Jim Hargrove Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 7 hours ago, James Norwood said: Very well done, Jim! Your points above on Jack Ruby are especially important. Readers of this thread are urged to study John Armstrong's piece on Ruby:http://harveyandlee.net/Ruby/Ruby.html The story of Jack Ruby has long flummoxed JFK researchers. John's article hits the bull's eye, especially in linking Ruby to the CIA, not the mafia. It takes a minimum of one hour to read and digest this lengthy piece. The abundant primary sources appearing throughout John's article are what make it so persuasive. Readers are encouraged to verify each of those sources and to weigh the evidence for themselves, to determine the significant role played by Ruby in the assassination. Thank you, James. Understanding Ruby's pivotal and long-suppressed role in the assassination is critical to understanding exactly who was behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Michael Walton said: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/marguerites-finances.html?m=1 Amazingly Tracy debunks the HL story with Armstrong's own research. What none of the HL supporters realize is the money she made back then is huge in today's dollars. KUDOS to Tracy for bringing more truth out of the shadows. Thanks Michael. As I show in the article based on Armstrong's own documents, the idea that Marguerite was destitute is not accurate. With her real estate profits and other income, she was able to get by quite well. Her placing the kids in the orphan home was more a matter of convenience than anything. Jim's entire narrative above is based on "cherry picking" of witnesses statements, some of whom, like Bell, were speaking years after the events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Mr. Parnell is the clear winner when the contest involves cherry-picking data. Marguerite was so poor in the early 1940s that by late 1942 all three of her children were in orphanages. On January 3, 1942 Marguerite removed John and Robert from school and placed them in the Evangelical Lutheran Bethleham Orphan Asylum located at 5413 North Peters Street in New Orleans. She tried to place Lee there as well, but the home wouldn't accept him because he was just two years old. On December 26, 1942, after Lee had lived at the Murret's home for 7 months, Marguerite successfully placed him (now at the age of three) in the same Evangelical Lutheran Bethleham Orphan Asylum with John and Robert. Marguerite was too poor to house and feed any of her three children. Robert E. Lee Oswald had died in 1939; the insurance payout Mr. Parnell includes in her assets of the late 1940s was clearly long gone before Marguerite had to place all her children in an orphanage due to her extreme poverty. In the past, Mr. Parnell has claimed Marguerite was hiding her fortune from the authorities, but, of course, he offers no evidence whatsoever. Her marriage to Ekdahl helped temporarily but soon dissolved; the small settlement hardly could have enabled her to become so successful she could own three homes in her own name and live at other addresses as well. What bank in the 1940s would give a cash-strapped single mother like her mortgages to buy three homes? What bank would do that today? Marguerite was clearly not a successful businesswoman at any point in her life, but at the start of the Oswald Project she flourished like one. How many of us here own three homes and live in a fourth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Well then, how did Marguerite pay for the first properties she bought? Yes, again, vacuous and now circular thought from Parnell. Empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Michael Cross said: Yes, again, vacuous and now circular thought from Parnell. Empty. It is easy to criticize. If you would like to demonstrate how my article is in error please do. I don't have a citation to a document off the top of my head, but Armstrong makes reference to them in the early part of H&L. Jim's statements that she was poverty stricken are based almost completely on the fact that she put her children in orphanages. The idea that she could have been a somewhat cold and detached mother who was looking for free babysitting and room and board is not considered. Instead, the fact that she was able to own real estate while in "dire poverty" "proves" that she was working for the CIA and other alternatives are not considered. This is how the H&L gang operates, The purpose of my article is to offer other alternatives and in this case Armstrong's own research is the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Tracy agreed. The numbers that Armstrong came up with for her income show she did quite well. It appears that when you're able to turn the tables on the evidence Team HL resort to school yard tactics. That's pretty much all they have left. And I'm still waiting for the big reveal of their funny theory on 60 Minutes. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 4 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: It is easy to criticize. If you would like to demonstrate how my article is in error please do. I don't have a citation to a document off the top of my head, but Armstrong makes reference to them in the early part of H&L. Jim's statements that she was poverty stricken are based almost completely on the fact that she put her children in orphanages. The idea that she could have been a somewhat cold and detached mother who was looking for free babysitting and room and board is not considered. Instead, the fact that she was able to own real estate while in "dire poverty" "proves" that she was working for the CIA and other alternatives are not considered. This is how the H&L gang operates, The purpose of my article is to offer other alternatives and in this case Armstrong's own research is the source. It's easy to make things up too Tracy. Claiming she bought real estate by selling real estate is a circular and empty argument. It has no merit. She was able to own real estate as you say. HOW? She ran a con? Show proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Michael Walton said: Tracy agreed. The numbers that Armstrong came up with for her income show she did quite well. It appears that when you're able to turn the tables on the evidence Team HL resort to school yard tactics. That's pretty much all they have left. And I'm still waiting for the big reveal of their funny theory on 60 Minutes. LOL No. No they don't. And they aren't sufficient to explain the real estate holdings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Well then, how did Marguerite pay for the first properties she bought? The first place she bought (1010 Bartholomew) was probably with insurance money. Thereafter she did as I said and bought other places with real estate profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Michael Cross said: It's easy to make things up too Tracy. Claiming she bought real estate by selling real estate is a circular and empty argument. It has no merit. She was able to own real estate as you say. HOW? She ran a con? Show proof. I've shown you the proof. Based on John Armstrong's own research, She made $6590 in real estate and that is not counting all of her rental income. Now, why don't you write an article that shows I am wrong with sources? And BTW, I never said she "ran a con" to make money. She played the part of a poor widow to gain sympathy, but she was not as poor as she made out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 6 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: The first place she bought (1010 Bartholomew) was probably with insurance money. Thereafter she did as I said and bought other places with real estate profits. Probably. Multiple properties from one sale that was probably purchased with insurance money. She was probably an amazing investor, a savant. She probably had a print press in each of her multiple homes for counterfeiting. She probably robbed several banks. Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Just now, Michael Cross said: Probably. Multiple properties from one sale that was probably purchased with insurance money. She was probably an amazing investor, a savant. She probably had a print press in each of her multiple homes for counterfeiting. She probably robbed several banks. Probably. Now you're just being silly. She was not a savant-she lost money on one deal and broke even on one. But she made the equivalent of about three years salary at her typical rate of pay. The H&L people would have you believe that is no explanation for Marguerite's situation other than she worked for the CIA. Marguerite was not rich of course. But through a combination of real estate profits, support payments, a divorce settlement, insurance money and her own employment (and her sons later) she was able to get by. As always, there is an alternate explanation for those who are willing to consider it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 It's called sarcasm. Your claims are just as baseless. Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Mr. Parnell sums up Marguerite’s income in addition to her extremely low paying jobs and comes up with a total of $17,400 covering a period extending from 1939 to at least 1951, on average less than $1500 per year. From that figure he deducts none of the expenses that would need to be covered for herself, three children, and seven different homes owned at various times, also not including mortgage payments. But he considers this suitable income for her to enjoy ownership of three homes simultaneously while living in a fourth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 6 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: Mr. Parnell sums up Marguerite’s income in addition to her extremely low paying jobs and comes up with a total of $17,400 covering a period extending from 1939 to at least 1951, on average less than $1500 per year. From that figure he deducts none of the expenses that would need to be covered for herself, three children, and seven different homes owned at various times, also not including mortgage payments. But he considers this suitable income for her to enjoy ownership of three homes simultaneously while living in a fourth. Yes. Vacuous assertions. Based only on his opinion, not fact nor math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now