Jim Hargrove

Oh for cryin' out loud. And here's how the kid who took the photo of LEE Oswald and tended to his wounds in the boys room after the second fight testified to the WC: 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.

Thank you Sandy, Jim, and Paz. It sounds like good advice.

Once again, I suggest to any lurkers wondering about all this that they JUST get themselves a copy of the February 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine. The remarkably good photo of LEE Oswald taken by Ed Voebel is shown on pp. 70-71 of the magazine. You don't even need a magnifying glass to see Oswald's missing tooth/teeth. Don't just believe or disbelieve me, but by all means, look for yourself! Then read the sworn testimony of Ed Voebel, the kid who took the picture; the kid who watched the entire fight and described it in great detail during his testimony; the same kid who testified that he thought Oswald lost a tooth in the fight. How do we know Voebel was right and Greg Parker is wrong? JUST LOOK AT THE PICTURE! It's that simple.

LOL! Someone sure knows his Classic Oswald timetable. Also, DJ, let's not forget Paul's E.A. Ekdahl excuse. So, for the record on that, Ekdahl and Marguerite got hitched on May 4, 1945 and they separated just a year later. All that time for young LEE to become a sophisticated traveler and lose his Southern accent? Sheesh!

That's interesting. I had always figured that the front tooth or two were normal prosthetics that were just a little darker than his natural teeth, but I hadn't noticed that they do indeed look a little shorter as well. (I have several capped teeth, and they are brighter than my natural teeth are now, and so I suppose some dentists might make false teeth slightly darker than the natural ones so they would look match more closely after a few years.) But your theory is interesting because it accounts for the shorter front teeth, which I hadn't noticed before. This is the sort of thing that would constitute a truly failed prosthetic, eh, as opposed to certain silly theories involving liquids, eh? LOL!

Sure....

Indeed! Do you think I should send this to Mr. DiMaio?

LOL! This is SO funny! Thank you, Tracy!

In a pig’s eye, boys! You can dress up that pig in all the ribbons and bows and pretty dresses you can find, but it will still be a pig. Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell want us to believe that a man who for years had these teeth…. … would check in with a USMC dentist who would indicate that a “prosthesis failed” and that the dentist would be referring to liquid sealant as the failed prosthesis. I can hear that dentist’s report even after all these years…. SSgt Dentist: “Sir, Private Oswald’s dental sealant has failed!” 1stLt Parker: “How did that happen, Staff Sergeant?” SSgt Dentist: “Because he has no front teeth to hold the sealant, Sir!” LOL! Search for all the obscure arguments you can find on the net. Your arguments are still hogwash! Look up images of dental prosthetics on the net. You’ll find things like these…. https://www.canstockphoto.com/images-photos/dental-prosthesis.html You guys will have a real handle on things... when pigs fly! LOL.

Sandy, I agree that the missing tooth/teeth are much more visible in the contrast adjusted image, and I often show both it and the one I snapped off the LIFE page with my cell phone, together, as I do below. The anti-H&L crowd shouldn't be allowed to claim we have "doctored" the photos in any way. The original closeup I took with my cell phone directly off p. 70 of my copy of LIFE magazine is shown immediately below. The enhanced contrast edition Sandy posted on page 1 of this thread is shown immediately below it. Both images make our point quite nicely! As always, I urge interested people to buy the Feb 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine and look for themselves. I bought my copy online a few years ago and it didn't cost much. Isn't it interesting that the 1958 photo of LEE Oswald in Japan show his front tooth (or two) a slightly different color than the rest of his upper teeth visible in the photo. What a remarkable coincidence that the slightly different colored teeth seem to exactly match the missing tooth or teeth in Voebel's photo!

Oh for crying out loud. Use ANY reproduction of the photo you want. Do what I did and buy yourself a copy of the 2/21/1964 edition of LIFE magazine—it still only costs a few bucks. You guys all whine about whether there was one or two or two and a half missing teeth or merely a “gaping whole” in his teeth as if this changes the clear fact that LEE Oswald’s mouth and teeth were seriously damaged in this fight and that he CLEARLY, OBVIOUSLY lost one or two teeth from it. Look at the picture, any version of it, and whine all you want. This evidence is not going away, no matter how Tracy Parnell or Greg Parker or Paul Trejo or Michael Walton try to talk about super glue and split lips treated by dentists. Be honest! At the very least, admit that you can’t explain Voebel’s picture or his testimony. Relying on obscure references to liquid sealants doesn’t even begin to cut it. And by the way, while you guys are trying to explain away the clear, obvious evidence of LEE Oswald’s lost teeth, take a look at this 1958 photo of LEE Oswald in Japan. Note that his two front teeth are slightly but clearly colored differently from his other visible teeth. Isn’t it amazing that those are the same two teeth shown knocked out in Voebel’s camera.

Bruce, The efforts of the anti-H&L crowd to say that the kid with the missing tooth or teeth needed just liquid sealant, whatever it consisted of, shows the sheer paucity of their arguments. Apparently they have to say something, ANYTHING, to provide what Tracy calls “alternate explanations,” which sure sounds like “alternate facts” to me. LOL.

Oh, please. I decided to waste a few minutes and I read Part One and whatever. Mr. Parker takes a couple of paraphrased reports about the fight, including one by a kid who didn’t know Oswald, and tries to use them to overcome the clear, sworn testimony of Oswald’s best friend, the kid who took the photo of the missing tooth and tried to help him after the fight. To explain why Lillian Murett had to pay a dentist for Lee Oswald’s wound, Mr. Parker says... nothing. How can you possibly look at this photo and pretend the only prosthesis this kid needed was liquid sealant? Are you kidding?

den·tal pros·the·sis (dentăl pros-thēsis) Artificial replacement of one or more teeth and/or associated structures. --Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012 dental prosthesis Etymology: L, dens, tooth; Gk, prosthesis, an addition a fixed or removable appliance used to replace one or more lost or missing natural teeth. See also denture crown,fixed bridgework, removable partial denture. Fixed bridge prosthesis cemented over implants --Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. © 2009, Elsevier. Who would need a dental prosthesis? Someone who lost a front tooth in a fist fight. But don't believe your own lying eyes. Don't believe the sworn testimony of the guy who took the picture and was LEE Oswald's best friend.

Oh for cryin’ out loud. The type of sealant you’re pinning your hopes on wasn’t even created until the 1960s and the 1970s, long after Harvey and Lee’s Marine Corp adventures were finished. From the history section of the Wikipedia “Dental Sealant” article. QUOTE: In 1966, E.I. Cueto created the first sealant material, which was methyl cyanoacrylate.[7][13] However, this material was susceptible to bacterial breakdown over time, therefore was not an acceptable sealing material.[7] Bunonocore made further advances in 1970 by developing bisphenol-a glycidyl dimethacrylate, which is a viscous resin commonly known as BIS-GMA.[13] This material was used as the basis for many resin-based sealant/composite material developments in dentistry, as it is resistant to bacterial breakdown and forms a steady bond with etched enamel.[7][13]

LOL! Thought you would sneak that one in, eh? In the past, Greg Parker has also concluded that subjects are allowed to fill in their own height and weight on USMC medical reports. Greg Parker has also concluded that an image of LEE Oswald I uploaded to my website contained a virus that he, and he alone, acquired, even though no one else acquired it and even though the website host scanned it and found no virus. Makes me think Greg Parker concludes ANYTHING that makes his endless H&L critiques seem at least half-way serious. The desperation of the anti-H&L crowd to come up with something, ANYTHING, to refute evidence for two Oswalds is really quite funny at times. In this example, they are so desperate that they are trying to tell us that dental sealants are examples of dental prosthetics, which is patently absurd. Here is how Wikipedia defines “dental prosthesis:” "A dental prosthesis is an intraoral (inside the mouth) prosthesis used to restore (reconstruct) intraoral defects such as missing teeth, missing parts of teeth, and missing soft or hard structures of the jaw and palate...." Read the full article HERE. Ultimately, however unlikely it may be, if a consensus of dental experts concludes that our findings are wrong, we’ll have to live with it and adjust our statements accordingly, though I seriously doubt this will happen. But watching the anti-H&L crowd try to convince themselves that they have explained this all away is really funny as hell.

It’s just a waste of time arguing with Greg Parker. His arguments constantly change as each one is unmasked. I recall especially his many different attempts to explain away Oswald’s simultaneous school attendance in New York City and New Orleans. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if all the silly explanations he attempted in the past have disappeared from his forum leaving only his latest futile attempt. He is always simply making up whatever he can conjure to argue against H&L.

I never bother reading anything on Greg Parker’s site because it always turns out to be little more than virulent anti-H&L rhetoric without foundation, but Sandy Larsen does check it out from time to time, and he sent me a note about the write-up Tracy is trying to push on us above. According to Sandy…. Greg’s stated position is that Oswald needed a prophylaxis treatment and the treatment “FAILED.” Using a 1956 HARVEY Oswald dental record, Greg declared that Oswald had a severe crossbite and he was scheduled for corrective surgery for this on May 14, which is on the 1958 dental record. Sandy wrote…. LOL this is terribly funny! The "surgery scheduled for May 14" was actually Oswald getting a filling on tooth #10. The final paragraph of Greg's post is: "The main keys to "proving" the existence of Hardly Lee are a complete inability to read forms correctly, and Armstrong's witness recruit drive. To call the theory bogus is an insult to a three dollar bill." LOL, so we're the ones who cannot read forms! Tracy Parnell often refers readers here to Greg Parker's page trying to refute Harvey and Lee. Why? Because he is embarrassed to make Parker's arguments here. Who wouldn't be?

evidence [ev-i-duh ns] Spell Syllables Synonyms Examples Word Origin See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. 3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and whichmay include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. verb (used with object), evidenced, evidencing. 4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support. 5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters. Idioms 6. in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence. ======================================================== As for definition #3 above, the problem with getting so much evidence for conspiracy is that the FBI, principally, destroyed and altered evidence that implicated elements of the U.S Government in the assassination of JFK. For EVIDENCE backing up this statement, just spend five minutes reading this:

With the anti-H&L group so hard at work here, I just wanted remind lurkers how strong this evidence really is. And this is a short version of the evidence Sandy covered so well in his original post.

Paul and Mervyn sure are anxious to make us believe that the dental evidence that there were two different “Lee Harvey Oswalds” is unreliable. Why do they care so much? They want us to believe that two molars tipping toward a gap left by a missing tooth shown in this Marine Corps x-ray of Oswald .... …. could, in just a few years, slide sideways and straighten themselves up in this x-ray from the exhumation: They want us to believe that Oswald’s best friend in the 9th grade, Ed Voebel, was hallucinating when he testified under oath, “I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out.” Paul and Mervyn want us to believe that Voebel’s camera was also hallucinating when it shot this photo of Oswald’s missing tooth: They want us to believe that Lillian Murret took Lee Oswald to a dentist to treat a split lip, rather than a missing tooth. No doubt Ms. Murret was was hallucinating about how dentists treat lips. Paul and Mervyn, especially Mervyn, want us to believe that it is SO UNFAIR to show this detail from a U.S. Marine dental form indicating that Oswald had a prosthesis that failed on or by 5-5-1958. They don’t want us to know that a dental prosthesis is a false tooth. Instead, Mervyn wants to talk about the fact that the form indicates Oswald needed his teeth cleaned (“Prophylaxis needed: Yes”). The teeth cleaning is much more important to Marvyn than Oswald’s false tooth. Why? Because according to the Norton Report and images taken from the exhumation, “Lee Harvey Oswald” was not missing a front tooth and had straight molars. This seems to indicate that the “Lee Harvey Oswald” in the Marines dentist chair was not the same Lee Harvey Oswald who is buried in Fort Worth. Paul and Marvyn seem to really, really hate that conclusion. Why?

Sandy, Maybe you should ask the Admins here if they would be willing to lock the thread you started. If that was done, we could provide the link to other dental experts over the coming weeks and be confident it would not be ruined. Shouldn’t you do the same thing for the molar(s) when time permits?

We’re doing quite a bit of work behind the scenes that I’d like to reserve for a while. We’re currently discussing how best to adapt Sandy’s posts for a permanent article or two on HarveyandLee.net, among other things. We might have some other news within a few weeks, but we’ll have to see how fast things go. Thanks for asking.

Mervyn sounds like a broken old vinyl record stuck on a bad song. He knows full well that Sandy posted the full form in his original post in this thread. But Mervyn wants to talk about an imaginary controversy to distract people from this entry in that same form. Why? Because this entry shows Oswald had a false tooth. Ed Voebel, the kid who took the picture above for the school yearbook, testified under oath that Oswald lost a tooth. 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. Mervyn wants to pretend none of this means a thing. Does he think he's fooling anyone interested in the truth?

Can anyone really dispute this? Just wondering....