Thomas Graves

I'd like to see these additional photo IDs in Dealey. Well, David, here's one that I think is James Jesus Angelton. What do you think? Regards, --Paul Trejo Dear "Garibaldi" Trejo, Angleton was taller and skinnier than that guy. The guy in the photograph looks more like LBJ's criminal crony Billy Sol Estes to me. http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKestes.htm --Tommy

So maybe that the kind of camera Prayer Man was holding, too! --Tommy

Interesting, Greg. I think I read it eons ago and forgot about it because I didn't realize it's potential significance. --Tommy

The rare use of lined paper by LHO probably helped a deal.... Excellent point, Greg. --Tommy

I wish I could, Vanessa. Thinking outside of the box: Did Velveeta Cheese glow in the dark? Did Oswald forget to wash the DDT off his apple? LOL --Tommy

Jon (commenting on your response to Ron Ecker): Please keep in mind that Marina was already jumpy and uncomfortable about Oswald having ordered a rifle. Now, with that in mind. . . also keep in mind her puzzlement when (on the evening of 4/10) she saw that note. Her reaction was not: "The grammar is wrong" or "the syntax is wrong." Rather, her reaction (almost certainly) was; "What the hell has my 'crazy husband' done now?" Then, (I am tempted to write "CUT TO" because this really sounds like a bad screenplay): Lee rushes in and says he has just attempted to murder General Walker. What does she do? No, she does not say "The grammar in this letter you wrote is wrong, you idiot!" Nor does say: "Someday, a genius named Greg Parker will appear, and prove that you did not write this! There are ortho-whatever mistakes. . so it was not you who wrote this! Where is the author, Lee? Is he hiding in the closet?" Nope. None of the above. So. .. what does Marina say? She says: "Who is General Walker?!" That's right: that's what she asks: "Who is General Walker?" At that point, Lee holds forth that Walker was an American fascist, who deserved to die--and that's why he did it. That's why he attempted to murder the man. Marina, mortified, responds along the lines of: "You have no right to kill another human being just because you don't agree with his politics!" etc etc. Anyway, that's what happened on the night of April 10, 1963. Lee's behavior marked a major turning point in their marriage. From that point forward, she was deeply shaken --Lee was not Mr. Nice Guy (who she met in Minsk). Rather, she was concerned she had married a man she really didn't know. So what is really going on here? I'll tell you what I believe: In plain English, Lee had successfully gas-lighted Marina (See the movie "Spellbound"if you want to know more about that term; or just Google the term). Of course, these are subtleties that are beyond Mr. Parker. Greg Parker is ready to head a lynch mob, falsely accuse Ruth Paine, and string her up for a crime she did not commit. And he is wallowing in a false sense of certainty; but, unfortunately, he has this whole matter analyzed incorrectly. All wrong. For those who doubt my analysis--and especially anyone who is involved in a marriage or other serious relationship--it is a testable hypothesis. Only half-humorously, I suggest the following: 1. Go and order a gun 2. Put the gun in your residence within easy view of your wife. 3. One evening, retrieve the gun, and leave a note (akin to the Walker note, and with grammatical errors). 4. Come running into the house, later in the evening, and say you have shot at someone--e.g., President Obama, or perhaps Vice President Joe Biden, who was visiting your city. Now here's the proposition to be tested: Which of the following occurs? (a) Your wife says: Joe, what's wrong with you? This letter has grammatical errors! ( b ) Your wife says: Joe, have you gone mad? Why are you shooting at a public figure? (c ) She says: "Joe, Please leave the premises. I never liked you; and I never want to see you again!" IMHO: It was that kind of a moment, and of one thing I am fairly certain--the answer will not be (a). DSL 4/22/15 - 5:30 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California Will you address the claim by Greg Parker that the letters Oswald wrote earlier in Russia were written in a far superior Russian than the letter Oswald allegedly wrote to Marina regarding the Walker shooting? I'm not sure how we can accomplish this but, I would dearly love to see all of these letters analysed by an impartial party, fluent in Russian. Robert: Re: Letters written by Oswald --in Russian--and in a "far superior style" In a previous post, you raised this question: QUOTE: Shouldn't we be trying to compare the Walker letter with the letters Oswald wrote while in Russia that Greg speaks of? It seems odd that everyone is quietly ignoring this small but significant item. UNQUOTE In a later post (immediately above) you ask: "Will you address the claim by Greg Parker that the letters Oswald wrote earlier in Russia were written in a far superior Russian than the letter Oswald allegedly wrote to Marina regarding the Walker shooting"? My response (for now): While in the Soviet Union, Lee Oswald engaged in correspondence with his mother, his brother, and the American Embassy. (There was also a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, who he mistakenly thought was John Connally, and which was forwarded to Fred Korth). All of these letters--which can be found in the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission--were written in English. Therefore, in order to address your question, I request that you specify what communication (s)--written by Oswald while in the USSR--you are referring to. In other words, please specify the letters to which you are alluding (and that are being used as the basis for this comparison) that were written by Oswald while Oswald was in the Soviet Union and that were written in Russian. Thanks. DSL 4/23/15 - 12:30 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0109a.htm Knock yourself out. That doesn't look like Oswald's handwriting. Much too consistent, straight, and easy to read (for a Russian). --Tommy

If Oswald did indeed write some "far superior" Russian-language letters while in Russia, it's possible that a Russian friend of his helped him. Conversely, if he did also write the "Walker Note," he may have done so in a hurry and without any help, which might explain the poor grammar and syntax. --Tommy

Brad, what happened to accommodating Vanessa? Vanessa, In an attempt to get this thread back on track, I would like to ask you a question. What do you think Prayer Man is holding, if anything, in Weigman? A white or silver camera? Your guess is as good as mine. Thanks, --Tommy

Maybe he wrote the letter in a hurry? --Tommy

Yes, Professor James Fetzer (who has been banned here) will explain it all to you. He and his buddy Ralph Cinque. LOL --Tommy

Your lack of understanding of this situation is monumental Tommy... Yet... Your lack of familiarity with the evidence does not preclude you from jumping in and showing this lack of knowledge off... Follow please: How is Oswald both in New Orleans returning books on the 3rd and elsewhere? According to the evidence he is on a bus from San Antonio to Dallas... He was a LONE NUT... who would be returning his books and why? He is in Dallas for the evening of Oct 3rd... We DO have a Del Norte Passenger list though... as prepared by "agents of the presidential staff who took all these documents soon after the assassination" The FBI still cannot understand how the FM-11 says "left by Auto" when the source docs provided by Ochoa do not have this notation... since it is not possible, not allowed that Oswald be in a car... especially with others. So we thank you for your pithy, self-grandizing, uninformed comments... they add so much to the thread... Dear David, I will ignore your insults for now and simply restate my earlier point, but this time I'll spell it out for you: Isn't it possible that somebody returned the books for Oswald, with Oswald's knowledge? Or did the New Orleans Library have a rule that only the person who borrowed a book could return it? Jeez. --Tommy

Since Greg is so intent on debunking the Lee and Harvey and Henry theory, does that mean that it must be right? --Tommy

My use of Marina and Ruth in this instance is based on what they said ORIGINALLY -- you know -- before Marina was "convinced" she need to change her story about what Oswald told her in regard to where he was going and what his purpose was. .No. I didn't forget. It's right here. Hammett did come across as a good, solid witness. There was no question he had sold the ticket to someone. But was that someone Oswald or a look-alike? Marina Oswald was interviewed on January 29, 1964 in regard to the clothing description given by Hammett. She stated that to the best of her knowledge, Oswald owned no clothing or footwear matching the description. In a prior FBI interview on November 29, 1963, Marina had said that she and Lee had agreed that he would stay in New Orleans to look for work, and that if he was unable to find any, he would return to Dallas. Lee, she added, had also told her that he had a friend in "another city" and that he might contact this friend to see if he could help find work, although she herself doubted such a friend existed.[1] In no less than five subsequent interviews, Marina denied any knowledge that Oswald had gone to Mexico. Then came her Warren Commission testimony on February 3, 1964. Suddenly she knew of Oswald's intentions from August to not only go to Mexico, but also to visit the Soviet Embassy there in the hope of getting to Cuba. To the eternal shame of Rankin, he did not ask for any explanation regarding the past multiple denials to investigators. Such questions did finally come though, at the HSCA hearings. Marina responded by saying, "At that time I did not really have the country to go to....I thought if I tell them that I knew about Mexico. I would be responsible just as well for what he did." This implies that she ad-libbed a story to the FBI in order to avoid being held partially responsible for Oswald's actions. What is not clear from this statement is just what Marina thought Mexico had to do with events in Dealey Plaza (since the act of going to Mexico itself was far from illegal, let alone indicative of a pending assassination). Yet if her story about looking for work was merely a cover story, she was already connecting Mexico to later events as early as Nov 29 and possibly sooner! And how did it come about that Marina concocted a cover story that was essentially the same story told by Ruth Paine – who had no reason to supply any “alibi” for Oswald? http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t6-the-houston-problem-pt-1 I don't recall if it was mentioned and I'm not about to check for you when you can do that yourself. You only want to know because of your idiotic belief that the photos show two different people. You can do your own research to try and prop your idiocy up. As for her getting the month wrong.... so what? She either misremembered, or the evil FBI changed what she she said in an attempt to nullify her. Nah.. Sorry... you'd never believe such a thing about the FBI, would you, David? When the WC didn't like an answer.. They just say the witness was wrong, misremembered or not believeable... Like Osborne/Bowen on the bus who tells us that MacFarland and the Aussies were wrong... that there were no other english speaking people on the bus... and then when you find out whcih bus they were on... we find out Bowen was right... they were no even on the same bus as the FBI claims Oswald took... but they were able to confirm his being on the bus... amazing, right? Can you possilbly ignore any more of my post in your response - too much heavy lifting to address everything that was wrong with your original statements? Parker... you don't get to pick and choose which of Marina's lies are closer to the truth... she's a xxxx. Ruth was a xxxx. both in efforts to help incriminate Oswald... So sorry that remains lost on you. And it's not about the photos - it's about your assumption that "about a month ago" gives you license to assume she was talking about the month before that... and then to CONCLUDE from all these assumptions that Oswald was in Houston... When you offer NOTHING to get him there, no corroborating evidence to Hammett (Cause we all know that ONE FBI witness saying the right thing is much better that 12 saying the opposite) You probably have no clue who or what Twiford is about or what she says about the call... but no matter, If Parker doesn't say it, it must not exist... until you go look at the source. So you have "statistical probablity" of a subjective matter... good The testimony of Marina and Rtuh... better and the dropping of any evidence that contradicts your conclusion... BEST! You and the WC lawyers and commissioners seem to be on the same page... well done! Oh wait... didn't Anna Lewis say she met Lee Oswald near 544 Camp in Feb 1962? a few times? This while Harvey and Marina are in Russia with Marina giving birth in mid-February... Is this misremembered of simpy unimportant and unnecessary to your stated conclusions about there only being one Oswald? There being a second Oswald is simply too much for you to comprehend... so like most bullies who don't understand something... BASH IT WITH A STICK! On Oct 3rd someone returned 4 library books of Oswald's at the New Orleans Public Library... but Oswald was in Dallas... you gonna tell us he was really in New Orleans.. please, show us. Did Oswald take these library books on the trip with him since if you read the evidence - the apartment on Magazine was empty - yet the books were returned... who would have returned Oswald's books I wonder? So now we'll get another mini-rant... some opinion... some "exact text" without a source document so we have to go search to find that you ommitted just enough of the source to support your conclusions and most of the source which proves the opposite of what you are stating... all the while throwing insults or accusations because that adds to your growing reputation and credibility... Prove me wrong. Big deal. Somebody returned some books for him. --Tommy

Dear Brad, If, as you say, what you "see" is important only to you, why then are you trying to share it with us here? Would you have us believe that Oswald was standing in front of Lovelady? --Tommy

Nice post, Steven. It's actually readable. --Tommy

Interesting. Well, we know that OSWALD was also a notoriously poor speller in English, so we might extrapolate that he was also a poor speller in Russian. As for "fluency," I'd need to see more details (as I don't read Russian myself). Yet insofar as OSWALD was on his way to commit a felony, one might take that into consideration in the hasty composition of this Russian note to his wife. Though he had a high IQ, OSWALD was nevertheless immature in many ways -- and I think his immaturity shows itself in this note. The character matches -- he is trying to be big and mature, but the very content of the note betrays him. The content of the note is what sells me on its authenticity. Regards, --Paul Trejo I taught English in the Czech Republic for several years. Czech and Russian are Slavic languages, as is Polish, Slovak, Ukrainian, etc. Unlike English, all Czech words are spelled exactly the way they are pronounced, and vice versa. I would assume that Russian words are also spelled exactly like they're pronounced and vice versa, making the spelling of Russian words quite straightforward. So although Oswald was a lousy speller of English words, he might have been a reasonably good speller of Russian words -- if he knew how to pronounce them, and all indications are that he did. --Tommy

I have no idea why you say the umbrella man was not Steve Witt. As I have written years ago, I knew someone well who knew the Umbrella Man's dentist, and so I heard the umbrella man's story at least a year (or more) before the HSCA hearings. What is the basis for your asserting that the man with the umbrella in Dealey Plaza was not Steve Witt? DSL 4/21/15 Los Angeles, California Witt's description of his actions before, during, and after the shots do not jibe with what he is seen doing in the films and photographs. --Tommy

Jon: Some years back, I went over Oswald's Russian fluency. Oswald, I learned, was an "aural learner"--and a very good one, at that. An aural learner picks up a language the same way a parrot functions--they learn by "hearing" as opposed to studying a textbook which contains information re grammar, syntax, etc. If Oswald was an aural learner--and I have been persuaded this was in fact the case--then I would assume it is entirely possible that his spoken Russian could be quite good, whereas when he sat down to write a note--like the one he left for Marina--he made a variety of errors (as your daughter noted). Anyway, I see no reason to extrapolate from these errors to the notion that Oswald was not the author of the letter. And incidentally: Marina never questioned that it was her husband who wrote the Walker note. Nor is there any evidence at all that Lee Oswald ever said, "I didn't write that note. Someone must have gotten into the apartment and left that note for you to read; it was not me!" etc. My conclusions: 1.Oswald wrote the note 2. Oswald came rushing into the apartment, just as Marina has described, breathless, etc. --and said (I stress "said") that he shot at Walker. That doesn't mean he did shoot at Walker; but he definitely said that he did. And then he sat down in front of the radio, and was twirling the dial, looking for news coverage of the event. DSL 4/21/15 - 9:10 p.m. PDT Los Angeles,California Your conclusions are seriously flawed. Did you miss the part where it was determined that OTHER Russian writings of Oswald contained only a small fraction of the errors contained in the so-called Walker note? "Nor is there any evidence at all that Lee Oswald ever said, "I didn't write that note." Damned sorry I missed the seance where Oswald was given the opportunity to deny authorship! Do tell us all about it, Mr Lifton, sir! "Marina or Mrs. Paine or somebody .... say, would you mind loosening these handcuffs again?... uh, Marina or Mrs. Paine or somebody's gonna give you a note, or maybe you're gonna find it, anyway it's written in hardly recognizable Russian and it's about some instructions for Marina about our post office box and the bridge near the jail and some other stuff back in April about the time someone took a pot shot at General Walker, and I want you to know right now -- I did not write that note. It's a ... it's a ... forgery!" --Tommy

Let's not quibble shall we. I'm much too sensitive for all this roughhousing. --Tommy

Isn't there a strong enough case for conspiracy already? Why does it need to be strengthened? --Tommy

Jon: Some years back, I went over Oswald's Russian fluency. Oswald, I learned, was an "aural learner"--and a very good one, at that. An aural learner picks up a language the same way a parrot functions--they learn by "hearing" as opposed to studying a textbook which contains information re grammar, syntax, etc. If Oswald was an aural learner--and I have been persuaded this was in fact the case--then I would assume it is entirely possible that his spoken Russian could be quite good, whereas when he sat down to write a note--like the one he left for Marina--he made a variety of errors (as your daughter noted). Anyway, I see no reason to extrapolate from these errors to the notion that Oswald was not the author of the letter. And incidentally: Marina never questioned that it was her husband who wrote the Walker note. Nor is there any evidence at all that Lee Oswald ever said, "I didn't write that note. Someone must have gotten into the apartment and left that note for you to read; it was not me!" etc. My conclusions: 1.Oswald wrote the note 2. Oswald came rushing into the apartment, just as Marina has described, breathless, etc. --and said (I stress "said") that he shot at Walker. That doesn't mean he did shoot at Walker; but he definitely said that he did. And then he sat down in front of the radio, and was twirling the dial, looking for news coverage of the event. DSL 4/21/15 - 9:10 p.m. PDT Los Angeles,California Was Oswald ever confronted with the note? --Tommy

Well, Ron, here's my issue with John Armstrong's argument. Knowing that "Osborne" was raging xxxx, then when he says that OSWALD *wasn't* on the bus, then Armstrong uses that as evidence that OSWALD *was* on the bus. Sorry, that duplicitous logic sinks like a stone. "Osborne" was caught in more lies than I can even count -- lies upon lies and lies about lies -- so why not just dismiss him out of hand? I do. The English couple in front of Oswald said this about "Oswald": (1) he was very talkative; (2) he said nothing about Communism, Castro, Cuba or political issues; and (3) he had thinning, curly, wiry hair. EXCUSE ME? That leaves the two girls from Fiji -- but I will be generous with their holey story and say it was "mistaken identity." Here's my take on it. J. Edgar Hoover ordered the FBI to stick to a Lone Shooter theory at all costs -- or be transferred to the boonies. So, that means that FBI Agents had to tamper with every sort of evidence, starting on 11/22/1963, and continuing through 10/10/1964, to make it fit. Lying was no obstacle. Hoover was their god. The Truth was DOA. Regards, --Paul Trejo There were no girls from Fiji. --Tommy

Well, Tommy, the way I read it, Ex-General Edwin Walker in Dallas telephoned his political ally, Guy Banister in New Orleans, on Easter Sunday 1963. The topic was that somebody in an official position in government -- he never revealed the name -- had revealed to Walker that Lee Harvey OSWALD had been his April shooter only four days before. This was good luck for Walker, because Guy Banister had been working with a smart pal, David Ferrie, on the Carlos Marcello case against that rat RFK, and as it turns out, David Ferrie knew OSWALD rather well. They both realized that paramilitary justice was demanded in this case. So, they devised a plan. They would entice OSWALD to come to New Orleans for a fantastic opportunity -- he would be treated royally, with money, privileges, and the chance to be a real US hero, with a homecoming parade and even a chance to be President of the USA one day. The scam was to tell OSWALD that this was a CIA mission to kill Fidel Castro, and there was $100,000 in it if he was successful. It would be easy. He would infiltrate the FPCC, impersonate an FPCC officer, because FPCC officers always got instant, no-questions asked entry into Cuba from the Mexico City consulate. Piece of cake. Once in Cuba, OSWALD would meet his hit team. That very weekend, IMHO, David Ferrie called OSWALD on the telephone and offered him this exciting opportunity. OSWALD could write his ticket after this. What did he want? A full-time job in the CIA? No problem! We know from a common timeline that the very next Monday, April 17th, OSWALD told Marina that he was moving to New Orleans. "Thank goodness," she thought, because the Walker shooting really shook her up. She loved the idea that OSWALD was getting out of Dallas ASAP. Well -- you get the idea. From April 1963 through September 1963, Guy Banister & Company put on a great show for OSWALD, who believed that all these New Orleans riff-raff were really undercover CIA Agents. OSWALD was finally playing 007 for the first time in the USA, and he loved it. OSWALD would get in the newspapers, on the radio, even on TV. He would be the Director of his own FPCC, and he would take his impressive "resume" to Mexico City where they would whisk him into Cuba with open arms. This was the dream. This was the promise. But Edwin Walker and Guy Banister were laughing their heads off back in the States. In the meantime, Edwin Walker didn't just rely on Guy Banister -- there was another team in Los Angeles county that would support Walker. In brief, we're talking about Loran Hall, Larry Howard and those related to Interpen. (We have documented evidence, for example, the Interpen fighters would visit the home of Walker in Dallas in 1963, and beg for money, as Walker was a millionaire on paper, due to newspaper lawsuits.) Anyway -- on Easter Sunday 1963 -- Lee Harvey OSWALD was framed in advance. The plan was so elaborate that it would take the better part of six months to complete the sheep-dip. Regards, --Paul Trejo If it was done in advance, it was a set up, not a frame job. Using words correctly helps to avoid confusion. --Tommy

Jon: Regarding your statement "I lean toward believing the backyard photos were created post-assassination." FWIW: Marina made clear to me--in many conversations starting around January 1981 --when Best Evidence was published, and I first met her--that Lee asked her to photograph him with the rifle etc. She also repeated those statements --with considerable certainty--in her interview with Jesse Ventura. I realize that she may have taken pictures that were not identical to the one's in evidence; my point is that, at Oswald's request, she did take photos of him posing with the rifle. DSL 4/21/15 - 8:45 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, Ca David, Why should we believe her? --Tommy

I don't think he did either. Not THAT note anyway. On what evidence, exactly? Kindly summarize. IMHO, this note is very believable. OSWALD, despite serious emotional issues that showed in his lack of lasting friendships, also showed a higher than average IQ. Evidently OSWALD thought of himself as Ernest Hemmingway in the USSR, and he really hoped his "historic diary" would make him a famous writer. OSWALD expressed disappointment when George De Mohrenschildt dismissed it with a wave of his hand. True, he lacked a fraction of the talent of a Hemmingway -- but just the fact that OSWALD had the *ambition* to be like Ernest Hemmingway was the mark of a higher IQ. OSWALD knew about microdots in 1963 -- he knew about cryptography, and he pushed himself to speak Russian fluently by the age of 20. OSWALD suffered from many problems -- but IQ wasn't one of his problems. Based on his high IQ and his fluent command of Russian by age 20, this Russian note is logically his own. Also -- it seems shallow to suggest that the CIA would forge a note by OSWALD in Russian, which has an unclear purpose taken by itself. Nor does the fact that Ruth Paine had relatives in the CIA change my mind. Ruth wasn't CIA -- she was a Quaker mom. Michael Paine wasn't CIA either. (The fact that his father had been a Trotskyite was immediately disqualifying, anyway.) Michael was a yuppie engineer on track to make more money than any CIA officer ever dreamed. Lee Harvey OSWALD was innocent of killing JFK. He was framed. But he wasn't framed by the Paines, or by George De Mohrenschildt or by Volkmar Schmidt. No, OSWALD was framed by the enemy of the Paines and the De Morhenschildts and the Schmidts -- OSWALD was framed by Ex-General Edwin Walker. Quite brilliantly I might add. Regards, --Paul Trejo Dear "Garibaldi" Trejo, Framed (i.e. after the fact) or set up (in advance)? Jon G. Tidd pointed out the difference some time ago. --Tommy