Thomas Graves

Dear David, I tend to not read (what I consider to be) your long, hot-steaming-spaghetti-against-the-wall posts (my loss, right?), but I do get the general impression that you're on a "Mission from God" to "prove" that Lee Harvey Oswald (the guy Ruby killed on 11/24/63) wasn't in Mexico City during late September and early October, 1963. Is that correct? If so, why is that so important to you? To prove that there really was a conspiracy to kill JFK? LOL. Hasn't that already been pretty well established? You know, "at least four shots in 6.5 seconds," etc? Or in-so doing, are also trying to somehow "prove" that Armstrong's Henry and Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites theory really really really is true, with the ultimate ulterior motive of condemning the whole gosh-darn CIA, and not just some (a few? several? many?) rogue CIA officers and agents? -- Tommy

"Dear James" I haven't read your long, hot-steaming-spaghetti post yet, but I thought I'd mention that former U.S. Army intelligence officer Jon G. Tidd has opined on this forum that he believes James Jesus Angleton ran an ostensibly-Mexico City-based, October, 1963, mole hunt (which intentionally incorporated phony information about Lee Harvey Oswald) because he (Angleton) was trying to figure out who the heck was manipulating Oswald. Me? I'm starting to believe that a CIA-type who was privy to this mole hunt was the mole / manipulator. Bill Harvey? , David Phillips? , David Sanchez Morales? , XXXXX? I know, I know, I know. That's not broad-brushed enough. You and your Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites buddies (including Julian Assanage, Vladimir Putin, Steve Bannon, and Guccifer 2.0 ? ) would much rather implicate the whole evil, evil, evil Agency, wouldn't you.

bumped In 2009 post, above, Bill Simpich pointed out that Ann Egerter's 5/17/78 deposition was still classified -- "Her deposition of 5/17/78 remains one of the only depositions - if not the only deposition - still classified more than thirty years later." Question: Has it been declassified yet?

Bumped due to current Forum interest in the October 1, 1963, (M.C. CIA?, M.C. FBI?) "Lee Henry Oswald" cable and the responses it elicited from various intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Dear Paul, I'm just trying to get my head around this myself, and at the same time I'm trying to figure out what you believe regarding this October, 1963, "Lee Henry Oswald" document. What do you think the origin of the middle name "Henry" in this document was? Just an honest, October, 1963, "typo"? Or a brand new, intentional, October, 1963, "marked card" for a new , Mexico City-based, mole hunt? Please recall that more than one year after Oswald's appearance in Moscow, Angleton's gal, Ann Egerter, opened a brand new 201 file in the name of "Lee Henry Oswald". http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_CIA_Oswald_201_File_Online.html By the way, I've been to busy to look into it but as regards the two basic "paths" or "groups" for the the document(s) at issue that David Josephs spelled out -- "You will find the FBI & IN&S [sic] are in one place while CIA and STATE are on another path - the one claiming the Castro connection." I gotta ask: Why did FBI agent James Hosty have to get it from Jeff Woolsey at I&NS? Why didn't he get it from his own organization, the FBI? -- Tommy PS It's interesting to note that our very own Ron Ecker pointed out way back in 2005 that on October 22, 1963 (exactly one month before the assassination, fwiw), FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C., "corrected" Mexico City Legat on the middle name. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/fbi/105-3702/124-10230-10419/html/124-10230-10419_0002a.htm (It's interesting to speculate as to what the other "background [information] being furnished" by mail from FBI Headquarters. to Mexico City Legat (FBI office in M.C.) was.) Also interesting to note that this cable to Mexico City Legat says that CIA had furnished FBI with the same ("Henry"???) information as Mexico City Legat had cabled to FBI Headquarters back on October 1, 1963.

Sandy, Great post! It's fortuitous that this particular Couch-Darnell frame not only shows a bit of Calvery's (patterned, lighter-colored) skirt and one of Calvery's co-workers (Hicks or Reed) trying to "pull" her up the steps, but Billy Lovelady's receding-hairline head quite well, too! -- Tommy PS It's important for students and researchers to realize that in Sandy's labeled Zapruder Frame, above, Calvery is standing on Elm Street with four other head-scarfed women, not three as would appear to be the case at first glance. (There is a short-in-stature, mostly-hidden one in front of the dark-dressed / white-headscarf-wearing gal at the far left.) This is important because when we cross-reference the FBI statements of Calvery, Hicks, and Reed, we realize that during the motorcade they were standing in a group of five women altogether: Gloria Calvery, Karan Hicks, Carol Reed, Karen Westbrook, and June Dishong. It's my theory that all five of these friends and / or co-workers were wearing headscarves during the motorcade in a kind of "OK, if you're gonna wear your headscarf, so will I, seein' as how I brought the stupid thing, I might as well wear it to prove that I'm just as prepared for this windy day as you are. Not only that, but it will reinforce our sense social cohesiveness and esprit de corps." LOL

I would amend it to say that BSW = BTGSW = Gloria Calvery, and that Woman In White Wearing White Scarf very close to BTGSW in Couch-Darnell = WIWWWS very close to BSW in the Z-Frame. And therefore WIWWWS is very likely Calvery's co-worker Karan Hicks, or Carol Reed.

Sandy, Now that you mention it, I can see those two horizontal stripes in her skirt, too. Nice "catch" and nice freeze frame from the Couch-Darnell clip showing the skirt in all it's glory-ah. -- Tommy

If former Army Counter-Intelligence officer Jon G. Tidd is correct, I wonder when the manipulation of Oswald began? October 1956? September 1959? August 1963? And by whom, of course. -- Tommy

bumped for the heck of it

Sandy, Of the three women who are dressed "in black" in your list, the only one who could possibly be the one we believe is Calvery in the Z-Frame is your "All Black Woman on Steps" for the simple reason that she's the only one in Couch-Darnell who might be wearing a separate (and different-colored) skirt. Just stating the obvious and giving you a free "bump" . -- Tommy EDIT: And now that I take a closer look at that part of the Couch-Darnell clip, I'm convinced I see a sliver of that separate and lighter-colored skirt on the Woman In Black whom our "Lovelady" is talking to on the steps. It's visible for a few frames between Turning Man's shoulder and the big "white blob" to his right (which I believe is the profiled face of the woman next to him).

David, What is your theory as to the provenance of Oswald's Cuban visa application, above? Was it found to be in the possession of the Cuban Consulate after the assassination? If so, do you think an Oswald impersonator walked into Sylvia Duran's office with those photos of the real Oswald (the one who was killed by Jack Ruby) and Duran didn't notice that the photos were of someone other than the man who was standing there before her, claiming to be the person in the photographs? (It is a perplexing question because, if memory serves, Duran claimed that the guy who said he was Oswald was blond. and dressed "unelegantly".) Or do you think the CIA (or the Mexican DNS) manufactured that Cuban visa application after the assassination? -- Tommy PS Was it ever determined where in Mexico City those photographs might have been taken? Within walking distance of the Cuban Consulate, by any chance?

It seems to me the bottom line is that whichever CIA / DNS "insider" impersonated Oswald over the phone (and maybe even in person) in Mexico City did so in order to not only make Oswald look ideologically and emotionally capable of assassinating JFK, but also in order to ensure that JFK's successor, and the intelligence agencies he inherited, would demand, in order to prevent a nuclear holocaust, that Oswald had acted alone. -- Tommy

edited and bumped

"write, wrote, written" Regardless. So, ... in October, 1963, Mexico City and Headquarters started a new mole hunt and unwittingly (wittingly ???) used "barium mean" misinformation about Oswald (in this case his middle name) from the 1959-1960 "Popov's Mole" mole hunt, yes? -- Tommy

Dear Paul, James Woolsey or Jeff Woolsey? FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [...] DL [Dallas] 100-10461 "DETAILS: At Dallas, Texas The following investigation was conducted by SA JAMES P. HOSTY, JR.: On July 12, 1962, MR. JEFF WOOLSEY, Supervisory Clerk, INS, Dallas, Texas, made available their file A12530645 on MARINA NIKOLAEVNA OSWALD, nee PRUSAKOVA. This file reflects that MRS. OSWALD was born July 17, 1941, in Severodvinsk (formerly Molotovsk) Arkhangeskaya District, USSR. She was destined for her husband, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, 7313 Davenport, Fort Worth, Texas. The person furnishing the affidavit of support for MRS. OSWALD was BYRON PHILLIPS of Vernon, Milbarger County, Texas (no street address even). PHILLIPS furnished an affidavit of support on March 15, 1962. MRS. OSWALD listed her occupation as pharmacist. " -- Tommy

Please don't be shy. Vote! The Question: Is "Woman In White" trying to get Gloria Calvery "Woman In Black" to stop talking with Billy Lovelady That Bald Headed Guy in Couch-Darnell and to come with her up the steps? Thanks, -- Tommy

A question for David Josephs: James P. Hosty got the "Lee HENRY Oswald" document from (former CIA director) James Woolsey, or 1963 Dallas I.N.S. clerk / agent / officer Jeff Woolsey? (Wow, you really are fixated on the CIA, aren't you?) Scroll down to the bottom of the third page. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI Records Files/105-82555/105-82555 Section 001/105-82555 001c.pdf -- Tommy PS -- See how easy it is to make mistakes, David? Your buddy, Armstrong, and the "witnesses" he spoke to (or read about) made lots and lots of them.

Dear David, Read all 600-plus mish-mashed pages of misinterpreted, misquoted, and spun "evidence" which "clearly proves" the Harvey and Lee and two Marguerites theory? Heck, even Dawn isn't willing to do that, last I heard. -- Tommy By contrast, State Secret is not only relatively short and credible, it's readable, too. Simpich doesn't have to use Armstrong's "shovelfuls-of-hot-stinking-spaghetti-thrown-against-the-wall" approach to try to be ... convincing. Now for a question: What are the differences between the documents that were on those two different paths you enumerated? Any "barium meal" type differences?

Dear Paul, What, in your humble opinion, is the significance of the Lee HENRY Oswald in your scenario? Evidence of a (piggybacked?) three-year-old mole hunt, or what? -- Tommy

Going from memory here, but under the doctrine of "probable cause," a policeman must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed by a particular person (or is being committed by that person) in order for the policeman to legally search that person and / or arrest him. -- Tommy

Dear James, Regarding the second photo from the right, Anne Goodpasture worded her cable very carefully so as to only suggest, by juxtaposition within the cable's text, that the "6-foot, athletic build, 35-year-old" man (who was photographed one day before (or after?) someone impersonated Oswald over the phone (by identifying himself as O-S-W-A-L-D) could possibly be ... Oswald. In other words, CIA did not say this Mexico City Mystery Man was Oswald, but cleverly left it open as a dangling, "fishing" possibility. As regards the Blond Oswald (second photo from left), you may not remember the highly-respected forum member James Richards. Several years ago, he posted on the "Blond Oswald" thread, that he thought that the HSCA had published this photo (of the blond guy I'm calling Leonov) in their report because they didn't know who it was (but knew that the photo had been taken by one of the CIA's secret cameras in Mexico City during the same period of time that LHO was allegedly there), and the HSCA was trying to solicit educated opinions from the report's readers as to who this character was. Maybe I'm wrong, but there may have been some tentative "identification" or speculation that this was Oswald, or someone who was impersonating him in Mexico City, but as far as I know neither the CIA nor the HSCA ever said in a declarative manner, "That's Lee Harvey Oswald!" or "That's 'Lee Harvey Oswald'!", or "That's the short, blond dude who was impersonating Oswald!," or anything like that. -- Tommy

Dear Paul, LOL. Whatever. Bye. -- Tommy

Dear James, When ya gonna throw some more shovelfuls of Armstrong's steaming-hot (like you-know-what) spaghetti from those 600-plus pages of misinterpreted, misquoted, and / or totally-botched "research findings" against the wall to totally blow us away with your and Armstrong's erudition, thoroughness, and critically-thinking, non-paranoiac ... minds? Keep up the "good work", -- Tommy PS Aren't you going to make any comments about blond Mexico-City denizen Nilolai Leonov, or that sneaky Ruskie "scientist", Yuri Moskalev? Wazzamatter, James? Cat got your tongue?

Bumped for "Dear James," who arrogantly ("Please stop playing the fool, Tommy") threw Armstrong's "four photos of 'Lee Harvey Oswald'" against the wall like a wad of smoking hot spaghetti, and now apparently doesn't want to deal with my responses to his lousy "cooking". -- Tommy PS I guess the "Lee Oswald" who was photographically captured in Ruby's strip joint didn't like his mini pompadour hairstyle very much, seein's as how that's the only photo of "him" showing him wearing such long hair, huh. Maybe he just grew it long for that one photo-op with "Pinky"? LOL