W. Tracy Parnell

The "preponderance of the evidence" shows no such thing. You have his aunt who says he went to the dentist and one guy who says he lost a tooth. And ONE photo that you think shows a missing tooth. Against that you have dozens or hundreds of people who knew him and report no missing tooth. And of course, the exhumation evidence that shows the mastoid operation which "Lee" has and no missing teeth. BTW, in the photo it looks to me like there is more than one tooth missing. There could be as many as three. That's a lot of teeth for nobody to notice.

It works both ways. When you guys can prove that there was something funny about the exhumation and show what that was and how it was done you will have someone's attention. Until then, you are just wasting everyone's time. It is an accepted fact that there was one and only one LHO. You have to reverse that verdict.

OK, keep us informed. BTW, to my knowledge, Linda Norton and Vincent DiMaio are still with us. Be sure and have your journalist confront both of them with the "evidence" that shows they were in on a major plot. That should prove interesting.

This is a major discovery Sandy. You now have proof (the photograph) that there were two Oswalds. When will you be taking your evidence to an investigative journalist so the world can learn of this great find?

Sorry, but a photograph that some people believe shows a missing tooth just doesn't trump all of the scientific evidence. And many people believe in Oswald impersonators and so on but do not believe in H&L.

Since Jim refuses to go to Greg parker's site, here is a recent post he made: Sandy Larsen wrote: For those of you who think Voebel was wrong about the tooth breaking, we have corroboration from Oswald's Aunt, Lillian Murret. Here is an excerpt from her WC testimony: "Another time they were coming out of school at 3 o'clock, and there were boys in back of him and one of them called his name, and he said, "Lee," and when he turned around, this boy punched him in the mouth and ran, and it ran his tooth through the lip, so she had to go over to the school and take him to the dentist, and I paid for the dentist bill myself, and that's all I know about that, and he was not supposed to have started any of that at that time." Marguerite had to take Lee to the dentist! Why would she have done that if his tooth had not been broken or knocked out? So there we have it. Voebel thought the tooth had been knocked out. Murret said that Marguerite had taken him to the dentist, obviously for that reason. And finally, we have the photo taken shortly thereafter showing the missing tooth. Or rather, notshowing the missing tooth. It's a slam dunk! [Greg Parker] THAT'S not a slam dunk! FFS! Lillian is NOT a witness for you. She is OUR witness. Who the [expletive deleted] goes to the dentist if they get a tooth knocked out unless it is to reset it or get an implant? Was it reset? Was an implant put in? Not according to you guys. At best, this blurred image may show that the tooth was knocked back and is in shadow. If that was the case, a visit to the dentist would be imperative due to the possibility of root damage or gum infection - either of which could lead to losing the tooth altogether. To give the tooth a chance to reset itself, the dentist would splint the tooth against the teeth next to it. So you are back to your interpretation of a blurred image and Voebel's QUALIFIED statement that the tooth may have been knocked out. Knock off making a positive statement out of what Voebel said - knock off trying to use a witness who is actually on OUR side and while you are at, do what Armstrong should have and address Ms Smith's testimony. Unlike Voebel, she knew the name of the person who hit Lee. She reports only - and without qualification - that the tooth went through the lip. This is supported by the autopsy which showed a scar on the lip. One Qualified witness statement and blurred photos = smoke and mirrors. ON our side, we have Ms Smith Lillian Murret No one ever claiming Lee had a missing tooth No missing teeth showing from either autopsy THIS is a slam dunk! --------------------------------- And here is another post: Jim Hargrove said: If you were a 14-year-old boy in the 1950s who got a front tooth knocked out in a fight, do you think you would have spent the rest of your life with a toothless smile? Of course not. In those days before implants, you’d get a false tooth held in place by a dental bridge. A very common procedure. As to Lillian Murret’s recollection, why on earth would a mother (who, we’re told, was practical nurse) bring her kid to a dentist for a split lip? She’d go to a doctor, like anyone else looking to get a lacerated lip treated. Greg Parker said: Jim doesn't believe that implants existed in 1954-55. From wiki The early part of the 20th century saw a number of implants made of a variety of materials. One of the earliest successful implants was the Greenfield implant system of 1913 (also known as the Greenfield crib or basket).[51] Greenfield's implant, an iridioplatinum implant attached to a gold crown, showed evidence of osseointegration and lasted for a number of years.[51] The first use of titanium as an implantable material was by Bothe, Beaton and Davenport in 1940, who observed how close the bone grew to titanium screws, and the difficulty they had in extracting them.[52] Bothe et al. were the first researchers to describe what would later be called osseointegration (a name that would be marketed later on by Per-Ingvar Brånemark). In 1951, Gottlieb Leventhal implanted titanium rods in rabbits.[53] Leventhal's positive results led him to believe that titanium represented the ideal metal for surgery.[53]

Yes, I'm aware of that. It is also a term that anyone who is objectively looking for the facts would not use. Armstrong had a predetermined conclusion which was based on a few cherry picked "facts" and he set about finding "confirmation" for that conclusion. EDIT: Lillian Murret and the Dentist by Greg Parker: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1603-lillian-murret-the-dentist

Sandy, Armstrong called one witness "sweetheart" and Palmer McBride "magically" changed his tune after talking to Armstrong. So call it what you want, he influences them instead of asking objective "journalist" style questions and letting them speak. Of course, Armstrong took McBride to a convention and made a "star" out of him and that is using improper influence IMO. You can read the transcript of the Lifton-McBride interview to see an example of how a witness should be questioned. As far as LHO's trip to the dentist, the point is there is no documentation. It is another witness statement out of many that Armstrong supporters use to make their case in place of the unequivocal scientific evidence.

First, how do we know that he didn't ask about the tooth and didn't like he answer he got? We don't and John Armstrong is not a reliable person. He coaches witnesses and his book is filled with errors and logical missteps. Second, no one can "take up" anything with him since he doesn't go on forums to defend himself and his nonsensical theory. Instead, he has guys like you and Hargrove do it. Finally on Lillian, IF she actually took him to a dentist, it may have been to make sure the tooth was ok. Or maybe she took him to a doctor and just forgot. If you read her testimony, she is mixed up at times.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t227-armstrong-s-magic-tooth-and-the-facts-about-harvey-at-beauregard

People visit cemeteries especially famous graves. Someone would notice. And don't start with the personal attacks again, you were doing good for a minute or two and they are really unnecessary.

The condition of the casket and vault certainly does not indicate nefarious activity. It only indicates a cracked vault and I provided explanations for that. And once the vault is cracked, water will come in and the body will deteriorate. Of course, nobody can completely "rule out" your scenario that says something funny happened to the satisfaction of all. But the lack of any reports of suspicious activity around LHO's plot over the years is strongly suggestive that it did not happen. But yes, readers can decide for themselves.

You have it backwards here David. The H&L crown is claiming something is wrong with the exhumation and you have to provide evidence to back up that claim. Not one person ever reported any trouble with the gravesite. And I provided a citation that stated that is not the case. Funeral directors want you to believe that because it is good for their business.

Good write-up Jeremy. All of the unlikely events that would have had to occur for the exhumation to be faked don't trouble the H&L supporters. After all, they have the "proof" in dozens of mistaken witnesses and misinterpreted school records. But the "powers that be" would have had a much simpler path to keeping their secrets. They could have simply stopped the exhumation which indeed almost did not happen. There was a long legal battle between Marina and Robert with the latter trying to stop the exam. Which is odd, since he was in on the plot according to the H&L braintrust. You would think Robert would be their "ace in the hole" and would have continued to fight to stop the procedure instead of relenting as he finally did. After all, the plotters certainly had unlimited funds and power according to H&L. But as I said, these facts don't trouble them at all.

As has been explained to you countless times, you have no evidence of a missing tooth. You have a photo in which you "see" a missing tooth because you want to. So, until you have proof of a missing tooth (not witness reports with your interpretation) you have nothing.

A couple of problems with this scenario. First, who in the world is going to go along with a plot simply because they are told the "national security" is in jeopardy? They are not stupid, and are going to realize at that point there is a large scale JFK plot and they are a part of it. And they are going to do this for a few bucks? Also what about the secondary people such as the assistants to the doctors, the security and so on? Were they all paid off? And not one talked? We already know that people will not stay silent. Paul Groody ran around for years talking to anyone who would listen to his crackpot theories. So, if someone actually had knowledge (which they could presumably provide proof for) they would come forward and expose the plot to an investigative journalist.

Absolutely not true. The Norton Report explained the inconsistencies in the dental charts. If you think something is wrong with the report, why not find an expert who can back you up? There were 3 or 4 instance of teeth being identical, that is how they were able to make the ID. And the "magic tooth" thing has been discussed endlessly here, nobody knows what the extent of the damage was but the probability is that he merely had a cut lip. In the famous photo, his lip is covering the tooth.

My guess is heavy equipment used by the cemetery (causing pressure on the vault), although it could have been a simple shifting of the ground. Your source is correct to say that a casket in dry conditions could remain in good shape, but I doubt that happens in reality. From my exhumation series on McAdams' site: Indeed, the idea of a burial vault being any sort of safe haven for the deceased seems to be coming under fire. Darryl J. Roberts is a 30-year veteran of the “death care industry” who has written a whistle-blowing book that features allegations of serious price gouging by funeral homes. Roberts’ book, Profits of Death, exposes many myths about death and dying. On page 50-51 Roberts writes: “No vault is impervious to eventual disintegration, and there is very little chance of placing anything underground and having it remain waterproof. I have personally witnessed as many as forty disinterments from vaults (even those made by the leading manufacturers) that were guaranteed waterproof from which water had to be drained before they could be moved. Often, they were full of water.” Roberts continues: “It’s frequently necessary, when disinterring one of these vaults, to knock drainage holes in the bottom before it can be moved. Only then can the vault-still with the hole in the bottom-and casket be reinterred in another location.” From my article about Paul Groody: It is a fact that things like normal shifting of the ground and heavy equipment can cause vaults to break. The Wilbert Vault Company’s (the same brand LHO was buried in) own web site admits the problem and advises customers to seek: ...superior long-lasting protection against subsoil elements and the weight of heavy cemetery maintenance equipment. So, cracked vaults do happen and fairly often it would seem. One of the reasons that Groody was suspicious about the exhumation was the cracked vault. He believed his own sales pitch about the "steel reinforced vault" being nearly impervious and thus offered a lifetime guarantee. But in reality, how many people are going to dig up the grave to check the vault? Only happens during an exhumation and as Roberts points out, there are many failures.

Perhaps he is hoping the thread will be locked so he doesn't have to answer any inconvenient questions.

The above quote would seem to be a personal attack. The remark you objected to "your cultish fantasy" is an attack on the H&L concept. Please stick to the debate David and stop with the personal attacks.

Pardon me for butting it to answer this. Greg Parker has done some good work on this subject. The fact is, LHO may not have lost a tooth at all and simply suffered a cut lip: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t227-armstrong-s-magic-tooth-and-the-facts-about-harvey-at-beauregard

Apparently because he and his associates cannot refute the exhumation and other scientific evidence, David Josephs is resorting to personal attacks. That is a shame. If my name was Dr. Norwood, I would file a complaint, but I can take it as can Bernie I'm sure. But we haven't even discussed the handwriting evidence. Years ago, I studied that evidence and found that the experts said that samples that are supposed to represent "Harvey" and "Lee", two different individuals, were written by the same person. Of course, this was years before H&L was even a glimmer in John Armstrong's eye. All the H&L supporters can do is say that the experts were wrong or being paid off. Or they can do as they have done with the exhumation evidence all these years-ignore it. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html

Another funny thing about ALL of the "evidence for 2 Oswalds is there is a reasonable alternate explanation for every bit of it.

I don't even know how to reply anymore. The fact is they were "in on it" to some extent which is my original point. As Bernie said, if they know, they're in on it. Which brings us to the exhumation which you still have no explanation for.

I wish Jim would explain how and why all of these family members knew about 2 Oswalds and said nothing. And if your answer is that they knew LHO was a spy or whatever (which logic says they would NOT be privy to) and it was for the good of the country, wouldn't they rethink the whole thing after the assassination? All of these people and many more would have seen the "fake" Marguerite on TV or in newspapers and realized it was not the woman they had known. They didn't need to be "face to face." Sandy is promoting the idea that the exhumation team faked the exam and was therefore in on the plot. If that is not the "official" H&L position what is? And for the one millionth time, neither the Evans' or John Pic ever said there were two Marguerites, only that Marguerite had changed and that some photos didn't look like LHO (respectively).