He starts with a claim that he attributes to Jim Hargrave and indirectly to John Armstrong that Marguerite's job was to be a "spycatcher". I don't know anything about this and have never read of it in John Armstrong's works. Marguerite's job was to play the role of Marguerite Claverie Oswald, Oswald's mother. Period.
And Parnell needs to stick to the published writings of John Armstrong. Period.
Parnell attributes this quote to Marguerite (and note that in this discussion when I say Marguerite, I mean the impostor): " “He spoke Russian, he wrote Russian and he read Russian. Why?"
That's a good question, but the more important question is: How?
This is Russian:
Take a good look at it, Parnell. The official story has it that this 9th grade dropout, who was dyslexic, whose spelling and grammatical errors in writing English were extremely bad, taught himself Russian with Russian newspapers and a Russian dictionary. It is ridiculous and that college professors believe it is comical.
So, Oswald's competence in Russian is a problem, and it is a smoking gun that the official story of his life cannot be true.
Parnell lists some wacky, zany things that Marguerite said, but he mixes them up with things she said that were and are true. For instance, the Backyard photos are fake. Many people who are not considered zany have said so. Both I and OIC Chairman Larry Rivera have written on it. There are lots of links I could give you, but I'll settle for this one, in which I dismantle the Dartmouth study which supposedly authenticated the Backyard photos:
But, Parnell takes the approach that Marguerite challenged the Backyard photos, so you see, she must be a nut.
Well, she was a bit of a nut, but not for that. The Backyard photos are fake. Oswald, himself, said that someone put his head over the body of another man. But, it wasn't even his whole head. The link below contains Larry Rivera's overlays of Oswald and Backyard Man.
So, the Backyard photos are fraudulent, and it is something that the nutty Marguerite was right about.
Marguerite was also doubtful of the authenticity of Oswald's "historic diary" and so am I. That's not a fault either. She also said that Oswald was killed on cue, and the Oswald killing has been my raison d'etre for the last 6 months. I can't lay it all out here, but the televised spectacle featured FBI Agent James Bookhout playing the role of Jack Ruby. But, it was a hoax and Oswald was killed later.
Read some more:
And here is something that just went up last night, if you want the latest:
So, Marguerite was on to something, but she didn't know the half of it regarding the murder of LHO.
Parnell goes on to list some of Marguerite's zanier theories, and there were a lot of them. There is no doubt that she was a batty old woman. What mother puts pictures of her battered son up on the wall?
Two of those images are of her battered son, and one of them (from the TIME magazine cover) is a drawing that deliberately sought to make him look deranged.
Why would a mother put up such images on the wall? Would your mother do that?
I have to wonder why Parnell even wrote this piece. The zaniness and weirdness of the Marguerite Oswald of fame is not a problem for John Armstrong. The only thing Parnell proffered against John is that he considered her to be a "spycatcher".
Well, I have known John Armstrong since 2012 and have had many discussions with him. And John has never once said anything to me about the Marguerite impostor being a "spycatcher." Her role was to play the part of Marguerite Claverie Oswald, who was this woman:
Notice the perfect teeth, which the Marguerite impostor did not have, even as a young woman.
So, there is no doubt that John is right that the short, dumpy Marguerite was an impostor. She was not the mother of the Lee Harvey Oswald of fame, and she was not the mother of three sons. How could she possibly be Robert Oswald's mother when she had a refined accent and he's got as strong a Texas/Louisiana twang that I have ever heard?
As of this writing, Parnell has gotten only one comment to his new article, and it's from a naysayer: