Thomas Graves Posted April 3, 2017 Author Share Posted April 3, 2017 3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Tommy, I think your position is that the assassination plot was more of an "elements of the CIA" thing than a CIA thing. If it's true that Morales was in MC with Oswald, and was impersonating Oswald (which means he was double-crossing Oswald)... you must have an idea what Morales might have been up to. Was it to facilitate setting up Oswald as the patsy? Also, is this idea related to the mole hunt I've seen you guys debating? If so, who is the mole? I mean, is it Morales or Oswald? Or someone that you have no idea who it could have been. Sandy, I'm starting to think it might have been Kevin Spacey. -- Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 No. I asked because he was close. I linked the WC testimony of Wade to my post on page 2 of the Ruby Oswald thread. Did you not see it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: ....Goodpasture substituted the 10/02/63 of the burly, balding "Yuri Moskalev" / "Mexico City Mystery Man" figure instead, but those aren't the photos that Mexico City actually sent to J. C. King. I'm thinking they sent the "real deal" photos of "the shepherd" (Morales?) to King, and only to King. What you say makes sense. Win Scott didn't refer to the person in the photos as "Lee Harvey Oswald." Only as "a certain person who is known to you." (I see now why you emphasized that phrase.) I have to ask myself, why didn't Scott simply refer to the guy as "Oswald" or Lee Harvey Oswald?" Its not because he didn't know for sure it was Oswald. He and J.C. King both knew who the guy was. And if it wasn't Oswald, why not just use the guy's name? The only reason I can think of is because the guy was an intelligence agent, or something of that nature. A secret that had to be kept. I wonder if the letter was sent by a method that was considered less secure than would normally be used for a package that contained both the name and photo (!!) of a CIA agent. Probably so. It was just handed over to a legal attache, who likely had only a Secret level clearance. And who was going to "mail this material" from Dallas. Mail it? Seriously? I have to agree with you, Tommy, that the guy in the pictures that J.C.King got was not the Mystery Man (or Oswald). But rather an intelligence agent, or some other sensitive person. (Or both that person and Oswald.) So the next question is, was Garrison right: "Garrison is convinced the reason the CIA sent the Commission the phony picture taken at the Cuban embassy is that the Shepherd appeared in the real one with Oswald, and the Company wasn't about to let him be implicated." From Richard Billing's journal. I wish we knew why Garrison thought this. One thing's for sure... Garrison got it right that a Company man was in the real photos. Question is, did he identify the right Company man? Why did he choose "the Shepherd?" Edited April 3, 2017 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 3, 2017 Author Share Posted April 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Paul Brancato said: No. I asked because he was close. I linked the WC testimony of Wade to my post on page 2 of the Ruby Oswald thread. Did you not see it? Paul, Sorry, but what do you mean by "He was close"? Close to naming Morales as "the shepherd"? How could he have done that if he didn't even know Morales' name? Did I read Harvey Wade's "testimony" (statement, actually) before I copied and pasted it here? Of course I did. Yes, I actually noticed the bit about the "white male" (who looked Mexican or "Latin" or something) who looked to be 30 to 32 years-of-age and was about 5' 10" tall and muscularly-built and had some bumps on his head and a scar on his left eyebrow and who was with someone who looked like Oswald in Jack Ruby's Carousel Club on Saturday November 10, 1963. Why do you ask? What's your "take" on it, btw? Do you think it might lend a little credence to my silly "'Neck Scratcher' was Morales" theory? -- Tommy PS Did you not see my posts below yours on that "Did Ruby Know Oswald?" thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 3, 2017 Author Share Posted April 3, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: What you say makes sense. Win Scott didn't refer to the person in the photos as "Lee Harvey Oswald." Only as "a certain person who is known to you." (I see now why you emphasized that phrase.) I have to ask myself, why didn't Scott simply refer to the guy as "Oswald" or Lee Harvey Oswald?" Its not because he didn't know for sure it was Oswald. He and J.C. King both knew who the guy was. And if it wasn't Oswald, why not just use the guy's name? The only reason I can think of is because the guy was an intelligence agent, or something of that nature. A secret that had to be kept. I wonder if the letter was sent by a method that was considered less secure than would normally be used for a package that contained both the name and photo (!!) of a CIA agent. Probably so. It was just handed over to a legal attache, who likely had only a Secret level clearance. And who was going to "mail this material" from Dallas. Mail it? Seriously? I have to agree with you, Tommy, that the guy in the pictures that J.C.King got was not Oswald. But rather an intelligence agent, or some other sensitive person. (Or both that person and Oswald.) So the next question is, was Garrison right: "Garrison is convinced the reason the CIA sent the Commission the phony picture taken at the Cuban embassy is that the Shepherd appeared in the real one with Oswald, and the Company wasn't about to let him be implicated." From Richard Billing's journal. I wish we knew why Garrison thought this. One thing's for sure... Garrison got it right that a Company man was in the real photos. Question is, did he identify the right Company man? Why did he choose "the Shepherd?" Dear Sandy, Try not to overthink it, or to ask too many questions too fast. Just kinda take it easy, read Chapter 5 of State Secret (before you read the whole thing), let your subconscious "work" on it, and maybe some of those yet-to-be-revealed answers will come to you as you're stepping onto a bus, like the molecular structure of benzine, or something. -- Tommy And for heaven's sake, try to get off your counter-productive, wheel-spinning, Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites fixation. (lol) PS Because it kinda explains or makes sense out of the apparent fact that Morales was monitoring / mentoring Oswald on 8/09/63 in New Orleans, that Morales' was spotted with Oswald in Ruby's club on November 10, 1963, the implausibility of the official CIA stance that no photos were taken of Oswald in Mexico City, the fact that Morales and David Atlee Phillips worked closely together, and, in retrospect (because Garrison couldn't have known it at the time), that Phillips and Oswald were seen together by Antonio Veciana in late September, 1963, right before Oswald went to Mexico City? ... Just a wild guess on my part. Edited April 3, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 Oswald and Morales... handing out leaflets. Oswald and Morales... in Mexico City? (Impersonated telephone calls in fluent Spanish?) Oswald and Morales... at the Carousel Club. Oswald and Morales... driving away from the TSBD in the station wagon?? The two I didn't put ? on are probably correct. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 8 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: Paul, Sorry, but what do you mean by "He was close"? Close to naming Morales as "the shepherd"? How could he have done that if he didn't even know Morales' name? Did I read Harvey Wade's "testimony" (statement, actually) before I copied and pasted it here? Of course I did. Yes, I actually noticed the bit about the "white male" (who looked Mexican or "Latin" or something) who looked to be 30 to 32 years-of-age and was about 5' 10" tall and muscularly-built and had some bumps on his head and a scar on his left eyebrow and who was with someone who looked like Oswald in Jack Ruby's Carousel Club on Saturday November 10, 1963. Why do you ask? What's your "take" on it, btw? Do you think it might lend a little credence to my silly "'Neck Scratcher' was Morales" theory? -- Tommy PS Did you not see my posts below yours on that "Did Ruby Know Oswald?" thread? What I meant by 'close', Tommy, is Garrison was sniffing around an area that really did lead to the conspirators. I don't think that Banister, Ferrie, Marcelo, Shaw, were the heart of it. I think Morales and Phillips, and Operation 40 were. What you've left out of the description of the eyebrow scar companion of the possible Oswald at Carousel is that even though Billings notes show Garrison mentioning Wade's testimony, he refers in his notes to the companion as a white male, whereas Wade's testimony says he was dark skinned and describes the bumpy face and scar. Yes I remembered your response to my discovery on the Ruby Oswald thread, but I think it properly belongs to your thread and your discovery of neck scratcher and shepherd. Don't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: Tommy - explain his this fits into Trejo? His reading of Simpich is that CIA brass did not know who impersonated or shepherded Oswald in MC (if Oswald was there). But I have said and believe that they had pictures, and therefore that who impersonated Oswald was not a mystery to the few who were privy to the actual surveillance photos. So if JC King saw the real photos of the impersonator, or shepherd, he knew, and others knew as well, like Angleton, whether or not Oswald was really there, and who might have impersonated him. So why the 'mole hunt'? I said to Simpich and Trejo way back on the thread regarding State Secrets, that putting out false info as a marked card didn't have to mean that Angleton and his helpers were in the dark. It might have been a cya operation instead. Since I think it impossible that the photos of who went in and out didn't exist, probably in Win Scott's safe for instance, one has to look for other reasons why Goodpasture (I always get this part confused) inserted the old Lee Henry Oswald 5'10 165 lbs false description into the record. What do you think of this, in light of your belief (is there proof of this) that King was in the loop and saw the pics that the WC didn't? Edited April 3, 2017 by Paul Brancato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 4, 2017 Author Share Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: So if JC King saw the real photos of the impersonator, or shepherd, he knew, and others knew as well, like Angleton, whether or not Oswald was really there, and who might have impersonated him. So why the 'mole hunt'? I said to Simpich and Trejo way back on the thread regarding State Secrets, that putting out false info as a marked card didn't have to mean that Angleton and his helpers were in the dark. It might have been a cya operation instead. Since I think it impossible that the photos of who went in and out didn't exist, probably in Win Scott's safe for instance, one has to look for other reasons why Goodpasture (I always get this part confused) inserted the old Lee Henry Oswald 5'10 165 lbs false description into the record. What do you think of this, in light of your belief (is there proof of this) that King was in the loop and saw the pics that the WC didn't? Gosh, Paul. Beats the heck out of me. Now, given that statement, does it somehow completely invalidate what I've done (with your help, btw) regarding the possibility that Morales was monitoring and / or mentoring Oswald in New Orleans on 9/09/63? Didn't think so. Keep up the good work!. -- Tommy (I do appreciate your feedback, by the way.) Edited April 4, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Thanks Tommy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 4, 2017 Author Share Posted April 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said: Thanks Tommy. You're welcome Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted May 5, 2017 Author Share Posted May 5, 2017 On 4/2/2017 at 2:29 PM, Thomas Graves said: Sandy, That's the little theory I posited a long time ago on the forum, and I still like it. -- Tommy Bumped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted May 5, 2017 Author Share Posted May 5, 2017 On 4/2/2017 at 2:29 PM, Thomas Graves said: Sandy, That's the little theory I posited a long time ago on the forum, and I still like it. -- Tommy Bumped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now