W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said: 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. No, as I said, the other "issues" are irrelevant until you show how the exhumation (and the handwriting analysis and other evidence) was faked or present a new theory that explains it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Norwood Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) On 9/20/2017 at 10:50 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said: 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. Tracy, I'm a newbie on this forum, but I have followed the threads for years, especially those pertaining to Oswald. In suggesting that the key issues surrounding Oswald have been "debated" on this forum, you are misrepresenting the notion of debate. Your idea of debate is quick rejoinders without subjecting the evidence to close scrutiny. Over and over, Jim Hargrove has invited you to debate key issues. Instead, you either (1) ignore the challenge, (2) change the subject, or (3) dismiss a post as "egregious nonsense." That is not debate. I noticed in your list above, you did not mention the name of David von Pein, who actually does present evidence to support his points about the validity of the Warren Report. Invariably, he is using evidence selectively. Yet it is still possible to have an actual debate with David von Pein. The difference with your posts and von Pein's is the gaping chasm between the scrutiny of primary evidence versus trolling. Edited September 21, 2017 by James Norwood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) Tracy, Here is the Fact sheet from Oswald's autopsy... in 2 versions... 1) shows the scars discovered as he entered the marines and how none of these scars appear on the FACT sheet. The gunshot wound is not there, the mastoid is an ancient scar yet this is how that was described in the Rose autopsy: 40 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: And Earl Rose admitted they could have easily missed the mastoid scar. It was behind the ear and they weren't looking for it Not so much Tracy.... from the Oswald autopsy report: At the upper end of ties right sternocleidomastoid over the skin is transverse very superficial 3/4 inch scratch with some reddish antiseptic type of paint surrounding this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternocleidomastoid_muscle This 3/4" 18 year old scar is a "scratch" that required antiseptic?? Sounds to me like a scratch from the Theater fight.... not an old scar. So you see they did see the mastoid area and yet did not see a 1" left mastoid scar.... but just a scratch. and 2) here is an autopsy report excerpt ... do you see anything marked "23 inches from the top of the head" that would constitute Ruby's entrance wound? or anything that says 1/4 x 5/16 inch in diameter? Seems the only scars missing are the ones that would ID him as Lee and not Harvey.... Edited September 21, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 I am not "trolling" for anything. I am a debunker and a watchdog. What Jim wants me to do is "debate" an issue that he feels he has an advantage on such as the school records. But if you have followed these threads for "years" then you know that many issues, including the school records have been debated endlessly. H&L critics have shown that the school records are simply being misread (in their opinion). The issue is a dead end since short of some person or government body that could clear up the anomalies in the records both sides will just continue to promote their views. I am still waiting for you or any H&L supporter to disprove the exhumation evidence. Short of that, the H&L theory is invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Norwood Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Tracy, David Josephs has provided an excellent overview of the exhumation topic above. Do you want to discuss the evidence he presents? Or, do want to change the subject again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=uvddAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nV8NAAAAIBAJ&pg=2830%2C1936999 Quote: I could have overlooked the scar, possibly it was under the hairline... Should Rose have asked if LHO had any childhood operations he could check for? Probably. He didn't and just missed the scar. Edited September 21, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 ...But they were looking for the scars from the mastoid operation at exhumation and they found them. What H&L critics need to show is how this examination was faked. And good luck relying on Paul Groody's nutty observations. Armstrong needs to go back to the drawing board and think up a new explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 The mastoid is not under the hairline Tracy... nor does Oswald have hair there... Rose noted the "scratch" and recent antiseptic on the left mastoid muscle... so he certainly looked at that area... But Rose would have no reason to NOT disagree with the official story... not like people who disagreed were dying or something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 The mastoid scar was behind the ear. Rose could have (and did) missed it if he wasn't specifically looking for it. The photo proves nothing as the scar would not be visible in that photo. The exhumation is rock solid proof that these was one and only one LHO. All you guys can do is say that "the government" faked it somehow. But reasonable people don't believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 17 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: The exhumation is rock solid proof that these was one and only one LHO. Not so much Tracy... Why do the Marines claim this man had 5 missing teeth yet the exhumation claims only 1, and are supported by the photos... Shouldn't there only be 2 molars per side if this is the same person as the Lee Oswald the entering Marine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Because a person's teeth change over time. The best experts in the country examined the remains and found no significant anomalies that were unexplained. Unless you are saying that you know more than they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 2 hours ago, James Norwood said: I noticed in your list above, you did not mention the name of David von Pein, who actually does present evidence to support his points about the validity of the Warren Report. I've noticed that DVP never comes to these H&L threads to debate. I'll bet it's because he knows the only thing he can turn to is the exhumation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Norwood Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: The mastoid scar was behind the ear. Rose could have (and did) missed it if he wasn't specifically looking for it. I'm with David on this one. The mastoid scar should never have been missed in a competent autopsy. Trolling Tracy would have us believe that the autopsy is the Rosetta Stone of the case. Not so, based even on the brief discussion above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 19 minutes ago, James Norwood said: I'm with David on this one. The mastoid scar should never have been missed in a competent autopsy. Trolling Tracy would have us believe that the autopsy is the Rosetta Stone of the case. Not so, based even on the brief discussion above. I agree-in a perfect world it would not have been missed. But the evidence and Rose's own admission show that is what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 23 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I've noticed that DVP never comes to these H&L threads to debate. I'll bet it's because he knows the only thing he can turn to is the exhumation. That's all anyone needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now