W. Tracy Parnell

I want to take this one step at a time. In September, 1953 "Harvey" moved to NO and lived at 126 Exchange. CE 1413, p. 817 is supposed to be "Harvey's" school record. but why does it say 809 French? "Lee" lived at 809 French briefly not "Harvey" as you point out. Now, besides CE 1413, p. 817, what are the records that lead you to believe that "Harvey" attended Beauregard part-time while "Lee" was in NYC? As for your other question, the witnesses are not necessarily lying, people can believe all sorts of things, especially when confronted with a "witness recruitment program."

While we are waiting for Jim and Sandy to respond, I propose a new series called "Harvey & Lee Howlers." In this series, I'll examine some of the more dubious claims made by Armstrong in his book. Of course, when working with Armstrong, there are many levels of "dubious." Here is the first post: On May 1, Youth House Psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs, a colleague of Dr.Kurians, examined Lee Harvey Oswald... Dr. Hartogs' physical description of Oswald as a well-built boy was consistent with descriptions of Lee Oswald by fellow students of Ridglea West Elementary School in Fort Worth a year earlier. It is also consistent with New York health records that recorded Oswald's height at 5-foot-4-1/2, less than a month after his interview with Dr. Hartogs. But Dr. Hartogs' physical description of the Oswald he interviewed was in sharp contrast to the boy interviewed by Dr. Kurian, who described Oswald as a 13-year-old youth who appeared quite small for his age, and stood no more than 4-foot-6 or 4-foot-8 (Dr. Kurian was 5-foot-7). In 1965 Dr. Hartogs wrote a book titled "The Two Assassins" in which his physical description of Oswald was in sharp contrast to his physical description of Oswald in 1953. The "well-built boy," as described by Dr. Hartogs in his 1953 report, was now described as "A slender, dark-haired boy with a pale, haunted face ..... I remember thinking how slight he seemed for his thirteen years. He had an underfed look, reminiscent of the starved children I had seen in concentration camps." Dr. Hartogs' two very different physical descriptions of Oswald remain unexplained and he appears to be describing two different boys. Question for Jim, David and Sandy-is Armstrong really trying to convince us that Hartogs saw both Harvey and Lee and how did that work?

Questions for Sandy Larsen and Jim Hargrove. Where did "Harvey" live from September, 1953 until January, 1954? Why does the school record for "Harvey" show 809 French St.? And since "Lee" also attended Beauregard, where are his records?

He is only taking classes in two different places if you accept their explanation. Note that in order for their theory to work, you have to explain the January 14 "originally admitted" date by alteration or the convenient excuse that "Harvey" was admitted full time then. And then you have to explain how the alteration was done, who was involved and also where are "Lee's" records? To believe Parker you only have to reconsider the reading of the days. Now, the address for "Harvey" on this document is 809 French. But that is where "Lee" went in January, 1954 by Armstrong's admission. Where did "Harvey" live in September, 1953?

OK, I'll help out. This is from page 77 of H&L: Page 817 of Warren Commission Volume 22 is a copy of Lee Harvey Oswald's cumulative school record in New Orleans which shows that Harvey attended the 8th grade at Beauregard Junior High for 89 days in the fall of 1953, with no absences. One "Lee Harvey Oswald" could not possibly have attended schools in both New York City and New Orleans at the same time. So, this is "Harvey's" school record according to Armstrong. On page 82, Armstrong says: After arriving in New Orleans [in January, 1954], Lee and Marguerite moved in with her sister, Lillian Murret, at 809 French Street in the Lakeview area. The question is, why do "Harvey's" school records show an "originally admitted" date of January 14, 1954 when his records (according to the H&L believers) show him starting school in September, 1953?

Which Oswald, Harvey or Lee?

Sandy, Let's see if we can work this out. What is it about the New Orleans record presented here (CE 1413, p. 817) that makes you think an Oswald was attending school at Beauregard before January, 1954? I assume the number of days?

We have heard one side of the Veciana/Fonzi story for years now. I am currently working on an article series that will tell the other side of the story.

A reasonable person could reach the conclusion that LHO was an intelligence agent without believing in 2 Oswalds. For a look at Wilcott: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html BTW, Jim's list has already been answered by Paul Trejo.

Palmer McBride was simply mistaken about when his experiences with LHO occurred as Greg Parker, David Lifton and myself to a lesser degree have shown. Lifton did what the WC would have done if McBride had testified-shown him the documentation that proved he was wrong. When presented with that documentation, McBride quickly reversed himself. Later, Armstrong, as part of his "witness recruitment program" got him to change his mind again. The whole story is here for those interested: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/palmer-mcbride.html

Parker has provided an alternate explanation. You reject that apparently-ok. That leaves you with two choices. One, there were 2 Oswalds running around with 2 mothers who all worked for the CIA. Oswald's family members including Robert, Marina, the Muretts, John Pic and so on all either were in on the plot or kept quiet. Or two-the records are in error. Your choice.

No, I'm not kidding, unless she kept a journal of the Oswald's activities or something, her observations are just that-observations.

BTW, I see Greg Parker is on the board so that reminds me, he has provided an excerpt from his book about the Beauregard school records. Thanks to Jeremy B. for pointing this out: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1361-creating-mayhem-with-historical-records

Schubert may have seen Robert walking to Stripling but the time frame would have been 1948-49. But where is the documentation for 2220 Thomas? Answer-it doesn't exist only witness statements. You are right about one thing though, Marguerite was there at the time of the assassination.

I could say that some things were better 100 years ago, but of course I wouldn't do that!

One of the tenets of the John Armstrong Harvey & Lee theory is the difference in appearance between the two boys in 1952-53. “Lee” was tall and had a dominant personality, while “Harvey” was shorter and more slight in build. Dr. Milton Kurian and Myra DaRouse stated that "Harvey" was only 4'8" tall. But a simple math formula proves that Kurian and DaRouse were mistaken in their remembrances. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-bronx-zoo-photo.html

Excellent analysis Jeremy. I had not seen that post by Parker either so thanks for that.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/so-what.html Scroll down for update with screen grabs from JFK Research.

I'm not trying to "mock" you, I just wonder why you said what you did and offered a possible explanation. I do believe you care strongly about the case, but that wouldn't preclude using H&L as a vehicle for research. I'll find the quote from JFK Research because I don't want people to think I am making it up.

Michael, I have never received much reaction to the "so what" article. But like you, I was shocked when I first read that years ago. I think it proves that they are not really serious about the theory, it is just a "vehicle" and a means to an end.

That's what I am asking is who he got the photo from and what were the circumstances under which it was taken. Forgive me, but Armstrong has shown himself to be less than trustworthy in the past so I would prefer to know. If it is in the book you can point me to the page and I apologize in advance. I am still working on her addresses and I am not sure she lived there when you say, I would rather prove it to myself. No, I have not read the book in the normal sense and neither has anyone else-it is completely unreadable. It is not a book in the traditional sense. Yes it has pages and a cover and words but that is where the similarity ends. It is merely a collection of nonsensical assertions. However, I have the PDF-I sold the hard copy and doubled my money so I do have something to thank Armstrong for after all. I have the CD and full access to the Baylor documents, many of which are on my hard drive. I am getting older so I will confess that my retention of Armstrong's ridiculous arguments is not that good. EDIT: BTW, I have often wondered why Armstrong didn't get an editor. But after seeing all the typos, missing citations, incorrect citations and overuse of italics and underlining in his tome, I realized that there was not enough money in the world to pay someone to edit that mess.

There you go again David, trying to tell me what to do. Fortunately, you do not control the forum and I am not going anywhere.

Armstrong thinks the FBI and the WC were behind the cover-up and faked all kinds of documents. Funny thing he still uses them whenever it suits his purposes.

I don't need to convince anyone of these things-you do. I know they are false, if others want to believe them that is their right. The issues at hand? You mean like the scientific proof that refutes the H&L theory that you guys will not discuss? http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html Or are you talking about common sense concepts that you also won't discuss? http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/common-sense.html I am perfectly willing to admit that except for a few trips to libraries, I have never left the house to do any research. But I do have 33 kindle books on the subject and probably another 30 in hard copy. And I do have some documents on order from the National Archives as we speak. I congratulate Armstrong for the work he did and the money he spent. Unfortunately, witnesses are another matter with him. As David Lifton has written about right here at the EF, Armstrong went on a "witness recruitment program" that involved befriending people and convincing them they were witnesses to history. Not an objective way to approach the situation. He also talked to people 35-40 years after the fact-not the best time to do so. EDIT: BTW, I interviewed Vincent DiMaio, Gary Mack, Jack White and a few others via email-it is a new world now you know.

Here’s the difference between what I am telling researchers and what the H&L camp is selling. They are telling you that if you will just believe their theory they can answer all your JFK questions. A discrepancy in the records somewhere? Two Oswalds. A witness that doesn’t fit with the other available evidence? Two Oswalds. Believe the CIA (and everybody else including LHO’s entire family) was involved? Two Oswalds theory explains it and all other questions if you will just believe. Sounds something like a cult, doesn’t it? On the other hand, I am telling researchers that I certainly cannot explain everything. There are discrepancies in records, witnesses who contradict other witnesses and many other things that do not make sense. Some things, such as the question of whether or not LHO was in Taiwan, are probably unresolvable at this point in time. But if you examine the complete record the biography of LHO becomes clear. Think of it this way. There are over 1.2 million records at Mary Ferrell and more in the archives. For the sake of discussion, let’s say there are 500,000 records that pertain to LHO in some way. To be generous, let’s say Armstrong found 500 records, including witness statements, that have errors or unexplainable discrepancies. Those mistaken records represent 0.1 percent of the total LHO records. Now my numbers may be off somewhat but even if it is 1 percent I maintain that is in the realm of what could be expected. So, I maintain that the fact Armstrong has found these discrepancies, rather than being evidence of a conspiracy theory, is exactly what you would expect to see in the real world. The same world that Armstrong and followers apparently do not live in.