Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mrs and Mrs Oswald... Photo collage for comparison

Recommended Posts

Thought I'd put together what I've found regarding MO...


The FBI conducted a thorough investigation into the background of the real

Marguerite Oswald from the early 1940's to the mid-1950's. But after interviewing Lee


McCracken at 3830 W. 6th in Fort Worth, her neighbor in 1957-58, their investigation

stopped. They never interviewed co-workers who knew and worked with the real Marguerite

Oswald at Clyde Campbell's Men's Store (1957, spring), the City of Fort Worth

(1957, fall), Paul's Shoe Store - Ft. Worth TX (1957-58, Christmas), Family Publications (1958), or Cox's

Department Store ( 1958).

http://www.history-m...H25_CE_2217.pdf (12/2/63)

She (a friend of the REAL MO's) informed that she had seen MARGUERITE OSWALD

only once since they moved from Covington 16 years ago, and this was about three years ago (1959/60/61) when she saw her in Eriegers Department Store in New Orleans, where she was working in the Ladies Lingerie Department . They spoke only briefly, she stated .

MO: Because of Lee's so-called defection, and my accident, the way I was treated, left destitute, without any medical or compensation, I decided to devote my life to humanity, and I became a practical nurse. And I have worked for $5 a week, living in the place.

As you can see from the photos, while LEE's MO was in the department stores, HARVEY's was a nurse and continues to be a nurse (photo 1975)... LEE's MO disappears from the radar after her firend's comment above... there is no record of LEE's mother after NOLA 1960/61.





Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites


how does your compilation demonstrate that "while LEE's MO was in the department stores, HARVEY's was a nurse and continues to be a nurse (photo 1975)..."

and that...

"LEE's MO disappears from the radar after her firend's comment above... there is no record of LEE's mother after NOLA 1960/61."

A bunch of undated photos proves nothing except a propensity toward wishful thinking. I mean... it might be evidence for the former... if the department store photos were taken at around the same time as those in her nurses uniform... but until you provide dates, the photos themselves mean nothing. What your compilation definitely cannot do is masquerade as evidence for your latter contention. Moreover, implicit in your theory is that the woman who initiated inquiries with the State Dept about her son in Russia was not the same woman who continued with those inquiries after 1960/61 and that this impostor was telling people as early as 1962 that her son was an agent. Like I said in the other thread... whoever picked this impostor really blundered.

And speaking of the other thread, why the new one?

What your compilation does demonstrate is that people who follow this theory have generally at some stage, trawled through every photo of Lee and Marguerite they could find -- and not once apparently in all that trawling did any of them ever come across this photo of Marguerite and Marina.


Sorry. I don't buy it. This photo has been deliberately ignored in order to keep alive the totally illogical claim this this next photo (on the right) proves Marina was the taller of the two - making Marguerite under 5' 1" - even though according to the theory she was actually 5' 4".

And then along comes the passport information showing her as being 5' 21/2" in 1965. Hmm. From 5'4" to under 5' 1" back up to 5' 2 1/2. This woman was one of the Marvel Super Heroes - Elastic Lass!


The facts, David:

It is dishonest to claim that Marguerite was 5' 7" tall in 1945 based on one photo - especially when you misrepresent the "measuring stick" in this photo - Ekdahl - as being over 6 feet tall when that is not known with any certainty - and to compound that by ignoring Marguerite's heels.

Marguerite appears to have been no taller than 5' 4" in her entire life even when allowing Ekdahl to be 6' 1". That she wore heels and was relatively slim, may give the illusion of her being taller. But she wasn't. Then in her middle years, she got the middle aged spread thing happening. The way you guys carry on, you would think this is an unknown phenomena. But also look how chubby she was as a baby. Youth and activity can take that weight off and keep it off - until you reach a certain age. By her late 50s, she had also shrunk about 1 and a half inches - which science says will happen to all of us.


Marguerite age 2 and a half.

Faith is not evidence of anything except maybe what type of mind set is driving this. Deep down though, you know you're up a river without paddle. Jim has abandoned you, you abandon threads and start new ones, while other notables who support this theory like Michael Hogan have remained mute throughout all these discussions. I predict Mike will simply never mention "Harvey" again in the hope no one notices/remembers his past support for the theory and it's defenders. I further predict that (in the event he offers one at all), he will offer the excuse for staying out of these threads, that he will not discuss anything with me at all. Unfortunately for all its supporters, I don't forget. Really, all any of you have to do is admit you suspended disbelief to allow yourselves to flim-flammed by sleight of hand, misrepresentation of evidence, the power of suggestion, and a cast of supporting characters masquerading as witnesses all to eager to "help". Audience participation at the magic show.

The show's over, David. But I hope you enjoyed the ride .

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep believing that Greg...

EVERYBODY has their correct height and weight on the Driver's license too - right?

Luckily, you not buying it is not the end of the road for the rest of us... I appreciate your input and will continue to re-analyze... in fact - it was you who showed me the records for FALL 1953 at BJHS were really LEE's

so thank you for that if I hadn't already posted that (believe I did)... that doesn't make Myra's story any less interesting or the other details of H &L both being in NOLA in 54, 55....

I informed Armstrong and have discussed 1953 and HARVEY... he too is reconsidering that one section as it all hinged upon those grades and the 89 days.... so pat yourself on the back IN THIS ONE AREA and keep on bringing it elsewhere...

I started this new one for MO alone...

You'll notice I started one for H&L as well.... you proved you point about the FALL 1953 in that other post... but you haven't done so well with Sept/Oct/Nov 1958... just to name one area

Again, thanks for bringing the counter to all this... as we are supposed to do... we don't need to convince each other, just present what we have...

btw - I am hoping to visit Palmer McBride in the next few weeks and am in contact with the woman who investigated Oswald's time at Pfiester....

Cheers and have a great weekend... chat again soon


Link to comment
Share on other sites


According to Pic, Ekdahl was over six feet tall. Don't you think he would know that?

Jim, Pic said in testimony "I think he was over 6 feet." You're trying to turn a qualified statement into a definitive one.

Now, the photos you have of Marina and MO do not tell us everything since they do not reveal the shoes the two were wearing.

LOL. And yours does? Jeeze. Goose. Gander.

Okay. You got me (for the sake of argument only). In 1963, Marguerite was under 5' 1", having shrunk from 5' 4", and then grew again at least one and half inches over the next two years. Makes perfect sense. I'm just not sure on which planet.

But here is one with them seated and shoes become moot.


Marguerite still looks taller, don't you agree?

But even with what you have, and the DL, who the heck in those days wore heels of six or more inches?

Who said anything about 6" heels? Let's try again. He looks about 6" taller. If we assume he is 6' 1", that means Marguerite is 5' 7" IN HER HEELS. If we deduct a further 3 inches for the heels... what do we get? 5' 4". Just as all of Armstrong's witnesses would later describe her height as being. It's not rocket science. You guys have just assiduously ignored the fact she is in heels.

PS, I abandoned no one. I was busy doing something else like Len' show and Bill O's poison book. So don't speak for me.

Fair enough. But sooner or later, you're going to have to abandon ship or admit this theory is dead in the water. You're just going to continue to look foolish with these arguments if you continue with them, so I don't see that as a good option for you. But it is your choice. I don't mind. It's fish in a barrel...

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...