W. Tracy Parnell

Armstrong has a talent for getting witnesses to say what he wants them to say. But three years before he spoke to Ziger she told an Argentinian publication that “Nobody could say anything [about lies LHO told] because he spoke Russian poorly Dad would translate ...” So, LHO certainly did speak Russian, albeit poorly at the time, and Alexander Ziger translated as a matter of convenience. There is, of course, a mountain of additional evidence refuting the assertion. The definitive article debunking the claim was written by John Delane Williams. http://johndelanewilliams.blogspot.com/2013/07/did-oswald-speak-russian-while-living.html As Williams points out, there were dozens, if not hundreds, of individuals in Russia who could testify to the fact that LHO spoke Russian. Ernst Titovets knew LHO well in Russia and stated that he spoke Russian. Upon learning of Armstrong’s claims, Titovets interviewed the following people who knew LHO and confirmed that he spoke Russian: · Vyacheslav Stelmakh · Vladimir Zhidovich · Dr. Alexander Mastykin To sum up, another Armstrong assertion is completely without merit.

Yes, I think Jim's general knowledge of the JFK case is excellent. However, what he and Armstrong have chosen to do with Armstrong's work is where my problem with them lies. As you say, many researchers feel an LHO impostor was involved in some form or another in the JFK case. But as Jeremy B. points out, you don't have to take a leap of faith (which is definitely required) from there to two Oswalds.

The point is that Jim Hargrove tries to sneak these "facts" into the discussion that are not facts at all. Jim and others here praise Armstrong's research. But they fail to inform readers that many of the discoveries made by Armstrong and archived at Baylor do not support his theory but rather contradict it. The Argentinian article I mentioned is but one example. LHO didn't "need" a translator, it was a matter of convenience as I explained. BTW, I don't intend to spend too much time in the future on Armstrong's theory. I have a good sized archive of articles and that, along with the work of Greg Parker and Jeremy B. and others is enough to persuade those who are willing to be persuaded. But I may pop in from time to time when Jim tries to slip one of his "facts" into the discussion.

Unfortunately for Armstrong, In 1995, three years before she talked to Armstrong, Ziger told an Argentinian publication that “Nobody could say anything [about lies LHO told] because he spoke Russian poorly Dad would translate ...” So according to Ziger, LHO certainly did speak Russian, albeit poorly at the time, and Alexander Ziger translated as a matter of convenience. See my article for a discussion of Armstrong's nonsensical claim that LHO never spoke Russian in Russia. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/lho-spoke-no-russian-in-russia.html

No, and I'm not going to right now. I'm on summer vacation.

Presumably, he will make that clear in volume 3 of his book.

Or another explanation is Phillips simply misread the importance and veracity of Alvarado's story rather than "promoted" it as Morley claims. When he published his book, he tried to make it look like he had Alvarado figured out all along. Jane Roman issued a statement later saying that Morley and Newman took her remarks out of context.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1389-hargrove-s-20-alternative-facts-for-those-who-prefer-their-conspiracies-devoid-of-any-reality

The CIA had a file on Oswald because of his unusual defection to the Soviet Union. If an impersonation of Oswald happened, it may have been done by the CIA in an effort to find out what he was up to. As far as the CIA lying and covering up, this is what they do. They don't give out any information willingly. Could you refer me to the information about Phillips planting a false story linking Oswald to Castro, I must have missed that.

If Earl Cabell was not a CIA informer, that would be surprising given his brother's connections. What the "CIA-did-it" crowd has to prove is that the Cabell brothers were involved in a plot to kill JFK. Then you'll have something.

I'll try and keep an eye on his site to see if Parker wants to respond. He is no longer a member here.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-maurice-bishop-story.html http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1389-hargrove-s-20-alternative-facts-for-those-who-prefer-their-conspiracies-devoid-of-any-reality

Wilcott was a disgruntled CIA employee turned extreme leftist agitator: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html Veciana said a lot of things. Unfortunately, most of them don't pan out: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-maurice-bishop-story.html

If you can prove that it was impossible to learn Russian in the time period that he had to do it, then you would have something. I think he may have had a talent for languages and it is unfortunate that he didn't pursue that through college instead of choosing the path he did.

He became fluent by speaking Russian every day while in the Soviet Union. His wife spoke no English so he had to keep working on his Russian to communicate properly. But it's more fun to believe that there is a big mystery as to how he learned the language.

I don't distrust her testimony at all. I am simply making the point that unless he the books aloud to her, she had no way to know his level of understanding of the material he was reading.

I disagree. There are still people that might need to be protected. A previous example was John Whitten. He lived in Europe and didn't want his name released. When he died it was. Even if all the individuals were deceased, there still might be sources or methods that need to be protected.

Not sure why you keep presenting this as some sort of "proof" of his ability. Did she say to what extent he was reading them? No-he could have just been studying them for practice with only a marginal understanding.

I agree that the files should be released if at all possible. However, there still could be people alive that need identities protected and so forth. In these cases, the answer might be to release those documents with redactions.

The files have been split into 18 and it seems to be working better today. I managed to download everything-about half of the files are audio interviews of Nosenko. However, these are of limited value since some are in Russian and in the case of the ones in English, the poor quality and Nosenko's accent make them hard to understand. As others mentioned, some of the files are still being withheld by he CIA. It is unclear if they are stalling until the October deadline or if they plan to challenge the JFK Records Act mandate.

Most of what I have seen is unreadable rather than redacted. Still some good stuff-Deryabin interview of Nosenko for example.

Good for you and I wish you the best of luck with it. I still have to wonder why Armstrong and company haven't taken their concerns higher though.

H&L Checklist: 1. Pull out the same old documents that are clogging up servers all over the Internet-check. 2. State that alternative explanations for LHO school attendance have not been provided even though they in fact have-check. https://www.thenewdisease.space/hardlylee-nut 3. Pull out the old Photoshop job (complete with ruler) that purports to show LHO was 4' 8" when he was in fact 5' 4" as I have shown here: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-bronx-zoo-photo.html Must be a slow day at work.

There's no need to repeat things over and over like the H&L supporters frequently do. That's the point of having a website and articles you can refer people to. As far as the "1300 mile" thing, the FBI has agents all over the country so it's not like they had to go 1300 miles out of their way. As far as changing the subject, I guess Jim wants to change the subject as to why Armstrong and company has not taken their case to the news media or the federal government.

Most likely he gave the reporters that name for unknown reasons. My stepdaughter calls herself "Tigra" but that is not her birth name. People do all sorts of things for no good reason. Now I have a question for Jim, David and Sandy. When are you going to take your amazing proof of 2 Oswalds to Morley or the US Congress or someone who can do something about it? Or are you going to continue to stay on this forum and try to convince people it is true. because after all, if you really believed it, wouldn't' t you try and do something about it? So when are you taking it to Morley, a journalist with connections who is sympathetic to conspiracy theories, or your congressman? To Jim, I already posted my arguments yesterday. I am happy to let the readers decide for themselves.