W. Tracy Parnell

In fact, most of the vocal critics of the theory are CT people such as yourself, Jeremy, Parker and Lifton.

Jeremy is not a "lone nutter." See his website: http://22november1963.org.uk/

Simple-you have the statements of a few people against the overwhelming historical evidence of who LHO really was. The few may safely be ignored, especially when a motive for providing false information is evident as in the case of Spencer.

It's not character assassination to point out that someone accepts dubious reports. I am aware that you are a knowledgeable researcher and a fine person I am sure. But did you ever try this. Take all (and I mean all) of the reports of LHO being somewhere he couldn't be. Then chart them out and see what you have. You would certainly find reports that did not fit the lone assassin theory OR the H&L theory. You would then be left with the conclusion that some people make false reports for whatever reason. What reports do you then choose to believe? Answer-the ones that you feel support H&L.

Of course, all of the "information" Spencer provided to the FBI was in the media by the time he made his claims to the FBI. And he could have written "Lee Oswald" on an old card anytime after the assassination. Spencer was unemployed at the time and hoped to write an article and get it published on his "experience" with LHO. Spencer also told the FBI that he didn't think his information "would be of any significance" to the government. But Jim is happy to accept this report. In fact, he has to accept every dubious report out there to "prove" the H&L theory.

That explains everything.

As Greg Parker points out, the evidence has been debated here endlessly. When Parker was a member here, he debated against David Josephs and Steve Gaal. The H&L people refuse to accept his (or anyone's) explanations. In the link I just posted, Parker discusses Sandy's claims and offers other explanations. But they insist that no other explanations have been offered which is obviously untrue. I am not getting any younger and I have no time or inclination to debate old issues and have no theory other than the one Parker offers which is that the records are being misinterpreted. I have bigger fish to fry than H&L at this point in time if I can summon the energy to tackle those issues. But as I always say, let the readers look at the stuff Jim posts (over and over) and the rebuttals Parker has on his site and let them make up their own mind.

Greg Parker has responded: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1500-one-more-attempt-at-those-darn-school-records

He doesn't need the money-fine. But to say that he doesn't want to sell the book is silly. Why write it if you don't want to sell and thereby promote your theory?

Unfortunately, his success at converting Sandy has apparently emboldened him to ramp up his recruitment efforts.

He didn't Sandy, and I wouldn't put too much faith in alleged statements John Armstrong provides. He has been caught manipulating evidence many times. Also, as David Lifton points out, Armstrong went on a "witness recruitment program." That is, he gets in a conversation with people and manipulates then to say what he wants rather than asking objective questions as a journalist or true fact finder would do.

But John Armstrong claims that LHO spoke NO Russian in Russia. Now you're using me as evidence that he spoke poorly? Which is it?

He simply distrusted the doctor and assumed as an authority figure that he was reporting to the KGB.

Yes it has by the 1981 exhumation and by the scientific evidence presented by the HSCA. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html What Armstrong should do is rewrite the book and this time hire an editor and get it down to about 300 pages. In the rewrite, he would have to account for all of the debunking (by making up new fables) that has been done by myself, Greg Parker, Jeremy and others. But his ego will not allow him to do that.

Yes, it's called SEO. And his site has been on the Internet since the 90s, which makes a difference-more sites linking to his site.

When you have proved the H&L theory and it is accepted as a historical or scientific fact as was Einstein's theory let me know. I'm not going to hold my breath though because the theory as presented in Armstrong's book has been disproven.

Thanks Michael and I appreciate your contributions to this thread.

The CIA does not give out information as a matter of policy. Many researchers seem to not understand that. People like Helms, Angleton, Dulles and so on felt they had a higher oath and that was to the CIA and was the nature of the job they held-they didn't see it as lying. Angleton controlled information very closely. Many of the things certain researchers attach a sinister meaning to are probably the CIA just trying to keep the secrets and also covering up their own incompetence.

Sounds like Jim has the assassination plot all figured out. Time to take this to Morley and get exposure in the national media. Oh that's right-while Morley has wandered over to the conspiracy side to some degree, he hasn't totally lost touch with reality. He would say something like "What's your theory" and when he heard the ramblings of John Armstrong he would beat a hasty retreat as will anyone living in the real world.

I would try this. I would take your "evidence" for two Oswalds to the US Congress, an investigative journalist such as Morley, or any other official or person in authority and see how far you get. You will be laughed at. I have said this before and I'll say it again. Perhaps I am wrong and there was a conspiracy in JFK case and that fact will be proven. If it is fine-so be it. But I can tell you this with 100 percent certainty. The "Harvey & Lee" theory is a load of nonsense. I would bet my life, my house and all my belongings on that fact. But I can't stop people from believing it (or claiming to). I can only try to point them in the right direction.

First, we don't know if Marina met Webster or not-there is no conclusive proof. And no, I don't consider Russell's "interview" of Webster when he was confined to a nursing home proof. Here's the larger problem for you and Jim-there just isn't any proof Marina spoke English. In fact, we have any number of people that tell us she didn't. Have you read Titovets' book? of course, Jim will counter by saying Titovets is KGB. And so are the dozens of others I guess that would say the same thing and must also be KGB. On Mexico City, I don't remember the original question but if LHO was impersonated it was by an intelligence agency for the purpose of gathering information on what he was up to. The CIA is known to have used such operations (Morley, p. 155).

For some reason, Jim pretends not to understand the concept of posting something online and providing a link to it rather than rewriting the same thing over and over. Which is odd, since he has a website and posts links to it all the time.

When I mentioned I was on summer vacation, that was a nice way of saying I have no intention of answering your questions on demand.

I have no idea if marina is aware of it or not. If Marina met Webster it could be because she wanted to meet an American and move to the US. None of this proves she was a KGB informer or spoke English.

Because he was an old man in a nursing home when Russell talked to him and we don't even know if he was in his right mind and/or misremembering things he may have been coached to say.