Thomas Graves

Jon, That's the easy bit. Lee, or Harvey, or Henry were just a tad too envious and / or jealous of JFK for "Marina's husband's" own good. Just kidding ; I couldn't resist. --Tommy

Jon, By the numbers: 1 ) Oswald's tooth was, indeed, knocked out at school one day. Someone suggested that he put the tooth in a glass of milk and go to the dentist, which he did, The dentist put the tooth back in its rightful place and it "took". The tooth reestablished itself at an angle, however, but at least Oswald, the one and only Oswald, still had a full set of teeth.. 2 ) Question: Does a person who is suffering from a mental illness by definition have to exhibit all of the symptoms of that illness? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome 3 ) As for Oswald's "Baltic Russian accent," would the Hungarian boy's (Harvey? Lee? Henry? I do get them so darn confused!) spoken Russian have resembled Baltic Russian? Maybe so, in that Hungarian and Finnish (and Basque, which doesn't count here) are from the same non-Indo European linguistic subfamily, the name of which I forget at the moment. So maybe you do have a point there -- that a person raised by Russian-speaking Hungarians could sound to a native Russian speaker as though they were from Finland. But aren't there any other simpler but equally-plausible explanations? There's so much to learn isn't there, Jon. --Tommy PS Could Marina have meant "Balkan" instead of "Baltic"? Was she mis-interpreted? 3 a. ) Yes, I realize that I'm arguing against myself here. But that's the way I am -- open minded to rational possibilities. Caveat: The operative word here is rational. Bummer, huh?

Strike one. Let's see how the author responded to the above alleged refutation, shall we? Seems like he appreciated my comments, doesn't it? Strike two Strike three is not just that you have mischaracterized a past exchange between me and another poster - it is possibly the more egregious and low act of attempting to smear me by association with Tim Gratz and falsely claiming you have repeatedly shown me who I am. Of course, you don't attempt to substantiate the claim. You can't. All you have done is remind me in spades why I dumped this place. Mr Tidd... I have been following your posts here as one of the few bright lights in a sea of dreck. Your one unfortunate and near fatal error is aligning yourself with the Snake Oil Salesmen of "Harvey & Lee". If I have understood you correctly, your one (or at least main) reason for your 2 Oswald beliefs is because of Lee's ability to learn Russian so quickly. There is a very non-spooky reason for it. It's called Asperger's Syndrome. It explains every "oddball" and out of kilter characteristic of Oswald - and that includes his assimilation of languages and accents. http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13092947-was-oswald-an-intelligent-agent- Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War: Why the Kennedy Assassination Should be Reinvestigated http://www.amazon.com/Harvey-Oswalds-Cold-Assassination-Reinvestigated-ebook/dp/B00IXOA5ZK (it said there were too many "quotes" in the post so I deleted some....) You have it all figgered out GP... Aspergers accounts for the fraudulent, conflicting evidence and the FBI's need to confiscate Jr High School records within 24 hours of the shots cause you know how his 9th grade english grades from Stripling in Ft Worth will help break the case... CE1961 GP - how long was Marine Basic Training in 1956... 5 or 13-16 weeks? or do those with Aspergers get a 8 week pass... Greg, you left cause you use unsourced, unsigned carbon copy FBI reports as FACT and then berate others for their evidence sources... on your own board you get brown nosed for it... here you actually have to defend yourself. Nice work on the personal CI though... you have a knack. You mentioned the gunrunning in 2004... nice. How do you explain the Feldsott affidavit and the likelihood that C2766 was sent to Kleins in June 1962... and then how it got to the TSBD? Was Kleins working with these men to siphon off guns to the anti-Castro Cubans... makes for an interesting theory... Did Dodd ever find anything on Kleins? Guess I need to do some reading up... GP, your poor attempts at refuting the H&L hard evidence is on par with Judy Baker, all talk and speculation, no meat... just FAITH... anyone with the ability to search this forum will be able to find our discussions and your presentation of reliable FBI source docs. The work stands on its own... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18558&page=5#entry258673 starts the conversation between me and Greg http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18558&page=8#entry259115 is the post where we look at the sources Greg offers as his proof... enjoy Yes, Greg. Can't you see that Harvey and Lee (and shouldn't we include "Henry," too?) were genetically engineered in the test tube to ensure that they would look only just barely sufficiently alike from childhood on to be able to fool so darn many people? LOL --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 perhaps Phillips and Morales managed, for assassination purposes, "fake" or "false" Oswald impersonations not, I'm thinking, after the assassination, but before October 10 or even possibly on September 28 and October 1, 1963, in order to give them a very convincing and difficult to penetrate layer of "plausible denial-ability." And 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 coverup 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.

Stephen, Would you please explain why you believe Mr. Glaze is not a reliable source... can you impeach the thrust of the accusations? You may also want to read Armstrong's work on Ruby at harveyandlee.net - it appears that putting Oswald into the TSBD may have been designed as extra leverage for those who were involved in illiegal activity there to go along to get along. But that's just speculation on my part. I'm fully prepared to admit I referred to something that did not prove its case - yet I have yet to see enough rebuttal not to blieve what is presented. For starters, I can't find any evidence that Glaze was the journalist he was described as. Second, the key elements are based on a claimed interview with Shelley, but there is nothing to check to see if the interview ever actually occurred - no date, print reference, etc. Third, the EF article contains stuff I know about - relating to Ferrie, et al - and it's jumbled. Can I "impeach the thrust of the allegations"? That's not how it works. The "allegations" need to be soundly sourced in the first place. Are you honestly telling me that, in reading this article, your BS detector doesn't go off??? In the early days of assassination writing, the writers were cautious to take it only as far as the evidence would reasonably allow; We are now in an era where the conclusion is foregone and any square peg is pounded into a round hole, regardless of source, so long as it supports "the cause." Most important, such carelessness dilutes the research in more solid areas!!! But having read these two threads for weeks now, I can see that my caution is falling on deaf ears. [emphasis added by T. Graves] Good post, Stephen. "The Professor" comes to mind here. As does a formerly very active member (and apparent amateur psychologist) who was practically insisting that the filmed scene on the TSBD steps after the assassination had been somehow "staged" at a later late, as does.... --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 apparently-emerging scenario in which Angleton and Goodpasture managed, for assassination purposes, the creation of the so-called "fake" Oswald impersonations not after, but actually on, (if that's what you're suggesting) September 28 and October 1, 1963 in order to give them plausible deniability later, if needed. This ties in with the almost unthinkable question Newman briefly poses as to whether or not the Russian personnel in the Russian Mexico City Embassy were impersonated in the Saturday, September 28, phone call, along with "Duran" and the unnamed "American" guy. 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.

Jon, Since you joined the forum, I've learned from you that the fact that (Marina's future husband?) Oswald's MOS was Aviation Electronics Operator (aka radar operator) and that he was privy to at least some information about the U-2 wouldn't have made Oswald (future husband of Marina) a person of interest and even less so a "person of value" to the KGB, the fact that Oswald (Marina's future husband?) got into Russia so easily from Finland was simply because he bought the deluxe Intourist package and the Russians were really desperate to get their hands on good 'ol American sawbucks, the fact that Oswald (Marina's future husband?) told Consul Richard Snyder that he had already told a Russian official that he was willing to give them "information, including something of special significance interest" after they gave him Russian citizenship (which they never did) but was not detained by the Marine guards at the Embassy for threatening to commit treason or sabotage against the U.S. because, well, it was already after 12 noon on a Saturday and the Embassy was closed (I'm taking the liberty of supplying that reason for you here, Mr. Tidd), and now the fact that Oswald (Marina's husband?) was not impersonated over the phone in Mexico City because, because..... (I've already forgotten your reasoning on that one). Thank you for "opening my eyes." But don't be surprised if I have some rather "sticky" questions for you on these, as well as other Oswald (i.e., the husband of Marina) subjects in the relatively near future. For example: Why did the State Department make it so easy for Oswald (Marina's husband?) and Marina (Oswald's wife?) to leave Russia and go to America, even going so far as lending Oswald money to cover transportation costs? Wait! I think I know your answer already: " To get him / them out of their hair, and, well, he was still an American citizen, so the State Department was obligated to expedite his reentry, if not his repatriation." And ......... Tommy Regardless, it does seem that you're well on the way to solving the crime. All you gotta do is combine the Edwin Walker Masterminded It Theory with the Genetically-Engineered Harvey and Lee and Henry Theory and throw in a lot of Oswald Was Just An "Odd Duck" Theory .... and you've got it! LOL PS Have you had a chance to read all of Oswald and the CIA and Deep Politics and the Death of JFK and State Secret yet? Or do you consider these books to be "distractions"? bumped for Jon G. Tidd PS You realize of course that the author of Oswald and the CIA, John Newman, was a fairly high-level Army Intelligence guy himself back in the day?

yes indeed it was... yet Folsom Exhibit #1 p7 states that his prefernece of duty and his recommended Duty assignment is "Aircraft Maintenance and Repair" Page 3 of the same exhibit shows his primary duty was Aviation Electronics Operator (AvnElectOper) I can't tell if Tommy here is being sarcastic or sincere since he seems to be more concerned with commenting on rather than researching the topic. The real question to ask is why the Russians allowed Marina to leave so easily... Sometime we need to remember to look at the events in a FORWARD chronology without the benefit of hindsight. What was known of Oswald and by whom leading up to these events and how does that fit into the evidence of their actions, is to me a more fruitful way to look at the evidence. What we know now based on whatever "evidence" we've seen cannot be attributed to the miondset of those in it day to day at the time. State, FBi and CIA along with IN&S/Customs were together for a lot of the evidence creation. If Oswald was part of a spying program one would think we'd make sure our own people didn't mess it up for him. Continue doing what you're doing Jon... you have a great mind and ask wonderful questions.... Tommy is just Tommy, sunshine and all... [emphasis added by T. Graves] Actually, Jo Jo, you got lucky, babe, because that is an important question. The fascinating thing is that Marina's being allowed to leave Russia was such a protracted process. She in particular and to a lesser extent "her husband" (Lee, Harvey, Henry?-- I get so confused!) had to jump through a lot of bureaucratic "hoops" for her to get out. Regardless, the fact that her uncle was a high-level MKVD officer and she was still permitted to leave after jumping through all those "hoops" is fascinating and, well, just a tad suspicious. Maybe the Ruskies dragged it out so long to try to make it look a bit more "natural" and "innocent"? Keep up the good work Jo Jo. --Tommy PS Thanks, Jo Jo! You mean I was actually right about something I wrote about from memory (Oswald's MOS) ??? I mean, maybe just partly right. OK, just a teensie-weensie bit about? Darn, how about....... Bumped with a reply already. No I haven't JO JO. Does it by any chance get into what I call the "Genetically-Engineered Lee and Harvey and Henry Theory"? BTW, What do you think about what I wrote in response to..... [hint: Marina, the possible wife of "Oswald" lol ]

yes indeed it was... yet Folsom Exhibit #1 p7 states that his prefernece of duty and his recommended Duty assignment is "Aircraft Maintenance and Repair" Page 3 of the same exhibit shows his primary duty was Aviation Electronics Operator (AvnElectOper) I can't tell if Tommy here is being sarcastic or sincere since he seems to be more concerned with commenting on rather than researching the topic. The real question to ask is why the Russians allowed Marina to leave so easily... Sometime we need to remember to look at the events in a FORWARD chronology without the benefit of hindsight. What was known of Oswald and by whom leading up to these events and how does that fit into the evidence of their actions, is to me a more fruitful way to look at the evidence. What we know now based on whatever "evidence" we've seen cannot be attributed to the miondset of those in it day to day at the time. State, FBi and CIA along with IN&S/Customs were together for a lot of the evidence creation. If Oswald was part of a spying program one would think we'd make sure our own people didn't mess it up for him. Continue doing what you're doing Jon... you have a great mind and ask wonderful questions.... Tommy is just Tommy, sunshine and all... Actually, Jo Jo, you got lucky, babe, because that is an important question. The fascinating thing is that Marina's being allowed to leave Russia was such a protracted process. She in particular and to a lesser extent "her husband" (Lee, Harvey, Henry?-- I get so confused!) had to jump through a lot of bureaucratic "hoops" for her to get out. Regardless, the fact that her uncle was a high-level MKVD officer and she was still permitted to leave after jumping through all those "hoops" is fascinating and, well, just a tad suspicious. Maybe the Ruskies dragged it out so long to try to make it look a bit more "natural" and "innocent"? Keep up the good work Jo Jo. --Tommy PS Thanks, Jo Jo! You mean I was actually right about something I wrote about from memory (Oswald's MOS) ??? I mean, maybe just partly right. OK, just a teensie-weensie bit about? Darn, how about.......

Jon, Since you joined the forum, I've learned from you that the fact that (Marina's future husband?) Oswald's MOS was Aviation Electronics Operator (aka radar operator) and that he was privy to at least some information about the U-2 wouldn't have made Oswald (future husband of Marina) a person of interest and even less a person of value to the KGB, the fact that Oswald (Marina's future husband?) got into Russia so easily from Finland was simply because he bought the deluxe Intourist package and the Russians were really desperate to get their hands on good 'ol American sawbucks, the fact that Oswald (Marina's future husband?) told Consul Richard Snyder that he had already told a Russian official that he was willing to give them "information, including something of special significance interest" after they gave him Russian citizenship (which they never did) but was not detained by the Marine guards at the Embassy for threatening to commit treason or sabotage against the U.S. because, well, it was already after 12 noon on a Saturday and the Embassy was closed (I'm taking the liberty of supplying that reason for you here, Mr. Tidd), and now the fact that Oswald (Marina's husband?) was not impersonated over the phone in Mexico City because, because..... (I've already forgotten your reasoning on that one). Thank you for "opening my eyes." But don't be surprised if I have some rather "sticky" questions for you on these, as well as other Oswald (i.e., the husband of Marina) subjects in the relatively near future. For example: why did the State Department make it so easy for Oswald (Marina's husband?) and Marina (Oswald's wife?) to leave Russia and go to America, even going so far as lending Oswald money to cover transportation costs? Wait! I think I know your answer already: " To get him out of their hair, and, well, he was still and American citizen." And ......... Tommy Regardless, it does seem that you're well on the way to solving the crime. All you gotta do is combine the Edwin Walker Masterminded It Theory with the Harvey and Lee and Henry Theory and throw in a lot of Oswald Was Just An "Odd Duck" Theory .... and you've got it! PS Had a chance to read all of Oswald and the CIA and Deep Politics and the Death of JFK and State Secret yet? Or do you consider these books to be only "distractions"? Or is it too early to jump to that conclusion because you've only read the bits in Deep Politics about drug smuggling?

Excellent post, Paul Brancato. You are very good at analyzing and synthesizing here. I can't take any credit, however, because I was actually attacking disagreeing very politely 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." This thread is becoming very dialectical. And I like it... --Tommy PS I'm starting to like your apparently-emerging scenario in which Angleton and Goodpasture managed, for assassination purposes, the creation of the so-called "fake" Oswald impersonations on September 28 and October 1, 1963 in order . n................. This ties in with the almost unthinkable question Newman briefly poses as to whether or not the Russian personnel in the Russian Mexico City Embassy were impersonated in the Saturday, September 28, phone call, along with "Duran" and the unnamed "American" guy, unthinkable because it would suggest that a small part of the the CIA was trying to fool the .... CIA.

Because you obviously didn't read it the first time? You are insufferable sometimes, Jo Jo. Not sayin' that you are full of SH!T or that you've got your head stuck up your XXX. Just sayin'. I'll make it just a little bit easier for you by giving you a little hint as to what I wrote in it. LADILLINGER was Barbara J. XXXXXXX. Now go read it. Get it? --Tommy I read your post and replied, in 3 minutes with a reference as to what LADILLINGER did at the Mexico Station - much more important than her name imo. You wrote "Mandell" at 2:06, I replied at 2:09 and you BUMP at 2:10.... get a grip on yourself. What does her name have to do with Oct 1 being a lie related to the Mystery Man photos and the entire BS Mexico evidence for his being there ? Jo Jo, If LADilliger's real name was so unimportant to you, Jo Jo, then why did you go to the trouble of putting this in your oh-so-quick bump (post # 503) ? Jo Jo wrote: And yeah, Goodpasture just said it was a simple mistake... yet that does not account for the Oct 8th initial memo identifying the 1st from LADILLINGER "LA Dillinger" is indeed a pseudonym (not cryptonym) by pdscott on Sun, Nov 27, 2005, 2:54 PM GMT (#1160) "LA Dillinger" is indeed a pseudonym (not cryptonym)for the Soviet case officer in the Mexico City CIA Station. And this document, MEXI 6453, is dated Oct 8, 1963, not 1965. https://www.maryferr...wRec.do?id=5650 Hmmm? --Tommy

Because you obviously didn't read it the first time? You are insufferable sometimes, Jo Jo. Not sayin' that you are full of SH!T or that you've got your head stuck up your XXX. Just sayin'. I'll make it just a little bit easier for you by giving you a little hint as to what I wrote in it. The first time. Before I bumped it because your reply suggested very, very strongly that you hadn't read it. LADILLINGER was Barbara J. XXXXXXX. Now go read it. LOL --Tommy

Mr. Tid, Every impersonation is, by definition, "false" isn't it. I guess you're saying that the two impersonations of Oswald over the phone in Mexico City (on Saturday, September 28 and on Monday, October 1), never happened but were only manufactured on paper after the assassination? If you're right, I wonder why Mexico City's Anne Goodpasture, known for her meticulous work, would go to the trouble of making the untruthful statement that a photograph taken of an American-looking man outside either the Cuban Consulate or the Soviet Embassy -- can't remember which right now -- was taken on October 1 instead of when it was really taken, October 2 ? And equally puzzling is why she would mention that particular photograph in a cable about Lee Henry (or was it Harvey?) Oswald in the same cable and juxtaposed in such a way as to suggest (without actually saying it) that this dude, our famous "Mexico City Mystery Man," was the same guy who had called the Soviet Embassy and identified himself as "Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D" who had spoken with a "dark" Russian Embassy official. By the name of Kostin, or something like that? https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Valeriy_Kostikov_and_Comrade_Kostin --Tommy Thomas - you may also benefit from a reading of my work at CTKA.... On October 8th the initial report says the photos are from 1216 and 1222 on OCT 1. Bill S. told me who LADILLINGER was but I can't find it now. Since Goodpasture basically tells us that she has the previous day's intercepts on her desk for prep for Scott and/or Phillips the delay from the 3rd to the 8th is not believeable. Seems to me that the Oct 8th memo was park of the project Bill eludes to in his work and HAD to be Oct 1st to match the phone calls. LATER, when the FBI was trying to create an itinerary for the travel, we dont know if they knew the photos were actually taken the next day... Oswald was said to have left on the 2pm FRONTERA bus on Oct 2nd because the first Mystery Man photo was taken Oct 2 at 12:22pm. When it was found that bus did not work and that the Mexican Presidential staff had someone CREATE this document, another bus had to be found. This was the Del Norte 8:30am bus on Oct 2nd. Could not even be considered Oswald if the photo was taken AFTER he left, right? Plus, if they were going to connect the photo to the phone call, there were no calls on the 2nd... yet there are records of an Oswald call on the 3rd... and this same man on the 15th. Yet the evidence continues to claim that Oswald was there.... Off the top of my head, LADillinger was XXXXXXXXXXXX... and her husband was a CIA officer, too. I believe LADILLINGER was the woman who told the HSCA or whomever that something was none of their business, in so many words. Got it. It just came to me as I was typing that -- Barbara Mandell or Manell or something like that. Middle initial "J" I believe. Impressive, huh? --Tommy "Voodo Chile" Graves yes, Jo Jo, slight return https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9irsg1vBmq0 PS what you can remember when you're listening to Hendrix and typing at the same time... bumped

Mr. Tid, Every impersonation is, by definition, "false" isn't it. I guess you're saying that the two impersonations of Oswald over the phone in Mexico City (on Saturday, September 28 and on Monday, October 1), never happened but were only manufactured on paper after the assassination? If you're right, I wonder why Mexico City's Anne Goodpasture, known for her meticulous work, would go to the trouble of making the untruthful statement that a photograph taken of an American-looking man outside either the Cuban Consulate or the Soviet Embassy -- can't remember which right now -- was taken on October 1 instead of when it was really taken, October 2 ? And equally puzzling is why she would mention that particular photograph in a cable about Lee Henry (or was it Harvey?) Oswald in the same cable and juxtaposed in such a way as to suggest (without actually saying it) that this dude, our famous "Mexico City Mystery Man," was the same guy who had called the Soviet Embassy and identified himself as "Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D" who had spoken with a "dark" Russian Embassy official. By the name of Kostin, or something like that? https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Valeriy_Kostikov_and_Comrade_Kostin --Tommy Thomas - you may also benefit from a reading of my work at CTKA.... On October 8th the initial report says the photos are from 1216 and 1222 on OCT 1. Bill S. told me who LADILLINGER was but I can't find it now. Since Goodpasture basically tells us that she has the previous day's intercepts on her desk for prep for Scott and/or Phillips the delay from the 3rd to the 8th is not believeable. Seems to me that the Oct 8th memo was park of the project Bill eludes to in his work and HAD to be Oct 1st to match the phone calls. LATER, when the FBI was trying to create an itinerary for the travel, we dont know if they knew the photos were actually taken the next day... Oswald was said to have left on the 2pm FRONTERA bus on Oct 2nd because the first Mystery Man photo was taken Oct 2 at 12:22pm. When it was found that bus did not work and that the Mexican Presidential staff had someone CREATE this document, another bus had to be found. This was the Del Norte 8:30am bus on Oct 2nd. Could not even be considered Oswald if the photo was taken AFTER he left, right? Plus, if they were going to connect the photo to the phone call, there were no calls on the 2nd... yet there are records of an Oswald call on the 3rd... and this same man on the 15th. Yet the evidence continues to claim that Oswald was there.... Off the top of my head, LADillinger was XXXXXXXXXXXX... and her husband was a CIA officer, too. I believe LADILLINGER was the woman who told the HSCA or whomever that something was none of their business, in so many words. Got it. It just came to me as I was typing that -- Barbara Mandell or Manell or something like that. Impressive, huh? --Tommy "Voodo Chile" Graves yes, Jo Jo, slight return https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9irsg1vBmq0 PS what you can remember when you're listening to Hendrix and typing at the same time...

Clearly Ann Goodpasture was working under CIA control in Mexico City. Insofar as she was involved in the MOLE HUNT of which Bill Simpich speaks in his State Secret (2014), then she also interacted with CIA officers James Jesus Angleton and David Atlee Phillips. To the best of my knowledge, neither of these men were conspirators to murder JFK (despite the tremendous bias against them in most JFK Research literature). To the best of my knowledge, only CIA officer David Morales joined the Edwin Walker conspiracy, there in the Town and Country Motel, owned by Carlos Marcello of Louisiana, as I surmise from the reports of Joan Mellen's book, Farewell to Justice (2005). Mellen reports that Banister's team complained about JFK's reaching out to Fidel Castro through William Atwood during September 1963, although this information was known only to the CIA at the time. The likely source of this leak, IMHO, was David Morales, who evidently betrayed the CIA and JFK by joining Edwin Walker's conspiracy through Guy Banister. Frank Sturgis (who was never a CIA officer) allied himself with David Morales and tried to recruit CIA officer Howard Hunt into Morales' plot. Hunt agreed to help "on the sidelines," as he confessed on his deathbed to his son. Perhaps more CIA officers were involved in David Morales' plot -- but this is still unproven. What we do have with the work of Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich is a studied suspicion of David Morales and his quislings as the plausible architect of the IMPERSONATION of Lee Harvey Oswald and Sylvia Duran in Mexico City. What Bill Simpich showed was that this was detected as an IMPERSONATION within *minutes* by the CIA translators in Mexico City, and a CIA Mole Hunt (known only to the highest levels of the CIA) was begun to try to identify the MOLES. Throughout the 1960's the MOLE was never found. My interpretation is simple: whoever was involved in the MOLE HUNT was therefore not involved on the JFK Kill Team. So far I find that David Morales was a stooge of Ex-General Walker -- and also Howard Hunt -- but nobody else in the CIA, so far. Anne Goodpasture was involved in the MOLE HUNT for the IMPERSONATORS of Oswald and Duran, as were Angleton and Phillips. This is, IMHO, a workable alibi for all three. All three were blind-sighted by the JFK murder. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo "Professor", Boy I sure am glad to get your opinion on this! So, you think that Edwin Walker might have been involved in the assassination of JFK, huh? Fascinating stuff! Not. --Tommy BTW, the important point for us is not the fact that Goodpasture et al. participated in a mole hunt but that Oswald was impersonated, apparently by an "insider," over the phone in Mexico City on Saturday, September 28, and on Monday, October 1, 1963, and that his name was associated in these impersonations with the officials of the Soviet Embassy there, especially with one Russian Embassy official who liked to play volleyball and was rumored at times by Angleton himself to be the head of the (in reality defunct) KGB Department 13... Or were these impersonations fabricated out of whole cloth sometime before October 10, 1963, in order to serve as an elaborate Deus ex machina for the all-important mole hunt?

Clearly Ann Goodpasture was working under CIA control in Mexico City. Insofar as she was involved in the MOLE HUNT of which Bill Simpich speaks in his State Secret (2014), then she also interacted with CIA officers James Jesus Angleton and David Atlee Phillips. To the best of my knowledge, neither of these men were conspirators to murder JFK (despite the tremendous bias against them in most JFK Research literature). To the best of my knowledge, only CIA officer David Morales joined the Edwin Walker conspiracy, there in the Town and Country Motel, owned by Carlos Marcello of Louisiana, as I surmise from the reports of Joan Mellen's book, Farewell to Justice (2005). Mellen reports that Banister's team complained about JFK's reaching out to Fidel Castro through William Atwood during September 1963, although this information was known only to the CIA at the time. The likely source of this leak, IMHO, was David Morales, who evidently betrayed the CIA and JFK by joining Edwin Walker's conspiracy through Guy Banister. Frank Sturgis (who was never a CIA officer) allied himself with David Morales and tried to recruit CIA officer Howard Hunt into Morales' plot. Hunt agreed to help "on the sidelines," as he confessed on his deathbed to his son. Perhaps more CIA officers were involved in David Morales' plot -- but this is still unproven. What we do have with the work of Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich is a studied suspicion of David Morales and his quislings as the plausible architect of the IMPERSONATION of Lee Harvey Oswald and Sylvia Duran in Mexico City. What Bill Simpich showed was that this was detected as an IMPERSONATION within *minutes* by the CIA translators in Mexico City, and a CIA Mole Hunt (known only to the highest levels of the CIA) was begun to try to identify the MOLES. Throughout the 1960's the MOLE was never found. My interpretation is simple: whoever was involved in the MOLE HUNT was therefore not involved on the JFK Kill Team. So far I find that David Morales was a stooge of Ex-General Walker -- and also Howard Hunt -- but nobody else in the CIA, so far. Anne Goodpasture was involved in the MOLE HUNT for the IMPERSONATORS of Oswald and Duran, as were Angleton and Phillips. This is, IMHO, a workable alibi for all three. All three were blind-sighted by the JFK murder. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo "Professor", Boy I sure am glad to get your opinion on this! So, you think that Edwin Walker might have been involved in the assassination of JFK, huh? Fascinating stuff! Not. --Tommy

Good one, Mr. Gaal. "Short and sweet" and funny, too. There's hope for you yet. --Tommy Actually I think it was Guy Gabaldon and John Rouselout and John Wayne. They kinda worked together on that.

Mr. Tid, Every impersonation is, by definition, "false" isn't it. I guess you're saying that the two impersonations of Oswald over the phone in Mexico City (on Saturday, September 28 and on Monday, October 1), never happened but were only manufactured on paper after the assassination? If you're right, I wonder why Mexico City's Anne Goodpasture, known for her meticulous work, would go to the trouble of making the untruthful statement that a photograph taken of an American-looking man outside either the Cuban Consulate or the Soviet Embassy -- can't remember which right now -- was taken on October 1 instead of when it was really taken, October 2 ? And equally puzzling is why she would mention that particular photograph in a cable about Lee Henry (or was it Harvey?) Oswald in the same cable and juxtaposed in such a way as to suggest (without actually saying it) that this dude, our famous "Mexico City Mystery Man," was the same guy who had called the Soviet Embassy and identified himself as "Oswald, O-S-W-A-L-D" who had spoken with a "dark" Russian Embassy official. By the name of Kostin, or something like that? https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Valeriy_Kostikov_and_Comrade_Kostin --Tommy

John, You ask whether or not I believe Oswald and others were impersonated in M.C. Yes, I do. Your asking me this question suggests to me that you don't. Please explicate, if you will. Or do I have to show my cards first? --Tommy

Jon, If not to set up Oswald as the assassination "patsy," can you think of any other reason for someone's impersonating Oswald and Silvia Duran, and maybe even the Russian on the other end of the phone in Mexico City, which impersonations either intentionally or unintentionally connected Oswald to Kostikov (whom Angleton at one time believed was a KGB officer in notorious "wet affairs" Department 13)? I'm open to your ideas on this. --Tommy

OK, Jon, now look at the implications of this position - if the JFK Cover-up was unplanned, then it wasn't part of the JFK Murder -- which was carefully planned. IMHO, this is a revolution in JFK research -- every source (that I know about) has presumed that the Cover-up of the JFK murder in some way supported the JFK Kill Team. Most JFK conspiracy materials just crumble away into dust when we separate the Cover-up Team from the Kill Team. Lee Harvey OSWALD remains an innocent Patsy -- but now the JFK Killers aren't seen as part of the US Government. This is a paradigm shift. Regards, --Paul Trejo And it disregards what Newman, Scott, and Simpich have written regarding the Mexico City Oswald-Kostikov "connection" which was put together by people who impersonated Oswald over the phone there. Did Edwin Walker arrange that, too? --Tommy

Paul, I agree. He was a great "politician" and a great manipulator. --Tommy

Yes, Paul, I like that book very much except for the part where he tries to lend credence to that Air Force sergeant who claimed to have been on a big AF plane that landed and took off again from the banks of the Trinity River in Dallas on 11/22/63... Thanks for the feedback. --Tommy

Thanks for posting that, Corey. Sounds in-ter-rest-tink. lol --Tommy