Thomas Graves

______________________________ 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? ___________________

It will be interesting to see how Brendan (and other Forum members of his ilk) will respond to the question I've just posed him on the Dark Complected Man thread. If I were a betting man (and I am), I would bet that he/they won't respond at all... --Thomas

_____________________________________ Ron, Excellent observation. I've looked at that picture many times, but hadn't noticed the "peaks" or protruberances at the top of his jacket near both of his shoulders until I read your post. They're so obvious now that you mention it. .. Thanks, Thomas PS And I wonder what that rather largish white thing could be which is just below his belt-line a little right-of-center?? Couldn't be his shirt, could it, because if it were then he's wearing his trousers way to low, IMO. Comments, anyone? _____________________________________

______________________________________________ Even though the cops are carrying shotguns, I've often wondered if they weren't the shooters or helpers and if the "tramps" weren't the ones doing the "escorting" (in order to create plausible deniability for the cops). --Thomas ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Comments, anyone? --Thomas ______________________________________________

__________________________________________ John, So, for those of us who aren't so scientifically inclined, what's your point? Respectfully, Thomas __________________________________________

________________________________________________ Looking at James' post #21 this thread, interesting to note that Umbrella Man's right ear and Jerry Buchanan's right ear both stick out at quite a similar, sharp angle, don't they? They also have very similar eyebrows, nose, and overall facial structure in my humble opinion.... --Thomas ________________________________________________

historických etáp. V rokoch 1872 až 1922 boli Žabokreky sídlom jedného z dvanástich slúžnych okresov Nitrianskej župy, do ktorého patrilo 37 obcí. Pôvodne mali poľnohospodársky charakter a neskôr boli aj dôležitým centrom obchodného a výrobného života. Výrazný stavebný ruch začal v 60-tych rokoch, kedy sa dobudovali bezprašné cesty, mnoho budov a súkromných domov a postupne až do súčasnosti všetky inžinierske siete po celej obci. I knew it meant "frog's creek". What is the story behind the cute crest with a crown wearing frog? This is my transplantation of the text above. I hope it will help you in your search. _______________________________________________ Guys, The translation is not perfect yet (there are many mistakes; sorry Dalibor). I will try to improve it when I am a little bit more sober. --Thomas Graves PS What do you mean, Dalibor, by "road metalling?" ______________________________________________

___________________________________ Rex, Exactly. --Thomas ___________________________________ ________________________________________ Sorry Ron, Sorry to rock your (slightly) contrarian boat, but it is an antenna. (Thank God the woman wearing the dark coak was passing behind DCM when the photo was taken, otherwise the antenna probably wouldn't have shown up in the photo.) --Thomas ________________________________________

__________________________________________ I was just thinking-- What a stroke of brillance by the conspiritors to have a dark-complected person working with a caucasian! They would appear, on face value, simply to be two complete strangers thrown together in a crisis. Especially given the racial politics and climate in '63 in the South. Comments? --Thomas __________________________________________ __________________________________________ I was just thinking-- What a stroke of brillance by the conspiritors to have a dark-complected person working with a caucasian! They would appear, on face value, simply to be two complete strangers thrown together in a crisis. Especially given the racial politics and climate in '63 in the South. Comments? --Thomas __________________________________________ P.S. I said Bernardo de Torres (as possible DCM) in an earlier post. I meant to say Felipe Vidal Santiago. Sorry for the confusion. --Thomas __________________________________________

That is, without a doubt, the best view of DCM I've seen to-date. Thank you. I'm not sure it is a sidearm, but it could answer (quite easily) the question I had which was: "if he's using a radio in the other photographs, where did it go?" Walkie-Talkies from that era were substantially larger than today's, and were not as easy to conceal. If one was pocketed or belt-clipped under the jacket, it could very easily look like this. No question, though, there is something under that jacket (other than the DCM himself)! _______________________________________ Frank, In at least one of the other photos in which DCM appears (after getting up and walking away down Elm St.), he can be seen tucking somthing into one of his back pockets. Most likely the radio/"walkie-talkie." --Thomas _______________________________________ ______________________________________ Excellent observation, Jack. Don't know why I didn't notice that before you brought it to my attention. --Thomas PS Go Frogs. ______________________________________

_______________________________________________ OK, so I clicked on the link, Steve, and read the report and now I'm wondering (just out of curiousity) which (earlier) report said that Rodriguez was "violently anti-Kennedy". --Thomas _______________________________________________ P.S. In answer to your question(s), I would have to say "yes" because DCM is, by definition, "dark-complected." He also obviously has dark hair (brown?) and is "lanky" (around 5' 11"; 158lbs?) Regarding the "dark" glasses, I think they can be seen in at least one of the other photos taken of him at that time. (But what about Felipe Vidal Santiago? Isn't it equally plausible that he was DCM?) --Thomas P.S. Thank God the woman wearing a dark coat was passing behind DCM when the photo was taken, making the antenna clearly visible. _______________________________________________

_______________________________________________ OK, so I clicked on the link, Steve, and read the report and now I'm wondering which (earlier) report said that Rodriguez was "violently anti-Kennedy". Steve? James? Larry? ?? --Thomas _______________________________________________

___________________________________________ An observation: Maybe the tall tramp really is Harrelson. Not only does he look like him, but he's smiling in a (potential) "tight spot," just like the known Harrelson is smiling (outside? inside?) the courthouse. (Probably a "survival mechanism.") --Thomas ___________________________________________

______________________________________________ Even though the cops are carrying shotguns, I've often wondered if they weren't the shooters and if the "tramps" weren't the ones doing the "escorting" (in order to create plausible deniability for the cops). --Thomas ______________________________________________

(In response to James' post #32 on this thread): Interesting question, James. He seems to be "on a mission," doesn't he, bow tie and all? Also, I wonder who the "suit" is in the background, and for reference purposes, who the two motorcycle policemen are. --Thomas _______________________________________________

delete

No "protesting" Bernice, I just tell the SIMPLE TRUTH. The SIMPLE TRUTH, regardless of the pages of bullxxxx you care to selectively quote from the web and regardless of the "experts" you quote is that the IMAGE WHITE HAS CREATED BY ALTERING THE MOORMAN SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST IN THE ORIGINAL. PERIOD. FULL STOP. END OF STORY. Why? Because physics will not allow it. If you want to argue that the BLOB that is seen in MOORMAM is a person, fine, join the rest in this fools errand. However if you are arguing that the image White created was actually in the original Moorman, well then you are simply not intellectually honest. I'm betting on you being intellectually dishonest. I suggest YOU bone up on your reading skills because you cannot seem to grasp this simple fact. The Moorman camera/lens/film can not resolve the detail shown in the badgeman image. That makes those who say it can dishonest. Are White, Lifton, Mack et all wrong? Yes. If they disagree with my statement of FACT then bring them on. It will be as much fun as watching you squirm around like a worn on a fishing hook...trying to defend that which cannot be defended. You can't help yourself...thats what you get when you work from a position of ignorance. Truck on there Bernice, I love watching nutjobs in action. When you are ready to actually DEAL with the facts get back to me..... ______________________________________________________ Craig, Although I totally agree with you on the inherent inability of Moorman's "camera/lens/film" to resolve a recognizable, detailed "image" of the alleged "Badgeman," I do think you tend to be rather insulting to those who disagree with you. Could you please possibly tone it down a bit? This Forum is replete with people who insult each other on a regular basis (in other words, please don't think I'm singling you out), and to tell you the truth, I think it probably discourages other members from contributing and also discourages non-members from even joining the Forum. I know that such behavior discourages me from making more "serious" posts than I have. Otherwise, please keep up the excellent work. Very informative! (I don't "suffer fools gladly," so I hope you can take the fact that I'm even posting this to signify not an insult but a compliment of sorts.) Sincerely, Thomas _____________________________________________________

double post

____________________________________________ John, What's your take on Mr. Lewis? --Thomas ____________________________________________

_______________________________________________________ Even though both Mr. White and I attended T.C.U. (Go "Froggies!"), I must say that I do tend to agree with this statement by Mr. Lamson. ("Circles of confusion" and all of that, if you know what I mean.....) Sincerely, --Thomas (class of "71," Although I didn't graduate, at least my buddies and I went to "The Cellar" (it really is below ground level) very late one weekday night during "finals week" my freshman year. Talk about an education! P.S. Texas Christian University's mascot is the "Horned Frog," a type of reptile that is indigenous to the Fort Worth area. _______________________________________________________

_________________________________________ I read somewhere that Lewis claimed that LHO and he ate or would eat icecream cone(s) in an underground parking structure and that that was when LHO confided some of his deepest secrets (regarding the planned assassination, etc.) to him. The person who wrote this wrote it in a very sceptical "tone" and I can't help but be sceptical about it myself. Comments, corrections, and/or clarification, anyone? Thanks, --Thomas (sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation...) But seriously......? _________________________________________

____________________________________________ Double post. Sorry. --Thomas ____________________________________________

_____________________________________________ Bill, I'm just "nitpicking" here: "The JFK assassination is the only example known to history in which the victim is not stalked, but comes to his killer..." What about Operation Anthropoid in Prague? (Ironacally (?) and FWIW, it also involved a near-hairpin turn.) Sincerely, Thomas ____________________________________________

__________________________________________ Hi James, Any idea or info as to why the cops didn't believe him? Just curious. Thanks, Thomas __________________________________________

__________________________________________________________ Jim, Thank you for posting this information about Mr. Plumlee. Very informative. I wish everyone on this forum could express themselves as well as you do syntactically, gramatically, SPELLING-WISE, so "on point" and in such a coherent way. I am also very interested in the postings of GPH, (whom I also highly respect) , especially regarding Plumlee's accounts of what "went down." Comments, anyone?? Thanks, Thomas ___________________________________________________________