W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 2 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. As you say, this 17k is in addition to her salary. Additionally, when she was married to Ekdahl, you can bet he was paying most of the bills. She only made around $2000 a year when she worked-would you dispute that? So $1500 a year is a nice supplement. I don't know about the three homes business, that could be a misreading of the situation by Armstrong. But if true, she was probably renting the homes she wasn't in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Cross Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Could be. If true. Conjecture is worthless. As is attacking another's research based on your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 The secret to all this is 101 San Saba in Benbrook, which Marguerite purchased on July 7, 1947. Before then, she was signing/cosigning mortgages for modest homes one at a time, living in them, and then selling them. With San Saba she purchased the home in her own name and apparently never lived there (John Pic said he didn't know anything at all about San Saba), or lived there a matter of weeks. Immediately afterward, Marguerite and the boys moved to 1505 8th Ave. in Fort Worth. The Warren Commission told us that Marguerite sold the San Saba house to Otis Carleton just a few months after she bought it, explaining a possible brief stay, but the Tarrant County land records show that Otis Carleton did not purchase 101 San Saba from Marguerite Oswald until four years later, on November 1, 1951. While she still owned the San Saba house, she bought a new home at 7408 Ewing in Fort Worth in 1948, also just in her name. And she purchased a third home, also in her name only, at 4833 Birchman in Fort Worth in 1951. So, what happened in the summer of 1947 that changed Marguerite's financial picture so dramatically? As John shows by examining county records, school records, and the recollections of Otis Carlton and neighbor Georgia Bell, for the first time ever we have Marguerite Oswald and her son(s) living in two different places at the same time: 101 San Saba in Benbrook and 1505 8th Ave. in Fort Worth. The Oswald Project had begun, and someone appears to have begun receiving some taxpayer dollars, helping her to own multiple homes simultaneously. The summer of 1947 is critical. From Harvey and Lee, p. 29: Robert Oswald testified at length about the first half of 1947, but when Warren Commission attorney Albert Jenner began to ask Robert about the summer of 1947 Com- mission member Allen Dulles, the former Director of the CIA, asked for an adjourn- ment.86 W hen Robert's testimony resumed Attorney Jenner said, "This brought us through the summer of 1948, I believe. Am I correct?"87 Robert Oswald answered, "That is correct, sir." With the aide of Allen Dulles and Attorney Albert Jenner, testimony from Robert Oswald about the summer and fall of 1947, and any reference to 101 San Saba, were avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 (edited) Let's talk "homes" for one minute then... 101 San Saba remains the greatest problem for deniers. Mr. PIC - When we returned home I seen this house and my first impressions were that we are back to where we were. Lee had a dog that a woman had given him, I think it is the same dog we have pictures of, and I kind of had the feeling that our days at Chamberlain-Hunt were ended even though it didn't come officially. Then sometime in the summer of 1948, the divorce took place in Tarrant County, city of Fort Worth. I had to testify. I think they attempted to put Lee on the stand but he said that he wouldn't know right from wrong and the 'truth from a falsehood so they excused him as a witness being he was trader age. I don't remember my testimony completely. I dc remember that my mother had made the statement that if Mr. Ekdahl ever hit her again that she would send me in there to beat him up or, something which I doubt that I could have done. I was told by her that she was contesting the divorce so that he would still support her. She lost, he won. The divorce was granted. I was also told that there was a settlement of about $1,200 and she stated that just about all of this went to the lawyer. Right after this is when she purchased the house in Ben-brook, Tex., the little house. Mr. JENNER - Describe that house. Mr. PIC - It was an L--shaped house, sir, being the top of the L was her bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, and living room with a screened-in porch. She and Lee slept together. My brother and I slept in the living room in the screened-in porch on studio couches. When we moved into this house and after the divorce and everything became final, I was-- Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, was that 101 San Saba? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't know nothing about 101 San Saba. (Jim - I literally was g3etting ready to hit post when yours pops up!) Tarrant county records show the purchase of said home in 1947 Marge was divorced from Ekdahl in June 1948. Robert's testimony leaves off at SUMMER 1947... yet when he returns to testify he is skipped ahead to summer 1947 1948... All events related to San Saba and those who saw them there are removed from consideration.... The replacement Marge lives at 101 San Saba per Georgia Bell. Believe it or not... it gets weird from here... lol. Mr. JENNER. That would be 1947? Mr. OSWALD. That would be 1947, Christmas 1946. He was showering us with candies, cokes, and so forth. And mother thought that he was overdoing it. And we argued the other way. We was on Mr. Ekdahl's side. Mr. JENNER. But your relations with your mother, as you recall them now, during this period were pleasant, normal, and you were having no difficulties with her? Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; pleasant memories to me. Mr. JENNER. Anything other than the difficulties two lively boys have when they are naughty? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Mr. DULLES. Were you conscious at that time of the growing difficulty between your mother and Mr. Ekdahl? Was that apparent at that time? Or did that only come later? Mr. OSWALD. No, sir. At that time, it was not apparent to me. Mr. DULLES. At no time was that a factor in your life, particularly? Mr. OSWALD. No, sir. I would say at no time it was. In moving up perhaps there to the time of the divorce and everything, I don't remember when Mr. Ekdahl moved out of the house. At that time we were living on Eighth Avenue in Fort Worth. This was during a summer period there. And I think this was the summer after the second year that we attended there this would be the summer of 1947. Mr. DULLES. If it is agreeable, I think we will adjourn for just a minute. It is now 11 o'clock. Mr. JENNER. At the recess, Mr. Oswald, we were dealing with excuse me. We were dealing with the period of time that you and your mother and your two brothers lived in Benbrook, Tex. This brought us through the summer of 1948, I believe. Am I correct? Mr. OSWALD. That is correct, sir. Mr. JENNER. Mr. Liebeler has determined that the divorce of Mr. Ekdahl and your mother took place in 1948. We cannot give you the month and the day in 1948, but it was during the year 1948.We had reached the point in which you related to us that, I believe, following the divorce of Mr. Ekdahl and your mother, she purchased a small home. Mr. OSWALD. That is correct. Mr. JENNER. And refresh my recollection, please--was that in Benbrook, Tex.? Mr. OSWALD. That was in Benbrook, Tex. Edited October 26, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 Megathanks, DJ. I wanted to dig up the testimony myself, but there's a limit to how much time we can all devote to this stuff, no? No doubt you'll agree that Dulles seems to have known the details of the Oswald Project and took a number of steps to bury them. Including some we'll probably never know about. One typo you might want to correct in your post above (emphasis added by me) 2 hours ago, David Josephs said: Robert's testimony leaves off at SUMMER 1947... yet when he returns to testify he is skipped ahead to summer 1947... Obviously, you meant "he is skipped ahead to summer 1948...." Thought you might went to fix the typo in your post since this stuff is confusing enough as is for most people, even experienced researchers and WC critics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 25, 2017 Share Posted October 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: there's a limit to how much time we can all devote to this stuff At last we agree Jim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 Once again as Tracy pointed out, a woman back then gets a little insurance money, buys and sells some homes, profiting on them - a perfectly reasonable and plausible event in one's life - but it's still not enough for the HL crazies to look at it for what it is. Their cult leader Armstrong even wrote these very numbers in HIS research - haha! OMG! And yet they keep whaling away with bits and pieces of testimony to show she was destitute. What a joke. You can go to any inflation calculator online and punch in $10k for 1947 and it comes to $92k in today's dollars. A week's worth of groceries back then cost $15 bucks. Do the math! But nope. The crazies keep at it - "Oh look! Someone in the WC testimony said this or that." Want to hear something funny? The HL crazies believe EVERYTHING has been faked in this case. Everything! And yet, here they are cherry-picking the very testimony that the government put up - and NONE of them believe in - to suit this absolutely ridiculous and funny (yet sad too) theory. Meanwhile, I also put up a head shot comparison. Keep in mind the young Oswald photo is supposed to be the HL crazies' clone and then the mug shot is the other. Birds tweet...crickets chirp. Not a single reply except Larsen saying "You do know that that's a line drawing." I was like - WTF?! Anyone with sense and decent eye sight can tell these photos are of the same person. Nope. Not for the crazies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Bojczuk Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 Of course the photographs are of the same person, Michael! What's telling is the methodology that the crazies use to determine which photographs are of which fictional character: well, this picture kinda sorta looks a bit different to that other one, and that's all the evidence I need. It's interesting that, as far as I'm aware, no cult member has yet compiled a definitive list of which photographs are of 'Harvey' and which are of 'Lee'. Back on page 114, I pointed out an example of a photograph of the real, historical Lee Harvey Oswald that a distinguished late member of the cult had attributed to the fictional character, 'Lee'. The photograph shows Oswald smiling, with a full set of front teeth. Unfortunately, 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' doctrine requires 'Lee' to have had one of his front teeth knocked out. What explanation would allow the cult members to cling onto their belief in the face of this evidence? Perhaps the fictional character, 'Lee', had been fitted with a false tooth. But there's nothing in the medical records to indicate this. 'Lee' is supposed to have enlisted in the marines at some point, and would have been given a medical examination, which would have generated two medical reports. We know this because the real, historical Lee Harvey Oswald's enlistment generated two medical reports. So what do 'Lee's' medical reports claim about the state of his teeth? We'd expect the reports to mention a false tooth, if 'Lee' actually had a false tooth. We'd expect the reports to mention a missing tooth, if 'Lee' was actually missing one front tooth. As it happens, there are no medical records for 'Lee's' enlistment in the marines. That's because the real, historical Lee Harvey Oswald had, of course, only one set of medical records, and the cult's holy book allocated this set of medical records to the fictional character, 'Harvey'. There was nothing left for the other fictional character, 'Lee'. The sole set of medical records do not appear to mention either a missing tooth or a false tooth. According to doctrine, 'Harvey' had a full set of front teeth and had not undergone a mastoidectomy. According to doctrine, 'Lee' had had a tooth knocked out and had undergone a mastoidectomy. According to doctrine, 'Harvey' was buried in the real, historical Lee Harvey Oswald's grave. According to solid scientific evidence, and unfortunately for the cult's doctrine, the body in the grave had a full set of front teeth and a mastoidectomy defect. I realise that almost no-one with a real interest in the JFK assassination takes the 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory seriously. Perhaps we're wasting our time pointing out the theory's many contradictions and weaknesses, since we aren't likely to persuade the cult members and there's almost no-one left who can't already see for themselves that the theory is a steaming pile of speculation and paranoia. Perhaps we aren't wasting our time, though. The assassination is in the news today, with the release of the final batch of documents. You all know the standard line in news reports: anyone who doubts the lone-gunman theory is a crazy, paranoid 'conspiracy theorist'. Of couse, a rational case can be made against the lone-gunman theory, but it's the likes of the irrational 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' theory that allows the media to keep pushing that particular message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 (edited) The photos Mr. Walton repeatedly shows us don't look identical to me, and it is easy to manipulate these things. He urges us to do the math and notes that $10k dollars in 1947 are $92k today. But his math fails to show us that the roughly $10k he is referring to comes from a rough total of Marguerite's supplemental income for a 12 year period, from 1939 to 1951. That averages out to a little over eight thousand dollars per year in today's dollars, plus whatever she had from sporadic minimum wage jobs. That's the kind of income that allows ownership of two or three homes simultaneously? Really? But since Mr. Walton and Mr. B are so interested in repeating photos, let's ask again how "Lee Harvey Oswald's" front tooth regrew in his grave. Mr. JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right? Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out. And before anyone claims Voebel seemed uncertain about the missing tooth, let's just review his use of the word "think" during his WC testimony. Yes. Well, I think one of them was in the same grade as Lee. The fight, I think started on the school ground, I think John was a little smaller, a little shorter than Lee. Well, I think Oswald was getting the best of John, but I think I just went on home and everybody went their way, and Oswald I think, was a little in front of me I think that was what brought it all about. I think this was sort of a revenge thing on the part of the Neumeyer boys I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out. I don't think he was that good I don't think he was a great pool player I think I met her one time I think the legal age here is 18 I think in a way I understood him better than most of the other kids I think they have gotten worse I think we were in the same grade, I think we were. .... and on and on. Ed Voegel says “I think” or “think” nearly a hundred times during his testimony. It seems to be part of the way he talked. Edited October 26, 2017 by Jim Hargrove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 (edited) On 10/25/2017 at 7:13 PM, Michael Walton said: Once again as Tracy pointed out, a woman back then gets a little insurance money, buys and sells some homes, profiting on them - a perfectly reasonable and plausible event in one's life - but it's still not enough for the HL crazies to look at it for what it is. Their cult leader Armstrong even wrote these very numbers in HIS research - haha! OMG! And yet they keep whaling away with bits and pieces of testimony to show she was destitute. What a joke. You can go to any inflation calculator online and punch in $10k for 1947 and it comes to $92k in today's dollars. A week's worth of groceries back then cost $15 bucks. Do the math! But nope. The crazies keep at it - "Oh look! Someone in the WC testimony said this or that." Want to hear something funny? The HL crazies believe EVERYTHING has been faked in this case. Everything! And yet, here they are cherry-picking the very testimony that the government put up - and NONE of them believe in - to suit this absolutely ridiculous and funny (yet sad too) theory. Meanwhile, I also put up a head shot comparison. Keep in mind the young Oswald photo is supposed to be the HL crazies' clone and then the mug shot is the other. Birds tweet...crickets chirp. Not a single reply except Larsen saying "You do know that that's a line drawing." I was like - WTF?! Anyone with sense and decent eye sight can tell these photos are of the same person. Nope. Not for the crazies. Thank for proving the point Mike! Here's the overlay with some transparency... While the left eye lines up (which I do too btw) the rest of the man does not... Mouth, ears, other eye, skull shape... nothing is the same. Well done Mike! Harvey arrested, Lee in the Marines... That T-shirt reveals a lot... Harvey barely fills it out, the man on the right is larger, wider, taller and more muscular.. The gif on the right shows how these two people also do not match.... same as yours Mike Putting this to bed now... one of the Parker minions illustrates above how these two people are not the same... Next stop? 6th floor: back-peddling, excuses and rationalizations for having proven the point... Edited November 30, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 yeah, it kinda sucks when you make the case for the other side as you did Mike... especially since you were trying to prove the opposite... at least it shut the anti-H&L crowd up for a few hours... now explain how what you did was not really what you did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: The photos Mr. Walton repeatedly shows us don't look identical to me, and it is easy to manipulate these things. Sigh...it's the same person Jim. For crying out loud! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 2 hours ago, David Josephs said: yeah, it kinda sucks when you make the case for the other side as you did Mike... especially since you were trying to prove the opposite... at least it shut the anti-H&L crowd up for a few hours... now explain how what you did was not really what you did For crying out loud, Dave! It's the same person! Or have you found a few more little monsters running around under the bed in your tinfoil covered walled bedroom! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 (edited) Do you not even bother reading posts with which you disagree? Your own GIF proves they are not the same person... - duh. This is the first and last frames of your GIF with 50% transparency... If they're the same person why don't the features line up? On 10/26/2017 at 3:23 PM, Michael Walton said: Sigh...it's the same person Jim. For crying out loud! and now, just for fun, we can compare LEE in the Marines with the BYP of Harvey... shadow analysis In these images the shadow thrown to the ground is virtually identical in terms of angle from the body yet the shadows on the noses betrays the composite nature of the BYP... Ya see? a little H&L will take you where you're going... Edited March 26, 2018 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 26, 2017 Share Posted October 26, 2017 2 minutes ago, Michael Walton said: For crying out loud, Dave! It's the same person! Or have you found a few more little monsters running around under the bed in your tinfoil covered walled bedroom! LOL You truly cannot be blind to your own work... can you? 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