Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Greg Parker warned others here not to open perfectly fine links, provided by Jim Hargrove. When some of us, including Jim, questioned this, Greg responded in predictably indignant fashion, and attempted to make it look as if he, as always, was being wronged. A reasonable person would have simply said, "I'm sorry, Jim, I didn't mean to infer that you were being dishonest- I just reacted to what my software was telling me."

There are three primary reasons I continue to be drawn back to this topic. One, Greg Parker just keeps cavalierly accusing Jack White of fraud, without even using the "alleged" thing that the msm never uses on Oswald and other patsies. Two, his obsession with dismantling the Harvey & Lee theory has caused him to discount all the strong indications that Oswald was being impersonated in the weeks leading up to the assassination. And now three, he accused Jim Hargrove of posting dangerous links, was found to be in error about this, and not only doesn't apologize, he plays the victim and acts as if Jim was wrong to question it. If others would simply call him out on his behavior and the way he presents speculation as fact, then I could find time for hundreds of more important things than posting here.

I know that the vast majority of the research community, including most who have posted and still post here, have always found Sylvia Odio, for example, to be entirely credible. As such, her encounter with a seeming Oswald impersonator represents strong evidence of an attempt to frame him in advance for the assassination. But no one beyond myself and a few others have confronted Greg here about his contentions. Why is that? Most of you certainly have confrontational personalities.

I personally resent all this a lot more than Jim Hargrove's misunderstanding about how the p.m. system works here.

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.

[Greg Parker]

Greg Parker warned others here not to open perfectly fine links, provided by Jim Hargrove. When some of us, including Jim, questioned this, Greg responded in predictably indignant fashion, and attempted to make it look as if he, as always, was being wronged. A reasonable person would have simply said, "I'm sorry, Jim, I didn't mean to infer that you were being dishonest- I just reacted to what my software was telling me."

There are three primary reasons I continue to be drawn back to this topic. One, Greg Parker just keeps cavalierly accusing Jack White of fraud, without even using the "alleged" thing that the msm never uses on Oswald and other patsies. Two, his obsession with dismantling the Harvey & Lee theory has caused him to discount all the strong indications that Oswald was being impersonated in the weeks leading up to the assassination. And now three, he accused Jim Hargrove of posting dangerous links, was found to be in error about this, and not only doesn't apologize, he plays the victim and acts as if Jim was wrong to question it. If others would simply call him out on his behavior and the way he presents speculation as fact, then I could find time for hundreds of more important things than posting here.

I know that the vast majority of the research community, including most who have posted and still post here, have always found Sylvia Odio, for example, to be entirely credible. As such, her encounter with a seeming Oswald impersonator represents strong evidence of an attempt to frame him in advance for the assassination. But no one beyond myself and a few others have confronted Greg here about his contentions. Why is that? Most of you certainly have confrontational personalities.

I personally resent all this a lot more than Jim Hargrove's misunderstanding about how the p.m. system works here.

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.

It is idiotic to believe someone was impersonating LEE Oswald, but got the name wrong and gave it as LEON instead. And the surname of Oswald was never used - and Odio eventually admitted as much in her testimony.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Greg Parker

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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/

[Greg Parker]

It is idiotic to believe someone was impersonating LEE Oswald, but got the name wrong and gave it as LEON instead. And the surname of Oswald was never used - and Odio eventually admitted as much in her testimony.

Surname was not used on a follow up call... she testifies to his being introduced to her as Leon Oswald, twice.

Why must you continue to lie about what is said in the evidence Parker? This has been addressed already yet you continue to post lies about the actual evidence.

Come clean already GP... Continually posting lies when the evidence is easily posted is, well, FBI-ish...

and obviously indicative of your intentions.

"We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald." He repeated it twice"

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Father McKann that the name Oswald was never used in your presence by any of these men?

Mrs. ODIO. Never was used except to introduce me, and the time when they left. They did not refer to him as Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. But they did in fact, introduce him as Leon Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. And I shook hands with him.

That was NOT her final word. I said she EVENTUALLY came clean, and she did (by evading the question).

But first let's establish that Sylvia is the ONLY witness, at least initially claiming the name Oswald was used.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. She says she doesn't recall. She could not say that it is true.

Now let's establish who initially believed it was Oswald

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she [Annie] think it was Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. Well, her reaction to it when Oswald came on television, she almost passed out on me, just like I did the day at work when I learned about the assassination of the President. Her reaction was so obvious that it was him, I mean. And my reaction, we remember Oswald the day he came to my house because he had not shaved and he had a kind of a very, I don't know how to express it, but some little hairs like if you haven't shaved, but it is not a thick moustache, but some kind of shadow. That is something I noticed. And he was wearing--the other ones were wearing white dirty shirts, but he was wearing a long sleeved shirt.

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

Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned when your sister saw Oswald's picture on television that she almost passed out. Did she recognize him, do you know, as the man that had been in the apartment?

Mrs. ODIO. She said, "Sylvia, you know that man?" And I said, "Yes," and she said, "I know him." "He was the one that came to our door, and it couldn't be so, could it?"

So Annie passed out, and Sylvia went along, soon convincing herself that "Leon" was in fact "Lee Oswald".

Mr. LIEBELER. He never mentioned the name of Oswald on the telephone?

Mrs. ODIO. He never mentioned his last name. He always referred to the American or Leon.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he mention his last name the night before?

Mrs. ODIO. Before they left I asked their names again, and he mentioned their names again. [but she does NOT say BOTH names were mentioned - she realizes her fantasy is unraveling]

Mr. LIEBELER. But he did not mention Oswald's name except as Leon? [Liebeler can see she is not answering a direct question with a direct answer and pushes the point]

Mrs. ODIO. On the telephone conversation he referred to him as Leon or American. [she again fails to give a direct response to the specific question asked and Liebeler gives up after this]

And tell me again cos I missed it the first time - what was the reason this Lee Oswald impersonator used the name "Leon" and decided to go unshaven - a very unOswaldian look?

Edited June 2, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Steven Gaal]

Mrs. ODIO. Before they left I asked their names again, and he mentioned their names again.

[but she does NOT say BOTH names were mentioned - she realizes her fantasy is unraveling] // Parker ( a interpretation = not fact,GAAL)

SHE SAID NAMES , THATS FIRST AND LAST. YES,GOOD DIRECT HONEST ANSWER // Gaal

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

Mr. LIEBELER. But he did not mention Oswald's name except as Leon?

Mrs. ODIO. On the telephone conversation he referred to him as Leon or American.

[Liebeler can see she is not answering a direct question with a direct answer and pushes the point] // Parker (a interpretation = not fact,GAAL)

On the telephone he was called Leon. Yes, good direct honest answer to :name except as Leon? On the telephone only one name used . SHE IS ANSWERING WHEN ONE NAMED USED = ON TELEPHONE. GAAL

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

Edited June 2, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Greg Parker]

Mrs. ODIO. Before they left I asked their names again, and he mentioned their names again.

[but she does NOT say BOTH names were mentioned - she realizes her fantasy is unraveling] // Parker ( a interpretation = not fact,GAAL)

SHE SAID NAMES , THATS FIRST AND LAST. YES,GOOD DIRECT HONEST ANSWER // Gaal

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

Mr. LIEBELER. But he did not mention Oswald's name except as Leon?

Mrs. ODIO. On the telephone conversation he referred to him as Leon or American.

[Liebeler can see she is not answering a direct question with a direct answer and pushes the point] // Parker (a interpretation = not fact,GAAL)

On the telephone he was called Leon. Yes, good direct honest answer to :name except as Leon? On the telephone only one name used . SHE IS ANSWERING WHEN ONE NAMED USED = ON TELEPHONE. GAAL

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

Steve, are you trying to turn this into a battle of fonts, sizes and colors? You know that's not fair? You've had far more practice than I have. You're a pro. Plus, as I understand it, you have the Lord Jesus on your side.

All I have are the lousy facts.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Steven Gaal]

Steve, are you trying to turn this into a battle of fonts, sizes and colors? You know that's not fair? You've had far more practice than I have. You're a pro. Plus, as I understand it, you have the Lord Jesus on your side.

All I have are the lousy facts.// PARKER

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

Pardon me Jesus is LORD and fact.

BTW YOU DIDNT ADDRESS WHAT I ASSERTED IN POST # 370 YES, I agree with you, YOUR FACTS ARE LOUSY. // Gaal

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

repost # 370 below no color

===

Mrs. ODIO. Before they left I asked their names again, and he mentioned their names again.

[but she does NOT say BOTH names were mentioned - she realizes her fantasy is unraveling] // Parker ( a interpretation = not fact,GAAL)

SHE SAID NAMES , THATS FIRST AND LAST. YES,GOOD DIRECT HONEST ANSWER // Gaal

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

Mr. LIEBELER. But he did not mention Oswald's name except as Leon?

Mrs. ODIO. On the telephone conversation he referred to him as Leon or American.

[Liebeler can see she is not answering a direct question with a direct answer and pushes the point] // Parker (a interpretation = not fact,GAAL)

On the telephone he was called Leon. Yes, good direct honest answer to :name except as Leon? On the telephone only one name used . SHE IS ANSWERING WHEN ONE NAMED USED = ON TELEPHONE. GAAL

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

Edited June 2, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

You forgot what the rest of what my informant said:

Treatment for NSU (Non-specific urethritis) and the Clap ( Gonorrhea) only required Penicillin and restriction to the ship (no liberty).

In order for the medical staff on board the Skagit to differentiate between NSU and "the clap", they had to be able to do the lab work.

And are you seriously suggesting that the Australian Navy during WWII was better equipped than the mighty US Navy in the 1950's? // PARKER

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

SAID INFORMANT DID LAB WORK ?? NO ? Well lab work could be done in port and MEDICAL SHIPS COULD TAKE SHIP TO SHIP LINE TRANFER OF PEOPLE AND MATERIAL (LIKE LAB SPECIMENS ) . He isn't even an eye witness and Mr. PARKER only accepts some eye witness testimony. (NO HAVEY/LEE CONFIRMING TESTIMONY) // Gaal

[Paul Trejo]

It is idiotic to believe someone was impersonating LEE Oswald, but got the name wrong and gave it as LEON instead. And the surname of Oswald was never used - and Odio eventually admitted as much in her testimony.

Well, Greg, I tend to agree with you about Armstrong's double-Oswald detour -- but about the Silvia Odio story, I continue to agree with Gaeton Fonzi on most points.

First, Silvia Odio repeated that the name told to her was "Leon Oswald."

Secondly, the name, "Leon" is appropriate in Spanish language, which does not have or recognize any first name like "Lee." In Spanish that is a Chinese surname -- and nobody's first name. In Spanish language, if somebody is named "Lee," they will simply call him "Leon" which is a common Spanish name.

I find Silvia Odio believable, and I'm surprised that you don't.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 2, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

...And tell me again cos I missed it the first time - what was the reason this Lee Oswald impersonator used the name "Leon" and decided to go unshaven - a very unOswaldian look?

Well, Greg, it makes sense to me that insofar as Loran Hall and Larry Howard drove from Southern California with instructions to pick up Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans, and then drive him to Mexico City through Texas, that by the time this crew got to Dallas, Lee would have some facial hair.

Furthermore, it had been days since Lee Oswald saw Marina -- so there is some chance that Oswald didn't shave for a few days.

IMHO, the Warren Commission did their best to SMASH Silvia Odio's story. The FBI did the same. Hoover had demanded that there be only a "Lone Shooter" with "no accomplices who are still at large."

I agree with Gaeton Fonzi: Silvia Odio presents strong evidence that Oswald had accomplices. (Also the position of bullet holes in JFK's shirt and coat, six inches below the neck, is further proof of Conspiracy, says Fonzi, and that is unassailable, IMHO.)

Finally, Fonzi met with Silvia Odio face to face and studied all her materials -- and could find no flaw in them.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited June 2, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

You forgot what the rest of what my informant said:

Treatment for NSU (Non-specific urethritis) and the Clap ( Gonorrhea) only required Penicillin and restriction to the ship (no liberty).

In order for the medical staff on board the Skagit to differentiate between NSU and "the clap", they had to be able to do the lab work.

And are you seriously suggesting that the Australian Navy during WWII was better equipped than the mighty US Navy in the 1950's? // PARKER

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

SAID INFORMANT DID LAB WORK ?? NO ? Well lab work could be done in port and MEDICAL SHIPS COULD TAKE SHIP TO SHIP LINE TRANFER OF PEOPLE AND MATERIAL (LIKE LAB SPECIMENS ) . He isn't even an eye witness and Mr. PARKER only accepts some eye witness testimony. (NO HAVEY/LEE CONFIRMING TESTIMONY) // Gaal

He is a disinterested party - unlike H & L witnesses.

And yes - I agree that a medical ship or at any port, the lab work could have been done. My point was that it HAD to be done in order to differentiate between a NSU and "the clap".

[Steven Gaal]

And yes - I agree that a medical ship or at any port, the lab work could have been done. My point was that it HAD to be done in order to differentiate between a NSU and "the clap". // PARKER

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

And yes - I agree that that it LAB WORK had to be done in order to differentiate between a NSU and "the clap". The top of the papers say EAST CAMP and are done with a stamp. I contend that there is no reason to have a EAST CAMP stamped paperwork on a ship and that said stamp indicates a land based clinic in EAST CAMP Atsugi Japan. It would be handwritten on the ship since it interacted with many far East military bases RE: transport. Could be done on ship. Actually it would be a kit to see culture for UTI bacteria. If not UTI ,STD (with the symptoms) would be the presumptive diagnosis, no need for regular lab,but just a kit,used in sick bay //Gaal

[Greg Parker]

Steve, are you trying to turn this into a battle of fonts, sizes and colors? You know that's not fair? You've had far more practice than I have. You're a pro. Plus, as I understand it, you have the Lord Jesus on your side.

All I have are the lousy facts.// PARKER

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

Pardon me Jesus is LORD and fact.

BTW YOU DIDNT ADDRESS WHAT I ASSERTED IN POST # 370

That's what I'm saying! It hardly makes it fair does it, when you've got the big Kahuna on your side?

YES, I agree with you, YOUR FACTS ARE LOUSY. // Gaal

There, I have to disagree. Facts are facts - any label upon them is just in the eye of the beholder parsing them through his/her own filters.

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

repost # 370 below no color

===

Mrs. ODIO. Before they left I asked their names again, and he mentioned their names again.

[but she does NOT say BOTH names were mentioned - she realizes her fantasy is unraveling] // Parker ( a interpretation = not fact,GAAL)

SHE SAID NAMES , THATS FIRST AND LAST. YES,GOOD DIRECT HONEST ANSWER // Gaal

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

Mr. LIEBELER. But he did not mention Oswald's name except as Leon?

Mrs. ODIO. On the telephone conversation he referred to him as Leon or American.

[Liebeler can see she is not answering a direct question with a direct answer and pushes the point] // Parker (a interpretation = not fact,GAAL)

On the telephone he was called Leon. Yes, good direct honest answer to :name except as Leon? On the telephone only one name used . SHE IS ANSWERING WHEN ONE NAMED USED = ON TELEPHONE. GAAL

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

What's to address? Clearly, she did not give a direct response to a direct question or Liebeler would not have needed to keep asking. It's not rocket science.

Do you want me to go back and point out all the things YOU have failed to address?

[Greg Parker]

And yes - I agree that a medical ship or at any port, the lab work could have been done. My point was that it HAD to be done in order to differentiate between a NSU and "the clap". // PARKER

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

And yes - I agree that that it LAB WORK had to be done in order to differentiate between a NSU and "the clap". The top of the papers say EAST CAMP and are done with a stamp. I contend that there is no reason to have a EAST CAMP stamped paperwork on a ship and that said stamp indicates a land based clinic in EAST CAMP Atsugi Japan. It would be handwritten on the ship since it interacted with many far East military bases RE: transport. Could be done on ship. Actually it would be a kit to see culture for UTI bacteria. If not UTI ,STD (with the symptoms) would be the presumptive diagnosis, no need for regular lab,but just a kit,used in sick bay //Gaal

There was a culture taken - Sept 23.

As for East Camp...

Google it along with "navy" or "marines". It's a generic name. There would have been "east camps" where ever they were. You're assuming it's Atsugi - but that's not necessarily the case.

[Steven Gaal]

from H&L:

Lee Oswald was diagnosed as having
"urethritis, acute, due gonococcus #0303."** Captain Deranian wrote that the origin of
the disease was, "In line of duty, not due to own misconduct."

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

**NOTE: On March 31, 1964 Staff Medical Officer Captain George Donabedian told
Warren Commission staff attorney John Hart Ely the Marine Corps Medical records
clearly showed that Oswald had contacted gonorrhea (probably from his Japanese girlfriend).

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

The reason for this speculation is a diagnosis by Captain Paul Deranian, the senior medical officer at Atsugi. (not SKAGIT SHIP)

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

JESUS IS Lord sgaal