Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

There continues to be controversy about the Mother's Day image of Marguerite, whether she is the impostor or the real Marguerite. I lean towards her being the impostor. 

But, it's OK if there is some disagreement within the John Armstrong community because that's how we toss the ball around as a team. Honest minds can differ. 

But, I think the best thing is to start with an unimpeachable image, the one from Paul's Shoes. I say that it is unimpeachable because of the source. It came from John Armstrong.  It didn't come from Officialdom. It didn't come from Robert Oswald. John uncovered it from the private photos of a man who worked with the real Marguerite at Paul's Shoes. You could say this photo fell through the cracks. 

So, that image from 1957 is unimpeachable. Notice that she has full eyebrows. They are much thicker than in the other image. 

I don't see why anybody would say that those two women are the same. The shape of the head is different. I am just not seeing the same woman. 
These two below are also unimpeachable. The one in the middle is of 30 year old Marguerite next to Robert E. Lee Oswald. Obviously, the impostor was never with him. So, it has to be the real Marguerite. The one on the left is of 16 year old Marguerite.

Notice that on the left, she also has full eyebrows. But, in the center, she has very thin eyebrows. So, did she go through a phase when she tweezed her eyebrows down to a pencil-thin line? And then she got tired of doing it and went back to full eyebrows? It's possible but I doubt it. So, what's the alternative? The alternative is that they altered the photo in the middle to give her those pencil-thin eyebrows. I already showed you how they altered James Bookhout's eyebrows in his yearbook pictures, and I even found an article about eyebrow-altering as a CIA tactic to change a look. 

Let's look at some more images. This one is definitely the Marguerite impostor. And I say that because 3 year old Harvey was in the picture with her, with his back to us. This is definitely not the real Marguerite. Don't we say that the real Marguerite was the pretty one? No one would describe this woman as pretty. However, notice that she does have very narrow wisps of eyebrows. 

So, the Marguerite impostor is the one who had the narrow eyebrows. The real Marguerite had fuller eyebrows. The impostor above also had a mole beneath her right eye which you can see above. And notice that you can see the space in her dental alignment on our left. It's small, but it's there. 

Now, what about this photo? Is it the impostor or the real Marguerite? 

I say that this is the impostor. 1. It came from Robert Oswald, and he would not brandish an image this large of his real mother. 2. The ridiculous signing, in which a mother supposedly  signed a photo of herself "All my love" to her 1 year old son. The photo was from 1935, and RO was born in 1934. Notice again the thin narrow eyebrows, and if you look closely, you can see the misalignment of the teeth. 

The image below of the real Marguerite I consider to be unimpeachable because it matches so well with the one from Paul's Shoes, and it is obviously not the impostor. 

It's hard to see, but to me, that suggests that she does NOT have highly tweezed eyebrows. So, let's look at a collage of unimpeachable images of Marguerite.

So, those are all the real Marguerite.  The one on the upper right has the highly tweezed eyebrows, but that is probably fake. 

This image below of the impostor shows the mole very well.

The image below I suspect was manipulated.

Why is her face so dark compared to her neck? Why are her teeth so white?  And they look perfect alright, but too perfect. I don't trust this image above. I think it is a manipulated image. It is definitely the real Marguerite next to Ekdahl, but it doesn't mean they didn't manipulate her face. 

Remember that the JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event in human history and by a wide margin. Nothing else comes close. So, it would be foolish to think they didn't alter images of Marguerite Oswald. 

Now, what about the Mother's Day picture? On the right is a known picture of the impostor. She was with Mark Lane in the picture, so it MUST be the impostor. But, there is an awful lot of resemblance there. 

I think it's the impostor, but if I'm wrong, then it means that they manipulated the image to make her look like the impostor. NO WAY COULD THE TWO MARGUERITES LOOK THIS MUCH ALIKE. The main difference here is that the nose on the right looks more bulbous, with larger nasal tip cartilage. It's more pointy on the left, but they could have altered that. Please remember: the JFK assassination is the most photographically altered event in human history. It's nauseating to consider all the photographic alteration they did.