W. Tracy Parnell

H&L howler #5, LHO spoke no Russian in Russia. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/lho-spoke-no-russian-in-russia.html

Are you aware that people can and do exaggerate their height? There is no photograph of LHO against a height chart showing that he was 5'11" tall.

H&L howler #4, Armstrong uses the story of Leander D'Avy as an example of "Lee." http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/leander-davy.html

I guess we'll never get to hear that fine tale then because I can't explain every discrepancy in the record beyond the explanation Parker has offered or beyond the fact that it is a mistake.

Or another explanation that works with the mountain of other evidence is that the records are wrong or being misinterpreted by the H&L proponents to suit their own purposes.

Please do tell us Jim when Julian or Myrtle Evans ever specifically said they met two different Marguerite Oswalds or two different Lee Harvey Oswalds. And we are not interested in your interpretation of their testimony.

Sandy, So can we pencil you in as a member of the H&L club?

H&L Howlers #3, John Armstrong thought he had found the identity of the "fake" Marguerite but he was wrong again: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/margaret-keating.html Also updated my list of who is involved in the plot for H&L to be true. Now includes a small sampling of the dozens or hundreds of people who knew about 2 Marguerites and stayed silent: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/harvey-lee-who-was-involved-in-plot.html

Greg Parker discusses grades/and or credits being commonly transferred to a new school. https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1361-creating-mayhem-with-historical-records

That is correct, the odds of that are about zero. But exactly what is the "something strange" that is going on? Are you now accepting the H&L theory? If not, what is your explanation?

Sandy, Myrtle Evans said: "when I saw her on TV, after all of this happened, she looked so old and haggard, and I said, "That couldn't be Margie," but of course it was, but if you had known Margie before all this happened, you would see what I mean. She was beautiful. She had beautiful wavy hair." I guess you guys can pretend she said that, but I think she was just surprised at how she had let herself go. It had probably been 10 years since she had seen her. if she was trying to tell the WC about the plot I think she might have said: "Sir, the woman I saw on TV is not Marguerite Oswald."

OK, let's accept your premise for the sake of argument, that two boys were attending two different schools using the same name, birthdate, mother's name and so on. What does this indicate to you?

Jim, No doubt Marguerite changed over the years and let herself go. And the comments of Julian and Myrtle Evans reflect that. But show me one person out of the dozens or hundreds that knew the "real" Marguerite that said the Marguerite they saw on TV was not the woman they knew.

Michael, You are right-it is unbelievable. For me, probably the most powerful proof is not even the scientific evidence I have mentioned but a simple common sense fact. And that is that the “real” Marguerite, who was the historic Oswald’s mother, supposedly disappeared after 1958. She was then replaced by the “impostor” who everyone is familiar with from her WC testimony and many media appearances from 1963 up to the late seventies. But how many people have you known in your life? Dozens or hundreds certainly. The H&L team would have us believe that of all the people that knew the “real” Marguerite the number that came forward to tell the world that the woman they saw on TV or in the newspaper was not the Marguerite they knew was exactly zero. The H&L team doesn’t discuss this but one potential excuse they could use is the witnesses were afraid. But by the seventies, there was a new investigation and challenging authority figures was very popular. All it would have taken to expose the plot would have been one person making a call to Gaeton Fonzi to use one example among many. Fonzi was open to conspiracy theories and employed by a government body. He also was an experienced investigative journalist who was willing to bend the rules-he was nearly charged with violating a secrecy oath by the CIA. All it would have taken was one call to Fonzi, or any number of others, and the plot would have been exposed. But no one ever came forward. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html

I am not claiming any victory. My only purpose is to provide fact-based information to researchers. They can make up their own mind.

And in his 1953 report, he described him as "well-built" so it is obvious that he was trying to liven things up for his book. What Armstrong and Hargrove don't understand is that anyone can say anything-but you have to verify it. In this case, I would put my money on the report. Hartogs had a tendency to embellish and Wesley Liebeler famously caught him on this during his WC testimony.

Scientific evidence means just that (handwriting and photos) and it was developed by the HSCA who the H&L guys quote when it suits their needs and deride when it doesn't. A recent example is Hargrove mentioning Wilcott's testimony. of course, the exhumation evidence was stared by a private individual to prove a similar 2 Oswald theory which it did not. But it doesn't surprise me that Hargrove and Armstrong would find scientific proof funny.

Greg Parker has offered some interesting observations about Kurian: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1368-armstrong-and-dr-kurian

For the sake of argument, let’s say Jim is right and Parker’s explanation is not correct. In that case, we know that the records are in error. How do we know this? From the scientific evidence that shows there was only one LHO: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html I currently have 21 articles on my blog refuting the theory for those interested.

I can see I need to explain something to Jim. The following is called an explanation. It consists of 438 words. You may not agree with it, but despite what you say, it does exist and was printed in a book and is now online: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1361-creating-mayhem-with-historical-records The following is an explanation that does not exist: See the difference?

Jim Hargrove said: Fine. I’m going to continue to bring this up again and again, as well as your obvious unwillingness to condemn the FBI’s proven malfeasance in the Kennedy case. You can bring it up for the next 50 years and my reply will be the same. Parker has provided an answer that you disagree with, but he has provided one. It is real words printed on paper in a book and that is a fact. The readers here can decide who they want to believe. let's begin by seeing what John ACTUALLY wrote about Drs. Renatus Hartogs What he wrote is exactly what I quoted above “Dr. Hartogs' two very different physical descriptions of Oswald remain unexplained and he appears to be describing two different boys.” Now either he is trying to say that Hartogs saw Harvey AND Lee or a third Oswald or who knows what? That is what I am trying to get you to tell us Jim and you don’t. Now while I am thinking of it, here is another minor “howler” from Armstrong: It is difficult to understand why Ely would not be interested in the professional opinion of a New York psychiatrist who was the past president of the American Psychi­atric Association, and had interviewed young Oswald in 1953. But it’s not too difficult to understand if you actually read what Ely wrote: [Dr. Kurian] states that the interview occurred toward the end of March, 1953: however, in view of the fact that he refers to a report from Youth House, which had been prepared prior to his seeing the boy, it must have been later in the year… The Kurian letter was of course prepared after the assassination and I suspect its contents were influenced by the events of November 22, 1963. If, however, Dr. Kurian’s records contain the father figure analysis, they would be of great interest indeed. Of course, Kurian had no documentation to support his claims and that is why the WC did not give credence to his story. Ely was actually being kind since Kurian’s statements that he saw “LHO” in March and saw Youth House reports before the interview mean that he could not have seen LHO at all. You have to remember that Ely was not privy to the H&L theory and was unaware of “Harvey” or whoever this is supposed to be. Anyway, the reason he didn’t give that much thought to the story is obvious-to everyone except John Armstrong that is. And Kurian is a well-meaning individual who did not see LHO (or “Harvey” since he doesn’t exist). As for Hartogs, he embellished several things because he was trying to sell a book. The “undernourished Harvey” is a myth that is now debunked. Anyone can see in the Bronx Zoo photo that the boy depicted is not undernourished. In any case, I have published an analysis that Jim is conveniently ignoring that shows he was not 4’8” tall. Anyone can replicate my math and while they could get a slightly different answer, it would not be off by eight inches. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-bronx-zoo-photo.html

Time to move on from this subject Jim. I have offered a simple explanation for the records, you don't accept it which is understandable since you would have to give up the H&L fantasy. The members here can decide. Now, it is time for another edition of "Harvey and Lee Howlers." We saw that Jim would not answer howler #1, which has Armstrong inexplicably trying to convince us that Renatus Hartogs saw both Harvey and Lee. Howler #2 After Harvey's "defection" the short, dumpy, heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" imposter kept a low profile and avoided interviews with the press, for fear that people who had known the real Marguerite Oswald might realize that she was a different person. She soon left Fort Worth and began to work in small towns in north Texas. NOTE: If a photograph of the "Marguerite Oswald" imposter had appeared in Fort Worth newspapers following his "defection," then anyone who had known the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald in Dallas during the past few years would have realized she was a different woman. Completely defying all logic, Armstrong makes it seem like this situation would have only existed in 1959 and that by 1963 sufficient time would have elapsed for people to forget. This is nonsense, of course, and anyone who had known the “tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald” at any time in her life through 1958 when she supposedly disappeared would have come forward when they saw the “impostor” on TV or in the newspapers and reported that this Marguerite was a phony. This, of course, never happened and several people who knew the “real” Marguerite testified before the WC or gave FBI statements. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.htm

We are all familiar with the concept of Occam’s Razor-the simplest explanation is likely correct. With that in mind: To accept the H&L scenario regarding the NYC/Beauregard school records you must: Believe the explanation of Wilfred Head to the FBI. Seems reasonable. But since the H&L team believes the FBI falsified records whenever necessary, why would they allow Head’s explanation to be released to the public where it could be later discovered by the H&L sleuths and thus reveal the plot? Believe that although “Harvey”, according to H&L, moved to 126 Exchange and entered Beauregard in September, 1953, the record says he started January 13, 1954 and lived at 809 French St. If you believe the above, you have to believe that either “Harvey” also lived at 809 French, or that the records were falsified. If you believe the former, you have to explain how Lillian Murret could risk having both “Harvey” and “Lee” live with her at different times. After all, anyone could happen by her place and she would have to explain “Harvey” being a long lost relative to someone who could potentially know better. If you believe the records are falsified, you have to show how and who was in on the plot to do this. You also have to explain what happened to “Lee’s” records. Believe that no one noticed that there were two boys named “Oswald” attending the same school-one named Lee and one named Harvey. We know that the name Harvey was used because that is what Armstrong’s star witness Myra DaRouse stated. Why was “Harvey” never recorded in school photos or documented in any other way? Remember, LHO was in yearbooks and candid photos that eventually became available. What was to stop anyone with a camera from taking a picture and exposing the plot or documenting “Harvey” in some other way? Believe that Ed Voebel knew both “Harvey” and “Lee” and never became suspicious. Voebel never mentioned to authorities after the assassination that he had known not only LHO but another Oswald boy named Harvey. Why wouldn’t he think this information was relevant? BTW, Armstrong thinks Voebel was one of the “mystery deaths” but they waited until 1971 to do the job for some unexplained reason. To accept that there was only one Lee Harvey Oswald you must: Believe that Head could have been wrong and the explanation Greg Parker offered is reasonable.

Jim, I was just asking if there was anything other than the documents you posted previously. Apparently there isn't, but thank you for posting these all together so we can see them. As I have explained and as Parker has explained in the past numerous times, the issue is simply how the documents are interpreted. The H&L guys have shown their way which is based on what Head told the FBI, that is not right. Greg Parker has offered another way to read these records in his book and has kindly posted an excerpt here: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1361-creating-mayhem-with-historical-records We know when LHO started at Beauregard because it says January 14, 1954 under "originally admitted." We also know that this is supposed to be "Harvey's" record so there is no reason for it to say 809 French since you just told us he lived at 126 Exchange. Another point is since according to you guys the FBI had no problem changing records, why did they let Head's explanation stand and risk people like yourselves later exposing the plot? But, I think we need to move on to other issues. You guys have a theory and we have countered it. Everyone can decide who they want to believe at this point. I'll post a summary of the issue when I get time.

Two questions-why North Dakota of all places and where is the document Armstrong allegedly saw that shows Mosby's handwritten notes say "North Dakota" instead of New Orleans? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/h%26l4.htm