Jump to content
The Education Forum

W. Tracy Parnell

Members
  • Content Count

    1,206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About W. Tracy Parnell

  • Rank
    Super Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,014 profile views
  1. W. Tracy Parnell

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    You have proved no such thing. You have zero expertise in the field of forensic dentistry so someone who does would have to write a paper agreeing with your theory and then publish in a peer reviewed journal. If the paper was then accepted by the peers you would have something. But when they found out who the teeth belonged to, they would not go near it with a ten foot pole because of the other evidence that disproves the H&L theory. BTW, the majority of researchers here at EF who are overwhelmingly of the CT persuasion disagree with the H&L theory and would likely disagree with your claim of "corroborating" Armstrong's research.
  2. W. Tracy Parnell

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    It is amusing to read the attacks on Fred Litwin, the majority of which are by people who have not read his book and do not intend to. I have not read the book yet, but I will and plan to do a review to be published at my website. But my understanding is that this book is as much or more a coming-of-age story than it is an analysis of the assassination. And at only 272 pages, it is unrealistic for such a book to address the myriad issues regarding JFK's death. It seems to me that many people here are afraid that others may read a book written by a former conspiracy believer and find that his reasons for "switching sides" make sense.
  3. W. Tracy Parnell

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    Good for you Michael. And let me say I wish Fred the best of luck with this book and to the doubters-what are you afraid of? Give it a chance at least.
  4. W. Tracy Parnell

    Well...it happened

    I have already discussed the eyebrows. You claim that the "fake" Marguerite had slanted eyebrows and I provided a photo which disputes that claim. I think any reasonable person understands that facial expressions can change the position of eyebrows. Thank you for providing the information about the photo. I doubt it is a photo of Marguerite, but it is possible. As I have said, if you find a photo that doesn't look like a certain individual that is not proof that there are two of that individual. It is just an anomaly. But of course, the H&L theory is built on anomalies, errors in documents and mistaken witnesses.
  5. W. Tracy Parnell

    Well...it happened

    We don't know who the woman on the left is for sure because Armstrong will not reveal the source of the photo or any information about it. He is covering up as much as his nemesis the CIA. But if it is the one and only Marguerite, it just proves that anyone can take a terrible photo from time to time. As for the eyebrows, you guys are the ones who stated the "two different women" also had differing eyebrows. But the photo in the link I posted shows one example of the "fake" Marguerite with strait eyebrows. Now you can say the photo is fake or admit that the appearance of the eyebrows may be affected by facial expression. And then your point is moot. This was all discussed last year but here you are bringing it up again.
  6. W. Tracy Parnell

    Well...it happened

    You're not going to start that again are you JIm? Debunked here: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/more-marguerite-silliness.html Her eyebrows, not surprisingly, changed with her facial expression. BTW, Micah is right, both Marguerites had the mole and as Sandy pointed out it got worse with age as defects often do.
  7. W. Tracy Parnell

    New Article by John Armstrong

    The funny thing is Robert (or the fake Marguerite) wasn't very well versed on the plot it seems, even though Armstrong believes he was in on it. This is one of the biggest points against the H&L theory-the conspirators didn't know what they were doing and kept goofing up even though the CIA would have presumably trained them so geniuses like Armstrong could not discover their handiwork years later. How many witnesses are lying? In this instance probably zero. They could be remembering an Oswald at Stripling, but if so it was Robert-after that many years the memory gets hazy. But Armstrong thinks that people remember mundane events in vivid detail years after the fact when they have no reason to. In other words, I can remember what I was doing when JFK was shot, but I don't remember the day before at all.
  8. W. Tracy Parnell

    New Article by John Armstrong

    Kudlaty was not necessarily lying. He heard White's story and then "remembered" his experience with the FBI, no doubt differently than it was because of White's influence. If Kudlaty had come forward independently, if would give greater weight to his statements. Of course, we have been over Robert's statements about Stripling before. He assumed that his brother attended Stripling. And he would have if Marguerite had not moved them to NYC. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/robert-oswald-and-stripling.html
  9. W. Tracy Parnell

    New Article by John Armstrong

    Jim, You always want to change the subject to DiMaio no matter what the subject is. But we are talking about witnesses as they relate to H&L. And you can't equate DiMaio, who is an expert even though you don't agree with him (or believe he is a member of the evil "power elite"), with the people Armstrong dug up. These are people 40 years after the fact who may or may not have even been in a position to see what they think they did.
  10. W. Tracy Parnell

    New Article by John Armstrong

    You can find a partial transcript of Lifton's interview with McBride on the Internet. It comes across IMO as very journalistic not "guns blazing" at all. And I don't remember saying DiMaio was objective-just that he was an expert.
  11. W. Tracy Parnell

    New Article by John Armstrong

    All of the discrepancies have a reasonable alternate explanation. One thing you have to understand about witnesses-especially those speaking 40 or more years later is that they are essentially worthless without collaborating evidence. Particularly true when there is other evidence that refutes them. Palmer McBride is the gold standard for what I talking about. He knew LHO and there is no doubt about that. He was just mistaken about when some of the events he witnessed took place. David Lifton interviewed McBride and did exactly what the WC would have done if he had testified-showed him documentation that proved he was mistaken. And McBride immediately recanted. But what Armstrong did and does with other witnesses is convince them they are an important part of history. And McBride was very receptive to the idea that he was not mistaken after all-who wouldn't be? So, he reversed himself. As further evidence of witness unreliability, when David Matt and Richard Sweat escaped from prison in upstate New York a few years back, police received hundreds of reports that they were in Allegany county. Turns out they had never left the Adirondack region near the prison they escaped from hundreds of miles away. Were those people lying? Some possibly were, but most were just mistaken. As for records, there will be any number of mistakes in records, especially when a family moves as much as LHO's did. 20 plus moves is a lot of opportunity for mistakes to creep into the record.
  12. W. Tracy Parnell

    New Article by John Armstrong

    Some of the witnesses probably are lying. People do it all the time for various reasons. Some are certainly mistaken-Palmer McBride comes to mind immediately and also Dr. Kurian. Another group are recent witnesses that Armstrong approached in the nineties. The problems with those witnesses are numerous. For one thing, he did not approach them with an unbiased mind. Instead of using a journalist's technique, he found them and informed them that they were witnesses to history and no doubt used leading questioning. Of course, 40 or more years had passed since the events they were trying to recall which is another problem. And then there is the case of Kudlaty who was a friend of Jack White. Kudlaty had never said a word about the FBI taking any records but when White told his story, Kudlaty suddenly "remembered" the alleged incident. This has all been discussed here many times and anyone who needs more information can do a forum search.
  13. W. Tracy Parnell

    New Article by John Armstrong

    OK, I can buy that. But how do you explain Jim and John which he apparently told the Church Committee?
  14. W. Tracy Parnell

    New Article by John Armstrong

    This is not "testimony" but rather statements he made on TV. All of this is just his own speculation and obviously fueled by books and articles that he had read (he thinks LHO was a patsy and double agent). I am doing this from memory, but to my knowledge he never made any of the statements you highlighted in his HSCA testimony. Notice he says the alleged meeting with "Bishop" was in August twice, once saying it was "perhaps the first days of September" in a nod to Fonzi whose theories had influenced him by that point. Note also Bishop is named Morris instead of Maurice and at other times he said he was Jim or John.
  15. W. Tracy Parnell

    New Article by John Armstrong

    Care to share the URL? Don't worry, I won't post anything as I'm not on Facebook. I just want to read it.
×