Thomas Graves

Thanks Ian. FWIW, I think we can see his white t-shirt under his outer shirt. --Tommy the xxxxx

Yes, Mr. James DiEugenio. It seems that he and I currently have a common interest, one David Sanchez Morales. Perhaps you've heard of him? Respectfully yours, --Tommy the xxxxx

D Well, Tommy, David Morales is a chameleon-like figure. Perhaps this is because the only photographs we have of him are years apart. In some photographs David looks average size, fat and common. At other times he looks tall, buff and executive. If this is indeed David Morales, it is the only film of the man that I'm aware of. Given the year, when David Morales was still in his mid-30's, it is likely he was still in top athletic shape. The Neck Scratcher is clearly tall and in top athletic shape in this film. So, that could be David Morales. The doubt remains open simply because we cannot see his face. The two-toned nature of a human hand is indeed a factor that must be considered. An old home-movie film is simply not the best reproduction -- either for positive or negative identification. The Neck-Scratcher does seem to be taking an inordinate interest in LHO handing out FPCC leaflets. The preponderance of evidence points to David Morales -- without, of course, achieving absolute certainty. Regards, --Paul Trejo Dear Paul, My next challenge is getting you to read Richard Billings' notes from March 25 - April 20,1967, specifically the parts in which he talks about "Spanish Trace" and "The Shepherd," and also perhaps those from February 11 - March 22, in which he talks about a "shepherd" (with lower case "s") who was "mistaken" for Oswald in the Mexico City CIA photos. FWIW, the "tan station wagon" he refers to is, I believe, the same station wagon that Roger Craig claimed to have seen "Oswald" get into on 11/22/63. Also please note that "Maison Blance" refers to the Maison Blanche Building (q.v.) which itself is on Canal Street and which was, ironically(?) the building in which Dean Andrews had his law office. It was (and still is) only about two blocks away from the 700 block of Canal Street where Oswald and Bringuier (and two other anti-Castro Cubans) were arrested -- and Neck Scratcher was caught in the act of pretending to scratch his neck -- on August 9, 1963. Please get back to me after you've done that, and we'll continue this conversation... Oh and by the way, why don't you read the report James Doyle's father gave to the FBI about the events surrounding his son's filming of the Oswald arrest incident. Let me know if I can help you find it. --Tommy, the Droll PS In accordance with my generally-unknown Full Disclosure Policy, let me say now that Morales was only 5'10" tall and 190 pounds in weight in 1949, and he listed football, basketball, baseball, boxing, and swimming as sports he participated in. Still 5'10", he was up to 220 pounds in 1961. Much too heavy to have been Neck Scratcher, right? Despite the fact that "muscle weighs more than fat," and, therefore, a man who is that height and weighs 220 and happens to be muscular wouldn't necessarily appear to be fat, would he? Oh, well, back to the drawing board...

Back by popular demand... David Sanchez Morales (tentatively identified herein as "Neck Scratcher"). --Tommy Hi Tommy. Yes, I'm back. OK, let's say that the Neck Scratcher was the famous CIA agent, David Morales. This places David Morales in NOLA on Canal Street while LHO is passing out FPCC leaflets. What would be your point? Almost everybody on the FORUM believes that David Morales played a role in the JFK murder (due to his confession to Ruben Carbajal). So, that would not be news. Also, Joan Mellen says that the Guy Banister group in NOLA in July 1963 had a meeting at Caros Marcello's Town and Country Inn about JFK's secret, planned rapprochement with Fidel Castro, which only the CIA knew about. Could it be that David Morales was the link between the CIA and Guy Banister? That would not be news, either. The open question seems to me to be whether: (1) David Morales was leader of the JFK Kill Team, and Banister-Walker were his local support; or whether (2) Banister-Walker were the leaders of the JFK Kill Team, and David Morales was their CIA support. I vote for (2). Insofar as David Morales confessed, we have one more CIA agent who confessed, namely, E. Howard Hunt, and he admitted to playing only a minor role (perhaps a bag man, as Marita Lorenz claims). Others loosely linked with the CIA at the grungy street-level were Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and David Ferrie. But these were not truly CIA officers -- they were really common mercenaries, more closely aligned to Banister-Walker. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, Your #2 works for me, in my-constantly-evolving theory-in-progress kind of way. Problem is, considering how much effort I made to try just to convince you that Neck Scratcher has dark skin, I seriously doubt that you believe that Neck Scratcher really was D.S.M. . So why ask me anything? --Tommy the xxxxx

Boy, I'll say. I mean, wavin' their hands in the air an' frothin' at the mouth 'n everything! --Tommy the xxxxx

Excellent point, Ian. It almost looks like I'm wittily giving him "a backhanded compliment," doesn't it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult#Backhanded_compliment Who, me? --Tommy the xxxxx Ian, Regardless, I do hope that he will respond to the post, and that he will do so in an non-defensive, non-confusingly rhetorical way. --Tommy the xxxxx

Excellent point, Ian. It almost looks like I'm wittily giving him "a backhanded compliment," doesn't it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult#Backhanded_compliment Who, me? --Tommy the xxxxx

Dear Mr. Prudhomme, I think I just wrote a sincere and well-thought out post to you in which (believe it or not) I made some serious comments to you and asked you some serious questions. Would you please read it now and give me your best non-defensive, non-rhetorical response? I will copy and paste the inportant part of it into this post. Thank you Robert, --Tommy Here it is: Dear Robert, How does your (paraphrased) "No one on the steps really knew what was going on and that's why some of them were reentering the building" help your theory-in-progress? Does it support the idea that Gloria Calvery didn't arrive at the front steps until three or four minutes after the assassination? Is your reasoning that if she had arrived during the first 27 seconds after Z-313 (when Baker reaches the curb and Darnell starts panning back the other way and we lose sight of the TSBD), she would have alarmed people on the front steps by the fact that she was crying and talking about something just horrible that had happened to the President down the street, and they therefore wouldn't have continued going inside the building (at least until that 27 second mark when we lose sight of them and therefore don't know what each and every one of them did from that point on) for fear that the maniac sniper was inside it? Do I have that right? (And that Shelley and Lovelady were hanging out there on the steps pretty much the whole three or four minutes, except for the two short excursions Shelley made? Do you currently believe Shelley went over to the "island" for any reason at any time during the first five minutes? Do you think it's possible Shelley crossed over to the island / peninsula within the first 30 seconds and encountered Calvery there while Lovelady remained on the steps and encountered Calvery there, himself, a short time later?) That and / or it helps your overall theory-in-progress because it supports your idea (?) that no shots were fired from anywhere near the TSBD? Ergo, the phony-sounding pigeon story from Baker, and the fact none of the people near the building were startled by gunshots? You know, if you weren't so tight-lipped and didn't have such a strong tendency to become defensive and go confusingly "rhetorical" in your responses, we might be able to work a little better together and actually solve this case eventually. Jus' sayin' . --Tommy the xxxxx Edited a teeny-weenie bit and bumped for Mr. Robert Prudhomme, Esq.

Here's one of his videos called The Texas School Book Depository: https://youtu.be/1tsR8PGx2ZE --Tommy

Lance, Thank you for all the time, money, and thought you have put into this issue. We need more level-headed, objective, and well-spoken individuals like you on this forum, IMHO. --Tommy

Dear Mr. Prudhomme, I think I just wrote a sincere and well-thought out post to you in which (believe it or not) I made some serious comments to you and asked you some serious questions. Would you please read it now and give me your best non-defensive, non-rhetorical response? I will copy and paste the inportant part of it into this post. Thank you Robert, --Tommy Here it is: Dear Robert, How does "no one on the steps really knew what was going on and that's why some of them were reentering the building" help your theory-in-progress? Does it support the idea that Gloria Calvery didn't arrive at the front steps until three or four minutes after the assassination? Is your reasoning that if she had arrived during the first 27 seconds after Z-313 (when Darnell starts panning back the other way and we lose sight of the TSBD), she would have alarmed people on the front steps by what she was saying, and they therefore wouldn't have continued going inside the building for fear that the sniper was inside it? Do I have that right? (And that Shelley and Lovelady were hanging out there on the steps pretty much the whole three or four minutes, except for the two short excursions Shelley made? Do you currently believe Shelley went over to the "island" for any reason at any time during the first five minutes? Do you think it's possible Shelley crossed over to the island / peninsula within the first 30 seconds and encountered Calvery there while Lovelady remained on the steps and encountered Calvery there, himself, a short time later?) That and / or it helps your overall theory-in-progress because it supports your idea (?) that no shots were fired from anywhere near the TSBD? Ergo, the phony-sounding pigeon story from Baker, and the fact none of the people near the building were startled by gunshots? You know, if you weren't so tight-lipped and didn't have such a strong tendency to become defensive and go confusingly "rhetorical" in your responses, we might be able to work a little better together and actually solve this case eventually. Jus' sayin', Robert, --Tommy the xxxxx I'm just trying to understand what you think, Bob.

Thanks for the feedback, Mr. McBride. --Tommy

[...] edited and pasted into my next post. --Tommy

In earlier posts on this forum, you have denigrated Shelley's and Lovelady's WC testimonies and pretty much praised their First Day Affidavits. Sometimes it seems to me that you're a bit of a cherry picker, Bobby. Have you found Calvery in the photographs down by the Stemmons sign during the motorcade? OMG, you've already contacted Karan Hicks and she's verified it for you, hasn't she. That's fantastic, Bob! Keep up the good work! --Tommy

I hate to break it to you, Bart, and I'm not saying I'm not rooting for you guys at ROKC but, do you really think a handful of us petitioning Megan is going to win the release of a film that has the potential to clearly exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of JFK? Seriously???? I can just see it now. A package arrives at ROKC, and inside is the original film, with a note that reads, "Here it is boys. You'll find this copy much clearer than anything you've worked with thus far. Please note the name tag over PM's right shirt pocket that says "Lee". Cheerio!" Call me a pessimist but, these people have worked too hard for too long, and continue to work hard, to give it all up now. P.S. And you're right, we do seem to fill page after page here covering the same ground over and over, and ending up going in circles. Sometimes I feel that all I'm doing is keeping a handful of trolls gainfully employed. Yes, Cowboy Bob, Please don't stop now. I've almost got enough for a down payment on my next Ferrari. --Tommy Wow, Thomas, are you paranoid, or what? You come better than my dog does when I whistle. No, Bobby, I'm serious. You're the one who called me a paid disinformation agent, after all. Why shouldn't I "dog" you for that? But a xxxxx! OMG ! Oh, I see, you were talking about Barto, instead. Wow, I guess I really am paranoid, aren't I? --Tommy

I hate to break it to you, Bart, and I'm not saying I'm not rooting for you guys at ROKC but, do you really think a handful of us petitioning Megan is going to win the release of a film that has the potential to clearly exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of JFK? Seriously???? I can just see it now. A package arrives at ROKC, and inside is the original film, with a note that reads, "Here it is boys. You'll find this copy much clearer than anything you've worked with thus far. Please note the name tag over PM's right shirt pocket that says "Lee". Cheerio!" Call me a pessimist but, these people have worked too hard for too long, and continue to work hard, to give it all up now. P.S. And you're right, we do seem to fill page after page here covering the same ground over and over, and ending up going in circles. Sometimes I feel that all I'm doing is keeping a handful of trolls gainfully employed. Yes, Cowboy Bob, Please don't stop now. I've almost got enough for a down payment on my next Ferrari. --Tommy

Dear Robert, As Lovelady wrote in his First Day Affidavits, their lunch period started at 12 noon and lasted until 12:45. The assassination occurred at 12:31. Why would those people go back in the building thirteen or fourteen minutes early to get ready to go back to work with all that excitement going on outside? I think most of those people are going back inside in Couch / Darnell to either 1 ) get to a telephone before one of their colleagues did, or 2 ) to throw up in the bathroom. --Tommy Most of them, including Frazier, Truly and Campbell, had not eaten their lunch yet. Does that crowd slowly climbing the stairs look like they know the President has just been murdered? Do you think they would be re-entering the building, or even hanging around the entrance, if they knew there was a homicidal maniac with a rifle loose in the building? Dear Cowboy Bob, So you're saying that these people didn't realize that the President had been murdered or even shot at right? They thought they'd maybe heard some celebratory firecrackers or some backfiring motorcycles? Regardless, how does this explanation (a few hungry people with only a few minutes to eat going back into the TSBD despite all the commotion going on outside) help your theory-in-progress? --Tommy BTW, everyone here should have a theory-in-progress, Bobby. So I don't ridicule you for the fact that you actually have a theory-in-progress. I mean, you do have one, don't you? Good! Where would you like Gloria Cavelry to be?

[...] Dear Sandy, Well, what have we here? It's the same guy we saw in the Martin and Hughes films! The same male pattern baldness dude that was smoking (and distorting his face by jutting his jaw out while exhaling smoke through his mouth) in front of the TSBD in Martin and Hughes!!! See the pack of cigarettes in his plaid shirt pocket? Note the heavy "five o'clock shadow" and need for a haircut, just like the male pattern baldness plaid shirt-wearing and smoking dude in front of the TSBD in Martin and Hughes? Boy oh boy that particular red and black and grey and white shirt was real popular in Dallas back in them days, and male pattern baldness, too! Well, whoever it was , he must have been an important witness for the police to let him sit inside and be so close to Oswald when they brought him by, huh? I wonder who this important smoking and sitting plaid shirt wearing male pattern baldness witness dude was, anyway? I'm thinking that if they brought him in for questioning or to take an affidavit or two from him, they must have written down his name, right? Or maybe not, because maybe he was just the janitor taking yet another break and they already knew who he was and they didn't need to take no stinkin' affidavit from him. Say, that reminds me -- Didn't they bring Lovelady into that very same building so he could make two affidavits that day? I wonder if they let him sit in a chair while he was waiting to make those two affidavits? Naw, probably didn't have another chair for Lovelady, seein' as how that smoking, red and black and grey and white plaid shirt-wearing, male pattern baldness dude (who needed a shave and a haircut real bad) probably took the last dad gum chair, seein' as how he was on a janitorial break and all, so they just made Lovelady stand.the whole time in his invisible red-and-white vertically-striped shirt, which, ironically, the FBI didn't make him put on when they went out to his house several months after the assassination to interview him and take photos of him, in fact they didn't make him put on no red and black and grey and white plaid shirt, neither, in fact they didn't tell him which shirt to put on so as he would look just like he did on 11/22/63, they just assumed that he would automatically do it, his bein' a great mind reader and all, so ... It bein' a nice warm spring day when they finally came out to his house to ask him those questions and to take those photographs of him, wouldn't you know he just happened to be wearin' his most comfortable, warm weather, short sleeved, red and white vertically-striped shirt when they knocked on the door, and they didn't have the dad gum presence of mind to ask him if that was the shirt he was wearing on 11/22, and they never did give it no second thought -- you know, whether or not he had actually worn that red and white vertically-striped short sleeved cotton shirt on that cold, rainy morning back last November 22nd. I mean he knew they was a-comin' out that day to take some pictures of him lookin' just like he had on 11/22/63. didn't he? Well, didn't he? LOL --Tommy See Sandy, you're relatively new at all this -- three or four months, right? Which would explain, for example, why you didn't realize until very recently that it's possible to see Marion Baker running towards the TSBD and "Shelley and Lovelady" walking down Elm Street Extension at the same time in Couch / Darnell, right? Do you realize how exhausting it is for someone like me to try to educate a newbie like you? But we gotta do it, because newbies like you, if left unchecked, would naively bring back to life and perpetuate stuff that has been disproved a long time ago. In other words, newbies like you are a living example of the old adage "A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing (or is it "information"?). As Larry Hancock once said on this forum, the same old "stuff" tends to come around again and again in cycles in the JFK assassination research community, and I think he's right. (To tell you the truth, I wouldn't be surprised if the "Greer shot JFK" and "JFK was shot by Johnny Roselli from inside the sewer" theories hit these pages again with a vengeance any day now.) LOL --Tommy

Well that's interesting. You were Undecided before, but now you're No. Robert's compelling argument, huh? Don't trust your eyes ... Nope... I don't trust yours! ... if you're sure Lovelady wore that plaid shirt. ...enough to say that it could be Shelley? How about Lovelady? Admittedly it could be Shelley and Lovelady, if only it weren't for the other evidence that conflicts. I don't either, if you can't see that Lovelady's wearing a plaid shirt. Do you think that's a Lovelady impostor smoking a cigarette outside the TSBD several minutes after the assassination in the Martin and Hughes films, or in the film where he's sitting in a chair, watching them bring Oswald into the the office? The guy out front, smoking, in the plaid shirt, looks nothing like Lovelady... other than similar male pattern baldness. In addition, when I studied this closely some time ago, I noticed that the pocket on the shirt magically changed. I can't remember how, exactly. The pocket disappeared. Or maybe it was the flap on it. Inexplicable. And that makes me question any others wearing that shirt. Even Lovelady said, in the beginning, that he didn't wear that shirt. I have no explanation for it. --Tommy Dear Sandy, And what about the guy sitting in the chair in this frame, watching them take Oswald in? Same male pattern bald spot dude (but not Lovelady) who was smoking (and distorting his face by jutting his jaw out while exhaling smoke through his mouth) out in front of the TSBD in Martin and Hughes? Well, whoever it was , he must have been an important witness for the police to let him sit inside and be so close to Oswald when they brought him by, huh? Or maybe he was just the janitor and he was taking yet another break! I wonder who this important smoking and sitting plaid shirt wearing male pattern baldness witness dude was, anyway? I'm thinking that if they brought him in for questioning or for him to make an affidavit or two, they must have written down his name, right? Say, didn't they take Lovelady in so he could make two affidavits that day? I wonder if they let him sit in a chair while he was waiting to make those two affidavits. Naw, probably didn't have another chair for Lovelady, so they probably made him stand.in his vertically-striped shirt and all. LOL --Tommy

bump

WTF?

Well that's interesting. You were Undecided before, but now you're No. Robert's compelling argument, huh? Don't trust your eyes enough to say that it could be Shelley? How about Lovelady? I don't either, if you can't see that Lovelady's wearing a plaid shirt. Do you think that's a Lovelady impostor smoking a cigarette outside the TSBD several minutes after the assassination in the Martin and Hughes films, or in the film where he's sitting in a chair, watching them bring Oswald into the the office? --Tommy

Whatsamatter? Everybody afraid of derailing Barto , or whatever it was that Barto and Prudhomme got us all "going off" on, myself included?

Thanks, Duncan, That's what I'm starting to think, too. Except I think it actually is Shelley, and in the very short continuation GIF (which I haven't posted on this thread), we can see him crossing over towards the "island." Or the "peninsula," if you will. --Tommy So, who else would like to cast their vote(s) now that I've finally managed to get this thread back on topic? Don't be shy. It's okay to be "Undecided," it really is ... as long as you don't say "No" to Shelley! LOL --Tommy bumped Anyone else? How about Bobby Prudhomme? I could cast his votes for him, but he probably wouldn't appreciate it. Jon G. Tidd? Naw, he probably thinks Couch / Darnell was altered by the bad guys. Larry Hancock. Yes! Larry Hancock. Where are you? And Ronnie Ecker!!! And ....

Curtis, And all the unintentional misinformation you'll find here, too (oftentimes naively imported here from the sloppy research or illogical leaps of paranoiac faith of highly-respected "experts" like John Armstrong, for example). Welcome to The Forum. --Tommy PS Keep up the flattery. It goes a long way here.