Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

W. Tracy Parnell

Members
  • Content count

    938
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About W. Tracy Parnell

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,363 profile views
  1. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    This is a major discovery Sandy. You now have proof (the photograph) that there were two Oswalds. When will you be taking your evidence to an investigative journalist so the world can learn of this great find?
  2. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    Sorry, but a photograph that some people believe shows a missing tooth just doesn't trump all of the scientific evidence. And many people believe in Oswald impersonators and so on but do not believe in H&L.
  3. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    Since Jim refuses to go to Greg parker's site, here is a recent post he made: Sandy Larsen wrote: For those of you who think Voebel was wrong about the tooth breaking, we have corroboration from Oswald's Aunt, Lillian Murret. Here is an excerpt from her WC testimony: "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 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." Marguerite had to take Lee to the dentist! Why would she have done that if his tooth had not been broken or knocked out? So there we have it. Voebel thought the tooth had been knocked out. Murret said that Marguerite had taken him to the dentist, obviously for that reason. And finally, we have the photo taken shortly thereafter showing the missing tooth. Or rather, notshowing the missing tooth. It's a slam dunk! [Greg Parker] THAT'S not a slam dunk! FFS! Lillian is NOT a witness for you. She is OUR witness. Who the [expletive deleted] goes to the dentist if they get a tooth knocked out unless it is to reset it or get an implant? Was it reset? Was an implant put in? Not according to you guys. At best, this blurred image may show that the tooth was knocked back and is in shadow. If that was the case, a visit to the dentist would be imperative due to the possibility of root damage or gum infection - either of which could lead to losing the tooth altogether. To give the tooth a chance to reset itself, the dentist would splint the tooth against the teeth next to it. So you are back to your interpretation of a blurred image and Voebel's QUALIFIED statement that the tooth may have been knocked out. Knock off making a positive statement out of what Voebel said - knock off trying to use a witness who is actually on OUR side and while you are at, do what Armstrong should have and address Ms Smith's testimony. Unlike Voebel, she knew the name of the person who hit Lee. She reports only - and without qualification - that the tooth went through the lip. This is supported by the autopsy which showed a scar on the lip. One Qualified witness statement and blurred photos = smoke and mirrors. ON our side, we have Ms Smith Lillian Murret No one ever claiming Lee had a missing tooth No missing teeth showing from either autopsy THIS is a slam dunk! --------------------------------- And here is another post: Jim Hargrove said: If you were a 14-year-old boy in the 1950s who got a front tooth knocked out in a fight, do you think you would have spent the rest of your life with a toothless smile? Of course not. In those days before implants, you’d get a false tooth held in place by a dental bridge. A very common procedure. As to Lillian Murret’s recollection, why on earth would a mother (who, we’re told, was practical nurse) bring her kid to a dentist for a split lip? She’d go to a doctor, like anyone else looking to get a lacerated lip treated. Greg Parker said: Jim doesn't believe that implants existed in 1954-55. From wiki The early part of the 20th century saw a number of implants made of a variety of materials. One of the earliest successful implants was the Greenfield implant system of 1913 (also known as the Greenfield crib or basket).[51] Greenfield's implant, an iridioplatinum implant attached to a gold crown, showed evidence of osseointegration and lasted for a number of years.[51] The first use of titanium as an implantable material was by Bothe, Beaton and Davenport in 1940, who observed how close the bone grew to titanium screws, and the difficulty they had in extracting them.[52] Bothe et al. were the first researchers to describe what would later be called osseointegration (a name that would be marketed later on by Per-Ingvar Brånemark). In 1951, Gottlieb Leventhal implanted titanium rods in rabbits.[53] Leventhal's positive results led him to believe that titanium represented the ideal metal for surgery.[53]
  4. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    Yes, I'm aware of that. It is also a term that anyone who is objectively looking for the facts would not use. Armstrong had a predetermined conclusion which was based on a few cherry picked "facts" and he set about finding "confirmation" for that conclusion. EDIT: Lillian Murret and the Dentist by Greg Parker: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1603-lillian-murret-the-dentist
  5. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    Sandy, Armstrong called one witness "sweetheart" and Palmer McBride "magically" changed his tune after talking to Armstrong. So call it what you want, he influences them instead of asking objective "journalist" style questions and letting them speak. Of course, Armstrong took McBride to a convention and made a "star" out of him and that is using improper influence IMO. You can read the transcript of the Lifton-McBride interview to see an example of how a witness should be questioned. As far as LHO's trip to the dentist, the point is there is no documentation. It is another witness statement out of many that Armstrong supporters use to make their case in place of the unequivocal scientific evidence.
  6. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    First, how do we know that he didn't ask about the tooth and didn't like he answer he got? We don't and John Armstrong is not a reliable person. He coaches witnesses and his book is filled with errors and logical missteps. Second, no one can "take up" anything with him since he doesn't go on forums to defend himself and his nonsensical theory. Instead, he has guys like you and Hargrove do it. Finally on Lillian, IF she actually took him to a dentist, it may have been to make sure the tooth was ok. Or maybe she took him to a doctor and just forgot. If you read her testimony, she is mixed up at times.
  7. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t227-armstrong-s-magic-tooth-and-the-facts-about-harvey-at-beauregard
  8. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    People visit cemeteries especially famous graves. Someone would notice. And don't start with the personal attacks again, you were doing good for a minute or two and they are really unnecessary.
  9. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    The condition of the casket and vault certainly does not indicate nefarious activity. It only indicates a cracked vault and I provided explanations for that. And once the vault is cracked, water will come in and the body will deteriorate. Of course, nobody can completely "rule out" your scenario that says something funny happened to the satisfaction of all. But the lack of any reports of suspicious activity around LHO's plot over the years is strongly suggestive that it did not happen. But yes, readers can decide for themselves.
  10. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    You have it backwards here David. The H&L crown is claiming something is wrong with the exhumation and you have to provide evidence to back up that claim. Not one person ever reported any trouble with the gravesite. And I provided a citation that stated that is not the case. Funeral directors want you to believe that because it is good for their business.
  11. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    Good write-up Jeremy. All of the unlikely events that would have had to occur for the exhumation to be faked don't trouble the H&L supporters. After all, they have the "proof" in dozens of mistaken witnesses and misinterpreted school records. But the "powers that be" would have had a much simpler path to keeping their secrets. They could have simply stopped the exhumation which indeed almost did not happen. There was a long legal battle between Marina and Robert with the latter trying to stop the exam. Which is odd, since he was in on the plot according to the H&L braintrust. You would think Robert would be their "ace in the hole" and would have continued to fight to stop the procedure instead of relenting as he finally did. After all, the plotters certainly had unlimited funds and power according to H&L. But as I said, these facts don't trouble them at all.
  12. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    As has been explained to you countless times, you have no evidence of a missing tooth. You have a photo in which you "see" a missing tooth because you want to. So, until you have proof of a missing tooth (not witness reports with your interpretation) you have nothing.
  13. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    A couple of problems with this scenario. First, who in the world is going to go along with a plot simply because they are told the "national security" is in jeopardy? They are not stupid, and are going to realize at that point there is a large scale JFK plot and they are a part of it. And they are going to do this for a few bucks? Also what about the secondary people such as the assistants to the doctors, the security and so on? Were they all paid off? And not one talked? We already know that people will not stay silent. Paul Groody ran around for years talking to anyone who would listen to his crackpot theories. So, if someone actually had knowledge (which they could presumably provide proof for) they would come forward and expose the plot to an investigative journalist.
  14. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    Absolutely not true. The Norton Report explained the inconsistencies in the dental charts. If you think something is wrong with the report, why not find an expert who can back you up? There were 3 or 4 instance of teeth being identical, that is how they were able to make the ID. And the "magic tooth" thing has been discussed endlessly here, nobody knows what the extent of the damage was but the probability is that he merely had a cut lip. In the famous photo, his lip is covering the tooth.
  15. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    My guess is heavy equipment used by the cemetery (causing pressure on the vault), although it could have been a simple shifting of the ground. Your source is correct to say that a casket in dry conditions could remain in good shape, but I doubt that happens in reality. From my exhumation series on McAdams' site: Indeed, the idea of a burial vault being any sort of safe haven for the deceased seems to be coming under fire. Darryl J. Roberts is a 30-year veteran of the “death care industry” who has written a whistle-blowing book that features allegations of serious price gouging by funeral homes. Roberts’ book, Profits of Death, exposes many myths about death and dying. On page 50-51 Roberts writes: “No vault is impervious to eventual disintegration, and there is very little chance of placing anything underground and having it remain waterproof. I have personally witnessed as many as forty disinterments from vaults (even those made by the leading manufacturers) that were guaranteed waterproof from which water had to be drained before they could be moved. Often, they were full of water.” Roberts continues: “It’s frequently necessary, when disinterring one of these vaults, to knock drainage holes in the bottom before it can be moved. Only then can the vault-still with the hole in the bottom-and casket be reinterred in another location.” From my article about Paul Groody: It is a fact that things like normal shifting of the ground and heavy equipment can cause vaults to break. The Wilbert Vault Company’s (the same brand LHO was buried in) own web site admits the problem and advises customers to seek: ...superior long-lasting protection against subsoil elements and the weight of heavy cemetery maintenance equipment. So, cracked vaults do happen and fairly often it would seem. One of the reasons that Groody was suspicious about the exhumation was the cracked vault. He believed his own sales pitch about the "steel reinforced vault" being nearly impervious and thus offered a lifetime guarantee. But in reality, how many people are going to dig up the grave to check the vault? Only happens during an exhumation and as Roberts points out, there are many failures.
×