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

[Sandy Larsen]

18 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Sandy,

Which photos of "Marguerite" were in evidence by the time the HSCA published its findings in 1978?  I should be more knowledgeable about this, but I'm not. I'd like to start our discussion about photos of Marguerite by limiting them to photos placed in evidence by or before 1978.  Do you know where your photos originated?   Did you just find them on the "net?"  

Jim,

First, I want to point out that I'm on your and John's side regarding the Harvey & Lee theory. On the other hand, as I'm sure you've noticed, I will challenge you guys if something seems wrong.

With all the work John did, surely he made some mistakes. There is no shame in that. And so if he made a mistake, I think it is best to acknowledge it and move on.

I object to the tactics of some of the Armstrong critics. I've seen how they expose one thing that is either wrong, or can be made to appear wrong, and then present a list of what are essentially their opinions -- to give their essay volume -- and then conclude that Armstrong got the whole thing wrong. This really irritates me.

Anyway, on to the photos:

 

I got these from this page on Tracy Parnell's site.

Parnell quotes from page 214 of Harvey & Lee:

"Beginning in mid-1958, after assuming the identity of the real Marguerite Oswald, FBI reports and witness testimony allows us to follow the employment and residences of the “Marguerite Oswald” imposter. This woman was never able to hold a job for more than a few months, moved continuously, and had no close friends (see 4 photos from 1954 thru 1961)."

Then Parnell writes the following about the above photos:

Here are three photos of the Marguerite “imposter” smiling. The first two are from the group of four photos Armstrong refers to above and includes on his CD. The third one I found on the Internet and apparently comes from Robert Oswald’s collection. It is captioned “1961-11 Vernon TX”. Indeed, on page 362-63 of Harvey and Lee, we find confirmation that this is his imposter:

"When “Marguerite Oswald” left the McAdams ranch in Crowell, Texas on August 1, she moved to a ranch owned by Mr. Phillips north of Vernon, Texas. Phillips hired “Marguerite” to care for his elderly mother and father, and she remained in his employ thru the remainder of 1961."

 

I don't know how we find from that last quote that the third photo is of the imposter. Unless the third photo Parnell refers to is the one with Marguerite wearing a nurse's uniform.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Just askin' Sandy....

Where did your photos come from?

Were they introduced into evidence fifty years ago... or five years ago....

Did W. Tracy Parnell or Greg Parker produce them?  If so, where did they get them?

Any court would ask you for the chain of possession of your "evidence."  

Where did you get your photos?  Again, just askin'....

Jim

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Just askin' Sandy....

Where did your photos come from?

Were they introduced into evidence fifty years ago... or five years ago....

Did W. Tracy Parnell or Greg Parker produce them?  If so, where did they get them?

Any court would ask you for the chain of possession of your "evidence."  

Where did you get your photos?  Again, just askin'....

Jim

I answered your questions above, Jim. Look at the post just before yours.

Tracy Parnell said that two of the three came from the Harvey & Lee CD. The third came from Robert Oswald according to Tracy.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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:

Quote

When “Marguerite Oswald” left the McAdams ranch in Crowell, Texas on August 1, she moved to a ranch owned by Mr. Phillips north of Vernon, Texas. Phillips hired “Marguerite” to care for his elderly mother and father, and she remained in his employ thru the remainder of 1961.

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.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim,

First, I want to point out that I'm on your and John's side regarding the Harvey & Lee theory. On the other hand, as I'm sure you've noticed, I will challenge you guys if something seems wrong.

With all the work John did, surely he made some mistakes. There is no shame in that. And so if he made a mistake, I think it is best to acknowledge it and move on.

I object to the tactics of some of the Armstrong critics. I've seen how they expose one thing that is either wrong, or can be made to appear wrong, and then present a list of what are essentially their opinions -- to give their essay volume -- and then conclude that Armstrong got the whole thing wrong. This really irritates me.

Anyway, on to the photos:

 

I got these from this page on Tracy Parnell's site.

Parnell quotes from page 214 of Harvey & Lee:

"Beginning in mid-1958, after assuming the identity of the real Marguerite Oswald, FBI reports and witness testimony allows us to follow the employment and residences of the “Marguerite Oswald” imposter. This woman was never able to hold a job for more than a few months, moved continuously, and had no close friends (see 4 photos from 1954 thru 1961)."

Then Parnell writes the following about the above photos:

Here are three photos of the Marguerite “imposter” smiling. The first two are from the group of four photos Armstrong refers to above and includes on his CD. The third one I found on the Internet and apparently comes from Robert Oswald’s collection. It is captioned “1961-11 Vernon TX”. Indeed, on page 362-63 of Harvey and Lee, we find confirmation that this is his imposter:

"When “Marguerite Oswald” left the McAdams ranch in Crowell, Texas on August 1, she moved to a ranch owned by Mr. Phillips north of Vernon, Texas. Phillips hired “Marguerite” to care for his elderly mother and father, and she remained in his employ thru the remainder of 1961."

 

I don't know how we find from that last quote that the third photo is of the imposter. Unless the third photo Parnell refers to is the one with Marguerite wearing a nurse's uniform.

 

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.

[Jim Hargrove]

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I answered your questions above, Jim. Look at the post just before yours.

Tracy Parnell said that two of the three came from the Harvey & Lee CD. The third came from Robert Oswald according to Tracy.

Sorry, Sandy…. I forgot that the color photo was from the group of four photos (labeled 58-34 on John’s CD), which made me suspicious of two of the images in your group of three above.

I’m fine with studying the photos of “Marguerite” that were known to have existed in the 1960s and 1970s because they were at least placed into evidence, albeit via highly suspect so-called investigations.  But I object to the photos placed on the internet just a few years ago, allegedly by Robert Oswald.  The photo on the right above, conveniently labeled “1961 – age 54” is one of those recently revealed photos.

The photos allegedly released by Robert Oswald do seem to show a more natural aging/alteration than the material available by even the end of last century.  But we have no real evidence at all where these latter-day images came from, and in the digital age, you simply cannot trust photographic evidence.  Am I really being paranoid to suspect a U.S. government agency might well want to fake some images to cover-up the “sources and methods” of even a 60-year-old intelligence operation?  An operation that was deeply involved in the assassination of JFK?

If John is right that the two Oswalds preceded even the Marine Corps, then there had to be a Marguerite Oswald impostor.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Sorry, Sandy…. I forgot that the color photo was from the group of four photos (labeled 58-34 on John’s CD), which made me suspicious of two of the images in your group of three above.

I’m fine with studying the photos of “Marguerite” that were known to have existed in the 1960s and 1970s because they were at least placed into evidence, albeit via highly suspect so-called investigations.  But I object to the photos placed on the internet just a few years ago, allegedly by Robert Oswald.  The photo on the right above, conveniently labeled “1961 – age 54” is one of those recently revealed photos.

The photos allegedly released by Robert Oswald do seem to show a more natural aging/alteration than the material available by even the end of last century.  But we have no real evidence at all where these latter-day images came from, and in the digital age, you simply cannot trust photographic evidence.  Am I really being paranoid to suspect a U.S. government agency might well want to fake some images to cover-up the “sources and methods” of even a 60-year-old intelligence operation?  An operation that was deeply involved in the assassination of JFK?

If John is right that the two Oswalds preceded even the Marine Corps, then there had to be a Marguerite Oswald impostor.

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 Larsen]

Here is what I've learned so far from this conversation, and from the website with Marguerite photos:

Assuming there was a fake Marguerite...

1. Fake Marguerite did smile sometimes. I just did a Google Images search and found plenty of her not smiling. But she does smile in some.
2. Marguerite began wearing those awful glasses in 1958 (at about age 50), after which she always wore them. At least to me the glasses look awful. Way different from her former stylish self, IMO. And I do mean many decades of being very stylish. This may be because the Marguerite with glasses is a Fake Marguerite. Or it could be that I don't understand 1950s glasses fashion. Or it could be that Marguerite just didn't get the glasses thing right.
3. Marguerite went from being fairly slender to being "dumpy" within a five year period (1963 vs 1958). If the 1961 photo from that website (also above) is to be accepted, then Marguerite went from being fairly slender to being dumpy within a two year period (1961 to 1963). The latter is hard to believe, but is not impossible.
4. Marguerite's sense of fashion went downhill at the same time she became dumpy. However, there are photos of her during her testifying days that she did dress fashionably.

Comparing Teeth

Compare the teeth of Real Marguerite and Fake Marguerite. They look the same to me... straight in front and on her left, but with the twisted incisor/canine pair on her right.

Type Ctrl +++++ to zoom way in!

 

1943 Teeth

 

1956 Teeth

 

1964 Teeth

 

It's the teeth that make the difference to me. The teeth tell me that there was just one Marguerite.

On the other hand, Marguerite's considerable confusion when she testified before the Warren Commission indicates to me that she was not the real Marguerite.
 

Tentative/Possible Conclusion

Maybe ALL the photos are of a Fake Marguerite.

But to believe this I'd have to study her testimony myself and see if I agree that it was so bad that it could not have been from the Real Marguerite. Also, there's the possibility that there was only one Marguerite and that she had some kind of brain disorder.

 

EDIT:

I've had a change-of-mind regarding the teeth.

After posting the above, I decided I had to zoom in and study the 1964 teeth more carefully. I opened that photo in a graphics program, zoomed way in, and discovered that the resolution just wasn't good enough.

So I was determined to find on the internet a photo of Marguerite (one where she's wearing those glasses) where she's revealing her smile sufficiently to see them. What I discovered is that there is almost nothing to find.

In that regard, I think Armstrong has a bit of a good point... the "dumpy" Marguerite doesn't usually give a big smile as the earlier Marguerite did.

I DID find one 1963 photo showing Marguerite's teeth:

If you zoom way in  (I had to do so in a graphics program), you can see that her two front teeth are a little brown, and that her right one is a little more forward than her left one. So the two front teeth are not straight across like they are in the earlier photos.

Furthermore, there is a large gap between the right incisor and canine that was not there 7 years earlier.

Just to confirm that these imperfections are real, I found another, much later photo where she is smiling big.

You can see that the two front teeth are still a little brown, and that she has that gap between her right incisor and canine teeth. The resolution isn't great enough to tell if her right front tooth is more forward than the other.

I am now more inclined to think that there were indeed two Marguerites. Especially given that she had trouble getting her facts straight in her WC testimony.

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Jim Hargrove]

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

[Sandy Larsen]

Jim,

Please note that I added the following edit to my prior post.

Also, see the additional observations I just added below this box.

 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

EDIT:

I've had a change-of-mind regarding the teeth.

After posting the above, I decided I had to zoom in and study the 1964 teeth more carefully. I opened that photo in a graphics program, zoomed way in, and discovered that the resolution just wasn't good enough.

So I was determined to find on the internet a photo of Marguerite (one where she's wearing those glasses) where she's revealing her smile sufficiently to see them. What I discovered is that there is almost nothing to find.

In that regard, I think Armstrong has a bit of a good point... the "dumpy" Marguerite doesn't usually give a big smile as the earlier Marguerite did.

I DID find one 1963 photo showing Marguerite's teeth:

If you zoom way in  (I had to do so in a graphics program), you can see that her two front teeth are a little brown, and that her right one is a little more forward than her left one. So the two front teeth are not straight across like they are in the earlier photos.

Furthermore, there is a large gap between the right incisor and canine that was not there 7 years earlier.

Just to confirm that these imperfections are real, I found another, much later photo where she is smiling big.

You can see that the two front teeth are still a little brown, and that she has that gap between her right incisor and canine teeth. The resolution isn't great enough to tell if her right front tooth is more forward than the other.

I am now more inclined to believe that there were indeed two Marguerites. Especially given that she had trouble getting her facts straight in her WC testimony.

 

If you DON"T zoom in and just compare the teeth in the two photos above, they look pretty much the same. Even though there is like a ten year (or more) time span between the two photos. Not awful teeth, but certainly not great.

Now go to my prior post (two posts up) and compare the teeth of the the first two photos (1943 and 1956) without zooming in. Those two also look pretty much the same. Even with the 13 year time span between them. But in this case the teeth are great!

I don't believe that Marguerite's teeth would have changed so much between 1956 to 1963. And then stay the same for the following ten or fifteen years.

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Here's a hypothesis that would explain the apparent sudden weight gain in Marguerite. And the unstylish glasses.

 

Suppose that Real Marguerite began wearing glasses in 1958, as we see here above. Fake Marguerite was instructed to wear similar glasses.

Notice that the glasses above are not the awful ones that Fake (dumpy) Marguerite wore. The black frame is thinner, and the tilt of the two sides isn't so pronounced.

So, the reason we see a smiling, fashionable, slender Marguerite above is because that is the Real Marguerite.

The heavy Marguerite with the thick-black-framed glasses is the Fake Marguerite.

[Alistair Briggs]

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

Regards.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 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.

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.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Jim,

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