Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Josephs

Members
  • Posts

    5,253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by David Josephs

  1. 8 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

    More empty, needlessly conspiratorial speculation from John Butler, who seems to want us to believe that the ever-mysterious, nameless "they" went ahead and "changed things" in Robert Croft's photos to fit with "the content they wanted." These alterationists sure had their hands full, didn't they?

    Whole bunch of words to once again add and say nothing.

    Well done Jon….  You do understand that these vapid statements of yours will eventually require some substantiation.

    But u got opinion and hyperbole down.  Why not find a safe little place to spout ur incredulity… ur WAY outta ur league, or don’t u notice that either?

  2. Real stickler is that Kostikov er al were being watched and recorded wherever they were in Mexico.  Many of these meetings occur Sept 27/28 yet if they wanted Oswald in Mexico not a single report in the month of Sept’s CIA summary reports mentions the CIA awareness of these meets.  No voice recordings from within the Soviet compound has Oswald speaking.

    Like all the players there is no reason to believe KGB officers, whose job it is to turn westerners, or Azcue’s with the same job for Cuba, would have treated a wanna be “redefector” the way they described…  almost as bad as the never dying Paz party disinformation…

    5aba5ec7b3540_LITAMIL-9CIAassetwithinCubanEmbassyinMexicoCitysaysheneversawOswald.jpg.3ede49c0fc42566f4f755f641bd88adf.jpg1437174343_63-11-28LITAMIL-9ANDLITAMIL-7HAVENOPERSONALKNOWLEDGEOFOSWALDATCUBANEMBASSY104-10262-10355-highlighted.thumb.jpg.c69444c36b14dab882c742b8826ca492.jpg


     

    1593819505_FBIsummaryreportslisthidesthePECKandCRAWFORDreportsfromMexicothatOswaldnotfound.thumb.jpg.26c533065b41537d83a6399309dc7489.jpg
    1166479266_63-11-04FBIMexifile105-3702NARA124-10230-10426-Thoroughcheck11-4-63thru11-23OswaldnotseenorknowninMExico-smaller.thumb.jpg.462ff7cdadb66404c40f3953325dcbb7.jpg1161907347_63-11-06CRAWFORDfollowinPECKSfootsteps-noinfoatOCHOAGobernaciononthe6thbutthereisonthe23.jpg.06241fb86d1ebc59f533df300bd86a5a.jpg

  3. I have the deepest respect and appreciation for DL and Best Evidence…. That said there is something about “chain of custody” that continues to be overlooked.

    https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/summary-of-the-rules-of-evidence.html

    This provable chain is but one of numerous ways to “Authenticate” evidence for admissibility. To make it “Real”.   There are ways to establish this chain which includes a statement from those involved establishing such a fact.  (Like with CE884 and the sealed plat.)  The fact is, identifying marks on evidence doesn’t overshadow when and where and how these marks are made…. (Again, like the initialing of the pistol at the station hours after “recovery” doesn’t tie that pistol to the scene of the crime)

    I think these concepts make it doubly hard to understand the provenance of any of the offered evidence…

    FWIW… DJ

     

    IV. REAL EVIDENCE.

    Real evidence is a thing the existence or characteristics of which are relevant and material. It is usually a thing that was directly involved in some event in the case. The written contract upon which an action is based is real evidence both to prove its terms and that it was executed by the defendant. If it is written in a faltering and unsteady hand, it may also be relevant to show that the writer was under duress at the time of its execution. The bloody bloomers, the murder weapon, a crumpled automobile, the scene of an accident--all may be real evidence.

    To be admissible, real evidence, like all evidence, must be relevant, material, and competent. Establishing these basic prerequisites, and any other special ones that may apply, is called laying a foundation. The relevance and materiality of real evidence are usually obvious. Its competence is established by showing that it really is what it is supposed to be. Proving that real or other evidence is what it purports to be is called authentication. Evid. Code § 1400; Fed. Rules Evid. 901.

    Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways--by identification of a unique object, by identification of an object that has been made unique, and by establishing a chain of custody. You only have to be able to use one of these ways, though it is prudent to prepare to use an alternate method in case the court is not satisfied with the one you have chosen.

    • The easiest and usually the least troublesome way to authenticate real evidence is by the testimony of a witness who can identify a unique object in court. For example, the curator of a museum may be able to testify that he is familiar with, say, Picasso's "Dames de Avignon" and that what has been marked as exhibit so-and-so is in fact that unfortunate painting. It is important to remember, however, that many more mundane objects may be amenable to this kind of identification. A unique contract, or one that has been signed, may be authenticated by a person who is familiar with the document or its signatures. A ring may have an inscription by which it can be identified. Even a manufactured object, like a wallet, may be identifiable by its owner after years of use have given it a unique personality.
    • The second method--identification in court of an object that has been made unique, is extremely useful since it sometimes allows a lawyer or client to avoid the pitfalls of proving a chain of custody by exercising some forethought. If a witness who can establish an object's relevance to the case marks it with his signature, initials, or another mark that will allow him to testify that he can tell it from all other objects of its kind, that witness will be allowed to identify the object in court and thus to authenticate it. Often, if a member of the lawyer's staff or another person early in the chain of custody marks the evidence, big problems can be avoided if a later link in the chain turns out to be missing.
    • The third and least desirable way to authenticate real evidence is by establishing a chain of custody. Establishing a chain of custody requires that the whereabouts of the evidence at all times since the evidence was involved in the events at issue be established by competent testimony.

    The proponent of the evidence must also establish that the object, in relevant respects, has not changed or been altered between the events and the trial. This can sometimes be a tall order, or can require the testimony of several witnesses. If there is any time from the events in question to the day of trial during which the location of the item cannot be accounted for, the chain is broken. In that case, the evidence will be excluded unless another method of authentication can be used

     

  4. 13 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

    Nasty attacks on other researchers using hostile language 

    do not advance the cause of understanding this case but

    drag it down. Informed disagreement, citing evidence to

    support one's viewpoint, is another matter altogether.

    JM,

    And when one refuses to only repeat the same unsupported opinions rather than engage in debate with citing evidence…

    we just keep turning the other cheek?  How many vapid posts do u enjoy in rebuttal of any of your researched conclusions?

    Have u seen today’s self appointed forum overlord provide anything concrete in rebuttal or is it the same tired feckless double talk we get any time H&L is brought up?

    Why do none of these nay sayers ever address Ely and that memo or the obvious  differences in who made statements and who served with the taller Lee?

    what are the consequences for opinion stated as misinformation in rebuttal to physical evidence anyway?

  5. 7 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

    Well this thread had degenerated into disarray.  It was somewhat interesting earlier.  But I started ignoring John after his JFK shot on Main Street claims when he joined the site and if Jonathan is relying on Parnell . . .  What should one think?   

    Agreed…. Go look at the evidence for oneself and come to one’s own conclusion.

    John has some far out there hypotheses which may come off as his statements in fact…. If Chris didn’t turn everything on its edge and make far reaching hypotheses AND THEN PROVE THEM, we wouldn’t have a fairly detailed map of how we arrive at just over 6 feet of viewable film on a 25ft roll of film spliced in 6 places… the so called “original or “master” as the SS called it.

    As for Tracy, much of his rebuttal centers around, “why would it be that way when it could be this way”? And shrugging repeated cases of official evidence off as mistakes…. As if the military doesn’t know who they are sending where.

    tracy at least presents a case and in some areas his rebuttals are spot on… I too do not agree with every page written about H&L… but there has yet to be an explanation for what I posted above.

    Or the obvious differences in the 2 men’s physiques.  

    Back to back, one CE directly conflicts with the next….  John Ely was right.
    img_1139_829_300.png

  6. 17 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

    John, what is there to demonstrate? I believe the theories you espouse are provably wrong, and I also believe these same theories have been debunked over and over or explained in perfectly logical ways that don't require doppelgangers. Do you really want me to repeatedly post the same debunkings and alternative explanations on this forum?

    Here is something simple for u…. Explain how these are the same person and what is the DoD doing with that induction photo?  Please provide something more than ur opinions 

    2056013423_HarveyandLeeArrestandMarinephotoswithsizechart-small.jpg.13b9658a851f3458e649b12621f5ce29.jpg668655740_oswaldmarine.gif.2979a7af1e026bfb98ef225e3cc4fba6.gif59f2660f2179b_63-11-221963v1959Oswald.thumb.jpg.54814dc6efe612f762f160c339ab3242.jpg1381415567_Comparing1959PassportphotowithOswald1959.jpg.8c0357b7215bf448a1529f1f66ac70b3.jpg813255003_Oswald-Harveysquareshoulders-LEEdroppedshoulders-moreexamplesincollage.thumb.jpg.18272493737ada97d59209feb400311b.jpg5802487_OswaldSept59andJan60-PassportDoDandSSSphotos-Minsk.thumb.jpg.4c64adec642b08105e15677c2e565f14.jpg

  7. 20 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

    Oooh, someone woke up on the wrong side of the doppelganger today, didn't they?

    It's par for the course for you to make breathtakingly ignorant comments about people on this forum, but just this once, I'll set you straight and do the work for you: I've been researching this case for more than 30 years and have been a featured speaker and presenter at some of the most respected research symposiums dedicated to the Kennedy assassination. I've swapped research, knowledge and correspondence with Mary Ferrell, Harold Weisberg, Gary Aguilar, Gary Shaw, David Mantik and Josiah Thompson. Don't let that stop you from accusing me of "having never read a book or done any research," though. I won't hold my breath for your retraction.

    As for the purpose I serve here? It's to call BS on preposterous theories like "Harvey and Lee," which are an embarrassment to serious study of this case and are clearly not taken seriously by a majority of researchers. Talk about a "waste of time and thought" ... 

    again big brain… what have u done to investigate the hundreds of conflicts showing the existence of these 2 men?

    been doing this just as long, spoken with and collaborated with many u mention and many more.

    if you actually have something to offer in rebuttal other than your pathetic opinion, you would.  But since you can’t be bothered with actual research, actual evidence, actual documentation all you do is appoint yourself opinion N A Z I and pollute these pages… :up

    Maybe try looking into Allen Felde and John Ely and what they say about our man Ozzie.

    C’mon Jon, show us that big brain and use more than ur opinion to debate/refute what is offered.  Why is John Ely so confused and Rankin/Jenner so insistent?

    Finally oh sage of the forum, are u even aware that El Toro and Santa Ana were 2 separate and distinct bases… not one big base….   But u knew that right? You have all this research and analysis at ur fingertips, RIGHT?

    :pop

    701064406_JennertoRankinaboutJohnElyandhisOswaldtimelineproblems-web.jpg.9a5b098c13e31e547706f76b8dcc8c9e.jpg59d7ec98bea8c_Elyhighlighted-AlanGrafandmarinescompletelyunknowntohiswork.jpg.005d710a55febefbd3c46279f4ab18a1.jpg

  8. 20 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

    But there's no discussion to go into because, of course, there is no such person as "Harvey Oswald," much less a "face mask" of him.

    So says the self proclaimed expert having never read a book or done any research so the opinions he spouts are uninformed and pedantic.  
     

    what purpose are you serving here besides the ignorant critic of subject matter far beyond your comprehension ?  Every post of urs is a waste of time and thought…

    but hey, you’re a shining example of how not to behave on an intellectual forum, everyone is good for something.

    :up

  9. 20 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

    David - have you looked into the parallel story of Oswald entering Mexico by car? I don’t think this materially changes your research. It seems likely true that our Oswald never visited embassies in MC. But I’m still curious.

    Hi Paul.   
     

    yes…  th full write up is on k&k in one of the Mexico chapters…  the couple decided/reported on were the Brill’s but their entry papers had the name transposed, if I remember correctly, so I remember a search for the “Allen’s”

    Then again, they were looking at just getting him there by any means possible..  the “card” is provided by OCHOA.

    5ab9642ea8c7a_63-12-02FBImexifile105-3702NARA124-10230-10470MexiINS-MaydonorChapastateOswaldenteredMexicowith2womenand1maninAUTOp1.thumb.jpg.357b44c04ad0532e0473a138845369d4.jpg

     5971319f80f60_63-09-27Oswald201Vol3folder8p147-BRILLsarethesameastheAllens-thenamesgomixedup.thumb.jpg.1de433250302e4cd3f1766b231ed466e.jpg

  10. Bravo buddy….  Ur work remains personally inspiring. 
     

    and just for pure speculation… the film to Rowley that disappears into history…

    0184?  :secretvery few other explanations given that Max Phillips memo sent with the “third print”.  …

    oh, and automatic counters punching numbers into films don’t just skip one.  0184 had to exist.  The Rowley film Friday night is the only film where a number is not offered.

    IMO, this is what then goes to Hawkeyeworks and then onto Dino Sat eve.

    Only Speculation, a hypothesis if u will….  Gotta start somewhere with the evidence available …

    Again.. Thx.

    DJ

  11. 22 hours ago, John Butler said:

    David,

    Very well said.  If you don't mind I would like to reuse that in another thread.

    Of course my friend….  And don’t forget Holmes… you just keep rocking it.  Question remains, how impossible is impossible in 1963?

    When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

  12. 52 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

    Greg, you are not alone in failing to follow John Butler's logic when it comes to his claims that virtually every piece of evidence in this case is fake.

    Spouting off yet again.  Is that all u do here Jon… try and bandwagon with others to nsult other researchers and posters?

    Do you ever offer anything from your POV or too ashamed you have no original analysis or hypotheses that can increase understanding?

    (yawn)

  13. 42 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

    Steven, can you supply any evidence to support your speculation that the Zapruder film underwent massive editing and alteration at the Jamison facility within hours of the assassination -- editing so technically accomplished that it is only being uncovered nearly 60 years later by amateur researchers on an Internet forum?

    Uh, how about the extant film is spliced in 6 places and has more total film than a single side should have.    Here is Chris’ 2’7” of Black Film.

    Yknow, maybe do a little homework before u pull guns blazing.  Nothing worse than someone who only knows enough to ask repetitive and previously answered questions….

    Try preparing for this forum bud… we’re not amateurs here… :pop


    1601955715_Hornefilmmap-originalZfilm-6splices.jpg.c875e6874f10545776e0b5ec56bcdc9a.jpg

  14. So Jon….

    How many films do you count?  Zap had 2 films, not 1… Original and best copy… that’s 2.  2 to Sorrels… and another, the third print, fowarded to Rowley.

    0183, 0185 let’s say to zap….  0186, 0187 to Sorrells.

    Which film # went to Rowley and where did THAT print copy go after that as far as I can see, that film’s journey ends at Rowleys desk.

    whatchya got big guy?

    59a980da874fb_MaxPhillipsnotetoRowley-BESTcopy-withtypedtext-cropped.jpg.570b6e800e387ec4a2aead5671452fc7.jpg

  15. 1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

    So? Are you implying that your theories are more valid because other people agree with them? As usual with the type of “everything is fake” speculation you routinely post here, there is absolutely zero hard evidence to support the widespread alteration of the Dealey Plaza film and photo record. And there is certainly no evidence to support your posts in this thread that Marilyn Sitzman filmed the assassination, that her imaginary film was somehow combined with others taken that day to create some kind of impossible-to-detect “composite” or that Abraham Zapruder was a “co-conspirator.” What is the point of this kind of conjecture without anything to back it up other than your own oft-debunked hypothesizing about photographic anomalies?

    Would u be so kind as to provide the proof Sitzman did not film anything?  Do you have any image of her on the pedestal clear enough to see her face? I don’t.

    ”debunked anomalies”? Jon, throwing out big words to impress no one nay adds to your limited knowledge of the events.  Rather than shooting the messenger, offer proofs for the anomalies from some other source.

    Have you ever seen the Robert West diagrams?  You been here like 15 mins and already ur opinion debunks scientific fact?  I think Trump has a cabinet position for u

    :up

  16. On 10/11/2021 at 4:01 AM, Greg Doudna said:

    The Tippit murder weapon was not Oswald's .38. Oswald was innocent of the murder of Tippit. He didn't do it. Crafard did. 

    Do you see it being Crawford led out the back of the theater to waiting DPD cops and a running pickup truck as seen by the store owner… name escapes me.

    and that would suggest those at the back of the theater… Baggett, Westbrook, Hawkins, etc MUST be aware of this charade to frame Ozzie and remove Crawford from the scene….

    Excellent write up.. deep and meaningful.  How do you see Vaganov involved?

    he only lived down the road from all this action and was loaded with the same weapon types that did the killings…  Magen was also mistaken for Oswald by ATF ELLSWORTH.

    Personally I see a strong chance that Vaganov was Tippit’s contract killer.  And btw, NAGY was also in town at this time… fwiw.

    59c27fd3a86b0_vaganovwithbothoswalds.jpg.1937abde4c6b387b5f455c41138c2363.jpg

    638903149_PERSONNELandFORGERYOfficersinvolvedinthearrestofOswaldatthetheater-smaller.thumb.jpg.bd555008932374c39f9532d5d1060ff8.jpg

     

  17. 13 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

    Thanks David,

    Let me give you a more precise number for this, in a mild brain-busting manner.

    We have a somewhat analagous Towner film (not including total missing frames) to extant Z

    We know Z started filming the limo around the Houston/Elm St corner.

    Use the 207/208 frame count splice in the context of a film beginning.

    Or, use Doug Horne's research and find a block of continuous frames unaccounted for.

    Then, subtract 75(see previous postings) from that total.

    2ft7inches = 2.5833...ft of 8mm film

    80 frames = 1ft of 8mm film

    2.5833...ft x 80 = 206.666 total frames

    Doug-Horne.png

     

    As we discussed many moons ago…. It all hinges on the frame numbers assigned by Shaneyfelt becoming the 2nd legend and the arbitrary assigning of frame numbers starting with 133, which if I understand you was actually frame 207 in the contiguous film.

    moving 208 back to where it was actually filmed at extent 133 at 48fps effectively removed the wide turn and that virtual stop with 207 renumbered to 133 and in pops the limo.

    At this point, z133, the counter at 18.3 FPS on Zap should be 2’7” from the start of the film and represents frame 208…

    or am I mucking this all up… lol

  18. On 10/9/2021 at 9:50 PM, Chris Davidson said:

    Wall1.png

    Sorry to bother Chris…. Wouldn’t a camera back by the fence need a difference focal length to match the image size of the closer Zap camera at a higher zoom… OMG… 

    Does that account for the zoom in after the 207 splice? The switch to the other film taken at 48 fps as well?

  19. “Thru temporal lobe, cutting brain stem (sounds familiar) severing cerebral peduncles (in pink)exiting brain at at “calcarino gyrum” to the left of midline

    John, discovered and posted a while back, in agreement.  The face sheet changes the Tippit course possibly NOT to look so much like JFK’s head shot.   Read Humes’ description of the wound in his testimony, WCR.  If u look carefully u can see numbers on the colored brain… 1, 3, 4 are the locations of the wounds as described by Humes.

    I don’t see how the bullet can enter by the temple coursing downward to hit those internal brain parts and then exit the TOP of his head…  the entry is really on the line between Middle and Anterior fosse just under the right eyebrow.

    And whose coat is covering Tippit when the ambulance driver arrives? 1. Why make it up, 2. No one else sees this.  Was this large white man Croy claiming to have been there first?  Sorry that I don’t have that person’s name on the top of my head…

    1992420802_QandATippitAmbulancedriverJASPERCLAYTONBULTERp1of4-RoyalbluecoatoverTippit.jpg.8e0f7c113d72290b1843201c80701344.jpg

    131270822_tippitheadshotautopsydescriptionnotintherightplace.thumb.jpg.4e8347e868916153e55f0306ff9f12ab.jpg  

  20. On 10/9/2021 at 9:53 AM, Denny Zartman said:

    Does anyone know if there is a map showing all the locations of the Tippit witnesses?

    Part of my continuing fascination with this case is that it seems like every corner has a mystery. And the closer one looks, the farther away the truth seems to be.

    To me, the official story itself reeks of conspiracy. But if Oswald wasn't Tippit's killer, who was? And why did he (or they) do it? I believe Clemons and Wright, but accepting their stories as true just brings more questions, not answers.

    1942121872_10thStreetMap-TippitmurderwithHolanandWrightidentified-smaller-griffin.thumb.jpg.1295e3987e87e35ce244d54d8909d09f.jpg
    here u go…

     

  21. Which does not include the frames before 133.. the turn… about 85 more frames…

    If I remember correctly.  The color motorcycle is placed in front of the Pos A B&W stand-in car in the bottom image.  And the angle of departure from the curb of the still images of Pos A seems to require that leftward adjustment Truly describes of them almost hitting the curb.

    This was my best guess at the actual turn….   
     

    Love ur work Chris… great ongoing job with this…

    DJ

    563780541_1964_FBI_REENACTMENT_PositionAsmaller.thumb.jpg.e39f9ce2c9444693a87ed982e2004f1d.jpg

  22. 20 hours ago, Richard Booth said:

    One thing that DJ did bring up that was new to me was D-79 (sounds like an FBI 302 number there), a documentary record of 4 boxes of ammo found. That surprised me, I was always under the impression Oswald did not have any ammo at all.

    The 4 lots: 6000-6003 with a 5th very small lot represented the order from the USMC (CIA) for ammo which did not fit any USMC weapons.  Total order was 4 million rounds w/20 cartridges to a box.

    Below that is where D-79 mentions 2 Empty boxes of "6.5 Italian Ammunition".  I think this is to prove he was practicing... but then one wonders where the picked up shells are, as the Oswald at Sports Drome never left his shells.

    FWIW

    DJ

     

×
×
  • Create New...