A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Greg Parker has posted at his forum summarizing a few of the arguments rebutting the H&L theory on several issues mentioned here by Hargrove:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1571-hargrove-claiming-victory

[Jim Hargrove]

And, as always, Mr. Parnell does not summarize or even discuss the arguments here, on the JFK Assassination Debate forum, because he knows Mr. Parker's arguments will be destroyed.  Why is Mr. Parnell afraid to debate the issues?  Greg Parker's claims made at the site linked above are debunked here:

HarveyandLee.net

 

[Jim Hargrove]

I'm repeating below my post from the previous page that Mr. Parnell seems unable or unwilling to debate.

[Jim Hargrove]

On 9/18/2017 at 9:05 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

Harvey and Lee Critics Failed
   to Debunk ANYTHING
 I presented in this thread

This lengthy thread was started a half year ago when an H&L critic attempted to mock the clear fact that “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” command of the Russian language was FAR too good to be explained by his Official Biography®.  In post after post right here in this thread, I and others showed how wrong that critic was.   Eventually, the absurdity of the H&L critics’ arguments prompted Prof. James Norwood to research and write a definitive article on Oswald’s unexplained Russian language skills.  It can be read here:

http://harveyandlee.net/Russian.html

It hardly comes as a surprise that the H&L critics were unable to debunk a single one of the many examples presented in this thread proving that two young men were sharing the identity of “Lee Harvey Oswald” in the 1950s and early 1960s, all taken from information presented in John Armstrong’s book Harvey and Lee.  Among the examples the critics failed to debunk were:

• “Lee Harvey Oswald” in the fall semester of 1953 simultaneously attended PS 44 in New York City and Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans.  
• The very next year, according to brother Robert, several newspaper accounts, NYC school records and numerous eyewitnesses recorded in currently accessible YouTube interviews, Oswald attended Stripling junior high in Fort Worth while simultaneously attending PS 44 in New York City. 
• Lee Oswald’s half-brother John Pic told the Warren Commission several pictures of “Oswald,” including the famous Bronx Zoo, were not of his brother.
• In September 1958, one Oswald sailed to the South China Sea and was stationed in Taiwan while the other was treated for VD in Japan.
• In January 1961, one LHO appeared at the Bolton Ford truck dealership in New Orleans while the other was living in the USSR.
• During roughly the same period, one LHO was spotted by Marita Lorenz and others in Miami and the Florida Everglades working with anti-Castro Cubans while the other LHO was living in Minsk.
• Many existing documents indicate “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” height was 5’9” tall, while many others indicate he was 5’11”.  Hardly any show he was 5’10”.  H&L critics like to say Oswald sometimes “exaggerated” his height, as if the U.S. Marine Corps allowed it’s own soldiers to give estimates of their own heights on medical records. 
• One Oswald did not drive and only had a learner’s permit.  The other did drive and had a valid Texas driver’s license.
• One Oswald was seen by many witnesses in Dallas and with Jack Ruby in 1963 while the other Oswald was living in New Orleans.
• “Lee Harvey Oswald” according to DPD reports and civilian eyewitnesses, was arrested in the Texas Theater balcony AND on the main floor.   One was led out the theater back door, and the other out the front.
• While one LHO was elsewhere, the other was seen at the Sports Drome Rifle Range on Oct. 26, Nov. 9, Nov. 10, and again on Nov. 17, several times creating a scene and once shooting at another guy's target. A second Oswald was seen at the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership in Dallas on Nov. 2 where he test drove a car at wrecklessly high speeds saying he would soon come into enough money to buy a new car.
• While Harvey Oswald was working at the Texas Book Depository, another LHO appeared at the Irving Furniture Mart On Nov. 6 or 7 for a gun part where he was referred to the shop where Dial Ryder worked, and at the Southland Hotel parking garage (Allright Parking Systems) on Nov. 15 to apply for a job and oh-so-subtly ask how high the Southland Building was and if it had a good view of downtown Dallas.
• While Harvey Oswald was still working at the Book Depository on November 20, a second LHO was hitchhiking on the R.L. Thornton Expressway while carrying a 4-foot long package wrapped in brown paper and introducing himself to Ralph Yates as “Lee Harvey Oswald.” He discussed the President's visit, wondered if you could shoot a president, and asked to be dropped across the street from the Texas School Book Depository (where Russian-speaking “Lee Harvey Oswald” was already at work).
• Harvey and Lee and this thread have also provided many examples of how Hoover’s FBI altered witness statements about events in Dealey Plaza, altered sworn testimony of their own agents at the Warren Commission hearings, and lied about the secret transfer and alteration of “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” so-called possessions.

The critics’ failure to debunk any of the above didn’t surprise me.  Most of John’s major points about the Two Oswalds simply cannot be discounted.  Toward the end of their appearances in this thread the critics claimed, without citing any evidence at all, that  a fellow named “Greg Parker” had explained everything on another website, but they failed to show (or even summarize) those explanations here.  Had they done so, people like myself, David Josephs, Sandy Larsen, and James Norwood could have easily torn those arguments to pieces.  Of course, they didn’t have the courage to debate the issue here, claiming only that Greg Parker had all the answers.

Perhaps one or more of the H&L Hit Team will resurrect the Greg Parker excuse now, but you can bet they wont try to debate the issues here, where all can see the paucity and speciousness of their arguments.

Toward the end of this thread, at least up to this point, ONE THING ABOUT THE H&L CRITICS AMAZED ME! I’m sure it is obvious to anyone who reads the last few pages of this thread. 

Will Mr. Parnell pick a topic or two or three from above and actually DEBATE them?  Of course he won't!  He'll just post links to Greg Parker's nonsense and run away.  Why does he bother to appear on the JFK Assassination DEBATE forum if he is unwilling or unable to DEBATE?

[Michael Walton]

Parnell and others have debated endlessly Jim just as you have.

To be honest it's  tiresome for grown ups to keep telling it like is to the kids who refuse to listen.

And good see you're  taking the secret agent codes seriously  enough to shoehorn them into your funny story.

Congratulations...

[David Josephs]

15 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

You must have a really deep-seated dislike or mistrust of the government to think that they could have done the things you and others think happened with the JFK case.

And you must be one of the most naïve people on this forum...

In the midst of the BS we see every day on the news related to our government... are you really that much of a newbie that you don't see the world for what it is?

Howard Zinn introduced 2 American laws of politics:

1. Never believe anything until its been officially denied (just watch the last 2 months of news to see that axiom at work)

2. No matter how paranoid you are, what the government is doing is actually much worse than you can imagine.

(if you can't see that truth in history, I truly do not understand your world POV)

Michael... other than JFK I research and write about World history, spycraft, and the growth of the corporate government state - Ike's warning of course came true... 

Tell you what... you offer up a single significant American history-changing event that did not have conspiracy involved.. 
It's sad to think that smart people like yourself are fooled into believing what you're told is the truth...

15 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

And no one is running, David. To be honest, the silliness on this thread - though funny - can be tiresome too.  It's often like telling your kid there are no monsters in your closet but they keep going on and on and on "But, but, but...." Even kind, patient parents have a limit.

You see Michael, what you call silliness is someone else's work, focus, passion.  I've been in contact with Tom for years and while I too have a difficult time understanding, the core concept is not so hard....  spies used anagrams to communicate - agreed?  If you can't get past that statement with agreement... why bother commenting on something so outside your understanding?

Since they did use anagrams.. and Igor Vaganov has been associated with Tippit and the assassination AND Nagell was involved...  (were you aware of Vaganov to begin with?)

Why again is what Tom is doing.... so silly that you can't offer simple courtesy... especially since you offer nothing to refute any of it?

hmmm... kinda looks a little like Oswald too...

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Parnell and others have debated endlessly Jim just as you have.

To be honest it's  tiresome for grown ups to keep telling it like is to the kids who refuse to listen.

And good see you're  taking the secret agent codes seriously  enough to shoehorn them into your funny story.

Congratulations...

Right Michael and most readers are aware of this despite what Jim says. You and me, Tommy Graves, Jeremy B., Bernie L., Greg Parker, David Lifton and others have debated the issues here at EF on and off since 2015-myself as far back as the late nineties on different forums. They want the pointless (because they refuse to quit even when proven wrong) debates to continue in order to promote the H&L theory. I will check in from time to time to comment on the most egregious nonsense. But for the most part I will let them have their fun.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Will Mr. Parnell pick a topic or two or three from above and actually DEBATE them?  Of course he won't!  He'll just post links to Greg Parker's nonsense and run away.  Why does he bother to appear on the JFK Assassination DEBATE forum if he is unwilling or unable to DEBATE?

Will Jim Hargrove debate a topic of my choosing that pertains to H&L?

[Jim Hargrove]

Once again, as he has done for weeks, Mr. Parnell simply refuses to debate the issues I and others have raised here.  Instead, he posts links to other pages, pretends the issues have been debunked there, and then either runs away or attempts to change the subject.

Before I agree to a change the debate focus to the mastoidectomy or the HSCA’s so-called fingerprint and handwriting evidence, or something else of his choosing, I expect Mr. Parnell to at least ATTEMPT to do what he has refused to do for weeks, and that is to DEBATE the issues here that he pretends have been debunked elsewhere.

I don’t ask that he take on all of the issues that I have been discussing for months, such as those summarized near the top of this page.  But it has been his turn to debate at least a few of those topics for months, and he continually refuses to do so.  Why?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

6 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Once again, as he has done for weeks, Mr. Parnell simply refuses to debate the issues I and others have raised here.  Instead, he posts links to other pages, pretends the issues have been debunked there, and then either runs away or attempts to change the subject.

Before I agree to a change the debate focus to the mastoidectomy or the HSCA’s so-called fingerprint and handwriting evidence, or something else of his choosing, I expect Mr. Parnell to at least ATTEMPT to do what he has refused to do for weeks, and that is to DEBATE the issues here that he pretends have been debunked elsewhere.

I don’t ask that he take on all of the issues that I have been discussing for months, such as those summarized near the top of this page.  But it has been his turn to debate at least a few of those topics for months, and he continually refuses to do so.  Why?

As has been pointed out, several issues have been debated here at EF repeatedly. The issue I would like Jim and David to debate is the exhumation of LHO and the fact that it completely negates the H&L theory, a fact that Armstrong has addressed by completely ignoring it. My contention is debates about the issues Jim mentions are pointless since the H&L theory was debunked before it was even created. So until a more meaningful explanation (more meaningful than the Louise Robertson thing) for the exhumation issues is presented, I see no need to debate anything further. So is a new explanation forthcoming?

[Jim Hargrove]

Mr. Parnell once again clearly shows that he is unwilling or unable to debate the issues (many of which I summarized near the top of this thread) that he claims have been “debunked” elsewhere.  They have not been debunked, and Mr. Parnell, as always, wants to change the subject, this time by discussing the mastoidectomy/exhumation.

I have discussed it many times, and am willing to do so again, but not until Mr. Parnell finds the courage to debate HERE the issues he has been ducking for weeks. Posting a link to a page that does NOT debunk the issue is insufficient and is not worthy of the JFK Assassination DEBATE forum. Pick a couple of issues you say have been debunked elsewhere, Mr. Parnell, and paste the arguments here, or summarize them here, or put them in your own words here, or do SOMETHING worthy of the term DEBATE!  When you have done that, we can talk about the exhumation again.

[Sandy Larsen]

It seems to me that the only significant thing going for Harvey & Lee critics is the mastoidectomy scar reportedly found at Oswald's exhumation. Which is compelling if true. Most of their other arguments are weak or non-existent. (Tracy says there has been a lot of debunking, but that just isn't the case.)

The amount of evidence pointing to two Oswalds is so great, and the arguments against it so weak, that I have no choice than conclude that the exhumation was rigged. Especially in light of the fact that the mastoidectomy scar was not noted on Oswald's autopsy report.

 

[Bernie Laverick]

24 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Parnell once again clearly shows that he is unwilling or unable to debate the issues (many of which I summarized near the top of this thread) that he claims have been “debunked” elsewhere.  They have not been debunked, and Mr. Parnell, as always, wants to change the subject, this time by discussing the mastoidectomy/exhumation.

I have discussed it many times, and am willing to do so again, but not until Mr. Parnell finds the courage to debate HERE the issues he has been ducking for weeks. Posting a link to a page that does NOT debunk the issue is insufficient and is not worthy of the JFK Assassination DEBATE forum. Pick a couple of issues you say have been debunked elsewhere, Mr. Parnell, and paste the arguments here, or summarize them here, or put them in your own words here, or do SOMETHING worthy of the term DEBATE!  When you have done that, we can talk about the exhumation again.

Ha ha ha...Hargrove reprimanding Tracy for not debating the issues by refusing to debate the issue!! Unbelievable!

This is why we call it a cult. There's no guidance, lessons, psalms, or instructions in the Holy Book (H&L) on the exhumation, so he simply refuses to enter into a discussion. This is their Achilles heel, and Hargrove knows it. Expect a huge info dump very soon.

You've been goading Tracy for twenty pages to debate the issues "HERE" and when he finally raises the issue of the exhumation (one which COMPLETELY blows H&L out of the water) and your lack of response to that, you run away or post a link to another site instead. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Have you even the slightest iota of how embarrassing all this is for you? For the fortieth time now you have reprimanded Tracy for referring us all to Greg's links, which debunk H&L in excruciating detail, but you have no problem linking us all to Armstrong's H&L on almost EVERY post!!!

"Mr. Parnell, as always, wants to change the subject, this time by discussing the mastoidectomy/exhumation..."

But you asked him to debate the issues "HERE"!!! Here's an issue: debate it!

"When you have done that, we can talk about the exhumation again."

Oh, so we can only ask questions you think you are capable of answering. YOU will decide whether we discuss the exhumation; and only if we pass the test in debating the things YOU want us to debate. Doesn't work like that. You have the theory. It is beholden on you to explain it. An issue has been raised that if accepted relegates the entire H&L as utterly impossible. I can understand why you don't want to go there, but we do. Independent minded readers can make their own minds up as to why, all of a sudden, you no longer want to discuss the issues we raise.

Run away! Run away!!

[Jim Hargrove]

Nonsense.  I have been trying to get Mr. Parnell to debate a dozen or more issue HERE for weeks.  He refuses to do so.  Now he says he is willing to debate the exhumation, and so am I, but not until he debates at least some of the other issues HERE which he has been avoiding for months.  It is his turn to step up to the plate and go to bat for his views.  If he does so, my turn will come soon enough.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The amount of evidence pointing to two Oswalds is so great, and the arguments against it so weak, that I have no choice than conclude that the exhumation was rigged. Especially in light of the fact that the mastoidectomy scar was not noted on Oswald's autopsy report.

You are going to have to show how it was rigged. And Earl Rose admitted they could have easily missed the mastoid scar. It was behind the ear and they weren't looking for it.

Edited September 21, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell