W. Tracy Parnell

I am not talking about simply making facts public, but about proving a conspiracy through scientific and legal means and reversing the history books. I am working on a blog article about this now.

Yes, and I also know why they said that. But Steve Barber, Dale Myers and other information have showed the acoustics evidence to be wrong.

Then it should be a simple matter to get your information to scientists, the media and others who can make these facts known to the public. But as far as witnesses, you should be aware that people witnessing an event will vary in their explanations of what happened.

It is when there exists a perfectly rational alternate explanation with evidence to back it up. The burden of proof then shifts in this case to the conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately, very few of them agree about anything regarding this case. Take the H&L theory for example. An informal poll here showed the majority do not agree with it. Another case is the umbrella man who was the subject of a recent thread. For some reason I can't discern, some people here still believe there is something to this even though Louie Witt came forward to ID himself and he looks exactly like photos of the UM as Jerry Organ showed. I am willing to bet there are many (again probably a majority) who would discount this debunked theory. So, until an alternate CT theory is developed that refutes the WC/HSCA with evidence accepted by scientists, academia and the media, the CT community is resigned to speculation.

Great post Lance. Hopefully, you won't be a stranger here.

It's not enough to theorize, you have to prove it.

In a case with literally millions of pieces of information, it is impossible to deal with all of it. Professional investigators (FBI, Police agencies) know this and instead look to what the preponderance of the evidence shows happened to determine facts. This is especially true regarding witness statements which can (and will) vary significantly. (scroll down to "Eyewitness testimony Questionable") http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/h&l1.htm

There was no motive. He simply acted on impulse as his personal history (acts of violence against people at his club) shows he was want to do. He then spent much time trying to explain his irrational action in a rational way.

Very good point. While the motive is unknowable, several good treatments have been done which offer good and logical suggestions. In addition to Bugliosi, Jean Davison and Jerry Organ come to mind.

I believe my comment was fair. He asked what motivates us and went on to suggest money was a factor. It is reasonable to assume that the money would come from the CIA, or wherever because I don't know where else it would come from. Fred Litwin (who is having trouble posting right now) tells me sales of his book have been very modest. DVP stated, if I remember correctly, that he has sold around 50 copies of this own book which means he didn't cover his expenses in all likelihood. In any case if Mr. Niederhut says he did not mean to say we are paid agents, I will apologize.

There you have it. We did not have to wait long before the old chestnut is trotted out-if you don't agree with us, you must be a paid agent from the CIA or wherever. I have been involved in JFK research since 1984 and I have never made a cent. Fred will presumably make some money from his book-as he should.

I don't rule out the possibility that Clay Shaw was a CIA "asset" since he was former military. That does not prove he was involved in an assassination plot.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, my review of the book is now up: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2018/10/book-review-i-was-teenage-jfk.html

You have proved no such thing. You have zero expertise in the field of forensic dentistry so someone who does would have to write a paper agreeing with your theory and then publish in a peer reviewed journal. If the paper was then accepted by the peers you would have something. But when they found out who the teeth belonged to, they would not go near it with a ten foot pole because of the other evidence that disproves the H&L theory. BTW, the majority of researchers here at EF who are overwhelmingly of the CT persuasion disagree with the H&L theory and would likely disagree with your claim of "corroborating" Armstrong's research.

It is amusing to read the attacks on Fred Litwin, the majority of which are by people who have not read his book and do not intend to. I have not read the book yet, but I will and plan to do a review to be published at my website. But my understanding is that this book is as much or more a coming-of-age story than it is an analysis of the assassination. And at only 272 pages, it is unrealistic for such a book to address the myriad issues regarding JFK's death. It seems to me that many people here are afraid that others may read a book written by a former conspiracy believer and find that his reasons for "switching sides" make sense.

Good for you Michael. And let me say I wish Fred the best of luck with this book and to the doubters-what are you afraid of? Give it a chance at least.

The funny thing is Robert (or the fake Marguerite) wasn't very well versed on the plot it seems, even though Armstrong believes he was in on it. This is one of the biggest points against the H&L theory-the conspirators didn't know what they were doing and kept goofing up even though the CIA would have presumably trained them so geniuses like Armstrong could not discover their handiwork years later. How many witnesses are lying? In this instance probably zero. They could be remembering an Oswald at Stripling, but if so it was Robert-after that many years the memory gets hazy. But Armstrong thinks that people remember mundane events in vivid detail years after the fact when they have no reason to. In other words, I can remember what I was doing when JFK was shot, but I don't remember the day before at all.

Kudlaty was not necessarily lying. He heard White's story and then "remembered" his experience with the FBI, no doubt differently than it was because of White's influence. If Kudlaty had come forward independently, if would give greater weight to his statements. Of course, we have been over Robert's statements about Stripling before. He assumed that his brother attended Stripling. And he would have if Marguerite had not moved them to NYC. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/robert-oswald-and-stripling.html

Jim, You always want to change the subject to DiMaio no matter what the subject is. But we are talking about witnesses as they relate to H&L. And you can't equate DiMaio, who is an expert even though you don't agree with him (or believe he is a member of the evil "power elite"), with the people Armstrong dug up. These are people 40 years after the fact who may or may not have even been in a position to see what they think they did.

You can find a partial transcript of Lifton's interview with McBride on the Internet. It comes across IMO as very journalistic not "guns blazing" at all. And I don't remember saying DiMaio was objective-just that he was an expert.

All of the discrepancies have a reasonable alternate explanation. One thing you have to understand about witnesses-especially those speaking 40 or more years later is that they are essentially worthless without collaborating evidence. Particularly true when there is other evidence that refutes them. Palmer McBride is the gold standard for what I talking about. He knew LHO and there is no doubt about that. He was just mistaken about when some of the events he witnessed took place. David Lifton interviewed McBride and did exactly what the WC would have done if he had testified-showed him documentation that proved he was mistaken. And McBride immediately recanted. But what Armstrong did and does with other witnesses is convince them they are an important part of history. And McBride was very receptive to the idea that he was not mistaken after all-who wouldn't be? So, he reversed himself. As further evidence of witness unreliability, when David Matt and Richard Sweat escaped from prison in upstate New York a few years back, police received hundreds of reports that they were in Allegany county. Turns out they had never left the Adirondack region near the prison they escaped from hundreds of miles away. Were those people lying? Some possibly were, but most were just mistaken. As for records, there will be any number of mistakes in records, especially when a family moves as much as LHO's did. 20 plus moves is a lot of opportunity for mistakes to creep into the record.

Some of the witnesses probably are lying. People do it all the time for various reasons. Some are certainly mistaken-Palmer McBride comes to mind immediately and also Dr. Kurian. Another group are recent witnesses that Armstrong approached in the nineties. The problems with those witnesses are numerous. For one thing, he did not approach them with an unbiased mind. Instead of using a journalist's technique, he found them and informed them that they were witnesses to history and no doubt used leading questioning. Of course, 40 or more years had passed since the events they were trying to recall which is another problem. And then there is the case of Kudlaty who was a friend of Jack White. Kudlaty had never said a word about the FBI taking any records but when White told his story, Kudlaty suddenly "remembered" the alleged incident. This has all been discussed here many times and anyone who needs more information can do a forum search.

OK, I can buy that. But how do you explain Jim and John which he apparently told the Church Committee?

This is not "testimony" but rather statements he made on TV. All of this is just his own speculation and obviously fueled by books and articles that he had read (he thinks LHO was a patsy and double agent). I am doing this from memory, but to my knowledge he never made any of the statements you highlighted in his HSCA testimony. Notice he says the alleged meeting with "Bishop" was in August twice, once saying it was "perhaps the first days of September" in a nod to Fonzi whose theories had influenced him by that point. Note also Bishop is named Morris instead of Maurice and at other times he said he was Jim or John.

Care to share the URL? Don't worry, I won't post anything as I'm not on Facebook. I just want to read it.