Jim Hargrove Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said: 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. Jim, You've evaded my question again. The photograph you extol -- in any reproduction, but especially the blow-up -- shows that Lee Harvey Oswald was missing at least 2.5 teeth. How do you explain that? Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: And BTW, yes Paul Trejo, we do see that it looks like two teeth are missing. We've commented on that numerous times. I'll bet I even mentioned it in my presentation. Do you think we're trying to hide that? Sandy, It's not two, it's easily more than two. Please comment on the blowup -- one could fit more than 3 teeth in that space. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 21, 2018 Author Share Posted February 21, 2018 36 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 21, 2018 Author Share Posted February 21, 2018 7 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: Sandy, It's not two, it's easily more than two. Please comment on the blowup -- one could fit more than 3 teeth in that space. Regards, --Paul Trejo I'm sorry, Paul. To me it looks like two teeth. At first I thought it was one. However, suppose for a moment it is indeed 2 1/2 missing teeth. When bridgework is made, the tooth on either side of the missing tooth or teeth is used to anchor (abut) the false tooth or teeth between them. If there was enough of that missing 1/2 tooth remaining, the dentist would have used it for one of the anchors (abutments). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 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=71He 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) 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. Edited February 22, 2018 by Jim Hargrove Misspelled "Tracy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) What are the chances that this photograph was altered -- not recently -- but way back in 1964, or when it was presented to LIFE magazine. Could it be a hoax? Or what about the chances that this photograph was altered (retouched) way back in 1954, in middle-school, as a teenage prank? I ask because I still haven't received a good explanation for the photograph showing 2.5 teeth missing -- instead of one tooth. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited February 21, 2018 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 22, 2018 Author Share Posted February 22, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: 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. 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: The American Dental Association's description for Prophylaxis.... is: "A dental prophylaxis performed on transitional or permanent dentition, which includes scaling and polishing procedures to remove coronal plaque, calculus, and stains.” Avoiding dental parlance, this simply means....using dental tools and polishing procedures to remove plaque, tartar and stains from the portion of the tooth that extends above the gumline. Give it up Greg. Your explanation is nothing but a pile of nonsense. Edited February 22, 2018 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 23 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Part One proves no tooth was knocked out. Care to address it? Sure.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Seems to me the teeth from the exhumation does not show a recessed front tooth like the photo. Guess I'm wondering why the teeth of the exhumed do not match the Marine's records.... but not really as we all should understand by now that the preponderance of evidence shows the existence of these two people since 1952... One also has to wonder how the southern born Oswald never spoke with a southern accent.... So many little things that continue to add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now