Thomas Graves

Gary, Perhaps the information you have is more accurate than Don's? I have no problem with that whatsoever. I'm just saying that it's an easy-to-verify fact that the "Lady in Dark" and the "Lady in White" (who are the topic of several recent posts in this thread) were standing just to the left of the easy-to-spot-in-the-Z-Film John Templin (and his bud, a Mr. Brandt, whose first name I forget at the moment). -- Tommy

Gary, With all due respect, see my response to that question, above. -- Tommy

Yeah, life is a bummer, huh. Hope I didn't offend your sensibilities. Would you prefer that I use the word "cutthroat," instead? Case in point: I am very pro-JFK myself, but I think it's been pretty well established that his dad, Joe Sr., pulled a few strings, etc, etc, to help his son get elected. Bottom line: BFD in JFK's and Hillary's case. But (arranged?) help from a hostile country that's been trying to take us down since at least the 1930s is another thing altogether. I mean, I mean, I mean ... wouldn't you agree? Have you watched this video from that evil, evil, evil "Neocon" / "MSM" outlet known as PBS? http://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-putins-way/ -- Tommy

"Politics is dirty. Always has been, and always will be." -- Tommy PS Are you a Putin supporter?

Andrej, Probably the best way to do that is to google Don Roberdeau's revised Dealy Plaza "map" and find the dots labeled "Templin" and "Brandt" on the Elm Street sidewalk. Lady in Dark was standing immediately to the left of John Templin (whom you can see in the Z-Film), and Lady in White is the second gal to the left of her. (I believe Roberdeau has mislabled some of the dots in that immediate area, like "Burney," for example IIRC.) Chris Davidson could probably tell you how far "Templin" and "Brandt" were from the TSBD's steps ... -- Tommy PS The lady in white's left shoulder dips as she starts going up the next step, which suggests to me that the weight of lady in black is causing that to happen.

Andrej, I'll concede that the lady in dark (including a dark headscarf and a boldly patterned skirt with dark horizontal stripes that's a lighter color than her sweater) is on that step before lady in white (including a white headscarf) arrives. Both of those ladies have been spotted by Sandy and I in the Z-Film, standing with a couple of other close-together, headscarf-wearing ladies which group is immediately to the left of the positively identified guys, Templin and Brandt. IIRC, in the Z-Film the lady in white can be seen wearing "heels," whereas the lady in dark two people to her right is wearing "flats". Which could help to explain how lady in dark arrived at the steps a few seconds before lady in white (whom I believe grabs a-hold of her friend's right arm as she's ascending the steps. In short, I believe you have Lovelady and Calvery and Hicks/(Reed?) labeled correctly in your drawing. Keep up the good work. -- Tommy

Don, With all due respect, the more I learn about how, probably, we ended up with a blackmail-able anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-CIA, anti-FBI, etc, "useful idiot" of Vladimir Putin for our president, the more I realize that McCarthy was on the right track, but was way "over-the-top," probably due to the fact that he was an alcoholic egomaniac, and that he was heavily influenced by Roy Cohen. "On the right track" in the sense that we WERE heavily penetrated by the KGB and the GRU, something you appear to want to ignore, or perhaps think was a good thing? Have you read Bagley's "Spy Wars," and "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," yet? They're free to read on the Internet. -- Tommy

Bart, With all due respect, you're full of beans, dude. A severe case of wishful thinking on your part. (One of the worst I've ever seen, in fact.) -- Tommy

Andrej, That's because the woman on the left is still talking with the man in front of her. Her friend in white is trying to get her to come up the steps with her. -- Tommy

Ješiš Maria, Sandy, as I've pointed out in other posts, this thread, it's not just one grammar rule (which rule is very rarely used, even by college graduates) that your "Hungary-born and Russian-speaking Harvey" applied correctly in his speech (and in his formal letters, too). I'm talkin' grammar, here, Sandy. Not talkin' 'bout spellin'. Like the one and only Oswald, I'm a reel bad speler, to.. Sandy, as Hemingway had his protagonists say from time to time, "What's the matter with you?" -- Tommy

Bart, With all due respect, if you'll watch a blown up GIF of the woman in white in slow motion, you'll see that she pulls the other woman's right arm up a little as she ascends one step. -- Tommy

James, With all due respect, don't get all paranoid on me now. I did look up the term "neocon" once about a year ago when one of my Trump, Putin, and Assad-loving FB "friends" (Kevin Mastro) more or less accused me of being one. The only thing I remember now is that it has a bit of a negative connotation. Are "neocons" anathema to Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theorists? Perhaps I should look it up again? -- Tommy PS The day that I requested that you "friend" me on FB, I noticed that you have no profile photo of yourself there. You aren't worried that the evil, evil Deep State "Agent Smiths" or George Soros or the CIA or The Boys From Brazil will see it there and ... track you down, are you? Regarding VIPS's "take" on the DNC hack, if you believe that, then I gotta ask, "Have you always been an incredibly gullible and uncritical thinker, James?" December 2016 and July 2017 memos (From the Wikipedia article on VIPS) In December 2016, VIPS released a memorandum criticizing allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections as "evidence-free". The memorandum asserted that the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak was the result of an internal leak and not a Russian hack.[10] On July 24, 2017, VIPS released another memorandum which also argued that the DNC was not hacked, this time based on a forensic analysis conducted by the anonymous entity "Forensicator" with whom they communicated via retired IBM employee Skip Folden. This analysis was based on DNC files released by Guccifer 2.0.[11] According to Patrick Lawrence's article in The Nation, the memorandum argued that the metadata in these files were altered to add Russian fingerprints, and that file transfer rate reportedly proved they were transferred locally.[12] Brian Feldman, writing in the New York Magazine, criticized the report for relying on "the 'metadata' of 'locked files' that only [Forensicator] had access to" pointing out that these phrases were meaningless. Feldman described the claims in Patrick Lawrence's article as "too incoherent to even debunk" and criticized its use of "techno-gibberish".[13] According to John Hultquist of FireEye: "The author of the report didn't consider a number of scenarios and breezed right past others. It completely ignores all the evidence that contradicts its claims." Rich Barger, director of security research at Splunk, pointed out that the VIPS theory "assumes that the hacker downloaded the files to a computer and then leaked it from that computer" but overlooks the likelihood that the files were copied several times before they were leaked, potentially creating new metadata each time. Barger's comments were echoed by other cyber-security experts.[14] The Guardian Project founder Nathaniel Freitas independently reviewed Lawrence's article on behalf of The Nation, concluding that while "the work of the Forensicator is detailed and accurate," it did not prove the conclusions VIPS and Lawrence derived from it. Freitas stated that the high throughput suggested by the relevant metadata could have been achieved by a hacker under several different scenarios, including through the use of a remote access trojan, and that the leak hypothesis also requires "the target server ... to be physically on site in the building": "If the files were stored remotely 'in the cloud,' then the same criticism of 'it is not possible to get those speeds' would come into play." In sum: "At this point, given the limited available data, certainty about only a very small number of things can be achieved."[15]

James, With all due respect, all Angleton did was get feedback from Bagley (who worked in the separate "Soviet Russia" aka "Soviet Block" division) by suggesting to him and permitting him to read Golitsyn's file ( before Golitsyn started going "over the top" with his "Sino-Soviet Split" and "Prague Spring" theories, etc, not to mention his later evil, evil, evil, HONTEL-inspiring clues and accusations as to who might be a mole in U.S. intelligence). Please do try to get your facts straight. (It's interesting that Bagley, with info from JJA, "connected the dots" and convinced JJA that the recent defector, Polyakov, was a very strange looking fish indeed. And what's really, really, really interesting is that at some point (probably after he was posted to Burma) Polyakov really DID start cooperating with CIA, but was snitched on by a yet-undiscovered mole in U.S. intel, recalled to Moscow, and executed.) -- Tommy

James, With all due respect, what is a "neocon"? Is it something bad? If so, why? Could you please give me some examples of "neocons" you think (or maybe even know) that I'm reading? Is Wikipedia "neocon"? How about mediabiasfactcheck. com? https://www.mediabiasfactcheck.com ? Masha Gessen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masha_Gessen How about that evil, evil, evil Tennent H. Bagley? http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362 BELLINGCAT? https://www.bellingcat.com ? When you scan the lists on mediabiasfactcheck. com (above), do you find you're attracted to oodles and gobs of "news sources" in the "Pseudo-Science/Conspiracy" category, and lots and lots of those that aren't, but which ARE rated in the main thingy as having only "Mixed" factual reporting, regardless of their Left (which you probably prefer) or Right bias? Are there any news sources you like that are rated as having "High" factual reporting by mediabiasfactcheck. com ? -- Tommy

Pamela, With all due respect, it's evident that you haven't read Tennent H. Bagley's 35-page (2015 PDF) "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," much less his 2007 book, "Spy Wars." Both are free to read on the Internet. Or maybe you have, and you think Bagley's a xxxx? -- Tommy PS Are you aware that, according to Bagley, he and CIA psychologist John Gittinger both witnessed Nosenko, near the "breaking point" twice, mutter to himself, "I can't tell them the truth, I can't tell them the truth ..."? As though he'd been KGB "MKULTRAed" before he was sent here?

Andrei, Excellent work but I have one small correction. The woman wearing all white on one of the lower steps actually has her left arm wrapped around the right arm of the woman to her left, and is physically urging her up the steps. -- Tommy

OMG, is that war still going on? (sarcasm) -- Tommy PS Why are those 7,000 very, very nice Russian regular soldiers there, not to mention those very, very nice Wagner / Vagner boys?

James, With all due respect, would you please address these two questions? 1) What is your theory as to how we ended up with an anti-EU, anti-NATO, anti-CIA, anti-FBI, Russian mobbed-up, blackmail-able, expendable, "useful idiot" of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin for President? 2) Do you agree with our intelligence services that Kremlin operatives Cozy Bear, Fancy Bear, and Guccifer 2.0 (I should add Julian Assange, too, but I don't want to be overly "sarcastic") not only hacked DNC's and Podesta's and RNC's e-mails, but parceled out during the campaign only Hillary-damaging e-mails from DNC and Podesta? December 2016 CIA report (Wikipedia) On December 9, the CIA told U.S. legislators the U.S. Intelligence Community had concluded, in a consensus view, that Russia conducted operations to assist Donald Trump in winning the presidency, stating that "individuals with connections to the Russian government", previously known to the intelligence community, had given WikiLeaks hacked emails from the DNC and John Podesta.[117] The agencies further stated that Russia had hacked the RNC as well, but did not leak information obtained from there.[118] These assessments were based on evidence obtained before the election.[119] See also --http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/Russia-Hacked-Republican-Committee-but-Kept-Data-10787385.php -- Tommy PS Please be advised that if you (or anyone else who may want to "contribute") don't respond directly to my two questions, above, I probably won't respond to any of your off-topic, rhetorical "but ... but ... but ... what about ... ?" rebuttals.

Sandy and David, Wait a second. Are you talking about Harvey, or Lee? Maybe they rented a car and Lee taught Harvey how to drive? -- Tom

Paul, Do I think Angleton was a KGB-controlled mole? With all due respect ....... LMFAO. ( This may not be logically appropriate, but since I am responding to YOU, I'll go ahead and say it -- "Why in the world would he want to play second fiddle?" ) Play another reel for us now will you, Paul? -- Tommy

Sandy, With all due respect, how likely is it that a boy whose first language is Hungarian and second language is Russian can end up speaking English better than most college graduates? Expected answer: "I gotta admit that it's not very likely, but Harvey did it, and that's all that matters." -- Tommy

James, With all due respect. Really? I didn't respond to two parts of your #8? Do I have to write a book in reply to each of your questions, and do it right now gosh darn it? Do I have to have a complete Trejo-like theory? I'm not permitted to throw out there for consideration some facts and observations that don't directly refute, with your (hypocritically, imho) required level of stone-cold proof, your (imho) cherry-picked demands? Is this a manipulated-by-you "debate"? Shall I start my own thread, "Tommy's 'Stone-Cold Proof' That The Ruskies and (witting or unwitting) Oswald and Rogue Mid-Level CIA Dudes Did It By Dem Widdle Selves, Or Hey! Maybe Pacepa Was Right, After All, ... Or Maybe .....?" (Say, that;s not a bad idea ... At least then I could "control" the discussion.) Are you going to make me prove that planet earth is flat, James? The Harvey and Lee Theory? (LOL) That Putin did not arrange the 1999 Russian Apartment Bombings which indirectly brought him to power? That Marina Prusakova's uncle wasn't an officer in the MVD? That Oswald didn't live near a KGB school in Minsk? Is this a medieval trial by water -- "Don't worry, if you drown, it means you weren't a witch, after all!" ? -- Tommy PS How many "JFK Assassination Facts" will I have to rebut? Ten? A million? How about a compromise? Say ... 500,000? Aren't you glad that Petty thought JJA a mole?

James, Strange, isn't it, that Nechiporenko, Yatsev, and Kostikov claimed that Oswald visited them on Friday, September 26, and the next day, too, at which time he became quite emotional and brandished a revolver, whereas a fourth Soviet "diplomat," Nikolai Leonov, (who admittedly worked in a different part of the building, didn't say anything about those meetings, but did say that HE ALONE had met one-on-one with Oswald on Sunday, September 29, after Oswald showed up unexpectedly during an embassy volleyball match, and that, yep, you guessed it, Oswald became emotional and brandished a revolver! What's going on, here? Is it an example of four guys who can't synchronize their tall tales, or did the FSB tell Leonov to jump in with his story at a late date just to confuse us and / or make it sound as though they were all lying / all somehow telling the truth? Is it possible that Leonov jumped in there to confirm what the first three and Nosenko said -- that Oswald was a crazy-dangerous guy -- AND to obviate with smoke and mirrors the possibility that he, himself, had ... (gasp) ... impersonated Oswald on Friday, September 27? As regards your question about an Oswald - KGB tie in in Dallas, let me remind you, James, that CIA CI officer Edward Clare Petty (who unfortunately thought that JJA was a mole) believed, based on some WWII VENONA decrypts, that George DeMohrenschildt was a long-term KGB "illegal". -- Tommy

OK --

James won't appreciate your saying that.