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

[Sandy Larsen]

This is a duplicate. It appeared "magically" and I don't want to delete it for fear that it will delete the other copy as well. Please just ignore it if you see that it is a duplicate.

 

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?

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

If you want to believe in 2 Oswalds in the face of the overwhelming evidence that says there wasn't, I can't stop you. But actually, you don't need 2 Oswalds to believe in an "Oswald project". Lots of people do and they don't buy 2 Oswalds.

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

If you want to believe in 2 Oswalds in the face of the overwhelming evidence that says there wasn't, I can't stop you.

LOL!

 

Edited October 5, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Jim Hargrove]

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

If you want to believe in 2 Oswalds in the face of the overwhelming evidence that says there wasn't, I can't stop you. But actually, you don't need 2 Oswalds to believe in an "Oswald project". Lots of people do and they don't buy 2 Oswalds.

The full title of the book Mr. Parnell has devoted a considerable portion of his life trying to debunk is Harvey & Lee: How the CIA framed Oswald.  That massive work demonstrates that what many people consider to be just a young loser named “Lee Harvey Oswald” was actually the complex product of a sophisticated intelligence operation.

It would be simpler to pretend that only one young man used that name and became entangled in the plot to kill JFK.  It would be easier to show that the CIA was involved in setting up the one-and-only LHO as the patsy in JFK’s murder.  But despite all the snide little insults Mr. Parker makes, the truth matters to John Armstrong and it matters to me.

The simple fact is that for a period of about ten years leading up to the assassination of President Kennedy, not a year went by, and toward the end not a month went by, which didn’t present clear evidence for both Harvey and Lee Oswald, despite a massive effort by the FBI to suppress the evidence.  Mr. Parnell wants us to believe that the HSCA and the Norton Report close the case on two Oswalds, but nothing could be farther from the truth.  The evidence is everywhere.

For example, in October 1963, the month before JFK was murdered, two young men claiming to be “Lee Harvey Oswald” presented themselves just days apart at  the Texas Employment Commission and were interviewed by Laura Kittrell.  Miss Kittrell studied the “Lee Harvey Oswald” visits, and realized that two young men were playing the role of one, and gave a thirty page statement to the U.S. Attorney in Dallas.  She accurately described known differences between Harvey and Lee. Not surprisingly, the FBI didn’t get around to interviewing her until June 4, 1965.

 

Read more HERE.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Miss Kittrell studied the “Lee Harvey Oswald” visits, and realized that two young men were playing the role of one, and gave a thirty page statement to the U.S. Attorney in Dallas.

But Jim, don't you know that that sort of thing happens all the time in the real world? Just like whole semesters of classes, along with scores and absences, are accidentally added to people's school records. It happens all the time. People all around us learn a new language, on their own, in a couple months time, due to their genius intellect. And so forth and so on. These are all every-day occurrences, according to Tracy and others.

Though it does make one pause that ALL these things happened to just one guy... the guy who supposedly shot the president of the United States. Speaking of which, the assassination was yet another every-day real world occurrence for this guy. As was his trip to Mexico City that resulted in fake photos and fake audio transcripts being sent to CIA headquarters. This stuff happens all the time.

Of course, if something happened that can't be explained as being an every-day occurrence, it can always be brushed off as being a lie that John Armstrong magically instilled in the minds of unsuspecting witnesses. You now how good John is at controlling people's minds.

(Hmmm... have I assassinated John's character yet?) Of course, we all know that John is exploiting these every-day occurrences, and all the witnesses and believers whose minds he controls, just so he can get rich. Can you imagine how fantastically wealthy John would become if he could increase book sales to, say, one book per day? Why, he'd become a millionaire one more time over (because he is already a multimillionaire) in a mere 137 years!

 

Edited October 5, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[W. Tracy Parnell]

9 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Parnell wants us to believe that the HSCA and the Norton Report close the case on two Oswalds

They do and until you address those issues you have nothing. But all you can do is use your fallback position when cornered that the exhumation was somehow faked as was the handwriting and other evidence. Or that both Oswalds were given the same operation as implausible as that is.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But Jim, don't you know that that sort of thing happens all the time in the real world? Just like whole semesters of classes, along with scores and absences, are accidentally added to people's school records. It happens all the time. People all around us learn a new language, on their own, in a couple months time, due to their genius intellect. And so forth and so on. These are all every-day occurrences, according to Tracy and others.

Though it does make one pause that ALL these things happened to just one guy... the guy who supposedly shot the president of the United States. Speaking of which, the assassination was yet another every-day real world occurrence for this guy. As was his trip to Mexico City that resulted in fake photos and fake audio transcripts being sent to CIA headquarters. This stuff happens all the time.

Of course, if something happened that can't be explained as being an every-day occurrence, it can always be brushed off as being a lie that John Armstrong magically instilled in the minds of unsuspecting witnesses. You now how good John is at controlling people's minds.

(Hmmm... have I assassinated John's character yet?) Of course, we all know that John is exploiting these every-day occurrences, and all the witnesses and believers whose minds he controls, just so he can get rich. Can you imagine how fantastically wealthy John would become if he could increase book sales to, say, one book per day? Why, he'd become a millionaire one more time over (because he is already a multimillionaire) in a mere 137 years!

 

I am aware that John Armstrong doesn't get rich from his book sales. But he also doesn't get any attention for his research without a "vehicle" for that research. And that is where H&L comes in. Note that he doesn't have to spend one minute defending his theories, he has you guys to do that for him. Pretty good setup if you ask me.

[Jim Hargrove]

DENTAL RECORDS AND
THE NORTON REPORT

As I read the report for the first time in years, the obvious take-away is that the dental records of the exhumed “Lee Harvey Oswald” would have been identical to those in USMC records except for the fact that they weren’t,  which in part was due to “charting errors” and other anomalies introduced by dumb-ass Marine dentists.  The Norton report says as follows:

The second question was whether or not all inconsistencies in the dental records could be ex-
plained and the records documented as being authentic. Charting errors are common, espe-
cially in a dental health record that has entries by many different practitioners as in the mili-
tary.

In TABLE 3 of the report, which examines each tooth from antemortem and postmortem examinations using the Universal Tooth Numbering System, exactly TWO teeth are described as “identical.”  All the others are either “consistent” or “probably consistent.” And to see exactly what “consistent” sometimes means, we only have to go as far as Tooth #1.

Tooth #1, the maxillary right third molar, is described as missing by three different antemortem sources and “partially erupted” in the postmortem exam. This would be consistent with a “wisdom tooth,” except for the fact that the antemortem exam included radiographs (probably X-rays) which should have shown a pre-emergent tooth.

Tooth #2, the maxillary right second molar, is completely different in the pre- and postmortem examinations due to an antemortem “error in charting” in which Tooth # 2 was confused with Tooth # 3.

Other “errors in charting,” to explain why the postmortem observations are completely different from the antemortem charts involve Tooth #13 and Tooth #14. 

Labelled “consistent” is Tooth # 8 which is considered “normal” in the antemortem side of the chart and “rotated distally” on the postmortem side.   Perhaps Marina got the pliers out to give her hubby a good oral argument. 

Teeth 16 and 17 are “missing” only in the antemortem exams, which, again, might be explained as pre-emergent” wisdom teeth, except they should be visible in radiographs.

There are other anomalies on the chart, but Dr. Norton concluded, “After much study of the dental records, it was decided independently by each team member that the dental records were authentic and could be used to support an identification made from the dentition.”  It took three years for the Norton Report to be issued after the exhumation was completed.  In all that time, are we really to conclude that the decision was made “independently by each team member?”

Thanks to David Josephs for bringing the issue of the Norton Report dental records to our attention. Although both Oswalds were in the USMC and so the dental records of Classic Oswald should match at least SOME Marine Corps records, this subject appears to be hardly the slam-dunk Mr. Parnell wants us to believe it is.  I’m increasingly reminded of the human hair identification scandal the FBI was caught up in a decade or two ago.  Based on the FBI’s junk science, people were actually convicted of serious crimes based on so-called human hair identifcations that, in at least once case re-analyzed using DNA evidence, turned out to be from a dog.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Very predictable reply by Hargrove. He and David Josephs want you to believe that they know more than the top dental experts in the country in 1981. I would remind readers that the Norton Report was peer reviewed as it was published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. And nobody ever came forward to say that the report or its methodology was flawed in any way. But I can hear Hargrove and Josephs already saying that they were "afraid" to come forward or "it is a closed society that doesn't want to criticize their own." But that is all they can say in the face of this and other hard evidence.

BTW, Hargrove also mentions the mysterious "delay" in the publication of the report, a canard made famous by TMWKK. But the positive identification of the one and only Oswald was made immediately by the team. The writing of the report between four doctors in different locations working around their normal schedules is what took a little time as Dr. DiMaio indicated to me when I interviewed him.

[Jim Hargrove]

Perhaps it is as Mr. Parnell says,  but few cases call into question expert opinions more than this one.  In my post above I noted that “both Oswalds were in the USMC and so the dental records of Classic Oswald should match at least SOME Marine Corps records.”  That may be the case here, but when there is so much evidence for two Oswalds, it is hardly logical to assume the Norton Report is the final word on the matter.  

For example, in his article entitled Digging Up Lee Harvey Oswald, Dr. Vincent Di Maio, who was involved in the exhumation and is no CTer, wrote this:

“Marina was haunted by a 1964 visit with government agents who had asked her to sign a stack of cemetery papers without explanation. With only a basic understanding of English, Marina came to believe that her late husband’s remains had been disturbed somehow. She’d grown morbidly suspicious that he’d been secretly removed.”

What was that all about?  Why would government agents require Marina to sign a whole stack of cemetery papers the very year after her late husband was buried?   Could the other Oswald have been murdered and his body placed in the grave?  Or is it more likely that the second Oswald was given an unnecessary mastoidectomy so their health records would match?

Mr. Parnell tells us there were no dissenting opinions to this article expressed in follow-up editions of the peer-reviewed Journal of Forensic Sciences.  I’ll try to check that on my own.  In the meantime, here’s a Fun Fact….

Many or most of the original photographs from the exhumation are now, if memory serves, in the hands of none other than John Armstrong.  During one of his many meetings with Marina, she greeted him carrying an envelope containing them and said something like, “Here, take these.”  She has serious doubts about the whole official story.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

41 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Perhaps it is as Mr. Parnell says,  but few cases call into question expert opinions more than this one.  In my post above I noted that “both Oswalds were in the USMC and so the dental records of Classic Oswald should match at least SOME Marine Corps records.”  That may be the case here, but when there is so much evidence for two Oswalds, it is hardly logical to assume the Norton Report is the final word on the matter.  

For example, in his article entitled Digging Up Lee Harvey Oswald, Dr. Vincent Di Maio, who was involved in the exhumation and is no CTer, wrote this:

“Marina was haunted by a 1964 visit with government agents who had asked her to sign a stack of cemetery papers without explanation. With only a basic understanding of English, Marina came to believe that her late husband’s remains had been disturbed somehow. She’d grown morbidly suspicious that he’d been secretly removed.”

What was that all about?  Why would government agents require Marina to sign a whole stack of cemetery papers the very year after her late husband was buried?   Could the other Oswald have been murdered and his body placed in the grave?  Or is it more likely that the second Oswald was given an unnecessary mastoidectomy so their health records would match?

Mr. Parnell tells us there were no dissenting opinions to this article expressed in follow-up editions of the peer-reviewed Journal of Forensic Sciences.  I’ll try to check that on my own.  In the meantime, here’s a Fun Fact….

Many or most of the original photographs from the exhumation are now, if memory serves, in the hands of none other than John Armstrong.  During one of his many meetings with Marina, she greeted him carrying an envelope containing them and said something like, “Here, take these.”  She has serious doubts about the whole official story.

A couple of points. DiMaio may have just been repeating something he heard, he provides no proof for the statement. You are cherry picking this tidbit which he obviously included to make his book more interesting. His point is that Marina was suspicious which is obviously true. If she wasn't, why go to all the trouble of an exhumation. I am aware that Armstrong has had the exhumation photos for years. The reason I know that is because Jack White leaked the photo of the mastoid defect after I goaded him about it on the old Dellarosa forum. And only two people had the photos-Linda Norton and Marina. So I knew Armstrong had Marina's ear and obtained them from her. If there are any that you feel show something suspicious, why not post them here? My guess is they support the official story as the photo of the mastoid defect certainly does. But as I said before, all you can do is try to raise doubts about the hard facts the exhumation and other evidence provide. The majority (even here on a CT forum) don't buy it.

Edited October 5, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Jim Hargrove]

46 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

DiMaio may have just been repeating something he heard, he provides no proof for the statement.

Uh-huh.  And is that the same kind of professionalism he and his associates brought to the exhumation?

The most significant points we raise about this case involve the credible and unrelenting evidence that two young men shared the same or a very similar identity for a decade or so and one of them became the patsy for the assassins of JFK.  You admit that you are unable to debunk many of these examples and simply fall back on the Norton Report and the HSCA Volume VII, saying that’s all the evidence you need.

But we have given you a number of examples of how the HSCA simply lied when cornered about the evidence, including evidence of two Oswalds, and I have offered several possible ways the Norton Report could be accurate as far as it goes, but that there could still have been two LHOs entangled in the assassination, as in fact there were.  You, however, are apparently unable to discuss most of the other evidence and have a practiced unawareness of what a Federal cover-up can really entail.

What happened to all that Greg Parker evidence you repeatedly said debunked Oswald’s simultaneous attendance at schools in New York and New Orleans?  I demanded time and time again that you put that evidence here, and when you finally started doing so, Mr. Parker just disappeared.  Where is it?

I know.  You don’t have to talk about it because you’re not Mr. Parker and because of the Norton Report.  Neither that--nor you--begins to explain all this evidence.
 

[Jim Hargrove]

46 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

DiMaio may have just been repeating something he heard, he provides no proof for the statement.

Uh-huh.  And is that the same kind of professionalism he and his associates brought to the exhumation?

The most significant points we raise about this case involve the credible and unrelenting evidence that two young men shared the same or a very similar identity for a decade or so and one of them became the patsy for the assassins of JFK.  You admit that you are unable to debunk many of these examples and simply fall back on the Norton Report and the HSCA Volume VII, saying that’s all the evidence you need.

But we have given you a number of examples of how the HSCA simply lied when cornered about the evidence, including evidence of two Oswalds, and I have offered several possible ways the Norton Report could be accurate as far as it goes, but that there could still have been two LHOs entangled in the assassination, as in fact there were.  You, however, are apparently unable to discuss most of the other evidence and have a practiced unawareness of what a Federal cover-up can really entail.

What happened to all that Greg Parker evidence you repeatedly said debunked Oswald’s simultaneous attendance at schools in New York and New Orleans?  I demanded time and time again that you put that evidence here, and when you finally started doing so, Mr. Parker just disappeared.  Where is it?

I know.  You don’t have to talk about it because you’re not Mr. Parker and because of the Norton Report.  Neither that--nor you--begins to explain all this evidence.
 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

17 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Uh-huh.  And is that the same kind of professionalism he and his associates brought to the exhumation?

The most significant points we raise about this case involve the credible and unrelenting evidence that two young men shared the same or a very similar identity for a decade or so and one of them became the patsy for the assassins of JFK.  You admit that you are unable to debunk many of these examples and simply fall back on the Norton Report and the HSCA Volume VII, saying that’s all the evidence you need.

But we have given you a number of examples of how the HSCA simply lied when cornered about the evidence, including evidence of two Oswalds, and I have offered several possible ways the Norton Report could be accurate as far as it goes, but that there could still have been two LHOs entangled in the assassination, as in fact there were.  You, however, are apparently unable to discuss most of the other evidence and have a practiced unawareness of what a Federal cover-up can really entail.

What happened to all that Greg Parker evidence you repeatedly said debunked Oswald’s simultaneous attendance at schools in New York and New Orleans?  I demanded time and time again that you put that evidence here, and when you finally started doing so, Mr. Parker just disappeared.  Where is it?

I know.  You don’t have to talk about it because you’re not Mr. Parker and because of the Norton Report.  Neither that--nor you--begins to explain all this evidence.
 

DiMaio was and is one of the most respected experts in his field. He is not above repeating something in a book that he is trying to sell-everyone does that. You have to prove that his expertise is in question by one of his peers and I'm not talking about Dr. Norwood.

You have no "evidence", only anomalies within a data set that numbers in the thousands if not millions. The points don't need debunking because they are not valid but the scientific evidence that refutes them is. Again, take your evidence to anyone in the mainstream media or academia and see how far you get.

I will post what Greg Parker writes on the school records if and when he adds more. He has told Sandy he can't explain it more simply so he may be done. And for about the third time, I never said the school records issue was debunked. I said an alternate explanation (how the records are read) has been provided. Unless some school official with no axe to grind was contacted and could clarify that Parker is right, I doubt the issue could be settled to your satisfaction. And that fact is what allows H&L to continue-anomalies that can't be easily resolved. But even if the school official agreed with your interpretation of the records, it could just mean that whoever prepared them did so in error. The real world doesn't work that way-you find something that is out of the ordinary and it proves your theory. ALL of the evidence must be looked at and you only look at what you want to see.

[Jim Hargrove]

What a convenient argument you have.  You ignore a busload of evidence so you can just rubber stamp each post you make with "HSCA" and "Norton Report."  The HSCA has been shown repeatedly to be dishonest, and the Norton Report hardly excludes all the possible ways a second Oswald was involved in all of this.  And you call this science.