W. Tracy Parnell

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Have you read John Armstrong’s write-up on the two Landesbergs?

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

7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

One picture I feel fairly certain is of American-born LEE Oswald was taken in 1958 by his brother Robert and published in Robert’s book, LEE, A Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald, following page 96.  Here it is:

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.

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Isn't it curious that almost all those witnesses thought the other Oswald was taller and heavier than the one shot by Jack Ruby, matching the USMC medical records of American-born LEE. What a coincidence!!

But did these witnesses also think he wore glasses?

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Unexplained are LEE’s glasses and the fact that he didn’t look much like the man killed by Ruby, at least according to Mr. Bullock, unless he was referring more to his height and weight than his facial features.

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?

7 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

I was asking for something more recent, you know, something that had been drawn from the past 50 years of research. Well, now I know. According to you lot the book I am looking for does not exist. Either it does exist but it doesn't meet with your own opinionated interpretations, or no one has written such a book that has come to your attention.

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.

7 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

I think Mervyn Hagger has shown us that Albert Schweitzer College was mentioned in many newspapers throughout the 50s, which kind of deflates the narrative that says Oswald would never have found this school on his own; what do you think?

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

7 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

And most honestly, I would not take ANYTHING the Warren Commission says about Oswald...  I doubt we'll ever see John Ely's original notes or reports....

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.  

1 hour ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

I was thinking of one book. If you could pick from a single biography, not a spy book or assassin book or any other kind of book but a biography with supporting references, which book best describes the non-partisan life of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mervyn

 

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

On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 11:27 AM, Mervyn Hagger said:

Well, there it is.

Now you know who he contacted in order to go to college.

 

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.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Virtually everything in Mr. Parnell's blog article relating to Oswald's use of language in the USSR is ultimately attributable to Titovets, a man with a clear agenda to deny Oswald's connections to U.S. Intel.

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

11 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

...where is Lee in the past 55 years?

"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

22 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Tracy,

I just now went there and took a look at that post and a few of the others on that page.  In my humble opinion, Mytton has done some excellent work there. Thanks for sharing the link.

--  TG

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

22 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Everyone has an opinion, but the only serious study I've seen of LHO photographs using modern biometric comparison techniques found evidence of two different Oswalds in the existing visual data.   And the study was conducted by an H&L skeptic.  Again, the whole analysis can be seen here....

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14916-Pixel-Counting-Biometric-Comparison-of-Oswald-photos

 

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.

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

The ears and eyes do it for me.  What Sandy fails to understand is people do change over a period of time.

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.

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

With all due respect, has YOUR face changed over the years? 

You know, after you got "all grown up, and everything"?

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.

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

BTW, John has just completed a major update to the Two Marguerites page on my website.  See it here:

http://harveyandlee.net/Moms/Moms.html

And see my rebuttal of the two Marguerite theory here:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html