W. Tracy Parnell

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The woman who testified as “Marguerite Oswald” was an impostor

And yet not one person out of the dozens or hundreds who knew her stepped forward to say she so. This article also addresses the silly assertion that the Evans' tried to tell the WC that she was an impostor:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html

19 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

There should have been no time limit for this investigation.  It should have been fully investigated.  Why was it not?

Any political investigation has a time limit of some sort. However, even some of the WC people (can't remember who it was right now) agreed with you to this extent. There should have been a provision made to address (legitimate) issues that came up. Of course, being a political body that would require funding and that is always an issue.

36 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

It was not up to you nor me nor anyone else to find "alternative explanations"  -  it was up to the Warren Commission to explain these problems in THIER OWN EVIDENCE!

In a perfect world Paul, every loose end could be tied up. But the real world doesn't work that way. And the WC had a finite amount of time to do their work and did the best they could within that constraint. As is normal when you get a group of individuals together, some staffers and members did not agree on every issue. But professional investigators (police, FBI, private investigators) know that not every loose end will be tied up. There will be some things that do not support the final determination. 

The fact that we are discussing the evidence 50 plus years later shows the amount of information that is there to work with. And I am always surprised by claims such as yours that the WC should have answered this or that question that researchers are still pondering over. Some things may never be fully answered but there is enough information available to get a good grip on the life of LHO IMO.

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Since Mr. Payette so often psychoanalyzes people who he thinks suffer from what he surely considers to be H&L derangement syndrome, perhaps he can show, citing a few examples above, why he people who understand and believe the Harvey and Lee analysis are so wrong.

I can explain that. It is because they take things out of context. No investigation is done in a vacuum. All of the facts are considered when reaching a conclusion. H&L does not do that. It takes a "fact" (that may be a fact at all) and says "look at it just our way and it shows 2 Oswalds."

ALL of the subjects you mention have alternative explanations. All of those explanations have been posted right here at EF in other threads, several of which have been pointed out to you. Greg Parker has a section of his website titled "alternative explanations for H&L." But apparently it is more "fun" for you to try and draw someone into a debate rather than read the explanations that have been provided. Evidently, you don't realize that nearly everyone is sick of H&L and uninterested in further debate.

2 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Of course, the simplest answer is very reasonable: there were two separate sets of 1953 school records because there were two separate young boys using the name "Lee Harvey Oswald."

I can provide a simpler explanation than yours. The H&L people are misinterpreting or intentionally misrepresenting the evidence to promote their theory. The records clearly show that LHO attended school at Beauregard beginning on January 13, 1954.  This jibes with other evidence showing that he and Marguerite left NYC just before this. Here is a 12-page thread (involving Lance) from 2017-18 discussing all of this. So for you to say there is no alternate explanation is just not correct:

1 minute ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Parnell has claimed time and time and time again that someone, somewhere, has debunked Harvey and Lee, but he never dares to do it right here. 

Mr. Payette, at least, is trying, and I thank him for the opportunity to debate it fully.  I'll get back to the Bolton Ford Incident asap.

Anyone can go to my website, Jeremy's website, David Von Pein's website and Greg Parker's website and read numerous articles debunking H&L. They can also do searches here at the EF as Karl did and find many multi-page posts discussing the H&L situation. Now, do you want to pretend once more that these websites don't exist as you have done in the past? And yes, I have posted evidence right here on the EF on the subject of school records and Japan. I am not going to find the links for you, you can do that for yourself.

Another example of the type of thing you do is the issue of LHO's birth certificate. A while back, you were insinuating that "something" was funny about the BC issue. So, I spent the time and called Louisiana myself and debunked the whole issue with the help of Lance and Paul Hoch and others. Lurkers can read all about it here:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html

And yes, this is a real website and it exists. All you have to do is click the link. You see, that is why people take the time to create websites-so they don't have to type the same thing over and over just to satisfy CTs promoting a silly theory.

Good post Lance.

I have grown tired of playing the game with the H&L people. As I get older, I become more and more careful about what I spend time on. As you point out, these topics have been argued over and over. I guess the H&L people need the attention or something so they try and stir up a hornet's nest using the same tired arguments. They used to ask for explanations and myself or Greg Parker would provide links. They then insisted the linked websites did not exist. I have a partial LHO chronology and could provide a timeline for Japan, for example. But I already did  that at one point, so I am not going to do it again. I am too busy for their nonsense. The arguments and counter-arguments are out there, let those interested run a search and decide for themselves.

4 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Why another thread about HARVEY AND LEE? 

Exactly.

53 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You bring up a good point Tracy and that is that I haven't followed the forum much over the last year (more specifically since May 2018) due to health issues. And so I could have missed some H&L debate during that period and wouldn't know if you guys (or Jim) had made good points.

So if you're talking about debate taking place during that time period, I'd like to know what new points you've made. I'd appreciate it if you could explain briefly and let me know how to find the appropriate thread(s). But if it wasn't during that time period, then I emphatically disagree with you.

 

No, nothing new Sandy. 

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In all the years since I've been a forum member, I haven't seen any of these things being debated.

First, I understand that you have had some health problems Sandy and you are now doing better-that is great news and I wish you all the best.

I do disagree with your assessment though. The school records and the Japan thing were debated extensively here and an alternate explanation offered-both through links and direct posting. You guys chose to disagree with our explanations-and that is your right. Anyone can search here and find the old threads and decide for themselves. Why Jim wants to rehash the same old debate is not clear. 

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 In all honesty, I was hoping to lure Jeremy Bojczuk here to debate some of the issues I’ve listed above.

Perhaps Jeremy will want to respond and he does a good job of making the case against H&L. But seriously, all of these issues have been debated here ad nauseum. Alternate explanations have been provided for the school records, LHO's time in the far east and so on. So, further debate is pointless-those that want to believe H&L will. I would rather see a debate on WHY they believe it-that would be more interesting to me.

30 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Holloway footnotes this but the Google Preview did not include the footnote page so I don't know what her reference was. 

She cites CE 820-A:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=725&tab=page

4 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Is there a list with all the members of Alpha 66 in 1963?

 

Are there pictures of Alpha 66 members in 1963?

Another good resource is:

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/alpha66.htm

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

There are literally scores and scores of serious, mainstream, scholarly, peer-reviewed historical, medical and forensic journals.  Take your assassination-related "research" to one of them and convince the committee it is worthy of publication and those of us in the real world might take you more seriously.

There's something you don't understand Lance, but fortunately it was explained to me when I suggested the same thing. They can't do that because the mainstream authorities you mentioned are all in on it. The tip off is the term "mainstream" which indicates they are part of the dreaded establishment (insert preferred qualifying term here-military industrial, media, CIA, etc.) who perpetrated the plot.

20 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I’ve been working on a manuscript that really would be about “How to Think About Claims of Conspiracy” (or perhaps “How to Understand the Conspiracy Game”).

Good post and I would certainly like to see a book on this topic.

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I appeared on this thread, emerging from my self-imposed exile, only because someone told me my legal expertise had been requested.  Here’s what I would say in terms of a resolution:

1.  If there was a clear term of service that no member may do what DVP has done, or DVP had received previous specific warnings, then warn or ban him if you wish.  If not, there is nothing illegal or immoral about what he has done.  I personally have no problem with it whatsoever - as I had previously told DVP..

2.  If there was no clear term of service, then it doesn’t seem fair or reasonable to ban DVP or require him to “undo” what he has done.  If it is the wish of the site administrators, a clear term of service should be adopted for future application, to wit:

No member shall quote or reproduce, in whole or part, the post of another member on any blog, other forum, other website or anywhere else outside this forum, without the express written consent of the member being quoted.  A violation of this rule may, in the discretion of the Administrators, result in discipline up to and including a permanent ban of the violator.

And I thank you. I hope I have not gotten you into too much hot water since you are now back to dealing with Cliff.

The EF people have stated that they have a policy in place now (similar to what you wrote above), but I am not clear about whether or not it was in place when all of this occurred. Regardless, it was common knowledge for at least two years that David was archiving posts at his site and nobody expressed serious reservations until recently. Of course, I realize that this is a private forum and they can do whatever they wish. But I don't have to like it.

57 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

No question that as with me expressing my Christian views at the other site, the real issue with DVP is that he's a noisy agitator in a community of true believers who don't want their fantasies interrupted with large doses of reality. 

That does indeed appear to be the real issue here. After all, where are all the lawsuits since David has not removed any of the ostensibly offensive material from his site and that material was the "real issue" according to the "aggrieved" parties.

2 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Wait...what happened?

He's been banned.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 Please keep the “JFK Assassination Debate” forum open and public!  A lot may depend on this!  

A red letter day-Jim and I agree!

1 hour ago, John Kozlowski said:

I was just letting him know that blocking an IP will not keep someone away. I have no dog in this fight but thought in case something happens in the future that James should know there are options that can be considered.

Thanks John, I was really just using your post to reply to what seems to be a general concern.

7 hours ago, John Kozlowski said:

Banning his IP won’t keep him from browsing here or from him collecting posts. Honestly the only way to do that is to make the forum totally private to members only. I’m on another forum that is private and non members cannot see anything. That would hurt you in getting new members though. By using a VPN or similar program it’s very easy to get a random IP address from anywhere in the world.

David stated previously here that the reason he archived posts was to have a record of his conversations with CTs. I think the fear expressed that he will "collect posts" is unfounded and much ado about nothing. If he can no longer participate here there is presumably no reason for him to "collect posts."

8 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Preservation of his posts could have been achieved without publishing them.

How?

6 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

I think Von Pein and Parnell make one huge mistake and that is believing the content on Von Pein's website postings is a true representation of what happened here at EF and it is not. Many times he left the thread as he was outargued and could not add anything to the conversation any more, but there was no sign of that at his website. He presents himself as the winner of these debates whereas he definitely is not!

So start your own website and present the threads in a way that makes you the "winner." Blogger is free.

Just now, Cory Santos said:

Or David could stop being defensive and try to find a compromise between Jim and others.  People resolve differences all the time.  I for one want a true debate here calling out fake research or theories.  Having said that, Jim and others are concerned with their work appearing on his website.  I do not understand why that is so difficult to comprehend.  It is a simple matter of all sides talking amd reaching a compromise 

I suspect the problem Cory is that solution would result in essentially a "gutting" of much of his website content. I believe it is more important for David to preserve that content than it is his place on this site-but that is just a supposition on my part. As he points out, forums come and go and his site might be the only place to read those debates at some point.

3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

This is all about "CTers" lashing out against an "LNer" --- and everybody here knows it.

I agree. I wish our resident LN attorney Lance would weigh in with a legal opinion on this mess.