W. Tracy Parnell

Mathias,

If I wrote an article on LHO's Russian ability, it would not be to specifically address H&L issues. It would be a detailed study that would show how LHO gradually acquired the language as Paul has explained very well.

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

That’s probably the real threat to the Hit Squad’s security

The term "hit squad" implies organization. My question is, who does Jim think is running the "hit squad?"

Michael,

Sandy was asking for a photo of the mastoid bone and that is the reason I linked to my article on Groody which contains a photo that shows LHO's skull at the exhumation and the defect in the mastoid bone. You are right, Groody was a character and made unsupported claims over the years. He had no problems with the exhumation at first and only started making his claims after a couple of years had passed and then relied on his faulty memory of the events. The photos and documentation provided by the Norton team do not support his stories.

1 hour ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Tracy,

instead of accusing others of being lunatics or liars why don't you do some actual research and try to solve some of the mysteries surrounding this case. For instance, according to you Oswald managed to reach level L2/R2 in Russian - which would have qualified him to be a language expert in the military - by self-study only. Why don't you show us the material he used for his studies - I'd like to recommend them to my American friend who's just barely passed his L1/R1 exam after 300 lessons of training.

Mathias,

I have done plenty of original research. You can check out my web page at McAdams' site or my current blog for that. I think I could write a good article on LHO's Russia ability, I just need the time to do it.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Could the language Mrs. Bratton heard Marguerite speak have been Russian?

Or could Mrs. Bratton have been a lunatic or pulling Armstrong's chain? Or is Armstrong himself lying? I find it hard to believe he left anything out of his tome. Jim never considers these alternatives.

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Is there a photo of the mastoid bone?

 

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

10 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

Michael,

I have reported your post to the forum administrator, as it is in violation of the agreed-upon forum guidelines.  The rule is explicit about avoiding casting personal aspersions on fellow members.  While the discussions may get intense, the goal is to discuss ideas, not attack others personally.

Clean it up!

P.S.  Please add my name to the list of advocates of the work of John Armstrong

Well that is twice today alone that the good doctor has reported someone who disagrees with him to the forum administrators. They attack me here all the time doctor, but I'm sure you're not as concerned about that.

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If a lie was put in the report, how will a forensic pathologist know any better?

 

Were the photos faked too? And were the 15 other individuals present at the examination all told to lie? If so, one of them, Paul Groody, didn't listen. He ran around for years and years talking to anyone who would listen. At some point , all of this becomes unbelievable. But then I shouldn't be shocked because here is a list of who would have to be in on the plot. In fact, I should add the people from the exhumation, although I don't have all their names.

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

EDIT: List updated-thanks for the idea Sandy,

Just now, James Norwood said:

Trolling Tracy,

As David and Sandy have indicated your rebuttal is weak, and you lose even more credibility by reiterating your buzz words or "Nonsense" or "Take it to the Media." 

LOL

And your argument is strengthened by using the term "trolling Tracy?" The rebuttal is not weak. The forensic doctors understood that the charts did not perfectly match but offered an explanation as I have posted. The problem is, H&L supporters will not accept any alternative explanations. To do so would mean they would have to give up on the theory and face reality.

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That's a good point. And is one of the reasons I believe the examiner was instructed to lie in his report. For national security reason.

 

You can say that and that is all you can say. But why not do what I suggested? Take the report to a forensic pathologist and see if they think anything is funny.

Another David Josephs "data dump" that we have all seen 25 times in this thread alone. One of the items, the Bronx Zoo photo, has been debunked here:

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

3 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Tracy - if you go way up you'll read Joseph's reply to me about when I asked "Do you really truly believe everything?" Based on his reply - that he doesn't trust any word from anyone from officialdom - and only trusts the alternative or opposing views like Howard Zinn's alternative view of history - then you're not going to convince him of anything.

Hi Michael,

They claim not to trust official sources but Armstrong and Hargrove have no problem doing so when it supports the H&L theory. In the book, there are dozens of assertions that when you check the endnotes lead to an FBI report, an HSCA report and so on. So it depends on what the report says I guess.

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well if that's the case (and it very well may be), then how was it possible for the examiner to see that "imperceptible" scar in Oswald's decomposed skin?

 

As I understand it, there is an incision to gain access and then part of the bone is taken out. This leaves a more or less circular defect and that is what was discovered at the exhumation. The scar itself had rotted away. The fact that Rose didn't find the scar or defect at the original autopsy is less surprising given the above information. You can see the defect here, although the photo isn't that great.

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

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And while you're at it, David, tell them about Operation Northwoods and see if they believe that "utter nonsense" too. LOL

 

Whatever points you or Josephs want to make about Operation Northwoods may or may not be correct. But it has nothing to do with 2 Oswalds. Many people think very highly of articles David Josephs has written. He (and you Sandy) would be better served by abandoning the H&L fantasy, and that is what it is, and he might be taken more seriously. There were not 2 Oswalds and that is a provable fact. If you think otherwise, stop talking and take it to the media. And don't tell me you can't find one person in the media that is not "in on the plot." 

I'll let the Report speak for itself:

The second question was whether or not all inconsistencies in the dental records could be ex­plained and the records documented as being authentic. Charting errors are common, espe­cially in a dental health record that has entries by many different practitioners as in the mili­tary. The Forensic Dental Examination Summary (Table 3) indicates that the following errors were found and explainable: 

1.            Maxillary right third molar (No. 1, Universal System)

Tooth noted as missing on several examinations and radiographs was actually unerupted and is not normally found in the radiographic view used.

2.            Maxillary right second molar (No. 2, Universal System)

Occlusal-lingual metallic restoration incorrectly charted on 25 Oct.1956 which was really oc­clusal caries as documented on radiographs of 27 March 1958. Occlusal-lingual metallic resto­ration also was confused with the same restoration in the adjacent tooth (maxillary right first molar).

3.            Maxillary left first premolar (No. 12, Universal System)

Maxillary left second premolar (No. 13, Universal System)

Maxillary left first molar (No. 14, Universal System)

Compound error involving charting on 27 March 1958 of: (1) interproximal restorations ver­sus caries and (2) one tooth anterior in the arch than correct (that is, on adjacent contact areas of No. 12 and No. 13 versus No. 13 and No. 14) which is correctly documented on the radiographs of the same date.

4.            Maxillary left third molar (No.16, Universal System)

Same error as maxillary right third molar described above. 

After much study of the dental records, it was decided independently by each team member that the dental records were authentic and could be used to support an identification made from the dentition. Figures 6 and 7 demonstrate the high degree of consistency between the antemortem and postmortem radiographs. Identical radiographic morphology was obtained when comparing both sets of radiographs in the maxillary right first premolar (No. 5), the maxillary left first premolar (No. 12), and the maxillary left second molar (No. 15); and similar radiographic morphology was demonstrated in the maxillary right first molar (No. 3), the maxillary left first molar (No. 14), and the mandibular left third molar (No. 17). (The Univer­sal Tooth Numbering System was used.) Additionally, similar pulpal anatomy was demon­strated between antemortem and postmortem radiographs in the mandibular left second pre­molar (No. 20). 

Based upon the consistency of the dental charting, the dental radiographs, the dental rec­ords, and the lack of any unexplainable, inconsistent items, positive dental identification was made.

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

As I mentioned, this report was peer reviewed. These are facts and you have to deal with them by finding some expert who will say that the report is flawed. I don't like the odds of that.

We are entering the same territory as the school records debate. I have offered an alternate explanation-charting errors. And it is not my idea, it comes from the forensic pathologists who did the report. They understand that there will be errors. But there were enough unique factors to allow a forensic identification. And this was peer reviewed. End of story.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Rose was a real doctor who knew what he was doing in an autopsy

Certainly. But he admits he could have missed the scar and mastoid defect. And the evidence shows that is what happened. Because when the body was dug up, there it was. Unless you can explain that somehow.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Huh? Why wouldn't the scar be visible in that photo, Tracy.

You can't just say stuff without something to back it up. That would be Trejoizing.

 

The scar is behind the ear. 

Quote:

How is a mastoidectomy performed?

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

You gonna believe your eyes or what people tell you...?

There are 3 molars in each corner of his mouth, the boy going into the Marines only had 2...

You gonna tell us now that molars grow back after death?

Your rebuttal here Tracy is terribly weak...   The teeth are not the same, the autopsy doc does not note a single one of the scars the Marines noted, nor does he have the scar from the pistol discharge thru near his elbow.... which happened to Lee.

Your "LOCK" evidence, this exhumation report, actually proves our point and contradicts yours...

The teeth cannot lie.

 

Nonsense. The doctors who did the Norton Report were some of the top experts in the country. They mentioned anomalies and stated that charting errors are not uncommon in the military. So you can believe the experts or "Doctor" Josephs. But why listen to me. Take the Norton Report to a forensic pathologist and see if they think somethin funny is going on. Or take the report to an investigative journalist. BTW, the report was published in the Journal of Forensic Science and not one person that read it ever came forward to disagree with the findings.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/norton1.htm

23 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've noticed that DVP never comes to these H&L threads to debate. I'll bet it's because he knows the only thing he can turn to is the exhumation.

 

That's all anyone needs.

19 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

I'm with David on this one. 

The mastoid scar should never have been missed in a competent autopsy.

Trolling Tracy would have us believe that the autopsy is the Rosetta Stone of the case.  Not so, based even on the brief discussion above.

I agree-in a perfect world it would not have been missed. But the evidence and Rose's own admission show that is what happened.

Because a person's teeth change over time. The best experts in the country examined the remains and found no significant anomalies that were unexplained. Unless you are saying that you know more than they do.

The mastoid scar was behind the ear. Rose could have (and did) missed it if he wasn't specifically looking for it. The photo proves nothing as the scar would not be visible in that photo. The exhumation is rock solid proof that these was one and only one LHO. All you guys can do is say that "the government" faked it somehow. But reasonable people don't believe that.

33 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

Tracy,

Do you want to discuss the issues of this thread (i.e., Oswald's proficiency in Russian), or would your rather keep trolling along with your mantra of "nonsense" for virtually everything that YOU disagree with?

No, other than to say I agree with Paul T's assessment completely.

...But they were looking for the scars from the mastoid operation at exhumation and they found them. What H&L critics need to show is how this examination was faked. And good luck relying on Paul Groody's nutty observations.

Armstrong needs to go back to the drawing board and think up a new explanation.