The Magic Tonsillectomy or Armstrong's Voodoo Science?

[LR Trotter]

So in the mid-40's Marguerite wasn't averse to surgery on the young boy. FBI had no interest in pursing the tonsillectomy even though they had the name of the local Dallas doctor.

Mr Doyle, maybe the FBI did not consider information entered on an insurance application to be sufficent "evidence" of a tonsillectomy. I know that I had a tonsillectomy in about 1953, when I was about age 6. The stand alone hospital/clinic where the surgery was done has been non-existent for about 50 years, and I wonder, as I wander, if records for that surgery can be found. I do recall being ill, and the discomfort of recovery. But, I mostly remember the "absence" of "all the Sherbet Ice Cream I can eat."
::hungry::

That doesn't line up with the Commission's meticulous pursuit of other trivial evidence. Philben was right there in town available for the askin'.

Then is it a possibility that the "Commission's meticulous pursuit of other trivial evidence" was not equaled by the FBI? Just askin'.
::notsharing::

[LR Trotter]

I think Marguerite would have been briefed in the fact the osteopathic method was not a tonsillectomy. So I feel Greg violates his own level of cynicism.

Certainly she should have been. But, as I understand it, we are still dealing with information entered on a life insurance application form regarding a medical treatment and/or procedure that occurred in Dallas, TX during the mid 1940s near the end of World War 2. The information could have been misrepresented, misstated, or misunderstood by Marguerite Oswald, Dr Philben, or the insurance agent selling the policy. But, "could have been" means just that.
::fortuneteller::

[Jim Hargrove]

Even more so when you consider that Philben advertised that he did pediatrics only.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5842[/ATTACH]
"PRACTICE LIMITED TO PEDIATRICS"

Assuming, for the moment, that this card is genuine....

From Wikipedia:

Pediatrics (also spelled [B]paediatrics or [B]pædiatrics) is the branch of medicine that deals with the medical care of infants, children, and adolescents, and the age limit usually ranges from birth up to 18 (in some places until completion of secondary education, and until age 21 in the United States).

[/B][/B]

On Jan. 17, 1945, the date Marguerite apparently indicated Dr. Philben performed the tonsillectomy on her son, or referred it to a surgeon, Lee Harvey Oswald was five years old. He would most logically be under the care of a pediatrician. I understand some pediatricians can do minor surgery, but whether a tonsillectomy would qualify as minor, or what was allowed in Texas at that time, I don't know. The Wikipedia article also states (my emphasis):

A major difference between pediatrics and adult medicine is that children are minors and, in most jurisdictions, cannot make decisions for themselves. The issues of guardianship, privacy, legal responsibility and informed consent must always be considered in every pediatric procedure. In a sense, pediatricians often have to treat the parents and sometimes, the family, rather than just the child.

To give her consent, Marguerite should have been well informed about the procedure.

Jim

[Jim Hargrove]

That doesn't line up with the Commission's meticulous pursuit of other trivial evidence. Philben was right there in town available for the askin'.

The Commission sure missed some opportunities for askin' questions. Here's two of my favorites:

1. Why didn't they try to find out why the infamous money order that supposedly paid for the alleged murder weapon was never deposited into a bank, or cashed, or processed by anyone other than the Klein's Sporting Goods? Why didn't they ask the US Postal Department to conduct "payment research" on the money order. There is no cost for this service, but the results may have been a bit difficult for the WC to explain.

2. Faced with all those witnesses who said Oswald did--and didn't--drive a car, why didn't someone on the Commission simply call the Texas Department of Public Safety and ask if Oswald had a driver's license? Guess none of he lawyers could find a phone number.

The real reason for question 2, of course, is that the Commissioners knew they were tip-toeing through a minefield of potentially explosive facts about the biography of "Lee Harvey Oswald," which was the real State Secret they were trying to protect. After all, John Heart Ely was tasked with writing a report about the background of "Lee Harvey Oswald" and "Marguerite." On April 10, 1964, WC staff attorney Albert Jenner wrote to WC general counsel Rankin stating, "there are details in Mr. Ely's memoranda which will require MATERIAL ALTERATION and, in some instances, OMISSION." (my emphasis)

[Dawn Meredith]

I have had limited time here since returning from vacation and this thread was begun while we were gone so I have not read most of it. Thus the comments below are from one of THE most respected JFK researchers in the world:

"The tonsillectomy topic all revolves around a single piece of paper in an FBI report, repeating third hand something that allegedly originated with Marguerite.

The John Armstrong faction adamantly insists that Marguerite is untrustworthy, and that FBI reports must be viewed with utmost skepticism. I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

Yet the same faction insists with equal adamance that this single piece of paper is genuine beyond doubt, despite the absence of corroboration from any source whatsoever.

"The FBI produced reams of fraudulent data with regards to the assassination of the president," according to a recent post by David Josephs. Yet the same man invokes a third hand citation from an FBI report as probative regarding the tonsillectomy. "

As this was a private email the senders id shall remain private. The purpose in posting it is the point is well worth considering, and sounds pretty decisive to me. Can't we just agree to disagree and get past all this nonsence. I mean really a ONE PAGE FBI report is causing this much discussion and sniping.
Dawn

[Jim Hargrove]

Dawn,

This whole debate probably is overblown. After all, the whole thing is about four paragraphs long in John's 1,000+ page book.

But I would point out that there is no evidence whatsoever that a phony Marguerite existed in 1945. If the FBI report is accurate (always a question) it probably referred to the real mother of the real Lee Harvey Oswald.

Jim

[Greg R Parker]

Dawn,

This whole debate probably is overblown. After all, the whole thing is about four paragraphs long in John's 1,000+ page book.

But I would point out that there is no evidence whatsoever that a phony Marguerite existed in 1945. If the FBI report is accurate (always a question) it probably referred to the real mother of the real Lee Harvey Oswald.

Jim

Given that JA only had 4 paras on it, and did admit that tonsils can grow back, the only thing I could really nitpick is his failure to look into Dr Philben and his mistake in assuming that because tonsils rarely grow back now, that this was always the case. It's not. As I have been saying all along, they were only partially removed in 1945 and this meant they could grow back quite easily for those under 8 years old when tonsil growth ceases.

Added to that, Philben advertised his services as pediatrics only. No surgery and there is a complete lack of documentary evidence suggesting any such surgery was ever done.

If this is overblown, it is because the claims about it on the web have been overblown. "Magic Tonsillectomy" is hyperbolic in the extreme as is asking rhetorically if the medics in the Marines "were hallucinating". Those comments go well beyond what was in the book and it is to those comments that I have been fulminating. You have further fueled the fire by claiming you going to put the "Magic Tonsillectomy" piece back up.

[Bob Prudhomme]

I have had limited time here since returning from vacation and this thread was begun while we were gone so I have not read most of it. Thus the comments below are from one of THE most respected JFK researchers in the world:

"The tonsillectomy topic all revolves around a single piece of paper in an FBI report, repeating third hand something that allegedly originated with Marguerite.

The John Armstrong faction adamantly insists that Marguerite is untrustworthy, and that FBI reports must be viewed with utmost skepticism. I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

Yet the same faction insists with equal adamance that this single piece of paper is genuine beyond doubt, despite the absence of corroboration from any source whatsoever.

"The FBI produced reams of fraudulent data with regards to the assassination of the president," according to a recent post by David Josephs. Yet the same man invokes a third hand citation from an FBI report as probative regarding the tonsillectomy. "

As this was a private email the senders id shall remain private. The purpose in posting it is the point is well worth considering, and sounds pretty decisive to me. Can't we just agree to disagree and get past all this nonsence. I mean really a ONE PAGE FBI report is causing this much discussion and sniping.
Dawn

My sentiments precisely, Dawn. If you look at the next thread down, you will see a thread by me, pretty much ignored, where I use FBI evidence to prove Oswald's ammo was incapable of the feats attributed to it. I'm working on a thread now that will pretty much prove CE 399 was never fired from the rifle found on the 6th floor, yet it is likely to generate little attention, either.

Yet, here we are, into the second week of a hot debate over Oswald's frickin' tonsils. Go figure!

[Greg R Parker]

I have had limited time here since returning from vacation and this thread was begun while we were gone so I have not read most of it. Thus the comments below are from one of THE most respected JFK researchers in the world:

"The tonsillectomy topic all revolves around a single piece of paper in an FBI report, repeating third hand something that allegedly originated with Marguerite.

The John Armstrong faction adamantly insists that Marguerite is untrustworthy, and that FBI reports must be viewed with utmost skepticism. I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

Yet the same faction insists with equal adamance that this single piece of paper is genuine beyond doubt, despite the absence of corroboration from any source whatsoever.

"The FBI produced reams of fraudulent data with regards to the assassination of the president," according to a recent post by David Josephs. Yet the same man invokes a third hand citation from an FBI report as probative regarding the tonsillectomy. "

As this was a private email the senders id shall remain private. The purpose in posting it is the point is well worth considering, and sounds pretty decisive to me. Can't we just agree to disagree and get past all this nonsence. I mean really a ONE PAGE FBI report is causing this much discussion and sniping.
Dawn

My sentiments precisely, Dawn. If you look at the next thread down, you will see a thread by me, pretty much ignored, where I use FBI evidence to prove Oswald's ammo was incapable of the feats attributed to it. I'm working on a thread now that will pretty much prove CE 399 was never fired from the rifle found on the 6th floor, yet it is likely to generate little attention, either.

Yet, here we are, into the second week of a hot debate over Oswald's frickin' tonsils. Go figure!

The irony Bob is that I spent several years at the Ed Forum trying to get my research on Oswald out. Each time I started a thread on him, it was hijacked by H & L theorists. Now that I want to discuss H & L, they're all running for the hills, leaving a trail of emoticons behind them.

ps

I will cease cross-posting to my website when this ill-advised and highly biased moderation is lifted.

[Lauren Johnson]

In post #139, GP refers to his position about LHO vs. to what I will call the H&L School. Can someone summarize these two schools of thought?