W. Tracy Parnell

Yes, I hereby absolve Tommy of any guilt by association with me.

I was referring to the fact that the people you mention don't back the Kudlaty story of the FBI taking the records. They do think LHO went to Stripling. But all of these people are probably just remembering Robert and there is no hard evidence to say otherwise.

I think you and George are missing the point. he is saying they should have tried Oswald even though he was dead and I am saying that is not possible. This has nothing to do with your opinion of the WC and their findings. Suppose for the sake of argument that they had found evidence that someone other than LHO did it. They still could not have "prosecuted" those individuals. They would have referred evidence to the Justice Department or whoever had jurisdiction because they themselves were not a judicial body but simply a fact finding commission.

The US government did not put him on trial-the WC was NOT a trial, it was a fact finding Presidential commission that had very right to do what they did. You may disagree with their findings and that is fine. You can say it was a de facto trial and that is fine. But LHO was dead and could not be tried by anyone and was not tried.

George, This is from legal zoom website: Criminal cases are brought by the state or government and, as such, present a different and more clear-cut resolution [than civil cases]. In criminal cases, if the person charged with the crime dies, there is no defendant to prosecute and any charges pending against him will be automatically dismissed. Sorry George, you can't put a dead person on trial. If LHO had lived, he would have indeed been tried in Texas.

OK, now you have some background on Holland. Not sure what this is supposed to prove.

I'm not a lawyer, but the only instance that I can think of would be in the case of a serial killer. Authorities might continue investigating in some form to help the families. But they don't put the man on trial after he's dead that I ever heard of. Too bad Lance P. isn't here right now.

BTW, I checked this and they do not confirm Kudlaty's story, they simply think LHO went to Stripling.

George, Can you cite me one time in US history when an individual who is dead has been tried for murder in a court of law? Once LHO was dead why in the world would Dallas PD continue to investigate the case? The President certainly did have the authority to form a presidential commission to investigate the circumstances of the assassination. The Texas people were going to have their own commission but yielded to the WC-that was their choice as I remember although they were probably encouraged to do so.

I would be interested to know what Blakey got "from the CIA" on Wilcott and what the CIA "did to" him. The bottom line is that Wilcott could not provide any proof for his allegations. Kudlaty and his supporters also have only their statements and nothing else. Who doesn't get a receipt when someone takes something-especially records? And why did they say nothing until Armstrong spoke to them? How concerned could they have been? Armstrong finds someone and conducts his "witness recruitment program" on them telling them they are a part of history and so on. As for McBride, he is fully debunked and Parker debunked the opera thing, it is here on EF somewhere. But I have a question for you Jim. Do you believe in 2 Oswalds? If so, why do you write this on the Deep Politics Forum on March 3, 2014? "I don't agree with everything in the book. And I wish John had let me look at it first." What don't you agree with and why?

Thanks Paul!

Thanks Tommy, I put that together quickly so that explains the errors. I'll fix it after dinner.

I discuss Norwood's article here: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-norwood-on-harvey-lee.html

We don't know and your explanation may be the solution to the whole thing. But since we don't know for sure and it is hard to get the truth at this point, the H&L gang can continue on.

No, it was the NAS at Atsugi, not specifically the Hospital: https://www.archives.gov/san-francisco/finding-aids/holdings-guide-08.html

A couple quick points. Now I know why Jim was so adamant in criticizing my Wilcott article since Norwood's piece starts off with it. Bad timing for them for sure. Most of these points have already been addressed. Can all of them be to the satisfaction of Armstrong/Hargrove/Norwood? No, as I have said many times and that allows them to do what they do. Professional investigators, attorneys etc. understand this. In fact, if there were not discrepancies in a case this large with this many documents, especially considering LHO's mother lived in over 50 different places, I would consider THAT to be proof of something funny. Finally, it is amazing that a "professor" is pushing this type of nonsense, but I hear he is friendly with Fetzer so it figures. I will work up a brief rebuttal on some of these, but in the meantime: Wilcott: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html The Truth About H&L: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html EDIT: Parker has rebutted a few of these: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1397-armstrong-asks

You are correct. I contacted the National Archives some time ago and they said the same thing. The question becomes, is this fact by itself proof of 2 Oswalds when so much other evidence indicates otherwise?

As I've said many times, I can't explain every discrepancy in the record and despite what they tell you, neither can Armstrong/Hargrove. However, we know from the complete body of evidence that there was only one Oswald. Therefore, the code 3835, which is the basis for the whole thing is wrong or being misinterpreted. This is how the H&L theory is able to exist. They find a discrepancy and despite all of the evidence to the contrary they run with it as proof of 2 Oswalds. And they have people who want this to be true and are able to suspend disbelief and accept it. If you guys believe you have proof of 2 Oswalds and it solves the JFK case, take it to Morley. He operates in the real world and has published many articles on the case. If you can convince him of your theory and get him to do an article, you may have something. Good luck. But until that happens, you are going nowhere.

I am working on a chronology but don’t have this period detailed as well as it should be yet. However, Greg Parker offers a little more detail on this period which seems to jibe with what I have so far. This is from his book Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War Vol. 2. September 14, 1958: LHO is on the USS Skagit bound for the South China Sea. September 19: Arrives at Taiwan. September 24: Arrives in Hong Kong. October 5: LHO is sent to Atsugi following the guard duty incident from Epstein’s book. October 6: LHO is hospitalized (for VD). October 13: LHO is released. November 2: LHO departs Yokosuka for San Francisco arriving November 15. So, the HSCA was wrong that LHO was not in Taiwan. And no 2 Oswalds required.

Pic said he did not recognize that photo. He had every opportunity to tell the WC of a plot involving 2 Oswalds. He did not. I assume you are referring to Mr. and Mrs. Evans. They knew Marguerite and said so. From my blog: One of the most egregious misrepresentations of evidence by Armstrong concerns the testimony of Myrtle Evans. Armstrong says that Evans knew the “real” Marguerite and not the impostor. To make his case Armstrong states on page 118 of his book: Following the assassination Myrtle and Julian Evans saw this woman on television. When deposed on April 7, 1964 by Warren Commission Attorney Albert Jenner, Myrtle Evans said, "When I saw her on TV, after all that had happened," Myrtle Evans told the Warren Commission, "she looked so old and haggard, and I said that couldn't be Margie." … But Armstrong left out what she said next: but of course it was ... Bottom line-the Evans' recognized Marguerite and said so. Read all about it here, including a list of those who could have come forward to say the Marguerite they saw on TV was not the Marguerite they knew. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html

Thanks Tommy!

Wilcott remembered the names of the CIA Tokyo employees all right. He just could not name one person who would confirm his allegations or who he originally learned them from. He wasn't even sure if his best friend at the station, George Breen, would confirm them and apparently he didn't. As the SF Chronicle reported, Wilcott heard the allegations at drinking sessions. He was a naïve person who apparently believed everything he heard at these late-night drunken sessions: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/A Disk/Agent Oswald Office Files/Agent Oswald 4-78/Item 01.pdf

My point still stands. It would only take one person to notice the two men or their two mothers at any point in time over the years from 1947 up to the present day and come foreword and report it to an investigative journalist. Even setting aside the scientific evidence that refutes the theory, It is simply not believable that the CIA or any entity could pull off such a deception with no one the wiser or that they could kill all these people or pay them all off.

That's my point-it depends. They look enough alike that two photos are put together to make one ID. But circa 1953, one is 5'4" and husky and the other is 4'8" and looks like a concentration camp survivor. But somehow the plotters knew they would look alike when grown, enough so to make an ID. Either they look alike or they don't and that characteristic changes as the H&L theory needs it to change.

Jim Hargrove said: Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald was placed briefly in several USMC training facilities but spent much of the time living in the Hotel Senator in New Orleans and later in Fort Worth. You are either in the military or you are not. It’s like being a little pregnant-not possible. But in September 1958, Harvey Oswald traveled from the mainland U.S. to the large Marine base at Atsugi, Japan, where Lee Oswald was also stationed. And nobody wondered why these two men, who looked almost exactly alike except when they didn’t, were in the same place using the same name and the same military ID. Hargrove tries to get around this by saying “Harvey” went in the brig (based predictably on a witness). But like so many other facets of this theory, it would only take one person to see both men to foil the plot. If I remember correctly, there were other times that the two men were at the same facility during their military service and the same problem could have occurred at any time. Before Hargrove makes too much of this, no I cannot answer every discrepancy in the record. Armstrong/Hargrove try to tell people that the H&L theory can do that if they only believe. I tell people the truth-there are discrepancies in life that can and do come up especially when your mother lives in 50 different places. None of these require 2 Oswalds to understand. I believe LHO was probably in Taiwan but the WC and HSCA couldn’t even agree on this point. But these problems allow the H&L people to do what they do.