W. Tracy Parnell

3 hours ago, François Carlier said:

I honestly don't know about that. Fill me in or I'll do some research.
Could it be a honest mistake ?
At any rate, I'll be a big fan of John Armstrong's two Oswalds' theory before I even contemplate thinking that Robert Oswald might have lied !

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

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The big difference between what you believe and what I believe is this:  I can give a reasonable explanation for the most glaring and obvious contradiction regarding the location of the head wound, whereas you CAN'T.

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."

2 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

DVP, Tracy, Francois:  If you have a government sponsor, please let me know how I can get on the payroll. 

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.

2 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Yes to the video, as Len Oceanic had a film crew there. 

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

14 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

Also ... I’m not a lone nutter at all .

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.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

From my understanding, in the book accompanying their completely mediocre series, they did the same thing, discounting all of this information about JFK's intent to withdraw from Vietnam.

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.

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

In the last few months there has been an influx of incredibly ignorant lone nutters who are obviously here to disrupt legitimate discussion of the murder of JFK.

These t=r=o=l=l=s add nothing to the greater understanding of the case.

Engaging them with evidence and logic means nothing to them.  They ignore facts and repeat the same debunked talking points over and over.

I propose every member of good faith ignore them, as Professor McBride has recommended.

 

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. 

31 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Also, I thought Newman was flat out calling Veciana a xxxx, and that would apply to the whole Oswald/Phillips thing.

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?

8 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And yet that very same House Select Committee went ahead and concluded there was probably a conspiracy anyway, eh? And they concluded that Ruby probably had some help entering the DPD basement too.

Some "cover-up" that was.

It's just another example of how the conspiracy theorists of the world make very little (common) sense.

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

6 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Why are the WC apologists even here on this site? 

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.

2 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

I keep getting sucked into this. I need more will power. Would you consider the use of two brains in the autopsy to fall under the category of fakery or alteration? There is evidence for it, because the ARRB found it. 

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.

32 minutes ago, Paul Baker said:

Jim, as usual, avoids reality. HIs motivation fascinates me more that that of Lee Harvey Oswald. He can't, and won't, answer a very simple question. End of.

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.

6 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Do you agree that he probably did not act alone?

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.

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

unless I'm mistaken the current position of the US government is that the JFK assassination was probably a conspiracy.

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

14 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

As far as Lone Assassin supporters are concerned, the case is solved. Yet there are those still determined to debate the details again and again. I don't know what drives them. At least those on the conspiracy side are still ostensibly investigating unresolved issues and have some excuse to keep pursuing the case and debating the fine points.

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.

18 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I happen to lean toward a pretty straightforward Lone Assassin explanation, but I’m not troubled in the slightest by a scenario whereby someone in the Russian-Cuban sphere may have had some advance knowledge of Oswald’s plans, may even have encouraged him, and may have taken steps to assist in his escape to Mexico City – voila, a conspiracy!  All of the screw-ups and confusion on the part of the CIA and FBI in regard to the actual events in Mexico City and their aftermath strike me as nothing more than the fumbling, bumbling ordinariness and after-the-fact CYA scrambling that we see throughout the record of the assassination.

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. 

8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Wow way to come into a discussion and try and change the issue.   I’ll stick with it. So you know what that is by DCM head?  Do you dispute Bowers testimony?  

 

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.

2 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Which one? (One real and one attempted.)

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.

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

From what I can gather, he is saying that he saw the Geraldo show in 1975, but then flipped with the HSCA report in 1979.

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.

4 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Last night I was all ready to hear Dolly Parton sing

Ron,

I like your taste in music anyway.

8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

That's a disgusting and sickening thing to say. You should hide your head in shame after making such a series of vile, inappropriate, totally unprovable, and incredibly stupid comments concerning former President George H.W. Bush.

Rest in peace, Mr. President. You no longer have to endure the nonsensical rantings of the JFK conspiracy theorists who have desperately tried (sans a single speck of evidence!) to involve you in the murder of the 35th U.S. President.

7 hours ago, François Carlier said:

George Herbert Walker Bush was a good man and a great president.
May God bless his soul !
To claim that he had anything to do with a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy is despicable !

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.

14 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Canadian TV interview with Fred Litwin (Nov. 22, 2018):

 

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

20 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Excellent, detailed analysis.

My question.  What motivated Mr. Litwin to write and market this disinformazia?

Was it money,  notoriety, or some misguided political agenda?

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.