W. Tracy Parnell

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay, so the "mob killed Hoffa" theory isn't your theory. But it is a conspiracy theory and you do believe it. Therefore, you do believe at least one conspiracy theory.

So why did you say that you don't believe in conspiracy theories?

No, I don't believe it. I suspect it could be true but I don't believe it. One day, it may be proven and then I will believe it.

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Another good review, this time from Dick Russell at whowhatwhy:

whowhatwhy is doing a series and I suspect there may be a rebuttal since their articles contain many inaccuracies. 

BTW, Litwin on Burkley:

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on Admiral George Burkley and Conspiracy Theorists (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

Okay, so you don't believe in conspiracy theories. And yet you do theorize that Jimmy Hoffa was killed by the Mafia. Which contradicts your earlier statement, and ironically makes you a conspiracy theorist.

You know what... I have a theory about you, Tracy, that explains your seeming contradiction. I suspect that you don't believe in conspiracy theories in general, but you do believe in your own conspiracy theories. Did I get that right?

 

No, I don't know who killed Hoffa and I have no theory and really don't care. He may have been killed by a mob conspiracy. But it is not a theory I promote. I am not writing books about it or posting on forums.

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

Respectfully, the above type of response is why I stopped posting here.  

Why? What is your problem with my response?

20 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Tracy just for clarification of definition, do you suspect the Jimmy Hoffa killing was the result of a conspiracy (two or more persons premeditating the murder, instead of just one)? 99.9% of other people do. Yet that has never been established in the sense of a formal finding by a court or epistemological authority. Is the belief held by the 99.9% of people who just assume Hoffa was whacked in a gangland contract killing of some sort (conspiracy) a "conspiracy theory" or a "conspiracy fact"? What do you think about the Hoffa killing and does that make you a believer in at least one conspiracy theory, in that case? If not, why not? (according to operable definitions)

Yes, I suspect Hoffa was killed by the Mafia, but I don't know that for a fact and have no proof. It could have been more than one person or just one and they could have been Mafia or not. I checked Uscinski and he has nothing on Hoffa. I suspect he would say it is a conspiracy theory until proven otherwise.

I think the problem here is that the conspiracy people take great offense at the term conspiracy theorist. They think it is a pejorative term and in some cases they are right (it depends how it is used). I believe if you read my remarks on forums and my articles that I don't have a history of calling people names. In fact, I could not exist here at EF if I did that.

I did attach the title to Morley for a couple of reasons. First, he is trying to have it both ways. He wants to say he is not a CT. But, at least lately, he has said LHO was a patsy which indicates a conspiracy by default. He has also started using some of the tactics of the more extreme CTs by attacking Alecia Long unfairly as I have alluded to.

Additionally, and most importantly, I hold Morley to a higher standard because he still wears the mantle of a journalist even though he really is not one at this point. 

So, my ire is not directed at the average guy posting on forums and certainly not at you Greg. My impression is that you play the part of a devil's advocate and lay out some of the things that you do to promote discussion. Which is fine and likely useful to many.

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Autopsy Photographs of JFK, Part Two (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

12 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Well, they are a part of history.  I mean Jesus, didn't the priest's pay Judas 30 coins of silver for a kiss?  John Wilkes Booth was the lone assassin of Abraham Lincoln, in essence the founder of the republican party.  Who had conspirators that were caught and executed.     

Yes, Uscinski notes several examples of real conspiracies in the book and differentiates between these and conspiracy theories. 

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Do you believe in any conspiracies Tracy?

No.

EDIT: Should have said I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Conspiracies have, of course, occurred in history.

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The verdict of epistemological authorities on the issue of conspiracy in the assassination of JFK therefore seems more equivocal than it is sometimes presented.

That may be true to a degree because people are naturally suspicious and amenable to conspiracies. I believe Uscinski mentioned that most people probably believe in at least one conspiracy.

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

What the heck is an "epistemological authority?" There is no such thing, as far as I can see.

The term relates to the discussion of conspiracy theories. It comes, not from me, but from Professor Uscinski, an expert on the subject. 

Uscinski explains:

"An appropriate epistemological authority, therefore, is one that is trained to assess knowledge claims in a relevant area and draw conclusions from valid data using recognized methods in an unbiased way."

Of course, I understand that just about no one here at EF believes the WC was unbiased. But Uscinski does mention Presidential commissions, congress and the FBI as examples of these authorities. So, these are the kind of authorities that the conspiracy people must convince.

The problem with having Stone as a mechanism for change is one that you have alluded to-his poor track record. JFK the film was full of falsehoods and Dave Reitzes found 100 of them. And as you say, there is at least some "nonsense" in his current documentary (I would say most of it is). So, the authorities you must convince will ignore him for this reason. 

Now, maybe your assessment of the situation is more accurate than mine and eventually the current epistemological authorities will die off and be replaced by new ones amenable to your position. Time will tell and anything is possible.

13 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The legal definition of innocent is “not guilty of a crime or offence”. Oswald was never tried or found guilty.

You misrepresent the point: the tribunals which proscribed a presumption of Oswald guilt did so without benefit of cross-examination or rebuttal. So they weren’t really a proper constituted exercise in determining the facts, in that their structure more resembled what is generally known as a “kangaroo court”.

You are correct-Oswald is "legally" innocent because he was never tried. That doesn't prove he didn't kill JFK however. 

Like it or not, the epistemological authorities in this matter have spoken. They are the WC, the HSCA, the Church Commitee, the Clark Panel, the Dallas Police, the FBI and so on. Oswald is guilty, not legally, but as a practical matter. 

Here is what you need to do to reverse that situation. For example, Jim D. thinks that Stone's new film has revealed amazing facts that the epistemological authorities should be taking note of. One of these is the statement of Sandra Spencer saying she saw a separate set of autopsy photos. These photos showed a hole in the back of JFK's head.

But the news media, which is the first epistemological authority that would need to become interested in the allegation, discounts her story. Why? Because they know witness statements are inherently unreliable. Especially those made over 30 years after the event. Now, if Spencer, or anyone, could produce the photos she allegedly saw they could be submitted for verification. If deemed legitimate, you would have something. And the media and all the authorities would be forced to act. So far, nothing like this has happened.

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Oswald was never convicted in a courtroom, so is technically legally “innocent”. The various mechanisms (i.e. the Warren Commission and mainstream media presentations) which have proclaimed Oswald’s certain guilt have relied almost entirely on prosecutor’s briefs, without benefit of a defence rebuttal or cross examination to their arguments. The cross examinations have required other forums, and are derided as “conspiracy theories”. The game being played here has been obvious for a rather long time.

Being technically legally innocent isn't the same as being innocent. And I disagree that there has been no rebuttal to the WC etc. Bugliosi calculated that as of 2007 there had been nearly 1000 books written exclusively on the assassination. Now, I've never counted but it is safe to assume that the majority of these were conspiracy oriented. Add to that Oliver Stone's enormous influence through his film JFK and his current documentary. And even people like yourself writing on JFK forums. So, all of these have functioned as a de facto defense team for Oswald. The epistemological authorities that Uscinski writes about have not been persuaded though.

25 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Jeez Louise. I started to read your article and quit about ten paragraphs in when you kept playing with the words "conspiracy theorist."

Thanks, Pat, for your comments. You are certainly one of the more reasonable (and respected) CTs. I realize the part about conspiracy theories may not be popular, but it is fact based-I went to an expert. Uscinski notes that he uses the phrase throughout his book "neutrally", but people seem to take great offense from it.  I've been called a "lone nutter" a CIA schill and other things I can't write. It's just part of the game.

Of course, I am not saying that Morley believes that 9/11 was an inside job or the moon landing was faked. I am hard on Morley because he is supposed to be a journalist and he is having a significant effect on public opinion because of the high-profile websites he often appears on. My point is that Morley wants to distance himself from the term but he really can't-he is promoting a theory that Oswald was innocent. Now, if he (or anyone) can prove it, he/they will be a hero.

Morley v. Reynolds ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on Autopsy Photographs of JFK (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Another take on the Rogan-Stone interview:

Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool over Joe Rogan's Eyes (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

4 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Excellent article and rebuttal to the Morley piece.

I wonder who put Morley up to attack Alecia Long? Oh, let me guess..........

 

Thanks Steve. It was a most curious attack by Morley indeed.

Morley and JFK Revisited ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

2 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

If Long thinks that Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Charles De Gaulle and Fidel Castro were deluded fabulists driven by homophobia, her argument is unconvincing

She doesn't. She thinks Jim Garrison was a deluded fabulist driven by homophobia. Where in the book does she mention the others?

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on Supposed CIA Support of the 1961 Coup Attempt in France (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

This part of the interrogation indicates the date was in Sept., 1959 just before Oswald left for Russia from New Orleans.  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see Robert tying this hunting trip to the "hunter" photo.

18 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

I pretty much wish Ron had not posted that, its about the saddest thing I've heard in some time - why someone would be compelled to insert a  "f you" phrase into a Santa hotline call involving their child is a pitiful and embarrassing commentary.

 

Absolutely right Larry. Have some respect for the President even if you disagree with him. Too much of that type of thing on both sides of the aisle.

Great song Ron! Merry Christmas to all.

7 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

It makes Robert ... someone who made a simple, honest mistake? Why is it that "Harvey & Lee" adherents can't possibly bring themselves to accept that there are perfectly innocent explanations for these inconsistencies?

There are other explanations for sure. Here is mine for John Butler:

The Hunter Photo ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Another example, one of the main reasons I think the film was so vehemently attacked was because it said there would have been no Vietnam War if Kennedy had lived.

You are absolutely correct. They attack the film because of the statement about the war. Because they and every person with common sense knows that it is impossible to say what would have happened. You can make the case that there would have been no war. But you can't know that with certainty any more than you can predict what the stock market will do or what lottery numbers will come in. So when you make such a blanket statement, it turns people off and they stop listening to you argument. And then it turns into a self-defeating exercise.