Thomas Graves

Larry, Well, at least I included a quote from Wim. (lol) -- Tommy

Dear Michael, Can you think of a better candidate than Oliver for Babushka Lady? Can you find Babushka Lady in this photo? Hint: She's at the left edge of the photo, across the street, walking to where she said she saw other witnesses congregating and waiting to be questioned. Go to 14:10 in this video to hear her explain what she was doing in the above photo. -- Tommy PS From post # 34 on the "Babushka Lady" thread: "Let's turn it around and assume that Beverly was not the Babushka lady. That means we have a Dealey Plaza witness with a camera, filming the assassination, who vanished from the earth, never came forward or was identified otherwise. Neither did the FBI attempt to find this woman or her film, although she is clearly visible on Zapruder. How likely is all that? Wim" -- Tommy

Dear Joe, Could you please provide us with a "link" to Gary Mack's "Living History" interview of Leavelle? Thanks. -- Tommy Never mind. Here it is. By the way, I've put "[...]" (below) where you left out a whole exchange between Mack and Leavelle when you quoted Mack as saying, "Within a few hours you and your co-workers were able to acquire enough information to charge, formally charge Oswald with the murder of Tippit. [.......] What was the 'key bit of information' that made you know that this ( Oswald ) was the guy? " And just a minor point -- When Leavelle says "Well, the CI" (or "Well, ya see, I" ?), he doesn't look away from Mack. In fact he looks more towards him. I don't suppose Leavelle's possibly muttering "the CI" could have been in reference to the Dallas Police Department's "Criminal Intelligence" department?

Dear Joseph, You left the "h" out of "https:". Looks like an interesting interview. I don't suppose Leavelle's uttering "CI" could have been in reference to the Dallas Police Department's "Criminal Intelligence" department? -- Tommy

Dear Michael, Can you think of a better candidate than Oliver for Babushka Lady? Can you find Babushka Lady in this photo? Hint: She's at the left edge of the photo, across the street, walking to where she said she saw other witnesses congregating and waiting to be questioned. Go to 14:10 in this video to hear her explain what she was doing in the above photo. -- Tommy

[...] Dear Michael, Oliver, a natural blonde, said she was wearing a black wig that day (because that was what she was going to wear at work that night at the Colony Club where she was a singer), and that she looked larger than usual because she was wearing her large over-the-shoulder purse under her overcoat. I, for one, would like to know where, on (or near) the Grassy Knoll, she claimed to have made eye contact with Roscoe White, whom she says she knew quite well, a few minutes after the assassination while she was waiting expectantly to be questioned about what she had seen. She said she hung around there (where she saw policemen / detectives come up to people and take them away for questioning) for several minutes, and felt free to leave after making eye contact with White because Roscoe knew where she worked and would be able to direct the investigators there in case they wanted to ask her questions. -- Tommy

[deleted]

So who do you think Babushka Lady was, then? A CIA operative in drag?

Barto, Who said they were perfectly aligned? (I did. My bad.) Is it possible to align the two frames any better than Chris has done? Are the people on the steps sufficiently well-aligned in the two frames for us to determine whether or not they moved their hands, heads, or bodies during the intervening five or so seconds? Why was Lovelady, as you say, "stepping down" right then? So he could have a worse view of what was happening down the street? Because he wanted to go help JFK? Because he was hungry and he wanted to finish eating his lunch over to his right at the side of the steps or go talk with someone over there? If Lovelady was stepping down, where did he go within the next few seconds? 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:

Barto, Who said they were perfectly aligned? (I did.) Is it possible to align the two frames any better than Chris has done? Are the people on the steps sufficiently well-aligned in the two frames for us to determine their movements, if any? Why was Lovelady stepping down right then? If Lovelady was stepping down, where did he go within the next few seconds? Over to his right to the side of the steps to get his lunch, or to lean over to talk with someone? Do you 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

Tommy, Are the pictures we have of PP taken before the last shot was fired? If so then turning to his (PP's) right would be turning west toward the Knoll and consistent with BWF testimony that the shot he heard came from that direction. That's a good question, Chris. We need to find Duncan's gif. I don't remember if it was from Wiegman, Darnell, or Couch. For timing purposes, I believe that the first shot occurred around 0:11 of this video of the Wiegman film because at 0:12 we can see Lovelady suddenly leaning forward, just like he was when he was captured on film as "Doorman" in Altgens 6. (We know for a fact that Altgens 6 was taken right after JFK started clutching his throat.) [credit: Chris Davidson] See post 332, this thread. -- Tommy PS I think the reason Prayer Man's head looks so strange in the smaller photo (without cars) in the above gif might be because he's quickly turning his head to the right, right now. Or at least thinking about it. (lol)

Sandy, A good indication that the front metal sling thingy is mounted on the left side of the rifle, rather than on the bottom, is the fact that none of the sling / belt is visible near the front. IMHO, if the sling thingy were truly mounted on the bottom as you claim, then we should see the sling / belt connecting to it there. In this different BYP, it looks like the belt / sling is attached, both front and back, to the left side of the rifle. If you look closely, you can even see the roundish spectral highlights [q.v.] on the bottom of the side-mounted thingy. (Click on the white "X" at the top right corner of the photo to make it larger and easier to see. The circular thingy is right at the black horizontal line in the fence.) http://nypost.com/2013/11/19/oswald-rifle-yard-virtually-the-same-since-1963/ -- Tommy

Sandy, Tom Purvis' whole point is that "Oswald" in the backyard photo is holding the Carcano in such a way that the top of it is turned or tilted slightly towards the camera, causing part of the front sling "thingy" to be visible below the "bottom" as it hangs down a bit from it's side-mount position . I think he has a valid point because, although the "sling/belt" can be seen to be connected to the rear sling thingy in the BYP, it can't be seen to be connected to the front one because it isn't -- it's connected to the side mount and is, therefore, out of view. -- Tommy What you say surprises me Tommy. Because what I see is completely different. Looking at the BYPs, I can see the sling connected to the side mount at the rear and the bottom mount at the front. The sling is something narrow, and is very light colored. I'm guessing it's just plain rope, though in one photo it does look wider than rope. We can't see it hang down in the BYP above simply because its gray-tone is the same color as the background. But we can see that it covers the part of the front mount that it is tied around. (It makes it appear that the ring is not a complete circle, or whatever shape it is.) I don't know if I've explained myself well or not. But to say it another way, If you zoom in on the BYP above, you will see the front mount, on the bottom, and if the color of the sling wasn't the same color as the background, we'd see it hanging down from the bottom mount. I don't believe Purvis, that the gun is slightly rotated. It looks very straight to me, with the bottom mount right there on the bottom. Sandy, Look at the part of the barrel that has the wooden "stock" below it. The fact that you can see so much both the "thick" and the "skinny" parts of the barrel which are above the wooden "stock" indicates that the top of the rifle is tilted slightly towards the camera. I also think the "front sight" would stick up more if the rifle was being held level. Question: Roughly what percentage of the overall thickness of wooden stock plus the "skinny" part of the barrel does just the skinny part of the barrel comprise in the below photo? More or less than in the BYP? Another way of asking the same question is: In which photo does the wooden "stock" look thicker / wider? of the barrel compo Also look at the Carcano that the detective is carrying. (In that photo the rifle looks "level" in the dimension we're talking about (yes, the front part of the rifle is tilting away from the camera, but that doesn't matter for purposes of our conversation) Look at how thick / wide the wooden "stock" looks, compared to the "skinny" part of the barrel above the stock. Now look again at the BYP and compare them. -- Tommy Here, Sandy. Maybe this will help. It's a photo my CIA buddies put together so I could try to fool you. Notice how the horizontal part of the bent-down bolt is visible? That's because the top of the rifle is tilted slightly towards the camera. Please also note all the stuff I was talking about in the previous post. Those things are easier to see in this ligher version of the photo. Thanks. -- Tommy PS It looks like Roscoe White was holding the same Carcano here that was "found" in the TSBD.

Sandy, Tom Purvis' whole point is that "Oswald" in the backyard photo is holding the Carcano in such a way that the top of it is turned or tilted slightly towards the camera, causing part of the front sling "thingy" to be visible below the "bottom" as it hangs down a bit from it's side-mount position . I think he has a valid point because, although the "sling/belt" can be seen to be connected to the rear sling thingy in the BYP, it can't be seen to be connected to the front one because it isn't -- it's connected to the side mount and is, therefore, out of view. -- Tommy What you say surprises me Tommy. Because what I see is completely different. Looking at the BYPs, I can see the sling connected to the side mount at the rear and the bottom mount at the front. The sling is something narrow, and is very light colored. I'm guessing it's just plain rope, though in one photo it does look wider than rope. We can't see it hang down in the BYP above simply because its gray-tone is the same color as the background. But we can see that it covers the part of the front mount that it is tied around. (It makes it appear that the ring is not a complete circle, or whatever shape it is.) I don't know if I've explained myself well or not. But to say it another way, If you zoom in on the BYP above, you will see the front mount, on the bottom, and if the color of the sling wasn't the same color as the background, we'd see it hanging down from the bottom mount. I don't believe Purvis, that the gun is slightly rotated. It looks very straight to me, with the bottom mount right there on the bottom. Sandy, Look at the part of the barrel that has the wooden "stock" below it. The fact that you can see so much both the "thick" and the "skinny" parts of the barrel which are above the wooden "stock" indicates that the top of the rifle is tilted slightly towards the camera. I also think the "front sight" would stick up more if the rifle was being held level. Question: Roughly what percentage of the overall thickness of wooden stock plus the "skinny" part of the barrel does just the skinny part of the barrel comprise in the below photo? More or less than in the BYP? Another way of asking the same question is: In which photo does the wooden "stock" look thicker / wider? of the barrel compo Also look at the Carcano that the detective is carrying. (In that photo the rifle looks "level" in the dimension we're talking about (yes, the front part of the rifle is tilting away from the camera, but that doesn't matter for purposes of our conversation) Look at how thick / wide the wooden "stock" looks, compared to the "skinny" part of the barrel above the stock. Now look again at the BYP and compare them. -- Tommy

Tom, Maybe because LHO was afraid another bad guy might see him outside and do something bad to him. -- Tommy

On my Google Earth, the most recent same overhead view has "Imagery Date: 4/27/2016" -- Tommy

Tom, The more I think about that idea, the more I like it. Which would suggest that Oswald realized that he'd been patsied-up, and stood just far enough outside so he might be captured on film, but wouldn't necessarily be noticed by any of the other bad guys who might be monitoring the situation. I'm convinced he was holding something with both hands, probably a camera. Either that or a very full mug of very, very hot coffee, forcing him to hold it with both hands in order to not spill any of it. (lol) -- Tommy

Chris, Several months ago, Duncan posted a large closeup gif of Prayer Persons's head in which I detected (by freeze-framing very quickly) movement of his head to his right (and back again), and I could see sideburns on the left side of his face. The last time I checked many months ago, that thread had been incorporated into a moderator-required different thread called "Prayer Person - Prayer Man Or Prayer Woman? Research Thread," and that particular gif had been deleted. I wish I could find it again on some website so I could try to tell others what I did in order to see all of that. -- Tommy

You're hilarious, Bob. Could we please get back "on topic"? I'd hate to see this thread disappear. -- Tommy

Excellent question, David. Wild guess: Because Roscoe White kept that photo to secretly give to the authorities if the others went missing, but showed it to Detective Brown's boss sometime between 11/22/63 and 11/29/63 ? Do you have something more complicated in mind? -- Tommy

OK, Chris. Do you think the person standing back in the far left corner was a man or a woman? -- Tommy

C Chris, I agree. So Frazier and his sister were either lying or Oswald took something else into, or close to, the TSBD. Something that was only about 18 inches long. -- Tommy

Andrej, I'm not ready to answer your question yet because I'm still thinking about it. I tend to think that LHO didn't even own a Carcano. If he did, then I can only think of three "innocent" reasons he would have owned one: 1) because he'd always wanted to own a Carcano, 2) because someone told him to buy one for an "innocent" reason, like investigating mail order gun sales, and 3) because ... (I'm too tired to think right now but I know there's a third one -- it'll come to me.) If I'm right that he didn't own one, then I can only wonder what was in the "kinda short" package that Frazier and his sister claimed to have seen that morning. Curtain rods? -- Tommy :sum

[deleted in the interest of "cleaning up" and consolidating this now-longish post] Robert, You said in an earlier post (#106 this thread), that Lovelady looks "relaxed" in the "first" (i.e., your "top") still, leading you to believe that, in so many words, "nothing has happened yet." But I'd like to point out to you that there are three women on the sidewalk who suddenly have their hand to their mouth, that one of the two "khaki guys" has turned around and is looking at the TSBD (did he hear a shot or a gasp / scream / startled utterance come from that direction?), that Lovelady is now leaning way forward (just like he is in Altgens 6), to get a better look at what's "going down," down on Elm Street, and that Prayer Man has lowered both hands and raised his head a little. I'm copying and pasting one of my recent posts on the "Prayer Person" thread to this post because it incorporates Chris Davidson's great two-frame gif, from the Weigman film, in which you can see all of the "startle reactions" I mentioned above, and also because I think I did a pretty darn good job of analyzing the opposite-but-simultaneous movements of Lovelady and Prayer Man at the time that the first shot was audible to them. Sandy Larsen, on 09 Jun 2016 - 01:18 AM, said: Duncan MacRae, on 08 Jun 2016 - 08:43 AM, said: Sandy Larsen, on 08 Jun 2016 - 07:55 AM, said: [...] [...] Looking at these two perfectly-aligned frames and with the help of the green lines and the photographic "enhancement" of Prayer Man, we can see that Lovelady is standing straight up and that Prayer Man is taking a picture with both hands (or drinking two-handedly from a shiny cup full of very hot coffee) in the first frame (the one without the cars), and that in the second frame a few seconds later (with the cars), Lovelady is leaning forward quite a bit, probably in response to having heard the shots and / or screams and wondering what the heck's going on with the President.of the United States down the street. Taking this into consideration helps to explain why Prayer Man lowered both of his hands (still clutching the camera or coffee cup) and raised his head at about the same time that Lovelady leaned forward -- because Prayer Man, too, had heard the shot or screams and wanted to get a better view of what was "going down," down on Elm Street. PS Who "enhanced" these frames so that PM's / PW's camera lens / coffee cup glows / shines so much more here than in the original film? I assume it was Chris Davidson, who is to complimented for doing so,and for creating this excellent GIF. --Tommy PPS Lovelady's leaning forward in the second frame (and supporting himself by holding onto the center hand railing?) helps to explain why Lovelady (aka "Doorman") looks so strangely angled in Altgens 6. And also helps to establish the "first-shot" timing of the Weigman frame, in Chris' giff, above, in which Lovelady is leaning forward. Edited by Thomas Graves, 29 August 2016 - 08:57 AM.

Andrej, Thanks for the modeling and the juxtaposing of the two images. I would like to point out that "Oswald's" right knee and the knee of the model seem to be pointed and bent in different directions, so it's not a very good match after all, IMHO. And look at how close together "Oswald's" legs are (in his tight-fitting, leg-hugging pants) compared to the model's farther-apart legs. Which would have made "Oswald" even more likely to tip over, IMHO. (When I say his right knee, I do mean his right knee.) -- Tommy Thomas: thanks for checking the model. I am not sure I understood your comment about the right knee pointing in different directions in the model and the man in the backyard picture. There is a slight misalignement of the two right knees which is maybe related to not turning the lower body in pelvis enough. It is more a perspective than a posture problem, it can be easily fixed. If the lower body is rotated just a bit more, the legs would also appear to be located closer together. I can give it one more try. This exercise was meant to check, using a model, whether a man could stand in the way depicted on this backyard picture while maintaining normal anatomical relations in his joints; disparities in some body parts in the overlay cannot be avoided because Andy model is not Oswald after all... Andrej, His whole right leg, especially when compared with his straight left leg, his overall body's orientation, and the direction his right foot is pointing, looks rather impossible. Like a Klein Bottle, or an Escher drawing. Like an optical illusion, if you will. Like it couldn't exist in 4-dimensional nature. Or 11, for that matter. -- Tommy And looking at it again, the whole thing looks phony because he has his left leg so straight and streched out-looking that it looks like only the toes and ball of that foot are touching the ground. Tommy: All right, whilst I will have some work to do with the model maybe you would let us know in the meantime what is this picture about: did someone just paste this man's body from a different picture violating the principles of geometry? Or would someone construct piece by piece the man and commit some mistakes? Andrej, I don't know. Whilst I'm not a graphic artist, or a darkroom technician for that matter, I have learned from experience that I can trust my own eyes. When I started studying the JFK assassination in earnest right after the movie "JFK" came out, the strangeness of "Oswald's" stance was one of the first things I noticed. There used to be a video in which the late Jack White, himself a photographer, showed how it could have been done. To me, it's so fake-looking that I almost think that Oswald, possibly under duress from his handlers (so he could get into Cuba?), made it himself at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, and made it fake-looking intentionally, so he could point at it later, if necessary, and say. "It's fake. Someone pasted my head on somebody else's body. And look at how that body is tilting!"" -- Tommy Here it is. FAKE The Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey Oswald -- part 5 of 5 see Jack White around 05:30