Thomas Graves

Or is it Karan Hicks or Carol Reed? Beats the heck out of me, Robert. --Tommy Edit: If you look very closely at the face of the girl with the glasses, you can just barely make out the outline of another woman's face behind hers, perfectly aligned with her face, and a little bit of the other woman's hair, as well.

Dime buttered cop porn at the Texas Theater! Sorry, I couldn't .... resist. --Tommy BTW -- Great books, Greg. I'm learning a lot from them. Highly recommended!

Robert, Didn't Joe say Calvery came up to him on the steps, or just inside the TSBD, about 20 seconds after the last shot? I'm saying that maybe Calvery ran to the corner of Elm and Houston (and Baker followed her there), and if so, she couldn't have run up the steps and encountered Molina like that. I'm not saying that it's absolutely certain that she did run to the corner of Elm and Houston, but if she did, that would have been a good reason for Baker to run there, too, right? And they could have talked there for a couple of minutes. Where do you think Baker ran to, if not up the steps and into the TSBD? Why don't you lay out the whole scenario for us, Robert? Please? Thanks, --Tommy Edit: I see my mistake now. I conflated what Linda wrote at FindaGrave with what you said in response to that on this thread when you wrote "xxxxxxxxxxx not xxxxxxxxxxxx," and I'm missed the "not." My bad. edited and bumped BTW, Here's a 1960 photo of journalist Aurelia Alonzo, with whom Helen Woodward said she was standing (along with two other female journalists), during the motorcade, (and most importantly for us, right next to Chris Davidson's "Gloria Calvery" in the Z-film). http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth61030/m1/95/ Chris' "Calvery" is standing between "A.J. Millican" and "Aurelia Alonzo," below:

Robert, Didn't Joe say Calvery came up to him on the steps, or just inside the TSBD, about 20 seconds after the last shot? I'm saying that maybe Calvery ran to the corner of Elm and Houston (and Baker followed her there), and if so, she couldn't have run up the steps and encountered Molina like that. I'm not saying that it's absolutely certain that she did run to the corner of Elm and Houston, but if she did, that would have been a good reason for Baker to run there, too, right? And they could have talked there for a couple of minutes. Where do you think Baker ran to, if not up the steps and into the TSBD? Why don't you lay out the whole scenario for us, Robert? Please? Thanks, --Tommy Edit: I see my mistake now. I conflated what Linda wrote at FindaGrave with what you said in response to that on this thread when you wrote "xxxxxxxxxxx not xxxxxxxxxxxx," and I'm missed the "not." My bad. By the way, here's a 1960 photo of one of the three female journalists Helen Woodward said she was standing with on Elm Street during the motorcade, Aurilia Alonzo (you gotta go back one page, to page 92): http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth61030/m1/95/

Sorry Jon, I don't speak Tiddinese. Can you break it down for me? What have your adolescent reminiscences and generalizations to do with Oswald? Or my book on Oswald? I read National Lampoon, sports and music magazines. My socks never hopped anywhere, but some did disappear mysteriously. I do know male Australian 17 year olds believed in cricket and football. And the beach and surf. I believe I led told three lives xxxx when I was young. That, and Odd Duck Mad Magazine, particularly the "Spy Vs. Spy" cartoons. --Tommy

Robert, I think they've taken liberties but not diabolic ones. I suppose they may want it to be Calvery running into the building because it matches certain testimony and it's just nice to think at least one person said they saw something and oh look, there it is on film. Like Linda said elsewhere if it's Calvery she would have to have lost quite a bit of weight(a few months after getting hitched). No impossible but pretty unlikely. Also remember the motorcade was late, so those people could have been standing there for twenty minutes. Calvery may have stood on that spot with Hicks but just got bored and wandered off. IMHO Chris has the right idea to find the running girl first and for me, if she's not near that Chism group which she doesn't seem to be, then it's more likely she's running from something that happened after the headshot or simply running back to grab lunch. On one of your recent points. I myself have no problem with statements not matching, or matching the films, quite the opposite, it's exactly what I've come to expect and why would they match anyway? Who says they are supposed to Robert? Do you think it's possible that the overwhelming majority outside and opposite the TSBD completely ignored the sounds they later would claim where clearly gunshots? Even Baker himself? If that is possible and after looking at these better frames of Wiegman I believe it is highly probable, then "fifty years of BS" is putting it very mildly indeed. I do get your point about Baker, it's your opinion and I understand it but I don't believe he needs support for running into the building, he has Truly (and Darnell's footage to an extent) and quite a detailed account of what he saw after he turned onto Elm which is what I believe led him to investigate the building, not the birds, or the sounds but what he saw on the street in front of him, which is mostly verifiable on film. Marking him as a good cop and by no means a slow one. This is I think, the woman Chris pointed to in Z, still in position next to man and lamp post, or might be, similar white blouse and length of skirt perhaps. Thomas was looking at them in another thread. Clive, I think, given the timing of Baker and "Running Woman" in Couch / Darnell, "Running Woman" (Gloria Calvery as pointed out by Chris Davidson) has split the scene and is already running, running, running... And I think Chris' Gloria Calvery (by hardhat A. J. Millican) had a darker colored skirt on than does the woman above. For What It's Worth -- I want "Running Woman" to be a lithe Gloria Calvery (having lost some weight since her marriage), wherever she was standing during the motorcade. I want the two guys who are in close proximity to each other as they are walking / running down Elm Street to be Shelley and Lovelady (and I believe they are), proving that they prevaricated (in order to screw up Vicki Adams' story) when they said they stayed on the steps, twiddling their thumbs, for three minutes. I want the fast-running Calvery to yell out, "The President's been shot!" as she runs past Shelley and Lovelady, not far from the "island" on Elm Street Extension. I want Calvery to continue running down to the corner of Elm and Houston and for Baker to follow her down there and talk with her for five or ten minutes, in order to accommodate any theories that we might come up with regarding Oswald and the second floor lunchroom "encounter," etc. But that would prove Joe Molina to be a prevaricator then, wouldn't it. I forgot about that... I want the three women, standing by the Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm Street and previously "identified" as Calvery, Hicks, and Reed, to be finally determined to be other people entirely. Seriously. Not being ironic or sarcastic here, --Tommy

Naw, I was just kidding. Get some rest. By the way, the title of this thread is "Heavy Set, Middle-Aged Man Put In Police Car...". Shouldn't we start a new thread called "Parking Lot Attendant's Friend Arrested On Grassy Knoll!" or "Finally Identified! -- Witness Robert Edwin Edwards!" ? --Tommy

The black guy wearing the beanie on the right can be seen at 0:58 in the Robert Hughes film, running across Elm Street from the "infield grass" to the Grassy Knoll area. He was "captured" in several still photographs taken of the crowd on the Grassy Knoll after that, and even in the parking lot if I remember correctly. It wouldn't surprised me if the guy in the middle "being assisted down the slope" was his friend. Edit: On second thought, I think you're right about the guy-on-the-right's looking like a "parking lot attendant." Different guy altogether from the guy wearing the beanie. My bad. Or could he be TSBD "porter" Eddie Piper??? from the great ROKC website: http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t34-was-eddie-piper-on-the-6th-floor --Tommy

I've never seen that photo before either! Great find! It does grab my attention too. Do you know who it's by? It appears to be a still/screen capture from a film. Do you know who took the photo - or who filmed it and/or which video it came from so i can (hopefully) see it in context with the rest of the film online to get an idea of when it was taken etc...Thanks, James! I think that's been credited to Couch, filming as he left the scene of the biggest story of his life. I saved this, no idea who from but could be Gerda and Co. Clive, Is there a heavy-set guy being arrested / detained / questioned in this clip? How does witness Robert Edwards factor into this? Great clip, BTW. Maybe we can break it down and find Gloria Calvery, etc, in it. Thanks, --Tommy

Clive, Thanks for the photos of Bob Edwards. Now we know for sure who that young man in the white shirt was. Here's Edwards' WC testimony: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=35#relPageId=210&tab=page Here's his 11/22/63 affidavit: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=665&tab=page I can understand Edwards' mistaking the sixth floor for the fifth floor if it's true, as he explained in his WC testimony, he hadn't counted the first floor when he gave his affidavit. What's interesting to me is that he said in the affidavit that the (corner) window in which he saw the thin-to-medium build, light-brown haired, white guy before the motorcade came by was wide open, all the way up, and that the "26-year-old-looking" guy crowded in among the boxes in that window was wearing a light-colored sport shirt, white or yellow in color. In his WC testimony, Edwards said the shirt was open at the neck, and all of this suggests to me that the guy Edwards saw wasn't wearing just a white t-shirt. I don't think the long-sleeved shirt Oswald was arrested in could be called "light colored," and I have never seen a photo of him wearing a long-sleeved shirt with the sleeves rolled up, so I think the guy Edwards (and his friend Fischer) saw in the sixth floor window was somebody other than Lee Harvey Oswald. BTW, you don't think Edwards was the heavy-set, "broad in the beam" guy in the greens circles in Martin Blank's post, do you? Thanks, --Tommy

Per your own posting ,you seem to travel to many TAVERNS (part of your self proclaimed, " I have a life"), I posit that there are two LAVERICKS. Pre pints and post pints, (there might be a third ... "oh last night tooooooo many pints") JUST ONE OF SAID SIGHTINGS ABOVE CORRECT AND DOUBLE OSWALDS IDEA IS CORRECT. IF H & L true, then open up the champagne !!!!!! THANKS gaal So in Gaal's world to "have a life" simply means drinking beer in a tavern. It's all a lot sadder than I thought. Wouldn't you just love to have one. eh? A life that is, not a beer. After all, beer is the Devil's brew. Get caught drinking that and you may incite His wrath and cause another global flooding. No worries, Gaal can be the new Noah, guiding the animals onto his ark two by two...two frogs, two giraffes, two beetles, two Oswalds... Tea total. Sorry. Try another smear. Would Jesus approve of your smear tactics? Two Oswalds, two Marguerites, ... --Tommy

--Tommy

In 1967, Garrison spoke with police officer Charles Noto. Noto remembered the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald as having occurred possibly in 1963, but probably in October or November of 1962. See page 18: http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/41827/rec/3%20 Oswald was in inveterate prevaricator to authorities, IMHO, so it's not surprising at all that he told the arresting officers in New Orleans in late 1962 that he was living in Dallas. He didn't exactly have a driver's license to show them, did he? Pray tell, how could Oswald's counter espionage activities in Japan in 1957 and in New Orleans in 1962 possibly "bolster" the Harvey and Lee theory? --Tommy PS It makes a lot more sense to have the-one-and-only, New Orleans-dwelling, Lee Harvey Oswald running around New Orleans doing "CE" work in late 1962 than to have your "Dallas-dwelling Lee" do it while your "Minsk-dwelling Harvey" was dwelling in, well ... Minsk. For rather obvious reasons. Hint Hint: Like not wanting to bump into any of his old friends or acquaintances.

Greg, We should encourage Gaal to make as many long, nutty "data dumps" on Harvey and Lee-related threads as possible, as it effectively conveys to "newbies" the caliber of intellect attracted to the H & L Cult. "Smooth movements, Steven! Way to ..... GO! Let 'er rip!" --Tommy

LMAO! You're sounding more like Dave Reitzes did 20 years ago Tom. What is amazing here, in my eye at least, an example: David Lifton's much herald and planned book on LHO went to the scrap heap 15 or so years ago, because, in my estimation (and many will agree) John's H&L. Now Greg has a lot invested in his present LHO work (which is in progress). In fact, you might say, he has a lot to lose if he can't discredit H&L in its entirety. David needs no online/forum support here, in fact, I'm amazed he even bothers with you and those few peanut gallery responses you put forth... in my estimation ya need that H&L hogwash Tom, without it, Greg's book(s) fail. Such a strange way to promote a new work sales... whatever floats one's boat! I'll buy Greg's books (I did buy H&L at Jack White's insistence, it was an expensive yawn for me... I already believed LHO was a patsy, the rest was details. End of story for me! (update: rumor has it, there is a new LHO book in the works by a NYT best-selling author, how is that for timing?) Dear David, Harvey and Lee fail? How in the world could such a paranoiac theory fail when it's based on 1 ) two (hopefully) similar-looking boys' and their (already!) similar-looking mothers' being chosen by the bad guys to participate in a double doppelganger project which doesn't come to fruition until some ten years later, 2 ) one of the boys (both of whom are young men at this point of the "theory") was kinda (and, well, kinda not) hidden away in a safe house in the U.S. during the 2 1/2 years that the other one was living in Russia, and 3 ) both of their families were "in" on the project from the get-go, but have somehow managed to keep the secret for some sixty years so far (even though "Harvey's mother" -lol- complained early on that she thought her son might have been on some kind of intelligence mission in Russia)? How in the world could a paranoiac "theory" like that fail? I mean, with so many gullible people around who really really wanna believe the bad guys are not only really really bad, but also really really omniscient and really really really really really ... powerful? I mean, really. --Tommy [...] And speaking of syntax and grammar... "theories" do not fail... "theories" are proven or not... people presenting the "theory" may fail at convincing others... --David Josephs [...] You're absolutely right, David. My bad. Instead of saying "fail," I should have said "fall flat on its face." Either that, or instead of calling Harvey and Lee a "theory" (I was being nice) --, I should have called it what it really is -- "a paranoia-based cult." I mean, cults can fail, can't they, especially paranoia-based ones? You know, like when they just kinda wither, fall apart, and blow away? At least one would certainly hope so. --Tommy Oh, and by the way. My "mistake" was not, as you allege, one of syntax or grammar, but rather one of vocabulary, if anything. You do know the difference between syntax / grammar and vocabulary, don't you? In very simple terms, syntax and grammar have to do with how sentences are put together, whereas vocabulary has to do with word choice.

Robert, One possibility is that we are looking at typed-up copies or carbon copies of the originals and that "/s/Gloria Calvery (for example) at the bottom of the statement means that the originals were signed. Why do you not think that's Lovelady and Shelley in Couch / Darnell? Just don't think it looks like them? Would their being there at that time conflict with something? Why not say "that's them" in Couch / Darnell, and that's Calvery running there, too, and Shelley blew it when he mentioned in his first day's statement that he had spoken with Calvery on the island three minutes after the assassination when in reality he and Lovelady had just heard her yell out something like "The President's been shot!" when she ran past them, not far from the island. some 20 to 30 seconds after the final shot? I think it's easy to recognize Lovelady's short, stocky stature and distinctive "hairline" in that footage, and skinny Shelley's suit and "hairdo," too. --Tommy

Way to go, Greg! --Tommy

Robert, The multi- name labeled photo including Mary Woodward appears to be correct. MARY ELIZABETH WOODWARD, 4812 Alcott, employee, Woman's News, "Dallas Morning News," Dallas, Texas, advised that she, AURELIA ALONZO, MARGARET BROWN and ANNE DONALDSON, on November 22, 1963 left the office of the "Dallas Morning NEWS" just about 12:00 noon to observe the Presidential Motorcade. They walked to Elm Street and stopped in front of the Texas School Book Depository building, but were located a short distance down the street near the second light post. They were standing in this spot when the Presidential Motorcade came by There is a light post #1 near the signal light at the Elm St annex corner. The unidentified woman near Mary Woodward, clothing wise, appears to match the woman in Darnell. Her distance from where she is standing in Z to "between the TSBD curb and annex" is 120ft. Close enough. 20 seconds @120ft = 4.08mph If Gloria Calvery is labeled correctly, she is 30ft farther west than Mary Woodward but can't be the woman in Darnell, wrong skirt color. imo chris Hi Chris I wonder just exactly what is meant by "between the TSBD curb and annex" and how close that would be to the TSBD steps. If, as you have calculated, the speed required is 4.08 mph, that is not really all that fast. A man at a fast walk can easily do 4 mph, and that lady in the Couch/Darnell film was definitely booking it. The problem with ID'ing and locating Calvery is that the women in the group she was in all gave statements to the FBI, and their stories seem to corroborate each other very well as being just west of the position Mary Woodward was in. However, once again, they are recorded in the form of FBI reports; written in the third person and not signed by the person giving the statement (likely never seen by that person either). We have seen, time and again, how the FBI re-wrote the contents of these reports and never informed the subject. Could there have been a concerted effort by the FBI to place Calvery somewhere she wasn't? She does seem to be the focal point of the only two witnesses who can vouch for Baker entering the TSBD when he and Truly claim he did. Robert, The statements Calvery, Hicks, Reed, and Woodward made to the FBI were written in the first person singular, and what they said was put in quotation marks. Why do you say that their statements were written in the third person? A big mystery: Why did the bad guys (Lovelady and Shelley) mention Calvery? Why didn't they say they decided on their own to leave the steps and go looking around "because lots of other people were doing it" or "we were curious"? Didn't they complicate their bad-guy story by mixing Calvery up in it? How could they imagine that she could / would support the apparent lie that they had stayed on the steps for three minutes? --Tommy

LMAO! You're sounding more like Dave Reitzes did 20 years ago Tom. What is amazing here, in my eye at least, an example: David Lifton's much herald and planned book on LHO went to the scrap heap 15 or so years ago, because, in my estimation (and many will agree) John's H&L. Now Greg has a lot invested in his present LHO work (which is in progress). In fact, you might say, he has a lot to lose if he can't discredit H&L in its entirety. David needs no online/forum support here, in fact, I'm amazed he even bothers with you and those few peanut gallery responses you put forth... in my estimation ya need that H&L hogwash Tom, without it, Greg's book(s) fail. Such a strange way to promote a new work sales... whatever floats one's boat! I'll buy Greg's books (I did buy H&L at Jack White's insistence, it was an expensive yawn for me... I already believed LHO was a patsy, the rest was details. End of story for me! (update: rumor has it, there is a new LHO book in the works by a NYT best-selling author, how is that for timing?) Dear David, Harvey and Lee fail? How in the world could such a paranoiac theory fail when it's based on 1 ) two (hopefully) similar-looking boys' and their (already!) similar-looking mothers' being chosen by the bad guys to participate in a double doppelganger project which doesn't come to fruition until some ten years later, 2 ) one of the boys (both of whom are young men at this point of the "theory") was kinda (and, well, kinda not) hidden away in a safe house in the U.S. during the 2 1/2 years that the other one was living in Russia, and 3 ) both of their families were "in" on the project from the get-go, but have somehow managed to keep the secret for some sixty years so far (even though "Harvey's mother" -lol- complained early on that she thought her son might have been on some kind of intelligence mission in Russia)? How in the world could a paranoiac "theory" like that fail? I mean, with so many gullible people around who really really wanna believe the bad guys are not only really really bad, but also really really omniscient and really really really really really ... powerful? I mean, really. --Tommy

You wrote: You refuse to admit that 'they' looked "very very similar" because you know that that alone kills the story stone dead. Is this not you assuming to know the "story" or the "plot" and it's intended results? All I said is I don't know why the plot was created, who else was involved, who oversaw it, etc... Different witnesses claim similarities & differences depending on who you ask. Pic knew the difference, Myra did too. So did a who host of others... More importantly Bernie... you've never been in a position to tell us what the "H&L theory" is in the first place. How would you know but from the info you don't bother to read or give any credibility to? From my POV - The Theory from Harvey and Lee is that the evidence shows conflicts is the location and relationships of the man we call Lee Harvey Oswald which when presented to Jenner and Leibeler by John Ely resulted in the need to ALTER OR OMIT information which was conflicting with the ongoing investigation. That upon compilation and analysis, this evidence resulted in the theory that two men's lives were combined into a single man's history when presented thru the WCR as his life story. WHY this was done can only be speculated upon. What can be done thru analysis is the authentication of these conflict points. GP want to say the Riots of Ft Worth date Oswald with Palmer in 1956... Palmer and the Pfisterer's staff say otherwise. It is up to an impartial observer to take in the discussion, check the info for themselves and make a decision... Speculating about WHAT IF this or that, if some other set of cirsumstances existed, is nice for a brainstorming roundtable... but without some justification that YOU BERNIE know why this was done in the first place... I fail to see how we can have constructive hypothetical conversations. How about taking a little time and learning what H&L actually shows before we start guessing about it... Bernie - you [sic], tommy [sic] and Greg [sic] being irritated is your own fault... the other "people" you speak of are fine with me dealing with the trifecta and are only irritated by your inability to take responsibility for you own ignorance about the subject matter. [...] Bernie, David's being dissembling and insulting by nature is exemplified by the sentence I have quoted, as is his ignorance regarding the rule "the gerund takes the possessive." Have you noticed how he habitually refuses to capitalize the "T" in my name, not realizing that it conveys to the whole world his childishness, pettiness, vindictiveness, and overall "smallness"? One can only feel pity for such a small, sad man. But more importantly, one can only wonder why more of his "supporters" have not come to his rescue on this thread! Could it be that most members agree with us, i.e. that the premises and conclusions of Harvey and Lee are ... hogwash? --Tommy

When you wake up, please go and do some study on the T informant designations. Thanks. I'll help since you need your nanny nap. The report states: “A supplementary T symbol (SF T-2) was designated for SF 2496-S (Richard Matsui Aoki) for the limited purpose of describing his connections with the organization and characterizing him. Because of the top level position of this informant this additional designation is considered necessary to insure protection of his identity.” (T symbols are temporary code numbers assigned to sources in reports. The report misstates his middle name.) https://www.revealnews.org/article/new-fbi-files-show-wide-range-of-black-panther-informants-activities/ Or... in the alternative universe you inhabit, the informant on Ruby moved to SanFran and began informing on the Black Panthers in '67 and "T" stands for THERE IS TWO OF EVERYTHING and is used exclusively for reporting on doppelganger activity. Greg, You realize of course that there are never innocent mistakes made in media reports, or, for that matter, in CIA, FBI, Marine Corps, or DPD reports, or the relaying of rumors and hearsay statements in said reports, and that the article you posted confirms something that I've suspected for a long, long time indeed -- Matsui and Masato were chosen by the bad guys at birth to participate in an evil evil doppelganger project some twenty years later. The fact that they grew up looking exactly alike was not a coincidence, but is obviously more proof of how powerful and omniscient the bad guys really, really are. We live in a truly dangerous world, my friend, and it's a good thing I like green cheese because I'm moving to the moon. Praise the Lord and Good Golly Miss Molly, I've recently read a 1000-page book that proves that the moon is made out of it! I just hope they have 55-gallon drums of cooked pinto beans there, too. --Tommy

Nice catch, Martin. We might be looking at one of the bad guys here. The white shirt, dark pants, and heaviness of the man, all of which Bowers described, are dead giveaways. --Tommy

Gaal, this is just getting depressing. Dorothy Marcum was NOT dating Ruby. She said so herself. Why the reliance on hearsay? Her aunt however did work for Ruby. Her name was Billie Irene Hadley Billy's husband worked for Ruby at the Vegas Club. His name was HARVEY LEE HADLEY!!!! This is the person who Dorothy was claiming worked for Ruby. And another one bites the dust... I'm not going through your list, though. Like I said -- too depressing because I know it will be shooting fish in a barrel. Actually I just realized! You're NOT relying on hearsay (which is all it ever was) You, Hargroves and/or Armstrong have put that hearsay into Dorothy's mouth! The sheer dishonesty is breathtaking. It is the second example I've found in the last few days where one of you has put hearsay into the mouth of the alleged witness. You all should be tarred and feathered and run out of Tombstone! Greg, You're right. Their audacity and desperation is truly breathtaking. The stench, that is. It takes my breath away. Unbelievable. --Tommy

Gaal, this is just getting depressing. Dorothy Marcum was NOT dating Ruby. She said so herself. Why the reliance on hearsay? Her aunt however did work for Ruby. Her name was Billie Irene Hadley Billy's husband worked for Ruby at the Vegas Club. His name was HARVEY LEE HADLEY!!!! This is the person who Dorothy was claiming worked for Ruby. And another one bites the dust... I'm not going through your list, though. Like I said -- too depressing because I know it will be shooting fish in a barrel. No, no, no, Greg, you don't understand. Harvey and Lee both worked for Ruby. Sometimes they even looked so much alike that people at the Vegas Club thought they were seeing doppel. --Tommy

Martin, At what times (xx:xx) in this youtube video is he visible? Thanks, --Tommy