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

[Sandy Larsen]

17 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

I am not wasting any more time on this.

 

That's a good decision. Save yourself further embarrassment.

Generally I disapprove of myself or anybody else rubbing in people's mistakes. But I think Mervyn really had it coming to him. To go on attack the way he did without even knowing the material is inexcusable.

 

[Paul Trejo]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Arguing with an ideologue is like banging your head on a brick wall.

 

 

No kidding.

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Oh okay, granted. The missing tooth might be black paint; the guy's tongue; a red grape; a penny; anything else you guys can think of. Or it can be what it looks like... a missing tooth. Even you agree it LOOKS LIKE a missing tooth. Because that's the illusion a painted tooth is supposed to give!

Sandy,

Please look closer -- it does not look like a missing tooth to me -- it looks like 2.5 missing teeth and part of a missing gum.    The space is far larger than the space of a missing tooth.    Far larger.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Jim Hargrove]

But it is probably a missing tooth (or two) because the kid who took the photo, and then sold it to LIFE magazine, said Oswald had a tooth knocked out.  Oswald's aunt paid a dentist to treat the boy.  Do you think she paid a dentist to treat an artifact on Voebel's film?  Do you think she paid a dentist to treat a tooth blackened with a crayon?  Do you think the prosthesis that failed in the Marine Corps in 1958 referred to anything other than a false tooth?

Mervyn's ever-changing arguments were ridiculous.  Following is the real evidence:

Mr. JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right?
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.

Oswald's Aunt Lillian testified as follows before the Warren Commission:

"Another time they were coming out of school at 3 o'clock, and there were boys in back of him and one of them called his name, and he said, "Lee," and when he turned around, this boy punched him in the mouth and ran, and it ran his tooth through the lip, so she [Marguerite] had to go over to the school and take him to the dentist, and I paid for the dentist bill myself, and that's all I know about that, and he was not supposed to have started any of that at that time."

Why would our boy have to see a dentist if he hadn't lost a tooth?

Ed Voebel was with Oswald when he took this picture (CU below).  Do you really think he thought this was a spec of dust on a negative?  He was there!

 

 

And a Marine Corps dentist noted that a prosthesis failed on 5-5-58.  Do you seriously think that prosthesis was a smudge on Ed Voebel's film?

[Bruce Fernandez]

Thank you Sandy, so interesting! And thank you Mervyn for declining further comment. I, for one, am not interested in hearing any more disinformation. Please don't change your mind for any reason. Not even to respond to this in any form.

I am inclined to agree that a review by a practicing orthodondist would be good support although I think logical thinking is really the only requirement. Perhaps the statement should be "from the extant evidence, we can conclude ....". The naysayers will forever ask for the chain of evidence, usually murky in archaeological endeavors (when, exactly, was that chiseled into the stone and by whom?). Sandy has as good backup here as most anybody has had in the Kennedy/Oswald case.

Thanks for your efforts, Sandy!

[Sandy Larsen]

Thanks Bruce. I appreciate your support.

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

Because some on here have tunnel vision or they don't want to admit that they either cannot read and that they have doctored the evidence by showing a portion of the medical record, they have turned to personal attack.

Therefore I will post the evidence here again.

I conclude by reaffirming that it does appear that Oswald had a stand-in at times, but at which times is hotly disputed by many.

I thought that Sandy had something until I looked closer at his pictorial and medical evidence and his entire thesis vanished, because it is shot full of holes.

Yet Sandy is adamant - almost like a religious conviction - that he has found the true answer. I won't change his mind, but I do want to make it clear that I am interested in knowing whether the theory originally promoted by Jones Harris, but with variations, is true, in that LHO was either not the lone shooter, or that he was not a shooter at all.

However, the entire subject relating to November 22, 1963, is merely coincidental to a wider academic search for answers that I am engaged in.

I do appreciate the work that Jim has put in, and I do find that to be worthy of further investigation. It is this narrow and dogmatic theory by Sandy that I am dismissing.

But please, don't misquote me, or smear me with personal attacks, that only confirms your own lack of substantive evidence for a theory that does not withstand scrutiny.

Now here is the complete and in-redacted portion of the document that Sandy 'edited' in order to present his flawed theory:

 

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Mervyn Hagger

[Jim Hargrove]

Mervyn has a fancy graphic in which he concentrates on prophylaxis and ignores prosthesis.  Prophylaxis in dental terminology usually involves a thorough teeth cleaning.  A prosthesis is an artificial body part, such as a false tooth.  Why does Mervyn continue to ignore the PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58 notation on Oswald's USMC dental record?

den·tal pro·phy·lax·is

a series of procedures whereby calculus, stain, and other accretions are removed

from the crowns and roots of theteeth, and the enamel surfaces are polished.

Synonym(s): cleaning

Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012

 

den·tal proph·y·lax·is

 (den'tăl prō'fi-lak'sis)

Measures to promote the health and prevent disease of the teeth and gums that

include scaling and polishing procedures performed to remove plaque, calculus, and stains.

Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012

 

From Medicinenet.com (note that a false tooth is specifically called a prosthesis in the definition below):

Medical Definition of Prosthesis

 

Prosthesis: An artificial replacement of a part of the body, such as a tooth, a facial bone, the palate, or a joint. A prosthesis may be removable, as in the case of most prosthetic legs or a prosthetic breast form used after mastectomy. Other types of prosthetic devices, such as artificial hips or teeth, are permanently implanted.

 

Why does Mervyn continue to ignore the PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58 notation on Oswald's USMC dental record?

Edited February 12, 2018 by Jim Hargrove

[Paul Trejo]

5 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

...I thought that Sandy had something until I looked closer at his pictorial and medical evidence and his entire thesis vanished, because it is shot full of holes.

...Please, don't misquote me, or smear me with personal attacks, that only confirms your own lack of substantive evidence for a theory that does not withstand scrutiny.

Now here is the complete and in-redacted portion of the document that Sandy 'edited' in order to present his flawed theory:

Mervyn,

In my reading, your analysis is correct in every aspect.    Insofar as Sandy has now retreated from his claim that the photograph by schoolmate Ed Voebel is assuredly a photograph of a missing tooth, he now banks everything on the alleged contradiction of this Dental Form and the exhumed dental records of Lee Harvey Oswald.

But, as you point out, if there is any error in that Dental Form -- or if there is any error in reading that Dental Form -- then his entire argument is self-canceling.   Certainly, any claim to "INDISPUTABLE" is already long gone.

Well -- you found the error in Sandy's reading of the Dental Form.  What is INDISPUTABLE is that the "Yes" printed in the Dental Form is inside the box called "Prophylaxis" and NOT "Prosthetic."

Prophylaxis in this case could be antibiotics, but could also be simply a teeth-cleaning.   In any case, the "Yes" is plainly in that box.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 12, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Jim Hargrove]

Everything Paul Trejo says above is completely irrelevant to this thread.  

He and Mervyn may like to try to divert attention by pointing out that the form shows Oswald needed his teeth cleaned (“Prophylaxis Needed: Yes”) but they continue be deaf, dumb, and blind to the fact that the form clearly indicates that Oswald had a prosthesis (a false tooth) that “failed 5-5-58.”

Why do Paul and Mervyn continue to ignore Oswald’s false tooth?

Answer: Because the cadaver in Oswald’s grave had all its natural teeth.

Why should anyone care that Oswald needed to have his teeth cleaned?

Answer: Because people who care about that are trying to distract attention from the fact that this Oswald had a false tooth.

The proof is right here:

Watch the comedy continue as Mervyn and Paul continue to talk about teeth cleaning rather than the false tooth.  Watch them fail to even see the above.  What a hoot!

[Bruce Fernandez]

But Mervyn said he was done!! What happened to that? Which word there could I help him understand?

[Chris Davidson]

If-then statement:

The if-then statement is the most basic of all the control flow statements. It tells your program to execute a certain section of code only if a particular test evaluates to true.

If this test evaluates to false, control jumps to the end of the if-then statement.

The dental form asks two separate questions.

1.Is a Prophylaxis required?

Answer: Yes

2.Is a Prosthesis required?

If Yes (implied), enter data.

Answer: Failed 5-5-58

If No, data entry unnecessary.

 

 

 

[Bruce Fernandez]

Yes!! See, Chris' first language is English, he understands it! Thanks

[Mervyn Hagger]

38 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

If-then statement:

The if-then statement is the most basic of all the control flow statements. It tells your program to execute a certain section of code only if a particular test evaluates to true.

If this test evaluates to false, control jumps to the end of the if-then statement.

The dental form asks two separate questions.

1.Is a Prophylaxis required?

Answer: Yes

2.Is a Prosthesis required?

If Yes (implied), enter data.

Answer: Failed 5-5-58

If No, data entry unnecessary.

 

 

 

You guys are funny! Now you are resorting to "implied" answers to medical questions! LOL

Paul (Trejo): make sure your dentist doesn't resort to implying your dental history!

For intelligent people that form merely asks a question Yes/No

So what did Sandy do? He chopped that part off his blow-ups.

The dentist answers Yes, and because medical people are famous for sloppy penmanship, he scrawls across the rest of the line.

There is no such thing as "implied" treatment.

But let me play devil's advocate for you: If the dentist "implies" that a medical device has failed, what then?

Are we supposed to conclude that the dentist is being smug and laughing at the patient?

What's the remedy?

None offered.

You guys are so far off the page of reality, but that is NOT to say that Jim MAY have other valid points about LHO being shadowed.

However, this thread is about a medical document being misread by Sandy and a Life magazine photo taken of a class clown in a staged photo with his mouth wide open.

Unfortunately Sandy seems to be starting off another cult where he and only he knows the 'truth'.

Someone looking for answers is more than willing to accept that they have made a mistake.

Its called education.

[Mervyn Hagger]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Everything Paul Trejo says above is completely irrelevant to this thread.  

He and Mervyn may like to try to divert attention by pointing out that the form shows Oswald needed his teeth cleaned (“Prophylaxis Needed: Yes”) but they continue be deaf, dumb, and blind to the fact that the form clearly indicates that Oswald had a prosthesis (a false tooth) that “failed 5-5-58.”

Why do Paul and Mervyn continue to ignore Oswald’s false tooth?

Answer: Because the cadaver in Oswald’s grave had all its natural teeth.

Why should anyone care that Oswald needed to have his teeth cleaned?

Answer: Because people who care about that are trying to distract attention from the fact that this Oswald had a false tooth.

The proof is right here:

Watch the comedy continue as Mervyn and Paul continue to talk about teeth cleaning rather than the false tooth.  Watch them fail to even see the above.  What a hoot!

Lovely blow-up of a redacted document Jim.

I never wrote anything about LHO having his teeth cleaned - but they were in pretty nasty shape when they were exhumed. LOL

Show the entire form Jim

Here it is: