Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

INDISPUTABLE Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a FRONT TOOTH, but his exhumed body was not! NEW EVIDENCE FOUND.

Recommended Posts

Oswald was missing a front tooth, but his exhumed body was not!
New evidence is presented here.

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 a dental bridge. This in spite of the fact that 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 we can see in the exhumation photographs that his teeth were all natural and still in place.

It is of no surprise to me that Oswald had a prosthetic tooth. After all, there is plenty of evidence that his front incisor 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 a 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, it sounds as if Voebel wasn't certain Oswald got his lip cut and lost a tooth. But that probably was not the case. After all, he explained later how some of the other boys took Oswald into the boys restroom and patched him up. Does that sound like he wasn't sure Oswald had gotten his lip cut?

Ed Voebel used the phrase "I think" numerous times in his testimony, even in cases where he surely would have known. Like when he said, "I think I just went on home and everybody went their way" after an altercation that occurred the day prior. Was he really not sure he went home? And that the other boys went their way?

Here's a sampling of Voebel's use of the phrase:

  • "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 Went 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 [Marguerite] 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 to see a dentist if he hadn't lost a tooth?

Okay, it's conceivable that the tooth was merely loosened. However, that goes against Ed Voebel's recollection. And besides, there is further evidence that Oswald lost a tooth. Photographic evidence and more.


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 it is:
 

life_magazine_missing_tooth.jpg

 

Here is a close up showing that Oswald's front tooth was missing. In fact, there might be two missing teeth:
 

life_magazine_missing_tooth_closeup.jpg

 

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

 

missing_tooth_adjusted.jpg

 


New Evidence:  Oswald Had a Prosthetic Tooth!

When we were last discussing this topic I wondered what Oswald might have done about his missing tooth. David Josephs posted a couple of his dental charts and it occurred to me that Oswald's Marine Corps records might indicate something about a bridge or a denture. So I dug through John Armstrong's collection at Baylor University and numerous files at the Mary Ferrell website 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 precisely what Oswald's dentist did. He wrote "FAILED 5-5-58." In other words, Oswald required a prosthesis because the one he currently had failed on May 5, 1958. (Or maybe that was the date Oswald reported the failure.)

Here's the dental chart:

dental_record_1958-03-27.png

 

And here's a closeup of the "Prosthesis Required" field:

 

failed_prosthesis.jpg

 

So, at some point in time Oswald got 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, the tooth we know was missing. My short answer would be that it doesn't really matter. Because photographs and x-rays of Oswald's exhumed teeth show that all his teeth were natural and that there was no room for a prosthesis to fit! (See the exhumed teeth photos below.) And so right away we realize that the Lee Harvey Oswald in the tomb was 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 yet another -- for which he was fitted the prosthesis -- let's keep it simple and admit that in all likelihood he got the prosthesis for the tooth in which we have considerable evidence he lost... his front tooth. Occam's razor calls for us to make that conclusion. (Again, not that it matters.)

There is an interesting question we might ask, though it is irrelevant to the conclusions made in this presentation. And that is, what type of prosthesis did Oswald have? He might have had a removable denture like this one:

 

denture.jpg

 

Or he might have had a fixed dental bridge, like this one (except for his top front teeth, of course):


dental_bridge.jpg

 

In my opinion, Oswald was fitted with a dental bridge. Because had he worn a denture, the dentist would have asked him to remove it before his examination. And his dental chart would show a missing tooth there, which it does not.


But the Exhumed Oswald Had no Missing or Prosthetic Teeth

The reader can see for himself that the Oswald killed by Jack Ruby had no fake teeth and no room for a prosthesis at all. All his teeth were natural. Here are the teeth of the exhumed body:

 

teeth_front_view.jpg

Front View

 

top_teeth_inside_view.jpg

Top Inside View

 

bottom_teeth_inside_view.jpg

Bottom Inside View


Conclusion

No other conclusion can be drawn from this evidence other than the Oswald shot by Ruby was not the same Oswald who lost his front tooth in a 9th grade fist fight and was thereafter fitted with a prosthesis to replace the tooth.

In other words, the Oswald shot by Ruby was an imposter.

Given that this imposter shared the same siblings with the real Oswald, it can be concluded that he had been an imposter since childhood. And we thereby have further proof of the Harvey and Lee story as written about by John Armstrong.

 

See the next post for answers to critics' questions.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answering the Critics

Critics of my presentation have asked some questions that deserve a response. Here are my answers.
 

How do you know that it was a prosthesis that failed and not something else?

We do know, of course, that the solution to whatever failed was to provide a new prosthesis. What I did is this: I found a list of dental procedures and devices and, one by one, determined what a dentist would do to correct a failure of that procedure or device. For example:

Solution for a failed filling:  A new filling.

Solution for a failed root canal:  Either a second root canal, or an extraction.

Solution for a failed prosthesis:  A replacement prosthesis. BINGO!

The only procedure or device  I could find that fit the bill was an existing prosthesis.


If Oswald had a dental bridge at the time of his examination, then why is it not marked on his dental chart?

The chart specifically requests that these conditions be marked:

Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities

It doesn't request that existing fillings, crowns, bridges, etc. be listed. The purpose of the chart is not forensic identification, but rather a listing of things that might need correcting.


Why isn't the missing front tooth marked with an X?

Because that tooth had been replaced with a permanent bridge. The tooth needed no treatment because it had already been replaced.


How do you know the prosthesis wasn't to replace the missing #30 molar?

For one thing, there is pretty good evidence that Oswald lost a front tooth in a fist fight. And that would have needed a prosthesis.

But even if we were to ignore that evidence, there is a reason that a prosthesis would not have been used at the #30 site. Here is the x-ray taken of Oswald's right-side teeth on the date of his 1958 dental exam:
 

marines_x-ray.jpg

 

Note that I pasted in, from a later Oswald x-ray, the red pre-molar so that it would be easier to envision the gap left behind from the #30 molar extraction. That tooth is faint in the original x-ray. I colored it red as a reminder that it is not in the original. (You can view the original x-ray in the Norton Report.)

By this time of this x-ray, the molar to the left of the extracted one has already tipped down into the gap left behind. I estimate that the width of the remaining gap is about 1/4".

The question then becomes, would Oswald have worn a denture to fill in a1/4" wide gap? I doubt that any young man would find it necessary -- or desirable -- to wear a denture for such a small gap.

I don't know if a dentist would even prescribe such a denture. What would he do... prescribe a half-width molar? A tiny pre-molar?

No, I don't buy that the prosthesis in question was a denture for the half-width gap remaining at extraction site #30.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we were debating the missing front tooth issue here some months ago, someone argued that “no one has ever mentioned that Oswald had a missing tooth,” or something like that.  Now, because of Sandy’s discovery, we know why.  He had a prosthetic—a false tooth or two—in place to hide the missing tooth.  It apparently failed while American-born LEE Oswald was in the Marines.

Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald clearly had all his front teeth in place in his grave.

BTW, the February 21, 1964 issue of Life magazine is still readily available for just a few dollars.  It has the missing tooth photo reproduced inside.  This is the cover of that edition, which is definitely worth owning: 


Toothless_Life_Cover.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oswald was missing a front tooth, but his exhumed body was not!
New evidence is presented here.

First, as you say, Voebel THOUGHT Oswald might have lost a tooth. That's all-he thought it and nothing more. Same with Lillian, she thought LHO went to a dentist. But even if he did, you admit the tooth could have been just loosened. The infamous photo, as has been explained to you before, could be nothing more than an artifact in the printing process. And BTW, if LHO wore a partial denture why didn't he have it in here?

Finally, your analysis of the dental chart shows precisely why you need an expert rather than an amateur to evaluate this stuff. This site explains how to indicate a complete denture (CD) or a removable partial denture (RPD) on a dental chart:


http://medical.tpub.com/14275/css/Fixed-Partial-Dentures-Fpds-68.htm

Mark the missing teeth as previously described [with an X]. Place a horizontal line between the outline of the teeth and the numerals designating teeth replaced by the CD or RPD

So there is no indication on the chart of a partial or full denture and no evidence from anyone that LHO wore one. Therefore this "indisputable evidence" is extremely suspect.

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A team of two forensic pathologists and two forensic odontologists under the direction of Dr. Linda Norton examined Oswald's skeletal remains at the Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. Norton told reporters after the nearly five-hour examination on October 4 [1981], "We, both individually, and as a team, have concluded beyond any doubt, and I mean beyond any doubt, that the individual buried under the name Lee Harvey Oswald in Rose Hills Cemetery is Lee Harvey Oswald."

Among other things, the pathologists compared and matched the teeth of the remains with Oswald's Marine Corps dental records of October 25, 1956, and March 27, 1958, and also found, in the skull, the scar made by surgeons in 1945 when Oswald, age six at the time, had a mastoid operation.

At the time of the exhumation, Dr . Norton, a former medical examiner of Dallas County, was the associate chief medical examiner in Birmingham, Alabama. The rest of her team consisted of Dr. Irving Sopher, chief medical examiner for the state of West Virginia ; Dr. James Cottone, head of the Forensic Odontology Department at the University of Texas at San Antonio; and Dr. Vincent DiMaio, chief medical examiner in San Antonio." -- Page 1042 of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

First, as you say, Voebel THOUGHT Oswald might have lost a tooth. That's all-he thought it and nothing more. Same with Lillian, she thought LHO went to a dentist. But even if he did, you admit the tooth could have been just loosened. The infamous photo, as has been explained to you before, could be nothing more than an artifact in the printing process. And BTW, if LHO wore a partial denture why didn't he have it in here?

 

Tracy,

The fact that Oswald wore a dental prosthesis proves that he lost a tooth. Which means that we have been right all along about Ed Voebel, Aunt Lillian, and the photograph showing the missing tooth.

I know you THINK that Oswald did not wear a prosthesis (even though his prosthesis broke) because it's not listed in his dental chart. But read on to see how you are wrong.

 

34 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Finally, your analysis of the dental chart shows precisely why you need an expert rather than an amateur to evaluate this stuff.

 

We need an expert to understand this?  LOL

 

failed_prosthesis.jpg

 

 

34 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

This site explains how to indicate a complete denture (CD) or a removable partial denture (RPD) on a dental chart:

http://medical.tpub.com/14275/css/Fixed-Partial-Dentures-Fpds-68.htm

 

What makes you think that those instructions apply to Oswald's dental chart, which I posted above? I can easily prove that they don't.

The chart accompanying your instructions is titled:

"Existing restoration, existing teeth, missing teeth, PROSTHETIC APPLIANCE, and variation of normal conditions...."

whereas Oswald's chart is titled:

"Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities"

These are things the dentist is supposed to mark in the chart. Notice that your chart requests info on "prosthetic appliances." Oswald's chart, in contrast, does NOT.

 

34 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

So there is no indication on the chart of a partial or full denture....

 

There is not supposed to be, as I showed above.

 

34 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

....and no evidence from anyone that LHO wore one.

 

You think that people would have talked about Oswald's dental bridge? Who talks about people's crowns, bridges, fillings, etc.?

 

34 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Therefore this "indisputable evidence" is extremely suspect.

 

No, it's not suspect at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

"A team of two forensic pathologists and two forensic odontologists under the direction of Dr. Linda Norton examined Oswald's skeletal remains at the Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. Norton told reporters after the nearly five-hour examination on October 4 [1981], "We, both individually, and as a team, have concluded beyond any doubt, and I mean beyond any doubt, that the individual buried under the name Lee Harvey Oswald in Rose Hills Cemetery is Lee Harvey Oswald."

 

David,

That is absolutely correct. The person they exhumed was Lee Harvey Oswald, and not the alleged Russian spy.

But there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds, as I proved above in my presentation. And it was HARVEY that they exhumed, not LEE.

(BTW, my proof has nothing to do with the Norton Report. I just used their photos to show that the corpse had no prosthetic devices.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I just used their photos to show that the corpse had no prosthetic devices

And you have absolutely no proof that "Lee" had such a device. Once again, you are using your interpretation of something to support your ideas. Other than this obvious misreading of what a dentist wrote, you don't have one witness, one dental chart or any other evidence to support this. If you think I am wrong, find a qualified person that thinks this chart wouldn't show a partial denture. Once again, I challenge you to take this to a QUALIFIED person and see what they say. And then watch them run away when they find out it is Oswald as they invariably would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

First, as you say, Voebel THOUGHT Oswald might have lost a tooth. That's all-he thought it and nothing more. Same with Lillian, she thought LHO went to a dentist. But even if he did, you admit the tooth could have been just loosened. The infamous photo, as has been explained to you before, could be nothing more than an artifact in the printing process. And BTW, if LHO wore a partial denture why didn't he have it in here?

Do you just have to keep on arguing, despite the evidence?  The famous classroom photo of LEE Oswald showing off his missing tooth was TAKEN by Ed Voebel, who helped LEE get cleaned up after the fight. You don't think Voebel knew what happened?  After the assassination, he sold the negative directly to LIFE magazine.  And you ask why wasn't the prosthetic visible in the picture?

Probably because, even today, it takes a week or more to get false teeth made.

You want us to believe that Ed Voebel was wrong, Aunt Lillian was wrong, our eyes are lying to us about that photo, and the failed prosthesis notation was wrong? Could you possibly consider that perhaps you are wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

David,

That is absolutely correct. The person they exhumed was Lee Harvey Oswald, and not the alleged Russian spy.

But there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds, as I proved above in my presentation. And it was HARVEY that they exhumed, not LEE.

(BTW, my proof has nothing to do with the Norton Report. I just used their photos to show that the corpse had no prosthetic devices.)

 

Sandy, I read the blog written by the man who performed the examination of the corpse. I noted that the body below the head was in such a bad state of decomposition that they cut the remaining tissues to separate the head from the body of the corpse, and examined only the head. It was from that examination that they made their findings. The repeated admonition that this was Lee Harvey Oswald's corpse is also somewhat strange ("methinks they protest too much"). A simple statement of fact would be suffice. But if what you are focussing upon is true, then it blows their conclusions to bits. Because if there were/are two Lee Harvey Oswalds, then the question, as you correctly ask, is which one was this? On the other hand, I also agree that with your own findings you need to present them to an independent medical examiner who can assess your evidence. Only then will it carry weight for serious consideration. If you are successful in finding such a person and getting that person to confirm your own conclusion, then you should take it a stage further and assemble a panel of independent and highly qualified specialists. If they all reach the same conclusion then you could be on your way to at long last causing mainstream media and academia to take note and demand an official explanation as to why there has been a cover-up of proof that the assassination was indeed the work of a conspiracy. That would then take the entire JFK hobby into the real world and cause a political explosion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious what Marina Porter would say ( if anything ) if she was asked what she knew about Lee having any dental appliances etc.

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Curious what Marina Porter would say ( if anything ) if she was asked what she knew about Lee having any dental appliances etc.

Joe,

Marina was married to Russsian-speaking Harvey Oswald, who died with all his teeth intact and had no false teeth or other prosthetics in his mouth, even when his body was later exhumed.  The man who lost a molar and one or two front teeth was American-born Lee Oswald, who was undoubtedly kept away as much as possible from Marina.

Marina, by the way, met with Harvey and Lee author John Armstrong on many different occasions.  Once, she brought out all the original color exhumation photos and gave them to him. John made high quality copies of them and then returned the originals to Marina.  Below is one of those exhumation photos Marina gave John, showing Harvey had no missing upper front teeth.

teeth_front_view.jpg


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

And you have absolutely no proof that "Lee" had [a prosthesis].

 

If Oswald had no prosthesis, as you claim, then how do you explain his dental chart clearly indicating that his prosthesis failed?

I obviously do have proof that Oswald had a prosthesis. You just can't accept that fact given all the effort you've put into fighting against John Armstrong's thesis.

 

Quote

Once again, you are using your interpretation of something to support your ideas.

 


I'm not using my interpretation at all. I'm merely reading what the chart says. It just so happens that the chart does support what I believe. You reject it because it doesn't support your belief.

Here is the relevant part of the chart:

failed_prosthesis.jpg


The chart asks the dentist, "Prosthesis required?  If yes, briefly explain."

Clearly the answer is yes, a prosthesis is required. The brief explanation given by the dentist is "Failed 5-5-58."

Now, what do you think failed on May 5, 1958 Tracy? You think it was kidney failure? Of course not! It was failure of a dental device or procedure (like a root canal). And whatever it was that failed required a prosthesis to repair it.

The teeth that were exhumed are all natural... there are no prostheses nor places to fit a prosthesis. So right away we know that this dental record does not apply to the exhumed Oswald. And we are finished with the proof.

But this dental record DOES apply to the other Oswald, LEE. Given the abundant evidence -- INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHIC -- that he was missing a front tooth or two, we know that LEE did need a prosthesis.

The "FAILED 5-5-58" was most likely referring to that prosthesis.

 

 

Quote

Other than this obvious misreading of what a dentist wrote, you don't have one witness, one dental chart or any other evidence to support this.

 

I have the dental chart I showed everybody. And it supports what I am saying.

 

Quote

If you think I am wrong, find a qualified person that thinks this chart wouldn't show a partial denture.

 

Tracy, it states right there on the chart what it is supposed to show:  "Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities." I don't need to ask anybody to find out what it is supposed to show.

The reason the chart you found is very comprehensive and shows everything including prostheses is because it is a FORENSIC chart. It states so right on the page. It is for identification purposes. The reason Oswald's chart doesn't show everything is because its purpose is to list dental problems that need fixing. Look at the list again: Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities.  Every one of those things either require fixing or might require fixing. That chart is on the left half of Oswald's record. On the right half is a chart where the dentist is supposed to mark the following: Dental Treatment Accomplished. So the chart on the left  is for showing problems that need fixing, and the chart on the right is for showing what got fixed.

This dental record doesn't list prior fillings, crowns, and prostheses because doing so would serve no purpose. The purpose of this record is to show new dental problems and when they were fixed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist -- or even a dentist -- to figure this out.

 

Quote

Once again, I challenge you to take this to a QUALIFIED person and see what they say. And then watch them run away when they find out it is Oswald as they invariably would.

 

That is precisely what you are counting on, isn't it Tracy? That the Expert would run away and not tell the truth once he found out it's about Oswald. That's pretty disgusting if you ask me.

Well I'm not like you. I want to know the truth, regardless of what anybody else thinks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

On the other hand, I also agree that with your own findings you need to present them to an independent medical examiner who can assess your evidence. Only then will it carry weight for serious consideration. If you are successful in finding such a person and getting that person to confirm your own conclusion, then you should take it a stage further and assemble a panel of independent and highly qualified specialists. If they all reach the same conclusion then you could be on your way to at long last causing mainstream media and academia to take note and demand an official explanation as to why there has been a cover-up of proof that the assassination was indeed the work of a conspiracy. That would then take the entire JFK hobby into the real world and cause a political explosion.

 

Mervyn,

Much of the truth has been proven regarding the assassination of JFK. And yet the MSM and academia will have nothing to do with our most respected researchers and authors. I'm certain I can do no better regarding Oswald. The deck is stacked.

My crusade is to inform the people directly. That seems to be the only way.

 

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

×