A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

[Jim Hargrove]

Black Op Radio

 

Len Osanic’s 88-minute interview with John Armstrong about “Men on the 6th Floor” premiered today (10/19/2017) on Black Op Radio.  Hear it here:

John Armstrong on Black Op Radio

To see the material this interview was based upon, please click on the following link….

ESCAPE FROM THE 6TH FLOOR

Four or five more Len Osanic interviews with John A. about Harvey and Lee are coming up in the next month or two.

[Sandy Larsen]

Jim,

That's a good point about Lee possibly wearing a denture or a bridge. Implants are very expensive. I'm not going to bother double-checking to see if they were available in the 1950s (I doubt they were commercially available) because it doesn't matter. The exhumation clearly shows that the front tooth was present and natural.

The testimony of those witnesses most likely to know about the broken tooth corroborate each other. Voebel says he thought the tooth was knocked out, and Murrett says she paid for the dental bill. That bill could only have gone to pay for one of the following services:

1. Resetting the tooth.
2. Inspecting the tooth and socket, and advising that the tooth could not be reset.
3. Fitting a denture or bridge.

Only #1 fits the narrative of the anti-H&L group. There are two problems with #1:  First, they would have had to get Oswald to the dentist within an hour to have a chance of the tooth resetting being successful. The testimony casts doubt on this. Testimony shows that Oswald's friends took him to the boys restroom to patch up his bloody lip. His mother than had to have been called, some time after which she would have arrived and taken him to a dentist. These sorts of things just don't happen very quickly. I doubt Oswald and his tooth would have gotten to the dentist in time.

The other problem with scenario #1 is that we have a photo of Oswald showing a missing tooth. Which of course supports my contention that Oswald didn't get his tooth reset.

The anti-H&L side would have us believe that:

• Ed Voebel was wrong about the broken tooth.
• And Aunt Murret was wrong about the dentist.
• And the photo just happens to have a defect right where the tooth should be, making it look like the tooth is missing.

Or alternatively:

• Oswald beat the odds, and was able to get a successful resetting of the tooth.
• And the photo just happens to have a defect right where the tooth should be, making it look like the tooth is missing.

Both of these scenarios are highly unlikely.

Even if against all odds one of these scenarios is true, it would have little bearing on the H&L theory. The broken-tooth incident only affects the exhumation argument.

If Oswald had a missing tooth -- as the preponderance of evidence shows -- this fact in and of itself proves not only that the exhumation finding was faked, but also that there were indeed two young Oswalds.

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Bernie Laverick]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim,

That's a good point about Lee possibly wearing a denture or a bridge. Implants are very expensive. I'm not going to bother double-checking to see if they were available in the 1950s (I doubt they were commercially available) because it doesn't matter. The exhumation clearly shows that the front tooth was present and natural.

The testimony of those witnesses most likely to know about the broken tooth corroborate each other. Voebel says he thought the tooth was knocked out, and Murrett says she paid for the dental bill. That bill could only have gone to pay for one of the following services:

1. Resetting the tooth.
2. Inspecting the tooth and socket, and advising that the tooth could not be reset.
3. Fitting a denture or bridge.

Only #1 fits the narrative of the anti-H&L group. There are two problems with #1:  First, they would have had to get Oswald to the dentist within an hour to have a chance of the tooth resetting being successful. The testimony casts doubt on this. Testimony shows that Oswald's friends took him to the boys restroom to patch up his bloody lip. His mother than had to have been called, some time after which she would have arrived and taken him to a dentist. These sorts of things just don't happen very quickly. I doubt Oswald and his tooth would have gotten to the dentist in time.

The other problem with scenario #1 is that we have a photo of Oswald showing a missing tooth. Which of course supports my contention that Oswald didn't get his tooth reset.

The anti-H&L side would have us believe that:

• Ed Voebel was wrong about the broken tooth.
• And Aunt Murret was wrong about the dentist.
• And the photo just happens to have a defect right where the tooth should be, making it look like the tooth is missing.

Or alternatively:

• Oswald beat the odds, and was able to get a successful resetting of the tooth.
• And the photo just happens to have a defect right where the tooth should be, making it look like the tooth is missing.

Both of these scenarios are highly unlikely.

Even if against all odds one of these scenarios is true, it would have little bearing on the H&L theory. The broken-tooth incident only affects the exhumation argument.

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.

 

Tell us again Sandy, how many Oswalds do you think there were...? You said earlier that there were "multiple" doppelgangers. Care to elaborate on that? Or do we just sit down, have a few beers, allow our imaginations to run riot and then use that as proof that some alcohol-induced fantasy is correct. That's how the rest of the H&L crew seem to operate.

So the great studier and seeker of the truth has decided that when just ONE witness states he "thought" the tooth came out that means that nothing can now EVER disprove Voebels testimony because it will always trump all future scientific evidence, including exhuming the body to see for ourselves. You truth seeker you!

Explain why all of 'Lee's' fillings were found exactly where they should have been as well as the mastoid operation. Did they fake those too? (Silly question. Of course they did. Anything that doesn't fit the H&L fantasy has been conveniently faked or destroyed hasn't it? )

I understand Sandy, you can't back down now, you have to do what Josephs does every time he gets humiliated on here...just keep going!

But you still aren't a top team player yet though are you Sandy? The subject has been switched again! You have to learn to stop abruptly, preferably when you are, metaphorically, receiving a damn good kicking; that's when you have to change the subject. Like Jim is desperately trying to do now. Jim doesn't like talking about the autopsy, he often has to go away for a few days when this subject comes up. And have you noticed how Josephs has vacated the premises too...?

They left you on your own for this bit Sandy because they understand how devastating this part of the story is. I think it went to your head a bit though because within less than 24 hours you had added "multiple doppelgangers" to the stew. It's a bit like the sorcerers apprentice!

Now Jim has had to come back to change the subject and steer everyone away from this car crash!!

But all they will do is drag the car out of the ditch and keep driving it as if nothing has happened!

[Jim Hargrove]

I’m happy to talk about the exhumation and Harvey’s magic tooth, but it is actually Mr. Laverick who constantly tries to change the subject.  This thread was started by an H&L critic who thought he could mock the clear indications that Harvey Oswald learned Russian as a child.  That didn’t work out so well for the critic and we eventually moved on to many other examples of evidence for Harvey and Lee.  Those examples are so numerous they fill a thousand page book and have, in this one example on this one forum, filled 110 pages so far.  Mr. Laverick is clearly alarmed by the Harvey and Lee Menace® and has decided to try to steer everything back to the exhumation, because he thought he could win that argument. But that hasn’t worked out well for him either.

Regardless of Mr. Laverick’s intentions, we ARE going to discuss additional evidence for Harvey and Lee beyond the exhumation and the magic tooth.  For now, though, it’s clear that the H&L critics are confused about this subject.  Tracy Parnell is still unable to see this photo:

 

Greg Parker soldiers on and admits what we can all see with our own eyes but would like us to believe that, either the tooth was waving in the breeze for hours before being re-implanted by an unknown dentist, or was somehow found, picked up, cleaned, and quickly re-inserted, all the while allowing time for attending class and posing for Ed Voebel’s camera.

Mr. Laverick marvels at the fact that the exhumed teeth more or less match Marine Corps records, even though he knows full well that the evidence shows Harvey was in the Marines  and that it is therefore logical that his dental records would match.  All that leaves him is the mastoidectomy  Even Vincent Di Maio admitted that “many World War II-era kids bore the same scar.”  Harvey may have had the same procedure done legitimately.

It seems more likely, though, that Harvey had the procedure done in late 1952 or early 1953, when he was a teenager living in New York City and habitually truant from Public School 117.  That’s the time period Louise Robertson was referring to when she told the FBI that Marguerite brought the child to New York for “mental tests.”  This, despite the attempts by H&L critics to misrepresent it, had nothing to do with the assassination, still a decade away, or the exhumation, still three decades away.  It would have been performed so Harvey’s medical records matched Lee’s, just in case some Commie Intel guy checked while Harvey was on assignment.

[Sandy Larsen]

I admitted earlier that the exhumation evidence favored the one-Oswald side of this debate.

That was before we had a clear photo of Lee showing a missing tooth. And before I was aware of the Aunt Lillian testimony that confirms Ed Voebel's recollection of the knocked out tooth.

I see now that the exhumation supports both sides of the debate. The corpse's mastoidectomy bone scar favors the one-Oswald side while the corpse's top-right incisor favors the two-Oswald side.

Thus the anti-H&L group has lost the one piece of evidence that they could always fall back on.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thus the anti-H&L group has lost the one piece of evidence that they could always fall back on.

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?

[Jim Hargrove]

23 hours ago, Michael Cross said:

This topic is the most infuriating bit of the research.  Those like Bernie and Parnell that simply won't look are discarding tons of credible evidence that there was something odd, at a minimum, going on with Lee Harvey Oswald.  He, again, at a minimum, was NOT who the government said he was.

You don't have to buy in on the Oswald Project hook line and sinker.  I'm an agnostic on Harvey and Lee.  But FFS, SOMETHING was going on, he was being impersonated, there are far too many contradictory records to be explained away as clerical errors.  

The photo showing LHO with a missing tooth above, if you won't even LOOK at that how serious can you be about finding the truth?

Give up your pet positions people.  

One of the things John told me numerous times during our conversations was that he just hoped people would look at ALL the evidence he had assembled and make up their own minds about what must have happened.  Anyone who could come up with a different but still honest explanation for that evidence would have his attention in a heartbeat—and mine.  I’ve had a picture of LEE with his missing tooth up on my website since, if memory serves, 1999.  Even earlier, a fellow named Jerry Robertson also included the picture of toothless LEE in print material he produced supporting John’s work.  And this is just a tiny tip of a huge iceberg of evidence behind Harvey and Lee, mostly presented here by David Josephs, Sandy Larsen, and me.

If Michael Cross or anyone else has an honest alternate explanation for all of this, let’s hear it!  The stage is yours.

[Michael Walton]

I found this HS photo of LHO - looks like he has front teeth to me.  How do we know that he wasn't goofing around in class to the point where he might have put something on his front tooth to give it a dark hue?  If you look at the surrounding classroom, everyone's attentive to what's going on except him. So he might have been hamming it up big time.

But amazing to me too is the other morgue photo I've added below. When you look at the HS photo and the morgue one, there's no doubt it's the same person, from the large nose to the weak chin and the slightly flattened profile of the head. Both views even have that short wispy hair growing down onto the neck.

Also I don't know if this was ever mentioned in this thread (it's 100+ pages now) but Greg Parker wrote a very interesting post about LHO having roundworm and how it shows that it could only have been the one-and-only LHO.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1452-why-the-one-and-only-lee-oswald-looked-different-on-his-return-from-the-su

[Jim Hargrove]

22 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

Sandy,

It definitely shows there were two Oswalds (Lee lost a front tooth, Harvey didn't), but I’m not sure what it says about the exhumation evidence being faked.  Can you explain that?

[Michael Walton]

Jim

1 + 1 + 1 = 3. As in the above HS photo, the smiling soldier photo, and the exhume photo. All showing the same LHO with teeth intact.

There's  no  other  way  around  it.

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thus the anti-H&L group has lost the one piece of evidence that they could always fall back on.

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?

I'll be doing that when I present the evidence for the JFK assassination conspiracy to an investigative journalist. I expect both to be treated with the same degree of seriousness.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

On 10/19/2017 at 8:48 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

Sandy,

It definitely shows there were two Oswalds (Lee lost a front tooth, Harvey didn't), but I’m not sure what it says about the exhumation evidence being faked.  Can you explain that?

Jim,

First, please note that in my post I accidentally used the phrase "exhumation evidence was faked" instead of "exhumation finding was faked," the latter being what I intended.

That said....

One of the possibilities explaining the exhumation finding -- that Harvey had a mastoidectomy bone scar -- is that Harvey was given an unnecessary mastoidectomy in order to keep the medical records for the two Oswalds identical. I include this possibility under the umbrella I refer to as "faked exhumation finding". It was faked presumptively.

There is actually one other similar possibility, and that is that Harvey also happened to have been treated for mastoiditis on the same ear as Lee's. While that possibility doesn't strictly fit my umbrella phrase, I include it there for simplicity's sake. It would have been much more accurate to separate it out, but for sake of pithiness I didn't.

Maybe this works:

If Oswald had a missing tooth -- as the preponderance of evidence shows -- this fact in and of itself proves not only that the exhumation finding was either faked or coincidental, but also that there were indeed two young Oswalds.

You do agree with what I'm saying, don't you Jim? If not, where does what I am saying differ from your understanding?

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Jim

1 + 1 + 1 = 3. As in the above HS photo, the smiling soldier photo, and the exhume photo. All showing the same LHO with teeth intact.

There's  no  other  way  around  it.

Michael,

We, the H&L group, have no argument with you. All the photos you've shown us are photos of HARVEY. Yes, Harvey's photos show that he was NOT missing a front tooth. Yes, Harvey was indeed not missing a front tooth. Yes, Harvey, the Oswald with no missing front teeth, was the Oswald who was buried. And yes, the exhumation photo of the teeth shows that Harvey was not missing a front tooth.

For some reason you think that the photos you post contradict what we are saying. They don't. They agree with what we are saying.

It was LEE who had the missing tooth. And it was Lee who was NOT buried, and thus NOT exhumed.

 

[Bernie Laverick]

8 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Sandy,

It definitely shows there were two Oswalds (Lee lost a front tooth, Harvey didn't), but I’m not sure what it says about the exhumation evidence being faked.  Can you explain that?

Come on Sandy keep up, Jim stopped promoting this idea more than ten posts ago!!!

Exhumation evidence faked? What do you mean Sandy? Can you elaborate, because you guys in the H&L school of falsification haven't believed that for nearly a day now! 

No, it was "likely" to have been done in NY in 1952 or 53. All the evidence supports that. What evidence? Well, none actually but saying it was faked is making us look stupid again so let's switch it while no one's looking.

Jim now (again) believes that the mastoidectomy was done while 'Harvey' was a boy but you Sandy are on record as adamantly saying that this scenario ranges from highly unlikely to totally ruled out. Can you lot at least start agreeing with yourselves? One is saying the results have been faked and the other is saying they weren't. 

It's not a minor point this you know. You have two totally different explanations for how 'Harvey's' body came to be found in 'Lee's' grave. One is that the exhumation findings were faked. The other is that there was no need to fake because 'Harvey' had had the exact same operation anyway.

Please show how the findings could have been faked. What more juice do you have? Did any of 20 plus people in the exhumation team die in unusual circumstances? Have you even looked? Is there a letter from any of them existing that even cryptically alludes to what happened? Do you seriously have not one jot of evidence for this, but keep saying it anyway? (That is, until you get told off by Jim!)

The only evidence you have is a school mate "thought" Oswald had a tooth knocked out and his aunt "thought" it needed dental treatment. Along with an old photo... THAT IS IT!!!!

That is your PROOF that the exhumation findings were faked! 

You truth seeker you!!!!

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Jim now (again) believes that the mastoidectomy was done while 'Harvey' was a boy but you Sandy are on record as adamantly saying that this scenario ranges from highly unlikely to totally ruled out.

 

Bernie has repeatedly claimed things about my beliefs that are not true. Ignore him.

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Sandy Larsen