David Josephs Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Because a person's teeth change over time. The best experts in the country examined the remains and found no significant anomalies that were unexplained. Unless you are saying that you know more than they do. You gonna believe your eyes or what people tell you...? There are 3 molars in each corner of his mouth, the boy going into the Marines only had 2... You gonna tell us now that molars grow back after death? Your rebuttal here Tracy is terribly weak... The teeth are not the same, the autopsy doc does not note a single one of the scars the Marines noted, nor does he have the scar from the pistol discharge thru near his elbow.... which happened to Lee. Your "LOCK" evidence, this exhumation report, actually proves our point and contradicts yours... The teeth cannot lie. Edited September 21, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: H&L critics have shown that the school records are simply being misread (in their opinion) Tracy, The school records are easy to read, and they show that Oswald attended two schools simultaneously during the Fall semester of 8th grade. You guys just want to believe they are being misread. And you won't debate over them or even try to explain how to read them any other way... because you can't. So instead you point to a page on Greg Parker's website. Which also doesn't explain how to read them in a different way that is coherent. As I keep saying, you have just the exhumation to hang onto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: ..But they were looking for the scars from the mastoid operation at exhumation and they found them. What H&L critics need to show is how this examination was faked. All we can do is hypothesize because naturally there is no smoking gun document. My hypothesis is that the person charged with locating the scar was told to say it was there, for national security reasons. And perhaps he was given names of several people who had died mysteriously after not cooperating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, David Josephs said: Rose noted the "scratch" and recent antiseptic on the left mastoid muscle... so he certainly looked at that area.. But David, doesn't this sentence say the scratch was on the right side? At the upper end of ties right sternocleidomastoid over the skin is transverse very superficial 3/4 inch scratch with some reddish antiseptic type of paint surrounding this. BTW, I don't understand the first third of that sentence at all. Edited September 21, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 3 hours ago, David Josephs said: There we go! Where's the scar? And yet it was claimed that the scar was seen on Oswald's decomposed flesh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: The photo proves nothing as the scar would not be visible in that photo. Huh? Why wouldn't the scar be visible in that photo, Tracy. You can't just say stuff without something to back it up. That would be Trejoizing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 The point, the hair does not cover the mastoid operation scar... it's behind the ear and down a little. Again Tracy, Rose noted a tiny scratch treated with iodine at the left mastoid... but no operation scar... Rose was not Humes Tracy... Rose was a real doctor who knew what he was doing in an autopsy. Just read the Tippit and Oswald autopsies for how JFK's SHOULD have gone.... And you still cannot fit 200 days of school into 123 days available.... no misreading on your part is necessary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 1 hour ago, David Josephs said: You gonna believe your eyes or what people tell you...? There are 3 molars in each corner of his mouth, the boy going into the Marines only had 2... You gonna tell us now that molars grow back after death? Your rebuttal here Tracy is terribly weak... The teeth are not the same, the autopsy doc does not note a single one of the scars the Marines noted, nor does he have the scar from the pistol discharge thru near his elbow.... which happened to Lee. Your "LOCK" evidence, this exhumation report, actually proves our point and contradicts yours... The teeth cannot lie. Nonsense. The doctors who did the Norton Report were some of the top experts in the country. They mentioned anomalies and stated that charting errors are not uncommon in the military. So you can believe the experts or "Doctor" Josephs. But why listen to me. Take the Norton Report to a forensic pathologist and see if they think somethin funny is going on. Or take the report to an investigative journalist. BTW, the report was published in the Journal of Forensic Science and not one person that read it ever came forward to disagree with the findings. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/norton1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: Huh? Why wouldn't the scar be visible in that photo, Tracy. You can't just say stuff without something to back it up. That would be Trejoizing. The scar is behind the ear. Quote: How is a mastoidectomy performed? Your doctor usually performs a mastoidectomy using general anesthesia. This ensures that you’re asleep and unable to feel pain. For a simple mastoidectomy, your surgeon will usually: Access your mastoid bone through a cut made behind your ear. http://www.healthline.com/health/mastoidectomy#purpose2 From another site quoted by Greg Parker: The procedure for mastoidectomy takes place under general anesthesia administered by our MD Anesthesiologist and takes approximately two to three hours. This is done either by itself or in conjunction with other procedures including tympanoplasty and ossicular chain reconstruction. An incision is made just behind the ear. This incision is typically very well masked within an existing skin crease, and the resulting scar usually heals to the point of being imperceptible to the naked eye. Edited September 21, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, David Josephs said: Rose was a real doctor who knew what he was doing in an autopsy Certainly. But he admits he could have missed the scar and mastoid defect. And the evidence shows that is what happened. Because when the body was dug up, there it was. Unless you can explain that somehow. Edited September 21, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Do you or do you not see 3 molars when the marine records show they are gone..? I'm not questioning the report nor playing doctor.... Lee goes into the Marines... Harvey gets buried... kinda simple even for you Tracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 We are entering the same territory as the school records debate. I have offered an alternate explanation-charting errors. And it is not my idea, it comes from the forensic pathologists who did the report. They understand that there will be errors. But there were enough unique factors to allow a forensic identification. And this was peer reviewed. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 You see Tracy... everything that conflicts with your conclusion is branded a mistake... They read the chart wrong, they can't add, other people looked at it and you're not a doctor.... WAKE UP! or at least pull your head out long enough to think for yourself for a minute.... Do you see a 3rd molar there? Do you see the records showing the 3rd molars and a 5th tooth are missing? Do you see the Oct 81 report showing a full set of teeth except for the one extracted tooth...? except that tooth was already gone when he entered the marines.... and shows markings as if it was being described BEFORE they realized it needed not to be there in the first place... Ooops... What part of "Missing Teeth and Existing Restorations" from 1956/57 do you not understand? ------------------------ Dude... you wanna bury your head in the sand or some other friendly dark place have at it... you point to a report and proclaim "see we're right".... and then act the deaf/dumb/blind fool when asked to consider the information offered... "The Marine's medical reports are all wrong"... remains you and Parker's only rebuttal to the prima fascia evidence of the existence of two men known as Lee Harvey Oswald.... he wasn't in Ping Tung- cause the reports are wrong; he wasn't treated for an STD in Atsugi- cause the reports are wrong; He attended 200 days of school during a period with only 123 available school days- the reports must be wrong... and on and on... and of course this reply to Ely's work on the Oswald bio is... wait for it..... a misinterpreted report... your rebuttals have descended from plain crappy to pathetically weak and desperate. Luckily, those reading have their own minds and can go to the sources and find out for themselves... Difference here being you want people to believe you and Parker's take on the evidence... We simply want people to look at the evidence themselves. You're pitching an alternate reality while I post the evidence.... btw - can you prove Oswald's grave was not disturbed... I seem to remember damage not usually found so soon after a burial... no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Nonsense.... Take the Norton Report to a forensic pathologist and see if they think somethin funny is going on. Or take the report to an investigative journalist. And while you're at it, David, tell them about Operation Northwoods and see if they believe that "nonsense" too. LOL Edited September 21, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 I'll let the Report speak for itself: The second question was whether or not all inconsistencies in the dental records could be explained and the records documented as being authentic. Charting errors are common, especially in a dental health record that has entries by many different practitioners as in the military. The Forensic Dental Examination Summary (Table 3) indicates that the following errors were found and explainable: 1. Maxillary right third molar (No. 1, Universal System) Tooth noted as missing on several examinations and radiographs was actually unerupted and is not normally found in the radiographic view used. 2. Maxillary right second molar (No. 2, Universal System) Occlusal-lingual metallic restoration incorrectly charted on 25 Oct.1956 which was really occlusal caries as documented on radiographs of 27 March 1958. Occlusal-lingual metallic restoration also was confused with the same restoration in the adjacent tooth (maxillary right first molar). 3. Maxillary left first premolar (No. 12, Universal System) Maxillary left second premolar (No. 13, Universal System) Maxillary left first molar (No. 14, Universal System) Compound error involving charting on 27 March 1958 of: (1) interproximal restorations versus caries and (2) one tooth anterior in the arch than correct (that is, on adjacent contact areas of No. 12 and No. 13 versus No. 13 and No. 14) which is correctly documented on the radiographs of the same date. 4. Maxillary left third molar (No.16, Universal System) Same error as maxillary right third molar described above. After much study of the dental records, it was decided independently by each team member that the dental records were authentic and could be used to support an identification made from the dentition. Figures 6 and 7 demonstrate the high degree of consistency between the antemortem and postmortem radiographs. Identical radiographic morphology was obtained when comparing both sets of radiographs in the maxillary right first premolar (No. 5), the maxillary left first premolar (No. 12), and the maxillary left second molar (No. 15); and similar radiographic morphology was demonstrated in the maxillary right first molar (No. 3), the maxillary left first molar (No. 14), and the mandibular left third molar (No. 17). (The Universal Tooth Numbering System was used.) Additionally, similar pulpal anatomy was demonstrated between antemortem and postmortem radiographs in the mandibular left second premolar (No. 20). Based upon the consistency of the dental charting, the dental radiographs, the dental records, and the lack of any unexplainable, inconsistent items, positive dental identification was made. --------------------- As I mentioned, this report was peer reviewed. These are facts and you have to deal with them by finding some expert who will say that the report is flawed. I don't like the odds of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now