Thomas Graves

Tommy, They weren't referring to any photographs. Remember, the Commission didn't use the autopsy photos. Kellerman's first line, "right below that wound" is referring to the exit wound he had just described. This is the testimony immediately preceeding what I posted above: Mr. SPECTER: I would like to develop your understanding and your observations of the four wounds on President Kennedy. Mr. KELLERMAN: OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size. Mr. SPECTER: Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct? Mr. KELLERMAN: Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head. Mr. SPECTER: Indicating the rear portion of the head. Mr. KELLERMAN: Yes. Mr. SPECTER: More to the right side of the head? Mr. KELLERMAN: Right. This was removed. Mr. SPECTER: When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this? Mr. KELLERMAN: The skull part was removed. Mr. SPECTER: All right. Representative FORD: Above the ear and back? Mr. KELLERMAN: To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here. Mr. SPECTER: When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor? Mr. KELLERMAN: It was absent when I saw him. Mr. SPECTER: Fine. Proceed. Great. A police department homicide interrogation without a stenographer or tape recorder, and some important Warren Commission testimony taken without the pertinent photographs. Fantastic. Never mind. Martin, are you capable of posting an image of man's head showing where you think Kellerman was referring to when describing JFK's head wounds? Because the more I read about it, the more confused I get? Thanks, --Tommy

Tom, It's all rather complicated, isn't it. Do you think Oswald expected the coded message to be noticed and solved right away? And to think that the Internet hadn't even been invented yet! Hey! Maybe that's why he was trying to reach John Hurt! You know, so he could decode it. Look on the bright side, Tom. Even though you've been working on it for quite a while now at least you did have a major revelation about it just last eventing! (Somehow this all reminds me of Bevilaqua's decoding of the text of The Manchurian Candidate...) Sincerely, --Tommy

In the hairline immediately to the right of the bottom third of the ear? What hairline immediately to the right (or left) the bottom third of the ear? Sideburns? I don't understand. But then again, what else is new... --Tommy Tommy, I take it to mean at or near the bottom edge of the hairline which would make it roughly level with the lower part of the ear. Martin, While still alive on 11/22/63 and viewed in a normal sitting or standing position, none of JFK's hair (or more precisely--"hairline") was near the "bottom third" or the "lower part" of his ear, so your phrase "level with" suggests to me that the photograph being referred to by Kellerman and Specter was not taken from the perspective of, for example, a typical snapshot. So, were they instead looking at the photos depicted in post #66 this thread or one taken from the same perspective? If so, is Kellerman talking about the highly visible small white circle near the hairline at the back of JFK's head, i.e. the "official" wound of entry? Thanks, --Tommy

In the hairline immediately to the right of the bottom third of the ear? What hairline immediately to the right (or left) the bottom third of the ear? Sideburns? What about what-looks-to-me to be an entry wound in the crown of JFK's head (the "red spot") and the circular, bullet-sized spot/defect near JFK's right temple hairline in the famous "death stare photo?" I don't understand. (But then again, what else is new.) --Tommy

Or even in private. --Tommy (emphasis added)

Robert, I agree with you. The McClelland Drawing is drawn from about the same perspective as a seven-foot man looking down on a six-footer. Sincerely, --Tommy Mr. Graves It is nice to see that we agree on so many things. As my late father was fond of saying, "Great minds think alike and fools seldom differ; take your pick, son." Robert, Well seein' as I'm into gold mining, too, is it ok if I take my pick and my shovel? --Tommy

Dear Jimbo, Please read or re-read the final sentence in my post. Did I say Angleton did it by himself, period? Hint: No, I didn't. And, even if he did do it without McCone, McCloy, Taylor, Walker, etc (and certain people who were working for them), he still would have needed the help of certain other people like Anne Goodpasture, Ann Egeter, William Harvey, George Joannides, etc, wouldn't he? --Tommy

Robert, I agree with you. The McClelland Drawing is drawn from about the same perspective as a seven-foot man looking down on a six-footer. Sincerely, --Tommy

John,this site seems to have something relating to Major General Edwin Walker and Anzio. During World War II, Walker commanded a subunit of the Canadian-American First Special Service Force in the invasion of Anzio, Italy in January 1944. In August 1944, Walker succeeded Robert T. Frederick as the unit's commanding officer. Source: http://www.enotes.co...ic/Edwin_Walker Hmmm, it would be good to lay this baby to rest if only to move on. The things that were happening during the time of the landing at Anzio led in a strange way (message/code mix-up supposedly) to it's failure. The people whose interests were served by its failure were not only the Germans in having more time eliminating left wing northern partisans but also of course non German anti-Communists. Like J. J. Angleton* for example and factions in the Cairo Bureau (which perhaps tenuously has something to do with the Raten-Lines to the Middle East after the war, and perhaps less tenuously to the tradeoff of Greece by Stalin (which probably has something to do with what's going on in Greece today)). Whatever ones take on events, here is an opportunity to look at an early Walker who appears in a somewhat mysterious milieu. Is it possible to get detailed service records from this time? Indeed, was he .. wait for it... OSS ? PS I think it has been established I'm nuts so I reserve the right to ask nutty questions. edit add * who shielded the Black Prince after Italy was liberated. Also Gladio and the Strategy of Tension, imo, is relevant here.(emphasis added by T. Graves) John, If memory serves, Douglas Valentine in The Strength of the Wolf has the young OSS officer James Jesus Angleton protecting some Sicilian and Sicilian-American narcotics-running mafiosi during WW II in exchange for intel which benefited Operation Husky. The very idea of a mobbed-up Angleton working in concert with a mobbed-up J. Edgar Hoover fascinates me because JJ"s being mafia-connected or influenced would help explain why he wanted to get rid of the Kennedys. JJA must have known that JFK was getting ready to pull out of the French Connection's heroin-production region of S.E. Asia. And, of course, RFK had been coming down hard on Angleton's mafia buddies in the U.S. As John Newman says in "Oswald and the CIA", Angleton was the only person capable of 1) planning the assassination, 2) managing the assassination, and 3) orchestrating the cover up. I can see JJA doing this by himself or perhaps in cooperation with the John J. McCoy/Maxwell Taylor/General Walker crew. Sincerely, --Tommy bumped and edited

[...] just as no one can place LHO in the sniper's nest at 12:30 PM 22/11/63, no one can place him anywhere else at that moment; or within fifteen minutes prior to that time. It is, and will remain, a mystery for all time. Also, LHO's actions in the few years leading up to the assassination are so bizarre, one cannot help but believe LHO was somehow involved with the intelligence community. Whether or not this makes him a conspirator in the assassination, regardless of whether or not he actually fired a rifle, is another mystery. As one learned gentleman hypothesized, he may very well have been gathering intelligence on a group he was led to believe were the real conspirators. This would make him the perfect patsy when the time came to spring the double cross on him, as he would maintain silence on his involvement both out of a sense of duty and a conviction that he, as an intelligence agent, would surely be exonerated of the crime of assassinating JFK in the due course of time. Robert, I agree. Well stated and makes perfect sense. I tried to say something along the same lines earlier in this thread when I said in so many words that it's impossible to make a declarative "position statement" that includes the contradictory positions that Oswald was either totally innocent or was somehow involved. The beauty about the way you put it it that it actually reconciles the two: Oswald was possibly involved in an innocent sort of way! Sincerely, --Tommy

BUMP: Awaiting the "imaginary fictions" of John Newman from Trejo. Tick-tock, tick-tock... Me too, Lee. But let me put it this way. I ain't holding my breath. I think Newman is a level-headed intelligence analyst whose conclusion is solid: J. J. Angleton was the only person who could have 1) planned the operation, 2) managed its execution, and 3) orchestrated the cover up. IMHO, Angleton was in the perfect position to start the patsying-up process of Oswald, for any possible future operation that might require a "commie symp" patsy, as early as 1959 by involving Oswald in a mole-detecting venture in Russia at that time. To wit: (Moved here from another thread due to apparent lack of interest there) A lack of Russian interest in the potentially high-value "defector" Oswald would strongly suggest to James Jesus Angleton that the Russians already had a U-2 mole in place or that they suspected Oswald of being some kind of double agent. Mole hunting was both Angleton's specialty and his obsession. But maybe Angleton sent Oswald to Russia not only to help him detect/verify the presence of a mole and possibly to give the Russians bad U-2 info, but also to set up Commie-looking Oswald for any possible future operations which might require a "patsy." Could the fact that Oswald's early CIA files disappeared into a "black hole" at CI or CI/SIG reflect the fact that Oswald was an important part of Angleton's highly-sensitive mole hunting efforts? You know, a "if there are no files about early-on-Oswald-in-Russia to read, then the mole can't read about our efforts to find him, can he" kind of deal? Could it be that Angleton (or somebody else who knew of this black hole aspect of the mole hunt) also liked the idea of having a gullible, "mission impossible," order-following, Commie-looking patsy available for any possible future "assignment?" --Tommy

Dear Mr. Root, I think the "John Hurt" Oswald tried to call from jail was ostensibly the codebreaker John Hurt, and I agree with you that the number was represented as a "cut out" number for Oswald to call in case he got into trouble. I do wonder, however, what kind of trouble Oswald anticipated getting into. Did Oswald think he could get into trouble by: 1) Attempting to discredit the FPCC in Mexico City? 2) Acting as a "dangle" towards Kostikov or Azcue or some other Soviet or Cuban official? 3) Trying to get into Cuba to assassinate Castro? 4) Trying to help flush out a "mole" for Angleton? 5) ? What do you think Oswald thought he was doing in Mexico City (if indeed he actually was in M.C.)? Sincerely, --Tommy P.S. It's a little past midnight Saturday morning, May 4 here in California and I am honored to see that Mr. Scully is "lurking" on this thread right now. If he buries this post with one of his own, I guess I'll just bump it after a reasonable amount of time...

Don, I, like many people here, don't think Oswald could have done it by himself. IMHO, he was either: 1) involved in an assassination conspiracy (and "patsied"), or 2) totally innocent (and "patsied"). How does one go about making a "formal statement" that reflects these two near-opposites? Sincerely, --Tommy bump

Don, I, like many people here, don't think Oswald could have done it by himself. IMHO, he was either: 1) involved in an assassination conspiracy, or 2) totally innocent. How does one go about making a "formal statement" that reflects those two near-opposites? Sincerely, --Tommy

Don, IMHO, Oswald was either involved in the assassination conspiracy or was totally innocent. I, like most people here, don't think he could have done it by himself. --Tommy

Sean, You raise an interesting point. One would think that Brennan would have watched the front door closely after the assassination to try to spot, leaving the building, the guy he'd seen in the window. Not having "researched" it, I don't know if he did that or not. All I remember is a Murray photograph showing him standing in the background with some other people, including the "Rip Robertson" and "John Adrian O'Hare" - looking guys, and he's looking up (at an upper-floor TSBD window?) with his hard hat on. http://www.jfkassass...lbum=125&pos=20 (Thanks, Robin Unger, for your great online collection of photos.) It's interesting that Brennan apparently didn't see the shooter, whoever it was, leaving the building. --Tommy

Stephen, I empathize with you, brother. I myself am beginning to question my long-held beliefs in Santa Claus and "The Pot of Gold at the End of the Rainbow." At this point I'd gladly settle for a slightly larger social security retirement benefits check. LOL --Tommy

Stephen, Not that it matters, but people who say that we never went to the moon, no plane hit the Pentagon Building on 9/11, and, last but not least, Oswald was standing on the front steps of the TSBD will convince themselves that these photos of the Boston Shootout are fake and will, unfortunately, convince many other gullible people that they have a corner on the truth market. Thanks, --Tommy

Dear Mr. Root, I've always thought very highly of your posts on this forum, and continue to do so. I agree with you that two of Oswald's most significant utterances, "I'm being taken in because I lived in Russia" and "I'm a patsy!" can be seen to shed light on each other and, when taken together, synergistically create something more profound. Specifically, he seems to be saying that he finally realized that he was a patsy, and furthermore, that he realized that he must have been chosen as a/the patsy because he appeared to have communist sympathies. His very mentioning of Russia raises the possibility that he thought (or here's an intriguing idea--somehow knew??) that the conspirators were trying to blame the assassination on the USSR. I find very interesting the fact that Oswald arrived in Russia at almost the exact instant that Russian Colonel Popov was being arrested in Moscow as a U.S. spy, and also the obvious fact that Gary Power's U-2 spy plane was (apparently) shot down over the USSR while LHO was living there. Let us not forget the mysterious Robert Webster affair, either, nor the fact that Oswald worked in a large radio factory in Minsk, perhaps collecting (or thinking he was collecting) important "Soviet Realities" data.... Mr. Root, believe it or not I'm not trying to give you a "hard time." But, being a very lazy JFK assassination dilettante, I would appreciate your reminding me how it is that we know that the CIA's Richard Helms was monitoring Oswald's movements before the assassination. Thank you, --Tommy

Dear Mr. Roy, Criminal complaint?! How DARE you entertain the possibility that' he's guilty and so brazenly label him a CRIMINAL ! All TRUE BELIEVERS know he's just a totally innocent Martyr/Patsy/Victim who was set up by the A.E.I.* *Allegedly Evil Illuminati !! (LOL) --Tommy

Source Page: (http://oswaldsmother...-with-love.html) I stumbled across something about Marina recently on the internet. Seems she was working as a manager or assistant manager of a convenience store in Texas several years ago when some cash went missing from the cash register that particular shift, so the police department wrote her name, address, phone number, etc in their report of the incident. Nothing came of it, as far as I know. Fascinating how much bad luck she's had in her life. I'm too tired to try to find it again right now and then try to post it. Maybe someone else will? --Tommy Dear Mr. Scully, You are, of course, absolutely right. It was unnecessary. But not as unnecessary as most of your posts, and much shorter and not nearly as inscrutable, either. Regardless, thanks for effectively "bumping" it for me! --Tommy

It works now, Stephen. Thanks, --Tommy

Point of order, your Honour, but is that last bit still part of the official narrative, or has it been expunged? I'm getting rather confused by all the shifts, you understand. Point taken: http://www.justice.g...t1304211847.pdf Perhaps this will reduce your confusion. Dear Mr. Rigby, Please note the words "allegedly" added to my quoted my sentence fragment, above (and to my original post, as well, beforehand). Done so because my little 'ole pea-pickin' , bleeding (reactionary) heart just made me do it! --Tommy

Dear Mr. Jeffries, Well, Don, that's what terrorists do, you know. They terrorize people. Preferably in large cities. Probably easier to spread that kind of fear amongst an urban population hooked on instant digital communication and "social networking" than it was back in the day of, say, Ghengis Khan. By allegedly bombing the heavily-attended Boston Marathon with two bombs (ten seconds and 550 feet apart), allegedly killing a MIT security guard, allegedly robbing a guy after allegedly hijacking his car, and then allegedly being at large, they evidently did what they wanted to do-- they effectively terrorized the residents of a large city and hit the big time in the process. Are you so absolutely convinced so soon after the ordeal that the two brothers must be innocent? If so, should we start lionizing them? Calling them "martyrs," perhaps? Sincerely, --Tommy edited and bumped

Dear Mr. Jeffries, Well, Don, that's what terrorists do, you know. They terrorize people. Preferably in large cities. Probably easier to spread that kind of fear amongst an urban population hooked on instant digital communication and "social networking" than it was back in the day of, say, Ghengis Khan. By allegedly bombing the heavily-attended Boston Marathon with two bombs (ten seconds and 550 feet apart), allegedly killing a MIT security guard, allegedly robbing a guy after allegedly hijacking his car, and then evidently being at large for awhile, they did what they probably wanted to do-- they effectively terrorized the residents of a large city and hit the big time in the process. Are you so absolutely convinced so soon after the ordeal that the two brothers must be innocent? If so, should we start lionizing them? Calling them martyrs, perhaps? Sincerely, --Tommy