W. Tracy Parnell

The original point stands. Wilcott remembered many individuals from Tokyo, which isn't that surprising. But he strangely couldn't remember the name of the person he allegedly disbursed the "Oswald Project" funds to.

The facts on the exhumation: http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/xindex.htm http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/paul-groody.html

The commission did not "ignore" Robert's reference to Stripling. They simply chose not to make an issue of it because there was no need to in the grand scheme of things. If necessary, they could have produced evidence that proved Robert was wrong. They could have done the same thing with Palmer McBride. But the commission could not foresee that someone would write a book 40 years later that would use inconsistencies like these to push a conspiracy theory involving two Oswalds.

I didn't say it was all because of him, there are reports unrelated to his work if I remember correctly (besides Robert). But if they had any other evidence besides anecdotal reports I am sure they would have mentioned it. You mention Robert's book and I don't believe he says LHO attending Stripling in that. By that time, he realized his mistake. Bottom line is anyone can say an event happened but without other evidence (yearbook photos etc.) to back it up it is not a fact.

This is from Robert and we already know from his WC testimony that he believed LHO attended Stripling. But Robert had left for the service in July, 1952 and was not around to witness LHO's alleged attendance. He simply thought he went there, but Robert forgot that LHO and Marguerite had moved to NYC. If they had not done so, LHO certainly would have attended Stripling but he did not. So, two mistaken statements from the same witness do not have greater weight. I certainly do-they have heard the various reports and that is why they wrote it. As they point out, there is no record, no photographs, nothing besides witness statements to indicate LHO's attendance. And many of the statements were obtained by Armstrong 40 years after the fact.

Very glad to see this guys and kudos to both of you.

Michael, You are correct that arguments over H&L are becoming more and more futile. Both sides have presented their evidence over the past two years or so. Those that choose to believe (and make no mistake-it is a belief) will do so. All the critics can do is remind people of the mountain of evidence that points away from the theory. For that, they can read the back threads here at EF and look at my site and those of Greg Parker and Jeremy B.

No one ever said they were lying. They may have remembered an Oswald at Stripling, but it was Robert not LHO. However, it is not noteworthy to say that you remembered Robert. The H&L gang doesn't understand that just because someone says something years and years later that doesn't make it a fact. I took Armstrong's claim of LHO at Stripling seriously and looked into it some time ago but there is nowhere in the chronology for it to have happened. Unless of course, you postulate 2 Oswalds and the evidence does not support that.

This is exactly what myself and other H&L critics have been saying for some time. If you truly believed you held the "key" to the JFK case, wouldn't you seek out an investigative journalist or a private investigator (or both) to help prove the theory and bring this story to the masses? But as you say, the H&L gang merely soldiers on, accepting new adherents (such as Sandy) here and there while the majority of serious researchers (including those of the conspiracy variety) doubt their findings. Of course, Armstrong talked to journalist Nick Patoski who was less than impressed with the overall theory although he was open to the Frank Kudlaty story because he knew him. So, it went nowhere and that is why they don't repeat the exercise. That and all of the media are allegedly "in on the plot."

Right you are Paul. The H&L gang ignores the inconvenient "originally admitted" date of January 13 as they must. This date jibes with other information (from Grote the Big Brothers representative to mention one) that shows LHO & Marguerite left NYC just before this and traveled to New Orleans. So, there really is no mystery here as Lance said in the beginning of this thread which has wandered around some.

This seems uncalled for.

If any of this had been an issue, the WC could have easily dealt with it. They would have asked Head (or the school superintendent or whoever) for an explanation of the school records in light of the overwhelming evidence they would have provided him that shows there were not two boys attending schools at the same time. And Head (or whoever) would have provided an alternate explanation (such as Parker has provided) that would explain the discrepancy. The same thing would have happened with Palmer McBride. Of course, the WC could not imagine that someone like John Armstrong would come along years later with such a nutty theory. All of this has been explained to the H&L gang numerous times but they refuse to give up. As Paul T. says, maybe they are still looking for that big movie deal.

Jim D has an uneasy relationship with the H&L theory. On one hand, he sounds like he is arguing in favor of the theory. On the other hand he makes statements like "I wish Armstrong had let me look at the book before publishing it" or something to that effect. I can find the original quote, which was from a forum posting, if needed. Anyway, I think it would be useful if Jim would go on record here about H&L in some detail.

This quote from Jean's book is very relevant to the school records thing and H&L in general. All these [conspiracy] theories are based on unexplained discrepancies in the record. ... Alternative explanations and the overall pattern of the evidence are given little attention, if any."

First, good analysis Lance and you are correct that there is no mystery here at all. As you point out, it is known (app.) when LHO and Marguerite left NYC and her growing disillusionment with the legal process (which was her motive for leaving) resulting from LHO's absences is fully documented. A few short days after they left, LHO is "originally admitted" at Beauregard, all of this is logically and chronologically sound. But the H&L people do not view the situation in the context of the complete historical record. They take inconsistencies, errors and most notably witness statements, some made 40 years after the fact, and use this as "proof" of the theory. In the case of the school records, they are using their own interpretation of the records and holding this up as a hard fact when other interpretations exist. To get back to your question above, the H&L folks would say that all such inconsistencies in the record were simply made to disappear by the CIA plotters to cover up their crime. Of course, the plotters were not perfect and left many clues to the mystery that only they are smart enough to pick up on. And in addition to the conspiracy to kill JFK, there is another ongoing conspiracy by the media, academia etc. to ignore the H&L theory and keep the world in the dark about the truth.

I've often said that if I felt I had discovered some hidden truth about the JFK case and sincerely believed in that fact, I would naturally want to take that information to journalists in order to make it widely available. If I truly believed in the theory, I would also invite scrutiny since I would be sure that my theory would stand up to careful evaluation. But it doesn't look like the H&L people are willing to do any of this since they are content to stay here on their "home playing field" where they can assure each other that they are correct and dismiss any critics as "lone nutters" even when that is clearly not the case for the vast majority of doubters. They apparently are not even willing to go over to Parker's forum and engage in a formal moderated debate. I'll give Dr. Norwood credit for doing that at least, even though he lost handily.

Parker has addressed all of that. Lurkers can check out his site: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t435-why-palmer-mcbride-was-wrong

H&L wasn't the original topic and I thought perhaps the moderators would prefer it here. It's not difficult to imagine why McBride reversed himself after talking to Armstrong. He had two choices-he could admit he was wrong about when he knew LHO. Or he could reverse himself and become a part of history as well as minor celebrity at JFK conferences and assure himself that he had been right after all.

Jim Hargrove in another thread said: You’re not paying much attention. 1. I never said there were no researchers who believe in H&L. I said I believe the majority would be against it if you could somehow take an effective poll. In an informal poll here in 2015, H&L lost as you may recall. 2. You say your website and Len Osanic's get many hits. CTs are popular but that doesn't really prove anything. 3. McBride cites other witnesses and tells Lifton to talk to them. He (and the H&L gang) doesn't understand that it doesn't matter what anyone says-that doesn't make it a fact. Despite what McBride says, he didn't "reluctantly" agree with Lifton by my reading of the partial transcript: Lifton: OK. In this (FBI) statement, you also write, “during his first visit to my home, in late ’57 or early ’58. . . “McBride: No, that’s not right. It’s gotta be ’56. It’s gotta be ’56. It can’t be ’57…Lifton: I want you to go through this. Do you have any theory as to why you were confused, why you thought it was ’57 or ’58 back when you made the statement?McBride: No. I can’t figure it out as to why I thought it was ’58. If he was already in the Marines in ’56, he sure as hell wasn’t at Pfisterer.

Jim, I'll reply over at the "New Article by John Armstrong" thread.

The H&L theory has been disproven for most CT researchers and informal polls show that. For example, two prominent CT researchers, Morley and Newman, are pushing the CIA-did-it theory. But neither would give a minute to H&L. And for good reason because the theory has been debunked completely. Take the issue that started it all-Palmer McBride. Anyone can go to my site and read an overview on how CTs Greg Parker, David Lifton and Doug Horne (working for the ARRB) took that apart over the years. Parker just finished a debate with Dr. Norwood (that he won handily) that focused partly on McBride. There is just no doubt anymore that McBride was well-meaning but mistaken. https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1649-lee-harvey-oswald-the-legend-and-the-truth http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/palmer-mcbride.html What the H&L theory really needs is to undergo a rigorous evaluation by investigative journalists etc. as I have mentioned before. But we know that is not going to happen because the whole thing would fall, apart under such scrutiny. So, we will continue to have what we have now-a small group of believers promoting the theory against all odds. Hopefully, Sandy you will be the one to bring it to the next level by taking it to the experts and please keep us informed if you decide to do so.

This is an amazing statement. The truth is that the H&L people are basing their belief (which is what it is) on certain evidence and ignoring everything that refutes the theory or claiming it is faked. The anti-H&L people re not ignoring the H&L "evidence" but rather have refuted much of it and seek to explain the rest (everything is not necessarily explainable). My advice-take it to an investigative journalist, a retired investigator (a currently employed investigator would not have time to waste on this) or anyone with a similar background and see how far you get. Actually, Armstrong did that on at least two occasions. He spoke with Vincent Bugliosi who was the former prosecutor in LA and familiar with the law and the way facts work in the real world. We know how that ended up-Bugliosi wrote a 16 page (if memory serves) rebuttal of the H&L theory in the endnotes for Reclaiming History. The second person Armstrong talked to was Joe Nick Patoski, who also had a low opinion of the theory. Patoski knew Frank Kudlaty and was mildly impressed that someone who he knew (Patoski attended Stripling) as a reasonable man said the things he did. But Patoski probably didn't know that Jack White got a hold of Kudlaty and in any case there is no evidence that he was converted to the theory since that was his first and last article on the subject. And if he truly believed that there was an "Oswald Project" involving two boys that held the key to the JFK case, presumably wild horses couldn't keep him from pursuing that story. Anyway, take it to a "serious" person who is qualified and they will quickly educate you on facts in the real world as opposed to the fantasy world Armstrong tried to create.

No, I have no specific evidence per se for my statement. It is, however, a reasonable explanation I believe.

CIA cryptonyms are not specially mentioned. All this section indicates is that the HSCA did not want certain classified information that might be mentioned in his testimony (such as the name of the station he worked at) to become public which is why it was given in executive session. They specifically asked Wilcott if he had anything to add at the end of his testimony and he said no.

Where to start? The only times LHO was photographed with a height chart, he was either 5-9 or 5-8. At autopsy he was 5-9. When he was exhumed, his height was estimated at 5-8 1/2 from a measurement of the femur. The times he was listed at 5-11 could have resulted from him orally reporting his height (which despite what Sandy Larsen says could have happened), footwear, posture, human error and so on. By the H&L logic, if I were able to find a report of any individual that showed his height was different from what was usually mentioned, it would prove that individual had a double. Of course other explanations exist in the real world. For about the thousandth time, James Wilcott was asked under oath what the alleged cryptonym was and he said he couldn't remember. In other words, he was not willing to risk a perjury charge. The cryptonym Jim cites is from the apparent notes of an HSCA staffer (probably Harold Leap) after interviewing Wilcott. Also, the cryptonym mentioned by Wilcott has never been verified by any source to have even existed including the Mary Ferrell website and John Newman who have definitive lists available. Finally, a list was discovered in the newly released files that also does not mention the cryptonym. The HSCA, who Jim and his mentor Armstrong cite whenever it supports the H&L theory, found Wilcott to be not credible.