Jump to content
The Education Forum

Sandy Larsen

Members
  • Content Count

    5,268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sandy Larsen

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday 11/18/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

8,667 profile views
  1. Did you ever get a link for this Ron? How about CoronavirusBellCurve.com ? Scroll down to Texas.
  2. That's a good point, Rick. But I don't know which happened first, the grab/thumbprint or the AP/UPI wires. I get what little I know from Lifton's posts.
  3. The anti-H&L folks haven't been able to debunk any of the evidence pointing to Oswald losing a tooth in the 9th grade. Which, if true, proves that there was an Oswald imposter at the early age of 14 or 15. But they have come up with their best alternate explanations for the evidence. Here they are. Decide for yourself how likely their explanations are: Evidence: Oswald's ninth grade friend, Ed Voebel, testified before the WC that he witnessed a fist fight involving Oswald, and that he thought Oswald got his lip cut and lost a tooth in the fight. Anti H&L response: Ed Voebel was mistaken about the tooth being knocked out. (This in spite of Oswald's aunt corroborating so by testifying that Oswald was taken to a dentist.) Evidence: Oswald's aunt testified before the WC that Oswald's mother took him to see a dentist as a result of the fight. Anti H&L response: Oswald was taken to a dentist to get his cut lip sewed up. (i.e. not because of a lost tooth.) Evidence: A life magazine cover showing Oswald in a ninth grade classroom shows what looks like a missing front tooth. Anti H&L response: 1) What appears to be a missing tooth is really an artifact. Or 2) Oswald is holding a pen cap between his teeth and it is angled up just the right amount to cover only the upper teeth. Evidence: A military dental record for Oswald indicates that his dental prosthesis (false tooth) had broken. Oswald had apparently replaced his missing tooth with a false one. Anti H&L response: The "FAILED 5-5-58" note written in the "Prosthesis Required?" field (see below) isn't really referring to a prosthesis (false tooth). It is referring to a field to the left of the "Prosthesis Required?" field (not shown below) that asks if prophylaxis (teeth cleaning) is needed. It is marked "Yes." The "FAILED 5-5-58" note indicates that Oswald had an appointment for cleaning on 5/5/58, but missed it. Thus it was a "failed" appointment. (This in spite of the fact that there's an appointment section at the bottom of the form where such an appointment could be noted, as well as it being missed.) COMMENTS I think that the only believable alternate missing-tooth explanation is the one given by Greg Doudna, that Oswald is holding a pen cap in his teeth. I can visualize just that when I look at the photo: But despite that possibility (which may or may not be the case) the remaining evidence is very strong. Especially Ed Voebel's testimony of Oswald loosing a tooth and Oswald's aunt's testimony that Marguerite took Oswald to a dentist. These two pieces of testimony (taken under oath, no less) corroborate each other! It is very difficult to get around that. (Nobody would take a person with a cut lip to a dentist to have it stitched.) The prosthesis-failed evidence could conceivably be an unusual mistake that somebody made. But if we were to write it off, we would still have Ed Voebel's and the aunt's testimony, which -- again -- would be hard to get around. Because of that, I believe the prosthesis-failed evidence is simply further corroborating evidence of a missing tooth.
  4. Daniel, I don't believe the back of Kennedy's head is blacked out in the Moorman photo we are talking about. Because apparently this photo was sent on the wire services to news outlets not long after the assassination. Seems there would not have been time for chicanery. But then, perhaps this Moorman shot was taken before the gunshot to the head. In which case there would be no need for blacking out.
  5. Sadly, the forward for Mikovits' book was written by RFK Jr. There goes his credibility.
  6. William. Yes it is and was closed last week, but I understand is open now. When I'm down there, I do what the locals do and park on Highway 1 and just walk in by the ranger booth. No one stops me. I think I've mentioned this before, that Point Lobos was my favorite spot in California. I always took friends visiting from out-of-state there for some stunning short hikes, then on to one or another place new to me, ending at the Santa Cruz boardwalk for hors d'oeuvres at sunset. Talk about atmosphere! Surprisingly few people seemed to know about the place at the time, back in the early 1980s. We'd rarely see others on our hikes. It was sad to see it become a busy tourist site by the end of the decade. I guess that's what happens when you show a great place to all your friends. heh
  7. Jim, I wish you would have taken your response to what Ron said and made a new thread of it, especially considering how long it is. But I won't ask you to remove it because Tracy and Jeremy didn't remove their off-topic comments when I asked them to. Having said that, I want to make just a quick comment on something you wrote, as I quote above: I wonder if the sole purpose of Oswald's staged fight and arrest in New Orleans was to test the national security apparatus of the Federal Government. Food for thought.
  8. There's a reason Ron's sister-in-law suspects that Oswald's dental record is written on a generic off-the-shelf form. Read on and I'll tell you why.... Ron's sister-in-law apparently is accustomed to seeing existing prostheses notated on dental records. And yet there is no instruction on Oswald's record for notating existing prostheses. She reasons, therefore, that this is only because the form used for Oswald is a generic form. And that the dentist has adapted the form to meet his needs, which (of course) includes notating existing prostheses. With that conclusion under her belt, she feels comfortable. She then goes on to say that, since there is no existing prosthesis noted on Oswald's record, he could not have had a failed prosthesis! Does anybody else here see how, because of her bias (i.e. expecting to see existing prostheses notated), she is engaging in circular logic! Let's take a different approach. Let's actually look to see whether the form is generic or is standard military issue. By observing the top fields in the form we quickly discover it is a standard military form. (For example, it asks for military rank.) Now, rather than allowing our biases determine what information should be written on the form, why not read the form and let it tell us what should be written. If you do that, you'll discover that existing prostheses are NOT to be noted. (Not required, anyway.) That alone discredits sister-in-law's contention that there cannot be a failed prosthesis because there is no existing prosthesis to fail. Furthermore, you'll discover that all of my arguments for the "FAILED" entry are consistent with what is on the form. I don't need to pretend that the form says one thing, but has been adapted to mean something else. My interpretation is straight forward and doesn't require any strange wording in odd places. Nothing weird. It's all very simple,
  9. There SHOULDN'T be an indication of a prosthesis on the form! The instructions on the form specifically say to mark these items: Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities Nowhere on the form does it say to list existing prostheses. The purpose of this form is to identify and fix dental problems. An existing prosthesis is not a dental problem.
  10. Maybe so, but people don't go to a dentist to get a cut lip stitched. If a dentist stitches a cut lip, it's because the person went there for a dental problem that also involved a cut lip. This is plain old common sense.
  11. Did so. Her reply: [A] reason for rejecting the notion that "failed" refers to a failed prosthesis of some kind is that there's no description either in writing or on the schematics of an existing prosthesis which had failed and no treatment planning whatever for some sort of replacement. This just wouldn't happen. Ron's sister-in-law is mistaken, as I will show here: Why there are no written details or treatment plan for the failed prosthesis on the dental form: It is because the dentist who was working on Oswald's teeth was a general dentist and not a prosthodontist. Nobody in the dentist's office needed to know details because he would not be the one working on Oswald's prosthesis.. The "FAILED" notation was there only to indicate that Oswald needed to see the prosthodontist to have his prosthesis taken care of. A prosthodontist is a dental specialist who deals with prostheses. Something Ron's sister may not know is that, unlike today, it used to be that general dentists did not do prostheses. General dentists were trained in taking care of and restoring teeth (with fillings), whereas prosthodontists were specialists trained in replacing teeth (with prostheses). (Look it up in Wikipedia if you don't believe me.) Since then, simple prosthetic work has become mainstream and nearly all dentists do all but the more complicated cases. But there are still practicing prosthodontists who can do these. (See the bottom of this post if you want to see evidence that prostheses were not done by general dentists, but rather by specialists in prosthetics.) Why there are no marks on the record indicating that there is presently a prosthesis: There are many kinds of dental forms and records and it is important to determine the purpose of the form used for Oswald. The left tooth schematic instructs the dentist to mark any "Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities." These sound like things that can be and need to be treated. The left schematic instructs the dentist to mark "Dental Treatment Accomplished." And then there is the field asking if a dental prosthesis is required. So obviously the purpose of the form is for the dentist to identify problems and fix them. And keep a record of it. At the time of the initial exam, the existing prosthesis was in good condition. There was no need to mention it or the tooth it replaced because it need no work. About six weeks later the prosthesis was reported as broken. It was time for Oswald to see the prosthodontist. pros·tho·don·tics (prŏs′thə-dŏn′tĭks) n. (used with a sing. verb) The branch of dentistry that deals with the replacement of missing teeth and related mouth or jaw structures by bridges, dentures, or other artificial devices. [prosth(esis) + -odont(ia) + -ics.] pros′tho·don′tic adj. pros′tho·don′tist n. As indicated in the above definition, a prosthodontist is a dental specialist who deals with the replacement of missing teeth. Now lets read what Army Major Irving Peress said in his 1954 testimony before Congress: "....Apparently I was considered the best dentist at the post there, and they needed an extra prosthodontist. And where I was doing general dentistry, which is filling and routine dentistry, they needed another man to help the prosthodontist. .... Well, it was approximately May 1953, that the colonel called me down and said that they had been considering me -- not a promotion in rank, but a promotion in work -- to go to prosthetics and work there. It is my own opinion that I was very good. ...." (Source: Korean War Atrocities: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Korean War Atrocities, p. 137) From this we can see that Major Peress was a general dentist on his base, doing fillings and routine dentistry.... not the more complicated prosthodontic work. But then he was promoted to the prosthetics department, where he and the other prosthodontist worked on dental prostheses. As we see, the general dentist did not do prostheses. A specialist did.
  12. BOOM!!!! And so does the fairy tale of Harriet and Lillian and the missing tooth fairy end happily ever after. Anti-H&L people will latch onto anything, no matter how ridiculous. I'm surprised Ron bought into this explanation.
  13. I don't think so Ron. First, don't you think the dentist would make a "missed appointment" notation down in the APPOINTMENT section of the form? Of course he would. He certainly wouldn't write it in the PROSTHESIS REQUIRED?" field. Or any other designated field. Second, who would think to write the word "failed" for a missed appointment? Virtually nobody. I think most people would write "missed" or "missed appt."
  14. While I'm open to the possibility of a missing tooth, I'm not able to follow the same lines of reasoning as you. For instance, why the insistence that the above document snippet refers to a failed prosthesis. Could it be just as likely the failed refers to the exam? Maybe he had cavities and did not pass a dental exam. Can you provide anything that definitively shows the failure refers to a prosthesis? Similarly, this all seems to hinge on Voebels statement that he "thinks" Oswald "might" have lost a tooth. That statement also means he thinks he might NOT have lost a tooth. Equal weight should be given to that... Mark, The dentist made the "Failed 5-5-58" notation in a field that instructs him as follows: PROSTHESIS REQUIRED? (If "yes", explain briefly.) So obviously what the dentist wrote has nothing to do with failing an exam and everything to do with a prosthesis failure. BTW, if you search google on "dental failure" without the quotes, you will find numerous instances of FAILED dental implants. My point being that "failed" and "failure" are words used to describe broken dental prosthesis.
×
×
  • Create New...