TWO MARGUERITE OSWALDS -- NEW DETAILS

[David Josephs]

13 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I don't need to convince anyone of these things-you do. I know they are false, if others want to believe them that is their right.

The issues at hand? You mean like the scientific proof that refutes the H&L theory that you guys will not discuss?

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html

Or are you talking about common sense concepts that you also won't discuss?

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/common-sense.html

I am perfectly willing to admit that except for a few trips to libraries, I have never left the house to do any research. But I do have 33 kindle books on the subject and probably another 30 in hard copy. And I do have some documents on order from the National Archives as we speak. I congratulate Armstrong for the work he did and the money he spent. Unfortunately, witnesses are another matter with him. As David Lifton has written about right here at the EF, Armstrong went on a "witness recruitment program" that involved befriending people and convincing them they wee witnesses to history. Not an objective way to approach the situation. He also talked to people 35-40 years after the fact-not the best time to do so.

EDIT: BTW, I interviewed Vincent DiMaio, Gary Mack, Jack White and a few others via email-it is a new world now you know.

You are using the HSCA experts as your supporting evidence?

Yeah, that;s what I figured.  You and Blakey should get along fine...  

bu bye now!  

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

You are using the HSCA experts as your supporting evidence?

Yeah, that;s what I figured.  You and Blakey should get along fine...  

bu bye now!  

Armstrong thinks the FBI and the WC were behind the cover-up and faked all kinds of documents. Funny thing he still uses them whenever it suits his purposes.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

7 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

...offer something concrete to defend your position or move on already... you're failing miserably here and I for one will bow out and let you continue with your foot in mouth disease...

There you go again David, trying to tell me what to do. Fortunately, you do not control the forum and I am not going anywhere.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

24 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

This was your first post Tracy.

How do you not know these things from the reading of the book?

Where did a photo come from?

That's what I am asking is who he got the photo from and what were the circumstances under which it was taken. Forgive me, but Armstrong has shown himself to be less than trustworthy in the past so I would prefer to know. If it is in the book you can point me to the page and I apologize in advance.

24 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

MO lived at 2220 Thomas in 1947 and on Nov 22, 1963... amazing, right?   Across the street from Stripling JHS.

I am still working on her addresses and I am not sure she lived there when you say, I would rather prove it to myself.

24 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Tracy, it is painfully obvious you've not read the book, acquired the CD, read any of the hundreds of Baylor notebooks or done anything more than create and tear down your own STRAW MAN arguments....

No, I have not read the book in the normal sense and neither has anyone else-it is completely unreadable. It is not a book in the traditional sense. Yes it has pages and a cover and words but that is where the similarity ends. It is merely a collection of nonsensical assertions. However, I have the PDF-I sold the hard copy and doubled my money so I do have something to thank Armstrong for after all. I have the CD and full access to the Baylor documents, many of which are on my hard drive. I am getting older so I will confess that my retention of Armstrong's ridiculous arguments is not that good.

EDIT: BTW, I have often wondered why Armstrong didn't get an editor. But after seeing all the typos, missing citations, incorrect citations and overuse of italics and underlining in his tome, I realized that there was not enough money in the world to pay someone to edit that mess.

Edited March 8, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Jim Hargrove]

19 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Jim, just to confirm, this photo is one of the 'real' Lee Harvey Oswald?

Regards

Yeah, this is American-born LEE Oswald in a photo taken by Ed Voebel.  For the second semester of the '53-54 school year only, both Oswalds were at Beauregard, Harvey in Myra DaRouse's homeroom in the basement cafeteria, Lee in room 303 on the third floor.

BTW, we've corrected Robert E. Lee Oswald's age at his death on the web page, though Marguerite remained wrong about his age.  John asked me to thank you for pointing out the error.

[Jim Hargrove]

19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

I've been meaning to ask about that (but have been preoccupied responding to posts.) It states the following on the Beauregard record:

Originally Admitted:  1954-1-13

Isn't that a fly in the Beauregard School ointment? It seems to be stating that Oswald began attending class there the second semester of 53/54. Yet we see he took classes during the first semester.

What gives?

You’d almost think they were talking about two different kids, eh?

John has been very clear about this for many years.  The second semester of the 53-54 school year at Beauregard started in January.  For the first semester, Lee was attending PS 44 in New York and Harvey was at Beauregard in New Orleans. Since Harvey only took two classes, he was clearly a part-time student, formally or informally, and probably didn’t have a homeroom.

Starting in the second semester of that school year, in January, Harvey walked into the basement classroom of Myra DaRouse, handed her his file, and became a full-time student. Harvey and phony Marguerite were living at 126 Exchange Place while he attended Beauregard. Myra only had a homeroom for a single school year while she taught at Beauregard, and it was located in a basement room that also served as the school cafeteria.  

See part 1 of Myra DaRouse's interview with John HERE.

For that same second semester, LEE Oswald and his real mother left NYC and moved to 1435 St. Marys St., also in New Orleans.  Like Harvey, Lee also began attending Beauregard School, but he was not in Myra Darouse’s basement homeroom.  Instead his homeroom was No. 303 on the third floor.  Existing Beauregard records list 303 as LHO’s homeroom.
 

[Michael Walton]

This theory is just too far fetched and unrealistic. Why would  the  government  fudge a kid's  school  records?

It doesn't  make sense. And Parnell revealed  something  for  me on his blog about  Hargrove  saying  years ago that if this theory  is wrong then so what?

I  mean wow. Just wow. This tells  me this whole  Oswald  and his mom clone story was concocted to sell books to suckers.

It also tells me that the conspiracy  is everywhere  crowd is just too lazy to do serious analysis with  a  heavy dose of skepticism  thrown in for  good  measure.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

This theory is just too far fetched and unrealistic. Why would  the  government  fudge a kid's  school  records?

It doesn't  make sense. And Parnell revealed  something  for  me on his blog about  Hargrove  saying  years ago that if this theory  is wrong then so what?

I  mean wow. Just wow. This tells  me this whole  Oswald  and his mom clone story was concocted to sell books to suckers.

It also tells me that the conspiracy  is everywhere  crowd is just too lazy to do serious analysis with  a  heavy dose of skepticism  thrown in for  good  measure.

Michael, I have never received much reaction to the "so what" article. But like you, I was shocked when I first read that years ago. I think it proves that they are not really serious about the theory, it is just a "vehicle" and a means to an end.

[Jim Hargrove]

12 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Armstrong thinks the FBI and the WC were behind the cover-up and faked all kinds of documents. Funny thing he still uses them whenever it suits his purposes.

Of course we do.  Hoover’s FBI destroyed, invented, and altered records in order to conceal the Oswald Project from the Warren Commission and the world.  But merging two young men’s lives into a legend of a single person is tricky business, and Hoover and his FBI made plenty of mistakes.

We are learning from the data Hoover failed to cover up.

[Jim Hargrove]

1 minute ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Michael, I have never received much reaction to the "so what" article. But like you, I was shocked when I first read that years ago. I think it proves that they are not really serious about the theory, it is just a "vehicle" and a means to an end.

I never had a "so what" attitude to Harvey and Lee.  I don't remember saying anything like that, and assume you are misstating something I said.  

John Armstrong left a multi-million dollar career in the oil business and custom home construction in order to spend more than a decade of Harvey and Lee.  The money he made from the book is a pittance compared to his other ventures.  He is a very wealthy man.

I'm not so wealthy, but I have never made a dime off John's work or the Kennedy assassination in general.  I promote John's work because I believe he has fundamentally solved this case, and I care deeply about it.  Mock me all you want, but you won't make the evidence go away.  All you ever do is whine about the evidence John has uncovered and point to various cover-ups always involving, in one way or another, the USG.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I never had a "so what" attitude to Harvey and Lee.  I don't remember saying anything like that, and assume you are misstating something I said.  

John Armstrong left a multi-million dollar career in the oil business and custom home construction in order to spend more than a decade of Harvey and Lee.  The money he made from the book is a pittance compared to his other ventures.  He is a very wealthy man.

I'm not so wealthy, but I have never made a dime off John's work or the Kennedy assassination in general.  I promote John's work because I believe he has fundamentally solved this case, and I care deeply about it.  Mock me all you want, but you won't make the evidence go away.  All you ever do is whine about the evidence John has uncovered and point to various cover-ups always involving, in one way or another, the USG.

I'm not trying to "mock" you, I just wonder why you said what you did and offered a possible explanation. I do believe you care strongly about the case, but that wouldn't preclude using H&L as a vehicle for research. I'll find the quote from JFK Research because I don't want people to think I am making it up.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/so-what.html

Scroll down for update with screen grabs from JFK Research.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

I'd like to point out an error in one of Tracy Parnell's posts. It's the first post on page 8:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23525-two-marguerite-oswalds-new-details/&do=findComment&comment=345870

Referring to the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, Tracy writes that "when examined closely, it falls apart". I'm afraid that this isn't quite right. The theory doesn't require close examination in order to fall apart. It falls apart with only the slightest application of critical thought.

All anyone needs to do is to read pages 6 to 14 of  Harvey and Lee, which contains every single item of evidence which John Armstrong uses to establish the existence of a Marguerite Oswald impostor. From page 14 onwards, Armstrong treats the existence of the impostor, an essential element in the 'Harvey and Lee' theory, as a proven fact.

And what exactly does that evidence amount to? It comprises one person's recollection, from the 1990s, of the appearance of Mrs Oswald, whom this person had met just once, in the 1950s. That's all there is. Even the most superficial reader will notice that this essential element of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is based on just about the weakest type of evidence you could think of. The notion of a 'Marguerite Oswald impostor' is clearly an invention. The 'Harvey and Lee' theory lasted just 14 pages before crumbling away.

The worrying thing is that most of the believers in this superstition will have read pages 6 to 14 of their Holy Book and must have thought to themselves, "So, one guy met Marguerite Oswald on one occasion in the 1950s, and four decades later he was shown some photographs and he thought she looked a bit different. Yup, that's good enough for me!"

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

It is my opinion that most [of] the folks who post against Armstrong's theory have a preconceived bias against the Harvey & Lee concept, and don't even bother trying to understand anything beyond the easiest-to-understand of evidence.

(http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23525-two-marguerite-oswalds-new-details/&do=findComment&comment=346138)

Anyone who isn't inclined to paranoia will "have a preconceived bias against the Harvey & Lee concept", for obvious reasons. Look at the number of improbable requirements the concept contains. Two boys, one of whom is supposedly a Russian-speaking Hungarian for whose existence absolutely no documentary evidence exists, are inducted into a secret scheme at the age of 12 on the off-chance that, several years later, they will look sufficiently alike that one of them is able to impersonate the other. Each boy happens to have a mother named Marguerite. Each Marguerite looks sufficiently similar to the other some of the time, but also sufficiently different when circumstances demand it. One of the boys helps to set up the other to take the blame for killing JFK. After the assassination, the surviving boy and his impostor mother vanish, never to be seen again.

Strictly speaking, none of this is impossible to believe. All of it could, perhaps, have happened. But it isn't very likely, is it? No reasonable person will take such a far-fetched concept seriously in the absence of very strong objective evidence. Yet the evidence we are offered is incredibly flimsy: not much more than uncorroborated recollections and subjective interpretations of photographs and written documents.

Not only that, but the theory contains at least one fatal internal contradiction. According to the theory, a mastoidectomy operation had been carried out on 'Lee', and the person shot by Jack Ruby and buried in Rose Hill Cemetery, Forth Worth, was 'Harvey'. Unfortunately for the theory, the body in the grave in fact contains unimpeachable evidence of having undergone a mastoidectomy operation. Of course, it doesn't help the credibility of the theory when you realise that the existence of the mastoidectomy on the body in Oswald's grave had been published in a reputable scientific journal 19 years before the Harvey and Lee book came out, and that the book's author simply ignored the evidence that demolished his theory (see pages 147, 946 and 947 of  Harvey and Lee for Armstrong's disgraceful treatment of the mastoidectomy evidence).

In the same post, Sandy writes:

 

Quote

I'll bet the school record evidence is ignored by most. After all, in their minds, regardless of what this evidence shows, there must be some other logical explanation because surely the Harvey & Lee concept is wrong.
 

Of course the most logical explanation for the school records is the one that assumes the least amount of improbable skullduggery! The most logical explanation for anything is the one that assumes the least amount of improbable skullduggery.

For those who want to compare the explanations, here is the 'Harvey and Lee' interpretation of the school records, which implies a large amount of improbable skullduggery:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23525-two-marguerite-oswalds-new-details/&do=findComment&comment=346012

The common sense interpretation of the school records, which implies no skullduggery at all, can be found here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23525-two-marguerite-oswalds-new-details/&do=findComment&comment=346077

and here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1361-creating-mayhem-with-historical-records

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Excellent analysis Jeremy. I had not seen that post by Parker either so thanks for that.