Arguments against the Harvey & Lee theory -- The missing tooth

[John Butler]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

After I had posted I found Linda E. Norton et al, "The Exhumation and Identification of Lee Harvey Oswald", Journal of Forensic Sciences 29/1 (Jan. 1984): 19-38

Sorry folks,

It seems I make the same dumb error every time I look at this without thinking:

I looked for what should be tooth 32 or the 3rd right upper molar and it appears not to be there.  There are 15 teeth in Harvey Oswald's upper mandible.  One is missing, but it is not the upper 3rd molar.  It is tooth 30 or the 1st upper right molar that is missing.  And, should be between the 2nd upper right pre-molar and the 2nd upper right molar.  It was extracted.

  

The reason for the continuous error is there is no space between the 2nd upper right pre-molar and the 2nd upper right molar.  Tooth 30 or the upper right 1st molar is missing according to the report mentioned by Greg Doudna.

The spot where I continuously make an error looks like a tooth should be there and appears malformed.  Hence the error.

It is not unknown that a 4th molar sometimes appears.  From the internet "Fourth molars or distomolars are situated distal to the third molars, they have a rudimentary shape and are usually seen as impacted teeth (⁴). Fourth molars rarely erupt into oral cavity and thus are usually discovered through radiographs"

I might add here that the eruption of a fourth molar is a very primitive trait.  The dental formula for all mammals not marsupial is 3-1-4-3 which means for one quarter of the mouth there is 3 incisors, 1 canine, 4 pre-molars and 3 molars, all together a total of 44 teeth.  This is a dental formula that is about 65-70 million years old.  The dental formula for  monkeys, apes, and humans is about 30 -35 million years old.  It is 2-1-2-3.   

Edited May 4, 2020 by John Butler

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

To Bart Kamp and Jerry Bojczuk: Obviously you don't care, but I plan to respect Sandy Larsen's request to just discuss the missing tooth evidence here.  Would you like to discuss that?

The same answer we all got when you were ersatz posting for Brian Doyle.

You don't listen.

You don't learn.

You are going on ignore.

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Bart Kamp

[Ron Ecker]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Please excuse a very trivial, basic question to this discussion from a newcomer, but: what is the evidence that the #10 incisor tooth in the Oswald exhumation photo, the tooth in between the two front incisors and the right canine (from our/viewer's point of view of the photograph)--the tooth that is shorter and looks possibly slightly lighter in color than the other teeth, in that position in the exhumation photo--is a natural tooth and not an implant?

I have no expertise in dentistry, but a cursory check with dental sites shows implants--prosthetic teeth--looking indistinguishable from natural teeth, such as these before and after photos: https://smileenvydental.com/before-after-dental-implants-atlanta/. 

If this question has been asked and answered before, I apologize.

A missing #10 incisor would explain the two photos showing the youthful Oswald missing a tooth in that position, the testimony that he lost a tooth in a fight, the dental records referring to a prosthetic that failed--and presumably would be replaced again--, the Marines photo showing a full set of teeth (this would be with implant at #10), and finally, the exhumation photo. Same Oswald, same teeth, #10 implant (prosthetic tooth). Is this too simple of a solution?

Greg,

Thanks, I think you may be right about the Civil Air Patrol photo, that is, it suggests a short tooth, not a missing one.  So even if no tooth is missing in that photo, and the oral gap or whatever it is in the classroom photo as at best unexplained, there is still the reference to a prosthetic tooth in the military record, which is supported by Voebel's recollection that Oswald may have lost a tooth (and Oswald was in fact taken to a dentist). I think Tracy Parnell attributed the broken prosthesis reference to an "error" in the military record. Well, that is easy to say. Especially if you have all your teeth. (If you have a missing tooth, you might lisp or whistle a little when you say it, I don't know.) I would say there is still evidence supporting the case of what I guess we could call the JFK-toothers that there were two Oswalds, one who was shot and buried with all the teeth that matter here and one with a missing/prosthetic tooth whose fate is unknown.

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Ron Ecker

[Greg Doudna]

I think I have a mundane explanation for the classroom photo: Oswald has the cap of an ink pen in his teeth. On the general classroom photo (not the blowup closeup of Oswald's face) on page 1 of this thread, on my computer screen, when I magnify that photo, it becomes clear that the dark spot is actually a perfect circle--a dark perfect circle against an off-white background (of the teeth). The separate blowup/closeup of the face has a more splotchy, ragged, or rough appearance without a clear perfect circle, attributable I assume to decay of the image in making that blowup. But when I magnify the general classroom image on my computer screen and look at Oswald's teeth, the dark spot is a perfect circle. That perfect circle is no missing tooth--it is something Oswald is holding between his teeth directly facing the camera, hence an end-view of the object. Oswald is holding a pen in his right hand. It must be the cap of that pen.

According to the Austin & Frey 11/27/63 interview of Voebel, Voebel said he entered the classroom to take pictures for the school yearbook and Oswald, who knew him, clowned spontaneously when he saw the camera and his friend. What else would a round--round circle--object held between Oswald's teeth be than the cap of a pen.

[John Butler]

See there folks, the problem is solved.  It is not something sharp and pointed, but round and circular.  It's the biggest cap off of the biggest pen available in 1959 or so.  But, this answer still has the problem of transparency.  If you look you can see the roof of the mouth behind Lee's left canine.  And, if you really look close there appears to be two holes there.  One large and one small. 

Oh, but look that's a small pen or pencil.  To small for a large pen cap. 

[Ron Ecker]

Whatever the object or defect is that creates the impression of a gap in Oswald's teeth in the classroom photo, one thing seems clear: it is directly below/in line with the philtrum or medial cleft of his upper lip. It can't credibly be argued that it just seems that way because of the angle of the photo, because Oswald is facing the camera, with the exception of his head being tilted back, any angle being too slight to be of significance. So the only tooth seen missing in this photo would have to be one central front tooth, , creating the gap, where two front teeth should be. Now Oswald may have been weird, but he wasn't that weird, as anyone born with one central front tooth would be in the medical literature.

 

   

[John Butler]

Ron,

I recall seeing an actress with one upper central incisor and pointed it out to my wife.  Neither one of us remember who that was.  One central incisor is genetic disease and fairly rare.

From the internet:  Solitary median maxillary central incisor syndrome (SMMCI) is a complex disorder consisting of multiple, mainly midline defects of development resulting from unknown factor(s) operating in utero about the 35th-38th day(s) from conception. It is estimated to occur in 1:50,000 live births."

I disagree on one tooth.  The gap appears big enough for two and if the leftmost tooth (screen right) from the gap is a canine, as it appears to be due to its size, then there is a two teeth gap. 

However, most folks see one tooth and it is probably best to think in terms of one tooth.

Edited May 4, 2020 by John Butler

[Mark Stevens]

3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Now Oswald may have been weird, but he wasn't that weird, as anyone born with one central front tooth would be in the medical literature.

 

   

I'm not sure if you're familiar with this.

tom cruise tooth

While that is as much of a joke as anything, people can have a shift in the alignment of their teeth which could cause one to line up in the center. I am beginning to think it could be something in his mouth or on a tooth vs. a missing tooth though.

[Ron Ecker]

15 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

I'm not sure if you're familiar with this.

tom cruise tooth

 

Well shut my mouth. No, I wasn't familiar with that. One reason being that I refuse to watch a Tom Cruise movie. (Same goes for that other Tom too.) That's interesting, thanks. All I can say is, if Oswald did have a front tooth in the center, it would be a shame to have it knocked out. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 5/3/2020 at 2:17 PM, Bart Kamp said:

Why does this crap about Harriet and Lillian need to be rehashed again and again?

 

This isn't crap Bart, it is the serious research. Kindly refrain from calling other people's research crap.

I brought it up because Tracy kept saying that the tooth evidence had been debunked. I wanted to see the debunking myself. So Tracy gave me a link. I checked it out and found lots of talk but no debunking.

 

Quote

Great 'progress' since all this crap is from research done 25 years ago, hardly anything new is added.

 

I recently found a notation on one of Oswald's military dental records that Oswald had a dental prosthesis that failed, thereby indicating he had lost a tooth. That's progress.

I also found an Oswald dental x-ray that doesn't match the official x-ray. That's progress.

 

Quote

This type of nutty CTer stuff is as dreadful as what the LNer scum brings to the table....and you will keep at it until the cows come home.

 

If you think it's "nutty," then how do you explain all the evidence for a lost tooth? Or are you, like LNers, in the habit of blowing off evidence that you find "inconvenient?"

 

Quote

....this is just BORING!

 

Nobody dragged you here.

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Welcome to the world of 'Harvey and Lee' propaganda, Bart.

 

Jeremy,

Kindly delete the material in your post which begins as quoted above. This is what I wrote in the original post:

The purpose of this thread is for members to reasonably discredit the evidence for a missing tooth.

This thread is NOT a place for members to state their opinions for or against the Harvey & Lee theory, or give reasons why the theory should or should not be explored, considered, or publicized. If anybody does so, I hope others will ask them to stop. (I will myself if I'm at the computer at the time.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

I think I have a mundane explanation for the classroom photo: Oswald has the cap of an ink pen in his teeth.

 

 

I think that the pen cap idea is a very reasonable one. If we didn't have all the other missing tooth evidence, that's what I'd say is going on in the photo. Much more likely than a film defect.

 

[Guest]

Stop trying to take the moral high ground Sandy Larsen, you may fool a few readers here but not me and quite a few others.

You do not have a thing (once again if I may add) yet at the same time throw more fuel on the Harriet and Lillian fire just to keep things going....and you seem to have overlooked the documentation I threw at you and Hargrove throwing a serious spanner into your and Hargove's workings. Or better yet prefer to ignore it as it turns this fairy tale into exactly just that: a fairy tale.

Enough already, boredom is a killer. You are going on ignore as well......life's too short.

[Sandy Larsen]

17 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

...and you seem to have overlooked the documentation I threw at you and Hargrove throwing a serious spanner into your and Hargove's workings

 

What is it in those documents that discredits the missing-tooth assertion?

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[W. Tracy Parnell]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I recently found a notation on one of Oswald's military dental records that Oswald had a dental prosthesis that failed, thereby indicating he had lost a tooth. That's progress.

You can go on Greg Parker's site and find a link to an article that offers another explanation besides mine that it is an error in the records.