W. Tracy Parnell

I should mention that we did an informal poll on H&L right here at EF. This was probably back in 2017 or 2018. I don't remember the numbers but a majority of EF members (which undoubtedly lean toward conspiracy) disbelieved the theory. One interesting thing about H&L is, I was one of the people in the 1990s (there were others of course) who got the ball rolling regrading criticism of the theory. I wrote a couple of articles that appeared in the Kennedy Assassination Chronicles and ran my website. But since that time the conspiracy people have really taken over and added to the body of work debunking the theory (much to their credit) and moved far beyond my contributions. It should be mentioned that even David Josephs doesn't believe all aspects of the theory.

First, the issue of Shaw's "CIA employment" is not yet settled as explained here: Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? (onthetrailofdelusion.com) Second, the Oswald flyers were stamped 544 Camp St. as I recall. Banister had an office at 531 Camp and you could not reach his office via the 544 entrance. These facts contradict your statement that "[LHO] stamped his pro-Castro flyers with the address of the extremely rightwing Guy Banister." 544 Camp Street: Oliver Stone's JFK: The JFK 100: JFK assassination investigation: Jim Garrison New Orleans investigation of the John F. Kennedy assassination (jfk-online.com) As I have noted before, what JFK would have ultimately done regarding Vietnam is unknowable. There is evidence on both sides as explained here in a balanced and comprehensive scholarly article: Without Dallas: John F. Kennedy and the Vietnam War | American Diplomacy Est 1996 (unc.edu) Finally, many of the ARRB "revelations" in your film are based on witness statements made 30 plus years after the events such as Stringer. Despite what you think, the fact that Stringer misremembers certain events doesn't "prove" any specific theory promoted by the film. Reviewers of the film llike Weiner and others know this. That is why they have given the film a poor review.

Well said, Jonathan. There must be some researchers out there that can read Spanish.

JFK Files: Mexico’s Secret Kennedy Assassination File

Gus Russo on the 2021 Document Release ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

She is not alone in the belief that what JFK would have done about Vietnam is unknowable. Here is an excellent piece by another academic who provides both sides of the argument: Without Dallas: John F. Kennedy and the Vietnam War | American Diplomacy Est 1996 (unc.edu)

The article you linked to says it best: "Marina Oswald, Robert Oswald and Ruth and Michael Paine all told the Warren Commission in no uncertain terms that Lee Harvey Oswald did not drive an automobile and did not have a driver's license." These were the people who knew him best and I believe them. Yes, I know-you think they were "in on it." So, you and I (and the other H&L devotees) are not in agreement.

My mistake. I was thinking of the CIA Office of Security file, which was indeed seven volumes. Analysis and Opinion (aarclibrary.org) According to Mary Ferrell: "After the assassination, [the LHO 201] file became a repository for much of the CIA's investigative work, and grew into the massive file available here." Oswald 201 File (201-289248) (maryferrell.org)

Armstrong's entire book is based on inconsistencies in the record. But police, FBI and other seasoned investigators know that such inconsistencies will occur in any investigation. In a case like this where there are thousands or possibly millions of pieces of information, there will be hundreds or thousands of inconsistencies. Armstrong relies on a statment that Oswald traveled by "auto." But even he admits that the Spanish word for bus is "autobus" although he says it is "not normally" abriviated as auto. But it could have been in this case. And the WC/FBI investigation which included meticulously tracing the bus route and speaking ot witnesses who rode with LHO showed that this had to be an error. Armstrong includes other things like a newspaper article (who knows where they got it from) and a witness from Alice Texas stating that Oswald and his wife were there (they were not) driving a 1953 Chevy which we know they did not own. So, I will concede that there is "evidence" of the "car" thing beyond the document we were discussing. But I don't find any of it convincing. EDIT: Here are a few documents lending support to the "auto" thing being a mistake: showDoc.html (maryferrell.org) showDoc.html (maryferrell.org) showDoc.html (maryferrell.org)

First, let me say Steve that I am not trying to pick on you specifically. My exchanges with you have been mostly positive as I recall and that is rare here so I appreciate that. I would answer that if you could produce a document that was used as a source for this summary (regarding the "car" thing) that would be interesting. For me though, I doubt that a single document would supercede the extensive WC/FBI investigation regarding how LHO got to MC. Your opinion may differ and that is ok.

Then I assume you don't believe the "apparently by car" thing either.

One document from the CIA said that. Doesn't make it a fact. The totality of the evidence produces facts.

Number one, we don't need any type of confirmation to know the photo was not Oswald. It obviously was not and the CIA was mistaken. Number two, this, again, is not a new document. It was released in 2017-2018: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=177968#relPageId=1 Three, just because a document says "57" does not make it a fact. I believe there were 7 or 8 volumes if memory serves. You guys need to calm down. This release is a major bust.

Yes he could have. But an investigation by the WC showed that he traveled by bus and did not own a car nor did he yet have a license. Nor did they find any confederates that drove him. BTW, the "apparently by car" document is not new information. It was released in 2018: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=150210#relPageId=3 Note also the word "apparently" which means that this was suposition on the part of the writer. What this document really shows is how little the CIA knew about Oswald. As Jim D. notes, the CIA "was going nuts" trying to figure out who he was and what information they had on him.

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on Valery Giscard D'Estaing (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Exclusive: Jim Garrison Interviewed by the HSCA (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

"JFK Revisited" Star Believes in a Massive COVID Conspiracy (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on Kennedy's Back Wound (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

"JFK Revisited" alleges Oswald was "placed" (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Dr. Cyril Wecht Gets One Right (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Good catch!

Was James Gochenaur a Credible Witness in "JFK Revisited"? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister (onthetrailofdelusion.com)