W. Tracy Parnell

For the $1000 prize, I submit Greg's explanation-just follow the links. Setup a poll and we'll have the members vote on if he gets the money or not.

Bernie, Nice to see you posting here again. At this point in time, I have bigger fish to fry than H&L, but I do pop in from time to time when I see Jim or David try to slip something by readers who might be unaware of the facts.

Your "$1000 offer" is a load of bull and everyone here knows it. Who is going to decide who has proven their case and gets the money-you? Silly. As for Parker, he has shown how the records are being misread.

If you're referring to the exhumation, that is a scientific fact. The results were published in a peer reviewed journal by a team of physicians. I studied the exhumation extensively and found no anomalies whatsoever aside from Paul Groody's discredited assertions. So, unfortunately for the H&L crowd, you are stuck with Jim's explanation of dual mastoid operations, which by the way, would have to have been administered when both boys were roughly the same age (less than 10 years) to avoid detection.

Such as?

Mathias, Any lies Phillips might or might not have told could be explained by the fact that he may have believed he was protecting CIA secrets. We know from the experience with Helms that many "higher-ups" in the CIA considered it their duty to lie if they thought it was necessary to protect the agency. Helms, of course, was convicted of a crime for doing so and considered it a "badge of honor." But I believe that some of Phillips' apparent misstatements may be the result of incompetence. I believe that far from being a superhuman spy as he is often portrayed, Phillips may have been a mere mortal who made mistakes and tried to cover them up as in the case of Alvarado.

David, You can continue to insult me-don't worry I can take it and I won't mention it again. I only mentioned it because in my experience someone who starts acting that way has run out of responses. And you can continue to believe that your pointing out anomalies in the evidence trumps the rock solid proof of the exhumation and other scientific evidence. IMO it doesn't, but I'll let the readers here decide. As far as Pic and Robert Oswald, they were giving what they believed to be truthful testimony but it was mostly from memory. It wouldn't be surprising if their testimonies did not match up perfectly.

Personal attack-wow what a surprise! But that doesn't change the fact that the H&L theory was debunked before it was created.

Mathias, If you can somehow prove LHO could not have achieved the results he did (which was rated poor btw) then you would have something. But I think it would be all but impossible to do so. Maybe he guessed well-I don't know but I know of know evidence that he studied Russian outside of his own efforts. You suspect he had extensive training but you can't prove it. If the new documents show he studied at the Monterey Institute, then you might have something. But so far we have only had the "startling" revelation that Cabell was a CIA informant. I'm not aware of any evidence that links Phillips to LHO apart from Veciana. There are things that you and others conspiratorially interpret as linking the two but that is your opinion and not evidence. You ask why I am "incurious" but I could turn that around. Why have researchers been completely "incurious" about what Veciana really told Fonzi in the first interviews? Instead, they accepted what Fonzi told them which was not accurate and repeated that information for years. The school records are not proof of anything IMO other than records are misunderstood in some cases.

What's getting "terribly old"? Hearing the facts that refute the theory? I imagine that would get old, but facts are facts.

Here are some facts David-try these on for size. The 1981 exhumation of LHO was done to test a two-Oswald theory similar to H&L. The exhumation examination found that the man buried in the grave in Fort Worth (who is supposed to be "Harvey") is the one and only LHO. "Harvey" had the mastoid operation that "Lee" was supposed to have had. This iron clad fact leaves you with Jim's explanation that "Harvey" must have had a mastoid operation at Jacobi Hospital in New York as suggested by Louise Robertson's statement. Absent Jim's very recent and very thin "explanation" you must accept the fact that the theory as related in Armstrong's book was debunked BEFORE it was even created. Other facts are the HSCA handwriting and photo analysis which also refute H&L. There any number of other common sense reasons to disbelieve the theory. So, you must disbelieve all of these proofs in order to accept the theory. I must believe that the school records are wrong or being misread. Which makes more sense?

Your statement that I don't understand the history of JFK investigations is incorrect. I have studied the case since 1984-I have simply arrived at a different conclusion than you have. Stifle the discussion? Who is doing that? John Armstrong has published a book on the subject and he and Jim and David and others have ben promoting his work for years. I consider myself a skeptic who has helped to make others aware of the problems with this ridiculous, discredited theory. But I am not suppressing anything. Back to my point, if you can't find one journalist who will help you in today's world of Internet media, then you have to ask yourself if your theory has any value. You say you have uncovered the "truth." I for one would be shouting that "truth" from the rooftops if I truly believed that. But I am unaware of any H&L devotee who has contacted the media.

Fine, when will you be taking this "fact" to the proper authorities or at least to an investigative journalist so the world can become aware of this "fact?" If you are not willing to do that, what is the point of it all? Of course, you can't do that because you know you will be laughed at.

You have been provided the links to Parker's website many times. You can follow the links, you do not need to be "shown."

Nobody can explain everything and I am no different. However, professional investigators (FBI, police etc.) know that in any case there will be evidence that does not fit the final conclusion. And the JFK case probably has more accumulated evidence than any case in history. So naturally there will be things that seem unexplainable. But this does not require the Armstrong invention of two Lee Harvey Oswalds.

I am not saying it "debunks" it. I am saying he has provided an alternate explanation. BTW, it must be nice to have so much money!

For the final time, an explanation has already been offered by Greg Parker. You guys just don't accept it as you would have to abandon your beloved theory.

Parker stated that the school records were being misread. Supporters of H&L choose not to believe that. BTW, David Josephs continues to use his photo of LHO at the zoo to try and demonstrate that "Harvey" was short while "Lee" was taller. But using Josephs' own numbers for the height of the railing shows that "Harvey" was 5' 4"- just as he was measured. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-bronx-zoo-photo.html

Actually, you will have to stay with the first mastoidectomy scenario because there is nothing wrong with the exhumation. Believe me Sandy, I looked at that carefully in late nineties and there is nothing there. The witnesses could not have been convinced to keep quiet since Paul Groody did indeed come forward to voice his opinions repeatedly. And Groody never mentioned the government convincing witnesses not to talk-he only stated his pet theories based on his own faulty memory. So you are stuck with Jim's theory that "Harvey" was given a mastoid operation in New York. I think if you took a closer look at the exhumation evidence Sandy, it might convince you that H&L is wrong. By the way, the exhumation evidence is not an "outlier." You have the handwriting and photographic evidence done by the HSCA. You have the statements of LHO's family and those closest to him, none of whom thought there were two of him. You have the behavior of the "fake" Marguerite (documented at my website). You have the fact that nobody that knew Marguerite came forward to say the woman they knew was not the woman they saw on TV and in publications. So a lot of evidence against H&L.

But Armstrong never said this in his book. He offered no explanation for the exhumation at all and he simply ignored the fact that it rendered his theory moot.

Most people don't take Lorenz seriously at this point. Here are a couple resources for those interested including an excerpt from Gaeton Fonzi's book discussing Lorenz and her story: http://www.jfk-online.com/lorenz.html http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm#marita

Wrong. But I can tell you one important individual who can set the record straight about H&L. His name is Vincent DiMaio. From his book, Morgue: A Life in Death: As we examined the skull, the small hole in the left mastoid process leapt out. Its man-made edges were rounded and smooth, healed but not natural. It was an old lesion that couldn’t be faked. Our dead man and Lee Harvey Oswald had both undergone a mastoidectomy in the distant past. DiMaio, Dr. Vincent; Franscell, Ron. Morgue: A Life in Death (p. 118). St. Martin's Press. Kindle Edition. So, "Harvey" had an operation that "Lee" was supposed to have had and the theory as it currently exists is disproved as was the Eddowes theory that the exhumation was undertaken to verify. Jim Hargrove has lately offered the explanation that "Harvey" had a mastoidectomy when he was at Jacobi Hospital for mental tests per Louise Robertson. Aside from the fact there is no other evidence of this, Robertson's statement is suspect since Jacobi was not in existence at the time she allegedly heard Marguerite make this statement. H&L supporters will no doubt try and paint DiMaio as some sort of government shill. But none of the people who were in attendance at the exhumation reported anything amiss and the photographs taken that day support the finding of DiMaio and his colleagues. It was only later that Paul Groody, the man that embalmed LHO, raised concerns about the exhumation. Groody was apparently well-meaning but just mistaken: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/paul-groody.html Of course, the HSCA handwriting and photo evidence are also powerful scientific based proof refuting the H&L theory. To sum up, Armstrong needs to write a new book and rework the theory or stop promoting it. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html

No, I was referring to Mr. Norwood who is getting off to a bad start here by applying the tactic of painting everyone who isn't onboard with the discredited H&L theory as a "lone nutter."

I never intended to respond to your question. I have Jeremy's book and although I only skimmed through it, my impression was that he leans toward a conspiracy while discounting some of the outlandish theories such as H&L. As far as what I believe, this thread is about the H&L theory not me.

I don't pretend to know Jeremy's position on all of the issues relating to the JFK assassination. But if you study his website or his book, you will quickly see that he is skeptical of the "official version" of the assassination. Two of the biggest critics of the H&L theory are David Lifton and Greg Parker. Both have written extensively on the subject and both are clearly CTs. So any effort trying to paint anyone critical of the absurd H&L theory as a "lone nutter" is nonsense.