These are supposedly Marguerite Oswald in 1935 and 1942.

I am satisfied that they are the same woman because of the matching hair and the puffy cheeks. Yes, the idea that two women would both have hair that laid like that and looked like that is preposterous. Look how both have a faint part that is in the exact same spot. They're the same woman. 

The one on the right certainly looks older. I'd say she looks more than 7 years older. And the one on the right is definitely the Marguerite impostor. You see the mole. You see the space between her teeth. You don't see those on the left, but it is a highly retouched photo. There's some art going on there. It's almost more like a portrait than a photograph. And that brings us to this:

So, she was the Marguerite impostor, which means that she was NOT the mother of Robert Oswald, yet, it's signed as though she were. And, we can be sure that picture was signed by the Marguerite impostor because she is the one who did the fancy flourish on the M. Check out the loop:

That's the same handwriting, so the same woman signed it, and it was definitely the Marguerite impostor. So, I have to believe that Robert Oswald and the Marguerite impostor conspired to create this phony thing. After all, if the year was 1935, Robert Oswald was only 1 year old. At one point would you start signing pictures for a child? Here's a thought: when the child is old enough to read? What's the point of doing it before then? Look, this was just a very, very stupid thing they did. 

Now, if you are reading this, Robert Oswald, I want you hand over that signed image. We'll take it to forensic lab and find out how old the ink is. Was it signed in 1935 or was it signed much later than that? Perhaps science can tell us. But regardless, we already know that that woman was NOT your mother. So, you can just drop the act right now. The truth is closing in on you, Robert Oswald.  

So, why'd they give her the Bozo the Clown lips?

The only thing I can think of is to hide that little space in her teeth.

Hey, that's the Marguerite of fame. It's the way she was.

But, the real Marguerite had better teeth.

It's a small but concrete physical difference. Just compare them here. 

Different teeth means different women. To those denying it, stop the nonsense. 

This is the phony picture of Marguerite and the 3 boys in which they pasted the face of the Marguerite impostor over that of the real Marguerite. 

And here is a picture of the Marguerite impostor, presumably with LHO when he was 3 years old.

You know that can't be the real Marguerite because if Oswald was 3, the year was 1942 which means that she would have been 35 years old. That woman is obviously older than 35. 

And, it happens to be the exact same image as the picture on top.

For some reason, they enlarged her lips on the right, giving her clown lips. Her lips weren't that big, and you can see so on the left. It's obviously fake. Her whole face looks like a mask on the right. Look at the change in coloring. It goes from a normal skin color to a pasty white, and it's very demarcated. It's a mask! This is a woefully obvious fakery. 

This is a frame from Oswald being led down the hall at City Hall after his arrest, supposedly on his way to the Squad room. 

Are his hands cuffed behind his back? Look at the lower right past the arm of the cop who is securing him. You see more of Oswald's arm covered by the shirt. You see that little crescent there, right? How could his hands be cuffed together behind his back at that angle? How can his arm be going out like that if he was handcuffed behind? 

Here's how it looked shortly later:

Look at them both together. 

Is that the same arrangement? I don't see how it could be. On the left, his arm is going out; on the right, it is going down. I maintain that what we're seeing on the right is an illusion that was deliberately faked. 

It's significant that after the passage of 12 years, the HSCA felt it necessary to devote MORE time and attention to the Doorman issue than the Warren Commission did.  It's like they were determined to resolve the thing once and for all- to put it to sleep, permanently. 

But, look at what they did. First, they had Robert Groden do photo comparisons (which the Warren Commission could easily have done but didn't), but look how they went about it. They did it without including ANY images of Oswald at all. They NEVER put an image Oswald in his shirt side by side with Doorman. They used several images of Lovelady, but none of Oswald. Can you believe that? 

Think about it for a second: you're trying to determine which of two men is the person seen in another image. So, you compare both of them to the disputed image, right? Why didn't Robert Groden do that? Was it his idea to omit any and all images of Oswald, or was he instructed to do so? Look at this display. Why are there no images of Oswald?

Groden has got 3 images of Lovelady there and 0 of Oswald. 
Groden has got 3 images of Lovelady there and 0 of Oswald. 
Groden has got 3 images of Lovelady there and 0 of Oswald. 
Groden has got 3 images of Lovelady there and 0 of Oswald. 

That is bloodied! That is screaming out loud bloodied! How dare he do that? 

And then there were the anthropologists. They did minute facial measurements of Oswald and Lovelady, although they didn't show their work. But, they said that poor image quality prevented them from including Doorman. Then what was the point of it? The whole idea was to compare each of them to Doorman, not to each other. 

They did notice the resemblance between Doorman's hairline and that of Lovelady, which was awfully observant of them. But, it was a match to an image of Lovelady from the 1950s. And, it was the primary image of him they used. But, they knew Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man. They assigned the year 1959 as the date of the image, although they did not substantiate that. Dr. Cinque thinks it went back further than that, and that's based on his apparent age, which is young. 

Billy Lovelady was born in 1939, so if he was 19 or 20 in that picture, as he appears to be, it would go back to 1956 or 1957. Again, the HSCA said 1959, but as they provided no proof of that, we are not going to accept their word for it just because they said it. No can do. I think it goes back to '56 or '57. 

And yes, the hairlines match, but we know Lovelady was a rapidly balding young man. So, why assume his hairline remained stable between 1957 and 1963? That's 6 years. Here he is in 1967:

Robin Unger posted that image flipped, but I unflipped it. But, you can see that he was almost completely bald on top in 1967, and that picture was taken by CBS News. 

And then we have the images by Mark Lane from 1964, including this one. Clearly, Lovelady was mostly bald even by '64.

So, the one matching thing noted by the HSCA anthropologists that actually was true should not have even been found. It doesn't make sense to think that rapidly balding Billy Lovelady had a stable hairline for 6 whole years. 

And note that it's not just the hairline that is the same, but the length of the hair, the lay of the hair, the style of the hair. Everything about it is exactly the same. 

If we took a picture of you today and compared it to one of you from 6 years ago, would your hair look exactly the same? In lay, in length, in style?  I ask that question of everyone and anyone. 

So, the one thing the HSCA anthropologists found is actually an abomination. And that brings us to their other major failing: they never broached the question of photographic alteration, that is, the criminal altering of a forensic photo.  

So, why didn't they broach the subject? They didn't broach it because: this is the United States of America, and every red-blooded American knows that we don't do things like that over here. They did it Nazi Germany. They did it in Soviet Russia. But, they would never do that here; not in the good old USA. Not our democratic government. Therefore, the question was never asked. It would never have been allowed. If anybody had tried to ask it, they would have been dismissed. It really isn't allowed today. It isn't politically-correct to ask the question; to accuse the US government of criminally altering evidence. 

But fortunately, it's happening anyway. The number of JFK buffs who recognize and acknowledge Zapruder film alteration- and again, that's the criminal altering of a forensic film- is probably at least half the JFK community. And, the number recognizing Altgens photo alteration isn't as great as that, but it may be a third, which is pretty darn good. And I'm sure the percentage is growing and will continue to grow. 

The bottom line is that this started bloodied, and it continues to be bloodied. The defense of the bloodied is bloodied. And will they actually kill more people to keep their lie going? I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me; I wouldn't put it past them. The killing of JFK was an atrocity, but the ongoing cover-up is also an atrocity. And the people involved today in continuing it- in holding up the vicious lie that Oswald killed Kennedy- are as vicious as the people who actually did it back in 1963. 

Open Letter to John McAdams: Ban using aliases on your forum 

John, there is no excuse for anyone to use an alias on your forum. We are discussing an event in history, one that occurred 50 years ago. No one on your board stands any risk of being prosecuted for that crime. If one can discuss the War of 1812 without using an alias, why does one need one to discuss the JFK assassination?

There are sound reasons to prohibit the use of aliases. First, it invites someone to falsely and unfairly misrepresent support by submitting posts under multiple aliases. Second, it invites those using aliases to make personal attacks against others- who use their real name- as has happened repeatedly to me by persons on your forum. And that may be a major reason why they use aliases, but nevertheless, there should be an even playing field. Third, using an alias abolishes the need for decency and decorum because, after all, it's the alias talking. Requiring real names would raise the level of discourse there- a lot. Fourth, the value of honesty is always at stake, and when a person can't even put his name to his writing, then his words are already steeped in evasiveness and manipulation, and there is no excuse for it. 

John, if you require people to use their real names, it won't be the first time. On Education Forum, you had to use your real name. On JFK Lancer Forum, you had to use your real name. And I believe even on JFK Assassination Forum, you have to use your real name. 

You're a professor, John. How would you like it if one of your students used an alias? Submitted work as his own but used an alias? 

We are debating a historical event here, John. That's all. There is no reason why anybody has to use an alias. I doubt that when people discuss the Reformation that anyone uses an alias. 

You are using your real name. I'm using mine. Robert Harris and Anthony Marsh are using theirs. I presume Jason Burke is his real name, and I know Mark O'Blazney is. And I'm sure there are others who are using their real names there.  But, you need to level the playing field by making everybody who comes there do the same. And whether they are CT or LN, it makes no difference; if they are unwilling to use their real name, you just tell them to get the hell out of there. That's what I'd tell them.  

Robert Oswald says that these are both his mother in 1956. They don't look like the same woman to me. 

Let's compare the teeth up-close.

That malocclusion on the right is not evident on the left. 

And when we look at the center of their faces, we see that on the right, the woman had deep peri-oral creases and prominent maxillary protrusion- fat cheeks. But not the other one. 

Look: they're two different women. For God's sake, stop the nonsense. Robert Oswald is trying to finesse the merging of his real mother with the MO impostor, and it's a very shabby, sloppy effort. There were two Marguerite Oswalds, and that is as certain as the fact that there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds.