W. Tracy Parnell

Yes, he could have. But the point I am making is Armstrong did not say this-he just ignored it. And my early work was from 1998-2003 so he was aware of the problem. And if he comes out now and says Harvey had the operation it will not look good so he continues to ignore it. Everybody once in a while ignores something.... So no answer to the fact that there are discrepancies in the Marine Military record indicating the existence of two Oswalds ?? ,gaal No, I certainly do not have all the answers to the discrepancies. I would say that your interpretation of the records indicates two Oswalds to you. Others understand that these disparities exist in the real world and will because of the nature of the human beings who create the records.

Yes, he could have. But the point I am making is Armstrong did not say this-he just ignored it. And my early work was from 1998-2003 so he was aware of the problem. And if he comes out now and says Harvey had the operation it will not look good so he continues to ignore it.

David Josephs wrote, The man in the grave was the man who Ruby killed... so what? The man in the grave is supposed to be "Harvey" but "Lee" had a mastoid operation as did the man in the grave. I don't have to prove anything-you have to prove the H&L theory and you have not done that to the satisfaction of other conspiracy researchers up to this point. I don't need to explain the discrepancies in the evidence. I understand that there will be witnesses who will say all kinds of things for whatever reason. I understand that there will be records that don't match up, regardless of whether they are military or others. The H&L team need to prove all of these things to the satisfaction of Jefferson Morley or whoever you expect to eventually take the evidence to for verification and presentation before the media or Congress. And if you do not intend to do that, I would ask what is the point of H&L?

Ed LeDoux, You are correct, there would have to be more than one tooth missing to account for the size of the "gap". And there is no evidence that a tooth was ever missing, only Voebel's statement and this misinterpreted photo.

David, You are assuming because the CIA in theory had the ability to run an H&L program that they did. But the scientific evidence such as the 1981 exhumation says the theory as presented is incorrect. I believe that Armstrong should have dealt with the exhumation and other matters in his book instead of ignoring it. Now all you can do is claim it was faked (like everything else that doesn't line up with the theory) or "move the goalposts" at this late date and say "Harvey" was given a mastoid operation so the two would match. Of course, that still doesn't explain the handwriting evidence. I agree with Greg, Armstrong should have hired some experts to sort out certain matters instead of wasting money on things like a PI for Landesberg.

No sooner does Greg mention the logical fallacy of "proof by verbosity" than Steve provides a textbook example. Whether or not children were used in espionage, what Armstrong has yet to show is another example of the type of operation that he alleges H&L to be. That is, two unrelated boys recruited for some yet to be determined purpose that turns out to be the assignation of a President. Two boys who somehow look enough alike that their photos can be put together to create an ID. Not only that, but the plotters knew that the boys would not grow dissimilar in appearance as they grew older. I maintain that no such operation has ever existed.

Write this down, we agree!

Amazing work! Parnell posts the above on the very same day I uploaded the changes to the Landesberg article. He must be standing at attention by his computer monitoring harveyandlee.net hourly for changes! Glad to see he considers my site such a danger to his world. In documenting “the history of these misrepresentations,” will he also say that we provided links to sources about the color of Landesberg's beard and the “3 am interview” and hardly made them up? I doubt it, but I really don't care enough to check. What I do care about is this.... John Armstrong has finally unraveled the weird Landesberg affair is a way that actually makes sense. Read his article here. . Yes, you provided sources, but they were incorrect. And if I had not pointed that out, you would have gone on using the red bearded man and the 3 am interview. What does that say about your research methods?

Just curious, Tracy -- but do you believe that Oswald might have had any accomplices? Regards, --Paul Trejo No. I believe that the 2017 file release will have to contain something big (as you think it will). But if there was a conspiracy, it did not involve 2 Oswalds as you know.

Take a few minutes and address the evidence the USMC offers along with the DoD which proves not only did they lie about it, but that there are Oswalds at Ping Tung and Atsugi simultaneously... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=71#entry309157 you seem to be the only one of the group who actually does some work to support your conclusions... ...Can you disprove the USMC evidence regarding his being at Ping Tung or on a ship to and from in Sept/Oct 1957 while also in Atsugi? I might look into that at some point.

David, Nice try to divert attention from the fact Armstrong has admitted his misrepresentation of the facts in the Landesberg matter. First, my current work is the debunking of things like Harvey & Lee. I am a watchdog. I may be getting into general areas of the assassination at some point if I choose to do so. Right now, I have my hands full with Armstrong. Several of the people you listed are respected researchers. You may disagree with them but that does not diminish their contributions. You try and diminish the HSCA's work when it goes against your theory but Armstrong uses them in his book dozens of times. I'm here, I'm not going anywhere, and I'll work on what I choose to. Now lets talk about you-when are you going out on your own so you don't have to continue defending the indefensible?

Armstrong has now updated his article "The Story of Two Steven Landesbergs". The "red bearded man" is gone as is the "3 am interview". I will decide how to update my own site to reflect these changes, but the history of these misrepresentations will be documented. A small concession, but his premise is still false and he is still taking liberties with the facts in other ways.

David, I am not going to post everything the HSCA said, readers may go to the following and see: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0140a.htm I never said the HSCA study used photogrammetry, only scientific principals. I said provide your own study. No, I can not explain all of the evidence but I do not need a parallel universe to do so. The facts about if Oswald was in Taiwan or not will never be known IMO. Many facts may never be known. But there are many inconsistencies and discrepancies and these will allow Armstrong to survive for some people.

Barking mad...! WHO IS (GREG PARKER????) He's an entity Steven. A COINTELPRO op and he's under your bed! He's in your wardrobe and he's in your shed. We all are. Watching you. Making sure you don't tell the world about the secrets that only you and the CIA know. The future of corporate America is totally dependent on making sure Steven Gaal is silenced. This is us trying to do that. But... You've rumbled us! Not for the first time we all have to ask Steven Gaal...What on earth are you talking about? This cult, note that its main proponents are religious fanatics, will go to any lengths to divert and slither away from anyone who challenges their guru. Btw, in the five years these interviews have been on You Tube none have had more than 2,000 hits, (that's about one a day!). Jeez, even my crappy songs are more popular than that! Can we just let this silliness go now and start addressing the real issue? Great job Bernie!

David Josephs said: there is something called photogrammetry which is a complex method for measuring objects on a 2d space which results in 3d analysis. What you did can best be called "eye-balling" it... That is precisely the point. What everyone is doing, including yourself David, is eyeballing. Now since your side is making the claim of two Oswalds will you kindly point us to a study based on photogrammetry conducted by scientists that supports your position. I'll save you time-there isn't one. There is however an HSCA study based on scientific principals that shows that one photo of "Harvey" and one of "Lee" are of the same individual. But you will never hear you or any of the H&L people mention that. I know, the HSCA can't be believed right? That is unless John Armstrong is using them in his book to make a point. Then they can suddenly be seen as righteous truth-tellers. Morrow is simply trying to explain that the tilt of the head, body posture, etc. can be different and explain some of the things pointed out by your true believers. The fact is, without scientific analysis any one of the presentations here is no better than the other including yours. Now I'll be waiting for your scientific presentation but I won't hold my breath.

I am trying to figure out if Jim is claiming we are an organized group or what. Well, Tracy, it should be clear that Jim Hargrove invented the phrase, "Harvey & Lee Hit Squad," to mock anybody and everybody who disagrees with John Armstrong's ridiculous theory of H&L. Like Steven Gaal, Jim Hargrove seems willing to consider that I, Paul Trejo, am working for the CIA, simply because I believe that the CIA isn't a fraction as guilty of the JFK murder as the Dallas right-wing led by Ex-General Edwin Walker. Well, I'm not working for the CIA, and never have. (But of course, paranoid writers would exclaim that all CIA agents always deny that they work for the CIA. Sigh.) In short, the phrase, "Harvey & Lee Hit Squad," is another literary trick to promote Armstrong's "H&L" theory, which gives so much credit to the CIA for pre-thinking all this minutia that one comes away with the idea that Armstrong practically worships them as demigods. Actually, however, since John Armstrong is only making all this up, he is really worshipping himself. Regards, --Paul Trejo Thanks Paul, makes sense and I agree with you.

I am trying to figure out if Jim is claiming we are an organized group or what.

Isn't it remarkable that the Harvey and Lee Hit Squad is unconcerned about the obvious ties of the Oswald Project to U.S. intelligence but is so interested in delivering one-line insults about the author of Harvey and Lee!!! HSCA says this or that? What a bad joke! Just like the murder suspect who investigates himself and proclaims his innocence! Could you give us a list of the "Harvey & Lee Hit Squad"? Yes the evil HSCA is a "bad joke" until they come up with anything that John Armstrong can use in his silly theory such as the following mystery death: NOTE: In May 1971, Ed Voebel became ill and was rushed to the hospital. After examining Voebel, the doctor asked his family if he had been around any poisons, which he had not. That evening Voebel telephoned his family, said he was feeling fine, and would return home soon. The following day he died suddenly. In 1978 Voebel's father told the HSCA that although he had no proof, he believed that his son had died under mysterious circumstances. Dozens more examples BTW of Armstrong using the evil FBI, CIA, WC and anyone else when it suits his needs.

The HSCA would say that publicly, wouldn't they? But does "everyone" know that privately and secretly, according to HSCA notes that I transcribed on the previous page, "Committee did stress analysis on Jim Wilcott. Cuban stress analysis verified Wilcott validity. Available if needed." Nobody said he lied. He undoubtedly believed what he was saying (why testify so otherwise) and if he did a stress analysis would show just that. But the HSCA found no basis for his claims.

Tommy, Both you and Greg have done a good job debunking this issue. Armstrong should do a rewrite of his book and hire a proofreader, editor and fact checker to get rid of the debunked material. If he did all of this, the book would be about 300 pages of speculation.

And the HSCA found his statements to be without merit, everyone knows all of this already.

And the potentially libelous statement above comes from a man who seems anxious to shift blame for the Kennedy assassination away from American Intelligence. And what have the insiders said over the years about “Lee Harvey Oswald” and the CIA? Let's take a brief look: As far as Jack White, you can't libel the dead and the fact that John Armstrong put out his latest theory about Steve Landesberg the actor shows that he knows that. As for Paul's claim of Armstrong being a disinformation agent...

Very good analysis here Tommy. Most people don't consider how much factors such as lighting and tilt of the head will effect the photos.

Words cannot express what a loss this is. Gary was one of the top assassination experts in the world and someone who was always ready to help other researchers. http://www.jfk.org/index.cfm?objectid=92C63890-CF09-1556-F985E89C4D22A661

--Tommy PS I should have become a lawyer. I would have loved facing you in court. Because you don't like what someone else posted and I copied here you'd like to face me in court. That's funny. I will have you know I do very well in court. So I'd relish going against you in court. Alas, have you even taken your LSAT? Get back to me when you're licensed in TX. Have a good one. Dawn's a lawyer? Wow! I thought Dawn was an English teacher given her dressing down of someone else's poor grammar the other day. A lawyer? This could only ever happen in Texas! Bernie, Not only a Lawyer, but a very busy Lawyer! Sorry, I couldn't resist.