W. Tracy Parnell

Jeremy's idea has been made onto a major motion picture! https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1582-harvey-and-lee-cult-the-interview

Nice to see you posting again Lance and I think your assessment is right on.

First, he got 2 more right than wrong and was rated poor so that is not impressive to me. I wouldn't say he was a language "prodigy." I think he had good oral skills in general and was able to pick up Russian after living there and speaking it for 2 1/2 years. If he had pursued it at a college level he could have has success as a translator or other job where he could have used his skills. Anyway, thanks for the information because I wasn't aware of the possibility that the exam was partly multiple choice before this.

Well, I'm sorry Mathias but if it's multiple choice it is possible to guess. And he didn't score "well" he scored "poor." In any event, this is a current exam right? Was the exam that LHO took partly multiple choice for sure or is this just your assumption?

Do you know if it was partly multiple choice?

You guys can continue to post documents and data dumps but the fact remains that none of this matters. Scientific evidence has proven the H&L theory to be false. And until you debunk that scientific evidence (which you can't do) these are the facts. H&L was debunked by the same scientific evidence the HSCA used (and the privately funded exhumation used) to refute other double Oswald theories.

But, as Karl Hilliard points out, not all did. Which is exactly what I suggested. Another H&L mystery solved. Or perhaps there were two Karl Hilliards JIm?

My position is that we know there were not two Oswalds from the scientific evidence and common sense. Therefore the fact that he didn't report income is irrelevant as is the reason, which will never be known.

I think the likelihood is that it benefitted him financially not to report it. But are you going to really say there is anything to the tax records issue when it was thoroughly investigated and debunked by the ARRB? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/horne.txt

Once again, that is your interpretation of the evidence only. Other explanations are he forgot to report the income, didn't know he was supposed to or cheated on his taxes. BTW, I thought you weren't going to do any more "data dumps?" EDIT: I forgot to mention that once the ARRB proved there was nothing to the tax record thing, David Lifton predicted that Armstrong would say the records were forged and he was right. Anyone can search McAdams' group for the thread.

You want to show me where Ely informed the commission about the "two distinct sets of people?" That is merely your interpretation of the evidence.

John Ely didn't think there were 2 Oswalds. He just wanted the WC to conduct as thorough an investigation into LHO's life as was possible.

I see the discussion of the exhumation has ended here as well and I'm not surprised since the exhumation and the HSCA work renders the H&L theory moot. Until someone can successfully address those issues there is really no need for further debate although I will continue to pop in to keep you guys honest.

No, I never said Greg Parker or myself or anyone has "debunked everything." I have said repeatedly that there are things that will likely be unexplained to everyone's satisfaction. But there are "outliers" in any collection of data and especially with a collection as large as we are dealing with here. That is the difference, Jim is telling you the H&L theory can explain all but it can't. BTW, why worry about bandwidth at this point after a million "data dumps?" Perhaps the powers that be here at EF are fed up?

The H&L theory is based entirely on "cherrypicked" evidence and in fact ignores scientific evidence that refutes it. And no, we don't need any more "data dumps" we have seen it all before.

So if I take a foreign language exam, that supports the idea I am a native speaker of that language? Wow is all I can think of. But the good doctor is right that we know very little about the exam. For example, maybe it was multiple choice and he guessed well.

Number one, you don't know that. Number two, it has been explained to you many times why there could be height differences. Different footwear, body posture, height changes throughout the day as is a proven fact and so on. As Joe Nick Patoski said, if there were two Oswalds there would be abundant physical proof of it and there isn't. But there is abundant scientific proof against the idea.

Brilliant Jeremy!

There is no credible evidence supporting the theory. All you have are anomalies in the record and witnesses who think they saw something that supports your theory. You could chart all of the sightings of LHO and you would find many that do not support either "Harvey" or "Lee." Does that indicate multiple Oswalds? Or does it indicate a fact that law enforcement and professional investigators already know. And that is that in any well known case, there will be people who say they have seen an individual who actually have not. In a recent case in NY, over 2000 people said they saw 2 escapees from prison. You know how many actually did? Two.

The point is, Kudlaty and White were friends. This brings into play the distinct possibility that Kudlaty was familiar with White's theories and suddenly "remembered" that the FBI had taken records. If he was so concerned, why didn't he come forward independently years before? I'm afraid his story is nearly worthless.

What I was referring to is the FBI MAY have come to Stripling and MAY have taken some records. The records could have been Robert's as he actually went there. Or, Kudlaty could be mixing his memories of the alleged incident (which could be as innocent as the FBI asking some questions) with information he has acquired since then. This type of thing certainly does occur and has been documented by memory experts like Elizibeth Loftus.

Wrong. Some of these witnesses who were approached by Armstrong 30 plus years after the fact probably believe what they were saying is true. But memories become faded and mingled with information learned later. Such as conspiracy theories that the witness read somewhere. Or that were planted in their mind my leading questions by Armstrong. If these witnesses were sure they had something important to say why not come forward at the time? The proof is in the pudding as the saying goes and in these cases there is no pudding to be found.

Yes, but what did he do about it? Nothing. It might be time to try someone else. But their reaction will be the same as Patoski's: The existence of two Oswalds would be simple enough to prove. All that would be necessary is valid physical evidence showing Oswald at place A and valid physical evidence showing a second Oswald at place B at the same time. (If the deception lasted almost eleven years, from the time Oswald was thirteen until November 1963, such evidence must be in abundance.) Armstrong can’t do that. Instead, Armstrong regaled me for hours with minutiae. BTW, it is obvious from Listening to Kudlaty that he had read some conspiracy literature and saw his experiences in that light. He was therefore "ripe" for Armstrong's rhetoric. But the H&L people need to find an advocate with some power if they believe they have something. otherwise what is the point?

Here's the thing about the H&L theory. It doesn't operate in the real world. That is, the world where you must prove your assertions. If the H&L supporters really believe they have solved the JFK assassination (that is what they are saying of course) why wouldn’t they be taking this to their congressman, senator or local investigative reporter? It seems in a way they once did. In 1998, Joe Nick Patoski did a piece on Armstrong for Texas Monthly. Patoski wrote: The theory is so implausible that its popularity now might be taken as a sign that conspiracy research has at last hit a dead end. It’s one thing to believe that Oswald was involved in a plot; it’s another to believe that the plot began when he was thirteen. Who could believe this stuff and why? … The existence of two Oswalds would be simple enough to prove. All that would be necessary is valid physical evidence showing Oswald at place A and valid physical evidence showing a second Oswald at place B at the same time. (If the deception lasted almost eleven years, from the time Oswald was thirteen until November 1963, such evidence must be in abundance.) Armstrong can’t do that. Instead, Armstrong regaled me for hours with minutiae. Armstrong told Patoski the Frank Kudlaty story of records being taken by the FBI. It seems Patoski, who went to school at Stripling, was impressed by Kudlaty’s story and interviewed him. Despite this interest, Patoski’s attitude can be summarized by the following quote: Is there a good explanation for what happened to those records? Was Kudlaty wrong? And what was Hoover talking about in that memo [the infamous impostor memo], and what’s the story behind it? I don’t know the answers and I’m not going to devote my life to finding out. It’s obvious that despite being somewhat impressed with Kudlaty, Patoski didn’t really believe there was anything to Armstrong’s theory. Why just drop it otherwise? Patoski went on to write a book about Willie Nelson, but had no more time for John Armstrong. It is clear to me that Patoski didn’t believe Armstrong’s tale at all. So, maybe the H&L have gone to the media and the reason they don’t bother anymore is that journalists (and anyone else that might listen to them) must operate in the real world. There are things like common sense and evidence that must be dealt with. And as Patoski pointed out, the theory should be simple to prove-if it were true. So, the only place that H&L can flourish is right here on the EF, on Hargrove’s website and in the pages of Armstrong’s book. Patoski’s article: https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-two-oswalds/

Accepting the accounts of the people who knew him best and lacking any other evidence regarding any other way he could have learned the language, Paul's version is correct.