W. Tracy Parnell

22 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

So the left chart is for marking things that need fixing

Then why does it show missing teeth?

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Paul,

So far nobody has been able to give a reasonable alternative explanation for the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation in the "Prosthesis Required" field. That makes it indisputable so far.

 

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.

4 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

But its in contradiction to the photo showing the missing tooth.

I will have one of my dental experts review the form and give me an opinion and I will share that with all of you.

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

11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The complete form was shown in Sandy’s original post in this thread:

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 But absolutely nothing is indicated for the front teeth which the H&L guys think have been replaced by a dental prosthesis.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.

16 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

and it does offer a plausible explanation worth considering.

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. 

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Abnormalities

Bingo-a denture might be an abnormality.

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

How can you say with a straight face it is "highly disputable" when you can't even dispute it yourself? And nobody else can dispute it?

You can't just wish it away!

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.

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And as I've explained, those instructions are for a different chart. And Oswald's chart asks for other information, but not what you think it should show (a prosthesis).

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.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My crusade is to inform the people directly. That seems to be the only way.

 

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.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This dental record doesn't list prior fillings, crowns, and prostheses because doing so would serve no purpose. The purpose of this record is to show new dental problems and when they were fixed.

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.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If Oswald had no prosthesis, as you claim, then how do you explain his dental chart clearly indicating that his prosthesis failed?

I obviously do have proof that Oswald had a prosthesis. You just can't accept that fact given all the effort you've put into fighting against John Armstrong's thesis.

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.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I just used their photos to show that the corpse had no prosthetic devices

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.

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oswald was missing a front tooth, but his exhumed body was not!
New evidence is presented here.

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.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It will be soon.

 

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.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Has most everything you've posted on you anti-H&L website been reviewed and approved by experts? If not, why should anybody take anything you've written seriously?

Oh I know... because not everything requires expertise to understand. Common sense is often all that is needed.

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?

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Jack Ruby shot Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald, and it is HARVEY who is buried in Rose Hill Cemetery in Fort Worth.  American-born LEE Oswald, whose identity HARVEY shared, lost one or two upper front teeth in a schoolyard fight and was missing a molar.  From the exhumation photos, HARVEY had all his teeth.  It is all explained here:

HarveyandLee.net

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.

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tracy,

What you say here makes no sense. An expert should make a judgement based only on the evidence, his knowledge, and his experience. Not on the qualifications of a another person drawing his own conclusions.

This is just your knee jerk reaction to my common-sense, compelling observations that threatens your point of view, but for which you have no answer.

 

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.

14 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Perhaps it would be best to let Sandy present all the new evidence he has found before working up a presentation for expert appraisal.  What bothers me about this is that virtually all attorneys knows that they can get an expert opinion to support just about anything.  It happens every day in court rooms across America.  I’m not disagreeing with your point, Tom, but I predict that even more than one “expert opinion” on Sandy’s evidence will not prove definitive in the debate.

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.

11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Would anyone who knows how to reach a surviving member of the Norton team kindly email me at...

jimbotopia@gmail.com

Thank you!!

Jim

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.

29 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Do you have contact information for Vincent DiMaio?

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

11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

FASCINATING, Sandy... THANK YOU!

This is NEW EVIDENCE showing that the EXHUMATION graphics prove there were TWO DIFERENT OSWALDS, both in the USMC in the late 1950s!

The NORTON TEAM should be questioned directly about this!  Are any of them sill alive?

Tracy....

Do you have an email address for Ms. Norton... or anyone else from her team?  If you do, please forward Sandy's post to them and ask for comments, or tell me how to reach them.  Assuming you won't try to help us reach Ms. Norton or her associates, I'll make an attempt to locate the surviving members.  Won't you help?

  

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.

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tracy,

Has every CIA cryptonym been published on Mary Ferrell? Is John Newman aware of every CIA cryptonym?

 

 

I don't know, but probably not.

16 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

It's actually more than that Jim H. That crypto code you mention and Wilcott vaguely remembered does not exist on any list of cryptos.

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