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

[Jim Hargrove]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Great points you made regarding the heights of the two Marguerites, Jim. Though it would have been better to cite sources for Edwin's and Marina's heights.

Here's a another difference I've noticed.

Real Marguerite did not have a flared, bulbous nose:


1943 Nose

 

1956 Nose

 

 

But Fake Marguerite did:

1963 Nose

 

The glasses tend to de-emphasize the nose. Zoom in with Ctrl +++ and you can see how flared and bulbous the nose is. Do the same with the 1556 nose and you will see it is not.

I agree, Sandy, but even Marina’s passport (CE 1776) fails to list her height, which surprises me.  I can't find a single document listing it.  But John Armstrong is hardly the only researcher who has met Marina in person.  Every one of them, I’ll bet, will tell you that she is quite petite.  Time is on our side…. A document will appear or be produced soon enough listing Marina’s short stature.

For Edwin Ekdahl, we have John Pic’s testimony that his step-father “was over 6 feet.”  Pic was quite correct when he said Edwin “had white hair, wore glasses….”   Was he wrong about his height?

Thank you for correcting your observations about the two Marguerites’ teeth, and for your opinions about their noses.  I dunno though, interpreting this stuff is hard, at least for me … . My opinion is that the eyebrows are a tell.  Take a look at the elevation of the brows closest to the nose for the pair and see if you agree.  Your mileage may vary from mine, of course, and the glasses don’t make things any easier.

I try to keep things simple, and to me, the height difference is the clearest distinguishing factor.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

14 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

There is a substantial height difference between the two Marguerites.

TALL MARGUERITE:

From oswaldsmother.blogspot.com:

 

John Pic testified to the Warren Commission that Ekdahl was an electrical engineer and said, "His home was in Boston, Massachusetts. I think he was over 6 feet. He had white hair, wore glasses, a very nice man." [emphasis added]

Marguerite probably was wearing heels in the photo with Edwin Ekdahl, but note that, in the photo, her feet are actually lower than her husband’s.  This is clearly not a short woman.

Another photo of tall Marguerite was taken at Paul’s Shoe Store.  
 

In the shoe store photo, Marguerite Oswald is the lady in the dark sweater, fourth from the left. In this photo, she is substantially taller than the woman to her right, and a bit taller than the woman to her left.  Unless Paul’s Shoe Store specialized in hiring midgets, this Marguerite does not appear to be a short woman.

SHORT MARGUERITE:

 As anyone who has ever met her knows, Marina Oswald is a very petite woman, around 5’1” tall.  There are many photos showing that the “Marguerite” who testified to the WC was even shorter than Marina.  For example….

There was, quite obviously, a substantial height difference between the real Marguerite Oswald and the woman who testified as her at the Warren Commission hearings

 

There was, quite obviously, a substantial height difference between the real Marguerite Oswald and the woman who testified as her at the Warren Commission hearings

Bump!

[Jim Hargrove]

11 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

No contentions on my part here. I just came across this image and thought it may be of some relevance.

Regards.

Thanks, Alistair….

The photo on the left shows Short Marguerite, who may have been related to Tall Marguerite (on the right above).  The caption for Short Marguerite may be incorrect.  John A. writes that it was taken a couple of years earlier… 1954, probably, but I’ll have to check for sure.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

9 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I agree, Sandy, but even Marina’s passport (CE 1776) fails to list her height, which surprises me.  I can't find a single document listing it.  But John Armstrong is hardly the only researcher who has met Marina in person.  Every one of them, I’ll bet, will tell you that she is quite petite.  Time is on our side…. A document will appear or be produced soon enough listing Marina’s short stature.

Turns out Jim was right, the document has appeared and it shows she was 5 foot 3. Not tall, but not as short as they are making her out to be:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1133#relPageId=162&tab=page

[Jim Hargrove]

Great!  I'll start using that 5' 3" figure.  As you can see from the photos, the "Marguerite Oswald" who testified to the WC was several inches shorter than that.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I understand what you are doing here Jim. 5' 3" is even better for you because it makes the silly idea that the "fake" Marguerite was 5 feet tall seem plausible. Is JA ok with this bit of freelancing on your part since he thinks Marina was 5' 1"? In any case,  this website explains the futility of trying to use any old photo to make serious height comparisons:

http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/discrep.htm

A good example is the photo above where Marina has heels and Marguerite has sneakers and is carrying a baby. This makes Marina appear taller and Marguerite shorter since her head is bowed somewhat. Of course, we know Marguerite was 5' 2 and a half from a passport. Its funny you didn't mention these facts to Sandy.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

OK, for now I’ll accept the document that Robert “I Led Three Lives” Oswald has purportedly placed on the net.  Let’s say “Marguerite” was 5 feet 2-1/2 inches tall.

Does this look to you like a  5 foot  2-1/2 inch woman standing next to a six foot man?

 

Contrary to your spin about Peter Wronski’s website, you can clearly compare the heights of people standing on uneven terrain if they are equally distant from the camera and you can see them from head to feet.  Here is the photo Wronski was examining:

Some people wondered why Marina appeared nearly as tall as her husband.  But, as you can see, Marina was standing on a little bit higher ground and so naturally she appeared a bit taller in comparison, but only if you don’t consider the position of her feet which were above those of her husband.

Mr. Wronski  then uses color photos to show that a woman in a red dress appears appears to grow in comparison to her companion, but only if she stands slightly above her. The effect is emphasized because her elevated feet are in shadows.

In the Ekdahl wedding picture, it is clear that Marguerite was standing slightly below her husband, and yet she appears nearly as tall.  John Pic testified that he thought his step-father was “over 6 feet.”  Despite the fact that she was probably wearing heels, there’s simply no way that the Marguerite standing next to Edwin Ekdahl was only 5’ 2-1/2” tall.
  

[Alistair Briggs]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Contrary to your spin about Peter Wronski’s website, you can clearly compare the heights of people standing on uneven terrain if they are equally distant from the camera and you can see them from head to feet.  Here is the photo Wronski was examining:

Some people wondered why Marina appeared nearly as tall as her husband.  But, as you can see, Marina was standing on a little bit higher ground and so naturally she appeared a bit taller in comparison, but only if you don’t consider the position of her feet which were above those of her husband. 

Just in furtherance on that photo, and with no contentions on my part, here is the link to the article by Peter Vronsky about that photo.

http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/discrep.htm

Regards

Edited January 27, 2017 by Alistair Briggs

[Alistair Briggs]

I just tried to do a measurement of their relative heights, and my answer surprised me very much, so rather than say what my result was I will say how I did it and let others see if the way I did it was wrong, and either way what answer they would get on their relative heights.

1. I measured in centimetres the man from the point of his heel on his left foot to the top of his head.
2. I measured in centimetres the woman from the point of her heel on her left foot to the top of her hair (NB her shoes no doubt have a heel on them, so to pick her actual heel, that is to say, just below the ankle, is relatively fair as from that point to the top of her head wouldn't change significantly if the footwear changed)
3. I measured in centimetres the woman from the point of her heel on her left foot to the top of her head (ie at point below where the hair starts)

Starting with the premise that the man is 6ft tall;

6ft = 72 inches.
Divide the 72 inches by his measured height in centimetres, to get the answer of 1cm is equivalent to ?inches.
Take that answer and multiply it by the height in measurement of the woman to get her height in inches.

Interested to hear what others work out by doing such a measurement?

Regards

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

I just tried to do a measurement of their relative heights, and my answer surprised me very much, so rather than say what my result was I will say how I did it and let others see if the way I did it was wrong, and either way what answer they would get on their relative heights.

1. I measured in centimetres the man from the point of his heel on his left foot to the top of his head.
2. I measured in centimetres the woman from the point of her heel on her left foot to the top of her hair (NB her shoes no doubt have a heel on them, so to pick her actual heel, that is to say, just below the ankle, is relatively fair as from that point to the top of her head wouldn't change significantly if the footwear changed)
3. I measured in centimetres the woman from the point of her heel on her left foot to the top of her head (ie at point below where the hair starts)

Starting with the premise that the man is 6ft tall;

6ft = 72 inches.
Divide the 72 inches by his measured height in centimetres, to get the answer of 1cm is equivalent to ?inches.
Take that answer and multiply it by the height in measurement of the woman to get her height in inches.

Interested to hear what others work out by doing such a measurement?

Regards

 

Oh My God.  She's 6' 8" !

(lol)

--  Tommy

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Jim,

I am working on an article series to address the "two Marguerites", but here is some additional information until then. Ekdahl was no taller than 5' 11" in his prime. As you probably know, people shrink as they age. In his case it would not have been much but it could have been as much as an inch which would put him at 5' 10". Marguerite with heels as she is wearing here could appear as tall as 5' 7", as at this time in her life she was taller (as much as 5' 4") than the 1965 passport. So even if Ekdahl is on slightly higher ground this photo is consistent with the known facts.

Edited January 27, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Alistair,

Why don't you redo your calculation based on the 5' 11" I have provided and tell us what you find? In inches please though.

[Sandy Larsen]

I took the following photo and adjusted for perspective.

You adjust perspective for their heads by drawing a straight line through the window sill, extending it out over the two heads. Then move the line down till it just touches the top of where Marguerite's head would be if she weren't looking down.

You do a similar thing for the feet, this time by drawing a line through the bottom of the building's outside wall. Then move the line down to the bottom of Marina's foot. (Not her shoe.)

I found the top of Marina's head to be about 2 inches above the top of Marguerite's head. Thus Marina seemingly being 2 inches taller. However, I found the bottom of Marguerite's foot to be about 1/2 inch below the bottom of Marina's foot. Therefore....

I find Marguerite to be 1.5" shorter than Marina.

Unfortunately, most the other photos are fairly useless for height comparisons, either because perspective can't be easily compensated for or because it is not know what shoes the two are wearing.

I personally would trust my number here over the numbers in the passports. Because it is unknown if the women were wearing heels when they got their passports.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

I just tried to do a measurement of their relative heights, and my answer surprised me very much, so rather than say what my result was I will say how I did it and let others see if the way I did it was wrong, and either way what answer they would get on their relative heights.

1. I measured in centimetres the man from the point of his heel on his left foot to the top of his head.
2. I measured in centimetres the woman from the point of her heel on her left foot to the top of her hair (NB her shoes no doubt have a heel on them, so to pick her actual heel, that is to say, just below the ankle, is relatively fair as from that point to the top of her head wouldn't change significantly if the footwear changed)
3. I measured in centimetres the woman from the point of her heel on her left foot to the top of her head (ie at point below where the hair starts)

Starting with the premise that the man is 6ft tall;

6ft = 72 inches.
Divide the 72 inches by his measured height in centimetres, to get the answer of 1cm is equivalent to ?inches.
Take that answer and multiply it by the height in measurement of the woman to get her height in inches.

Interested to hear what others work out by doing such a measurement?

Regards

 

I did a measurement similar to Alistair's. The main difference being that I measured from the part of the ankle that protrudes out (I don't recall what people call that) rather than from the bottom of the feet. The reason being that I felt I could see where those were better than I could see where the bottoms of the feet were.

Then after I measured the people's heights, I added back in the distance it is from the bottom of a foot to that protuberance.

Interestingly, when I marked where I thought the protuberances of the ankles are, I found them to be very close to the same distance above the ground for both him and her. So when Jim pointed out earlier that she's wearing heels, but that she's standing on lower ground that compensates for it, it seems he got that right.

Using a height of 5' 11'' for him, I calculated her height to be 5' 4.5" .

Edited January 27, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I did a measurement similar to Alistair's. The main difference being that I measured from the part of the ankle that protrudes out (I don't recall what people call that) rather than from the bottom of the feet. The reason being that I felt I could see where those were better than I could see where the bottoms of the feet were.

Then after I measured the people's heights, I added back in the distance it is from the bottom of a foot to that protuberance.

Interestingly, when I marked where I thought the protuberances of the ankles are, I found them to be very close to the same distance above the ground for both him and her. So when Jim pointed out earlier that she's wearing heels, but that she's standing on lower ground that compensates for it, it seems he got that right.

Using a height of 5' 11'' for him, I calculated her height to be 5' 4.5" .

 

I decided to double-check my calculation using a different method of measurement.

I drew a straight, level line from the top of Marguerite's scalp over across her husband's face. It just touches the tip of his nose.

My face and head shapes are close to Marguerite's husband's. So I measured from the top of my head to the tip of my nose and got 5.5". I subtracted this 5.5" from the husband's 5' 11' height and got 5' 5.5" for Marguerite's height. Which is an inch taller than my earlier measurement, that being 5' 4.5"

Now, the tip of my nose might be higher than the tip of this man's nose. But I'm pretty sure it's not a full inch higher. I'm more likely to believe that Marguerite's ankle protuberances in the above photo are actually a little lower (or the husband's a little higher) than what I marked. Making my measurement a little shorter than what it should be. Therefore....

I'm revising my estimate of Marguerite's height to 5' 5". (1/2" taller.)  [See EDIT below.]

P.S. I do have a bit of a short nose. But don't be mislead by my forum photo. Those glasses cover up much of the bridge of my nose, making my nose look shorter than what it really is.
 

EDIT: I just measured the height of the guy's head and it is 10" tall. Mine is only 9" tall. I do believe the tip of his nose is 1" higher than mine relative to the tops of our heads. So I am un-revising my estimate.

I'm NOT revising my estimate of Marguerite's height to 5' 5". I still consider it to be 5' 4.5"

Edited January 27, 2017 by Sandy Larsen