I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[Ray Mitcham]

Interesting read on Debunking Gerald Posner.

http://www.assassinationweb.com/issue1.htm

[Cory Santos]

Tracy, So we agree about the evidence showing someone using his identity.  Let’s dissect it more. Why does that have to be the Harvey lee scenario. Could it not be something else? 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Cory Santos

[James DiEugenio]

Anybody who argues with Parnell from here on in does so at his own peril.

He has now shown himself to be an American version of Carlier.

Posner's book holds up quite well today?

This is a guy who taped phone calls with people who say they never talked to him.  And that did not happen just once.

He later said he would produce them.  He has not.

This is a guy who said that there was no evidence that Oswald ever knew David Ferrie.  Then PBS turns up a photo featuring both men together.

Do you know what Posner said in reply to that?  It might have been a composite done by Jim Garrison.  

First, that photo was not in Garrison's hands. Second, Garrison and Jaffe did not do composite photos for evidentiary purpose.

He then said that the Clinton-Jackson incident did not happen because the witnesses recalled different things.

This proves just what a joke Posner was and is.  Because the guy never went to either town.  He thought it all took place in Clinton.  It did not.  Jackson is a separate place about 5-10 miles apart.  If the witnesses had seen the same thing, then you had something.  And BTW, Posner missed the fact that there is a photo of this event.  He missed that one too.  But I am sure that Jerry  would have said, well it was really a composite and Parnell would have gone along with him.

I don't even want to bring up what the guy did with the ABA trial.  That was just a disgrace.

[Jim Hargrove]

15 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Hello Mister Larsen,
I have one genuine question for you : why do you think that so few conspiracy believers (or "conspiracy theorists", or "conspiracy advocates") subscribe to the "Harvey and Lee" theory ?

Are you unaware of even the basics of this case?

At a recent meeting shown on YouTube, both Peter Dale Scott and John Newman showed real openness to the concept of two Oswalds.

In his highly regarded 2008 book JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass goes on for pages and pages about two Oswalds, giving at least a dozen and probably more examples, including statements such as, “The Warren Report sought an escape route from it’s double-Oswald corner.” [p.226]  Douglass footnotes Armstrong a number of times.

Robert Groden’s The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald has a whole section entitled “Too Many Oswalds.”  The observations about two Oswalds go back to the very earliest Warren Commission critics.  In 1967 Sylvia Meagher wrote the highly respected Accessories After the Fact and had a lengthy session entitled “Two Oswalds.”

Do you SERIOUSLY THINK there’s nothing wrong with the Warren Commission biography of “LEE HARVEY OSWALD”?

Visit HarveyandLee.net to see what several people here are trying to dismiss.  Don't let others tell you what it says.  Decide for yourself.

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Hello Mister Larsen,
I have one genuine question for you : why do you think that so few conspiracy believers (or "conspiracy theorists", or "conspiracy advocates") subscribe to the "Harvey and Lee" theory ?

Francois,

For one thing, some CTers don't even believe that the assassination was a coup d'etat carried out by the CIA. And some don't believe that Oswald was a CIA operative. I don't know why they don't believe these things given the mountain of evidence pointing to them.

But be that as it may....

I believe that -- of all the of CTers who do believe that the CIA carried out the assassination, and that Oswald was a CIA agent --  a majority DO believe that there were two Oswalds, even at a young age. They may not believe everything John Armstrong believes, but they do believe there were two Oswalds, and possibly even more. In other words, that there were Oswald impersonators. Even J. Edgar Hoover and other officials believed there was an Oswald impersonator.

I've been privy to some Harvey and Lee  communications behind the scenes and I can tell you for a fact that there are a number of well known, highly-respected assassination researchers and authors who believe the H&L theory.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My two LHO teeth presentations have already been peer reviewed.

The peers I was referring to are not fellow conspiracy theorists Sandy. Facts are not determined by a bunch of conspiracy theorists on forums who agree with each other. Let me explain how it works. Back in the day, Linda Norton and 3 other experts in forensic pathology (including 2 with dental experience) presented evidence in a scientific journal that the body in the grave in Fort Worth is the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. Your "evidence" is essentially trying to refute that finding. In order to do this, you have to find an expert who agrees with your analysis and is willing to present a paper to a similar scientific journal that is then peer reviewed. But we both know that is not going to happen because any particular observation about this case is not made in a vacuum. The experts I am referring to would ask other questions about the situation as I mentioned in my last post. And when they did that, they would find other significant evidence that pointed away from 2 Oswalds. So you have proven nothing nor will you.

 

Tracy,

The problem with your argument and your insistence that I need to have a peer review done by some group of experts is this: The observations I made do not require an expert with specialized knowledge. (With the exception I noted in my post.) They require only an intelligent person willing to review what I wrote.  I am an intelligent person and there are intelligent members here on this forum. They (and any other intelligent people) ARE my peers with regard to the observations I made.

What do you expect me to do? Find a professional group of intelligent observers and submit my presentations to them?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

37 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've been privy to some Harvey and Lee  communications behind the scenes and I can tell you for a fact that there are a number of well known, highly-respected assassination researchers and authors who believe the H&L theory.

BTW, the reason *I* believe in Harvey and Lee is because of a statistical analysis I performed. It is important to understand that most of the evidence pointing to two Oswalds have unlikely, but nevertheless possible alternative explanations. For example, the school record showing Oswald taking classes at Beauregard Junior High when he was taking classes at New York P.S. #44 could have simply been a blunder made by someone at the main school office. I estimate that such a mistake could be made in one of every 10,000 school records (That's a conservative estimate... I really think the odds of that mistake happening are more like one in 100,000 or more.)

One in 10,000 is an impressive number in favor of there being two Oswalds. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So I certainly wouldn't believe there were two Oswalds based on just that one statistic.

However, if you consider ALL the evidence of two Oswalds and compute the odds that they can ALL be explained as clerical mistakes and such, you get a much smaller number. For example, if four similar clerical errors were made that are just as unlikely as the school record blunder, the odds of those mistakes happening to a single individual would be one in 10,000,000,000,000,000  (which is calculated as follows:  10,000 x 10,000 x 10,000 x 10,000 ).  Or in other words,  one in  ten thousand trillion.

NOW THOSE ARE SOME EXTRAORDINARY ODDS!  The population of the world is only 7.6 billion. If we had 1,315,789 Earths (i.e. ten thousand trillion people), odds are that there would be only ONE individual among the inhabitant of ALL of the Earths who has had four such mistakes made in their records! (I know... it's hard to believe. But math doesn't lie.)

But we have only one Earth. Which means that the odds of those anomalies in Oswalds records possibly being clerical mistakes are virtually ZERO. Any mathematician would say the same.  Some would write it this way:

1 / 10,000,000,000,000,000  ˜=  0          ( ˜= means "approximately equals.")

And that is the reason I believe there were two young Oswalds. I'd have to be a numbskull to believe otherwise.

(BTW, I'm not saying that nonbelievers are numbskulls. The reason they don't believe there were two Oswalds is because they haven't performed and understood the statistical analysis.)

 

 

Edited October 28, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

BTW Tracy, how many of the articles you have written and posted on your website have been peer reviewed by experts?

For that matter, has Posner's book been peer reviewed by experts? What about Bugliosi's?

Why is it that only my writings need to be peer reviewed by experts??  

 

Edited October 28, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

I peer reviewed Reclaiming History.

Gary Aguilar also in American Lawyer.

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

BTW Tracy, how many of the articles you have written and posted on your website have been peer reviewed?

For that matter, has Posner's book been peer reviewed? What about Bugliosi's?

Why is it that only my writings need to be peer reviewed??  

 

I wrote about Garrison’s prosecution in law school.  I had to discuss Posners criticisms. My assessment of the book wasn’t pretty. Had I published it in a law review journal there would have been a peer review Discussing his book. But I chose not to. 

Edited October 28, 2018 by Cory Santos

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I peer reviewed Reclaiming History.

Gary Aguilar also in American Lawyer.

Oh yeah, that's right. Thank god for that.

But, of course, your and Aguilar's reviews don't count according to Tracy because you are mere CTers. You aren't credentialed forensic experts. You're just a couple of guys who observed flaws in Reclaiming History and reported on them. (Maybe Tracy will give you a pass because you were able to find a publisher for your book.)

Regardless, my point was that Bugliosi didn't submit his book to some experts group to be peer reviewed. (That's my educated guess anyway, so anybody correct me if I am wrong.) But what I really want to know is why Tracy thinks my H&L work needs to be peer reviewed by experts of some kind, but his own writings don't.

 

Edited October 28, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

Nope no one peer reviewed Bugliosi's book, that is for sure.

I tried to explain this rather early in my writings.  In his introduction, Vince writes one of the most ill advised sentences in the literature.

He says that he will not present the evidence as he sees it, but as the critical community sees it and he will then dash their arguments.

As I showed in my book, if Vince had been Pinochio, he would have fallen down because his nose had grown too long and heavy.  He broke that pledge well over two dozen times in his book. To this day I do not know why he wrote it. But any smart editor would have asked him to strike it.  

Edited October 28, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Back in the day, Linda Norton and 3 other experts in forensic pathology (including 2 with dental experience) presented evidence in a scientific journal that the body in the grave in Fort Worth is the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. [Sandy's] "evidence" is essentially trying to refute that finding.

Tracy thinks that I claim to have refuted the conclusions of the Norton Report. That is simply not true. The mandate of Linda Norton's team was to determine whether or not it was Oswald's body resting in his tomb. Ultimately the team concluded that it indeed was Oswald's body.

I absolutely agree with the Norton panel's conclusion, that it was Lee Harvey Oswald's corpse in the tomb.

In addition, Tracy gives the impression that the Norton team determined that there was "one and only one Lee Harvey Oswald." (See the quote above.) Of course that is not true. Their only job was to determine whether or not the body was Oswald's.

What I do in my two presentations is point out conflicts in the dental records and x-rays supplied to the Norton team. The team wasn't checking to see if there might be two Oswalds -- certainly that possibility never even entered their minds. Nevertheless, the team did find some inconsistencies and did their best explaining why they were there.

Since such a large amount of evidence indicated that the body was indeed that of Oswald's, they shrugged off the inconsistencies they discovered by calling them "charting errors." They didn't mention in their report the more problematic inconsistencies, those being 1) the "Failed" entry in the "Prosthesis needed?" field, and 2) the lower-right molar (which they label as #31) which is clearly different in the exhumation x-ray as compared to the supposedly same molar in 1958 Marine Corps x-ray.

 

[Micah Mileto]

mole under eye

[W. Tracy Parnell]

18 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Tracy, So we agree about the evidence showing someone using his identity.  Let’s dissect it more. Why does that have to be the Harvey lee scenario. Could it not be something else? 

No, I said I can understand how people can believe there were impersonations (outside if the H&L theory) if they choose to. I don't believe there were such impersonations  other than a possible one in Mexico City by the CIA.

Edited October 28, 2018 by W. Tracy Parnell