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

[Sandy Larsen]

15 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

With all due respect, IS there a "sealant required" field, or for that matter a "sealant"-anything field?

Tommy,

No, there is no Sealant Required field. Neither is there an Extraction required field. Nor a Root Canal Required field. Nor a Braces Required field. Nor a Gum Surgery Required field. (For periodontal disease.)

Do you believe that all those things should be notated in the Prosthesis Required field? What about in the Prophylaxis Required field?

Hey I have a novel idea... why not notate those things for which there is no dedicated field in the Remarks field? Which has plenty of room to make notes.

Common sense.

 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tommy,

No, there is no Sealant Required field. Neither is there an Extraction required field. Nor a Root Canal Required field. Nor a Braces Required field. Nor a Gum Surgery Required field. (For periodontal disease.)

Do you believe that all those things should be notated in the Prosthesis Required field? What about in the Prophylaxis Required field?

Hey I have a novel idea... why not notate those things for which there is no dedicated field in the Remarks field? Which has plenty of room to make notes.

Common sense.

 

Sandy,

What fields ARE there, Sandy?  I mean, I mean, I mean ... other than the "P R" field?

(I'm too lazy and two disinterested to look it up.)

--  Tommy 

PS. So you fervently believe that the evil, evil, evil CIA chose two boys AND their mothers ...

(Aww, never mind.)

[Michael Walton]

It seems standard operating procedure to X out missing teeth.  There was one form I saw on here way back - it was typewritten and said [paraphrasing] X = missing. But even for dental forms that do not have that on it, the other LHO form, the handwritten one, does have X-ed out teeth, just not in the - GASP - teeth that Team Hardly wants them to be so desperately missing. 

The typewritten one also have typed in X's for missing teeth.  Unfortunately for Team Hardly, the X-ed out teeth on that form are not the ones they want missing.

This is equally important - if not more so - than the sealant malarkey. Why even discuss the sealant baloney when the forms aren't even marked showing the teeth missing?

[David Josephs]

8 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

The typewritten one also have typed in X's for missing teeth.  Unfortunately for Team Hardly, the X-ed out teeth on that form are not the ones they want missing

So the idea of respect eludes you still... 

So gnat...  why does any of this matter to you and bother you so much as to show your ignorance at every turn?

You mean these non-existent "X's" on teeth #'s 1, 16, 17, 30, 32 whereas the exhumed teeth do not match...

Bummer... 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

It seems standard operating procedure to X out missing teeth.  There was one form I saw on here way back - it was typewritten and said [paraphrasing] X = missing. But even for dental forms that do not have that on it, the other LHO form, the handwritten one, does have X-ed out teeth, just not in the - GASP - teeth that Team Hardly wants them to be so desperately missing. 

The typewritten one also have typed in X's for missing teeth.  Unfortunately for Team Hardly, the X-ed out teeth on that form are not the ones they want missing.

This is equally important - if not more so - than the sealant malarkey. Why even discuss the sealant baloney when the forms aren't even marked showing the teeth missing?

 

Michael,

Missing teeth are marked with an X.

A missing tooth that has been replaced with a false tooth (via a bridge) is no longer missing. And so it need not be marked as missing.

Forensic charts will show specifically which teeth are real and which are false. But the chart we are dealing with is not a forensic chart.

 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Michael Walton]

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

A missing tooth that has been replaced with a false tooth (via a bridge) is no longer missing. And so need not be marked as missing.

To steal Graves' line here - and with all due respect - NO xxxxING WAY! They would have taken the appliance out and marked that tooth # whatever was missing. And I bet you a million bucks that in the field below they would have clearly said "appliance" or some such info.  Nothing like that was written. That's part and parcel with standard operating procedure.  This was the military after all too.

Now that is a cop out Sandy.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Michael Walton

[Michael Walton]

21 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

So gnat...  why does any of this matter to you and bother you so much as to show your ignorance at every turn?

You mean these non-existent "X's" on teeth #'s 1, 16, 17, 30, 32 whereas the exhumed teeth do not match...

It bothers me because like your buddy Jim D said elsewhere, these crazy theories are disgraceful to the memory of President Kennedy.

It's as simple as that.  Now go play with your emoticons LOL

[David Josephs]

The only disgrace here is you - the myopic gnat....  (myopic:  lacking imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight)

Hopefully the moderators will tire of your tactics and send you on your way,,,,

In the mean time... you being the "ignorance be good" poster child suits you well

Will there be a speaking tour?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

A missing tooth that has been replaced with a false tooth (via a bridge) is no longer missing. And so need not be marked as missing.

To steal Graves' line here - and with all due respect - NO xxxxING WAY! They would have taken the appliance out and marked that tooth # whatever was missing.

Which is how we know the prosthesis was a FIXED bridge, not a removable denture.

 

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

And I bet you a million bucks that in the field below they would have clearly said "appliance" or some such info.  Nothing like that was written. That's part and parcel with standard operating procedure.  This was the military after all too.

Now that is a cop out Sandy.

 

You're the one saying it was a denture, not me.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

What is truly remarkable in this thread is how the anti-H&L CIA defenders here simply cannot look at this evidence and say something like, “Well, that’s interesting…. let’s see if there is any other evidence pointing to a serious problem in the official biography of ‘Lee Harvey Oswald.’”  They will not, or they cannot, let that happen.

Instead, they fight tooth and nail, dreaming up all kinds of elaborate excuses to “explain” the simple evidence that one LHO lost a tooth and had a prosthesis, and the other didn’t.   But watch their howls of protest continue, despite the obvious proof.  Don't believe your lying eyes while they hope that all their rhetorical nonsense will somehow prevail. 

 

 

 

[Ron Ecker]

I think the moral of this thread is, the tooth will out.

 

 

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

It is usually fun to watch the H&L supporters and the lengths they will go to in order to promote their silly theory. Sometimes it is just annoying. But let's review the situation. 

It is a historical fact that there was one and only one Lee Harvey Oswald and one and only one Marguerite Oswald. There is not one person living or dead who knew them and believes otherwise. In order to reverse the judgement of history, the H&L supporters need to offer evidence to do that. As I have said repeatedly, if they have "indisputable" proof, it should be a simple matter to take that proof to experts and those in authority who could validate their claims. Doing this would not only prove the H&L theory, but would "solve" the JFK assassination and be one of the major stories of this or any time.

But the truth is, their "proof" is not "indisputable" at all. Their evidence consists entirely of "outliers" in a large data set. And they know that experts would not view the evidence in a vacuum as they do, but would look at it in context. And when that happened they would see the numerous alternate explanations that exist, the same explanations that are offered here over and over again.

The H&L theory is a collection of mistakes, oddities, fabrications and so on. Experts and professional investigators know that these things exist in real life, especially in the case of an individual who lived in 20 or more residences. And perhaps most telling, informal polls right here at EF have shown that the majority of members do not believe the theory although they may support Armstrong and his research efforts.

So, until the H&L team can get some experts on board, they are just taking up bandwidth.

[Michael Walton]

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You're the one saying it was a denture, not me.

Again, stop twisting things around.  AGAIN - the whole point - there is NO X on any of the front of teeth you're trying to claim are missing. And the photos of the exhumation teeth are there as well. It's that simple.

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

It is a historical fact that there was one and only one Lee Harvey Oswald and one and only one Marguerite Oswald.

Well, that settles it then, eh?  Mr. Parnell wants us to believe the Warren Commission and the HSCA because, well gosh, he does believe them!  He seldom, if ever, debates the details of what he calls “’outliers’ in a large data set.”  The best he seems able to do is act as an errand boy for Greg Parker by posting here comments written by Parker, who is banned from this and another JFK forum.

If Tracy Parnell doesn’t discuss the specific evidence, what is clear from this thread is that Parker simply invents evidence: dental sealants are dental prosthetics; Ed Voebel and LEE Oswald conspired to create a picture faking Oswald’s missing tooth; Voebel perjured himself in front of the WC to hide the fakery, and on and on.

For years, Tracy Parnell posted links to various write-ups on Parker’s website claiming they “debunked” various aspects of the H&L evidence presented here.  For years I challenged him to put Parker’s arguments right here so all could see how empty they were.  He has finally done so, and we can all see the result.  The usual H&L critics/CIA defenders will howl otherwise, but what could possibly be more obvious than the absurdity of Parker’s claims.  

Dental sealants are dental prosthetics like my arse is the Mona Lisa.
  
BTW, John has just completed a major update to the Two Marguerites page on my website.  See it here:

http://harveyandlee.net/Moms/Moms.html

[Tom Neal]

22 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Michael,

Missing teeth are marked with an X.

A missing tooth that has been replaced with a false tooth (via a bridge) is no longer missing. And so it need not be marked as missing.

 

After more than a year of not posting on this site due to statements like the above, I find that nothing has changed.

My post refers ONLY to LHO's dental records and the specific page that includes the examination diagram and "FAILED" statement. Evidence of the existence of H&L is NOT considered in the interpretation of what this page states/implies in this post. 

Referring to my own dental charts, and what I've been told by the dentists that made them over my lifetime I state the following: 
A missing tooth is indeed marked with an X. A missing tooth that has been replaced by a prosthetic (even one that is considered permanent)  is still a "missing" *TOOTH* and is indicated as such on a dental chart. A prosthetic is *NOT* a tooth, and that particular tooth will always be "missing." This has been confirmed by all three of the dentists at the practice I have used for the last 30 years. 

An existing 'filling' or any type of bridge that is found during the initial exam is marked on the dental diagrams. This indicates that work has been done on this tooth prior to *this* examination. Regarding a filling, the decay has been removed and replaced by something other than natural tooth enamel, so it is noted on the diagram. Applying the illogic that a missing tooth that has been replaced by an "artificial" tooth is no longer "missing" indicates that existing fillings would not be marked on the exam chart either. Yet they are.

At the top of LHO's USMC dental chart includes a diagram (on the left) to be marked to indicate the condition of his teeth per the examination at that time. Are either of LHO's upper front teeth marked with an "X"? Is there any indication of an installed bridge? If not, then the dentist didn't consider a missing tooth worthy of noting, or he didn't notice it. Neither possibility inspires confidence in the accuracy of this page of dental records. The dental diagram on this page, clearly indicates that LHO's two front teeth were present at the time of this examination.

IF the "FAILED" comment refers to a prosthetic device, surely somewhere in his records a clear statement would exist that this device was either repaired or replaced, else LHO would not have been cleared for overseas duty. Certainly, in the 30 pages of the usual personal attacks, parsing of sentences, closed minds,  and general illogic I could have missed evidence of the above. If so, could someone direct me to it?

Edited March 7, 2018 by Tom Neal
formatting