Thomas Graves

Bill, In your previous post, you wrote, "I'll make a copy and will repost it." I'm guessing you mean you'll make a copy of the tape and repost your transcript of the interview onto your website? Please clarify. I think it would be a good idea if I listened to the interview and corrected any mumbling-caused or Texas dialect-caused "spelling mistakes," omissions, etc, in your proposed transcript before you publish it online again, or send it to some archives, somewhere. When do you think you might get around to sending me the original tape or a copy of it, Bill? Nest week? Next month? Next year? LOL Thanks again, --Tommy Bumped for Bill Kelley to read and respond to, and also for EF members to notice.

Jon, Have you ever considered the following: If the purpose of the conspiracy was only to eliminate Kennedy and have a patsy take the blame, then there was no reason to fake a Mexico City trip. Because Oswald's alleged motive had already been well established by his defection to Russia and his pro-Castro activities in New Orleans. So what was the purpose of Oswald's alleged (fake) trip to Mexico City and alleged meeting with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov? Surely it had to have been designed to lay the blame for JFK's murder at Russia's feet. Yet, look at what happened. The coverup artists successfully isolated Lone Nut Oswald as the sole perpetrator of the crime. So, in effect, the coverup conspiracy was at odds with the assassination conspiracy... at least in this one respect. And in this one respect the assassination conspiracy failed. (In asking this, I assume you believe the Mexico episode was faked. I sure do.) Sandy, Excellent post. --Tommy

So, it appears that what we have here is a rifle that may or may not have been fired on 11/22/63. Thanks to the lousy questioning of Frazier and Day, and their possible decision to not volunteer any information about it's not being fired. Or not. The fact that neither of them were asked if the rifle had been fired on that day or right before it suggests to me that the lawyers didn't want Frazier or Day to "spill the beans." What a kettle of fish. --Tommy

Tommy, when was the last time you asked an innocent question? Answer: How the hell do I know how they would ensure it? A rigged lottery for the "honor"? I do know that the Secret Service had zero love for Kennedy and that the ONLY real precaution they took to protect the President was to insist on selecting his steak themselves out of 200. This was allegedly to ensure it could not be poisoned. So the only real opportunity to poison the steak would come via the person serving it - unless of course, the Secret Service poisoned it themselves! Ask yourself how the wife of a listed subversive got that gig to start with! And moreover, who are the investigators going to believe slipped in the poison; her or the Secret Service? There may not have even been a criminal investigation if it mimicked natural causes and was not detectable at autopsy. If that was the intent, Molina's wife would be the fallback patsy if something went wrong and an investigation was actually done. Fine, Greg. Just seems that that would be a weak spot in their Plan C. You know, if they were hoping to blame the poisoned steak on Molina's wife but couldn't ensure that she would be the one serving it. Devil's in the details, as they say. Everything going to be alright, Greg. Take some deep breaths. --Tommy Tommy, it is not a weak spot just because you say so, nor because I do not know the answer. Can you point me to a presidential security manual which might have the waitress selection process? I have to wonder, is it me or everyone else that looks at things backasswards? To me, the question begging to be answered is not how they would ensure she served it (I imagine that part would not be much of a problem), the question is the one I asked you to ask yourself - how did the wife of a listed subversive get the gig to begin with? I suppose you're right, Greg. They probably could have figured out a way, some way, to pin it on her after the fact, even if she hadn't served lunch to JFK that day, couldn't they? "OK, so she didn't serve him the goddamn steak, but she must have been pretty effing close to it, damn it! And anyway, her husband was a no-good Communist, wasn't he? See there, that proves it! -- She killed Kennedy!" Just getting her the "gig" there was the hard part, one would imagine. I mean, they must have done very thorough background checks indeed on all those food servers, and she probably gave them her name as Mrs. Joe Molina and everything, so it's rather amazing isn't it that they were able to get her hired to serve food there on that very special day. Shows you just how powerful the Bad Guys really were, I rekon. --Tommy Humor added for Greg Parker

Hi Bob, Although I do know the difference between deep pitting and surface rust in a rifle's barrel, I'm confused now, of course, so let me just ask you this: Based on your interpretation of Frazier's testimony, do you think the rifle was fired on, or shortly before, 11/22/63? Or is it impossible to say? Thanks, --Tommy

Hi Bob, I personally would like to know whether or not the FBI or Secret Service were ever asked whether or not they had checked the rifle on 11/22/63 to see if it had been fired that day or very shortly before? Didn't Frazier or somebody testify that there was some rust (I'm not talking pitting, here) in the barrel? Thanks, --Tommy

Tommy, when was the last time you asked an innocent question? Answer: How the hell do I know how they would ensure it? A rigged lottery for the "honor"? I do know that the Secret Service had zero love for Kennedy and that the ONLY real precaution they took to protect the President was to insist on selecting his steak themselves out of 200. This was allegedly to ensure it could not be poisoned. So the only real opportunity to poison the steak would come via the person serving it - unless of course, the Secret Service poisoned it themselves! Ask yourself how the wife of a listed subversive got that gig to start with! And moreover, who are the investigators going to believe slipped in the poison; her or the Secret Service? There may not have even been a criminal investigation if it mimicked natural causes and was not detectable at autopsy. If that was the intent, Molina's wife would be the fallback patsy if something went wrong and an investigation was actually done. Fine, Greg. Just seems that that would be a weak spot in their Plan C. You know, if they were hoping to blame the poisoned steak on Molina's wife but couldn't ensure that she would be the one serving it. Devil's in the details, as they say. Everything going to be alright, Greg. Take some deep breaths. --Tommy Tommy, it is not a weak spot just because you say so, nor because I do not know the answer. Can you point me to a presidential security manual which might have the waitress selection process? I have to wonder, is it me or everyone else that looks at things backasswards? To me, the question begging to be answered is not how they would ensure she served it (I imagine that part would not be much of a problem), the question is the one I asked you to ask yourself - how did the wife of a listed subversive get the gig to begin with? I suppose you're right, Greg. They probably could have figured out a way, some way, to pin it on her after the fact, even if she didn't serve lunch to JFK that day, couldn't they. "OK, so she didn't serve him the goddamn steak, but she must have been pretty gosh darn effing close to it, damn it!" Just getting her the "gig" there was the hard part, one would imagine. I mean, they must have done very thorough background checks indeed on all those food servers, and she probably gave them her name as Mrs. Joe Molina and everything, so it's rather amazing isn't it that they were able to get her hired to serve food there on that very special day. Shows you just how powerful the Bad Guys really were, I rekon. --Tommy

Bill, In your previous post, you wrote, "I'll make a copy and will repost it." I'm guessing you mean you'll make a copy of the tape and repost your transcript of the interview onto your website? Please clarify. I think it would be a good idea if I listened to the interview and corrected any mumbling-caused or Texas dialect-caused "spelling mistakes," omissions, etc, in your proposed transcript before you publish it online again, or send it to some archives, somewhere. When do you think you might get around to sending me the original tape or a copy of it, Bill? Nest week? Next month? Next year? LOL Thanks again, --Tommy

Tommy, when was the last time you asked an innocent question? Answer: How the hell do I know how they would ensure it? A rigged lottery for the "honor"? I do know that the Secret Service had zero love for Kennedy and that the ONLY real precaution they took to protect the President was to insist on selecting his steak themselves out of 200. This was allegedly to ensure it could not be poisoned. So the only real opportunity to poison the steak would come via the person serving it - unless of course, the Secret Service poisoned it themselves! Ask yourself how the wife of a listed subversive got that gig to start with! And moreover, who are the investigators going to believe slipped in the poison; her or the Secret Service? There may not have even been a criminal investigation if it mimicked natural causes and was not detectable at autopsy. If that was the intent, Molina's wife would be the fallback patsy if something went wrong and an investigation was actually done. Fine, Greg. Just seems that that would be a weak spot in their Plan C. You know, if they were hoping to blame the poisoned steak on Molina's wife but couldn't ensure that she would be the one serving it. Devil's in the details, as they say. Everything going to be alright, Greg. Take some deep breaths. --Tommy

Greg, 8' 4" ? No, it was an 8' 10" Takayama "Noserider" [q.v.] that I used to ride. That was just right for my at-that-time 6' 5", 220 lb., Apollo-like frame. Please do try to get your facts straight. --Tommy PS Just one innocent question at this point. How could the Bad Guys be sure that Molina's wife would be the person serving the steak to the President? Had she been been given that assignment by her manager? Weeks if not months in advance? If so, what was his rationale for choosing her, of all people, to have the honor of personally serving the President his meal?

I am willing to -- and am in the process of doing it. The bare bones without going into the evidence. Oswald was a long-time cia asset who became the property of the fbi on return from Russia. What got him into "intelligence" was a program that will be revealed in the upcoming volume. This program both took him to the soviet union, and was the one used to get him into the TSBD. He was told he would be taking over from William Lowery in watching and informing on Joe Molina. Lowery had "outed" himself (and thus making him useless as an informant) in September. The real purpose of having him in there was to use as a potential patsy. There were three plans for assassination. The first at the 12:10 point in the motorcade was aborted for reasons I won't go into here. The second was the one that worked. If that too had been aborted, Molina's wife, who was set to be one of the women serving lunch at the trade mart, would have been given a poisoned steak for JFK. As soon as it became known she was the wife of a known local "subversive", they both would become scapegoats. The people who planned this had the means, motive and opportunity - as well as all the necessary connections. The framing of Oswald was based around real events from his past, but modified and brought forward to help incriminate him. It also drew heavily on known historical cases. Someone (and I am sure I know who), had access to information about Oswald's time in Misk and knew a lot about past communist cases. You can tear it down now, but I don't know how you'll justify that without knowing what evidence I have to support it all. The evidence will stand up. Also Paul... everything I have said here, I have said in the past. Maybe just not all in one post. "Oswald was a long-time cia asset who became the property of the fbi on return from Russia. What got him into "intelligence" was a program that will be revealed in the upcoming volume." http://www.ctka.net/2015/GregP2Excerpt.html Paul, He doesn't want to let Schrodinger's Cat out of the bag. But one of these days he's gonna prove that he broke the case wide open a couple of years ago. Aren't you, Greg. --Tommy As shown here, Tommy, I keep my promises. By the time I publish the third volume, you may well be right... it may be a couple of years since I made the case-breaking discovery. I'll ignore the sarcasm, Tommy. I know you're a bit bent out of your 8' 4" shape at the moment... but you'll bounce back. Greg, 8' 4" ? No, it was an 8' 10" Takayama "Noserider" [q.v.] that I used to ride. That was just right for my at-that-time 6' 5", 220 lb., Apollo-like frame. Please do try to get your facts straight. --Tommy PS Just one innocent question at this point. How could the Bad Guys be sure that Molina's wife would be the person serving the steak to JFK? Was she the designated "President server" for the occasion? If so, what rationale was given for her manager's choosing her, of all people, to have the honor of serving the President? PS Just one innocent question at this point. How could the Bad Guys be sure that Molina's wife would be the person serving the steak to the President? Had she been been given that assignment by her manager? If so, what was his rationale for choosing her, of all people, to have the honor of personally serving the President his meal?

I am willing to -- and am in the process of doing it. The bare bones without going into the evidence. Oswald was a long-time cia asset who became the property of the fbi on return from Russia. What got him into "intelligence" was a program that will be revealed in the upcoming volume. This program both took him to the soviet union, and was the one used to get him into the TSBD. He was told he would be taking over from William Lowery in watching and informing on Joe Molina. Lowery had "outed" himself (and thus making him useless as an informant) in September. The real purpose of having him in there was to use as a potential patsy. There were three plans for assassination. The first at the 12:10 point in the motorcade was aborted for reasons I won't go into here. The second was the one that worked. If that too had been aborted, Molina's wife, who was set to be one of the women serving lunch at the trade mart, would have been given a poisoned steak for JFK. As soon as it became known she was the wife of a known local "subversive", they both would become scapegoats. The people who planned this had the means, motive and opportunity - as well as all the necessary connections. The framing of Oswald was based around real events from his past, but modified and brought forward to help incriminate him. It also drew heavily on known historical cases. Someone (and I am sure I know who), had access to information about Oswald's time in Misk and knew a lot about past communist cases. You can tear it down now, but I don't know how you'll justify that without knowing what evidence I have to support it all. The evidence will stand up. Also Paul... everything I have said here, I have said in the past. Maybe just not all in one post. "Oswald was a long-time cia asset who became the property of the fbi on return from Russia. What got him into "intelligence" was a program that will be revealed in the upcoming volume." http://www.ctka.net/2015/GregP2Excerpt.html Paul, He doesn't want to let Schrodinger's Cat out of the bag. But one of these days he's gonna prove that he broke the case wide open a couple of years ago. Aren't you, Greg. --Tommy

I recall reading somewhere that down Main Street to Dealey Plaza was the usual route for motorcades in Dallas. Now I'm not a marksman (I don't think firing a gun once in my whole life qualifies), but if the motorcade had stayed on Main, wouldn't a shot from the TSBD be just as easy, if not easier, than a shot at a downward moving target on Elm? Remember (if you've been there), Dealey Plaza is a fairly small place. Ron, It probably would have been going faster than the Elm Street's eleven miles-per-hour, is all, but at least in a straight line. When was the earliest the Bad Guys could have known for sure that JFK would be lunching and speaking at the Trade Mart Building instead of at the Women's Center? --Tommy

A trip by JFK to Texas was first discussed by JFK, Johnson, and Connally on June 5, 1963. According to Connally, the date of the trip was left to the White House. On September 25, White House sources told the Dallas Morning News that the President would visit Texas on November 21 and 22. Reporting the story on September 26, the newspaper quoted the White House as saying the final decision to make the trip was made on the evening of September 24. Thanks, Ron. Oswald applied for work at the TSBD on October 15, and was hired. http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm Not that it matters, but when was the earliest that the Bad Guys could have known that the motorcade would be passing in front of the TSBD, even if only a fast-paced drive down Main Street instead of taking the 120-degree turn at Elm and Houston? --Tommy

Excellent post, Jon. Glad to see you agree description given Sawyer suggests FBI misinformation re: Oswald got to DPD before 11/22/63. Regarding Ruth Paine's possible involvement in setting up Oswald, I have two questions: When did the Bad Guys first know JFK would be going to Dallas, and when did they find out he'd be passing in front of the TSBD? Is it possible that the Bad Guys placed Oswald in the TSBD before they knew for sure which venue JFK would be speaking in that day, and maybe even before they knew he would even be going to Dallas? I think they may have put Oswald in the TSBD on a contingency basis, on the assumption that their high-powered buddies in Washington and Texas could arrange the trip to Dallas, and the motorcade route in particular, for them. --Tommy

What the hell, I'll just edit and copy and paste this from a older post of mine on another thread, and leave it that: FBI agent John Fain interviewed Marguerite Oswald on May 12, 1960, (seven and one-half months after Oswald had "defected" to the USSR) and claimed in his report that Marguerite had told him that her son, Lee Harvey Oswald, was (a Robert Webster-like) 5'10", 165 pounds, with blue eyes. Please see this FBI document: https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11090&relPageId=12 In reality, Oswald was 5' 9.5" and weighed only about 135 lbs (131 lbs at autopsy), and had hazel-gray eyes. Marguerite said after the assassination that her son, Lee, had never weighed more than 150 pounds in his life! But what's really fascinating is that an unidentified "witness" (whom Dallas Police Inspector Herbert D. Sawyer couldn't describe other that he was a "middle-aged white man") allegedly told Sawyer fifteen minutes after the assassination that the guy he'd seen running from the rear of the TSBD was 5'10", 165 pounds. At least Sawyer's mysto witness didn't say that the assassin was 5' 9 1/2" and 166 pounds and had blue eyes (Webster's exact measurements according to the documents). Sawyer broadcast the 5'10", 165 pound description of the suspect over police radio just a few minutes after the assassination, and the rest is history.... In my opinion the question is not so much who in May, 1960, decided to put what-in-reality was Webster's physical description into Fain's Oswald report (which was incorporated shortly thereafter into the CIA's computerized Biographic Registry, probably to be used in an Oswald/Webster - based molehunt), but who had access to this unknown-to-him incorrect description of Oswald, and arranged for it to be given to Inspector Sawyer on 11/22/63. Some candidates: James Jesus Angleton David Sanchez Morales David Atlee Phillips Bill Bright, the SR/6 guy who'd put the "incorrect" info into the CIA's Biographical Registry in the first place, and then happened to go to work for CIA Station Mexico City just before "Oswald" arrived in that city? https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter3.html (press control + "F", and type "bright" into the little pop-up search box, then scroll down) OR PERHAPS Some unnamed person in Army or Navy Intelligence in Texas who did not realize that the old molehunt-based description of Oswald in Military Intel files was incorrect, and was a description of Tobert E. Webster, instead? --Tommy edited and bumped

Paul, I suggest you start reading from this point (i.e., page "6" of the MFF document; eventually you'll get to page "12", the page I "linked" you to in my previous post). https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11090#relPageId=6&tab=page You'll see Fain's name in there somewhere, maybe even a couple of times. Jesis Maria. --Tommy

Jesis Maria (a Czech expression, minus diacritical marks). Here we go again, Jon. Going from memory here because I'm lazy. What the hell, I'll just edit and copy and paste this from a older post of mine on another thread, and leave it that: FBI agent John Fain interviewed Marguerite Oswald on May 12, 1960, (seven and one-half months after Oswald had "defected" to the USSR) and claimed in his report that Marguerite had told him that her son, Lee Harvey Oswald, was (a Robert Webster-like) 5'10", 165 pounds, with blue eyes. Please see this FBI document: https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11090&relPageId=12 In reality, Oswald was 5' 9.5" and weighed only about 135 lbs (131 lbs at autopsy), and had hazel-gray eyes. Marguerite said after the assassination that her son, Lee had never weighed more than 150 pounds in his life! But what's really fascinating is that an unidentified "witness" (whom Dallas Police Inspector Herbert D. Sawyer couldn't even describe, other that he was a "middle-aged white man") allegedly told Sawyer fifteen minutes after the assassination that the guy he'd seen running from the rear of the TSBD was 5'10", 165 pounds, just like another "defector," Robert Webster. At least Sawyer's mysto witness didn't say that the assassin was 5' 9 1/2" and 166 pounds and had blue eyes, like Webster. LOL! Sawyer broadcast the 5'10", 165 pound description of the suspect just a few minutes after the assassination, and the rest is history.... In my opinion the question is not so much who in May, 1960, fed FBI agent John Fain Webster's physical description in lieu of Oswald's (which was incorporated shortly thereafter into the CiA's computerized Biographic Registry, probably to be used in an Oswald/Webster - based mole hunt), but who had access to this (incorrect) description of Oswald, and mistakenly arranged for it to be given to Inspector Sawyer on 11/22/63. James Jesus Angleton? David Sanchez Morales? David Atlee Phillips? The omnipresent Bill Bright? https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter3.html --Tommy

This scenario doesn't account for the news report(s) that a cop, with his gun drawn, spotted Oswald. Unless that was Barnett with the gun, which I doubt. Of course the news report could have been wrong about the gun. But if so, it's quite a coincidence that the official (fabricated) story also just happened to include that part of the story. Sandy, "With gun drawn" in news reports (plural) and the official report? Nice catch! --Tommy

And yet they forgot that very important First National bank stamp on their forged PMO. My, how careless. [...] Good point, DVP. It's very strange, indeed, that the seemingly meticulous, all-powerful Bad Guys either were not able to, or simply forgot to, do that. They also very stupidly made the PMO reach Chicago, and be delivered there, by the next afternoon. Something that never, never, ever, ever happens. But sorry, DVP, does this mean that I don't think there was a conspiracy to kill JFK? No, it doesn't, because I think it's very possible that Oswald bought the rifle with that PMO, but didn't kill JFK with it or any other weapon; that that rifle was not even fired on 11/22/63. --Tommy

Greg, I just read the newspaper account of the first-floor cop-Oswald encounter, over on the Oswald Leaving TSBD thread. But I don't recall any report of Oswald saying the encounter with a cop occurred on the first floor. Can you quote that, or tell me where to find it? From Holmes' testimony. Holmes was the only interrogator in that room not trained in the Reid Interrogation Technique. Because of that, he is the most trust-worthy as far as the alibi goes. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about." And he wouldn't tell what happened then. Sandy, Please ask Greg what he means by "The Reid Interrogation Technique." I would myself, but I figure he's more likely to give you a straight answer. Thanks, --Tommy Tommy, I know you are bone lazy.... but even you can copy and paste the term into a search engine. If you have any interest in getting to the bottom of what was really going on in those interrogation sessions, why the cops spoke to the media and lied and how they developed their own scenarios, you'll look it up. If you're not that interested, don't bother. Or you can just wait awhile until I get around to posting it all for you... Greg, I'm honestly sorry and I do apologize. I just naturally assumed that it was one of your own ironic and somewhat humorous creations, referring, perhaps, to some bungled interrogation of Geraldean Reid or some such thing. My bad. --Tommy

Greg, I just read the newspaper account of the first-floor cop-Oswald encounter, over on the Oswald Leaving TSBD thread. But I don't recall any report of Oswald saying the encounter with a cop occurred on the first floor. Can you quote that, or tell me where to find it? From Holmes' testimony. Holmes was the only interrogator in that room not trained in the Reid Interrogation Technique. Because of that, he is the most trust-worthy as far as the alibi goes. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about." And he wouldn't tell what happened then. Sandy, Please ask Greg what he means by "The Reid Interrogation Technique." I would myself, but I figure he's more likely to give you a straight answer. Thanks, --Tommy

Paul, After having gotten some well-needed sleep, and being able to think more clearly, I have had a change of heart. I said earlier that I applaud you for researching the line of thought you lay out above. You are free to do whatever you want, of course. But I think you'll likely be wasting your time. I would urge you to study what is known about the rifle purchase before spending a lot of time on this new line of thinking. There are just so many irregularities with the rifle purchase that it's hard to believe they can all be explained away as mere coincidences. I post this comment primarily to reverse my earlier comment to you. Sandy, Have you changed your mind back again ... yet? Don't feel bad. I do it all the time. Let this attempt at humor serve as a "bump" of Paul B.'s excellent response. -- Tommy

Bill, That's wonderful! I called a company here in San Diego today and they said it would cost around $20 to make one copy. Can you afford that back there? (LOL) So when will you do it, Bill? It's been, what, three years now? Would you like for me to send you the money, or are you going to pay for it yourself, or do you want to send me the original? I could make a copy here and send it to you. BTW, did you ever submit it to Baylor University? Did Baylor make a copy and let you keep the original? What happened to the version of the transcript that was viewable on your website a few years ago? Did you decide to remove it? Is it viewable anywhere online? Thanks, Bill, --Tommy PS If you don't respond to my above questions by PM or on this thread within a few days, I'II call you. edited for BK, and bumped

No need to exaggerate the figure, Tommy. It was as I stated, 268 variations. Well, that's what The Agency told me to say. I may be stupid but at least I'm loyal! --Tommy