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

[Ron Ecker]

1 hour ago, Bart Kamp said:

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

 

Okay, I'll say a word about the tooth fairy. The last time I put a tooth under my pillow as a kid, I woke up the next morning and looked. The tooth was still there, and the tooth fairy had left a bunch of ants.

Now I have a question plus a new theory about the "missing tooth." It's a matter of record that Voebel took a picture of Oswald in which Oswald appears to have something missing in his mouth. Voebel later told the WC that he thought Oswald had lost a tooth in a fight. Now after Voebel had taken the picture, it stands to reason that he looked at it after it was developed and surely noticed Oswald's mouth. So why would he just say that he thought there was a missing tooth when he himself had photographic evidence of it and wouldn't have to "think" at all?

Which leads me to my theory about the apparent gap in Oswald's mouth in Voebel's picture. (BTW the gap doesn't look like one missing tooth, unless Oswald only had one large front tooth.) I propose that what looks like a gap is actually Oswald's tongue, which (as Voebel would have known) Oswald was sticking out in his clown-like way for the picture.

My tongue theory still doesn't explain the broken prothesis referenced in Oswald's military record, so on that I will simply hold my tongue.

 

 

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Ron, 

Ed Voebel said “I think” or “think” nearly a hundred times during his WC testimony.  Here are some examples:

• "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."

When looking at the detailed blow-ups of the missing tooth, remember that these are taken from a lithographic halftone reproduced in LIFE magazine.  All those tiny little dots in the printed image can distort things a bit when enlarged.  And, as you say, it hardly explains the notation of a failed false tooth in the Marine dental record.

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

My tongue theory still doesn't explain the broken prothesis referenced in Oswald's military record, so on that I will simply hold my tongue.

 

Since the tongue is sharp on the end, could be call it a snake's tongue.  No, it would have to be forked.  Maybe a case of tongue in cheek.  No, that wouldn't work either.  I got it.  It's a translucent tongue.  Maybe Ozzie is the Invisible Boy.  And, starts fading away from his tongue.  I think I will take good advice and hold my tongue. 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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

It is up to the moderators to determine if a post is off topic. I believe it is reasonable to expect  general remarks about H&L in a post such as this.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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?

Do you have a document that states he went to a dentist as a result of this incident? If not you have a person that "thought" he went to a dentist. Even if he did go, it may have been just to make sure there was no permanent damage and all other evidence shows there was indeed none. 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And the picture has a defect where the tooth is supposed to be.

BTW, the "gap" that H&L people believe exists would be the equivalent of two or three teeth not just one. That alone tells you it is not a gap.

EDIT: I see Ron Ecker has proposed that it is his tongue and this is another good explanation out of several.

Edited May 3, 2020 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Ron Ecker]

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

Since the tongue is sharp on the end, could be call it a snake's tongue.

A lot of people are known to have sharp tongues. Oswald was one, arrogantly saying insulting things like "I'm just a patsy" (yeah, right), "I didn't shoot anyone" (then who did?), and "I've never owned a rifle" (just some curtain rods in a large paper bag). 

Voebel would "think" this and "think" that. I think I've become a lone nutter.

 

 

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Maybe I can become a One Oswald LNer too!  Let’s see.... All I have to believe is that a classmate who watched the fight and the clean-up attempt and who said he thought Oswald lost a tooth was wrong about that, even though Oswald’s mother had to come to the school to take him to the dentist. And the same fellow took a picture that sure makes it look like Oswald lost a tooth.  And from the Marine Corps we learn that this Oswald had a false tooth that failed on 5/5/58!

As a final step, all I have to believe is that the tooth grew back in the cadaver’s head while it was interred at Rose Hill Cemetery.

Wow, becoming a One Oswald LNer is easier than I thought!

[Ron Ecker]

42 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Wow, becoming a One Oswald LNer is easier than I thought!

All you have to do is set your mind to it.

 

 

[Guest]

Why does this crap about Harriet and Lillian need to be rehashed again and again? You think you get new devotees Jim Hargrove and Sandy Larsen?

There was a thread already about this stuff, we have been through all this before...

One side in full denial and the opposite not much further removed from the same mentality. 

Great 'progress' since all this crap is from research done 25 years ago, hardly anything new is added. Just going round and round and round again. 

No different from the Weston-Shelley-CIA horse manure.

You all need to work harder on getting some new material instead of posting away same ol and rack up a massive bandwidth bill to no avail, this is just BORING!

This type of nutty CTer stuff is as dreadful as what the LNer scum brings to the table....and you will keep at it until the cows come home.

[Greg Doudna]

Please excuse a very trivial, basic question to this discussion from a newcomer, but: what is the evidence that the #10 incisor tooth in the Oswald exhumation photo, the tooth in between the two front incisors and the right canine (from our/viewer's point of view of the photograph)--the tooth that is shorter and looks possibly slightly lighter in color than the other teeth, in that position in the exhumation photo--is a natural tooth and not an implant?

I have no expertise in dentistry, but a cursory check with dental sites shows implants--prosthetic teeth--looking indistinguishable from natural teeth, such as these before and after photos: https://smileenvydental.com/before-after-dental-implants-atlanta/. 

If this question has been asked and answered before, I apologize.

A missing #10 incisor would explain the two photos showing the youthful Oswald missing a tooth in that position, the testimony that he lost a tooth in a fight, the dental records referring to a prosthetic that failed--and presumably would be replaced again--, the Marines photo showing a full set of teeth (this would be with implant at #10), and finally, the exhumation photo. Same Oswald, same teeth, #10 implant (prosthetic tooth). Is this too simple of a solution?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Bart Kamp writes:

Quote

Why does this crap about Harriet and Lillian need to be rehashed again and again? You think you get new devotees Jim Hargrove and Sandy Larsen?

There was a thread already about this stuff, we have been through all this before...

Great 'progress' since all this crap is from research done 25 years ago, hardly anything new is added. Just going round and round and round again.

Welcome to the world of 'Harvey and Lee' propaganda, Bart.

It's all about increasing brand awareness (I don't like using brain-dead marketing-speak, but it's appropriate here). Keep plugging away at the same stuff over and over again, and you keep the idea alive in people's minds. If you can snare the occasional gullible convert while you're at it, so much the better.

Each time someone gives a plausible explanation for one talking point, simply bring up the next talking point:

- Hey, have you heard the good news? There were two Oswalds in the Texas Theater! No, there probably weren't.

- According to my holy book, Oswald was in two schools at the same time! No, he probably wasn't.

- The voices in my head tell me that Oswald was buying trucks in New Orleans! No, he probably wasn't.

- Have you taken the prophet Armstrong into your heart? Oswald had a 13-inch head! No, he certainly didn't.

- The records don't lie! Oswald was 5' 8" tall! And 5' 9" tall! And 5'10" tall! And 5' 11" tall! No, he wasn't.

- Hello, my friend! Can you spare a couple of minutes of your time? Oswald had a missing tooth! No, he probably didn't.

And so on. Once you've done the full circuit, just bring up the first point all over again, and pretend that no-one has already pointed out the problems with it.

As Bernie Laverick pointed out some time ago, the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense has been going on for over two decades, and it still has fewer converts than the idea that the Queen of England is a lizard. It makes you wonder why they bother. Tracy Parnell's idea may be on the right lines: that flooding this forum with 'Harvey and Lee' spam is all about getting a Hollywood film deal.
 

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Please excuse a very trivial, basic question to this discussion from a newcomer, but: what is the evidence that the #10 incisor tooth in the Oswald exhumation photo, the tooth in between the two front incisors and the right canine (from our/viewer's point of view of the photograph)--the tooth that is shorter and looks possibly slightly lighter in color than the other teeth, in that position in the exhumation photo--is a natural tooth and not an implant?

I have no expertise in dentistry, but a cursory check with dental sites shows implants--prosthetic teeth--looking indistinguishable from natural teeth, such as these before and after photos: https://smileenvydental.com/before-after-dental-implants-atlanta/. 

If this question has been asked and answered before, I apologize.

A missing #10 incisor would explain the two photos showing the youthful Oswald missing a tooth in that position, the testimony that he lost a tooth in a fight, the dental records referring to a prosthetic that failed--and presumably would be replaced again--, the Marines photo showing a full set of teeth (this would be with implant at #10), and finally, the exhumation photo. Same Oswald, same teeth, #10 implant (prosthetic tooth). Is this too simple of a solution?

Hi, Greg.  Welcome to the forum!

Like you, I have no dental expertise but I think the record is pretty clear that modern dental implant techniques were not developed until after Oswald was dead.  Here is an excerpt from "The History of Dental Implants" at thedentalgeek.com (emphasis added):

In the eighteenth century, forward thinking researchers began to experiment with gold and alloys, despite efforts these experiments often had poor results.

In 1886 a doctor mounted a porcelain crown on a platinum disc; again yielding poor long-term success. The issue throughout time has always been that the body and the bone rejected the foreign bodies. For a successful dental implant, you need the replacement tooth to actually fuse to the bone. This is known as osseointegration.

Modern dental implants are made out of titanium because it has special properties that give it a high success rate of osseointegration. In 1952, an orthopaedic surgeon unintentionally discovered these special properties. He realized he was unable to remove a titanium cylinder he had placed in a rabbit femur during a study of bone healing and regeneration. Upon realization that the bone had grown in such close proximity to the titanium cylinder that it had fused together, he continued to experiment further in both animal and human subjects. In 1965, Branemark, the orthopaedic surgeon, placed his first titanium dental implant into a live human volunteer.

This was a pivotal moment in dental history and the process has been greatly improved over recent decades through research and a desire for perfection....

To Bart Kamp and Jerry Bojczuk: Obviously you don't care, but I plan to respect Sandy Larsen's request to just discuss the missing tooth evidence here.  Would you like to discuss that?

[Greg Doudna]

Thank you for your answer Jim Hargrave. After I had posted I found Linda E. Norton et al, "The Exhumation and Identification of Lee Harvey Oswald", Journal of Forensic Sciences 29/1 (Jan. 1984): 19-38 (which I found at http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/norton_report_with_high_quality_images.pdf). And it is clear there that the #10 tooth in both the exhumation and in Oswald's 1956 and 1958 dental records when enlisting into and in the Marines, is a natural tooth, because there is a distal (rear surface) amalgam filling on #10. In fact the 1958 Marines dental record has a specific notation of the amalgam filling being done on #10 in 1958.  

The rest of that article seems to leave no doubt that the dental records match and it is the same Oswald, so that is not an issue with me. That leaves the fight and the two photos which look like Oswald is missing a tooth, which to me must then be explained in some terms other than a missing #10 or a missing any other tooth, since a missing natural front tooth is not supported by the dental records. One of the two photos, the Civil Air Patrol photo, seems to be simply an optical illusion of a missing tooth at #10, when really it is the fact that Oswald's #9 (front incisor) and #11 (canine) are each significantly longer teeth than the shorter #10. With a top lip coming down over the teeth partway, the camera catches the bottoms of #9 and #11 with nothing in the space of #10, making it look like a tooth is missing there, but which is not actually the case. With that dispensed with, and testimony as to what happened in the fight being non-probative (the dental records are what are probative), the only remaining puzzle is the classroom photo. I do not know what to make of that, but I do note that it does not exactly look like a simple missing #10 tooth (or a simple missing #9 tooth) either. The odd shape of the dark space--since Oswald was not missing teeth in that position either in 1956 or 1958 or in the 1981 exhumation per the dental records in each of those three cases--makes me think it must be an unexplained shadow or something in the photograph. I did wonder if, if the picture was taken immediately after the fight, whether that dark area might represent some temporary dressing or bandage of bleeding which might have shown up dark in a photograph, but I cannot find parallel examples of that. While I do not know what that dark space is, to me an interpretation that it is a missing tooth or missing teeth cannot be correct because of the dental records. At least that is how I see it. I did post too quickly re the implant idea; I did not know what I was talking about not having dug a little further to read the Norton et al. study; you rightly corrected the implant idea (thanks); and now I am out of this topic having no further questions on the matter.  

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Tracy Parnell's idea may be on the right lines: that flooding this forum with 'Harvey and Lee' spam is all about getting a Hollywood film deal.

I am convinced that this is the answer to the constant spamming and re-spamming.  All it takes is getting the ear of someone with the financial means to do it. However, I can't take credit for the idea-as far as I know Paul Trejo was the first to come up with it.