W. Tracy Parnell

Just my opinion Sandy, but it is reasonable to think that family and close friends as well as those in the USMC would be aware of it. It would also have to be noted in the Marine Corps records, which are supposed to be a combination of "Harvey" and "Lee." Of course, Jim can always fall back on the famous "it was faked" excuse.

I agree that your family could not be expected to report this Sandy since they were not involved in something like the JFK case and it wouldn't make sense for them to do so. However IMO, a missing tooth or a dental appliance would be a fact that could be expected to be reported by any number of people in testimony, depositions or statements to authorities.

No questions. Sounds to me like he was unsure about a lot of things. After all, it had been 10 years since the incident he described. But to the H&L people, this "evidence" trumps all common sense. Like why did no one besides Voebel and Lillian (who merely "remembered" he went to the dentist) mention that "Lee" had either a missing tooth or wore a bridge? Because it didn't happen.

The question has been asked and answered several times-there was no missing tooth.

There goes David Josephs again, resorting to insults to defend the ridiculous H&L theory. Sad but not surprising since he does it all the time.

Yes!

I invite them to do that. My purpose is to provide information that I believe refutes H&L and let readers decide. If anyone wishes to believe the theory, they are free to do so.

Using the method I explained in the article, his head is 11.4 inches. You have never explained where you got the blue ruler or what it is based on. It appears to be just something you estimated. My analysis is based on science and described and I stand by it. I also resent your implication that I have no interests since you don't know me and therefore could not know what my interest are. I think this conversation is over for now.

Another "data dump"! First, I don't "BS" my way out of anything. I can't explain every discrepancy in the record and I have admitted that many times. It is unnecessary since we have scientific and common sense evidence that refutes H&L. The methodology refuting your claims about the Bronx Zoo photo is clearly explained in the article. And you drawing a ruler with Photoshop proves nothing. It is a fact that you can measure things in a photo as is explained as long as they are close together as they are in this case. Try it yourself and see what you get using your own 18 reference for the iron railing. Strickman's report is perceptive in my opinion knowing what I know about the one and only LHO.

David Josephs, I have both the book and CD and I'm unimpressed by the arguments as are many others. I don't care if Armstrong made 10,000 trips to the national archives. That doesn't give him the right to create something out of thin air which is what he did.

Consider something like this: http://www.debate.org/

This from Greg Parker concerning a possible debate: I can set up a forum here in which no one can post except myself, Jim and any moderator he wants to use. I assume the Ed Forum could do the same, but of course, they would have to lift the ban... I'm happy either way.

He is still a member here, but he can no longer post-just read.

It's certainly ok with me, I just don't see much new coming from it since you debated him extensively here in 2015 before he was banned. I will be glad to post his comments if needed. EDIT: One suggestion-if you do go ahead with the debate it would probably be better to start a new thread, so it would be easy for folks to find.

First, you have debated him right here and not much really came of it. As I mentioned above, there are indeed enough anomalies in the record for the H&L believers to point to and continue to believe in. Second, I posted some things from his forum here in the past and while you guys replied to some of it, you just ignored other things. I think we are reaching the point where about all has been said that can be on this subject.

Of course, there are other reasonable explanations for all of these points. But those who choose to believe H&L can continue to do so because discrepancies exist.

You're welcome. I got it from an email correspondent so it was easy to pass along.

Apparently, the H&L people need to be reminded of the scientific evidence against the theory. 1. The 1981 exhumation. 2. The HSCA photographic study which showed "Lee" and "Harvey" were the same man. 3. The HSCA handwriting study which showed that the writings of "Harvey" and "Lee" were written by the same person. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html There was no bias involved in these studies since H&L did not exist at the time they were performed. This is in addition to the mountain of common sense evidence such as why nobody came forward to say that the Marguerite they knew fro years ago was a different individual from the woman they undoubtedly saw on TV and in newspapers. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html Against this scientific evidence and other evidence you have mistaken witnesses and a photo that they "think" shows a missing tooth.

Here is the next page: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1386#relPageId=21&tab=page

It doesn't matter how much work Armstrong did if the conclusions reached from that work are nonsense, which they are. And who decides who is "qualified" to offer opinions-you? BTW, Asperger's is Greg Parker's theory, you're getting your H&L critics mixed up.

As I pointed out before, many CT researchers believe that LHO was impersonated. However, they do not buy the H&L scenario and realize that type of extreme position is not necessary.

Check Armstrong's book. It is full of references to work done by the HSCA. You can't credibly pick and choose what information you believe and what you don't believe.

As I said-set your timer! Have you counted the number of times you are forced to say something is faked? Not to mention, Armstrong relies on the HSCA, the FBI and everyone else in his book. How can you have it both ways?

Sandy, As I mentioned above, this amature photo analysis is pointless, experts weighed in years ago. In case you didn't see it: There is no need to rely on the "photo analysis" of David Josephs. An analysis was performed by the HSCA years before the H&L theory was developed. Since the analysis was done to debunk 2 Oswald theories in general, they unfortunately used a disproportionate number of photos of "Harvey." However the infamous "13 inch head" photo was analyzed. Armstrong says on page 149 of his book that this photo is of "Lee." Unfortunately for the H&L team, the HSCA study said this photo and the others they looked at are of the same person. Now set your timers folks and let's see how long it is before the H&L team says the study was "faked."

There is no need to rely on the "photo analysis" of David Josephs. An analysis was performed by the HSCA years before the H&L theory was developed. Since the analysis was done to debunk 2 Oswald theories in general, they unfortunately used a disproportionate number of photos of "Harvey." However the infamous "13 inch head" photo was analyzed. Armstrong says on page 149 of his book that this photo is of "Lee." Unfortunately for the H&L team, the HSCA study said this photo and the others they looked at are of the same person. Now set your timers folks and let's see how long it is before the H&L team says the study was "faked."