Indisputable Evidence for Harvey & Lee

[Colin Crow]

So in 2018 you know dentists who do not want to answer questions from patients about LHO's teeth?  Come on...You are a great poster but that is just silly, How many dentists do you believe are even aware or care about any of the conspiracy stuff? Do you honestly believe that a dentists would have scared to give an honest and straight forward answer to a question that would be obvious to any dentist?

Brian, I told you what I did and why I did it. For the information that was requested, the movement of teeth following premolar extraction in a teenager it added nothing to say if it was Oswald or not.

If you want to know what the forensic guys said......the DPD were crap.....there you go.

[Sandy Larsen]

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

I had no idea, Colin. I know Greg, but I don't know who Bill is.

[Michael Clark]

So in 2018 you know dentists who do not want to answer questions from patients about LHO's teeth?  Come on...You are a great poster but that is just silly, How many dentists do you believe are even aware or care about any of the conspiracy stuff? Do you honestly believe that a dentist would be scared to give an honest and straight forward answer to a question that would be obvious to any dentist?

The advice I would give is don't explain the Harvey and Lee theory to them.  They would still most likely give you the obvious answer you are looking for but they would probably think you are a really out there. I am sure the office would get a chuckle out of it

You think Jim D should be institutionalized for using caution with regard to whom you request information, yet you say that it is "silly" to think that people might think that there may be negative ramifications for investigating the case? Do you see the contradiction?

[Brian Walker]

You think Jim D should be institutionalized for using caution with regard to whom you request information, yet you say that it is "silly" to think that people might think that there may be negative ramifications for investigating the case? Do you see the contradiction?

No I don't.  Jim D was obviously pointing out that a dentist may be in on the conspiracy or would be concerned with information he gave out.  Jim is not giving out advice on how not to appear like a wackjob. That obviously is not a concern of his.

[John Iacoletti]

I don't think it has anything to do with a concern that a dentist is "in on the conspiracy", whatever that means.  The idea is to get an unbiased opinion based purely on the evidence and not influenced by any preconceptions.

[John Mytton]

I'd like to see what a dentist who perhaps has some appropriate experience with the Marine's has to say?

Anyway I just had another fresh look and here's some observations and opinions.



1. A Marine's dental record is essential in establishing identity in case of death.
2. The first examination on the 27/3/58 was to give details of Oswald's teeth and differentiate him from the next Marine.
3. Oswald went back on the 30/4 and the 14/5 and on these two occasions had fillings for respectively #20 and #10.
4. On the chart any missing teeth would be noted.
5. If Oswald needed a prosthetic then that would be noted as a yes and the missing teeth number# and details of repair would be written.
6. Oswald saw the dentist on the 14/5 after the "failure" which was written as the 5/5 and the dentist did no prosthetic repairs?
7. Oswald left the Marines the next year in September 1959, why wouldn't he have his prosthetic fixed for free during those sixteen months?
8. But we are still left with "FAILED 5-5-58", something was described as "FAILED" that was dated between appointments? FIIK!



JohnM

[Sandy Larsen]

I'd like to see what a dentist who perhaps has some appropriate experience with the Marine's has to say?

Anyway I just had another fresh look and here's some observations and opinions.



1. A Marine's dental record is essential in establishing identity in case of death.
2. The first examination on the 27/3/58 was to give details of Oswald's teeth and differentiate him from the next Marine.
3. Oswald went back on the 30/4 and the 14/5 and on these two occasions had fillings for respectively #20 and #10.
4. On the chart any missing teeth would be noted.
5. If Oswald needed a prosthetic then that would be noted as a yes and the missing teeth number# and details of repair would be written.
6. Oswald saw the dentist on the 14/5 after the "failure" which was written as the 5/5 and the dentist did no prosthetic repairs?
7. Oswald left the Marines the next year in September 1959, why wouldn't he have his prosthetic fixed for free during those sixteen months?
8. But we are still left with "FAILED 5-5-58", something was described as "FAILED" that was dated between appointments? FIIK!

JohnM

John,

Oswald's March 27, 1958 dental record indicates that on or around May 5, 1958 a failure occurred that required Oswald to get a new prosthesis (false tooth). The record lists all treatments performed by that particular dentist. The new prosthesis is not listed. Obviously either another dentist provided the prosthesis, or Oswald never got one.

Regardless, if you look at the teeth of exhumed Oswald, you will see that all his teeth are natural, that he has no prostheses, and that there is no place for prosthesis to fit. Which is strange, to say the least, for a person who needed a prosthesis.

Photos of Oswalds exhumed teeth can be found on page 27 of the Norton Report:

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/norton_report_with_high_quality_images.pdf


You say that, "If Oswald needed a prosthetic then that would be noted as a yes and the missing teeth number# and details of repair would be written."

That is an assumption you are making that is demonstrably untrue. It states right there in the "Prosthesis Required?" field that if the answer is "yes," the dentist is to indicate so by writing a brief description. No need to write "yes." No need to give details.

I can only guess why details would not be requested or needed. Perhaps the Marine Corps used specialists for any treatment more sophisticated than treating cavities. Indeed, I recall the days when one had to see a specialist just to get a root canal.

[Zeon Wasinsky]