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

[Jim Hargrove]

Again, to see what prosthetics really are, just search on Google or...

CLICK HERE.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

More from Greg Parker:

Hargrove has consistently falsely characterized Bennierita Smith's sworn testimony as a mere FBI summary. Here again is what she testified to - no "if's", "but's" or "I Think's".  "He hit Lee, and his tooth came through his lip." Unlike Voebel, her testimony was in perfect harmony with her FBI interview. Unlike Voebel, she was able to put a name to the assailant - that being Robin Riley - a younger and smaller boy than Oswald - as opposed to Voebel's vague description of an OLDER tremendous looking football player. Smith is supported by the testimony of Lillian Murret (a tooth through the lip) and the FBI interview of Dimitri Bouzon who described only a blood lip and also confirmed the Robin Riley.

Lillian Murret did testify why Oswald was taken to a dentist because of a tooth through his lip. Again, Hargrove deals with this by dissembling, claiming that my position is that Oswald was taken to a dentist to fix his lip. Maybe he could loosen his tin-foil hat long enough to countenance that the reason not the lip, but a loosened tooth which needed resetting.

The photo is the worst possible evidence since the date Riley punched Oswald is not known, is too fuzzy, may show a fat lip covering the area, may show a flaw in the film or processing... may show any number of non missing toothiness scenarios.

Larsen meanwhile is sounding more and more like a hyperventilating Josephs. Allow me to put the context back into his quote from my piece which he claims I pulled from thin air:

You were placed in class 3 if any of the following applied:

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.

Chronic oral infections or other pathologic lesions including: Pulpal or periapical pathology requiring treatment. Lesions requiring biopsy or awaiting biopsy report. Emergency situations requiring therapy to relieve pain, treat trauma, treat acute oral infections, or provide timely follow-up care (e.g., drain or suture removal) until resolved. Temporary mandibular disorders requiring active treatment.

 

Definition of non-metallic permanent restoration:

includes filled and unfilled resin, glass ionomer cement, and pit and fissure sealants.

According to Larsen, the 1956 records belonged to "Harvey" while the 1958 records, seeming to show a prosthethis was required, belonged to Lee.

What it really shows is that the two records belonged to the same person: Lee Oswald. We know this because in 1956, Oswald was made a "class 3" which includes anyone with a restoration or prosthethis which cannot be maintained for 12 months or has become defective. Recall that Oswald in 1956 was given sealants and instructed on how to maintain them. 

The date of 5.5.58 could simply be the date that part of the form was completed and would explain the different writing. Or it may be that the sealant failing was only on the tooth filled on 5/14/58 - with the one filled on 4/28/58 simply being another one that was found.

 

I should have known I had to spell it out in single syllables. The armed forces defined both sealants and prostheses as being "restorations" - as shown in my essay.  Oswald did not have a prosthetic tooth he was asked to maintain and failed to - he had sealants.  

[W. Tracy Parnell]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This debate is like shooting barrel in a fish. That's the great thing about following the evidence and not some ideology.

Ideology? You mean like H&L which has also been called a cult.

[Jim Hargrove]

8 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The photo is the worst possible evidence since the date Riley punched Oswald is not known, is too fuzzy, may show a fat lip covering the area, may show a flaw in the film or processing... may show any number of non missing toothiness scenarios.

 

 

 

Ed Voebel, the kid who took this photo, swore under oath: "Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out."

[Jim Hargrove]

Mr. Parker can quote himself with all the colorized, bolded, underlined text he can cook up.

Now show us EVIDENCE that Marine Corps dentists in 1958 classified liquid dental sealants as prosthetics!
 

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker wrote: 

...You were placed in class 3 if any of the following applied:

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.

Chronic oral infections or other pathologic lesions including: Pulpal or periapical pathology requiring treatment. Lesions requiring biopsy or awaiting biopsy report. Emergency situations requiring therapy to relieve pain, treat trauma, treat acute oral infections, or provide timely follow-up care (e.g., drain or suture removal) until resolved. Temporary mandibular disorders requiring active treatment.

Definition of non-metallic permanent restoration:

includes filled and unfilled resin, glass ionomer cement, and pit and fissure sealants.

 

I should have known I had to spell it out in single syllables. The armed forces defined both sealants and prostheses as being "restorations" - as shown in my essay.  Oswald did not have a prosthetic tooth he was asked to maintain and failed to - he had sealants.  

Tracy,

Many thanks for spelling it out for Sandy and Jim again.  This was another fine DISCOVERY by Greg Parker, and we cannot just let it go without acknowledgement.

All best,
--Paul

Edited February 27, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 

 

Ed Voebel, the kid who took this photo, swore under oath: "Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out."

Jim,

Ed  Voebel was under oath, but he also qualified his testimony by saying, "I think," countless times.   

Also, he is the only source of this story of a "tooth knocked out," and this photograph which you continue to share with us was taken by Ed Voebel.    So, he's trying to make some money from his photograph, obviously.

You continue to evade my question, Jim.   Why does that photograph show 2.5 missing teeth?   It looks retouched.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

[Jim Hargrove]

22 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jim,

Ed  Voebel was under oath, but he also qualified his testimony by saying, "I think," countless times.   

Also, he is the only source of this story of a "tooth knocked out," and this photograph which you continue to share with us was taken by Ed Voebel.    So, he's trying to make some money from his photograph, obviously.

You continue to evade my question, Jim.   Why does that photograph show 2.5 missing teeth?   It looks retouched.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

Nice try, Paul, but Ed Voebel died in 1971, long before the missing tooth became a controversy.  His father told the HSCA that his son died under mysterious circumstances. From Harvey and Lee ....

NOTE: In May 1971, Ed Voebel suddenly became ill and was taken to the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans. A physician called his family and asked if he (Voebel) had been exposed to "insecticide poisons. " Family members told the physician he had not been exposed to any poisons. After spending the night in the hospital Voebel called home, said he was feeling much better, and expected to be home within a day. But that evening Voebel died suddenly of a "blot clot, "after allegedly suffering an attack of pneumonia. Voebel, according to his sister, died in the Ochsner clinic (Dr. Alton Ochsner, as we shall see, was a member of the CIA-sponsored Information Council of the Americas). Voebel's death certificate, however, shows that he died at Foundation Hospital in Metairie, La. In 1978 Voebel's father told the HSCA, even though he had no proof, that he believed his son died under mysterious circumstances.

--From Harvey and Lee, pp. 121-122, Copyright © 2003 by John Armstrong.  All rights reserved.

As for your claim that the photo looks retouched, I've said this before, but here it is again....

There are everyday reasons for minor anomalies in images greatly enlarged from photographic halftones reproduced using modern cameras and computer displays.  Look up how mass produced ink and paper photo reproductions were produced using what is called the “halftone” printing process, as LIFE magazine and virtually all print publishers used in the 1960s and still use today.   Read about all the little dots in the photos, the enlarged historical counterparts of today’s electronic pixels.

Then look up “anti-aliasing,” a process used by modern cameras and computer displays which actually smooths out the little dots produced in ink and paper printed “halftones.”   In the case of the classroom photo showing Oswald’s missing tooth or teeth, small anomalies in this major enlargement are to be expected.

That hardly changes the fact that the photo clearly shows that LEE Oswald was missing an upper front tooth or two. Whine about it all you want, it doesn’t change the EVIDENCE!

Edited February 27, 2018 by Jim Hargrove

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

More from Greg Parker:

Hargrove has consistently falsely characterized Bennierita Smith's sworn testimony as a mere FBI summary. Here again is what she testified to - no "if's", "but's" or "I Think's".  "He hit Lee, and his tooth came through his lip." Unlike Voebel, her testimony was in perfect harmony with her FBI interview. Unlike Voebel, she was able to put a name to the assailant - that being Robin Riley - a younger and smaller boy than Oswald - as opposed to Voebel's vague description of an OLDER tremendous looking football player. Smith is supported by the testimony of Lillian Murret (a tooth through the lip) and the FBI interview of Dimitri Bouzon who described only a blood lip and also confirmed the Robin Riley.

Lillian Murret did testify why Oswald was taken to a dentist because of a tooth through his lip. Again, Hargrove deals with this by dissembling, claiming that my position is that Oswald was taken to a dentist to fix his lip. Maybe he could loosen his tin-foil hat long enough to countenance that the reason not the lip, but a loosened tooth which needed resetting.

The photo is the worst possible evidence since the date Riley punched Oswald is not known, is too fuzzy, may show a fat lip covering the area, may show a flaw in the film or processing... may show any number of non missing toothiness scenarios.

Larsen meanwhile is sounding more and more like a hyperventilating Josephs. Allow me to put the context back into his quote from my piece which he claims I pulled from thin air:

You were placed in class 3 if any of the following applied:

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.

Chronic oral infections or other pathologic lesions including: Pulpal or periapical pathology requiring treatment. Lesions requiring biopsy or awaiting biopsy report. Emergency situations requiring therapy to relieve pain, treat trauma, treat acute oral infections, or provide timely follow-up care (e.g., drain or suture removal) until resolved. Temporary mandibular disorders requiring active treatment.

 

Definition of non-metallic permanent restoration:

includes filled and unfilled resin, glass ionomer cement, and pit and fissure sealants.

According to Larsen, the 1956 records belonged to "Harvey" while the 1958 records, seeming to show a prosthethis was required, belonged to Lee.

What it really shows is that the two records belonged to the same person: Lee Oswald. We know this because in 1956, Oswald was made a "class 3" which includes anyone with a restoration or prosthethis which cannot be maintained for 12 months or has become defective. Recall that Oswald in 1956 was given sealants and instructed on how to maintain them. 

The date of 5.5.58 could simply be the date that part of the form was completed and would explain the different writing. Or it may be that the sealant failing was only on the tooth filled on 5/14/58 - with the one filled on 4/28/58 simply being another one that was found.

 

I should have known I had to spell it out in single syllables. The armed forces defined both sealants and prostheses as being "restorations" - as shown in my essay.  Oswald did not have a prosthetic tooth he was asked to maintain and failed to - he had sealants.  

 

Greg's tactic is clear. He's trying to muddy the water with a bunch of technobabble -- all of which is irrelevant.

The only thing relevant is what is on the form, which is this:

 

 

The "FAILED 5-5-58" notation means that a prosthesis (false tooth) is required because the existing one failed... on or around May 5, 1958.

Greg Parker want's us to believe that this "Prosthesis Required?" field also applies to sealants. And that the "FAILED" notation means that a new sealant is required because the existing one failed.

Problem is, if this is true, how is a dentist reading this field supposed to know whether it is calling for a new prosthesis or a new sealant? THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING!  Which is why I keep repeating that what Greg is claiming is incredibly stupid.

The bottom line is that Greg fabricated out of whole cloth this idea that the "Prosthesis Required?" field is ALSO a "Sealant Required?" field. Which would be like combining a "Date" field and "Phone Number" field into one on an application form.

 

[Ron Ecker]

14 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Why does that photograph show 2.5 missing teeth?   It looks retouched.

 

Is it just coincidence that Oswald in the photo appears to be showing off that he has missing teeth? 

If he had no missing teeth, and was just showing off, period, can you suggest a reason why someone back in the 1960s would go to the trouble of retouching the photo to show missing teeth?

 

 

 

 

[Michael Walton]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The only thing relevant is what is on the form, which is this:

Really? I thought the more relevant  thing on the chart is the display of teeth without a single X mark on any of the so called  missing  teeth proving  that none  of  them are missing.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 

 

 

Ed Voebel, the kid who took this photo, swore under oath: "Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out."

 

Time to wade in myself

Please explain that black blob on the bottom lip.  Bad paint job trying to retouch this. As bad as the Zap film. Does no one else pay attention to these 60's techniques which are so obvious in the digital age......

[David Josephs]

Seems to me that only 1 tooth fits there...

As for the blackness and bleed...  depends on how many generations we're talking about...

But this is consistent with the loss of a tooth...

DJ

 

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Is it just coincidence that Oswald in the photo appears to be showing off that he has missing teeth? 

If he had no missing teeth, and was just showing off, period, can you suggest a reason why someone back in the 1960s would go to the trouble of retouching the photo to show missing teeth?

Ron,

The most practical answer is, given that the photos were retouched during the late 50's when the photo was made, that they were retouched by Lee Harvey Oswald and Ed Voebel as a tag team -- probably good buddies in the eighth grade.

If so, then this gives a precedent for Lee Harvey Oswald knowing how to make a Fake ID (of Alek J. Hidell) in the early 1960's.

According to this view, Lee and Ed retouched the photo to show missing teeth for the middle school yearbook, because there may have been a rumor going around the campus that Riley knocked out one of Lee's teeth, so Lee and Ed wanted to tease the school with this photo.

If (and only if) that's the case, then Ed Voebel knew very well that Lee's tooth was NEVER knocked out, and that's why he qualified  his WC testimony so many, many times.   

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 27, 2018 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Bart Kamp said:

Time to wade in myself

Please explain that black blob on the bottom lip.  Bad paint job trying to retouch this. As bad as the Zap film. Does no one else pay attention to these 60's techniques which are so obvious in the digital age......

Bart,

EXCELLENT point!     

Regards,
--Paul Trejo