W. Tracy Parnell

It really gets old when you guys try to pretend that no one has ever argued against H&L at the EF. It has been done ad nauseum. Some of the threads are over 100 pages. Here is a link to a directory of links on many topics including the dental issues: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1588-harvey-lee-links-to-alternative-explanations These are on Parker's forum, but they make the same arguments he and others made right here at EF so what difference does it make where they are? The only things that haven't been debated are the theories that Butler, Hargrove and others are discussing in other threads that seem to be postulating multiple Marguerites and other individuals. No one (myself included) takes it seriously enough to bother with. The bottom line is believe what you want to. But an informal poll right here at EF showed the majority do not believe in H&L. And many consider it a serious diversion from more significant matters.

I am sure that there are no discussions here that you personally believe debunk the H&L theory. But anyone can search here and find threads that contain extensive debates on the issues which is what I said. These debates also contain references to alternate explanations and my website and those of Jeremy and Greg Parker contain much information on alternate explanations and/or debunkings of H&L assertions. For some reason, the H&L people want to continually rehash the same tired old territory. They are probably hoping if they keep it in the spotlight they will eventually get a film deal like Jim D.

Before you attack, remember that 4 of these were originally (or remained) CTs: John McAdams Paul Hoch Gary Mack Dale Myers Gus Russo

No, the H&L critics have debated the "evidence" right here many times. Anyone that doesn't believe me can do a search and see. But that is one purpose of websites-so you don't have to do the same thing over and over. Jim and David Josephs do "data dumps" and/or links here all the time and nobody has a problem with it. Links actually make much more sense and take up less bandwidth. But as I have pointed out many times, alternate explanations have been provided over and over, you guys just don't like them.

Although I don't agree with 2 Oswalds, this timeline could be useful to anyone studying the Oswald family.

Not much left to say about this topic. Jeremy and Jonathan provided the necessary links. I spent years on this and finally concluded that people will believe what they want to believe. But something as simple as what happened to the dozens or hundreds of people that knew the "real" Marguerite disproves the theory. Jim H. suggested that the CIA paid them all off. Really? Every one of them? Clem Sehrt recognized Marguerite as the person he had known for many years. And please, please don't say that the Evans' were trying to tell everyone that it wasn't the real Marguerite. A reading of their testimony shows otherwise. They were just trying to say that their friend had changed over the years. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html

Nice job Lance, good to see you posting.

Thank you.

The "hunter" photo was likely taken in early March 1957. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-hunter-photo.html

I think more work could be done on this to debunk McBride but I don't have the time or inclination right now. It is not necessary at this point since most people ignore H&L. An informal poll here showed a majority (of the overwhelmingly conspiracy-orient researchers here at EF) disavowed the theory. But, it is a simple choice really. You can believe that the documentation of LHO in the Marines and the tax records. Or you can believe the assertions of McBride, which are based solely on what he and other people "remember" (usually after being coached by Armstrong). In that case, the documentary evidence is faked. Which brings up the old question. How does a H&L advocate know what is faked and what is real? Answer-anything that debunks H&L is fake and anything that supports the theory is real, even if it comes from the evil FBI or wherever. My advice-get an unbiased panel of people that includes investigators, police, attorneys and scientists. Show them your evidence and see what they say. And when they say you are wrong, you guys will say they are "in on it."

Armstrong's theories regarding McBride have been debunked for all but the H&L hardliners: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/palmer-mcbride.html While lurkers are on my site, please click "sitemap" and scroll down for 27 articles that debunk various H*L theories.

As Jim said, the EF provides great coverage on Google. You know the deal that Jim D. got with Oliver Stone? That's what he's hoping for.

He and several others have debunked the theory repeatedly. One example-the 1956 photo above of "Lee" in the MC was used in the HSCA photo analysis lone before H&L existed. They said it and other photos showed the same individual. So, all you can't say is "they were in on it." Also, despite your lengthy post, you didn't answer Jeremy's question. That's because you can't.

Amazing the stuff you learn on this site. I had no idea you guys were forensic dentists who had submitted your "proof" to a peer-reviewed journal. I thought you were just a couple of guys, one of whom said he didn't need training to make such a determination-anybody can do it.

This scientific proof: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html

Thanks for admitting that David. Because when you do that, you are opening the door to understanding the situation I am talking about. Some of the sightings are false, but now you have to decide which ones are and which aren't. And unsurprisingly, Armstrong proponents choose to believe sightings that support his theory and discount the others instead of considering the possibility that they all could be bogus especially in light of the evidence. Because "Army" is a general term for the US military. In Oswald's left-wing mind the sum of all the services is the "American Army." Now, you may think that is weak but it makes more sense to me than an impostor (presumably trained by the conspiracy) making such a mistake and exposing the conspiracy to sleuths like yourself. You can go down the list of all the discrepancies in this case and find an alternate explanation for all of them.

No, I don't want to debate this "seriously" or otherwise. I have, of course, read Courtwright's piece. The problems are many, including the fact that "Oswald" is driving (which he didn't). Of course, the H&L people will say that this is the "other" Oswald or whatever they believe (who knows, who cares at this point?). You can believe there was a massive plot to have millions of "Oswalds" running around for some unexplained reason (or for reasons only that amazing genius John Armstrong can explain). Or you can accept the fact that people will believe they have seen something they have not for the simple reason that people like to insert themselves into important events (and other reasons as I have said). Here is Dave Reitzes' article on Alice. He used to believe Armstrong but no longer does. Wise man. http://www.jfk-online.com/alicelho.html

If he feels he has been wronged, he may file a complaint with the moderators. Keep your fingers crossed and perhaps I will get kicked off the board. Then you guys can play in your fantasy sandbox all day long with one less antagonist.

Yes, but will Armstrong incorporate the research of Butler and others into the H&L dogma? I am betting not.

I am working on changing that fact by mostly ignoring the H&L theory from now on. I have a new rule-if I can do it off the top of my head without doing any research, I will post something. Fortunately, the H&L theory is so demonstrably false that this can occasionally be accomplished even with my admittedly bad memory.

An inference is different from a statement or personal attack.

I won't waste much time here with this, because the H&L theory is not worthy of that at this point. But, Jim Hargrove and all of the H&L supporters have been provided with an explanation for multiple sightings of "Oswalds" time and time again. They don't want to accept the explanation so they don't. The recent case of Richard Matt and David Sweat who escaped from prison in upstate NY illustrates the situation. This case was made popular by a recent Showtime series. When the pair escaped, the police asked the public for help in locating them. Over 2000 tips came in. Exactly 2 of these tips were valid. The rest of the tips came from individuals who could not have seen the pair since they never left a small geographical area. Some of these individuals are sincere but mistaken. Others are not telling the truth. People lie every day for any number of reasons. So, in any high-profile case, there will be false sightings. Police and professional investigators know this. The H&L people do not or pretend they do not. If someone had a massive amount of time on their hands, it would be very instructive to do an analysis of all the Oswald sightings. What you could end up with is not a 2 "Oswalds" theory, but probably a 100 "Oswalds" theory if you were so inclined. You may carry on with your misinformation campaign if you choose, but those are the facts.

OK, I'll work on that.

Yes, I think so Steve. First, Newman has to prove (not just suggest it was possible) that Veciana was released early and what entity accomplished it. Even if Veciana did obtain an early release, Newman then has to prove it was for a sinister reason and not the logical reason-for the investigators to hear what he might know about the Cuba angle. I believe Veciana made up the story about Bishop. And if that is true and he was released early, his Bishop story makes even more sense because he then had to "give them something" and Bishop's meeting with LHO accomplished that nicely. But the early release theory doesn't make sense to me, mostly because of the actions of Fonzi.

There is an interest in what Newman is doing and not just by me. As I explained in my article, I think there is enough detail in Newman's and Dale's Facebook postings to determine what is going on. We should know for sure by April (his next presentation) if not sooner-no need to wait for the book. If I have anything wrong, I'll do an update.