David Josephs

Except you didn't do anything but post a bit of Wikipedia....

That is what you call "help"...

... if you don't know if the Wiki article is correct... why did you link to it?

{edit:  never-mind... oxymoronic)

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 3:22 PM, Michael Walton said:

How's the sloping shoulders and contrast theories coming along, Dave.

How's the knuckle-dragging, non sequitur life treating you bud...

For those who are not aware... the two men's physiques were different - other than LEE being larger his shoulders sloped... whereas in all the images of HARVEY, the shoulders are much more squared off...

Add that to the Marines showing the man had no teeth at locations 1, 16, 17, & 32 as well as #30 removed later... while the teeth that were exhumed show those 4 teeth still there.... 

Bummer for you Hardy boys...  oh and look..  real evidence to support a real conclusion...

or the missing front tooth

which fits perfectly fine...

tommy...  your worry about appearances over substance is well understood here and most anywhere you express opinions...

Other than the regurgitating of the same info offered, why did you come to this thread? to show you know how to Google "Wiki" ?

From what I've seen, everything about you is "common", including your civility. 

It's way past time for you to be concerned with being perceived as a "small" vindictive person... was there anything else to you?

A little gnat who can't help but excuse himself for being such a burden...     when so few see the value in your stand alone vapid opinions which would benefit from ANY supportive research and common sense discussion...  not a burden buddy, just an annoyance.

But those two elude you still... after all this time reading the work of your betters, your mentors, your guides...

... all that concerns you is proper spelling and etiquette... 
(Netflix is showing VERSAILLES ... you might like it as it was Louis XIV who made etiquette enforceable... )

cause we all know you're about how it looks, not what it says   

So you avoiding the sad fact you've not read most of what you recommend?

Golitsyn ... ever read anything or do you just spout off about Nosenko cause you really have nothing better to offer... and is it you know how to spell A-N-G-L-E-T-O-N correctly...  
Spy Wars...  did you ever offer us YOUR take on the reading of this great work...?  DID you ever read it?

What did it add that you can share here?   you know, like what the rest of us do when we find or see something in which others may be interested... Anyone can recommend...

I actually liked her spelling

You wear "SPELLING NAZI" so proudly....   too bad you don't have the same attention to detail for facts in support of your speculation...

t.g. - 

how would you know until you authenticate the evidence?  Using Bugs' book is a wonderful place for you to start....

... tens of thousands of words and not one fact between you...

FWIW... your "respect" opening is pure non sequitur....  (do I need to explain?)  

Wikipedia, and worse yet - Bugliosi....        

Instead of using a 2008 source referenced in Wiki where 50% of the text requires citations,
why not use the 1964 source?

Mr. JENNER. At this point I might ask you--the name was Von Mohrenschildt at this particular time? 
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes. 
Mr. JENNER. Your name is now De Mohrenschildt. 
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes. 
Mr. JENNER. I think your brother still uses the Von, does he not? 
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes. 
Mr. JENNER. Would you explain that? 
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes--because I am more or less of a French orientation. And when I became an American citizen, I did not like the prefix "Von" which is German to the average person. And so we used "De" which is equally used in Sweden or in the Baltic States, interchangeably. And my uncle, who was here in the States for quite some time, and died here----

Real fine research tommy...    

What did you find regarding Ms. Lilia LARIN, his companion?

Mr. JENNER. You liked American girls, too, didn't you? 
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I am not queer, you know. Although some people accuse me of that even--even of that. Not as much as some other people, you know-- because this girl really was the love of my life Lilia Larin. Anyway, both Machado and I fell in love with this girl. She was a divorcee. 

Let's see, footnote 12 from your post is to Russ Baker's Family of Secrets...  wonder if the sources are the same...

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32159212.pdf  is the document I posted... and is not in the references...

The POINT that you continually miss, is that evidence is not factual until authenticated...  of which Chain of custody, the uniqueness of an item, and/or the substantiation that an item is unique provides Authentication...  REAL EVIDENCE does not get admitted unless authentic

 FWIW

Only 2 books in the bibliography... here's one of them - EXCELLENT sourcing and quality investigative work tommy... 

Bibliography[edit]

• Bugliosi, Vincent (2007), Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F Kennedy, WW Norton & Co, ISBN 0-393-07212-6

tommy...  calm yourself.    (Michael - tommy's posts come with a "TRAP" warning label...     )

You knew that the OSWALD character spoke first to Teresa... or not until I told you and posted the evidence....

What you "believe" remains the problem since it is not until 1977 that AZCUE's description is even recorded...

yet when did he say to the press that is was NOT the same man as the man Ruby killed?  Sept 19, 1978?

So please explain how waiting 15 years to contradict himself - how THIS is the basis for your "beliefs" that Castro was manipulating the KGB over the JFK assassination in 1963...

====

One last thing...  The testimony from McAdams for TIRADO has a misprint...  LOPEZ was a very small man... he was not 199 lbs and only 5'4"...  he was 119 lbs

HSCA DURAN statement - the man was about 5'4" 120 lbs.....

Ooops.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32159210.pdf

7/19/41

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32159212.pdf

It seems he used VON MOHRENSCHILDT...  or is this for someone else with a Polish passport issued 10/30/37 in Belgium?

insults tommy?   cause I don't start my posts with your all too insincere "with all due respect" ?  kinda like someone saying TRUST ME all the time... if you deserve the trust, or offer the respect - repeatedly saying so usually implies the opposite...

or do you mean the fact that you revise your posts to expand them to include anyone and everyone you know as a source and every date as a possibility?...

Or the fact you try wit when fact is needed...  or that your opinions, especially in this thread, are simply that... a thought most any 5th grader looking at the data could have.... with nothing more to post but incredulousness at being questioned over your lack of substance...

Cause so far you've added ZERO to the idea that the KGB orchestrated 1, some or all aspects of the JFK assassination...  whereas you started with the kinda dull observation that DURAN/AZCUE were describing LEONOV...

Teresa PROENZA tells us the man (Oswald-like) only spoke English and could not speak Spanish, so she turned him over to someone who could speak English... DURAN....   Turns out the "MAN" first encounters TERESA...

How does that bode for your LEONOV theory?

PS - You didn't know that about TERESA - did you?  

25 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Because he apparently missed the "allegedly" in the the original.

Hopefully I won't have to explain what I meant in the just-now added "PS" at the bottom ...

Then show us the source for KOSTIKOV allegedly doing so....

Bottom line (tommy with a little "t") is you misrepresented the date, the person and the expectation...

We all know your proclivity for being the self-anointed grammar, syntax, meaning and spelling Nazi around here....

yet you simply BUTCHER facts like it was nobody's business...  present speculation and opinion without reason or support...

and hope beyond all hope that your wit shows, even just once in a while...

No tommy... there is nothing you'll ever offer that requires an "explanation" to understand...  stop fooling yourself...    
Simply adding the word "allegedly"  relieves you from doing any work to support your statement...   as usual.

If you do go look at the info, I wonder how long it takes until you realize you got it wrong... or if you'd admit it.

---------------------

So once again...  SPY WARS....  point to something in the book which strikes you so hard as to make such a wholehearted recommendation to read it...

What did YOU get that we haven't already discussed here?

Golitsyn - read any of his books... yet?

2 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

David,

 

Thanks. I hadn't looked up at the top left hand corner of the cable.  It took them 9 days before they cabled Washington? For some reason, that doesn't sound right.

I had asked if the telegram this "Lee Oswald" was asking about had ever been found. Do you know if the Soviets ever turned one over to the U.S.?

 

Steve Thomas

Especially in light of GOODPASTURE telling us it was not more than 15-30 minutes after she gets the previous day's "take" that the important things get to SCOTT.

Why didn't Mexico tell HQ until the 8th?

David Atlee Phillips arrives as head of the CUBA desk at the Mexico City CIA station 

... on Oct 7th...

36 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

the one allegedly sent by Kostikov and the boys to the Soviet Embassy in Washington

Could you please point to the support for KOSTIKOV sending a telegram...

The discussion on the 27th had to do with the OSWALDS waiting on DC...  "MAN INSIDE" is the one calling from the Soviet compound at 1626 (4:26pm) discussing with DURAN about Oswald having been there earlier in the day and that OSWALD must wait months for his answer from DC.

it is not until the Oct 1st discussion that mentions sending a telegram.... OSWALD asks if they have heard anything from DC...
the reply is nothing has been heard back...  and the man hangs up on the Oswald bit player....

BUT WAS THERE ACTUALLY A TELEGRAM AT ALL?  A telegram about Oswald via the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City would look pretty incriminating - yet how could we know one way or another if it is real or not??

There would be no reason at all for KOSTIKOV to follow thru on this...

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32106383.pdf 

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

David,

 

I never spent too much time on the Mexico City question, so this question has probably been asked a thousand times before, but if the guy who contacted the Soviet Embassy on October 1st did so by calling them, how did the author of this first cable you provided know what the guy looked like?

Also, do you know if the telegram that's being asked about was ever revealed?

 

Steve Thomas

No worries...

The description "supposedly" comes from the image taken on the 4th.  Goodpasture claims the 1222 Oct 2 photo was from Oct 1st and is related to the transcript...
We are to remember that NOTHING happens on Monday the 30th...  (did a quick check and no holiday on that day) but only on Tuesday the 1st...

If the man was in such a rush - so much so as to go to the Soviet compound on "Saturday"... yet he does not go on Monday ??

----

Which telegram are you referring to?  

...

14 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Why don't you read Bagley's Spy Wars 

  how about giving us your POV on SPY WARS... 

What did you take from it that is so amazingly earth-shattering you insist on others read it...

What ARE you talking about and why does it matter to anyone here?

That the KGB was/is much better at infiltration and counter-intelligence than we'll ever want to admit?
That USA Intelligence was/is much more about increasing the reach of MIC especially in Central/South America... and maintaining its autonomy and funding.   The KGB is a STATE-BACKED entity while the CIA/ONI/MID/NSA is a MIC-BACKED entity with completely different priorities.

======

Curious... did you read any of Golitsyn's books?  He appears to have been correct all along.  And Putin a 100% believer.

Dec 1984: 

The Special Difficulties:

Disinformation: The special difficulties derive from the deliberate efforts of communist governments to mislead and misdirect Western studies and assessments.  These deliberate efforts are known as disinformation (in Russian, dezinformatsiya). The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia says that the word is taken from two French roots, de(s), implying removal or elimination, and information, meaning knowledge.2 The GSE defines disinformation as the dissemination through press and radio of false data with the purpose of misleading public opinion. It goes on to say that the capitalist press and radio broadly use disinformation to deceive the people of the world and to portray the new war that the Anglo-American imperialist bloc are preparing as defensive and the peaceful policy of the Soviet Union and the people's democracies as aggressive.

This would have been a broadly accurate definition of disinformation if the alleged roles of the imperialist" and Soviet blocs had been reversed. In fact, disinformation has been used to a varying extent throughout the history of the Soviet Union. This book is primarily concerned with the communist use of strategic disinformation.

13 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

10.98(from below graphic) - 10.8 = .18ft

168-171 is 3 frames

161-166 is 5 frames

.09 foot per frame

2frame diff is .18 foot...    does this change at 166 equate to the .18’ change at 313?

or just a coincidence?

Here's a thought gnat...

Read it yourself and explain it....  start a thread and show off that big brain...

1 - I doubt you read it or even know who Marcus was....
2 - if you read any of it you surely did not understand it
3 - you no doubt cannot explain it if it was needed to save your life....

Pointing to something and claiming it is the answer, when not once in the weeks prior do you bother referencing it, linking to it, or using any of it to support a post...

But all of a sudden you're ready to point to the ANSWER...  to someone else's work with someone else's conclusions...  you can't point to what within the work you find applicable...  cause you didn't read it....  and who knows, since 1992 when it was published, maybe more info was released... ??

So... Do you EVER think for yourself... ?

The only disgrace here is you - the myopic gnat....  (myopic:  lacking imagination, foresight, or intellectual insight)

Hopefully the moderators will tire of your tactics and send you on your way,,,,

In the mean time... you being the "ignorance be good" poster child suits you well

Will there be a speaking tour?

Agree 100% Rick...

A 3rd type may even be what hits JFK in the throat... as this was not an exit wound (no matter how much Specter contorts that question)

You may have seen this elsewhere, this is a representation of what HUMES tells the WC...

Commander HUMES - Exhibit 391 is listed as a supplementary report on the autopsy of the late President Kennedy, and was prepared some days after the examination.
This delay necessitated by, primarily, our desire to have the brain better fixed with formaldehyde before we proceeded further with the examination of the brain which is a standard means of approach to study of the brain.
The brain in its fresh state does not lend itself well to examination.
From my notes of the examination, at the time of the post-mortem examination, we noted that clearly visible in the large skull defect and exuding from it was lacerated brain tissue which, on close inspection proved to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.
We also noted at this point that the flocculus cerebri was extensively lacerated and that the superior sagittal sinus which is a venous blood containing channel in the top of the meninges was also lacerated. 
To continue to answer your question with regard to the damage of the brain, following the formal infixation, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck and I convened to examine the brain in this state.
We also prepared photographs of the brain from several aspects to depict the extent of these injuries.
We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the saggital plane, as you may know, is a plane in the midline which would divide the brain into right and left halves. This laceration was parasagittal. It was situated approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline, and extended from the tip of occipital lobe, which is the posterior portion of the brain, to the tip of the frontal lobe which is the most anterior portion of the brain, and it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm.
The base of the laceration was situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. By the vertex we mean--the highest point on the skull is referred to as the vertex.
The area in which the greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.
The margins of this laceration at all points were jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration.
In addition, there was a laceration of the corpus callosum which is a body of fibers which connects the two hemispheres of the brain to each other, which extended from the posterior to the anterior portion of this structure, that is the corpus callosum. Exposed in this laceration were portions of the ventricular system in which the spinal fluid normally is disposed within the brain.
When viewed from above the left cerebral hemisphere was intact. There was engorgement of blood vessels in the meninges covering the brain. We note that the gyri and sulci, which are the convolutions of the brain over the left hemisphere were of normal size and distribution.
Those on the right were too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description.
When the brain was turned over and viewed from its basular or inferior aspect, there was found a longitudinal laceration of the mid-brain through the floor of the third ventricle, just behind the optic chiasma and the mammillary bodies.
This laceration partially communicates with an oblique 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral peduncle. This is a portion of the brain which connects the higher centers of the brain with the spinal cord which is more concerned with reflex actions.
There were irregular superficial lacerations over the basular or inferior aspects of the left temporal and frontal lobes. We interpret that these later contusions were brought about when the disruptive force of the injury pushed that portion of the brain against the relative intact skull.
This has been described as contre-coup injury in that location.
This, then, I believe, Mr. Specter, are the major points with regard to the President's head wound.

In fact, I need to post it here just for people to get a sense of the dishonesty...  In essence he asks, "is an exit wound, an exit wound?"

Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.
Assume first of all that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the weapon being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the President, with the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process, passing through the President's body striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior portion of the President's body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity but bruising the apex of the right pleural cavity, and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung inflicting a hematoma to the right side of the larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea causing the injury which you described, and then exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck.
Now, assuming those facts to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances?  

8 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

The typewritten one also have typed in X's for missing teeth.  Unfortunately for Team Hardly, the X-ed out teeth on that form are not the ones they want missing

So the idea of respect eludes you still... 

So gnat...  why does any of this matter to you and bother you so much as to show your ignorance at every turn?

You mean these non-existent "X's" on teeth #'s 1, 16, 17, 30, 32 whereas the exhumed teeth do not match...

Bummer... 

Joe... from what I've read... anything can happen after the bullet strikes such a thick bone as the skull...

The bullet appears to have been made to fragment as this chart shows... the Carcano could not fire at high enough speed to cause the fragmentation seen for a jacketed bullet..

We must remember that the fragment cloud seen extending from the right front to the left rear was micro particles... 

That simple does not happen with that kind of bullet...  unless it is a hunting type with a very thin copper jacket... then the lead fractures and spreads....

Whether the fragment they claim was embedded was actually THAT fragment.. who knows.  More importantly is the mention of the HOLE in the windshield... 

They are of course, not all about the rifle...

I simply filtered to the applicable location TO/FROM

Could all be junk...  lots of Cosa Nostra related to the ROME office...

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.
Now, what is your best estimate of the speed as he started to go down the street here marked Parkway? 
Mr. TRULY. He picked up a little speed along here, and then seemed to have fallen back into line, and I would say 10 or 12 miles an hour in this area. 
Mr. BELIN. All right.