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

[John Butler]

On ‎5‎/‎7‎/‎2020 at 2:12 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Ron's sister-in-law is mistaken, as I will show here:

 

Why there are no written details or treatment plan for the failed prosthesis on the dental form:

It is because the dentist who was working on Oswald's teeth was a general dentist and not a prosthodontist. Nobody in the dentist's office needed to know details because he would not be the one working on Oswald's prosthesis.. The "FAILED" notation was there only to indicate that Oswald needed to see the prosthodontist to have his prosthesis taken care of. A prosthodontist is a dental specialist who deals with prostheses.

Something Ron's sister may not know is that, unlike today, it used to be that general dentists did not do prostheses. General dentists were trained in taking care of and restoring teeth (with fillings), whereas prosthodontists were specialists trained in replacing teeth (with prostheses).  (Look it up in Wikipedia if you don't believe me.)

Since then, simple prosthetic work has become mainstream and nearly all dentists do all but the more complicated cases. But there are still practicing prosthodontists who can do these.

(See the bottom of this post if you want to see evidence that prostheses were not done by general dentists, but rather by specialists in prosthetics.)

 

Why there are no marks on the record indicating that there is presently a prosthesis:

There are many kinds of dental forms and records and it is important to determine the purpose of the form used for Oswald.

The left tooth schematic instructs the dentist to mark any "Caries, Dental Disease, Missing Teeth, Abnormalities." These sound like things that can be and need to be treated. The left schematic instructs the dentist to mark "Dental Treatment Accomplished." And then there is the field asking if a dental prosthesis is required. So obviously the purpose of the form is for the dentist to identify problems and fix them. And keep a record of it. At the time of the initial exam, the existing prosthesis was in good condition. There was no need to mention it or the tooth it replaced because it need no work.

About six weeks later the prosthesis was reported as broken. It was time for Oswald to see the prosthodontist.

pros·tho·don·tics

 (prŏs′thə-dŏn′tĭks)

n. (used with a sing. verb)

The branch of dentistry that deals with the replacement of missing teeth and related mouth or jaw structures by bridges, dentures, or other artificial devices.

---

[prosth(esis) + -odont(ia) + -ics.]

---

pros′tho·don′tic adj.

pros′tho·don′tist n.

 

As indicated in the above definition, a prosthodontist is a dental specialist who deals with the replacement of missing teeth. Now lets read what Army Major Irving Peress said in his 1954 testimony before Congress:

"....Apparently I was considered the best dentist at the post there, and they needed an extra prosthodontist. And where I was doing general dentistry, which is filling and routine dentistry, they needed another man to help the prosthodontist. ....

Well, it was approximately May 1953, that the colonel called me down and said that they had been considering me -- not a promotion in rank, but a promotion in work -- to go to prosthetics and work there. It is my own opinion that I was very good. ...."

(Source:  Korean War Atrocities: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Korean War Atrocities, p. 137)

From this we can see that Major Peress was a general dentist on his base, doing fillings and routine dentistry.... not the more complicated prosthodontic work. But then he was promoted to the prosthetics department, where he and the other prosthodontist worked on dental prostheses.

As we see, the general dentist did not do prostheses. A specialist did.

 

Here's something I ran across that is really interesting:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Donabedian_Ex_1.pdf

It has this little snippet in it:

It seems like No. 1 tooth  and No. 16 missing.  Nos. 30 and 17 are missing.  X for No. 1 and no 16 does not look like an I for non-restorable teeth.  That's a total of 4 missing teeth.

Nos. 1, 16, and 17 refer to molars.  No. 30 refers to a missing pre-molar. 

This is not Harvey with one missing tooth.  This is Lee Oswald with more than one missing tooth.  There is no notation for Central or Lateral Incisors.  There can be no indication of missing incisors or a prosthesis because Harvey did not have this problem. 

This may indicate the two's records were merged badly indicating that these records are fraudulent.  This is conclusive proof that these records were forged because Harvey only had one missing tooth, No. 30, a pre-molar on exhumation in 1981.   Any indication that shows Harvey with more than one missing tooth indicates someone else, Lee in this case. 

 

A military form always has information denoting what type of form it is:

Such as this form.

Edited May 8, 2020 by John Butler

[John Butler]

You might notice on this Donabedian Exhibit No. 1 form that the dates and places of examination are unreadable.  Everything else is, but not that.

[David Josephs]

 

Not sure what the problem is here...  In the Marines we are shown he has no WISDOM TEETH... only 2 molars per side (missing 1/16/17/32), upper and lower with
tooth #30 missing from extraction

Why does the exhumed dental record, and the photo show 3 MOLARS per side, upper and lower?

 

[Greg Doudna]

I do not understand why some are claiming the LHO charts of 1956 and 1958 which show four wisdom teeth missing (#1,16,17,32) and #30 extracted, are inconsistent with the exhumation report of Norten et al. 1984 which shows all LHO wisdom teeth present and #30 extracted. In 1956 and 1958 LHO, born 10/18/39, was age 17 and age 19, respectively, whereas the exhumation examines teeth of LHO at age 24. Wisdom teeth erupt between ages 17-21 as the most common age range (https://www.healthline.com/health/why-do-we-have-wisdom-teeth#1). Norton et al. 1984 reported each of these wisdom teeth were "consistent" between the 1956, 1958, and exhumation examinations, seeing no discrepancy inconsistent with the same individual in any of those teeth. At LHO's death, age 24, the exhumation showed #1 "partially erupted" (versus not erupted earlier), #16 "partially erupted" (versus not erupted earlier), #17 "partially erupted" (versus not erupted earlier), and #32 "present" (versus not erupted earlier). These four wisdom teeth of LHO erupted some time later than age 19 yet prior to age 24, consistent with the age 17-21 range for most wisdom teeth eruptions. Norten et al noted for #1, "tooth noted as missing on several examinations and radiographs [of 1956, 1958] was actually unerupted and is not normally found in the radiographic view used" (p. 29). 

[John Butler]

The dental formula for humans is 2-1-2-3 for each quadrant of the mouth.  This means for one quadrant of the mouth you have 2 incisors, 1 canine, 2 pre-molars, and 3 molars and for 4 quadrants, upper and lower teeth, totaling 32 teeth.  This is for the average human.

This is not to say this is what you will always find.  Some times various teeth are missing.  Generally, the teeth missing most often are the 3rd molars.  Some times 1 or more will not form various reasons.

My favorite Anthropology expert from long ago said that in certain races this lack of a 3rd molar is more prevalent than other races.  Then he went on an didn't say which.  It took me years to find out that Asian races were the ones he was talking about.

All of this is to say people should have 32 teeth as part of their human heritage.  Harvey Oswald had 31 teeth with one missing tooth. 

     

and,

I don't know what these dental records could be about unless they are Lee Oswald's records.

As you can see from the exhumation photos that Harvey had all of his molars.  None were missing or had not formed. 

Lee on the other hand had 3, 3rd molars missing.  This differs from the earlier 1958 chart suggesting that 2 molar circled need to be removed.  I would guess one was removed.  And no. 32 was left alone.

 

[John Butler]

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Wisdom teeth erupt between ages 17-21 as the most common age range

Other studies say from 15 to 18.  The total range of variation is 12 years to 26 years.

Edited May 9, 2020 by John Butler

[Sandy Larsen]

On 5/7/2020 at 10:37 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Although “Lee Harvey Oswald” had been arrested for a supposedly violent confrontation in support of Fidel Castro in New Orleans just two months earlier, the entire National Security apparatus of our Federal government now seemed to just stop worrying about him. What happened next, of course, has been documented by scores of writers and filmmakers for more than half a century.

 

Jim,

I wish you would have taken your response to what Ron said and made a new thread of it, especially considering how long it is. But I won't ask you to remove it because Tracy and Jeremy didn't remove their off-topic comments when I asked them to.

Having said that, I want to make just a quick comment on something you wrote, as I quote above:

I wonder if the sole purpose of Oswald's staged fight and arrest in New Orleans was to test the national  security apparatus of the Federal Government. Food for thought.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

The anti-H&L folks haven't been able to debunk any of the evidence pointing to Oswald losing a tooth in the 9th grade. Which, if true, proves that there was an Oswald imposter at the early age of 14 or 15.

But they have come up with their best alternate explanations for the evidence. Here they are. Decide for yourself how likely their explanations are:

 

Evidence:  Oswald's ninth grade friend, Ed Voebel, testified before the WC that he witnessed a fist fight involving Oswald, and that he thought Oswald got his lip cut and lost a tooth in the fight.

Anti H&L response:  Ed Voebel was mistaken about the tooth being knocked out. (This in spite of Oswald's aunt corroborating so by testifying that Oswald was taken to a dentist.)

 

Evidence:  Oswald's aunt testified before the WC that Oswald's mother took him to see a dentist as a result of the fight.

Anti H&L response:  Oswald was taken to a dentist to get his cut lip sewed up. (i.e. not because of a lost tooth.)

 

Evidence:  A life magazine cover showing Oswald in a ninth grade classroom shows what looks like a missing front tooth.

Anti H&L response:  1) What appears to be a missing tooth is really an artifact.  Or 2) Oswald is holding a pen cap between his teeth and it is angled up just the right amount to cover only the upper teeth.

 

Evidence:  A military dental record for Oswald indicates that his dental prosthesis (false tooth) had broken. Oswald had apparently replaced his missing tooth with a false one.

Anti H&L response:  The "FAILED 5-5-58" note written in the "Prosthesis Required?" field (see below) isn't really referring to a prosthesis (false tooth). It is referring to a field to the left of the "Prosthesis Required?" field (not shown below) that asks if prophylaxis (teeth cleaning) is needed. It is marked "Yes." The "FAILED 5-5-58" note indicates that Oswald had an appointment for cleaning on 5/5/58, but missed it. Thus it was a "failed" appointment.

(This in spite of the fact that there's an appointment section at the bottom of the form where such an appointment could be noted, as well as it being missed.)

 

COMMENTS

I think that the only believable alternate missing-tooth explanation is the one given by Greg Doudna, that Oswald is holding a pen cap in his teeth. I can visualize just that when I look at the photo:

 

But despite that possibility (which may or may not be the case) the remaining evidence is very strong. Especially Ed Voebel's testimony of Oswald loosing a tooth and Oswald's aunt's testimony that Marguerite took Oswald to a dentist. These two pieces of testimony (taken under oath, no less) corroborate each other! It is very difficult to get around that. (Nobody would  take a person with a cut lip to a dentist to have it stitched.)

The prosthesis-failed evidence could conceivably be an unusual mistake that somebody made. But if we were to write it off, we would still have Ed Voebel's and the aunt's testimony, which -- again --  would be hard to get around. Because of that, I believe the prosthesis-failed evidence is simply further corroborating evidence of a missing tooth.

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[John Butler]

That's a large pen cap for such a narrow pen.  If you look close you can see the cavity the central incisor came out of in that photo.  That is as likely as a claim as large pen cap being seen there.  There is other photo evidence showing Lee Oswald had a missing tooth.  Altogether the evidence presented by Larsen is convincing evidence and would probably stand up in court.

The one thing that bothers me about Harvey's teeth is the evidence for molars coming in later in the life of Harvey Oswald which explains the missing molars in the Marine dental records.  That is a sensible point, but it can't be proven either.  Molar formation and appearance is variable during the teenage years.  You will see various estimates from when they appear.  If you take the late variation then the records can match as done in 1981.  I don't find that convincing due to what I read (if memory serves) of molar appearance is variable from 12 to 26 years.

Just as an example, I had all four 3rd molars at 19 years old when I went into the US Army.

Edited May 19, 2020 by John Butler

[Ray Mitcham]

Placing a pen cap in the gap of a missing tooth strikes me as the kind of daft thing young lad would do for a laugh.

[John Butler]

Ray,

Good point and well made.