Thomas Graves

David, "Pronksters"??? Was that some kind of prank? --Tommy P.S. Any evidence LHO dropped acid?

Yeah, the military-industrial complex stood to lose a lot of money if we puled out of Vietnam early on. And the CIA? Well, I suggest that everyone read "The Strength of the Wolf" by Douglas Valentine. FWIW, Angleton is mentioned a few times in it. Remember, John Newman said that Angleton was the only person who could have planned, carried out, and covered up the assassination. And guess what? Angleton had Mafia connections! --Tommy .

I haven't read it yet, but if it's good enough for Ron Ecker, it's good enough for me! --Tommy LOL

Len, At least his posts are becoming much more legible than they used to be! --Tommy

Yes, it is. I cannot remember seeing that specific picture before, so it was, for me, a timely find. Unfortunately (as David Lifton earlier pointed out), none of the reports I read make any mention of Lovelady, Givens, or Dougherty being brought in, even though we know they must have been taken to the station within a few minutes of Shelley, Williams and Arce. Jack Dougherty is an interesting character, or should I say suspect? I believe he (or maybe even Billy Lovelady) is visible in a film, standing near the sixth floor window, talking with law enforcement types a few minutes after the assassination... My bet's on Dougherty. To my knowledge, there are no photos of him which are available to the public. FWIW, --Tommy

Shelley was a WWII Vet. [William Weston suggests Shelley had an Intelligence Background during and after the War (The Spider's Web: The Texas School Book Depository and the Dallas Conspiracy). Edit: Just checked. Shelley was only 37 in 1963, With that in mind he very well could be the guy behind Danny Arce... 2nd Edit: After reading some more reports, The Uniformed officer is probably Brown. The guy next to him in the plain clothes / suit reaching for the door is very likely Detective B. L. Senkel. Williams, Arce, and Shelley are standing in line waiting to get into the car. The other officer wearing the helmet is likely a motorcycle officer helping out, ID unknown. I totally agree, Richard. Nice to know in my own mind what Bill Shelley looked like. After reviewing Altgens-6 I am 99% convinced that the figure wearing the shirt and tie who is stood behind Lovelady is Bill Shelley. Same jawline and body shape IMO... http://upload.wikime...gens_blowup.jpg http://1078567.sites...files/17068.jpg Good work... Looks like somebody filmed them getting into the police car. Notice the shadow of the photographer in the lower left corner of the photo. --Tommy

Joe, On the matter of whether it could possibly be Oswald in the doorway. . . : First I want to thank you for putting together that list of references to the Warren Commission Exhibits for the statements of Lovelady, Frazier, and Shelley. I also want to thank Pat Speer for the reference that he provided, and also Gary Mack, for his informative email. This morning, I have re-read and perused all of it--in other words, I have revisited that "rabbit hole." This is material I used to know like theb ack of my hand, but had really not examined in years, and it is all very important, because it is all "first day evidence." My conclusions: (1) I was wrong in positing the hypothesis that Billy Lovelady's presence at the Dallas Police Department is in any way suspicious. It now seems clear that a number of TSBD employees were brought to the police department simply because (a) the were Oswald's co-workers; (b ) one or more of them working on the 6th floor; and (c, in the case of Frazier), he had actually driven Oswald to work. So there was nothing strange at all about Lovelady being brought there. (2) There was nothing strange at all as to where Lovelady was sitting. As Gary pointed out to me in an email, on a chart of the building, it is referred to as an "interrogation room". (3) Therefore (and in the spirit of "finally"): Lovelady was not the only one brought to the DPD. As I noted above, several people were brought there, because---as in "DUH"---the Dallas Police Department were the "first responders" and (again, "DUH") they were investigating the crime. Hence, the notion that it is somehow "suspicious" that Lovelady was at the DPD is just plain wrong. As you (Joe) pointed out, Lovelady's own statement to the FBI says that he and others were brought to the DPD. Because I was wrong, I am going to search out my oriignal post on this matter, and post a notice that I was wrong. (Because of Cinque's posts, which I will be much more skeptical about in the future, I falsely inferred that Lovelady was the "only" one brought to the DPD and secondly, that there was soomething truly suspicious about where Lovelady was seated (all of Cinque's "bowels" of the Police Department statements). Other things I am reminded of: always (ALWAYS) go back to "first day evidence" to get a clear picture of the starting point in any issue. And take the time to examine the "first day evidence" yourself. Don't rely on what anyone else says about it. Read it yourself. In this case, the "first day evidence"--that is, the original statements of Shelley, Lovelady himself, and Oswald-- makes very clear that there is no reason to believe that Oswald was on the front steps of the TSBD; and certainly no reason to subscribe to the proposition that Oswald was "with Shelley." That's just plain ludicrous. Here's what Lovelady says, in his 11/22/63 statement at the DPD: “When the President came by Bill Shelley and I was standing on the steps in front of the building where I work.” “After he had passed and was about 50 yards past us I heard three shots.There was a slight pause after the first shot then the next two was right close together. “ I could not tell where the shots come from but sounded like they were across the street from us. However, that could have been caused by the echo.” “After it was over we went back into the building and I took some police officers up to search the building. I did not see anyone around the building that was not supposed to be there. DPD affidavit (11/22); (CE 2003,p.59, or 24 WCH 226) Here's what Shelley says: "I saw him periodically all morning with the exception of when we were on the sixth floor. At noon I started eating my lunch in my office and I went outside to see the President. After the Presidents accident (!!), I started checking around and I missed Lee. I asked Mr. Truly about him and He told me he had not seen him. I didn’t see Lee until the Police brought him into the Dallas Homicide Bureau. (24 WCH 226; p. CE 2003, p60) I re-checked the FBI interrogation reports of Oswald. At no point does Oswald ever say or even imply that he was standing out front watching the parade (or that he was with Shelley at the time the parade passed by). That all comes from Jim Fetzer's excited and highly inaccurate reading of Fritz' handwritten notes. Oswald says he was eating lunch (which I don't necessarily believe) and then he went to the coke machine, where the encounter with Baker occurred. As far as I'm concerned, the hypothesis that Oswald was outside with Shelley is completely unwarranted and absurd. Its the result of Jim Fetzer having misread some lines of notes made by Captain Fritz (which I posted about yesterday), when he interrogated Oswald, and Oswald mentioned Shelley. Another point: If Oswald had said any such thing when interrogated by Fritz, it would have been in the FBI reports, because they were right there when Fritz interviewed Oswald. This whole controversy is completely artificial, and results from Fetzer and Cinque's subjective interpretation of imagery that they claim to "see" in the Altgens photograph, but is not --in any way--supported by the record of the statements of people who were actually out front and watching the parade. Not by Shelley; not by Lovelady; not by anyone. It is all subjective interpretation of photographs, coupled with the bizarre idea that, through photographica alteration, one person person has been made to appear in another person's clothing, etc etc. The result is an epistemological nightmare and, imho, just a silly circus of subjective interpretation. Moreover, when shown the photograph(s) of Oswald being marched by Lovelady, Ralph Cinque then posited--falsely, in my opinion--that the photographic evidence was falsified,and that Lovelady had been "embedded" into those film frames. Absurd. There is no real evidence for any of that (either). Further, and indicative of the rather inaccurate and excited way he went about the pursuit of this line of investigation, Ralph Cinque said that Lovelady was in the "bowels" of the DPD. ( More nonsense) and "what was he doing there? How did he get there?" he asked. I'm sorry to say that, by not fully checking the record, I got drawn into this nonsense. Lovelady was in an area clearly marked as an interrogation room and he was there because the DPD had brought in some of the fellow employees for interrogation--in Lovelady's case, he had actually been up on the sixth floor. l cannot resist pointing, in connection with this absurd hypothesis, some of Fetzer's other beliefs", because they all go to the credibilty that should be accorded (or not accorded) to the various arcane and improbable hypotheses which he posits, and to which he dearly subscribes: (a) That we didn't go to the moon --that all of that has been faked. (b ) THat no planes hit the World Trade Center (it is all video fakery) (c )That the buildings were all brought down by "controlled demolition" (d) That a missile, not a plane, hit the Pentagon ; and later, that it was not a passenger jjet, but some other military aircraft (e) That the debris outside the Pentagon was not from the aircraft that hit, but was rather "planted" there aftewards (a la bullet 399, only somehow deposited by a low flying aircraft. Sorry if I dont have all the details correct. I have trouble keeping track of all this nonsense). (f) That the hijackers are still alive. (g) That Isreal and its backers were really behind the 9/11 attacks (h ) That Osama Bin Laden was actually killed in 2001, and the recent killing of Bin Laden was all a fake etc etc etc and yadadada. . . From recent postings, it is clear that Ralph Cinque is also a 9/11 truther, and a subscriber to one or more of these theses. Anyway, Joe. . back to you and to reality. I look forward to the piece you said you were working on. One other point--a small one, but important: You asserted that Lovelady told reporter Dom Bonafede that he was visited by the FBI on Saturday night, and interviewed about his image in the Altgens photograph. Please note: there are NO FBI reports of any such interview. I'm not saying it didn't occur, but either (a ) the FBI deliberately omitted these "early Lovelady" interviws or (b ) it wasn't the FBI who interviewed him at that time or (c ) Lovelady is just plain mistaken. I don't know which of the three it was. But in following your lead, I looked up CE 1403, and expected to find an FBI interview, and instead realized it was simply a Lovelady statement inside the Dom Bonafede 5/64 NY Herald Tribune article. Well, as Winston Churchill used to say. . ."KBO". . . This whole "Oswald was there . . . after all" business, imho, is a total side issue and has been an almost complete waste of time. DSL PS In answer to your question: the Sheriff's office is where "witnesses" were brought; the DPD (Harwood and Main) was the heaquarters for "the investigation". That's all I meant to imply. And again, many thanks for looking up all those citations. I know that took time to assemble. David, I admire your willingness to admit your mistakes. I wish everyone on this forum could keep an open mind, as you obviously have on this issue. --Tommy

deleted

[...] "... why was Lovelady at the DPD, prior to the arrival of Oswald? It now appears that he was brought there with "others" and I'd like to know by whom, and who conducted the interrogation. The hypothesis I posited is that the same "resemblance" which has caused so much trouble (vis a vis the issue of whether he was "the man in the doorway") may have caused him to be picked up early and brought in for interrogation, based on an incomplete and faulty profile of the pre-selected patsy. If Lovelady was brought in for an innocent reason, then that conjecture would be wrong. But its still not clear to me why Lovelady was in the Dallas Police "interrogation room" at that early hour. " (emphasis added by T. Graves) [...] David, In the interest of being as precise as possibe, was Lovelady filmed in the "Interview Room", the "Interrogation Room", or in the hallway outside one of those two rooms? Thanks, --Tommy

Somebody else on this forum besides me should take the time to read Douglas Valentine's great book, "The Strength of the Wolf -- The Secret History of America's War on Drugs". Lots of information about how the FBN facilitated the CIA's using of psychedelics (sp?) like LSD and shrooms in the CIA's MK/ULTRA project, etc. Also lots on the assassination, Angleton, Jack Ruby's drug-smuggling activites with Dallas Mafia boss Joe Civello, etc, etc, etc... "You can lead a horse to water, but..." --Tommy

dupe

Steven, I wasn't talking about "left upper center" damage, I said low center. --Tommy

Tom, Maybe it's because her posts are easier to read and make sense out of than yours? --Tommy

Didn't Lambchop turn out to be a bouquet of daisys someone had given to Jackie? --Tommy

Don, Great work! I wonder if Toni remembers seeing a dark green pickup parked partially on the sidewalk and with its hood up down on Elm near the triple Underpass when they first got there? --Tommy

Steven, Welcome to the forum! I'm not trying to be "difficult" here in this supremely difficult case, but didn't at least one person at Parkland report the windshield bullet hole being low center ? --Tommy

John Hurt? --Tommy

As is well known, a 1977-released CIA document dated April 1, 1964, states that the FBI had advised the French on March 5. 1964 that Jean Soutre aka Michel Roux aka Michael Mertz had been "expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination." Why was he expelled from the U.S.? Was one of the brake lights out on his rental car? Was he caught jaywalking? Had he failed to pay an old parking ticket? Since he was expelled "at" either Fort Worth or Dallas, he must been put on a plane in one of those cities. Was he put on a CIA plane, a military transport plane, one of H.L. Hunt's planes, or a commercial airliner? If a commercial airliner, which one? Air France? Delta? Was he being followed/surveilled by the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the CIA, or the Texas Rangers? If so, why? And why did they let him be in Dallas on the of 22 November in the first place? Oh yeah, and why didn't they take his fingerprints and photograph before the expelled him? (Or did they?) Lots of questions but very few answers! Below is the un-redacted (is that a word?) version of the CIA document which was released in full in 1995. I found a photocopy of it on another website and transcribed it verbatim: CIA Historical Review Program Released in Full 1995 -(page)2- 8. Jean SOUETRE aka Michel ROUX aka Michael MERTZ – on 5 March [Mr. Papich] advised that the French had [hit] the Legal Attache in Paris and also the [sDECE man] had queried the Bureau in New York City concerning subject stating that he had been expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination. He was in Fort Worth on morning of 22 November and in Dallas in the afternoon. The French believe he was expelled to either Mexico or Canada. In January he received mail from a dentist named Alderson living at 5803 Birmingham, Houston, Texas. Subject is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter from the French Army and an activist in the OAS. The French are concerned because of De Gaulle’s planned visit to Mexico. They would like to know the reason for his expulsion from the U.S. and his destination. Bureau files are negative and they are checking in Texas and with the INS. They would like a check of our files with indications of what may be passed to the French. Mr. Papich was given a copy of CSCI-3/766,742 previously furnished the Bureau and CSDB-3/655,207 together with a photograph of Captain SOUETRE . WE/3/Bublie; CI/SIG; CI/OPS/Evans Document Number: 632-796 (Illegible CIA routing slip in lower right-hand corner) Four observations: 1) Interesting usage of the previously-redacted word "hit" . Hmmm... 2) It's interesting to note that Angleton and his "mole-hunting" group, CI/SIG, was apprised of this. Wasn't the CIA/NSA super-secret diplomatic eavesdropping and photo-surveillance program, "Section D", hidden in Angleton's CI/SIG, and wasn't Bill Harvey's ZR/RIFLE program, in turn, hidden within "Section D"? (Or something like that.) 3) Is this (see above) just another case of "CIA-shorthand bad grammar" or is it a case of creating intentional vagueness and/or inducing misinterpretation by any "unintiated" readers by not using correct punctuation?: "... the SDECE man had queried the Bureau in New York City concerning subject stating that he had been expelled from the U.S. at either Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination." Interpreting the words "concerning subject stated" as being just an example of "CIA shorthand grammar", it seems to be saying that the SDECE man had asked the FBI in NYC about Souetre, and that the SDECE man had told the FBI in NYC that Souetre had been expelled from either Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination. OK. But if the SDECE had already known this fact about Souetre, isn't it reasonable to assume that the FBI would have already known as well? Souetre was expelled from the U.S.A., after all. And isn't it strange that, according to this interpretation, the SDECE didn't know if Souetre had been expelled from Fort Worth or Dallas? In this scenario, one must wonder from which non-FBI source the SDECE learned that Souetre had been expelled from at-least-one-of-these-two-Texas-cities right just two days after the assassination. There is another possible interpretation, and it requires a little punctuation "triage" for its meaning to become apparent: "... concerning (the) subject's stating that he had been expelled ....." Looking at it from this angle, one could reasonably conclude that Souetre had told the SDECE that he'd been kicked out of the U.S. from "either" Fort Worth or Dallas two days after the assassination. I know I'm just speculating here, but maybe Souetre was picked up, debriefed/interrogated by U.S. intelligence, and then blindfolded and driven several miles to a small airport and put on a plane, not knowing if he was being "expelled" from Dallas or Fort Worth. (I think this interpretation is the most interesting and also the most likely.) 4) "He (Souetre) was in Fort Worth on morning of 22 November and in Dallas in the afternoon." It's interesting that the writer doesn't specify the source for this little tidbit. Taken in context, it would appear that "the SDECE man" told the FBI about it. If so, how did the French know Souetre had been in Fort Worth and Dallas on that particular day? And did they know about it in real time, or did they only find out later? If the French knew, wouldn't the FBI have known, too? But maybe the French didn't know it until they were told by the FBI/CIA. Maybe the FBI/CIA already knew it, maybe even as far back as the morning and afternoon of November 22nd, 1963. --Tommy bump

As is well known, a 1977-released CIA document dated April 1, 1964, states that the FBI had advised the French on March 5. 1964 that Jean Soutre aka Michel Roux aka Michael Mertz had been "expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination." Why was he expelled from the U.S.? Was one of the brake lights out on his rental car? Was he caught jaywalking? Had he failed to pay an old parking ticket? Since he was expelled "at" either Fort Worth or Dallas, he must been put on a plane in one of those cities. Was he put on a CIA plane, a military transport plane, one of H.L. Hunt's planes, or a commercial airliner? If a commercial airliner, which one? Air France? Delta? Was he being followed/surveilled by the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the CIA, or the Texas Rangers? If so, why? And why did they let him be in Dallas on the of 22 November in the first place? Oh yeah, and why didn't they take his fingerprints and photograph before the expelled him? (Or did they?) Lots of questions but very few answers! Below is the un-redacted (is that a word?) version of the CIA document which was released in full in 1995. I found a photocopy of it on another website and transcribed it verbatim: CIA Historical Review Program Released in Full 1995 -(page)2- 8. Jean SOUETRE aka Michel ROUX aka Michael MERTZ – on 5 March [Mr. Papich] advised that the French had [hit] the Legal Attache in Paris and also the [sDECE man] had queried the Bureau in New York City concerning subject stating that he had been expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination. He was in Fort Worth on morning of 22 November and in Dallas in the afternoon. The French believe he was expelled to either Mexico or Canada. In January he received mail from a dentist named Alderson living at 5803 Birmingham, Houston, Texas. Subject is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter from the French Army and an activist in the OAS. The French are concerned because of De Gaulle’s planned visit to Mexico. They would like to know the reason for his expulsion from the U.S. and his destination. Bureau files are negative and they are checking in Texas and with the INS. They would like a check of our files with indications of what may be passed to the French. Mr. Papich was given a copy of CSCI-3/766,742 previously furnished the Bureau and CSDB-3/655,207 together with a photograph of Captain SOUETRE . WE/3/Bublie; CI/SIG; CI/OPS/Evans Document Number: 632-796 (Illegible CIA routing slip in lower right-hand corner) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Three observations: 1) Interesting usage of the previously-redacted word "hit"! Hmmm... 2) It's interesting to note that Angleton and his "mole-hunting" group, CI/SIG, was apprised of this. Wasn't Bill Harvey's ZR/RIFLE program hidden within something called "Section D" (you know, LI/ENVOY and all that) which, in turn, was hidden within CI?SIG? (Or something like that.) 3) Is this (see above) just another case of "CIA-shorthand bad grammar" or is it a case of creating intentional vagueness and/or inducing misinterpretation by any "unintiated" readers by not using correct punctuation?: "... the SDECE man had queried the Bureau in New York City concerning subject stating that he had been expelled from the U.S. at either Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination." Interpreting the words "concerning subject stated" as being just an example of "CIA shorthand grammar", it seems to be saying that the SDECE man had asked the FBI in NYC about Souetre, and that the SDECE man had told the FBI in NYC that Souetre had been expelled from either Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination. OK. But if the SDECE had already known this fact about Souetre, isn't it reasonable to assume that the FBI would have already known as well? Souetre was expelled from the U.S.A., after all. And isn't it strange that, according to this interpretation, the SDECE didn't know if Souetre had been expelled from Fort Worth or Dallas? Under this interpretation, one must wonder from which non-FBI source the SDECE learned that Souetre had been in at least one of those two Texas cities around the time of the assassination. There is another possible interpretation, and it requires a little punctuation "triage" for its meaning to become apparent: "... concerning (the) subject's stating that he had been expelled ....." In other words, Souetre told someone that he'd been kicked out of the U.S. from Fort Worth/Dallas two days after the assassination. I think that the latter interpretation is the most interesting, the most sinister, and also the most likely. --Tommy

As is well known, a 1977-released CIA document dated April 1, 1964, states that the FBI had advised the French on March 5. 1964 that Jean Soutre aka Michel Roux aka Michael Mertz had been "expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination." Why was he expelled from the U.S.? Was one of the brake lights out on his rental car? Was he caught jaywalking? Had he failed to pay an old parking ticket? Since he was expelled "at" either Fort Worth or Dallas, he must been put on a plane in one of those cities. Was he put on a CIA plane, a military transport plane, one of H.L. Hunt's planes, or a commercial airliner? If a commercial airliner, which one? Air France? Delta? Was he being followed/surveilled by the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the CIA, or the Texas Rangers? If so, why? And why did they let him be in Dallas on the of 22 November in the first place? Oh yeah, and why didn't they take his fingerprints and photograph before the expelled him? (Or did they?) Lots of questions but very few answers! --Tommy P.S. I stumbled upon a photocopy of this un-redacted version of the CIA document (released in full in 1995) on another website and transcribed it verbatim: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CIA Historical Review Program Released in Full 1995 -2- 8. Jean SOUETRE aka Michel ROUX aka Michael MERTZ – on 5 March [Mr. Papich] advised that the French had [hit] the Legal Attache in Paris and also the [sDECE man] had queried the Bureau in New York City concerning subject stating that he had been expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination. He was in Fort Worth on morning of 22 November and in Dallas in the afternoon. The French believe he was expelled to either Mexico or Canada. In January he received mail from a dentist named Alderson living at 5803 Birmingham, Houston, Texas. Subject is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter from the French Army and an activist in the OAS. The French are concerned because of De Gaulle’s planned visit to Mexico. They would like to know the reason for his expulsion from the U.S. and his destination. Bureau files are negative and they are checking in Texas and with the INS. They would like a check of our files with indications of what may be passed to the French. Mr. Papich was given a copy of CSCI-3/766,742 previously furnished the Bureau and CSDB-3/655,207 together with a photograph of Captain SOUETRE . WE/3/Bublie; CI/SIG; CI/OPS/Evans Document Number: 632-796 (Illegible CIA routing slip in lower right-hand corner) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice work, Tom. It's interesting to note that the hobbies of California attorney Frank B. Belcher (Sr.) were listed as equitation and aviation. I think that he or his son, Frank B. Belcher Jr., started Belcher Aircraft Company in the 1950's. Remember, Chauncey Holt identified "Bud Belcher" (Frank B. Belcher Jr.?) as a "pulot from California" in the famous photo of LHO handing out flyers in New Orleans... If I'm right about Holt's "Bud" Belcher's being the son of California attorney Frank B. Belcher (Sr.), and if Chauncey Holt and his daughter, Karyn, are correct when they say that attorney Frank Belcher (Sr.) and Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball together owned a luxurious "safehouse" in Alcapulo, then all I can say is the plot's thickening and no Belcher Oil - Collins Radio Connection is required in order to stir up some more JFK assassination interest in the California Belchers... --Tommy

Does anyone know if James ever got around to ID-ing the short guy standing on the far right? Personally, I think it is Chauncey Holt, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. --Thomas photo of LHO leafleting with Bud Belcher and Leroy Young labeled on the photo, Chauncey Holt(?) on the right[/color].JPG] bump P.S. Did "Bud" Belcher (in the photo of LHO handing out flyers in front of the N.O. International Trade Mart) have connections to Collins Radio? Wim Dankbaar says he was "the son of Frank Belcher of the Belcher Aircraft family". I'm sure "Bud" was a nickname and his real name was Frank Baker Belcher, Jr., born 6/08/22 in North Hollywood, California, died 9/16/87. His father, Frank Baker Belcher Sr, was a very wealthy and influential attorney in Los Angeles. Frank Sr. was president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association in 1938 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Om_G6XLDA5AJ:www.lacba.org/showpage.cfm%3Fpageid%3D5918+%22+frank+b+belcher%22+%22los+angeles%22+attorney&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1 and wife's maiden name was Ruth Betsy Reynolds from Illinois. Our "Bud", Frank Baker Belcher Jr, is mentioned in this 2001-2002 obituary: Richard Belcher • Oakhurst merchant OAKHURST — Richard Bradley Belcher, owner of Oakhurst Office Supply, died on March 2. He was 48. Services will be held Friday [March 8], starting at 10 a.n. at Sierra Pines Church. Burial will follow at Oakhill Cemetery. Mr. Belcher was born in North Hollywood on August 11, 1953. He had resided in Oakhurst for 10 years. He served in the U.S. Navy for four years. Mr. Belcher enjoyed music. He was also active in the Tuesday Morning Prayer Breakfast. Mr. Belcher was the father of Danielle, Christian and Landon, all of Fullerton. He was the son of Loretta Belcher-Baker of Newport Beach and the late Frank Baker Belcher Jr. Also surviving are his sister, Karen Belcher Capuano, Tujunga; and Frank E. Belcher-Baker, Newport Beach. --Tommy bump just wondering...

Classified Ad 21 -- No Title Los Angeles Times - Nov 9, 1959 Frank B. Belcher Jr., 521 N. Florence, Burbank. VI. 9 -530. 56f Cessna 310. very clean... Nice work, Tom. Got anything on E. N. Belcher Jr. and his brother J. A. "Red" Belcher Sr., both of Belcher Oil? http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qRKeC8OfplsJ:openjurist.org/582/f2d/995/schilling-v-j-a-belcher-schilling+%22j.a.+belcher+sr%22+%22j.a.+belcher+jr%22+%22belcher+oil%22+%22e.+n.+belcher+jr+%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us --Tommy

bump It's interesting that pilot "Bud" Belcher's father, Los Angeles attorney Frank B. Belcher, Sr was married to George Reynold's sister, Ruth B. Reynolds. And that George Reynolds' brother, Bob Reynolds, was satation chief of JM/WAVE. --Tommy I am one of those persons who believes Holt was connected to some degree, to the assassination, however there are some very important allegations he made that, to my knowledge have never been confirmed. Such as he claimed to be in the photo of Oswald passing out Fair Play for Cuba leaflets with several individuals in New Orleans, [in that photo he is the individual at far right,in sunglasses, I believe.] His linking the Belcher genealogy is very critical, and I would suggest someone really look into that, if it is true, it would be something of a revelation, as it is not exactly common knowledge. Example of details worth corroborating. In the interview he cited Bob Reynolds as the CIA station chief at JMWAVE. That is true but, Reynolds was not the CIA Station Chief at JMWAVE sometime after early 1962. Not long after the failed BOP operation, he was replaced by Ted Shackley. In Blond Ghost page 74 Corn wrote...."Bumping the JMWAVE Chief out of his post and replacing him with a young, brash officer would have triggered a bureaucratic uproar. Harvey did the next best thing. In early 1962 he installed Shackley as a deputy to the station chief and straighten out the mess in Miami. (Shackley came to town with his new wife, the former Hazel Burton.) Within a short time, the chief of station went on too public a drinking binge, and he was removed. Harvey slid his man from the deputy position to the top spot. For the thirty-four year old, ever confident Shackley, it was a career-making move." Don't take my post as a p _ _ _ ing match, type of thing, I am just saying that there is a difference between someone saying something is the case and it being the case. I know Holt was ostensibly related to a Warren Commission official. But at this late stage, it is incumbent to get the I's dotted and the T's crossed. Below is an article that references Reynolds name being redacted from some CIA documents. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/108.html There is definitely some compelling who-knows-who associations that are not exactly well known. William Harvey and Ted Shackley were both from the Danville, Illinois area. Shackley had served at Berlin, so had Harvey. Lansdale of course is a big player, not exactly unknown to the former two and with regards to Lansdale and General LeMay it would seem impossible for the two not to have rubbed elbows before 1963. Below is a bio of Lansdale that has a few details that some probably aren't aware of. EDWARD G. LANSDALE. Major General USAF (Ret.) Born Detroit, 6 Feb 1908. Student, UCLA. Journalist/advertiser. Entered U.S. Army and served with OSS in WW II; commissioned (1943); served in Philippines (1945-48); Instructor, Strategic Intelligence School, Lowry AFB (1948-1949); Liason Officer to Philippine Secretary of Defense Magsaysay (1950-53);member General O'Daniel's mission to French forces in Indochina (1953-56); Dep. Asst. Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Asst. to Secretary of Defense (1957-63); retired 1963; Returned to Republic of Vietnam as Asst. to American Ambassador, with rank of Minister (1965-68); Publications: In The Midst of War (1973); numerous articles. The above bio is from Air Power and Warpower...Proceedings of the Eighth Military History Symposium USAF Academy 1978 [published 1979] Here's a 1978 U.S. Court of Appeals case involving J.A. "Red" Belcher Sr. and his son J.A. Belcher Jr.. I haven't read it all yet, but it does say that J.A. Belcher Sr. was a brother of E.N. "Newt" Belcher III. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qRKeC8OfplsJ:openjurist.org/582/f2d/995/schilling-v-j-a-belcher-schilling+%22belcher+oil%22+miami+%22j+a+belcher%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us --Tommy

bump It's interesting that pilot "Bud" Belcher's father, Los Angeles attorney Frank B. Belcher, Sr was married to George Reynold's sister, Ruth B. Reynolds. And that George Reynolds' brother, Bob Reynolds, was satation chief of JM/WAVE. --Tommy I am one of those persons who believes Holt was connected to some degree, to the assassination, however there are some very important allegations he made that, to my knowledge have never been confirmed. Such as he claimed to be in the photo of Oswald passing out Fair Play for Cuba leaflets with several individuals in New Orleans, [in that photo he is the individual at far right,in sunglasses, I believe.] His linking the Belcher genealogy is very critical, and I would suggest someone really look into that, if it is true, it would be something of a revelation, as it is not exactly common knowledge. Example of details worth corroborating. In the interview he cited Bob Reynolds as the CIA station chief at JMWAVE. That is true but, Reynolds was not the CIA Station Chief at JMWAVE sometime after early 1962. Not long after the failed BOP operation, he was replaced by Ted Shackley. In Blond Ghost page 74 Corn wrote...."Bumping the JMWAVE Chief out of his post and replacing him with a young, brash officer would have triggered a bureaucratic uproar. Harvey did the next best thing. In early 1962 he installed Shackley as a deputy to the station chief and straighten out the mess in Miami. (Shackley came to town with his new wife, the former Hazel Burton.) Within a short time, the chief of station went on too public a drinking binge, and he was removed. Harvey slid his man from the deputy position to the top spot. For the thirty-four year old, ever confident Shackley, it was a career-making move." Don't take my post as a p _ _ _ ing match, type of thing, I am just saying that there is a difference between someone saying something is the case and it being the case. I know Holt was ostensibly related to a Warren Commission official. But at this late stage, it is incumbent to get the I's dotted and the T's crossed. Below is an article that references Reynolds name being redacted from some CIA documents. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/108.html There is definitely some compelling who-knows-who associations that are not exactly well known. William Harvey and Ted Shackley were both from the Danville, Illinois area. Shackley had served at Berlin, so had Harvey. Lansdale of course is a big player, not exactly unknown to the former two and with regards to Lansdale and General LeMay it would seem impossible for the two not to have rubbed elbows before 1963. Below is a bio of Lansdale that has a few details that some probably aren't aware of. EDWARD G. LANSDALE. Major General USAF (Ret.) Born Detroit, 6 Feb 1908. Student, UCLA. Journalist/advertiser. Entered U.S. Army and served with OSS in WW II; commissioned (1943); served in Philippines (1945-48); Instructor, Strategic Intelligence School, Lowry AFB (1948-1949); Liason Officer to Philippine Secretary of Defense Magsaysay (1950-53);member General O'Daniel's mission to French forces in Indochina (1953-56); Dep. Asst. Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Asst. to Secretary of Defense (1957-63); retired 1963; Returned to Republic of Vietnam as Asst. to American Ambassador, with rank of Minister (1965-68); Publications: In The Midst of War (1973); numerous articles. The above bio is from Air Power and Warpower...Proceedings of the Eighth Military History Symposium USAF Academy 1978 [published 1979] Here's a 1978 U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit case involving J.A. "Red" Belcher Sr. and J.A. Belcher Jr.. --Tommy