W. Tracy Parnell

Thanks Tom for the reply. I have had my battles with David, but he has contributed a great deal of research here and would undoubtedly be missed by many.

My argument is simple. Kudlaty only came forward after talking to Jack White and hearing the H&L theory. The witnesses, including Robert, were wrong about LHO attending Stripling as shown by other "better" evidence and they have no confirming proof. As Michael said, Lance has some interesting information about witnesses from his experience with other controversial subjects. You should check that out.

Booted for what?

Opps! David Josephs blew that one! Thanks, I hadn't read that thread. Lance Payette is a breath of fresh air and common sense and I wish he would post more often on the H&L threads. He helped me with the Oswald birth certificate issue. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html

We have already discussed Kudlaty. If he had come forward on his own, his recollections could be given more weight. However, he did not do so until contacted by his friend Jack White, Armstrong's mentor. In any case, we only have Kudlaty's word for what happened and there is a great deal of evidence that shows LHO did not attend Stripling. Robert believed his brother attended Stripling as he did and he would have if he and Marguerite had not moved to NYC. As for other statements, "common knowledge" is not proof. Records, photographs and so forth are better evidence than human memory which is unreliable, especially after 40 years.

Not only school records, but anomalies in general. The reason for that is the H&L theory is based purely on such anomalies which, rather than an indication of something sinister, are a natural occurrence in any large body of data. The problem with Kudlaty is he only came forward with his story after speaking with his good friend Jack White and hearing the H&L theory. What probably happened is the FBI came to check on some records and 40 years later Kudlaty, armed with White's information, "remembered" the "confiscation" of the records. After all, who doesn't demand a receipt if original records are taken? And why did Kudlaty never mention the missing records before? I certainly do. First, the article you link to provides no details of who remembered LHO at Stripling. However, we can assume the reports are similar to those presented on Armstrong. These are simply anecdotal with no other proof besides the individuals memory after years and years. No documents, photographs (which we have from schools LHO actually attended) or anything else. The witnesses are probably misremembering Robert who did attend Stripling. And as I have pointed out, it is not newsworthy to have seen Robert Oswald but would be to have seen LHO.

I'll let Mr. Walton defend himself, but he says he believes in conspiracy and I accept him at his word.

And that is all it says with no other detail. Again, the likelihood is they are misremembering Robert. Their motive? It is not significant to say that you remember Robert Oswald but it would be to say you remember LHO. That is just human nature.

There is an alternate link to a download at Greg Parker's site for anyone having trouble: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1656-pdf-harvey-and-lee-cd-john-armstrong-2003

1. Greg Parker has come up with an alternate explanation for the school records which the H&L people "misinterpret" to their advantage. This can be viewed at his site and the H&L people can debate him there if they disagree. 2. John Pic and Robert Oswald provided much important information, but everything they said is not necessarily correct. Robert was right that LHO WOULD HAVE attended Stripling. However, he left for NYC so that did not happen. 3. Greg Parker has demonstrated the problem with Frank Kudlaty. He was a friend of Jack White and only "remembered" his alleged experiences after White got a hold of him. Same thing with Joe Nick Patowski-he was acquainted with Kudkaty and tended to believe him because of that. 4. People Armstrong interviewed must be viewed with extreme skepticism for a couple of reasons. First, 40 years had gone by. Second, Armstrong's method if "interviewing" is highly suspect. He asks leading questions rather than objective ones as a journalist would do. The individuals are told they are important witnesses to a secret history. A more reasonable explanation for all of these witnesses is they are thinking of Robert.

Jim, David and Sandy, I would like to see any or all of you go over to Greg's site and debate him on this issue. Maybe with a moderated debate, you could get to the bottom of it. I don't have the time or interest to debate it. But Greg is interested and has an alternate theory-why not debate him?

And if there were no alternative explanations this might be powerful evidence for the H&L theory. But of course, there are other explanations such as this one provided by Greg Parker: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records If you disagree, get over to his site and debate him. It would be a moderated debate with the very fair Vanessa Loney as moderator.

Pardon me for changing the subject Jim, but it appears the Dr. Norwood/Greg Parker debate is over for now anyway as Norwood has dropped out. I think it would be great if you would go over to ROKC and debate Greg. Vanessa Loney served as moderator and did a very good job I think. Parker got slightly out of line at one point (according to Norwood) but he apologized and the debate continued until Norwood dropped out. Anyway, here is your chance Jim to debate some of the issues you mention here frequently.

But the H&L crowd chooses what evidence to follow and ignores the rest.

In this case, I thought that he raised a good point and that is why I mentioned it. It is apparent that you are preoccupied with his work against the H&L theory. The fact is that despite your attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with the H&L theory as a WC apologist, there are many CTs who don't believe the H&L theory. Since you are so concerned with Parker, perhaps you should go over to his forum and debate him as Dr. Norwood has done. As far as his being banned here and what tactics he and his followers use, that is his business.

First, since we don't know what type of voice analysis he underwent and when, it diminishes the significance of it. Secondly, Wilcott testified in executive session and I am not aware of any limitations on what he could say. In fact, at the end of his testimony this exchange occurred indicating he had said all he wanted to:

As Greg Parker pointed out at his forum, what is a "Cuban stress analysis" anyway? I originally thought that it might refer to a test that Wilcott may have submitted to while he was in Cuba. But that happened in August, 1978 and his HSCA testimony was earlier in the year. So what is this analysis that we are supposed to be impressed with?

Read about the Marguerite who never smiled here: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/marguerite-never-smiled.html

Absolutely right Paul.

I have the book, but the point is all that exists is an application. The license that they claim to have seen is nowhere to be found. BTW, I was one of the first people to get the book back in the day for $30 or $35. I got greedy and sold it for $60 later. I now use the PDF.

But a "tattered" license suggests that it was in use for some time. This is an additional indication that the witnesses were just mistaken since LHO having a license for an extended period is especially unsupported.

He certainly had applied for a license. But that is a different thing than him actually possessing one and using it to drive. We know from the people who actually knew him (as opposed to those who think they encountered him) that LHO was learning to drive but did not do so except when taking lessons from Ruth.

No it can't because the alleged license is nowhere-it doesn't exist. However, it fits in perfectly with the other elements of the H&L theory-mistaken witnesses, misinterpreted documents and so on.

Where is it?

Let me ask you this. Were the severe misrepresentations I presented evidence of earlier in this thread (Armstrong's misuse of citations) the result of OCR errors as well? Now you are a professional writer and I doubt you would resort to that type of misinformation and still get any work. But every time you guys are called out you just ignore it. Do you agree or not that Armstrong's citations were not always correct and/or non existent?