Thomas Graves

Brian, So at 5'11" you're an inch-and-a-half taller than Oswald. Do you honestly think anyone could look at you at your current weight of 165 pounds and honestly say, "I think Brian Schmidt is 5'11" tall and weighs 140 pounds? I doubt it. And that's my whole point. --Tommy

Different lighting. Different lenses. Different ages. Which one was killed by Jack Ruby, the one on the left or the one on the right? "Both" of them are so young that "neither" of them looks like "Marina's husband." LOL --Tommy

Ray, Oswald wasn't even "slender." He was downright skinny at only 131 pounds. --Tommy

Well, Tommy, the "evidence" that I find convincing was provided by Jack White in a 1991 "Special Report" who demonstrated with painstaking accuracy that the body of the person in Lee Harvey Oswald's backyard photographs were always of Roscoe White. That is, the face was indeed Oswald's, but the chin, the neck, the shoulders, the right wrist and the stance, all belong to Roscoe White. Now, Oswald and White were at Atsugi together in the 1950's. Also, in the 1960's Roscoe White ran with some of the same people that Oswald ran with in New Orleans -- including David Ferrie and Gerry Patrick Hemming. Also, since Lee Harvey Oswald signed one of these Fake Photographs and sent it to George De Mohrenschildt, this confirms that the ownership of Lee Harvey Oswald [sic] -- although the body is of Roscoe White. IMHO, Oswald made the Backyard Photographs at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall when he worked there in early 1963. That's how he knew that the Photo was a "Fake" when he was shown a copy at the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/1963. He said he could prove it was a Fake. Of course he could -- because he was the one who Faked it. Since Roscoe White was part of the Backyard Photographs -- as Jack White ably demonstrated -- that suggests the real possibility that Roscoe White was also the accomplice of Oswald in the attack on General Walker. If all this is true, then even though Roscoe White joined the DPD in October, 1963 -- back in March, 1963 Roscoe clearly hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald. Now -- here's the rest of my theory. The identification of Roscoe White as the body-double of Oswald in the Backyard Photographs practically breaks the JFK murder case wide open. The solution -- a Dallas rightist plot -- was not far from the finish line with Jack White's discovery. THEREFORE -- IMHO Jack White was prevailed upon by Disinformation Agents inside Dallas (not the CIA) to stomp on his own discovery, and cancel it by using this ridiculous Harvey & Lee theory. So, Jack White, under pressure, published the H&L theory, and then Disinformation Agent John Armstrong has built upon it ever since. Not that Armstrong was a member of the Dallas pressure group -- it's only that he knew a great business opportunity when he saw it. That's my current theory. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, That's tantalizing and fascinating and fine and dandy, but unfortunately it doesn't show that "Roscoe White clearly hung out with Oswald in March, 1963." Why would Oswald put together a photo of himself like that at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, anyway? Why not just have Marina take some photos of him brandishing a rifle, wearing a pistol, and holding some contradictory Communist literature in the air? Ahhh. I get it. So he could point to the photo later and say it was faked. If that's the case, then it sounds like Oswald was planning on assassinating somebody, and was preparing his defense. But why incriminate himself so badly in the first place? Who was he trying to impress? George DeMohrenschildt? Roscoe White? Guy Banister? --Tommy

He seemed like a good guy to me. R.I.P. Gary Mack --Tommy

deleted

You miss my point. A man who is 5'10" tall and weighs 165 to 175 pounds is not "slender." Doh --Tommy

deleted [...] David, What do you think Helen Cunningham meant when she wrote "[G]ATB in Fort Worth -- June, 1962" in the "comments" section next to his test scores? Do you think she should have written "GATB in Fort Worth -- April, 1962," instead? (Bearing in mind that "GATB" stood for "General Aptitude Test Battery," the series of aptitude tests which Oswald took at the Fort Worth office of the Texas Employment Commission.) ___________________________________________________________________________ From one of my earlier posts on this thread: [...] The 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document [...] says "[G?]ATB IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE 62" (The last letter is definitely a "B," not an "E.") http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm FWIW, "ATB" was the partial acronym forf the TEC test Oswald took in Fort Worth, as we can see from Donald E. Brooks' Warren Commission testimony. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brooks.htm (press Ctrl and "F" simultaneously and then type in "ATB" to find it) Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether you made inquiry of the Fort Worth office as to whether they had what you call this ATB? Mr. BROOKS. This is something--oh, you mean, test records? Mr. JENNER. Yes. Mr. BROOKS. No, sir; I didn't, I am sure of this. The other office, Mrs. Cunningham, might have, but I didn't. (It's obvious to me now that Jenner was looking at "[G?]ATB" on the document and wasn't sure what the first letter was, so just referred to it as "ATB." Brooks wasn't sure what Jenner was referring to at first because he knew it as the "GATB." From an affidavit by Helen p. Cunningham, we can see the "[G?]ABT" stood for "General Aptitude Test Battery." http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/cunning1.htm Also note that "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" is written on the part of the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document called the "Test Record Card" which also includes the broken-down results from Oswald's GATB test. Note also that in bold print in the upper right hand corner of the document are the words "APTITUDE TEST BATTERIES." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm EDIT: I've just looked at the document again and realized that Cunningham's "G" in "GATB" was written in longhand style whereas the "A" and the "T" and the "B" were printed in block letters. Look for yourselves: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm So I've now proved that Lee Harvey Oswald took the General AptitudeTest Battery tests in Fort Worth in June of 1962, not April, 1962, as the Harvey and Lee crowd are desperate to believe. --Tommy

deleted Smartest thing you've posted in years Tommy... Why exactly do you need to be such a to others when at the slightest provocation you whine to the moderators? Hume has some ideas which are obviously so over your head as to make you dizzy.. but you being you MUST try some witless comment to let others know how lost you are in so many areas. I don't have to agree with him to be courteous... obviously you do. As for you being a lawyer... ... obviously you have trouble enough putting on briefs let alone writing one.. thanks for staying out of the law... Regarding my post, the sheet places the taking of this test in April 1962...the "62" even looks exactly like the 10/10/"62" next to it.. Without Greg here to have your back, not so interested in posting actual thoughts on a topic - are ya mate? Better off keeping at that "wit" thing you fail so miserably at each and every time... Much love and affection Tommy.. you know it's all in fun... David, What do you think Helen Cunningham meant when she wrote "[G]ATB in Fort Worth -- June, 1962" in the "comments" section next to his test scores? Do you think she should have written "GATB in Fort Worth -- April, 1962," instead? (Bearing in mind that "GATB" stood for "General Aptitude Test Battery," the series of aptitude tests which Oswald took at the Fort Worth office of the Texas Employment Commission.) --Tommy PS Perhaps you should delete your [deleted] posts more often. Or at least proof read them before and after. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From one of my earlier posts on this thread: Stephen [Gaal], As Greg Parker pointed out after I asked the above question, a 10/10/62 Dallas office Texas Employment Commission document about Oswald says, "Date in Fort Worth -- June, 1962," indicating either that that was when Oswald and family moved to Fort Worth from Minsk, USSR, or that that was when Oswald had taken a TEC test at the Fort Worth TEC office. Regardless, June of 1962, can also be written "6/62". Dallas TEC worker Helen P. Cunningham probably wrote "4/62" by mistake twice, meaning to write "6/62," instead. How else would you interpret "Date in Fort Worth -- June 1962" on Oswald's 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document, Stephen? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm --Tommy CORRECTION. MY BAD: The 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document doesn't say "DATE IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE 1962." It says "[G?]ATB IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE 62" (The last letter is definitely a "B," not an "E.") http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm "ATB" was the partial acronym of the TEC test Oswald took in Fort Worth, as we can see from Donald E. Brooks' Warren Commission testimony. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brooks.htm (press Ctrl and "F" simultaneously and then type in "ATB" to find it) Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether you made inquiry of the Fort Worth office as to whether they had what you call this ATB? Mr. BROOKS. This is something--oh, you mean, test records? Mr. JENNER. Yes. Mr. BROOKS. No, sir; I didn't, I am sure of this. The other office, Mrs. Cunningham, might have, but I didn't. (It's obvious to me now that Jenner was looking at "[G?]ATB" on the document and wasn't sure what the first letter was, so just referred to it as "ATB." Brooks didn't know what Jenner was referring to at first because he knew it as the "GATB" test. From an affidavit by Helen p. Cunningham, we can see the "[G?]ABT" stood for "General Aptitude Test Battery." http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/cunning1.htm Also note that "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" is written on the part of the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document called the "Test Record Card" which also includes the broken-down results from Oswald's GATB test. Note also that in bold print in the upper right hand corner of the document are the words "APTITUDE TEST BATTERIES." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm

David, Your buddy J. Edgar Hoover tried very hard to determine the identity of Sawyer's "Mysto Witness" and concluded that it was not Howard Brennan. Regarding the text of Sawyer's broadcast, I'd like to point out that "5-feet-10 and 165 pounds" is not "slender." In this regard, the broadcast itself smells "fishy," as though the DPD was trying to include what it learned about Oswald at the last minute with what the Mysto Witness had told Sawyer. --Tommy

No, David. I think that Baker and Truly both encountered Oswald in the second floor lunchroom just like they said they did, and Baker (and Brennan and Sawyer's Mysto Witness) simply hallucinated that puny, 131- pound Oswald weighed somewhere between 165 and 175 pounds. --Tommy

Tommy, Why have you put quote marks around something I have never once said and then put my initials after that quote as if I had actually uttered those words? I never said those words at all. I don't know exactly what Oswald weighed and I really don't care. The KEY is what those witnesses THOUGHT Oswald weighed. What he ACTUALLY weighed is immaterial. When will that important distinction sink in with CTers? DVP, I'm saying that three key witnesses -- Baker, Brennan, and Sawyer's "mystery witness" -- couldn't possibly have thought Oswald weighed somewhere between 165 and 175 pounds on 11/22/63. You keep saying that Baker encountered Oswald on the second floor. How do you know that to be true. Because Baker and Truly said so? --Tommy

Tommy, Why have you put quote marks around something I have never once said and then put my initials after that quote as if I had actually uttered those words? I never said those words at all. I don't know exactly what Oswald weighed and I really don't care. The KEY is what those witnesses THOUGHT Oswald weighed. What he ACTUALLY weighed is immaterial. When will that important distinction sink in with CTers? David, Fair enough, Is it fair then to say you think Oswald weighed closer to 150 lbs than to 131 lbs on 11/22/63? Should I revise the current tally to 5 to 0? --Tommy

Up to date tally: 5 to 1 (83% to 17%) --Tommy

Maybe that's a good thing, Jon. Not in the sense of encouraging us to "attack" each other, but engaging in constructive "peer review." Sharpening one's theory by arguing against DVP is a good thing, too. --Tommy

deleted

Tom Hume wrote: "F-i-n-i-s-h-e-d p-o-s-t-i-n-g" Let's break that down into its anagrams. There could be a secret message in it! --Tommy "F-i-n-i-s-h-e-d p-o-s-t-i-n-g" decoded = why are people so inconsiderate ?? ,gaal Yet another possibility: "Why are people so gullible?" --Tommy

Tom Hume wrote: "F-i-n-i-s-h-e-d p-o-s-t-i-n-g" Let's break that down into its anagrams. There could be a secret message in it! --Tommy

Tom Hume, Please give it up. I'm beginning to think you are a paid CIA "disinfo agent" sent here to give the whole world the impression that JFK Assassination CTers (like me) are a bunch of crackpots. But I'm not quite that paranoid. Yet. LOL You may have noticed that no one here is seriously interested in your "Oswald's Code" analysis? When's the last time an EF member replied to it in a positive kind of way? --Tommy

--Tommy PS I should have become a lawyer. I would have loved facing you in court. Because you don't like what someone else posted and I copied here you'd like to face me in court. That's funny. I will have you know I do very well in court. So I'd relish going against you in court. Alas, have you even taken your LSAT? Get back to me when you're licensed in TX. Have a good one. Dawn, The Reasonable Man (or The Reasonable Woman if you prefer) would assume that you wholeheartedly supported everything that you had posted / quoted from your "good George Bailey." Are you now disavowing any support for his statement, below? "And not only Federal but State documents also confirm this [that there was an Oswald "double"]. Such as a form from the Texas Employment Commission which documents a series of aptitude tests Lee Oswald completed that starts in April of 1962." --Tommy Please try to get your facts straight, counsellor. I took the LSAT many years ago, as you no doubt gathered from my EF "biography" which you read and commented upon right after I joined the EF in 2005. I did very well on the LSAT, thank you, and I'm proud to say that although I attended law school for only one year, at least I didn't flunk out. LOL In fact, my Legal Analysis professor, a former U.S. Supreme Court advocate, complemented me by saying that his general impression of me (based mostly on the legal "arguments" I made in class) was that I was already an attorney, and I did get the second-highest grade in my Torts class. It was my Contracts teacher who sucked so badly that I didn't even take the final exam... edited and bumped

--Tommy PS I should have become a lawyer. I would have loved facing you in court. Because you don't like what someone else posted and I copied here you'd like to face me in court. That's funny. I will have you know I do very well in court. So I'd relish going against you in court. Alas, have you even taken your LSAT? Get back to me when you're licensed in TX. Have a good one. Dawn, The Reasonable Man (or The Reasonable Woman if you prefer) would assume that you wholeheartedly supported everything that you had posted / quoted from your "good George Bailey." Are you now disavowing any support for his statement, below? "And not only Federal but State documents also confirm this [that there was an Oswald "double"]. Such as a form from the Texas Employment Commission which documents a series of aptitude tests Lee Oswald completed that starts in April of 1962." --Tommy Please try to get your facts straight. I took the LSAT many years ago, as you no doubt gathered from my EF "autobiography" which you read and commented upon right after I joined the EF. I did very well on the LSAT, thank you, and I'm proud to say that although I attended law school for only one year, at least I didn't flunk out. LOL In fact my Legal Analysis professor, a former U.S. Supreme Court advocate, complemented me by telling me that his general impression of me was that I was already an attorney (I was in my early 40's -- lol), and I did get the second-highest grade in my Torts class. It was my Contracts teacher who sucked so badly that I didn't even take the final exam...

Gee, Jim, how much heavier? Just a little, or a whole lot? Well, Baker said the guy he encountered (Oswald? Tan Jacket Man? Brown Jacket Man?) weighed 165 pounds, and we know that Oswald weighed only 131 pounds on 11/22/63, as documented on his DPD fingerprint card and which, by the way, is supported by the photographic evidence below which shows the skinny Oswald on 11/22/63. It sounds (and looks) like a big difference to me. Too big of a difference for Baker, Brennan, and J.Herbert Sawyer's "mystery witness" to make a mistake about if they really had encountered or seen Lee Harvey Oswald. That's my whole point. --Tommy bumped

Jimbo, With four consecutive posts, it looks like you're in the process of publishing another book on this thread. --Tommy

Gee, how much heavier? Just a little, or a whole lot? Well, Baker said the guy he encountered (Oswald? Tan Jacket Man? Brown Jacket Man?) weighed 165 pounds, and Oswald weighed only 131 pounds on 11/22/63, as documented on his DPD fingerprint card. Sounds like a big difference to me. Too big of a difference for Baker, Brennan, and J.Herbert Sawyer's "mystery witness" to make a mistake about if they really had encountered / seen Lee Harvey Oswald. --Tommy