Thomas Graves

The FETZERING continues. Or it it really just SPAM? It's Festering, actually. --Tommy

Yes, Ray. Unfortunately it's Festering, like a dead, stinking horse that's been lying in the sun for a long, long time and is still being beaten. Personally, I'm convinced that there must have been a conspiracy. I've somehow arrived at that conclusion without wasting my time pondering silly questions like "How many angels can dance on the head of a needle?" or by entertaining paranoid pronouncements like "All of the films and photos were faked, I tell you, faked, and if you don't believe me and you have the gall to speak out against me, then you must be a conspirator!" --Tommy

Yes, Ray. Unfortunately it's Festering, like a horse that died a long time ago but is still being beaten. --Tommy

"The arguments" were 'responded to' years ago. It is unreasonable expect people to read an entire text 2 - 3 times just to find a couple of coments you may have added, why not post just those comments on their own or at least highlight the additions? Len, Maybe because he wants you to read the whole thing again? --Tommy

Robin, Thanks for posting these two photos. In the top photo, Officer Martin 's head is turned to his far right as though he's looking-at-or-communicating-with Officer Chaney (who is not shown in the top photo but is shown in the bottom one). Martin couldn't be looking at anyone in the Queen Mary in the top photo because it's already far in front of him... --Tommy

Seems like "that something going on here" is your paranoia. LOL --Tommy

I noticed that you put the word "new" in the title of the thread. But the so-called "proof" is not new, is it? So, did you just think it was new or were you trying to deceive us into thinking that it was? --Tommy

bump

Guess it dpends if you believe Z313 occurred where it did rather than 30 feet further down the street according to the WCR. Here is the driver's turn - the second turn - within a second of the headshot. the frame order is down then over The only way these sync is if we move that shot down to where Altgens and the WCR said it happened.. Station 4+95 as opposed to the plat legend's 4+65 feet. DJ btw - personally I don't think we can even know whether there was a hole or not. too many conflicting stories. Yet you don't destroy evidence if it's benign. and that windshiled was definitely destroyed and replaced with a duplicate. Pray tell, what does "The frame order is down then over" mean? --Tommy

David, in my opinion, Oswald was a highly trained OSI intelligence cadet, and he loved spy work. Tom Hume, for example, explored Oswald's "Undeliverable Package" and found ample evidence of secret codes all over it. In my further opinion, Oswald wanted to have plausible deniability for these photographs, in case one was ever found. Notice how quickly Oswald responded to the DPD when shown one of these photographs -- he said (I paraphrase), "that is my head stuck onto somebody else's body -- I know photography and that is a fake photo, and in time I will prove it." It is likely, IMHO, that he knew it was a fake because he made it fake. He knew he could prove it was a fake, because he knew exactly how it was made. He knew exactly the methodology of the faking -- "my head stuck onto somebody else's body." Further, we should recognize that the photo equipment at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall was state-of-the-art in 1963, and they held government agencies among their clients. So the sophistication of this fakery was well within Oswald's personal reach. Why bother making the photos at all? IMHO this was one of Oswald's weaknesses -- he loved to boast. He could not keep his mouth shut. (This is confirmed by George De Mohrenschildt.) Oswald's signature on the back of one of the photos, sent as a gift to the DeMohrenschidlt's, is sufficient evidence, IMHO. Now, why did he proceed with only Marina and himself? This question is related to the question regarding why he wore all black. (We should note that in his personal effects, this black outfit was never found.) I personally believe that Oswald did not act alone -- in anything. He had accomplices even in this photography. He wore a black outfit so that the cutting and pasting could be better concealed -- and so that his "body double" could also wear black to make the cutting and pasting easier. So, the first photograph (for which we have the negatives, i.e. CE-133B) was taken by Marina and Oswald alone. She was unaware of any accomplices. The other photographs were taken later by Oswald himself with his "body double". That's my theory today. (emphasis added by T. Graves) Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Did LHO boast to anyone about making the fake backyard photos? --Tommy

Lee, Bravo! --Tommy P.S. Here's my "working theory" - - Since LHO was leaning a lot in the photo, it was clearly a very windy day. Therefore it is clear that the wind had, at some point, stripped most of the leaves off of the tree in the background... Boy, that LHO sure was clever. He took the photos Maria had taken of him to work, and faked them up a bit, substituting Roscoe White's chin for his own, tilting his body over to a weird angle, etc, just so that after the assassination he could point to them and say "Ah ha! They're fake! Somebody is obviously trying to implicate me in the assassination! Which clearly proves that I'm innocent!".

I see it. Interesting. A second or two after the fatal headshot. --Tommy

This is a confusing subject for me. John T. "Jack" Cusack was a well-known Federal Bureau of Narcotics agent who is mentioned several times in Douglas Valentine's book The Strength of the Wolf. Valentine speculates that any one of three different FBN agents could have been Bill Harvey's "candidate #4" for the QJ/WIN position (each one had been or was at that time "an American in Rome, experienced with criminals") -- Jack Cusack, Hank Manfredi, and Paul Knight. Steve Czukas, according to Gerry Patrick Hemming, was a Federal Bureau of Narcotics agent who was loaned to the CIA and then placed by the CIA into U.S. Customs as "cover." Douglas Valentine writes about many, many FBN agents but does not mention a "Steve Czukas." He must have been a real person, though, because Gaeton Fonzi met him through Senator Richard Schweiker, etc. http://www.jfk-online.com/lorenz.html (press "Cntl" + "F" and type in "czukas") So, I made a mistake when I said GPH spelled Cusack's name wrong or meant to say "Jack Cusack" instead of "Steve Czukas." I apologize for even thinking about questioning your photographic memory, Gerry, wherever you are !! As far as I know, there is no free biographical-type information about "Steve Czukas" on the internet. Maybe someone on this forum has an ancestry.com account and can look him up in the 1940 census, etc??? I would look for a Steve-Steven-Stephen Czukas in Miami, Florida... Thanks, --Tommy I was wrong in thinking that Hemming had confused Steve Czukas with Jack Cusacks. Gerry Hemming said that Czukas was with CIA/US Customs in Miami and supervised Bernardo de Torres' monitoring of Oswald. Joan Mellen says that GPH suggested to her that Czukas had arranged the visit to Silvia Odio. http://books.google.... czukas&f=false It would be nice if somebody could research Steve Czukas on ancestry.com, etc. Thank you, --Thomas

I admit that this is a confusing subject for me. John T. "Jack" Cusack was a well-known Federal Bureau of Narcotics agent who is mentioned several times in Douglas Valentine's book The Strength of the Wolf. Valentine speculates that any one of three different FBN agents could have been Bill Harvey's "candidate #4" for the QJ/WIN position (each one had been or was at that time "an American in Rome, experienced with criminals") -- Jack Cusack, Hank Manfredi, and Paul Knight. Steve Czukas, according to Gerry Patrick Hemming, was a Federal Bureau of Narcotics agent who was loaned to the CIA and then placed by the CIA into U.S. Customs as "cover." Douglas Valentine writes about many, many FBN agents but does not mention a "Steve Czukas." He must have been a real person, though, because Gaeton Fonzi met him through Senator Richard Schweiker, etc. http://www.jfk-online.com/lorenz.html (press "Cntl" + "F" and type in "czukas") I made a mistake when I said GPH misspelled Cusacks's name or meant to say "Jack Cusack" instead of "Steve Czukas." I apologize for even thinking about questioning your photographic memory, Gerry, wherever you are !! As far as I know, there is no free biographical-type information about "Steve Czukas" on the internet. Maybe someone on this forum has an ancestry.com account and can look him up in the 1940 census, etc? (I would look for a Steve/Steven/Stephen Czukas in Miami, Florida... Thanks, --Tommy

I think the gaunt-looking "chinless wonder" guy in the top two photos could be wearing the Prince of Wales suit, but not the so-called "Claude Capeheart" guy in the bottom two photos (who appears not to even be wearing a suit). http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/HSCA/DURAN.TXT The guy in the top photos also looks like he is very thin and has sunken cheeks and an aquiline nose, as described in the document. https://www.maryferr...312&relPageId=2 Question: How tall was Capeheart? Sylvia Duran said the Oswald character she dealt with was about the same height as she was, i.e. "160 to 162 cm" (5' 3" to 5' 3.75") http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/HSCA/DURAN.TXT --Tommy [...]

Which leads me to believe that the Dallas talk never happened or, if it did, was given by a different "Oswald." --Tommy

Well, not quite, Tommy. In my interpretation, Nico Crespi told Loran Hall that he was concerned that Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-agent. Oswald was going to address Cuban Exiles in Dallas. If Oswald would have addressed a crowd of Cuban Exiles in Dallas with any sort of pro-Castro message, he would have been torn apart. Rather, in my interpretation, Oswald was going to make an anti-Castro speech to the Cuban Exiles in Dallas, however, Nico Crespi told Loran Hall that he was on his way to hear this speech in order to heckle Lee Harvey Oswald -- that is, Nico Crespi was afraid that as a double-agent, Oswald was going to promote some disinformation to the Cuban Exiles, and so Nico Crespi wanted to expose Oswald as a fraud and as a pro-Castro spy. That's my interpretation of that article on the Mary Ferrell web site. Also - yes, Kiki Ferrer lived in Miami, but his relative, Rolando Mas-Ferrer, lived in Dallas not far from Sylvia Odio. That's my understanding. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, If Oswald was giving anti-Castro speeches in Dallas, I wonder why Hall told the HSCA that Niko Crespi told him that Oswald was going to give a pro-Castro talk that day? http://www.maryferre...22&relPageId=40 I stumbled upon the above link yesterday while reading John Simkin's post from June 6, 2007 about Loran Hall. http://educationforu...=0 Please re-freshen my fading memory, Paul. How do we know that Crespi told Hall that he suspected Oswald of being a double agent? Thanks! --Tommy

Well, Nico Crespi, who was evidently an anti-Castro acquaintance or colleague of Loran Hall's, knew that Oswald was making speeches in Dallas, and, suspecting LHO of being a double agent (i.e. pro Castro), was on his way downtown to "heckle" him one day in early October, 1963. --Tommy Tommy [...], [...] Lee Harvey Oswald in this scenario was addressing Cuban Exiles like Sylvia Odio who hated Castro fiercely. Therefore, the speech that Oswald delivered in Dallas to the Cuban Exiles was anti-Castro. If that isn't obvious please tell me why. [...] Best regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, Well obviously, if LHO was making speeches to small groups of (presumably) anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Dallas, it only makes sense that he was making anti-Castro speeches to them. Otherwise, those "hot blooded" Cuban exiles would have physically attacked him, IMHO, and we would know all about that from press reports, police reports, FBI reports, etc. So, given the fact that LHO was most likely making anti-Castro speeches, Nico Crespi's telling Hall that he was going downtown to "heckle" LHO suggests to me that Crespi thought that Oswald was only pretending to be anti-Castro. Instead of thinking that LHO was really pro-Castro, maybe he thought that LHO was trying to penetrate some anti-Castro groups for a governmental agency or two... --Tommy Oops! I was wrong about "Oswald's" making anti-Castro speeches in Dallas. He was making pro-Castro speeches, according to what Loran Hall said he was told by Niko Crespi: http://www.maryferre...22&relPageId=40 Sorry to mislead you, Paul! --Tommy P.S. Hall also says that Kiki Ferrer lived in Miami, not Dallas. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=60422&relPageId=51

Greg, Works for me. Did Gerry give you any hints or clues after that to keep you heading in the right direction? --Tommy

There is often a dichotomy between the possible and the practical, the necessary, the defensible. This is one of those. Yes, this appears to be an excellent means to "plant" a shooter at the TSBD 6th floor SE window when none was there, or to otherwise cast that locale as a diversion from the real shooters perched elsewhere. What's left afterward, however, is a simple question: "what would be the point?" There is little if any doubt that there was a man or men on the TSBD's sixth floor, and little if any doubt that a rifle was present as well: too many credible people saw too much of them. If you want someone to think shots were fired from TSBD6SE, what better way than to simply fire a shot or shots from there? If that's the case, why would anyone simply shoot without intending to hit, and why would they be there if they weren't capable of hitting their target, such that there would be a need for "backup" on a building across the street (but perfectly in line with the TSBD perch)? In only makes sense for this shooting scenario if nobody - or nobody of any consequence, capability or culpability - was actually firing from TSBD6, in which case why were they even there except to get caught? If it wasn't Oswald shooting, then they had to get out of the building unaccosted. That's a huge risk for someone who wasn't even doing anything, especially with an actual rifle left behind. The rifle (or "pipe thing," as young Amos Euins described it) was seen from a press car on Houston Street after the sounds of gunfire erupted, so it's not as if the "mannequins" up top only made a spectacle of themselves before the shooting and were actually gone by the time it started: someone was still "playing the role" of shooter up to the last possible second, still standing a chance of being caught after supposedly not having shot a gun but realizing that someone else was shooting from another location nearby that would make it look as if they had. Just as this scenario would be enacted to substantiate an autopsy that they expected would take place in a normal manner (that is, by Earl Rose in Dallas), they could not have also anticipated that the rifle that would be found on TSBD6 would not be tested to determine if it had been recently fired, so it needed to be recently fired ... so why would anyone be on TSBD6 if not to fire at least one round from a rifle? Can there be any safe assumption that they'd fire it, but never aim it? Many other factors come into play, including the foreknowledge that a search would only include the TSBD and none of the surrounding buildings, leaving more than one shooter (or team) to escape another building undetected. Just as more shots from this direction are redundant, so is so much emphasis on only one direction obviating of shots from any other direction, including that of the GK or anywhere else west of the "sniper's nest" or south of the Dal-Tex/TSBD axis. All of this also presupposes a proper autopsy and much else that accompanied the ensuing investigation. So, while it is possible for shots from this locale to have "duplicated" shots from another, it just doesn't "listen" or "play" very well. IMHO, of course. (emphasis added by T. Graves) Hi Duke, Back then how did one prove or disprove that a rifle had been very recently fired? Thanks, --Tommy

Greg, Sounds very plausible to me. Three questions: 1. Was Kennedy witting of Plan A? 2. Was Oswald knowingly part of Plan A? 3. Was this told to you by Hemming? Thanks, --Tommy

On the 50th anniversary, what are we doing even talking about Noam Chomsky and The New York Times? WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS LOVELADY OR OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY! Whew! --Tommy

From “NoduleX23” by A.J. Weberman: "Oswald brought the disassembled Manlicher-Carcano with him to the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of November 22, 1963, because he had been instructed to do so. Hemming had fired the weapon on the weekend before the assassination, and told Oswald that he liked it a lot and would purchase it for [sic] him on [sic] next Friday. HEMMING: Just offer him double the value of his gun. It wouldn't make anyone nervous. A crime like this hadn't occurred since McKinley, it wouldn't have been uppermost in his mind about the president or any other kind of bullxxxx. Oswald entered the Texas School Book Depository carrying the package, and went up to the sixth floor. He hid the package between some book cartons. Hemming had assured Oswald it was to be picked up. Oswald was told to go to the lunchroom between 12:15 pm and 12:45 pm so he would not see the person who picked up the rifle. HEMMING: I would presume he was in the lunchroom. Maybe he was waiting to meet somebody there? Would these people anticipate pictures being taken? What if it was Oswald in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository and not Lovelady?" Comments anyone? Was A.J. Weberman telling the truth here or was he, perhaps, intentionally libeling Hemming, trying to get Hemming to sue him so that some assassination-related documents would be released (or so Weberman thought)? --Tommy

Could the guy (standing to the left of center in the group of people; below) who is wearing the light-colored fedora with the wide, black hatband be the same guy (E. Howard Hunt?) who was captured near the left edge of the Cancellare, above? --Tommy

Bill, I called the San Diego Public Library's "California Room" today, where they have a bunch of old San Diego telephone books. The nice young woman tried looking up Robert D. Steel at 7960 June Lake Drive for me in both the regular and "criss-cross" 1962 and 1963 phone books. According to the librarian, 7960 June Lake Drive was "under construction" in 1962 and "vacant" in 1963. (I did a little of my own "research" and found some online real estate listing companies which say that that house was built in 1963.) She didn't have anyone by the name of "Robert D. Steel" in San Diego in those phone books, nor did she have a "Robert Steel" living anywhere on June Lake Drive. She did, however, have a "Doris E. Steel" living at 7992 June Lake Drive (which was also built in 1963 according to the internet)... [deleted by T. Graves] --Tommy Thanks Tommy, good hunting. I think this document has been tracked down to a batch among the personal papers of a Dallas policeman, and the names of the others mentioned in it are real - Bentley is real and I think A. C. Sullivan has documents among the records, so I think R. D. Steel is probably real too. Keep digging and maybe you'll come up with something - and Scully should be along shortly if he can help. BK