Indisputable Evidence for Harvey & Lee

[Bill Brown]

Bill,

Oswald apparently saw a new dentist on March 27, 1958. At that time the dentist performed an examination and reported his findings on a chart where he is instructed to show problems that needed fixing. Two cavities were found.

Oswald returned on April 30 and May 14 to have those cavities treated. The dentist reported those treatments on another chart located on the same form.

At some point in time Oswald reported to the dentist that the prosthesis had failed. The date the dentist wrote next to the failure notation was May 5. I don't know if that is the date of the failure, or if it is the date Oswald reported it, or both. But as you can see, the dentist was still adding information to the form up through May 14.

It appears to me that this same form would be marked up as long as Oswald was seeing that particular dentist. He wouldn't get a new form with each exam.

Thanks for the clarification, Sandy.  Much appreciated.

[Bill Brown]

What do you make of this, Sandy?

https://books.google.com/books?id=psRyCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=oswald+lost+tooth&source=bl&ots=7xfQ3hYnsU&sig=0x_ZcvE_N4BQ6eHy7zrEF3xKtGA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU6KCynZjZAhXRuFkKHfYqDxAQ6AEIZzAM#v=onepage&q=oswald%20lost%20tooth&f=false

[John Mytton]

My apologies.... the top two of the four Oswald photos you posted earlier are LEE. I thought they were HARVEY.

So the photos you have morphed above are all of LEE.

Who's who in the Zoo?

Could you post a photo of LEE next to HARVEY?


Btw isn't a patient dental chart supposed to show what's going on with your teeth like fillings, damage, prosthetics and etc?,



You know just in case of an unidentifiable Marine body the dental records can be used for identification but Oswald's dental record reflect that of an 18 year old man with reasonably good and no missing front teeth?



And while we're at it, if Oswald required Prosthetics wouldn't the dentist would write yes and then detail the work required?





JohnM

[John Mytton]

Oswald's dug up top teeth show a tooth that sticks out and in Oswald's school photo he is stretching his top lip over this stuck out tooth and we can see the respective distortion and resulting specular highlight. 







JohnM

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Paul,

Here's a very simple question for you:

How do you explain that, according to his 1958 dental record, Oswald had a prosthesis (false tooth). But the exhumed Oswald had all natural teeth and no room for a prosthesis?

I am not going to get into a big debate here with you Sandy since that is already happening over at EF:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24630-indisputable-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-front-tooth-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not-new-evidence-found/

But I will point out that your claim that LHO had a partial denture is based solely on your interpretation of something written on his dental chart. You them conveniently ignore the fact that the chart does not show the alleged denture. As I explained to you at EF, it is usually indicated with an "X" and a line between the outline of the tooth and the number of the teeth that were replaced. The chart does indeed show other teeth that are missing with an "X." But there is neither an "X" or a horizontal line indicated for the front teeth you believe were missing.

As for the photo, I agree with the posters here that say the tooth was simply covered by the upper lip-that has always ben my feeling. Another explanation is it is simply an artifact of the photographic process. But the point is there are no witnesses-none- to LHO wearing a denture or partial denture. And the fact that "Lee" is underrepresented in photographs allows the H&L crowd to get way with murder in this instance and many others.

[Steve Thomas]

Here's one that shows that LEE did smile showing his teeth. (LEE's on the left.)  (Which kinda blows your theory.) In fact, this one looks a lot like the one of him showing the lost tooth when he was younger:

Sandy,

I once read that ears are as unique as fingerprints. I don't know if that is true or not, but do you have any way of rotating that picture on the left so that the left ears are superimposed?
To my untrained eye, it doesn't look like they would match.

Steve Thomas

[Paul McBrearty]

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.

Oswald was not fitted with a dental bridge. See the dental symbol for a dental bridge in the following chart. If he was fitted with a dental bridge then Oswald's dental chart would have shown a symbol identical or similar to what is depicted in this diagram.



Also the testimony which you have presented is very vague and therefore cannot be relied upon. The image of Oswald at school with the so called missing tooth is very grainy and also cannot be relied upon. As I have already stated the Harvey and Lee theory is a complete fabrication and pardon the pun is completely of the charts.

[Sandy Larsen]

What do you make of this, Sandy?

https://books.google.com/books?id=psRyCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=oswald+lost+tooth&source=bl&ots=7xfQ3hYnsU&sig=0x_ZcvE_N4BQ6eHy7zrEF3xKtGA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU6KCynZjZAhXRuFkKHfYqDxAQ6AEIZzAM#v=onepage&q=oswald%20lost%20tooth&f=false

Bill,

That is a book by Greg Parker, one in his series on Lee Harvey Oswald. Greg absolutely hates John Armstrong, the author of the Harvey & Lee book. He and Jim Hargrove (a Harvey & Lee believer with a website on the subject) have had numerous debates over the years on the Harvey & Lee thesis.

The things Greg wrote on the page you linked to are covered in my presentation (in Post #1).

After studying the evidence myself and watching the debates for months, I determined that Greg Parker is wrong. There is simply too much evidence for the two Oswalds for it to be a fluke. Though Greg claims that he debunks the evidence, I have seen almost none of that. Jim Hargrove almost always gets the better of him.

So far Greg hasn't said a word about the latest evidence I have presented. Like most the other evidence, it is impossible to explain. I mean with reasonable explanations.

Greg and his allies usually have to resort to saying that the evidence is nothing more than clerical errors. I'm sure that that is what he's going to claim about the dental prosthesis evidence I found, which supports the missing front tooth evidence. He'll just say that that prosthesis notation was accidentally written on Oswald's chart.

Greg will have us believe the following are all true:

1. Oswald's friend was wrong when he recalled that the tooth had fallen out.
2. Oswald's Aunt took him to the dentist to get his cut lip treated.
3. The missing tooth in the photo is a flaw in the film.
4  And, that prosthesis notation belonged on somebody else's chart.

He actually wrote #2 in his book. It's a ridiculous thing to say, so let's change it to something reasonable:

2. Oswald's Aunt took him to the dentist because the tooth was loosened. But it ultimately healed on it's own.

In a future presentation I will compute the odds against all of those things happening to a single person whose been hit on the mouth. I will show how unlikely it would be that those four things would just happen to happen to someone, making it look like the person lost a tooth when in fact he did not.