W. Tracy Parnell
-
Posts
2,220 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by W. Tracy Parnell
-
-
44 minutes ago, David Andrews said:
her phones were tapped
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.
-
15 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
And contrary to what Parnell says, Marina is ashamed of her WC testimony today. Geez there was a movie made about that subject. What nonsense.
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.
-
32 minutes ago, François Carlier said:
Thank you very much for your answer, David.
I enjoy that type of discussion.
I have to say that what you write makes sense. Indeed, if "my scenario" had happened, it is hard to conceive how it is that not even one witness ever said anything about it in fifty-five years ! You are right. I don't have an answer for that.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.
-
2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:
Garrison got too close to the truth, Sandy. The powers that be have to continue to try to destroy his legacy.
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.
-
9 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:
Free? Because nobody would buy it?
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:
-
1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:
Dropped the ball???? Is that what you call this?
Yes, that's what I call it.
-
3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
And the third installment of Fred Litwin's trilogy of truth will very likely be entitled "I Was A Crusty Old Fart Who Was Sick To Death Of Arguing Incessantly With JFK Conspiracy Theorists Whose Theories Have Never Once Come Together In A Cohesive And/Or Believable Manner And Have Never Made A Lick Of (Common) Sense" (©2027 Three Cheers For Common Sense In The JFK Case! Publishing Co., Inc.).
🤣(laughing til I cry)
-
5 hours ago, Cory Santos said:
And the FBI memo from Hoover from 1960?
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html
Scroll down to "Hoover Imposter Theory."
-
5 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:
How do you explain that they suddenly lose interest in him when he gets a job near the motorcade route and rents a room under a false name?
They dropped the ball. This is probably one of the reasons they don't want more information released-it may show their incompetence.
-
1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:
Why only possible?what holds you back from concluding it was?
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.
-
2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:
I'm waiting for his sequel --"I Was A Middle Aged Nutter Propagandist."
I'll give you credit for a good sense of humor with that one.
-
2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:
"Admittedly" you were exaggerating your case about what a "majority" of EF members thought.
I'll qualify it by saying a majority that participated in that thread.
-
15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Statistical analysis of the evidence proves that it's virtually impossible that there was only one young Oswald.
Your statement is based on a gut feeling. Mine is based on evidence, reasoning, and mathematics.
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.
-
14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
I don't know why you believe that the lone nut scenario is accepted fact. A majority of Americans believe the assassination was a conspiracy. Even the HSCA concluded that.
Well, the fact I was referring to is that there was one Oswald and you are saying there were two.
-
17 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:
don't remember you taking a poll on this, W.
So when you get the opinions of all the members of the EF put me down as "likely" that the birth Oswald wasn't the death Oswald.
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.
-
19 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:
Mr. Scott: Are you absolutely convinced that the man who was “Lee Harvey Oswald” in Russia was, in fact, the man picked up in Dallas in ‘63?
Mr. Newman: Not at all… (goes on to talk about Mexico City).
The remarks above come at approximately the 37:30 mark in the video below, which is courtesy of Dr. Gary Aguilar.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:
mole under eye
Right, both Marguerites had the same one.
-
11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
BTW Tracy, how many of the articles you have written and posted on your website have been peer reviewed by experts?
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.
-
12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
What do you expect me to do? Find a professional group of intelligent observers and submit my presentations to them?
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.
-
17 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:
At a recent meeting shown on YouTube, both Peter Dale Scott and John Newman showed real openness to the concept of two Oswalds.
Two Oswalds as presented by the H&L theory? I seriously doubt it.
-
18 hours ago, Cory Santos said:
Tracy, So we agree about the evidence showing someone using his identity. Let’s dissect it more. Why does that have to be the Harvey lee scenario. Could it not be something else?
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.
-
1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:
I understand where you are coming from Tracy with the peer review thing, I agree, though I think you waste time quoting Francois who apparently solved the case reading posners book and talking with the French police over coffee, but to be fair to Sandy -and I AM NOT a Harvey lee theorist- it is a fact that as early as 1960 someone was using Oswald’s identity other than him. That is a fact. The warren Ommission clearly provides photos of someone other than Oswald in Mexico City. That is a fact. So while perhaps not a Harvey lee scenario-and those do exist to this day in intelligence work- something was going on with someone other than him using his identity. I think you solve that part and you solve who LHO really was. I do not believe it was a strange coincidence.
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.
Jim Garrison vs Fred Litwin
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by 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.