David Josephs

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.....

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.

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...

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.

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? 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".

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

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?

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

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.

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.... .

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

After Hoover and the FBI were "informed" about Oswald in Mexico... Hoover didn't just sit still. The FBI was entrenched in Central and South America since 1940 with the SIS. (edit: didn't want the impression the SIS still existed... it existed officially from 1940-1945 yet I have to believe Hoover retained this vital intel link) Hoover had assets in the Western Hemisphere on par with ONI and MID. So he asks his Mexico City team to find out if Oswald was in Mexico and if so, what did he do? Here are 22 different informants looking for the entire month of November... The "Gobernacion" negative reply is especially strange since ALL the in-Mexico travel evidence comes from the FBI asset at the Gobernacion. This is a composite of 5 reports culminating on Nov 23. The CIA had something to say about Oswald in Mexico City as well.... if you'd like to dig deeper I spent a bit over a year compiling over 1500 docs on Mexico and then tried to refute something that the Lopez report erroneously stated: The focus of my work is proving this statement incorrect and providing the documentary evidence to back it up. The Mexico City Trip Part 1 Part 2 - The Trip Down, Part 1 Part 3 - The Trip Down, Part 2 Part 4 - Leaving Mexico, Part 1 Part 5 - Leaving Mexico, Part 2 Part 6 - Who Knew What and When

Hey there Brendan... welcome to the Forum. 1. The man Ruby killed was not in Mexico at that time. 2. The image of the MM and its association with Oswald comes from CIA HQ as what many believe to be a "Marked Card". By stating that the man on the "transcripts" who says he is Lee Oswald is Lee HENRY Oswald with all the Harvey characteristics... It's important to remember that the first Cable from CIA MX to CIA HQ uses a photo which Goodpasture changed from an Oct 2 to Oct 1 "taken" date. The WCR MM photo is from the 4th and was used by FBI agent ODUM to show Marge Oswald... (but that's another story) : LADILLINGER is the CIA HQ Soviet desk. This is the 10/8/63 note from MX to HQ - with the only images of a lone American they could find. The episode from Sept 27-Oct 1 has been expertly addressed by Bill Simpich in State Secret. It's free online. "Oswald" had little to do with this person or the events in Mexico. See the doc below which tells us that JC King and Win Scott of the CIA were well aware of who this person is... Brendan, I think you will be able to come to a deeper understanding of Mexico if you forget that this is about equating THAT MAN with OSWALD... it doesn't. The name "Oswald" was not only a marked card for a potential mole hunt down there, but during that same week our Oswald was in Dallas with Cubans visiting Odio and working for the FBI. Once the CIA suggested that Oswald was in Mexico City, Hoover is put into a corner since he and the FBI cannot now admit that Oswald - the Lone Nut Assassin - was working for the FBI, ever. Finally, I interpret this note from Hoover as confirmation that the CIA created Oswald in Mexico out of thin air... what has never been adequately addressed, Why would Hoover cover for the CIA here if it did not involved exposing themselves over Oswald's FBI work? Hope you enjoy your time here BB... Take care DJ