W. Tracy Parnell

Then why does it show missing teeth?

Completely false. Other explanations have been provided. You may not believe they are "reasonable" but others clearly do. The simplest reasonable alternative explanation is simply that the "failed" notation doesn't mean what you think it does. Your theory relies on a iron clad chain of events. The photo MUST show "Lee" with a missing tooth and the notation on the dental chart MUST show that "Lee" had missing teeth in the front. If either of these fail the theory is invalid. Of course, this does not even take into account all of the other common sense evidence that disproves H&L in general.

Please ask him if a dental prosthesis would be indicated in some manner or just ignored.

Yes and the left side of the chart says "Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities." But absolutely nothing is indicated for the front teeth which the H&L guys think have been replaced by a dental prosthesis. I would think a prosthesis would be an abnormality at the very least. The idea that this would not be indicated in some manner is just silly.

You are right Mervyn. Other explanations are something in the photographic process caused the dark area or that the upper lip is covering the tooth as demonstrated in a graphic by John Mytton (reply #3 first page) here: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,207.0.html Of course, the H&L people already have the explanation they are seeking so they reject all else.

I'm going to bow out of this and let you have your fun Sandy. Because that is what this is all about is your personal enjoyment in "solving" the JFK case. But you haven't done that at all. In fact, if you took a poll right here at EF (which has been done before), which is composed mostly of conspiracy believers, I'll bet the majority would still not believe in the H&L theory in spite of your new "discovery." In other words, you still have to convince people like John Newman, David Lifton and Jim Di Eugenio. As I have said repeatedly, the only way to get the H&L theory to be accepted as fact is to take your findings and all of the other "evidence" for H&L to accredited experts for evaluation. In the case of your dental findings that means forensic dentists and peer reviewed studies. But any single piece of evidence, such as the "failed" notation you are placing so much emphasis on, cannot exist in a vacuum. It will be judged against ALL of the evidence by the experts to make a determination. And when it is, the H&L theory will not stand up. Because there are alternate explanations for ALL of the anomalies that H&L is based on even if the explanation is simply there was an error made. These alternate explanations have been provided to the H&L people over and over for years. So, when you have gone through the process I described and convinced the majority of the experts that you are right, you will have something. Until that time, I have better things to do.

Bingo-a denture might be an abnormality.

I have no idea what the notation means. But there are any number of explanations, one being that the dentist simply made a notation about "something" in an improper place on the chart. In the H&L world, there is no room for human error which occurs quite frequently in real life.

It is true that there are somewhat varying methods of dental charting. But your claim that the chart would make no effort to show a denture is without foundation and doesn't make sense. At the least, they would use an "X" as they do to show other missing teeth. You say you are using "common sense" but your claims that the chart would simply ignore the alleged denture defy that.

No that will not work. Look at any high school textbook and you will see the statement that LHO killed JFK. If you want to change that fact, you have to work within the system to do it. If you can produce facts to back up your assertions, that should be no problem. In the case of H&L, there are many reasonable explanations for what you believe are facts, as in the case of the dental records we are discussing here. The experts know this and are, or would be, unpersuaded. What you are calling "indisputable proof" is in fact highly disputable.

Wrong. The purpose of a dental chart is to show the history of the patient's dentition so proper treatment can be administered. When you go to the doctor they want to know what has happened to you in the past not just what new procedures are being considered. Same with a dentist.

I have no idea what the "failed" reference means and neither do you. You think that it supports your theory but it doesn't. As I have explained, dental charts show both an "X" for the missing tooth and a line between the outline of the teeth corresponding to the tooth number of the appliance. The chart shows neither for the teeth you believe are missing. And it doesn't show an "X" to represent the missing front teeth even though an "X" is used to represent other missing teeth on the chart. As I have said repeatedly, contact someone in authority if you believe you have a breakthrough to get an expert opinion. Without that you have nothing.

And you have absolutely no proof that "Lee" had such a device. Once again, you are using your interpretation of something to support your ideas. Other than this obvious misreading of what a dentist wrote, you don't have one witness, one dental chart or any other evidence to support this. If you think I am wrong, find a qualified person that thinks this chart wouldn't show a partial denture. Once again, I challenge you to take this to a QUALIFIED person and see what they say. And then watch them run away when they find out it is Oswald as they invariably would.

First, as you say, Voebel THOUGHT Oswald might have lost a tooth. That's all-he thought it and nothing more. Same with Lillian, she thought LHO went to a dentist. But even if he did, you admit the tooth could have been just loosened. The infamous photo, as has been explained to you before, could be nothing more than an artifact in the printing process. And BTW, if LHO wore a partial denture why didn't he have it in here? Finally, your analysis of the dental chart shows precisely why you need an expert rather than an amateur to evaluate this stuff. This site explains how to indicate a complete denture (CD) or a removable partial denture (RPD) on a dental chart: http://medical.tpub.com/14275/css/Fixed-Partial-Dentures-Fpds-68.htm Mark the missing teeth as previously described [with an X]. Place a horizontal line between the outline of the teeth and the numerals designating teeth replaced by the CD or RPD So there is no indication on the chart of a partial or full denture and no evidence from anyone that LHO wore one. Therefore this "indisputable evidence" is extremely suspect.

That is fine if you are able to do that. But any expert (that is not promoting an agenda) will look at the totality of the evidence in this case and that is what you guys do not do. So, it will be a high standard to actually prove your case. But I will give you credit for one thing. If you are really trying to find expert opinions that is a step in the right direction and shows you are serious about your beliefs.

It's two different things Sandy. My articles are mostly summaries of established facts. I am not an expert, anyone could do what I have done. You are elevating yourself to the level of expert in forensic dentistry-that is the difference. And if common sense is all that is need, why should these people go to medical school?

But this is based completely on what the H&L people think they see in one (and only one) photo. So this is not an established fact at all.

My point is if you were a qualified expert, your opinion would carry some weight. But since you are just an unqualified guy sitting at home (with an agenda) who thinks he sees something in x-rays, that is not persuasive. I am not threatened by anything. If you can prove there were 2 Oswalds and that becomes a fact that is accepted by the scientific community, the media and so on, great. I don't believe you can do that though. When they find out who you are and what you are trying to do, they will run for cover. And not because they "are in on it" but rather because they understand something you guys do not which is there is all kinds of very persuasive evidence against your theory. So even if you could find an expert who thinks your theory has merit, he would have to weigh that against all of the available evidence.

The first thing any expert would want to know would be what Sandy's qualifications are. You would then have to answer (if you were being honest) none. Seriously, if I tried to pull something like this (in reverse) I would be soundly criticized and the critics would be right.

Sopher is deceased and I suspect Cottone is as well since DiMaio, in his book, refers to him as "retired" at the time of the exhumation. So, that leaves DiMaio and Norton.

No, I don't have current information on him, he may be retired.

I have never spoken to Ms. Norton, only to DiMaio. But try this link Jim: https://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-linda-norton-w83qn But I really hope you don't bother her and I am certainly not going to. She has better things to do I'm sure than to respond to this nonsense and she had two of the best dental experts in the country at the time. Dentistry is not her specialty anyway. A better tactic, as I suggested above, would be to get an independent forensic dentist to verify Sandy's "findings." I wouldn't hold my breath for that though. You could also take your case to an investigative reporter as I have suggested in the past. Perhaps this new "information" will put your case over the top.

Sandy, What nonsense! Sandy Larsen is now an expert on forensic dentistry? You already admit there is a gap where a tooth could be missing. I'll say the same thing I have been-if you think you have some kind of "proof" of something, take it to an expert (which you are not) and have it verified. When an expert agrees with your findings, you will have something. Of course, when you explain your alternate theory, that there were two Oswalds, they will no doubt run for cover. As I have said,, perhaps someone will prove some sort of conspiracy in the JFK case someday-nearly anything is possible. But what is impossible is the two Oswald theory of John Armstrong-it didn't happen.

I don't know, but probably not.

Probably the two most respected sources for cryptonyms are Mary Ferrell and John Newman. Neither has RX-ZIM or anything close to it. Wilcott refused to name the code under oath and only during interviews with HSCA staff (apparently) and a couple other times did he mention it. Check out this piece from the San Francisco Chronicle in which Wilcott admits to heavy drinking and embellishes his claims about LHO and the CIA. This reads very much like a man who had an axe to grind: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/A Disk/Agent Oswald Office Files/Agent Oswald 4-78/Item 01.pdf