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

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Just when I thought we were making progress!

Well you did score a bit of a coup. A 1" difference is not much.

But, as I said, I believe Marina to be 1.5" taller than Marguerite, not just the 0.5" indicated by the passports. And that changes the 1" difference to 2".

 

EDIT: I have changed my height measurement of tall, younger Marguerite from 5' 5" to 5' 4.5". I revised the above to account for that.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Jim Hargrove]

35 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Well, so far I am satisfied with my measurements. Unless Marguerite has osteoporosis, it looks to me like there are two of her.

My nose and teeth analyses add to my belief. As does her difficulty in giving testimony.

If it can be shown that she lived in two places simultaneously, that will be the final nail.

The 1956 New Orleans City Directory lists a “Marguerite Oswald” on Exchange and a “Margt Oswald” on Telemachus.

On my website, John wrote:

While LEE Oswald was working for Tujague's and living at 126 Exchange, from the summer of 1955 through the summer of 1956, where were HARVEY and the Marguerite Oswald impostor living? HARVEY Oswald began attending Warren Easton HS on Canal Street in the fall of 1955, so they probably lived nearby. The New Orleans City directory in 1956 lists a "Margt Oswald" at 120 N. Telemachus, which is just off Canal St. and is midway between Beauregard JHS and Warren Easton HS. The same New Orleans City directory, on the same page, lists a Marguerite Oswald at 126 Exchange.
 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The 1956 New Orleans City Directory lists a “Marguerite Oswald” on Exchange and a “Margt Oswald” on Telemachus.

On my website, John wrote:

While LEE Oswald was working for Tujague's and living at 126 Exchange, from the summer of 1955 through the summer of 1956, where were HARVEY and the Marguerite Oswald impostor living? HARVEY Oswald began attending Warren Easton HS on Canal Street in the fall of 1955, so they probably lived nearby. The New Orleans City directory in 1956 lists a "Margt Oswald" at 120 N. Telemachus, which is just off Canal St. and is midway between Beauregard JHS and Warren Easton HS. The same New Orleans City directory, on the same page, lists a Marguerite Oswald at 126 Exchange.
 

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

[Jim Hargrove]

Bingo!

Margaret Keating Oswald was the first wife of Robert E. L. Oswald (father of
Robert and Lee Harvey Oswald), whom she divorced in 1933. The court restored her
last name to Keating, her maiden name, which she kept for the remainder of her life (she
apparently never remarried). The name Margaret Keating and her address, 120 N.
Telemachus Street, appear in New Orleans City Directories, telephone books, voter
registration records, etc., from 1933 thru the early 1960's.

In the 1956 New Orleans City Directory, which records listings for the last half
of 1955, the directory listed her as "Margt. Oswald," 120 N. Telemachus Street, New
Orleans.55-21 This is the only occasion where the name "Margaret Keating" appears as
Margt. Oswald--a name she had not used for the past 23 years. Perhaps this was a mistake,
but perhaps not. These two listings appear during the time that both the short, dumpy
heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" imposter (whose true identity remains unknown) and the
tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald lived in New Orleans.

NOTE: Margaret Keating, who was 58 years old in 1954 and 67 years old in 1963,
could have been the "Marguerite Oswald" imposter, but that possibility will not be ex­
plored or discussed in this book. For serious researchers, a telephone number and address
were listed for Margaret Keating as late as 1996 in Baton Rogue (she was 100 in 1996).

--From Harvey and Lee, Copyright (c) 2003 by John Armstrong

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The 1956 New Orleans City Directory lists a “Marguerite Oswald” on Exchange and a “Margt Oswald” on Telemachus.

On my website, John wrote:

While LEE Oswald was working for Tujague's and living at 126 Exchange, from the summer of 1955 through the summer of 1956, where were HARVEY and the Marguerite Oswald impostor living? HARVEY Oswald began attending Warren Easton HS on Canal Street in the fall of 1955, so they probably lived nearby. The New Orleans City directory in 1956 lists a "Margt Oswald" at 120 N. Telemachus, which is just off Canal St. and is midway between Beauregard JHS and Warren Easton HS. The same New Orleans City directory, on the same page, lists a Marguerite Oswald at 126 Exchange.
 

Jim,

I'm confused by this. I thought you were showing me that Marguerite was living in two places at once. But now it looks like one of the two listings is for the first wife of Harvey & Lee's father. None of the Oswald kids were born to this woman.

So we just have two different Oswald wives living at two different addresses. With it being a coincidence that their names are spelled similarly (Margaret/Margt vs Marguerite). There is no mystery in this. Right?

In the paragraph written by John Armstrong above, he is trying to make it sound like Harvey and the fake Marguerite might be living with the first wife, Margaret/Margt. Why is he doing that?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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.

[Alistair Briggs]

Sandy,

See when I said;

Quote

*There are another couple of things about that photo that could make a difference either way imo.

The * means it was an 'aside', but more importantly there was the qualifying word 'could' - it 'could' make a difference - not that it 'does' make the difference.

Anyway,

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But from the photo it is evident that she is actually slouching a little. (Note the horizontal wrinkle in the front of her vest.) I assume so he can get his arm over her shoulder.

&

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But from the photo it is evident that he is standing quite erect.

 A wrinkle on the front doesn't necessarily mean that she is slouching, there could be other reasons, But for point of moving on, let's say she was slouching a bit and I don't disagree that he looks like he is standing quite erect.

A wee experiment...

Find a mirror hanging on the wall and stand in front of it, pull your chest in, neck up, chin out, and position yourself so that the top of your head is in line with the top of the mirror - then relax your chest, neck down, chin in and you will notice that the top of the head drops down a bit. Try it again, but this time only bend your knees forward ever so slightly (slightly enough that if you were wearing trousers that weren't tight, it wouldn't be noticed) and again the head will drop down a bit. Try it again with your legs together and then separate your legs slightly and the head will go down...

... the point is there could be any number of things that could cause the height seen to be different from their actual height...

... on the point of 'actual height', how accurate is that anyway? If you ask someone how tall they are they will give you a response but how do you know it is correct? I mean that person might have measured themselves once years ago and what they measured then is the height they would tell someone - what if they were wearing shoes at the time, what if they inadvertently stood proud or inadvertently slouch. How accurate is that measurement in the first place... and when they give their height, say, for their passport, is that being measured at the time by someone (if so how accurate do they do it) and if not then the person is just giving what they think their height is. There are so many factors to consider that it becomes somewhat impossible to take a photo of a person and work out their height really - although it's not futile to do it, but the result is always going to be a 'guestimate' with a certain amount of margin error that has to be noted.

When comparing the tall man to the woman, then we are starting on the premise that he is 6ft tall, or 5ft 11 and those may or may not be accurate to start with, but if in the photo he is doing something/anything that makes his relative height higher or lower then that will skew the results of measurements.

There has to be a margin of error factored in, if that margin of error was as little as only 3% either way - then for someone who is 6ft could appear to be (relatively) anywhere between 5ft 10 and 6ft 2...

Anyroads, when

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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. 

It's a very good point.

We can 'argue' the variable till the cows come home, but there is probably not going to be settled to everyone's satisfaction.  I agree with it on the point that it is quite possible that this is the same Marguerite at least as far as the height issue is concerned.

(bolded to point out the important qualification. )

Regards

P.S. More to follow

[Alistair Briggs]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Well, so far I am satisfied with my measurements. Unless Marguerite has osteoporosis, it looks to me like there are two of her.

My nose and teeth analyses add to my belief. As does her difficulty in giving testimony.

If it can be shown that she lived in two places simultaneously, that will be the final nail.

 

I have seen your posts on the teeth and it makes interesting reading. It has to be noted though it is a very limited number of pics that even show here teeth and the quality isn't always the best to make the best comparisons. It has to be also noted that the look of teeth can change over time for different reasons.

About the 'nose' (looking more 'bulbous' I do have something on that topic that I will come back to in the P.S..)

I think though a good way to look at how different people can look in photos should be tested on photos that you know for sure are the same person. If you can find people who you know are the same person and their teeth or nose look different in different photos then why can't it be the same for Marguriete.

Re: living in two places simultaneously... well I think someone else pointed out the 'answer' to that, in fact below it is 'explained'...

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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

 

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Bingo!

 

Just to point something out (although I'm not saying that this is the case) but it is possible for a person to be 'registered' as living in two places at the same time, if for example they are moving and they move into a new place before either selling their last place, or the lease is up... it's also possible that a person could be listed in a phonebook as being at two different locations if their database when updated with the new place doesn't remove the last place (and the last place isn't 'rectified' until the 'new' people get them to update it).

Of course don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that any of that proves there wasn't 2 margarites. It's just that a lot of the 'prove' that is offered up to say there was 2 could, and I repeat, and bold, could be explained another way.

Regards

P.S. regarding the nose... here are two photos,

How similar do the noses look?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Quote

Perhaps this was a mistake, but perhaps not.

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

[Sandy Larsen]

I have changed my height measurement for younger, taller Marguerite from 5' 5" back to the original 5' 4.5" that I originally had. See the EDIT in this post if you want to know why. (In short, it is because I just measured the height of Marguerite's husband's head and found it to be a whopping 10" tall, compared to my 9" tall noggin.)

I've revised all my subsequent posts accordingly. And here are my revised conclusions, which compare the height of older, shorter Marguerite with the height of younger/ taller Marguerite after she has shrunk an inch over a thirty year period.

 

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Summary

If older, shorter Marguerite's passport height is correct, then:

The younger, taller Marguerite would have been 1" taller than the older, shorter Marguerite after she had shrunk due to age.

If my measurement of older, shorter Marguerite versus Marina is correct, then:

The younger, taller Marguerite would have been 2" taller than the older, shorter Marguerite after she had shrunk due to age.

 

 

Edited January 27, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

P.S. regarding the nose... here are two photos,

How similar do the noses look?

I know that noses get larger and fleshier as people age. But they don't usually change much in a six year period, except for when they are quite old.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Dan Rice]

If there were two Marguerites, wouldn't that mean that Robert Oswald was in on the impersonations?  I have also read that the H & L theory uses an instance where supposedly John Pic did not recognize a later photo of his half brother Lee which would mean he (John Pic) wasn't in on the plan.  Wouldn't they all have to be on the same page?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

46 minutes ago, Daniel Rice said:

If there were two Marguerites, wouldn't that mean that Robert Oswald was in on the impersonations?  I have also read that the H & L theory uses an instance where supposedly John Pic did not recognize a later photo of his half brother Lee which would mean he (John Pic) wasn't in on the plan.  Wouldn't they all have to be on the same page?

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

Edited January 28, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Alistair Briggs]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I know that noses get larger and fleshier as people age. But they don't usually change much in a six year period, except for when they are quite old.

From some photos of that man  his nose seems to fluctuate in size as he ages, sometimes it looks bigger than other times.(and sometimes it looks worse than others)...

Just a couple more images to show you, not for any particular reason really...

Here are two footballers circa 1991

 

and here are the two of them in 2014...

Here are two photos of the one above both from 2016!

Anyroads, sorry for the slight diversion...

Regards

 

[Jim Hargrove]

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim,

I'm confused by this. I thought you were showing me that Marguerite was living in two places at once. But now it looks like one of the two listings is for the first wife of Harvey & Lee's father. None of the Oswald kids were born to this woman.

So we just have two different Oswald wives living at two different addresses. With it being a coincidence that their names are spelled similarly (Margaret/Margt vs Marguerite). There is no mystery in this. Right?

In the paragraph written by John Armstrong above, he is trying to make it sound like Harvey and the fake Marguerite might be living with the first wife, Margaret/Margt. Why is he doing that?

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

The divorce court restored her legal name to back Margaret Keating way back in 1933, and she used that name in the phone books and elsewhere for more than two decades.  Why would she suddenly appear as “Margt. Oswald” in the 1956 New Orleans City Directory?  Harvey and Lee were both in New Orleans starting roughly a year and a half earlier. The 1956 page on HarveyandLee.net poses all sorts of contradictions in the Official Story about this year alone.