JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jerry Freeman on May 12, 2019, 03:48:59 AM

Title: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 12, 2019, 03:48:59 AM
It is tough to sit around and let things slide. I will start with...
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/harvey-lee-who-was-involved-in-plot.html
I notice that am not the only one that fails to digest this one. Tracy's list is so feeble.
Fellow bloggers remark about Parnell..
Quote
'You are either very naive and gullible - or else you are dishonest - whether you're a paid shill or merely a crackpot.'....''I really don't see how the exhumation disproves Armstrong's theory. In fact, it confirms it. Armstrong presents a photo of a very young LHO with a missing front tooth. Yet, photos & xrays of LHO's teeth at the exhumation autopsy show neither a missing tooth nor a false tooth. How can that be"....''There were MANY witnesses who were threatened and/or killed shortly after the assassination. That alone explains why no one on your lists spoke up. Add to that that many people are simply apathetic about events that don't directly affect their lives and this long list of people knowing about two LHO's becomes plausible."
There were no bloggers that supported Tracy on this one.
Ardent WR defenders are found here and there of course, but they never answer the really tough probing issues--the hows and whys. Mr Parnell creates his own [basically silly] list of conspirators that must have participated in the assassination of JFK if it indeed was a conspiracy.
Jessie Curry? Oh come on! CYA chief of the Dallas Keystoners. See my post on him..   https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1736.msg44825.html#msg44825  If people would stop and understand the reasons for the cover-up then they would find acceptance that there was a cover-up.
I can accept that there must have been an imposter impersonating Oswald on various occasions. There is just too many instances of it having to happen. We can check the list of Tracy's unlikely conspirators in more future depth because it is presently so shallow.
JF
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 12, 2019, 06:32:03 AM
Absent from Tracy's list of conspirators --Sgt Gerald Hill...Jack Ruby...Mafia.
Tracy did get one guy on his list straight up....
I guess we might know that the organized crime bosses had J Edgar Hoover blackmailed. This is why he didn't go after the mob. It was much easier and more fun I guess to keep tabs on the Hollywood set. Actually, J Edgar Hoover was a criminal. He should have arrested himself as #1 on the FBI's top 10 most wanted. He violated every constitutional principle ever conceived.   
90% of the names on Parnell's list should be erased. Shanklin and Hosty were no conspirators..they just wanted to keep their jobs........
As well as the doctors and nurses he listed. People don't know what a motivator fear can be if they have never been afraid.
Tracy put down Gen Charles Cabell but his brother Dallas Mayor Earl Cabell might have had much more to do with motorcade arrangements. I saw Howard Hunt on the list but not money man and Kennedy hater H L Hunt. Nor did I see fellow money man Clint Murchison Sr. Where is Dick Nixon on the list? That guy was up to his eyeballs in plots. Tracy-- go back and do it again- I know you can do better can't you? We can talk about John Armstrong next time.
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: W. Tracy Parnell on May 12, 2019, 06:59:58 PM
I think you are missing the point of the list somewhat. The list represents who would be in on the plot if the H&L theory of John Armstrong is correct. I did not make this up, it comes from Armstrong's book. I debated a few of these with Jim Hargrove and he disagreed with some (like Marina if I remember correctly). But most of these are listed right in the book. The H&L theory is complete nonsense and it has been debunked by many including myself, David Lifton, Greg Parker and others-most of them conspiracy advocates. I am no longer writing about it since it is a waste of time at this point because most people correctly don't believe it.

Why the attacks on me suddenly? You know what they say, when you are getting close to the truth, such as is happening with Veciana right now, they come out of the woodwork to attack you. Here's the thing. John Newman, a conspiracy theorist, has debunked the story of how Veciana met "Bishop" who he now says is Phillips. It did not happen the way he said it did. So either Phillips is not "Bishop" or there was no Bishop at all, which is the way I am leaning. So you can save your attacks because Veciana is a liar-that is a fact and if you want to try and refute it go argue with John Newman since he came up with the information not me-although I agree with him.
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 12, 2019, 07:31:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think you are missing the point of the list somewhat. The list represents who would be in on the plot if the H&L theory of John Armstrong is correct. I did not make this up, it comes from Armstrong's book. I debated a few of these with Jim Hargrove and he disagreed with some (like Marina if I remember correctly). But most of these are listed right in the book. The H&L theory is complete nonsense and it has been debunked by many including myself, David Lifton, Greg Parker and others-most of them conspiracy advocates. I am no longer writing about it since it is a waste of time at this point because most people correctly don't believe it.

Why the attacks on me suddenly? You know what they say, when you are getting close to the truth, such as is happening with Veciana right now, they come out of the woodwork to attack you. Here's the thing. John Newman, a conspiracy theorist, has debunked the story of how Veciana met "Bishop" who he now says is Phillips. It did not happen the way he said it did. So either Phillips is not "Bishop" or there was no Bishop at all, which is the way I am leaning. So you can save your attacks because Veciana is a teller of non truths-that is a fact and if you want to try and refute it go argue with John Newman since he came up with the information not me-although I agree with him.

Tracy,

I'm confused (that's very rare, I know, but hey, I'm human).

Newman says Phillips was not the "Bishop" Veciana allegedly met with in the presence of Oswald, or that there was no meeting?

Thanks,
-- Tommy   ;)
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: W. Tracy Parnell on May 12, 2019, 08:06:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tracy,

I'm confused (that's very rare, I know, but hey, I'm human).

Newman says Phillips was not the "Bishop" Veciana allegedly met with in the presence of Oswald, or that there was no meeting?

Thanks,
-- Tommy   ;)

Tommy,

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. Newman has not yet commented specifically on the alleged LHO-Bishop meeting. He says he will do that in an upcoming book. I was referring to the way that Veciana claims he first met Bishop. There are two versions. In the original version (that he repeated for years) he said he met Bishop in mid-1960. In the second version, which is the one he now says is correct, he states he met Bishop "just a few days after Jack Ruby departed Cuba." Documents show this was on September 13, 1959. The first version didn't happen (if you argue Phillips was Bishop) since Phillips left Cuba for good in early 1960. Newman explains in detail why the 1959 version didn't happen either. See my article for more information on that.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2019/03/into-storm-part-1.html
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Denis Pointing on May 12, 2019, 09:15:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
John Newman, a conspiracy theorist, has debunked the story of how Veciana met "Bishop" who he now says is Phillips. It did not happen the way he said it did. So either Phillips is not "Bishop" or there was no Bishop at all, which is the way I am leaning.

Hi Tracy, I'll admit up front to not being up to speed on Bishop, it's not an area I've followed too closely, so if I'm talking out my backside....I read somewhere a good while back, a theory that Bishop was not one person but was a code word for a group of agents/people, does that mean anything to you?
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 12, 2019, 09:41:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Why the attacks on me suddenly? 
Didn't----I believe in knock at the post-not the poster. Disagreement is with ideas. I read through the stuff about Antonio Veciana. It was boring. Sorry. Because he was convicted of drugs doesn't mean anything. Iran Contra was all about coke running. The mercs in the agency was up to their necks in dirty deeds. Loran Hall was indicted for speed but never served time. He knew all about plots to kill Kennedy. His HSCA testimony remains sealed--Why?
So even if you can say that Tony Veciana was a fabricator...doesn't mean there was not a conspiracy to off JFK.
Anyway- because the list of possible conspirators was said to be "a work in progress" I would say wrong direction.
The problem I had with the Harvey and Lee stuff was that the hard core claims--well -they weren't footnoted.
Where was the supportive info? Without support...it is fake news. So even if you say that Armstrong ran out in left field with his research and stepped on his own face there...doesn't mean there was not a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and Oswald got set up.

 
 
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 12, 2019, 09:51:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Didn't----I believe in knock at the post-not the poster. Disagreement is with ideas. I read through the stuff about Antonio Veciana. It was boring. Sorry. Because he was convicted of drugs doesn't mean anything. Iran Contra was all about coke running. The mercs in the agency was up to their necks in dirty deeds. Loran Hall was indicted for speed but never served time. He knew all about plots to kill Kennedy. His HSCA testimony remains sealed--Why?
So even if you can say that Tony Veciana was a fabricator...doesn't mean there was not a conspiracy to off JFK.
Anyway- because the list of possible conspirators was said to be "a work in progress" I would say wrong direction.
The problem I had with the Harvey and Lee stuff was that the hard core claims--well -they weren't footnoted.
Where was the supportive info? Without support...it is fake news. So even if you say that Armstrong ran out in left field with his research and stepped on his own face there...doesn't mean there was not a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and Oswald got set up.

Or that, for whatever reason, Veciana wanted to connect a witting or unwitting Oswald with the evil, evil, evil CIA in the minds of all the "Deep State" Tinfoil Hat-Wearing Conspiracy Theorists out there.

--  MWT  :)

Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: W. Tracy Parnell on May 12, 2019, 10:08:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hi Tracy, I'll admit up front to not being up to speed on Bishop, it's not an area I've followed too closely, so if I'm talking out my backside....I read somewhere a good while back, a theory that Bishop was not one person but was a code word for a group of agents/people, does that mean anything to you?

No, but if anyone has a link to any information on that I would be very interested. As far as Veciana, he has always maintained that Bishop was a specific individual-at first unidentified and since 2013 David Philips.
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: W. Tracy Parnell on May 12, 2019, 10:21:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Didn't----I believe in knock at the post-not the poster. Disagreement is with ideas. I read through the stuff about Antonio Veciana. It was boring. Sorry. Because he was convicted of drugs doesn't mean anything. Iran Contra was all about coke running. The mercs in the agency was up to their necks in dirty deeds. Loran Hall was indicted for speed but never served time. He knew all about plots to kill Kennedy. His HSCA testimony remains sealed--Why?
So even if you can say that Tony Veciana was a fabricator...doesn't mean there was not a conspiracy to off JFK.
Anyway- because the list of possible conspirators was said to be "a work in progress" I would say wrong direction.
The problem I had with the Harvey and Lee stuff was that the hard core claims--well -they weren't footnoted.
Where was the supportive info? Without support...it is fake news. So even if you say that Armstrong ran out in left field with his research and stepped on his own face there...doesn't mean there was not a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and Oswald got set up.

OK, glad to hear this isn't intended as an "attack thread." Veciana's drug conviction is relevant because he always had maintained his innocence and the fact that the evidence shows he was guilty goes toward his general credibility IMO. I am re-reading Fonzi's book and it is obvious to me that he didn't do any checking on the drug thing and merely accepted Veciana's word. I say this because Fonzi makes the flat statement that Barres was the only witness against Veciana. But that is not true, there were four witnesses and other evidence against Veciana. Additionally, Pomares, the other conspirator, confirmed what Barres said in his confession. He later tried to retract that but it is common for lawyers to try and do that.

If there are any specific H&L things you want sources to, I would be glad to try but I am not going to spend a whole lot of time on it. As far as the "H&L Who Would be Involved" list, it is based on my reading  of the book and I admit that Jim Hargrove did not agree with everything. And I agree that a debunking of either the H&L and Maurice Bishop theories would not disprove a conspiracy. But it is a start.
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 13, 2019, 02:36:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
...  the evil, evil, evil CIA in the minds of all the "Deep State" Tinfoil Hat-Wearing Conspiracy Theorists out there.
Well Tom..in light of everything else [and sarcasm aside] do you really think these guys were just a troop of boy scouts? If you read some of the stuff attributed to MK Ultra...they were definitely evil. They failed to destroy all their "research". Have a glance...
https://www.wanttoknow.info/050626mkultra 

 
 
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 13, 2019, 03:14:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well Tom..in light of everything else [and sarcasm aside] do you really think these guys were just a troop of boy scouts? If you read some of the stuff attributed to MK Ultra...they were definitely evil. They failed to destroy all their "research". Have a glance...
https://www.wanttoknow.info/050626mkultra

Yes, I know.

The CIA is an evil, evil, evil, evil agency of the Deep State, whereas the GRU and the NKVD/KGB/FSB-SVR are humanitarian organizations by comparison, and would never even consider doing things like that.

LOL

-- MWT  :)

PS  Ever tried to do the equivalent of a FOIA request in Russia?  I'm sure the Kremlin is very open and forthcoming with it's secret documents.

PPS  I just hate America, don't you?

Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 13, 2019, 11:02:56 PM
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-hoaxster-and-conspiracy-theorists.html
An ah-ha moment?....not really. And the onedrivelive footnotes are no longer working. But that's OK.
I am reminded of when reporters announced the development of the light bulb and Tom Edison replied that he had merely discovered the dozens of ways that didn't work.
So it is with debunking conspiracy theories. We can always find those that don't work or can't be proven. 
 
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Rob Caprio on May 13, 2019, 11:24:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is tough to sit around and let things slide. I will start with...
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/harvey-lee-who-was-involved-in-plot.html
I notice that am not the only one that fails to digest this one. Tracy's list is so feeble.
Fellow bloggers remark about Parnell.. There were no bloggers that supported Tracy on this one.
Ardent WR defenders are found here and there of course, but they never answer the really tough probing issues--the hows and whys. Mr Parnell creates his own [basically silly] list of conspirators that must have participated in the assassination of JFK if it indeed was a conspiracy.
Jessie Curry? Oh come on! CYA chief of the Dallas Keystoners. See my post on him..   https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1736.msg44825.html#msg44825  If people would stop and understand the reasons for the cover-up then they would find acceptance that there was a cover-up.
I can accept that there must have been an imposter impersonating Oswald on various occasions. There is just too many instances of it having to happen. We can check the list of Tracy's unlikely conspirators in more future depth because it is presently so shallow.
JF

Yeah, the "debunking" has only occurred in his head I guess.
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Rob Caprio on May 13, 2019, 11:28:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, but if anyone has a link to any information on that I would be very interested. As far as Veciana, he has always maintained that Bishop was a specific individual-at first unidentified and since 2013 David Philips.

What does this have to do with the events of November 22, 1963? Be specific. Then show how you debunked it.
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: W. Tracy Parnell on May 14, 2019, 12:22:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What does this have to do with the events of November 22, 1963? Be specific. Then show how you debunked it.

What does Bishop have to do with the assassination? In reality-nothing. There is a group of people that believe that Bishop is David Phillips and that Veciana's story means there was a CIA conspiracy to kill JFK. I am looking into the matter with a view to debunking it. So is John Newman. Carmine Savastano has also written about it. So what?
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: W. Tracy Parnell on May 14, 2019, 12:35:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-hoaxster-and-conspiracy-theorists.html
An ah-ha moment?....not really. And the onedrivelive footnotes are no longer working. But that's OK.
I am reminded of when reporters announced the development of the light bulb and Tom Edison replied that he had merely discovered the dozens of ways that didn't work.
So it is with debunking conspiracy theories. We can always find those that don't work or can't be proven.

UPDATE-the broken footnote links have been removed. I am not sure if you are saying you think the Landesberg theory is valid (I can assure you it isn't) or that it is so weak that it didn't need debunking. If it is the former I can't help you. If the latter, I will just say that at the time I worked on it, many were still posting on forums and apparently believed it. So I did a writeup on it.
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Rob Caprio on May 14, 2019, 10:48:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What does Bishop have to do with the assassination? In reality-nothing. There is a group of people that believe that Bishop is David Phillips and that Veciana's story means there was a CIA conspiracy to kill JFK. I am looking into the matter with a view to debunking it. So is John Newman. Carmine Savastano has also written about it. So what?

Name the "some people" who think that one possibility, Bishop really being Phillips, means that the CIA were involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK. Go ahead.

Simplifying much?

So what? You are distorting what people are saying or have said about that issue. I doubt anyone has claimed that the CIA was involved based on that one issue, but I will wait for the names that you claim do.

Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 14, 2019, 11:23:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Name the "some people" who think that one possibility, Bishop really being Phillips, means that the CIA were involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK. Go ahead.

Simplifying much?

So what? You are distorting what people are saying or have said about that issue. I doubt anyone has claimed that the CIA was involved based on that one issue, but I will wait for the names that you claim do.

Caprio,

Did Tracy say that the "CIA Did It" theory is based solely on certain CTer' belief that "Bishop" was David Atlee Phillips?

Answer:  No, he didn't.

So why are you putting words in Tracy's mouth?

-- MWT  :)
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Rob Caprio on May 14, 2019, 11:27:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Caprio,

Did Tracy say that the "CIA Did It" theory is based solely on certain CTer' belief that "Bishop" was David Atlee Phillips?

Answer:  No, he didn't.

So why are you putting words in Tracy's mouth?

-- MWT  :)

Graves,

Learn to read. When did you become his spokesperson? Let him answer for himself.
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 14, 2019, 11:36:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Graves,

Learn to read. When did you become his spokesperson? Let him answer for himself.

Caprio,

Did I read your post incorrectly?

You used the phrase "based on that one issue," didn't you?

-- MWT  :)
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: W. Tracy Parnell on May 14, 2019, 11:53:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Name the "some people" who think that one possibility, Bishop really being Phillips, means that the CIA were involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK. Go ahead.

Simplifying much?

So what? You are distorting what people are saying or have said about that issue. I doubt anyone has claimed that the CIA was involved based on that one issue, but I will wait for the names that you claim do.

Name one person-Gaeton Fonzi. And Tommy is right, I never said based on one issue. It is however, a strong reason people like Fonzi believe what they do. The "CIA-did-it" theory has many adherents and I would guess that few believe exactly the same thing.
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 15, 2019, 01:02:57 AM
Jessie Curry would not have been a conspirator. If he [needlessly] was...he would have been a poor one. Curry stated  after the WR was released, that there never really was a sound case against Oswald.
"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."--- Dallas Morning News, 6 Nov 1969. Article by Tom Johnson.
 
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on May 15, 2019, 07:56:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I think you are missing the point of the list somewhat. The list represents who would be in on the plot if the H&L theory of John Armstrong is correct. I did not make this up, it comes from Armstrong's book. I debated a few of these with Jim Hargrove and he disagreed with some (like Marina if I remember correctly). But most of these are listed right in the book. The H&L theory is complete nonsense and it has been debunked by many including myself, David Lifton, Greg Parker and others-most of them conspiracy advocates. I am no longer writing about it since it is a waste of time at this point because most people correctly don't believe it.

Why the attacks on me suddenly? You know what they say, when you are getting close to the truth, such as is happening with Veciana right now, they come out of the woodwork to attack you. Here's the thing. John Newman, a conspiracy theorist, has debunked the story of how Veciana met "Bishop" who he now says is Phillips. It did not happen the way he said it did. So either Phillips is not "Bishop" or there was no Bishop at all, which is the way I am leaning. So you can save your attacks because Veciana is a teller of non truths-that is a fact and if you want to try and refute it go argue with John Newman since he came up with the information not me-although I agree with him.
These people actually think Marina and Marguerite and Robert (and others) didn't notice the "second" Oswald? Or do they actually think that they too were in on this doppelganger conspiracy? It's absurd.

In any case, you (and Newman, who is certainly no WC defender or lone assassin supporter) have dispelled, for me, Veciana's claims about working for the CIA and, most important, that his control officer was David Phillips. This Maurice Bishop figure, if he did exist, cannot have been Phillips.

You do not say you proved the CIA wasn't involved; you do not say Dulles wasn't involved: all you say here, on your recent posts, is that Veciana's claims about the CIA and Bishop are simply not supported by the evidence.

Jerry Freeman is talking about things that you have never claimed to have done. This is about Veciana. Period.
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: W. Tracy Parnell on May 15, 2019, 08:18:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
These people actually think Marina and Marguerite and Robert (and others) didn't notice the "second" Oswald? Or do they actually think that they too were in on this doppelganger conspiracy? It's absurd.

In any case, you (and Newman, who is certainly no WC defender or lone assassin supporter) have dispelled, for me, Veciana's claims about working for the CIA and, most important, that his control officer was David Phillips. This Maurice Bishop figure, if he did exist, cannot have been Phillips.

You do not say you prove the CIA wasn't involved; you do not say Dulles wasn't involved: all you say here is that Veciana's claims about the CIA and Bishop are simply not supported by the evidence.

Jerry Freeman is talking about things that you have never claimed.

Hi Steve,

Well, Armstrong thinks Robert was in on it and was paid to not notice. He thinks there were two Marguerites. The "nutty" Marguerite from the time of the assassination was in on it and the "original" Marguerite disappeared mysteriously-eliminated by the CIA I suppose. What is just as amazing to me are the dozens or hundreds of acquaintances of the "original" Marguerite who didn't notice that Marguerite had been "replaced" when they saw the "impostor" on TV or in the newspapers. These include people like Clem Sehrt and Julian and Myrtle Evans who knew Marguerite well. Of course, Armstrong says the Evans' tried to tell the commission about the 2 Marguerites, but they actually only said she had changed considerably.

EDIT: I forgot to mention Marina. It is hard to follow Armstrong's logic at times and Hargrove told me before that she was not in on the plot. However, Armstrong thinks she was KGB so that is probably where I got confused. If I can ever clarify this I will remove her from the list if that is the case. But it is not a high priority, I admit. Also, Freeman may be right and Curry may not belong on the list either. I assumed since Curry turned over the evidence to the FBI Armstrong thought he was in on it but that may not be right. Armstrong's book is a complete mess and difficult to follow. Worst book I ever saw easily-no organization, incorrect citations and myriad typos. If I get a clarification from one of Armstrong's deputies, I'll change all of this. But Hargrove won't even answer simple questions when I contact him. I guess he doesn't like me. :)

Yes I agree-if there was a Bishop, he has remained undetected and wasn't Phillips.  Newman says he will have more and I am still working on it as well.
Title: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Brian Doyle on May 15, 2019, 08:22:21 PM

It seems obvious to me from Parnell's linguistic forensics that he knows there's truth to it...
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: W. Tracy Parnell on May 15, 2019, 08:39:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It seems obvious to me from Parnell's linguistic forensics that he knows there's truth to it...

Truth to H&L? No. But I will give Armstrong credit for uncovering certain aspects of LHO's biography. For example, he apparently obtained a marriage record that shows Marguerite and Ekdahl were married on May 5, 1945. The exact date was always somewhat in question. I say "apparently obtained" because when I contacted Hargrove and asked him about the document so I could give credit to Armstrong, he wouldn't answer me.
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on May 16, 2019, 03:11:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It seems obvious to me from Parnell's linguistic forensics that he knows there's truth to it...
Of course. In conspiracy world one plus one equals whatever the conspiracy advocate wants it to be.

And it's never two.
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 16, 2019, 05:50:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
These people actually think Marina and Marguerite and Robert (and others) didn't notice the "second" Oswald? Or do they actually think that they too were in on this doppelganger conspiracy? It's absurd.
I proposed that there was an Oswald impersonator ..not another "Oswald'' per se'. I've posted this in several other threads.
Lee Oswald's family members need not have known about the fake.
Quote
You do not say you proved the CIA wasn't involved; you do not say Dulles wasn't involved: all you say here, on your recent posts, is that Veciana's claims about the CIA and Bishop are simply not supported by the evidence. Jerry Freeman is talking about things that you have never claimed to have done. 
Nowhere have I stated said claims. Tracy supports the official report...I urge one and all to read through my posts that demonstrate Oswald was set up.
 
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 16, 2019, 05:54:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It seems obvious to me from Parnell's linguistic forensics that he knows there's truth to it...
linguistic forensics --I went and looked that one up...
Quote
How much do forensic linguists make?
Salary. Forensic linguists primarily work as consultants. PayScale.com listed a salary range of $39,322 to $97,269 annually for linguists as of October 2016. The same month, PayScale.com indicated that the median annual salary earned by linguists was $61,989.
google.com ---Give Tracy a raise ;D
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 16, 2019, 11:36:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
linguistic forensics --I went and looked that one up...

That's just a phrase that Doyle made up to try to justify his made-up crap.
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 17, 2019, 04:59:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I proposed that there was an Oswald impersonator ..not another "Oswald'' per se'. I've posted this in several other threads.
Lee Oswald's family members need not have known about the fake.Nowhere have I stated said claims. Tracy supports the official report...I urge one and all to read through my posts that demonstrate Oswald was set up.

What's the difference between "an Oswald impersonator," and "another 'Oswald' per se"?

-- MWT  :)

Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on May 17, 2019, 03:14:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I proposed that there was an Oswald impersonator ..not another "Oswald'' per se'. I've posted this in several other threads.
Lee Oswald's family members need not have known about the fake.Nowhere have I stated said claims. Tracy supports the official report...I urge one and all to read through my posts that demonstrate Oswald was set up.
Again: Tracy has addressed here the claims made by Veciana. Specifically that his control officer (if there was one) was CIA officer David Atlee Phillips and that, most important, he saw Phillips with Oswald. That's the topic.

Then you criticize him - in his posts on Veciana - for not proving "the CIA" was involved, for not proving that Dulles was involved. Even though his specific topic was VECIANA and not Dulles or "the CIA."

I have no idea what your posts "demonstrating" that Oswald was set up has to do with Tracy's look into Veciana's claims.


Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Jerry Freeman on May 20, 2019, 07:47:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have no idea what your posts "demonstrating" that Oswald was set up has to do with Tracy's look into Veciana's claims.
Take a look at the title of the topic here and we will see that we are drifting away from that.
My main criticism is that independent researcher/investigators who support the official story are praised and heralded as truth bringers and setting the record straight. At best some of their ideas are inconclusive from what I see. Those who question the official story are ridiculed and looked upon as heretics or even less. There is something twisted about this. Those who do not agree demonstrate my point. I'm done with this thread and will return with more specific questions.
I started a sincere thread ..'Have you ever been to Dealey Plaza?' and see who came along and hijacked and muddled it up with silly unrelated videos  ...the usual suspects.
     https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1816.msg52093.html#msg52093
 
 
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: W. Tracy Parnell on May 20, 2019, 09:21:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Take a look at the title of the topic here and we will see that we are drifting away from that.
My main criticism is that independent researcher/investigators who support the official story are praised and heralded as truth bringers and setting the record straight. At best some of their ideas are inconclusive from what I see. Those who question the official story are ridiculed and looked upon as heretics or even less. There is something twisted about this. Those who do not agree demonstrate my point. I'm done with this thread and will return with more specific questions.
I started a sincere thread ..'Have you ever been to Dealey Plaza?' and see who came along and hijacked and muddled it up with silly unrelated videos  ...the usual suspects.
     https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1816.msg52093.html#msg52093

It could be a case of where one is standing I guess, but I don't share your experience. For example, I read that Morley has over 2 million hits, while I have 25K. Now granted, he has more content than I do, but still...

My interest is in taking claims that are established or have not been challenged, as was the case with Veciana, and seeing what is there. When I went to the primary documents, they didn't say what Fonzi said they did. But no one had looked into it. Now, Newman is looking at it and the criticism is from both sides. H&L was a little different as there were critics on both sides right away. Anyway, I'll be happy to answer any other questions you might have.
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Tom Scully on October 18, 2019, 08:46:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Take a look at the title of the topic here and we will see that we are drifting away from that.
My main criticism is that independent researcher/investigators who support the official story are praised and heralded as truth bringers and setting the record straight. At best some of their ideas are inconclusive from what I see. Those who question the official story are ridiculed and looked upon as heretics or even less. There is something twisted about this. Those who do not agree demonstrate my point. I'm done with this thread and will return with more specific questions.
I started a sincere thread ..'Have you ever been to Dealey Plaza?' and see who came along and hijacked and muddled it up with silly unrelated videos  ...the usual suspects.
     https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1816.msg52093.html#msg52093

Jerry, all of my research results are conclusive, I quickly amend any claim I cannot defend against any argument of more solid, verifiable fact, so, why not consider the reaction of members of the "CT community" with more "fans" than I happen to have, to newly discovered facts of my independent research results. I present them rapidly, upon confirmation of them, ....believe it or not, because I have thin hope of stimulating collaboration of other independent researchers...such as, Mr. Parnell! I welcome anyone I can learn something new from, (and more reliable than what I believe)... John Armstrong, if he offered something that is new to me and stands up to fact checking.

I reserve scorn only for those who "shoot the messenger" when they disagree with what I present but, as "a matter of fact" have no other option, aside from admitting the facts go against what they have published or otherwise presented. Not even going to post examples of the ridicule I routinely receive (from posters I've rarely learned anything new from) for the "offense" of discovering new facts using leads often gleaned from wedding announcements and obituaries.

Is your opinion of the research results and analysis presented by Mr. Parnell, actually beneficial to you, or to anyone?
Would I experience any worse if I were inaccurate or untruthful? I really cannot see how!
Why does anyone bother, considering the "appreciation" I have experienced in response, to seek and learn the truth and then to present it publicly? Can you not even consider why I take your attitude to be, "I have other priorities I hold higher than the verifiabe facts." Can you actually provide even one reasonable reason for punishing those few who present "unappreciated," but otherwise newly discovered, verifiable facts, except to make examples of such messengers in the hope any others will not come forward with anything else uncomfortable to you, but verifiably true? IOW, where is your similar indignation with regard to those who you consider to be, "on your side," a few of whom I have named, below?
I was on a road trip in May and missed posting in this thread during its brief but busy period of activity. Unlike the responses of CTs who predictably react to facts I discover that threaten or dismantle a particular belief or assumption, I don't regard Mr. Parnell as someone who "shoots the messenger". IOW, Parnell does not seem an angry hypocrite, a purported "truth teller" who is a truth "slayer" with the full support or at least no objections whatsoever, from his "fans".
In fact, these truth "slayers" are rewarded, vs exacting a "price" from me in reaction to my impertinence. "How dare that Scully confront me with new facts!"

My "sin" was having the temerity to identify and locate the "arch villain" of Janney's book; "Lt. William Mitchell," Crump trial "witness" allegedly "missing" since his 1965 trial testimony. Janney accused Mitchell of assassinating Mary Meyer on behalf of the CIA, and almost everyone loves BS like that, actual truth not withstanding!
Quote
Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, ...
https://books.google.com (https://books.google.com/books?id=OGOCDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT378&lpg=PT378&dq=janney+mosaic+dieugenio+protege+scully&source=bl&ots=9nd-gtMBgY&sig=ACfU3U33gsEk7aZB4r-J-_UQV1KsGwbwtw&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi85avHxablAhUBZd8KHXgTCCEQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=janney%20mosaic%20dieugenio%20protege%20scully&f=false) › books
Peter Janney - 2016 - ‎History
... Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace: Third Edition Peter Janney ... written by a DiEugenio protégé whose name, I discovered, was Tom Scully, but ...

In 2012, Douglas Horne accuses me of working, "for the agency."
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RWKKPDXQXFKPD/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1510708928
In second page of comments:
Quote
Ralph Yates 5 years agoReport abuse
Fess up Rational Voice. Janney's got the right man. Is it likely an author could openly accuse an emeritus college professor from the University of California of murdering Mary Pinchot Meyer in writing in a book and not have any reaction what so ever? Look at what we are talking about here. A professor of high stature being openly accused of being a CIA agent who murdered Kennedy's mistress in order to cover-up CIA's murder of president Kennedy. Is it likely such a person would react with zero response in that situation if they were falsely accused? This is a serious scandal and perfect opportunity for the media to destroy a nutty conspiracy theorist on the 50th anniversary. Why haven't they?

He's got the right man.

Douglas 7 years ago
... Are you a third party surrogate (or a direct employee) working for the USG whose mission here is to attempt to discredit the confession of a hit-man?....Your citations seem to me like the kind of detailed biographical information that would be maintained by the same "outfit" that would have maintained Mitchell's operational file at the Agency. Who the hell else would know these things? What ordinary reader would have the ability to look up and find the citations you so conveniently found?.....Why don't you "get real" and tell us who you are, and how you found your citations? What tools did you use? Did someone lead you to them? Did someone provide them to you? Your postings have the odor to me of a disinformation/spin operation, designed to cast doubt, and to make readers forget the basic fact that a "William L. Mitchell" confessed to murdering Mary Meyer for the CIA, to author Leo Damore. Attorney Jimmy Smith's notes of his phone call with Leo Damore prove that.....

HP Albarelli, Jr. posting on the Ed Forum, in reaction to my research...: (Note the date, vs. Simkin, on June 9, 2013...)
Quote
Posted May 29, 2013
My options are laid out here? I don't even know who the hell Tom is? or what his agenda is... he seems to have a hard on for Peter (Janney) and I have no interest in attacking a serious researcher...

Jim: I don't need you to set yourself up as some sort of fixer here; what Peter reported in his book about our conversatiopn is accurate; as to the rest of his book I don't know because as I said yesterday

I have not read it. [My source knew Mr. Mitchell quite well and indeed still communicates and occasionally visits with him; that I passed this on to peter was entirely appropriate.} There is far more to the Mary M. story than has been released thus far. I expect that will come out soon. If Tom has info he should it out in the proper places. [Few read this forum.]

You didn't reply on my comments on what you know and don't know about my sources, Jim. Peter did not violate my trust. I spoke to him freely and told him all that I knew, with a few exceptions regarding names and places

of residence. He can verify this.

I provided my e-mial above; it's hankalbarelli@mac.com. Anyone here or elsewhere can write to me about anythingh of legitimate interest. Again, I don't engage here because I don't find it particularly useful and it frankly takes too much time.

Quote
A Secret Order: Investigating the High Strangeness (https://books.google.com/books?id=SfoBBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=albarelli+secret+order+simkin+scully&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiW_qSYwKblAhXCUt8KHX-fAn0Q6AEwAXoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=simkin&f=false) and …
H. Albarelli, Jr. – 2013 –
(Mexico City hosted the Summer Olympics in 1968. See more on Proctor and McNutt in Notes on this chapter.) Several seasoned assassination researchers, including John Simkin and Tom Scully of the JFK Education Forum, discovered that Proctor practiced law in New York with Paul Vories McNutt. …

Almost every forum member who posted in reaction to Simkin punishing a truth teller was supportive of the "punishment".
Several who posted in objection, including forum administrator Gary Loughran, were also summarily banned!
Quote
John Simkin - Posted June 9, 2013

...Last week I received an email from Hank Albarelli Jr. about a thread about his book, "A Secret Order"

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19016

I had not read the thread before and would have assumed it would have been dealt with by the moderators. In fact, the main offender was one of the moderators, Tom Scully, where he breaks the Forum rules by calling Albarelli a xxxx.

Hank argues:

The recent posts and actions of James DiEugenio and one Tom Scully are accomplishing nothing but the gross discrediting, and perhaps destruction, of the forum. ....
I find I am in complete agreement with Hank’s comments and have decided to delete Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully membership. This is a start of a new regime at the Forum. If any other member makes abusive comments about a fellow member, their membership will also be deleted. If anyone tries to subvert this measure by posting comments of banned members, they will also be removed from the forum.

This is the last chance for the JFK Forum. If this new approach does not work, the whole forum will be removed.
Quote
Robert Charles-Dunne  Posted June 16, 2013
I haven’t missed the point, Evan; I believe you may have missed mine...

...Because authors were invited by John, he no doubt hoped that they’d be treated with civility by the Forum membership. Contrary to the analogy offered, I don’t think this is John’s living room, but his classroom. He has invited visiting lecturers, through whom we might benefit by learning more, and they might benefit by selling some books.

Unfortunately for some of those authors, the membership here proved to be as well versed - or more so - than the authors who presume to educate us. Fireworks is predictably inevitable, particularly if authors expected deference rather than civility. Haughtiness ensues, due to wounded pride. But whom should we fault for this? The authors, whose case has not been made beyond a reasonable doubt? Or the members who point out that failing on the authors’ part?

This is multiply true in the case of Peter Janney’s book. John Simkin not only invited Peter here, but I believe provided him with some material aid in preparing his book (please correct me if I’m wrong on this), and subscribes to the book’s central premise that CIA murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. (As it happens, I am inclined to concur with that assertion. That does not require me - or anyone - to accept Janney’s scenario for the crime if compelling evidence is not presented.)

Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney’s book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer’s murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don’t have a personal relationship with Peter Janney.

I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney’s favour:

“The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.”

If a friend has been proved wrong, as I believe Janney had been by the ousted members, he doesn’t need protection; he needs correction. If he is unwilling to be corrected when shown persuasive evidence by forum members, a true friend shares some harsh truth with him. The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum’s raison d’etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be.

Those who refused to remain silent were the ones made to pay the price of excommunication, well after Janney ceased to post here.

I have written the foregoing to respond to something directed specifically to me. If DiEugenio and Scully are not re-instated as members, it will be my last post here, for reasons I think I have made sufficiently clear.

And in reaction to the same research results....
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RHETJR89AG4KJ/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1510708928
Quote
H.P. Albarelli Jr.5 years ago In reply toan earlier postReport abuse
It's truly sad that Mr. Scully has "suffered" at the hands of several people. I urge everyone who feels sorry for him to send him flowers.
Leave a reply
Ralph Yates5 years ago (Edited)Report abuse
Some of Janney's evidence is loosely rendered and his affiliation with Ralph Cinque is bizarre to say the least. At minimum it shows extremely bad judgment. However there's some key clues that Janney is keen on like the Rambler having no record of it as if it was a plausibly deniable set-up designed to get a Military Police profile witness in place. I have to temper my Fetzer bs detector because Janney is on the verge of triggering it in several places. However he has a sharp instinct for clues and sees right through many obvious smoking guns like with the diary and Rambler. Janney was there with his hand on the wire when he looked at his father's expression when Mary was killed. Those are things that can't be appreciated by people who didn't experience them. He has a strong case in my opinion because there's no way Crump would have come back 100% clean on the fiber and blood evidence after going through the scene at the canal path.

Janney gains credibility when you consider Crump was confined to the tow path area after the shooting. Therefore it isn't likely the gun would be able to disappear so easily. Even with DiEugenio's criticism of Janney's timing estimates it does look like Crump was captured and in custody when Sylvis saw the man stick his face out from the trees. Something's wrong here because Crump would not be able to hide a gun so easily from his friends and family. The little things are what count here and if Crump had attended a female prior to the incident it would be unlikely he would have attacked Mary Meyer for sexual reasons. There's every reason to suspect a classic plausibly deniable black op here.

There's a couple of things that give Janney credibility, but what Janney calls the master key clinches it. There's no way Wistar could have called Meyer and Bradlee at 2pm if Mary's identity hadn't been determined until 6pm. And don't forget Janney caught his father faking lack of knowledge until the 8pm call from the police informing them of Mary Meyer's murder. Plus there are numerous CIA insiders casually admitting Mary Meyer was one of their jobs off the record.

It's the little things that add up and Mitchell's transfer to England was a way of getting a potential liability near to the wicked domain of MI-6 where he could be taken care of if needed. Mitchell's transformation to a hippy was just a way of diminishing him and his CIA status. Don't forget Mitchell lied about his sponsorship for that trip. Follow the money. The company paid for that relocation. There's no way any innocent emeritus college professor would allow someone to openly accuse him of being the CIA assassin who murdered Mary Meyer in a book without any response. Face it Scully, Janney's got his man.

In 2018, DiEugenio twists my verifiable, original research into my being a stooge of a CIA sponsored (Holland) stooge's stooge, (author Carpenter).
Quote
Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio  on 8 December, 2018
Tom, I like you personally and I think you usually do good work and I defended you when people were attacking your approach at EF.

But I am at a loss to explain how you fell for Carpenter. This is a guy who writes for Max Holland.....

My offense was, after discovering Garrison had hid from the world the facts David Baldwin communicated to Clay Shaw in March, 1967, in the process of verfying (I had pointed out that Shaw biographer Carpenter was the only other source on the internet even mentioning the curious familial ties I had independently unearthed...) Garrison had indeed suppressed the familial ties of Joan Mellen's "CIA People," Edward and David Baldwin, to Garrison's wife and David's wife to prominent Jim Garrison and later, Oliver Stone critic, Nicholas B. Lemann. With that insult his last word, Jim DiEugenio refuses to actually discuss the problem of Shaw, Garrison, and Nicholas B. Lemann all keeping the identical secrets!

Quote
Judith Shulevitz, Nicholas Lemann - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/07/style/judith-shulevitz-nicholas-lemann.html
Nov 7, 1999 - Judith Anne Shulevitz and Nicholas Lemann, writers in New York, are to be ... He is the son of Thomas B. Lemann of New Orleans and the late ..

Quote
https://jfkfacts.org/hardway-declaration-cia-stonewalled-jfk-investigation/#comment-880768
Tom S.  - June 6, 2016 at 11:37 pm
..Here is the link to Nicholas Lemann and Zachary Sklar trading letters in GQ, after the Lemann’s Jan., 1992 article was published…..

Lemann responds on pg. 2, to Sklar’s letter which begins on pg 1.:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/S%20Disk/Stone%20Oliver%20JFK%20Movie/Gentleman's%20Quarterly/Item%2002.pdf

No disclosure in Nicholas’s rebuttal to Zachary Sklar, or from Sklar about Lemann’s conflicts/background:

Quote
https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-853431
Tom S.  January 25, 2016 at 5:38 pm
......
http://files.usgwarchives.net/la/orleans/obits/1/l-11.txt
003004 Lemann – Mildred Crumb Lyons Lemann, A Homemaker, Died Friday At Her Home In New Orleans. She
Was 94. Mrs. Lemann Was A Lifelong Resident Of New Orleans. … In 1929, She Worked At Metairie Park
Country Day School, Where She Coordinated The School’s Non-Academic Activities. Survivors Include A Daughter,
Mildred Lyons Baldwin;
A Sister, Ethel Crumb Brett; Two Stepsons, Thomas B. Lemann, And Stephen B. Lemann;
…. Times Picayune 01-14-1990

http://files.usgwarchives.net/la/orleans/obits/1/b-03.txt
000618 Baldwin – Mildred Lyons Baldwin, Age 79 Years, On Monday, August 12, 2002 At Touro Infirmary.
Mrs. Baldwin Attended Metairie Park Country Day School And William And Mary College. She Was An
Accomplished Classical Pianist Who Loved Chopin And Debussy. Other Interests Included Acting, Modern
Dance And Cooking. She Was The Wife Of The Late David G. Baldwin For 50 Years. She Is Survived By 2
Sons, Stephen Brooks Baldwin Of New York City, Geoffrey Stuart Johnston Baldwin Of New Orleans And An
Adopted Daughter, Jean A. Cunningham Of Los Angeles, Ca. Private Services Will Be Held. In Lieu Of
Flowers Memorial Contributions To Metairie Park Country Day School Would Be Appreciated. Times Picayune
08-13-2002
Quote
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
....
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Unredacted_-_Episode_1_-_Transcript.html
Unredacted Episode 1: Transcript of Interview with Joan Mellen
Joan Mellen is the author of A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK’s Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History. This interview was conducted on 22 Feb 2006. Tyler Weaver provided the introduction, and the interview was conducted by Rex Bradford.
…….
REX: I – I think –

JOAN: – when (Atty. Edward) Baldwin was present, he was a CIA asset, his brother worked for the International Trade Mart and Clay Shaw, David Baldwin, and these, these are CIA people…
........
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Otto Beck on October 18, 2019, 10:24:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Jerry, all of my research results are conclusive, I quickly amend any claim I cannot defend against any argument of more solid, verifiable fact, so, why not consider the reaction of members of the "CT community" with more "fans" than I happen to have, to newly discovered facts of my independent research results. I present them rapidly, upon confirmation of them, ....believe it or not, because I have thin hope of stimulating collaboration of other independent researchers...such as, Mr. Parnell! I welcome anyone I can learn something new from, (and more reliable than what I believe)... John Armstrong, if he offered something that is new to me and stands up to fact checking.

I reserve scorn only for those who "shoot the messenger" when they disagree with what I present but, as "a matter of fact" have no other option, aside from admitting the facts go against what they have published or otherwise presented. Not even going to post examples of the ridicule I routinely receive (from posters I've rarely learned anything new from) for the "offense" of discovering new facts using leads often gleaned from wedding announcements and obituaries.

Is your opinion of the research results and analysis presented by Mr. Parnell, actually beneficial to you, or to anyone?
Would I experience any worse if I were inaccurate or untruthful? I really cannot see how!
Why does anyone bother, considering the "appreciation" I have experienced in response, to seek and learn the truth and then to present it publicly? Can you not even consider why I take your attitude to be, "I have other priorities I hold higher than the verifiabe facts." Can you actually provide even one reasonable reason for punishing those few who present "unappreciated," but otherwise newly discovered, verifiable facts, except to make examples of such messengers in the hope any others will not come forward with anything else uncomfortable to you, but verifiably true? IOW, where is your similar indignation with regard to those who you consider to be, "on your side," a few of whom I have named, below?
I was on a road trip in May and missed posting in this thread during its brief but busy period of activity. Unlike the responses of CTs who predictably react to facts I discover that threaten or dismantle a particular belief or assumption, I don't regard Mr. Parnell as someone who "shoots the messenger". IOW, Parnell does not seem an angry hypocrite, a purported "truth teller" who is a truth "slayer" with the full support or at least no objections whatsoever, from his "fans".
In fact, these truth "slayers" are rewarded, vs exacting a "price" from me in reaction to my impertinence. "How dare that Scully confront me with new facts!"

My "sin" was having the temerity to identify and locate the "arch villain" of Janney's book; "Lt. William Mitchell," Crump trial "witness" allegedly "missing" since his 1965 trial testimony. Janney accused Mitchell of assassinating Mary Meyer on behalf of the CIA, and almost everyone loves BS like that, actual truth not withstanding!
In 2012, Douglas Horne accuses me of working, "for the agency."
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RWKKPDXQXFKPD/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1510708928
In second page of comments:
HP Albarelli, Jr. posting on the Ed Forum, in reaction to my research...: (Note the date, vs. Simkin, on June 9, 2013...)

Almost every forum member who posted in reaction to Simkin punishing a truth teller was supportive of the "punishment".
Several who posted in objection, including forum administrator Gary Loughran, were also summarily banned!

And in reaction to the same research results....
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RHETJR89AG4KJ/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1510708928
In 2018, DiEugenio twists my verifiable, original research into my being a stooge of a CIA sponsored (Holland) stooge's stooge, (author Carpenter).
My offense was, after discovering Garrison had hid from the world the facts David Baldwin communicated to Clay Shaw in March, 1967, in the process of verfying (I had pointed out that Shaw biographer Carpenter was the only other source on the internet even mentioning the curious familial ties I had independently unearthed...) Garrison had indeed suppressed the familial ties of Joan Mellen's "CIA People," Edward and David Baldwin, to Garrison's wife and David's wife to prominent Jim Garrison and later, Oliver Stone critic, Nicholas B. Lemann. With that insult his last word, Jim DiEugenio refuses to actually discuss the problem of Shaw, Garrison, and Nicholas B. Lemann all keeping the identical secrets!

This might ignite the interest of a few hardcore forum thread anthropologist...
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Tom Scully on October 18, 2019, 11:01:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This might ignite the interest of a few hardcore forum thread anthropologist...

Sure, Otto...except for the fact my post was a timely treatise on dysfunction and hypocrisy. Do you stand for anything, Otto? I firmly believe people who act like the truth is a high priority but instead, discourage the telling of it by misleading their readers and worse, by discouraging the presenters of verifiable fact from daring to present it, deserve to be identified and criticized.

You seem bothered by that. I still hope Jerry Freeman is not bothered by that. I wish the under informed Amazon.com reviewers of Peter Janney's book complained that he mugged them, intellectually, instead of heaping uninformed praise upon him.

Seven years and ten weeks ago, I excised the "CIA assassin villain" from this pathetic effort of a book, authored by a son of the late CIA Director of Personnel.
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/01/20/archives/frederick-wm-janney.html

Here are the two most recent reviews of that book.:
Quote
Mary's Mosaic  amazon.com (https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/1510708928/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewopt_srt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&filterByStar=positive&pageNumber=1&sortBy=recent)

494 customer ratings Showing 1-10 of 434 reviews(Positive).
   marnie reid
5.0 out of 5 starsExcellent Read
October 15, 2019
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
What a BOOK!! Gave me so much information, first got it on Audible, but enjoyed so much brought the book, so many interesting details

   Stargazer
5.0 out of 5 starsThis Answers a Lot of Lingering Questions
October 2, 2019
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
This was a very interesting book. The fact that it was written by an insider makes his story about one of the most
tragic events in history believable.

This man was Peter Janney's uncle Frank....
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/breakingnews/story/2017/mar/20/david-rockefeller-last-generation-family-dies-101/418572/
(https://media.timesfreepress.com/img/photos/2017/03/20/ap170795337284803624200262_t800_hbcd307f8a9fa81d1350e42fd1ac9158018e6a6d0.jpg)
Quote
FILE - In this Nov. 28, 1967, file photo, the five Rockefeller Brothers pose for photos in New York as they gather to receive gold medals from the National Institute of social sciences. From left are: David Rockefeller, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank; Winthrop Rockefeller, Governor of Arkansas; Frank Pace, President of the NISS; John D. Rockefeller 3rd, Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation; Nelson Rockefeller, Governor of New York; and Laurence Rockefeller, a conservation adviser to President Johnson. David Rockefeller, the billionaire philanthropist who was the last of his generation in the famously philanthropic Rockefeller family died. David Rockefeller was 101 years old. (AP Photo/File)
March 4, 1967, article assuring the public Time-Life, Inc. was in capable hands upon the death of founder, Henry Luce.
(Frank Pace, a director since 1961, was chairman of General Dynamics when Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice Moore and his law partner, Rozwell Gilpatric, traded control of General Dynamics to Henry Crown.)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/PaceLuceO30467.jpg)

The author, one month before my discoveries:
Quote
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/07/peter-janney/the-autodaf-of-lisa-pease-and-jamesdieugenio-tomas-de-torquemada-and-the-spanish-inquisition-return-in-a-new-era-of-suppression-of-freedom-of-thought-and-adherence-to-a-rigid-dogma-namely-thei/
By Peter Janney July 6, 2012
.....In addition, Ms. Pease can't even seem to fathom or consider how "Lt. William L. Mitchell," a man who told police he was jogging on the towpath when he passed Mary Meyer — allegedly just before the murder took place — told police that a "Negro male" matching Wiggins' description was following her in an effort to frame Ray Crump. "Mitchell" would then testify against Crump at the murder trial nine months later in July 1965 as part of the CIA's assassination operation. It doesn't seem to matter to Pease that "Mitchell" has never been able to be located since the trial, or that his known address during that time was documented as a "CIA safe house" by three separate former CIA employees. At the time of trial in July 1965, Mitchell told a reporter that he had since retired from the military and was now a mathematics instructor at Georgetown University — yet no record of his employment there could ever be located, nor was there ever any bona-fide military service record located for "Mitchell," either in the Pentagon where he was listed in the directory at the time of the murder, or in the main military data base in St. Louis. This was thoroughly researched by the Peabody Award-winning journalist Roger Charles, as discussed in my book, a fact that Pease fails to mention in one of her many deliberate omissions, which also included Damore's consultation with L. Fletcher Prouty (as documented by Damore's attorney James H. Smith) to finally understand who "Mitchell" was, before Damore confronted him. Of course, Lisa Pease is entitled to whatever flawed point of view she wants to embrace, but she's not entitled to her own set of facts......

The author, quite begrudgingly, in his third and most recent edition of the book...
Quote
Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, ...
https://books.google.com  (https://books.google.com/books?id=OGOCDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT411&lpg=PT411&dq=janney+mosaic+"faux+truce"+assassin&source=bl&ots=9nd-guLtkU&sig=ACfU3U0RylceacpVtlhLarwqlkSRMjSixw&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiKusKe5KblAhUMHqwKHW6gCs4Q6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=janney%20mosaic%20"faux%20truce"%20assassin&f=false)› books
Peter Janney - 2016 - ‎History
... Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace: Third Edition Peter Janney ... By the end of the deposition, we had reached a kind of “faux truce” where I ... highly unlikely that Mr. Mitchell had been the actual assassin in the murder of ...
Title: Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
Post by: Otto Beck on October 19, 2019, 11:18:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sure, Otto...except for the fact my post was a timely treatise on dysfunction and hypocrisy. Do you stand for anything, Otto? I firmly believe people who act like the truth is a high priority but instead, discourage the telling of it by misleading their readers and worse, by discouraging the presenters of verifiable fact from daring to present it, deserve to be identified and criticized.

You seem bothered by that. I still hope Jerry Freeman is not bothered by that. I wish the under informed Amazon.com reviewers of Peter Janney's book complained that he mugged them, intellectually, instead of heaping uninformed praise upon him.

Seven years and ten weeks ago, I excised the "CIA assassin villain" from this pathetic effort of a book, authored by a son of the late CIA Director of Personnel.
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/01/20/archives/frederick-wm-janney.html

Here are the two most recent reviews of that book.:
This man was Peter Janney's uncle Frank....
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/breakingnews/story/2017/mar/20/david-rockefeller-last-generation-family-dies-101/418572/
(https://media.timesfreepress.com/img/photos/2017/03/20/ap170795337284803624200262_t800_hbcd307f8a9fa81d1350e42fd1ac9158018e6a6d0.jpg)March 4, 1967, article assuring the public Time-Life, Inc. was in capable hands upon the death of founder, Henry Luce.
(Frank Pace, a director since 1961, was chairman of General Dynamics when Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice Moore and his law partner, Rozwell Gilpatric, traded control of General Dynamics to Henry Crown.)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/PaceLuceO30467.jpg)

The author, one month before my discoveries:
The author, quite begrudgingly, in his third and most recent edition of the book...

The timing may be right but your packaging sure sucks.

I doubt any actual researcher gives a f--k about your flame war with DiEugenio on the ED forum and why you or he or both got terminated.

Or your pile of reviews and past quotes shadowing the Trump Tower.

But let's back up, shall we?

" ....believe it or not, because I have thin hope of stimulating collaboration of other independent researchers...such as, Mr. Parnell!"

Is Parnell as "independent researcher" a verified fact?

Hint, credits The Free Dictionary:

re·search  (rĭ-sûrch′, rē′sûrch′)
n.
1. Careful study of a given subject, field, or problem, undertaken to discover facts or principles.
2. An act or period of such study: her researches of medieval parish records.

What makes me raise the  BS: is your eagerness to collaborate with a guy who, for some reason, has failed to discover any of the facts that sink the 888 pages of lies and deception but gives them the "QC PASSED" stamp.