W. Tracy Parnell

Well at least Jim has attempted to answer the mastoid issues. But I guess the CIA had the two boys lined up for this plot by the time they were both six years old. The reason I say this is that both the Norton Report on the exhumation and Dr. DiMaio's new book state that the mastoid scar had the appearance expected of an 18-year-old defect. That's some plot.

Sandy, This reply is in the context of the Harvey and Lee debate as I limit my interest to Oswald and his life since I believe that is the key to everything. It is tough to respond to what you say if you don’t believe the government at all. I understand skepticism of the government, but I also believe in science and the various government entities used that very well in this case. For example, the HSCA hired three of the best handwriting experts in the country for their study of Oswald. As I mentioned, you must believe they were incompetent (which is really impossible) or in on the plot. And if they were in on it what is to stop other handwriting experts from reviewing their work in the ensuing years and repudiating it? Regarding the exhumation, I would encourage you to read my article series: http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/xindex.htm Yes, government people were used in the exhumation (almost all forensics people work for government entities), but there were plenty of people who could have come forward (such as private security) to report on any funny business. Of course, Paul Groody, who embalmed Oswald, did come forward and his “remembrances” confused people for years until people like M. Duke Lane and Gary Mack became involved and helped to set the record straight. Mack was initially critical of the exhumation, but came around after studying the evidence. I interviewed someone who saw the video of the exhumation and he confirmed it happened the way the doctors said it did. BTW, this person was a conspiracy advocate (he asked to remain anonymous). So, I am very confident that the exhumation disproves the Harvey & Lee theory and the Armstrong camp has never responded to my arguments. As I mentioned before, if someone wants to believe an Oswald impersonation happened that is one thing, but to swallow two Oswalds is another. As far as debating Jim, that is what we are doing on this forum I guess. BTW, Vincent DiMaio, who was one of four physicians at the exhumation, has a new book called Morgue: A Life in Death that I highly recommend. It has a very detailed account of the exhumation from his point of view.

Excellent analysis Jeremy. Another instance of Armstrong taking a small anomaly and running with it is found in the case of Palmer McBride. McBride holds a special place for Armstrong as it was his 1963 statement to the FBI that eventually launched the Harvey & Lee theory. Indeed, Armstrong explains all this beginning on page 3 of his book in a section titled "The Beginning of My Project." McBride recalled that he had worked and socialized with LHO in New Orleans in 1957 and 1958, a period when the Marine Corps records showed he was overseas. Instead of accepting the obvious, that McBride was mistaken, Armstrong uses his statement as the catalyst for his theory that McBride knew "Harvey" while "Lee" was in the service. Armstrong asks a couple of questions in this section of his book which lay the groundwork for a rebuttal: They didn't ignore it, they simply knew that documented facts are better than the recollections of a witness, no matter how well meaning and sincere that person may be. The Warren Commission was operating under a strict time frame imposed by Lyndon Johnson. McBride was on a list of people that the commission hoped to interview. Ultimately, it was probably decided that since other evidence showed McBride's assertions were incorrect, it was not necessary to call him as a witness. What Armstrong fails to realize is that had McBride testified before the commission, he almost certainly would have been confronted with the documentation that showed he was in error and would have retracted his statement. I say this because that is exactly what happened when researcher David Lifton interviewed McBride on camera in October of 1994. This is a short but relevant excerpt from that interview: When confronted with documentary evidence that LHO was overseas in 57-58, McBride admitted on camera in 1994 that he was simply mistaken. Later, Armstrong convinced McBride that he had been correct in his original statement after all. Apparently, Armstrong also convinced McBride that he was an important witness to a piece of the Harvey & Lee scenario and McBride later appeared at various conferences telling his story. But the documentary evidence and McBride's own 1994 statement, which predated Armstrong's indoctrination of him with the Harvey & Lee theory, show that McBride was simply mistaken in his original 1963 statement. More powerful evidence that McBride was mistaken comes from researcher Greg Parker, who has done much good work debunking the Harvey & Lee theory. In McBride's statement to the FBI, he reported: But as Parker points out, Oswald and his mother moved to Fort Worth two years previously in 1956. And there are no reports of riots in Fort Worth in 1958, but there are indeed reports from 1956 and Parker provides a scan of a typical article from the period. Why McBride Was Wrong In conclusion, one of the key pillars of Armstrong's research is Palmer McBride. Unfortunately, McBride's assertions are demonstrably incorrect.

So Jim is claiming that some of the top experts in the country were in on the plot or incompetent. That is all he can do I suppose.

Sandy, I have provided the evidence in a post on page 4 of this thread. One thing you will find is I don't engage in ad hominem attacks. I think Armstrong has done some good research and I have said that quite often. Jim Hargrove is a good guy and very articulate advocate for Armstrong. I do maintain the theory has been debunked for the reasons I list on page 4. If someone wants to argue, for example, that a certain Oswald sighting is an impersonation that is one thing. But what you would have to believe to think there were two Oswalds taxes credulity IMO. Just for starters, you would have to believe that the exhumation was somehow faked or that Harvey and Lee were given identical mastoid operations at the age of six since the physicians at the exhumation observed that the mastoid defect looked exactly like it would after several years time. You would have to believe that the HSCS handwriting and photo experts were either in on the plot or completely incompetent (they were among the best in the country at the time). You would have to believe that just about all of Oswald's family was in on the plot. You would have to believe that the Marguerite Oswald that testified before the WC was really a CIA employee even though she went around for years spouting the most ridiculous theories such as LHO's killing of JFK was a "mercy killing" since JFK was ill. And if she was really a CIA employee wouldn't she be trying to keep a low profile? She sought every bit of attention from the media that she could find and always charged money for it. Why would a true CIA employee do that? Somewhere there is a document by a Garrison staffer reporting on a lengthy phone conversation with Marguerite. They even concluded she was a nut. Besides the things I posted on page 4 the "short dumpy" Marguerite is the other best reason to disbelieve the theory IMO. If you would like to discuss any aspect of the H&L theory I will be glad to do so. I can't explain every discrepancy in the record but I usually can offer another explanation.

Even though Jeremy Bojczuk has kindly posted a link to an article of mine, perhaps a quick review of the strongest evidence against the Harvey & Lee theory is in order considering there is at least some interest in this thread: The most compelling evidence is the 1981 exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald which was done to refute a similar conspiracy theory from author Michael Eddowes. According to Armstrong’s theory, “Harvey” is supposed to be buried in the Fort Worth grave while “Lee” may be “very much alive”. Unfortunately, “Harvey” has a mastoid operation from 1946 that “Lee” was supposed to have. A document (18 H 455) from “Harvey’s” medical treatment in the Soviet Union again shows he had the mastoid scar. Another document that mentions the scar is found in “Harvey’s” Marine Corps enlistment papers (WC Donabedian Exhibit No. 1). Oddly, although my articles on the exhumation were published in the late 1990s, Armstrong said nothing about it in 2003 his book and has ignored it to this day. Another powerful argument for rebutting the Armstrong theory is made by the HSCA handwriting analysis. The HSCA panel examined 63 handwriting samples when conducting their study. I reasoned that, by classifying these samples as “Harvey” and “Lee”, I could check for any discrepancies. I found many such discrepancies and selected six samples (three of each man) as the basis for my article “Harvey & Lee: The Handwriting is on the Wall" which was published in the Kennedy Assassination Chronicles in 2001 and can be found at the following link: Handwriting Article Jim Hargrove has maintained that the HSCA study was flawed because some of the documents used were copies and that forensic document examiners prefer originals. While it is true that document examiners prefer to work with originals, it is a fact that most of the documents reviewed by the forensic panel were indeed originals. All the documents that I selected for my article were originals as well. The bottom line is that the handwriting experts found that the same individual wrote most of the samples that should be either “Harvey” or “Lee”. A photo analysis, also by the HSCA, is another solid proof that the Armstrong theory is bogus. Unfortunately, most of the photos selected for analysis by the committee were of “Harvey” since their work was not done to specifically refute Armstrong of course. However, a December, 1956, photo which is supposed to be “Lee”, according to Armstrong, was compared with several photos of “Harvey” and the HSCA photo panel proved using morphological data that the photos were of the same individual.

Good point Thomas. If memory serves, I believe Oswald was teased when he first arrived in NY because of the way he talked. He just eventually lost most of the accent because of his various environments.

Not the typical young man born in the south, but he spent nearly three years in Russia which would certainly have an effect on his accent. Which is why he can't be compared to someone like Robert BTW who didn't.

But the "evidence" consists of a crank phone call and one professor's opinion that a letter from Oswald was written by a Russian with an imperfect knowledge of English. That's it.

Happy New Year to you too Jim. I like the registered trademark for the "Harvey & Lee Menace" and got a good laugh from it. No one can say you don't have a sense of humor! I got sick early last year and it took some time to get back in the swing of things and that's why I haven't been around. As far as my research only being tied to only debunking Armstrong, my article series on the LHO exhumation while it was partly directed to Armstrong's theory, still provided an important overview of the subject in my opinion. The late Gary Mack, who helped me during my research, thought so as well. I am currently working on a project (not about Armstrong) that I hope will be of general interest to researchers and I will let you know when it is finished. However, I do have some Armstrong things in the pipeline as well and one will be finished soon. Titovets, of course, wanted to hear Oswald speak in an English accent and that was the purpose of making the tape. Oswald never exhibited much of an accent in any recordings of him probably because he lost it during his time in Russia.

Karl Kinaski is quite correct when he states that the article by John Delane Williams debunks Armstrong’s silly assertion that Oswald (Harvey per Armstrong) never spoke a word of Russian in the Soviet Union since he didn’t know who would be reporting what he said to the KGB. Armstrong’s assertion is based on his interview with Ana Evelina Ziger thirty-eight years after she had met Oswald (many of Armstrong’s “revelations” come from witnesses years and years after the fact). The Williams article lays out a compelling case for Oswald speaking Russian. Briefly summarizing, Titovets says he spoke Russian. Marina says he spoke Russian. Ella Germann spoke no English and this is confirmed by the fact that they dub in English in the documentaries she has appeared in that I have seen (can’t remember the titles right now). So, it seems Germann carried on all of her conversations during her relationship with Oswald in Russian. Vladimir Zhidovich, who worked at the radio plant factory in Minsk with Oswald says he spoke Russian. Dr. Alexander Mastykin, a medical student who knew Oswald says he spoke Russian. Oswald had a Russian tutor-does Armstrong think he never spoke Russian then either? And so on. In fact, in a 1995 interview Ana Ziger herself says Oswald spoke Russian albeit poorly (more on that coming up). However, I am more interested in talking about Jim Hargrove’s somewhat puzzling comments in this thread concerning Titovets. Hargrove is, of course, still promoting the long-debunked John Armstrong double Oswald theory and misrepresenting the evidence in doing so. Hargrove says that the record is clear that Ana Ziger knew Oswald and on that point he is correct. But he tries to boost Ana Ziger’s credibility on the issue of Oswald speaking no Russian by telling us that the Warren Report (of all sources for him to rely on) mentions the Zigers five times. However, he seems to doubt that Ernst Titovets knew Oswald saying only that he “may” have, and that Titovets is only mentioned in the WR in reference to Oswald’s “suspect” historic diary. But a quick search on Mary Ferrell’s site for “Titovets” turns up 150 references (some may be duplicates) to original documents which is quite a few for someone that only “may” have known Oswald. Oddly, Armstrong himself seems to believe Titovets knew Oswald, writing on page 289 of his book, “An English-speaking medical student, Erich (Ernst) Titovets, first met Oswald at the Hotel Minsk [actually it was at the Zigers] and later was a regular visitor to his apartment.” Titovets certainly knew the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald and it is clear from the evidentiary record that he is no Judith Vary Baker. The facts are these: The CIA ran a name check on Titovets in 1964, so they certainly thought he knew Oswald. The name Ernst Titovets (probably written by Titovets himself) appears in Oswald’s address book on page 69. Titovets corresponded with both Oswald and Marina after they returned to the US which would be odd if he didn’t know them. Finally, Titovets made a tape recording of Oswald in December, 1961 to study his accent. The tape, in which Oswald famously pretended to be a murderer, was featured in the Frontline program “Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald.” To believe Titovets didn’t know Oswald you would have to add this tape to the long list of evidence that was somehow faked. But Armstrong and Hargrove would probably be ok with that since they apparently believe that Titovets is either a CIA or KGB plant, although to my knowledge they have not incorporated specific information about this concept into the Harvey & Lee theory but perhaps that is in the works. Of course, a foundational element of the Harvey & Lee theory is that anything that doesn’t fit the theory is faked or somehow controlled by the CIA or FBI. In fact, look for Hargrove to respond to me here by saying that very thing because that is all they can do. In the case of Ana Ziger’s statement about Oswald speaking no Russian, Armstrong/Hargrove do what they always do-ignore the weight of the evidence from other sources and attach major significance to an incongruous witness statement (think Palmer McBride, the basis for the whole Armstrong theory). In this instance in fact, they even ignore contradictory statements from Ana Ziger who in a 1995 article published in Argentina stated “Nobody could say anything [about obvious lies by Oswald] because he spoke Russian poorly. Dad would translate and we didn’t know him.” So, he spoke Russian poorly, but he did speak it per Ana Ziger. A second quote from the article, this time by Eleonora Ziger, again alludes to Oswald speaking Russian poorly. “… Alik could not explain it [how Marina should behave in the US] to her in Russian, so Marina would ask me.” If you ignore side detours, the record on Oswald’s knowledge of Russian is clear enough. He probably made the decision to defect after his experience in the brig and his effort to learn the Russian language begins about the same time as his assignment to El Toro/Santa Ana in December, 1958. There, he took a proficiency test (which he failed) and other Marines were aware that he was learning the language. But by the time he arrived in the Soviet Union he still had only a rudimentary ability in the language. And that ability was gradually improving when he met the Zigers in 1960. But according to Titovets, who met Oswald in September of that same year, he spoke “adequate” Russian but was still sometimes “tongue tied” during conversation. So, Alexander Ziger, who spoke English, simply translated for Oswald as a matter of convenience as the Ziger sisters confirm in the Argentine article. In March, 1961, Oswald met Marina and by then he could obviously speak Russian well enough to start a relationship with her since there is no documented evidence (I am aware of Dick Russell’s undocumented assertions which I don’t find convincing) that Marina spoke a word of English in Russia and only spoke a few words by the time of the assassination. So, there is a logical evolution of his ability if you disregard the occasional contrary witness and consider the weight of the evidence. Oswald’s ability with Russian is a subject that I would like to write about in detail someday and I think a compelling case can be made that it was very much evolutionary and non-suspicious. However, I will agree with Armstrong on one point. Oswald gradually became aware that he was being watched by the KGB and there certainly are examples in the record where he pretended to not understand Russian to avoid having conversations with individuals who might report to the authorities (such as when he was in Botkin hospital). But not to the point, as Armstrong maintains, of not speaking Russian at all. To sum up, Hargrove is caught trying to diminish a witness (Titovets) who is openly critical of this aspect of the Armstrong theory and bolster another who has made statements contradictory with the weight of the evidence and even her own previous assertions.

Can we please get past the ridiculous assertion that one has to read every word in H&L in order to express an opinion on any given subject? Greg Parker or anyone else can go to the book and look through the index and read everything Armstrong wrote about Hartogs for example and then be fully qualified to discuss Armstrong's theory on that particular issue. Why is that concept so difficult for the H&L people to grasp? Let me quote from an EF poster named Lee Farley who said it best: "One of the tactics generally fired at you from the H&L supporters, in an effort to dismiss you, is to challenge whether you have read the book. First of all - - you CANNOT READ this book in the conventional sense of reading a book. It is not a page turner. It is a reference book that contains a thinly held together narrative of nonsense." Should we suppose Lee Farley now has the last word re H&L? C'mon Parnell... The lone nut camp has made a career of late criticizing an independent JFK assassination researcher who sponsored his own researcher (time and money) privately published his own work and distributed his own work... That about right? Actually, if you check forums like McAdams and Duncan Macrae where there are quite a few LNs, they care very little about Armstrong and pay scant attention to him and his theory, at least in recent years. I have received the most reaction with my critical pieces at forums such as this where CTs predominate. Your intentions re H&L, please? Simply to convince people that the theory is incorrect so they can focus their research efforts elsewhere.

Larry, Thanks for the link, this seems to be a very fair-minded study that will provide food for thought for researchers of all persuasions.

Can we please get past the ridiculous assertion that one has to read every word in H&L in order to express an opinion on any given subject? Greg Parker or anyone else can go to the book and look through the index and read everything Armstrong wrote about Hartogs for example and then be fully qualified to discuss Armstrong's theory on that particular issue. Why is that concept so difficult for the H&L people to grasp? Let me quote from an EF poster named Lee Farley who said it best: "One of the tactics generally fired at you from the H&L supporters, in an effort to dismiss you, is to challenge whether you have read the book. First of all - - you CANNOT READ this book in the conventional sense of reading a book. It is not a page turner. It is a reference book that contains a thinly held together narrative of nonsense." Should we suppose Lee Farley now has the last word re H&L? C'mon Parnell... The lone nut camp has made a career of late criticizing an independent JFK assassination researcher who sponsored his own researcher (time and money) privately published his own work and distributed his own work... That about right? Actually, if you check forums like McAdams and Duncan Macrae where there are quite a few LNs, they care very little about Armstrong and pay scant attention to him and his theory, at least in recent years. I have received the most reaction with my critical pieces at forums such as this where CTs predominate.

Can we please get past the ridiculous assertion that one has to read every word in H&L in order to express an opinion on any given subject? Greg Parker or anyone else can go to the book and look through the index and read everything Armstrong wrote about Hartogs for example and then be fully qualified to discuss Armstrong's theory on that particular issue. Why is that concept so difficult for the H&L people to grasp? Let me quote from an EF poster named Lee Farley who said it best: "One of the tactics generally fired at you from the H&L supporters, in an effort to dismiss you, is to challenge whether you have read the book. First of all - - you CANNOT READ this book in the conventional sense of reading a book. It is not a page turner. It is a reference book that contains a thinly held together narrative of nonsense."

Bernie, He could well believe that there were multiple Marguerites and Oswalds. After all, that is what Jack White believed and he was Armstrong's mentor and sort of a "Godfather" of the H&L theory. BTW, I have been enjoying the job you and Greg and Tommy have been doing on these guys lately, great work!

Jim's font size is bigger than Oswald!

George Bailey's article said: Lee starts doing some peculiar. He starts researching Oswalds in the phone directory seeking to get in touch with his father’s brothers. Yes, there is something strange. A young man returning to the city of origination for his family decides to look up some relatives he has lost touch with. I'll bet that has never happened before. Lets see where Bailey is going with this. Apparently, Lee didn’t want anybody in his family to know that he was looking up Oswald family members that by all counts, he should have known were dead. Maybe because this is the wrong Lee, an impostor arriving in New Orleans with a sketchy history of the Oswald family. Again, a two Oswald advocate sees an event and can think of no other way to explain it other than two Oswalds. Hard to believe but true.

Perfect indeed!

Not how it works mate.... You prove what you have is authentic and correct. John already spoke with Myra and got an answer... went to the archives and got the photos. What have you done to prove it's Bobby Newman... other than just say so? Pardon me, but I don't really trust Myra's 40 year old memory here. I think Greg is right and she is misremembering Newman or someone else as "Harvey".

If the H&L people had to stick to facts, this would be a very short discussion Paul as you know. When they are asked to provide answers, they just engage with the same old thing-generalities. The theory reminds me of a movie where something happens that is never explained-you are just supposed to accept it for the purpose of the story. That is ok with a movie but it doesn't work imo in this case.

Steve Gaal wrote: Author Jim Marrs mentions in his book, Crossfire, that Specter threatened witness Jean Hill with institutionalization if she did not recant her story of,’witnessing a rifleman firing from the Grassy Knoll and immediately being grabbed by two men who claimed to be Secret Service agents,’ and ‘between four and six shots.’ Ms. Hill recalled in 1986 that Specter’s exact words were, ‘Look, we can make you look as crazy as Marguerite Oswald(Oswald’s mom) and everybody knows how crazy she is. We could have you put in a mental institution if you don’t cooperate with us.’ And what is the evidence for this? I am guessing this came from directly Jean and there is no other basis for it. Pardon me if I don't consider her a very reliable source.

Steve, One major error in that article: 6. The new autopsy appeared to answer all the doubts that it was Oswald in the grave. But, incredibly, this has now come into question. The skull shows no signs of the original 1963 autopsy. Switched heads? It's all getting too crazy! This probably comes from Jack White/Groody, but it is easy to see the craniotomy incision just to the left of the ID tag. Unless you are postulating something bogus with the 1981 examination: http://wtracyparnell.com/jack-white-and-the-lho-exhumation-photos/

David, I think you are correct that Judyth Baker is a fraud and your article goes a long way toward establishing that fact. What I meant was I can't prove beyond all doubt that she knew LHO. I can demonstrate (as you and others have) that it is very unlikely she knew him and even more unlikely that she had an affair with him. Oswald was exhumed to disprove another two Oswald theory-this one by Eddowes. But it doesn't matter why they exhumed Oswald. The fact is they did and the man in the grave is supposed to be "Harvey". But "Lee" had the mastoid operation according to Armstrong and the body in the grave did as well. As I have said many times, I'll never understand why Armstrong didn't just say that "Harvey" was given the operation so the two men would match. But he chose to ignore it and now he is stuck with it. As for the height thing, a man cannot change height. And the USMC certainly know how to measure, so it would seems logical that to save time they simply asked his height and he responded with an exaggerated figure as many men do. Yes, I am willing to chalk up all the unexplained thing to mistakes, lying and inaccurate witnesses etc.

David Josephs wrote: I look forward to a well presented rebuttal to this evidence... Not all of the "evidence" can be rebutted and I won't waste my time with some things. I cannot debunk Judyth Baker either-I can only show her inconsistent statements through the years and so on. I disagree however, that H&L is the best explanation until someone can debunk everything. You don't need an alternate universe to explain it. And you are already aware of the scientific facts H&L itself doesn't explain such as the exhumation and the handwriting evidence.