Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories  (Read 4665 times)

Offline Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2655
Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2019, 11:36:06 PM »
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  :)

Online W. Tracy Parnell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2019, 11:53:40 PM »
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.

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2505
Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
« Reply #22 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.
 

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2019, 07:56:06 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 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.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2019, 05:00:58 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Online W. Tracy Parnell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
« Reply #24 on: May 15, 2019, 08:18:34 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2019, 08:27:05 PM by W. Tracy Parnell »

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2505
Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
« Reply #25 on: May 16, 2019, 05:50:58 PM »
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.
 

Offline Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2655
Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
« Reply #26 on: May 17, 2019, 04:59:39 AM »
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  :)


Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
« Reply #27 on: May 17, 2019, 03:14:46 PM »
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.



Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2505
Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
« Reply #28 on: May 20, 2019, 07:47:08 PM »
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
 
 

Online W. Tracy Parnell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: W. Tracy Parnell= Bungling JFK Assassination Theories
« Reply #29 on: May 20, 2019, 09:21:49 PM »
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.

 

Mobile View