Arguments against the Harvey & Lee theory -- The missing tooth

[Sandy Larsen]

Oswald's exhumed body show that he still had all his natural teeth (not counting his wisdom teeth). However, there is considerable evidence indicating that he lost his left central incisor (front tooth)  in a fist fight. The evidence includes the following:

• Oswald's ninth grade friend, Ed Voebel, testified before the WC that he he witnessed a fist fight involving Oswald, and that he thought Oswald got his lip cut and lost a tooth in the fight.
• Oswald's aunt testified before the WC that Oswald's mother took him to see a dentist as a result of the fight.
• A life magazine cover showing Oswald in a ninth grade classroom shows what looks like a missing front tooth.
• A military dental record for Oswald indicates that his dental prosthesis (false tooth) had broken. Oswald had apparently replaced his missing tooth with a false one.

(See Detailed Evidence of Oswald's Missing Tooth.)

For Oswald to have all his natural teeth and at the same time be missing one, there must have been two of him.

The purpose of this thread is for members to reasonably discredit the evidence for a missing tooth.

This thread is NOT a place for members to state their opinions for or against the Harvey & Lee theory, or give reasons why the theory should or should not be explored, considered, or publicized. If anybody does so, I hope others will ask them to stop. (I will myself if I'm at the computer at the time.)

I will reserve the second post for compiling and organizing reasonable arguments.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

This post documents the results of this thread as of May 19, 2020. (See this post.)

 

The anti-H&L folks haven't been able to debunk any of the evidence pointing to Oswald losing a tooth in the 9th grade. Which, if true, proves that there was an Oswald imposter at the early age of 14 or 15.

But they have come up with their best alternate explanations for the evidence. Here they are. Decide for yourselves how likely their explanations are:

 

Evidence:  Oswald's ninth grade friend, Ed Voebel, testified before the WC that he witnessed a fist fight involving Oswald, and that he thought Oswald got his lip cut and lost a tooth in the fight.

Anti H&L response:  Ed Voebel was mistaken about the tooth being knocked out. (This in spite of Oswald's aunt corroborating so by testifying that Oswald was taken to a dentist.)

 

Evidence:  Oswald's aunt testified before the WC that Oswald's mother took him to see a dentist as a result of the fight.

Anti H&L response:  Oswald was taken to a dentist to get his cut lip sewed up. (i.e. not because of a lost tooth.)

 

Evidence:  A life magazine cover showing Oswald in a ninth grade classroom shows what looks like a missing front tooth.

Anti H&L response:  1) What appears to be a missing tooth is really an artifact.  Or 2) Oswald is holding a pen cap between his teeth and it is angled up just the right amount to cover only the upper teeth.

 

Evidence:  A military dental record for Oswald indicates that his dental prosthesis (false tooth) had broken. Oswald had apparently replaced his missing tooth with a false one.

Anti H&L response:  The "FAILED 5-5-58" note written in the "Prosthesis Required?" field (see below) isn't really referring to a prosthesis (false tooth). It is referring to a field to the left of the "Prosthesis Required?" field (not shown below) that asks if prophylaxis (teeth cleaning) is needed. It is marked "Yes." The "FAILED 5-5-58" note indicates that Oswald had an appointment for cleaning on 5/5/58, but missed it. Thus it was a "failed" appointment.

(This in spite of the fact that there's an appointment section at the bottom of the form where such an appointment could be noted, as well as it being missed.)

 

COMMENTS

I think that the only believable alternate missing-tooth explanation is the one given by Greg Doudna, that Oswald is holding a pen cap in his teeth. I can visualize just that when I look at the photo:

 

But despite that possibility (which may or may not be the case) the remaining evidence is very strong. Especially Ed Voebel's testimony of Oswald loosing a tooth and Oswald's aunt's testimony that Marguerite took Oswald to a dentist. These two pieces of testimony (taken under oath, no less) corroborate each other! It is very difficult to get around that. (Nobody would  take a person with a cut lip to a dentist to have it stitched.)

The prosthesis-failed evidence could conceivably be an unusual mistake that somebody made. But if we were to write it off, we would still have Ed Voebel's and the aunt's testimony, which -- again --  would be hard to get around. Because of that, I believe the prosthesis-failed evidence is simply further corroborating evidence of a missing tooth.

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[W. Tracy Parnell]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oswald's ninth grade friend testified before the WC that he he witnessed a fist fight involving Oswald, and that he thought Oswald lost a tooth in the fight.

Correct-he THOUGHT he lost a tooth. That doesn't make it a fact.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oswald's aunt testified before the WC that Oswald's mother took him to see a dentist as a result of the fight.

Again, if true it doesn't prove he lost a tooth.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

A life magazine cover showing Oswald in a ninth grade classroom shows what looks like a missing front tooth.

Your language "what looks like" is correct. It could look like that to some people. But other evidence shows that is not the case. The lip is covering his teeth.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

A military dental record for Oswald indicates that his dental prosthesis (false tooth) had broken. Oswald apparently replaced his missing tooth with a false one.

Error in the records which was common in the military.

Now, let me explain to you once again how the H&L thing would be handled in the real world as opposed to the imaginary world that the H&L believers operate in. Let's say that Marina fell under Armstrong's sway (a very unlikely circumstance since she was burned once by Eddowes) and and managed to arrange a legal hearing of some kind to prove or disprove the H&L allegations. 

The "evidence" would be presented but no specific piece would be shown in a vacuum. That is, the amazing "magic tooth" photo (for example) would be weighed against the evidence that shows LHO did not have missing teeth. When Sandy Larsen offered his "dental proof" into evidence it would be rejected because he has no qualifications to make such an assessment. And real experts would be called to explain why he is wrong.

The amazing "impostor evidence" would be weighed against the known fact (that is, known to investigators, law enforcement and the legal profession but apparently unknown to H&L adherents) that in a high profile event, there will be dozens or hundreds or even thousands (as was the case in Dannemora) people that come forward and say they saw the person in question in any number of places that they could not have been.

The amazing "2 Oswalds in the far east" evidence would be considered in view of the fact that LHO's time there was misunderstood by both the WC and HSCA largely because his mission was apparently changed due to unpredictable events in the world. However, researchers such as Greg Parker have offered an alternative explanation that shows where he likely was with no 2 Oswalds needed.

The amazing "school records" evidence would be thrown out since an alternate explanation was provided long ago by Greg Parker (it simply depends how the records are read). I could go on, but you get the idea. The bottom line is there would be no legal or scientific basis for the H&L claim. The same thing would happen that happened to Eddowes. And after initially admitting defeat, he was soon back out promoting a new version of his theory. The H&L people would not give up either.

[Sandy Larsen]

Tracy Parnell claims that Greg Parker has debunked the missing tooth assertion. Greg's so-called debunking is here.

I went through the document and found Greg's answer to the evidence to be as follows. (For the sake of brevity I use my words for Greg's response.)
 

Evidence:  Oswald's ninth grade friend, Ed Voebel, testified before the WC that he witnessed a fist fight involving Oswald, and that he thought Oswald got his lip cut and lost a tooth in the fight.

Greg's response 1:

Another witness to the fight, Bennierita Smith, didn't mention a broken tooth in her testimony before the WC, though she did say Oswald's tooth cut right through his lip.

This hardly negates Ed Voebel's testimony. She forgot, didn't see, or simply didn't mention the broken tooth, whereas Ed Voebel forgot, didn't see, or simply didn't mention that the cut in the lip went completely through.

Greg's response 2:

(Note that this response ultimately amounts to nothing due to confusion on Greg's part, so you might want to skip reading it. I include it here for the sake of completeness.)

Greg then quotes an interview of Oswald's teacher, Myra DaRouse, as she describes a scuffle between a small group of boys riding their bikes and Oswald and Voebel. Problem is, Greg confuses that scuffle with the fight where Oswald allegedly lost his tooth. The researcher interviewing Myra asked her if Oswald lost his tooth in the scuffle, and she replied, "no." So Greg thinks this is supporting his view, when really he is just confused. (The interviewer notes right in the transcript of the interview  that he already knew that the tooth-loss fight happened the following school year, and that he was "testing" Myra.... whatever that is supposed to mean.)

 

Evidence:  Oswald's aunt testified before the WC that Oswald's mother took him to see a dentist as a result of the fight.

Greg's response:

None.

 

Evidence:  A life magazine cover showing Oswald in a ninth grade classroom shows what looks like a missing front tooth.

Greg's response:

It's an artifact.

 

Evidence:  A military dental record for Oswald indicates that his dental prosthesis (false tooth) had broken. Oswald had apparently replaced his missing tooth with a false one.

Greg's response:

Greg has no response on the link Tracy posted.

However, he *has* written a response somewhere and I've read it. It is incredibly ridiculous. If Tracy post the link to it, I'll report it here and in a new post.

 

 

SUMMARY

According to Greg, Ed Voebel was simply wrong about the tooth breaking. And the picture has a defect where the tooth is supposed to be.

I imagine that likewise Greg would say that Oswald's aunt was wrong about the dental visit, and that Oswald's military dentist made a mistake in noting a broken false tooth.

In other words, the evidence is a series of errors and defects.

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Now, let me explain to you once again how the H&L thing would be handled in the real world as opposed to the imaginary world that the H&L believers operate in.

Tracy,

Kindly remove from your post the sentence I quote here, and the paragraphs following it. Remember:

"The purpose of this thread is for members to reasonably discredit the evidence for a missing tooth."

Your paragraphs are unnecessarily muddying the waters. I suggest you move them to the other H&L thread.

Thank you.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oswald's ninth grade friend testified before the WC that he he witnessed a fist fight involving Oswald, and that he thought Oswald lost a tooth in the fight.

Correct-he THOUGHT he lost a tooth. That doesn't make it a fact.

 

True. Except that we have considerable corroborating missing-tooth evidence. Not the least of which being that Oswald went to see a dentist as a result of the fight. Do you think he went to get his lip sewed up?

 

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oswald's aunt testified before the WC that Oswald's mother took him to see a dentist as a result of the fight.

Again, if true it doesn't prove he lost a tooth.

 

For what other reason would Oswald have been taken to a dentist?

 

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

A life magazine cover showing Oswald in a ninth grade classroom shows what looks like a missing front tooth.

Your language "what looks like" is correct. It could look like that to some people. But other evidence shows that is not the case. The lip is covering his teeth.

 

Courtesy of David Josephs.

I can see the faces of Oswald's upper teeth on his anatomical right, and the side of his nearest upper tooth on his left. There is also an oblique view of the faces of his upper teeth on his left.

In addition, I can make out Oswald's upper lip on both the left and right sides, and with reasonable interpolation the upper teeth are clearly uncovered.

 

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

A military dental record for Oswald indicates that his dental prosthesis (false tooth) had broken. Oswald apparently replaced his missing tooth with a false one.

Error in the records which was common in the military.

 

Common sense tells us that most errors will be made in notations written on the drawings of the teeth. Because 1) there are a lot of teeth and it's easy to miscount them; 2) there are five surfaces for each tooth and it is easy to place the pen down on the wrong one; 3) that part of the chart (the tooth drawings) is the most cluttered; and 4) that is where nearly all dental notations are written. In contrast, the "Prosthetic Required" field would rarely be used, especially given that soldiers are young and typically don't yet have many prosthetic devices. Therefore a mistake made in the Prosthetic Required field would be fairly rare.

And besides, we still have our corroborating missing-tooth evidence that builds our case.

It is highly unlikely that all these pieces of evidence fell neatly into place by accident. And even if only one of the four were true, that alone would still prove that there were two Oswalds.
 

BTW, while you have given alternate explanations for each piece of evidence, you have not discredited any of it. Nor have you debunked the missing tooth assertion.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Evidence:  A military dental record for Oswald indicates that his dental prosthesis (false tooth) had broken. Oswald had apparently replaced his missing tooth with a false one.

Greg's response:

Greg has no response on the link Tracy posted.

However, he *has* written a response somewhere and I've read it. It is incredibly ridiculous. If Tracy post the link to it, I'll report it here and in a new post.

 

Didn't Mr. Parker once claim that liquid sealant was a prosthesis and that the sealant was the "prosthesis" that failed?

After his little Amen Corner was done congratulating him for this outstanding analysis, he probably thought better of things and withdrew the silly argument, as well he should. 

[John Butler]

44 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

little Amen Corner

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Evidence:  A military dental record for Oswald indicates that his dental prosthesis (false tooth) had broken. Oswald had apparently replaced his missing tooth with a false one.

Greg's response:

Greg has no response on the link Tracy posted.

However, he *has* written a response somewhere and I've read it. It is incredibly ridiculous. If Tracy post the link to it, I'll report it here and in a new post.

 

Didn't Mr. Parker once claim that liquid sealant was a prosthesis and that the sealant was the "prosthesis" that failed?

After his little Amen Corner was done congratulating him for this outstanding analysis, he probably thought better of things and withdrew the silly argument, as well he should. 

He might have said that at one time because I noticed that his response changed over time.

But the one I recall -- a later one -- went something like this:  There is a field on the dental report on the left side.... left of the Prosthetic Required field. And the dentist was to enter information for that field. But Greg had some reason why the dentist had to write the information over in the Prosthetic Required field  instead. But I think it was even goofier than that.

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Guest]

Not a word about the tooth fairy......

 

Thanks to Malcolm Blunt.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

But since Mr. Voebel swore under oath that he thought "Lee Harvey Oswald" DID have a tooth knocked out, the above is pretty irrelevant, don't you think?  How inconvenient for you that Mr. Voebel also took a picture of "Oswald" with a missing tooth.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

But since Mr. Voebel swore under oath that he thought "Lee Harvey Oswald" DID have a tooth knocked out, the above is pretty irrelevant, don't you think?  How inconvenient for you that Mr. Voebel also took a picture of "Oswald" with a missing tooth.

Jim,

Tracy's line of reasoning seems to go like this:  Voebel said that he thought Oswald lost a tooth. Therefore Oswald didn't lose a tooth.   LOL

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

But since Mr. Voebel swore under oath that he thought "Lee Harvey Oswald" DID have a tooth knocked out, the above is pretty irrelevant, don't you think?  How inconvenient for you that Mr. Voebel also took a picture of "Oswald" with a missing tooth.

How many other people swore under oath and lied during their WC testimony........

Ah yes.

The statement is from the 27th and the timing of his WC testimony.... March. So much can be added on as we have all seen all over.

And that picture, with regards the teeth section, is a mess. I said that five years ago already.

You have a flawed argument Jim Hargrove.

And that is as far I am getting into this.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Bart Kamp

[Guest]

I lied.....I got more. Thanks to uncle Malcolm.

 

Once again not a word about the tooth fairy.....

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

H&L critics somehow have to deny what is right in front of their eyes, because the evidence for the missing tooth is game, set, and match proving there were two “Lee Harvey Oswalds.” Although there is lots of other evidence, none is needed beyond this.

Here is a larger excerpt from Ed Voebel’s sworn testimony, in which he describes in detail the fight between LEE Oswald and Johnny Neumeyer which resulted in Oswald losing a tooth (emphasis added).

Mr. JENNER. Tell me the circumstances of that, please. 
Mr. VOEBEL. Well, the day before, maybe a couple of days before, Lee had a fight with a couple of boys. 
Mr. JENNER. Do you know their names? 
Mr. VOEBEL. They were the Neumeyer boys, John and Mike. 
Mr. JENNER. John and Mike? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes, sir. 
Mr. JENNER. They were classmates? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes. Well, I think one of them was in the same grade as Lee. One was older than the other one. The younger one was maybe a grade or two below Lee, and Lee was in a fight with John, the older one. 
Mr. JENNER. Let's see, if I have that straight now. Lee was in a fight with the elder of two Neumeyer brothers; is that right? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Right. He was in a fight with John Neumeyer. The fight, I think started on the school ground, and it sort of wandered down the street in the direction naturally in which I was going. 
Mr. JENNER. Was it a protracted fight? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Protracted? 
Mr. JENNER. Yes; did it keep going on? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes, it kept going on, across lawns and sidewalks, and people would run them off, and they would only run to the next place, and it continued that way from block to block, and as people would run them off of one block, they would go on to the next. 
Mr. JENNER. That was fisticuffs; is that right? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Right. 
Mr. JENNER. Were they about the same age? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Oswald and John? 
Mr. JENNER. Yes. 
Mr. VOEBEL. I don't know; I guess so. 
Mr. JENNER. How about size? 
Mr. VOEBEL. I think John was a little smaller, a little shorter than Lee. 
Mr. JENNER. Do you know what caused the fight? 
Mr. VOEBEL. No; I don't. I don't remember that. 
Mr. JENNER. But you followed this fight from place to place, did you not? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes. 
Mr. JENNER. Why, were you curious? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; and well, it was also on my way home, going that way. The fight traveled my route home. 
Mr. JENNER. All right, what happened as this fight progressed down the street? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Well, I think Oswald was getting the best of John, and the little brother sticking by his brother, stepped in too, and then it was two against one, so with that Oswald just seemed to give one good punch to the little brother's jaw, and his mouth started bleeding. 
Mr. JENNER. Whose mouth? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Mike Neumeyer. 
Mr. JENNER. The little boy? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes, sir. Mike's mouth started bleeding, and when that happened, the whole sympathy of the crowd turned against Oswald for some reason, which I didn't understand, because it was two against one, and Oswald had a right to defend himself. In a way, I felt that this boy got what he deserved, and in fact, later on I found out that this boy that got his mouth cut had been in the habit of biting his lip. Oswald might have hit him on the shoulder or something, and the boy might have hit his lip, and it might have looked like Oswald hit him in the mouth, but anyway, somebody else came out and ran everybody off then, and the whole sympathy of the crowd was against Lee at that time because he had punched little Mike in the mouth and made his mouth bleed. I don't remember anything that happened after that, but I think I just went on home and everybody went their way, and then the next day or a couple of days later we were coming out of school in the evening, and Oswald I think, was a little in front of me and I was a couple of paces behind him, and I was talking with some other people, and I didn't actually see what happened because it all happened so quick. 
Some big guy, probably from a high school--he looked like a tremendous football player--punched Lee right square in the mouth, and without him really knowing or seeing really who did it. I don't know who he was, and he ran off. That's when we ran after Lee to see if we could help him. 
Mr. JENNER. He just swung one lick and ran? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; that's what they call passing the post. He passed the post on him. 
Mr. JENNER. Passed the post, what's that? 
Mr. VOEBEL. That's when somebody walks up to you and punches you. That's what's called punching the post, and someone passed the post on Lee at that time. 
Mr. JENNER. You think that might have happened because of the squabble he had with the two Neumeyer boys a day or two before? 
Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; 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, so that's when I felt sympathy toward Lee for something like this happening, and a couple of other boys and I--I don't remember who they were, but they brought him back in the restroom and tried to fix him up, and that's when our friendship, or semi-friendship, you might say, began. We weren't really buddy-buddy, but it was just a friendship, I would say. 
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. 

As Bart Kamp showed in the previous post, Mr. Voebel told the FBI “that he was taking photographs for inclusion in the Beauregard Yearbook and had been stopping in various classrooms, unannounced, and taking pictures of the classes in session.  He stated that OSWALD’s clown-like attitude in the photograph appeared spontaneous on the part of Oswald and was not posed at the suggestion of VOEBEL”

Here is the famous photo, and some blow-up details, as it appeared in LIFE magazine 

As if this wasn’t enough proof, Sandy Larsen discovered confirmation of the missing tooth in a Marine Corps dental record indicating that the PROSTHESIS “FAILED 5-5-58.”  

Here is how www.medicine.net defines “Prosthesis:”

Prosthesis: An artificial replacement of a part of the body, such as a tooth, a facial bone, the palate, or a joint. A prosthesis may be removable, as in the case of most prosthetic legs or a prosthetic breast form used after mastectomy.

Can there be any doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald lost at least one tooth at an early age?  H&L critics have to try and create doubt, because the body exhumed in 1981 clearly had these teeth intact.  Below is a high quality copy of an ORIGINAL exhumation photo Marina Oswald Porter handed to John Armstrong during one of their meetings in the 1990s.

 

Finally, here’s a handy photo montage John Butler put together.  The top row shows one Oswald (Harvey) with all his teeth intact.  The bottom row shows the other Oswald (Lee) with missing teeth.

 

Two clearly different sets of teeth for two different Oswalds!