REOPENKENNEDYCASE
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ROKC IS NOW CLOSED AND IS READ ONLY. WE THANK THOSE WHO HAVE SUPPORTED US OVER THE LAST 14 YEARS.


Search
Display results as :
Advanced Search
Latest topics
Brian says...Sat 30 Dec 2023, 4:33 pmEd.Ledoux
last drinks before the bar closesSat 30 Dec 2023, 2:46 pmTony Krome
The Mystery of Dirk Thomas KunertSat 30 Dec 2023, 1:23 pmTony Krome
Vickie AdamsSat 30 Dec 2023, 1:14 pmgreg_parker
Busted again: Tex ItaliaSat 30 Dec 2023, 9:22 amEd.Ledoux
The Raleigh CallSat 30 Dec 2023, 4:33 ambarto
Was Oswald ever confronted with the physical rifle?Sat 30 Dec 2023, 12:03 amCastroSimp
Who Dat? Fri 29 Dec 2023, 10:24 pmTony Krome
Log in
Social bookmarking
Social bookmarking reddit      

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

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

Lifton  David  prayer  Lankford  tippit  hosty  beckley  fritz  3a  3  Theory  Weigman  +Lankford  9  4  Humor  Mason  doyle  frazier  tsbd  Floor  11  zapruder  Darnell  paine  2  

Like/Tweet/+1

Go down
BC_II
BC_II
Posts : 164
Join date : 2017-06-02

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Empty More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Fri 16 Feb 2018, 8:40 am
First topic message reminder :

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:

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Teeth_bottom_numbered

 
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:

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Teeth_side_numbered

 
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:

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Marines_x-ray_dark_tooth
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:

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Marines_x-ray
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.

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 X-ray
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.


More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Teeth
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:

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Marines_x-ray_jawbone
Marine Corps

 
More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 X-ray_jawbone
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:

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Marines_x-ray_tipped
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.

 
More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 X-ray_tipped
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:

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Example_x-ray_fit_tooth


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:

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Marines_x-ray_fit_tooth


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

But what about the exhumed teeth?

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 X-ray_fit_tooth


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:

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Root_spread


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:


More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Marines_x-ray_root_spread
Marine Corps
 

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 X-ray_root_spread
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.

steely_dan
steely_dan
Posts : 2280
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 61

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Empty Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Mon 19 Mar 2018, 2:30 am
The Prodigal Son wrote:
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.
Fully agree, Lee. In particular I well remember the bus thread and Don's astonishment that yourself and Greg failed to show any gratitude to Lifton for the insults he hurled at you both. And the fact that you returned them with a little interest. He behaved in the same manner with Greg regarding the Fez. Early intervention in either case would have resulted in a vastly different EF forum.
It's their loss.

_________________

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


Checkmate.

The_Prodigal_Son
The_Prodigal_Son
Posts : 153
Join date : 2014-11-09

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Empty Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Mon 19 Mar 2018, 5:16 am
steely dan wrote:
The Prodigal Son wrote:
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.
Fully agree, Lee. In particular I well remember the bus thread and Don's astonishment that yourself and Greg failed to show any gratitude to Lifton for the insults he hurled at you both. And the fact that you returned them with a little interest. He behaved in the same manner with Greg regarding the Fez. Early intervention in either case would have resulted in a vastly different EF forum.
It's their loss.

I believe there was one point where he accused Greg of being a 'neocon'.

It was at that point that the guy really needed to go flush himself down the nearest shitter.  Nothing but a floating turd polluting the nostrils of anyone that got close.

You're right - both Jeffries and Pat Speer wanted Greg and I on the other side of the Lifton glory hole on our knees.  But we simply reached through and squeezed the Body Snatcher's gonads instead.
steely_dan
steely_dan
Posts : 2280
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 61

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Empty Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Mon 19 Mar 2018, 12:25 pm
Greg, I suggest you join the EF. Pick a dead relative, arm yourself with a lethal array of emoticons and plant your boomerang!
If challenged, claim your a cold blooded Antipodean who sucks at maths.
To piss them off use your twins avatar, who looks nothing like you.
Good luck and Godspeed.

_________________

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


Checkmate.

The_Prodigal_Son
The_Prodigal_Son
Posts : 153
Join date : 2014-11-09

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Empty Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Tue 20 Mar 2018, 1:01 am
Paul Brancato has gone and fucked it all up.

Tut tut tut.

Way to go Paul! [Shaking head in disgust}

Mingus isn't paying for shit now.  He's doing a dusty.  

Nice one.  

[Secretly sniggers behind hand]
avatar
Vinny
Posts : 3349
Join date : 2013-08-27

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Empty Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Tue 20 Mar 2018, 10:14 pm
If Gordon stops the funding,I guess the forum might indeed close for good this time.

_________________
Out With Bill Shelley In Front.
StanDane
StanDane
Posts : 3644
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 70
https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Empty Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Wed 21 Mar 2018, 5:46 am
Vinny wrote:If Gordon stops the funding,I guess the forum might indeed close for good this time.
If so, good riddance. That place, like the Foo and the others, is a train wreck. Total inability to recognize what's valuable. They are a refining process in reverse: the good stuff is driven off/discarded while the slag remains behind. In the end you have nothing left to save. They're now morgues full of stiffs.
BC_II
BC_II
Posts : 164
Join date : 2017-06-02

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Empty Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Wed 21 Mar 2018, 10:15 am
Jake Sykes wrote:
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.
 
Thanks and point well taken Jake. The thing is, if the EF does close, it would be nice to get the really sharp posts and archive them....
steely_dan
steely_dan
Posts : 2280
Join date : 2014-08-03
Age : 61

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Empty Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Wed 21 Mar 2018, 6:47 pm
Vinny wrote:If Gordon stops the funding,I guess the forum might indeed close for good this time.
I seem to remember that Tom Scully was hopeful of taking the EF over before Gordon took the reins. He'll be keeping his eye on the place no doubt.

_________________

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


Checkmate.

Sponsored content

More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not! - Page 2 Empty Re: More Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

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