W. Tracy Parnell

Please don't waste any time on the "two Landesberg" thing. There certainly were 2 Steve (Stephen) Landesbergs, but that fact has absolutely nothing to do with LHO or the JFK case: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-hoaxster-and-conspiracy-theorists.html http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/armstrong-evolving-landesberg-theory.html

The photo was actually taken in 1957: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-hunter-photo.html Another example of believing a witness when it fits the H&L theory. But other times, Robert, who was in on the plot, is a xxxx.

But did these witnesses also think he wore glasses?

Which just proves that you can't believe everything every witness says. You must look at the totality of the evidence. The H&L theory does not do that, it "cherrypicks" what fits and ignores everything inconvenient as in the glasses and lack of resemblance to "Harvey" in this instance. Or perhaps we need a "3 Oswald" theory to explain Mr. Bullock's recollections?

No such book exists. Because of the fact that LHO was accused of shooting JFK, readers pretty much expect the writer to get around to the subject of his guilt or innocence sometime before the end. As an example, Mailer wrote a book that was basically two parts. The first part was a biography of LHO in the Soviet Union. The second part was his speculation about Oswald's role in the assassination. Jim D. and I are in agreement for once-start with the Warren Report, which is available online, and go from there. Appendix 13 is a concise chronological biography with citations.

I agree that LHO, who read many different publications, could have found information about Schweitzer easily.

This simply means that in Jenner's opinion, Ely did not have all the details correct. BTW, I was simply listing some resources that the OP could use without my own editorial comment. But as long as you opened the door, while Armstrong did some good research, his book must be approached very cautiously since the thesis is that there were two Oswalds rather than the one historic Oswald.

Honestly, I would start with Appendix 13 of the Warren Report. Concise and free: https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-13.html

Some books that contain biographical information on LHO: WR Chapter 13 Reclaiming History by Bugliosi Marina and Lee by McMillan Harvey & Lee by Armstrong The Interloper by Savodnik Oswald's Tale by Mailer Oswald's Game by Davison Legend by Epstein The Mind of Oswald by Holloway Mrs. Paine's Garage by Mallon Lee by Robert Oswald The Missing Chapter by Swike Russian Episode by Titovets Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War by Parker

Not trying to be a "party pooper," but these facts have been known for years and years. See WC CD 120: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10524 Interesting thread though.

Except for Ana Ziger's statement that her father translated "because he [LHO] spoke Russian poorly." Armstrong quotes from the Ziger's extensively and considers them reliable witnesses when they suit his purposes.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/lho-spoke-no-russian-in-russia.html

"Lee" as well as his mother (the real Marguerite) conveniently disappeared. Armstrong has stated that "Lee" may be "very much alive."

Well, this had been discussed to death in the H&L threads, but for those that haven't seen those I'll repeat it here. Wilcott did indeed say the cryptonym was RX-ZIM when he spoke to HSCA investigators. But under oath, he said he didn't recall what it was. His memory improved a few months later before the Cuban tribunal when he named the cryptonym again. Also, a quick check of the Mary Ferrell database shows no "R" cryptonyms at all and they do not recognize this particular one nor does John Newman. In my research, I found that Wilcott was an extreme left-winger who became disgruntled with the CIA. Since he was a finance officer and had nothing to do with covert ops, his opinions should not be given nay more weight than the anyone else's. Please see: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html

You're welcome Tommy. Mytton has indeed done some good work and his talent with graphics far exceeds my own.

Speaking of the above photo, John Mytton has a new post at Duncan Macrae's forum that shows the resemblance between the teeth of "Lee" and "Harvey" (reply #93). https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,207.90.html

Greg Parker said: They have gone from asking if I was suggesting tooth 30 was a wisdom tooth to claiming that was exactly what I said. What a shock! The whole point of what I sent was that anyone who expects the dental chart of a person pre-wisdom teeth to perfectly match post-wisdom teeth is not looking for answers, but for conspiracies. All sorts of things can happen through every stage of getting adult teeth, including the drifting and crowding of teeth, 2nd molars erupting behind first molars, impacted teeth and even extra wisdom teeth in the case of 2% of the population. But not once have I seen anyone from H & L refer to texts on the subject -- only to what they subjectively see in Oswald's charts and forms. And Sandy Larsen and Jim Hargrove both make it abundantly clear that they prefer readers to take their word and not do any thinking, let alone digging into actual dental science. They know the bubble will bust the minute they bring in actual dentists to look at the material. There are commonsense scientific answers - not just here but for every piece of evidence from all facets of the H & L theory waved around by them - even where it is not immediately apparent. The lack of valid methodology in searching for and ruling alternative explanations is a red flag to those not afflicted by such broken epistemology. We know who they are. They are the ones questioning the lack of science. I would be a WC supporter if not for knowing Oswald had an airtight alibi, the background on certain individuals who entered his life and the abysmal record of the Dallas authorities in framing innocent people. All else is just bloviating chest thumping defense of BS theories. I mean, it's a bit like which team you root for. Even when that team is going through a losing streak and is in danger of being kicked out of the competition, you feel compelled to continue support. In Conspiracy-Land, it's even worse than that because some have gambled their reputations and life's work on someone else's lucid fantasy. Of course, some know full well what they are doing. They just don't want the game to end.

Greg Parker said: The last wisdom tooth (a molar) errupts between the age of 17 and 25. But of course, this is coming from exerts in the field so we should ignore them and listen to the man in the hat. Or at least that is what he will claim based on past performance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_tooth

Of course, the HSCA did a "serious study" and found photos all showed the same man. Although the H&L theory had not yet been created and most of the photos used were of "Harvey", luckily the study included a pic of "Lee." Same man as anyone without a bias can see. https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0140a.htm

Another good post by John Mytton over at Duncan McRae's forum (reply #87): https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,207.80.html Notice how the eyes, ears, nose, eyebrows and lips on these two "unique individuals" all match up. The length of the hair changes and the hairline recedes as he ages but otherwise a match.

Right, and it's easy to see if you want to. The ears look slightly different in the photos Ray alludes to because the tilt of the head is different. An ear study was done but I have not been able to find it to see how it relates to H&L. There are relatively few instances of "Lee" (photographically and otherwise) and that is one way Armstrong and friends get away with so much.

This tooth thing can be settled easily. Get some dental experts and show them ALL the evidence. In other words, explain your theory and THEN show them the photos of the "Harvey and Lee" and the other "evidence" you believe supports the theory. Because that's the way science works-all the evidence is evaluated and then "outliers" like the "failed" notation and all of the other H&L "evidence" are discarded. The experts would recognize this "evidence" for what it is-human error, misinterpretations and in some cases fabrications.

Right Tommy. The mole started fairly small and got bigger over time like most physical defects do as we older folks know (speaking for myself). Good job by Michael to point this out.

Greg Parker sent me the following: Armstrong has amended his previous claim [in the updated article] of Ekdahl being over 6' to now being 5' 11" to 6'. Still wrong. In 1919 at age 23, Ekdahl was listed on his passport as 5' 10". By the time of hos wedding to Marguerite, he was likely to have shrunk - not grown.

And see my rebuttal of the two Marguerite theory here: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html