W. Tracy Parnell Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Just now, David Josephs said: yes - I see you doing that quite often - in fact with virtually every post... The JFK assassination is the most studied murder in history. Mary Ferrell has 1.3 million documents and there are more at the National Archives. It is not surprising that there would be documents among that large number that are flat out incorrect or have been misinterpreted. The H&L theory makes use of just that type of document which Armstrong spent years collecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: David, Were you trying to make a point with those pictures? I mean, other than Lee and Harvey look like two different men? Regardless, I have a question. At that Thanksgiving get-together, Pic and other family members saw Harvey with Marina. Presumably they also saw Lee. Who did they think Harvey and Marina were? This seems very problematic for the Harvey & Lee concept. Sandy, Nice try, Old Boy, but the obvious answer is that either 1 ) Marina had a twin sister, or 2 ) Marina did not have a twin sister but did "get around" a lot, or 3 ) That photo was altered! LOL -- Tommy Edited March 7, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) David Josephs mentions Robert Oswald in support of one of his arguments. But Robert, while he was an honest and well meaning person, was not right about everything. In this short article, I show when the "Hunter Photo" was really taken: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-hunter-photo.html EDIT: If you would rather not click through to the article, the answer is early March, 1957. Edited March 7, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: David, I've been meaning to ask about that (but have been preoccupied responding to posts.) It states the following on the Beauregard record: Originally Admitted: 1954-1-13 Isn't that a fly in the Beauregard School ointment? It seems to be stating that Oswald began attending class there the second semester of 53/54. Yet we see he took classes during the first semester. What gives? I am changing my opinion of you again Sandy, you are catching on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: David, Were you trying to make a point with those pictures? I mean, other than Lee and Harvey look like two different men? Regardless, I have a question. At that Thanksgiving get-together, Pic and other family members saw Harvey with Marina. Presumably they also saw Lee. Who did they think Harvey and Marina were? This seems very problematic for the Harvey & Lee concept. You really are catching on and asking the right questions now! They will say Robert and Marina and Vada were in on it. Pic became aware of the plot, perhaps right here at Thanksgiving, and said nothing but gave clues during his testimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) You may wish to read John Ely's interview notebook at Baylor's Armstrong collection... These who were with "Oz" aka Lee are shown while the list of military peers HARVEY was with is completely different. Ely interviewed: Donald Camarata, Henry Rousel Jr, David Murray Jr, James Botelho, Allen D Graf (as opposed to Allen Felde), who mentioned all those men who were unknown to Ely... since they were all LEE's peers, not Harvey's; Paul Murphy, Peter F Connor, John R. Heindell, Richard Call, & Mack Osborne ----- Regarding the leave now... As we've said all along - 2 men's records combined into one. In Folsom Exh we are shown his leave which states from 27Feb57 to 13Mar57 he was "on leave" In his Military service summary it states he was at Camp Pendelton from 1-20-57 to 3-18-57 for Infantry Training. So you are claiming that during those 4 weeks Oswald was on leave for 2 weeks. Except his MEDICAL RECORDS show he was in JAX Florida on March 15 for medical treatment and finally there's FELDE. Bottom Line Tracy, the records conflict and for very good reason. Those who knew LEE were not follow-ed up upon while those who knew HARVEY were. It's called a PLAN tracy. Those with the skill and position to create a plan did so in order that they create spies who could tell us a few things about Russia - a place we were at Cold War with yet had little if any accurate information about... No idea was too out there, no discussion off the table. I truly do not think you grasp the time period as you should. This is the height of the Cold War and you're trying to tell us that the CIA, that Dulles, Angleton, Helms, Bissell, King, and on and on were not capable of such a plan? You sir need to read a bit more about our history... and maybe read or re-read Hancock's Nexus. The argument that what happened was too far beyond what we should believe is a very poor way to continue this discussion and efend your position. Edited March 8, 2017 by David Josephs space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: You really are catching on and asking the right questions now! They will say Robert and Marina and Vada were in on it. Pic became aware of the plot, perhaps right here at Thanksgiving, and said nothing but gave clues during his testimony. Tracy, Perfect. -- Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) "They will say..." ?? Why is it always so necessary for the "opposition point" to tell us what we're going to say? It's usually because what they offer never accomplishes the purpose. Tracy, how can he be with his brother, shooting and also go for medical attention in Florida at the same time? How come there is an entire group of soldiers who claim to have been with Lee who have no relationship at all to Harvey and his military time? What kind of data do you think "needs material alteration .. or omission" with regards to poor little Ozzie's life? Seems the man living with Oswald in Feb 1957 has nothing to say about his being gone during that time period - and we're saying the man in the photo is Lee. Hey, maybe you do have the right year - in Feb 1957 Lee would have been on leave and Harvey would have been ... where was he Tracy? Maybe has something to do with that list of names Ely gets from Graf? Don't look too close though, wouldn't want you to learn anything new or nothing... The FBI even found the wrong Felde 1615775, Robert Allen Felde is NOT Allen R Felde #1641924, so of course 1615775 would have no knowledge of Oswald. Wonder why the FBI would not want to interview a marine who knew LEE.... Edited September 11, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 "They will say..." ?? Why is it always so necessary for the "opposition point" to tell us what we're going to say? It's usually because what they offer never accomplishes the purpose. If anything I said about Thanksgiving 1962 is a misrepresentation of your position, please let us know. Tracy, how can he be with his brother, shooting and also go for medical attention in Florida at the same time? How come there is an entire group of soldiers who claim to have been with Lee who have no relationship at all to Harvey and his military time? Two more examples of mistaken witnesses, records etc. Professional investigators realize these things happen in real life. What kind of data do you think "needs material alteration .. or omission" with regards to poor little Ozzie's life? This is taken out of context and simply refers to the fact that John Hart Ely’s memorandum may not have been entirely accurate and needed changes, Nothing sinister but it does give H&L people more ammunition. Seems the man living with Oswald in Feb 1957 has nothing to say about his being gone during that time period - and we're saying the man in the photo is Lee. Hey, maybe you do have the right year - in Feb 1957 Lee would have been on leave and Harvey would have been ... where was he Tracy? There was no Harvey and the one and only LHO was on leave. The FBI even found the wrong Felde 1615775, Robert Allen Felde is NOT Allen R Felde #1641924, so of course 1615775 would have no knowledge of Oswald. The whole Felde thing is a puzzle but you don’t need two Oswalds to explain it even if the explanation is just misinterpreted records or witness memories. Wonder why the FBI would not want to interview a marine who knew LEE.... Not sure what you are referring to but the FBI, although they conducted 25,000 plus interviews couldn’t see everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 45 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: "They will say..." ?? Why is it always so necessary for the "opposition point" to tell us what we're going to say? It's usually because what they offer never accomplishes the purpose. If anything I said about Thanksgiving 1962 is a misrepresentation of your position, please let us know. This is just pure crap Tracy... you stick to stating what YOU think and we'll take care of our end. K? Quote They will say Robert and Marina and Vada were in on it. Pic became aware of the plot, perhaps right here at Thanksgiving, and said nothing but gave clues during his testimony. Tracy, how can he be with his brother, shooting and also go for medical attention in Florida at the same time? How come there is an entire group of soldiers who claim to have been with Lee who have no relationship at all to Harvey and his military time? Two more examples of mistaken witnesses, records etc. Professional investigators realize these things happen in real life. Again and again Tracy, your only answer is that everyone but you is making a mistake... you sound like Trump. What kind of data do you think "needs material alteration .. or omission" with regards to poor little Ozzie's life? This is taken out of context and simply refers to the fact that John Hart Ely’s memorandum may not have been entirely accurate and needed changes, Nothing sinister but it does give H&L people more ammunition. You truly have no idea what you're saying, do you? The man who just finished researching Oswald's past is confronted by a list of Marines as told by one Allen Graf which are not part of Harvey's history... what context would you need to be in for you to comprehend it? Seems the man living with Oswald in Feb 1957 has nothing to say about his being gone during that time period - and we're saying the man in the photo is Lee. Hey, maybe you do have the right year - in Feb 1957 Lee would have been on leave and Harvey would have been ... where was he Tracy? There was no Harvey and the one and only LHO was on leave. Not according to the records Tracy. This is like the trip to Ping Tung. He's on the leaving ship's manifest, he's seen and talked about while in Ping Tung and is on the manifest for the returning ship... yet all the while he is treated in Atsugi for a STD... as badly as you'd like this not to be, it is. "Everyone else is wrong" is one helluva paranoid way to go thru life buddy. The FBI even found the wrong Felde 1615775, Robert Allen Felde is NOT Allen R Felde #1641924, so of course 1615775 would have no knowledge of Oswald. The whole Felde thing is a puzzle but you don’t need two Oswalds to explain it even if the explanation is just misinterpreted records or witness memories. You're a riot Tracy... When the evidence is placed in front of you, you claim blindness. The Felde with Oswald was with someone who did not follow the same path as what was offered by the Marines in the WCR. Folsom and Donabedian Exhibits. In relation to this we have Rose's autopsy diagram of Oswald. On Oct 27, 1957 Oswald was diagnosed with a .22 shot just above the elbow requiring a surgical procedure and a 2" scar just above the left elbow... Rose's sheet shows nothing above the left elbow, front or back... Just another mistake ? As stated, so many need to be so wrong for you to be right even once... Wonder why the FBI would not want to interview a marine who knew LEE.... Not sure what you are referring to but the FBI, although they conducted 25,000 plus interviews couldn’t see everybody. What I refer to is the desire to remove from the record anything related to LEE Oswald's past, from school friends to Marine friends, right down to LEE being released in March 1959 from El Toro and Harvey in Sept from Santa Ana... Fact of the matter is your only and best argument is that all these records and all these people are mistaken. that Anna Lewis stating she met Oswald in the early months of 1962 - with JVB in the room - and repeating it twice, was still not corrected for the Apr/May 1963 JVB claims it was.. all during summer of 63 Oswald was seen in both New Orleans and Dallas w/Ruby. Ruby rents him a room in fact. Yet since no relationship existed between the two, that was not possible... I truly appreciate your attempts at explaining away these conflicts by claiming either 1) everyone was wrong (straw man) or 2) everyone was in on it (straw man again) makes the work here so much easier. It's truly amazing that not one of these conflicts ever breaks in Oswald's favor. Not one item of evidence is questionable, it all points to our man Harvey... Another thing in the history is LEE liked to be called "Oz" his marine nickname and HATED being called Harv or Harvey and was big enough to convince you not to use it. Harvey, on the other hand, was NEVER called OZ by anyone... Mrs. PAINE - My recollection is that he was present most of the weekend. He went out to buy groceries, came in with a cheery call to his two girls, saying, "Yabutchski," which means girls, the Russian word for girls, as he came in the door. It was more like Harvey than I had seen him before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 29 minutes ago, David Josephs said: This is just pure crap Tracy... you stick to stating what YOU think and we'll take care of our end. K? First, as long as I don't break forum rules in some way I can reply in any way I see fit. As far as I know, you are not a moderator and don't make rules here. Really no need to be unpleasant. 30 minutes ago, David Josephs said: You truly have no idea what you're saying, do you? The man who just finished researching Oswald's past is confronted by a list of Marines as told by one Allen Graf which are not part of Harvey's history... what context would you need to be in for you to comprehend it? Flat out wrong. The famous quote refers to memos created by Ely for a chronology of LHO. Jenner just disagreed with some of the things Ely had as the line "some of his speculations are not borne out by our later work" indicates. 42 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Rose's sheet shows nothing above the left elbow, front or back... Just another mistake ? As stated, so many need to be so wrong for you to be right even once... That's right, Rose admitted he missed the mastoid scar and it is obvious he missed others as well. 44 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Fact of the matter is your only and best argument is that all these records and all these people are mistaken. that Anna Lewis stating she met Oswald in the early months of 1962 - with JVB in the room - and repeating it twice, was still not corrected for the Apr/May 1963 JVB claims it was.. all during summer of 63 Oswald was seen in both New Orleans and Dallas w/Ruby. Ruby rents him a room in fact. Yet since no relationship existed between the two, that was not possible... You are seriously mentioning Anna Lewis and Judyth Baker? Even Baker doesn't believe H&L. People saw LHO everywhere but all of them couldn't be right. Professional investigators know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Here’s the difference between what I am telling researchers and what the H&L camp is selling. They are telling you that if you will just believe their theory they can answer all your JFK questions. A discrepancy in the records somewhere? Two Oswalds. A witness that doesn’t fit with the other available evidence? Two Oswalds. Believe the CIA (and everybody else including LHO’s entire family) was involved? Two Oswalds theory explains it and all other questions if you will just believe. Sounds something like a cult, doesn’t it? On the other hand, I am telling researchers that I certainly cannot explain everything. There are discrepancies in records, witnesses who contradict other witnesses and many other things that do not make sense. Some things, such as the question of whether or not LHO was in Taiwan, are probably unresolvable at this point in time. But if you examine the complete record the biography of LHO becomes clear. Think of it this way. There are over 1.2 million records at Mary Ferrell and more in the archives. For the sake of discussion, let’s say there are 500,000 records that pertain to LHO in some way. To be generous, let’s say Armstrong found 500 records, including witness statements, that have errors or unexplainable discrepancies. Those mistaken records represent 0.1 percent of the total LHO records. Now my numbers may be off somewhat but even if it is 1 percent I maintain that is in the realm of what could be expected. So, I maintain that the fact Armstrong has found these discrepancies, rather than being evidence of a conspiracy theory, is exactly what you would expect to see in the real world. The same world that Armstrong and followers apparently do not live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 Sir, the "They will say" crap was the specific crap I was referring to.... I don't tell you what you "are saying" and while it may not be against any rule those with some sense of how to engage in discussion and debate don't put words in their opponents' mouths. They do something called "mirroring" by repeating back what was said to ensure mutual understanding. All you've posted to date is how mistakes are the root cause of all these conflicts. Mistakes in interpretation, in creating the record in the first place and mistakes after mistakes... unless the interpretation relfects your own beliefs and then the interpretation is correct. No matter how hard you try Tracy, you cant get 127 school days into the space between 3/23 and 6/26... No matter how hard you try, the boy in the bronx zoo photo is up to 6 inches shorter and 15-20 lbs lighter than the boy pictured from 18 months earlier. No matter how hard you WANT Ed Pic to be wrong... we'll let others make up their own minds by reading the testimony themselves No Tracy, I will not buy into your Straw man efforts to change subjects and avoid addressing the issues at hand. You want to believe all these are coincidence and try to convince others... have at it buddy... keep the discussion moving along... maybe more will actually read the book (have you really read it Tracy or do you just cherry-pick as you see fit?) follow the footnotes and sources and learn for themselves. Maybe not. Keep posting STRAW MEN and knocking them down... those are COINTELPRO tactics to a T.... have you actually posted any evidence which refutes anything? Not that anyone here can see... it's all mistakes, a massive all involved conspiracy, or impossible... and we're to take your word for it... a word with ZERO credibility established or from what anyone can tell even attempted. Post YOUR interviews with the main players Tracy. Post about your trips to the archives for 10 years doing the research. Post about all the traveling you did to speak with witnesses first hand. Let us know about the info from your DoD visits that supports your contention. Is there anything you can actually offer in the way of proof that makes it plain to the reader this scenario is not possible... or you just going to keep throwing tactics at us? 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact. Eight Traits of the Disinformational-ist1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 (edited) 34 minutes ago, David Josephs said: No matter how hard you try Tracy, you cant get 127 school days into the space between 3/23 and 6/26... No matter how hard you try, the boy in the bronx zoo photo is up to 6 inches shorter and 15-20 lbs lighter than the boy pictured from 18 months earlier. No matter how hard you WANT Ed Pic to be wrong... we'll let others make up their own minds by reading the testimony themselves I don't need to convince anyone of these things-you do. I know they are false, if others want to believe them that is their right. 34 minutes ago, David Josephs said: No Tracy, I will not buy into your Straw man efforts to change subjects and avoid addressing the issues at hand. The issues at hand? You mean like the scientific proof that refutes the H&L theory that you guys will not discuss? http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html Or are you talking about common sense concepts that you also won't discuss? http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/common-sense.html 34 minutes ago, David Josephs said: Post YOUR interviews with the main players Tracy. Post about your trips to the archives for 10 years doing the research. Post about all the traveling you did to speak with witnesses first hand. I am perfectly willing to admit that except for a few trips to libraries, I have never left the house to do any research. But I do have 33 kindle books on the subject and probably another 30 in hard copy. And I do have some documents on order from the National Archives as we speak. I congratulate Armstrong for the work he did and the money he spent. Unfortunately, witnesses are another matter with him. As David Lifton has written about right here at the EF, Armstrong went on a "witness recruitment program" that involved befriending people and convincing them they were witnesses to history. Not an objective way to approach the situation. He also talked to people 35-40 years after the fact-not the best time to do so. EDIT: BTW, I interviewed Vincent DiMaio, Gary Mack, Jack White and a few others via email-it is a new world now you know. Edited March 8, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 On 2/24/2017 at 3:57 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said: Good write-up Jim, none of it is true of course, but artfully done anyway. A couple questions: Where did the photo from 126 Exchange St. come from? What happened to the "real" Marguerite? At least we have a firm date on the switch now. Also you guys are still using the 6 foot height for Ekdahl even though I have shown he was 5' 11" at best and probably closer to 5' 10". A lot of material to work with but I am busy on another project right now so I'll just leave a link to my series for those interested: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html This was your first post Tracy. How do you not know these things from the reading of the book? Where did a photo come from? Where do you think it came from Tracy? your 2 part article does not address the question or the address for that matter. From a search of those 2 articles you also haven't a clue about 2220 Thomas Place either I see. All you seem to care about is how you can't understand how MO can be both 5'5" and 5'1".... but keep trying, you'll get it. Why ask all these question about a theory you don't believe? MO lived at 2220 Thomas in 1947 and on Nov 22, 1963... amazing, right? Across the street from Stripling JHS. Tracy, it is painfully obvious you've not read the book, acquired the CD, read any of the hundreds of Baylor notebooks or done anything more than create and tear down your own STRAW MAN arguments.... or if you did read it you have not retained a thing. You do it repeatedly throughout this thread. How about you answer some questions... What's so important about 126 Exchange? 2220 Thomas? 101 San Saba? Why do you suppose we do not have a single letter from Marge to Lee while in the Marines... in evidence? ...offer something concrete to defend your position or move on already... you're failing miserably here and I for one will bow out and let you continue with your foot in mouth disease... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now