Thomas Graves

Tragically Paul, this could be the longest thread here if everyone gives just one example... I'll get the ball rolling... From Marina's HSCA testimony.... Mrs Porter: We had a short wave radio, I believe that is what you call, when you can listen to the foreign stations. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=38623 From FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 101 An examination of the radio and power supply was made by SA Winton P Walter, Electronics... the dial of the radio is marked "DB" (long wave) and "CB" (medium wave)... the radio will not receive short-wave radio broadcasts... http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62388&relPageId=15 Sometimes I wonder if Marina wasn't a KGB agent who was "turned" by the CIA as soon as the Oswalds moved to the U.S. --Tommy

Greg I wonder if the current owners SIDNEY & TANGEE MOON have been any more successful. Looking at some of their platting and zoning requests and the remaining structures on the block it may not be long before 212/214 Neely are no more. Historic Oak Cliff is down to a few buildings of any significance. The Elsbeth apt building may be razed soon. Here is article by fellow researcher Joe Backes: http://justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com/2011/07/605-elsbeth-apartment-may-be-demolished.html#comment-form This also reminds me of the Coz-i-Eight apartments: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=48702&relPageId=7 Ed And the Abundant Life Temple was recently torn down in Oak Cliff. --Tommy

Just curious as to whether or not the policeman looks at him. --Tommy

Bill, That theres one of them things they calls a "transitor radio". --Tommy P.S. what do you think about the guy in the video? Have you watched it yet? P.S. Thanks, Martin! --Tommy

Bill, That theres one of them things they calls a "transitor radio". --Tommy P.S. what do you think about the guy in the video? Have you watched it yet?

Sorry I don't know how to put this YouTube video's link here. If you want to watch it, google "JFK- Is This The Badgeman? This Guy's Got Military Written All Over Him" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Play video JFK - Is This The Badgeman? Two photographs taken in Dealey Plaza shortly after the assassination of JFK show two suspicious looking individuals. Were the shooters still in Dealey Plaza? Is the man in… 00:04:25 Added on 1/02/10 46,232 views help center | e-mail options | report spam MrTommyOMochain ( AKA Thomas Graves ) has shared a video with you on YouTube: (Thomas Graves) says "The narrator says that the two photos show two suspicious-looking guys, but their identical clothing tells me that the two phots show the same guy." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JFK - Is This The Badgeman? This Guy's Got Military Written All Over Him (uploaded to YouTube by "mooncheese" in 2010) JFK - Is This The Badgeman? Two photographs taken in Dealey Plaza shortly after the assassination of JFK show two suspicious looking individuals. Were the shooters still in Dealey Plaza? Is the man in blue the Badgeman? Note the strange configuration of his forelock and the haircut in general. The haircut looks kind of French. Is this guy a Frenchman (Corsican)? Unusual haircut even for 1963? Compare the forelock with that of the Badgeman enhancements. Is there a similarity? Is the man in blue the 'good-looking Cuban kid' who John Martino mentions as one of those involved in the assassination as one of the shooters in Anthony Summers book 'JFK Conspiracy'? Both these guys look either French (Corsican) based on my personal knowledge of French people whom I have met and spoken with over the course of the years OR they could be Cuban (not all Cubans are dark-complected). © 2011 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --Tommy

Scott, Betcha Tom Scully could find out. --Tommy

That's okay, Ian. I have no feelings either way, either, and I, too, feel compelled to comment. --Tommy

Ed, The roof, or the ceiling? Hmmmm? Oh, I got it. The roof was the ceiling. --Tommy I just quote em' Tommy, and as accurately and as closely as possibly. But yes he recalled his ceiling had no attic space as it was also the roof. It has been a while but I doubt the ceiling has been lowered in the intervening years. A visit to Neely may be in order to flesh this one out completely to everyone's satisfaction. This photo shows the Attic dormer. http://www.onthisveryspot.com/pics/spot_1684_760.jpg Ed Excellent! --Tommy

Ed, The roof, or the ceiling? Hmmmm? Oh, I got it. The roof was the ceiling. --Tommy

Ed, I added the http:// bit to make it a live link. Hope you don't mind. --Tommy Dang. I still can't get it to open for me. I'm a-feared I jus' ain't too good with these new-fangled things they calls "computers"... Thanks for the old college try! I got her fixed. Thanks anyways Tommy. Still wonder about the shirt buttoning itself up and down?? hmmm Ed, Buttoning and unbuttoning Hell, I cain't even "unzip" the damn thing! --Tommy

Josiah, Hang in there! --Thomas

Is there a transcript of this conversation - Interview ? - I have tried to listen to the audio of this and it is very difficult, but what he says here about the records is important. They only talk about it for about thirty seconds - and Stone does say - there is no smoking document - but he does commit himself to trying to release the remaining records. The headline should read: Stone Calls For Opening Remaining JFK Assassination Records and not that Stone says there is no smoking gun in the files. If I had a copy of the relevant portion of this conversation that deals with the release of the records - I'd transcribe it myself - but there should be a transcript of the whole show somewhere. It would be greatly appreciated if the part of the conversation about the records could be cut out - and the sound amplified so you can here it, it would be appreciated, thanks, BK "Oliver Stone Calls For Opening Remaining JFK Assassination Records!" --Tommy

Good one! It ran out of gas and Clint Hill was trying to push it uphill.

[...] That's W(illiam) Madden Hill. FWIW, his son, Robert Madden Hill was born in Dallas 1928, University of Texas Law, in private practice in The Big "D" from 1950 until 1970 at which time he was appointed to a United States Federal District judgeship by President Nixon. He presided at the 1979 mail fraud and tax evasion trial of Billy Sol Estes and gave him the maximum sentence of ten years in prison. President Reagan appointed him to the appellate court in 1984. Robert Madden Hill died of an asthma attack in 1987 at the age of 59. --Tommy

Ed, I added the http:// bit to make it a live link. Hope you don't mind. --Tommy Dang. I still can't get it to open for me. I'm a-feared I jus' ain't too good with these new-fangled things they calls "computers"...

Duncan, I agree with you, the guy's borderline certifiable. In my opinion, the dude-in-the-doorway's face and hairline look more like Lovelady's than Oswald's. Also, the bold pattern of Lovelady's shirt is discernable in the the Altgen's blowup. However I do have a problem with the fact that Shelly said Lovelady was sitting down on the other side of the steps, if memory serves... --Tommy

Ah Ha! Another example of subtle film alteration! --Tommy P.S. You realize, of course, this proves once and for all that we never went to the moon and 9/11 was an "inside job".....

Based on the premise that we're allowed (perhaps even encouraged) to change our minds, I now see another possibility. The two faces I "saw" earlier are still "there", but this photo is like one of those optical illusions where, for example, you see a chalice in the middle when you look at it one way and when you look at it in a different way you instead see two human faces, one male and one female, facing each othe in-profile and the chalice has "disappeared", the two relatively small images of men I mentioned earlier "disappear" when you focus your eyes differently and "realize" that there is a much larger image of a man's head in the photo and that if this image represents reality, the two smaller heads couldn't, and vice versa. The single large head, which takes up about 80% of the photo, belongs to a man who is looking far to his right and therefore his face is in about "3/4 profile". He has dark hair which is long on top and cascades over his forehead a bit as though he's styled it that way to conceal a receding hairline. He has no sideburns. Anyway, that's what I "see" now. The two smaller men are still "there" in the "background" when you focus your eyes on them, kind of like those "two faces" in the optical illusion I mentioned above. The photo is different, however, from the "chalice/two faces optical illusion" in that in this case the "chalice" (the man's head that takes up 80% of the photo) is so large that it blocks our "view" of the "two faces" (the two smaller men in the "virtual background". The problem now is deciding which image represents reality. That's hard to do because both involve problems with the scale of the two smaller men in the photo's "background" as well as the scale of the one large man in the photo's "foreground": neither seem to be realistic. It seems that small men are too small and the large face is too large. Perhaps they are both illusions. I see other things in the photo, as well, but I hesitate to describe these other things to you. I'd much rather go take another hit of LSD. JUST KIDDING ABOUT THAT. LOL --Tommy P.S. Re: The large head in the "virtual foreground". The guy's face resembles LHO or Tan Jacket Man (IMHO). Tommy Ya Gotta lay off the Lysergic chasers bro ,It Frags the optics!. Ian Never used it, never will. Never thought you did Tommy Sorry no offence meant. My comedic license just got stamped ...Learner Ian. Ian, None taken. --Tommy P.S. Never needed LSD after them MK-ULTRA / FBN gals turned me on to yage at one of them safe houses in NYC. Best damn party I ever been to, but my behavior's been a little robotic ever since...

LHO's favorite soft drink was Dr Pepper. I wonder why he (allegedly) bought a Coke that day. --Tommy

Great work, Duncan! Regarding "I enhanced the arrowed area. What do you see?", I see two men standing near the window, the one on the right a bit farther back and wearing a white shirt or T-shirt. The one on the left looking down and wearing a tan jacket and possibly holding a rifle vertically in front of him from with the butt of the rifle about at his chest and going down from there. The head of the guy on the right is partially obscured by that brown thing on the left and he's looking down and pretty far to his left so that his head is almost "in profile" and he looks like he has a receding hairline and long sideburns. Only the top two-thirds (or less) of the face of the guy on the left is visible. He has a receding hairline as well and two "locks" or "shocks" (or whatever you call them) of hair from the top-front part of his head are falling onto his forehead because that hair's fairly long and he's looking down at a steep angle. That's what I see. What do you see? --Tommy Based on the premise that we're allowed (perhaps even encouraged) to change our minds, I now see another possibility. The two faces I "saw" earlier are still "there", but this photo is like one of those optical illusions where, for example, you see a chalice in the middle when you look at it one way and when you look at it in a different way you instead see two human faces, one male and one female, facing each othe in-profile and the chalice has "disappeared", the two relatively small images of men I mentioned earlier "disappear" when you focus your eyes differently and "realize" that there is a much larger image of a man's head in the photo and that if this image represents reality, the two smaller heads couldn't, and vice versa. The single large head, which takes up about 80% of the photo, belongs to a man who is looking far to his right and therefore his face is in about "3/4 profile". He has dark hair which is long on top and cascades over his forehead a bit as though he's styled it that way to conceal a receding hairline. He has no sideburns. Anyway, that's what I "see" now. The two smaller men are still "there" in the "background" when you focus your eyes on them, kind of like those "two faces" in the optical illusion I mentioned above. The photo is different, however, from the "chalice/two faces optical illusion" in that in this case the "chalice" (the man's head that takes up 80% of the photo) is so large that it blocks our "view" of the "two faces" (the two smaller men in the "virtual background". The problem now is deciding which image represents reality. That's hard to do because both involve problems with the scale of the two smaller men in the photo's "background" as well as the scale of the one large man in the photo's "foreground": neither seem to be realistic. It seems that small men are too small and the large face is too large. Perhaps they are both illusions. I see other things in the photo, as well, but I hesitate to describe these other things to you. I'd much rather go take another hit of LSD. JUST KIDDING ABOUT THAT. LOL --Tommy P.S. Re: The large head in the "virtual foreground". The guy's face resembles LHO or Tan Jacket Man (IMHO). Tommy Ya Gotta lay off the Lysergic chasers bro ,It Frags the optics!. Ian Never used it, never will.

Hi Chris, This is the frame I used. bump

Tom, Sounds like a classic case of The Pot Calling The Kettle "black". LOL BTW, what does the bulk of your post have to do with the topic of this tread? Would one of the other moderators please redirect Mr Scully's post elsewhere? Thank you, --Tommy P.S. I think it's pretty obvious that a hand off did take place. Whether or not we will ever know what the hand off object was, or the identities of the two persons involved, lots of people seem to be involved in the choreographed "dance" taking place in the uncropped version of this part of the film (links to which I put in earlier posts on this thread). There's even a Rambler station wagon with its four headlights on in the background with a Long Coat approaching it. I think we need to take a closer look at not only Tan Jacket Man and Blue Coated Cuban-Looking Man, but also at "Long Coat Man" and all of the other people involved in "the dance" by trying to find them in other films and photos. Maybe that way we can establish their identities and other, possibly sinister, associations. Maybe we can even "exonerate" them! Kind of like a photographic version of "Namebase", or a photographic version of Tom Scully's "seven-degrees-of-separation" approach to documents, obituaries, wedding announcements, etc, but just a tad more "tangible". Bumped in an attempt to keep "Moderator" Tom Scully from hijacking this thread any more than he already has.

Great work, Duncan! Regarding "I enhanced the arrowed area. What do you see?", I see two men standing near the window, the one on the right a bit farther back and wearing a white shirt or T-shirt. The one on the left looking down and wearing a tan jacket and possibly holding a rifle vertically in front of him from with the butt of the rifle about at his chest and going down from there. The head of the guy on the right is partially obscured by that brown thing on the left and he's looking down and pretty far to his left so that his head is almost "in profile" and he looks like he has a receding hairline and long sideburns. Only the top two-thirds (or less) of the face of the guy on the left is visible. He has a receding hairline as well and two "locks" or "shocks" (or whatever you call them) of hair from the top-front part of his head are falling onto his forehead because that hair's fairly long and he's looking down at a steep angle. That's what I see. What do you see? --Tommy Based on the premise that we're allowed (perhaps even encouraged) to change our minds, I now see another possibility. The two faces I "saw" earlier are still "there", but this photo is like one of those optical illusions where, for example, you see a chalice in the middle when you look at it one way and when you look at it in a different way you instead see two human faces, one male and one female, facing each othe in-profile and the chalice has "disappeared", the two relatively small images of men I mentioned earlier "disappear" when you focus your eyes differently and "realize" that there is a much larger image of a man's head in the photo and that if this image represents reality, the two smaller heads couldn't, and vice versa. The single large head, which takes up about 80% of the photo, belongs to a man who is looking far to his right and therefore his face is in about "3/4 profile". He has dark hair which is long on top and cascades over his forehead a bit as though he's styled it that way to conceal a receding hairline. He has no sideburns. Anyway, that's what I "see" now. The two smaller men are still "there" in the "background" when you focus your eyes on them, kind of like those "two faces" in the optical illusion I mentioned above. The photo is different, however, from the "chalice/two faces optical illusion" in that in this case the "chalice" (the man's head that takes up 80% of the photo) is so large that it blocks our "view" of the "two faces" (the two smaller men in the "virtual background". The problem now is deciding which image represents reality. That's hard to do because both involve problems with the scale of the two smaller men in the photo's "background" as well as the scale of the one large man in the photo's "foreground": neither seem to be realistic. It seems that small men are too small and the large face is too large. Perhaps they are both illusions. Regarding the large head in the "virtual foreground, IMHO the guy's face resembles Oswald's or Tan Jacket Man's. --Tommy