Thomas Graves

I think you're reading too much into it, Tommy. You're entitled to your opinion, Greg. That's what Steel said. Verbatim. --Tommy Tommy, show me where he mentioned that the ONI office was the Command Post for the assassination. That is your interpretation, and you are entitled to it. But those are not his words. Parker, Don't put your words into my mouth. To answer your question, it's known as putting two plus two together and reading between the lines and using a little intuition. Of course he didn't come right out and say, on tape, "The Dallas ONI office was in in the Terminal Annex Building, the same building that the command center for the JFK assassination was in." Would you expect him to say that, even if it was? You were not there with him. I was. I asked him where the Dallas ONI office was in 1963, and he said: "It was across the street. It was in the postal building. It was in the building that Kennedy was killed from." I thought about that for a long time and I couldn't see how JFK could have been killed from the Terminal Annex Building because Jackie was in the way, but then I realized that the upper floors of that building offered a commanding view (pardon the pun) of the assassination, and would have been an excellent location for the command center, and I came to the conclusion that that was what Steel was obliquely referring to and that he had almost let the cat out of the bag.. I think that Steel's statement, quoted verbatim above, taken in conjunction with his apparent inability to remember where he was when he heard that JFK had been shot, makes his statement much more sinister than you would have it. Respectfully, --Tommy edited and bumped

bumped I'm especially interested in Morales' white (on the sides and partly on the tops) fingers, two of which are visible in the top photo, above. Please recall that "Neck Scratcher" has the same kind of discolored fingers in the Black Op Radio video I posted earlier in this thread. I've already shown in three photos that Morales had a scar on and above his left eyebrow, which matches the description of "Spanish Trace / Shepherd" in Richard Billings' notes, written while he was doing research for Jim Garrison in 1967. --Tommy

Tommy, I'm sure he meant "across the street. It was in the Postal Building. It was [across the street from] the building that Kennedy was killed from." Greg, You're sure, huh? The old award-winning poetic intuition kicking in, is it? --Tommy

Larry, Thanks for your continuing input on this thread. --Tommy

I have news for you. i did not make any claims in this thread that dates back to 2011 Secondly, there was a barrel sticking out of the window at the Hughes turn. Amos euins confirmed this. He was there, you were not. Lastly: Show the Forum from your genius analysis of all of my posts on this thread, where I stated, as you claim I did, that there was a human form, or a human face....go on.go on, well what are you waiting for.....go on No? Then what is this horse manure you post in #16? There's nothing on that post, or any other post on the thread where I state that there is a person in the window. All I do is provide a zoomed in crop of the window. You are definately intellectually challenged if you can't understand what Euins is saying in the video which I included in post number 16. He said that he seen the "pipe" sticking out the window as the cars were turning the corner. That's a FACT!!! Get over it Duncan, It's obvious that Euins was and still is a paid professional disinformation agent. laughing out loud --Tommy Either that, or that video of him was faked.

I have news for you. i did not make any claims in this thread that dates back to 2011 Secondly, there was a barrel sticking out of the window at the Hughes turn. Amos euins confirmed this. He was there, you were not. Lastly: Show the Forum from your genius analysis of all of my posts on this thread, where I stated, as you claim I did, that there was a human form, or a human face....go on.go on, well what are you waiting for.....go on No? Then what is this horse manure you post in #16? There's nothing on that post, or any other post on the thread where I state that there is a person in the window. All I do is provide a zoomed in crop of the window. You are definately intellectually challenged if you can't understand what Euins is saying in the video which I included in post number 16. He said that he seen the "pipe" sticking out the window as the cars were turning the corner. That's a FACT!!! Get over it Duncan, It's obvious that Euins was and still is a paid professional disinformation agent. laughing out loud --Tommy

Great work, Duncan! Regarding "I enhanced the arrowed area. What do you see?", I see two men standing near the window, the one on the right is very far back and he's wearing a white shirt or T-shirt and his arms are like he's on a cross. The one on the left looking down and wearing a tan jacket and possibly holding a rifle vertically in front of him from with the butt of the rifle about at his chest and going down from there. The head of the guy on the right is partially obscured by that brown thing on the left and he's looking down and pretty far to his left so that his head is almost "in profile" and he looks like he has a receding hairline and long sideburns. Only the top two-thirds (or less) of the face of the guy on the left is visible. He has a receding hairline as well and two "locks" or "shocks" (or whatever you call them) of hair from the top-front part of his head are falling onto his forehead because that hair's fairly long and he's looking down at a steep angle. That's what I see. What do you see? --Tommy Based on the premise that we're allowed here (perhaps even encouraged) to have an open mind, I now see another possibility. The two faces I "saw" earlier are still "there", but this photo is like one of those optical illusions where, for example, you see a chalice in the middle when you look at it one way and when you look at it in a different way you instead see two human faces, one male and one female, facing each other in-profile and the chalice has "disappeared", the two relatively small images of men I mentioned earlier "disappear" when you focus your eyes differently and "realize" that there is a much larger image of a man's head in the photo and that if this image represents reality, the two smaller heads couldn't, and vice versa. The single large head, which takes up about 80% of the photo, belongs to a man who is looking far to his right and therefore his face is in about "3/4 profile". He has dark hair which is long on top and cascades over his forehead a bit as though he's styled it that way to conceal a receding hairline. He has no sideburns. Anyway, that's what I "see" now. The two smaller men are still "there" in the "background" when you focus your eyes on them, kind of like those "two faces" in the optical illusion I mentioned above. The photo is different, however, from the "chalice/two faces optical illusion" in that in this case the "chalice" (the man's head that takes up 80% of the photo) is so large that it blocks our "view" of the "two faces" (the two smaller men in the "virtual background". The problem now is deciding which image represents reality. That's hard to do because both involve problems with the scale of the two smaller men in the photo's "background" as well as the scale of the one large man in the photo's "foreground": Neither seem to be realistic. It seems that small faces are too small and the large face is too large. Perhaps they are both illusions. As for the large head in the "virtual foreground, IMHO the guy's face resembles Oswald's or Tan Jacket Man's. --Tommy I stumbled upon this old thread a few minutes ago. The more I look at that photo, the more faces (and even little men) I see, depending on how I focus my eyes and what I look at. It's kinda like a hologram. I must be up to six or seven different faces now... My preemptive answer to the question you probably want to ask me now: No, I'm not drunk and I'm not on drugs. LOL

Great work, Duncan! Regarding "I enhanced the arrowed area. What do you see?", I see two men standing near the window, the one on the right a bit farther back and wearing a white shirt or T-shirt. The one on the left looking down and wearing a tan jacket and possibly holding a rifle vertically in front of him from with the butt of the rifle about at his chest and going down from there. The head of the guy on the right is partially obscured by that brown thing on the left and he's looking down and pretty far to his left so that his head is almost "in profile" and he looks like he has a receding hairline and long sideburns. Only the top two-thirds (or less) of the face of the guy on the left is visible. He has a receding hairline as well and two "locks" or "shocks" (or whatever you call them) of hair from the top-front part of his head are falling onto his forehead because that hair's fairly long and he's looking down at a steep angle. That's what I see. What do you see? --Tommy Based on the premise that we're allowed here (perhaps even encouraged) to have an open mind, I now see another possibility. The two faces I "saw" earlier are still "there", but this photo is like one of those optical illusions where, for example, you see a chalice in the middle when you look at it one way and when you look at it in a different way you instead see two human faces, one male and one female, facing each othe in-profile and the chalice has "disappeared", the two relatively small images of men I mentioned earlier "disappear" when you focus your eyes differently and "realize" that there is a much larger image of a man's head in the photo and that if this image represents reality, the two smaller heads couldn't, and vice versa. The single large head, which takes up about 80% of the photo, belongs to a man who is looking far to his right and therefore his face is in about "3/4 profile". He has dark hair which is long on top and cascades over his forehead a bit as though he's styled it that way to conceal a receding hairline. He has no sideburns. Anyway, that's what I "see" now. The two smaller men are still "there" in the "background" when you focus your eyes on them, kind of like those "two faces" in the optical illusion I mentioned above. The photo is different, however, from the "chalice/two faces optical illusion" in that in this case the "chalice" (the man's head that takes up 80% of the photo) is so large that it blocks our "view" of the "two faces" (the two smaller men in the "virtual background". The problem now is deciding which image represents reality. That's hard to do because both involve problems with the scale of the two smaller men in the photo's "background" as well as the scale of the one large man in the photo's "foreground": Neither seem to be realistic. It seems that small faces are too small and the large face is too large. Perhaps they are both illusions. As for the large head in the "virtual foreground, IMHO the guy's face resembles Oswald's or Tan Jacket Man's. --Tommy I stumbled upon this old thread a few minutes ago. The more I look at that photo, the more faces (and even little men) I see, depending on how I focus my eyes and what I look at. It's kinda like a hologram. I must be up to six or seven different faces now...

Funny. I don't post here much because of people like you. I'm not sure what your agenda is, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the truth. Dear Mr. Cross, At least you qualified part of your insult by using the word "appear". Which leads me to offer you this friendly piece of advice. "Appearances can be deceiving." It will be interesting to see what you read into that... --Tommy

That's right Ray. That's one of the many problems with the alleged rifle purchase that doesn't seem to faze some people. On a separate piece of paper with the PMO -- "Please send to me, A. Hidell, in care of (C/O.) L. H. Oswald"? I don't suppose that's a possibility. Probably not. Oh well, back to the drawing board. --Tommy I "suppose" you can make up anything you want. Doesn't make it true. Dear Mr. Cross, Where did I say that it had to be true? Thanks, btw, for suggesting that it might have been like that. --Tommy

Jim, it would be great if someone could track Ms Quin's career from those two dates onward. Maybe an FOIA request to State and CIA? I'll apologize to Paul if she didn't end up behind the Iron Curtain somewhere... And YES. Neither of her dates were simple blind dates, or based upon innocent mutual interest in the Russian language. Dear Greg, Here I go again. How do you know their two dates weren't based on their "innocent mutual interest in the Russian language"? Your award-wining poetic intuition? Regardless, there might be other possible "innocent" explanations if it wasn't the Russian language that "brought them together." For example, I realize she musta been somewhat older than Oswald, her bein' the auntie of one of his Marine colleagues and everything, but she was a Pan Am stewardess, after all, so she must have been a pretty darn good-looking gal, doncha think? I mean, I had an older girlfriend in the Czech Republic for a while. She was very pretty, blond, a surgical room "head" nurse, her name was Ludmila (spelling?), and boy-oh-boy did we have a "good time," if you know what I mean. The way I see it, this Pan Am stewardess and Oswald could have done that and worked on their Russian "cases" (a grammatical expression) at the same time! Nominitave, Dative, Genitive, Locative, .... --Tommy

That's right Ray. That's one of the many problems with the alleged rifle purchase that doesn't seem to faze some people. On a separate piece of paper with the PMO -- "Please send to me, A. Hidell, in care of (C/O.) L. H. Oswald"? I don't suppose that's a possibility. Probably not. Oh well, back to the drawing board. --Tommy

Paul B., Excellent post. I had forgotten (or didn't even know) a lot of the "details" you mention. There's so much to research in the JFK assassination case, and so little time. Just a thought -- Wouldn't it really be something if Gerry Patrick Hemming was telling the truth when he said he enticed Oswald into bringing the rifle to the TSBD on or right before 11/22/63, on the pretense of wanting to buy it for twice what Oswald had paid for it? Boy, that would really be something. But I suppose that begs the question: Why would Hemming implicate himself like that? --Tommy

Larry, You know I highly respect your opinions, so ... That's encouraging! --Tommy

Dear Jim, Then I guess it's true what they say. "The Lord works in mysterious ways." --Tommy, the Grateful, the Truly Blessed

Tommy apparently can't make sense of two simple English sentences. But he can be fooled by the ramblings of a lawyer full of himself. Edit: Tommy, you disappoint me. Dear Sandy, Absolutely! Uhhh... Which one. Sentences I mean? --Tommy

Dear Jim, LOL , I didn't think it was humanly possible you know but -- your your your non-sequitured streaming consciousness "poetry" gets better even! right? NOW! I mean I mean I mean I mean ... --Tommy

Lance, I agree. In fact, I'm starting to consider the possibility that Oswald was encouraged by somebody (perhaps even duped by the JFK assassination bad guys) to order a rifle and a revolver under the assumed name "Hidell" from two different mail order companies as part of the at-that-time ongoing United States Senate's investigation, under Senator Thomas Dodd, of mail order gun houses. http://www.famoustexans.com/leeharveyoswald.htm The reason I say this is because you've convinced me that there was nothing "fishy" about how the "Hidell" postal money order was handled by the financial institutions involved, and because the writing on the PMO looks to me like Oswald's handwriting. Also, it makes no sense to me that the "bad guys" would have gone to the trouble to fabricate that postal money order and yet be so careless as to make all of the alleged errors and "errors of omission" which the more over-the-top CTers fervently believe they have detected. Thanks for contributing to the JFK Assassination Debate forum. --Tommy

Dear Greg, Unlike you, I'm not a very good writer, and in addition to that, I'm often thinking of things to add to or take away from my posts. I hope that's okay. Does that seem ... uhhh .... suspicious to you? --Tommy Only when you have a list of names you want to have a sly comment about - and then later edit to add my name. Dear Greg, Well, I might as well admit it. You were an afterthought. But regardless, you should count your blessings -- at least I didn't give you any buttons. You already have more than enough that are incredibly easy to "push". And by the way, regarding my so-called perceived "relationship" with Trejo, you're starting to sound not only envious, but downright jealous, as well. I mean, you do have a significant other in your life, don't you? --Tommy

He changed it after I commented, but either way it is STILL overly sarcastic, and is unacceptable as a factual rebuttal. Tom Dear Tom, It was still overly sarcastic even after I changed it? Which post are you talking about? --Tommy

Sandy, Tommy is NOT agreeing with you. He is being sarcastic. See his later responses... Tom Tom, Yeah, you're right. Tommy changed the wording of the post I was referring to after I read it. It wasn't sarcastic when I read it. Or if it was, it wasn't as obvious as it is now. (Or maybe I just read his post too fast.) Sandy Dear Sandy, You're right. I removed my overly-sarcastic first sentence. Here's the original as quoted by Tom Neal: Dear Tom [Neal], You're absolutely right. A mail order customer would likely have been unhappy to receive a presumably longer-range and more accurate 40.2" rifle instead of a 36" carbine, so Kleins would have been very silly to send him one if they were out of carbines, wouldn't they. [ --Tommy ] But you are to be commended for at least admitting the possibility that you had read it too fast. You are a very intelligent, honest, non-paranoid, and, therefore, atypical member here. --Tommy Edit: Or is this the post you were referring to, Sandy? Relax, Jim. I mean. Take some deep breaths. Look at it this way. If Kleins was out of 36" carbines, it was better business practice, for their own profit and customer-satisfaction wise, for them to send Hidell, or whomever, a 40.2" rifle rather than nothing at all. Which wouldn't have been the case if the customer had ordered a 40.2 inch rifle and they had sent him a 36 inch carbine, instead. Sending the customer a letter of explanation and an offer to send a carbine would have been the right thing for them to do in that case. --Tommy Edited and bumped. LOL

I take exception to that comment Tommy. In what way, Sandy? --Tommy

Dear Greg, Unlike you, I'm not a very good writer, and in addition to that, I'm often thinking of things to add to or take away from my posts. I hope that's okay. Does that seem ... uhhh .... suspicious to you? --Tommy

Sandy, Tommy is NOT agreeing with you. He is being sarcastic. See his later responses... Tom Tom, Yeah, you're right. Tommy changed the wording of the post I was referring to after I read it. It wasn't sarcastic when I read it. Or if it was, it wasn't as obvious as it is now. (Or maybe I just read his post too fast.) Sandy Dear Sandy, You're right. I removed my overly-sarcastic first sentence. Here's the original as quoted by Tom Neal: Dear Tom [Neal], You're absolutely right. A mail order customer would likely have been unhappy to receive a presumably longer-range and more accurate 40.2" rifle instead of a 36" carbine, so Kleins would have been very silly to send him one if they were out of carbines, wouldn't they. [ --Tommy ] But you are to be commended for at least admitting the possibility that you had read it too fast. You are very intelligent, honest, civil, and non-paranoiac, and you are, therefore, a very atypical member of the JFK Assassination Debate forum. --Tommy Edit: Or is this the post you were referring to, Sandy? Relax, Jim. I mean. Take some deep breaths. Look at it this way. If Kleins was out of 36" carbines, it was better business practice, for their own profit and customer-satisfaction wise, for them to send Hidell, or whomever, a 40.2" rifle rather than nothing at all. Which wouldn't have been the case if the customer had ordered a 40.2 inch rifle and they had sent him a 36 inch carbine, instead. Sending the customer a letter of explanation and an offer to send a carbine would have been the right thing for them to do in that case. --Tommy

Per your SOP you are continuing to substitute evasions, accusations, etc for actual counter-arguments. This is just one more discussion you've lost and turned into a pointless argument that clutters up the thread. Since you aren't listening, rather than continue to talk to myself, I'll stop talking and let you talk to yourself while I don't listen. Tom Dear Tom, Sounds a bit hypocritical. --Tommy