Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» BWF Where's Your Rider Reprise
Today at 11:36 am by Mick Purdy

» James Hosty
Today at 3:29 am by barto

» Prayer Man
Yesterday at 9:35 pm by barto

» Those Still Alive
Yesterday at 12:53 am by Vinny

» Leroy Blevins On Prayer Man
Fri 20 Jul 2018, 1:07 am by Stan Dane

» MLK Assassination
Thu 19 Jul 2018, 11:24 pm by barto

» Camelot at Dawn
Thu 19 Jul 2018, 7:11 pm by Ed. Ledoux

» Babushka Lady?
Thu 19 Jul 2018, 4:03 pm by Ed. Ledoux

» Book by Chris Lightbown out in Nov
Wed 18 Jul 2018, 12:39 pm by Anthony Thorne

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking digg  Social bookmarking delicious  Social bookmarking reddit  Social bookmarking stumbleupon  Social bookmarking slashdot  Social bookmarking yahoo  Social bookmarking google  Social bookmarking blogmarks  Social bookmarking live      

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Go down

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by BC_II on Fri 16 Feb 2018, 8:40 am

What other better forum to scrutinize and study Larsen's findings than here? Reposted from the EF by Sandy Larsen:


The Norton Panel Mistakenly Accepted that the Molar was Missing.
I have carefully compared the photographs and x-rays of the exhumed teeth with Oswald's Marine Corps dental records and x-rays and have found them to be largely consistent. But with one exception... the supposedly missing molar. It is my contention that the Norton Panel talked themselves into believing the molar was missing on the exhumed body. It had to. Nearly everything else checked out and there was no way of explaining the lack of a missing molar. The missing molar had been reported on several dental charts, and so it couldn't be a case of mistaken charting.


Let's take a look at where the molar was supposed to have been missing. Here is one view:


 
Tooth #30 is the one that is supposed to be missing. So the Norton Panel numbered the teeth as shown here. There is a small gap there, better seen from a side view:


 
Now admittedly, when I first saw that gap, I wondered if a molar had indeed been extracted and that the two molars behind it somehow shifted over quite a distance without tipping down. Because molars #31 and 32 are not tipping at all. Rather, they are at an angle only because the jawbone that far back is tilted... at the same angle.

For us to accept that tooth #30 had been extracted, we'd have to believe that afterward #31 and 32 moved straight toward #29  by roughly 1/4 inch. Not by tipping, but by moving straight. And that the sockets the roots fit into did the same.
This is hard to believe. Imagine driving a post into the ground and then trying to move it over a significant distance relative to its height. Tipping the post over would be relatively easy, especially with the use of a hammer. But moving it straight over by much would be nearly impossible.

What forces could there have been in Oswald's mouth that could move roots and sockets over by 1/4"?
None, I determined. And so I decided to study missing tooth #30 further. Am I ever glad I did!

My Discovery of the True Missing-Molar X-Ray

As I pondered what I needed for my study, the obvious came to mind quickly. If it were true that the exhumed Oswald had a tooth #30 in place, then there must have been another Oswald who truly was missing #30. What I needed more than anything else was an x-ray from that Oswald showing the missing tooth. With that in hand, I should be able to see a gap where the tooth had been, and possibly a tooth or two behind it tipping down into the gap.

Problem is, in my search for dental records the only x-rays I'd seen were the ones published in the Norton Report.
It occurred to me that I hadn't yet taken a close look at that particular x-ray in the Norton Report taken from the Marine Corps records. I had saved that for last, because it was of the only quadrant of the teeth that appeared suspect. For a fleeting moment I thought, wouldn't it be great if THAT particular x-ray were from the OTHER Oswald? The x-ray that I needed more than any other?
Well, of course, that was too much to hope for. But I took a look anyway.

Ha! I couldn't believe my eyes at first, but I actually had -- printed right there in the Norton Report -- the x-ray of the teeth surrounding tooth #30 from the other Oswald! The x-ray I needed more than any other.
And, as I expected, this x-ray shows definite signs of a missing molar. Here it is:


Marine Corps


I could see right away the large gap left behind from molar #30, and the adjacent molar tipping down into it. The reader may not see these things himself, given his unfamiliarity with this material. I will demonstrate them momentarily.

For the remainder of this presentation I will compare this x-ray from the Marine Corps to the one of the exhumed body and show that they are not from the same person.

Preparation for My Comparison

In order to make the x-ray comparison easy to follow, I created one composite x-ray and made a few minor adjustments, as I will describe here. All the photos and x-rays come from the following high quality scan of the Norton Report:
Norton Report


The photos are on pages 27 through 30, and the x-rays on page 31.
The x-rays printed in the report are notated with black and white text, arrows, and lines. Please ignore these. My notations will be in color.

What I did for the Marine Corps x-ray was separate the upper teeth from the lower a little so that they can easily be distinguished. In addition, there is one tooth whose roots are darkened, and I pasted there a copy of the same tooth from the exhumed x-ray in order to make the roots visible. I gave it a shade of red so that it would be remembered that it is not on the original x-ray. I ended up with this:


Marine Corps X-Ray


For the x-ray of the exhumed teeth, I had to combine two adjacent x-rays into one. They share a molar in both, so I was able to align them perfectly. I then rotated the whole image so that it was at the same angle as the photograph depicting the same (exhumed) teeth.


Unfortunately the original x-rays are cut off and don't show the complete roots. But this doesn't affect my analysis.


Exhumation X-Ray


For the corresponding photograph, I combined the upper and lower teeth onto one image, using the above composite x-ray as a guide for alignment.



Exhumation Photo


Notice how well the teeth in the exhumed x-ray match those in the exhumed photograph, as they should.

To aid in the comparisons, I drew in the jawlines the best I could make out. Here they are:


Marine Corps

 

Exhumation


Now I can proceed to compare the Marine Corps x-ray to the exhumed teeth x-ray.


Marine Corps X-Ray versus Exhumation X-Ray

Molar Tipping
Lets look at the degree of tipping of the molars adjacent to the #30 molar extraction site. The green lines illustrate the degree of tipping relative to the jawline:


Marine Corps


Tipping of both remaining molars in the Marine Corps x-ray is easily seen. However, tipping is not so great as to close the gap left behind from the missing molar. I estimate that there is still a 1/4 inch gap remaining between crowns of teeth #29 and #31.

 

Exhumation


There is no tipping of the molars at all in the exhumed teeth They are perfectly square with the jawline. This is in stark contrast to the tipping that is so prominent in the Marine Corps x-ray.


Notice also how the left-most molar in the Marine Corps x-ray is tipping down into the side of molar to its right. In contrast, the tops of the two molars in the exhumed x-ray align nicely with each other. That is, one molar is not tipping down into the other.

One has to wonder how the expected tipping we see in the earlier Marine Corps teeth could have corrected itself to the point of what we see in the exhumed teeth. Downward forces from the upper teeth should have kept those teeth tipped over.

Gap Spacing

In this caparison, I want to imagine straightening up the tipping teeth and re-inserting the lost molar. Is there actually enough room for the molar to fit in? There should be! Following are images I prepared for this exercise.
First let's look at one of the example x-rays I showed earlier:



In this example, significant jaw bone loss has allowed not only the molar on the left to tip right down into the gap, but also has allowed the tooth on the right to tip down a little. As can be seen, If both teeth are straightened up, the original molar will fit in the resulting space. Note that the axis of rotation/tipping is the root of the tooth.

Now let's look at Oswald's Marine Corps x-ray:



Again we see that a missing molar will easily fit once the tipped teeth are straightened up.

But what about the exhumed teeth?



Remember, those two molars on the left are not tipped. But even if we pretend they are and allow more space for the missing molar by "straightening" them up, there is still simply no room for that missing molar to fit in!

This is yet another indication that there was never an adjacent molar that had been extracted. There was no missing molar among the exhumed teeth.

Another Differences Between the Marines X-Ray and Exhumation X-Ray

There is one other difference between the teeth of the Marine Corps Oswald and the exhumed Oswald that is quite glaring. And that is the root style of one of the molars.


Here are examples of molars whose roots are spread out, normal, and narrowed to the point of being fused together:



Lets compare the root spread of what is supposed to be the same tooth in the Marine Corps x-ray and the exhumed teeth x-ray:



Marine Corps
 


Exhumation


These are obviously not the same tooth. The tooth from the Marine Corps has a narrow root spread, and the one from the exhumed body has a medium/wide spread. They are teeth from two different Oswalds.

 
Conclusions
The Marine Corps x-ray examined here does NOT belong to the exhumed body of Lee Harvey Oswald. In order for us to accept that it does, we would have to believe the following:

1. Oswald had his first lower molar on his right side extracted some time before entering the Marine Corps.

2. Subsequently the two molars behind it began tipping over into the gap of the missing molar.
3. In the five year span from when the Marine Corps x-ray was taken to the death of Oswald, the two tipping molars inexplicably straightened themselves back up.

4. In addition to straightening up, the two molars -- root, socket, and all -- moved about 1/4 inch straight into the gap left by the extraction. They did this without any forces applied at the necessary points, in the necessary direction, and with the necessary force to attain such a movement. (As could be done by an orthodontist using braces.)

5. And in the meantime, the roots AND socket of one of those molars spontaneously straightened up, changing themselves from having a narrow root style to a medium-wide one.

The last three items in this list simply do not belong to the realm of possibility.
Yet if we unlink the Marine Corps x-ray from the exhumation x-ray, it all makes sense. The Marine Corps x-ray is precisely what we'd expect to see after a #30 molar extraction. The exhumation x-ray is not. And it's completely understandable that the root shapes of those two molars are different.

We are left with no other choice than to conclude that the Marines Corps x-rays came from a different Oswald than the Oswald whose remains were exhumed from the tomb. And that the Marine Corps Oswald was the one with the missing molar.
We conclude therefore that there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds. The one in the Marines and the one shot by Jack Ruby. (This is not to say, however, that the Oswald shot by Ruby had not served in the Marines as well.)
 
Edited February 4 by Sandy Larsen


(source: Sandy's Original Post )

Note: I had to edit Larsen's original numbered list near the end of his post because it was formatting oddly here with asterisks I also added a bit of formatting. Apologies.

BC_II

Posts : 86
Join date : 2017-06-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by Jake Sykes on Fri 16 Feb 2018, 3:36 pm

I'll admit to stumbling about in a half hearted effort to interpret the form in more reasonable ways and really didn't come up with much worth the effort of diving back down the H&L rabbit hole. 

Greg has expressed a similar sentiment with regard to sidestepping the rabbit hole, on the other hand, his conclusions in interpreting the form are humbling to me as one who did not come up with much. Once again, Greg sees things that others simply miss. He has requested that his response is posted here. Please do not expect a lot of back and forth on this. It's not worth the effort to discuss such a ridiculous theory as H and L. -- Greg writes:

"The form was obviously filled out at different times by different people. The signatures under different dates alone are testament to that.

But more specifically, the word "yes" is in a different hand to the "failed 5.5.58" notation.

The correct reading of the form is "prophylaxis (treatment) needed - yes" - at some later point in time, someone else has added that this treatment failed on May 5 and he was then scheduled for some type of surgery on May 14.



As can be seen in the following, Oswald had a bilateral crossbite. There are a couple of ways to fix this, one is by surgery. The author of this notation was the same as the "failed" notation.




The main keys to "proving" the existence of Hardly Lee are a complete inability to read forms correctly, and Armstrong's witness recruit drive. To call the theory bogus is an insult to a three dollar bill."

_________________
Release clear scans. Reveal the truth about Prayer Man. Preserve the history of the assassination of JFK.
avatar
Jake Sykes

Posts : 356
Join date : 2016-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by Stan Dane on Fri 16 Feb 2018, 3:50 pm

avatar
Stan Dane

Posts : 3124
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 65

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by BC_II on Sat 17 Feb 2018, 8:37 am

LOL! You guys are as astute researchers as you are hilarious. Nice Stan. Really looking forward to the research on this, if necessary that is.

BC_II

Posts : 86
Join date : 2017-06-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by steely dan on Sat 17 Feb 2018, 9:21 am

Sandy has had his homework marked.

Must do better.

_________________

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it....... confused


Checkmate.

avatar
steely dan

Posts : 909
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 55

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by BC_II on Fri 23 Feb 2018, 9:32 am

Thanks a ton for the responses guys. Looks like Ed has done a podcast with Rob Clark over at t=The Lone Gunman Podcast which I can't wait to hear.

https://www.spreaker.com/user/thelonegunman/ep-143-no-shots-fired-from-the-depositor

I can definitely understand the caution of the ol' back and forth with those who espouse the Harvey & Lee theory but anything you guys scrutinize for study is well worth studying itself. Thanks again.


Last edited by BC_II on Fri 02 Mar 2018, 8:21 am; edited 1 time in total

BC_II

Posts : 86
Join date : 2017-06-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by Jake Sykes on Tue 27 Feb 2018, 3:35 pm

News Flash: H & L club (sans DJ) ripped to ribbons by the one and only Greg Parker and his withering analyses debunking moronic interpretations of the dental records belonging to the one and only LHO. Reduced to emotional pleas demanding blind support for their irrational theory while never offering a scintilla of convincing evidence, these two H&L hangers-on have retreated to the well worn template of ad hominid shots followed up by change-the-subject chasers. They just make themselves look silly. Every single time. 

--Now back to our regularly scheduled silence regarding this ridiculous topic.

_________________
Release clear scans. Reveal the truth about Prayer Man. Preserve the history of the assassination of JFK.
avatar
Jake Sykes

Posts : 356
Join date : 2016-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by Paul Francisco Paso on Tue 27 Feb 2018, 6:43 pm

Jake Sykes wrote:News Flash: H & L club (sans DJ) ripped to ribbons by the one and only Greg Parker and his withering analyses debunking moronic interpretations of the dental records belonging to the one and only LHO. Reduced to emotional pleas demanding blind support for their irrational theory while never offering a scintilla of convincing evidence, these two H&L hangers-on have retreated to the well worn template of ad hominid shots followed up by change-the-subject chasers. They just make themselves look silly. Every single time. 

--Now back to our regularly scheduled silence regarding this ridiculous topic.
A toothless theory, Jake. That's all it ever was. The H&L club are two bit peddlers.
avatar
Paul Francisco Paso

Posts : 492
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by Stan Dane on Tue 27 Feb 2018, 7:59 pm

Harvey & Lee flashback.

avatar
Stan Dane

Posts : 3124
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 65

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by Jake Sykes on Mon 12 Mar 2018, 8:43 am

Just returned from visiting my 95 year old mother who lives independently with my stepdad in their home. She hasn't outlived her father yet, but it looks promising. He was a country dentist from way way back. Obviously good stock. Tough as nails. The following is true. It's my family. Believe it.

My mom described to me how a couple of years ago she "passed out" on the three steps from house to garage (maybe a mini stroke, I don't know). She was on the top step, the next thing she knew she was on the garage floor. On her way down she hit her mouth an an empty bottle or bottles stored on the floor in a box. Needless to say I was shocked to learn of this incident. We he been discussing some recent dental work and this came up because the upshot of the fall was she ended up with a "laid back front tooth", as well as "couple of chipped teeth on the bottom". Did you go to the dentist, Mom? No big deal says she (unreal, I know), I just did what I did back when I was helping out with the Scouts. They got rowdy and one of them ended up with a "laid back tooth" and if you just fit it back into the socket and leave it alone for a while,  it will heal itself right back in. This was knowledge she had picked up from her dad the dentist of course, as he had described the various cases that walked into his office and what he did to fix them up. Sure, he'd wire up a jawbone if he had to (as with the baseball bat to the head case) or if all it took was a re-socketing job for a "laid back tooth", then that's what he'd do also. So I'm talking to her yesterday and she says "See? Good as new." Guess what, it really is too.

So there it is. Good, practical, down home knowledge that would make the most ardent of anti-intellectuals proud. By the way, H&L is pure, unadulterated BS, but these stories about my mom, her scouting days, and her dad are all absolutely true.

_________________
Release clear scans. Reveal the truth about Prayer Man. Preserve the history of the assassination of JFK.
avatar
Jake Sykes

Posts : 356
Join date : 2016-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by Stan Dane on Mon 12 Mar 2018, 11:10 am

Great story, Jake. I believe you 100%.

In the 1990s, I had a lot of dental work, mainly fillings and crowns. About 5-6 years ago, many of those crowns started wearing out and needed replacement. One molar required a root canal as well. Usually a root canal is done in one visit, but this one took 3 visits and 4 weeks to complete the procedure. The tooth had become a little loose in the process, I'd say wiggly, because of inflammation that affected the ligaments holding it, so said the dentist. I considered having it extracted and having an implant put in, but the dentist advised to give it time first. Months. Finally, the thing got better and firmed up. Today it's quite strong and solid as a rock.

Now my experience isn't like someone with a really loose tooth, but I do think teeth can reattach/heal themselves to a degree if not totally knocked out.
avatar
Stan Dane

Posts : 3124
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 65

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by Jake Sykes on Mon 12 Mar 2018, 1:20 pm

Thanks Stan. Yes, it's a matter of degrees, too far and they're out, but they can be knocked loose and then recover through normal healing. It's useful to know that people will take it to the dentist and then find they didn't really need one. Of course, one should always visit the dentist if in doubt, as did Lee's caretakers at the time of his little fracas.

_________________
Release clear scans. Reveal the truth about Prayer Man. Preserve the history of the assassination of JFK.
avatar
Jake Sykes

Posts : 356
Join date : 2016-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by Vinny on Mon 12 Mar 2018, 10:39 pm

The Ed Forum has no problem with pages and pages of discussion of this fairy tale. It is Prayer Man discussions that they seem to be having problems with.

Vinny

Posts : 698
Join date : 2013-08-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by BC_II on Tue 13 Mar 2018, 6:58 am

I really don't understand any hate towards prayer man....that Ed Forum discussion is pretty legendary but what I want to know is, has ANYONE provided any alternative explanations as to who the hell PM could be other than LHO? I mean I'll give you major credit if you can at least name others and provide convincing argument for your case. Apologize for being a bit off topic but reading Vinny's words really reminded me of how unfortunate it is that the theory is attacked in the way that it is.

BC_II

Posts : 86
Join date : 2017-06-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by Stan Dane on Tue 13 Mar 2018, 8:13 am

BC_II wrote:I really don't understand any hate towards prayer man....that Ed Forum discussion is pretty legendary but what I want to know is, has ANYONE provided any alternative explanations as to who the hell PM could be other than LHO? I mean I'll give you major credit if you can at least name others and provide convincing argument for your case. Apologize for being a bit off topic but reading Vinny's words really reminded me of how unfortunate it is that the theory is attacked in the way that it is.

Short answer: no. No one has been able to come up with any credible alternative explanations for who PM might be other than Oswald.
 
After Sean Murphy made the majority of his initial arguments on The Education Forum, he then began posting in parallel over on Duncan MacRae's forum to present his work there as well. Why? He explained in a post here: 

Sean Murphy, 2013 wrote:The reason I've been posting there and (to a far lesser extent) on Duncan's forum is related more to the fact that my time and energy are not infinite and I must prioritise taking the case precisely to venues where the case really, really needs to be made—i.e. to less than hospitable audiences.
 
If Prayer Man is Oswald, as I am still confident he is, then I cannot shirk the 'away matches.' The Lunchroom Faithful, especially the benign ones, need to be challenged head on. And the Lone Nut Faithful need to be flushed out for the nutters and rogues they are.
 
I, and many others here, followed Sean closely over at MacRae's forum for a couple of months. At first, he was largely ignored, then many of the trolls and shitposters there started floating a series of ludicrous possibilities that Sean easily shot down. After they exhausted every possibility save for space aliens, they started attacking him personally, one guy in particular calling him names like "drag queen," nut job," "wacko," among others. (Unfortunately, you won't be able to go over there and follow what he said because Duncan, fine upstanding researcher that he is, deleted the whole thread.) 
 
One of the final things Sean said when he ceased posting was: 

Sean Murphy, 2013 wrote:After several weeks of canvassing hardline Lone Nut Theory believers over on Duncan's forum for credible alternatives to Oswald as Prayer Man, the results are as follows: They've got nothing. They've thrown the world and his brother at that doorway, and not a single suggestion has come close to holding up under close inspection. As of this, the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination, there remains only one viable candidate for Prayer Man: [Lee Oswald]

Bill Kelly, a generally respected researcher who believes the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter took place, reached out to me right after my book came out in 2015. He said if I'd send him a copy, he'd review the book. I promptly did and I verified the package was delivered to the address he gave me. I never heard from him again. That's pretty much how the entire mainstream JFK research community treats the subject.

I think there are some underlying psychological reasons for hating on Prayer Man at play here. Nothing else makes any sense.
avatar
Stan Dane

Posts : 3124
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 65

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by barto on Tue 13 Mar 2018, 8:53 am

BC_II wrote:I really don't understand any hate towards prayer man....that Ed Forum discussion is pretty legendary but what I want to know is, has ANYONE provided any alternative explanations as to who the hell PM could be other than LHO? I mean I'll give you major credit if you can at least name others and provide convincing argument for your case. Apologize for being a bit off topic but reading Vinny's words really reminded me of how unfortunate it is that the theory is attacked in the way that it is.

Brian Doyle begs to differ  I'm a smartass &

barto

Posts : 982
Join date : 2015-07-21

View user profile http://www.prayer-man.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by steely dan on Tue 13 Mar 2018, 9:04 am

We believe PM is a game changer. Just as many people believe PM is a game spoiler. They don't want the game to end.

_________________

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it....... confused


Checkmate.

avatar
steely dan

Posts : 909
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 55

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by Jake Sykes on Tue 13 Mar 2018, 10:53 am

BC_II wrote:... Apologize for being a bit off topic but reading Vinny's words really reminded me of how unfortunate it is that the theory is attacked in the way that it is.

No apologies BC, this is the perfect thread to make the point. They actually prefer slopping in the swill of H and L puffery rather than rise up from ignorance to travel the road along which a milestone PM discovery resides. Yes it is unfortunate and a colossal blunder as well.

No, there is no one else he can possibly be. No, there has been not one single solitary alternative named. 

As truth languishes folly rides herd over falsity.

_________________
Release clear scans. Reveal the truth about Prayer Man. Preserve the history of the assassination of JFK.
avatar
Jake Sykes

Posts : 356
Join date : 2016-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by steely dan on Tue 13 Mar 2018, 11:49 am

steely dan wrote:We believe PM is a game changer. Just as many people believe PM is a game spoiler. They don't want the game to end.
The point i'm trying to make...
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24700-emergency-room-where-jfk-died-stored-in-a-secret-underground-bunker/

_________________

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it....... confused


Checkmate.

avatar
steely dan

Posts : 909
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 55

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by Jake Sykes on Tue 13 Mar 2018, 12:11 pm

Steely, Your point is made well and fits comfortably upon that of Caddy's little head.

_________________
Release clear scans. Reveal the truth about Prayer Man. Preserve the history of the assassination of JFK.
avatar
Jake Sykes

Posts : 356
Join date : 2016-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by steely dan on Tue 13 Mar 2018, 1:16 pm

Hope it all works out.

_________________

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it....... confused


Checkmate.

avatar
steely dan

Posts : 909
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 55

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by Vinny on Tue 13 Mar 2018, 10:36 pm

Caddy loves starting lots of threads.Sometimes several in a single day.

Vinny

Posts : 698
Join date : 2013-08-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by The Prodigal Son on Sun 18 Mar 2018, 3:58 am

So, David 'The Fez' Josephs has been banned from the EF.

Don't know whether to laugh, cry with laughter or just chuckle.  

Anything that sends Don Jeffries around the twist is something I can really support.
avatar
The Prodigal Son

Posts : 153
Join date : 2014-11-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by steely dan on Sun 18 Mar 2018, 4:50 am

Don seems to have forgotten the screenshot Mike "the gnat" Walton posted of his profile page which The Fez decided to comment on. Nothing too offensive mind.....
The Fez's banning has brought on another Tourettes attack which gives us,
Fetzer, Parker and a bonus Farley.
And an admission he had to "approve" some of The Fez's posts. He's well on his way to solving the mystery.

_________________

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it....... confused


Checkmate.

avatar
steely dan

Posts : 909
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 55

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by The Prodigal Son on Sun 18 Mar 2018, 11:30 pm

steely dan wrote:Don seems to have forgotten the screenshot Mike "the gnat" Walton posted of his profile page which The Fez decided to comment on. Nothing too offensive mind.....
The Fez's banning has brought on another Tourettes attack which gives us,
Fetzer, Parker and a bonus Farley.
And an admission he had to "approve" some of The Fez's posts. He's well on his way to solving the mystery.

Jeffries is at the top of my 'Top Ten Forum Shit Stirrers' list.  It's a sad fact that old Donny doesn't realise that he is nothing more than a condescending hypocrite.  His double standards are a sight to behold.  

It was Jeffries who personally created David Lifton's Education Forum glory hole.
avatar
The Prodigal Son

Posts : 153
Join date : 2014-11-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum