W. Tracy Parnell

If Jack White had exercised intellectual integrity while composing his poster, as opposed to digging for *any* means to prove his point, he would never have included that photo in the lineup.

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.

Tracy

just reading what you wrote alongside the image you supplied on your blog and I now see that you too have no doubts about it being a manipulated photo.

Anyway,

if the monster really did come from the WWP then it's placement over the original newspaper image on the website would be a little more forgivable, no? Why not put it back up and explain it's from a legitimate source who were clearly manipulating images of Oswald before he went into enemy territory?

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.

Tracy

just reading what you wrote alongside the image you supplied on your blog and I now see that you too have no doubts about it being a manipulated photo.

Anyway,

if the monster really did come from the WWP then it's placement over the original newspaper image on the website would be a little more forgivable, no? Why not put it back up and explain it's from a legitimate source who were clearly manipulating images of Oswald before he went into enemy territory?

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.

It was supposedly private contact with Stephen Roy which caused his epiphany.

But how does someone go from believing in H & L to being a Lone Nutter? And not just a Lone Nutter, but a fierce defender of the faith. Does the sudden realization that one theory being wrong wipe out all the reasons you distrusted the official version to begin with?

Moreover, when you argue about X incident and you argue from a point of view of not having heard the counter-auguments previously - i.e. as if you are hearing them for the first time, when in fact, you are well aware of the them, it reeks of an agenda.

This is what Reitzes did in a debate I had with him about Ferrie's death. Unknown to me at the time was that a doctor had previously had the same argument with him on McAdams forum as I was now having with him. Never at any stage let on that he was aware of all the info I was providing.

FWIW, I think his belief in H & L may have been initially honest - but I don't believe his epiphany has that same ring of honesty about it.

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.

Hi Tracy,

could you please show us the copy you made of the photo John sent you?

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

Hi,

This is my first post to the Education Forum. For the past 15 or 20 years or so, I've run John Armstrong's HarveyandLee.net website, which, in the last year or three, John Armstrong actually noticed and made significantly longer. Among the MANY people who seem to hate me and John are John McAdams, Dave Reitzes, David Lifton, Greg Parker, and Tracy Parnell, though there are clearly others. From reading what they say, there can be little doubt that JA and I are TOTAL IDIOTS, though I'd like to thank Steve Gaal and David Josephs for their support. Before agreeing with Mr. Lifton and declaring the entire John Armstrong camp totally daft, please visit my website here:

HarveyandLee.net

Thank you.

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.

And another:

https://www.maryferr...69#relPageId=14 // Valenti

=============================================

McAdams Parnell sitting in a tree K + I + S + S + I + N + G

-----------------------------

By James DiEugenio

Posted October 1, 2013

Apparently, Dave Reitzes has an uncontrollable urge to make a fool out of himself. During those distant, far off years when he did not buy the Warren Commission fairy tale, he was in the Barr McClellan/Craig Zirbel camp i.e. Lyndon Johnson killed President Kennedy. When he inexplicably switched sides, he then became allied with John McAdams and began writing on a variety of subjects, including Jack Ruby. But he began to concentrate on the New Orleans scene and became McAdams' water carrier on Jim Garrison. The problem was, he was about as good in this area as he was when he was backing his LBJ Texas conspiracy theorem. Which means, he was not very convincing, because the quality of his scholarship and insights is quite shoddy.

But that did not matter to John McAdams. Because the professor isn't really interested in scholarship or accuracy. Therefore, Reitzes fit the bill. One of the silliest and stupidest projects that the Dynamic Duo worked on was something called "One Hundred Errors of Fact and Judgment in Oliver Stone's JFK." What clearly happened here was that McAdams and his gang (which included Tracy Parnell at the time) were upset at the web site exposing one hundred errors of fact in Gerald Posner's pitiful book Case Closed. A book they championed even before it came out. So they decided to put together a web site to counter this humiliation. The problem was two fold. In the Posner instance, the authors collaborated with experts in each area of the JFK field and therefore the exposed errors are actually accurate. On the Reitzes creation there is no evidence that the author consulted professionally with anyone. Secondly, Posner was writing a non-fiction book. Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar were writing a dramatic film. In the latter, one is allowed the use of dramatic license. One is not in the former. Yet Posner's book looks so bad today that it does look like he used dramatic license in the volume. (http://www.assassinationweb.com/audio1.htm.) Which is not what non-fiction writers are allowed to do. But which the Warren Report did all the time.

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:

This photograph is from 1959 (the same time the “helmet” photograph was taken). I obtained my copy from Wide World Photos (Rockefeller Center, NY). This photo of LHO appeared in the November 1, 1959 issue of the Fort Worth Star telegram. There was an accompanying article about Oswald’s defection to Russia. I would appreciate your returning this photograph as soon as possible.

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.

W. Tracy Parnell has a web site detailing just a portion of the numerous cans of whoop-ass he has opened on the Larvey theory. Parnell has been at it nearly since the birth of this daffy theory, and the site is a gem.

http://wtracyparnell.com/

And here's another bit of debunking:

http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/3key.htm

And another:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4269#relPageId=14

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.