The Oswald Exhumation

[Jim Hargrove]

Ray and Ron,

You two are very punny!

Here’s more to sink your teeth into about the physical differences between the two Oswalds.  The man born as Lee Harvey Oswald was clearly taller and heavier than the man killed by Ruby.  The USMC medical examination of 9/3/59, the Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge dated 10/12/59, the Selective Service Registration card dated 9/14/59, and other documents all list this Oswald as 5’11” tall.

But the autopsy report of “Lee Harvey Oswald,” as well as the 8/9/63 New Orleans Police Dept. Bureau of Identification report, and many other documents  list his height as 5’9”. Hardly any reports list Oswald’s height as 5’10”.
 

Edited April 29, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[Ron Ecker]

36 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The man born as Lee Harvey Oswald was clearly taller and heavier than the man killed by Ruby.  The USMC medical examination of 9/3/59, the Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge dated 10/12/59, the Selective Service Registration card dated 9/14/59, and other documents all list this Oswald as 5’11” tall.

But the autopsy report of “Lee Harvey Oswald,” as well as the 8/9/63 New Orleans Police Dept. Bureau of Identification report, and many other documents  list his height as 5’9”. Hardly any reports list Oswald’s height as 5’10”.
 

Well I'm sure there are some here who will say that's just another tall tale.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 4/28/2020 at 1:52 AM, Cory Santos said:

Sandy, outside of the class photo, are there any other photos-perhaps yearbook- that confirm the missing tooth?

 

I'm sure there is not. Because if there were, Jim Hargrove would have showed us.

However these *is* a photo of LEE that appears to show something wrong with his front teeth. It's possible that the photo was taken when his prosthesis was broken.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Jeremy wrote:

Quote

You can take away all the faked photographs, faked home movies, faked presidential corpses, faked Oswalds, and faked Marguerites, and the arguments against the lone-nut scenario remain as strong as ever. ....

.... The more complications you add, the less likely it is that they actually happened. The smaller the proposed conspiracy, the more likely it is that it actually happened.

Jeremy,

You talk as though the only important thing is to show whether or not there was a conspiracy. Most of us on this forum are way beyond that milestone and are searching for how the plot was pulled off and by whom.

In your book, why did you add all that extra evidence that just complicates the case? Why not just show how the bullet hole in the shirt doesn't line up with the location of the wound as reported by the WC and HSCA, and be done with it? Or better yet, forget about writing a book and just spread the word that the HSCA concluded there was a conspiracy. Your book just complicates the matter. I mean, using your line of reasoning.

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 4/28/2020 at 7:23 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

On 4/27/2020 at 9:50 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Providing "necessary links" is the only thing H&L critics can do. They won't debate the evidence here because they know they can't win. Instead they provide "necessary links" that are supposed to provide the debunkings.

No, the H&L critics have debated the "evidence" right here many times. Anyone that doesn't believe me can do a search and see. But that is one purpose of websites-so you don't have to do the same thing over and over. Jim and David Josephs do "data dumps" and/or links here all the time and nobody has a problem with it. Links actually make much more sense and take up less bandwidth. But as I have pointed out many times, alternate explanations have been provided over and over, you guys just don't like them.

Okay Tracy, please post a link pointing to an Education Forum post that debunks the missing tooth, and I'll copy the debunking and paste it here. I won't paste any arguments that say the evidence is merely a mistake/misprint because we already know that that is argument you guys always make. Well, if you have proof or evidence that it was a mistake, that would be useful.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Thanks for reading, or at least mentioning, my slim volume*, Sandy.

The point I've been making is that paranoid speculation does not add to the case against the lone-nut theory.

"Searching for how the plot was pulled off and by whom" is a good thing. But proposing implausible extra layers of conspiratorial activity does not do that. By adding imaginary extra conspirators who faked this, that and the other, you're getting further from finding out how the plot was pulled off, not nearer. It's necessary to strip away as much speculative stuff as possible, not add as much as possible.

The mere accumulation of evidence is immaterial. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is, if that evidence is weak. Supporters of the lone-nut theory often point to the amount of evidence, and the number of pages, in the Warren Report or Bugliosi's tome, as though quantity is more important than quality. The same mistake is made in relation to Armstrong's Harvey and Lee, too. Weak, speculative evidence needs to be questioned, whether it is used for or against the lone-nut theory.

It isn't a matter of reducing the case to one or two core pieces of evidence, but of reducing the case to the strongest pieces of evidence. No doubt each person who has detailed knowledge of the case would select a slightly different group of core pieces of evidence, and would interpret the whodunnit side of things slightly differently too. But I'm sure we all understand that there are plenty of poorly supported elements that add nothing substantial and should be discarded.

Take our old friend, Badgeman. If there happened to be a good-quality photograph or film, of unimpeachable origin, which clearly showed a police-like figure firing a rifle from behind the fence on the grassy knoll, that would be a knockout piece of evidence, an essential part of the case against the lone-nut theory. But the evidence for Badgeman is very weak. Although we can't rule out the notion that such a person was actually firing from behind the fence, the claim is so poorly supported by the evidence that no-one these days would build their case on that. If you want to persuade the general public that the lone-nut theory is nonsense, you wouldn't bring up the topic of Badgeman.

It's no coincidence that, just like Badgeman, all the paranoid stuff is poorly supported by the evidence. The Dealey Plaza photographs and home movies were faked, the moon landings were faked, there was an elaborate body-alteration heist, the earth is flat, there was a long-term Oswald doppelganger project, the attack on the World Trade Center was faked: all these claims are alike. There's some evidence to support each of them, but plenty of evidence against each of them. They are speculative. They may be true but almost certainly are not.

The JFK-related stuff in that list of paranoia presupposes a far more complicated and elaborate conspiracy than is necessary. You don't need a lot of people to shoot JFK and plant a rifle on the sixth floor, or even to have a police-like figure behind the fence. But you do need lots of people to alter photographs and films, to run a doppelganger project, and to steal JFK's body from Air Force One without anyone noticing. The more elaborate the proposed conspiracy, the less likely it is to be true.

If you wanted to persuade the general public that the lone-nut theory is nonsense, you wouldn't bring up the claim that there were two Oswalds and two Marguerites who looked identical (but sometimes didn't), or that all the shots came from the front (apart from the one that didn't), or that the Altgens 6 photograph was faked despite there being no time to do so. If you did that, you would end up persuading the general public that the case against the lone-nut theory is very flimsy indeed, and that everyone who questions the official line is a paranoid fantasist.

* Available from all good booksellers! "The best book ever written on any subject in the whole history of Western literature!" - Mr JB, England. Order your copy today!

Edited April 30, 2020 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Added a link

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The JFK-related stuff in that list of paranoia presupposes a far more complicated and elaborate conspiracy than is necessary. You don't need a lot of people to shoot JFK and plant a rifle on the sixth floor, or even to have a police-like figure behind the fence. But you do need lots of people to alter photographs and films, to run a doppelganger project, and to steal JFK's body from Air Force One without anyone noticing. The more elaborate the proposed conspiracy, the less likely it is to be true.

If you wanted to persuade the general public that the lone-nut theory is nonsense, you wouldn't bring up the claim that there were two Oswalds and two Marguerites who looked identical (but sometimes didn't), or that all the shots came from the front...

If you plan to assassinate a sitting President of the United States and get away with it, you simply must have a designated patsy .  If you don't, the search for you will be relentless and you will eventually be caught.  This already requires a rather elaborate conspiracy.

Way back in the mid-1960s, Sylvia Meagher understood this simple fact when she noted that someone was probably deliberately impersonating "Lee Harvey Oswald" during the weeks leading up to the assassination.  There's no reason whatsoever to debate whether there were two Oswalds.  The only legitimate question is, How long did this game persist?

From Accessories After the Fact by Sylvia Meagher:

[Chuck Schwartz]

Jim, thanks for the Sylvia Meagher quote- I remember reading her book decades ago and fully understanding that someone was setting LHO up to take the fall for the JFK hit.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay Tracy, please post a link pointing to an Education Forum post that debunks the missing tooth, and I'll copy the debunking and paste it here. I won't paste any arguments that say the evidence is merely a mistake/misprint because we already know that that is argument you guys always make. Well, if you have proof or evidence that it was a mistake, that would be useful.

 

I am sure that there are no discussions here that you personally believe debunk the H&L theory. But anyone can search here and find threads that contain extensive debates on the issues which is what I said. These debates also contain references to alternate explanations and my website and those of Jeremy and Greg Parker contain much information on alternate explanations and/or debunkings of H&L assertions. For some reason, the H&L people want to continually rehash the same tired old territory. They are probably hoping if they keep it in the spotlight they will eventually get a film deal like Jim D.

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Jim, thanks for the Sylvia Meagher quote- I remember reading her book decades ago and fully understanding that someone was setting LHO up to take the fall for the JFK hit.

What is sad is that some posters here are so desperate to dispute the two Oswald evidence that they seek to deny what has been clear for more than half a century.  Mr. Bojczuk claims anyone who believes this evidence is “paranoid” and wears a “tin foil hat” and uses that sort of sophomoric rhetorical nonsense.  Here’s another example of the evidence:

In what appears to have been a test by the plotters to see if one Oswald could pass for the other under close scrutiny by a trained interviewer, Texas Employment Commission employee Laura Kittrell met the two Oswalds in October 1963 and described their similarities and differences in some detail,  including in an 1978 interview with the HSCA’s Gaeton Fonzi.

According to Mr. Fonzi, Ms. Kittrell felt the second Oswald she met “looked the same… the same general outline and coloring and build, but there was something so different in his bearing….”

Ms. Kittrell made every effort to inform authorities in a timely manner about her encounter with the two Oswalds. As John A. said in a 1997 speech, Ms. Kittrell “gave a thirty-page statement to the U.S. Attorney in Dallas. Her statement was hand carried to the Warren Commission by the Secret Service. But her 30-page statement and subsequent 90-page manuscript in which she discusses her interviews of the two Oswalds, were ultimately ignored and suppressed.”

[John Butler]

On ‎4‎/‎28‎/‎2020 at 3:52 AM, Cory Santos said:

Sandy, outside of the class photo, are there any other photos-perhaps yearbook- that confirm the missing tooth?

Just as a matter of review of Sandy Larsen and Oswald's teeth.

 

[John Butler]

Here is a simple comparison of Harvey and Lee's teeth:

The top two photos show the teeth of the man shot at the Dallas Police station.  We call him Harvey Oswald for lack of a real name which certainly isn't Lee Harvey Oswald.  If you go back and review Larsen's evidence you will see that this man has 31 teeth, one less then what is pretty much normal for everyone, 32.  He is missing the lower, right 3rd molar.  This is either it didn't form or was extracted.  Larsen provides very clear and detailed photos showing this.

The bottom two photos show Lee Harvey Oswald has missing front teeth.  There seems to be a difference in which front teeth are missing.  I have no explanation for this.  But, one is not needed.  There are missing teeth. 

The photo on the right (screen left) shows what appears to be a missing left, upper central incisor and a left, upper lateral incisor.  The photo on the right (screen left) seems to show two central incisors and a gap bigger than for one lateral incisor.  This gap may represent the same space in both photos.  The apparent difference may simply be due to camera angles.

As I said earlier, it doesn't matter.  There is a missing tooth or missing teeth for Lee Harvey Oswald and the man killed at the Dallas Police station has all of his upper front teeth.

There is a great deal more evidence then this provided by Sandy Larsen in his post.  Go back and review it. 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay Tracy, please post a link pointing to an Education Forum post that debunks the missing tooth, and I'll copy the debunking and paste it here. I won't paste any arguments that say the evidence is merely a mistake/misprint because we already know that that is argument you guys always make. Well, if you have proof or evidence that it was a mistake, that would be useful.

 

I am sure that there are no discussions here that you personally believe debunk the H&L theory. But anyone can search here and find threads that contain extensive debates on the issues which is what I said. These debates also contain references to alternate explanations and my website and those of Jeremy and Greg Parker contain much information on alternate explanations and/or debunkings of H&L assertions.

 

LOL, should I be surprised that Tracy can't provide a single link to an Education Forum post that debunks the missing tooth evidence? 
 

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

For some reason, the H&L people want to continually rehash the same tired old territory.

 

"Rehash" it??  How can we re-hash something that hasn't been hashed for the first time yet? You say it's been done -- not only been done, but been done many times you say -- and yet you can't find a single one to show us. You just say, go look for it, it there.

Yeah.... right! 

 

[Ron Ecker]

I'm a little confused. I thought the taller "Lee" was the Marine (and the one who had at least one tooth knocked out, as seen in the classroom and Ferrie photos), not "Harvey" who was shot and exhumed and had all his teeth.

 

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Ron Ecker said:

I'm a little confused. I thought the taller "Lee" was the Marine (and the one who had at least one tooth knocked out, as seen in the classroom and Ferrie photos), not "Harvey" who was shot and exhumed and had all his teeth.

 

You are correct sir.... you are a little confused.

Just kidding!

You are correct that Lee had some missing teeth and Harvey had all his natural teeth, not counting the wisdom teeth.

In my presentations I never discuss the wisdom teeth because they add too much complexity. If a wisdom tooth appears to be missing, it could be that it never formed, or that it just hasn't emerged yet. It may or may not have been marked as absent on any one of the Oswald dental records, depending on whether an x-ray was taken or just a visual examination performed. It's a lot easier to focus on the non-wisdom teeth.

Having said that....

If you do count the Wisdom teeth, Harvey was missing one natural tooth. A wisdom tooth.