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

[Sandy Larsen]

Cory,

My next post is the concise one you asked us to write.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

 

Above is a military dental record for an 18 year old man of interest. It indicates that he had a dental examination on March 27, 1958.

A notation was later added to the field titled "Prosthesis Required?" The dentist is instructed to "explain briefly" if the answer is "yes," that a prosthesis is required. The dentist wrote "FAILED 5-5-58."

Here's a closeup of the "Prosthesis Required" field:

 

 

The question is, what does this brief notation mean?

It is my contention that this means that an existing prosthesis failed. Either it failed on May 5, 1958, or was reported on that date.

Here is my line of reasoning:

1. What came to mind when I first read the word "FAILED" was that it was referring to a failed prosthesis. Because that was the context in which it was written. But I decided that I should search for all other dental procedures and devices whose failure would also require a prosthesis. The only other possibility I could think of was failure of an avulsed tooth replantation. That would require a prosthesis.
    
2. Ultimately I ruled out a failed replantation, for two reasons:  First, the dentist probably would have written a more meaningful explanation for that, like "FAILED REPLANTATION." And second, there is no sign of a replantation being performed in the "Treatment" section of the dental record.
   
   So I believe that the "FAILED" notation means that an existing prosthesis failed.
    
3. My critics say that, if there had been an existing prosthesis, its existence would have been marked on the dental chart. I disagree. The chart states above it what is to be marked: "Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities." It does NOT ask for prior treatments (like restorations, crowns, and bridges) to be marked, and indeed none are marked. This is an important distinction because some dental charts do ask for prior treatments to be marked.
   
   The other chart, on the right, is titled "Dental Treatments Accomplished." So the left chart is for marking things that need fixing, and the right chart for marking things that got fixed. Prior treatments are not marked on either.
    
4. My critics ask, what is the point of writing such a brief explanation for why a prosthesis is required? My answer is, I can only guess. But the instruction does indeed say that if the answer is "yes," the dentist is to write a brief explanation.
   
   My guess is that, at that time, in the military, specialists were used for fitting dental prostheses. The patient would have been sent to a specialist and he would have performed his own examination and treatment.
    
5. Note that the failed prosthesis could not have been a replacement for missing tooth #30, which is marked with an X on the chart. Because there was no room for a prosthesis to fit at #30 due to mesial drift and tipping of the adjacent molar into the #30 site. (We know this to be the case because of a forensic study later performed on this patient's corpse.)
    
6. I have reason to believe that the existing prosthesis was a bridge, about which I will explain shortly. My critics ask, if there was an existing bridge, then how is it that the missing tooth which that bridge replaced isn't marked with an X on the chart. I say it's simply because the missing tooth had been replaced with the bridge. The tooth was therefore no longer missing and no treatment was necessary for it. No X was needed on the chart.
    
7. And finally, there is compelling evidence that this patient lost one or two front teeth during a 9th grade fist fight. While this evidence is not necessary to conclude that this patient had a prosthesis that failed on or around May 5, 1958, it does provide evidence that he did have a prosthesis prior to his 1958 dental examination.

Following is the evidence that the patient lost a tooth when in the 9th grade as a result of a fist fight. This is optional reading.

His Best Friend Testified He Lost a Tooth

In a government hearing held ten years after the fist fight, the patient's best friend testified as follows:

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

His Aunt Testified that he Went to See a Dentist

The patient's aunt testified as follows at the government hearing:

"Another time they were coming out of school at 3 o'clock, and there were boys in back of him and one of them called his name, and he said, "Lee," and when he turned around, this boy punched him in the mouth and ran, and it ran his tooth through the lip, so she [his mother] had to go over to the school and take him to the dentist, and I paid for the dentist bill myself, and that's all I know about that, and he was not supposed to have started any of that at that time."

Now, why would the patient go see a dentist if he hadn't lost a tooth in the fight? Surely he didn't go there to have his lip sewn up.

A Yearbook Photo Shows that the Tooth is Missing

The patient's best friend was tasked with taking photos to be included in the 9th grade school yearbook. Here is a closeup showing that the patient's front tooth was missing. In fact, there might be two missing teeth:
 

 

It is easier to see in this contrast-adjusted version of the photo:

 

 

Given all this evidence, it is my belief that this boy was at some time fitted with a dental bridge for his front teeth. Later, while serving in the military, the prosthesis failed. And that is the reason for the dentist making the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation in the dental record.

But as I said before, this part about the missing front teeth is merely corroboration for the point I am trying to make. That point being that the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation was referring to a failed prosthesis.

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Ok, give me your best concise arguments either way.

I have a hearing tomorrow but probably Thursday I will talk with him about this and link the arguments.  Keep it short and simple please.

I am not paying him to review this thread.

Thanks,

Cory

Cory,

Thanks for doing this!

I have posted my concise arguments on an Education Forum sub-forum page that doesn't reveal that this is about JFK or LHO. It is here:
 

 

I ask that the other side post their arguments in a separate thread. But they can do so in the same sub-forum if they wish

(I don't know if the moderators will allow us to post there.)

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

There's your problem Sandy. You are being DOGMATIC. YOU are right and everyone else is wrong. YOU are God. You claim that what you are stating is INDISPUTABLE and its a case of "how dare you dispute the word of God [Sandy]. But Sandy is not God and Sandy is huffing and puffing like a televangelist of old. You are huffing and puffing to create an illusion that your version of showing half a form is the whole form. When anyone notes where the word 'Yes' is placed and reads across the whole line in the whole form, then it is obvious that it is all one comment. Besides which Sandy, when all is said and done no one is going to pay any attention to the fact that you are ranting about nothing.

[Paul Trejo]

16 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Ok, give me your best concise arguments either way.

I have a hearing tomorrow but probably Thursday I will talk with him about this and link the arguments.  Keep it short and simple please.

I am not paying him to review this thread.

Thanks,

Cory

Cory,

Please just ask your dental expert to look at the FORM box that was marked "Failed" in response to the question, "Prosthesis Required?" and ask him for an opinion -- whether it is "indisputable" that it must mean "an existing prosthesis failed."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Cory,

Please just ask your dental expert to look at the FORM box that was marked "Failed" in response to the question, "Prosthesis Required?" and ask him for an opinion -- whether it is "indisputable" that it must mean "an existing prosthesis failed."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

 

I discovered one other possibility.

Suppose a tooth were knocked out in May 1958, and the dentist attempted  to replant it. If the replantation failed, a prosthesis would be called for.

So there are two possibilities. But it doesn't matter because that would also prove there were two Oswalds.

I didn't think of that possibility before because the list of dental procedures I was checking didn't include replantations.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

34 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Cory,

Please just ask your dental expert to look at the FORM box that was marked "Failed" in response to the question, "Prosthesis Required?" and ask him for an opinion -- whether it is "indisputable" that it must mean "an existing prosthesis failed."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

 

Paul,

Just so you know, my use of the word "indisputable" is in regards to the fact that the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation proves there were two Oswalds, not that the notation "FAILED 5-5-58" can only mean that an existing prosthesis failed.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

 

I rephrased the (accidentally) offending sentence.

Before: 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 would be like labeling an elderly or sickly person lazy.

After: It's entirely possible that some people who are dishonest may be that way due to a mental illness. Those people should not be labeled dishonest. Doing so would be like labeling an elderly or sickly person lazy.

 

[Paul Trejo]

34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Paul,

Just so you know, my use of the word "indisputable" is in regards to the fact that the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation proves there were two Oswalds, not that the notation "FAILED 5-5-58" can only mean that an existing prosthesis failed.

WHAT??

You are presuming as a FACT that the "Failed 5-5-58" note by this dentist "proves that there were two Oswalds??"

Based on WHAT??

Because you said so?    Is Mervyn right about your ego in this regard?

Then on WHAT ELSE -- --  besides your NAKED ASSUMPTION that "Failed 5-5-58" can ONLY mean that the young LHO had a prosthesis??

You have already backed off of the photograph of LHO with the alleged "missing tooth."   And you have not answered my question -- is it not obvious that the blackened space in the photograph is large enough for 2.5 missing teeth?

You don't have enough evidence to make your case, Sandy -- and you are a long, long way from INDISPUTABLE.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 14, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 10:58 AM, Don Jeffries said:

...John Armstrong conducted a massive amount of research, all out of his own pocket. How many who post on this forum have done any independent research on this subject?  ...

Don,

Hobbyists often spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on their hobbies.   That does not make their work worthy of academic interest.

The amount of money John Armstrong spent on his hobby is no argument for the truth of his CT.   It is, in my opinion, the weakest of all the CIA-did-it CT's.   It has the most fiction and the least plausibility.   I think he's going for a Hollywood contract -- and I think he's wasting his time.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 14, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

You are presuming as a FACT that the "Failed 5-5-58" note by this dentist "proves that there were two Oswalds??"

Based on WHAT??

 

It's simple Paul.

Something failed in 1958, and this failure required Oswald to get a prosthesis. A prosthesis is a fake tooth. So in 1958 Oswald needed a fake tooth.

But in 1981 the exhumed Oswald did NOT need a fake tooth. All his teeth were natural... none fake. And  there was no place for a fake tooth to fit.

Therefore, the 1958 Oswald was not the same person as the 1981 Oswald.

 

[Paul Trejo]

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

It's simple Paul.

Something failed in 1958, and this failure required Oswald to get a prosthesis. A prosthesis is a fake tooth. So in 1958 Oswald needed a fake tooth.

But in 1981 the exhumed Oswald did NOT need a fake tooth. All his teeth were natural... none fake. And  there was no place for a fake tooth to fit.

Therefore, the 1958 Oswald was not the same person as the 1981 Oswald.

It is simple, Sandy.   It's simply your interpretation of the FORM.   That's all you've got.   Why not admit it?

You never PROVED that Lee Harvey Oswald had a Prosthesis.

Therefore, comparing this "imaginary" LHO to the exhumed LHO is a waste of time!   

It's so simple.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

You never PROVED that Lee Harvey Oswald had a Prosthesis.

 

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.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cory,

Thanks for doing this!

I have posted my concise arguments on an Education Forum sub-forum page that doesn't reveal that this is about JFK or LHO. It is here:
[ . . . .]

I ask that the other side post their arguments in a separate thread. But they can do so in the same sub-forum if they wish

(I don't know if the moderators will allow us to post there.)

 

Sandy,

Maybe you should ask the Admins here if they would be willing to lock the thread you started.  If that was done, we could provide the link to other dental experts over the coming weeks and be confident it would not be ruined.

Shouldn’t you do the same thing for the molar(s) when time permits?