David Josephs

keep blowing people's minds buddy They aint gonna learn what they dont wanna know

Agreed Pat, my comment was mostly to show he was not necessarily naming names but just writing a good book... Are you of the mind these men could have been simply messing with those they wanted to, by writing such "novels" It seems to me that at their level, "one-uping" each other and/or looking to "unsettle the other guy" was SOP. I'm just speculating.. my understanding of spy-culture is only based on what I've read. Maybe @Larry Hancock can shed some light on the infighting between these men and women and how much reality there is to that thought.

No Joe, the front red lights were blinking, not the rear brake lights... just look at the Muchmore frames prior to Hill Or BELL as they approach and go thru the overpass (no blinking lights - see below) Are you that incapable of supporting your own assertions with anything resembling proof thinking that you posting a paragraph is what, evidence of anything beyond your own convoluted imagination? Show the blinking lights Joe... refer us to a link ... Here is Bell

We also failed to mention it was Robert who wrote in his book that his younger brother attended Stripling. You are most welcome Denny. John and I have had interesting discussion about that as I'd like to think I'm a decent internet-based researcher while he had done so much of the legwork when it was necessary and generated scores of reference notebooks. Together I believe we've done a decent job assisting each other in our areas of concentration and on a few collaborative works. John has always said his book was only intended to be a starting point for those interested in looking deeper... to move the ball further down the field as I hope I've done with the rifle and Mexico work. A handful of people can offer rebuttals to isolated incidences yet fail to comprehend the totality of the evidence. That totality was not lost on Rankin or Jenner: "totally unfamiliar to Ely"

To show that the limo had stopped while he was shot at this point... why do you come here so woefully unprepared? He even follows up with a gif showing this... and if you ever took the time to analyze how Hill can possibly get from one vehicle to the other when both are supposedly moving at 10mph, and make it in 2-3 steps - it's not possible. Look at NIX please and count his steps between the vehicles... now determine the distance both vehicles moved IF they did not stop and how far Hill needs to run... he jumps off the bumper and within 3 steps has run down a vehicle supposedly moving away from him at 7 to 11.2 mph. Mr. SPECTER. At that time you looked back and saw Special Agent Hill across the trunk of the car, had your automobile accelerated by that time? Mr. KELLERMAN. Tremendously so; yes. Mr. SPECTER. Now, to the best of your ability to recollect, exactly when did your automobile first accelerate? Mr. KELLERMAN. Our car accelerated immediately on the time-at the time--this flurry of shots came into it. Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration-- Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot. No matter how you slice it, this has been described by all those who saw it at the archives as a black blob floating over the image. When one crushes out Jackies black hair at the top left, which is the same color as the back of his head, we can see even more plainly the "cover-up" of the right rear of his head.

https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Coloring-Book-Alexander-Roman/dp/1936404486 2014 https://envisioningtheamericandream.com/2013/12/11/coloring-in-the-truth/ 1962

Been emailing John about this Denny. John lived what he preached which is why over the many years I've known him I respect his never-ending attempt to get at the truth. I don't have to agree with every page or idea, one just needs to have a little awareness of what internet-researchers such as myself bring to the table, versus those who were actually in the trenches, traveling the world in search of answers. Haters gonna hate - as the song goes - and nothing said here will change that mindset. Take care Joe Patoski flew from Texas to my home in Tulsa, OK. We spent two days together and he looked thru my files. He told me that he knew Kudlaty, and I gave him Kudlaty's phone number and address. Patoski could not understand why I spent so much time on Oswald, but he trusted Kudlaty completely. I showed him the video of Kudlaty, who he remembered from his days as a student at Stripling. He clearly respected and trusted Kudlaty. I also showed him the video of fellow student Fran Schubert, who remembered that every day Oswald would walk across the street to his home at lunch time. Joe was not a student of JFK matters, and had never heard about a 2nd LHO. We were together, in my home, looking over documents, photos, witness statements, etc for hours. Joe was very interested, but was overwhelmed and appeared perplexed as to the possibility/reality of a 2nd Oswald. He was also confused as to why I was focusing on Oswald and Oswald alone instead of other areas of the assassination. A few week later I telephoned Joe, who told me that he had talked with Mr. Kudlaty who confirmed that Oswald had attended Stripling.

Color by number This is actually page 1 of the JFK coloring book.. "color their noses burnt umber"

"wrote a novel" a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism.

I stand corrected - I would have sworn you arrived at this conclusion fairly recently with .2% still left for doubt. That percentage seemed to have been much bigger in years past. Please accept my apology

IMO the most logical and intelligent manner of mole-hunting... chase yourself forever.

Offer 1 - show your work

The quote was taken from Ben's post - so his name appears. FWIW Consider learning to read JC Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother? Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir. Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say-- Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that. Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee.Mr. PIC - No, sir.

It is my understanding Mr. Speer believes Oswald did the shooting from the 6th floor.... his website is a wealth of information yet I for one disagree with his conclusions in a number of areas... doesn't take away from an amazing body of work. Kinda like H&L... The wealth of information no one had offered prior to his book since he and Malcolm spent year after year at the Archives (speaking of a research source for information not easily found in the public domain). Some areas and conclusions I simply cannot see given the evidence yet does not take away from H&L being a serious reference book. Finally MG, there is simply no doubt Oswald's presence in Mexico was established by an impersonator on the phone and potentially a real person on the 27th walking past Teresa Proenza to talk with Ms. Duran. CIA 104-10059-10423 describes the PROENZA PROJECT - I got mine from scans of Malcolm's collection from his years at the Archives which includes the ID Form cover page. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10059-10423.pdf. File #80T01357A Maybe Pat can address the last question and correct me if I'm wrong.

So this means you have nothing from this case to offer as authentic which cannot be easily shown NOT to be authentic. You can just say so rather than bend yourself into a pretzel NOT saying it. While I appreciate the assist Cliff, "for all we know" is not really what I'm talking about. Knowing, on the other hand, that this bullet rose 11 degrees to get from supposed entry to exit, back to front, while being shot at a much steeper downward angle, AND that Ford changed the Ryberg fantasy to adjust for that downward angle remains another example of easily refuted physical evidence (or cr@p representations thereof) and would never have been allowed as evidence in a trial. The actual location of the bullet hole on the shirt superimposed onto Ryberg.

Being obtuse doesn't help make you any more right than when you started. Your middle paragraph is just a joke. Get SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE. What happens to the prosecution when the defense destroys the item of evidence's authenticity by showing the witness to be lying about the item? That the real Chain of custody looks nothing like what is testified to? Even hear of Lying Under Oath? Judges disallow evidence all the time. You saying if new evidence surfaces that repudiates a chain of custody, that evidence is not allowed and will not cause the judge to disallow the original evidence and instruct the jury of same? What ?? The day something is recorded is not what we are discussing and you really should know better than to offer this weak response as a coherent argument against the establishment of authentic evidence in the JFK case. As I asked above.. stick to the case and offer any item of evidence which tries to establish Oswald's guilt that you'd like to enter as authentic in a court of law. Stop being obtuse and try a real example from the real situation from which we are dealing. Thanks

The discussion we are having is specific, not general. The only way any of that junk gets to be entered as evidence is to present lying DPD or FBI members to override the non-existent chain of custody. They marked the pistol and shells at the DPD ffs. The wallet in evidence is described as being from Irving with no items of evidence described as either ARREST WALLET or TIPPIT SCENE WALLET yet these are the wallets were evidence shos DPD personnel saw and announced what was in these two wallets. And now those wallets are simply gone with 16 items of evidence - 2 of them HIDELL RELATED - offered as evidence without a shred of authentication they came from anything ever touching our little Oswald. We are not talking about pictures Pat... we were talking about CE139 which wouldn't have had a chance in hell to be allowed in a court of law as real, authenticated evidence. If you can name an item of evidence that attempts to establish Oswald's guilt, whose authenticity I can't destroy, I'd love to see it. News bulletin Pat - OSWALD DIDN'T DO IT. Ergo, evidence establishing his guilt is by definition inauthentic. What the fruitcake are you jabbering on about? When did any of the witnesses ever become mine?

Been done 100 times Paul. Do a search before yet another H&L thread begins. Please

You're mistaken my friend. The fact the FBI removed all the evidence from Dallas Friday evening and returned more items than they took should be easy enough to grasp and even easier for a defense attorney to make it inadmissible. Add further the trial transcripts were rewritten to remove the specific evidence of that which I just described. Cadigan's desilver-ing of the evidence to make it appear it was not taken and returned - why else desilver non-latent fingerprint evidence? Cadigan answers "I could only speculate" and basically destroys the Chain Dulles deletes the answer, reverses it and removes key chain of custody evidence. If the FBI only needed to send an expert witness to substantiate the Chain of custody, why change the man's testimony Pat?

Why are completely vapid posts disparaging the work of many members and researchers in the community allowed? https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1133#relPageId=825. CE281 Mr. JENNER - I show you an exhibit, a series of exhibits, first Commission Exhibit No. 281 and Exhibit No. 282 being some spread pages of an issue of Life magazine of February 21, 1964. I direct your attention first to the lower lefthand spread at .the bottom of the page. Do you recognize the area shown there? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Do you see somebody in that picture that appears to be your brother? Mr. PIC - This one here with the arrow. Mr. JENNER - The one that has the printed arrow? Mr. PIC - That is correct, sir. Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother? Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir. Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say-- Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that. Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is. Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture. Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee. Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - In the upper portion there are a series of photographs spread from left-hand page across to the right-hand page. Take those on the left which appears to be a photograph of three young men. Do you recognize the persons shown in that photograph? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize ,this photograph, the people from left to right being Robert Oswald, the center one being Lee Oswald, and the third one being myself. This picture was taken at the house in Dallas when we returned from New Orleans. Mr. JENNER - You mean from--when you came from New Orleans after being at the Bethlehem Orphanage Home? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - And you went to Dallas? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - It was taken in Dallas at or about that time? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - The next one is prominent; in front is a picture of a young boy. There is a partially shown girl and apparently another boy with a striped shirt in the background. Do you recognize that picture? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Do you have any impression as to when and where that was taken? Mr. PIC - Just looking at the picture, I would guess first, second grade, maybe. I would have to guess at it. Mr. JENNER - Then there is one immediately to the right of that, a young man in the foreground sitting on the floor, with his knees, legs crossed, and his arms also crossed. There are some other people apparently in the background. Mr. PIC - I recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Does anything about the picture enable you to identify as to where that was taken? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Then to the right there is a picture of two young men, the upper portion of the one young man at the bottom and then apparently a young man standing up in back of that person. Do you recognize either of those young people? Mr. PIC - Yes; I recognize Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - Is he the one to which the black arrow is pointing? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - There is a young fellow in the foreground-everybody else is facing the other way. He is in a pantomime, or grimace. Do you recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir; looking at that picture and I have looked at it several times--that looks more like Robert than it does Lee, to my recollection. Mr. JENNER - All right. On Exhibit No. 286, the lower right-hand corner, there is another picture. Do you recognize that as your brother Lee in that picture? Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; that is about how he looked when I seen him in 1962, his profile. Mr. JENNER - Do you recognize the person, the lady to the right who is pointing her finger at him? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't. Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't. Mr. JENNER - Neither one of them? Mr. PIC - No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never guess that that would be Lee, sir. Mr. JENNER - All right. Exhibit No. 288, there is ill the lower left-hand corner, there is a reproduction of a service card and a reproduction, also, of a photograph with the head of a man. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - That looks to me approximately how Lee Oswald looked when I seen him Thanksgiving 1962. Mr. JENNER - Directing your attention to Exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 289, do you recognize any of the servicemen shown in that picture as your brother Lee? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I do not recognize them. Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 290, the lower left-hand corner there is a photograph of a young lady and a young man. Do you recognize either of those persons? Mr. PIC - He appears to me as Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962 when I seen him. Mr. JENNER - And the lady? Mr. PIC - She is his wife, Marina, sir. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him. Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother? Mr. PIC - That is correct.

Pithy analysis JC. Thanks for the vapid support of your conclusion... "It is because it is" says JC, and then adds the tried and true tactic: only an unreasonable person can conclude there was a Harvey or even a need for one... and there's plenty of logical explanations... just can't think of one or offer one here, there or anywhere. So fellow members, start to think and worry: you don't want JC and his supporters here to think you're illogical and unreasonable do you?

"Others" include Seymour Weitzman and Roger Craig both stating along with Boone that the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser, described in virtually the exact same terminology. If Day called out a 6.5 Italian rifle at the scene, can you think of any reason these men sign an affidavit to a different fact? The rifle in Day's possession as he leaves the TSBD was not CE139... there are a number of visible differences but most notably the lack of a "CAL 6.5" etched in white, the different lengths of the scope end and the lack of markings where "Made Italy" is seen on the only close up images of CE139 This is the moment DAY picks up the rifle and we see there is no clip protruding from the bottom of the rifle. On a Carcano Fucile Corte the clip falls out when the last round is CHAMBERED, not ejected. So unless they jammed a clip back up into the rifle, like the paper bag, there was no clip on the 6th floor. Gil nails it once again. and once again Mr. Speer seems to forget that the DPD and FBI lied there a$$es off. Pat is talking about the process of AUTHENTICATING REAL EVIDENCE for acceptance in court which includes as he says, a witness: https://practice.findlaw.com/practice-support/rules-of-evidence/summary-of-evidence-rules--overview.html Generally, authentication can be shown in one of two ways. First, a witness can testify as to the chain of custody through which the evidence passed from the time of the discovery up until the trial. Second, the evidence can be authenticated by the opinion of an expert witness examining the evidence to determine if it has all of the properties that it would be expected to have if it were authentic. The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence. What Pat fails to include is who were are relying on in this case to authentic this evidence or the chain. If the DPD or FBI is the witness corroborating this chain how reliable is it? When, in fact and with this rifle, the earliest evidence signed by Boone and Weitzman makes it impossible to authenticate as a 6.5 Carcano... there is no photo of the caliber on the 6th floor, or the clip, or the paper bag, or even the shells where they were found. Again, I appreciate Mr. Speer, but it remains a bit naive to simply state that if an FBI witness says the photo is what they say it is, then you don't need a proper chain of custody. And finally Pat "There is no real evidence ...." only means you have not found anything in the millions of pages of public docs or the unknown pages not available but from private collections. and by your own words, all we need is someone to testify that Bobby did and the chain of custody of that brain is rendered unimportant?... Really ?

Have to correct you here my friend, Lucas was Kudlaty's boss when Oswald attended in 1954 and the weekend after the assassination Lucas was principal from 1953 - 1963 but died in the summer of 1964 of a heart attack in the employee parking lot at Arlington Heights where he was to become principal in the fall of 1964. Kudlaty was with Lucas in the hospital when he died. 2220 Thomas, owned by a friend of Fred Korth (attorney for Ekdahl in the divorce from Marguerite - not Harvey's caretaker) is across the street from Stripling Marge lived at 2220 Thomas the day of the assassination despite having purchased 4029 Byers in 1962 with the Byers Ave deed was not recorded until 1965. I have all these docs but have run out of room to post them. I have all the Oswald real estate transactions which include Korth as trustee for Ekdahl in the purchase of commercial land before he went back to NY. Harvey most certainly went to Stripling while Lee attended school at Beauregard JHS. As to his attending there in the fall of 1953 in conflict with NYC records, it remains my POV they are mistaken about the conclusion of that analysis. Search for "NYC school records"... I've written extensively on the topic.

Thanks Ben, well said. I don't think we'll ever know the extent of Harvey's education, but as you said... and adding his talks on radio and at lectures - which on its face it difficult on it's own - he was extremely well versed... rehearsed his own words or words provided is the question. John Edward (who married the daughter of Hungary Communist immigrants) knew it was not his brother ... Robert deserves much more scrutiny than he's been given. his testimony timeline does not jive with the facts. (See bottom images) As I see it, Harvey Oswald was made the patsy for the Tippit and JFK murders with evidence specifically created to do so. He was building his bona fides to better infiltrate and report on the "Cuban" situations which turned out to also implicate him in the murders Lee Oswald is a mystery from 1959 until the summer of 1963* - his involvement in the assassination and/or setting up Harvey is a matter of interpretation and analysis of the individual events. In their Hubris, the two Oswalds could have simply been a CIA experiment to see if they could do what the Russians and Germans and English had already perfected in their spy-craft - doppelgängers with sophisticated backstops Harvey being fingered for the JFK patsy makes the most sense when we see him somehow being steered to the TSBD job above all others. Yet even this occurs weeks before Tampa and Chicago... If Vallee becomes the killed patsy... what becomes of Oswald and all that incriminating evidence... only FOUND after 12:30 on 11/22? My take? It never gets found as most of it never existed prior to 11/22. Clear as mud? FWIW: The lies of Bill Randle to the FBI after telling the Secret Service something completely different is yet another aspect receiving little attention... see below *August 1963 Dorothy Marcum was dating Jack Ruby in the summer of 1963 and her aunt worked for Ruby.109 Dorothy told the FBI she knew for a fact that Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby knew each other, because Oswald worked for Ruby in June and July (1963). In the summer of 1963 Jack Ruby was interviewing Francis Irene Hise for a job as a waitress when a young man came into the Carousel Club. Ruby acknowledged the man by saying "Hi, Ozzie" and later joined him in the back room after finishing the interview with Francis. After Ruby hired Miss Hise the same young man came into the bar and asked if he could buy her a drink. After the assassination Miss Hise recognized "Ozzie" as "Lee Harvey Oswald."110 Other Ruby employees who claim to have seen Oswald at Ruby's Carousel Club include William Crowe, Wally Weston, Dixie Lynn, and Kathy Kay. In all, there were dozens of people who saw Lee Oswald and Ruby together in the summer of 1963-precisely when Harvey Oswald was working at Reily Coffee and residinf with his wife and child on Magazine Street. During the last week of July (1963) Western Union employee Marshall Hicks delivered several telegrams to "Lee Harvey Oswald" at the Rotary Apartments, 1501- 1503 W. 7th Street in Dallas.113 The FBI made no attempt to locate copies of these telegrams. Sept 1963 Dallas Police Detective H.M. Hart, of the Criminal Intelligence Division, received information from a Dallas Police confidential informant who knew Ruby. The informant said that in September, 1963 Ruby rented an apartment at 223 South Ewing, for Lee Oswald (next door to Ruby's apartment building). The informant said the manager of the apartment asked Oswald to move because the manager did not like Oswald.114 The significance of these Ruby /Oswald sightings is that they occurred in the spring and summer of 1963, while Harvey and Marina were in New Orleans. It was Lee Oswald who knew and associated with Jack Ruby in the summer of 1963 and was familiar with CIA operatives, anti-Castro Cubans in Miami, Robert McKeown, and Cuban exiles from the Lake Pontchartrain camps. These sightings help to establish the time frame during which plans were formulated to use Lee Oswald to set up Harvey Oswald as a "patsy " in the assassination of President Kennedy. The last image we know of LEE Oswald is from the image on his 1959 passport. (The comparison is based on making the ears match as closely as possible) All we know of Oswald, related to the assassination, is Harvey. On August 9 (Friday afternoon in New Orleans) Harvey Lee Oswald began handing out Fair Play for Cuba Committee leaflets in the 700 block of Canal Street, unaware that he was in the process of being set up as a ''patsy." CIA Agent William Gaudet watched Oswald as he passed out the FPCC leaflets from his office in the International Trade Mart, while FBI informant Orville Aucoin took films of Oswald (later shown on national television). FBI photographers filmed the event with a 35 mm camera from across the street, while FBI informant Orest Pena watched.19 After talking with Oswald and the Cubans the arresting officer thought the leafleting incident was a staged event, designed to draw attention. The officer was correct but was unaware that two of the Cubans, Carlos Bringuier and Miguel Cruz, were FBI informants and the third, Celso Hernandez, was a CIA contact. The rest of the FBI report acknowledges Bill's awareness of Oswald working with Wesley and living a few doors down.

I know this will be met with the usual vitriol - my armor is reinforced - really depends on which Oswald we speak... the big, dumb Lee Harvey or the smaller, slighter intellectual Harvey Lee The man Ruby killed was not a "dimwitted 12-year old" Harvey on the left, August 1953.. turns 14 in Oct. / On the right is 20 months earlier as a 6th grader at 5'4 115 lbs. Boys don't hit puberty and get smaller and less muscular. Further examples of the duality of Oswald below. Yes, they are supposed to all be the same man Namaste... DJ .