Thomas Graves

30 minutes ago, John Butler said:

T.G.

The John Martin film is altered.  You can see this on Houston Street with the transparent helmets of the Motorcycle Police.  I’m not sure I said anything about Weigman, Darnell, and Couch being altered.

Although, certain Couch frames are interesting, as example a train on the Triple Underpass, it is generally not interesting because of the quality of the film.  I tend to avoid those films because of their quality.  For instance, I think I see the Newman family in the wrong place.  And, the film quality is so bad you can't make a proper statement on that.

I don’t know the height of Prayer Man.  He appears to be short.  As for Prayer Man being Oswald and shooting the president?  Prayer Man did shoot on Elm Street.  But, with film.  Does that make him Oswald?

Since, Prayer Man is an event after the assassination, due to relevancy, I haven’t given any thought to characters who may be there in the Doorway or not.  All of this stuff has been gone over in that huge thread on Prayer Man that was unlocked and moved down the viewing list.  With something over 4,000 comments, I don’t think much was missed, except the John Martin film.

Dear John,

It seems as though the name "Sarah Stanton" is anathema to you in this conversation.

--  T.G.

PS  Alteration, Smalteration

 

12 hours ago, Kathy Beckett said:

Tom,

It's water under the bridge at this time. You should have said something before. Please don't drag old stuff back up.

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.

9 minutes ago, Paz Marverde said:

Agree

See my post, above.

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

T.G., others

Don’t get me wrong.  Take a close, analytic look at Z frame 157, as an example.  When you see that which is really there you will give up thoughts of “paranoiac film alteration”.  It is real.  It exists. 

Another thing is an earlier post a fellow spoke of the Prayer Man incident as occurring before or during the assassination.  Not true.  Weigman was in camera car #1 which was the 10^th in the motorcade.  Darnell was in camera car #3 which was 12^th in the motorcade.  Witnesses, I believe, spoke of a delay or stop in the motorcade due to people running across the street, Elm Street, in the direction of the Grassy Knoll.  Just the normal passage of 10 to 12 vehicles at the motorcade speed would account for a significant delay.  In the Zapruder film the Advance Motorcycles took 7 or more seconds to pass through part of the intersection.

The two camera men didn’t get into the intersection until sometime later.  It is uncertain how much time passed after the shooting.  Perhaps, as much as a minute. 

The Prayer Man incident is not that relevant.  Why?  You can’t prove Oswald is Prayer Man or, that Oswald is not Prayer Man.  The images are just to vague.  And, no amount of camera tricks can get past that.

It is better to think about whether shots were fired from the sixth floor.  You cannot prove that either beyond a reasonable doubt.  And, that should be the standard used.

If you can prove that Oswald (I use the last name here because of doubles) is Prayer Man then it becomes relevant because he was not on the 6^th floor.  According to John Martin, he was on Elm Street filming the president as he passed the TSBD.  The speed of the motorcade gave him enough time to return to the TSBD doorway and be filmed by Darnell and Weigman when they arrived.

The Robert Hughes film has a very blurry and vague frame with Toni Glover standing on a wall or pedestal framed in the TSBD doorway.  Also, there is a very vague image of Doorway Man / Lovelady / Oswald there as the limousine is in the intersection in front of the TSBD.

It is not enough to say Prayer Man was in the doorway during the assassination.  The differences in that figure’s clothing and Prayer Man’s clothing are significant. There is no time available to roll up sleeves and button a shirt even if they wanted to.  You can clearly note the clothing aspect even if you cannot identify the person.  

 

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.



 

15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tommy,

Regarding Angleton's Byetkov story, I don't see anything about Kostikov, or about  the Soviets giving us false information regarding Oswald prior to the assassination. Can you tell me which pages to look at?

 

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 ?????

 

54 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yes, that appears to be the case. Good catch Tommy.

I had thought that Angleton's testimony regarding the picture in Oswald's pocket -- as mentioned by Schwarz --  had been redacted from the document. But now I see that Schwarz confused not only the person (Oswald instead of Castro) but also a picture being in his pocket rather than just a name written on a piece of paper.

 

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.

On 5/5/2018 at 8:09 AM, Thomas Graves said:

 

On 2/19/2018 at 9:54 PM, James DiEugenio wrote:

"But Sandy:

I still don't know what Angleton is talking about.

What arrest of Oswald, and what picture of Leontov or Leonov or whatever the heck the guy's name is?

When did that happen and where is the picture among his belongings?"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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 (sic), KGB, with the First Soviet Ambassador to Havana, and a man named (Nikolai) Leontov (sic), who was the Soviet KGB operational man in Mexico (note: and who was only under KGB-boy "chief of station" Pavel Yatskov there). When the Mexican police arrested Castro as a student, they found in his notebooks the name (Nikolai) 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, 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.)



 

 

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.

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

Consider a head size variation of 1 inch caused by thick hair or thickened hair to cover incipient balding.  Let's say the wrong measurement makes the head 1 inch larger.  How does this translate to the body.  The person being measured becomes 7.5 inches taller if you are using a 1:7.5 ratio.  Oswald, if Prayer Man is Oswald, then he could now become 6'6.5" as a top height.

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. 
 

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.

1 hour ago, Kathy Beckett said:

It was explained to you about the excessive bumping.  Whether or not James Di asked for an intervention , it didn't result in moderation ( I don't even remember this..   If David "Jacobs" " insinuated that you " obviously take psych drugs", why didn't you report the post instead on bringing it up later?

James Di does not call the shots here, ROFL.  Why would he?   What is that supposed to mean?

It appears that you are looking outside of what we told to find a reason for  being moderated.   I thought you understood why.

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

21 minutes ago, Kathy Beckett said:

I want to know where you get this idea from.  If you are talking about a recent moderation, you might ask the person why. It was not due to any theory.

 

And who are those who have left the forum in droves? I hadn't noticed.

We have had some loopy theories presented here, and we don't moderate for that. Case in point. A few years ago, someone questioned if Zapruder was made of rubber.  The person who wrote that was not moderated for it. so it has nothing to do with the beliefs one has. 

 

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

On 1/30/2017 at 6:36 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Thanks Thomas. Fact checking is becoming difficult, in my opinion not by accident.

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.

On 2/19/2018 at 9:54 PM, James DiEugenio said:

But Sandy:

I still don't know what Angleton is talking about.

What arrest of Oswald, and what picture of Leontov or Leonov or whatever the heck the guy's name is?

When did that happen and where is the picture among his belongings?

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.)



 

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - stop laughing for a second. You know full well the point I was making. I’ll rephrase - I can think of another reason why Nosenko was sent posing as a genuine defector. Happy now? 

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?

 

17 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I can think of another explanation for Nosenko defecting. Can’t you? The JFK assassination was aimed at the Communists, whether Castro or USSR. The Kennedy family knew this, and sent an emissary to assure the Russians that they did not suspect them. Oswald, the Communist, was the named lone shooter, despite reams of contradictory evidence. Seems that both leaderships wanted to avoid the set up put in place by the plotters. Much simpler explanation.  It’s the best, simplest explanation, and leads towards the obvious conclusion that the plotters were from the far right wing.

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

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

(dupe)

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - two things. I’ve seen the info on Newman and Scott. If I take the point, what difference does it make? I simply cannot understand why you find this suggestive of a prior relationship between KGB and Oswald. Btw I did try to read Ghosts of the Spy Wars and found it too difficult. I mean, what would Bagley say, that Oswald was a trained KGB killer? Feel very free to write a long explanation of how you see things going down, without, if you can, referring to me or other non believers in your Castro and or KGB did it theories. Just lay it out for us to read. 

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?
 

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Tommy - it doesn’t imply that Oswald was a KGB agent. Simpich’s sentence was either badly constructed or missing a word. No?

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!
 

On 5/4/2018 at 8:53 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Tommy,

I don't comment much on Nosenko because I have done a lot of studying regarding him. But I've long felt that the timing of his defection and what he said about Oswald made a pretty good case for his being a fake defector in light of my CT.

As you know, I believe that the Mexico City story was designed by elements of the CIA to create a link between Oswald, Cuba, and Russia in the assassination of JFK. The purpose being to create a pretext for a Cuba invasion. I believe that one of Nosenko's assignments was to inform the U'S. government that there was no such link between Oswald and Cuba and Russia. This was at odds with Angleton's goals and maybe that is what drove him to keep Nosenko locked up.

BTW, Angleton was still pushing the Oswald/Cuba/Russia story during the HSCA hearings.

Thanks for bringing to our attention that Newman and PDS both believe Nosenko was a fake defector. It's nice to know there are reputable researchers whose beliefs support mine, at least regarding this topic.

 

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. 
 

23 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

(dupe)

YURILY IVANOVICH NOSENKO

23 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

Paul Brancato had asked:  "Did Nosenko claim that Oswald was a KGB agent?"

 

David Josephs replied:  "Quite the opposite....

I understood him to claim there was no operational interest in Oswald at all....  part of the new release are the transcripts from the Nosenko interrogations"

File Name	NARA Release Date	Formerly Withheld	Agency	Doc Date	To Name	From Name	Title
....... ....... .......
							YURILY IVANOVICH NOSENKO

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.."

11 minutes ago, Kathy Beckett said:

Say whatever you want , Michael.  This whole thing stinks, any way you look at it.

Brian would be here, if he weren't such a mean person.  He calls everyone who doesn't agree with him names.  I read all of the stuff he writes.  I certainly wouldn't talk about James the way he does and expect to be welcomed here. 

If Prayer person is a man or woman, I don't care. I do care about how folks treat each other though. 

While we are at it, i think it's ridiculous to ask Andrej to do this or that, and then when he does, it's either not good enough or he is asked to do something else.  I wouldn't do it. I can't believe folk would actually get upset that the  analysis  is not done yet.  Yes, Tsk, Tsk Andrej, get to it!  We must be fed!!

Tom, I've got a great idea! Why don't you draw some stuff, and quit badgering someone else. That you are up there in years is not a valid excuse to dog on someone else. 

 

 

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"?
 

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

2 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Thomas, enough is enough. However, it is a thread that reveals two so far unaccounted people on the doorway, and I see no reason to have this thread stalled or derailed with some funny Prayer Man ideas. I will resume posting on this thread with a completed analysis of Altgens6.

Deleted here and moved to my "My New Thread"

--  TG

15 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Can you draw those lines for everyone to see?

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?

29 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

No. Prayer Man is orientated differently in these two films. As per veracity of my reconstruction, please see the overlay of the 3D doorway and Darnell still in http:/thejfktruthmatters.wordpress.com. The Prayer Man figure fits the modeled figure which could not be so if the model were wrong. 

Why do you again raise the Prayer Man issue in Darnell and Wiegman if this thread is not about this problem, and I asked you politely not do it and rather create your own thread to investigate the issue? 

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

10 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Andrej,

Since one of the purposes of this thread is to try to identify Sarah Stanton in films taken during and immediately after the assassination, I believe that what I'm posting here is on topic, in that it could help us to locate a probably average-height (5' 5" - 5' 6") Sarah Stanton in said films.

To wit:  It makes a lot more sense to me physics-wise, anatomy-wise, and context-wise that the "Prayer Man" who is visible in Wiegman and Couch-Darnell is a 5' 5" or 5' 6" person (5' 6" Harvey?  Sarah Stanton?) who, as we can see in the Darnell clip, was standing sufficiently close to the EDIT ALERT: WEST wall and sufficiently near the top step to have his right hand (and only his right hand) in the sunlight, and who must be standing with both feet on the landing in order to look the way he looks in the frames.

Why do I say both of "Prayer Man's" feet must be on the landing?

Because in both Wiegman and Darnell, "Prayer Man's" shoulders appear to be parallel with the plane of the landing.

To say it again in a slightly different way -- even if you were to depict "Prayer Man" (and the others) as they appear in a Wiegman frame by using the new software and by using the same portal dimensions you used for the Darnell frame, it would still show that Prayer Man couldn't have been standing the way he is in your Darnell graphic in which it is obvious that in order to (rightfully-so) keep "Prayer Man's" shoulders parallel with the plane of the landing, and (wrongfully, imho) his right foot on the top step, you had to make his right leg freakishly longer than his left.

 

 

 

And here's another thing:  It looks to me as though Prayer Man is turned about 70 degrees farther to his left in Couch-Darnell than he is in Wiegman, and for the life of me I can't figure out how made that pivot on just one foot.



L:  Wiegman frame
R:  Darnell frame

 

--  TG

 

 

edited, augmented, bumped

--  TG