Not only was Oswald missing missing a molar, he was missing a front tooth as well. And yet his exhumed body was not!
Oswald was missing a front tooth, but his exhumed body was not!
New evidence is presented here.This topic has been debated before. But I have since discovered evidence that proves young Oswald had a
prosthetic (artificial) tooth, held in place with a dental bridge. This in spite of the fact that the
Oswald killed by Jack Ruby had all natural teeth and no place where a prosthetic tooth could fit. We
know this because his body was exhumed in 1981 and we can see in the exhumation photographs that his
teeth were all natural and still in place.
It is of no surprise to me that Oswald had a prosthetic tooth. After all, there is plenty of evidence
that his front incisor was knocked out in a fist fight when he was in 9th grade. Before presenting the
new evidence for the prosthesis, I will summarize the evidence for Oswald's tooth being knocked out.
Those who are aware of the missing-tooth evidence can skip over this summary.
Ed Voebel Testified that Oswald Lost a ToothEd Voebel was Oswald's best friend in 9th grade. He testified as follows before 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.
Now, it sounds as if Voebel wasn't certain Oswald got his lip cut and lost a tooth. But that probably
was not the case. After all, he explained later how some of the other boys took Oswald into the boys
restroom and patched him up. Does that sound like he wasn't sure Oswald had gotten his lip cut?
Ed Voebel used the phrase "I think" numerous times in his testimony, even in cases where he surely would
have known. Like when he said, "I think I just went on home and everybody went their way" after an
altercation that occurred the day prior. Was he really not sure he went home? And that the other boys
went their way?
Here's a sampling of Voebel's use of the phrase:
"Yes. Well, I think one of them was in the same grade as Lee."
"The fight, I think started on the school ground"
"I think John was a little smaller, a little shorter than Lee."
"Well, I think Oswald was getting the best of John"
"but I think I just went on home and everybody went their way"
"and Oswald I think, was a little in front of me"
"I think that was what brought it all about. I think this was sort of a revenge thing on the part of the
Neumeyer boys"
"I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out"
"I don't think he was that good"
"I don't think he was a great pool player"
"I think I met her one time"
"I think the legal age here is 18"
"I think in a way I understood him better than most of the other kids"
"I think they have gotten worse"
"I think we were in the same grade, I think we were."
.... and on and on. Ed Voebel said ?I think? or ?think? nearly a hundred times during his testimony. It
seems to have been a part of the way he talked.
But be that as it may, there is more evidence of a lost tooth.
Lillian Murret Testified that Oswald Went to See a DentistOswald's Aunt Lillian testified as follows before the Warren Commission:
"Another time they were coming out of school at 3 o'clock, and there were boys in back of him and one of
them called his name, and he said, "Lee," and when he turned around, this boy punched him in the mouth
and ran, and it ran his tooth through the lip, so she [Marguerite] had to go over to the school and take
him to the dentist, and I paid for the dentist bill myself, and that's all I know about that, and he was
not supposed to have started any of that at that time."
Now why would Oswald have to see a dentist if he hadn't lost a tooth?
Okay, it's conceivable that the tooth was merely loosened. However, that goes against Ed Voebel's
recollection. And besides, there is further evidence that Oswald lost a tooth. Photographic evidence and
more.
A Photo Printed in Life Magazine Shows That the Tooth is MissingOswald's 9th grade friend, Ed Voebel, was tasked with taking photos to be included in the school
yearbook. He later sold one of those photos to Life Magazine, which published the photo in their
February 21, 1964 issue. Here it is:
Here is a close up showing that Oswald's front tooth was missing. In fact, there might be two missing teeth:
It is easier to see in this contrast-adjusted version of the photo:
New Evidence: Oswald Had a Prosthetic Tooth!When we were last discussing this topic I wondered what Oswald might have done about his missing tooth.
David Josephs posted a couple of his dental charts and it occurred to me that Oswald's Marine Corps
records might indicate something about a bridge or a denture. So I dug through John Armstrong's
collection at Baylor University and numerous files at the Mary Ferrell website to see what I could find.
To my great surprise I did find something! Apparently overlooked till now. In the chart for Oswald's
dental exam dated March 27, 1958, is a field where the questions is asked, "Prosthetic Required?" The
dentist is instructed to "explain briefly" if the answer is yes. And that is precisely what Oswald's
dentist did. He wrote "FAILED 5-5-58." In other words, Oswald required a prosthesis because the one he
currently had failed on May 5, 1958. (Or maybe that was the date Oswald reported the failure.)
Here's the dental chart:
And here's a closeup of the "Prosthesis Required" field:
So, at some point in time Oswald got a prosthesis for his missing tooth, and it broke while he was in
the Marines.
Now, one might ask how we know that the prosthesis was for Oswald's front tooth, the tooth we know was
missing. My short answer would be that it doesn't really matter. Because photographs and x-rays of
Oswald's exhumed teeth show that all his teeth were natural and that there was no room for a prosthesis
to fit! (See the exhumed teeth photos below.) And so right away we realize that the Lee Harvey Oswald in
the tomb was not the same Lee Harvey Oswald who had the dental exam on March 27, 1958.
But rather than speculate that the young Oswald lost not only his front tooth but yet another -- for
which he was fitted the prosthesis -- let's keep it simple and admit that in all likelihood he got the
prosthesis for the tooth in which we have considerable evidence he lost... his front tooth. Occam's
razor calls for us to make that conclusion. (Again, not that it matters.)
There is an interesting question we might ask, though it is irrelevant to the conclusions made in this
presentation. And that is, what type of prosthesis did Oswald have? He might have had a removable
denture like this one:
Or he might have had a fixed dental bridge, like this one (except for his top front teeth, of course):
In my opinion, Oswald was fitted with a dental bridge. Because had he worn a denture, the dentist would
have asked him to remove it before his examination. And his dental chart would show a missing tooth
there, which it does not.
But the Exhumed Oswald Had no Missing or Prosthetic Teeth
The reader can see for himself that the Oswald killed by Jack Ruby had no fake teeth and no room for a
prosthesis at all. All his teeth were natural. Here are the teeth of the exhumed body:
Front View
Top Inside View
Bottom Inside View
ConclusionNo other conclusion can be drawn from this evidence other than the Oswald shot by Ruby was not the same
Oswald who lost his front tooth in a 9th grade fist fight and was thereafter fitted with a prosthesis to
replace the tooth.
In other words, the Oswald shot by Ruby was an imposter.
Given that this imposter shared the same siblings with the real Oswald, it can be concluded that he had
been an imposter since childhood. And we thereby have further proof of the Harvey and Lee story as
written about by John Armstrong.
