Saturday, March 4, 2017

Let's look at these two images of Marguerite. The one on on the left is from 1922 when she was 16 years old. She looks 16 years old. For a long time, Robert Oswald referred to her as his mother, but at some point, he started saying that he didn't know who she was, and that the much older looking woman standing next to her was his mother. But, that's impossible because the other woman is obviously much older than 16. So, this had to be his mother. But, why do her eyebrows go all the way over to her hair? Have you ever seen anyone with eyebrows going that far beyond the eyes? That is ridiculous.  

Nobody's eyebrows are that long. So, it has to be an alteration. But otherwise, do the faces match? The hair seems completely different in body and texture. The cheeks aren't nearly as puffy. The nasal creases aren't as deep, although, she was, of course, younger. 

The 4 images below I consider to be of the real Marguerite. 

So, she's got extremely big long eyebrows on the top left and tiny wisps of eyebrows on the top right. Which is real? Neither. Both were exaggerated- in opposite ways. The shoe store image, lower right, shows you how her eyebrows really were. What I notice clearly is the shape of her forehead in three of the images, which was rectangular. In the top right, we can't tell because of the hat, and it makes me wonder if the hat isn't partially fake, whether they didn't enhance it. Whoever saw a hat like this?

I'm talking about the part on our right going over her forehead. Is that supposed to be her hat coming down or is it supposed to be her hair? Who knows. Either way, it's very weird, very suspicious, and very probably fake. Maybe they were out to cover her ear.  

So, we have 3 images in which the shape of her forehead is rectangular.

So, the real Marguerite had a rectangular forehead, relatively thin hair, and straight teeth. Now let's look at some other images.

That is from the 1993 ABC Special with Peter Jennings, Beyond Conspiracy. That is obviously the impostor. You can see how short she was. That's right; even though she is sitting, you can see that she is a very short woman. Also, she looks "dumpy" as John Armstrong likes to put it, meaning not lithe and svelte but rather compacted and lumpen. The year was 1942, so LHO would have been 3. But, just the other day, John Armstrong was saying how Harvey looked older than 24. So, was that really the LHO of fame? Is the picture of him even real? Who knows. Most people would ask the kid to turn around for the picture, wouldn't they?  

Thid too is from the ABC Special, but the face of Marguerite was obviously pasted on. It looks like a mask. Look how the pasty white color of it differs from that of her neck. It is FAKE. In fact, it looks like they used the other image to make it. For some reason, they decided to give her Bosco lips on the right, which she didn't have. 

Below is from 1927. 

I certainly think that is the real Marguerite, age 20, but they enhanced her hair to cover up her face. That big mane is fake. Look how well the faces and the builds match otherwise. 

Yup. That is the real Marguerite, left and right, but with fake hair on the right. Remember: think alteration. Alteration, alteration, alteration. It's rampant in the JFK assassination. Notice how thin she was in her upper body, her arms and shoulders. We see it below.

So, that is definitely the real Marguerite.

Now, the image below I have trouble with saying it's the real Marguerite. Look at the brawny arms, including the meaty forearms. That's a lot of muscle for a woman.

She looks like she could hold her own in an arm wrestle. Compare that arm to this one:

Take a good look at this. Now look at this:

What would cause her arms to thicken up like that? She wasn't a lumberjack or a dock worker. Plus, her hair has so much thickness and body to it. I'm not making any definitive statements, but this woman looks way too brawny and non-delicate to be the real Marguerite. 

This woman is definitely the real Marguerite, but what I'm wondering is if that tuft of hair in the middle isn't an embellishment they added. It's darker. It seems too lumpen. It looks suspicious. 

Below is the wedding photo, and it has to be the real Marguerite because, again, she was next to Ekdahl. But, it is a highly altered image. 

Look at the teeth. Does anyone want to claim that those teeth became these teeth?

No, no, no. That difference is way too extreme.

I'll quit here, but it's obvious that a lot of effort was put into merging the photographic records of Marguerite Oswald and the impostor. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.