Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sandy Larsen

Sandy Larsen's Draft Editor

Recommended Posts

This is where I draft new presentations.

Please do not post anything in this thread.
It will fade away into obscurity (except for me) as long as nobody posts to it.


Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



Above is a military dental record for a 18 year old man of interest. It indicates that he had a dental examination on March 27, 1958.

A notation dated May 5, 1958 was later added to the field titled "Prosthesis Required?" It reads "FAILED 5-5-58."

Here's a closeup of the "Prosthesis Required" field:




The question is, what does this notation mean?

It is my contention that this means an existing prosthesis failed.

Here is my line of reasoning:

  1. Whatever dental procedure or appliance failed, its failure required a new prosthesis. The only procedures and appliances I can think of that would fit that bill are 1) replantation of an avulsed tooth , and 2) an existing prosthesis. Failure of either of these would require a new prosthesis.
  2. I ruled out a failed replantation, for two reasons:  First, the dentist probably would have written a more meaningful explanation for that, like "FAILED REPLANTATION." The short explanation "FAILED" implies a failed prosthesis, due to the context in which the notation is written. And that is precisely my other option.

    The second reason for ruling out a failed replantation is that there is no sign of one being performed in the "Treatment" section of the record.

    So I believe that the "FAILED" notation means that an existing prosthesis failed.
  3. My critics say that, if there had been an existing prosthesis, its existence would have been marked on the chart. I disagree. The chart states above it what is to be marked: "Caries, Dental Disease, Missing teeth, Abnormalities." It does NOT ask for prior treatments (like restorations, crowns, and prostheses) to be marked, and indeed none are marked. This is an important distinction because some dental charts do ask for prior treatments to be marked.

    The other chart, on the right, is titled "Dental Treatments Accomplished." So the left chart is for marking things that need fixing, and the right chart for marking things that got fixed. Prior treatments are not marked on either.
  4. My critics ask, what is the point of writing such a brief explanation for why a prosthesis is required? My answer is, I can only guess. But the instruction does indeed say that if the answer is "yes," the dentist is to write a brief explanation.

    My guess is that, at that time, in the military, specialists were used for installing dental prostheses. The patient would have been sent to the specialist and he would have performed his own examination.
  5. Note that the failed prosthesis could not have been a replacement for missing tooth #30, which is marked with an X on the chart. Because there was no room for a prosthesis to fit at #30 due to mesial drift and tipping of the adjacent molars into #30 site. (We know this to be the case because of a forensic study later performed on this patient's corpse.)
  6. My critics ask, if there was an existing prosthesis, then how is it that the missing tooth which that prosthesis replaced isn't marked with an X on the chart. I say it's because the missing tooth was previously replaced with a dental bridge. The tooth was therefore no longer missing and no treatment was necessary for it. No X was needed on that chart.
  7. And finally, there is compelling evidence that this patient lost one or two front teeth during a 9th grade fist fight. While this information is not necessary to conclude that this patient had a prosthesis that failed on or around May 5, 1958, it does provide corroborating evidence that he did have a prosthesis prior to his 1958 dental examination.

Following is the evidence that the patient lost a tooth when in the 9th grade as a result of a fist fight.

His Best Friend Testified He Lost a Tooth

In a government hearing, the patient's best friend testified as follows:

ATTORNEY: But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right?
BEST FRIEND: Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.

His Aunt Testified that he Went to See a Dentist

The patient's aunt testified as follows at the government hearing:

"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 [his mother] 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 the patient go see a dentist if he hadn't lost a tooth? Surely he didn't go there to have his lip sewed up.

A Yearbook Photo Shows That the Tooth is Missing

The patient's best friend was tasked with taking photos to be included in the school yearbook. Here is a closeup showing that the patient's front tooth was missing. In fact, there might be two missing teeth:



It is easier to see in this contrast-adjusted version of the photo:




So it is my belief that this boy was at some time fitted with a dental bridge. While serving in the military the prosthesis failed. And that is the reason for the dentist making the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation in the dental record.

But as I said before, this part about the missing front tooth is merely corroboration for the point I am trying to make. That point being that the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation was referring to a failed prosthesis.

There is a reason this is important.


Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Lee Harvey Oswald's body was exhumed in 1981 to determine whether it truly was that of Oswald's, or that of a Soviet spy. A panel of experts headed by Dr. Linda Norton determined that the body was indeed that of Lee Harvey Oswald's. The proceedings and findings of the event were recorded in the Norton Report.

I have discovered substantial inconsistencies in the Norton Report which indicate 1) that two different sets of dental x-rays were involved in the analysis, and 2) the teeth of the exhumed Oswald do not fully match the dental records kept of Lee Harvey Oswald by the Marine Corps.

Marine Corps records indicate that Oswald was missing one of his non-wisdom-tooth molars, specifically the front-most molar on his lower right side. According to the Norton Report that tooth had been extracted. And yet the tooth appears to be present among the exhumed teeth.

Tooth Gaps Lead to Tipping Teeth

When a tooth is missing, the teeth behind it will often drift forward and tip down into the gap. If significant bone loss has occurred at the site of the gap, the adjacent tooth can tip over to the point of completely filling the gap. This occurs due to forces applied from the opposing teeth (upper or lower) during mastication. Here are some examples of where this has happened:






The Norton Panel Mistakenly Accepted that the Molar was Missing.

I have carefully compared the photographs and x-rays of the exhumed teeth with Oswald's Marine Corps dental records and x-rays and have found them to be largely consistent. But with one exception... the supposedly missing molar. It is my contention that the Norton Panel talked themselves into believing the molar was missing on the exhumed body. It had to. Nearly everything else checked out and there was no way of explaining the lack of a missing molar. The missing molar had been reported on several dental charts, and so it couldn't be a case of mistaken charting.

Let's take a look at where the molar was supposed to have been missing. Here is one view:



Tooth #30 is the one that is supposed to be missing. So the Norton Panel numbered the teeth as shown here. There is a small gap there, better seen from a side view:



Now admittedly, when I first saw that gap, I wondered if a molar had indeed been extracted and that the two molars behind it somehow shifted over quite a distance without tipping down. Because molars #31 and 32 are not tipping at all. Rather, they are at an angle only because the jawbone that far back is tilted... at the same angle.

For us to accept that tooth #30 had been extracted, we'd have to believe that afterward #31 and 32 moved straight toward #29  by roughly 1/4 inch. Not by tipping, but by moving straight. And that the sockets the roots fit into did the same.

This is hard to believe. Imagine driving a post into the ground and then trying to move it over a significant distance relative to its height. Tipping the post over would be relatively easy, especially with the use of a hammer. But moving it straight over by much would be nearly impossible.

What forces could there have been in Oswald's mouth that could move roots and sockets over by 1/4"?

None, I determined. And so I decided to study missing tooth #30 further. Am I ever glad I did!

My Discovery of the True Missing-Molar X-Ray

As I pondered what I needed for my study, the obvious came to mind quickly. If it were true that the exhumed Oswald had a tooth #30 in place, then there must have been another Oswald who truly was missing #30. What I needed more than anything else was an x-ray from that Oswald showing the missing tooth. With that in hand, I should be able to see a gap where the tooth had been, and possibly a tooth or two behind it tipping down into the gap.

Problem is, in my search for dental records the only x-rays I'd seen were the ones published in the Norton Report.

It occurred to me that I hadn't yet taken a close look at that particular x-ray in the Norton Report taken from the Marine Corps records. I had saved that for last, because it was of the only quadrant of the teeth that appeared suspect. For a fleeting moment I thought, wouldn't it be great if THAT particular x-ray were from the OTHER Oswald? The x-ray that I needed more than any other?

Well, of course, that was too much to hope for. But I took a look anyway.

Ha! I couldn't believe my eyes at first, but I actually had -- printed right there in the Norton Report -- the x-ray of the teeth surrounding tooth #30 from the other Oswald! The x-ray I needed more than any other.

And, as I expected, this x-ray shows definite signs of a missing molar. Here it is:

Marine Corps

I could see right away the large gap left behind from molar #30, and the adjacent molar tipping down into it. The reader may not see these things himself, given his unfamiliarity with this material. I will demonstrate them momentarily.

For the remainder of this presentation I will compare this x-ray from the Marine Corps to the one of the exhumed body and show that they are not from the same person.

Preparation for My Comparison

In order to make the x-ray comparison easy to follow, I created one composite x-ray and made a few minor adjustments, as I will describe here. All the photos and x-rays come from the following high quality scan of the Norton Report:

Norton Report

The photos are on pages 27 through 30, and the x-rays on page 31.

The x-rays printed in the report are notated with black and white text, arrows, and lines. Please ignore these. My notations will be in color.

What I did for the Marine Corps x-ray was separate the upper teeth from the lower a little so that they can easily be distinguished. In addition, there is one tooth whose roots are darkened, and I pasted there a copy of the same tooth from the exhumed x-ray in order to make the roots visible. I gave it a shade of red so that it would be remembered that it is not on the original x-ray. I ended up with this:

Marine Corps X-Ray

For the x-ray of the exhumed teeth, I had to combine two adjacent x-rays into one. They share a molar in both, so I was able to align them perfectly. I then rotated the whole image so that it was at the same angle as the photograph depicting the same (exhumed) teeth.

Unfortunately the original x-rays are cut off and don't show the complete roots. But this doesn't affect my analysis.

Exhumation X-Ray

For the corresponding photograph, I combined the upper and lower teeth onto one image, using the above composite x-ray as a guide for alignment.

Exhumation Photo

Notice how well the teeth in the exhumed x-ray match those in the exhumed photograph, as they should.

To aid in the comparisons, I drew in the jawlines the best I could make out. Here they are:

Marine Corps



Now I can proceed to compare the Marine Corps x-ray to the exhumed teeth x-ray.

Marine Corps X-Ray versus Exhumation X-Ray

Molar Tipping

Lets look at the degree of tipping of the molars adjacent to the #30 molar extraction site. The green lines illustrate the degree of tipping relative to the jawline:

Marine Corps

Tipping of both remaining molars in the Marine Corps x-ray is easily seen. However, tipping is not so great as to close the gap left behind from the missing molar. I estimate that there is still a 1/4 inch gap remaining between crowns of teeth #29 and #31.



There is no tipping of the molars at all in the exhumed teeth They are perfectly square with the jawline. This is in stark contrast to the tipping that is so prominent in the Marine Corps x-ray.

Notice also how the left-most molar in the Marine Corps x-ray is tipping down into the side of molar to its right. In contrast, the tops of the two molars in the exhumed x-ray align nicely with each other. That is, one molar is not tipping down into the other.

One has to wonder how the expected tipping we see in the earlier Marine Corps teeth could have corrected itself to the point of what we see in the exhumed teeth. Downward forces from the upper teeth should have kept those teeth tipped over.

Gap Spacing

In this caparison, I want to imagine straightening up the tipping teeth and re-inserting the lost molar. Is there actually enough room for the molar to fit in? There should be! Following are images I prepared for this exercise.

First let's look at one of the example x-rays I showed earlier:


In this example, significant jaw bone loss has allowed not only the molar on the left to tip right down into the gap, but also has allowed the tooth on the right to tip down a little. As can be seen, If both teeth are straightened up, the original molar will fit in the resulting space. Note that the axis of rotation/tipping is the root of the tooth.

Now let's look at Oswald's Marine Corps x-ray:


Again we see that a missing molar will easily fit once the tipped teeth are straightened up.

But what about the exhumed teeth?


Remember, those two molars on the left are not tipped. But even if we pretend they are and allow more space for the missing molar by "straightening" them up, there is still simply no room for that missing molar to fit in!

This is yet another indication that there was never an adjacent molar that had been extracted. There was no missing molar among the exhumed teeth.

Another Differences Between the Marines X-Ray and Exhumation X-Ray

There is one other difference between the teeth of the Marine Corps Oswald and the exhumed Oswald that is quite glaring. And that is the root style of one of the molars.

Here are examples of molars whose roots are spread out, normal, and narrowed to the point of being fused together:


Lets compare the root spread of what is supposed to be the same tooth in the Marine Corps x-ray and the exhumed teeth x-ray:

Marine Corps


These are obviously not the same tooth. The tooth from the Marine Corps has a narrow root spread, and the one from the exhumed body has a medium/wide spread. They are teeth from two different Oswalds.



The Marine Corps x-ray examined here does NOT belong to the exhumed body of Lee Harvey Oswald. In order for us to accept that it does, we would have to believe the following:

  1. Oswald had his first lower molar on his right side extracted some time before entering the Marine Corps.
  2. Subsequently the two molars behind it began tipping over into the gap of the missing molar.
  3. In the five year span from when the Marine Corps x-ray was taken to the death of Oswald, the two tipping molars inexplicably straightened themselves back up.
  4. In addition to straightening up, the two molars -- root, socket, and all -- moved about 1/4 inch straight into the gap left by the extraction. They did this without any forces applied at the necessary points, in the necessary direction, and with the necessary force to attain such a movement. (As could be done by an orthodontist using braces.)
  5. And in the meantime, the roots AND socket of one of those molars spontaneously straightened up, changing themselves from having a narrow root style to a medium-wide one.

The last three items in this list simply do not belong to the realm of possibility.

Yet if we unlink the Marine Corps x-ray from the exhumation x-ray, it all makes sense. The Marine Corps x-ray is precisely what we'd expect to see after a #30 molar extraction. The exhumation x-ray is not. And it's completely understandable that the root shapes of those two molars are different.

We are left with no other choice than to conclude that the Marines Corps x-rays came from a different Oswald than the Oswald whose remains were exhumed from the tomb. And that the Marine Corps Oswald was the one with the missing molar.

We conclude therefore that there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds. The one in the Marines and the one shot by Jack Ruby. (This is not to say, however, that the Oswald shot by Ruby had not served in the Marines as well.)




Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now