W. Tracy Parnell

First, as long as I don't break forum rules in some way I can reply in any way I see fit. As far as I know, you are not a moderator and don't make rules here. Really no need to be unpleasant. Flat out wrong. The famous quote refers to memos created by Ely for a chronology of LHO. Jenner just disagreed with some of the things Ely had as the line "some of his speculations are not borne out by our later work" indicates. That's right, Rose admitted he missed the mastoid scar and it is obvious he missed others as well. You are seriously mentioning Anna Lewis and Judyth Baker? Even Baker doesn't believe H&L. People saw LHO everywhere but all of them couldn't be right. Professional investigators know this.

"They will say..." ?? Why is it always so necessary for the "opposition point" to tell us what we're going to say? It's usually because what they offer never accomplishes the purpose. If anything I said about Thanksgiving 1962 is a misrepresentation of your position, please let us know. Tracy, how can he be with his brother, shooting and also go for medical attention in Florida at the same time? How come there is an entire group of soldiers who claim to have been with Lee who have no relationship at all to Harvey and his military time? Two more examples of mistaken witnesses, records etc. Professional investigators realize these things happen in real life. What kind of data do you think "needs material alteration .. or omission" with regards to poor little Ozzie's life? This is taken out of context and simply refers to the fact that John Hart Ely’s memorandum may not have been entirely accurate and needed changes, Nothing sinister but it does give H&L people more ammunition. Seems the man living with Oswald in Feb 1957 has nothing to say about his being gone during that time period - and we're saying the man in the photo is Lee. Hey, maybe you do have the right year - in Feb 1957 Lee would have been on leave and Harvey would have been ... where was he Tracy? There was no Harvey and the one and only LHO was on leave. The FBI even found the wrong Felde 1615775, Robert Allen Felde is NOT Allen R Felde #1641924, so of course 1615775 would have no knowledge of Oswald. The whole Felde thing is a puzzle but you don’t need two Oswalds to explain it even if the explanation is just misinterpreted records or witness memories. Wonder why the FBI would not want to interview a marine who knew LEE.... Not sure what you are referring to but the FBI, although they conducted 25,000 plus interviews couldn’t see everybody.

You really are catching on and asking the right questions now! They will say Robert and Marina and Vada were in on it. Pic became aware of the plot, perhaps right here at Thanksgiving, and said nothing but gave clues during his testimony.

I am changing my opinion of you again Sandy, you are catching on.

David Josephs mentions Robert Oswald in support of one of his arguments. But Robert, while he was an honest and well meaning person, was not right about everything. In this short article, I show when the "Hunter Photo" was really taken: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-hunter-photo.html EDIT: If you would rather not click through to the article, the answer is early March, 1957.

The JFK assassination is the most studied murder in history. Mary Ferrell has 1.3 million documents and there are more at the National Archives. It is not surprising that there would be documents among that large number that are flat out incorrect or have been misinterpreted. The H&L theory makes use of just that type of document which Armstrong spent years collecting.

David, That is just another misreading of a record.

Discussions of John Armstrong’s Harvey & Lee theory often involve scientific and other evidence. But what if we just look at the theory by asking some “common sense” questions? Let’s see what would we find. Who Was Involved in the Plot? How many individuals would have to be involved for the H&L plot to be true? It turns out the answer is dozens when you count the principals and the subordinates who would necessarily be involved. Some of the names on this list will not bother conspiracy theorists. James Angleton and David Phillips are well known suspects and universal villains with the CIA-did-it crowd. But some of the names on this list should give just about anyone pause, including LHO’s family members and friends. I invite anyone to think about the names here and honestly ask yourself how this could all come together. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/harvey-lee-who-was-involved-in-plot.html The Behavior of the “Fake” Marguerite The outlandish behavior of the woman who is supposed to be a CIA operative is one of the best common sense arguments against the theory. Jim Hargrove believes the fake Marguerite was a “spycatcher” whose job was to attract US intelligence agents who were aware of “Oswald’s” role as a spy and would then contact her. Marguerite would then report these agents to headquarters for elimination. But if she was a CIA operative, she had to be one of the world’s great actors since just about everyone that met her following the assassination thought she was crazy. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-two-marguerites-part-3.html Why Didn’t People Who Knew the “Real” Marguerite Speak Out? A simple question that Armstrong supporters can’t answer is why didn’t the “real” Marguerite’s friends from the early days come forward to say that the woman they saw on TV and in the newspapers (the impostor) was not the woman they knew? One weak argument is they were afraid. But they could have come forward at any time such as the seventies when the HSCA put the spotlight back on the case. Or they could have contacted an investigative journalist, such as Gaeton Fonzi, who was very sympathetic to the conspiracy cause and would have gladly listened to their story. None ever came forward and the people that testified or gave statements to the Warren Commission either recognized Marguerite or didn’t mention any problem. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html LHO’s Military ID Armstrong presents some contradictory records in his book to bolster his claim that of two Oswalds. But all of the records he presents show the same military id number. Exactly how did two men use the same ID at the same time and no one notice? Beauregard Armstrong says that both Oswalds attended Beauregard at the same time. He also says that LHO friend Ed Voebel knew both Oswalds. Armstrong has never claimed that “Harvey” and “Lee” were identical twins. Exactly how did this work and why did nobody notice?

Pic was under oath and he was simply trying to be careful with his answers. He hadn't seen his brother in 10 years before Thanksgiving, 1962.

David, The differences in physical appearance you mention are not based on Kurian?

The exhumation shows that "Harvey" had the mastoid operation that "Lee" was supposed to have unless you buy Jim's excuse that "Harvey" went to Jacobi to have an operation. Trouble is, they only came up with this years after the book was published and then only because of me and my work. Armstrong just ignored the subject and although he mentions the exhumation in his book, he doesn't tell readers about the discrepancy. Armstrong and supporters only mention DNA because they know it will never happen. Robert is supposed to be "Lee's" brother and anyone can look at Robert and "Harvey" and see the resemblance.

This is based on the statements of Dr. Milton Kurian. I maintain that even though Kurian apparently worked at Youth House, he never saw LHO and is one of hundreds of people who came forward after the assassination honestly believing they saw him but were just mistaken. Like the other witnesses, Kurian has no documentation to support his claim. If Kurian did see LHO, which is doubtful and can never be proven one way or the other, he was simply mistaken about his remembrances regarding LHO's physical appearance. Eventually, I plan to do an article on Kurian and his story.

I know he didn't because the totality of the evidence says so.

But what is the evidence that Marina was "abusive" rather than just nagging? As I mentioned earlier in this thread, try going into court and saying "yes I hit my wife but she was nagging." Now Sandy, I'll show you that I do not have such an intense bias against Armstrong that I cannot believe anything he says. In fact, much of what he says about Marina that you quoted is probably true.

OK-fair enough.

Very well said.

While it is true that the school records are evidence, not every piece of evidence is accurate, especially when it is being misread. You have to examine all the available evidence and when you do that it shows one Oswald. Notice that the H&L fans including Sandy are not even mentioning the scientific evidence in this case. They prefer to use witness statements and he confusing history of the Oswald family. this allows them to get away with what they do.

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

If it explains that the records are wrong or misread it does. And I already told you that you were familiar with the explanations and would not accept them. For the final time, there ARE other explanations for the school records even if it is just that the records are wrong or being misread. It requires a leap of faith to believe in the face of a mountain of other evidence, that there were two Oswalds. You choose to believe that, or say you believe it. But as you yourself said in 2001, if the H&L theory is wrong so what? http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/so-what.html This indicates that you believe "the end justifies the means" the means in this case being the H&L theory.

I did-page 9.

Yes, that is a reasonable assumption that there could be two boys with the same name in two different schools at the same time. However, in this case we know from other information such as the addresses they lived at and much more that this is the same individual. Therefore, since we know we are talking about the same Oswald that the records are either being misread or are incorrect (probably both).

Yeah that might work. I thought I was making headway with him for a while but he flipped.

I have never heard of that report, but just maybe they were talking about LHO. But if you want to debate the mock trial you should get DVP in here since he is the Bugliosi expert.

Paul T. said: At the risk of losing my only comrade in this thread let me add this for clarification. It is relevant only in that they could use it to show a willingness to commit violence. It is, of course, not a proof that he murdered JFK and if you look at the WC questioning, you can see that they didn't spend that much time on the subject so they didn't consider it that significant either.

And add Sandy Larsen to the list as he has apparently joined the team and offered to do website work for them. I would like to see them take their conclusions to Morley and see if he could get a major article in Politico presenting their theory. I doubt it!