W. Tracy Parnell

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

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?

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.

Reply To Sandy and Jim from Parker: ---------------------------- Here we go... the usual MO with these guys - never quoting me directly - that way they can change what I said to whatever suits them. jim hagrove wrote: But here is what I said about the surgery set down for May 14: "The correct reading of the form is "prophylaxis (treatment) needed - yes" - at some later point in time, someone else has added that this treatment failed on May 5 and he was then scheduled for some type of surgery on May 14." As you can also see, the word "severe" is not a word I used. They are just setting up the strawmen to knock down. I did not specify what type of surgery was done on 5/14. Sandy may well have it right. I didn't bother looking into it because in the scheme of things, it doesn't matter. I did say that crossbites may require surgery. That remains true, but I made no effort to claim that was the surgery he was having on the 14th. My own timeline taken from the paperwork had been: 03/27/58 Initial examination: posterior lateral crossbite and rotated tooth noted. 04/30/58 Unknown procedure undertaken. 05/05/58 procedure noted as having failed. Note made in only available space giving rise to Larsen's misreading. 05/14/58 - unknown surgery completed on this date. --------------------------------------- Note 1: The crossbite reference has no readable date but it is in the same hand as the writer of the "failed" notation which was written in May 5, 1958. Note 2: The "yes" to "prophylaxis needed is in the same hand as the "exam" notation made on March 23, 1958. https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Donabedian_Ex_1.pdf (starts on page 29) Based on the above, If Sandy wants to say that the "crossbite" notation was made on entry to the USMC in 1956, he will have to show that the dentist from stateside also went to Japan and was there in 1958 . Is Larsen also saying that Oswald had no treatment at all for the bilateral posterior crossbite? This does not correct itself. In someone still growing, an expansion devise is usually worn (in some cases, only at night) for several months. Adults can also have this, but as previously indicated, may be better advised to have surgery. The sidebar on this is that by the very nature of the treatment, the facial shape will change. I therefore can understand why Sandy and Hargrove avoided bringing the crossbite into it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894776/

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

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.

Exactly. And he calls it "indisputable" evidence.

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.

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.

Then why does it show missing teeth?

Completely false. Other explanations have been provided. You may not believe they are "reasonable" but others clearly do. The simplest reasonable alternative explanation is simply that the "failed" notation doesn't mean what you think it does. Your theory relies on a iron clad chain of events. The photo MUST show "Lee" with a missing tooth and the notation on the dental chart MUST show that "Lee" had missing teeth in the front. If either of these fail the theory is invalid. Of course, this does not even take into account all of the other common sense evidence that disproves H&L in general.

Please ask him if a dental prosthesis would be indicated in some manner or just ignored.

Yes and the left side of the chart says "Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities." But absolutely nothing is indicated for the front teeth which the H&L guys think have been replaced by a dental prosthesis. I would think a prosthesis would be an abnormality at the very least. The idea that this would not be indicated in some manner is just silly.

You are right Mervyn. Other explanations are something in the photographic process caused the dark area or that the upper lip is covering the tooth as demonstrated in a graphic by John Mytton (reply #3 first page) here: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,207.0.html Of course, the H&L people already have the explanation they are seeking so they reject all else.

I'm going to bow out of this and let you have your fun Sandy. Because that is what this is all about is your personal enjoyment in "solving" the JFK case. But you haven't done that at all. In fact, if you took a poll right here at EF (which has been done before), which is composed mostly of conspiracy believers, I'll bet the majority would still not believe in the H&L theory in spite of your new "discovery." In other words, you still have to convince people like John Newman, David Lifton and Jim Di Eugenio. As I have said repeatedly, the only way to get the H&L theory to be accepted as fact is to take your findings and all of the other "evidence" for H&L to accredited experts for evaluation. In the case of your dental findings that means forensic dentists and peer reviewed studies. But any single piece of evidence, such as the "failed" notation you are placing so much emphasis on, cannot exist in a vacuum. It will be judged against ALL of the evidence by the experts to make a determination. And when it is, the H&L theory will not stand up. Because there are alternate explanations for ALL of the anomalies that H&L is based on even if the explanation is simply there was an error made. These alternate explanations have been provided to the H&L people over and over for years. So, when you have gone through the process I described and convinced the majority of the experts that you are right, you will have something. Until that time, I have better things to do.

Bingo-a denture might be an abnormality.

I have no idea what the notation means. But there are any number of explanations, one being that the dentist simply made a notation about "something" in an improper place on the chart. In the H&L world, there is no room for human error which occurs quite frequently in real life.

It is true that there are somewhat varying methods of dental charting. But your claim that the chart would make no effort to show a denture is without foundation and doesn't make sense. At the least, they would use an "X" as they do to show other missing teeth. You say you are using "common sense" but your claims that the chart would simply ignore the alleged denture defy that.

No that will not work. Look at any high school textbook and you will see the statement that LHO killed JFK. If you want to change that fact, you have to work within the system to do it. If you can produce facts to back up your assertions, that should be no problem. In the case of H&L, there are many reasonable explanations for what you believe are facts, as in the case of the dental records we are discussing here. The experts know this and are, or would be, unpersuaded. What you are calling "indisputable proof" is in fact highly disputable.

Wrong. The purpose of a dental chart is to show the history of the patient's dentition so proper treatment can be administered. When you go to the doctor they want to know what has happened to you in the past not just what new procedures are being considered. Same with a dentist.

I have no idea what the "failed" reference means and neither do you. You think that it supports your theory but it doesn't. As I have explained, dental charts show both an "X" for the missing tooth and a line between the outline of the teeth corresponding to the tooth number of the appliance. The chart shows neither for the teeth you believe are missing. And it doesn't show an "X" to represent the missing front teeth even though an "X" is used to represent other missing teeth on the chart. As I have said repeatedly, contact someone in authority if you believe you have a breakthrough to get an expert opinion. Without that you have nothing.

And you have absolutely no proof that "Lee" had such a device. Once again, you are using your interpretation of something to support your ideas. Other than this obvious misreading of what a dentist wrote, you don't have one witness, one dental chart or any other evidence to support this. If you think I am wrong, find a qualified person that thinks this chart wouldn't show a partial denture. Once again, I challenge you to take this to a QUALIFIED person and see what they say. And then watch them run away when they find out it is Oswald as they invariably would.

First, as you say, Voebel THOUGHT Oswald might have lost a tooth. That's all-he thought it and nothing more. Same with Lillian, she thought LHO went to a dentist. But even if he did, you admit the tooth could have been just loosened. The infamous photo, as has been explained to you before, could be nothing more than an artifact in the printing process. And BTW, if LHO wore a partial denture why didn't he have it in here? Finally, your analysis of the dental chart shows precisely why you need an expert rather than an amateur to evaluate this stuff. This site explains how to indicate a complete denture (CD) or a removable partial denture (RPD) on a dental chart: http://medical.tpub.com/14275/css/Fixed-Partial-Dentures-Fpds-68.htm Mark the missing teeth as previously described [with an X]. Place a horizontal line between the outline of the teeth and the numerals designating teeth replaced by the CD or RPD So there is no indication on the chart of a partial or full denture and no evidence from anyone that LHO wore one. Therefore this "indisputable evidence" is extremely suspect.