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

[Michael Walton]

5 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

(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.)

I sometimes wonder as well.  

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

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

Jim, this is a rather disingenuous comment from you.  I've asked you several times on this board if you believe the Hardly story.  You've never replied.  If you do, well...anyone has the right to believe that Neil and Buzz didn't walk on the moon or little green men were found on the desert floor by the military.

The point though is this - when you're on the radio or asked to be a co-speaker about Vietnam with Oliver Stone in Dulles, VA, you can't have it both ways.  You can't hold yourself above the fray as a "legitimate" author and authority of the JFK narrative, then come on here and pretend to egg on Josephs and others to continue with the more kookier theories about this case.

Of course if you lack the courage of your convictions to tell this kookier element here, "You know, I just don't know about this stuff guys..." then how can you possibly expect more grounded researchers here to take anything you have to say seriously?

As Eleanor Roosevelt said about our hero [paraphrasing here] - "He should try more courage and less profile."

[Thomas Graves]

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

I sometimes wonder as well.  

Jim, this is a rather disingenuous comment from you.  I've asked you several times on this board if you believe the Hardly story.  You've never replied.  If you do, well...anyone has the right to believe that Neil and Buzz didn't walk on the moon or little green men were found on the desert floor by the military.

The point though is this - when you're on the radio or asked to be a co-speaker about Vietnam with Oliver Stone in Dulles, VA, you can't have it both ways.  You can't hold yourself above the fray as a "legitimate" author and authority of the JFK narrative, then come on here and pretend to egg on Josephs and others to continue with the more kookier theories about this case.

Of course if you lack the courage of your convictions to tell this kookier element here, "You know, I just don't know about this stuff guys..." then how can you possibly expect more grounded researchers here to take anything you have to say seriously?

As Eleanor Roosevelt said about our hero [paraphrasing here] - "He should try more courage and less profile."

 

Well spoken, Michael.  (Although I personally would have said "more kooky" rather than "more kookier," but hey, nobody's perfect.)

--  Tommy 

PS  Watch him come back now and say we're ganging up on him.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

Nice tag team again TG.

Michael, I have explained my position on this to you before.  I don't know why you bring it up again.

John's book is almost a thousand pages long.  His chapters on Mexico City, on the phony rifle purchase, on the Walker shooting, on Ferrie and the CAP, etc, all those and more seem to me to be of compelling interest.  For the simple reason that he did original research and found documents no one else had seen.

It always puzzles me how people criticize the book without reading it.  Talk about lacking the courage of your convictions.  I do not understand that at all.

About the Harvey and Lee thesis, I fell about that as I do the Z film alteration idea.  I am an agnostic.  But his book is about much more than that.  Maybe if you read it, you would understand what I am saying.

[Thomas Graves]

14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Nice tag team again TG.

Michael, I have explained my position on this to you before.  I don't know why you bring it up again.

John's book is almost a thousand pages long.  His chapters on Mexico City, on the phony rifle purchase, on the Walker shooting, on Ferrie and the CAP, etc, all those and more seem to me to be of compelling interest.  For the simple reason that he did original research and found documents no one else had seen.

It always puzzles me how people criticize the book without reading it.  Talk about lacking the courage of your convictions.  I do not understand that at all.

About the Harvey and Lee thesis, I fell about that as I do the Z film alteration idea.  I am an agnostic.  But his book is about much more than that.  Maybe if you read it, you would understand what I am saying.

James,

With all due respect, you don't believe that a young Russian-speaking Hungarian boy (who grew up to speak the English language better than most college graduates, grammar-wise) and his mother were chosen by the evil CIA to participate in a double-double doppelganger "Oswald Project" (aka "Harvey and Lee and Two Marguerites - One Smiling, One Not") with another boy and his mother, which project culminated in the assassination of JFK? 

--  Tommy 

PS  Where's your cheerleader tonight?

Edited February 25, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Ron Ecker]

5 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

James,

With all due respect, you don't believe that a young Russian-speaking Hungarian boy (who grew up to speak the English language better than most college graduates, grammar-wise) and his mother were chosen by the evil CIA to participate in a double-double doppelganger "Oswald Project" (aka "Harvey and Lee and Two Marguerites - One Smiling, One Not") with another boy and his mother, which project culminated in the assassination of JFK? 

--  Tommy 

PS  Where's your cheerleader tonight?

If I may interject, since I share Jim's position on this (I have read Armstrong's book, it contains compelling stuff, and I'm agnostic on the Harvey and Lee theory itself), I would not be at all surprised if the CIA had a project or projects to have two individuals from childhood whose identities could be interchanged as might be needed. Why would it surprise you?

 

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Ron Ecker

[Jim Hargrove]

On 2/24/2018 at 12:12 AM, Paul Trejo said:

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.

 

A statement like the above is why I so often urge people to find a copy of the 2/21/64 edition of LIFE magazine, which published the photo on pp. 70-71.  Here’s the cover of my copy of that edition:

 

And here’s the full two-page spread from the magazine with Ed Voebel’s picture of LEE Oswald showing off his missing front tooth.

 

 

Even though I just snapped the two pictures above with my cell phone, if you look closely you can see the damage to Oswald’s front teeth in the second photo.  If the photo was retouched, how strange that it matches the sworn testimony of the original photographer, who said he thought Oswald got a bloody lip and lost a tooth during the encounter.

How strange that it matches the evidence from the U.S. Marine Corps that Lee Oswald had a dental prosthetic.  How strange that it matches the evidence of the 1958 photo of LEE Oswald in Japan, which shows either one or two upper front teeth decidedly different from the others.

Sandy’s theory that the image’s darker and possibly crumbling upper front teeth might actually be a picture of the failed prosthesis is bolstered by the fact that both the photo and the dental report were made in 1958. Observations such as these compel the usual H&L critics to make the usual ad hominem attacks against us.

No matter what the critics say, though, the evidence doesn’t go away.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Jim Hargrove

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

On 2/23/2018 at 6:28 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!

Tommy,

I don't believe you really understand what Greg Parker said. Because if you did, you would believe something incredibly stupid. I'll explain.

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

Greg says that the dentist did indeed reply to the "Prosthesis Required?" question. And he replied by writing "FAILED 5-5-58"

But in addition, Greg claims (out of thin air) that the question "Prosthesis Required?" also asks the question "Sealant Required?" As though the words prosthesis and sealant are somehow related.

The two word are not related. A prosthesis is a false tooth, and a sealant is something applied to teeth a prevent cavities.

So do you actually believe that the dentist, by answering the "Prosthesis Required?" question he was in reality answering the question, "Sealant Required?" If you do believe such nonsense, answer this: How is a dentist reading the chart supposed to figure out whether the patient needs a new prosthesis or a new sealant?

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Michael Walton]

7 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Oswald Project" (aka "Harvey and Lee and Two Marguerites - One Smiling, One Not") with another boy and his mother, which project culminated in the assassination of JFK? 

Actually according to Sandy Larsen, the whole Hardly story had nothing to do with the JFK case. Which sounds like a pretty big cop out IMO.

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Nice tag team again TG.

There's no tagging going on here.  If you can believe it, one of your authors, Josephs, criticized Davidson's more kookier theories that the shots were fired from the pavilion over spectators' heads, risking injury and exposing the plot. When I concurred - and because he knows I don't support any of HIS kooky theories - he said don't use my name here and actually changed his position from critical to "...I only said this in jest [him criticizing Davidson's kooky theory]." THAT is the current state of the JFK "research" community.

And all of the other non-Hardly parts of JA's story have been written elsewhere so there's no reason to read that part of his book.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

A statement like the above is why I so often urge people to find a copy of the 2/21/64 edition of LIFE magazine, which published the photo on pp. 70-71.  Here’s the cover of my copy of that edition:

Enough, Jim. We get it.  You and others believe there were two Oswalds and two Oswald Moms living in each others' shadows until 11/22 when such time one pair disappeared forever, one went to his grave...but whose skull was switched because they had a tarot card reader who predicted an exhumation 18 years after the burial.  We get it.

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

11 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

I sometimes wonder as well.  

Jim, this is a rather disingenuous comment from you.  I've asked you several times on this board if you believe the Hardly story.  You've never replied.  If you do, well...anyone has the right to believe that Neil and Buzz didn't walk on the moon or little green men were found on the desert floor by the military.

The point though is this - when you're on the radio or asked to be a co-speaker about Vietnam with Oliver Stone in Dulles, VA, you can't have it both ways.  You can't hold yourself above the fray as a "legitimate" author and authority of the JFK narrative, then come on here and pretend to egg on Josephs and others to continue with the more kookier theories about this case.

Of course if you lack the courage of your convictions to tell this kookier element here, "You know, I just don't know about this stuff guys..." then how can you possibly expect more grounded researchers here to take anything you have to say seriously?

As Eleanor Roosevelt said about our hero [paraphrasing here] - "He should try more courage and less profile."

 

Well spoken, Michael.  (Although I personally would have said "more kooky" rather than "more kookier," but hey, nobody's perfect.)

--  Tommy 

PS  Watch him come back now and say we're ganging up on him.

Proof by peer pressure!   LOL

Which is how we used to know that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth.

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

25 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Actually according to Sandy Larsen, the whole Hardly story had nothing to do with the JFK case. Which sounds like a pretty big cop out IMO.

I said that the creation of the Oswald project had nothing to do with assassinating Kennedy. For reasons obvious to most of us, but apparent;y not to Walton.

 

[Michael Walton]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Proof by peer pressure!   LOL

Which is how we used to know that the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around the Earth.

Knowing what we know on this forum, I wonder who still believes the world is flat on here and who believes it's round - LOL!

 

[Michael Walton]

58 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I said that the creation of the Oswald project had nothing to do with assassinating Kennedy. For reasons obvious to most of us, but apparent;y not to Walton.

Sure, Sandy, sure.  We get it.  Just like we get it when you said you saw one of the old guys down on the knoll holding a pistol (cop-out term - black object) - LOL

I guess you had all kinds of ground-breaking evidence for that verified (according to you) theory, too, right? Right!

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

(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.)

I've read only the first third of Sandy's original post, so I'm not fully up to speed on this latest "Harvey & Lee of the Gaps" theory, but a more rational approach to all of these "mysteries" is to be found in the places no one ever wants to look:

1. The psychology of conspiracy thinking.
2. The psychology and group dynamics of conspiracy communities.
3. The effect of the Internet and specifically forums such as this on numbers 1 and 2 above.

Within this framework, there are two outliers:

1. Disinformation agents.  They may appear when a conspiracy community gets too close to a truth the keepers of that truth would prefer not to have revealed.  That truth may be the very heart of a conspiracy theory or some seemingly minor, tangential aspect.
2. Those who seek to achieve a curious form of celebrity and perhaps monetary gain by pandering to the conspiracy community.

The two outliers are responsible for much of the dissension and absurdity within a conspiracy community.

When any conspiracy community is viewed through these lenses, it all starts to make sense in a way that it otherwise does not.  It is useful for those of us who are prone to conspiracy thinking to step back and self-examine whether we are being sucked into the black hole of the forces described above.  It is simply hopeless - a waste of time - to attempt to debate the merits of something like Harvey & Lee with those who have been sucked in because, of course, they have no awareness of the forces described above and do not realize they have been sucked in.

[Sandy Larsen]

22 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I've read only the first third of Sandy's original post, so I'm not fully up to speed on this latest "Harvey & Lee of the Gaps" theory, but a more rational approach to all of these "mysteries" is to be found in the places no one ever wants to look:

1. The psychology of conspiracy thinking.
2. The psychology and group dynamics of conspiracy communities.
3. The effect of the Internet and specifically forums such as this on numbers 1 and 2 above.

Within this framework, there are two outliers:

1. Disinformation agents.  They may appear when a conspiracy community gets too close to a truth the keepers of that truth would prefer not to have revealed.  That truth may be the very heart of a conspiracy theory or some seemingly minor, tangential aspect.
2. Those who seek to achieve a curious form of celebrity and perhaps monetary gain by pandering to the conspiracy community.

The two outliers are responsible for much of the dissension and absurdity within a conspiracy community.

When any conspiracy community is viewed through these lenses, it all starts to make sense in a way that it otherwise does not.  It is useful for those of us who are prone to conspiracy thinking to step back and self-examine whether we are being sucked into the black hole of the forces described above.  It is simply hopeless - a waste of time - to attempt to debate the merits of something like Harvey & Lee with those who have been sucked in because, of course, they have no awareness of the forces described above and do not realize they have been sucked in.

 

Lance,

Rather than trying to distract readers from my very simple proof of two Oswalds with a bunch or psychological mumbo jumbo, why not just attack the proof itself?

Tell us... what's wrong with the evidence that is so plain to see and easy to understand, right there on Oswald's dental 1958 dental record? Which is inconsistent with Oswald's 1981 exhumed teeth?

I'll give you a clue... there is only ONE alternative interpretation that will save you from having to admit defeat. Can you figure it out?

 

Here is the VERY simple proof that there were two Oswalds.

The following is a closeup of the "Prosthesis Required?" field on Oswald's 1958 dental record.

 

The dentist is instructed to "explain briefly" if yes, a prosthesis is required. The dentist explained by saying that an existing prosthesis failed. It failed on May 5, 1958.

A prosthesis is a false tooth. So from the dental record we know that Oswald needed a false tooth.

However, photos of Oswald's teeth (below) that were exhumed in 1981 show NO false teeth and NO SPACE where a false tooth could fit.

Therefore the 1958-Oswald and exhumed-Oswald were not the same person.

 

Front View

 

Top Inside View

 

Bottom Inside View

Where is that false tooth?

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Michael Walton]

25 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

The psychology of conspiracy thinking.

In other words - everything and the kitchen sink, too, is some sort of vast conspiracy. Without ever stopping to think that could all of this - ALL of it - have happened in one grand sequence of events?