TWO MARGUERITE OSWALDS -- NEW DETAILS

[Jim Hargrove]

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim,

I don't know how Tracy and Greg Parker could use their misinterpretations to argue against you, but they are clearly wrong if they disagree with you. The first row in the Beauregard record is clearly the first semester, the second row is the second semester, and the third row is the total of the first two rows. For number of days attended, the third row is the sum of the first two rows. For each subject, the third row is the average of the first two rows.

The number of days attended is just that, not the total number of school days available in the semester or year. I guess you are lucky that Mr. Head pointed out that 170 days is the legal minimum, as that proves your point.

It never ceases to amaze me how far a denier will go to try and prove they are right. They think a CT is too elaborate to be believable, and yet they go to unbelievably elaborate extremes in attempts to prove the CT wrong.

One really great thing about being an open minded, and yet critical, person who always seeks the truth is that you don't have to worry about being proven wrong. For example, I determined a long time ago that David Lifton got much of his theory right, about the two caskets, the three casket entries, the large blowout in the rear of the head that has been covered up, etc. I have been challenged on that several times since, by both LNers and CTers, and I have never found my argument bested. I never worry about something I don't know about that could prove my position wrong.

You seem to be the same with the Harvey and Lee theory. I see you challenged time and time again, and every time you come out with credible answers while your opponents look like amateurs.

I think that you and John are probably right. It will take me some time to come to the conclusion that you are, because it is a large commitment. But your (John's) evidence is certainly heading me in that direction.

Keep up the good work.

Thanks, Sandy.  Isn’t it sad how few people in this thread can even discuss the evidence that has been presented here.  Tracy says Greg Parker has the answer in a book Tracy owns, but he won’t tell us what the answer is because… uh… the book is copyrighted and so he can’t describe what’s in it.   Everyone else just deals in generalities and sarcasm.   Not much of a debate here on the JFK Assassination Debate forum!
 

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Michael - no matter how many times it is shown to them, addition is something that eludes them.

It is claimed by both these researchers as well as the FBI that an Oswald attended 200 days of school between March 23, 1953 and Jan 12, 1954.

The FBI report is below...  171 days + 11/2 = 5.5 days + 18 and 11/2 absent days = 18+5.5 = 23.5.   171 + 5.5 + 23.5 + 200 total days of school including absences.

 

There are 210 TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS POSSIBLE between the dates mentioned.  These men would have us believe that Oswald attended and/or was absent from a total of 200 of these 210 days.

Oswald was at Youth House missing 17 days of school
Oswald did not go to summer school - that's 54 more school days
These is usually a 1 week Spring break and a 2 week Winter break - also deducted from the total # of school days

For the time period mentioned, Oswald could only attend a MAXIMUM of 123 days

yet when we look at the NYC school records we find a complete impossibility...  as highlighted above, from March 23, 1953 until the end of that semester June 26, 1953 is only 70 total days of school  MINUS the Youth House in April/May 1953 and spring break, there were only 46 total school days to attend.

Yet what is written on the boy's cumulative file is obviously wrong...   109 3/2 attended days and 15 3/2 absent days is much more than 46 days

So ok... the records are wrong... as Tracy would say, mistakes happen.  So one needs to ask...

 

How can the PERMANENT RECORD which gets added to as the years pass have 3 different versions with none of them matching the earliest version of this singular record.. (NYC public school do not keep multiple versions of the same child's perm record yet somehow there are 2 different completed versions - one an exhibit and one not - which do not match the 1952 version...)

So Tracy... who do you suppose fills these records out?  the school or the FBI?  which would know how many days there were and from which source materials these dates derive...  a school official or the FBI?

These records were CREATED and very poorly as only the number of school days were counted, start to finish, and then retrofitted into an explanation.

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

Moving now to Beauregard

The discussion here is whether an Oswald attended the entire semester at BJHS or started in January

According to the BJHS it appears the "Re-Ad" column is the total number of days in a school year.
If that is true then there is a problem with the 54-55 year since the total # of days is only 168 when the min # of days is 180.

Hmmm.  168 + 12 = 180 days!  This suggests that the "Re-Ad" column is the total days attended and when added to absences gives us a total of 180.
89 + 90 = 179; only 1 short of the min.  if we add back the absences like what is done for 54-55, we get 184 and all is good again.  This does suggest that this child attended 89 days of school, IF we use 54-55 as a guide.

But wait, shouldn't the grade cards for 54-55 also show 12 absences?  

Tracy, how come the final grade cards for the 54-55 year do not show 12 absences and why are the total # of school days under the "re-ad" column short of 180?

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks, David.  As always, your presentations require a bit of effort to fully comprehend, but anyone who takes the time to understand your illustrations can clearly see how the evidence we’ve been given for LHO’s school attendance during just these few years is utterly impossible.    As good as Hoover’s FBI was at playing the cover-up game, they sure failed their school assignments on the Oswalds!  

Or maybe they were trying to be funny.  It is kind of laughable that a kid with so impossibly many extra days of school should have spent part of that time in reform school for truancy.

And remember, since this is a thread about the two Marguerites, these two Oswald boys were just kids … there HAD to be two “mothers” for them, despite what anyone thinks about their physical appearances.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Just now, Jim Hargrove said:

Thanks, Sandy.  Isn’t it sad how few people in this thread can even discuss the evidence that has been presented here.  Tracy says Greg Parker has the answer in a book Tracy owns, but he won’t tell us what the answer is because… uh… the book is copyrighted and so he can’t describe what’s in it.   Everyone else just deals in generalities and sarcasm.   Not much of a debate here on the JFK Assassination Debate forum!
 

I will see if I can summarize the information later, but it won't make any difference as you guys are aware of the arguments already.

[Thomas Graves]

[delete]

Edited March 6, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

9 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Tracy,

But, but, but ... can't you see that John Armstrong and Jim Hargrove and David Josephs (and their devotees) are solving the JFK Assassination?

And their inexorable conclusion?

The CIA did it!

Wow.  Just wow.

--  Tommy

PS  IMHO, over-the-top, overly-broad Conspiracy Theories like H&L mislead and encourage the equally-dangerous Alt-Right and Alt-Left in our country.

edited and bumped

Edited March 6, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[W. Tracy Parnell]

This is Parker’s analysis of New York from the EF thread “Harvey and Lee: John Armstrong” p. 31:

Here is the 52-53 year again.

PS 117 (start of school year) = 15 + 47 + 4 half days (2 full days)

Days not enrolled = 40

PS 44 = 109 + 15 (includes school days spent in Youth House) + 6 half days (3 full days)

School year ends approx. June 26 so deduct 49 days as PS 44 numbers go through to the start of the new school year on Sept 14.

so.... 15 + 47 + 2 + 40 + 109 + 15 + 3 - 49 = 182 - approximate only - actual figure would depend on date school year ended for 52/53 year.

Figures are taken from

Cited Document

School year end date assumed from current year end date as shown here

NYC Calandar

15 days at Youth House shown as days absence from PS 44

David says he doubts that the school year finished on June 26, but if you count forward 55 WEEK days from that date, you come to Friday, September 11, 1953. According to the PS44 report, Oswald commenced the 8th grade on Mon Sept 14 - so it all fits like a glove. I cannot see what the issue is except that in my original calc[culations], I miscounted and deducted 49 days instead of 55 - so the approximate figure would actually be 176 for 52-53.

With regard to Youth House: PS 44 shows 15 full days and 3 part-day absences. David seems to expect to find Youth House having its own special entry on the form somewhere and he miscounted the school days he was there. Apr 16 to May 7 is 3 weeks exactly. Since May 7 was a Thursday, he may have been released early enough for a full or part day at PS 44. I therefore maintain that absences shown in the record from PS44 account for Youth House.

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

This is Parker’s analysis from Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War vol. 2 as paraphrased by me:

Wilfred Head told the FBI that the number opposite “Re Ad” was the total number of days LHO attended. Head says 180 days were “regular” and 170 the mandated minimum. But in the case the 54-55 school year 168 days are listed. Parker says that since this is below the minimum mandate that it is obviously not the total number of days in the school year. But if you add the days absent (12) to the “Re Ad” you get 180 the “normal” number of days. For the 53-54 year, you get 184, but there is allowance for some variance.

Parker does not mention the grade cards but they are wrong apparently.

Anyway, there is an alternate explanation so don’t say I have never done anything for the H&L guys.

Edited March 7, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[W. Tracy Parnell]

18 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Tracy,

But, but, but ... can't you see that John Amstrong and Jim Hargrove and David Josephs (and their devotees) are solving the JFK Assassination?

And their inexorable conclusion?

The CIA did it!

 

And add Sandy Larsen to the list as he has apparently joined the team and offered to do website work for them. I would like to see them take their conclusions to Morley and see if he could get a major article in Politico presenting their theory. I doubt it!

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

And add Sandy Larsen to the list as he has apparently joined the team and offered to do website work for them. I would like to see them take their conclusions to Morley and see if he could get a major article in Politico presenting their theory. I doubt it!

Tracy,

I'm gonna try to talk him out of it.  Offer him rumors of a seven-figure "hit" job just-a waitin' for him at The Agency.

--  Tommy

Edited March 7, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Tracy,

I'm gonna try to talk him out of it.  Offer him rumors of a seven-figure salary job just-a waitin' for him at The Agency.

--  Tommy

Yeah that might work. I thought I was making headway with him for a while but he flipped.

[Michael Walton]

Sandy says: Jim - I don't know how Tracy and Greg Parker could use their misinterpretations to argue against you...

Sandy, you may want to be careful with starting a post with an "us vs them" mentality like above.  It's not as if you're always right on your posts.  Remember the post when you actually said you saw one of the three men standing on the steps and one of them was holding a pistol?  When I pointed out that where are the police reports stating one of of them was holding one, you caved.

Also, remember when you actually challenged me to an IQ contest (and you later deleted that post) because, as your thinking goes, you have to have a high IQ to figure out the Kennedy case?  I mean, really? I put far more value in plausibility and reasonable thinking than I do with analyzing a teenager's school report line by line and drawing a conclusion from it.  Anyone can do that but it takes real thinking to ask yourself "Yes, that's what the line by line analysis says.  But is it the way it actually happened? Could it have really happened? Is there some perfectly innocent reason for why it's that way?"

David Josephs - you've done great work on the Mexico City caper and I agree with everything you've said up to this.  I believe, too, that he was never down there as it was just one more way to paint Oswald as some wild-eyed, president murdering psycho. I also agree with you because, when thinking this through, yes, this could definitely and plausibly have happened, that the government could have fudged papers to make it look like he was there.  As we all know, the government was out to prove any way it could that Oswald was a chronic wife beater as well as in Mexico City because he supposedly was there to talk to that Russian assassin.  Thus, bad guy beats his wife and was mixing it up with America's arch enemy and an assassin to boot.

But with that said, I know you've done extensive work matching up Oswald's school records but I just can't buy into this being sinister.  Mainly because Oswald was a 15 year old nobody during that time and what possible reason (there I go again with the plausibility again) would they need to falsify and fudge his school records?

The school systems had hundreds of kids going through the system back then during the days of paper and pencil and with a kid like Oswald moving from city to city and school to school and well, there were probably some other kids like this in the system who's records probably wouldn't match up neither.

Now I know you're probably going to post more images of the records with arrows pointing there and circles circling there and that's fine.  All of the green highlights of the records in the world does not mean that school records of a nobody 15 year old back in the 1950's were altered or fudged for a sinister reason.

And to return to the title of this thread - the double or triple Oswald mom is very far-fetched and hard to believe as well.

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No, there is always another explanation that does not require two Oswalds, even if it is simply that the records are being misread or the records are wrong.

Tracy,

The school records are easy to read and understand. There was a Lee Harvey Oswald attending a school in New York City and one attending a school in New Orleans at the same time. Nobody sat down and invented those records out of thin air. (Unless one believes it was done nefariously... which ironically is NOT believed to be the case by the CTers.)

The only conceivable way this could have happened (other than nefariously, e.g. by an intelligence agency), is if there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds. I mean, let's be reasonable and honest about this!

And that is a perfectly reasonable explanation... the only reasonable explanation. I'm sure there were multiple Tracy Parnells and multiple Sandy Larsens enrolled in different schools at the same time. That shouldn't surprise anybody. And neither should the same conclusion about two Lee Harvey Oswalds attending two schools at the same time.

The ONLY thing questionable is whether or not those two Oswalds were connected in some way. The Harvey & Lee way.

The bottom line is this: If John Armstrong and Jim Hargrove can prove the connection, then they have a strong case. If not, then they don't.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Michael Walton]

The only conceivable way this could have happened (other than nefariously, e.g. by an intelligence agency), is if there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds. I mean, let's be reasonable and honest about this!

Oh, come on, Sandy, that's a really big leap of faith. Why in the world would the government be falsifying records of a 15 year old kid? It's beyond comprehension and reason, just like it is when you said one of the guys standing on the steps in Dealey was holding a pistol. Like Tracy said, John Armstrong is pushing a story to make his story relevant to people like you and Jim Hargrove. That's all that's happening here.

I mean really.  You actually think that way back in the mid 50's the government had two clones of a kid running around and they even had two clones of his mother also running around...and for what? And they'd go through all of this complexity, falsifying his school records, faking other pictures and records for this grand unknown plan they had for both of them...eight long years before it was time to assassinate Kennedy.  I mean, do you not see how insane and ridiculous this all sounds?

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

15 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Thanks Michael. The normal discrepancies and differences in witness statements are what allows the H&L theory to exist. The Palmer McBride and Mrs. Jack Tippit incidents were the foundation of the theory but they actually are among the weakest arguments.

Tracy,

That, and the fact that there's strong evidence that at least one FBI-CIA generated CIA counterintelligence project utilized the one-and-only Oswald's intentionally- mismashed biographical and biological descriptions. 

Which could account for many of the "discrepancies and differences".

--  Tommy

Tommy,

I'm not aware of the counterintelligence project you mention. But would it have included the fabrication or alteration of old school records, in your opinion?

 

[Thomas Graves]

19 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tommy,

I'm not aware of the counterintelligence project you mention. But would it have included the fabrication or alteration of old school records, in your opinion?

 

Sandy,

I guess you've missed all my posts on that counterintelligence subject over the years.

Amazing.

Steep learning curve, eh?

--  Tommy

PS  If the schools' records weren't altered or fabricated in the first place, but simply reflect sloppy record-keeping in conjunction with hooky-playing Lee's (singular) and his devious Mommy's (singular) moving around so gosh-darned much, then your question / point  becomes moot, doesn't it.

PPS  Therefore, my answer to your question is "NO."

Edited March 7, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Walton]

PS  If the schools' records weren't altered or fabricated in the first place, but simply reflect sloppy record-keeping in conjunction with hooky-playing Lee's (singular) and his devious Mommy's (singular) moving around so gosh-darned much, then your question / point  becomes moot, doesn't it.

PPS  Therefore, my answer to your question is "NO."

 

Touche, Tom.