difference for the John Armstrong theory. But an inch here and there makes
a big difference and gives Armstrong the leeway to play with the facts.
Why do you think Armstrong was intent on making Ekdahl at least six feet?
The taller he is the more likely readers are to believe that the woman
standing beside him is the “tall” Marguerite.
Cinque writes that “all documents and photos are suspect.”
But it is amazing how many official documents John Armstrong relies on to
build his theory. How does he know which to believe and which not to
believe? That’s easy, he believes the ones that support his theory
and disbelieves those that don’t.
Despite the evidence, Cinque still argues that Myrtle Evans didn’t
recognize the “fake” Marguerite. The Warren Commission
told her that was Marguerite so she believed it. I present a list of
people in my article and all of these people would have to be similarly
convinced that, despite what their eyes were telling them, this woman who
they didn’t recognize was Marguerite. But all it would take is one
person to come forward and contact the news media to say this woman was
not Marguerite Oswald as they knew her to sink the plot. I guess the power
of the plotters was unlimited.
Cinque presents a cropped photo of “Marguerite” and says
she has the wrong body type to be the historic Marguerite (the impostor).
Unfortunately, this is not Marguerite but one of her sisters as the
caption written by Robert Oswald clearly says on the website where Cinque
got the photo (and as anyone can tell). I guess he figures he knows more
than Robert-oh I forgot, Robert was CIA.
Bottom line-more nutty stuff from Ralph Cinque, but he is entitled to his
It's your lucky day, Parnell: I'm going to make you famous. Now, let's see what about you said.
I said the heights make no difference because the case that John Armstrong makes for Two Marguerites is extremely broad, diversified, and complex. He produced tandem living addresses, tandem places of employment, and more than a few witnesses. And his case is even stronger than he thought it was because he didn't do the images comparisons as thoroughly as I did. I'm talking about things you did't mention in your rebuttal. And some of what you said was flat-out wrong. For instance, the photo I posted of 16 year old Marguerite Claverie was said to be of her and her aunt. Here is the entire photo. The other was a crop from it.
That's the photo, Parnell. The aunt is on the right, and Marguerite is on the left. And there is absolutely no doubt that it was designated as the young 16 year old Marguerite on the left.
However, I see that Robert Oswald has since changed it. Now, he's claiming that the tall, statuesque and elegant woman on the right was his mother.
Is Robert Oswald for real? Marguerite Oswald was born in 1907, so in 1922, she was 16. Which of those two looks like a 16 year old? Does that woman on the right look like a minor to you? A child? Is that what you think, Parnell?
How come the young one conforms to the older Marguerite so well in her features?
Do you see any dealbreakers there, Parnell, because I don't. Robert Oswald is a LIAR. He is NOT the biological brother of the LHO of fame, and he is not the biological son of the short dumpy Marguerite, and he knows it.
So no, it's not that I know more than Robert Oswald; it's that I am a truthseeker and he is a liar.
And yes, I get it that every inch counts, but with undisputed recognition that Ekdahl was close to 6 feet, the woman standing next to him is too tall to be the Marguerite of fame, notwithstanding your pathetic attempt to parse the inches.
And by the way, you counted her heels, but what about his? There's a heel on a man's shoe. A man's height is taken barefoot. So, if he was 5'11" barefoot, then he was 5'11 1/2" in shoes. Do you want to split hairs about a half inch? There is NO WAY the Marguerite of fame ever stood so tall next to a 6 foot man. Stop being ridiculous, Parnell.
Notice that the young man on the right wasn't even tall. Look how the detective in front of him towers over him. And yet, Marguerite appears to reach only his chest. The idea that she would have stood that tall next to a nearly six foot man is preposterous.
And my point, which you missed, Parnell, is the need to know what trumps what. Being smart, intelligent, and independent thinkers, we're not going to determine Marguerite's height based on what's written on a passport. If we had no images of her; if we had nothing else to go by, we'd be stuck. But, we have plenty of images and films of her next to a lot of people, like you see above. And she was NOT 5'4" or even 5' 2 1/2". We look for ourselves, Parnell. You hear me? I said: We look for ourselves, and we decide ourselves. We do it ourselves, Parnell, with our own eyes and our own mind. Stop being a mole.
And then you say, despite the evidence, by which you mean one phrase in Myrtle's long statement.
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.
Her saying "of course it was" was NOT based on any observation she made, and it was not made on any point of fact except the fact that the woman was said, by authorities, to be Marguerite Oswald. But, the fact is that we don't need Myrtle Evans to know what authorities said. The only value she has to us is to give us her reaction based on her memory and experience. And on that basis, she was entirely negative about the woman being Marguerite. So, you're trying to deposit this in the bank, but it's worthless. It's worth zero dollars and zero cents. You have nothing.
And next, you try to play the "somebody would have said something" card. It's been played before, Parnell. How could there have been a JFK conspiracy, how could there have been a 9/11 conspiracy, when someone would have talked? First, people have talked. E. Howard Hunt finally talked. And in this case, you say that somebody could have contacted the "news media" but who are you talking about? CBS? ABC? The Dallas Times Herald? And what do you think they would have done? Published a front page story that someone claims that Marguerite Oswald is a fake? The news media would have done nothing except tell the person that he or she is mistaken.
And you said not one word about the other physical discrepancies I found, such as the disparate teeth and the mole beneath the right eye of the Marguerite impostor. It doesn't interest you, does it, Parnell? You know what that's a sign of? A lack of intellectual honesty.
I'll leave with you this, Parnell: Why wasn't Marguerite at the Oswald family Thanksgiving in 1962?
It's a movie, Parnell. It runs for a while. You NEVER ever see Marguerite. So, why wasn't she there? I'll tell you why. It's because John Pic wasn't in on this scheme. He damn sure knew his own mother. As it was, he was baffled upon seeing Harvey and went on and on about how much he had changed, that he didn't recognize him. But, if they had tried to pass off the short dumpy Marguerite as his mother, he'd have drawn the line. "No efffffin' way. Now, where is my mother? What have you done with her?" So, this dug-in ruse that Robert Oswald and the LHO of fame had going would have been blown to bits if the short, dumpy Marguerite had gone there, pretending to be their mother. And John Armstrong did track down John Pic, who wouldn't talk to him, and really acted scared.
You're batting zero against Armstrong, Parnell. And you're batting zero against me.