Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

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!


Paul,

Why do you believe that a dentist was supposed to mark something if a sealant failed?

Here's a clue. If a cavity developed, that would indicate that the sealant failed. The dentist WAS instructed to mark cavities (caries) on the dental chart.

Here's another clue. If the dentist DID want to write something about a sealing or anything else, he could have done so in the Remark field of the form. There's plenty of space in that field to write a lot of notes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 580
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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

Sandy,

Here's the actual text, copied from that same link that you posted above:

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.

So, case closed.

--Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paul Trejo said:
9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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

Sandy,

Here's the actual text, copied from that same link that you posted above:

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.

So, case closed.

--Paul

 

LOL, that's what I've been saying!

The part you highlighted in red is a fabrication direct from Greg's brain! Not from any official document or manual.

So case closed, LOL!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Paul,

Why do you believe that a dentist was supposed to mark something if a sealant failed?

Here's a clue. If a cavity developed, that would indicate that the sealant failed. The dentist WAS instructed to mark cavities (caries) on the dental chart.

Here's another clue. If the dentist DID want to write something about a sealing or anything else, he could have done so in the Remark field of the form. There's plenty of space in that field to write a lot of notes.

Sandy,

Your interpretation of this USMC dental FORM is biased.  You want to see it, so you see it --- and then you call it "indisputable."   That's a very strong word.   It draws a conclusion -- but if others can find rational exceptions, then it's not "indisputable," is it?

There are different possible interpretations of that FORM.    Unless we have a USMC handbook for dentists giving strict rules for filling out that FORM, then we have no choice but to admit that different dentists would fill out that same FORM in different ways.

So, we have to stick closely to the facts.   Michael rightly pointed out that if Oswald was missing any front teeth that would have been clearly marked with an "X" on that FORM.    That's an important FACT.

Greg noted that the USMC thought of Sealants as a form of Prosthetic.   Here is further evidence:

More specifically, section III of that initial paperwork which can be found on page 31 of this Warren Commission Exhibit.  Here we find that on November 1, 1956, Oswald had a cleaning prophylaxis and sealing and was given instructions on maintaining this work. 

Since we have material evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald actually received a dental Sealant treatment in the USMC, we have a real fact to work with.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

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

Paul,

You and Greg Parker do NOTHING ELSE other than defend the CIA, whose officers ordered the death of JFK.  Do you want to argue about this....?...

 


20 Facts Indicating the Oswald Project Was Run by the CIA


1. CIA accountant James Wilcott said he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.”

2. Antonio Veciana said he saw LHO meeting with CIA’s Maurice Bishop/David Atlee Phillips in Dallas in August 1963.

3. A 1978 CIA memo indicates that a CIA operations officer “had run an agent into the USSR, that man having met a Russian girl and eventually marrying her,” a case very similar to Oswald’s and clearly indicating that the Agency ran a “false defector” program in the 1950s.

4. Robert Webster and LHO "defected" a few months apart in 1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both returned to the United States in the spring of 1962.

5. Richard Sprague, Richard Schweiker, and CIA agents Donald Norton and Joseph Newbrough all said LHO was associated with the CIA. 

6. CIA employee Donald Deneslya said he read reports of a CIA "contact" who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child.

7. Kenneth Porter, employee of CIA-connected Collins Radio, left his family to marry (and probably monitor) Marina Oswald after LHO’s death.

8. George Joannides, case officer and paymaster for DRE (which LHO had attempted to infiltrate) was put in charge of lying to the HSCA and never told them of his relationship to DRE.

9. For his achievements, Joannides was given a medal by the CIA.

10. FBI took Oswald off the watch list at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health, weeks after Oswald’s New Orleans arrest and less than two months before the assassination.

11. Oswald’s lengthy “Lives of Russian Workers” essay reads like a pretty good intelligence report.

12. Oswald’s possessions were searched for microdots.

13. Oswald owned an expensive Minox spy camera, which the FBI tried to make disappear.

14. Even the official cover story of the radar operator near American U-2 planes defecting to Russia, saying he would give away all his secrets, and returning home without penalty smells like a spy story.

15. CIA Richard Case Nagell clearly knew about the plot to assassinate JFK and LHO’s relation to it, and he said that the CIA and the FBI ignored his warnings.

16. LHO always seemed poor as a church mouse, until it was time to go “on assignment.”  For his Russian adventure, we’re to believe he saved all the money he needed for first class European hotels and private tour guides in Moscow from the non-convertible USMC script he saved. In the summer of 1963, he once again seemed to have enough money to travel abroad to Communist nations.

17. To this day, the CIA claims it never interacted with Oswald, that it didn’t even bother debriefing him after the “defection.” What utter bs….

18. After he “defected” to the Soviet Union in 1959, bragging to U.S. embassy personnel in Moscow that he would tell the Russians everything he knew about U.S. military secrets, he returns to the U.S. without punishment and is then in 1963 given the OK to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union again!

19. Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by JFK, and the Warren Commission clearly wanted the truth hidden from the public to protect sources and methods of intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Earl Warren said, “Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security.”

20. CIA's Ann Egerter, who worked for J.J. Angleton's Counterintelligence Special Interest Group (CI/SIG), opened a "201" file on Oswald on December 9, 1960.  Egerter testified to the HSCA: "We were charged with the investigation of Agency personnel....”  When asked if the purpose was to "investigate Agency employees," she answered, "That is correct."  When asked, "Would there be any other reason for opening up a file?" she answered, "No, I can't think of one."

21. President Kennedy and the CIA clearly were at war with each other in the weeks immediately before his assassination, as evidenced by Arthur Krock's infamous defense of the Agency in the Oct. 3, 1963 New York Times. “Oswald” was the CIA’s pawn.

Krock_CIA.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

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 -  

Michael,

Please, sir, refrain from these ad hominem arguments.   I know the emotions here run high, but such antics actually weaken your case.

Best regards,
--Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Paul,

You and Greg Parker do NOTHING ELSE other than defend the CIA, whose officers ordered the death of JFK.  Do you want to argue about this....?...

20 Facts Indicating the Oswald Project Was Run by the CIA

<snip>

Jim,

Please don't get paranoid.   I have nothing to do with the CIA.   If you can prove the CIA killed JFK then please do so.  But don't presume you're correct without showing evidence -- and then accuse me or others of defending the CIA or speaking for the CIA or spreading disinformation for the CIA simply because I punch holes in your noodle weak JFK CT.

The CIA didn't kill JFK, in my rare opinion, possibly because they were too late.  The Radical Right in Dallas, led by Ex-General Walker and various members of the Dallas Police and Sheriff's offices were first in line.    It was a very long line, too, as the past half-century of CT literature has richly detailed.

Yet to identify the real JFK culprits is the real reason we are all here.   You haven't made a solid case for your CIA-did-it CT.   In fact, in my reading, the H&L CT is the weakest CIA-did-it CT in world history.

I've already de-bunked your so-called "20 Facts" on this Forum.   I'll argue any of these points with you anytime -- you'll lose every time.

I also notice that whenever you can't come up with a good argument, you resort to ad hominem argument, and change the topic.  So I challenge you to stick to the topic at hand, in Sandy's thread here, and answer whether the middle-school of Lee Harvey Oswald which purports to show that his 2.5 front teeth were Punched Out -- isn't actually a RETOUCHED PHOTOGRAPH.

Let's take a REALLY GOOD LOOK.    That's my challenge to you.    Can you take it?

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

LOL, that's what I've been saying!

The part you highlighted in red is a fabrication direct from Greg's brain! Not from any official document or manual.

So case closed, LOL!

 

Sandy,

I never said that it was from a USMC manual.   I said that Greg "discovered" the fact by direct examination of the evidence.   He didn't "invent" it.   Nor did he "fabricate" it.   He deduced it from the USMC dental Forms filled out by USMC dentists for Lee Harvey Oswald.

Oswald was actually given SEALANT treatment, as the Forms clearly show.   He was not given any solid "prosthetics" as the Forms clearly show.

There were not "X" marks on his front teeth diagram -- so they were PRESENT AND ACCOUNTED FOR.

It's not a laughing matter.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

Your interpretation of this USMC dental FORM is biased.  You want to see it, so you see it --- and then you call it "indisputable."   That's a very strong word.   It draws a conclusion -- but if others can find rational exceptions, then it's not "indisputable," is it?

 

Paul,

So far we have seen only one rational explanation for the "FAILED" notation in the "Prosthesis Required" field. And that is that an existing prosthesis failed. Greg's stupid explanation is a non-starter.

But even if it were something else that failed, the "Prosthesis Required" field would still be calling for a new prosthesis. And this would still show that the 1958 Oswald and 1981 exhumed Oswald are two different people. Because the buried Oswald did not need a prosthesis.

 

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

There are different possible interpretations of that FORM.    Unless we have a USMC handbook for dentists giving strict rules for filling out that FORM, then we have no choice but to admit that different dentists would fill out that same FORM in different ways.


The form is self explanatory, Paul. The "Prosthesis Required?" field even has it's own instruction: "If 'yes,' explain briefly."

Only those who do not want to believe the form have problems with it.

 

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

So, we have to stick closely to the facts.   Michael rightly pointed out that if Oswald was missing any front teeth that would have been clearly marked with an "X" on that FORM.

 

There are no missing teeth to be marked with an X on the chart. At the time of the dental exam, the missing front teeth had been replaced with false teeth (i.e. a  prosthesis). It is for this reason that those teeth are not marked.

But even if I were wrong about this, the conclusion would remain unchanged. The "Prosthesis Required" field would still be calling for a new prosthesis. And this would show that the 1958 Oswald and 1981 exhumed Oswald are two different people. Because the buried Oswald did not need a prosthesis.

 

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Greg noted that the USMC thought of Sealants as a form of Prosthetic.   Here is further evidence:

More specifically, section III of that initial paperwork which can be found on page 31 of this Warren Commission Exhibit.  Here we find that on November 1, 1956, Oswald had a cleaning prophylaxis and sealing and was given instructions on maintaining this work.

 

Just because Oswald was treated with a sealing doesn't mean that a sealant is a type of prosthesis. Just give it up Paul.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Paul,

So far we have seen only one rational explanation for the "FAILED" notation in the "Prosthesis Required" field. And that is that an existing prosthesis failed. Greg's stupid explanation is a non-starter.

But even if it were something else that failed, the "Prosthesis Required" field would still be calling for a new prosthesis. And this would still show that the 1958 Oswald and 1981 exhumed Oswald are two different people. Because the buried Oswald did not need a prosthesis.

 


The form is self explanatory, Paul. The "Prosthesis Required?" field even has it's own instruction: "If 'yes,' explain briefly."

Only those who do not want to believe the form have problems with it.

 

 

There are no missing teeth to be marked with an X on the chart. At the time of the dental exam, the missing front teeth had been replaced with false teeth (i.e. a  prosthesis). It is for this reason that those teeth are not marked.

But even if I were wrong about this, the conclusion would remain unchanged. The "Prosthesis Required" field would still be calling for a new prosthesis. And this would show that the 1958 Oswald and 1981 exhumed Oswald are two different people. Because the buried Oswald did not need a prosthesis.

 

 

Just because Oswald was treated with a sealing doesn't mean that a sealant is a type of prosthesis. Just give it up Paul.

 

Sandy,

With all due respect, if a poorly maintained (and therefore now ineffective) sealant had been Oswald's only problem at the time of that checkup, how would you expect that problem to have been written about in the small space allowed for "problems" on that form?

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

LOL, that's what I've been saying!

The part you highlighted in red is a fabrication direct from Greg's brain! Not from any official document or manual.

So case closed, LOL!

 

Sandy,

I never said that it was from a USMC manual.   

 

I said that you said it was from an "official document or manual." Here is exactly what you said:

"Greg Parker argued ably that "Prosthesis" had multiple meanings in 1963 Army Regulations, including Dental Sealants."

This is your post:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24630-indisputable-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-front-tooth-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not-new-evidence-found/?do=findComment&comment=370820

 

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

I said that Greg "discovered" the fact by direct examination of the evidence.   He didn't "invent" it.   Nor did he "fabricate" it.   He deduced it from the USMC dental Forms filled out by USMC dentists for Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

LOL. Yeah, Greg looked at Oswald's dental form and screamed,

"Great jumpin' Jehosphat! The form indicates that Oswald required a prosthesis! I can't have that! I need to DEDUCE something that will argue against this prosthesis thing!  Oh I know!  smiley-clipart-success-2.jpg  Oswald had a sealant, and sealants can fail. I'll save my a$$ by deducing that a sealant is a type of prosthesis!"

Yeah, right Paul.... Greg merely made that deduction. LOL!


Now for a dose of reality: Greg fabricated the "Sealant is a type of Prosthetic" nonsense. (Anybody.... prove otherwise. You can't.)

 

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Oswald was actually given SEALANT treatment, as the Forms clearly show.   He was not given any solid "prosthetics" as the Forms clearly show.

 

The USMC dental form doesn't show Oswald getting a prosthesis because he got that prior to entering the Marine Corps. We know this because the form shows that the prosthesis broke on or around May 5, 1958. And it could not have broken had he not had one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

With all due respect, if a poorly maintained (and therefore now ineffective) sealant had been Oswald's only problem at the time of that checkup, how would you expect that problem to have been written about in the small space allowed for "problems" on that form?

--  Tommy  :sun


Tommy,

The same way as any other notation would have been made where there is no dedicated field for it... in the "Remarks" field of the form. Which is three full lines long. There is plenty of space to write, for example,  "Sealant failed 5-5-58."

Note, however, that there was no reason to make a special notation for a sealant failure. If a cavity occurred, that meant that the sealant had failed. And cavities (caries) were to be marked on the dental chart, as indicated above the chart. In other words, a cavity marked on the chart would indicate that the sealant failed.

Oh, and by the way, there were two cavities indicated on the chart, one on tooth #10 and one on #20. The first was treated on April 30, 1958. So we know (and the dentist knew) before that date that the sealant had failed. Which contradicts the date given in the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation.

 

dental_record_1958-03-27.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Please don't get paranoid. 

I’m not being paranoid, Paul.  I want anyone who happens to read this thread to understand why CIA defenders such as you and Greg Parker are so desperate to explain away Sandy’s important discovery of the prosthesis failed 5-5-58 notation on LEE Oswald’s USMC form.

Unless you can prove right here that in 1958 USMC dentists treated liquid dental sealants as prosthetics, which is exceptionally unlikely, Sandy’s ten-second proof shows that there were indeed two Oswalds, just as so many researchers have long suspected.  The purpose of this subterfuge was to give a Russian-speaking young man a U.S. identity and send him to the USSR as a spy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...