W. Tracy Parnell

Sandy, I think we are coming at this thing from different perspectives. I have been involved with Armstrong since the late 90s. I have seen too many instances where he is not being honest to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point and many researchers from the CT side agree with me. Both the BC and the “Marguerite never smiled” issues are really minor but illustrate a larger problem. In the case of the “smiling” issue, Armstrong had to know it was bogus. He was in close contact with Jack White who was his mentor. And a guy on the old JFK Research forum showed White that the “smiled” issue was wrong before H&L was published. But Armstrong used it anyway. A silly, small thing but why do it? Unless you are bent on misleading people. To be fair, a second motive may be the desire to use his all the research he obtained. In other words, he spent all the time and money doing the research so he was going to use it even if it was wrong. In the mid-nineties when he was getting started, you had to physically go out and obtain every document, interview and so on. And so may be a somewhat understandable tendency to use something once you have paid for it in money and sweat. But that is still not a good reason to mislead people in my view. The is a rumor that the H&L project was privately bankrolled and Armstrong didn’t pay for it. That would make sense because he is a successful businessman and I never could understand how he had all that time to waste when he could be making big money. But that is just a rumor and I cannot confirm it. Probably the most egregious thing Armstrong has done IMO is in the case of Stephen Landesberg. I won’t go into detail right now but I am working to get an old article series back online and I’ll post a link when I do. David Lifton is a top rate writer and researcher. I don’t agree with his theory but if he says he has a document or interview that states a fact you can probably bank on it. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Armstrong and history proves it. I am working on a project now and I can’t tell you the number of times I have tried to check one of his assertions and it took me half the day to find out he was wrong. It is almost like he doesn’t want people to check his work because he knows what they will find when they do. I hope he won’t mind me saying this here since it is a matter of public record, but probably the best example of a researcher changing his mind about Armstrong after learning the hard way is Dave Reitzes, another top shelf writer and researcher (he is a professional writer by trade if memory serves). Reitzes was originally a CT after seeing JFK the film and he was working with Armstrong in the same capacity that Jim Hargrove etc. do now. At some point, he began to question Armstrong and didn’t like the answers he received. There are letters between the two at Armstrong’s Baylor archive including one where Armstrong unbelievably tries to tell Reitzes how to write and research. I am sorry, but it is a fact that his book is one of the worst ever published from a writing and research standpoint and that is not my opinion but a simple fact. I am not a great writer, but I get people to help me such as my wife who is an expert proofreader. Anyway, here is a link to Dave’s story in a nutshell: Long Division I’ll say one nice thing about Armstrong so you don’t think I am an embittered LN whose only purpose is to badmouth all CT authors. Armstrong showed that the story Marguerite told about having her husband Robert buried the same day he died and his side of the family wouldn’t speak to her after that was false. Authors such as Bugliosi and others bought that because they assumed she would know the facts. But the evidence shows she simply lied for sympathy and because she was a raving lunatic. Armstrong went out and got the death notice that showed he was buried the next day which was common for the time. A small point but an important one for the completeness of the historic record. So, I will give credit when it is deserved and I will be using his book in my project even though it is a torturous process. I have found mistakes in virtually every book out there and I have read over 100 (not many by some standards perhaps but enough to know a little). Bugliosi, who wrote the best and most complete book whether you agree with it or not, made mistakes. In a case as enormous as this it happens. But when you study Armstrong you will find things over and over that don’t fall into the category of simple mistakes. And then you will find out what myself, Dave Reitzes and Greg Parker already know. That is, Armstrong manipulates the facts to fit his grand theory of the JFK case based on the ridiculous assertion of two Oswalds which has been disproved by scientific evidence and simple common sense.

Those are photos of the Marguerite imposter according to Armstrong. BTW, the one and only Marguerite reported her height on a passport from 1965 as 5' 2 and 1/2 inches. People shrink as they age but only about an inch or so. That means at her tallest she was 5' 4'' (being generous).

Agreed about the 2000 page book. But we have apparently convinced Sandy about the BC stuff so there is at least some point to a reasonable amount of effort. Not to toot my own horn too much, but before my exhumation article series about 17 years ago (or however long it has been) you heard a lot of CTs about the LHO exhumation. Not so much now-but it does take a great deal of work and the late Gary Mack helped me a great deal with that.

Wilmouth is referenced on pages 451, 461 and 475 according to the index.

Absolutely true!

Sandy, Not trying to "pile on" but here is another example of an Armstrong idea that was demonstrably false and he knew it or should have known it: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/marguerite-never-smiled.html At some point you have to ask why he does these things and the answer I come up with is to mislead or confuse people. Another thing about Armstrong that angers me is that he doesn't defend himself-he gets Jim Hargrove or David Josephs to do it. Back in the late 90s when I got started with Armstrong his excuse was he wasn't on the Internet. What is his excuse in 2017?

Sandy, I give you a lot of credit for seeing the truth. Now if we can talk you out of the entire H&L theory that would be better than the nickel.:)

If I may pat myself on the back, and I may, I got involved in this silliness by actually attempting to check a few footnotes in my very own copy of H&L, with which I was duly impressed at the time. On too many occasions for comfort, I discovered that Armstrong's sources, such as Wilmouth's supposed statement to the FBI, did not exist. However, my experience with the Flat Earthers has given me a new appreciation as to why demonstrable facts don't even dent the tinfoil hats of True Believers. At one time I entertained the concept of writing a book to refute Armstrong. I soon realized that it would take around 2000 pages to refute his nearly 1000 pages of nonsense. So I do a little here and there. The number of instances where there is no citation or an incorrect citation is astounding.

Oh, Lord, it never ends. Your "source" is a fellow Harvey & Lee loon who likewise parroted Armstrong's theories on the Postal Money Order, including the non-existent Wilmouth affidavit that is cited in H&L but does not exist. He is precisely who I was referring to in my original post here, when I mentioned people who mistakenly assume the current Louisiana statutes must be identical to the 1939 statutes. I determined that he was repeating what he had picked up from someone else on yet another forum, who was likewise referring to the current statutes. That's why I reproduced the current statute - the above is not even an accurate summary of it! You are making precisely my point as to why H&L fans are the Flat Earthers of JFK research: Armstrong does sloppy research ... his mistakes are repeated like gospel by folks such as your "source" ... these mistakes then take on a life of their own, with no one ever bothering to ask "Where did that come from?" or "What is the original source of that?" ... and then some fifth-generation version of one of the mistakes is cited on a thread such as this as "further proof" that Armstrong was correct. Beat me to it Lance and took the words right out of my mouth. Flat Earth Society indeed.

This document is virtually identical to what Harvey Oswald filed (see link above). If anything it is a declaration of birth or an affidavit of birth. Go back and read the information Lance Payette posted here. There are two documents in question. The likelihood is that CE 800 followed the Harvey Oswald document. CE 800 may not be a BC per se, but it could be (and was) used for the same purpose. There is no mystery here despite John Armstrong's attempt to get people to believe otherwise-that is the point.

Sandy, How do you know that the birth date is in question? Maybe the existence of the "True" birth certificate is. I think it's a perfectly good and valid question to ask why the WC didn't get a certified copy of Oswald's "True" birth certificate. Like the one I posted above. As Lance Payette points out a “true” birth certificate for that era may not have existed. I maintain that CE 800, which states the date of birth and that the birth was registered, is what Oswald thought was a BC and was presented and accepted as such (we have at least one documented example of him doing that). The WC didn’t go any further because there was no need to. They had two documents that stated the date of birth and every time LHO was asked for his date of birth on whatever form he put 10/18/39. No mystery. Oswald was born at home? I thought he was born in a hospital. If he was born at home, and if what I said above is correct, then the CE 800 would indeed be the birth certificate. But not a certified one. No, I was referring to the document you posted. That was a home birth. LHO was born in the old French Hospital. I don't know what you mean by "the affidavit." The affidavit filed by Harvey Oswald (Armstrong refers to this as a declaration of birth which it may be). See page 33 of this link: http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/2510

My contention has been that Harvey Oswald filed an affidavit for some specific reason. The information you provide seems to confirm my idea. There is a logical succession. Harvey Oswald files an affidavit. The same day, CE 800 is issued (or whatever the term would be). The next day, a birth notice appears in the newspaper. One event follows the other. No mystery-except to the students of H&L.

Lance, Thanks for your participation here. At least you are an attorney. The rest of us are just speculating. I doubt Marguerite had any other document such as a birth certificate. The reason I say that is she sold virtually everything she had and something like that would have fetched a good dollar. I didn't miss the PO thread-I read the whole thing. I have been hesitant to contact any officials because I am afraid that once they find out the nature of my interest that will be the end of the conversation. One thing is for sure to me. We know when LHO was born and there is no mystery.

Lance, So what you are saying is that CE 800 was as close to a BC as Oswald had? Is there any chance that the Harvey Oswald affidavit is a BC? In your opinion what would be the purpose of the Harvey Oswald affidavit? Edit-never mind I just reread it and understand what you saying.

First, let’s remember what is driving this whole debate. It is John Armstrong and people like him who think there is something (and that something is never specified of course) wrong with the Oswald birth documents. In his book, Armstrong states: Bugliosi summed up the situation perfectly: Now we have Jim Hargrove saying that Armstrong is not disputing Oswald’s (or “a” Oswald’s) birth date. So why is Armstrong wasting good trees and everyone’s time if he isn’t disputing Oswald’s birth date? The answer is that he is trying to create doubt about the veracity of the documents so that readers (who tend to disbelieve the official version of events anyway) will think something fishy is going on without having to go to the trouble of defining what that something is. That is the context of this debate. I am trying to explain to people that Armstrong is playing them for a fool with this entire affair. A good example of what I am talking about come from Duncan MacRae’s forum from a CT named Rob Caprio. He says: That thread ended up being 27 pages. That’s a lot of time and bandwidth for a non-issue. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,13200.0.html Sandy, you say I am wrong and CE 800 is not a BC. Where is it then? There are only two documents in the record that could qualify-the two being discussed here. And what is the significance if I am wrong? We know what day Oswald and everyone else thought he was born from numerous documents. When do you think he was born, what is your proof that it was any other day and for what purpose was this charade undertaken? What document was Oswald’s official birth certificate? I maintain it was CE 800. Who else thought CE 800 was Oswald’s birth certificate? Oswald and his mother did for starters. We know this since “BC # 17034” (the number on CE 800) is listed as proof of age for entry into the NYC schools (22 H 693; CD 28 4). While I have found no other documents that specially give the number 17034, it is common sense that the same document was used as proof of birth throughout Oswald’s life. What document did the DPD think was Oswald’s birth certificate? CD 800 (see 24 H 343) What document did the FBI think was Oswald’s birth certificate? In most cases, CD 800 (see, for example, CD 735, 44). In at least one case, they thought Armstrong’s “declaration of birth” from Harvey Oswald was (FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 6, p. 205-6). I still maintain that CE 800 was Oswald’s birth certificate or he thought it was and used it throughout his life as such. I can tell you with complete certainty that either CE 800 or the Harvey Oswald affidavit is the birth certificate. If someone can show I am wrong and produce some other document, I will update my article to reflect that fact. Regarding the documents you show here-they are from 1909 which is 30 years removed from Oswald and that is possibly significant. The first image that you say is a birth certificate looks like an affidavit to me and actually bolsters Armstrong’s argument for the “declaration of birth” business. This was a home birth and such a document would be used in the manner Armstrong suggests-to declare that a child was born outside of a hospital as is the case here. If this image indeed shows a birth certificate (the source is a genealogy site-who knows if they know what they are talking about, anyone can put anything on the Internet) then I would say the Harvey Oswald affidavit is really Oswald’s birth certificate and not CE 800. The second image you have just certifies that it is a true copy, nothing else. Harvey Oswald’s affidavit has similar language at the bottom. There is a major difference between the third Image and CE 800. The third image is obviously a receipt and states that fact (it starts “received from”). But both CE 800 and the Capote document say “this is to CERTIFY that LHO/Capote … was born etc.” The format of the documents is similar but all birth, marriage and death certificates from New Orleans in this time period share that format as an Internet search will show. While I still believe CE 800 was Oswald’s BC, I will admit that the Harvey Oswald affidavit could be considered the birth certificate. But both documents show the same date of birth and Armstrong/Hargrove are apparently not disputing that date. What Armstrong is trying to do is muddy the waters and make people believe there is something nefarious going on in the case of Oswald’s BC. Whatever the exact truth, Oswald was born on October 18, 1939-period. But I will say this-if I am wrong about CE 800, somebody better contact AbeBooks and tell them they are selling a fraudulent birth certificate for 35 K.

Its all laid out in my article Jim. Besides hinting that something funny is going on, Armstrong says that the document (a copy of which is found in CE 800) is not a birth certificate. I make the case that there was a logical progression-Harvey Oswald filed an affidavit (which Armstrong calls a declaration of birth). The reason he had to do this probably had something to do with the death of Robert Sr. Next, a birth certificate was issued (the same day as the affidavit). Finally, a newspaper birth notice appeared. Along the way I look at things like the myth of the Hoover/Impostor theory which researcher Paul Hoch shows actually originated with an agent named Good and not Hoover as Armstrong (in his TFD article only not the book) and numerous CT books would have you believe.

Thanks very much Gary!

My article has now been updated with information provided by noted researcher Paul Hoch regarding the origin of the Hoover/impostor theory.

Sounds like Armstrong may have some competition now Jim. But seriously, if you read it please post your review. BTW, just in case lurkers didn't see the separate thread here is a link to my new article which discusses Armstrong and the Oswald birth certificate: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html

Yes Tommy, I guess they had him on standby!

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html John Armstrong and his followers believe there is something funny about CE 800 which is Oswald's birth certificate. This piece rebuts their assertions.

Jim, Marguerite was under no obligation to use the information the journalist gave her. I think he was honestly just trying to help. Pic was probably seeing those photos for the first time and for whatever reason didn't think they looked like his brother. BTW, what is the title of the book you refer to?

All that proves is that he wasn't familiar with that particular photo. What was stopping him from saying that there were two Oswalds if such were the case? Marguerite had a poor memory for details and did indeed make many mistakes. Many errors turn up during the Carro interview which leads to the conclusion that Carro was possibly responsible for at least some of the mistakes during his transcription of the interview. Marguerite was reading from a script in a sense. A journalist whose name escapes me gave her some notes to work from as a courtesy.

Marguerite testified to the WC that she moved to NYC to be with family (John Pic). So once again you are relying on an anomaly in the record. And as you point out, Jacobi wasn't even open at the time.

You may doubt it but they didn't. The Norton Report states: "The mastoid prominence of the left temporal bone revealed an irregularly ovoid 1.0- by 0.5-cm defect pene­trating to the interior of the mastoid bone with the defect edges rounded and smooth." DiMaio's new book says: "Its man-made edges were rounded and smooth, healed but not natural. It was an old lesion that couldn’t be faked." I should have a new article ready later this week. Nothing earth shaking but I think it will interest forum members.