Thomas Graves

12 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Of course, Prayer Man stands slightly differently in Wiegman and Darnell because these two films were taken tens of seconds apart. The question is not whether Prayer Man's left foot was exactly on the same spot in Wiegman and Darnell as we do not see the left leg anyway in any of these documents. The question is if Prayer Man in Wiegman was a person 5'9''' and standing on the second step (with one foot or two feet, it does not matter) which would exclude him to be a woman 5'2''. Here I am confident that Prayer Man was effectively standing on the second step and not on the top landing. I have not modelled Prayer Man in Wiegman using the realistic 3D model (available to me in October or early November last year) and therefore cannot say how exactly his legs were arranged. Actually, we may never know about his left foot because it is not visible in Wiegman and it may be possible that he had his left leg bent and his left foot resting on the top landing but also that he stood with both his feet on the second step. I can prepare two different solutions, one with his left foot on the top landing and one with both his feet on the second step and see if it is possible to prefer one of these two solutions over the other. However, I cannot do it now because I am still working on Altgens6 and see no reason to stop this project and move to Wiegman only because you ask questions. 

Without doing any 3D modelling, you can easily check Prayer Man's location in Wiegman yourself.  Please have a look at the distance between the edge of the red brick column and Prayer Man's right elbow. This short distance could not be achieved by having this person standing on the top landing. Sorry. When the time comes, I will present a full reconstruction of Wiegman, however, this observation alone discards the possibility that Prayer Man was standing on the top landing. 

I am a busy person and so I will excuse myself from responding to your constant flow of questions focused on Prayer Man and not on the human figures I showed in this thread. I wish to complete my analysis of Altgens6 first and will come back to you with Wiegman analysis in due time. I hope you will understand and accept what I am saying. If you would like to discuss Prayer Man in Wiegman, please do so in a different thread as this thread is not about Prayer Man in Wiegman. 

Adrej,

You seem to be avoiding my point that it is impossible for a person who has normal, equal-length legs to stand reasonably safely and comfortably with one foot on a landing, and the other foot on a step that is 7 inches below the landing, and keep their shoulders parallel with the landing.

--  TG

16 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Because of the amount of work which is required to model each scene.

May I point out that this thread is not about depicting Prayer Man in Wiegman film. Please set up your own thread on the topic of your interest and present your view and some evidence. I have read through your games you play here.

As per Wiegman, think twice what you wish for because you may get it.

Please do not respond with another silly question and please do not respond at all unless you have anything substantial to say to the topic of this thread.

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 (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

On 4/25/2018 at 1:18 PM, Andrej Stancak said:

No, it was not a big problem and the reconstructed location of Prayer Man in Wiegman was the same as in Darnell, only was Prayer Man turned slightly towards his right in Wiegman. 

The reason I did not post was that since the model back then was not based on realistic measurements of the doorway but rather on estimates and inferences, I could not be certain in my results. Also, the human mannequin representing Prayer Man was only very approximate, I could not control every joint and angle of the figure as required in this reconstruction. I decided therefore that the next stage will be started only if Prayer Man can be modelled using a human modelling program (Poser 11.1), and the doorway is accurate in all aspects to 1 cm and I was not interested in posting any results obtained with old methods any longer. 

Andrej,

I'm a bit confused.

Assuming that the portal dimensions were the same for Darnell as they had been about 30 seconds earlier for Wiegman, why didn't you use the improved software program you used for your Darnell depiction to make a comparable depiction of Wiegman?

--  TG

12 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I did some reconstruction of Prayer Man in Wiegman about in 2016, however,  at that point, I was determined not to post unless the 3D model would be based on realistic, measured dimensions of the doorway. I am currently doing a limited reconstruction of one Wiegman still to understand Billy Lovelady's posture, in particular, the position of his right shoulder and right arm - this obviously cannot be done using only Altgens6. My long-term plan is to complete the analysis of Altgens6, return to the reconstruction of Prayer Man's body height in Darnell (I surely will adjust the  height of mannequin's inseam to match Lee Harvey Oswald's inseam),  to reconstruct two Wiegman's stills (one with Prayer Man having arms in front of his chest and one with his right arm lifted), and maybe to do an animation on how the doorway scene was changing over the assassination period.  I also hope to learn in the process when did  Prayer Man occur at his spot in the western part of the doorway.

Andrej,

Thank you for the explanation.

Question:  Were the doorway dimensions in Darnell as big a problem for you as they apparently are in Wiegman?

Regardless, if I remember correctly, some time ago Brian Doyle refuted your interpreting of Wiegman as showing "Prayer Man" standing with one foot on the top step by pointing out that if "Prayer Man" had stood that way in Wiegman, his left side would have been illuminated by sunlight, not unlike the left side of a reporter was in an Allen photo.

Would you care to comment?

--  TG

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Tommy:

thanks for all the questions. Your questions will be answered in the overall reconstruction of Altgens6 scene. 

 

 

 

Thanks, Andrej.

By the way, have you ever considered doing a computer graphic of Wiegman?

--  TG

On 2/4/2018 at 3:42 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

Here is the doorway scene in Darnell film with provisional name labels. At least as I understand them currently. Happy to change if we can gather convincing evidence.

Andrej,

I do realize that this is your interpretation of a Darnell frame.

Bearing that in mind, it seems to me, given the fact that Ike Altgens' LOS in Altgens 6 was about 90° to the left of Darnell's LOS in this frame (plus the fact that Lovelady had already moved to the center hand railing at some point between the Hughes clip and Altgens' 6), that your "Stanton" would have to have been standing much farther to our right in your Darnell interpretation, above, in order to have shown up in Altgens 6 looking like a blob photographically affixed from behind to leaning-forward-at-the-center-handrailing Lovelady's left cheek, not to mention the problem posed by the fact that your blob-like "5' 4" Stanton" is not only visible peeking out from behind Lovelady like that, but is also somehow tall enough to obscure the right rear portion of 5' 8" Shelley's head.

So, even disregarding the above-mentioned LOS problem, do you think your five-four or so Stanton was sufficiently tall to lean her head forward enough, from behind Lovelady, to cover Shelley's head like that?

All I've tried to do, above, is to point out two problems that I discern in your analysis of "Stanton" in Altgens 6, vis-à-vis your "Stanton" in that very special Darnell frame, above.

Care to comment?

Respectfully,

--  TG

PS  Oh yeah, and the fact that Altgens' photo was shot at least a few feet below the clip that Darnell took while sitting on top of the "camera car," making "5' 4" Stanton's" blob-like, obscuring head lean even more improbable, in my humble opinion.

EDIT:  According to your overhead graphic and the abovementioned LOS problem, wouldn't your Purple Woman, as positioned in Darnell, be a much better candidate for that blob-like "growth" on Lovelady's left cheek in Altgens 6, except for the fact that you've calculated her to be only 4' 11" tall?

And what are we to make of that diagonal shadow on Shelley's head?  Isn't that being cast upon him by part of the building?  Shouldn't your "Stanton's" face be in it, too, and therefore invisible to us?

Taking into consideration all of the problematic things, above, isn't it more likely that your blob-like, omnipresent, multidimensional, shape-shifting "Sarah Stanton" in Altgens 6 is nothing but a reflection and/or a photographic "artifact" and/or ... gasp ..... Lovelady's left ear?

On 2/16/2018 at 9:38 AM, Bart Kamp said:

  .....

The women who stated they were standing on the steps were
Ruth Dean (all in black and IDed)
Maddie Reese (wearing a rain coat IDed as well).
Judy McCully 
Avery Davis
Pauline Sanders
Sarah Stanton

Two of these stated they stood on the top platform (Sanders and Stanton).
So that leaves two who ought to be part of that group of five.
That leaves three (wo)men unidentified at the end of the Darnell shot.

 

  .....

 

(emphasis added by TG)

Bart,

How many minutes before the assassination did Pauline Sanders "place" Sarah Stanton's exact position on the top platform?

Five?  Ten?

Isn't it possible that Stanton moved to a different part of the platform during the intervening minutes?

--  TG

On 4/16/2018 at 5:45 PM, Michael Clark said:

Mark, in the last 10:00 minutes of this video, during a Q&A, one can see that the consensus for two Oswald's is expanding, going back to his time in Russia.

 

Michael,

And I absolutely love it when Peter Dale Scott tells John Newman (to James DiEugenio's great mortification, no doubt) that John has just now convinced him (Peter) that Nosenko was a false defector!

--  TG

14 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Thank you for the reply.  I'm really, really saddened by this.  It always struck me that Sandy was polite and professional in his posts.

I agree.

I guess I missed it.

--  TG

30 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Look at their feet... his right and her left are on the same elevation...

Using the image as a guide I estimate what a 5'11" man would look like in this image...

David,

Here's a little something for your followers to consider.  

http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/discrep.htm

(Do try to be nice, now.)

--  TG

On 4/14/2018 at 2:37 AM, Thomas Graves said:

 

Vanessa,

 

Castro

Khrushchev

or ... gasp ... Lee Harvey Oswald (either per Pacepa, or all by him witting-or-unwitting CIA Asset frustrated-widdle-self)


(I can almost hear James "OMG!" DiEugenio a-workin' up a sweat right now ... )

 

--  TG

 

PS  Who do you think killed JFK, Vanessa?

Do you have a full-blown theory?

 

PPS  Why do you say the moderators were right to ban Brian Doyle?

 

 

Bumped for Vanessa Loney.

If Castro or Khrushchev did it, what kind of evidence should we expect to find, Vanessa?  Neither the Cuban nor the Russian government is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, right?

And how much evidence?  Oodles and gobs?

Isn't it interesting that false defector Yurily Nosenko said KGB didn't even interview Oswald in the USSR ("because Oswald looked so crazy and dangerous"), when in fact they interviewed him twice (according to John Newman)?

Regardless, how are we to explain the fact that Silvia Duran told the Mexican authorities right after the assassination that the "Oswald" she'd dealt with was short (she was only 5' 3.5", herself), blond-haired, and blue-eyed, which not only described 5' 7" Nikolai Leonov, but dovetailed perfectly with Eusebio Azcue's even more Leonov-like 1978 description, i.e., that "Oswald" was about 35 years old, blond-haired, skinny, very thin-faced, and was wearing a suit (as KGB officer Leonov did every workday as Third Secretary at the Soviet Embassy)?

And how could it be that in the 1990s, the above-mentioned Nikolai Leonov said that HE had met ONE-ON-ONE with the emotional, revolver-packin' Oswald at the Soviet Embassy on SUNDAY, September 29, 1963?

--  TG

8 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

.....

Paul,

It seems to me that you're preaching to a choir of one, here.

--  TG

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Don't forget the infamous note that Marguerite supposedly signed on 10/7/55 that was found in Oswald's file at Warren Easton High School:

"Becaus [sic] we are moving to San Diego in the middle of this month Lee must quit
school now. Also, please send by him any papers such as his birth certificate that you may
have. Thank you. Sincirely ...... Mrs. M. Oswald

There are other indications that the Russian-speaking Oswald and his caretaker "mother" may have moved to San Diego, but, of course that is not part of the Official Biography of "Lee Harvey Oswald."

What "indications" are there that your Russian-speaking Hungarian, "Harvey," and his "caretaker mother" moved to my hometown of San Diego in 1955?

--  TG

On 4/16/2018 at 5:59 AM, Vanessa Loney said:

Really? Castro or Khrushchev or Oswald (who you are saying was a CIA asset but that had nothing to do with the assassination??).

Well you are nailing your colours to the mast with that line up. What's your evidence for believing in any of those 3 as actors?

Let's hear your evidence first then I'll give you mine.

 

Vanessa,

I'm saying that Oswald was a CIA asset but had nothing to with the assassination?  

Really?

I'm saying that?

In case you're wondering, I now believe that Oswald (based on what my hero, Tennent H. Bagley, *allegedly* told Malcolm Blunt) must have been a witting false detector to the USSR in 1959, but I fail to see how that in-and-of-itself has any bearing on Oswald's guilt or innocence in the JFK assassination, or how it, in-and-of-itself, implicates the CIA or any members thereof in same.

Ditto regarding Oswald's probably-CIA/FBI sponsored FPCC activities.

Perhaps you could explain it to me?

PS  If you're thinking Mexico City, it's my opinion that all we can be sure of there is that Oswald was telephonically impersonated twice in that city (and perhaps once physically at the Cuban consulate by a short, 30-ish, blond-haired, blue-eyed, very thin-faced, suit-wearing man), but probably not impersonated by anyone at all (not even himself!) at the Soviet one.

--  TG

58 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

There's a big difference between an individual believing something versus its truth being demonstrated.

 

dem·on·strate
/ˈdemənˌstrāt/

verb

1. clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence.

 

And you never did demonstrate your belief. You just stated it.

 

 

Sandy,

May I demonstrate something?

Above, you wrote the phrase "individual believing," rather than the correct, "individual's believing."

Now, how could you, a highly intelligent and highly educated, born-in-America guy, get that sort of grammar wrong on a fairly consistent basis (iirc), but a dude who was born in Hungary (and who didn't start learning English until he was about ten years old, and had already learned the very un-English languages of Hungarian and Russian) could?

--  TG

On 2/3/2018 at 7:40 PM, James DiEugenio said:

 On 2/3/2018 at 6:07 PM, Pamela Brown said:

My impression was that JJA was blindsided by KGB and did not realize how severely CIA had become destabilized by them.  JJA was unable to properly assess Nosenko when he came into the picture and tortured him, trying to get information Nosenko simply did not have.  

 

Tom Graves replied:

 

Pamela,

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  l-i-a-r?

--  TG

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?

 

Quote

 

James DiEugenio replied:

 

Pamela:

Some background of what TG just wrote and also a correction.

Angleton was quite ready for Nosenko;  he was getting ready for him months in advance.  In fact, he had already created a large file on the man before Bagley brought him over.

See, Angleton bushwacked both Nosenko and Bagley.  Bagley originally believed Nosenko.  Angleton knew that.  So when Bagley came back  from Europe, Angleton sat him down in a room, stacked his file in front of him and made his case that Nosenko was a false defector.  And it worked.  Bagley bought into it and reversed field.

Why is this important?  Because this is what caused the entire imprisonment of Nosenko at the hands of Angleton, aided by Helms. Virtually every person who kept Nosenko imprisoned, and then psychologically tortured him, had been handpicked by Angleton's team.  It went on for three years, because Dirty Dick (my name for Helms) approved it.

Now, if Angleton already had his mind made up, and his whole intent was to be judge, jury and executioner, then what was the whole purpose of the three year ordeal?  Well, it was essentially a POW camp for Nosenko.  

Finally, after this rather despicable trial by torture, a vote was taken and Helms allowed a neutral party to examine the process.  Which is how we got the Hart Report, which was the initial step in  setting the man free.  Now this was a key point in Angleton's career, since most commentators look at it at the beginning of the end for him.  And Anlgeton's backers have always stated that the Hart Report only analyzed the torture aspect not Nosenko's story.  This is not true. Hart mentioned some of the problems with Nosenko's statements and he said that it was common with defectors to try to oversell themselves so they can get a better deal.  Bill Colby had already had a look at what Angleton had done in his unfettered state as provided to him by Helms and Dulles. Colby did not buy Angleton's methods or his ideas about the Cold War, which to him had essentially paralyzed the CIA.  Along with ruining several lives--which the CIA later on had to pay money to some of these innocent people Angleton had persecuted.

Even Mike Holzman, who is rather kind to Angleton his his biography, has to admit that Nosenko turned out to be one of the most valuable defectors the CIA had, much better than Golitsyn., 

As per Angleton vs Nosenko on LHO, I mean look, anyone who studies Oswald from his time in the marines, and even before, that is with Ferrie in the CAP, understands he was being groomed as a false defector.  (See Destiny Betrayed, second edition, Chapter 7, "On Instructions from his Government.")  The Soviets understood this instantly. Mainly because the CIA had been doing it with increasing frequency through the years, especially 1957-59. Plus Oswald was not a really well rehearsed fake defector.

 This is why they sent him to Minsk and then put a ring of intel around him. Is that how you recruit someone? I doubt it.

Its stuff like this that made Colby promise himself  that if he was ever in a position to terminate Angleton, he would do so.  And, thank God for us all, he did.  But it was a bit late for JFK. And Oswald.

My reply to James DiEugenio:

James,

Have you watched this, yet?

You're in it, you know. 

My favorite part is when Peter Dale Scott turns to John Newman near the end of Part 2 and says "You've just now convinced me that Nosenko was a false defector." 

--  TG

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Is Tommy Graves the champion of the bump stock at this site?

I think so and no one is in second place.

James,

Did you read my heavily edited and highly informative post?

Would you like to comment on its substance? 

(Side question:  Were you severely disappointed at John Newman's recent presentation in San Francisco when Peter Dale Scott turned to him near the end and told John that he (John) had just convinced him that Yuri Nosenko was a false defector, after all? 

 I mean, I mean, I mean .... is that why you couldn't bring yourself to clap for John after he'd finished?

(Nice "cover job," by the way.  Not to worry, though.  I'll just wait the mandatory 24 hours and "bump" it again, but probably without editing it nearly as much as I did this time.)

--  TG

On 3/14/2018 at 12:46 AM, Thomas Graves said:

 

On 3/13/2018 at 9:38 PM, Paul Brancato said:

One thing that did happen was that Krushchev was ousted, and we know from personal communications between JFK and NK that both men feared their military hardliners. It was this revelation, combined with Angleton's paranoia and subsequently persistent and destructive hunt for Soviet moles, that got me wondering whether there was a deeper interpretation of east-west power structures than the conventional Cold War analysis we all assumed to be true. 

 

  ...................................................

 

Paul B.,

 

I think Angleton's "paranoia" was quite justified, seeing as how a very important true defector, Ptyor Popov, had been arrested (and later executed) by KGB in October, 1959, under what we now know to have been fake and long-in-the-making "surveillance scenario" conditions contrived by the KGB to protect the identity of the American mole (Edward Ellis Smith or someone whom he had helped the KGB to recruit) who had betrayed Popov.

 

-- Popov's arrest coming thirteen months after his secret original arrest, at which time he had been "tripled" and actually played back against U.S. Intel !). 

 

But even before that, what had really gotten Angleton's attention was Popov's telling his CIA handler, George Kisevalter, in April, 1958, that a drunken GRU general had bragged to him at a party that the GRU already knew all about the super secret U-2 spy plane -- implying the existence of a really big-time mole in the U.S.

 

Please remember, too, that true defector Anatoly Golitsyn told U.S. Intel shortly after he defected in December, 1961, that it was compromised by a mole whom Golitsyn said was code-named "Sasha," but as it turned out several years later when the (now-inactive) Soviet spy, Igor Orlov, was finally tracked down at his art gallery in N.Y.C., "Sasha" wasn't his KGB code name, but his nickname!

 

As my final example in this little summary of why Angleton can be excused for being paranoid, there was J. Edgar Hoover's beloved "Fedora" who, to JEH's great chagrin, eventually turned out to have been a long term spy.

 

--  TG

 

PS   Etc,  Etc,  Etc .......

 

Heavily Edited and Bumped

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Wouldn't Oswald qualify as "someone of interest" leaving the Soviet compound?

David,

Not if he was sent there as part of a mole hunt, or to try to recruit a Ruskie.

But then, again, I'm not so sure he went to Mexico City.

--  TG

31 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Tommy boy, your 'evidence' is shaky if not downright troublesome.

My opinion: it is almost 100% worthless if I look at your ratio of posts and evidentiary value.

Bart,

Find Calvery yet?

--  TG

36 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

If if if if if if............................

Bart,

Did you ever find Gloria Calvery in the Z-Film or Couch-Darnell?

You do realize, don't you, that Karen Westbrook was obviously very, very confused when she recently ... "identified," ... from behind and 55 years after the fact ... "herself" (actually Sharon Simmons), ... "Gloria Calvery" (actually Gloria Jeanne Holt), ... and "... maybe Carol Reed" (actually self-described Native American, Stella Mae Jacob) in the Z-Film?

Laughing Out Loud,

--  TG

4 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Keep dreaming and speculating Tommy....

Bart,

Is that all you got?

Do you really think Sarah Stanton was standing behind 6' 1" Buell Wesley Frazier, you know, so that she wouldn't be able to see the motorcade?

Wouldn't it have made more sense for her to stand between Frazier and "Prayer Man"?  (That is, of course, unless she was "Prayer Man"?)

If Sarah Stanton was standing behind Buell Wesley Frazier, and if she was the "Sarah" with whom Frazier had spoken, up there on the landing a few seconds after the assassination, wouldn't he have said in his 2013 interview that he had "turned" around" to speak with her, rather than "turned" to speak with her?

--  TG

On 3/18/2018 at 3:14 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Bagley was Angleton's man on Nosenko.

And he would stay that way during the entire three year ordeal.

From Mangold, page 193, " By April 1967. . . . The Fundamentalists led by Jim Angleton and Pete Bagley, had refused to loosen their grip..."

Helms was now advised to take the case away from Bagley and Angleton.  It was eventually turned over to Bruce Solie.(p. 194)

Everyone and their mother knows that the imprisonment and torture of Nosenko was started and run by Angleton; and Bagley was his man on the case during the three years Nosenko was locked  up.  Just look at the number of references in Mangold's book to Bagley. 

Your other statement about the SR division makes Bagley's statement about Oswald's false defection even stronger.  Because as Newman originally wrote in Oswald and the CIA, that is where the files on LHO should have gone when he arrived in Russia.(Newman, p. 27)  

This, of course, makes it even odder why you should remain silent on that point.

Bagley: Oswald was a false defector and his defection was preplanned and routed within the CIA.

Graves:  Sound of crickets in the night.

 

Ten minutes later: Even though Oswald was a false defector, hey the KGB killed Oswald.  I got it from Bagley. And those active measures he talks about is how we got Putin in collusion with Trump to get him elected.

Thus ignoring the fact that the whole Trump and Putin collusion story is now falling apart.  And also ignoring that by the end of his book, Newman had concluded that the whole CIA WW 3 scenario that did so much to stop a real inquiry was stage managed by Angleton who had the most control of all of Oswald's files at CIA. (pgs. 636-37)

But all of that is OK.  Why? Nosenko was not a real defector.

Whew.  What a detective (EDIT ALERT:  TG is.).

 

James,

After attending John Newman's presentation in San Francisco a few weeks ago, do you still believe Yuri Nosenko was a true defector?

Well, at least John convinced Peter Dale Scott that Nosenko was a false defector.

--  TG

9 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

This was posted by Alan Ford at D.P.F.

Try as some might to force Sarah Stanton into mystery man's position, the historical record has already eliminated her for at least two reasons ---->

Mr. BALL - Anybody else you can remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - There was a lady there, a heavy-set lady who worked upstairs there whose name is Sarah something, I don't know her last name.

since there was only one Sarah upon those particular steps that afternoon, clearly Frazier is talking about the heavy-set lady Sarah Stanton. 

and, number 2, note where another individual upon those same steps that afternoon had to say about her specific position. Take it away Bill Lovelady ----> 

(4-7-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H336-341) (When asked who was with him on the front steps when the shots were fired) "Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton and right behind me..."

clearly there is someone else standing there in the shadows behind Lovelady who is not Shelley or the heavy-set lady Sarah Stanton. Of course, Warren Commission counsel quickly changes the subject before Lovelady may continue (for obvious reasons).

-----

Sean Murphy or was it Richard Hocking who brought this part of Lovelady's testimony up here before. But not in this context. And boy does it destroy the wannabe Stanton scenario.

Kudos Alan.

 

Add on the statement that Stanton stood East.........

Bart,

In his WC testimony, Lovelady was unfortunately cut off while listing the people near him during the assassination.

In his HSCA testimony, however, he was allowed to finish, and said that the people near him were (obviously from our right to left) William Shelley, Buell Wesley Frazier, and  Sarah Stanton.

Period.

Full stop.

When we look at Altgens 6, we see that the people immediately around Lovelady were William Shelley, Buell Wesley Frazier, and your so-called "Prayer Man."

It's clear to me that Lovelady named the people to his left, rear, and right.   

In order. 

--  TG

4 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Tommy was asked who he thinks did-it. His answer (edited to remove cartoon character silliness, provide clarity, and add bold to the point I am making in this posting):

 

I had to look up Pacepa, and found this link. I am also providing a quote from that linked article.

"Of course, Oswald never needed a lawyer. Jack Ruby, who killed Oswald, is believed by Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking intelligence official ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, to have been a Cuban agent whose assignment was to keep Oswald from talking. "

 

http://americasurvival.org/2017/10/president-trumps-life-is-in-danger.html#axzz5CfJJ5f4a

Michael,

Thank you for turning me onto that article.

Fascinating stuff!

Until skimming it just now, I'd never considered the possibility that Jack Ruby was a Cuban asset. 

Hmm .......

--  TG