W. Tracy Parnell

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Ed Voebel did report the missing tooth, Tracy.

As for a dental appliance... why would anybody even be aware of that?

 

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.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

That's a VERY SILLY QUESTION, Mr. Laverick.  Harvey Oswald ended up in Harvey Oswald's grave!

A MUCH BETTER QUESTION is, How did Lee Oswald's missing front tooth grow back in Harvey Oswald's grave?

 

So, how did Lee Oswald's missing front tooth grow back in Harvey Oswald's grave?

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

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

you selling again Bernie?  thought you gave that up - oh you musicians...

and you still can't afford the $65?

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.

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

If memory serves, Tracy Parnell once proclaimed that all the photos reproduced on Jack White’s “THE EVOLUTION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD” poster were, in his word, “obviously” of the same person.  Here are a couple of closeups of the poster I took with my phone camera.

Do these really look like the same person to you?

Yes!

8 hours ago, James Norwood said:

But why you don't allow the readers of the forum to make up their own minds?  

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.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Great!  I'm looking forward to this debate, either here or on a neutral site.

Let's ask the Education JFK Forum moderators if they would like to work something out so Mr. Parker and I can debate one-on-one right here.  Otherwise, we can consider neutral sites.

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.

52 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Oh, brother.  First I was told that Mr. Parker was voluntarily staying away from this forum because he felt he had been mistreated.  Now you guys say he was banned, no doubt unfairly, because he’s such a stand-up fellow and all.

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

58 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Seems as if everyone is in favor of a debate between Greg Parker and me except Mr. Parnell.  What seems to be the problem?  Why can't we do it right here, right away?

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.

33 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I'd *LOVE* to have a one-on-one debate with Greg Parker (or anyone else) about Harvey and Lee right here on the good ole JFK Assassination Debate Forum!!  Bring it on!!

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.

22 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The interpretation of the results of the exhumation are disproved because the cadaver has both upper front teeth intact.  The attending physicians were given Harvey Oswald’s Marine dental records, so naturally they matched. If Americans believed the so-called "scientific evidence" of the WC and the HSCA there wouldn’t be newspaper headlines all across the country right now and this forum wouldn’t exist.  Marguerite’s best friend, Myrtle Evans and her husband Julian, told the Warren Commission they wouldn’t have recognized Marguerite if they hadn’t been told who she was.

Let’s consider some other evidence….

• Evidence of a 5’ 11” Marine who becomes a 5’ 9” cadaver on a slab in the Dallas morgue.
• Evidence of a fellow who is arrested both on the main floor and the balcony of the Texas Theater.
• Evidence of a man who does and doesn’t have a valid Texas driver’s license.
• Evidence of a man who isn’t recognized by his own half-brother. 
• Evidence of a man whose Social Security records don’t reflect teen-aged employment income supposedly included on his federal tax returns.
• Evidence of a man who appeared at the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans at the same time he was in the Soviet Union.
• Evidence of a man who worked with anti-Castro Cubans in Miami and the Florida Everglades at the same time he was in the Soviet Union.
• Evidence of a man who was treated for VD at a Marine hospital in Japan at the same time he was on the high seas and in Formosa.
• Evidence of a man who attended school simultaneously in New York City and New Orleans, and, oh yeah....
• Evidence of a man who lost or broke a front tooth in a school fight yet had the tooth magically reappear in his exhumation photos, and so on....

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.

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thanks for finding that, Tracy.

BTW, though we disagree on a lot of things, I have a lot of respect for you. You are very respectful and use a lot of tact. I could learn a thing or two from your behavior on the forum. (I should do that. But being an old dog, I probably won't.)

 

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.

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

 

I know.  I took the graphic above from a story linked by CNN to UK's The Sun.  Here is the link:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4778131/jfk-files-cia-lee-harvey-oswald-secret-agent/

I'd like to get the image from NARA, but I just don't have time to slug through all the files.

Here is the next page:

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

12 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

And as is customary for you, Bernie and others;   vague generalities, pronouns, and adjectives...

News flash Tracy... that which is "not necessary" is not by definition (other than your own), incorrect.

Finally, "belief" has nothing to do with the evidence which supports the two men's existence.  One needs to partake in "believability" when one has so little to offer in support of one's position...

FACT:  LHO was impersonated.
FACT:  The records disclose the existence of two men whose pasts were merged into one story to explain away the newly minted LONE NUT explanation.
FACT:  You have not done a fraction of the work nor spoken to a fraction of the people Armstrong did over the course of this 10-year project.  You jump to conclusions, you offer little to no supporting documentation or evidence for you position,

Bottom line Tracy, you are simply not qualified to offer opinionated criticism...   Stick with the exhumation and Asperger's as your pillars... 

The rest of us will continue to deal with the reality of the evidence...

 

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.

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tracy,

The phony HSCA thing has nothing to do with H&L. All CTers -- even those who reject H&L -- know the HSCA was just more of the same WC bullxxxx.

As far as CTers relying on certain HSCA, WC, FBI, and CIA information... just because they all modified and misrepresented some of the evidence doesn't mean they lied about everything.

 

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. 

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tracy,

You need to make your case to a fellow LNer. We CTers know that the HSCA was almost as phony as the WC.

 

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?

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Oh come on! How is it possible for only the mouth to be out of place?

 

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."