W. Tracy Parnell

My response to Armstrong's article is now online: http://wtracyparnell.com/john-armstrong-and-his-evolving-landesberg-story/

Steve, I understand your point. The FBI reports are only as good as the individual making them and anyone can make a mistake. The thing I have never understood about Armstrong is that he uses the FBI as a source in his book dozens and dozens of times. But the minute that someone brings up something from the FBI that doesn't fit his theory it is questioned or said to be an outright fabrication. How does Armstrong decide what FBI information is good and what is not?

Paul Trejo said: Tracy, I want to affirm here that your work is OUTSTANDING and SCHOLARLY and PROFESSIONAL and I thank you for it. As for correcting people's grammar on the Internet -- I thought that was rightly stomped out of existence in the 1990's. It's a cheap shot, most likely intended to distract your momentum in your ongoing valuable and professional critique of the H&L theory -- a theory which I regard as superfluous -- the CIA-did-it theory run amok. Pay the petty carpers no mind. Informal writing is what makes the Internet lively, powerful and fast. Cheers to you, Tracy, and godspeed. Regards, --Paul Trejo Thanks Paul, and I really appreciate it!

OK, I stand corrected, but I would point out that it is only a forum post.

Please do your own research, Tracy. John has made this work easy for you by posting all his documents at Baylor. When you have your rebuttal piece ready, publish it! I'll at least try to get John to read it. Oh he reads it for sure. That is where he got the idea to use Fowler in his latest article.

More questions for the Armstrong supporters: In his new article, Armstrong has the following timeline for the FBI/Gray/Rizzuto meetings: 8:30 pm (11-22) Rizzuto calls Gray who invites him to the station for an interview. 1:30 am Gray calls the FBI and tells them Rizzuto is coming. 3:00 am Gray interviews Rizzuto on the air while the FBI agents listen. 23rd The FBI interviews Rizzuto and he tells them his now well known story. My questions: What are the sources for these statements? Since when does the FBI let someone else handle their interview duties? Where does it say that Gray interviewed both L'Eandes and Rizzuto?

Tracy how many ways do you need it spelled out that facts are just a nuisance and should not be allowed to interfere with the H & L Truthers version of reality? All you have to do is trust Big Brother when he says: War is Peace Ignorance is Strength Harvey is Lee I hear you Greg and I know you have been down this road with the H&L crowd as well. Unless they have another source on this (and I don't know of one) they have a problem with the new article since much of it is based on the red beard thing. All they have left without that is Al Fowler (who was a heroin addict) and the same stuff they had before. We will see what they do. I have one or two other things to run by them as well before I finish my rebuttal.

Jim, As you probably already know, Joesten has it wrong. The Newsday article says: "Several bars and coffee-houses in the Village that cater to the college crowd reported that FBI agents had been around and showed a color snapshot of a dark-haired, bearded man in his early or mid-20s. The man was dressed in a blue coat and wore a red scarf." This was probably just a typo on his part and he picked up the red from the red scarf in the following sentence. But don't take my word for it, check out the original article at Armstrong's own files (page 2): http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/41611/rec/24 Now, is Armstrong going to re-write this business about the red-bearded man or let it stand? Or are you going to claim that this is "documentation" when we can see the original source?

In John Armstrong's unsourced article, The Story of Two "Steven Landesbergs", he states: "On Dec 15 (1961) a dark-haired man with a reddish beard, who identified himself as Yves L'eandes (the actor), caused a disturbance in Greenwich Village by heckling speakers at a rally to urge Mark Lane, a Democratic State Assemblyman, to run for Congress." This new claim by Armstrong that L'Eandes had a reddish beard is significant because he is now maintaining that L'Eandes is the late actor Steve Landesberg who indeed had reddish brown hair. But the only newspaper that reported this incident was the Village Voice in their December 21, 1961 article titled "Lane Wins Student Plaudits as Deep South Demurs". It is clear from other details Armstrong provides that this article is his source for most of his information. However, the Voice article didn't mention anything about a beard at all and described L'Eandes as follows: "Most of the heckling was done by a dark-haired mustached young man wearing a scarf and a bright red sweater." https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1299&dat=19611221&id=WkkQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1I8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3670,800696&hl=en Later in the article, Armstrong says: "On Nov. 30, 1963 the Long Island newspaper Newsday reported that L'eandes (the actor) was living either on 8th Street or MacDougal Street in the heart of the Village. From a photograph taken at one of the rallies in the Village, two years earlier, the FBI located a former roommate of L'eandes (the actor), Michael Dunn. Dunn identified the red-bearded man in the photo as his former roommate, Steven L'eandes (Stephen Richard Landesberg, the actor, who had red hair)." So the sources appear to be Newsday and the FBI reports on Dunn. But Newsday's description of the photo of L'Eandes was of a "dark haired bearded man" and this was obviously a second hand report from a source who had seen the photo or knew someone who had. Since several other first hand sources say L'Eandes was dark haired with a moustache and Newsday's source had only seen (or heard of) a photo of L'Eandes, it is obvious that Newsday's is the least credible report. And in any case, there is again no mention of a "reddish" beard at all. And the FBI report of Dunn says nothing about a description of L'Eandes at all, only that Dunn identified the photo as the man he knew as L'Eandes (who was actually Landesberg the student). Armstrong continues referring for the remainder of the article to L'Eandes as having a red or reddish beard as if he has now established it as a fact. So my question to the Armstrong supporters is, what is Armstrong's source for the "reddish beard" statement that he uses to tie L'Eandes to the actor Landesberg?

Bump for those that haven't voted.

David, You are not trying to say that Oswald worked for Shelly handing out FPCC leaflets are you?

Tracy, please explain how they took advantage of this specific photo. Hi Clive, Because something happened to the photo, it is easier to state that it represents "Lee" as distinct from "Harvey". They took advantage of the odd look of the photo to make a case for two men. I am referring to the page as it used to exist-it has been changed.

Marita Lorenz? You guys are getting desperate.

I know one thing for sure-we won't be hearing anything about the psychotherapist mentioned above in relation to H&L since "Harvey" is not in NYC unless he stopped by for a checkup in the very brief time he was in the city. Of course the H&L crowd claim to be unaware of the concept of false sightings or unfounded rumors. In the just completed manhunt in NY I believe the number of tips from the public ended up at 2200 and the number of those that were actually correct were 2.

Thomas Graves said: Something doesn't add up here. How can "Harvey" look so darn much like "Lee" in this instance, but so dissimilar in other situations? You have hit the nail square here Thomas, this is one of the problems with the theory. The two men look almost exactly alike, enough so that their photos can be put together to create one that ether could use. Except in other cases when they really don't look that much alike. In reality, I would defy them to find any two individuals whose photos could be put together. Everyone seems to think Lovelady and LHO looked alike, I wonder if they could do it with him? I'll bet not because the whole thing is nonsense. Back on the Frankenstein thing, I still say something happened to the photo, probably as a result of Wide World doing something non-sinister that caused the photo to look funny. Armstrong and co. simply used this to advantage like they did so many other anomalies and inconsistencies.

David Josephs said: The real Mrs. Oswald never wore or needed glasses.. Nonsense. Marguerite didn't wear glasses (full time anyway) until about the age of 60. Conveniently, that is when the "beautiful" Marguerite disappeared never to be seen again. I guess Armstrong and friends have given up on the "the imposter never smiled" thing since it was so easily disproved even before the book was published.

Bernie, My point is simply that to represent the "imposter" Marguerite (both in the book and when speaking to people he interviewed), Armstrong used a poor quality photo of her in a nightgown when she was probably not expecting to be photographed and looking about as bad as was possible rather than the smiling pose I have shown. And he does the same thing with the poor quality A&E composite photo (compared to the passport photo) to make it easier for the reader to believe they are seeing two different men when a better quality photo is available. Not a major point I admit, but an example of the little things he does in the book to make his points. I think you are quite right that the stress of the assassination was a factor in her premature aging, although she eventually came to enjoy the limelight. But at first I am sure it took a major toll as it would on anyone.

It took me two months to write the original article, so it may take a while for this rebuttal as well. In the meantime check out the original article (which is working fine) at: http://wtracyparnell.com/the-hoaxster-and-the-conspiracy-theorists/ BTW, excellent thoughts by Bernie and Greg and Thomas.

Steve, Not trying to "pile on" here but a major problem with Armstrong and his team is they repeatedly talk about the FBI forging things but when you look at the citations for Harvey & Lee there are literally dozens and dozens of them referring to the FBI. How does Armstrong know what to believe from them and what not to?

Just a reminder-the current tally is 16-8 for those that haven't voted.

I have been asking for 2 days for a citation independent of Landesberg's (not Rizzuto-there was no Rizzuto) statements that confirmed Earl Eugene Perry was from El Paso, TX. The document you cite says nothing of the kind, it only rehashes Landesberg's allegations. So I have my answer-Armstrong made it up like who knows how many other things. So his allegation that the FBI should have dropped all other inquires when Nichols found out Perry was from Texas and this shows a "cover-up" is false. All this shows is that you are unable or unwilling to do your own research on files that we have made available to the public at Baylor University. Nearly all the documents that you referenced in your 8600-word essay were from the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor University. John did all your research for you. Every document you need is on file at Baylor. Archivists are available for a fee to help you locate any document you desire, or you can locate it yourself. If you want to learn where Earl Eugene Perry was from, do your own homework instead of asking others to do it for you. We look forward to your rebuttal essay, which will show how dependent you are on John's research instead of your own. Actually, my article will show how Armstrong is dependent on people like myself and Greg Parker to do his fact checking for him. We all saw how you thanked Greg in the Frankenstein matter because you were able to take the things he pointed out and turn them into a new reality by first removing the composite graphic and then restoring it with a new explanation. Armstrong did the same thing by studying my article. First, he started cleaning up his old theory. But by reading both my article and my posts here he was able to come up with a new idea. He is taking the story of Al Fowler and building a new reality from that and inserting the actor Landesberg into this tale where he previously only hinted at his involvement. He almost certainly got this idea from me since Fowler is not mentioned in the book. As far as Armstrong's "research" it primarily amounts to acquiring documents and creating fantasy from them. At this point in time most of the documents are available at Mary Ferrell's site anyway.

I have been asking for 2 days for a citation independent of Landesberg's (not Rizzuto-there was no Rizzuto) statements that confirmed Earl Eugene Perry was from El Paso, TX. The document you cite says nothing of the kind, it only rehashes Landesberg's allegations. So I have my answer-Armstrong made it up like who knows how many other things. So his allegation that the FBI should have dropped all other inquires when Nichols found out Perry was from Texas and this shows a "cover-up" is false.

I am aware of what "Rizzuto" said. I am not talking about that. I am asking for a citation for this statement by Armstrong: "Nichols learned that the only Earl Perry on active duty was assigned to the Marine Supply Center in Barstow, CA., and was from El Paso, TX." I see nothing in the documents that Nichols learned Perry was from Texas from a source independent of Landesberg's false allegations. While I'm at it, why isn't Armstrong's latest article sourced? Could a reason be that he is hoping no one will take the time to check his statements because it is too difficult? When I wrote my original article I took the time to provide sources for my 8600 word piece. I also provided clickable links when appropriate. Why is Armstrong afraid that people will see his sources?