Thomas Graves

Bill Shelley. What about Bill Shelley? --Tommy

Carmine, you willingly responded to Robert's mention of PM and you knew I would respond to that, so forgive me any skepticism on the first part. On the latter... as already stated, we agree... evidence is necessary to prove a fact. What we don't agree upon and which I again suggest you should seek advice from a trusted friend about, is that the state of evidence, or the lack of evidence, does not make a fact disappear, destroy it, turn it into a falsehood, or indeed, have any affect upon it at all. I have tried to help you understand this, as has Mark. Let it go and take a deep breath and if you feel the need to reply, bite down on it and get some advice first. Greg, It is not that we misunderstand each other, it is that we disagree on the requirements to prove the PM hypothesis. I am calm, I have no reason not be. A statement that shows the depth of your confusion, Carmine. David, I appreciate the kind words. To be, or not be? LOL --Tommy

The central figure shows what happens to young men who go through boot camp. No more, no less. Speaking of boot camp Greg, why is it that you cannot answer the question about only 5 weeks of Boot Camp when every Marine goes thru at least 13 weeks with up to 3 more weeks special training? CE1961 and 1962. Maybe because this is the first time you've ever asked me about it David? Unless you can provide a link to past exchange on it? No? That's right. You have carte blanche here to make up whatever claims you want about someone without fear that you can be called a xxxx.... silly me... I forgot for a minute where I am.... Real evidence with which you actually have to deal... or ignore. Up to you . From CE 1961 By my calculation, that is 12 weeks. Maybe they use different math in California? Boot camp is a 12 week program - not 13 as you claim http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_Recruit_Training Keep it up, Greg. I'm rather starting to enjoy these exchanges between you and Jo Jo regarding They Done Genetically-Engineered Harvey, Lee, and Henry, Too! theory. "But don't you see? It's the only way we can make any sense out of the assassination! -- By complicating it even more than it already is!" --Tommy

I will, But why do you want me to delete it? Stephen, If you don't delete it, Mady will have to spend a lot of time proving to you that that video was faked in order for our fascist government to incriminate two nice brothers who were sorely aggrieved individuals, nothing more. It was staged by paid actors at a later date in a remote location in New Mexico, and anyone who can't see that is suffering from Cognitive Dissonance. --Tommy

It actually wasn't unti May 1964 and Sept 1964 that Truly's story finally jives with Baker's March testimony which directly conflicts with his same day affidavit which does not mention a door, a window, a Coke or a lunchroom... One has to wonder why Truly does not remember the events described on Baker's same-day affidavit... ?? Especially since leaving him on the stairs coming down is much more incriminating in placing Oswald back at the window... if the person they ran into was Oswald... the description doesn't really match, does it? This is yet another example of the use of uncorroborated and inauthentic evidence used to prove a point. Roy Truly and Marrion Baker lied to the WC during their testimony. Except a few small hints slip thru: Mr. BELIN - Did you notice, did he say anything or was there any expression after Mr. Truly said he worked here? Mr. BAKER - At that time I never did look back toward him. After he says, "Yes, he works here," I turned immediately and run on up, I halfway turned then when I was talking to Mr. Truly. If Baker is in the lunchroom, as opposed to the stairs like his affidavit says, he cannot "run on up" unless he actually WAS on the stairs and not in the lunchroom at the time... Truly was very aware of what was going on in the TSBD NOVEMBER 22, 1963 A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, "Let's take the elevator." The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket. s/ M. L. Baker MAY 14, 1964 Mr. TRULY. This officer was right behind me and coming up the stairway. By the time I reached the second floor, the officer was a little further behind me than he was on the first floor, I assume--I know. Mr. BELIN. Was he a few feet behind you then? Mr. TRULY. He was a few feet. It is hard for me to tell. I ran right on around to my left, started to continue on up the stairway to the third floor, and on up. 11-22-63: As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me MAY 14, 1964 Mr. BELIN. It could have been open or it could have been closed, you do not remember? Mr. TRULY. The chances are it was closed. Mr. BELIN. You thought you opened it? Mr. TRULY. I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this way. Mr. BELIN. What did you see? Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. BELIN. And where was Lee Harvey Oswald at the time you saw him? Mr. TRULY. He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside he was just inside the lunchroom door 11-22-63: As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me MARCH 25, 1964 Mr. BAKER - As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there. 11-22-63: As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0308b.htm This affidavit from ROY TRULY is the only thing which matches his testimony and is dated from September 23rd 1964 - only a day or so before the release of the WCR... http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0358a.htm This affidavit from ROY TRULY MARRION BAKER the only thing which matches his testimony and is dated from September 23rd 1964 - only a day or so before the release of the WCR... (this is the crossed out Coke affidavit) and these two look very similar, even the signatures.... ================== parting thought to consider - what is Sawyer doing here? Within 4 minutes of the shots SAWYER and a couple men also go up into the TSBD - to the 4th floor, are there less than a few minutes to "make sure noboby was hiding" and then is back down Mr. SAWYER. We immediately went inside the building. I took--I believe Sgt. Harkness may have gone with me. I am not positive of that. Mr. BELIN. Was the elevator on the first floor when you got there, or did you have to wait for it to come down? Mr. SAWYER. Best of my recollection, it was there. Mr. BELIN. You got to the elevator, went up, looked around back there. How long did you spend up there at the top floor (4th) that the elevator took you to? Mr. SAWYER. Just took a quick look around and made sure there was nobody hiding on that floor. I doubt if it took over a minute at the most. Mr. BELIN. To go up and look around and come down? Mr. SAWYER. To look around on the floor. How long it took to go up, it couldn't have been over 3 minutes at the most from the time we left, got up and back down. Mr. BELIN. Then that would put it around no sooner than 12:37, if you heard the call at 12:34? Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir. Jo Jo, The physical description which you included in your post of the "thirty year old, 5'9", 165 pound" light-brown-jacket-wearing man whom Baker encountered on the stairs fits nicely with the description of the suspected assassin broadcast around 12:45 by Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer-- "About thirty years old, 5'10", 165 pounds." The description I'm referring to was given to Sawyer by a witness who, according to J.Edgar Hoover, told Sawyer he had seen a man running away from the TSBD after the assassination. It's interesting that the physical description given to and broadcast by Sawyer is identical in all details to the one in Baker's affidavit except that Baker's guy is a measly one inch shorter than Sawyer's. Here's a thread from another forum which mention's Hoover's conclusions regarding Sawyer's witness. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=1591.20;wap2 All of which leads me to believe that either 1 ) Sawyer's witness and Baker encountered an assassin on the sidewalk and on the stairs, respectively, or 2 ) Baker was spreading the same incorrect "marked card" Robert Webster-like description of Oswald that Sawyer may have been spreading in his 12:45 broadcast. --Tommy "Keep on rockin' in the free world..."

Paul B., A "marked card" was effectively created in a report by FBI agent John Fain on May 12, 1960, and had the effect of giving skinny twenty-year-old Oswald the same physical characteristics as another defector, beefier and slightly taller thirty-year-old former high school basketball player Robert Webster -- 5'10" , 165 pounds, light brown hair, and even blue eyes (Oswald's were hazel-grey). Fain wrote in a report that Marguerite Oswald described her son Lee Harvey Oswald to him like that, but I believe Fain was lying because of the above-mentioned difference in eye color (how can a mother forget her own child's eye color?) and the fact that after the assassination Marguerite stated that Lee never weighed more than 150 lbs in his life. Fain's report was sent to the CIA and was soon incorporated into the CIA's computerized registry at the insistence of (Spanish-speaking) Bill Bright, an officer in SR/6 (Soviet Union biographies) who was monitoring Oswald (and Webster? and Martin and Mitchell?) in Russia and who, ironically, was sent to Mexico City a short time before Oswald is alleged to have gotten there, in order to monitor the Spanish-speaking LIENVOY transcrbers to make sure they were writing down in Spanish (and translating into English?) what they'd actually heard various Spanish speakers say on the tapes. I believe all of this is covered in Simpich's State Secret which is, as you know, readable for free on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website. Here's the pertinent page from Fain's report: https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=139532 And here's Fain's WC testimony, in which he talks about the seven-page report: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/fain.htm My main concern about J. Herbert Sawyer's 12:45 (or so) broadcast is whether he got the description from someone at ground level who told him he had seen the shooter in an upper-floor window, or whether, as claimed by J. Edgar Hoover in a memo / letter, the witness told Sawyer he'd seen someone at street level who was running away from the TSBD. It's an important distinction because, whereas it would have been possible to accurately observe the height and weight of a suspect at ground level, it would have been impossible to do so by standing at ground level and looking up at the suspect in an upper floor window (as Howard Brennan claimed to have done). Here's a thread from another website which touches on Sawyer's broadcast description of the suspect as well as on Hoover's contention the the suspect was at street level and running away from the TSBD when he was seen by the unknown witness: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=1591.20;wap2 Regarding Texas Mllitary Intel, I'm not an expert on this, so all I can do is "drop some names," from only memory yet, which may be faulty or have no connection with what you're asking about. The names, I mean. lol Jack Revill George Stringfellow A Colonel Jones in a millitary intelligence (Army?) unit in Texas I will add names to this list if I think of any more. --Tommy Sounds like you've got a lot of "research" to do now, Paul. Please do let us know what you find out. ( LOL ) I think you will agree that it is fascinating that the description of the assassin broadcast by J. Herbert Sawyer (whom I'm starting to believe may have planted some "evidence" on the 5th and / or 6th floor of the TSBD a few minutes after the assassination), as allegedly given to him by a particularly nondescript "witness," matches perfectly the incorrect description of Oswald which Fain put into his May 12, 1960, report. Any feedback from you on this, Paul B., would be greatly appreciated in order to keep this issue on the "front burners," so to speak, of this forum. After all this "research," please don't leave me hangin' here, Paul Brancato... LOL

Jon, Thank you for replying. If "Oswald serves well as a patsy only because he was killed," do you think his patsification (is that even a word? lol) was contingent on his being killed? If he had lived, do you think he would have been made the patsy? Why do you think Oswald said, "They've brought me in only because I lived in Russia. I'm just a patsy!", or words to that effect? Do you think what Oswald said might have been true? Do you see anything going on in Washington D.C. or Dallas or elsewhere during the two day period of time between his arrest and his murder that would suggest to you that he had already been chosen to be the "patsy"? Thanks, --Tommy

Mr. Jon G. Tidd, I'm surprised that you left off of your list of "loose ends to ponder" the fact that Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer claimed that a strangely nondescript man told him a few minutes after the assassination that the (strangely nondescript clothing-wise) sniper in the window (or perhaps just a man seen running away from the TSBD?) was a Robert Webster-like 5'-10" , 165 pounds, and about 30 years old. As you probably know, Oswald was twenty-four years old and 5' 9" and only 131 pounds at autopsy. This "mysto" description of the assassin, which Sawyer broadcast over police radio at 12:45 or so, probably didn't have anything to do with Tippit's alleged stopping of Oswald in Oak Cliff and getting murdered for his trouble, so it probably can't be said that the Webster-like description of the assassin had anything to do with Oswald's being apprehended in the Texas Theater. A thirty-four pound difference on a 5' 9" frame rules that out, IMHO, because Tippit was supposed to be looking for a suspect that much heavier, not to mention six years older, than Oswald. I think it's possible that Military Intel provided this info to the Dallas Police Department or Sawyer in particular, not realizing that it was from a 1960 Robert Webster-based, inaccurate, FBI and CIA description of "Marina's husband," as you like to say. Here's a new idea: The person or persons who provided the DPD or Sawyer with this bogus information might even have been the "mole" that the CIA was looking for as far back as 1960, making the the bogus Oswald description The Mother of all "marked cards". --Tommy Question: Why would any reasonable person assume that Oswald had been set up strictly ex post facto. ? Question: At what exact point in time did the plotters decide to make Oswald the patsy? Right before the shots rang out? Right after the shots rang out? When he was arrested at the Texas Theater for the murder of Tippit? Question: Do you know of any candidates for "patsy," other than Marina's husband, who were not only an excellent candidate (good with a rifle, "Marxist," temporary worker, former "defector," etc) but could also be plausibly "placed", ex post facto, in the TSBD or a nearby tall building? Question: Is it your opinion that the plotters were monitoring several candidates for "patsy" right up until the shots rang out, or perhaps even later? and bumped for Mr. Tidd I noticed that Jon was reading the post while I was editing it LAST TIME. Please reply to it, Jon. Thank you.

Hi Dave Sorry for my long absence. I have made an effort to contact both John Brinegar and John Masen. Brinegar's store must have closed down many years ago, as his trail is quite cold. The best lead I could get is that he had moved to Alaska some time in the mid-60's. OTOH, Mr. Masen is still alive and well and living in Dallas. The gun store he established is still doing a thriving business, although his family now runs it for him. I have made several requests to contact Mr. Masen but, sadly, all have been politely denied. The reason Mr. Masen had a box of WCC 6.5mm Carcano cartridges loaded with soft point hunting bullets is very simple. Some of Mr. Masen's customers owned Carcanos and the only ammo available would have been Italian SMI full metal jacket or WCC full metal jacket bullets. As FMJ bullets are universally banned from hunting (due to their resistance to expand in a wound), this meant these owners were restricted to target shooting with their Carcanos. Using a bullet puller, Mr. Masen would extract the FMJ bullet, and seat a soft point hunting bullet into the neck of the cartridge. However, this presents an interesting problem, and the reason I wished to speak with Mr. Masen. WC supporters have long maintained the WCC cartridges were made exactly to Italian specs, including the bullets loaded into the cartridges being the required .268 inch diameter. As I have stated before, the Carcano, with its uniquely deep rifling grooves, had to shoot a bullet .268 inch in diameter in order to be accurate, while the vast majority of other 6.5mm rifles shot a bullet .264 inch in diameter.Therefore, if Mr. Masen pulled .268 inch FMJ bullets from the WCC cartridges, he would have had to replace them with .264 inch SP bullets, as there would not have been .268 inch SP bullets available in 1963. Of course, the .264 inch bullets would have been a sloppy fit in a .268 inch neck. Was he required to resize the cartridge necks in a die? Or were the WCC cartridges loaded with .264 inch bullets, and no resizing was required? Hi Dave Sorry for my long absence. I have made an effort to contact both John Brinegar and John Masen. Brinegar's store must have closed down many years ago, as his trail is quite cold. The best lead I could get is that he had moved to Alaska some time in the mid-60's. OTOH, Mr. Masen is still alive and well and living in Dallas. The gun store he established is still doing a thriving business, although his family now runs it for him. I have made several requests to contact Mr. Masen but, sadly, all have been politely denied. The reason Mr. Masen had a box of WCC 6.5mm Carcano cartridges loaded with soft point hunting bullets is very simple. Some of Mr. Masen's customers owned Carcanos and the only ammo available would have been Italian SMI full metal jacket or WCC full metal jacket bullets. As FMJ bullets are universally banned from hunting (due to their resistance to expand in a wound), this meant these owners were restricted to target shooting with their Carcanos. Using a bullet puller, Mr. Masen would extract the FMJ bullet, and seat a soft point hunting bullet into the neck of the cartridge. However, this presents an interesting problem, and the reason I wished to speak with Mr. Masen. WC supporters have long maintained the WCC cartridges were made exactly to Italian specs, including the bullets loaded into the cartridges being the required .268 inch diameter. As I have stated before, the Carcano, with its uniquely deep rifling grooves, had to shoot a bullet .268 inch in diameter in order to be accurate, while the vast majority of other 6.5mm rifles shot a bullet .264 inch in diameter.Therefore, if Mr. Masen pulled .268 inch FMJ bullets from the WCC cartridges, he would have had to replace them with .264 inch SP bullets, as there would not have been .268 inch SP bullets available in 1963. Of course, the .264 inch bullets would have been a sloppy fit in a .268 inch neck. Was he required to resize the cartridge necks in a die? Or were the WCC cartridges loaded with .264 inch bullets, and no resizing was required? Robert, Maybe you could send him a letter asking these questions? --Tommy

I think it's important to speculate (rationally) and to label it as speculation rather than The Truth. Important to speculate (rationally) because even if you don't have enough evidence to prove your point, someone else might (or may already have) come upon something that can buttress your "theory" while researching something completely different. In other words, it could lead to a synergistic effect. Even if someone who is more knowledgeable than you are "shoots you down" with good evidence, this can help the research community in general by discouraging others from going down the same path (or should I say "rabbit hole"?) that you have gone down. --Tommy

Mr. Jon G. Tidd, I'm surprised that you left off of your list of "loose ends to ponder" the fact that Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer claimed that a strangely nondescript man told him a few minutes after the assassination that the (strangely nondescript clothing-wise) sniper in the window (or perhaps just a man seen running away from the TSBD?) was a Robert Webster-like 5'-10" , 165 pounds, and about 30 years old. As you probably know, Oswald was twenty-four years old and 5' 9" and only 131 pounds at autopsy. This "mysto" description of the assassin, which Sawyer broadcast over police radio at 12:45 or so, probably didn't have anything to do with Tippit's alleged stopping of Oswald in Oak Cliff and getting murdered for his trouble, so it probably can't be said that the Webster-like description of the assassin had anything to do with Oswald's being apprehended in the Texas Theater. A thirty-four pound difference on a 5' 9" frame rules that out, IMHO, because Tippit was supposed to be looking for a suspect that much heavier, not to mention six years older, than Oswald. I think it's possible that Military Intel provided this info to the Dallas Police Department or Sawyer in particular, not realizing that it was from a 1960 Robert Webster-based, inaccurate, FBI and CIA description of "Marina's husband," as you like to say. Here's a new idea: The person or persons who provided the DPD or Sawyer with this bogus information might even have been the "mole" that the CIA was looking for as far back as 1960, making the the bogus Oswald description The Mother of all "marked cards". --Tommy Question: Why would any reasonable person assume that Oswald had been set up strictly ex post facto. ? Question: At what exact point in time did the plotters decide on Oswald as the patsy? Right before the shots rang out? Right after the shots rang out? When he was arrested at the Texas Theater? Question: Do you know of any candidates for patsy, other than Marina's husband, who were not only an excellent candidate (good with a rifle, "Marxist," temporary worker, etc) but could also be plausibly "placed", ex post facto, in the TSBD or a nearby tall building? Question: Is it your opinion that the plotters were monitoring several candidates for patsy right up until the shots rang out or even later? and bumped for Mr. Tidd

Mr. Jon G. Tidd, I'm surprised that you left off of your list of "loose ends" to ponder the fact that Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer claimed that a strangely nondescript man told him a few minutes after the assassination that the (strangely nondescript clothing-wise) sniper in the window (or perhaps just a man seen running away from the TSBD?) was a Robert Webster-like 5'-10" , 165 pounds, and about 30 years old. As you probably know, Oswald was twenty-four years old and 5' 9" and only 131 pounds at autopsy. This "mysto" description of the assassin, which Sawyer broadcast over police radio at 12:45 or so, probably didn't have anything to do with Tippit's alleged stopping of Oswald in Oak Cliff and getting murdered for his trouble, so it probably can't be said that the Webster-like description of the assassin had anything to do with Oswald's being apprehended in the Texas Theater. A thirty-four pound difference on a 5' 9" frame rules that out, IMHO, because Tippit was supposed to be looking for a suspect that much heavier, not to mention six years older, than Oswald. I think it's possible that Military Intel provided this info to the Dallas Police Department or Sawyer in particular, not realizing that it was from a 1960 Robert Webster-based, inaccurate, FBI and CIA description of "Marina's husband," as you like to say. Here's a new idea: The person or persons who provided the DPD or Sawyer with this bogus information might even have been the "mole" that the CIA was looking for as far back as 1960, making the bogus Oswald description The Mother of all "marked cards". --Tommy Question: Why would any reasonable person assume that Oswald had been set up strictly ex post facto. ? Question: At what exact point in time did the plotters decide on Oswald as the patsy? Right before the shots rang out? Right after the shots rang out? When he was arrested at the Texas Theater? Question: Do you know of any candidates for patsy, other than Marina's husband, who were not only an excellent candidate (good with a rifle, "Marxist," temporary worker, etc) but could also be plausibly "placed", ex post facto, in the TSBD or a nearby tall building?

Mark, No I don't think Oswald was a defective defector. I think he "defected" exactly the way he was told to do it. What I am beginning to think is that the Mexico City telephone impersonations of Oswald, Duran, and some of the personnel in the Soviet Embassy were fake impersonations -- impersonations within an impersonation -- contrived by some high-level people in the CIA, the highest of whom was probably James Jesus Angleton -- with the ostensible purpose of finding a "mole" but with other less transparent purposes as well, such as embellishing Oswald's pro-Castro legend, and giving Angleton, et al., a plausible reason for effectively facilitating the JFK assassination cover up. --Tommy

What I have is conformation of a particular program. What I have is a large amount of circumstantial evidence regarding a "recruiter" or "spotter" for this program. What I have is Oswald's actions matching the needs of this program. Based on all of that (and more) - yes I do indeed speculate that Oswald was recruited into that program. It is not idle speculation. Not by a long shot. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with speculation. The WC used it by it by the bucket load. Every single book on the case has used it. People can weigh the supporting evidence and citations and make up their own minds. Jon himself is speculating that there must have been a second Oswald. He is basing this on the erroneous belief that it isn't humanly possibly to learn Russian as quickly as Lee Oswald did. I have provided evidence that others have indeed done so. Jon remains skeptical. So be it. The "two Oswald" theory seems to act like an aphrodisiac for some. In my own weighing of evidence I use the "balance of probability" test. This is the standard used in civil courts and some other legal settings. This means that the evidence is strong enough to suggest something is more likely to have happened than not. Such is the case with Lee Oswald's recruitment. I don't know what Jon's own standards are, but if his dismissal of speculation by me is any guide, no one will ever be able to solve this case to his satisfaction. The smoking gun document just doesn't exist. Dismissing speculation before even knowing what the evidence is, or under what test it has been weighed, is something I would expect from others here. From following Jon's post, I thought he was above that type of casual affront to decency and common sense. Greg, Regarding Oswald's ability to speak Russian well, I suppose we could speculate that Marina and the other Russians who said he was fluent were exaggerating or outright lying. For what purpose I do not know. But it is a possibility. Maybe they based their evaluations on few simple sentences they heard him speak, like "Hi, My name is Lee Harvey Oswald and I am Marina's future husband." --Tommy

David, What you say about the CIA and E. Howard Hunt's probably intentionally-bungled WG burglary kinda reminds me of the fact that part of the CIA may have impersonated impersonators (not a typo) in Mexico City on September 28 and October 1, 1963. Or done the paperwork later to suggest that impersonations had taken place on those dates, paperwork that would have "necessitated" a "mole hunt, either real or fake. --Tommy

The tooth was not knocked out. I will have the full story out later this year. FWIW though, even if it had been knocked out, I believe your dentist will confirm it could be reset. More on Asperger's and foreign languages from the expert I contacted.... https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZwQGsuCNMPYC&lpg=PA225&ots=7r3MCezgsf&dq=asperger's%20syndrome%20foreign%20languages&pg=PA225#v=onepage&q=asperger's%20syndrome%20foreign%20languages&f=false Greg, Tried to send you a PM here. Thanks for dropping in. In my book, you're welcome here any time. --Tommy Thank you, Tommy. BTW, Greg, thank's for setting me straight on the tooth issue. I'm still learning. --Tommy

Excellent post, Paul Brancato. You are very good at analyzing and synthesizing here. I can't take any credit, however, because I was actually disagreeing flippantly with Jon for his suggesting that the impersonations themselves never took place over the phone. So if this particular theory turns out to have "legs," we're gonna be giving kudos to Mr. Jon G. Tidd for having suggested, although rather rhetorically, that the impersonations were themselves "faked" or "false". I.e., were not real impersonations, but impersonations of impersonations. I think that's brilliant, actually. This thread is becoming very dialectical. And I like it... --Tommy PS I'm starting to like your emerging scenario in which Angleton and Goodpasture and Morales (and I'm thinking maybe Phillips, too) managed, for assassination purposes, "false" Oswald impersonations which were done not, I'm thinking, after the assassination, but before October 10, 1963, in order to give them a very convincing and difficult-to-penetrate layer of "plausible deniability." Who knows? -- They might even get lucky and catch a real "mole" in the double-faceted process of 1 ) patsying-up Oswald, and 2 ) planting the time-delayed Kostikov virus for cover up purposes (the creation and implementation of the FBI-run Warren Commission in order to save the lives of 40 million Americans). Just think -- Three birds with one stone! This ties in with the almost unthinkable question Newman briefly poses as to whether or not personnel in the Russian Mexico City Embassy were impersonated, along with "Duran" and the unnamed "American" guy in the Saturday, September 28, phone call. Saturday, a day of the week when the Russian Embassy was practically closed and incoming phone calls were restricted to family members or close friends, and which phone calls tended to be about such mundane matters as an upcoming family picnic and the fact that somebody's uncle had the flu. Unthinkable because it would suggest that a small part of the the CIA was trying to fool the .... uh.... .......... CIA. Bumped because Paul B's is the best post on this thread so far and because I've just now added a "PS" to my reply. edited and bumped

The tooth was not knocked out. I will have the full story out later this year. FWIW though, even if it had been knocked out, I believe your dentist will confirm it could be reset. More on Asperger's and foreign languages from the expert I contacted.... https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZwQGsuCNMPYC&lpg=PA225&ots=7r3MCezgsf&dq=asperger's%20syndrome%20foreign%20languages&pg=PA225#v=onepage&q=asperger's%20syndrome%20foreign%20languages&f=false Greg, Tried to send you a PM here. Thanks for dropping in. In my book, you're welcome here any time. --Tommy

Now that's an intelligent reply. --Tommy

Jo Jo, That's very impressive. Unfortunately, quantity does not correlate with quality, except in ... hmmm.... let me think..... nope, not even in rock 'n roll. Too much volume just ruins it, IMHO. --Tommy I'd simply like to discuss Mozart with someone who is not deaf. H&L is not a jingle, it's a balls-out symphony and most who discuss it have barely listened to the tuning up of the instruments... yet can declare with authority there are, "simply too many notes" Too much noise by all accounts, maestro.

Jo Jo, That's very impressive. Unfortunately, quantity does not correlate with quality, except in ... hmmm.... let me think..... nope, not even in rock 'n roll. Too much volume just ruins it, IMHO. --Tommy

An "agent" in which sense of the word Jon. we both know that working on someone's behalf can be considered "agency"... If he was recruited to help ID Castro sympathizers in New Orleans while working at a CIA/FBI related front by holding meetings and gathering names, that's one form of agency. When he slips and says he's under the protection of the US when in Russia does it matter if it was CIA, ONI, MID, etc.... he did gather intel on Minsk. There was a project in place for fake defectors to do just that... In the late 50's early 60's the intel services especially the FBI were using ordinary citizens to report on the goings on of suspected groups. Their patriotic duty. Clay Shaw may not have been CIA payroll but part of his expectations were to deliver info and convey info. an ASSET rather than an AGENT... i seem to be saying... DJ THIS oughtta be good. Josephs and Tidd arguing debating about whether or not Harvey, Lee, or Henry was an "Intelligence Agent." LOL --Tommy I must be szchizo (yeah, I know I got it wrong, but at least I gave it a shot) or something, because I actually agree with Jo Jo on something. (I'm finding that I agree less and less with Mr. Tidd as time goes by.....) Thank God they both believe in the Genetically-Engineered Lee and Harvey and Henry Theory.

And people who wanted to stay at Shakespeare and Company in Paris back in the day had to be an indigent or passing-through writer or poet. But when owner George Whitman (RIP) asked me if I could "pretend" (I had already given him my letter of introduction written by a bookseller friend of his in La Jolla), I told him, "No problem. I drove taxi cabs for five years in San Diego, so I can fake just about anything" and he let me stay. I pretended to be a writer the whole time I was there. And now I'm a writer, of course. Well, kindda. Probably should have an Intelligence Agent...

Jon, Yes, No, but I'm afraid that it might be a case of your trying to compares apples and avocados because Czech is rather unique. Although Czech is an Indo-European language (as is German, English, Russian, French, etc.) it is much more highly-inflected (grammatical term for the day: "cases") than most other Indo-European languages. It has seven "cases" compared to German's four and English's two-and-one-half mis-mashed (sp?) ones. Russian itself has six cases. Czech also has a particular letter in its alphabet ( R with a hook-shaped diacritical mark above it) which requires the speaker to make a sound unlike any other sound in any other language (it took me two years to master it). To be continued. I'm gonna get another cup of coffee.... So, in answer to your question I would have to say "Ne, neni mozna, Pane Tidd. Abych byl to prlis tesky (sp?), taky pro Ruskem." Or something like that. No, it isn't possible, Mr. Tidd. It would be too difficult, even for Russians. But like I said, I don't think it's a fair comparison as regards the alleged linguistic abilities of "Marina's husband" or whoever is was she thought she was married to, but wasn't, and who looked amazingly similar to "Lee Harvey Oswald." --Tommy PS Here's a little bit of Czech language for ya'll. Try runnin' some of that through Google Translate or Babble-On. LOL http://a2larm.cz/2014/12/proc-dnes-uz-neni-zadna-revoluce-mozna/

Well, Paul B., I'm clearly not grasping at straws -- Joan Mellen is my source, and she's a good source. Because Bill Simpich provides evidence that the CIA Top Brass was engrossed in a MOLE HUNT, they were not involved in the JFK Murder. I realize this contradicts fifty years worth of JFK "Research," but that's OK since the past fifty years of JFK "Research" has failed to solve the JFK Murder. As one great Liberal said last December, if a strategy fails for fifty years, it's time to try something new. The CIA didn't kill JFK. Get over it. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo I don't see where you answered Paul B's question, Mr. Trejo. [You sure talked AROUND the question, though!] Is it because you CAN'T, or because you WON'T? [Just curious...] Mark, Maybe he can't answer that question, Mark, Maybe he hasn't read the book yet. I mean, that is a possibility I suppose. --Tommy