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

[W. Tracy Parnell]

11 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I spoke a retired dentist friend  of mine this morning. He said that a sealant would never have been classed as a prosthetic. Just my 2 cents.

Greg Parker responds:

 

Ray is responding to Jim Hargroves straw argument - not the argument that was actually put, because no one but Hargrove has framed the argument that a sealant was classed as a prosthetic.

The actual argument that was put (and fully supported via direct quotes from relevant authorities) was this:

The classifications related SOLELY to someone's fitness for overseas deployment. Oswald was designated a Class 3 and therefore unfit for such deployment. What specifically made him unfit?

He had "oral conditions that if  not treated, are expected to result in dental emergencies within 12 months,"

Such "oral conditions" may be...
 

Dental caries, tooth fractures, or defective restorations where the condition extends beyond the dentinoenamel junction and causes definitive symptoms; dental caries with moderate or advanced extension into dentin; and defective restorations not maintained by the patient.

 

Interim restorations or prostheses that cannot be maintained for a 12-month period.

 

This includes teeth that have been restored with permanent restorative materials but for which protective coverage is indicated. 

 

So... restorations and prostheses are lumped together for the purposes of THESE CLASSIFICATIONS (which have nothing to do with civilian dentistry) and the definition of a "restoration" includes "filled and unfilled resin, glass ionomer cement, and pit and fissure sealants" 

 

It seems to me, based on all of the thoughts and suggestions posted, that the most likely scenario is this:

Oswald and Voebel, as a joke, either blacked out Oswald's teeth for the photo, or blacked out the teeth in the photo. The post-assassination sequence of events is what is telling.

 

When Voebel was interviewed by the FBI, he told them what everyone else did - that Oswald had a tooth go through his lip. So at that stage, he is in total accord with Ms Smith, Dimitri Bouzon and Lillian Murret.

After that interview, he SOLD the photo to LIFE magazine.

After that, he was called before the Warren Commission. He was now faced with a dilemma. He had sold a photo to the most powerful magazine in the US without fully disclosing all the facts about it (i.e. that the teeth had been blacked out as a joke).  Solution: state that he "thinks" the tooth was knocked out by "a big powerful footballer type". You can't be charged with perjury  for having an uncertain memory and clearly stating it is uncertain. 

[Michael Clark]

On 2/13/2018 at 11:58 AM, Don Jeffries said:

Sandy,

I'd like to compliment you on your good research. You're one of the few in this community now who are asking important questions, and approaching the subject with an open mind. 

As I've said before, those dismissing Harvey and Lee out of hand are not interested in the whole truth. Whether his entire theory is correct or not, John Armstrong conducted a massive amount of research, all out of his own pocket. How many who post on this forum have done any independent research on this subject?  

 

I agree with Don.

[Thomas Graves]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker responds:

 

Ray is responding to Jim Hargroves straw argument - not the argument that was actually put, because no one but Hargrove has framed the argument that a sealant was classed as a prosthetic.

The actual argument that was put (and fully supported via direct quotes from relevant authorities) was this:

The classifications related SOLELY to someone's fitness for overseas deployment. Oswald was designated a Class 3 and therefore unfit for such deployment. What specifically made him unfit?

He had "oral conditions that if  not treated, are expected to result in dental emergencies within 12 months,"

Such "oral conditions" may be...
 

Dental caries, tooth fractures, or defective restorations where the condition extends beyond the dentinoenamel junction and causes definitive symptoms; dental caries with moderate or advanced extension into dentin; and defective restorations not maintained by the patient.

 

Interim restorations or prostheses that cannot be maintained for a 12-month period.

 

This includes teeth that have been restored with permanent restorative materials but for which protective coverage is indicated. 

 

So... restorations and prostheses are lumped together for the purposes of THESE CLASSIFICATIONS (which have nothing to do with civilian dentistry) and the definition of a "restoration" includes "filled and unfilled resin, glass ionomer cement, and pit and fissure sealants" 

 

It seems to me, based on all of the thoughts and suggestions posted, that the most likely scenario is this:

Oswald and Voebel, as a joke, either blacked out Oswald's teeth for the photo, or blacked out the teeth in the photo. The post-assassination sequence of events is what is telling.

 

When Voebel was interviewed by the FBI, he told them what everyone else did - that Oswald had a tooth go through his lip. So at that stage, he is in total accord with Ms Smith, Dimitri Bouzon and Lillian Murret.

After that interview, he SOLD the photo to LIFE magazine.

After that, he was called before the Warren Commission. He was now faced with a dilemma. He had sold a photo to the most powerful magazine in the US without fully disclosing all the facts about it (i.e. that the teeth had been blacked out as a joke).  Solution: state that he "thinks" the tooth was knocked out by "a big powerful footballer type". You can't be charged with perjury  for having an uncertain memory and clearly stating it is uncertain. 

Excellent post Greg.

Thanks for sharing it with us, Tracy.

--  Tommy 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Clark]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker responds:

 

Ray is responding to Jim Hargroves straw argument - 

 

.......

I have a fair measure of respect for Greg Parker, but this post is a great example of a person, characteristic of all the detractors of Sandy's findings, who is so wedded to a position that they are bleary-eyed and blind to proof that they are mistaken.

Ray is not responding to anyone's straw man argument. He is posting his findings after having consulted an expert. That expert has stated, unequically, that the claims made by the nay-sayers are just plain wrong.

Well done Sandy. Your findings are "indisputable".

Edited March 6, 2018 by Michael Clark

[Kathleen Collins]

On 2/7/2018 at 3:10 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

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: 

 

I can't see how anyone can believe that's Oswald pictured here.  His posture.  He's on a slant, but the ground around him is flat.  

Didn't the exhumation show a severed head?  And didn't one of the Oswalds have a scar from an inner ear operation?  

Kathy C

[Ray Mitcham]

Kathy, when the photo is adjusted to compensate for the camera position, "Oswald's" pose is even more pronounced.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

13 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker responds:

 

Ray is responding to Jim Hargroves straw argument - not the argument that was actually put, because no one but Hargrove has framed the argument that a sealant was classed as a prosthetic.

What a hoot!  Back on Feb. 21, Tracy Parnell posted here in this very thread these words of wisdom from Parker:

Jim is being disingenuous in his vague and misleading responses.  No one said said that "the only prosthesis this kid needed was liquid sealant".  What was said was that sealants and prosthetics are both classified (along with bridges etc) as "restorations" of teeth and that as such, are "lumped" together on the forms. 

Which is to say, according to Parker, that sealants are “lumped” together with prosthetics on the form.  Parker can write all the gobbledegook and weasel words he can muster.  His unfounded claim that sealants and prosthetics were “lumped together” on the form is still ridiculous.  Let's all consider how different "classified as" is from "lumped together."  LOL!  

The simple truth is the anti-H&L CIA defenders here cannot accept the obvious truth of Sandy's proof of two Oswalds, but they are ashamed to admit how stupid their arguments are.  Here, again, is what they want us to believe:

1. Even though the photograph taken by LEE Oswald’s friend Ed Voebel clearly shows a missing tooth or two, it really doesn’t because, either Ed and LEE photographed a "blacked out" front tooth on LEE, or  the photo was actually retouched more than 50 years ago by LEE Oswald and Ed Voebel to make it appear that LEE Oswald had a missing tooth, even though he didn’t.
2. Even though Ed Voebel testified under oath that he thought Oswald got a bloody lip and lost a tooth from the fight, he was just making it up to continue the funny gag he and Lee conspired about years earlier.
3. Even though a U.S. Marine dentist indicated that LEE Oswald had a PROSTHESIS that failed on or by 5-5-58, it was really just liquid DENTAL SEALANT that failed, and not the most obvious type of prosthesis; namely, false teeth.  Asked again and again to provide evidence that USMC dentists classified dental sealants as prosthetics, the anti-H&L folks have been unable to do so.
4. Even though a photograph of LEE Oswald in Japan taken in 1958 seems to show two slightly dark and partially crumbling upper front teeth, clearly suggestive of a failed prosthesis involving the upper two front teeth the same year of the failed prosthesis notation, that’s just a complete coincidence.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Jim Hargrove

[W. Tracy Parnell]

11 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I have a fair measure of respect for Greg Parker, but this post is a great example of a person, characteristic of all the detractors of Sandy's findings, who is so wedded to a position that they are bleary-eyed and blind to proof that they are mistaken.

Ray is not responding to anyone's straw man argument. He is posting his findings after having consulted an expert. That expert has stated, unequically, that the claims made by the nay-sayers are just plain wrong.

Well done Sandy. Your findings are "indisputable".

Greg Parker Replies:

 

Thanks for the respect Michael, but you didn't seem to understand what I said, so I will try again.

 

He asked a dentist (not an expert in what would make a person orally ineligible for overseas deployment with the US Marines, which are part of what these forms are really about) if sealants would ever be classed as prosthetics. Unsurprisingly, the dentist said "no". Also unsurprisingly, it was never claimed by me or anyone else that sealants were classed as prostheses, so Ray was attempting to debunk something no one claimed. That was just Hargrove's attempt at putting words in my mouth that he could rebut it. In other words, he constructed a strawman - something he does a regular basis when he has no actual facts at his disposal. 

 

(1) Needing sealants OR a prosthesis were two of things that could get you barred from overseas deployment. (2) Sealants and prosthetics were BOTH considered "restorations" Those two things are what connected them. Which of the two does the paperwork show he had? Sealants, Michael. 

[Jim Hargrove]

10 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

 Sealants and prosthetics were BOTH considered "restorations" Those two things are what connected them. Which of the two does the paperwork show he had? Sealants, Michael. 

Isn't it odd, then, that the form said "PROSTHESIS," not "SEALANT."

 

These endless excuses from the anti-H&L CIA defenders are pitiful.  They just want some alternate explanation, ANY explanation, to attempt to turn attention away from the obvious truth of Sandy's presentation.  Their description of Ed Voebel and LEE Oswald conspiring to show a blackened tooth, and make it seem missing, is a riot! 

[Jim Hargrove]

To Kathleen and Ray....

I’ve been urging people interested in the Kennedy assassination to find a way to buy the February 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine.  Not only does it have an excellent reproduction of Ed Voebel’s photo of LEE Oswald showing off his missing tooth, it also has fascinating material on “Lee Harvey Oswald.”

Here’s one example.  Richard Garrett was a student in Mrs. Darsey’s 5th grade class at Ridglea West Elementary in the fall of 1950.  So was LEE Oswald, whose family lived near the Garrett’s at 4928 Penrose.  On p. 72 of the LIFE article on Oswald, Richard Garrett is quoted as saying that Oswald was the “tallest, the dominant member of our group in grammar school.”

Three years later, Garrett met HARVEY Oswald at Arlington High School.  LIFE quoted Garrett as saying, "I remember I had to look down to talk to him, and it seemed strange, because he had been the tallest, the dominant member of our group in grammar school. He looked like he was just lost. He was very different from the way I remember him."

Although this LIFE magazine article was a major step in the USG/US media campaign to convince the public that “Lee Harvey Oswald” was the lone assassin, it has a number of fascinating insights.  Little wonder that the WC’s John Hart Ely, charged with creating a biography of ‘Lee Harvey Oswald” and family, wrote, "We're getting more information from Life Magazine than we are from the FBI."  In another memo, Ely wrote, "Once again let me urge that we should not have to rely upon Life Magazine for such a list. The FBI should undertake a systematic identification and interview of Oswald's closest school friends."

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/5/2018 at 5:42 AM, Ray Mitcham said:

I spoke a retired dentist friend  of mine this morning. He said that a sealant would never have been classed as a prosthetic. Just my 2 cents.

 

Thanks for doing that, Ray.

One doesn't need to be a dental professional to understand why a dental sealant would never be classified as a dental prosthesis. The former is a liquid or paste applied to a tooth in order to prevent sugar and bacteria from attacking the tooth's enamel and creating a cavity. The latter is a fake tooth used to replace a missing one. Only an anti-H&L ideologue would dumb himself down so far as to believe there might be something to this incredibly stupid idea.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker responds:

 

Ray is responding to Jim Hargroves straw argument - not the argument that was actually put, because no one but Hargrove has framed the argument that a sealant was classed as a prosthetic.

The actual argument that was put (and fully supported via direct quotes from relevant authorities) was this:

The classifications related SOLELY to someone's fitness for overseas deployment. Oswald was designated a Class 3 and therefore unfit for such deployment. What specifically made him unfit?

He had "oral conditions that if  not treated, are expected to result in dental emergencies within 12 months,"

Such "oral conditions" may be...
 

Dental caries, tooth fractures, or defective restorations where the condition extends beyond the dentinoenamel junction and causes definitive symptoms; dental caries with moderate or advanced extension into dentin; and defective restorations not maintained by the patient.

 

Interim restorations or prostheses that cannot be maintained for a 12-month period.

 

This includes teeth that have been restored with permanent restorative materials but for which protective coverage is indicated. 

 

So... restorations and prostheses are lumped together for the purposes of THESE CLASSIFICATIONS (which have nothing to do with civilian dentistry) and the definition of a "restoration" includes "filled and unfilled resin, glass ionomer cement, and pit and fissure sealants" 

 

It seems to me, based on all of the thoughts and suggestions posted, that the most likely scenario is this:

Oswald and Voebel, as a joke, either blacked out Oswald's teeth for the photo, or blacked out the teeth in the photo. The post-assassination sequence of events is what is telling.

 

When Voebel was interviewed by the FBI, he told them what everyone else did - that Oswald had a tooth go through his lip. So at that stage, he is in total accord with Ms Smith, Dimitri Bouzon and Lillian Murret.

After that interview, he SOLD the photo to LIFE magazine.

After that, he was called before the Warren Commission. He was now faced with a dilemma. He had sold a photo to the most powerful magazine in the US without fully disclosing all the facts about it (i.e. that the teeth had been blacked out as a joke).  Solution: state that he "thinks" the tooth was knocked out by "a big powerful footballer type". You can't be charged with perjury  for having an uncertain memory and clearly stating it is uncertain.

 

More muddying of the waters by Greg Parker.

Nowhere is it said or justified (except in Parker's mind) that a "Prosthesis Required" field would also be used as a "Sealant Required" field.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

On 2/13/2018 at 9:58 AM, Don Jeffries said:

Sandy,

I'd like to compliment you on your good research. You're one of the few in this community now who are asking important questions, and approaching the subject with an open mind. 

As I've said before, those dismissing Harvey and Lee out of hand are not interested in the whole truth. Whether his entire theory is correct or not, John Armstrong conducted a massive amount of research, all out of his own pocket. How many who post on this forum have done any independent research on this subject?  

 

I agree with Don.

 

(Hey, you're back!)
 

Thanks Michael. Thanks Don.

 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

16 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker responds:

 

Ray is responding to Jim Hargroves straw argument - not the argument that was actually put, because no one but Hargrove has framed the argument that a sealant was classed as a prosthetic.

The actual argument that was put (and fully supported via direct quotes from relevant authorities) was this:

The classifications related SOLELY to someone's fitness for overseas deployment. Oswald was designated a Class 3 and therefore unfit for such deployment. What specifically made him unfit?

He had "oral conditions that if  not treated, are expected to result in dental emergencies within 12 months,"

Such "oral conditions" may be...
 

Dental caries, tooth fractures, or defective restorations where the condition extends beyond the dentinoenamel junction and causes definitive symptoms; dental caries with moderate or advanced extension into dentin; and defective restorations not maintained by the patient.

 

Interim restorations or prostheses that cannot be maintained for a 12-month period.

 

This includes teeth that have been restored with permanent restorative materials but for which protective coverage is indicated. 

 

So... restorations and prostheses are lumped together for the purposes of THESE CLASSIFICATIONS (which have nothing to do with civilian dentistry) and the definition of a "restoration" includes "filled and unfilled resin, glass ionomer cement, and pit and fissure sealants" 

 

It seems to me, based on all of the thoughts and suggestions posted, that the most likely scenario is this:

Oswald and Voebel, as a joke, either blacked out Oswald's teeth for the photo, or blacked out the teeth in the photo. The post-assassination sequence of events is what is telling.

 

When Voebel was interviewed by the FBI, he told them what everyone else did - that Oswald had a tooth go through his lip. So at that stage, he is in total accord with Ms Smith, Dimitri Bouzon and Lillian Murret.

After that interview, he SOLD the photo to LIFE magazine.

After that, he was called before the Warren Commission. He was now faced with a dilemma. He had sold a photo to the most powerful magazine in the US without fully disclosing all the facts about it (i.e. that the teeth had been blacked out as a joke).  Solution: state that he "thinks" the tooth was knocked out by "a big powerful footballer type". You can't be charged with perjury  for having an uncertain memory and clearly stating it is uncertain. 

Excellent post Greg.

Thanks for sharing it with us, Tracy.

--  Tommy 

 

Tommy,

Since you at least pretend to understand the point of Greg's post, why don't you explain to the rest of us how it justifies using the "Prosthesis Required" field as a "Sealant Required" field?

And then after doing that, please explain how another dentist reading the chart is supposed to know whether the dentist who filled in the "Prosthesis Required" fiield meant for it to be a "Prosthesis Required" or a "Sealant Required" field in his case.

 

Or is it the case that you have no idea what Greg is saying and that you are congratulating him merely because his enemy is your enemy?

 

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tommy,

Since you at least pretend to understand the point of Greg's post, why don't you explain to the rest of us how it justifies using the "Prosthesis Required" field as a "Sealant Required" field?

And then after doing that, please explain how another dentist reading the chart is supposed to know whether the dentist who filled in the "Prosthesis Required" fiield meant for it to be a "Prosthesis Required" or a "Sealant Required" field in his case.

 

Or is it the case that you have no idea what Greg is saying and that you are congratulating him merely because his enemy is your enemy?

 

 

Sandy,

 

With all due respect, IS there a "sealant required field," or for that matter a "sealant-anything field"?

If a Navy or Marine Corps patient in the late 1950s required that a sealant be applied to his teeth, or if a previous application of sealant had not done the job it was intended to do, in which field would you expect the dentist or dental technician to make notations about same?

In the "sealant field"?

What "sealant field," Sandy?

 

I mean, I mean, I mean .... am I missing something here?

 

--  Tommy 

 

PS  Which is much more likely to fail, Sandy, a dental prosthesis, or a dental sealant?

Does a dental prosthesis EVER fail?

 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Thomas Graves