Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Jim Hargrove

TWO MARGUERITE OSWALDS -- NEW DETAILS

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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?

 

Tracy,

I looked at the thread you linked to and I found that Greg Parker had made the following remark about me:

So according to Sandy, the following records show LHO taking and passing classes in the fall of 1953.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=845&tab=page

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=846&tab=page

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=847&tab=page

Can someone please point out what Sandy is referring to? We seem to have nothing but his assertion.

In short, I have been pointing out what is indicated in the third link that Greg lists here. (The other two links are largely irrelevant.) This shows Oswald attending and passing two classes at Beauregard in the fall semester of the 1953/54 school year.

First Link: This is a School Census. It shows the education level of each parent and of each of their children. For the children, it appears to list the latest enrollment date for each. The date on this sheet is 1/13/54, which is the date given on LHO's 1953/54 cumulative school record that we've been discussing. It states right at the bottom that the information was taken from the school record. So this document adds nothing to our discussion.

Second Link: This document pertains to the Beauregard 1954/55 school year. Our discussion is regarding the 1953/54 school year. So this document is irrelevant to our discussion.

Third Link: This document is the cumulative school record that shows the Beauregard 1553/54 school year. This is the one we've been discussing. It shows an Admission Date of 1/13/54. It also shows that  two classes were taken in the Fall of 1953 and were passed. This contradicts with the 1/13/54 Admission Date on this same document, and the Fall 1953/54 NYC Public School #44 records which indicate Oswald was attending school full time there.

As we've pointing out repeatedly, the cumulative school records indicate that Oswald was attending both school simultaneously in the Fall semester of 1953/54.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we keep pointing out, the cumulative school records indicate that Oswald was attending both school simultaneously in the Fall semester of 1953/54.

Oh Sandy come on.  So what?!  Have a little flexibility here.  So records show a kid going to two different schools.  Why don't you step back and look at the larger - much larger picture - here.  Do you really sincerely think that a kid from Hungary and a kid from Texas/NY/LA was being steered around by some unknown mysterious secret agency...and by a million to one shot, these two different kids born thousands of miles away had mothers - and different fathers - and the mothers had almost identical features and yet one looks "dumpy" and never smiles and has a unibrow and the other is smiling and happy?  And all during both of these kids' growing up years they're squirreled away to some secret facility, and one is taught Russian, joins the Marines, goes to Russia, comes back, and then is steered to Dallas to take the fall for JFK's murder?  And the other just...disappears?

And all of this steering around went on for 10 long years! Just steering them around.

And the only "evidence" Hargrove and Armstrong uses is some incorrect school records?  I mean do you not see - looking at it from a real-world "could it really have happened" way - how crazy and silly this whole story is?

Now you can reply with yet more quotes and records comparisons but if you genuinely ask yourself this and continue to believe it, then I feel sorry for you for falling it for it, as well as for others who paid $60 bucks for the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Oh Sandy come on.  So what?!  Have a little flexibility here.  So records show a kid going to two different schools.  Why don't you step back and look at the larger - much larger picture - here.

 

Michael,

Try to come up with a reasonable explanation or hypothesis of how the school records came to show an additional semester being taken by Oswald. The one that has Oswald attending two schools simultaneously.

Till then I will keep an open mind. In particular because Oswald has other contradictory records similar to this, where he appears to be two people and not one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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.


Oh really?  

Myrtle Evans and her husband Julian were friends with the real Marguerite Oswald for nearly three decades. Included in Julian Evans' April 7, 1964 WC testimony was this exchange with Jenner (emphasis added):  


Mr. JENNER - Give me your impression of Marguerite Oswald.
Mr. EVANS - Marguerite?
Mr. JENNER - Yes.
Mr. EVANS - I think she's a fine woman, myself, a fine woman; intelligent, very soft spoken - a beautiful woman, with black hair streaked with a little gray, but when you saw her on television since this thing happened, she really looked awful; nothing at all like she used to look. She has really aged. She looked like a charwoman, compared to what she used to look like. She used to be a fashion plate. She dressed beautifully, but when we saw her on television just recently, after all this happened, she looked awful. There's no way to describe it, the change that has come over her. You wouldn't have recognized her if they hadn't told you who she was; she looked that different. Where her hair used to be black, now it's entirely gray, and she really looks Old
Mr. JENNER - Well, she's 57, I believe.
Mr. EVANS - That's right; she's the same age as my wife, but she looks about 70 now. That's about all I can remember about her, and then I saw this thing on television when the President was assassinated, and when it showed her picture, we just couldn't believe it was Marguerite.


His wife Myrtle Evans testified on the same day:

Mrs. EVANS - A very good housekeeper, very tasty; she could take anything and make something out of it, and something beautiful. She had a lot of natural talent that way, and she was not lazy. She would work with things by the hour for her children, and she kept a very neat house, and she was always so lovely herself. That's why, when I saw her on TV, after all of this happened, she looked so old and haggard, and I said, "That couldn't be Margie," but of course it was, but if you had known Margie before all this happened, you would see what I mean. She was beautiful. She had beautiful wavy hair.

Mrs. Evans added this:

Mrs. EVANS - As far as I could see, they were very happy, very closely knit, very much in love with each other, and these boys knew that their mother was putting them through school, and giving them what they needed, as best she could. She was a very good provider for her children, and a very decent woman. I mean, she wasn't a loose woman at all. She was very decent, a very fine woman. 

Does that sound like the "Marguerite Oswald" we all heard about.

And then there's Ed Voebel....


Mr. JENNER. Did you ever meet his mother? 
Mr. VOEBEL. I think I met her one time, and for some reason I had a picture in my mind which was different from when I saw her in the paper after all of this happened. I didn't recognize her. She was a lot thinner, and her hair wasn't as gray, as I recall it, when I met her. Of course, this was about 8 years ago, but I can remember she had a black dress on, and she was sitting down smoking a cigarette; now, maybe she wasn't smoking, but this is a picture that comes to my mind as I recall that. 

Of course, none of these people could have possibly known about the elaborate charade that comprised the Oswald Project, but they clearly were surprised at phony Marguerite's appearance in 1964.  


Mr. and Mrs. Evans both testified that the Lee Harvey Oswald they knew was loud and boisterous, with a "foghorn voice."  This is certainly not the quiet, withdrawn, passive-aggresive kid described by the Warren Commision.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

No doubt Marguerite changed over the years and let herself go. And the comments of Julian and Myrtle Evans reflect that. But show me one person out of the dozens or hundreds that knew the "real" Marguerite that said the Marguerite they saw on TV was not the woman they knew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

As we've pointing out repeatedly, the cumulative school records indicate that Oswald was attending both school simultaneously in the Fall semester of 1953/54.

OK, let's accept your premise for the sake of argument, that two boys were attending two different schools using the same name, birthdate, mother's name and so on. What does this indicate to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Jim,

No doubt Marguerite changed over the years and let herself go. And the comments of Julian and Myrtle Evans reflect that. But show me one person out of the dozens or hundreds that knew the "real" Marguerite that said the Marguerite they saw on TV was not the woman they knew.


Tracy,

Didn't Jim just do that?

Oh, what you mean is a person who knew the "real" Marguerite in 1963.

Jim, how long had it been since the Evans had seen the "real" Marguerite?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

Myrtle Evans said:

"when I saw her on TV, after all of this happened, she looked so old and haggard, and I said, "That couldn't be Margie," but of course it was, but if you had known Margie before all this happened, you would see what I mean. She was beautiful. She had beautiful wavy hair."

I guess you guys can pretend she said that, but I think she was just surprised at how she had let herself go. It had probably been 10 years since she had seen her. if she was trying to tell the WC about the plot I think she might have said:

"Sir, the woman I saw on TV is not Marguerite Oswald."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

OK, let's accept your premise for the sake of argument, that two boys were attending two different schools using the same name, birthdate, mother's name and so on. What does this indicate to you?


It would mean that there is probably something strange going on. Because the odds of the two boys with the same name having also the same birth dates and same mother's name is very slim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sandy Larsen said:


It would mean that there is probably something strange going on. Because the odds of the two boys with the same name having also the same birth dates and same mother's name is very slim.

That is correct, the odds of that are about zero. But exactly what is the "something strange" that is going on? Are you now accepting the H&L theory? If not, what is your explanation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

That is correct, the odds of that are about zero. But exactly what is the "something strange" that is going on? Are you now accepting the H&L theory? If not, what is your explanation?


I've tried to think of a way the contradictory fall-of-1953 line could have accidentally been put on the Beauregard record. And I've asked others if they can think of a way. (Or, more generally, an explanation for that line.) So far I'm drawing a blank. (And I doubt that anybody else here is trying.)

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:


I've tried to think of a way the contradictory fall-of-1953 line could have accidentally been put on the Beauregard record. And I've asked others if they can think of a way. (Or, more generally, an explanation for the line.) So far I'm drawing a blank. (And I doubt that anybody else here is trying.)

Greg Parker discusses grades/and or credits being commonly transferred to a new school.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H&L Howlers #3, John Armstrong thought he had found the identity of the "fake" Marguerite but he was wrong again:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/margaret-keating.html

Also updated my list of who is involved in the plot for H&L to be true. Now includes a small sampling of the dozens or hundreds of people who knew about 2 Marguerites and stayed silent:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/harvey-lee-who-was-involved-in-plot.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×