W. Tracy Parnell

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Of course, Mr. Parnell simply has no choice but to say this obviously well educated and generous man was lying to us.

I have already explained that he in not "lying" in the traditional sense of the word. But his "remembrances" occurred after he was coached by White/Armstrong. If Mr. Kudlaty had approached authorities, or anyone for that matter, in 1963 after the alleged confiscation of records took place his story might carry more weight. But whatever happened (if it was anything at all) he wasn't concerned enough about it at the time to say anything to anyone. Journalist Nick Patoski looked into the tale and while he knew Kudlaty and respected him, he realized it went nowhere without verification. That's what happens when experienced investigators and journalists look into something like H&L.

If Mr. Kudlaty had done what would be normal for anyone (much less the school principal) to do in such a situation-get a receipt for the alleged confiscated items-his story would carry more weight. But his story only emerged AFTER being coached by the creators of the H&L nonsense. What likely happened is that the FBI approached Kudlaty or someone at the school and asked if there were any records relating to LHO and was told that there weren't. But after hearing White's tales, Kudlaty "remembered" the "confiscation" of records. The suggestion was placed in his mind.

In the end, Kudlaty has absolutely no confirmation for his story. He is not lying, but rather is the victim of a propogandist.

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

School records indicate that Oswald took classes full time at Public School 44 in NYC. For the very same period of time, other school records indicate that Oswald took classes part time at Beauregard Junior High in NO.

The totality of the evidence indicates that the one and only LHO and Marguerite left NYC around the 9th or 10th of January. They showed up in NO and he enrolled at Beauregard on the 13th as the records indicate. The records also state his previous school was in NYC.

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oswald cannot attend two schools at the same time. Therefore the school records for one of those schools must have a semester's worth of clerical errors in it.

That is a misrepresentation of Parker's thesis. He says that it depends HOW you read the records. If you read them one way only, something could seem off. If you read them as Parker explains, the "mystery" is solved.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2208-dear-sandy

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But there is a lot of other evidence pointing to two Oswalds, too much to call it all clerical errors.

All of the other "evidence" has been accounted for. And you don't seem to understand that among thousands and thousands of records there will be errors, discrepancies and so on. The records are created by human beings and that is the nature of the beast.

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But no matter what the case, and even if I were to agree with Greg Parker, what he has done cannot be called a debunking. It is merely an opinion.

That is fine, you may call it an opinion if you prefer.

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

There's that word "debunked" again. In "Tracy-speak" it means that Greg Parker disagrees with Kudlaty.

Debunked is just a term-you shouldn't get caught up in semantics. The point is, Parker has showed problems with the Kudlaty story.

37 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

There is, of course, a far simpler explanation.

And that simpler explanation is the H&L theory?

The simple explanation is Robert mistakenly told the newspapers in 1959 that LHO had attended Stripling. He would have if he had not gone to NY but Robert had his timeline mixed up. Unfortunately, his remarks became a part of the "historical record." Newspapers are an important source of information but they are an "immediate" source and as such are not always accurate. Robert also told the WC that LHO attended Stripling which is what he believed. Which is amazing since, according to the H&L theory, he was working for the CIA who would not have wanted this "information" pointing to 2 Oswalds to come out.

Greg Parker has debunked the Kudlaty thing repeatedly. You can go to his site and read a good discussion on it. Armstrong and White were not acting as journalists as David Lifton did when he spoke to McBride, but as activists and advocates for the H&L theory. Their methods were single-mindedly designed to produce one result.

16 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

According to Mr. Parnell, she is lying.

The witnesses such as Schubert and Kudlaty aren't lying in the normal sense. They are taking experiences they had 40 plus years ago and applying them to the H&L situation AFTER being coached by Armstrong and Jack White. There is a natural desire to be associated with an historical event. For example, Kudlaty never associated anything sinister to the FBI visit he received (assuming it really happened) until he spoke with White.

55 minutes ago, John Butler said:

But, once she was tossed out of the Fuhrman household why would she continue to stay in New York?

I don't know for sure, possibly because it is not easy to move. But the continuing legal process with LHO finally compelled her to do so.

33 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Let’s get this straight.  Your contention is that in this article published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram less than two days after the assassination of JFK, the witnesses were either lying or confused?

Yes, they were confusing LHO, who ALL of the evidence shows never attended Stripling, with his brother Robert who did.

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Isn't this the same kind of false reasoning assigned to Jim Hargrove?

A question that has always bothered me about Marguerite Oswald is why she went to New York and stayed for a year and half or whatever time she and Oswald were there.  The reasons given in most accounts don't make sense to me.  What did New York have that Dallas didn't?  If you can respond and then Jim Hargrove also I would very much appreciate the response.

John,

It is reasonable to assume that the reporter obtained the information from press reports at the time of LHO's defection. It is a standard technique for them to go back and do that. Robert believed that LHO had attended Stripling but he was mistaken.

As for Marguerite, she told the WC that she had moved to NY to be close to John Pic. She was probably hoped to "sponge off" of him (just my opinion).

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Surely you can be a bit more specific than that,

Jim-my advice to you and Sandy is to go over to Parker's forum and register there if you truly want to have a debate and don't just want to draw attention to yourselves in hopes of getting a movie deal. There you will find a willing group of individuals who are eager to do so and who have some valid alternative explanations. 

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

On November 24, 1963 the Fort Worth Star Telegram published an article describing Oswald's attendance at Stripling School.

This report was based on Robert Oswald's statements to the media at the time of LHO's defection. The "witnesses" are either lying or mis-remembering Robert who did attend Stripling.

33 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

But, as always, Mr Parnell will not tell us how this information is debunked on another website because he knows he will lose the debate here on the JFK Assassination Debate section of the Education Forum.

I already told you how. It depends on the method you use to count the number of days. Parker shows another way to do that. The H&L theory always relies on evidence being interpreted one way only. When you look at the alternatives, it all falls apart.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Now Tracy, you know very well that none of those supposed Greg Parker debunkings in fact debunk anything. I've asked you many times in the past to explain how they debunk and you have never been able to explain.

 

You (and lurkers) can go right to Greg's site and read his explanation Sandy. In fact, he addresses your arguments and you by name. Like it or not, it is an alternate explanation on how to read the records. You're not claiming it doesn't exist like Jim used to are you? That's why web sites exists-so you don't have to type things over and over.

35 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I'll get this started for Mr. Bojczuk by examining the first point above.

Here's what Jim won't tell you. On Armstrong's CD there is a document that refutes the whole thing. It states for the date entered "1954-1-13." That same document states "Last School PS 44 New York." So there were not 2 Oswalds attending different schools at all. Jim will probably say that they had to alter the document which is what he says about any piece of evidence that doesn't match the H&L theory. Of course, the old joke is how do H&L people know what is fake? It doesn't fit the theory.

We know that on January 6, the one and only Marguerite expressed to Carro her reservations about an additional court appearance for the one and only LHO. She didn't want to go. Funny thing, on the 10th, Grote from Big Brothers found out from Carro that Marguerite and LHO had left the city (CE 2223). Lo and behold, on the 13th, Marguerite and LHO turn up in New Orleans where he is enrolled at Beauregard. According to Google, it takes about 20 hours to drive from NY to New Orleans so they had plenty of time to get there. No mystery here.

As for the school records, if you didn't know any better and read the records one way and one way only, you could be led to believe something was funny. But there is another way to interpret the records (and every other piece of "evidence" for H&L) as Greg Parker showed:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records

So, Jim is being disingenuous when he says that Jeremy or anyone else has not provided alternative explanations to the points he has raised. In fact, Greg Parker has an entire section on his site titled just that "alternative explanations."

Now, Jim may not like the alternative explanations or agree with them, but they do exist even though at one point he actually claimed that anything that was not on the EF did not exist. Jeremy is correct, the H&L theory is snake oil.

31 minutes ago, John Butler said:

It could be this scene was cut from the movie, but retained for promotional purposes?

Yes, that is certainly a possibility John. I see in the last still you posted it looks like "LHO" has the same shirt as the mystery photo.

9 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

It appears neither Newman or anyone else will be able to question Veciana again

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/coronavirus/article242778451.html

I don't think the record is insufficient in regards to his statements.

2 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Didn't Newman claim that Gaeton interviewed Veciana in prison? That simply isn't true. How am I supposed to believe he's familiar with the rest of the evidence about Bishop?

To be fair, the original plan was for Fonzi to interview Veciana in prison but that didn't happen due to Veciana's early release. That was what Newman was probably thinking of when he wrote that. I believe he is fairly familiar with the Fonzi-Veciana-Bishop matter. What he may have a hard time proving to everyone's satisfaction is that Veciana's release was arranged so that he could tell his story. There is a document in which Zabala states that he believed Veciana was released as part of a "secret deal" with unknown government agents specifically in exchange for testimony implicating the CIA. Newman may be basing his theory on this even though Zabala admitted his statements were speculative.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I do think we should take seriously the professional judgment of your sister-in-law

And she is doing exactly what any "panel" or investigative body would do if the H&L people took their evidence to one which they won't. They would provide alternative explanations because they would quickly realize that the vast majority of the evidence supports one historical Oswald. The "magic tooth" is an understandable anomaly in a body of records numbering in the thousands. 

The bottom line is we have several reasonable alternate explanations. No 2 Oswalds needed.

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I recently found a notation on one of Oswald's military dental records that Oswald had a dental prosthesis that failed, thereby indicating he had lost a tooth. That's progress.

You can go on Greg Parker's site and find a link to an article that offers another explanation besides mine that it is an error in the records.

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Tracy Parnell's idea may be on the right lines: that flooding this forum with 'Harvey and Lee' spam is all about getting a Hollywood film deal.

I am convinced that this is the answer to the constant spamming and re-spamming.  All it takes is getting the ear of someone with the financial means to do it. However, I can't take credit for the idea-as far as I know Paul Trejo was the first to come up with it.

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And the picture has a defect where the tooth is supposed to be.

BTW, the "gap" that H&L people believe exists would be the equivalent of two or three teeth not just one. That alone tells you it is not a gap.

EDIT: I see Ron Ecker has proposed that it is his tongue and this is another good explanation out of several.

19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

True. Except that we have considerable corroborating missing-tooth evidence. Not the least of which being that Oswald went to see a dentist as a result of the fight. Do you think he went to get his lip sewed up?

Do you have a document that states he went to a dentist as a result of this incident? If not you have a person that "thought" he went to a dentist. Even if he did go, it may have been just to make sure there was no permanent damage and all other evidence shows there was indeed none. 

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

"The purpose of this thread is for members to reasonably discredit the evidence for a missing tooth."

It is up to the moderators to determine if a post is off topic. I believe it is reasonable to expect  general remarks about H&L in a post such as this.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oswald's ninth grade friend testified before the WC that he he witnessed a fist fight involving Oswald, and that he thought Oswald lost a tooth in the fight.

Correct-he THOUGHT he lost a tooth. That doesn't make it a fact.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oswald's aunt testified before the WC that Oswald's mother took him to see a dentist as a result of the fight.

Again, if true it doesn't prove he lost a tooth.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

A life magazine cover showing Oswald in a ninth grade classroom shows what looks like a missing front tooth.

Your language "what looks like" is correct. It could look like that to some people. But other evidence shows that is not the case. The lip is covering his teeth.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

A military dental record for Oswald indicates that his dental prosthesis (false tooth) had broken. Oswald apparently replaced his missing tooth with a false one.

Error in the records which was common in the military.

Now, let me explain to you once again how the H&L thing would be handled in the real world as opposed to the imaginary world that the H&L believers operate in. Let's say that Marina fell under Armstrong's sway (a very unlikely circumstance since she was burned once by Eddowes) and and managed to arrange a legal hearing of some kind to prove or disprove the H&L allegations. 

The "evidence" would be presented but no specific piece would be shown in a vacuum. That is, the amazing "magic tooth" photo (for example) would be weighed against the evidence that shows LHO did not have missing teeth. When Sandy Larsen offered his "dental proof" into evidence it would be rejected because he has no qualifications to make such an assessment. And real experts would be called to explain why he is wrong.

The amazing "impostor evidence" would be weighed against the known fact (that is, known to investigators, law enforcement and the legal profession but apparently unknown to H&L adherents) that in a high profile event, there will be dozens or hundreds or even thousands (as was the case in Dannemora) people that come forward and say they saw the person in question in any number of places that they could not have been.

The amazing "2 Oswalds in the far east" evidence would be considered in view of the fact that LHO's time there was misunderstood by both the WC and HSCA largely because his mission was apparently changed due to unpredictable events in the world. However, researchers such as Greg Parker have offered an alternative explanation that shows where he likely was with no 2 Oswalds needed.

The amazing "school records" evidence would be thrown out since an alternate explanation was provided long ago by Greg Parker (it simply depends how the records are read). I could go on, but you get the idea. The bottom line is there would be no legal or scientific basis for the H&L claim. The same thing would happen that happened to Eddowes. And after initially admitting defeat, he was soon back out promoting a new version of his theory. The H&L people would not give up either.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Joe,

I sent the photo to John A. and he responded that he suspected the image was altered to show Harvey instead of Lee.

Question of the day-how does a H&L person know what evidence is faked and which is real? Easy-anything that doesn't support the theory must be faked and whatever they perceive as supporting the theory is authentic.