W. Tracy Parnell

Greg Parker wrote

sandy larsen wrote: I wonder if Greg accepts that Oswald was a CIA agent and fake defector. (There is a ton of evidence pointing to this conclusion, and one smoking gun that I can think of.)

Oswald's cover story was that of being a poor southern young man. I would think that he'd try to take on the accent, vocabulary, and mannerisms of his cover character.

BTW, New Orleans is not the only place poor people use or have used the "ax" pronunciation of "ask." I used to live in the San Francisco Bay area and I heard a lot of people use that pronunciation.

1. No, Oswald was never a CIA agent. You need a deeper understanding of terminology.


2. The "fake defector" angle is not so cut and dry. Lots of complexity regarding his stay.

3. Excuse re accent exactly as predicted.

4. And New Orleans is not the only place your "Harvey" allegedly ever lived - but no sign of a North Dakotan accent. That part of the story not important?

David Josephs wrote: The southern boy who came to NY had a southern accent...

The boy who returned from NY in 1954 no longer had the accent and never redeveloped it during the remaining years of his life in the south.

Those who know a thing or two say English was this man's 2nd language...

FWIW.

 

So it must have been Lee photographed at the Bronx Zoo looking perfectly comfortable in those jeans and cut down shirt. 

So it must have been Lee under arrest using the accent of the place in which he was born and partially raised.

Sandy Larsen wrote: I quit following the links to Greg's site some time ago because I rarly found anything of substance or importance. (To his credit, he did have a few good points regarding the ship that sailed to Taiwan.) But this was the only thing posted today so I decided to check the link out.

Someone ("lurker") posted this on Greg's site:

Most gracious of you Sandy!

So you must believe then that Louis Weinstock  who was named as Lee's father or uncle in the Tippit call bear an uncanny resemblances to our boy.

Sorry. But I don't see it myself. Maybe if DJ used his magical powers with photoshop it might help.

You must also believe the H & L Brains Trust regarding Ely's bio of Oswald. The fact is that Ely's bio  stopped at the point where Oswald joined the Marines and later, a memo was produced stating that the evidence showed that bio needs some tweaking somehow should apply to EVERYTHING Ely did.

I mean, why do Jim and David try and fool people into believing that this memo asking for PRE USMC changes can also apply to an interview Ely did with a fellow Marine of Oswald's? 
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1587-back-to-the-future-with-the-ely-memo

Maybe you also believe the [expletive deleted] about the number of teeth in the exhumed body also "proving" it was not Lee? Did you read this https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1572-it-has-finally-come-down-to-counting-teeth

Be specific. Which on this list of debunkings do you disagree with and why?  (Please leave aside the Beauregard/PS44 crap for the sake of sanity)

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1588-harvey-lee-links-to-alternative-explanations

1 minute ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Why was the southern boy's head found in the grave of 'Harvey' the Hungarian?

If you can give a rational explanation as to how that would occur please, it would be awfully nice.

I'm going to compile a list of all the people that would have had to be 'in' on this 'plot' At the last count it was somewhere over thirty! Now we have those involved in the exhumation and the subsequent peer reviewed report to add to the list.

I think there are more people on that list than have bought the book!

 

 

Bernie,

Here's a good start:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/harvey-lee-who-was-involved-in-plot.html

Greg Parker notes a couple more problems with the H&L theory:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1594-another-axe-falls-on-the-h-l-cult

I'll put it this way, I'd be very surprised if Jim D. believed the entire H&L theory. Perhaps he will weight in. 

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I think that Jim DiEugenio, for example, probably wants to maintain good relationships with all the authors who contribute to K&K, including John Armstrong and Greg Parker. Understandably so.

Yes, and that is why he doesn't say too much about the H&L theory publically, but I have no doubt that he doesn't believe it. Very few CTs do which was my original point.

35 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Same. Way. CE399. Was.Found.

Does this mean we're back to Jack White's "head in a box" theory?

Well the first one is easy-he only gained a few months on early release and the Marine Corps was glad to get rid of him because he was trouble. On the second, I agree he should have been prosecuted, but the fact he wasn't doesn't make him a spy.

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

.... who wouldn't touch it because of concerns over their career. Same problem faced by Warren Commission critics.

Bill O'Reilly was a CTer till he became famous. Now he has something to lose.

 

I find that to be a convenient excuse. If I really felt I had solved the JFK case, wild horses couldn't stop me from bringing the information to those in power who could really do something about it.

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't believe that is true, Tracy. I've seen a number of respected researchers/authors make comments indicating they believe Armstrong is fundamentally correct. His book is cited by numerous authors on Jim DiEugenio's website, Kennedys and King.

46 articles on Jim DiEugenio's website Kennedys and King that cite John Armstrong's book, Harvey & Lee.

13 more such articles that use the ampersand (&) symbol instead of the word "and."

 

But if you look at the links you provided, they are citing Armstrong's research to make their own points rather than professing a belief in the theory as a whole. As for DiEugenio himself the following quote sums up his opinion of the book:

"I don't agree with everything in the book. And I wish John had let me look at it first." (Jim DiEugenio, "re Harvey and Lee", Deep Politics Forum, 03/03/14 Page 1). 

I have found many in the CT community who disagree with Armstrong and I can provide more examples if you wish.

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

"The preponderance of evidence -- most of which is indirect -- shows that government agencies covered up the lack-of-mastoidectomy on Harvey's corpse."

Once again, I can only suggest that you take your theory to someone in authority such as an investigative journalist. But the problem is you don't have a theory regarding the mastoid operation. You think it was faked because of the "preponderance of evidence" supporting the H&L theory. But when you show that evidence to the investigative journalist and they compare it to the Norton Report and the other scientific and common sense evidence, you and I know what will happen. That is why H&L can only exist within the universe of the EF and like places that will tolerate it. Not sure why they still do though at this late date. H&L had a brief heyday in the late nineties but most abandoned it after they saw the book.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The FBI, CIA, and Warren Commission  misrepresented and faked plenty of scientific evidence to cover up the coup d'etat that was the JFK assassination. I see no reason why they wouldn't do the same to cover up the fact that Harvey Oswald had not suffered and been treated for mastoiditis. Allowing that to be discovered would have resulted in the discovery of sources and methods used by the the Central Intelligence Agency.

It's all well and good to think that the exhumation was faked, but you have to prove it. I can say that the moon landings were faked, but that doesn't make it a fact. In this case, you have scientific evidence on one side. On the other side you have mistaken witnesses, misread documents and errors in documents. We know those things exist in everyday life. But the faking of scientific evidence of this type would involve a mass conspiracy never before seen. Which  of the following is more likely?

A massive conspiracy faked scientific evidence.

Or the eyewitnesses who thought they saw Oswald somewhere and the documents that seem to show him somewhere he couldn't be are a result of mistakes and misinterpretations?

The latter is far, far more likely.

1 minute ago, Jim Hargrove said:

1. CIA accountant James Wilcott said he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.”

2. Antonio Veciana said he saw LHO meeting with CIA’s Maurice Bishop/David Atlee Phillips in Dallas in August 1963.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-maurice-bishop-story.html

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1389-hargrove-s-20-alternative-facts-for-those-who-prefer-their-conspiracies-devoid-of-any-reality

Greg Parker has provided an index to his H&L rebuttals:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1588-harvey-lee-links-to-alternative-explanations

New film by Stan Dane called "Barking Mad" (scroll down):

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1582-harvey-and-lee-cult-the-interview

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

As early as 1960, Hoover wrote, “there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald’s birth certificate....”  

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Dr. Kurian said the Oswald he met (HARVEY) was no more that 4’ 6” or 4’ 8” tall

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/dr-milton-kurian.html

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Why do we need to do that for the mastoid thing, but you guys don't need to do it for all evidence pointing to two Oswalds?

Because the evidence against the H&L theory is scientific evidence. It is the exhumation and the  handwriting and photo evidence from the HSCA. The evidence for H&L is misread records and your interpretation of them and mistaken witnesses.

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tracy,

That is just one hypothesis among others.

As for my idea of using a Dremel tool, I got that from watching a video of a mastoidectomy being performed. The tool used by the surgeon looked very much like a Dremel tool.

 

Well, I think the H&L gang needs to get together and decide what there explanation is. We have scientific evidence provided by the top experts in the country in 1981. You need to refute that evidence not just offer "what if" type scenarios in order to be credible.

Sandy,

OK, we have you on record-the mastoid operation was performed on the body after it was dead. Perhaps you can explain to us who did this and when? And why the exhumation doctors didn't know the difference between a natural operation and one performed with a dremel tool? Or are you saying the exhumation doctors used the dremel tool themselves as part of the plot?

Keep in mind everybody, this is the same Sandy Larsen who is only interested in the "truth" and has no agenda.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

By crude I merely meant one not meant to prevent hearing loss and other complications, and one not done with care so as to prevent secondary infections. In other words, a quickie. After 18 years, chemical changes on the surface of the bones would have occurred and investigators wouldn't have been able to tell if the mastoidectomy had been done before Oswald's death or after.

And BTW, bones do decompose with moisture. And so Oswald's bones were indeed in the process of decomposing.

You said and I quote "dead body." My original reply was to show that it was not possible to give a "dead body" a mastoid operation. And bones do not decompose in 18 years-remnants of the clothing were still present. Go back and read the quote from Dimaio. Because it was smooth and rounded it had healed over time and could not have been faked. You don't think they know how to tell the difference between a mastoid operation that heals over time and a faked defect? Face facts-you are back to three theories:

1. "Harvey" was given a mastoid operation which the all knowing planners somehow knew would be necessary someday.

2. Everyone who attended the exhumation was in on it.

3. The exhumation disproves the H&L theory, which is the correct choice for all reasonable people.

The H&L brain trust should get together and decide which explanation they are going with.

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The mastectomy could have been done in the 1960s. That was a "distant past" relative to the date of the exhumation, 1981. The body suffered a great deal of decomposition, especially given that the top was leaking water.

Sandy Said:

But I can believe they'd give the dead body a crude one.

The quote was offered as a response to your suggestion above that a crude mastoid operation could have been performed on the body. It couldn't have-they can tell those things. And the skull and bones had not deteriorated at all in 18 years, just the soft tissues. So, you are left with the theory that they somehow knew they would have to give an unnecessary operation to one boy.

Bernie and Michael,

Good points both and thanks!

38 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Let's see:  Castle, Glidden, Goutier, Herd, King, Malden, Rubenstein and Sawchuck are all at Santa Ana with one Oswald while the other men are at El Toro with the other...
also at separate times (Gorsky)

Here's a little advice David. Anyone can say anything-that doesn't make it a fact. But I'm glad to see you guys do pay attention to the ROKC forum after all.

All Jenner meant was that some of the things Ely came up with would have to be changed or left out of the WR because, in his opinion, they were incorrect. After all, nobody is perfect. Much ado about nothing.

9 hours ago, Roger DeLaria said:

I remember reading somewhere (can't for the life of me remember where) that when the body was exhumed, they noticed the bottom of the concrete vault the casket was in was broken, and something not right about the head. The idea being when "they" went to remove the body, they tried raising the vault with a small crane/lift or something, and the vault being too heavy snapped the line and the concrete broke.

There were many rumors, but what happened is the vault simply cracked at some point in time allowing water to get in and damage the corpse. One of the things that made groody initially suspicious was the cracked vault, but my research showed that it was a fairly common occurrence often caused by heavy digging equipment. There was nothing wrong with the head and it was attached to the body. This is all covered here:

http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/xindex.htm

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/paul-groody.html

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I have a hard time believing the CIA would give the one Oswald an unnecessary mastoidectomy while still alive. But I can believe they'd give the dead body a crude one. Especially given all the widespread suspicion of conspiracy going on and even suspicions of there being two Oswalds. Obviously they would have had to do it when nobody was talking about exhumation, so it could have gone unnoticed..

I wonder if they could have given the corpse a mastoidectomy before it was buried. Would they possibly have thought that far ahead?