W. Tracy Parnell

No problem John.

So, you're posting my photo and information because?

John, Obviously you have not read my articles. Yes, there is evidence of mental illness, Schizophrenia, In 1961, well before the JFK assassination and any conspiracy. Landesberg was diagnosed by the Marines with the following after he essentially had a mental breakdown (described in my article) during his induction at Paris Island: "Schizophrenic Reaction N.E.C # 3007, manifested by loosened associations, tangential and concrete thought processes, paranoid ideation, grandiose ideation and a long history of nomadic wandering and poor interpersonal relationships." He was transferred to a psychiatric facility in Philadelphia where he received treatment and was eventually able to be released. He was discharged from the Marines after he was determined to be: "Unfit to perform the duties of his rank because of physical disability Schizophrenic Reaction N.E.C # 3007." He received severance pay and went back home where his disease eventually returned and manifested itself in the well-known actions he took after the JFK killing.

You are probably not referring to MY opinion and I'll probably regret this, but here goes anyway. Stephen Landesberg (the student) was unfortunately and demonstrably mentally ill. Anything he said must be viewed through that lens. And, there is not one piece of verifiable evidence that Steve Landesberg (the actor) had anything to do with any of this. One thing you should understand is that Armstrong was forced to change many of his claims after my research was published. Because of the complexity of this issue, few researchers have even looked at it. I had a headache for days after working on it myself. But it is one of the most powerful examples in the record of Armstrong attempting to run completely amok. But very few give any credibility to this tale at this point in time: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-hoaxster-and-conspiracy-theorists.html http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/armstrong-evolving-landesberg-theory.html

Wrong again Jim. Most if not all of the arguments you list have been debunked right here at EF. We are not going to do your work for you-searches can be made to find them. And we are not going to put them in this thread because you demand it. One thing you pretend to not understand is that people create websites so they don't have to endlessly retype the same arguments over and over. You yourself have a website for just that purpose as your endless "data dumps" here demonstrate. I assume the purpose of this thread has been to get exposure for the H&L theory and to that extent we are playing right into your hands. But don't pretend that these things have not been discussed before-they have ad nauseum. And please don't say like you did one time (it was either you or Sandy) that the websites we link to don't exist because you can't see them.

More on Jack White: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/how-jack-white-helped-to-kill-harvey-lee.html

Remembering my assertion that the H&L theory is based entirely on mistaken witnesses and incorrect or misinterpreted documents, let's do a quick check of Jim's list and see if I am right. For the first entry above, we already know that Jim's claims only work if you interpret the evidence one way and one way only. Another point is that Marguerite never said that LHO attended Stripling. Only Robert (who had left for the Marines just before that) made that claim. And the "evidence" for 2220 Thomas Place? Witness statements only-no documentation. Anyone can do a search here or go to Greg Parker's site and read an alternate explanation for these discrepancies. No 2 Oswalds required. This is based on a fight that LHO was involved in, some witness statements and what true believers of the H&L theory think they see in photographs. Again, Greg Parker has an alternate explanation at his site. No 2 Oswalds required. I have not looked specifically into this, but it is not too hard to imagine that a government agency screwed something up. No 2 Oswalds required. Greg Parker has developed a chronology for that period of time that explains the discrepancies. He used some original research to help do this and published it in one of his books. No 2 Oswalds required. Three more instances that rely on a witness statement. When you understand that witnesses can and do make mistakes, it is explainable. No 2 Oswalds required for any of this.

The transcript does not convey any sense of intimidation. Only the confusion he felt as to why he made the incorrect statements that he did.

You make a good point. And it is certainly not my intention to smear Jack White as Jim H. maintains. But, he did play loose with the facts in a few cases and those need to be pointed out.

Well, let's leave it this way since we are getting nowhere (which is where these conversations always end up). You certainly are free to interpret her statement anyway you want, as am I. The readers here can decide for themselves.

First, I never said or suggested that Frank Kudlaty was not the assistant principal at Stripling-I'm sure that he was. What I am saying is that it is odd that he never said anything about confiscated records until he talked to White and Armstrong. As for the newspaper reporting that LHO was at Stripling, I think we both know where that information came from-the honestly mistaken Robert Oswald. The papers even carried that before the assassination, if I remember correctly. But none of this makes it a fact except in Armstrong's world. There isn't one yearbook photo or one school record to prove his attendance. Just Robert's honestly mistaken assumption and some 40 year old remembrances influenced by Armstrong's nonsense.

I am very willing to accept that the government (or its representatives) have committed immoral and even illegal acts. I am less willing to accept a massive conspiracy like H&L especially when I believe the evidence indicates that it did not occur.

No there is no "evidence" that Kudlaty made up story. How could there be? You can't go into someone's mind. But there is evidence that Kudlaty and Jack White knew each other and White told him about H&L. You can search for the thread right here on EF where White admitted a prior relationship. As for Armstrong's "power" over people, this simply amounts to the way he handled witnesses. He approached people and befriended them. In one phone interview I remember he referred to Linda Faircloth as "honey." Contrast this with the journalistic way David Lifton conducted his interview with McBride (partial transcript on my website if you care to read it). As far as Robert and Stripling, he assumed that LHO had attended the school as he had. And he would have except Robert forgot that LHO moved to NYC just prior to that. Just an honest mistake on Robert's part that has been blown into something it isn't. You guys have to learn that just because someone says something that does not make it a fact. As for the other witnesses, most of them had been gotten to by Armstrong and his leading questions produced his desired result. Those who were honestly mistaken were remembering Robert. Of course, all of this has been explained to you before and you simply refuse to accept it.

Then why not take it to an investigative journalist who could then hire a statistician, a dental expert, a DNA expert and any others you need to prove this "slam dunk" theory is a fact? What are you afraid of?

No she didn't. And it is a shame that you guys keep pushing this myth. Here is what she said in context: That's why, when I saw her on TV, after all of this happened, she looked so old and haggard, and I said, "That couldn't be Margie," but of course it was (emphasis added), but if you had known Margie before all this happened, you would see what I mean. She was beautiful. She had beautiful wavy hair. So, I think it is you who lacks the objectivity to see that she simply was commenting on how Marguerite's appearance had changed, not that she was a different individual.

No, Greg Parker and others documented Jack White's coaching of Kudlaty. If Kudlaty had independently gone to the authorities (or even to Armstrong) and told a story of confiscated records, it would carry more weight. But he only told his story AFTER talking to Jack White and hearing Armstrong's thesis. Again, search here at EF and find the threads. No it's not. It goes to the credibility of eyewitness and the fact that much of the H&L theory is based on them. We have all heard reports of people released from prison after DNA analysis refuted eyewitness testimony. I just provided a case where the man would have been convicted without DNA. And BTW, the woman was planning to shoot the man who she thought had committed the crime-that is how convinced she was that he was the rapist. But he wasn't. Your experience mirrors that of the Evans' which is the people Jim was referring to. They didn't think Marguerite was not the woman that they knew-in fact they said she was. They were just surprised how much she had changed since they last saw her. People change as your experience shows. If that is the case, take it to a statistician who should be able to easily prove it for you. And while you are at it, take it to a good investigative journalist and get it out to the masses. And take your dental theory to Linda Norton or someone who is qualified to help you. But I don't see that happening.

Nobody is ignoring anything, they simply do not wish to rehash old news. Anyone can do a search here and find multi-page threads discussing the school records or go to Greg Parker's site (where he has a link titled "alternate explanations") and read a concise explanation including discussions with Sandy himself. If you interpret the records Sandy's way only and see them in a vacuum devoid of any other evidence, it is possible to believe something is amiss. The key to the whole thing is that it shows the date admitted as January, 1954. That destroys the whole theory right there, you don't even need to go beyond that.

Here are some facts that Jim does not understand or says he doesn’t. I cannot explain every single anomaly (to his satisfaction anyway) nor can anyone else, but the H&L theory has been discussed to death right here at EF with multi-page threads. Most researchers, even here at EF where conspiracy theories dominate, do not give it credence as an informal poll here showed. Most researchers understand that if an explanation is provided that refutes the theory that Jim or Sandy or another apologist will simply move the goalposts to their advantage and soldier on. BTW, the answer to Jeremy's question is Armstrong did not tell his readers that the theory he was pushing was already refuted by the exhumation because he was hoping they wouldn't notice. It is the same technique you see in YouTube videos pushing 9/11 theories where they show you an amazing "fact" and then go on to the next amazing "fact" before you have time to think hard about it. The H&L theory is based almost entirely on mistaken witnesses and mistakes in the record. Yes, there will be times when a reasonable person can think "wow, look at that" and "gee I can't explain that." This happened to Joe Nick Potoski (a good journalist and not a quack or anything) when he looked at the theory. He was particularly swayed by the fact that he knew Frank Kudlaty who he respected. Of course, Patoski wasn’t aware that Jack White had gotten to Kudlaty and filled his head with nonsense and only then did Kudlaty “remember” that the FBI had “confiscated” records. The fact is that witnesses cannot be believed absent any other information. A couple real world examples. The old show “Forensic Files” had an episode where a woman was raped. The police found a suspect and the woman identified the man and swore he was the attacker. The police were particularly convinced that the woman was correct in her identification since she seemed to take the time to observe other things from the three-hour ordeal and describe them in detail. However, forensic testing showed the suspect was not the perpetrator. Later, the police found another suspect. When showed a photo, the victim said he was not the man who attacked her. Trouble is, forensic testing proved he was the rapist beyond any doubt. Another case I have mentioned before is the Richard Matt and David Sweat escape from upstate New York which has been turned into a docudrama on Showtime. When they escaped from prison, over 2000 people said that they had seen them all over the state. Guess how many of those people actually saw them? Two. Not a good track record. Were all of those people lying? Certainly not all of them, many undoubtedly believed that they had seen the escapees, but the evidence proved that Matt and Sweat never left a small geographical area. So, witnesses can and do make mistakes and misidentifications, especially in high profile cases. As for mistakes in records, the H&L people don’t seem to understand that this happens all the time in the real world. And in the case of LHO, who moved over twenty times during his childhood, you have that as a complicating factor. You don’t even have to argue about mistaken records in my opinion to disbelieve H&L. Just take the fact that nobody who knew the “original” Marguerite came forward to say that the Marguerite they saw on TV was not the woman they knew. It simply defies belief that out of the hundreds of people who probably knew Marguerite, one would not come forward. Of course, Jim thinks that the all-powerful CIA simply paid them all off or threatened them or whatever. And that was enough to silence them and all of their children for all time. No deathbed confessions or notes left in a safety deposit box-just a whole bunch of people conveniently silenced for all time. The people who believe H&L want to believe it for whatever reason. Jim and Armstrong may be hoping for a movie deal as some have suggested and they may get one someday. But H&L has had its day in the research community and it has come and gone. If you don’t believe me, take the theory to Joe Nick Potoski (who is already sympathetic) or any good journalist. Then watch as they gradually distance themselves after studying ALL of the evidence carefully. And then wait for Jim and company to say, “Yes but they are in on the conspiracy.”

I believe the first was Richard Popkin who published "The Second Oswald" back in 1966. "Alias Oswald" by Cutler and Morris also predated Armstrong. But you are right, each theory built on previous work.

This is speculation on my part, but I fear that Newman is trying to use the Army connections to Alpha 66 to promote his theory that Lansdale and others were behind the assassination. That is, despite JFK's crackdown on the exile raids, the Army people were running Alpha 66 against his orders. Newman's purpose in this would be to show that Lansdale and the others were extremely hostile toward JFK. If my speculation is correct, I hope Newman has some proof.

Could someone enlighten me. I understand that Army Intelligence was associated with Alpha 66 rather than the CIA. But, is Newman now saying that ACSI was running the Alpha 66 operations? I have seen no evidence of this, only that they used Veciana and Menoyo (and others) to gather intelligence.

Thanks for the reply. I stand corrected on Sandy then.

The burning question is will Armstrong be endorsing your new explanation and have it added into the official H&L literature (via the H&L website) or are you going out on your own ala David Josephs? Armstrong apparently has not endorsed Sandy's theories and as far as I know has never endorsed any changes to his work by others at all.

Good post Ken and you have summed up the absurdity of the whole thing very nicely. Don't expect Jim to answer though. Even though they expect anyone that is even a little skeptical of their claims to provide an explanation for every discrepancy they have found in the documentary record, they themselves just ignore those pesky unanswerable questions that destroy H&L. Like why did the forensic examination of the body of "Harvey" have signs of the mastoid operation that "Lee" had? And why did handwriting experts find that samples of the dynamic duo's writing were from the same man? And why was a 1956 photo of "Lee" found to morphologically match "Harvey?" Instead, they bring up issues like school records and the chronology of the far east that have been answered a million times.

So, is Armstrong endorsing Sandy's work and is he going to incorporate it into the officially endorsed H&L theory?