W. Tracy Parnell

As for the handwriting issue, Jim Hargrove points out that document examiners prefer to use original documents instead of copies and that is correct. And not all of the documents the HSCA handwriting experts looked at were originals-but most were. That is why for my article, The Handwriting is on the Wall I focused on six original documents, three of "Lee" and three of "Harvey". And the examiners concluded that the documents were written by the same individual.

Tracy, I find this very interesting. I'd like to see more linguistic analysis done on Oswald's Russian documents -- most importantly the controversial "Walker Letter" of 10 April 1963, and about Oswald's Russian language letters written in the USSR.

Do you have material about this as well?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

No, I have not done any work in this area. One of the handwriting experts even refused to give an opinion on some of the documents in Russian saying he wasn't qualified to comment on those. An interesting idea though.

As for the handwriting issue, Jim Hargrove points out that document examiners prefer to use original documents instead of copies and that is correct. And not all of the documents the HSCA handwriting experts looked at were originals-but most were. That is why for my article, The Handwriting is on the Wall I focused on six original documents, three of "Lee" and three of "Harvey". And the examiners concluded that the documents were written by the same individual.

I agree with Mr Parnell, it's a fraud. And a ridiculous one at that.

Thanks Vanessa and others who voted, I appreciate it.

Here's the thing to me. A reasonable person could believe that Oswald was impersonated at some point. Each person's interpretation of the better known cases will probably vary. But IMO, it is extremely difficult for a reasonable person to believe in H&L, since it is based entirely on witness statements and discrepancies in documentation and there are powerful reasons to disbelieve it.

I hope more people will vote in the poll.

Jim Hargrove wrote:

Yo, Tracy,

You have a recent article up somewhere on Steven Landesberg, which I mentioned to JA, and he asked me to post the following, which is a write-up he did years ago and felt was too long to be included in the 1000+ pages of Harvey and Lee. So he dusted it off, put in a few updates, and asked me to post it here: Sooo... uh... here 'tis....

Let me say that I have an 8600 word article on the subject so there is no need for me to spend much time with this. Lurkers can read the piece Hargrove has posted here and then read my piece and make up their own minds. My article is at:

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

But I will make a few points. First, one has to wonder why Armstrong didn't include all of this information in his book if it is so relevant. A quick search of the H&L PDF shows very little about Landesberg at all. One very good reason is that Armstrong was threatened with possible legal action by the representatives for the actor Steve Landesberg. And let me be clear. There was absolutely no evidence that the actor Landesberg had anything to do with the assassination in any way. And that is the reason Armstrong dropped it like a hot potato. There is absolutely no physical resemblance between the actor and the agitator who was arrested by the FBI. The actor Landesberg had reddish brown hair and the agitator (who was Jewish) had dark brown hair. Anyone can go to my article and see photos of the two men for themselves.

The fact that the actor could do a southern accent proves nothing again as a southern accent is probably the easiest to do. The comment that the actor made that shows his "knowledge" of Oswald was reported second hand to Armstrong by a reporter and was something he remembered from years before. If it even happened it was probably Landesberg just trying to make a joke (he was a comedian after all). But in a situation reminiscent of Mrs. Jack Tippit, Palmer McBride, etc., Armstrong takes one thing and runs with it, creating something out of nothing.

As far as Landesberg the agitator's mental problems, Armstrong, as he has done with so many issues in the past, is misrepresenting the evidence. Landesberg stuttered throughout his childhood and attended speech therapy, Armstrong tries to make it look like this was something that came on suddenly. He was also a loner in school and all of this hinted at later problems. Landesberg dropped out of school and this was the beginning of a downward spiral that culminated in his mental breakdown. After that breakdown he made a statement about being used for a guinea pig and Armstrong tries to insinuate that the military was doing something funny. Landesberg was in full paranoid breakdown and this is the obvious reason behind his statement. Lurkers may read the original eleven page document and see if they believe the story told there is that of a person being persecuted unjustly (for some unstated reason) or that of a very sick individual.

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/4133

Again, there is no need for me to spend much time here as anyone can read my piece and make up their own mind. There is nothing to the story of Stephen H. Landesberg except that he was a mentally ill individual spurred into action by the trauma of the JFK assassination. And Armstrong doesn't have a single piece of evidence to implicate the actor Steve Landesberg in the case as indicated by the fact that he dropped the matter when threatened with possible legal action.

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

Steven Gaal wrote:

Mr. Parnell I feel compelled to ask this question, " You are a musician, did you play at any military bases ??"

Only once, back in the eighties at Camp Lejeune, NC and I really enjoyed it. I am semi-retired and I now play at nursing homes etc. I just got back a while ago from a job in a memory care facility.

Jefferson Morley is a journalist. He seeks facts. He interprets what he finds. He analyzes. He does not synthesize.

Everyone seems to have their opinion on Morley. My point is that I believe if someone came to him with firm evidence of a conspiracy, which Hargrove claims to have, that Morley would be willing to listen. He is already pushing his own theory that Joannides was involved somehow in the JFK conspiracy. So if Hargrove could convince him he would listen IMO.

Jim,

They aint gonna learn what they dont wanna know...

Our efforts do allow those not overly familar with the H&L situation to see more than just a bad series of rebuttal arguments offered without corroboration or authentication (and no mention of speculation).

Let's put that to the test then.

I vote that the theory is a fraud. I know-big surprise right?

Jim Hargrove said:

No one from your side will admit it, but I suspect this evidence would stand up in court to this day. That's probably enough for now.

I will say to you what I say to everyone that has "proof" of a plot. If you really and truly believe that, take it to Jefferson Morley who is an individual who will listen to what you have to say if you can convince him. He is not "working for the CIA" or "in on the plot". And he has the ear of several reporters so there are no excuses. The problem I see for you is when you tell him your theory of two Oswalds, he will probably bolt for the door as he won't believe you. Nor do the majority of CT minded people nor would the majority of any demographic group you can name. Because the H&L thing flat out didn't happen.

and who crowned Morley the king of lone nut openmindedness? Still that clever sense of humor eh, Tracy?

BTW are you still posting from that Wendy's way up north.... Taking pot shots at non-moving sandbags?

If you follow Morley's blog you can see that he has become a conspiracy theorist in my view. In any case, he is not a "lone nutter". I am not saying any of this to be sarcastic or funny. If Armstrong believes he has evidence that would stand up in court, he should take it to the media and Morley would seem to be the prime candidate since he has written extensively on the assassination for years. But as I said, I think Armstrong and company are just blowing smoke and I think most people agree with me.

Jim Hargrove said:

No one from your side will admit it, but I suspect this evidence would stand up in court to this day. That's probably enough for now.

I will say to you what I say to everyone that has "proof" of a plot. If you really and truly believe that, take it to Jefferson Morley who is an individual who will listen to what you have to say if you can convince him. He is not "working for the CIA" or "in on the plot". And he has the ear of several reporters so there are no excuses. The problem I see for you is when you tell him your theory of two Oswalds, he will probably bolt for the door as he won't believe you. Nor do the majority of CT minded people nor would the majority of any demographic group you can name. Because the H&L thing flat out didn't happen.

Jim Hargrove said:

The FBI gave the Warren Commission photographic copies of documents rather than originals, and the HSCA's own expert witnesses explained how copies can be manipulated to "prove" whatever is wanted. Now the question becomes, Would the FBI lie and cheat to prove whatever it wanted? And the answer, then and now, is a resounding yes.

I don't have time right now to answer this or the previous post in detail. I would just point out that nothing on your web page proves the FBI did anything to the documents. You suggest they had them so they could have done something to them. But you have no proof of this. Of course, the minute the FBI or whoever has something that helps the H&L theory, that person or entity suddenly becomes as good as gold. Lurkers can go here for an example (second half of the article), in this case involving the "fake" Marguerite, who according to Armstrong was normally the biggest xxxx in the world:

http://wtracyparnell.com/marguerite-and-the-fort-worth-press/

Rose admittedly missed the mastoid scar, that is why it wasn't noted. But the larger point to me is why has Armstrong never addressed the mastoid issue? I could understand it if his position was that they gave "Harvey" a mastoid operation so he would match "Lee". But he just ignores it.

Tracy, they are just stomping over ground that should be left in peace.

Mastoid scars are all but invisible to the naked eye. That's why Rose missed it at autopsy. It was not missed when the body was exhumed because the epidermis had decayed, revealing the underlying scar. Science trumps voodoo Harvey dolls and magic scars and magic teeth every single time.

Right Greg, they try to make the scar as un-noticeable as possible. If I remember correctly, they also removed some of the bone and this also made it easy to spot during the exhumation.

Rose admittedly missed the mastoid scar, that is why it wasn't noted. But the larger point to me is why has Armstrong never addressed the mastoid issue? I could understand it if his position was that they gave "Harvey" a mastoid operation so he would match "Lee". But he just ignores it.

CE 985, page 455 states clearly:

Left Ear: Behind the ear there is a stable post operational scar.

This is the same mastoid scar observed at autopsy. This is supposed to be "Lee" who has the scar but it is clearly "Harvey" in both cases. The "very superficial 3/4 inch scratch" has nothing to do with anything. It is just that, a little scratch that he could have received a million ways. Rose missed scars including the mastoid scar. He stated at the time of the exhumation that he could have missed the mastoid scar. If he could have missed one, he could have missed others. In a perfect world he would have been informed of the mastoid operation and every known scar so he would have been on the alert.

Groody was there to embalm the body, not to make an identification. Just because he didn't see a particular scar doesn't mean it wasn't there. Same with the Parkland doctors-they were trying to save his life not look for scars. The craniotomy scar was observed and photographed by the forensic pathologists at the exhumation. The photo is on my website in the post "Paul Groody's Theory".

quote Tracy Parnell ( http://http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/3key.htm )

3. Oswald Exhumation.

In 1981, the body of LHO was exhumed in order to disprove the theory of Michael Eddowes whose book, The Oswald File, postulated a Soviet look-alike was buried in the LHO grave. The body was positively identified primarily by dental records as that of Oswald. That killed Eddowes' theory but interestingly once again Armstrong's theory was defeated by an event that predated it.

Although the Norton team's primary charge was the use of dental records, they could not help but notice the obvious presence of a mastoidectomy defect on the left side of the head that corresponded with the one LHO was known to have. The team noted the defect in their report and also photographed it for the record. The problem for Armstrong is that the body Norton looked at was supposed to be "Harvey" while it was "Lee" who had the mastoid operation. So once again the Armstrong theory is shown to be wrong and totally disproved.

close quote

KK

Amazingly, to this day Armstrong and his team have never addressed the mastoid issue. There is also a Russian medical document that reports the mastoid scar which, of course, is found on "Harvey" instead of Lee. Maybe one of the H&L team members can update us on this issue.

If you are a H&L devotee, you must draw the conclusion, that

Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along with

Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of them

has ever breathed a word about it!

Omerta eh?

KK

Karl,

Lillian had to have known about the "plot" as would the entire Murret family. The closest Armstrong comes to admitting this that I can find is on page 279 where he says:

Lillian Murret, sister of the real Marguerite Oswald, went along with the charade and told the Commission, "She came down here ..... She told me all about it, what she knew about it (the defection).

Thanks for mentioning my website as well.

David Josephs Said:

What David Lifton has to say about other researchers is a matter of opinion, no?

What Lifton said is completely relevant and correct in my view. If you take a witness and tell them they are important, their views have historic significance and them make them a star at JFK conferences, do you think it is possible that might influence their behavior? I do.

As far as McBride (whose letter to Lifton I have read and don't find compelling), Armstrong laments the fact that he was never called before the WC. But nobody wishes McBride had testified more than I do. 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, as you know. This is a short but relevant excerpt from that interview:

Lifton: OK. In this (FBI) statement, you also write, “during his first visit to my home, in late ’57 or early ’58. . . “

McBride: No, that’s not right. Its gotta be ’56. Its gotta be ’56. It can’t be ’57.” . . . .

Lifton: I want you to go through this. Do you have any theory as to why you were confused, why you thought it was ’57 or ’58 back when you made the statement?

McBride: No. I can’t figure it out as to why I thought it was ’58. If he was already in the Marines in’56, he sure as hell wasn’t at Pfisterer.

But Armstrong got to McBride, as Lifton has explained here many times, and the rest is unfortunately history. Of course, had McBride testified and recanted his 1963 statement, Armstrong could have still gotten to him at any point and convinced him he was a "star" witness. And that is a major point here. These people have a motive to lie or at least exaggerate. After all, no one at a JFK conference wants to hear that Oswald was at Pfisterer in 1956. But if Armstrong tells them they are a witness to history, they can say, "hey, I was right after all!"

Are you now going to tell us the revelations of the ARRB and Doug Horne are not worth the paper they are written on due to the time which passed for the witnesses who spoke out?

This is not the place for a discussion of the ARRB but Doug Horne has done some fine work including finding the tax documents that offer additional proof that McBride was mistaken in his remembrances. Armstrong was left with no choice but to declare them forgeries.

As for Kudlaty, I am not saying he DID lie, only that it is a possibility. If he was telling the truth and honestly trying to remember the situation, then another possibility is he was simply mistaken.

The entire H&L theory is built on witnesses (some anonymous, some lying and some just mistaken) and mistakes and inconsistencies in the documentation of Oswald's unusual and confusing life. And anything that doesn't fit the theory can be explained as faked or just ignored. But an alternate universe is not needed to explain the evidence.

Lankford was also involved with LHOs funeral and burial. He seems to have been a “prime mover” in an attempt to have LHOs body cremated, rather than buried. This is reported by morticians Paul Groody and Allen Baumgardner, as well as by Robert Oswald. In fact, the process went so far that cremation forms were actually typed up, although the family members finally decided against it. Why, it must be asked, was Lankford so eager for cremation?

I'm bringing this thread back up because I just did an article on Groody. The "prime mover" stuff comes from Groody and his assistant Baumgardner. Lankford was contacted by reporters and stated that cremation was simply an alternative offered to the Oswald family by law enforcement "but the brother, mother and wife didn't want to do it. The (cremation) papers were sent to us." Looks like just more conspiracy theories from Groody to me.

Gary Mack reminded me of the following by email:

There are other explanations why Lankford urged cremation. First and foremost, it was cheaper and it was clear the Oswald family didn't have much, if any, money. But second, there were genuine fears in Fort Worth that the grave site would be violated and the body stolen. Well, no body, no theft.

David Josephs said:

One needs to ask how a brother does not recognize his own - and yet is correct when telling H from L in all the photos

Pic had an opportunity to talk to John Armstrong and "spill his guts". He declined. Pic never said that the man in the photos was not his brother-only that he could not recognize those photos as his brother. He was being careful because he was under oath.

One needs to ask why a USMC buddy Felde - tells one story while the WC CE1961 offers a differnent one

Because Felde was simply mistaken which gave Armstrong an opportunity to work him into his theory.

One needs to ask how Lee is seen in the company of Ruby and related characters in Dallas while Harvey is in New Orleans with his family

Because again, there will be false sightings in a high profile case and this was as high profile as they come. Actually, the only one who "needs" to ask these questions is a person developing a two Oswald theory since there are other logical explanations.

Comments by someone other than G Parker would be appreciated.

First, because of the chaotic lifestyle of the Oswald and his family, parts of the chronology of LHO's early life (and even his later years) may be unknowable. Of course, Armstrong uses this confusion to his advantage.

As for Kudlaty, the first point here is the methodology of Armstrong when interviewing his witnesses. He employs what David Lifton has referred to as a "witness recruitment program". That is, instead of asking impartial fact finding questions, Armstrong befriends the person and convinces them they are a unique witness to history and in several cases made them "stars" at JFK conferences. Also, Armstrong's effective co-author, Jack White, was a personal friend of Kudlaty, a fact that he revealed to Greg Parker and then tried to minimize. All of this does nothing to build confidence in the ability of the Armstrong team to find the true uncolored facts on the Kudlaty situation.

Armstrong, as he has shown over and over, is perfectly willing to rely on the decades old memory of a witness when constructing his theory and such is the case with Kudlaty. By his own admission, Kudlaty, who "thinks" LHO was in the ninth grade at Stripling, only briefly viewed the records yet amazingly he was able 33 years later to recall considerable detail. Armstrong gives no credence to the concept that Kudlaty could be mistaken or lying, as people are known to do for various reasons, one of which could be that they have been informed they are a part of history. Another explanation for the Kudlaty story is that he is remembering Robert Oswald rather than Lee, as Robert did in fact attend Stripling and although Kudlaty remembers both brothers, it is a possibility.

However, it is possible that LHO briefly attended Stripling in 1951-52 as Robert believed. If he did, it would jibe with Kudlaty's recollection that LHO's attendance was short in duration. In any case, as Greg Parker has pointed out, you don't need a parallel universe to explain this.

Lankford was also involved with LHOs funeral and burial. He seems to have been a “prime mover” in an attempt to have LHOs body cremated, rather than buried. This is reported by morticians Paul Groody and Allen Baumgardner, as well as by Robert Oswald. In fact, the process went so far that cremation forms were actually typed up, although the family members finally decided against it. Why, it must be asked, was Lankford so eager for cremation?

I'm bringing this thread back up because I just did an article on Groody. The "prime mover" stuff comes from Groody and his assistant Baumgardner. Lankford was contacted by reporters and stated that cremation was simply an alternative offered to the Oswald family by law enforcement "but the brother, mother and wife didn't want to do it. The (cremation) papers were sent to us." Looks like just more conspiracy theories from Groody to me.

A report on Paul Groody's 2006 appearance on the Coast to Coast AM radio show and a discussion on his apparent theory of the exhumation:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/paul-groody.html

Jim Hargrove said:

Does anyone here disagree that the "Oswald project," as CIA accountant James Wilcott referred to it, was a creation of American Intelligence?

The HSCA certainly disagreed:

In an attempt to investigate Wilcott's allegations, the committee interviewed several present and former CIA employees selected on the basis of the position each had held during the years 1954-64. Among the persons interviewed were individuals whose responsibilities covered a broad spectrum of areas in the post abroad, including the chief and deputy chief of station, as well as officers in finance, registry, the Soviet Branch and counterintelligence.

None of these individuals interviewed had ever seen any documents or heard any information indicating that Oswald was an agent. (18) This allegation was not known by any of them until it was published by critics of the Warren Commission in the late 1960's.(19) Some of the individuals, including a chief of counterintelligence in the Soviet Branch, expressed the belief that it was possible that Oswald had been recruited by the Soviet KGB during his military tour of duty overseas, as the CIA had identified a KGB program aimed at recruiting U.S. military personnel during the-period Oswald was stationed there. (20) An intelligence analyst whom Wilcott had specifically named as having been involved in a conversation about the Oswald allegation told the committee that he was not in the post abroad at the time of the assassination.(21) A review of this individual's office of personnel file confirmed that, in fact, he had been transferred from the post abroad to the United States in 1962. (22) The chief of the post abroad from 1961 to 1964 stated that had Oswald been used by the Agency he certainly would have learned about it.(23) Similarly, almost all those persons interviewed who worked in the Soviet Branch of that station indicated they would have known if Oswald had, in fact, been recruited by the CIA when he was overseas.(24) These persons-expressed the opinion that, had Oswald been recruited without their knowledge, it would have been a rare exception contrary to the working policy and guidelines of the post abroad. (25)

Based on all the evidence, the committee concluded that Wilcott's allegation was not worthy of belief.

Nice looking site Greg-using humor might be a good idea when discussing this subject.

Yo, Porker,

John A's newest research... about the two Steven Landesbergs... will be ready for publication as early as tomorrow or Monday, and will be posted RIGHT HERE, along with the newest DEFECTION PHOTO info and TONSILS REPORT data on LHO.

Again, Porker (YOU LOOK SO MUCH THINNER IN YOUR BS PHOTO) ... please make posts soon along the lines of your FRANKENSTEIN OSWALD!! And by all means... DON'T CLICK HERE!

And remember....

WE LOVE YOU!!!

Bye-bye...

That should be interesting.

Paul,

Thanks for your interesting comments. I agree completely with the following:

It's seems to me that John Armstrong is having fun with the readers -- and has created a new game to play with the data of the JFK assassination.

I don't think that John Armstrong believes (or cares) about a Double-Oswald