David Josephs

I have Wilderness of Mirrors at home....

been a while since I read it but will take a look to see if there's anything about Harvey, Dallas and 11/22.

Interesting book btw...  about Angleton and Harvey.

Again, thanks for the kind words...  Bill was very helpful identifying the players...  we emailed while I was working on this back in 2015 and keep in contact from time to time... I read his work enthusiastically - downloading State Secret before many even knew about it...

Since so few have taken the time to look at every day OTHER than Sept 25 - Oct 3, Bill's work digs so deep into the CIA, FBI, etc... that the trip itself is usually overlooked.

Here is one of the last replies related to my Work....   As you delve into the other 4 papers I address each and every attempt to ID Oswald on these buses - the cornerstones to the FBI's MC trip story...   

"Here's Hoover in Feb. 64 talking about how even with extra men, every lead in Mexico City fizzles out.  At some point, you might consider a chrono of similar statements. Bill
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62477&relPageId=25  

1 hour ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Hi David , I thought your writing on the Mexico travel story was fantastic and persuaded me the official story was concocted. I am not persuaded yet that Oswald didn't go to MC. If the 'Poor man Oswald' is replaced with the 'CIA supported Oswald' I don't think rapid travel from MC to the Dallas area is inconceivable , even in the 60's?

Thanks for the kind words Eddy... That was part 1... only 4 more parts for you to go...    

There is no doubt that "an Oswald" could have been flown into Mexico by "Ferrie" for example.  Yet we understand that Goodpasture conjures up Oswald on Oct 8th for reasons OTHER than the photo of the man, or the voice of the man was Oswald.  All the proof that tries to put Oswald with Duran actually conflicts rather than supports him being there.

My POV was that the FBI is forced to cover for the CIA due to Oswald being on a FBI mission at the time.   The CIA put Oswald down there with the Oct 10 memo to FBI/State/Navy.  Hoover ultimately tells LBJ "there was a second man down there using his name" rather than "Our Oswald was not there".  It is my POV that Hoover covers for the CIA here to cover his own skin.  IF I am right and Oswald was at Odio's as I suspect... Hoover's FBI had to cover for them after Nov 22nd otherwise an FBI asset is connected to the JFK assassination.  Hoover would not allow that...  so with the help of an amazing asset, they create, then recreate the evidence getting Oswald from here to there....

Don't you suppose if anyone wanted a paper trail for Oswald going to MC all they'd need is a bus ticket.  lol

So one question is whether or not Oswald and Mexico City really had anything to do with each other....  I think the person OSWALD had little if anything to do with OSWALD the man GOODPASTURE created...

On 5/22/2017 at 6:51 PM, Larry Hancock said:

Very interesting document David, I had never seen that one.  In terms of Oswald sightings there are several that seem to be a problem in regard to the official time line. And again, I'm not totally comfortable with the Odio's dates so that makes it more complex for me. 

But something inolving an individual named Oswald and using Oswald FPCC documents did happen in MC, That was not created after the fact...it certainly did involve some level of impersonation so you have to ask yourself why would that happen if it was the real Oswald following some directions or even acting on his own. Which leaves you with some strange CIA counter espionage effort with the real Oswald back in the states, maybe in Dallas, Houston, at McKewons etc.  Now if Nov. 22 had not happened would that have been any real problem - maybe not.  Could CIA CI steal an identity for some short time frame operation in MC, sure they could and maybe they did and then after the fact traces of a real person had to be planted.

Who planted the contradictory and questionable stuff you mention?  Did CIA operatives do it, quickly and poorly and the FBI just found what they left?  Is that why it looks so stupid?

As I said, it would be no shock to me if he were not there....at this point its just going to take something new to fully knock me off the fence to one side or the other...worse yet I might still be on the fence with him there but not doing what the official story says...

I'll keep watching... 

 

 

Larry,

That's actually a composite of 4 or 5 documents showing the FBI search for Oswald after the fact...  IMO Hoover knew Oswald was not there, but for some reason covered the CIA's butt.

Not sure if you've taken the time to read thru the 6 chapters I did on the Mexico City Travel evidence at CTKA/Kings....  https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/mexico-city-part-2-the-trip-down-part-1

From what I can tell, no on e has looked at the travel as opposed to the time in MC.  There are thousands of docs spread out all over the WCDocs with no rhyme or reason.  So I organized them.

The first thing I did for this writing project was to acquire the documents and put them in chronological order...  Who knew what , when and how.

What I found was that all the evidence the FBI finally used to place Oswald here or there was funneled thru one man in Mexico City...  the #2 man at Gobernacion had his hands on virtually everything...  with comments by those who were aware that he added notes and made changes to the FM-11 (master list of Tourist Visas from the border)

Everything the FBI got were COPIES of items from this man...  he is even the source for the ARTURO BOSCH altered FRONTERA bus manifest which he changed to match the needed departure date and time.  Under Hoover's signature, this "accepted evidence for how Oswald left MC was later found to not work with the bus schedule and Oswald being in Dallas on Oct 3.

This is just the tip of the iceberg Larry...  the FBI was very detailed in their charade here... the physical evidence does come from the locations offered... just not related to a man named Oswald.  (The McFarlands and the Australian girls are provable plants used to place Oswald on a bus and nothing more.

I can only suggest you wade thru the work I did...  The FBI's story falls apart with the same gusto is was cobbled together

Cheers

DJ

WCD 78 p1  tells us that by Nov 23^th the FBI had information that the Mexican Officials were able to find and relay information from the “official records” of the Mexican Government which they had been alerted to no later than the early morning of Nov 23^rd.    A few pages later the FBI tells us that according to their Mexican confidential sources, Oswald was on the Transportes Frontera bus #340 leaving at 1pm Oct 2^nd.  This information not only turns out to be wrong but specifically created by a Mexican Presidential Staff Official Arturo Bosch in front of the bus line personnel. (Part 3 will delve deeper into the evidence related to Mr. Bosch)

33 frames?  and Z starts at 100 + 33?  And it's SPECTER who insists that POSITION A is somehow involved...

Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to ascertain the speed of the Presidential limousine at the time of the assassination? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes for a specific number of frames to run through the camera at this 18.3 frames per second, and having located these frame positions in the street, we took the farthest distance point we had in the Zapruder film which was frame 161 through frame 313. 

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The first position we established that morning was frame 161. 
Mr. SPECTER. Was there not a position established prior in sequence to frame 161, specifically that designated as position A? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was actually established later. But the first one to be actually located was 161. And we went back later and positioned point A. 
Mr. SPECTER. Well, let's start with the position which is the most easterly point on Elm Street, which I believe would be position A, would it not? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. 

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is an album that I prepared of black and white photographs made of the majority of the frames in the Zapruder film---- 
Mr. SPECTER. Starting with what frame number? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Starting with frame 171, going through frame 334. 
Mr. SPECTER. And why did you start with frame 171? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the frame that the slides start from. This was an arbitrary frame number that was decided on as being far enough back to include the area that we wanted to study. 

I find it interesting that they did all they could to exclude info prior to z161 (which was originally z168 and changed for CE884) yet still insist on discussing the significance of POS A.

Mr. SPECTER. Was there any prior position, that is a position before position A, where the marksman from the sixth floor could have fired the weapon and have struck the President at the known point of entry at the base of the back of his neck? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; because as the car moves back, you lose sight of the chalk mark on the back of his coat. 

Mr. SPECTER. So that would be the first position where the marksman could focus in on the circled point where the point of entry on the President was marked? 
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. 

That is simply not true at all.  Bottom left...  roll the limo back, you don't lose sight of anything while the "chalk mark" on the coat rises... a simple movement of the rifle adjusts for that... so why Shaneyfelt would claim what he does here, and relate it back to the window - when according to Shaneyfelt the limo was never at Position A.

Any thoughts on why all the effort, images and explanations related to this spot the limo had never supposedly driven thru... unless you listen to TRULY.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This shows the photograph that was made from the point where Zapruder was standing looking toward the car, and is a point that we have designated as position A because it is in a position that did not appear on the Zapruder film 
The Zapruder film does not start until the car gets farther down Elm Street. 

It takes 81 frames for the motorcycle prior to 133 to disappear into that TSBD/Elm street corner and reemerge....

The motorcycle in a few frames is in the exact same spot as Position A.  Here is that bike with Pos A for the stand-in limo behind it...

When you click frame by frame on TOWNER... during and just after that turn it appears to me that the limo is moving sideways, not rolling forward, but that may be an illusion of the perspective.

Somehow from that spot, the limo gets to z133.  Both the Towner and Z films are altered to remove that turn

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 4:08 PM, Larry Hancock said:

David, the Hoover memo has long fascinated me.  It may be as simple as Hoover being bitter about how much time Phillips and the CIA wasted by touting the Gilberto Alverado story - which the FBI finally deconstructed after a ton of field work.  The FBI also spent a lot of time chasing down leads of others that Oswald reputedly contacted in and around the Cuban consulate and that is documented. Hoover really got irate when he thought FBI resources were being wasted by other agencies. A related issue would be the handling of Tumbleweed where the CIA dumped the whole thing on the FBI and it appears the FBI may have blown it.  The FBI has never had a good reputation for sharing with other agencies, not then and certainly not as recently as 2001. But I can imagine how mad Hoover would have been if he learned Oswald had not been there at all.

I'll certainly say that if it were possible to totally prove Oswald had never gone to MC at all I would not be shocked, but I do think at the time of his reported visit the CIA was surely reacting as if he were there....and that something complex was going on.  Which might simply mean something compartmentalized but which became a major problem after the assassination. It would not be the first time counter intelligence played that sort of game and screwed up the Agency in doing so.

I took these as a good indication that Hoover understood Oswald was not there during the time in question.  The Alvarado story does make a little sense, yet in my mind, Alvarado is not enough of an incentive for Hoover to cover the CIA's butt by creating fake travel documents/history with his Mexican assets...  and Alvarado didn't show up for a couple days... the Presidential "guard" - Arturo Bosch being the Frontera related one - was at the 4 bus line office in both north and south Mexico...

FBI even claimed it was the ANAHUAC line that Oswald arrived on...  

These reports thought, didn't make the final report or were even in consideration it appears.  Finally, if it was Oswald... both the hotel registry and Visa are terribly incorrect.  The Visa application was for a 6 month visa for Harvey Oswald Lee.  The hotel registry is signed "Lee, Harvey Oswald"... exactly the same as the mismatched VISA.

It was from there that I began my journey...  always good hearing from you Larry.

DJ

ps - if Odio is not enough... any thoughts on this proof?   Wasn't Oswald spotted in Dallas at the shooting on the 28th of Sept?

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

LEE -- LEON -- LEONOV -- LEONOVICH -- LEONOVICHSKY -- HARVEYOVICHSKY  -- HARVEYOVICH -- HARVEYOV -- HARVEY -- HARV

 

I'll go away now.

 

   Here you go Sandy...  a name you WILL find interesting.  Look for Esquire article... related to Tippit murder... maybe
 

Larry - 

Thanks for your thoughts on this...  I have a different view of the trip of course...  

One last point...

Hoover's handwritten notation about CIA double dealing regarding Oswald's trip to Mexico...

Given the FBI reports from Nov 1963 all stating no evidence for Oswald anywhere in Mexico, AND knowing Mystery man was not Oswald 
AND the fact that so much of the Mexico Evidence was acquired by locals on the 22nd only to be funneled thru one person, one of the FBI's top Mexican Government assets...
AND the rifle that was supposedly at Magazine street somehow winds up in and out of the Paine garage - sight unseen.

It almost appears that the FBI is hiding the fact he didn't go by offering up evidence which is so shoddy on its face.

I think Oswald was traveling, in and around Dallas, and then in Dallas itself on the 4th of Oct.  After a week with no contact, Marina supposedly hung up on him when he asked her to ask Ruth for a ride home.

There'd be no reason for Oswald to go to Mexico City and NOT leave tell tale signs of this trip - if that was the point.  the evidence does not bear this out...

Cheers.

Larry - 

Given your conclusion about Oswald in MC...

Who do you think LEON was at Odio's door?

Sorry you thought that was a goad...  not my intent.

Sounded like you wanted to have a conversation.. again, no worries.

Hope you find something that sparks passion

DJ

No real worries Tommy...  I know it's not on purpose....  

As for H&L... 

Theories not withstanding, which bits of evidence supporting H&L bothers you the most?

I'd prefer we don't discuss what Armstrong speculates upon...  Can we just stick with the evidence available to us?

All the reading and research I've done in these areas leads me to understand that there's virtually nothing under the sun which can be conceived that has not been tried, so I stop asking WHY - human beings are some depraved MF's - those with power revel in messing with the lives of others...

I'd also prefer we dropped the incredulity... just because something sounds far -fetched or strange by our standards does not mean it is not possible or has not already been done or tried.  

As for Trump - Never believe anything until it has been officially denied

Try watching the news with that understanding and it's amazing how clear everything becomes....

"Any collusion with the Russians?"  
"No. No. Next Question"

"larger story less credible" - which larger story Michael?

I tried to stay away from things like "sounds credible"... the evidence left for us tells a specific story... the truth tends to be easily corroborated after the fact... lies on the other hand, and created evidence have a much tougher time keeping things straight.

The first batches of BUS TRIP EVIDENCE which came from Mexico was completely wrong despite it being accepted as evidence of Oswald's visit... when it no longer could stand up to scrutiny, it was dropped. simply dropped by Hoover in favor of something else that could work... like "he took this (or that) bus since it was the only bus to get his to his destination when we say he got there"

Mexican Presidential guards showed up at each of the 4 bus lines on 11/22 and "borrowed" all the evidence.

The MC story is symptomatic of the entire WCR...  Desired conclusion unsupported - in fact contradicted - by the actual evidence gathered at the time and from subsequent investigations without the government's bias.

Well Michael - I did about 300 pages on the trip and evidence...  This charade unfolds amazingly..  I hope I've done it some justice...

https://kennedysandking.com/content/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-index is the index to all my work but you'll see the 6 Mexico Chapters in this list.

It took the FBI over 2000 documents to explain that Oswald went to Mexico - when all they needed was a single bus ticket... which they finally did get from Marina.

Enjoy the ride

DJ

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Joseph,

Thanks for the input.

I like your work on Lee Harvey Oswald's non-visit to Mexico, btw, because I'm starting to think he didn't go there myself.

I've only just started reading it, though, so "we shall see".

Have a nice day!

--  Tommy

Joseph(s) is my last name...  better than the "Jacobs" I get from time to time... 

Thanks for the compliment Tommy.  And as usual, I'm sure you'll find areas where I've err'd - that would be greatly appreciated since from my knowledge there are no other deep dives related to the travel to and from MC - I'd like to turn the 6 chapters into a coherent book...  Oswald in Dallas at the end of the MC time period, the Odio story and the lack of authentic evidence for his being in MC led me to conclude Oswald was doing his left wing / right wing group infiltration work for the FBI at the time so the CIA knew it could use Oswald's name and not worry about the FBI contradicting them now that Oswald was the assassination's only possible shooter.

Mexico City was one of my first writing projects which grew from a small paper on the forged Hotel registry & FM-8 Visa to encompass 2000 Mexico City documents (which I saved and named in chronological order - completely changes how you think of a topic when you have the timely contextual content side by side).

If you thought my posts are hard to follow, this early work is loaded with data and though provoking ideas, but is probably not as organized as it could have been...  I'll be editing it, updating it and publishing it as I get to it.

I hope it provides some of what you're looking for Tommy....  

DJ

Michael... there is almost always a link under the frame to the PDF original version of the article in the CTKA archives.

I have the same problem and always hit that link.

========================

There are three types of MC travel evidence...

1. that which is blatant verbal lie 
2. that which exists in the physical world and was created to implicate Oswald
3. and that which is an accurate portrayal of events that betrays the conclusion our Oswald was there

The most obvious of evidence - bus tickets - meets both #2 and #3.  
Starting in New Orleans there is simply no record of Oswald taking a bus anywhere.

In the work I did I came to find that the FBI/DFS/Gobernacion were able to find virtually every other person's evidence for having been on the buses they are credited, and even found that some of the names on the manifests simply did not exist.

Despite looking for evidence of Oswald in MC all thru November 1963, Hoover's resources could find nothing, yet Hoover goes along anyway and creates a fairy tale journey of epic proportions.

The CIA wasn't able to officially find him either.   

12 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

You, the En Masse Alterationists, and the Harvey and Lee "High Priests and Sacred Chorus Members" cause immeasurable damage and obstruction to sober, serious-minded JFK Assassination study and research here.

Like I said, "In my humble opinion.".

"immeasurable damage"

Discussing the interpretation of source evidence "causes" the damage you speak of Tommy?  You have such little faith in people's ability to come to their own conclusions, make their own decisions... without your valuable insights and advice?  

Yeah, I'm with Michael... how do I get on your ignore list as well... from my POV your repetitive attempts at wit, your lack of insight and refusal to explore that which you have yet to understand puts you a close 2nd to Mr. T here.

I've been thru the arguments you copy/paste from others and they remain lacking and unconvincing.  (That adults can't simply count to 200 is amazing.)

You take no chances, offer nothing from your own effort and are always first in line to critique the work of others with so little work or experience to your own credit.

"Comments?"  I agree with you Tommy.  Mr. T here checks virtually all the COINTELPRO tactic boxes.   He, like an old timer I used to deal with here, is simply in it for the sh!ts and giggles knowing full well what he offers is worthless to anyone spending any amount of time here....  

Curious though Tommy, 
Since when did you become the conscience of the forum members - so much so that you decide what is and isn't valuable, serious, or sober as you frantically hope one of your buddies can supply you with some ammunition that doesn't fall flat on its face in rebuttal to the H&L evidence?

Doesn't dawn on you that we're getting weary of all the whining you do on these threads about all the topics you disagree with or don't understand...

Keep cursing the darkness Tommy...  I and others will leave the light on for you - all you need do is find your way... and take off the blinders.

We were discussing the splice in Towner during the turn onto Elm

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.

... and what Dale Myers tried to do in his explanation by claiming a 22 frames per second speed for a camera moving at 18 fps...

Why in the world would Dale make the Towner film run almost 25% faster Chris?  Speeds up the limo for one, hides/removes 1.8 seconds of film if the speed was actually 18.3 fps.  

Is Truly adding details that never happened - and if so, what purpose would it serve...

Do we not believe it is simply a coincidence that HUGHES is also burn/damaged at the exact same point... as the limo would be approaching the island curb.

Zapruder claims he did not stop and start filming after the motorcycles turn onto Elm.

But of course nothing of importance happened on that corner anyway....  

Really Chris?  The Secret Service in CE875 tells us that the 3rd shot was over 30 feet further down Elm?

CE585 does the same thing...

Amazing...

hey Chris...  any other corroboration like say Altgens, Hudson, Leo Gauthier and WCD298...  

Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.

another amazing fact is that LEO GAUTHIER, the FBI AGENT who oversaw the creation of this WCD298 model was one of the men with Eisenberg who in May 1964 completely negated the work from Dec 2,3,4 and up to delivery of this model in mid-January 1964 by reconstructing the evidence.   The FBI asked WEST to remove the data related to the 3rd shot from his work so that there'd be 2 and only 2 shots hitting the limo...  any ideas on how Eisenberg could draw this months prior to the reenactment and get it so correct?   {snicker snicker}

Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in the onsite tests made in Dallas? 
Mr. GAUTHIER. I did. 
Mr. SPECTER. Was a survey made of the scene used to record some of the results of that onsite testing? 
Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. 
Mr. SPECTER. And by whom was the survey made? 
Mr. GAUTHIER. The survey was made on May 24, 1964, by Robert H. West

Except what SPECTER is questioning GAUTHIER about is the work done in early DECEMBER.
The Model was erected for the Warren Commissioners on January 20

Mr. GAUTHIER. Our data to build this were compiled on December 2, 3, and 4. It took about 5 weeks to prepare this exhibit in Washington. 

Mr. SPECTER. And where have these models been maintained since the time they were prepared by the FBI? 
Mr. GAUTHIER The models were delivered to the Commission's building and installed in the exhibits room on the first floor, on January 20, 1964. 

Makes one wonder how a model and related data is delivered JANUARY 20 yet the survey data related to this endeavor is not compiled for another 5 months. 
The survey by WEST was made on Dec 2,3,4

5 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Two things:

First, check my name.  It is not now, nor ever has been, McKnight.

Second, Mr. Walton assumes I disagree with Chris Davidson.  I DO NOT.  I consider Mr. Davidson's work to be the logical extension of Tom Purvis' research.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled program, already in progress.

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 3:03 AM, Michael Walton said:

Position A is meaningless to me

Of course it is Mike....  That's the point....  you don't seem to care about the analytical process.  and since you can't possible conceive how this would be beneficial - like so many, you need to criticize what you clearly still don't understand...  burying your head in the sand does not make something unproven...  the math actually clearly shows what the FBI did to add even more confusion to the situation.

You ain't never gonna learn what you don't wanna know my friend.....  what amazes me is you have the 'nads to come on these threads and whine like a child about WHY we do this and HOW can it be meaningful...  For G~d sake Mike... move on already.  You admit it yourself - this is way over your head Mike...  don't hurt yourself trying to avoid understanding something new buddy...  SOS seems to be working fine for ya...

That you can offer ironclad conclusions like: "The films were not - I repeat NOT - manipulated, altered, extra frames removed, etc" only proves how little you care to look deeper than your own opinion.   

If the film was not altered... why is a 50+ foot film, or ever the 25'-30' of film from side B not only a little over 6 feet, but has no unique identification while the "entire film" is spliced together with multiple physical and photographic splices. The fact that you are so unaware of the details related to the Zfilm is disheartening...  just means you offer conclusive opinions based on nothing but your own conclusions - regardless of how they conflict with the official record.

Stay in that warm, safe comfort zone Mike...  understanding requires more than acceptance...  that you accept the governments story hook line and sinker is sad.
Virtually every item in this case is tainted, is inauthentic evidence.  Yet you can proudly state a conclusion for which there is no supporting evidence...

And do so with such arrogance.  I've reread Mark's post and yes it does offer a small explanation of one aspect of the 4 different times the FBI/SS/WEST and friends did surveys and re-enactments.  There is corroborating evidence of a shot further down Elm.  The is corroborating evidence the limo slowed to a crawl and there were shots AFTER Hill gets to the trunk.  

There is corroborating evidence that shots hit the street, the sidewalk, that there was a pool of blood up on the GK sitting area behind the wall.  THREE SHOTS was the foregone conclusion... if we find there being more RESULTS in DP than would occur with only 3 shots, this data and the FBI's hiding of it had a purpose and a trail of evidence.  Without the WEST SURVEY DATA we'd know none of this.  

It is this data and the eye witnesses who supersede a corrupt investigation with a predetermined conclusion and prove the Film to have been at least altered at a number of key locations.  z132-z133 is a splice, not a stop and start.

156-157-158

It appears the tear in the film was across z156 so 157 bottom is spliced to 156 top

yet when you look closely, between z157 and z158 JFK spins his head like Greer at 302/303 and again at 314/315

JFK goes from looking at 4:00 to 9:00 in less than 1/18th of a second...  not possible...  equals missing frames

Let's talk 207 for a second...  As discussed (and obviously ignored), Shaneyfelt states that between 207 and 210 the 10" vertical distance is accounted for....

Yet also as discussed, a 10" drop equals 15.25 vertical feet of movement.  The following illustration of what Shaneyfelt meant shows it to be impossibly wrong.  In essence, with this film record of the assassination needing no changes, the FBI disregarded this evidence and instead created their own using a limo stand-in, a 10" vertical distance difference at both the street level and the window (box/muzzle height versus frame height).

Why would the FBI repeatedly look to anything else but this "original bit of BEST evidence" to perform their work?

I'll save you the time - 'cause the film and every other item of DP evidence is completely manufactured to incriminate Oswald.

After one realizes this, one next considers HOW it was done...  the following frame z323 includes a black square hovering over the back of JFK's head.  it is obviously not something that occurred naturally since none of the other blacks in the frame crush out like that...

May be falling on your deaf ears but there are other who follow with interest and curiosity...

So Mike - this is the last you'll hear from me in addressing your posts on this subject..  

Take care
DJ

On 5/17/2017 at 3:08 PM, Michael Walton said:

It boggles my mind how you, Chris, and anyone else can think that this could be done.

Then please, remain boggled.

I asked a simple question. A place from which we can create vocabulary with which to converse.

What is Position A Michael?  and why does the FBI add it to the ZFilm re-enactments.

 Look carefully at the middle two images...  the limo is not ever seen in this position on the Zfilm yet Truly claims this is exactly where the limo went (top image)

Now the bottom image...  the B&W image of the stand-in limo is placed at Pos A.  The motorcycle emerges from that corner prior to z133 so if the limo was also there, it too would have been seen on the Zfilm in that exact position....

yet, Any ideas how the limo gets from Pos A to z133?  

Spend some time with Pos A and Shaneyfelt's testimony and MAYBE you'll start to see what was done to cover for the fact the Zfilm was completely altered.  or not.

On 5/17/2017 at 3:08 PM, Michael Walton said:

But then I read you elsewhere and I ask - what happened here?  The MC caper was not enough? Now you're suspicious about the microphone in the Ruby shot Oswald photo? You seem to back up the silly Harvey and Lee caper? And you think frames were removed in the Z film?  It's just puzzling how someone can write an article on MC - with a very plausible and solid outcome - and then throw all reason out the window and start believing anything.  And why? Because that's what you assume? Or because they could?

While I appreciate you taking the time and commenting on some of my work, all you ever offer is the same incredulity without anything to refute what's been offered.

I'm more than willing to discuss any aspect of H&L you'd like... as long as you make your points with supporting documentation.  

PROVE something is not right Michael... prove something I've written or offered is incorrect and at least we have a starting place.

You know so little about H&L yet can come to conclusions.   Like the Math and your saying you're an artist.  Not being an artist myself, what good is telling you you're wrong about something in the art world simply because I can't understand WHY it was done?  Just like you not understanding the cause and effect of the Zfilm alteration and the the MATH related to it.

Frames were removed from the Zfilm...  no one disputes this Mike.  207-212... the exact location where all the surveys found the first shot to have hit someone, were removed - 

The reason the film was altered was because it showed results from well more than 3 shots being fired, at least 2 of which coming from the front.

Proof the film is original is entirely based on the COPIES.  There remains nothing on that 6+ feet of film that PROVES it was ever the in-camera original...
....while event after event paints a pretty picture of what was done to create incriminating evidence against Oswald in every aspect of the case.  Nothing could overtly show that shots were fired from anywhere but the 6th floor SE window.

All I can suggest is to stop asking WHY something was done and spend a little time first seeing WHAT was done and then figure out HOW...  these are facts...

WHY? is simply conjecture and in most cases a complete waste of time

On 5/15/2017 at 1:39 PM, Michael Walton said:

See this is exactly what I  mean. No explanation. No answers. No defense of the theory or discussion of others rebuttals. No rebuttals to Jeremy and Speers. Now Josephs is taking the same tact and telling me to scoot off.

David you  can think whatever you  want about my knowledge of this case. I  think I  have a decent knowledge  of  the  case and I  think where we and others and me diverge sharply  is I  dont buy into everything  under the sun as being a conspiracy. I  think that's  where a lot of folks here get themselves into trouble.

You yourself told me "See Michael I  think they did because  they can."

I mean really...? Why would you  think that? They already had their patsy 6 foot in the grave. All they had to do was massage the story here and there to make it all official in the WR.

Why would  you  ever think they'd  go through  all of this extra work, film manipulation  and so on....because they "could" when they didn't  need to?

It doesn't  make sense.

Your inability to fathom the reasons behind events in this assassination does not negate any of this work... 

What is annoying here MW is we have explained and reexplained and illustrated and explained again...  It took me - a finance and math major - quite some time to understand what Chris is offering.  But once I did the Zfilm charade begins to clear.  It has always been my assumption that parts if not all of the film was shot at 48fps, and even Horne touches on that possibility.  

Use it or not.  Yet coming here to post incredulity while also slamming those who do understand is extremely counter-productive.

I can try to simplify it yet again but it appears you want to stick to you WHY OH WHY argument...  I've stopped asking why because there is no way to know WHY... what we do have are the results, the altered data, the nefarious entry of evidence and an overt process by the FBI to make the analysis of the shooting, and therefore what is seen on the ZFilm, impossible.

Let's start with something easy and direct Mike.   Explain what you understand POSITION A was for and why it makes its way into the zfilm analysis.

POS A is the first position prior to z133 where the limo is placed and from which distances were derived...

so in your vernacular...  Why?  After we establish that we can move on.  

Paul, 

Quote

inally -- this nonsense that Kostikov, a KGB assassin, was "secretly working for the CIA" -- is among the most ludicrous nonsense of the "Harvey and Lee" production.  For John Armstrong -- your hero whom you parrot -- there is no difference between the CIA and the KGB.  That's the Spy Fiction that y'all call a CT.  It's ludicrous.

Nothing worse than someone attempting to "one-up" you using your own insults...  

Point to it Paul... where does John claim Kostikov worked for the CIA? or is this you being you and blurting out "alt-facts" to support your argument  

I've just been thru the entire book and in every case KOSTIKOV is described the same way.  If you can't post a excerpt from the book to support your statement I expect an apology to this forum for all the BS you continually throw out as fact which only winds up being your unsupported imagination at work.

"Valeriy Vladimirovich Kostikov was the senior Consular officer and handled matters relating to the issuance of visas."
"The October 16 memo identified VALERIY VLADIMIROVICH KOSTIKOV as a member of the Consular Section"
"Following the assassination Oswald's contacts at the Cuban Consulate, the Soviet Embassy, and his alleged meeting with Kostikov were known immediately"
"The other CIA officer to receive the October 8 cable was Tennent Bagley, who waited until the day after the assassination (November 23) to identify Kostikov as a KGB officer working in KGB Department 13"
"After the Warren Commission was created Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton used Oswald's alleged contact with alleged KGB assassin Kostikov to have his department act as liaison with the Commission."

"On January 31 1964 Raymond Rocca, probably at the direction of James Angleton,
sent a memo to the Warren Commission that read, "Kostikov is believed to work for Department
Thirteen ..... The Thirteenth Department headquarters, according to very reliable
information, conducts interviews or, as appropriate, file reviews on every foreign
military defector to the USSR (a clear reference to Oswald) to study and to determine the
possibility of using the defector in his country of origin."

You simply don't get it.  I see that.  The LOPEZ report starts with the assumption the WCR was correct about Oswald's travel to and from Mexico.

I prove that to be false. https://kennedysandking.com/content/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-index 

Simply because the conclusion is ACCEPTED does not make the WCR right.  Even the Lopez report acknowledges the real possibility of Oswald's impersonation.  In fact, they cannot find a single item of evidence that Oswald existed outside the consulates...  I go thru each and every item of evidence offered to put Oswald in Mexico... and illustrate how not only was the evidence wrong but it was created solely to support the CIA's story of Oswald in MC.

But if you think you have something - share it please.

"It is the conclusion of this committee that the WC correctly established that Oswald traveled to Mexico"    

If you take a few days and actually read thru the work on the FBI manufactured evidence of Oswald's Mexico City travel.  

Paul -

I, like so many others here, am wondering how someone who fails to follow the sources and footnotes and only relies on his own interpretation of other people's work, can be relied upon to present a coherent argument in support of their conclusions.

I don't quote Armstrong, I go and look at the source documents from which the conclusion arises.  The interpretation/authentication/corroboration of the source material is all we have these days...  If all we needed to do was read the book and agree - why aren't you using Bugliosi's book as reference?

Bill's own replies illustrate your inability to understand the points he makes and the suppositions they are built upon... you continually regurgitate the conclusions of others like a parrot without a thought as to how the evidence does or does not support such conclusions.

Take your conclusions for example...  repeatedly you are informed about how the basis for your conclusions are severely flawed yet instead of attempting to learn anything... you proceed as if you're deaf dumb and blind to thoughts other than your own.

Quote

he was trying to clear his name and sooth his guilty conscience

Paul - you haven't the first clue regarding the man's motives and mindset...  yet you state them and most everything else as a foregone conclusions...  it is this main reason so many here are tired of seeing your name.  When challenged you NEVER deliver...  why is that you suppose?

Quote

The theme of this little gem is that Oswald was working with KGB agent Valery Kostikov in 1963 to kill JFK

As usual you come thru every time.   Are you truly so lost that you fail to see how it was the CIA and State Dept who created and nurtured the Kostikov story.  It was the TRANSCRIPT which attempts to link the two and it is the RUSSIAN END OF THE CALL who mentions Kostikov, not the Oswald impersonator.  It was the letter from Goodpasture and the Russian Desk (LADILLINGER).  And then Scott informing Ambassador Mann...

As we both know, the "YES" reply from the Oswald impersonator may or may not have anything to do with the Russian person's mention of Kostikov.

DO YOU GET THAT PAUL?  Oswald, the man Ruby killed, had nothing at all to do with the calls that pushed the name "Kostikov"... the impersonator and whoever they supposedly spoke to at the Russian Embassy created that connection.... Scott and Mann supported and propagated the lie... Hosty claiming it was Lee Harvey in Mexico just shows how far the FBI would go to cover its tracks and how naive you as a researcher remain.  

Even Hoover says there was another person impersonating Oswald.. a 2nd person down in Mexico... NOT that it was never Oswald in the first place...

Paul...  if you took the time to back up your arguments, you'd never argue for or against anything...  I guess you're just lazy?

We're all just getting very tired of your opinions backed with books written to purposefully confuse...or your confused offerings of interpretation on books written exposing the crimes.  Next you'll tell us the Clint Hill book is THE source for evidence related to the shooting...  and the true activities of the SS that day... 

From all angles you present as a parrot.  Mindlessly repeating the conclusions of others arrived at after years of work without any understanding of what created these conclusions in the first place... and when you do attempt to delve deeper you consistently show the lack of insight for which you're famous.  You paraphrase others incorrectly and then argue with them.  You attempt to stand on the shoulders of others as you try to attack JA for example, a man so far out of your league as to make you laughable by comparison yet you somehow feel it your right to attack using borrowed tactics and work that eludes you.

But you go right on sticking to your guns Paul.  Stay with the Walker angle and Oswald being in Mexico...  DON'T look into the sources and records for H&L as that requires work, time and interest...  

We realize you can't be bothered with facts, evidence or interpretation as you make your case...

.

Quote

And let's  say for argument's sake Chris is right. That the angles of the road in the reports need to be corrected. What then? What is the outcome? I've  asked  this  numerous  times and there's  been no convincing  reply from Chris nor anyone  else. No convincing result that justifies all of this number crunching and angle calculating.

Mr. Walton,

Despite having no real interest, continually asking "WHY" as if any one of us has the franchise on that answer, and basically observing this thread as if you were looking at hieroglyphics - you still DEMAND... even REQUIRE us to continually explain it to you...  

Toddle off already Mike...  you have no real need to understand and we truly cannot make this sh!t any simpler.

Follow along...  Just like we know Harry Holmes was full of it when he offered his "how we found the rifle" evidence because we did the research and analysis, creoss corroboration and find that 99% of the time, government offered evidence is pure crap.

You "feelings" one way or another regarding the Zfilm is just that... feelings and opinions.  What we are doing here is quantifying the steps involved in the FBI/SS/CIA Zfilm charade...  Illuminating what Shaneyfelt and Frazier CONSPIRED to do.  How Eisenberg, Gauthier and a handful of others where able to falsify the record and create false evidence.

Muchmore insists she did not film the assassination sequence... anyone seeing the difference between Muchmore's film prior to the cut at z272 and then after can easily tell she was not the source of the film...  and the math supports and confirms this.

How about giving us all a break already and moving on to a thread where you understand the subject matter?  We KNOW what you think about the film...  what we don't understand is why you'd remain so closed off to other approaches to the data...  For G~d sake already Mike...  you aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know here...

Does continually poking and hoping on these MATH thread bring you some sort of satisfaction?  Are YOU trying to make some sort of opinionated point or do you have anything beyond your own observations to support your opposing conclusions?

Sir,

With a basket and nine hands you couldn't gather a thing...

So one of the key FBI perpetrators writes something "which attempts to link"...  

Nothing wrong with the FBI (fox) explaining how Oswald (chicken) was doing something nefarious... AFTER the fox has eaten the chicken.

Good thing the sources you chose to hang your POV upon don't have an agenda.... 

HOSTY on the honesty of the FBI's investigation...

How about Hoover attempting all thru November to find any shred of evidence independent of the CIA, that Oswald was down there.

20 informants, an asset at the Gobernacion, And as of the 22nd the FBI was not able to independently corroborate Oswald being in Mexico

You ever see this Hoover handwritten comment in Jan 64?  What "Mexico City double dealing" you think he was referring to here?

Yet HOSTY is your authority on Oswald in Mexico...  whatever Paul.