W. Tracy Parnell

David, I am very sorry that this has happened. I am of an earlier "generation" of LN researchers and I got away from Internet debating about the time you were getting in. Back in the day I debated more frequently-I even remember debating Cliff back then (yes he was singing the same tune) and Gary Aguilar, Lisa Pease and others. Now I am more of an "interjector" I guess you could say-I just speak up if I see something blatant in my particular areas of interest. I find that debating on Internet forums takes a great deal of time and I am more jealous of that time as I get older. Your debates over the years have been memorable and you have shown amazing debating skill and a depth of knowledge that is only rivaled by McAdams and a few others. Unlike many who use the cozy confines of certain forums to promote various theories that really go nowhere, you have co-authored a fine book (and few here can say that). Of course, I know you will still be around the Internet and your outstanding website will endure as one of the great resources and will continue to be praised by both sides. Best wishes and thanks.

Since his site is hosted by blogger I would say no.

Of course he won't be missed. He wins constantly and that is what is really behind all of this.

The thing is, Wilcott is the only source of the hearsay information and even he wasn't sure. He testified under oath that he couldn't remember the crypt or who told him. Before the supportive audience at the Cuban Tribunal he repeated that the crypt was "something like" RX-ZIM "or a crypto of this kind with 2 consonants and 3 or 4 pronounceable letters." So, Mary Ferrell is being very prudent when they call it speculative.

The same could be said of Jim D's sudden concern about his words at your site. I believe that content has been there for some time as well. The whole thing smacks of an attempted and senseless takedown. Stick to your guns David unless you find you are legally in the wrong which I highly doubt.

Absolutely right. I think what is happening here is an effort to silence David and that is not a good thing even for his opponents. Some of the CTs want this to be a "sandbox" where they can float even the most preposterous theories (H&L is still being discussed almost daily) without being challenged. While that may be an enjoyable exercise for them, they presumably want those theories to be taken seriously by other researchers and eventually the public at large. So, people like David and Lance perform a service to everyone by refuting the more ridiculous theories and debating the enduring ones. Those serious about finding the "truth" should welcome such scrutiny.

I see no problem as long as he is accurately quoting the EF conversations. I doubt there would be any "legal remedy" since, as David points out, forum conversations are no doubt quoted on various CT websites without complaint. David's website is a tremendous resource and he is often complimented even by CTs.

No secret that he has a co-writer named Martin Dugard. Who does what is open for speculation.

Some good points here Jeremy and nice to see you here.

Good point Paul. We know that most Americans will not read Bugliosi's book or Posner's book or even browse through the Warren Report. Their opinions are based on what they have heard from conspiracy books and websites which dominate the "market." It is my observation that the majority of journalists, academia, professional investigators and the like believe LHO acted alone. Facebook and Twitter fortunately do not determine history.

I had the same problem a while back when arguing with the H&L people. They claimed that if I didn't produce evidence to refute them on this site (by retyping the same thing over and over) that it was somehow invalid and that the websites I linked to somehow didn't exist. A form of denial I guess.

This article explains my position in a succinct way: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html For those who don't want to take the time to read it you have: 1. A mastoidectomy found on "Harvey" that "Lee" was supposed to have (1981 exhumation). 2. An examination in Russia of "Harvey" also revealed the mastoid scar. 3. HSCA handwriting analysis as applied to H&L (link at above article). 4. HSCA photo analysis which shows photos of "Lee" and "Harvey" to be the same person. It should be noted that while we have had several amateur dental and photo experts try to counter the above, John Armstrong himself has never offered an explanation for any of it and simply ignores it. Of course, there are probably hundreds of little things that when added together with the above evidence are enough to convince most researchers. In fact, an informal poll here at EF (where CTs dominate) showed that the majority do not believe the H&L theory although they admire Armstrong's work. I realized some time ago that you can't convince everyone but I believe the theory has been marginalized and I have moved on to other areas.

There is very little if anything regarding H&L that will stand up to scrutiny. The only thing lacking is hours in the day to do the job. I've never looked into this one, but looks like you have done a lot of work on it and a nice debunking.

That's not an "exposé." That's a whole lot of unfounded speculation. As Lance points out, there is no reason to be suspicious of Titovets. Except, of course, there is because Titovets' book provides "insights into the actual Lee Harvey Oswald" as Lance puts it. Therefore, the CTs have to attempt to destroy him. Just like they tried to do to the Russian exiles in page after page of a thread right here at EF which purported to show that LHO was not a wife beater when even his mother said he was. It is all very predictable. But I'm with Lance-you want to know the real LHO then read Titovets' book and read other accounts by people who really knew him and you begin to get there.

Good for you Cory. Certainly very anti-Semitic and unneeded comments. Unfortunately, the JFK research community was infiltrated years ago by members of the extreme left-wing who tend to be anti-Semitic. Exceptions like yourself who are honestly investigating to learn the truth and who do not buy into other popular conspiracies like the ones you mention and may not want to hear politicians on the right blamed for all of the world's ills are increasingly becoming the minority. And to be clear, just about any conspiracy theory you can imagine has been promoted here or on other conspiracy forums. I'll use Jack White as an example since he is not longer with us. Jack thought that jet contrails were actually chemicals dumped on the American people by the government as a means to control the population. To be fair, I'm not sure Jack was necessarily on the left politically-he was all over the place.

I read the whole book-parts of it more than once. I read all of the endnotes as well. I don't doubt that few here have done this and that may explain some things.

Jim, I see you've taken Veciana out of the top 20 so we must be making progress.

Well, I don't believe it is moral to "out" people so they can potentially be killed even if those people are members of the CIA. That is way over the top for me anyway and I don't condone it. So, if that is "defending the CIA" then I plead guilty.

No, I don't suppose they would if such a thing existed. But I personally find it more plausible that Wilcott's imagination ran away with him than to believe that a finance clerk somehow became aware of the crypt for a secret project. When I first looked into the Wilcott thing, I assumed that he was a well-meaning individual who had misinterpreted something he heard. I found out that he was an extreme left-winger who was part of a group that believed CIA people should be "outed." A similar group outed Richard Welch resulting in his death. Wilcott also had a vendetta against the agency and felt they had wronged him. So, he had a motive to do what he did. In any case, folks can look at my article and decide.

In the HSCA files on Wilcott there is a reference to an alleged CIA cryptonym for the “Oswald Project” that probably came from notes of Wilcott's statements to an HSCA staffer. It should be noted that two respected sources of extensive information regarding CIA cryptonyms, The Mary Ferrell Foundation and author John Newman, do not recognize this cryptonym (RX-ZIM). Wilcott has alleged that he became aware of the cryptonym from discussions with a CIA employee. In his HSCA testimony (page 12-13), Wilcott stated that he couldn’t remember the cryptonym or the name of the person who told him about it. He confirmed this in his manuscript titled “The Kennedy Assassination” which was published by the HSCA with his testimony and other evidence (see sources at link below). However, in a later statement before the Cuban “tribunal” Wilcott's memory improved and he claimed to remember the cryptonym as well as the name of the employee that provided it. The name is illegible in the copy I read which is at the John Armstrong Baylor archive. It is clear that Wilcott couldn’t remember either the cryptonym or the name of the employee with enough conviction to testify to these facts under oath. He probably feared that the HSCA would call the individual to testify and he would deny knowledge of the cryptonym and the "Oswald Project." http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html

Just my opinion, but I think it is likely that JMOCEAN refers to a CIA operation or unit of some type rather than being Wilcott's personal crypt. The document you cite mentions that he was previously "under cover" of Odibex which is the Army according to Mary Ferrell. So, I think his being "under cover" of JMOCEAN just means he was officially working under some operation. Wilcott was just an office employee and it is unlikely he would have his own crypt.

Thanks Larry, I appreciate it.

Thanks for the reply Larry and I agree that Ayers' recollections are suspect at this point. However, I am at a loss to explain his detailed descriptions of Campbell or the man he thought was Campbell. It is difficult to believe he made all of this up although it is certainly possible since he apparently needed money at different times in his life and admits to living out of his car at one point. I wonder if it is possible that his case officer might have used the recently deceased Campbell's name to deal with Ayers (under the "need to know" theory) since he was Army and not a CIA employee. BTW, any idea on who the deputy COS might be? The only references I can find on this state that Campbell was but Morley says (without attribution) that Campbell was not deputy COS.

I'm interested in the opinions of the members here regarding Ayers' credibility. The theory of the 3 CIA men at the RFK assassination as postulated by Shane O'Sullivan seems to have been debunked. This theory relied in part on the identification of the men by Ayers (and a couple others) as Joannides, Morales and Campbell. O'Sullivan (who started all of this) himself later identified two of the men as Bulova watch executives who were attending a conference. And Campbell evidently died in 1962, so not only could he not have been at the Ambassador Hotel, but Ayers could not have met him in 1963 as he claims. So, where are the members on this situation today? Does anyone here still believe the "3 CIA men at the Ambassador" theory? Did Ayers simply make up his Gordon Campbell remembrances? Is it possible someone else at JMWAVE used Campbell's name when working with Ayers and if so who? Ayers says Campbell was deputy COS but according to Morley he was not. But who was? How about Ayers' theory that Goldwater killed JFK?

It seems to me there are two solutions. 1-go to a subscription model. 2-go to an advertising model. Speaking for myself, I would be willing to pay something similar to Mary Ferrell which is $35 a year I believe.