Jim Hargrove Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 8 hours ago, Ron Ecker said: Is it just coincidence that Oswald in the photo appears to be showing off that he has missing teeth? If he had no missing teeth, and was just showing off, period, can you suggest a reason why someone back in the 1960s would go to the trouble of retouching the photo to show missing teeth? Excellent questions, Ron. I've always thought LEE Oswald was showing off his missing tooth or teeth in that photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 6 hours ago, Bart Kamp said: Time to wade in myself Please explain that black blob on the bottom lip. Bad paint job trying to retouch this. As bad as the Zap film. Does no one else pay attention to these 60's techniques which are so obvious in the digital age...... Beats me Bart. Where's his front tooth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 I don't care about the tooth matter Jim, I only make mention of this stupid blob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 28, 2018 Author Share Posted February 28, 2018 20 hours ago, Michael Walton said: 22 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: The only thing relevant is what is on the form, which is this: Really? I thought the more relevant thing on the chart is the display of teeth without a single X mark on any of the so called missing teeth proving that none of them are missing. The prosthesis was in place during the exam, which took place March 27, 1958. So there were no missing teeth at that time to mark with an X. It was later (May 5) that the prosthesis broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 (edited) 22 hours ago, Bart Kamp said: I don't care about the tooth matter Jim, I only make mention of this stupid blob. It's a VITAL QUESTION that the H&L CTers need to answer. If you say that this middle school photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald (taken by Ed Voebel for the school yearbook, and showing Lee missing 2.5 teeth) is supposed to be evidence that there were two Oswalds, then you must also prove that there was no RETOUCHING of that photograph! Now, there is a black blob on the lower lip of Lee Harvey Oswald in that photograph -- which is a typical sign of photo RETOUCHING. In this case, black ink seems to have been used to cover 2.5 teeth of Lee Harvey Oswald, which then required extra retouching with a BLACK BLOB or RECTANGLE that spilled over onto the image of his lower lip. This is a sign of a RETOUCHED photo. What does the H&L CT group have to say about this? Hmm? Great catch, Bart! I didn't see it until you pointed it out. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited March 1, 2018 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said: It's a VITAL QUESTION that the H&L CTers need to answer. If you say that this middle school photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald (taken by Ed Voebel for the school yearbook, and showing Lee missing 2.5 teeth) is supposed to be evidence that there were two Oswalds, then you must also prove that there was no RETOUCHING of that photograph! Now, there is a black blob on the lower lip of Lee Harvey Oswald in that photograph -- which is a typical sign of photo RETOUCHING. In this case, black ink seems to have been used to cover 2.5 teeth of Lee Harvey Oswald, which then required extra retouching with a BLACK BLOB or RECTANGLE that spilled over onto the image of his lower lip. This is a sign of a RETOUCHED photo. What does the H&L CT group have to say about this? Hmm? Great catch, Bart! I didn't see it until you pointed it out. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Bart and Paul, Did the school have photo development and printing facilities for students interested in photography to use in a classroom or "lab" setting? If so, one of the students charged with selecting and putting together some of the photos in an interesting, creative kind of way for the yearbook could have done this understandably amateurish "photo alteration job" which purports to show Oswald missing A tooth. Oswald, whose tooth was most likely NOT knocked out, was undoubtedly "in" on the charade as evidenced by his agreeing to be photographed tilting his head back and exposing his open mouth so that the photo of "great fighter Oswald" could be altered to make it look as though he HAD lost A TOOTH OR TWO in the "vicious, vicious fight" that he had "somehow survived." This would explain why none of the other students in Oswald's classroom appear to have notice the photographer standing at the back of the classroom. They were instructed by the photographer or the teacher to pretend that nothing unusual was "going on" back there. All for the amusement and benefit of his (gullible?) classmates when they saw the photo in said yearbook! -- Tommy Edited March 1, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 Once again DO NOT judge the darkened version of this photo. It's a misnomer. Look at the non darkened version. In it you can clearly see the light that caught the darkened tooth...there's a slight sheen to it but it proves there's nothing missing. Bart I'm really surprised at you. You know as well as I do that blowing up photos from this era you're going to have artifacts in them just like in PM and the Altgens photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 (edited) And that non darkened version is the correct version? The one without any proper contrast? For who Michael? You? Everything you say in the post above can be given a 180 and used against you. You do understand that don't you. Now there's a surprise! A paint job is always different compared to artefacts from a transfer from video. Please do your homework and adjust your beliefs accordingly. For the record I do not give a hoot about H&L. And Tom stop fantasising dude, this forum is filled to the brim with your 'dreams' , enough already. Edited March 1, 2018 by Bart Kamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 H&L Critics DISCOVER a Long Hidden LEE Oswald / Ed Voebel CONSPIRACY! Historians will be AMAZED! OK, so let me get this straight. Here's what the anti-H&L people claim to believe: Even though the photograph taken by LEE Oswald’s friend Ed Voebel clearly shows a missing tooth or two, it really doesn’t because it was actually retouched more than 50 years ago by LEE Oswald and Ed Voebel to make it appear that LEE Oswald had a missing tooth, even though he didn’t. Even though Ed Voebel testified under oath that he thought Oswald got a bloody lip and lost a tooth from the fight, he was just making it up to continue the funny gag he and Lee conspired about years earlier . Even though a U.S. Marine dentist indicated that LEE Oswald had a PROSTHESIS that failed on or by 5-5-58, it was really just liquid DENTAL SEALANT that failed, and not the most obvious type of prosthesis; namely, false teeth. Asked again and again to provide evidence that USMC dentists classified dental sealants as prosthetics, the anti-H&L folks have been unable to do so. Even though a photograph of LEE Oswald in Japan taken in 1958 seems to show two slightly dark and partially crumbling upper front teeth, clearly suggestive of a failed prosthesis involving the upper two front teeth the same year of the failed prosthesis notation, that’s just a complete coincidence. WOW. ARE YOU GUYS ARE SO DESPERATE ITS FUNNY!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 9 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: H&L Critics DISCOVER a Long Hidden LEE Oswald / Ed Voebel CONSPIRACY! Historians will be AMAZED! OK, so let me get this straight. Here's what the anti-H&L people claim to believe: Even though the photograph taken by LEE Oswald’s friend Ed Voebel clearly shows a missing tooth or two, it really doesn’t because it was actually retouched more than 50 years ago by LEE Oswald and Ed Voebel to make it appear that LEE Oswald had a missing tooth, even though he didn’t. Even though Ed Voebel testified under oath that he thought Oswald got a bloody lip and lost a tooth from the fight, he was just making it up to continue the funny gag he and Lee conspired about years earlier . Even though a U.S. Marine dentist indicated that LEE Oswald had a PROSTHESIS that failed on or by 5-5-58, it was really just liquid DENTAL SEALANT that failed, and not the most obvious type of prosthesis; namely, false teeth. Asked again and again to provide evidence that USMC dentists classified dental sealants as prosthetics, the anti-H&L folks have been unable to do so. Even though a photograph of LEE Oswald in Japan taken in 1958 seems to show two slightly dark and partially crumbling upper front teeth, clearly suggestive of a failed prosthesis involving the upper two front teeth the same year of the failed prosthesis notation, that’s just a complete coincidence. WOW. ARE YOU GUYS ARE SO DESPERATE ITS FUNNY!!! 1/ Clearly? Do tell. And painting that in would take less than 60 seconds. With the amount of prints I "spotted" with this technique I can assure you it can be done in that time frame. 2/The gap you put forward is larger than just one tooth. 3/That is more Greg Parker's ballpark and I have seen a fair bit that ought to be considered instead of putting this forward as an open and shut case. Instead I see denials that would make Brian Doyle's bosem swell with pride....... 4/I would have to look into that, is the pic in this thread? I will have a look. And please stop shouting and getting all emotional, as these two factors show me you have a losing hand already. Now then where is that pic......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 (edited) This btw is the best copy I have. And I am adding two morgue shots as well, they are from a contact sheet. Edited March 1, 2018 by Bart Kamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 58 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said: And please stop shouting and getting all emotional, as these two factors show me you have a losing hand already. Are you kidding? I HAVE to shout! I’m trying to give you geniuses the credit you deserve for discovering the LEE Oswald/Ed Voebel conspiracy to “invent” Oswald’s “lost tooth” issue. It was even more remarkable since the Terrible Twosome obviously concocted this plot more than a half century before the lost tooth became an issue. Your discovery has time-traveling consequences! I’m just trying to promote your remarkably convincing work here. Be proud! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 (edited) On 2/27/2018 at 9:46 AM, Bart Kamp said: Time to wade in myself Please explain that black blob on the bottom lip. Bad paint job trying to retouch this. As bad as the Zap film. Does no one else pay attention to these 60's techniques which are so obvious in the digital age...... Bart... I'm fairly sure it's simply a generational thing... Blacks and whites get so crushed as the generations pile up and/or the images we work with are not from a negative but multiple (digital) generations and 72dpi Also... the "blob" does not bother to cover where the tooth is missing... as opposed to this other blob which does cover something important.. Edited June 18, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 2 hours ago, Bart Kamp said: 2/The gap you put forward is larger than just one tooth. Not so much Bart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted March 1, 2018 Share Posted March 1, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Bart... I'm fairly sure it's simply a generational thing... Blacks and whites get so crushed as the generations pile up and/or the images we work with are not from a negative but multiple (digital) generations and 72dpi Also... the "blob" does not bother to cover where the tooth is missing... as opposed to this other blob which does cover something important.. DJ, Not sure how many generations there are to these prints, but I snapped the images I sent Sandy directly from pp. 70-71 of my copy of the Feb. 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine. I used the camera from my Nexus 6P, which many people regard as one of the best phone cameras out there. My suspicion is that there are artifacts from the little dots in the halftone printing process combined with the anti-aliasing features of modern cameras and computer displays. Again, I urge anyone interested to go online and buy (I paid only a few bucks) a copy of the 2/21/64 LIFE mag and look at the picture. It is big and clear. You can easily see Oswald’s missing tooth without a magnifying glass. With even modest magnification, you can see the little dots that make up the halftone image. It’s really clear when you look at the printed page directly, although I think it’s pretty clear in these images. There is a long, detailed article on Oswald in this issue, and it is worth the information even if the photo wasn't there. Charged with creating a biography of "Lee Harvey Oswald," the Warren Commission's John Ely complained he was getting more information from LIFE than from the FBI. This was a very influential edition of the magazine, which was supposed to convince the public that Oswald was the lone gunman. Now, it is the entrance to many other questions. And look at the photo on pages 70-71. Edited March 1, 2018 by Jim Hargrove 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