David Josephs

3 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Yup, Paul is wrong, and he knows it.

Ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

David Von Pein is obviously correct that the timestamp on the envelope reads "Nov 12".  It's just that the "1" in the number "12" is printed very faintly

Bullsh!! Paul.

The "1" you and DVP claim is there - is not.  It is simply the pattern of the paper on this huge blow-up.

I brought this up in relation to the 15-day visa with LEE, HARVEY OSWALD printed on it and the 6-month (180-day) application the WCR offers as the form Oswald used to get this 15-day visa.

Sorry - doesn't work that way Paul.  Since there is no form signed by Oswald for a 15-day visa... the one offered by the WC was created to serve a purpose...  It is in that letter where Oswald supposedly brings this up - he had to leave due to the 15 day limit. 

Since he didn't have a 15-day visa and didn't have to leave on the 2nd.... only someone not familiar with the evidence would use the 15-day visa as an excuse for having to leave and "not get his business done"....

That this "15-days" is in the draft and finished typed version, and then the typed version is incorrectly dated, leads most of us here with insight to understand the falseness of the evidence related to Mexico City.  

There is no "1" there Paul...  and if you're going to simply be contrary to hear yourself type... don't.    You type first, think second and then never fix your mistakes.

Let's try this in a simple way for you....  all the evidence related to Mexico City was fabricated by the FBI and Mexican authorities to cover for the fact Oswald met with Odio on the 26th/27th of Sept and was not en route to or from Mexico City as the FBI offers. 

The 15-day Visa therefore, is a fabrication and never had any bearing on the events other than to clash with the application from which it supposedly came... That the CIA's Gaudet received the Visa previous to Oswald's should cause you no concern.... 

56 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

About Marina Prusakova: I wonder why she felt attracted to American defectors

HoneyTrap

It was 1964, six years after the KGB had staged one of its long-running and most elaborate honey traps in Moscow against a Western diplomat. The operation involved over 100 officers and agents of the KGB including, incognito, the head of the Second Chief Directorate, the branch responsible for domestic surveillance and the monitoring or recruitment of foreigners inside the Soviet Union.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/03/12/the-history-of-the-honey-trap/

13 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

From National Archives  2017 release of JFK documents

'EYES ONLY' SECRET CIA FILE #104-10268-10005:

 

ANGLETON'S CIA RIGHT-HAND MAN RAYMOND ROCCA TELLS WARREN COMMISSION MEMBER BELIN THAT LEE OSWALD WAS IN MEXICO CITY BECAUSE HE WAS INVOLVED IN A PLOT TO KILL FIDEL CASTRO ... Just as Judyth Vary Baker has been telling us since 1999  and in her  2010 book ME AND LEE ... 

KK

The CIA simply never told the truth about Oswald and Mexico City....

Lee Harvey "Leon" Oswald was with 2 Cubans in Dallas after driving thru Austin.
The man Ruby killed was not in Mexico City between Sept 17th and Oct 3rd...  but the CIA placed him there anyway knowing full well that the FBI had to go along or admit that Oswald was an asset of theirs in Hoover's war against communism at the cost of everything else.

For the entire month of Nov '63 the FBI looked for proof of Oswald in Mexico City...  they could not find any.

By the middle of January, Hoover was exasperated.   (edit:  so the FBI began the process of creating the necessary evidence to keep the WC from finding out about Mexico City)

10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

"Blakey set the investigation back 20 years."  Yes David, but was it intentional on his part?

No doubt Ron....   When the CIA places/replaces someone, pretty good chance the activities which follow are orchestrated.

I'd like to offer something that I've posted before related to the head injuries as described by Dr Humes.

The following is a quote from his WC testimony.  I then took that description and illustrated it.  

At the core.. a shot thru the top of the man's skull somehow cleanly severs the spinal cord exactly as a craniotomy would do

All credit to David Lifton and Best Evidence for making the point of how JFK at 8pm looked as if he had already gone thru a craniotomy.  

With regards to the back wound... you've been lied to, the holes were probed just not dissected for good reason, there was no channel that ran from back to front... besides, it was in the wrong spot to help them anyway

"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 sagittal 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 (1 & 2) 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 (3) 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.(4) 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."

And here is a quick analysis of the Boswell drawing/notes.  

There were a number of items that acted as the impetus for this work on Mexico...

Initially it was the fact that "LEE, Harvey Oswald" as written on the VISA is exactly the same as the signature on the Hotel Registry: "Lee, Harvey Oswald"...
comma and all.  Are we to believe Lee Harvey did not know his own name?  Only someone unfamiliar with Oswald would take the info on the VISA verbatim and transfer it to other evidence.  (kinda like the marked card 201 file with Lee HENRY)

But then I read a statement in the Lopez report that really got me going:

Choosing not to investigate anything related top this case is usually a way of covering up unpopular subjects.

We know from the way Sprague was ousted, Mexico City was a very sensitive area for the CIA...

Ok, what does the WCR say?  That this was basically an innocent trip having nothing to do with JFK... despite what rumors Alvarado started.

So my thinking was...  Enough is debated and theorized on the 5-7 days he's supposedly in Mexico.  The evidence related to his travel should be easy...

Buy a ticket, get a receipt, get on a bus with a passenger list, etc...   this was supposed to be an innocent man simply traveling to Mexico City..
A person can buy a 4 part ticket in New Orleans that would take them all the way... and what an easy item of evidence to prove Oswald was where the FBI and CIA claims he was.

So I started at the beginning of the summer of '63 and traced the evidence thru October 4th in Dallas.

One of the first things acquired related to this trip is the Tourist Visa, yet as I've shown there was concern over having to leave due to the 15 day period...  )Sept 17 thru Oct 2nd is exactly 15 days...) so once again, rather than understand what the visa was, based the application in evidence - a 6-month FM-5... the assumption and creation of the Mexican stamped Visas were for 15 day stays.

On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 10:03 PM, Ron Bulman said:

It was a 180 day visa, but Oswald did not apply for it.  Is That what someone new to the subject or thread should conclude? Mr. Josephs.  I realize their is much more detail.

So in fact Ron, if you look at how the exhibit is offered, the signature and the specifics of the Visa are not on the same copy of the evidence.  In fact, you'll notice the CE sticker covers and cuts off right where the 6-month explanation is printed...

As I dug more and more into the evidence (the FBI taking thousands of pages to hide the fact Oswald did none of the things offered in evidence... and Hoover knew it)

(side note:  the FBI formed the first foreign intel service the SIS in 1940.  Their task was to set up an intelligence network in the Western Hemisphere, while disbanded in 1945 to make way for the OSS and CIA, Hoover and gang did not simply let this valuable intel system fade away - in many cases Hovver's direct intel was better than waht was offered him via the CIA)

On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 7:31 AM, James DiEugenio said:

This was done while Sprague and Tanenbaum were running the show.

Blakey set the investigation back 20 years.  The magnitude of this change within the discovery of truth in history is terribly understated outside of these pages.

For those less aware of the story:  Attached is the FBI memo (not SS) with Tolson telling Belmont that Shanklin reports agents who know Oswald's voice say the tape sent by CIA not Oswald...

Sprague called David Phillips to testify before the Assassinations Committee in November, 1976. According to Sprague, Phillips said that the CIA had monitored and tape recorded Oswald's conversations with the Soviet Embassy. The tape was then transcribed by a CIA employee who then mistakenly coupled it with a photograph of a person who was not Oswald. Phillips said that the actual recording was routinely destroyed or re-used about a week after it was received.

Sprague subsequently discovered an FBI memorandum to the Secret Service dated November 23rd, 1963. It referred to the CIA notification of the man who visited the Russian Embassy. The memo noted that "Special Agents of this Bureau who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Tex., have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to a recording of his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald."

Sprague was intrigued: How could the FBI agents have listened to a tape recording in November when Phillips said it had been destroyed in October? Sprague decided to push the CIA for an answer. He wanted complete information about the CIA's operation in Mexico City and total access to all its employees who may have had anything to do with the photographs, tape recordings and transcripts. The Agency balked. Sprague pushed harder. Finally the Agency agreed that Sprague could have access to the information if he agreed to sign a CIA Secrecy Agreement. Sprague refused. He contended that would be in direct conflict with House Resolution 222 which established the Assassination Committee and authorized it investigate the agencies of the United States Government. "How," he asked, "can I possible sign an agreement with an agency I'm supposed to be investigating?" He indicated he would subpoena the CIA's records.

Shortly afterwards, the first attempt to get the Assassinations Committee reconstituted was blocked.

David...

Who gave you the permission to hijack this entire conversation simply because you remain too self absorbed to understand how wrong you and the government's investigations of this event are.

DVP, you have about as much credibility as DJT...   One little lie after the next until truth no longer exists....

COINTELPRO well played Dave...  

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

Look at the title of this thread.

Then look at the last 3 pages of posts.

 

Seems we've drifter far afield.  Not that I'm surprised.  But if you want to debate the autopsy and the head wounds, could you do it on a thread about the autopsy and the head wounds? Because I see very little here about Ruth Payne and her typewriter after the first page

Y'know Dave...  the extra BS you tag onto the end of your "I don't know" reply is superfluous.

IOW - nobody needs it or cares for it...   I did not ask you 15 questions, I asked one for which you do not have an answer

That you can regurgitate the same WCR arguments that have been debunked on these pages is a laugh.

The final laugh is you talking for "many CTers".   Defend your own pathetic arguments and let me defend mine... K?

Don't tell me what I already know, if you could PROVE you are right about any one thing of significance, you wouldn't be the posting laughing stock you are.

We all appreciate you aggregating videos and films... your inability to construct a coherent defense of any of your/WCR conclusions is all that anyone cares about anymore.

As the mouthpiece of the WCR you have no credibility here...  just like Specter, Jenner, Liebeler, Ball and on and on.

Until you actually attempt gaining some credibility... why should anyone care about your repeated description of who CTers are and what you think we think?

You can't get any of the WCR evidence to support your conclusion...  that must really suck for you. 

3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

So, those bumbling/stumbling plotters strike again! They want everybody to think Oswald sent a letter to Washington AFTER Nov. 9th, so "they" fake an envelope (which they COULD have put ANY date on via the "fake" postmark) which has "Nov. 2" on it, right?

Brilliant!

The things CTers believe never ceases being incredible---and hilarious.

 

Focus Dave...   6 month application yields a 15-day visa...  how dat?

{blush}

Thanks Mike....  

edit: Have we heard back from DVP about that 6-month application resulting in a 15-day visa?  Just sayin'

Dave...

Of course there is room there, stamps need to leave room for when a 1 is actually there.

You seem to be ignoring the "noise" of the paper itself and the limitation of the file.  

The thing you are calling a "1" is simply part of the pattern in the paper.  A real 1 looks like the 1 in front of 1963.

I put arrows near similar paper designs and even took one, rotated it to be vertical and show how identical they are.

Sorry buddy, no "1" there.  So explain how a letter typed on the 9th is postmarked the 2nd?

Oh, and how come they didn't give Oswald a 6 month visa from that 6 month application?

Here is the application Jim...  as offered within the WCR...

Interesting cutoffs...  one with no signature...  one with no name or numbers assigned....

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY OSWLAD DID NOT APPLY FOR THE VISA TO MEXICO?

Yes Jim...  I am saying that is a very good possibility given the other evidence.  GAUDET at this counter and "NO T-2" with access to completed, signed applications...
He/They has/have access to forms, stamps, etc....  

The insistence this was a 15-day visa when it is obvious the form is for a 180 day visa along with the FM-11 records out of Mexico recording this Visa under the name "OSWALD" and not "LEE" for which it was issued.

As to that stamp showing the 12th...  when there's a "1" it shows a "1".  

My point remains that the "15 day visa" was part of the planting of evidence.  If you take the time to read thru my essays on the topic, you'll find that these few examples are simply the tip of the FBI iceberg related to Mexico City.

There was something very wrong with that typed letter dated Nov 9th.
There was the accompanying hand-written letter, and reference in both to 15 days and time in Mexico City

From Sept 18th thru Oct 2nd is 15 days...  yet even a 15-day visa has a grace period to travel THEN it is good for 15 days in country.

It is within this letter that we are introduced to the concept of Oswald feeling that he couldn't "do whatever it was" down there since he had to leave by Oct 2nd.
The final piece of this puzzle being the CIA's Gaudet receiving the next Visa after the one attributed to Oswald.

Except the document in question - the 15-day visa application - is actually for a 180-day Visa despite the Visa itself stating 15 days

• The Visa was never for 15-days, nor was "Oswald" required to leave by the 15th day or Oct 2nd
• The Visa Application is broken in 2 parts for the WCE... one without his signature, the other without the Visa app #, or 24085 the visa # itself, as well as no name
• Authenticating documentation is the "record of birth", not a Birth Certificate

Let's now move to the handwritten note which states that Hosty came to see Oswald and his wife on Nov 1st, 1963 (not "yesterday" which I will explain shortly)

The transfer from handwritten to typewritten introduces many changes to the draft... spelling gets worse, and paragraphs are rearranged.  Wording is changed, 
names are spelled out...

Back to Hosty and Nov 1.   While the type-written letter is dated Nov 9... the envelope is postmarked Nov 2.  The "15-day visa" like "Lee, Harvey Oswald (H.O.LEE)" is a mistake thread which from my view betrays the evidence's creation.

Add now GAUDET "applying for" his Visa 24084 - any proof??  NO T-2 is quoted in DeBreuys Dec 2nd report that a number of 15-day visas were given on Sept 17th in addition to 24085 including 24084 for William GAUDET.  I forget who this informant is yet they have access to documentation which is in essence from a foreign government... they are applying within the Mexican Consulate in New Orleans...  ultimately these card are forwarded to the Gobernacion and Mexican Immigration Authorities - one of whom very high up in the organization is an asset for the FBI.  

An asset that ultimately has his fingers on every piece of Mexican related evidence.

One of the greatest FBI assets at the time was the US Postal Service.  With inside access to all the processes and procedures, "creating" mail after the fact is truly not so difficult.

A side note:  the airmail stamp on the Kleins envelope and this envelope are the same

On 7/21/2017 at 10:34 AM, Chris Newton said:

Remember that it was the "change of address" notice* that triggered the FBI in New Orleans to contact Dallas to re-locate LHO in OCT. '63.

Sylvia Duran and sister see LHO on or about Sept 26/27.  The CIA claims he is in Mexico from the 26th thru the 3rd of Oct.

Oct 1963 FBI discussion were focused on deciphering the Mexico info with the Kaack report from Oct 31 the first which mentions Oswald in Dallas at the TSBD.

I'd have to think anything related to Oswald in Dallas at that time was removed... as Hoover crafted the fictitious bus trips while learning all thru Nov that Oswald was not there which I believe he already knew.

And since that rifle was not seen in the travel and unpacking at the Paine's he'd have to bring the rifle with him to Mexico and back... which he did not.

* One note here...  The stamp is for Friday the 26th with the process stamp showing Sept 29th.  The front shows this was mailed on the 26th from the Lafayette Square Post Office

with instructions stating to "Mail of Deliver to the Post Office of Old Address"

This shows it was mailed from the same post office which Oswald had his PO Box 30061 which in turn is around the corner from 544 Camp.

This form could have been dropped off, without postage, that same day at the same place.  By the morning of Sept 26th, and according to the FBI evidence, Oswald was sitting next to Osbourne on a bus to Monterrey, MX.

If in fact Oswald did as I theorize and traveled to Austin then Dallas to arrive at Odio Friday night, someone dropping this form into a mailbox creates evidence that Oswald either

   A - was still in New Orleans thru the 26th (or the night of the 25th) and left with 2 Cubans after depositing this form in the mail   or
   B - someone else mailed this (and even possibly created it) for him  - does it look to you that "TEXAS" is written over the Sept 29th stamp instead of it being the other way round?

Hey Tracy...  Show us how you fit little Oswald attending 200 of these 210 SCHOOL days between 3/23/53 thru 1/12/54.... per the FBI

Actually attempt to debunk something that is as simple as adding.

         We'll wait      

16 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

DJ,

But your invisioncic.com image is showing up directly above quite nicely!  Sorry to keep harping about this, but I'm getting complaints from my web server.

--Jim

That's an attachment within the forum, not from outside.

It never did add up for me...    There is one other thing that's been nagging at me as well....   the advertised rifle has an adjustable rear sight... the 91 TS and FC both have fixed sights.

https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/JosephsMOTimeline.pdf

This is something I pulled together when doing the research on the Rifle and Money Order...

The gaping hole in Holmes' story is that the Money Order was found by finding the money order book that still had a stub in it for $21.45 (despite Harry and boys not knowing the actual MO amount)...  point being, this is an approximation of what the original PMO would have looked like before tearing off the 2 parts to hand to the customer leaving the stub at the right in the book...  The WC never offered us the stub or book from which this was supposed to have originated.

https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf

and this is a detailed and visual a presentation of the Rifle saga with much thanks to John Armstrong for his time gather and tracking down evidence.

One of the most overlooked "details" in this ad is highlighted here.  The SS claimed that the weapon ordered and shipped was a 36" Troop Special Carbine as partially detailed in the ad below...  The FBI claimed the TSBD rifle, the 41"  91/38 Fusile Corto was sent in its place.

The Klein's order was for a MODEL 91TS to match the ad that was running...  as I've asked before to resounding silence, these rifles do not show up until Feb 1963 yet are on ad from August '62.   What was Klein's shipping its customers who ordered C20-T750?  If the FIXED REAR SIGHTED 41" FC rifle was sent which is the same as the TSBD rifle...

When did Klein's get a shipment of FIXED sight rifles between August 1962 and March 1963 and where are the rifles that match this ad?

The Evidence remains the Conspiracy

DJ

34 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

DJ,

Apologies for veering off topic, but have you found a solution to the recent dropbox/photobucket, etc. problems?  I've never heard of invisioncic....

--Jim

Only the links to Google Drive... It doesn't show the image if you paste that link into the dialog box...

Or recycle attachments... 

Harry Holmes and the USPS FBI informants kept tabs on Oswald relentlessly, even opening and resealing his mail.

During the week of March 27 a 5 foot carton arrives at PO Box 2915 from Klein's Sporting Goods.

The USPS informed us about his Worker" subscription which he was receiving at the same time he supposedly picked up the rifle.
The mail he received is even in the famous Backyard photos taken the week of March 27, 1963....

Why is there not a report from the Harry Holmes section (g~d knows he submitted enough himself) or anyone at the FBI detailing the receipt of said carton
or the pistol he supposedly received at about the same time.  

Nor is there any mention of a rifle or pistol in any single FBI report prior to 11/22.

How could they have missed these weapons deliveries?

Modus Operandi - the finding of the wrong witnesses, especially when it was for Oswald where he wasn't supposed to be, was a reused tactic of the FBI

When it was said Oswald crossed into Mexico with a Young white couple... the only pair fitting that description was "Bill and Elaine ALLEN"

So the FBI goes and finds M/M Brill to help confirm Ozzie did not have confederates in this endeavor. 

Simple case of simple mistakes...  Just sayin'    

Hey there Brian...

John Armstrong did quite a bit of research into Thornley when writing his book.  

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/29578 is a link to a dozen pages about leads from the Ryder Coffee House in New Orleans

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/29498 is a link to his notebook on Thornley.  This includes his affidavit given to Garrison

It's a start at least....  key thing:  keep aware of the dates.