W. Tracy Parnell

Well, I would argue that one doesn't need Jim D. to figure out who Fred is. A quick trip to his website would give you the idea that he is a conservative-minded (oh the horror) fellow who believes that LHO killed JFK alone and that he is an openly gay man. No real mysteries here that we need Jim D. to enlighten us about.

Her phones WERE tapped, there are documents on this. The feds understandably needed to find out if she was involved in some kind of conspiracy. Which is one of many facts that points away from there actually being one.

But has she ever stated that she lied in her testimony or McMillan's book as opposed to just being "ashamed"? In every interview I ever read she stated that she believes in a conspiracy but her testimony and the book were truthful.

The thing about Marina to me is that, as far as I know, she has never taken back one thing she said to the WC, the HSCA or PJM. She has indeed stated that she now believes in conspiracy etc. But she has never stated that "they" forced her to lie under oath about anything or that she did that. So to me, that makes her speculations no more interesting than any unfounded CT.

Sine you mentioned me in your post Francois, I'll just say that for the record I agree with David VP. You simply can't reconcile each and every eyewitness statement and it is best to accept that some "outliers" will exist. Interesting idea though.

Do you really believe that Fred Litwin is one of the "powers that be?" Speaking for myself, I am just a guy in my pajamas posting on forums for my own entertainment and to hopefully sway folks away from silly theories.

It is not unusual for an author to release one chapter free to promote a book.

Chapter 2, Jim Garrison's Excellent Homosexual Adventure is now free to read: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Litwin_garrison.htm

Yes, that's what I call it.

🤣(laughing til I cry)

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html Scroll down to "Hoover Imposter Theory."

They dropped the ball. This is probably one of the reasons they don't want more information released-it may show their incompetence.

I haven't made up my mind on that point yet. But if it was a CIA impersonation it was to find out what LHO was up to. Which indicates to me that he was not an agency asset otherwise they would know.

I'll give you credit for a good sense of humor with that one.

I'll qualify it by saying a majority that participated in that thread.

I would disagree with that but I think we have discussed these matters to death and should get back to the topic at hand which is the Litwin book.

Well, the fact I was referring to is that there was one Oswald and you are saying there were two.

Yes, but that is a different thing than saying you support the H&L theory of 2 Oswalds and 2 Marguerites. Admittedly, the poll was informal and only those who read the particular thread it was in would have seen it.

Let me know when Newman comes and out says that yes, I support John Armstrong's theory and there were two Oswalds and two Marguerites. Perhaps he will, but I'm skeptical.

Right, both Marguerites had the same one.

I am not talking about normal articles. I am talking about someone who says that they want to change an accepted fact-that there was not one historic LHO but rather two. If you want to do that you have to follow the path I have outlined. You can write anything you wish here and I can write anything I wish at my site but I am not trying to change an accepted fact and you are. So the burden of proof is on you. Let's bring this whole thing to end an Sandy by my telling you this. There was one Lee Harvey Oswald and only one. The chance that there were 2 Oswalds as described by John Armstrong is exactly zero. It didn't happen and couldn't happen because it is impossible. Now, if you to pretend that you have proven something you can continue to do that. But the majority, even here at the EF where any number of theories are considered, don't believe it. Now by all means carry on with your nonsense.

You can do whatever you want. If you are really interested in bringing your theory to a wider audience and working to have it accepted as a fact, you will follow the path I have outlined. It is obvious that you are content to stay here and preach to the choir though. Which is ok.

Two Oswalds as presented by the H&L theory? I seriously doubt it.

No, I said I can understand how people can believe there were impersonations (outside if the H&L theory) if they choose to. I don't believe there were such impersonations other than a possible one in Mexico City by the CIA.

I think it was Lance who said Posner's book stands up very well today ( I am paraphrasing). All his book consists of is a summary of the well known evidence from the WC, HSCA and other sources that points to LHO as a lone gunman and a biography of LHO that shows he was a person predisposed to commit the crime. His book was the best promoting the lone gunman theory until Bugliosi came along and I think helped turn a corner for the media and others. And before Jim D. jumps in, myself and a couple others did a study of the supposed "errors" in the book years ago and found it was very overblown. Fred Litwin's book essentially uses the same type of evidence as Posner in 2018 and that evidence stands up today. And no, I don't believe there was anyone using LHO's identity. I do admit that evidence exists so that if someone is predisposed to the idea of multiple Oswalds or someone using his identity they can believe it.