W. Tracy Parnell

This is Parker’s analysis of New York from the EF thread “Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong” p. 31: Here is the 52-53 year again. PS 117 (start of school year) = 15 + 47 + 4 half days (2 full days) Days not enrolled = 40 PS 44 = 109 + 15 (includes school days spent in Youth House) + 6 half days (3 full days) School year ends approx. June 26 so deduct 49 days as PS 44 numbers go through to the start of the new school year on Sept 14. so.... 15 + 47 + 2 + 40 + 109 + 15 + 3 - 49 = 182 - approximate only - actual figure would depend on date school year ended for 52/53 year. Figures are taken from Cited Document School year end date assumed from current year end date as shown here NYC Calandar 15 days at Youth House shown as days absence from PS 44 David says he doubts that the school year finished on June 26, but if you count forward 55 WEEK days from that date, you come to Friday, September 11, 1953. According to the PS44 report, Oswald commenced the 8th grade on Mon Sept 14 - so it all fits like a glove. I cannot see what the issue is except that in my original calc[culations], I miscounted and deducted 49 days instead of 55 - so the approximate figure would actually be 176 for 52-53. With regard to Youth House: PS 44 shows 15 full days and 3 part-day absences. David seems to expect to find Youth House having its own special entry on the form somewhere and he miscounted the school days he was there. Apr 16 to May 7 is 3 weeks exactly. Since May 7 was a Thursday, he may have been released early enough for a full or part day at PS 44. I therefore maintain that absences shown in the record from PS44 account for Youth House. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is Parker’s analysis from Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War vol. 2 as paraphrased by me: Wilfred Head told the FBI that the number opposite “Re Ad” was the total number of days LHO attended. Head says 180 days were “regular” and 170 the mandated minimum. But in the case the 54-55 school year 168 days are listed. Parker says that since this is below the minimum mandate that it is obviously not the total number of days in the school year. But if you add the days absent (12) to the “Re Ad” you get 180 the “normal” number of days. For the 53-54 year, you get 184, but there is allowance for some variance. Parker does not mention the grade cards but they are wrong apparently. Anyway, there is an alternate explanation so don’t say I have never done anything for the H&L guys.

I will see if I can summarize the information later, but it won't make any difference as you guys are aware of the arguments already.

Well said.

David, The school records are a waste of time. Greg Parker has offered reasonable explanations which the H&L team rejects. Rather than discuss the inconsistencies in the records which have allowed the H&L theory to flourish, why not discuss the 1981 exhumation which was performed to refute a similar two Oswald theory? In 1981 LHO was exhumed and a mastoid depression was looked for and found exactly where you would expect it to be. The depression, which resulted from diseased bone being removed and a drain being inserted, had smooth edges as it would with the passage of time and this fact proved that it was not hastily faked but an authentic remnant of the operation “Lee” had in 1946. The problem is, “Harvey” was in the Fort Worth grave and it was his body that was exhumed according to Armstrong. In the book, Armstrong mentions the exhumation but predictably fails to inform his readers of the discrepancy. The only attempt ever made by anyone on the H&L team to explain it was by Jim Hargrove who said that Harvey must have had a similar operation performed in NYC when Robertson said he was hospitalized for mental test, the tests being a cover for the mastoid procedure. This weak and after the fact explanation is the only one ever provided. Another powerful scientific proof is the handwriting analysis done by the HSCA to refute two Oswald theories in general. I examined their work and found that handwriting samples written by “Harvey” and “Lee” were written by the same individual according to the HSCA. Here is a summary of this information for those interested: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html In my opinion, scientific evidence trumps theories based on misinterpreted records.

Thanks Michael. The normal discrepancies and differences in witness statements are what allows the H&L theory to exist. The Palmer McBride and Mrs. Jack Tippit incidents were the foundation of the theory but they actually are among the weakest arguments.

Oprah Winfrey. EDIT: Alistair beat me to the punch.

Thanks Tommy, I'm heading back to base at Langley now.

No, there is always another explanation that does not require two Oswalds, even if it is simply that the records are being misread or the records are wrong.

No, I am not a lawyer. Under my scenario, I was assuming he was tried for repeated abuse.

Jim Hargrove: Ralph Cinque is at it again, posting things that are at odds with the official two Marguerite theory. You guys have to talk to him: http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/03/lets-look-at-these-two-images-of.html

The charge-probably assault or assault and battery. And it wouldn't matter what the circumstances were unless she was equally abusive and there is no evidence of that. You cannot strike your wife just because she annoys you.

The records may appear to conflict but we have enough other evidence to show that there were not two Oswalds. There is really no need for me to present Parker’s arguments, they have already been discussed here at the EF and elsewhere repeatedly and Jim is well aware of them. You can currently get both of Parker’s ebooks for $12 so that is very reasonable although I was lucky when I got them as they were cheaper then and on sale I guess. But I am not going to argue about the records as I do not consider it a subject worthy of my time. There are a few areas that probably cannot be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction and this is one of them. However, if Parker ever provides permission to cut and paste portions of his work here, I will. Not all JFK CT researchers are as wary of the government investigation as Jim is. Paul Trejo and David Lifton are two examples of conspiracy believers who think the majority (I don’t believe that is an overstatement) of the government work is valid.

One honest man!

I think I have done about all I can do here but I'll try this one more time as something of a sign-off on this thread. Take the situation out of the context of the JFK assassination. Forget about “conspiracy theorist privilege” as I call it. That’s where you make all kinds of excuses because the end justifies the means. Instead, have a mock trial using actors to portray the principals with names such as "Smith" and "Jones". Choose a jury from a bunch of normal people off the street. The first witness is the complainant who states she was abused and provides details regarding numerous instances. Eight witnesses appear next who all saw the bruises inflicted and some also saw emotional abuse. Finally, you have a witness who saw the emotional and physical abuse first-hand. You could also have an expert for the prosecution who tells the court that the victim’s behavior such as saying she ran into a doorknob or whatever it was is normal for an abused woman-she is apologizing for the abuser and trying to justify his behavior. The accused probably would not testify, but if he did he would offer a weak excuse such as “she made me do it with her nagging.” If the accusers were cross examined, the defense could possibly bring out the fact that they didn’t like the defendant. But that is not surprising since they were aware of his abuse and general “the world owes me a living” attitude. Now, with all these facts and remembering that the jury in this trial will hear nothing about JFK, be honest with yourself. Who would win? EDIT: I would add one other thing-the accused is impoverished and has a public defender rather than a world class attorney.

Sandy, The answer to your question is yes and no. Because people make mistakes and people see and remember things differently, there always will be discrepancies in records and witness statements. In this case, you have a mother, Marguerite, who lived in over 50 addresses by 1963. This fact multiplies the mistakes and makes it much more likely that they will occur. These are facts that professional investigators know and accept. But John Armstrong and his band of followers say they do not know this and every mistake is evidence of 2 Oswalds which it is not. In the 1970 and early 80’s Michael Eddowes had a two-Oswald theory. An exhumation was performed of LHO’s body to “resolve” the issue. A team of four of the best forensic experts found that the one and only Oswald was in fact there in the grave. Eddowes originally accepted the defeat graciously. But soon, he was right back at it and working to find another angle. He simply did not want to believe in the facts presented to him. I am very proud of the fact that I had a small part in documenting the exhumation facts with the help of the late Gary Mack who was a genius in the JFK world and knew as much about the assassination as anyone who has ever studied it. Gary (who was a part of the exhumation story himself) originally had doubts about the exhumation but after the evidence was presented and studied he accepted it and agreed to help me in my efforts. After my series appeared, the exhumation basically went into the dust bin of history as far as a viable conspiracy theory. You can read about it here and it is an interesting story: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/xindex.htm I believe the H&L theory is a “vehicle” for John Armstrong and his associates. It is generally advisable to have a thesis for a book and he decided that two Oswalds would do the job. I am not sure that Armstrong and his men even believe their own theory, but it does call attention to the work they do. In some ways, it is a very clever theory. But when examined closely, it falls apart as myself, Greg Parker, David Lifton and Jeremy Bojczuk have all shown. I recommend you get Parker’s books as they discuss many of the issues in this thread (including school records) and they are very inexpensive. Bojczuk has a good website and a book also. Lifton’s refutations can be found via Google. BTW, even though I am a lone assassin theorist, these people are CTs. Can I disprove every allegation by Armstrong? For the reasons mentioned above, no I cannot. That is the beauty of the theory, if someone refutes one thing thy will say “yeah but look at this” because of all the inconstancies that there are for the reasons I have explained. The hard scientific facts are here: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html There are other common sense things like how did two men use one military ID? How did two boys named Oswald attend the same school at the same time without someone noticing. How did Voebel know both Oswalds and not realize it and say anything? Why did all the people who knew the “real” Marguerite when she was young not say anything when the impostor appeared on TV and in the newspapers? http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html So, you don’t need two Oswalds to explain inconsistencies. You don’t need 2 Oswalds to believe in conspiracy. When the evidence tells you it is not true why believe it? There is only one answer-like Michael Eddowes you want to believe it for whatever reason.

I am working on a new chronology and according to what Marina told McMillan, the abuse started on June 24, 1962 while she and LHO were still at Robert's house. However, there were no witnesses to this event and we only have Marina's word and you correctly point out the timeline for the abuse that was witnessed.

The reason Kleinlerer was in a position to witness the abuse is because LHO had no respect or fear, if you will, of him. He would not do it in front of most of the Russians because he knew they would not tolerate it.

But the "stakes" don't justify a visit to an alternate universe. I will agree to this extent that just because he beat her it doesn't prove he was a murderer.

Some do. If not why are all of these people defending LHO when, by any "normal" standard, there is no defense? Just say OK, he hit her but that is not proof of the murder of JFK, which is a valid position. But the evidence against him concerning abuse of Marina is overwhelming including an eyewitness. How do they deal with that? They either say they simply don't believe Kleinlerer or he has some secret agenda so "poof" it goes away. Some are saying "he only hit her once" or "she ran into a doorknob" or some such nonsense. If that is not minimizing, I don't know the definition of the word. CTs want to be taken seriously (by the media etc.) but yet they can't understand why they are not. Take your evidence of a JFK conspiracy to any respected journalist. Then, when the subject of LHO's abuse of Marina comes up tell them that "he only hit her once" or whatever excuse you want to use. Then see if they think you are a credible person at that point. As an example, I'll bet Morley wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Yes Sandy,your dictionary definition of "wife beater" is correct. My point is that in the eyes of the law, if you strike your wife you are a wife beater and will be charged with assault, even if you only hit your wife once. The cavalier attitude toward domestic violence of the individuals who are defending LHO in this thread surprises me, especially in this day and age.

Well, I don't want to be accused of copyright infringement. But I think you are familiar with the arguments already from your many debates here at EF.

While I am thinking of it, what is Armstrong's position on the following photo. Ralph Cinque is saying this is the "real" Marguerite even though she has glasses.

First, I can direct anybody anywhere I want to. You never use links to other websites? The link I posted is to the Education Forum after all! As far as Parker's book, I recommend it for the work debunking the H&L theory and for those interested in a reasonable conspiracy theory. I was not saying that LHO was a truant in NO, just that he had shown that school was not a priority for him so if he attended the minimum classes that wouldn't be a shock. As I have mentioned, Robert probably assumed that LHO attended Stripling because he did. But if he did, I am unaware of when it could have been but I will remain open to the idea if it makes sense in the context of the facts. If he did, it was for a very short time period but it was not when you postulate. You are relying on 30-40 years old recollections. The witnesses could be remembering Robert or are just wrong. They have been coached as part of a "witness recruitment program" as explained by Lifton. Lurkers can do a search here at EF to find more information on that. LHO enrolled at Beauregard January 13, 1954 and attended until the end of the school year in 1955. He then started at Warren Easton in September, 1955. Anybody that says otherwise is misreading records or mistaken (not necessarily lying). There are and will be contradictions in the record and professional investigators (police, FBI etc.) realize that fact. John Armstrong, who is not a professional investigator or researcher and does not even know how to use citations, does not realize it and thinks (or says he does) that every inconsistency is proof of 2 Oswalds.

No, that's what you folks think it does. Greg Parker has answered all this stuff ad nauseam so no need to reinvent the wheel. here is a typical thread that discusses the subject if anyone is interested: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/19762-harvey-and-lee-john-armstrong/&page=91#comment-313030 BTW, Parker explains the situation very clearly and succinctly in his book Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War vol. 2 in the section titled "Creating Mayhem With Historical Records."

I have an experiment for you Sandy. Go home and hit your wife once and only once. Then have her call the police. When they arrive, tell them you are not a "wife beater" you only hit your wife once. Let me know how it goes.