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. 

50 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Might it be your site that goes belly up in the near future?  Without the hits you get from the links to it you post here?

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

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The EF is funded thru 2024.

You've worn out your welcome here, David.

Take a hint and take a hike.  You will not be missed.

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

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

It's very gratifying to see that RXZIM has been added to the cryptonym page.  Even though the listing seems to go to unusual lengths to suggest it may not be true....

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.

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

It's obvious from that quoted remark that you couldn't have cared less about this matter on August 23rd. And yet, just two days later, you're acting as if you care very deeply. A most curious quick switch.

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.

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

I mean, free speech is a more important code of ethics than taking down DVP.

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.

17 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I suspect that "by Bill O'Reilly" is a brand name, and the books are ghosted.

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

37 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

In keeping with the subject of this thread, we can thank [insert name of preferred deity] that they didn't choose Harvey and Lee!

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

1 hour ago, Paul Baker said:

Now let's see a graph of 'The proportion of Americans who know enough about the JFK assassination to form a considered opinion'.

The number of Americans who think there was a conspiracy is completely, utterly irrelevant.

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.

11 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But, quite obviously, Mr. Zartman didn't like any of my Lone Assassin arguments in those links at all. Oh well, such is life when talking to a conspiracy advocate.

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.

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

Payette and Parnell deny the existence of two people who have come to be known as Lee Oswald and Harvey Oswald.  It is fairly easy based on readily available evidence to show that there was a Harvey and Lee set based upon the person known as Lee Harvey Oswald.

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.

30 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

As some readers know, I've investigated a few Harvey & Lee conspiracy gospel factoids in the past and discovered they didn’t stand up to scrutiny.  This appears to be another.

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.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

To read Millicent Cranor's exposé of Titovets, CLICK HERE.

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.

8 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

I think the above comments are truly embarrassing to the community and anti-Semitic.

This is a JFK research community, or so I thought although, lately, it is mostly bashing of President Trump for everything.

Now it has really gone into the depths.

I cannot believe I am agreeing with Lance, but, by transposing JFK research into now 911 and showing a willingness to believe anything that is repeated without any evidentiary basis is simply sad and Lance's umbrella discussion on psychology regarding some conspiracy mindsets is actually proven correct by the above.  Perhaps we will soon see moon landing was faked, etc. comments going on in this forum by some.  In other words, you have literally just proven Lance's analysis correct by the above comments.  Congratulations.

If you have real evidence, prove it.  If not, quite repeating clear anti-Semitic comments that have been clearly proven false by multiple sources.

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.

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I would like to ask a question: How many people on this forum read all 1518 textual pages of RH?

Now, let me ask this:  How many people read all of the CD?

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.

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Well said, David.  Tracy's piece is just a hatchet job, and not a very skilled one at that.  There is lots of evidence that the CIA ran the Oswald project.  Here's a list I post from time to time.

20 Facts Indicating the Oswald Project Was Run by the CIA

Jim,

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

24 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Tracy,

For how many years have you defended the CIA?  

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.

23 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

OMG!  Do you seriously believe that the Agency would publicly release the Lee Harvey Oswald project's cryptonym?   After the assassination of JFK? 

Really?

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.

7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I wouldn’t trust anything said by any USA agency or employee about James Wilcott and/or his wife.  Following are apparently raw notes typed by HSCA staffers following their discussions with James Wilcott.  Bill Schaap was Mr. Wilcott's attorney. Note the many details that should have been included in Mr. Wilcott's  Executive Testimony posted above that were not permitted by HSCA counsel Michael Goldsmith, including the CIA cryptonym for the Oswald Project, the fact that Mr. Wilcott was anxious to take a standard lie detector test, the fact that he had clearly passed a “voice stress” lie exam, and that he knew many names of CIA personnel he wasn't allowed to state.

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

On 6/10/2019 at 8:27 PM, Michael Clark said:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10256-10208.pdf

JMOCEAN   Not in Mary aferrell Foundation list of CIA cryptonyms.  Identified as James Wilcott. Unfortunately the ID is sketchy since the original ID was redacted.

 

Another article on Wilcott, for reference.

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/JamesWilcottJFK+US.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.

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

I'm afraid I'm no help there - my original views on Ayers were shaped by my friend Bob Dorff who had used him as an investigator to locate David Morales and his friend Reuben.  Which Ayers did, but Bob warned me that after that point it was all about more jobs and more money.....and that is when Ayers went after the Goldwater conspiracy.  My own exchanges with Ayers were very limited but also of the same nature...and other than that just strange. I let it drop at that point but his follow on manuscript, book, etc didn't really didn't tell me anything I could get a handle on and the more I read and reread his first book (which I did again this last year) the more and more it didn't tally with what I had learned about WAVE operations during the period he was there (at least in his much expanded version of missions to Cuba and personal affairs).  I basically took a pass at that point.

Thanks Larry, I appreciate it.

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

At this point about the only thing I find useful in Ayers work are his descriptions of personnel interactions at WAVE related to his training assignment - including his description of Morales. In addition the more we are able to actually compare WAVE operational documents of the period in which he was assigned the more some of his descriptions of his own training of Cuban volunteers becomes questionable as well.  By the summer of 1963 WAVE was running so few missions that they had even laid off or detached many of the extensively trained and experienced paramilitary Cuban's that had been used in operations following the Bay of Pigs...and it would not be until Fall that JFK approved new sabotage missions. Bottom line is that I just don't find Ayers useful in the way I once hoped, even though I do have an autographed edition of his first book...sigh.

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.