Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

INDISPUTABLE Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a FRONT TOOTH, but his exhumed body was not! NEW EVIDENCE FOUND.

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If Oswald had no prosthesis, as you claim, then how do you explain his dental chart clearly indicating that his prosthesis failed?

I obviously do have proof that Oswald had a prosthesis. You just can't accept that fact given all the effort you've put into fighting against John Armstrong's thesis.

I have no idea what the "failed"  reference means and neither do you. You think that it supports your theory but it doesn't. As I have explained, dental charts show both an "X" for the missing tooth and a line between the outline of the teeth corresponding to the tooth number of the appliance. The chart shows neither for the teeth you believe are missing.  And it doesn't show an "X" to represent the missing front teeth even though an "X" is used to represent other missing teeth on the chart. 

As I have said repeatedly, contact someone in authority if you believe you have a breakthrough to get an expert opinion. Without that you have nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This dental record doesn't list prior fillings, crowns, and prostheses because doing so would serve no purpose. The purpose of this record is to show new dental problems and when they were fixed.

Wrong. The purpose of a dental chart is to show the history of the patient's dentition so proper treatment can be administered. When you go to the doctor they want to know what has happened to you in the past not just what new procedures are being considered. Same with a dentist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My crusade is to inform the people directly. That seems to be the only way.

 

No that will not work. Look at any high school textbook and you will see the statement that LHO killed JFK. If you want to change that fact, you have to work within the system to do it. If you can produce facts to back up your assertions, that should be no problem. In the case of H&L, there are many reasonable explanations for what you believe are facts, as in the case of the dental records we are discussing here. The experts know this and are, or would be, unpersuaded. What you are calling "indisputable proof" is in fact highly disputable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I have no idea what the "failed"  reference means and neither do you. You think that it supports your theory but it doesn't.

 

It doesn't matter what the notation "failed" is referring to. Whether it's a failed root canal, a failed crown, or a failed prosthesis, they ALL lead to something we don't see on the exhumed teeth. And that completes my proof.

But FWIW, one reason I believe "failed" is referring to a failed prosthesis is because that would explain why the dentist didn't write down specifically what failed. That it was a prosthesis that failed is implied by the question, "Prosthesis required?" The other reason for believing that it was a prosthesis that failed is that that would explain why there is no X where the front tooth is missing. There is no X because the prosthesis has replaced the missing tooth.

 

26 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

As I have explained, dental charts show both an "X" for the missing tooth and a line between the outline of the teeth corresponding to the tooth number of the appliance.

 

And as I've explained, those instructions are for a different chart. And Oswald's chart asks for other information, but not what you think it should show (a prosthesis).

 

 

26 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The chart shows neither for the teeth you believe are missing.  And it doesn't show an "X" to represent the missing front teeth even though an "X" is used to represent other missing teeth on the chart. 

 

There is no X for the front tooth because a prosthetic tooth had replaced it.

 

26 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

As I have said repeatedly, contact someone in authority if you believe you have a breakthrough to get an expert opinion. Without that you have nothing.

 

Everything I've said is common sense Tracy. If you choose not to use common sense, then that's your problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This dental record doesn't list prior fillings, crowns, and prostheses because doing so would serve no purpose. The purpose of this record is to show new dental problems and when they were fixed.

Wrong. The purpose of a dental chart is to show the history of the patient's dentition so proper treatment can be administered.

 

What I said is correct.

I said, "This dental record doesn't list prior fillings, crowns, and prostheses...." Show me ANY prior fillings, crowns, or prostheses? Oswald's initial (1956) USMC dental chart shows numerous fillings. Yet none of those are shown in the 1958 chart we are talking about. Why? Because they are not asked for! They are not asked for because those are no longer problems that need fixing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No that will not work. Look at any high school textbook and you will see the statement that LHO killed JFK. If you want to change that fact, you have to work within the system to do it. If you can produce facts to back up your assertions, that should be no problem. In the case of H&L, there are many reasonable explanations for what you believe are facts, as in the case of the dental records we are discussing here. The experts know this and are, or would be, unpersuaded. What you are calling "indisputable proof" is in fact highly disputable.



Oh really? Then how do you explain Oswald's failed dental device or procedure -- as notated on his dental record -- that cannot be found on the exhumed teeth?


Let's look at every possibility:

Failed Root Canal:  Root canals are used to cure root infections. The treatment for a failed root canal is a second root canal. If the second root canal fails, then the tooth is pulled in order to cure the infection. However, the exhumed teeth showed no such extraction. And if there was no extraction, there would have been no need for a prosthesis.

Failed Crown:  There were no crowns on the exhumed teeth.

Failed Prosthesis:  There were no fake teeth or places where a fake tooth would fit on the exhumed teeth.

 

So Tracy, how do you explain the "Failed 5-5-58" notation? You say there is a reasonable explanation for everything H&L! What is it for this?

<crickets>

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

What you are calling "indisputable proof" is in fact highly disputable.

 

How can you say with a straight face it is "highly disputable" when you can't even dispute it yourself? And nobody else can dispute it?

You can't just wish it away!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Mervyn,

Much of the truth has been proven regarding the assassination of JFK. And yet the MSM and academia will have nothing to do with our most respected researchers and authors. I'm certain I can do no better regarding Oswald. The deck is stacked.

My crusade is to inform the people directly. That seems to be the only way.

 

Sandy, there is another way. Years ago I was part of the Wikipedia crowd building pages and correcting pages. Then I discovered that two or three people with an agenda would come along and delete what I had written, and sometimes vote to delete a page. Wikipedia has another problem in refusing to accept what it calls 'original research', so I began to write a series of interrelated articles for various academic publications with a PhD colleague.

At the same time I wrote and published articles in a different style as a freelance journalist for regional newspapers. Now, with a huge body of work I am in the process of publishing a series of books. But these works are based upon academic and peer reviewed articles, so the joke is that they would qualify for Wikipedia inclusion, if someone wants to add references. Not me. Wikipedia is just full of rubbish and lacks credibility as a result, although they are attempting to clean it up. Unfortunately "The People" like to follow the tabloids about sexual matters and watch nonsense such as 'Say "Yes" to the Dress', or 'The Voice' and hear clichés (you nailed that one girl and made it your own.")

The fact is that "The People" don't care and don't have time to care due to the pressures of staying alive by having enough money to pay bills. Therefore you have to get the core of mainstream media to work for you, but they won't do that if you have not built your own reference base (and I don't mean 'crowd-funding').

Therefore if you got a dentist to peer review your work and okay it, and then you got a symposium composed of dental experts to review the review, and if they all reached the same conclusion that you have, you would have a blockbuster to sell.

At that point academia would already be involved with writing papers about the forensic issue you have raised, and tabloid print and television would have it dumbed-down on a par with 'The Voice' and 'Say "Yes" to the Dress.' Why is that important? Because then you would have "The People" engaged and they would be reading and seeing and hearing about the issue for the first time.

But you can't go from A to Z, you have to follow the golden brick road that is made up of A-B-C-D- etc., etc.

So it's up to you.

Can you now find that first dental expert who will agree with your findings?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Sandy, there is another way. Years ago I was part of the Wikipedia crowd building pages and correcting pages. Then I discovered that two or three people with an agenda would come along and delete what I had written, and sometimes vote to delete a page. Wikipedia has another problem in refusing to accept what it calls 'original research', so I began to write a series of interrelated articles for various academic publications with a PhD colleague.

At the same time I wrote and published articles in a different style as a freelance journalist for regional newspapers. Now, with a huge body of work I am in the process of publishing a series of books. But these works are based upon academic and peer reviewed articles, so the joke is that they would qualify for Wikipedia inclusion, if someone wants to add references. Not me. Wikipedia is just full of rubbish and lacks credibility as a result, although they are attempting to clean it up. Unfortunately "The People" like to follow the tabloids about sexual matters and watch nonsense such as 'Say "Yes" to the Dress', or 'The Voice' and hear clichés (you nailed that one girl and made it your own.")

The fact is that "The People" don't care and don't have time to care due to the pressures of staying alive by having enough money to pay bills. Therefore you have to get the core of mainstream media to work for you, but they won't do that if you have not built your own reference base (and I don't mean 'crowd-funding').

Therefore if you got a dentist to peer review your work and okay it, and then you got a symposium composed of dental experts to review the review, and if they all reached the same conclusion that you have, you would have a blockbuster to sell.

At that point academia would already be involved with writing papers about the forensic issue you have raised, and tabloid print and television would have it dumbed-down on a par with 'The Voice' and 'Say "Yes" to the Dress.' Why is that important? Because then you would have "The People" engaged and they would be reading and seeing and hearing about the issue for the first time.

But you can't go from A to Z, you have to follow the golden brick road that is made up of A-B-C-D- etc., etc.

So it's up to you.

Can you now find that first dental expert who will agree with your findings?

 

 

I'm considering it. I'll be looking around. But I just can't see myself doing any better with the MSM than the JFK conspiracy folks have done.

As you may have noticed, I've given two presentations regarding Oswald's teeth in the last few days. The one in this thread, doesn't require any expertise at all. Any reasonably intelligent dentist will either agree with me on the prosthesis notation, or will say they have no idea what it means. (The latter because some people aren't willing to make a judgement that isn't certain.) So I know I won't have any trouble finding a dentist who agrees with me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

So it's up to you.

Can you now find that first dental expert who will agree with your findings?

Hi, Mervyn,

You make some very good points.  It would be helpful to get some unbiased opinions from dental experts on the evidence Sandy has presented.  In an ordinary case about John or Jane Doe, this would be a simple matter, but not in this one.  Let me provide an example:

Yesterday, a fellow named Colin Crow posted the following in a follow-up to Sandy’s article on the missing molar on jfkassassinationofrum.com.  Here’s what he wrote:

Quote

"Just talked with a Prof of Orthodontics. I just related the basic details of a missing premolar and the relevant ages of the individual no mention of who it was. His answer was emphatic....there is no way that the teeth will restraighten once tipped without application of some device to correct it."

There’s a professional opinion.  Will that settle the issue for a Warren Commission loyalist such as Tracy Parnell?  Of course not!  Tracy will argue that the question was presented incorrectly, or the professor misunderstood it, or the answer was incomplete, and so on.

Can you imagine a practicing dental professional risking his or her career by going on record about this?  It would take real, and real rare, courage.  Mr. Parnell has already admitted he is counting on fear of controversy among professionals to help him try to debunk this when he wrote:

Quote

Once again, I challenge you to take this to a QUALIFIED person and see what they say. And then watch them run away when they find out it is Oswald as they invariably would.

Tracy is being surprisingly honest about his strategy here, but this is the problem we face in trying to untangle the ENORMOUS cover-up in this case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And as I've explained, those instructions are for a different chart. And Oswald's chart asks for other information, but not what you think it should show (a prosthesis).

It is true that there are somewhat varying methods of dental charting. But your claim  that the chart would make no effort to show a denture is without foundation and doesn't make sense. At the least, they would use an "X" as they do to show other missing teeth. You say you are using "common sense" but your claims that the chart would simply ignore the alleged denture defy that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

How can you say with a straight face it is "highly disputable" when you can't even dispute it yourself? And nobody else can dispute it?

You can't just wish it away!

I have no idea what the notation means. But there are any number of explanations, one being that the dentist simply made a notation about "something" in an improper place on the chart. In the H&L world, there is no room for human error which occurs quite frequently in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I'm considering it. I'll be looking around. But I just can't see myself doing any better with the MSM than the JFK conspiracy folks have done.

As you may have noticed, I've given two presentations regarding Oswald's teeth in the last few days. The one in this thread, doesn't require any expertise at all. Any reasonably intelligent dentist will either agree with me on the prosthesis notation, or will say they have no idea what it means. (The latter because some people aren't willing to make a judgement that isn't certain.) So I know I won't have any trouble finding a dentist who agrees with me.

 

I personally have two front crowns. Imitation teeth with metal posts cemented into the bone. Have you seen an x-ray of these teeth to make sure that they are not crowns?

Edited by Mervyn Hagger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And as I've explained, those instructions are for a different chart. And Oswald's chart asks for other information, but not what you think it should show (a prosthesis).

It is true that there are somewhat varying methods of dental charting. But your claim  that the chart would make no effort to show a denture is without foundation and doesn't make sense.

 

Tracy,

The chart does not ask for dentures or bridges (or crowns, fillings, or any other prior treatment) to be marked. It asks specifically for these to be charted:

Caries
Dental Disease
Missing Teeth
Abnormalities


Note that these are all things that need fixing or might need fixing.

Now, if Oswald wore a denture, I do see a possibility the dentist might mark the location of the fake tooth as being a missing tooth. Because he likely would have asked Oswald to remove the denture before proceeding with the examination. The dentist would see the gap and would mark it on the chart as a missing tooth.

But I also see the possibility that the dentist might not mark it as a missing tooth. Because the purpose of the chart is obviously to mark defects that need treatment: "Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, and Abnormalities." And that missing tooth does not need treatment.

On the other hand, if Oswald was fitted with a fixed bridge rather than a removable denture, there would be absolutely no reason to mark the chart as having the missing tooth. The tooth is no longer missing. It does not need to be fixed!


But you know what, Tracy? None of this really matters. Because regardless of what it was that failed on 5/5/1958, there would be an indication of it on the exhumed teeth. Yet we see no such indication on the exhumed teeth. The exhumed teeth do not match this chart.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I have no idea what the notation means. But there are any number of explanations, one being that the dentist simply made a notation about "something" in an improper place on the chart. In the H&L world, there is no room for human error which occurs quite frequently in real life.

 

The chart is below, Tracy. Show me ANY other field where the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation would makes sense. There are none!

In contrast, the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation makes perfect sense in the field it is in... if it is notating a failed prosthesis. Therefore, that is precisely what it is notating.

 

dental_record_1958-03-27.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×