Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      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 an email 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

Posted (edited)

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
Posted (edited)

Indisputable Evidence for Harvey & Lee:
Oswald was missing a tooth, but his exhumed body was not!
New evidence is presented.

This topic has been debated before. But I have since discovered evidence that proves young Oswald had a prosthetic (artificial) tooth, held in place with dental bridge. Yet the Oswald killed by Jack Ruby had all natural teeth and no place where a prosthetic tooth could fit. We know this because his body was exhumed in 1981 and his teeth were photographed and x-rayed.

It is no surprise to me that Oswald had a prosthetic tooth. After all there is plenty of evidence that his front tooth was knocked out in a fist fight when he was in 9th grade. Before presenting the new evidence for the prosthesis, I will summarize the evidence for Oswald's tooth being knocked out. Those who are aware of the missing tooth evidence can skip over this summary.


Ed Voebel Testified that Oswald Lost His Tooth

Ed Voebel was Oswald's best friend in 9th grade. He testified as follows before the Warren Commission:

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


Now,  our critics like to make a big deal about Voebel not being sure that Oswald lost the tooth, because of his use of the phrase "I think." However it must be pointed out that Voebel had a habit of saying that when testifying. Here's a sampling:

  • Yes. Well, I think one of them was in the same grade as Lee.
  • The fight, I think started on the school ground,
  • I think John was a little smaller, a little shorter than Lee.
  • Well, I think Oswald was getting the best of John,
  • but I think I just went on home and everybody went their way,
  • and Oswald I think, was a little in front of me
  • I think that was what brought it all about. I think this was sort of a revenge thing on the part of the Neumeyer boys
  • I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.
  • I don't think he was that good
  • I don't think he was a great pool player
  • I think I met her one time
  • I think the legal age here is 18
  • I think in a way I understood him better than most of the other kids
  • I think they have gotten worse
  • I think we were in the same grade, I think we were.

 .... and on and on. Ed Voebel said “I think” or “think” nearly a hundred times during his testimony. It seems to have been a part of the way he talked.

But be that as it may, there is more evidence of a lost tooth.


Lillian Murret Testified that Oswald Had to See a Dentist

Oswald's Aunt Lillian testified as follows before the Warren Commission:

"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 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 Oswald have had to to see a dentist if he hadn't lost a tooth?

Okay, it's conceivable that the tooth may have merely been loosened. However, there is further evidence that Oswald lost a tooth. Photographic evidence.


A Photo Printed in Life Magazine Shows That the Tooth is Missing

Oswald's 9th Grade friend, Ed Voebel, was tasked with taking photos to be included in the school yearbook. He later sold one of those photos to Life Magazine, which published the photo in their February 21, 1964 issue. Here is the photo:

Toothless_Life_70.jpg

 

And here is a close up showing that Oswald's front tooth was missing:
 

Toothless_CU.jpg

 


New Evidence:  Oswald Had a Prosthetic Tooth!

When we were last discussing this I wondered what Oswald might have done about his missing tooth. David Josephs posted some of his dental charts and it occurred to me that Oswald's Marine Corps records might indicate something about a bridge or false tooth. So I dug through John Armstrong's collection at Baylor University to see what I could find.

To my great surprise I did find something! Apparently overlooked till now. In the chart for Oswald's dental exam dated March 27, 1958 is a field where the questions is asked, "Prosthetic Required?" The dentist is instructed to "explain briefly" if the answer is yes. And that is what Oswald's dentist did. He wrote "FAILED 5-5-58." In other words, Oswald required a prosthesis because the one he had failed on May 5, 1958. (I suspect that that is the date Oswald reported the failure, not the date it actually failed.)

img_1136_627_300.png

<put closeup of field here>

So Oswald had gotten a prosthesis for his missing tooth, and it broke while he was in the Marines.

Now, one might ask how we know that the prosthesis was for Oswald's front tooth. My short answer would be that it doesn't matter. Because photographs and x-rays of the Oswald's exhumed teeth show that all his teeth were natural and that there was no room for a prosthesis to fit! (See the photos below.) And right away we realize that the Lee Harvey Oswald in the tomb is not the same Lee Harvey Oswald who had the dental exam on March 27, 1958.

But rather than speculate that the young Oswald lost not only his front tooth but then another, for which he was fitted a prosthesis, let's keep it simple and admit that in all likelihood he got the prosthesis for the tooth for which we have considerable evidence he lost... his front tooth.

 

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

[reserved]

 

Simple Proof that the Oswald Shot by Ruby and the Oswald in the Marines were Two Different Men

It can be shown -- and corroborated -- that the Oswald in the Marines had only two wisdom teeth whereas the one shot by Ruby had three. And therefore they cannot be the same person.

Furthermore, the evidence is very strong -- almost a certainty -- that the Oswald in the Marines was missing a front tooth whereas the one shot by Ruby was not. And therefore again they cannot be the same person.

The one assumption this proof makes is that the Oswald shot by Ruby was indeed the man buried in Oswald's tomb. Few people contest this fact.

 

The Proof

The chart on the left shows the result of LEE Oswald's dental exam dated March 27, 1958. Click the image to enlarge it.

img_1136_627_300.png

 

There has been some speculation regarding the X's written over the roots of the wisdom teeth. According to these flash cards used for dental assistant students, an X written over a root means that the tooth is missing. It does not mean that the tooth has yet to erupt. A tooth that hasn't erupted is called an "impacted" tooth and is marked by drawing a circle around it.

Two of the Wisdom teeth are marked by both an X and a circle around it. This occurs because of the way a dentist performs an examination. First he will visually look for defects. If he sees that a tooth is missing he will draw an X over the root. After the visual inspection he will read the x-rays. If he sees an impacted (un-ruptured) tooth, he will draw a circle around the tooth. So an impacted tooth will get both an X and a circle around it.

The missing teeth are corroborated by other dental records, like this one from 1956:

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/39282

 

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

×