W. Tracy Parnell

1 minute ago, Michael Walton said:

You've done plenty of attacking too, Dave.  You're no innocent babe.

So true!

Michael is, of course, correct in his assessment of the photos. It couldn't be more obvious they are the same person. You can't expect them to line up perfectly due to differences in the position of the head (tilt) and the fact that individuals do change slightly over time. But they are the same man.

3 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

there's a limit to how much time we can all devote to this stuff

At last we agree Jim!

2 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Parnell sums up Marguerite’s income in addition to her extremely low paying jobs and comes up with a total of $17,400 covering a period extending from 1939 to at least 1951, on average less than $1500 per year.  From that figure he deducts none of the expenses that would need to be covered for herself, three children, and seven different homes owned at various times, also not including mortgage payments.  But he considers this suitable income for her to enjoy ownership of three homes simultaneously while living in a fourth.

As you say, this 17k is in addition to her salary. Additionally, when she was married to Ekdahl, you can bet he was paying most of the bills. She only made around $2000 a year when she worked-would you dispute that? So $1500 a year is a nice supplement. I don't know about the three homes business, that could be a misreading of the situation by Armstrong. But if true, she was probably renting the homes she wasn't in.

Just now, Michael Cross said:

Probably.

 

Multiple properties from one sale that was probably purchased with insurance money.  She was probably an amazing investor, a savant.  She probably had a print press in each of her multiple homes for counterfeiting.  She probably robbed several banks.

 

Probably.

Now you're just being silly. She was not a savant-she lost money on one deal and broke even on one. But she made the equivalent of about three years salary at her typical rate of pay. The H&L people would have you believe that is no explanation for Marguerite's situation other than she worked for the CIA. Marguerite was not rich of course. But through a combination of real estate profits, support payments, a divorce settlement, insurance money and her own employment (and her sons later) she was able to get by. As always, there is an alternate explanation for those who are willing to consider it.

1 minute ago, Michael Cross said:

It's easy to make things up too Tracy.  Claiming she bought real estate by selling real estate is a circular and empty argument.  It has no merit.

She was able to own real estate as you say.  HOW?  She ran a con?  Show proof.  

 

I've shown you the proof. Based on John Armstrong's own research, She made $6590 in real estate and that is not counting all of her rental income. Now, why don't you write an article that shows I am wrong with sources? And BTW, I never said she "ran a con" to make money. She played the part of a poor widow to gain sympathy, but she was not as poor as she made out.

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well then, how did Marguerite pay for the first properties she bought?

 

The first place she bought (1010 Bartholomew) was probably with insurance money. Thereafter she did as I said and bought other places with real estate profits.

1 hour ago, Michael Cross said:

Yes, again, vacuous and now circular thought from Parnell.  Empty.

It is easy to criticize. If you would like to demonstrate how my article is in error please do. I don't have a citation to a document off the top of my head, but Armstrong makes reference to them in the early part of H&L. Jim's statements that she was poverty stricken are based almost completely on the fact that she put her children in orphanages. The idea that she could have been a somewhat cold and detached mother who was looking for free babysitting and room and board is not considered. Instead, the fact that she was able to own real estate while in "dire poverty" "proves" that she was working for the CIA and other alternatives are not considered. This is how the H&L gang operates, The purpose of my article is to offer other alternatives and in this case Armstrong's own research is the source.

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/marguerites-finances.html?m=1

Amazingly Tracy debunks the HL story with Armstrong's own research.

What none of the HL supporters realize is the money she made back then is huge in today's  dollars.

KUDOS to Tracy for bringing more truth out of the shadows.

Thanks Michael.

As I show in the article based on Armstrong's own documents, the idea that Marguerite was destitute is not accurate. With her real estate profits and other income, she was able to get by quite well. Her placing the kids in the orphan home was more a matter of convenience than anything. Jim's entire narrative above is based  on "cherry picking" of witnesses statements, some of whom, like Bell,  were speaking years after the events.

4 hours ago, Michael Cross said:

That may be the most vacuous thing I've ever read.  The question is not did she profit from real estate, it is how did she BUY real estate.  By "running a con" on everyone?  Please.  What's your source, as you don't give us any documentation. 

She bought real estate by selling other real estate. As stated in the article, the source was John Armstrong's own documents at Baylor.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

How did “Marguerite Oswald” have enough money to own three homes simultaneously in the early 1950s?  How did poor, poor Marguerite afford a housekeeper in New York City?

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/marguerites-finances.html

Another video by Stan Dane, a (mostly) serious one this time-scroll down:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1603-lillian-murret-the-dentist

12 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

But you have added absolutely NOTHING to the H&L story. NOTHING! Everything is taken from the holy book. You have found zero information since the publication of H&L that further develops its narrative. For instance...

Well, you are partly wrong Bernie . We have Sandy's word that he is taking all of this "evidence" to an investigative journalist. I'll be waiting for a report on that.  

29 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yeah, I'm sure most of us have school records indicating that we attended two schools simultaneously, and several other records indicating we were in two places at once. Etc., etc., etc.

 

If someone was intent on proving a "double Sandy Larsen" theory, you could very well have records that could seem to lend credence to their ideas. Of course, nobody is pursuing such a theory concerning you so we'll never know (no jokes for Sandy's sake please :)). 

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I have no doubt that it was well known among Lee's teacher and classmates. Even Ed Voebel.

I don't know why you think that word would get back to us. Most of Lee's classmates didn't testify for the WC.

 

When Voebel told the story to the WC, why didn't he say, "and BTW I know for a fact he had missing teeth from that incident?" Instead he made the qualified statement that he thought he had a missing tooth.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim,

The funny things is that Tracy and the others have no choice but to accept all those impossibilities as facts.

We, on the other hand, explain them all with one simple explanation... there were two Oswalds.

One Oswald = Numerous Impossibiities
Two Oswalds = No Impossibilities

 

 

 

As I have tried to explain, in any collection of data or evidence you will find things that do not fit. In a case in New York, over 2000 people "saw" 2 escaped convicts where they could not have been. That didn't prove they were there, it proves people will say anything for various reasons. Jim lists 10 things that "prove" 2 Oswalds. But it would be surprising if you didn't find that many anomalies out of the millions of pieces of Information in this case.

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Speaking of mountains of 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....

You have been provided with alternative explanations over and over again and you simply refuse to accept them. And don't bother asking me to provide them, they have been provided continually on this forum dating back to 2015. But these discussions serve a purpose for you. They provide attention and a chance to get new converts such as Sandy.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Lee has his head tilted in a way that we see primarily the fronts of his teeth on his left, and primarily the bottoms of his teeth on his right. This contributes to an optical illusion that makes the teeth on his left look longer than the teeth on his right. Shading probably adds to the illusion. I believe also that, due to swelling of the upper lip, his lips are wider open of his left than on his right. Again contributing to his teeth on his left looking longer.

The teeth on his right look so short that at first glance they may seem not to be there. But the fronts of those teeth are covered by the swollen lip.

That said, I suppose it's possible that he lost two front teeth.

 

IMO, an optical illusion is why you think you see any teeth missing. It could be coupled with dirt on the negative for all I know. But if he lost 2 or more teeth this fact would have been common knowledge and mentioned by someone.

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Is there no end to your misrepresentations?  Norton and DiMaio were not aware that a second Oswald was also in the Marine Corps at the same time.  Had they known that, they would have realized they had to dig far deeper into the medical records they were asked to compare with the exhumation results.  DiMaio admitted that many World War II era people had the same mastoidectomy scar.

Sandy is pushing the position that the exhumation was faked-the mastoid defect was created by the doctors. Perhaps that is not your position. What is the "official" position at this point?

3 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Actually, that's the first time I've re-posted it, although other posts I've made show the missing tooth and the Magic Tooth in the grave. But now that you have suggested it, I think I'll re-post it as many times as you keep misrepresenting the evidence, which should give me plenty of opportunities, eh?

Whatever happened to saving server space and using your own site?

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

What mountain of evidence? Oh, you mean Harvey. Harvey and his tooth that wasn't missing.

Yeah I know... you use that same "mountain of evidence" to show that LHO attended two schools simultaneously. (See, we don't think that is possible, so we believe there were two Oswalds.) You use that same "mountain of evidence" to show that LHO was in Taiwan and Japan simultaneously. (See, we don't think that is possible, so we believe there were two Oswalds.) Etc., etc., etc.

 

As I have said Sandy, take your evidence to a journalist and be sure to let us know when you do. And while you're at it, why don't you contact Norton and DiMaio and tell them you think they are in on the plot? I'd be interested in their reaction.

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But what Voebel thought was the case was supported by 1) Oswald being treated by a dentist afterward, and 2) the photo showing that a tooth was missing.

Why would Lee go to a dentist if he didn't lose a tooth? To get a filling? To have his teeth cleaned?

 

 

As I said, Lillian was sometimes confused during her testimony. At one point, she couldn't even get the names and ages of her siblings right. The testimony of anyone should be taken with a grain of salt until you have other facts to verify it. In this case, you gave the qualified testimony of one other person and a grainy old photo. If the WC attorneys had any reason to do so, they could have quickly destroyed your myth of a missing tooth. There was no reason of course.

But I see 3 missing teeth. What are you going to do about this "fact?" 

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm not saying they should be asked. I'm pointing out that you are wrong to say that there were dozens or hundreds of Oswald acquaintances who didn't mention the missing tooth. And you said that because of that, the preponderance of evidence was in favor of Lee not losing his tooth. But of course your conclusion is wrong because we don't know what those people would have said about the tooth.

Thus the preponderance of the evidence is that Lee did indeed lose the tooth.

 

But at least some of those people could be expected to mention, even if not asked, that he had a missing tooth right in front. That would be something that might come up in conversation.

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh really? How many of those dozens or hundreds of people were asked to go on record as to whether or not their acquaintance, LHO, had a missing tooth?

Why would they be asked? Absolutely no reason for the WC or the FBI to ask anyone about a "missing tooth" since no one but Voebel ever said that. Voebel's testimony is an "outlier" in the millions of pieces of evidence in the JFK case. You know what scientists and investigators do with an outlier? They disregard it.

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Ed Voebel's friend, Lee Oswald, lost a tooth. Ed said so; Lee's Aunt Lillian she paid the dentist to treat it (if not for a lost tooth, then for what???); and the photo shows the tooth is missing.

First the "preponderance of evidence" showed that LHO had a missing tooth and now it shows only that Voebel said he did? While we're on the subject, remember Voebel only "thought" that he had a missing tooth so that is a qualified statement. Any good lawyer could have gotten him to back off of that in a minute.  But they didn't bother because it was irrelevant.

BTW, you didn't answer my other point. I can see the anomaly in he photograph to which you guys are referring. I KNOW it is not a missing tooth because there is a mountain of evidence that says it isn't. But if I were unfamiliar with the case, I might look at the photo and agree with you. But I also might say the gap looks larger than just one tooth. I might think it was three teeth. How would you then address this "fact" that I see three teeth missing?

1 minute ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Where is the missing front tooth?

Just wondering, how many times are you going to post the same thing?