Thomas Graves

[lost upon editing; luckily I had saved it in my word processing program] -- Yes he did, Clive. In post # 174 to be exact. It only took me half an hour to find it. Thanks. So they were taken during the same "session." Great! That should help us determine, from context, whether all of the photos taken of "Oswald" during that session were taken of your "Harvey" or your "Lee." The problem is, it's hard to know what you think your "Lee" looked like. All I've heard from the H&L folks so far is, "Well, since it would have been impossible for the bad guys to chose two unrelated boys who would just happen to grow up looking just like each other several years later, Harvey and Lee must have looked just barely enough alike to fool a whole lot of people." Question: What did "Lee" tell his friends, family, and acquaintances in the U.S. during the period of time that he was supposed to still be in the U.S.S.R.? "I just came back for a short visit. I'll be going back to Minsk in a couple of days?" The original photo that "Frankenstein Oswald" was based on looks to me a lot like the guy Jon Tidd calls "Marina's husband," whom I've always thought was Lee Harvey Oswwald, but you believe was "Harvey." The lame theory is that the bad guys altered it so that the friends and relatives of "Lee" in Fort Worth wouldn't not recognize him in the "Frankenstein" photo, and also in order to start conditions the public's minds to believe that the returning "Harvey" was really the returning "Lee." Something doesn't add up here. How can "Harvey" look so darn much like "Lee" at times, but so dissimilar at other times? I say that "Marina's husband" was Lee Harvey Oswald. We could go round and round in circles forever on this. Question: Have any of the Harvey and Lee crowd put together a two lists of photographs, one of "Harvey" and one of "Lee"? Or is that something that's impossible to do? Are there any photographs of "Oswald" in existence which are problematic for the Harvey and Lee people in that regard? In other words, photos of "Oswald" which the H & L folks don't know if they should put in the "Harvey" folder or the "Lee" folder? That would be interesting, but I seriously doubt it. Because "Harvey" and "Lee" could at any time look sufficiently alike each other, or sufficiently unalike each other, in order to fit into the Harvey and Lee theory, or at least not contradict it too much. --Tommy

David, I neglected to ask the follow up 101 question, if we're happy they're part of a set or at least a pair then where did the one on the left come from? Seems pretty memorable, was Robert asked about it? Also can anyone interested in this think of a legitimate reason for a newspaper man to block out that window? It's hardly going to identify the area as a military base if left alone. It would also be interesting I think to look at the rest of that FWST edition and see if any other image is as poor as the altered one we are focusing on. Two wild guesses. 1 ) No distracting / ugly window panes background? 2 ) Alterations to Lee Harvey Oswald's face would be less obvious with no grid-like, window pane background to deal with? --Tommy

Jim, Why didn't you post the whole book? LOL Kittrell was a bit of a nut case, described as a "frustrated old maid" and somewhat "squirrelly" by her boss. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60400&search=kittrell#relPageId=196&tab=page She thought some voting machines in Dallas had been purposefully broken and persistently insisted that the FBI correct the problem. One-and-one-half years after the assassination, she sent a rambling, handwritten (and literally slanted) fourteen-page letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy about her experiences regarding "The Two Oswalds" at the Fort Worth TEC. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60400&search=kittrell#relPageId=203&tab=page She doesn't come across as a credible witness to me. BTW, The guy in the black motorcycle jacket does sound like Larry Crafard, although Kittrell doesn't say anything about his missing front teeth. Maybe she found that so gosh darn unpleasant to look at that she blotted it out from her old maid memory. Or maybe Crafard didn't smile much or open his mouth very much when he spoke. The long-sleeved motorcycle jacket would have covered his tattoos, wouldn't it. You quoted Armstrong: "In early October (probably October 8th) Laura was interviewing a colored woman who wanted to quit domestic employment and find work as a trainee in an electronics factory. During the interview the woman told Laura that she used to work as a maid for [...] Murray Chotiner in California." Why would the black lady "drop" Chotiner's name unless Chotiner was well known outside of California, too, and the lady thought the fact she had worked for him would impress Kittrell? Chotiner was already well known when he was Nixon's vice presidential campaign manager during the 1952 elections, and would have received national "press" in that regard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Chotiner Also, an infamous double murder occurred in attorney / former Nixon campaign manager Chotiner's office in July of 1957, and it received a lot of publicity immediately afterwards and during the trial, at which Chotiner was a major witness. Chotinier was even considered a suspect for a while. http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/174/281.html Lastly, why did Kitterell express in her June, 1965, letter to RFK that she had been very reluctant to mention the Fort Worth TEC "Chotiner incident" in it if not for the fact that Kitterell was already aware of Chotinier's notoriety and knew that many other people were aware of it, too? Therefore, it's not surprising that the guy in the black motorcycle jacket had heard of Chotiner, especially if that guy was Larry Crafard, employee of Jack Ruby, whom some say was introduced to Nixon by Chotinier in 1947. http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/fact-check/fact-check-did-richard-nixon-know-jack-ruby/ You know, Jim, I'm starting to think that Larry Crafard and The Two Oswalds were chosen many, many years earlier to participate in the Harvey and Lee and Larry tripleganger project because they all looked so much alike. LOL --Tommy edited and bumped

Paul, Of course all the Fort Worth TEC documents on The Two Oswalds disappeared the day after the assassination. We just have to take Kittrell's word for everything that went on there, don't we. --Tommy

Jim, Why didn't you post the whole book? LOL Kittrell was a bit of a nut case, described as a "frustrated old maid" and somewhat "squirrelly" by her boss. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60400&search=kittrell#relPageId=196&tab=page She thought some voting machines in Dallas had been purposefully broken and persistently insisted that the FBI correct the problem. One-and-one-half years after the assassination, she sent a rambling, handwritten (and literally slanted) fourteen-page letter to Attorney General Robert Kennedy about her experiences regarding "The Two Oswalds" at the Fort Worth TEC. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60400&search=kittrell#relPageId=203&tab=page She doesn't come across as a credible witness to me. BTW, The guy in the black motorcycle jacket does sound like Larry Crafard, although Kittrell doesn't say anything about his missing front teeth. Maybe she found that so gosh darn unpleasant to look at that she blotted it out from her old maid memory. Or maybe Crafard didn't smile much or open his mouth very much when he spoke. The long-sleeved motorcycle jacket would have covered his tattoos, wouldn't it. You quoted Armstrong: "In early October (probably October 8th) Laura was interviewing a colored woman who wanted to quit domestic employment and find work as a trainee in an electronics factory. During the interview the woman told Laura that she used to work as a maid for [...] Murray Chotiner in California." Why would the black lady "drop" Chotiner's name unless Chotiner was well known outside of California, too, and the lady thought the fact she had worked for him would impress Kittrell? Chotiner was already well known when he was Nixon's vice presidential campaign manager during the 1952 elections, and would have received national "press" in that regard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Chotiner Also, an infamous double murder occurred in attorney / former Nixon campaign manager Chotiner's office in July of 1957, and it received a lot of publicity immediately afterwards and during the trial, at which Chotiner was a major witness. Chotinier was even considered a suspect for a while. http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/174/281.html Lastly, why did Kitterell express in her June, 1965, letter to RFK that she had been very reluctant to mention the Fort Worth TEC "Chotiner incident" if not for the fact that Kitterell was already aware of Chotinier's notoriety and knew that many other people were aware of it, too? Therefore, it's not surprising that the guy in the black motorcycle jacket had heard of Chotiner, especially if that guy was Larry Crafard, employee of Jack Ruby, whom some say was introduced to Nixon by Chotinier in 1946 or 1947. You know, Jim, I'm starting to think that Larry Crafard and The Two Oswalds were chosen many, many years earlier to participate in the Harvey and Lee and Larry tripleganger project because they all looked so much alike. LOL --Tommy

Bart, IMHO, it's the same happy-looking young guy with the same "baby fat" face wearing the same Marine Corps(?) blouse with the same starched collar in the same crummy kind of photograph taken from different camera angles. It looks like Lee Harvey Oswald could very well have been standing in front of that single-story building behind the car on the right when the touched-up "Frankenstein" photo of him was taken of him that day. Great find! It's interesting to note that his name badge or "USMC" badge is on the opposite side of his Marine Corps(?) blouse in this photo that the "Frankenstein Oswald" photo, leading me to speculate that one of the photos was "reversed." Note how the hairlines look "different" because of that, but actually they are mirror images of each other. The hairlines are actually identical. --Tommy PS-- This is from Hargrove's website. He says the top one is "Harvey" and the bottom one is "Lee," but note how Lee Harvey Oswald's eyes and ears are the same in both photos. edited a little and bumped Bumped in an effort to get this thread back on track. Why not start a new thread on "The Two Marguerites"?

Robert, In another Dunckel image from the Darnell clip, you can see Baker's right leg and foot on the first step. I'll try to find it and post it here. --Tommy

Robin, I'm almost certain this Roy Truly here: Baker brushed passed him and Truly followed him up the steps to the front entrance. Yes, Sean, I believe that's Truly. At the beginning of the clip, below, I think you can see him communicating from a distance with that "great big husky fellow," Jack Dougherty, the big, dumpy-looking guy who pivots and starts walking towards the TSBD. Is this possible Dougherty figure wearing some kind of a cap? [Darnell clip. Stabilized by Gerda Dunckel.] --Tommy

Though this is not the "Three Tramps" moment, one of the figures ID'd as Lansdale seems to be crossing right-to-left in front of the traffic island bordering Elm Street. I agree, David. I noticed a possible "Lansdale" figure in these separate clips some time ago but never mentioned it. The dark-suited guy I'm talking about is walking pretty fast down Elm Street, next to the right curb. This montage is fantastic in helping us connect some dots, IMHO. --Tommy

Regarding the Darnell clip, I've made some observations about Baker, Lovelady, Shelley, and the diminutive, dark-suited, hat-wearing Roy Truly (whom I think is visible in it). (Moved here from another thread) Actually we don't, J. Raymond. All we have is film of him or another motorcycle officer running towards the steps. --Tommy Well if it is not Marion Baker shown in the Darnell film , then can you please name who it is? J. Raymond, Whoever it was (and I think it was Baker) he wasn't filmed actually running up the steps and entering the TSBD. Almost, but not quite. Unfortunately, Darnell started panning to the left at that point and "Baker" goes out of the frame. Here's the pertinent, stabilized segment from the Darnell film: BTW, isn't that diminutive, hat-and-dark-suit-wearing Roy Truly standing several feet in front of "Stetson Man"? He turns clockwise and watches "Baker" after the motorcycle policeman runs past him. No, I'm not talking about the big guy who turns and starts walking towards the TSBD to the right of "Stetson Man." The little, suit-and-hat-wearing guy I'm talking about is a little farther away, and to the left, directly in front of "Stetson Man." Isn't that little guy truly Roy Truly? Who is that big, lumbering, dumpy-looking guy on the right, anyway? He seems to be wearing a cap of some kind. Could that be the guy that Truly described as "a great big husky fellow," Jack Edwin Dougherty? If you look closely, you can see that these "Truly" and "Dougherty" figures seem to be communicating with each other, from a distance, at the beginning. [Credit: Gerda Dunckel] I think the motorcycle cop in this clip probably did run up the steps because he's still running fast when he gets to them, and the tall, dark-suited man at the base of the steps side-steps out of his way and motions him up the steps with his left hand. Question: Could that be Lovelady rising up from a kneeling or sitting position on the far left side of the steps, or is it a woman wearing a light-colored head scarf (which looks like a face) walking slowly up them? I personally think that Lovelady and Shelley were "captured" in the same film and Couch's a few seconds earlier while walking down the Elm Street Extension, so IMHO that couldn't be Lovelady rising up on the steps. When James Darnell's or Malcolm Couch's films are blown up and shown in super slow motion, I recognize the heads, hairlines, physiques, profiles, and clothing of L & S there on the Elm Street Extension sidewalk. Yes, I know that their testimony regarding their actions and the timing and Calvary and Truly and Baker is very problematic, but I still think it's Lovelady and Shelley walking down the Elm Street Extension sidewalk towards the railway yard. I am willing to be persuaded, photographically speaking, otherwise. --Tommy

It's kinda hard to find, so I thought I'd start a thread on it. Darnell starts on the left, and Couch starts on the right. Great work by Gerda Dunckel: http://www.abload.de/img/darnellcouchsync24fpsa6kkb.gif --Tommy

Actually we don't, J. Raymond. All we have is film of him or another motorcycle officer running towards the steps. --Tommy Well if it is not Marion Baker shown in the Darnell film , then can you please name who it is? The point is, whoever it was (and I think it was Baker) was not captured on film actually running up the steps and entering the TSBD. Almost, but not quite. Unfortunately, the cameraman started something different at that point and that scene is no longer in view. Here's the pertinent stabilized segment from the Darnell film. I do believe that the policeman (Baker?) ran up the steps because the man in the dark suit at the base of the steps seems to step out of his way and motion him up them with his left arm. Question: Is that Lovelady rising up from a kneeling or sitting position on the far left side of the steps, or is it a woman wearing a light-colored head scarf walking slowly up them? I personally think that Lovelady and Shelley were "captured" in the same film a few seconds earlier while walking down the sidewalk of the Elm Street Extension. When Gerda's clips are loading on my laptop and are being shown in slow motion, I think I recognize the heads, hairlines, physiques, profiles, and clothing of L & S. Yes, I know that their testimony regarding speaking with Gloria Calvary and seeing Truly and Baker enter the TSBD is very problematic, but I still think it's them walking down the Elm Street Extension. Credit: Gerda Dunckel --Tommy edited and bumped

Actually we don't, J. Raymond. All we have is film of him or another motorcycle officer running towards the steps. --Tommy Well if it is not Marion Baker shown in the Darnell film , then can you please name who it is? J. Raymond, Whoever it was (and I think it was Baker) he was unfortunately not filmed running up the steps and entering the TSBD. Almost, but not quite. Unfortunately, the cameraman started filming something else at that point. Here's the pertinent, stabilized segment from the Darnell film. Credit: Gerda Dunckel I think that this motorcycle cop probably did run up the steps because he's still running fast when he gets to them, and the tall man in the dark suit steps out of his way and motions him up the steps with his left hand. Question: Could that be Lovelady rising up from a kneeling or sitting position on the far left side of the steps, or is it a woman wearing a light-colored head scarf (which looks like a face) walking slowly up them? I personally think that Lovelady and Shelley were "captured" in the same film a few seconds earlier while walking down the Elm Street Extension, so IMHO that couldn't be Lovelady on the steps as the motorcycle copy is running towards them. I think it's a woman wearing a headscarf walking slowly up the steps. When an earlier part Darnell's film is shown in super slow motion, I recognize the heads, hairlines, physiques, profiles, and clothing of L & S there on the Elm Street Extension sidewalk. Yes, I know that their testimony regarding their actions and the timing and Calvary and Truly and Baker is very problematic, but I still think it's Lovelady and Shelley walking down the Elm Street Extension sidewalk. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise. BTW, isn't that diminutive, hat-and-dark-suit-wearing Roy Truly standing several feet in front of "Stetson Man"? He turns and watches "Baker" after "Baker" has run past him. I'm not talking about the big, dumpy-looking guy (who is not wearing a suit) to the right of "Stetson Man," and who is turning and walking towards the TSBD. The guy I'm talking about is farther away, and to the left, more directly in front of "Stetson Man." Who is that big, lumbering, dumpy-looking guy, anyway? Edit: I think it's Jack Edwin Dougherty, whom Truly described as "a great big husky fellow" in his WC testimony. --Tommy

Actually we don't, J. Raymond. All we have is film of him or another motorcycle officer running towards the steps. --Tommy

Robert, Sorry to nitpick, but wasn't Roy Truly a witness, too, and didn't he claim he saw Baker enter the TSBD? Yes, I know that Truly's testimony is just as suspect as Lovelady's and Shelley's. Just sayin'. --Tommy

Bart, IMHO, it's the same happy-looking young guy with the same "baby fat" face wearing the same Marine Corps(?) blouse with the same starched collar in the same crummy kind of photograph taken from different camera angles. It looks like Lee Harvey Oswald could very well have been standing in front of that single-story building behind the car on the right when the touched-up "Frankenstein" photo of him was taken of him that day. Great find! It's interesting to note that his name badge or "USMC" badge is on the opposite side of his Marine Corps(?) blouse in this photo that the "Frankenstein Oswald" photo, leading me to speculate that one of the photos was "reversed." Note how the hairlines look "different" because of that, but actually they are mirror images of each other. The hairlines are actually identical. --Tommy PS-- This is from Hargrove's website. He says the top one is "Harvey" and the bottom one is "Lee," but note how Lee Harvey Oswald's eyes and ears are the same in both photos. edited a little and bumped

Believe whatever you want! The Thought Police, whatever else we've been through, still are not in charge. I think the evidence shows that "Lee Harvey Oswald" worked for U.S. Intelligence.... .... and that there were at least two guys sharing the same name and job description. EVERYONE, including you, is free to disagree. I don't care! But the HIT SQUADS clearly at work here on EF against Harvey & Lee remind me that John A. seems, quite obviously, to be on to something dangerous! Gee, Jim, I don't care that you don't care what I think. How do you like those apples? As far as "The hit squads clearly at work here on the EF against Harvey and Lee remind me that Armstrong seems, quite obviously, to be on to something dangerous!," should I try using "reverse psychology" on you instead, and praise his mistakes rather than pointing them out? Don't get all paranoid on us, Jim. BTW, "seems, quite obviously" is a contradiction in terms. Have you corrected the little mistake yet that I found on your website? --Tommy

Yes, Jim. I find that fascinating and worthy of research. But I don't see how it lends credence to the Harvey and Lee doppelganger-from-childhood theory. I think many people were mistakenly remembered as Oswald, especially after the assassination. That doesn't mean they were all impersonating him, or he them. --Tommy

Bumped for Steven Gaal. The date is mentioned in that evil, evil document known as Cunningham Exhibit No. 2, Steve. Or is it 2-A? Cunningham is on record elsewhere as saying that Oswald told her that he had already taken some tests at the Fort Worth office. He probably told that he had taken those tests in June (an easy month for him to remember correctly because that's when he and his family had arrived in Fort Worth from Minsk). That would explain why she wrote down in the "comments" section, "GATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962." Did you expect her to write on Cunningham Exhibit No. 4, "I requested today and received by teletype from Fort Worth the GABT results which this important-to-document future assassin-doppelganger said he took there in June, 1962" and upon receipt of it I was able to determine that he had indeed told me the truth" ? Bear in mind that the Fort Worth TEC office teletyped just the test results, the scores, to Cunningham, they didn't mail her the paperwork about Oswald's Fort Worth TEC visit. It wasn't necessary to do so because Cunningham and Brooks were going to re-interview him in Dallas anyway. Why would it have been important for her to verify the Fort Worth test date, much less document that verification? Just getting the four-month-old results from Fort Worth were evidently good enough for her. There was also no need for Cunningham to testify as to why she had written "GATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" in the "comments" section because no one asked her about it. Maybe there were lots of more important questions to ask her at that time than, "Did he really take the GABT test in Fort Worth in June like you wrote in the "comments" section on 10/10/62?". Cunningham was kind of a prickly, hostile, bureaucratic-like witness, anyway, and didn't volunteer a whole lot of information. It was like pulling teeth with her. Why would a hostile witness like her volunteer that information in particular, especially if she hadn't verified it in the first place? PS Would one of my "tag team partners" Greg, Tracy, or Bernie please take over now? I'm starting to get a headache from trying to make sense out of his graphically and grammatically-challenged posts...

Did he play the piano in Vietnam? --Tommy

Steven, "No testimony about FT Worth Test Record Card." What does FT Worth mean? Do you mean Fort Worth or Ft. Worth? See, mistakes are human, aren't they. Let me ask you, why in the world would the WC publish the Fort Worth Test Record Card information twice, Steve, when Oswald was given the test only once (in Fort Worth) and its broken-down results were incorporated into the 10/10/62 Dallas document? Ya gotta realize that the Dallas office didn't give Oswald a time-consuming GATB. Why? Because he'd already taken it only four months earlier in June. The only kind of "test" that the Dallas office gave him was an "Interests" checklist. Mrs. Helen P. Cunningham indicated that the broken-down GATB results on the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document were from the test Oswald had taken in Fort Worth in June, 1962. She did this by writing "[G?]ABT in Fort Worth -- June 1962" in the "comments" section. A few inches under that, where it asked for the current date, she wrote 10/10/62. Why do you think she or a Dallas co-worker wrote "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" in the "comments" section of that document? Have you looked at the document? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm --Tommy Let me ask you, why in the world would the WC publish the Fort Worth Test Record Card information twice, Steve, when Oswald was given the test only once (in Fort Worth) and its broken-down results were incorporated into the 10/10/62 Dallas document? // GRAVES ================================================================= ANSWER As I stated NO TESTIMONY OF TEST DATES , NO TESTIMONY FERIFYING [sIC] DOCUMENT Fort Worth Test Record Card .....FORGERY funny how they fiddled with the documents ...one called 2 other document 2A see below , ,did you even look at the documents ?? GAAL +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ =============================== http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm WC XIX 401 ==================== http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm WC XIX 402 -------------------- see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=307094 = FORGERY BUREAU OF IMITATION FBI , gaal ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mrs. Helen P. Cunningham indicated that the broken-down GATB results on the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document were from the test Oswald had taken in Fort Worth in June, 1962. She did this by writing "[G?]ABT in Fort Worth -- June 1962" in the "comments" section. A few inches under that, where it asked for the current date, she wrote 10/10/62. The following is from her June 11, 1964, affidavit: 4. As it appears from the entries in my hand on the reverse side of Cunningham Exhibit No. 4, I recorded the fact that I obtained Oswald's "General Aptitude Test" battery results from the Fort Worth office of the Texas Employment Commission. I concluded after examining the GATB obtained from the Fort Worth office and after interviewing Oswald that because he was in great financial need for immediate employment, that I should classify him for clerical work and I noted on the face of the card the proper clerical code, being 1-X 4.9. [...] // GRAVES http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0212a.htm Cunningham Exhibit No. 4 not odd ball Cunningham Exhibit No.2 and Cunningham Exhibit No. 2A GAAL What time do you go to bed? I'm gonna have to start posting on this thread after you've gone to sleep because you keep replying while I'm still editing. Cunningham Exhibit No. 4: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0212a.htm YES I LOOK AT IT AND SEE NO JUNE DATE PLEAEE HIGHLIGHT FOR ME. gaal ==================================== The June date is mentioned on that evil, evil document known as Cunningham Exhibit No. 2, Steve. Or is it 2-A? You know, after Oswald probably told her on 10/10/62 that he had taken a battery of tests in Fort Worth in June and she wrote in the "comments' section, "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" ??? Did you expect her to write on Cunningham Exhibit No. 4, "I requested today and received by teletype from Fort Worth the GABT results which this important-to-document future assassin doppelganger says he took there in June, 1962" ? Why would it have been important for her to document her verification of the date of his test in Fort Worth if he had taken it only a few months earlier and told her the truth about the date, anyway? --Tommy

Steven, "No testimony about FT Worth Test Record Card." What does FT Worth mean? Do you mean Fort Worth or Ft. Worth? See, mistakes are human, aren't they. Let me ask you, why in the world would the WC publish the Fort Worth Test Record Card information twice, Steve, when Oswald was given the test only once (in Fort Worth) and its broken-down results were incorporated into the 10/10/62 Dallas document? Ya gotta realize that the Dallas office didn't give Oswald a time-consuming GATB. Why? Because he'd already taken it only four months earlier in June. The only kind of "test" that the Dallas office gave him was an "Interests" checklist. Mrs. Helen P. Cunningham indicated that the broken-down GATB results on the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document were from the test Oswald had taken in Fort Worth in June, 1962. She did this by writing "[G?]ABT in Fort Worth -- June 1962" in the "comments" section. A few inches under that, where it asked for the current date, she wrote 10/10/62. Why do you think she or a Dallas co-worker wrote "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" in the "comments" section of that document? Have you looked at the document? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm --Tommy Let me ask you, why in the world would the WC publish the Fort Worth Test Record Card information twice, Steve, when Oswald was given the test only once (in Fort Worth) and its broken-down results were incorporated into the 10/10/62 Dallas document? // GRAVES ================================================================= ANSWER As I stated NO TESTIMONY OF TEST DATES , NO TESTIMONY FERIFYING [sIC] DOCUMENT Fort Worth Test Record Card .....FORGERY funny how they fiddled with the documents ...one called 2 other document 2A see below , ,did you even look at the documents ?? GAAL +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ =============================== http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm WC XIX 401 ==================== http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm WC XIX 402 -------------------- see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=307094 = FORGERY BUREAU OF IMITATION FBI , gaal ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mrs. Helen P. Cunningham indicated that the GATB results on the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document were from the test Oswald had taken in Fort Worth in June, 1962. She did this by writing "[G?]ABT in Fort Worth -- June 1962" in the "comments" section. A few inches under that, where it asked for the current date, she wrote 10/10/62. The following is from her June 11, 1964, affidavit: 4. As it appears from the entries in my hand on the reverse side of Cunningham Exhibit No. 4, I recorded the fact that I obtained Oswald's "General Aptitude Test" battery results from the Fort Worth office of the Texas Employment Commission. I concluded after examining the GATB obtained from the Fort Worth office and after interviewing Oswald that because he was in great financial need for immediate employment, that I should classify him for clerical work and I noted on the face of the card the proper clerical code, being 1-X 4.9. [...] // GRAVES http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0212a.htm Cunningham Exhibit No. 4 not odd ball Cunningham Exhibit No.2 and Cunningham Exhibit No. 2A GAAL What time do you go to bed? I'm gonna have to start posting on this thread after you've gone to sleep because you keep replying while I'm still editing. Cunningham Exhibit No. 4: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0212a.htm Oh and BTW-- FORGERY funny how they fiddled with the documents ...one called 2 other document 2A see below , ,did you even look at the documents ?? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm WC XIX 401 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm WC XIX 402 Steven, Do you ever test the links you've posted? Hint: The two above are "Not Found." See, mistakes are human, aren't they. You should have "proofread" them after you posted them. --Tommy And look! There's a 1 and a 1-A, too! I'm sure there's something very very evil about that. And the WC was very stupid too to publish such glaring proof of the FBI's forgeries, too! LOL

Steven, "No testimony about FT Worth Test Record Card." What does FT Worth mean? Do you mean Fort Worth or Ft. Worth? See, mistakes are human, aren't they. Let me ask you, why in the world would the WC publish the Fort Worth Test Record Card information twice, Steve, when Oswald was given the test only once (in Fort Worth) and its results were incorporated into the 10/10/62 Dallas document? Ya gotta realize that the Dallas office didn't give Oswald a time-consuming GATB. Why? Because he'd already taken it only four months earlier in June. The only kind of "test" that the Dallas office gave him was an "Interests" checklist. Mrs. Helen P. Cunningham indicated that the broken-down GATB results on the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document were from the test Oswald had taken in Fort Worth in June, 1962. She did this by writing "[G?]ABT in Fort Worth -- June 1962" in the "comments" section. A few inches under that, where it asked for the current date, she wrote 10/10/62. The following is from her June 11, 1964, affidavit: 4. As it appears from the entries in my hand on the reverse side of Cunningham Exhibit No. 4, I recorded the fact that I obtained Oswald's "General Aptitude Test" battery results from the Fort Worth office of the Texas Employment Commission. I concluded after examining the GATB obtained from the Fort Worth office and after interviewing Oswald that because he was in great financial need for immediate employment, that I should classify him for clerical work and I noted on the face of the card the proper clerical code, being 1-X 4.9. [...] http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/cunning1.htm Why do you think she wrote "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" in the "comments" section of that document? Have you looked at the document? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm --Tommy

The only case being made here by Steve is this: there is no such thing as human error. If someone writes 4/62 then that is irrefutably correct. He simply repeated the tests during June. Anyone can see that two different dates indicates two lots of tests at FW. What you need to understand, Tommy, is that you are not dealing with reality as we know it, This reality exists in a completely different dimension. It's the duality thing again. The same, but different. Depending on the viewer's needs. It's a wonderful world to visit, Tommy. But you wouldn't want to live there. Well then that's really ironic, isn't it, Greg. Because he makes so many of them himself. Like writing "4/22" instead of "4/62" recently, for example. And he missed it (twice?) when I tried to point it out to him. How wonderfully ironic. --Tommy That's exactly that the sort of deep warping that can occur when you're stuck between these alternate dimensions. I know that that wasn't a grammar mistake you made. It's an evil, secret, hidden code. --Tommy