Thomas Graves

As I said Bernie... the records were falsified so they work...no real big mystery there... but you stop short of the entire CONFLICT section of the post... BJHS is not an island.. it interconnects with a bunch of other evidence from that exact time period, to dismiss that and try to reconcile it on its own is the same as looking at three cartridges on the floor and calling it a day. During the SPRING SEMESTER of 1954 he is living at both 126 Exchange and 1454 St Mary's... he is both loud and large at Lillians as well as small and quiet on Exchange... I really recommend that you read Myrtle Evans' testimony to see how she describes LEE and MO... Lillian Murret's as well... Maybe also watch the DeRouse interview... ===== We needn't agree Bernie... it was I who lead us down the analytical path regarding the days of the school year that evidence represents... you didn't take us there Bernie... you didn't use it as an agument against me... all it took was a 53-54 calendar, an article about the NYC school year and some counting... I COULD BE WRONG about the NOLA school year... the info I posted was for NYC, no NOLA... So how about doing some work and telling us when the NOLA school year actually started, actually ended and match that to the BJHS records... develop an argument on your own and defend it... I think that's fair, don't you? Instead, I did that and freely admit that the BJHS evidence is not necessarily indicative of a conflict, but it is not exactly complete now is it, as I just said regarding the NYC school year.... what follows does show conflict though... if, by law there are at least 180 days in the school year (which we DO have evidence for)... the 54-55 records are in conflict stating there were only 168. Add further that 12 days absent is not shown on a single grade card... not one Bernie.. where does "12" come from? It's as if the 12 and 168 are there just to add to 180.... why do you suppose the information from those 54-55 grade cards is not accurately represented in the final record of one Oswald, Lee from 807 French St? ===== I will add one more thing to this - Louise Robertson, a maid hired by MO while living in NYC made a statement to the FBI... you aware of that... and those implications? I would appreciate you not thinking I am goading you on about the evidence and lack of time or effort to uncover the information on your own. It is not just talk when I say that the volume of information is monumental.. yet you dismiss it as unnecceary time and effort... which is your right, but please don't expect to be taken seriously when everyone else is doing your work... and you proudly proclaim your desire NOT to look for yourself... not to follow-up yourself... To me, and many others, it appears lazy and provides baseless, argumentative, chatter from a partially informed pundunt... rather than someone debating with facts culled from their own analysis and follow-thru. DJ [emphasis added by T. Graves] Ok, fair points: I need to brush up on more of the evidence before I make any more comments. I accept that. At some point though David i would like to hear your take on the Mcwatters 'escape' scenario: I believe, though I could be wrong, that Armstrong relies heavily on it being true. But that can wait. Let me absorb what's been written, take a close look first hand at the evidence, and we can hopefully continue taking it one issue at a time. Agreed? Bernie, Just bear in mind that IF you do present any NOLA documents which indicate no significant conflict with those from BJHS, all the "true believers" have to do is oh-so-gently "remind" you that "the records were falsified so they work." LOL I for one for one appreciate the civil, level-headed questions and analysis which you have contributed to this thread. Keep up the good work! I suspect that there are many more "non-believers" and "agnostics" out there who at present feel too intimidated to participate or to even ask questions. --Tommy PS Here's the link to the "missing" (we thought it was missing or that Greg Parker had deleted all of his posts when he left) thread to which you referred earlier. It's seventeen pages long and was started by Greg Parker. In case you're wondering, DJ enters the fray on page 5... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18558&page=1

Douglas, I suppose another way of looking at it is that Putin is doing to the Crimea part of Ukraine what Hitler did to the Sudentenland part of Czechoslovakia in 1938. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-barber/sudetenland-world-war-ii_b_4908017.html --Tommy PS..... FWIW, Russian media reported that forces which appeared in Crimea and which displayed no national or other insignia were pro-Russia volunteer militias defending Crimean autonomy, but a Finnish military expert has analyzed some photos of the these forces and concluded that there is a 99% probability that they are High Readiness Forces of the Russian Federation, specifically the 45th Spetsnaz Regiment. http://www.suomensotilas.fi/en/artikkelit/crimea-invaded-high-readiness-forces-russian-federation One of the soldiers "captured" on film by CNN said he was a Russian. At 1:00 of the first video. http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/03/01/nr-magnay-russian-soldiers-present.cnn.html Updated on 3/13/14: Former Ukrainian President Kravchuk says Putin's actions could spark WW III. http://www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-crisis-could-spark-third-world-war-former-communist-party-leader-president-kravchuk-warns In passing, the article does mention the Cuban Missile Crisis a couple of times. Interesting that Kravchuck is a former communist Ukrainian political leader (who quit the CP 1n 1991) and that in 2004 he actually supported the recently ousted pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarch Yanukovych, but later in 2010 switched his support to Yanukovych's pro-West political opponent. --Tommy

Greg, The second most popular choice can be viewed as one of the possible manifestations or implementations of the first one, IMHO. --Tommy .

B.A., Do you mean Lee's handgun, or Harvey's? Or Lee's, or Harvey's.....? LOL --Tommy

Bernie, Thanks for sharing that with us. --Tommy

give khruschev some credit, too And let's not forget the Russian submarine officer who voted against his two colleagues (who apparently believed that WW III had already started; the submarine was out of radio contact) and refused to authorize the firing of a nuclear-tipped torpedo at the U.S. destroyer that was "depth charging it" with small, but loud, explosive devices. Now that's what I call a real close call. --Tommy

Excellent questions, Paul. It seems that whoever was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald, during the weeks and months leading up to 11/22/63, looked sufficiently like him to fool lots of people. Fooled them well enough in fact that they were later willing to testify (and make statements to the DPD, FBI, etc) that they had seen LHO somewhere where he couldn't have possibly been at the time. So, the impersonator(s) and Oswald must have looked very much alike facially. IMHO, it's unrealistic to think that the bad guys could have chosen another young boy ("Harvey"?, "Lee"?) to start merging with Lee Harvey Oswald's so early on in both boys' lives, and that the bad guys could somehow know that they would look so much alike, facially, as adults. --Tommy Oh Tommy...Showing your lumpen proletarian ignorance again. You haven't read the full tome so how can you know anything? Do you even have a right to answer the question? Further, should you even be allowed to post here? You were right in an earlier post, David will just come back like Cinque, like Carlier, like Fetzer...guns blazing and insults flying...Does David live in Brazil? So much for the elitist DPF, apparently they can spot 'entities' from a thousand yards...But some clearly do slip the net. You won't get an answer Tommy/Paul. because there isn't one and that's why these people resort to abuse; you'll just get a load of reminders of what a snivelling know-nothing you are.. Apparently it is because of people like me that this forum is closing. Yet I haven't posted on here for nearly two years. Clearly that is his stock response to others who dare to question the great sage. It's a shoddy way of avoiding the question. It hasn't worked. You're right, Bernie. I probably should meditate on the whole huge book for about five years and then have David Josephs explain it to me, you know, to try to make some sense out of it, even if, heaven forbid, he can't tell me how "the bad guys" chose so-far-in-advance a boy (born in Hungary or Russia, or...) and be certain that this Russian-speaking boy would look so much like the (future) Lee Harvey Oswald as to be able to physically impersonate him some ten or fifteen years down the road! --Tommy PS: DJ's pronouncing that you are "the kind of person" who is going to make John Simkin close down this great forum again is just an attempt to stifle the voice of anyone who disagrees with him on the controversial issue of H&L. Keep up the good work, Bernie, and above all, try to remain civil. No need to stoop to DJ's level (typographically "veiled" profanity, insults, etc) to make your excellent points.

Excellent questions, Paul. It seems that whoever was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald, during the weeks and months leading up to 11/22/63, looked sufficiently like him to fool lots of people. Fooled them well enough in fact that they were later willing to testify (and make statements to the DPD, FBI, etc) that they had seen LHO somewhere where he couldn't have possibly been at the time. So, the impersonator(s) and Oswald must have looked very much alike facially. IMHO, it's unrealistic to think that the bad guys could have chosen another young boy ("Harvey"?, "Lee"?) to start merging with Lee Harvey Oswald's so early on in both boys' lives, and that the bad guys could somehow know that they would look so much alike, facially, as adults. --Tommy

Argumentative and defensive Bernie? That's how you want to have an open discussion about the evidence... so be it. If you want to have a deep theological discussion with a priest you might want to at least brush up on the facts in THE BOOK. I'm sure I can find hundreds of examples where your "christian behavior" does not jive with what that book which provides you the rules, offers.... Loudly proclaiming you don't need to read thoroughly or research what you offer your opinions on is .... well... what would you call it? You don't even seem to have the ability to ask a direct question on the evidence yet you can proclaim it "cultish" and wrong... Did you not post: "So can someone in the H/L cult please explain this?" and then come at me with snide BS when I dismiss your lack of manners to do so anyway.... ? or is your memory of what you wrote that poor? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21061&page=2#entry285270 Bernie... if you want to understand something, insults and attacks will not get it done... What is it that bothers you most about the evidence supporting H&L... not your interpretation of images... not YOUR anything... what specifically do you disagree with in the Evidence and then go about showing us why it is not correct... All you've done to this point is show you're ignorance and refusal to learn anything more since your mind is made up... while insulting the very thing you can't comprehend.. Is that what the BOOK you don't read, which offers the expectations and rules upon which to live your life as a Christian, tells you about how to approach your fellow man? if so, Please post THAT passage.... If you want to have a deep theological discussion with a priest you might want to at least brush up on the facts in THE BOOK. I don't need a theologocal discussion to teach me how it is possible for a dead man to raise himself three days later and physically ascend into the stratosphere. No expert will tell me that this is a book I can find any scientific reality from. Just because a priest may know the bible inside out doesn't therefore make it factually correct does it? Clearly you see yourself a 'priest' on this matter - and Harvey and Lee is your bible. And I? Just a miserable sinner... I'm sure I can find hundreds of examples where your "christian behavior" does not jive with what that book which provides you the rules, offers. WHAT?As you can probably tell from the above quote, I am not a Christian. Wow, that just sailed blithely over your head didn't it? How can I put this in simpler words? The world is round. We are agreed on that surely? So would you read a 1,000 page book by the Flat Earth Society? No, of course you wouldn't. The very idea is too preposterous to invest the time required to read it. Unless I come across a forum/essay/article etc... with some convincing arguments that entices me to believe that something isn't quite what it seems, yes of course, then I would want to read the book. So far I (and many others) have seen nothing that would justify such an investment. It does become a tad nauseating for you to simply insist it is only true if you read the whole book. "So can someone in the H/L cult please explain this?" Please look up the word - rhetorical. Did you honestly believe I expected an explanation even though the whole drift of my posts (and so far, your responses) are...that there isn't one! "come at me with snide BS when I dismiss your lack of manners to do so anyway" Yes david because you didn't give an explanation as to how the plotters knew that these 13 yr olds would grow through adolescence and emerge as identical adults. What, really, are the chances of that? "Bernie... if you want to understand something, insults and attacks will not get it done..." Erm, yes, quite. Show me one insult that compares with your above comment please. Just dismissing your theory for the childish fantasy that it is doesn't count. "What is it that bothers you most about the evidence supporting H&L..." I guess it's the elitist, eclectic and staggeringly haughty way in which it is presented. Other researcher's work is trampled over, or it has to be viewd through that prism in order that it remains consistent with the 'faith'. One of the best posts ever placed on this forum, Sean's amazing work on doorway man, eventually lost steam and impetus when five or six pages were effectively hi-jacked so that this theory could be in some way shoe horned into the procedings. No wonder some of the better researchers don't post on here anymore. "Is that what the BOOK you don't read, which offers the expectations and rules upon which to live your life as a Christian, tells you about how to approach your fellow man?" I haven't got a clue you are talking about. I think, and this is only a stab, you're saying that I would become a better Christian by reading H&L...? I wrote I don't need to read the full bible to know whether I am a Christian or not It's very interesting that you interpreted it in such a rigid way. I'm not a Christian btw, far from it. Why would I want to invest my soul in a book which I know contains huge dollops of superstition and conflicts with known scientific facts? Eg, dead men don't come back to life and ascend into the sky; the blind don't have their sight returned by touch ; seven fish will not feed a multitude of people; no one can walk on water...and so on. These things I know, from newspaper articles, forums, essays etc... But your logic says I'm not in a position to claim to be a non believer because I haven't read the bible in its entirety. I would refer people to a great thread from two years ago where Greg Parker ripped the whole Beauregard School nonsense to threads. I recall David you pretty well gave up the ghost and did what all the 'followers' do...You repeatedly changed the subject. I can't find it or I would have provided a link (it's probably shredded now). It taught me enough to know that some of these coincidences can be easily explained away with better research, and also that the integrity of some of H&L proponents have been imported from Fetzerland. Hey David, I'm just a keen student on this forum. It's up to you to convince with your superior knowledge. There is nothing I can teach you about Harvey and Lee, the book. But I reckon the truth can be found only by reading lots of books, without preconceived ideas, or a desperate neccessity for it to fit an already made conclusion. But you are hooked on this now. No amount of refutation will change your mind. You are committed for the long haul come what may; you can't go back now. That's not the scientific method. Let's face it, it's barely a method! For you, Doorway man or any future new development concerning Oswald) is approached from the viewpoint of "Where does this fit in with H/L?" Whereas, most researchers, certainly the good ones, are just striving for the truth - wherever that may go. It's self indulgent and i honestly believe is being used as a 'spoiler'... [emphasis added by T. Graves] Excellent post, Bernie. Regarding Greg Parker's arguments against the H&L myth or cult or theory or whatever it is, I'm afraid he deleted all of his posts here, but one can go to his website and find a lot of it there. You might have to register there as a member to find all of it, but it's easy to do, quick, and well worth it, IMHO. Here's a good place to start: "H & L: The Early Years" http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t702-harvey-lee-the-early-years?highlight=Harvey+++%2BLee And here's one called "re: Armstrong's Magic Tooth and the Facts About "Harvey" at Beauregard": http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t227-armstrong-s-magic-tooth-and-the-facts-about-harvey-at-beauregard?highlight=Harvey+++%2BLee --Tommy

Steven, So what? I'm not denying the possibility / probability that J.C. King and his buddies in the CIA were bad, bad men, and killed a lot of innocent people and helped their filthy rich friends get even richer. I mean, that's "a given," right? But what does any of this have to do with the possibility that J.C.King knew the identity of the Mexico City Mystery Man whose photo was being used as a "marked card" by Anne Goodpasture in her attempt to find out who had impersonated Oswald on the phone? That was the question, Steven. But apparently the very mentioning of the name J.C. King in my question to author Bill Simpich about MCMM motivated you to post all that fascinating "interconnected" stuff about J.C. King and all of his evil friends and colleagues and their former and present employers and benefactors, and all of their suspicious and evil connections! Which I'm not necessarily denying, anyway. Sincerely, --Tommy

[...]. no wonder JS has had enough of you people. [emphasis added by T. Graves] Sounds like a case of the Pot calling the Kettle "Black," David. It seems to me that you're the one who resorts so quickly to defensive, obnoxious, and inflammatory language. And with every new reply on your part, it just gets worse doesn't it. --Tommy

[...] Take a look at post 7 by David... ["Harvey" and "Lee"] look pretty identical to me. So can someone in the H/L cult please explain this? Did the originators of this dastardly plot KNOW that H/L were going to emerge from adolescence looking identical? If so...how? [...] Bernie, Gosh, I never thought of that. How did they get "Harvey" and "Lee" to look so much alike, anyway? Hmmm... I GOT IT! I GOT IT!!! I GOT IT!!! It was, It was ... Operation Paperclip! ... and, and, .... Oh My God! ... Yes! ... Selective Breeding and GENETIC ENGINEERING!!! What? Operation Paperclip wasn't around that early??? Darn. --Tommy PS Warning to Bernie: Don't criticize DJ too much or accuse the believers of the "Harvey and Lee" thing of being in a kind of "cult," because if you do, DJ will get really, really defensive and obnoxious and will say, in so many words, that your opinions are just "stuff that you pull out of your posterior", that it's you that doesn't have any manners, and then he will try to silence you (and other "heretics" like you) by insinuating that you are trying to close this great forum down by having the audacity to "attack and insult" him and his fellow H&L believers. Please do not disagree with David Josephs in language even remotely as insulting as his, or it will all be gone again! Edited and bumped.

[...] Take a look at post 7 by David... ["Harvey" and "Lee"] look pretty identical to me. So can someone in the H/L cult please explain this? Did the originators of this dastardly plot KNOW that H/L were going to emerge from adolescence looking identical? If so...how? [...] Bernie, Gosh, I never thought of that. How did they get "Harvey" and "Lee" to look so much alike, anyway? Hmmm... I GOT IT! I GOT IT!!! I GOT IT!!! It was, It was ... Operation Paperclip! ... and, and, .... Oh My God! ... Yes! ... Selective Breeding and GENETIC ENGINEERING!!! What? Operation Paperclip wasn't around that early??? Darn. --Tommy PS Warning to Bernie: Don't criticize DJ too much or accuse the believers of the "Harvey and Lee" thing of being in a kind of "cult," because if you do, DJ will get really, really defensive and obnoxious and will say, in so many words, that your opinions are just "stuff that you pull out of your posterior", that it's you that doesn't have any manners, and then he will try to silence you (and other "heretics" like you) by insinuating that we are trying to close this great forum down.by having the audacity to "attack and insult" him and his fellow H&L believers. Please do not disagree with David Josephs in language even remotely as insulting as his, or it will all be gone again!

Paul, Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't "Lee" supposed to have been born in Hungary? (Of course back then all Hungarians had to learn Russian, an Indo-European language quite different from their non-Indo-European Hungarian....) --Tommy No Tommy, that was Harvey. Thanks Dawn. But I've got to ask you something: Why the heck is it so gosh darn important for JFK assassination researchers and / or bloggers to get their stupid facts straight, anyway? Sheez! (Just kidding.) --Tommy Message for Martin Blank: It was "Lee" "Harvey" who was from Russia Hungary. then who was marina talking about? Beats the heck out of me, Martin. Maybe she was confusing Harvey... I mean Lee... I mean Harvey... with Robert Webster again. Uhh, could he speak Russian? Hmmm... How about his double? LOL --Tommy

Steven, I guess I should have been a little more specific. Let me try again: What does what you posted in post #44 have to do with the question I asked Bill Simpich in post #43? (You didn't think that the Mexico City photos of "a certain person who is known to you" might have been of David Rockefeller or Clint Murchison, did you? How about Henry Crown?) --Tommy

Paul, Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't "Lee" supposed to have been born in Hungary? (Of course back then all Hungarians had to learn Russian, an Indo-European language quite different from their non-Indo-European Hungarian....) --Tommy No Tommy, that was Harvey. Thanks Dawn. But I've got to ask you something: Why the heck is it so gosh darn important for JFK assassination researchers and / or bloggers to get their stupid facts straight, anyway? Sheez! (Just kidding.) --Tommy Message for Martin Blank: It was "Lee" "Harvey" who was from Russia Hungary.

Hey Steven, I have a good idea. Why don't you go start a "J.C. King and the Illuminati" thread! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati --Tommy So the CIA doesnt do things that financially helps the elites ??? No Steven, only Vladimir Putin would do such a horrible thing... Anyway, what bearing does that have on Bill Simpich's fine book (which happens to be the topic of this thread)?

Bill: A few things that you've pointed out are striking: "Anderson convinced Gheesling to dim the lights". That's pretty striking right there. Then there's John Whitten, who "didn't have any idea that Oswald was being used for a molehunt". Whitten shows up after the assasination, and if I'm remembering my facts, initially runs the CIA investigation before being replaced by Angleton. I am sensitive to Whitten because my sense is that he testified truthfully plus he died in a nursing home recently not too far from where I live. Then, when I go back and revisit my notes from Armstrong and Newman, this all starts to gel. Mexico City is clearly a key that unlocks doors to the plot and intelligence interests. Its also the centerpiece and rationale for the cover-up and formation of the Warren Commission. Your focus on MC is appropriate. After the big event, there is serious world-class CYA going on inside both FBI and CIA... and we can just visualize Harvey and certain JMWave principals sitting back and enjoying the blowback. To quote an old saw: they had the means, motive and opportunity. Gene Bill, What I like is that you help us make sense out of the confusing "Mexico City Mystery Man" situation. Thank you for showing us that MCMM was photographed on 10/02/63, one day after an imposter had called the Russian Embassy and identified himself as O-S-W-A-L-D, and that Anne Goodpasture, needing a photo right away of any American-looking man in order to conduct a viable Mexico City-Based Mole hunt (in an effort to find out who had penetrated LI/ENVOY and impersonated Oswald on the phone), chose MCMM's photograph simply because he looked more American than the other men captured on film around 10/01/63. Question: To whom do you think Win Scott was referring when he said in his cable to J.C. King that the man in the photos was "a certain person who is known to you"? Oswald? Moskalev? Or was it just an "inside joke"? http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photo_Surveillance_and_the_Mystery_Man Thanks, --Tommy Bumped for Bill Simpich.

Hey Steven, I have a good idea. Why don't you go start a "J.C. King and the Illuminati" thread! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati --Tommy

[...] Question: To whom do you think Win Scott was referring when he said in his cable to J.C. King that the man in the photos was "a certain person who is known to you"? Oswald? Moskalev? Or was it just an "inside joke"? http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photo_Surveillance_and_the_Mystery_Man Thanks, --Tommy ************************************************************************************** J.C. King From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search J. C. King Joseph Caldwell King (1900–1977) was the Chief of the Western Hemisphere Division of the CIA in the 1950s and 1960s. He was also known by his CIA code name of Oliver G. Galbond and as Colonel J.C. King. King graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1923[citation needed]. King then became a vice-president at Johnson and Johnson in charge of Brazil and Argentina. After this, he joined Nelson Rockefeller's Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (CIAA), also known as the Rockefeller Office. He was stationed in Argentina from 1941 to 1945, where he was engaged in feeding deceptive information to Japanese agents (see Thaddeus Holt,The Deceivers), and Guatemala from 1952 to 1953. King is believed to have advocated assassination of Che Guevara and Fidel and Raul Castro as early as December 11, 1959[citation needed]. He is also believed to be the CIA point man of the overthrow of João Goulart, President of Brazil, in 1964[citation needed]. King officially retired from the CIA in 1967, but soon came back as a CIA consultant. He was CEO of the Amazon Natural Drug Company, known as a front for the CIA[citation needed]. King's health was deteriorating at that time due to a combination of his age and Parkinson's disease and he died in January 1977. ############################################# Great Southwest Corporation a joined venture with the Rockefellers and the Wynnes, that owned the hotel marina Oswald was secured after the assassination. Another important British-connected company was Empire Trust. This company was controlled by the Rothschilds via Kohn and Loeb. Jack Crichton was part of Empire Trust. Crichton was the one who sent a translator to the Dallas police station to aid the police in their interrogation of Marina Oswald. The translator, Illya Mamantov, used the opportunity to implicate Oswald as the assassin. The British-connected Great Southwest Corporation had control of Marina following the assassination. To paraphrase Peter Dale Scott, the Great Southwest provided Marina with a manager, an attorney, and a hideaway. Her manager was James Martin. The lawyer was William Mackenzie, and the hideaway was the Six Flags Hotel. The Great Southwest was made up of British interests, including Loeb Rhoades, and Anglophiles William Zeckendorf, the Rockefellers, and the Murchison family. A little known fact about the Murchisons is that they had dealing with the Suez Canal Company, which was controlled by the British government. ........So Doyle Smith and Doyle ( Freeport Sulfur law firm) ***** was an extremely British-oriented law firm. It had Gulf States Land and Industries which was owned by Mr. Zeckendorf, who had many land deals with the Rothschild-connected Empire Trust. He also had connections to KMT trucking, which indicates a narcotics connection. KMT drugs were often shipped by means of trucks. Zeckendorf had business dealing with Arthur Rubloff, who had investments with Lansky’s casino operations in the Bahamas. Rubloff was also invested in the Great Southwest Corporation. A member of his board on Gulf States Land and Industries was a James R. Stanley. Mr. Stanley worked with D.H. Byrd at Alpha Omega Finance, and he was also a member of Wallace Investments in Dallas. ...... Yet the elites were definitely involved, as can be seen through Oswald’s friend, Alexander Bouhe, who was an employee of Lewis McNaughton. McNaughton was part of Empire Trust, a firm which we mentioned earlier was connected to the British and the Rothschilds. McNaughton controlled the Republican National Bank Building. Dresser Industries was there in the building, which was directed by Neil Mallon, a Skull and Bones man. McNaughton had de Mohrenschildt in that building. His (McNaughton) partner was deGolyer. Degolyer was dead by 1963, but before then deGolyer worked and set up the largest independent firm of oil analysts of all time. DeGolyer worked under Lord Cordray, or (AKA) Lord Pearson, who was at Amarata before it was Amarata Hess. Now I recently learned that the British government owned a large chunk of Amarata. Lord Pearson was one of the richest British men that ever lived. He owned Mexican oil, and sold it out in 1938, just at the right time, amazingly, before it was nationalized by the Mexican government. He owned railroads in Brazil and the like. That would indicate that deGolyer had many British connections. The odd thing is that McNaughton tried to get my uncle to work for him. Now let us go into my uncle; I can talk about him now, for he is deceased. He worked in gemology, but he also worked in oil. He told his family, myself among them, that he worked for the CIA in a number of adventures. (SO McNaughton was elite spy and/or MI 6 ????????? ) -------------------------------------------- ***** http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/hidden/freeport-cuba.htm BTW Mr. Ford had worked for McNaughton see Marina living with Ford's http://jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1156.htm Steven, Please go somewhere else. --Tommy

Deleted. --Tommy

Paul, Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't "Lee" supposed to have been born in Hungary? (Of course back then all Hungarians had to learn Russian, an Indo-European language quite different from their non-Indo-European Hungarian....) --Tommy

Bill: A few things that you've pointed out are striking: "Anderson convinced Gheesling to dim the lights". That's pretty striking right there. Then there's John Whitten, who "didn't have any idea that Oswald was being used for a molehunt". Whitten shows up after the assasination, and if I'm remembering my facts, initially runs the CIA investigation before being replaced by Angleton. I am sensitive to Whitten because my sense is that he testified truthfully plus he died in a nursing home recently not too far from where I live. Then, when I go back and revisit my notes from Armstrong and Newman, this all starts to gel. Mexico City is clearly a key that unlocks doors to the plot and intelligence interests. Its also the centerpiece and rationale for the cover-up and formation of the Warren Commission. Your focus on MC is appropriate. After the big event, there is serious world-class CYA going on inside both FBI and CIA... and we can just visualize Harvey and certain JMWave principals sitting back and enjoying the blowback. To quote an old saw: they had the means, motive and opportunity. Gene Bill, What I like is that you help us make sense out of the confusing "Mexico City Mystery Man" situation. Thank you for showing us that MCMM was photographed on 10/02/63, one day after an imposter had called the Russian Embassy and identified himself as O-S-W-A-L-D, and that Anne Goodpasture, needing a photo right away of any American-looking man in order to conduct a viable Mexico City-Based Mole hunt (in an effort to find out who had penetrated LI/ENVOY and impersonated Oswald on the phone), chose MCMM's photograph simply because he looked more American than the other men captured on film around 10/01/63. Question: To whom do you think Win Scott was referring when he said in his cable to J.C. King that the man in the photos was "a certain person who is known to you"? Oswald? Moskalev? Or an "inside joke"? http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photo_Surveillance_and_the_Mystery_Man Thanks, --Tommy

Hi-lited and Bumped. Thanks, --Tommy PS I think JamesTague may have been standing in the best part of Dealey Plaza to be able to hear which direction the shots were coming from.

Sorry to hear about the passing of Mr. Tague. Just wondering: Has it ever been determined which shot it was that caused his injury? --Tommy