Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Morales


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Can you post a freeze frame with an arrow? It'd help to see what you're seeing because things go by quickly in the clip.

Dear Michael,

The Agency told me to tell you I'm 67.5 years old, technically-challenged, and that I'm incapable of doing arrows.

--  Tommy :sun

Can't you go "click-click, "click-click" real fast with your mouse to freeze-frame it, yourself

That's what I did when I was analyzing this youtube "Black Op Radio" video.

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 395
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mike, there is no controversy about this description:

TG:  I think Morales is the guy who walks into the scene from the left, scratching his neck (to sneakily point out Oswald to a confederate, to try to hide the fact that he has a camera's strap around his neck?), and watches Oswald walk past him at 3:55 in this Black Op Radio video:

That only fits one person in the film.  How anyone can say that is Morales escapes me.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mike, there is no controversy about this description:

TG:  I think Morales is the guy who walks into the scene from the left, scratching his neck (to sneakily point out Oswald to a confederate, to try to hide the fact that he has a camera's strap around his neck?), and watches Oswald walk past him at 3:55 in this Black Op Radio video:

That only fits one person in the film.  How anyone can see that is Morales escapes me.

 

Dear James,

You are yet another person who is evidently incapable of reading and understanding the instructions I've given in different ways on different posts on this thread as regards how to go about finding and studying the person ("Neck Scratcher") I'm talking about, and not confusing him with grey-suit-wearing "Gangly Bald Spot White Package Guy".

It's like you guys are suffering from cognitive dissonance so badly that you can't even understand my instructions and implement them correctly.

--  Tommy :sun

But don't feel bad.  Bill Simpich gave it a shot and apparently couldn't do it either.  LOL

EDIT:  I probably should have said "at 3:55.75 instead.  LOL

Try 3:56 instead, OKAY? 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear James,

You are yet another person who is evidently incapable of reading and understanding the instructions I've given in different ways on different posts on this thread as regards how to go about finding and studying the person ("Neck Scratcher") I'm talking about, and not confusing him with grey-suit-wearing "Gangly Bald Spot White Package Guy".

It's like you guys are suffering from cognitive dissonance so badly that you can't even understand my instructions and implement them correctly.

--  Tommy :sun

But don't feel bad.  Bill Simpich gave it a shot and apparently couldn't do it either.  LOL

 

EDIT:  I probably should have said "at 3:55.75 instead.  (lol)  Try 3:56 instead, OKAY, James? 

Question: Can you see the guy who is scratching his neck?  Great!  Now can you see the gangly, suit-wearing guy in front of him?  Great!  That gangly guy is not scratching his neck, is he?  That's why I don't call him "Neck Scratcher," but instead do call "Neck Scratcher" the guy who is ... uhhh ..... scratching his neck! His own neck, by the way, not the gangly guy's neck. Just so you don't get all confused, again.

Edited and bumped for Mister DiEugenio

PS  Aren't you capable of "freeze-framing it at 3:56 ?

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Edited and bumped for Mister DiEugenio

Bumped for Mister DiEugenio.  Who seems to be trying to ignore it after having "chipped in" his confused comment.

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's nothing more to say about this, Tom.  The neck scratcher and the guy seen five seconds later (as seen in my collage) are the same guy.  And it's not Morales. Meanwhile, a few posts earlier, Sandy Larsen points out the neck scratcher has a camera strap around his neck - just like he said on another thread he said he saw one of the old guys on the steps in Dealey holding a black pistol, so Sandy is nothing if not consistent - and not one comment was made by you in reply.

The only way to clarify is if you could post a photo of exactly what you mean mean but it sounds like you don't know how to do that. So I'm not sure what else to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

There's nothing more to say about this, Tom.  The neck scratcher and the guy seen five seconds later (as seen in my collage) are the same guy.  And it's not Morales. Meanwhile, a few posts earlier, Sandy Larsen points out the neck scratcher has a camera strap around his neck - just like he said on another thread he said he saw one of the old guys on the steps in Dealey holding a black pistol, so Sandy is nothing if not consistent - and not one comment was made by you in reply.

The only way to clarify is if you could post a photo of exactly what you mean mean but it sounds like you don't know how to do that. So I'm not sure what else to say.

Dear Michael,

I am unable to upload to this forum the screenshot I just took which shows "Neck Scratcher" and "Gangly Man" in the same frame.  I keep getting a nice forum "error message".  Any ideas?

 

Try watching the video bearing the following in mind:

The photographer re-starts filming three times between 3:50 (or so) and 4:05 (or so), and he has changed his own position each time.

1 ) First re-start is at 3:53, at which time we can see "Gangly Man" coming in at the left and joining the guy wearing the white shirt and light-colored hat.  "Neck Scratcher" is not visible yet.

2 ) Second re-start is at 3:55 at which time "Neck Scratcher" starts entering from the left, already scratching his neck. His raised right arm partially blocks our view of "Gangly Man," who is still standing to the left of the guy in the white shirt in front of "Neck Scratcher." "Neck Scratcher" is visible for only about two seconds.

3 ) Third re-start is at 3:59.99  The photographer has moved towards "the action" (i.e. Oswald, Bringuier, and the policeman) quite a bit and is now standing close to "Gangly Man," who fills up the right side of the frame.  "Neck Scratcher" can not be seen now.

--  Tommy :sun

 

 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

There's nothing more to say about this, Tom.  The neck scratcher and the guy seen five seconds later (as seen in my collage) are the same guy.  And it's not Morales. Meanwhile, a few posts earlier, Sandy Larsen points out the neck scratcher has a camera strap around his neck - just like he said on another thread he said he saw one of the old guys on the steps in Dealey holding a black pistol, so Sandy is nothing if not consistent - and not one comment was made by you in reply.


(Note Walton's little dig at my expense. He's probably been instructed to quit calling me crazy... so now he has to be more subtle)

Mike Walton is wrong. Tommy is right.

Here is Walton's collage:

 

mike_walton_mistake.jpg.fdd8369ffc71fe434e2029cd074d6bb0.jpg

 

Walton thinks that Gangly Guy (as he calls him) in the left frame -- with a bald spot and holding a white box -- is the same guy as Neck Scratcher (as Tommy calls him) in the right frame. Nope, sorry... these are two different men.

The two men can be seen together in the same frame, here:
 

mike_walton_mistake_proof.jpg.f01375bd3dc4d5c79f3e68f4f3768364.jpg


Gangly Guy is standing to Neck Scratcher's right and several feet in front of him.

Note that both Walton's Gangly Guy and mine have thinning hair at the crowns of their heads. But the dead giveaway is that the collar of Neck Scratcher's white dress shirt rises high above his jacket's collar. In contrast, Gangly Guy's white dress shirt rises just slightly above his jacket collar.

Want more proof? Okay, here's definitive proof. Walton's Gangly Guy is carrying a white box and is wearing glasses. (Walton mentioned the glasses in his post.) Yep, he sure is, as is shown here:
 

mike_walton_mistake_proof_2.jpg.0b8c874605b11b2cec084672ffbbfc3e.jpg

 

If you watch the video starting here (3:54), Gangly guy turns to his right, and his glasses and box are no longer in view. At the same time Neck Scratcher walks in from the left. And that's when you see what's in my screenshot above, which is at 3:56 (2 seconds after this screenshot).

So nope, Neck Scratcher is definitely NOT Gangly Guy. And he's not gangly/thin either.

(BTW Michael, if my photo analysis is as bad as you try to make it out to be, then why am I the one straightening you out... again? Maybe you should spend less time looking for opportunities to smear me and more time studying before posting.)

(P.S. The only reason I write things like what I did in the prior paragraph is because of the spiteful things you say about me in your posts. You should just stop.)

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

I am unable to upload to this forum the screenshot I just took which shows "Neck Scratcher" and "Gangly Man" in the same frame.  I keep getting a nice forum "error message".  Any ideas?


Tommy,

The problem is that we are given very little drive space to upload photos. It runs out quickly.

One solution is to delete old photos (especially animated GIFs, because they are large) to free up space. I'll give instructions for doing that, below.

Another way is to get a free image hosting account. They give you plenty of space. I'd recommend Imgur.com for most people. You upload the file there, and then click a button to get the link URL (internet address). Then insert the URL the way we normally do when posting a photo from another website.

Instructions for Deleting Images/Photos

  • Click your name at the upper-right corner of the forum page. A menu pops down.
  • Click on My Attachments. You will see all you images there.
  • There is a useful "Sort by" button there. Sort by Size in order to quickly see which photos are taking up the most space.
  • Find a photo you want to delete. Click the name of the Topic the photo is shown in. Doing so will take you to the post where you pasted that photo.
  • Edit that post. The photo will appear below the editor box, and will have a tiny trash can icon on it. Click the trash can.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yayy, nice job, Sandy.  I stand corrected.  Balding Guy and Neck Scratcher are two different people! Hurray!

So now - what does it all mean? Balding guy is obviously not Morales. And Scratcher?  You'd think maybe Oswald would shoot him a knowing glance as he walks by him. "Oh, there's Dave.  I'll shoot him a knowing glance, like I'll shoot my executioner Ruby a knowing glance seconds before he murders me."

Nope.  Doesn't even bother. When you run a covert operation, you do NOT send the people who run it into the field, especially one where disruption and possible photography and film cameras are going to be around to record it.

So hurray glad you caught my error.  But I still stand by the crazy thing you mentioned in the other thread, how you said one of the three old gentlemen standing up on the steps as Kennedy gets his brains blown out was holding a black pistol.

And I'll also stand by the other crazy thing you said on still another thread, when you said a guy standing out in the outfield of a MLB ballpark and throwing a ball to home plate has to "aim" the ball the equivalent of 150 feet in the air for it to reach there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Yayy, nice job, Sandy.  I stand corrected.  Balding Guy and Neck Scratcher are two different people! Hurray!

So now - what does it all mean? Balding guy is obviously not Morales. And Scratcher?  You'd think maybe Oswald would shoot him a knowing glance as he walks by him. "Oh, there's Dave.  I'll shoot him a knowing glance, like I'll shoot my executioner Ruby a knowing glance seconds before he murders me."

Nope.  Doesn't even bother. When you run a covert operation, you do NOT send the people who run it into the field, especially one where disruption and possible photography and film cameras are going to be around to record it.

So hurray glad you caught my error.  But I still stand by the crazy thing you mentioned in the other thread, how you said one of the three old gentlemen standing up on the steps as Kennedy gets his brains blown out was holding a black pistol.

And I'll also stand by the other crazy thing you said on still another thread, when you said a guy standing out in the outfield of a MLB ballpark and throwing a ball to home plate has to "aim" the ball the equivalent of 150 feet in the air for it to reach there.

 

40 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Yayy, nice job, Sandy.  I stand corrected.  Balding Guy and Neck Scratcher are two different people! Hurray!

So now - what does it all mean? Balding guy is obviously not Morales. And Scratcher?  You'd think maybe Oswald would shoot him a knowing glance as he walks by him. "Oh, there's Dave.  I'll shoot him a knowing glance, like I'll shoot my executioner Ruby a knowing glance seconds before he murders me."

Nope.  Doesn't even bother. When you run a covert operation, you do NOT send the people who run it into the field, especially one where disruption and possible photography and film cameras are going to be around to record it.

So hurray glad you caught my error.  But I still stand by the crazy thing you mentioned in the other thread, how you said one of the three old gentlemen standing up on the steps as Kennedy gets his brains blown out was holding a black pistol.

And I'll also stand by the other crazy thing you said on still another thread, when you said a guy standing out in the outfield of a MLB ballpark and throwing a ball to home plate has to "aim" the ball the equivalent of 150 feet in the air for it to reach there.

Dear Michael,

Given your ever-present arrogant attitude (e.g., your use of the word "crazy" to describe some of Sandy's past work, your statement 'there's nothing more to talk about' on an earlier post in this thread, and your insinuating, when we first met that I was a T-R-O-L-L), why should anyone on this forum go to the trouble of explaining anything to you?

As to whether or not Oswald looks at "Neck Scratcher," if you were able to go "click-click" "click click" real fast several times while Oswald is walking past "Neck Scratcher," you'd see that he does cast him what looks (to me) like a quick, sneaky glance.

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom - Arrogant....

So now I'm arrogant even though the truth can be very painful?  I can't help it if Larsen has created some crazy (to me) posts on here.

And what was I before when I was posting on the crazy (oops, there I go again) Harvey and Lee thread? Was I arrogant there, too? Or was I alright because you, too, agree that that story is...well, crazy? And what about Larsen over there who supports it?  I guess he's what...skolarly?

And by the way, talk about arrogant.  Here's the personal message you sent to me yesterday.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxRmpTbGJHWnNaU28

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Tom - Arrogant....

So now I'm arrogant even though the truth can be very painful?  I can't help it if Larsen has created some crazy (to me) posts on here.

And what was I before when I was posting on the crazy (oops, there I go again) Harvey and Lee thread? Was I arrogant there, too? Or was I alright because you, too, agree that that story is...well, crazy? And what about Larsen over there who supports it?  I guess he's what...skolarly?

And by the way, talk about arrogant.  Here's the personal message you sent to me yesterday.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxRmpTbGJHWnNaU28

Dear Michael,

Don't you remember insinuating I was a Lone Nutter T-R-O-L-L right after you'd joined the forum?

As regards "the truth," does that apply to my proposition that "Neck Scratcher" and "Gangly Man" were two different people, something you adamantly and rather insultingly denied about a day ago on this thread?

Regardless, why are you bringing up Sandy's few mistakes now on this thread, given the fact that they have absolutely nothing to do with David Morales?

Just a "playground" defensive mechanism of yours, reasserting itself?

--  Tommy :sun

PS  As regards my "insulting" personal message, what was so insulting about it?  After all, I did point out in it that I'd made a one-second mistake as to when "Neck Scratcher" and "Gangly Man" were both visible, didn't I?  And wasn't I right that the whole issue had become embarrassing for you?  And didn't I, nice guy that I am, try to make you feel better by comparing you to Bill Simpich, a researcher whom I truly do admire?

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's put it this way, Thomas.  You're really hard to gauge on this forum. For example, you don't buy into the loony Harvey and Lee.  It appears we agree on that. Elsewhere, like this one, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at.

Yes, I remember saying that.  As time went on, perhaps your attempts at humor or light-heartedness seemed to be at the wrong time on some posts...at least they were for me. So that's what I said about the t -rolling. The PM you sent was also hard to gauge. When someone says "What's the matter?  Don't want to..." I think a lot of people with basic reading comprehension skills would take that as someone trying to show someone else up.

But anyway good luck with this thread. As I said previously, I find it hard to believe that DM would have exposed himself so obviously in a public setting while his dangle was out there stirring things up. We'll never really know until we have a clear photo of LHO and DM, arm in arm, with LHO holding Fair Play papers up in his hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Let's put it this way, Thomas.  You're really hard to gauge on this forum. For example, you don't buy into the loony Harvey and Lee.  It appears we agree on that. Elsewhere, like this one, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at.

Yes, I remember saying that.  As time went on, perhaps your attempts at humor or light-heartedness seemed to be at the wrong time on some posts...at least they were for me. So that's what I said about the t -rolling. The PM you sent was also hard to gauge. When someone says "What's the matter?  Don't want to..." I think a lot of people with basic reading comprehension skills would take that as someone trying to show someone else up.

But anyway good luck with this thread. As I said previously, I find it hard to believe that DM would have exposed himself so obviously in a public setting while his dangle was out there stirring things up. We'll never really know until we have a clear photo of LHO and DM, arm in arm, with LHO holding Fair Play papers up in his hand.

Dear Michael,

Has it ever dawned on you that I'm not "getting at" anything on this forum, except trying to figure out who killed JFK and sharing what I think are my own "insights," no matter how popular or unpopular they might be with the other members?

In other words, that I'm just mucking along like most of the other serious students and true researchers of the assassination?

That I don't have some kind of grand theory like "Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites" or "Walker and Bannister and the Far Right Did It" ?  That I'm not pushing an "agenda"?  Hell, I'm even open to the unlikely idea that LHO or the Ruskies did it!

I tend to look at verifiable evidence and try to see if it cross-references with any other evidence, alleged or otherwise, in this picture-puzzle of a case.

For example, small and inconsequential as it may seem to you, I believe the fact that "Neck Scratcher" had a camera strap around his neck that looks very similar to the one around Morales' neck (in a similar-looking suit, btw) in a documented photo of him is significant.  Why?  Because Jim Doyle said he saw a suit-wearing man taking photos of Oswald with an expensive-looking camera that day. 

Now, as regards the PM I sent you to explain why you might have been unable to see what I was trying to show you (i.e. that had unintentionally misled you by being off by one second on the video) and to egg you into responding (and hopefully admitting that I was right, after all) --  do you wish I had posted that "message" on the thread, itself?

Finally, regarding you assertion that Morales wouldn't have allowed himself to be "captured" on film like that, isn't it true that we don't see his face (probably because he didn't want us to, and therefore kept the camera man behind him), that he wasn't well-known at the time, anyway, and that, if he was pretending to help or encourage or sponsor Oswald in Oswald's (probably anti-) FPCC activity (with an eye to piggy-backing it for the JFK assassination), Morales had no choice but to be there where Oswald could see him ostensibly giving him (Oswald) his "moral support"?

After all, Larry Hancock did say some time ago that Morales had the reputation of being a "hands on" kind of case officer on his "ops".

--  Tommy :sun

 

 

 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...