Thomas Graves

Dear Jim, Did my pointing out to you that Oswald was debriefed by someone who was (ostensibly) in the CIA's Domestic Contacts Division automatically lead you believe that I do not think Oswald was being used somehow by The Agency? One would think that fact would tend to support your allegation that Oswald was a spy. Of sorts. Do you ever read my posts on threads other than yours? Didn't think so. As regards Greg Parker, what I like the most about Greg is that he, like I, intuits that "Harvey and Lee" is a steaming load of odiferous hokum. I also appreciate his realizing that William Shelley and Billy Lovelady were photographically "captured" walking down Elm Street Extension about 20 seconds after the assassination. Oh, and by the way, he and seem to agree that "Prayer Man" was ... Lee Harvey Oswald. If you want me to give you my Grand Theory Of The Assassination, sorry to disappoint you, Jim, but I ain't got one ... yet. -- Tommy

Dear Jim, Hasn't it been shown that Oswald was interviewed / debriefed by the CIA upon his return to the U.S.? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6237 -- Tommy PS Do intelligence agencies normally tell the public who they have or haven't debriefed?

Dear Jim, Hasn't it been shown that Oswald was interviewed / debriefed by the CIA upon his return to the U.S.? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6237 -- Tommy

I haven't looked at it yet, of course. (lol) http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utarl/00160/arl-00160.html -- Tommy PS See #23 ("Strikers, 1964, undated") in: Series III. Photographs 1960's, undated 5.0 linear feet (1 manuscript box) Maybe it was written in 1964 but was about a strike in 1963?

You are probably right that Oswald would have "just flashed it". If you look closely at it, the card forgery itself is pretty badly botched. I wonder if it had more to do with the name and the signature than the card itself. And the "dangle" with non-English speaking exiles is a pretty good assumption I think. As far as the missing two weeks goes, I've looked into that pretty extensively. The FBI was trying to figure that out as early as December, 1963 when Marina was interviewed by the FBI and as late at May, 1964 when Alexandra de Mohrenschildt testified before the Warren Commission. I don't know if they ever figured it out. Indications are that he moved somewhere in Oak Cliff. The de Mohrenshildts, the Taylors, and George Bouhe all thought so. (I personally believe that it was somewhere on N. Beckley). I loved Jeanne de Mohrenschildt's response to this question: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/demohr_j.htm "I said, "For God sakes, if we are to help them, I cannot race to Oak Cliff to help them with this or that"--if she had to go to the doctor. Why wouldn't they take a little place near us, it will be much easier for me to help her." "He had some reasons to live far away. I don't know if anybody else mentioned that to you. That was everybody's impression. For some particular reason, he moved all the way out." Dennis Ofstein was interviewed by the FBI on January 29, 1964. He was specifically asked that question. Do you know where Oswald was living between October 19 and November 3, 1962? Ofstein said no.(Gary Taylor, who was periodically giving rides to Oswald around that time also got a visit from the FBI on January 29th. All he could say was that he picked up Oswald at the curb outside of the YMCA, but he couldn't say Oswald was actually living there). Dennis Ofstein, a "Monterey Mary", who studied Russian at the Monterey School of Languages for a year, who spent his military tour of duty with the 507th USASA Group, Heilbronn, West Germany whose mission it was to intercept and translate Russian and East German military traffic, and who worked "side by side" with Oswald and taught him everything he knew about enlarging and reducing prints, opaqueing negatives, and making clean prints - exactly the skills Alwyn Cole, a questioned documents expert of the Department of the Treasury, told the WC you would need to forge documents, and who told the WC that's what was done with the Oswald SS card to turn it into the Hidell SS card. And, speaking of Ofstein, in his WC testimony he said, Mr. JENNER. Do you know whether this company has done any confidential or secret work for any agency of the United States? Mr. OFSTEIN. I don't know the nature of the classification. I do know that they do work for the U.S. Government. Mr. JENNER. Have you ever participated in any of that work? Mr. OFSTEIN. Only during strike--approximately 2 weeks. Do you have any idea what Ofstein is referring to here? Who was on strike? If the JCS employees are on strike, why is Ofstein doing work on behalf of the U.S. Government at that particular moment? Does the term "during strike" refer to something besides a strike by the employees? Are these two weeks the same two weeks Oswald goes "missing"? Mr. JENNER. Was the problem with the Cuban nation or with Mr. Castro or any of Castro's activities ever discussed? Mr. OFSTEIN. “Yes, sir; at one time when they were having a little difficulty down there, I don't recall just what the difficulty was at the time, but I made a rather derogatory remark about Fidel Castro's ancestry...” The “little difficulty”? The Cuban Military Crisis. I've tried to think of something else that was going on in the fall of 1962 that Oswald may have been involved in. But so far, I haven't come up with a plausible need for a fake Hidell ID. From your research, have you ever encountered the word HIDELL in a military intelligence connotation? It doesn't appear to be a CIA cryptonym and I haven't encountered it in any FBI operation that I'm aware of like COINTELPRO. Steve Thomas Steve, I don't know, but maybe the all the "little places" for rent in the Demohrenschildt's neighborhood were too expensive for the Oswald's? Also, it seems to me that Ofstein's "two-week strike" would have been written about in the local newspapers. -- Tommy

I'm bumping "Ballistics Bob's" great post so that more people will realize what a great researcher he is on non ballistics-related and non duh-hip-bone's-connected-to-duh-thigh-bone type subjects, especially when he has no rational "come back" answers and, well .... just doesn't know what else to say. Do you still think chunky Gloria Calvery was the lithe "Running Woman," Bob? After I helped you finally see a possible Gloria Calvery standing behind another woman in Altgens 6, did you ever get your eyes checked? BTW, I was trying to help you, Bob, when I suggested that "Running Woman" might have run all the way down to the corner of Elm and Houston, and that Marion Baker might have run down there, too, to ask her what she'd seen. But I guess that didn't fit in with your "theory," did it. -- Tommy

That's just what he does. It's an OCD thing. Barto, To un-stick it? Maybe I should only bump your posts in the future, seein' as how so few people seem to respond to them. (Great posts, by the way. I really do mean it.) -- Tommy PS Uh-oh, it's 11:04 AM and I see that "Ballistics Bob" is lurking on this thread. What, if anything, of significance will he post? ..... Didn't think so. Well, at least he's not embarrassing himself. LOL

Bumped for Sandy Larsen to reconsider and to actually think about. -- Tommy Being proactive by nature, I anticipate that Larsen or Prudhomme will counter by saying, "But wait! Lovelady doesn't have that "dot" (hair? mole? scar?) at the end of his left eyebrow in the FBI photo in which he's wearing the vertically-striped shirt!" And I will reply by saying, "Take some deep breaths, boys. I noticed that. And it doesn't unduly perplex me, but rather, it leads me to the inexorable conclusion that Billy Nolan Lovelady was very devious, indeed, and that he was either really, really paranoid, or perhaps a strange combination of stupid (regarding the vertically-striped shirt) and self-conscious (regarding that tiny but ugly, ugly "dot"), or, perish the thought, up to his neck in the assassination of JFK." [dramatic pause] "I mean, I mean, I mean, why else would he intentionally wear the wrong shirt (diametrically different, in fact -- hmmm) for the FBI, and use a little of his wife's eyebrow pencil (or whatever it's called) to conceal his distinctive "dot" in the FBI photos, if not to distance himself as far as possible from Oswald (aka "Prayerman") to whom he can, perhaps, be glimpsed "relating with," near the beginning of the Robert Hughes film, hmmm?" Why, indeed? -- Tommy [...] bumped

Ray, I can see the top edge of the pocket in the huge enlargement. The particular horizontal black line I'm looking at is a little wider / thicker, and has a slightly different "tone" or "shade" of blackness about it on the left half or so of said line. Which suggests to me that I'm seeing a narrow shadow caused by the pocket's being a little bit out from the shirt proper. -- Tommy

Here is a typical frame grab from a Hughes film. As usual, click to enlarge and then Ctrl +++ to zoom in more. Note the gray shirt. oswald_or_lovelady_in hughes_film_2.jpg Here is a frame grab from your video. tommy's_oswald_or_lovelady_in hughes_film.jpg I wanted to show a reddish frame grab, but have reached my limit. Maybe I will delete one of the above later and post the reddish one. Dear Sandy, Who says we're "working together"? I'll have you know The Agency pays me darn good money to contradict everything you and Cowboy Bob say. And, of course, to spread as much "disinfo" on this forum as possible... -- Tommy PS I wonder if there is anyone else (or anything else) in that same scene that we know was wearing something red (or that was red if we're talking about a thing rather than a person), based on their being photographically "captured" by someone other than Hughes? For color comparison purposes? Just an idea. I'm too tired to "research" it at the moment. Edit: It looks like there's a woman wearing a reddish-colored dress standing across the street, about "an inch" to the left of the traffic signal ... Another Edit: Bear in mind that Lovelady's plaid shirt was not a pure, solid red, but had fairly wide stripes of black, gray, and white "mixed into" it, which probably would have changed its appearance-from-a-distance "look" by a tone (or is it called "shade"?) or two. Also take into consideration the partial shade that Lovelady moves into and out of, at least ... partially.

Great clip, Clive. "Running Woman" Marion Baker is barely visible, running "off stage, right" in the upper right hand corner. Is this clip a continuation of Couch or Darnell, or both? What we must ponder: Is Gloria Calvery on the "corner of the park," ready to tell these two guys (IMHO Shelley and Lovelady) what she saw, or is Running Woman "Gloria Calvery," either "real deal," or, more likely, only believed to be so by Shelley and / or Lovelady? --Tommy PS These two guys are walking in the same direction, and are doing so in such a "synchronized" manner and in such close proximity to each other, IMHO, that we can say that they are very likely walking "together." It's just that one of them (probably Supervisor of the Miscellaneous Department -- William H. Shelley) has "taken charge," so to speak, and is "leading the way." Edit: I now believe that "Shelley" has started crossing over toward the "island," and that "Lovelady" is continuing on towards the Railway Yard and that he has just started running in that direction. If any two guys were walking to any "same place" together from the steps of the TSBD, would anyone expect them to be walking side-by-side at this point? Holding hands? Edit: "Holding hands"??? Well, I guess that's still a valid question. LOL Just kidding. That sure looks like "Shelley" and "Lovelady" to me, especially thin, suit-wearing "Shelley." The only problem I have here is "Lovelady's" (apparently) light-colored shirt. Edit: That "problem" immediately "evaporated away" when Bart Kamp, recently and on another thread, posted enlarged and (apparently) contrast-adjusted frames from Couch which show "Lovelady" with a bald spot on the top-rear of his head and wearing a distinctive, long-sleeved, PLAID SHIRT as he walks down Elm Street Extension about 20 seconds after the assassination. Notice "Lovelady's" bounding, rising head in his very first first step. Compare the motion of his head to the heads of people around him. Their heads don't jump or rise like that, indicating that his head really did rise because he's starting to run in order to catch up with "Shelley." get to the Railway Yard (or to the side / rear entrance to the TSBD?) as quickly as possible. edited and bumped -- Tommy

Howdy Bob! I respectfully disagree, Bob.. Now, does that make me a "disinfo agent," like you accused me of being in a PM a couple of years ago? (Which PM I have saved, BTW.) -- Tommy

Barto, Who said they were perfectly aligned? (I did. My bad.) Aren't the people on the steps sufficiently well-aligned in the two frames for us to be able to determine whether or not they move their hands, heads, or bodies during the intervening five or-so seconds? If Lovelady really was "stepping down" during the second frame (rather than just holding onto the handrail and leaning out towards the camera), why do you think he was doing that? Did he want to go down a couple of steps so he could have a worse view of what was happening down the street? Did he want to go help JFK? Or was he just still hungry wanted to finish eating his lunch, or maybe go talk with someone over there at his original, next-to-the-wall position? If Lovelady really was stepping down, where was he going? To some prearranged location? (For timing-correlation purposes, do you not agree that the "Doorman" in Altgens 6 was Lovelady? And that Altgens 6 was taken a second or two after JFK was hit in the throat?) Thanks, -- Tommy Bumped For Barto I've decided to add a little bonus here: Edited this post and bumped this thread just for the heck of it.

Howdy Bob!, Fantastic observation. So what? What does "noticeably taller" signify in this context? Two inches? Half a foot? If, for example, Lovelady was 5'6" and Shelly was 5'8" would that "foot the bill," or would it jeopardize your "theory" somehow? What if Shelley was 5'9" and Lovelady 5'7" ? What are your requirements? Just an idea: Maybe you can eventually locate the "mug shot" that must have been taken of of Lovelady in Maryland in 1960. I mean after all, why rely on the "notorious FBI," whose accuracy and integrity you've so severely and so often impugned in the past? -- Tommy

Looks to me like a small wrinkle going across the shirt. The wrinkle becomes more pronounced further to the right. Several of these tiny wrinkles can be seen. Ray, I see the top edge of the pocket. It's hanging out and away from the shirt proper by just a smidgen, but it is noticeable to those who are willing to see it. As regards the possibility that Lovelady may have put on a few pounds, it's also possible that the reason the shirt seems to have shrunk is because it has -- maybe somebody (probably "careless" Lovelady, himself) washed it in water that was way too hot. How's that for a mundane explanation? So to reiterate, I do see the pocket. (But then again what would you expect from a notorious "lone nutter" / "disinfo agent" such as me?) LOL -- Tommy Oh yeah, Tom, shrunk the tails right off the shirt, along with the pocket. You're embarrassing yourself. I'll bet you can see Badge Man, too. Howdy Bob!, Yup, it was you after all. FWIW, your assassinine statement is a suggestion I refuse to accept. And no, I gave up on trying to see "Badge Man" a long time ago. Ever find Gloria Jean Calvery, Bob? She's critical to your "theory," isn't she? (I suppose you could always try calling her brother on Thanksgiving Day.) -- Tommy

Tommy, I've never said to you or anybody else "you're embarrassing yourself." Dear Sandy, Fine. Maybe it was your Cowboy Partner, instead. In which case, "My Bad." Now that that's been taken care of, would you care to address the substantive issues in my now-edited post? -- Tommy

Dear Sandy, Your number 2 sounds reasonable except for the fact that Lovelady was wearing a long-sleeved, reddish, non vertically-striped shirt over a white t-shirt on 11/22/63, as seen near the beginning of the Robert Hughes film (as the limo is approaching and passing by the TSBD). See also "Doorman" in black-and-white Altgens 6, below. Bear in mind that after the limo passes by in Hughes, Lovelady moves from the wall position to the center handrail position, and is leaning out towards the camera in Altgens 6. Robert Hughes film Detail from Altgens 6. Note the black and white horizontal stripes on the sleeve and "button area." Which leads us to two non-conspiratorial , non paranoia-inducing possibilities: 1) Lovelady was wearing a baggy, previously-unwashed shirt on 11/22/63 which had shrunk by the time some unknown-to-me person photographed him in it a few years later, or 2) that Lovelady threw away the shirt sometime after 11/22/63, and then tried to buy a similar one for Groden's or that other person's "photo shoot." (Heck, he might have had a whole collection of similar shirts.) But then one must ask why did he buy one that was too small? Did someone else -- maybe his wife -- buy it for him? Was the smallish one the only one he or she could find on such short notice? Or did he like that kind of shirt (the 11/22/63 one) so much that he bought another one like it after throwing away "the original," and then it got washed in some too-hot water?. -- Tommy PS Your statement that "I'm embarrassing myself" is a suggestion I refuse to accept. PPS I really can see the top edge of a pocket in the "Groden shirt."

Howdy Bob, I'd say the short guy (in the front row) who is wearing the officer's hat is "Lieutenant Shelley." Remember, he's pretty young here, and his face will change a bit over the next several years. -- Tommy Oh, so you know how old he was in this photo, Thomas? Howdy Bob! "Funny" question, Bob. Wild-Guess Reasonable Answer: High School Age? Meaning probably younger than 45? -- Tommy

Yes, thank you Tommy. I do know that the still showing Lovelady's face is allegedly from the same film, a few seconds preceding what we see in the video posted in this thread. I would like to see the whole video. Not that it really matters... even Ralph Cinque says that the whole video is available. As I said, my point was just to inform Robert that he wouldn't see that still in the video posted here. Here's a slo-mo version of the alleged prequel: Dear Sandy. Why do you keep saying "alleged" prequel? Do you think it, or the whole thing, was faked? -- Tommy Tommy, Something fishy is going on with Lovelady and that plaid shirt. Until that is cleared up I'm considering it all alleged. Including whether or not the prequel (which surfaced later) was originally part of the sequel. Good idea, Sandy. Thanks for letting me know what you're very skeptical about. -- Tommy

Robert, I agree with you regarding the missing pocket. But as for the shirt being snug, it could be that Lovelady put on some weight. You make an interesting point about the shirt being in storage for a long time. Why would Lovelady have kept that shirt? To commemorate the JFK assassination? Wasn't there anything more reasonable to keep than a shirt? Was the shirt controversial way back then? If not, I don't know why Lovelady would have singled it out to save. He might have put on weight but that still doesn't explain the shirt on the right being so much shorter than the 1963 shirt. Did he cut the tails AND the pocket off the shirt? I don't believe they are the same shirt. Oh yeah, good point. It seems to have become way shorter, more so than what one would expect from washing in hot water. I can't believe that a person would save a special shirt and then alter it in meaningless ways like cutting it short or taking off the pocket. Especially a man. When you say you don't believe they are the same shirt, do you mean the large and small one? Or the 1963 and later one? Dear Sandy, Boy-oh-boy, you've really "got" me now. Seein' as how the guy walking down Elm Street Extension with William Shelley seems to be wearing a big baggy plaid shirt with "tails," he can't possibly be Lovelady, can he, even though when he was "caught" on film (sitting in a chair in the police department and watching Oswald being taken past him) we can see that his face looks a lot like Lovelady's and that he even has the same bald spot on the top-rear of his head and the same tiny "dot" (hair?, mole?, scar?) at the end of his left eyebrow. Seein' as how you've proved that this guy can't possibly be Lovelady, the only thing I can figure is that he must have been sitting up there in the Homicide and Robbery office of the Dallas Police Department at 2:02 on 11/22/63 so he could explain why he hadn't paid a parking ticket, or something. A 2012 post by Richard Hocking: Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:38 PM To followup on the TSBD employees who went to the Dallas Police Station:In CE 1381, the following men state they went and gave statements. Each one gave a time reference as to when they left the TSBD or when they arrived at the Station. Danny Arce: about 1:00 Jack Dougherty: Left at 1:30 Charles Givens: About and hour after the shooting [1:30] Billy Lovelady: 1:45 (on page 662 of CE 1381, in which he lied about where he and WS went immediately after the shots) William Shelley: about 1:30 (on page 673 of CE 1381, mentions he saw LHO at the police station) BR Williams: shortly after 1:00 And, FWIW: "DPD Officer Senkel: Brown and I left the Texas School Book Depository with witnesses William Shelley, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Danny Garcia Arce." [and accompanied them to the Police Department] http://jfk.ci.dallas...15/1548-002.gif -- Tommy

Looks to me like a small wrinkle going across the shirt. The wrinkle becomes more pronounced further to the right. Several of these tiny wrinkles can be seen. Ray, I see the top edge of the pocket. It's hanging out and away from the shirt proper by just a smidgen, but it is noticeable to those who are willing to see it. As regards the possibility that Lovelady may have put on a few pounds, it's also possible that the reason the shirt seems to have shrunk is because it has -- maybe somebody (probably "careless" Lovelady, himself) washed it in water that was way too hot. How's that for a mundane explanation? So to reiterate, I do see the pocket. (But then again what would you expect from a notorious "lone nutter" / "disinfo agent" such as me?) LOL -- Tommy

Howdy Bob, I'd say the short guy (in the front row) who is wearing the officer's hat is "Lieutenant Shelley." Remember, he's pretty young here, and his face will change a bit over the next several years. -- Tommy

Yes, thank you Tommy. I do know that the still showing Lovelady's face is allegedly from the same film, a few seconds preceding what we see in the video posted in this thread. I would like to see the whole video. Not that it really matters... even Ralph Cinque says that the whole video is available. As I said, my point was just to inform Robert that he wouldn't see that still in the video posted here. Here's a slo-mo version of the alleged prequel: Dear Sandy. Why do you keep saying "alleged" prequel? Do you think it, or the whole thing, was faked? -- Tommy

Bumped for Sandy Larsen to reconsider and to actually think about. -- Tommy Being proactive by nature, I anticipate that Larsen or Prudhomme will counter by saying, "But wait! Lovelady doesn't have that "dot" (hair? mole? scar?) at the end of his left eyebrow in the FBI photo in which he's wearing the vertically-striped shirt!" And I will reply by saying, "Take some deep breaths, boys. I noticed that. And it doesn't unduly perplex me, but rather, it leads me to the inexorable conclusion that Billy Nolan Lovelady was very devious, indeed, and that he was either really, really paranoid, or perhaps a strange combination of stupid (regarding the vertically-striped shirt) and self-conscious (regarding that tiny but ugly, ugly "dot"), or, perish the thought, up to his neck in the assassination of JFK." [dramatic pause] "I mean, I mean, I mean, why else would he intentionally wear the wrong shirt (diametrically different, in fact -- hmmm) for the FBI, and use a little of his wife's eyebrow pencil (or whatever it's called) to conceal his distinctive "dot" in the FBI photos, if not to distance himself as far as possible from Oswald (aka "Prayerman") to whom he can, perhaps, be glimpsed "relating with," near the beginning of the Robert Hughes film, hmmm?" Why, indeed? -- Tommy Bumped of course

Bumped for Sandy Larsen to reconsider and to actually think about. -- Tommy Being proactive by nature, I anticipate that Larsen or Prudhomme will counter by saying, "But wait! Lovelady doesn't have that "dot" (hair? mole? scar?) at the end of his left eyebrow in the FBI photo in which he's wearing the vertically-striped shirt!" And I will reply by saying, "Take some deep breaths, boys. I noticed that. And it doesn't unduly perplex me, but rather, it leads me to the inexorable conclusion that Billy Nolan Lovelady was very devious, indeed, and that he was either really, really paranoid, or perhaps a strange combination of stupid (regarding the vertically-striped shirt) and self-conscious (regarding that tiny but ugly, ugly "dot"), or, perish the thought, up to his neck in the assassination of JFK." [dramatic pause] "I mean, I mean, I mean, why else would he intentionally wear the wrong shirt (diametrically different, in fact -- hmmm) for the FBI, and use a little of his wife's eyebrow pencil (or whatever it's called) to conceal his distinctive "dot" in the FBI photos, if not to distance himself as far as possible from Oswald (aka "Prayerman") to whom he can, perhaps, be glimpsed "relating," near the beginning of the Robert Hughes film, hmmm?" Why, indeed? -- Tommy