Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jim,

A couple of questions. You are now claiming photos of the "fake" Marguerite go back to 1943 (top right photo)? If I am following this correctly, you are saying the "fake" marguerite had crooked teeth since the bottom right photo has been captioned as the "real" Marguerite previously. I don't remember any mention of the "fake" Marguerite in H&L that early but I could be wrong.

Again, why don't you or David do a montage ala Jack White showing all the Marguerites with the year and other information to help the people you are trying to convince of this theory?

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The real and phony Marguerites had a distinctive difference involving their teeth. 

Marg_Teeth1.jpg?dl=0

 

When I compared these two, my impression was that the two women are both the Real Marguerite. I just thought you can't see the the crooked teeth of the one on the left because her head is turned.

I do admit that it doesn't seem her head is turned far enough to hide the imperfection. But... these two women really do look alike! And they are both fashionable and attractive.

 

Marg_Teeth2.jpg?dl=0

 

Again, I thought that these two women are both the Real Marguerite. The photo one on the right isn't focused well enough to know how good her teeth are.

Pix above are screen captures from a YouTube video by Ralph Cinque.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

Your observations are well taken. This is why they need to make a photo montage of the two Marguerites with years and other information if they want people to believe this stuff. I don't remember the "fake" Marguerite going this far back before. They say at the website the bottom right photo is the "real" Marguerite.

http://harveyandlee.net/Mommies_Dearest/Mommies_Dearest.html

So I assume the "real" Marguerite has the "straight" teeth and is on the left at top. But Jim should straighten this out.

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Too Many Residences for Impoverished Marguerite

According to employment records of Goldring’s Department Store in New Orleans, Marguerite Oswald was a sales woman with the company from March 16, 1956 to July 31, 1956.

Goldring's_Job.jpg?dl=0 

 

But according to the manager of the apartment building at 4936 Collinwood in Fort Worth, Marguerite Oswald, “accompanied by her two sons, Lee and Robert,” rented the upper west apartment at 4936 Collinwood in Fort Worth on July 1, 1956, a full month before Marguerite left Goldring’s in New Orelans. 

Collinwood.jpg?dl=0

 

Marguerite’s daily commute of over a thousand miles from Fort Worth to New Orleans and back again must have been a doozy!

If that scenario seems unlikely, no less than Allen Dulles himself had a solution.  According to Dulles, who came to the aid of the helplessly flailing Marguerite impostor during her WC testimony, Marguerite didn’t actually move to Fort Worth until September 1956.

Dulles_Moved.jpg?dl=0

 

Of course, none of this matches the records of Mrs. James Taylor, manager of 4936 Collinwood in Fort Worth.  In addition to indicating that Marguerite resided at her building from 7/1/56 to 6/1/57, Mrs. Taylor added that Marguerite then moved to 1031 W. 5th St. in Fort Worth.  The Collinwood manager said she contact Marguerite several times at the 5th St. address attempting to collect a $6.60 utility bill reimbursement.

Which is very strange, because during this very period, when Classic Lee Harvey Oswald entered the Marines, there is all kinds of evidence that Marguerite was living not on Collinwood or on 5th St. but instead at 3830 West 6th St. in Fort Worth.
 

6th%20St.jpg?dl=0

Mr. McCracken noted that Lee Oswald came home to his 6th St. building on one or two occasions while on leave from the marines.  Marine Corps records indicate Oswald took leave in February and June 1957.

As always, the FBI failed to follow up and further investigate information that threatened to expose the two Oswalds and the two Marguerites.  But they failed to suppress plenty of evidence.  This is just the tip of the iceberg.

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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The constant moves by Marguerite allow Armstrong and his associates to run wild with their theories. When a person has this type of nomadic history, there will be discrepancies in the record. None of these require 2 LHOs or Marguerites to explain.

This document shows LHO’s address at the time of his enlistment-Colinwood:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=675&tab=page

Goldring’s may have simply had Marguerite on the books through the end of the month for record keeping purposes. Or it is an error-the type Armstrong isn’t aware occurs in everyday life quite often. Marguerite and LHO and Robert moved to Fort Worth on July 1, 1956 and the records of Mrs. Taylor are the best evidence of that. Dulles simply misspoke and Marguerite, who was under pressure and make many mistakes, agreed with him.

Also, Here’s an insurance document that shows Marguerite was in Fort Worth on July 25, 1956:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57744&search=3830_w+sixth#relPageId=171&tab=page

So, she wasn’t in New Orleans.

McCracken said that Marguerite lived on West Sixth “about six years ago” which places it in 1957 not 1956. McCracken was right, here is a document that shows Marguerite was living on sixth street that year:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57691&relPageId=5&search=3830_west sixth

Here’s another one:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57745&relPageId=59&search=3830_west sixth

Records show LHO’s leave was 1957 as you say and McCracken remembered it correctly and remembered seeing him.

Nothing mysterious here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of what you call the “constant moves by Marguerite” results from the fact that we are considering the residences of two distinct women.  The FBI interview of Mrs. James Taylor shows that Marguerite Oswald (the impostor) lived at 4936 Collinwood from July 1956 to June 1, 1957. The FBI interview of Lee McCracken, with the USMC leaves, shows that Marguerite Oswald (the real Marguerite) lived at 3830 W 6th through June 1957 and probably beyond, though it doesn’t give a start date.  John writes that there are Red Cross and Fort Worth City Directory records indicating this Marguerite lived at 3830 W. 6th  from November 1956 to early 1958, which overlaps more than half of the Collinwood period.  I can’t find repros of the docs to post, but I’ll try to remember to ask John about it when he returns in a few weeks.  Want to bet these records exist?

At any rate, he wrote in Harvey and Lee:

Following the assassination the FBI followed it's usual pattern of ignoring po­-
tentially troublesome witnesses, and failed to interview the manager or owner of the
building at 3830 W. 6th, or obtain rental records as they had done with Mrs. Taylor at
4936 Collinwood. They failed to obtain rent receipts, utility bills or phone bills in or­-
der to determine when Mrs. Oswald resided in this apartment. If FBI agents did conduct
an investigation at 3830 W 6th, their reports were not given to the Warren Commission.

Like the Warren Report, John indicates the start date of the the Collinwood lease as simply “July 1956,” and so I guess he doesn’t make a big deal about the Goldring’s conflict.   To me, though, it’s bothersome.  Your explanation that “Goldring’s may have simply had Marguerite on the books through the end of the month for record keeping purposes” seems highly unlikely to me.  In my experience, companies keep careful records of the start and end dates for their employees for any number of reasons, including involvements with payroll, taxes, insurance, competitive work histories, etc.  Your additional rationalization about Goldring’s records, “Or it is an error-the the type Armstrong isn’t aware occurs in everyday life quite often,” is nearly as unlikely as it is condescending.  Everyone makes mistakes, but in cases involving payrolls and taxes, those are the rare exceptions rather than the rules.  

You also say, “Here’s an insurance document that shows Marguerite was in Forth Worth on July 25, 1956.”  But instead of an actual insurance document, you provide a link to CE 2205, which, for this part, is a lengthy FBI report in which 25 different addresses for Marguerite are hand-typed by an FBI agent purportedly taking them  from a real insurance document.  Why not show us the real document?   At the very least, with so much information to process, mistakes are FAR more likely to occur than in the simple employment dates summary of the Goldring’s report.  

Finally, you present two documents indicating Marguerite lived on West 6th in 1957, not 1956.  Although I think we’ll be able to show she was there as early as November 1956, you might note that both those documents are referenced in Harvey and Lee, and we are talking about conflicts in 1957.  Actually, we’re talking about conflicts over many years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, let me apologize for saying “insurance document”, I should have said “summary of insurance documents” to be more clear. But I don’t find anything suspicious about the fact the original documents were not put in evidence in this instance.

I can’t convince everybody there were not 2 Oswalds. All I can do is provide alternative explanations. My point in all this is if Marguerite Oswald had lived in one house in Fort Worth (or wherever) her whole life, the two Marguerite theory could not exist. As it is, she lived in upwards of 50 different addresses. That gives you and John the ability to do what you do and the theory is very clever in many ways I must say. If it wasn’t you would not be able to convince those that you do, although it is still a small minority even among the conspiracy community IMO. To you, her many addresses represent 2 different people. To me, they are emblematic of a serious mental illness that I believe she passed on to her son. But I am not a psychiatrist so I can’t prove it.

If a directory exists that is fine, please do share it with us. But no single record by itself proves anything, much less two Oswalds. All of the evidence has to be examined, as professional investigators do, to determine the truth. For example, Mrs. Taylor provides the “best evidence” of LHO’s move to Fort Worth and the date of the move. However, she also says they later moved to 5th Street in Fort Worth. EDIT: I better follow my own advice. I was looking at 1957 but Taylor must have been referring to 1959 when there are reports of Marguerite on 5th Street or 5th Avenue. That got me off track because there are no reports of 5th St. in '57.  So she must have been determined to get her money and followed her for a while.  Mrs. Taylor said Marguerite moved out on June 1, 1957. But a summary of records from a Fort Worth bank show Marguerite at West Sixth Street on April 26. Now, I don’t know why she would change her address with the bank if she wasn’t there. It could be an error but it doesn’t seem like it. So we have 3 bits of information from Mrs. Taylor and it looks like one could be wrong and one is somewhat misleading.

Now, I would like to get back to the photos. Is Ralph Cinque right that the top right photo represents the “fake” Marguerite?

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

When the  late Jack White presented at Lancer 1997 (along with John Armstrong, whose individual presentation was well received), White was met with gales of embarrassing laughter when he said there were two Marguerites. To be honest, I think all those photos of Marguerite are one and the same woman. This is why I hate photo interpretation and looking at "blobs" in photos as "gunmen", etc.: it is all subjective Rorschach test stuff.

Photos of my grandmother are all over the map, too- in some photos, her teeth look great, in others, they look like heck; she is smiling, then she is scowling; and, the biggest rain-on-the-parade stat of all: as she got older--drumroll, please---she got shorter.

Sometimes reality bites.

 

Vince

Edited by Vince Palamara
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sort of a Marguerite myself from the ages of about 15 to about 30.  Sometimes just for fun I try to recreate all the jobs I had and places in which I lived.  I had some jobs more than once and lived in some apartments up to four different times.  An accurate recreation is impossible.  Likewise, as I mentioned on another thread, I have numerous photos of myself from the ages of about 15 to about 30.  I would almost swear these were different people, and they are all me; you would definitely swear they were different people.  To me the photos of Marguerite look far more like the same woman than do the photos of moi.  Indeed, the four photos above look exactly like the same woman.

As I've said before, I was surprised and disappointed that Harvey & Lee just stopped with the assassination as though it had hit a brick wall.  Fake Marguerite and Fake LHO just vanished into the mist.  Having supposedly pieced together their trail over a period of decades, I would have expected Armstrong to leave no stone unturned in an effort to show what became of them after the assassination.  The fact that they vanished into the mist would be consistent with them never having existed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I was sort of a Marguerite myself from the ages of about 15 to about 30.  Sometimes just for fun I try to recreate all the jobs I had and places in which I lived.  I had some jobs more than once and lived in some apartments up to four different times.  An accurate recreation is impossible.  Likewise, as I mentioned on another thread, I have numerous photos of myself from the ages of about 15 to about 30.  I would almost swear these were different people, and they are all me; you would definitely swear they were different people.  To me the photos of Marguerite look far more like the same woman than do the photos of moi.  Indeed, the four photos above look exactly like the same woman.

As I've said before, I was surprised and disappointed that Harvey & Lee just stopped with the assassination as though it had hit a brick wall.  Fake Marguerite and Fake LHO just vanished into the mist.  Having supposedly pieced together their trail over a period of decades, I would have expected Armstrong to leave no stone unturned in an effort to show what became of them after the assassination.  The fact that they vanished into the mist would be consistent with them never having existed.

Just for clarity, Armstrong thinks that "Harvey" was the accused assassin of history who was setup as a patsy and killed by Ruby. The "fake" Marguerite was the historic Marguerite who ran around for years promoting various theories, which was an odd thing for a CIA operative to do. The real LHO "may be very much alive" according to the theory and the real Marguerite just vanished. But your main point is well taken. Anyone would have a hard time perfectly recreating their own history much less Marguerite who moved upwards of 50 times or more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

When the  late Jack White presented at Lancer 1997 (along with John Armstrong, whose individual presentation was well received), White was met with gales of embarrassing laughter when he said there were two Marguerites. To be honest, I think all those photos of Marguerite are one and the same woman. This is why I hate photo interpretation and looking at "blobs" in photos as "gunmen", etc.: it is all subjective Rorschach test stuff.

Photos of my grandmother are all over the map, too- in some photos, her teeth look great, in others, they look like heck; she is smiling, then she is scowling; and, the biggest rain-on-the-parade stat of all: as she got older--drumroll, please---she got shorter.

Sometimes reality bites.

 

Vince

White, who was a mentor to Armstrong, believed there were multiple Marguerites. I might have the posts from the old Dellarosa forum that prove this if I could find them. Of course, he also believed the government was intentionally poisoning the populace with contrails too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The "fake" Marguerite was the historic Marguerite who ran around for years promoting various theories, which was an odd thing for a CIA operative to do. 

Her main "theory," of course, was made abundantly clear when she testified at the WC hearings that her son was a spy or "agent" for the U.S. government.  John doesn't think that was an odd thing to do at all. He thinks phony Marguerite was a "spy catcher," someone set up to attract U.S. intelligence agents who knew "Oswald" was a spy so that they would contact her and then could be identified and silenced.

Since you are a Warren Commission loyalist, I assume you don't believe Oswald--any Oswald--was actually a spy.  Here's the evidence I assembled a few weeks ago.

 

21 Facts Indicating ”Lee Harvey Oswald” was a CIA Agent

(New entries in red)

1. CIA accountant James Wilcott said he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.”

2. Antonio Veciana said he saw LHO meeting with CIA’s Maurice Bishop/David Atlee Phillips in Dallas in August 1963.

3. A 1978 CIA memo indicates that a CIA operations officer “had run an agent into the USSR, that man having met a Russian girl and eventually marrying her,” a case very similar to Oswald’s and clearly indicating that the Agency ran a “false defector” program in the 1950s.

4. Robert Webster and LHO "defected" a few months apart in 1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both returned to the United States in the spring of 1962.

5. Richard Sprague, Richard Schweiker, and CIA agents Donald Norton and Joseph Newbrough all said LHO was associated with the CIA. 

6. CIA employee Donald Deneslya said he read reports of a CIA agent who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child.

7. Kenneth Porter, employee of CIA-connected Collins Radio, left his family to marry (and no doubt monitor) Marina Oswald after LHO’s death.

8. George Joannides, case officer and paymaster for DRE (which LHO had attempted to infiltrate) was put in charge of lying to the HSCA and never told them of his relationship to DRE.

9. For his achievements, Joannides was given a medal by the CIA.

10. FBI took Oswald off the watch list at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health, weeks after Oswald’s New Orleans arrest and less than two months before the assassination.

11. Oswald’s lengthy “Lives of Russian Workers” essay reads like a pretty good intelligence report.

12. Oswald’s possessions were searched for microdots.

13. Oswald owned an expensive Minox spy camera, which the FBI tried to make disappear.

14. Even the official cover story of the radar operator near American U-2 planes defecting to Russia, saying he would give away all his secrets, and returning home without penalty smells like a spy story.

15. CIA Richard Case Nagell clearly knew about the plot to assassinate JFK and LHO’s relation to it, but the CIA ignored his warnings.

16. LHO always seemed poor as a church mouse, until it was time to go “on assignment.”  For his Russian adventure, we’re to believe he saved all the money he needed for first class European hotels and private tour guides in Moscow from the non-convertible USMC script he saved. In the summer of 1963, he once again seemed to have enough money to travel abroad to Communist nations.

17. To this day, the CIA claims it never interacted with Oswald, that it didn’t even bother debriefing him after the “defection.” What utter bs….

18. After he “defected” to the Soviet Union in 1959, bragging to U.S. embassy personnel in Moscow that he would tell the Russians everything he knew about U.S. military secrets, he returns to the U.S. without punishment and is then in 1963 given the OK to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union again!

19. Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by JFK, and the Warren Commission clearly wanted the truth hidden from the public to protect sources and methods of intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Earl Warren said, “Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security.”

20. In 1978, the government of Cuba announced that “Lee Harvey Oswald” was a “CIA AGENT.”

21. President Kennedy and the CIA clearly were at war with each other in the weeks immediately before his assassination, and “Oswald” was the CIA’s pawn.

Krock_CIA.jpeg?dl=0

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Her main "theory," of course, was made abundantly clear when she testified at the WC hearings that her son was a spy or "agent" for the U.S. government.  John doesn't think that was an odd thing to do at all. He thinks phony Marguerite was a "spy catcher," someone set up to attract U.S. intelligence agents who knew "Oswald" was a spy so that they would contact her and then could be identified and silenced.

Thanks for the information Jim. In Armstrong's opinion, did she continue to work in this capacity after the WC hearings? If not, when did this role end?

Link to post
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...