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

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tracy,

You don't understand Greg's explanation, do you?

 

Sure I understand it. He is saying that the school records were partially misread by Head and you guys are using that to make your case. Try this-get a group of unbiased scientists and have them review the evidence for and against H&L. See if they think school records trump the exhumation and other scientific evidence and the recollections of LHO's family and close associates. And as I said, put the $1000 thing up for a vote by the members here. But I will already tell you that you will lose which is why you won't do it. We did an informal poll a couple of years ago and H&L lost. H&L is one of the few things that brings CTs & LNs together in this case. That should tell you all you need to know-it is nonsense.

[Sandy Larsen]

57 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

But there's a very specific reason why I do not believe in the "Oswald Project": I don't think Oswald was all that important to the success of the plot.

Geez Mathias, even if Oswald wasn't important to the success of the plot that doesn't mean there was no Oswald Project. The Oswald project was formed long before the assassination plot and had nothing to do with the assassination.

 

57 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

You and Jim seem to believe that he was indispensible, because he had a doppelganger. But what about the other plots that failed, in Chicago and in Tampa? Were there also two Thomas Vallees and two Gilberto Lopez'?

 

No, I don't believe Oswald was indispensable. But that doesn't mean there was no Oswald Project. The two were unrelated.

Maybe you don't know what the Oswald project was.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Any theory that does not take into account the other plots stands on shaky ground in my opinion, because obviously the plotters did not put all of their eggs in one basket.

Mathias,

Do you therefore believe that the other plots had their Mexico Cities? Or was the Mexico City incident unrelated to the assassination plot, in your view?

 

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tracy,

You don't understand Greg's explanation, do you?

 

29 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Sure I understand it. He is saying that the school records were partially misread by Head and you guys are using that to make your case. 

FINALLY!!  Mr. Parnell goes on the record with a single sentence describing Greg Parker's "debunking" of the school records.  But, of course, Parnell/Parker are completely wrong!  Let's see how:

Below are the Beauregard cumulative record for LHO and below that two pages from an FBI report analyzing it.  Remember that the PS44 records clearly indicated that LHO attended more than 62 school days (and was absent three and a fraction days) for the semester beginning 9/14/53 at the NYC school.

 

 

 

Page 10 of the FBI report summarizes the attendance data in the “Absent,” “Tardy,” “Left” and “Re-Ad” columns, which are explained, according to the FBI agents, starting at the bottom of page 10 and continuing to page 11 by William Head, assistant principal at Warren Easton High School, who received the Beauregard records for incoming students.  The FBI’s summary of Head’s explanation has caused Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell to argue against David Josephs and me for years, because Head seemed to say two contradictory things.

At the bottom of page 10, the FBI indicates he said that the “Re ad” column stood for “Re Admitted” and “would represent a total listing of the school days for a given school year.”  But later in the very same paragraph, now at the top of page 11, the report indicates that Head said a school year regularly consisted of 180 days and that “school days in any given year must not fall below 170” and that “therefore the numbers listed opposite this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year.”

So which is it?  Does the “Re-Ad” column represent the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period?

The answer is right before us in the documents shown above.    In the actual Beauregard cumulative record for LHO (top document above), look at the very last entry on the far right under the “Re-Ad” column.  It shows a total of “168” days for the 1954-55 school year.  Tracy Parnell wants you to believe that number, like the numbers in the “Re-Ad” column for the previous school year, represent the number of total days in the school year.

But that can’t be!  Head indicated that Louisiana law dictated a minimum of 170 school days in a school year, and so if we’re to believe Tracy’s interpretation, every student report card at Beauregard for the 1954-55 school year was evidence that Louisiana law was being broken.  On the other hand, using my interpretation (that the “168” indicated the actual days LHO attended school) we can make perfect sense of these numbers.  Adding Oswald’s 168 days of attendance and his 12 absences comes out to exactly 180 days, just what Head said comprised a typical Beauregard school year!

The “Re Ad” column clearly indicates the number of days a student actually attended school.  So let’s look at the first semester of the 1953-54 school year at Beauregard.  It indicates that Oswald attended 89 days and was absent once, for a total of 90 school days.

For the 1953 fall semester at PS 44 in New York, Oswald attended 62 and a fraction days and was absent three and a fraction days for a total of 66 school days accounted for.  Add those 66 days to the 90 days from Beauregard and you get at total of 156 days, equivalent to nearly an entire school year! Despite whatever spin Tracy cares to put on this, the NYC and Louisiana school records for fall semester starting in 1953 clearly show two Lee Harvey Oswalds attending two different schools at the same time!

[Sandy Larsen]

47 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Sure I understand it. He is saying that the school records were partially misread by Head and you guys are using that to make your case. Try this-get a group of unbiased scientists and have them review the evidence for and against H&L. See if they think school records trump the exhumation and other scientific evidence and the recollections of LHO's family and close associates. And as I said, put the $1000 thing up for a vote by the members here. But I will already tell you that you will lose which is why you won't do it. We did an informal poll a couple of years ago and H&L lost. H&L is one of the few things that brings CTs & LNs together in this case. That should tell you all you need to know-it is nonsense.

Frankly, what it tells me is that many researchers are ideologues and are too lazy to study and understand the evidence. I've proven with my last several posts that nobody here has any reasonable explanation for the "attending two schools simultaneously" evidence other than what John Armstrong has given. Because if any of you did, you would have presented it.

But no... you guys always fall back on Greg Parker's arguments. (Or, rather, a link to his arguments.) Which BTW you do not understand. Because if you understood them you would see that they don't provide a reasonable explanation for the records.

I HAVE read and DO understand what Greg has written. Which is why I know that it doesn't provide a reasonable explanation. Hell, it doesn't even provide a poor explanation.

That is the reason I'm willing to bet $1000. I can't lose.

You guys are full of it... though at least Jeremy backed down.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Jim Hargrove]

Hey, Sandy.  Please check your personal messages.  I've been trying to reach you.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Frankly, what it tells me is that many researchers are ideologues and are too lazy to study and understand the evidence. I've proven with my last several posts that nobody here has any reasonable explanation for the "attending two schools simultaneously" evidence other than what John Armstrong has given. Because if any of you did, you would have presented it.

But no... you guys always fall back on Greg Parker's arguments. Which BTW you do not understand. Because if you understood them you would see that they don't provide a reasonable explanation for the records.

I HAVE read and DO understand what Greg has written. Which is why I know that it doesn't provide a reasonable explanation. Hell, it doesn't even provide a poor explanation.

That is the reason I'm willing to bet $1000. I can't lose.

You guys are full of it... though at least Jeremy backed down.

The "reasonable explanation" is the records are being misread and misrepresented by the H&L folks. Another explanation is that they are simply mistaken. We have a mountain of evidence that shows that there was one and only one LHO. There is no reason to disregard all of that and accept your interpretation of school records as the definitive "proof." BTW, the records that you believe show 2 Oswalds show LHO enrolling in New Orleans on January 13 which fits the chronology of Marguerite and LHO's other activities perfectly.

As for the bet, of course you can't lose because you are making the rules. Do a poll of the researchers right here on the Ed. Forum which is about 90% CT people. Let them be the judge. I hate to be the one to tell you this Sandy, but you have picked a lost cause with your support of H&L. There are not that many things I am certain of but I know there was one and only one Oswald.

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Sure I understand it. He is saying that the school records were partially misread by Head and you guys are using that to make your case. Try this-get a group of unbiased scientists and have them review the evidence for and against H&L. See if they think school records trump the exhumation and other scientific evidence and the recollections of LHO's family and close associates. And as I said, put the $1000 thing up for a vote by the members here. But I will already tell you that you will lose which is why you won't do it. We did an informal poll a couple of years ago and H&L lost. H&L is one of the few things that brings CTs & LNs together in this case. That should tell you all you need to know-it is nonsense.

You are only talking about Beauregard JHS Tracy... and you know it.

Deal with NYC...  FBI and the Evidence shows 200 days of attendance and absence within 123 total days of school... 

Math doesn't work that way...   and only the current POTUS gives credence to "informal polls" as accurate research... 

Well done 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 minute ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Do a poll of the researchers right here on the Ed. Forum which is about 90% CT people. Let them be the judge.

That's a foolish way to discover the truth.

When Einstein first presented his Theory of Relativity, most scientist rejected it out of hand because it was too wacky. It said things like, the faster something travels, the heavier it gets. It also gets thinner in the direction it travels. It said that if a person took a long space flight at a speed approaching the speed of light, upon his return he'd be just a few minutes older whereas everybody else on earth would be decades older.

Pretty crazy, huh?

Einstein said that classical physics was all wrong. You know, all the laws of physics developed by genius Isaac Newton and used for hundreds of years.

Had a poll been taken back then, Einstein would have lost overwhelmingly. More than 99 to 1 against him. And that from highly trained, highly intelligent scientists.

But they would have all been wrong. Like the folks who thought the Earth was flat.

Thanks god the scientists were different from you guys. Given some time, guidance, and encouragement, they eventually came around. They studied the theory, tested it, and found it was right. If it weren't for that, humans never would have succeeded at space travel. Because classical physics (the formulas developed by Newton) are way too imprecise for space travel.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

You are only talking about Beauregard JHS Tracy... and you know it.

Deal with NYC...  FBI and the Evidence shows 200 days of attendance and absence within 123 total days of school... 

Math doesn't work that way...   and only the current POTUS gives credence to "informal polls" as accurate research... 

Well done 

 

Deal with the exhumation and the other scientific and common sense evidence.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That's a foolish way to discover the truth.

When Einstein first presented his Theory of Relativity, most scientist rejected it out of hand because it was too wacky. It said things like, the faster something travels, the heavier it gets. It also gets thinner in the direction it travels. It said that if a person took a long space flight at a speed approaching the speed of light, upon his return he'd be just a few minutes older whereas everybody else on earth would be decades older.

Pretty crazy, huh?

Einstein said that classical physics was all wrong. You know, all the laws of physics developed by genius Isaac Newton and used for hundreds of years.

Had a poll been taken back then, Einstein would have lost overwhelmingly. More than 99 to 1 against him. And that from highly trained, highly intelligent scientists.

But they would have all been wrong. Like the folks who thought the Earth was flat.

Thanks god the scientists were different from you guys. Given some time, guidance, and encouragement, they eventually came around. They studied the theory, tested it, and found it was right. If it weren't for that, humans never would have succeeded at space travel. Because classical physics (the formulas developed by Newton) are way too imprecise for space travel.

 

And eventually Einstein was proven right by guess what? Scientific evidence-the same type of evidence the H&L crowd rejects in this instance.

[Sandy Larsen]

9 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

And eventually Einstein was proven right by guess what? Scientific evidence-the same type of evidence the H&L crowd rejects in this instance.

By my count, you guys have only one thing in your favor. And that is the mastoidectomy. For it I personally have responded with two reasonable alternatives.

We on the other hand have numerous pieces of evidence, some of which you guys won't even try to refute. (Other than pointing to a supposed explanation that none of you can explain.)

BTW, do you understand Einstein's theory of relativity? Do you believe it? Or are you just going to take a poll and see what others say?

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Let's do a review of what you have to believe to accept the H&L theory:

1. The 1981 exhumation of LHO was somehow faked (which it wasn't).

http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/xindex.htm

2. Or, "Harvey" was given a mastoid operation by the powers that be before the age of 10. If it wasn't done then, the exhumation doctors would have detected that it was not an "old" operation. The "evidence" for this? Louis Robertson's dubious statement which was based on what the known xxxx Marguerite said.

3. There were also two Marguerites, one of whom was a CIA agent. No one ever detected these 2 Marguerites and no one ever came forward who knew Marguerite early on to say that she was not the person they saw on TV.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html

4. The HSCA handwriting and photo evidence was somehow faked or controlled by the "powers."

http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/h&l3.htm

5. All of these people were involved in the plot. Note that CTs here will believe some of these people were in on the plot, but virtually all of LHO's family?

 http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/harvey-lee-who-was-involved-in-plot.html

6. LHO spoke no Russian in Russia.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/lho-spoke-no-russian-in-russia.html

7. Dr. Milton Kurian saw "Harvey" when he could not have.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/dr-milton-kurian.html

8. Palmer McBride knew LHO in 1957 and 1958 when he could not have.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/palmer-mcbride.html

9. A photo shows  "Harvey" was 4' 8" when he was measured at 5' 4". But the photo shows no such thing.

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

10. There is something "funny" about LHO's birth certificate.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html

What trumps all of this evidence? Some misinterpreted school records and dubious witness statements.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

By my count, you guys have only one thing in your favor. And that is the mastoidectomy. For it I personally have responded with two reasonable alternatives.

We on the other hand have numerous pieces of evidence, some of which you guys won't even try to refute. (Other than pointing to a supposed explanation that none of you can explain.)

BTW, do you understand Einstein's theory of relativity? Do you believe it? Or are you just going to take a poll and see what others say?

 

See what I just posted for the tip of the iceberg regarding what we "have". On the mastoid operation, you are down to one possibility as I demonstrated before since Groody did speak out and said nothing about anyone pressuring anybody. I understand that Einstein's theory is currently accepted and it is on the basis of scientific proof not a belief in a holy book written by a man who hates the CIA.

Edited September 1, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Michael Walton]

32 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

What trumps all of this evidence? Some misinterpreted school records and dubious witness statements.

One school record shows "last school" as NYC. And the other school record shows "last school" as Texas. But we're expected to believe that when one Oswald was there, and then the clone was there that no one at the school ever said, "Hmmm, wasn't he here before?" Nothing like that was ever said by anyone at either school.

But we're expected to believe that the clones were attending consecutively? You'd think if it was that there'd be some kind of witness statements remembering this. That never happened.