Indisputable Evidence for Harvey & Lee

[Sandy Larsen]

Who's who in the Zoo?

Could you post a photo of LEE next to HARVEY?

Why don't we stick to the topic? Thanks.

Btw isn't a patient dental chart supposed to show what's going on with your teeth like fillings, damage, prosthetics and etc?,

It depends upon the purpose of the chart. Oswald's record has two chart's. The one on the left is for charting thing's that need fixing or might need fixing. It states right above that chart that the following are to be charted:  "Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities." There is no need -- or request -- for charting other things. Like existing fillings, crowns, and prostheses.

The other chart on the form is for charting Dental Treatments Accomplished

You know just in case of an unidentifiable Marine body the dental records can be used for identification but Oswald's dental record reflect that of an 18 year old man with reasonably good and no missing front teeth?

What you're talking about is a forensic chart. Oswald's chart is not a forensic chart.

A forensic chart is made by compiling data from as many existing dental records that can be found, and record the findings on a single chart. That's the forensic chart.

]





And while we're at it, if Oswald required Prosthetics wouldn't the dentist would write yes and then detail the work required?

No, because that is opposite of what the dentist is instructed to do.

The instructions on the chart are these:

       PROSTHETIC REQUIRED?  If "yes" explain briefly"

It doesn't say to write "yes." It says to explain if the answer is yes. It doesn't say to give details. It says to explain briefly

JohnM

[Sandy Larsen]

I am not going to get into a big debate here with you Sandy since that is already happening over at EF:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24630-indisputable-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-front-tooth-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not-new-evidence-found/

But I will point out that your claim that LHO had a partial denture is based solely on your interpretation of something written on his dental chart. You them conveniently ignore the fact that the chart does not show the alleged denture. As I explained to you at EF, it is usually indicated with an "X" and a line between the outline of the tooth and the number of the teeth that were replaced. The chart does indeed show other teeth that are missing with an "X." But there is neither an "X" or a horizontal line indicated for the front teeth you believe were missing.

Look Tracy,

It is very easy to figure out what "FAILED 5-5-58" means on the chart.





Obviously some dental procedure or device failed on May 5, 1958. (Or was reported as failed on that date.) And obviously whatever failed required a new prosthesis.

Lets look at ALL possible dental procedures and devices that could fail, and see which ones would require a prosthesis:

Failed Filling:  This would require a new filling, not a prosthesis.

Failed Root Canal:  This would require anther root canal, or an extraction. Not a prosthesis.

Failed Crown:  This would require a new crown, not a prosthesis.

Failed Prosthesis:  This would require a new prosthesis. BINGO!


So we know that it was a prosthesis that failed. Oswald had been fitted with a prosthesis. He therefore had a missing natural tooth.

The reason there is no missing tooth marked on the chart is most likely because his prosthesis was a fixed bridge. The tooth was no longer missing because it had been replaced with a permanent fake one.

[Bill Brown]

Bill,

That is a book by Greg Parker, one in his series on Lee Harvey Oswald. Greg absolutely hates John Armstrong, the author of the Harvey & Lee book. He and Jim Hargrove (a Harvey & Lee believer with a website on the subject) have had numerous debates over the years on the Harvey & Lee thesis.

The things Greg wrote on the page you linked to are covered in my presentation (in Post #1).

After studying the evidence myself and watching the debates for months, I determined that Greg Parker is wrong. There is simply too much evidence for the two Oswalds for it to be a fluke. Though Greg claims that he debunks the evidence, I have seen almost none of that. Jim Hargrove almost always gets the better of him.

So far Greg hasn't said a word about the latest evidence I have presented. Like most the other evidence, it is impossible to explain. I mean with reasonable explanations.

Greg and his allies usually have to resort to saying that the evidence is nothing more than clerical errors. I'm sure that that is what he's going to claim about the dental prosthesis evidence I found, which supports the missing front tooth evidence. He'll just say that that prosthesis notation was accidentally written on Oswald's chart.

Greg will have us believe the following are all true:

1. Oswald's friend was wrong when he recalled that the tooth had fallen out.
2. Oswald's Aunt took him to the dentist to get his cut lip treated.
3. The missing tooth in the photo is a flaw in the film.
4  And, that prosthesis notation belonged on somebody else's chart.

He actually wrote #2 in his book. It's a ridiculous thing to say, so let's change it to something reasonable:

2. Oswald's Aunt took him to the dentist because the tooth was loosened. But it ultimately healed on it's own.

In a future presentation I will compute the odds against all of those things happening to a single person whose been hit on the mouth. I will show how unlikely it would be that those four things would just happen to happen to someone, making it look like the person lost a tooth when in fact he did not.

After studying the evidence myself and watching the debates for months, I determined that Greg Parker is wrong. There is simply too much evidence for the two Oswalds for it to be a fluke. Though Greg claims that he debunks the evidence, I have seen almost none of that. Jim Hargrove almost always gets the better of him.

That doesn't surprise me.  Greg Parker is weak.

Even though I find it very difficult to swallow the Harvey & Lee theory, I'll follow your posts with keen interest for now.

Thanks for the reply.

[Sandy Larsen]

Oswald was not fitted with a dental bridge. See the dental symbol for a dental bridge in the following chart. If he was fitted with a dental bridge then Oswald's dental chart would have shown a symbol identical or similar to what is depicted in this diagram.

Oswald's record has two chart's. The one on the left is for charting thing's that need fixing or might need fixing. It states right above that chart that the following are to be charted:  "Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities." There is no need -- or request -- for charting other things. Like existing fillings, crowns, and dental bridges.

The other chart on the form is for charting Dental Treatments Accomplished.

Also the testimony which you have presented is very vague and therefore cannot be relied upon. The image of Oswald at school with the so called missing tooth is very grainy and also cannot be relied upon. As I have already stated the Harvey and Lee theory is a complete fabrication and pardon the pun is completely of the charts.

So forget about all that other CORROBORATING evidence if you want. That notation regarding the failed prosthesis on Oswald's chart is all that is needed to prove that the exhumed teeth don't match those of the Oswald in the Marines.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

I once read that ears are as unique as fingerprints. I don't know if that is true or not, but do you have any way of rotating that picture on the left so that the left ears are superimposed?
To my untrained eye, it doesn't look like they would match.

Steve Thomas

Hi Steve,

No, I have idea how to rotate that image.

It certainly would be interesting to compare the ears. But I just looked and couldn't find any profile photos of LEE.

[Colin Crow]

Bill,

That is a book by Greg Parker, one in his series on Lee Harvey Oswald. Greg absolutely hates John Armstrong, the author of the Harvey & Lee book. He and Jim Hargrove (a Harvey & Lee believer with a website on the subject) have had numerous debates over the years on the Harvey & Lee thesis.

The things Greg wrote on the page you linked to are covered in my presentation (in Post #1).

After studying the evidence myself and watching the debates for months, I determined that Greg Parker is wrong. There is simply too much evidence for the two Oswalds for it to be a fluke. Though Greg claims that he debunks the evidence, I have seen almost none of that. Jim Hargrove almost always gets the better of him.

So far Greg hasn't said a word about the latest evidence I have presented. Like most the other evidence, it is impossible to explain. I mean with reasonable explanations.

Greg and his allies usually have to resort to saying that the evidence is nothing more than clerical errors. I'm sure that that is what he's going to claim about the dental prosthesis evidence I found, which supports the missing front tooth evidence. He'll just say that that prosthesis notation was accidentally written on Oswald's chart.

Greg will have us believe the following are all true:

1. Oswald's friend was wrong when he recalled that the tooth had fallen out.
2. Oswald's Aunt took him to the dentist to get his cut lip treated.
3. The missing tooth in the photo is a flaw in the film.
4  And, that prosthesis notation belonged on somebody else's chart.

He actually wrote #2 in his book. It's a ridiculous thing to say, so let's change it to something reasonable:

2. Oswald's Aunt took him to the dentist because the tooth was loosened. But it ultimately healed on it's own.

In a future presentation I will compute the odds against all of those things happening to a single person whose been hit on the mouth. I will show how unlikely it would be that those four things would just happen to happen to someone, making it look like the person lost a tooth when in fact he did not.

Do you think that Bill did not know who the author was?

[John Anderson]

Were Oswald's mum and brothers in on it?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Were Oswald's mum and brothers in on it?

According to the H&L theory, there were not only two Oswalds, but two mothers. As for the brothers, Robert was in on it and John Pic was aware of it which is why he did not recognize certain photos. All of which is nonsense of course.