Tom Hume

Prayer Man is in the shade, and so is Wesley’s head and much of his torso. “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to: “YO, SHADE REVEAL L/W” Prayer Man and Wesley are in the entrance way. “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to: “411 WAY, SHADE OVER L” “YA, 411 SHADE OVER L/W” (Number/Letter translation device at bottom of post) Wesley appears much taller than Prayer Man. “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to: “411 DAY, A WES OVER LH” “WES OVERHEAD, Y’ALL” “WES HEAD OVER ALLY” Lee’s name seems like an advertisement for how tall Wesley appears in the entrance way. “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to: “A WESLEY OVER LH AD” Earlier that morning, Wesley drove Lee to work. “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to: “A WESLEY DROVE A LH” “411 WES LOAD: HARVEY” “WESLEY HAVE A L ROD” It seems like many of the anagrams of Lee’s name have to do with Wes on 11/22. “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to: “LHO REVEAL WES DAY” Reversing the above, “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to: “WES REVEAL LHO DAY”, but that hasn’t happened yet. After leaving the TSBD, Lee went to the movies. “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to: “EVADE. YO, WAR’S HELL” If Lee was the designated patsy for the assassination, and Lee was Prayer Man, then Lee was not where he was supposed to be at 12:30. “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to: “411 AWOL - VERY SHADY” With a slight bit of tweaking, the above anagram of "Lee Harvey Oswald" becomes: "A 411 LO/W - VERY SHADY" “ICO” stands for “Igor”, “Case”, and, “Oswald”. According to my reading of the ICO puzzles, two civilians were recruited to help ICO prevent the assassination. One of them was Buell Wesley Frazier. If any of this is true, then Richard Case Nagell recruited Wesley and arranged for him to be put into position at the TSBD. Among other things, Wes was chosen because of where his sister lived, and the anagrams present in “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” name. ICO created an abundance of real-world events and enigmas surrounding the assassination that corresponded to naturally occurring anagrams within their own names. They did this for us, and this post is just a sample. I hope to have something more definitive when I finish my work on the 3-D Backyard Photos. “Lee Harvey Oswald” anagrams to: “LHO SWAY REVEALED” “L HEAD OVERLAY WES” etc. Tom (A=0)(B=1)(C=2)(D=3)(E=4)(F=5)(G=6)(H=7)(I=8)(J=9)(K=10)(L=11)(M=12)(N=13)(O=14)(P=15)(Q=16)(R=17)(S=18)(T=19)(U=20)(V=21)(W=22)(X=23)(Y=24)(Z=25)

My candidate for a possible knoll weapon is the M4 Survival Rifle. It’s chambered for .22 Hornet, has 4 shot magazine, a 14-inch detachable barrel, and with the telescoping stock closed, it can make a 14-inch package. It weighs just under two kilos, and an assassin wearing the right clothing could easily conceal this thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Survival_Rifle David Andrews provided the link below, which contains a related quote from Richard Case Nagell: “LIL’ OL’ SILENCER MAKER”. This appears to me to be a large “ICO” puzzle, the first puzzle anagram being: “LANCER KILLER IS OL’ M4” https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16238#relPageId=35 David, I think your mailbox is full. Tom Number/letter translation device: (A=0)(B=1)(C=2)(D=3)(E=4)(F=5)(G=6)(H=7)(I=8)(J=9)(K=10)(L=11)(M=12)(N=13)(O=14)(P=15)(Q=16)(R=17)(S=18)(T=19)(U=20)(V=21)(W=22)(X=23)(Y=24)(Z=25)

In the last few elections, Investigative Reporter Greg Palast has specialized in voter suppression, and he has some interesting things to say about this one: http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/

In the past, to send a PM to another member one would start by clicking on the “MEMBERS” tab. I can’t seem to find that tab anymore.

Tommy wrote: "If you guys will read what I posted about "Jack T. Martin" back in the day, you'll see that I found someone in Minnesota by the name of John Timothy Martin who "fills the bill," for our purposes, age-wise and address-wise." Good find, Tommy, and I try to read all your posts. To put a finer point on Tommy’s post above, on December 19, 2012 in the “Jack S Martin Jr.” thread, Tommy wrote: “FWIW, according to one of those "internet background search" websites, there is a John Thomas Martin, apparently of the appropriate age, living in Minnesota today.” And on November 26, 2014, Tommy posted: “FWIW, there is a John Timothy Martin living in Minnesota today. His mother's maiden name was Hypse, and he was born on November 9, 1943, making him 20 years old at the time of the assassination. He was 24 years old when Schoener met his "John T. Martin" in 1968. He is 72 now... Does anyone here have access to military records? Did the John Timothy Martin (DOB 11/09/1943; born in Fresno County, California) I found serve in the U.S. Army (24th Infantry Division) in Germany in the early 1960's?” This appears to be the fellow you're talking about: John Timothy Martin Minneapolis, MN Edit: I have removed John Timothy Martin's address and phone number from this post, but they are readily available from the online phone books. In two days, the John Timothy Martin above will turn 73. Anybody want to give him a call and wish him a happy birthday? Tom

For those interested in the enigmatic John T Martin film, the film and the circumstances surrounding it were discussed on this forum in a thread entitled “Jack S. Martin Sr.” between 2005 to 2015. In spite of the tread’s title, the discussion eventually drifted to an entirely different fellow, John T Martin, and the topic stayed there for the duration. At the time, nobody on the forum had actually seen the film. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/4738-jack-s-martin-sr/&page=7 Paul, since the 6th Floor Museum has now made the film available (link below), and since you were in contact with Gary Schoener as recently as two years ago, do you think it would be prudent to contact Gary again and find out if this is the exact film he remembers? http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/classification@Films/9/title-asc?t:state:flow=b3cfa3d9-2faf-449b-9beb-32dee07c3297 Here’s my reason for asking: Weisberg and Schoener said they spent a great deal of time studying the end of the film, which depicted Oswald’s arrest for the altercation during his leafleting on Canal Street. They said they saw Oswald’s face from several angles and suspected that he was being signaled by someone. The footage in question is 2:40 through 2:47, and even though I too studied that section, the only Oswald possibility I see is on the left of our screen in 2:40 - 2:42, and during those two seconds of film, I see only the right rear portion of this guy’s head. In other words, if this is the complete film, there wouldn’t have been much for Weisberg and Schoener to study there. I’m wondering if footage has been removed. A shot in the dark: It’s my suspicion that John T Martin is a fictional character, and that the real filmmakers filmed a cameo of themselves at a building in downtown Dallas. The footage is between 1:14 and 1:27 and while it’s very dark, someone on the forum with the proper skills and software might be able to give us a good look at these fellows - it might turn out to be important. Here’s a screenshot I took of one of those frames: Another shot in the dark: At 1:09 of the John T Martin film we see a tall Dallas building under construction. In the old Jack S Martin Sr. thread linked above, someone mentioned that among Oswald’s possessions was a similar photograph of the same tall building. I seem to remember seeing that photo too, but after a day of searching, I haven’t been able to come up with it yet. Like I said, a shot in the dark, but what if the two photos turned out to be the exactly the same? If anyone knows where this Oswald photo is, please clue me in. Tom

The photo that was necessary for this post disappeared, so I'm deleting the post until I can figure out how to make the photo stay put.

This is a very strange film, Paul. If it is legit, and I suspect it is, somebody was trying to establish an Oswald connection before the fact. On the surface, it appears that Edwin Walker set about to create a piece of evidence that could later be used to substantiate his early suspicion that Oswald was his shooter. If someone, like the President for example, were to be assassinated by Oswald, Walker would of course be in the clear, since Oswald had tried to get Walker first. But the ordering of events and time-stamping of the film are so blatantly contrived, that from Walker’s point of view, the film would probably work against him, I think. And who knows, this might have been the intent of the filmmaker and his reason for his releasing it before vanishing into the woodwork. Here’s my fictional narration for the 3 minute film: “Hi there, my name is John T Martin and I’m going to treat you to a little documentary of my vacation in the summer of 1963. Here I am at the airport getting ready to board a Braniff 707, tail number 7072, which flew daily to Love Field in 1963 - you can check. Now that we’re in the air, look at the pretty clouds and the engines of the 707. After a safe landing in Dallas, here I am at General Edwin Walker’s house, my old Commanding Officer in Germany. I hope he remembers me, there must have been a couple of hundred guys named John Martin under his command. Look - there’s the station wagon he drove in ’63, and I thought you’d all enjoy the extra film-footage I took of his full name in large print on the side of his mailbox: “General Edwin Walker”. Some lone nut tried to assassinate him recently, you know, and here’s some nice footage of the bullet hole. To timestamp my trip for you, here’s some footage of a landmark skyscraper in downtown Dallas that was under construction in August of 1963. Now I’m back at Edwin’s house [i think, it’s pretty dark], saying “goodby” before venturing off on the next leg of my journey - The Big Easy. Arriving in New Orleans, I can’t wait to photograph the bald cypress trees, the sea lions at the Audubon Zoo on Magazine Street, and, of course, the statue of Andrew Jackson perched on his rearing horse in Lafayette Square. But wait: There’s a commotion over on Canal Street. The police are rushing to the scene. Another lone nut had been passing out commie literature and got himself into a brawl with some patriotic guys. Look at all those torn-up “Hands off Cuba” leaflets on the ground - take a really long look. Look some more. And now, I’m back in the air and headed home to Minnesota, but not before I shoot some low-level neighborhood footage that can easily be fact checked. I hope you all enjoyed my attempt to create a low-quality but extremely well-documented three-minute home movie of my vacation. JTM.” Paul, when you get a chance, would you please post John T Martin’s Minuteman registration card - I can’t seem to find it. Tom

Thanks Paul, Much of the film is pretty dark, and at around 01:20 there are a couple of guys, apparently at the Walker house, that look to be in their 20s. It's to dark for an identification, but maybe somebody on the forum that's good with that sort of thing could lighten things up - maybe there's somebody recognizable. Tom Edit: By the way, when we were discussing this many months ago, you always referred to him as "Jack T Martin", but the reports we were reading all seemed to all call him "John T Martin". Do you have a source for the mystery man actually using the name "Jack"? And is this the entire film, or is it somebody's edit job?

Paul Trejo: "One of the last things that Gary Mack did as director of the 6th Floor Museum in Dallas, there in 2015, was he posted Jack T. Martin's home movie on the Internet for everybody to see, free of charge." I can't find the film, Pual, could you post a link? Tom

Post moved to post #2 of the thread linked below: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22732

Images (2) for Stereoscope viewer. Copy to Microsoft Word or Pages, size the two images to equal height, size image to fit your viewer, and print a copy (Don't get the pictures backwards or you'll go blind). I meant to post these updated images a couple of days ago but forgot. Tom

Thank you everyone for including me in this discussion of the Backyard Photos, but I have reached my level of incompetence; with my meager scientific training and aptitude, I seem to have come up with a 3-D hypothesis that while a definite possibility in my mind, would be impossible for me to argue and defend. This will be my last post, for a while at least, but I will be checking in from time to time to see how things are going. I want to get back to an historical novel I started several months ago, and yes, the ICO puzzles are a major subplot. You people are great - so long for now, Tom

Paul wrote: “Tom, what you say is possible and plausible. I also doubt that we've ever seen Marina's BYP photo -- and yet the face of LHO had to come from somewhere. Why not from Marina's photo?” As I said above, Paul, Oswald’s head in CE 133A and 133C, by all appearances, is a stereo image and crafted in such a way that it protrudes forward from what might well be Oswald’s body double. You and I get the bulk of our information from two entirely different places, and if I respond to the rest of your comments in your last post, I will be going off on an opinionated rant derived from my highly speculative ICO puzzle hypothesis. And then I really will be off topic, so I think I’ll pass. Tom

Paul wrote: “It seems to me that the photograph that Marina Oswald took was only similar to the BYP we know -- but it was only the face of Oswald that we have from Marina's photograph. The body (and so the other photographs) were taken by Lee Harvey Oswald himself -- and the body double was Roscoe White.” Paul, you addressed your post to Robert, so please excuse me for butting in. The Oswald head in CE 133A and 133C are a complimentary pair of stereo images and, in my opinion, almost certainly not the result of a single exposure from the Imperial Reflex. I don’t think we’ve ever seen Marina’s single photo. I do share your opinion about Roscoe White, however, and I also suspect that there were two body doubles - one for CE 133A and 133C, and another guy for CE 133B and its missing stereo twin - the missing fourth BYP. Tom

Keystoning removed by photographing 27 inch monitor tilted at 11 degrees.

Robert wrote: “I thought it was determined long ago that Oswald's head is exactly the same size in all three photos, and moving closer should have made his head bigger.” I don’t think the heads on CE 133A and 133C are exactly the same size, Robert. I think that the Oswald heads are an entirely separate set of stereo images that were attached later. The noticeable difference in head size is because Oswald’s head was made a to be a sort-of super 3-D. When you look at the two BYPs in Stereo, Oswald’s head appears to really jump out at you, it appears to be about a foot in front of his body, and it’s reasonable to suspect that this piece of theatrics was very much intentional. Tom

Hi Robert, I posted everything Craig sent, and I think he’s saying that the camera moved in closer between shots, but I can’t speak for him. I've already stated my opinion that the camera did not move closer, it was stationary, and the movement we are seeing is up and down. A stereo camera was mounted at 90 degrees and the two camera lenses are about 4 inches apart - one over the top of the other in this case. 3-D stereo would not work if one moved the camera closer, and if one looks at the images I posted, the 3-D works great. If Craig wants to continue giving me input privately, that’s fine with me, but I think I’ll let him post his own critiques from now on. Tom

Well, looking at the vintage stereo photos that came with my new Stereoscope, if I plumbed up a random vertical line, and then corrected the perspective of the rest of the verticals lines to agree the first correction, I’m pretty sure that the photo pair wouldn't be square any more, and most, if not all, of the 3-D would be lost. Two different perspectives is what stereoscopic vision is all about. The only change I made was in sizing, and the likely reason that was even necessary is because what should have been Lee Oswald’s original of CE 133C and the corresponding negative were never reported and are not extant - the Dallas Police apparently just started making copies as collectors items and the bootleg prints of 133C we see today were cropped. Chances are we could have just put the Oswald-original CE 133A and CE 133C into a Stereoscope with the left side down and witnessed Oswald and Company’s 3-D hand-work. Also, since the Oswald figure did not change position on the ground, the obvious difference in his head shadow is an extremely interesting incongruity. Those of you that are old enough to remember the radio series "The Shadow" from the 1930s and into the 1950s might remember this opening line: "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"

Craig Lamson reports: Quote: Just garden variety camera movement. Camera moved closer. Images rotated so the post behind Oswald was plum. Then perspective was corrected to bring all vertical lines to agreement (both steps have the effect of leveling the camera. Pincushion distortion was roughly removed ( this is rough since we don't have a full frame of C) No stereo pair. Both vertical and horizontal movement as well as size increase caused by the camera moving closer. End Quote.

The stereo 3-D images above are for use in a Stereoscope device, not for cross-eyed stereo viewing. Yesterday, Sandy wrote: "Problem is, your theory requires "Oswald" of CE 133A and CE 133C (the apparent stereoscopic pair) to remain as still as possible between shots. But we can see that that is not the case because Oswald's shadow in CE 133C rises considerably up the gate. Either that shot came from later in the day, or Oswald was standing further back." If it can be shown that the CE 133A and 133C are a matched pair of stereo images, it follows, I think, that the body shadows are a fake. The two figures are standing in exactly the same place, but as you said, 133C appears shorter, as if he were closer to the fence. The reason for this is the difference in perspective between what the right and left (up and down in this case) lenses of the camera saw. When you do an overlay of the two images, which I’m sorry I can’t demonstrate, the width of the two bodies are exactly the same, but one is a little taller, and that’s to be expected. What shouldn’t change at all is how the two head shadows relate to the fence and the ground. Today I made the new pair of stereo images above that show as much of the original photos as possible. One could print those out to a hight of about 3 inches and put it in ones Stereoscope. Also today, I made two calls to two acquaintances and came up with two Stereoscopes - what are the odds? Without a pair of photos in the holder, I can put the devise up to my monitor and view the pictures I posted. It’s very clear, and there’s no eye fatigue from doing cross-eyed stereo. This might not be optimum on some Stereoscopes because the focus adjustment stick will be too long. All of the images I've posted so far on this thread work just fine for stereo viewing, but I'm still tweaking, and will come up with a final set of images soon. Tom

Sandy wrote: "Problem is, your theory requires "Oswald" of CE 133A and CE 133C (the apparent stereoscopic pair) to remain as still as possible between shots. But we can see that that is not the case because Oswald's shadow in CE 133C rises considerably up the gate. Either that shot came from later in the day, or Oswald was standing further back." That's an excellent point Sandy. But the body shadows have always been controversial, and it appears to me that a number of enigmas had been intentionally built into the BYP. I think it's fairly obvious that the photos were taken within seconds of each other, and if I'm not mistaken, Andrej is working a model of the backyard and the Oswald figure. We await his results, and the body shadow conundrum will end up either being perfectly explainable, or impossible, or... The pair of 90 degree images that I provided, unfortunately, don't show the shadow area because I wanted to keep the photos as narrow as possible for cross-eyed stereo viewing. Also, much of the 3-D material is most dramatic in the upper (or left in this case) portions of the photos. I'll spend some time today pairing up images of the lower shadow area. I sent the 3-D photos to four of my friends yesterday, and two of them got the impressive 3-D right away. For some reason, not everybody can do cross-eyed stereo. ​Thanks Robert for the information on the inexpensive 3-D viewers. The old-fashioned Holmes Stereoscopes are often high-quality and not the sort of thing people throw away, Like I said in an earlier post, ask your friends and neighbors - I'll bet you'll come up with three of them. Tom

133C CE 133A Note: The pair of 3-D images above are arranged for “cross-eyed” stereo viewing. If you want to use a mechanical 3-D devise, such as a Stereoscope, you will need to use the pair of images below. CE 133A 133C Tom

Hi Sandy, I don’t want to uncork the Champagne just yet, but from what I’ve seen I think I’ve demonstrated that CE 133A and 133C are a stereo pair of photos with a stereo image of Lee Oswald’s head pasted on. He’s smiling. I think that CE 133B is half of a second set of stereo images and what should have become known as CE 133D, or something, has gone missing. CE 133B is the oddball in my opinion, because even though it also was apparently taken from the same spot, the body and head are in a quite different yard position and there is no chance of the person depicted in CE 133B interacting three dimensionally with 133A or 133C. Also, the amount of keystoning in CE 133B is miles apart from the other two. So to keep it simple for now, I’m just going to talk about CE 133A and 133C. I can think of two possible scenarios, and I favor the first: (1) An Oswald body double was photographed in Oswald’s back yard with a tripod mounted stereo 3-D camera. The actor posed with the papers and guns, the photographer snapped one picture. Trying to move as little as possible, the actor raised the papers and guns, and the photographer snapped a second photo. The photographer now has two sets of negatives, a total of four. The photographer processes the film and selects the right negative from one pair and the left negative from the second pair for his handy-work, and puts the other two camera-originals away for safe keeping (These stashed-away camera originals are not fakes, and they show the face of the actor). The Stereo Realist is a high quality camera and the the photographer makes large prints of this new stereo pair for his next step. He takes a close-up of Lee Oswald’s face and processes that stereo image, sizing them to fit the body double, and carefully pastes them onto his work of art. He now has two large masters of CE 133A and CE 133C which he puts on an easel and he photographs using a piece-of-crap Imperial Reflex. He takes the film to a commercial establishment and has prints made, two of which he gives to his associate, Lee Oswald, to stash with his stuff at the Paine’s house. (Lee Oswald and the photographer were both low level CIA agents and they were “angels”. They were both trying to prevent the assassination, and leaving a huge trail of supporting evidence should they fail - but let’s not go there or we’ll get tangled up in my hypothesis). The second possible scenario I can think of is that a single pair of stereo images were taken of the backyard, one image would become CE 133A, and the other 133C. This would require pasting on a body, and pasting on a stereo image of Oswald’s head. This would actually require more work and be a lot more obvious. I think that if worse came to worse and patsy Oswald was arrested for the deed, that Oswald and company wanted him to go to trial. They not only had the evidence that would clear him, they had the evidence that would bring the house down. So I think pasting an entire body and head would be too detectable, that is, Oswald and Company wanted the BYP to pass muster at least until he went to trial. And that is apparently why they made their stereo image only detectable when the photos were re-sized and tilted 90 degrees - who would ever think of trying that? Were you able to do the cross-eyed stereo thing, Sandy? Tom

Sandy, Craig Lamson said, "Sadly your limited understanding of the subject matter renders your opinions wrong." Was he talking about me, do you think? If he was, it would behoove him to look at the damn 3-D picture. Added on edit: I might have misunderstood. First, CE 133A and 133C were not taken simultaneously. A stereo photo was taken, the Oswald figure raised the papers and guns, and a second set was taken - probably seconds apart. Of the four resultant negatives, only two were used: One negative from the first pair, and the corresponding 3-D negative from the second pair. Now, it's certainly possible that if Oswald was both the body and the head, that he had stepped forward a foot and a third photo was taken, and only the head portion of that stereo pair was used for a paste-up job. I personally think it is not Oswald's body, but maybe we'll get to find out.