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

[Bruce Fernandez]

Ron, anybody who can take this issue from beginning to end with a clear rational path.
As an aside you seem to be personally involved, are you, and how?

I'm dealing with it simply from a "show me" point of view, though I do have a personal connection.

[Ron Ecker]

19 minutes ago, Bruce Fernandez said:

Ron, anybody who can take this issue from beginning to end with a clear rational path.
As an aside you seem to be personally involved, are you, and how?

I'm dealing with it simply from a "show me" point of view, though I do have a personal connection.

No, I'm not involved. I've tried to follow the discussion, and think Sandy has made a good case. Upsetting to some for unclear reasons. Agendas, I guess.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Ron Ecker

[Bruce Fernandez]

I think that explanation mirrors my participation! Thanks

[B. A. Copeland]

I want to see if this topic gets derailed into a kindergarten styled battle royale instead of consistent evidence and rationality without attacks, sarcasm, etc...

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, Bruce Fernandez said:

Is there .. anybody .. who can bring rationality to these conversations ? Perhaps an admin can perceive motivations or "deep sources" that we mortals are unable to access.

Deep sources??   You mean, like, deep politics??

C'mon.

It's only common sense, Bruce.  You either make a strong case or you don't.  Period.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 16, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Bruce Fernandez]

No Paul, I'm referring to motivations that would get me kicked off here if I voiced them, and I guess maybe I've done it, so perhaps you've silenced another rational voice. Good for you, bad for truth!

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Greg Parker has replied to Sandy at his forum:

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1703-more-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-molar-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not

[Jim Hargrove]

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker has replied to Sandy at his forum:

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1703-more-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-molar-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not

I never bother reading anything on Greg Parker’s site because it always turns out to be little more than virulent anti-H&L rhetoric without foundation, but Sandy Larsen does check it out from time to time, and he sent me a note about the write-up Tracy is trying to push on us above.

According to Sandy….

Greg’s stated position is that Oswald needed a prophylaxis treatment and the treatment “FAILED.” 

Using a 1956 HARVEY Oswald dental record, Greg declared that Oswald had a severe crossbite and he was scheduled for corrective surgery for this on May 14, which is on the 1958 dental record.

Sandy wrote….

LOL this is terribly funny!  The "surgery scheduled for  May 14" was actually Oswald getting a filling on tooth #10.
 
The final paragraph of Greg's post is:
 
"The main keys to "proving" the existence of Hardly Lee are a complete inability to read forms correctly, and Armstrong's witness recruit drive. To call the theory bogus is an insult to a three dollar bill."
 
LOL, so we're the ones who cannot read forms!

Tracy Parnell often refers readers here to Greg Parker's page trying to refute Harvey and Lee.  Why?  Because he is embarrassed to make Parker's arguments here.  Who wouldn't be?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

More from Parker:

the attached section of the records show a Nov 1, 1956, entry, "sealing - prophylaxis - instructions"

 

I believe this indicates he had tooth pits sealed to stop possible decay - any ongoing care needs explained, and instructions on how to maintain the seals. 

 

From google: "Sealants can last up to 10 years. But they need to be checked at regular dental check-ups to make sure they are not chipped or worn away. The dentist or dental hygienist can repair sealants by adding more sealant material."

 

I think this is what is being referenced 5/5.58 as having failed and this is why he needed 2 cavities filled.  The failure has nothing to do with a dental prosthesis.  It was the only space available to indicate the sealing failure.

 

 

BTW, I am not "embarrassed" by anything, I am just passing the information along. But I think it shows that there are other reasonable explanations and that the assertion that the "failed" notation "indisputably" proves two Oswalds is silly. This is exactly what would happen if a qualified individual reviewed the entire case including LHO's dental history and the other relevant facts. Such a person would undoubtedly find alternate explanations.

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Reply To Sandy and Jim from Parker:

----------------------------

 

Here we go... the usual MO with these guys - never quoting me directly - that way they can change what I said to whatever suits them.

 

jim hagrove wrote:

 

I never bother reading anything on Greg Parker’s site because it always turns out to be little more than virulent anti-H&L rhetoric without foundation, but Sandy Larsen does check it out from time to time, and he sent me a note about the write-up Tracy is trying to push on us above.

 

According to Sandy….

 

Greg’s stated position is that Oswald needed a prophylaxis treatment and the treatment “FAILED.” 

 

Using a 1956 HARVEY Oswald dental record, Greg declared that Oswald had a severe crossbite and he was scheduled for corrective surgery for this on May 14, which is on the 1958 dental record.

 

Sandy wrote….

 

LOL this is terribly funny!  The "surgery scheduled for  May 14" was actually Oswald getting a filling on tooth #10.

 

The final paragraph of Greg's post is:

 

"The main keys to "proving" the existence of Hardly Lee are a complete inability to read forms correctly, and Armstrong's witness recruit drive. To call the theory bogus is an insult to a three dollar bill."

 

 

LOL, so we're the ones who cannot read forms!

 

Tracy Parnell often refers readers here to Greg Parker's page trying to refute Harvey and Lee.  Why?  Because he is embarrassed to make Parker's arguments here.  Who wouldn't be?

 

But here is what I said about the surgery set down for May 14: 

 

"The correct reading of the form is "prophylaxis (treatment) needed - yes" - at some later point in time, someone else has added that this treatment failed on May 5 and he was then scheduled for some type of surgery on May 14." As you can also see, the word "severe" is not a word I used. They are just setting up the strawmen to knock down. 

 

I did not specify what type of surgery was done on 5/14. Sandy may well have it right. I didn't bother looking into it because in the scheme of things, it doesn't matter.

 

I did say that crossbites may require surgery.  That remains true, but I made no effort to claim that was the surgery he was having on the 14th. 

 

My own timeline taken from the paperwork had been: 

 

03/27/58 Initial examination: posterior lateral crossbite and rotated tooth noted. 

 

04/30/58 Unknown procedure undertaken.

 

05/05/58 procedure noted as having failed. Note made in only available space giving rise to Larsen's misreading.

 

05/14/58 - unknown surgery completed on this date.

 

---------------------------------------

 

Note 1: The crossbite reference has no readable date but it is in the same hand as the writer of the "failed" notation which was written in May 5, 1958.  

 

Note 2: The "yes" to "prophylaxis needed is in the same hand as the "exam" notation made on March 23, 1958.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Donabedian_Ex_1.pdf  (starts on page 29)

 

Based on the above, If Sandy wants to say that the "crossbite" notation was made on entry to the USMC in 1956, he will have to show that the dentist from stateside also went to Japan and was there in 1958 . 

 

Is Larsen also saying that Oswald had no treatment at all for the bilateral posterior crossbite? This does not correct itself. In someone still growing, an expansion devise is usually worn (in some cases, only at night) for several months. Adults can also have this, but as previously indicated, may be better advised to have surgery. The sidebar on this is that by the very nature of the treatment, the facial shape will change. I therefore can understand why Sandy and Hargrove avoided bringing the crossbite into it. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894776/ 

[Michael Walton]

13 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I never bother reading anything on Greg Parker’s site because it always turns out to be little more than virulent anti-H&L rhetoric without foundation, but Sandy Larsen does check it out from time to time, and he sent me a note about the write-up Tracy is trying to push on us above.

That's the problem, Jim. If you and others who believe in this nonsense were really, truly seekers of the truth or common sense, then you WOULD read what Parker and others who ARE versed in common sense would have to say. This case was not one big grand conspiracy like you and others want to believe and push here and elsewhere.

But of course like Larsen, you can always cop out of this theory by saying - as SL did - that "oh this entire Oswald Project had absolutely nothing to do with the Kennedy case."

LOL

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Reply To Sandy and Jim from Parker:

----------------------------

 

Here we go... the usual MO with these guys - never quoting me directly - that way they can change what I said to whatever suits them.

 

jim hagrove wrote:

 

I never bother reading anything on Greg Parker’s site because it always turns out to be little more than virulent anti-H&L rhetoric without foundation, but Sandy Larsen does check it out from time to time, and he sent me a note about the write-up Tracy is trying to push on us above.

 

According to Sandy….

 

Greg’s stated position is that Oswald needed a prophylaxis treatment and the treatment “FAILED.” 

 

Using a 1956 HARVEY Oswald dental record, Greg declared that Oswald had a severe crossbite and he was scheduled for corrective surgery for this on May 14, which is on the 1958 dental record.

 

Sandy wrote….

 

LOL this is terribly funny!  The "surgery scheduled for  May 14" was actually Oswald getting a filling on tooth #10.

 

The final paragraph of Greg's post is:

 

"The main keys to "proving" the existence of Hardly Lee are a complete inability to read forms correctly, and Armstrong's witness recruit drive. To call the theory bogus is an insult to a three dollar bill."

 

 

LOL, so we're the ones who cannot read forms!

 

Tracy Parnell often refers readers here to Greg Parker's page trying to refute Harvey and Lee.  Why?  Because he is embarrassed to make Parker's arguments here.  Who wouldn't be?

 

But here is what I said about the surgery set down for May 14: 

 

"The correct reading of the form is "prophylaxis (treatment) needed - yes" - at some later point in time, someone else has added that this treatment failed on May 5 and he was then scheduled for some type of surgery on May 14." As you can also see, the word "severe" is not a word I used. They are just setting up the strawmen to knock down. 

 

I did not specify what type of surgery was done on 5/14. Sandy may well have it right. I didn't bother looking into it because in the scheme of things, it doesn't matter.

 

I did say that crossbites may require surgery.  That remains true, but I made no effort to claim that was the surgery he was having on the 14th. 

 

My own timeline taken from the paperwork had been: 

 

03/27/58 Initial examination: posterior lateral crossbite and rotated tooth noted. 

 

04/30/58 Unknown procedure undertaken.

 

05/05/58 procedure noted as having failed. Note made in only available space giving rise to Larsen's misreading.

 

05/14/58 - unknown surgery completed on this date.

 

---------------------------------------

 

Note 1: The crossbite reference has no readable date but it is in the same hand as the writer of the "failed" notation which was written in May 5, 1958.  

 

Note 2: The "yes" to "prophylaxis needed is in the same hand as the "exam" notation made on March 23, 1958.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Donabedian_Ex_1.pdf  (starts on page 29)

 

Based on the above, If Sandy wants to say that the "crossbite" notation was made on entry to the USMC in 1956, he will have to show that the dentist from stateside also went to Japan and was there in 1958 . 

 

Is Larsen also saying that Oswald had no treatment at all for the bilateral posterior crossbite? This does not correct itself. In someone still growing, an expansion devise is usually worn (in some cases, only at night) for several months. Adults can also have this, but as previously indicated, may be better advised to have surgery. The sidebar on this is that by the very nature of the treatment, the facial shape will change. I therefore can understand why Sandy and Hargrove avoided bringing the crossbite into it. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894776/ 

 

I just want a permanent record of this. Because I will criticize some of its silliness and I don't want those silly parts to disappear.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Greg Parker is all over the place on this, first talking about sealant and prophylaxis treatments, and a crossbite, reported on Oswald's 1956/57 dental record. And then moving on to a prophylaxis reported on his 1958 record. Which is somehow tied to a surgery reported on May 14.

It's all very confusing!

But we can look at the one statement made by Parker regarding the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation and see how silly it is. The purpose for doing so is to show that Parker doesn't understand these dental records and dental procedures.

Here's the 1958 dental record where the prosthesis is reported to have failed:

 

Right below the dental charts (drawings of the teeth), there is a field on the left that asks if a prophylaxis is needed. A "prophylaxis" in dentistry is what we call a cleaning of the teeth. (Not to be confused with "antibiotic prophylaxis," which means taking a course of antibiotics prior to a dental procedure.)

The dentist wrote "yes" in this field. So he is saying that Oswald needed a dental cleaning.

To the right of the prophylaxis field is a field asking if a prosthesis is needed. A prosthesis is a false tooth. The dentist is instructed to "explain briefly" if the answer is yes. Here the dentist wrote "FAILED 5-5-58." The logical reading of this is that a prosthesis (false tooth) is need because an existing one failed.

Now lets look at what Greg says these two fields. He wrote:

"The correct reading of the form is "prophylaxis (treatment) needed - yes" - at some later point in time, someone else has added that this treatment failed on May 5 and he was then scheduled for some type of surgery on May 14."

So Greg's interpretation of the form is that the teeth cleaning failed. There was no room to write the word "FAILED" in the prophylaxis (teeth cleaning) field, so instead the dentist wrote "FAILED" in the prosthesis (false tooth) field.

Greg apparently does not know what a prophylaxis is. If he did, he would know that teeth cleanings do not fail. Which is why there is no space to write "FAILED" for a teeth cleaning.

Greg goes on to say that, because of the failed prophylaxis (teeth cleaning), the dentist prescribed some type of surgery to take place on May 14. Since when is surgery required to correct a failed teeth cleaning?? (If there were such a thing as failed teeth cleaning.)

The truth is, Oswald got a filling on May 14. If you look at the chart on the left (the drawings of the teeth), you will see that two teeth are marked as having cavities (caries). Tooth #10 and tooth #20. Now look at the appointment table at the bottom of the record, and you will see that tooth #20 got a filling on April 30, and tooth #10 got a filling on May 14. A filling is not surgery. And it has nothing to do with a failed tooth cleaning.  Something that doesn't even exist.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

More from Parker:

the attached section of the records show a Nov 1, 1956, entry, "sealing - prophylaxis - instructions"

 

I believe this indicates he had tooth pits sealed to stop possible decay - any ongoing care needs explained, and instructions on how to maintain the seals. 

 

From google: "Sealants can last up to 10 years. But they need to be checked at regular dental check-ups to make sure they are not chipped or worn away. The dentist or dental hygienist can repair sealants by adding more sealant material."

 

I think this is what is being referenced 5/5.58 as having failed and this is why he needed 2 cavities filled.  The failure has nothing to do with a dental prosthesis.  It was the only space available to indicate the sealing failure.

 

Greg has since added the above.

Apparently, realizing that a prophylaxis (teeth cleaning) doesn't fail, he moved on to find something on Oswald's charts that could fail. And what he found was "sealant." (Unfortunately for him, on a different, earlier chart.)

A sealant is like a varnish that is painted onto pits and fissures of teeth that are prone to getting cavities. The idea is that it prevents the acids from bacteria from eating away at the enamel.

Sealants do indeed fail. These days they last as long as ten years. They weren't anywhere that effective in the 1950s.

Problem is, there is absolutely no mention of "sealant" on the 1958 record that has the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation on it. And yet Greg wants up to believe that the dentist meant "SEALANT FAILED" when he wrote "FAILED." And that he wrote that in the "Prosthesis Required?" field.

This is just silly. There is plenty of space in the field called "Remarks" for the dentist to note that the sealant failed.

One other thing.... why did the dentist note that the sealant failed on May 5, but didn't note it on March 27 when the examination took place? We know for sure that one of the two cavities was found before May 5, because it was filled on April 30, according to the chart. Why wasn't the failed sealant noted then?

Greg is just making up whatever excuses he can for what is clearly a notation indicating that an existing prosthesis (false tooth) failed.
 

[Thomas Graves]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Greg Parker is all over the place on this, first talking about sealant and prophylaxis treatments, and a crossbite, reported on Oswald's 1956/57 dental record. And then moving on to a prophylaxis reported on his 1958 record. Which is somehow tied to a surgery reported on May 14.

It's all very confusing!

But we can look at the one statement made by Parker regarding the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation and see how silly it is. The purpose for doing so is to show that Parker doesn't understand these dental records and dental procedures.

Here's the 1958 dental record where the prosthesis is reported to have failed:

 

Right below the dental charts (drawings of the teeth), there is a field on the left that asks if a prophylaxis is needed. A "prophylaxis" in dentistry is what we call a cleaning of the teeth. (Not to be confused with "antibiotic prophylaxis," which means taking a course of antibiotics prior to a dental procedure.)

The dentist wrote "yes" in this field. So he is saying that Oswald needed a dental cleaning.

To the right of the prophylaxis field is a field asking if a prosthesis is needed. A prosthesis is a false tooth. The dentist is instructed to "explain briefly" if the answer is yes. Here the dentist wrote "FAILED 5-5-58." The logical reading of this is that a prosthesis (false tooth) is need because an existing one failed.

Now lets look at what Greg says these two fields. He wrote:

"The correct reading of the form is "prophylaxis (treatment) needed - yes" - at some later point in time, someone else has added that this treatment failed on May 5 and he was then scheduled for some type of surgery on May 14."

So Greg's interpretation of the form is that the teeth cleaning failed. There was no room to write the word "FAILED" in the prophylaxis (teeth cleaning) field, so instead the dentist wrote "FAILED" in the prosthesis (false tooth) field.

Greg apparently does not know what a prophylaxis is. If he did, he would know that teeth cleanings do not fail. Which is why there is no space to write "FAILED" for a teeth cleaning.

Greg goes on to say that, because of the failed prophylaxis (teeth cleaning), the dentist prescribed some type of surgery to take place on May 14. Since when is surgery required to correct a failed teeth cleaning?? (If there were such a thing as failed teeth cleaning.)

The truth is, Oswald got a filling on May 14. If you look at the chart on the left (the drawings of the teeth), you will see that two teeth are marked as having cavities (caries). Tooth #10 and tooth #20. Now look at the appointment table at the bottom of the record, and you will see that tooth #20 got a filling on April 30, and tooth #10 got a filling on May 14. A filling is not surgery. And it has nothing to do with a failed tooth cleaning.  Something that doesn't even exist.

 

Sandy,

With all due respect, does Greg's observation that there are two different handwritings (indicating two different dentists and/or dental technicians) on the form have any bearing on this discussion?

I mean, I mean, I mean ... in your "genius opinion"?

-- Tommy 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Thomas Graves