W. Tracy Parnell

13 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Tracy... why didn't Rose make note of it and the bullet scar just above the elbow on the back side in his diagram if they were there?

Are you of the opinion that the intelligence community could not create a scar which appears like a mastoid operation?
Or that two kids in the US in the mid 40's could not both have a mastoidectomy?  Give your penchant for coincidence I'd think this was an easy one to see.

I still would be interested to know if he read the book, checked the notebooks and/or seen the CD-ROM...

Rose admitted he could have missed some things but he was very confident that he autopsied the one and only LHO. No, they could not have faked the scar since it had the smoothed appearance that indicated it was not freshly made. Sure you can say they had the same operation at the same time as Hargrove has been pushing here. That is all you can say. But why did Armstrong not even attempt to offer an explanation in the book and in fact not even bother to mention it?

Edit: In a perfect world Rose would have ascertained what major scars LHO had and looked for them. But he had fingerprints and felt that was sufficient for an ID.

52 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

If you're going to "mock" the author - maybe read his book first?... maybe take a little time to learn about the subject?

Not trying to speak for Jeremy, but this was just a typo. He is well aware that "Lee" had the mastoid operation that showed up on "Harvey."

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I should add if it is an actual recording of his true height, then it would be an inaccurate recording of his head size.

I am assuming the whole point of this is you are trying to say the height recorded is incorrect probably since this is supposed to be "Lee" who is taller (another strike against H&L).  Kirk is saying either the height or head size is correct and not both. Therefore, we know it is an inaccurate recording of his head size, we should assume it is an accurate recoding of his height or very close. Especially when you consider other sources that show he was 5'9" or very close such as the exhumation and the NO booking photo. This type of measurement was apparently discontinued because it took a certain amount of skill to perform.

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tracy,

You do realize, don't you, that what this person is saying is precisely what I wrote in my post? That standing closer to the camera will make the head look bigger.

And BTW, as I said, "it is a flawed debunking because it doesn't take the resulting false-height-reading into account "

 

It is obvious that what happened is there was a camera setup with the chart perhaps 2 feet from a line where the men were told to stand. The recorded height would not be affected by the distance but the apparent size of the head was. Even though an explanation has been offered, you think you have a mystery on your hands here. LHO and many other people including JFK's brother have 13 inch heads. Jack White thought it was a "secret identifier" indicating intelligence connections. What do you think is the significance of the 13 inch heads?

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tracy,

In my query here in this thread, there is nothing to debunk... only something to explain.

I did find a thread where they were talking about other people having 13" heads in mug shots. Two were named, and both may have had ties to intelligence. That, I believe, is the basis for the Jack White theory you mention.

The discovery of other mugshots, with heads measuring as tall as 15", was mentioned in the thread. I'll bet that the reason for those anomalies is that the person taking the mugshot did so incorrectly. He or she didn't have the person stand close to the height chart, as I mentioned above, but rather closer to the camera. This resulted in their height being measured too tall and their heads appearing big. I'll bet that this is the debunking that you are referring to. Except that it is a flawed debunking because it doesn't take the resulting false-height-reading into account.

I am therefore still waiting for a viable answer for this oddity.

 

Sandy,

I was referring to the "13 inch head" thing in general has been debunked or explained if you prefer and many years ago at that. I found a post I made on McAdams' forum in 2001 referring to the fact that it had been debunked. Jack White wrote articles discussing the subject and postulating that individuals with "intelligence connections" had 13 inch heads for some sinister unknown reason. The problem is as I mentioned, every photo of this kind I have seen shows an oversized head including Joseph Kennedy Jr., some unknown people and coincidentally, LHO. It is safe to assume that it was a part of the process and a result of the distance from the camera. Someone had discovered the exact process and reported on it but I can't find it now.

Now, as with so many things to do with this silly theory, you have been given an explanation although not a specific one because I no longer have the information. If you want to believe that something funny is going on you certainly may. But I would say that in order to have proof you need thousands of these photos that show a normal head size and that LHO's and Joseph Kennedy Jr.'s were different for some reason.

Edit: The 13 inch head was a "secret identifier" indicating intelligence connections according to a forum post by White I found.

58 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't recall anybody mentioning in that debate that Oswald's USMC induction photo shows him having a 13" noggin.

BTW, don't you think it's odd that the photo shows Oswald with a 13" tall head? How could that anomaly have happened?

If Oswald had stood closer to the camera rather than back against the measuring chart, that would have made his head look bigger. But it would also have made Oswald look taller. Yet his height is correctly shown at 5' 9".

It could be that Oswald was instructed to stand closer to the camera, and at the same time the chart was raised to compensate and show the correct 5' 9" height. That should work. But why would anybody do such a thing?

 

Jack White promoted the "13 inch head" thing for years but it was debunked a long time ago. I can't remember the details, but It is simply a result of the process they used to take the photo. Researchers found several of these photos including one of Joseph Kennedy Jr. and they all had 13 inch heads. Finding JFK's older brother sort of killed the conspiracy angle of it for most people and it is usually not mentioned anymore.

EDIT: Parker says it was the distance from the camera.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Alistair,

The last photo of LEE is the 1959 Passport photo...  3rd row #7 from the left

3rd row, #'s 1, 3, 7  (#4 has been retouched...  I have a version which shows what's underneath...  it's not Harvey.)

2nd row - #'s 2, 8, 9,10 from left to right

1st row is all Lee.

 

As I mentioned before, this poster really has no bearing on the H&L theory. Jack White thought there were 3 or 4 Marguerites and perhaps as many or more Oswalds as evidenced by the text preceding the photos. Most of the photos are "Harvey" yet White thought something was strange about all of the photos. So this really does nothing to promote the theory.

13 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Walton is unaware that Frazier saw a second Oswald walking up Houston behind the Book Depository.  He is unaware that Roger Craig and others (Robinson, Cooper, Forrest, Pennington) saw a second Oswald getting into a Nash Rambler station wagon on Elm St. immediately after the hit.

I would like Jim Hargrove to make a list of all the second Oswald sightings and make all of those fit into the H&L theory. If he is unable to do that, then he must admit that at least some of those sightings are bogus. At that point he may come to the realization that perhaps many of the sightings, including some that he uses to support the H&L theory are bogus. Many people thought they saw LHO in situations where he could not have been. Some of these people are sincere and just mistaken, but others are liars. This happens after a publicized event and law enforcement and investigators understand this. But Jim Hargrove and Armstrong shamelessly use these sightings to promote their already disproven theory.

7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

To return his compliment to me, Parker is a disgrace.

Parker has replied:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1409-hargrove-misrepresents-petrov

Parker on Vladimir Petrov:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1409-hargrove-misrepresents-petrov

5 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

And the answer to this doesn't occur to you?  Drew Phipps was not an agent of the U.S. government.  He was not paid by the U.S. government. His results were not published by the U.S. government.

OK, you don't believe the government can be trusted. Then why do you see citation after citation in H&L that reference the HSCA, WC, FBI, Secret Service and so on?

40 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Do you think these images are all of the same person?

Yes, but I don't really see the point of this poster. For example, the entire first row is all "Lee" as far as I know. Then there are 8 photos of "Harvey" after the assassination. So what is the point? Are you claiming there are more Oswalds?

34 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

H&L critics on this forum didn’t have much luck explaining how “Lee Harvey Oswald” went to school in New York City and New Orleans at the same time, or how he happened to be aboard the USS Skagit and in Taiwan at the same time he was being treated for VD in Japan

It has been explained, you just don't agree with the explanation. It is interesting that you accept Mr. Phipps "study" quickly, yet reject the work of the HSCA experts. One other thing I keep forgetting to mention is a study of ears that was done by an expert. The idea is that no two ears are the same as with fingerprints. The guy (can't remember he name) found, of course, there was only one Oswald. But I have never been able to get a hold of the full study so I don't know how or if it would relate to H&L since they used photos and I don't know which ones.

7 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Was she getting extra money from someone?

Nope. She wasn't rich but she got by with penny pinching and begging.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/marguerites-finances.html

As far as what marguerite told people, she lied continually-where do you think LHO got it from?

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I'm glad Jim is at last acknowledging that the mastoidectomy on the body in Oswald's grave is fatal to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory put forward in his holy book.

Excellent post Jeremy. An interesting fact is that Armstrong actually mentions the exhumation in his book. He laments the fact that a DNA test could not be performed on "Harvey" as that would have proved if he was related to Robert or not. But Armstrong doesn't bother to inform the reader that his theory is destroyed by the exhumation result. The idea that "Harvey" was given a mastoid operation while in NY is a recent invention by Jim Hargrove, perhaps with Armstrong's blessing, to try and explain away the issue. My other point is after Michael Eddowes theory was disproved he was soon back at it working on another angle. Armstrong would undoubtedly do the same thing if a DNA test ever were performed which we know would show "Harvey" was the one and only LHO.

8 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

W Tracy

Yes you are correct. But they were isolated.

In the case of Dealey Plaza, there were four people who saw an Oswald look alike at the same time. At the same instant.

And there was another witness who saw a dark complected man in Dealey Plaza get into a rambler and drive off, sometime before picking up the Oswald look alike.

Four eyewitnesses who saw the same thing at the same time. That´s positive proof that what they saw is true.  

It's proof that four people saw someone who looked to them like Oswald.

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Answer: the following document, an obvious lie by the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense attempting to explain how Oswald could be treated for VD at Atsugi, Japan while en route to Taiwan about the Skagit:

Another document that is a "lie." I used to wonder how Armstrong figured out what documents and witnesses and other evidence to rely on. After all, he thinks the FBI faked just about everything. Jim and Sandy say much of what the HSCA did was forged. But yet you go through the citations in H&L and you see the FBI, HSCA, and all the other official sources listed. Then one day I figured it out. Anything that supports the H&L theory wherever it comes from is legitimate. And anything that doesn't support H&L is fake.

BTW, Parker is replying to Jim and Sandy:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1399-the-skagit-according-to-a-former-crew-member

2 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

W Tracy

We finally agree on something. Thus we have basis for agrument because if we didn´t agree on something we couldn´t argue, right?

There were two men who look alike to a degree (somewhat) in Dealey Plaza the day JFK was killed.

In fact they look alike to the point that 4 people think they saw the real Oswald get into a rambler on Elm Street minutes after the assassination. But it couldn´t have been the real Oswald because he was a few blocks away trying to catch a bus or cab to go to his apartment.

Agree or disagree?

There were people not just in Dealey plaza, but in many places who thought they saw someone that looked like Oswald-correct.

1 minute ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Tracy, are you incapable of reading what people post? Nobody said that the two guys, whose photo I posted were twins. I said they were dopplegangers, which means they were lookalikes.

You're the one who is insisting that the two Oswalds must be twins- nobody else.

But if two men are not twins, how do you put their photos together and make a new ID? Or are you saying you are not defending H&L?

2 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Whether it's likely or not, is immaterial. I posted the photo of the two guys to show  that what George said was correct. You are now changing your story to say that they are not identical. Nobody ever said they were. 

Just because it doesn't agree with your ideas, Tracy,  tough.

As far as H&L they are identical when the theory requires it and non-identical when it better fits the theory. As far as the photo you posted, I stand by my comment that nobody would think these were identical twins or twins of any kind. Things like the ears would give it away. That is just something for newspapers and websites to use to fill up space.

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't know why people here keep talking about Harvey and Lee looking like twins. Fraternal twins maybe. But not identical.

The only way one could be mistaken for the other is 1) if you don't see them both at the same time, and 2) if you don't know either one well. That is to say, if you haven't looked at one or the other many times before.

If Lovelady had a little more hair on top, I think he'd look as much like Harvey or Lee as they look like each other.

And forget the HSCA testing. The only things you can trust them for are things that go against the official story. Everything else is suspect.

As I predicted, Sandy says the HSCA scientific evidence was fake. But what else can he say? And my other question remains-hoe do you put together two photos of men who are not identical twins and fool people with it?

Just now, Ray Mitcham said:

Don't you know the difference between twin and a doppelgänger, Tracy? Why don't you do us a favour, and stop these stupid comments?

The point is they are saying that there were two boys who the CIA somehow found. These two boys at one point in time didn't look that much alike. One was taller and husky. One was shorter and looked like he had been in a concentration camp. Yet they selected these boys for a project whose ultimate goal wasn't even known. And somehow the CIA knew that these boys would grow up to look enough alike to put their photos together and make a new ID that would fool everybody. How likely does that seem?

10 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

(I myself have a doppleganger, (poor man) who lives about seven miles from me, I have never met him but my friends have often asked what I was doing in his village.)

Why don't you do us all a favor Ray. Go get a photo of your twin and then take a photo of yourself. Then see if you can cut the photos in half and put them together to make a new photo that will fool everybody here.