David Josephs

Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it. 

Unless he was 6'8" - that's not possible given the 34" minimum length....

Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27" last time. 
Mr. BALL. You measured 27" once before? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir. 

I’ll take a try.... 

see it as reverse engineering.  Math follows rules, so to make adjustments and come to the correct speed numbers so that frame numbers match locations.  The change from z168-171 to z161-166 is a giant clue, and hidden from the public for decades.

Position A makes little sense to have even been brought up unless the limo passed thru that spot.  Except getting the limo from there to z133 in the middle of the street required a splice....

The limo appears to move at a constant rate.  X number of frames for movement between X number of frame locations.  1 foot per frame, or very close to that, and the limo appears smooth...

Erase what you think of the film from your mind.  Frame numbers have no relationship to the extent film. Start fresh with the surveys from Nov and Dec.   what the revised CE884 does is make it impossible to recreate the movements of the limo except for specific snapshots in time, frames... but the relationship of those frames do not match what we see...  where things are supposed to be, aren’t... as Tom Wilson famously mentioned so long ago.

The current math being done is to uncover how the relationship to Station C was established and why Position A lays between this turn at C and z133/161.  If the limo turned wide and slowed, it took time which moves the frame counter well past 133 coming out of that turn...

Pos A is 5’3” off the path from C to z166 which creates the 100 foot distance... we sssume the FBI uses geometry, right angle triangles and their special properties.  The Math proves how the end result of the FBI changes are not physically possible and in turn the zfilm is not physically possible.  Frames and distances cannot be as presented.  Frame numbers are arbitrary with 312 chosen purposefully...

156+156+156...   156+156= 312 + 156 = 468 + 1 second of film, 18 frames = 486   No surprise we have a splice and pivotal event at these two locations.    Everything is made to occur in that second 156 frames.... which could have been 409 48fps frames....

The math removes the second shot from 313 and a final shot at 345 down by the stairs....

Not a perfect explanation, but a start....

 

 

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The WC was polite enough to give us their working average for the blue triangle span. 

Of course, when is frame166 not representative of 166frames? When the WC is involved.

100ft/166frames (actually 166.666... for another time though) = .6024ft per frame x 18.3fps = 11.024ft per sec  = 7.5mph

Since their distance from StationC to PositionA was 44ft, we can arrive at a frame count for that span.

44ft/11.024ft per sec = 3.991... x 18fps (whole frames) = 71.84frames

 

 

Why 100/166?  Station C is not frame 00...

   images removed

 

(jaw drops).....

So Truly was right...

Mr. TRULY. That is right.
And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn. 
Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb? 
Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.
If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here. 
Mr. BELIN. All right.

1 hour ago, Paz Marverde said:

Agree with you, David

Sweet...   

Wonder where the limo was in relation to the green box intersection before and after the Towner splice...

Or z133....

Edit... Or that may be too late already

 

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

The current state of my closed mind is that the Lone Nut theory is BY FAR the most compelling and best supported by the evidence

Thank you for the honesty Lance.  

To be that informed and come to such an illogical conclusion which the evidence in fact contradicts, let alone not apply the context of the times is something with which I cannot come to grips.   

The presentation of said pov not better represented than by DVP....  And truly a wonderful source of the historical record....  Freely offered I may add....   This conflict is not resolvable.....  

So when a CTer presents something, is it not incumbent on you as WCR LN supporter to use WCR evidence to refute it?  Further, if said evidence is not AUTHENTIC it is of no evidentiary value other than to suggest the tampering of same.

Authenticate the evidence Lance...as if a court of law.... And make a case....  Don't just say we're wrong...

Show me why with logic that works

Cool?  Or too much to ask?

1 hour ago, Josh Cron said:

David!

 

Welcome back

Hey Josh......

1 minute ago, Lance Payette said:

But again, this is all a matter of perspective.  I do not happen to believe - others do, I realize - that a theory like Harvey and Lee has any "intellectual honesty" associated with it in the first place.  To politely discuss it as though it did is to give it a dignity that it, in my opinion, does not deserve.  When it is addressed substantively, for example by pointing out clear errors in Armstrong's work, the proponents just churn out more of what I at least believe to be blatant nonsense.  In my opinion it deserves to be ridiculed; ridicule is often an effective strategy, even in my legal briefs.

3 little questions Lance.... I completely respect you've formed an opinion, a conclusion about the evidence....  I hope you think these are fair as they tend to help us understand an opinion based on a 5% exposure and a closed mind and one based on 90% and some level of acknowledgment that the cold war produced many things thought to be improbable...

Your or anyone's acceptance of the supported theory is not the goal Lance... John and I spoke at length about this.... When finished in the late 90's H&L was to be an entry point for others to carry forward... To prove, disprove, advance or revoke evidence.  It was never a thought that the community would not accept the far out plans of the CIA with regards to the Russians.   

"No matter how paranoid one is, what the government is really doing, is much worse "....  

Have you read the entire book?

Have you investigated the sources beyond the opinions written here?

If you were shown convincing evidence of their simultaneous existence... Would you reconsider your position?

20 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I see that David is logged-in ( hello David!), so his account is not closed. I sent him a test PM which came back saying that he currently cannot receive messages. So there is good news and bad news.

Hey Michael....

Thanks for having my back buddy.....  When I can remember not to take the bait... All is good.

I applaud those with cooler heads... I'm Passionate, Mediterranean, hot blooded.....

And make no excuses.... 

What else would we call those who can command the attention of the forum for nothing more than to debate manners, spelling, grammar and syntax.... 

 

21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Hello all,

when I first joined the forum I found it a pretty decent place to share and to learn. In the years since Simkin's departure it has changed into something I don't recognize. I don't claim perfection my part. I've grown frustrated with two posters here but have continued to try to engage them in fruitful discussions. Both are tireless in promulgating their theories and dissing others. It's not fun anymore. There are many still here, posting occasionally, who I respect for their knowledge. But they have become largely silenced by the din of personal attacks. David Joseph's, whose two Oswald theory I don't agree with, is nevertheless one of the best researchers here. He has apparently been kicked off the site without explanation. Don Jefferies had his post erased, and when I posted asking why it was greeted with little interest, and again no explanation. 

 

 

Just wanted to say thank you to all the kind words of support I've received over the past week...

I don't think you need to leave to make a statement Paul....  There are other places to play... Without losing contact here.... I've been on this forum since 04 if not earlier.... The trolls come and go.... Sadly the moderation rules have not adapted to technique, a deceitful style wins over vulgar substance.

I simply wanted to say that the 2 Oswalds expanded, is Armstrong. All John.....  I spent almost 2 years in discussion with John and am happy to say his and my thoughts continue to produce interesting break-thrus.   Anyone who wants my side by side sheet on where H&L were over the years please feel free to ask....   The conflicts jump out at you....

Luckily I have the time and resources to work on the JFK case daily.  Documents appear to support my idea that Ozzie was never there and the FBI was CYA for their $200 a month asset....

Chris' work is really amazing btw.  When it can be translated into digestible pieces, even better... I hope to help with that....

If we didn't have to deal with A little yapping bouncy dog nipping at our heels, it would make things more enjoyable

 

Language is not as critical as patterned intent Kathy....

"With all due respect" is as offensive as "trust me" and carries as much meaning.  None.

"Due" respect is completely subjective... A backhanded insult in reality...  You see that, right?

When capital "t" is more important than the content of his post Or the subject at hand... Who is showing the disrespect ?

Without the expectation and enforcement of intellectual honesty, what is the basis for moderation?  A bad word or ongoing trolling of a topic?  Opinions stated as fact or spelling/grammar?

Free speech in a membership setting Still requires the expectation of respect with intelligent disagreement... Setting up a soapbox in every thread to scream "the Russians did it" and then provide nothing but the color of the soapbox brings everyone down...

One wonders if there is any perception of awareness.... Or does this bull in a China shop get to thrash around until everything is broken?

Btw, a year ago... May 1 2017... I get this from MW:  Had forgotten all about it....  Still trying to quit... Has nothing more to say.... And agrees with everyone else... A year ago, that  needs to learn some manners.  

We were still at odds over his MATH attacks... So what happens in a year to make him so disrespectful? Asking him not to whine about subjects he doesn't understand????

"David, I wish you the best on this - I really do.  Like I said you're smart - your gun work and MC is great.  Honestly, I'm trying to quit this damn forum.  I really am.  Not because of you but because of people like Graves and Mike Clark. I think I've said just about all I can on the forum but the rest with Graves it feels like he's taking over the whole damn thing.

For me, the true remaining possible breakthroughs for the case will be these - if they ever happen:

A pristine copy from the PM footage is released and reveals if PM is LHO.

The document release this October.

 

 

 

It takes an amazingly thick skin to work, personally satisfying as it is, and post thoughts, theories, evidence and full on 6 part essays in the face of ongoing attack.

There are the DVP type, incredulous to even think - attacks which question the stupidity of even considering a different possibility than the WCR result.... Which as we see relies more on faith than fact.

Then there is the Dub'ya type attacks... "Why oh why oh why" is this tactic.... Since the answer is so easy and obvious, why do what you're doing?  A compete lack of intellectual curiosity coupled with the NEED to tear down that which is not understood...  Yes, TEAR DOWN but luckily Chris too perseveres. 

Or the PT rebuttals which treat facts like the current adminstration, both misquoting and misconstruing the words of others while regurgitating debunked lies as accepted fact.

I don't need to agree with Armstrong or Lifton or Jim or anyone for that matter... To show the respect due and debate facts and their authenticity over opinions and insults....  

Again, why should a man like Lifton bother sharing his work when he is met by a whiny attack dog with an attitude?

Why should any of us for that matter?   So while I keep my membership to check in on any updates, the gems found within the 33000 rows of doc links from last year's release Will be posted and discussed elsewhere... 

Will the leadership of this forum recognizes trolling for the subtle yet devastating tactic it is...  Versus the flare-like "insults" I hurl to bring your attention to the matter?   I do not attack unless provoked... I have no desire to debate those coming here completely unarmed, yet the unarmed receives the greatest leeway of all.... 

I'll take my effort and work elsewhere for now

I emailed you James a number of times with no response... Asking just that... 

On moderation you cannot send or receive PM... Or at least that what it seems.

2 Or 3 of us represent the only real defense and ongoing push back to the trolls...  I invoked the COINTELPRO doc as the postings of both tommy and Dub'ya surely fit the tactics designed to derail a thread they want derailed...  

If you cant recognize an attack on the forum and its members, why moderate at all?

I stood up for Armstrong and for Lifton for a pure sense of respect for the effort involved... These 2 playing like deaf children and running rampant over the history, present and future of JFK research is a shame... Even worse you all stand by and watch from the sidelines and remove the only defense offered.

Why should the membership need to suffer through the fools just to read something in which they're interested ?

Where is YOUR stand for the rights of those who are not these 2, when repeatedly attacked with nothing more than generic links and shallow observation...  Math Rules especially.  I have degrees in Finance and Math yet Chris thinks at a level way beyond most... And luckily, with effort, I get it.

Why should Dub'ya be allowed to infect intelligence with his inability to understand even WHY we have the discussion in the first place?

Grow a backbone moderators and nip this in the bud.  Free speech is fine, censorship not.... Respect has been earned by many who post here... If you can't rebutt with something more than a generic opinion, doesn't that person owe it to this forum and its members to stop acting the disruptive fool and chill?

So connect the dots Chris...  the earliest we have on film is z133, not 161. 
And 161 was really 168 as determined by WEST

Why wouldn't they have found where 133 was since that is the first frame WE SEE with the limo...  (other than hiding the shot at 157)?
If the limo did actually make that wide turn...  what does that do to the analysis?

DJ

 

This - to me - sounds as if POSITION A was deemed to be along the route of the limo...

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The first position we established that morning was frame 161. 
Mr. SPECTER. Was there not a position established prior in sequence to frame 161, specifically that designated as position A? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was actually established later. But the first one to be actually located was 161. And we went back later and positioned point A. 
Mr. SPECTER. Well, let's start with the position which is the most easterly point on Elm Street, which I believe would be position A, would it not? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. 
Mr. SPECTER. Have you a photographic exhibit depicting that position? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; in each of the positions that we established, we used, insofar as possible, the Zapruder pictures to establish the position, or we established it from the window, and made photographs from the position Mr. Zapruder was standing in. 
Mr. SPECTER. This chart has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 886.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This shows the photograph that was made from the point where Zapruder was standing looking toward the car, and is a point that we have designated as position A because it is in a position that did not appear on the Zapruder film 
The Zapruder film does not start until the car gets farther down Elm Street. 

 

And this shows how there never was a change incorporating the 10" change AT STREET LEVEL... only at rifle muzzle level and only when needed... which does not move the limo forward 15.25'.  

Mr. SPECTER. Was there any prior position, that is a position before position A, where the marksman from the sixth floor could have fired the weapon and have struck the President at the known point of entry at the base of the back of his neck? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; because as the car moves back, you lose sight of the chalk mark on the back of his coat. 
Mr. SPECTER. And what is the distance between that point on the President and station C? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is 44 feet from station C--91.6 feet to the rifle in the window from the actual chalk mark on the coat. All measurements were made to the chalk mark on the coat. 
Mr. SPECTER. On the coat of the President? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. 
Mr. SPECTER. The President's stand-in? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Right. The angle to the rifle in the window was 40b010'. 
Mr. SPECTER. And what is the other data? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. The distance to the overpass was 447 feet, and the angle to the overpass was minus 0b027'; that is, 27' below the horizontal. 

 

On 3/16/2018 at 6:28 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Exactly how, where, when and by whom was JFK's body switched, Mr Clark?

Jeremy - here's a clue - Read Lifton's book.  From your post you appear as confused about the topic as our boy dub'ya here is about the entire case....

He epitomizes what's wrong today...  having a thought or opinion does not relieve you of the expectation of respect for those who unearthed FACTS...
In fact, the more dub'ya posts - the lower the this place sinks....  as people like JB here jump on the little choo-choo that could.....

Mr. Norwood et al, approve this or not...  I'll be posting the newly released documents that are applicable to our research elsewhere until the moderators recognize COINTELPRO tactics and those who employ them for what it is...  an ongoing and direct attack to the serious people of this forum...

Everyone has a right to an opinion... yet, when all one offers is opinion based on poor judgment based on  even poorer research... we find dub'ya at the forefront....

 

 

Dub'ya....   All the autopsy reports state the starting time of 8pm...  Here is the casket delivery report....   followed by the quoted testimony of the Autopsy Dr....

6:30?  6:45?  7:00?  7:17?   A team of 6 or pore people wheeled in a coffin from an ambulance at 7:17pm....  

When the motorcade fron the airport arrived at the Naval Hospital, Bobby Kennedy and ICZS. Kennedy were let off at the Administration Building. O'Neill and I helped carry the damaged casket into the autopsy room with some Secret Service agents.

Yet there is a team of military men assigned to do that job....  The JOINT CASKET BEARER TEAM...  this is the military, there's a form in triplicate and specific purpose for everything...

So you see DUB'YA....   if you'd take that cone of shame and silence off maybe you'd LEARN something....  then again

AINT GONNA LEARN WHAT YOU DONT WANNA KNOW

 

 

 

What the following Sibert testimony shows is he and O'Neill were not in the morgue see the actual body until after 8pm....

(James Sibert)A: Yes. I might mention - on this Exhibit 157 - that when we were in that autopsy room One

of us was present all the time, with the exception of when photographs and radiology work and X-rays

were done.

 

Question:  What was the time of the preparation for the autopsy at the hospital?

 “Answer: Approximately 7: 17 p.m.”

Do you See those words? 

A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell me what your understanding is pi of the meaning of those?

And if my question is unclear I can try it a different way.

A: As I say, I know there was probably some discussion there about photographs and X-rays.

This would have occurred before the Autopsy began. And this 8:15 is when the first incision,

was made.

 

Q: Well, I guess my question, in part, is: Does the time that is provided here, 7:17 p.m.,

help you identify the approximate time that the casket as unloaded from the Navy ambulance?

A: Well, that could have been about the time that it was unloaded, the 7:17 - or just a short

time thereafter when they got it in there.  And, of course, they had to take the body out of the

casket, put it on the autopsy table and this would all be preparation, too

 

Q: Did you see the body lifted out of the casket and put onto the autopsy table?

A: I believe I do. I remember that. That was just before. They cleared the room, that

I mentioned.  The photographs and the X-rays that were taken right after that.

 

Q: Did you see, at any point at Bethesda Hospital, a military team unloading any casket on the night of November 22nd?

A: Not that I recollect

 

MD163:

The Joint Casket Bearer Team which is a six-page POI document with The Joint Casket Bearer Team

appearing to be a cover sheet.  And it is followed by a document entitled Company E Honor Guard, First Battalion, Third Fort Myer Virginia dated December 10^th 1963

THE WITNESS: This first line here in paragraph two, is that 1810 hours? That would be 610 p.m.  wouldn’t it?

 

“A tight security was immediately placed around the autopsy room by the naval facility and the U.S.
Secret Service Bureau agents made contact with Mr. Roy Kellerman.” (DJ: He can only know this if he was outside the autopsy room at this point, not inside)

 

Q: First incision. How much time was there between the time that the body was unwrapped from

the sheets and the first incision was made?

A: Well. this is the time that you would have had the X-rays and the photographs

 

Now repeatedly he tells us that the FBI agents were NOT present during the pre-autopsy photos and xrays…  we also know that the xray techs involved saw Jackie and Bobby arrive and go up to their room as did Dennis David…  It is also in the ARRB that humes finally admits that the body was on the table as early as 6:45…  over a half hour BEFORE Sibert helps the SS carry in a casket at 7:17.

 

During the time towards the beginning of the autopsy when you left the room for the photographs and X-rays, where were you waiting during that time?

A: As I recall, WC were out in the hall. But they cleared the room for the X-rays And they said they were going to take photographs. So, everybody except the personnel involved in those two functions - Medical personnel, were the only ones who were, theoretically, in there.

 

 

Again, not knowing who was inside prior to 8:15pm and knowing and seeing and describing the “tight security” the SS put in place at this time…  the only thing these men saw was the activity AFTER 8pm when:

 

“The President’s body was removed from the casket in which it had been transported and was placed on the autopsy table, at which time the complete body was wrapped in a sheet and the head area contained an additional wrapping which was saturated with blood. Following the removal of the wrapping, it was ascertained that the President’s clothing had been removed and it was also apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as well as surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull. All personnel with the exception of medical officers needed in the taking of photographs and X-Rays were requested to leave the autopsy room and remain in an adjacent room.” – Sibert/O’Neil report

 

You see, from the order these FBI men place this it sounds as if the photos and xrays happen AFTER 8pm…  we come to find that not being the case.

please do not paraphrase my posts

what I asked was:

"what beyond this terribly thin excuse for a connection do you have to put the KGB in the middle of the JFK assassination? "

yet this is your answer...

As I've said a couple of times recently, it seems more likely that Castro patsied both the CIA and the KGB, and that after the assassination, the Ruskies tried to do some damage control by having Nosenko, Yatsov, Nechiporenko, Kostikov, and yes, even widdle blond-haired, very thin-faced Nikolai Leonov say that Oswald was one wild and crazy guy, boy, you know, more than capable of killing a president all by him not-quite-so-widdle 5' 9.5", brown-haired self.

"it seems more like" is part of a theory, not solution.   I can give you many other reasons for the people you name to have done what they did having nothing to do whatsoever with Oswald and JFK....  nor have you connected LEONOV to anything....

your attempts at wit... or "wid" given your new spelling preferences Mr. Fudd doesn't hide that you never answer the qwestion  

 

Hi Eddy...

A couple of researchers, most recently Doug Horne and myself, gave some thought to the idea that the film was actually taken at 48fps for significant parts of it, since so much was removed yet while jumpy, the remaining film is coherent.

From this 48 frames per second we look at the NPIC famous CIA450 docs which show they too were confused why 18.3fps was used instead of the normal setting of 16fps...

That's when I started to do some adding and subtracting to find the ratio of total frames in 25 feet of film versus the 486 we were left with on that 6'3" span of film.

48/18.3 = 2.623

By taking 1/2 the frames away the first pass  (48 / 2 = 24)
and taking almost 1/4 of the frames  on the 2nd   (24 * .75 = 18)

we can arrive at an 18.3 frames per second... which equates exactly to the run/rise of Elm Street...  18.3 feet run for each 1 foot rise
and then we also find with these new averages and final film... we get just about 1 foot movement for every frame...

11 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

1. Is it the declared film speed that is essential to hiding the conversion of a long piece of film to a shorter one?

2. What tells you reduction has been done, as opposed to it making mathematical sense that it could have been done?

3. What significance does the limo speed have to this? Are you able to ascertain the limo speed or are you relying on witness testimony?

I am sure Chris will address this as well...

1.  yes...  for every 48 frames in 1 second, removing 2/3 or them give you 16 frames every second with little change in what is seen when projected at the same speed...
                         1 second is 1 second

2. there are a number of indicators... first being the change in CE884, the survey plat legend...  second being the movement of the limo's path by Shaneyfelt/Frasier...
              third is the use of a limo stand-in which was 10" too tall and then using the stand-in data for JFK, and finally (there are probably more) there are the obvious "impossible movments" which we see in a number of places: 

Anywhere there is a black bar in the sprocket area, it is claimed that was replaced by parts of a SS copy...  At 340 and again 350 we ought to remember something Altgens said (the man standing on the grass nearest the limo with a camera.

In essence, the FBI (with the help of LIFE, SS and Melvin Eisenberg) removed a "third" shot despite there being even more than that, and adjusted the film, then re-filmed so it appears like a single pass.... 

As most people are not aware... a copy of the film, if not the original was in DC that night... 15 hours before Dino sees it at NPIC....
DJ

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. 

 

155/157 we see JFK's head swivel from looking to his left to his right... as if in response to something.  There is an acknowledged splice here

There Greer's movement at 302

There's the 1 frame Greer turn at 315

 

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 11:41 PM, Thomas Graves said:

Sorry, "Big D", but I'm not interested in reading about his "more speculative pointers and notions," the stuff that tinfoil hat-wearing Conspiracy Theorists like to point to and shout at the top of their lungs "See dere?  I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean ..... Da guy was a delusional pair-wah-noid!"

So the answer is NO, you did not read any of Golitsyn's books...  IOW you do or do not accept that the KGB was/is all about deception, not stealing secrets but creating false ones...

 

The reality is that you simply don't like to learn things which conflict with your theories and make them pointless... so you don't.

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 1:12 PM, Michael Clark said:

PPS  Although I've never "dropped acid," I'm thinking that I might have to do so just to be able to understand your highly scattered and "mysto," modern poetry-like posts ... dude.

Maybe try "reading with comprehension" classes... safer than the LSD

Only those who are perpetually stuck within an unsupported and uncorroborated theory/rebuttal loop have trouble following the responses since they

1. offer support for what I am saying
2. offer support in opposition to what you are offering
3. provide the visual support and links for those to follow up on their own

What they don't do is point to a book and state "the answer's in there"... without a second word unless persistently and painfully extracted...

bottom line... what beyond this terribly thin excuse for a connection do you have to put the KGB in the middle of the JFK assassination?

From what I'm reading, Permindex and Canada (connected ultimately to Sun Life of Canada/London and the purchase of BELL via TEXTRON) is a much more likely scenario...

Maybe the real problem here is you simply don't understand the extent of the FBI cover-up to his NOT being at ODIO's on the 27th... not being at the Sports Drome on the 28th, and that HENRY - the greatest disconnect next to GOODPASTURE's Oswald photo... was a Angleton/CIA construct for a number of reasons... many of which we simply cannot know.

But if you have more than what you've offered... please expand... so far, nothing has been moved forward on this theory at all...

 

3 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

As I see it, the problem is that to the Mexican Police and to the HSCA, Sylvia Duran, like Azcue in '77-'78, effectively described the guy (with whom, I reiterate, neither Duran nor Azcue had dealt with on 9/27/63), in such a Nikolai Leonov-like way  --  quite short, blond-haired, blue-eyed, 5' 7"-ish & 120 lbs -- but contradicted Azcue when she said this (virtual) dude was the same guy Ruby killed on 11/24/63.

In 1978.   Are you trying to say that Castro planned with Azcue and Duran to - WAIT 15 YEARS - and then stick it to the KGB by offering a description which only you at this point connects with LEONOV? 

As for your, and only your conclusion that the description offered MUST BE LEONOV to the exclusion of all others...  if that simple yet all important assumption is wrong...  that they did not have LEONOV in mind at all (since you are at best speculating about their states of mind when making these descriptions so many years later)... then not only is it 15 years late, but it is not even closely related to what you think it is....

Had you considered any of that before you went on and on over the past month about a single item... 1 detail that YOU concluded MUST be related...  It was an interesting thought but it didn't pan out... 

Why not let it die until you or someone else has some info to move it along...??  I just don't see the point of firmly standing behind an idea which has been firmly debunked, unless you wanna be DVP when you grow up...  

Yet you see where your assumptions leave us.   And You can't even prove the assumption beyond "what else could it be" type of evidence....

If anything, why not theorize that it was LEONOV - of the KBG - who tells Azcue to play along in a game against the USA/DFS ?? 
BECAUSE, LIKE YOURS, THERE'S NOTHING TO IT...  IT'S JUST A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT...

 

SO HOW ABOUT YOU ANSWER A FEW QUESTIONS?

1. Azcue/Duran do not make their statements until 1978... how does that work with your theory that Castro used his resources to offer descriptions of a KGB "translator" to implicate Russia 15 years earlier?
   
   TIRADO - That I don't remember very well. I think he was wearing a jacket but what I can remember is that he was not wearing nice clothers (sic), expensive clothing. He was cheap, perhaps.
   
   (THIS IS IT?  THIS IS THE STATEMENT THAT CASUED YOU TO START ALL THIS? He doesn't actually say the things you claim he did)  So here it is...  you concluding that Azcue's mention of how he imagines/visualizes Oswald must mean he was wearing a certain outfit...  Nice ASSUMPTION again... but that's all it is)
   You wrote:  Just talking clothing, was Oswald ever known to have worn a blue "Prince of Wales"-like suit with "reddish" highlights in the jacket, or, come to think of it, as Sylvia "Dissembling" Duran claimed LHO had done -- to dress noticeably poorly in formal-like situations (like visiting an embassy or a consulate, for example)?
   
   So basically, the only substance to this theory of yours is if and only if you can prove some connection with LEONOV, 15 years after the fact...
   
   I for one would love to see you pull this off...
   Here are the appropriate passages...
   
   Senor AZCUE. I always imagine him or visualize him as wearing a suit, coat and pants, trousers, with a pattern of crossed lines, not very clear design. Blue, some reddish. I never conceived of him or visualized him wearing a light sweater. When I saw this photograph in April of this year (1978), I also noticed that the clothing he was wearing was not the same. 
   Mr. PREYER. So that the clothing he was wearing in the photographs was not similar to that which he was wearing when he actually visited you in the Embassy. 
   Senor AZCUE. I am almost in a position to assure that. 
   
   
   
   Mr. PREYER. When he returned with the photographs and with his application, visa application form, and his passport pictures, would you have looked at the pictures on the visa application and on the passport? 
   Senor AZCUE. No, I did not see the photograph, nor did I witness the preparation of the form. I did not see the photograph at that time. I only saw this photograph last April, when they came to Cuba. 
   Mr. PREYER. So that at the time of processing his visa and the passport, you never looked at the photographs, you never compared them with the Man standing before you. 
   Senor AZCUE. No, I was never present during the preparation of this form nor of the affixing of the photograph. And it is also signed by Mirabal. And in the normal course of business this is a matter that goes to Cuba. It is generally kept until it is prepared for shipment in the next plane, outgoing plane, and there was no reason for me to go back searching for this form. 
2. What happens NEXT in this grand plan that only you see?  You've repeated the same a number of times now... assuming you can answer #1 and have it make any sense...  what happens in 1978 and beyond to support your theory?
    
3. Did you read any of Golitsyn's books? Not sure why you wont answer...   All this Nosenko talk it would be a shame if you never bothered to read any of the man's work....
    
4. What do you think is the most important take-away from SPY WARS that was not already pretty well known?