W. Tracy Parnell

What a crock,. Yet more misrepresentation of evidence.

Those tests were taken in OCTOBER, 1962 - after LEE HARVEY OSWALD returned to the States.

Cunningham ex2

Thanks Greg, that's what I thought!

There was only one Earl Eugene Perry. He was from El Paso, Texas, and stationed in Barstow, CA, just like Steve Landes told the FBI. The FBI decided it would be safer to interview a different Perry, and so they found an Earl Sheldon Perry, who was a chaplain's assistant in the United States Army, but there is no indication that they even bothered to interview him.

Would you mind pointing me to a source of information that states Earl Eugene Perry was from El Paso TX or a statement from Landesberg that says Earl Eugene Perry was from Texas. I am not saying it doesn't exist, just that with Armstrong's track record I would prefer to see the document myself. BTW, it looks to me like Earl Sheldon Perry was from Texas so it doesn't seem strange to me at all that the FBI looked at him.

Steve,

I understand Landesberg said Perry was from Texas. What I don't see is an FBI document that says Earl Eugene Perry is from Texas. It looks to me like the FBI conducted a good investigation until they aborted because Landesberg recanted. They looked at about 4 different Earl Perrys by my count. I will look at all of this more closely when preparing my rebuttal article. Thanks for your help.

Steve,

The document you mention doesn't say anything about Perry being from Texas. There are no citations in Armstrong's article so I don't know where he is getting his information from. There is a connection to Barstow CA since that is where Perry was stationed and Landesberg did mention that in one instance. My guess is that the FBI were pursuing any and all Perrys but did not complete their investigation since Landesberg recanted his allegations. I don't see the same sinister implications that Armstrong does here. I will look at this closer when I do my rebuttal article.

Steve Gaal said:

The FBI avoided contacting Earl Eugene Perry from El Paso, who was mentioned as an acquaintance of Oswald and L'eandes (the actor) by James Rizzuto

You'll have to get me a citation on where "Rizzuto" (who was Landesberg btw) said that "Earl Eugene Perry" was an acquaintance of Oswald and "L'Eandes". All I see is that he said "Earl Perry".

Steve Gaal Said:

instead of requesting the military file for Earl Eugene Perry (El Paso, TX), SA Leonard Lewis obtained the file for Earl Sheldon Perry from the Military Personnel Records Center in St. Louis.

They were checking several "Earl Perrys". Contrary to what Armstrong maintains one Earl Perry wasn't any more interesting than another. Landesberg refers to knowing "Perry" as far back as 1956 so it doesn't make sense that an "Earl Perry" who was on active duty would be any more likely to be the "right" Perry. It is just more another case of Armstrong trying to show a "coverup".

Lets see, I posted at 3:41 eastern and Jim responded at 3:42. I guess he had a "canned" response ready.

Earl Perry is a red herring. There is no evidence Landesberg the student actually knew anyone named Earl Perry and he certainly didn't specify a middle name. The FBI may have gotten their wires crossed and gone to the wrong hotel. But in Armstrong's world, that is something sinister not just a mistake or incompetence. It is a moot point since there is no evidence for "Regan" other than Landesberg's imagination. I really hope for Armstrong's sake that the heirs of the actor don't read these forums. Otherwise he may be in trouble again.

At the DPF a few days ago, Jim Hargrove said:

John is currently revising an article on the Steven Landesberg affair, and it is shaping up to be every bit as dangerous to the status quo as the rest of H&L. When it's done, and it's nearly there, I'm hoping EF will feel compelled to erupt in some sort of nuclear way, not just the usual panties in a twist snits. Should be fun!

Well, we now have the "dangerous" article available to all and I must say it is really more of the same from John Armstrong. I will be doing a complete write-up when I get time since I believe this nonsense needs to be addressed, but I will summarize the piece briefly.

After his extremely ambiguous treatment of the Landesberg affair in Harvey & Lee, Armstrong has at least taken a position with this unsourced article. Where he previously only hinted at his involvement, he is now clearly inserting the late actor Steve Landesberg into his fantasy. I can guarantee that if Landesberg were still alive, he would not be doing this, since a call from his head of security caused both Armstrong and Jack White to retreat from their ridiculous assertions and fall silent. I personally find it shameful that Armstrong is willing to besmirch the reputation of a talented man who was admired by millions of people with no supporting evidence-only self serving nonsense.

The following paragraph summarizes the new Armstrong position:

"Our national security network, including the FBI, CIA, and the Warren Commission selectively drew upon eyewitnesses and documents that suited their purposes in order to craft the biography of one "Lee Harvey Oswald." In the case of Stephen Harris Landesberg (the student) and Stephen Richard Landesberg (the actor), the FBI did exactly the same thing. With the alleged admission from Stephen Harris Landesberg (the student) that he had used the name "Steven Yves L'Eandes," the Bureau was able to claim these two people were one and the same."

In other words, in addition to "Harvey & Lee" and the two Marguerites, we now have a third pair of operatives for Armstrong to work with. Armstrong now claims that "Steve L'Eandes", who was the man who became the actor of "Barney Miller", fame was the individual that participated in the 1961 and '62 political rally disruptions (perhaps working with the "other" Landesberg"). Stephen Harris Landesberg (the student) called the FBI after the assassination because he "wanted the public to know that Oswald, the agitator and protestor, had been in the Village in 1961-62." Armstrong does here what he does throughout his book-uses two individuals to attempt to explain discrepancies in the record and create an alternate universe. And when he encounters something that refutes his theory he either ignores it (as with the LHO exhumation) or says it is fabricated.

As an example, Landesberg the student admitted to the FBI that the actions that he had attributed to L’Eandes were in fact his own actions using that name. How does Armstrong answer this?

"These alleged admissions allowed the Bureau to erroneously conclude that Steven Yves L'Eandes (the student) and Stephen L'eandes (the actor) were the same person."

This convenient and selective branding of FBI statements as phony is puzzling to me since Armstrong uses the FBI as a source for dozens and dozens of citations in his book. How is he able to tell when the bureau is telling the truth and when it is not? I would maintain that perhaps it depends on whether the fact in dispute agrees with the H&L theory or not.

Armstrong also seems to assert that Landesberg, L'Eandes, Oswald and Perry were all (or could have been) working together at the rallies. This is easily refuted by the fact that the Village Voice reported in detail on Landesberg's (posing as L'Eandes) political activities and never mentioned Oswald taking photos or a group assisting him. There was a mention of a girl who appeared to be working with Landesberg but that would not yet seem to fit Armstrong's evolving narrative.

So we have more of the same from Armstrong-find a discrepancy or a witness statement and mold it to the H&L theory. If needed, create a double or find someone with the same name and weave them into the narrative. I urge readers to read my original article on the subject and please check my sources for yourself. When you do that, you will find that Armstrong has twisted the evidence to fit his assertions as usual.

http://wtracyparnell.com/the-hoaxster-and-the-conspiracy-theorists/

16-8. I agree with Bernie, Hogan should post his own vote.

For Jim Hargrove or anyone on the Armstrong team,

Is there anything else forthcoming on the "Frankenstein" photo issue from Armstrong? Or does your "Evolution of the Defection photo" page represent the final word on the issue?

David Josephs said:

Please provide a timeline of activities between burial and exhumation that takes an intact and sealed casket and produces what we see when dug up...

All it takes is a cracked vault and the water damage resulting from it. Once you have a crack the casket is vulnerable and Oswald's was a cheap one. The vault can crack for a few reasons, shifting of the ground for various reason is one. This is most often caused by the heavy equipment that is common in cemeteries for digging-it compresses the earth and pushes down on the vault. The Wilbert (the same brand LHO was buried in) Vault Company’s own web site admits the problem and advises customers to seek:

…superior long-lasting protection against subsoil elements and the weight of heavy cemetery maintenance equipment.

This quote is from the book Profits of Death a critical evaluation of the "death care" industry:

“No vault is impervious to eventual disintegration, and there is very little chance of placing anything underground and having it remain waterproof. I have personally witnessed as many as forty disinterments from vaults (even those made by the leading manufacturers) that were guaranteed waterproof from which water had to be drained before they could be moved. Often, they were full of water. It’s frequently necessary, when disinterring one of these vaults, to knock drainage holes in the bottom before it can be moved. Only then can the vault-still with the hole in the bottom-and casket be reinterred in another location.”

If the casket was still sealed and complete there would be less of a question... but from what I remember it wasn't. In fact is was only damaged above the man's head area... hmmmm.

According to Gary Mack's Coverups! series, the missing piece was 18 inches long x3-4 inches wide, probably not large enough to allow for any funny business even considering anyone could overcome the innumerable other issues fakery would require.

Are we to believe the coicidence of "natural causes" destroyed that casket and that the question of craniotomies and a detached spinal column or not...

Believe me, the power of water damage is immense. It will destroy anything unprotected as this casket was after the vault cracked. of course, the official photos show the craniotomy so then you are into a conspiracy involving all who attended which was something like 12 people. The head was attached according to the report and witnesses and even Groody has admitted this. He thinks the head was switched and reattached.

That head that was now on that body was not the head that I embalmed. I know that the body had not been changed, because I recognized various things about the body that I had done.

Groody said in 2006 that the skull was a "Halloween skull", in other words bare bones. But again, the official photos refute this and they show the craniotomy.

My Count, let me know if anyone disputes anything:

Pro-H&L

Hargrove

Josephs

Gaal

Blank

Mitcham

Jeffries

Tidd

Against-H&L

Parker

Parnell

Sorensen

Graves

Brancato

Kamp

Loney

Kinaski

Carroll

Laverick

Speer

Dolva

Charles-Dunn

Cohen

Murr

Healy

Currently 16-7, I had Tidd wrong.

David,

Before I address your comments, let me clear up one thing. You are not saying that this still is in any way from the video tape of the LHO exhumation are you? This is merely included as an example of an exhumation. I ask because the caption says "Lee open coffin".

Most assuredly not Tracy... are you aware of any photos or films showing the contents as they were discovered in the casket or the head during autopsy?

I am reading the Norton report and doing some due diliogence so I can discuss this with some level of knowledge... give me a little time

DJ

OK-I didn't think so. No, I don't think there was anything at the time the grave was opened. There were apparently no photos at the original autopsy of the head post-craniotomy. There are the head photos from the exhumation which I assume you have seen and there was a film made at the exhumation that has been seen by a few people but is not publically available.

16-8

The plotters were cunning and powerful IMO. Nothing was beyond the imagination for them.

So you're changing your vote to for H&L Jon?

David,

Before I address your comments, let me clear up one thing. You are not saying that this still is in any way from the video tape of the LHO exhumation are you? This is merely included as an example of an exhumation. I ask because the caption says "Lee open coffin".

From Hargrove's "Marines Corps and Soviet Union" page:

Throughout the summer of 1959 HARVEY Oswald continued to promote communism and anything and everything Russian to fellow marines. On September 4, HARVEY Oswald applied for a passport in Santa Ana, California. But the passport contained a photo of LEE Oswald--not HARVEY. If this photo is compared with a photo taken of HARVEY Oswald a week later, standing next to Robert Oswald, you can see they are two different people.

The caption for the photo of LHO and Robert says "Grainy 1959 photo of Harvey standing next to Robert Oswald". But this photo is a screen grab from the "Biography" show on Oswald. This was apparently a composite made by the producers in order to show the brothers together (for purposes of illustration) even though they weren't. The original shown in Robert's book is not grainy at all and perfectly clear. What could be the reason for using this "grainy" version of the photo?

Could it be that using the grainy photo makes it more likely the reader will think they are looking at two different individuals? That could also explain why Armstrong showed a poor quality photo of Marguerite standing in front of a sink and wearing a nightgown to witnesses to represent the "imposter" Marguerite and used a better quality photo taken at the shoe store to represent the "tall beautiful" Marguerite.

http://wtracyparnell.com/using-photos-to-misrepresent/

Thanks Paul, appreciate the answer and I am sure 2017 will be of interest to all.

Steve Gaal wrote:

this post unaddressed by ANTI H & L side

Speaking of unaddressed issues, when is the H&L team going to address the 1981 exhumation? Oswald or "Harvey" according to H&L was dug up and he had a mastoid operation that he wasn't supposed to have. Also, in Russia "Harvey" was examined by doctors and again he had the mastoid scar that wasn't supposed to be there (CE 985). Armstrong just ignores this in H&L.

Paul Groody had a theory about what happened. For years, I didn't realize this-I just thought Groody was playing devil's advocate and saying something was not right. Then I listened to his 2006 appearance of Coast to Coast and it turns out he thought the head only was switched prior to the exhumation. Now Groody was always adamant that the body was the one he buried in 1963 as he recognized the clothes, rings and even the viscera bag which contained the internal organs. But he believed the body was that of a double (who had been shot by Ruby) and had been dug up (even though he said in 1963 it would be almost impossible to do that) at some point and the real Oswald's head (which was somehow readily available) was somehow reattached to the double's body. This explained, in Groody's mind, the fact that he didn't see the craniotomy incision on the skull (even though photos show it and witnesses remember it), rather than his own mistaken memory. This is all detailed here:

http://wtracyparnell.com/paul-groodys-theory/

But the question is how does the H&L team explain the exhumation? Do they think "Harvey" was dug up and "Lee's" head attached to "Harvey's" body? And how was this accomplished? That would also get rid of "Lee" although Armstrong has always said he could still be alive. But what of CD 985? A head switch wouldn't explain that. Do they agree with Jack White who said on the JFK Research forum there were multiple "Harveys"?

These issues need to be addressed as they kill H&L as it stands today.

Hate to break up Jim's conversation with himself here!

Fantastic idea from Vanessa Loney today over at DPF. She is proposing a debate between John Armstrong himself and Greg Parker. Now, that would be a debate! Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen because Armstrong would not agree.

BTW, good to see Jim & DJ back.

gee was I counted ??

16 - 7 GAAL

Yes as Bernie said, you and Hargrove and DJ were counted in the beginning. See post #42. So its 16-6.

How many of those on the "Against" side have read the book and the supporting documents?

I have read the book, but I wouldn't claim to have looked at every single document.

Steve,

I was just calling attention to a post by an ex-member Mark Valenti describing what he feels are problems with the H&L theory in regards to the conspiracy community as a whole. I personally doubt that anyone who posts pro-H&L material is being paid to do so, but I respect Valenti's opinions.

Steve Gaal said:

.......It is a well-funded,// PARNELL LIE PAID & paid TO POST ?? gee forum rule violation ?? GAAL

As I have said for years Steve, I am acting on my own accord for my own reasons (I believe in what I am doing) and am paid by no one. I am a little disappointed that you have made this allegation without proof since I though you and I got along ok here.

At the DPF Jim Hargrove said

Sure, Tracy, and this is the kind of balance any mature researcher without a hidden agenda would adopt. In a 1,000+ page book filled with as much info as H&L, there are bound to be some mistakes. How could there not be?

But what is going on over at EF strikes me as going far beyond personal differences and disagreements over facts. It strikes me as a professional disinfo campaign, which begs the question, What has John Armstrong uncovered that requires a response like that?

John is currently revising an article on the Steven Landesberg affair, and it is shaping up to be every bit as dangerous to the status quo as the rest of H&L. When it's done, and it's nearly there, I'm hoping EF will feel compelled to erupt in some sort of nuclear way, not just the usual panties in a twist snits. Should be fun!

Of course I have an agenda Jim, I disagree with the H&L theory and have for years. I can't say with 100 percent certainty there was no conspiracy in the JFK case. But I know for certain the H&L theory didn't happen because of the exhumation and other evidence. Its not just errors in the book that bother me-you notice I don't mention typos etc.

Take the most recent thing, the Orvie Aucoin error which Gary Mack pointed out. Armstrong makes this big thing about how everyone connected to the leafleting incident and the WDSU interviews was either FBI or CIA. Then he has this list to prove his point and it looks to me like he put Aucoin on the list even though he knows he was not the cameraman. I can't see any other reason since he mentions Rush in other parts of the book. In other words, it looks like a deliberate distortion rather than a simple mistake. He insists everyone (he has this underlined on one page and underlined and italicized on the other) was CIA/FBI so he includes Aucoin to make his point even though he apparently knows better. This is summarized on my page:

http://wtracyparnell.com/orvie-aucoin/

As far as a professional disinfo campaign, I have had these unfounded charges placed against me since the beginning. I am just a semi-retired guy in my pajamas doing what I think is right. Who do you think is funding me?

I was just finishing my response to Armstrong but he is writing another article on Landesberg if I read you right so I guess I will wait to see that. My main question is why you and DJ have left here? I felt that we had a good debate going. I certainly have nothing personal against you or DJ. I think you are both smart guys but you are being run by a puppet master.

It seems that much of the H&L talk has moved over to DPF. For example, our own Dawn Meredith said:

And John told me on Sat that Parnell used to write glowing stuff about H and L.

For the record, I never wrote anything "glowing" about H&L. I wrote a couple of letters to Armstrong to feel him out although I had a pretty good idea what he was about. He replied to me in a very courteous manner, which I appreciated and I told him that. He offered some suggestions on research and of course tried to steer me to his way of thinking. This was in 1997 when you could not find everything on the Internet like you can now. But all of my public writings, articles, forum posts, etc. have been critical.

Well, Tracy, I want to thank you for your energetic efforts here on the EF. I agree with your assessment of H&L, which I regard as a mind-game, mocking its very readers.

The ultimate result (intended or not) is to mock all JFK Research. Sadly, some of the mockery is deserved, especially at the point where Anderson pushes, namely, the CIA-did-it theory, which is the most common CT of all (including such luminaries as Lane, Garrison, Weisberg, Marrs, Newman, Scott).

It seems to me, however, that the H&L detour will be the last stage of the CIA-did-it theory, and anyway, it will all be laid to rest by 26 October 2017, when the JFK Records Act deadline is reached.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Thanks for your kind words. One question about the 2017 documents while I'm thinking of it. Didn't the ARRB say they had seen all of the JFK documents and there is nothing indicating conspiracy there. Does this refer to the 2017 documents in your view or I am I off in my thinking here? I would appreciate your comments.