Jump to content
The Education Forum

Thomas Graves

Two Posts Per day
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thomas Graves

  1. Dear John, It seems as though the name "Sarah Stanton" is anathema to you in this conversation. -- T.G. PS Alteration, Smalteration
  2. Kathy, DiEugenio's calling for you do an "intervention" on me, followed shortly thereafter on the same thread by Josephs' insinuating that I take, or should be taking psychiatric medications is ... "water under the bridge" as far as you're concerned? Laughing Out Loud Do you really want me to start "ratting" people out, like ... every third day? Really? Okaaaaaayyyyy ............. -- T.G.
  3. John, Thank you very much, but I was referring only to your (paranoiac, IMHO) belief that the Weigman and/or Couch-Darnell clips were altered. Also, thank you for explaining everything to me, but I do understand the implication that if "Prayer Man" was Oswald, then Oswald couldn't have been up on the sixth floor, and therefore probably didn't shoot Kennedy. (sarcasm) It is interesting, however, that you apparently do not countenance the possibility that "Prayer Man" was a significantly-shorter-than 5' 9.5" Oswald ... Sarah Stanton. Is there a reason for that? Do you really agree with Andrej that Stanton is represented by a widdle "blob" in Altgens 6, and that she therefore must be tall enough tall enough to crane "her head" forward enough as to obscure the rear right of Shelley's head, and simultaneously itself be mostly obscured behind Lovelady's cheek? Do you really believe that, as per Andrej, Sarah Stanton decided to watch the motorcade by standing behind some (significantly taller than her) people on the landing? -- T.G. PS As to your allegation that there was a sufficient amount of time between Wiegman and Darnell for Oswald to do this and that, I would like to point out that there was also plenty of time between those clips for Sarah Stanton (aka "Prayer Man") to have turned towards Frazier the 70 or so degrees that she did, and that, interestingly enough, she must have done that right about the time that a crying Gloria Calvery came by the steps and announced that JFK had been shot. Something for Stanton and Frazier to talk about, indeed.
  4. Sandy, Yeah, I should have written it this way: Regarding the identity of this triple agent, "At one point Angleton says "Byetkov" whom I tried to find reference to on the Internet, with no luck." And just let it hang there like that, kinda like the fascinating juxtaposition of "Lee Henry Oswald" and "A six-foot American with an athletic build and a receding hairline," or words to that effect, in that notorious mole-hunting cable from back in the day... Probably no connection whatsoever, just good old "guilt by juxtaposition". And no, Sandy, I'm not being sarcastic, or suggesting that, uh .......... Just my awkward and witty widdle attempt to admit that I am probably wrong. Maybe. -- T.G. EDIT ALERT: I guess the point is, according to Angleton, some triple agent KGB dude (NOT false defector Nosenko) was trying to convince us, either before or after the assassination, that KGB had nothing to do with Oswald in Mexico City. Regardless, Sandy, don't you find it ... uh .... suspicious .... that that evil, evil, evil James Jesus Angleton was still obsessing on that quite short, 30-something, blond-haired, blue-eyed, very thin-faced "Blond Oswald in Mexico City" (aka KGB colonel Nikolai Leonov) as late as 1975 ?????
  5. Atta boy, Sandy. Thanks for the moral support. What's really fascinating to me about Angleton's 1975 and 1976 Church Committee testimonies is that he seems to be saying that he thinks a KGB-type whom we thought was a double agent working for us and who had been in contact with Kostikov in Mexico City, was really a triple agent still working for the Soviets all along and giving us false information about Oswald before the assassination so as to make it look later as though the KGB had had nothing to do with Oswald. Regarding the identity of this triple agent, at one point Angleton says "Byetkov" whom I tried to find reference to on the Internet, with no luck. But it's interesting to note that someone wrote a question mark next to his name in the transcript, so I guess I'm not the only one who couldn't find him. I think Angleton might have had one too many martinis (they started at 2:10 that day), and that he might have been thinking of Guenter Schulz (AE/BURBLE), instead. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1447&search=schwarz#relPageId=16&tab=page -- T.G.
  6. I hope it's not too soon to "bump" this, in the hope that someone will tell James DiEugenio that I posted it for his edification. -- T.G.
  7. John, Thanks for your analysis and your thoughts on this. I don't think Andrej has represented their heights correctly. Something about perspective, and the fact that Wiegman's and Darnell's camera lenses were below the level of the landing. Can't quite put my finger on it ... Regardless, instead of (paranoiac, IMHO) "film alteration," have you considered the fact that in a videotaped 2013 interview, Buell Wesley Frazier said that he turned towards (not "around," mind you) and spoke with a "Sarah," who was near him on the landing, when a "crying girl came by the steps" and proclaimed that JFK had been shot? That, plus the fact that that "Sarah" was undoubtedly TSBD employee Sarah Stanton, and that Sarah Stanton probably was considerably shorter than the 5' 9.5' Lee Harvey Oswald (Shaun Murphy's and Andrej's "Prayer Man"), and that the mysterious person caught in Wiegman and in Darnell probably wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald (standing awkwardly with one foot on the top step and the other kinda on the landing, and with a strangely arched back), after all, but a 5' 4" or so Sarah Stanton (standing on the landing, far enough from the wall and close enough to the top step to get sunlight on her right hand), instead? -- T.G.
  8. Ron, I was referring to a particular post on the "The KGB and the JFK Assassination" in which Josephs, responding to a DiEugenio post in which DiEugenio had said "hopefully the moderators will do an intervention on TG" (or words to that effect), without directly mentioning my name, threw some choice cheap shots at me, including an insinuation that I take, or should be taking, psychiatric "medications". Wouldn't you call that sneaky behavior, Ron? Shall I copy and paste it here for you? (Unless, of course, Josephs has already edited it or deleted it.) -- T.G.
  9. Kathy, I'm sure my politically-incorrect-on-this-forum posts had nothing to do with it. I fully deserved to be denied posting, editing, and PM-ing rights for a week or so for my egregious and excessive bumping. The reason I'm even posting on this thread is to not only support Michael Walton on it, but to let him know that I wasn't "banned," but "moderated," and not for political reasons, but allegedly for "excessive bumping." I just wish the moderators would pay as close attention to the (Forum-proscribed) insults hurled at me (and the all-too-often very short and very inane "covering" posts posted to hide my longish, informative and well-thought-out posts) by the likes of DiEugenio, Marverde, Clark, and Jacobs, et al., as they evidently do to my horrendous "bumping" behavior. -- TG
  10. Kathy, If I am here, again, then I must be very grateful for having not been permanently banned for my "excessive bumping" (or even my politically-incorrect-on-this-forum posts), even though I do remember (apparently sacrosanct) James DiEugenio's calling for the moderators to do an "intervention" on me a few months ago, and David "Sneaky" Jacobs' (without directly naming me, of course) insinuating shortly thereafter on the same "KGB and the Assassination of JFK" thread that I obviously take psychiatric "meds," or some such thing. If James DiEugenio doesn't call the shots around here, it must be a miracle. -- TG
  11. Paul, The 10 Best Fact-Checking Websites, according to mediabiasfactcheck. com https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2016/07/20/the-10-best-fact-checking-sites/ -- TG PS What I'm really concerned about is a new source's degree of factual reporting.
  12. Dear James, From the context of what Senator Baker had asked Angleton just a minute or two earlier, and Angleton's response thereto, it's clear that Mr. Schwarz meant to say "Fidel Castro," instead of "Oswald," and that they were all talking about KGB-boy Nikolai Leonov (you know, the quite short, very thin-faced "Blond Oswald in Mexico City"?) rather than some dude named "Leontov". https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1447#relPageId=12&tab=page MFF page 12: Senator Baker: ... Do you have an opinion as to whether or not Oswald was in fact a Soviet agent? Mr. Angleton: Well, let me put it to you this way. I don't think that the Oswald case is dead. There are too many leads that were never followed up. There's too much information that has been developed later. For example, in 1966, in a Soviet book on Cuba there is a photograph of Khrushchev, a photograph of Castro, a photograph of a man named Alexiev, real name Shettov, KGB, with the First Soviet Ambassador to Havana, and a man named Leontov (sic), who was the Soviet KGB operational man in Mexico. When the Mexican police arrested Castro as a student, they found in his notebooks the name Leontov (sic), KGB, Mexico. MFF page 15: Mr Schwarz: Can I follow up some of the questions that Senator Baker asked you about Oswald? What about the pictures, one of which was a picture of Leontov (sic) that was in a piece of paper found in Mr. Oswald's (sic) pocket when he was arrested in Mexico? Mr Angleton: There is an allegation. (Possible meaning: "I haven't heard of that.") Mr Schwarz: What connection is there between that picture and that allegation and Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr Angleton: The only thing is, Oswald's trip to Mexico was to go to Cuba allegedly to contact the Soviets. I mean, I mean, I mean, you do realize don't you, James, that Fidel Castro was arrested in Mexico in 1956, a couple of years after KGB-boy Nikolai Leonov had turned Raul Castro (and later, Che Guevara) onto Communism during a "chance" meeting on a ship? "In 1953, at the age of 25, Leonov was posted to Mexico City, where he learned Spanish at the Autonomous University. In the course of the sea voyage, he met Raúl Castro, who was returning from a European youth festival. On arrival in Mexico he took up a junior post in the Soviet embassy." -- Wikipedia article on Nikolai Leonov For your edification, James, the evil, evil, evil CIA document below says that Leonov's "personal card" was found in Castro's wallet when he was arrested. In Mexico. In 1956. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48495&relPageId=3 In my humble opinion, a "personal card" (business card?) makes more sense to me than some silly photo of Leonov, wouldn't you agree, James? I mean, I mean, I mean, Fidel Castro and the KGB dude who turned his brother and Che onto Communism may have been "close," but I seriously doubt that they were "going steady." Mistakes all around, eh, James? Par for the course in the JFK Assassination, and "fertile rounds" for "Tin Foil Hat Wearing" conspiracy theorists, in my humble opinion! -- TG Left to Right: Fidel Castro, Nikolai Leonov, Raul Castro OMG, is that a Prince of Wales suit? (Note the narrow, lighter-colored vertical stripes in the sleeve.)
  13. Paul, Interesting you didn't answer my question as to whether or not you'd watched those two March, 2018, videos by John Newman all the way through, yet ... -- TG PS When it comes to what you are thinking or mean to convey, unfortunately all too often I know fully too poorly. Like "Simpich's Bad Sentence," for example. What bad sentence, Paul? How in the heck can I comment on it if I don't know what it is?
  14. Paul, "Defect"? I Am Laughing Out Loud, Again Nosenko didn't defect. He was only pretending to defect. Can't you understand that? And his prevarications about what the KGB did-or-did-not-do with Oswald in the USSR was only one of the reasons KGB sent him here. You simply aren't going to watch those videos all the way through, and then read the book and/or the pdf, are you, Paul? If you did, then you would at least understand why Peter Dale Scott now believes that Nosenko was a FALSE DEFECTOR. Are they really too "dificult"? Or would it be more accurate to say that they are just too dog-gone painfully confusing (in a cognitive dissonance kind of way) ? -- TG
  15. Paul, I don't know how to make it more clear to you than I already have, but I am willing to "give it the old college try." Unfortunately, however, I may have to ask you some questions along the way in order to understand what you are asking me! (I Am Laughing Out Loud, Again; I Am Very Sorry) First of all, what "info" have you "seen on Newman and Scott"? (The two videos, above, I presume. If so, did you watch both of them all the way through, Paul? If you were to do that, then reading Bagley's 35-page PDF wouldn't be quite so "difficult" for you. Suggestion: Try the book; maybe it's easy enough for you to get a "handle" on, but only after watching those two videos by John Newman all the way through, Paul.) Secondly, you need to get one thing straight: Bagley (RIP), after hearing what Nosenko had to say, did NOT think that Oswald, IF he killed JFK, necessarily killed him for "the KGB," "the Ruskies," "the Commies," ... however you want to put it, but that Nosenko was trying to cover up something else about Oswald. In that regard, you need to realize that it is not I who came up with the idea that (based on what FALSE DEFECTOR Yuri Nosenko told his hip-to-his-tricks CIA debriefers / interrogators about Oswald in January, 1964, i.e., that KGB had not interviewed Oswald in the USSR, and had only lightly monitored him) Nosenko must have been dispatched to the U.S. to cover up the fact that Oswald had had a relationship with the KGB before he "defected" to the USSR. Not I, but ... (gasp) ... Soviet Russia Division counterintelligence officer Tennent H. Bagley. Paul, you gotta understand. It's like John Newman says in the first video, above: Dealing with the "active measures" and "strategic/operational deception" ops that KGB Second Chief Directorate spymaster Gribanov was dealing out to Bagley and his occasional brainstorming partner, Angleton, especially from 1958 on, was multi-layered, convoluted, and very complicated. That's why you need to read the book, Paul, for if I were to "lay it out" for you, it would be nearly as long as his book, but not nearly as convincing. Sorry, Paul, there is no "Cliff Notes" for Tennent H. Bagley's "Spy Wars," or even his "Ghosts of the Spy Wars". Bummer, huh?
  16. Hi Paul, I haven't even read "Simpich's bad sentence" because, well ... I don't need to. I had simply noticed that David Josephs had posted oodles and gobs of recently released CIA documents pertaining to Nosenko, and, having read Spy Wars and Ghosts of the Spy Wars, and having watched the two videos of John Newman's March, 2018, presentation on same, I thought I'd inform y'all that Newman, who has obviously read the two works mentioned above, convinced Peter Dale Scott (with Simpich sitting to his left) that Nosenko was, indeed, a FALSE defector. Bottom line as regards your question whether or not Nosenko claimed LHO was working for the KGB? David Joseph's is right, but with a widdle caveat -- FALSE DEFECTOR Nosenko said, in so many words, that the KGB didn't touch Oswald with a ten-foot pole during the 2.5 years Oswald lived in the USSR. (I Am Laughing Out Loud) -- TG PS By the way, Paul, I know from previous conversations with you that you're very, very, very averse to reading Bagley's Spy Wars, or even his 35-page Ghosts of the Spy Wars pdf. Okay, then, how about watching Newman's two videos, above? PPS Didn't you note what I wrote in my earlier post? -- "Bagley posits somewhere that Nosenko's claiming in early 1964 that not only had KGB not monitored Oswald very closely during the 2.5 years he lived in the USSR, but that KGB didn't even interview him (we know now that KGB interviewed him twice in Moscow) is not necessarily indicative of LHO's assassinating JFK for the KGB, but it does strongly suggest to Bagley that the KGB had had some sort of relationship with Oswald before he (wittingly and falsely; for Angleton) defected to the USSR in late 1959." PPPS Where can I find "Simpich's Bad Sentence"? Could you please quote it here for me? Thanks, Paul!
  17. Sandy, Did you make a "typo of omission" when you wrote, "I don't comment much on Nosenko because I have ??? done a lot of studying regarding him." Did you forget to put the word "not" in? -- TG PS You really do need to read the work that Newman drew most of his presentation from, Tennent H. Bagley's 2007 book "Spy Wars" (or if you don't have enough time to do that, at least his 35-page 2014 PDF "Ghosts of the Spy Wars") if you want to talk about that evil, evil, evil Angleton, the evil, evil, evil CIA, and that nice, nice, nice Nosenko, et al., in a knowledgeable way. In my humble opinion. Here they are for you, Sandy. (By the way, Bill Simpich was incorrect when he posted somewhere on this forum some time back that "Bagley was Angleton's guy," or words to that effect.) https://archive.org/details/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362 PPS Bagley (5/08/18 EDIT ALERT: Or Edward J. Epstein, in whom, in retirement, Bagley confided) posits somewhere that Nosenko's claiming in early 1964 that not only had KGB not monitored Oswald very closely during the 2.5 years he lived in the USSR, but hadn't even interviewed him (we know now that KGB interviewed him twice in Moscow) is not necessarily indicative of LHO's assassinating JFK for the KGB, but that it does strongly suggest that KGB had had some sort of relationship with LHO before he (wittingly and falsely, for Angleton) defected to the USSR.
  18. David and Paul B., You do know don't you, that thanks to John Newman, even Peter Dale Scott has recently come to understand that Yuri Nosenko was a false defector? Hopefully someday Peter will realize, as John already does (based on his reading of Tennent H. Bagley's book "Spy Wars"), that pre mid-1964 Anatoliy Golitsyn was (in so many words) "pure gold". -- TG (Warning: starting at 04:51 there is a 12-second gap during which John undoubtedly says something like "... to reestablish contact with a former CIA officer the KGB had honey-trapped and recruited in Moscow -- Edward Ellis Smith." At 34:48, Peter Dale Scott says, "You've changed my mind, here, and I now believe that Nosenko was a false defector.."
  19. Kathy, I look at it more as unbiased, critical-minded peer review than, as you so quaintly put it, ... "dogging". -- TG PS How do you explain Andrej's Prayer Man's having a right leg two or three inches longer than his left leg, other than an attempt by Andrej to pound the proverbial "square peg into a round hole"?
  20. Moved here from Andrej's thread: Andrej, Please answer the following question: Did you give your "Prayer Man" such a freakishly long right leg in your graphic simply so "he" would not have to significantly tilt the axis of his body in the general direction of the camera, and therefore could "appear" to be (compared to 6' 1.5" 6' 0.5" Frazier in Darnell) an Oswald-like 5' 9.5" dude who just happened to be uncomfortably and dangerously standing with one foot on the top step and the other on the landing? In other words, wasn't that the only way you could roughly depict "Prayer Man" (as "he" appears in both Wiegman and Darnell) in such a way that might convince EF members and guests that "Prayer Man" was, indeed, Lee Harvey Oswald? Why did you give "Prayer Man" such a freakishly long and disproportionate-to-his-torso right leg, Andrej? So "Oswald" wouldn't have to awkwardly and very noticeably "dip" his right shoulder towards the viewer in order to compensate for the top step's 7-inch "rise"? In short (pardon my unintentional pun), isn't it more reasonable to assume that the Wiegman and Darnell "Prayer Man" was a shorter-than-Oswald-person who was standing much more naturally with both feet on the landing, but close to that front step? And, in fact, that Sean Murphy's "Prayer Man" could very well have been the "Sarah" whom Buell Wesley Frazier, in a 2013 interview, said turned towards him (and he towards her) right after the assassination, as is obvious that Murphy's "Prayer Man" has already done during the 30-second-long interval between the end of the Wiegman clip and the beginning of Couch-Darnell? -- TG
  21. Andrej, No, I can't, probably because I'm a 68.5 year-old "Neanderthal" when it comes to Windows 10 and and creating computer graphics in general, but perhaps you can. I do trust my own eyes and my ability to convey what I see, however. Regardless, do you think the axis of "his" body (or, in other words, "his" shoulders) is significantly tilted towards the plane of the landing in either Wiegman or Darnell? I mean after all, doesn't that top step have a 7-inch "rise"? Why is the right leg of your Darnell-based "Prayer Man" two to three inches longer than his left leg, Andrej? Did you have to make him like that so that his shoulders would be relatively level in your graphic? -- TG PS If I start a new thread on this, what do you suggest that I call it?
  22. Andrej, All I'm saying is that in both the Wiegman and the Darnell clips, if you were to draw a straight line from one of "Prayer Man's" shoulders to the other, you would see that that line is parallel with the plane of the landing, and that simple fact precludes your "Prayer Man's" standing with one foot on the landing and one foot on the top step in either Wiegman or Darnell. Why? Because if he were standing like that (i.e., with one foot on the landing and the other foot on the top step) his right shoulder would be noticeably dipped/tilted towards that plane, i.e., the plane of the "floor"; the plane of the "landing", whatever you want to call it. You have managed to keep Prayer Man's shoulders parallel with that plane only by giving him a freakisly long right leg! -- TG
  • Create New...