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

[Tom Neal]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What speculation did I make that is unsupported?

 

Different year, same Larsen.

You decided that a missing tooth that has been replaced by a bridge is NOT marked on the chart because it's no longer missing. Where is yourevidence that ANY dentist would do that? This is what you want to be true and is pure speculation. And stop talking down to everyone as if you are some sort of dental expert. This is stated in my initial post. As usual you expect everyone to respond to questions that have been answered in previous posts. 

Edited March 8, 2018 by Tom Neal

[Sandy Larsen]

23 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the reply. I hope all is well with you.

This USMC record *IS* the "NEW" "UNDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE" which is the crux of this thread, is it not? If there was no previous evidence that LHO had lost a front tooth, is this record unquestionable proof that one or more of his FRONT teeth are missing? 

 

But there WAS previous evidence of front teeth being missing. Plenty of it. (Qne or two teeth.)

Regardless, the "FAILED" notation in the Prosthesis Required field indicates that an existing prosthesis failed. That prosthesis could have been for some other lost tooth. But why assume that when we have plenty of evidence that it was a front tooth that was lost?

 

23 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

Presuming that the "FAILED" notation does indeed indicate 100% that LHO had a prosthesis, where in this document is the actual location of this device stated? i.e. On which tooth? If the explanation that 'they don't mark a missing tooth' if it has been replaced by a bridge is true, then ANY tooth in LHO's mouth could have the FAILED prosthesis. 

 

Think about it.... why would the dentist be asked if a prosthesis were needed, but very little room given for more than a "brief explanation?"

To explain this, note that to the left of this field on the form is a field named "Prophylaxis Needed?" This was also answered with a "yes" response. And yet neither of these is marked on the form as having been completed. Why is that?

It could be that these things were completed at a later time by some other dentist, and recorded on another form. Or there could be some significance to the fact that these two items are set aside and marked as being needed. It could be that these two procedures were provided by other entities, not the general dentist. The prophylaxis, or teeth cleaning, was performed by a dental technician. The prosthesis, or false tooth, was performed by a prosthesis specialist. The latter would do his own examination and keep his own notes.

Regardless, it is obvious that the dentist at that office had no further dealing with those two procedures. But that doesn't mean they weren't done.

 

23 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

JIM: Without having the opportunity to question Marine dentists from the era, Sandy’s explanation sounds possible to me.
I strongly disagree with his "explanation." The chart I mentioned is the result of the dental examination. Why would there be no indication whatsoever of a missing tooth, or the attachment of a bridge on *this* chart? This would be the most notable item of his dental condition. The fact that this missing tooth or bridge is NOT mentioned in any record is the strongest evidence that LHO's front teeth were present.

 

Because the chart does NOT instruct the dentist to mark existing restorations and prostheses. It asks that only these be marked: Caries (cavities), Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities.

We know that there was one or more missing teeth, because the "FAILED" notation in in the "Prosthesis Required" field means that an existing prostheses failed. And thus there had to have been a missing tooth.

I say that the reason there is no X there is because the missing tooth had been replaced... and so there was no longer a missing tooth. If you'd rather believe your dentist than my speculation, then fine... go ask your dentist and report back. Because it doesn't really matter. All that matters is that the "FAILED" notation proves that there were two Oswalds.

 

23 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

Also, if the "FAILED" statement refers to a bridge, it must have eventually been repaired or replaced. This work would be indicated in the dental records, but it is not. There is no reasonable explanation for this omission. 

 

Explained above.

 

23 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

My dentist was trained by the Army, and assures me that these teeth *SHOULD* have been marked both on the exam chart, and the "MISSING TEETH" chart. This is Dental 101.

 

Well obviously your dentist is wrong... at least for Oswald's 1958 chart. We see no prosthesis marked and no Xes for the missing tooth/teeth that had been replaced. I've showed multiple times that prostheses were NOT supposed to be marked. And I've given two possible reasons why the missing tooth which had been replaced with a prosthesis wasn't marked. You're free to come up with your own reason.

 

23 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

Additionally, if the "FAILED" statement refers to a bridge or other prosthesis the type of device must be stated in the box. Again, nowhere in his dental records is a repair or replacement of an existing prosthesis EVER indicated. Are there any USMC photos of LHO with missing front teeth? The USMC would have done the work for free. Would the perpetually poor LHO have this work done after he left the Marines?

 

Naturally the CIA would have removed from the records anything that would reveal that there were two Oswalds. All we can hope to do now is find mistakes they made in doing so. Which is what we have done.

 

23 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

This chart is an evaluation of LHO's teeth which would be used for future reference and for further work based on this exam.  And a permanent part of his USMC dental record. e.g. His qualifications for overseas duty, which would require proof that his dental work was completed. 

JIM: The “PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58” seems awfully specific to have been written in error.  The only explanation H&L critics have offered for it is that it was a reference to dental sealants, which I do not think is reasonable.  How would you explain that notation?

I'm not just nitpicking here, but doesn't it actually state in the prosthesis box "FAILED 5-5-58"? If it actually stated "PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58" then it would unquestionably tell us that he had a prosthesis, but NOT that it replaced a FRONT tooth. I can't offer an explanation that unquestionably explains the location of this statement. However, that fact that NOWHERE in this document is there ANY statement that a prosthesis was present at any time, or repaired (what are the chances that this repair was done but not recorded anywhere?), and there is NO indication that this alleged prosthesis replaced a FRONT tooth, rather than some other tooth, the weight of this document (standing alone!) indicates that there was no prosthesis. 

 

The chart gives instructions on what should be marked on the chart. Existing restorations (fillings) and prostheses (false teeth) are not among them.

Furthermore, we can see with our own eyes that NO exiting restorations (fillings)  are marked on the chart, in spite of the fact that HARVEY had plenty. This proves I am right about this. (Though such proof shouldn't be necessary... the chart instructions are very plain.)

 

 

[Tom Neal]

"Obviously, you're wrong."
Oh well, IF you think so, then it MUST be true. 

And that is why EVERY response is in 100% agreement with you...

There is No new info in your post. Everything you say has been refuted in my other posts. You have no qualifications to state that your opinion is vastly superior to mine. Unless you come up with something new that is relevant, don't expect a response from me.

I would however like to hear from Jim Hargrove or ANYONE else regarding my evaluation of this particular dental record.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Tom Neal

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Tom Neal said:

Oh, well. If YOU declare me and others to be mistaken, then we must be wrong, and as ALWAYS you alone with you qualifications in *everything* must be right, simply because you say so...
What do actual dentists know as compared to you. Dental charts are shared when a patient moves on, so of course each dentist writes whatever he wants because that doesn't cause problems when another dentist reads it. 

 

My proof is right there on the chart. The proof that existing fillings, bridges, etc. are not to be charted.

Ignore it if you want. Tell everybody that it is only my speculation. Tell them that only a dentist can understand it. Then go off stomping your feet because you can't argue the point.

 

[Tom Neal]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

 

My proof is right there on the chart. The proof that existing fillings, bridges, etc. are not to be charted.

Ignore it if you want. Tell everybody that it is only my speculation. Tell them that only a dentist can understand it. Then go off stomping your feet because you can't argue the point.

 

What about the chart that specifically states "MISSING TEETH"? Where is any evidence that work was done to fix/replace the alleged prosthesis in ANY of his dental records. There isn't ANY. Keep ignoring that. 
I didn't say that only a dentist could understand it, you are just making things up to make me look bad. I said they are more qualified than you. You on the other hand, regard your opinion as superior to an experienced qualified professional. 

[Sandy Larsen]

8 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

"Obviously, you're wrong."

Oh well, IF you think so, then it MUST be true.

 

BTW, I did not say what Neal is quoting me of saying.

He DID write some things that are untrue. And I proved so. So his sarcastic reply, "Oh well, IF you think so, then it MUST be true" is mere foot-stomping BS on his part.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

"Obviously, you're wrong."
Oh well, IF you think so, then it MUST be true. 

And that is why EVERY response is in 100% agreement with you...

There is No new info in your post. Everything you say has been refuted in my other posts. You have no qualifications to state that your opinion is vastly superior to mine. Unless you come up with something new that is relevant, don't expect a response from me.

I would however like to hear from Jim Hargrove or ANYONE else regarding my evaluation of this particular dental record.

 

I know. You don't want to hear from the person who knows this material inside and out -- the person who created this thread -- because he can defend it better than anybody else can.

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

8 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Oh, puh-lease….

Here’s the woman born as Marguerite Claverie in 1937….

 

and in 1942 ….

 

… and 1945 ….

 

 

… and in 1960….

 

Do show us the mole under her eye!

… Oh wait.  Here it is!  Belonging to the woman who testified as “Marguerite Oswald”

 

 

 

 

James,

 

With all due respect, has YOUR face changed over the years? 

You know, after you got "all grown up, and everything"?

 

--  Tommy 

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

What about the chart that specifically states "MISSING TEETH"?

 

I've explained that. If you don't like my explanation, provide your own.

Ultimately it doesn't matter. The "FAILED" notation implies there were missing teeth that had been replaced with false teeth.

 

11 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

Where is any evidence that work was done to fix/replace the alleged prosthesis in ANY of his dental records. There isn't ANY. Keep ignoring that. 

 

Destroyed by the CIA. Duh.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Tom Neal said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What speculation did I make that is unsupported?

You decided that a missing tooth that has been replaced by a bridge is NOT marked on the chart because it's no longer missing. Where is your evidence that ANY dentist would do that? This is what you want to be true and is pure speculation. And stop talking down to everyone as if you are some sort of dental expert. This is stated in my initial post. As usual you expect everyone to respond to questions that have been answered in previous posts. 

 

There most definitely is support for my statement.

The "FAILED" notation on the form means that there was an existing prosthesis. Which means there had to have been at least one missing tooth.

Yet we see no missing teeth (which would be marked with an X.)

THAT is what supports my hypothesis that teeth replaced with a prosthesis were not marked because they were no longer missing.

I also gave the alternative answer, that the dentist didn't mark the missing tooth by mistake.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Tom Neal said:

And stop talking down to everyone as if you are some sort of dental expert.

 

LOL, hey I'm the who says anybody can understand this! You're the one saying that I'm wrong  because your dentist has said otherwise.

You're the one talking down to everyone, telling them what your dentist said. I'm the one saying, hey look at the form and see for yourself what it says there.

If I speak with any authority it is because I've been studying this for over a month. I know the topic inside and out.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Of Xs and Pros ….

Tom Neal writes that the lack of a missing tooth being marked on Oswald’s USMC dental charts indicates that he did NOT have a false tooth.  Since Tom says he asked an ex-army dentist about this and the dentist agreed, we certainly have to consider his argument. 

A few months ago, I was genuinely surprised when Sandy wrote about his discovery of the failed prosthesis notation in Oswald’s USMC records.  In a box clearly labeled: “PROSTHESIS REQUIRED? (If ‘yes’ explain briefly)” a dentist wrote, “FAILED 5-5-58.”  I can’t imagine any of us needing to go to dental school to see the significance of that entry.  No critic of Sandy’s proof has come close to explaining it to my satisfaction.

Unless the dentist was hallucinating, that entry alone proves this was not the “Lee Harvey Oswald” exhumed in 1981, since the medical examiners overseeing the exhumation declared all the decedent's teeth were natural. When I reviewed the dental charts after reading Tom’s original post, it did strike me as a little strange that none of the charts showed a prosthetic.  But I don’t see how we can claim that a notation on a chart that ISN’T made can negate a notation that IS made, namely, that a prosthetic failed on or by May 5, 1958.

Sandy offers a number of suggestions why the tooth wasn’t X’d out on the charts, and he's studied this issue a lot more fully than I have.  I’d only add that you really don’t need a chart to see what the problem is with a man’s teeth that look like this:

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

With all due respect, has YOUR face changed over the years? 

You know, after you got "all grown up, and everything"?

Right Tommy. The mole started fairly small and got bigger over time like most physical defects do as we older folks know (speaking for myself). Good job by Michael to point this out.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

This tooth thing can be settled easily. Get some dental experts and show them ALL the evidence. In other words, explain your theory and THEN show them the photos of the "Harvey and Lee" and the other "evidence" you believe supports the theory. Because that's the way science works-all the evidence is evaluated and then "outliers" like the "failed" notation and all of the other H&L "evidence" are discarded. The experts would recognize this "evidence" for what it is-human error, misinterpretations and in some cases fabrications.

[Bernie Laverick]

Take a pinch of clerical confusion, add a few oddball witness testimonies and mix thoroughly. You are now ready to make your Tin-Foil-Hat Pie by constructing any amount of crackpot gibberish theories the paranoid imagination can conjure up. Keep it wild and keep it impossibly outlandish. Never use rationale or reason, as this will seriously compromise the pie's texture (and may even blow the oven up). Be bold, be aggressively arrogant and be insufferably patronising, as this will season the pie to the required bitterness. 

Now begin the process of ramming the uncooked bitter pie down people's throats until they respond accordingly and spit it straight back out . Then tell those people that they are too stupid and ignorant to appreciate the true quality of pies and therefore can't be trusted as food critics, or anything else for that matter. If a few of those people decide to inspect the pie further, to examine it more thoroughly, and then discover that there is absolutely NOTHING in the inside, simply blame the absence of filling on the CIA. Works every time!

Now wallow in your own lake of super-puffed up self importance as a highly intelligent smart guy who has just outfoxed the most devilish intelligence service there has ever been. 

Childish little boys...