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

[Mervyn Hagger]

On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 4:55 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Mervyn,

In my reading, your analysis is correct in every aspect.    Insofar as Sandy has now retreated from his claim that the photograph by schoolmate Ed Voebel is assuredly a photograph of a missing tooth, he now banks everything on the alleged contradiction of this Dental Form and the exhumed dental records of Lee Harvey Oswald.

But, as you point out, if there is any error in that Dental Form -- or if there is any error in reading that Dental Form -- then his entire argument is self-canceling.   Certainly, any claim to "INDISPUTABLE" is already long gone.

Well -- you found the error in Sandy's reading of the Dental Form.  What is INDISPUTABLE is that the "Yes" printed in the Dental Form is inside the box called "Prophylaxis" and NOT "Prosthetic."

Prophylaxis in this case could be antibiotics, but could also be simply a teeth-cleaning.   In any case, the "Yes" is plainly in that box.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by Mervyn Hagger

[Bruce Fernandez]

Mervyn, please read your previous post ..s.

Mervyn's handl, err, supporters, please read his previous posts. "me thinks .. " applies. Give this one up and let us get on with what we "think" we have. 

[Chris Davidson]

39 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

For intelligent people that form merely asks a question Yes/No

 

Intelligent people realize Prophylaxis and Prosthesis are not syn·on·y·mous. Therefore, there are two questions asked.

We realize this to avoid:

re·dun·dan·cy

The state of being not or no longer needed or useful.

The use of words or data that could be omitted without loss of meaning or function; repetition or superfluity of information.

If something is implied, it is understood to be true or to exist, although it is not stated directly or in a legal agreement

[Jim Hargrove]

Mervyn can’t help but continue the comedy at his own expense.  He simply cannot say or see or hear the word “prosthesis.”  Why?  Because a dental prosthesis is a false tooth.

The “Lee Harvey Oswald” who was the subject of the USMC dental form had a false tooth that failed on or by May 5, 1958.

The “Lee Harvey Oswald” buried and exhumed in Rose Hill Cemetery in Fort Worth did NOT have a false tooth.

And Mervyn and Paul just can’t stand it!

Funny thing about evidence, though.  It still exists no matter how much you whine and cry about it.  And no matter how many times you declare victory, the evidence is still there proving you wrong.

 

 

 

Whatever you do boys, don’t say the word PROSTHESIS!!!  It’s just too yucky for your side.

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Bruce Fernandez said:

Duplicate.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 2:08 PM, Bruce Fernandez said:

Mervyn, please read your previous post ..s.

Mervyn's handl, err, supporters, please read his previous posts. "me thinks .. " applies. 

Give this one up and let us get on with what we "think" we have. 

Bruce,

Please get on with what you think you have.  What's holding you back?

Does INDISPUTABLE now have two meanings?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 14, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Bruce Fernandez]

Paul ... TWO OSWALDS, which of those words are you having difficulty with?

[Cory Santos]

I can settle this very quickly.

With all these  intelligent posts and debates on the subject, it is so easy to solve.

Don't you see?

Just ask JVB.  Hey that rhymes.

Certainly if she dated Oswald in a love affair, certainly she can settle the debate.  I would imagine somewhere she mentioned this or can confirm this one way or another.  Ok, tongue in cheek, actually, Sandy, I think that from a legal perspective, you have found something.  Where it leads, that is another story, but you have found a hole in the evidence which has a bite- lol.

Keep it up.

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

 

Nobody denies that Oswald's dental chart indicated that he needed a prophylaxis (i.e. a dental cleaning).

But the above graphic posted by Mervyn is designed to draw the reader's attention away from the field that asks if "Prosthesis Required?" (A dental prosthesis is a false tooth.) The instruction printed right in that field -- for anybody to see -- is, "If 'yes', explain briefly." The dentist's answer to the question was obviously "yes," because he briefly DID explain. He wrote, "FAILED 5-5-58."

The only question is, what was it that failed on May 5, 1958 that required a prosthesis (false tooth)?

We really don't need to know the answer to that question. Because we can clearly see that there is no need for a false tooth on Oswald's exhumed teeth. He HAS all of his teeth! Anybody can see so for himself on page 27 of the Norton Report.

Which means that there were two Oswald's. One that required a false tooth, and one that didn't

Although we don't need to know what failed, it may be useful to know. Many dental procedures and devices can fail. I found a list of those procedures and devices and checked every one. The only one I could find where a failure would require a prosthesis was an existing prosthesis. We therefore know that Oswald needed  a prosthesis because his existing one failed.

(If you don't believe me about a broken prosthesis being the only thing whose failure required new prosthesis, just consider each possibility for yourself. For example, would a failed filling need a prosthesis (false tooth)? No, it would need a new filling. What about a failed crown? No, it would need a new crown. And so one.)

The importance in knowing that one of the Oswalds had been fitted with a false tooth, is that that corroborates all the other evidence that that same Oswald had lost a front tooth (or two) in a fist fight while he was in the 9th grade.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

I think that anybody who stoops so low as to intentionally mischaracterize evidence and who tries to distract from it is dishonest and should be ashamed of himself. And that anybody who congratulates that person -- thus lending support -- is likewise dishonest and should be ashamed of himself.

(Of course, some unfortunate folks have low mental capacity, disability, and disease. I can't blame them for not being able to function rationally.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

I can settle this very quickly.

With all these  intelligent posts and debates on the subject, it is so easy to solve.

Don't you see?

Just ask JVB.  Hey that rhymes.

Certainly if she dated Oswald in a love affair, certainly she can settle the debate.  I would imagine somewhere she mentioned this or can confirm this one way or another.  Ok, tongue in cheek, actually, Sandy, I think that from a legal perspective, you have found something.  Where it leads, that is another story, but you have found a hole in the evidence which has a bite- lol.

Keep it up.

 

Thanks Cory.

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

8 hours ago, Bruce Fernandez said:

Paul ... TWO OSWALDS, which of those words are you having difficulty with?

Paul is not having a problem, the problem is with Sandy and Jim who will only show the half of a form which implies something that the other half dismisses. That is the half redacted and shall we call it "censored" half that puts a totally different meaning on the form. The writing comments begin at the edge of the form and continue across it. I stated before, doctors and dentists are 'famous' for their poor penmanship. It's a wonder we can read it at all! What the dentist is guilty of is failing his kindergarten coloring test of staying between the lines and not scribbling over them! Maybe the illustration below should be amended to read "we read filled-in forms and leave your mind numb."

 I also want to repeat that my comments in no way dismiss Jim's overall presentation about LHO having a shadow. It is a shame that he is supporting Sandy in his time waster based upon a misreading of a dentist's form and his own interpretation of a very silly and obviously staged goof-off photograph.

As for me coming back after signing off, if you guys had left it alone I would not be back, but you insisted on mentioning my mind in order to prop up your misreading of a dentist's form and your misinterpretation of a very silly picture.

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

the problem is with Sandy and Jim who will only show the half of a form which implies something that the other half dismisses.

What a sad and desperate argument.  Do you think we are fools?  Mervyn tries to invent a controversy so that, as always, he can deflect attention away from Oswald’s failed prosthetic (his false tooth).  

The complete form was shown in Sandy’s original post in this thread:

 

Immediately after that, Sandy showed the detail from that form Mervyn is so desperate to ignore:

 

This, of course, is the part of the form that shows that this “Oswald, Lee H.” had a false tooth that failed on or by 5-5-1958.  Mervyn’s problem is that the “Lee Harvey Oswald” buried in Rose Hill Cemetery had all his natural teeth, as shown by the exhumation described in the Norton Report.

Mervyn’s laughable argument is that since the form indicates Oswald needed his teeth cleaned [“PROPHYLAXIS NEEDED: yes”] we should therefore ignore the fact that his false tooth failed on or by 5-5-58 [“PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58”].  LOL!

I’ve been debating in online JFK forums for many years, and I have never seen such transparent sophistry.   

Mervyn STILL cannot write or speak the word “prosthetic.”  HE JUST CAN”T DO IT!  LOL!
 

3 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

 I also want to repeat that my comments in no way dismiss Jim's overall presentation about LHO having a shadow. It is a shame that he is supporting Sandy in his time waster based upon a misreading of a dentist's form and his own interpretation of a very silly and obviously staged goof-off photograph.

As for me coming back after signing off, if you guys had left it alone I would not be back, but you insisted on mentioning my mind in order to prop up your misreading of a dentist's form and your misinterpretation of a very silly picture.

Yes! DIVIDE AND CONQUER!  Mervyn is REALLY using sophisticated debating techniques now! What a hoot!  He’d better go back to the irrelevant graphics.  When he uses his words, he fails monumentally.  And he still can’t say “prosthetic.” 

Btw, Mervyn, I used my own cell phone to make the copy of the "silly picture" from LIFE magazine.  You know, the one that shows Oswald's missing tooth.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2018 by Jim Hargrove

[Sandy Larsen]

57 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

4 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

the problem is with Sandy and Jim who will only show the half of a form which implies something that the other half dismisses.

What a sad and desperate argument.  Do you think we are fools?  Mervyn tries to invent a controversy so that, as always, he can deflect attention away from Oswald’s failed prosthetic (his false tooth).

 

And then Mervyn tries to come off as being fair and open minded by saying he's okay with "Jim's overall presentation about LHO having a shadow." That's just another of his tricks.

I think he's attacking the photo and the prosthesis because he see's them as being the most persuasive of the Harvey and Lee evidence. The photo because it is the easiest to grasp, and the prosthesis because it is the strongest. And both are hard to deny.

 

Edited February 13, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Don Jeffries]

Sandy,

I'd like to compliment you on your good research. You're one of the few in this community now who are asking important questions, and approaching the subject with an open mind. 

As I've said before, those dismissing Harvey and Lee out of hand are not interested in the whole truth. Whether his entire theory is correct or not, John Armstrong conducted a massive amount of research, all out of his own pocket. How many who post on this forum have done any independent research on this subject?