W. Tracy Parnell Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 22 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: Everyone has an opinion, but the only serious study I've seen of LHO photographs using modern biometric comparison techniques found evidence of two different Oswalds in the existing visual data. And the study was conducted by an H&L skeptic. Again, the whole analysis can be seen here.... https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14916-Pixel-Counting-Biometric-Comparison-of-Oswald-photos Of course, the HSCA did a "serious study" and found photos all showed the same man. Although the H&L theory had not yet been created and most of the photos used were of "Harvey", luckily the study included a pic of "Lee." Same man as anyone without a bias can see. https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0140a.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Yeah, right, and anyone without bias can tell the HSCA was the most dishonest of all the government investigations of the assassination. I can't imagine why anyone who believes the WC and the HSCA would even bother to be here. One of the HSCA's pictures of "Oswald" is actually a pencil drawing! LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 To see how desperate the HSCA was to deny evidence of Two Oswalds, see the following post: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/?do=findComment&comment=348691 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 14, 2018 Author Share Posted March 14, 2018 16 hours ago, Michael Walton said: On 3/12/2018 at 9:25 PM, Sandy Larsen said: That's right, and I'll say it again. Not because I am an authority over them in dentistry, but because I have Oswald's chart right here in front of me and they don't. Yep that's the chart alright. And I'm still waiting for that X to magically appear on the front tooth showing it was missing. And then I'll have to wait for the same front tooth to magically disappear in the exhumation photos. Mike, How do you explain the notation in Oswald's 1958 dental record indicating that his prosthesis had failed? Here's a closeup of the "Prosthesis Required" field: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 14, 2018 Author Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) Mike, How do you explain that Oswald was missing a molar in 1958, but not in 1981? 1958 X-Ray 1981 Exhumed X-Ray Edited March 14, 2018 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 14, 2018 Author Share Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) Mike, How do you explain how the root shape of one of Oswald's molars changed so dramatically from 1958 to 1963? Here are examples of molars whose roots are spread out, normal, and narrowed to the point of being fused together: Now, look as Oswald's molar root spread in 1958 versus 1963: 1958 Marine Corps 1963 Death (Same state as in 1981 exhumation.) Edited March 14, 2018 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Yep that's the chart alright. And I'm still waiting for that X to magically appear on the front tooth showing it was missing. And then I'll have to wait for the same front tooth to magically disappear in the exhumation photos. We're going around in circles here because I and others have asked YOU to explain no X on the tooth chart. If you can't explain it then it's clear that there was no missing tooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 15, 2018 Author Share Posted March 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Michael Walton said: We're going around in circles here because I and others have asked YOU to explain no X on the tooth chart. If you can't explain it then it's clear that there was no missing tooth. I've explained that. During the initial exam the dentist forgot to note the missing tooth. We know he must have done so because his later Prosthesis Required notation means that there had to have been a missing tooth. It is easy to overlook a missing tooth when it has been replaced with a bridge. Why can't you explain this discrepancy? Why do you just ignore it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 15, 2018 Author Share Posted March 15, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Mike, How do you explain that Oswald was missing a molar in 1958, but not in 1981? 1958 X-Ray 1981 Exhumed X-Ray Bumped for Mike Walton to answer. Edited March 15, 2018 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 15, 2018 Author Share Posted March 15, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Mike, How do you explain how the root shape of one of Oswald's molars changed so dramatically from 1958 to 1963? Here are examples of molars whose roots are spread out, normal, and narrowed to the point of being fused together: Now, look as Oswald's molar root spread in 1958 versus 1963: 1958 Marine Corps 1963 Death (Same state as in 1981 exhumation.) Bumped for Mike Walton to answer. Edited March 15, 2018 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: I've explained that. During the initial exam the dentist forgot to note the missing tooth. That's just speculation. The only way to know is to ask him but I'm sure he's no longer around so it's easy for missing teeth supporters to make open-ended speculateve statements like this. It's easy to assume that just because there's no X written on the tooth but there IS the word MISSING written that the two are somehow related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: That's just speculation. The only way to know is to ask him but I'm sure he's no longer around so it's easy for missing teeth supporters to make open-ended speculateve statements like this. It's easy to assume that just because there's no X written on the tooth but there IS the word MISSING written that the two are somehow related. Michael, Don't you realize that's way too simple an explanation, and not only that, but it severely damages the "Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites" Theory? What's wrong with you? -- Tommy Edited March 15, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Thomas Graves said: What's wrong with you? I've probably just gone nuts....from all of this speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 15, 2018 Author Share Posted March 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: 7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: I've explained that. During the initial exam the dentist forgot to note the missing tooth. That's just speculation. The only way to know is to ask him but I'm sure he's no longer around so it's easy for missing teeth supporters to make open-ended speculateve statements like this. It's easy to assume that just because there's no X written on the tooth but there IS the word MISSING written that the two are somehow related. The fact remains that the Prosthesis Required notation means that there was a missing tooth and a prosthesis to replace it. So for some reason the doctor didn't mark the missing tooth. Apparently you believe that Oswald required a prosthesis (false tooth) even though he had no missing teeth. Please explain that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 15, 2018 Author Share Posted March 15, 2018 5 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said: Michael, Don't you realize that's way too simple an explanation, and not only that, but it severely damages the "Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites" Theory? What's wrong with you? -- Tommy Tommy, How do you explain the fact that the dentist noted that Oswald needed a prosthesis (false tooth) when in fact he had no missing teeth? 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