Bronx Zoo photo questions

[Greg Parker]

(EDIT - I did not respond to the Myra Mardi Gras question... it says that John showed the photo to Myra, so I am asking John where he acquired it and will get back to you)

Thank you. I look forward to the answer.

[Steven Gaal]

This is the fake Marguerite we are talking about here. The one who had secrets to keep regarding secret CIA programs that she put at risk according to Gaal to "tell a story" to make Oswald appear to be a normal kid. // PARKER

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Golly Marguerite is in a secret program ,however, she does not know who she working for. She might think she is working for a defense contractor. Marguerite's need to know level is near zero.

She has been told to give updates on the kids (probably via payphone). Her job was to tell a tale of a normal childhood at the WC. However she was not prepared for WC cross. I ask why ??

You say she wasn't prepared for testifying before the WC because there is no HARVEY AKA H & L program and she is very confused and overwhelmed.

I say she was given zero preparation for appearing before the WC on purpose and told to present a normal childhood.

She was sand bagged. She lost credibility by letting herself be manipulated. Who can believe her after her shaky WC testimony ?? ..Why she doesn't know the name of some of her relations. //gaal

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oswaldsmother BlogSpot

Peculiarities Abound
Marguerite Oswald, in every interview either with government authorities to newspaper reporters often gave conflicting testimony about her life and related events. When interviewed by a New York probation officer in relation to Lee being truant, she gave conflicting accounts of her life. She got at least five things wrong, from the number years she had been married (a total of 13 years from three marriages but she said 9) to getting Lee’s birth date wrong. What mother does not know her own child’s birthday? At the age of 44 it seemed as if she did not know her own life story on many different levels. Perhaps that is because this “Marguerite” was an impostor with too much to remember?

Marguerite’s Warren Commission testimony is likewise filled with contradictions and misstatements that are for the most part, ignored by her questioners. To read the transcript of her testimony is to see a woman with an annoying character, a babbler, constantly rambling off the point, always in need of being herded back on the right path. At one point she mislead the Commission when she was asked if any FBI agents had spoken to her before the assassination. She said no. This was not true. She was visited in regards to her son’s defection to the USSR once in 1960, and twice in 1961. An odd thing to lie about as it is so easily proven. Or, this could just have been the misstatements of an impostor not knowing or remembering pertinent facts.

By the time she got around to telling the Commission she thought her son Lee was spy, they had written her off as a kook. At this point she had discredited herself in their eyes with her meandering testimony and oddball theories. As one of the Commission member’s said, we can see how the son turned out with a mother like this.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Greg Parker]

This is the fake Marguerite we are talking about here. The one who had secrets to keep regarding secret CIA programs that she put at risk according to Gaal to "tell a story" to make Oswald appear to be a normal kid. // PARKER

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Golly Marguerite is in a secret program ,however, she does not know who she working for. She might think she is working for a defense contractor. Marguerite's need to know level is near zero.

She has been told to give updates on the kids (probably via payphone). Her job was to tell a tale of a normal childhood at the WC. However she was not prepared for WC cross. I ask why ??

You say she wasn't prepared for testifying before the WC because there is no HARVEY AKA H & L program and she is very confused and overwhelmed.

I say she was given zero preparation for appearing before the WC on purpose and told to present a normal childhood.

She was sand bagged. She lost credibility by letting herself be manipulated. Who can believe her after her shaky WC testimony ?? ..Why she doesn't know the name of some of her relations. //gaal

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oswaldsmother BlogSpot

Peculiarities Abound

Marguerite Oswald, in every interview either with government authorities to newspaper reporters often gave conflicting testimony about her life and related events. When interviewed by a New York probation officer in relation to Lee being truant, she gave conflicting accounts of her life. She got at least five things wrong, from the number years she had been married (a total of 13 years from three marriages but she said 9) to getting Lee’s birth date wrong. What mother does not know her own child’s birthday? At the age of 44 it seemed as if she did not know her own life story on many different levels. Perhaps that is because this “Marguerite” was an impostor with too much to remember?

Marguerite’s Warren Commission testimony is likewise filled with contradictions and misstatements that are for the most part, ignored by her questioners. To read the transcript of her testimony is to see a woman with an annoying character, a babbler, constantly rambling off the point, always in need of being herded back on the right path. At one point she mislead the Commission when she was asked if any FBI agents had spoken to her before the assassination. She said no. This was not true. She was visited in regards to her son’s defection to the USSR once in 1960, and twice in 1961. An odd thing to lie about as it is so easily proven. Or, this could just have been the misstatements of an impostor not knowing or remembering pertinent facts.

By the time she got around to telling the Commission she thought her son Lee was spy, they had written her off as a kook. At this point she had discredited herself in their eyes with her meandering testimony and oddball theories. As one of the Commission member’s said, we can see how the son turned out with a mother like this.

What a lot of absolute rot.

So according to you guys, this most delicate and complex doppelganger operation was put largely in the hands of a babbling idiot.

[Steven Gaal]

most delicate and complex doppelganger operation was put largely in the hands of a babbling idiot. // PARKER

=========================================================================================

Hands, like control ?? Gee I said (gaal) (WHICH YOU CUT AND PASTE QUOTE) , " she does not know who she working for. She might think she is working for a defense contractor. Marguerite's need to know level is near zero.

She has been told to give updates on the kids (probably via payphone)." She is housing the young boys. I am sure you have seen the videos (plural) were Marguerite speaks in a creepy fashion of LHO (her son ?) in the third person. ,gaal

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why she doesn't know the name of some of her relations. //gaal

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oswaldsmother BlogSpot

Peculiarities Abound
Marguerite Oswald, in every interview either with government authorities to newspaper reporters often gave conflicting testimony about her life and related events. When interviewed by a New York probation officer in relation to Lee being truant, she gave conflicting accounts of her life. She got at least five things wrong, from the number years she had been married (a total of 13 years from three marriages but she said 9) to getting Lee’s birth date wrong. What mother does not know her own child’s birthday? At the age of 44 it seemed as if she did not know her own life story on many different levels. Perhaps that is because this “Marguerite” was an impostor with too much to remember?

Marguerite’s Warren Commission testimony is likewise filled with contradictions and misstatements that are for the most part, ignored by her questioners. To read the transcript of her testimony is to see a woman with an annoying character, a babbler, constantly rambling off the point, always in need of being herded back on the right path. At one point she mislead the Commission when she was asked if any FBI agents had spoken to her before the assassination. She said no. This was not true. She was visited in regards to her son’s defection to the USSR once in 1960, and twice in 1961. An odd thing to lie about as it is so easily proven. Or, this could just have been the misstatements of an impostor not knowing or remembering pertinent facts.

By the time she got around to telling the Commission she thought her son Lee was spy, they had written her off as a kook. At this point she had discredited herself in their eyes with her meandering testimony and oddball theories. As one of the Commission member’s said, we can see how the son turned out with a mother like this.

++++++++++++
She does not know if her husband was right or left handed. You don't know the handedness of your spouse ????????? ,gaal

Edited August 4, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Greg Parker]

Hands, like control ?? Gee I said (gaal) (WHICH YOU CUT AND PASTE QUOTE) , " she does not know who she working for. She might think she is working for a defense contractor. Marguerite's need to know level is near zero.

She has been told to give updates on the kids (probably via payphone)." She is housing the young boys. I am sure you have seen the videos (plural) were Marguerite speaks in a creepy fashion of LHO (her son ?) in the third person. ,gaal

And you know all of this, how?

[David Josephs]

So according to you guys, this most delicate and complex doppelganger operation was put largely in the hands of a babbling idiot.

Logic: An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow

Once again Greg... you speak in tautologies. every one of your arguments states its own conclusions within the statement.

First off, there are no "you guys" - you are talking with Steve Gaal. Speak to Steve. Address his arguments and posts as you would expect others to treat yours... that they are yours and yours alone. If I or Jim or John has a problem with what Steve is posting... we'll talk to Steve. K?

Second,

YOU assume "this" is a most delicate and complex doppelganger operation... YOU assume that any of "this" would be impacted by Marge who YOU call a babbling idiot. and then YOU assume it is the presentation of John's H&L theories which are being discussed when you're only talking with Steve.

Each piece of that sentence is a "simplier statement in a fashion that makes logical sense" yet they are not factually in themselves.

When you explain how anyone would know what was going on with Oswald from 1952 - 1960 in this doppelganger you can explain how it is either delicate of complex.

When you explain and corroborate why you think Marge here is "largely" anything or how the doppelganger was put in her hands you've at least stopped with the tautologies... but that has not happened with you yet. Here's a scenario:

(ok Marge, says the agent, here is this boy you will care for. His name is Lee Harvey Oswald and this is his life story... - how would she know any better that there was another Lee Oswald who her new son to care for is being groomed to be? She wouldn't. Her only job was to maintain that she was the mother to Lee and the others... and do as she was told.

As to her being a babbling idiot... yup, stupid like a fox. Another conclusion within your question.

....and the wheels on the bus go round and round....

If Arthur Valle is the patsy and JFK dies in Chicago, does the world know of Harvey and Lee? Does Marge?

There was maybe a handful of people who knew both men even existed. With our 20-20 historical vision we have conclusions within our thought processes which cannot be removed. Moving forward in time from 1952 there is little to no chance of the operation being found out. By the time Harvey (the 5'9" guy) goes to Russia, Lee is a covert agent involved with Cubans, Ruby, gunrunning - who he may be working for and what he is doing is anybody's guess.

Part of the scramble in the days and weeks right after the assassination was the FBI's need to hide the evidence of these two men... why else go back 5, 10 or 15 years in the man's life so soon after the act? Yes, I know, a "why" question which only has speculation as answers... if you can offer a reason they did this related to the events of 11/22/63 I'd like to hear them.

From Sirhan to Ray, the depth of information generated on thier lives compared to Oswald is ridiculous. There was no reason to see Kudlaty that weekend re: Stripling's records unless something needed to be hidden. Same with Pfisterer's.

The FBI with help created false evidence for the Rifle, Pistol, Mexico, Neely, and a whole host of other bits on incriminating evidence... the DPD did their part as well.

For those who actually think that a handful of key people cannot direct the actions of many without their knowledge and understanding, to assist in the incrimination of a "commie Loner" I think a new level of naivety has been reached. After that, "going along to get along" made lawyers into senators and an FBI stooge into a president. Ask Bolden or Craig or any of a large group of others what NOT going along did for them...

=====

To address the word Disingenuous

I replied to your first post:

Greg... Are you asking a question or teeing up a golf ball?

Am I wrong in thinking you have your answer to that question and are waiting to pounce... Or is this genuine interest in an answer and discussion?

Your reply?

I am asking because I want to know what you guys believe in regard to these questions. I don't intend to argue about your answers.

So, Greg, Is "a lot of absolute rot" and your incorrectly restating our position in the form of your famous tautologies you NOT arguing the answers... or is that a standard Southern Hemisphere expression of understanding and appreciation I am not aware of?

"What a lot of absolute rot.

So according to you guys, this most delicate and complex doppelganger operation was put largely in the hands of a babbling idiot."

Adjective

disingenuous ‎

1. Not noble; unbecoming true honor or dignity; mean; unworthy; fake or deceptive.

2. Not ingenuous; not frank or open; uncandid; unworthily or meanly artful.

3. Assuming a pose of naïveté to make a point or for deception.

EDIT: Myra and the photo. John tells me that photo was in a pile of photos in an envelope at the archives. He made copies of all these photos and used tham as needed. He showed Myra both Lee and Harvey images and like Pic, was able to know one boy from the other.

You're welcome.

Edited August 4, 2015 by David Josephs

[Greg Parker]

O the irony. Wrongly attributing to me what you do, and then mislabeling it as "tautology".

Prime example: "Myra and the photo. John tells me that photo was in a pile of photos in an envelope at the archives. He made copies of all these photos and used tham as needed. He showed Myra both Lee and Harvey images and like Pic, was able to know one boy from the other."

Assumes the existence of the purported doppelganger.

I'm not arguing with Gaal. Merely trying to clarify his position. I don't blame you forwanting to distance yourself from him -- though do note the times in the past where you have thanked him for having your back.

Thanks for clarifying regarding the photo. It doesn't look like any other photo of Oswald, I'm guessing it is actually the real live non-doppelganger Voebel shadow named Bobby Newman. But I'm not going to argue about it

Edited August 4, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Steven Gaal]

Posted Today, 09:45 PM

Quote

Hands, like control ?? Gee I said (gaal) (WHICH YOU CUT AND PASTE QUOTE) , " she does not know who she working for. She might think she is working for a defense contractor. Marguerite's need to know level is near zero.

She has been told to give updates on the kids (probably via payphone)." She is housing the young boys. I am sure you have seen the videos (plural) were Marguerite speaks in a creepy fashion of LHO (her son ?) in the third person. ,gaal

And you know all of this, how? // Parker

====================================

This 3rd person speaker Marguerite goes to Washington in 1961 out of concern for her son. I don't think so. Marguerite mentions in her testimony the exact amount $$ Marina is getting for a book.

She went to Washington in 1961 to see if she could shake out some money from the government tree. She is an asset that doesn't know who she is working for . BTW over the phone the only thing anyone would hear is talk about the life of children. The communication to Harvey and Lee would be direct. Marguerite is not on a need to know. ,gaal

Edited August 4, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Greg Parker]

Posted Today, 09:45 PM

Quote

Hands, like control ?? Gee I said (gaal) (WHICH YOU CUT AND PASTE QUOTE) , " she does not know who she working for. She might think she is working for a defense contractor. Marguerite's need to know level is near zero.

She has been told to give updates on the kids (probably via payphone)." She is housing the young boys. I am sure you have seen the videos (plural) were Marguerite speaks in a creepy fashion of LHO (her son ?) in the third person. ,gaal

And you know all of this, how? // Parker

====================================

This 3rd person speaker Marguerite goes to Washington in 1961 out of concern for her son. I don't think so. Marguerite mentions in her testimony the exact amount $$ Marina is getting for a book.

She went in 1961 to see if she could shake out some money from the government tree. She is an asset that doesn't know who she is working for . BTW over the phone the only thing anyone would hear is talk about the life of children. The communication to Harvey and Lee would be direct. Marguerite is not on a need to know. ,gaal

As I thought. Stuff pulled from one orifice or another to try and explain away the huge shortcomings of this myth.

How does it feel btw to be disowned by a fellow two Ozzie Comrade?

[David Josephs]

Keep guessing Greg....

Assumes the existence of the purported doppelganger

How so Greg? Myra is shown a stack of photos of "LEE" just as Pic is shown the photos in LIFE - they are not labeled HARVEY and LEE... so once again you ASSUME without thought since it supports your BELIEFS

The LIFE photo layout of Oswald includes the image at the bottom: Pic and Myra were not TOLD these were two different boys but that they were the same. They volunteered, when questioned, whether they knew the image as Lee Oswald, brother or student.

Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that?
Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
Mr. JENNER - There is a young fellow in the foreground-everybody else is facing the other way. He is in a pantomime, or grimace. Do you recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald? (the toothless photo)
Mr. PIC - No, sir; looking at that picture and I have looked at it several times--that looks more like Robert than it does Lee, to my recollection.

Mr. JENNER - I show you an exhibit, a series of exhibits, first Commission Exhibit No. 281 and Exhibit No. 282 being some spread pages of an issue of Life magazine of February 21, 1964. I direct your attention first to the lower lefthand spread at .the bottom of the page. Do you recognize the area shown there?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Do you see somebody in that picture that appears to be your brother?
Mr. PIC - This one here with the arrow.
Mr. JENNER - The one that has the printed arrow?
Mr. PIC - That is correct, sir.
Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother?
Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say--
Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that.
Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is.
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture.
Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee.
Mr. PIC - No, sir.

Mr. JENNER - Then there is one immediately to the right of that, a young man in the foreground sitting on the floor, with his knees, legs crossed, and his arms also crossed. There are some other people apparently in the background.
Mr. PIC - I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0413b.htm

Mr. JENNER - Then to the right there is a picture of two young men, the upper portion of the one young man at the bottom and then apparently a young man standing up in back of that person. Do you recognize either of those young people?
Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. JENNER - Is he the one to which the black arrow is pointing?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.

This last question has to do with the top part of the image... the beginning of my quoted testimony for him refers to the bottom image on the same page in LIFE...

Claiming that John did anything to lead Myra to say one was Lee or Harvey is low even for you Greg. But you're not arguing.

And I am not distancing myself from Gaal... he has his understandings of the work as I have mine. He has his style of presentation as do any of us. The funniest thing is that you believe there MUST BE a right and wrong to every issue when it has always been only about the evidence. You interpret it one way, others a different way.

Why is it that you ask "How did you come to that" of us yet you in turn don't need to show how YOU arrived at your conclusions? Then, when you do post a reason, we find you make a point which conflicts with your own premise...

i.e. you posted: 168 + 12 = total number of days of school since 168 was NOT the total number as we both agreed but the number of attendance days added to absences.

The grade cards do not support 12 absences - why? you have no clue and just shrug them off as the wrong YEAR... which you got wrong as well and never addressed.

Finally, when 168 + 12 is exactly the same concept as 89 + 1 in the first semester of 53-54 at BJHS... you have no answer other than 179 + 5 = 184. Which is the same thing all over again for the 53-54 school year.

If 168 is the # of days of attendance in 54-55... why again is 179 not the total days of attendance in 53-54 - per your own argument?

-----

That last one sentence you wrote is wonderful... I even had to show you how the grade cards went with the perm record... (bottom image)

GP quotes from this thread:
1)
You really ought to stop breathing in the fumes over at the Bates Motel (aka the DeepFoo).

168 + 12 is for the 54-55 school year.

The 53-54 school year is (as I have already said!) is 179 + 5.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=78#entry310401

2)
5 days absence pertains to the 53-54 school year

12 days absence pertains to the 54-55 school year.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=78#entry310402

3)
All you did was made a fool of yourself again by claiming that the 5 days absence and the 12 days absence pertained to the same school year. They don't.

(DJ: GREG - AS SHOWN BELOW, THE GRADE CARDS MATCH TO 54-55. THEY EVEN SAY 54-55 ON THEM AT THE TOP. YOU WILL ARGUE ANYTHING, REGARDLESS, WONT YOU

YOU DID POST THE FOLLOWING AS PART OF YOUR BOOK, YES? YOU DO COMPARE HEAD'S STATEMENT ABOUT "ATTENDED" AND CLAIM IT WAS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF "DAYS IN THE SCHOOL YEAR" RIGHT?

YOU THEN ADD BACK "ABSENCES" TO THIS NUMBER AND ARE AMAZED THAT IT IS THE "TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS IN THE SCHOOL YEAR"... WE NEED NOTHING ELSE TO KNOW ALL THREE #'S... ABSENCES, ATTENDANCE AND TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS IN A YEAR... WHEN HE STARTED OR WHEN SCHOOL ENDS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT... BUT YOU KNOW BETTER, RIGHT?

THE EMPHASIS IN HIS POST IS MINE, NOT GREG'S... SO GREG IF YOU CLAIM THE SCHOOL YEAR WAS 180 AND 184 DAYS AND ABSENCES PLUS "RE-AD" EQUALS THESE NUMBERS... WHAT DOES "RE-AD" STAND FOR OTHER THAN DAYS ATTENDED?)

In fairness, they have been aided and abetted in this misunderstanding by the contradictory advice given to the FBI by the Assistant Principal of Warren Easton High, Wilfred Head, whose help they had sought in interpreting the records. In regard to attendance, Head stated that the abbreviation “Re Ad” usually represented “Re Admitted” and that the numbers listed opposite represented the total number of school days for a given school year.

The advice given above by Head is not entirely correct, but then he compounds the error by stating contradictorily that 180 days was the usual number of days in a school year and in any event, state law mandated that the total number of school days must not fall below 170. Given that the figure shown as “Re Ad” for 1954-55 was 168, Head surmised that the figure must represent the total number of days Oswald actually attended.

It is a little surprising that neither an educator, nor the author of Harvey & Lee (let alone any of his many acolytes and proselytizers) could not do the simple math involved.

The number 168 does indeed fall below the mandated 170 days. That tells us it cannot be the total number of days in the school year. What we need to do is add the number of days listed as “absent”. In the case of the 1954-55 school year, we see 168 + 12 = 180 days – the exact number of days Head claimed to be the “regular”! If we do the same for the previous school year, we get 184 – more than the “regular”, but the term does imply occasional variation. The important point is that nowhere in the record does it show Oswald’s total number of attendance days. To work that out, we need to also know the dates Oswald commenced and finished at the school, along with the start and end dates of the school years involved.

(SO YOU SEE GREG, YOU ARGUE THAT HEAD IS WRONG... 168 IS NOT THE # OF TOTAL DAYS. (I AGREE) YOU THEN SAY TO ADD BACK "ABSENT" TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT # OF DAYS IN THE SCHOOL YEAR, 184 (53-54) AND 180 (54-55). YET THEN YOU GO ON TO SAY WE DO NOT KNOW HIS ATTENDANCE ????. WHAT THEN DOES THE # 168 IN YOUR EQUATION 168 + 12 = 180 SUPPOSE TO REPRESENT?)

And we will also get to 3830 W. 6th #3 versus 4936 Collinwood which I am pretty sure you haven't the first clue about... prove me wrong.

[Steven Gaal]

This 3rd person speaker Marguerite goes to Washington in 1961 out of concern for her son. I don't think so. Marguerite mentions in her testimony the exact amount $$ Marina is getting for a book.

She went in 1961 to see if she could shake out some money from the government tree. She is an asset that doesn't know who she is working for . BTW over the phone the only thing anyone would hear is talk about the life of children. The communication to Harvey and Lee would be direct. Marguerite is not on a need to know. ,gaal

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I thought. Stuff pulled from one orifice or another to try and explain away the huge shortcomings of this myth.// PARKER

====================================================================================================

Marguerite money focused. ,gaal

==================================================================================

By Steven Beschloss

smithsonian.com

----------------------------

Under the watch of the Secret Service, the grieving widow and her children stayed with Marguerite at the Inn of the Six Flags Motel outside Dallas. Marina was stunned by Marguerite’s aggressive publicity seeking and despised her incessant focus on money. "She has a mania: money, money, money," Marina told the Warren Commission several months later. And more: "There were some violent scenes. She didn't want to listen to anyone. There were hysterics. Everyone was guilty of everything and no one understood her. Perhaps my opinion is wrong, but at least I do not want to live with her and listen to scandals every day." .......
Now and then, she would receive calls from television or newspaper reporters seeking to interview the mother of the assassin, the self-described "mother in history." When money ran low, she sold a letter or document connected to Oswald or an article of his clothing. Sometimes she could be found on Dealey Plaza, selling autographed business cards to tourists for five dollars: Marguerite Oswald, mother of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Greg Parker]

This 3rd person speaker Marguerite goes to Washington in 1961 out of concern for her son. I don't think so. Marguerite mentions in her testimony the exact amount $$ Marina is getting for a book.

She went in 1961 to see if she could shake out some money from the government tree. She is an asset that doesn't know who she is working for . BTW over the phone the only thing anyone would hear is talk about the life of children. The communication to Harvey and Lee would be direct. Marguerite is not on a need to know. ,gaal

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I thought. Stuff pulled from one orifice or another to try and explain away the huge shortcomings of this myth.// PARKER

====================================================================================================

Marguerite money focused. ,gaal

==================================================================================

By Steven Beschloss

smithsonian.com

----------------------------

Under the watch of the Secret Service, the grieving widow and her children stayed with Marguerite at the Inn of the Six Flags Motel outside Dallas. Marina was stunned by Marguerite’s aggressive publicity seeking and despised her incessant focus on money. "She has a mania: money, money, money," Marina told the Warren Commission several months later. And more: "There were some violent scenes. She didn't want to listen to anyone. There were hysterics. Everyone was guilty of everything and no one understood her. Perhaps my opinion is wrong, but at least I do not want to live with her and listen to scandals every day." .......

Now and then, she would receive calls from television or newspaper reporters seeking to interview the mother of the assassin, the self-described "mother in history." When money ran low, she sold a letter or document connected to Oswald or an article of his clothing. Sometimes she could be found on Dealey Plaza, selling autographed business cards to tourists for five dollars: Marguerite Oswald, mother of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Can you say non sequitur?

And who really gives a rats what Beschloss says about Marguerite - or for that matter, anything negative Marina said about her in testimony?

Next you'll citing Beschloss as "proof" that JFK was humping everything that moved in the White House. And maybe some things that didn't.

[Kenneth Drew]

Can anyone tell me what this thread is about? I've read all the way through, some of it twice and I have no idea what the central theme/thesis is. Just a couple sentences might turn on a light for me.

[Greg Parker]

Can anyone tell me what this thread is about? I've read all the way through, some of it twice and I have no idea what the central theme/thesis is. Just a couple sentences might turn on a light for me.

Ken,

the crowd who can see images of "Harvey" in everything from clouds to a grilled cheese sandwich claim the Bronx Zoo happy snap of Lee is actually their boy, Harvey.

The photo was taken by Robert while visiting his family in New York for a short time. Marguerite (the fake one according to the H & L crowd) provided her copy to the Warren Commission.

Given all of the above, I asked

Was Robert "in" on the scam? (no answer to that yet)

If it was something more than just a happy family snap, what was the purpose of it? (DJ says "unknowable", SG says it was the fake Marguerite;s job o keep playing the mom)

Why did (presumably the fake) Marguerite provide it to the WC, when it might give the game away? (DJ says "unknowable", SG gives essentially the same answer as he does above.

If there was anything to this nonsense at all, the fake Marguerite almost blew it because the WC showed the pic to son Pic and he said words to the effect that it didn't look like his brother (totally unsurprising since John hardly ever saw Lee his whole life - even when Lee was in NYC, Pic was away working most of the time).

[Kenneth Drew]

Can anyone tell me what this thread is about? I've read all the way through, some of it twice and I have no idea what the central theme/thesis is. Just a couple sentences might turn on a light for me.

Ken,

the crowd who can see images of "Harvey" in everything from clouds to a grilled cheese sandwich claim the Bronx Zoo happy snap of Lee is actually their boy, Harvey.

The photo was taken by Robert while visiting his family in New York for a short time. Marguerite (the fake one according to the H & L crowd) provided her copy to the Warren Commission.

Given all of the above, I asked

Was Robert "in" on the scam? (no answer to that yet)

If it was something more than just a happy family snap, what was the purpose of it? (DJ says "unknowable", SG says it was the fake Marguerite;s job o keep playing the mom)

Why did (presumably the fake) Marguerite provide it to the WC, when it might give the game away? (DJ says "unknowable", SG gives essentially the same answer as he does above.

If there was anything to this nonsense at all, the fake Marguerite almost blew it because the WC showed the pic to son Pic and he said words to the effect that it didn't look like his brother (totally unsurprising since John hardly ever saw Lee his whole life - even when Lee was in NYC, Pic was away working most of the time).

Thanks Greg. I'm not a believer in the 2 Oswald's hypotheis. But an observation. If the FBI/CIA had been developing this 'asset' which was 2 brothers melded into one, or something since they were born, then it would be a total waste of all of that work to sacrifice that whole project for the sake of a 'patsy' for the assassination. Over 20 years work, down the drain. Totally wasted.