W. Tracy Parnell

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.

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.