Thomas Graves

Cool photo, Bill! I especially like it because it was taken one day before I was born (at the other end of the country)! --Thomas AKA "Tommy O'Pepper"

Well gosh, Ron, I don't suppose there could possibly be an honest, plausible explanation as to why Prouty and Krulak failed to mention Taylor as a possible candidate (is that redundant? lol) as the dude walking past the "hobos." Did anyone ever ask them if they thought it might be Taylor? Maybe not. If no one asked them that question, then is it possible that the "dude" looked so much more like Lansdale than Taylor to them that the thought never entered their mind that it was, indeed, Taylor? Hmmm... Nah, it must have been a conspiracy. lol BTW, I'm sorry I couldn't get my dad to ask "Brute" this question. Lord knows I tried. --Thomas (AKA Tommy O'Pepper)

Thanks, Greg. I'm talkin'about the cut-off guy on the far RIGHT. At this point, I don't care what his friggin' name is. LOL --Thomas P.S. That's interesting stuff you posted about Krulak changing Hemming's mind (about Lansdale walking past the "hobos" in the photo). I just noticed something I'd never noticed before-- Either "Frenchy" or "The Old Hobo" directly behind him has something WHITE in his left hand and appears ready to hand it off to the dude walking past them in the suit (Lansdale?). Comments? --Thomas

deleted double post

Hi Thomas, Yeah, it's true. Hemming was not very "forgiving" of wild theories nor wild speculation. He adamantly rejected the ID of Lansdale offered by Prouty despite my friendship with both he (Hemming) and Prouty. However, he would not easily dismiss same when it came from Krulak. It's funny, but I had never had a conversation with Hemming about this subject (Lansdale in DP) for the entire time we were in contact. It first came up in a thread (I believe) on this forum years ago. I wasn't even a member here back then. Someone (who shall remain anonymous) sent me an email about the thread. I called Gerry and gave him the info over the phone. Then I scanned the document and sent it via email. He, somewhat begrudgingly, conceded the point. However, over the phone he was less vitriolic about it. He expressed his deep respect for Krulak and his belief that if it came from Krulak--as a confirmation--it was as good as gold, in his view. Great stuff man, and fascinating as well. --Thomas AKA Tommy O'Pepper

Thanks, Greg. I'm talkin'about the cut-off guy on the far RIGHT. At this point, I don't care what his friggin' name is. LOL --Thomas P.S. That's interesting stuff you posted about Krulak changing Hemming's mind (about Lansdale walking past the "hobos" in the photo).

Jimbo, Do you believe police officer Wes Wise when he explains the "cotton" stuffed into his right ear on 11/22/63 as his way of dealing with an alleged ear ache? --Thomas Yea Tom, you don't mean Wes Wise. He's a former radio and TV reporter and anchor and mayor of Dallas who knew Ruby and ran down the Carl Mather connection. There was a Dallas cop named Wise, motorcycle maybe, but no relation to Wes. BK TOM that would be Marvin Wise..........he was with the tramps...b Thanks BK and Bernice. That's what I get for being too lazy to re-"research" it and get my facts straight before I open my big mouth. I meant the other, younger, blond(?) policeman with something in his right ear which he later claimed was cotton because he had an ear ache. Perhaps Bernice will be kind enough to post a photo of the dude I'm talking about? Sorry for the boo-boo. --Thomas

Jimbo, Do you believe police officer Wes Wise when he explains the "cotton" stuffed into his right ear on 11/22/63 as his way of dealing with an alleged ear ache? --Thomas

I think that, in order to avoid confusion and mis-communication, we need to make it clear in our posts whether or not, when we say that something did (or did not) happen "to the right of Sitzman/Zapruder," we're talking about it from their perspective, i.e. "from/to their right," or from our perspective, i.e. "from/to our right" or "from/to our right." Tedious I know, but important I think so that we can be sure we're "on the same page." --Thomas

Maybe their role was to escort the cops(?) out of a particular "situation"? For example, maybe Officer Wise was a spotter? BTW, just what does that Hunt/Holt-lookalike older dude have in that brown paper bag, anyway? A radio perhaps? Hmmm... Regarding Lansdale, I gotta go with "Brute" Krulak. He was a personal friend of my Dad's (in La Jolla, California), and my Dad told me once that he was the most brilliant (and interesting) man he'd ever met, topping Jonas Salk, Jacob Bronowski, etc... --Thomas

If there was a shooter to her right, maybe he (or she LOL) used a silencer? --Thomas

Interesting photos, David. I'm curious as to what is supposed to be the focus of attention inside the green circle? Thanks, --Thomas

Of course there's no such thing as a "left-handed scope," but who ever said there was? Straw man. The description I recall is that the scope was "set up for a left-handed person," or words to that effect. A different animal entirely, and a definite possibility. But quite right: there is no such thing as a "left-handed scope." Points for accuracy. And demerits to whomever mischaracterized a scope being "set up for a left-handed person." Warren Commission exhibit 2560 -- the scope was "mounted for a left-handed person." Oddly the WC failed to mention this in its "report." Just left it there to be discovered in the "exhibits" later. McAdams is misleading and distorting. Was Mac Wallace (or any other possible shooter) left-handed? --Thomas

Roscoe White, E. Howard Hunt, Jack Lawrence...

Good ole' Harry again... Whatever sins Harry committed, he more than made up for by accurately recording Oswald's stated movements at and around the time of the assassination. The basic thing (imo) about Harry is that he was a very sly guy. There's a kind of self important wannabe sociopath about him. That's just my opinion from years of pondering on him. He wove himself into so much but the clincher is the well known fact that any coup must have an independent communications channel. From my reading the USPO and particularly the confederate leftovers, which I suspect were not inconsiderable, it had everything and it did so much regarding so many matters about the assassination. And : it no longer exists. edit add:some may seem confusing. some elaboration : Harry described himself as a ''trained suspicioner''. He mixed in words that to me bespeaks a certain arrogance. His testimony outranks just about all in number and volume. The matters he had a finger in is also voluminous. The overall deference to him which he seemed to thrive upon creates a kind of room of mirrors and smoke all by itself. The mechanism of a successful conspiracy involves absolutely a means of communication. The one most used is perhaps because so prevalent in so many matters of transmission of data in all forms but principally telecommunication and postal services becomes invisible because it is everywhere and becomes invisible. (the history of the USPO (not the USPS) is a bit hard to gather but its formation and role and the split and reformation in the mid 1800's, and things like patronaged spread.) It's role with the CIA particularly re the PI dep, et.c. . Then the reasons for it no longer existng... Can anyone tell me why it would be important or whatever (limited hangout? red herring? false flag? LOL?) for Ruthie to write down on her calendar, before OR after the assassination, when the rifle had been shipped to Oswald? What were her stated reasons for doing so? Do you think her reasons were plausible? Did it accomplish anything for the bad guys? Etc, etc... --Thomas

Of course I know what the ARRB was set up to do. The point of my question, Jim, is that Oswalds innocence is a question of your conclusions of those documents released, (in whatever batch such documents were released). What you are doing is (1) Making Oswalds guilt a question of how much I or anyone else have read. If enough, then the only one conclusion is that he was innocent? Really? (2) Which is what I'm primarily objecting to about your original statement - making all those who disagrees with your conclusions equals to a rather miníscule group of crackpots who denies that the Holocaust took place. That, Jim, is absurd. I stand by what I first said, the evidence about the Holocaust are not comparable to those related to the JFK-assassination. They are far superior those available in the JFK case and leaves no room for interpretation. Furthermore, please don't put words in my mouth - I've never defended the WC report, here or elsewhere. Period. You seem to take offence in the fact that I have a lot of questions about various conspiracy theories or factoids allegedly supporting bits and píeces of conspiracy theories. FYI, I have a lot of questions about the LN theory as well, but perhaps you are unaware of this as this forum almost exclusively consists of CT folks. I'm also a member of McAdams forum and have no problems with that whatsoever. I follow those discussions just as I follow the discussions here on Edu. And I'll certainly give you this - you have surely read much more than I have about the JFK-case. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of those who seem to have read just about everything there is, but still ended up at completely outlandish conclusions. Just have a look at the JVB discussions. So that, by itself, doesn't mean much. It's how the information is evaluated and interpreted which is important. Jimbo keeps harping on how much he's read compared to those who disagree with him, but it seems to me that the problem with a lot of CTers and True Believers is that they believe everything they read... --Thomas bump

Of course I know what the ARRB was set up to do. The point of my question, Jim, is that Oswalds innocence is a question of your conclusions of those documents released, (in whatever batch such documents were released). What you are doing is (1) Making Oswalds guilt a question of how much I or anyone else have read. If enough, then the only one conclusion is that he was innocent? Really? (2) Which is what I'm primarily objecting to about your original statement - making all those who disagrees with your conclusions equals to a rather miníscule group of crackpots who denies that the Holocaust took place. That, Jim, is absurd. I stand by what I first said, the evidence about the Holocaust are not comparable to those related to the JFK-assassination. They are far superior those available in the JFK case and leaves no room for interpretation. Furthermore, please don't put words in my mouth - I've never defended the WC report, here or elsewhere. Period. You seem to take offence in the fact that I have a lot of questions about various conspiracy theories or factoids allegedly supporting bits and píeces of conspiracy theories. FYI, I have a lot of questions about the LN theory as well, but perhaps you are unaware of this as this forum almost exclusively consists of CT folks. I'm also a member of McAdams forum and have no problems with that whatsoever. I follow those discussions just as I follow the discussions here on Edu. And I'll certainly give you this - you have surely read much more than I have about the JFK-case. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of those who seem to have read just about everything there is, but still ended up at completely outlandish conclusions. Just have a look at the JVB discussions. So that, by itself, doesn't mean much. It's how the information is evaluated and interpreted which is important. Jimbo keeps harping on how much he's read compared to those who disagree with him, but it seems to me that the problem with a lot of CTers and True Believers is that they believe everything they read... --Thomas

Couldn't agree withyou more, Pat. I think we need people like McAdams around to help us separate the wheat from the chaff. --Thomas

For example, he points out that there is no such thing as a "left-handed" scope for a rifle. Comments? This was only one example. --Thomas aka "Tommy O'Pepper"

That'll "work"! --Thomas

Jim, That's exactly my point-- "They are both hard to buy." Also, why would LHO's supposed date of purchasing the rifle be important to her anyway??? --Thomas Why would the date he purchased/ordered the rifle be so important to her that she would feel compelled put it on her calendar?

Great post, Greg. I sincerely admire any researcher who has the mental flexibility to take a devil's advocate approach in his or her attempt to "think through" any problem. --Thomas

Jim, That's exactly my point-- "They are both hard to buy." Also, why would LHO's supposed date of purchasing the rifle be important to her anyway??? --Thomas

Jim, this is what I'm saying. How could she write down the wrong month THE DAY AFTER THE ASSASSINATION ? How does she get the right day and the wrong MONTH ? [...] I agree, guys. Looks like a feeble attempt on Ruth Paine's part to explain away her March 20th, 1963 calendar entry(s) which indicated that she knew that that was when LHO ordered (or had ordered?) the rifle. Very "fishy".... --Thomas I mean (to use a Jim DiEuginio phrase), why would it be so important to her as to when "LHO ordered the rifle" that she would go to the trouble to put the date on her calendar either at the time (March 20, 1963) or after the fact (in late November, 1963)? Why would she care, either way? --Thomas

Jim, this is what I'm saying. How could she write down the wrong month THE DAY AFTER THE ASSASSINATION ? How does she get the right day and the wrong MONTH ? [...] I agree, guys. Looks like a feeble attempt on Ruth Paine's part to explain away her March 20th, 1963 calendar entry(s) which indicated that she knew that that was when LHO ordered (or had ordered?) the rifle. Very "fishy".... --Thomas