W. Tracy Parnell

I am not escaping anything. There certainly are peer reviewed studies that exist that point to conspiracy and they should be given every consideration.

Exactly Francois. Most CTs say something like, "well I appreciate his research efforts but I don't agree with 2 Oswalds and 2 mothers."

The peers I was referring to are not fellow conspiracy theorists Sandy. Facts are not determined by a bunch of conspiracy theorists on forums who agree with each other. Let me explain how it works. Back in the day, Linda Norton and 3 other experts in forensic pathology (including 2 with dental experience) presented evidence in a scientific journal that the body in the grave in Fort Worth is the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. Your "evidence" is essentially trying to refute that finding. In order to do this, you have to find an expert who agrees with your analysis and is willing to present a paper to a similar scientific journal that is then peer reviewed. But we both know that is not going to happen because any particular observation about this case is not made in a vacuum. The experts I am referring to would ask other questions about the situation as I mentioned in my last post. And when they did that, they would find other significant evidence that pointed away from 2 Oswalds. So you have proven nothing nor will you.

I wasn't really interested in reviewing the history of scientific experts as it relates to the JFK case. I am sure there have been instances of experts making conclusions that not everyone agrees with. Getting back to the subject I was discussing-all I am saying is that Sandy believes he has found some "proof" whether you want to call scientific or whatever. The normal course of action would be to present that proof in the form of a paper that could be peer-reviewed. If they would allow him to do that I don't know since he is not credentialed. If not, he should find someone to do it for him which should be a simple matter since all it takes according to him is "common sense" to see his "proof." But what he doesn't appear to understand is that no one is going to view his "proof" in a vacuum. You might find someone to agree that the "failed" notation means the chart shows a person who has a dental appliance that failed, even though other explanations exist even if it amounts to only human error. But once they find out who the individual is and realize there is overwhelming evidence that this was the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald and the historical record shows there were not two of him, our hypothetical expert will run the other way as he or she should. They will realize that one of the other explanations is correct instead. Deep down, Sandy knows all of this and that is why he is content to stay here with his "proof" and preach to the choir or in this case a partial choir since informal polls have shown the majority (even here at EF where CTs dominate) don't agree with H&L.

Yes, he tended to act on his own for his own purposes which actually supports the LN portrayal of him. In any case, I think we will see the Joannides files sooner or later.

What were they up to, in your opinion?

Yeah, I'm not sure why all these people go to dental school or study forensics. They should just put out a shingle and tell people it's all common sense-no school needed.

Presumably, we will find out about any possible LHO-CIA relationship when the Joannides files are eventually released. If there is anything there it will likely be that Joannides instructed the DRE to take a look at LHO and see what he was up to. If that (or something like it) were true, then the CIA would naturally not want that information to come out. But the evidence shows that LHO killed JFK. So even if he had tenuous connections with the CIA or was even an agent or asset, at some point he became disillusioned and acted as he did. But because of his instability and tendency to act alone, the probability is that LHO was who he seemed to be and was acting in his own interests. And if he encountered the CIA or its operatives (as he did with the DRE) in his travels it was likely a coincidence. As for the CIA and its operatives lying, they took an oath and considered that to be above all other oaths or moral obligations. Helms considered his conviction for lying to Congress in order to protect CIA secrets "a badge of honor." For better or worse, this was a common attitude of CIA men during this period.

The CIA may have debriefed LHO on his return. One thing to remember about the CIA-they never admit anything and they never release information of any kind unless forced to.

That is easily explained. It is due to your misreading of the records due to your lack of dental and forensic expertise. That is why you don't try to find an expert to confirm your "study."

In addition to what Lance refuted, the allegation that anyone saw LHO on two occasions can be dismissed IMO. In your original post you stated it was Hyde (who evidently is more interesting to theorists because of her name) who met him twice, but according to the passage you quoted it was Naman. Anyway, since the three women gave sworn statements that were nearly identical and said nothing about 2 meetings and indeed had "no independent recollection" of LHO, I tend to believe that over Summers' contention about what she said during an interview which was undoubtedly years later. As far as if Naman was lying, you are correct-there could be other explanations for her alleged statements. But it really doesn't matter since LHO was not in Moscow in "early August" as a close look at his chronology shows. So if she said it was him she was wrong unless you are subscribing to some sort of double or triple Oswald theory that John Armstrong wouldn't touch. As for why the CIA picked those particular photos, we can speculate but will never know for sure unless some new documents on the subject are released. But I just see the whole thing as going nowhere and I don't see Hyde as suspicious or as a 62-year-old spy of some kind. In my opinion, it was just what it seemed-a coincidence that they came across LHO and photographed him. In any case, I do thank you for quoting the Summers book because I don't have that particular title at the moment and it was very helpful to me. I am working on a LHO chronology and that was one issue I wanted to clear up.

Forgot to mention that even John Armstrong wouldn't use this in his book. Of course, since "Harvey" was in Minsk and not Moscow in "early August" and "Lee" was in the US that would require a third Oswald to have been in Moscow.

Another one put to bed as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for the info.

LHO was not in Moscow in "early August" but was in Minsk. He left Moscow, where he had gone for a short time to arrange his return to the US, in early-mid July (likely no later than the 13th since he wrote Robert from Minsk on the 14th). In any case, I appreciate the information Mathias as I had heard it mentioned before that LHO was seen twice by these women and wondered about the source.

Thanks very much for your reply. According to their statements to the WC, Naman and Kramer only claimed the one meeting with LHO-in Minsk. So, where is Summers getting this? Did the women change their story when they talked to Summers? Also, according to Naman she took the photo with Hydes' camera that ended up in the WC volumes. What other photo is Summers referring to?

What is his source for this-is it his own interviews?

Well, the polls consistently indicate people believe in conspiracy so in that sense you are winning.

He was ignored for the same reasons you would be ignored if you took the evidence to someone. That reason is, as I mentioned, that evidence is not viewed in a vacuum. I suspect that is the true reason you don't try to do anything with it.

Nor can you prove what position JFK's back brace, shirt or jacket was in at the moment he was hit. It is an unknowable issue. As Lance has mentioned, you want people to view any specific piece of evidence in a vacuum. But real-life investigations, as opposed to the type of speculation you and others offer, don't work that way. They consider all of the evidence which includes the well-known physical evidence against LHO as well as his personal biography. It also includes the complete lack of physical evidence that shows any other shooter anywhere. So, you can continue to say you have irrefutable proof (which you can't take to authorities)if you want, but I for one don't buy it.

Very well said.

Well, he had motive which has been discussed here and other places. But I'll agree that it is very difficult to rule out that he might have been coerced by others. Gus Russo has some good theories on that.

As he told the HSCA, he was ashamed and didn't want to come forward because he had heckled the President.

That is the key for sure. When I first started studying the case, conspiracy books I read made the claim that LHO was just sort of a regular guy whose childhood was no worse than anyone in that era. Eventually, I found out the truth and went from agnostic to LN.

Your assertion that there may be thousands of pieces of information suggesting conspiracy may well be correct. But in a case with literally millions of pieces of information, this would not be unexpected. And the "mountain" suggesting LHO did it alone is much larger than the conspiracy one.

Or maybe he was hoping to hear a news report in order to get more information about the tragedy he had just witnessed.