TWO MARGUERITE OSWALDS -- NEW DETAILS

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

Why don't you use the "search" function for this forum and research it? 

And if that doesn't work, maybe you could try Google?

'greg parker' 'school records'   Or Something Like That.

(Some of us are tired of constantly explaining things to newbies and relative newbies like yourself.

It's kinda like reinventing the wheel over and over, ... again.)

--  Tommy

Because I'm not the one making the claim. Tracy is.

Do you not understand that, old timer?

EDIT: And I don't believe Greg Parker has the answer.

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Yeah that might work. I thought I was making headway with him for a while but he flipped.

And I might flip again. I don't have a Master Theory that I hang onto regardless of new information or new understanding.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[W. Tracy Parnell]

18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And I might flip again. I don't have a Master Theory that I hang onto regardless of new information or new understanding.

OK-fair enough.

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Sandy says: Jim - I don't know how Tracy and Greg Parker could use their misinterpretations to argue against you...

Sandy, you may want to be careful with starting a post with an "us vs them" mentality like above.  It's not as if you're always right on your posts.

You're one to talk, going from thread to thread the way you do telling people they're "crazy" because they believe something you don't. Instead, why don't you do something productive like proving them wrong?

Remember the post when you actually said you saw one of the three men standing on the steps and one of them was holding a pistol?

I didn't say he was holding  pistol. I said he was holding something black. And then I made a joke something like, "ready, aim, shoot" followed by "is that a camera?" You were so intent on saying something nasty about me that you failed to see it was a joke. (You still haven't figured that out, even though I've told you repeatedly)

When I pointed out that where are the police reports stating one of of them was holding one, you caved.

I never argued it with you, so how could I cave?

Also, remember when you actually challenged me to an IQ contest....

Anytime you want. But don't you have anything better to do than follow me around taunting me?

....(and you later deleted that post) because, as your thinking goes, you have to have a high IQ to figure out the Kennedy case?  I mean, really? I put far more value in plausibility and reasonable thinking than I do with analyzing a teenager's school report line by line and drawing a conclusion from it.  Anyone can do that but it takes real thinking to ask yourself "Yes, that's what the line by line analysis says.  But is it the way it actually happened? Could it have really happened? Is there some perfectly innocent reason for why it's that way?"

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

The only conceivable way this could have happened (other than nefariously, e.g. by an intelligence agency), is if there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds. I mean, let's be reasonable and honest about this!

Oh, come on, Sandy, that's a really big leap of faith.

Why in the world would the government be falsifying records of a 15 year old kid?

You just proved my point Michael. I didn't say anything about the government falsifying records. I said that there were two people, both named Lee Harvey Oswald, attending school in two different places at the same time. That is what the school records show. Plus I pointed out that that is a common concurrence, as many people share the same names. (In addition I pointed out that, ironically, it is the H&L CTers who DON'T believe the school records were change nefariously!)

And you missed all that.

As I said, many people here have a preconceived bias against the Harvey and Lee concept, and so they don't bother trying to understand the evidence!

Thanks for proving my case.

It's beyond comprehension and reason, just like it is when you said one of the guys standing on the steps in Dealey was holding a pistol. Like Tracy said, John Armstrong is pushing a story to make his story relevant to people like you and Jim Hargrove. That's all that's happening here.

I mean really.  You actually think that way back in the mid 50's the government had two clones of a kid running around and they even had two clones of his mother also running around...and for what? And they'd go through all of this complexity, falsifying his school records, faking other pictures and records for this grand unknown plan they had for both of them...eight long years before it was time to assassinate Kennedy.  I mean, do you not see how insane and ridiculous this all sounds?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tommy,

I'm not aware of the counterintelligence project you mention. But would it have included the fabrication or alteration of old school records, in your opinion?

 

Sandy,

I guess you've missed all my posts on that counterintelligence subject over the years.

Amazing.

Steep learning curve, eh?

--  Tommy

I've been on the forum for little more than a year. And my question was sincere.

You don't need to get snippy just because we're on opposite sides of an issue.

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Sandy is now trying a new tactic. Instead of ranting to my replies, he's  simply ignoring  them.

Which makes sense. Because  when  you  post stuff that flies in the face of all reason  and common  sense, the well will dry up quite quickly.

I have a clue for you Michael. Just because you see my name on the Who's Online list doesn't necessarily mean I'm reading posts, let alone the latest insult you've posted against me. It means only that the forum is open in my browser. I could be sound asleep for all you know.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The bottom line is this: If John Armstrong and Jim Hargrove can prove the connection, then they have a strong case. If not, then they don't.

Yes, that is a reasonable assumption that there could be two boys with the same name in two different schools at the same time. However, in this case we know from other information such as the addresses they lived at and much more that this is the same individual.

Therefore, since we know we are talking about the same Oswald that the records are either being misread or are incorrect (probably both).

Therefore, John and Jim have a strong case! As I said.

Not a proven case, but strong. Those who seek to destroy the Harvey and Lee theory (not a bad goal, BTW) need to show that there is a problem with the records. They need to give a reasonable explanation as to how the records became corrupt.

(I say "not a bad goal" because every theory should be questioned.)

 

[David Josephs]

{sigh}

This isn't about one instance, one school year, on set of conflicting facts... the duplicity permeates the evidence.

Does John nail each and every minute detail... in my opinion, no.  John and I talked thru many of these conflicts.  

The book was published 20 years ago taking ten years prior to that to research and write.
There is information offered in H&L not offered anywhere due to the repeated visits to the archives.

At the end of summer of 1952, Lee Oswald moved to NYC and entered 7th grade a 5'4" 115lb boy.
The Bronx zoo photo was taken in August 1953 supposedly by Robert Oswald.

A full 18 months later the "Lee" Oswald is now barely 4'10" and weighs 90-95 lbs.

I'm truly sorry for those who use the rebuttal WHY? or NOT POSSIBLE when in truth you have no idea of what craziness these people are capable of.  That you or anyone else cannot fathom such an act does not refute or negate the act act all...  it just shows how little you know of history and the depravity of human beings.

What I find most amusing is that EVERYONE needs to be mistaken for over 11 years.  Records MUST be wrong, the DoD MUST be mistaken about their conflicts.  Everything about Oswald and the world around him was dull, boring and normal - as you would hope to have us believe...  

There are simply too many specific items of evidence which support the existence of both of these men.

IMO from the evidence I've reviewed, Robert Oswald helped to set-up the person pretending to be his brother, knowing full well he was not incriminating his family.

 

Mr. JENNER - Then to the right there is a picture of two young men, the upper portion of the one young man at the bottom and then apparently a young man standing up in back of that person. Do you recognize either of those young people? 
Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize Lee Harvey Oswald. 
Mr. JENNER - Is he the one to which the black arrow is pointing? 
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. 

Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? 
Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. 
Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? 
Mr. PIC - No, sir. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I did-page 9.

No you didn't. You didn't show how Oswald took and completed two classes at Beauregard while taking classes full time at PS44.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

 

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

No you didn't. You didn't show how Oswald took and completed two classes at Beauregard while taking classes full time at PS44.

I know he didn't because the totality of the evidence says so.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Notice that the H&L fans including Sandy are not even mentioning the scientific evidence in this case.

We aren't talking about an exhumation. We are talking about school records.

But suppose we were to talk about the exhumation. How could that be used to prove there was only one Oswald? I'm pretty sure that DNA tests on multiple people would have to be performed. Even if that were done, if the process weren't overseen by someone in the CT community, I wouldn't trust it. The CIA would have every reason to keep the wraps on any anti-CIA revelation. Same thing with the U.S. government.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

A full 18 months later the "Lee" Oswald is now barely 4'10" and weighs 90-95 lbs.

This is based on the statements of Dr. Milton Kurian. I maintain that even though Kurian apparently worked at Youth House, he never saw LHO and is one of hundreds of people who came forward after the assassination honestly believing they saw him but were just mistaken. Like the other witnesses, Kurian has no documentation to support his claim. If Kurian did see LHO, which is doubtful and can never be proven one way or the other, he was simply mistaken about his remembrances regarding LHO's physical appearance. Eventually, I plan to do an article on Kurian and his story.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

5 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

I mean really.  You actually think that way back in the mid 50's the government had two clones of a kid running around and they even had two clones of his mother also running around...and for what? And they'd go through all of this complexity, falsifying his school records, faking other pictures and records for this grand unknown plan they had for both of them...eight long years before it was time to assassinate Kennedy.  I mean, do you not see how insane and ridiculous this all sounds?

Very well said.

That wasn't "well said" at all. Nobody is claiming cloning was done. The purpose of the alleged program wasn't to assassinate Kennedy, as Michael's statement implies.. There was no falsification of school records. (At least not as far as I know.)

[W. Tracy Parnell]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

We aren't talking about an exhumation. We are talking about school records.

But suppose we were to talk about the exhumation. How could that be used to prove there was only one Oswald? I'm pretty sure that DNA tests on multiple people would have to be performed. Even if that were done, if the process weren't overseen by someone in the CT community, I wouldn't trust it. The CIA would have every reason to keep the wraps on any anti-CIA revelation. Same thing with the U.S. government.

 

The exhumation shows that "Harvey" had the mastoid operation that "Lee" was supposed to have unless you buy Jim's excuse that "Harvey" went to Jacobi to have an operation. Trouble is, they only came up with this years after the book was published and then only because of me and my work. Armstrong just ignored the subject and although he mentions the exhumation in his book, he doesn't tell readers about the discrepancy. Armstrong and supporters only mention DNA because they know it will never happen. Robert is supposed to be "Lee's" brother and anyone can look at Robert and "Harvey" and see the resemblance.