Thomas Graves

_______________________________________ John, Why don't you make just one super-long post? (Keep up the good work.) --Thomas _______________________________________

____________________________________________ Why was LHO just a "nut" and a "cipher, according to Sullivan, when the FBI probably knew that LHO had tried to renounce his U.S. citizenship in Russia and had threatened to tell the Russians certain secrets about the U-2 spyplanes flying out of Atsugi, Japan? (Or was it, by definition, more of a CIA "thang?") FWIW, Thomas ____________________________________________ Comments, anyone? --Thomas ____________________________________________

____________________________________________ I don't understand why LHO was just a "nut" and a "cipher" to the FBI when they must have known that LHO had tried to renounce his U.S. citizenship in Russia and had threatened to tell the Russians certain secrets about the U-2 spyplanes flying out of Atsugi, Japan. FWIW, Thomas ____________________________________________

______________________________________ Interesting thread, this. --Thomas ______________________________________

_______________________________________ Uhhh, "National Security?" (Just kidding) --Thomas _______________________________________

Alan, Actually the hole was an "avulsion", seen here in Z337. Since Zapruder took his film from the side, you would have a tough time seeing the back of the head. Shanet, If your proof of Z film alteration is the film doesn't show a rear of head hole, you're on shaky ground. RJS _________________________________________________________ Ya know, I wish John Dolva or somebody would make a drawing showing exactly what we are looking at (regarding Kennedy's head wound/wounds) in Z337... --Thomas _________________________________________________________

Jack, Just out of curiousity, has anyone identified the man who is standing on the grassy knoll past the steps and at the very far left edge of the large black-and-white photo you posted? The man I'm referring to is barely visible. Thanks, Thomas ____________________________________________________ I don't know for sure, sorry. Jack ____________________________________________________ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Jack, Do you know anyone in the research community who might know who who this guy is? (Ahem.. Lee? James?) --Thomas XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

__________________________________________________ Shanet, FWIW, I agree. IMO, Tosh seems very credible....... (Sorry, Gerry.) --Thomas __________________________________________________

___________________________________________ Causes one to wonder why Libby didn't just say to the reporters, "Gosh, I don't remember guys, I've been really really busy recently. (Or maybe even, "No comment.") ?? LOL --Thomas ___________________________________________

____________________________________________ Jack, Just out of curiousity, has anyone identified the man who is standing on the grassy knoll past the steps and at the very far left edge of the large black-and-white photo you posted? The man I'm referring to is barely visible. Thanks, Thomas ____________________________________________

__________________________________ Aw, come on Ron-- Admit it, you love "coincidences." LOL --Thomas P.S. In the photo in question, I think the only "coincidence" is the very lucky coincidence that the woman wearing the dark coat just happened (thank God) to be passing behind DCM when the photo was taken, thereby providing the perfect background for the light-colored, shiny antenna ;-)] to be visible in the photo. As I said in a different post, DCM (and his "association" with TUM) is, IMHO, the best photographic evidence of a conspiracy that we've got, and I think it's very strong evidence indeed. --Thomas _________________________________

Does it go into the White House pedophilia ring? There is some evidence for that too, dating back to the Reagan administration. (There may have been a hiatus during the days of Clinton, who had more orthodox forms of diversion. It may be just a Republican thing.) Skolnick has written about it among others, though of course it will never see the light of day in the mainstream press. If it's true, however, it helps explain why the Republican leadership considered Mark Foley's behavior to be nothing (till he was caught). Ron...this is what you are referring to I think. On another thread I posted the link to Dubya's proclivities. Jack PS...since when are headlines from a Washington newspaper SINKING TO A NEW LOW? Would it be better if it were Clinton? Jack And it keeps getting worse john w ___________________________________ John W., Why do you keep reading it? --Thomas ___________________________________

____________________________________ Thanks, Ron Great pictures. I'll try to have my Dad show them to Krulak. (Interesting that Taylor isn't wearing his ring in the top photo of him wearing a suit...) --Thomas ____________________________________ _______________________________________________ Ron, I repeat: It's interesting that Maxwell Tayor isn't wearing his ring in the top photo. (Obvious answer: "Yes Thomas, he had taken it off.") --Thomas _______________________________________________

____________________________________ Thanks, Ron Great pictures. I'll try to have my Dad show them to Krulak. (Interesting that Taylor isn't wearing his ring in the top photo of him wearing a suit...) --Thomas ____________________________________

I found this on ebay - a transistor radio from 1963: This auction is for a vintage General Electric two band AM/SW transistor radio. Model P925. Was made in 1963. This is the First GE transistorized shortwave portable. Dimensions: 9” X 5.5” X3”. _____________________________________________ Mark, The ideal size transistor radio to carry around under one's jacket. Not. And by the way, the dimensions of the bulge under DCM'm jacket look significantly bigger than 9" X 5.5" X 3", IMHO. --Thomas _____________________________________________ I'm old enough to remember the introduction of battery powered transistor radios and, yes, there were two sizes..hand held and ones you could bring to the beach party [larger]. No one would take the later and put them under one's jacket....and I won't even consider that this guy and TUM were not operational or operational diversion. Add to that the very strange thing he has over his shoulders under his jacket...either an antenna or some very awkward and large object....as was suggested like a sled. EVERYTHING about these guys was suspicious. The items they took to DP, the items they USED and gestured with in DP, how they reacted during and after the shooting and the fact they have never been identified. Most suspicous is that they were never ID'd by the official 'investigations' - no operatives were...and that was NO coincidence. _____________________________________________ Peter, I totally agree with you on everything you say on this issue. If ever any evidence were needed to prove a conspiracy, it's the photos taken of DCM and TUM. It's so darn obvious... --Thomas _____________________________________________

______________________________________________ Brendan, Regarding my "real" last name, I was adopted at four months of age and found/met my biological parents in 1987. Thats when I found out that my original surname was "Mahon." Care to make a joke about that? ______________________________________________ That means sooo much coming from a man who ridicules the appearance of others in an unprovoked manner. I suggest you get out of the "joke" business yourself. ______________________________________________ Brendan, I was only suggesting that you have your vision checked. If you can't see what Ron Ecker pointed out in his posting on this thread of the photo of "Dark Complected Man," then you should visit an optometrist ASAP. P.S. If you are really serious about having a "date" with me, I suggest that we meet in Heber Springs, Arkansas on a date that will be convenient for you-- In other words, when you aren't writing speeches for George W. (That reminds me, is it really true that you wrote the speech in which he said, "It will take some time for us to restore chaos." ??? "Fondly" yours, --Thomas ______________________________________________

I found this on ebay - a transistor radio from 1963: This auction is for a vintage General Electric two band AM/SW transistor radio. Model P925. Was made in 1963. This is the First GE transistorized shortwave portable. Dimensions: 9” X 5.5” X3”. _____________________________________________ Mark, The ideal size transistor radio to carry around under one's jacket. Not. And by the way, the dimensions of the bulge under DCM'm jacket look significantly bigger than 9" X 5.5" X 3", IMHO. --Thomas _____________________________________________

______________________________________________ Brendan, Regarding my "real" last name, I was adopted at four months of age and found/met my biological parents in 1987. That's when I found out that my original surname was "Mahon." Care to make a joke about that? (Please do...) ______________________________________________

______________________________________ Ron, Great! Thanks, Thomas ______________________________________

______________________________ Nope. P.S. How quaint for a consummate baiter to accuse someone else of being a baiter... But we digress, don't we, Brendan? P.P.S. You do look a bit "cross-eyed" in your photo. Maybe you should get your eyes checked? ___________________ Let's see: you call me out by name in a special thread, yet somehow you're the aggrieved party? Nice. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not cross-eyed, though I notice you're four-eyed. And could your pose be any gayer? Unlikely. ______________________________________ (Quote) "And could your pose be any gayer? Unlikely. (End quote) --Brendan Slattery Wow. Regarding the "pose," all I can say is that the girls in the Czech Republic and here in San Diego seem to like it. It "works" for me... You seem to be really good at putting your foot in your mouth, Brendan. (Keep it up; you could be President some day. LOL) In this thread alone you've implied that you're anti-"Negro" and anti "Gay" (which I'm not.) Sorry to disappoint you, Brendan. You'd probably like to have a "date" with me, wouldn't you? P.S. I'm 6'5," 245 lbs, and have a black belt in Karate. (Notice the size of my hand, "Cross-Eyes?" It's known as a natural lethal weapon.) Oh, and my real last name is "Mahon" which comes from the Irish word meaning "bear." And oh, I've also got a Sig-Sauer (google it, Brendan). Care to visit me?? How about a "date?" LOL P.P.S. You are a jerk. Probably not your fault. Some people are just born that way... _______________________________________ Brendan? OH, BRENDAN..............? _______________________________________

Just had to make me go dig out the rifles again, huh John? I "suggest" that you are absolutely correct! What we see, which on initial viewing, appears as some portion of the scope mounting clip is in fact the operating handle of the bolt in the raised position with the ball of the operating handle directly over that portion of the scope mount where the scope intersects it. Thus giving an illusion of some type of different mounting clamps. Secondly, the shiny object to the rear (towards the stock) which falls in direct alignment with and just below the adjustment ring on the scope is in fact the bolt safety latch. This safety rotates upwards with the bolt when the bolt operating handle is opened into the vertical position, and due to whatever the lighting associated with the photo, it makes it appear as a "blurred" ball which on initial look, appears like a bolt operating handle on the opposite side of the weapon. Were the bolt actually opened and completely rearward, then the end of the rearward end of the bolt would be approximately 4 and 1/2 inches farther to the rear than the back side of the trigger guard and the opened bolt would be directly to the rear of the trigger guard. Good call John! ______________________________________________ So what's the "bottom line," guys? Thanks, Thomas ______________________________________________

____________________________________ Hi Ron, OK. Great idea. Keep in mind, however, that Krulak is 93 years old and that his memory probably isn't as sharp as it used to be... --Thomas P.S. I guess I'll try googling "Edward Lansdale" as well as "Maxwell Taylor" for pictures to give to my dad to show to Krulak in order to jog Krulak's memory, if necessary. ____________________________________

______________________________ Nope. P.S. How quaint for a consummate baiter to accuse someone else of being a baiter... But we digress, don't we, Brendan? P.P.S. You do look a bit "cross-eyed" in your photo. Maybe you should get your eyes checked? ___________________ Let's see: you call me out by name in a special thread, yet somehow you're the aggrieved party? Nice. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not cross-eyed, though I notice you're four-eyed. And could your pose be any gayer? Unlikely. ______________________________________ (Quote) "And could your pose be any gayer? Unlikely. (End quote) --Brendan Slattery Wow. Regarding the "pose," all I can say is that the girls in the Czech Republic and here in San Diego seem to like it. You seem to be really good at putting your foot in your mouth, Brendan. (Keep it up; you could be President some day. LOL) In this thread alone you've implied that you're anti-"Negro" and anti "Gay" (which I'm not.) Sorry to disappoint you, Brendan. You'd probably like to have a "date" with me, wouldn't you? [...] _______________________________________

____________________________________ Interesting that you say "Negro." The common consensus is that he was a Cuban. You got something against "Negroes," Brendan? Or are some of them your "best friends?" lol ____________________________________

Thanks for you input , Ron. But wasn't Prouty identifying Landsdale from his deformed hand? Peter _____________________________________________________ Ron, Is this photo from the film JFK or was it actually taken in DP on 11/22/63? If not, who took it? It looks alot different from the other pics I've seen. The "military officer" you're referring to is General Victor "Brute" Krulak, who is now 93 years old and just happens to be a close friend of my father. (They originally met in Korea during the Korean War.) My dad has lunch with him once a week, and asked him today (for me) what he thinks about Lansdale, Prouty, the "three tramps," etc. According to my dad, Krulak told him that he vaguely remembers writing the letter to Prouty in 1985 (in which he verifies Prouty's identification of the "suit" as Lansdale). Also according to my dad, Krulak told him today that Prouty was a "good guy" and Lansdale was a "bad guy." FWIW, Thomas ____________________________________________________