W. Tracy Parnell

Let's stick to H&L: A comprehensive photo analysis, also done by the HSCA, is another solid proof that the Armstrong theory is bogus. Unfortunately, most of the photos selected for analysis by the committee were of “Harvey” since their work was not done to specifically refute Armstrong. However, a December, 1956, photo which is supposed to be “Lee”, per Armstrong, was compared with several photos of “Harvey” and the HSCA photo panel proved using morphological data that the photos were of the same individual. (HSCA Photo Analysis) Now speaking of predictable, I can tell you what Ray or Jim or whoever will say next-the HSCA was in on it.

And when they are not dressed alike and do not have their hair cut alike and are not wearing identical glasses and with a different camera angle you would find they would not look that much alike. This is just one of those dumb things people put on the Internet and everyone believes for whatever reason. There have never been in the history of the world two unrelated people who look like twins without pulling this kind of trickery. And there has never been two boys who could be predicted to look alike several years later especially when they did not look alike at one point in time. It is impossible and anyone that says otherwise is spreading disinformation.

George, the answer to all your questions is no. And yes, before anyone posts a bunch a silly photos with people dressed alike and so on, I am aware that there are people that look somewhat alike. But not enough to pass for twins in real life situations. And I'll tell you something else. I know for a fact that it is impossible to find two boys who you can determine will grow up to look identical later on, especially when at one point in time they don't look very much alike at all. I'll tell you this-the number of people who thought they saw an "Oswald" and really did is less than five (I won't say what I think the number was). The remainder were mistaken as we know happens during a high profile case.

What was the purpose of these "lies"? Are you saying that the HSCA was lying to protect the "Oswald project"? If so, why did they do the work they did on the 2 Oswald theory?

The key word there is recalled. No report, no documentation, just his recollection, no doubt honestly given, but wrong.

So you have your own two Oswald theory George?

The H&L gang seems to not understand that when people report their remembrances to the FBI or other agency that they are making their best guess as to the time. But unless they have a diary or other documentation to refer to it is just that a guess. William Trail remembered LHO being in the brig, he was just a little off on the timing. LHO went in the brig on June 29 and was released on August 13. Trail’s memory was actually pretty good and he remember LHO again during 1959 at Santa Ana when he was indeed there. Armstrong had the LHO “being different” thing highlighted, but Trail was referring to LHO showing off his superior knowledge to others which we know the historic Oswald did. Similarly, Felde’s recollections were no doubt sincerely provided but mistaken. He recounted his own service and assumed that LHO was with him the entire time which was not the case. Likewise, LHO’s notes are wrong. This is why people keep diaries and and other documentation because memory is fallible. Another point-this is why Hargrove and company argue so violently about Japan and the LA/NY school records. Because they think in those cases they have “documentation” of H&L and know that the vast majority of the time they do not and their points are witness based only. In other words, 99% of the time either "Harvey" or "Lee" is doing what the historic LHO was doing while his doppelganger is doing what a witness reported.

Bugliosi has an excellent history of double Oswald theories.

Here is my writeup on Marguerite's finances: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/marguerites-finances.html She had over $17000 in extra income, that is a lot of money in those days.

Michael, More holes than swiss cheese for sure. But the H&L gang continue on and so do I and you and many others.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1408-the-bolton-ford-incident

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=49565&relPageId=94

You are correct on this point. They have the two men together at different points in time when they could have been easily noticed. All it would have taken is one person to see something funny was going on and the plot is ruined.

Np, actually I'm too lazy. And I think he is doing a good job on this issue. There are only so many hours in a day so why reinvent the wheel.

Parker answers here and also refutes some other things: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1399-the-skagit-according-to-a-former-crew-member

Excellent points Michael. I was looking at H&L (painful as that is) and noticed that for 101 San Saba she put $1500 down on a $3900 purchase which is 38%. I think that would get you a loan every time.

Parker points out that if the Skagit left on the 16th (there was a typhoon in the area) LHO was treated at Atsugi on that day and on the Skagit thereafter until returning to Atsugi about October 6.

Jim-Yes she lost the case, but made $1500. Her legal fees in those days would probably have been around $500 at most. She wanted everyone to think she was broke. The figures I arrived at regarding her real estate deals come from Armstrong, I just added them up. San Saba was the only home where she had a demonstrable loss. She probably needed cash and decided to sell. Birchman she basically sold for what she had in it. Any idea what kind of money she was making in those days? I am going to check but as I said doubtful if it was any more than $2500 or so a year. In later years she was making $60 a week. So that money helps to explain how she got by. I'll have a report eventually that breaks it down but I'm swamped now. Sandy, yes $1500 was enough for a down payment. Marguerite had what I think of as unjustified self-confidence.

Hargrove apparently doubted it and that's why I mentioned it.

Greg Parker points out that the Skagit may have been delayed in departing until the 16th. This is per the HSCA and doesn't change the basic concept.

Prove that she had bad credit or prove some other reason why she could not get a loan. To the H&L crowd she gets a loan so she must be CIA. No other explanation.

BTW, Parker found the following on the Skagit website: During the Vietnam War, Dr. Rexrode served in the Navy, both aboard the USS Skagit in the Medical Dept, and at North Island Naval Station. http://www.ussskagit.org/rexrode.html

I forgot already-I think Chuck Berry brno Czech. It could have been recently indexed.

May 31, 1996: BRNO, Czech Republic What was rock 'n' roll legend Chuck Berry doing at a political rally for a pro-business party in the Czech Republic? "Roll Over Beethoven," for starters. Playing with a pick-up band of Czech musicians, the St. Louis-area bluesman followed with "Johnny B. Goode," "Down By the Bayou" and "My Ding-A-Ling." https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/142532325/

I said the 14th through the 29th he was treated either on ship or at facilities in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The issue will probably never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction but the scenario that myself and Parker present matches the totality of the evidence, while your scenario cherry picks a few puzzling incidents. And you haven't answered my other question-when will you guys be going to the media and announcing you have solved the JFK assassination?