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

[Paul Trejo]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It doesn't matter whether he had a prosthesis or not.  What matters is that in 1958 he NEEDED a prosthesis, and in 1981 he DIDN'T.

How could that be? A tooth grew back?

No. It means two different Oswalds.

Sandy,

Again, you are merely ASSUMING that LHO lost one or more teeth by 1958 -- and you have shabby evidence to support your view.

1.  You have a photograph that is questionable
2.  You have a claim by Oswald's aunt that is questionable
3.  You have a claim by Ed Voebel that is questionable
4.  You have a dental FORM that is questionable.

Nobody can logically call these four questionable claims, INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE.   It's barely a start. 

The task you have chosen, LOGICALLY, is to PROVE that these four claims are TRUE.    Yet, right now you are merely ASSUMING that some are TRUE. 

It ain't enough for INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Mervyn Hagger]

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

Again, you are merely ASSUMING that LHO lost one or more teeth by 1958 -- and you have shabby evidence to support your view.

1.  You have a photograph that is questionable
2.  You have a claim by Oswald's aunt that is questionable
3.  You have a claim by Ed Voebel that is questionable
4.  You have a dental FORM that is questionable.

Nobody can logically call these four questionable claims, INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE.   It's barely a start. 

The task you have chosen, LOGICALLY, is to PROVE that these four claims are TRUE.    Yet, right now you are merely ASSUMING that some are TRUE. 

It ain't enough for INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

He also has half a form that he is willing to discuss. An honest approach would be to ALWAYS show the whole form (the line that is filled in), and get a CONTEXTUAL opinion as what the entire line means on the entire form. Otherwise he is asking for an opinion about a redacted document. That is dishonest. Since it is a dental form the only interpretative opinions that matter are from dentists. Not car salesmen or saleswomen or window cleaners or bankers or politicians or the guy outside mowing his law because he has retired from a police department and looking for something to do. 

[Jim Hargrove]

Paul and Mervyn sure are anxious to make us believe that the dental evidence that there were two different “Lee Harvey Oswalds” is unreliable. Why do they care so much?

They want us to believe that two molars tipping toward a gap left by a missing tooth shown in this Marine Corps x-ray of Oswald ....

…. could, in just a few years, slide sideways and straighten themselves up in this x-ray from the exhumation:

 

They want us to believe that Oswald’s best friend in the 9th grade, Ed Voebel, was hallucinating when he testified under oath, “I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.”

Paul and Mervyn want us to believe that Voebel’s camera was also hallucinating when it shot this photo of Oswald’s missing tooth:

They want us to believe that Lillian Murret took Lee Oswald to a dentist to treat a split lip, rather than a missing tooth.  No doubt Ms. Murret was was hallucinating about how dentists treat lips.

Paul and Mervyn, especially Mervyn, want us to believe that it is SO UNFAIR to show this detail from a U.S. Marine dental form indicating that Oswald had a prosthesis that failed on or by 5-5-1958.

 

They don’t want us to know that a dental prosthesis is a false tooth.  Instead, Mervyn wants to talk about the fact that the form indicates Oswald needed his teeth cleaned (“Prophylaxis needed: Yes”).  The teeth cleaning is much more important to Marvyn than Oswald’s false tooth.

Why?

Because according to the Norton Report and images taken from the exhumation, “Lee Harvey Oswald” was not missing a front tooth and had straight molars.

This seems to indicate that the “Lee Harvey Oswald” in the Marines dentist chair was not the same Lee Harvey Oswald who is buried in Fort Worth.  

Paul and Marvyn seem to really, really hate that conclusion.  Why?

Edited February 15, 2018 by Jim Hargrove

[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?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

John Mytton over at Duncan Macrae's forum has solved this issue (reply #58 and #61 at the following link):

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,207.50.html

Even Sandy admitted, "That's interesting. I don't buy it because of the corroborating evidence, but it's interesting".

Bottom line-the lip is covering the teeth.

[Michael Walton]

On 2/14/2018 at 12:09 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

No... it's an act-of-compassion clause. It's entirely possible that some people who are dishonest may be that way due to mental illness. Those people should not be labeled dishonest. Doing so would be like labeling an elderly or sickly person lazy.

Oh, OK. Sure sounds like a logic fallacy to me. Stooping to personal slander when one has no other recourse to argue against their point. And I never realized honesty played a role in it LOL

[Mervyn Hagger]

33 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

John Mytton over at Duncan Macrae's forum has solved this issue (reply #58 and #61 at the following link):

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,207.50.html

Even Sandy admitted, "That's interesting. I don't buy it because of the corroborating evidence, but it's interesting".

Bottom line-the lip is covering the teeth.

LOL. I had a look. You are right, John Mytton did a great job, and he just knocked Sandy's thesis out of the ballpark to lala land. Excellent!

[Michael Walton]

The biggest fallacy of this theory is that you have to make several assumptions before you then say this one is true. Assumptions like:

• The head in the coffin was switched because the skull in the coffin shows he had his front teeth and none were missing (no evidence this ever happened)
• The FAILURE word means - not interpreted - that he had a missing tooth and thus, needed a fake one
• Ignore other evidence arguing this theory in order for it to make this theory work. Like:
• (SL) There does not need to be a missing tooth at all. Ed Voebel's testimony is unnecessary. Aunt Lillian's testimony is unnecessary. The Life magazine photo is unnecessary.
• BIGGEST ONE - secret agents found an impostor ten years before 11.22, groomed him, had him living in Oswald's shadow for some unknown secret mission

So isn't this cherry-picking to fit the theory?

And even in death, Oswald's narrow-shaped mouth always seemed to cover his front teeth up:

Edited February 15, 2018 by Michael Walton

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It doesn't matter whether he had a prosthesis or not.  What matters is that in 1958 he NEEDED a prosthesis, and in 1981 he DIDN'T.

How could that be? A tooth grew back?

No. It means two different Oswalds.

Sandy,

Again, you are merely ASSUMING that LHO lost one or more teeth by 1958 -- and you have shabby evidence to support your view.

Paul,

As I keep telling you, it doesn't matter whether or not Oswald lost a tooth before 1958. What matters is that his 1958 dental exam states that he needed a prosthesis. Yet his 1981 exhumation showed that he didn't have one nor did he need one.

This proves that the two Oswalds were not the same person.

The other evidence -- Ed Voebel's testimony, Aunt Lillian's testimony, and the Life Magazine photo -- combined make for strong corroborating evidence.

I know you don't like this, but these are the facts.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

On 2/14/2018 at 8:09 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

So the left chart is for marking things that need fixing

Then why does it show missing teeth?

Because a missing tooth can be fixed with a denture or bridge if it is treated soon enough. If not treated soon enough, the adjacent teeth can drift and tip down into the gap left behind by the missing tooth, thereby leaving inadequate space to fit a false tooth.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

John Mytton over at Duncan Macrae's forum has solved this issue (reply #58 and #61 at the following link):

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,207.50.html

Even Sandy admitted, "That's interesting. I don't buy it because of the corroborating evidence, but it's interesting".

Bottom line-the lip is covering the teeth.

Tracy,

John Mytton has merely come up with another excuse as to why we see missing teeth in the photo.

But it doesn't matter whether or not Oswald lost teeth in that fight. What matters is that his 1958 dental exam states that he needed a prosthesis. Yet his 1981 exhumation showed that he didn't have one nor did he need one.

This proves that the two Oswalds were not the same person.

The other evidence -- Ed Voebel's testimony, Aunt Lillian's testimony, and the Life Magazine photo -- combined make for strong corroborating evidence.

I know you don't like this, but these are the facts.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

On 2/13/2018 at 10:09 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

No... it's an act-of-compassion clause. It's entirely possible that some people who are dishonest may be that way due to mental illness. Those people should not be labeled dishonest. Doing so would be like labeling an elderly or sickly person lazy.

Oh, OK. Sure sounds like a logic fallacy to me. Stooping to personal slander when one has no other recourse to argue against their point. And I never realized honesty played a role in it LOL

 

What slander? I said that mentally ill people should not be held to the same standard as people with normal mental health. I'm defending them.

Why don't you address the topic instead of attacking me?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

The biggest fallacy of this theory is that you have to make several assumptions before you then say this one is true. Assumptions like:

• The head in the coffin was switched because the skull in the coffin shows he had his front teeth and none were missing (no evidence this ever happened)
• The FAILURE word means - not interpreted - that he had a missing tooth and thus, needed a fake one
• Ignore other evidence arguing this theory in order for it to make this theory work. Like:
• (SL) There does not need to be a missing tooth at all. Ed Voebel's testimony is unnecessary. Aunt Lillian's testimony is unnecessary. The Life magazine photo is unnecessary.
• BIGGEST ONE - secret agents found an impostor ten years before 11.22, groomed him, had him living in Oswald's shadow for some unknown secret mission

So isn't this cherry-picking to fit the theory?

And even in death, Oswald's narrow-shaped mouth always seemed to cover his front teeth up:

Michael,

Oswald's 1958 dental exam states that he needed a prosthesis. Yet his 1981 exhumation showed that he didn't have one nor did he need one.

This proves that the two Oswalds were not the same person.

The other evidence -- Ed Voebel's testimony, Aunt Lillian's testimony, and the Life Magazine photo -- combined make for strong corroborating evidence.

I know you don't like this, but these are the facts.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tracy,

John Mytton has merely come up with another excuse as to why we see missing teeth in the photo.

But it doesn't matter whether or not Oswald lost teeth in that fight. What matters is that his 1958 dental exam states that he needed a prosthesis. Yet his 1981 exhumation showed that he didn't have one nor did he need one.

This proves that the two Oswalds were not the same person.

The other evidence -- Ed Voebel's testimony, Aunt Lillian's testimony, and the Life Magazine photo -- combined make for strong corroborating evidence.

I know you don't like this, but these are the facts.

 

Who gets to decide what matters-the H&L people? Now that you are backing away from the photo "evidence" all you have is a notation on a dental chart. You believe that this one notation, which could have several alternate explanations, "proves" that there were two Oswalds. This is in spite of all the other evidence to the contrary that still exists. Such as what happened to "Lee" and the original Marguerite? And why didn't any one of the hundreds of individuals who knew the real Marguerite come forward after seeing the "fake" Marguerite on TV or in newspapers. And what about the HSCA photo evidence that shows the photos of "Harvey" and "Lee" are the same person?

Again, if you believe you have solved the case here, why not take it to someone in authority who can do something about it. I can answer my own question-it's because you know you haven't done anything and this would all be taken apart by anyone that lives in the real world. They would inform you that one notation in a dental chart (BTW military charts are prone to errors according to Norton) doesn't trump all of the other evidence. But continue to have your fun.

[Sandy Larsen]

To all you critics spinning your wills... explain this:

Oswald's 1958 dental exam states that he needed a prosthesis. Yet his 1981 exhumation showed that he didn't have one nor did he need one.

This proves that the two Oswalds were not the same person.