Thomas Graves

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 PS Yes. Especially when the "two test dates" you're talking about are written in different ways on two different documents, and the results of only one of them (the one taken in June 1962) are broken down.

[...] [...] Graves re Texas Employment Commission document of LHO: So, what does the "4/62" stand for on the page, above? Is it a typo for "4/63"? Unlikely, because it's written twice. [...] Stephen, 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: It 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. 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" and 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 [...] Stephen, try to get it straight for once. You can't get around the fact that the 10/10/62 Dallas TEC "Aptitude Test Batteries" / "Test Record Card" document says "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962." http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210b.htm IMHO, this indicates that Oswald took the General Aptitude Test Battery in Fort Worth in June of 1962, not April. What do you take "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" to mean? The "4/62" written twice by the same person on another 10/10/62 Dallas TEC document was a simple mistake made by someone, probably Mrs. Cunningham, who wrote "4/62," instead of "6/62," for June, 1962, which represented not only the date that Oswald had moved to Texas from Minsk, but also the date that Oswald had first contacted the TEC, in Fort Worth, and had taken the GATB test there -- "June 1962". When Jenner saw "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" on the document, he couldn't make out the first letter, so asked Brooks about "ATB," instead, which Brooks correctly took him to mean the test results ("GATB"). So what if Jenner didn't ask Brooks about the date that Oswald had taken the "ATB" / "GATB" test in Fort Worth? Brooks wasn't the Dallas TEC employee who had requested those results from Fort Worth. Helen P. Cunningham was. And there was no need to ask anyone about it anyway, because Cunningham had written on the document "[G]ATB in Fort Worth -- JUNE 1962." Whatever. I'm not going to argue with you about this anymore. So you can declare yourself "the winner" if you want to, but I think more level-headed members and guests will realize that I've made my case regarding "[G?]ATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962". --Tommy

And why do they continue to allow us to express our opinions? Those clever devils. --Tommy

Dear Steven, I've highlighted your little mistake, above, in bold red to make it really easy for you to find. You probably meant to write 4/62, instead. Right? Or do you really think that Harvey or Lee went into the Texas Employment Commission in April of 1922? --Tommy YES 4/62 ,gaal see http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&p=306816 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Graves re Texas Employment Commission document of LHO >>>>>>>> So, what does the "4/62" stand for on the page, above? Is it a typo for "4/63"? Unlikely, because it's written twice. <<<<<<<< ========================================= http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://usvsth3m.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/1rpKtMG.jpg&imgrefurl=http://usvsth3m.com/post/88365063778/a-guest-post-author-john-higgs-explains-why-we&h=289&w=600&tbnid=j-eh_c-eQgyiiM:&zoom=1&docid=oea2pftxlm57XM&ei=ZmWNVYrfNcigoQSkr5aYCw&tbm=isch&ved=0CCQQMygHMAc ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] now for something totally uplifting = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dZMBrGGmeE Stephen, 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

Dear Steven, I've highlighted your little mistake, above, in bold red to make it really easy for you to find. You probably meant to write 4/62, instead. Right? Or do you really think that Harvey or Lee went into the Texas Employment Commission in April of 1922? --Tommy

Tommy, as far as I can tell, they didn't publish them - again acting on memory, but this was possibly because Cunningham obtained the results and transcribed them into her file on Oswald. Yet again from memory, it was someone at FW TEC who contacted Peter Gregory for Oswald re his Russian language skills. Yes, Greg. I'll look up the name of the gal at the Fort Worth TEC in a minute. [EDIT: Greg, The name Annie Laurie Smith comes to mind. As does the name Virginia Hale. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/wh22_ce_1389.pdf ] Meanwhile, for your enjoyment here's another huge mistake on Jim Hargrove's website. I wonder if he'll thank me for bringing it to his attention? -- About 1/3 down the page, Hargrove writes: "NOTE: In 1963 [sic; it was actually in 1962] Lee HARVEY Oswald was interviewed by TEC counselors Helen Cunningham, Don Brooks, and Laura Kittrell. None of these counselors were interviewed by the Warren Commission and all TEC records of their interviews with Oswald were given to the FBI and disappeared." http://harveyandlee.net/1956/1956.html Well, prickly Mrs. Helen P. Cunningham's testimony starts on page 117 of Warren Commission Hearings Volume X. And anxious Donald L. Brooks' testimony starts on page 143 of the same WC volume. And here's a nice June 11, 1964, affidavit by the very same Mrs. Helen P. Cunningham: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/cunning1.htm So much for Hargrove's assertion that Cunningham and Brooks weren't interviewed by the Warren Commission. We already know from earlier posts in this thread http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm that it's not true that "all TEC records of their interviews with Oswald were given to the FBI and disappeared." LOL --Tommy edited and bumped for Greg Parker

Bart, It's the same happy-looking young guy with the same face wearing the same white t-shirt under same Marine Corps(?) blouse with the same starched collar in the same crummy kind of photograph. Oswald could very well have been standing in front of that lower, single-story building on the far right behind the car when the "Frankenstein" photo of him was taken of him that day. Great find! --Tommy

Steve, 4/22 ? Didn't you mean to write 4/62? LOL --Tommy

Are you really surprised by any of that? I can see Jim slowly distancing himself from Harvey & Lee and adopting the far more plausible Bernie & Bob theory any day now... Actually I am, Greg. I didn't realize that his website was so inaccurate until now. Of course I hadn't looked at his website until now, either. LOL --Tommy

Yes, Greg. I'll look up the name of the gal at the Fort Worth TEC in a minute. EDIT: Greg, The name Annie Laurie Smith comes to mind. As does the name Virginia Hale. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/wh22_ce_1389.pdf --Tommy Meanwhile, for your enjoyment here's another huge mistake on Jim Hargrove's website. I wonder if he'll thank me for bringing it to his attention? -- About 1/3 down the page, Hargrove writes: "NOTE: In 1963 [sic; it was actually in 1962] Lee HARVEY Oswald was interviewed by TEC counselors Helen Cunningham, Don Brooks, and Laura Kittrell. None of these counselors were interviewed by the Warren Commission and all TEC records of their interviews with Oswald were given to the FBI and disappeared." http://harveyandlee.net/1956/1956.html Well, prickly Mrs. Helen P. Cunningham's testimony starts on page 117 of Warren Commission Hearings Volume X. And anxious Donald L. Brooks' testimony starts on page 143 of the same WC volume. And here's a nice June 11, 1964, affidavit by the very same Mrs. Helen P. Cunningham: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/cunning1.htm So much for Hargrove's assertion that Cunningham and Brooks weren't interviewed by the Warren Commission. We already know from earlier posts in this thread http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm that it's not true that "all TEC records of their interviews with Oswald were given to the FBI and disappeared." LOL --Tommy

Steve, So that incorrect reference to "page 491 volume 19 (WarrenVolumes) [sic] was from Harvey and Lee ? Too bad you didn't realize it was a bad WC reference before you posted it as though it was Gospel Truth from Harvey and Lee. Makes one wonder how many other mistakes Armstrong made in that book. --Tommy PS Regarding your precious "4/62," Greg Parker has already pointed out to us that a 10/10/62 Texas Employment Commission document about Lee H. Oswald says "Date in Fort Worth -- June, 1962," which jibes with the date Oswald and family are known to have moved to Fort Worth from Minsk. Greg rightly points out that Mrs. Cunningham of the Texas Employment Commission probably made a simple mistake when she wrote "4/62" instead of "6/62" (for June, 1962) on another 10/10/62 Texas Employment Commission document about Oswald. Please note that any other explanation makes no sense at all in the context of Cunningham's WC testimony (in which she says that Oswald first came into the Texas Employment Office "on 10/9/62 or 10/10/62"), as well as in the context of all the other dates listed on that document and all the other documents associated with it. Anna Lewis says Feb 1962 is when see meets Lee Oswald... with ample opportunity to cut, retake, and get it right... she repeats, Jan-Apr 1962.... / JOSEPHS And what encouragement did she receive from anyone "to get it right"? Anna Lewis is about the furthest thing any honest investigator would try and use to negate all the other evidence. That you guys use her says it all about your agenda. Absolutely disgusting. Greg, Thanks for pointing out in your previous post that Oswald had already been tested at the Fort Worth TEC office in June, 1962. The important thing is that H&L's precious "4/62" can be explained as a simple mistake made by Mrs. Cunningham when she should have written "6/62" for June, 1962, the date that Oswald and family moved to Fort Worth from Minsk, a date that Cunninham was aware of, as indicated by her "Date in Fort Worth -- June, 1962" notation regarding Lee H. Oswald on another 10/10/62 TEC document. Can you please provide a link to any of Oswald's TEC Fort Worth documents from June, 1962? Thanks, --Tommy

Yes, Ron. I think that all U.S. mass murders are government agents. Don't you? LOL --Tommy

Steve, So that incorrect reference to "page 491 volume 19 (WarrenVolumes) [sic] was from Harvey and Lee ? Too bad you didn't realize it was a bad WC reference before you posted it as though it was Gospel Truth from Harvey and Lee. Makes one wonder how many other mistakes Armstrong made in that book. --Tommy PS Regarding your precious "4/62," Greg Parker has already pointed out to us that a 10/10/62 Texas Employment Commission document about Lee H. Oswald says "Date in Fort Worth -- June, 1962," which jibes with the date Oswald and family are known to have moved to Fort Worth from Minsk. Greg rightly points out that Mrs. Cunningham of the Texas Employment Commission probably made a simple mistake when she wrote "4/62" instead of "6/62" (for June, 1962) on another 10/10/62 Texas Employment Commission document about Oswald. Please note that any other explanation makes no sense at all in the context of Cunningham's WC testimony (in which she says that Oswald first came into the Texas Employment Office "on 10/9/62 or 10/10/62"), as well as in the context of all the other dates listed on that document and all the other documents associated with it.

Gaal wrote: "Marguerite's uncle law partner was a United Fruit lawyer and she got a receptionist job at Standard Fruit pre WW II . Standard Fruit and United Fruit were at loggerheads till 1942. She may have been a United Fruit spy on Standard Fruit. United Fruit worked with ONI circa WWI. It could be Marguerite was a ONI asset against the NJ Nazi. (Per Linda Minor she also did date a number of Navy men). gaal (PS receptionist "CAN BE" good place for a spy)" Steve, Didn't you mean to put an apostrophe and an "s" after the word "uncle"? Also, you wrote "Nazi" singular, so precisely which "NJ Nazi" are you talking about? --Tommy PS Your posts are hard enough to understand (as several people have mentioned) even without such boo-boos. PPS So let me get this straight -- a law partner of Marguerite's uncle was a United Fruit lawyer, and she got a job as a receptionist at Standard Fruit? Wow. And Holy Toledo, United Fruit worked with ONI circa WWI (which ended in 1918)? Wowie zowie. United Fruit started working with ONI circa WWI and later WWII and probably past that time WOW !! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM No need to overreact, Steve. Take some deep breaths. It's still unintelligible, Steve. Do you proofread your posts before or even after you post them? Could you please write in complete sentences? You seem to be trying to say that United Fruit started working with ONI twice -- the first time around WWI, and then again during WWII. BTW, what about your earlier post on this thread in which you said (in red-colored font) that a particular WC document about Oswald's alleged April, 1962, dealings with the Texas Employment Commission could be found in "on page 491 Volume 19 (WarrenVolumes)" [sic] ? Where did you get that bad information? Harvey and Lee ? Or was it just carelessness on your part? Gall wrote (without sourcing): "In April, 1962 LEE Harvey Oswald visited the Texas Employment Commission in Ft. Worth and filled out form E-40a, Aptitude Profile Test (APT) B-1002 and the Occupational Aptitude Pattern test (OAP). This document was printed on page 491 in volume 19 (WarrenVolumes). But when this document was filled out by LEE Harvey Oswald in Ft. Worth, HARVEY Oswald and his wife and daughter were living in Russia." --Tommy

The pity is that people like Fetzer makes all of us CTers look like crackpots when in reality only about half of us are. --Tommy

Gaal wrote: "Marguerite's uncle law partner was a United Fruit lawyer and she got a receptionist job at Standard Fruit pre WW II . Standard Fruit and United Fruit were at loggerheads till 1942. She may have been a United Fruit spy on Standard Fruit. United Fruit worked with ONI circa WWI. It could be Marguerite was a ONI asset against the NJ Nazi. (Per Linda Minor she also did date a number of Navy men). gaal (PS receptionist "CAN BE" good place for a spy)" Steve, didn't you mean to put an apostrophe and an "s" after the word "uncle"? Also, you wrote "the NJ Nazi" (singular), so precisely which "NJ Nazi" are you talking about? --Tommy PS Your posts are hard enough to understand (as several people have mentioned) even without such boo-boos. PPS So let me get this straight -- a law partner of Marguerite's uncle was a United Fruit lawyer, and she got a job as a receptionist at Standard Fruit? Wow. And Holy Toledo, United Fruit worked with ONI circa WWI (which ended in 1918)? Wowie zowie.

The paperwork states he came to FT Worth in June. The tests were done in October. Greg, You're right, Greg. See the notation: "Date in Fort Worth -- June, 1962" http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm So, what does the "4/62" stand for? Is it a typo for "4/63"? Unlikely, because it's written twice. In her testimony, Mrs. Cunningham of the Texas Employment Commission said the first time Oswald came in was on 10/9/62 or 10/10/62, so obviously he couldn't have been tested six months before that in April, 1962 (4/62) . This shows his test scores and is dated 10/10/62. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm --Tommy bumped

The paperwork states he came to FT Worth in June. The tests were done in October. Greg, You're right, Greg. "Date in Fort Worth -- June, 1962" http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm So, what does the "4/62" stand for on the page, above? Is it a typo for "4/63"? Unlikely, because it's written twice. In her testimony, Mrs. Cunningham of the Texas Employment Commission said the first time Oswald came in was on 10/9/62 or 10/10/62, so obviously he couldn't have been tested six months before that in April, 1962 (4/62) . This shows his test scores and is dated 10/10/62. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0208a.htm --Tommy

In April, 1962 LEE Harvey Oswald visited the Texas Employment Commission in Ft. Worth and filled out form E-40a, Aptitude Profile Test (APT) B-1002 and the Occupational Aptitude Pattern test (OAP). This document was printed on page 491 in volume 19 (WarrenVolumes). But when this document was filled out by LEE Harvey Oswald in Ft. Worth, HARVEY Oswald and his wife and daughter were living in Russia ============= CANT WAIT TO READ IT, gaal The document is not on page 491 of Volume XIX of the Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits. Where is it? I wonder how well "Lee" scored on those tests? What were his aptitudes? What was his address at the time? What kind of identification did he provide? Did he have a driver's license? --Tommy

Ian, Didn't the Dallas news media and national news media report at the time that some recreations (plural?) were being made, or was it all super duper "hush-hush"? Never mind. I just now watched the FBI's reenactment and realized that not only had JFK's late model Lincoln Continental morphed into an older Cadillac, but Jackie had morphed into a man. That might have been a hard sell, even to a naiive, gullible, uninformed public. http://jfk007.com/tragedy-restaged/ --Tommy bumped

Jon, "Marina's husband" was not only an "odd duck," ready-made patsy, but let's not forget that he was inexplicably taken off the FBI's "watch list" about two months before the assassination and that he was working at the Texas School Book Depository on 11/22/63. Most fascinating of all is that, according to the Harvey and Lee theory, which you seem to subscribe to, he was also one of two boys whose identities had been merged by some U.S. intelligence agency many years earlier! What are the chances that all four of those things could be said about any one person, much less one who also happened to be an ex-Marine? Highly unlikely, but it's elegant, it's beautiful, it's like a mathematical equation. Because if you are right, the bad guys must have marveled at their great good luck when they "spotted," a few weeks before the assassination, such a perfect, self-made patsy who could also be invaluable as far as the future coverup was concerned. Invaluable because they knew that the responsible agency would do everything it could to keep it's "Oswald doppelganger project" from becoming known. All of which suggests that, if you are right, the bad guys were insiders at that U.S. intelligence agency, or "outsiders" who were privy to some of that agency's most sensitive information. It's a nice theory. --Tommy

Yes, I'm a secret agent. Please don't tell anyone. How do you know that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest, either by Oswald (intentionally missing) or by somebody else (either hitting JFK or JC, or unintentionally missing and injuring Tague, instead)? --Tommy How do you know that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest, either by Oswald (intentionally missing) or by somebody else (either hitting JFK or JC, or unintentionally missing and injuring Tague, instead)? Elementary, if any shots were fired from the snipers nest, they would have found some evidence by now. The only evidence available, so far, is manufactured evidence, not 'discovered' evidence. The angle required from the 'sniper's nest' is impossible. No human could have been in a position at that window, with the window at the height it is in photos, and aimed a rifle at the angle required to hit a person at the location where the limo was when JFK was shot. Other than that............ Other than that, what about the bullet that injured Tague (flying concrete)? Is it impossible that that bullet was fired from the sniper's nest?

Yes, I'm a secret agent. Please don't tell anyone. How do you know that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest, either by Oswald (intentionally missing) or by somebody else (either hitting JFK or JC, or unintentionally missing and injuring Tague, instead)? --Tommy PS I'm a CTer, too, and I've been studying it for a long time, too, and I. too, don't know who did it. But I suspect that David Sanchez Morales was caught on film (the Jim Doyle film) while monitoring Oswald the day Oswald got arrested in New Orleans, and that Morales was also caught on film while standing in the crowd in Dealey Plaza a few minutes after the assassination. I tried to point him out in the respective film and photograph to Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich, but since I am unable to draw a red arrow or a red circle, I was unsuccessful.

Didn't the Dallas news media and national news media report at the time that some recreations (plural?) were being made, or was it all super duper "hush-hush"? --Tommy Never mind. I just now watched the FBI's reenactment and realized that not only had JFK's late model Lincoln Continental morphed into an older Cadillac, but Jackie had morphed into a man. http://jfk007.com/tragedy-restaged/

Robert, You mean Oswald didn't shoot him from that window? Just kidding, folks. --Tommy OMG, what a revelation. Yep, you got that right. Drew, Apparently my attempt at humor went over your head, kinda like the bullet that injured James Tague down by the Triple Underpass.. Which, come to think of it, Oswald, just might have fired from that window, intentionally missing JFK and everyone else. --Tommy Apparently my attempt at humor went over your head, kinda like the bullet that injured James Tague down by the Triple Underpass.. Don't quit your day job. Of course I won't, Drew. After all, I'm a very highly-paid CIA disinformation specialist. LOL --Tommy PS I don't know how long you've been "into" the JFK assassination, but I must say that to me you come across like an over-jealous "newbie". Me? I've been into it for a while and I'm starting to come over to Jon G. Tidd's point of view. That Oswald was just a perfect self-made patsy, that he was "spotted" by the bad guys (not the CIA as an organization) a few months or a few minutes before the assassination, and that he just happened to be one of two boys whose identities were manipulated and merged by some U.S. intelligence agency for several years, making him "bullet proof" cover-up wise. In other words, the planets were in perfect alignment!