W. Tracy Parnell

Obviously, because I believe there was no conspiracy. Of course, you are free to ignore me and believe what you want.

What is your source for this statement? Fred has a source that says something different: Q: Have you ever seen Lee Harvey Oswald? A: No, not in connection with Banister. He lived a few doors from my wife's grandmother. In a follow-up interview, Gerdes again said that he had never seen LHO at Banister's office or 544 Camp. Why is Jim refusing to answer this? Did Vernon Gerdes See Oswald with Ferrie and Banister? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

I think we may be into semantics here. Fred explains his position on the issue this way in a blog piece: More, including the documentation, here: Fred Litwin's Follies! (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Just to clarify, this was an "insult" or more accurately an ad hominem attack. Here it is: That is an attack on the individuals not on the idea. Now, it doesn't bother me and I understand that Jim D. will get away with it since this is his "home field." But I just want to make sure everyone knows about it.

Wrong, I didn't realize it was in the caption so I missed it.

That is not correct. By my reading, the second reference you mention is regarding the 66-67 investigation. As for the first reference, yes, Fred thinks that Garrison probably knew about Bertrand in '63 since the FBI and the Secret Service did: The Search for Clay Bertrand (onthetrailofdelusion.com) I will admit that it is not a critical review. Fred is a friend who I wanted to help. The purpose of the review was to call attention to what I consider a good book and give the reader an idea about what they can expect if they but it. If someone wants to to write a critical review (as you did) fine. As for Hoch, I know you have a history with him, but he is unquestionably one of the foremost experts and I don't think your criticism of him is warranted.

Drawn conclusions prior to investigation-no. I studied the case in general from about 1984 to 1995 before drawing a conclusion. Since then I specialized in Oswald, his exhumation, the John Armstrong theory and now the Maurice Bishop affair. So things like the single bullet theory or the autopsy are not as fresh in my mind as they used to be. And I am too lazy (and too busy) to research the current arguments just to post here. As for the "First Day Evidence File" I think you should call it the Cliff Varnell First Day Evidence File since not everyone agrees with you.

I hope to change people's minds about a conspiracy but admittedly that doesn't happen that often, although my work on John Armstrong was the final straw that brought noted researcher Dave Reitzes over to the LN side. Long Division: One Researcher, Ten Months and Two Oswalds (jfkassassination.net) In addition to the John Armstrong theory, I have been able to influence some regarding the exhumation of Oswald, and more recently the Maurice Bishop matter. If there was a conspiracy, it could be uncovered more quickly by having researchers focus on issues other than the ones I have mentioned and things like the three tramps and so on. Some conspiracy researchers recognize this and have thanked me publicly or privately.

My Final Word on Wynne Johnson ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

Presumably, Jim D. still has one "sacred idol"-Garrison.

Yes, it sounds like one of those ad hominem attacks that John McAdams allegedly made but that they presumably are above.

You make a very good point. In my defense, I would say that many of the areas touched on by this thread are not my area of expertise. I have been devoted to studying the life of Oswald until recently when I got sidetracked into a study of the Maurice Bishop affair which I am writing a book on. Time is precious so I don't argue with the CTs as much as I probably should. But I have cooked up a big batch of popcorn and I am enjoying it while you dismantle their arguments as Von Pein used to do here before they found a way to get rid of him. Great job sir!

I just provided a link to the article. If Fred wants to respond here (or elsewhere) he will. BTW, if you read Fred's piece he notes that there are many things that Jim is ignoring.

I am signing off on this thread because I fear that it is giving too much publicity to the nasty comments about McAdams and I don't want that. Besides, everyone has made their points.

No, I am not shocked but I hoped the responses would at least be muted. And you shouldn't be surprised that I responded.

Who has unified it? Where is it published and have all JFK researchers signed off on it? I can answer that-no because some CTs believe LHO killed JFK as part of a larger conspiracy.

Yes, I have read that thank you.

That's just silly. I came on to pay my respects on the second post of the thread and then there were 8 consecutive derogatory posts about McAdams. Only then did I engage the individuals.

Most people see bias in the media of one kind or another. In fact, Uscinski addresses this if I remember correctly. The bias that you and Jim D see would probably differ from my own perceptions.

Fred Litwin has a new blog article rebutting Jim D's recent attacks: Fred Litwin's Follies! (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

If your statement is a fact, it should be a simple matter to present this to the proper authorities to gain a new investigation. But the reality is that the majority of media, academia, scientists and so on do not agree with your statement. Now, in an effort to dismiss me, perhaps you are going to say that you subscribe to the Jim D. theory that there is a world-wide conspiracy by the media (and perhaps others) to cover up your facts. So, you have simply created a new conspiracy to explain why the old one is not recognized.

Well, we'll see what I come up with.

Contrary facts do not disprove a theory. Professional investigators, attorneys etc. know that there will be facts pointing toward a certain conclusion as well as facts that do not seem to confirm it.

But epistemological authorities (as Uscinski refers to them) do not agree with you. It is those authorities that you have to convince-not me or other LNs or even CTs. That will be the thesis of my piece.

As I said, he studies conspiracy theories of all types. But I think it would be interesting to apply his work to the JFK case specifically (which he really does not do to any extent). I am kicking around the idea now.