W. Tracy Parnell

It is usually fun to watch the H&L supporters and the lengths they will go to in order to promote their silly theory. Sometimes it is just annoying. But let's review the situation. 

It is a historical fact that there was one and only one Lee Harvey Oswald and one and only one Marguerite Oswald. There is not one person living or dead who knew them and believes otherwise. In order to reverse the judgement of history, the H&L supporters need to offer evidence to do that. As I have said repeatedly, if they have "indisputable" proof, it should be a simple matter to take that proof to experts and those in authority who could validate their claims. Doing this would not only prove the H&L theory, but would "solve" the JFK assassination and be one of the major stories of this or any time.

But the truth is, their "proof" is not "indisputable" at all. Their evidence consists entirely of "outliers" in a large data set. And they know that experts would not view the evidence in a vacuum as they do, but would look at it in context. And when that happened they would see the numerous alternate explanations that exist, the same explanations that are offered here over and over again.

The H&L theory is a collection of mistakes, oddities, fabrications and so on. Experts and professional investigators know that these things exist in real life, especially in the case of an individual who lived in 20 or more residences. And perhaps most telling, informal polls right here at EF have shown that the majority of members do not believe the theory although they may support Armstrong and his research efforts.

So, until the H&L team can get some experts on board, they are just taking up bandwidth.

11 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I have a fair measure of respect for Greg Parker, but this post is a great example of a person, characteristic of all the detractors of Sandy's findings, who is so wedded to a position that they are bleary-eyed and blind to proof that they are mistaken.

Ray is not responding to anyone's straw man argument. He is posting his findings after having consulted an expert. That expert has stated, unequically, that the claims made by the nay-sayers are just plain wrong.

Well done Sandy. Your findings are "indisputable".

Greg Parker Replies:

Thanks for the respect Michael, but you didn't seem to understand what I said, so I will try again.

He asked a dentist (not an expert in what would make a person orally ineligible for overseas deployment with the US Marines, which are part of what these forms are really about) if sealants would ever be classed as prosthetics. Unsurprisingly, the dentist said "no". Also unsurprisingly, it was never claimed by me or anyone else that sealants were classed as prostheses, so Ray was attempting to debunk something no one claimed. That was just Hargrove's attempt at putting words in my mouth that he could rebut it. In other words, he constructed a strawman - something he does a regular basis when he has no actual facts at his disposal. 

(1) Needing sealants OR a prosthesis were two of things that could get you barred from overseas deployment. (2) Sealants and prosthetics were BOTH considered "restorations" Those two things are what connected them. Which of the two does the paperwork show he had? Sealants, Michael. 

11 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I spoke a retired dentist friend  of mine this morning. He said that a sealant would never have been classed as a prosthetic. Just my 2 cents.

Greg Parker responds:

Ray is responding to Jim Hargroves straw argument - not the argument that was actually put, because no one but Hargrove has framed the argument that a sealant was classed as a prosthetic.

The actual argument that was put (and fully supported via direct quotes from relevant authorities) was this:

The classifications related SOLELY to someone's fitness for overseas deployment. Oswald was designated a Class 3 and therefore unfit for such deployment. What specifically made him unfit?

He had "oral conditions that if  not treated, are expected to result in dental emergencies within 12 months,"

Such "oral conditions" may be...
 

So... restorations and prostheses are lumped together for the purposes of THESE CLASSIFICATIONS (which have nothing to do with civilian dentistry) and the definition of a "restoration" includes "filled and unfilled resin, glass ionomer cement, and pit and fissure sealants" 

It seems to me, based on all of the thoughts and suggestions posted, that the most likely scenario is this:

Oswald and Voebel, as a joke, either blacked out Oswald's teeth for the photo, or blacked out the teeth in the photo. The post-assassination sequence of events is what is telling.

When Voebel was interviewed by the FBI, he told them what everyone else did - that Oswald had a tooth go through his lip. So at that stage, he is in total accord with Ms Smith, Dimitri Bouzon and Lillian Murret.

After that interview, he SOLD the photo to LIFE magazine.

After that, he was called before the Warren Commission. He was now faced with a dilemma. He had sold a photo to the most powerful magazine in the US without fully disclosing all the facts about it (i.e. that the teeth had been blacked out as a joke).  Solution: state that he "thinks" the tooth was knocked out by "a big powerful footballer type". You can't be charged with perjury  for having an uncertain memory and clearly stating it is uncertain. 

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This debate is like shooting barrel in a fish. That's the great thing about following the evidence and not some ideology.

Ideology? You mean like H&L which has also been called a cult.

More from Greg Parker:

Hargrove has consistently falsely characterized Bennierita Smith's sworn testimony as a mere FBI summary. Here again is what she testified to - no "if's", "but's" or "I Think's".  "He hit Lee, and his tooth came through his lip." Unlike Voebel, her testimony was in perfect harmony with her FBI interview. Unlike Voebel, she was able to put a name to the assailant - that being Robin Riley - a younger and smaller boy than Oswald - as opposed to Voebel's vague description of an OLDER tremendous looking football player. Smith is supported by the testimony of Lillian Murret (a tooth through the lip) and the FBI interview of Dimitri Bouzon who described only a blood lip and also confirmed the Robin Riley.

Lillian Murret did testify why Oswald was taken to a dentist because of a tooth through his lip. Again, Hargrove deals with this by dissembling, claiming that my position is that Oswald was taken to a dentist to fix his lip. Maybe he could loosen his tin-foil hat long enough to countenance that the reason not the lip, but a loosened tooth which needed resetting.

The photo is the worst possible evidence since the date Riley punched Oswald is not known, is too fuzzy, may show a fat lip covering the area, may show a flaw in the film or processing... may show any number of non missing toothiness scenarios.

Larsen meanwhile is sounding more and more like a hyperventilating Josephs. Allow me to put the context back into his quote from my piece which he claims I pulled from thin air:

You were placed in class 3 if any of the following applied:

Dental caries, tooth fractures, or defective restorations where the condition extends beyond the dentinoenamel junction and causes definitive symptoms; dental caries with moderate or advanced extension into dentin; and defective restorations not maintained by the patient.

Interim restorations or prostheses that cannot be maintained for a 12-month period.

This includes teeth that have been restored with permanent restorative materials but for which protective coverage is indicated.

Chronic oral infections or other pathologic lesions including: Pulpal or periapical pathology requiring treatment. Lesions requiring biopsy or awaiting biopsy report. Emergency situations requiring therapy to relieve pain, treat trauma, treat acute oral infections, or provide timely follow-up care (e.g., drain or suture removal) until resolved. Temporary mandibular disorders requiring active treatment.

Definition of non-metallic permanent restoration:

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

According to Larsen, the 1956 records belonged to "Harvey" while the 1958 records, seeming to show a prosthethis was required, belonged to Lee.

What it really shows is that the two records belonged to the same person: Lee Oswald. We know this because in 1956, Oswald was made a "class 3" which includes anyone with a restoration or prosthethis which cannot be maintained for 12 months or has become defective. Recall that Oswald in 1956 was given sealants and instructed on how to maintain them. 

The date of 5.5.58 could simply be the date that part of the form was completed and would explain the different writing. Or it may be that the sealant failing was only on the tooth filled on 5/14/58 - with the one filled on 4/28/58 simply being another one that was found.

I should have known I had to spell it out in single syllables. The armed forces defined both sealants and prostheses as being "restorations" - as shown in my essay.  Oswald did not have a prosthetic tooth he was asked to maintain and failed to - he had sealants.  

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Greg claims that the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation (see the chart below) is referring to a sealant that was applied in 1957 and recorded on a different, earlier dental record.

It is very easy to prove Greg wrong.

The purpose of a sealing treatment is to prevent cavities. So a dentist knows that the sealant has failed when he sees the first cavity after the sealant was applied. Look at the appointment dates on the form below and you will see that the dentist treated the first cavity -- located on tooth #20 -- on April 30, 1958. So the dentist noticed on that day or earlier that the sealant failed.

And yet the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation is dated several days later. Therefore Greg is wrong.

And this isn't the only problem with Greg's silly theory. The "FAILED" notation is written in the "Prosthesis Required?" field. Which any clear-thinking individual would agree means a prosthesis failed. But Greg can't have that. So he says that the "Prosthesis Required?" field applies to both prostheses (false teeth) AND sealings. Even though they are entirely different things that serve entirely different purposes. Greg says they did this to save space on the form. That In spite of the fact that there is a large space set aside for remarks.

Of course, Greg is making this up out of whole cloth. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the form would have combined "Sealings" and "Prostheses" under a single "Prosthesis Required?" field.  How would the dentist even know to notate a failed sealing in the "Prosthesis Required?" field. This is just plain silliness.
 

 

Greg Parker replies:

My reply is unchanged from what I said in my essay:

----------------------------------

I can only add that there is no space on the form which is specific to sealants, restorations or fillings and there is no evidence of a past prosthesis, nor was the field for "ready for prosthesis" responded to.

Is it Sandy's claim that they fixed a failed prosthetic with a filling of tooth 10?

Again - restorations of teeth include, full or partial replacement (a prosthetic), crowns, bridges - and sealants. 

What treatment did Oswald have in 1956 in order to make him fit for overseas deployment? Sealants. What treatment did Oswald have that could fail if he did not carry out the required maintenance? The sealants. What was noted as having failed on 5.5.58? The sealants. What was noted on the form as the "disposition" of all of this? A filling on tooth 10. 

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But that's just one problem. You (Greg) also claim that the "Prophylaxis Required?" field applies also to sealants. You just made that up! Here in America a dental prophylaxis is a cleaning of the teeth. Period. It has nothing to do with sealants.

The ADA (American Dental Association) code for prophylaxis is D1110, whereas the code for sealant is D1351. (Check it out for yourself in this table.) According to this article on D1110 prophylaxes:

Greg Parker replies:

The only thing being made up here Sandy is your claim about what I said. Time after time, you make up quotes for me rather than simply copy and paste what I did say. You won't do that because then you have nothing you can argue against. Manufacturing Strawmen, avoidance and a long list of logical fallacies are all you have.

Here is the link again:
https://www.thenewdisease.space/single-post/2018/02/19/Adventures-in-Cold-War-Military-Dentistry-the-Associated-Paperwork-a-Subplot-in-the-Ongoing-Battle-to-Eradicate-Destructive-Outre-Historical-Theories
 

Part One proves no tooth was knocked out.

Care to address it?

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 8:53 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

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?

Greg Parker replies:

It was ONE report and two lots of Warren Commission testimony. Dimitry Bouzon did know Oswald - he just never associated with him. 
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11285&relPageId=71

He was discussing what he witnessed. And what he said (that Oswald got a blood lip) supports what Ed Voebel initially said, and what Bennierita Smith and Lillian Murret testified to (that Oswald had a tooth through his lip).

If Jim had read my piece, he would know that I did address why Oswald was taken to the dentist - Lillian Murret explained why - again - because he had a tooth through his lip. 

Jim is being disingenuous in his vague and misleading responses.  No one said said that "the only prosthesis this kid needed was liquid sealant".  What was said was that sealants and prosthetics are both classified (along with bridges etc) as "restorations" of teeth and that as such, are "lumped" together on the forms. 

By the way, your darkened tooth in the 1958 photo looks a lot like what we see in the class clown photo (that is - before it is altered via contrast settings and whatever else).

This is over. There was no tooth knocked out and no prosthetic tooth. Just like there was no "tremendous footballer" who punched Oswald - in  reality it was a dweeby little would-be actor. 

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 12:59 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Greg claims that the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation (see the chart below) is referring to a sealant that was applied in 1957 and recorded on a different, earlier dental record.

It is very easy to prove Greg wrong.

The purpose of a sealing treatment is to prevent cavities. So a dentist knows that the sealant failed when he sees the first cavity after the sealant was applied. Look at the appointment dates on the form below and you will see that the dentist treated the first cavity -- located on tooth #20 -- on April 30, 1958. So the dentist noticed on that day or earlier that the sealant failed.

And yet the "FAILED 5-5-58" notation is dated several days later. Therefore Greg is wrong.

Greg Parker replies:

The sealants were applied in 1956, not 1957, and they were recorded in the SAME dental record - that of the one and only LHO. What Sandy meant was on a  different form. Big deal. That is what RECORDS are made of - different pieces of paperwork, which together, show a complete story in chronological order. Once again, the H & L crew are trying to change language to suit their own warped claims.

Yes, the "failed" notation comes a few days after the first filling was done. Again, big deal.  Sandy himself has been claiming that assistants/clerical staff may have been filling in some of the paperwork - and sometimes paperwork is not completed simultaneously with the work done. It's like FBI interviews - I have numerous people claim FBI interviews were conducted on X date -- when the date in question was a few days after the interview when the report was actually typed up.

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

he dentist is instructed to "explain briefly" if yes, a prosthesis is required. The dentist explained by saying that an existing prosthesis failed. It failed on May 5, 1958.

A prosthesis is a false tooth. So from the dental record we know that Oswald needed a false tooth.

However, photos of the teeth (below) that were exhumed in 1981 show NO false teeth and NO SPACE where a false tooth can fit.

Therefore the 1958 Oswald and exhumed Oswald were not the same person.

In the absence of any other information, a reasonable person could read this notation and assume LHO had a false tooth. But we have plenty of other information that points away from the two Oswald scenario. I won't repeat that here since it is well known. But seriously, how does a prosthesis "fail" anyway? Did it break or what? And if it "failed" it is reasonable to assume that "Lee" had to go without one while a new one was being made. And yet not one person who knew him during this time mentioned it. And the one and only LHO received nicknames like "Ozzie Rabbit" during his service. Why was "Lee" never given the moniker of "old gap tooth" or something similar. I had a friend in school who had dentures at age 16 and was called "Gumby." People take notice of this type of thing but H&L supporters are not troubled in the least by any of this.

From Greg Parker:

---------------------------

Sealants have been used in dentistry since 1937.
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/pitfissuresealants1-120903141020-phpapp02/95/pit-fissure-sealants-1-13-728.jpg?cb=1346681486

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... Those witnesses have been brought up numerous times over the years, yet have never been addressed - only side-stepped. Bennierita Smith requests the next dance and Dimitri Bouzon would like a quiet word in their ears...

11 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Tracy,

I didn't read your paper, so I missed this nuance.    I thought Greg Parker was the first to raise the point yesterday.

This point answers Sandy Larsen with cogent logic:  sealants are classified as "restorations" the same as prosthetics.     

I hope Sandy will respond to part one of your paper.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Just to clarify, the information I quoted is from Greg Parker-I am posting for him since he is banned here at EF.

Greg Parker Replies:

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

17 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

This article that Greg Parker published today is a scholarly contribution.  The evidence he presents appears very solid.  To summarize briefly:

Very good summary Paul. I always felt an answer could be found in the LHO records but I didn't have the time to do it myself right now. Kudos to Parker for doing it.

Greg Parker has taken the time to do a definitive study of the issue. Excellent article and I encourage all to read it:

https://www.thenewdisease.space/single-post/2018/02/19/Adventures-in-Cold-War-Military-Dentistry-the-Associated-Paperwork-a-Subplot-in-the-Ongoing-Battle-to-Eradicate-Destructive-Outre-Historical-Theories

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

One thing I find curious is that the two procedures, carried out on 4/30/58 and 5/14/58, were performed by the same dentist. And yet their signatures are different. It's entirely possible that dental assistants signed for the dentist, thus accounting for the different handwriting. But it's a little odd that the first initial is incorrect on one. They should both be "G."

It's probably a conspiracy :). Seriously, this goes to the point I make above. This was dentist by committee-one guy didn't know what the next was doing. And you guys wonder why there might be a curious notation on a chart?

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't know what the significance of different handwritings would be.

The significance is that different dentists were working on LHO all the time because this occurred in a military situation. As the Norton Report stated, charting errors are common in the military. This supports the idea that whoever wrote the now infamous "failed" entry could have been misinterpreting something done by another dentist. Or as Greg points out, the entry could have been where it was simply due to lack of space to put it anywhere else. Alternate explanations as opposed to "indisputable evidence."

Another thing, a few posts back you criticize Greg's interpretation of the charts and imply that yours is somehow superior.  But Greg's reading of the chart is just as valid as yours since you are not an expert. If you were, your opinion would carry more weight.

Greg says he is retired from H&L at this point, but I'll keep an eye open for any replies he makes.

 

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?

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.

BTW, I am not "embarrassed" by anything, I am just passing the information along. But I think it shows that there are other reasonable explanations and that the assertion that the "failed" notation "indisputably" proves two Oswalds is silly. This is exactly what would happen if a qualified individual reviewed the entire case including LHO's dental history and the other relevant facts. Such a person would undoubtedly find alternate explanations.

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

17 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

With the anti-H&L group so hard at work here, I just wanted remind lurkers how strong this evidence really is.

There is no "evidence." Evidence would be a report from a forensic dentist that supports your theory. The report comes from Sandy Larsen who is biased I'm afraid.

21 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

As I keep telling you...LHO's 1958 dental exam DOES NOT state that he needed a prosthesis.   That is only your unprofessional interpretation of the word, "FAILED" in that box.

That is really all you have to go on anymore -- and it's tissue thin.   You need SOME corroboration.   Where is it?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Exactly. And he calls it "indisputable" evidence.

22 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Mytton is famous for creating misinformation. He photoshopped  the teeth behind the upper lip in the or don't you understand, Tracy?

Sure, he Photoshopped the teeth. But he is showing how the lip is covering the teeth and the general area could be in shadow or simply be concealed by something in the photographic process. The point is that there is an alternate explanation for just about everything.

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tracy,

John Mytton has merely come up with another excuse as to why we see missing teeth in the photo.

But it doesn't matter whether or not Oswald lost teeth in that fight. What matters is that his 1958 dental exam states that he needed a prosthesis. Yet his 1981 exhumation showed that he didn't have one nor did he need one.

This proves that the two Oswalds were not the same person.

The other evidence -- Ed Voebel's testimony, Aunt Lillian's testimony, and the Life Magazine photo -- combined make for strong corroborating evidence.

I know you don't like this, but these are the facts.

 

Who gets to decide what matters-the H&L people? Now that you are backing away from the photo "evidence" all you have is a notation on a dental chart. You believe that this one notation, which could have several alternate explanations, "proves" that there were two Oswalds. This is in spite of all the other evidence to the contrary that still exists. Such as what happened to "Lee" and the original Marguerite? And why didn't any one of the hundreds of individuals who knew the real Marguerite come forward after seeing the "fake" Marguerite on TV or in newspapers. And what about the HSCA photo evidence that shows the photos of "Harvey" and "Lee" are the same person?

Again, if you believe you have solved the case here, why not take it to someone in authority who can do something about it. I can answer my own question-it's because you know you haven't done anything and this would all be taken apart by anyone that lives in the real world. They would inform you that one notation in a dental chart (BTW military charts are prone to errors according to Norton) doesn't trump all of the other evidence. But continue to have your fun.

John Mytton over at Duncan Macrae's forum has solved this issue (reply #58 and #61 at the following link):

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,207.50.html

Even Sandy admitted, "That's interesting. I don't buy it because of the corroborating evidence, but it's interesting".

Bottom line-the lip is covering the teeth.