Indisputable Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a FRONT TOOTH, but his exhumed body was not! NEW EVIDENCE FOUND.

[Paul Trejo]

45 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

One also has to wonder how the southern born Oswald never spoke with a southern accent....   So many little things that continue to add up.   

The Southern born LHO also lived in New York for several years.

Also, when he was very young, his wealthy step-father, Edwin Albert Ekdahl, an engineer, was continually traveling for his work, and he took Marguerite and young Lee along with him everywhere across the USA.  They stayed at only the best hotels and resorts.   Lee knew what "room service" was when he was barely five years old.

Born in New Orleans -- yes.    Raised in the South?   No.   Naturally, then, he would never speak with a Southern accent.  

Remember, too, that boys in the South would pick on him, calling him "Yankee" which got him into a few schoolyard fights.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

Let's try to be exact...

There isn't even a hint of a twang of a southern accent in that video...

Yes Paul, he was "raised" in the South (ages 0-12 and 14-19), he trained in the South for the Marines and then was out of country..

He was then back in the South from June 62 on...

Of the 25 years Oswald was alive... how many years were spent in the South, at southern schools with other southern people?

Born in the South and leaves just shy of his 12th Bday   12 years  South
In NY Aug '52 thru Jan '54                                                       1.5 years  Not
In the South Jan '54 thru Oct '56                                           2.75 years  South
Jacksonville, Biloxi, Memphis  thru Oct '57                           1.0 year  South
Marines  Oct '57 thru Oct '59                                                   2.0 years Not
Russia Nov 1959 thru June 1962                                           2.6 years Not
July 1962 thru Nov 1963                                                         1.33 years South

17 years in the South and 6 years NOT in the south...   26% of the time NOT with 74% of the time in the South including when he learned to speak and go to elementary school.

South ages 0-12, 14-19, 22-23

[Jim Hargrove]

LOL!  Someone sure knows his Classic Oswald timetable.  Also, DJ, let's not forget Paul's E.A. Ekdahl excuse.  So, for the record on that, Ekdahl and Marguerite got hitched on May 4, 1945 and they separated just a year later.  All that time for young LEE to become a sophisticated traveler and lose his Southern accent?  Sheesh!   

[Jim Hargrove]

Once again, I suggest to any lurkers wondering about all this that they JUST get themselves a copy of the February 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine.  The remarkably good photo of LEE Oswald taken by Ed Voebel is shown on pp. 70-71 of the magazine.  You don't even need a magnifying glass to see Oswald's missing tooth/teeth.  Don't just believe or disbelieve me, but by all means, look for yourself!

Then read the sworn testimony of Ed Voebel, the kid who took the picture; the kid who watched the entire fight and described it in great detail during his testimony; the same kid who testified that he thought Oswald lost a tooth in the fight.

How do we know Voebel was right and Greg Parker is wrong?  JUST LOOK AT THE PICTURE!  It's that simple.

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

On 2/21/2018 at 8:51 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

But that's just one problem. You (Greg) also claim that the "Prophylaxis Required?" field applies also to sealants. You just made that up! Here in America a dental prophylaxis is a cleaning of the teeth. Period. It has nothing to do with sealants.

The ADA (American Dental Association) code for prophylaxis is D1110, whereas the code for sealant is D1351. (Check it out for yourself in this table.) According to this article on D1110 prophylaxes:

Greg Parker replies:

 

The only thing being made up here Sandy is your claim about what I said. Time after time, you make up quotes for me rather than simply copy and paste what I did say. You won't do that because then you have nothing you can argue against.

I just double-checked and Greg is right, I did mis-paraphrase him regarding this. I thought he was lumping sealings with prophylaxes, but in fact he is lumping sealings with prostheses.

But this is even worse. Had he lumped sealings with prophylaxes, at least he'd have a little rationale for doing so. Because the purpose of a prophylaxis (teeth cleaning) and a sealing is to prevent tooth decay. And the word prophylaxis in medicine means an action to prevent disease.

Well, okay, so what Greg really said is worse than what I thought he'd said. I will rewrite my criticism to reflect what he really said.

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/18/2018 at 7:54 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker has taken the time to do a definitive study of the issue. Excellent article and I encourage all to read it:

https://www.thenewdisease.space/single-post/2018/02/19/Adventures-in-Cold-War-Military-Dentistry-the-Associated-Paperwork-a-Subplot-in-the-Ongoing-Battle-to-Eradicate-Destructive-Outre-Historical-Theories

 

Greg claims that the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation (see the chart below) is referring to a sealant that was applied in 1957 and recorded on a different, earlier dental record.

It is very easy to prove Greg wrong.

The purpose of a sealing treatment is to prevent cavities. So a dentist knows that the sealant has failed when he sees the first cavity after the sealant was applied. Look at the appointment dates on the form below and you will see that the dentist treated the first cavity -- located on tooth #20 -- on April 30, 1958. So the dentist noticed on that day or earlier that the sealant failed.

And yet the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation is dated several days later. Therefore Greg is wrong.

And this isn't the only problem with Greg's silly theory. The "FAILED" notation is written in the "Prosthesis Required?" field. Which any clear-thinking individual would agree means a prosthesis failed. But Greg can't have that. So he says that the "Prosthesis Required?" field applies to both prostheses (false teeth) AND sealings. Even though they are entirely different things that serve entirely different purposes. Greg says they did this to save space on the form. That In spite of the fact that there is a large space set aside for remarks.

Of course, Greg is making this up out of whole cloth. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the form would have combined "Sealings" and "Prostheses" under a single "Prosthesis Required?" field.  How would the dentist even know to notate a failed sealing in the "Prosthesis Required?" field. This is just plain silliness.
 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Greg claims that the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation (see the chart below) is referring to a sealant that was applied in 1957 and recorded on a different, earlier dental record.

It is very easy to prove Greg wrong.

The purpose of a sealing treatment is to prevent cavities. So a dentist knows that the sealant has failed when he sees the first cavity after the sealant was applied. Look at the appointment dates on the form below and you will see that the dentist treated the first cavity -- located on tooth #20 -- on April 30, 1958. So the dentist noticed on that day or earlier that the sealant failed.

And yet the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation is dated several days later. Therefore Greg is wrong.

And this isn't the only problem with Greg's silly theory. The "FAILED" notation is written in the "Prosthesis Required?" field. Which any clear-thinking individual would agree means a prosthesis failed. But Greg can't have that. So he says that the "Prosthesis Required?" field applies to both prostheses (false teeth) AND sealings. Even though they are entirely different things that serve entirely different purposes. Greg says they did this to save space on the form. That In spite of the fact that there is a large space set aside for remarks.

Of course, Greg is making this up out of whole cloth. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the form would have combined "Sealings" and "Prostheses" under a single "Prosthesis Required?" field.  How would the dentist even know to notate a failed sealing in the "Prosthesis Required?" field. This is just plain silliness.
 

 

 

Greg Parker replies:

 

My reply is unchanged from what I said in my essay:

Oswald was classification 3. What did it mean in terms of his service? It meant he was unfit for overseas deployment until the dental issues were resolved.

 

You were placed in class 3 if any of the following applied:

 

Dental caries, tooth fractures, or defective restorations where the condition extends beyond the dentinoenamel junction and causes definitive symptoms; dental caries with moderate or advanced extension into dentin; and defective restorations not maintained by the patient.

 

Interim restorations or prostheses that cannot be maintained for a 12-month period.

 

This includes teeth that have been restored with permanent restorative materials but for which protective coverage is indicated.

 

Chronic oral infections or other pathologic lesions including: Pulpal or periapical pathology requiring treatment. Lesions requiring biopsy or awaiting biopsy report. Emergency situations requiring therapy to relieve pain, treat trauma, treat acute oral infections, or provide timely follow-up care (e.g., drain or suture removal) until resolved. Temporary mandibular disorders requiring active treatment.

 

Definition of non-metallic permanent restoration:

 

includes filled and unfilled resin, glass ionomer cement, and pit and fissure sealant.

  

According to Larsen, the 1956 records belonged to "Harvey" while the 1958 records, seeming to show a prosthesis was required, belonged to Lee.

 

What it really shows is that the two records belonged to the same person: Lee Oswald. We know this because in 1956, Oswald was made a "class 3" which includes anyone with a restoration or prosthesis which cannot be maintained for 12 months, or has become defective. Recall that Oswald in 1956 was given sealants and instructed on how to maintain them. 

 

Clearly, for simplification and space, sealants and prosthetics  were lumped in together on the forms and the failure noted in 1958 was for the sealant - not any prosthetic for a tooth that was never knocked out to start with.

----------------------------------

I can only add that there is no space on the form which is specific to sealants, restorations or fillings and there is no evidence of a past prosthesis, nor was the field for "ready for prosthesis" responded to.

 

Is it Sandy's claim that they fixed a failed prosthetic with a filling of tooth 10?

Again - restorations of teeth include, full or partial replacement (a prosthetic), crowns, bridges - and sealants. 

 

What treatment did Oswald have in 1956 in order to make him fit for overseas deployment? Sealants. What treatment did Oswald have that could fail if he did not carry out the required maintenance? The sealants. What was noted as having failed on 5.5.58? The sealants. What was noted on the form as the "disposition" of all of this? A filling on tooth 10. 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

 

Greg Parker replies:

 

My reply is unchanged from what I said in my essay:

Oswald was classification 3. What did it mean in terms of his service? It meant he was unfit for overseas deployment until the dental issues were resolved.

 

You were placed in class 3 if any of the following applied:

 

Dental caries, tooth fractures, or defective restorations where the condition extends beyond the dentinoenamel junction and causes definitive symptoms; dental caries with moderate or advanced extension into dentin; and defective restorations not maintained by the patient.

 

Interim restorations or prostheses that cannot be maintained for a 12-month period.

 

This includes teeth that have been restored with permanent restorative materials but for which protective coverage is indicated.

 

Chronic oral infections or other pathologic lesions including: Pulpal or periapical pathology requiring treatment. Lesions requiring biopsy or awaiting biopsy report. Emergency situations requiring therapy to relieve pain, treat trauma, treat acute oral infections, or provide timely follow-up care (e.g., drain or suture removal) until resolved. Temporary mandibular disorders requiring active treatment.

 

Definition of non-metallic permanent restoration:

 

includes filled and unfilled resin, glass ionomer cement, and pit and fissure sealant.

  

According to Larsen, the 1956 records belonged to "Harvey" while the 1958 records, seeming to show a prosthesis was required, belonged to Lee.

 

What it really shows is that the two records belonged to the same person: Lee Oswald. We know this because in 1956, Oswald was made a "class 3" which includes anyone with a restoration or prosthesis which cannot be maintained for 12 months, or has become defective. Recall that Oswald in 1956 was given sealants and instructed on how to maintain them. 

 

Clearly, for simplification and space, sealants and prosthetics  were lumped in together on the forms and the failure noted in 1958 was for the sealant - not any prosthetic for a tooth that was never knocked out to start with.

----------------------------------

I can only add that there is no space on the form which is specific to sealants, restorations or fillings and there is no evidence of a past prosthesis, nor was the field for "ready for prosthesis" responded to.

 

Is it Sandy's claim that they fixed a failed prosthetic with a filling of tooth 10?

Again - restorations of teeth include, full or partial replacement (a prosthetic), crowns, bridges - and sealants. 

 

What treatment did Oswald have in 1956 in order to make him fit for overseas deployment? Sealants. What treatment did Oswald have that could fail if he did not carry out the required maintenance? The sealants. What was noted as having failed on 5.5.58? The sealants. What was noted on the form as the "disposition" of all of this? A filling on tooth 10. 

 

That's nothing but rambling mumbo jumbo.

 

And now for the truth, which is very simple:
 

The chart asks the dentist, "Prosthesis required?  If yes, briefly explain." The dentist replied with "FAILED 5-5-58."

This means that a prosthesis is required because the existing one failed on May 5, 1958. (Or was reported as failed on that date.)

 

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Clearly, for simplification and space, sealants and prosthetics  were lumped in together on the forms and the failure noted in 1958 was for the sealant - not any prosthetic for a tooth that was never knocked out to start with.

Oh for cryin' out loud.

And here's how the kid who took the photo of LEE Oswald and tended to his wounds in the boys room after the second fight testified to the WC:

Mr. JENNER. Tell me the circumstances of that, please. 
Mr. VOEBEL. Well, the day before, maybe a couple of days before, Lee had a fight with a couple of boys. 
Mr. JENNER. Do you know their names? 
Mr. VOEBEL. They were the Neumeyer boys, John and Mike. 
Mr. JENNER. John and Mike? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes, sir. 
Mr. JENNER. They were classmates? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes. Well, I think one of them was in the same grade as Lee. One was older than the other one. The younger one was maybe a grade or two below Lee, and Lee was in a fight with John, the older one. 
Mr. JENNER. Let's see, if I have that straight now. Lee was in a fight with the elder of two Neumeyer brothers; is that right? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Right. He was in a fight with John Neumeyer. The fight, I think started on the school ground, and it sort of wandered down the street in the direction naturally in which I was going. 
Mr. JENNER. Was it a protracted fight? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Protracted? 
Mr. JENNER. Yes; did it keep going on? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes, it kept going on, across lawns and sidewalks, and people would run them off, and they would only run to the next place, and it continued that way from block to block, and as people would run them off of one block, they would go on to the next. 
Mr. JENNER. That was fisticuffs; is that right? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Right. 
Mr. JENNER. Were they about the same age? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Oswald and John? 
Mr. JENNER. Yes. 
Mr. VOEBEL. I don't know; I guess so. 
Mr. JENNER. How about size? 
Mr. VOEBEL. I think John was a little smaller, a little shorter than Lee. 
Mr. JENNER. Do you know what caused the fight? 
Mr. VOEBEL. No; I don't. I don't remember that. 
Mr. JENNER. But you followed this fight from place to place, did you not? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes. 
Mr. JENNER. Why, were you curious? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; and well, it was also on my way home, going that way. The fight traveled my route home. 
Mr. JENNER. All right, what happened as this fight progressed down the street? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Well, I think Oswald was getting the best of John, and the little brother sticking by his brother, stepped in too, and then it was two against one, so with that Oswald just seemed to give one good punch to the little brother's jaw, and his mouth started bleeding. 
Mr. JENNER. Whose mouth? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Mike Neumeyer. 
Mr. JENNER. The little boy? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes, sir. Mike's mouth started bleeding, and when that happened, the whole sympathy of the crowd turned against Oswald for some reason, which I didn't understand, because it was two against one, and Oswald had a right to defend himself. In a way, I felt that this boy got what he deserved, and in fact, later on I found out that this boy that got his mouth cut had been in the habit of biting his lip. Oswald might have hit him on the shoulder or something, and the boy might have hit his lip, and it might have looked like Oswald hit him in the mouth, but anyway, somebody else came out and ran everybody off then, and the whole sympathy of the crowd was against Lee at that time because he had punched little Mike in the mouth and made his mouth bleed. I don't remember anything that happened after that, but I think I just went on home and everybody went their way, and then the next day or a couple of days later we were coming out of school in the evening, and Oswald I think, was a little in front of me and I was a couple of paces behind him, and I was talking with some other people, and I didn't actually see what happened because it all happened so quick. 
Some big guy, probably from a high school--he looked like a tremendous football player--punched Lee right square in the mouth, and without him really knowing or seeing really who did it. I don't know who he was, and he ran off. That's when we ran after Lee to see if we could help him. 
Mr. JENNER. He just swung one lick and ran? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; that's what they call passing the post. He passed the post on him. 
Mr. JENNER. Passed the post, what's that? 
Mr. VOEBEL. That's when somebody walks up to you and punches you. That's what's called punching the post, and someone passed the post on Lee at that time. 
Mr. JENNER. You think that might have happened because of the squabble he had with the two Neumeyer boys a day or two before? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think that was what brought it all about. I think this was sort of a revenge thing on the part of the Neumeyer boys, so that's when I felt sympathy toward Lee for something like this happening, and a couple of other boys and I--I don't remember who they were, but they brought him back in the restroom and tried to fix him up, and that's when our friendship, or semi-friendship, you might say, began. We weren't really buddy-buddy, but it was just a friendship, I would say. 
Mr. JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

On 2/21/2018 at 8:29 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

 

 

 

On 2/21/2018 at 8:51 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Hey Jim,

I think I may have figured out what is going on with those darkened teeth.

One of you guys (you, David J., or John A.) earlier wondered if what we are looking at is a photo taken during the time of Lee's prosthetic failure. The timing of the photo is indeed about right.

I studied the photo carefully when that was mentioned, but couldn't figure out how a failed bridge could look like that. So I gave up on that idea.

The thing is, not only is there the discoloration, but the length of the front teeth doesn't look right. To me it looks like the bottoms of those teeth have crumbled off. I know how crowns and bridges are made (a metal substrate with a layer of porcelain fused to it) and I just couldn't think of a way a failure could look like what we see in the photo.

Well, earlier today I was studying the history of crowns and bridges so I could answer a statement made by one of the other members. I discovered that crowns and bridges were made differently before the late 1950s. Before then, they were made of solid porcelain. Porcelain is the shiny material that is fused to pottery to make it shiny. It is very hard, but also very brittle. In this article  I read:

Ceramics play an integral role in dentistry. Their use in dentistry dates as far back as 1889 when Charles H. Land patented the all-porcelain “jacket” crown. This new type of ceramic crown was introduced in 1900s. The procedure consisted of rebuilding the missing tooth with a porcelain covering, or “jacket” as Land called it. The restoration was extensively used after improvements were made by E.B. Spaulding and publicized by W.A. Capon. While not known for its strength due to internal microcracking, the porcelain “jacket” crown (PJC) was used extensively until the 1950s.

To reduce the risk of internal microcracking during the cooling phase of fabrication, the porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) crown was developed in the late 1950s by Abraham Weinstein. The bond between the metal and porcelain prevented stress cracks from forming.

So the material used in Lee's bridgework was known for microcracking introduced during manufacture. This means that any part of the crown could crumble under excessive force. In my opinion that could explain the apparent loss of material at the bottom of Lee's incisors in that photo.

I don't know why the teeth are darkened in that photo. When I've gotten crowns the dentist tries to match the color of the crown to the teeth surrounding it. Maybe whoever made Lee's bridge didn't do such a good job in matching colors.

 

Fascinating....  Any more thoughts?

[Paul Trejo]

The photographs on this thread are wide open to question. 

I have a more plausible answer to the 2.5 teeth missing in the LHO middle school photo -- the photo was retouched.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 24, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Walton]

On 2/22/2018 at 10:49 AM, David Josephs said:

One also has to wonder how the southern born Oswald never spoke with a southern accent....   So many little things that continue to add up.  - HAHAHA!  ADD UP TO WHAT? WE KNOW HE'S INNOCENT - WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?! A CLONE FROM 1953 WITH MISSING/NOT MISSING TEETH...A SOUTHERN TWANG PERSON WHO DOESN'T SPEAK WITH A SOUTHERN TWANG?!  HAHA!

FWIW - this is another great example of people like Josephs, Hargraves, Larsen and others completely and totally trying to twist the existing record to fit outlandish theories like Hardly, the Z film fakery, and others.

I mean - hahaha! If ANYONE fails to hear the twang or drawl in his voice here, then that person does NOT deserve to be taken seriously as a researcher - and I don't care how many times you've been published on a so-called "legitimate" website. Really?  "CUM FOWAD"

 

[Thomas Graves]

On 2/23/2018 at 5:28 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

 

Greg Parker replies:

 

My reply is unchanged from what I said in my essay:

Oswald was classification 3. What did it mean in terms of his service? It meant he was unfit for overseas deployment until the dental issues were resolved.

 

You were placed in class 3 if any of the following applied:

 

Dental caries, tooth fractures, or defective restorations where the condition extends beyond the dentinoenamel junction and causes definitive symptoms; dental caries with moderate or advanced extension into dentin; and defective restorations not maintained by the patient.

 

Interim restorations or prostheses that cannot be maintained for a 12-month period.

 

This includes teeth that have been restored with permanent restorative materials but for which protective coverage is indicated.

 

Chronic oral infections or other pathologic lesions including: Pulpal or periapical pathology requiring treatment. Lesions requiring biopsy or awaiting biopsy report. Emergency situations requiring therapy to relieve pain, treat trauma, treat acute oral infections, or provide timely follow-up care (e.g., drain or suture removal) until resolved. Temporary mandibular disorders requiring active treatment.

 

Definition of non-metallic permanent restoration:

 

includes filled and unfilled resin, glass ionomer cement, and pit and fissure sealant.

  

According to Larsen, the 1956 records belonged to "Harvey" while the 1958 records, seeming to show a prosthesis was required, belonged to Lee.

 

What it really shows is that the two records belonged to the same person: Lee Oswald. We know this because in 1956, Oswald was made a "class 3" which includes anyone with a restoration or prosthesis which cannot be maintained for 12 months, or has become defective. Recall that Oswald in 1956 was given sealants and instructed on how to maintain them. 

 

Clearly, for simplification and space, sealants and prosthetics  were lumped in together on the forms and the failure noted in 1958 was for the sealant - not any prosthetic for a tooth that was never knocked out to start with.

----------------------------------

I can only add that there is no space on the form which is specific to sealants, restorations or fillings and there is no evidence of a past prosthesis, nor was the field for "ready for prosthesis" responded to.

 

Is it Sandy's claim that they fixed a failed prosthetic with a filling of tooth 10?

Again - restorations of teeth include, full or partial replacement (a prosthetic), crowns, bridges - and sealants. 

 

What treatment did Oswald have in 1956 in order to make him fit for overseas deployment? Sealants. What treatment did Oswald have that could fail if he did not carry out the required maintenance? The sealants. What was noted as having failed on 5.5.58? The sealants. What was noted on the form as the "disposition" of all of this? A filling on tooth 10. 

 

Greg,

 

Excellent, rational, easy-to-understand explanation.

Thanks!

(Sometimes it almost seems to me as though Putin sent Hargrove, Larsen, Josephs, DiEugenio, et al., here (plus a cheerleader) to deflect the attention of serious students away from more important issues than the absurd "Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites" Theory.)

 

--  Tommy 

 

PS  IMHO, Josephs sounds particularly desperate!  (I guess he doesn't know what a mild Southern "twang," covered by "sum Bwonks," sounds like in New Joisey or Mary-land, or wherever.)

Way too much ear-splitting noiv-vus laff-tah!

Edited February 25, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

TG, please show me where I have commented on the content of this thread?

My only comment was that if you show it to a dentist don't say it concerns the JFK case.

Also show me where I have advocated for the Harvey and Lee thesis on this site?

And your idea that somehow people who do are agents of Russia is so stupid and moronic that if anyone did not know the true value of your presence here before, they sure do now.

The above comment ranks with your cheerleading about Pat Speer and myself disagreeing about The Post.   If you recall, at that time you first questioned why I should post my review of the film here.  As if Vietnam has to be explained to you as related to the JFK case, but somehow your inane and stultifying references to Russia Gate are to be accepted.  Then when Speer disagreed with my assessment, you jump on and say, "Hey good post!"  When clearly you did not know what the heck the argument was about in the first place.

Keep it up TG.  Whatever weight your comments carried before is going down to milligrams.

Edited February 25, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Thomas Graves]

14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

TG, please show me where I have commented on the content of this thread?

My only comment was that if you show it to a dentist don't say it concerns the JFK case.

Also show me where I have advocated for the Harvey and Lee thesis on this site?

And your idea that somehow people who do are agents of Russia is so stupid and moronic that if anyone did not know the true value of your presence here before, they sure do now.

The above comment ranks with your cheerleading about Pat Speer and myself disagreeing about The Post.   If you recall, at that time you first questioned why I should post my review of the film here.  As if Vietnam has to be explained to you as related to the JFK case, but somehow your inane and stultifying references to Russia Gate are to be accepted.  Then when Speer disagreed with my assessment, you jump on and say, "Hey good post!"  When clearly you did not know what the heck the argument was about in the first place.

Keep it up TG.  Whatever weight your comments carried before is going down to milligrams.

 

James,

With all due respect, don't you believe in Harvey and Lee??

--  Tommy