3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Clearly, for simplification and space, sealants and prosthetics  were lumped in together on the forms and the failure noted in 1958 was for the sealant - not any prosthetic for a tooth that was never knocked out to start with.

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!   

23 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

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!

 

23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Hey Jim,

I think I may have figured out what is going on with those darkened teeth.

One of you guys (you, David J., or John A.) earlier wondered if what we are looking at is a photo taken during the time of Lee's prosthetic failure. The timing of the photo is indeed about right.

I studied the photo carefully when that was mentioned, but couldn't figure out how a failed bridge could look like that. So I gave up on that idea.

The thing is, not only is there the discoloration, but the length of the front teeth doesn't look right. To me it looks like the bottoms of those teeth have crumbled off. I know how crowns and bridges are made (a metal substrate with a layer of porcelain fused to it) and I just couldn't think of a way a failure could look like what we see in the photo.

Well, earlier today I was studying the history of crowns and bridges so I could answer a statement made by one of the other members. I discovered that crowns and bridges were made differently before the late 1950s. Before then, they were made of solid porcelain. Porcelain is the shiny material that is fused to pottery to make it shiny. It is very hard, but also very brittle. In this article  I read:

Ceramics play an integral role in dentistry. Their use in dentistry dates as far back as 1889 when Charles H. Land patented the all-porcelain “jacket” crown. This new type of ceramic crown was introduced in 1900s. The procedure consisted of rebuilding the missing tooth with a porcelain covering, or “jacket” as Land called it. The restoration was extensively used after improvements were made by E.B. Spaulding and publicized by W.A. Capon. While not known for its strength due to internal microcracking, the porcelain “jacket” crown (PJC) was used extensively until the 1950s.

To reduce the risk of internal microcracking during the cooling phase of fabrication, the porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) crown was developed in the late 1950s by Abraham Weinstein. The bond between the metal and porcelain prevented stress cracks from forming.

So the material used in Lee's bridgework was known for microcracking introduced during manufacture. This means that any part of the crown could crumble under excessive force. In my opinion that could explain the apparent loss of material at the bottom of Lee's incisors in that photo.

I don't know why the teeth are darkened in that photo. When I've gotten crowns the dentist tries to match the color of the crown to the teeth surrounding it. Maybe whoever made Lee's bridge didn't do such a good job in matching colors.

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!   

23 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Part One proves no tooth was knocked out.

 

Care to address it?

Sure....

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

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Dimitry Bouzon did know Oswald - he just never associated with him. 

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!

21 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

You keep posting that "toothless" photograph of LHO in middle-school, but you continually evade my question.

That space in the teeth as portrayed  in that photograph is as large as 2.5 teeth.    And yet you continually maintain that only one tooth was missing.   How do you explain that?

20 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Another thing that's  dishonest about using the classroom  photo is that  there are two versions going around. The one that shows more detail in the mouth is substituted for the high contrast version  that shows no detail giving  the appearance  of there being  a gaping  hole.

Of course  if  you  bring  this  up to the believers  they're  not even honest  enough  to admit that and  not  use it on EF.

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.

21 hours ago, Bruce Fernandez said:

Let's put methyl cyanoacrylate into perspective. It's lately known as super-glue. Don't try applying that to your own mouth! It was popularized as a commercial adhesive in the 70's by Loctite Corp. Basically moisture activated.

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.

38 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Anytime Jim or Sandy would like to address Part one where we find out no tooth was knocked out at all, they should feel free...

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)

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

What did I quote in my paper?

 

Definition of non-metallic permanent restoration:

includes filled and unfilled resin, glass ionomer cement, and pit and fissure sealants

Sealants are indeed classified as "restorations" the same as a prosthetic is. 

Note also how they steadfastly refuse to address part one of my paper because they know that alone puts an end to this nonsense.

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]

9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

5. Greg Parker concludes that sealants were classified as "prosthetics" on USMC dental forms.

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.     

8 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

More from Parker:

the attached section of the records show a Nov 1, 1956, entry, "sealing - prophylaxis - instructions"

 

I believe this indicates he had tooth pits sealed to stop possible decay - any ongoing care needs explained, and instructions on how to maintain the seals. 

 

From google: "Sealants can last up to 10 years. But they need to be checked at regular dental check-ups to make sure they are not chipped or worn away. The dentist or dental hygienist can repair sealants by adding more sealant material."

 

I think this is what is being referenced 5/5.58 as having failed and this is why he needed 2 cavities filled.  The failure has nothing to do with a dental prosthesis.  It was the only space available to indicate the sealing failure.

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Greg has since added the above.

Apparently, realizing that a prophylaxis (teeth cleaning) doesn't fail, he moved on to find something on Oswald's charts that could fail. And what he found was "sealant." (Unfortunately for him, on a different, earlier chart.)

A sealant is like a varnish that is painted onto pits and fissures of teeth that are prone to getting cavities. The idea is that it prevents the acids from bacteria from eating away at the enamel.

Sealants do indeed fail. These days they last as long as ten years. They weren't anywhere that effective in the 1950s.

Problem is, there is absolutely no mention of "sealant" on the 1958 record that has the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation on it. And yet Greg wants up to believe that the dentist meant "SEALANT FAILED" when he wrote "FAILED." And that he wrote that in the "Prosthesis Required?" field.

This is just silly. There is plenty of space in the field called "Remarks" for the dentist to note that the sealant failed.

One other thing.... why did the dentist note that the sealant failed on May 5, but didn't note it on March 27 when the examination took place? We know for sure that one of the two cavities was found before May 5, because it was filled on April 30, according to the chart. Why wasn't the failed sealant noted then?

Greg is just making up whatever excuses he can for what is clearly a notation indicating that an existing prosthesis (false tooth) failed.
 

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.

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Greg Parker has replied to Sandy at his forum:

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1703-more-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-molar-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not

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?

On 2/15/2018 at 5:39 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

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?

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?

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cory,

Thanks for doing this!

I have posted my concise arguments on an Education Forum sub-forum page that doesn't reveal that this is about JFK or LHO. It is here:
[ . . . .]

I ask that the other side post their arguments in a separate thread. But they can do so in the same sub-forum if they wish

(I don't know if the moderators will allow us to post there.)

 

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?
 

1 hour ago, Bruce Fernandez said:

Jim, let's ask if anyone can dispute "any" of this. Since the MSM won't pay any attention, how about "we all" flood our local media with this or something other that you might recommend.

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.  

4 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Sandy, I couldn't have put it better - the controversy you are attempting to create by redacting a form and using a staged picture is on a par with that of a religious huckster. Your 'product' cannot be far away in the form of a book.

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?

On 2/4/2018 at 8:21 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Oswald was missing a MOLAR, but his exhumed body was not!

Lee Harvey Oswald's body was exhumed in 1981 to determine whether it truly was that of Oswald's, or that of a Soviet spy. A panel of experts headed by Dr. Linda Norton determined that the body was indeed that of Lee Harvey Oswald's. The proceedings and findings of the event were recorded in the Norton Report.

I have discovered substantial inconsistencies in the Norton Report which indicate 1) that two different sets of dental x-rays were involved in the analysis, and 2) the teeth of the exhumed Oswald do not fully match the dental records kept of Lee Harvey Oswald by the Marine Corps.

Marine Corps records indicate that Oswald was missing one of his non-wisdom-tooth molars, specifically the front-most molar on his lower right side. According to the Norton Report that tooth had been extracted. And yet the tooth appears to be present among the exhumed teeth.

Tooth Gaps Lead to Tipping Teeth

When a tooth is missing, the teeth behind it will often drift forward and tip down into the gap. If significant bone loss has occurred at the site of the gap, the adjacent tooth can tip over to the point of completely filling the gap. This occurs due to forces applied from the opposing teeth (upper or lower) during mastication. Here are some examples of where this has happened:

 

 

 

 

The Norton Panel Mistakenly Accepted that the Molar was Missing.

I have carefully compared the photographs and x-rays of the exhumed teeth with Oswald's Marine Corps dental records and x-rays and have found them to be largely consistent. But with one exception... the supposedly missing molar. It is my contention that the Norton Panel talked themselves into believing the molar was missing on the exhumed body. It had to. Nearly everything else checked out and there was no way of explaining the lack of a missing molar. The missing molar had been reported on several dental charts, and so it couldn't be a case of mistaken charting.

Let's take a look at where the molar was supposed to have been missing. Here is one view:

 

Tooth #30 is the one that is supposed to be missing. So the Norton Panel numbered the teeth as shown here. There is a small gap there, better seen from a side view:

 

Now admittedly, when I first saw that gap, I wondered if a molar had indeed been extracted and that the two molars behind it somehow shifted over quite a distance without tipping down. Because molars #31 and 32 are not tipping at all. Rather, they are at an angle only because the jawbone that far back is tilted... at the same angle.

For us to accept that tooth #30 had been extracted, we'd have to believe that afterward #31 and 32 moved straight toward #29  by roughly 1/4 inch. Not by tipping, but by moving straight. And that the sockets the roots fit into did the same.

This is hard to believe. Imagine driving a post into the ground and then trying to move it over a significant distance relative to its height. Tipping the post over would be relatively easy, especially with the use of a hammer. But moving it straight over by much would be nearly impossible.

What forces could there have been in Oswald's mouth that could move roots and sockets over by 1/4"?

None, I determined. And so I decided to study missing tooth #30 further. Am I ever glad I did!

My Discovery of the True Missing-Molar X-Ray

As I pondered what I needed for my study, the obvious came to mind quickly. If it were true that the exhumed Oswald had a tooth #30 in place, then there must have been another Oswald who truly was missing #30. What I needed more than anything else was an x-ray from that Oswald showing the missing tooth. With that in hand, I should be able to see a gap where the tooth had been, and possibly a tooth or two behind it tipping down into the gap.

Problem is, in my search for dental records the only x-rays I'd seen were the ones published in the Norton Report.

It occurred to me that I hadn't yet taken a close look at that particular x-ray in the Norton Report taken from the Marine Corps records. I had saved that for last, because it was of the only quadrant of the teeth that appeared suspect. For a fleeting moment I thought, wouldn't it be great if THAT particular x-ray were from the OTHER Oswald? The x-ray that I needed more than any other?

Well, of course, that was too much to hope for. But I took a look anyway.

Ha! I couldn't believe my eyes at first, but I actually had -- printed right there in the Norton Report -- the x-ray of the teeth surrounding tooth #30 from the other Oswald! The x-ray I needed more than any other.

And, as I expected, this x-ray shows definite signs of a missing molar. Here it is:

Marine Corps

I could see right away the large gap left behind from molar #30, and the adjacent molar tipping down into it. The reader may not see these things himself, given his unfamiliarity with this material. I will demonstrate them momentarily.

For the remainder of this presentation I will compare this x-ray from the Marine Corps to the one of the exhumed body and show that they are not from the same person.

Preparation for My Comparison

In order to make the x-ray comparison easy to follow, I created one composite x-ray and made a few minor adjustments, as I will describe here. All the photos and x-rays come from the following high quality scan of the Norton Report:

Norton Report

The photos are on pages 27 through 30, and the x-rays on page 31.

The x-rays printed in the report are notated with black and white text, arrows, and lines. Please ignore these. My notations will be in color.

What I did for the Marine Corps x-ray was separate the upper teeth from the lower a little so that they can easily be distinguished. In addition, there is one tooth whose roots are darkened, and I pasted there a copy of the same tooth from the exhumed x-ray in order to make the roots visible. I gave it a shade of red so that it would be remembered that it is not on the original x-ray. I ended up with this:

Marine Corps X-Ray

For the x-ray of the exhumed teeth, I had to combine two adjacent x-rays into one. They share a molar in both, so I was able to align them perfectly. I then rotated the whole image so that it was at the same angle as the photograph depicting the same (exhumed) teeth.

Unfortunately the original x-rays are cut off and don't show the complete roots. But this doesn't affect my analysis.

Exhumation X-Ray

For the corresponding photograph, I combined the upper and lower teeth onto one image, using the above composite x-ray as a guide for alignment.

Exhumation Photo

Notice how well the teeth in the exhumed x-ray match those in the exhumed photograph, as they should.

To aid in the comparisons, I drew in the jawlines the best I could make out. Here they are:

Marine Corps

 

Exhumation

Now I can proceed to compare the Marine Corps x-ray to the exhumed teeth x-ray.

Marine Corps X-Ray versus Exhumation X-Ray

Molar Tipping

Lets look at the degree of tipping of the molars adjacent to the #30 molar extraction site. The green lines illustrate the degree of tipping relative to the jawline:

Marine Corps

Tipping of both remaining molars in the Marine Corps x-ray is easily seen. However, tipping is not so great as to close the gap left behind from the missing molar. I estimate that there is still a 1/4 inch gap remaining between crowns of teeth #29 and #31.

 

Exhumation

There is no tipping of the molars at all in the exhumed teeth They are perfectly square with the jawline. This is in stark contrast to the tipping that is so prominent in the Marine Corps x-ray.

Notice also how the left-most molar in the Marine Corps x-ray is tipping down into the side of molar to its right. In contrast, the tops of the two molars in the exhumed x-ray align nicely with each other. That is, one molar is not tipping down into the other.

One has to wonder how the expected tipping we see in the earlier Marine Corps teeth could have corrected itself to the point of what we see in the exhumed teeth. Downward forces from the upper teeth should have kept those teeth tipped over.

Gap Spacing

In this caparison, I want to imagine straightening up the tipping teeth and re-inserting the lost molar. Is there actually enough room for the molar to fit in? There should be! Following are images I prepared for this exercise.

First let's look at one of the example x-rays I showed earlier:

In this example, significant jaw bone loss has allowed not only the molar on the left to tip right down into the gap, but also has allowed the tooth on the right to tip down a little. As can be seen, If both teeth are straightened up, the original molar will fit in the resulting space. Note that the axis of rotation/tipping is the root of the tooth.

Now let's look at Oswald's Marine Corps x-ray:

Again we see that a missing molar will easily fit once the tipped teeth are straightened up.

But what about the exhumed teeth?

Remember, those two molars on the left are not tipped. But even if we pretend they are and allow more space for the missing molar by "straightening" them up, there is still simply no room for that missing molar to fit in!

This is yet another indication that there was never an adjacent molar that had been extracted. There was no missing molar among the exhumed teeth.

Another Differences Between the Marines X-Ray and Exhumation X-Ray

There is one other difference between the teeth of the Marine Corps Oswald and the exhumed Oswald that is quite glaring. And that is the root style of one of the molars.

Here are examples of molars whose roots are spread out, normal, and narrowed to the point of being fused together:

Lets compare the root spread of what is supposed to be the same tooth in the Marine Corps x-ray and the exhumed teeth x-ray:

Marine Corps
 

Exhumation

These are obviously not the same tooth. The tooth from the Marine Corps has a narrow root spread, and the one from the exhumed body has a medium/wide spread. They are teeth from two different Oswalds.

 

Conclusions

The Marine Corps x-ray examined here does NOT belong to the exhumed body of Lee Harvey Oswald. In order for us to accept that it does, we would have to believe the following:

1. Oswald had his first lower molar on his right side extracted some time before entering the Marine Corps.
2. Subsequently the two molars behind it began tipping over into the gap of the missing molar.
3. In the five year span from when the Marine Corps x-ray was taken to the death of Oswald, the two tipping molars inexplicably straightened themselves back up.
4. In addition to straightening up, the two molars -- root, socket, and all -- moved about 1/4 inch straight into the gap left by the extraction. They did this without any forces applied at the necessary points, in the necessary direction, and with the necessary force to attain such a movement. (As could be done by an orthodontist using braces.)
5. And in the meantime, the roots AND socket of one of those molars spontaneously straightened up, changing themselves from having a narrow root style to a medium-wide one.

The last three items in this list simply do not belong to the realm of possibility.

Yet if we unlink the Marine Corps x-ray from the exhumation x-ray, it all makes sense. The Marine Corps x-ray is precisely what we'd expect to see after a #30 molar extraction. The exhumation x-ray is not. And it's completely understandable that the root shapes of those two molars are different.

We are left with no other choice than to conclude that the Marines Corps x-rays came from a different Oswald than the Oswald whose remains were exhumed from the tomb. And that the Marine Corps Oswald was the one with the missing molar.

We conclude therefore that there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds. The one in the Marines and the one shot by Jack Ruby. (This is not to say, however, that the Oswald shot by Ruby had not served in the Marines as well.)

 

Can anyone really dispute this?

Just wondering....