W. Tracy Parnell

On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 12:45 PM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Tracy has made the suggestion several times that Jim and his fellow cult members should assemble their evidence and present it to someone with connections, such as a prominent newspaper or TV journalist, who might be able to give it some publicity.

Jeremy's idea has been made onto a major motion picture!

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

6 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

My point is, it appears to me that LHO's "proficiency" is being elevated to a greater mystery than it actually is because (1) that's just more fun, and (2) a greater mystery dovetails with the Harvey & Lee theory.

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

46 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Tracy,

my "assumption" is based on what James Norwood has posted:

So the test also contained a writing part, i.e. text production, which shows that it wasn't all multiple choice.

But even if it had been all multiple choice I'd find your argument that Oswald "just got lucky" rather weak. First you wanted to convice me that Oswald was a language prodigy, now you say he just might have guessed well. It shows you have no credible explanation for Oswald's impressive results.

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.

4 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Tracy,

it was YOUR assumption that the test was multiple choice. I was just pointing out that text production was also part of it. Reading and listening on the other hand may well have been multiple choice.

Here you can read more about multiple choice language tests used by the military: http://www.dliflc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Generic-Fam-Guide-MC-CBu-updated.pdf

You'll realize that it is virtually impossible to score well just by guessing...

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?

10 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Tracy,

as James Norwood has pointed out Oswald also received a decent score in writing. So the test was certainly not all multiple-choice.

Do you know if it was partly multiple choice?

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But Oswald DID file his income tax return (according to the WC). So the mystery is not solved.

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.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

These are current rules, of course, but soldiers were required to file income tax returns in the 1950s.

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?  

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Oh, brother!  The ARRB followed in the proud tradition of the WC and the HSCA, proving that the Federal government is completely incapable of investigating its own culpability in the Kennedy assassination.

But let’s talk about you, Mr. Parnell....

Is it your position that “Lee Harvey Oswald” planned to hide his employment by the U.S. Marine Corps from the IRS for some reason?   Is that really the position you’re taking here? 

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.

2 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Don't worry, Mr. Parnell....

... I'm going to post LOTS more Harvey and Lee evidence.

Do you really think LHO "forgot" to report his 1956 Marine Corps income while he was on active duty wearing a Marine Corps uniform?   Are you going to say that with a straight face? Hah-hah-hah!

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

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

How do we know the document was forged?  There are a number of different ways to show it is falsified, but here is the quickest and the simplest.  According to the Official Story®, “Lee Harvey Oswald” enlisted in the Marine Corps on October 24, 1956.  He therefore should have reported more than two months of Marine Corps income on his 1956 tax return.

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.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

John Ely found there were two distinct sets of people who knew one or the other Oswald... that there were records indicating one of them being in one place while the other was somewhere else, concurrently.

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.

33 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

the work of John Ely discovering the amazing duality of existence when compiling his bio? 

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.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

No doubt Tracy...  you're there whenever a H&L evidence-less supporter vomits up verbal diarrhea from a most fertile mind with a scenario born from ignorance of the topic...  

Let me see... doesn't the evidence which proves H&L basically render your work and Parker's books and research, moot and meaningless? 
H&L cannot exist in the Parker world - not because of the evidence but of the implications it has on his own work...  that and exposing the inability of the detractors to add correctly.  Can't have that now can we?

You and the other minions are tireless and dedicated - I give you that!  

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.

12 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Parnell wants us to believe that Greg Parker has debunked everything, but that we can’t see those so-called debunkings here so that can we debate them here.  I want to see Mr. Parnell say that again and again, because he currently has no other real arguments against the most direct and simple elements of the Harvey and Lee evidence.   

I’ll be making my future write-ups as brief as possible to avoid wasting our host’s bandwidth.

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?

50 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

No, Bernie, a lot of the H&L CIA-did-it story is based on official documents that show, for example....

“Oswald” simultaneously attended PS 44 in NYC and Beauregard JHS in New Orleans; he sailed the high seas and was stationed in Taiwan while simultaneously being treated for VD in Japan; that he both did and didn’t have a valid Texas driver’s license; that he both did and didn't shoot himself in the arm in the Marines; that his own half-brother told the WC photos of him weren't of his brother, and so on.

Obviously, I'm going to have to work at reposting some of this information, since you clearly missed it.  Hold on....

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.

7 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The fact that Oswald took the Russian proficiency exam in the first place supports the thesis that he was a native speaker.  Even without speculating on what level of achievement (e.g., nine-year-old, etc.) his score may suggest, the main point is that Oswald took this extremely specialized exam.  That act demonstrates his competency.  As we know virtually beyond doubt that he had no formal training in school and there is no evidence of self-study, the conclusion is that he was a native speaker.

(b) The most important point made in your notes below is when you write that "As I see it, one of the problems we face is that we know so little about the Army language exam itself."

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. 

26 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

They are medical measurements.

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!

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I didn't believe the Harvey and Lee Theory before I studied it. The strength of the evidence changed my mind.

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.

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Do you have any friends, Bernie? Does that make l.i.a.r.s of them?

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.

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

By golly, I think you're right Tracy! I mean... after fifty years, I finally remember that Oswald attended the school I was attending. Oh wait, I recall now that I was principal at the time! Yeah, that's the ticket. And yes, I handed over Oswald's records to the FBI. It's all so clear now.

Get real, Tracy! That does not happen to people!

 

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.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Tracy Parnell claims Stripling School assistant principal Frank Kudlaty was lying 

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.