A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

[W. Tracy Parnell]

58 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Sorry Tracy...  it seems you and yours are the ones misrepresenting the original evidence and the ease of using addition to prove how wrong it is...

I am not characterizing the school records evidence in any way. I have no explanation other than the records are being misread and other evidence shows there were not 2 Oswalds. I have offered Greg Parker's explanation as an alternative. BTW David, I wish you would stop with the Bronx Zoo thing, that has been debunked:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-bronx-zoo-photo.html

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Greg Parker wrote:

 

Jim Byron wrote: But there is no “Byron Junior High” in New York and, according to the New York Historical Society, there never was.  Since there are PS 44s in four or five of the five New York City boroughs, how would Beauregard have received information from an incorrectly identified school?  John wrote: “Perhaps a false name for the school was provided so that Beauregard school personnel would be unable to obtain Oswald's New York school transcripts by mail.”

Or perhaps once again, you guys just get it wrong.

Technically - no Byron Jr High. But that was just a common abbreviation of it's full name - PORT BYRON Junior High....http://www.pbcschools.org/News/2013-14/140414_allcounty_festival.cfm

Obviously that is not the school he went to, so if it is listed on a Beauregard form, it is in error (so far, no hits in MFF for "Port Byron" and no google hits for "port byron ps 44" except in your bible, so I would like to see a link to this form when you can provide it). The problem you have is that according to you, schools and other public entities never made errors. The one exception to you was the FBI - who made errors by not completely wiping all traces of two Oswalds.

So what are you options with this if you are going to stick to your normal routine and claim "no error"?

You can...
claim this as proof that there was a third Oswald...

claim the school board forged the record for unknown reasons

claim the FBI forged the record for unknown reasons.

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

I will deal with other matters later. Have more pressings things to attend to until for the next several hours.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I'm going to try and explain this for the H&L gang one more time.

If a professional investigator or an investigative reporter or a police officer wanted to determine if there were two Oswalds here is how they would do it. They would look at  ALL of the evidence. They would see the 1981 exhumation that shows the Oswald that was shot by Ruby and buried is the same one they dug up. And that fact refuted Michael Eddowes, the man who paid for the exhumation,  just as it refutes H&L. 

They would look at the HSCA evidence that refuted two Oswald and also happened to refute H&L. They would look at the statements of the people who knew LHO intimately and give far less weight to those who thought they had an encounter with an Oswald but were mistaken or lying for their own reasons. After looking at ALL the evidence, any reasonable trained investigator would conclude one Oswald.

But H&L supporters don't work that way. They latch onto every witness who supports their case while ignoring those who don't, even family members and friends of the one and only Oswald. They view every discrepancy as "proof" of their theory while ignoring hard documentary facts because they were presented by the WC or HSCA or the FBI, even though they often accept other evidence presented by those agencies.

And finally, their fallback position when all else fails is that the inconvenient evidence that disproves H&L was simply falsified. So, there you have two methodologies-one used by professionals who understand the real world and one used by people who for unknown reasons want H&L to be a fact despite the overwhelming evidence that it is nonsense at best or a charade perpetrated for uncertain motives at worst.

[Jim Hargrove]

So... Mr. Parker informs us that there is a Port Byron in New York State.  Port Byron is about 280 miles NNW of New York City.  And there is no Port  Byron Junior High school, much less a PS 44 Byron Jr. High.  Today, in Port Byron there is only AA Gates Elementary and Dana-West Jr.-Sr. High. Mr Parker's discovery, which I've known about for 20 years or so, is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.  There is also a Port Byron in Illinois.  Why doesn't Mr. Parker talk about that?

[Jim Hargrove]

Unable to explain the evidence of  LHOs simultaneous attendance at schools in New York and New Orleans, Mr. Parnell falls back to his usual boilerplate about the HSCA and the exhumation.  The HSCA’s treachery and its lies involving Oswald are well known by JFK researchers, and, in one instance, has been demonstrated clearly in this very thread. 

H&L critics would like us to believe that the exhumation/mastoidectomy evidence and the Norton Report shows that the H&L evidence is wrong.  But since there is so much unexplained evidence for two Oswalds in the 1950s and early 1960s, the real conclusion should be that there is something wrong with the Norton Report.

As I’ve said many times, any organization willing to poison hundreds and probably thousands of unsuspecting Americans with LSD just to see the effects would think nothing of giving an unnecessary mastoidectomy to a young boy so he would match the other boy whose identity he was sharing. Look up the MK ULTRA project for yourself if you don’t believe me.

Marina said she was compelled to sign paperwork about her husband’s grave soon after the assassination and, according to the Norton Report, she really expected to find an empty casket at the exhumation.  Who knows what could have been done to Harvey Oswald’s body if Marina’s recollections are accurate. It could even have been replaced with LEE’s body if he was killed when no longer needed.

The exhumation was conducted by Dallas employees.  To see how fairly Dallas treated JFK research and researchers, just look up Dallas vs. Robert Groden to understand all the illegal prosecutions made against a skilled JFK researcher who dared to stand in a public place and distribute evidence about the murder of JFK.  Dallas authorities have the same ethical standing in this case as the Warren Commission and the HSCA.

When Mr. Parnell cannot explain the evidence he is confronted with, he falls back on the same old rhetoric. 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

If you want to claim there is something wrong with the exhumation and the subsequent Norton Report, you are going to have to provide some proof. I don't know what "papers" you are referring to regarding Marina you are going to have to provide the documents. It is funny you mention Marina since Armstrong believes she was in on the plot. And if you are now going to say the body was switched, you again have to provide some sort of evidence. I hope you are not going to regurgitate Jack White's "head in a box" theory. That was debunked long ago since the head was attached and had to be cut off. I noticed during our recent "debate" on the exhumation, you guys disappeared rather quickly. BTW, I am not falling back on "rhetoric" but rather scientific proof. Also 3 of the 4 doctors at the exhumation were from outside Dallas.

[Jim Hargrove]

H&L critics would like us to believe that the Beauregard/PS 44 records showing that “Lee Harvey Oswald” attended school simultaneously in New York and New Orleans are not what they appear to be.  If so, perhaps they would like to explain why, by the very next semester, BOTH Oswalds were attending Beauregard School.

In the second semester of his 8th grade year, LEE Oswald attended Beauregard and had room 303, on the third floor of the Beauregard building, as his home room.  The surviving LHO records from Beauregard make this clear.  John found this Beauregard document at the National Archives indicating his homeroom (HR) was 303.

 

The third-floor room 303 home room was also written on each surviving LHO grade card.

 

This is what the official records show.  But one Beauregard teacher from the time thought all this was impossible.  Her name was Myra DaRouse.

 

 

John Armstrong interviewed Myra DaRouse at her home in 1995 when she was 73 years old and still in remarkably good health.  She indicated that at  the beginning of the 2nd semester (eighth grade), in January, 1954, HARVEY walked into her eighth grade home room, which was not on the third floor, but in the basement cafeteria. The 1953-54 school year was the only year during which Myra had a home room, and she remembered the day she met young Oswald. Myra said, "Well, the first day he came into my homeroom he handed me his file. When I read that his name was Lee Harvey Oswald, I said to him, 'how do you want to be called,' and he told me to call him HARVEY. So, I always called him HARVEY. I knew him only as HARVEY."

See John’s three-part interview with Myra DaRouse on YouTube.

 

 

[Karl Hilliard]

Never mind exhumations and school records [all moot now]... There was an Oswald impersonator and he was a dead ringer in appearance to the accused and part of a conspiracy. Also, it has been established that the FBI made every effort to doctor records that might point away from the lone shooter story.

[Michael Cross]

16 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I'll agree that it is laziness to a certain degree  . . . Unfortunately for them, scientific evidence refutes it.

So SHOW us.  Quit talking out your arse and post your proof.  Or shut up.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

44 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

So SHOW us.  Quit talking out your arse and post your proof.  Or shut up.

I will let Greg Parker make the case against the school records since he is the one who came up with it.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Greg parker wrote:

 

jim hargrove wrote:So... Mr. Parker informs us that there is a Port Byron in New York State.  Port Byron is about 280 miles NNW of New York City.  And there is no Port  Byron Junior High school, much less a PS 44 Byron Jr. High.  Today, in Port Byron there is only AA Gates Elementary and Dana-West Jr.-Sr. High. Mr Parker's discovery, which I've known about for 20 years or so, is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.  There is also a Port Byron in Illinois.  Why doesn't Mr. Parker talk about that?

In 1935 the Port Byron High School was destroyed by fire. As a result, a new and centralized school needed to be built. This change closed 23 smaller schools. The new Port Byron Central High School was built in 1937 on Church Street. 

The High School on Church Street was replaced with a more modern school on Maple Avenue in 1990. All three schools were now on one campus. A year later the high school was dedicated and named in honor of Dana L. West.
http://www.pbcschools.org/AboutUs/History/index.cfm

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Greg Parker wrote:

 

sandy larsen wrote:I couldn't understand Greg's reasoning right away, so I decided to deal with what I'm quoting here first, and then go back and try to figure out what Greg is talking about.
I don't have any really bright people around me, but I'm smart enough to "interpret basic forms." If I look at the Beauregard record while keeping in mind a school year consists of 180 days, here is what I see:

1. I see no 180s on the record, but the 12 and 168 for 1954/55 stand out because they add up to180. Since 12 is the number of days absent, 168 must be the number of days present, because together they add up to the total number of school days, 180.
   
   Therefore, the "Re-Ad"  column is used for recording the number of days present.
    
   
   
2. Looking at the same "total" row for school year 1953/54, I see 5 days absent and 179 days present. I add the numbers and get 184 for the total number of school days.
   
   Therefore, there were 180 school days in the 1954/55 school year, but 184 school days in the 1953/54 school year.
   
   

I don't know what Greg expects me to learn from that other than what I concluded. I don't understand why he says that the "Re-Ad" number can represent either the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period. It is obviously the latter.
Of course, the two numbers will be equal if there are zero absences, because the student will have attended every school day available. But the fact will remain that the Re-Ad column represents the number of days attended, not the number of days available to attend.
 
Now I will go back and try to figure out Greg's reasoning.

 

You're OVER thinking. Which is the same mistake Head made.

Let's tackle it in smaller bytes.

But before that, let's finally acknowledge that Head admitted he was guessing when he labeled his explanation an "interpretation".

Again - that's an admission that he was guessing.

His first instinct however was to simply state that the "re-ad" figure "represents the total listing of the school days for a given school year."

Okay. Stop there Mr Head, because now is where you are about to over-think it. Mr. Head obviously is now realizing that for this to be true, the figure would need to be at least 170 (but most likely 180), and he can't figure out why it shows only 168. So... instead of realizing that the number of absences had to be added on, he jumped to the wrong conclusion that they must actually represent days attended. But as I have repeatedly pointed out - that only works if you have attended that school the whole school year. HE OVER-THOUGHT IT. 

If he stopped at his initial statement that it was the total number of AVAILABLE days in a school year (as opposed to actual days ATTENDED) and thought about it a bit more, he may have worked out that the absences made up the shortfall.  That is 12 days absences + 168 OTHER available days - 180.

If you still don't get it, I officially give up trying to explain because I don't know how to simplify it any further.

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

As for the school records, it is simple. They want you to believe that the record shows an Oswald attending for a full year when we know that didn't happen. For this they rely on the statements of Mr. Head and his explanation of the records.

Somebody will have to show me how Mr. Head's interpretation of the "Re Ad" column makes any difference. I don't see any way it does.

But Regardless, I showed in this post that Greg agrees with the Harvey & Lee crowd on what the "Re-Ad" column in the school record means. And that is what Mr. Head's statements were all about.  [Note to Greg:  Don't give up... see my response to your latest argument below. I think I understand you now.]

 

Quote

Greg Parker has provided another explanation and will debate the H&L gang if and when he feels like it. In any case contrary to what they say, the school record thing does not prove the existence of two Oswalds. It is an anomaly in the record of which there are many as would be expected in the real world.

I would agree with you Tracy -- on the part I highlighted in red -- if all there was was that one instance of Oswald appearing to be in two places at once. But there are other such incidences that are well documented. And they all point to Oswald being in two places at once, and other such indications.

I don't agree that many of these anomalies occur in the real world. True, there are cases of mistaken identification. True there are typos. But there are not many (if any at all) cases of whole semesters mistakenly added to people's school records.

On the other hand, there are many cases of intelligence operations doing things that most people (including myself in the past) would not believe an intelligence operation would do. And I believe the Oswald Project was one of them.

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The same way you cite all the eyewitnesses as more "proof."

 

Tracy,

I don't do that. (Notice how I always point to the documented evidence.) However, the evidence in some of the sightings is so compelling that it must be taken seriously.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

If [Mr. Head] stopped at his initial statement that it was the total number of AVAILABLE days in a school year (as opposed to actual days ATTENDED) and thought about it a bit more, he may have worked out that the absences made up the shortfall.  That is 12 days absences + 168 OTHER available days - 180.

If you still don't get it, I officially give up trying to explain because I don't know how to simplify it any further.

Well don't give up Greg... I really am trying to understand what you are saying.

To me it looks like you're saying that the Re-Ad number is AVAILABLE DAYS. Which would be 168 at the end of 9th grade (1954/55).

But then in the next sentence you say that Re-Ad is OTHER AVAILABLE DAYS.

 

ABSENT DAYS + OTHER AVAILABLE DAYS = TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS

18 + 168 = 180

 

ABSENT DAYS = 12

OTHER AVAILABLE DAYS = 168

TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS = 180

 

Do I have it right so far? For now I'll assume I do.

Isn't OTHER AVAILABLE DAYS simply the number of days the student attended?

 

Oh, I think I know what you are saying. Correct me if I am wrong. You are saying the the teacher would write down the number of ABSENT DAYS (12). And then the teacher would subtract that from the TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS (180) and write the result (168) in the Re-Ad column.

In other words, the teacher would not keep track of days attended. The Re-Ad number was merely a calculated number... calculated for each and every student.

Right?

EDIT:  If I'm wrong, could you just tell us what the teacher did in your view? Doing that will probably explain it best.

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Sandy Larsen