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

[W. Tracy Parnell]

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

BTW, John has just completed a major update to the Two Marguerites page on my website.  See it here:

http://harveyandlee.net/Moms/Moms.html

And see my rebuttal of the two Marguerite theory here:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html

[Michael Walton]

31 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

And see my rebuttal of the two Marguerite theory here:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html

Nice rebuttal, Tracy. And oh, would you looky here.

So here's the dumpy never smiling Marge actually smiling - GASP!

And here's the happy smiling other Marge in the 1940's:

The Hardly gang wants us to believe that these women were clones, not manufactured clones like Ex Machina but by some astronomical odds near identical humans. But what would the odds be for clones supposedly born thousands of miles apart in different countries - yet both of them would have a mark or a mole underneath one of their eyes?  Do you see it above in the holiday photo and also below? Clear as day.

Are we talking a billion to one odds...a trillion? Some DNA findings have smaller odds than that LOL

The madness continues...

[Jim Hargrove]

To Tom Neal….

Thanks for your post.  You make a reasonable point about there being no missing front teeth marked on the USMC dental charts, and we do need to consider all the evidence….

The material I’m working from is downloaded from the online Armstrong Collection at Baylor University.  There is a  28 page file there with a cover page called “Dental Records” that includes three pages of dental files from the USMC and a copy of the Norton Report. 

In the USMC docs there are a total of six dental charts, none of which show a front tooth with an “X” on it.  The page that includes the “PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58” notation includes two charts, one entitled “CARIES, DENTAL DISEASE, MISSING TEETH, ABNORMALITIES,” and the other “DENTAL TREATMENT ACCOMPLISHED.”  Without having the opportunity to question Marine dentists from the era, Sandy’s explanation sounds possible to me.

Another chart, however, is entitled “MISSING TEETH AND EXISTING RESTORATIONS,” and that, it would seem to me, should have had an “X” marked on a front tooth, which it doesn’t.  Again, though, I think we should consider all the evidence.

The “PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58” seems awfully specific to have been written in error.  The only explanation H&L critics have offered for it is that it was a reference to dental sealants, which I do not think is reasonable.  How would you explain that notation?

For me, though, the best evidence of the missing tooth has always been the photo of it published in LIFE magazine and the sworn testimony of Edward Voebel, the kid who took the photo at school.  Ed testified that he thought Oswald got a bloody lip and lost a tooth from the attack.  It is true that some other people also said they thought Oswald had a tooth pushed through his lip, or words to that effect.  While none of them said directly that Oswald lost a tooth, none of them were so close to Oswald that they helped clean him up in the boys room after the fight.  But Ed Voebel did.

I don’t have a ready explanation for the lack of an “X” on a front tooth in at least one of the USMC dental charts, but I do believe the picture speaks for itself.

 

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Greg Parker sent me the following:

 

Armstrong has amended his previous claim [in the updated article] of Ekdahl being over 6' to now being 5' 11" to 6'. Still wrong.

 

In 1919 at age 23, Ekdahl was listed on his passport as 5' 10". By the time of hos wedding to Marguerite, he was likely to have shrunk - not grown.

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Michael Walton]

16 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I don’t have a ready explanation for the lack of an “X” on a front tooth in at least one of the USMC dental charts, but I do believe the picture speaks for itself.

The reason why you have no explanation about the records Jim is because there's really nothing to explain.  There are no X's on any of LHO dental papers which nullified anything was missing where you and others want them to be missing.  The exhumation photos also show teeth where they are supposedly missing, which confirms there was only one Oswald, not clones.

Further, you keep referring to this photo:

...but ironically believers of this theory fail to acknowledge that there actually IS a darkened tooth there - it's very obvious as the camera flash caught it, making a gleam on it.  That's NOT empty space like you and others want to believe.

And regarding the two Moms, I posted the below yesterday showing the smiling Marge in '47 and the dumpy Marge in '64 and BOTH of them have a mark/mole under their right eye. It's simple.  There was never two Marges, but only one. I further showed that the dumpy Marge did smile and if you dig enough, you can find the smiley Marge looking miserable or dumpy.  Again, it's one person with different smiles and a mole under her eye.

***

So here's the dumpy never smiling Marge actually smiling - GASP!

And here's the happy smiling other Marge in the 1940's:

The Hardly gang wants us to believe that these women were clones, not manufactured clones like Ex Machina but by some astronomical odds near identical humans. But what would the odds be for clones supposedly born thousands of miles apart in different countries - yet both of them would have a mark or a mole underneath one of their eyes?  Do you see it above in the holiday photo and also below? Clear as day.

Are we talking a billion to one odds...a trillion? Some DNA findings have smaller odds than that LOL

[Jim Hargrove]

20 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

And regarding the two Moms, I posted the below yesterday showing the smiling Marge in '47 and the dumpy Marge in '64 and BOTH of them have a mark/mole under their right eye.

Oh, puh-lease….

Here’s the woman born as Marguerite Claverie in 1937….

 

and in 1942 ….

 

… and 1945 ….

 

 

… and in 1960….

 

Do show us the mole under her eye!

… Oh wait.  Here it is!  Belonging to the woman who testified as “Marguerite Oswald”

 

 

 

[Michael Walton]

It's there Jim it's there.  You can deny it all you want but it's there:

The above photo was taken by a pro because it looks staged like a pro would do it, but even then they just left the eye mole in the photo. The other photos you posted are probably photos taken at a studio and they used to touch these photos up to remove blemishes and even enhance features like eye color.  I know because my parents used to have them on their mantle and the style of them looks exactly like the Marge photo with enhanced blue eyes:

That's all it is Jim.  Just a another blowing something out of proportion to create the Hardly story.

Here's another over-done portrait from that era.  Note how the facial features are too smooth and over cleaned up.

But smiling Marge and dumpy Marge and one and the same Jim. And you STILL don't have any answer - like you admitted to Tom Neal - on the dental records.  That too is just one more hole in your Swiss cheese hole of a theory LOL

[Jim Hargrove]

15 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

It's there Jim it's there.  You can deny it all you want but it's there

I enlarged the photo on my desktop.  What I see there looks like a needle stuck through her eye.  Maybe Ed Voebel came back from the dead and faked that needle, eh?

Also....

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

there actually IS a darkened tooth there - it's very obvious as the camera flash caught it, making a gleam on it.  That's NOT empty space like you and others want to believe.

It surely is a space, just as the kid who took the picture and helped clean up Oswald in the boys room after the attack testified.  What you call a "gleam" could be anything... including the tip of his tongue behind the missing tooth.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/7/2018 at 8:37 AM, Michael Walton said:

On 3/6/2018 at 3:53 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

You're the one saying it was a denture, not me.

Again, stop twisting things around.  AGAIN - the whole point - there is NO X on any of the front of teeth you're trying to claim are missing. And the photos of the exhumation teeth are there as well. It's that simple.

From the start I've said that the existing prosthesis (which later failed) was a dental bridge. You said, "Aha! How do you explain no Xes on the charts showing the missing teeth when the denture was removed!" (Paraphrasing.) Which surely it would have been for a dental exam.

Problem for you is that I never said he was wearing a denture. You did... in your hypothetical.

And as I keep explaining -- which never registers in your brain -- once a dental bridge is in place there is no longer a missing tooth to mark with an X.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/7/2018 at 11:43 AM, Tom Neal said:

An existing 'filling' or any type of bridge that is found during the initial exam is marked on the dental diagrams. This indicates that work has been done on this tooth prior to *this* examination. Regarding a filling, the decay has been removed and replaced by something other than natural tooth enamel, so it is noted on the diagram. Applying the illogic that a missing tooth that has been replaced by an "artificial" tooth is no longer "missing" indicates that existing fillings would not be marked on the exam chart either. Yet they are.

Neal, what you have written here is demonstrably wrong.

You have made the same incorrect assumption that others have made on this thread. And that is that all dental charts are filled out the same way. You say that existing fillings and bridges will be marked during the initial exam. This is wrong in Oswald's case.

Look at Oswald's 3/27/1958 record, the chart on the left where the examining dentist marked missing teeth and cavities. Note that there are ZERO existing fillings marked, even though we know from an earlier chart that he had some. (Actually that was HARVEY's chart... but you apparently believe that LEE and HARVEY are the same person. So I can use this argument against you.) So why aren't the earlier fillings marked on the 1958 chart? Because the instruction on what things are to be marked on the chart -- which is located above the chart -- reads as follows:

"CARIES, DENTAL DISEASE, MISSING TEETH, ABNORMALITIES:

These are the things the dentist is instructed to mark. There is no indication that a filling, dental bridge, or any other existing restoration is to be marked.

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

22 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

Referring to my own dental charts, and what I've been told by the dentists that made them over my lifetime I state the following: 
A missing tooth is indeed marked with an X. A missing tooth that has been replaced by a prosthetic (even one that is considered permanent)  is still a "missing" *TOOTH* and is indicated as such on a dental chart. A prosthetic is *NOT* a tooth, and that particular tooth will always be "missing." This has been confirmed by all three of the dentists at the practice I have used for the last 30 years.

 

Tom,

As I showed in my prior post, you should not draw conclusions on how Oswald's 1958 dental chart should have been filled out based on your own experience with your dentists.

Instead you should draw conclusion based on looking at Oswald's chart.

Oswald clearly had an existing prosthesis, based on the "FAILED 3-3-58" notation made in the "Prosthesis Required?" field of his 1958 dental record. Yet there are no missing teeth marked. (Other that for #30, where there was no room for a false tooth to fit.) Why do you think that is, Neal? I say it is because the purpose of this chart is to mark existing problems (not existing restorations) and from that standpoint it made no sense to mark a missing tooth which had already been replaced.

Another possibility is that the dentist accidentally did not mark the tooth.

But either way, it is clear that a missing tooth had been replaced with a prosthesis. There's just no getting around that.

 

[Tom Neal]

18 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

To Tom Neal….

Thanks for your post.  You make a reasonable point about there being no missing front teeth marked on the USMC dental charts, and we do need to consider all the evidence….

The material I’m working from is downloaded from the online Armstrong Collection at Baylor University.  There is a  28 page file there with a cover page called “Dental Records” that includes three pages of dental files from the USMC and a copy of the Norton Report. 

In the USMC docs there are a total of six dental charts, none of which show a front tooth with an “X” on it.  The page that includes the “PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58” notation includes two charts, one entitled “CARIES, DENTAL DISEASE, MISSING TEETH, ABNORMALITIES,” and the other “DENTAL TREATMENT ACCOMPLISHED.”  Without having the opportunity to question Marine dentists from the era, Sandy’s explanation sounds possible to me.

Another chart, however, is entitled “MISSING TEETH AND EXISTING RESTORATIONS,” and that, it would seem to me, should have had an “X” marked on a front tooth, which it doesn’t.  Again, though, I think we should consider all the evidence.

The “PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58” seems awfully specific to have been written in error.  The only explanation H&L critics have offered for it is that it was a reference to dental sealants, which I do not think is reasonable.  How would you explain that notation?

For me, though, the best evidence of the missing tooth has always been the photo of it published in LIFE magazine and the sworn testimony of Edward Voebel, the kid who took the photo at school.  Ed testified that he thought Oswald got a bloody lip and lost a tooth from the attack.  It is true that some other people also said they thought Oswald had a tooth pushed through his lip, or words to that effect.  While none of them said directly that Oswald lost a tooth, none of them were so close to Oswald that they helped clean him up in the boys room after the fight.  But Ed Voebel did.

I don’t have a ready explanation for the lack of an “X” on a front tooth in at least one of the USMC dental charts, but I do believe the picture speaks for itself. 

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the reply. I hope all is well with you.

This USMC record *IS* the "NEW" "UNDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE" which is the crux of this thread, is it not? If there was no previous evidence that LHO had lost a front tooth, is this record unquestionable proof that one or more of his FRONT teeth are missing? Presuming that the "FAILED" notation does indeed indicate 100% that LHO had a prosthesis, where in this document is the actual location of this device stated? i.e. On which tooth? If the explanation that 'they don't mark a missing tooth' if it has been replaced by a bridge is true, then ANY tooth in LHO's mouth could have the FAILED prosthesis. 

JIM: Without having the opportunity to question Marine dentists from the era, Sandy’s explanation sounds possible to me.
I strongly disagree with his "explanation." The chart I mentioned is the result of the dental examination. Why would there be no indication whatsoever of a missing tooth, or the attachment of a bridge on *this* chart? This would be the most notable item of his dental condition. The fact that this missing tooth or bridge is NOT mentioned in any record is the strongest evidence that LHO's front teeth were present.

Also, if the "FAILED" statement refers to a bridge, it must have eventually been repaired or replaced. This work would be indicated in the dental records, but it is not. There is no reasonable explanation for this omission. 

My dentist was trained by the Army, and assures me that these teeth *SHOULD* have been marked both on the exam chart, and the "MISSING TEETH" chart. This is Dental 101. Additionally, if the "FAILED" statement refers to a bridge or other prosthesis the type of device must be stated in the box. Again, nowhere in his dental records is a repair or replacement of an existing prosthesis EVER indicated. Are there any USMC photos of LHO with missing front teeth? The USMC would have done the work for free. Would the perpetually poor LHO have this work done after he left the Marines?

This chart is an evaluation of LHO's teeth which would be used for future reference and for further work based on this exam.  And a permanent part of his USMC dental record. e.g. His qualifications for overseas duty, which would require proof that his dental work was completed. 

JIM: The “PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58” seems awfully specific to have been written in error.  The only explanation H&L critics have offered for it is that it was a reference to dental sealants, which I do not think is reasonable.  How would you explain that notation?

I'm not just nitpicking here, but doesn't it actually state in the prosthesis box "FAILED 5-5-58"? If it actually stated "PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58" then it would unquestionably tell us that he had a prosthesis, but NOT that it replaced a FRONT tooth. I can't offer an explanation that unquestionably explains the location of this statement. However, that fact that NOWHERE in this document is there ANY statement that a prosthesis was present at any time, or repaired (what are the chances that this repair was done but not recorded anywhere?), and there is NO indication that this alleged prosthesis replaced a FRONT tooth, rather than some other tooth, the weight of this document (standing alone!) indicates that there was no prosthesis. 

The heading of the box containing the FAILED statement is: "PROSTHESIS REQUIRED (If yes, explain briefly)" According to my dentists, IF LHO had a prosthesis in place during the initial exam this is where it should have been entered along with its location depicted on the chart. However, it was blank at that time. On a later date, specifically 5-5-58, the FAILED notation was added. According to my dentists, adding this statement to a chart that has no indication that a prosthesis ever existed is wrong. Taken at face value, this chart indicates that LHO had his front teeth during the initial exam, and sometime between then and 5-5-58 he had a prosthesis installed, but not by the USMC, and this prosthesis had FAILED. Work was performed on 5-14-58, but not on a front tooth and nothing about a prosthesis. Therefore, the USMC did not repair of replace his prosthesis, but he had front teeth in all of his USMC photos.

If LHO had a missing FRONT tooth then all documents in his dental record are incorrect due to the omission of information regarding a missing tooth and prosthesis, and  the unsupported FAILED statement is correct. The alternative is that the FAILED statement is an error, and that page and the rest of the document are correct. If the former statement is correct, then you must accept multiple errors on multiple documents, and if the latter statement is correct, than you must accept a single error on a single page.

The simplest explanation is that this "FAILED" statement was entered in the prosthesis box by error. This is of course not 100% proof and will be accepted by some, and rejected by some. 

IMO, this FAILED statement should NOT be ignored, but reduced from its alleged 'UNDISPUTED PROOF' status to something that is to be noted, and used to promote further investigation into LHO's dental records. To oversell it's importance as UNDISPUTED does a disservice to the important topic of Harvey and Lee, as can be seen by the multitude of negative comments. If this topic had been titled "New Information From LHO's Dental Records" far less opposition would have arisen, and possibly more support.

Again, the above statements are an evaluation of this document standing on its own...

Considering the H&L information in its entirely - Could missing tooth "Lee" have replaced toothed "Lee" in this time period? i.e. The initial exam was performed on Lee-Tooth, and the 1958 exam performed on Lee-NoTooth? 

 

[Tom Neal]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tom,

As I showed in my prior post, you should not draw conclusions on how Oswald's 1958 dental chart should have been filled out based on your own experience with your dentists.

Instead you should draw conclusion based on looking at Oswald's chart.

Oswald clearly had an existing prosthesis, based on the "FAILED 3-3-58" notation made in the "Prosthesis Required?" field of his 1958 dental record. Yet there are no missing teeth marked. (Other that for #30, where there was no room for a false tooth to fit.) Why do you think that is, Neal? I say it is because the purpose of this chart is to mark existing problems (not existing restorations) and from that standpoint it made no sense to mark a missing tooth which had already been replaced.

Another possibility is that the dentist accidentally did not mark the tooth.

But either way, it is clear that a missing tooth had been replaced with a prosthesis. There's just no getting around that.

 

I will take the opinion of actual dentists regarding what is stated on the chart over your unsupported speculation any day. They are qualified to evaluate it and you are not.
 

Read my post that replies to Jim H's reply...

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

I will take the opinion of actual dentists regarding what is stated on the chart over your unsupported speculation any day. They are qualified to evaluate it and you are not.

 

What speculation did I make that is unsupported?

 

[Tom Neal]

Oh, well. If YOU declare me and others to be mistaken, then we must be wrong, and as ALWAYS you alone with you qualifications in *everything* must be right, simply because you say so...
What do actual dentists know as compared to you. Dental charts are shared when a patient moves on, so of course each dentist writes whatever he wants because that doesn't cause problems when another dentist reads it.