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

[Mervyn Hagger]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Now add Micah to the list.

 

Sandy, surely that is what you are trying to do with that photograph?

[Sandy Larsen]

18 minutes ago, 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?

 

Here's a question for you Micah....

How do you explain the fact that Oswald's Marine Corps record show that he was fitted with a false tooth. And yet his exhumed body had no false teeth, nor any place for a false tooth to fit?

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Mervyn Hagger]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Here's a question for you Micah....

How do you explain the fact that Oswald's Marine Corps record show that he was fitted with a false tooth. And yet his exhumed body had no false teeth nor any place for a false tooth to fit?

 

That is deflecting attention from your primary exhibit which is so flawed that it cannot be relied upon to prove anything other than one person was being very disruptive in a classroom. Now that you can prove and have proved.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Mervyn Hagger
is

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Sandy, surely that is what you are trying to do with that photograph?

 

No Mervyn. The simplest explanation --- the first thing that comes to the minds of those who don't know of this manufactured controversy -- is that it looks like Oswald is missing the tooth. You guys are adding to that to suit your own purposes. I'm adding nothing.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

37 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

That is deflecting attention from your primary exhibit which is so flawed that it cannot be relied upon to prove anything other than one person was being very disruptive in a classroom. Now that you can prove and have proved.

 

Mervyn,

Oswald's 1958 Marine Corps dental record indicates that he was fitted with a false tooth. Yet his exhumed teeth show that he never had a false tooth.

THAT is my primary exhibit.

You say that my primary exhibit is flawed. That is a serious charge. I DEMAND THAT YOU EITHER TELL US ALL WHAT THE FLAW IS, OR APOLOGIZE FOR MAKING THAT BASELESS CLAIM.

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Micah Mileto]

25 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

That's not what seems to be shown, although the photo is not clear for anyone to say for certain what it shows.

It shows some dark area where his front teeth should be. The photograph is clear enough to differentiate his lips from his teeth. 

[Micah Mileto]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Here's a question for you Micah....

How do you explain the fact that Oswald's Marine Corps record show that he was fitted with a false tooth. And yet his exhumed body had no false teeth, nor any place for a false tooth to fit?

 

Documentary evidence and witness evidence is one thing, but photographic evidence is another issue that requires different kind of verification. You can't just "read" a photograph. 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Documentary evidence and witness evidence is one thing, but photographic evidence is another issue that requires different kind of verification. You can't just "read" a photograph. 

 

Micah,

My question for you had nothing to do with the photograph. Here's my question again:

How do you explain the fact that Oswald's Marine Corps record shows that he was fitted with a false tooth. And yet his exhumed body had no false teeth, nor any place for a false tooth to fit?

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Mervyn Hagger]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

No Mervyn. The simplest explanation --- the first thing that comes to the minds of those who don't know of this manufactured controversy -- is that it looks like Oswald is missing the tooth. You guys are adding to that to suit your own purposes. I'm adding nothing.

 

It looks like more than one and what does that prove? The first thing with evidence is to ask where it came from? A photograph is not the instant act, they are two different things. So tell us more about the instant act and do not cite hearsay.

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

Documentary evidence and witness evidence is one thing, but photographic evidence is another issue that requires different kind of verification. You can't just "read" a photograph. 

I agree.

[Mervyn Hagger]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Mervyn,

Oswald's 1958 Marine Corps dental record indicates that he was fitted with a false tooth. Yet his exhumed teeth show that he never had a false tooth.

THAT is my primary exhibit.

You say that my primary exhibit is flawed. That is a serious charge. I DEMAND THAT YOU EITHER TELL US ALL WHAT THE FLAW IS, OR APOLOGIZE FOR MAKING THAT BASELESS CLAIM.

 

Your primary exhibit is that photograph and you have attributed an interpretation to it. Remove the photograph from the mix and then represent your case. If you claim that the photograph is not your primary exhibit - remove it anyway since it had nothing to do with the issue at hand. Then present your evidence in terms of the US Marines dental record and the Baylor exhumation interpretation of the dental presentation by the corpse.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Mervyn Hagger
of replaced by to

[Mervyn Hagger]

I think that the time has come to cut to the chase.

This is all about a mis-reading of a dental record and a failure to understand the meaning of two different words!

The claim is made that LHO was missing a tooth and some form of prosthetic was substituted.

But that is not what the record shows!

 

Note that the patient is in need of prophylaxis - not a prosthesis.

Look where the "Yes" appears!

CASE CLOSED

You should have gone to Spec-Savers (UK ad) slogan.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Mervyn Hagger

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Your primary exhibit is that photograph and you have attributed an interpretation to it.

 

I state right in my presentation that my contribution to the list of evidence is the prosthesis notation that I found on Oswald's dental records. THAT IS MY PRIMARY EXHIBIT. The rest is corroborating evidence.

Why do you keep saying that the photograph is my primary exhibit?

 

1 hour ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Remove the photograph from the mix and then represent your case.

 

I don't need to remove anything. If you want to make interpretations of the photo, that's your prerogative. But quit calling it my primary exhibit.

 

1 hour ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

If you claim that the photograph is not your primary exhibit - remove it anyway since it had nothing to do with the issue at hand. Then present your evidence in terms of the US Marines dental record and the Baylor exhumation interpretation of the dental presentation by the corpse.

 

Who are you to tell me to do these things?

 

[Jim Hargrove]

26 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Note that the patient is in need of prophylaxis - not a prosthesis.

Look where the "Yes" appears!

CASE CLOSED

Oh puh-leeze.  The form clearly shows that prophylaxis was needed because a prosthesis failed 5-5-58.

pros·the·sis

präsˈTHēsis/

noun

 

1. 1.

   an artificial body part, such as a leg, a heart, or a breast implant.

   "his upper jaw was removed and a prosthesis was fitted"
2. 2.

   the addition of a letter or syllable at the beginning of a word, as in Spanish escribo derived from Latin scribo.

 

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

On 2/7/2018 at 12:27 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Ed Voebel Testified that Oswald Lost a Tooth

Ed Voebel was Oswald's best friend in 9th grade. He testified as follows before the Warren Commission:

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

Now, it sounds as if Voebel wasn't certain Oswald got his lip cut and lost a tooth. But that probably was not the case. After all, he explained later how some of the other boys took Oswald into the boys restroom and patched him up. Does that sound like he wasn't sure Oswald had gotten his lip cut?

Ed Voebel used the phrase "I think" numerous times in his testimony, even in cases where he surely would have known. Like when he said, "I think I just went on home and everybody went their way" after an altercation that occurred the day prior. Was he really not sure he went home? And that the other boys went their way?

Here's a sampling of Voebel's use of the phrase:

• "Yes. Well, I think one of them was in the same grade as Lee."
• "The fight, I think started on the school ground"
• "I think John was a little smaller, a little shorter than Lee."
• "Well, I think Oswald was getting the best of John"
• "but I think I just went on home and everybody went their way"
• "and Oswald I think, was a little in front of me"
• "I think that was what brought it all about. I think this was sort of a revenge thing on the part of the Neumeyer boys"
• "I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out"
• "I don't think he was that good"
• "I don't think he was a great pool player"
• "I think I met her one time"
• "I think the legal age here is 18"
• "I think in a way I understood him better than most of the other kids"
• "I think they have gotten worse"
• "I think we were in the same grade, I think we were."

 .... and on and on. Ed Voebel said “I think” or “think” nearly a hundred times during his testimony. It seems to have been a part of the way he talked.

But be that as it may, there is more evidence of a lost tooth.

Lillian Murret Testified that Oswald Went to See a Dentist

Oswald's Aunt Lillian testified as follows before the Warren Commission:

"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 [Marguerite] 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 Oswald have to see a dentist if he hadn't lost a tooth?

Okay, it's conceivable that the tooth was merely loosened. However, that goes against Ed Voebel's recollection. And besides, there is further evidence that Oswald lost a tooth. Photographic evidence and more.

Case closed, eh?  Above from Sandy's original post in this thread.