JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on March 12, 2025, 10:04:45 AM
-
The JFK Education Forum posts so much misinformation that it's become a joke. In order to push the most ridiculous theories a bunch of self appointed experts who really don't have a clue will latch onto any half assed idea to promote their twisted agenda. And it all starts with those hypocritical moderators, Neidernut and Run Bullman who allow CTs to get away with almost anything, but LNers and a few CT's(who annoy the two moderators) and who do far less are almost instantly banned, I heard Bill Brown copped a hefty ban for practically nothing.
• I would like to make a few threads confronting the Ed Forums more insane theories and start some discussions here!
First of all I'd like to speak about the significant starting point of John Armstrong's theory about Harvey and Lee, two separate young boys, one with a missing tooth, who went on to become Lee Harvey Oswald, yes seriously!
Anyway, one of the foundations of this theory as outlined above is one of the boys having a missing tooth and subsequently the other boy including the one later exhumed, has a full set of teeth, therefore that's PROOF! WOW Eh?
The "Harvey and Lee" gang base the missing tooth proof on a school boy photo of Lee Harvey Oswald with what they claim is a missing tooth but it's nothing of the kind.
Here is the photo, which initially struck me as Oswald having very bad teeth but they couldn't possibly be that bad and considering Oswald was covering his top teeth with his lip, what exactly were we looking at? Noticing Oswald also has his head tilted excessively backwards, forced me to consider the logical alternatives.
(https://i.postimg.cc/s2LKJmLz/oswald-tooth.jpg)
So to make an easier comparison I morphed two images of Oswald, the above school photo and a Marine photo where Oswald has all his teeth, which as the theory goes is the other one, either Harvey or Lee, I don't know which one was impersonating who and frankly I don't care about fantasies. But as can be seen plain as day, what we are seeing are the Molar teeth and young Oswald who was either trying to be funny or was probably embarrassed about his odd crooked teeth, was covering them with his upper lip.
(https://i.postimg.cc/V6T9jNdk/oswald-no-tooth-missing.gif)
To further illustrate my point I made this GIF which used generic perfect teeth, showing the chewing side of the molar teeth which were mistaken for a side on view in the Life photo.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MZCbHXCs/ozzy-teethzz.gif)
So what do you think about my discovery which isn't that special just common sense, and how about Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory, do you believe it or not?
JohnM
-
Why would someone who promotes Lone Nutter fantasies on a daily basis—at least on average—claim, "I don't care about fantasies"?
-
Why would someone who promotes Lone Nutter fantasies on a daily basis—at least on average—claim, "I don't care about fantasies"?
...and his blinky lights and gifs don't actually prove anything :D
Does Ed Forum still exist?
-
The JFK Education Forum posts so much misinformation that it's become a joke. In order to push the most ridiculous theories a bunch of self appointed experts who really don't have a clue will latch onto any half assed idea to promote their twisted agenda. And it all starts with those hypocritical moderators, Neidernut and Run Bullman who allow CTs to get away with almost anything, but LNers and a few CT's(who annoy the two moderators) and who do far less are almost instantly banned, I heard Bill Brown copped a hefty ban for practically nothing.
• I would like to make a few threads confronting the Ed Forums more insane theories and start some discussions here!
First of all I'd like to speak about the significant starting point of John Armstrong's theory about Harvey and Lee, two separate young boys, one with a missing tooth, who went on to become Lee Harvey Oswald, yes seriously!
Anyway, one of the foundations of this theory as outlined above is one of the boys having a missing tooth and subsequently the other boy including the one later exhumed, has a full set of teeth, therefore that's PROOF! WOW Eh?
The "Harvey and Lee" gang base the missing tooth proof on a school boy photo of Lee Harvey Oswald with what they claim is a missing tooth but it's nothing of the kind.
Here is the photo, which initially struck me as Oswald having very bad teeth but they couldn't possibly be that bad and considering Oswald was covering his top teeth with his lip, what exactly were we looking at? Noticing Oswald also has his head tilted excessively backwards, forced me to consider the logical alternatives.
(https://i.postimg.cc/s2LKJmLz/oswald-tooth.jpg)
So to make an easier comparison I morphed two images of Oswald, the above school photo and a Marine photo where Oswald has all his teeth, which as the theory goes is the other one, either Harvey or Lee, I don't know which one was impersonating who and frankly I don't care about fantasies. But as can be seen plain as day, what we are seeing are the Molar teeth and young Oswald who was either trying to be funny or was probably embarrassed about his odd crooked teeth, was covering them with his upper lip.
(https://i.postimg.cc/V6T9jNdk/oswald-no-tooth-missing.gif)
To further illustrate my point I made this GIF which used generic perfect teeth, showing the chewing side of the molar teeth which were mistaken for a side on view in the Life photo.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MZCbHXCs/ozzy-teethzz.gif)
So what do you think about my discovery which isn't that special just common sense, and how about Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory, do you believe it or not?
JohnM
How about that John. The know nothing do nothing group has responded and demonstrated that they really know nothing and cannot do anything.
-
Excellent John and the theory is nonsense of course.
-
The JFK Education Forum posts so much misinformation that it's become a joke. In order to push the most ridiculous theories a bunch of self appointed experts who really don't have a clue will latch onto any half assed idea to promote their twisted agenda. And it all starts with those hypocritical moderators, Neidernut and Run Bullman who allow CTs to get away with almost anything, but LNers and a few CT's(who annoy the two moderators) and who do far less are almost instantly banned, I heard Bill Brown copped a hefty ban for practically nothing.
• I would like to make a few threads confronting the Ed Forums more insane theories and start some discussions here!
First of all I'd like to speak about the significant starting point of John Armstrong's theory about Harvey and Lee, two separate young boys, one with a missing tooth, who went on to become Lee Harvey Oswald, yes seriously!
Anyway, one of the foundations of this theory as outlined above is one of the boys having a missing tooth and subsequently the other boy including the one later exhumed, has a full set of teeth, therefore that's PROOF! WOW Eh?
The "Harvey and Lee" gang base the missing tooth proof on a school boy photo of Lee Harvey Oswald with what they claim is a missing tooth but it's nothing of the kind.
Here is the photo, which initially struck me as Oswald having very bad teeth but they couldn't possibly be that bad and considering Oswald was covering his top teeth with his lip, what exactly were we looking at? Noticing Oswald also has his head tilted excessively backwards, forced me to consider the logical alternatives.
(https://i.postimg.cc/s2LKJmLz/oswald-tooth.jpg)
So to make an easier comparison I morphed two images of Oswald, the above school photo and a Marine photo where Oswald has all his teeth, which as the theory goes is the other one, either Harvey or Lee, I don't know which one was impersonating who and frankly I don't care about fantasies. But as can be seen plain as day, what we are seeing are the Molar teeth and young Oswald who was either trying to be funny or was probably embarrassed about his odd crooked teeth, was covering them with his upper lip.
(https://i.postimg.cc/V6T9jNdk/oswald-no-tooth-missing.gif)
To further illustrate my point I made this GIF which used generic perfect teeth, showing the chewing side of the molar teeth which were mistaken for a side on view in the Life photo.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MZCbHXCs/ozzy-teethzz.gif)
So what do you think about my discovery which isn't that special just common sense, and how about Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory, do you believe it or not?
JohnM
Sorry, JohnM, but it looks to me as though he's missing a tooth and that the reason he's leaning his head back and "clowning" for the camera is so we can see it.
TomG
-
...and his blinky lights and gifs don't actually prove anything :D
Does Ed Forum still exist?
It does. I would estimate the honored members show zero interest in what the LN Members are doing over here. The pretentious "Attention" shows how delusional his LN mind is.
-
How about that John. The know nothing do nothing group has responded and demonstrated that they really know nothing and cannot do anything.
You imply to have done something. Can we see it?
-
Tom Graves,
You don't believe in double Oswalds do you? The exhumation showed the teeth intact.
-
Tom Graves,
You don't believe in double Oswalds do you? The exhumation showed the teeth intact.
W. Tracy Parnell,
I'm just saying what it looks like to me.
Okay?
-
The Caped Factoid Buster (that would be me) must once again emerge from the Factoid Busting Cave and demonstrate to you pathetic folks what sanity - or insanity, as the case may be - actually looks like when it comes to Conspiracy Factoids. This happens to be one of the Caped One’s favorites because it, like so many others, can be traced to Factoid Master John Armstrong.
The “missing tooth” photo was taken by Sidney Edward Voebel in the English 202 class at Beauregard Junior High School, most likely in 1954. According to an FBI memorandum dated 12-3-1963, Voebel did not recall the exact date the photo was taken but believed it was during the 1954-55 school year. Voebel’s recollection was that he was not a member of the English 202 class at the time but was going from classroom to classroom taking photos for the school yearbook. (Voebel was interviewed several times by police and FBI, as early as 11-25-1963, because he was also affiliated with Oswald in the Civil Air Patrol.)
Voebel recalled that Oswald had “turned and faced the camera in a clown-like attitude.” Voebel surmised that Oswald saw him come into the room and clowned around because he knew him. He described Oswald’s action as “spontaneous” and not staged. On the other hand, the English 202 teacher who had taught both Voebel and Oswald, Helen DuFour, described Voebel as a “showoff” who would “often disrupt the class.” So possibly he encouraged Oswald or Oswald reacted because he knew Voebel would enjoy his antics. Presumably because of Oswald’s clowning, the photo did not appear in the yearbook. (Voebel died at age 31 in 1971.)
Voebel told the FBI he had made the photo available to WDSU-TV in New Orleans. (It seems odd that Voebel would still have had this 1954 photo in 1963, recalled Oswald being in it, and immediately made it available to WDSU, but we’ll leave this mystery for another day. Possibly Voebel was actually Umbrella Man, ya think?) WDSU told the FBI it had provided the negative to LIFE Magazine, but it provided prints to the FBI on 12-3-1963. (There is confusion about payment. Armstrong says Voebel received $75 from LIFE, others say $25 from WDSU.)
When Voebel was first interviewed by the FBI on 11-25-1963, before the photo was known, he recalled a fight between Oswald and brothers Mike and John Neumeyer but provided no details. He subsequently told the FBI it appeared that Oswald’s tooth had pierced his lip and that he (Voebel) had put ice on it in the school restroom; nothing was said about a missing tooth until he testified to the Warren Commission (see below) on April 7, 1964. Likewise, fellow student Bennierita Smith described Oswald during her WC testimony (see below) as suffering a tooth through his lip; nothing about a missing tooth. Fellow student Dmitri Bouzon described a bloody lip; again, nothing about a missing tooth. Perhaps most significantly, Oswald’s aunt Lilliam Murret described a “tooth through the lip,” causing mother Marguerite to take Our Innocent Patsy to the dentist for repairs. Consistent with this injury, a pale scar was observed on Oswald’s upper lip at his autopsy.
Here is where everything goes awry: When Voebel testified before the WC, he described for the first time a wild brawl involving Oswald and John Neumeyer. The brawl occurred because Oswald had picked on John’s younger brother Mike. The “protracted” fight extended “across lawns and sidewalks, and people would run them off, and they would only run to the next place, and it continued that way from block to block, and as people would run them off of one block, they would go on to the next.”
Does this sound to you, My Fellow Factoid Fans, like a plausible fight between two junior high school kids? Or does it sound more like Voebel the showoff as described by his former teacher Helen DuFour? Well, let's see what the Neumeyers themselves had to say ...
Mike Neumeyer had been interviewed by the FBI on 11-25-1963. He only “vaguely” recalled Oswald at all. The only incident he recalled was that Oswald had been picking on him (he was in the 6th grade, Our Innocent Patsy was in the 9th), whereupon his brother John had fought Oswald. He recalled no details of the fight at all, only that John had won.
The FBI then spoke with John Neumeyer on 11-27-63. Did he describe a brawl, you ask? Uh, no. John recalled that he was in either the 7th or 8th grade at the time – like Mike, younger than Oswald. This fight was his only contact, ever, with Oswald. To quote the FBI report: “NEUMEYER recalls that OSWALD struck him a few times and that ended the fight.”
Hmmm, not exactly the block-by-block brawl described by Voebel, who was either fabricating or suffering from the common malady of conflating memories. What actually occurred was recalled by Bennierita Smith in her WC testimony. Robin Riley, a small but older friend of the Neumeyers who was not a student at Beauregard, had belted Oswald after the Neumeyer encounter:
Mrs. SMITH. One fight really impressed me, I guess because there was this boy – he wasn't going to Beauregard, this boy he had the fight with, and he was a little guy. I think his name was Robin Riley. He hit Lee, and his tooth came through his lip.
Mr. LIEBELER. Through the upper part of his lip?
Mrs. SMITH. Oh, gee, I don't know whether it was a bottom –
Mr. LIEBELER. But it actually tore the lip?
Mrs. SMITH. Yes; it actually tore the lip, and I remember – what is that boy's name? – the blond fellow that was on television that knew him so well?
Mr. LIEBELER. Are you thinking of Edward Voebel?
Mrs. SMITH. That is him.
Mr. LIEBELER. V-o-e-b-e-l?
Mrs. SMITH. He took him back in school, and I guess they kind of patched his lip up, but he was – he more or less kept to himself, he didn't mix with the other kids in school other than Voebel. He is the only one I remember.
(Robin Riley became a minor actor in Hollywood. He died in 1983. His death certificate is in the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University, but sloppy Armstrong misspells his name as Reily.)
At the WC, Voebel also suggested for the first time that Oswald might have actually lost a tooth, although he was not definitive on this:
JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right?
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.
In the hands of Factoid Master Armstrong, this testimony by Voebel definitively establishes that Oswald lost a tooth, the gap thereafter appearing in the classroom photo. Armstrong’s version blends everything together: a lengthy fight with John Neumeyer, witnessed by numerous students, in which Oswald’s lip was bloodied (uh, no) and Oswald being clocked “a few days later” by Robin Riley, who accosted him on the school steps and ran away. To make everything work, Armstrong assures us the fights occurred in November 1954 and the classroom photo was taken “shortly after the fight.” Armstrong has no way of knowing any of this.
(Armstrong also states, “Forty years later Johnny Neumeyer and John Lane still remembered the fight, but neither man remembered whether or not Oswald lost a tooth.” Really? I could find no basis for this statement in the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University, nor even any indication as to who John Lane is or was. Moreover, in 1963, only nine years after the fight, John Neumeyer had only recalled that the older Oswald had hit him a few times and this had quickly ended the fight.)
The truth is pretty obvious, is it not? Oswald did not lose a tooth in a fight. He was clocked by Robin Riley, causing a tooth to penetrate his lip and leave the scar observed at autopsy. Edward Voebel, God love him, was a confused, blathering showoff by the time be testified to the WC, his story having become considerably grander than in all previous interviews. The photo is simply Oswald clowning around, either with a pen cap over his tooth or, more probably in my estimation, a piece of chewing gum over his tooth as most of us did numerous times as kids (and some of us still do as aged adults because it is, in fact, wildly humorous). It’s possible that the “gap” is simply a photographic artifact of his funky front teeth as the OP suggests, but given the circumstances of the photo I lean toward the pen cap or chewing gum.
This additional truth is obvious, is it not? Armstrong will stop at nothing, and stoop to anything, to promote his wacky theory. (The photo is Lee, not Harvey, just in case you were wondering.) He cannot be trusted. His work cannot be trusted. Everything I have stated here is in documents in the John Armstrong Collection; he had it all. I have yet to fact-check one Armstrong-fueled factoid that stood up to scrutiny.
This additional truth is obvious, is it not? The “missing tooth” factoid will never die. It is enshrined in Conspiracy Gospel and will live forever. And you will continue to mentally masturbate over it because that's the extent of your interest in the JFKA. It's fun! It's a hobby! Who cares if anything makes sense? The fact that the autopsied and exhumed Oswald had his front teeth merely demonstrates the breadth and depth of the insidious, multi-faceted, almost-impossible-to-comprehend Conspiracy of All Conspiracies!
Back to the cave, I remain, as ever,
The Caped Factoid Buster
-
The Caped Factoid Buster (that would be me) must once again emerge from the Factoid Busting Cave and demonstrate to you pathetic folks what sanity - or insanity, as the case may be - actually looks like when it comes to Conspiracy Factoids. This happens to be one of the Caped One’s favorites because it, like so many others, can be traced to Factoid Master John Armstrong.
The “missing tooth” photo was taken by Sidney Edward Voebel in the English 202 class at Beauregard Junior High School, most likely in 1954. According to an FBI memorandum dated 12-3-1963, Voebel did not recall the exact date the photo was taken but believed it was during the 1954-55 school year. Voebel’s recollection was that he was not a member of the English 202 class at the time but was going from classroom to classroom taking photos for the school yearbook. (Voebel was interviewed several times by police and FBI, as early as 11-25-1963, because he was also affiliated with Oswald in the Civil Air Patrol.)
Voebel recalled that Oswald had “turned and faced the camera in a clown-like attitude.” Voebel surmised that Oswald saw him come into the room and clowned around because he knew him. He described Oswald’s action as “spontaneous” and not staged. On the other hand, the English 202 teacher who had taught both Voebel and Oswald, Helen DuFour, described Voebel as a “showoff” who would “often disrupt the class.” So possibly he encouraged Oswald or Oswald reacted because he knew Voebel would enjoy his antics. Presumably because of Oswald’s clowning, the photo did not appear in the yearbook. (Voebel died at age 31 in 1971.)
Voebel told the FBI he had made the photo available to WDSU-TV in New Orleans. (It seems odd that Voebel would still have had this 1954 photo in 1963, recalled Oswald being in it, and immediately made it available to WDSU, but we’ll leave this mystery for another day. Possibly Voebel was actually Umbrella Man, ya think?) WDSU told the FBI it had provided the negative to LIFE Magazine, but it provided prints to the FBI on 12-3-1963. (There is confusion about payment. Armstrong says Voebel received $75 from LIFE, others say $25 from WDSU.)
When Voebel was first interviewed by the FBI on 11-25-1963, before the photo was known, he recalled a fight between Oswald and brothers Mike and John Neumeyer but provided no details. He subsequently told the FBI it appeared that Oswald’s tooth had pierced his lip and that he (Voebel) had put ice on it in the school restroom; nothing was said about a missing tooth until he testified to the Warren Commission (see below) on April 7, 1964. Likewise, fellow student Bennierita Smith described Oswald during her WC testimony (see below) as suffering a tooth through his lip; nothing about a missing tooth. Fellow student Dmitri Bouzon described a bloody lip; again, nothing about a missing tooth. Perhaps most significantly, Oswald’s aunt Lilliam Murret described a “tooth through the lip,” causing mother Marguerite to take Our Innocent Patsy to the dentist for repairs. Consistent with this injury, a pale scar was observed on Oswald’s upper lip at his autopsy.
Here is where everything goes awry: When Voebel testified before the WC, he described for the first time a wild brawl involving Oswald and John Neumeyer. The brawl occurred because Oswald had picked on John’s younger brother Mike. The “protracted” fight extended “across lawns and sidewalks, and people would run them off, and they would only run to the next place, and it continued that way from block to block, and as people would run them off of one block, they would go on to the next.”
Does this sound to you, My Fellow Factoid Fans, like a plausible fight between two junior high school kids? Or does it sound more like Voebel the showoff as described by his former teacher Helen DuFour? Well, let's see what the Neumeyers themselves had to say ...
Mike Neumeyer had been interviewed by the FBI on 11-25-1963. He only “vaguely” recalled Oswald at all. The only incident he recalled was that Oswald had been picking on him (he was in the 6th grade, Our Innocent Patsy was in the 9th), whereupon his brother John had fought Oswald. He recalled no details of the fight at all, only that John had won.
The FBI then spoke with John Neumeyer on 11-27-63. Did he describe a brawl, you ask? Uh, no. John recalled that he was in either the 7th or 8th grade at the time – like Mike, younger than Oswald. This fight was his only contact, ever, with Oswald. To quote the FBI report: “NEUMEYER recalls that OSWALD struck him a few times and that ended the fight.”
Hmmm, not exactly the block-by-block brawl described by Voebel, who was either fabricating or suffering from the common malady of conflating memories. What actually occurred was recalled by Bennierita Smith in her WC testimony. Robin Riley, a small but older friend of the Neumeyers who was not a student at Beauregard, had belted Oswald after the Neumeyer encounter:
Mrs. SMITH. One fight really impressed me, I guess because there was this boy – he wasn't going to Beauregard, this boy he had the fight with, and he was a little guy. I think his name was Robin Riley. He hit Lee, and his tooth came through his lip.
Mr. LIEBELER. Through the upper part of his lip?
Mrs. SMITH. Oh, gee, I don't know whether it was a bottom –
Mr. LIEBELER. But it actually tore the lip?
Mrs. SMITH. Yes; it actually tore the lip, and I remember – what is that boy's name? – the blond fellow that was on television that knew him so well?
Mr. LIEBELER. Are you thinking of Edward Voebel?
Mrs. SMITH. That is him.
Mr. LIEBELER. V-o-e-b-e-l?
Mrs. SMITH. He took him back in school, and I guess they kind of patched his lip up, but he was – he more or less kept to himself, he didn't mix with the other kids in school other than Voebel. He is the only one I remember.
(Robin Riley became a minor actor in Hollywood. He died in 1983. His death certificate is in the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University, but sloppy Armstrong misspells his name as Reily.)
At the WC, Voebel also suggested for the first time that Oswald might have actually lost a tooth, although he was not definitive on this:
JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right?
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.
In the hands of Factoid Master Armstrong, this testimony by Voebel definitively establishes that Oswald lost a tooth, the gap thereafter appearing in the classroom photo. Armstrong’s version blends everything together: a lengthy fight with John Neumeyer, witnessed by numerous students, in which Oswald’s lip was bloodied (uh, no) and Oswald being clocked “a few days later” by Robin Riley, who accosted him on the school steps and ran away. To make everything work, Armstrong assures us the fights occurred in November 1954 and the classroom photo was taken “shortly after the fight.” Armstrong has no way of knowing any of this.
(Armstrong also states, “Forty years later Johnny Neumeyer and John Lane still remembered the fight, but neither man remembered whether or not Oswald lost a tooth.” Really? I could find no basis for this statement in the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University, nor even any indication as to who John Lane is or was. Moreover, in 1963, only nine years after the fight, John Neumeyer had only recalled that the older Oswald had hit him a few times and this had quickly ended the fight.)
The truth is pretty obvious, is it not? Oswald did not lose a tooth in a fight. He was clocked by Robin Riley, causing a tooth to penetrate his lip and leave the scar observed at autopsy. Edward Voebel, God love him, was a confused, blathering showoff by the time be testified to the WC, his story having become considerably grander than in all previous interviews. The photo is simply Oswald clowning around, either with a pen cap over his tooth or, more probably in my estimation, a piece of chewing gum over his tooth as most of us did numerous times as kids (and some of us still do as aged adults because it is, in fact, wildly humorous). It’s possible that the “gap” is simply a photographic artifact of his funky front teeth as the OP suggests, but given the circumstances of the photo I lean toward the pen cap or chewing gum.
This additional truth is obvious, is it not? Armstrong will stop at nothing, and stoop to anything, to promote his wacky theory. (The photo is Lee, not Harvey, just in case you were wondering.) He cannot be trusted. His work cannot be trusted. Everything I have stated here is in documents in the John Armstrong Collection; he had it all. I have yet to fact-check one Armstrong-fueled factoid that stood up to scrutiny.
This additional truth is obvious, is it not? The “missing tooth” factoid will never die. It is enshrined in Conspiracy Gospel and will live forever. And you will continue to mentally masturbate over it because that's the extent of your interest in the JFKA. It's fun! It's a hobby! Who cares if anything makes sense? The fact that the autopsied and exhumed Oswald had his front teeth merely demonstrates the breadth and depth of the insidious, multi-faceted, almost-impossible-to-comprehend Conspiracy of All Conspiracies!
Back to the cave, I remain, as ever,
The Caped Factoid Buster
Back to the cave
Are you absolutely sure, this time?
-
How about that John. The know nothing do nothing group has responded and demonstrated that they really know nothing and cannot do anything.
I'm used to the Laurel and Hardly's around here who with an instant knee jerk reaction will immediately poo poo practically any evidence that a LNer presents. But if they spent a little time, like more than a second to actually analyse exactly what they are rejecting then perhaps they could see the light! But I guess their intense hatred of logically presented arguments just blinds them.
JohnM
-
Sorry, JohnM, but it looks to me as though he's missing a tooth and that the reason he's leaning his head back and "clowning" for the camera is so we can see it.
TomG
That's a mighty big gap, how many teeth do you think would fit in that space?
(https://i.postimg.cc/s2LKJmLz/osw-ald-tooth.jpg)
And one more thing to try, go to the mirror and hold your head back at a similar angle and cover your upper front teeth with your upper lip and tell me how many molar teeth you can see?
In this photo, we can see about half the upper front teeth yet we can't even see one side on any molar, but within the mouth we can clearly see the chewing side.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JzNBMD2j/mouth-open-looking-up.jpg)
And here in contrast is Oswald smiling and bearing as much teeth as that allows, and exactly how much surface area can we see of the rear teeth?
(https://i.postimg.cc/yddJmfYT/oswald-tooth2.jpg)
JohnM
-
Back to the cave
Are you absolutely sure, this time?
If Payette has something meaningful to add he's always welcome to post, no one is forcing you to read his comments, why do you care?
JohnM
-
The internet persona "Lance Payette" and the internet persona "The Caped Factoid Buster" are, of course, distinct internet personae, much like Bruce Wayne and The Caped Crusader. Not unlike The Caped Crusader, The Caped Factoid Buster is pledged to exposing Absurd Conspiracy Factoids wherever they raise their silly heads, especially if The Caped One has previously done considerable work on said Absurd Conspiracy Factoid and can expose it with minimal work on his part. Moreover, The Caped One finds it exceedingly merry and mirthful to expose the Comically Credulous Dolts who uncritically accept Absurd Conspiracy Factoids as though they were fundamentalist gospel. It's a hoot, I tell ya! And the fact that the CCD have no clue what a hoot it is makes it even more of a hoot!
OK, back into the Factoidmobile (gotta find a better name) and on to the Cave until my services are once again required. If an Absurd Conspiracy Factoid rears its head, Police Commissioner Gordon knows how to summon me, or him, or whatever.
As ever, I remain,
The Caped Factoid Buster
-
The internet persona "Lance Payette" and the internet persona "The Caped Factoid Buster" are, of course, distinct internet personae, much like Bruce Wayne and The Caped Crusader. Not unlike The Caped Crusader, The Caped Factoid Buster is pledged to exposing Absurd Conspiracy Factoids wherever they raise their silly heads, especially if The Caped One has previously done considerable work on said Absurd Conspiracy Factoid and can expose it with minimal work on his part. Moreover, The Caped One finds it exceedingly merry and mirthful to expose the Comically Credulous Dolts who uncritically accept Absurd Conspiracy Factoids as though they were fundamentalist gospel. It's a hoot, I tell ya! And the fact that the CCD have no clue what a hoot it is makes it even more of a hoot!
OK, back into the Factoidmobile (gotta find a better name) and on to the Cave until my services are once again required. If an Absurd Conspiracy Factoid rears its head, Police Commissioner Gordon knows how to summon me, or him, or whatever.
As ever, I remain,
The Caped Factoid Buster
...and taken about as serious as any comic book.
-
If Payette has something meaningful to add he's always welcome to post, no one is forcing you to read his comments, why do you care?
JohnM
"something meaningful"
Why doesn't he pay attention to what you're saying, how disappointing!
-
W. Tracy Parnell,
I'm just saying what it looks like to me.
Okay?
No problem.
-
Back to the cave, I remain, as ever,
The Caped Factoid Buster
Good summary Mr. Factoid Buster and please do check in from time to time.
-
No problem.
Good.
Now, to extend a convo I had with you at another location a couple of months ago, if I could just get you to realize that British Intelligence (Philby, Maclean, Burgess, Blunt, Cairncross, Vassall, Blake, Hollis, et al.) wasn't the only intelligence service that was heavily penetrated by the Ruskies . . .
-
Because we members of The Caped Fraternity try to be fair, I consulted my very own copy of Harvey & Lee & Ted & Alice to see if I could figure out what the heck Armstrong is talking about.
Armstrong says in H&L that in 1995 he spoke for four hours with John Neumeyer, who was then living in Las Vegas. Four hours!!!??? The call ostensibly lasted until 3 AM, meaning Armstrong called him at 11 PM. If the notes of this conversation are in the John Armstrong Collection, I didn’t find them even though the collection is easily searchable. (It appears that John Neumeyer may still be living at age 85, now in Pass Christian, Mississippi. Call him and harass him! See what story he tells now! Maybe he was Umbrella Man!)
As you will see, Armstrong’s obsessive diligence was remarkable to the point of being comical. It’s my belief that he so overwhelmed himself with minutiae that this explains many of the errors in his voluminous magnum opus.
Anyway, Armstrong says Neumeyer “clearly remembered the fight, which lasted quite a while, and said that he hit Oswald hard in the mouth several times, but was not sure if he knocked out one of his front teeth.” What??? Neumeyer in 1995 clearly recalled a fight entirely different from what he had recalled when he spoke with the FBI in 1963, 32 years earlier – a fight that his younger brother barely remembered at all in 1963?
But note this, Factoid Fans: Even in 1995, Neumeyer did not confirm what Armstrong now claims – i.e., that he had knocked out Oswald’s tooth! Armstrong combined Neumeyer’s uncertainty with the silly “missing tooth” photo to reach his conclusion. 1.49 + 0.75 = 20.7 in Armstrong World.
In 1995 Neumeyer also had a more specific recollection of when the fight occurred: “Neumeyer told me his fight with Oswald occurred sometime in the fall of his 9th grade year at Beauregard (1954-55).” This set Armstrong off on a truly remarkable quest to date the missing tooth photo.
He noticed a picture above the blackboard in the photo: “With a magnifying glass I examined the picture and noticed a ‘crown’ and the name ‘Hallmark’ in the lower right hand corner, which I recognized as the company logo for Hallmark Greeting Cards.” By contacting Hallmark, he determined this was an ad “which appeared in the November 17, 1954, edition of Scholastic Magazine.” This told him, he says, that the fight with Neumeyer had occurred sometime before that date (i.e., because the fight was how Voebel first became acquainted with Oswald and the photo ostensibly shows a missing tooth from the fight). The photo thus was taken “shortly after” the fight, according to Armstrong. This is Armstrong Logic, which doesn’t quite hold water, but we’ll let it go.
Concerning the photo, Oswald’s 8th grade homeroom teacher, Myra DaRouse, saw it in LIFE Magazine and told Armstrong in 1995 that it appeared the clowning kid had a missing front tooth. She knew “for certain” that her Oswald did not have a missing front tooth. Because The Caped One is sane, he interprets this as further evidence that Oswald did not have a missing tooth. Because Armstrong is a Factoid Master, he interprets this to mean the kid is not Harvey but Lee. (Just in case you don’t know, Armstrong believes Voebel knew both Lee and Harvey at Beauregard, losing touch with Harvey after June of 1954 and meeting Lee in October of that year. Oh, Jesus ….)
Neumeyer also confirmed for Armstrong that Robin Riley had also punched Oswald in the kisser. The mysterious John Lane likewise confirmed this for Armstrong: “The identity of Robin Riley was confirmed during one of my interviews with Neumeyer … and with John Lane, a boy who was standing at the bottom of the steps and witnessed Riley punch Lee Oswald in the mouth.” This is the sole reference to Lane in H&L.
What does all this tell us:
1. Armstrong was diligent as hell, we’ll give him that.
2. As I originally stated, Armstrong and his sycophants play fast and loose with the facts because they are hellbent to promote a theory that is bat guano crazy, at the level of “Queen Elizabeth was a shape-shifting reptilian alien."
3. The substance of my original post stands as written.
Thanking you for your kind attention, which I realize is difficult for CT goofs who think only in terms of Conspiracy Factoid soundbites and wouldn't know genuine research if it bit them on the fanny, I remain, as ever,
The Caped Factoid Buster
-
Could Cave Lance be ridden with some kind of split personality disorder?
-
Could Cave Lance be ridden with some kind of split personality disorder?
He's just having a little fun, it's called having a sense of humour!
You should try it sometime and no, putting the umpteenth "ROFL" at the end of your posts doesn't count.
But at least that's one characteristic that unites the CK's, you're all so bloody miserable, on your crusade to change the World! Yee Haa!
JohnM