W. Tracy Parnell

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I’m not necessarily saying that the exhumation was faked, though I don’t rule it out. But there are other possibilities. I have explained to you any number of times that any organization that would deliberately poison hundreds and probably thousands of unsuspecting Americans with LSD just to see what might happen wouldn’t think twice about giving a young boy an unnecessary mastoidectomy simply to make his medical records match those of the boy he was being prepared to impersonate.  Why wouldn’t they?   Who could stop them? Review public documents about the MK ULTRA project for an overview of the morality of our CIA, at least back in the 1950s and early ‘60s.  

And why was Marina compelled to sign all those documents back in 1964 about her late husband’s grave, at least according to Vincent Di Maio, who you just called “one of the most respected experts in his field?” Now he is suddenly a careless rumor monger?  Marina apparently believed the casket might be empty, and so she obviously suspected something was up.

You, on the other hand, are well practiced at seeing nothing suspicious in anything that is even remotely connected to this entire matter.  You obviously feel that yelling “HSCA” and “Norton Report” and “science” with every post gives you carte blanche to ignore all the rest of the evidence in this case, but that only motivates me to post even more evidence for your Johnny-one-note protestations.

I understand the CIA did some bad things and I wouldn't put it past certain individuals to do just about anything. But how did they know they would need to give both boys mastoid operations because one might be exhumed? It is one have to have suspicions, but you have to show some proof. As far as Marina and the documents, I would have to see some documentation to comment further. I remember one incident where there was something about they wanted to do an exhumation around 1964 or something like that. And somebody tried to get her to sign something at that time, but I can't recall the details. But I would say that anyone (media, law enforcement etc.) that you could take this to would tell you the same thing I am. You need to have some proof and the "best evidence" is against you. But if you want to believe it's a large plot, I can't stop you.

EDIT: Here is the document about the proposed 1964 exhumation:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=97836&search=exhumation#relPageId=2&tab=page

There was another incident though about papers where someone tried to get Marina to sign something and I can't remember what it was. Maybe that was what DiMaio was referring to. My memory isn't what it used to be.

The Norton Report/Exhumation completely refutes the H&L theory as presented by Armstrong. "Lee" had the mastoid operation but "Harvey" who was in the grave had it. Handwriting and photo evidence-same thing. And I am not ignoring evidence, just recognizing that the "best evidence" is the scientific evidence and common sense evidence not outliers that rely mostly on witness statements. 

So, I have a couple of ideas. Why don't you present a grand theory of how the exhumation was faked. And why don't you contact some forensic pathologists and see if they think anything is wrong with the Norton Report. And while you're at it, tell them your H&L theory. Good luck.

17 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Uh-huh.  And is that the same kind of professionalism he and his associates brought to the exhumation?

The most significant points we raise about this case involve the credible and unrelenting evidence that two young men shared the same or a very similar identity for a decade or so and one of them became the patsy for the assassins of JFK.  You admit that you are unable to debunk many of these examples and simply fall back on the Norton Report and the HSCA Volume VII, saying that’s all the evidence you need.

But we have given you a number of examples of how the HSCA simply lied when cornered about the evidence, including evidence of two Oswalds, and I have offered several possible ways the Norton Report could be accurate as far as it goes, but that there could still have been two LHOs entangled in the assassination, as in fact there were.  You, however, are apparently unable to discuss most of the other evidence and have a practiced unawareness of what a Federal cover-up can really entail.

What happened to all that Greg Parker evidence you repeatedly said debunked Oswald’s simultaneous attendance at schools in New York and New Orleans?  I demanded time and time again that you put that evidence here, and when you finally started doing so, Mr. Parker just disappeared.  Where is it?

I know.  You don’t have to talk about it because you’re not Mr. Parker and because of the Norton Report.  Neither that--nor you--begins to explain all this evidence.
 

DiMaio was and is one of the most respected experts in his field. He is not above repeating something in a book that he is trying to sell-everyone does that. You have to prove that his expertise is in question by one of his peers and I'm not talking about Dr. Norwood.

You have no "evidence", only anomalies within a data set that numbers in the thousands if not millions. The points don't need debunking because they are not valid but the scientific evidence that refutes them is. Again, take your evidence to anyone in the mainstream media or academia and see how far you get.

I will post what Greg Parker writes on the school records if and when he adds more. He has told Sandy he can't explain it more simply so he may be done. And for about the third time, I never said the school records issue was debunked. I said an alternate explanation (how the records are read) has been provided. Unless some school official with no axe to grind was contacted and could clarify that Parker is right, I doubt the issue could be settled to your satisfaction. And that fact is what allows H&L to continue-anomalies that can't be easily resolved. But even if the school official agreed with your interpretation of the records, it could just mean that whoever prepared them did so in error. The real world doesn't work that way-you find something that is out of the ordinary and it proves your theory. ALL of the evidence must be looked at and you only look at what you want to see.

41 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Perhaps it is as Mr. Parnell says,  but few cases call into question expert opinions more than this one.  In my post above I noted that “both Oswalds were in the USMC and so the dental records of Classic Oswald should match at least SOME Marine Corps records.”  That may be the case here, but when there is so much evidence for two Oswalds, it is hardly logical to assume the Norton Report is the final word on the matter.  

For example, in his article entitled Digging Up Lee Harvey Oswald, Dr. Vincent Di Maio, who was involved in the exhumation and is no CTer, wrote this:

“Marina was haunted by a 1964 visit with government agents who had asked her to sign a stack of cemetery papers without explanation. With only a basic understanding of English, Marina came to believe that her late husband’s remains had been disturbed somehow. She’d grown morbidly suspicious that he’d been secretly removed.”

What was that all about?  Why would government agents require Marina to sign a whole stack of cemetery papers the very year after her late husband was buried?   Could the other Oswald have been murdered and his body placed in the grave?  Or is it more likely that the second Oswald was given an unnecessary mastoidectomy so their health records would match?

Mr. Parnell tells us there were no dissenting opinions to this article expressed in follow-up editions of the peer-reviewed Journal of Forensic Sciences.  I’ll try to check that on my own.  In the meantime, here’s a Fun Fact….

Many or most of the original photographs from the exhumation are now, if memory serves, in the hands of none other than John Armstrong.  During one of his many meetings with Marina, she greeted him carrying an envelope containing them and said something like, “Here, take these.”  She has serious doubts about the whole official story.

A couple of points. DiMaio may have just been repeating something he heard, he provides no proof for the statement. You are cherry picking this tidbit which he obviously included to make his book more interesting. His point is that Marina was suspicious which is obviously true. If she wasn't, why go to all the trouble of an exhumation. I am aware that Armstrong has had the exhumation photos for years. The reason I know that is because Jack White leaked the photo of the mastoid defect after I goaded him about it on the old Dellarosa forum. And only two people had the photos-Linda Norton and Marina. So I knew Armstrong had Marina's ear and obtained them from her. If there are any that you feel show something suspicious, why not post them here? My guess is they support the official story as the photo of the mastoid defect certainly does. But as I said before, all you can do is try to raise doubts about the hard facts the exhumation and other evidence provide. The majority (even here on a CT forum) don't buy it.

Very predictable reply by Hargrove. He and David Josephs want you to believe that they know more than the top dental experts in the country in 1981. I would remind readers that the Norton Report was peer reviewed as it was published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. And nobody ever came forward to say that the report or its methodology was flawed in any way. But I can hear Hargrove and Josephs already saying that they were "afraid" to come forward or "it is a closed society that doesn't want to criticize their own." But that is all they can say in the face of this and other hard evidence.

BTW, Hargrove also mentions the mysterious "delay" in the publication of the report, a canard made famous by TMWKK. But the positive identification of the one and only Oswald was made immediately by the team. The writing of the report between four doctors in different locations working around their normal schedules is what took a little time as Dr. DiMaio indicated to me when I interviewed him.

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But Jim, don't you know that that sort of thing happens all the time in the real world? Just like whole semesters of classes, along with scores and absences, are accidentally added to people's school records. It happens all the time. People all around us learn a new language, on their own, in a couple months time, due to their genius intellect. And so forth and so on. These are all every-day occurrences, according to Tracy and others.

Though it does make one pause that ALL these things happened to just one guy... the guy who supposedly shot the president of the United States. Speaking of which, the assassination was yet another every-day real world occurrence for this guy. As was his trip to Mexico City that resulted in fake photos and fake audio transcripts being sent to CIA headquarters. This stuff happens all the time.

Of course, if something happened that can't be explained as being an every-day occurrence, it can always be brushed off as being a lie that John Armstrong magically instilled in the minds of unsuspecting witnesses. You now how good John is at controlling people's minds.

(Hmmm... have I assassinated John's character yet?) Of course, we all know that John is exploiting these every-day occurrences, and all the witnesses and believers whose minds he controls, just so he can get rich. Can you imagine how fantastically wealthy John would become if he could increase book sales to, say, one book per day? Why, he'd become a millionaire one more time over (because he is already a multimillionaire) in a mere 137 years!

 

I am aware that John Armstrong doesn't get rich from his book sales. But he also doesn't get any attention for his research without a "vehicle" for that research. And that is where H&L comes in. Note that he doesn't have to spend one minute defending his theories, he has you guys to do that for him. Pretty good setup if you ask me.

9 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Parnell wants us to believe that the HSCA and the Norton Report close the case on two Oswalds

They do and until you address those issues you have nothing. But all you can do is use your fallback position when cornered that the exhumation was somehow faked as was the handwriting and other evidence. Or that both Oswalds were given the same operation as implausible as that is.

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

On the other hand, there are many cases of intelligence operations doing things that most people (including myself in the past) would not believe an intelligence operation would do. And I believe the Oswald Project was one of them.

If you want to believe in 2 Oswalds in the face of the overwhelming evidence that says there wasn't, I can't stop you. But actually, you don't need 2 Oswalds to believe in an "Oswald project". Lots of people do and they don't buy 2 Oswalds.

Greg Parker wrote:

 

sandy larsen wrote:I couldn't understand Greg's reasoning right away, so I decided to deal with what I'm quoting here first, and then go back and try to figure out what Greg is talking about.
I don't have any really bright people around me, but I'm smart enough to "interpret basic forms." If I look at the Beauregard record while keeping in mind a school year consists of 180 days, here is what I see:

1. I see no 180s on the record, but the 12 and 168 for 1954/55 stand out because they add up to180. Since 12 is the number of days absent, 168 must be the number of days present, because together they add up to the total number of school days, 180.
   
   Therefore, the "Re-Ad"  column is used for recording the number of days present.
    
   
   
2. Looking at the same "total" row for school year 1953/54, I see 5 days absent and 179 days present. I add the numbers and get 184 for the total number of school days.
   
   Therefore, there were 180 school days in the 1954/55 school year, but 184 school days in the 1953/54 school year.
   
   

I don't know what Greg expects me to learn from that other than what I concluded. I don't understand why he says that the "Re-Ad" number can represent either the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period. It is obviously the latter.
Of course, the two numbers will be equal if there are zero absences, because the student will have attended every school day available. But the fact will remain that the Re-Ad column represents the number of days attended, not the number of days available to attend.
 
Now I will go back and try to figure out Greg's reasoning.

 

You're OVER thinking. Which is the same mistake Head made.

Let's tackle it in smaller bytes.

But before that, let's finally acknowledge that Head admitted he was guessing when he labeled his explanation an "interpretation".

Again - that's an admission that he was guessing.

His first instinct however was to simply state that the "re-ad" figure "represents the total listing of the school days for a given school year."

Okay. Stop there Mr Head, because now is where you are about to over-think it. Mr. Head obviously is now realizing that for this to be true, the figure would need to be at least 170 (but most likely 180), and he can't figure out why it shows only 168. So... instead of realizing that the number of absences had to be added on, he jumped to the wrong conclusion that they must actually represent days attended. But as I have repeatedly pointed out - that only works if you have attended that school the whole school year. HE OVER-THOUGHT IT. 

If he stopped at his initial statement that it was the total number of AVAILABLE days in a school year (as opposed to actual days ATTENDED) and thought about it a bit more, he may have worked out that the absences made up the shortfall.  That is 12 days absences + 168 OTHER available days - 180.

If you still don't get it, I officially give up trying to explain because I don't know how to simplify it any further.

Greg parker wrote:

 

jim hargrove wrote:So... Mr. Parker informs us that there is a Port Byron in New York State.  Port Byron is about 280 miles NNW of New York City.  And there is no Port  Byron Junior High school, much less a PS 44 Byron Jr. High.  Today, in Port Byron there is only AA Gates Elementary and Dana-West Jr.-Sr. High. Mr Parker's discovery, which I've known about for 20 years or so, is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.  There is also a Port Byron in Illinois.  Why doesn't Mr. Parker talk about that?

In 1935 the Port Byron High School was destroyed by fire. As a result, a new and centralized school needed to be built. This change closed 23 smaller schools. The new Port Byron Central High School was built in 1937 on Church Street. 

The High School on Church Street was replaced with a more modern school on Maple Avenue in 1990. All three schools were now on one campus. A year later the high school was dedicated and named in honor of Dana L. West.
http://www.pbcschools.org/AboutUs/History/index.cfm

44 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

So SHOW us.  Quit talking out your arse and post your proof.  Or shut up.

I will let Greg Parker make the case against the school records since he is the one who came up with it.

If you want to claim there is something wrong with the exhumation and the subsequent Norton Report, you are going to have to provide some proof. I don't know what "papers" you are referring to regarding Marina you are going to have to provide the documents. It is funny you mention Marina since Armstrong believes she was in on the plot. And if you are now going to say the body was switched, you again have to provide some sort of evidence. I hope you are not going to regurgitate Jack White's "head in a box" theory. That was debunked long ago since the head was attached and had to be cut off. I noticed during our recent "debate" on the exhumation, you guys disappeared rather quickly. BTW, I am not falling back on "rhetoric" but rather scientific proof. Also 3 of the 4 doctors at the exhumation were from outside Dallas.

I'm going to try and explain this for the H&L gang one more time.

If a professional investigator or an investigative reporter or a police officer wanted to determine if there were two Oswalds here is how they would do it. They would look at  ALL of the evidence. They would see the 1981 exhumation that shows the Oswald that was shot by Ruby and buried is the same one they dug up. And that fact refuted Michael Eddowes, the man who paid for the exhumation,  just as it refutes H&L. 

They would look at the HSCA evidence that refuted two Oswald and also happened to refute H&L. They would look at the statements of the people who knew LHO intimately and give far less weight to those who thought they had an encounter with an Oswald but were mistaken or lying for their own reasons. After looking at ALL the evidence, any reasonable trained investigator would conclude one Oswald.

But H&L supporters don't work that way. They latch onto every witness who supports their case while ignoring those who don't, even family members and friends of the one and only Oswald. They view every discrepancy as "proof" of their theory while ignoring hard documentary facts because they were presented by the WC or HSCA or the FBI, even though they often accept other evidence presented by those agencies.

And finally, their fallback position when all else fails is that the inconvenient evidence that disproves H&L was simply falsified. So, there you have two methodologies-one used by professionals who understand the real world and one used by people who for unknown reasons want H&L to be a fact despite the overwhelming evidence that it is nonsense at best or a charade perpetrated for uncertain motives at worst.

Greg Parker wrote:

 

Jim Byron wrote: But there is no “Byron Junior High” in New York and, according to the New York Historical Society, there never was.  Since there are PS 44s in four or five of the five New York City boroughs, how would Beauregard have received information from an incorrectly identified school?  John wrote: “Perhaps a false name for the school was provided so that Beauregard school personnel would be unable to obtain Oswald's New York school transcripts by mail.”

Or perhaps once again, you guys just get it wrong.

Technically - no Byron Jr High. But that was just a common abbreviation of it's full name - PORT BYRON Junior High....http://www.pbcschools.org/News/2013-14/140414_allcounty_festival.cfm

Obviously that is not the school he went to, so if it is listed on a Beauregard form, it is in error (so far, no hits in MFF for "Port Byron" and no google hits for "port byron ps 44" except in your bible, so I would like to see a link to this form when you can provide it). The problem you have is that according to you, schools and other public entities never made errors. The one exception to you was the FBI - who made errors by not completely wiping all traces of two Oswalds.

So what are you options with this if you are going to stick to your normal routine and claim "no error"?

You can...
claim this as proof that there was a third Oswald...

claim the school board forged the record for unknown reasons

claim the FBI forged the record for unknown reasons.

------------------------------

I will deal with other matters later. Have more pressings things to attend to until for the next several hours.

58 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Sorry Tracy...  it seems you and yours are the ones misrepresenting the original evidence and the ease of using addition to prove how wrong it is...

I am not characterizing the school records evidence in any way. I have no explanation other than the records are being misread and other evidence shows there were not 2 Oswalds. I have offered Greg Parker's explanation as an alternative. BTW David, I wish you would stop with the Bronx Zoo thing, that has been debunked:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-bronx-zoo-photo.html

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Just as I suspected, you don't really understand Greg's muddled argument. You probably don't even know what I'm talking about. You should be ashamed for saying you agree with something you don't even understand, IMO.

What you really agree with is Greg's opinion that John is wrong, and you blame it on some pie-in-the-sky supposed misinterpretation.

Oh well, at least you're willing to post Greg's comments here. That's pretty decent of you. Thanks.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say you are right and I don't understand the records. It doesn't make any difference what they say because we have hard scientific fact and common sense to tell us there were not 2 Oswalds. Only those that want to promote a certain viewpoint will ignore the evidence and latch on to something like this to claim it as "proof" of 2 Oswalds. The same way you cite all the eyewitnesses as more "proof."

Why don't you try this. Make a spreadsheet of ALL of the witnesses who thought they saw an Oswald. What you would find if you did it honestly is that you have "proof" of not two Oswalds but perhaps dozens because the descriptions would vary greatly. Will you then say there were a dozen Oswalds? What you guys fail to acknowledge is that witnesses are wrong and in any group of documents, especially one as large as you are dealing with here, there will be errors made and anomalies will occur. Those are undeniable facts.

1 hour ago, Michael Cross said:

Asserting that without offering specifics as to the PROPER interpretation is either intellectual laziness or purposeful disinformation.

I'll agree that it is laziness to a certain degree since I do get tired of wasting my time here and I have spent years on this. It is up to the H&L gang to prove their case. Unfortunately for them, scientific evidence refutes it. As for the school records, it is simple. They want you to believe that the record shows an Oswald attending for a full year when we know that didn't happen. For this they rely on the statements of Mr. Head and his explanation of the records. Greg Parker has provided another explanation and will debate the H&L gang if and when he feels like it. In any case contrary to what they say, the school record thing does not prove the existence of two Oswalds. It is an anomaly in the record of which there are many as would be expected in the real world.

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh really? I dare you to explain the muddled part in your own words. (Because I'm pretty sure you don't understand it.)

(This is not a dig.... I don't understand it either.)

 

His explanation is that you guys are misinterpreting the school records in order to make the H&L theory work. But we know from other scientific and common sense evidence that there were not 2 Oswalds so the records are being misread or are incorrect. They are not "proof" of H&L. And that is probably all I am going to say on the matter since I don't like beating a dead horse.

First, this information has been available at Parker's website for ages now, so don't pretend it hasn't or that you are unable to follow a link. Second, I am not putting any spin on anything. This is Parker's analysis-he was the one who came up with it and I'll let him defend it (although I believe his explanation is very reasonable) and I'll post any reply he makes here. I have no desire to debate the issue now or in the future since I know for a fact there were not two Oswalds from the scientific and common sense evidence that says so. 

From Greg Parker's site:

 

Sandy Larsen wrote: Jim,

Clearly the number in the Re-Ad column has to represent the actual number of days attended, for the reason you gave. Bu even if Tracy were right, that it represents the number of available school days, would that bolster his (or Greg's) argument in any way? I can't see that it would.

Jim Hargrove wrote :Page 10 of the FBI report summarizes the attendance data in the “Absent,” “Tardy,” “Left” and “Re-Ad” columns, which are explained, according to the FBI agents, starting at the bottom of page 10 and continuing to page 11 by William Head, assistant principal at Warren Easton High School, who received the Beauregard records for incoming students.  The FBI’s summary of Head’s explanation has caused Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell to argue against David Josephs and me for years, because Head seemed to say two contradictory things.

At the bottom of page 10, the FBI indicates he said that the “Re ad” column stood for “Re Admitted” and “would represent a total listing of the school days for a given school year.”  But later in the very same paragraph, now at the top of page 11, the report indicates that Head said a school year regularly consisted of 180 days and that “school days in any given year must not fall below 170” and that “therefore the numbers listed opposite this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year.”

So which is it?  Does the “Re-Ad” column represent the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period?

------------------------

Which is it? It is the former. It can in most cases also be the latter.

If Oswald had attended Beauregard for the entire school year, then Head would be correct when he said, "this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year." But since we know he was not in attendance at Beauregard for the entire school year, it is only the first part of Head's statement that applies - that is that it represents "(when added to days absent) the total listing of school days for a given school year." So we have 12 + 168 = the magic figure of 180 with some of that total transferring over from the PS 44 records.

With this, you get...
-The numbers adding up.

-Common sense prevailing with records transferring so no disadvantage  accrues.
-Head's statement untangled and applied correctly

With H & L disregarding part of Head's statement, you get
-The numbers not adding up.
-NO records transferring, with consequent disadvantage to the student.
-Head's statement applied as if Oswald had been at Beauregard the whole school year.
-No explanation for the start date on the record.
-No explanation as to why the FBI missed what they claim is the obvious interpretation and therefore allowing the cat out of the bag.
-No explanation as to why only John Armstrong could see the "duel" records, and why now, only those who "believe" in his theory can see it.

Here's a little experiment to try: take the two sets of records to  different people wit no dog in this fight - preferably teachers, but at least people smart enough to interpret basic forms. Do not flag the issues. Do not provide Head's explanation. Give them nothing but the raw data and that there were 180 days in that school year and see what they come up with.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Parnell,

If you would like to pretend that the New York/New Orleans simultaneous schooling has been debunked, or the Taiwan/Japan simultaneous USMC stationings has been debunked, or the Palmer McBride timeline has been debunked, or anything else in H&L has been debunked, please stop hiding behind remote servers and place your arguments here so all of us can agree exactly what you are claiming and so I can then tear it apart.

Why are you afraid to debate anything here?

No doubt you'll just provide another link to some other remote server and claim that all the answers are there.

I'm not claiming that the school records issue or Japan have been debunked. It would be impossible to do that currently other than to point to the scientific evidence that shows only one Oswald. However, alternate explanations have been provided repeatedly. Palmer McBride has been debunked. He was an undoubtedly sincere man who simply misremembered events and became the basis for the H&L theory. But anyone can read my article at the link provided and decide.

EDIT: BTW, my advice is to find an acceptable venue, whether it is an Internet site or in person, and setup a debate with Greg Parker. He is anxious to debate and I think he could do a great job. You have to move out of your comfort zone sometimes.

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Your and GP's only response to McBride is "He's wrong"... 

Yes, I have seen that letter from McBride and heard all the arguments. He has been thoroughly debunked by myself, Greg Parker and David Lifton. For a summary see:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/palmer-mcbride.html

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

No they haven't.  All I ever see are links to Mr. Parker's private forum.  This is the JFK DEBATE forum.  Let's see some actual debate on this issue from your side.  Mr. Parker's so-called "explanations" are irrelevant to my information above.  If you think otherwise, post the evidence here, please.

I have posted links to the information and for some reason you pretend that it doesn't exist. You may disagree with what he says, but it is an alternate explanation and it does exist. But we have been through this before. So, why don't you go over to his forum and debate him if you are so eager to debate? I debate here all the time and while there are a few good people that help me out, it is certainly unfriendly territory for the most part.

35 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Hey, Mr. Bojczuk, if Sandy is too busy to debate Mr. Parker about the PS 44/Beauregard school records, I’d be happy to do so!!  It never ceases to amaze me that Lee Harvey Oswald could attend school simultaneously in NYC and New Orleans in the fall 1953 semester.

I’ll get the ball rolling right now so Mr. Parker can respond RIGHT HERE on a neutral forum.  He is still a member here, as I see his name listed on the “WHO’S ONLINE” list at the bottom of the main JFK page all the time.  So, without further delay, here’s a summary and a debate challenge I issued to Greg Parker or ANYONE ELSE way back last August!

Parker is no longer allowed to post here-only read messages. The offer was to debate on his forum.

EDIT: BTW, there is nothing to debate. Your claims are based on your interpretation of the school records. Other explanations, which lead most reasonable people to a different conclusion, have been provided to you.

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

It's a very good question that this person has asked.  I, too, wonder about this because it's just amazing how many wildly out-there theories people have come up with regarding the Kennedy case.

I have wondered as well because it is difficult to believe Jim or David or any of the H&L followers really believe there were two Oswalds. In the case of Armstrong, I feel it was a "vehicle" for his research, in other words, you have to have a new theory in order to publish a book.