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

[Paul Trejo]

17 hours ago, Bruce Fernandez said:

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

Bruce...this is INDISPUTABLE for you?

[Paul Trejo]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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, I agree with this 100%.

[Paul Trejo]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen 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)?  ...

Sandy,

As I see it, you have the answer in your sights -- but you let Jim sway you.

You are projecting your own conclusion onto the simple word "FAILED" without inquiring any further what "FAILED" might possibly mean in the context of a box that says, "Prosthesis Required?"

It remains possible that the dentist performed a test to determine whether a Prosthesis was required, and for LHO, that test FAILED.

You're not even considering such alternatives.   You're willing to present the evidence with your own interpretation, from the biased H&L perspective, and you rush to judgment.

The fact that the exhumed body of LHO had no tooth prosthesis is compatible with this Form, when "FAILED" means that dental tests to determine whether LHO required a lucrative (for the dentist) tooth prosthesis, FAILED.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 13, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Mervyn Hagger]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen 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, that form does not state what you want it to state and that is why you redacted it in order to fool people into thinking you had a point to make. Your only point is to rant against me because I am pointing out the error in your illogical and dishonest reasoning.

 

[Michael Walton]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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

Isn't  this a logical fallacy when all else fails the person starts  stooping  to questioning a person's  mental capacity when said person  disagrees?

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

As I see it, you have the answer in your sights -- but you let Jim sway you.

You are projecting your own conclusion onto the simple word "FAILED" without inquiring any further what "FAILED" might possibly mean in the context of a box that says, "Prosthesis Required?"

It remains possible that the dentist performed a test to determine whether a Prosthesis was required, and for LHO, that test FAILED.

You're not even considering such alternatives.   You're willing to present the evidence with your own interpretation, from the biased H&L perspective, and you rush to judgment.

The fact that the exhumed body of LHO had no tooth prosthesis is compatible with this Form, when "FAILED" means that dental tests to determine whether LHO required a lucrative (for the dentist) tooth prosthesis, FAILED.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

But its in contradiction to the photo showing the missing tooth.

I will have one of my dental experts review the form and give me an opinion and I will share that with all of you.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

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

Yes and the left side of the chart says "Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities." But absolutely nothing is indicated for the front teeth which the H&L guys think have been replaced by a dental prosthesis. I would think a prosthesis would be an abnormality at the very least. The idea that this would not be indicated in some manner is just silly.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

But its in contradiction to the photo showing the missing tooth.

I will have one of my dental experts review the form and give me an opinion and I will share that with all of you.

Please ask him if a dental prosthesis would be indicated in some manner or just ignored.

Edited February 13, 2018 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Jim Hargrove]

16 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

 

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

As I see it, you have the answer in your sights -- but you let Jim sway you.

Does anyone see a PATTERN here, or is it just me?  What could that pattern possibly be?

Surely not DIVIDE AND CONQUER, eh?  That's just way too unsophisticated!

I've been arguing online about the JFK assassination for at least twenty years, but this is the funniest bs I've seen in all that time.

LOL!

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Please ask him if a dental prosthesis would be indicated in some manner or just ignored.

Well, Tracy, thank you for at least considering the evidence and not trying to totally duck it.  Let's look, though, one more time at the actual new evidence evidence....

 

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.

[Cory Santos]

Ok, give me your best concise arguments either way.

I have a hearing tomorrow but probably Thursday I will talk with him about this and link the arguments.  Keep it short and simple please.

I am not paying him to review this thread.

Thanks,

Cory

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Don Jeffries said:

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?  

 

Don,

Thank you very much for your kind words.

John Armstrong did indeed do a massive amount of research. It was his discoveries that convinced me that there had to have been two young Oswalds. All I did was take that knowledge and look around for things that I thought must exist. I admit that I was remarkably lucky to find things that others had missed. But as you suggested, not many have looked. (The real work was in looking at every conceivable angle, to make sure I wasn't missing any alternative explanation. Which is why I examined the Norton report so thoroughly.)

I am excited about these latest discoveries because they are scientific in nature. So not only can they be evaluated using common sense, but can be verified by dental professionals as well.

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Bruce...this is INDISPUTABLE for you?

 

Paul,

So far nobody has been able to give a reasonable alternative explanation for the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation in the "Prosthesis Required" field. That makes it indisputable so far.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

As I see it, you have the answer in your sights -- but you let Jim sway you.

You are projecting your own conclusion onto the simple word "FAILED" without inquiring any further what "FAILED" might possibly mean in the context of a box that says, "Prosthesis Required?"

It remains possible that the dentist performed a test to determine whether a Prosthesis was required, and for LHO, that test FAILED.

You're not even considering such alternatives.   You're willing to present the evidence with your own interpretation, from the biased H&L perspective, and you rush to judgment.

The fact that the exhumed body of LHO had no tooth prosthesis is compatible with this Form, when "FAILED" means that dental tests to determine whether LHO required a lucrative (for the dentist) tooth prosthesis, FAILED.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Paul,

You might be on to something if the prosthesis field read as follows:

Prosthesis Test Result?

But it doesn't say anything like that. It says:

"Prosthesis Required?  (If "yes," explain briefly.)

There is no indication whatsoever that a test is to be performed. Or even that a test failure has anything to do with why a prosthesis might be needed. In fact, the instruction implies that if anything at all is written in that space, it means that a prosthesis is required.

And besides all that, there is no such thing as a dental prosthesis test.

I'm afraid you're grasping at straws. But keep trying.

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

12 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Sandy, that form does not state what you want it to state and that is why you redacted it in order to fool people into thinking you had a point to make. Your only point is to rant against me because I am pointing out the error in your illogical and dishonest reasoning.

 

Mervyn,

I posted the full prosthesis field for all to see. As well as the whole form. I have hidden nothing and we all know that.

Kindly refrain from trying to create a controversy where none exists.

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Sandy Larsen