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

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

...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.

Tracy,

I didn't read your paper, so I missed this nuance.    I thought Greg Parker was the first to raise the point yesterday.

This point answers Sandy Larsen with cogent logic:  sealants are classified as "restorations" the same as prosthetics.     

I hope Sandy will respond to part one of your paper.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

On 2/18/2018 at 7:54 PM, 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.

 

Greg claims that the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation (see the chart below) is referring to a sealant that was applied in 1957 and recorded on a different, earlier 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 at 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. Therefore Greg is wrong.

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. Not to sealing. 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.

Michael Walton agrees with Greg's nonsense because his philosophy is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Walton actually has no idea what Greg is saying in his write-up. (I know this because he never does know what Greg is talking about.)

 

 

•  

Edited February 20, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Here is a VERY simple proof that there were two Oswalds.

The following is a closeup of the "Prosthesis Required?" field on Oswald's 1958 dental record.

 

The dentist is instructed to "explain briefly" if yes, a prosthesis is required. The dentist explained by saying that an existing prosthesis failed. It failed on May 5, 1958.

A prosthesis is a false tooth. So from the dental record we know that Oswald needed a false tooth.

However, photos of the teeth (below) that were exhumed in 1981 show NO false teeth and NO SPACE where a false tooth can fit.

Therefore the 1958 Oswald and exhumed Oswald were not the same person.

 

Front View

 

Top Inside View

 

Bottom Inside View

 

[Jim Hargrove]

den·tal pros·the·sis

 (dentăl pros-thēsis)

Artificial replacement of one or more teeth and/or associated structures.

--Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012

 

dental prosthesis

Etymology: L, dens, tooth; Gk, prosthesis, an addition

a fixed or removable appliance used to replace one or more lost or missing natural teeth. See also denture crown,fixed bridgework, removable partial denture.

Fixed bridge prosthesis cemented over implants

--Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

 

Who would need a dental prosthesis?

Someone who lost a front tooth in a fist fight.  

But don't believe your own lying eyes.  Don't believe the sworn testimony of the guy who took the picture and was LEE Oswald's best friend.  

 

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

11 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Tracy,

I didn't read your paper, so I missed this nuance.    I thought Greg Parker was the first to raise the point yesterday.

This point answers Sandy Larsen with cogent logic:  sealants are classified as "restorations" the same as prosthetics.     

I hope Sandy will respond to part one of your paper.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Just to clarify, the information I quoted is from Greg Parker-I am posting for him since he is banned here at EF.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

From Greg Parker:

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

Sealants have been used in dentistry since 1937.
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/pitfissuresealants1-120903141020-phpapp02/95/pit-fissure-sealants-1-13-728.jpg?cb=1346681486

 

Anytime Jim or Sandy would like to address Part one where we find out no tooth was knocked out at all, they should feel free... Those witnesses have been brought up numerous times over the years, yet have never been addressed - only side-stepped. Bennierita Smith requests the next dance and Dimitri Bouzon would like a quiet word in their ears...

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

he dentist is instructed to "explain briefly" if yes, a prosthesis is required. The dentist explained by saying that an existing prosthesis failed. It failed on May 5, 1958.

A prosthesis is a false tooth. So from the dental record we know that Oswald needed a false tooth.

However, photos of the teeth (below) that were exhumed in 1981 show NO false teeth and NO SPACE where a false tooth can fit.

Therefore the 1958 Oswald and exhumed Oswald were not the same person.

In the absence of any other information, a reasonable person could read this notation and assume LHO had a false tooth. But we have plenty of other information that points away from the two Oswald scenario. I won't repeat that here since it is well known. But seriously, how does a prosthesis "fail" anyway? Did it break or what? And if it "failed" it is reasonable to assume that "Lee" had to go without one while a new one was being made. And yet not one person who knew him during this time mentioned it. And the one and only LHO received nicknames like "Ozzie Rabbit" during his service. Why was "Lee" never given the moniker of "old gap tooth" or something similar. I had a friend in school who had dentures at age 16 and was called "Gumby." People take notice of this type of thing but H&L supporters are not troubled in the least by any of this.

[Jim Hargrove]

38 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Anytime Jim or Sandy would like to address Part one where we find out no tooth was knocked out at all, they should feel free...

Oh, please.  I decided to waste a few minutes and I read Part One and whatever.  Mr. Parker takes a couple of paraphrased reports about the fight, including one by a kid who didn’t know Oswald, and tries to use them to overcome the clear, sworn testimony of Oswald’s best friend, the kid who took the photo of the missing tooth and tried to help him after the fight.  To explain why Lillian Murett had to pay a dentist for Lee Oswald’s wound, Mr. Parker says... nothing.

How can you possibly look at this photo and pretend the only prosthesis this kid needed was liquid sealant?  Are you kidding?

 

[Paul Trejo]

Jim,

You keep posting that "toothless" photograph of LHO in middle-school, but you continually evade my question.

That space in the teeth as portrayed  in that photograph is as large as 2.5 teeth.    And yet you continually maintain that only one tooth was missing.   How do you explain that?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Bruce Fernandez]

Let's put methyl cyanoacrylate into perspective. It's lately known as super-glue. Don't try applying that to your own mouth! It was popularized as a commercial adhesive in the 70's by Loctite Corp. Basically moisture activated.

[Michael Walton]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

You keep posting that "toothless" photograph of LHO in middle-school, but you continually evade my question.

Another thing that's  dishonest about using the classroom  photo is that  there are two versions going around. The one that shows more detail in the mouth is substituted for the high contrast version  that shows no detail giving  the appearance  of there being  a gaping  hole.

Of course  if  you  bring  this  up to the believers  they're  not even honest  enough  to admit that and  not  use it on EF.

[Jim Hargrove]

21 hours ago, Bruce Fernandez said:

Let's put methyl cyanoacrylate into perspective. It's lately known as super-glue. Don't try applying that to your own mouth! It was popularized as a commercial adhesive in the 70's by Loctite Corp. Basically moisture activated.

Bruce,

The efforts of the anti-H&L crowd to say that the kid with the missing tooth or teeth needed just liquid sealant, whatever it consisted of, shows the sheer paucity of their arguments.  Apparently they have to say something, ANYTHING, to provide what Tracy calls “alternate explanations,” which sure sounds like “alternate facts” to me.  LOL.

[Jim Hargrove]

21 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

You keep posting that "toothless" photograph of LHO in middle-school, but you continually evade my question.

That space in the teeth as portrayed  in that photograph is as large as 2.5 teeth.    And yet you continually maintain that only one tooth was missing.   How do you explain that?

 

20 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Another thing that's  dishonest about using the classroom  photo is that  there are two versions going around. The one that shows more detail in the mouth is substituted for the high contrast version  that shows no detail giving  the appearance  of there being  a gaping  hole.

Of course  if  you  bring  this  up to the believers  they're  not even honest  enough  to admit that and  not  use it on EF.

Oh for crying out loud.  Use ANY reproduction of the photo you want.  Do what I did and buy yourself a copy of the 2/21/1964 edition of LIFE magazine—it still only costs a few bucks.  You guys all whine about whether there was one or two or two and a half missing teeth or merely a “gaping whole” in his teeth as if this changes the clear fact that LEE Oswald’s mouth and teeth were seriously damaged in this fight and that he CLEARLY, OBVIOUSLY lost one or two teeth from it.

 

Look at the picture, any version of it, and whine all you want.  This evidence is not going away, no matter how Tracy Parnell or Greg Parker or Paul Trejo or Michael Walton try to talk about super glue and split lips treated by dentists.  Be honest!  At the very least, admit that you can’t explain Voebel’s picture or his testimony.  Relying on obscure references to liquid sealants doesn’t even begin to cut it.

 

And by the way, while you guys are trying to explain away the clear, obvious evidence of LEE Oswald’s lost teeth, take a look at this 1958 photo of LEE Oswald in Japan.  Note that his two front teeth are slightly but clearly colored differently from his other visible teeth.  Isn’t it amazing that those are the same two teeth shown knocked out in Voebel’s camera.

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

On 2/19/2018 at 11:15 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Here is a VERY simple proof that there were two Oswalds.

The dentist is instructed to "explain briefly" if yes, a prosthesis is required. The dentist explained by saying that an existing prosthesis failed. It failed on May 5, 1958.

A prosthesis is a false tooth. So from the dental record we know that Oswald needed a false tooth.

However, photos of the teeth (below) that were exhumed in 1981 show NO false teeth and NO SPACE where a false tooth can fit.

Therefore the 1958 Oswald and exhumed Oswald were not the same person.

In the absence of any other information, a reasonable person could read this ["FAILED 5 5 -58"] notation and assume LHO had a false tooth.

 

Thank you for acknowledging that fact, Tracy.

 

23 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

But we have plenty of other information that points away from the two Oswald scenario. I won't repeat that here since it is well known.

But seriously, how does a prosthesis "fail" anyway? Did it break or what?

The most common prostheses, crowns and bridges, are expected to last at least 5 to 7 years. But can last 35 years or longer. The reason they don't last any longer is because they do fail in various way.

In Lee's case, he would have had a dental bridge. Quoting from this source:

Causes of Dental Bridge Failure

Most dental bridges are made of ceramics or porcelain fused to an underlying metal frame, and lacking oral care can cause these products to fail. Bacteria can enter under the bridge through the crowns and manage to produce decay in the abutment teeth, according to the Windsor Centre for Advanced Dentistry. Abutment teeth can also fracture.

Problems in the bridge itself include breakage of the underlying metal and a fracture of the coating or pontic. Sometimes there aren't any structural problems with the bridge, but it doesn't fit well in the mouth or the color doesn't match the surrounding teeth.

 

23 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

And if it "failed" it is reasonable to assume that "Lee" had to go without one while a new one was being made. And yet not one person who knew him during this time mentioned it.

Sure, Lee had to wait a couple days for a new crown to be made. I really can't see why it would be expected that someone he knew would bring that up. Not many of those guys were even interviewed.
 

23 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

And the one and only LHO received nicknames like "Ozzie Rabbit" during his service. Why was "Lee" never given the moniker of "old gap tooth" or something similar. I had a friend in school who had dentures at age 16 and was called "Gumby." People take notice of this type of thing but H&L supporters are not troubled in the least by any of this.

We have no idea how long Lee would have been without a tooth. For all we know, he could have been fitted with a bridge shortly after his tooth was knocked out, and that this is what Aunt Lillian paid for.

As for the failure while in the Marines, I would think that that got prompt treatment.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Another thing that's  dishonest about using the classroom  photo is that  there are two versions going around. The one that shows more detail in the mouth is substituted for the high contrast version  that shows no detail giving  the appearance  of there being  a gaping  hole.

Of course  if  you  bring  this  up to the believers  they're  not even honest  enough  to admit that and  not  use it on EF.

This is just one more uninformed statement made by Mike.

In my presentation (Post #1) I show both versions of the photo and explain the difference.

It is my impression that Jim Hargrove has historically favored the photo which doesn't have the contrast adjusted. That is the version I recall his showing most the time. I don't know if that is still the one he favors. But it's one he gave me for my presentation. And you CAN see the missing tooth in it. It's just that the contrast is so low that you need good lighting (and for me, glasses) to easily see it.

And BTW, yes Paul Trejo, we do see that it looks like two teeth are missing. We've commented on that numerous times. I'll bet I even mentioned  it in my presentation. Do you think we're trying to hide that?

 

Edited February 21, 2018 by Sandy Larsen