David Josephs

Now humor me Paul...

Take a hike

8 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Humor me, David.   Remind me of ONE SINGLE CASE.   I don't recall one convincing argument.

--Paul

Hint:  Mexico City...  You want to build a case around MARINA's testimony... have at it...  you're SO FAR FROM BEING RIGHT YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE Mussolini ...

And the SS interview Nov 29^th: 

“She was asked whether she had any knowledge of Lee's trips to Mexico or Washington, D.C.  She replied in the negative.  

Mr. RANKIN. When you were asked before about the trip to Mexico (CE1781 & 1792), you did not say that you knew anything about it. Do you want to explain to the Commission how that happened?

Mrs. OSWALD. Most of these questions were put to me by the FBI. I do not like them too much. I didn't want to be too sincere with them. Though I was quite sincere and answered most of their questions. They questioned me a great deal, and I was very tired of them, and I thought that, well, whether I knew about it or didn't know about it didn't change matters at all, it didn't help anything, because the fact that Lee had been there was already known, and whether or not I knew about it didn't make any difference.

The first interviews with FBI and SS, when asked, she had no memory of Lee discussing the trip Mexico... yet when Testimony time came

Mrs. OSWALD. Nothing. And it is at that time that I wrote a letter to Mrs. Paine telling her that Lee was out of work, and they invited me to come and stay with her. And when I left her, I knew that Lee would go to Mexico City. But, of course, I didn't tell Mrs. Paine about it.
Mr. RANKIN. Had he discussed with you the idea of going to Mexico City?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.   THIS IS A LIE PAUL - A BOLD-FACED LIE, AND SHE GOES ON TO LIE SOME MORE...
Mr. RANKIN. When did he first discuss that?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was in August.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you why he wanted to go to Mexico City?
Mrs. OSWALD. From Mexico City he wanted to go to Cuba--perhaps through the Russian Embassy in Mexico somehow he would be able to get to Cuba.

Mr. RANKIN When your husband talked about going to Mexico City, did he say where he was going to go there, who he would visit?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He said that he would go to the Soviet Embassy and to the Cuban Embassy and would do everything he could in order to get to Cuba.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you where he would stay in Mexico City?
Mrs. OSWALD. In a hotel.

"She was asked whether she had any knowledge of Lee's trips to Mexico or Washington, DC.  She replied in the negative"

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32206552.pdf

a 31 page FBI investigative report on the DeMohrenschildts...  Feb 28 1964

FWIW

On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 6:59 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

As to McNamara looking for Oswald's files, what files, where? 

Maybe these?

10 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

YES, DAVID, SHE DID.    If you had proof that Marina Oswald lied to the Warren Commission, you would have shown in YEARS AGO.

Sincerely,
--Paul Trejo

I have posted it so many times as to be redundant and absurd...  that you still cling to the belief she was truthful about anything is a laugh...

And completely expected...

13 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

They are not 201 personnel files

George...  do tell please...did anyone mention "personnel" files before you in this thread?  Nope... so why create a Straw man?

This is for what the 201 files were used and how they were kept separate...  The CIA planted evidence includes things like "Oswald went to Mexico - we have tapes, photos and transcripts"

The Military provided cover backstops for projects so a cursory look provides a plausible story...

and Yes George, I thought it was a valuable research tool so I threw it up here...  Stay tuned, I only have 29,987 unopened of the 31,317 rows of dos in my index...  granted many are duplicates...  but many are brand new and support much of what I've written about Mexico....

15 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

The CIA plants false information in their files to throw researchers off. However I don't believe the information provided is false information.

Pretty sure these are real 201 #'s matched to real people...  In fact, if you look again, at the top of page 1 it talks about  an Index compiled by Sylvia Meager...

The header page says it's from the CIA yet it surely does not look like an official CIA document...  I think it was simply a research tool... like a timeline, which gets updated as needed and comes from extensive CIA research...

13 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Deep breathing Joseph. We appreciate your work and your posts.

Sorry Paul... the caps were left on as I use them to write in the notes column of the new docs release index...  I forget it looks like yelling...

I do what I do for those like you and the others who have an interest... 

The "Graves/Walton dumb-down the rest of us" project that seems in process just gets to me from time to time...

Any of this sound familiar?

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt(trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. 

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.   

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

2 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

2/The gap you put forward is larger than just one tooth.

Not so much Bart

On ‎2‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 9:46 AM, Bart Kamp said:

 

Time to wade in myself

Please explain that black blob on the bottom lip.  Bad paint job trying to retouch this. As bad as the Zap film. Does no one else pay attention to these 60's techniques which are so obvious in the digital age......

Bart... I'm fairly sure it's simply a generational thing...

Blacks and whites get so crushed as the generations pile up and/or the images we work with are not from a negative but multiple (digital) generations and 72dpi

Also... the "blob" does not bother to cover where the tooth is missing...  as opposed to this other blob which does cover something important..

Thx Bart

42 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The photograph said to have been destroyed by Marina and/or Marguerite Oswald the night of or the next day following the assassination, was not necessarily a backyard photo. All that can really be said is that it apparently portrayed Oswald holding a firearm, and such photo may have originated in Russia or earlier in Texas with his brother.

Marina turned from being an uncooperative witness to a cooperative witness during questioning run by Leon Gopadze, a Russian-speaking Secret Service agent who had flown in from D.C. Gopadze was accompanied in his interview by Peter Gregory. It is Gopadze who had the previous day introduced the idea that life could turn out harshly for a woman in Marina’s position (widowed and without means), and that potential troubles could be mitigated by cooperating with agents of the US government. It is Gopadze who, during the interview accompanied by Gregory, asks what appears a pointed question referring to an “Inter Club” in Leningrad. This may refer to Marina’s rumoured activity in some sort of honey-pot operation before she became associated with Oswald. It is shortly after this question that Marina begins confirming things she till then denied, such as knowledge of the backyard photos. (CE 1792. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139#relPageId=440&tab=page)

I think the man to her right is Gregory...   Is Leon in this photo?

Let's please get back to the original concept prior to anyone ordering a rifle...

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95677#relPageId=6&tab=page

This is part of a report out of Italy about the RIFLE...  That the one pictured that THEY saw was a 7.35 mm rifle and not CE139... (as I have shown)

Furthermore - on the quality of this amazing rifle...  page 3 #22 sheds some light...

When we all realize CE139 was not on the 6th floor, was never ordered by anyone and was used only to attach Oswald's prints to a suspected murder weapon....
maybe we can move on from trying to make the rifle REAL.

Like the rest of this... The Evidence IS the Conspiracy...   

Right Hotel, wrong dates...  unless we're talking about a different Oswald or someone impersonating him....

According to the needed evidence, he leaves the hotel the morning of Oct 2nd (after having him leave that afternoon since the photos of "Oswald" were taken on Oct 2 at 12:22pm he must leave after that... but then GOODPASTURE dates it OCT 1 so they can drop the 2:30pm Oct 2 departure time for the 8:30 am bus...

If the CIA has him entering Mexico in a car on the 26th...  and the CIA informants have him in Mexico already...  and we know for a fact Harvey is at the Paines Oct 4th...

PAUL et al:  it was a charade... the man who Ruby killed was not in Mexico City... ALVARADO was a CIA asset,  DURAN did not say the things they say she did... and the ODIO sisters were correct.

3 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Marina Oswald told the truth to the WC after she took the oath.

NO PAUL, SHE DIDN'T.

24 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Then shouldn't you include IMHO.

I POSTED A DOCUMENT WITH NAMES AND 201 FILE #'S...  OF COURSE THE CIA LIES... BUT WITHIN THOSE LIES ARE FOUND THE GEMS AS IT'S ALL WE HAVE TO GO ON IN THAT REALM.

THE STANDARD VERMIN CRAWLS INTO THE DAYLIGHT TO MAKE SOME OFFHAND NEGATIVE COMMENTS ABOUT A PURELY INFORMATIONAL POST (DIRECTED MOSTLY AT PAZ)

THERE IS NO "OPINION" HERE TO BE HUMBLE ABOUT...  DID YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE DOC IN QUESTION?

AND GEORGE - THE ACCURACY OF THE 201 #'S IS EASILY CHECKED...  PROVE TO ME THAT THIS DOC IS FULL OF FALSE INFO - PLEASE...
JUST POINT OUT ONE OF THE NAMES WHERE THE 201# IS INCORRECT... SIMPLE.

FOR PETE'S SAKE... IF SHARING SOMETHING INTERESTING IS GOING TO BE MET WITH THIS KIND OF POSTER FOOLISHNESS,

WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER?...  

55 YEARS AND WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHO MARINA OR H/L WERE...

TURN ONE STONE AND 50 MORE APPEAR...

David, it sure does seem like he did a lot to that neck for having left the wound "inviolate"

PERRY: Once the trachea had been exposed I took the knife and incised the windpipe at the point of the bullet injury.

20 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

FACET #2: What Perry did (on 11/22/63):  My personal belief: He did what he said he did: Perry left the wound "inviolate."

Mr. SPECTER - While the doctors were working on President Kennedy, did you ever have any opportunity to observe his neck? 
Miss BOWRON - No; I didn't, until afterwards.. 
Mr. SPECTER - Until after what? 
Miss BOWRON - Until after they had pronounced him dead and we cleaned up and removed the trach tube, and indeed we were really too shocked to really take much notice. 
Mr. SPECTER - Did you ever see his neck prior to the time you removed the trach tube? 
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. 

Mr. SPECTER - What was done to the President after he arrived at the emergency room? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE - Well the first thing, his endotracheal tube was inserted. 

ACTIVITIES OF (Parkland Nurse) PAT HUTTON 
ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963
As soon as we reached the room, a doctor placed an endotracheal tube, and prepared for a tracheostomy.

**Dr. PERRY - At the time I entered the door, Dr. Carrico was attending him. He was attaching the Bennett apparatus to an endotracheal tube in place to assist his respiration.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe, in a general way and in lay terms, the purpose for the tracheotomy at that time? 
Dr. PERRY - Dr. Carrico had very judicially placed an endotracheal but unfortunately due to the injury to the trachea, the cuff which is an inflatable balloon on the endotracheal tube was not below the tracheal injury and thus he could not secure the adequate airway that you would require to maintain respiration. 

Dr. PERRY - At this point, I had entered the neck, and Dr. Baxter and Dr. McClelland arrived shortly thereafter. I cannot describe with accuracy their exact arrival. I only know I looked up and saw Dr. Baxter as I began the tracheotomy and he took a pair of gloves to assist me. 
Dr. McClelland's presence was known to me at the time he picked up an instrument and said, "Here, I will hand it to you."
At that point I was down in the trachea. Once the trachea had been exposed I took the knife and incised the windpipe at the point of the bullet injury. And asked that the endotracheal tube previously placed by Dr. Carrico be withdrawn slightly so I could insert a tracheotomy tube at this level. This was effected and attached to an anesthesia machine which had been brought down by Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Giesecke for better control of circulation.
I noticed there was free air and blood in the right mediastinum and although I could not see any evidence, myself any evidence, of it in the pleura of the lung the presence of this blood in this area could be indicative of the underlying condition.
I asked someone to put in a chest tube to allow sealed drainage of any blood or air which might be accumulated in the right hemothorax.
This occurred while I was doing the tracheotomy. I did not know at the time when I inserted the tube but I was informed subsequently that Dr. Paul Peters, assistant professor of urology, and Dr. Charles Baxter, previously noted in this record, inserted the chest tube and attached it to underwater seal or drainage of the right pneumothorax. 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10020-10052.pdf

Is a report about REGGAB and MARINA...

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Well, I do.

 

Also, is that document saying what I think it says?

Marks could not find the original?

WCD 87, p118-121  is the pertinent section of the report.  

Or check my timeline starting at 9pm 11/23...  

MARKS gets it from JACKSON who then gives it to SS SA PARKER.  On the back of the PMO we have the initials for all 3 men.
PARKER makes the 5 copies but they do not leave until the next morning
PARKER then gives the original to SS SAIC GEIGLAN who places it in the SS DC Field office safe
On 11/24 SS SA GRIMES removes the original from the safe and give it to FBI SA CHISHOLM providing a receipt
CHISHOLM gives the original to FBI SA JAMES FREEMAN at the FBI labs and it becomes CE1136

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=145&tab=page 

The very next pages claims that REA collected the $19.95 and the $1.27 shipping charge...  but there is no record of the $1.27.

Just sayin...

On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 8:39 AM, Steve Thomas said:

What is going on here?

The coordinated cover-up of the US coup d'état....

what else?   

"If Marina met Ruth Paine on February 22nd, shortly before moving to Neely in March, why did she think it was January?"

'cause she's making a lot up and was coached for the rest...

Here's another of the reports from the new release...  Marina's bio data is FUBAR.... dental tech? pharmacist? 3 different dates for the birth certificate, all in 1961...  the strange relationship to REGGAB and his statements about her being a prostitute

Marina is not what she seemed.... (the "duh" is silent)

Paul - you've raised "speculation, assumption and non-sequitur" to an art form...

Hey Ron... 

With all the discussion about 201 files and my stumbling across this doc... I thought I'd post it and see if it helps anyone...

I am not too well versed with 201 files...  I know though we have resources in Simpich, Jim D, John Newman and others who may be able to answer those questions...

PAZ seemed to be interested so I posted it... plus it gives the real names of so many informants...

========================

Sadly there remains those who think every utterance is for their ears, for their benefit....
and it must their solemn duty to keep posting non-sequitur and/or non-sense at every opportunity.

As more and more of the members realize how much better the place is when ignoring these never ending uninformed utterings, maybe those too thick to realize it's them ...  will go play their childish games in a different sandbox.

Just a bunch of coincidences...

{Sigh}

Thought experiment...

Marina claims that the BYP was the first and only time she ever worked a camera...

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures.
I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it on a day off that you took the picture?
Mrs. OSWALD. It was on a Sunday.
Mr. RANKIN. How did it occur? Did he come to you and ask you to take the picture?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.
Mr. RANKIN. And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time, was he?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

 "only time she ever took photos" - and she can't remember how many she took, and can't remember one of the strangest processes she had to
employ to take not 1 of these, but 3 or even 4?

This is close to what the camera would have shown at the time...   Hold camera at chest height, look down into an upside-down image, keep it perfectly steady so as to remove any blur, take the photo, had the camera back to wind, and do this again, and again, ... and maybe again  ???

HSCA:

Mr. McDONALD. Please tell us what happened? This was at the Neely Street address. 
What happened on this occasion when Lee asked you to take those photographs? 
Mrs. PORTER. Well, first of all, I refused to take picture because I did not know how to operate camera, and he told me, he insist that I will take it, and he said he will show me how, if I just push the button. So I took one picture, I think, and maybe he changed the pose, I don't recall. Maybe I took two pictures, but I was very annoyed by all the incidents. 

Mr. McDONALD. Did you use a tripod at all? 
Mrs. PORTER. Did I use what? 
Mr. McDONALD. A tripod. In other words, was the camera attached to a stand? 
Mrs. PORTER. No. 
Mr. McDONALD. OK. You held it in your hands. 
Mrs. PORTER. Yes. 

Q. This camera, do you recall whether to take pictures with this camera, you would look down into the viewfinder or whether you would hold the camera up to your eye and look straight ahead?
A. I just recall I think it is straight.
Q. You would put the camera up by your eye?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember what color the camera was?
A. I think it was black.
Q. Do you remember anything else about it?
A. Not the name; no. But again, since I am not expert with the camera, that is what I remember, I think?

6 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

The catheter was inserted into the wound directly without any tracheotomy being performed. In my view, a trained emergency surgeon would avoid this and would prefer doing a tracheotomy and tracheostomy as they are trained and always do, starting with an incision. 

Agree 100% Andrej...   A trained ER doctor will not just try and stick a tube into a hole...  (see Trach process images at bottom)

The process, as Lifton should know from his arguments against the brain falling out given what the brain is connected to... too much work to disconnect a brain from a body...

Same with the Trach...   I'm not doubting something was said that made it sound as if a formal trach was not performed...  but does it make any real world sense that a doctor would not take the steps necessary to perform an actual tracheotomy?

If PERRY pushed a trach tube into the wound, how is that "INVIOLATE"?     Whereas Fetzer's take was "still readily visible"  which I have yet to find in any dictionary resource...

inviolate : not violated or profaned; that must be) not harmed or damaged; free from violation, injury, disturbance, etc

free or safe from injury or violation.