W. Tracy Parnell

Jim, Take care of yourself and I hope your hand heals quickly.

Bump for the above question to Hargrove/Josephs.

The update to my article is now live. Special thanks to Lance Payette, Jim Hargrove and Sandy Larsen for helping to resolve the issue. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html

Let’s not be silly David. Do you or Armstrong present all the conflicting evidence on every point relating to the H&L theory? Of course not and nobody expects you to. I am attempting to refute your version. Researchers can find all the facts on their own and decide. Our relationship is like attorneys in a courtroom. Each attorney explains their side, they don’t explain both sides. If you believe I am misrepresenting something you can point that out. Be neither of us are under an obligation to argue for the other side. We probably both have better things to do than argue the H&L theory. I’ll just leave everyone with one thought. There are some anomalies in the documentation, that is true. However, most of the H&L theory is based on witnesses. One example out of many-instead of the 1981 exhumation which provides scientific evidence that the theory is false, Jim Hargrove would prefer you believe a witness (Robertson) who says Marguerite told her that LHO was going to Jacobi (which didn’t exist at the time) for mental tests. Hargrove then asks you to believe that instead of mental tests “Harvey” was given a mastoid operation to match “Lee”. Just one case out of many where Armstrong supporters say a dubious witness statement trumps scientific or other hard evidence. The problem with witnesses is people can and do say things that are false for any number of reasons. In the 2015 case of Richard Matt and David Sweat, who broke out of prison in NY, over 2000 sightings were reported to police. 2 were accurate. People “saw” them in parts of the state where they never were. Now I will admit that these witnesses are not completely relatable to what we are talking about since they probably expected to get a reward for what they were saying and that is the motive for many of them. But this does make the point that witnesses must be evaluated carefully and preference given to those who are verified by other evidence. But H&L gives priority to witnesses that help the theory no matter how dubious.

Lance, I contacted the Louisiana State Archives and an employee there agrees with your assessment and believes that the document Hargrove provided is the BC. The employee also mentioned the "keep this for future reference" as proof. My BC article will be updated with this information and I'll post here when finished. Thanks again!

The only "mystery" is why Armstrong went around for years implying there was something funny about LHO's birth records, especially considering that he undoubtedly had this BC (if this is really it) before he published his book in 2003. I never believed the Corso stuff anyway since it was based on his word alone and I don't take anybody's word without documentation or some other evidence. Anyway, thanks for your help and expertise in this matter.

Lance, So where are we at in your opinion. Which document is the BC or is neither? I don't see how this could be the official BC since LA is a closed state as you point out and Armstrong would not be able to obtain it not being family. I will agree that there is no mystery other than why Armstrong ever made a big deal out of this to begin with.

What he is describing, I believe, is the exact same document that appears on page 33 here: http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/2510

That doesn't surprise me since Armstrong thought the Harvey Oswald affidavit (declaration of birth) was the BC back in 1997 (p. 45): http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/2510 Is it now Armstrong's position that this document is the BC (which is certainly possible)? Or has he simply forgotten what the unknown correspondent (Hewitt?) told him back then that apparently convinced him otherwise?

This type of analysis is often seen on various forums. There are two problems here. I believe the only way this is valid is if the two photos are taken such that the individual is facing the camera in the exact same way. In other words, the tilt of the head up/down and left/right is the same. Of course, unless the photos are taken under controlled conditions, this is not possible. Another issue is your contention that people do not change. They do of course, and these photos are 11 years apart according to Robert Oswald. Gravity influences everything as those of us who are older (like myself) realize. As I said, to me the gif shows the aging process perfectly. Even the teeth are the same and I think a case could be made by a photo expert for that. Yes I can, he simply reported his height (or it was misreported) as 5-11 instead of the 5-9 it actually was. These types of discrepencies, which are a normal part of life, have allowed Armstrong to create his theory which is a very clever one. There are no photos or instances where a measurement is known to have been taken (as opposed to given orally) that show LHO was taller than 5-9. As for Marguerite sightings, Marguerite’s apparently pathological need to change addresses has allowed Armstrong to play with the facts. Magruder said she saw Marguerite ‘about” 3 years previously. She was relying on her memory with no documentary evidence and memory is fallible. Same with Duane who qualified her sighting by saying “3 or 4 years ago”. I will be working on Marguerite’s addresses and eventually hope to tie some of this down, but all discrepancies may not be resolvable. As for your photo collage, you seem to think that I may not have seen these photos before and if I will just look at them they will somehow change my mind which is not true of course. When a vast body of evidence exists, as it does in the JFK case, discrepancies and inconsistencies will exist in the record. Most of these have an alternate explanation or are non-issues. In the case of the remaining discrepancies, there is another explanation even if it is only a document or witness is wrong. An illogical leap of faith such as two Oswalds is not required to explain them.

I am not a photo analyst, It would be impossible for the shadows to "fall the exact same way as the BYP" IMO because the photos are taken in different locations in the world and latitude/longitude would make a difference.

Question for David Josephs: Can you confirm Hargrove's assertion about the BC and that Armstrong may have emailed such a document to you?

I have a (non-confrontational) question for Jim Hargrove/David Josephs. At the Armstrong/Baylor files is found the following document (p. 4): http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/2517/rec/1 This is an interesting document because it confirms the date of Marguerite's marriage to Ekdahl-May 5, 1945. As you may know, the date is mentioned in some records as May 7 instead of the 5th. Small point, but important for the historic record. My question did Armstrong obtain this document himself or was it found in some existing government files? I don't see anything that indicates it was in the FBI files or anything and it looks like Armstrong may have obtained this on his own. If so, I would like to give him credit for that in any future projects I do.

Thanks for posting the gif progression which shows perfectly IMO the natural aging process. As far as the other documents they are unrelated to the subject of this thread-photos of Marguerite (which you admit by calling the subject "low hanging fruit" is not of Armstrong's best arguments). No, I cannot (and neither can anyone else) address all of the anomalies in this case-that is impossible considering the amount of evidence that exists. I would point out that professional investigators (police, FBI. etc.) are aware of the fact that when they make a case there will be some evidence that does not support it. However, I reject your assertion that I should not (be allowed?) to post here until I can answer all of your assertions. That would be like me saying that you can't post until you answer the scientific proof that the H&L theory is wrong such as the exhumation and handwriting (other than saying LHO had a mastoid operation at Jacobi Hospital as Hargrove has suggested or the old standby that everything is faked). So we have a standoff there. I also reject your assertion that I haven't done any research-I debunked the exhumation issues about 20 years ago when it was a hot CT topic. Of course, I had help from the late Gary Mack (fantastic man) and work that M. Duke Lane had done previously. The issue of Oswald in Taiwan is one that will probably never be fully answered unless some new document appears. If memory serves, the WC and HSCA disagreed on that as well. LHO was almost certainly in Taiwan but spent time in sick bay which resulted in conflicting records. I am working on a project where I will eventually look at that in detail but I don't expect to find a definitive answer-only an educated guess.

Not that I am aware of. The photo most often used by Armstrong to represent the "tall beautiful" Marguerite is her wedding picture from 1945. Armstrong also used this photo to how tall this Marguerite was since she appears to be not much shorter than Ekdahl who Armstrong claims is over six feet (per John Pic). But researcher Greg Parker found several documents that show Ekdahl's height was listed as 5-10 to 5-11. And since men are known to exaggerate their height when asked, it is a good bet he was no taller than 5-10. And Marguerite was wearing heels and as I have mentioned was no taller than 5-4 at the time and with the heels and allowing for uneven ground the photo is consistent with the height. As for Marguerite's appearance, she was getting married so she could be expected to look as good as possible. The photo Armstrong normally uses to compare is the one where she was standing by a sink in the kitchen nearly 20 years later in her nightgown and undoubtedly didn't expect to be photographed.

Lurkers will notice that Hargrove has not responded. That is because according to Armstrong, these photos represent the "short, dumpy, imposter" employed as a caretaker of LHO by the CIA. And she never smiled. Seems like a small point but it becomes "curiouser" when you read the full context per my article: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/marguerite-never-smiled.html

That is apparently what happened: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57674&search=harvey_oswald+birth+certificate#relPageId=205&tab=page This is just a bad copy of the same declaration that Armstrong obtained.

If Armstrong's track record is an indication, it will never happen and that is my prediction, which I will retract if I am wrong. We are still waiting for the document that Armstrong supposedly "found" that shows Aline Mosby wrote "North Dakota" instead of New Orleans. Lance Payette has referenced a document regarding Robert Wilmouth that seems to be missing and Armstrong can't provide. Of course, if Armstrong did have such a birth document we know there is nothing fishy about it. Because in that case, his and Hargrove's "concern" about legal issues would no doubt disappear and the document would be everywhere on the Internet immediately. And BTW Jim, if you say you have the document but can't release it, nobody is going to believe that you really have it. With the number of documented whoppers in H&L (starting with the whole concept) Armstrong doesn't inspire confidence. Of course, as Hargrove admits, we know what the document will say if it does exist and is produced-that LHO was born 10/18/39 with no funny business. And the whole reason for this debate is that Armstrong (and a few others) have been trying to insinuate for years that something is wrong or being hidden involving LHO's birth. So, if such a document exists and is produced and shows what it must show-does that mean Armstrong has debunked himself?

Simple solution Jim, you can just tell us what it says if you don't want to post it. Of course, many people might be skeptical if you don't. If Josephs and "others" have it, it will leak out eventually anyway. BTW, why didn't you ask him what the DOB was?

I wondered if Truman Capote was a hospital or home birth. If he was a home birth you could make the case that LHO's BC shouldn't look like his since the circumstances were different. According to People Magazine and a few other sources, Capote was a hospital birth like LHO: http://people.com/archive/truman-capote-vol-15-no-3/

Sandy Larsen, Here is the link to my original piece on Stephen Landesberg from 2015 and a follow-up piece: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-hoaxster-and-conspiracy-theorists.html http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/armstrong-evolving-landesberg-theory.html The first article outlines the true story of Landesberg, Armstrong's theory per his book and my rebuttal. The second piece chronicles the transformation of Armstrong's views (as published at Hargrove's website) which was motivated by my work. It also covers how Armstrong was forced to change the H&L website after my research and the find of researcher Tom Scully. A lot of material to cover but even a cursory look will tell you much about Armstrong's methods IMO.

My advice-contact AbeBooks and tell them they are not selling an original birth certificate. You might even get a finder's fee for saving them a lawsuit.

Jim, Why do you keep taking up good bandwidth posting the 1971 BC? All it shows is that a lot of things have changed since 1939. We all know that. Lance is saying that CE 800 may be all there is because of the way things were done then. If there is some other “official” BC you or I wouldn’t be able to get access to it for the non-nefarious reasons he has stated. We are criticizing Armstrong because he is suggesting something fishy is going on when it is quite obvious to all reasonable people that is not the case. The bottom line is there is no mystery here. Armstrong is being taken to task for insinuating there is one including the Corso stuff. I didn’t address that in my article but I am looking into it now.

Jeremy, Excellent analysis and a nice looking website. I bought your book as well which looks like a great read.

Jim, As attorney Lance Payette has shown, a 1971 BC has nothing to do with 1939. My website will be updated if and when 100% accurate information is provided regarding LHO's birth certificate. As it stands, what is in my article is essentially correct. I believe that the 2 documents we have are all that exists regarding LHO's birth. Even you and Armstrong admit when he was born unless you are changing your tune on that as well. There is no mystery here and anyone that says there is a mystery is misleading people for their own reasons. Bugliosi said it best: