Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Thomas Graves

Members
  • Content count

    7,239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Thomas Graves

  • Rank
    Super Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    tommyomochain@gmail.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    La Jolla, California

Recent Profile Visitors

33,716 profile views
  1. ONI File

    Hey Steve, Not a problem. Heck, even I made a mistake once, LOL -- Tommy AKA "I used to be conceited, but now I'm perfect."
  2. ONI File

    Fwiw, I interviewed 93 year-old retired ONI special agent Robert D. Steel (R.I.P.) at his house in my hometown of La Jolla, California, in 2013, and I have posted about it on other threads on this forum. -- Tommy
  3. The latest from Ruth Paine

    Sandy, In that scenario, do you think Ruth was originally assigned to Oswald on some rather innocent project which "went bad" on her on 11/22/63? -- Tommy
  4. Michael Walton, I'm leaning more and more towards believing that Oswald didn't go to Mexico City, and that certain elements of the KGB, the CIA, and the Cuban Consulate / Embassy conspired with each other, or maybe piggybacked each other's operations in some complex Mad Magazine-like "spy vs spy" game, to make it appear that he had. You are probably now thinking: "Can you explain why you feel this way, Tommy?" No, not in any great detail. I haven't worked it all out yet. (lol) Suffice it to say that the fact Duran's and Azcue's descriptions of the "Blond Oswald" who had (or had not) visited them on Friday, September 27, 1963, were not only implausible to begin with (describing Nikolai Leonov!), but varied so much over the years (at one point during her HSCA testimony Duran said the "Blond Oswald" weighed about the same as a guy in the HSCA proceedings who weighed 200 lbs ! And when a HSCA lawyer who was questioning her said (in so many words), "Now earlier, out of the court room, you told us this guy was wearing a sports jacket", and she basically contradicted him and said, "No, he wasn't so elegantly dressed" or words to that effect. When we remember that Cuban Consul Azcue had claimed that "Blond Oswald" was wearing a dark blue "Prince of Wales" jacket with stripes, I think what the HSCA lawyer let slip out of the bag is kinda telling about the veracity (or lack of such) of both Duran and Azcue, and opens the possibility that no Oswald, blond or otherwise, visited the Cuban Consulate in late September, 1963. Kinda thinking out loud here, now, ... I think the almost-identical after-the-assassination descriptions Nechiporenko and Leonov gave of their "Oswald encounters" (on Saturday and Sunday, September 28th and 29th, respectively) in which Oswald was made out as being "highly unstable, brandishing a loaded revolver" were fabricated in order to suggest that Oswald was emotionally predisposed to killing people (i.e. Tippit and JFK), and also as an attempt to corroborate what Nosenko had told CIA in February, 1964 -- that Oswald was so doggone unstable when he arrived in the U.S.S.R. that the KGB didn't want to have anything to do with him. Which is very interesting. Because Golitsyn, who defected 6 months before Nosenko (and whom I believe was genuine -- I'm talking about Golitsyn here) had already told CIA that KGB's Department 13 interviewed all defecting U.S. military personnel to learn of any military secrets they might have. Now this doesn't necessarily mean that I believe the KGB recruited Oswald to kill JFK. But it does raise the interesting question of why in the heck the KGB wanted us to believe they hadn't even routinely interviewed Oswald for military secrets. I can think of a few possibilities: 1 ) They didn't interview him. Not because they suspected he was crazy, but because they suspected that he was actually a CIA or ONI "plant" sent to the U.S.S.R. to give the KGB / GRU false information about the U.S. military. (But why not interview him anyway, not "let on" what you suspect his true motives are, and give him some false info in return?) 2 ) They did interview Oswald but didn't want the CIA to know that. Because: A ) They got some really juicy info from him, like a description of the new height-finding radar we were using in conjunction with the U2, etc, and KGB didn't want CIA to know that KGB knew that. B ) They didn't get squat from him (because he was "crazy" and just couldn't remember, etc), and after the assassination the KGB was afraid the U.S. would nuke the U.S.S.R. if it became known that the KGB (and specifically Department 13 !) had not only contacted Oswald when he arrived in Moscow, but had actually interviewed him. (I don't know exactly when Golitsyn told CIA about Department 13's normal operating procedures as regards recently-arrived U.S. military defectors, but it's reasonable to assume that he might have kinda brought it up at some point before November 22, 1963, so I guess this isn't a particularly plausible excuse on KGB's part for the simple fact that the U.S. hadn't quite gotten around to nuking the U.S.S.R. when Nosenko defected on February 4, 1964. (Hmmm ... Was the KGB worried about what the Warren Commission might uncover?) C ) Out of KGB's concern that if they admitted in, say, February of 1964, that the KGB had interviewed Oswald, that they would be revealing top secret "sources and methods", and it might even come out that their foreign assassinations section -- Department 13 -- was the department doing the interviewing. But I'm rambling, I suppose, and I am getting tired. Time for another cup of that cheapo instant coffee .... -- Tommy Oh yeah, all of the above plus the fact that neither the Ruskies nor the Mexicans were ever able to produce the communications Nechiporenko and Leonov claimed they'd sent to the authorities on 9/28/63 and 9/29/63, respectively, about this "unstable, dangerous Oswald guy" they'd met with.
  5. Yes, Pamela, you already have. Intriguing theory btw. Have you read Spy Wars or Ghosts of Spy Wars yet? In them, Bagley (one of Nosenko's interrorgators) points out that Nosenko's answers changed so much over the years as to suggest that it wasn't just a matter of his KGB superiors' giving him bad information for him to unwittingly pass on to CIA, but that he was lying a lot and having a hard time keeping his lies straight. -- Tommy Or put another way, CIA was asking him detailed, unexpected questions on things he'd already knowingly lied about in a general kind of way, and he had a hard time keeping those "secondary" answers straight during subsequent interrogations.
  6. Membership of the JFK Forum

    John, I think that's a good idea. The problem is -- there are so many factions on both sides. Who would represent a faction like "A Witting LHO and Some Other People Did It Together", for example? And how would you accommodate such "fringe" theories (imho) as "Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites, Too" and "General Edwin Walker, Guy Banister, and David Sanchez Morales Did It"? Or the really intriguing but unpopular "Mid-Level CIA and Upper-Level KGB Did It Together"? For example. -- Tommy
  7. Update: I haven't exactly counted up the votes since I know it's something like Yes, Nosenko was a genuine defector -- 50.5 votes No, Nosenko was a false defector -- 2.5 votes Anyone else have an opinion on this? By the way -- Has anyone here actually read Tennent H. Bagley's book Spy Wars? (2007) Okay then, how about his 37-page sequel, Ghosts of Spy Wars? (2015) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362 -- Tommy PS I intended this as a poll thread, not as a discussion thread seein' as how there already are threads on Nosenko, Golitsyn, Angleton, etc. So please, put your comments, if any, on one of those threads so as not to interrupt the "flow" of this here poll thread. Thank you. Thank you very much.
  8. Michael, In that post I was kinda multi-tasking if you will. I'll start explaining / defending myself in a few minutes after I've had another cup of coffee and listened to AC/DC's "Rock N Roll Train" a couple more times to get the "juices" flowing..... I mean I mean I mean seriously dude I just got up. Well, about an hour ago, truth be told. Pulled an all nighter. Well, until about 4 AM, truth be told.. But thanks for asking. "Now where did I put that jar of cheapo house brand instant caffeinated coffee, gosh darn it?........" I do promise to get back to you after I've thought up a few plausible .... "rationalizations". More than enough time for my good buddy to jump in and say something highly enlightening if he wants to. -- Tommy
  9. How About Some Relaxing Rock 'N Roll Music?

    " an old school rebel ..."
  10. "The Greatest Poet of the 20th Century", on LBJ

    I like T. S, Elliott. -- Tommy
  11. Jack S. Martin Sr.

    I wonder if this John T. Martin in Saint Paul, Minnesota, somehow ties in with the phone call David Ferrie made to someone in Minneapolis immediately prior to calling that bank in my hometown of La Jolla, California, in April, 1962? -- Tommy
  12. This Is My Final Post To Paul Trejo

    Paul, I don't know if I've ever read any of Grozev's articles. If the stuff he writes "rings true" to me, based on what I already know about the wars in Donbas, etc, I'll "go with it" because I know from experience that bellingcat is a "straight shooter" news source. If you spend a little more time reading the articles there about the wars in Syria and Ukraine, etc, I think you'll notice the lack of emotional language and the straightforward, detailed, and often social-media-based (and therefore photographically verifiable) subject matter. For example, the "selfies" and regular photos that Russian solders seem to love to take of interesting-looking things and of their soldier buddies while they're in Syria or Ukraine, and which they foolishly post on some social media website. I say "foolishly post" because often times there are self-incriminating geo-specific "land marks" in the background of those photos which can be found on Google Earth by the bellingcat analysts and thereby used to figure out exactly where those Russian soldiers (and their tanks, etc) were and what the heck they were "up to" when the photo was taken. Etc. -- Tommy
  13. This Is My Final Post To Paul Trejo

    Paul, Thanks for sharing, Paul. I absolutely agree with you -- Degree of factual reporting is much more important than the emotional language or "slant" that might be used in an article or book or, in this case, "news source" (since that's what you and I are talking about right now). When I'm doing basic research (like just getting started on something), I like to find the subject matter on Wikipedia, if possible, and then I "take it from there" by reading the article on Wikipedia and clicking on any interesting-looking "links" therein. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wikipedia/ Of course, if I'm reading an article on what I consider to be a reputable JFK assassination-oriented website (like on the MFF or in Simpich's State Secret), I just click on any interesting-looking links there, too. I spend one heck of a lot of time on Facebook, posting and "sharing" oodles and gobs of anti-Trump, anti-Putin, anti-Assad, and pro-Ukrainian stuff, and when someone else posts or "shares" something having to do with those subjectmatters, I'll typically run that person's news source through https://mediabiasfactcheck.com to see whether or not said "news source" has my required "High" level of factual reporting. As I said in an earlier post, I like the NYT and the WP. I also like AP (Associated Press), PBS, Reuters, and believe it or not USA Today. There are others that I like that I can't think of right now. I'll even go "Left-Biased" sometimes as long as it has "High" factual reporting. If memory serves, MOTHER JONES is one of those. Surprised? Regardless, none of news sources I "share" on facebook are "Right" or "Right-Center" biased according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com The only exception might be the occasional military-oriented one in the "Right-Center" category, but it's still gotta have "High" factual reporting for me to be interested in it. Sound reasonable? I hope this answers your question. -- Tommy PS Your DEMOCRACY NOW looks like a good one because it has "High" factual reporting. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/democracy-now/
×