Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Sparta put up the excerpt below from John McAdams' groupie W. Tracy Parnell, who thinks he has refuted John Armstrong. I'll post my comments first, and then you can read the excerpt. The bottom line is that Parnell did not begin to refute John Armstrong.

Parnell relies mostly on work of the HSCA, but you need to understand something, and this is really important: If Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, then it means that the State did. And therefore, any investigation is inherently and methodically, not just biased, but corrupt. So, for Parnell to cite a fingerprint match and think that John Armstrong is forced to accept it is delusional. In this case, it involves the image on the left below.

 Both of those images are supposed to be Oswald's induction photo into the Marines in 1956. On the left is Lee, and on the right is Harvey, the Oswald of fame. It's very likely that the height ledger behind Lee is bogus, and there may have been and probably was tampering with other aspects of the image. But despite that, these are two different guys. Look at the length and thickness of the neck on the left and compare to the right. There is nothing identical about the eyes. And notice on the right that Harvey has all his teeth. Lee lost a tooth in a fight in junior high school. And we have a picture.

Again, look at the length of that neck. That is obviously not the Lee Harvey Oswald of fame. 

So, for the HSCA to claim that their experts matched the fingerprints of "Lee" from the induction photo with Oswald's arrest fingerprints in New Orleans and Dallas is preposterous. Let's remember what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with the claim that that these two were the same young man:

You would really have to be out of your fucking mind to think that those two were the same young man.

Of course, the same applies to handwriting analysis- but in spades. 

And, I have studied the report and looked at the x-rays of the exhumation team, and I can tell you that their claim of finding Lee's mastectomy scar on the body of the Oswald of fame is outrageous. Here is a guy showing his mastectomy scar; it's huge:

 Here is all they wrote about the supposed mastectomy scar in the exhumation report: 

The mastoid prominence of the left temporal bone revealed an irregularly ovoid 1.0- by 0.5-cm defect pene­trating to the interior of the mastoid bone with the defect edges rounded and smooth.

This was from a body that was buried in the ground for 18 years. The mastoid bone is a very porous bone, and that's the whole idea. So, that there could be a defect less than half an inch wide in it is hardly surprising, and I mean as a spontaneous development. There is no basis to claim to know that it was the result of surgery.

The Leviathan State will always manage to find experts to vouch for its lies. Just days ago, Dr. Leroy Hulsey exposed the lies of NIST in claiming the Building 7 collapsed due to "office fires." This amounts to the same thing. 

So, here is Parnell's trashy work. He didn't lay a hand on John Armstrong.

"Internet Newsgroup readers may have noticed an ongoing debate between 
myself and Jim Hargrove who is the "Internet voice" for researcher John 
Armstrong. Recently, the Armstrong camp (which consists primarily of 
Armstrong, Hargrove, Jack White and to a lesser degree Art Swanson) has 
stepped up their efforts to discredit me in the wake of the publication in 
the Kennedy Assassination Chronicles of two of my articles. My approach 
from the beginning has always been that in a theory as complex as the one 
Armstrong has presented, there must be parts of it that are demonstrably 
false as shown by the official record. For those that are new to the 
debate, here are just a few of the reasons Armstrong is wrong. 

  1. HSCA Fingerprint and Photo Analysis. 
The HSCA had some of the top experts in the country take a look at 
handwriting, fingerprints, and photographs in an effort to debunk "two 
Oswald" theories in general. It should be noted of course that Armstrong's 
theory did not exist at that time since he did not begin to study JFK 
until the early 90's. 

The October 15, 1956 induction of "Lee" Oswald creates a huge problem for 
the Armstrong team. On that day "Lee" was fingerprinted and assigned 
serial number 1653230. In December of the same year he was photographed 
(popularly known as the 13-inch head photo which BTW also has been 
debunked) with his serial number displayed at the bottom of the picture. 
These two records disprove the Armstrong theory since the HSCA matched the 
fingerprints from October 1956 to prints taken of LHO in custody in Dallas 
and New Orleans in 1963. The problem is, those are supposed to be the 
prints of "Harvey" Oswald. Similarly, the December photo is said to be 
that of "Lee" while the HSCA photo panel proved using morphological data 
that it matched photos of "Harvey". 

2. HSCA Handwriting Analysis 

One of the most powerful arguments for rebutting the Armstrong theory is 
made by the HSCA handwriting analysis. The HSCA panel examined 63 
handwriting samples when conducting their study. I reasoned that by 
classifying these samples as "Harvey" and "Lee" I could check for any 
discrepancies. I was surprised to find many such discrepancies and I 
selected six samples (three of each man) as the basis for my article "The 
Handwriting is on the Wall". The bottom line is that the same individual 
wrote many of the samples that should be either "Harvey" or "Lee". See the 
current issue of the KAC or my website for more information. 

So it seems that unknown to them, the HSCA was laying the groundwork for a 
complete debunking of Armstrong's theory some 15 years before it even 
existed! 

3. Oswald Exhumation. 

In 1981, the body of LHO was exhumed in order to disprove the theory of 
Michael Eddowes whose book, The Oswald File, postulated a Soviet 
look-alike was buried in the LHO grave. The body was positively identified 
primarily by dental records as that of Oswald. That killed Eddowes' theory 
but interestingly once again Armstrong's theory was defeated by an event 
that predated it. 

Although the Norton team's primary charge was the use of dental records, 
they could not help but notice the obvious presence of a mastoidectomy 
defect on the left side of the head that corresponded with the one LHO was 
known to have. The team noted the defect in their report and also 
photographed it for the record. The problem for Armstrong is that the body 
Norton looked at was supposed to be "Harvey" while it was "Lee" who had 
the mastoid operation. So once again the Armstrong theory is shown to be 
wrong and totally disproved. For information about the exhumation and a 
debunking of the allegations of Paul Groody (who postulated a head-switch 
in the documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy) see the articles section of 
this site. 

These three areas provide substantial proof that the theory of John 
Armstrong is on shaky ground. I am sure all researchers appreciate the 
time and effort that Mr. Armstrong had expended in his efforts and he has 
uncovered some interesting documentation. However, his theory of two men 
leading separate but parallel lives is demonstrably incorrect."