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

5 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Michael,

Don't you realize that's way too simple an explanation, and not only that, but it severely damages the "Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites" Theory?

What's wrong with you?

--  Tommy  :sun

 

Tommy,

How do you explain the fact that the dentist noted that Oswald needed a prosthesis (false tooth) when in fact he had no missing teeth?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 581
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The fact remains that the Prosthesis Required notation means that there was a missing tooth and a prosthesis to replace it. So for some reason the doctor didn't mark the missing tooth.

Apparently you believe that Oswald required a prosthesis (false tooth) even though he had no missing teeth. Please explain that.

Facts according  to who....you? To me?

I've  NEVER said he needed that. I'm  comfortable  with the fact of what my eyes tell me - no X on the chart and teeth in the exhumation  photos.

All the rest of it (e.g. the secret meaning  of the word missing on the chart) is just white noise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Mike,

How do you explain the notation in Oswald's 1958 dental record indicating that his prosthesis had failed?

 

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Mike,

How do you explain that Oswald was missing a molar in 1958, but not in 1981?

 

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Mike,

How do you explain how the root shape of one of Oswald's molars changed so dramatically from 1958 to 1963?

 

4123VSErq9L.jpg

 

Maybe if you ignore the evil evidence long enough it will go away.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker said:

 

The last wisdom tooth (a molar) errupts between the age of 17 and 25.

But of course, this is coming from exerts in the field so we should ignore them and listen to the man in the hat. Or at least that is what he will claim based on past performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_tooth

 

Does Greg intimate that the missing tooth (ie. No 30) is a missing wisdom tooth?

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker said:

 

The last wisdom tooth (a molar) errupts between the age of 17 and 25.

But of course, this is coming from exerts in the field so we should ignore them and listen to the man in the hat. Or at least that is what he will claim based on past performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_tooth

 

Wiki? Everyone knows it's a CIA front. That's why they have planted this piece of information to put everyone off the scent. It nearly worked too. Fortunately we have folk on here who can see through all the deception and catch them out. Three cheers for H&L.

Let's see what madness accrues from this latest humiliation...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Does Greg intimate that the missing tooth (ie. No 30) is a missing wisdom tooth?

I saw that as well. Tracy shouldn't be posting every tid-bit of Greg's without giving it a once-over himself. If Tracy is claiming some relevance of this quote then that is on Tracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Why did the dentist note that Oswald needed a prosthesis?

Sandy,

There's no such note.  There's a box marked, "Prosthesis Required?   If 'Yes,' explain briefly," and it's marked "FAILED, 5-5-58".

It's simply your subjective opinion that "FAILED" there meant that "Oswald needed a prosthesis."

It's your leap of faith.   You believe in your own subjective interpretation.  But self-belief is never "indisputable."

It's just as likely that "FAILED" meant that the dentist conducted a test on Oswald, as to whether he needed a prosthesis, and the test FAILED.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Does Greg intimate that the missing tooth (ie. No 30) is a missing wisdom tooth?

 

38 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I saw that as well. Tracy shouldn't be posting every tid-bit of Greg's without giving it a once-over himself. If Tracy is claiming some relevance of this quote then that is on Tracy.

Anyone who claims tooth #30 is a wisdom tooth is simply not paying attention or trying to be deliberately obtuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

There's no such note.  There's a box marked, "Prosthesis Required?   If 'Yes,' explain briefly," and it's marked "FAILED, 5-5-58".

It's simply your subjective opinion that "FAILED" there meant that "Oswald needed a prosthesis."

It's your leap of faith.   You believe in your own subjective interpretation.  But self-belief is never "indisputable."

It's just as likely that "FAILED" meant that the dentist conducted a test on Oswald, as to whether he needed a prosthesis, and the test FAILED.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

Oh for Pete's sake!  A prosthesis was required because one failed on or by May 5, 1958, as is clearly reported on the form.  What prosthesis could have possibly failed on a man with these teeth?  Will the CIA defending H&L critics soon claim that Ed Voebel sneaked into the Marines and wrote the failed prosthesis notation?

life_magazine_missing_tooth_closeup.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Oh for Pete's sake!  A prosthesis was required because one failed on or by May 5, 1958, as is clearly reported on the form.  What prosthesis could have possibly failed on a man with these teeth?  Will the CIA defending H&L critics soon claim that Ed Voebel sneaked into the Marines and wrote the failed prosthesis notation?

life_magazine_missing_tooth_closeup.jpg

Jim,

That photo was artificially retouched.   You keep posting it as though it was a scientific artifact -- it's not.  It was a teenage prank.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to cite any EVIDENCE for your claim that Ed Voebel and LEE Harvey Oswald

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

That photo was artificially retouched.   You keep posting it as though it was a scientific artifact -- it's not.  It was a teenage prank.

Prove it!

Cite any EVIDENCE at all for your claim that Ed Voebel and LEE Harvey Oswald conspired to fake evidence of a missing tooth in the classroom photo Ed took.  Tell us how they did this so that Ed Voebel could commit perjury about the missing tooth before the Warren Commission in 1964. Did they also pay off Aunt Lillian to pay a dental bill for Lee? Tell us how they managed to fake Marine Corps dental records in 1958. Do you also think Ed Voebel wrote the prosthesis failed notation on Oswald's Marine records?  Clever fellow, that Voebel!  No wonder he died so young at the Ochnser Clinic.  Just too smart for his own good, eh?

Your desperation to come up with an explanation--any explanation--is quite obvious.

Edited by Jim Hargrove
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Care to cite any EVIDENCE for your claim that Ed Voebel and LEE Harvey Oswald

Prove it!

Cite any EVIDENCE at all for your claim that Ed Voebel and LEE Harvey Oswald conspired to fake evidence of a missing tooth in the classroom photo Ed took.  Tell us how they did this so that Ed Voebel could commit perjury about the missing tooth before the Warren Commission in 1964. Did they also pay off Aunt Lillian to pay a dental bill for Lee? Tell us how they managed to fake Marine Corps dental records in 1958. Do you also think Ed Voebel wrote the prosthesis failed notation on Oswald's Marine records?  Clever fellow, that Voebel!  No wonder he died so young at the Ochnser Clinic.  Just too smart for his own good, eh?

Your desperation to come up with an explanation--any explanation--is quite obvious.

"Prove it!"

Don't have to...it's up to you to prove that that didn't happen.

You're the ones telling the story so the onus is on you to nail it. You haven't! It's your ball, it's your game and it's your theory. It's not our fault that there are multiple alternative explanations, al of which are infinitely more feasible, that you can't disprove happened. 

Once again another "indisputable" piece of 'evidence' crumbles into the psychotic dust from which it emerged.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Maybe if you ignore the evil evidence long enough it will go away.

I'm not ignoring you, Sandy. I was out making a living today LOL. I think this boils down to projection, Sandy.  You're projecting something that means something else onto prothesis to equal a missing tooth.

Said another way, it's how you're interpreting what the form says which is hardly rock solid evidence.

And not to go off on too different of a tangent here - and apologies to Tracy who does not believe there was a conspiracy - but you may want to read how this is written and how testimony and statements are interpreted and written about. Sorry Sandy but your analysis of this tooth thing doesn't hold a candle to how Mr Hay wrote about the case as a whole.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/ayton-mel-and-david-von-pein-beyond-reasonable-doubt

Hate to say it Sandy but if I was a lawyer and I'd need an investigator, I sure wouldn't want you in my corner. I know that sounds mean but  it's simply true the way you've fallen so deeply for this Hardly Lee baloney without being able to see it for the fictional story it is.

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...