Ron Ecker

Sorry if this has already been covered, but has anyone ever asked Marina about Oswald's teeth, or has she ever made any comment? What about Robert Oswald? It would be nice if someone could just ask them while they're still around.

Sandy, I certainly understand what you're saying. While there's a resemblance, "strong" is probably too strong a word. I too have had doubts that the two pics above are of the same person. Before the H&L theory, I felt that it's possible that the Marine just somehow got punified in Russia. Perhaps the KGB, not to be outdone by hare-brained CIA operations, had some sort of punification project that it used on defectors, just to confuse us, or for more sinister purposes, when they were whisked back to the states with no debriefings. I remain agnostic on the H&L theory. And now I guess I'm agnostic on the two mothers, knowing little about that aspect of the theory or what it's supposed to mean .

Sandy, that's easy to say, but the resemblance is strong enough that the WC, all of its proponents, and official history say that these pics are of one and the same man. If that's not strong resemblance, it's certainly strong something.

Wait a minute. What about these two women who resemble each other, if they are in fact two different women? According to the H&L theory, do we have not only two men who strongly resemble each other, but whose mothers also strongly resemble each other? Are the two women both supposed to be the mother of Harvey or Lee, or are they supposed to be the mothers of Harvey AND Lee? Two men who strongly resemble each other with mothers who also strongly resemble each other would be a coincidence too far. (How about the fathers? Did they also strongly resemble each other?) What exactly does the theory say about these two women? Or does the theory say there were not two women, just the one Marguerite, in which case the mother of one of the men is unknown? I don't want to help hijack the thread, but would just like to have this question about the mother(s) cleared up.

I think the moral of this thread is, the tooth will out.

I don't think so. She claimed that taking out the bridge actually improved her sex life.

Ha ha ha ha. This thread reminds me of the movie "The Desperate Hours." BTW I knew a beautiful girl who liked to take out her bridge and show off her missing front teeth. She just thought it was good for a laugh.

Is it just coincidence that Oswald in the photo appears to be showing off that he has missing teeth? If he had no missing teeth, and was just showing off, period, can you suggest a reason why someone back in the 1960s would go to the trouble of retouching the photo to show missing teeth?

Does complicity within the DPD and Sheriff's office exonerate the CIA? How about the RFK hit? LAPD seems to have moved heaven and earth to blame it on Sirhan. Does that mean LAPD did it (perhaps for General Walker or someone like that)? I don't think so. I think LAPD was complicit, in service of some powerful larger entity like the CIA. On the "missing 2.5 teeth," I do find that photo confusing. This thread is about "a missing front tooth," though I haven't read every post, so perhaps I am missing the truth about the tooth. Did young Oswald have one very large front tooth, instead of two front teeth like normal people? There is certainly more than one tooth missing in that photo from my perspective.

If I may interject, since I share Jim's position on this (I have read Armstrong's book, it contains compelling stuff, and I'm agnostic on the Harvey and Lee theory itself), I would not be at all surprised if the CIA had a project or projects to have two individuals from childhood whose identities could be interchanged as might be needed. Why would it surprise you?

Doug, I'm not on Facebook (or Twitter or Instagram, I don't even have a YouTube video), but I looked up Kent Johnson there, of whom there are several. Is it the Kent Johnson who is a Lutheran minister, or another one?

I don't think anyone knows how much LBJ knew. That's why people have had to make stuff up and write books about it. Blood, Money and Power in the Morning.

Well, that's certainly possible. The thing is, do we know how closely LBJ, or Hoover for that matter, followed evidence in the case early on? The fix was in and LBJ left the cover-up to the experts, getting involved only when needed, such as (as I recollect) calling the Dallas authorities to tell them that they had their man so knock it off. When Russell told LBJ that he didn't believe the single-bullet theory, it's possible that LBJ had never even heard of it.

Well, all LBJ is saying there (the WC having completed the framing of Oswald) is that he doesn't believe the single-bullet theory. He agrees with Russell that that's "a lot of stuff." I personally believe that LBJ at least had foreknowledge of the assassination, which is why he was smiling (and Connally was worriedly frowning) while JFK spoke in Fort Worth that morning. But these tapes don't prove very much. In one he's listening to Hoover and in one he's listening to Russell and that's about it.

Well, they were both disturbing people, and the conversation suggests that neither one of them know what they're talking about except that JFK and Connally were both shot and a gun was found "on the fifth floor" of a building. Would they be talking conspiracy in such a carefree manner, with LBJ, if not Hoover, knowing that it's being taped?

Hoover states that the shots came from "the building where we found the gun." I think a possible and simple explanation of this weird exchange between LBJ and Hoover is that neither one of them knew that the building in question was behind JFK, not in front of him. But that would mean that neither one of them knew, a week after the shooting, that JFK was officially shot from behind. How is it possible they wouldn't know that? The alternative is that they are just openly talking conspiracy.

Michael Beschloss claims that LBJ simply "misunderstands" what Hoover is saying, which doesn't make any sense (Taking Charge, p. 55).

Hoover also told the WC that Oswald couldn't shoot JFK on Houston Street because there was a tree in the way. I guess only Oswald and Hoover could see it.

Friday, November 29, 1:40 pm.

Because Hoover didn't know what he was talking about or else knew there was a shooter from the front. All anyone knew was that Oswald was taking the fall.

No, I'm not involved. I've tried to follow the discussion, and think Sandy has made a good case. Upsetting to some for unclear reasons. Agendas, I guess.

You talkin' to me?

Jim, Is there a scene in the movie where Graham gets something caught in a wringer? If so, I'll be sure to go see it.

Oh, my bad. Then it literally translates in Spanish as "the alliance stops THE progress." Is that better?

I guess no one informed JFK that the Alliance for Progress in Spanish is La Alianza para el Progreso, which can be literally translated as "the alliance stops progress."