Thomas Graves

__________________________________ Great cropping, by whomever, of the original great photo because anyone looking at it could/would naturally assume that LBJ is giving the heckler "the finger!" Gotta love it... FWIW, Thomas __________________________________

__________________________________ John, James, Robin, Lee, etc... Any idea who took the photograph of "Campbell and Joannides" (in John's post #8 this thread) and why? It's very interesting to me that these two guys just happened to be the subject of a still photograph taken that night. Was it because they looked particularly distinguished? Did the photographer recognize one or both of these men in the ballroom and think it strange that he/they were even at such a function? FWIW, Thomas __________________________________ __________________________________________ Comments, anyone? __________________________________________

__________________________________ John, James, Robin, Lee, etc... Any idea who took the photograph of "Campbell and Joannides" (in John's post #8 this thread) and why? It's very interesting to me that these two guys just happened to be the subject of a still photograph taken that night. Was it because they looked particularly distinguished? Did the photographer recognize one or both of these men in the ballroom and think it strange that he/they were even at such a function? FWIW, Thomas __________________________________

___________________________________ Hey Richard, I got a little secret for ya-- the Commies did it. Feel better now? Good. Now go away. PLEASE???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? --Thomas ___________________________________

Fair enough. As soon as I can locate it, I'll provide the exact quotes from it. If I recall, it seemed to me at the time I read it, there was contradictory info as to her source on the report. Let me preface my response here by saying that I believe you are a valuable member of this forum - often providing new info and shart insight combined with great wit. With that in mind, how you conclude that all the evidence showing YH to be a "normal" institution is actually proof of the opposite is beyond my comprehension. Yes, both YH and Hartogs warrant close attention, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Here's some info on the guy you've just accused of possibly being in the pocket of the CIA: http://aalbc.com/authors/claudebrown.htm His book actually gives many accounts of what it was like in YH, and the types of "guests" they had. Good! Now we only have to agree on what's "pro" and what's "con" The truth is, at this point in time, I can't prove the two psychiatrists knew each other (though I'be be flabbergastered if they didn't). Nor at this point can I prove it actually means anything if they did. Hopefully we all want the truth to come out. Sometimes that makes it prudent to hold back a little on providing info while research is ongoing so as to limit the possibility of /a/ scaring potential witnesses off and /b/ other researchers running interference. In my own mind, I have doubts that this particular offshoot from that other work will actually be used. If it's not, it won't mean it has no value at all. To help sort out what value it might have, it will be posted here. Thanks. Had forgotten about Kuetemeyer. Whilst Epstein reported on the Schmidt the connection, he is silent on any Oswald profile he may have done. Ditto Bartholomew. Ditto. Scott. The sole reportage of this profile seems to be in the so-called Unauthorised Bush Bio which is all over the net. No citation is proved and the authors themselves have dubious background connections. Our fellow member, Bill Kelly once interviewed Schmidt. Maybe he can be persuaded to post the transcript. I think Bill may have been searching for a Kuetemeyer - Dulles connection in that interview. ______________________________ Verrrry in-ter-rest-tink thread! --Thomas-- ______________________________

John, when you started this thread last December, we weren't ready. Now that the courts have ruled on the Morley v. CIA docs and the Congressional elections are over, the Grand Jury Petiton is back on the front burner. While we must convince a District Attorney in a relevant jurisdiction - Dallas, North Texas, New Orleans, Louisiana, or DC, to convine a JFK grand jury to review the evidence, which will be held in secret, we are most definately going to have a JFK grand jury, even if it is only a Mock theater. When in Dallas a few years ago, I met a women who was serving on the jury of a Mock Trial, which are sometimes held by attorneys for both sides of case to see how it all plays out, before going on to the real thing. It sometimes saves tuns of time and money, and leads to out of court settlements beneficial to both parties, espcially in civil cases. The idea for a Mock Grand Jury is to hold a real grand jury, in a real grand jury room with real prosecutors playing the role of district attorney, and presenting the evidence as it would be presented in a real grand jury, with grand jurors playing their roles determining if there is enough evidence to indict someone for a crime. The JFK Mock Grand Jury, when it is ready, will be filmed by a documentary film crew for the duel purpose of showing students and citizens how a grand jury works, and to evaulate the existing evidence, obtain new witness testimony under oath and see what a real grand jury would do with this case. Before we do the JFK Mock Grand Jury, I would like to try another experiment, and produce a Virtual JFK Mock Grand Jury - done on line - complete with a DA - Jurors - Evidence Exhibits and witness testimony, which would be a dry run for the real Mock Grand Jury. In addition, next Monday or Tuesday I hope that the real JFK Grand Jury petiton will be finished enough to present to the the US Attorney for North Texas Richard B. Roper - Earle Cabell Federal Building, 1100 Commerce St., 3rd floor, Dallas, Texas, not far from the scene of the crime. While we anticiapte him rejecting the petition or sitting on it for awhile, we are preparing other JFK Grand Jury petitions for presentation to other relevant jurisdicitons in New Orleans, La., and DC, and anticipate the DC presentation to be the best and best possible chance of getting a real grand jury going. Having a real grand jury delibertaing while we are conducting the Mock Grand Jury would be the best of possible worlds. In the meantime, I have brought this thread back to the top of the pile heap so we can begin to review the types of evidence that can and will be presented to the DA for consideration and the Mock Grand Jury. The type of evidence that can be admitted into evidence in the grand jury is more broad than that which can be admitted into evidence in a trail, if there is one, - for instance hearsay is admissible in grand jury though not at trial. Newspaper and magazine articles and books are not admissible, unless they are exhibits mentioned in the course of the testimony of a witness - ie the author of the material in question. Photographic exhibits must also accompany the testimony of a witness, preferably the phototrapher or someone who knows the provenance of the evidence, that is the chain of possession from creation till now. Those who are interested in participating in the compiling of lists of evidence and its meaning for the real grand jury petition, or participating in the JFK Virtual Mock Grand Jury - or following our program, should go to the Grand Jury Seminar under Controversial Issues in History section of this forum and read the basis background information on the Grand Jury procedures in US judicial system. Fletcher Prouty once asked what's the use of researching all this if you can't do anything with it other than write about it? Well the Grand Jury is the place where evidence in unsolved homicides go, and this is a place for the most serious research to be evaluated and introduced into a court of law and properly developed to identify witnesses and suspects. I hope others are interested in this approach. I would think that the first exhibit to be introduced to a grand jury would be the Zapruder film. Bill Kelly bkjfk3@yahoo.com ___________________________________________ Bill, Before the petition is presented to a DA, is there any way to legally erase or eliminate the few obvious wackos who "signed" the petiton and made really strange comments on it? Thanks, Thomas ___________________________________________

_________________________ To make it easier for them to be rounded up; to make it easier for y'all to be rounded up; or to make it easier for us'ns to be rounded up? --Thomas _________________________

_______________________________________ John, "Michael"?? How did you know my biological middle name?! LOL My original name was Thomas Michael Mahon. I didn't find that out until '87... --Thomas _______________________________________

______________________________ John, Why would LHO, or anyone else for that matter, keep the carton instead of just throwing it away? --Thomas ______________________________

___________________________________________ James, Could you possibly post a picture of Fermin or refer us to the thread on which his picture is already viewable? If so, and if Ms. Cole is still alive, maybe she can be asked if this is the same guy she overheard talking on the payphone... FWIW and Thanks, Thomas ___________________________________________

Just an attempt to keep this thread in the "front page" a bit longer. Please see my edited post (above). --Thomas ________________________________________________________

Thanks, friend! I do know. Jack ___________________________________ Jack, Have you been logging in? I learned a long time ago that if I want to just "lurk," I don't log in, but if I want to post a reply, edit one of my previous posts, or start a new thread, I gotta log in... FWIW, Thomas ___________________________________

_________________________________ Hi James, I see what you mean, James. IMHO, however, the ears of the guy wearing the sunglasses in post #1 are quite distinctive and look a lot like Masen's. They certainly jut out at a weird angle, don't they? And their faces look very similar to me, too. "Mr. Sunglasses" is the only person in photo/post#1 who's got his head turned away from the camera somewhat. Is he trying to minimize the recognizability (is that a word? LOL) of his ears?... And speaking of sunglasses, why is he the only one wearing them, and large ones at that? Overly-sensitive eyes? Trying to look "cool?" I doubt it. Looks to me like he's trying to be unidentifiable, and it would appear that he has succeeded. Would it have made any sense to have Masen participate in this march in Canada? Masen does look somewhat like LHO. So I guess the question is, could Masen have been impersonating LHO in Canada? If so, to what end? FWIW, Thomas _________________________________

_____________________________________ James, The guy wearing sunglasses in the middle of the photo (post #1, this thread) looks like John Thomas Masen to me. http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/John%20Masen.htm FWIW, Thomas _____________________________________

Duplicate

________________________________ Robin Unger, would you happen to know? James Richards, " " " " " ? Anyone? ________________________________

Has anyone ever been able to explain the white "spot" on the grass that comes into view from the right on the Z film just a split second before JFK's brains are blown out? Since it seems to be there on the grass before the fatal head-shot, I'm wondering if it might have been a chalk mark or something put there by the conspirators to aid the triangulating of their shots. I really doubt that it's part of Kennedy's skull because, as I said, it seems to have already been there before the shot... --Thomas http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov __________________________________________________

I think it's fair to say that it was well prior to 1:15 that LHO "may well have been the first to be let go," if that was indeed the case. If so, why was he singled out for a privilege not extended to anyone else for at least another half-hour, such extension of privilege forgotten, denied or disclaimed - and certainly not volunteered - by anyone who would have extended it?It would seem that LHO had to have left the premises before any permissions were given to anyone to take the day off or to "vacate the building." He didn't say (or, nobody says he said, anyway, since we really don't know what he did say behind closed doors) that he was told he could take the afternoon off, only that he "didn't think there'd be any more work" for the rest of the day. If he were already in Oak Cliff by 1:00, then when he left TSBD was before any FBI agent told Campbell to "have all the employees vacate the building," since, if I'm remembering correctly, Forrest Sorrells was the first FBI agent (back) on the scene after the shooting, and he didn't arrive until 1:00 or sometime shortly thereafter. Too, if LHO was given permission to leave - and again, he didn't say he had been - then that would mean that someone told him something nobody else was told, with the sole intent of getting him to leave the premises. Even accomplishing that, there would then have had to have been some way to know (or decide) where he was going to go after he left. An important point, too, is that despite the fact that he had been to Irving the evening before, it still was a Friday, and Irving was his usual destination ... albeit with his co-worker whom he apparently didn't ask about riding home with. Still, anyone trying to set him up simply by giving him "permission" to leave had no way of knowing that he wouldn't go somewhere other than where they'd need him to be. Otherwise, the setup was incomplete and very possibly doomed to failure: what if he'd gone to Irving, or simply gone window shopping downtown, and hadn't been anywhere near where Tippit had gotten shot? Yes and yes ... and I'm also aware of the question that's been posed about how anyone there got that address for Oz, and your explanation makes sense ... if Revill was there soon enough after the shooting stopped to get Oswald's name from Oswald. Was he? Well, since we don't really know when Oz left or how he got to Oak Cliff - I'm sure we can, for example, concoct a scenario where someone else gets the bus transfer into police hands - that's sort of difficult to say.Am I remembering correctly that the list was handwritten, or at least that LHO's was? If handwritten in its entirety, is the handwriting the same? (I recall that something - other than the fact that LHO's name was at the top - stuck out about it.) Also, for the sake of asking, are the people who follow his name in an order that makes sense vis-a-vis CE1381: first the people who were inside the building, followed by the people who couldn't get back in? If not, did Revill keep going in and out until he got everyone? Even still, it would seem to have to be an incredible coincidence that the very guy that "they" wanted to get out of the building and would set up as the patsy was the first one not only whose name was taken down, but who was let loose ... as nobody after him was for at least ... what? Half an hour or 45 minutes? Not trying to be critical (or WC-apologetic!), just trying to fill in the holes, if that's what they are. Despite having most faith in first day statements - whether to DPD, FBI or press, I do think some errors were made - possibly just in how the stories were recorded or perceived by the recorder. One error I think was in Campbell's statement that the Oswald/cop/Truly encounter happened when Truly first went back inside.... No question about Campbell's error ... or is there? Well, assuming the stairwell B/T/O encounter is true (even if the details are wrong), I guess not. So he misperceived something that took place in his own building (well, not actually his; Harold Byrd's) amid the confusion of a rather unusual event happening outside his doors just moments before. Seems reasonable. Seriously.... So it would seem, then, that the same latitude should be applied to Baker's statement about where the encounter took place, especially when you consider that he was in a building he had (presumably) never been inside before. The stairs were half-flights as I remember, requiring going up one, then reversing direction and starting up the next to go up one story. Thus, in haste and confusion - or not even bothering to count, more intent upon reaching a destination he knew he hadn't reached than being concerned with how far along the pathway to it he'd come - he easily could have mistaken the number of floors he'd gone up. And haven't you done the same? Even visited a new friend's house a second time and wondered "gee, it seemed like it was a lot farther/shorter the other night" or something similar? No real idea what floor he was on at first, but after having gone back a time or two (he testified following the re-enactments) he knew it was the second ....? Looking at CE362 (16H958 - not very clear even in its original printed form), the "storage" shown is not very large, not much more than a closet beneath the mid-way landing half-way up to the second floor, tucked away in a corner. I have no idea what might've been stored in there - it doesn't look much bigger than a closet used for execs and secretaries to put their winter coats and rain gear in - but it would seem like a pretty odd place for Oz to spend any appreciable amount of time there without arousing suspicion, nor for his co-workers not to think it odd enough to remark about him having been there. Really: I can't imagine - can you? - that any cop worth even half his pay, even with assurances that the man worked there, would just let someone being found in a place like that just walk away?Perhaps if he'd ducked in there for a moment and ducked out again when he saw an opportune moment, then maybe nobody would have paid much attention ... but if he'd been there any appreciable amount of time - say, long enough for Baker & Truly to have made it up to the 7th floor, looked around and made it back down - it seems unlikely that he wouldn't have been viewed with a helluva lot more suspicion, even by his closest associates. Moreover, if they were actually conducting a "round up" - which may or may not have actually occurred - and he was found then, I can't imagine nobody noticing or commenting on it. If it happened in the first couple of minutes after he'd come downstairs - say, about the time Robert what's-his-name the reporter came in looking for the phone (an "opportune moment?") - then it's a bit more plausible, but that doesn't leave time for Revill to show up and start gathering names. In any case, if we actually propose LHO doing this - being so furtive, almost even desperate to get out of the building unseen - then we've described a man who wouldn't seem very likely to do the (unspoken?) bidding of someone who was trying to get him out of the building so his absence would be noted. And if he was trying to get out unseen - at which he was apparently successful, at least insofar as people who weren't looking for him were concerned - then he must've been nabbed by someone else when he'd managed to squeak out. His exits would have been limited to the front door; the door on the east loading dock; and the doors at the west loading dock. The latter two present problems in that on the west side, cops and sheriff's deputies were combing through the parking lot behind the grassy knoll where so many of them thought shots originated; not a very good place to run to; and on the east side, you've got patrolman W.E. Barnett watching the side of the building and fire escape, along with James Romack playing at sentry duty at the rear. Neither saw anyone exit from the building, at least not for the first few minutes following the shooting. After that, there was also the KBOX news crew to contend with. Well, it does make it harder... but it can be pieced together... the peices are scattered, but they're there. They're there in first day statements, Fritz's notes, intorrogation reports and press reports. I find it difficult to lend any credence to notes that didn't exist for 25 years, and may or may not have been in original form when the did begin to exist. As also noted previously, first impressions are not always the best impressions. By vouching for him with police and telling him he could go. Then others would have seen him, and the whole plan goes belly up. Oswald had to be a party to events in some way, if what I'm proposing here is correct - which in turn means he would not be watching from inside the doorway. Again, I take your points, and it gets hairy here ... and you're right, it does require Oswald to be a party in some way if the direction you're going is correct. The question is, in what way? I think it's fair to say that it was not as a witting patsy ... wittingly as a patsy, that is: I have difficulty imagining someone - anyone - going along with the plan that "you're going to get blamed, you have to run, you're probably going to get killed." I likewise have difficulty imagining someone as reasonably intelligent as Lee Oswald thinking that his leaving TSBD after the shooting - assuming he knew (and how could he not?) that that's what spurred his having to go into action - thinking that his leaving would not cast suspicion on him.So if not that, then what? More shortly. I sometimes think that this forum doesn't like to many "quote" sections and subsections, and if that's the case, I've passed my limit for a single message. BRB! ________________________________________ I'm wondering if LHO, when he was supposedly inside the TSBD buying a soda pop, knew that JFK had just been shot, and if so, why he wasn't outside watching all of the exciting events unfold? Or was he? Why wasn't he outside watching the motorcade go by in the first place? Or was he? Was he really such a "loner" and and so uninterested in watching JFK and his beautiful wife pass by? Was he so hungry that the only thing he could think about was eating his crummy lunch? Or was he somehow involved in the assassination or in trying to prevent it? Waiting for a phone call, perhaps? --Thomas ________________________________________

I think it's fair to say that it was well prior to 1:15 that LHO "may well have been the first to be let go," if that was indeed the case. If so, why was he singled out for a privilege not extended to anyone else for at least another half-hour, such extension of privilege forgotten, denied or disclaimed - and certainly not volunteered - by anyone who would have extended it?It would seem that LHO had to have left the premises before any permissions were given to anyone to take the day off or to "vacate the building." He didn't say (or, nobody says he said, anyway, since we really don't know what he did say behind closed doors) that he was told he could take the afternoon off, only that he "didn't think there'd be any more work" for the rest of the day. If he were already in Oak Cliff by 1:00, then when he left TSBD was before any FBI agent told Campbell to "have all the employees vacate the building," since, if I'm remembering correctly, Forrest Sorrells was the first FBI agent (back) on the scene after the shooting, and he didn't arrive until 1:00 or sometime shortly thereafter. Too, if LHO was given permission to leave - and again, he didn't say he had been - then that would mean that someone told him something nobody else was told, with the sole intent of getting him to leave the premises. Even accomplishing that, there would then have had to have been some way to know (or decide) where he was going to go after he left. An important point, too, is that despite the fact that he had been to Irving the evening before, it still was a Friday, and Irving was his usual destination ... albeit with his co-worker whom he apparently didn't ask about riding home with. Still, anyone trying to set him up simply by giving him "permission" to leave had no way of knowing that he wouldn't go somewhere other than where they'd need him to be. Otherwise, the setup was incomplete and very possibly doomed to failure: what if he'd gone to Irving, or simply gone window shopping downtown, and hadn't been anywhere near where Tippit had gotten shot? Yes and yes ... and I'm also aware of the question that's been posed about how anyone there got that address for Oz, and your explanation makes sense ... if Revill was there soon enough after the shooting stopped to get Oswald's name from Oswald. Was he? Well, since we don't really know when Oz left or how he got to Oak Cliff - I'm sure we can, for example, concoct a scenario where someone else gets the bus transfer into police hands - that's sort of difficult to say.Am I remembering correctly that the list was handwritten, or at least that LHO's was? If handwritten in its entirety, is the handwriting the same? (I recall that something - other than the fact that LHO's name was at the top - stuck out about it.) Also, for the sake of asking, are the people who follow his name in an order that makes sense vis-a-vis CE1381: first the people who were inside the building, followed by the people who couldn't get back in? If not, did Revill keep going in and out until he got everyone? Even still, it would seem to have to be an incredible coincidence that the very guy that "they" wanted to get out of the building and would set up as the patsy was the first one not only whose name was taken down, but who was let loose ... as nobody after him was for at least ... what? Half an hour or 45 minutes? Not trying to be critical (or WC-apologetic!), just trying to fill in the holes, if that's what they are. Despite having most faith in first day statements - whether to DPD, FBI or press, I do think some errors were made - possibly just in how the stories were recorded or perceived by the recorder. One error I think was in Campbell's statement that the Oswald/cop/Truly encounter happened when Truly first went back inside.... No question about Campbell's error ... or is there? Well, assuming the stairwell B/T/O encounter is true (even if the details are wrong), I guess not. So he misperceived something that took place in his own building (well, not actually his; Harold Byrd's) amid the confusion of a rather unusual event happening outside his doors just moments before. Seems reasonable. Seriously.... So it would seem, then, that the same latitude should be applied to Baker's statement about where the encounter took place, especially when you consider that he was in a building he had (presumably) never been inside before. The stairs were half-flights as I remember, requiring going up one, then reversing direction and starting up the next to go up one story. Thus, in haste and confusion - or not even bothering to count, more intent upon reaching a destination he knew he hadn't reached than being concerned with how far along the pathway to it he'd come - he easily could have mistaken the number of floors he'd gone up. And haven't you done the same? Even visited a new friend's house a second time and wondered "gee, it seemed like it was a lot farther/shorter the other night" or something similar? No real idea what floor he was on at first, but after having gone back a time or two (he testified following the re-enactments) he knew it was the second ....? Looking at CE362 (16H958 - not very clear even in its original printed form), the "storage" shown is not very large, not much more than a closet beneath the mid-way landing half-way up to the second floor, tucked away in a corner. I have no idea what might've been stored in there - it doesn't look much bigger than a closet used for execs and secretaries to put their winter coats and rain gear in - but it would seem like a pretty odd place for Oz to spend any appreciable amount of time there without arousing suspicion, nor for his co-workers not to think it odd enough to remark about him having been there. Really: I can't imagine - can you? - that any cop worth even half his pay, even with assurances that the man worked there, would just let someone being found in a place like that just walk away?Perhaps if he'd ducked in there for a moment and ducked out again when he saw an opportune moment, then maybe nobody would have paid much attention ... but if he'd been there any appreciable amount of time - say, long enough for Baker & Truly to have made it up to the 7th floor, looked around and made it back down - it seems unlikely that he wouldn't have been viewed with a helluva lot more suspicion, even by his closest associates. Moreover, if they were actually conducting a "round up" - which may or may not have actually occurred - and he was found then, I can't imagine nobody noticing or commenting on it. If it happened in the first couple of minutes after he'd come downstairs - say, about the time Robert what's-his-name the reporter came in looking for the phone (an "opportune moment?") - then it's a bit more plausible, but that doesn't leave time for Revill to show up and start gathering names. In any case, if we actually propose LHO doing this - being so furtive, almost even desperate to get out of the building unseen - then we've described a man who wouldn't seem very likely to do the (unspoken?) bidding of someone who was trying to get him out of the building so his absence would be noted. And if he was trying to get out unseen - at which he was apparently successful, at least insofar as people who weren't looking for him were concerned - then he must've been nabbed by someone else when he'd managed to squeak out. His exits would have been limited to the front door; the door on the east loading dock; and the doors at the west loading dock. The latter two present problems in that on the west side, cops and sheriff's deputies were combing through the parking lot behind the grassy knoll where so many of them thought shots originated; not a very good place to run to; and on the east side, you've got patrolman W.E. Barnett watching the side of the building and fire escape, along with James Romack playing at sentry duty at the rear. Neither saw anyone exit from the building, at least not for the first few minutes following the shooting. After that, there was also the KBOX news crew to contend with. Well, it does make it harder... but it can be pieced together... the peices are scattered, but they're there. They're there in first day statements, Fritz's notes, intorrogation reports and press reports. I find it difficult to lend any credence to notes that didn't exist for 25 years, and may or may not have been in original form when the did begin to exist. As also noted previously, first impressions are not always the best impressions. By vouching for him with police and telling him he could go. Then others would have seen him, and the whole plan goes belly up. Oswald had to be a party to events in some way, if what I'm proposing here is correct - which in turn means he would not be watching from inside the doorway. Again, I take your points, and it gets hairy here ... and you're right, it does require Oswald to be a party in some way if the direction you're going is correct. The question is, in what way? I think it's fair to say that it was not as a witting patsy ... wittingly as a patsy, that is: I have difficulty imagining someone - anyone - going along with the plan that "you're going to get blamed, you have to run, you're probably going to get killed." I likewise have difficulty imagining someone as reasonably intelligent as Lee Oswald thinking that his leaving TSBD after the shooting - assuming he knew (and how could he not?) that that's what spurred his having to go into action - thinking that his leaving would not cast suspicion on him.So if not that, then what? More shortly. I sometimes think that this forum doesn't like to many "quote" sections and subsections, and if that's the case, I've passed my limit for a single message. BRB! ________________________________________ I'm wondering if LHO, when he was supposedly inside the TSBD buying a soda pop, knew that JFK had just been shot, and if so, why he wasn't outside watching all of the exciting events unfold? Or was he? Why wasn't he outside watching the motorcade go by in the first place? Or was he? Was he really such a "loner" and and so uninterested in watching JFK and his beautiful wife pass by? Was he so hungry that the only thing he could think about was eating his crummy lunch? Or was he somehow involved in the assassination or in trying to prevent it? Waiting for a phone call, perhaps? --Thomas ________________________________________

I suspect Tippit’s role was to kill Oswald while resisting arrest. It made no sense that he was where he was. Nor would he have been able to identify Oswald from the description that had been given. Nor was Oswald acting suspiciously at the time. Oswald realised what was about to happen and shot Tippit dead. _______________________________________ John, I don't have a problem with your theory in-and-of-itself, but then what are we to make of the claims of witnesses Acquilla Clemons and Frank Wright to the effect that Tippit was killed by two men? If Oswald shot Tippit, and if Oswald was accompanied by another man, then who was his (probable) accomplice? --Thomas _______________________________________

______________________________ Thanks for posting the photo, Jack. A question for all of the amateur and professional photo analysts out there: Is the umbrella blurry in the photo because TUM is raising it, lowering it, pumping it up and down, turning it, a combination of two of these, or as a result of camera movement or (Heaven forbid) something else? IMO, TUM's right hand, holding the umbrella, looks blurry. Comments please? --Thomas ______________________________

Dearest Thomas, Apparently you're not kidding, which is a shame 'cause your post was sorta funny. Actually, very funny. So given your lack of interest in posts that don't focus on splatting brains, I'll respectully (not) suggest that you skip past them. But don't even try to tell me what to post and what not to post. If they're against board rules then the moderator can tell me. Otherwise, I'll do as I please. In fact I may just feel a lyric frenzy coming on... Or even better... a nice "feel good" "fuzzy-wuzzy" "philosophical" life-affirming quote (or two): I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty. JFK 10/26/63 We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth. JFK 10/26/63 Ok, I'm gonna go to ebay and see if I can find pink doilies with JFK's initials sewn lovingly into them. I'll keep you posted! ____________________________________________ Dearest Ms. Bronstein, The cockles of my heart are all a-flutter with sympathy for you. "All again now children, "Kumbaya my Lord, ...". And now for my all-time favorite: "Ninety-eight bottles of beer on the wall; Ninety-eight bottles of beer; Take one down and pass it around; Ninety-seven bottles of beer on the wall..." Yours, Thomas P.S. Dearest Ms. Bronstein, Did I tell you what to post and/or what not to post? ____________________________________________ Yes yes you're very macho. I'll bet you cried your eyes out at Bambi. ___________________________________________ No Myra dearest, Actually I cried my eyes out watching "Old Yeller" and the final part of "The Alamo." I cheered every time "Bambi" caught a pass. (Google "Lance Alworth," sweetest.) Love and kisses, Thomas ___________________________________________

_________________________________ Myra, Good point. But TUM's umbrella can be seen turning in the direction of JFK's limo in the Z-film, as if TUM was "tracking" JFK (IMHO in case a second flechette shot was necessary). Why was TUM wildly pumping the umbrella up and down just a few moments earlier? Answer: Maybe he was both a signaler and a "shooter." --Thomas _________________________________ Oh the umbrella definitely rotates in the direction the limo is moving. It could be that UM is rotating as he watches the motorcade, but I think it's more likely that he'd just turn his head and not his whole body. Thomas, where do you see UM pumping the umbrella up and down? I can't see that on Zapruder. The first I see of the umbrella is after the limo emerges from behind the highway sign, and it rotates with the cars. Thanks. ________________________ Myra, Try Googling "umbrella up and down as if signaling." It will take you to Ron Ecker's excellent article on TUM. Remember to click on "cached." --Thomas _______________________ Well that's just text describing the umbrella movement, no photos or film. I would need to see some actual evidence that the umbrella was raised and lowered. I did however find this: "November 22, 1963, the day President Kennedy was slain, was bright and sunny in Dallas. Why, then, was there a young man with an open umbrella on Elm Street, less than 30 feet from the President's car as it slowly passed by? Presented below is an answer to this puzzle by a former consultant to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. " http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/TUM.html Though the language ("as it passed by") is vague. It could be that UM had to shoot a flechette a longer distance, then the car moved as close as 30 feet. ______________________________ Does anyone on the Forum have/know the link to the Bronson photo that shows TUM's umbrella going up and down? --Thanks, Thomas ______________________________

_________________________________ Myra, Good point. But TUM's umbrella can be seen turning in the direction of JFK's limo in the Z-film, as if TUM was "tracking" JFK (IMHO in case a second flechette shot was necessary). Why was TUM wildly pumping the umbrella up and down just a few moments earlier? Answer: Maybe he was both a signaler and a "shooter." --Thomas _________________________________ Oh the umbrella definitely rotates in the direction the limo is moving. It could be that UM is rotating as he watches the motorcade, but I think it's more likely that he'd just turn his head and not his whole body. Thomas, where do you see UM pumping the umbrella up and down? I can't see that on Zapruder. The first I see of the umbrella is after the limo emerges from behind the highway sign, and it rotates with the cars. Thanks. ________________________ Myra, Try Googling "umbrella up and down as if signaling." It will take you to Ron Ecker's excellent article on TUM. Remember to click on "cached." --Thomas _______________________

Dearest Thomas, Apparently you're not kidding, which is a shame 'cause your post was sorta funny. Actually, very funny. So given your lack of interest in posts that don't focus on splatting brains, I'll respectully (not) suggest that you skip past them. But don't even try to tell me what to post and what not to post. If they're against board rules then the moderator can tell me. Otherwise, I'll do as I please. In fact I may just feel a lyric frenzy coming on... Or even better... a nice "feel good" "fuzzy-wuzzy" "philosophical" life-affirming quote (or two): I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty. JFK 10/26/63 We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth. JFK 10/26/63 Ok, I'm gonna go to ebay and see if I can find pink doilies with JFK's initials sewn lovingly into them. I'll keep you posted! ____________________________________________ Dearest Ms. Bronstein, The cockles of my heart are all a-flutter with sympathy for you. "All again now children, "Kumbaya my Lord, ...". And now for my all-time favorite: "Ninety-eight bottles of beer on the wall; Ninety-eight bottles of beer; Take one down and pass it around; Ninety-seven bottles of beer on the wall..." Yours, Thomas P.S. Dearest Ms. Bronstein, Did I tell you what to post and/or what not to post? ____________________________________________