W. Tracy Parnell

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 8:33 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

John can trace the Harvey and Lee project back to an address on San Saba Ave. in the Fort Worth suburb of Benbrook in 1947.

Greg Parker offer his thoughts on this here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1393-how-many-sharks-can-one-man-jump

11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

No doubt Tracy will soon have Mr. Wilcot murdering widows and orphans and torturing ponies and unicorns, as I predicted earlier.

No, but Willcot thought the CIA murdered widows and orphans and ponies and unicorns. OK, maybe not that bad, but almost!

I found more details on how Wilcott found out about the "LHO project" and about his opinion of the agency:

In September, 1978, Wilcott excoriated the CIA during an interview he gave to liberal journalist Warren Hinckle. Wilcott told Hinckle that the agency was "a perverse place of sexual blackmail, betraying friends, unleashing psychopaths, and hobnobbing with mobsters, of pseudonyms and cryptonyms, drunkards and ripoff artists, dirty money and dirty tricks and run-amok assassins, a place where error and folly were held sacred in the almighty name of secrecy."

The true source of the "shop talk" that the HSCA had charitably described and which led to Wilcott learning of the LHO "project" also became clear in this interview. Wilcott claimed that the CIA made scotch available at 75 cents a bottle. "At those prices" Wilcott quipped, "you almost couldn't afford not to drink." Hinckle reported "It was during these after-hours drinking sessions that Wilcott became aware of the nature of many secret CIA operations normally hidden by cryptonyms." It is probably not surprising that Wilcott couldn't remember who told him about LHO.

35 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

I suspect HARVEY Oswald was a WW II...

Jim, even with this clone story having an extremely tenuous grip on realism, it seems like you've now ventured into supposition?  You suspect this?  And you can't prove this or that?  If that's true, how can you expect anyone to believe this story?

You also mention the Hungarian being an orphan.  How is it possible, if the orphan's family to be dead, that the planners would some how, some way find almost an exact look a like of Marge Oswald to have almost the exact looks as the smiley happy version of Marge?  In other words, in a million-to-one chance they found TWO look a like Lees separated thousands of miles apart, and yet we're also expected to believe that in another million-to-one chance they found two Marge look a likes too?

Do you not see how absurd that is?  Or is the pitching for dollars scheme so great that any chance for the truth is simply brushed away?

Keep in mind that the idea of "Harvey" being a Russian-speaking Hungarian is completely based on a phone call. The following description of the concept is taken from Hargrove's website:

Following the assassination of President Kennedy, a Mrs. Jack Tippit, of Westport, Connecticut, telephoned the FBI and said that she had just received a phone call from an unknown foreign woman who asked if she was related to police officer J.D. Tippit who was killed in Dallas. The unknown woman said that she knew Oswald's father and uncle, who were from Hungary, said they used to live near 77th and 2nd Avenue in Yorkville, New York City, and spent all of their time on "Communist activities." The identity of the woman remains unknown, but her statements about Oswald's eastern European heritage and the neighborhood in which he lived seem more and more plausible as we study and learn about the life and background of a second "Lee Harvey Oswald," the man accused of assassinating President Kennedy in 1963.

6 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

OK, Tracy, fair enough.  I didn't know those notes existed.  And so Mr. Hardway apparently spoke to one CIA man who, not surprisingly, denied Oswald worked for the CIA.  There should be more interviews or at least more interview notes.  Can you point to them?

No more notes, but there are other discussions about the interviews. 

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I can't prove much of this, but considering the evidence, it ALL sounds reasonable to me.

No, you can't prove any of it. BTW, who's Dr. James Norwood?

This should kill the idea that the HSCA conducted no interviews regarding the Wilcott matter. These are notes from the interview of Fred Randall who was Tokyo Deputy Chief of Station:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32694#relPageId=2&tab=page

Randall didn't remember much about Wilcott and had not heard of the LHO allegations. But he WAS interviewed. Unless you think CT hero Dan Hardway, who conducted the interview along with Harold Leap is lying.

Mr. Petrov was right about one thing. There's no shortage of theories in the case.

I'm sure Hargrove will come up with something, but it is, of course, unexplainable. The whole "Harvey was Hungarian" concept comes from an anonymous phone call reported by Mrs. Jack Tippit.

51 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

But from the HSCA's own contemporaneous notes it is obvious Mr. Wilcott did remember the RX-ZIM cryptonym, for example, leaving two possibilities for his testimony: it was altered by the HSCA, and that is one of the reasons it was suppressed for more than two decades, or Wilcott and the HSCA attorneys made some sort of deal allowing him to testify leaving out some details.

Well, you can certainly say that and altered evidence (without proof) is one of the common CT claims. But why not just continue to "suppress" the testimony or simply destroy it? We know from documents that Antonio Veciana apparently testified before the Church Committee but that is evidently missing. But there is no outcry about that because the odds are that the testimony would hurt rather than help his case since Fonzi made no (or little) mention of it in his HSCA writeup. The point is some things are missing but CTs do not assign sinister meaning to all of them-just some. To your other point, why no "deathbed confession" from Wilcott regarding any secret agreement? He was known for bucking the system and certainly would have done this at some point. And again, why do MFF and Newman not recognize the cryptonym?

4 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

For example, the report indicated that Wilcott viewed the information as mere “shop talk” when, in fact, he testified just the opposite.  The report told us that he was unable to “recall the agency cryptonym for the particular project in which Oswald had been involved,” when, according to the HSCA’s own notes, he said the cryptonym was RX-ZIM.

The HSCA used the language "shop talk" Wilcott did not. But he did refer to what he heard as "speculation" just not in reference to the reason why he did not report what he heard. The notes are from an unknown source and therefore worthless regarding the cryptonym. And Wilcott certainly did say he was unable to recall the cryptonym:

------------

Mr. Goldsmith. And what did he tell you the cryptonym
was?

Mr. Wilcott. I cannot remember.

Mr. Cornwell. Do you remember anything about it?

Mr. Wilcott. Not at this time. I can't remember what
it was.

Mr. Cornwell. All you can recall is that, when you

heard it, that was not the first occasion on which you had
seen it or heard it?

Mr. Wilcott. That is correct, sir.

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It is this kind of writing that tells me that Tracy has no interest in learning the truth. His aim is to discredit anybody whose testimony contradicts what he believes to be the truth. (I have no idea how Tracy derives "his" truth. Maybe he is one who believes everything the government reports.)

And his weapon of choice is character assassination.

This is how I knew he was an LNer.

I don’t consider my approach “character assassination.” Who Wilcott was has a bearing on what he says.

My view is this. He goes in the Army and has some trouble there. He enters the CIA and soon has more trouble-he starts hanging around with left-wing types and gets arrested. Before JFK is even killed he is already disgruntled with the CIA by his own admission. When JFK is killed, he hears gossip at the station, but he never reports it or does anything about it nor does he go to the Warren Commission. Chris Dodd called him out on this at his testimony asking him as a JFK supporter if he really felt he had witnessed something sinister why not report it? Of course, the reason is he knew what he heard was just rumors.

By 1968, his political views have progressed to the point where he starts talking about the JFK case to small publications. 10 years later in 1978, he has progressed to an extremist and co-founds Covert Action. By now his “memory” of the assassination has evolved (studies prove this happens with people) and he testifies before the HSCA although, of course, he has no proof. But he knows there is an audience for his allegations.

So, it is not “character assassination” at all, but rather a reasonable explanation for Wilcott’s possible motives.

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

James and Elsie Wilcott didn't become associated with Covert Action magazine until 1978, 15 years after Agent Oswald allegedly killed JFK.  And don't you even read your own sources?

In fact, of course, the law had its desired chilling effect on the major media as well. Very few people knew of, much less accepted, Floyd Abrams’s assurances that the law would only be used against Covert Action, and in the ensuing twenty-five years or so, virtually no undercover CIA officers have been named in the media. Except, of course, for Valerie Plame, and no matter what the law says, the government was not about to prosecute the vice-president.

Do you think that learning you, working as a CIA accountant, had personally paid the CIA operative who allegedly killed the President of the United States might make you a little angry at your former employer?  How does this make him, in your words, a lunatic? 

Wilcott underwent a progression from disgruntled employee to activist to extremist starting in the early sixties. 1978 was the year he hit the big time co-founding Covert Action and making his trip to Cuba. But he was mad at the CIA even before JFK was killed. I would probably be mad at the CIA too if I had paid off LHO and he was a covert operative. But there is no evidence of that and Wilcott himself had none. His misinterpreted what he saw and heard because of his belief system.  A lunatic to me is an irrational person and I believe his later actions fit that description.

You left out a few parts like where Wilcott co-founded a magazine that outed CIA personal placing them in imminent danger. I never could understand that mindset-you hate the CIA because you think they are abusing human rights and assassinating people and so on. So what does he do? Outs CIA people and risks their lives. Makes sense. He also went to Cuba at Castro's invitation and testified before a "youth tribunal" embellishing his LHO story with details that he would not repeat under oath before the HSCA.

Wilcott article updated:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html

27 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Anybody with a lick of common sense would know that the CIA wouldn't allow any of employees to corroborate Wilcott.

I guess you are saying I don't have any common sense which I don't appreciate and see as unnecessary. As for the CIA, how would they know anyone wouldn't corroborate Wilcott? He testified without any problem, what was going to stop any number of employees from doing so? What's a job compared to exposing the greatest plot of all time?

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Maybe Wilcott recalled RX-ZIM but wasn't sure he got all the letters right??

Then why, when asked under other what the cryptonym was, did he say he didn't know or couldn't remember?

18 people:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=104122&search="wilcott"#relPageId=17&tab=page

Here is the list of 20 employees minus redactions (all of these I believe Wilcott mentioned) originally planned for interview, apparently 2 did not participate for whatever reason:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9174&search="george_breen"#relPageId=2&tab=page

As you know I'm sure, the interviews themselves are not available. I wish they were as I am sure it would bolster my case. My article should be up tomorrow and I have gone from a list of sources to full endnotes.

Well, I'll have my updated article available shortly and members here can decide for themselves. My original opinion of Wilcott was that he was a harmless, well meaning person who was just wrong. Now I realize he was a dangerous extremist. As I said, if it is a documented fact that the cryptonym is for the "Oswald project" why do the leading sources of information (MFF, Newman) not mention it? Are they in on the plot too? As I mentioned, these are just notes and nothing more, similar to me writing anything I want on a piece of paper and saying it is a fact.

PS-I must be getting somewhere, I have warranted an ALL CAPS response.

Jim Hargrove said:

Nearly two decades ago, the Assassination Records Review Board liberated secret documents from the 1978 HSCA cover-up of … I mean hidden files on CIA accountant James Wilcott.  The page below shows that a voice stress analysis was performed on Wilcott by the committee and that he passed. It also indicates that the CIA’s cryptonym for the “Oswald Project” was RX-ZIM.

You are correct that a stress analysis was performed on Wilcott and he passed. Assuming the test was accurate, all this means is that Wilcott believed what he was saying was the truth, which I really don’t doubt. People can believe just about anything. However, the weight of the evidence does not back him up.

The hidden files to which you refer appear to simply be notes about Wilcott from an unknown source. Your statement that RX-ZIM was a cryptonym for the “Oswald project” is an irresponsible one and without a source other than these notes. This cryptonym does not appear in two CT respected sources, namely Mary Ferrell and John Newman (Countdown to darkness). If you enter “rx-zim” with quotes at Mary Ferrell, you get 3 hits-the document to which you refer, Harvey & Lee by Armstrong and a Fourth Decade article by Armstrong. Bottom line-this is just a note from an unknown source and another example of Armstrong/Hargrove using an anomaly to further their theory.

Presumably, the source for this RX-ZIM information was Wilcott. But, if this was the cryptonym, why did Wilcott say he didn’t remember the cryptonym? If the source was other than Wilcott why would they not provide it? Anticipating your answer, if they wanted to hide it, why mention it at all?

Just two pages later, there are more stunning revelations.  Read the last three paragraphs in the document below.  To me, the most chilling sentence is, “Son refuses to testify since committee cannot guarantee anyone’s security and since witnesses are still dying.”

It might be stunning if we knew who this was referring to and if it could be verified. As it exists, it is just a notation in a file with no supporting evidence. It's also surprising that the "hit squad" didn't just take out Wilcott before he testified and save a lot of time and trouble dealing with him.

The HSCA’s long-suppressed transcript of Mr. Wilcott’s testimony seemed to indicate he couldn’t, or wouldn’t, remember many of the people around him at the Japan CIA station who may have had knowledge of the “Oswald Project.”  As the ARRB discovered, however, Mr. Wilcott actually remembered people at the station in excruciating detail and provided them with that information.

The testimony does not indicate any such thing. They ask him for names of employees and he supplies a list. But the HSCA interviewed 18 Tokyo employees and none would verify any of his information. If they were only interested in a cover-up, they would have just dismissed his allegations with no further investigation and would not have conducted 18 interviews which could have exposed the plot.

The Wilcott case is an interesting one and probably should be studied more fully as an example of a well-meaning person who ran off the rails. I have too much on my plate to do it now though. EDIT: I have uncovered even more information on Wilcott (the guy was a lunatic) so I will be doing another update.

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I will rewrite the above in a more reasonable way.

The whole Wilcott matter can be summed up this way. You can believe that Wilcott was correct in his assertions and LHO was part of a CIA program. In that case, at least 18 CIA employees from Tokyo chose to comply with non-disclosure agreements they had signed. Because they might be subject to imprisonment if they did otherwise.

I'm sure they could have worked out an immunity deal with Congress.

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Then why do you choose to attempt character assassination on Wilcott with largely irrelevant allegations?

It's almost as though you had read that CIA document which lays out several methods of combating allegations the CIA is afraid of.

I think that Wilcott's mindset and his experiences with the CIA are relevant to determining his motive in speaking to the HSCA.

28 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Maybe, but you didn't correct it until after my post.  Yesterday at 5:40 am (EF time) I wrote: "Tracy Parnell has a blog page mis-characterizing James Wilcott’s testimony, which I’ll be correcting as soon as I have time."  I had just read your bs about "shop talk" which completely mis-characterized Wilcott's testimony.  Not many hours later, I started to do the write-up, and when I checked your blog, the "shop talk" business was gone.

We're going to play this game again, my friend!

 

 

 

 

No, we are not going to play any game. The purpose of the update was to address the comment by Rob Stewart that suggested I could ad more material. While in he process of looking at the source material, I noticed that previously mentioned HSCA claim wasn't fully supported and I updated the article making that change and adding the new information.  If you look at the article, it says "updated March 21." For confirmation, look at the comments where I replied to Stewart-it is time stamped March 21.

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My understanding is that Wilcott didn't say anything while at the CIA, but only heard what some of his coworkers were saying.

Of course, his talking to Garrison would still have been illegal. But, being the radical activist he was, perhaps he felt he was doing the right thing. And, as a matter of fact, he was.

 

The whole Wilcott matter can be summed up this way. You can believe that Wilcott was correct in his assertions and LHO was part of a CIA program. In that case, at least 18 CIA employees from Tokyo chose to lie to the HSCA. It would probably be more than that though. These people remained silent throughout the years as did any family members they would have undoubtedly told. No deathbed confessions, no seeking out of investigative journalists.

Or you can believe that Wilcott, was disgruntled because of an investigation of him by the CIA that he felt was unfair. You can believe that Wilcott came to think that certain actions taken by the CIA were incorrect (as he stated in his testimony). You can believe that Wilcott became enamored of  radical (for the time) left-wing views. And you can assume that as a person with all of these beliefs and ideas that he probably availed himself of the literature regarding the JFK assassination which was (and is) predominantly pro-conspiracy. This literature reinforced his beliefs regarding what happened at Tokyo. With all of this in mind, you then can understand how he could have misconstrued gossip that he heard while working at the CIA and misremembered (as we know happened in the case of one employee who was not in Japan when he said he was) some facts to arrive at his false conclusion.

13 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Tracy Parnell wrote:

I mentioned in a previous post how I came to make that change. I reviewed Wilcott's testimony with the HSCA bullet points and found that one assertion was not fully supported so I removed it. As far as Wilcott protecting anyone, he named several persons that he may have spoken to about LHO. The HSCA interviewed 18 employees from Tokyo and not one would confirm any of his allegations.

In other words, after I merely threatened to expose your mis-characterization, you changed it, knowing it was false.

No, I discovered it before your post. However, if you found an error on my site and I agreed with you that it was an error, I would change it. My primary concern is the facts. In this case, I would say that rather than an error, it was an overreach on their part.