W. Tracy Parnell

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Show us how, Tracy. I will pay you $1000 if you show us a reasonable alternative to Oswald's records showing he attended both schools simultaneously. Greg hasn't written much, so It should be easy for you to explain it.

Why won't you do it?????

 

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.

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And you are the one telling readers that Parker has shown that the school records do NOT indicate that Oswald had to have been attending two schools spontaneously.

What I am doing here is demonstrating to the reader that you have no idea how Parker's arguments achieve that goal.

You shouldn't post links to argument and claim they prove or indicate something when in fact they do not. That's dishonest. And I'm calling you on it.

My $1000 offer stands. Show us how Parker's arguments do what you claim they do.

 

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.

Just now, David Josephs said:

Works for me...  be even better if you'd stop making definitive statements about the situation when you haven't the backing to support it...

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.

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Wow...  deaf dumb and blind

 

There are barely 50 school days from 3/23/53 to the end of the year yet the records claim 127 days... 

There are only 123 school days in the entire period yet the records show 200...

But the FBI isn't trying to hide anything by never offering the originals of these records....

One would think you knew how to count... and armed with that amazing inability we are supposed to give your opinions credibility?

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.

1 minute ago, David Josephs said:

200 school days within 123

127 school days within 49

You simply can't address a simple question with a straight answer.

What you are doing is called STRAW MAN within the COINTELPRO playbook...  you may try some other tactics Tracy... this one is getting terribly old.

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

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

FACTS Tracy...  try one on for size?

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?

2 hours ago, James Norwood said:

Tracy,

It is obvious that you do not understand the history of the investigations into the JFK assassination conducted by the "proper authorities." 

For your benefit, those investigations were the Church Committee and the House Committee on Assassinations of the 1970s  that came in the wake of the failure of the Warren Commission.  In the 1990s, the JFK Records Act established the Assassination Records Review Board that served to release new documents and revisit the evidence.  But none of those government agencies have come close to arriving at the truth, and it would be pointless to think of conducting another incompetent and inconsequential government inquest.

For your benefit as well, “investigative journalists” in the mainstream media have proven to be an abysmal failure in coming to terms with the assassination.  Most of the MSM people will not even touch the JFK case today.

You ask, "what is the point of it all?"  The answer is for us to search for the truth as diligent citizens.  Long after our deaths, it will be the historians who finally set the record straight at a time when this topic has lost the contentious nature of inquiry that exists today.

Now, can we move on to explore the main topic of this thread, namely, the "gems" that that exist in a study of the two Oswalds that will help us arrive at the truth?  Or, would you prefer to continue in your efforts to stifle the discussion?

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.

6 hours ago, James Norwood said:

The subject of the two Oswalds is not "theory," 

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.

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay, show us that. So we can tear it to pieces.

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

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Parnell often says he can’t explain every little thing, or something like that, and then he says Greg Parker has all the answers.  In other words, look over there, but not here, not on the JFK Assassination Debate forum.  It is a tactic all the H&L critics who can’t answer the issues have adopted.  Funny how they all act in concert.

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.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tracy,

$1000 says you don't understand Greg Parker's explanation. If you do, show us how it debunks the "Oswald attended two schools simultaneously" evidence that is easily understood by most everybody.

 

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

46 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Armstrong indeed should have noted that the mastoidectomy detected on HARVEY's exhumed body was evidence against the Harvey & Lee theory. (He does report all the information necessary for readers to make that determination on their own, but it is something that can easily escape their attention.)

However the preponderance of evidence is in opposition to the mastoidectomy outlier. So I'm inclined to believe there is something missing or wrong with the mastoidectomy evidence. It seems to me there are only two possibilities to explain it. Either efforts were made to keep identifiable medical marks, such as the mastoidectomy and dental work, identical between the two Oswalds, or a fake mastoidectomy scar was added to the exhumation report and the witnesses were convinced to go along with it, probably with some bullxxxx "national security" story fed to them.

 

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.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Anyone who thinks CIA officials would be unwilling to perform an unnecessary mastoidectomy on a young boy just to meet the goals of the Oswald Project should take a look at the CIA's MKULTRA program, in which hundreds and probably thousands of unsuspecting Americans from every walk of life were poisoned with LSD.  Some of the decision-makers in the CIA during the 1950s and 1960s were clearly criminally insane.

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.

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

Tracy,

In my post to which you refer above, I was presenting new information on Marita Lorenz to the forum participants.

In response, you type the word "Wrong," then move on to unrelated issues in order to deflect the conversation away from Lorenz.

Your post above is an example of the kind of misdirection used more skillfully for years by John McAdams in a fruitless attempt to defend the findings of Warren Commission. 

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

8 hours ago, James Norwood said:

Marita Lorenz may be the most important individual still living who has the potential to set the record straight about Harvey and Lee.

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:

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Just to be clear, I don't do that and I've never seen anybody else do that.

I thought that Jeremy was a lone nutter because some of the things he writes are consistent with his being one. Like when he wrote, "The basic, uncontested facts of the JFK assassination can be found in the Warren Report." He really should qualify that statement to make it clear that the alleged "facts" presented in the WR aren't all uncontested. In fact, as far as I can tell, the majority are contested.

 

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."

10 hours ago, James Norwood said:

Tracy,

You are not responding to my question.  In fact, you are dodging the question. 

 

You seem to be familiar with Jeremy's website and book to the degree that you have taken the time to write an apology for him on this thread. 

So, what are the "uncontested facts" about Oswald from the Warren Report adduced by Jeremy?  I'm not asking for Jeremy's position on "all" of the issues related to the JFK assassination, only those on Oswald.

And also, what do you believe are the uncontested facts, if any, about Oswald?

 

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.

50 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

Specifically, what are those "uncontested facts" about Oswald from the Warren Report?

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.