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

[Jim Hargrove]

19 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

On the "missing 2.5 teeth," I do find that photo confusing. This thread is about "a missing front tooth," though I haven't read every post, so perhaps I am missing the truth about the tooth. Did young Oswald have one very large front tooth, instead of two front teeth like normal people? There is certainly more than one tooth missing in that photo from my perspective.

For me, that's the only interesting question left on this thread: Did LEE Oswald lose just one tooth from the attack at Beauregard, as photographer Voebel testified, or did he lose two, as the photo MAY show.  I just did a Google image search for "image punched out teeth."  See the results here:

punched out teeth

Isn't it amazing how similar many of those sharp images located by Google are to the fuzzy/enlarged image of Lee Oswald's wound?

If Mr. Trejo wants to tell us this photo was retouched more than half a century ago, let him show us some EVIDENCE.  Who retouched it?  Why?  It doesn't look retouched to me.

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Greg Parker argued ably that "Prosthesis" had multiple meanings in 1963 Army Regulations, including Dental Sealants.   If another column was required for Dental Sealants, then why wasn't one provided?   Answer: because Dental Sealants were classified as Dental Prosthetics.

Mr. Parker offers no evidence whatsoever that the “Prosthesis FAILED 5-5-58” notation on Pvt. Oswald’s Marine Corps dental record referred to a liquid dental sealant rather than to what are commonly called false teeth, by far the most customary type of DENTAL PROSTHETICS, both then and now.  Why should we seriously consider such an obscure definition for “prosthesis,” which Mr. Parker claims he found in a regulation from an unrelated branch of the military five years after the date in question?

Interested readers might be interested in Googling “dental prosthetics” and noting the results.  Do you see dental sealant, or do you see what are commonly called “false teeth?”  Let common sense be your guide. In the meantime, let’s summarize how CIA defenders/H&L critics explain Oswald’s missing tooth and his subsequent failed prosthesis.

Here's what the anti-H&L crowd says it believes:

1. Even though the photograph taken by LEE Oswald’s friend Ed Voebel clearly shows a missing tooth or two, it really doesn’t because it was actually retouched more than 50 years ago for reasons unknown by persons unknown.
2. Even though Ed Voebel testified under oath that he thought Oswald got a bloody lip and lost a tooth from the fight, he was just making it up for reasons unknown.
3. Even though a U.S. Marine dentist indicated that LEE Oswald had a PROSTHESIS that failed on or by 5-5-58, it was really just liquid DENTAL SEALANT that failed, and not the most obvious type of prosthesis; namely, false teeth.
4. Even though a photograph of LEE Oswald in Japan taken in 1958 seems to show two slightly dark and partially crumbling upper front teeth, clearly suggestive of a failed prosthesis involving the upper two front teeth the same year of the failed prosthesis notation, that’s just a complete coincidence.

Do you believe that, honestly?

[Paul Trejo]

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

If Mr. Trejo wants to tell us this photo was retouched more than half a century ago, let him show us some EVIDENCE.  Who retouched it?  Why?  It doesn't look retouched to me.

Jim,

Here's some evidence, just off the top of my head:  (1) the dark space in the teeth portrayed in that photograph is far too large for one tooth, as argued; (2) the teeth on the right side of Oswald's mouth seem too short to be real teeth -- and if so, then this argues not for the fracture of three more teeth, but merely a slippage of the black paint used to retouch the photograph.

Look at that photograph again, Jim.   Not only is the space far too large for one tooth, but the other teeth are too short.   TAKE A GOOD LOOK.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

On 2/25/2018 at 11:09 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

So you do indeed believe Greg Parker's incredibly stupid claim that "Prosthesis Required?" means both that AND "Sealant Required?"

Well, then, answer this: How is a dentist reading this part of the chart (below) supposed to figure out whether the patient needs a new prosthesis or a new sealant?

He can't. Which is just one reason that Parker's claim is incredibly stupid.

Of course, the truth is that "Prosthesis Required?" means only that. But Greg and his followers will believe incredibly stupid things rather than admit that Oswald had a failed prosthesis.

Sandy,

When you use such emphatic language, it does not strengthen your case, rather, it weakens your case.

 

Paul,

It is indeed incredibly stupid to claim that a form uses a single field for two different purposes.*  It takes just a little thinking to realize that.

Can you imagine a form where a single field labeled "Date" were used to record either the date of the application or the applicant's name?

Of course not! That would be silly. But as silly as that sounds, it is not anywhere near as stupid as Greg's claim. Because at least in the case of using a "Date" field for either a date or a name, a person reading the form could distinguish which was written -- since "John Doe" looks a lot different than "January 1, 1950." In the case of Oswald's dental record, Greg wants us to believed that "FAILED" written in the "Prosthesis Required?" field could mean either 1) a prosthesis is required because the existing prosthesis failed; or 2) a sealing is required because the existing sealing failed. A dentist reading the form would have no way of distinguishing which of those was meant by the person who wrote "FAILED."

So, you see how incredibly stupid that is?

Now if you guys are okay with dumbing yourselves down to the point of believing Greg's claim, that's your business. I guess your ideology is more important to you than your desire to look rational. But as for me, I always choose being rational over ideology.

 

*Unless it is explained on the form how to differentiate between the two purposes.

 

[Michael Walton]

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

For me, that's the only interesting question left on this thread: Did LEE Oswald lose just one tooth from the attack at Beauregard, as photographer Voebel testified, or did he lose two, as the photo MAY show.  I just did a Google image search for "image punched out teeth."  See the results here:

There's no missing teeth, Jim et al. Look at the class photo and you can see the light caught something on the black tooth. It's right there in front of you. Then look at both of his dental charts - do you really think a bevy of dentists would have all failed to X out the front teeth if they were really missing? That's just it - they WEREN'T missing.

And further the exhumation photos prove there were no front teeth missing.  It's really quite simple but the Hardly gang keeps this ridiculous thing going by playing Whack A Mole (if it's not this...it's that...or if it's not that...it's this).

Do you really think a guy like Larson would ever have the bxxxs to admit a mistake?  The man is totally and completely full of himself.  A perfect example - months ago on another thread he made the outlandish claim that he "saw" one of the old guys down on the knoll holding a pistol in one of the films.  When I called him out on it, he said it certainly looks like a black object, even though the films prove that absolutely no shots were fired from any of those old guys. I then called him out again ("black object?!") and what was his reply?  He had said it all in jest! Yeah, right.

So no matter what kind of plausibility you bring here for this case, the Hardly Gang will keep Whacking away.

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Greg Parker argued ably that "Prosthesis" had multiple meanings in 1963 Army Regulations, including Dental Sealants.   If another column was required for Dental Sealants, then why wasn't one provided?   Answer: because Dental Sealants were classified as Dental Prosthetics.

 

There is nothing in Greg's piece showing that sealings were classified as prostheses. And for good reason... they have nothing to do with each other. A sealing is something applied to a tooth to prevent tooth decay. A prosthesis is a false tooth.

It is in this sentence where Greg tries to make the link:

Clearly, for simplification and space, sealants and prosthetics  were lumped in together on the forms and the failure noted in 1958 was for the sealant - not any prosthetic for a tooth that was never knocked out to start with.

Greg fabricated out of whole cloth the part I made bold. (The part not made bold requires that the bold part be true. So it is also wrong.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

The ambiguity of the word, FAILED, there, is plain for everybody to see -- and your emotional defense of your own interpretation of the word, FAILED, is also plain for everybody to see.

The field asks if a Prosthesis is required, and if so to explain briefly. The brief explanation is "FAILED." A failed existing prosthesis indeed would require a new one.

But it doesn't really matter what failed. The fact that the brief explanation was written in the "Prosthesis Required" field indicates that a new prosthesis was required.

So we know that the 1958 Oswald needed a false tooth. Which is in stark contrast to the 1981 exhumed Oswald which had no false teeth and needed none.

Hence there were two Oswalds. There's simply no way of getting around this.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

On the "missing 2.5 teeth," I do find that photo confusing. This thread is about "a missing front tooth," though I haven't read every post, so perhaps I am missing the truth about the tooth. Did young Oswald have one very large front tooth, instead of two front teeth like normal people? There is certainly more than one tooth missing in that photo from my perspective.

Ron,

It is difficult determining how many teeth were knocked out. For one thing, it depends on whether LEE had wide bugs bunny teeth or narrow ones, like with this guy:
 

 

Also, a tooth on the side of the gap may have been broken off rather than knocked out. Like with this guy:
 

 

If this photo were more fuzzy, it would be hard to figure out what is going on with his teeth. Some of us might be saying a single tooth is missing, and some might be saying two teeth.

But the bottom line is that it doesn't matter how many teeth were missing. The only important thing is that at least part of one tooth is missing. Because the exhumed teeth aren't even missing part of a tooth.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Why should we seriously consider such an obscure definition for “prosthesis,” which Mr. Parker claims he found in a regulation from an unrelated branch of the military five years after the date in question?

 

I couldn't find any definition in Greg's piece (other than what he himself made up) indicating that a sealant is a type of prosthesis. If anybody sees one, please let us know.

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Jim Hargrove]

57 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

There's no missing teeth, Jim et al. Look at the class photo and you can see the light caught something on the black tooth. It's right there in front of you. Then look at both of his dental charts - do you really think a bevy of dentists would have all failed to X out the front teeth if they were really missing? That's just it - they WEREN'T missing.

The lack of X's on Oswald's front teeth which were replaced by PROSTHETICS has been explained to you at least a dozen times.  Can you read?

Sheesh!  For people who can’t buy a clue, there are everyday reasons for minor anomalies in images greatly enlarged from photographic halftones reproduced using modern cameras and computer displays.  Look up how mass produced ink and paper photo reproductions were produced using what is called the “halftone” printing process, as LIFE magazine and virtually all print publishers used in the 1960s and still use today.   Read about all the little dots in the photos, the enlarged historical counterparts of today’s electronic pixels.

Then look up “anti-aliasing,” a process used by modern cameras and computer displays which actually smooths out the little dots produced in ink and paper printed “halftones.”   In the case of the classroom photo showing Oswald’s missing tooth or teeth, small anomalies in this major enlargement are to be expected.

That hardly changes the fact that the photo clearly shows that LEE Oswald was missing an upper front tooth or two.   Whine about it all you want, it doesn’t change the EVIDENCE!

[Jim Hargrove]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I couldn't any definition in Greg's piece (other than what he himself made up) indicating that a sealant is a type of prosthesis. If anybody sees one, please let us know.

OMG!  I really don't pay much attention to Mr. Parker because I debated him here before he was banned and I know how problematic the truth is for him.  Did he completely invent the liquid sealant/prosthesis link?  Ha-hah-hah-hah-hah..... 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I couldn't find any definition in Greg's piece (other than what he himself made up) indicating that a sealant is a type of prosthesis. If anybody sees one, please let us know.

OMG!  I really don't pay much attention to Mr. Parker because I debated him here before he was banned and I know how problematic the truth is for him.  Did he completely invent the liquid sealant/prosthesis link?  Ha-hah-hah-hah-hah..... 

 

Yeah, Jim. Greg just made up the thing about a sealant being a type of prosthesis. He did so with this one sentence in his piece:

Clearly, for simplification and space, sealants and prosthetics  were lumped in together on the forms....

That's it! Paul thinks it came from some manual.

Sealants are coatings for teeth applied to help prevent tooth decay. Prostheses are false teeth. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

 

[Paul Trejo]

42 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

OMG!  I really don't pay much attention to Mr. Parker because I debated him here before he was banned and I know how problematic the truth is for him.  Did he completely invent the liquid sealant/prosthesis link?  Ha-hah-hah-hah-hah..... 

Jim,

As for Greg Parker, he was suspended for foul language because he couldn't keep his temper in polite company such as this.   On his own blog he can use four-letter words freely -- and he does, again and again.

I myself don't mind four-letter words -- for example, I'm a fan of Allen Ginsberg's poetry and the prose of  Charles Bukowski. However, on this Forum, we have rules of social decorum, so I follow them.

Greg Parker and I disagree on a number of points -- but when he follows through on a topic, he's known for being very thorough.  Greg didn't "invent" the USMC sealant/prosthetic classification -- he "discovered" it.   

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point to a box in that FORM that is marked "SEALANT."    Don't see one?    Neither does anybody else.   So, where was a dentist supposed to mark when Sealant was required?    Answer that!

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 27, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Jim Hargrove]

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yeah, Jim. Greg just made up the thing about a sealant being a type of prosthesis. He did so with this one sentence in his piece:

Clearly, for simplification and space, sealants and prosthetics  were lumped in together on the forms....

That's it! Paul thinks it came from some manual.

Sealants are coatings for teeth applied to help prevent tooth decay. Prostheses are false teeth. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

LOL!

Let's see if Greg, or Paul, or Tracy or anyone else can argue your simple point.  Needless to say, Mr. Walton isn't among the players.  LOL!

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Greg Parker did not "invent" the sealant/prosthetic classification -- he "discovered" it.

 

Paul,

You are wrong.

If you really believe you are right, point out in Greg's article where it was he discovered that a sealant is a type of prosthesis. Here's the article:

https://www.thenewdisease.space/single-post/2018/02/19/Adventures-in-Cold-War-Military-Dentistry-the-Associated-Paperwork-a-Subplot-in-the-Ongoing-Battle-to-Eradicate-Destructive-Outre-Historical-Theories