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

failed_prosthesis.jpg

 

I realize now that the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation can mean only one thing. And that is that a prosthesis failed and a new one is required.

Earlier I admitted that the word "FAILED" could be referring to any dental procedure of device that had failed. But that's not true. The only one of those that would require a new prosthesis (which is the purpose of that field in the chart) is if it was a existing prosthesis that had failed. Here is what would be required in every possible case of dental failure:

Failed Filling:  This would require a new filling, not a prosthesis.

Failed Root Canal:  This would require anther root canal, or an extraction. Not a prosthesis.

Failed Crown:  This would require a new crown, not a prosthesis.

Failed Prosthesis:  This would require a new prosthesis. BINGO!

 

There is no doubt, therefore, that this chart is calling for a new prosthesis to replace a failed one.

 

Share this post


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

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?

 

Mervyn,

There are no known x-rays of Oswalds front teeth.

But whether the missing front tooth was replaced with a dental bridge or a dental implant (which is what you have, according to your description), my analysis remains the same.

FWIW, it's highly improbable that Oswald had an implant. Implants are only now becoming a popular alternative to bridges.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those sure look like natural front teeth to me.  I have several caps, and they look different from my other teeth (somewhat whiter, for one thing).

teeth_front_view.jpg

 

top_teeth_inside_view.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to bow out of this and let you have your fun Sandy. Because that is what this is all about is your personal enjoyment in "solving" the JFK case. But you haven't done that at all. In fact, if you took a poll right here at EF (which has been done before), which is composed mostly of conspiracy believers, I'll bet the majority would still not believe in the H&L theory in spite of your new "discovery." In other words, you still have to convince people like John Newman, David Lifton and Jim Di Eugenio.

As I have said repeatedly, the only way to get the H&L theory to be accepted as fact is to take your findings and all of the other "evidence" for H&L to accredited experts for evaluation. In the case of your dental findings that means forensic dentists and peer reviewed studies. But any single piece of evidence, such as the "failed" notation you are placing so much emphasis on, cannot exist in a vacuum. It will be judged against ALL of the evidence by the experts to make a determination. And when it is, the H&L theory will not stand up. Because there are alternate explanations for ALL of the anomalies that H&L is based on even if the explanation is simply there was an error made. These alternate explanations have been provided to the H&L people over and over for years.

So, when you have gone through the process I described and convinced the majority of the experts that you are right, you will have something. Until that time, I have better things to do. 

Share this post


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

 

Mervyn,

There are no known x-rays of Oswalds front teeth.

But whether the missing front tooth was replaced with a dental bridge or a dental implant (which is what you have, according to your description), my analysis remains the same.

FWIW, it's highly improbable that Oswald had an implant. Implants are only now becoming a popular alternative to bridges.

 

Actually, I had my first implants back when I was around 11-12. I am now into my Seventies. The trouble with crowns is that the metal post can come loose. I actually swallowed one of my crowns for that reason! My current experience is very good and these crowns are in good shape. However, an x-ray of the jaw bone would reveal if the old root had been drilled out in order to insert the metal foundation post. The same thing is true of the jaw bone teeth themselves. It should be very easy to determine whether those are natural teeth or individual teeth on posts created in a dental laboratory. You have to answer these basic questions in order to move on to the next stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mervyn, Are you sure they were true implants?  From thedentalgeek.com

Major developments in dental implants came much later

In the eighteenth century, forward thinking researchers began to experiment with gold and alloys, despite efforts these experiments often had poor results.

In 1886 a doctor mounted a porcelain crown on a platinum disc; again yielding poor long-term success. The issue throughout time has always been that the body and the bone rejected the foreign bodies. For a successful dental implant, you need the replacement tooth to actually fuse to the bone. This is known as osseointegration.

Modern dental implants are made out of titanium because it has special properties that give it a high success rate of osseointegration. In 1952, an orthopaedic surgeon unintentionally discovered these special properties. He realized he was unable to remove a titanium cylinder he had placed in a rabbit femur during a study of bone healing and regeneration. Upon realization that the bone had grown in such close proximity to the titanium cylinder that it had fused together, he continued to experiment further in both animal and human subjects. In 1965, Branemark, the orthopaedic surgeon, placed his first titanium dental implant into a live human volunteer.

Share this post


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

 

Mervyn,

There are no known x-rays of Oswalds front teeth.

But whether the missing front tooth was replaced with a dental bridge or a dental implant (which is what you have, according to your description), my analysis remains the same.

FWIW, it's highly improbable that Oswald had an implant. Implants are only now becoming a popular alternative to bridges.

 

Looking at those two front teeth again: they look like crowns by the curved shape of them.

Share this post


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

Looking at those two front teeth again: they look like crowns by the curved shape of them.

Really, Mervyn?

These top front teeth look like crowns to you?  REALLY?....

 

teeth_front_view.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Really, Mervyn?

These top front teeth look like crowns to you?  REALLY?....

 

teeth_front_view.jpg

Absolutely! I know what these things look like and how they are made and shaped. They have a very distinct look about them and I can say this with decades of experience. My first set were implanted during the Fifies in the UK and then first replaced in the USA in the Seventies and have been replaced again in the UK after the turn of the Millennium. In between the second and third two (they are individually made and individually cemented in place and positioned), I lost one when it came lose and swallowed another when it came lose. So in between as a stop gap I figured a do-it-yourself job and bought the materials on line and made each tooth myself. It was a matter of constant sanding down to get that edge cutter look from the bulbous top where the post is implanted. They did the job until I got them professionally replaced again. So, yes, it is my belief, based upon the photograph I see before me, that these COULD be crowns. I don't know for sure because I have not examined them and from what I can tell, neither has anyone else. But there is NO plate or other attachment (by wire or anything else). They are individually positioned and cemented into the bone. The reason why they are not level could be that either the one on the right has worked lose, or that it was inserted that way to match the original and natural look of how the teeth grew out. 

Share this post


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

Bingo-a denture might be an abnormality.

 

No dentist would call a denture an abnormality, Tracy.  LOL, only someone grasping at straws would.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:
8 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Really, Mervyn?

These top front teeth look like crowns to you?  REALLY?....

 

teeth_front_view.jpg

 

Really, Mervyn?

These top front teeth look like crowns to you?  REALLY?....
 


Absolutely! .... So, yes, it is my belief, based upon the photograph I see before me, that these COULD be crowns. I don't know for sure because I have not examined them and from what I can tell, neither has anyone else.
 


Mervyn,

The Norton Panel examined the teeth in 1981 when the body was exhumed. They determined that ALL the teeth were natural.

You can see so for yourself in the report they issued:

     Norton Report

The teeth in question are #8 and #9. There is chart on page 33 that gives a summary of the findings, and a table on the following pages with more detailed information. Tooth #8 actually has a cavity (caries). Crowns don't get cavities.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


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

.... if you took a poll right here at EF (which has been done before), which is composed mostly of conspiracy believers, I'll bet the majority would still not believe in the H&L theory in spite of your new "discovery."

 

Maybe you're right Tracy, maybe you're wrong. But what the majority believes makes no difference to me, whether it be in politics, religion, JFK, H&L, or anything else. The only thing I care about is the truth. The evidence indicating two Oswalds is overwhelming and that is why I believe it.

Isn't it interesting that the evidence continues to mount. I'm glad I'm not on your side, so that I don't have to constantly make excuses explaining away the H&L evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Maybe you're right Tracy, maybe you're wrong. But what the majority believes makes no difference to me, whether it be in politics, religion, JFK, H&L, or anything else. The only thing I care about is the truth. The evidence indicating two Oswalds is overwhelming and that is why I believe it.

Isn't it interesting that the evidence continues to mount. I'm glad I'm not on your side, so that I don't have to constantly make excuses explaining away the H&L evidence.

 

Sandy, irrespective of my comments about crowns, I agree with you that questions about the timeline identity of the person who was shot by Jack Ruby is very interesting in that there are so many inconsistences in what should be a straightforward, thoroughly documented case via the US Marines and US and other national passport controls, plus all of the other conflicting documents relating to a singular identification. There does seem to be a good possibility that two people have been used to create a single (and contradictory) profile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 9:28 AM, Sandy Larsen said:


Mervyn,

The Norton Panel examined the teeth in 1981 when the body was exhumed. They determined that ALL the teeth were natural.

You can see so for yourself in the report they issued:

     Norton Report

The teeth in question are #8 and #9. There is chart on page 33 that gives a summary of the findings, and a table on the following pages with more detailed information. Tooth #8 actually has a cavity (caries). Crowns don't get cavities.

 

Sandy, I read the report and noted your comments.

Where exactly is the statement that "ALL the teeth were natural."?

I focussed upon #8 and #9 and the observation regarding mesial caries. I also read this definition:

"A "mesial" cavity is an area of decay on a tooth surface, this surface being the closest to the middle of the front of your jaw. These types of cavities often occur on a part of a tooth that faces an adjacent distal tooth surface. The terms "mesial" (and "distal") are used to denote the location of a cavity in your mouth relative to the front of the jaw."

Now there is still a possibility that they could be crowns because while the visible "tooth" is attached to a post, that post is then implanted into a hole left by the root, or, it can be attached to the remainder of the tooth at gum line by a post. Over time, gums recede and expose the natural remnant of the tooth. I know this to be a factor because initially my own crowns were "partial crowns".

But since your entire thesis rests upon #8 and #9 to square with the picture shown in Life magazine, you have to be a lot more meticulous in discovery of evidence than what has been shown to date. In reality this is a focussed question not about the corpse, nor about the skull, nor even about the array of teeth in the jaw bone, but only about two teeth in the upper array and they are numbered 8 and 9.

 

By bringing it down to that level it makes this a very specific line of investigation.

 

Edited by Mervyn Hagger

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

×