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

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Stop trying to take the moral high ground Sandy Larsen, you may fool a few readers here but not me and quite a few others.

You do not have a thing (once again if I may add) yet at the same time throw more fuel on the Harriet and Lillian fire just to keep things going....and you seem to have overlooked the documentation I threw at you and Hargrove throwing a serious spanner into your and Hargove's workings. Or better yet prefer to ignore it as it turns this fairy tale into exactly just that: a fairy tale.

Enough already, boredom is a killer. You are going on ignore as well......life's too short.

I don't think so, Bart.  In the documents you provided, Mr. Voebel did not mention a missing tooth, and why should he?  He didn’t even mention that endless fight between LEE Oswald and Johnny Neumeyer, or the attack by the larger kid that Voebel swore he thought resulted in a tooth being knocked out.  This fight is what started Voebel’s friendship with LEE, and yet it is not mentioned in your documents.

And golly, if you’re so bored, why are you working so hard in this thread?  Why are you here at all?

Edited May 5, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

When a Marine Corps dental record indicated LEE Harvey Oswald’s prosthesis failed on 5/5/1958, Oswald was still several months shy of his 19th birthday.  He was barely an adult.

A couple of common-sense questions come to mind.  How many teen-aged boys had false teeth in those days or any others, and, of those, how many had false teeth that failed while they were still teen-agers?  I suspect the answer is not many.

In wondering why a youngster would need a dental prosthesis in the first place, what would you think if you heard sworn testimony like Ed Voebel’s, describing a 9th grade fight this Oswald had with Johnny Neumeyer and his brother and the subsequent attack from a larger, older student a few days later that,  Voebel thought, resulted in a tooth being knocked out.

"I really became acquainted with him when he had this fight with this boy and we took

him back to the boy's restroom and tried to patch him up a bit ..... 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 .... 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 continue that way from block to
block, and as people would run them off of one block, they would go on to the next .... I
think Oswald was getting the best of John and the little brother (Mike) 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 … when
that happened, the whole sympathy of the crowd turned against Oswald for some rea­
son, which I didn't understand, because it was two against one .... 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.... 
I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip and a tooth was
knocked out ..…” (Excerpted in Harvey and Lee, pp. 91-92]

Being told that the victim's mother came to the school to take her child to the dentist, would you assume the need for a prosthesis came from this incident?  The answer, of course, is most likely so.

The assumption, according to the photo Voebel took, that LEE Oswald lost one or two of his front teeth in the attack, it would be likely that the child got a dental prosthesis, probably after the wound had healed a bit.  So what is likely to have caused this prosthesis to have failed in just a few years?

There could be any number of reasons, but the most likely seems to be that American born LEE Harvey Oswald, as opposed to Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald, was prone to get into fights, including in the Marine Corps.  Here are descriptions of statements from three different Marines:

Robert Demers told the FBI that Oswald got into fights with other Marines.

Peter Frances Connor told the FBI that Oswald was a troublemaker and engaged in fights.

The FBI indicated that Jerry Ellis Pitts, although he had little personal contact with Oswald, “bitterly resented anyone calling him by his middle name of ‘Harvey’ or the shortened name ‘Harv,’” and said that Oswald wanted fight with anyone who called him those names.  (To John Butler: You were right.  I forgot about Pitts.)

The most likely reason that LEE Oswald’s false tooth or teeth failed so quickly is that he got into fights while in the Marine Corps.   HARVEY Oswald did not get involved in fights.

Just four months after the notation of the prosthesis failure, LEE Oswald began lengthy treatments for VD at the Atsugi, Japan Naval Hospital.  At the very same time, HARVEY Oswald embarked on the U.S.S Skagit, traveled to Ping-Tung, Taiwan (1400 miles from Atsugi) and served there while LEE continued treatments in Japan. PROOF HERE.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Jim Hargrove

[Sandy Larsen]

58 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I recently found a notation on one of Oswald's military dental records that Oswald had a dental prosthesis that failed, thereby indicating he had lost a tooth. That's progress.

You can go on Greg Parker's site and find a link to an article that offers another explanation besides mine that it is an error in the records.

 

Yes, we know Tracy. "Error/Mistake" is you guys's standby explanation for all the H&L evidence. Very convenient, but generally not convincing.

[Mark Stevens]

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

When a Marine Corps dental record indicated LEE Harvey Oswald’s prosthesis failed on 5/5/1958, Oswald was still several months shy of his 19th birthday.  He was barely an adult.

While I'm open to the possibility of a missing tooth, I'm not able to follow the same lines of reasoning as you. 

For instance, why the insistence that the above document snippet refers to a failed prosthesis. Could it be just as likely the failed refers to the exam? Maybe he had cavities and did not pass a dental exam. Can you provide anything that definitively shows the failure refers to a prosthesis? 

Similarly, this all seems to hinge on Voebels statement that he "thinks" Oswald "might" have lost a tooth. That statement also means he thinks he might NOT have lost a tooth. Equal weight should be given to that... 

[Ron Ecker]

I believe I can clear up the question of what "FAILED 5-5-58" means in Oswald's military dental record. About an hour ago I emailed a copy of that record to my sister-in-law, who is a dentist. She emailed right back and said that she is "very confident" that FAILED 5-5-58 means that Oswald "failed" to keep an appointment on 5-5-58. Makes perfect sense! You can see in the list of three treatments that Oswald received that there is no treatment listed for 5-5-58 because... well, because he didn't show up! She says that the missed appointment was likely for the treatment that he in fact received a few days later and is listed, which was a filling.

 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

9 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

For instance, why the insistence that the above document snippet refers to a failed prosthesis. Could it be just as likely the failed refers to the exam? Maybe he had cavities and did not pass a dental exam. Can you provide anything that definitively shows the failure refers to a prosthesis? 

Similarly, this all seems to hinge on Voebels statement that he "thinks" Oswald "might" have lost a tooth. That statement also means he thinks he might NOT have lost a tooth. Equal weight should be given to that... 

Hallelujah, Mark. H&L adherents seem incapable of giving equal weight to anything that might challenge their beliefs. As Ron Ecker points out in the next post, "FAILED" could mean any number of things OTHER THAN "failed prothesis," and as such certainly cannot be used to support the notion that the corpse is at odds with the extant dental records.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I believe I can clear up the question of what "FAILED 5-5-58" means in Oswald's military dental record. About an hour ago I emailed a copy of that record to my sister-in-law, who is a dentist. She emailed right back and said that she is "very confident" that FAILED 5-5-58 means that Oswald "failed" to keep an appointment on 5-5-58. Makes perfect sense! You can see in the list of three treatments that Oswald received that there is no treatment listed for 5-5-58 because... well, because he didn't show up! She says that the missed appointment was likely for the treatment that he in fact received a few days later and is listed, which was a filling.

 

 

BOOM!!!!

And so does the fairy tale of Harriet and Lillian and the missing tooth fairy end happily ever after.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

On page one of this thread, Jim Hargrove wrote:

Quote

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.”

There we have it: the "missing tooth" provides the strongest possible evidence for the long-term doppelganger theory. All the other evidence is weaker than the evidence for the "missing tooth", and that's official!

But would you believe it - every piece of evidence for the apparently "missing" tooth turns out to have a plausible explanation. Including, most importantly, Oswald's marine dental records. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that Oswald did not have a missing tooth.

The dental records are consistent with the photographic evidence from Oswald's exhumation. The Lee Harvey Oswald who received dental treatment in the marines was the same Lee Harvey Oswald who was buried in Fort Worth. Unfortunately, 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine states that they cannot have been the same person. So much for 'Harvey and Lee' doctrine.

Goodbye, 'Harvey and Lee' theory! It wasn't nice knowing you. Goodbye, possible Hollywood film deal! Goodbye, endless 'Harvey and Lee' spam (we hope)!

There is much justified jubilation here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t227-armstrong-s-magic-tooth-and-the-facts-about-harvey-at-beauregard
 

[Jim Hargrove]

11 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I believe I can clear up the question of what "FAILED 5-5-58" means in Oswald's military dental record. About an hour ago I emailed a copy of that record to my sister-in-law, who is a dentist. She emailed right back and said that she is "very confident" that FAILED 5-5-58 means that Oswald "failed" to keep an appointment on 5-5-58. Makes perfect sense! You can see in the list of three treatments that Oswald received that there is no treatment listed for 5-5-58 because... well, because he didn't show up! She says that the missed appointment was likely for the treatment that he in fact received a few days later and is listed, which was a filling.

Fair enough, Ron, but would you also ask your sister-in-law why the "FAILED 5-5-58” notation would be written in a box that states, “PROSTHESIS REQUIRED?  (If ‘yes’, explain briefly)”?

I’ve sent the full page and the detail to my dentist for a second opinion, but your interest in this is appreciated.

[Guest]

Greg Parker dealt this fairy tale an even more devastating blow.

Kudos for some real research instead of oversimplified beliefs.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

The bottom line is we have several reasonable alternate explanations. No 2 Oswalds needed.

[Ron Ecker]

9 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The bottom line is we have several reasonable alternate explanations. No 2 Oswalds needed.

I find it hard to believe, in looking at the various Oswald photo comparisons that have been made over the years, that we're not looking at two different people who happen to look much alike. But that's all I can say.

 

 

[Ron Ecker]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Fair enough, Ron, but would you also ask your sister-in-law why the "FAILED 5-5-58” notation would be written in a box that states, “PROSTHESIS REQUIRED?  (If ‘yes’, explain briefly)”?

 

Did so. Her reply:

There are a lot of reasons why the "failed" note might appear in the Prosthesis Required box. Even back then, most dentists purchased their treatment sheets from commercial mass producers. When you do that, you select a best fit for what you want and ignore the parts that don't suit. Also, dentists who buy an existing dentist's practice or work as associates in someone else's practice are stuck with what's there when it comes to treatment sheets. 

 

Is the allegation that this represents the record of a military dentist? My impression is that it would be the civilian dentist who did the pre-exam before boot camp, making sure the recruit didn't have any issues of immediate concern.  

 

Another reason for rejecting the notion that "failed" refers to a failed prosthesis of some kind is that there's no description either in writing or on the schematics of an existing prosthesis which had failed and no treatment planning whatever for some sort of replacement. This just wouldn't happen. Bridges and partial dentures, even acrylic ones, are and were expensive services and when one fails it's normal procedure to give at least minimal description of the failure and a detailed plan for replacement so that the patient (or parent) understands what it is and why it's advisable to invest in it. There's none of that in this record.

 



 

[Ron Ecker]

BTW I sent my dentist sister-in-law a copy of the classroom photo, and here’s what she said:

“That does look like a photo taken in some sort of medical/dental setting (sic) of a person who's missing at least one central incisor and it looks like portions of the adjacent teeth.”

Also, on Oswald’s mother taking him to a dentist after the fight with a cut lip (missing tooth or not):

“Dentists treat a lot of cut lips and it's very common for teeth to "go through" lips when there are injuries to the face. Not just fights but accidents. Most of the time with kids, especially, the lip doesn't even require stitches.”

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

On 5/5/2020 at 8:50 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

When a Marine Corps dental record indicated LEE Harvey Oswald’s prosthesis failed on 5/5/1958, Oswald was still several months shy of his 19th birthday.  He was barely an adult.

While I'm open to the possibility of a missing tooth, I'm not able to follow the same lines of reasoning as you. 

For instance, why the insistence that the above document snippet refers to a failed prosthesis. Could it be just as likely the failed refers to the exam? Maybe he had cavities and did not pass a dental exam. Can you provide anything that definitively shows the failure refers to a prosthesis? 

Similarly, this all seems to hinge on Voebels statement that he "thinks" Oswald "might" have lost a tooth. That statement also means he thinks he might NOT have lost a tooth. Equal weight should be given to that... 

 

Mark,

The dentist made the "Failed 5-5-58" notation in a field that instructs him as follows:

PROSTHESIS REQUIRED?  (If "yes", explain briefly.)

So obviously what the dentist wrote has nothing to do with failing an exam and everything to do with a prosthesis failure.

BTW, if you search google on "dental failure" without the quotes, you will find numerous instances of FAILED dental implants. My point being that "failed" and "failure" are words used to describe broken dental prosthesis.