W. Tracy Parnell Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: Would anyone who knows how to reach a surviving member of the Norton team kindly email me at... jimbotopia@gmail.com Thank you!! Jim Sopher is deceased and I suspect Cottone is as well since DiMaio, in his book, refers to him as "retired" at the time of the exhumation. So, that leaves DiMaio and Norton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said: If you do take it to a dentist, whatever you do, do not tell them its the JFK case. The first thing John told me years ago when I offered to assist him in a little research project was to hide the fact that the opinion we were seeking was related to "Lee Harvey Oswald." By doing so, I got some amazing information on the pre-Marine W-2 forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Does anyone have a logical explanation for Sandy's finding. You know, something better than "trust the experts." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hume Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) Hi Sandy, I haven’t been following this too closely, but there is a separate argument put forward by some in the two Oswald’s camp that one of the boys (Lee) got in a schoolyard fight in 1954 and lost a front tooth. I don’t know if this is your position, Sandy, but how do your two sets of x-rays from two individuals (presumably Harvey and Lee) square with the missing front tooth argument? Edit added: Jim wrote: “Does anyone have a logical explanation for Sandy's finding. You know, something better than "trust the experts.”” As a novise, I find Sandy’s work impressive and perhaps potentially explosive. But finding qualified “experts” to support Sandy’s findings seems to be the way to go. Tom Edited February 5, 2018 by Tom Hume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 5, 2018 Author Share Posted February 5, 2018 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Tom Hume said: Hi Sandy, I haven’t been following this too closely, but there is a separate argument put forward by some in the two Oswald’s camp that one of the boys (Lee) got in a schoolyard fight in 1954 and lost a front tooth. I don’t know if this is your position, Sandy, but how do your two sets of x-rays from two individuals (presumably Harvey and Lee) square with the missing front tooth argument? Tom Tom, It is my belief also that one of the Oswalds lost a tooth in that fight. In that case it was a front top tooth, and possibly two adjacent teeth. We know that it was HARVEY in the tomb. The exhumed body was not missing any teeth (ignoring the wisdom teeth). So we know that it was LEE who was missing both a molar and one or two front teeth. I have been studying Oswald's dental charts and have developed what I believe to be a likely explanation for why the Norton team received HARVEY's left-side x-rays but LEE's right-side x-rays. I might give a presentation on that at a later date. Edited February 5, 2018 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 6 hours ago, Tom Hume said: As a novise, I find Sandy’s work impressive and perhaps potentially explosive. But finding qualified “experts” to support Sandy’s findings seems to be the way to go. What is tricky, though, is how to present the evidence without a hint that it is about “Lee Harvey Oswald,” which so often causes weird responses. This sort of thing has been done in the past regarding, for example, the medical evidence and JFK’s autopsy, and the results have been hotly disputed and hardly as definitive as one would hope. I'd like to see this new evidence--Sandy has more to come--hashed out here before seeking "expert's" opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 6, 2018 Author Share Posted February 6, 2018 Exactly what kind of expert should be consulted? We need someone who can say whether or not teeth can spontaneously straighten up after tipping down, and then move straight over by 1/4 inch within a period of five years. And tell us what the odds of that happening are. An orthodontist could tell us how long it would take for molars to be moved that far under the influence of braces. We would then have an idea as to what is possible when a constant force is applied. (Braces apply a constant force.) In Oswald's case there was no such force. So it would have taken taken much, much longer. That's just common sense. The reason Oswald's teeth tipped down in the beginning is because of his upper teeth pushing down on his lower teeth. I just can't believe that after that happened (which is what is expected), the teeth would reverse direction and straighten back up. Where are the forces pushing the tipped teeth back up?? And what about that molar that had narrow -- possibly fused -- roots in the Marine Corps x-ray, but straight-down roots (which I described as "medium/wide spread) in the exhumation x-ray? I'm sure that root shapes change significantly in children as their skull, jaw bone, and permanent teeth grow and erupt. But once a person's permanent teeth have all erupted and the person has quit growing, the shape of the teeth should settle down. And BTW, that is what you'll see if you look at the x-rays from the other side of Oswald's head. I studied them carefully, and the only change in root shape I could find was in the lower WISDOM tooth. It changed shape because it was still growing after 1958. Even so, the root shape changed only a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hume Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 (edited) Sandy wrote: "Exactly what kind of expert should be consulted? We need someone who can say whether or not teeth can spontaneously straighten up after tipping down, and then move straight over by 1/4 inch within a period of five years. And tell us what the odds of that happening are." Hi Sandy, Even though you say you have more to add to your arguments, for what it’s worth, you’ve already pretty much convinced me. But, I think that when you've completed your presentation, your conclusions are more likely to be accepted if you get some Forensic Odontologist types to put their stamp of approval on your findings. What is the percentage of Forensic Odontologists that suspect there is something very fishy about the official conclusions, vis-a-vis the Kennedy Assassination? Pick a number. Now imagine what kind of person might become a Forensic Odontologist. I’d guess that she/he would be very smart, be really interested in teeth, eager to answer technical teeth-related questions, and especially motivated toward solving teeth-related mysteries. If you’re correct, I’d guess that you’d find some objective and respected ears. If it turns out you’ve got something hot that can pass peer review hurdles, who knows? This discovery might become a Forensic Odontological landmark event, and maybe answer some pressing questions. Rock on, Tom Edited February 6, 2018 by Tom Hume Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 Perhaps it would be best to let Sandy present all the new evidence he has found before working up a presentation for expert appraisal. What bothers me about this is that virtually all attorneys knows that they can get an expert opinion to support just about anything. It happens every day in court rooms across America. I’m not disagreeing with your point, Tom, but I predict that even more than one “expert opinion” on Sandy’s evidence will not prove definitive in the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 14 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: Perhaps it would be best to let Sandy present all the new evidence he has found before working up a presentation for expert appraisal. What bothers me about this is that virtually all attorneys knows that they can get an expert opinion to support just about anything. It happens every day in court rooms across America. I’m not disagreeing with your point, Tom, but I predict that even more than one “expert opinion” on Sandy’s evidence will not prove definitive in the debate. The first thing any expert would want to know would be what Sandy's qualifications are. You would then have to answer (if you were being honest) none. Seriously, if I tried to pull something like this (in reverse) I would be soundly criticized and the critics would be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Kelly Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 Getting to the bottom of this is ... like pulling teeth (sorry, couldn't resist) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 Good one Gene. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 What if the corpse's tissues drying out straightened up the molars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: Perhaps it would be best to let Sandy present all the new evidence he has found before working up a presentation for expert appraisal. What bothers me about this is that virtually all attorneys knows that they can get an expert opinion to support just about anything. It happens every day in court rooms across America. I’m not disagreeing with your point, Tom, but I predict that even more than one “expert opinion” on Sandy’s evidence will not prove definitive in the debate. If this phenomenon isn't mentioned in any of several textbooks on the subject, then already that's a start. But that would require going through textbooks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 7, 2018 Author Share Posted February 7, 2018 10 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: The first thing any expert would want to know would be what Sandy's qualifications are. Tracy, What you say here makes no sense. An expert should make a judgement based only on the evidence, his knowledge, and his experience. Not on the qualifications of a another person drawing his own conclusions. This is just your knee jerk reaction to my common-sense, compelling observations that threatens your point of view, but for which you have no answer. 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