The Far-Reaching Influence of “Harvey and Lee”

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Aldin Lee said:

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

James,

I believe I understand Aldin's critique. It's pretty simple.

First, recall that the Beauregard record shows LEE attending the spring semester of 1954 (of the 1953/54 school year), and the full school year of 1954/55. There is nothing unusual with that part of the record.

The problem is with the fall semester of 1953. (Of the 1953/54 school year.) That is the semester that LEE was in NYC attending Public School 44. And yet we see an Oswald attending Beauregard that semester. Obviously that has to be HARVEY.

Aldin points out that the P.S. 44 record shows that Oswald was discharged on 1/13/54, and the Beauregard record shows that he was (originally) admitted on that very same date. That would be the very first day of the spring 1954 semester. Aldin doesn't seem to realize that that is precisely what we believe occurred with LEE. And that it doesn't explain how LEE was attending the semester prior to that, which is what the Beauregard record shows.

Of course, we explain it by saying it was HARVEY who was attending Beauregard that semester.

 

I'm sorry to have to reply that, No, you don't at all understand the critique.  The pupil's transcript shown for Beauregard in NO WAY indicates attendance of any kind before January, 13, 1954. 

 

Yes it does.

Look at the yellow-highlighted row. That shows the grades for fall semester 1953. HARVEY got a score of 70 in General Science and a score of 70 in Physical Education. He took no other classes.

The row below that is for the 1954 spring semester. And the row below that gives the averages of the two semesters' scores.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[James Norwood]

30 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Photos of Marguerite through all her life show a mole under her eye. I don't see how that fits with the theory that the later photos are of an impersonator.

Michah,

There are at least two photos of a Marguerite Oswald with no discernible mole.  They are the 1957 photo of Marguerite taken at Paul's Shoes and the 1960 photo of her with grey hair.

I personally do not rely on photo evidence for anything definitive when it comes to understanding Oswald.  My main area of interest lies in researching documents and eyewitness testimony.   I do not believe that we have enough photos of Marguerite to draw any firm conclusions about her just by looking at the photos.

One point that might be relevant:  After Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby, the FBI moved quickly to confiscate all photographs in possession of Marina Oswald.  Her two daughters, June and Rachel, grew up with no family photo album, no photos of their dad, and no photos any relative, including their grandmother.  It might seem appropriate to collect that kind of evidence.  But it is suspicious and raises questions about why the photos were never returned to the family.   Concurrently, Robert Oswald estranged himself from his two nieces, who, as far I know, never spoke with their uncle again in his lifetime.  To my way of thinking, that is the kind of evidence that tells us more about the Oswald family dynamic than the photos.

James 

[Micah Mileto]

3 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

Michah,

There are at least two photos of a Marguerite Oswald with no discernible mole.  They are the 1957 photo of Marguerite taken at Paul's Shoes and the 1960 photo of her with grey hair.

I personally do not rely on photo evidence for anything definitive when it comes to understanding Oswald.  My main area of interest lies in researching documents and eyewitness testimony.   I do not believe that we have enough photos of Marguerite to draw any firm conclusions about her just by looking at the photos.

One point that might be relevant:  After Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby, the FBI moved quickly to confiscate all photographs in possession of Marina Oswald.  Her two daughters, June and Rachel, grew up with no family photo album, no photos of their dad, and no photos any relative, including their grandmother.  It might seem appropriate to collect that kind of evidence.  But it is suspicious and raises questions about why the photos were never returned to the family.   Concurrently, Robert Oswald estranged himself from his two nieces, who, as far I know, never spoke with their uncle again in his lifetime.  To my way of thinking, that is the kind of evidence that tells us more about the Oswald family dynamic than the photos.

James 

 

Airbrushing was common for photo portraits back then, because maybe back then "moles" were seen "defects" rather than beauty marks.

[Tony Krome]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yes it does.

Look at the yellow-highlighted row. That shows the grades for fall semester 1953. HARVEY got a score of 74 in General Science and a score of 70 in Physical Education. He took no other classes.

The row below that is for the 1954 spring semester. And the row below that gives the averages of the two semesters' scores.

 

 

The 1953 fall semester shows 70 for General Science and 70 for Physical Education. Not 74 for General Science

[Tony Krome]

On 7/24/2020 at 11:37 AM, James Norwood said:

I personally do not rely on photo evidence for anything definitive when it comes to understanding Oswald.  

 

Looks like these ladies were separated at birth .... they even chose the same pearl necklace

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Tony Krome

[James Norwood]

Tony,

Over the years, I have seen too many students of the JFK case get suckered into drawing false conclusions based exclusively on photos.  I would not for a minute begin to draw any conclusions about the three photos with the pearls without first understanding in detail the provenance of each photo.

It is not enough to merely accept as bona fide evidence the notation "original photo."  Who is saying that photos #1 and 2 above are "original."  That needs to be demonstrated by careful research to understand when and where the photo was taken and whether it is genuine evidence.  I don't care if the photos are original, but I do care that they are authentic.

For these reasons, in the Oswald case, I don't wade into photos...as fascinating as they are!

James 

[Sandy Larsen]

37 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Looks like these ladies were separated at birth .... they even chose the same pearl necklace

 

Photo on the left:  1960
Photo in the middle:  1964

 

[Tony Krome]

18 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

Tony,

Over the years, I have seen too many students of the JFK case get suckered into drawing false conclusions based exclusively on photos.  I would not for a minute begin to draw any conclusions about the three photos with the pearls without first understanding in detail the provenance of each photo.

It is not enough to merely accept as bona fide evidence the notation "original photo."  Who is saying that photos #1 and 2 above are "original."  That needs to be demonstrated by careful research to understand when and where the photo was taken and whether it is genuine evidence.  I don't care if the photos are original, but I do care that they are authentic.

For these reasons, in the Oswald case, I don't wade into photos...as fascinating as they are!

James 

The photo in the middle is from Getty if that's any help;

https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/judge-joe-b-brown-mrs-marguerite-oswald-mother-of-lee-news-photo/50677247

The one on the left I believe is currently on the harveyandlee site which you linked previously, you said;

See this article and scroll down the page to the last major batch of photos of Marguerite: https://harveyandlee.net/Moms/Moms.html

[James Norwood]

Tony,

By authenticity, I meant something much more specific then Getty, such as a record of where and when the photo was taken and by whom, such as Oswald's mug shot when he was arrested in New Orleans in 1963, or a high school yearbook photo that may be verified by dint of the publication in the book and by other students. 

I just don't get involved with speculation on photos.  The discussions are never conclusive, and even our little exchanges this evening have already lapsed into pure guess work, such as "maybe" the moles were airbrushed out.  There is rarely consensus about anything when it comes to photos. 

Perhaps some of the other users on this site will have greater insights into the photos than I can offer.

James

[Micah Mileto]

17 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

Tony,

By authenticity, I meant something much more specific then Getty, such as a record of where and when the photo was taken and by whom, such as Oswald's mug shot when he was arrested in New Orleans in 1963, or a high school yearbook photo that may be verified by dint of the publication in the book and by other students. 

I just don't get involved with speculation on photos.  The discussions are never conclusive, and even our little exchanges this evening have already lapsed into pure guess work, such as "maybe" the moles were airbrushed out.  There is rarely consensus about anything when it comes to photos. 

Perhaps some of the other users on this site will have greater insights into the photos than I can offer.

James

Not all moles were airbrushed out of all photos. Like for example there was that group photo where Marguerite has the mark under her eye. The same mark is in photos spread across her whole lifespan.

[Sandy Larsen]

 

The mole on slender Marguerite is always in the same place, right up against her eyelashes. The mole on the heavy Marguerite imposter is in the wrong place, which can happen if not carefully drawn (with eyeliner, I presume).

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Micah Mileto]

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The mole on slender Marguerite is always in the same place, right up against her eyelashes. The mole on the heavy Marguerite imposter is in the wrong place, which can happen if not carefully drawn.

 

 

"Carefully drawn" Come on it's like a couple of millimeters apart, and people's eyes sag with age.

[Tony Krome]

20 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The LHO who attended the entire 1953 fall semester at Beauregard was clearly a part-time student, taking just a couple of courses.

Just to be clear, you have one Oswald (Harvey?) present for the entire 1953 fall semester except for 1 day. This Oswald was part time and he attended only 2 subjects, Science and Physical Education, for the duration of the fall semester.

I'm hoping you can address the following questions;

1. Both of the above subjects have the number "70" attributed to them. What exactly does the number "70" represent? How was it calculated?

2. Say there was a science class at 10am in the morning, and a physical education class at 2pm in the afternoon, how did that work for part time students? Do you imagine that Oswald was present at school for the entire day, or would he be in and out of school at odd hours?

3. Does this Oswald (Harvey?) who specifically selected science and physical education, fit your profile of the person? Are these subjects ones that you would expect him to choose?

[Sandy Larsen]

47 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The mole on slender Marguerite is always in the same place, right up against her eyelashes. The mole on the heavy Marguerite imposter is in the wrong place, which can happen if not carefully drawn (with eyeliner, I presume).

 

 

"Carefully drawn" Come on it's like a couple of millimeters apart, and people's eyes sag with age.

 

On slender Marguerite the mole is literally touching her eyelashes. Okay, could be 1/2 mm away. On heavy Marguerite imposter the mole is 3 mm away, maybe a bit more. Do you think her skin has stretched by a factor of 6? LOL

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[Tony Krome]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The mole on slender Marguerite is always in the same place, right up against her eyelashes. The mole on the heavy Marguerite imposter is in the wrong place, which can happen if not carefully drawn.

 

 

Ok, so you have the Marguerite on the right faking a mole

Edited July 24, 2020 by Tony Krome