Oswald's High School

JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

<< < (22/29) > >>

Matt Grantham:

--- Quote from: W. Tracy Parnell on June 15, 2018, 04:23:07 PM ---Remember, the document only said "M. Oswald." How many of those must there be? As far as the "imposter" Marguerite, not only John Pic, but why didn't any of the people who knew the "real" Marguerite come forward to say that this person was not the Marguerite they were acquainted with when they saw her on TV and in newspapers? When you ask the H&L people they say something like "oh they were paid off by the CIA." Really? How many people is the average person acquainted with-hundreds? And the CIA paid all of them off? Pretty far fetched I think.

--- End quote ---

Hopefully Steve will not object if I answer a question addressed to him One also wonders why W Tracy addresses. Yes perhaps the first sentence is fairly addressed to Steve, but not the rest First off Armstrong claims such people exist, but as usual some of his statements seem not to be supported by any reference on-line Two caveats quickly come to mind ad to why this may not have occurred One is of course many of those who knew Marguerite likely did not see the photographs as she appeared before the WC And second some people, especially friends of Marguerite may not have wanted to open a can of worms or cause her anymore trauma than she already suffered And yes of course the fear of being castigated as a conspiracy theorist etc

What I find interesting is that you chose to focus as void of information, no friends came forward and stated Marguerite 2 was not Marguerite C, as your main response to the the issue A n inference to a void is of course and inference There are a multitude of facts in regards to the contradiction of addresses, jobs, inconsistencies in appearance etc, and yet almost no response from you to these issues

W. Tracy Parnell:

--- Quote from: Matt Grantham on June 15, 2018, 05:02:02 PM --- Hopefully Steve will not object if I answer a question addressed to him One also wonders why W Tracy addresses. Yes perhaps the first sentence is fairly addressed to Steve, but not the rest First off Armstrong claims such people exist, but as usual some of his statements seem not to be supported by any reference on-line Two caveats quickly come to mind ad to why this may not have occurred One is of course many of those who knew Marguerite likely did not see the photographs as she appeared before the WC And second some people, especially friends of Marguerite may not have wanted to open a can of worms or cause her anymore trauma than she already suffered And yes of course the fear of being castigated as a conspiracy theorist etc

What I find interesting is that you chose to focus as void of information, no friends came forward and stated Marguerite 2 was not Marguerite C, as your main response to the the issue A n inference to a void is of course and inference There are a multitude of facts in regards to the contradiction of addresses, jobs, inconsistencies in appearance etc, and yet almost no response from you to these issues

--- End quote ---

You don't find it odd that no one who knew the "real" Marguerite realized she was different from the "Fake" they saw on TV? Remember, in those days there were 3 channels and that was all that was on for days at a time. The likelihood that not one of dozens or hundreds realized the Marguerite they saw or read about is small IMO.

As for contradictions, if you want to discuss any specifics let me know. But in a case where LHO had more than 20 different residences during his childhood these inconsistencies could be expected.

Matt Grantham:

--- Quote from: W. Tracy Parnell on June 15, 2018, 07:45:18 PM ---
You don't find it odd that no one who knew the "real" Marguerite realized she was different from the "Fake" they saw on TV? Remember, in those days there were 3 channels and that was all that was on for days at a time. The likelihood that not one of dozens or hundreds realized the Marguerite they saw or read about is small IMO.

As for contradictions, if you want to discuss any specifics let me know. But in a case where LHO had more than 20 different residences during his childhood these inconsistencies could be expected.

--- End quote ---

I was not quite old enough to remember how much her face was on TV I guess it makes she was on a lot Hard to know how many people may have tried to contact the Dallas stations or other media sources I suppose The other part of the question is how many people really knew her well enough to be sure it was not her Those who had known her in the last 15 years or so being the most likely to be confident it was just not a bad case of ageing It is an area I am interested in , and its certainly a fair point just not one worthy of discrediting other evidence imo

W. Tracy Parnell:

--- Quote from: Matt Grantham on June 16, 2018, 04:33:03 PM --- I guess I am getting ahead of myself Are you saying it is Marguerite Claverie Oswald testifying to the Warren Commission?

--- End quote ---

I am saying the woman who testified was indeed the one and only Marguerite Claverie Oswald. According to the H&L theory, the woman who testified was the "fake" Marguerite who took the place of the original "tall beautiful" Marguerite. This woman, who worked for the CIA, took the place of the original Marguerite around 1959. My point is why didn't the friends and acquaintances of the original Marguerite come forward to say this was not the woman they knew? And as Steve asked, why didn't John Pic say this was not his mother?

IMO, researchers should be very skeptical of the H&L theory but some are not. This is apparently because the theory appeals to them on some level and they are will to suspend disbelief. But the theory is nonsense and a waste of time.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version