First, I'll give you the link to his article:
Some of this may seem like minutia, but it's his minutia. He disputes that Marguerite's second husband Edward Ekdahl was 6 feet tall (as per John Pic) which he did by producing passport applications which have him listed as 5'11" and another that shows him as 5' 10 1/2". My response to that is: Big deal; it is of no consequence.
Then, based on a passport, he claimed that Marina Oswald was 5'3" not 5'1" as erroneously reported. Again: big deal; it is not a problem to John Armstrong's thesis. His thesis works just as well with her being 5'3". But, how do we really know? They don't put you on a height ledger for your passport. They put down whatever height you tell them. And men and women alike are inclined to exaggerate their height. So, if Marina was really closer to 5'2", it wouldn't surprise me to see 5'3" on her passport. That kind of thing happens all the time.
I just measured my height, and I am 5' 6 1/4". I am 66 years old, and what I used to be, and the tallest I ever was in my life, was 5' 6 1/2". So, I'm glad to say that I have not shrunk very much at all. But, I'll admit that I have rounded my height up to 5' 7" at times. Not lately, but in the past. It makes more sense to round up than to round down, doesn't it?
So again, that kind of thing happens all the time, and you can't take what appears on a passport as gospel.
Then, he found a passport for Marguerite (the short, dumpy Marguerite of fame) which lists her height as 5' 2 1/2". That's no dealbreaker for John Armstrong either. But, I'll add that, intuitively, I challenge it. I do NOT think she was that tall. She was a VERY short woman. 5'3" is the average height of American women, and you can't tell me that the Marguerite of fame was only one-half inch shorter than average. That is ridiculous. So, Mr. Parnell needs to be reminded that this is the JFK assassination we are talking about, and ALL documents (and photos) are suspect, including this one. You hear me, Parnell?
Then, Parnell just helps himself to the very convenient assumption that she lost an inch and half by age 58, so that she was really 5' 4" before that, making the Marguerite of fame one inch taller than the average woman. Are you buying that?
Then, we get to the Wedding photo. Parnell estimates that if Ekdahl was 5'11" then the Marguerite next to him was 5'6".
And then, Parnell figures that the heels and high hair could make her actual height 5' 4", so wahlah, he has arrived at IDing her as the short, dumpy Marguerite.
What is ridiculous about this is that height is not the only feature showing. What about her face? Her build? Her shape? But again, this takes rounding up to a whole new level.
And apparently, Tom Hanks doesn't agree with Parnell. He cast a woman named Jacki Weaver to play Marguerite in his 2013 movie Parkland.
And Jacki Weaver is 4'11".
And notice the mole below the right eye on the right. The short dumpy Marguerite had that all her life. Here she is with it in 1942.
Do you, or do you not, see the mole under her right eye? Therefore, Ekdahl's wife can't possibly be the famous Marguerite since she doesn't have the mole.
And, Parnell leaves a lot out. Look at this comparison of the teeth:
Can you, or can you not see that the woman on the right had an overbite on the right side, where her upper incisor was elevated? She needed braces, but she didn't get them. The pretty Marguerite on the left had perfect teeth. You want to say those two are the same woman????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, if you do, Parnell, then I hope and pray to Almighty God that you are never the judge of a beauty contest because I dread to think who you would crown the winner.
Then, in Part II, Parnell gets to the testimonies.
He starts with Myrtle Evans who did not recognize the Marguerite of fame as her friend Marguerite Oswald. Myrtle said this:
A very good housekeeper, very tasty; she could take anything and make something out of it, and something beautiful. She had a lot of natural talent that way, and she was not lazy. She would work with things by the hour for her children, and she kept a very neat house, and she was always so lovely herself. That's why, when I saw her on TV, after all of this happened, she looked so old and haggard, and I said, "That couldn't be Margie," but of course it was (emphasis added), but if you had known Margie before all this happened, you would see what I mean. She was beautiful. She had beautiful wavy hair.
Parnell thinks he can go to the bank with the emboldened clause, "but of course it was" but it doesn't count for shit. It just shows blind faith in officialdom; that's all. Her personal reaction, her visceral reaction, her gut feeling was that this woman was NOT her friend Marguerite. She was always so lovely herself? Would anybody, in his or her right mind say that, about the Marguerite of fame?
Let's look at some more pictures. This is Marguerite Claverie in 1922, age 16. Do you think the Marguerite of fame was EVER built like this?
This below is an image of Marguerite and her three sons. Of course, the Marguerite of fame didn't have three sons. So, they pasted her face over the real one.
Can you, or can you not see, that it's like she is wearing a mask? Look how different the coloring is between her face and neck. You can see the exact interface. This is worse than the Backyard photo of Oswald, and that's pretty bad, as fakeries go.
Now, compare the teeth on these three. On the left, perfect. Middle: perfect. But on the right (who was the short, dumpy Marguerite) she not only has the overbite, but it looks like her tooth was chipped.
Below is the real Marguerite in 1957 at her place of employment, Paul's Shoes in Ft. Worth. Note that the Marguerite of fame was a private duty nurse and never worked retail sales like the real Marguerite.
Gee, if she's that short, stumpy, dumpy Marguerite of fame, then how short was the woman to her right, our left? 4'8"?
Here are the teeth compared up-close. Do you, or do you not, see the difference?
Parnell: there were two Marguerites, just as there were two Oswalds. You haven't begun to damage John Armstrong's case. You haven't knocked a single shingle off his roof. You're just another pathetic lone-nutter who is fighting a lost cause. Oswald was innocent, and he wasn't really Lee Harvey Oswald. The Marguerite of fame was NOT his mother, and she was not Marguerite Claverie Oswald either.