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

[Sandy Larsen]

On 2/13/2018 at 11:56 AM, Michael Walton said:

On 2/12/2018 at 10:46 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

(Of course, some unfortunate folks have low mental capacity, disability, and disease. I can't blame them for not being able to function rationally.)

Isn't  this a logical fallacy when all else fails the person starts  stooping  to questioning a person's  mental capacity when said person  disagrees?

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.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

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.

 

EDIT: Cory, after writing this post I saw your offer to show our best, concise arguments to your expert. I will re-write the following in that format and post it elsewhere for your expert to view.

That would be great Cory. I hope you will do the following:

• Hide the name Lee Harvey Oswald.
• Point out that the purpose of the left chart is to mark things that might need fixing (specifically "Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities"). It does NOT ask for prior treatments (like fillings, crowns, and prostheses) to be marked. This is an important distinction because some dental charts do ask for prior treatments to be charted.
• The purpose of the chart on the right is to mark those things that have been fixed ("Dental Treatment Accomplished").
• The failed prosthesis cannot apply to the missing tooth #30, which is shown on the chart. Because there was no room for a prosthesis to fit at #30 due to mesial drift and tipping of the adjacent molars. (As shown in the Norton Report.) This is important because the expert may wonder which tooth is missing that the failed prosthesis was supposed to have replaced. I contend that that missing tooth wasn't marked on the chart because it had been replaced with the prosthesis, specifically a dental bridge.
• If you want, you can mention the evidence there is that a front tooth had been lost in an earlier fist fight.

If your expert is thorough, he will figure out for himself most of what I point out above. But there is no way for him to know there was no room for a prosthesis at #30 without you telling him so or showing him the Norton Report.

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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 [a prosthesis] would not be indicated [on the chart] in some manner is just silly.

 

It's not silly at all. I mean, Oswald had many restorations (fillings), and not a single one of those is marked on the chart. And neither was his root canal.

The chart asks only for those things that require treatment to be marked up on the chart. NOT prior treatments.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy is right Cory.

 

Do not tell him it is from Oswald.  

[Sandy Larsen]

We need to decide where to post our concise arguments. Cory may have already revealed that this has to do with JFK or LHO. If so, I guess we can just post them in this thread. If not, we should post them elsewhere.

Does anybody have an idea where? Hopefully somewhere on the Education Forum, given that we are already members and we have experience with the editor.

From the home page of the Education Forum is an "Ask an Expert" section with a forum called "History" and a sub-forum below that called "Cold War." This is kind of related to that. (Cold war espionage.) That forum is here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/forum/180-cold-war/

Is that okay? Any better ideas?

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Cory,

Thinking ahead... do you know how to get the URL for a specific post? Younger folks probably know, but I had to fiddle around some before figuring it out.

Hover your mouse over the desired post. When you do that, the phrase "Report post" becomes visible in the upper right-hand corner of the post. Immediately to its right is a symbol that looks like a tipped over V. Clicking on that reveals the URL for the post. Just copy and paste that.

Does everybody know how to copy these days? Hover the mouse pointer over the URL and right-click it. A menu pops up and you click "Copy."

Sorry, Cory, if I explained too much.

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Mervyn Hagger]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Mervyn,

I posted the full prosthesis field for all to see. As well as the whole form. I have hidden nothing and we all know that.

Kindly refrain from trying to create a controversy where none exists.

 

Sandy, I couldn't have put it better - the controversy you are attempting to create by redacting a form and using a staged picture is on a par with that of a religious huckster. Your 'product' cannot be far away in the form of a book.

[Mervyn Hagger]

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 

Does anyone see a PATTERN here, or is it just me?  What could that pattern possibly be?

Surely not DIVIDE AND CONQUER, eh?  That's just way too unsophisticated!

I've been arguing online about the JFK assassination for at least twenty years, but this is the funniest bs I've seen in all that time.

LOL!

Jim, by associating with Sandy's smoke and mirrors you have discredited yourself.

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Sandy, I couldn't have put it better - the controversy you are attempting to create by redacting a form and using a staged picture is on a par with that of a religious huckster. Your 'product' cannot be far away in the form of a book.

Mervyn sounds like a broken old vinyl record stuck on a bad song.  He knows full well that Sandy posted the full form in his original post in this thread.

 

But Mervyn wants to talk about an imaginary controversy to distract people from this entry in that same form.

 

Why?  Because this entry shows Oswald had a false tooth.

 

Ed Voebel, the kid who took the picture above for the school yearbook, testified under oath that Oswald lost a tooth.

Mr. JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right?
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.

Mervyn wants to pretend none of this means a thing.  Does he think he's fooling anyone interested in the truth?

[Ray Mitcham]

Jim has shown that Melvyn is wrong when he accused Sandy of  redacting the form when it is clear from his first post that he didn't. An apology to Sandy would seem to be in order.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[Paz Marverde]

3 minutes ago, Kathy Beckett said:

I don't usu mind most of the arguments here.  This however kinda hacks me off.

Mental illness does not beget deceit.  Having been diagnosed with major depression, and even hospitalized for it in years past, I can tell you that this simply is not the case. I'm sure it was said as a  dig, and an attempt to be clever.   Anyone who has experienced this would know you are way off base. 

We are making great headway in being more acceptable of mental illness as an illness, not a stigma.  Don't start making generalizations that can colour others' thoughts, even if it only meant to be snarky.

Agree

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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.

Edited February 14, 2018 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Kathy Beckett said:

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

No... it's an act-of-compassion clause. I believe that, due to mental illness, some people can't refrain from making deceitful statements. Those people should not be labeled dishonest.

 

I don't usu mind most of the arguments here.  This however kinda hacks me off.

Mental illness does not beget deceit.  Having been diagnosed with major depression, and even hospitalized for it in years past, I can tell you that this simply is not the case. I'm sure it was said as a  dig, and an attempt to be clever.   Anyone who has experienced this would know you are way off base. 

We are making great headway in being more acceptable of mental illness as an illness, not a stigma.  Don't start making generalizations that can colour others' thoughts, even if it only meant to be snarky.

 

Nope, you are wrong Kathy. That was definitely not a dig.

I have great compassion for folks with both mental and physical illnesses. I have suffered with both. And what I said was in defense of those people who, through no fault of their own, say deceitful things.  (Which is not to say that every mentally ill person does that! Or even many of them.)

Maybe you need to read the context of that statement. I first wrote:

 

Quote

I think that anybody who stoops so low as to intentionally mischaracterize evidence and who tries to distract from it is dishonest and should be ashamed of himself. And that anybody who congratulates that person -- thus lending support -- is likewise dishonest and should be ashamed of himself.

(Of course, some unfortunate folks have low mental capacity, disability, and disease. I can't blame them for not being able to function rationally.)

 

I was angry by what certain people were posting. It was blatantly dishonest. I lashed out with that first paragraph.

After that I cooled off, realized that it is likely that there are some people who behave precisely that way due to mental illness, and have little or no control over it. And THAT is the reason I added the second paragraph." Where I say I can't blame them for something they can't help.

Michael replied to that and quoted only the second paragraph. And I replied to him.

When you quoted my reply to Michael, why didn't you include the sentence that followed, which I highlight in red here:

 

Quote

No... it's an act-of-compassion clause. I believe that, due to mental illness, some people can't refrain from making deceitful statements. Those people should not be labeled dishonest. Doing so [labeling them dishonest] would be like labeling an elderly or sickly person lazy.

 

That highlighted part explains exactly what I was talking about. People (including and in particular myself) shouldn't blame people for things they can't help.

Also, notice that I didn't say that every person with a mental illness can't refrain from making deceitful statements. I said that I BELIEVE that SOME PEOPLE with mental illnesses can't do so. I believe that because it makes sense to me that a mental illness can negatively affect ANY part of mental health. Including honesty. Different people are affected in different ways.

The only reason I spoke specifically of dishonesty and deceit is because that was the subject of my first post. From which all this sprang. It's not because I automatically link mental illness to dishonesty. I don't.

Anyway, what I wrote was taken the wrong way. And I feel bad about that. But it kinda bugs me that the parts that explained what I was saying got whittled away in the feedback.

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

10 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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.

 

Not true, Tracy.

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.

If the dental record indicates that Oswald needed a prosthesis (false tooth), then that means there were two Oswalds. Because it  means that in 1958 Oswald was missing a tooth that could be fixed with false tooth. Yet the exhumed teeth show that there was no place for a false tooth to fit.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Kathy Beckett said:

I'm sure it was said as a  dig, and an attempt to be clever.

Kathy,

I would never, ever take a dig -- or anything else -- at the expense of people's misfortunes.

But it's probably a good thing you brought it up so I could explain myself. I didn't know there was anything I said that could be taken the way you and Paz took it.

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Sandy Larsen