David Josephs

On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 12:22 PM, Chris Davidson said:

The hypotenuse of z161(137.44ft) / the golden ratio (1.618) = 84.94ft = the street distance from station# 2+50 (rifle end in snipers nest)  to the plotted location of "JFK within limo" via the WEST path (Station# 3+34.94) on the same Z LOS labeled as z171 via Shaneyfelt's path.

Is the 137.44 a hypotenuse on the street or from the window?  Since the street distance does not meet up with the 84.94' line taking us to JFK at the filmed location designated frame 166 on the R.WEST path.  (and as you show,  FBI's 168/171 winds up further up Elm than the film of these frames shows.

When there is a distinct conflict between what the film shows and what the FBI says... why would they not default to the film unless the film did not represent the info as desired?

So the Egyptians killed JFK???  

90 - 38.173 = 51.827 degrees at the window down to the target...  

The triangle you describe at Z161:  
hyp = rifle muzzle to target = 137.44' 
side a = target to TSBD base = 108.05'
side b = TSBD base to rifle = 85'

Except side B, the distance to the TSBD window from the base, was not 85' but only 61'

Isn't the RUN 108' and the RISE is 85'... IOW the height of the TSBD??

18 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

If I run a calculation on that hypotenuse (137.44ft to be exact) for frame 161-Station# 3+29.2, the run is 84.94ft and the rise is 108.04ft

108 feet is the distance from TSBD base to rear bumper at WEST's 161.
 

18 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

The only entry missing in the online calculator result is the angle that was used. Purposely.

 

4 hours ago, Tom Hume said:

Maybe Al Felde #1 and Al Felde #2 were in the same undercover doppelganger program as Lee Oswald #1 and Lee Oswald #2. Maybe the waters were intentionally muddied.

There’s also the tangle of nearly identical ex-Marine “Steve Landesberg” names surrounding the circa 1960 "Steven Yves L’Eandes" mystery. Several Lee Harvey Oswald impersonation overtones here.

 

 

I don't know that I'd go that far Tom...  the FBI creating duplicity in the evidence is THE theme of the investigation.  There are at least 2 of almost everything.

In many cases there were physically 2 of an item... but in many others the FBI reports show they simply went after an alternate subject.

Duplicity in the Evidence would make a great book on its own.

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 1:59 PM, Chris Davidson said:

David's right triangle height = 61.45ft - Survey says 62.28ft difference = .83ft = 10 inches

According to the elevations I saw the base of TSBD is at elevation 430.2 with the sill at 490.7 = 60.5, not 60.25.
According to the WEST plat where 1"=20' the 2 measurements are: 490.9 & 430.2 leaving 60.7' from base to sill

That's 60.7 - 60.25 = .45' = 5.4 inches higher than WEST's measurement.  Keeping all things constant, the extra .45' moves JFK forward .45 * 18.3 = 8.235'

431.28 - 2.03 = 429.25 = z161 on CE884 which originally was surveyed at z168 (designated by Shaneyfelt, not WEST.  
WEST simply surveyed the spot he was told by the FBI was 168.   171 was then placed 9" further down Elm.  

This charade was born between Station C the corner of the TSBD, the sill of the TSBD 6th floor East window, thru Position A and prior to the frame we know of as z161.

Z156-157-158 is the beginning of this transition with a break in the film.  The next "break" occurs related to a shot at/around 207.
Frames are missing from 303-304 and 316-317.

FWIW
Chris, do you see any "adjustments" made in the WEST data for the 10" difference for 168?  I don't 
Where does the 60.25' come from when the plats say something else?

On one of the Purvis pages he shows the line art legend which was "redone" in June 1964...  490.9 and 430.2 are listed

What say you my friend?

Now you're mixing math and Heroin   

Side a = window sill:490.7 -  limo elevation:429.25 = 61.45' @ the window sill.

CE887 shows them placing the muzzle 10" above the sill...

They claim they made the 10" limo height adjustment, but they did not... moving the muzzle up 10" changes the angles to the limo and the stand-in, it does not accurately change the CE884 measurements which are to the stand-in.  The correct method would be to align the stand-in's chalk mark to the window sill, THEN raise the rifle 10" and re-establish where JFK would have been... 15.25 feet further down Elm.

Side b = distance from elevation 429.25 supposedly at station 3+29.2, back to the base of the TSBD which is the 3rd side of the triangle requiring knowledge of the other 2.

Side c = 137.4'

a squared = 3776.1025
c squared = 18878.76

sq root of (18878.76 - 3776) = 122.89'

right angle triangle : 122.89 x 137.4 x 61.45   So what's 122.89 feet from 6.5feety from the TSBD corner?  

The rear bumper of the limo at WEST's path z171 - which, as Chris shows = 3+34.94 
while on the FBI path this crosses at the 171-dot created by Shaneyfelt 1 foot south of extant z166.
Then we get the 3 frames(168-171) = 9" changed in CE884 to 5 frames(161-166) for the same distance.

"Levers" that can be changed which affect the conclusions of the surveying:

• Rear of limo v JFK location
• 10" height diff
• Robert WEST path versus Shaneyfelt's FBI path
• Actual height of JFK's head
• distance from the true TSBD corner
• Station C and Position A
• Height of Zapruder and pedestal
• etc.....

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim (or David),

David Josephs wrote the following in this 2015 post:

"The problem with FELDE is that for some reason his USMC SN# is used for both Alexander D and Allen R, per Tom's work."

So apparently some "Tom" showed that both Alexander D. Felde and Allen R. Felde used the same USMC serial number. This pretty much guarantees the two were the same. Either that or one was the other's doppelganger.

Do you know where Tom's work is? His information should be in John's book and Jim's website.

If they were indeed the same person,I have a hard time believing that the USMC got the name wrong for such a long time. I'm inclined to believe there was some sort of intelligence activity going on. Either that or Felde was trying hide but nevertheless was found by the FBI.

 

Sandy,

I may have misstated.  It's not that they both have the same #, it's that the WC found the wrong man...

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz3jo6OY_godbnNwX0I1SHNjNHc is a link to a composite.  Google Drive doesn't allow for direct links it seems... or I don't know how to use it correctly.

The WC suggests there were 2 FELDE's.  The one with Harvey Oswald #1641924 and the one they "claimed" was the right man for a bit - #1615775.

By the time they get around to the correct Felde, the report and John Ely's bio is done...  Feld's testimony and exhibit make up a substantial part of the "Omissions and corrections" that John Ely brings to the attention of Jenner and Liebeler.

On 1/10/2017 at 5:52 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I have a (non-confrontational) question for Jim Hargrove/David Josephs. At the Armstrong/Baylor files is found the following document (p. 4):

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/2517/rec/1

This is an interesting document because it confirms the date of Marguerite's marriage to Ekdahl-May 5, 1945. As you may know, the date is mentioned in some records as May 7 instead of the 5th. Small point, but important for the historic record. My question did Armstrong obtain this document himself or was it found in some existing government files? I don't see anything that indicates it was in the FBI files or anything and it looks like Armstrong may have obtained this on his own. If so, I would like to give him credit for that in any future projects I do.

I sent him a note Tracy asking him.....  he spent 10 years in and out of the Archives copying as much as he could.

I can see why they would just send him a copy of the certificate, if public property, right?

DJ

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz3jo6OY_godZGw5WTQyT0Q3ODQ/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz3jo6OY_godb2tmSlg0em5SNzA/view?usp=sharing

These give some idea of what that 10" and 15+ feet meant.

The info on CE884 is all related to the "stand-in's" position, not JFK's.
Claiming that z210 is the location for z207 once the 10" are taken into consideration is crazy.  

207 to 210 = 2.3 feet horizontal distance  divide by 18.3 = 7.95' leaving another 7.3' unaccounted for..... I realize they added 10" to the height at the window but they do not have a starting angle at the window ledge.

The Shaneyfelt drawing states a 490.9' sill elevation so while an attempt was made, the 10" difference is never adjusted for within the offered calcs from the FBI...

3 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Going to say this just one more time; locate and read Prouty's extended interview with the ARRB in terms of his remarks about Dallas, about the "stand down" and other related topics.  It will give you the needed context to evaluate this aspect of the tramps discussion.  

I started to watch the Prouty discussion about Landsdale yet Prouty thinks these men are taken thru DP within minutes of the shooting, adding drawa to the casual stride of the man walking the opposite way.

What strikes me is no mention of the leading cop making any movement or gesture to stop this man as he walks past him towards the three men.  That's supposed to be Bill Bass at the front with Marvin Wise at the back....

Also, the 3 arrest reports are on forms the County Jail did not use.

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

David, I'm wondering if you have ever read anything about a second set of tramps being found in a grain car South of the triple underpass about an hour and a half after the assassination.  This may have been hashed out and debunked on the forum before, if so, you or anyone please direct me there.  What I read on line 4-5 years ago was about after the search of the railroad yard was deemed complete 1:30-2:00 lee Bowers was allowed to release a train headed Southbound (towards Reunion Arena now).  As it proceeded South over the triple underpass and beyond Bowers noticed men run to it and jump on a grain car from the East side of the tracks, South of the triple underpass, near the West end of the Postal Annex building and it's parking lot.  He stopped the train, called the police back, told them which car.  Three men found hunkerd down/dug in to the grain in an open topped car, only observable from above.  The really intriguing part was police reports supporting the story.  Wish I could remember where I read this, relatively sure I didn't dream it and I'm not making it up.  

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bz3jo6OY_godQ3pEemhrSE8xcmc  is a link to an arrest document from 2:45pm of John Franklin Elrod who was picked up walking along the tracks where "someone" called DPD Dispatch about a man with a rifle walking along the RR tracks.

Mr. BALL - Afterwards did a good many people come up there on this high ground at the tower?
Mr. BOWERS - A large number of people came, more than one direction. One group converged from the corner of Elm and Houston, and came down the extension of Elm and came into the high ground, and another line another large group went across the triangular area between Houston and Elm and then across Elm and then up the incline. Some of them all the way up. Many of them did, as well as, of course, between 50 and a hundred policemen within a maximum of 5 minutes.
Mr. BALL - In this area around your tower?
Mr. BOWERS - That's right. Sealed off the area, and I held off the trains until they .could be examined, and there was some transients taken on at least one train.

Bowers does say in his Lane interview that the last 2 shots did not sound the same... the FBI/DPD reminded him he was not a weapons expert... 

I also posted http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=3846&content_commentid=349160 the comment from Harkness about the "Several individuals" taken from the train in addition to the three mentioned.

We are also to remember that while Gedney, Abrahms and Doyle spend a few days in jail - the first couple of them with Oswald there as well - while the three "tramps" in the photos were all released per Sheriff Decker.

Appreciate the comment Chris....

Funny thing....  no mention of the sailboat.  This was Ruth's from her "family trip"? cause it surely wasn't the Oswald's.   What I do see in the rafters of the garage in that image is a surfboard.... not a sailboat.   Where did this come into existence related to this trip and how do you know it was on the roof rack?

14 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Why didn't MR. JENNER ask her who else unloaded the car?

Mr. LIEBELER - Now yesterday, we asked you about an incident or spoke to you about an incident that happened in September of 1963 when you went into your garage to use some tools, your garage in Irving, Tex. Would you tell us about that? 
Mr. PAINE - I don't remember whether the date was September. I remember that was the date they came back from New Orleans and I do remember that my wife asked me to unpack some of their heavy things from their car. I only recall unpacking duffelbags but any other package, that was the heaviest thing there and they were easy also. 
Mr. LIEBELER - You must have moved the duffelbags from the station wagon into the garage? 
Mr. PAINE - That is right. I unpacked whatever was remaining in the station wagon to the garage.

If Ruth was in league with the WCR lawyers, all she needed to say was she saw the rifle in the garage - any part of it.  Even Michael can't come to that conclusion.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did it occur to you at that time that there was a rifle in the package? 
Mr. PAINE - That did not occur to me. 

So while I agree wholeheartedly about Ruth's role... agreeing to place the rifle in his hands at any point in time appears to have been something she could not bring herself to do.

When someone of such dubious position tells the truth, to me it sticks out like a sore thumb.  Add to that Michael claiming to have seen the BYP Friday night and I think we all agree THAT rifle and our man Oswald had nothing to do with it.

The Rifle has been a subject near and dear....  With the help of long time researchers I was able to compile a fairly detailed account of THAT rifle and how it could not be THE rifle.

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

With respect to Alberto's post...  using a sabot would allow the 6.5mm copper bullet to be fired from a 7.35mm rifle.  Bullets retrieved at the scene does NOT prove what type of weapon was used... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabot   

And if the conclusion of a STEEL jacketed bullet comes from the Walker shooting report, I found no relation to Oswald with the Walker shooting...  Oswald did not load anything into that rifle... Oswald never even saw or came in contact with CE139.  The evidentiary record shows that CE399 comes into existence when SS Chief Rowley gives it to Elmer Todd...  Except the evidence shows Frazier receives the bullet twice... and that Todd's notes does not have him in possession of said bullet until after Frazier claims to already have it.

I also have to take issue with the mathematics offered at the start of the 6-part series.  I hate to say it but it's simply not correct.  I work at a Lottery and my job includes the working of odds given certain events.  The theoretical possibility of a group of people all getting something wrong is simply not calculated that way. Furthermore, your formula of 50% chance at being right to the 47th power due to the number of people dismisses the fact that the SAME formula would be used to state all 47 people were correct about the Grassy Knoll if all 47 said Grassy Knoll.  

Furthermore, what if the shots came from the South Knoll and the County Records Building?  What are the chances of being correct given the choice of GK or TSBD?
0% - so the odds of 47 getting it wrong would be 100%  Look at it this way:  Given that shots were fired and killed JFK in DP, what are the odds that 47 people will identify the same location as the source of these shots?  Whether they are right or wrong is not the point... since we cannot conclusively say where the shooter(s) were given the available evidence.

The "event" Alberto defines is what people "believed" to be the source location without proof.  There are no "odds of many people being right or wrong".  
Another way...  flipping a coin does in fact only have 2 outcomes (as opposed to the only 2 choices given in your analysis).  There is no 3rd possibility for the flipped coin as opposed to the Grassy Knoll question.  There are also observable outcomes... heads or tails - no opinions or guesses.  Flipping 47 "heads" in a row is the question to your mathematical answer... being right or wrong is not a 50/50 proposition.  It has a 50% probability yet the formula is Outcome #1=100%, outcome #2=0%, the probability of either a head or tail is 50%.  What are the odds of 500 people being wrong when they say the coin-toss result was "square"?  100% since that outcome option was not available to those calling the coin toss.

So let's just drop the "astronomical odds that 47 people would all be wrong" since that math has no connection to reality.  Fetzer/Cinque tried that with Oswald in the doorway.  Astronomical odds that the shirt Lovelady has on is the same as Oswald's...  pure mathematical BS.

Alberto, if you haven't already, you might get quite a lot out of the linked work I did on the rifle issue.  We agree on some of the conclusions yet we arrive at them very differently..
Please don't take any of this as an attack.  Building an argument on the shaky ground of voodoo math will never serve you well in the long run...

When/If you read the above piece, the one thing that should jump out is that the record does not show the removal of said rifle from it's cartons at Harborside.  That there is evidence of a June 1962 shipment to Kleins despite the first removal of cartons from the C2766 shipment is not removed until August 1962....

These are the details behind the opinions.   The shooting was initially a conspiracy plan so multiple shooters with multiple bullets makes sense.  Sabots make sense.  The TSBD rifle may have been a 7.35mm weapon...  but until there is a chain that connects where the rifle was (w/Oswald, at DPD, at FBI, back at DPD, back to FBI....) to this museum in Italy, 

Q1. Between 4905 Magazine on Sept 23 and Ruth Paine's house October 4th...  how did the rifle get from New Orleans to Irving?
Q2. When Oswald picked up the 5 foot cardboard box after handing the non-existent postcard from his PO Box to the clerk the week of March 27th... how did he get it home? and do you supposed the penny pinching Oswald would not keep the box to protect the rifle as they move from place to place? No matter, here is the relevant testimony:

Mr. JENNER - It was in the open so you could see what went into your car? 
Mrs. PAINE - I think so. I certainly then repacked it to go to New Orleans. 
Mr. JENNER - Well, I want to stick with this occasion, please. 
Mrs. PAINE - All right. 
Mr. JENNER - Was there a rifle packed in the back of the car? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 
Mr. JENNER - You didn't see any kind of weapon? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 
Mr. JENNER - Firearm, rifle, pistol, or otherwise? 
Mrs. PAINE - No; I saw nothing of that nature. 
Mr. JENNER - Did you drive them to your home? 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. 
Mr. JENNER - Were the materials and things in your station wagon unpacked and placed in your home? 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; immediately. 
Mr. JENNER - Did you see that being done, were you present? 
Mrs. PAINE - I helped do it; yes. 
Mr. JENNER - Did you see any weapon on that occasion? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 
Mr. JENNER - Whether a rifle, pistol or-- 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 
Mr. JENNER - Or any covering, any package, that looked as though it might have a weapon, pistol, or firearm? 
Mrs. PAINE - No. 

Representative BOGGS - Did you see the rifle that he had in the room in your home? 
Mrs. PAINE - In the garage, no. 
Representative BOGGS - In the garage, you never saw one? 
Mrs. PAINE - I never saw that rifle at all until the police showed it to me in the station on the 22d of November. 

Not me, really, I swear...  

I take enough grief over Harvey and Lee and the altered Zfilm....

At least I don't have to change the monograms

DJ

"Josephs",  George...      

Also see how similar the "38 T.S." is versus the "91/38 T.S." vs the "91/28 T.S"

The Secret Service report reconfirms that the rifle from Kleins was a TROOP SPECIAL yet if you look at the ad, it states "Rear sight Adjustable"... the 91/38 FC and TS are both FIXED rear sight.  So while the 91/38 TS rifle, the 36" carbine, C20-T750, is believed to have been "mailed by Kleins".. the rifle's ad does not match the rifle recovered, as we know, yet it is not until April 1963 when the ad changes to the 40" FC rifle with fixed "open sight".

9 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

48/18.3 = 2.622... x 486 = 1274.75 frames

48/18.3 = 2.622... x 133 =   348.85 frames     

Difference =                         925.9 frames 

1/2 frame removal =            462.95frames

Total frames from z133 =     353

Difference =                         109.95 

Remove 109.95/462.95 =   .23749           + .7625 (18.3/24) = 1

 

 

 

And to bring this full circle... the reason for the splice there - imo - is to hide the wide Elm turn...  by using the earlier motorcycle as a guide we can see how many frames it takes when disappearing into that corner...  Since the cycle is not stopping, nor slowing much... the 81 frame count is low compared to the 109 removed...  we are also to remember that the motorcycle is already within the turn at frame 20-40 while the limo had not yet entered the picture by frame 132.

now we take Position A and compare it to where the cycle is in frame 121...  yet somehow, the limo is in the middle of the road at 133...  I know I posted this before, this approximates that turn, the divergence of paths, Pos A and then back to 133...

(note:  For reference, Roy Truly testified to the limo almost hitting the Elm extension curb and having to turn sharply left to get back to the middle of the street
Mr. BELIN. The street leading to the expressway, that diagonal street? 
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. 

Staccato burst - I like that...  

As Chris eludes, any narrative would involve so much guesswork.... and be hard struck to account for Position A, # of frames between 132 & 133, the actual starting and stopping number of frames, etc.

What we are doing here in reality is unraveling what Shaneyfelt, Gauthier, Frazier, and a few others were doing in Apr/May 1964 when the conclusive plats were changed.
We also have to accept wherever Shaneyfelt placed Surveyor WEST and then equated that spot to a frame #... even in the early surveys.

CE884 is the result of that effort and literally JUMPS out at us trying to explain what the FBI boys did.

We have CREATED legends, CREATED surveys, WCD298, CE585, CE875 and the entire CE885-CE902 run which uses the stand-in for measurements.
And none of them work in concert with the others... except for the shot down by 5+00 which was simply removed to create the 2 shot results.

Is it a coincidence that 1.8 seconds of Towner is missing and the limo stop was judged to be just under 2 seconds.
--- that the wide Elm turn and Position A match exactly yet is specifically called out as NOT being seen in the extant film - was it ever there?
--- when the 16 to 48 fps switch(es) occur.... All that needed 48fps was what we see as Z150-Z400.  That's 250 frames / .25  /  .50 = 667 starting frames

50% of 667 = 333    25% of 333 = 83 .   333 - 83 = 250    /   667   = .625 = 5/8.  Therefore, 250 18fps frames started out as 667 48fps frames. 
The extra .3 foot per frame gives them a fudge factor as well as allows for easier measurement on the Elm incline.
     These .3 fps over 486 frames also allows for .443 seconds of removed film  - and at 48fps that equates to 21-22 frames.

By removing those extra 22 frames, the speed of the film increases from 18 to 18.3 fps for no other reason that the math works with the Elm incline.
486 frames needed to go thru the projector in the same time 508 at 18fps did.

Related to Towner and her splice... her camera did not run at 24fps but at 16 and 48 like all the other cheap cameras of the day.
Playing the Towner frames at 22-24fps looks ridiculous.  (what speed did you do your FLV files of the Towner turn?)

Here's another reason for the change in lane stripes from plat drawing to drawing... the limo at zframe 166 becomes altered CE884's first 171 by artificially moving the limo south from the red to the green line.  Then, on the green line, the limo is in line with red-z 161 at the new green-z 171.  The Green path extends down to 313 where it meets up again with its red original...  all paths converge at 313...  problem being 313 was the 2nd, not 3rd shot in all the other surveys.

So the film contradicts CE884 which in turn was altered from a different legend original which was created to explain the images seen in the film.
CE884 does not even consider WCD298's conclusions and conflicts with them greatly - both versions.

So finally, we are left with a simple question:

Do things occur in the film which appear impossible?  

    Body movements that are too fast? 
    Stop/Start which does not look as it should?
    Choppiness that appears to slow down and speed up
    Both fore- and back- grounds in focus while panning

Since we also see these items, it becomes more and more obvious the film MUST have been altered - otherwise it would have been used without recreations from day one.

Mark - let's start with a few questions for you...  do you see that frames are missing ?

from between or within 157-158

302-303

Chaney not seen

and before this there's 316-317 Greer Turn, the shot at 5+00, the terrible difference between the final Altgens image and all the others

So in the end, the MATH follows the hypothesis that IF the film was altered... a methodology would have been employed...

Chris' thoughts on this methodology are spot on and take a difficult process and makes it very simple...

DJ

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

If you want to push this farther up Elm St 

Towner fps via Myers 22.8 - 18.3 = 4.5fps difference

Myers (1.8sec) = 33frame jump / 4.5 fps = 7.333...sec x 18fps (whole frames) = 132 frames 

Limo on film at z133.

 

Overall, Myers (9.8mph) 14.42ft per sec rate of speed when broken down into distance:

1.803 sec x 14.42ft per sec = 25.999ft

1.803 sec x 5.49ft per sec.  =  9.898ft

Combined distance             =  35.897ft = plotted distance (35.9ft) from above.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Since it was not practical to stop the projector when using the original of the Zapruder film, because of the possibility of damage to the film, Mr. Orth volunteered to prepare 35-mm. color slides directly from the original movie of all of the pertinent frames of the assassination which were determined to be frames 171 through 434. 

Too many problems with the Elm Turn and Position A...   and then the bogus location for z168 based on 171...
And then all that changed to 161-166.

With speeds of only 16 and 48 on the "Sears Tower Varizoom 8 mm color motion picture camera"... how do they get to 24fps?

On 12/8/2011 at 7:09 PM, David Andrews said:

Is it possible that the Oswald-Odio introduction is a part of period anti-Castro activity, but not strictly a part of the assassination planning? That it points toward conspiracy against JFK, but was not an attempt to frame Oswald?

If not, it seems like an act of desperation, a flailing to create a confusing association for Oswald. To what end?*

What was the motive for creating an Oswald-Odio connection? Would an established connection bolster the image of "Oswald" as an extrapolitical nutter, willing to shoot either Castro, Walker, Nixon, or Kennedy?

Putting Oswald in the company of two plotters of any stripe is enough to quash the plot's usefulness to an anti-conspiracy investigation. What, if anything, was planned for the case of an investigation intended to establish conspiracy evidence?

Again, the introduction seems like a desperation move, unless the Oswald-Odio introduction is just an infiltration exercise outside the assassination plotting, just an attempt to entrap Odio in anti-Castro plotting for reasons unrelated to the assassination.

Was the Oswald-Odio introduction just a sideline use of Oswald's spy and provocateur talents? Arguments against?

* I edited this post several times to be more exact than in the original version Tommy Graves quotes in Post #159.

David...  I believe Odio was part of Oswald's "intelligence" work.  As such, he traveled north from New Orleans thru Austin and was in Dallas working, imo, in his FBI capacity.

Using the name Henry Oswald in Mexico was a brilliant two-stroke win for the CIA.  1 - it compelled Hoover's FBI to not only go along with the trip but to prove he did it alone despite knowing exactly where he was.. Trying to establish some toe-hold (maybe in his credibility?) thru Odio's father's connections....

Even if Odio was proving that Oswald was some where instead of Mexico, her story would still need squashing due to the creation of the connections.  Mexico simple gives the CIA another knife to stick it to Hoover...  while also running some operation separate and distinct from the assassination...  a Mexico "thing"

DJ

On 7/1/2017 at 3:51 AM, Brendan Boucher said:

David, have you seen slides 8 and 14 that aren't completely whited out? Because somebody did go into the Consulate and discuss Visas with Silvia Duran right?  I'm not implying this was necessarily Oswald I'm just wondering why those 2 frames don't show anything?

 

I wonder about Silvia Duran as well.  She seemed to believe that the man who's image was splashed across the TV for days was the man who attempted to obtain travel documents in her office.  If this was not the same person, was there truly an impostor that was so similar to Oswald that Duran was unable to recognize the difference?  Her treatment at the hands of the authorities is pretty appalling and I have no doubt that certain statements could have been coerced out of her, but I'm not aware of her raising the specter the the man she interacted with in late Sep. was not the man who was being

No Brandan, I have not seen the images on 8 or 14...maybe in the Oct release - lol.  and yes, it would make sense that the transcripts and photos match to actual happenings, ie an unidentified man in and out of the consulate matches to the 10:50am time frame...  which in turn matches to a bus that arrives that morning...  but as you retrace the evidence we run into numerous conflicts and extended coincidence...  moving forward back to Dallas, more of the same.

Now, Duran & Azcue describe a person.  As you read Duran's testimony, Cornwell refers to her "previous ID of Oswald as the man at the consulate"... this is after her friendly questioning of course... and well before Alvarado tells an entirely different story about Oswald.  Cornwell and all others will refer to the man there as Oswald as a foregone conclusion.  I simply don't see it foregone.

All he needs is a little convincing.  Maybe like Sylvia.

Just now, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Please David could you help me follow your thinking by describing some possibly common ground;

1. Suspiciously quickly after the assassination claims are made that Oswald was a commie with known associations to Cuba (Russia trip,FPCC New Orleans, and MC visit)

Why "suspiciously" Eddy?  Our little Harvey made darn sure anyone coming in contact with him knew his stance and his Marxist leanings.  He walked around iwth a sandwich board supporting FPCC.... etc.   I don't see too much suspicion needed to come to that conclusion...  That it was focused on Oswald and only Oswald within hours of the shooting is what makes this investigation "suspicious"... if that's what you meant.

2. The claims can be traced to the DRE, and thus to Phillips and the CIA.

If I remember correctly, the DRE was ANTI-Castro and ANTI-communist.   http://jfkfacts.org/secret-jfk-document-3-dreamspell-file/#more-24738 as was more closely associated with George Joannides.  The "fight" with Beringuer was a set-up.   There is even thought that William Shelley is in the New Orleans ITM leaflet photos.  All this was the "summer of Oswald" orchestrated by Guy Bannister et al....

3. You believe that Oswald was never in MC at the relevant time, thus blurring the argument that the MC episode was a sheep dipping exercise by the CIA to prepare Oswald for his Patsy role. It's taking a big risk with the Oswald part of the cover-up if any investigation can quickly refute Oswald was in MC. Wasn't there a risk the FBI might blow the story? You certainly provide a strong argument they had the evidence to do so?

A calculated risk at best.  The use of the name Oswald in Mexico related to Cuba and Castro was no big thing until Nov 22 at 12:33pm.  At that point the FBI looks and see that at the same time he is with Cubans and traveling to Odio's and Dallas... the CIA is claiming he was in Mexico City... the FBI knew that it could not have been Oswald... so why does the FBI cover?  My take is so they don't have to admit that Oswald was spying for the FBI... and was now JFK's killer.  I don't think he went to Mexico at all, was working for the FBI and the FBI needed to and created the evidence supporting a bus trip to and from...  I prove that to be BS...  if Oswald did go we'd have known about it.

4. The Oswald as Commie story seems to have been superceded/covered up/rejected by the establishment, but its hard to make the case that this was because they realised his links to MC were bogus. Do you subscribe to a possible explanation that the 'Oswald as commie' and perhaps the assassination itself was a rogue/compartmentalised CIA plot? and that the realisation of the consequences of this plot caused the wider CIA/wider establishment to cover up?

An interesting thought Eddy.  Your guesses are as good as anyone's... and "possible explanations" are a dime a dozen.  Work it thru.  Ask yourself
who had the power to control the Bethesda autopsy?  If Rose does the autopsy in Dallas, the party's over, shot from the front.  So the SS takes the body and the military has the body and the court-martial to keep everyone quiet.  The FBI takes all the evidence Friday night and returns well more than they took on Nov 26th.  

The FBI incriminates Oswald while the Military controls the "Best Evidence"  (also ask yourself who in the entirety of this operation was never in the military - you wont find too many I guarantee that.) 

The CIA and assets were the most logical and prepared group to pull this off - the men involved were experts at their craft and had come off a decade of success removing banana republic leaders...  the man in office was colluding with the Russians and Cubans...  he needed to go.  Beyond that are the words of Vincent Salandria:

 

            "I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly.  "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early.  I see that now.  We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy.  Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way?  They chose not to.  Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner.  The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.  The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear:  'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.'  It was a message to the people that their government was powerless.  And the people eventually got the message.  Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination.  People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

            "The tyranny of power is here.  Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad.  And that will lead not to revolution but to repression.  I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities.  No doubt we  are dealing now with an international conspiracy.  We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence.  That's exactly what they want us to do.  They have kept us busy for so long.  And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you.  They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."

Eddy...  there is very little supporting Oswald in Mexico City at this time... worse still are the repeated attempts at explaining the trip with physical evidence only to find the evidence doesn't fit - so that evidence was dropped and forgotten for NEW evidence that said what it was supposed to and got Oswald where he needed to be on time....  .

Just now, Eddy Bainbridge said:

This, I feel is a good explanation of the failure to provide actual photos of Oswald in MC, since less questions about covert operations are asked if the 'myth' of Oswald in Mexico is maintained.

 

What I mean to say is once you separate Oswald from the Mystery Man and see the activity at that station for what it was

(https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html by Bill Simpich is one take on the activities.  You may or may not agree with the conclusions, the evidence and explanations Bill offers are priceless in beginning to understand Mexico City

Sure thing Brandon....

You may wish to step back a second though...  Even the tapes were not of his voice.  Despite the claim they were destroyed... they were heard in Dallas

From Nov 25th we learn that Tapes existed, were sent to Dallas, were listened to.... 

And from Nov 23rd, the CIA finds out what the FBI knows about Mexico and Oswald.Hoover still tells LBJ on the 23rd that there must have been a SECOND MAN down there... rather than the actual conclusion that Oswald was impersonated on the call and no proof exists he was actually there.

It would make very little sense to hide an image of Oswald in Mexico if part of that story involves pinning a conspiracy to kill JFK rap on this Castro Clan.

As to what the photos showed... there's nothing beyond talk that they existed at all.

Here is the photo recap sheet from 9/27 and 2 of the proofs for the 2 photos highlighted...

"10:50 - Man sent to the Consulate" and again an hour later as "Young man sent to the Consulate"

Here is the rest of that sheet

These are copies of the 2 IDs in question.

Some of the items of evidence require going to the archives and taking copies...  

I thank John Armstrong for the years of his work at the Archives and for Baylor for hosting them

DJ