W. Tracy Parnell

There are several misstatements here. First, the document you obtained the alleged cryptonym from appears to be notes. As far as I can tell, it is unclear just who made the notes and for what purpose. If I am wrong perhaps you can enlighten me. Wilcott clearly stated that he didn't remember the cryptonym unless you are going to again claim that something you don't agree with or that doesn't support your theories has been altered in some way. Wilcott never claimed his testimony was altered and he had every opportunity to tell the world what the alleged cryptonym was but didn't despite your claim the HSCA was covering up. BTW, the unredacted testimony is now available and the alleged cryptonym was not in there. So what we have for "proof" of LHO's cryptonym is some notes made by an unknown person. Perhaps they were made by Wilcott or someone who spoke to him such as Leap. But if so, Wilcott would not swear under path what the cryptonym was so he must have been unsure. The sentence "standard two consonants followed by a ... pronounceable word" enforces this belief. Finally, I'll agree that H&L is dangerous, but not for the reasons you believe.

I'm sure Wilcott was used to taking polygraphs as a former CIA employee and felt he could pass one. As you probably know, a polygraph just measures changes in physiology that could indicate a person is lying, it doesn't actually detect lies. And if a person believes they are telling the truth they could certainly pass such an exam. Wilcott may have convinced himself that he was telling the truth as he remembered it from years before. But the weight of the evidence shows that he was wrong and that he had a motive for lying or "misremembering" if you prefer. That motive was his animus toward the CIA and his extreme political views.

Yet when he was asked what the cryptonym was he said: Mr. GOLDSMITH - And what did he tell you the cryptonym was? Mr. WILCOTT - I cannot remember. So either Wilcott was not sure enough to state under oath what the cryptonym was or another possibility not considered by Jim and friends is he made it up as part of his new hobby of left wing activist. In any case, one pronouncement by someone with an agenda does not make something a fact.

It's also strange that when Wilcott was asked during his testimony what the cryptonym was he said he couldn't remember. In other words, while his notes reflect what he thought it was, he wasn't willing to repeat that under oath. It's also strange that Wilcott was able to provide a list of many CIA employees but couldn't remember this individual's name. There is nothing to the Wilcott story. Undoubtedly there was gossip floating around among the low level CIA employees and Wilcott mixed this with something he thought he remembered "someone" saying to him and given his far left political views came up with this story. No one from Tokyo would back up his story even his best friend George Breen. And before Jim chimes in with "they were afraid" Wilcott wasn't afraid and there is no evidence anything was done to him for speaking out even after he traveled to Cuba to help Castro promote his propaganda and worked with a far left group to help out CIA people.

They're talking about two different things-the purpose of CI/SIG and 201 files. No where does Egerter say that CI/SIG only opened 201 files to investigate CIA employees and that Oswald was one. Inn fact, she says that a 201 file did not necessarily mean an individual was a CIA employee: That might not have been an Agency employee. It might have just been an individual that another agency was interested in but once you pulled the information together it was SOP to open a 201 file. I have made my point here and I am going to let this go. Once a point is made the readers can decide for themselves and there is no sense in beating a dead horse. I will say that stuff like this bothers me when someone states that something is a fact-in this case that a 201 file proves Oswald was a CIA employee-when it is not a fact but rather a twisting of something to suit your purposes. You guys are always bemoaning the fact that the "Mainstream media" does not take you seriously and suggest that is because they are "in on the plot." I would suggest instead that it is things like this that is the reason they don't listen to you. Everyone from the HSCA to John Newman to Jim D. has stated what a 201 file is and why it is opened and they all agree. I'll post the link one more time. Readers be sure to read up to page 19 or so for the full story: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600&search=egerter#relPageId=11&tab=page

She never said that 201 files opened in CI/SIG are for investigating employees. Please post it here if it exists.

I'm violating forum rules? Call Dr. Norwood! Seriously, I am quoting the sworn testimony and it does not say what you say it does. In one section she is talking about the functions of SIG. In another section she is talking about reasons for opening a 201 file. You are trying to conflate the two and turn it into a "fact" when it is not a fact. Now to be fair, Sandy at least said that he read this in Douglass' book and if his book says that it is wrong. So he could just be guilty of believing Douglass. I invite readers to go to the links provided above and read Egreter's testimony and decide for themselves.

Here is additional information on reasons for opening a 201 file: Goldsmith: Could you give other examples of situations which would prompt you to open a 201 file? Egerter: We received requests from outside agencies for information on an individual. If that request was sent to “SIG” -usually the assignment was made by the CI Liaison Office and traces were prepared and returned to the agency that requested the information. That would be another case for opening up the file. That might not have been an Agency employee. It might have just been an individual that another agency was interested in but once you pulled the information together it was SOP to open a 201 file. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600&search=egerter#relPageId=23&tab=page

I had not read Egerter’s full testimony, but I just did and as usual, Jim & Sandy are cherry picking to make their point. They (and apparently Douglass) make it sound like Egerter is talking about the reasons she would open a 201 file. But she is not. What Egerter said is in the context of defining the functions of CI/SIG not in defining the reason she would open a 201 file. Goldsmith: Let us go over slowly the functions of CI/SIG. One function that you have just stated is that CI/SIG would work with the Office of Security in reviewing or evaluating agency employees. Is that correct? Egerter: You mean evaluating agency employees? Goldsmith: For security clearance. Egerter: I don’t think so. Only those who were under suspicion for some reason. They were clearly discussing the functions of CI/SIG here, not the reasons that Egerter opened 201 files. Later in her testimony, Egerter did indeed talk about 201 files. Goldsmith: What is a 201 file? Egerter: It is a personality file on an individual. Goldsmith: For what purpose is it used? Egerter: Well the 201 file is opened very generally on people on whom there are several documents. Inasmuch as anytime there were several documents on an individual, why that person would have been of interest to whatever office opened the 201 file. Goldsmith: So a 201 file is a file that is used when several documents on an individual have accumulated. Rather than having the documents located separately all over the agency files you want to put them in one place and you put them in a 201 file. Egerter: That is correct. Goldsmith: When a 201 file is opened does that mean that whoever opens the file has either an intelligence interest in the individual or, if not an intelligence interest, he thinks that the individual may present a counterintelligence risk? Egerter: Well, in general I would say that would be correct. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146600&search=egerter#relPageId=14&tab=page Of course, after his defection, LHO present a risk that the CIA needed to monitor. Notice that Ergert's definition of a 201 file is almost word for word what my other sources say-it is a personality file on an individual opened after a number of documents have been produced. Nowhere does she say that she opened 201 files only when a known CIA employee was suspected of something. That is merely the interpretation (I can think of other words) of Jim and Sandy.

I have to keep reminding you that just because someone says something that does not make it a fact and Egerter was just mistaken. What evidence do you have besides her statement?

Here are the facts on 201 files. While they can indicate an individual is a CIA employee or asset that is not necessarily the case. The HSCA looked into the issue. According to Bugliosi's Reclaiming History: The HSCA went on to say that “the existence of a 201 file does not necessarily connote any actual relationship or contact with the CIA.” Though not automatic, such a file is normally opened by the CIA when “a person is considered to be of potential intelligence or counterintelligence significance.” Oswald’s 201 file, the HSCA said, “contained no indication that he had ever had a relationship with the CIA.” How about a couple of CT oriented sources? John Newman has studied Oswald extensively and certainly does not make the claim that a 201 file automatically denotes a CIA employee or asset. He also quotes from the CIA Clandestine Services Handbook to outline the criteria for opening a 201 file [beginning of Chapter 4, Kindle Edition]: According to the February 1960 Agency Clandestine Services Handbook, 201 files were then opened on persons “of active operational interest at any given point in time.”2 Operational interest is a broad phrase, and the Handbook spelled out three specific types it intended for 201 files: “subjects of extensive reporting and CI [counterintelligence] investigation, prospective agents and sources, and members of groups and organizations of continuing interest.” In addition, the Handbook added a fourth category of individual: "It has become apparent that the 201 machine listings should include the identities of persons of operational interest because of their connection with a target group or organization even though there may not be sufficient information or specific interest to warrant opening a file." The 1974 version of the handbook can be found at: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=17997#relPageId=2 Finally, our own Jim DiEugenio says this about a 201 file on page 143 of Destiny Betrayed [Kindle Edition]: According to the CIA, a 201 file is one of the most common files the Agency has. It is an information file on any person of interest to the Agency. This could be of operational interest, prospective operational interest, or of counterintelligence reporting.

The H&L crowd is again spreading misinformation. According to the CIA’s Clandestine Services Handbook, a 201 file was opened on “subjects of extensive reporting and CI (counterintelligence) investigation, prospective agents and sources, and members of groups and organizations of continuing interest.” So, it was simply someone they had an interest in. For example according to Helms, all defectors had a 201 file opened on them.

I never considered this possibility Paul, but you may be right!

You are correct that every one "picks and chooses" to some degree. Every piece of information can't be correct of course. My point was that the H&L gang believes that the FBI, WC, HSCA and about everyone fabricated evidence according to them. How do they know what to believe? Simple-they believe that which fits their theory and disbelieve that which doesn't. In your example, you said you disbelieve Walker (nearly all). But they pick and choose what to believe from every source regardless of who it is. A little too convenient for me anyway.

Just to set the record right, There were indeed redactions in Willcott's testimony as previously released. The new version is unredacted but what have we learned? Just about nothing. I just finished comparing both versions and all of the information was previously known or could be deduced as I did some time ago when I made a list of the Toyko CIA employees Wilcott refers to using other HSCA documents. One name that was redacted (perhaps because of his title) is Bob Ojiri who was Chief of Logistics in the Registry Division. But everything originally redacted was just names and places and the names were knowable and the places easy enough to figure out.

Michael, Thanks for posting this and I completely agree with you. There are any number of innocent explanations for this and other H&L assertions, none of which are ever considered by the H&L gang.

I don't call it anything. As I said, I suspect Gary was referring to photographic processes effecting the image. He and I were mostly discussing the "Frankenstein" image but it could apply to other images as well. If a person wants to "see" alterations because a bias toward a certain theory, they probably will. Like many other things there is probably an innocent explanation. Too bad I didn't get a chance to hear Gary's ideas on this.

It wasn't. As I've mentioned before, Gary Mack told me he had evidence about the photo and why it looked the way it does. Unfortunately, he passed away before he could tell me. No doubt it was something to do with the photographic process used at the time. But it the H&L world it is "evidence" of the plot.

His interpretation of the school records is just as valid as yours. And note that the number of days works out perfectly per his explanation.

That is one common sense explanation and is not lame at all. You guys have to interpret the evidence in your own way for H&L to exist at all. Another explanation, offered by Greg Parker, is that the Beauregard records reflect LHO's attendance in both NY and Louisiana. You can read all about it at his website (which really does exist BTW). He even addresses your personal arguments.

The records are being misinterpreted or are incorrect or both.

You are veering away from the Armstrong playbook here Sandy. He reports in his book (p. 149) that this is a photo that was found in the files of ONI. He says nothing about it being a drawing.

As I explain here: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-hunter-photo.html The "Hunter" photo was likely taken in early 1957, so this is a misrepresentation by Armstrong. Don't know when the middle photo was taken. A "high and tight" is a general hair style and could vary.

Good job Michael. Regarding your comparison of ears, before DNA ears were studied to do identifications. Some guy who was an expert looked at LHO and determined that various photos of him were the same man. This is explained in the book "Real or fake" by Joe Nickell. I never made too much out of this because I was never able to find the original study the book was based on so I don't know what photographs were used. It could have been similar to the HSCA study where "Lee" was unintentionally underrepresented. But anyone can see that two different people would not have ears that are identical. I think we are at a place where most researchers now reject H&L. There will always be a few who want to continue to believe and make no mistake-it is a belief rather than something based on fact. In any case, thank you for this contribution to the overwhelming evidence against H&L.

Already explained as charting errors in the Norton Report.