W. Tracy Parnell

Francois, Robert Oswald did indeed make an honest mistake when he stated that his brother had attended Stripling. The H&L people have tried to turn this into "evidence" to support their theory. I explain it here in a short piece: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/robert-oswald-and-stripling.html

Francois can and so can I. The Dallas doctors were engaged with saving the President, not documenting the wounds which they did not do. In the "data dump" from a while back your witnesses obviously differed in their descriptions and drawings of the wounds. You may say the differences are minor, but if witnesses are as reliable as you say they are, there should be no differences. Of course, we know that it is a scientific fact, supported by studies such as those done by Loftus and others, that witnesses will vary when reporting on an event. They are very often not reliable at all. BTW, the HSCA thought this explanation was reasonable and included it in their report. And in light of the authenticated autopsy materials and the Zapruder film, it is obviously the solution to this "problem."

No government sponsorship (or any other type) here, although I have been accused of this for years. If we were on the payroll in a quest to change public opinion we would have been fired by now.

Thanks, I'll look forward to that if it is made available publicly. The last presentation was very good.

Yes, that is why I did not count you in the ranks even though you are disputing Cliff's theory-because I did not know your beliefs for sure. So, thanks for clarifying your position.

I am in the process of watching the PBS series for the first time since it is now on Netflix. I have to say I thought the coverage of JFK was very fair and even minded. I fully expected to hear the "JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam" philosophy but happily that was not the case. Jim, the NYT article you quote from in your PDF does indeed report on documents that discuss a withdrawal of advisors. But it also states that "no one will ever know if these plans would have been carried out." The article also says that "some believe [the plans] were a political façade erected for the 1964 elections; others think they were based on overly optimistic battlefield reports; still others see them as a device to force South Vietnam's corrupt government to change." The Times article also reports on JFK's public stance which was that of not supporting a withdrawal as when he spoke to Cronkite in September, 1963. The times reports 16000 advisors in 1963. Assuming that is an accurate number, 1000 would be a drop in the bucket even if it happened. I believe JFK's strategy was clear and also correct. Use advisors and air power to support South Vietnam in hopes of achieving a "Korea-like" outcome at the minimum. I doubt JFK would have escalated the conflict as Johnson did, but I see no outright withdrawal.

Why would you be afraid to talk to us Cliff? There is no "influx" there is only myself, Francois, Lance and David. I am not sure about the status of anyone else. And we do add a great deal to the understanding of the case. Everyone should be interested in seeing the Harvey & Lee theory meet its demise for example.

It would stand to reason that would be the case if Newman believes Veciana was working for ASCI rather than CIA. Veciana has always claimed he was recruited into the CIA and Bishop/Phillips was his case officer. As Larry says, there has been evidence for some time that Veciana was associated with Army rather than CIA. The CIA did consider using him and he had a cryptonym and a case officer, who was Cal Hicks not Phillips. But for whatever reason, the CIA did not use him. Newman has previously shown that both Veciana's original 1960 scenario and his 1959 timeline as presented in his book are wrong. So, it looks to me like he never met anyone in Cuba. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2018/07/john-newman-on-veciana.html BTW, is there no video of this conference forthcoming?

Yes, Jim and his mentor Armstrong believe the HSCA, FBI, Warren Commission and just about everybody were part of a sinister "cover-up." The thing is Armstrong doesn't seem to mind at all using those same agencies as sources for his far-out theories which he does repeatedly in his "book." How does he know when to believe them and when they are "covering up"?

When I first looked into Wilcott I assumed he was well-meaning and just mistaken about what he had seen and heard during his time in the CIA. Turns out that he had an agenda and was an extreme left-winger who had become embittered during his time at the agency: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html

I Look at it this way Paul. I consider myself a watchdog who helps to weed out the worst stuff (like H&L). I think that is needed and several CTs (who wish to remain nameless no doubt) have thanked me over the years.

I would say fakery probably. But I don't believe that happened.

Well, I'll add my two cents even though Lance, DVP and Francois have stated things very well. It is obvious when looking at the "data dump" from Sandy that the witnesses do not even agree with themselves. The descriptions of the wounds as well as the drawings vary. So who do you believe? We know from scientific studies such as those done by Elizabeth Loftus that witnesses will vary on their remembrances of a given incident. We also know that the Dallas doctors were engaged in an effort to save the President and describing or documenting the wounds was a secondary and "after the fact" consideration. Additionally, we know that some of these doctors' exposure to JFK was fleeting at best. To resolve these issues, we can go to the physical evidence authenticated by the HSCA-the autopsy photos and x-ray. These show no such back of the head defect. Problem solved unless you believe in alteration which there is no evidence for.

Paul, I am no fan of Jim, but in the interest of fairness there is a JFK conference today (if I remember right) and he may be in attendance there.

No. As I'm sure you know, their position was based solely on the acoustics which was refuted later by the NAS and the work of people like Steve Barber and Dale Myers.

Their position is also that LHO fired the shots that killed JFK.

Speaking for myself, I don't like to see people wasting time with conspiracy theories and that is my prime motivation. I was an agnostic when I first read Lifton's book and open to the idea of conspiracy. But I never saw anything to win me over. After Posner's book and the "Image of an Assassination" DVD came out and I could see the two men reacting to the same shot for myself I was convinced. Yes, the case is solved for me, but after spending years studying a subject you tend to maintain an ongoing interest even though I have tried to quit a few times. The JFK case is also a good "jumping off point" to a general study of post World War 2 America. Denny, I was going to answer a few of your questions but Lance beat me to it and I agree with everything he said. JFK got a place in history by becoming a war hero, Senator and President. LHO didn't want to wait around and shooting JFK did it instantly for him.

Excellent post and I think you have very effectively explained why/how the CTs have misinterpreted the evidence. Some of this is probably innocent on their part, but much of it is purposeful and based on their political ideology (Jim D. being the most obvious example). The case is a gold mine for conspiracy theories-you have a disgruntled Marxist who defects to the Soviet Union at the height of the cold war. He also brings home a Russian wife and befriends an eccentric oil man who knows both Jackie K. and George Bush. Fertile ground indeed and any number of scenarios can be concocted that seem plausible at first blush. Of course, Gus Russo wrote two books about the possible Cuban angle, but strangely his theory is one that CTs have little interest in.

No one knows and no one will ever know. And that fact allows people to speculate endlessly. But there is no evidence that it is a two-way radio that he used to instruct unknown (and never located) assassins. In fact, it makes more sense that it was a transistor radio that he was using to try and find out more information about the tragic event he had just witnessed.

Ron, I don't believe that either Bush had anything to do with any presidential assassinations. I will say that I liked your article on Albert Osborne which I found to be fair minded and informative.

No, you need to get your facts right if you want to start a "Litwin Watch." He changed his mind in the nineties after returning to the case following the Stone movie hubbub. What changed his mind was a careful study of the HSCA supporting volumes and Paul Hoch's newsletters.

Ron, I like your taste in music anyway.

Well said David and Francois. Bush is being praised by both sides of the aisle today and rightly so. I always thought the idea that he had anything to do with the assassination is just silly.

Great job. I would love to see Fred debate our own Jim D. sometime.

I can clear up one thing-it was not money. With the exception of Case Closed, every LN book I know of has been underwhelming commercially. Perhaps Fred will break the mold here but I think his main motivation was to tell a story that is severely under represented in the media.