Thomas Graves

On 12/16/2017 at 10:17 PM, James DiEugenio said:

The unusual routing of Oswald's files through the CIA when they got there was the tip off to Bagley.

John Newman first pointed this out in public in his milestone book, Oswald and the CIA.  But that is not the same as Angleton's assistant saying it.

And as Malcolm told me, he now has files from the HSCA which show that Betsy Wolf had done a lot to figure that  out back in the late seventies, since the HSCA had access to internal CIA files through that deal Blakey made.  He is sending me her work notes and I will write about them when I get them.

I mean how much do you need?  When you add this to the fact that Phillips ran the CIA's anti FPCC campaign (with McCord), and the fact we now have INS agents testifying to the Church committee they saw Ferrie go into Banister's building, and Oswald had an office there.  Really, I cannot wait for them to release the last of the files.

 

James,

For what it's worth, Bagley wasn't Angleton's assistant.  He worked in a different part of the CIA called the "Soviet Russia Division," which at some point had its name changed to the "Soviet Block Division."

--  Tommy 

PS  I've read in one of Bagley's works recently that he didn't take false defector Nosenko's claims about Oswald (i.e., that the KGB hadn't interviewed Oswald, or monitored him very closely) to necessarily mean that the Soviets had killed JFK, but that it did indicate to him that the Soviets had had some kind of special relationship with Oswald before he "defected," and that that was one of the things they were trying to cover up when they had Nosenko "defect" to the U.S. in January, 1964.

11 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

He already answered that.

James,

This is what I posted to Steve:

Steve,

Do you agree with Michael Clark that I come across as believing myself to be "more patriotic" than other members of the forum; that I don't think other members of the forum love America as much as I do?

--  Tommy  

Had Steve already said something to that effect, i.e., that he agrees with Michael that I appear to think of myself as being more patriotic than other members? 

Really? 

Where did he say that?  I must have missed it.

--  Tommy 

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Why is Graved allowed to drag in a post from another thread onto this one?  For purposes of bumping it?

That is not bumping a post, that is pulling it out of where it is and thereby depriving if of its context.

Well, as they say, the more things change....

James,

I rather like that, actually.

-- Tommy  (aka "T.G'", "Mister Spell Check" "Graved" ...) 

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

Mr Graves,

As I understand it, the purpose of this forum is to discuss the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (If I'm wrong about this, maybe you can allow me to hang onto my illusion/self-delusion a bit longer.)

If my understanding is correct, then it is not about you or about me. It is not about making derisive and demeaning comments about other forum members, nor is it about bumping your posts merely to repeat the aforementioned comments. As I have mentioned at another time in the forum, if someone uses the button on each thread to go to the first unread post, they will see your post upon their return to that thread...no post-production necessary.

I'm not advocating making this forum a humorless place. But demeaning other members or calling them something other than their name is disrespectful, not humorous. Dale Carnegie knew the importance of referring to someone by name. If you haven't read any of his books, I highly recommend them.

We can certainly demonstrate respect towards other members even if we find a theory of theirs to be total rubbish. But a critique without the "Jane, you ignorant slut!!" tone, pointing out errors in fact or logic, is a strong argument. An argument with an "anyone with half a brain can see" position comes across as not only weak but condescending.

Surely we can discuss and debate the assassination descending into that snakepit. If we can't, maybe continuing this forum IS the wrong course of action.

Mark,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Allow me to say that I do hope that a member of this forum can believe in and espouse the general theory that the KGB killed Kennedy (or at least programmed/trained Oswald to do so and weren't able to call off the mission once Oswald had returned to the U.S.), and that its doing so (in concert/conjunction with a certain number of "moles" and false defectors, and a lot of gullible people), gave rise to such a plethora of conspiracy theories and accusations against the government and the country's institutions (like main stream media) as to make it possible, eventually, for someone like Vladimir Putin to, through the wonders of modern, algorithm-based social media and its attendant Russian trolls, bots and contradictory, yes contradictory "fake news" (like Roger Ailes mastered at Fox News) not only ensure that a certain presidential candidate lose an election, but to actually help a candidate favorable to Putin win, with or without "collusion" from the winning candidate.  In other words, a president who is, at best, the mother of all "useful idiots."

Regardless, and in the context of your above reply, is it a two-way street here regarding "respect" and civility in general? 

Specifically, I hope that neither you nor any of the other moderators condone David Joseph's consistently referring to me as tommy.

I humbly suggest that you look at it this way, Mark:  How would you like it if I (or anyone else) addressed other people here as, for example, "Tom," "Dick," "Harry," "Jane," but addressed you as "mark"? 

Wouldn't that kind of "bug" you after awhile, and make you want to reciprocate in some kind of equally childish way?

--  Thomas 

32 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

James R. Gordon,

I know that you are very busy, but could you please ask Mark Knight to explain to me how most of my recent posts have been insulting the intelligence of the average forum member ? 

Also, could he please explain how I am "mocking the entire purpose of the forum"?

Thank you,

Thomas W. Graves 

 

PS   Also, could you please request that David Josephs address me properly in the future, or not at all?

Please see my most recent post on the "David Josephs" thread in which I have offered to stop saying "with all due respect" to him (and to everyone else for that matter).

 

PPS  This just in from James DiEugenio on the "An Open Message To Michael Clark" thread. 

Do you and / or Mark Knight agree with James?  (Thanks.)

 

OMG.

I mean is this for real?

TG, half of your idea is now on the ropes, unless you did not notice.

The House investigation is over and after one year they could no evidence of collusion.

The Senate is reportedly about to do the same.

Mueller is so desperate he is indicting xxxxx farms he knows he can never give due process to.

Months ago I linked to an article showing the whole DNC Russian hack thing was also dubious.

So that part of your idea is about to expire.

And you questioned me, oh those many moons ago before your sabbatical, about buying into unpatriotic Deep State paranoia because I said I would wait until the investigations have presented their findings.  But you knew better and started questioning my sagacity in doing so.

Please TG, show at least a bit of humility and self knowledge.

Further, your idol Peter Bagley  admitted to Malcolm Blunt that the so-called Oswald defection was a planned operation.  Why not acknowledge that just to show you are being at least a bit objective.

 

edited and bumped

--  Thomas, Tom, Tommy 

25 minutes ago, Steve Cearfoss said:

‘With all due respect,’ ‘IMHO’ — ‘LOL’, ad nauseum, me thinks the best way to confront this stuff and nonsense from an insincere, calculating xxxxx is to simply ignore him. Have a nice day, Tommy, and I mean it. 

Steve,

Do you agree with Michael Clark that I come across as believing myself to be "more patriotic" than other members of the forum; that I don't think other members of the forum love America as much as I do?

--  Tommy 

23 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mr. Spell Check:

 

Who is Steve Gordon?

Corrected already.

My bad.

Nice "catch," by the way, James.

(I must have been thinking of Flash Gordon meets Steven Reeves or something.)

--  Thomas, Tom, Tommy     

(aka "TG", "Mr. Spell Check, ...)

8 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

I am making an extraordinary statement to the forum. Mark Knight is one of the four owner admin members of this forum - Kathy Beckett is presently on holiday and David Butler has yet to comment.

My comment which gave rise to this reflection by Mark was a comment by me - to the admin team-  about being unable to contact David Joseph about his contacted.

Hi all,
There was a complaint about David’s arrogant attitude a little while ago. I tried to PM him but he has blocked any PM’s Actually is something we can change??
Anyway since I could not contact him I placed him on moderation, thinking that he would get in touch asking why. But no, and his attitude continued and I just did not approve any post.
Any way I have removed his privileges. Maybe when he can no longer post he will ask why and I can then explain that his attitude needs some improvement.
James

I have released David for the benefit of this conversation. Mark made the following comment to me which I publish - in whole - without seeking his consent. However I wish to make clear it is because of his statement that I am creating this thread. If Paul Bracato has indeed exited the forum because of current behaviour on the forum - and I believe Mark is also referring to admin behaviour I totally agree with Mark. And if a member of his standing has decided to leave the form then it is not something we should ignore Or Assume that there are not other members who feel exactly the same as Paul.

The text of Mark’s email to me:-

I think we may have a problem here.
Paul Brancato is one of the most reasonable and thoughtful forum members we have...or had, if he follows through.
David Josephs is on vacation from the forum...but Thomas Graves is not. While Mr. Graves may not be making personally insulting posts, most of his recent posts certainly insult the intelligence of the average forum member.
But Mr. Graves remains, mocking the entire purpose of the forum.
So does Michael Walton, whose incessant carping at Chris Davidson without actually citing any errors in his calculations is getting quite tiresome, at least to me. Is Chris Davidson on the right track? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But as he's working out his evidence, should we continue to allow Mr. Walton to, essentially, question Davidson's intelligence?
Now, I am certainly not a rabble-rouser. But Mr. Brancato's proposed departure tells me that we are doing SOMETHING wrong in the way we are handling this forum.
So what's the answer? If I had it, with 100% certainty, I'd share it with you. But I don't know.
What I do know is, if we run off the Brancatos and keep the Graves' and the Trejo's, what kind of forum will we have in 6 months, or a year? Probably not the kind we want to have.
Discuss, criticize me, whatever. But we need to be doing something differently, IMHO.

I feel very strongly that language does matters even on a forum whose purpose is to exam the brutal murder of an American President. It has been my position that conduct of members- whatever the criticism of that members - by other members may have been towards them - should not be excused. And maybe I - and I stress “I” - have not been consistent on this matter.

I leave it to members to discuss what the future of this forum should be. And be in no doubt that the future of this forum is the point. If respected members are voting with their feet and are leaving this is an issue we ALL should be concerned about.

James R. Gordon,

I know that you are very busy, but could you please ask Mark Knight to explain to me how most of my recent posts have been insulting the intelligence of the average forum member ? 

Also, could he please explain how I am "mocking the entire purpose of the forum"?

Thank you,

Thomas W. Graves 

PS   Also, could you please request that David Josephs address me properly in the future, or not at all?

Please see my most recent post on the "David Josephs" thread in which I have offered to stop saying "with all due respect" to him (and to everyone else for that matter).

PPS  This just in from James DiEugenio on the "An Open Message To Michael Clark" thread.  Do you and / or Mark Knight agree with James?  (Thanks.)

OMG.

I mean is this for real?

TG, half of your idea is now on the ropes, unless you did not notice.

The House investigation is over and after one year they could no evidence of collusion.

The Senate is reportedly about to do the same.

Mueller is so desperate he is indicting xxxxx farms he knows he can never give due process to.

Months ago I linked to an article showing the whole DNC Russian hack thing was also dubious.

So that part of your idea is about to expire.

And you questioned me, oh those many moons ago before your sabbatical, about buying into unpatriotic Deep State paranoia because I said I would wait until the investigations have presented their findings.  But you knew better and started questioning my sagacity in doing so.

Please TG, show at least a bit of humility and self knowledge.

Further, your idol Peter Bagley  admitted to Malcolm Blunt that the so-called Oswald defection was a planned operation.  Why not acknowledge that just to show you are being at least a bit objective.

 1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

I just want to mention one thing because it is egregious behavior, IMO, and the mods may not have noticed. Our prolific “KGB did it” member has started to equivocate his theory with that of being a patriotic Amarican. To be sure, he has supported his position by pointing out that he is a proud American, and questioned whether detractors of his theory are patriotic. And, make no mistake, sometimes his sarcastic comment that “ Putin is a very nice man” is used to characterize his impression of the character of other members.

It can be very hard to control oneself under such circumstances, and such behavior is guaranteed to provoke harsh, personal pushback if it is not checked.

Michael,

Since I seem to be the only member of this forum who is "pushing" the KGB or Castro did it "theories" (hey, maybe even with the witting or unwitting help of some rogue CIA types), I can only assume that when you say, above, "our prolific 'KGB did it' member," you are referring to me.  Am I correct in that assumption?  Or am I just being "paranoid," here?

If so, why didn't you say my name?  Are you afraid the moderators would chastise you if you did?  

Regardless, in my humble opinion there are lots and lots of patriotic Americans who truly love their country but who have been unwittingly misled and conditioned by at least 58 years of (Soviet/Russian) "active measures" counterintelligence ops interwoven with "strategic / operative deception" counterintelligence ops into doing certain things (like believing that we live in a "Deep State," etc, or like voting for a blackmail-able "useful idiot" of Vladimir Putin) or not doing certain things (like voting, or fact-checking stuff on reputable fact-checking websites).

I do not appreciate your insinuating that I believe that I am more patriotic than you or anyone else on this forum.  More knowledgeable on certain things perhaps, but not more patriotic.

At least I hope there aren't any dyed-in-the-wool traitors lurking here.

(Laughing Out Loud)

Have a nice day, Michael, and I (edit: really do) mean it.

--  Tommy   TG

Hey David.

Welcome back.

--  Tommy

PS  Would you like to make a deal?  If I promise to stop saying "with all due respect" to you (and to everyone else, btw) will you promise to either 1) not say my name at all (or any kind of "nickname" or "moniker" substitute for it) in your posts to me, or in reference to me in other posts), or, 2) if you do say my name, at least write it with an upper-case first letter?

(Oh yeah, and could you please try to cut back a little on the emoticons, you know, like the guy popping the other dude's balloon, that kind of stuff?)

Thx!

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

I just want to mention one thing because it is egregious behavior, IMO, and the mods may not have noticed. Our prolific “KGB did it” member has started to equivocate his theory with that of being a patriotic Amarican. To be sure, he has supported his position by pointing out that he is a proud American, and questioned whether detractors of his theory are patriotic. And, make no mistake, sometimes his sarcastic comment that “ Putin is a very nice man” is used to characterize his impression of the character of other members.

It can be very hard to control oneself under such circumstances, and such behavior is guaranteed to provoke harsh, personal pushback if it is not checked.

deleted; moved to it own thread titled "An Open Message To Michael Clark"

--  Tommy 
 

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Well I know that. And that furthermore -- in your opinion -- that wasn't to be expected. Which is what I was refuting.

 

 

Yeah I saw that and I wanted to respond. But I got so frustrated that I gave up.

I have an awful memory for names, and because of stupid PhotoBucket replacing photos with their logo when they did, I can no longer easily tie the names of those people to their photos.

But my understanding is that the woman being interviewed in Bart's video is claiming that that blond headed woman is Gloria Calvery, and that she is a red head. Which is wrong on at least one count. I've never seen a red head who hair is so light that it comes out looking blond in B&W.

Besides, we know that Gloria Calvery's hair is dark, not blond. I thought it was a dark brown, but I suppose it could be a darker shade of red. But I'm not sure I would trust even that information from the woman interviewed in Bart's video. She misidentified Gloria Calvery for sure, and I think she misidentified herself. Then she says Oswald and the others ate lunch on the second floor, when all indications are that they ate lunch on the first floor in the domino room. Can we trust anything this woman says? (It's beyond me how she could get the lunchroom wrong. Could it be that she's the only one who's got it right?)

Anyway I think I've got to get serious about recovering my photos from PhotoBucket before they decide to purge their hard drives.

 

Thanks Sandy. 

No wonder this murder case is so confusing. 

"Eyewitnesses"

And in this case .... Interviewing a close-up witness to a very traumatic event fifty-five years later?

LOL

--  Tommy 

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tommy,

You said:  "....when he came to the U.S., how are we to explain, then, the fact that "Harvey" spoke such grammatically-correct, Hungarian and Russian accent-free English later in life?"

 

 

Or maybe she's an example is what should be expected of kids in her and Harvey's situation... having moved to the U.S. at a young age and then fully immersed in an English speaking environment for several years straight.

 

 

I believe that the key to the grammatically correct, accent free, learning of my ex-wife and Harvey is the total language immersion in both casse.

 

 

Sandy,

"Give it up."  LOL 

In that post I was trying to say that your "Harvey" didn't speak with a Hungarian or Russian accent.

By the way, have you seen my recent posts about Gloria Calvery, Stella Mae Jacob, Gloria Jeanne Holt, et al.?

Your input would be greatly appreciated, especially since Bart posted a video yesterday (on his Anatomy of A Second Floor Encounter thread) of a recent interview with 11/22/63 witness Karen Westbrook in which Westbrook, IMHO, misidentifies Gloria Jeanne Holt as Gloria Calvery in the Z-film.

Thanks,

--  Tommy 

39 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Yep.  I did miss it.  I'm slow like that.  But even those who disparage Harvey and Lee are not vermin.  Like I said, if You want to call Any member of this forum vermin, you need to look in the mirror first.

I just checked the original.  It wasn't "stomping," that Michael Clark wrote, it was "kiscks (sic) to the head."  And it was "vermin"-like, "thugs"-like, and "rabid dogs"-like "hooligans" Bernie Laverick, Michael Walton, and Lance Payette and/or myself who were allegedly doing the kiscking.

So I got it a little bit backwards, but the violent, dehumanizing imagery is there, and it's inescapable.
 

--  Tommy 

1 minute ago, Ron Bulman said:

Did David Josephs get frustrated and quit posting or prevented from doing so?   I can understand the former but not the latter.  Maybe he's just on vacation?

Ron,

Word is, to use Dawn's colloquialism, he was "axed."

--  Tommy 

6 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

This passes for relevant discussion about the JFK assassination or the forum itself?

Vermin Eh Thomas?   If you want to see more of that than you'll find on the forum look in the mirror.

As far as the rules of the forum go, if your going to allude to Any other member as such...

You deserve such a response.

Ron,

I guess you missed it when a member of this forum alluded to "stomping" "like "vermin" fellow members who have the audacity to disparage the Harvey and Lee theory. 

--  Tommy 

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

We've been through this before Tommy. A person who moves to another country early in life has a good chance of losing their accent, in particular when they are removed from their first-language environment. I don't have a reference for that, just my personal experience.

My first wife was a South Korean orphan who move to the U.S. when she was about seven. She was nineteen when I met here and she had absolutely no accept and spoke excellent English, better than most native born Americans.

Another example: My wife works at a small manufacturing company where illegal Mexicans have historically been able to get  jobs. One of my wife's friends who works there is an illegal Mexican. About ten years ago her son, age 15, suddenly appeared. He had remained behind in Mexico till that time. My wife spent some time with him and informed me that he spoke no English. Though I wondered if he had taken English classes when in Mexico. Because I met him about four years later and he spoke English well, and with no accent. He had lived in an English speaking foster home during much of those four years.

Admittedly, this guy's case is unusual.

 

Sandy,

I didn't say anything about accent.

Maybe your wife is a one-in-a-thousand, linguistically-gifted genius or something.

All I know is that I taught English in the Czech Republic for seven years, and based on that experience ("the teacher always learns more than the student"), my impression is that using English syntax and grammar correctly is a very difficult thing for foreigners to learn how to do, and that it would be even more difficult for a foreigner like your putative Hungarian boy, "Harvey" (who had allegedly first learned Hungarian and then Russian from his parents), to master as well as the man who was killed by Jack Ruby on 11/22/63 did.

(I'm talking about his spoken English here, not his dyslexic-like and poorly spelled/spelt written English.)

--  Tommy 

On 3/27/2017 at 11:29 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I'm sure Hargrove will come up with something, but it is, of course, unexplainable. The whole "Harvey was Hungarian" concept comes from an anonymous phone call reported by Mrs. Jack Tippit.

Tracy,

After reading all of the posts in this incredibly long thread, one begins to wonder if it's not more logical to believe that there were two Lovelady's (instead of two Oswalds for so many years) on just one day -- 11/22/63.

Bart's walking down Elm Street Extension, and Sandy's and mine (and Bob Prudhomme's), talking with Gloria Calvery on the front steps of the TSBD about 25 seconds after the final shot.

--  Tommy 

2 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

My review of that interview with Karen Westbrook Scranton

http://www.prayer-man.com/living-history-with-karen-westbrook-scranton/

Bart,

It's understandable that fifty-five years after the assassination, Karen Westbrook Scranton can't positively identify the dark-haired, brown coat-wearing gal (whom Sandy Larsen and I have identified as self-described Native American, Stella Mae Jacob).

It's also understandable that, according to the moderator, Gloria Calvery's own son thinks, in so many words, that Westbrook is mistaken in her "positive" identification of his mother as the "red haired?" young woman in the Z-frame.

When I look at the face of the light blue headscarf-wearing gal (your "Karen Westbrook") in the short Darnell clip (a frame of which I've posted below), she doesn't resemble very much the Karen Westbrook Scranton in the interview. IMHO.

The young woman with the blue headscarf I'm referring to here (probably Jacob's colleague,  Sharron Nelson, ne Simmons) seems to have a longer, narrower face than Westbrook-Scranton has.

--  Tommy 

On 4/13/2017 at 12:21 PM, Thomas Graves said:

Bart,

In addition to Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites, I guess we're going to have to make room for The Two Loveladys, too!

Note dressed-in-black "Big Girl" Gloria Calvery continuing to talk with Lovelady as Calvery's dressed-in-white colleague tries to pull her up the steps:

--  Tommy

Bumped for Sandy Larsen, who's been kind of inactive for the last 20 hours or so and may not have seen the most recent posts on this thread.

--  Tommy 

On 4/27/2017 at 10:36 AM, Thomas Graves said:

On 1/31/2012 Steven Roy (R.I.P.) wrote:

 

There are a few mistakes in that article. I'd be careful about taking it all as gospel.

1) Ferrie was not Banister's employee. (That's Banister with one "n", not two.)

2) To say that Arcacha's office was in the same building as Oswald's is chronologically misleading, by about 18 months.

3) CIA considered using Guy Banister Associates in 1960, but the files say it was not approved.

4) Banister was not SAC in Chicago "in 1945 and 1949." He served as SAC there 1954-5.

5) The evidence does not support Marcello funding Arcacha's group. A fellow named Dalzell told Arcacha that he THOUGHT he might be able to get money from Marcello in exchange for gambling concessions, but he said he never actually approached Marcello.

6) The skating/hunting reason for Ferrie's trip leaves out some more conventional business reasons.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reply:

 

Thanks, Stephen,

Excellent post. Thanks for pointing out some of the mistakes Douglas Valentine made in his book The Strength of the Wolf.

Ferrie's old buddy, Alvin Beaubouef, called me from out of the blue one day to correct me about something I'd posted on the Forum.

He told me that the rain and lightening storm they drove through on the way to Houston that night wasn't nearly as severe as many researchers have claimed it was over the years (and as it was immortalized in Oliver Stone's film, JFK).

I asked him why they went to Houston, and he said that since he was an excellent figure skater as a young man, he and Ferrie were considering opening an ice skating rink in New Orleans.

He said they wanted to check out the nearest ice skating rink to New Orleans, and that it happened to be the one they went to in Houston.

--  Tommy

 

edited and bumped

On 2/20/2016 at 10:38 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Zfilm alteration equation coming up.

chris

That looks just like my dog "Kashmir" (R.I.P.)

--  Tommy 

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Honestly (really) I didn't expect so much response. I've been thinking about how to proceed. 

First, to Mr. Kinght, I don't imagine some grand conspiracy behind moderator actions, and understand how things slip between the cracks. I too tried to send Mr. Jeffries a message with the same result. I would think moderators have more personal ways to communicate, but perhaps they don't, and that would be a problem in my view. 

I am bothered by the actions against Josephs, and also by the lack of transparency.

i am not a researcher, but I am a good reader, have a decent memory, and I am forever concerned about 'deep' events like assassinations. That will never change. I still manage to dig up leads while reading through posts, so I won't stop that. For now I will continue to receive private messages. I value the notes I've gotten from many posters here. 

I have no choice but to stop engaging with posters whose discourse is one sided and dismissive. I beat my head against their walls because I mistakenly assume that if I could just find the magic words things would change. I'm not a masochist, just overly optimistic.

i really appreciate the good wishes. 

Paul,

With all due respect, would you please reconsider your drastic decision and ....... stay?

Please?

--  Tommy 

PS  Or will you stay only if David Josephs is welcomed back?

--  Tommy 

On 3/27/2017 at 8:43 AM, Thomas Graves said:

GEM # 1  (Let's take them one at a time, shall we?)

"The Russian speaking youth, possibly of Hungarian parents, was brought to the U.S. following World War II and given the name HARVEY Oswald."

Question:  If the mother tongue of "Harvey" (the young boy who eventually joined the Marines, "defected" to the USSR, married Marina, and was killed by Jack Ruby on 11/24/63) was Hungarian (a Turkic language from Central Asia), and he was already speaking Russian (a highly-inflected, Indo-European language) when he came to the U.S., how are we to explain, then, the fact that "Harvey" spoke such grammatically-correct, Hungarian and Russian accent-free English later in life? 

--  Tommy

PS  I think I can speak with some authority on this, having taught English for seven years in a country that speaks a Slavic, i.e. Russian-like language, the Czech Republic.  And I remember the Hungarian Toth brothers at La Jolla High School back around 1964, who probably came to the U.S. around the time of the 1956 Hungarian Revolt against the U.S.S.R. 

A timely bump?

--  Tommy