David Josephs

2 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

So it seems Oswald did in fact go to Mexico - but in the company of others. Probably the men who accompanied him to Silvia Odio. This of course would've pointed toward conspiracy - so the evidence had to be either hidden or destroyed.

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...

45 minutes ago, Brendan Boucher said:

The fact that this guy who was in and out of the Soviet and Cuban Embassies multiple times over a two week span was mistaken for Lee Harvey Oswald right up until the assassination is a stinging indictment of the operation down there.

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

17 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

 

Paraphrased:  The original sequence of 168-186 = 3+29.2 thru 3+50.8 = 21.6 feet in 18 frames = 1.2' per frame

21.6ft converted to a full second from 18fps to 18.3fps = 18.3/18 = 1.016666..  x 21.6 = 21.96ft per sec.

Sorry, I cannot find reference for the ".7625" you are using...  what is that?

Determine the limo speed after you remove the first 50% of total frames from a 48fps slow-motion film.

But there are 18 frames from 168 to 186.  You're using the result of determining the distance per frame filming at 48fps... yet you use 12... why?

Dealing with one whole second, the equivalent number of frames removed from a 48fps film equaling 5.49ft, is 12 whole frames.

12 frames @ .4575ft per frame yields the common difference distance of 5.49ft.

Remember Myers: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/9975-splice-in-tina-towner-film/&do=findComment&comment=354306

That 5.49ft per sec common difference equates to 3.74mph

so .7625 = 11.2 mph ...   please explain...

1/1.3114 or   .7625 x 48 = 36.6 frames x .4575ft per frame = 16.7445ft per sec / 1.47 = 11.39mph / 1.01666…(18.3/18) = 11.2mph

IDK = 1/reciprocal of IDK = 48fps/18.3fps (2.623) / 2 (first 50% cut) = 1.31147 x 14.94fps mph = 19.59fps mph = 11.39mph / 1.016667 = 11.2 = FBI speed during crucial frames

What is representative of the limo speed after removing 1/2 the frames to begin with?  2.622 / 2 = 1.3114    1/1.3114 = .7625 

The limo is traveling at .7625 of its true speed.

This is equal to 18.3/24 = .7625

 

 

On 6/27/2017 at 8:51 AM, Chris Davidson said:

Need to re-phrase what was here previously.

Added on edit:

CE884 WC final plat: 14.94mph (z168-z186) 21.96ft per sec / 48 frames = .4575ft per frame

Paraphrased:  The original sequence of 168-186 = 3+29.2 thru 3+50.8 = 21.6 feet in 18 frames = 1.2' per frame

 

you wrote: "Example: CE884 WC final plat: 14.94mph (z168-z186 = 21.6ft @18fps) x .7625 = 1 / (48/18.3) / 2)  = 11.39mph / 1.016666667 = 11.2mph = Shaneyfelt testimony = average limo speed z161- z313."

Sorry, I cannot find reference for the ".7625" you are using...  what is that?

 

12frames x .4575 = 5.49ft

But there are 18 frames from 168 to 186.  You're using the result of determining the distance per frame filming at 48fps... yet you use 12... why?

21.96ft - 5.49ft = 16.47ft per sec = 11.2. mph 

The 21.96ft is an on plat measurement? since ce884 shows 21.6

Quite simply: 13.44mph (19.76ft per sec) /14.94mph (21.96ft per sec) = .8995... x 18.3fps = 16.462..ft per sec = 11.2mph= Shaneyfelt testimony

The match being: .7625 = (1/1.3114)= (48/18.3) / 2) x 14.94 = 11.39mph / 1.01666667 = 11.2 mph

so .7625 = 11.2 mph ...   please explain...

and I get most the stuff in the middle of that last equation... need a glossary buddy...  put a number down and then after provide a glossary of what each number represents...

.7625 = (1/1.3114)= (48/18.3) / 2) x 14.94 = 11.39mph / 1.01666667 = 11.2 mph

IDK = 1/reciprocal of IDK = 48fps/18.3fps (2.623) / 2 (first 50% cut) = 1.31147 x 14.94fps = 19.59fps = 11.39mph / 1.016667 = 11.2 = FBI speed during crucial frames

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've discovered more information about Gaudet, and now know that he did use his own name on the visa application. He clearly was CIA. So if the plan was to have Gaudet be Oswald's driver to Mexico, then surely the plan was to use Gaudet as a patsy too. I mean, surely the plotters wouldn't have wanted it discovered that a CIA asset was involved in the assassination.

And, as with Oswald, the plot would have required the killing of Gaudet.

So I'm inclined to believe that Gaudet's role was just one of facilitator. He got stuff done.

Apparently a good source of information on Gaudet is a book written by Martin Shackelford called Fair Play. David Reitzes wrote the following about Gaudet:

Shackelford [in his book, Fair Play] refers to a relationship between Shaw and William George Gaudet, something worthy of investigation. Gaudet published the Latin American Newsletter out of the rent-free office at the Trade Mart. Gaudet himself had been a CIA domestic contact until 1961, and told journalist Anthony Summers in 1978 that the Newsletter was a CIA front operation. This is not a charge that can be dismissed outright: Although the Newsletter's official sponsor was Standard Fruit, a company which did a tremendous amount of business in Latin America, a great deal of its funding came from New Orleans doctor Alton Ochsner, founder of the Ochsner Clinic, who had a long-standing relationship with the CIA that has not been adequately explained with regard to his anti-Communist activities in New Orleans over the years.

Gaudet himself plays a murky role in the story of Oswald's 1963 summer in New Orleans. He happened to be next in line to Oswald when Oswald applied for his Mexican tourist visa. Though the registry list was published by the Warren Commission, Gaudet's name was withheld from the public until it accidentally leaked out in 1975. Gaudet insisted he did not see Oswald that day and called the event a coincidence. He did say, however, that he'd seen Oswald around the Trade Mart and, most interestingly, he said he had witnessed Oswald conversing at length with New Orleans ultra right-wing extremist Guy Banister on several occasions.

Gaudet, who is now deceased, remains something of a mystery, though his relationship to the International Trade Mart may not prove especially noteworthy, since -- according to Garrison advocate Jim DiEugenio's Destiny Betrayed (p. 220) -- it was ITM employee Ted Brent, not Clay Shaw, who allowed Gaudet the use of ITM office space. As an institution prominently involved in facilitating trade with Latin America, the ITM could have had legitimate reasons for providing an office for the Latin American Newsletter. And if the Newsletter was indeed a front for a CIA operation, as Gaudet has stated, there are any number of explanations that don't require implicating anyone in high crimes or assassinations.

 

 

Yes, I agree that the WC explanation for "Oswald" travel within Mexico is bogus. That is to say, the bus story.

"Oswald" (real or fake) could have traveled by car, train, plane, or even by ship I suppose. The reason I always default to "by car" is because a car would require a driver, and this would imply conspiracy. Which would explain why the FBI fabricated the bus story.

But there is a possibility that "Oswald" traveled with an accomplice by other means. And that, while the FBI could have simply ignored any potential accomplice aboard the vessel (train, plane, boat) in their reporting, they chose to play it safe and go with the bus fabrication.

But don't be surprised if I always say it was a road trip.

 

 

Why do you say that "Oswald" SNEAKED into Mexico? Do you mean, if he went by car instead of a means that requires purchasing tickets that can be found? Yeah, I guess that going by car would be"sneaking" in, i.e. making it harder to trace.

I would just reply as follows: If the plotters wanted the trip to look real, all they needed to do is actually have a real trip. Whether by car, bus, train or whatever. It isn't necessarily important that the FBI actually be able to find the evidence. The important thing is that there be no holes discovered in the evidence. If a real trip occurred, there can be no holes that might be discovered.

Let's see if I can address the highlighted topics starting with "SNEAKED IN"....  All an Oswald impostor needed to do to establish this trip was to buy a 4 part ticket to and from Mexico City, while in New Orleans.  I say "sneaked" as opposed to the kind of attention he worked to get by being loud and contrary as well as a bit Commie.

Given how easy it would have been, the fact that the evidence does no bear this out suggests to me the trip was created rather than experienced.  The WCR nor the FBI could figure out how Oswald gets from New Orleans to Houston... and by adding in the phone call that night that comes well before a bus arrives.  

This call establishes that someone named Oswald claimed to be flying into Mexico City was trying to reach Horace Twiford of the Socialist Labor Party.

*AFFIDAVIT(only relevant portions)

2. ….. He also said that he had hoped to discuss ideas with my husband for a few hours before he flew down to Mexico. He said he only had a few hours. I assume he was calling from the Houston area since he did not, to my knowledge, place a long distance call. However, he did not specifically say that he was in Houston. I have no information concerning his whereabouts when this call was placed. I told him if he desired to correspond with my husband, he could direct a letter to 7018 Schley Street, Houston, Texas, and I would see that my husband received it.
3. I cannot recall the date of the call, but I think it occurred during the week prior to the weekend my husband flew home to visit me from New Orleans where his ship was docked. I recall, my husband had shipped out the weekend prior to the call.
4. I cannot recall the exact time he called, but I think that it was in the evening, sometime between 7:00 and 10:00 o'clock. I was not working during this period.

Signed this 2d day of July 1964.
(S) Mrs. Estelle Twiford,
Mrs. ESTELLE TWIFORD

That does seem to have been a mistake made. And then it looks like somebody tried to correct it by typing "VALIDA POR 15 DIAS" below the application number. Which the WC ignored ended up ignoring.

I'm not surprised by this. Mistakes are made, even in masterful plots.

I'm not sure they ignored it as much as simply accepted it without question despite the evidence used to substantiate it, the application, is clearly marked as a FM-5, 180 day visa.  It was this Visa with "LEE, HARVEY OSWALD = H.O. LEE" and the hotel registry signed in the same exact incorrect manner...  and it is obviously different than the signature on the Duran application.  It seems the same person signs the Hotel and Tourist Visa but not the Duran application...

 

Are you questioning how it was the DFS became aware of the Oswald trip to MC so quickly? Or just the part about specifically checking 9/26, 9/27, and 10/3 records only?

They could have known about Oswald's trip to Mexico so quickly because of the wires being sent from Mexico City CIA station to the FBI about Oswald's being there. The telephone intercepts with Oswald naming himself. It is hard to believe that the U.S. authorities figured out so quickly the dates Oswald arrived and left MC. Of course, David Philips may have fed the dates to the FBI.. and DFS. And it's hard to believe that a cover up (alteration of bus records) was already in the works on 11/22.

BTW are you sure that the DFS got the bus records only for those particular dates? Are you sure that they got the us records on the day of the assassination?

WCD 1084 starting at page 105 or 6 relays the information from Alejandro SAUCEDO regarding the specifics of who showed up, when and where as well as where they had already been.  There are only 4 bus lines: Del Norte, Flecha Rojas, Frontera & ANAHUAC (the line the FBI keeps adding into the mix as an option for how Oswald arrived)...  I also learned that records were sent away from Monterrey - where Oswald would have stopped and where the Aussie girls get on - to yet another border crossing town further north.   Literally the morning of the 22nd things started to happen related to bus line documents being seized.  Here are the most relevant chapters.
https://kennedysandking.com/content/mexico-city-part-2-the-trip-down-part-1
https://kennedysandking.com/content/mexico-city-part-3-the-trip-down-part-2

 

Actually I have at times wondered why the FBI didn't just cover up the who Mexico trip.

But I guess they had no choice but to reveal the story. Presumably it was in the news that Sylvia Duran and Azcue were in police custody. That needed explaining. And who knows what else came out or may have come out. So, yes, I guess it was in the FBI and CIA's best interest to show that Oswald was actually there. In fact, even if Oswald wasn't there and it was an imposter, it was still in their best interest to show that Oswald had been there. Otherwise how could they explain away the fact that there was an Oswald imposter going to the consulates in MC?

How could they "cover it up" when by Oct 10th the ONI and STATE dept are aware, while the Oct 16 memo from Win Scott to Amb Mann is cc'd to I&NS where Jeff Woosley (not Woolsey) who in turn tells Hosty.  The 16th memo has reference to KOSTIKOV which only the pre Oct 10th memo from MX to CIA HQ mentions. So while the 10/10 memo is markedly different from the original note to CIA HQ, FBI learns from their own sources about what the CIA seems to be doing.  

As I've mentioned in the past, if he wasn't there he had to be somewhere else.  A trip to Dallas via Austin with "cuban comrades", a visit to Odio and sister - the FBI/WCR handling of which gives strength to the conclusion it was Oswald at the Odio door.  And finally Oswald in Dallas on the 3rd of Oct, stays at a YMCA and goes home the next day.  Oswald had been doing work for the FBI yet the FBI could not admit to this or JFK's assassin would be connected to Hoover's FBI... no chance.

And I think Hoover knew it from the very second he is aware of the 10/10 cable about Lee Henry and had no choice but to back the CIA or risk exposure.
I think this relates to Hoover's notes on a Jan 1964 document calling out the CIA's double dealing with regards to Oswald in Mexico

 

What is that about the voice actually being Oswald's "a few days later?" I'd never heard that before. Did I understand you correctly?

I believe what was said was that the voice on Oct 1 is the same as the voice from Oct 27/28.  here is the report with that at the top of the page:

 

 

 

 

Well, I for one don't believe Oswald had anything to do with the consulate visits or phone calls. If he did go to Mexico, he did so only to create a record of him going there. If he did go to Mexico, he did something other than visiting and calling consulates. Maybe he went there ostensibly for FPCC business. I mean, that may have been what he thought he was doing there.

One of the possibilities of "placing" Oswald at the Cuban and Russia consulates might be to give his "Cuban" credibility some Bona fides...  In early October Arthur Vallee is still on the table... every activity attributed to Oswald in the year prior to 11/22 were not all assassination-patsy-related... but assassination-patsy--ready

That's probably true. And even if he did go there, that would make little difference in our analysis given that he didn't do anything of substance there. (According to what I believe.)

From the totality of the evidence I've seen, an innocent man, innocently traveling to Mexico by bus would not have left the trail of evidence we find.  Nothing about this evidence is kosher...   the only purpose for Oswald in Mexico City is to cause Hoover problems when 11/22 arrives.  Regarding Bill Simpich's work... you'll have to read and decide for yourself.

 

According  to my theory, the imposter did NOT do a crappy job. He actually traveled by car to Mexico City. Any trail he left (for example, stopping off at a bar somewhere or whatever) was real and by definition cannot be crappy.

We are to remember that Phase 1 of the assassination cover-up was to blame Oswald/Castro/Cuba so that any "conspiracy evidence" would be skewed that way...until PHASE 2 which was Oswald the Lone Nut.  There is obviously some evidence related to Oswald entering by car with others...  and since the investigation into those "others" turned up very interesting data...   "The only young american couple...."

"At 2:05 pm, 11/27/63, while talking to Inspector Don Moore of Division 5 .... . I read to him an article from The Houston Press, dated 11/27/63, which was telephonically furnished to this office ..... in which article stated Oswald left the US by private car, ownership unknown, and returned on 10/3/63, through Laredo, Texas. He advised that Oswald did travel by car and did return to the US through Laredo, Texas on 10/3/63." (FBI memorandum from ASAS J.T. Sylvester, Jr., to SAC New Orleans, 11/27/63.)

 

The crappy job was by the coverup artists. They had no interest in investigating a road trip, given that Oswald could not drive and a road trip meant that he had to have had a driver, and such a thing would begin to look like a conspiracy. So the coverup artists had to fabricate the bus ride where Oswald supposedly traveled solo.

The assassination plotters wanted to show a conspiracy. The cover up artists wanted to show a lone gunman.

A very interesting sentence Sandy...

 

3 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Answer =1.01666666667 not 1.106666667.  The needed adjustment to make 18fps into 18.3 fps

 

yep... reversed those #'s...  

yet as I wrote... we're only talking about an 8 frame difference between 18 and 18.3 fps over 486 frames.

Do you think there is any significance to those 8 - or just more needed to make it believable?

(I lost the reply I had been working on that equates PAZ to Alvarado as Phillips' assets)

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't know anything about Gaudet, for example how information about his visa application came to light. Do you know if he used his real name on his visa application?

Here was something I found on GAUDET as I was researching for my Mexico work.  Talk about being in the center of things....  It would be my assumption that Mr GAUDET here acquires both visa's and is completely unaware of the "LEE, Harvey Oswald" mistake.

At some point it would have been nice to have some of these key players sign Lee's name...  one of these players was forging his signature quite often.

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Either the real Oswald went on this trip, or a fake Oswald went in his place.

Before we determine if Oswald went or not.... let's agree that the explanation in the WCR related to his travel to and from Mexico City is complete BS.

So we either have "the" Oswald entering Mexico another way (car, plane, train) or not entering at all; IOW traveling to Dallas from New Orleans and stopping in Austin on the way.

Q1 - why would an Oswald impostor "sneak" into Mexico if the idea of an impostor is to leave evidence that places Oswald in and out of MC 
    unless this is what occurs (like Alvarado and PAZ stories) and then has to be cleaned up afterward to change it from a man with co-conspirators to the Lone Nut.

To me, the Tourist Visa that precedes Oswald's, William GAUDET of the CIA, and the timing of the dates related to the "15 days" seems to have someone within the cover-up artists confused.  If we take Sept 17th and add 15 days we get October 2nd... the day Oswald is supposed to have left... 15 days exactly.  Yet I show how the application is actually for 180 days from CE2481.  

Q2 - why and how would the DFS and/or Mexican Presidential Police know to go to 4 bus lines and "borrow" their records for specifically and only Sept 26/27 and Oct 2/3.. on the afternoon of the assassination... after which we come to learn that one of the bus line's manifests was added to by Arturo Bosch to change a Nov sheet to an October one while the FBI also places Oswald on Flecha Rojas and the ANATUAC lines coming into Mexico City...
 

Can we agree, if the REAL Oswald was in Mexico City it would be in the best interest of the CIA and FBI to show him actually there.  Turns out the only way they could do this was to use transcripts of calls for which the voice was not Oswald yet WAS the same a few days later.  The Visa photos were another dead-end (an innocent tourist goes to one of the placed Sylvia claims to have told this man and is easily found out by the FBI.)

Q3 - If Oswald was there and used the phone, why did the FBI say it was not him and why Lopez/Hardaway would also not confirm it was him after listening to the tape?
 

I think we can safely say that the man Ruby killed was not in Mexico City.  I think we can also safely say that IF an impostor was on this trip they did a crap job of leaving evidence of Oswald... The articles I wrote delves more deeply into the bus line problems and the problems with the Australian girls and McFarlands... Bowen/Osborne is another brick in the wall.  While the beginning of the trip is very detailed... the Monterrey to Laredo and Laredo to Dallas legs show a quick decline in follow-thru.

They even mention the bus driver from San Antonio to Dallas, Ben Julian.... you suppose they ever got around to talking to him?

One of the more interesting aspects of Mexico City is GAUDET and the Mexican Tourist Visa

Turns out that the evidence mentions Oswald talking about only having so much time in Mexico due to the expiration of his 15 day visa.
GAUDET, a CIA asset, received the Visa that was next in the number sequence after Oswald's. GAUDET also confirms Oswald and Banister's "partnership"

Problem being the visa was for 6 months, not 90 days or 15 days in country.. and the presentation of the document in the report is even more strange...

One image is only the bottom of the page with his signature yet stops at the NAME field whereas the 2nd image only has the top of the form and stops at the signature.

Personally I do not buy that Oswald got this at that time...  And the relationship to Nagell's Sept 17-19 predictions should be noted.

DJ

17 hours ago, Larry Belmont said:

I am not familiar enough with the 26 volumes to know if there would be more info about the specific document somewhere therein. I imagine one would have to write the FBI and ask all the questions about the production of the pamphlet. And I surely don't know if every exhibit was discussed in any detail.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/JFK_Assassination_Documents.html   

This is one of the most extensive and complete gatherings of documentation we have.

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/tabs/collection/po-arm is the link to Armstrong's notebook library with copies of documents only available by copying them at the Archives.

the Warren Commission Documents are the "working papers" which begat many of the WC exhibits.  Much of the most important information was hidden here.

If you are interested in the direct evidence of the SS & FBI lying to the WC and to the American People it's WCD298.

This amazing document illustrates how the FBI & SS changed z313 from shot #2 to #3 while acknowledging and then removing a shot striking JFK 40 feet further down Elm.
If also illustrates the movement of the first shot's location by moving it 10 feet up Elm.

If we can remember that Oswald did not do this... the manner and detail in which the FBI describes and corroborates the evidence which "proves" he did do it must then, by definition, be altered, created and/or omitted with that one purpose in mind.

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

48/18.3 = Ratio of to filmed frames per second to remaining frames per second  2.623:1

That result  x  .375 =  .9836      4/8 frame removal + 1/8 (or 1/4 of the 50% left) = 5/8 = .625 + .375 = 1 whole film     3/8 = .375 = 6.8625/18.3 = remaining frames

1 / by previous result = 1.106666667 = the needed adjustment to make 18fps into 18.3 fps = Elm incline = 1 vertical foot per second of film after POS A

That result x 18 (whole frames) = 18.3fps

You know what the importance of .375 equates to in terms of frame removal.  

486 x .9836 = 478 frames / .75 = 638 / .50 = 1275 frames x 50% x 25%

486 - 478 = 8 frames FEWER than 50% + 12.5% = 62.5%

Only 8 fewer frames needed removal to reach 18.3....  With the Limo speeding away, keeping 8 frames within z320-z486 wouldn't be too hard...
yet more than likely it was more than that since well more than 62.5% of the frames are removed between z161 & z312.

On 6/9/2017 at 7:50 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

EDIT: The document I cited above has several pages of Elena Garro's account. I need to read the rest before making a final judgement.

I was pretty sure that like Alvarado, PAZ and group were also discredited...  seems PAZ had it out for Sylvia...  but by all means, keep digging.  

An allegation by Elenita Garro de Paz that Sylvia Duran brought Oswald to a
party at her home in September 1963. The source of this information came
from a memo written by CIA asset June Cobb Sharp. This story was eventually
revealed as yet another fabricated attempt to link Oswald to Sylvia Duran and the
Cubans.

June Cobb Sharp - 

On 6/25/2017 at 7:59 AM, David Andrews said:

I'm going to re-read Pic's testimony tonight and try to describe the friction between Pic and Jenner exactly, with quotations. 

David - wasn't Jenner and Rankin in on the explanation regarding Ely's work?  I would expect that Jenner, knowing about the inconsistencies and problems with Oswald's bio, would not treat PIC as a hostile witness.  Pic wasn't stupid... he was very careful with his answers...  but yeah, Jenner, like Liebeler had the WCR agenda...

DJ

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

Yes, that is an assumption on my part. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

But what about Stripling? They had a copy of Oswald's record there. Doesn't that indicate that schools do keep a copy of the record that they pass on to the next school?

BTW, Greg Parker claims that schools didn't keep school records... the school district did. And that that proves that Oswald's record at Stripling could not have been taken by the FBI.

 

Sandy,

I'd assume each state has it's own way of doing it.  Beauregard's records refer to a PS 44 in NY called "Byron Jr High"

CE1413 refers to ALL records on Lee Harvey in the New Orleans files and not once, other than the above mention, do these records refer to NYC school records which "should" have been sent...  As I understand, schools kept two sets of records, one perm and one that goes with the child....

Ask Greg what the source is of the info gathered by the "districts"...  
They didn't just pull the stuff out of their ears.....  they got reports on each child from the school admins themselves... who got them from the records of the teachers... grade cards, attendance cards, etc...  Maybe it's done differently in different parts of the world.  I grew up in NY and moved to CA in Jr High... 

Greg's one lynchpin in his arguments is how impossible it is for US citizens or its military to keep records with any level of accuracy... The US is founded on the minutia of detail and record keeping... yet school administrators don't know how many days in a school year?  Please.

47 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I agree... it's like trying to figure out Mexico City.   DJ: That a shout out?  

Ok, let's forget NPIC for now.   

Should be obvious since z312 as the last shot was immediately contradicted by the surveys.

The Nov 26 Time/Life survey has shot one 163' from the TSBD corner...  except the surveys put it at 423.07 which is 172 feet from the same spot.

WCD298 from Dec's survey data squarely puts a shot within 4 feet of 5+00 as does the Feb FBI survey as does CE875 - as we both know.

The real question is whether this 3rd shot was CREATED and REMOVED, or ACTUAL and REMOVED and can that be proven.
With the need for a third shot and have 2 shots defined with z312 the 2nd shot, they needed a place for a third shot which would not interfere, with what Shaneyfelt did not the path of the limo and shot locations.

Couldn't be before 207 with the tree and Position A as rationale.
COULD be between 207 and 312 since it was 42 frames for a reload and 207 + 42 = 249 + 42 = 291...  Which is why NPIC has 242 and 256 as frames with potential shots
COULD be after 312 since the FBI's position was 3 shots = 3 hits with the last hit being the head shot... 40 feet further down Elm.

As usual the exhibits negate the narrative.

20 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

consists of a strip of film 8 feet, 10 inches long" and 2 feet, 7 inches is black

the total length including the black film is 8'10".  Assassination sequence is only 75" of that. 

Unless this is now incorrect?

20 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

8.83 x 80 = 706.4frames / 2 = 353 frames. Does this tell us at some point that they had 2 versions of 353 frames they were working with since we don't know what was on the 2.58ft= (206.4frames) strip that was unexposed.  You'll notice that there is "blank film" spliced on tot the end of the Assn sequence, not "leader".  The evidence mentions the running off of 19 feet of film to get to the end of the roll.  (can't the film be processed without the end being run off?)  Except that 19' is not continuous from the end of the Assn Seq. and then there is another 18'7" of BLANK FILM spliced to the end... why?  

A side of film is at most 30 feet long.  19'3" + 18'7" is already 37'10"... and there's still another 8'10" of actual film with 6'3" of content.

There is simply no way that taped together batch of film equates to what was taken out of the camera and printed as 0183.

 

Chris - I seem to have got lost in the math...  trying to do too many things at once.  Am I making sense with the 18 to 18.3 fps comparison?  Does the length of the film and # of frames resulting in an extra 18-20 frames add up to you?  75" of film equates to too many frames....

Did Horne include the partial footage of the Hesters at the beginning of the zfilm in his measurements?  No, I don't believe he did

what can be derived from this?  your help as always is greatly appreciated

The differences are the most important part of the math solution.

Sorry about some of the extraneous gestures I throw in, I'll try and keep that streamlined in the future.

Lets not get hung up on the NPIC quagmire for now. I think the most important part of that scenario is the labeling of missing frames by someone.

That just reconfirms the notion of an altered film.  I guess I just yet see it that way.   I also believe that by the time these boards were made the film had been completely altered down to those 486 frames.  To a person working with that film, they simply choose which frames to print and filled in the blanks

The NPIC notes confirm the choice of frames: it, like the Panels, also shows you the "seconds" mark as they pass...

1 second is before z206.  Does the " = 14 - (1)" suggest one second is 14 frames after z188 or z202?
Second #2 comes at z220,  18 frames past 202.   18 + 14 = 32 / 2 = 16fps  (Second #2 is not noted on PANEL 1)

Second #3 comes at z234,  14 frames past 220 yet PANEL 2 has second #3 at z243, 9 frames later or 23 frames after z220 in 1 second.
Second #4 comes at z250, 16 frames past 234 yet PANEL 2 has second #4 at the end of the panel or z257.  This is 23 frames after 234, and 14 frames after 243.
       23 + 14 = 37 / 2 = 18.5fps

Second #5 SHOULD come at z266/67/68.  #5 is on panel #3 between z274 & z289.  
                      Even is it were z274, that's 24 frames... PANEL 3: z266 - 7 frames - z274 - 14 frames - z289
Second #6 has to be 16-18 frames prior to z314 = z296-z298.  Both are beyond Panel 3 which has it at z291.5
Second #7 is on z314  314 - 291.5 = 22.5 frames from Second 6 to 7.

From the equation below the NPIC table: z256-z224 = 32 frames = 2 seconds of film in the 5.5 film sequence = 16fps.

All these NPIC Table calcs are for 16 frames per second, not 18.3.  the Time stamps on the boards have no direct relationship to a 5.5 second span of film.

The full span from the NPIC page is 312 - 224 = 88 frames / 5.5 secs = 16fps.  yet this table matches the panels exactly.

Panel 2 has a "4 SECONDS" notation at the end... If it meant the entire panel: 258 - 188 = 70 / 4 seconds = 17.5fps
According to the NPIC table, 4 seconds comes at z246, the PANELS have it at z257, 11 frames later.

I am once again spread out a bit... but I think you can pick the ball up from here.

Figured at 16fps yet not sure if they tried using a stopwatch, or just counted frames...

PANEL 4.... 8 second mark at the start of z331 - 49 missing - z386 = 51 frames / 3 seconds = 17fps

It appears that nothing about these two items of related z-film info works in the real world.

Can you check the work Chris and expand... I do believe we are inching closer to a more detailed description of the 48 to 18.3 fps cut-down.

Cheers
DJ

Well embraced Sandy....

One thing I'd like to throw in... I have a difficult time with your assumption that a child has 2 different PERM RECORDS simply because he changed schools.

That's the point of a permanent record... one place for everything that occurs to a child while in NYC middle schools. 

I would suggest the concept of FBI alteration and creation of documents for it is the FBI report which claims Oswald attended 200 of 210 available days.

Steve - any idea on how that person is completely blacked out when the sun would be shining from the direction of the camera.

This is from the next day... where do you suppose that person was walking so he'd be in total shade yet appear as large as he does?

Michael

That black couple mentioned by Marilyn Sitzman had always intrigued me....  yet as she described them, they were sitting on the bench.

From any one of a number of images we should see their heads above the retaining wall.  Even sitting there we should see a head in Willis.  

Sitzman: And they were eating their lunch, 'cause they had little lunch sacks, and they were drinking coke. The main reason I remember 'em is, after the last shot I recall hearing and the car went down under the triple underpass there, I heard a crash of glass, and I looked over there, and the kids had thrown down their coke bottles, just threw them down and just started running towards the back

I believe this image shows the soda on the ground - as for the glass, IDK.

• Sitzman: Because the pop bottle crashing was much louder than the shots were.

34 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Yet we are removing just short of 2/3 of the frames, not 1/3.  ??

Yes. .625 is just short of .667

And your math is simply stating the same thing in different ways.

In differences I hope. 

There are 3 frames shown on the board for 188-206 and 16 missing frames with 1 second coming at 18.3 frames or the middle of 206.  Multiplying both sides of the equation by 3 to get to 48fps resulting in the 5/8ths and 3/8ths %'s.

Showing how a 2 pass operation could work in 1 second of time. Just like the difference of 3.74mph in 1 second of time CE884 (final plat) z168-z186.

And why do you keep using 1/3?

Would it be easier to add or subtract frames using an optical printer? 

1/3 + 1/3 = 2/3 x 486 = 324

Finally, these frames are simply not shown... whether there are 48 frames to a second or not, the board show 18.3 fframes for each second...

Actually, in whole frames, the board shows 18/48 = .375

the rest of the boards have missing frames as well...

Yes, I'm aware of this.

??

Let's stay with 1 second of time = 18-19 frames = 18.3fps = z188 thru z206 on PANEL 1

16 total frames "missing" ; 3 total frames shown ; 1 second occurs .3 of the way into frame 206.

When we make the assumption that those 18 frames come from 48 we automatically make the math work,

Let's say those 18-19 frames were actually filmed at 1000fps ...  as long as the boards are labeled as they are, how would we know the filmed frame rate?

We wouldn't.  

So isn't it pure mathematical coincidence that 48 x 1/2 x 1/4 = 18  due to 18 and 48 being divisible by 6 and 3, magical math numbers.

There is no way to know if 981 frames were removed from a 1000fps film so we're back to the B&H settings... 16 and 48fps

It would require the creation/addition of frames if the film was taken at 16fps or a completely different frame numbering system - the first shot's frame number depends entirely on the final frames per second speed... 213 @ 18fps and 224 @ 16fps.  That's 11 frames @ 2 fps diff = 5.5 seconds of elapsed time.

So we are GIVEN the 48fps as the only possibility above 18.3fps for that film to originally be shot.  Filming the recreation at 24fps indeed is a strong indication that the first pass removal of frames would be 50% of the frames.  Now comes the part whether there was another 1/2 of the 50% = 6 frames, or 1/3 of the 50% = 8 frames.  To get to the 16fps they would have removed 1/3 of the  and would have matched the actual available camera speeds... but they did not take this easy route, the 2nd 1/2 removal from 50% of the remaining frames plus/minus a few frames gets them to their 18.3 (to match Elm's incline and make the remaining calcs easier)

486 frames net divided by 75% = 648 frames before removing 25% and then double it for the first 50% = 1296 total starting frames / 48fps = 27 seconds = 486 / 18.
At 18.3fps the run time is 26.56 seconds.  That is .44 seconds faster which equates to 21-22 frames at 48fps or 8 frames at 18.3fps

Again, more than likely 48fps was double stepped down to 18.3 by taking 50% of the frames away then 50% OF THE TOTAL again from the 48fps original.  If there were frames between 132 and 133 they were completely removed and have no bearing on the 486 extant frames.

At .149" from frame start to frame start, 486 frames = 72.414" = 6.03' of film yet there is 6' 3" of film at the archive.
2.97" of film = 20 frames or about 1 second

One meter = 3.28084' = 264 frames = 39.37" = .149" per frame including the space between frames (according to Wiki)  
75"/39.37" is the ratio of total length to a known quantity = 1.905 x 264 frames = 504 total frames - 486 = 18 frames or about one second

Chris - I seem to have got lost in the math...  trying to do too many things at once.  Am I making sense with the 18 to 18.3 fps comparison?  Does the length of the film and # of frames resulting in an extra 18-20 frames add up to you?  75" of film equates to too many frames...

what can be derived from this?  your help as always is greatly appreciated
DJ

21 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Think of the 29 missing frames as the shortcoming of a film that would initially have 1/3 of the frames removed.

It goes like this:

1/3 x 486 = 162

486 - 162 = 324

324 + (29 shortcoming frames) = 353 frames = z133-z486

(3/8).375 - (1/3) .333... = .041666... x 48 = 2.000... frames = difference between frames kept 18 (z188-z206) and frames removed 16 (9+7) within the same 48 frame (1 second) span.

Yet we are removing just short of 2/3 of the frames, not 1/3.  ??

And your math is simply stating the same thing in different ways.  

There are 3 frames shown on the board for 188-206 and 16 missing frames with 1 second coming at 18.3 frames or the middle of 206.  Multiplying both sides of the equation by 3 to get to 48fps resulting in the 5/8ths and 3/8ths %'s.

And why do you keep using 1/3?  

Finally, these frames are simply not shown... whether there are 48 frames to a second or not, the board show 18.3 fframes for each second... the rest of the boards have missing frames as well...

??

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Now this is where it gets interesting. In the row just below the one for P.S. 117, there is nothing... right? Well, no. Look at it closely and you will see in tiny print "44" in the left-most box, followed by tiny "X" in the box to its right.

"X" = Bronx under the heading "Borough"

I grew up in the borough of Queens.  There's also Brooklyn, Manhattan and Staten Island

In the row below 117 the record of the xfer is shown.  On 1/16/53 this boy is moved to PS44  in the Bronx as shown on the map I posted.  I don't think the record for PS44 relates to the same child as from PS117.  (edit: I see you meant the middle incomplete record. Yet since these are "Pupil Perm Record in JR High School" he is transferring within the same Boro...  this record would not start over or end... and if it did, we'd not see any info prior to PS44 on the form...

There is simply no reason for this middle copy to exist.

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

Do you know if there are any differences between the form on the right and the one of the left? Any changed entries?

I think we need to be careful interpreting hand-duplicated forms. They didn't have photocopy machines back then and they probably had to make a hand copy whenever anybody requested a copy. Back in the 1950s, that is.

I was pretty sure there was a way to make photocopies in the late 50's early 60's..  Do you suppose the FBI might have a few of these?

In March of 1960, the first plain-paper office copier was shipped to a paying customer by Haloid Xerox, a little-known photographic-supply company in Rochester, New York. The contraption was the size of two washing machines, weighed 648 pounds and had to be turned on its side to fit through doorways. It also occasionally caught on fire.

But it revolutionized the workplace as we know it. http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/30/xerox.copier.turns.50/index.html

In 1949, Xerox Corporation introduced the first xerographic copier called the Model A.^[1] Xerox became so successful that, in North America, photocopying came to be popularly known as "xeroxing." Xerox has actively fought to prevent "Xerox" from becoming a genericized trademark. While the word "Xerox" has appeared in some dictionaries as a synonym for photocopying, Xerox Corporation typically requests that such entries be modified, and that people not use the term "Xerox" in this way. Some languages include hybrid terms, such as the widely used Polish term kserokopia ("xerocopy"), even though relatively few photocopiers are of the Xerox brand.

In the early 1950s, Radio Corporation of America (RCA) introduced a variation on the process called Electrofax, whereby images are formed directly on specially coated paper and rendered with a toner dispersed in a liquid.

During the 1960s and through the 1980s, Savin Corporation developed and sold a line of liquid-toner copiers that implemented a technology based on patents held by the company.

Before the widespread adoption of xerographic copiers, photo-direct copies produced by machines such as Kodak's Verifax were used. A primary obstacle associated with the pre-xerographic copying technologies was the high cost of supplies: a Verifax print required supplies costing USD $0.15 in 1969, while a Xerox print could be made for USD $0.03 including paper and labor. The coin-operated Photostat machines still found in some public libraries in the late 1960s made letter-size copies for USD $0.25 each, at a time when the minimum wage for a US worker was USD $1.65 per hour; the Xerox machines that replaced them typically charged USD $0.10.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photocopier

The form in the middle may have been the final one kept by P.S. 117 when they sent a copy of it to P.S 44. (P.S. 44 then would have added new entries as Oswald took classes there.) It only goes up to P.S. 117 on the middle form.

But maybe not. There is something interesting about the form in the middle. Take a close look at the grid in the upper left corner, where the days present and absent are recorded for each term.

Again, between what Robert says and what the rest of the evidence shows, something strange is occurring between PS117 and PS44.  The first PS44 starts on March 23, 1953.  He is YOUTH HOUSE from April 15 thru May 7.

Sandy - do we see anything on the permanent record that mentions this stay at the Youth house?  The record claims 15 3/2 days absent yet Youth House alone is 16 days.  It is also mentioned repeated by Carro that in Sept 1953 Oswald went into the 9th grade*

 

It struck me as odd that the "117" (for P.S. 117) is missing in the right-most column of the fourth row, like it had been erased. But after studying it for a while, I noticed that the "117" actually is there. It is printed in very tiny print in the lower right-hand part of the box. It is very faint, so you have to look carefully. Even so, the vertical line on the "7" can't be seen. In the box to the right of that one, you can see a tiny "X," where it should be. In the box just to the right of that is where a date is written. You will see that indeed the handwriting in tiny.

So the text for P.S. 117 really is there... as it should be.

Now this is where it gets interesting. In the row just below the one for P.S. 117, there is nothing... right? Well, no. Look at it closely and you will see in tiny print "44" in the left-most box, followed by tiny "X" in the box to its right.

Well.... maybe this isn't as interesting as I had initially thought. My frame of mind earlier, when I discovered this, was that it looked like text had been erased. Then when I saw the empty line for P.S. 44 I thought that it had been erased. And I thought that the row in the lower part of the form showing all the scores for P.S. 44 had also been erased. But now I'm thinking that the person wrote the "44" and "X" in just to indicate where the student had transferred to, and where a copy of the record had been sent to. So maybe nothing interesting here after all.

Sandy,

Your curiosity and persistence is greatly appreciated.  I do believe it most likely the FBI had the ability to recreate documents and had access to the earliest machines.

That really isn't the point.   A "PERMANENT CUMULATIVE RECORD" is a singular item added to over time and would follow the child as they moved to different schools.

The item in the center should not exist at all, unless that boy simply stopped going to NYC schools.

*If it was only one mention that would be one thing, yet between Robert and Carro LEE was in PS44 and doing well.  The record for PS44 is all LEE's I believe.  That way Marge is able to tell us how he changed and was not class president and attending as expected...  Little Harvey was not part of this miraculous change.

One thing that never gets tired for me is the inability to add by those trying to prove these records legit.

Look closely - from March 23 thru the end of the semester June 29, this boy was supposed to have attended 109 3/2 days of school.

This is important because it is very hard to imagine an actual school administrator filling out this form and showing 109 3/2 + 15 3/2 = 127 days of school

Here are all the school days from March 23 on.  You want to help show them how 127 days of school fits between March 23 and Sept 14.

and no, Oswald did not go to summer school.  Summer 1953 is North Dakota time...  And as shown, he returns and enters 9th grade in Sept 1953...  That's Lee, not Harvey.

Sandy,

With Tracy et al, every single instance of duality must be addressed and explained away.

In so many cases, their only reply is "they got it wrong".. (just like John Ely got it wrong)

The 3 different PS44's for example.  Here is the relevant page along with reports from John Carro, Oswald's school probation officer.

From Robert:  "During the summer Mother looked around for another apartment, so Lee could make a fresh start in a new school in the fall"

This would be the famous "North Dakota summer"... yet the NYC school records do not support Robert's comment.  Lee had already transferred from PS117 to PS44 on Jan 16, 1953.  He doesn't show up until March 23rd.  You can see from the TRUANT REPORT (bottom right of collage) that Oswald and mom had already moved to E179th street by March 1953.  They did not move again before the 53/54 school year so there was no fresh start...   

Unless he was referring to LEE who attended a different PS44 and did very well according to the records...  the 2 mixed into one is truly not that hard to see.

"Mother and Lee" did not look for an apartment during the summer 1953
"Mother and Lee" had moved to E179th street by April 1953
Robert gives us the Manhattan address of PS44 while Pic adds yet another wrinkle

It got toward schooltime and they had their foothold in the house and he was going to enroll in the neighborhood school, and they planned to stay with us, and I didn't much like this. We couldn't afford to have them, and took him up to enroll in this school. 
Mr. JENNER - You did? 
Mr. PIC - No, sir; my mother did. I think this is a public school in New York City located on about 89th, 90th Street between Third Avenue and Second Avenue. Lee didn't like this school. I didn't much blame him. 

This might have been the East Side Middle School at 91st between 1st and 2nd,  

Mrs. Marge Oswald: I enrolled him in the Lutheran school which took him approximately an hour or longer by subway to get there. It was quite a distance. That is when we first arrived in New York.  I believe that Lee was in that school a very short time, 2 or 3 weeks

The Trinity school he, and then she, speaks of is at 2130 Watson in the Bronx and is indeed quite a trip for a 7th grader, alone, in NY.

Ave

On Sept 14, 1953 they were living in the Bronx at 829 E 179th after having been to 1455 Sheridan after leaving the Pics.

Just below the bottom of this map is where PS44 in Brooklyn is.

You are correct Sandy in questioning EVERYTHING about NYC, and 1952-1954.

Robert appears to have transitioned to Harvey with the zoo photo and his apartment location yet with all the time in the world to be correct, Robert tells us LEE is going to school  at PS44 in Manhattan which was at 100 West 77th.  I believe him.

LEE did go to PS44 in NYC while little Harvey was in the Bronx at the other PS44.  Two records were combined into one... except as usual for the FBI, mistakes were made.(see bottom image) 

These three "permanent records" are supposed to be ONE RECORD with all that occurs to a child recorded within.

Not only are there 3.  But there is no progression, they are of the same data but rewritten each time.   They are net even the same form...

1st and 2nd are the same, yet once the 1st adds info beyond the first year, the 2nd record should no longer exist... unless something out of the ordinary happened between PS117 and PS44 besides the YOUTH HOUSE (Apr/May 1953).  Only the 3rd image is the CE which is written on a form that isn't the same as the first 2.

How many different PERMANENT RECORDS is a child supposed to have?

yes... his work adds so much joy to the journey.

Best wishes for a speedy recovery...

2 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

If what was done what way? 

if a 48fps film was used to create the 0183 original by cutting out key sequences...

there are films to be accounted for.  How?

The film to Dina at NPIC from SA Smith from Hawkeyework Saturday night was already altered to some extent, (possibly the first 24fps cutdown version ?? )

So those first boards were not preserved.  only the Homer boards of the extent Zfilm... done deal by Sunday.

How...  with some corroborating evidence if possible - the existing evidence I've seen only hints at it.

Great work and thanks for keeping me reaching with this  

16 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Did you mean 26.5479 seconds?  

It would have to be...  

I don't know if Zapruder was involved prior to that day...  has anyone looked deeply into the 3-4 months of Abe's life prior to 11/22?

My point being he'd have to purposefully change to 48fps and turn it off again if we are talking only of 171-334...  makes more sense that it was all filmed at that speed..

It would be hard to tell on the 16mm preview projector Chamberlain used at 4x speed.. ... wait,   just dawns on me that at 4-6x or 64-96fps the film would actually look only slightly fast compared to what would normally be seen.  yet the problem remains the FBI is looking at a 16mm film at Kodak on the 23rd... which appears to be already cut down.

I know you prefer to stay away from what the math suggests... the "how"... yet if it was done this way, there is a "how",
whether we can conceive of it is another question entirely.

Chamberlain swears repeatedly he only gave Zapruder 2 rolls of IIA film...  another discussion for another time

DJ