W. Tracy Parnell

Not sure how the exhumation proves two Oswalds or how the exhumation is "before H&L" , but if you don't want to argue the point that is ok by me. By sandbox I meant an arena (to use your term) for unrestricted speculation. Nothing in my post is against forum rules. You guys have gone on for page after page with pure speculation and you shouldn't be surprised if someone eventually jumps in. OK, I'll butt out now.

Speaking of facts, as one poster already mentioned Judyth has exactly one confirmed fact. She worked with LHO at the Reily Coffee Company. The rest of her story must be accepted on faith-never a good thing IMO. And her story underwent a demonstrable evolution as others have said.

I was just about to ask if Marina facilitated such a DNA test (which she isn't going to do since she was bitten once by the 2 Oswald nonsense after the exhumation fiasco) and it showed that Robert and Lee were indeed brothers (as it would) if you guys would stop. But I now have the answer and it is revealing to me about the mindset of the 2 Oswald supporters. OK, I have had my say-you may return to the sandbox.

I have been thinking more about this and here are the problems I have. Newman must be saying that unbeknownst to Fonzi, someone inside the justice system ( a judge or whoever had the power) arranged to free Veciana at the behest of the Pentagon. He surely can't be saying that Fonzi was in on the plot-that would be a bridge too far. But under this scenario, Fonzi becomes nothing more than a dupe (albeit unwilling) for the plotters. All of his much lauded work promoting the Phillips-as-Bishop, CIA-did-it scenario did nothing but satisfy the desires of the real killers of JFK. It is hard to imagine that certain members of the research community will be pleased with this determination by Newman. I also wonder what Marie Fonzi and the Veciana family would say about it. Or even Veciana himself.

Given that Newman's presentation evidently represents a new theory on Veciana's actions, I thought there might be some discussion here by now. According to Bill Kelly, Veciana: I am not surprised by Newman's claim that somebody somehow arranged for Veciana's early release. He has hinted that he was going in that direction previously. What is surprising is his apparent claim (if Kelly is correct) that the US Senate (I am assuming since that was who Fonzi was working for at the time-this was pre-HSCA) engineered this release either with or without Fonzi's knowledge. Or if the Senate didn't do it, Newman must be claiming the Pentagon (or some evil force) did it. But wouldn't the Church Committee and the later HSCA be able to see through this "misdirection" (as Newman calls it) by Veciana toward the CIA? I mean, the Pentagon orders Veciana's release so he can testify and he conveniently fingers the CIA? A little too obvious if you ask me. Were the HSCA and Church "in on it" too then? And if Fonzi was not aware of all of this, wouldn't he have been able to eventually find out what happened given the access and contacts that he undoubtedly had? I'm afraid all of this doesn't make too much sense. I am admittedly making some assumptions, so if I am off base let me know. I would be most interested to know from anybody that was there if Newman presents any evidence for any of this and how it was supposed to have worked? Also, is there going to be a video of this?

Newman is correct. The more one looks at Trained to Kill, the more you realize it is virtually a fictional account. For starters, you have two accounts of the alleged meeting between Veciana and Bishop in Havana-the original 1960 account and the newly minted 1959 account. Both are now shown by Newman to be false and could not occurred as stated. The new 1959 account is extremely laugh worthy with all of its James Bond-like claims. Veciana also takes credit for the Pedro Pan exodus which thee is no evidence that he did anything to cause. That was possibly orchestrated by the CIA (who Veciana was not working for) and the Catholic Church. He also claims that he was responsible for the El Encanto firebombing. In addition to the fact that he has no evidence for this and another individual was convicted, there is the fact that Veciana was an organizer and finance man-not an action man. Even in the 1961 assassination attempt against Castro that he was involved in, Reinol Gonzales described him as the organizer of the plot. Much more material there to work with.

The answer to all of Newman's questions is, of course, the Army. Some might argue about what agency could predict Alpha 66/SNFE operations though, as the FBI also had some very good informants inside those organizations-Godoy of the MRP being one. Why does it matter who Veciana worked for? One reason is that if he really was working for ("with" might be a better way to put it) the Army and not the CIA as he now maintains, what else has he lied about?

Sandy, I don't have to defend anything. I am not the one who is pushing a debunked theory-you guys are. The burden of proof is on you. No, I don't know exactly what happened in LHO's time in the far east (or at certain other times in his life) and neither do you. But I have a good idea and Greg Parker has offered one reasonable explanation to help fill in the blanks. BTW, when someone tells me they can explain anything with 100 percent certainty if I will just listen to them, I tend to run the other way. And that is just what H&L tries to do. It is essentially a religious cult that requires a belief in one set of "facts" while ignoring everything else or claiming it is "faked." I don't have the time or inclination to study the far east matter further right now (or likely ever) and I suspect it may come under the heading of "unknowable" and therefore a waste of valuable time. I have moved on since I believe all major questions regarding H&L have been answered with a reasonable alternate explanation. What happened in the far east can be deduced by a look at the big picture, the details are insignificant. And further "discussion" is pointless. For example, I know the earth is round (no flat earther jokes please) but I could potentially become aware of a fact that might seem to contradict that. But a million other things tell me the earth is round so that remains a fact for myself and reasonable people. And I know (to the extent that anything can be "known") that were not 2 Oswalds from a review of ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. I have tried to help others see the same thing, but if they don't-so be it. The information at my site is there if they want it. No doubt you guys will continue to recruit new adherents who want to believe the theory. One thing I don't do is look at LHO's life, see a discrepancy and immediately think, "gee that proves 2 Oswalds." Let me ask you guys a question and someone else alluded to this before. Have you or Jim or John Armstrong accounted for every "double Oswald" sighting that occurred anywhere at any time? Seriously, have you made a list? If not, why isn't there a theory of 3 or 4 or 67 Oswalds? It would make just as much sense. I am working on Veciana research at this time. There are documents at Mary Ferrell that say he was born on October 18, 1928. Others say he was born October 4, 1935. Were there 2 Vecianas or is one document simply wrong. Take it to the next level. John Newman (not a lone assassin advocate) has shown several instances of Veciana's varying tales regarding Bishop. Maybe there were 5 Vecianas promoting different stories for nefarious purposes? I know what H&L advocates would say based on the logic they promote here. The bottom line is this. If you take your "evidence" to the experts (which you refuse to do because you know you can't) and they study it and become convinced, I might start to believe it. But what they will do is what scientists, investigators and anyone trying to find the facts will do. They will look at ALL of the evidence and reach a conclusion. And we both know what that would be. As Bart said, this thread has become pointless so I am signing off.

Probably the best comment made here in 12 pages.

My articles debunk many aspects of the theory at the very least. If one is willing to accept the exhumation and the handwriting and photo analysis, they debunk it completely. Of course, Jim and true believers only accept the evidence that supports H&L. I believe Greg's articles provide reasonable alternate explanations (there may be other explanations as well). I have provided brief summations of his work in the past but you simply refused to accept his work which is your right. But it is not my job to defend his work, I only make people aware of it, as he has gone into some areas that I have not deeply researched. If he were still able to post here, he would be explaining his theories and you guys would still be disagreeing with him. Because you are wedded to the theory at this point for whatever reason. The whole thing with H&L can be summed up very easily. If all of these things (or enough if them) were unexplainable and happened in a vacuum, it could appear to be significant. But the real world doesn't work that way. There is a context for everything and when viewed in context and with the understanding that anomalies occur in real life, the H&L theory falls apart.

Nobody is hoping that people will not check out the anti-H&L links. By all means, I urge the everyone to do their own research. Let every person make up their own mind. Just don't say that no counter arguments or explanations have been provided-they have. You don't agree with them-that is all. As an informal poll here some time ago showed-H&L lost, so most don't agree with it even here at EF where conspiracy is accepted.

I'm trying to figure out why an argument archived on a website is less valid than one posted here. You aren't still claiming that these arguments don't exist are you? Why do you maintain a website Jim? The partial answer is that you want a place to collect your arguments for the H&L theory. That is exactly why myself, Greg Parker and Jeremy B have websites-to showcase our counter-argumants. So, the only reason I can think of for your demand that H&L critics immediately post rebuttals "right here" is you need to have attention refocused on your theories. The truth is, anyone can see by your last post what your arguments would be if Parker's explanations were to be posted here. So what is the point? The arguments of each perspective side are well known and documented.

The very short answer Cory, is that it is the way the records are being interpreted. I used to be puzzled myself about this time period in LHO's life. The explanation seems to be that his unit was assigned to a different mission than was originally planned. This and his treatment muddied up the records and enabled the H&L people to do what they do.

Very well stated.

One final time, nobody is "afraid" to discuss anything. We are sick to death of "discussing" your "evidence" because these discussions lead nowhere. You have been provided links to voluminous discussions right here at EF. You have been shown alternate explanations (which you have occasionally said do not exist even when provided links) time and time again but you reject them. As Jeremy said, you need to admit to yourself and everyone else that these alternate explanations are real. John Armstrong attended a class on the assassination and was told by Gary Mack and Dave Perry that his evolving theory made no sense. Armstrong repaid them for trying to save him much time, trouble and money by trashing them in his book. Although he didn't name them, it was easy enough to figure out who they were. Armstrong, who is a wealthy individual, then set about the business of researching and creating his theory over a ten-year period. He could have developed a research guide or a website that detailed the information that he found. Instaed, he chose to create the ridiculous theory that he did one that, as Jeremy has pointed out, was debunked years before he wrote it. He then offered no explanation for that fact, instead hoping that nobody would notice his intellectual dishonesty. The H&L theory exists because of discrepancies in the record and mistaken witnesses. Surely the H&L people will concede that errors are made by human beings. And, I have provided evidence that in any high profile case (as police and law enforcement officials know) there will be mistaken witnesses. There are over 300,000 records at Mary Ferrell alone that relate to JFK. That is certainly just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the available records. But for the sake of discussion, let's say there are half a million records related to JFK (there may well be more, I don't know). Let's also postulate a very conservative error rate in those records of one percent. It is probably much higher. Using my figures, that would give you 5000 documents that are in error. That is a lot of fodder for a theory like Armstrong's and you can begin to understand how those documents could be manipulated to show just about any "fact" if studied in the absence of other information. The only ones who seem to be afraid are the H&L advocates. The purpose for creating this thread seems to have been to keep interest in the silly H&L theory alive. After all, the debunkers of the theory are a "bipartisan" group of Individuals-David Von Pein, Lance Payette and myself (and others) on the LN side and Greg Parker, David Lifton, Jeremy B. and numerous others on the CT side. So, Jim and other H&L people may be afraid that the theory is headed for the dustbin with several other "double Oswald" theories like those of Eddowes and Popkin. And, as far as I can tell, they are right.

My timeline does not "ignore" LHO at Atsugi. From the 5th to the 13th I have him on general duty and then at the Atsugi Naval Hospital. And no one is ignoring the H&L "evidence." If one looks at the documentation you refer to in a vacuum, then you can reach the silly conclusion that there were 2 Oswalds. Greg Parker discuses this in detail at his site in a thread titled "The Skagit."

Speaking of ignoring, you are ignoring the updated timeline I just posted: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/10/lho-far-east-chronology.html The previous timeline was done years ago and was meant to be a general reference for students and researchers. At the bottom of my new timeline are links to discussions and alternate explanations regarding the Japan scenario in H&L. BTW, if you go to Greg Parker's site, there is an entire section called "Alternate Explanations" (for all aspects of H&L) that is several pages.

No one is making a "scurrilous" charge. Everything about a witness must be considered when determining that witnesses credibility. Here are some facts about Kudlaty. He claims he witnesses a confiscation of records by the FBI. But did he ever come forward to report this to anyone before his encounter with Armstrong and White? No. What were the circumstances by which this information became public? Jack White told Greg Parker that he had a 50-year friendship with Kudlaty. And as everyone knows, White was Armstrong's mentor and the biggest backer of the H&L theory. So, these facts call into question the manner by which Kudlaty related his story. Was he approached by White and told about the H&L theory? And did he only then "remember" the records confiscation? These are pertinent facts and if this were a criminal investigation, the authorities would consider this when evaluating Kudlaty as a potential witness. He got more than the year wrong. Robert, who wasn't even around at the time, merely assumed that his brother had attended the same school. And the newspapers repeated what he told them. And the "witnesses" were speaking 40 plus years after the fact and after they no doubt received the pitch from Armstrong that they were witnesses to history. And the recent article you mention admits "there is no official record" of LHO at Stripling.

It is my belief that no one should ever be convicted of a crime based on witness statements alone. But that is just my opinion and you are correct that they are. That is a quote from John Armstrong's book, not a statement made by me as should be evident from the block quote style used. So, I don't know why you begin with the "fact" it is from my article. I believe it would a very simple matter to find all of the facts related to Landesberg's (the Actor) background. I see no reason to do that since it would be expensive and if I did that, the Armstrong supporters would just come up with another reason to disbelieve any evidence I provided. You are correct though that he was a private person who wanted to remain that way. As far as the call from Landesberg's security, it is not hard for me to understand why he didn't want to be bothered by conspiracy people. I have learned a few things about life John. One of those is that people will believe what they want to believe. There are a number of individuals that wish to believe the H&L theory and the Landesberg subset of that theory even though there is not a single piece of evidence that the actor had a thing to do with the JFK assassination. They are free to believe what they want. When I saw you starting this whole thing up again, I wanted to at least put a link to my articles and I have done that. Further discussion on this subject is pointless. Each reader can decide what they believe.

Lance, I would ask that you not do that. As I'm sure you know, this is not a level playing field. And given that 95 percent or higher of the forum members and the owners/moderators believe in a conspiracy, maybe it is unreasonable to expect that it can be. When I get sick of things, I stop posting for a while. But I would like to see you stay-just be prepared for some heartburn as it comes with the territory.

I don't explain it, because I don't have time or inclination to play games. For the final time, anyone can go on Greg Parker's website and see an explanation for this and the school records and any number of other anomalies although no one can explain every tiny thing and certainly not to your satisfaction since your mind is made up to carry on this charade. EDIT: I have added links from EF discussions and Greg Parker's site to these pages on my site (scroll down). Anyone can see that the issues have been discussed to death: https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/10/lho-far-east-chronology.html https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/robert-oswald-and-stripling.html

Regarding Jack White and Kudlaty, I see on Parker's website the information I was referring to before but forgot the details of. White first said that he had a fifty year friendship with Kudlaty. Obviously, such a relationship would call into question how the Kudlaty story of confiscated records came to light. We know it didn't come to light back in 1963 or anytime after until the Armstrong research came about. Then there was a second story by White where he claimed he had not seen Kudlaty since college. In this version, they were mere acquaintances. The way it should work is that Armstrong should approach a witness and question them. But he (and apparently White) didn't do that. They told the perspective witness about their crazy theory (undoubtedly leaving out any of the evidence that debunked it) and tried to solicit support for it.

Here is a snippet from my chronology covering that period. Granted this doesn't explain some inconsistencies in the documents or the way they are being interpreted, but that has been covered by Greg Parker before: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/10/lho-far-east-chronology.html Note that this is my own chronology and Greg Parker may or may not agree with all of it.

First, there is not a speck of evidence that Landesberg the actor was L'eandes . There is evidence, if you look at my articles, that L'eandes was Landesberg the student. Armstrong is playing very loose with the facts. Remember, he was forced to recant some of this stuff but he did so on the website that Jim runs. So everything in the book is not accurate even according to him. I tried to contact the actor's wife to clear some of this up once and for all, but she probably thought I was a kook and didn't reply. I don't want to take time to sort through all tis for you and its been a while so I don't remember all the details. But if you read my 2 articles, its all there. My advice John is this. You can't rely on witnesses absent any other information. I have been working on a chronology of LHO for some time (that I hope to market as a book if I ever finish it) and I am up to 1963, which is where it gets crazy of course. I can account for the time period you are talking about with a reasonable degree of certainty. And I don't do it with witnesses. I do it with Marine Corp records. Yes, there will always be inconsistencies and yes, you can say the records are faked if you want to. I saw a document the other day (I don't have a link right now) where some expert said the Marine Corp records (in general not specifically LHO's) were 75-80 percent accurate. So, there will always be discrepancies. You do the best you can to work through that. But IMO, you can't take those inconsistencies and then postulate 2 Oswalds or Oswald impersonations. That is a mistake I believe and it defies logic and common sense.

And here's some "pesky" evidence that won't go away as well. The documents say "enrolled January, 1954." And a mountain of other evidence shows that is when Marguerite and LHO left NYC. Next thing you know, they turn up at her sister's house in New Orleans and LHO enrolls in school. No 2 Oswalds required.