Thomas Graves

I also had to look twice to convince myself that the two photographs of OSWALD you posted were the same person. Yet when I noted that the photos were taken years apart, with different cameras, by different photographers, I could see the similarities. A lot can happen in four years. Any weight change can make a big difference. Also, viewing the top of the nose is far different from viewing the bottom of the nose. Here's a couple of photos from a famous person -- Judy Garland -- only a four years apart, I believe -- by two different cameras. One might think they aren't the same person. Regards, --Paul Trejo garland_14.jpggarland_17.jpg It's very obvious that these are photos of Harriet and Lee Ann. --Tommy

Some good observations here, especially: "The LAST thing that organization would do is have Oswald hang around with Guy Banister." Maybe that would explain why Oswald didn't "hang around" with the guy who was setting him up. Banister probably tried to discourage Oswald from "hanging out" with him, but Oswald just weaseled his way into Banister's office a few times, anyway! LOL --Tommy

Jon, If it is indeed the same person, you can see him (but only from the back -- good tradecraft, eh? -- and therefore you can't see if he's holding a camera) in the Jim Doyle film clip itself which I'll try to track down and post here, I have posted it here on this forum in the past but I forget now which thread. It will take me a little longer to track down the photo or film which "captured," I believe, the same guy (with the same tall, athletic physique, the same hair, the same complexion, the same grey suit or coat), standing in front of the TSBD after the assassination, but do I believe I've bookmarked or downloaded, or, worst case scenario, taken a screen shot of it. Please bear in mind that this dude is only visible from the back in the 8/09/63 Jim Doyle film and in in the 11/22/63 TSBD photograph or film, too. So I don't think my "discovery" will lead anywhere, unfortunately. But.... My overactive, vivid imagination tells me that the guy sure looks a heck-of-a-lot like David Sanchez Morales from behind. Now for my preemptive "Parthian shot" cynical joke for the day: "We know that it couldn't be Morales, don't we, because after all Morales was CIA and we all know that the CIA couldn't possibly have been involved in the assassination. LOL (Just giving you a hard time, Jon.) --Tommy PS An explanation regarding something I said on my earlier post. According to Richard Billings, Bringuier and Cruz noticed the "shepherd" with (or monitoring?) Oswald while he was passing out flyers in front of the Maison Blanche Building (where Dean Andrew's office happened to be situated). http://www.jfk-online.com/billings4.html The Maison Blanche Building is on the same street but two blocks away from where Oswald and Bringuier and Cruz and the other Cuban guy were arrested in the 700 block of Canal Street on August 9, 1963. Dean Andrews himself seemed to remember Oswald's telling him, "It's a job" while leafleting in front of the Maison Blanche Building at 901 Canal Street. http://www.jfk-online.com/andrews02.html So it's interesting that Bringuier and Cruz may have observed Oswald's leafleting at two different places on Canal Street, and perhaps even on different days. And the possibility that someone who was taking pictures of Oswald was noticed by not only young Jim Doyle, but by Bringuier and Cruz, as well, and maybe even at different locations and / or different days. Or is it a lot simpler than that? Was it a case of Billings's and Garrison's being confused as to where, exactly, on Canal Street Oswald and Bringuier were arrested on August 9, 1963? Even if so, it's still significant that young Jim Doyle wasn't the only person who noticed a man who was unusually interested in observing and documenting the leafleting Oswald. Evidently Carlos Bringuier and sidekick Miguel Cruz noticed him (or maybe one of "them"), as well. http://departmentstoremuseum.blogspot.com/2010/05/maison-blanche-new-orleans-louisiana.html expanded and bumped Well, I see that this "bump" was preempted again by an excellent post by Stephen Roy, so maybe I'll just cool my wheels for a while until I find those film clips or photos I was talking about..... --Tommy

Dear Mr. Gaal, Do not ever confuse me with my hero, the great William Colby, again, or I will simply "snap my fingers" and have you rendered I mean rendentioned at to a lard-based soap factory in, yes, your favorite "fascist" country (other than the U. S. that is), Ukraine. And not even your good buddy Putin will be able to help you then, Stevie Baby. Just kidding, Steven. Keep up the good work. Love your syntax, grammar, vocabulary, and especially your spelling. And oh, those graphics!! --Tommy

Jon, If it is indeed the same person, you can see him (but only from the back -- good tradecraft, eh? -- and therefore you can't see if he's holding a camera) in the Jim Doyle film clip itself which I'll try to track down and post here, I have posted it here on this forum in the past but I forget now which thread. It will take me a little longer to track down the photo or film which "captured," I believe, the same guy (with the same tall, athletic physique, the same hair, the same complexion, the same grey suit or coat), standing in front of the TSBD after the assassination, but do I believe I've bookmarked or downloaded, or, worst case scenario, taken a screen shot of it. Please bear in mind that this dude is only visible from the back in the 8/09/63 Jim Doyle film and in in the 11/22/63 TSBD photograph or film, too. So I don't think my "discovery" will lead anywhere, unfortunately. But.... My overactive, vivid imagination tells me that the guy sure looks a heck-of-a-lot like David Sanchez Morales from behind. Now for my preemptive "Parthian shot" cynical joke for the day: "We know that it couldn't be Morales, don't we, because after all Morales was CIA and we all know that the CIA couldn't possibly have been involved in the assassination. LOL (Just giving you a hard time, Jon.) --Tommy PS An explanation regarding something I said on my earlier post. According to Richard Billings, Bringuier and Cruz saw the "shepherd" with, or monitoring, Oswald while he was passing out flyers in front of the Maison Blanche Building (where Dean Andrew's office happened to be situated). The Maison Blanche Building is on the same street but two blocks away from where Oswald and Bringuier and Cruz and the other Cuban guy were arrested in the 700 block of Canal Street on August 9, 1963. Dean Andrews himself seemed to remember Oswald's telling him, "It's a job" while leafleting in front of the Maison Blanche Building at 901 Canal Street. http://www.jfk-online.com/andrews02.html So it's interesting that Bringuier and Cruz may have observed Oswald's leafleting at two different places on Canal Street, and perhaps even on different days. And the possibility that someone who was monitoring or 'shepherding" Oswald was noticed by not only young Jim Doyle, but by Bringuier and Cruz, as well, and maybe even at different locations and / or different days. Or is it a lot simpler than that? Was it a case of Billings's and Garrison's being confused as to where, exactly, on Canal Street Oswald and Bringuier were arrested on August 9, 1963? http://departmentstoremuseum.blogspot.com/2010/05/maison-blanche-new-orleans-louisiana.html

Going from memory here but I believe that sixteen year-old amateur photographer James "Jim" Doyle (since deceased) observed Oswald's being watched closely and and being photographed by a man using an "exceedingly expensive" camera the day Oswald and Bringuier and two other Cubans were arrested for disturbing the peace, on August 9, 1963. Doyle said that the man with the camera kinda stuck out because he was wearing a grey suit on a hot New Orleans day when all the other men wear wearing short-sleeved shirts. Also, in the notes made by a journalist (Billings?) who "helped" Jim Garrison in his investigation there is reference to a "shepherd," apparently spotted at Oswald's leafletings, including at Oswald's brief Maison Blanche Building leafleting by, of all people, Carlos Bringuier and his young sidekick Miguel Cruz, and that the "shepherd" was wearing a coat and tie and sunglasses and was taking pictures of Oswald. Billings wrote that, according to Garrison, the "shepherd" had a 1-inch scar on his left eye brow. Billings or Garrison apparently wondered whether or not this same "shepherd" dude might have been the driver of the "tan station wagon." I assume that what they are referring to is the station wagon that Orest Pena or one of his friends saw (a couple of days after the notorious Oswald-vomiting-the-lemonade-on-the-bar incident at Pena's bar in New Orleans) in which car was riding the commie-speaking Mexican-looking dude who had accompanied Oswald into the bar a few days or nights earlier. http://www.jfk-online.com/billings4.html In the Jim Doyle film you can see a tall, athletic-looking man wearing a grey suit and scratching the back of his neck while standing, with his back to the camera and right in front of it, watching Oswald who is walking past him and apparently wearing his "Viva La Fidel" sign, as reported by Doyle's younger sister, who also witnessed the event. To see the guy I'm talking about, go to 3:58 of this youtube video: I believe you can see the back of the same man wearing the same suit in photos and / or films taken a few minutes after the assassination, watching the goings-on in front of the TSBD. --Tommy

Paul, I think it's fascinating. Going from memory here, but I think I've read that he and / or Revill and / or Stringfellow might have been instrumental in making sure that the right kind of information was given to Dallas Police Inspector Herbert Sawyer fifteen minutes after the assassination, i.e. that the "suspect" was (a Robert Webster-like) 5' 10", 160 lbs., the same "bios" that were originally fabricated in a report on Oswald by Dallas FBI agent John Fain in 1960, and soon thereafter incorporated into the CIA's computerized Registry by SR/6 officer and future Mexico City CIA operative, Bill Bright. I realize that I've probably got this all screwed up, but I'm just too darn lazy right now to do any serious "act-checking" on it. Knowing that an expert on the subject will jump in and "set me straight" if I'm wrong, I have great satisfaction in advance that I've succeeded in keeping the topic alive! (Or at least derailing it!) https://books.google... oswald&f=false LOL --Tommy ###################################################################################################################### == http://whowhatwhy.org/2014/10/05/the-hidden-government-group-linking-jfk-watergate-iran-contra-and-911/ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Gosh, I guess it's all interconnected, huh, Steven? In light of all of this, how in the world do you keep from developing a really, really paranoid outlook on life and hatred of the United States government and American culture? Oh, that's right. Gotta throw Hitler and the Rothchilds in there, too. I almost forgot. --Tommy ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Well, Roy, I can admit an error if and when I'm wrong -- but somebody has to show me the logic. I'm open to good arguments. Where can I read about your "many years" that you've spent on the New Orleans case? Do you have a book or a web site, or perhaps a blog? As for the address stampted on OSWALD's FPCC handbills, it was the corner entrance to the same inside offices in the same building, according to Oliver Stone. This is somehow innocent sounding? Not to me. Banister was surrounded by Cuban Exile radicals and their supporters. They filled his building. How can it be innocent for OSWALD to have an office in the same building? However, Stephen, if you have years of work covering the ground that Jim Garrison covered, I'm willing to read it. Just point me in the direction. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Oliver Stone fictionalized a lot of stuff in his film JFK. For example, in the film he had the David Ferrie character voluntarily confess, to Garrison, to having participated in the plot, but David Ferrie in real life never did that. Also, the young gay dude at the southern prison work camp who said he'd had a sexual relationship with Clay Shaw was a compilation of real-life characters. And if memory serves, Mr "X" was actually a combination of different people. (Somebody please correct me on that if I'm wrong.) So it doesn't surprise me that Stone used "artistic license" to claim that the building's offices were equally accessible by both the "544 Camp Street" and the "531 Lafayette Street" entrances, when in reality they were not. --Tommy .

Yes, I for one. The photos were taken several year apart. One photo is in color, the other is in black and white. In the color one he a smiling juvenile, in the black and white one he is a serious-looking adult. In the color one, he has his head tilted back, in the black and white one he doesn't. In the color snapshot he has lots of spectral highlights on his face and "red eye", in the black and white one his face has no spectral highlights and eyes are normal. In the color one he's standing in front of a dark background, in the black and white one he's standing in front of a light background. Etc, etc. Same ears. same nose, same eyebrows, same small mouth. Same guy. --Tommy PS I'm sure it's already been noted that FBI agent John Fain interviewed Marguerite Oswald on May 12, 1960, (seven and one-half months after Oswald had "defected") and claimed that Marguerite described Oswald as being (a Robert Webster-like) " 5'10", 165 pounds, blue eyes." https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11090&relPageId=12 In reality, Oswald was only 5'9" and weighed about 140 lbs (131 lbs at his autopsy), and had hazel-gray eyes. Marguerite said after the assassination that Oswald had never weighed more than 150 pounds in his life. What's interesting is that an unidentified "witness" allegedly told Dallas Police Inspector Sawyer fifteen minutes after the assassination that the assassin he'd supposedly seen, from street level, in the sixth-floor window was 5'10", 165 pounds. Just like Robert Webster. (To the great credit of the "witness", at least he didn't say that the assassin was 5' 9 1/2" and 166 pounds and had blue eyes. LOL) The question is, who fed FBI agent Fain (and the 11/22/63 "witness") with Webster's physical description in lieu of Oswald's? --Tommy Thanks again Tommy for the response. I suppose they could definitely be the same but the amateur artist in me gives an astounding "no" off the bat lol...I mean they look like two different inidividuals. Tilsted back head doesn't produce too much a difference in appearance of the same person does it? (at least significantly) I don't mean to forcefully push the dual Oswald theory here (there seems, on the surface good evidence or arguments for that, despite counterclaims to such a theory) but perhaps in 6 years one's appearance could change depending on the age prior to the 6 years. The Fain question is a very good one and also, does anyone have any idea who that CIA recruiting officer was who probably recruited Oswald in the 50s? (I had notes written about this from Jim D's Destiny Betrayed 2md Ed but have since lost them...) he would be a key individual as far as Oswald's intelligence history is concerned as well. Thanks, B.A. . Not sure who you're talking about. My guess is that if Oswald was recruited into the CIA in the 1950's, it might have been done by David Ferrie, or maybe someone in Japan. Maybe Oswald was "encouraged" to do some stuff due to the fact that he was kinda implicated in the mysterious death of private Schrand... --Tommy

Paul, I think it's fascinating. Going from memory here, but I think I've read that he and / or Revill and / or Stringfellow might have been instrumental in making sure that the right kind of information was given to Dallas Police Inspector Herbert Sawyer fifteen minutes after the assassination, i.e. that the "suspect" was (a Robert Webster-like) 5' 10", 160 lbs., the same "bios" that were originally fabricated in a report on Oswald by Dallas FBI agent John Fain in 1960, and soon thereafter incorporated into the CIA's computerized Registry by SR/6 officer and future Mexico City CIA operative, Bill Bright. I realize that I've probably got this all screwed up, but I'm just too darn lazy right now to do any serious "act-checking" on it. Knowing that an expert on the subject will jump in and "set me straight" if I'm wrong, I have great satisfaction in advance that I've succeeded in keeping the topic alive! (Or at least derailing it!) https://books.google.com/books?id=98ctAgAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA28&lpg=RA1-PA28&dq=stringfellow+revill+oswald&source=bl&ots=O0rd02D1tD&sig=gNVdTj9qw9J0cCoaPKFHIJWzatY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tujrVP6MBui1sQTeooL4Ag&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=stringfellow%20revill%20oswald&f=false LOL --Tommy

Well, Jon, although I'm accustomed to suspecting David Atlee Phillips (Maurice Bishop) of complicity in the JFK murder, Larry Hancock asks me to suspend judgment on that, so I will. Based on this reservation, I do believe Antonio Veciana, the leader of Alpha 66. We know that Alpha 66 was funded by the CIA, because Alpha 66 was fanatical about killing Fidel Castro and taking Cuba back. Therefore, SOMEBODY had to be Veciana's CIA case officer, and Phillips (Maurice Bishop) is a likely choice in that context. Also -- remember what Veciana claims, and keep it in context, please. Veciana didn't say that he was meeting Phillips and OSWALD in the context of a JFK murder -- but simply meeting Phillips in the context of business-as-usual -- which in this case would have been supporting the AMWORLD/AMTRUNK/AMLASH package of CIA plots to kill Fidel Castro. Nor was there any suggestion that anything sensitive was mentioned at that meeting. It was evidently a 'business lunch' in which OSWALD was merely present at this status meeting. Veciana merely says he saw OSWALD in the company of Phillips -- that's it -- that's all. It might be sloppy, or it might not. It was only later JFK Researchers who *presumed* that it was a meeting about the JFK murder. There is no evidence of that at all. On the contrary, in his bio-fiction, "The AMLASH Legacy," Phillips confesses that he had hoped OSWALD could be used to kill Fidel Castro -- that was his involvement, he says, until "somebody" stole OSWALD for the JFK murder. This is where Jim Garrison's work comes in handy. We can name that "somebody" today, namely, the group of Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Tom Beckham, Ed Butler and Carlos Bringuier. Regards, --Paul Trejo [emphasis added by T. Graves] "Based on this reservation," or in spite of it? --Tommy For what it's worth, Veciana claimed that during one of his five "sit downs" with Maurice Bishop, he sneaked a look at Bishop's Belgian passport when Bishop went to the restroom and carelessly left his briefcase open. Veciana said the name on the passport was "Frigault." http://www.jfk-online.com/daphscavec.html I believe that the HSCA looked into "Frigault (FNU)," but I don't know what they found out, if anything.

OK, Bob, by the numbers once again: (1) Why did WALKER tell a German newspaper and not a Texas newspaper? It is my opinion that WALKER was bursting with pride about the JFK murder, and he had to tell somebody. (1.1) But WALKER could not admit the truth to the American public, because he had made a deal with all this accomplices -- they must remain anonymous. (1.2) IMHO, WALKER's signature mark over the JFK murder would always be this -- that Lee Harvey OSWALD had been WALKER's April shooter. WALKER repeated this story for the rest of his life. (2.0) I know of no Australian newspaper with an in-depth story on OSWALD -- but Oliver Stone tells of an in-depth story on OSWALD in a New Zealand newspaper. (2.1) In Stone's movie, JFK (1992), Fletcher Prouty's character tells Jim Garrison that he was in New Zealand on 11/22/1963, and only three hours after Oswald was arrested -- not even charged -- the New Zealand newspaper (The Christchurch Star) featured a studio photo of OSWALD, and a full bio. (2.2) Fletcher Prouty was certain that this was the modus operandi of a standard CIA 'black operation.' (2.3) The US General who sent Prouty to the South Pole at that time was Edward Lansdale -- which prompted Oliver Stone to portray Lansdale (as General "Y") as a key conspirator in the JFK murder. (2.4) So, Bob, I think that may be what you're thinking of. (2.5) Larry Hancock thinks that Fletcher Prouty may have been mistaken in his suspicions about General Edward Lansdale. I'll give Larry Hancock the benefit of my doubt. (2.6) IMHO, the person who controlled a confederate inside the Army Intel Unit to hand over Lee Harvey Oswald's file to the Dallas Police Department, was the same person who controlled a confederate mole at the New Zealand newspaper, The Christchurch Star -- namely, Ex-General Edwin WALKER. (2.7) There is no mystery about why the JFK murder had all the professionalism of a military and paramilitary operation -- Edwin WALKER was highly trained in 'special operations.' (3.0) Bob, I'm delighted that you sincerely consider the possibility that Edwin WALKER could have been "a part of this disinformation system." (3.1) Your views and mine completely agree on this point. (3.2) My key difference with you is on another point -- WALKER was never involved the JFK Cover-up known as the Warren Commission. WALKER testified before the Warren Commission, and he insisted that the Lone Shooter theory was backward, and he demanded that the WC realize that Lee Harvey OSWALD was clearly a Fidel Castro loving Communist. (4.0) Although I do agree with you that the part about RFK protecting OSWALD for the WALKER shooting is silly -- I don't believe it was merely "disinformation". (4.1) In my analysis of WALKER so far, he seems to have been suffering from a mild form of paranoia (and there are two medical psychiatrists who both gave that opinion). (4.2) In my analysis of WALKER, he truly, truly believed that RFK had sent OSWALD to kill him in April 1963. (4.3) This, IMHO, was WALKER's main motivation for using OSWALD as his Patsy to kill JFK. Here is only one of many examples of this belief of WALKER in his personal papers: http://www.pet880.com/images/19811212_Walker_on_JFK_1.JPG (4.4) And here's the last article he wrote on the topic -- only months before he died: http://www.pet880.com/images/19920119_EAW_Oswald_arrested.pdf (5.0) I agree with you, about the points scripted for the networks -- but IMHO the points were scripted by the FBI, and never by the JFK Killers. (5.1) I say that WALKER wanted us to believe that the Communists killed JFK -- while the FBI and the Cover-up Team insisted we believe in the "Lone Nut". Those two interpretations are opposed -- they are mutually exclusive. (5.2) IMHO, the Truth is that the right-wing killed JFK. (5.3) However, the Cold War transformed the Truth into a serious National Security problem. (5.4) The Cold War ended in 1990 when the USSR officially gave up the ghost. (5.5) In 1992 President GHW Bush signed the JFK Records Act, which changed the date that Earl Warren had set to release the Truth about JFK to the American people. (5.6) Earl Warren gave the date at 2039 (75 years after the Warren Report). (5.7) President GHW Bush gave the date at 2017 -- 22 years shaved off. This is hard evidence, IMHO, that my theory has merit -- the Cold War ended and the JFK Record Act removed 22 years from the censorship of the Truth about JFK. Direct connection. (6.0) Finally, all this is related to JFK's limo slowing down or stopping by the Grassy Knoll because Ex-General Edwin WALKER, and his confederates inside the Dallas Police Department (including Roscoe White, JD Tippit and Jesse Curry) controlled the Grassy Knoll, its monument, and the area behind it. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Jesse Curry admitted early on that the Dallas police department couldn't prove that Oswald was at the sixth floor window with that rifle. Jesse Curry also "spilled the beans" (and incurred Hoover's wrath for life) when he said that the Dallas Police Department had allowed most of the at-that-time basically un-inventoried evidence to go to FBI headquarters during the night of 11/22/63 (or perhaps more correctly during the early morning hours of 11/23/63 or maybe even the next day--whatever). The FBI kept all those things for 72 hours and then returned (at least some of) them to the Dallas Police Department. By saying what he did, Jesse Curry was basically admitting that the chain of custody for all of that evidence was all messed up and that those things probably wouldn't be "admissible" even if Oswald were to survive long enough to "have his day in court." It's clear that Jesse Curry wasn't the big "conspirator" you claim he was. --Tommy

To me, there is something odd about it, but it's hard for me to define or articulate. I don't think, however, that my "vibes" about it are the standard ones that most observers have. What do you find odd about it? .....if anything, Jon? --Tommy

In other words, Stephen, do you think Oswald was just an Odd Duck doing one of his Odd Ducky things, or was it perhaps a little more sinister that that? Hmmm? --Tommy

Thanks, Gary, for explaining that to me, and in such great detail! BTW -- Has anyone ever told you that you're an excellent writer? Well, you are. Keep up the good work. --Tommy

Bear in mind that Veciana is on record as saying that he showed up for the meet with Phillips / "Bishop" about 15 minutes early. So maybe it was a case of poor time management on Phillips' part? He was a busy man, with irons in a lot of different fires. Why would he meet with Veciana in such a public place, Jon? If he was willing to meet with Veciana there, wouldn't he be willing to use equally-sloppy tradecraft and meet with his other agents / informants / contacts there, too? --Tommy

Susan, What you say about psych research on long-term versus short-term memory is fascinating to me for the following reason. A few years ago I interviewed a (since deceased) ninety-something year old former ONI special agent who admitted to me that he had "very probably" conducted an investigation of Oswald at Marine Corps Air Station El Toro right after Oswald "defected" to Russia not only because El Toro was in the agent's assigned Naval District, but also because, well, the agent just happened to be "the best investigator the ONI had." He told me that he was a very close friend of fellow Texan Paul Bentley, the cigar-chomping polygraph-specialist Dallas Police Officer who helped drag Oswald out of the Texas Theater, and he had also known most of the Dallas FBI agents, etc, back in the day due to his working with them on his many ONI-related visits to Dallas over the years. Paul Bentley on youtube: Now, getting back to the memory deal, when I asked the retired ONI special agent some "trick questions" to kinda set him up and test his long-term memory, I decided to ask him how long the small ship was that he had commanded during WWII (his answer ended with "and a half-foot" and was "off" from Wikipedia's specs for the ship by only -- and exactly -- one foot), so that kinda impressed me regarding his long-term memory. Then I asked him if he remembered where he was when he heard that Peal Harbor had been attacked, and he immediately said "Brownwood, Texas," which also favorably impressed me. But when I asked him the sixty-four thousand dollar question, he just sat there and looked at me like the proverbial deer in the headlights, and said that for the life of him he just couldn't remember. The question of course was "Where were you when you heard that President Kennedy had been shot?" It's absolutely amazing which memories fade away completely over the years, isn't it. Probably just the personally unimportant ones or maybe just the ones that are just too gosh darned painful to recall. By the way, when I asked him where the Dallas ONI office was situated in 1963, he said that it was "across the street, it was in the Postal Building, it was in the building that Kennedy was killed from." Which makes me think that although Kennedy wasn't necessarily shot from the Terminal Annex Building, the observation post / command post might very well have been in one of it's upper-floor offices. Just sayin'..... Good luck with your research, --Tommy PS the correct spelling of the guy you're talking about is "Tippit." not "Tippet." Just a little friendly "tip" for you... PPS In case anyone is interested, the retired ONI special agent I interviewed on tape a few years ago was Robert D(avid) Steel, Lt Cmdr U.S. Navy, retired. I sent the tape of Steel's interview to the great researcher and blogger Bill Kelly, but I don't know if he ever transcribed it correctly and completely. The last time I checked his blog site a couple of years ago, he hadn't. Unfortunately, I didn't make a "dub" of the tape for myself to keep and Bill Kelly has refused, so far, to return the original to me. I guess he lost my mailing address or e-mail address or something, or maybe the tape was "lost" or "accidentally erased"... http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKkellyW.htm

Gary Murr, Could it have been done with a common jackknife? Maybe Mr. Todd didn't even have a common pocket knife or jackknife and didn't know anyone he could borrow one from. Thank you, --Tommy

You're usually pretty accurate and sensible, TG, but: Gus Russo prints one of Oswald's flyers with the 544 address on it, and indicates that it came from the widow of NOPD officer Francis Martello. The CIA-source thing is a misreading of evidence. There is a solid paper trail. Oswald wrote to the FPCC and requested those specific Lamont pamphlets, and the FPCC noted on that letter that they had been sent. The idea that the FPCC would wait until ALL copies of the first (and various) printings were gone before ordering reprints is silly. If anyone had copies of the various printings on hand, it was the FPCC. And the idea that the CIA would supply an undercover agent from an order openly made by the CIA's reading room is equally silly. Thanks, Stephen. I personally think it's important to keep "details" like these straight for other students and researchers, and that's why I don't mind being corrected on factual matters, but in fact welcome and encourage it. Besides, I'm always correcting other people, so "What's good for the goose is good for the gander!" So thank you for setting me straight! Now I would like to ask you some questions because I do respect your opinions and your approach to JFK assassination research (the Bannister-Ferrie-Oswald "angle" in particular), and because I don't know the answers, myself: 1 ) Do you think Oswald associated with Guy Banister or people who were close to him? If so, with whom? 2 ) Do you think Oswald rented, or tried to rent, an office at 544 Camp Street? 3 ) Do you have an opinion as to whether or not Oswald stamped some of his FPCC fliers and Corliss Lamont pamphlets with the Camp Street address? 4 ) If so, why do you think he did that? And last but not least......... 5 ) Did you finish writing your book? Thanks, --Tommy

Hello David, I'm confused. The passing of CE399 was in this order: Darrel Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, SA Richard Johnson, Chief James Rowley, SA Elmer Todd. Darrel Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, SA Richard Johnson and Chief James Rowley stated that CE399 was NOT the bullet they received. So, presumably, each of these fellows was given the actual bullet found on the stretcher. SA Todd states that CE399 *IS* the bullet he received from Chief Rowley because this bullet has his (Todd's) initials on it. With this information it is clear that only Rowley could have substituted an MC 6.5mm bullet for the actual bullet found on the stretcher. Is this correct? You say that Rowley passed the substitute bullet on to Johnson. Did you mean to say Rowley passed it to Todd? Or am I missing something here? No surprise if I am... Thanks, Tom That's quite a chain of custody. I wonder how that would have stood up in a court of law. Probably wouldn't even have been introduced as evidence. Going from memory here, but wasn't there a connection between O.P. Wright and the Abundant Life Church in Oak Cliff, where the police thought for a few minutes the assassin might be hiding, or am I getting this all mixed up? --Tommy

JON, I'll make this as simple as possible: Is it possible that Oswald was manipulated by somebody, who was not currently in the CIA or FBI or INS or Customs, to think that he (Oswald) was working for the CIA or FBI or INS or Customs from at least New Orleans on? And now for a completely separate question, JON: Would the CIA or FBI or INS, or Customs "set up" one of their own agents whom they strongly suspected to be a double agent and who already had a Commie / Marxist "legend"? (I'm just asking, JON. No, I don't have any hard "evidence".) --Tommy

Yes, but was he a materialistic "man of action?" And which "Oswald" are you talking about, anyway? Lee, Harvey, or Henry? LOL Would the FBI or CIA have any qualms about "setting somebody up" whom they or someone else had led to believe was one of their agents or informants, but wasn't? Do you see Oswald as being a rather gullible "man of action?" --Tommy

On the left edge of the forged vaccination certificate is a hand-stamped "June 8", which might be the answer to David Joseph's question in post #12, this thread. It's interesting that the December 2, 1964 FBI memo says that, regarding FPCC activities, Oswald had an "apparent [sic] well organized group in New Orleans." Sullivan said he wanted the New Orleans FBI agents to prove that Oswald was a "non entity," whose FPCC chapter had neither other members nor funding. So, according to Sullivan, Oswald was a well-organized lone nut assassin. I suppose he must have been very well organized in order to pull off the crime of the century all by himself. That or just very, very lucky. It is fascinating, though, that Sullivan used the word "group" instead of, say, "organization." Did the FBI think Oswald was alone, or ... not? --Tommy

Let's see. This has to do with Proof of the Motorcade Stopping how? Perhaps Walker, dressed as a DPD Officer, stepped into the street on Elm and shouted: "Hör auf!" at Greer who obeyed his command. Impossible, Greg. Greer didn't speak German. He obviously didn't know Walker was gay and simply misunderstood him to say "They's sure some nice-lookin' hoes out there!" That's why Greer turned around and shot JFK and then sped away! So in a way, Word Twister is right -- It was Walker's fault that JFK was assassinated. --Tommy

Well, Jon, I think you're being too abstract about this. We have some material facts that require explanation. In the case of OSWALD in New Orleans during the summer of 1963, we have a large body of work by Jim Garrison and his team. They failed to convict Clay Shaw -- but they didn't fail to unveil the truth about Lee Harvey OSWALD. On the FPCC handbills handed out by OSWALD, Jon, Jim Garrison noticed the address of Guy Banister -- one of the most notorious right-wingers in Louisiana. Guy was politically active. Guy was a right-wing fanatic -- he was former FBI and his passion was fighting Communism in the Carribean -- and especially in Cuba. Guy Banister surrounded himself with a large team of Cuban Exiles from various organizations, some of which had CIA funding, and others had funding from wealthy Cubans (and wealthy Americans) who wanted to take Cuba back from Fidel Castro. This was Guy's dream. Guy Banister was also active politically against the FPCC. It was a personal challenge, practically. So, Jim Garrison was stunned to find out that the FPCC handbills being handed out by Lee Harvey OSWALD were stamped with the address of Guy Banister. This was what started the wheels turning for Jim Garrison. What about you -- Jon? How do you explain the presence of the address of a radical rightist, inside the handbills handed out by this "supposed" leftist agitator for the FPCC and Fidel Castro? Regards, --Paul Trejo A good post, finally, although not entirely accurate of course. But then again we've come to expect that, haven't we? The two addresses "544 Camp Street" and "531 Lafayette Street" were for the same building, but they were for it's two separate parts with their two separate entrances which were in no way interconnected, unless, of course, one were to crawl out through one window and reenter the building through another window. It was perhaps very clever of Banister to put his Guy Banister Associates detective firm in a building like that (in the 531 Lafayette Street part of it) so that any operatives who might work for him out of that building could have a different address (544 Camp Street) from his detective firm's. Instead of crawling through windows to confer with each other, they could just have an occasional "sit down" and a cup of coffee downstairs at Mancuso's joint. Regardless, I think Oswald put the 544 Camp Street address on some of the flyers as a form of "insurance" because he suspected Banister was setting him up for something. It is interesting that the building's janitor, James Arthus, who lived in the 544 Camp Street part of the building, actually told investigators he had discouraged an unknown man from renting an office at 544 Camp Street. It's interesting because Oswald himself sent a letter to FPCC headquarters just eight days before he was arrested for disturbing the peace in New Orleans, and in the letter he said that he had rented a small office at some unspecified place in New Orleans but that he had been told (by James Arthus?) to leave after three days because the office "was going to be remodeled." I wonder if anyone ever checked to find out whether or not any offices in the 544 Camp Street part of the building had been remodeled (maybe just painted?) during the summer of 1963. It's equally interesting that Oswald look-alike and former Marine Corps buddy Kerry Thornley was a member (until April, 1963) of a labor union which had it's office at 544 Camp Street, and that the Revolutionary Council had at one time had it's New Orleans office at 544 Camp Street. (Was Oswald trying to aggravate or brand as a "Cuban spy" somebody in the CRC by putting its old Camp Street address on the pamphlets?) Finally, I suppose it's interesting that the above-mentioned janitor, James Arthus, died in 1967. Hmmm, I wonder how old he was and what the official cause of death was. Yeah, I know. I'm probably just being overly suspicious... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/544camp.txt --Tommy PS It's also my understanding that "544 Camp Street" was not found stamped on any of the flyers per se, but rather on one or two of Corliss Lamont's pamphlets "The Crimes Against Cuba." The fascinating thing is that the copies of "The Crimes Against Cuba" being handed out by Oswald had apparently come from the CIA's first-edition batch order.