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

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I believe I can clear up the question of what "FAILED 5-5-58" means in Oswald's military dental record. About an hour ago I emailed a copy of that record to my sister-in-law, who is a dentist. She emailed right back and said that she is "very confident" that FAILED 5-5-58 means that Oswald "failed" to keep an appointment on 5-5-58. Makes perfect sense! You can see in the list of three treatments that Oswald received that there is no treatment listed for 5-5-58 because... well, because he didn't show up! She says that the missed appointment was likely for the treatment that he in fact received a few days later and is listed, which was a filling.

 

I don't think so Ron. First, don't you think the dentist would make a "missed appointment" notation down in the APPOINTMENT section of the form? Of course he would. He certainly wouldn't write it in the PROSTHESIS REQUIRED?" field. Or any other designated field.

Second, who would think to write the word "failed" for a missed appointment? Virtually nobody. I think most people would write "missed" or "missed appt."

 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

16 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I believe I can clear up the question of what "FAILED 5-5-58" means in Oswald's military dental record. About an hour ago I emailed a copy of that record to my sister-in-law, who is a dentist. She emailed right back and said that she is "very confident" that FAILED 5-5-58 means that Oswald "failed" to keep an appointment on 5-5-58. Makes perfect sense! You can see in the list of three treatments that Oswald received that there is no treatment listed for 5-5-58 because... well, because he didn't show up! She says that the missed appointment was likely for the treatment that he in fact received a few days later and is listed, which was a filling.

 

 

BOOM!!!!

And so does the fairy tale of Harriet and Lillian and the missing tooth fairy end happily ever after.

 

Anti-H&L people will latch onto anything, no matter how ridiculous. I'm surprised Ron bought into this explanation.

 

[Ron Ecker]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't think so Ron. First, don't you think the dentist would make a "missed appointment" notation down in the APPOINTMENT section of the form? Of course he would. He certainly wouldn't write it in the PROSTHESIS REQUIRED?" field. Or any other designated field.

Second, who would think to write the word "failed" for a missed appointment? Virtually nobody. I think most people would write "missed" or "missed appt."

 

The "failed 5-5-58" is written on the same line where the dentist wrote "yes" to "Prophylaxis needed?" Since there was no room in that box for anything but yes or no, he then wrote in the next box "failed 5-5-58," meaning that the patient failed to appear for the needed prophylaxis. This wasn't the dentist's own designed form and he wasn't referring to a prosthesis, he was just using the space. I think that's a reasonable interpretation. But let's assume that he was referring to a failed prosthesis. Where on the chart of the patient's teeth do you see any indication of a prosthesis, failed or otherwise?

  

[Ron Ecker]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Anti-H&L people will latch onto anything, no matter how ridiculous. I'm surprised Ron bought into this explanation.

 

You're surprised that I got the opinion of a dentist? Okay.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Ron,

I do think we should take seriously the professional judgment of your sister-in-law regarding the failed prosthesis notation, but I Sandy does raise some logical objections, at least from a layman’s point of view.  I’m trying to get at least one other opinion from a professional dentist. But I have to say….

For twenty years now I have been amazed at the outrage presenting evidence for two Oswalds produces in a handful of critics.  They often justify their hatred with rationales along the lines that “outlandish” theories will give all researchers a black eye, but in truth, anyone who says the Warren Commission Report is rubbish is branded by huge portions of the mainstream media. I have always been more interested in finding the truth than in currying favor with the masses or the mass media.  Accusations of double Oswalds are widespread and nearly as old as the assassination.

So where does all anti-H&L hate come from?   It is interesting that your sister-in-law also thought the classroom photo does seem to show “a person who's missing at least one central incisor and it looks like portions of the adjacent teeth.”  While they are proclaiming victory, will the H&L critics accept that professional opinion.  Of course not!

Even if our interpretation of the failed prosthesis notation turns out to be incorrect, there is plenty of evidence for two Oswalds, including two Oswalds in the Marine Corps at the same time. Thanks again for your interest in this.
 

[Ron Ecker]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

It is interesting that your sister-in-law also thought the classroom photo does seem to show “a person who's missing at least one central incisor and it looks like portions of the adjacent teeth.”

BTW she misinterpreted the location of the photo (she refers to a medical or dental setting) because what I sent her was not the whole photo, it was a blowup of Oswald so that the "gap" in his front teeth could be seen. The whole photo wasn't big enough to discern the gap. Not that it matters re her interpretation of the gap. Anyway I've subsequently sent her the whole photo.

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I do think we should take seriously the professional judgment of your sister-in-law

And she is doing exactly what any "panel" or investigative body would do if the H&L people took their evidence to one which they won't. They would provide alternative explanations because they would quickly realize that the vast majority of the evidence supports one historical Oswald. The "magic tooth" is an understandable anomaly in a body of records numbering in the thousands. 

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

BTW she misinterpreted the location of the photo (she refers to a medical or dental setting) because what I sent her was not the whole photo, it was a blowup of Oswald so that the "gap" in his front teeth could be seen. The whole photo wasn't big enough to discern the gap. Not that it matters re her interpretation of the gap. Anyway I've subsequently sent her the whole photo.

And did you tell her that the kid who actually took the photo said the following under oath to 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. 

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

The "failed 5-5-58" is written on the same line where the dentist wrote "yes" to "Prophylaxis needed?" Since there was no room in that box for anything but yes or no, he then wrote in the next box "failed 5-5-58," meaning that the patient failed to appear for the needed prophylaxis. This wasn't the dentist's own designed form and he wasn't referring to a prosthesis, he was just using the space. I think that's a reasonable interpretation. But let's assume that he was referring to a failed prosthesis. Where on the chart of the patient's teeth do you see any indication of a prosthesis, failed or otherwise?

  

None of this appointment argument really matters.  Go to the end of this statement and you will see why.

The "failed 5-5- 58" may be on the same line, but it is not in the same section indicating something totally different.  "failed 5-5-58" doesn't refer to a failed appointment, it refers to a prosthesis failure.  Why in the world would medical information and administrative information be mixed together?  On the form is a section for appointments.  Any notation of an appointment would be made there.  There is no record of a new appointment made after each of 3 visits.

The date for this dental visit is 5-14-58.  Prophylaxis needed indicates a cleaning is needed.  No where is that cleaning scheduled for an appointment.  Most likely that cleaning was taken care on 5-14-58. 

It seems record procedures is just to list the date that something was done dentally.  There are 3 dates for visits to that particular dental office.  No appointments were scheduled on the dental record scheduling section indicating that medical information was kept separate from administrative records such as appointments.

The dental records in question for Lee Harvey Oswald have 5 x's on them.  That means 5 missing teeth.  These are the upper left and right 3rd molars.  The lower left and right 3rd molars.  and, the lower left 1st molar. 

The reason as mentioned before in other places for the missing upper teeth are that they were replaced by the prosthesis.  That doesn't really matter.  Because,

Harvey had only 1 missing tooth, tooth 30, the upper right 1st molar.

Edited May 6, 2020 by John Butler

[Ron Ecker]

29 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

And did you tell her that the kid who actually took the photo said the following under oath to 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. 

Yes.

 

[Ron Ecker]

31 minutes ago, John Butler said:

None of this appointment argument really matters.  Go to the end of this statement and you will see why.

The "failed 5-5- 58" may be on the same line, but it is not in the same section indicating something totally different.  "failed 5-5-58" doesn't refer to a failed appointment, it refers to a prosthesis failure.  Why in the world would medical information and administrative information be mixed together?  On the form is a section for appointments.  Any notation of an appointment would be made there.  There is no record of a new appointment made after each of 3 visits.

The date for this dental visit is 5-14-58.  Prophylaxis needed indicates a cleaning is needed.  No where is that cleaning scheduled for an appointment.  Most likely that cleaning was taken care on 5-14-58. 

It seems record procedures is just to list the date that something was done dentally.  There are 3 dates for visits to that particular dental office.  No appointments were scheduled on the dental record scheduling section indicating that medical information was kept separate from administrative records such as appointments.

The dental records in question for Lee Harvey Oswald have 5 x's on them.  That means 5 missing teeth.  These are the upper left and right 3rd molars.  The lower left and right 3rd molars.  and, the lower left 1st molar. 

The reason as mentioned before in other places for the missing upper teeth are that they were replaced by the prosthesis.  That doesn't really matter.  Because,

Harvey had only 1 missing tooth, tooth 30, the upper right 1st molar.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Sandy with no answer yet. Where in the chart or diagram of the patient's teeth is there any indication of a prosthesis, failed or otherwise?

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Ron Ecker
clarification

[Ron Ecker]

To answer my own question, I asked my sister-in-law the dentist: “If the patient had a prosthesis, ‘failed’ or otherwise, wouldn't be indicated on the chart or diagram of the patient's teeth, or not necessarily? And is there any such indication?”

Her reply: “Yes, it would be. And there is no indication of an existing prosthesis of any kind. There is indication of a missing functional tooth, #30, but no evidence of a planned prosthesis to replace it."

 

[Greg Doudna]

On the interpretation of the dental records identified as "OSWALD, Lee H" dated 3-27-58 with the "failed 5-8-58" notation, I checked some dentistry sites to try to understand that record and here is what I offer, in addition to Ron Ecker's sister-in-law dentist comment:

(1) The teeth of the individual of the 1958 record are the same teeth of the person of the 1981 exhumation based on matches of both dental examination and both X-rays. The evidence that the 1958 teeth and the exhumation teeth are from the same individual is brought out in Norton et al. 1984. Specifically with particular reference to Table 3 at the end, at tooth #10 an identical distal amalgam restoration; at #15 an identical "occlusal metallic restoration" at which "restorations show identical radiographic morphology"; at #20 identical "distal occlusal amalgam restoration"; identical extracted #30 tooth, the only tooth extraction in both cases. Both individuals have the same "posterior bilateral crossbite". (This statistically is ca. 2-17% incidence, per sources cited in wikipedia article "crossbite"). And the "exam and bitewing radiographs" dated March 27, 1958 and at the exhumation are consistent as the same individual according to the examiners. 

(2) Therefore since the 1958 and the 1981 are the identical individual, and there are no non-natural front or any other unnatural teeth in the exhumation, it follows there was no non-natural tooth in the individual of the 1958 record, since it is the same teeth.

(3) This means the written notation "failed 5-8-58" cannot mean a failed prosthetic on the individual of the teeth of the 1958 record, notwithstanding that it is written in a space labeled "prosthesis required", because that possibility is excluded on the basis of evidence.

(4) Proposed interpretation of notation: The 1958 record consists of two sheets or pages. The first sheet with the charting has the typed name (Oswald, Lee H) and a typed date (3-27-58). This would be the date of the creation of the record, and the first sheet would entirely be the record of that initial visit, of 3-27-58, both of what was done, and what still needed to be done after that date. The charting at the left is before treatment on that date, and the charting on the right was filled in as treatment was done, both on 3-27-58 and on two later dates. The notation in the printed-form spaces and area below the charting was written there 3-27-58, except for the notation at the bottom right dated 5/14/58. 

(5) Taking into account Ron Ecker's dentist sister-in-law's comment on making use of a form while disregarding some of the labeling on the form--something with which I am familiar in writing receipts on standard forms in business--it seems to me dental work was done on 3-27-58. The first handwritten word at the top left I think means "yes, treatment was done" that day, 3-27-58. The second notation, which is written on a line printed on the form labeled "roentgenograms" which seems to be a radiation term in x-rays, I read as "13/O", referring to tooth #13 and a capital Roman letter "O" for "occlusal", that is there was a treatment done on tooth #13 occlusal (the biting surface of the molar). (Nothing to do with radiation which is the printing on the form at that space.) This is marked on the chart on the right--the chart labeled "dental treatment accomplished"--in the dark black spot marked in the space between teeth #12 and #13. ACTUALLY Norten et al. 1984 found this was an error in 1958 and that the "occlusal amalgam restoration" was on tooth #12, supported both by visual examination in 1981 and by x-rays of both, as explained in their report. The third notation to the right of the first two, now back up on the topmost line again where blank space again permitted, notes "failed 5-5-58". While Ron Ecker's sister-in-law dentist suggested that might mean a no-show appointment, I have a different suggestion: it means "the filling failed" (reported 5-5-58). Having had fillings fail myself in the past shortly after they were done, that seems to me to be a reasonable reading of meaning of the single word "failed" following the notation "tooth #13 occlusal" which is verified to have been an amalgam filling. Not too complicated: the "13/O" indicates the filling, and "failed" indicates it failed, that is, that filling failed. 

(6) The fourth handwritten notation on p. 1, at the lower right, is the most puzzling. It reads "E.T.C. Oper.-5/14/58". What does that mean? I don't know for sure, but my guess is "emergency treatment care" related to the report of the failure (of the filling at the tooth noted). That is, as reconstructed, on 3-27-58 an amalgam filling was put in at tooth #12 (actual location per 1981 forensic analysis), charted in 1958 between tooth #12 and #13, and handwritten notation 1958 (erroneously) #13. On 5-5-58 Oswald calls reporting the filling came out ("failed"). Oswald waits until nine days later when a dentist sees him and fixes it, as noted "Oper.-5/14/58" which is in agreement with a 5-14/58 notation on p. 2 of additional work done on that date.

(7) The second sheet, which based on the fine-print italicized words "over" at the bottom of the first one, and "continued" at the top of the second, may be a photocopy of the reverse side of a single sheet, has spaces for further appointments and record of work done after the opening of the record on the first page on 3-27/58. The busy dentists or staff did not bother with filling in the appointment times part, and only recorded treatment done. This page starts at the top line with handwritten "Exams", then the date (3-27/58), then the name of the dentist. It could seem there is a slight glitch in explanation here in that if the "13/O" filling was done on 3-27-58 it is not specifically noted in line 1 of p. 2 where only "Exams" is written. But presumably that was considered already documented on the top first sheet so no need to write it in again. In any case a filling at tooth #13 (actually #12 but noted as #13) is indicated to have been done at some point on or after 3-27-58 that had not been done before then, since comparison of the before-and-after two charts shows tooth #13 unmarked in the left chart, whereas on the right chart a filling is marked between #12 and #13--and that filling is nowhere else documented on p. 2, therefore it seems the notation concerning it on the first page was considered the documentation of it.

(8) The remaining entries would be, for 4-30-58, probably a followup appointment from 3-27-58, "#20 DO CEMO AM A.R.", would be tooth #20, distal occlusal amalgam filling. I am guessing the final "A.R." could stand for "anesthesia required". The last line, dated 5-14-58, "#10-O-Am-A.R.", would be tooth #10, occlusal, amalgam filling, anesthesia required. This 5-14-58 visit would also have been when the repair was done on the failed tooth #13 amalgam filling done earlier, again not repeated on the p. 2 chart because that was already documented and dated on p. 1.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Greg Doudna
accuracy

[Greg Doudna]

<skip>

Edited May 7, 2020 by Greg Doudna
<delete photo>

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

To answer my own question, I asked my sister-in-law the dentist: “If the patient had a prosthesis, ‘failed’ or otherwise, wouldn't be indicated on the chart or diagram of the patient's teeth, or not necessarily? And is there any such indication?”

Her reply: “Yes, it would be. And there is no indication of an existing prosthesis of any kind. There is indication of a missing functional tooth, #30, but no evidence of a planned prosthesis to replace it."

Sure, but what CIA accountant James Wilcott called "the Oswald Project" was already well underway in 1958, and the USG was not going to leave such obvious evidence, especially after 11/22/63.  I intend throughout this debate to take your sister-in-law's professional opinion seriously, but despite what she says, there IS EVIDENCE OF A FAILED PROSTHESIS.

  

I still think the FAILED PROSTHESIS evidence survived because someone at the FBI didn't realize what a prosthesis was.