TWO MARGUERITE OSWALDS -- NEW DETAILS

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Quote

Can you just simply explain how it is those two records show Oswald attending the two different schools at the very same time?

Sandy,

The answer to your question is yes and no. Because people make mistakes and people see and remember things differently, there always will be discrepancies in records and witness statements. In this case, you have a mother, Marguerite, who lived in over 50 addresses by 1963. This fact multiplies the mistakes and makes it much more likely that they will occur. These are facts that professional investigators know and accept. But John Armstrong and his band of followers say they do not know this and every mistake is evidence of 2 Oswalds which it is not.

In the 1970 and early 80’s Michael Eddowes had a two-Oswald theory. An exhumation was performed of LHO’s body to “resolve” the issue. A team of four of the best forensic experts found that the one and only Oswald was in fact there in the grave. Eddowes originally accepted the defeat graciously. But soon, he was right back at it and working to find another angle. He simply did not want to believe in the facts presented to him. I am very proud of the fact that I had a small part in documenting the exhumation facts with the help of the late Gary Mack who was a genius in the JFK world and knew as much about the assassination as anyone who has ever studied it. Gary (who was a part of the exhumation story himself) originally had doubts about the exhumation but after the evidence was presented and studied he accepted it and agreed to help me in my efforts. After my series appeared, the exhumation basically went into the dust bin of history as far as a viable conspiracy theory. You can read about it here and it is an interesting story:

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

I believe the H&L theory is a “vehicle” for John Armstrong and his associates. It is generally advisable to have a thesis for a book and he decided that two Oswalds would do the job. I am not sure that Armstrong and his men even believe their own theory, but it does call attention to the work they do. In some ways, it is a very clever theory. But when examined closely, it falls apart as myself, Greg Parker, David Lifton and Jeremy Bojczuk have all shown. I recommend you get Parker’s books as they discuss many of the issues in this thread (including school records) and they are very inexpensive. Bojczuk has a good website and a book also. Lifton’s refutations can be found via Google. BTW, even though I am a lone assassin theorist, these people are CTs.

Can I disprove every allegation by Armstrong? For the reasons mentioned above, no I cannot. That is the beauty of the theory, if someone refutes one thing thy will say “yeah but look at this” because of all the inconstancies that there are for the reasons I have explained.

The hard scientific facts are here:

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

There are other common sense things like how did two men use one military ID? How did two boys named Oswald attend the same school at the same time without someone noticing. How did Voebel know both Oswalds and not realize it and say anything? Why did all the people who knew the “real” Marguerite when she was young not say anything when the impostor appeared on TV and in the newspapers?

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html

So, you don’t need two Oswalds to explain inconsistencies. You don’t need 2 Oswalds to believe in conspiracy. When the evidence tells you it is not true why believe it? There is only one answer-like Michael Eddowes you want to believe it for whatever reason.

Edited March 5, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

At the very least, the NYC PS 44 records and the Beauregard New Orleans records clearly indicate that a single Lee Harvey Oswald could simply not have attended Stripling school in Fort Worth at the same time.  Now let’s see if the PS 44 and Beauregard records by themselves conflict with each other.

I’m reposting below the Beauregard cumulative record for LHO and below that two pages from an FBI report analyzing it.  Remember that the PS44 records clearly indicated that LHO attended more than 62 school days (and was absent three and a fraction days) for the semester beginning 9/14/53 at the NYC school.
 

 

 

Page 10 of the FBI report summarizes the attendance data in the “Absent,” “Tardy,” “Left” and “Re-Ad” columns, which are explained, according to the FBI agents, starting at the bottom of page 10 and continuing to page 11 by William Head, assistant principal at Warren Easton High School, who received the Beauregard records for incoming students.  The FBI’s summary of Head’s explanation has caused Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell to argue against David Josephs and me for years, because Head seemed to say two contradictory things.

At the bottom of page 10, the FBI indicates he said that the “Re ad” column stood for “Re Admitted” and “would represent a total listing of the school days for a given school year.”  But later in the very same paragraph, now at the top of page 11, the report indicates that Head said a school year regularly consisted of 180 days and that “school days in any given year must not fall below 170” and that “therefore the numbers listed opposite this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year.”

So which is it?  Does the “Re-Ad” column represent the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period?

The answer is right before us in the documents shown above.    In the actual Beauregard cumulative record for LHO (top document above), look at the very last entry on the far right under the “Re-Ad” column.  It shows a total of “168” days for the 1954-55 school year.  Tracy Parnell wants you to believe that number, like the numbers in the “Re-Ad” column for the previous school year, represent the number of total days in the school year.

But that can’t be!  Head indicated that Louisiana law dictated a minimum of 170 school days in a school year, and so if we’re to believe Tracy’s interpretation, every student report card at Beauregard for the 1954-55 school year was evidence that Louisiana law was being broken.  On the other hand, using my interpretation (that the “168” indicated the actual days LHO attended school) we can make perfect sense of these numbers.  Adding Oswald’s 168 days of attendance and his 12 absences comes out to exactly 180 days, just what Head said comprised a typical Beauregard school year!

The “Re Ad” column clearly indicates the number of days a student actually attended school.  So let’s look at the first semester of the 1953-54 school year at Beauregard.  It indicates that Oswald attended 89 days and was absent once, for a total of 90 school days.

For the 1953 fall semester at PS 44 in New York, Oswald attended 62 and a fraction days and was absent three and a fraction days for a total of 66 school days accounted for.  Add those 66 days to the 90 days from Beauregard and you get at total of 156 days, equivalent to nearly an entire school year! Despite whatever spin Tracy cares to put on this, the NYC and Louisiana school records for fall semester starting in 1953 clearly show two Lee Harvey Oswalds attending two different schools at the same time!

 

Bump for Sandy and Tracy....

Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell have been arguing for years that the PS 44 school records in NYC and the Beauregard records from New Orleans don't conflict.  The post above clearly shows that they cover two different people.  To see a wonderful debunking of this, Parnell suggests we buy Greg Parker's book so we can see how Parker disproves the above analysis, but when asked for the specifics about Parker's argument, Parnell demurs because, he says, he is afraid of "a copyright violation."

Tracy, you can tell us about Parker's analysis without fearing our copyright laws.  A paragraph or two (or usually even several pages) directly quoted from a book are usually considered "fair use."  And, of course, you can always put Parker's thoughts into your own words and put them right here.  Shouldn't take you long, but I doubt you will do it.

You tell us again and again how the government has proved there was only one "Lee Harvey Oswald."  Most of the people here are sick and tired of hearing about the government's position on just about anything related to the assassinations during the 1960s of both Kennedy Brothers and Dr. Martin Luther King.   All we can do is examine the details the government failed to cover up.   The school records from the fall of 1953 are one of the thousands of details that somehow made it through the FBI/CIA shredding machine.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

12 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Bump for Sandy and Tracy....

Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell have been arguing for years that the PS 44 school records in NYC and the Beauregard records from New Orleans don't conflict.  The post above clearly shows that they cover two different people.  To see a wonderful debunking of this, Parnell suggests we buy Greg Parker's book so we can see how Parker disproves the above analysis, but when asked for the specifics about Parker's argument, Parnell demurs because, he says, he is afraid of "a copyright violation."

Tracy, you can tell us about Parker's analysis without fearing our copyright laws.  A paragraph or two (or usually even several pages) directly quoted from a book are usually considered "fair use."  And, of course, you can always put Parker's thoughts into your own words and put them right here.  Shouldn't take you long, but I doubt you will do it.

You tell us again and again how the government has proved there was only one "Lee Harvey Oswald."  Most of the people here are sick and tired of hearing about the government's position on just about anything related to the assassinations during the 1960s of both Kennedy Brothers and Dr. Martin Luther King.   All we can do is examine the details the government failed to cover up.   The school records from the fall of 1953 are one of the thousands of details that somehow made it through the FBI/CIA shredding machine.

 

The records may appear to conflict but we have enough other evidence to show that there were not two Oswalds. There is really no need for me to present Parker’s arguments, they have already been discussed here at the EF and elsewhere repeatedly and Jim is well aware of them. You can currently get both of Parker’s ebooks for $12 so that is very reasonable although I was lucky when I got them as they were cheaper then and on sale I guess. But I am not going to argue about the records as I do not consider it a subject worthy of my time. There are a few areas that probably cannot be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction and this is one of them. However, if Parker ever provides permission to cut and paste portions of his work here, I will.

Not all JFK CT researchers are as wary of the government investigation as Jim is. Paul Trejo and David Lifton are two examples of conspiracy believers who think the majority (I don’t believe that is an overstatement) of the government work is valid.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Jim Hargrove:

Ralph Cinque is at it again, posting things that are at odds with the official two Marguerite theory. You guys have to talk to him:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/03/lets-look-at-these-two-images-of.html

[Thomas Graves]

On 2/24/2017 at 3:20 PM, Michael Walton said:

I just don't buy this, Jim.  She's short, she's tall, she's stocky, she's thin, she smiles, she doesn't, her eyebrows are arched, then they're not. It's just way too far fetched for me.  I think, too you give the government way too much credit to think that they had things like this going on.  That's not to say they did not have look a likes to basically mislead people.

But to have a legend within a legend for Oswald - even down to his mother - it just seems way too implausible. Oswald was already a low-level agent the way they sent him over to Russia and let him come right back in with nary a peep from the government. Then they steered him around here and there until they found another role for him to play as patsy.  But I think it' ridiculous for you to think they'd go all the way back to the early 50's to even create a legend for his mother too.

I agree.

--  Tommy

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Sandy,

The answer to your question is yes and no. Because people make mistakes and people see and remember things differently, there always will be discrepancies in records and witness statements. In this case, you have a mother, Marguerite, who lived in over 50 addresses by 1963. This fact multiplies the mistakes and makes it much more likely that they will occur. These are facts that professional investigators know and accept. But John Armstrong and his band of followers say they do not know this and every mistake is evidence of 2 Oswalds which it is not.

In the 1970 and early 80’s Michael Eddowes had a two-Oswald theory. An exhumation was performed of LHO’s body to “resolve” the issue. A team of four of the best forensic experts found that the one and only Oswald was in fact there in the grave. Eddowes originally accepted the defeat graciously. But soon, he was right back at it and working to find another angle. He simply did not want to believe in the facts presented to him. I am very proud of the fact that I had a small part in documenting the exhumation facts with the help of the late Gary Mack who was a genius in the JFK world and knew as much about the assassination as anyone who has ever studied it. Gary (who was a part of the exhumation story himself) originally had doubts about the exhumation but after the evidence was presented and studied he accepted it and agreed to help me in my efforts. After my series appeared, the exhumation basically went into the dust bin of history as far as a viable conspiracy theory. You can read about it here and it is an interesting story:

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

I believe the H&L theory is a “vehicle” for John Armstrong and his associates. It is generally advisable to have a thesis for a book and he decided that two Oswalds would do the job. I am not sure that Armstrong and his men even believe their own theory, but it does call attention to the work they do. In some ways, it is a very clever theory. But when examined closely, it falls apart as myself, Greg Parker, David Lifton and Jeremy Bojczuk have all shown. I recommend you get Parker’s books as they discuss many of the issues in this thread (including school records) and they are very inexpensive. Bojczuk has a good website and a book also. Lifton’s refutations can be found via Google. BTW, even though I am a lone assassin theorist, these people are CTs.

Can I disprove every allegation by Armstrong? For the reasons mentioned above, no I cannot. That is the beauty of the theory, if someone refutes one thing thy will say “yeah but look at this” because of all the inconstancies that there are for the reasons I have explained.

The hard scientific facts are here:

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

There are other common sense things like how did two men use one military ID? How did two boys named Oswald attend the same school at the same time without someone noticing. How did Voebel know both Oswalds and not realize it and say anything? Why did all the people who knew the “real” Marguerite when she was young not say anything when the impostor appeared on TV and in the newspapers?

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html

So, you don’t need two Oswalds to explain inconsistencies. You don’t need 2 Oswalds to believe in conspiracy. When the evidence tells you it is not true why believe it? There is only one answer-like Michael Eddowes you want to believe it for whatever reason.

Okay, thanks.

You have no explanation. Even though you think (or thought) Greg Parker does.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

At the very least, the NYC PS 44 records and the Beauregard New Orleans records clearly indicate that a single Lee Harvey Oswald could simply not have attended Stripling school in Fort Worth at the same time.  Now let’s see if the PS 44 and Beauregard records by themselves conflict with each other.

I’m reposting below the Beauregard cumulative record for LHO and below that two pages from an FBI report analyzing it.  Remember that the PS44 records clearly indicated that LHO attended more than 62 school days (and was absent three and a fraction days) for the semester beginning 9/14/53 at the NYC school.
 

 

 

Page 10 of the FBI report summarizes the attendance data in the “Absent,” “Tardy,” “Left” and “Re-Ad” columns, which are explained, according to the FBI agents, starting at the bottom of page 10 and continuing to page 11 by William Head, assistant principal at Warren Easton High School, who received the Beauregard records for incoming students.  The FBI’s summary of Head’s explanation has caused Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell to argue against David Josephs and me for years, because Head seemed to say two contradictory things.

At the bottom of page 10, the FBI indicates he said that the “Re ad” column stood for “Re Admitted” and “would represent a total listing of the school days for a given school year.”  But later in the very same paragraph, now at the top of page 11, the report indicates that Head said a school year regularly consisted of 180 days and that “school days in any given year must not fall below 170” and that “therefore the numbers listed opposite this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year.”

So which is it?  Does the “Re-Ad” column represent the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period?

The answer is right before us in the documents shown above.    In the actual Beauregard cumulative record for LHO (top document above), look at the very last entry on the far right under the “Re-Ad” column.  It shows a total of “168” days for the 1954-55 school year.  Tracy Parnell wants you to believe that number, like the numbers in the “Re-Ad” column for the previous school year, represent the number of total days in the school year.

But that can’t be!  Head indicated that Louisiana law dictated a minimum of 170 school days in a school year, and so if we’re to believe Tracy’s interpretation, every student report card at Beauregard for the 1954-55 school year was evidence that Louisiana law was being broken.  On the other hand, using my interpretation (that the “168” indicated the actual days LHO attended school) we can make perfect sense of these numbers.  Adding Oswald’s 168 days of attendance and his 12 absences comes out to exactly 180 days, just what Head said comprised a typical Beauregard school year!

The “Re Ad” column clearly indicates the number of days a student actually attended school.  So let’s look at the first semester of the 1953-54 school year at Beauregard.  It indicates that Oswald attended 89 days and was absent once, for a total of 90 school days.

For the 1953 fall semester at PS 44 in New York, Oswald attended 62 and a fraction days and was absent three and a fraction days for a total of 66 school days accounted for.  Add those 66 days to the 90 days from Beauregard and you get at total of 156 days, equivalent to nearly an entire school year! Despite whatever spin Tracy cares to put on this, the NYC and Louisiana school records for fall semester starting in 1953 clearly show two Lee Harvey Oswalds attending two different schools at the same time!

 

Jim,

I don't know how Tracy and Greg Parker could use their misinterpretations to argue against you, but they are clearly wrong if they disagree with you. The first row in the Beauregard record is clearly the first semester, the second row is the second semester, and the third row is the total of the first two rows. For number of days attended, the third row is the sum of the first two rows. For each subject, the third row is the average of the first two rows.

The number of days attended is just that, not the total number of school days available in the semester or year. I guess you are lucky that Mr. Head pointed out that 170 days is the legal minimum, as that proves your point.

It never ceases to amaze me how far a denier will go to try and prove they are right. They think a CT is too elaborate to be believable, and yet they go to unbelievably elaborate extremes in attempts to prove the CT wrong.

One really great thing about being an open minded, and yet critical, person who always seeks the truth is that you don't have to worry about being proven wrong. For example, I determined a long time ago that David Lifton got much of his theory right, about the two caskets, the three casket entries, the large blowout in the rear of the head that has been covered up, etc. I have been challenged on that several times since, by both LNers and CTers, and I have never found my argument bested. I never worry about something I don't know about that could prove my position wrong.

You seem to be the same with the Harvey and Lee theory. I see you challenged time and time again, and every time you come out with credible answers while your opponents look like amateurs.

I think that you and John are probably right. It will take me some time to come to the conclusion that you are, because it is a large commitment. But your (John's) evidence is certainly heading me in that direction.

Keep up the good work.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay, thanks.

You have no explanation. Even though you think (or thought) Greg Parker does.

 

No, there is always another explanation that does not require two Oswalds, even if it is simply that the records are being misread or the records are wrong.

[Thomas Graves]

6 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No, there is always another explanation that does not require two Oswalds, even if it is simply that the records are being misread or the records are wrong.

Tracy,

As you know and as The Agency has instructed me to say, "I totally agree with you on all this Harvey & Lee-based nonsense."

--  Tommy

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 minute ago, Thomas Graves said:

Tracy,

As you know and as The Agency has instructed me to say, "I totally agree with you on all this Harvey & Lee-based nonsense."

--  Tommy

 

Thanks Tommy, I'm heading back to base at Langley now.  

[Michael Walton]

Tracy Parnell absolutely  great post earlier about mistaken identities misinterpreted  testimony and so on. My thoughts exactly.

And as it happens  one of the replies  to  your post was "you have nothing," a reply rich in irony and self unawareness.

Kudos.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

27 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Tracy Parnell absolutely  great post earlier about mistaken identities misinterpreted  testimony and so on. My thoughts exactly.

And as it happens  one of the replies  to  your post was "you have nothing," a reply rich in irony and self unawareness.

Kudos.

Thanks Michael. The normal discrepancies and differences in witness statements are what allows the H&L theory to exist. The Palmer McBride and Mrs. Jack Tippit incidents were the foundation of the theory but they actually are among the weakest arguments.

[David Josephs]

Michael - no matter how many times it is shown to them, addition is something that eludes them.

It is claimed by both these researchers as well as the FBI that an Oswald attended 200 days of school between March 23, 1953 and Jan 12, 1954.

The FBI report is below...  171 days + 11/2 = 5.5 days + 18 and 11/2 absent days = 18+5.5 = 23.5.   171 + 5.5 + 23.5 + 200 total days of school including absences.

 

 

There are 210 TOTAL SCHOOL DAYS POSSIBLE between the dates mentioned.  These men would have us believe that Oswald attended and/or was absent from a total of 200 of these 210 days.

Oswald was at Youth House missing 17 days of school
Oswald did not go to summer school - that's 54 more school days
These is usually a 1 week Spring break and a 2 week Winter break - also deducted from the total # of school days

For the time period mentioned, Oswald could only attend a MAXIMUM of 123 days

yet when we look at the NYC school records we find a complete impossibility...  as highlighted above, from March 23, 1953 until the end of that semester June 26, 1953 is only 70 total days of school  MINUS the Youth House in April/May 1953 and spring break, there were only 46 total school days to attend.

Yet what is written on the boy's cumulative file is obviously wrong...   109 3/2 attended days and 15 3/2 absent days is much more than 46 days

So ok... the records are wrong... as Tracy would say, mistakes happen.  So one needs to ask...

 

 

How can the PERMANENT RECORD which gets added to as the years pass have 3 different versions with none of them matching the earliest version of this singular record.. (NYC public school do not keep multiple versions of the same child's perm record yet somehow there are 2 different completed versions - one an exhibit and one not - which do not match the 1952 version...)

 

So Tracy... who do you suppose fills these records out?  the school or the FBI?  which would know how many days there were and from which source materials these dates derive...  a school official or the FBI?

These records were CREATED and very poorly as only the number of school days were counted, start to finish, and then retrofitted into an explanation.

==============

Moving now to Beauregard

The discussion here is whether an Oswald attended the entire semester at BJHS or started in January

According to the BJHS it appears the "Re-Ad" column is the total number of days in a school year.
If that is true then there is a problem with the 54-55 year since the total # of days is only 168 when the min # of days is 180.

Hmmm.  168 + 12 = 180 days!  This suggests that the "Re-Ad" column is the total days attended and when added to absences gives us a total of 180.
89 + 90 = 179; only 1 short of the min.  if we add back the absences like what is done for 54-55, we get 184 and all is good again.  This does suggest that this child attended 89 days of school, IF we use 54-55 as a guide.

But wait, shouldn't the grade cards for 54-55 also show 12 absences?  

Tracy, how come the final grade cards for the 54-55 year do not show 12 absences and why are the total # of school days under the "re-ad" column short of 180?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by David Josephs

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Thanks Michael. The normal discrepancies and differences in witness statements are what allows the H&L theory to exist. The Palmer McBride and Mrs. Jack Tippit incidents were the foundation of the theory but they actually are among the weakest arguments.

Tracy,

That, and the fact that there's strong evidence that at least one FBI-CIA generated CIA counterintelligence project utilized the one-and-only Oswald's intentionally- mismashed biographical and biological descriptions. 

Which could account for many of the "discrepancies and differences".

--  Tommy

[W. Tracy Parnell]

David,

The school records are a waste of time. Greg Parker has offered reasonable explanations which the H&L team rejects.

Rather than discuss the inconsistencies in the records which have allowed the H&L theory to flourish, why not discuss the 1981 exhumation which was performed to refute a similar two Oswald theory? In 1981 LHO was exhumed and a mastoid depression was looked for and found exactly where you would expect it to be. The depression, which resulted from diseased bone being removed and a drain being inserted, had smooth edges as it would with the passage of time and this fact proved that it was not hastily faked but an authentic remnant of the operation “Lee” had in 1946. The problem is, “Harvey” was in the Fort Worth grave and it was his body that was exhumed according to Armstrong.

In the book, Armstrong mentions the exhumation but predictably fails to inform his readers of the discrepancy. The only attempt ever made by anyone on the H&L team to explain it was by Jim Hargrove who said that Harvey must have had a similar operation performed in NYC when Robertson said he was hospitalized for mental test, the tests being a cover for the mastoid procedure. This weak and after the fact explanation is the only one ever provided.

Another powerful scientific proof is the handwriting analysis done by the HSCA to refute two Oswald theories in general. I examined their work and found that handwriting samples written by “Harvey” and “Lee” were written by the same individual according to the HSCA.

Here is a summary of this information for those interested:

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

In my opinion, scientific evidence trumps theories based on misinterpreted records.