Josephs mangles the records yet again

The DJ Fez wrote:The debate over whether Lee lost a tooth earlier in his life can be answered by the induction and discharge papers from the marines.

Upon entering the Marines it is shown that he has 1) missing teeth, 2) has a denture & 3) it's a fixed bridge...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24480-1956-lee-missing-teeth-has-a-prosthetic-1981-oswald-not-so-much/

Here is the section of the USMC report that he is using for the above statement without all of his garbage covering it and confusing things:


To any sane person, the chart is to be filled in using the above symbols where needed.

Does anyone see any of those symbols drawn on to the chart? No, of course not.  Josephs is trying to sell the idea that because those things are on the form, they MUST apply to Oswald. Is he for real? Is he taking the piss? Is he selling yet more snake oil?

Who knows, but it is equally unsurprising that after over 8 hours up, no one at the ed forum has called him on this crap.

And according to the H & L cult, this is the person who has correctly interpreted the school records? FFS, someone put me out of my misery.

The Fez couldn't interpret the classic toddler book "See Spot Run". He would no doubt find a way to turn it into CIA op involving fake spots on the dog concealing secret messages for "John" and "Jill" - dwarf Russian triple-agents masquerading as typical American '50s kids.

How the Fez could derive such data from the legend (or key) for the image alone simply defies all logic. Perhaps he was of the opinion that those particular notations are not on every such chart, only for those - like Oswald - who has missing teeth, dentures, and bridges, of whatever imaginary quality.

I'm more relieved that the key did not also mention the placement of hollow teeth (for cyanide capsules) or teeth with radio-transmitters or else we would learn that Oswald was likewise equipped.

We grow weary of these uninformed forum dwellers.

Terry W. Martin wrote:How the Fez could derive such data from the legend (or key) for the image alone simply defies all logic. Perhaps he was of the opinion that those particular notations are not on every such chart, only for those - like Oswald - who has missing teeth, dentures, and bridges, of whatever imaginary quality.

I'm more relieved that the key did not also mention the placement of hollow teeth (for cyanide capsules) or teeth with radio-transmitters or else we would learn that Oswald was likewise equipped.

We grow weary of these uninformed forum dwellers.

Terry, I wanted to avoid the word "legend" because that is another spook word that would only feed his delusions.  |

"Key" is good though!

It even instructs the filler of the form to "place appropriate symbols above or below number of upper or lower teeth..."

The complete absence of that instruction being carried out means that none of those things applied. The utter stupidity on display by the Fez is matched by the lack of common sense and critical thinking on the part the other members who read it and said nothing.

Fuck me. A mod seems to have saved the idiot yet again by making the thread disappear. 

Let's see how long he stays away before he resurfaces this time.

greg parker wrote:Fuck me. A mod seems to have saved the idiot yet again by making the thread disappear. 

Let's see how long he stays away before he resurfaces this time.

Didn't take long. He is already back giving his expert analysis on the Bloomfield thread. Richly ironic that the education forum never learns...

Lucky I also have this shot of his bragging about starting the now deleted thread in another thread
How long will this post last? Let's see..
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24469-new-article-by-john-armstrong/?do=findComment&comment=365978

"There must be some rational explanation."

Nope. None. Not even close.

That's how the EdForum rolls.