W. Tracy Parnell

I decided to post this here since there has been much discussion of Jack's methods: http://wtracyparnell.com/jack-white-and-the-lho-exhumation-photos/

Here is the way I see the debate. Reasonable possibilities that would explain why Oswald was diagnosed with tonsillitis: 1. The tonsils grew back as CAN happen. 2. The tonsils were never removed since there is only an insurance document based on a statement by Marguerite who frequently lied when it suited her purposes. 3. A misdiagnosis-it can happen Doctors are not Gods and make mistakes. Armstrong Camp-possibilities that would explain why Oswald was diagnosed with tonsillitis: There were two Oswalds being run by a secret CIA program for some unknown future purpose that ended up being the killing of JFK.

Thanks Jonathan, I appreciate it.

It is certainly more forgivable than if they had both created Frankenstein and pasted it over the article. But as Parker says, it is still a form of research fraud and Hargrove was right to remove it and I give him credit for that. I don't believe WWP was manipulating anything. I just think it was a poor quality image for some unknown reason. The possibility still exists that White or someone else altered it, but that is less likely for the reasons I have explained. We need to know the trail of the unaltered image used in the return story. Why was it not used in the "defection" story? How would WWP have a photo of Oswald in the military a day after the defection? See... I can't get my head past the fact that they interviewed Robert and he supplied a photo of himself (unless someone is claiming WWP also had one of him). Any photo that Robert supplied to the newspaper would have been unaltered. So the newspaper itself tampered with the photo prior to publishing it - then nearly 3 years later, used the unaltered version. So the question for me is, how and when did WWP get involved in all of this? Is it being suggested that the newspaper sold their alterered version of the photo to WWP and that WWP further altered it? In any possible scenario, who held the original during this time? It just does not add up. If the newspaper had a copy of the original all along, why didn't they just sell/give Armstrong a copy of that? And if WWP had it, why didn't they sell a copy of it to Armstrong? This is speculation but I would call it informed speculation since I used to sell photos occasionally before the digital revolution changed the market. Wide World Photos is or was a stock photo house apparently under the umbrella of the AP. If you search Wide World Photos the first thing on Google is AP Images which may be simply a rebranding of WWP. Hargrove states previously in this thread that Armstrong called the FWST and they referred him to WWP. This makes sense because WWP was apparently the stock photo agency for the AP in the 1997 time frame and handled requests for images. Once the photo came under control of the AP, FWST would not be involved. How and when Frankenstein ended up in the condition it did is unknown, but Hargrove has said he will provide further proof, so we will see. I would guess that Robert did supply the original photo as you suggest is a possibility, but only he could answer that and I gather he doesn't talk much at this point. As for how the photo ended up looking the way it does, I can imagine the journey an image might make from the late fifties until 1997. There would probably be a period when the agency was switching from analog to digital and something might have occurred then. But the Armstrong camp either took advantage of a mishap of some type or someone (probably White) manipulated it. But if he did it was early on before he sent it to me in 1997.

It is certainly more forgivable than if they had both created Frankenstein and pasted it over the article. But as Parker says, it is still a form of research fraud and Hargrove was right to remove it and I give him credit for that. I don't believe WWP was manipulating anything. I just think it was a poor quality image for some unknown reason. The possibility still exists that White or someone else altered it, but that is less likely for the reasons I have explained.

OK, I had never heard the part about Roy, but it makes sense because they share a similar area of interest. Thanks for the information.

Hi Greg, Could you elaborate on that? I am very interested in the subject after reading the letters and emails from Armstrong's files.

Clive, I added it to my blog, I wasn't sure how to do an attachment since I am finding my way around still. This is a copy of a copy so the quality is bad, but I think you can see that it is Frankenstein. I cropped off the writing on the left which is just to remind me of what it was. http://wtracyparnell.com/frankenstein-oswald/

The story of Stephen Harris Landesberg is one of the strangest in all of JFK assassination literature. Through the years, conspiracy theorists have pointed to Landesberg as an example of Lee Harvey Oswald’s association with someone on the political right. But in a statement to the FBI, Landesberg recanted his allegations about Stephen L’Eandes, Earl Perry and Oswald (inferentially) and admitted that he was L’Eandes and had carried out political activities using that alias. This article will examine Landesberg’s life and history of mental problems in detail. It will also study the work and methodology of a group of researchers led by John Armstrong as it relates to the Landesberg case. Finally, I will look at Armstrong’s treatment of Landesberg in his 2003 book Harvey and Lee. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-hoaxster-and-conspiracy-theorists.html

For the record, I certainly do not hate Jim Hargrove, John Armstrong or anyone else associated with the Harvey & Lee theory. I respect anyone who studies the assassination or any historical event for that matter. It takes a lot of time and work to do so. John Armstrong has added to the historical record on Oswald and even Bugliosi acknowledged this. I just disagree with the Harvey & Lee theory and believe that it sidetracks researchers whose time is better spent elsewhere.

David, There are really three issues here. Hargrove had a composite image on his site (since removed) with "Frankenstein" pasted over the original newspaper article. As Greg Parker has pointed out, this was done in an apparent attempt to differentiate between "Harvey" and "Lee". Hargrove has removed the photo and replaced it with the original which is an admission of the existence of the composite. He says he doesn't know how it got that way and that is fine he may be telling the truth and he has done the right thing. This issue is what this thread was originally created by Parker to discuss. The second issue here is if "Frankenstein" (as opposed to Hargrove's composite) was created by someone in the Armstrong camp. I have stated my belief that "Frankenstein" was a creation of the stock photo house, either a poor quality copy or whatever. But even if that is the case, it was used to advantage by someone in the Armstrong camp. The third issue is where did the photos from the Marine Corps "shoot" come from? I don't have the slightest idea, although the suggestion that Robert Oswald provided them seems reasonable.

DiEugenio has some things wrong here. First, Reitzes did not "inexplicably" switch sides. His change to a lone assassin mindset was documented here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/dr1.htm If anyone is interested, they can go to Armstrong's site at Baylor and search "Reitzes" to find emails and letters between the two that show the transition happening in real time, at least as it regards Harvey & Lee. Finally, DiEugenio seems to lump me in with the "they" that he asserts was pushing Posner's book before it even came out. I can say for my part that I was not on the Internet until 1997 and was not part of any effort to "champion" Case Closed before it was published. Anyone that believes they have evidence of this should post it. Of course, it is well known that I wrote articles defending Posner after I started my site in 1998 but Case Closed came out in 1993.

Greg, To answer your question, it appears Armstrong indeed received the "Frankenstein" version and then at some point someone pasted it over the original article to create a composite. This is from my website: http://wtracyparnell.com/frankenstein-oswald/ In 1997, when I started researching Oswald, I wrote to Armstrong and asked him about his theory and research and expressed my interest in Oswald’s life. He replied and gave me some general advice, described his research to that point and enclosed a copy of “Frankenstein” which I made a photocopy of. The following is verbatim from his letter to me of August 11, 1997: So Armstrong’s story on the photo today matches what he told me in 1997. As I recall, the image was on quality photo paper and did indeed look like it probably came right from the stock photo house. It is well known that Armstrong has limited computer skills and this was certainly even more true in 1997. It is very doubtful that he manipulated the image in any way. Of course, this would not preclude the possibility of someone else manipulating the image for him, but I would guess the fault was with Wide World themselves. However, none of this changes the fact that someone in the Armstrong camp created a composite image at some point by pasting “Frankenstein” over the original article and Parker is certainly correct on that point and Hargrove’s removal of the image is confirmation. So the bottom line is the Armstrong camp is caught with their hand in the “cookie jar” again, although we will probably never know who actually created the composite that once appeared on Hargrove’s site.

Mark, Thanks for mentioning my site and for the kind words-very much appreciated!

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 and live in western NY state.