Thomas Graves

Dear Members and Honored Lurkers, I recently stumbled upon the following August 21, 1959, CIA document which talks about a meeting between J.C. King (Galbond), David Atlee Phillips (Choaden), and someone by the name of "Charron" in J.C. King's office. It describes the discussion they had regarding what would be the best strategy for Phillips to use if he were to be interrogated by the Cuban authorities about his associations and activities in Cuba. The meeting took place shortly before he (and David Sanchez Morales?) did have to leave Cuba. https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=36237&relPageId=2 Charron's full pseudonym was "Lawrence R. Charron." I think "Charron" might have been "Frank Bender / Gerry Droller". A May 13, 1964, CIA document sent from Santiago, Chile, to the CIA Director at Headquarters, says that "Charron" didn't know anything about the issue at hand (something to do with the CIA's boat "Tejana II") because he had already left his position at CIA headquarters and gone to his new CIA post in Santiago, Chile, when the event or incident had occurred. It's interesting to note that one of the people who were privy to this document was James Jesus Angleton ("C/CI") https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=35267&relPageId=2 It's also interesting to note that former CIA officer Joseph B. Smith wrote in his book Portrait of a Cold Warrior that "Gerry Droller" had already become, by 1963 or 1964, branch chief of the countries comprising the CIA's "southern cone" (Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, and Chile). Could "Lawrence R. Charron" be the mysterious "Frank Bender / Gerry Droller" ( G. Drecher) ? FWIW, most of the CIA documents that mention "Charron" at the Mary Ferrell Foundation website also mention "Choaden" (David Atlee Phillips), so it looks like those two "went back a ways"... --Tommy Bumped in a probably vain attempt to attract the attention of a "heavyweight" like Larry Hancock, Bill Simpich, or... Question: Would it have been logical for W.C. King to include Bender / Droller in the August 21,1959, brainstorming session regarding what Phillips should so if he were to be interrogated by the Cuban authorities?

Current results of my informal "running" poll: "Abnormal" -- Robert Mady "Normal" -- Tommy, Carmine, Vanessa, Paul B. The "Normals" Have It At The Moment! Anyone else wanna weigh in? To be "bumped" from time to time to encourage more votes and to keep the subject (Were the Martin and Hughes clips which showed Lovelady in front of the TSBD after the assassination "normal" or "abnormal"?) alive, so to speak. To watch the two film clips, go to post #1592, above. --Tommy "The man whose brain I did put in is doing very well, thank you very much." -- See, perfect grammar after all. So let's not jump to conclusions shall we. Everything must be taken in context! Isn't that right, Igor. Igor? Electro-shocked. Don't be shy. Cast your vote today!

Current results of my informal "running" poll: "Abnormal" -- Robert Mady "Normal" -- Tommy, Carmine, Vanessa, Paul B. The "Normals" Have It At The Moment! Anyone else wanna weigh in? (To be "bumped" from time to time to encourage more votes and to keep the subject (Were the Martin and Hughes clips which showed Lovelady in front of the TSBD after the assassination "normal" or "abnormal"?) alive, so to speak. --Tommy "The man whose brain I did put in is doing very well, thank you very much." -- See, perfect grammar after all. So let's not jump to conclusions shall we. Everything must be taken in context! Isn't that right, Igor. Igor?

So how many threads can dance on the head of the pinned? How many pinheads can what??? --Tommy

Thanks, Carmine. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? The Question: Given the circumstances, are the Martin and Hughes clips (viewable in post # 1592, above) suspicious or normal? Thanks. --Tommy

Are you nuts? The President of the United States has just been shot, apparently from the TSBD. The sniper may still be inside the building. The authorities are searching for him inside the building. They could theoretically drag the sniper out through the front door at any moment. A policeman is doing "traffic control" at the front door. It's an exciting afternoon and the TSBD is one of the focal points. I see nothing unusual whatsoever about two amateur photographers filming the goings on outside the TSBD some 8 to 15 minutes after the assassination. What do other members think about this? Are these two film clips of a suspicious or normal nature, given the circumstances? Thanks, --Tommy PS -- Mady, The burden of proof is on you. It's your theory.

I recently stumbled upon this August 21, 1959, CIA document which talks about a meeting between J.C. King (Galbond), David Atlee Phillips (Choaden), and someone by the name of "Charron" in J.C. King's office in Washington D.C. It describes the discussion they had regarding the best strategy for Phillips to use if he were to be interrogated by the Cuban authorities about his associations and activities in Cuba. The meeting took place shortly before he (and David Sanchez Morales?) did have to leave Cuba. https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=36237&relPageId=2 Charron's full pseudonym was "Lawrence R. Charron." I think "Charron" might have been "Frank Bender / Gerry Droller". A May 13, 1964, CIA document sent from Santiago, Chile, to the CIA Director at Headquarters, says that "Charron" didn't know anything about the issue at hand (something to do with the CIA's boat "Tejana II") because he had already left his position at CIA headquarters and gone to his new CIA post in Santiago, Chile, when the event or incident had occurred. It's interesting to note that one of the people who were privy to this document was James Jesus Angleton ("C/CI") https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=35267&relPageId=2 It's also interesting to note that former CIA officer Joseph B. Smith wrote in his book Portrait of a Cold Warrior that "Gerry Droller" had already become, by 1963 or 1964, branch chief of the countries comprising the CIA's "southern cone" (Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, and Chile) . Could "Lawrence R. Charron" be the mysterious "Frank Bender / Gerry Droller" ( G. Drecher) ? FWIW, most of the CIA documents that mention "Charron" at the Mary Ferrell Foundation website also mention "Choaden" (David Atlee Phillips), so it looks like those two "went back a ways"... --Tommy

Dear members, Please help me to identify anyone other than Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Danny Arce in either of these two clips. Or, for that matter, point out people who are in either of these two clips and also in some other photograph or film. e.g. Altgens 6 or the Nix film? Thank you! From a Robin Unger post # 142 on the "Neweusem Displays Oswald's Shirt" thread: Martin / Hughes film sync TSBD doorway Credit: Gerda Dunckel Give the Gif time to load --Tommy PS For example, could that be DPD Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer wearing the brown jacket and the white hat in the very near foreground of the Hughes clip, or is that guy "just" a taxi driver or something? PPS Do you agree with Robert Mady that these two clips were "faked" or "staged" at a later date in order to make it look like Lovelady was wearing his long sleeved, mostly-red "plaid" shirt on 11/22/63?

Ever heard of common sense, Robert? None of the "extras" spilled the beans because of "National Security"? LOL --Tommy Mady wrote: So in other words you have no evidence to show that the scenes could not have been staged. Is it that you feel very strongly that it could not be conceivably possible? I don't want to put words in your mouth but you have not provided any reasoning for your opinion other than it is unimaginable to you. [...] I have no doubt they could have done it, there is no technical reason or insurmountable obstacle to have prevented them from doing so. The fact that WILLIAMS and ARCE and extras never spilled the beans could be a proof of "national Security" threat wouldn't it? [...] Mady, The burden of proof is on you, not me. It's your theory. So please tell us how the bad guys could have / would have "staged" or "faked" the scene which was captured simultaneously in the John Martin and Robert Hughes films in which Lovelady is smoking a cigarette in front of the TSBD a few minutes after the assassination and in close proximity to his co-workers Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce. You do agree that Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce are visible in the John Martin film (post #1470, this thread), don't you, or do you think they were paid "extras"? You do agree that they are in front of the TSBD, don't you, or are they in front of a fake building made to look like the TSBD? You do agree that both films were shot during daylight hours, don't you, or do you think they were shot at night, using artificial light? You do agree that DPD policemen are visible in both films, don't you, or do you think they were paid "extras"? Etc... If you think both films were "faked" and "staged" just to make it look like Lovelady had been wearing his long sleeved, mostly-red, "plaid" shirt on 11/22/63, why do you think the bad guys went to the trouble to film the scene from two slightly-different positions? Wouldn't one fake film have been sufficient? --Tommy Post # 1470, this thread. Scroll down to see the John Martin and Robert Hughes clips of this scene juxtaposed: Robert, Yes, that's Lovelady at 1:33 (wearing his unbuttoned red, grey, and black plaid shirt over his white t-shirt) directly under the letter "T" in "DEPOSITORY". To answer your question, I think it was several minutes after the assassination as the police are letting workers into the building again. In fact at the very end you can see Lovelady start making his way up the stairs towards the front door. Sorry I can't be more specific. Perhaps another forum member can educate us. --Tommy And now for a little followup. From post # 1156, this thread, by Sean Murphy: #2. LOVELADY IS ASKED EXPLICITLY ABOUT A PRAYER MAN-STYLE SCENARIO. First the HSCA interviewer asks Lovelady to identify himself in Altgens. Lovelady immediately does so. Next Lovelady is shown an image he has never seen before: a frame from the John Martin film [contemporaneous with the Robert Hughes clip you're talking about, Mr Prudhomme] showing him (Lovelady) standing over by the east side of the entrance some 8-15 minutes post-assassination (a time estimate given by photographic consultant Robert Groden, who is present in the room). Lovelady identifies himself immediately. [...] --Tommy And last but not least! From a Robin Unger post # 142 on the "Neweusem Displays Oswald's Shirt" thread: Martin / Hughes film sync TSBD doorway Credit: Gerda Dunckel Give the Gif time to load (If you look closely at the Martin clip, you'll see that Lovelady is smoking. When he exhales through his mouth, it distorts his face because he juts his jaw out. Also note that when he turns his head away from the TSBD and exhales, a tiny vertical strip of Lovelady's t-shirt is visible in his chest area. So his shirt was unbuttoned, after all!) Note: Lovelady is visible in the Hughes clip above, too, but you can't see much of his shirt. Just his huge bald spot. LOL --Tommy Is that Howard Brennan (wearing the hardhat and overalls) walking in from the left with someone else near the end of the Hughes film? PS Please note that Bonnie Ray Williams is visible in both clips, and Danny Arce is visible in the Martin clip. Mady, Can you recognize the "Bonnie Ray Williams" and "Danny Arce" characters in the Martin clip, and "Bonnie Ray Williams" in the Hughes clip ("Danny Arce" is obscured by people standing in the foreground)? They are there. Let me know if you need some help spotting them. Did you know that Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce were Lovelady's co-workers at the TSBD? --Tommy

Robert, I'm not going to argue with you, so after this post I'm no longer going to participate on this thread. The John Martin film and the Robert Hughes film were shot in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. A small section of both films was shot at the same time, at (almost exactly) the same place, and had the same subject matter -- the police activity and general commotion that was occurring on the front steps of the TSBD a few minutes after the assassination. (Eight to fifteen minutes after the assassination, according to Robert Groden.) Both film sections or "clips" show Billy Lovelady in front of the TSBD. (Interestingly, the Martin clip also shows two other male TSBD employees -- Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce -- at the same place and time as Lovelady. The Hughes clip shows Bonnie Ray Williams, too, but doesn't show Danny Arce because a man standing in front of the cameraman obscures our view of him.) The clip from the Martin film clearly shows Lovelady smoking a cigarette. It is viewable in post #1470 of the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD?" thread. (John Martin worked in the Terminal Annex Building across the Plaza from the TSBD. You can research him and his 11/22/63 film if you want to.) Now, it's perfectly understandable to me that two amateur photographers, John Martin and Robert Hughes, would be attracted to the police activity and general commotion that was going on at the front entrance of the TSBD eight to fifteen minutes after the assassination, and that both of them would happen to film the same "scene". The fact that Billy Lovelady was there at that time (as were fellow TSBD employees Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce) and ended up in both the Martin film and the Hughes film does not seem strange to me all. After all, Lovelady and Williams and Arce worked in the TSBD. What's more, it's obvious that neither Lovelady nor Williams nor Arce was the center of the photographers' "attention" in either film. I'm outta here... --Tommy bumped for Mady

Robert, I agree. I'd much rather "research" and debate the Prayer Man / Doorman / Lovelady-and-Shelley / Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom issues than, say, the "Edwin Walker Done It" theory. Plus, there some very important photographic images and film clips on that thread, IMHO. --Tommy

Correcto Mundo, Robert. So they lied didn't they. What's so surprising about that? --Tommy

Ever heard of common sense, Robert? None of the "extras" (including Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce) spilled the beans because of "National Security"? LOL How about Occam's Razor? Gumption? Horse sense? Etc... Don't get all defensive on me, now. --Tommy

Robert, Well, yes. They would be implicated in the assassination, wouldn't they. All three of them. You're a hunter. You've fired a lot of guns. Do you think the pigeons on top of the TSBD would have flown off quickly anyway, regardless of where the shots were fired from? Say another building or the pergoda, for example? --Tommy

Thanks Jon. I got that the first time. I asked if you were related to the analyst. Greg. That's strictly on a need-to-know basis. --Tommy

Yes, but how about laterally? Perhaps Angleton would have been better at that. Do you think "Big Mac" even knew everything that was going on in CIA's Counter Intelligence / Special Investigations Group (CI/SIG) , the group that spied on the CIA's own spies? If so, did Angleton know that Bundy / McBundy / "Big Mac" knew everything? Was "Big Mac" spying on the SIG? --Tommy

Why am I so resistant to your idea that the Lovelady scenes were altered in Altgens 6 or, even better, "staged" in three different films? Because I'm, of course, rational? --Tommy PS It's interesting that you are willing to jeopardize all of the fine progress you've made with your "shot/s from the pergola" theory by clinging to your assertion that the Martin and Hughes clips, as well as the clip showing Oswald being taken past Lovelady in the police department, were "staged" and filmed at a later time, with such "extras" as dead-ringer look-alikes for Lovelady, Bonnie Ray Williams, Danny Arce, and.... Maybe you've bitten off more than you can chew. Maybe you shouldn't strive to make such a Grand, All-Inclusive, Dealey Plaza 11/22/63, Theory. The pieces you've chosen to work with just don't fit unless you say that a photograph and three films were altered and (incredibly) "staged." Why are you willing to make such a laughing-stock out of yourself like that?

Jon, How was Oswald framed? Please be all-inclusive. --Tommy

Jon, Interesting. How was the CIA snookered, and how did Bundy / McBundy / "Big Mac" know that or arrange that? (Maybe I already know the answers and I'm just testing you.) --Tommy "Big Mac" was an even better puppet master than Angleton? Jesus!

Jon, Okay. Thanks for sharing. Why would Bundy have wanted JFK dead? The Vietnam War? Anything else? How was the CIA snookered? --Tommy Going from memory here, but hadn't Bundy orchestrated Diem's execution just three weeks earlier? By George, I think you might be on to something...

A co-worker? Or are you going to say "No, the guy shading his eyes in Altgens 6 had to be Lovelady because he (the co-worker? ; Lovelady?) was wearing a light-colored short sleeved shirt? LOL --Tommy If you are correct in saying that Lovelady wore his short sleeved, vertically-striped shirt on 11/22/63, that would mean that the Martin and Hughes films, which show someone who looks a lot like Lovelady, bald spot and all, wearing his long sleeved, mostly-red, "plaid" shirt and smoking a cigarette at the base of the TSBD steps some 8 - 15 minutes after the assassination, not far from Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce and a bunch of other people (some of whom might even be identifiable to experts), was "staged" and filmed at an earlier or a later date. It that what you are saying? If so, how was this kept so secret over the years? Why haven't any of the "actors" come out and "spilled the beans"? Why would the bad guys have gone to all that trouble, anyway? Oh yeah, and that other film clip that was filmed a couple of hours later which shows Oswald being taken past somebody who looks just like Lovelady wearing his long sleeved, mostly-red, "plaid" shirt inside the police station. Was that staged, too? Wouldn't you be better off if you modified your theory and accepted the possibility that Lovelady was "captured" in Altgens 6 while wearing his long sleeved, mostly-red, "plaid" shirt? And that Prayer Man, captured in either Darnell or Couch (going from memory here) but unfortunately not "captured" in Altgens 6, was Oswald?

Please bear in mind that appearances can be deceiving, especially when looking at someone in the fuzzy background of a photograph / film. Lovelady (on the right) could very well be wearing his long sleeved, mostly-red, "plaid" shirt. Regarding how appearances can be deceiving, notice how Shelley's dark suit jacket appears mottled (due to the lighting conditions; light's being reflected in an irregular pattern by the irregular masonry (with "holes") wall, etc. --Tommy

I hope that everyone who disagrees with you is not guilty of holding / posting dishonest opinions and / or invalid evidence. This thread is the perfect place to discuss Lovelady's attire on 11/22/63 because such a discussion just might open your mind a bit and force you to reconsider / modify parts of your grand theory. Or is it all "set in concrete" now? --Tommy Hint: I personally believe that that is Shelley and Lovelady walking down the Elm Street Extension while Baker is running towards the front door of the TSBD. But I also believe that it is possible that Lovelady is wearing his long-sleeved, mostly-red, "plaid" shirt while walking down the Elm Street Extension with Shelley, and that it just appears light colored in the photograph / film clip because of the lighting conditions.

Mr. Jon G. Tidd, Is this an interrogation? --or-- Are you playing "Socratic professor" here, trying to draw out the correct answers from your "students"? --or-- Or are you just hoping that we will provide you with good "leads" and / or "the answers"? --Tommy PS Why are you here? Never mind. Redacted. bumped bumped again

I hope that everyone who disagrees with you is not guilty of holding / posting dishonest opinions and / or invalid evidence. This thread is the perfect place to discuss Lovelady's attire on 11/22/63 because such a discussion just might open your mind a bit and force you to reconsider / modify parts of your grand theory. Or is it all "set in concrete" now? --Tommy