Thomas Graves

Mark, Yes, I am aware of that thread, primarily because I am interested in the Darnell film, and because those exhibits show Officer Baker running towards the building and the steps into the building, while the focus of everyone else appears to be "down the street." Many people are unaware that although Baker came up with an explanation that he ran into the building because he saw pigeons flying off the roof, that was not his "first day" explanation; in the very first draft of his statement, he said something to the effect (this is from memory) that he "thought" the shots came from an upstairs window, and that was his "explanation." As to the image over on the left hand side, I realize there's an image there--and yes, I have looked at it--but its very indistinct, and certainly not of the quality necessary to make an identification. I notice that most of the posts on that thread do not cite the image in isolation, but rather as part of a wider argument using a process of elimination as to who it might be at that particular location. It has always been my belief that if Oswald was downstairs anywhere on those steps (or near it) at the time, other employees would have mentioned seeing him there. There are no such reports. The only such "early" reports concern him being (possibly) in a nearby storage room, a minute or two following the shooting; and those reports are (historically and legally) far more important (and potent). As I recall, they were not properly followed up by the FBI investigation (or the Warren Commission, for that matter). DSL 5/14/15 - 4 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California An obvious explanation for all the interest "down the street" while Baker or some other policeman is running towards the TSBD front door: that's where JFK's limo was when the shots rang out and people hit the ground and others started yelling or screaming. Due to the confusing acoustics of Dealy Plaza, most who realized that Kennedy had been shot (or shot at) would have naturally assumed that the shooter was down there somewhere, too. --Tommy

Oh great and powerful Parker... please accept my apology for ever telling any untruths about anything you've ever posted. Yours are the truest of true words and the wisest of wise thoughts. Get over yourself already and my dear friend Tommy... yes indeed... the people that read what he writes who agree, do find him effective. These are the same type who follow a Ms. Baker. Faith Tommy... ya gotta have FAITH and you too can get a few followers, guaranteed. Still have yet to hear a convincing argument to explain the timeline conflicts of CE1961 and CE1962. Care to give it a shot or maybe defer to the rabbi? Dear David, Why in the world would I ever want to defer (or even refer) to you instead of Greg Parker? Sorry but I'm not into cults, and IMHO "Harvey and Lee" is an elaborate, paranoiac cult which ultimately does not help us to figure out who killed JFK, but just makes us madder than hornets at "the powers that be" in a vague, self-destructive kind of way. Peace, Mahalo, and Shalom, --Tommy "Wow. Genetic programming. The CIA and the FBI and the Military Industrial Complex must have done it! I hate America !!!" LOL

If David Josephs is permitted to vilify Greg Parker, myself, and others who disagree with the cult-like Harvey and Lee theory, then we should be allowed to make innocuous little jokes about Josephs and Armstrong, et al. --Tommy

"This video is no longer available..." --Tommy

Dear David, Seems like you're "casting aspersions" here on Greg's integrity. Using inflammatory language, too. Are you trying to provoke Greg into saying something rash? Isn't "casting aspersions" on another member's character a violation of the EF's code of conduct? Perhaps it is you whose posting rights should be suspended this time. Peace, Mahalo, and Shalom, --Tommy

Ronnie, A possibility: Out of consideration to the photographers in the background? 'Hey, wouldya mind holding your umbrella a little higher? Thanks." --Tommy

Paul, I appreciate your feedback. I ask that anyone who feels this thing--or even who has felt this thing--to remember why they feel it. Do they shed a tear for JFK because he was a beloved leader? Because he was a charismatic and affable President? Do we feel anguish because we lost his wit and his charm? Do we cry for the loss of his sense of humor during news conferences? Do we miss his qualities of compassion? Do we mourn the passing of one so young who possibly saved the world from nuclear holocaust? Or is it more than that? I want to know why we let die that which he was leading us to accomplish? I want to know who will stand up and refuse to allow his vision to remain in the grave with him? I want to know how it is that we were fooled into believing that what he stood for was assassinated with him the day he died? The answers to those questions are far more important to me than is the answer to the question: "Who done it?" His mission was to empower all of us to a better way. That he was killed was the price he paid to leave us with that legacy. But it is the human legacy, not the Kennedy legacy, with which he gifted us. When shall we embrace it if not now? You do good work, Greg. It is appreciated here. All I can say is that when I asked my (John Birch Society) Mother why she was standing and applauding that "pinko" JFK when he had concluded his speech at San Diego State College (a few months before he was assassinated), she said something I'll always remember. "Because he's a great man." R.I.P. both of them... --Tommy PS The word "College" above is not a typo. San Diego State didn't become a "University" until 1968 or so...

Oh great and powerful Parker... please accept my apology for ever telling any untruths about anything you've ever posted. Yours are the truest of true words and the wisest of wise thoughts. Get over yourself already and my dear friend Tommy... yes indeed... the people that read what he writes who agree, do find him effective. These are the same type who follow a Ms. Baker. Faith Tommy... ya gotta have FAITH and you too can get a few followers, guaranteed. Still have yet to hear a convincing argument to explain the timeline conflicts of CE1961 and CE1962. Care to give it a shot or maybe defer to the rabbi? Dear David, Why in the world would I ever want to defer (or even refer) to you instead of Greg Parker? Sorry but I'm not into cults, and IMHO Harvey and Lee is an elaborate, paranoiac cult which ultimately does not help us to figure out who killed JFK, but just makes us madder than hornets at "the powers that be" in a vague, self-destructive kind of way. Peace, Mahalo, and Shalom, --Tommy

Dear David, It seems to me that you are hypocritically trying to provoke Greg into getting angry by using demeaning language and enlarged / highlighted text. Are you trying to get Greg's posting rights suspended again? Hopefully he won't take the bait you offer this time. Thank you, --Tommy

Dear David, It seems to me that you are hypocritically trying to provoke Greg into getting angry by using demeaning language and enlarged / highlighted text. Are you trying to get Greg's posting rights suspended again? Thank you, --Tommy

You seem to base your recent "discovery" that Lovelady can be seen at the far western edge of the steps ("west" = "on the left" as we look at the TSBD) in Darnell / Couch by the same logic that you are applying to Gloria Calvary's movements and possible film appearances after the assassination. I.e., That's where Lovelady testified that he was, and we can see somebody who kinda resembles him there in Darnell / Couch (either that or the backside of a woman who is ascending the steps and wearing a light-colored scarf on her head). Your Devil's Advocate Friend, --Tommy

Perhaps an even better question to ask is "Who identified the women standing on Elm?" --Tommy

Not I. The woman standing on Elm is wearing a light-colored skirt and a dark-colored upper garment. The woman running in Darnell / Couch is wearing a dark-colored dress and a white or light-colored upper garment. They are two different women. Yes? --Tommy

Dear Steven, Thank you for finally clarifying where that link was and what it was for. I was beginning to wonder why you had posted that other link. The reason I was asking about that sentence was because I'm not familiar with "laying off on somebody", and the [blame] bit got me wondering whether [blame] was in the original, or if you had just kinda "edited" it in. BTW, I agree with you that Angleton was probably "mobbed up." It is Interesting that he may have alluded to the possibility that he knew exactly who in The Agency was responsible for what went down on 11/22/63. Your buddy, --Tommy

If not outright Caucasian, she looks like she might be Hispanic to me. I can see how a Southerner back there at the beginning of the "Black vs. White" civil rights era would say that Calvary was "white." Why? Because she wasn't Black! Especially in the South where Hispanics were held in higher regard than "Negroes". --Tommy

Thank you, Steven. But let me rephrase my question because I'm still a bit confused: Did Morrow/Talbot write the words in red exactly as they appear in your post, above? In other words, did Morrow/Talbot write "laying off [blame] on somebody else" , exactly like that, or did you slip the [blame] into it? Thank you, --Tommy

As rocknroll history McGowan's work is bunk. The rest of his material about intel operations in Laurel Canyon may be spot on, but the music stuff is nonsense. Jim Morrison and Arthur Lee are now regarded more as proto-punk than hippie-psychedelic. Frank Zappa's psychedelia was fueled by coffee, not LSD. The Byrds, Mamas & Papas, the Monkees, Buffalo Springfield, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, Scott MacKenzie...they play this stuff on elevators! In terms of acid rock there's San Francisco and there's Texas --13th Floor Elevators out of Austin and the Moving Sidewalks out of Houston. McGowan: “Perhaps Neil Young said it best when he told an interviewer that he couldn’t really say why he headed out to LA circa 1966; he and others “were just going like Lemmings.” Because that's where the major record labels were. Duh... For what it's worth, I heard "For What It's Worth" (You know -- Something's happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear ?) in the lobby of the Hotel Del Charro other night. In my dreams, in my dreams. http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2011/jan/05/cover-oil-politics-la-jolla/# --Tommy bumped

Clive, Thanks for pointing him out to me. After looking at your excellent blowup, I must agree with Robert when he says he thinks it's Lovelady, and that he's talking with someone. I remember looking at that figure in the Darnell / Couch film several times about a year ago and at one time thinking it was a person who was getting up from a sitting or crouching position, and at other times thinking it was a woman ascending the steps and wearing a light colored scarf on her head. IMHO, it's Lovelady. Something about the shape of his practically hairless head and the barely-visible pattern of his shirt and the fact that I think you might even get a glimpse of the white t-shirt under his almost completely unbuttoned outer shirt. --Tommy

Steven, You wrote: James Angleton to Seymour Hersh:Angleton is implying that the CIA murdered John Kennedy "In December 1974, pursued by the dogged Seymour Hersh, who was then investigating the CIA’s illegal domestic operations for the New York Times, Angleton suddenly blurted to the reporter, “A mansion has many rooms … I’m not privy to who struck John.” What did the cryptic remark mean? I would be absolutely misleading you if I thought I had any xxxxing idea,” says Hersh today. “But my instinct about it is he basically was laying off [blame] on somebody else inside the CIA, and the whole purpose of the conversation was to convince me to go after somebody else and not him. And also that he was a completely crazy f__king old fart.”" [David Talbot, Brothers, p. 274] Question: Did you put the word "blame" there, or is in Talbot's book Brothers on page 274? I'm trying to understand that sentence. Thank you, --Tommy

What? Me serious? LOL --Tommy PS I fully expect to have my posting rights suspended again. This time for being impertinent and insufficiently serious. But seriously, Bob, I don't see anyone leaning over and talking with somebody else on either side of the steps. I just don't know exactly where to look, I suppose. Better instructions would help. You know, like "first step up from the sidewalk," or "second step up from the sidewalk," that sort of thing? And oh yes, why don't you just say on the right / left side of the steps as we look at the building instead of this East / West stuff? You know, for lazy dummies like me? Thanks, --Tommy

What? Me serious? LOL --Tommy PS I fully expect to have my posting rights suspended again. This time for being impertinent and insufficiently serious.

And no one in the CIA had nothing to do with the setting up of Oswald to be the patsy, you know, before the assassination... OK. --Tommy I don't agree with that at all. What I agreed with was Cliff's statement that they went with the LN scenario only because Oswald got caught. Otherwise there would have been an invasion of Cuba to get Bin Laden. I mean Castro. You had me worried for a minute there, Ronnie. I was afraid you'd gone over to the other side. The side that believes that Oswald was just an Odd Duck who stupidly and inadvertently set himself up to be "the patsy" for the crime of the century. But I should be grateful. At least they aren't preaching that Oswald framed himself after the assassination, too. At least not yet. --Tommy PS Oh yes, and at least you aren't claiming that neither the CIA as an institution, nor any of it's employees "gone rogue," could possibly have had anything to do with the pre-assassination "set up" of Oswald as the patsy. That's what I was really concerned about, Ronnie. I was really worried about you, but now I can breathe a little easier...

You mean the side Lovelady is standing on? No, I don't, Bob. --Tommy

It's too bad you can't show us who you're talking about with a red arrow or something. --Tommy

I don't answer rhetorical questions, Professor. I only ask them. --Tommy But seriously -- No, I don't. I think they also planned to go eat some burgers and fries somewhere, afterwards. BTW, Why do you ask?