Jim Hargrove

Well, Tracy, thank you for at least considering the evidence and not trying to totally duck it. Let's look, though, one more time at the actual new evidence evidence.... Ed Voebel Testified that Oswald Lost a Tooth Ed Voebel was Oswald's best friend in 9th grade. He testified as follows before the Warren Commission: 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. Now, it sounds as if Voebel wasn't certain Oswald got his lip cut and lost a tooth. But that probably was not the case. After all, he explained later how some of the other boys took Oswald into the boys restroom and patched him up. Does that sound like he wasn't sure Oswald had gotten his lip cut? Ed Voebel used the phrase "I think" numerous times in his testimony, even in cases where he surely would have known. Like when he said, "I think I just went on home and everybody went their way" after an altercation that occurred the day prior. Was he really not sure he went home? And that the other boys went their way? Here's a sampling of Voebel's use of the phrase: "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." .... and on and on. Ed Voebel said “I think” or “think” nearly a hundred times during his testimony. It seems to have been a part of the way he talked. But be that as it may, there is more evidence of a lost tooth. Lillian Murret Testified that Oswald Went to See a Dentist Oswald's Aunt Lillian testified as follows before the Warren Commission: "Another time they were coming out of school at 3 o'clock, and there were boys in back of him and one of them called his name, and he said, "Lee," and when he turned around, this boy punched him in the mouth and ran, and it ran his tooth through the lip, so she [Marguerite] had to go over to the school and take him to the dentist, and I paid for the dentist bill myself, and that's all I know about that, and he was not supposed to have started any of that at that time." Now why would Oswald have to see a dentist if he hadn't lost a tooth? Okay, it's conceivable that the tooth was merely loosened. However, that goes against Ed Voebel's recollection. And besides, there is further evidence that Oswald lost a tooth. Photographic evidence and more.

Does anyone see a PATTERN here, or is it just me? What could that pattern possibly be? Surely not DIVIDE AND CONQUER, eh? That's just way too unsophisticated! I've been arguing online about the JFK assassination for at least twenty years, but this is the funniest bs I've seen in all that time. LOL!

What a sad and desperate argument. Do you think we are fools? Mervyn tries to invent a controversy so that, as always, he can deflect attention away from Oswald’s failed prosthetic (his false tooth). The complete form was shown in Sandy’s original post in this thread: Immediately after that, Sandy showed the detail from that form Mervyn is so desperate to ignore: This, of course, is the part of the form that shows that this “Oswald, Lee H.” had a false tooth that failed on or by 5-5-1958. Mervyn’s problem is that the “Lee Harvey Oswald” buried in Rose Hill Cemetery had all his natural teeth, as shown by the exhumation described in the Norton Report. Mervyn’s laughable argument is that since the form indicates Oswald needed his teeth cleaned [“PROPHYLAXIS NEEDED: yes”] we should therefore ignore the fact that his false tooth failed on or by 5-5-58 [“PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58”]. LOL! I’ve been debating in online JFK forums for many years, and I have never seen such transparent sophistry. Mervyn STILL cannot write or speak the word “prosthetic.” HE JUST CAN”T DO IT! LOL! Yes! DIVIDE AND CONQUER! Mervyn is REALLY using sophisticated debating techniques now! What a hoot! He’d better go back to the irrelevant graphics. When he uses his words, he fails monumentally. And he still can’t say “prosthetic.” Btw, Mervyn, I used my own cell phone to make the copy of the "silly picture" from LIFE magazine. You know, the one that shows Oswald's missing tooth.

Mervyn can’t help but continue the comedy at his own expense. He simply cannot say or see or hear the word “prosthesis.” Why? Because a dental prosthesis is a false tooth. The “Lee Harvey Oswald” who was the subject of the USMC dental form had a false tooth that failed on or by May 5, 1958. The “Lee Harvey Oswald” buried and exhumed in Rose Hill Cemetery in Fort Worth did NOT have a false tooth. And Mervyn and Paul just can’t stand it! Funny thing about evidence, though. It still exists no matter how much you whine and cry about it. And no matter how many times you declare victory, the evidence is still there proving you wrong. Whatever you do boys, don’t say the word PROSTHESIS!!! It’s just too yucky for your side.

Everything Paul Trejo says above is completely irrelevant to this thread. He and Mervyn may like to try to divert attention by pointing out that the form shows Oswald needed his teeth cleaned (“Prophylaxis Needed: Yes”) but they continue be deaf, dumb, and blind to the fact that the form clearly indicates that Oswald had a prosthesis (a false tooth) that “failed 5-5-58.” Why do Paul and Mervyn continue to ignore Oswald’s false tooth? Answer: Because the cadaver in Oswald’s grave had all its natural teeth. Why should anyone care that Oswald needed to have his teeth cleaned? Answer: Because people who care about that are trying to distract attention from the fact that this Oswald had a false tooth. The proof is right here: Watch the comedy continue as Mervyn and Paul continue to talk about teeth cleaning rather than the false tooth. Watch them fail to even see the above. What a hoot!

Mervyn has a fancy graphic in which he concentrates on prophylaxis and ignores prosthesis. Prophylaxis in dental terminology usually involves a thorough teeth cleaning. A prosthesis is an artificial body part, such as a false tooth. Why does Mervyn continue to ignore the PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58 notation on Oswald's USMC dental record? den·tal pro·phy·lax·is a series of procedures whereby calculus, stain, and other accretions are removed from the crowns and roots of theteeth, and the enamel surfaces are polished. Synonym(s): cleaning Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012 den·tal proph·y·lax·is (den'tăl prō'fi-lak'sis) Measures to promote the health and prevent disease of the teeth and gums that include scaling and polishing procedures performed to remove plaque, calculus, and stains. Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012 From Medicinenet.com (note that a false tooth is specifically called a prosthesis in the definition below): Medical Definition of Prosthesis Prosthesis: An artificial replacement of a part of the body, such as a tooth, a facial bone, the palate, or a joint. A prosthesis may be removable, as in the case of most prosthetic legs or a prosthetic breast form used after mastectomy. Other types of prosthetic devices, such as artificial hips or teeth, are permanently implanted. Why does Mervyn continue to ignore the PROSTHESIS FAILED 5-5-58 notation on Oswald's USMC dental record?

But it is probably a missing tooth (or two) because the kid who took the photo, and then sold it to LIFE magazine, said Oswald had a tooth knocked out. Oswald's aunt paid a dentist to treat the boy. Do you think she paid a dentist to treat an artifact on Voebel's film? Do you think she paid a dentist to treat a tooth blackened with a crayon? Do you think the prosthesis that failed in the Marine Corps in 1958 referred to anything other than a false tooth? Mervyn's ever-changing arguments were ridiculous. Following is the real evidence: 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. Oswald's Aunt Lillian testified as follows before the Warren Commission: "Another time they were coming out of school at 3 o'clock, and there were boys in back of him and one of them called his name, and he said, "Lee," and when he turned around, this boy punched him in the mouth and ran, and it ran his tooth through the lip, so she [Marguerite] had to go over to the school and take him to the dentist, and I paid for the dentist bill myself, and that's all I know about that, and he was not supposed to have started any of that at that time." Why would our boy have to see a dentist if he hadn't lost a tooth? Ed Voebel was with Oswald when he took this picture (CU below). Do you really think he thought this was a spec of dust on a negative? He was there! And a Marine Corps dentist noted that a prosthesis failed on 5-5-58. Do you seriously think that prosthesis was a smudge on Ed Voebel's film?

I'll check back later and see if Mervyn can come up with a better excuse to explain all this evidence!

Mervyn--The guy who took the photograph you hate said he thought Oswald had a tooth knocked out. Oswald's aunt paid a dentist to care for him. The photo shows a missing tooth. USMC records show a dental prosthesis (a false tooth) failed on 5-5-58. And you declare Case Closed, no missing tooth? Hah-hah-hah-hah. You guys are sure desperate!

The form clearly indicates that a prosthesis failed 5-5-58. A prosthesis is defined as "an artificial body part, such as a leg, a heart, or a breast implant." Mervyn can claim victory any number of times he wishes, but he can't make the evidence go away.

Case closed, eh? Above from Sandy's original post in this thread.

Oh puh-leeze. The form clearly shows that prophylaxis was needed because a prosthesis failed 5-5-58. pros·the·sis präsˈTHēsis/ noun 1. an artificial body part, such as a leg, a heart, or a breast implant. "his upper jaw was removed and a prosthesis was fitted" 2. the addition of a letter or syllable at the beginning of a word, as in Spanish escribo derived from Latin scribo.

The arguments trying to explain the missing front tooth change so fast it makes my head spin. First the missing tooth was replaced with an implant, then it surely was a cap, and then, with the benefit of a new thread, the tooth was never lost in the first place, but Oswald deliberately blackened it for the famous photo, for which the evidence is an unrelated comedy skit by Lucille Ball. Just as Ricky Ricardo discovered weekly, when you have to ask Lucy to “”splain,” you’re in real trouble. The fact that the kid who took the picture swore that he thought Oswald lost a tooth means nothing when you have Lucy to turn to, eh? The fact that Oswald's aunt swore she paid a dentist to treat it also means nothing.

The photo was taken by Oswald’s classmate Ed Voebel, who testified to the Warren Commission that he thought Oswald “was cut on the lip and a tooth was knocked out” after a schoolyard fight, which he (Voebel) described in great detail. After the assassination, Voebel sold his photo to LIFE magazine for $25. This is basic stuff, and with your "teeth blackening" tag, I do believe your agenda is showing.

Really, Mervyn? These top front teeth look like crowns to you? REALLY?....

Mervyn, Are you sure they were true implants? From thedentalgeek.com Major developments in dental implants came much later 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.

Those sure look like natural front teeth to me. I have several caps, and they look different from my other teeth (somewhat whiter, for one thing).

Mervyn, Thanks for the correction on McLendon. I just finished uploading the changes to the web page. Let's keep this thread on on topic about the dental evidence for Harvey and Lee. If you'd like to discuss the potential Ruby/McLendon/Phillips connection some more, there's a thread I started last year that touches on it and some other things. The most relevant post is here:

Hi, Mervyn, You make some very good points. It would be helpful to get some unbiased opinions from dental experts on the evidence Sandy has presented. In an ordinary case about John or Jane Doe, this would be a simple matter, but not in this one. Let me provide an example: Yesterday, a fellow named Colin Crow posted the following in a follow-up to Sandy’s article on the missing molar on jfkassassinationofrum.com. Here’s what he wrote: There’s a professional opinion. Will that settle the issue for a Warren Commission loyalist such as Tracy Parnell? Of course not! Tracy will argue that the question was presented incorrectly, or the professor misunderstood it, or the answer was incomplete, and so on. Can you imagine a practicing dental professional risking his or her career by going on record about this? It would take real, and real rare, courage. Mr. Parnell has already admitted he is counting on fear of controversy among professionals to help him try to debunk this when he wrote: Tracy is being surprisingly honest about his strategy here, but this is the problem we face in trying to untangle the ENORMOUS cover-up in this case.

Joe, Marina was married to Russsian-speaking Harvey Oswald, who died with all his teeth intact and had no false teeth or other prosthetics in his mouth, even when his body was later exhumed. The man who lost a molar and one or two front teeth was American-born Lee Oswald, who was undoubtedly kept away as much as possible from Marina. Marina, by the way, met with Harvey and Lee author John Armstrong on many different occasions. Once, she brought out all the original color exhumation photos and gave them to him. John made high quality copies of them and then returned the originals to Marina. Below is one of those exhumation photos Marina gave John, showing Harvey had no missing upper front teeth.

Do you just have to keep on arguing, despite the evidence? The famous classroom photo of LEE Oswald showing off his missing tooth was TAKEN by Ed Voebel, who helped LEE get cleaned up after the fight. You don't think Voebel knew what happened? After the assassination, he sold the negative directly to LIFE magazine. And you ask why wasn't the prosthetic visible in the picture? Probably because, even today, it takes a week or more to get false teeth made. You want us to believe that Ed Voebel was wrong, Aunt Lillian was wrong, our eyes are lying to us about that photo, and the failed prosthesis notation was wrong? Could you possibly consider that perhaps you are wrong?

When we were debating the missing front tooth issue here some months ago, someone argued that “no one has ever mentioned that Oswald had a missing tooth,” or something like that. Now, because of Sandy’s discovery, we know why. He had a prosthetic—a false tooth or two—in place to hide the missing tooth. It apparently failed while American-born LEE Oswald was in the Marines. Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald clearly had all his front teeth in place in his grave. BTW, the February 21, 1964 issue of Life magazine is still readily available for just a few dollars. It has the missing tooth photo reproduced inside. This is the cover of that edition, which is definitely worth owning:

I don't know much about dentistry, but it just strains credulity that this... after just a few years, can become this....

A detailed description of the activities of Harvey and Lee on November 22, 1963 can be read here: http://harveyandlee.net/November/November_22.htm For about six weeks prior to the assassination, LEE set up HARVEY as the patsy. A full description can be read here: http://harveyandlee.net/Patsy/The_Patsy.html LEE disappeared soon after the assassination. There are plenty of theories, and some leads, about that.

Everything you say above is incorrect, Tommy. LEE Harvey Oswald’s height is listed as 5’11” on his Marine Corps medical examination of 9/3/59 and on his “Armed Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge” dated 10/12/59. As any USMC veteran will tell you, Marines are not asked to estimate their heights for medical exams. THEY ARE MEASURED BY USMC STAFF! The 5’11” height is also on the Selective Service registration card dated 9/14/59, and on the 9/10/59 passport as well as the 6/26/63 passport. Miraculously, the Lee HARVEY Oswald on the slab in the Dallas morgue was measured as 5’9” in the autopsy report. Perhaps Dead Oswald made that estimate? HARVEY also said he was 5’9” tall during the interrogation on 11/23/63 and in earlier job applications. Just because Mr. Simpich tells you that “Lee Harvey Oswald” exaggerated his height to government agencies doesn’t make it so. At least two different USMC documents list his height as 5’11”. Mr. Simpich is wrong that the USMC allowed Marines to declare their own heights for medical records. SUMMATION: The Oswald buried in Rose Hill Cemetery was 5’9” tall and had all his teeth. The man missing a molar and one or two front teeth was the 5’11” Oswald, who disappeared shortly after the assassination.