Thomas Graves

Wow! So it's true, huh? In that case you might want to read Strength of the Wolf by Valentine. Not sure how accurate he is in all of his accusations, though. Particularly what he says about a former South Vietnamese military officer or politician who emigrated to the U.S. and whose name of course I forget now... SO, what did you think about what Scott had to say about the Oswald / Kostikov thing? And what about Oswald and the CIA ? Have you had an opportunity to read that yet? And I forgot to ask you in my earlier post: "Have you read Bill Simpich's State Secret yet? --Tommy PS It's interesting that Ruby's brother "Hyman" (sp? LOL) was convicted of being in possession of two ounces of heroin in Chicago back in the day, and if I remember correctly was somehow associated with Paul Roland Jones, the mafia guy who tried to bribe Dallas sheriff Guthrie and set up Ruby as the manager of a proposed restaurant / gambling "den" in Dallas in 1947. But what's really interesting is how the Federal Bureau of Narcotics cooperated with the CIA in MKULTRA ,etc, and how they both protected certain drug traffickers in exchange for "national security" type "insider" information...

Jon, Have you read Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics and the Death of JFK? How about Oswald and the CIA by John Newman? Just wonderin'... --Tommy Ah ha! Just read your post again. So, the cover up was orchestrated, but it wasn't planned ! Interesting.... Off subject, perhaps: Why, in your humble opinion, did the people who impersonated Oswald over the phone in Mexico City seem to make a point of connecting Oswald with Kostikov? And why do you think Angleton went back and forth "on record" as to whether or not Kostikov really was with "Department 13?" And doesn't the timing of Angleton's going back and forth on that critical issue seem kinda interesting to you, Jon? Edited (once again NOT "by the numbers") and bumped...

Jon, Have you read Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics and the Death of JFK? How about Oswald and the CIA by John Newman? Just wonderin'... --Tommy Ah ha! Just read your post again. So, the cover up was orchestrated, but it wasn't planned ! Interesting.... Off subject, perhaps: Why in your humble opinion, did the people who impersonated Oswald over the phone in Mexico City seem to make a point of connecting Oswald with Kostikov? And why do you think Angleton went back and forth "on record" as to whether or not Kostikov really was with "Department 13?" And doesn't the timing of Angleton's going back and forth on that critical issue seem kinda interesting to you, Jon?

Jon, "Yes" as in "Yes, I have something in mind here, Tommy, but I ain't gonna share it with ya'all right now" or "Yes, Tommy, that was a great post!" In other words, are you asking this question because you want us to try to give you some good ideas to pursue in your research, or are you asking us like a modern-day Socrates, just to show us how silly we are? Maybe it just all depends on the meaning of "yes." --Tommy Hey, I came up with a good one! LBJ would have gone to prison for the Bobby Baker thing, and the Fred Black thing, and the Malcolm Wallace things (plural), and the......

Yes, Jon, exactly right. IMHO this is the key to understanding Lee Harvey OSWALD and his role in the JFK murder, as well as the mess made of the Warren Report. By carefully and studiously separating the JFK Kill Team (LHO a Communist) from the JFK Cover-up Team (LHO a Lone Nut) we can finally analyze the data of the JFK murder, and make better sense of it. Regards, --Paul Trejo Trejo, Why don't you believe in P.D. Scott's theory of pre-planned "phases" in the cover up, phases which were orchestrated, in advance, by a mastermind who could arrange such things, who could plant a "trojan virus" (so to speak) in "the intelligence system," someone like James Jesus Angleton? Too complicated? To subtle? Or because you can't integrate it into your Grand Theory Of The Assassination? --Tommy

Jon, Do you have anything / something in mind? This is a simple "yes" or "no" question. You don't "have to" elaborate on it, of course, but I am curious as to whether or not you have anything other than 'Nam or Civil Rights in mind here. In fact, even if you do have something in mind, I would prefer that you NOT elaborate on it at this point. I would rather try to "guess" what it is. LOL --Tommy

Thanks for the feedback, Jon. I do enjoy our exchanges. I don't think it was for the sole purpose of killing JFK. I suppose the easiest scenario for them to pull off would have been "for the sole purpose of framing Oswald," but even that would have been problematical, IMHO, because you gotta ask yourself the same question: "What did they do with the rifle or rifles?" A thought I had just now: Could the (bad) actors have used the rifles that Truly (or somebody) had brought to work a couple of days earlier to "show off" to the workers? Used them only as "props," I mean, in drawing attention to the upper floors of the TSBD as part of the "let's incriminate Oswald" project? Just an idea. I also like my idea that the shooters who, under your 2nd scenario both implicated Oswald and shot JFK from the TSBD, might have been undercover members of the police or sheriff's department who just kinda "mingled" with their co-workers and "helped" them look for the "assassin" and the evidence said "assassin" had left behind. I'm thinking that they could have hidden the "real deal" rifle or rifles inside the TSBD with the complicity of some of their police or sheriff "brethren" and gotten away with "it." BTW, I was wrong to even suggest that it might have been Baker (and/or Truly) who encountered the three or four "suits" on the wooden stairs a few minutes after the assassination. I've been too lazy to do any fact-checking on that, but the more I think about it the more I realize that it wasn't Baker (or Truly) but someone else. I believe it was a sheriff deputy who had a "desk" rather than a "street" job with the Sheriff's Department, but like I said, I'm just to lazy to check it right now... I know for sure that it wasn't Baker or Truly. Don't want to mislead future generations of "researchers" with that. LOL --Tommy

Roger, I like your speculation here. It's...., it's......., well, ...... plausible, at least. Based on what a 91-year-old, since deceased, retired ONI special agent told me (or more correctly, based on what I inferred) when he apparently inadvertently said something to me without thinking about its implications, (in other words, I think he might have come close to "spilling the beans"), I believe that the command center (or at least observation post) was situated in an upper floor of the Terminal Annex Building aka the Postal Annex Building, on the other side of Dealey Plaza from the TSBD. But I like your idea. Maybe the van was the command post and the observation post was in the Terminal Annex Building? It is interesting that, to my knowledge, the "Lansdale character" has not been spotted in any other photos or films taken before the assassination. Like I said, to my knowledge. --Tommy PS Krulak was a close personal friend of my dad's in La Jolla. FWIW.

Jon, You raise a good point. What happened to the weapons the assassins used to shoot JFK from the TSBD? They could have fired your practically inoperable MC just to create some evidence, I suppose, and not necessarily to kill JFK with that rifle.. They could have tossed the "real deal" out a rear window to a colleague or lowered it to him on a rope. They could have hidden the rifle or rifles with the knowledge of the corrupt DPD. Heck, I don't know. But it's besides the point that I was originally trying to make -- i.e., That Oswald wasn't a last-minute "patsy of opportunity" but was set up by the plotters in advance, as evidenced by the fact that witnesses claimed that they saw guns or gun-like objects in the windows of the TSBD before and during the assassination. My point is that those guns or gun-like objects were there in that building in order to implicate Marxist / Communist Oswald (who just happened to work in that building) in the murder of JFK and maybe even shoot JFK from there, as well. If it involved the latter goal, too, then the plotters would have been "killing two birds with one stone," wouldn't they. The implicating of TSBD-worker Oswald by brandishing guns or gun-like objects near to or from the TSBD windows dovetailed perfectly with and complimented the "eyewitness description of the assassin," i.e., the Robert Webster-like description that was given to Sawyer (or even to the DPD in advance) and which Sawyer broadcast on police radio only fifteen minutes after the assassination. The fact that that very same 1960 intentionally-inaccurate Webster-like description had originally been applied to Oswald by Dallas FBI agent John Fain right after Oswald had "defected" to Russia, and that those same intentionally-inaccurate "bios" had soon thereafter been incorporated into the CIA's computerized registry by CIA SR/6 officer Bill Bright -- who, ironically, was later assigned to Mexico City to monitor the LIENVOY Spanish-speaking transcribers there, (that , dear friends, could very well have been a classic case of "The fox guarding the hen house"! ) is more than a coincidence, IMHO, and is very telling. Why do I say "telling?" Because, in a way, the original (1960) intentionally-inaccurate Oswald description which was apparently given to Sawyer by a mysterious man under mysterious circumstances a few minutes after the assassination comprises the ultimate "marked card" of all the "marked cards" that were created over the years involving Lee Harvey/Henry Oswald. A "marked card" which has far-outlived its original purpose (uncovering Popov's mole?) but which, ironically, could act as a valuable "marked card" for us to use in figuring out who framed Oswald for the assassination! What's really fascinating is the fact that the plotters gave to Sawyer a description of Oswald which they evidently didn't realize was an inaccurate description, a description that was based on an old "marked card" involving Oswald and Robert Webster. This mind boggling "disconnect" suggests that the plotters were either careless in this detail, or that they had never actually seen Oswald, which in turn argues for the theory that Oswald was framed not only in advance time-wise, but also from some impersonal "distance." Either that, or some high-level plotter (Angleton?) was insuring future silence and co-operation on the issue by effectively blackmailing some mid-level plotters in making them use their own 1960 Webster-Oswald "marked card" which he knew could be traced back to them. Hmmm. But I digress. Heck, maybe the "bad guys" only stuck "lay down" metal pipes through the windows and threw a couple of firecrackers out of them, too, in order to focus post-assassination attention on the TSBD and Oswald. Or maybe they "cajoled / bribed" Brennan, Euins, the Rowlands, et al., into claiming that they had seen men with guns and/or a "metal pipe" at or in those windows. Or maybe, just maybe the mysterious man who gave Sawyer the assassin's description actually saw the real assassin and saw him not in an upper floor window, but running away from the TSBD, in which case his description could very well have been an accurate one and one which just happened to be identical to Oswald's old Webster-based FBI / CIA "marked card." I've always wondered why Tippit, who had heard over police radio the incorrect, Webster-based description of the assassin, stopped skinny 'ol Oswald as he was walking down the street. Did Oswald do something suspicious like turn around and walk the other direction when he saw Tippit's police car coming towards him? Did he look away from Tippit or hide his face as he passed? Those actions would have been out of character for the cool-headed, street smart Oswald, who only about thirty minutes earlier had had the presence of mind to have his taxi driver go past his rooming house a block or two in order to see if anyone was "staking it out." What I'm getting at is that it seems to me that Tippit knew Oswald and was actively looking for him. The inaccurate description of Oswald that was broadcast over police radio by Sawyer didn't distract or confuse Tippit. Through an act of divine intervention and by using his own God-given intuition, he somehow managed to get killed by Oswald, regardless. LOL In closing, I think we gotta ask ourselves the following question: "Why was immediate attention at that end of Dealey Plaza focused on the TSBD if not for the fact that that's the building into which Officer Baker was seen running ("It was the pigeons!"), the fact that some guns and / or a metal pipe were said to have been seen sticking out the windows, gunshots or firecracker sounds had been heard coming from there, and the fact that Marxist / Commie / former "defector" Oswald was not only known about by the plotters (who probably arranged for the just-mentioned things to happen), but also known by the plotters to be working there. --Tommy expanded and bumped please excuse the double post

Wow, Jo-Jo! Holy $h!t ! Those are A$$-kickin' great lyrics! How creative! I never knew you were so, ... so ...... accomplished! Me? I'm just an amateur gold prospector who rolls a few stones out of the way from time to time... (And, yes, I'm growin' old.) --Tommy

Of course, Jon. But it's on a "need to know basis." Just kidding, Mr. Tidd. Actually, I don't have a clue. My hunch is that it was probably whoever selected those two or three young boys (who ended up several years later looking so much alike that they fooled all those witnesses) and mingled their life stories and timelines so effectively as to be able to manipulate one of them into becoming the "patsy" for the killing of a President who was, at that time, still a U.S. Senator. Or any other "wet jobs" that might come along five or six years later. --Tommy

Jon, Not to be rude, but if you haven't "figured it out" by now, I have no conclusions. I'm just an instigator and catalyst here. Let me know when you arrive at some sensible "conclusions." BTW, why didn't you respond to my most recent jab at the Harvey and Lee (and Henry) theory? Thanks, --Tommy PS In your question above, why even involve a "party X?" Refresh my memory, please, as to what your "party X" did. Does "party X" stand for the really really really bad guys? Couldn't your "party X" simply have been a small, "rogue" part of the CIA?

Which just might pull one Gerry Patrick Hemming into the conversation, because if memory serves, he listed Klein's as a reference in his application for work with the CIA? Something like that. --Tommy

Jon, Food for thought: Three or four guys in suits and coming down the stairs were passed by a policeman or sheriff who was going up them shortly after the shots. The policeman or sheriff thought the guys were plainclothes sheriffs themselves, but he couldn't identify them. Going from memory of course, so I don't remember his name. I don't think it was officer Baker, but... Also, the elevators.... Never mind. Too complicated to remember the details of their movements off the top of my head. Steelworker Carr at "Old Red" claimed to have seen someone run away from the back of the TSBD. Last but not least, Gerry Patrick Hemming claimed that the shooter(s) climbed down a rope inside the elevator's shaft. Am I forgetting anything? Parting thought: If the shooter was an undercover police officer or sheriff (or posing as one), there might not have been any need to escape right away. Just mingle and help search for the killer and the "evidence" he'd left behind. --Tommy

Interesting post. Could it have been returned (by someone) and then stolen by a library patron or worker before it was returned to the stacks or before it was marked off "returned"? What's the significance of the DPD's "missing" the fact that it hadn't been returned in late '63, or since, for that matter? They wanted us to think that it had been returned (by someone)? Maybe the book was returned by Oswald's buddy, Jack Ruby, before he shot Oswald! --Tommy

Jon, That's what I was rhetorically getting at. Point being, if distracting / incriminating shots were fired from the TSBD, it would mean that the plotters had chosen Oswald to be the patsy and it would also suggest that they had chosen him for that role as soon as they learned the motorcade's exact route, IMHO. Of course many people believe that Ruth Paine was a CIA asset and that she made sure that Oswald got that job at the TSBD... --Tommy

Jon, Sounds like a job for David Atlee Phillips and / or E. Howard Hunt, two master propagandists. A prolific poster on this forum also comes to mind... --Tommy

Jon, Did Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, and / or that young married couple (whose name escapes me at the moment), etc, see men with guns on the top floors of the TSBD, or a "pipe" sticking out of a window in Euins case? I'm not sayin' they saw Oswald. If shots were not fired from the TSBD, were the plotters planning in advance on making it look as though there had been? IMHO, of the witnesses I've mentioned, Brennan is by far the most culpable. Did the plotters give him a "script" before the assassination happened, or was he kinda a "target of opportunity," too, because they noticed him a-sittin' there below the window? I think it's logical to assume that shots were fired from at least one TSBD window (probably on the west end of the building, closer to the limo in the kill zone), but not from the "Oswald's Sniper's Lair" window. What do you think? --Tommy

It would have added up if Oswald had been killed within an hour of JFK's murder. Dead men don't cry patsy. Excellent point, Cliff. Oswald's not being killed inside the TSBD or the Texas Theater changed everything, IMHO. They had to start extemporizing big time. Thanks for pointing that out to Jon G. Tidd and thanks for reminding the rest of us. --Tommy

There you go again! Good point, actually. Darn. Hmmmm... I'll see what I can come up with after I've had my cookies and milk and taken a nice long nap. Oh yeah! What about my earlier question about the TSBD? --Tommy PS The fascinating thing about WBF and the curtain rods is that he said the package was too short to have contained the broken-down MC. Why would he have said that if he was lying? Because he thought the MC was even shorter than it really was? Or to make his lie sound more plausible by using a little "reverse psychology?" Fascinating contradiction.

That should have been an interesting exchange. I wonder if O'Reilly started cursing on air? --Tommy

So, Jon, how physically similar did Harvey and Lee (and don't forget the CIA's Lee Henry Oswald -- just kidding -- probably just a "typo" or an intentional "marked card" ) look when they were, say, eighteen or twenty-three years old? Just barely enough "alike" to be able to fool a lot of people? How plausible is that? Anticipated Answer: "It's very plausible, Tommy, because it worked, didn't it?" "Anyway, Tommy, look at all of these photos of "Oswald" that were taken at different ages, from different angles, in different lighting conditions, with different backgrounds, with different cameras, with different film and lenses, etc. See how different he looks in them? Well, that proves it, see Tommy? --Tommy bumped

"Oh My God, look!! He's taking curtain rods to work. That's perfect! But I'll tell the police later that the package was way too short to contain that broken down carbine we ordered for him. That'll really mess with their minds!"" --Tommy Question: How far in advance did the bad guys plan on shooting from the TSBD? Or was that a last minute decision, too?

So, Jon, how physically similar did Harvey and Lee (and don't forget the CIA's Lee Henry Oswald -- just kidding -- probably just a "typo" or an intentional "marked card" ) look when they were, say, eighteen or twenty-three years old? Just barely enough "alike" to be able to fool a lot of people? How plausible is that? Anticipated Answer: "It's very plausible, Tommy, because it worked, didn't it?" "Anyway, Tommy, look at all these different photos of Oswald that were taken at different ages, from different angles, in different lighting conditions, with different cameras, with different film and lenses, etc. See how different he looks in them? Well, that proves it, see Tommy? --Tommy

So you made a mistake when you suggested that the letter had a date on it, didn't you. --Tommy PS Why do you appear to play so "fast and loose" with the facts so often? Are you just too busy lecturing us on your "theory" to do much "fact checking?" Whatever it is, please keep it up. It's fun correcting you so often. No, Tommy, I didn't say that the letter "had a date on it." I used the phrase, "the date of the letter," which is quite different -- it means that every letter is written on some date, even though some date isn't written on every letter. The letter has a date -- not written on it, but inscribed within its hermeneutic Sitz Im Leben -- which is to say that the life-cycle of OSWALD's PO Box is the same life-cycle of this letter upon which that PO Box number is written. Conservatively, that would be May 1963. The real debate, though, must surround how we date OSWALD's FPCC period -- whether only by its "earnest" month of August, or whether the previous months of preparation may be counted as well. With utmost sincerity, --Paul Trejo Nice try, Word Twister. However. You did say in so many words that the "date of the letter" suggested that Oswald had written it when he was already living in New Orleans and actively involved in setting up his fake FPCC. Then I pointed out in so many words that the return address on the letter (P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas) indicated that he very likely wrote that letter before he moved to New Orleans and was still living in Dallas. And now you're trying to weasel out of the mistake you made, IMHO. LOL All too often with you it reminds me of Bill Clinton's trying to defend himself by saying, "Well, it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." But, unfortunately, you're more than willing to take it a step further and try to redefine (according to Trejo) the tenses "was" and "will be," too, if necessary, just to keep from admitting your mistakes and the flaws in your theory. --Tommy