David Josephs

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

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. 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

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, 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. 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? 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... .

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.

Josephs... last name has an "s"... all good. "in Dallas, TEXAS ...for the time The Baltimore story involves Richard Case Nagell's warning to Hoover about JFK being killed in September... 27/28/29th . Here is the page from JFK/Unspeakable You may wish to read Dick Russell's work on Nagell... below is his affidavit. The Baylor online archive of John Armstrong has a number of large notebooks on the man. I've included enlargements of the 2 cards - one on Nagell the other on Oswald.... The signatures and sightings of Oswald in various places around the country was supposedly to establish that Oswald was "stalking" JFK. Since we feel that Oswald was "handled" by Intel, getting him to write letters about moving to Nagell's target zone in mid 1963 MAY have been part of the "Oswald project"... sheep-dipping Oswald for his work yet acting as a double edged sword when trying to defend himself later.

PT, Case in point... here is page 1 of a FBI memo explaining how CURRY told the truth to reporters in Dallas and another one regarding SHANKLIN and the same thing. The FBI squashed to truth, regardless, and in its place the "Oswald is Guilty" along with the "FBI can do no wrong" stories. Virtually every place the FBI could lie, they did. and we have proof of virtually every one of them. Walker shooting being yet another place for them to lie.... "steel-jacketed bullet" was used... Ooops

And here is the letter stating his change in plans... no more Baltimore What I can't find is this letter: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/lee-harvey-oswald-letter-to-communist-gus-hall-to-be-sold-1.6286346

Mr. Trejo You have shown us you have neither the analytical skills nor the supporting evidence to take on what Mr Armstrong accomplished. You continue to throw unsupported BS against the Forum Walls yet none sticks, it all just slides off leaving behind what only can be described as your tell tale signature. I see you preface one statement with "IMHO" yet your opinions are never humble and are never stated as opinions but only unsupported statements you call "opinion". You know this for a fact? So you can support all this... including how Oswald was now a "marked man"; How you know what happens at the JBS meetings at Austin's... Please do. On this forum, "opinions" are only worth a read from those who have shown some level of understanding, some level of analytical accomplishment whereby the "opinion" actually carries some weight. You sir have yet to enter the ballpark... You include descriptive adjectives in your "opinions" which also have no basis in reality and then need to explain how your opinions are colored by information you never seem able to supply. I stick up for John here since he can't seem to find the strength to suffer the fools after actually DOING those things you've only read about. Perceive from what Paul? What evidence do you have that supports Hosty having a hand in actually killing JFK beyond your own already debunked theories about the Walker shooting? Considering you probably have not read 10% of the H&L material (which is double your normal effort) you are supremely unqualified to quibble with JA over the deeper meanings to the information he's uncovered. The real bottom line is your inability to see the evidence staring you in the face, much like Mr. Von Pein. If you cannot see how, where and why the FBI "interfered" with the evidence, the documentary evidence as well as the physical evidence in order to remove conflicting accounts as much as possible as well as insert incriminating evidence to strengthen the already weak case they had... I feel sorry for you. The Evidence is the Conspiracy. And no one had more control over the evidence than the FBI.

What DVP here fails to mention is the 4 different reports of finding this Money Order .... and that it would have been the TREASURY who had the tape created by these punch cards. The TAPE which connects the serial number to the FILE LOCATOR NUMBER. Following encashment of a check by the payee, it is deposited sooner or later in a commercial bank. The bank will honor the check after proper examination and then will apply to its cognizant Federal Reserve Bank for the reimbursement, which usually takes the form of a credit to the bank's reserve account. The Federal Reserve Bank then applies to the Treasurer of the United States for reimbursement of the amount which it has credited to the commercial bank. When the Treasurer has electronically examined the check to determine that it bears an authorized disbursing officer's symbol and serial number and that there is not a stop-payment notice against it, the check is considered "paid." Checks are received in batches of about 1,000 checks, accompanied by detailed listings. One of these 4 brings us to the USPS National Records center in Maryland where the Money Order was supposedly retrieved by Robert Jackson and given to J. Harold Marks who in turn gives it to Secret Service SA PARKER at 10:10pm. Problem being Dave, the Fed Records Center is not the US Treasury. the FILE LOCATOR NUMBER appears to only be used by the Treasury. At what point that day does the SS/FBI/USPS acquire this file locator number? Why is it not until that night that "computers" were turned on at the Fed Records Center by Secret Service "Recording" Agent BURKE claiming it would be 15 mins for the computer to warm up so they could find the PMO. DAVE - What info would they be feeding into that system and from where did they get it? According to WCD87 p118 SS Asst Chief Paterni asks SAIC GAIGLEIN to find the PMO and is given the serial number, March 12, $21.45, KLEINS and HIDELL. About that same time Postal Inspector KNIGHT tells SS SA GRIFFITHS the PMO would be sent to Kansas City and the PIs there are already looking. at 8:55pm EST, 70 minutes before it is actually found, SS SA GRIFFITHS learns the original PMO has been recovered "By Postal Inspectors" and is on the way to Asst Chief of the SS PATERNI. You see Dave... there being a file locator is nice - if a PMO was forged we'd expect to see the number... if the PMO was NOT forged... we'd expect to see the MO STUB which remains attached to the MO BOOK. Neither of which are in evidence and would have looked like this before being detached... The stub on the far right would still be in the book even if Oswald lost his copy of the receipt - yet given that Oswald kept EVERYTHING, kinda strange this stub was not among his belongings... This thread deals with the required processing marks on the back of this PMO. The STAMP placing "50 91144" is the KLEIN STAMP for depositing checks... Once it hits the 1st Nat'l of Chicago, it and the Federal Reserve Bank will process this check so the USPS can transfer the money to the correct bank. ================================================================================= 1. The Bank, now the new Payee, forwards the PMO to their affiliated Federal Reserve Bank for reimbursement of funds and processing USPS Fed Res Sys process a. All money orders are forwarded through the Federal Reserve Banking System, to which commercial banks have access i. For this standard: Money order means a U.S. Postal Money Order. b. The postmaster general has the usual right of a drawee to examine money orders presented for payment by banks through the Federal Reserve System and to refuse payment of money orders, and has a reasonable time after presentation to make each examination. Provisional credit is given to the Federal Reserve Bank when it furnishes the money orders for payment by the postmaster general. Money orders are deemed paid only after examination is completed, subject to the postmaster general’s right to make reclamation under 3.4. c. The presenting bank and the endorser of a money order presented for payment are deemed to guarantee to the postmaster general that all prior endorsements are genuine, whether an express guarantee to that effect is placed on the money order. When an endorsement is made by a person other than the payee personally, the presenting bank and the endorser are deemed to guarantee to the postmaster general, in addition to other warranties, that the person who so endorsed had capacity and authority to endorse the money order for the payee. d. The postmaster general has the right to demand refund from the presenting bank of the amount of a paid money order if, after payment, the money order is found to be stolen, or to have a forged or unauthorized endorsement, or to contain any material defect or alteration not discovered on examination. Such right includes, but is not limited to, the right to make reclamation of the amount by which a genuine money order with a proper and authorized endorsement has been raised. Such right must be exercised within a reasonable time after the postmaster general discovers that the money order is stolen, bears a forged or unauthorized endorsement, or is otherwise defective. If refund is not made by the presenting bank within 60 days after demand, the postmaster general takes such actions as may be necessary to protect the interests of the United States. 2. The Federal Reserve Bank will record the transaction and also include markings on the back of the PMO in accordance to their batch processing rules. a. Today, the Federal Reserve Banking System (FRBS) processes everything electronically yet fairly recently the paper products themselves were sent through Batch Processing machines. Section 7040 of Chapter 7000 of the “Procedures for Processing Postal Money Orders” tells us: i. Section 7040 -Processing Fit Money Orders 7030.25 -Fit Money Order. A money order that can be completely processed on high speed processing equipment. · Batching and Listing Fit Money Orders. Paper money orders are MICR printed with the routing code (including a routing number of 0000-0020 or 000000204) and the serial number with check digit. The routing number is also preprinted in the upper right corner on the form, which is in the location and front as prescribed by the ABA. FRBs will process FIT money orders as follows: · Receive money orders from banks and process on high speed equipment in the manner most compatible with the processing of other categories of cash items. Prepare batches of no more than 500 items. · Insert (in numerical sequence) USPS batch Locator Control Documents so that one is filed at the beginning of each batch of money orders to be read. · Create a paper-tape list of serial numbers with optional check digit and amount of each money order read. The list will show the batch number and a subtotal for each batch with an overall total of all money orders listed on the paper tape. · The total amount of fit items should be entered on PS Form 1901, code 100. · Money orders bearing unreadable MICR characters in the on-us field are not to be rejected and handled as mutilated. List the characters that can be read on the paper tape as a reconcilement aid. ii. Section 7040 & 7050 (Manual process) · 7050.20 -Insert a USPS Batch Locator Control Document at the beginning of each batch of mutilated money orders. · 7050.30 -Prepare an adding machine listing of each batch showing the following information: a. FRB name or code at the top. b. The amount of each item. c. The total amount of the batch. d. FRB clearance date. e. Batch number iii. Section 7070 - Processing Old Style Money Orders · "Punch card" money orders that have the ABA routing number 0000-0119 will be handled as mutilated items. They should be identified as old style "punch card" money orders on the PS Form 1901 for code 004 ===================================== Notice the "punch card" of these OLD STYLE PMOs. Why doesn't the Fed for Chicago have a record as well as the PMO exhibiting their markings? And finally - one of the stories offered is from Harry Holmes who claims the STUB was found since one of the 3 copies of the PMO is the receipt retained by the USPS.. The ORIGINAL PMO would have looked kinda like this before the left 2 copies are torn from the book and given to the customer... Dave - where is the book with the stub proving that PMO was EVER real? It doesn't exist buddy... for Holmes' story was a complete crock of sh!t as we all now know. So while you may have found something on this faked piece of evidence which does correlate to the real world - connecting it to that real world is not something you ever seem able to do. You like to pick one and only one thing and hammer it relentlessly. It's a tactic so you don't have to deal with all the other items of evidence supporting the creation of that item of evidence. Why too would the HSCA "handwriting experts" be given a photocopy of this critical item when it is the only item the expressly connects Oswald to Hidell to the rifle? Not only was the PMO offered a XEROX, but one of the experts goes on to explain how copy/paste/rephoto is one of the key ways to create a fraudulent document ITEM #29. March 12, 1963. U.S. postal money order No. 2,202,130,462 bearing handwritten fill-ins as follows: Klein's Sporting Goods, A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915. Dallas, Tex. Blue ink, ballpoint pen. Location: Archives. (CE 788; JFK exhibit F-509A and 509B.) Note: Item #29 is acknowledged as a XEROX COPY made from the microfilm copy From the HSCA Experts report itself: Limitations on the examination (71) Five items of evidence were not examined in the original, but were copies. Photocopies have several limitations. They do not reproduce all the fine details in handwriting needed in making an examination and comparison. At best, they do not produce as sharp an image as a properly produced photograph, and they lack tonal gradations, a result of the contrasting process of reproduction. In addition, it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies. A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fraudulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste" method. (72) Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made. (73) Because of problems with the following documents, no definite opinion can be rendered: (74) Item 18, a halftone copy of a photograph of the original document. This is at least a third generation copy and is not suitable for comparison. (A halftone copy consists of very small dots and not continuous lines.) (75) Item 29 was a Xerox copy made from a microfilm copy. Such a second generation copy has the defects of both processes

Not according to the 1"=20' survey plat. For this to be correct it would be 12.14" from z273 to any portion of the DCCC The north corner of the bldg is 12.3". And using the revised 104.1' as the height of the triangle I get 264, not 267. 242' is the hypotenuse for shot #2 at 419.07 (sic) 267' is the hypotenuse for the shot hitting the street at 418.35 from 70.3' elevation between #2 & #3 I see no significance to 264' or to z273 Chris... what's YOUR significance to Z273? JC had already been shot once... Plus.. please address where your endpoint is - JFK @ 54", JFK @ 3.27', JC, Street ??? I see that you'd like to place a shooter in the DCCC but don't we already know there was a shooter on the Records bldg? Weatherford? If the 25 degrees is a guess - which it was - the more likely location would be the Records Bldg roof...

So of course I have questions.... Bottom line though... what are you claiming happened at z273? #1 The base of the Criminal Courts building appears to be at elevation 430ft. The limo elevation at z273 = 430 - 12.97ft (that's using z313 @ elevation 418.48 per CE884). 430’ elev. – 12.97’ elev. = 417.03’ which is lower than z313 at 418.48 (which is measured to the street). Not Possible (CE884) z255 = 416.4 z313 = 465.3 465.3-416.4 = 48.9’ / 18.3 = 2.67’ higher than z313 (CE884) 424.46 - 421.75 = 2.71’ higher than z313 average 2.69’ Z273 is about 2.69’ higher than z313 = 418.48 + 2.69 = 421.17 elevation not 417.03. #2 The height needed for a 25-degree downward angle is 113.2ft. (take your word for it) To where? A) Elm street 3.27’ above Elm or C) 54” above Elm? and to what at z273 = JFK? JC? Street? From what I see there is no shot at 273 unless 273 used to be 225 For a shot at z273 to JFK Add 3.27’ to 420.466 to get CE884 results for JFK at z273… 423.736 Or add 54" or 4.5' to 420.466+4.5=424.97 for "actual" JFK 12.97’ (Vert drop) x 18.3’ = 237.351 horizontal base feet from z273 to a point 12.97 feet below elevation 430… the DCCC bldg is on the south side of Houston… would it not be 237.351’ to the 430 elevation line in the middle of Houston? And isn’t that more than 10’ to the base of the DCCC? #3 113.2 - 12.97ft = 100.23ft approx. In other words take the top of the DCCC, adjust for the elevation 100ft up in the corner of the Criminal Courts building is where you'll find the shooter. From the way you described the math, you are calculating to a spot on the street, not to JFK and to a point well in front of the DCCC building. Also, the 25 degree entry was a guess with who knows how much accuracy. Some stuff I found on the height of buildings in DP “On the northeast corner of Main and Houston streets, stands the Dallas County Criminal Courts building. The 8-story (plus basement), 124-foot-tall building was built in 1913-15, and housed two Dallas County criminal courts and the county jail. More importantly, the Dallas County Sheriff Department had their offices in this building. On the southeast corner of Elm and Houston streets is the Dallas County Records and Annex. The Annex is the whitish building that is predominantly closest to Dealey Plaza, with the Records Building east of it. The Annex was built in 1955, with its main facade facing Elm St. The Records building was built in 1926-28, and has a limestone exterior and gothic motif. The Annex is 7 stories high, and 80 feet of it face Houston St. On the south side of it is a steel dock connecting it with the County Courts building”.

So, what am I looking at during Z273?

So we're back to the change from 48fps to 24fps yet there is another conversion to 18.3fps requiring the removal of another 23.75% of the frames if 50% of ALL the frames are removed... Q1: Which 4 frames are you talking about? We were talking about 301-313 or 12 frames to travel 7.205' or 7.33' Q2: If 50% of the frames are removed from this sequence, then much more than 66% would need removing elsewhere to wind up with 18.3... PLUS if Nix is filming at his 16-18fps the 24fps cutdown will not match... Using 50% just because the results are closer to what you want to see doesn't mean that 50% is correct... on the flip side during 285-334 it is very possible that only 50% are removed there, starting at 161 yet changing that to 168, helps with some more frames, some more distances and speeds. According to your calcs,there would have been 24 total frames from 301 to 313; total distance 7.205'. 7.205/24=.3002 feet per frame = 3.74mph (How do you get 24 frames as a starting point when the camera speed is either 16 or 48fps?) According to mine there would have been 32 total frames from 301 to 313 (@ 48fps); same distance 7.205/32=.22516' per frame = 2.81 mph * 2.623 (48/18.3) = 7.37mph at 18.3fps So again, which 4 frames within 301-313 are you talking about?

Why divide 7.4745 mph by 2 when you leave it alone at 7.60 mph 7.33ft x (18.3/12)1.525 = 11.178...ft per sec / 1.47 = 7.60… mph 7.205ft x (18.3/12)1.525 = 10.987625ft per sec / 1.47 =7.4745… / 2 = 3.737… mph

but not the Mic itself ... these images are split seconds apart Mike

Here's another one... in the bottom image,,, where's the mic?

The only strangeness I've found which to me remains unexplained is the disappearing Mic. At the top left the Mic hangs about a "head and a half" above the man with a mic in his hand... the shadow is on the wall from a light to the images left... The Mic and shadow hang BELOW the top of the door on that wall.. But then top right and bottom right are but seconds apart... Middle left is AFTER the shooting while bottom middle is a split second before... no Mic How dat?

George, can you possibly offer something grounded in FACT supporting that statement? The CIA was all about deniability... What better way than to have CIA agents believe they were involved in the process of stopping the assassination... Nothing in his description gives the impression that this group was part of aborting anything... Like Oswald in Mexico, this was yet another layer of the CIA's onion of creating and accounting for a myriad of activities which served to derail an honest investigation. Mr. Plumlee: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/toshfiles.htm Although my specific assigned function was only a pilot. Upon arriving at Redbird Airport, Sergio asked me if I wanted to come along and see the President. I could also act as a spotter for him and his team, which, he said, were assigned to the south side of the plaza. I was told other members of the team would be patrolling the north side and the overpass. I understood we would be looking for a type of triangulation ambush. I gladly accepted Sergio's offer. It seemed like an adventure I didn't want to miss. We were driven from Red Bird Airport to a place not far from the Oak Cliff Country Club, then driven to Dealey Plaza, where we (Sergio and I) checked various areas and attempted to spot potential members of an attack team from the position on the South Knoll. The original information the team had received from sources in Texas and the CIA was an attempt was going to be made outside the Adolphus Hotel, but for reasons unknown to them, I was told ,the routing of the motorcade had been changed at the last minute to Dealey Plaza. While on the south knoll, Sergio and I were attempting to evaluate the most logical places where shooters might be located, but everything was confused, the timing was off, team members were late getting into position. They were not where they were supposed to be and the limited radio contacts that we had with them were not working, or spotty at best. It was soon after our arrival that the motorcade arrived. When the shots rang out, I had the impression of 4 or 5 shots, with one being fired from behind and to my left on the South Knoll, near the underpass and south parking lot. While leaving via the south side of the underpass near the train tracks, Sergio and I smelled gunpowder. I never saw Roselli in Dealey Plaza that day.

As I was saying: https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/CIACtrlF.html How the CIA Controls President Ford By L. Fletcher Prouty reprinted with permission of the author One year earlier, in 1959, Frank Hand had directed a Boston banker to my office. At that time I worked in the Directorate of Plans in Air Force headquarters and my work was top secret. Few of my contemporaries in the Pentagon knew that I was in charge of a global U.S. Air Force system created for the dual purpose of providing Air Force support for the CIA and for protecting the best interests of the USAF while performing that task. My door was labeled simply, "Team B"; yet that Boston banker knocked and entered with assurance. Somehow he knew what my work was and he knew that I might be able to help him. In 1959 there were very few helicopters in all of the services, and military procurement of those expensive machines was at an all-time low. The Bell Helicopter Company was all but out of business, and its parent company, Bell Aerospace Corp., was having trouble keeping it financially afloat. Meanwhile, the shrewd Royal Little, President of the Providence-based Textron Company, had a good cash position and could well afford the acquisition of a loser. Textron and the First National Bank of Boston got together to talk helicopters. Neither one knew a thing about them. But men in First Boston were close to the CIA, and they learned that the CIA was operating helicopters in Laos. What they needed to know now was, "What would be the future of the military helicopter, and would the use of helicopters in South East Asia escalate if given a little boost -- such as moving a squadron from Laos to Vietnam?" The CIA could tell them about that, and Frank Hand would be the man who could get them to the right people in the Pentagon. The banker from Boston phrased his questions as though he believed that the helicopters in Laos were somehow operating under the Air Force, and then went on to ask about their tactical significance and about the possible increase of helicopter utilization for that kind of warfare. This was at a time when not even newspapers had reported anything like the operation of such large and expensive aircraft in that remote war. We had a rather thorough discussion and then he left. He called me several times after that and visited my office a month or two later. As the record will show, Textron did acquire the Bell Helicopter Company and the CIA did step up use of helicopters to the extent that one of the CIA's own proprietary companies, Asia Aeronautics Inc., had more than four thousand men on each of two bases where helicopters were maintained. Most of those men were involved in their maintenance -- Bell Helicopters, no less! Orders for Bel Helicopters for use in Vietnam exceeded $600-million. Anyone wanting to know more about how the U.S. got so heavily ($200-billion and the loss of 58,000 American lives) involved in Indochina need look no further. This was the pattern and the plan

I do believe you will also find the law firm of Cravath, Swain and Moore (John McCloy, Roswell Gilpatrick, G.W. Miller,...) and the entire TEXTRON history leading to their acquisition of BELL Helicopter in 1960 as part of this drama. The entire story begins with Arthur Little in 1886 and his nephew ROYAL LITTLE whose lawfirm was Cravath. It was General Cabell who advised the Boston Bank VP. Within 2 years, by 1963 and with the help of CIA General Cabell, the use of helicopters in SE Asia increased and never looked back. The "helicopter" as an instrument of war proved horribly costly in terms of lives lost and support needed... All Bell helicopters did in Vietnam was to make TEXTRON owners more wealthy. Textron bought Bell Helicopter in July of 1960, four months before the election. Bell's sales were down an even hundred million in 1959 from nearly double that in 1953. Textron bought the company for what was considered one of the worst deals of the year - $32 million or exactly the company's book value. Yet Rupert C. Thompson, Jr. ; " then Textron Chairman (Miller was President) , boasted, "We knew we had our objective - 25 percent pre-tax profit on our investment - from day one." That was a pretty cocky statement by the head of a company that had $98 million in long-term debt, large amounts of warrants and convertible preferred stock outstanding, and was running out of tax credits. Since 1953 the company had not paid a penny in tax, having run up a tax credit as high as $45 million in 1956. Textron faced full tax liability by 1963.

The real trick here is how the cutout was created yet does not work when you put Oswald back into the image... You think there's something going on with those two vertical white lines? The image below includes the drop shadow in the original...as if they held the cutout part over the image and took another photo The TWO different ghost images... one with a drop shadow and one without... and in the exact shape of a pose not seen until 1977... nice trick!