W. Tracy Parnell

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Its interesting to everyone here that you would now try and escape the point I was trying to make about all the so called "experts" your side has used and which I have shown to be complete frauds and now address Sandy's ideas about Harvey and Lee.

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

8 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Hello Mister Larsen,
I have one genuine question for you : why do you think that so few conspiracy believers (or "conspiracy theorists", or "conspiracy advocates") subscribe to the "Harvey and Lee" theory ?

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

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My two LHO teeth presentations have already been peer reviewed.

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.

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

These are the experts Parnell has chosen to stand by.

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.

1 hour ago, Mathias Baumann said:

In any case, what Oswald did in New Orleans was clearly harmful to the FPCC. And they had warned him NOT to do it. Yet he went ahead and did it anyway.

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.

1 hour ago, Mathias Baumann said:

He was in cahoots with Banister, there's no doubt.

What were they up to, in your opinion?

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What? It takes an expert to count the number of teeth in a corpse's mouth? It takes an expert to read in a dental chart that the patient needs a new prosthesis? Where that fact is spelled out in plain English?

Sure Tracy... just like it takes an expert to count one's fingers or to recite the alphabet.

This isn't rocket science we're dealing with here.

 

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.

3 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

That's right, but they went very far in the Kennedy case.

What they did to the HSCA was blatant obstruction of justice.

Do you really think that mere incompetence is a sufficient explanation? My guess is that they suspected the involvement of some of their own men. That would've been reason to sabotage the HSCA.

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.

1 minute ago, Mathias Baumann said:

So it appears all the more suspicious that the CIA maintains they never questioned Oswald when he returned. He'd lived in Russia for more than two years, he certainly had more valuable information to offer than any tourist.

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.

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

How do you explain that Oswald was missing two teeth (one of which was fitted with a prosthesis) according to his dental records and other evidence, but had NO missing teeth when his body was exhumed?

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."

2 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

what exactly can be put to bed in your opinion? Ruth Paine and Marie Hyde can't be the same person as Lance has shown, that "can be put to bed", yes.

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.

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

I don't find any of this suspicious in the slightest, but then I'm not trying to sell conspiracy books. 

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

2 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Rita Naman, who is of British origin, said that while she and a friend, Monica Kramer, were touring the Soviet Union by car - a rare expedition in those Cold War years - they encountered Oswald not once but twice. First in Moscow, in early August, when he alarmed their Intourist guide by addressing them through the open window of the car.

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.

1 hour ago, Mathias Baumann said:

The source is  "Not in Your Lifetime", chapter "An Intelligence Matter". He interviewed the other two travelers, two women named Rita Naman and Monica Kramer. However, Summers was not able to trace the mysterious Ms Hyde.

According to Summers Hyde also took a photograph of Oswald - at HER initiative - that ended up in the possession of the CIA when they debriefed the women after their return to America.

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?

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

No, W., the only available "court" is public opinion.

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

7 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Gaeton Fonzi took it to the authorities in 1966 and was ignored.

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.

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Wow!

An appeal of authority in the JFK case!

Allen Dulles told you what to believe and you therefore believe it.

It's show and tell time, Lance -- show us how you get a wad of clothing to elevate entirely above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck.

It is an irrefutable fact that you cannot do this.

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.

4 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

But there is no point in either side pretending that the evidence regarding the SBT is conclusive or that the other side's position is silly.

Very well said.

2 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

You should've said: "The mountain suggesting Oswald was involved in the assassination." Even if Oswald really was the only shooter (which is VERY doubtful in my opinion) we can never rule out the possibility that he acted at the behest of others. In fact, considering that Oswald had a very positive view of Kennedy and no other discernible motive, that's the most likely explanation. The Walker shooting  shows how easily Oswald could be instigated to carry out an act of violence. And here again, we have evidence that several unidentified men fled the crime scene...

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.

10 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

The Witt story doesn't pass the "Bozo test".  He is not interviewed, nor does he come forward for many years, until HSCA ... but he is the closest human witness to the most controversial event of the century?  It simply feels wrong and is not credible.

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

42 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I believe it is CRITICAL, before bogging down in minutiae and theories, to gain as much of an understanding as possible of WHO LEE HARVEY OSWALD REALLY WAS.  I would've saved myself a lot of time and money if I had taken that approach.

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.

5 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

There is and always was a mountain of conspiracy suggesting evidence, credible person testimony and background information so huge no one ever needed any visual enhancements to see it.  In fact, you have to make a ridiculously illogical effort to drive around it and/or keep pretending it doesn't exist.

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.

9 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Hey, maybe DC Man's radio was not a two-way radio, but only a transistor radio. Maybe DC Man was just checking the baseball score, or seeing if his favorite song was coming up on the countdown

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