W. Tracy Parnell

Let me say this-I'll wait until the publication of book 5 before I make a definitive statement. But in my opinion the theory is nonsense as I currently understand it.

Right David. Please allow me to add my own link: W. Tracy Parnell: The Assassination and Mrs. Paine (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

When he publishes book number 5 and if that book actually contains specifics about the assassination-i.e. who did it, how and why, he will be dead in the water. It is the easiest thing in the world to poke holes in something specific as the conspiracy people have done with the official version for years. That is why most conspiracy books are vague. Nice guy and I am sure there are many who appreciate the work he has done. but the theory (as I understand it currently) is nonsense.

When faced with anything that doesn't fit the H&L theory, they can fall back on this. Very handy.

What does the fact that they did not want Wilcott to publicly reveal potentially classified information have to do with what I said? The point is when given the opportunity under oath (and under penalty of perjury) to reveal the alleged cryptonym, Wilcott refused. BTW, for lurkers who are unaware, Jim has posted this "information" previously possibly on more than one occasion. He is renowned for his "data dumps" as Jonathan pointed out.

Thanks for the mention, Jonathan. BTW, in re-reading my article I see that Wilcott, when under oath before the HSCA, couldn't remember the cryptonym or the name of the employee who told him about it.

The Mary Ferrell Foundation website reports that the alleged cryptonym "RX-ZIM" is "speculative" and "not corroborated." Cryptonym: RXZIM (maryferrell.org) Also, there is no other cryptonym listed at MFF that begins with "RX."

Thank you Jeremy (and Jonathan) for mentioning my work and coming to my defense. First, let me say that I try and stay out of these threads because I think when a CT person (or at least an agnostic-I am unsure of the position of some) speaks out against the Armstrong theory it has more impact than my own statements as an LN do-especially here at what is essentially a CT forum. Next let me mention that I no longer have the source material that I quoted from (Denial #2). I sold all my Armstrong material years ago (at a profit I might add). I would say that my quote was almost certainly accurate though. It was my experience that Armstrong's early material was even more inaccurate than his book (if you can believe it). Jeremy has accurately represented the point I was trying to make, which I will concede is a minor one. That was written around the beginning of the anti-Armstrong movement (2002), so we were looking at everything, I guess. It is good to see that LNs and CTs alike have pointed out the absurdity of the Armstrong theories in the years since and have greatly expanded on my work. As a result, very few researchers pay much attention to the theory these days. But when it comes up, you can always rely on Jim to have a "data dump" ready to go. One other thing I do want to comment on is Sandy Larsen. A moderator is supposed to be someone with a neutral mindset. Now, we all know that everyone has bias and since we are all human beings that bias will show through. But Sandy is not even trying to hide his. I think a moderator should remember his role and temper his comments if he/she is to be effective. I don't see Sandy doing that unfortunately.

Unfortunately, this was very predictable. Anytime anyone who supported aspects of the "Oswald-did-it" mindset passes on, we see this here at EF. It is especially uncalled for coming from an individual who is supposed to be a "moderator" and as such represents the forum. Perhaps another perspective is needed: Hugh Aynesworth, R.I.P. (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Since the same arguments are repeated over and over, I'll refrain from commenting and just include this link to my series on Max Good for those who haven't seen it: W. Tracy Parnell: The Assassination and Mrs. Paine (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

You're welcome Jonathan, although my opinion of the article was much more positive than yours and Greg's.

JFK Files: November 22, 1963 - Sixty Years On

Jefferson Morley's Claims about Reuben Efron (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Fred Litwin has been engaged in a debate with Morley regarding the latter's assertions about Operation Northwoods. The following article debunks Morley's Northwoods assertions and some other dubious Morley claims: A Reply to Jefferson Morley regarding Operation Northwoods (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

You have it exactly right.

Jefferson Morley FAQ Released ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

For those wishing to dive deeper into the subject: The HSCA Acoustics Issue ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

That is correct: This document reports his reassignment: REQUEST FOR PERSONNEL ACTION FOR PHILLIPS, DAVID A (maryferrell.org) This doc indicates he started in September: CIA OP FILES ON DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS. (maryferrell.org) The next document in the same file mentions his conversation with Bissel in June of '61 when they arrived at the decision for him to go to Mexico.

More Confusion surrounding the General Walker Shooting (steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com)

Good review of a great book.

Agreed. What I would like to see Lance do is start a website (there are free options available) where his work could be available to all in a permanent format. Or, he could write a book. Either way he has some valuable contributions to make IMO.

This is exactly the situation regarding Morley and the media. There are articles available by myself, Litwin, Myers and others that cast doubt on his various claims if they would take the time to look into it. But they don't because it is too much work and a story about an "Oswald operation" is too good to pass up.

Good report Lance and I think your analysis is likely correct. Regarding Morley, he must keep reporting on these major "new documents" in order to justify his continued carping about the "secret" files that are being withheld.

Right. For a discussion of the "Shaw worked for the CIA" matter, see chapter 45 of Fred's new book. For those who don't have the book, this blog post covers much of the same material: Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Regarding Pat Speer's question on whether Fred Litwin acknowledges the work of CTs calling out other CTs we have an example of that from his current post where he quotes Pat himself: "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads Viewers on Oswald's "Hands Off Cuba!" Handbills, Part Two (onthetrailofdelusion.com) EDIT: I should also mention that Pat's name comes up 14 times in the book.