Jump to content
The Education Forum

TWO MARGUERITE OSWALDS -- NEW DETAILS


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

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.

What about the 'zoo photo' is that meant to be 'Harvey'?

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 558
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 3/8/2017 at 7:53 AM, Alistair Briggs said:

What about the 'zoo photo' is that meant to be 'Harvey'?

Regards

yes Alistair... the boy at the zoo is not the large 6th grader we, and Edward Pic know as Lee Oswald.

Furthermore, these multiple side-by-sides should help with differentiating the two.  Try to remember there was no internet, the fact they look similar is only apprrent when you see them together...  no one ever sees these two together and the last LEE photo we have is the small passport photo showing a man with a bull neck and very sloped shoulders.

The physical evidence along with direct testimony from those who knew him is simply not the kind of evidence the detractors prefers.  It amazes me the number of researchers who will call McBride's memory into question.  Below is a reply from Palmer to Lifton after Lifton also called his memory into question.

Maybe the impetus for his book was mistaken?  Then one would wonder why there remains so many conflicts and so much evidence for the duplicity.  Those like Tracy will call into question anything and everything yet offer nothing to contradict the stories other than "mistakes were made"

Fair enough.  Like the 30% of those out there who still hold that Oswald shot 3 times and killed JFK, the freedom to be wrong extends in all directions.  After years with the book, following the sources and ongoing investigation, I find credible evidence for John's thesis.  Wouldn't be the strangest thing our government has done by a long shot so that argument is empty.  All the "Why's" and "How's" don't change the evidence, they just confuse the issue.  Like the assassination... Why or How multiple shooters killed JFK and got away with it will be debated forever... doesn't change the fact or truth that it happened.

 

 

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to post
Share on other sites


J. Edgar Hoover's Treachery


A few years after the assassination, Atty. Mark Lane interviewed three Dealey Plaza witnesses to the assassination of JFK and showed how the FBI dramatically altered their statements. These Mark Lane interviews recently were uploaded to YouTube by JFK researcher Gil Jesus.

See the proof of FBI report falsifications right here.

In the wee hours of the night of Nov 22-23, 1963, the FBI secretly took “Oswald's Possessions” from the Dallas Police Department, transported them to Washington, D.C. altered them, and then secretly returned them to Dallas, only to publicly send them to Washington. D.C. a few days later. Among a great many other alterations, a Minox “spy camera” became a Minox “light meter.” FBI agent James Cadigan inadvertently spilled the bean about the secret transfer during his sworn WC testimony, which was altered by the WC.

 

Cadigan_Altered.jpg?dl=0

 

By mid-1964, the FBI had a procedure in place to materially alter the testimony of its own agents, even over the objections of Warren Commission attorneys.

Dingle.gif

 

In his otherwise uninspiring book called Portrait of the Assassin, former U.S. President and Warren Commission member Gerald R. Ford wrote that the first emergency meeting of the Warren Commission was convened to discuss information that Lee Harvey Oswald was a paid informant of the FBI up until the day he was arrested at the Texas Theater. Ford indicated that the information came from Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr, District Attorney Henry Wade, and counsel to the Attorny General Leon Jaworsky. In Portrait of the Assassin, p. 14, President Ford described the information as follows (President Ford never attempted to deny it):


The Texas officials slipped into the nation's capital with complete anonymity. The met with Lee Rankin and other member of the staff and told what they knew. The information was that Lee Harvey Oswald was actually hired by the FBI; that he was assigned the undercover-agent number 179; that he was on the FBI payroll at two hundred dollars a month starting in September 1962 and that he was still on their payroll the day he was apprehended in the Texas Theatre after having gunned down Officer J.D. Tippit! The officials returned to Dallas after their visit on Friday, January 24. Their presence in Washington was unknown to the press or the public.


It should be noted, again, that Pres. Ford, never denied the claim, although the Warren Commission accepted J. Edgar Hoover's emphatic denial.

Hoover_Denies.jpg

Of course, the FBI’s malfeasance is hardly limited to the Kennedy assassination.  Remember the Frederick Whitehurst scandal?  Another example is a 2015 Slate article entitled: Pseudoscience in the Witness Box: The FBI faked an entire field of forensic science.  READ IT HERE!


The Warren Commission relied on the FBI to do its detective work.  Nothing the FBI produced can be trusted. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone  noticed  on Parnell's blog the number  of  times the Oswalds moved around? From 63-75 my family moved 6 times and I  used  to  think  that  was  a lot.

But it's  amazing  how  many times  she moved. I  think  this  should  be factored into why LHO missed a lot of  school  and why he  was  in  and  out  of truant  school. The kid was probably  rudderless and without  any stability  in his  home life.

Meanwhile  the postings  here  continue  with  "is that Harvey or Lee?" And all real debate from them is gone as they flail away blindly.

I think  it's  sad because  it makes serious  researchers get lumped together  with the movie studio  moon walking  believers, the man on the steps holding  the  invisible  pistol believers  and  other kooks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Has anyone  noticed  on Parnell's blog the number  of  times the Oswalds moved around? From 63-75 my family moved 6 times and I  used  to  think  that  was  a lot.

But it's  amazing  how  many times  she moved. I  think  this  should  be factored into why LHO missed a lot of  school  and why he  was  in  and  out  of truant  school. The kid was probably  rudderless and without  any stability  in his  home life.

Just on that note,

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/chrono.htm

*When I first read that and saw how many different places lived and how many different schools I was beyond surprised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was done on purpose... the moving...

Yet 2220 Thomas remains constant.  Finding out why as well as reviewing the evidence of Oswald living at this address across from Stripling helps shed quite a bit of light on the subject.

Armstrong goes into the Deeds of Trust and how this destitute woman bought and sold homes while playing the pauper at every turn.

Under the "too close for comfort" file,  2220 Thomas - Where Marge was interviewed on Nov 22, was owned by the McCarthy's; friends of Fred Korth.
During the Garrison investigation Marge claimed that "FRED KORTH played a part in LEE's life"... but did not elaborate.

 

2220 Thomas across from Stripling

2220 Thomas Ave Stripling.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the tenets of the John Armstrong Harvey & Lee theory is the difference in appearance between the two boys in 1952-53. “Lee” was tall and had a dominant personality, while “Harvey” was shorter and more slight in build. Dr. Milton Kurian and Myra DaRouse stated that "Harvey" was only 4'8" tall. But a simple math formula proves that Kurian and DaRouse were mistaken in their remembrances.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-bronx-zoo-photo.html

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

This was done on purpose... the moving...

Yet 2220 Thomas remains constant.  Finding out why as well as reviewing the evidence of Oswald living at this address across from Stripling helps shed quite a bit of light on the subject.

Armstrong goes into the Deeds of Trust and how this destitute woman bought and sold homes while playing the pauper at every turn.

Under the "too close for comfort" file,  2220 Thomas - Where Marge was interviewed on Nov 22, was owned by the McCarthy's; friends of Fred Korth.
During the Garrison investigation Marge claimed that "FRED KORTH played a part in LEE's life"... but did not elaborate.

 

2220 Thomas across from Stripling

2220 Thomas Ave Stripling.jpg

 

Hey, D.J….

That residence—since torn down-- at 2220 Thomas right next to Stripling School must have been some sort of Safe House.  Its association with the Oswald Project may go all the way back to 1947.

That’s when Georgia Bell moved into her new home at 101 San Saba and became acquainted with her neighbor, Marguerite C. Ekdahl.  When Georgia was 82 years old, in 1996, John Armstrong visited her at her home, still at 101 San Saba.

Georgia told John that Mrs. Lucille Hubbard, Marguerite’s neighbor to the east, drove Marguerite to a house she had rented “next to the Stripling School,” which contained clothes and a lot of furniture.  That house was probably the duplex at 2220 Thomas.

In 1954, Fran Schubert watched Lee HARVEY Oswald walk from the Stripling School building across Thomas St. and to the house at 2220 Thomas.  She also saw “Marguerite,” who she said always wore a white nurses uniform.  

In 1963, “Marguerite” moved back to 2220 Thomas, where, if memory serves, she was at the time President Kennedy was murdered.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:
2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

In 1954, Fran Schubert watched Lee HARVEY Oswald walk from the Stripling School building across Thomas St. and to the house at 2220 Thomas.  She also saw “Marguerite,” who she said always wore a white nurses uniform.  

 

Schubert may have seen Robert walking to Stripling but the time frame would have been 1948-49. But where is the documentation for 2220 Thomas? Answer-it doesn't exist only witness statements. You are right about one thing though, Marguerite was there at the time of the assassination.

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

Schubert may have seen Robert walking to Stripling but the time frame would have been 1948-49. But where is the documentation for 2220 Thomas? Answer-it doesn't exist only witness statements. You are right about one thing though, Marguerite was there at the time of the assassination.

You're kidding, right?

Here is Francetta Schubert's 1996 YouTube interview describing her observations of Lee HARVEY Oswald at Stripling School in 1954!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Has anyone  noticed  on Parnell's blog the number  of  times the Oswalds moved around? From 63-75 my family moved 6 times and I  used  to  think  that  was  a lot.

But it's  amazing  how  many times  she moved. I  think  this  should  be factored into why LHO missed a lot of  school  and why he  was  in  and  out  of truant  school. The kid was probably  rudderless and without  any stability  in his  home life.

Meanwhile  the postings  here  continue  with  "is that Harvey or Lee?" And all real debate from them is gone as they flail away blindly.

I think  it's  sad because  it makes serious  researchers get lumped together  with the movie studio  moon walking  believers, the man on the steps holding  the  invisible  pistol believers  and  other kooks.

Michael,

But don't you realize you're talking about five Marguerites and five Oswalds?

(lol)

--  Tommy :sun

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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.

Okay fine Jeremy. Give us a logical explanation for the fact that New York PS44 school records show LHO taking classes full time during the 1953/54 fall semester. And yet New Orleans Beauregard school records show LHO taking classes part time during that very same semester. Just make up a reasonable hypothetical explanation for this contradiction.

That's what I've been asking for.

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

That doesn't explain the contradictory school records at all! Tell us how it came about that the records show LHO attending the two different schools simultaneously.

That you apparently believe Tracy and Greg Parker have done that proves my point, that people like you don't bother understanding the contradiction. You just assume there must be a logical explanation, and walk away wiping the dust off your hands.

and here:

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

Same thing. Doesn't explain the contradiction.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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


Excellent analysis?? More like you two grasping at straws.

If you want to convert anybody to your way of thinking, explain the contradiction. Give a reasonable, hypothetical explanation for the contradiction. Counting school days doesn't explain it.

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...