths out the little dots produced in ink and paper printed “halftones.” In the case of the classroom photo showing Oswald’s missing tooth or teeth, small anomalies in this major enlargement are to be expected. That hardly changes the fact that the photo clearly shows that LEE Oswald was missing an upper front tooth or two. Whine about it all you want, it doesn’t change the EVIDENCE!

Mr. Parker offers no evidence whatsoever that the “Prosthesis FAILED 5-5-58” notation on Pvt. Oswald’s Marine Corps dental record referred to a liquid dental sealant rather than to what are commonly called false teeth, by far the most customary type of DENTAL PROSTHETICS, both then and now. Why should we seriously consider such an obscure definition for “prosthesis,” which Mr. Parker claims he found in a regulation from an unrelated branch of the military five years after the date in question? Interested readers might be interested in Googling “dental prosthetics” and noting the results. Do you see dental sealant, or do you see what are commonly called “false teeth?” Let common sense be your guide. In the meantime, let’s summarize how CIA defenders/H&L critics explain Oswald’s missing tooth and his subsequent failed prosthesis. Here's what the anti-H&L crowd says it believes: Even though the photograph taken by LEE Oswald’s friend Ed Voebel clearly shows a missing tooth or two, it really doesn’t because it was actually retouched more than 50 years ago for reasons unknown by persons unknown. 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 for reasons unknown. 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. 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. Do you believe that, honestly?

For me, that's the only interesting question left on this thread: Did LEE Oswald lose just one tooth from the attack at Beauregard, as photographer Voebel testified, or did he lose two, as the photo MAY show. I just did a Google image search for "image punched out teeth." See the results here: punched out teeth Isn't it amazing how similar many of those sharp images located by Google are to the fuzzy/enlarged image of Lee Oswald's wound? If Mr. Trejo wants to tell us this photo was retouched more than half a century ago, let him show us some EVIDENCE. Who retouched it? Why? It doesn't look retouched to me.

It is hardly surprising that ever-present CIA defenders have to resort to name calling and character assassination to defend the undefendible . Jim DiEugenio has skillfully followed the evidence in this case. To my knowledge he was one of the first scholars on earth to both understand and fully and publicly describe the breadth and depth of American Intel’s media war against Jim Garrison, and to show how his case, from both external sabotage and clandestine infiltration of his staff by U.S. Intel assets, was doomed from the start. And now, of course, faced with yet another researcher who has presented evidence that members of the CIA were intimately involved in the plot to assassinate JFK, Mr. Trejo does whatever he can to discredit that evidence, in this case evidence of an intel operation designed to send a Russian-speaking young man apparently with an American birth certificate to Moscow. How utterly predictable. As I’ve said several times right here in answer to Mr. Trejo’s latest accusation, anyone who thinks this photo is retouched should get a copy of the 2/21/64 edition of LIFE magazine, and look at the photo on pp. 70-71. Well over half a century ago, it appeared exactly on the pages of LIFE magazine as it appears here today.

LOL! Mr. Parker’s attempted rebuttal involves calling a liquid sealant a dental prosthetic and a couple of paraphrased reports about the fight, including one by a kid who didn’t know Oswald. He tries to use this to overcome the clear, sworn testimony of Oswald’s friend, the kid who took the photo of the missing tooth and tried to treat Oswald's wound in the boys' room after the fight. To explain why Lillian Murett had to pay a dentist to treat Lee Oswald’s wound, Mr. Parker says... nothing. Notice that no H&L critic has the courage to summarize Mr. Parker’s argument and put it here. It's too embarrassing for them. Just look at the LIFE mag pictures!

Isn’t it amusing that the anti-H&L folks here indulge in lots of insults, plenty of psycho-babble, and all sorts of irrelevant prose, but they simply are unable to refute the evidence. To those who read this but don’t participate, why not just follow the evidence? No matter what the CIA defenders and H&L critics say, they can't make the evidence go away.

A statement like the above is why I so often urge people to find a copy of the 2/21/64 edition of LIFE magazine, which published the photo on pp. 70-71. Here’s the cover of my copy of that edition: And here’s the full two-page spread from the magazine with Ed Voebel’s picture of LEE Oswald showing off his missing front tooth. Even though I just snapped the two pictures above with my cell phone, if you look closely you can see the damage to Oswald’s front teeth in the second photo. If the photo was retouched, how strange that it matches the sworn testimony of the original photographer, who said he thought Oswald got a bloody lip and lost a tooth during the encounter. How strange that it matches the evidence from the U.S. Marine Corps that Lee Oswald had a dental prosthetic. How strange that it matches the evidence of the 1958 photo of LEE Oswald in Japan, which shows either one or two upper front teeth decidedly different from the others. Sandy’s theory that the image’s darker and possibly crumbling upper front teeth might actually be a picture of the failed prosthesis is bolstered by the fact that both the photo and the dental report were made in 1958. Observations such as these compel the usual H&L critics to make the usual ad hominem attacks against us. No matter what the critics say, though, the evidence doesn’t go away.

Fascinating.... Any more thoughts?