TWO MARGUERITE OSWALDS -- NEW DETAILS

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Jim Hargrove said:

Fine.  I’m going to continue to bring this up again and again, as well as your obvious unwillingness to condemn the FBI’s proven malfeasance in the Kennedy case. 

You can bring it up for the next 50 years and my reply will be the same. Parker has provided an answer that you disagree with, but he has provided one. It is real words printed on paper in a book and that is a fact. The readers here can decide who they want to believe.

let's begin by seeing what John ACTUALLY wrote about Drs. Renatus Hartogs

What he wrote is exactly what I quoted above “Dr. Hartogs' two very different physical descriptions
of Oswald remain unexplained and he appears to be describing two different boys.”

Now either he is trying to say that Hartogs saw Harvey AND Lee or a third Oswald or who knows what? That is what I am trying to get you to tell us Jim and you don’t.

Now while I am thinking of it, here is another minor “howler” from Armstrong:

It is difficult to understand why Ely would not be interested in the professional opinion of a New York psychiatrist who was the past president of the American Psychi­atric Association, and had interviewed young Oswald in 1953.

But it’s not too difficult to understand if you actually read what Ely wrote:

[Dr. Kurian] states that the interview occurred toward the end of March, 1953: however, in view of the fact that he refers to a report from Youth House, which had been prepared prior to his seeing the boy, it must have been later in the year… The Kurian letter was of course prepared after the assassination and I suspect its contents were influenced by the events of November 22, 1963. If, however, Dr. Kurian’s records contain the father figure analysis, they would be of great interest indeed.

Of course, Kurian had no documentation to support his claims and that is why the WC did not give credence to his story. Ely was actually being kind since Kurian’s statements that he saw “LHO” in March and saw Youth House reports before the interview mean that he could not have seen LHO at all. You have to remember that Ely was not privy to the H&L theory and was unaware of “Harvey” or whoever this is supposed to be. Anyway, the reason he didn’t give that much thought to the story is obvious-to everyone except John Armstrong that is. And Kurian is a well-meaning individual who did not see LHO (or “Harvey” since he doesn’t exist). As for Hartogs, he embellished several things because he was trying to sell a book.

The “undernourished Harvey” is a myth that is now debunked. Anyone can see in the Bronx Zoo photo that the boy depicted is not undernourished. In any case, I have published an analysis that Jim is conveniently ignoring that shows he was not 4’8” tall. Anyone can replicate my math and while they could get a slightly different answer, it would not be off by eight inches.

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

 

Edited March 12, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Jim Hargrove]

11 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The “undernourished Harvey” is a myth that is now debunked.

I just gotta love how Tracy declares victory in almost every post, even when he is being run over by the evidence.

In his February 7th 1964 letter to Jackie Kennedy, Dr. Milton Kurian described the “Lee Harvey Oswald” he met as a “slender, underdeveloped boy.”

 

 

That description, of course describes Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald, not the larger American-born Lee Oswald.

In his 1965 book The Two Assassins, Dr. Renatus Hartogs described the Oswald he met as a “slender, dark-haired boy with a pale, haunted face ... I remember thinking how slight he seemed for his thirteen years. He had an underfed look, reminiscent of the starved children I had seen in concentration camps.

 

 

So, in a letter written long before the WC published its crooked findings, Dr. Kurian described Oswald as “underdeveloped.” In a book written in 1965, Dr. Hartogs described him even more starkly.

After the FBI and the WC were done… uh… “processing” this evidence, the slight, malnourished Harvey becomes “well built.”

We have proven time and time again that the FBI and the WC falsified important information endlessly.  Tracy has never tried to dispute those proofs.

[Jim Hargrove]

11 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Jim Hargrove said:

Fine.  I’m going to continue to bring this up again and again, as well as your obvious unwillingness to condemn the FBI’s proven malfeasance in the Kennedy case. 

You can bring it up for the next 50 years and my reply will be the same. Parker has provided an answer that you disagree with, but he has provided one. It is real words printed on paper in a book and that is a fact. The readers here can decide who they want to believe.

Readers will note that, as always, Tracy Parnell refuses to explain how school records clearly show that “Lee Harvey Oswald” attended classes simultaneously in New York City and New Orleans, some thirteen hundred miles apart.  Tracy points to other websites, other threads, and insists the answers can be found there, which they can’t.  He will not put an explanation in his own words because he knows how foolish it will sound.  So he’ll continue to point everywhere but here.

Possible explanations for the school record conflicts are quite simple.  Here are two explanations in my own words:

American-born LEE Oswald, briefly living with the Murrets at 809 French St. probably enrolled at Beauregard at the start of the 2nd semester on 1/13/54. We can’t say for sure how Russian-speaking HARVEY’s info from the previous semester got onto LEE’s cumulative record, but it clearly did and there are several reasonable guesses as to how. One is that an office worker at Beauregard who took LEE’s enrollment information started to file it and then noticed the previous semester’s info for the exact (or nearly exact) same name. Logically assuming it was the same student, the fall semester info was added to LEE’s spring semester enrollment info, all the data eventually being transferred to the cumulative record.
 
Or, equally likely, some FBI flunky created the whole record designed to merge the identities of two different students and didn’t remember or know about the NYC conflict.
 

Don't hold your breath for Tracy to explain in his own words how the conflicting records were produced.  He never will.  He'll just provide links to places that don't explain it either and try to change the subject.  Watch him do it again... it's really kind of funny.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I can see I need to explain something to Jim. The following is called an explanation. It consists of 438 words. You may not agree with it, but despite what you say, it does exist and was printed in a book and is now online:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1361-creating-mayhem-with-historical-records

The following is an explanation that does not exist:

 

 

See the difference?

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

For the sake of argument, let’s say Jim is right and Parker’s explanation is not correct. In that case, we know that the records are in error. How do we know this? From the scientific evidence that shows there was only one LHO:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html

I currently have 21 articles on my blog refuting the theory for those interested.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Greg Parker has offered some interesting observations about Kurian:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1368-armstrong-and-dr-kurian

 

[Michael Walton]

I really don't have much more to say about this.  I know, the answer to that would be "Then why are you posting this reply?"

So I'm just going to say it again.  This story is just too impossible to believe.  I'm sorry but it is.  I think taking statements literally like Armstrong and Hargrove do (e.g., "the slender boy..." one comes to mind) and some how wrapping it and weaving it into a fairy tale of two Oswalds with near identical faces, but one being bigger than the other, and their respective Moms have nearly identical faces, but one being short and dumpy and never smiling while the other smiles and is happy - it just seems just way too far-fetched.

I know they'll come back and ask about the records and the pictures and all the other nonsense, but I look at it as records don't need to be 100% accurate to be 100% accurate - I know that doesn't make sense but put another way, kids come, kids go, the boy was dragged from place to place for most of his life.  There's going to be some discrepancies in the record keeping.

[Jim Hargrove]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Don't hold your breath for Tracy to explain in his own words how the conflicting records were produced.  He never will.  He'll just provide links to places that don't explain it either and try to change the subject.  Watch him do it again... it's really kind of funny.

And it's getting funnier by the minute.

BTW, by "scientific evidence" what he means is his long summaries of the Warren Commission and HSCA cover-ups.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Scientific evidence means just that (handwriting and photos) and it was developed by the HSCA who the H&L guys quote when it suits their needs and deride when it doesn't. A recent example is Hargrove mentioning Wilcott's testimony. of course, the exhumation evidence was stared by a private individual to prove a similar 2 Oswald theory which it did not. But it doesn't surprise me that Hargrove and Armstrong would find scientific proof funny.

[Jim Hargrove]

No, Tracy, what I think is funny is your inability to address the NYC/New Orleans school overlap in your own words.  Now that’s comedy!

But since you brought up the subject of the Bronx Zoo photo of Harvey Oswald, let’s take a look.

This is one of the photos John Pic was shown when he told the Warren Commission it did not appear to be his own half brother.  And according to the WC, Pic and LHO had been living together in New York City at the same time this picture was taken.  Pic said that he and LHO always considered themselves brothers, not half-brothers.  How can you not recognize your own brother?

Tracy wants us to believe the image above shows a well-built kid.  Really?  Look at the size of his head compared to his scrawny body.  Look at his skinny arms.  Consider the words of his brother who lived with him.

The very next year, a photo was taken of American-born Lee Oswald at Beauregard junior high.

Now that is an image of what you might call a well-built kid.  

Edited March 12, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

We have company arriving and so I'll be gone for most of the remaining day.  That should give Tracy a chance to declare victory at least several more times.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

In his 1965 book The Two Assassins, Dr. Renatus Hartogs described the Oswald he met as a “slender, dark-haired boy with a pale, haunted face ... I remember thinking how slight he seemed for his thirteen years. He had an underfed look, reminiscent of the starved children I had seen in concentration camps.

And in his 1953 report, he described him as "well-built" so it is obvious that he was trying to liven things up for his book. What Armstrong and Hargrove don't understand is that anyone can say anything-but you have to verify it. In this case, I would put my money on the report. Hartogs had a tendency to embellish and Wesley Liebeler famously caught him on this during his WC testimony.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

20 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

We have company arriving and so I'll be gone for most of the remaining day.  That should give Tracy a chance to declare victory at least several more times.

I am not claiming any victory. My only purpose is to provide fact-based information to researchers. They can make up their own mind.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

So I'm just going to say it again.  This story is just too impossible to believe.  I'm sorry but it is.

Michael,

You are right-it is unbelievable. For me, probably the most powerful proof is not even the scientific evidence I have mentioned but a simple common sense fact. And that is that the “real” Marguerite, who was the historic Oswald’s mother, supposedly disappeared after 1958. She was then replaced by the “impostor” who everyone is familiar with from her WC testimony and many media appearances from 1963 up to the late seventies.

But how many people have you known in your life? Dozens or hundreds certainly. The H&L team would have us believe that of all the people that knew the “real” Marguerite the number that came forward to tell the world that the woman they saw on TV or in the newspaper was not the Marguerite they knew was exactly zero.

The H&L team doesn’t discuss this but one potential excuse they could use is the witnesses were afraid. But by the seventies, there was a new investigation and challenging authority figures was very popular. All it would have taken to expose the plot would have been one person making a call to Gaeton Fonzi to use one example among many. Fonzi was open to conspiracy theories and employed by a government body. He also was an experienced investigative journalist who was willing to bend the rules-he was nearly charged with violating a secrecy oath by the CIA. All it would have taken was one call to Fonzi, or any number of others, and the plot would have been exposed. But no one ever came forward.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html

 

[Michael Walton]

I agree Tracy. This whole Harvey and Lee story has the mad scientist vibe to it, like some brilliant secret agent type agency was sitting around concocting this "let's find a guy from Hungary and out of millions of people in the U.S. some how, some way find his almost exact look a like - and each boy's Mom having almost identical features to boot - and then just steer them around in their every day mundane lives, like millions of the rest of us live our lives."

"And then at the right time, we'll keep steering them around until we (the secret agents from the X secret agency) decide to murder the current president and then we'll have one of them near the building where the president drives by and then the other one will just disappear but then the other's Mom will come out and say..."

I mean, I could go on and on but, I mean...really? I mean Jesus, if the Kennedy assassination wasn't such a tragedy, this story is getting into farce and comedy here like Dr. Strangeglove.

When I first read the Harvey and Lee story I found it "interesting" but made no real commitment to it.  Then, over the years I'd just go back to it again and again but every time I revisited it, more and more hairs would just stand up on the back of my neck like, "This can't be. It's just too weird and would never hold up in the real world."

But I guess some people's smell test is just too weak or non-existent and they keep falling for it like other crazy stuff in this case.