Jim Hargrove: Are these photos of the the tall, attractive Marguerite Oswald, or the short, dumpy Marguerite imposter?

[Sandy Larsen]

(Challenge from this post.)

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Those are photos of the Marguerite imposter according to Armstrong. BTW, the one and only Marguerite reported her height on a passport from 1965 as 5' 2 and 1/2 inches. People shrink as they age but only about an inch or so. That means at her tallest she was 5' 4'' (being generous).

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

The notion of a Marguerite Oswald impostor illustrates the faulty methodology that underlies the whole 'Harvey and Lee' theory. Because it is absolutely central to the theory that there were not only two Oswalds, but that each Oswald had a mother named Marguerite, you might expect this part of the theory to be supported by rigorous argument and rock-solid evidence. Unfortunately, the argument is specious and the evidence almost non-existent.

Marguerite makes her first appearance on page 6:

Quote

On one occasion [in the late 1950s] McBride met Oswald's mother, who he described as a short, heavy–set woman. ...

I located a photograph of Marguerite Oswald taken in 1945 (on the day of her marriage to Edwin Ekdahl), and another photograph of Marguerite in 1957 (a group photo of employees at Paul's Shoe store in Fort Worth at Christmas). Both photos show a tall, slender, nice–looking woman, who appeared to be very different from McBride’s description of Oswald's mother. When I showed these photographs to McBride, he said the woman in these photographs was not the woman he met. ...

I then showed McBride a photograph taken in 1954 of a heavy–set, dour–looking Marguerite. ... McBride said, "That’s her. That's the woman I met."

Armstrong makes no effort to question the reliability of his witness. He merely states that "I was convinced that ... [McBride was] honest, sincere, and accurate." On the basis of a single, uncorroborated piece of evidence, Armstrong claims on page 6 that he now "had photographs of two middle–aged woman [sic] who both claimed to be 'Marguerite Oswald', the mother of Lee Harvey Oswald".

On page 7, having cited no more evidence, Armstrong states that "the probability that ... two middle–aged women used the name 'Marguerite Oswald' seemed more and more likely."

This "probability" quickly turned into a certainty, again with no further evidence cited to support it. We meet Marguerite Oswald next on page 13. After a brief account of Marguerite's early life, Armstrong jumps straight in and refers on page 14 to "the 'Marguerite Oswald' imposter who testified before the Warren Commission" and "Edward Pic, who had married the real Marguerite Oswald". The matter is settled! On the basis of essentially no evidence at all, Marguerite Oswald has been magically transformed into two people.

Having proved to his satisfaction that someone had impersonated Marguerite Oswald, Armstrong immediately goes on to refer to "the short, dumpy, heavy–set 'Marguerite Oswald' imposter", using the same form of words three times on page 14 and many more times later in the book, as though repetition would give the idea the support it otherwise lacks. From page 14 onwards, the impersonation of Marguerite Oswald is presented as a proven fact.

The highly improbable notion that Oswald's mother had been impersonated for several years, which is central to Armstrong's 'two Oswalds' theory, was generated from just about the flimsiest type of evidence possible: one person's memory of a woman he had met only once, several decades earlier.

It is remarkable just how little evidence it took for Armstrong to convince himself of the existence of two Marguerite Oswalds. As early as page 14, it will be obvious to even a half–alert reader that the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is the product not of solid evidence and argument but of wishful thinking. All but the most credulous conspiracy theorists, who surely make up Harvey and Lee's target audience, would be wondering how many more evidence–free inventions were lurking in the remaining 900–odd pages.

(Taken from http://22november1963.org.uk/john-armstrong-harvey-and-lee-theory )

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Jeremy,

Excellent analysis and a nice looking website. I bought your book as well which looks like a great read.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Sandy Larsen,

Here is the link to my original piece on Stephen Landesberg from 2015 and a follow-up piece:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-hoaxster-and-conspiracy-theorists.html

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/armstrong-evolving-landesberg-theory.html

The first article outlines the true story of Landesberg, Armstrong's theory per his book and my rebuttal. The second piece chronicles the transformation of Armstrong's views (as published at Hargrove's website) which was motivated by my work. It also covers how Armstrong was forced to change the H&L website after my research and the find of researcher Tom Scully. A lot of material to cover but even a cursory look will tell you much about Armstrong's methods IMO.

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Harry J.Dean]

23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

(Challenge from this post.)

These are 3 pictures of Oswald's Mother whom I knew very well.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Lurkers will notice that Hargrove has not responded. That is because according to Armstrong, these photos represent the "short, dumpy, imposter" employed as a caretaker of LHO by the CIA. And she never smiled. Seems like a small point but it becomes "curiouser" when you read the full context per my article:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/marguerite-never-smiled.html

[Sandy Larsen]

On 1/7/2017 at 8:45 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

(Challenge from this post.)

Are the photos of the short, dumpy Marguerite without glasses so that we can compare her face with the tall attractive Marguerite?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

25 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Are the photos of the short, dumpy Marguerite without glasses so that we can compare her face with the tall attractive Marguerite?

Not that I am aware of. The photo most often used by Armstrong to represent the "tall beautiful" Marguerite is her wedding picture from 1945. Armstrong also used this photo to how tall this Marguerite was since she appears to be not much shorter than Ekdahl who Armstrong claims is over six feet (per John Pic). But researcher Greg Parker found several documents that show Ekdahl's height was listed as 5-10 to 5-11. And since men are known to exaggerate their height  when asked, it is a good bet he was no taller than 5-10. And Marguerite was wearing heels and as I have mentioned was no taller than 5-4 at the time and with the heels and allowing for uneven ground the photo is consistent with the height. As for Marguerite's appearance, she was getting married so she could be expected to look as good as possible. The photo Armstrong normally uses to compare is the one where she was standing by a sink in the kitchen nearly 20 years later in her nightgown and undoubtedly didn't expect to be photographed.

Edited January 9, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[David Josephs]

Here are some other photos you can use as well.  I tried to size the two images in th gif to the mouth and still the ears cannot match, and if I try to match the ears, the rest doesn't match.  Not definitive by any means... just food for thought.

As there only being a small handful of evidence - as the UK site suggests - is a terrible understatement of fact.  

One of the greatest being his time in the Phillipines.  Unit Diaries put him there, His CO Donovan puts him there.. yet the DoD tries to claim he never left Atsugi while his medical records all have him receiving treatment in Atsugi.  Donovan admits to being forgetful during his WCR testimony and then we learn he was FBI from 1953-56.

Also included is the DoD declaration that he never went to Taiwan. and the Unit Diary showing he not only went, but returned as well..   ooops.

 

Please don't insult those of us who have actually taken the time to research the evidence to state all this is based on some photographic interpretation and hearsay.

This is only the tip of an iceberg I'm sure you are not prepared to take on but for one bite here and there.  When you can address ALL the evidence, not just what you believe to be low hanging fruit that you can attack, we can begin a real discourse on the topic.  

So how about start with this.  Prove the evidence does not support two men, both named Lee Oswald with one in Atsugi and the other in the Philippines at the same time.

Thanks

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by David Josephs

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Thanks for posting the gif progression which shows perfectly IMO the natural aging process. As far as the other documents they are unrelated to the subject of this thread-photos of Marguerite (which you admit by calling the subject "low hanging fruit" is not of Armstrong's best arguments). No, I cannot (and neither can anyone else) address all of the anomalies in this case-that is impossible considering the amount of evidence that exists. I would point out that professional investigators (police, FBI. etc.) are aware of the fact that when they make a case there will be some evidence that does not support it. However, I reject your assertion that I should not (be allowed?) to post here until I can answer all of your assertions. That would be like me saying that you can't post until you answer the scientific proof that the H&L theory is wrong such as the exhumation and handwriting (other than saying LHO had a mastoid operation at Jacobi Hospital as Hargrove has suggested or the old standby that everything is faked). So we have a standoff there.

I also reject your assertion that I haven't done any research-I debunked the exhumation issues about 20 years ago when it was a hot CT topic. Of course, I had help from the late Gary Mack (fantastic man) and work that M. Duke Lane had done previously. The issue of Oswald in Taiwan is one that will probably never be fully answered unless some new document appears. If memory serves, the WC and HSCA disagreed on that as well. LHO was almost certainly in Taiwan but spent time in sick bay which resulted in conflicting records. I am working on a project where I will eventually look at that in detail but I don't expect to find a definitive answer-only an educated guess.

[David Josephs]

Fair enough... I think you took my sentence a bit too harshly though...  I never worte you couldn't post here...not even close.

All I said was a "real discourse" can begin once you get out of your tiny comfort zone and look at more of the evidence.

 

The gif shows that this person's face in the two images do not match.  The relationship between ears, mouth and eyes, which does not change on a person over time, does not match.  Amazes me how you can take victory laps on subjective analysis - but hey, whatever.

I spent 2+ years working thru every item of evidence with John.  Some was definitely, and admittedly the result of speculation and highly circumstantial evidence.  Yet none of this evidence stand alone on an island but is the culmination of years and years of compiling and noting the conflicts.

As you've said Tracy, this thread has to do with images of Marge...  

When you get a chance, read thru the testimonies of those who knew the 2 different women.  If you can't find Testimony you can try the footnotes section of H&L and track down the sources yourself.

In 1960 when these women see Lee's actual mother in New Orleans, our Harvey's MO is living in Texas at 1410 Hurley way.

After this sighting in New Orleans we do not have another instance involving Lee's real mother, just like we do not have an image of Lee after his 1959 passport photo. 
There is more if you read Lillian Murret and her husband's testimony... It mirrors Pic's and others stating that "Lee" was not the man that left, he was small, talkative and nothing like the class leading, thick-necked marine we see in the photos.  While it makes sense he would bulk up during the marines - going from the 5'8" 130lb 18 year old to the 5'11 150+ lb 20 year old...  can you explain how he then goes back to 5'9" and 135lbs by the time he's 24?

And just for you Tracy, Attached is a collage if it can help you in any way.  Before that though...  what's up with the 2 Marge's in 1960 - one seeing friends in New Oreleans and the other on Hurley in Ft Worth.  Then read HER testimony and let me know how many errors in her own history she brings up....

DJ

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0074a.htm
 

p19 H&L
In the summer of 1943 the tall, nice-looking -Marguerite Oswald answered an
advertisement in the newspaper for a sales position in a New Orleans hosiery shop.35 She
applied and was hired by Mrs. Oris Duane, the manager of Jean's Hosiery, located at 727
Canal Street. She remembered Mrs. Oswald as a good worker who always had a neat
appearance.

p214 H&L
By studying FBI interviews with neighbors, and the Warren Commission testimony
of John Pic and Robert Oswald, we learn that their mother worked at Clyde
Campbell's Men's Store (Fort Worth, 1956), the City of Fort Worth (1957), Paul's Shoe
Store (Fort Worth, 1957), Family Publications, and Cox's Department Store (Fort Worth,
1958-59). In 1959 the tall, nice-looking, well-dressed Marguerite Oswald returned to
New Orleans where she continued her usual occupation of working in clothing stores.
Mrs. Logan Magruder, who had known Marguerite for nearly 20 years, saw her at
Krieger's, while Mrs. Oris Duane, who had known her since 1943, saw and spoke with
her at Goldrings.115 Marguerite Oswald was last seen in New Orleans in 196q-1961.  

==========

In 1960, two women that were good friends with Marguerite Oswald, Mrs. Logan Magruder and Mrs. Oris Duane both reporting meeting her in New Orleans. (This was the tall, attractive version.) Both women spoke to her at the time. Mrs. Magruder saw and chatted with her while working in Kreiger’s Department store and Mrs. Duane saw and spoke to her in Goldring’s Department store selling dresses. A conflict arrises here as the Warren Commission states that Marguerite was supposed to have moved out of New Orleans in June of 1956 to Ft. Worth, Texas never to return. In September of 1960 she moved to Boyd Texas, north of Ft. Worth and opened a small variety shop on Main street and opened a bank account at the Continental State Bank. Yet, here are two women who had been friends with Marguerite since the 1940’s who say they saw and spoke to her where she should not have been. Apparently the FBI never investigated this lead in Louisiana. http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2010/01/marguerite-oswald-as-doppelganger.html 

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by David Josephs

[David Josephs]

And just for sh#ts and giggles - using that same LEE photo - notice the shadows fall the same exact same way as the BYP yet the nose shadows are as different as they can be...

 

"Sometimes you get shown the light in the strangest of places,  if you look at it right...."

 

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by David Josephs

[W. Tracy Parnell]

13 hours ago, David Josephs said:

And just for sh#ts and giggles - using that same LEE photo - notice the shadows fall the same exact same way as the BYP yet the nose shadows are as different as they can be...

 

"Sometimes you get shown the light in the strangest of places,  if you look at it right...."

 

I am not a photo analyst, It would be impossible for the shadows to "fall the exact same way as the BYP" IMO because the photos are taken in different locations in the world and latitude/longitude would make a difference.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Quote

The gif shows that this person's face in the two images do not match.  The relationship between ears, mouth and eyes, which does not change on a person over time, does not match.  

This type of analysis is often seen on various forums. There are two problems here. I believe the only way this is valid is if the two photos are taken such that the individual is facing the camera in the exact same way. In other words, the tilt of the head up/down and left/right is the same. Of course, unless the photos are taken under controlled conditions, this is not possible. Another issue is your contention that people do not change. They do of course, and these photos are 11 years apart according to Robert Oswald. Gravity influences everything as those of us who are older (like myself) realize. As I said, to me the gif shows the aging process perfectly. Even the teeth are the same and I think a case could be made by a photo expert for that.

Quote

 While it makes sense he would bulk up during the marines - going from the 5'8" 130lb 18 year old to the 5'11 150+ lb 20 year old...  can you explain how he then goes back to 5'9" and 135lbs by the time he's 24?

 

Yes I can, he simply reported his height (or it was misreported) as 5-11 instead of the 5-9 it actually was. These types of discrepencies, which are a normal part of life, have allowed Armstrong to create his theory which is a very clever one. There are no photos or instances where a measurement is known to have been taken (as opposed to given orally) that show LHO was taller than 5-9.

As for Marguerite sightings, Marguerite’s apparently pathological need to change addresses has allowed Armstrong to play with the facts. Magruder said she saw Marguerite ‘about” 3 years previously. She was relying on her memory with no documentary evidence and memory is fallible. Same with Duane who qualified her sighting by saying “3 or 4 years ago”. I will be working on Marguerite’s addresses and eventually hope to tie some of this down, but all discrepancies may not be resolvable.

As for your photo collage, you seem to think that I may not have seen these photos before and if I will just look at them they will somehow change my mind which is not true of course. When a vast body of evidence exists, as it does in the JFK case, discrepancies and inconsistencies will exist in the record. Most of these have an alternate explanation or are non-issues. In the case of the remaining discrepancies, there is another explanation even if it is only a document or witness is wrong. An illogical leap of faith such as two Oswalds is not required to explain them.