W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: Is there no end to your misrepresentations? Norton and DiMaio were not aware that a second Oswald was also in the Marine Corps at the same time. Had they known that, they would have realized they had to dig far deeper into the medical records they were asked to compare with the exhumation results. DiMaio admitted that many World War II era people had the same mastoidectomy scar. Sandy is pushing the position that the exhumation was faked-the mastoid defect was created by the doctors. Perhaps that is not your position. What is the "official" position at this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Lee has his head tilted in a way that we see primarily the fronts of his teeth on his left, and primarily the bottoms of his teeth on his right. This contributes to an optical illusion that makes the teeth on his left look longer than the teeth on his right. Shading probably adds to the illusion. I believe also that, due to swelling of the upper lip, his lips are wider open of his left than on his right. Again contributing to his teeth on his left looking longer. The teeth on his right look so short that at first glance they may seem not to be there. But the fronts of those teeth are covered by the swollen lip. That said, I suppose it's possible that he lost two front teeth. IMO, an optical illusion is why you think you see any teeth missing. It could be coupled with dirt on the negative for all I know. But if he lost 2 or more teeth this fact would have been common knowledge and mentioned by someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 Jim seems to think that the full set of front teeth on the body in Oswald's grave is evidence that the body is actually that of a fictional character, 'Harvey', who had been operated on in 1952 or 1953 by an unknown surgeon in a hospital that wasn't built until 1955. The unknown surgeon at the non-existent hospital is supposed to have operated on the fictional 'Harvey' in order to make 'Harvey's' body match that of 'Lee', an unrelated boy who had undergone a mastoidectomy and who supposedly had had a front tooth knocked out. The unknown surgeon at the non-existent hospital supposedly went to the trouble of fabricating evidence of a mastoidectomy, but for some reason did not take the easier step of removing one of 'Harvey's' front teeth. We know that the unknown surgeon must have ventured into the fictional 'Harvey's' mouth during the operation at the non-existent hospital because, as Bernie has pointed out, the surgeon also went to the trouble of duplicating 'Lee's' fillings. There would have been little point or urgency in faking the mastoidectomy, which would only be discovered if 'Harvey's' body were exhumed and dissected after his death. But it would have been essential to fake the missing tooth, which would be visible to anyone who encountered 'Harvey' during the rest of his lifetime. Is there a reasonable explanation for the unknown surgeon's failure to remove the tooth during the operation at the non-existent hospital? The existence of a full set of teeth on the body in Oswald's grave tells us that, if that body had been surgically altered to match the body of another boy, that second boy must also have had a full set of front teeth, contrary to 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' cult doctrine. The body in Oswald's grave possessed a full set of front teeth which matched the historical Lee Harvey Oswald's dental records. The body possessed a set of fillings which also matched the historical Lee Harvey Oswald's dental records. The body possessed a mastoidectomy defect which matched the historical Lee Harvey Oswald's medical history. There was no 'Harvey', and there was no 'Lee' who had had a front tooth knocked out, just as there was no surgeon at the non-existent hospital. The body in the grave was that of one person, Lee Harvey Oswald, who underwent a genuine mastoidectomy in 1946 and who was buried, with a full set of front teeth, in Fort Worth in 1963. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 Sandy writes: <blockquote>If Oswald had a missing tooth -- as the preponderance of evidence show -- this fact in and of itself proves not only that the exhumation evidence was faked, but that there were indeed two young Oswalds.</blockquote> It's that "preponderance of evidence" again! The preponderance of evidence actually shows that Oswald did not have a missing tooth. There are only two pieces of evidence to support Sandy's belief: the tentative statement by Ed Voebel that he thought (but wasn't sure) that Oswald's tooth had been knocked out, and a tiny detail in one poor-quality photograph which may indicate that up to three teeth were missing, or that up to three teeth were pushed out of position, or that Oswald's tongue was covering his teeth, or that Oswald was wearing a tooth splint (as Jake Sykes points out here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1603-lillian-murret-the-dentist ), or it could be nothing more sinister than an artefact of the photographic reproduction process. Against this, there are statements by Bennierita Smith and Lillian Murret who each claimed that Oswald's tooth merely penetrated his lip, and who each failed to mention that the tooth was knocked out. The fact that Oswald was taken to the dentist doesn't imply that the tooth was knocked out, as Greg Parker makes clear in Tracy's post halfway down page 109. The score is 2-2. What tips the balance is the missing evidence: 1 - If Oswald had actually had a front tooth knocked out, we might expect this fact to be reported in Oswald's medical records. As far as I'm aware, the medical records do not mention either a missing tooth or a false tooth. Anyone with a copy of the cult's holy book should turn to page 146, which cites two reports of a medical examination attributed to the fictional character, 'Harvey', on his enlistment in the marines in Dallas in 1956. No dental discrepancies are mentioned. Incidentally, one thing that is mentioned is a scar from a mastoidectomy operation, which proves that any alteration to the body in Oswald's grave must have been carried out no later than 1956. I'd be interested to read Sandy's opinion of exactly when and where the body was altered, which I'm sure he will be able to corroborate with documentary evidence. 2 - We might also expect at least one or two of the hundreds of people who had met Oswald to point out that the guy they remembered was missing a front tooth whereas the guy on the television after the assassination had a full set. As far as I'm aware, no witnesses came forward to point out the dental discrepancy. 3 - We might also expect one or more photographs to show clearly and unambiguously that Oswald was missing a front tooth. As far as I'm aware, no such photograph exists. The score is now 5-2, and the referee is about to blow the whistle for full-time. If Sandy (or anyone else) wants to convince anyone other than his fellow cult members that Oswald really had a tooth knocked out, he needs to produce the missing item in Oswald's medical records, or some of the missing witnesses, or one of the missing photographs. If he can't do that, he needs to provide a reasonable explanation for the missing evidence. By 'reasonable explanation' I don't mean the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' cult's usual, flimsy excuse: the Bad Guys faked Oswald's medical records and they faked the photographs and they forced all the witnesses to keep quiet. P.S. After a quick search I found two photographs which seem to show 'Lee' with a full set of front teeth. The portrait at http://harveyandlee.net/H&L multiple.jpg in the top row under '1957' shows a smiling 'Lee', three years after he supposedly had one of his front teeth knocked out. This reproduction is poor, but a clearer version exists in a composite image on the Baylor University site (at http://cdm17178.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/po-jfkwhite/id/3204/rv/compoundobject/cpd/3221/rec/1 ). It is labelled as number 25, with the caption "May 1958(?). Said to be Atsugi, Japan (maybe Mississippi?). Broad chin." There is a tooth where the Voebel photograph has a gap. The same composite image contains a portrait of a smiling Oswald, with a full set of front teeth clearly visible, labelled as number 27 with the caption "Japan, on guard duty with rifle. Date unknown (possibly 1958?)." According to the cult's doctrine, it was 'Lee' who went to Japan minus one of his front teeth. According to this photograph, 'Lee' went to Japan with a full set of front teeth. So much for the cult's doctrine. Incidentally, this large composite was made by the late Jack White, who inspired the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory and who thought not only that Oswald was faked but that the Zapruder film was faked and the moon landings were faked. That's right, the guy who helped to think up the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' nonsense actually believed that the moon landings were faked. You probably don't have to be completely barking to be a member of the cult, but it certainly helps. More here: - https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jack_White - http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: Speaking of mountains of evidence: Evidence of a 5’ 11” Marine who becomes a 5’ 9” cadaver on a slab in the Dallas morgue. Evidence of a fellow who is arrested both on the main floor and the balcony of the Texas Theater. Evidence of a man who does and doesn’t have a valid Texas driver’s license. Evidence of a man who isn’t recognized by his own half-brother. Evidence of a man whose Social Security records don’t reflect teen-aged employment income supposedly included on his federal tax returns. Evidence of a man who appeared at the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans at the same time he was in the Soviet Union. Evidence of a man who worked with anti-Castro Cubans in Miami and the Florida Everglades at the same time he was in the Soviet Union. Evidence of a man who was treated for VD at a Marine hospital in Japan at the same time he was on the high seas and in Formosa. Evidence of a man who attended school simultaneously in New York City and New Orleans, and, oh yeah.... Evidence of a man who lost or broke a front tooth in a school fight yet had the tooth magically reappear in his exhumation photos, and so on.... You have been provided with alternative explanations over and over again and you simply refuse to accept them. And don't bother asking me to provide them, they have been provided continually on this forum dating back to 2015. But these discussions serve a purpose for you. They provide attention and a chance to get new converts such as Sandy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Jim, The funny things is that Tracy and the others have no choice but to accept all those impossibilities as facts. We, on the other hand, explain them all with one simple explanation... there were two Oswalds. One Oswald = Numerous Impossibiities Two Oswalds = No Impossibilities As I have tried to explain, in any collection of data or evidence you will find things that do not fit. In a case in New York, over 2000 people "saw" 2 escaped convicts where they could not have been. That didn't prove they were there, it proves people will say anything for various reasons. Jim lists 10 things that "prove" 2 Oswalds. But it would be surprising if you didn't find that many anomalies out of the millions of pieces of Information in this case. Edited October 21, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 26 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Sandy is pushing the position that the exhumation was faked-the mastoid defect was created by the doctors. Just to clarify, I didn't "push" that position. I said it was one of a number of possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 32 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: IMO, an optical illusion is why you think you see any teeth missing. It could be coupled with dirt on the negative for all I know. But if he lost 2 or more teeth this fact would have been common knowledge and mentioned by someone. I have no doubt that it was well known among Lee's teacher and classmates. Even Ed Voebel. I don't know why you think that word would get back to us. Most of Lee's classmates didn't testify for the WC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: Well Bernie, if you ever come across some of those devastating arguments that tipped the scales for you against Harvey & Lee, I hope you will share them with us. Because so far I haven't seen any of that. Just a bunch of yap yap yap is what I've seen for the most part. Exactly! Proof there was only One Oswald is always somewhere else, but never here. Why don't the H&L critics post their secret evidence here, on the JFK Assassination Debate forum, rather than pretend it is somewhere else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 42 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: IMO, an optical illusion is why you think you see any teeth missing. It could be coupled with dirt on the negative for all I know. But if he lost 2 or more teeth this fact would have been common knowledge and mentioned by someone. Uh-huh. And the fact that the kid who actually took the picture (and sold it to Life magazine) testified that he DID lose a tooth was just... what... an optical illusion? Dirt on the negative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 48 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: Jim seems to think that the full set of front teeth on the body in Oswald's grave is evidence that the body is actually that of a fictional character, 'Harvey', who had been operated on in 1952 or 1953 by an unknown surgeon in a hospital that wasn't built until 1955. The unknown surgeon at the non-existent hospital is supposed to have operated on the fictional 'Harvey' in order to make 'Harvey's' body match that of 'Lee', an unrelated boy who had undergone a mastoidectomy and who supposedly had had a front tooth knocked out. The unknown surgeon at the non-existent hospital supposedly went to the trouble of fabricating evidence of a mastoidectomy, but for some reason did not take the easier step of removing one of 'Harvey's' front teeth. We know that the unknown surgeon must have ventured into the fictional 'Harvey's' mouth during the operation at the non-existent hospital because, as Bernie has pointed out, the surgeon also went to the trouble of duplicating 'Lee's' fillings. There would have been little point or urgency in faking the mastoidectomy, which would only be discovered if 'Harvey's' body were exhumed and dissected after his death. But it would have been essential to fake the missing tooth, which would be visible to anyone who encountered 'Harvey' during the rest of his lifetime. Is there a reasonable explanation for the unknown surgeon's failure to remove the tooth during the operation at the non-existent hospital? The existence of a full set of teeth on the body in Oswald's grave tells us that, if that body had been surgically altered to match the body of another boy, that second boy must also have had a full set of front teeth, contrary to 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' cult doctrine. The body in Oswald's grave possessed a full set of front teeth which matched the historical Lee Harvey Oswald's dental records. The body possessed a set of fillings which also matched the historical Lee Harvey Oswald's dental records. The body possessed a mastoidectomy defect which matched the historical Lee Harvey Oswald's medical history. There was no 'Harvey', and there was no 'Lee' who had had a front tooth knocked out, just as there was no surgeon at the non-existent hospital. The body in the grave was that of one person, Lee Harvey Oswald, who underwent a genuine mastoidectomy in 1946 and who was buried, with a full set of front teeth, in Fort Worth in 1963. Vincent DiMaio admitted that many children from the Word War II era bore the mastoidectomy scar, though I'm inclined to think it was given to him by the LSD-mad CIA in late 1952 or early 1953. It was "Marguerite's" housekeeper, not me, who said the poor schmuck was getting mental tests at Jacobi Hospital, at the very time he was so often truant from PS 117. She, or the FBI agent describing her remarks, obviously meant the hospital that pre-dated Jacobi. Perhaps Mr. Bojczuk can tell us how "Lee Harvey Oswald's" front tooth regrew in his grave! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 Jeremy truly excellent research on this. Proving without a shadow of doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 45 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: Against this, there are statements by Bennierita Smith and Lillian Murret who each claimed that Oswald's tooth merely penetrated his lip, and who each failed to mention that the tooth was knocked out. So by your logic, if something isn't mentioned , it didn't happen. Aunt Lillian said Lee was taken to the dentist. She didn't say why. According to you, then, Lee was taken to the dentist because nothing happened to his teeth. 45 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: The fact that Oswald was taken to the dentist doesn't imply that the tooth was knocked out, as Greg Parker makes clear in Tracy's post halfway down page 109. Greg said that maybe the picture shows the tooth pushed back into the shadow. If so, that pretty much means the tooth was knocked out. It has to come out of the socket before it will bend back like that. But that's a moot point because odds are that the photo was taken sometime later, like maybe the following day. Because kids back then didn't take their cameras to school indiscriminately or every day. Ed probably took it the following day, or a few days later, for the sole purpose of getting a picture of Lee's broken tooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: P.S. After a quick search I found two photographs which seem to show 'Lee' with a full set of front teeth. The portrait at http://harveyandlee.net/H&L multiple.jpg in the top row under '1957' shows a smiling 'Lee', three years after he supposedly had one of his front teeth knocked out. This reproduction is poor, but a clearer version exists in a composite image on the Baylor University site (at http://cdm17178.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/po-jfkwhite/id/3204/rv/compoundobject/cpd/3221/rec/1 ). It is labelled as number 25, with the caption "May 1958(?). Said to be Atsugi, Japan (maybe Mississippi?). Broad chin." There is a tooth where the Voebel photograph has a gap. The same composite image contains a portrait of a smiling Oswald, with a full set of front teeth clearly visible, labelled as number 27 with the caption "Japan, on guard duty with rifle. Date unknown (possibly 1958?)." Ever hear of false teeth, Bernie? We talked about this pages ago. You're way behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said: We might also expect at least one or two of the hundreds of people who had met Oswald to point out that the guy they remembered was missing a front tooth whereas the guy on the television after the assassination had a full set. As far as I'm aware, no witnesses came forward to point out the dental discrepancy. And how many of Oswald's acquaintances knew that Oswald got his tooth knocked out.... before he got a false tooth to replace it? Thirty? How many of those were asked to testify? Two? And How many years had passed between then and the assassination? Ten? People do forget things. But regardless of that, even if a number of witnesses remembered the missing tooth, and then saw Oswald on TV with a tooth, wouldn't they just figure that Oswald was wearing a false tooth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now