W. Tracy Parnell

1 hour ago, John Kowalski said:

Why do you want to change our minds?

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

On 4/20/2021 at 3:21 PM, James DiEugenio said:

5.Vernon Gerdes, who used to work for Banister, said he had seen Oswald with Ferrie and Banister.

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)

On 4/22/2021 at 4:03 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Litwin wrote on, not one, but two pages of his book that Garrison was looking for Bertrand in 1963. Not possible, because the WC was not published yet. That was late in 1964.

I think we may be into semantics here. Fred explains his position on the issue this way in a blog piece:

Quote

The FBI, the Secret Service, and the New Orleans Police Department were actively looking for Bertrand. In the process, they contacted their confidential informants, the New Orleans Police Department, Tulane University, the Narcotics Squad, the Vice Squad and even the New Orleans Retailers’ Credit Bureau. Dean Andrews contacted Raymond Comstock who worked for Garrison – and he was then in touch with the FBI. It’s certainly conceivable that Garrison did not know about the search for Clay Bertrand, but given his knowledge and interest in David Ferrie, and given that one of his own key investigators was involved in the search, I find it unlikely.

More, including the documentation, here:

Fred Litwin's Follies! (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

On 4/22/2021 at 4:03 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Not an insult at all.  Just an observation of an error that would be so huge that its utterly stunning that Paul Hoch would miss it.

Just to clarify, this was an "insult" or more accurately an ad hominem attack. Here it is:

On 4/21/2021 at 3:23 PM, James DiEugenio said:

But Roe, Parnell and Hoch are not normal thinking people. 

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.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, I have little doubt Litwin relayed this false "correction" to Parnell, and Parnell printed it without looking.

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

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Litwin wrote on, not one, but two pages of his book that Garrison was looking for Bertrand in 1963.

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)

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is why Parnell's review is not in any way a piece of criticism.

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.

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

So you've drawn conclusions prior to investigation.

How does your determination to remain ignorant of the root facts of the case -- the First Day Evidence File -- lead to the conclusion of a single shooter?

A case study in intellectual dishonesty.

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.

17 minutes ago, Ty Carpenter said:

This post comes from genuine curiosity and is not meant to devolve into any sort of argument. My question is:

Why do LN'ers stay up on the case and participate in discussion of "conspiracy" theories on the case? From your point of view, if you believe LHO committed the crime on his own and believe the WC as gospel, what more is there for you to learn by staying up on current case events? Isn't the science settled in your view? As another example, I am a firm believer that the earth is round. There are those who think it is flat and argue that point. I don't feel the need to go to flat earth message boards and tell them how they are wrong or refute the latest flat earth theory. The science on that is settled in my opinion.

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)

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me add a point here.  IMO, there are no sacred idols in this case: not Meagher, not Weisberg, not anyone.

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

12 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Mr. DiEugenio, I would ask you to kindly refrain from personal insults that Tracy Parnell and I (members of this forum) are not "normal thinking people". If I have to abide by the rules of this forum, don't you think you should as well?

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

13 hours ago, Hank Sienzant said:

I see it differently. Debating the assassination with conspiracy theorists is what John McAdams would want us to do. Doing it in this thread is the best place for that. Pointing out their attempts to poison the well by attacking McAdams himself instead of his arguments is a good place to start. 

All the best.

Hank

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!

9 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

Mr. Parnell...?

 

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.

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

Is this the part were you feign shock at people saying negative things about John McAdams on a message board that discusses what a garbage investigation the Warren Commission conducted?

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

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

a unified First Day Fact Pattern.

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.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The below article is not a matter of "perceptions". 

Yes, I have read that thank you.

3 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I don't think someone who genuinely admired a great man would prod a group of people who disagree that the man was great, into criticising him so soon after his passing. 

It takes someone with a big ego and no compassion to do that. I hope that you, Mr Parnell, might reflect on this behaviour and apologise to Mr McAdam's family. 

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)

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

The "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK assassination has absolutely been invalidated by many contrary facts.  Period.

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.

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Not to belabor a point, but Uscinski could have a few good ideas, and indeed, certain elements of the public could be susceptible to conspiracy theories. 

So what?

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

16 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

The Lone Nut theory has already been invalidated by numerous contrary facts in the case.

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.

15 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

JFK suffered a shallow wound in his back and an entrance wound in his throat with no exit.

There were no rounds recovered from those wounds during the autopsy.

Those are the root facts of the JFKA. 

Y'all need to learn how to deal with 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.

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Take a look at who this guy is and what he does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Uscinski

Can TP be serious with this approach?  

 

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.