W. Tracy Parnell

Robert was in on the plot according to Armstrong as was Lillian Murret (she "went along with it"). I don't think he specifically mentions Pic in regard to the plot, but I assume he thinks Pic was trying to tell the WC something funny was going on. Pic left home (1950) before the plot really got going. 1953 and the move to NYC marks "one of the first appearances" of the "fake" Marguerite according to the theory. I started working on a list of who was in on the plot and never finished it, I'll have to try and do that. It's a long list. Edit: I resurrected the old list: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/harvey-lee-who-was-involved-in-plot.html

But that is a pretty slim reed to hang on. Even Armstrong admits this.

Part 1 of my series on the two Marguerite theory. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html Part two will look at Myrtle and Julian Evans and Clem Sehrt.

Which is probably Robert Oswald's ex wife Margaret Keating Oswald.

Just when I thought we were making progress!

Exactly what I came up with-5 ' 4".

Sandy, This points out the fact that you can never take all the variables into consideration to everyone's satisfaction unless the photo is taken under controlled conditions. But I think we can get to a point where one can see it is quite possible that this is the same Marguerite at least as far as the height issue is concerned.

I found that it didn't matter where I measured from as far as the feet as long as you use the same reference point for both. What you are really measuring is the difference between the top of their heads.

Thanks Sandy, but I think Greg Parker was the first one to find the Ekdahl documents. Parker researched Ekdahl for his book and there is no doubt these documents refer to him. The other stuff has been out there for a while.

I put the picture in Photoshop and did 3 different calculations: 1. I estimated where the ground was and measured both from that point in inches. 2. I measured Ekdahl from the top of his head to the bottom of his left foot. 3. I measured Marguerite from the top of her head to the bottom of her left foot. I then took Eldahl's height in inches (71) and divided by the heights in the photo. This provides a multiplication factor and I multiplied that by Marguerite's height in the photo. It didn't make any difference which of the 3 measurements I used, I got the same answer for her-just over 5' 6". Adjusting for her heels, I think this puts her right where I thought she was in 1945 when this photo was taken-about 5' 4". By 1965, she had lost about 1 and a half inches. Sandy used a different method and is in the same ballpark. I think different methods could be used but it is obvious she was not 5' 7". If Ekdahl was shorter (I have a document that says 5' 10 and a half) it would make her shorter as well. Edit-Alistair is in the same ballpark as we are. BTW, I measured to the top of her hair, so my estimate is really closer to 5' 5" and less with heels.

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.

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.

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.

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, In order to have a full discussion we need some facts. Is this photo the real or fake Marguerite?

Sandy, They don't cite sources for a reason-they know what they are telling you is false. Not trying to be rude, but unfortunately it is a fact. I'm working on an article now to address the subject.

First just to be clear the B&W photo in the center is from Armstrong's CD as well. And I guess we shouldn't be too surprised but Hargrove is saying yet more evidence is faked since it doesn't help the theory. The problem is, the photos Hargrove is admitting are ok do not show the impostor Marguerite as "fat and dumpy" like she is supposed to be. A few extra pounds maybe, but not fat, dumpy and unattractive. And I guess Robert Oswald is aware of the H&L theory and must still be on the CIA payroll since he is providing "fake" photos for the specific purpose of undermining Armstrong. Its good to know the guy is still engaged at his age anyway.

Sandy, I was counting from left to right-the Vernon TX photo is number 3. We know this is the impostor because Armstrong says the real Marguerite disappeared about 1960 and there are no photos of her. Also, he says the impostor worked in Vernon where this was taken in 1961. Armstrong confirms this date as well. Unless they are revising the theory like they did for the Steve Landesberg thing after I caught them on that.

I think you are doomed for sure now ! Seriously, I remember Gus Russo said something to the effect of he was suspicious of the CIA until he lived in the DC area and became acquainted with many CIA employees and decided they weren't that spooky after all.

Interesting, I had not heard that interpretation of the oranges in the Godfather. You may be right.

Lance, I think you just made a big mistake by admitting your family ties to United Fruit. That company is one of the long cherished "bogeymen" in the eyes of many theorists. You may have just gone from researcher to suspect.

As Sandy says, the first two photos come right from the H&L CD. Anybody can go to the CD (directory 58-34) and see for themselves. The third photo is from the following website: http://oswald-photos.blogspot.com/2012/09/marguerite-claverie-oswald-1907-1981.html It is captioned “1961-11 Vernon TX”. On page 362-63 of Harvey and Lee, we find confirmation that this is the imposter, although this is not really needed because the real Marguerite had disappeared by this time according to the theory: Not sure why Jim is implying something funny is going on when two of the photos come from Armstrong and he was happy to use them as examples of the impostor Marguerite for his book and had no concern about their authenticity. The third is photo verified by Robert Oswald and does not come from me or Parker. Jim is probably concerned about two things. First, I have shown that the silly assertion that the fake Marguerite never smiled is false. This is admittedly a small point, but Armstrong should have known better since this fact was proven to Armstrong associate Jack White some time BEFORE H&L was published as I show here: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/marguerite-never-smiled.html The other thing Jim is concerned about is that none of the three photos of the smiling Marguerite, who is supposed to be the impostor, show her as being fat, dumpy and unattractive as is claimed.

Another strong argument against the impostor Marguerite theory is the strange behavior of the impostor. This woman supposedly worked for the CIA and would be expected to keep a low profile. Instead, she was running around spouting the most outlandish theories such as the assassination of JFK by her son was a mercy killing because he had Addison's disease. She auctioned off letters from LHO (netting over $7000) ostensibly to raise money for a "investigative" trip to Russia that never materialized. She appeared in books, magazines and on TV and radio shows always hinting that she had her own theories about what happened. Now I suppose that Armstrong & company could say she was putting on an act (I don't know what else they could say), but that was some performance.

Jim, What would be helpful is for you or David to make a composite graphic ala Jack White featuring all known photos of the two Marguerites and showing which is which with dates etc.

My rebuttal of the Palmer McBride allegations as they relate to the Armstrong Harvey & Lee theory draws on the work of David Lifton and Greg Parker. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/palmer-mcbride.html