Thomas Graves

Sandy, What about 23/9/64? --Tommy

When I read that, my brain processed it as November 23. I suspect Robert's did the same. And I have a feeling that that is what Richard Gilbride meant to write. Hi Sandy No, Richard is referring to the handwritten statement of Marrion Baker, dated 23/09/64. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3076.pdf Edit: Did it again. I first wrote the date as 23/11/64 LOL Thanks Robert. 11/22/63 and 11/23/63 testimony trumps 11/23/64 testimony. Or 23/11/64 in Robertese. How about 9/23/64's ?

bumped, just in case Thomas did not see I had responded to him Dear Robert, Are you not able to discern the changes I made in order to better accommodate your original objection? Or do I need to spell them out for you? --Tommy, the Serious

Just trying to think like a detective, Robert. Alternate scenario: Maybe Oswald, having come up from the first floor via the front stairs or the passenger elevator, heard them as they were coming up the stairs, came to the vestibule window with a coke in his hands to see who it was, turned away from the vestibule window when he saw it was Truly, and was seen by Baker as he walked away from the window but was still inside the vestibule. --Tommy, the Serious bumped

Just thinking like a detective, Robert. Alternate scenario: Maybe Oswald, having come up from the first floor via the front stairs or the passenger elevator, heard them as they were coming up the stairs, came to the vestibule window with a coke in his hands to see who it was, turned away from the vestibule window when he saw it was Truly, and was seen by Baker as he walked away from the window but was still inside the vestibule. --Tommy, the Serious

It was a joke, Curtis. But it is still a fact that there is an eerie similarity between the non-required, non requested history of your metamorphosis and numerous others I have read over the years. In fact, being non-required and non-requested is another similarity with those others in itself. It's just an observation, Curtis. One based on... well.... fact. Others can make of it what they will. All I will say is that the points of commonality with those others is quite uncanny. What did you do in the navy, Curtis? Just curious... Nice subtle smear job, Greg. (I just linked your new 2-volume book to my FB page today, and wrote, "Greg Parker is an excellent researcher." Pretty devious of me, eh?) --Tommy, the Droll Subtle? Smear Job? Could all be coincidental, Tommy. That however does nothing to alter the facts of that very similarity. I've already given one example. Here's another: "In around 2000-2001, my thinking on conspiracy theories changed dramatically. Every time I subjected a claim to logical scrutiny, it fell apart. I read the entire Warren Commission report. " http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/blog/93/jfk-100-days-of-debunking-on-twitter-an-analysis-of-jfk-conspiracies/ There is no truth at all to the rumor that if you name the Devil, he disappears. Thanks for the plug! Greg, I know, because he's in the details. Out , out damned ... Not being familiar with the details you enumerated, I was referring more to your inquiry about what he had done in the Navy. --Tommy, the Serious, the Dramatic

It was a joke, Curtis. But it is still a fact that there is an eerie similarity between the non-required, non requested history of your metamorphosis and numerous others I have read over the years. In fact, being non-required and non-requested is another similarity with those others in itself. It's just an observation, Curtis. One based on... well.... fact. Others can make of it what they will. All I will say is that the points of commonality with those others is quite uncanny. What did you do in the navy, Curtis? Just curious... Nice subtle smear job, Greg. (I just linked your new 2-volume book to my FB page today, and wrote, "Greg Parker is an excellent researcher." Pretty devious of me, eh?) --Tommy, the Droll

Wow, what a surprise.

Unless Oswald was in the vestibule itself, not the lunchroom proper. And the inner door was propped open, thereby explaining why Baker thought Oswald was walking away from him in the lunchroom. You know, kinda keeping an eye out for people coming up the stairs? No, Robert, I'm not sayin' I believe this was necessarily the case. I'm just s-s-s-sayin'. --Tommy, the Serious

Dear Sandy, Yes, I would, because I have watched the Martin and Hughes films and in the Hughes film I can see him exhaling cigarette smoke through his mouth, jutting his head forward and distorting his face in the process. Taking that into consideration, plus his bald spot, his heavy "5 o'clock shadow" and the fact that he's obviously in need of a haircut (just like the guy sitting in the chair in the police station who, interestingly enough, has a pack of cigarettes in his shirt pocket) and the fact that most if not all of those people on the steps and directly in front of the TSBD must have been employees who were waiting to get inside the building, leads me to the conclusion that this guy must have been a TSBD employee, too, not just an interested passerby. --Tommy, the Serious

Ray is the first guy who intimated something was wrong with the transaction: How could the money order do all of that in 24 hours. That is go from Dallas to Chicago to the bank and be deposited all in a day. ​Sorry, you need to provide evidence, not just intimidation, that there's anything wrong with the transaction. McLeer has some interesting exhibits on his site showing there was more than one rifle in evidence. Sorry, changing the subject from the money order to the rifle won't work. We understand that's a logical fallacy, and we understand why you're trying this. Gil has done some really fantastic work on tracing the delivery all the way from Italy to Chicago. That work is really kind of revolutionary showing that the rifle in evidence could not have been the one ordered. Sorry, changing the subject from the money order to the rifle won't work. We understand that's a logical fallacy, and we understand why you're trying this. And David just did a two part article at CTKA, which also questions the provenance of the rifle in the BYP, among several other points. You understand the subject matter under debate is the money order? Why are you trying to derail the argument to the rifle at this time? For one reason only, you understand the money order is a lost cause. So now you're trying to do what all conspiracy theorists do, deflect the argument to other points. If you want to discuss the rifle, start a new thread, or contribute to one of the several dozens or hundreds on the rifle you can find on this forum. So to say that this is all Armstrong about the rifle, that is simply not the case. We know. It's about the money order. You're the only one making it about the rifle. Its a form of intellectual dishonesty. We agree! We just disagree on whose intellectual dishonesty. And I think its done for personal reasons and also to limit the scope of the debate. Arguing every point at once isn't very feasible. So yeah, the debate has to be limited if it's going to go anywhere. Right now, it's limited to the question of the money order, and whether there's anything wrong with it. That has not be demonstrated, despite Sandy's best efforts. You want to change the subject from the money order to the rifle because you can see Sandy isn't getting where he'd like to go. We understand, Jim. ​Hank Hank, Excellent post! And that's very high praise, indeed, coming from a Conspiracy Theory-In-Progress "Tinkerer" * such as myself. * Not to be confused with the run-of-the-mill Conspiracy Theorist , a person who already has his or her cherished "theory" and continually tries to find "evidence" which at least appears to support it, ignoring in the process any and all evidence which actually or, ironically, apparently contradicts it. --Tommy, the Serious

Well, Paul. I'm afraid you'll chide me for not being serious enough, so I think I'll just leave it that way. --Tommy, the Droll

You're welcome, Sandy. (I gotta go lie down now. I'm exhausted.) --Tommy PS You're wrong. The guy smoking outside the TSBD and the guy sitting in the office watching Oswald go by are the same guy -- Billy Nolan Lovelady -- who was also captured up on the sixth floor with the police and the detectives in the Alyea film. Back to study hall you go.

Dear Mr. Brancato, It would appear that Trejo and I both think Morales was working on the assassination in August or 1963, that's all. Paul doesn't help me, I help him. It's a one way street. It's not really a marriage, more like a guy sending support payments to his mistress. --Tommy, the Droll

It says "payment required" --Tommy, the Unhappy

Yes, Mr. DiEugenio, "Word Twister" and I are great pals now. Like Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. A marriage of connivance convenience. --Tommy, the Droll

As someone who does not believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, I don't place much stock in the ramblings of Jim Garrison. None, actually. This completely misses my point. IF you read Garrison honestly, without calling his writing "ramblings" you will see the same reaction to the WR that both Bob Tanenbaum and Richard Sprague had when they ran the HSCA. See those men had not just the report but the 26 volumes. (Garrison actually had three sets, one for his home, one for the office, and one for his car.) And they were professional prosecutors. Tanenbaum never lost a felony trial in New York. Sprague lost one. Garrison completely transformed the conviction rate of the New Orleans DA office. (See, if you read the right books you would not have to be clued in all of this.) Therefore, when they read the evidence that allegedly backed up the assertions, they were shocked. I mean , Howard Brennan? (Tanenbaum is especially good on him.) Helen Markham? Marina Oswald with her, "That is the fateful rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald." After she said she never saw a rifle with a scope in he life. These are the things that a professional prosecutor looks for. Because even though the WR was a prosecutors' brief, when you have to use these kinds of witnesses, the prosecution is not very strong. For example, without Brennan, how could the WC put Oswald in the so called "sniper's nest"? These were terrinel witnesses, and a signifyscant minority on the WC knew it e.g. Wesley Liebeler and Joe Ball. As Tanenbaum also said, if that is not bad enough, when you start to add in the exculpatory evidence that was either minimized or left out, well to him, that was almost sick. For example, what inquiry did Slawson and Coleman make into Mexico City? I have read their report, have you? Did you find it compelling in light of the Lopez Report? Do you prefer the former to the latter? What inquiry did Specter make into the medical evidence? Have you read his examination of the doctors? Do you not find it weird that Specter never asked any of them why they did not dissect Kennedy's back wound? This is a homicide case by gunfire, why was that not done? That "rambling" Jim Garrison did ask Finck that at the trial of Clay Shaw. Have you read his answer? Do you no think that would have been important information for the public to read in the WR? Why is it not there then? Why is Kennedy's reaction to the fatal shot in the Z film not described in the WR? Was that not important information for the public to have in 1964? WE saw what happened when they got it in 1975, right? Is there any description in the Warren Report about the many witnesses who saw a hole in the back of JFK's skull? Or those who saw cerebellum? Do you also approve of the Rydberg drawings of the wound trajectories in the WC? Even though they are blatantly false? Did the WR ever describe the damage done to Kennedy's brain? Did they ever explain why the brain was not sectioned in order to trace the path of the bullet(s) through it? Again this is a homicide case, death by gunshot, and this is how Kennedy was killed. Its normally SOP in any hearing or trial. Why is this one different? Does the WR ever point out the fact that the rifle in evidence, is not the rifle they say Oswald ordered? Is that not important in a homicide case? Does the WC note the fact that the Magic Bullet, CE 399, does not have Elmer Lee Todd's initials on it? It does not. In fact it says the opposite, that it does. That is important because he was the guy who was supposed to have given the bullet to Frazier at FBi HQ at around 9:20 or later that night. Except Curtis, that Frazier already had the bullet by then. In fact he entered it into evidence a good hour and a half before that time. Did the WC note this anywhere in the 26 volumes? Please show me where they did? Finally, in about 18,000 pages of testimony and evidence, do you see the name of David Phillips, or his aliases, anywhere? Yet, Belin said he saw every CIA document on the case, right? Yet the WC did not know that Phillips was running the CIA's anti FPCC campaign? How could that be if he saw everything? He was either lying later, when he said that, or he was lying for them when he did not include it. These are the kinds of people you find credible? After all, it was only the murder of a president, right? Sic 'em, Mr. DiEugenio! --Tommy, the Droll

Robert, That's pretty much what I was suggesting a few weeks ago when I posted the "very short Couch / Darnell GIF" which I claimed showed Shelley crossing over Elm Street Extension towards the island / peninsula, while my putative "Lovelady" continued walking / running towards the railway yards / parking lot. I'm looking forward to somebody's "stepping up to the plate," and his or her stabilizing (?), blowing up, and / or enhancing the "Possible-Lovelady" talking with "Lady In Black" on the steps in Darnell. --Tommy, the Droll

Thanks Ian. FWIW, I think we can see his white t-shirt under his outer shirt. --Tommy the xxxxx Right. And here is his outer shirt: [...] Dear Sandy, I guess you just can't see the "bone whiteness" of his t-shirt, in his neck and upper chest area, in contrast to his darker, greyish-looking (due to severe overexposure in the black-and-white film) outer shirt, huh? https://youtu.be/EIXasm-aZs8 Pity. You seem to be faring just about as well here as you did on the Postal Money Order thread. --Tommy, the Droll Edit: Perhaps you should do like me and take your stylin' shades off when you're inside. Tommy, You may be right that the guy is wearing an outer shirt. My comment was made under the assumption that you were still thinking this is Lovelady wearing his plaid shirt. If it is indeed Lovelady, he must have taken the plaid shirt off. IMO, of course. Because I just can't believe that the plaid pattern would be completely washed out, and yet Lovelady's face still has color (grayness in the photo) and his facial features can still be made out. We just disagree on this. No biggie. As for this comment: Tommy said: "You seem to be faring just about as well here as you did on the Postal Money Order thread." You don't understand the postal money order thread and issue well enough to understand that I am indeed faring well on it. My position and argument there is backed up by official Federal Reserve Bank documents. Lance Payette's position, on the other hand, is speculation. He has no evidence to support it. I have just read what he last wrote and I see he is again speculating. I haven't responded to it yet. When I do respond, I may just repeat that he is speculating because I'm getting tired of having to rebut his unsubstantiated claims. He's turning into another DVP, imo. HOWEVER... For all I -- or anybody else -- knows, Lance's guesses may be right. But my position trumps his till evidence is produced to support his. If he or someone else produces such evidence, I will change my position accordingly. BTW, when Lance complains on that thread about Armstrong's statements and the possibility that Armstrong fabricated a source of information, that has nothing to do with me, my position, or my thread. I hope you understand that. Sandy, Thanks for the well-thought-out and well written post. And your civility. --Tommy, the Droll

Dear Paul, What, if anything, does Mr. DiEugenio have to say about Sylvia Ludlow Hyde Hoke? --Tommy, the Droll

Well yes, there IS that one now, isn't there. --Tommy, the Droll

Thanks Ian. FWIW, I think we can see his white t-shirt under his outer shirt. --Tommy the xxxxx Right. And here is his outer shirt: [...] Dear Sandy, I guess you just can't see the "bone whiteness" of his t-shirt, in his neck and upper chest area, in contrast to his darker, greyish-looking (due to severe overexposure in the black-and-white film) outer shirt, huh? https://youtu.be/EIXasm-aZs8 Pity. You seem to be faring just about as well here as you did on the Postal Money Order thread. --Tommy, the Droll Edit: Perhaps you should do like me and take your stylin' shades off when you're inside.

Larry. Fine. But could he drive a Rambler station wagon? --Tommy

LOL Actually Tommy, the thought did occur to me that the guy in the Alyea film hiding behind the boxes is indeed Oswald! I plan on forming an organization called the OSWALD ON THE SIXTH FLOOR CAMPAIGN. Or maybe OSWALD IN THE SNIPER'S NEST. The premise will be, could an assassin be so stupid as to hide out in the very spot from which he took the shot? Dear Sandy, I think Gloria Jean Calvery pulled the trigger and Oswald was her spotter. --Tommy, the droll xxxxx

Thanks, Larry, for this insight into the paradigm shift found in the work of Bill Simpich. The distinction between the CIA HQ and JMWAVE in Mexico City is telling. David Morales was involved in JMWAVE, and so he would have had access to Mexico City secrets (like which phones were being tapped at which priority for which reasons) and so this makes his crew a prime suspect for the Oswald Impersonation. But the CIA high-command did not guess that at the time. Thus the Simpich Mole Hunt. Bill Simpich's innovation begins with newly-released CIA documents -- but Bill was the first to jump on them, and to figure them out -- and so he merits the kudos that come with being first. I wish Bill himself would comment directly on my specific claim that a CIA Mole Hunt is basic proof that the CIA high-command -- the level that authorizes Mole Hunts -- had no clue about who Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. To say that there were "no senior CIA officers involved" in the Impersonation is tendecious, since we now must fine-tune what "senior" means. "Senior" evidently isn't high enough to start a Mole Hunt. It is precisely because the Impersonation of Oswald "reveals knowledge closely held within the Agency itself" that we can say that the Simpich Mole Hunt was justified in the first place. I don't doubt that David Morales, the CIA's top-level assassin of foreign leaders in Latin America, would be invited to Special Group meetings in Washington DC, yet even THAT is still not high enough to authorize a CIA Mole Hunt. You say, Larry, that author John Newman is currently building on Bill Simpich's discovery in his new work -- and of course that is exciting. I look forward to reading that. I agree with you that Bill Simpich "establishes a context which suggests that within some 72 hours, the CIA high command was able to realize that some of their own people might have been the "others" working around Lee Oswald in the MC impersonation." YET I WANT TO KNOW WHO THOSE "OTHERS" WERE. Yes -- I do agree that DAP in his bio-fiction, The AMLASH Legacy (1988) alluded -- basically confessed -- that "some" CIA Officers were involved in the JFK murder. Nobody doubts that. Two have confessed since then (Morales and Hunt). Yet the key question is whether the JFK Killers included a "Senior" CIA officer high enough in the CIA hierarchy to start a Mole Hunt. I say no. The JFK murder was a civilian plot run by Walker-Banister. CIA rogues were involved at a lower level. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited and bumped. That's interesting, Larry Thanks for that information. --Tommy the droll