Oswald's High School

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Your post ignores the possibility of two Marguerites. Claverie was one of the Marguerites' maiden name, but this doesn't address the topic of TWO Marguerites.

Your attempt at distraction won't work.

I address the "two Marguerites" at my website:


http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html

[W. Tracy Parnell]

It is so misleading to act like this is just about John Armstrong's work. As I have said several times many different sources have discussed the idea of two Oswalds dating back to the time of the assassination.

Ridiculing Armstrong's work won't change this fact

So which of the two Oswald theories prior to Armstrong's do you endorse?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

So now we not only have Harvey and Lee, we also have ugly Marg and attractive Marg.

Only one Robert ?

Did he notice he had two mothers ?

Did he notice that Lee was snatched, replaced by Harvey, and then Lee was framed for the assassination ?

What happened to Harvey after the assassination ?

What happened to the attractive Marg after she gave up Lee to be replaced by Harvey and the ugly Marg ?

WHAT A PLOT THIS WAS !

Here is a partial list of who would have been in on the plot:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/harvey-lee-who-was-involved-in-plot.html

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Still feel i am quite a distance in understanding your suspicions. He should have reported to  higher ups in the FBI, or gone to the media because it was suspicious ? May he have simply believed the confiscation was legitimate and they would lead to a report in the Warren Commission report that Oswald attended the years at stripling  that were in those records Can you show that Kudlaty knew that the Stripling records were not in the WC report For the historical record at Beauregard or NY to become a contradiction to the evidence for Oswald at Stripling one must first conclude that there can be only one Oswald
 

Here is what I believe happened. Kudlaty was talking to his good friend Jack White who filled him in on the amazing H&L theory of his buddy Armstrong. Kudlaty MAY have remembered an incident where the FBI came to Stripling and asked for any records relating to LHO. The FBI COULD have taken some records relating to Robert Oswald but I doubt that. Then 35-40 years after the assassination after hearing Armstrong's theory, Kudlaty remembers this "confiscation" of records and believes they were the records of LHO. Except the historical record shows LHO did not attend Stripling. And there is not a single piece of evidence aside from Robert's misstatement and a couple of other "witnesses" that Armstrong coerced to support Kudlaty's claims. No yearbook photos no documentation of any kind.

What happens is that people want to become a part of history. Someone like Armstrong (who plays loosely with facts) comes along and tells people their remembrances are important and they buy into it. The same thing happened with Palmer McBride who was the basis for the entire H&L theory. Except his story has been totally demolished. That is harder to do with Kudlaty because his claim is very general. But the facts I have presented here are relevant to judge if his claim has merit. I leave it to each individual to decide for themselves.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

This is LNer 101. They claim that CTers find everything "sinister" when all we are doing is pointing out discrepancies in the official narrative.

The LNers have actually claimed that the numerous OFFICIAL reports that list LHO's height as 5'9", 5'10" and 5'11" were simple mistakes. Ditto the varying eye colors.

Sure, these official sources including the USMC (who measured him) couldn't even get his height correct. Sure.

Head over to the EF and you can read for hours on the differences in the record. There is always an alternate explanation besides 2 Oswalds. Some of these are the information was reported orally instead of by measurement (even if this was against regulations), different foot ware, the body changes height throughout the day and so on.

[Larry Trotter]

Confusion, at times, can be hard to measure. According to what I read, MargueriteFrancesClaverie(1907-1981)married EdwardJohnPicJr,(1907-2002) in about 1929, and divorced in about 1932, shortly after the birth of their son, JohnEdwardPicSr(1932-2000), who married MargaretDorothyFuhrman in 1951, and their first child, a son, JohnEdwardPicJr was born in 1952.

Indicated also, was that MargaretDorothyFuhrmanPic, was born in 1933, and her parents were born in Hungary.

Indicated as well, was that MargueriteFrancesClaveriePic later married RobertEdwardLeeOswald, in 1933, and their first son, RobertEdwardLeeOswaldJr was born in 1934, with their second son, LeeHarveyOswald born in 1939, shortly after the death of RobertEdwardLeeOswaldSr.

MargueriteFrancesClaveriePicOswald reportedly married Edwin A Ekdahl in 1945, and divorced in 1948, but no known childbirth recorded.
 
Along life's way multiple residences, as well as schools attended, were indicated for the Claverie/Pic-Oswald-Ekdahl Family.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/pic_j.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/pic_e.htm

[Michael Walton]

EF is the best place to find the fantasy world of Hardly Lee.  It's so hilarious that the fantasists there invented an even crazier and funnier story about how missing teeth proves that there were two Oswalds. If you can believe it - and sadly it does appear even people on this forum believe in this nonsense - the crazy story actually gets to a dramatic conclusion that skulls were switched in Oswald's coffin years later but *before* the 1980's exhumation took place. HAHAHA! As if the Bad Guys knew exactly when to switch the skulls for the dramatic reveal.

And it's the usual cast of characters over there saying "Wow, good job!" and "OMG, amazing evidence!" - Larsen, Josephs, Hargrove et al.

Seriously, is it any wonder why folks dismiss the conspiracy community with the wave of a hand and an eye roll?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24626-more-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-molar-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not/?tab=comments#comment-369326

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Why do I have to "endorse" any of them to consider that they may be accurate? Why do you endorse a theory that has NO supporting evidence behind it?

We're in the same boat then. I think that LHO acted alone (which you say has no supporting evidence) and that is the best current theory. It may or may not be correct but I have seen no specific alternate explanation. You think the 2 Oswald theories may be correct even though all they do is point out discrepancies in the record. BTW, the 1981 exhumation debunked the Eddowes theory and I believe all the other theories are similar and therefore debunked as well.