Monday, February 27, 2017

More Marguerite Silliness

Some recent dissention in the Armstrong-Harvey & Lee camp between Ralph Cinque and Jim Hargrove got me looking into the matter and let to a minor debunking of another silly Armstrong assertion. If you are unfamiliar with Cinque, he is a conspiracy theorist who believes just about every image associated with Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of JFK is faked. Cinque communicates with Armstrong regularly, but is something of a maverick and bends the Harvey & Lee theory occasionally to fit his own needs.

Cinque has a new piece at his blog discussing his latest two Marguerite theories:

Cinque admits that there is some disagreement between himself and Hargrove who maintains the official Harvey & Lee website. Hargrove initially seemed to agree with Cinque’s analysis concerning which Marguerite is which. But Jim has changed his mind and now offers a handy guide to identifying the two Marguerites.

Marguerite Claverie Oswald, the biological mother of LEE Harvey Oswald, Robert Oswald, and John Pic, stood in stark contrast to the short, dumpy woman who adopted her name and acted as HARVEY Oswald's caretaker. The real Marguerite Claverie Oswald was relatively tall (about 5' 6" - 5' 7"), attractive, well groomed, always dressed nicely, and had straight, horizontal eyebrows, and never wore glasses.

So, any photo that shows Marguerite wearing glasses is the “fake” by definition. Hargrove also notes that the “fake” Marguerite had “eyebrows slanting down away from her nose behind her glasses.” It should be mentioned that in nearly any photo of the “fake” Marguerite one of two situations occur. If she is frowning or has just about any expression other than a smile, her eyebrows are often slanted. If she is smiling, her glasses cover the eyebrows so they can’t really be seen and thus insuring Armstrong-Hargrove will never be wrong. At first blush this seems like a clever idea and basically foolproof. But if the eyebrows of the “fake” Marguerite are obscured by the eyeglass frames and therefore not visible, it stands to reason that they are not in a slanted position as they should be according to the new theory.

Fortunately, a photo exists taken looking down on Marguerite and it is very obvious in this photo the “fake” Marguerite’s eyebrows are not slanted:

I am sure other photos exist that would also prove my point. So, Armstrong has learned nothing from the “Marguerite never smiled” incident which was disproved here:

As for Cinque, he precedes a discussion of several photos he believes show the “fake” Marguerite by saying that a photo of Marguerite and a group of employees taken at a show store is “unimpeachable” because of the source. Are you ready for this? The “unimpeachable” source is John Armstrong. The same John Armstrong who is pushing a theory that two Oswalds were involved in a secret CIA operation from childhood. The same John Armstrong whose distortions of the record have been revealed on this and several other websites. The irony of his statement evidently escapes Cinque.

In his article, Cinque offers several photos that he believes are the “fake” Marguerite. But in most of these, Marguerite is not wearing glasses so Ralph is out of luck since Hargrove has decreed that the “real” Marguerite never wore glasses.

But one thing I wish Cinque would stop doing is misrepresenting the following photo as Marguerite:

The photo is from Robert Oswald’s collection and is captioned “Mother on rt., unknown on left but believe one of her sisters, looks like on boat??"

In a case of apparent “conspiracy theorist privilege” Cinque continues to insist without evidence that the girl on the left is Marguerite and frequently uses the photo with the real Marguerite cropped out. So, if you read his blog, beware of any analysis that makes use of this “Marguerite.”


  1. I actually had that thought while reading the post about eyes and glasses. What makes YOUR efforts to disprove the mountains of evidence so obviously inept is your substitution of your opinion as though a denial is the same thing as a well-reasoned argument. I grant that your nitpicking about eyes and an inch difference in heights are both reasonable. But nitpicking minor points is hardly a refutation of that mountain of evidence. Is James Douglass also not credible since he doesn't dispute it?

    Are you aware that CIA did nothing new? You know about the Cuban twins, the Canadian et al, right? It's hard to believe that you would spend so much free? time swatting gnats. I could maybe understand it if the case wasn't so powerful and one of your hobbies just happens to be gnat swatting.

  2. Well, I said it was a "minor debunking" of a minor issue.

    1. Maybe you said that, but I didn't see the "minor issue" phrase except in your reply to me, and as with other gnats you've swatted, you imply that the gnat swatting is proof that the overwhelming evidence of the two Oswalds is BS. You must think other major countries which use similar tactics are simply not believable. The Mossad is the gold standard. Ever read "Every Spy a Prince"? Do you have evidence to support the notion that only U.S. agencies have yet to figure how to use established operational covert plans involving false defectors?

      It's also difficult to believe that DVP (the Von part seems pretentiously goofy) doesn't receive assistance from outside Indiana.

  3. The point of this post was simply to reply to a new assertion by Armstrong-Hargrove that claims the "fake" Marguerite had slanted eyebrows and the "real" Marguerite had straight ones. It is a silly claim but I had some time on my hands so I refuted it as I did with the "Marguerite never smiled" thing. I am not saying that this issue has debunked the entire H&L theory. of course, that has already been done as well, if you believe in scientific evidence that is.

    Not sure how the Mossad relates to eyebrows. As for DVP, the only thing I know is he is a great researcher who has a fantastic web site that is praised even by CTs.

    1. Since your preferred way of trying to change facts is saying that you "assumed" such and such, ergo your conclusion is sound. Using your fallacious logic, I assume you only have beliefs, do not allow facts to influence you, know nothing about history or that DVP himself claims he's not a researcher, and even implies that he gets "insider" assistance, and since you cannot refute the H&L fact, you are either on a fool's errand or else like DVP, you have help -- just less than him because of your relative status as a newer shill. As such, your beliefs would sound more informed if you knew more about agencies such as Mossad. I'm also unsure how your beliefs stack up against historical fact, but then again, beliefs, by definition, aren't facts.

  4. Since I want to be a good host Nickname, I'm going to let you have the last word.

  5. I wonder what the H & L crowd think the end game will be?
    Mass acceptance?
    A new Investigation?
    A seat on Oprahs couch?
    This theory will always and forever exist only on the lunatic fringe
    of Historical research and fail to persuade even in the more forgiving JFK
    20/30 years from now will they still be desperately holding on in the face
    of a mountain of logic and facts against it?

    It is just so discouraging as a "neutral" CT to slog through the Cinques
    and Fetzers and JVB types trying to find answers.


Powered by Blogger.