David Josephs

Greg... please help us understand how this depiction of the "original" film - spliced 6 times leaving 7 pieces with only 1 6'3" section with images - can possibly be an "unaltered, out of the camera original". Thx. Doug Horne is not hypothetical Greg, and should be considered "expert"... with his anthology open to any review you'd like. You sound like Gary Mack, insisting if the data does not comes from a government agency's committee, it's not valid when in fact the opposite is usually true. How again are these 7 pieces of film to be considered NOT altered from what should have been a full Side B of uninterrupted film AND there is no "0183" perforated in any part of this film, only on a copy? Really Greg, how much spoon feeding does any one person need anyway? You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know my friend. You want the gov't to publicly state the Z film has been altered - or all bets are off? Really? Here's the impossible head turn @Jeremy Bojczuk mentions for which experiments have been done and have found this to be physically impossible. What's impossible is meeting your need for a "peer-reviewed journal" with anyone willing to actually say what the rest of us know. The extensive proof of not only alteration "change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way." but changes which were not comparatively small such as the removal of the slowdown/stop and the removal of scores of frames at the Elm/Houston corner Ask yourself about POSITION A, Greg. And why the FBI included it as a location the limo passed over. Then reconcile that position with Z133 and the Queen Mary. It has become too old and convenient to demand peer-review when that's exactly what we do here with people far more knowledgeable about the event than most anyone anywhere else. And maybe answer a question no one wants to address... After a film is received in DC by SS Chief Rowley late Friday night early Sat morning sent by Max Phillips, WHERE DOES IT GO? And where then is Zapruder's "best copy" from day 1? Any reason the quality of the film just seconds before is so bad compared to the extant film with it being said about the original how vibrant and colorful compared to copies. The rest of the film's images (non-assassination) aren't even close to what we are shown as the original. Really Greg, how many times must be gone over anyway?

... then the moon is made of Swiss cheese.

Hi Chris... Great respect for your work, so I have a few questions: The film that Max Phillips sends to Rowley on the night of 11/22, arriving after midnight on the 23rd.... after the receipt of that film in DC, to SS Chief Rowley, where does it go from there? Given the note below, a follow up question: Zapruder had 2 copies, the "master" and "best 1st day copy". 2 given to Sorrels (1 to FBI, 1 he kept), "THIRD PRINT IS FORWARDED" would be a 4th copy of the film - 0184? Mr. LIEBELER - Now, Mr. Zapruder, after you had the film developed I understand Mr. Sorrels from the Secret Service came over and helped you get the films developed and you gave two copies of your films to Mr. Sorrels, is that correct? Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes. One we have sent to Washington the same night and one went over for the viewers of the FBI on Ervay Street. (1 sentence later) Mr. ZAPRUDER - The Secret Service--I brought one roll there and they told me to dispatch it by Army plane or I don't know what they had done with it but it was supposed to have gone to Washington and one of them, I believe, remained here with Mr. Sorrels. He came to my office quite a few times to show them to different people. Mr. LIEBELER - Now, I understand that you, yourself, retained the original film? Mr. ZAPRUDER - No; I don't have that at all--I don't have any at all. They were sold to Time and Life magazines. Zap gives "two copies", so we understand he kept 2 films of the 4 created and gave 2. What is Max referring to here as the "third print"? We are told that Zap gave up the "master" film keeping a copy. "THEY" were sold to Time and Life" meaning the 2 films he had in his possession. Can you explain which film was sent to Rowley (0183, 0185, 0186 or 0187?) and why a 5th film, 0184 is not the film sent to Rowley - and disappears until films show up at NPIC over the weekend, the first of which is described by Dino as the in camera original with much more imagery than the extant film. Thanks

"The M1 rifle is fed by an en bloc clip which holds eight rounds of .30-06 Springfield ammunition. When the last cartridge is fired, the rifle ejects the clip and locks the bolt open.[43] The M1 is then ready to reload. Once the clip is inserted, the bolt snaps forward on its own as soon as thumb pressure is released from the top round of the clip, chambering a round and leaving it ready to fire.[44][45] Contrary to widespread misconception, partially expended or full clips can be easily ejected from the rifle by means of the clip latch button.[40] It is also possible to load single cartridges into a partially loaded clip while the clip is still in the magazine, but this requires both hands and a bit of practice." The alleged rifle was only ever considered a Mauser (and Enfield 30.06 but that changed quickly), never a M-1 Garand, instead of the MC FC rifle in evidence. The Stripper clip is a completely different animal with different performance characteristics. From the above linked article: When shown on the 6th floor after it's discovery, there is no clip hung up in the rifle, nor was there EVER a clip said to be found and/or picked up on the 6th floor (like the bag in the corner). We also have testimony that the last round was ejected from the rifle at the time of discovery - nothing fell out. Mr. DAY. After ejecting the live round, then I gave my attention to the rifle. I put fingerprint powder on the side of the rifle over the magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough. I also noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain Fritz it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I would have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints. Mr. McCLOY. But you could note with your naked eye or with a magnifying glass the remnants of fingerprints on the stock? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I could see traces of ridges, fingerprint ridges, on the side of the housing. Mr. BELIN. Lieutenant Day, as I understand it, you held the stock of the rifle when Captain Fritz operated the bolt? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. This is the only mention of a clip and Day's testimony only serves to read this note into the record. Also from the linked article (which is fascinating, well-written and full of great info) It could be argued, therefore, that the clip's image was faked because there was no evidence of a clip at the crime scene. But the plausibility of that claim ends there. Such a forgery has no other reasonable benefit to the conspirators. The benefit to the conspirators - as I see it - would be the impossibility of manually loading the bullets and shooting in the timeframe allowed. Since that rifle did not fire shots that day the need of a "clip" was not so readily apparent since the idea was to create a Castro backed conspiracy with Oswald as one piece of the puzzle. He didn't need to be the one shooting all the bullets... There is no provenance for the clip at all. The linked articles details and explanations are worth the time to read and understand. As I've said in the past, nothing we find as "evidence of Oswald's guilt" can be considered authentic until Authenticated... and few if any of this evidence ever went thru that process. Without Authenticity, there is no evidence to consider, and the entire situation crumbles. The rifle Day leaves the TSBD holding, is not the rifle in evidence.

The film in the archives is in 7 pieces from 6 splices. The film in the archives does NOT have 0183 stamped on any part of it. The film in the archives adds up to more than 45 feet of film from a Side B with 30 feet of actual film The film discussed in the WCR was 33 seconds long. Where is the rest of the "unaltered original" after being spliced and reattached 6 times if this is the in-camera original? Why does Max Philipps refer to "4" total copies in his letter to Rowley, below? Yet Zapruder was in possession of the "original" and "the BEST copy". 2 films Sorrels was given 2 copies... (1 goes to FBI) that's now 4 total films. "The third print is forwarded". 5 total films... and I believe explains the missing 0184 seen by Dino, from which the real boards were made and lost to history. Can any member here can tell us where the film which arrived on Rowley's desk in the hours after midnight, went? We all know it was in DC and seen that night... but then as I see it, that's the end of that film's trail. Wasn't it SS agents who brought the "films" to NPIC that weekend? Bill Smith?

Not trying to steal Mr. Willis' thunder, but I've been talking about this very thing for many years. What always got me was his own admission of his 37 year knowledge of every corner in Dallas... Neches was not some random mistake. And there is no Neches & Beckley, of course. Thanks for bringing it up again Don... Mr. WHALEY. You name an intersection in the city of Dallas and I will tell you what is on all four corners. Mr. BALL. Did you stop and let your passenger out on this run on the north or south side of the intersection? Mr. WHALEY. On the north side, sir. Mr. BALL. North side? Mr. WHALEY. Yes. Mr. BALL. That would be-- Mr. WHALEY. Northwest corner. Mr. BALL. Northwest corner of Neches and Beckley? Mr. WHALEY. Northwest corner of Neches and Beckley.

FWIW, Dean was the Sgt who basically cleared the darkened parking area of police/reserves allowing Ruby to walk unbothered up to his spot near Croy only a minute or so before they brought Oswald to him. And then supported/promoted the "he came down the ramp" story. I wouldn't doubt he was lying and that Alyea was correct. Just to remember tho, many cops looked the same during this time, they hired a "type".

I thru that out there a while back right around when others were thinking the same thoughts. If that's provably Shelley, that's one long nail for the coffin. Would you agree there's a big different between "working for" and "useable asset". CIA assets produce reports which are then summarized in reports higher up the chain. Have you any indication/sources for your opinion that TRULY was ever considered or used as an asset; even moreso to support his working for them? As to LHO "working for" the CIA as opposed to being an asset... that too - for me at least - would require a bit more corroboration.

She was also never shown the application she supposedly worked on, with our man Oswald's photos.

Vague Leslie? as well as her sister... Or the Shooting range on the 28th, in Dallas.? Mr. LIEBELER. Well, do you have any doubts in your mind after looking at these pictures (links below) that the man that was in your apartment was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald? Mrs. ODIO. I don't have any doubts. Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister see the men? Mrs. ODIO. She saw the three of them. Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed this with her since that time? Mrs. ODIO. I just had to discuss it because it was bothering me. I just had to know. Mr. LIEBELER. Did she think it was Oswald? Mrs. ODIO. Well, her reaction to it when Oswald came on television, she almost passed out on me, just like I did the day at work when I learned about the assassination of the President. Her reaction was so obvious that it was him, I mean. And my reaction, we remember Oswald the day he came to my house because he had not shaved and he had a kind of a very, I don't know how to express it, but some little hairs like if you haven't shaved, but it is not a thick moustache, but some kind of shadow. That is something I noticed. And he was wearing--the other ones were wearing white dirty shirts, but he was wearing a long sleeved shirt. Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of shirt was it, a white shirt? Mrs. ODIO. No; it was either green or blue, and he had it rolled up to here. Mr. LIEBELER. Almost to his elbows? Mrs. ODIO. No; less than that, just the ends of the sleeves. Mr. LIEBELER. Did he have a tie? Mrs. ODIO. No tie. Mr. LIEBELER. Was it a sport shirt, or working shirt? Mrs. ODIO. He had it open. I don't know if he had a collar or not, but it was open. And the other one had a white undershirt. One of them was very hairy. Where was I? I just want to remember everything. Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned when your sister saw Oswald's picture on television that she almost passed out. Did she recognize him, do you know, as the man that had been in the apartment? Mrs. ODIO. She said, "Sylvia, you know that man?" And I said, "Yes," and she said, "I know him." "He was the one that came to our door, and it couldn't be so, could it?" Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Father McKann that the name Oswald was never used in your presence by any of these men? Mrs. ODIO. Never was used except to introduce me, and the time when they left. They did not refer to him as Oswald. Mr. LIEBELER. But they did in fact, introduce him as Leon Oswald? Mrs. ODIO. And I shook hands with him. Mr. LIEBELER. Did you pass out as soon as you had heard that the President had been shot? Mrs. ODIO. No; when I started thinking about it. Mr. LIEBELER. Had you heard that Oswald was involved in it before you passed out? Mrs. ODIO. Can I say something off the record? Mr. LIEBELER. Yes. (Witness talks off the record.) Mr. LIEBELER. At this point let's go back on the record. You indicated that you thought perhaps the three men who had come to your apartment had something to do with the assassination? Mrs. ODIO. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. I show you a photograph that has been marked as Bringuier Exhibit No. 1, and ask you if you can identify anybody in that photograph? Mrs. ODIO. That is Oswald. Mr. LIEBELER With the X? Mrs. ODIO. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. Do you recognize anybody else in the picture? Mrs. ODIO. No. (B Exh #1 in the WCR is very dark... you can't make out that that may be William Shelley in the dark suit.) Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any doubt that that man with the green line over his head in Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B Was the man who was in your apartment? Mrs. ODIO. Well, if it is not, it is his twin. Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I show you a photograph that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. I https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=24 and ask you if you recognize that man. Mrs. ODIO. That is Oswald. Mr. LIEBELER. Is that the man who was in your apartment? Mrs. ODIO. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. Are you sure? Mrs. ODIO. He doesn't have the little thing, the little moustache that he had that day. He looks shaved there, and he did not look shaved that day. Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think this man in Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C is Lee Harvey Oswald? Mrs. ODIO. Yes; I think that is him. Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that is the man that was in your apartment? Mrs. ODIO. Well, let me say something. I think this man was the one that was in my apartment. I am not too sure of that picture. He didn't look like this. He was smiling that day. He was more smiling than in this picture.

@Benjamin Cole This is testimony from one of the Aussie women supposedly having talked to Oswald on a bus. Her travel itinerary makes it impossible for her to have seen Oswald.. and by definition with Bowen, he said there were no englich speaking people on the buses he was on... The McFarland's were English, as well. Line 18 was for Mrs McFarland. This kind of notation was for the traveling companion.. suggesting that Bowen too was traveling with someone. 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.

I realize my work on MX is quite long and spread over 5 chapters... The manager, maids, and related service people at the hotel in which the FBI placed him via their asset OCHOA are reported upon, some of which I discuss, and we find the same inconclusive results including the 1 small brown zippered travel bag. The story of the "taxi" comes to mind. And that the FBI/CIA reports having him checking out the night before all this supposedly occurs. FWIW

I'm not understanding the reluctance to accept the KGB/Russian members/participants/undercover-staff simply parroted the lies presented by the CIA and WCR to the world for any one of a number of reasons including the the I elude to below. Do either of you think the Russians did not have their own cameras on their own buildings? If he was there in the manner presented, (like at the window pulling the trigger), the attempt to find evidence of the "truth" would not be so difficult in an honest investigation. None of that is involved in this case. None of it. Are you of the opinion that the KGB was not aware of the machinations in setting up and performing the assassination itself, or the French, Germans, English intel services for that matter...??? - and that it would be in their best interest to do what they said they did in the released document related to MX given to Clinton? @Benjamin Cole What possible advantage or purpose is served by the KGB telling the truth and insisting they confirm he was NOT there in the face of the WCR, CIA, FBI, and HSCA/Lopez report? As I see it, none. By simply agreeing to whatever the "story" was - the likelihood of exposure of investigation into anything would be curtailed. If he was there at any point in time... how is it we don't have tapes/transcripts/reports of these key Russians mentioning him or even referencing someone who could be him, in any of the CIA surveillance? "Oswald, notwithstanding the holiday schedule,... spoke to a Consul" CIA says he's not there... when they could have FBI said he wasn't there, when they could have. Instead, while knowing he wasn't there - again, in the manner of which we are aware - these reports with a supporting report could have easily done so. But it doesn't.

As a reminder, we discussed the one document from Clinton from Russia that says they are to reaffirm what the press had been asserting... and that afterwards he no longer contacted the Soviet embassy Ben, if he actually contacted them/him, this occurs not only on Friday the 27th, but Saturday the 28th, and Tuesday the 1st of October. "no longer contacted..." Does that change anything about the strength of their validity? MEXICO TO THE SOVIET AMBASSADOR 665. I agree with you that you should visit the MFA of Mexico (the minister or his deputy) and say, referring to reports in the press, that Oswald requested the consular division of the Soviet embassy in Mexico for a visa to enter the USSR, that the procedure for obtaining entry visas was explained to him at the consular division, and that afterwards he no longer contacted the Soviet embassy