David Josephs

First off, thanks for reading the article I don't state in the article when CRAIG makes that claim... Now that I look again - my bad, Craig states this years later in his memoir https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html When They Kill a President. Not in 1968 for the LA Free Press. Point was - the MAUSER story has more than just one possibility... As I mentioned it could have been 1) to cover for no Clip being present, 2) there really was a MASUER yet claimed to be on the roof and not the 6th floor, 3) the rifle was on the 5th floor as Ellsworth claims while a MAUSER is on the 6th and is swapped out. Sandy - the Argentine Mauser - if scoped - would not show the Mauser stamp nor would there be a clip. Do you think this is the MAUSER? I guess the initial question required is "Do you believe any shots were fired from the SE 6th floor window"?

Alberto... how about taking a breath and a step back - k? The people you are talking with here are not new to the rodeo... we've been down these roads a number of times. Each time we get directed back to this kind of discussion we find ourselves with someone who will simply not learn what they don't want to know. There are a number of reasons "7.65 Mauser" was not only uttered up on the 6th floor but placed in 2 signed affidavits - Boone and Weitzman - both signed by 11/23. At the same time DAY tells us that 6.5mm and "Made in Italy" are clearly seen when the rifle is examined. Here they are on CE139. Riva* in Italy was contracted to remove these markings from the rifles... https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/JosephsRifle.pdf *Riva was contracted by Adams Consolidated/Crescent Firearms (Louis Feldsott owner) to prepare rifles for export which according to the contract included: renovating/repairing defective weapons and removing the serial numbers and other markings to be replaced with “Made in Italy”. Bill MacDowal's "The Great Carcano Swindle" addresses this a bit more deeply since whether this was done or not to all the rifles including C2766 is unknown and unprovable So what WOULD persuade you that the evidence related to a 7,65mm Mauser and the connection to C2766 were made up on the spot? How about the fact Craig did not say MAUSER until 1968? It is Weitzman and Boone - both related to Decker's Sheriff Dept - who make the statement and sign the affidavits. Weitzman knew rifles yet despite the CE139 rifle clearly showing the 6.5 and Made in Italy he still holds fast to the MAUSER story - Why? (NOTE: You'll also find that Boone and Weitzman's statements are EXACTLY the same... as if rehearsed.) Because no clip was found on the 6th floor... Without a clip that falls out when the last bullet is chambered, the bullets were either manually loaded after each shot, or there was no clip. No Clip = MAUSER. So a Clip was found. So CE139 was "found". Here is a composite comparing CE139 with the rifle DAY leaves the TSBD carrying.. While "Made in Italy" and "6.5mm" are not seen, neither is "MAUSER" or "7.65mm" and for good reason... a scope mounted on a Masuer would cover the "MAUSER" stamp... A rifle w/o a scope was mentioned by Brennan when he claims he sees 80% of the rifle and no scope... but DAY's rifle has a scope... so seeing MAUSER would not be possible... While I still think that the TSBD rifle and CE139 are not the same, I do believe they were all Carcanos acquired via the CIA with CIA ammo... If you would simply address some of these concerns maybe we'd better understand you POV. We AGREE - there was more than one rifle but none of what you've offered supports it was a Mauser other than those 2 affidavits and Craig's word 5 years later. The scope mount on a MC is farther forward than the MAUSER.. If the DAY rifle is a MAUSER we'd see the stamp under the front portion of the rifle under the scope where my white arrows are pointing at the bottom of this image... Why don't we see MAUSER there?

Continues to amaze me that intelligent people cannot be more open to work which they do not understand as opposed to this kind of response which piles ignorance on top of a complete lack of curiosity. Pat Speer is a wonderful researcher and presenter... yet not everything is "gospel" simply because he has a chapter on it. In the link you offer Pat addresses my post with an offered conclusion which is simply not correct. This comes from the first series of surveys for which only a small handful of people have the original notes WEST wrote during these surveys. The headshot - we all agree - is shown on z313 of the film. The following, CE585, was inadvertently left in the evidence and shows that the original surveys. Add back WEST's notes and we find that before the last survey z313 was shot #2. The "more re-enactments" mentioned by Pat was the final surveys where CE884 was created. it places the last shot at z313 and simply removes the final WCD298 shot. WCD298 has z313 as shot #2 and a linear distance for shot #3 which is well past both z313 and 294 feet from the window. In fact none of the information offered in Pat's illustration at that link correctly places the conclusion of the surveys as being the same... far from it in fact. Here is the WEST original survey for the FBI in Feb 1964. A shot (#3 for our purposes) is identified at 4+96... 4 feet from 5+00. IOW every single survey prior to the Eisenberg instigated one in April/May 1964 does NOT match the final round of information or the zfilm. Elevation of 418.35 is farther UP Elm than 416.83. This shows the Frazier diagram's elevations and distances to the shots - 3 of them, all hitting someone according to every report up until May 1964. 416.83 is the elevation for a spot 40 feet past z313. And all of this is hidden within the MATH Shaneyfelt and Frazier used to create CE884 from a previous version of CE884. Pat Speer's conclusion does not stand up to the evidence. HE is wrong about what the surveys showed... until James Tague comes in and "The Shot That Missed" is born. At the very least Jeremy, you could ask a question about what you dont comprehend rather than disparage it without any real research. The MATH THREAD shed light onto the FBI's position related to the Zfilm like no other. That you personally don't understand it, or Michael for that matter doesn't make it wrong or impossible... that would only apply to the both of you in this topic... What we see on film MUST be represented within the physics of the natural world. Physics is explained thru MATH. IF the Math doesn't work, the physical reality or authentication of what is shown is not possible. In case you forgot, JFK was killed under a conspiracy to cover-up the facts about how and who did it. JFK was shot from the front, possibly multiple times. The film showed this and would support a Castro Conspiracy if need be. Alvarado was Philips' asset in Mexico telling the bogus Oswald stories tying him to Cubans. That all ended within days in favor of Oswald the Lon Nut shooter. And instead of using the film, the FBI and WEST used still images and re-created the limo's movements... When you learn that Shaneyfelt moved the limo path south and why (also in the MATH THREAD) maybe you'd give those who see things in a different light a break. Condemning what you don't understand before even trying seems as anti-academic as it gets...

Yes... real reason was that JFK was being helicoptered to Bethesda... the "decoy" was only known to be such by those involved with the conspiracy. Lipsey is neck deep in it. As for Karl - that he uses Ebersole as his "go to" witness is a real joke. If he took even a second to read thru anything about Ebersole, he'd know how cooperative he was in the same vein as Humes and Boswell. Ebersole claims he retook ALL the SS photos on instruction from the SS... Ebersole, like Humes, was a tool that evening. If I have to decide between the work of Karl and that of Lifton on this topic, sorry Karl... you're not even in the ballpark.

Sir... Taking two different photos and sizing them to match does not mean they match... it means you've sized photos to match. Without knowing the focal length and lenses involved the measurements are simply not accurate. While I do agree with the conclusion which has been offered here in the past - that CE139, the BYP and the TSBD rifle were not the same... Just not for the reasoning you've offered. Photo can tell us if something is there or not... only certain photos can be compared for size within the photos themselves.

Hi there Alberto, While I do believe that the rifle in evidence - CE139 - is not the same rifle with which Day leaves the TSBD... https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/JosephsRifle.pdf is the paper I did which illustrates this... I do not see the differences in the scope you discuss... With regards to the photos you post... I see the pommels and the bumps right where I expect them for a scoped MC - It's the rifle itself that's the problem.. I my paper I found a photo which shows the location of the rifle's markings yet the markings for "Made in Italy" and "Cal 6.5" are not there. I'd like you to consider an explanation I learned about that makes a lot of sense... The MAUSER designation comes from the fact there was no CLIP found on the 6th floor where it should have been, by the 6th floor window when the shooter loaded the last round. Since it was not, nor was it near the rifle, (in fact we have no idea how the clip gets into the rifle in some of the Day photos) the assumption from these gun savvy men was a Mauser which uses a Stripper CLip as opposed to a clip that stays in the rifle. A quick explanation was arrived at due to the lack of a clip... The MASUER fit the bill... In my paper linked above I also show how the MAUSER stamp would be covered by a scoped rifle... Craig wouldn't be able to see the MAUSER or 7.65mm if the rifle was scoped. Add also that Craig let loose about the DPD sniper on the County records bldg and his sighting of Oswald and "associates" in the car leaving the TSBD and we can see how he was targeted. It would help a bit if you could open the image in any graphics program and point to what you are saying... If I didn't do that above DJ

I have not looked thru all the folders and files... but here's a push I hope to be in the right direction https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1661 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MLK/mlk.html Cheers DJ

The Pommel is one one side of the scope with the other pommel on top... The images you posted show the top pommel but not the side one since you are only showing the side without the strap attachments... (top image) The side with the slots for the strap has it... Or did I misunderstand what you posted? DJ

awww, tommy got his feelings hurt Your "Bollocks" be about the only thing you have a handle on here... So, I'll keep trying to dumb it down for you.... Y'know so you can read along and keep up with the rest of us...

I'm sorry tommy... Felde knew Harvey Bullock knew Lee The FBI covered it up... Simple enough even for you now...

Do you suppose it's possible to address the topic without all the sarcasm? What did or did not happen is well beyond your ability to parse Jeremy... unless you're an ex-spy with experience in the craft.... You or anyone else being incredulous about the possibilities does not make them any less likely or possible. We have a rich history of conspiracy, futile attempts at spycraft, successful attempts at spycraft and all the spycraft for which we are not aware. That you cannot fathom something being done, when the available evidence supports the conclusion, only shows me you'd rather stick with circular arguments than consider something outside your comfort zone. Your acceptance or understanding of the magnitude of the information is not something I give a rats xxx about Jeremy. Just like those who prefer to argue that Oswald did what he was accused of, no amount of discussion will crack that nut nor open your eyes enough to explore the evidence. But please don't insult our collective intelligence with posts that sound like poor versions of Tommy's famous "wit" as you butcher the realities of our intelligence history and wax philosophical over data and analysis that remains out of your reach. Read the book, do the work, then come talk to me... right now you're like one of those blind men feeling an elephant and calling it a tree. Until the blinders come off and you attempt to look at an entire picture your conclusions will remain half-assed... Finally, if you're interested in those who spent time with LEE in the Marines I'd suggest you look into Richard Bullock... a man who was with LEE and compare his evidence with Allen Felde's. In fact Felde's statement comes right after the Marine's detailed chronology for Oswald... The stories don't match and then the FBI goes and finds the wrong Felde...

First thing Dave - that spool is sitting in the bottom half of a canister... since you were able to spot a piece of film that wasn't maybe you'd see the canister ridges outside the spool. Ok, now you're off the reservation here buddy... Waldman 1 is the Kleins order. Nothing on that order suggests that Kleins received rifles prior to Feb 22... Rupp did not take rifles out until August 1962... so if Kleins was sent rifles from Crescent... where's the evidence? If Kleins sold a C20-T750, a 36" carbine, prior to Feb 22, 1963... What did they ship the customer? From where did they get the 91/38 TS rifles to ship these orders? - (remember the 91TS originally ordered has the adjustable sights just like the coupon description... yet another swap a customer may not want.) Where is the June 1962 shipment of FC rifles the FBI repeatedly mentions... or the one from March? (btw, "M91/38" does not refer to a specific rifle... there are M91/38 TS's, FC's and Cav. Finally, we don't care about ANY RIFLE Dave... just the C20-T750 advertised from the summer of 1962 thru Feb 1963. IF they got a shipment of TS rifles elsewhere, there is no evidence for such. So yes Dave, it matters since C2766 is attached to a story which does not work. A journey that cannot be traced with evidence showing the receipt of at least 2 other rifle orders from Kleins for which we have no evidence other than the FBI's mentioning it and contradicting the idea that Kleins ever had "C2766" other than from a June shipment that Rupp's activity renders impossible. Dave, for evidence to work it needs to work outside the small circle of self corroborating evidence. It represents a Standard Operational Procedure for ALL RIFLES. If there is no other example to support a singular instance, that instance must be verified. Since we never see another of the VC=Serial# sheets for something other than those 100 rifles, never see another order for a C20-T750 which is shipped a FC rifle in its stead, never see an order for a FC rifle from April 1963 thru Nov 1963 despite it being advertised now as a 40" 7lb weapon, now with a REAR OPEN SIGHT (91/38 Fucile Corto) Were any of these coupons ever sent in for an order? If so... which of the remaining 99 rifles was shipped?

So who stole the film from the Archives Dave... and why? And to Chris' point... the FBI and the WC introduced items into evidence in the most peculiar ways... CE882, 883, 884 are great examples. I still find it quite amazing that in all these years we've NEVER heard about a Kleins Carcano with any one of the other 99 serial numbers. You'd think that would have been quite a find... and would prove they existed. As it now stands, 1 rifle does not prove a shipment while the FBI's own evidence contradicts their conclusion

Just took a look - that's not photographic comparison Tracy. You can't take a ratio of distance in a 3D image and claim the ratio holds... that's not how photos work.

The 1956 Marine photo is an optical illusion

Thanks Jeremy... your incredulity over the situation does not change history. Since you can't seem to figure out what I am actually suggesting.... Let's see if this helps There was a conspiracy and cover-up to kill JFK and then to silence any real investigation. They got away with it. The evidence which we are all left with is an incomplete jigsaw puzzle with pieces from a variety of images all mixed in... If you choose not to accept the totality of the evidence as opposed to cherry-picking something for which you have some input - fine. Bring what you have. That the spycraft of the times eludes you and leaves you cursing that which you can't fully understand - also fine and extremely obvious to all who read it. When you've taken the time to do the work to learn about that which you seem so desperate to attack, maybe we can have an actual conversation. I simply cannot suffer any more of the fools who think they have the answer to one or two issues while glossing over 50 or 100 others. There are those who need to invoke the Armstrong name in order to get any attention to sell a book or two... otherwise no one would notice. There are those who are so confused by spycraft that anything they don't see as logical and explainable as wrong. Maybe read one of Hancock's books... Nexus is a good place to start. Better yet any of a bunch of books on the origins of spycraft. I see that you have no real sense of how archaic the times were in 1963... There was no way to piece this together back then so creating duplicity was much easier to hide.

At the age of 17/18 Lee had not yet grown into himself... Same with Harvey for whom we have no marine entry data. As expected, when he leaves the Marines, the records show he is now 5'11" and 150 lbs. The Marine training and time will do that to a man... agreed? What I simply want to know is how a 5'11" man shrinks down to 5'9" or less between the ages of 21 and 24. How a man goes from 150lbs and growing, to 135 lbs soaking wet 3 years later How a brother who grew up with the boy Lee, can be so accurate when telling Lee from some other person in photo after photo... the Bronx photo is taken 2 years after the 5'4" 115lb boy enters 7th grade in NYC and moved in with Ed Pic. Of course that boy does not look like Lee Oswald... it's not. The boy in the Bronx photo is barely 4'10" and no where near 115lbs. Boys don't shrink as they grow and pass thru puberty... Add now all the evidence separating Lee the Marine and his friends with Harvey the Marine and his... and the fact they don't overlap. The argument against has to deal with 100's of items of evidence which all has to be either a mistake, coincidence or wrongly interpreted for it to be rebutted. When dealing with 1 item, your arguments have some merit... but a couple of rebuttals does not a theory destroy...

You should have had a career in the FBI !! J Edgar would have loved you... plot? what plot - the one where FBI agent DOLAN takes the microfilm & provides a copy... or the one where agents leave the film with Waldman in his safe...

IDK Dave... that you think it's film is amusing enough... That you don't understand the entire case is about the details and minutia is your problem, not mine. Why Tracy?, so to those with less initiative would think the film was in there...

A bigger version... This is either the empty spool, or the outside of the canister... There is no film there to be made out... As I said, Armstrong was at the Archives and saw the empty canister.

Now you can see thru metal Dave? We have a canister... that's it. FBI #D-77. Whether there is film in there or not isn't anything you can know Dave.... but nice try. Notice the order #'s written on the box? Too bad we don't have that film so we can see what's on those other orders...

Tracy... why didn't Rose make note of it and the bullet scar just above the elbow on the back side in his diagram if they were there? Are you of the opinion that the intelligence community could not create a scar which appears like a mastoid operation? Or that two kids in the US in the mid 40's could not both have a mastoidectomy? Give your penchant for coincidence I'd think this was an easy one to see. I still would be interested to know if he read the book, checked the notebooks and/or seen the CD-ROM... Why doesn't HARVEY have the elbow scar and mastoid scar noted when scars as small as 3/4" x 3/8" are noted....?

HARVEY was buried since it was HARVEY who Ruby shot. LEE has a record of a Mastoidectomy. There was also a bullet wound to LEE that was not seen on Harvey... Dr. Rose made no notation of a Mastoid scar on the Fact sheet either. It truly is not that hard... While similar, these two are not the same men If you're going to "mock" the author - maybe read his book first?... maybe take a little time to learn about the subject? maybe extract foot from mouth and start over? As we've learned in this case - you can just as easily defend one side or the other if you know enough about the evidence and case.

They didn't NEED to fake every line... there are 100 rifles listed, there are 10 international packing slips with 10 rifles each... This shipment of rifles DID come from Italy and DID arrive at Harborside... But that's the last place you or anyone else can prove C2766 was. Rupp offers no evidence he removed any of those 100 rifles, cleaned or serviced any of them or found that any of these 100 rifles needed replacement - which would have been noted on the packing slips... if you read the work. Try to follow Dave... 1960 - 100 rifles, Fucile Corto rifles are shipped from Italy to the US as part of a 5200 rifle shipment. Oct 1960 - 5200 rifles are placed at Harborside from which Rupp pulls rifle when Crescent (Feldsott) sends him the orders January 1962 - an order for 400 91TS rifles is changed to FC rifles (The C20-T50 ad which comes out in April 1962 advertises the 36" carbine w/adjustable sights 91 TS; not the 91/38 TS) June 1962 - FBI records state that FC rifle # N2766 was shipped to Kleins in June 1962 August 1962 - the first batch of rifles is pulled from Harborside by Rupp. The carton with C2766 is not among them. Aug 1962 - Feb 1963 Kleins still advertises a 36" Carbine (91 Troope Special) with scope for $19.95. February 1963 - 100 rifles are supposedly received by Kleins. The rifles are inventoried by removing the rifle, speaking the serial number and assigning it a VC #. March 1963 yet another shipment of FC rifles is referred to in an FBI report having C2746 within it... Why isn't this shipment relfected on the Order form as a subsequent delivery after Feb 1963? When we match the rifles on the VC list to the cartons we find no rhyme or reason for how they were removed from cartons and inventoried. Like colored arrows are the same carton, highlights the same size are the same carton. From this created sheet it certainly does not suggest that a carton was opened, inventoried and VC'd and then they moved on to the next one... This is just random. Which someone who was creating this doc may do if they didn't know any better. What I'm saying which you refuse to hear is that the documents related to the Feb 1963 shipment MAY have been an actual shipment to Kleins at some point in time. All that was done was THIS SHEET copied from the 10 packing slips the FBI had gotten from Feldsott that night. Dave - simply prove any one of these listed rifles EXISTS or ever existed, other than C2766. If that cannot be established, there is no proof this shipment ever existed as it was offered by the FBI. One last thing... notice how the rifles are referred to: "T-38", not the "38 E" as written on the international packing slips... Ooops!

No Dave... it was Waldman and Scibor at Kleins. The FBI was there until 4am. I posted the conflicting reports - despite what you think, one says one thing whiole the other says the opposite. Marina did NOT prove there was a rifle anywhere... and Ruth/Michael contradict her statement in any event... Ruth framed Oswald? who said anything about that in this thread? That's a different story entirely... Back to Marina's statement... if Marina is going to be used for what she says... she contradicts Jeanne's account completely... so who's lying here, Marina or Jeanne? Mrs. OSWALD. Of course in the morning I told him that I was worried, and that we can have a lot of trouble, and I asked him, "Where is the rifle? What did you do with it?"He said, that he had left it somewhere, that he had buried it, it seems to me, somewhere far from that place, because he said dogs could find it by smell. I don't know---I am not a criminologist. Gee Dave, how much BS from Marina's mouth will you believe?