Jim Hargrove

How does anyone at Beauregard know how many days Oswald" attended school in NYC if they don't even know the name of the NYC school?  How does Oswald get a passing grade at Beauregard in a course he didn't even take in NYC?  Is this what you call a "valid" interpretation?

Without any evidence whatsoever, Mr. Parnell says Mr. Parker claims that the 89 days in the top “Re-Ad” column of the Beauregard cumulative record includes days Oswald attended PS 44 in New York City.  There are no forwarded records from PS 44 in Oswald’s Beauregard file.  The only mention of PS 44 in the Beauregard file is in a record that indicates he previously attended “PS #44-Byron Junior High" in New York City.

But there is no “Byron Junior High” in New York City and, according to the New York Historical Society, there never was.  Since there are PS 44s in at least four of the five New York City boroughs, how would Beauregard have requested information from an incorrectly identified school?  And if they had received information, why didn't they know the name of the school?  And if they did get information about Oswald's course work in NYC from a school they couldn't identify, why was Oswald in New Orleans given a passing grade in an entirely different course from the NYC courses he supposedly took that very semester? John wrote: “Perhaps a false name for the school was provided so that Beauregard school personnel would be unable to obtain Oswald's New York school transcripts by mail.”  H&L critics will tell you they have a better explanation, but they don't.

It is abundantly clear that "Oswald's" passing grades in the first semester at Beauregard had nothing to do with New York City.  It is also abundantly clear that the very next semester, one Oswald attends Beauregard School in New Orleans and the other Oswald attends Stripling School in Fort Worth, Texas.

On 8/24/2017 at 8:28 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

As I predicted, Mr. Bojczuk just gives us another link to Greg Parker (now doubled to two links!) and has nothing to say on his own about the conflicting school records.  In other words, he refuses to debate the subject on the "JFK Assassination Debate" forum.  What a surprise!

Let me go through this again, this time taking a longer look at the Beauregard records.

First, here's the PS44 records from New York City, summarized as follows:

In 1953, Marguerite and LEE were living in a basement apartment at 1455 Sheridan while LEE was attending PS 44 in New York City. After the assassination SAC John Malone, the FBI agent in charge of the New York Office, inspected Oswald's original court file in the presence of Judge Florence Kelley. Malone took notes and sent a report to FBI Director Hoover the following day. Malone wrote, "Oswald's attendance record at PS #44 from 3/23/53 to 1/12/54 was 171 and 11 half-days present and 18 and 11 half days absent. If LEE Oswald's 182 days of attendance (171 full days, 11 1/2 days) and 18 absences are plotted on 1953 and 1954 calendars it is easy to see that LEE Oswald attended PS 44 full time during the entire 1953 school year.

Now let’s see how the PS 44 and Beauregard records conflict with each other.

I’m reposting below the Beauregard cumulative record for LHO and below that two pages from an FBI report analyzing it.  Remember that the PS44 records clearly indicated that LHO attended more than 62 school days (and was absent three and a fraction days) for the semester beginning 9/14/53 at the NYC school.
 

 



 

Page 10 of the FBI report summarizes the attendance data in the “Absent,” “Tardy,” “Left” and “Re-Ad” columns, which are explained, according to the FBI agents, starting at the bottom of page 10 and continuing to page 11 by William Head, assistant principal at Warren Easton High School, who received the Beauregard records for incoming students.  The FBI’s summary of Head’s explanation has caused Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell to argue against David Josephs and me for years, because Head seemed to say two contradictory things.

At the bottom of page 10, the FBI indicates he said that the “Re ad” column stood for “Re Admitted” and “would represent a total listing of the school days for a given school year.”  But later in the very same paragraph, now at the top of page 11, the report indicates that Head said a school year regularly consisted of 180 days and that “school days in any given year must not fall below 170” and that “therefore the numbers listed opposite this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year.”

So which is it?  Does the “Re-Ad” column represent the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period?

The answer is right before us in the documents shown above.    In the actual Beauregard cumulative record for LHO (top document above), look at the very last entry on the far right under the “Re-Ad” column.  It shows a total of “168” days for the 1954-55 school year.  Tracy Parnell wants you to believe that number, like the numbers in the “Re-Ad” column for the previous school year, represent the number of total days in the school year.

But that can’t be!  Head indicated that Louisiana law dictated a minimum of 170 school days in a school year, and so if we’re to believe Tracy’s interpretation, every student report card at Beauregard for the 1954-55 school year was evidence that Louisiana law was being broken.  On the other hand, using my interpretation (that the “168” indicated the actual days LHO attended school) we can make perfect sense of these numbers.  Adding Oswald’s 168 days of attendance and his 12 absences comes out to exactly 180 days, just what Head said comprised a typical Beauregard school year!

The “Re Ad” column clearly indicates the number of days a student actually attended school.  So let’s look at the first semester of the 1953-54 school year at Beauregard.  It indicates that Oswald attended 89 days and was absent once, for a total of 90 school days.

For the 1953 fall semester at PS 44 in New York, Oswald attended 62 and a fraction days and was absent three and a fraction days for a total of 66 school days accounted for.  Add those 66 days to the 90 days from Beauregard and you get at total of 156 days, equivalent to nearly an entire school year! Despite whatever spin Tracy cares to put on this, the NYC and Louisiana school records for fall semester starting in 1953 clearly show two Lee Harvey Oswalds attending two different schools at the same time!

Would anyone like to debate this right here?  Or will you just point this way or that way or anywhere but here?

15 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

If Larsen, Hargrove or others doubt the transformation image I posted above, as well as the eyes-ears-etc matching, then they're simply beyond redemption.  Kind of like the Jim Jones crowd who followed Jones down to South America, and to their eventual death.

I've seen this before on EF.  I posted another photo that clearly shows it's the same person.  Larsen was like "BUT, JIM...BUT, JIM..." - kind of like tugging Hargrove's shirt not quite sure what to say. Almost as if he's discovered that baby Jesus was not a porcelain-skinned, blue-eyed, blond-haired babe.

As for Hargrove, he cops out by simply saying he's not good with faces. Yet, in the HL story, you can be sure that the school photo most definitively shows a missing tooth and other photos most definitively show two different Oswalds. That's pretty much all you need to know about the current level of "defense" of the story.

Mr. Walton wants us to believe that his melding of Harvey and Lee's faces proves there was only one Oswald but, of course, he has made no such proof.  He's wrong, but, for a moment, let's pretend he's right.  What would he have proved?

Had he been right, he would have shown that Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald pasted his own face on his application for a 1959 passport and not Lee's, as John and I believe.  Would that mean there was only one Oswald?  Of course not!

You would still have one Oswald in the Soviet Union while another was in the U.S., at places such as Bolton Ford Truck center, with Marita Lorenz and Alex Rourke in Miami and the Florida Everglades (as seen in the 8mm film by Robert Tanenbaum, who testified about that at an ARRB hearing).  While Harvey was in Russia, Lee also visited the Dumas and Milnes Chevy dealership in New Orleans, at least once and probably two or three times went to Cuba (as J. Edgar Hoover noted immediately after the assassination), was arrested with Celso Hernandez by Charles Noto in New Orleans in the fall of 1961, and so on.  There is a lot of evidence for two Oswalds, and the photos are just a tiny part of it.

You can't solve this case only by looking at pictures.  You have to consider ALL the evidence. 

17 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Fortunately, Jim provides a solution: "many of the official photos have been messed with." That's handy! If a piece of evidence contradicts your case, simply claim that the evidence has been faked. It's utterly irrational, but that's what cults are like.

Lee Harvey Who?

In 1959, the Fort Worth Star Telegram published this photo in an article about the so-called defection of “Lee Harvey Oswald” to the Soviet Union.

Great picture, eh?  In it’s files, apparently, Associated Press/Wide World Photos had a clearer copy of that image, which John Armstrong purchased from them nearly a half century later.  Here it is:

Perhaps one of the H&L critics would like to tell us how the photo above is clearly shows the “one and only” Lee Harvey Oswald.  Looks just like Classic Oswald®, eh?  Hah!

Let’s see how the photo was actually produced.  Below is a washed out version of the original image of of American-born Lee Oswald taken in Japan, probably by George “Hans” Wilkens.

Next is a clearer image of Wilken’s photo of Lee Oswald.  Note that the area around Lee Oswald’s head and shoulders has been retouched to eliminate the background.

Before producing the final, highly distorted and then washed out version of Lee Oswald’s face published in his home town newspaper, the nose and forehead areas were altered.

Why was all this done?  Probably because had the Star Telegram have published Harvey Oswald’s actual portrait, someone in Fort Worth might have noted it wasn’t Lee Oswald.

Perhaps Mr. Bojczuk would like to explain again how only “cult” members can believe that images of “Lee Harvey Oswald” have been messed with by U.S. authorities.

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

First, this is not a photo at all... it's a pencil drawing. A very fine one. That this is a drawing is betrayed by various things, like the appearance he is wearing mascara on his eyebrows. (I suspect that the artist was a woman.)

This drawing was clearly made from a photo of Lee... compare the face to Lee's above. It's the same face. But whoever drew this was instructed to add elements of Harvey's face to it. For example, you can see that this drawing includes that fleshy part above the left eye.

That this is a drawing may explain why the mouth is lower than it should be. Or it could be that Lee's mouth really is lower than Harvey's.

BTW, it is my believe that that artist made a mistake in drawing the height scale in the background. She got the height right (though for Lee it would be 5' 11") but not the scale of the chart. Thus the drawing shows Oswald's head to be a whopping 13" in height. If this increase in height were really due to Oswald standing several inches in front of the chart, as suggested by the anti-H&L crowd, then the photo would show Oswald to be much taller than his real height. For some reason that fact gets lost in the minds of the anti-H&L crowd.

 

Sandy,

Jack White always said this was a pencil drawing, but I could never see it.  I do see what you mean about the eyebrows… but is there anything else that makes you think it is a drawing?

21 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

No because that would be impossible given the laws of our universe. 

But no one has proved that one individual attended two different schools. We believe, as in the post you have 'cleverly' responded to, that there is a common sense answer! 

Ever used those two words before Sandy? Common sense? If you did it would sure lessen your confusion...

Ah, and in Mr. Laverick's common sense world, Lee Oswald's missing front grows back in Harvey Oswald's cadaver!  Thank you for 'splaining "common sense" to all of us!

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

In his latest post, Jim admits that a photograph which the cult attributes to the fictional character, 'Lee', is attached to a passport application form which the cult attributes to the other fictional character, 'Harvey'. On the face of it, that contradiction invalidates the whole theory.

Mr. B. sure likes to misrepresent things.  Nearly 15 years ago, John wrote that the photograph of LEE Oswald was attached to the application for HARVEY Oswald's 1959 passport.  It has nothing to do with my "latest post," which makes it sound like a recent attribution

On the passport application Oswald listed the birth dates of both his mother and fa­-
ther incorrectly and attached a photograph. The photo that was stapled to the 1959 pass­-
port application was of Lee Oswald (not Harvey), who is sporting a very short, military­
type crew cut and wearing a suit and tie. 59-21 Oswald's passport, #1733242, was issued
by the Los Angeles passport agency six days later, on September 1Oth.  [H&L. p. 247]

52 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As with the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, it's best to be as vague as possible about the actual procedure by which the evidence has been faked, and hope that no-one looks too closely.

The H&L critics always mention the mastoidectomy but they always forget to explain how LEE Oswald's missing front tooth regrew in HARVEY Oswald's grave.  Why is that?

Mr. JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right?

Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.

--Warren Commission: Vol. 8, Page 3

And yet Harvey Oswald's cadaver had all its front teeth intact at the time of the exhumation.  Why is that?  And why do the H&L critics always forget to mention that?

51 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Fortunately, Jim provides a solution: "many of the official photos have been messed with." That's handy! If a piece of evidence contradicts your case, simply claim that the evidence has been faked. It's utterly irrational, but that's what cults are like. As with the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave, it's best to be as vague as possible about the actual procedure by which the evidence has been faked, and hope that no-one looks too closely.

Only "cult" members would believe the FBI faked evidence about the Kennedy assassination?  Really, Mr. Bojczuk?

Most people on this forum, with the apparent exception of H&L critics, are undoubtedly aware of how the FBI faked a wide variety of evidence in this case. The short (3 minute) YouTube video below demonstrates quite clearly how the FBI altered the observations of three critical Dealey Plaza witnesses who believed shots may have been taken at JFK from outside of the Texas School Book Depository, thus contradicting the official story. 

The FBI went to extraordinary lengths to suppress evidence of what CIA accountant James Wilcott called the “Oswald Project,” including sending out agents within hours of the assassination to confiscate original school and teen-aged employment records of “Lee Harvey Oswald.” In the wee hours of the night of Nov 22-23, 1963, the FBI secretly took “Oswald's Possessions” from the Dallas Police Department, transported them to Washington, D.C. altered them, and then secretly returned them to Dallas, only to publicly send them to Washington. D.C. a few days later. Among a great many other alterations, a Minox “spy camera” became a Minox “light meter.” Tax records, not found by Dallas police who said they initialed each scrap of paper, magically appeared without DPD initials.  FBI agent James Cadigan inadvertently spilled the bean about the secret transfer during his sworn WC testimony, which was altered by the WC.

The FBI falsified so much testimony that it even had a process in place for routinely doing so, including over the objections of Warren Commission attorneys.  

And, of course, General Counsel J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission was informed in April 1964 that John Heart Ely's assembling of evidence regarding the biography of "Lee Harvey Oswald" would "require material alteration and, in some instances, ommission."

For more about how the FBI altered evidence, see this link:

Manipulated, Fabricated, and Disappearing Evidence

It is clear that the FBI was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to hide the truth about the Kennedy Assassination and “Lee Harvey Oswald.”

Anyone who thinks the two mug shots below are of the same man are free to do so.  I've often said that I'm not good with faces, but they don't look the same to me.

One thing is perfectly obvious, though.  Look at the head of hair on LEE Oswald in the 1959 photo (below left) which was attached to HARVEY Oswald's passport application.

Now look at the three pictures below, showing the fast developing widow's peak in LEE Oswald's hair from 1956 to 1958.  How did that widow's peak just vanish in 1959?

And for anyone who thinks LEE Oswald’s widow’s peak is just an example of a “high and tight” military haircut, as Mr. Parnell would like you to believe, just do a Google image search of the "high and tight" cut.  What you’ll find looks like this….

Note how the close buzz cut doesn't end toward the back of the head, as it does with Lee's huge widow's peak in 1956 and 1958 (and still visible with apparently longer hair in 1957).  Many of the official photos have been messed with, which is why you can't just look at pictures to understand this case.  You have to look at ALL the evidence, and that is a lot more work.

6 hours ago, Kathleen Collins said:

On 9/12/2017 at 6:33 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Harvey Oswald’s Photo”

6 hours ago, Kathleen Collins said:

This photo was concocted.  Look right under the eyes.  There's a cut there.  The hair and the heft of him have been amplified.  This photo is phony.

Ms. Collins is correct that the photo was "concocted."  Here is the actual DoD card found in one of the wallets alleged to belong to HARVEY Oswald.  Since the card lists Oswald's height as 71 inches (5'11") it clearly describes 5'11" LEE Oswald, not 5'9" HARVEY. But the picture on the card allegedly found in HARVEY's wallet was of HARVEY, not LEE, as you can see here.

Ms. Collins was confused by an image David Josephs prepared to show how the card would have appeared had it contained LEE Oswald's passport photo. She shows the b&w image above, indicating I said it was "Harvey Oswald's Photo."  But I said no such thing.  The image shown by Ms. Collins is of LEE Oswald--it's actually LEE's photo appearing on HARVEY Oswald's 1959 passport.  The "cut" she describes "under the eyes" is actually part of a U.S. Seal embossed on the image.

There is a long thread on the Ed Forum in which many people, including Jim DiEugenio, Chris Newton, David Josephs, Sandy Larsen and me, discuss the oddities of the DoD card.  I have a lengthy summary of it on page 73 of this thread.

Good grief, how many times do we have to explain the "Smiling Marine Oswald" photo to you?

This is the picture of Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald taken near Santa Ana in 1958 as he was preparing for his so-called "defection."  You are comparing the teeth of HARVEY Oswald's cadaver with the teeth of HARVEY Oswald at the time he was stationed in California.  Of course they look similar.

As to the shoulder slope business, John isn't terribly impressed by it either, but I think DJ may be on to something.  Anyone can shrug their shoulders and completely change the slope, but in a relaxed, natural position, I think it may be a tell.
 

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

David,

In your bottom-most photo -- the lower jaw of teeth -- the teeth are misnumbered. The number 25 is skipped. Once you straighten that out it is easier to understand the missing tooth, #30.

Renumber those teeth as follows:  Beginning at #24, the next one is 25, then 26, 27, 28, 29, and 31. Note that I skipped #30.

Here's the reason I skipped #30: The Norton panel had to explain how it could be that tooth #30 is missing in all the dental reports on Oswald, and yet the tooth is apparently present on the corpse. What they concluded is that the two molars rear of #30 must have migrated forward over time and filled the gap where #30 once had been.

Something like this can actually happen. It is called "mesial drift." (If you look closely at the the Norton Panel's periodontal chart for Oswald, you will see that they noted the mesial drift just below tooth #30.) Molars and premolars tend to continually drift forward, and this is what keeps the space between these teeth tight.

But if there is a missing molar or premolar, then yes, the teeth behind it can move forward and fill the gap.

However, their forward movement is limited. For a large gap, the molars behind it primarily tilt forward. They have to tilt forward a great deal before finally filling the large gap left behind by a missing molar. Notice in the following x-ray the tilting of the bottom molars that resulted from the missing molar just to the front (right) of them. You can also see that bone loss in the surrounding jaw is associated with this phenomenon.
 

 

I don't believe that tooth #30 in the corpse is missing. Just looking at the photo it is plain to see that there is very little distance between the root of tooth #29 and the root of tooth #31. I believe that "mesial drift" was the only plausible explanation the Norton panel could come up with, and so they went with it.

I will describe tomorrow what I think explains the mystery of tooth #30. I suspect you will find what I have come up with to be pretty interesting. A thing or two more for the deniers to sweep under the rug.

 

It seems to me that most of the missing teeth DJ points out are actually wisdom teeth that had not grown in when Harvey Oswald was in the USMC.  He was, after all, a teenager.  By 1963, they had grown in.  Tooth No. 30 is the mystery here, and so I'm looking forward to your explanation.

What can’t be explained, however, is how that missing front tooth Ed Voebel photographed grew back!  That’s pretty good proof that the Oswald Ed Voebel photographed was not the same man exhumed in 1981.

I’m not sure what Mr. Walton is trying to show in his “masterpiece.”  In the top row of pictures, the shot at left shows Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald after his arrest in New Orleans for the phony pro- Cuba altercation.  The photo at right is also of Harvey Oswald, this time in the custody of Dallas police.  In the middle animation, the infamous “13 inch head” Marine Corps shot of Lee Oswald is blended with Harvey Oswald’s Dallas mug shot.  The two men don’t look the same to me.  Note how different the positions of the mouths and chins are in relation to the eyes.

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No questions. Sounds to me like he was unsure about a lot of things. After all, it had been 10 years since the incident he described. But to the H&L people, this "evidence" trumps all common sense. Like why did no one besides Voebel and Lillian (who merely "remembered"  he went to the dentist) mention that "Lee" had either a missing tooth or wore a bridge? Because it didn't happen.

In addition to what Sandy just said, how do you know that no one else mentioned Lee had a false tooth?  No one on the Warren Commission asked.  The WC didn’t even bother to get the name of the dentist so Lee’s dental records could be checked.  Instead, they published “Marguerite’s” dental records!  

An equally ridiculous example of the WC’s deliberate incompetence is that no one bothered to call the Texas Department of Public Safety License Records Department to see if “Lee Harvey Oswald” had a valid Texas drivers license, despite all the conflicting testimony they had.  Guess none of the lawyers knew how to find a Texas phone number, eh?

What a fine “investigation” you defend!
  

On 10/31/2017 at 1:21 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

And before anyone claims Voebel seemed uncertain about the missing tooth, let's just review his use of the word "think" during his WC testimony.

• Yes. Well, I think one of them was in the same grade as Lee.
• The fight, I think started on the school ground,
• I think John was a little smaller, a little shorter than Lee.
• Well, I think Oswald was getting the best of John,
• but I think I just went on home and everybody went their way,
• and Oswald I think, was a little in front of me
• I think that was what brought it all about. I think this was sort of a revenge thing on the part of the Neumeyer boys
• I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.
• I don't think he was that good
• I don't think he was a great pool player
• I think I met her one time
• I think the legal age here is 18
• I think in a way I understood him better than most of the other kids
• I think they have gotten worse
• I think we were in the same grade, I think we were.

 .... and on and on. Ed Voegel says “I think” or “think” nearly a hundred times during his testimony. It seems to be part of the way he talked.

Any questions?

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The question has been asked and answered several times-there was no missing tooth.

Really?

On 10/16/2017 at 7:46 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

To Mr. Parnell....

Sworn WC testimony referring way back to the fall of 1954....

Mr. JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right?
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.

Soon after the fight, Voebel took a famous photograph of LEE Oswald that he eventually sold to LIFE magazine after the assassination.  It appears to show LEE Oswald with a missing tooth.

Here’s a quick guide to “Oswald’s Lost Front Tooth” for vision impaired H&L critics.  This will help you see LEE Oswald’s missing front tooth even if you’re nearly blind.

First, get yourself a copy of the February 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine.  You can borrow mine if you can’t find one.  Here’s a picture of the cover I took with my cell phone.

Second, and this may be a difficult part for you, open up LIFE magazine to pages 70 and 71.  Here is what you will see....

Third, get your nose close to pages 70 & 71 and look towards the left side of the big two-page spread.  Despite your obvious disabilities, you should see something like this….

Here’s a closer look at that missing upper front tooth:

I'll post a brightened version of the same LIFE halftone from the late, great Jack White in a couple of days....

In the meantime, H&L critics, can you find the missing tooth in “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” original exhumation dental photos, currently in the possession of John Armstrong?

I didn’t think so. Here’s an LHO exhumation dental photo….

 

WHERE IS THE MISSING FRONT TOOTH?

 

37 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Jim a few pages ago even YOU admitted they looked almost identical...You swap and change and you tack and you weave.

It's officially impossible to argue against H&L. Not because it has any merit. But because you won't/can't even agree what 'it' actually is!

When you get your story straight come back and try and convince more than the handful of people in twenty years of pushing that it has so far lured 

What utter nonsense!  The evidence clearly shows that the photographic record of "Lee Harvey Oswald" has been altered... dramatically retouched... switched... beyond recognition.  You cannot just look at pictures and understand this case.  

21 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

 

Yes! That's Lee! And he's got a 13" head. Now I get it! Foul play. Big plot. Bad CIA. Ok, well done. I'm now a convert.

But how did he end up in Harvey's grave? 

 

That's a VERY SILLY QUESTION, Mr. Laverick.  Harvey Oswald ended up in Harvey Oswald's grave!

A MUCH BETTER QUESTION is, How did Lee Oswald's missing front tooth grow back in Harvey Oswald's grave?

On 10/26/2017 at 6:58 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

 
Mr. JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right?
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.

 

 

And before anyone claims Voebel seemed uncertain about the missing tooth, let's just review his use of the word "think" during his WC testimony.

• Yes. Well, I think one of them was in the same grade as Lee.
• The fight, I think started on the school ground,
• I think John was a little smaller, a little shorter than Lee.
• Well, I think Oswald was getting the best of John,
• but I think I just went on home and everybody went their way,
• and Oswald I think, was a little in front of me
• I think that was what brought it all about. I think this was sort of a revenge thing on the part of the Neumeyer boys
• I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.
• I don't think he was that good
• I don't think he was a great pool player
• I think I met her one time
• I think the legal age here is 18
• I think in a way I understood him better than most of the other kids
• I think they have gotten worse
• I think we were in the same grade, I think we were.

 .... and on and on. Ed Voegel says “I think” or “think” nearly a hundred times during his testimony. It seems to be part of the way he talked.

So, how did Lee Oswald's missing front tooth grow back in Harvey Oswald's grave?

If memory serves, Tracy Parnell once proclaimed that all the photos reproduced on Jack White’s “THE EVOLUTION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD” poster were, in his word, “obviously” of the same person.  Here are a couple of closeups of the poster I took with my phone camera.

Do these really look like the same person to you?

In the photos below labeled 23 and 24, compare the necks.

Just asking....

From Phillips to Ruby ...

7 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Hi Gene, this isn't a provocative question, you've seen all the posts in this thread, which of the four options do you think is the most likely to explain how Lee's body is where Harvey should have been, if H&L has any credibility at all?

Isn't it AMAZING how Mr. Laverick always forgets to mention LEE Oswald's MAGIC tooth?  

On 10/29/2017 at 9:27 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

 I'd like to hear his detailed explanation of how that front tooth regrew.   

Mr. JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right?
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.

 

 

And before anyone claims Voebel seemed uncertain about the missing tooth, let's just review his use of the word "think" during his WC testimony.

 

• Yes. Well, I think one of them was in the same grade as Lee.
• The fight, I think started on the school ground,
• I think John was a little smaller, a little shorter than Lee.
• Well, I think Oswald was getting the best of John,
• but I think I just went on home and everybody went their way,
• and Oswald I think, was a little in front of me
• I think that was what brought it all about. I think this was sort of a revenge thing on the part of the Neumeyer boys
• I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.
• I don't think he was that good
• I don't think he was a great pool player
• I think I met her one time
• I think the legal age here is 18
• I think in a way I understood him better than most of the other kids
• I think they have gotten worse
• I think we were in the same grade, I think we were.

 .... and on and on. Ed Voegel says “I think” or “think” nearly a hundred times during his testimony. It seems to be part of the way he talked.

Also to moderators....

If above doesn't seem advisable, would any of you suggest a neutral site, and perhaps a moderator, for the debate?

Question for Ed Forum moderators:

A number of members here have expressed interest in seeing a debate between myself and Greg Parker.  Would it be possible to have Mr. Parker un-banned, at least temporarily, so he could participate in a one-on-one debate with me?