W. Tracy Parnell

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.

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.

The scar is behind the ear. Quote: How is a mastoidectomy performed? Your doctor usually performs a mastoidectomy using general anesthesia. This ensures that you’re asleep and unable to feel pain. For a simple mastoidectomy, your surgeon will usually: Access your mastoid bone through a cut made behind your ear. http://www.healthline.com/health/mastoidectomy#purpose2 From another site quoted by Greg Parker: The procedure for mastoidectomy takes place under general anesthesia administered by our MD Anesthesiologist and takes approximately two to three hours. This is done either by itself or in conjunction with other procedures including tympanoplasty and ossicular chain reconstruction. An incision is made just behind the ear. This incision is typically very well masked within an existing skin crease, and the resulting scar usually heals to the point of being imperceptible to the naked eye.

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

That's all anyone needs.

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.

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.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=uvddAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nV8NAAAAIBAJ&pg=2830%2C1936999 Quote: I could have overlooked the scar, possibly it was under the hairline... Should Rose have asked if LHO had any childhood operations he could check for? Probably. He didn't and just missed the scar.

I am not "trolling" for anything. I am a debunker and a watchdog. What Jim wants me to do is "debate" an issue that he feels he has an advantage on such as the school records. But if you have followed these threads for "years" then you know that many issues, including the school records have been debated endlessly. H&L critics have shown that the school records are simply being misread (in their opinion). The issue is a dead end since short of some person or government body that could clear up the anomalies in the records both sides will just continue to promote their views. I am still waiting for you or any H&L supporter to disprove the exhumation evidence. Short of that, the H&L theory is invalid.

Reported him for what daring to disagree with you? What utter nonsense.

No, as I said, the other "issues" are irrelevant until you show how the exhumation (and the handwriting analysis and other evidence) was faked or present a new theory that explains it.

You are going to have to show how it was rigged. And Earl Rose admitted they could have easily missed the mastoid scar. It was behind the ear and they weren't looking for it.

As has been pointed out, several issues have been debated here at EF repeatedly. The issue I would like Jim and David to debate is the exhumation of LHO and the fact that it completely negates the H&L theory, a fact that Armstrong has addressed by completely ignoring it. My contention is debates about the issues Jim mentions are pointless since the H&L theory was debunked before it was even created. So until a more meaningful explanation (more meaningful than the Louise Robertson thing) for the exhumation issues is presented, I see no need to debate anything further. So is a new explanation forthcoming?

Will Jim Hargrove debate a topic of my choosing that pertains to H&L?

Right Michael and most readers are aware of this despite what Jim says. You and me, Tommy Graves, Jeremy B., Bernie L., Greg Parker, David Lifton and others have debated the issues here at EF on and off since 2015-myself as far back as the late nineties on different forums. They want the pointless (because they refuse to quit even when proven wrong) debates to continue in order to promote the H&L theory. I will check in from time to time to comment on the most egregious nonsense. But for the most part I will let them have their fun.

Greg Parker has posted at his forum summarizing a few of the arguments rebutting the H&L theory on several issues mentioned here by Hargrove: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1571-hargrove-claiming-victory

First, I understand Jim Hargrove creates posts like this hoping to get a response from myself or other H&L critics. Such discussions are the best form of advertising for the H&L theory and Armstrong’s book and some time ago I realized I was the best thing that ever happened to them. As I have mentioned, I don’t intend to do too much more regarding the already discredited H&L theory. At my age, time is limited and I have a few things I would like to do that are much more important. I will briefly address a few things though. Hargrove continues to imply that because Greg Parker is no longer allowed to post at the EF that arguments he makes at his own website are somehow less valid. Parker has discussed several issues at his site, sometimes quoting directly from threads here at EF. Anyone can follow the links that have been posted repeatedly here and decide for themselves which argument they favor. And as anyone who has followed the debate knows, the issues have been discussed repeatedly right here at EF dating back at least as far as 2015. Hargrove simply prefers to have the issues debated here on his “home turf” to call attention to his and Armstrong’s work. Hargrove is touting the recent article by Dr. Norwood as the “definitive” work on the subject of LHO’s Russian language ability. It is no such thing. A definitive article would document all the witness reports on LHO’s ability and place them in context. It would explain that the witnesses are in general agreement and any anomalies are explainable and understandable. Instead, Norwood “cherry picks” the evidence and emphasizes anything that helps his theory while dismissing the overwhelming evidence provided by the people in Russia who lived and worked with LHO and by Marina. This evidence shows that LHO acquired the language gradually and became fluent simply because he spoke it every day. Of course, Norwood thinks LHO (Harvey) was a spy who was playing a game with his Russian hosts. Hargrove and Sandy Larsen also imply that the H&L critics “disappeared” at the same time. The implication is that the critics are being centrally controlled by some higher power (the CIA perhaps). This is nonsense of course as most of the critics are conspiracy believers themselves. It could simply be that the critics have better things to do than spend every day responding to people who continue to hold on to a belief that has been scientifically disproven. I won’t bother to repost links to the many rebuttals of the H&L theory. Those interested may refer to page 70 of this thread where I previously posted such links. Despite what Hargrove would have you believe, the links do lead to actual websites where there is in formation rebutting his arguments.

Yes, it is a joke. Here are some links to general H&L rebuttal sites and a couple of links to alternate explanations of the school records and Japan. You simply follow the links and read them. BTW, some of these links include rebuttals to points made here at EF by H&L supporters including Jim and Sandy. I would say that all the major issues raised by the H&L supporters are addressed by these three sites. Greg Parker's H&L Archive: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-the-harvey-lee-evidence My own H&L archive (scroll down) http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/p.html Jeremy B.: http://22november1963.org.uk/john-armstrong-harvey-and-lee-theory School Records: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1361-creating-mayhem-with-historical-records Japan: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1399-the-skagit-according-to-a-former-crew-member When I get the time, I may try and put together a page that will serve as an index to the H&L rebuttals.

As is the case with the school records, the H&L supporters have been provided with alternate explanations again and again. They simply refuse to accept them and pretend that no explanation has ever been provided. But people like myself, Bernie, Greg Parker, Jeremy, Michael W., Tommy Graves, David Lifton and many others have continually done so going back several years. There is an explanation for EVERY issue they raise, even if it is simply that records are being misinterpreted and witnesses are mistaken.

Great that you are taking this task on Paul, look forward to reading it!

Nobody cares if the H&L "evidence" goes away or not. This information has been out there for years now. The H&L critics are simply providing alternatives to the discredited theory. We already know from an informal poll done here what the majority of the members at this conspiracy-oriented forum think. The majority say they appreciate the research efforts by Armstrong but don't believe the theory. I have other interests to keep me occupied, but I will continue to monitor this forum (as I am sure will others) to make sure the H&L supporters have an opposing voice.

The only evidence that the Stripling records "disappeared" is from Frank Kudlaty. He was speaking 30 + years after the fact and as I have pointed out many times, Armstrong has a way of getting witnesses to "remember" amazing facts that help the H&L cause. If Kudlaty was so concerned that the FBI had confiscated records why didn't he speak out at the time and/or demand a receipt? This is just another witness statement that has little credibility without supporting evidence. Yet the H&L people repeat this as a "fact."