Jump to content
The Education Forum

W. Tracy Parnell

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by W. Tracy Parnell

  1. I stand by my assertion that scientists and professional investigators would not agree with the methodology of the H&L supporters. I am not going to take it to them just to satisfy you since they (nor anyone else) should not have to spend a minute on nonsense. As for "reviewing and critiquing" the H&L theory, that is what I have done since the nineties. Thankfully, I don't spend much time doing that anymore since a group of responsible CTs who are concerned that the theory is hurting legitimate inquiry into the assassination has taken on that job.
  2. No, I have polled no specific individuals. But I believe I am on solid ground by saying that these people would tell you that the theory that there were two boys is remarkable. As such, it would only be considered after other simpler explanations had been ruled out. But Jim and other believers use discrepencies in the record to make a case for 2 Oswalds while ignoring other explanations.
  3. No, the simplest explanation is not to assume there were two boys. Any investigator or scientist would tell you that is illogical. It depends on how you read the records. There is more than one way to do that and as Jonathan has pointed out, Greg Parker has provided an alternate explanation. Additionally, there are other explanations such as the records contain errors which the Armstrong supporters use to their advantage.
  4. Actually, it was 7-so what? Nick Nalli Reviews Josiah Thompson's Last Second in Dallas (onthetrailofdelusion.com)
  5. Ray and Richard, Sorry, I usually resist urges to respond in this manner but I had a weak momment.
  6. A critical review of Thompson's book by Nicholas Nalli: JFK Files: The Ghost of the Grassy Knoll Gunman
  7. I don't believe it is such. Regarding the point Jim D. makes, Garrison's office was looking for Bertrand. It is reasonable to assume that Garrison was aware of it. But Fred has admitted that is it possible he may not have been.
  8. As I have already mentioned, my purpose was not to write a critical review. I was helping a friend promote a book. If Jim or others want to criticize they may do so.
  9. Was Rose Cherami Murdered? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)
  10. Was Sergio Arcacha Smith with Rose Cherami in November, 1963? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)
  11. Anthony Summers: "I think the Cherami episode should now be consigned to the junk pile - as a red herring that one could well do without." Jim Garrison (and others) on Rose Cherami (onthetrailofdelusion.com)
  12. Did Rose Cherami Provide Invaluable Information on Dope Smuggling? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)
  13. Fred Litwin explains why it is highly unlikely that anyone heard Rose Cherami predict the JFK Assassination. Did Anybody Hear Rose Cherami Predict the JFK Assassination? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)
  14. Francis Fruge's Conversations about the JFK Assassination with Rose Cherami (onthetrailofdelusion.com)
  15. You don't have long to wait Jim. I have never been to Clinton/Jackson and I never will. I have absolutely zero interest in the subject since I don't find the claims regarding Shaw, Oswald etc. having been there to be credible. I believe that when researchers do spend time and money on a subject there is a natural human tendency to believe that they have "paid their dues" and it is then ok to speculate which is unfortunate.
  16. The adventures of Rose Cherami continue at Fred's blog: Did Rose Cherami Watch the Dallas Motorcade on Television? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)
  17. I don't know what you mean by "common elements." If you mean that those who would plan to kill JFK (assuming there was a conspiracy) might have ties to unsavory elements that is a reasonable assumption. What is not reasonable to me is that these elements would have anything to do with either Cherami or Ruby. That is if they planned to keep their plot a secret. BTW, what happened to your photo Calvin? I think that is required here.
  18. According to Fruge, Cherami said Ruby and Oswald were "bed partners" (in the literal sense). Cherami also said Oswald's nickname was "pinkey." Fruge also was the person who said that it was "verified" that Cherami stripped for Ruby. So, either Fruge is a good source on all of this or he isn't.
  19. I'll tell you what is "illogical." Believing that a woman with an extensive criminal record who was a prostitute and drug abuser and who had played loose with "facts" that she related to law enforcement officials would have any type of knowledge of an assassination plot as she claimed (or as some people said she claimed). What sort of conspiracy would trust her? She also said that Ruby and Oswald were "bed partners." Is that believable? The whole point here is that any comments she made were almost certainly after the assassination when she and many other people were speculating about the facts surrounding JFK's death. Absent some verification (and I don't mean anonymous sources) The Rose Cherami story is not believable to most people at this point in time. Yet it seems that it must be defended here with the utmost vigor.
  20. Rose Cherami week continues at Fred's blog: Did Rose Cherami Ever Work for Jack Ruby? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)
  21. There had been some speculation (with the Covid-19 thing) that Jim was ill. It is indeed good to see that he is alive and kicking, albeit still wrong.
  22. It seems that Cherami was once charged with providing false information to Police (hat tip to Steve Roe for finding the info): An Important New Find Regarding Rose Cherami (onthetrailofdelusion.com) BTW, Fred Litwin promises additional tidbits regarding Cherami at his blog.
  23. Jim D. tries to brush off Alecia Long's book (which he obviously has not read since it has not been released yet) by equating it with an article she did some time ago. Jim writes that the "ten-page article is simply a compendium of every MSM caricature of Garrison and his Kennedy case that one can imagine ..." But Long's book goes much deeper than "standard" criticisms of Garrison. As the promo material for the book states: "Tapping into the public's willingness to take seriously conspiratorial explanations of the Kennedy assassination, Garrison drew on the copious files the New Orleans police had accumulated as they surveilled, harassed, and arrested increasingly large numbers of gay men in the early 1960s. He blended unfounded accusations with homophobia to produce a salacious story of a New Orleans-based scheme to assassinate JFK that would become a national phenomenon." The book will also show that: "... the Shaw prosecution was not based in fact but was a product of the criminal justice system's long-standing preoccupation with homosexuality." So, Jim will have his hands full defending Garrison after this comes out. Edit: I'm told that the Alecia Long article that Jim criticizes may be read here: The Garrison Tactics | 64 Parishes
  • Create New...