W. Tracy Parnell
-
Posts
2,220 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by W. Tracy Parnell
-
-
15 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
I had a chance to really leaf through the book today. Well over 500 footnotes.
Anatomy of a James DiEugenio Citation (onthetrailofdelusion.com)
-
11 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:
Groody's ideas after Oswald's exhumation.
-
3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Cool. I'm all ears if you'd like to share. I'm sure you've taught yourself a lot about building a website. And maybe how to be a good writer. It shows in your work.
I prefer not to share too much information on the Internet. But yes, I have learned a little HTML and I learned to write (what little I know) by necessity.
-
45 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
To reply to Pat, apparently he does not know I worked for Oliver Stone.
I'm sure he does but the way you worded it made it sound like he was "running" you.
46 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:Oliver resisted being named a Conspiracy Theorist.
I also resist it.
You can resist all you want but you are the textbook definition. See Uscinski, p. 23.
51 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:the film proves overwhelmingly that Kennedy was killed in a plot.
No. If it did that the mainstream media, politicians and everyone else would be forced to admit it.
-
3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
I am also very good at self learning.
Great trait to have. I taught myself many things, so we have that in common.
-
4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:
“Curtin makes several statements that are questionable and have plausible alternative interpretations”
Ok, I'll agree that is a better wording.
-
Here is the thing about Sandy. He's a forensic dentist when you need one. He's a physicist when you need one. Now I see he's an expert on the Zapruder film and has found things that Zavada couldn't. Amazing!
Sorry Sandy, I couldn't resist.
-
10 hours ago, Tom Gram said:
So the only example you can offer of Curtin’s alleged “several false statements” is one sentence that is technically true with only a purely semantic argument to the contrary.
"always protesting her innocence, even though over the decades researchers have uncovered much evidence to the contrary."
There is exactly no evidence to the contrary. All that exists is suspicions by theorists.
"Both he and Ruth have always denied involvement in the plot and coverup, yet much evidence connects them to it. "
Again, there is no evidence only suspicions.
"Ruth, who spoke and taught Russian, was invited to a party by George de Mohrenschildt, a White Russian CIA asset who was ‘babysitting” Lee Harvey Oswald at the request of the CIA. "
This is Curtain's opinion only. This is based completely on statements made by de Mohrenschildt to Epstein when he was being paid $4000 by Reader's Digest. Two explanations-DM was quite mad by this time (he had been committed). Secondly, he wanted to give Epstein something new for his money. Moore denied that he asked DM to "babysit."
"she got Lee a job in the Texas School Book Depository, despite calls to her house from an employment agency offering him a much higher paying job. "
Enough has been said here about this. but briefly, there is no proof (and there never will be) that Ruth was aware of the higher pay and purposely withheld the information.
"Those who wish to kill to make a name for themselves obviously claim credit, but the Paines seem not to get this. Their claim makes no sense, yet they both repeat it in the film."
"She has her defenders and they appear in the film along with well-known supporters of her and the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald did the deed alone: Max Holland, Gerald Posner, Priscilla Johnson McMillan, Jack Valenti, Michael Beschloss, and Peter Jennings.
This is not incorrect but misleading. Valenti, Beschloss and Jennings appear in archival footage only and briefly. The bulk of the Ruth defending is done by Ruth, Holland and PJM.
Now, pardon me while I do some real work. I can only waste so much time on these pointless discussions.
-
-
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:
I guess I was just unaware that the act of confessing to a crime you never committed was so widespread and (somewhat) commonplace in the law enforcement world.
It is indeed more common than one would imagine. However, a competent (and honest) prosecutor will seek to verify the information before taking it to trial and not rely simply on the "confession."
-
5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:
What “several” statements does Curtin make in that review that are not correct? And by not correct I’m assuming you mean actually false, not something ambiguous you don’t agree with.I think if you look at my articles, you can probably tell. But I'll give you one:
"Her testimony led to the WC’s conclusion that Oswald, and Oswald alone shot, the president."
If you take the things CTs always mention (Walker note, note to Soviet embassy etc.) and get rid of them, LHO would have still been convicted had he lived. Her testimony was helpful as it was from someone who knew him fairly well in the his past. But it certainly did not "lead to the WC conclusion." That is a large overstatement-it was an accumulation of evidence of which hers was a small part. I have a blog post planned on this for later.
-
Several of the statements made by Curtin in support of the film are not correct. See my series for details:
W. Tracy Parnell: The Assassination and Mrs. Paine (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)
-
6 minutes ago, Kathy Beckett said:
Recently, he has said he would no longer do those things. That doesn't make him a target for anyone here to throw things at.
Yes, give him a chance and if he does something wrong, he will be called out for it I am sure.
-
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
Precisely.
Allow me to rewind the calendar back to 2019 once again:
Yes, you beat me to it.
-
On 7/1/2022 at 1:43 PM, James DiEugenio said:
What the Lopez Report said was that there was no evidence that Oswald did the things he was supposed to do while there.
Good try. What they said was:
"Lee Harvey Oswald himself probably visited the Cuban Consulate at least once since his application for a Cuban intransit visa bears his signature." After that admission, they go on to discuss possible impersonations and so on.
-
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
I don't think the words "Presidential Parade" came out of the mouth of Lee Harvey Oswald.
I don't think so either. But for the sake of argument, let's say he said that. It just means that he told two different versions of the story regarding where he was. At least one of these is then false by any standard. This would fit right in with the other lies he told while in custody.
-
Chapter 19 of The Bishop Hoax is now online:
https://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/p/19-no-hes-not-him.html
This chapter begins the last section of the book and focuses on Phillips and the Maurice Bishop allegations.
Highlights:
Fonzi conducts an unauthorized experiment by bringing Phillips and Veciana together. But the results are not what he had hoped for.
Veciana hatches a scheme to "confirm" his Maurice Bishop bona fides.
-
33 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:
If that had been the location, the motorcade would have continued down Main Street through Dealey Plaza. It was only when Connolly prevailed on the Trade Mart being the luncheon location that the route was altered. The Trade Mart was best accessed from the freeway. Since the freeway entrance was on Elm, it was the change of the luncheon location that caused a change in the motorcade route.
I agree. But there is a big difference between the motorcade going right by the TSBD and continuing down Main as far as blaming the assassination on LHO. Makes more sense if the motorcade is right below him.
36 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:I'd appreciate it if you might not dismissively refer to all of us as CTs.
I call those who believe in the lone assassin theory LNs (stands for "lone nutter" which is not that complimentary sounding) and those who believe that a conspiracy killed LHO as CTs (since they believe in at least some conspiracy theories). No disrespect intended.
-
-
25 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
The $6500 up-front money he received from the red-haired black guy?
What happened to the money?
26 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:What about his phone calls that were really made by imposters?
If a phone call was made it was by the CIA to gather information. This was a technique they had used.
-
5 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:
He told me the reason was that the Paines threatened to sue him and the production company if they used their names.
That's not a prevarication. That's called "he said she said."
6 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:I would not be surprised that if she was asked to befriend Marina by a government contact, she would have done so without question. -IMHO
If you are saying that all she did was befriend Marina so what if that is true? Like Bugliosi said, it doesn't go anywhere. If you think she did more then you think she was in on it.
-
1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:
The point isn't really Ruth's motive, it's that the evidence suggests that the allegation itself might actually be true.
No, her motive is the point, at least as far as most CTs are concerned and I agree with them. They believe she withheld the job information to keep LHO at the TSBD. You may not believe that or be concerned about it, but they do and are. If she withheld the information from LHO (I don't believe she did) because she figured he had a job and best to leave it alone considering his instability-so what? It was a benign motive and nothing to do with anything.
1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:As for the coffee klatch, I posted an interesting essay by John Manning on the topic in the other thread, and I'm not sure that a specific motorcade route would need to be known for someone to want to put Oswald in a building overlooking Dealey Plaza. It seems that once the Dallas trip was announced, it would be reasonable to assume the "tour" would go through that area.
No. The traditional route was down Main Street. The motorcade only went to Houston and Elm because of the decision to have the luncheon at the Trade Mart. And that was not confirmed until November 15th. Another building was considered for the luncheon and the motorcade would not have needed to pass the TSBD if that location were used. The only way for theorists to defeat this is to say there were several patsies in varying locations to cover all the possibilities. This adds complexity to the plot and increases the chance of failure.
Speaking of adding complexity, the Manning article does that in spades. His six degrees of separation type theory adds several more conspirators to the plot including Frazier, Pauline Bates and several others. I didn't find it credible, but some may.
2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:I appreciate your cordial attitude and do read your articles
Thank you.
-
18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
What possible motives are there? He wanted to be famous? Then why did say he didn't do it?
-
4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:
As a result, there is legitimate reason to suspect that Paine never passed on Adams’ message to Oswald and that the WC was doing damage control.
It doesn't make any difference about the message because the whole argument goes nowhere. According to CTs, the purpose of her withholding the information about the better job was to make sure LHO remained at the TSBD. But as DVP points out in the other thread, in addition to the problems with the coffee klatch theory you have the fact that Ruth could not have known on October 15 that the motorcade would go by the TSBD. Therefore, she had no motive to withhold information even if she had it.
The coffee klatch and the realities of the motorcade defeat the notion that Ruth "placed" LHO in the TSBD for most. I believe Morley is working on a theory that concedes LHO got a job there by chance and works from there although I don't know where he is going with it. It makes more sense anyway.
Serious issues with DiEugenio's new book, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
He is? How about this from Dan Hardway:
Real Hillbilly Views: The Prosecutor's Tale