David Josephs

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About David Josephs

  • Rank
    Super Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

17,206 profile views
  1. All good Alistair... I think Oswald may have done this fake ID... but that does not involve creating a composite with 2 different people. Cole goes off record as he is not 100% sure these are the same SSS cards he looked at before... we should also remember his access to photographic equipment at Jaggers and who knows where else... With regards to the HSCA's excuses for the line being there... did you expect anything less? DJ Mr. EISENBERG. At that time did you examine the negatives which I now hand to you? Mr. COLE. I did. Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, these are a set of negatives which were found at one of the premises inhabited by Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Chairman, may I have them admitted as 800? I would like these negatives which Mr. Cole examined and which were found in one of the residences of Lee Harvey Oswald to be received as 800. Senator COOPER. It is so ordered. Mr. EISENBERG. Can you discuss the negatives, Exhibit 800, that you referred to in your examination? Mr. COLE. Yes; there are two negatives which are of Selective Service System notice of classification. Both of these negatives show extensive retouching, sometimes called opaquing, for the purpose of preventing certain material which appeared on an original from printing on a photographic print. The two negatives are apparently related to a single original. One of them has a somewhat greater amount of retouching than the other It is my view that the second negative, that is, the one showing the smallest amount of retouching, was probably made from a photographic print of the first one. In other words, the retouching operation has involved two steps which resulted in the production of two separate negatives. A possible reason for the second step was that on the negative showing the most extensive retouching there is still some material remaining from the original document, namely the lower extensions of two letters "f' which pass through certain wording at the right side of the document, reading "local board," and another word reading "violation." Now on the second negative of the pair a successful operation in touching out those titular parts was accomplished. Mr. EISENBERG. Would you need, Mr. Cole, in your belief, the type of equipment you are likely to find in a printing plant, or could this be done with home equipment? Mr. COLE. I would say it could be done with home equipment, but I think it is unlikely with respect to the actual preparation of the' negative that one would get a successful result from home equipment. I believe that for the preparation of the negative, that is, apart from the retouching operation, that one would need a very accurate camera such as are found in photographic laboratories and printing plants. Mr. EISENBERG. Could the opaquing have been done off the printing premises? Mr. COLE. Yes; the opaquing could be done almost anywhere, in any ordinary living accommodation, needing only a source of light to pass through the negative, the liquid opaquing material, and a small brush. Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, if you were going to prepare a forged Selective Service System notice of classification, and if you did not have access to blanks of the Selective Service System itself, how would you go about preparing such a forgery? Mr. COLE. I would use a method similar to that already described here with one modification; namely, that in preparing the original negative, I would make an enlargement directly on the negative, then go through the opaquing operation, and in making the final print I would, reduce it back to original size. That would produce a somewhat better quality of print, and it gives somewhat more freedom in the opaquing operation, that is, in working with a larger negative there is not as much danger of running the opaque into some material that you want to save, and we see on these negatives there are a few places where the person doing the opaquing has actually permitted this material to run into a part that should be saved on the original.
  2. Hey there Alistair... Not sure you're aware but the HSCA "experts" were all fooled, on purpose, with a "FAKE" photo project... Jim D can fill you in on more of this... Additionally, the HSCA chose to disregard the conclusions of a test done on the images at extremely high resolution at Aerospace Corp... Why do you supposed they dismiss the finding of these lines exactly where they are supposed to be and in contradiction to the HSCA "Experts"? It's as if they say that simply because we looked more carefully and closer than the HSCA, the finding cannot be right... worse still is that they use the same old tired excuse - there's "No evidence" it shows what it shows so it must be they way WE stated... Puh-leeze... It sounded like you were defending these HSCA experts - or am I reading that wrong? and finally, the very LAST thing Paul can claim is expertise in the area of the CIA, the FBI, the DPD, and Roscoe White. Comments like "All great CIA men know that" and "Roscoe White agreed to play along. That's why we find Roscoe White's chin, neck, shoulders, lumpy right wrist and back-leaning stance in all the BYP's" are once again OPINIONS of the man who does not like to preface with "IN MY OPINION" Paul has no idea how to connect Roscoe to that image beyond some guesswork about his wrist bump... these posts are conclusions which Paul can offer nothing to support. Furthermore, there is an image circulating on the internet of what is supposed to be an unaltered version of the BYP. There are names associated with the BYP like Wilson/Gum that require a bit more in-depth work than the glossing over Paul here offers. Alistair - good luck with Paul. I can't have a discussion with someone who doesn't have the self awareness to know he's out of his league. Most can offer unsubstantiated theories, that's easy... offer something that has evidence of any kind supporting the conclusion... And finally - I can't believe I have to do this again - If Marina took any of these photos, even one, and this is one of the only times she EVER uses a Camera (according to her honest testimony ) how in the world can she possibly forget what she did to take the photo? How can she possibly claim she held the camera to her face 1, 2, 3 even 4 times if we believe the one photo that was burned when what she would have seen was this: Was she lying about it Paul, covering Harvey's butt or do you still think her testimony was honest AND she took any of these photos? ---- (398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing Institute using several different image processing techniques. This process confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See fig. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appeared, however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process, where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the picture was being subjected to the computations). (399) Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely established, there is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an attempt to fake the photograph. This is because similar, although less pronounced, lines were found using the same digital enhancement technique on a known authentic photographic negative. Therefore, those lines may have been a product of the enhancement process. ( 400) Supporting evidence for this conclusion is that the fine lines were not observed in photo-optical photochemical enhancements or in phase-contrast microscopic inspection of the chin area. In addition, the lines are disconnected ; they do not cross the entire chin and are extremely fine, roughly equal in width to the size of the grain clumps in the emulsion.
  3. Micheal... Chris and I have been discussing this for quite some time now. Let's take 1/4 of a second. at 48fps we get 12 frames in that time. at 16fps we get 4 frames. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 = 1/4 sec 1 2 3 4 = 1/4 sec If you remove frames 2,3,5,6,8,9,11,& 12 from the 48fps film you get a normal speed film that looks identical to playing the 48fps at 48fps. Instead of removing 2/3 of the frame, they removed a few less than that... OR only portions of the film were done at 48fps... the B&H switched on the fly with the push of a button... The images we post and the math done explains what the FBI and SS did with the Survey's and exhibits - what connection it has to the film is not readily apparent. In fact he, using the work from Tom Purvis, shows that these surveys and conclusions have little at all to do with what we see on the film. There was, in fact, 2 main problems with these recreations and ultimately with CE884. First, the 10" height difference between JFK and the recreation car was never accounted for in the measurements: and second, Shaneyfelt moved his limo path off the established path in such a manner that JFK at z166 on the film lines up with z171 on the FBI path. This is where it gets somewhat confusing for sure. The extant 168 shows the limo already passing the lane stripe. Passing a line (grey) thru JFK at extent 168 (red line) brings us to where Shaneyfelt moved the limo for JFK at z171 (green line). Except that's not where the limo was in the film. This movement south from the original locations continues both up and down Elm. The paths diverge at POS A and come back to gether at Z313. Finally, this shows the 7 different locations for the 3 shots depending on which report you look at... You can also see the re-converging of the 2 paths at z313
  4. Jeff, Agree totally that after the fact the FBI tries to fit a round peg in a square hole. Take more than 3 shots and represent them as 3. What was most difficult is that 2 shots were fired very closely together between z195 and z224. 29 frames a little over 1.5 seconds. Then they were combined into one since there was no way to fit those 2 shots into the scenario. If the film was altered, do we agree that clues to that occurring would be left while other clues could and would be suppressed/altered/replaced... those who see the film that weekend - correct me if I'm wrong - give us precious little to go on... Dino's commentary is also a cliff notes version of all the things that film showed. Chamberlain, Rather, Stolley, etc... supposedly see an unaltered film. They watched the original 16mm very fast and then again when it was a copy and 8mm slit. I appreciate your characterization of our frame of mind, though there seems to be a missing slice you've not touched upon. 3 surveys prior to the WC one in May placed shots in a variety of locations... Consistent with all three is the fact z313 is shot #2 in their 3 shot sequence with another shot at the foot of the knoll stairs... Altgens and Hudson corroborate. Granted the surveys are done at the direction of the FBI, WEST comments that these people haven/t a clue what their doing if they want a TRUE SURVEY... We must also accept that the "original" in the archives is as far from an intact original as possible... 0183 does not appear on the film in the archives... it is only inferred by the copying of that number... albeit copied to the wrong place on the SS film. We are left with well more film than a 16mm spool has, numerous splices both physical and photographic and yet we are asked to accept that this 9' section of film, 6+ feet or so of the assassination, is somehow directly connected to the in-camera original. You don't find that a bit troubling? Someone took the ORIGINAL film and just cut away everything else but the assassination sequence leaving no way to authenticate it. One must wonder if the film accurately depicted what occurred what the need for re-enactments, for TIME/LIFE, Secret Service & FBI (WCD298) was? You also did not seem to touch upon Zapruder's partner Erwin Schwartz and the conflicts in the timeline he interjects... or the fact that Jaggers - a full functional photo and film lab with DoD contracts - is right there in Dealey Plaza and could have been utilized in this endeavor. Just some speculation... Bottom line, what bothers me most is the way the SS and FBI made sure to control the visuals coming out... they confiscated cameras, photos, and the people taking them in some cases. But not Zapruders? They treated him with kid gloves despite his having the best filmed evidence, which would have been evident after the first viewing. Do you truly believe the US Govt allowed this evidence to remain in Dallas, unattended, on the word of Zapruder and his partner? I find that to be completely inconsistent with their behavior in every other aspect of their "investigation". Then there's this... I realize this is not a first gen scan of the frame... yet blacks tend to behave uniformly when applying filters... if they get crushed out, then they crush out everywhere... This has been described by those who have analyzed it as a "black mark hovering over the photo" in stereoscope. It covers the exact spot needing to be covered. Others have shown Z359 inwhich you can see the right rear wound without the black mark covering it... There are a number of other examples... the evidence of what exactly happened with the film cannot be authenticated. Just like the multiple casket deliveries even with the evidence staring one in the face there remains detractors to the theory. I contend the film we have shows alteration, drastic alteration in fact. If you can offer proof or explanation for the film having all those splices, no 0183, and no physical relationship to the rest of the "original" I'm more than ears. Arguing that there was no time to alter or that someone would/should say something if they saw a different film (which a handful of people DID see) plays into the hands of the conspirators IMHO. To think the one unaltered item of evidence is the film which shows the entire thing, when the entirety of the evidence offered cannot be authenticated in virtually every single case, stretches the bounds of reality a bit too far for me to accept. Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Since it was not practical to stop the projector when using the original of the Zapruder film, because of the possibility of damage to the film, Mr. Orth volunteered to prepare 35-mm. color slides directly from the original movie of all of the pertinent frames of the assassination which were determined to be frames 171 through 434. In fact, 168-171 becomes 161-166 in CE884. Nothing of importance occurs from frame #1-171 nor 435-486? I could get into the math, but not going to here... the MATH RULES thread takes care of that... I think if you were to look very seriously at POS A Jeff and what its significance is, you may start to see things differently... . Now I understand that there were more than 3 shots fired yet the scenarios only require 3. A shot which may have occurred as the limo finishes turning onto Elm (POS A) has been removed. Now whether that was the 156/157 break, it does appear that Hickey and Willis are reacting to a shot. Hickey looks down by the limo while Rosemary is looking toward that location. The film shows it better. In any case, there must be a reason for what Shaneyfelt does with CE884 and why CE585 is played down.
  5. There sure is precious little said about those viewing as well... From what I remember they showed the film at Kodak at much higher speeds. And yes, for alteration to work some of what we know to be true according to Zapruder, can't be. What I find equally puzzling is how a 16fps camera can move at 18fps when to that point weren't projectors showing at 16? Other than the variable models which ran at 15fps-25fps, projectors ran at 16fps to match the camera speeds which I believe were changing to 18fps right around 1963... I find the conclusion of 18.3 fps just another FBI trick to accomplish what was necessary. To me, this suggests he started filming the motorcade well before what we see on z133. And if so, then we must deal with Pos A and everything that suggests. Even without the statement, POS A remains a wrench in the works. I'd suggest reading Shaneyfelt's testimony and the "MATH RULES" thread. There is nothing right about POS A yet it was important enough to include in the "4th survey to debunk them all" with photos and everything... Any ideas? Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street. BELL & HOWELL 253 AX 8MM SILENT PROJECTOR & CAMERA OUTFIT Standard 8mm Bell and Howell complete home movie outfit with 253AX projector (completely refurbished), camera with sundial, and flood lights. All in New condition with all original factory packing in the original boxes. Projector features 400' reel capacity, set running speed of 16 frames per second, forward projection only. Using the DFC, DFA or DCH 150 watt 120 volt bulb and 1 inch f1.6 lens. Like New condition and runs beautifully. With all instruction books, 400' reel and test film. Camera, projector and flood lights in perfect working condition and ready to use - $349 (No Discount)
  6. Interesting Jeff... I've spoken with Chris a number of times and don't remember his mentioning that.... I too thought Sat's Dino event was 20 hours after the film is in DC... Quite a lot can be done in 20 hours.... Any thoughts about the 48fps speed throughout?
  7. Hi there Jeff (great work on the BYP too !) I can appreciate the assumption - yet what do we have to offer any conclusive proof of that? Any documentation that gets it from Rowley's desk to the next stop? Thanks Jeff... I'd also be interested in your thoughts about Zapruder filming at 48fps. A film with over 1200 frames at 48fps cut down to 486 gives us 18.3fps on a camera that only has 16 & 48 fps settings... (btw - the 3 degree incline on Elm works out to 18.3':1' run over rise... just sayin') Make the cuts, cover up a blob or two and then refilm it with Zapruder's camera... we now have a new full flush left original that no one wants to let Doug Horne test for the difference between Kodachrome II and Kodachrome IIA... I guess what I'm saying is we needn't make the alteration so complicated, the jumpiness of the film makes it fairly easy to hide this removal...What's to prevent 0184, or any copy of the original that day with full flush left images from being sent? And I thought I remember reading a quote from Mrs. Zapruder saying the SS comes by Friday eve and takes the original with them... it's from Fetzer's compilation so I'm not sure. and finally, if the film was accurate there would be no need for Shaneyfelt/Frasier to create POSITION A supported by Truly's testimony about the side turn... as well as realign each of the frame references as well as disgregard the results of the earlier surveys..... all this screams a cover-up of the data to make reconstruction impossible. Wasn't it Tom Wilson who said the film did not add up as it progresses thru Dealey... especially at the head shot... Food for thought... thatnks for the great work DJ
  8. Personally I've been more interested in the Rowley film in DC late FRIDAY night. This would be the first and earliest film no longer in Dallas. Yet I've not seen or read what happens to that film once in Rowley's hands. With more than 20 hours before it even gets to Dino... what is going on with that copy and why couldn't it have been used to create the replacement original before films start leaving Dallas on Saturday? Anyone know?
  9. The FM-8 he supposedly had was also a plant just as the application was... The application shown here is for a FM-5, 6 month visa. Not the 15 day version. And I've posted the full WCR versions which cut off the top or bottom depending on which you look at... Also remember it was William GAUDET who gets the VISA after Mr. LEE's. GAUDET connects Oswald to Bannister and 544 Camp. From a previous post we see the SEPT 26 card has "LEE HARVEY OSWALD" yet looking at the FM-11 which records all the FM-8's and 5's coming in has "HARVEY OSWALD LEE" as it shows on the faked visa and hotel register... The Sept FM-11 regarding ENTRY is split into 2 pages, this one with line 807=Oswald and the next page showing "AUTOBUS" for the mode of transportation. Oswald is 7 lines down from the top and finally yet another FM-11, from October although if you look closely this one appears to be the ENTRY FM-11 since there is no EXIT DATE... It has Harvey Oswald LEE which matches the created FM-8. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=56976&search=FM-11#relPageId=110&tab=page
  10. The key here is "AMERICAN" documentation. There is H.O. LEE related to GREYHOUND at the border on the way to San Antonio These are copies of the original cards typed by Mexican Immigration and given to HARVEY CASH, American Consul, Nuevo Laredo, MEXICO. This dovetails into a problem at Customs with PUGH, JOHNSON & KLINE when CASH tells KLINE that the documents do not mention the mode of transportation, an obvious lie. The real key is where Tijerina gets his info... the FBI's main asset at Gobernacion... who also "changes" the FM-11 Notice too that on the way in he's Lee Harvey Oswald, yet on the way out he's back to H.O.LEE, as shown above, getting a bus ticket on Greyhound from his bus ticket from Monterrey to Laredo. CE2537
  11. Paul - it's time for you to find another subject to butcher mercilessly. Sorry buddy, you're delusional
  12. And you make a very good point about a round trip ticket not being on Oswald's radar... yet why not buy a ticket to Laredo for which MAJOR GREEN of Continental Bus tells us there were 2 buses leaving on the 26th, at 4:40pm and 8:15pm? an FBI report from 12/10 What happens instead is very strange... On Dec 16 we get another report for which GREEN adds 2 more buses that only go to Houston. Why only Houston? Possibly because he tells us the first stop for the 12:20pm bus is Houston. So the FBI interviews the Houston bus ticket agents. Not only do none remember Oswald, only 1 ticket is sold for this part of the trip (Houston to Laredo). Despite having the ticket # they obviously cannot connect the ticket to Oswald. To most people this puts the question of whether Oswald traveled thru Houston to Laredo to rest... not the FBI. Between Dec 16, 1963 & February 20, 1964 the FBI interviews (12/20) the driver of the bus between New Orleans and Beaumont, where the driver is changed and also interviewed stating there is no memory of Oswald. Not the most concrete evidence but another brick in the wall. Nothing on this part of the trip until 2/17 we get an FBI report stating that BOWEN/OSBORNE claims he was the only American on that bus. The WCR chose not to believe him January 1963: On 2/20 we get WCD240/CE2191 related to interviews in Houston from January. "With the exception of Hammett, none recall seeing Oswald" is important since Hammett claims there is only 1 ticket agent at the counter (CE2191 p6) yet the report below shows 2 others: Stephenson and Marshall - Hammett is not listed anywhere as a Ticket agent yet becomes the corroboration for a possibility. Since there is no evidence for the 12:20 bus to Houston AND the bus drivers both state they don't remember Oswald AND no one but this one man has any recollection of Oswald.. Hammett's evidence MUST be corroborated... it's not. Yet not only was he interviewed he claims the person he sold the ticket to on Sept 25 looked like Oswald yet the clothes described were mentioned to Marina who claims her Oswald did not have clothes like that. CE2121 begins by mentioning the showing of a TICKET STUB to Hammett... Except that ticket stub is not offered in any of the exhibits or could be found at the archives... If ANYONE has an image of this stub - please post.... Hammett tells a story different from every other Houston-related person asked... this person might have been Oswald... yet without the ticket or any other documentation related to this leg of the trip, we have nothing to corroborate HAMMETT. On the singular word of HAMMETT, Hoover sends this note to Rankin dated MAY 4, 1964 admitting they still do not have any idea how Oswald gets from New Orleans to Houston - we also need to mention, if we'll take just one person's word, that there is evidence Oswald was in Austin on Sept 25th for a meeting at the SSS (p8 CE2137) Here's a map of the trip and the cities mentioned along the way. The FBI used their power and assets to create a story with self corroborating evidence... lickily they offer this evidence for us to analyze and correlate to what they're hiding.
  13. Paul - how you can so thoroughly EFF up a simple thing is amazing. "IT SEEMS" is the reply to another question. Mr. RANKIN. And did he return by bus, also?Mrs. OSWALD. It seems, yes. Yes, he told me that a round-trip ticket was cheaper than two one-way tickets. You're so eager to catch me being wrong you've gone blind to your own ignorance. The WCR refers to this Q&A to publish "Oswald went to Houston via the 12:20 bus" for which there is not a shred of evidence. This is the sum total of all the evidence getting him to Houston... Mr. RANKIN. Do you know how he got to Mexico City?Mrs. OSWALD. By bus. This is not something she could know... and it will be another 7 months before she produces the famous Liebeler suitcase of Mexican "stuff" including a ticket stub which opens yet another can of worms. But then you'd have to go read the work first, not something you seem able to accomplish on your own. Which is why the WCR using her testimony as the source of FACTS is a complete joke... What Lee did or didn't say to her is not what she says... until later when she lies about what she first said about the trip and what Oswald supposedly said... Marina is the xxxx. If Oswald was working for the CIA and/or FBI as an asset to infiltrate leftist organizations while pretending to be pro-Castro, why in the world would he tell Marina? Mr. RANKIN. At New Orleans, who did your husband work for?Mrs. OSWALD. He worked for the Louisiana Coffee Co. He worked at Reilly from May 15 until July 19 1963. Mr. RANKIN. How long did he work for this coffee company?Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was from May until August, to the end of August.Mr. RANKIN. Was he discharged?Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.Mr. RANKIN. And then was he unemployed for a time? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. Mrs. OSWALD. It began to happen quite frequently after he was arrested there in connection with some demonstration and handing out of leaflets.Mr. RANKIN. Was that the Fair Play for Cuba demonstration?Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. Mr. RANKIN. When did his Fair Play for Cuba activity occur---before or after he lost his job?Mrs. OSWALD. After he lost his job. I told him it would be much better if he were working, because when he didn't work he was busy with such foolishness. Paul - would you call what Oswald did with Bannister a "job" or as Marina put it "busy with such foolishness"? Seems she was aware he was working, awazre he no longer was working and then was involved in the Pro-Castro foolishness. It's 1963 - you honestly believe men shared what they did all day with the little woman? Even the Secret Service maintained there was no connection between Oswald and 544 Camp - why do you suppose Marina would know about it? Bottom line here Paul is you get all excited when you believe you've "caught" someone and post using your fingers and not your brain. You misinterpret virtually everything you read and then go on the offensive when it's pointed out to you. YOU and you alone remain what's wrong with this public forum... You remain blissfully ignorant of all you still don't know or understand yet take every opportunity to lodge foot in mouth when making your arguments. Please don't bother addressing this post... my hip waders are at the cleaners from the last pile of BS of yours... You simply don't have the skills or the knowledge to play this game... which I guess is why your posts are repeatedly so poor.
  14. Let's remember this all started because the Hotel Register and the Visa are both incorrectly signed as LEE, Harvey Oswald or H.O. LEE As stated, the FBI has him on FLECHA ROJAS from the Monterrey to Mexico City with the same cast of characters. Mumford, as I wrote in the essay, and her friend get back on the bus in Monterrey WCD1245. p274 is the beginning of the typed version passenger list #11889 for Flecha Rojas bus #516 for passengers who ONLY got on in Monterrey (i.e. Mumford and Winston). Their names, as expected, do not appear on this list. So if they were on DEL NORTE... and OSWALT is put on FELCHA ROJAS by the FBI, corroborated by the same people, and the CIA claims the FBI says he was on ANAHUAC Look at the time the FLECHA ROJAS bus leaves Monterrey... 15:30 or 3:30pm... Mumford, and McFarland left on DEL NORTE at 7:30pm getting to MC at 10am. a 3:30pm departure from Monterrey gets them in at 6am. Dog and pony show from the word GO... And it gets even worse on the way back to Dallas....
  15. Stay on topic PT... I posted the transcript above. So to you: "I don't remember the name of that consul" is the impersonator coaxing out a name? According to John Newman he had been with Kostikov a number of times by the tim eof this call. Don't you suppose that the Oswald impersonator would incriminate Oswald more completely if it was HE who mentions the name and not on the Russian side? The man who made the incriminating phone call to Kostikov had also phoned from the Cuban Consulate three days earlier, on Saturday 28 September. In this instance, not only was Oswald impersonated but the phone call or the transcript appear to have been fabricated. The Cuban Consulate and the switchboard at the Soviet Embassy were closed on Saturdays. Silvia Durán, an employee at the Cuban Consulate, who was mentioned by name on the transcript, denied that she had taken part in the call on the 28th. See Paul, this is cause-and-effect.... The events of Sept 28 simply did not happen as recorded below. Your opinions remain unsupported theories for which you refuse to do ANY work to support or defend beyond "I read it somewhere"... Even the authors and posters you quote don't agree with your representation of their work. For the record, I did NOT focus much time on Sept 27-Oct 3, or the meaning behind this episode - others have taken on that role. I focus on the FBI's evidence trying to get Ozzie from here to there and back again... You see Paul... the FBI threw out all sorts of ideas. The final story does not include Anahuac. the CIA summary touches on these details one by one rather than compare them to the evidence. "FBI believes Oswald.... Problem being Mumford & her Australian friend tells us that Oswald in on the Del Norte bus from Monterrey Why do you suppose Miss Mumford, and the McFarlands would lie about Oswald being on that bus?... ? the FBI identified Mumford, the McFarlands and BOWEN/OSBOURNE as traveling on the FLECHA ROJAS bus Mr. BALL. Now, you got on the bus at Monterrey on the evening of September 26 at 7:30 p.m., you just told me? Miss MUMFORD. Yes. Mr. BALL. And what was the company that operated that bus, do you know? Miss MUMFORD. That was also Transporter del Norte. Miss MUMFORD. Oswald was the first one we spoke to. He left his seat and came down to the back of the bus to speak to us. Mr. BALL. That was after the bus had left Monterrey? Miss MUMFORD. Yes …. Then we arrived in the Mexico City bus station and he didn't speak to us, attempt to speak to us at all. He was one of the first off the bus and the last I remember seeing him he was standing across the end of the room. (May 19, 1964) Mr. BALL. Well, you were shown pictures of a man (Bowen/Osborne) later on by the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, were you not? Miss MUMFORD. Yes. Mr. BALL. And they showed you pictures of Oswald, didn't they; Lee Harvey Oswald? Miss MUMFORD. No. Mr. BALL. You didn't ever see a picture of Oswald? Miss MUMFORD. No.