Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tom Neal

Members
  • Content Count

    900
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tom Neal

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/12/1953

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Orlando, FL

Recent Profile Visitors

2,637 profile views
  1. Jim, Thanks for the support and for adding some sanity and the Scientific Method to the conversation. I'd like to repeat: I have stated that I am only referring to the the dental records in my statements NOT the entirety of the case for H&L. If someone chooses to say that Lee lost a tooth and THIS dental record is unquestionable proof of this fact then I disagree. I have further stated that this evidence should NOT be thrown out - it should be lowered from unquestionable proof to supporting "evidence" of the existence of H&L. If one chooses to accept that a particular record was altered because all, or many of the records were altered, then ANY document can support ANY theory you want. This records must FIRST be judged ON ITS OWN. That method is science. I did consult 3 dentists. One was army trained, and has decades of civilian practice. If Larsen has bothered to ask a single dental professional I missed it in his post. He has gone so far as to state that my dentist, not dentists, are wrong and he is right because he has studied this for 30 days. Does anyone think that these guys have more than 30 days experience reading a dental chart? I have lived in a large number of states and several countries. In EVERY instance, the initial exam recorded my missing tooth by placing an X on the chart. In every case the bridge is described and placed on the diagrams, not JUST on the MISSING TEETH, etc. diagram. This is also true of my Navy records. You can't get closer to the Marines than the Navy. When my missing tooth was replaced with a dental implant it is still regarded as a MISSING TOOTH, and the implant is clearly marked on the chart. These records could not be confiscated by the FBI as someone has suggested. They have no jurisdiction over the military. Due to LHO's sortie to Russia, ONI/G2 had full control over any MC records. The FBI would only see what ONI wanted them to see. Larsen's "explanations" are that the dentist "forgot" to mark the missing tooth on the diagram. Considering the number of markings on the chart, I hardly think that the MOST obvious defect in LHO's teeth was completely forgotten on at least 3 diagrams. His other explanation is that "missing teeth are not marked on the chart because they have been replaced by a bridge." The 3 dental professionals are in agreement that this is simply not true in the military or civilian world. If anyone prefers to believe Larson's 30 day experience is superior to these professionals, then there is no sense arguing with you. Where is the record stating the replacement of the bridge? Fillings, sealant, etc. are stated but NOT the replacement of an expensive bridge? This is LHO's permanent medical record. What would a dentist think when LHO was in Japan? The missing tooth and bridge are not marked on the initial exam so he didn't have a missing tooth upon entry to the MC, and there is no record of a prosthesis install, so what does a single FAILED notation in the prosthesis box mean? If this is Harvey's record altered to suit Lee, then Lee must not have ANY dental records at all. Why not? No where else in the dental record is there ANY indication of a missing tooth and replacement, and there certainly would be. The sole purpose of altering the record is to remove ALL indications of a missing tooth. If you accept Larsen's two "explanations" then you have to accept that there was no need to mention the missing tooth/prosthesis in the entire dental record. So how exactly was this entire record altered? 1. All info regarding a missing tooth was literally erased from every page. In this case missing words, etc. would be obvious. Unlikely to say the least. 2. Certainly ONI/G2 could obtain a BLANK record. Why not fill them in and not mention the missing tooth/prosthesis at all? Well... You have to now accept that despite the fact that the SOLE purpose of alteration was to remove any mention of a missing tooth someone from ONI, or FBI (as postulated) stupidly copied information into a box labelled PROSTHESIS and no one checked the form and no one noticed. ONI and FBI with all their experience and resources couldn't find anyone with dental credentials to alter this VITAL record? No one who knew what a prosthesis was, or was willing to ask what it was? If you can accept the error stated in #2 above, then you must accept that even a professional can make an outrageous error. Is it any more difficult to accept that this FAILED comment was simply placed on the WRONG dental chart? In summary, despite what has been posted, I am looking at this as a standalone document, not a statement that the H&L theory is BS. Putting this record into the entirety of the case for H&L this is noteworthy, but is in no way "INDISPUTABLE" NEW evidence.
  2. What about the chart that specifically states "MISSING TEETH"? Where is any evidence that work was done to fix/replace the alleged prosthesis in ANY of his dental records. There isn't ANY. Keep ignoring that. I didn't say that only a dentist could understand it, you are just making things up to make me look bad. I said they are more qualified than you. You on the other hand, regard your opinion as superior to an experienced qualified professional.
  3. "Obviously, you're wrong." Oh well, IF you think so, then it MUST be true. And that is why EVERY response is in 100% agreement with you... There is No new info in your post. Everything you say has been refuted in my other posts. You have no qualifications to state that your opinion is vastly superior to mine. Unless you come up with something new that is relevant, don't expect a response from me. I would however like to hear from Jim Hargrove or ANYONE else regarding my evaluation of this particular dental record.
  4. Different year, same Larsen. You decided that a missing tooth that has been replaced by a bridge is NOT marked on the chart because it's no longer missing. Where is yourevidence that ANY dentist would do that? This is what you want to be true and is pure speculation. And stop talking down to everyone as if you are some sort of dental expert. This is stated in my initial post. As usual you expect everyone to respond to questions that have been answered in previous posts.
  5. Oh, well. If YOU declare me and others to be mistaken, then we must be wrong, and as ALWAYS you alone with you qualifications in *everything* must be right, simply because you say so... What do actual dentists know as compared to you. Dental charts are shared when a patient moves on, so of course each dentist writes whatever he wants because that doesn't cause problems when another dentist reads it.
  6. I will take the opinion of actual dentists regarding what is stated on the chart over your unsupported speculation any day. They are qualified to evaluate it and you are not. Read my post that replies to Jim H's reply...
  7. Hi Jim, Thanks for the reply. I hope all is well with you. This USMC record *IS* the "NEW" "UNDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE" which is the crux of this thread, is it not? If there was no previous evidence that LHO had lost a front tooth, is this record unquestionable proof that one or more of his FRONT teeth are missing? Presuming that the "FAILED" notation does indeed indicate 100% that LHO had a prosthesis, where in this document is the actual location of this device stated? i.e. On which tooth? If the explanation that 'they don't mark a missing tooth' if it has been replaced by a bridge is true, then ANY tooth in LHO's mouth could have the FAILED prosthesis. JIM: Without having the opportunity to question Marine dentists from the era, Sandy’s explanation sounds possible to me. I strongly disagree with his "explanation." The chart I mentioned is the result of the dental examination. Why would there be no indication whatsoever of a missing tooth, or the attachment of a bridge on *this* chart? This would be the most notable item of his dental condition. The fact that this missing tooth or bridge is NOT mentioned in any record is the strongest evidence that LHO's front teeth were present. Also, if the "FAILED" statement refers to a bridge, it must have eventually been repaired or replaced. This work would be indicated in the dental records, but it is not. There is no reasonable explanation for this omission. My dentist was trained by the Army, and assures me that these teeth *SHOULD* have been marked both on the exam chart, and the "MISSING TEETH" chart. This is Dental 101. Additionally, if the "FAILED" statement refers to a bridge or other prosthesis the type of device must be stated in the box. Again, nowhere in his dental records is a repair or replacement of an existing prosthesis EVER indicated. Are there any USMC photos of LHO with missing front teeth? The USMC would have done the work for free. Would the perpetually poor LHO have this work done after he left the Marines? This chart is an evaluation of LHO's teeth which would be used for future reference and for further work based on this exam. And a permanent part of his USMC dental record. e.g. His qualifications for overseas duty, which would require proof that his dental work was completed. JIM: The “PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58” seems awfully specific to have been written in error. The only explanation H&L critics have offered for it is that it was a reference to dental sealants, which I do not think is reasonable. How would you explain that notation? I'm not just nitpicking here, but doesn't it actually state in the prosthesis box "FAILED 5-5-58"? If it actually stated "PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58" then it would unquestionably tell us that he had a prosthesis, but NOT that it replaced a FRONT tooth. I can't offer an explanation that unquestionably explains the location of this statement. However, that fact that NOWHERE in this document is there ANY statement that a prosthesis was present at any time, or repaired (what are the chances that this repair was done but not recorded anywhere?), and there is NO indication that this alleged prosthesis replaced a FRONT tooth, rather than some other tooth, the weight of this document (standing alone!) indicates that there was no prosthesis. The heading of the box containing the FAILED statement is: "PROSTHESIS REQUIRED (If yes, explain briefly)" According to my dentists, IF LHO had a prosthesis in place during the initial exam this is where it should have been entered along with its location depicted on the chart. However, it was blank at that time. On a later date, specifically 5-5-58, the FAILED notation was added. According to my dentists, adding this statement to a chart that has no indication that a prosthesis ever existed is wrong. Taken at face value, this chart indicates that LHO had his front teeth during the initial exam, and sometime between then and 5-5-58 he had a prosthesis installed, but not by the USMC, and this prosthesis had FAILED. Work was performed on 5-14-58, but not on a front tooth and nothing about a prosthesis. Therefore, the USMC did not repair of replace his prosthesis, but he had front teeth in all of his USMC photos. If LHO had a missing FRONT tooth then all documents in his dental record are incorrect due to the omission of information regarding a missing tooth and prosthesis, and the unsupported FAILED statement is correct. The alternative is that the FAILED statement is an error, and that page and the rest of the document are correct. If the former statement is correct, then you must accept multiple errors on multiple documents, and if the latter statement is correct, than you must accept a single error on a single page. The simplest explanation is that this "FAILED" statement was entered in the prosthesis box by error. This is of course not 100% proof and will be accepted by some, and rejected by some. IMO, this FAILED statement should NOT be ignored, but reduced from its alleged 'UNDISPUTED PROOF' status to something that is to be noted, and used to promote further investigation into LHO's dental records. To oversell it's importance as UNDISPUTED does a disservice to the important topic of Harvey and Lee, as can be seen by the multitude of negative comments. If this topic had been titled "New Information From LHO's Dental Records" far less opposition would have arisen, and possibly more support. Again, the above statements are an evaluation of this document standing on its own... Considering the H&L information in its entirely - Could missing tooth "Lee" have replaced toothed "Lee" in this time period? i.e. The initial exam was performed on Lee-Tooth, and the 1958 exam performed on Lee-NoTooth?
  8. After more than a year of not posting on this site due to statements like the above, I find that nothing has changed. My post refers ONLY to LHO's dental records and the specific page that includes the examination diagram and "FAILED" statement. Evidence of the existence of H&L is NOT considered in the interpretation of what this page states/implies in this post. Referring to my own dental charts, and what I've been told by the dentists that made them over my lifetime I state the following: A missing tooth is indeed marked with an X. A missing tooth that has been replaced by a prosthetic (even one that is considered permanent) is still a "missing" *TOOTH* and is indicated as such on a dental chart. A prosthetic is *NOT* a tooth, and that particular tooth will always be "missing." This has been confirmed by all three of the dentists at the practice I have used for the last 30 years. An existing 'filling' or any type of bridge that is found during the initial exam is marked on the dental diagrams. This indicates that work has been done on this tooth prior to *this* examination. Regarding a filling, the decay has been removed and replaced by something other than natural tooth enamel, so it is noted on the diagram. Applying the illogic that a missing tooth that has been replaced by an "artificial" tooth is no longer "missing" indicates that existing fillings would not be marked on the exam chart either. Yet they are. At the top of LHO's USMC dental chart includes a diagram (on the left) to be marked to indicate the condition of his teeth per the examination at that time. Are either of LHO's upper front teeth marked with an "X"? Is there any indication of an installed bridge? If not, then the dentist didn't consider a missing tooth worthy of noting, or he didn't notice it. Neither possibility inspires confidence in the accuracy of this page of dental records. The dental diagram on this page, clearly indicates that LHO's two front teeth were present at the time of this examination. IF the "FAILED" comment refers to a prosthetic device, surely somewhere in his records a clear statement would exist that this device was either repaired or replaced, else LHO would not have been cleared for overseas duty. Certainly, in the 30 pages of the usual personal attacks, parsing of sentences, closed minds, and general illogic I could have missed evidence of the above. If so, could someone direct me to it?
  9. Michael Walton, Pardon the somewhat personal question, but I don't think you would object to responding... It's impossible to read multiple postings from an individual and not form an opinion as to how their minds work. Particularly their methods used to form and defend an 'unpopular' (at least on this site) opinion, such as your insistence that the extant film "came out of Abe's camera." These perceived methods may be extrapolated into fields other than the assassination as an indication of this opinion's degree of accuracy. I have neither posted here, nor read any threads here for many months, so have not read any opinion stated by you in the Hillary v. Trump debacle. I returned to read the comments re John Newman's new publications, but have done a quick scan of the current topics, and you continued denial of Z-film alteration caught my attention. In my opinion, you didn't like either candidate enough to support their election. Despite their vast differences, and the undeniable fact that one of these two would end up in the White House, rather than choose the lesser of the two evils, you chose not to vote at all. Also, you are QUITE confident that you made the right choice so you will have no qualms in responding to my opinion. I am simply curious as to whether or not my opinion is accurate, and I thank you in advance for any response. And yes, I also do card tricks, tell fortunes, and predict the future...
  10. Bennett's testimony is frequently dismissed by several long-term EF members because he is "looking in the wrong direction" when the shot was fired. My response has been; when exactly did this shot occur on the Z-film? None have responded. When asked exactly when still photos were taken of Bennett looking "right" and not at JFK no one responded. Bennett himself states that he was looking "right" when he heard a shot. He was seated on the right hand side of the car and per SS procedure SHOULD have been looking right. He further states that upon hearing the shot he immediately looked at the President, saw the impact of a second shot which struck his back, and turned back to the right looking for the source of the shot. Unless a still photo was taken during the second or two Bennett was looking at JFK he would be seen looking to the right. Considering the lack of a consensus, as to the precise time of the shot, can we determine the direction Bennett was looking on every Z-frame when that shot might have occurred? Not in my opinion... There is a paragraph or two in one of Hill's books where Paul Landis states that at the time he boarded AF-1 after the assassination he was essentially a mental basket case and was not pleased with himself for falling apart like this. He compares his state of mind to the professional manner in which Glenn Bennett sat with notebook in hand writing down his observations of the shooting. Bennett stated the time and location as to when he made these notes which are on record. Many members here dismiss this fact, and state that he 'made the notes the next day' to buttress the autopsy conclusions AFTER the autopsy had revealed the back wound. The fact that Landis not only provides evidence as to when and where Bennett wrote these notes, the circumstances he describes most definitely would remain in his memory. If Landis made up this statement, WHY would he admit to behavior that he himself was ashamed of? He could simply have stated that he was impressed with Bennett's professional behavior when every one else was bouncing off the walls. That would be a perfectly credible statement. IMO, Bennett saw what he says he saw.
  11. Case Closed and Bugliosi's book tied as the least "believable" books ever written about the JFK assassination. Case Closed and United Fruit's relationship to CIA is as well known as CIA's complicity in the assassination. If it wasn't already, your credibility is less than zero... EDIT: Jim D. I responded before reading the entire thread. Your comments as expected are right on the mark.
  12. Trump would choose the presidency, but being Trump he would get caught making business deals. Once a Trump, ALWAYS a Trump.
  13. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is rather vague even in legal terms. If Trump could be shown to have participated or even encouraged Russian hacking of the election, then that allegation would be enough for impeachment hearings. He did publicly state that he hoped the Russians would hack Hillary's emails. If elected he is signalling that the Russians would have done a good thing with no fear of reprisals. Encouraging election tampering is not a crime, but ethics is certainly an issue.
  14. Newsweek - Kurt Eichenwald 1-10-2017 "Moscow is seen as a direct threat to the interests of NATO and other American allies—both in its aggressive efforts to reshape global alliances and for its power to damage Western Europe, which obtains almost 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia. Should the United States, the last remaining superpower, tilt its policies away from NATO to the benefit of Russia, the alliance between America and Western Europe could be transformed in unprecedented ways. And so, for perhaps the first time since World War II, countries in Western Europe fear that the American election of Trump could trigger events that imperil their national security and irreparably harm the alliances that have kept the continent safe for decades." It was the Brits who first warned us of the Russian hacking. *IF* Western Europe continues to view Trump as a major threat and makes it clear that they want Trump out of office, will the Republicans (who didn't want Trump in the first place) endanger our alliance? What does the party have to lose if they dump Trumpty Dumpty? If the Republicans who have spoken out against Trump were to quietly inform the Democrats that they would support impeachment proceedings, the Dems would start the ball rolling. Even an unsuccessful impeachment would hurt Trump badly, so he would be forced to cut a deal or be ousted.
  15. Tom Neal

    Trump?

    Newsweek - Kurt Eichenwald 1-10-2017 Moscow is seen as a direct threat to the interests of NATO and other American allies—both in its aggressive efforts to reshape global alliances and for its power to damage Western Europe, which obtains almost 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia. Should the United States, the last remaining superpower, tilt its policies away from NATO to the benefit of Russia, the alliance between America and Western Europe could be transformed in unprecedented ways. And so, for perhaps the first time since World War II, countries in Western Europe fear that the American election of Trump could trigger events that imperil their national security and irreparably harm the alliances that have kept the continent safe for decades.
×