W. Tracy Parnell

Steve, Armstrong only mentions Sehrt on page 14 of the book and then only to refute an assertion of Marguerite's. There have been other theories concerning Sehrt over the years including the connections you mention. But Armstrong doesn't talk about any of that, so that is the "position" I am referring to. He apparently doesn't believe Sehrt fits into the H&L theory in any way. I think the Evans' would be able to recognize the person that they had known for years. You feel they were told who it was so they just accepted it, so we can disagree on that point. But to me, the greater point is what Armstrong cherry picks and what he leaves out to make his case. And believe me, there are many examples of that in the book. That would bother me if I were a H&L adherent.

Steve, I am having a little trouble following your post, but it seems you are saying Sehrt is in on the plot. But from my reading of H&L Armstrong is not saying that at all. So are you breaking ranks here?

A couple of new additions to my site. First, Armstrong is caught misrepresenting witnesses again: http://wtracyparnell.com/myrtle-julian-and-clem/ And a surprising statement by Jim Hargrove from an old Dellarosa forum post: http://wtracyparnell.com/so-what/

If I may Greg and Tracy will have to forgive me for this but, I was a little confused by some of what Tracy said regarding this and if he himself still thought Frankie could be the result of a bad copy and he mentioned the switch to digital as one possible explanation. I myself am in no doubt that it's been retouched by hand and in his blog he seems to feel the same but it did seem to me that from what he said here at least Tracy could still be undecided. I am undecided on what happened to the photo and who did it and why. There is no doubt that the H&L people are using it to their advantage as Greg first pointed out. I will be updating my blog when this gets sorted out.

Thanks Tracy, I must say, it sounds to me like that was the first time Robert noticed the masked window, so any idea who showed him the fuller photo and when? Blogger provides no details on that except that it was posted in 2012. I guess the "they" Robert is referring to would be the newspaper. Do you Tracy know where the fuller masked photo came from and when you first saw it? Also you said you had experience in selling photos, can you think of a good technical reason to block those windows? I am struggling to come up with a reason other than one of disguise. That's all I know about the photos, but I suspect more information may come to light at some point. The only reason to block out the windows is to get a better background which they apparently did on the closeup photos.

Clive, One small clue about the blocked out window comes from the following website: http://oswald-photos.blogspot.com/ The comments there are attributed to Robert Oswald. The photo with the masking behind his head is commented on as follows (last photo): "Used in Fort worth Star Telegram,1959,they masked around his face area" Of course, the question remains who is "they".

Here is a new post from my site that goes to the issue of what the H&L gang were willing to use for their theory. Now, in this case they didn't do it, but the point is they apparently considered it: http://wtracyparnell.com/lho-at-monnig/

The significance of the Landesberg saga is that his alleged relationship with Oswald occurred in late 1961 and early 1962 in New York City, when Classic Oswald was in the Soviet Union. Just as they did for Ralph Leon Yates in Dallas at about the same, Landesberg's legal and "mental" problems began in earnest when he told authorities he interacted with Oswald in one place at the same time Oswald clearly was clearly in a different place. In the Dec. 6, 1963 edition, The New York Times reported the Landesberg story under the headline "New Yorker is held for tricking FBI." The Sept. 1996 edition of The Fourth Decade has a lengthy article about Landesberg which can be read here: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48695#relPageId=26&tab=page Here we see the absurdity of it all. Because someone said they saw Oswald somewhere, it must be true. In fact, that appears to be the whole MO with Armstrong. So the health issues in the Marines were a pack of lies? Absolutely right Greg, every sighting is an opportunity for them. Of course, they have to accept a certain number of these sightings because "Harvey" and "Lee" have to be in different places for the theory to seem to work at all. I believe that Armstrong only used Landesberg because he spent so much time and money on it. If I were the H&L gang, I would forget about Landesberg though because it really is a dead end. The guy had problems and that is obvious from the documents in Armstrong's own files, especially the 11 page document detailing the severity of his condition.

Thanks Jim, I looked back through the book but I missed that.

Adding credence to Sylvia Odio's story of meeting ex-Marine "Leon Oswald" and the two Cubans (at the same time "Lee Harvey Oswald" is supposed to be on a bus to Mexico City) is how dishonest the FBI was in trying to discredit her. An alleged FBI interview with Loran Eugene Hall seemed to indicate that Hall and Lawrence Howard and William Seymour were actually the three men who visited Sylvia and her sister. But when the FBI interviewed Seymour, he said he'd never heard of Sylvia Odio and, in fact, was nowhere near Dallas on any date within weeks of the "Leon Oswald" encounter with Odio. Employment records from Seymour's job in Miami, Florida confirmed that he was there--not in Dallas--from Sept. 5 through Oct. 10. Despite the fact that the FBI was well aware of this problem with the Hall/Howard/Seymour saga, the FBI used the original Seymour story in a message to the WC to try and indicate Odio was mistaken. Warren Commission defenders always like to talk about "Occam's Razor," you know, that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. So here's an exercise in this form of logic: How many times does a "Lee Harvey Oswald" have to be impersonated before we begin to wonder if there is a simpler explanation? Even lone assassin theorists like Bugliosi and Jean Davison give credence to the Odio sighting for example. But the vast majority of sightings can be attributed to mistaken identity. When shows like "America's Most Wanted" and so on put out requests to the public for help they get hundreds of tips. The authorities understand that 99 percent of them will be false but they are hoping for one good one. Bur there are very few of these sighting or "impersonations" that warrant a second look.

Steve, Thanks for the reply. You say Greg postulates that Robert gave FWST the photo and that makes sense to me. But is that what the H&L gangs thinks as well?

The significance of the Landesberg saga is that his alleged relationship with Oswald occurred in late 1961 and early 1962 in New York City, when Classic Oswald was in the Soviet Union. Just as they did for Ralph Leon Yates in Dallas at about the same, Landesberg's legal and "mental" problems began in earnest when he told authorities he interacted with Oswald in one place at the same time Oswald clearly was clearly in a different place. In the Dec. 6, 1963 edition, The New York Times reported the Landesberg story under the headline "New Yorker is held for tricking FBI." The Sept. 1996 edition of The Fourth Decade has a lengthy article about Landesberg which can be read here: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48695#relPageId=26&tab=page The Landesberg story would be significant if there were any evidence that he was with Oswald in 61-62. But the only evidence is Landesberg's own statement to the FBI made under an assumed name. The Village Voice followed Landesberg carefully and would have certainly noticed anyone working with him and especially a photographer, but there are no reports of that-only of a girl who seemed to be working with him at times. But anyone reading H&L would get a different impression. On page 380 of H&L Armstrong says: "Stephen Yves L’Eandes (aka Steve Landesberg), who had recently appeared on New York radio programs to uphold the concept of segregation, was in the audience along with Earl Perry and Lee Oswald, who had a camera." His source is a Village Voice article, but when you check the article there is nothing about Oswald, Perry or a camera. As I point out in my article, Armstrong's whole treatment of Landesberg in H&L is bizarre and incorrect. And Landesberg was crazy-if anyone doubts that they can go to the Armstrong files and find the 11 page document which Armstrong uncovered himself that describes this in detail. His mental problems had certainly begun well before 1963-at least by 1957 and perhaps before. And his legal problems only began when he lied to the FBI and they found out about it. And anyone postulating that there is anything else to the story must (as is the case with so many other areas in the JFK case) be talking about fraud, faked evidence etc. Lurkers are invited to see my article and judge for yourself. There are links in the endnotes to the documents. http://wtracyparnell.com/the-hoaxster-and-the-conspiracy-theorists/

Jim, A question-this is for the list of who was involved in the H&L plot that I am working on. Who was responsible for getting the photo to the FWST? Did the plotters have someone inside the newspaper or was it the CIA or FBI?

This is from the bio I provided when I joined the forum. I prefer not to put detailed information on the Internet as many security experts advise, I am not on Facebook etc. And no, I am not with the CIA. I have been interested in the assassination of JFK since 1984 when I read Best Evidence. From 1998 to 2004, I was webmaster of the Lee Harvey Oswald Research Page, which is now archived at John McAdams site. I am a semi-retired musician (I perform in nursing homes) and live in western NY state.

Jim, I am satisfied that the "Frankenstein" photo was indeed as provided by WWP as I stated previously in this thread. However, you can't blame Greg for being suspicious when someone obviously did paste "Frankenstein" over the '59 article. I don't believe that someone was you and you did the right thing by removing it. But there is a history with Armstrong of deception and you have apparently removed several things because of this. So apparently, you are more honest and careful in this regard than the boss and I give you credit for that. According to information on the old Dellarosa forum, at one point, Jim Marrs was considering writing Harvey & Lee and I think it would have been a much better book if he had. I think Armstrong spent a great deal of time and money and wanted to write the book as he saw fit.

The answer is he didn't change heights, it is only discrepancies in the record. I find it believable that someone would ask him his height, as long as it wasn't too far off and a couple inches qualifies in my book. Of course, they are not going to do that with something like a shooting score for obvious reasons. I go by Occam's razor-the simplest explanation is usually correct. In the case of anyone's records there will be discrepancies because people make mistakes. In all cases where LHO was photographed with a height chart or such as at autopsy where accuracy was needed he was 5' 9" tall, in other words instances where we know he was measured. As others have said here previously, men will lie about their height-I have done it myself, although I only added an inch. I don't pretend to know the answer to every discrepancy in the record. But I am unwilling to accept the H&L theory to get my answers. Earl Rose stated that he could have overlooked the mastoid scar and IDed the body through fingerprints and x-rays. It is a different thing to not find a scar and to say it doesn't exist. As for witnesses, it is a known fact that after a publicized event people will say they have seen someone somewhere when it could not have happened. I would say the number of sightings of LHO that have any merit at all are maybe 3 or 4 and I am not saying they happened, only that they could have such as Odio and a couple others. Alice Texas I don't buy at all. I am unaware of any autopsy photos that are missing for Oswald. The key point with Landesberg is that they found something and tried to make it fit the scenario they had developed rather than letting the evidence guide them. And that is one of the problems with H&L is square pegs in round holes. There is always an alternate explanation for any of the discrepancies in the record other than the H&L theory. Thanks Tracy... appreciate the response... isn't the real point about the mastoid scar and his autopsy that the photos that were taken cannot be seen to prove it one way or another... like so much of the "original" evidence? (You may want to google the discussion about the 30 or so photos taken by another doctor at the time to record the autopsy process... taken away, cataloged yet gone to history) There are a few out there but they are mostly poor - as if a doctor not a photographer took them http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/02/JilM.html and many of course are missing... Do we really need to contact the USMC to see if they ever simply took the word of the marine for their vital stats documentation? And we are of course talking about more than just the marine records related to his height discrepancies... Was it the same "take your word for it" problem between 1951 and 1953 when he goes from 5'4" to 4'10" while Robert says he took the photo while Pic says that's not his brother... Kids usually don't shrink by 6 inches between ages 12 and 14.... while witnesses/documentation along the way that tells us of this scrawny, loner which conflicts with Lee, the class president and leader of kids... the little one also did not speak with a southern accent when he returned to New Orleans, and Ft. Worth... while Lee was teased for his accent while in NYC... This to me, remains one of the more difficult to resolve conflicts... since Pic goes on to correctly choose H from L in every case. Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir. A photo was taken by Rose of course of the back of the head. But the scar was probably hidden in the hair as Rose and others have postulated. As for the quality, they could be better-I believe Rose did take them and somewhere stated that some were overexposed. I am writing this from memory so I may be wrong about some of it. I will check the thread about the other photos you say were taken when I get time. In my view, the exhumation settled all issues about the identity of the person in the grave. Remember, the whole purpose of the exhumation was to answer a conspiracy theory by Eddowes. So this was not a whitewash by the government or anything like that. Eddowes picked the experts, who were among the best in the country at the time. And they identified Oswald and found the Mastoid defect. So anyone who disputes that is left with claiming the evidence was altered and I don't believe that was possible. I would be happy to discuss the exhumation with anyone here as I am very familiar with that evidence. Of course, the people who did the measuring in the MC were undoubtedly not supposed to just ask the individual what their height was. But it is possible they did so to save time. There are other possibilities such as they measured wrong or wrote it down wrong or LHO had footwear with a heel. The point is there are other possibilities. Same for the zoo photo and I understand you called about the height of the railing. But you would have to admit that is not a scientific method of determining someone's height. For example, he could be leaning backwards which would change the measurement. And to my knowledge, Pic never said it wasn't his brother, just that the photo did not look like him and indeed it is not a great picture. And Armstrong contacted Pic so he had the opportunity to tell him at that time if he had these type of suspicions about his brother. BTW, I forgot to mention David that you or anyone from the Armstrong camp are welcome to go to my site and post comments. I will be happy to give you wide latitude in any discussions or refutations you wish to add. I think if you know anything about me you will know that I am very fair in my dealings with other researchers. I readily admit I don't have all the answers and may not be able to refute everything.

The answer is he didn't change heights, it is only discrepancies in the record. I find it believable that someone would ask him his height, as long as it wasn't too far off and a couple inches qualifies in my book. Of course, they are not going to do that with something like a shooting score for obvious reasons. I go by Occam's razor-the simplest explanation is usually correct. In the case of anyone's records there will be discrepancies because people make mistakes. In all cases where LHO was photographed with a height chart or such as at autopsy where accuracy was needed he was 5' 9" tall, in other words instances where we know he was measured. As others have said here previously, men will lie about their height-I have done it myself, although I only added an inch. I don't pretend to know the answer to every discrepancy in the record. But I am unwilling to accept the H&L theory to get my answers. Earl Rose stated that he could have overlooked the mastoid scar and IDed the body through fingerprints and x-rays. It is a different thing to not find a scar and to say it doesn't exist. As for witnesses, it is a known fact that after a publicized event people will say they have seen someone somewhere when it could not have happened. I would say the number of sightings of LHO that have any merit at all are maybe 3 or 4 and I am not saying they happened, only that they could have such as Odio and a couple others. Alice Texas I don't buy at all. I am unaware of any autopsy photos that are missing for Oswald. The key point with Landesberg is that they found something and tried to make it fit the scenario they had developed rather than letting the evidence guide them. And that is one of the problems with H&L is square pegs in round holes. There is always an alternate explanation for any of the discrepancies in the record other than the H&L theory.

Clive, Please do study the H&L evidence and make up your own mind. But remember a few points: Do keep the Baylor website handy. And while you are at it look at some of the documents in the endnotes from my article: http://wtracyparnell.com/the-hoaxster-and-the-conspiracy-theorists/ If you read those docs you will find a comedy of errors as Armstrong and several researchers tried desperately to connect Stephen H. Landesberg, a person with serious mental problems, to the assassination in any way. They also tried to implicate actor Steve Landesberg of Barney Miller fame until his chief of security made them back off. Also check out the letters and emails at Baylor between Armstrong and researchers. You will find that when anyone started to question any part of the theory, they were given the cold shoulder rather than encouraged to think for themselves. There are several areas such as the 1981 exhumation of LHO and the HSCA handwriting study which completely refute the H&L theory. Remember, the exhumation was done because of Eddowes who had his own two Oswald theory. He picked his own forensic experts and the results were it was the one and only Oswald in the grave. And the mastoid operation that was supposed to be on "Lee" was on "Harvey". They will counter with "why didn't Rose see it"? Rose said that he could have missed it since he wasn't looking for it. And someone missing something is different than it not being there. All is explained here in the work I did which drew on the previous good work of Gary Mack, Duke Lane and others. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/xindex.htm I will be doing a piece in the near future with a summary of my views so watch for it.

OK, I did, we will see what they say. Came back undeliverable.

I believe that is correct.

Mark, The whole story smells as you point out. What happens is Armstrong goes around finding these people and then tells them that they are a witness to history and their story will help to rewrite the JFK case and so on. Some of them have appeared (as I'm sure you know) at JFK conferences and are treated as stars. Witnesses should be taken with a grain of salt especially years and years later when their memories are a mixture of memory and life experiences. But to the Armstrong people they are the gold standard to be valued above all else.

OK, I did, we will see what they say.

You may be right and 3835 MAY signify Atsugi, although the information you have provided does indicate that this was the code from 1950-55 so I am not completely convinced. Bernie and Greg have provided information that contradicts this so, as I said, an expert could clear this up. In any case, IF the evidence does indicate that Oswald was treated at Atsugi there are other possible explanations such as the records are wrong or the manner in which they were recorded is confusing. But there are ALWAYS alternate explanations for ANYTHING in the Harvey & Lee theory other than the CIA was running two Oswalds who were doubles (or not exactly doubles but close enough depending on what the situation is) for a future mission that ended up being the JFK murder. The information Armstrong collected is interesting, it is what he did with it that is the problem. BTW, since studying the H&L theory, I have developed a tendency to use CAPS and bold to make my point (also italics and underline) so please forgive the caps above.

As far as the 3835 code is concerned, I emailed the Ebay seller Bernie and others were talking about and got this reply: That is a navy location code. My list of the codes does not include this number, so I do not know where it was located. For instance, navy #10 is Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. I wish I knew where #3835 was located. So what we seem to need is an expert on reading military records to get to the bottom of this. I will say this-you would think with all the resources and helpers Armstrong had, he would have figured this out. Or maybe he did and the answer was not helpful to his thesis.

Yes, I remember reading about his being attacked now that you mention it. Very unfortunate and I guess that could make you a little paranoid for sure. Good man with good intentions but one who sometimes used questionable methods.