Thomas Graves

Gee, Larry, you really got me there. I'm too darn lazy to read all 286 of the variations of their descriptions right now. I'm sure you're right, though. Sorry to have suggested such a silly scenario. --Tommy

Larry, With all due respect, I already have. And the window in the outer door of the vestibule wasn't all that small. It all depends on how close to the vestibule door Baker got, and how close to that door Oswald was standing. It's possible that Oswald heard Truly and Baker walking up the stairs (and probably talking in loud voices as they went) from where he was inside the lunchroom, and that Oswald walked into the vestibule and up to the window in the outer door too see who it was that was coming up. When he saw it was Truly, he might well have turned away from the window to start walking back into the lunchroom proper, at which time Baker might have seen him through the window in that vestibule door. Something to take into consideration is the possibility that Truly pointed out the location of the lunchroom to Baker by saying, "That's the lunchroom over there" or something like that when they reached the second floor landing, and that while Truly continued on up the stairs leading to the third floor, Baker swung wide towards the vestibule window to glance into the lunchroom through the vestibule's outer door window. I mean, it does seem plausible to me. I do I hope that it's okay to speculate about all of this. (I'm not a CIA "disinfo agent," contrary to what most of the other members seem to think.) Thanks for the response, --Tommy PS Please bear in mind that I think Oswald entered the lunchroom through the door at the opposite end of the lunchroom from the door Baker and Truly eventually entered, or almost entered (they may have only stepped one foot into the vestibule to talk with Oswald), therefore the closing of the outer door of the vestibule by Oswald is not an issue because I don't think Oswald even used that door.

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? (LOL) So when will you do it? 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, or do you want to send me the original since, apparently, you aren't going to submit it to Baylor? BTW, did you ever submit it to Baylor University? Evidently not because you still have the tape. Sorry, stupid question. 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 on the Internet? Thanks, --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.

But Tommy - THEY proved they were lying by offering up 268* different versions of events. And the OFFICIALS knew they were lying because they recreated 268^ different versions of events to see which BS version would fly best. And only HALF of those 268 recreations included ANY encounter on the 2nd floor. * exaggerated for purposes of comedic emphasis only. Reality may vary. ^ exaggeration repeated for the sake of internal consistency. Comedic emphasis. LOL Thinking of getting into comedy, are you? So it was really more like only 126 versions? Or 2 or 3? --Tommy

This is hilarious (in the usual Pot/Kettle sense of ironic arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists). Greg Burnham is actually suggesting via the above quote that the LNers who believe that the Hidell money order is a real and genuine document are placing their belief in something that is "unreasonably complex". So Greg is actually saying in this instance regarding the Postal Money Order that the belief that something ISN'T fake is far more of an "unreasonable" belief than the belief that the item in question IS a fake. Greg has things backward (as per the CTer norm). Because in order to believe that the PMO is a fraud involves believing in a FAR more "unreasonably complex solution" than the LNers' belief that the Postal Money Order is simply what it appears to be -- i.e., a perfectly normal and legitimate and non-sinister financial instrument that was utilized by Lee Harvey Oswald to pay for a rifle that he ordered from Klein's Sporting Goods in March of 1963. But the belief that the PMO is a fraud means that virtually everything connected to the money order was manufactured by conspirators --- from Oswald's handwriting, to the Klein's stamp, to the 10-digit number stamped on the front of the PMO, etc. And yet I'm supposed to think, per what Greg Burnham just said above, that such mass fakery is MORE of a reasonable conclusion to reach—and a less complex one—than a conclusion that involves no fakery at all. Incredible topsy-turvy logic there. Interesting post, DVP. I think you might be onto something there. It's counter intuitive to believe that fakery and forgery were simpler than the normal process, isn't it. PS I find myself in an interesting position on the PMO issue. I think Oswald used it to buy that rifle, but he didn't use that rifle to shoot JFK. I think Oswald participated in The Dodd Committee's investigation of mail order gun houses and was taken advantage of by The Bad Guys. Do I have any evidence of that? Of course not. It's just an idea. That is permitted on this forum, isn't it? --Tommy

Tommy, you're flogging a deceased mackerel within an inch of its nine lives. Settle down. The official story being referred to is the Sacred Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter. It never happened. The evidence shows it never happened. Nevertheless, Tommy's Law dictates that because (with a bit of scenario tweaking) it can be shown to be theoretically possible that it did happen by for instance, bringing Oswald up from the 1st, instead of down from the 6th, all of the evidence showing LHO had no such 2nd floor encounter can be totally ignored. That's the beauty of Tommy's Law. Evidence schmevidence. Who needs it? All you need is the official story and the will to keep massaging it to make it work in theory! But Greg, Why can't Oswald have been "Prayer Man" and also have gone up to the second floor lunchroom, getting there just in time and and close enough to the open inner door of the vestibule to be seen by Baker when Baker glanced through the window in the closed outer vestibule door? Because we must prove that Baker and Truly were lying about having encountered Oswald on the second floor? --Tommy

I'd suggest you do some reading on Innocence Project case studies and maybe even watch Making a Murderer. In the meantime we'll name a new law in your honor; Tommy's Law - "If a provable lie by officials can be shown to be at least theoretically possible, it has met the minimum requirement for redemption, and the exculpatory evidence may be ignored". LOL, right on. Dear Mr. Parker, Which scumbag official said that Oswald ("Prayer Man") went up to the second floor after the assassination and entered the lunchroom from the opposite direction than Baker and Truly eventually entered it (or at least got one foot inside it)? Why would any scumbag official say anything that would exonerate Oswald? --Tommy

Or, Gilbride could be right when he says Oswald went up to the second floor via the stairs or the passenger elevator near the TSBD's front door, entered the lunchroom from the opposite direction than Baker and Truly kinda-almost did a few seconds or minutes later, and happened to be seen by Baker through the window in the vestibule's outer door. --Tommy This reminds me of all the made up police scenarios now coming to light through things like Innocence Project. The cops, DAs and assorted supporters continue to try and massage the scenario to get it to somehow work - forget about the fact that all the hidden evidence now uncovered show the lies - if it can work in theory, we're okay! [ -- Greg Parker, the Highly Intuitive Poet] Doesn't anyone else besides Parker have an opinion on what I wrote in green, above?

Greg, YMCA: Lee Harvey Oswald, [El] Toro [Marine Corps Air Station], California If it wasn't Marina's Husband, then someone was really bull xxxxting, weren't they?. Sorry, the CIA told me to do it. --Tommy

Scott, I'm sorry but I'm a bit tired right now and it's too complicated for me to explain. The best thing for you to do is start at post # 11 and read the whole thread from that point on. If you do that, I'm sure it will start making sense. The critical thing it that you've got to follow my instructions regarding that Black Op Radio video -- In other words, go to 03:40 or so and start watching from there. At 03:55, a guy walks in from the left. He is scratching the back of his neck That's the guy I'm calling "Neck Scratcher." Look at his fingers, especially the tops of them and the sides. They're much lighter than the rest of his skin, right? I think this guy (who is scratching his neck) could be Dave Morales or Nestor Izquierdo because they have fingers like that, too. Enjoy! --Tommy No worries, I believe you, just for xxxxs and giggles, I thought I'd add Muhammad Ali too... Good night my friend... https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20673422/120117065443-muhammad-ali-1963-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg Scott, For what it's worth, I'm not talking about the undersides of "Neck Scratcher's" fingers, but the tops and sides of them. To see what I'm talking about, you have to go to 03:55 in the Black Op Radio video I posted. Please don't believe me. Take the time and go there in the video. Otherwise we'll just keep going around and round in circles, you and I. --Tommy

Or, Gilbride could be right when he says Oswald went up to the second floor via the stairs or the passenger elevator near the TSBD's front door, entered the lunchroom from the opposite direction than Baker and Truly kinda did a few seconds or minutes later, and happened to be seen by Baker through the window in the vestibule's outer door. --Tommy

Scott, I'm sorry but I'm a bit tired right now and it's too complicated for me to explain. The best thing for you to do is start at post # 11 and read the whole thread from that point on. If you do that, I'm sure it will start making sense. The critical thing it that you've got to follow my instructions regarding that Black Op Radio video -- In other words, go to 03:40 or so and start watching from there. At 03:55, a guy walks in from the left. He is scratching the back of his neck That's the guy I'm calling "Neck Scratcher." Look at his fingers, especially the tops of them and the sides. They're much lighter than the rest of his skin, right? I think this guy (who is scratching his neck) could be Dave Morales or Nestor Izquierdo because they have fingers like that, too. Enjoy! --Tommy

Tommy, No. I use Bourbon. Sometimes Vodka. It depends. No, Bullet proof. Maybe. Dear Greg, Too much, sometimes, or never ever seemingly enough? --Tommy

Great post, BK! Thanks for all that info. I agree with you that Oswald had the markings of an intelligence operative. He wasn't just an "odd duck" who was spotted by the bad guys right before or right after the assassination, IMHO. Welcome back, --Tommy

Tommy, Thanks you for your considered response. I understand how it must have been when you heard that...Whilst I stated that I would have asked, in reality, I wonder if I would have since, as you say, I'd probably be considering whether he'd then just clam up if pushed, having realised that he'd just let something slip... -- Ian Lloyd Ian, Thanks for the intelligent response and the "moral support." It was starting to feel a little "hellish" around here. --Tommy

You got the big Kahuna himself this time, Tommy. The Devil is the 15th card in the deck. It boils down to 6 numerologically speaking and 6 is one third of His number. So you were being a little bit devilish when you invoked my name. Not too much. Just a little bit. The Devil himself is half goat. Appropriate as He is everyone's favorite Scapegoat. Who are scpaegoating here, Tommy? Don't make me draw another card to find out. Dear Greg, Go Find yourself. --Tommy Are experienced interviewers / interrogators of retired long-time ONI special agents who are suspected, by those interviewers / interrogators, of being complicit in the assassination of an American President expected to use their intuition in said interviews / interrogations? Yes? Well, what about inexperienced interviewers / interrogators, then? Greg, Do you use intuition when you write your beautiful but sad award-winning poetry? Are you mad, bad, and dangerous to know? Well, are you? Do you feel threatened? Should you? --Tommy

Vanessa Loney, on 06 Apr 2015 - 9:13 PM, said: Vanessa, Good one! Btw, when I asked him where the ONI office was situated in Dallas in 1963, he said, "It was across the street (from the TSBD?), it was in the Postal building (the Terminal Annex Building had a post office in it !), it was in the building Kennedy was killed from ("killed from" meaning where the command center / observation center was located? -- maybe even Harry Holmes' upper floor office?) " But I digress, again. --Tommy Tommy, When he said "...it was the building Kennedy was killed from.", did you follow that up with anything like "Can you elaborate on that please?" or "I thought he was supposed to have been killed from the TSBD"??? If so (I presume you did, I certainly would have), what was his response? Ian, Thanks for asking. "[The ONI office] was across the street. It was in the Postal Building. It was in the building Kennedy was killed from." -- Robert D. Steel When he said that, my first thought was that he was confused on the location of the TSBD, or the location of the Main Post Office on North Ervay, or the route of the motorcade or something. But I didn't correct him or prompt him right away. I intuited that he'd said something very significant and I was simultaneously trying to formulate a good follow-up question and hoping that my silence while doing so would make him a little nervous and that he'd say some more interesting stuff on his own, and I didn't want to influence him on that. What I did say finally was, "The Postal Building (i.e., the Terminal Annex Building) was on the south side of Dealey Plaza." At that point he just stared at me rather blankly and muttered / almost whispered the word, "Yes" with a slight note of resignation in his voice. I don't want to sound overly dramatic here, but I do remember thinking that he looked like the proverbial "deer caught in the headlights." Perhaps I should have pressed him on what the heck he meant by, "[The ONI office] was in the building that Kennedy was killed from," but I didn't. I thought I'd touched a nerve; that he realized that he'd nearly "let the cat out of the bag big-time," and my intuition as a first-time interviewer told me that he'd told me something very significant, but something I didn't quite understand yet, and that he might volunteer something later in the interview that would help me to understand. I thought that if I asked him to explain what he'd just said, that he would clam up. I did the best that I could. [...] --Tommy Edited and bumped for intelligent comments / feedback

You got the big Kahuna himself this time, Tommy. The Devil is the 15th card in the deck. It boils down to 6 numerologically speaking and 6 is one third of His number. So you were being a little bit devilish when you invoked my name. Not too much. Just a little bit. The Devil himself is half goat. Appropriate as He is everyone's favorite Scapegoat. Who are scpaegoating here, Tommy? Don't make me draw another card to find out. Dear Greg, LOL! Good one! Say, I have a good idea! -- Why don't you Go Find Yourself ? --Tommy Are experienced interviewers of retired long-time ONI special agents who are suspected, by those interviewers. of being complicit in the assassination of an American President expected to use their intuition in said interviews / interrogations? Yes? Well, what about inexperienced interviewers?

You got the big Kahuna himself this time, Tommy. The Devil is the 15th card in the deck. It boils down to 6 numerologically speaking and 6 is one third of His number. So you were being a little bit devilish when you invoked my name. Not too much. Just a little bit. The Devil himself is half goat. Appropriate as He is everyone's favorite Scapegoat. Who are scpaegoating here, Tommy? Don't make me draw another card to find out. Greg, Go Find yourself. --Tommy

Vanessa Loney, on 06 Apr 2015 - 9:13 PM, said: Vanessa, Good one! Btw, when I asked him where the ONI office was situated in Dallas in 1963, he said, "It was across the street (from the TSBD?), it was in the Postal building (the Terminal Annex Building had a post office in it !), it was in the building Kennedy was killed from ("killed from" meaning where the command center / observation center was located? -- maybe even Harry Holmes' upper floor office?) " But I digress, again. --Tommy Tommy, When he said "...it was the building Kennedy was killed from.", did you follow that up with anything like "Can you elaborate on that please?" or "I thought he was supposed to have been killed from the TSBD"??? If so (I presume you did, I certainly would have), what was his response? Ian, Thanks for asking. "[The ONI office] was across the street. It was in the Postal Building. It was in the building Kennedy was killed from." -- Robert D. Steel When he said that, my first thought was that he was confused on the location of the TSBD, or the location of the Main Post Office on North Ervay, or the route of the motorcade or something. But I didn't correct him or prompt him right away. I intuited that he'd said something very significant and I was simultaneously trying to formulate a good follow-up question and hoping that my silence while doing so would make him a little nervous and that he'd say some more interesting stuff on his own, and I didn't want to influence him on that. What I did say finally was, "The Postal Building (i.e., the Terminal Annex Building) was on the south side of Dealey Plaza." At that point he just stared at me rather blankly and muttered / almost whispered the word, "Yes" with a slight note of resignation in his voice. I don't want to sound overly dramatic here, but I do remember thinking that he looked like the proverbial "deer caught in the headlights." Perhaps I should have pressed him on what the heck he meant by, "[The ONI office] was in the building that Kennedy was killed from," but I didn't. I thought I'd touched a nerve; that he realized that he'd nearly "let the cat out of the bag big-time," and my intuition as a first-time interviewer told me that he'd told me something very significant, but something I didn't quite understand yet, and that he might volunteer something later in the interview that would help me to understand. I think my intuition told me that if I asked him to explain what he'd just said, that he would clam up. Maybe I was a lousy interviewer, but I feel I did the best that I could. [...] --Tommy

Hmmm. May as well read the IChing or tea leaves. I prefer Tarot. You drew the Two of Books. This depicts the Two Faces of Tommy. The Geezer with the hammer is the Tommy of Today - apparently right down to dress sense. He thinks what someone said can be hammered into shape for his purposes. The Old Tommy - who is really the Young Tommy, on the other hand, is far wiser. He knows that whilst money doesn't grow on trees, books do, but that they should not be consumed until they are ripe. Unfortunately for Old Tommy (recalling that he is really the Young Tommy) by the time they are ripe, they are beyond his reach. Alas, both Tommys are in a bad place. Greg, Great post! Very witty! And artistic! And poetic in a free-verse-kind-of-way! But why so much animosity? Don't want the ONI to be involved in the assassination of JFK? Or you do, but only on your terms? Something that will fit in with your book, won't contradict it? --Tommy

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1245944348321146643&postID=3004410372302050169&page=1&token=1452769821507

I don't know, Jon. That's why I ask questions about the window, and don't make statements, contary to what Bark is saying. What I notice most often when I look at it anew each time is the large face and head of a clean-shaven, dark-haired Caucasian male with his head turned to his right so far as to be almost in profile, and looking down somewhat, as though he's looking at something down on Elm Street or in the Grassy Knoll area. I can make out this head in both the second and the third images in the series that Duncan posted in post # 1. --Tommy

Scott, You really need to read my posts a little better, my friend. Just because I put a photo of Nestor Izquierdo as a Golden Hawk and a photo of David Morales talking to some Vietnamese dudes in the same post doesn't mean I think Morales was a member of the Golden Hawks for cryin' out loud. I was pointing out the white fingers of those two guys, that's all. Please go back and try again. BTW, have you taken the time to look at the white-fingered, dark-complected guy I call "Neck Scratcher" in the 50 Reasons For 50 Years, episode 04 video I posted much earlier in this thread? You have to fast forward it to 03:55 to see "Neck Scratcher." You should be able to spot him real easy. He's the guy who's scratching his neck (or just pretending to). That's why I call him "Neck Scratcher." Not at the very beginning of the video. At 03:55. Thanks, Scott. --Tommy PS Thanks for pointing out the fact that the Golden Hawks was Sturgis' group. I didn't know that. Who knows, maybe "Neck Scratcher" (the guy in the video starting at 03:55) was Nestor Izquierdo...