Mervyn Hagger Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 You guys are whistling in the wind. The yes is clearly placed. It is in the first box and not the second box. LHO needed antibiotics. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mervyn Hagger Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 I find your entire case evaporating by the second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mervyn Hagger Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I state right in my presentation that my contribution to the list of evidence is the prosthesis notation that I found on Oswald's dental records. THAT IS MY PRIMARY EXHIBIT. The rest is corroborating evidence. Why do you keep saying that the photograph is my primary exhibit? I don't need to remove anything. If you want to make interpretations of the photo, that's your prerogative. But quit calling it my primary exhibit. Who are you to tell me to do these things? You have a presentation based on hearsay, a very questionable photograph and a misreading of a dental record. I am suggesting that you move on to something else. I am not telling you to do anything, its your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 The form clearly indicates that a prosthesis failed 5-5-58. A prosthesis is defined as "an artificial body part, such as a leg, a heart, or a breast implant." Mervyn can claim victory any number of times he wishes, but he can't make the evidence go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mervyn Hagger Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 7 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: Case closed, eh? Above from Sandy's original post in this thread. You just don't have a case. You are reading things into documents and photographs to support your theory. It's time to let go and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mervyn Hagger Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 11 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: Oh puh-leeze. The form clearly shows that prophylaxis was needed because a prosthesis failed 5-5-58. pros·the·sis präsˈTHēsis/ noun 1. an artificial body part, such as a leg, a heart, or a breast implant. "his upper jaw was removed and a prosthesis was fitted" 2. the addition of a letter or syllable at the beginning of a word, as in Spanish escribo derived from Latin scribo. That is not what those boxes mean and it is not what the document says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Mervyn--The guy who took the photograph you hate said he thought Oswald had a tooth knocked out. Oswald's aunt paid a dentist to care for him. The photo shows a missing tooth. USMC records show a dental prosthesis (a false tooth) failed on 5-5-58. And you declare Case Closed, no missing tooth? Hah-hah-hah-hah. You guys are sure desperate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mervyn Hagger Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 Jim I don't hate anyone. You are dreaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 I'll check back later and see if Mervyn can come up with a better excuse to explain all this evidence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 24 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said: I think that the time has come to cut to the chase. This is all about a mis-reading of a dental record and a failure to understand the meaning of two different words! The claim is made that LHO was missing a tooth and some form of prosthetic was substituted. But that is not what the record shows! Note that the patient is in need of prophylaxis - not a prosthesis. Look where the "Yes" appears! CASE CLOSED You should have gone to Spec-Savers (UK ad) slogan. Mervyn, You've repeatedly made charges against me that are nonsense. This is no different. I have said nothing about the prophylaxis. I have written only about the prosthesis. Didn't you read my presentation? If not, you shouldn't be here debating it. The form has a field that asks "PROSTHESIS REQUIRED?" After which it states, "If yes, explain briefly." And that is precisely what the dentist did. He explained BRIEFLY that the current one "FAILED" on "5/5/58." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mervyn Hagger Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said: Mervyn, You've repeatedly made charges against me that are nonsense. This is no different. I have said nothing about the prophylaxis. I have written only about the prosthesis. Didn't you read my presentation? If not, you shouldn't be here debating it. The form has a field that asks "PROSTHESIS REQUIRED?" After which it states, "If yes, explain briefly." And that is precisely what the dentist did. He explained BRIEFLY that the current one "FAILED" on "5/5/58." I am not wasting any more time on this. I was curious. I am no longer curious and I will avoid similar threads in future. This one is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 18 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: Oh puh-leeze. The form clearly shows that prophylaxis was needed because a prosthesis failed 5-5-58. pros·the·sis präsˈTHēsis/ noun 1. an artificial body part, such as a leg, a heart, or a breast implant. "his upper jaw was removed and a prosthesis was fitted" 2. the addition of a letter or syllable at the beginning of a word, as in Spanish escribo derived from Latin scribo. Almost right, Jim. A prosthesis is needed because a prosthesis failed. "Prophylaxis" refers to cleaning of the teeth. That was a separate issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 18 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said: I find your entire case evaporating by the second LOL! Oh man, the only thing evaporating here is Mervyn's credibility. Mervyn, LOOK AT THE FORM. IT'S PROSTHESIS! A fake tooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 17 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said: You have a presentation based on hearsay, a very questionable photograph and a misreading of a dental record. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Oh okay, granted. The missing tooth might be black paint; the guy's tongue; a red grape; a penny; anything else you guys can think of. Or it can be what it looks like... a missing tooth. Even you agree it LOOKS LIKE a missing tooth. Because that's the illusion a painted tooth is supposed to give! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 20 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said: 33 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: Oh puh-leeze. The form clearly shows that prophylaxis was needed because a prosthesis failed 5-5-58. pros·the·sis präsˈTHēsis/ noun 1. an artificial body part, such as a leg, a heart, or a breast implant. "his upper jaw was removed and a prosthesis was fitted" 2. the addition of a letter or syllable at the beginning of a word, as in Spanish escribo derived from Latin scribo. That is not what those boxes mean and it is not what the document says. Get yourself a good pair of reading glasses, Mervyn. Everybody here but you can see the "Prosthesis Required" field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now