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

I think Tom's points are good ones.This important discussion that Sandy has raised should be viewed in isolation from the H&L story. Tie them together if you want but Sandy's analysis is either correct or incorrect, independent of Armstrong's theory.

What keeps coming to my mind is the picture of a smiling, red-eyed picture of LHO, with the one discolored tooth. Could it be that two teeth were compromised, one more so than the other, during the fight, and some measure was taken, to bond those teeth together, and that is what eventually failed, in the spring of 58? 

I knew a kid who lost a front tooth, and it was not properly taken care of. He could, and did, take the tooth out on occasion, and stick it back in, as a gag. 

In the end, however, the corpse has healthy, natural incisors.

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 581
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

This important discussion that Sandy has raised should be viewed in isolation from the H&L story. Tie them together if you want but Sandy's analysis is either correct or incorrect, independent of Armstrong's theory.

The above statement actually makes no sense whatsoever. This is not a dental chart thread nor a dental chart forum. If you've forgotten the name of this thread I've kindly placed it here for you to remind you WHY this thread has been dragged out now to 34 pages:

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

And Larsen's theory here, what it's worth, is not correct.  The reason is simple - no dentist would have forgotten to put an X on the FRONT tooth diagram of the patient's chart. To put it kindly he'd be held for negligence for missing something so obvious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

The above statement actually makes no sense whatsoever. ....

I know it's a struggle for you, perhaps you should use some of your crayons, construction paper and scissors, put on a bib to keep things neat, then read Tom's post, then read mine again, use the crayons and paper ( be careful with the scissors!) and try to create a picture of what is being suggested here. Don't miss nap time or snack time. Then see if you get the picture. Raise your hand and ask for help if need be. Maybe some of the smarter kids will help you out, unless of course, they have all moved away from you due to their past experiences with you.

 

Good luck!

Edited by Michael Clark
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has already been covered, but has anyone ever asked Marina about Oswald's teeth, or has she ever made any comment? What about Robert Oswald? 

It would be nice if someone could just ask them while they're still around.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

Sorry if this has already been covered, but has anyone ever asked Marina about Oswald's teeth, or has she ever made any comment? What about Robert Oswald? 

It would be nice if someone could just ask them while they're still around.

 

Ron,

There is no point in asking Marina about her husband's front teeth. He was the one exhumed and found to have all his natural teeth. It was the other Oswald who lost his front tooth in a fist fight according to very strong evidence.

 

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

 

Thanks, Sandy!  Asking Drew Phipps for some sort of permission to save his study somewhere, like at HarveyandLee.net, sounds like good advice indeed!  I'll make an attempt to contact him tomorrow.

May I send him your post above and ask for his comment?  Pls let me know....

--Jim

 

Sure Jim, you have my permission. Good luck in getting Phipps' permission.

Tell him that I -- as an engineer -- was very impressed by his work. I would have guessed he was a scientist or engineer, not a lawyer.

 

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

 

Ron,

There is no point in asking Marina about her husband's front teeth. He was the one exhumed and found to have all his natural teeth. It was the other Oswald who lost his front tooth in a fist fight according to very strong evidence.

 

Okay, thanks. I'm having a hard time keeping my teeth straight.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

Jim,

Thanks for the support and for adding some sanity and the Scientific Method to the conversation.

I'd like to repeat: I have stated that I am only referring to the the dental records in my statements NOT the entirety of the case for H&L. If someone chooses to say that Lee lost a tooth and THIS dental record is unquestionable proof of this fact then I disagree. I have further stated that this evidence should NOT be thrown out - it should be lowered from unquestionable proof to supporting "evidence" of the existence of H&L.


Tom,

Just to be clear, I called it indisputable evidence, not proof.

 

6 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

If one chooses to accept that a particular record was altered because all, or many of the records were altered, then ANY document can support ANY theory you want. This records must FIRST be judged ON ITS OWN. That method is science.

I did consult 3 dentists. One was army trained, and has decades of civilian practice. If Larsen has bothered to ask a single dental professional I missed it in his post. He has gone so far as to state that my dentist, not dentists, are wrong and he is right because he has studied this for 30 days. Does anyone think that these guys have more than 30 days experience reading a dental chart?

 


You are mischaracterizing my "I've studied this for over a month" statement. My point in saying that was that I understand this issue more than anybody else posting in this thread. And that that does give me some level of authority. (You had complained about my speaking authoritatively.)

If any of your dentists said that -- on Oswald's chart -- a bridge would have been charted, that dentist is wrong. We know so because the chart clearly states what was to be charted: Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities. If a bridge were to be charted, the instruction would have included existing Restorations or Prostheses.

Did you even show Oswald's chart to your dentists?

 

6 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

I have lived in a large number of states and several countries. In EVERY instance, the initial exam recorded my missing tooth by placing an X on the chart. In every case the bridge is described and placed on the diagrams, not JUST on the MISSING TEETH, etc. diagram. This is also true of my Navy records. You can't get closer to the Marines than the Navy. When my missing tooth was replaced with a dental implant it is still regarded as a MISSING TOOTH, and the implant is clearly marked on the chart.

 

The "FAILED 5-5-58" notation on Oswald's chart means that Oswald was missing a tooth, one that had been replaced with a false tooth (prosthesis).

If you want to believe that the missing tooth on Oswald's chart should have been charted, fine. I have no problem with that.
 

 

6 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

Larsen's "explanations" are that the dentist "forgot" to mark the missing tooth on the diagram. Considering the number of markings on the chart, I hardly think that the MOST obvious defect in LHO's teeth was completely forgotten on at least 3 diagrams.

 

What do you mean the missing tooth would be the "most obvious defect?" Given that it had been repaired, I'd say that it wasn't a defect at all. And, having been fixed, it wasn't so obvious anymore.

 

case-11.jpg


 

6 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

Where is the record stating the replacement of the bridge?


The chart says that BOTH a prophylaxis (teeth cleaning) and prosthesis (false tooth) are required. And yet the same form shows neither being done.

The reason is because those two procedures were recorded elsewhere, on another form or other forms. That's the most likely explanation.

The form indicating the prosthesis was replaced was later disappeared by the CIA or ONI in order to keep the Oswald Project secret. As would be expected.

 

6 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

Fillings, sealant, etc. are stated but NOT the replacement of an expensive bridge? This is LHO's permanent medical record. What would a dentist think when LHO was in Japan? The missing tooth and bridge are not marked on the initial exam so he didn't have a missing tooth upon entry to the MC, and there is no record of a prosthesis install, so what does a single FAILED notation in the prosthesis box mean?



The charts you refer to here belong to HARVEY, not LEE. Only the 1958 chart with the FAILED notation belongs to LEE.

 

6 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

If this is Harvey's record altered to suit Lee, then Lee must not have ANY dental records at all. Why not? No where else in the dental record is there  ANY indication of a missing tooth and replacement, and there certainly would be. The sole purpose of altering the record is to remove ALL indications of a missing tooth. If you accept Larsen's two "explanations" then you have to accept that there was no need to mention the missing tooth/prosthesis in the entire dental record. So how exactly was this entire record altered?
1. All info regarding a missing tooth was literally erased from every  page. In this case missing words, etc. would be obvious. Unlikely to say the least.
2. Certainly ONI/G2 could obtain a BLANK record. Why not fill them in and not mention the missing tooth/prosthesis at all? Well... You have to now accept that despite the fact that the SOLE purpose of alteration was to remove any mention of a missing tooth someone from ONI, or FBI (as postulated) stupidly copied information into a box labelled PROSTHESIS and no one checked the form and no one  noticed. ONI and FBI with all their experience and resources couldn't find anyone with dental credentials to alter this VITAL record? No one who knew what a prosthesis was, or was willing to ask what it was?

If you can accept the error stated in #2 above, then you must accept that even a professional can make an outrageous error. Is it any more difficult to accept that this FAILED comment was simply placed on the WRONG dental chart? 

 

This is NOT a Harvey record altered to suit Lee. It is a Lee record.

 

6 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

In summary, despite what has been posted, I am looking at this as a standalone document, not a statement that the H&L theory is BS. Putting this record into the entirety of the case for H&L this is noteworthy, but is in no way "INDISPUTABLE" NEW evidence.


The prosthesis evidence should not be considered alone. It corroborates the evidence showing that LEE lost a front tooth.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

2. Certainly ONI/G2 could obtain a BLANK record. Why not fill them in and not mention the missing tooth/prosthesis at all? Well... You have to now accept that despite the fact that the SOLE purpose of alteration was to remove any mention of a missing tooth someone from ONI, or FBI (as postulated) stupidly copied information into a box labelled PROSTHESIS and no one checked the form and no one  noticed. ONI and FBI with all their experience and resources couldn't find anyone with dental credentials to alter this VITAL record? No one who knew what a prosthesis was, or was willing to ask what it was?

 

Here's how to easily make differences between LEE's and HARVEY's dental records disappear:

  1. Destroy any of Lee's documents that show he had missing front teeth or a prosthesis there.
  2. Copy charting marks over from Lee's records to Harvey's.
  3. Copy charting marks over from Harvey's records to Lee's.

Any remaining inconsistencies will be regarded as charting errors.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand this issue more than anybody else posting in this thread. And that that does give me some level of authority. - Sandy Larsen

Says it all. You can't argue against this kind of pig-headed arrogance. Because Sandy has declared himself ultra knowledgeable he has also decided that we must also accept his self given  authority. He says he knows more than anyone else on this thread about the subject in hand, so we MUST believe him and listen to the one and only voice on this. That's what Sandy is thinking, so we should follow the clever man's lead and listen to what he has to teach us.

I bet you're real excited aren't you Sandy? One of the conspiracy big boys, at last! You're right Sandy. There are two dental records. One is for Harvey and the other is for Lee. You've done it. You've cracked the case. H&L definitely existed because Sandy, who has more authority and intelligence than anyone on this forum, (according to him) says so, so I'm doing the decent thing and conceding EVERY point. 

You can't argue with this level psychotic delusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

I understand this issue more than anybody else posting in this thread. And that that does give me some level of authority. - Sandy Larsen

Says it all. You can't argue against this kind of pig-headed arrogance. Because Sandy has declared himself ultra knowledgeable he has also decided that we must also accept his self given  authority. He says he knows more than anyone else on this thread about the subject in hand, so we MUST believe him and listen to the one and only voice on this. That's what Sandy is thinking, so we should follow the clever man's lead and listen to what he has to teach us.

I bet you're real excited aren't you Sandy? One of the conspiracy big boys, at last! You're right Sandy. There are two dental records. One is for Harvey and the other is for Lee. You've done it. You've cracked the case. H&L definitely existed because Sandy, who has more authority and intelligence than anyone on this forum, (according to him) says so, so I'm doing the decent thing and conceding EVERY point. 

You can't argue with this level psychotic delusion.

 


What I REALLY said:

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

Sandy Larsen:  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.


Tom Neal's mischaracterization of what I said:

Tom Neal:  [Sandy Larsen] has gone so far as to state that my dentist, not dentists, are wrong and he is right because he has studied this for 30 days.


Bernie Laverick's mischaracterization of what I said:

Bernie Laverick:  You can't argue against this kind of pig-headed arrogance. Because Sandy has declared himself ultra knowledgeable he has also decided that we must also accept his self given  authority. He says he knows more than anyone else on this thread about the subject in hand, so we MUST believe him and listen to the one and only voice on this... You can't argue with this level psychotic delusion.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO!!! You actually wrote..."My point in saying that was that I understand this issue more than anybody else posting in this thread. And that that does give me some level of authority"....That was copy and pasted from just two posts up.

Please apologise for deliberately misleading forum members.

And you did say that Tom's dentists was wrong. And you should know, being a self appointed authority on the mater. And you have stated that you have the highest IQ on this forum...presumably that too gives you more authority.

Keep digging Sandy.

Looking forward to the apology....

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only study I've ever seen statistically examining photos of "Lee Harvey Oswald" in fine detail is here:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14916-Pixel-Counting-Biometric-Comparison-of-Oswald-photos

The attorney who used the pixel counting software to make a series of facial measurements concluded that "there is some evidence that there is more than one individual here."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Sandy Larsen changed the title to Indisputable Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a FRONT TOOTH, but his exhumed body was not! NEW EVIDENCE FOUND.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...