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

[Michael Walton]

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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?

I'm not attacking you and even so, even the admin thought you you went overboard with the "mental health" comment.  I've always found you to be an interesting individual Sandy.  You seem to be totally and completely devoid of self awareness when you put your thoughts and comments here. If you had self awareness in abundance, then you'd have the ability to see that your theories may be / could be wrong. But because you lack that, your way of thinking is "everyone is wrong and i'm always right."

Regardless, I did put my rebuttals to your theory here.

[Michael Walton]

14 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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.

Exactly.  I said this numerous times.  Don't take it to NBC but why not Consortium News?  After all, they published DiEugenio there - maybe let a seasoned reporter there look at the theory and if it holds water, maybe they'll publish it, though I don't doubt because in all honesty the whole HL story is a real whopper IMO.

[Ray Mitcham]

3 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.

Mytton is famous for creating misinformation. He photoshopped  the teeth behind the upper lip in the or don't you understand, Tracy?

Edited February 15, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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?

I'm not attacking you...

You said that I was, "Stooping to personal slander...."  Which is attacking me.  And which is something I did not do.

The fact is, it is Mervyn who continues slandering me. By continuing to say that I am hiding something on LHO's dental record. Which is demonstrably not true.

 

[Michael Walton]

12 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Mytton is famous for creating misinformation. He photoshopped  the teeth behind the upper lip in the or don't you understand, Tracy?

Is that the best you can do, Ray? He did that to show a comparison of two images combined. As a comparison.  Do you not understand that? He did NOT do it to muddle things - merely as a comparison.  Wow!

[Michael Walton]

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You said that I was, "Stooping to personal slander...."  Which is attacking me.  And which is something I did not do.

Sandy - there are many logic fallacies - remember I said there were you 10 and you said there were many more? Which you're correct about? But the larger point is the logical fallacy I identified - and there is one of them - called ad hominem.  In other words when all else fails, folks stoop to a lower level and attack the individual rebutting them.  That's what I meant when I read your "mental health and illness" comment and it appeared that the admin concurred. So how you interpreted that as me attacking you is unclear - you made the mental sickness comment not me and I pointed it out as a logical fallacy.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"^[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

[Ray Mitcham]

Anybody could photoshop any  photo to make a comparison. You are taking it as if it was gospel. If you believe that he didn't do it to muddle things then you don't know Mytton.

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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....

Sandy,

As I keep telling you...LHO's 1958 dental exam DOES NOT state that he needed a prosthesis.   That is only your unprofessional interpretation of the word, "FAILED" in that box.

That is really all you have to go on anymore -- and it's tissue thin.   You need SOME corroboration.   Where is it?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

48 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

Sandy,

It's up to you to explain how Oswald's 1958 dental exam "states" that he needed a prosthesis.   It says NO SUCH THING.   It's all in your mind.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

8 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Anybody could photoshop any  photo to make a comparison. You are taking it as if it was gospel. If you believe that he didn't do it to muddle things then you don't know Mytton.

 

You are, of course, right Ray.

If we look at the Life photo without modifications, it looks like Oswald's front tooth/teeth are missing. If we look at the photo as modified by Mytton -- WHERE HE HAS ADDED TEETH -- then we don't see missing teeth! Should that come as a surprise? LOL

Of course we should make our judgement based on the original photo.

The critics will come up with excuses for the missing teeth till the cows come home.

 

[Michael Walton]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You are, of course, right Ray.

If we look at the Life photo without modifications, it looks like Oswald's front tooth/teeth are missing. If we look at the photo as modified by Mytton -- WHERE HE HAS ADDED TEETH -- then we don't see missing teeth! Should that come as a surprise? LOL

Of course we should make our judgement based on the original photo.

The critics will come up with excuses for the missing teeth till the cows come home.

So here's what you said in reply to the photo COMPARISON he made on the other forum:

John,
That's interesting. I don't buy it because of the corroborating evidence, but it's interesting.
Regardless, for argument's sake I will concede. Because the loss-of-tooth evidence isn't even necessary for my proof.
How do you explain that in 1958 Oswald was missing a tooth and needed a fake one (a prosthesis) to replace it, but in 1981 no longer needed it? Did a tooth grow back while he was dead?

So you're now concurring with Ray here but also conceding over there?  I'm confused.

[Sandy Larsen]

9 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

As I keep telling you...LHO's 1958 dental exam DOES NOT state that he needed a prosthesis.   That is only your unprofessional interpretation of the word, "FAILED" in that box.

 

The box asks, "Prosthesis Required?  If "yes," explain briefly." The dentist responded with this brief explanation, "FAILED 5-5-58."

Ergo, a prosthesis was required.

 

9 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

That is really all you have to go on anymore -- and it's tissue thin.   You need SOME corroboration.   Where is it?

 

The missing tooth evidence is excellent corroboration.

 

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 12:05 PM, Micah Mileto said:

What if the Oswald photo is just him covering his upper teeth with his tongue, like if he was trying to make a silly face?

Micah,

Looking at that external link, it now seems to me that you're right.  Apparently LHO was sticking his tongue up into his upper lip, making a silly face, and covering up 2.5 of his upper front teeth.  

The photograph is so fuzzy, because of the poor technology of a cheap B&W camera from 60 years ago, that flaws in the photo give the illusion of a missing tooth.   This would mean that:

1.  The photograph is no evidence at all.
2.  The testimony of Aunt Murrett is incomplete and potentially misleading.
3.  The dental FORM is being misinterpreted with bias by the H&L team.
4.  Ed Voebel's WC testimony, with all his "I think" phrases, is Ed trying to make a buck off LHO post-JFK.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

16 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Sandy said:

John,
That's interesting. I don't buy it because of the corroborating evidence, but it's interesting.
Regardless, for argument's sake I will concede. Because the loss-of-tooth evidence isn't even necessary for my proof.
How do you explain that in 1958 Oswald was missing a tooth and needed a fake one (a prosthesis) to replace it, but in 1981 no longer needed it? Did a tooth grow back while he was dead?

Michael said:

So you're now concurring with Ray here but also conceding over there?  I'm confused.

 

You don't understand the phrase, "For sake of argument.... ?"

That means, consider this ALTERNATIVE while I make an argument. In that case the ALTERNATIVE was that I conceded to his altered photograph. (Rather than the fact that I wasn't conceding. ) I then made my argument. After which that ALTERNATIVE was no longer to be considered. We were back to the fact that I wasn't conceding.

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

48 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Sandy - there are many logic fallacies - remember I said there were you 10 and you said there were many more? Which you're correct about? But the larger point is the logical fallacy I identified - and there is one of them - called ad hominem.  In other words when all else fails, folks stoop to a lower level and attack the individual rebutting them.  That's what I meant when I read your "mental health and illness" comment and it appeared that the admin concurred. So how you interpreted that as me attacking you is unclear - you made the mental sickness comment not me and I pointed it out as a logical fallacy.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"^[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

 

Michael,

Calling somebody out for repeatedly making demonstrably dishonest statements is not an ad hominem attack.