Thomas Graves

I can see your reasoning, Robert, so let me try to respond to your challenges one-at-a-time. 1.0. Although an ordinary person would not want to bring attention to themselves after an ordinary murder, a Presidential assassin is not an ordinary person. 1.1. All Presidential assassins in the USA always admitted to the shooting, always bragged about the shooting, and always used the spotlight to explain why they were *right*. 1.2. Look at Edwin Walker's personality. He was not invited to join the right-wing ICDCC because, said Larrie Schmidt, "he always wanted the limelight." 1.3. Edwin Walker loved giving speeches in front of the largest crowds possible. That is to say, his personality was exhibitionist. 1.4. So, although the average person would seek to hide in the shadows and keep quiet about any involvement in a Presidential slaying, this would not necessarily include General Edwin Walker. 1.5. In teasing the Government with his quizzical looks and questions, Walker was toying with the 'inferior' minds of the Establishment. He was enjoying it. 2.0. You are correct, Robert, to point out the important role played by HL Hunt as a friend of General Walker. When Walker resigned from the military (not retired, but resigned without a pension) he had to have a financial backer he could rely on to forego such a large amount of money as a General's Pension. 2.1. As soon as Walker quit the military in December, 1961, he went directly to his new office in the biggest Oil Company skyscraper in Dallas. There he began to write his first speeches. 2.2. It is almost certain that HL Hunt was the one who supported General Walker when he left his military pension behind. HL Hunt poured a lot of money into General Walker's first days as a rightist pundit. 2.3. Also, Walker kept many strong contacts in the military - men who thought little of JFK; Generals and other officers; the kind of career that tends toward rightist politics. People he could rely on. 2.4. Insofar as General Walker was good friends with people you would suspect, Robert, it seems odd that you exclude him. He was just as right-wing, and he was a man of action, not just a talker. 3.0 As for the idea that Oswald was innocent of the April shooting, I need only cite some authors that you respect, for example, David Lifton, who believe that Oswald did shoot at Walker. 3.1. It would have been extremely difficult to get three Warren Commission witnesses to keep their stories straight (as I'm including George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt along with Marina). 4.0. As for Oswald complaining about JFK's handling of the Bay of Pigs, and then shooting at Walker, this is not hard to understand. For example: 4.1. Oswald wanted to be accepted by the big boys. Most Marines criticized JFK for the Bay of Pigs, so it is easy to imagine Oswald imitating them. 4.2. Then George DeMohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt tried to change Oswald for weeks. Again, since Oswald wanted to be accepted by the big boys, and DeMohrenschildt was a rich and successful guy, and Volkmar was this successful engineer, Oswald let himself be led along. 4.3. Also, Michael Paine's father was a leader in the American Trotsky movement, and he tried to influence Oswald; Michael Paine just hated General Edwin Walker. So it's possible that Oswald got confirmation for an anti-Walker attitude from Michael Paine. 4.4. Also, remember that George DeMohrenschildt had in his possessions a copy of that photograph of Oswald holding a rifle, a gun and two radical newspapers; and on the back was printed, 'to my friend George DM' and in the Russian language, "Hunter of Fascists, ha ha." 4.5. Only the kind of person who needs to please other people would send out a self-portrait signed like that. Oswald was trying to please George DM. Oswald thought the 'Hunter of Fascists' remark would please George DM. Why? Because these words came first from George DM. 5.0. The "Oswald shot Walker" theory still has plenty of energy. 5.1. Dick Russell, for example, proposes that Oswald acted in a group of three: Oswald, Larrie Schmidt and Bob Schmidt, two radical right-wingers, in shooting at Walker. 5.2. Now, we might not believe that a rightist would shoot a rightist, but Dick Russell believes it. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, Perhaps Oswald was trying to infiltrate (or had already infiltrated) Larrie and brother Bob's anti-Walker clique and, at their urging, shot "at" Walker but intentionally missed. The Coleman kid said he saw three guys leaving the scene. Maybe they were Larrie, Bob, and Oswald. --Tommy

I wouldn't expect anything less from Cinque, he can't even tell the difference between a man and a woman. Duncan, --Tommy

Sorry, Bill, but I don't know. Newman interviewed her and daughter Carolyn in '94, two years after Oliver's death. Carolyn witnessed Oswald at the US Embassy in Moscow as well, when he tried to renounce his citizenship. She was 12 in '59, so the odds are that she's still alive, and she remembered enough about Oswald in '94 for Newman to find her quotable. Given that she shared the Oswald "experience" in '59 in common with both her parents, they likely talked about it a fair bit in subsequent years. She'd probably be fairly well versed and might know things that otherwise may have died with her parents. Thanks RCD, That's hard to believe - the husband and wife team at the US Embassy - Navy Attache and receptionist have their 12 year old daughter with them - possibly in the same room, when Oswald announces his defection. The Navy attache later works at the White House Sit Room and tells AF1 about Oswald being the accused assassin, a guy he and his wife and daughter had known from Moscow? And since her dad worked at the White House the daughter probably met JFK too - so in answer to Max Holland's question as to how small the club is of those who know both JFK and his accused assassin we have - Priscilla Johnson McMillan, George and Jean DeMohrenschildt, Ollie Hasslett and his wife and daughter, and the list is getting longer. Can we add Snyder and his deputy and the guy from Harvard/Dumbarton Oaks? BK deleted

No matter what he once knew and /or believed about this case I guarentee his book will be lone nut bs. Just in time for the 50th anniversary. The re-assassination of JFK will be in full swing. History be damned. Dawn Why give up without a fight? I emailed him; what if everyone did? Are you kidding? Then he'd realize how many nut cases (including me) we have here. --Tommy

Dr. Fetzer' I gotta admit that now I'm almost as confused as you are. Because the plaid shirt Lovelady was wearing in the Altgens photograph is not the same one he's wearing in Groden's photographs (above). --Tommy

Lee Oswald was planning to make another trip in October or December 1963, or in January of 1964. Dosen't sound like someone who is planning to assassinate the president. (emphasis added by T. Graves) He also wanted to go to Poland. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/ac/Photo_hsca_ex_401b.jpg --Tommy

I hope Dr. Rose didn't guess people's weights at a county fair. --Tommy

Zach, As you probably know already, Dick Russell (in "The man Who Knew Too Much") says that Nagell's friend in Mexico City, Arthur Greenstein told him that the "Bob" he met at a party was tall, wore glasses, and looked to be in his mid-thirties in 1962. For comparison purposes, do we know how tall Aritime was? I assume this photo was taken around 1962-63? If so, how old does this "Henry Boysen" look to you? Is he wearing glasses? Thanks, --Tommy corrected and bumped; it was Greenstein who told this to Russell, not Nagell himself. --Tommy Tommy Hecksher was station chief in Santiago when this occured :- http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/Chile%20Coup_USHand.html Ian Ian, I guess you're trying to say that Hecksher was CIA station chief in Santiago, Chile when democratically-elected President Salvadore Allende was overthrown by a CIA-backed coup? If so, that's very interesting. Thanks! --Tommy

Bill, I put a couple if spaces in the name of the submarine Hallett commanded (USS Tiru) to make your post more understandable. You had it written "USS TiruSS416", I corrected it to USS Tiru SS-416. http://en.wikipedia....S_Tiru_(SS-416) I consider you a great researcher, Bill, but I gotta ask you a question-- Do you ever proof read your posts before (or even after) you post them? --Tommy No Tom, I just cut and paste it and don't have time to correct the space problem that I think is part of the system that I have no control over. If you want to go over the posts and put the spaces in, I will nominate you for a prize, but its just something that I can't do. If you come up with a program that fixes that problem please pass it on to me. In the meantime, if anybody has anything interesting to say about Hallett I'd like to hear it. BK OK, Bill.

--Tommy augmented, edited and bumped

Bill, I put a couple if spaces in the name of the submarine Hallett commanded (USS Tiru) to make your post more understandable. You had it written "USS TiruSS416", I corrected it to USS Tiru SS-416. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tiru_(SS-416) I consider you a great researcher, Bill, but I gotta ask you a question-- Do you ever proof read your posts before (or even after) you post them? --Tommy

Scott, here are my replies to your question and your comment: (i) I've read rumors that he was medium height and rumors that he was shorter than average, but one way to know for certain is to obtain his Police mugshots and booking record from the Watergate break in. So, I've requested that; then I'll be able to tell you for sure how tall Frank (Fiorini) Sturgis really was. (ii) I believe that we had so many cooks in the kitchen (so many people contributing to any assassination plot against JFK that they heard about). But they weren't all contributing to the same ground-crew! Probably a lot of people believed that their hit squad killed JFK, and so their cash contribution was the deciding factor. But in reallity, it was only a fraction of that money that was successful, just as it was only a fraction of the hired 'mechanics' who actually killed JFK. Although the ground-crew that actually killed JFK was professional, and so they would not have talked, this would not prevent liars and boasters from claiming that they were the ones who killed JFK. It is almost a boast today - not really a confession - for somebody to say that his crew was the crew that killed JFK a half-century ago. Would somebody have talked? Actually, plenty of people talked -- but most of them are fake. For example, I don't believe the mob killed JFK, because, as Jim Garrison said, they did not have the means to cover it up, or the proper sniper's modus operandi. Yet Sam Giancana was going to testify, and Johnny Rosselli was going to testify, and others, also. Why? For prestige, probably. But the people who put up the cash for these hit-squads would never let them sing - so they were both murdered before they could testify to the HSCA. I think we agree, Scott -- the mob lacks the discipline of a long-term chain-of-command. That's why I believe the actual assassins were from a different school -- one with more discipline and more honor. The actual JFK assassins were probably trained marksmen with military discipline. Best regards, --Paul Trejo No need to go through the trouble, I'll tell you. My father stood at 5' 10". Frank was about four inches taller then my father. Frank would have stood at 6' 2", not short at all, by no means. Now, I have a question for those who are researchers, I have searched and searched, I cannot find any public record or open testimony from those in Watergate, my father was called twice to testify on Watergate, my question is, can anyone find any information on my father's testimony or what he said at the Watergate Hearings, I would even be willing to pay you for your time and any services at any amount if that what it takes to find my father's information, can anyone please help me? Like I said, I'm no researcher and I don't know where to begin. Scott Scott, You say your father was called twice to testify on Watergate. Did he testify both times? Thanks, --Tommy

Great post David I agree with you 100% I also agree. His face is distinctivly Lovelady's face, not Oswald's, and he's wearing the same predominately red, bold plaid shirt he was photographed in a short time later. Case closed. And that doesn't necessarilly mean that Oswald shot at the president! Heck, he was probably hovering around the pay phone, waiting to hear from somebody. --Tommy

In your opinion he got it right. I have a very close friend who is a chiropractor. I see him on a weekly basis, sometimes more than once a week. He also "sees bodies all the time..." but, I would not necessarily trust his analysis of obscure photographic evidence. Forensic analysis of photographic evidence is not my friend's expertise, nor is it Cinque's. He has his opinion. You agree with that opinion. You find it compelling. Even I find aspects of it compelling. Wait, I take that back. I find your reasoning impeccable, as usual, but only AFTER uncertain premises have been assumed. Therein lies the rub. The premises are not certain enough to make an affirmative judgment about the ensuing conclusion being argued, IMO. The way I look at it, there's no way we can prove the Altgen photo's authenticity. All we can do is "disprove" it. Why? Because all of the other photos and films (not to mention witnesses' statements) have already been "proven", in most cases by True-Believing Alterationists, to have been well, uhhh... "altered". --Tommy Altered and bumped

In your opinion he got it right. I have a very close friend who is a chiropractor. I see him on a weekly basis, sometimes more than once a week. He also "sees bodies all the time..." but, I would not necessarily trust his analysis of obscure photographic evidence. Forensic analysis of photographic evidence is not my friend's expertise, nor is it Cinque's. He has his opinion. You agree with that opinion. You find it compelling. Even I find aspects of it compelling. Wait, I take that back. I find your reasoning impeccable, as usual, but only AFTER uncertain premises have been assumed. Therein lies the rub. The premises are not certain enough to make an affirmative judgment about the ensuing conclusion being argued, IMO. Dr Fetzer, It's obvious to me that you've always been completely baffled. --Tommy

In your opinion he got it right. I have a very close friend who is a chiropractor. I see him on a weekly basis, sometimes more than once a week. He also "sees bodies all the time..." but, I would not necessarily trust his analysis of obscure photographic evidence. Forensic analysis of photographic evidence is not my friend's expertise, nor is it Cinque's. He has his opinion. You agree with that opinion. You find it compelling. Even I find aspects of it compelling. Wait, I take that back. I find your reasoning impeccable, as usual, but only AFTER uncertain premises have been assumed. Therein lies the rub. The premises are not certain enough to make an affirmative judgment about the ensuing conclusion being argued, IMO. The way I look at it, there's no way we can prove the Altgen photo's authenticity. All we can do is "disprove" it. Why? Because all of the other photos and films (not to mention witnesses' statements) have already been "proven", in most cases by True-Believing Alterationists, to have been well, uhhh... "altered". --Tommy

Zach, As you probably know already, Dick Russell (in "The man Who Knew Too Much") says that Nagell's friend in Mexico City, Arthur Greenstein told him that the "Bob" he met at a party was tall, wore glasses, and looked to be in his mid-thirties in 1962. For comparison purposes, do we know how tall Aritime was? I assume this photo was taken around 1962-63? If so, how old does this "Henry Boysen" look to you? Is he wearing glasses? Thanks, --Tommy corrected and bumped; it was Greenstein who told this to Russell, not Nagell himself. --Tommy

Good one, Robert! --Tommy

Man? This says everything that we all ( apart from Jim Fetzer ) already knew about Cinque's magnificent eyesight. Cinque can't even tell the difference between a man and a woman. Duncan, --Tommy

Zach, Thanks for Artime's height. Regardless of the fact that the guy in the photo couldn't possibly be Hecksher, can you tell whether or not the guy's wearing glasses? Thanks, --Tommy

That shirt is a bold plaid. Notice the horizontal white stripe near Lovelady's left elbow. It's the same shirt he was photographed wearing later that day. Thanks, Duncan. --Tommy edited and bumped Why all the nitpicking about the T-shirt? Can't anyone besides me see that he's wearing a mostly red, bold plaid shirt over the T-shirt? Sheez, --Tommy

That shirt is a bold plaid. Notice the horizontal white stripe near Lovelady's left elbow. It's the same shirt he was photographed wearing later that day. Thanks, Duncan. --Tommy edited and bumped

Zach, As you probably know already, Dick Russell (in "The man Who Knew Too Much") says that Nagell's friend in Mexico City, Arthur Greenstein told him that the "Bob" he met at a party was tall, wore glasses, and looked to be in his mid-thirties in 1962. For comparison purposes, do we know how tall Aritime was? I assume this photo was taken around 1962-63? If so, how old does this "Henry Boysen" look to you? Is he wearing glasses? Thanks, --Tommy

That shirt is a bold plaid. Notice the horizontal white stripe near Lovelady's left elbow. It's the same shirt he was photographed wearing later that day. Thanks, Duncan. --Tommy

David, You make an excellent point. --Thomas bump