W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said: When Mr. Laverick can explain how "Oswald's" cadaver grew a new front tooth, he'll have my attention! 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) On 10/19/2017 at 10:48 PM, Sandy Larsen said: 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. 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. Edited October 21, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 What utter nonsense! It is clear that LEE Oswald lost a front tooth and most likely, like just about everyone else in that situation, had a false tooth put in. The picture and the testimony makes that abundantly clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 On 10/19/2017 at 6:13 AM, Jim Hargrove said: Sheesh! Sometimes a picture really is worth 10,000 words. Of all the fuzzy photos I’ve looked at over the years, wondering who was on the stairs of the TSBD for example, the picture above is plenty clear enough to tell the story. 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. Ed Voebel was with Lee Oswald during the fight. Ed Voebel tried to patch him up after the fight. And Ed Voebel took the picture of Lee with the missing tooth. And we're supposed to take Lillian Murret's hearsay recollection over Voebels? Hah! Mr. Bojczuk asks, “Did the body in Oswald's grave have a front tooth missing?” The answer, of course, is no. Mr. B. makes our point for us, again. Hey, let's look at that exhumation photo one more time! Still can't see that missing front tooth. The two top teeth sure look natural. Where is the missing front tooth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Jim Hargrove said: Where is the missing front tooth? Just wondering, how many times are you going to post the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 25 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: On 10/19/2017 at 8:48 PM, Sandy Larsen said: 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. 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. Oh really? How many of those dozens or hundreds of people were asked to go on record as to whether or not their acquaintance, LHO, had a missing tooth? That's right... none. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Ed Voebel's friend, Lee Oswald, lost a tooth. Ed said so; Lee's Aunt Lillian she paid the dentist to treat it (if not for a lost tooth, then for what???); and the photo shows the tooth is missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) 47 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: And of course, the exhumation evidence that shows the mastoid operation which "Lee" has and no missing teeth. You are using circular logic, Tracy. Because the exhumation findings are the things we are arguing. Edited October 21, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: 5 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: Where is the missing front tooth? Just wondering, how many times are you going to post the same thing? My suggestion to Jim is to post it every time Michael posts something that that he thinks discredits the H&L theory, when in fact it agrees with the H&L theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Oh really? How many of those dozens or hundreds of people were asked to go on record as to whether or not their acquaintance, LHO, had a missing tooth? Why would they be asked? Absolutely no reason for the WC or the FBI to ask anyone about a "missing tooth" since no one but Voebel ever said that. Voebel's testimony is an "outlier" in the millions of pieces of evidence in the JFK case. You know what scientists and investigators do with an outlier? They disregard it. 4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: The preponderance of the evidence shows that Ed Voebel's friend, Lee Oswald, lost a tooth. Ed said so; Lee's Aunt Lillian she paid the dentist to treat it (if not for a lost tooth, then for what???); and the photo shows the tooth is missing. First the "preponderance of evidence" showed that LHO had a missing tooth and now it shows only that Voebel said he did? While we're on the subject, remember Voebel only "thought" that he had a missing tooth so that is a qualified statement. Any good lawyer could have gotten him to back off of that in a minute. But they didn't bother because it was irrelevant. BTW, you didn't answer my other point. I can see the anomaly in he photograph to which you guys are referring. I KNOW it is not a missing tooth because there is a mountain of evidence that says it isn't. But if I were unfamiliar with the case, I might look at the photo and agree with you. But I also might say the gap looks larger than just one tooth. I might think it was three teeth. How would you then address this "fact" that I see three teeth missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: 13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Oh really? How many of those dozens or hundreds of people were asked to go on record as to whether or not their acquaintance, LHO, had a missing tooth? Why would they be asked? I'm not saying they should be asked. I'm pointing out that you are wrong to say that there were dozens or hundreds of Oswald acquaintances who didn't mention the missing tooth. And you said that because of that, the preponderance of evidence was in favor of Lee not losing his tooth. But of course your conclusion is wrong because we don't know what those people would have said about the tooth. Thus the preponderance of the evidence is that Lee did indeed lose the tooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: While we're on the subject, remember Voebel only "thought" that he had a missing tooth... But what Voebel thought was the case was supported by 1) Oswald being treated by a dentist afterward, and 2) the photo showing that a tooth was missing. Why would Lee go to a dentist if he didn't lose a tooth? To get a filling? To have his teeth cleaned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I'm not saying they should be asked. I'm pointing out that you are wrong to say that there were dozens or hundreds of Oswald acquaintances who didn't mention the missing tooth. And you said that because of that, the preponderance of evidence was in favor of Lee not losing his tooth. But of course your conclusion is wrong because we don't know what those people would have said about the tooth. Thus the preponderance of the evidence is that Lee did indeed lose the tooth. But at least some of those people could be expected to mention, even if not asked, that he had a missing tooth right in front. That would be something that might come up in conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: But what Voebel thought was the case was supported by 1) Oswald being treated by a dentist afterward, and 2) the photo showing that a tooth was missing. Why would Lee go to a dentist if he didn't lose a tooth? To get a filling? To have his teeth cleaned? As I said, Lillian was sometimes confused during her testimony. At one point, she couldn't even get the names and ages of her siblings right. The testimony of anyone should be taken with a grain of salt until you have other facts to verify it. In this case, you gave the qualified testimony of one other person and a grainy old photo. If the WC attorneys had any reason to do so, they could have quickly destroyed your myth of a missing tooth. There was no reason of course. But I see 3 missing teeth. What are you going to do about this "fact?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 17 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: I KNOW it is not a missing tooth because there is a mountain of evidence that says it isn't. What mountain of evidence? Oh, you mean Harvey. Harvey and his tooth that wasn't missing. Yeah I know... you use that same "mountain of evidence" to show that LHO attended two schools simultaneously. (See, we don't think that is possible, so we believe there were two Oswalds.) You use that same "mountain of evidence" to show that LHO was in Taiwan and Japan simultaneously. (See, we don't think that is possible, so we believe there were two Oswalds.) Etc., etc., etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 32 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Just wondering, how many times are you going to post the same thing? Actually, that's the first time I've re-posted it, although other posts I've made show the missing tooth and the Magic Tooth in the grave. But now that you have suggested it, I think I'll re-post it as many times as you keep misrepresenting the evidence, which should give me plenty of opportunities, eh? 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