Jump to content
The Education Forum

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!


Sandy Larsen
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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 by Tom Hume
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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 by Tom Hume
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...