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

[Jim Hargrove]

8 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.

 

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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.
 

It’s just a waste of time arguing with Greg Parker.  His arguments constantly change as each one is unmasked. 

I recall especially his many different attempts to explain away Oswald’s simultaneous school attendance in New York City and New Orleans.  It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if all the silly explanations he attempted in the past have disappeared from his forum leaving only his latest futile attempt.

He is always simply making up whatever he can conjure to argue against H&L.

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

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 

Tommy,

I don't know what the significance of different handwritings would be. The dentist may have filled in one part of the form, a dental assistant another part. And things were filled out on different dates.

One thing I find curious is that the two procedures, carried out on 4/30/58 and 5/14/58, were performed by the same dentist. And yet their signatures are different. It's entirely possible that dental assistants signed for the dentist, thus accounting for the different handwriting. But it's a little odd that the first initial is incorrect on one. They should both be "G." (Another dental record verifies that the same dentist preformed both those procedures. And on it "G" is recorded for both.)

Edited February 18, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[W. Tracy Parnell]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't know what the significance of different handwritings would be.

The significance is that different dentists were working on LHO all the time because this occurred in a military situation. As the Norton Report stated, charting errors are common in the military. This supports the idea that whoever wrote the now infamous "failed" entry could have been misinterpreting something done by another dentist. Or as Greg points out, the entry could have been where it was simply due to lack of space to put it anywhere else. Alternate explanations as opposed to "indisputable evidence."

Another thing, a few posts back you criticize Greg's interpretation of the charts and imply that yours is somehow superior.  But Greg's reading of the chart is just as valid as yours since you are not an expert. If you were, your opinion would carry more weight.

Greg says he is retired from H&L at this point, but I'll keep an eye open for any replies he makes.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

One thing I find curious is that the two procedures, carried out on 4/30/58 and 5/14/58, were performed by the same dentist. And yet their signatures are different. It's entirely possible that dental assistants signed for the dentist, thus accounting for the different handwriting. But it's a little odd that the first initial is incorrect on one. They should both be "G."

It's probably a conspiracy :). Seriously, this goes to the point I make above. This was dentist by committee-one guy didn't know what the next was doing. And you guys wonder why there might be a curious notation on a chart?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Greg Parker has taken the time to do a definitive study of the issue. Excellent article and I encourage all to read it:

https://www.thenewdisease.space/single-post/2018/02/19/Adventures-in-Cold-War-Military-Dentistry-the-Associated-Paperwork-a-Subplot-in-the-Ongoing-Battle-to-Eradicate-Destructive-Outre-Historical-Theories

Edited February 19, 2018 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Paul Trejo]

16 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker has taken the time to do a definitive study of the issue. Excellent article and I encourage all to read it:

https://www.thenewdisease.space/single-post/2018/02/19/Adventures-in-Cold-War-Military-Dentistry-the-Associated-Paperwork-a-Subplot-in-the-Ongoing-Battle-to-Eradicate-Destructive-Outre-Historical-Theories

Tracy,

This article that Greg Parker published today is a scholarly contribution.  The evidence he presents appears very solid.  To summarize briefly:

...sealants and prosthetics were lumped in together on the forms and the failure noted in 1958 was for the sealant – not any prosthetics for a missing tooth...  (Greg Parker, 2/18/2018)

Parker demonstrated this by finding US Marine dental records for LHO, and looking on page 31 of this document: 

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Donabedian_Ex_1.pdf

On page 30 of that document, LHO was marked as a "class 3" -- unfit for overseas deployment.   Parker then shows the USMC description of a "class 3" :  folks with "a restoration or prosthethis which cannot be maintained for 12 months" without emergency dental treatment.   Nobody would deploy a Marine in that condition.

On page 31 of that document, we see that on November 1, 1956, Lee Harvey Oswald received a dental teeth cleaning  (prophylaxis) and also a dental sealant, along with instructions to maintain the sealant.   

No further USMC dental work is recorded on page 31, until after Oswald was shipped overseas. 

Parker then claims that Marine Corps dentists classified a sealant in the same category as a prosthesis.  If he is correct in this claim, then the case can be satisfactorily closed at this point.   Given this MATERIAL EVIDENCE, I conclude as follows:

. 1. Sandy Larsen was correct to focus lots of attention on the "Failed Prosthesis" marking on the USMC dental records of LHO.
. 2. Greg Parker was correct to see in USMC dental records that LHO was marked a "class 3" - unfit for deployment - on 11/1/1956 
. 3. Those same USMC dental records also show that LHO received dental sealant treatment on 11/1/1956
. 4. Greg Parker further showed in the USMC dental records that LHO was finally classified as fit for deployment on 7/10/1957.
. 5. Greg Parker concludes that sealants were classified as "prosthetics" on USMC dental forms.

If Parker is correct in his claim, then the question posed by Sandy Larsen has been answered by Parker.   It's more work than anybody else has shown so far on this question.    It also validates my own doubting, several days ago, of Sandy's assumption that a literal dental prosthesis was meant by the marking, FAILED 5-5-58.   Rather, it was his sealant that failed.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 19, 2018 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Another thing, a few posts back you criticize Greg's interpretation of the charts and imply that yours is somehow superior.  But Greg's reading of the chart is just as valid as yours since you are not an expert.

 

That's pure BS. My interpretation is simple, obvious, and makes sense. Greg's interpretation is like a Rube Goldberg machine, attempting to explain a simple thing with complicated nonsense. Because he can't think of a reasonable alternative.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker has taken the time to do a definitive study of the issue. Excellent article and I encourage all to read it:

https://www.thenewdisease.space/single-post/2018/02/19/Adventures-in-Cold-War-Military-Dentistry-the-Associated-Paperwork-a-Subplot-in-the-Ongoing-Battle-to-Eradicate-Destructive-Outre-Historical-Theories

 

Greg is again claiming that the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation is referring to a sealant that was applied in 1957 and recorded on a different dental record.

It is very easy to prove Greg wrong.

The purpose of a sealing treatment is to prevent cavities. So a dentist knows that the sealant failed when he sees the first cavity after the sealant was applied. Look and the appointment dates on the form below and you will see that the dentist treated the first cavity -- located on tooth #20 -- on April 30, 1958. So the dentist noticed on that day or earlier that the sealant failed.

And yet the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation is dated several days later.

And this isn't the only problem with Greg's silly theory. The "FAILED" notation is written in the "Prosthesis Required?" field. Which any clear-thinking individual would agree means a prosthesis failed. But Greg can't have that. So he says that the "FAILED" notation actually belongs to the "Prophylaxis Required?" field, but was written in the "Prosthesis Required?" field due to lack of space. You see, somehow Greg has rationalized that the word "Prophylaxis" refers not only to what it says, but also to "Sealing."

In American dentistry, the term prophylaxis refers specifically to teeth cleaning. I quote from the Wikipedia article on Teeth Cleaning:

Teeth cleaning (also known as prophylaxis....) is a procedure for the removal of tartar (mineralized plaque) that may develop even with careful brushing and flossing, especially in areas that are difficult to reach in routine toothbrushing. It is often done by a dental hygienist.

And Tracy Parnell thinks that Greg's Rube Goldberg explanation is just as valid as my simple, common sense explanation. Because he can't accept the truth either.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

It also validates my own doubting, several days ago, of Sandy's assumption that a literal dental prosthesis was meant by the marking, FAILED 5-5-58.   Rather, it was his sealant that failed.

 

Great! you guys have come up with your alternative meaning of the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation.

I look forward to what dental experts will have to say about your versus my explanation.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

5. Greg Parker concludes that sealants were classified as "prosthetics" on USMC dental forms.

LOL!  Thought you would sneak that one in, eh?

In the past, Greg Parker has also concluded that subjects are allowed to fill in their own height and weight on USMC medical reports.  Greg Parker has also concluded that an image of LEE Oswald I uploaded to my website contained a virus that he, and he alone, acquired, even though no one else acquired it and even though the website host scanned it and found no virus.  Makes me think Greg Parker concludes ANYTHING that makes his endless H&L critiques seem at least half-way serious. 

The desperation of the anti-H&L crowd to come up with something, ANYTHING, to refute evidence for two Oswalds is really quite funny at times.  In this example, they are so desperate that they are trying to tell us that dental sealants are examples of dental prosthetics, which is patently absurd.  Here is how Wikipedia defines “dental prosthesis:”

"A dental prosthesis is an intraoral (inside the mouth) prosthesis used to restore (reconstruct) intraoral defects such as missing teeth, missing parts of teeth, and missing soft or hard structures of the jaw and palate...."  Read the full article HERE.

Ultimately, however unlikely it may be, if a consensus of dental experts concludes that our findings are wrong, we’ll have to live with it and adjust our statements accordingly, though I seriously doubt this will happen.  But watching the anti-H&L crowd try to convince themselves that they have explained this all away is really funny as hell.     

[W. Tracy Parnell]

17 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

This article that Greg Parker published today is a scholarly contribution.  The evidence he presents appears very solid.  To summarize briefly:

Very good summary Paul. I always felt an answer could be found in the LHO records but I didn't have the time to do it myself right now. Kudos to Parker for doing it.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Greg Parker Replies:

Hargrove quoting wiki:

 

"A dental prosthesis is an intraoral (inside the mouth) prosthesis used to restore (reconstruct) intraoral defects such as missing teeth, missing parts of teeth, and missing soft or hard structures of the jaw and palate...."  

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

In other words a dental prosthethis is used in a restoration of a missing or partially missing tooth. 

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

What did I quote in my paper?

 

Definition of non-metallic permanent restoration:

includes filled and unfilled resin, glass ionomer cement, and pit and fissure sealants

Sealants are indeed classified as "restorations" the same as a prosthetic is. 

Note also how they steadfastly refuse to address part one of my paper because they know that alone puts an end to this nonsense.

 

[Michael Walton]

21 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker has taken the time to do a definitive study of the issue. Excellent article and I encourage all to read it:

https://www.thenewdisease.space/single-post/2018/02/19/Adventures-in-Cold-War-Military-Dentistry-the-Associated-Paperwork-a-Subplot-in-the-Ongoing-Battle-to-Eradicate-Destructive-Outre-Historical-Theories

Outstanding and informative report from Greg. Kudos to him.  A couple of things I've noticed from that complete medical report:

A single X on it means a tooth is missing. On that report it seems like an X is on tooth #30 which coincides perfectly with the #30 tooth on the chart SL uses.  I'm assuming that's a LOWER tooth in rhe jaw - yet there are NO X's on the upper teeth that were supposedly knocked out.

A different topic but related to the Hardly story - the believers also question why Harvey looks stocky in some Marine photos, and then looks "slender" afterward.  Their reasoning is - well, the stocky one is the clone.  But in the medical report, on page 584 they have him down as "medium" build. Why? It's simple - he had bulked up while in the military then obviously lost it after he got out, putting him down to a more slender build.

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

What did I quote in my paper?

 

Definition of non-metallic permanent restoration:

includes filled and unfilled resin, glass ionomer cement, and pit and fissure sealants

Sealants are indeed classified as "restorations" the same as a prosthetic is. 

Note also how they steadfastly refuse to address part one of my paper because they know that alone puts an end to this nonsense.

Oh for cryin’ out loud.    The type of sealant you’re pinning your hopes on wasn’t even created until the 1960s and the 1970s, long after Harvey and Lee’s Marine Corp adventures were finished.  From the history section of the Wikipedia “Dental Sealant” article.

QUOTE:

In 1966, E.I. Cueto created the first sealant material, which was methyl cyanoacrylate.^[7][13] However, this material was susceptible to bacterial breakdown over time, therefore was not an acceptable sealing material.^[7] Bunonocore made further advances in 1970 by developing bisphenol-a glycidyl dimethacrylate, which is a viscous resin commonly known as BIS-GMA.^[13] This material was used as the basis for many resin-based sealant/composite material developments in dentistry, as it is resistant to bacterial breakdown and forms a steady bond with etched enamel.^[7][13]

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

A different topic but related to the Hardly story - the believers also question why Harvey looks stocky in some Marine photos, and then looks "slender" afterward.  

Their reasoning is - well, the stocky one is the clone.  

But in the medical report, on page 584 they have him down as "medium" build. Why? It's simple - he had bulked up while in the military then obviously lost it after he got out, putting him down to a more slender build.

Michael,

I agree.  We feed our Marines well with meat and potatoes.    In the USSR, beets were the staple of almost every meal.

I think LHO and most Marines would lose weight in the USSR.   

But where LHO  really lost weight was in the USA 6/1962 to 11/1963 -- when he could hardly pay his bills, and never sent Marina to see a doctor -- he couldn't afford it.   

What a Stoic guy -- slender is hardly the word -- he was skinny near the end, as seen in this photo.    If the cop on the right is fat,  and the cop on the left in slender, what do we LHO in the middle?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 20, 2018 by Paul Trejo