Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Josephs

Members
  • Posts

    6,154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by David Josephs

  1. Have you ever tried jumping of a moving car at 11 mph?  Not an easy thing to hit the ground running...

    And if you play the stabilized version backward in Quicktime you can see how much the limo slows prior to the headshot before it takes off...

    It may be possible yet it is much more likely the 2 vehicles were moving much slower at the time...

    Also to remember that both Hill and Kellerman say he jumps on the limo after the 2nd shot... not the last shot.

    58dd38e177c44_Shot2-z313perallthesurveysat465.3and418.35ele.jpg.20b1cd211b91d51c267e5da0569acfce.jpg

  2. Micah,

    That image had been floating around the internet a while...It's supposed to be one of the originals used to create the BYPs.  

    It's also the 133-C pose which was not recovered until 1977.  then again, why would they need a print of this when all that was needed was the negative...  ??

     Look at the chin, carefully...  sadly Hemming adds his $.02 at this link - anytime he gets involved we have to question the offering.

    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwilsonS.htm

    (PS... thanks David & Jim...https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/JosephsBYP.pdf is the pdf directly - sometimes easier to navigate)

     

  3. On 3/29/2017 at 11:14 AM, Alistair Briggs said:

    A link to that would be conducive. ;)

     

     

    Not sure if you were aware... LIFE altered the image significantly before publishing...   so the question is which image are we working with - before or after these changes?

     

    If Jack was working with copies of photos since there is only 1 negative in evidence

     

     

  4. On 3/29/2017 at 10:53 PM, Alistair Briggs said:

    Cheers Paul, much appreciated. I will give it a watch later on. ;)

    I've read, on this forum, a lot of Jack White's posts, and also read a few bits and bobs elsewhere... to be honest I am a bit skeptical because I have read some quite wild things that he said (one example that springs to mind was when he claimed that for a person to catch something travelling at 11mph they would need to run 22mph - which would only be true if they started 11 miles behind and had an hour to catch up with it. lol)

    but yeah I will give it the credence it deserves.

    Regards

    I had actually done that analysis Alistair...  In about 4 steps Hill gets from his position to the rear of the limo...  

    It takes 21 frames.  If we accept 18.3fps that equals 1.15 seconds which means Hill hits the ground and covers almost 27 feet in a second when in reality, if the limo is moving at 4-5mph as it appears he only need run at 9-10mph for that second - which is much more realistic. (the fastest average humans run at 16mph, BOLT ran the 100m dash at 28mph..  this man is dressed in a suit and dress shoes jumping from a moving vehicle...  I think it helps to prove the limo was traveling much less than 11.2 mph Shaneyfelt claims - which he states is the average over the entire distance...  

     

     

     

  5. All good Alistair...  I think Oswald may have done this fake ID...  but that does not involve creating a composite with 2 different people.

    Cole goes off record as he is not 100% sure these are the same SSS cards he looked at before...  we should also remember his access to photographic equipment at Jaggers and who knows where else...

    With regards to the HSCA's excuses for the line being there...  did you expect anything less? ;)
    DJ

    Mr. EISENBERG. At that time did you examine the negatives which I now hand to you? 
    Mr. COLE. I did. 
    Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, these are a set of negatives which were found at one of the premises inhabited by Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Chairman, may I have them admitted as 800? I would like these negatives which Mr. Cole examined and which were found in one of the residences of Lee Harvey Oswald to be received as 800. 
    Senator COOPER. It is so ordered. 

    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you discuss the negatives, Exhibit 800, that you referred to in your examination? 
    Mr. COLE. Yes; there are two negatives which are of Selective Service System notice of classification. Both of these negatives show extensive retouching, sometimes called opaquing, for the purpose of preventing certain material which appeared on an original from printing on a photographic print. The two negatives are apparently related to a single original. One of them has a somewhat greater amount of retouching than the other It is my view that the second negative, that is, the one showing the smallest amount of retouching, was probably made from a photographic print of the first one. In other words, the retouching operation has involved two steps which resulted in the production of two separate negatives. A possible reason for the second step was that on the negative showing the most extensive retouching there is still some material remaining from the original document, namely the lower extensions of two letters "f' which pass through certain wording at the right side of the document, reading "local board," and another word reading "violation." Now on the second negative of the pair a successful operation in touching out those titular parts was accomplished. 

     

    Mr. EISENBERG. Would you need, Mr. Cole, in your belief, the type of equipment you are likely to find in a printing plant, or could this be done with home equipment? 
    Mr. COLE. I would say it could be done with home equipment, but I think it is unlikely with respect to the actual preparation of the' negative that one would get a successful result from home equipment. I believe that for the preparation of the negative, that is, apart from the retouching operation, that one would need a very accurate camera such as are found in photographic laboratories and printing plants. 
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could the opaquing have been done off the printing premises? 
    Mr. COLE. Yes; the opaquing could be done almost anywhere, in any ordinary living accommodation, needing only a source of light to pass through the negative, the liquid opaquing material, and a small brush. 
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, if you were going to prepare a forged Selective Service System notice of classification, and if you did not have access to blanks of the Selective Service System itself, how would you go about preparing such a forgery? 

    Mr. COLE. I would use a method similar to that already described here with one modification; namely, that in preparing the original negative, I would make an enlargement directly on the negative, then go through the opaquing operation, and in making the final print I would, reduce it back to original size. That would produce a somewhat better quality of print, and it gives somewhat more freedom in the opaquing operation, that is, in working with a larger negative there is not as much danger of running the opaque into some material that you want to save, and we see on these negatives there are a few places where the person doing the opaquing has actually permitted this material to run into a part that should be saved on the original. 

     

  6. Quote

    I don't doubt for one second that Oswald had learned some photographic techinques... but would those techniques be good enough to fool the 22  experts that tested the photos for the HSCA and found no evidence of them being faked (and that included the 'graininess' of the images)... was Oswald such an expert that he could have indeed 'proved that the photo is a fake' but so many experts since have failed to do so...

    Hey there Alistair...

    Not sure you're aware but the HSCA "experts" were all fooled, on purpose, with a "FAKE" photo project...  Jim D can fill you in on more of this...

    Additionally, the HSCA chose to disregard the conclusions of a test done on the images at extremely high resolution at Aerospace Corp...

    Why do you supposed they dismiss the finding of these lines exactly where they are supposed to be and in contradiction to the HSCA "Experts"?

    It's as if they say that simply because we looked more carefully and closer than the HSCA, the finding cannot be right...  worse still is that they use the same old tired excuse - there's "No evidence" it shows what it shows so it must be they way WE stated...  Puh-leeze...

    It sounded like you were defending these HSCA experts - or am I reading that wrong?

    and finally, the very LAST thing Paul can claim is expertise in the area of the CIA, the FBI, the DPD, and Roscoe White.  

    Comments like
    "All great CIA men know that"  and
    "Roscoe White agreed to play along. That's why we find Roscoe White's chin, neck, shoulders, lumpy right wrist and back-leaning stance in all the BYP's"

    are once again OPINIONS of the man who does not like to preface with "IN MY OPINION"  Paul has no idea how to connect Roscoe to that image beyond some guesswork about his wrist bump...  these posts are conclusions which Paul can offer nothing to support.   Furthermore, there is an image circulating on the internet of what is supposed to be an unaltered version of the BYP.  There are names associated with the BYP like Wilson/Gum that require a bit more in-depth work than the glossing over Paul here offers.

    Alistair - good luck with Paul.  I can't have a discussion with someone who doesn't have the self awareness to know he's out of his league.  Most can offer unsubstantiated theories, that's easy...  offer something that has evidence of any kind supporting the conclusion...

    And finally - I can't believe I have to do this again - If Marina took any of these photos, even one, and this is one of the only times she EVER uses a Camera (according to her honest testimony :rolleyes: ) how in the world can she possibly forget what she did to take the photo? How can she possibly claim she held the camera to her face 1, 2, 3 even 4 times if we believe the one photo that was burned when what she would have seen was this:  

    Was she lying about it Paul, covering Harvey's butt or do you still think her testimony was honest AND she took any of these photos?

     

    ----

    (398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing Institute using several different image processing techniques. This process confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See fig. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area.   The lines appeared, however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process, where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the picture was being subjected to the computations).

    (399)    Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely established, there is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an attempt to fake the photograph. This is because similar, although less pronounced, lines were found using the same digital enhancement technique on a known authentic photographic negative. Therefore, those lines may have been a product of the enhancement process.
    ( 400)    Supporting evidence for this conclusion is that the fine lines were not observed in photo-optical photochemical enhancements or in phase-contrast microscopic inspection of the chin area. In addition, the lines are disconnected ; they do not cross the entire chin and are extremely fine, roughly equal in width to the size of the grain clumps in the emulsion.

     

     

     

  7. On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 3:48 AM, Michael Walton said:

    To summarize Davidson's theory, he believes Z had his camera set to record at 48 FPS. Then, for some unexplained, unknown reason, 67% of the frames were removed  and supposedly in those 67% of frames the evidence of conspiracy  was removed.

    What he has failed  to  reveal  to this day is *what* was removed during this 67% solution  that would have been so revealing to have gone  through  this whole  convoluted  process?

    Even  if Z had recorded at 200 FPS the film shows that the SBT could not have happened  like the WR says. So we're  expected to believe that this 67% solution  happened  yet they still left in the part the part that reveals  the SBT being impossible?

    The most he posts is pictures and clips and animated gifs with incomplete  phrases and expects readers of this board to decipher  what he's  trying  very hard to say.

    Micheal...  Chris and I have been discussing this for quite some time now.

    Let's take 1/4 of a second.  at 48fps we get 12 frames in that time.  at 16fps we get 4 frames.
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 = 1/4 sec 
    1       2       3        4            = 1/4 sec

    If you remove frames 2,3,5,6,8,9,11,& 12 from the 48fps film you get a normal speed film that looks identical to playing the 48fps at 48fps.

    Instead of removing 2/3 of the frame, they removed a few less than that... OR only portions of the film were done at 48fps... the B&H switched on the fly with the push of a button...

    The images we post and the math done explains what the FBI and SS did with the Survey's and exhibits - what connection it has to the film is not readily apparent.  In fact he, using the work from Tom Purvis, shows that these surveys and conclusions have little at all to do with what we see on the film.  There was, in fact, 2 main problems with these recreations and ultimately with CE884. First, the 10" height difference between JFK and the recreation car was never accounted for in the measurements:

     

    and second, Shaneyfelt moved his limo path off the established path in such a manner that JFK at z166 on the film lines up with z171 on the FBI path.  This is where it gets somewhat confusing for sure.  The extant 168 shows the limo already passing the lane stripe.  Passing a line (grey) thru JFK at extent 168 (red line) brings us to where Shaneyfelt moved the limo for JFK at z171 (green line).  Except that's not where the limo was in the film.  This movement south from the original locations continues both up and down Elm.  The paths diverge at POS A and come back to gether at Z313.

    58da8ee6085b2_FBI171hasbeenmovedbackupElm.thumb.jpg.7c8fa4f003a825cd9df6ce9808cc3091.jpg

    Finally, this shows the 7 different locations for the 3 shots depending on which report you look at...  You can also see the re-converging of the 2 paths at z313

     

     

  8. On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 10:03 PM, Jeff Carter said:

    We are looking at the same data but with different reference frames. You and Chris D are seeing the plats etc through the frame of Z-film alteration, while I (and others) see them as attempts to in effect pound a square peg (shot sequence evidence seen in Z-film) through a round hole (three shots/one bolt action rifle).

    The clue I think most important is that the Secret Service were intent, at NPIC Brugioni event, to determine timings between perceived shots. They insisted even after Pearse told them it was a useless effort if they were trying to be accurate. So now the investigators are counting frames. It gets determined that the bolt action rifle needs minimum 2.8 seconds to operate (Frazier FBI says 4.6 seconds to fire two shots, add one second if moving target) which is understood as about 50 Z-frames (at original determination of 18fps). 

    So this is how I understand all these original measurements- they were trying to create a shooting scenario which fit the characteristics of the found rifle. Does anyone see Connally first hit at Z-264, or even Z-242? These are among the scenarios being measured. A late shot beyond Z-312? Being considered because one can plausibly count the frames and say Oswald did it. How many of these surveys went down? I count three or four, which change the parameters every time.

    Jeff,

    Agree totally that after the fact the FBI tries to fit a round peg in a square hole.  Take more than 3 shots and represent them as 3.  What was most difficult is that 2 shots were fired very closely together between z195 and z224.  29 frames a little over 1.5 seconds.  Then they were combined into one since there was no way to fit those 2 shots into the scenario.  

    If the film was altered, do we agree that clues to that occurring would be left while other clues could and would be suppressed/altered/replaced...  those who see the film that weekend - correct me if I'm wrong - give us precious little to go on...  Dino's commentary is also a cliff notes version of all the things that film showed.  Chamberlain, Rather, Stolley, etc... supposedly see an unaltered film.  They watched the original 16mm very fast and then again when it was a copy and 8mm slit.

    I appreciate your characterization of our frame of mind, though there seems to be a missing slice you've not touched upon.  

    3 surveys prior to the WC one in May placed shots in a variety of locations...  Consistent with all three is the fact z313 is shot #2 in their 3 shot sequence with another shot at the foot of the knoll stairs...  Altgens and Hudson corroborate.  Granted the surveys are done at the direction of the FBI, WEST comments that these people haven/t a clue what their doing if they want a TRUE SURVEY...

     

    We must also accept that the "original" in the archives is as far from an intact original as possible...  0183 does not appear on the film in the archives...  it is only inferred by the copying of that number... albeit copied to the wrong place on the SS film.  We are left with well more film than a 16mm spool has, numerous splices both physical and photographic and yet we are asked to accept that this 9' section of film, 6+ feet or so of the assassination, is somehow directly connected to the in-camera original.

    You don't find that a bit troubling?  Someone took the ORIGINAL film and just cut away everything else but the assassination sequence leaving no way to authenticate it.

    One must wonder if the film accurately depicted what occurred what the need for re-enactments, for TIME/LIFE, Secret Service & FBI (WCD298) was?  You also did not seem to touch upon Zapruder's partner Erwin Schwartz and the conflicts in the timeline he interjects...  or the fact that Jaggers - a full functional photo and film lab with DoD contracts - is right there in Dealey Plaza and could have been utilized in this endeavor.   Just some speculation...

    Bottom line, what bothers me most is the way the SS and FBI made sure to control the visuals coming out...  they confiscated cameras, photos, and the people taking them in some cases.  But not Zapruders?  They treated him with kid gloves despite his having the best filmed evidence, which would have been evident after the first viewing.

    Do you truly believe the US Govt allowed this evidence to remain in Dallas, unattended, on the word of Zapruder and his partner?  I find that to be completely inconsistent with their behavior in every other aspect of their "investigation".  

    Then there's this...  I realize this is not a first gen scan of the frame... yet blacks tend to behave uniformly when applying filters... if they get crushed out, then they crush out everywhere...  This has been described by those who have analyzed it as a "black mark hovering over the photo" in stereoscope.  It covers the exact spot needing to be covered.  Others have shown Z359 inwhich you can see the right rear wound without the black mark covering it...

    There are a number of other examples...  the evidence of what exactly happened with the film cannot be authenticated.  Just like the multiple casket deliveries even with the evidence staring one in the face there remains detractors to the theory.  I contend the film we have shows alteration, drastic alteration in fact.  If you can offer proof or explanation for the film having all those splices, no 0183, and no physical relationship to the rest of the "original" I'm more than ears.

    Arguing that there was no time to alter or that someone would/should say something if they saw a different film (which a handful of people DID see) plays into the hands of the conspirators IMHO.   To think the one unaltered item of evidence is the film which shows the entire thing, when the entirety of the evidence offered cannot be authenticated in virtually every single case, stretches the bounds of reality a bit too far for me to accept.

    Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Since it was not practical to stop the projector when using the original of the Zapruder film, because of the possibility of damage to the film, Mr. Orth volunteered to prepare 35-mm. color slides directly from the original movie of all of the pertinent frames of the assassination which were determined to be frames 171 through 434. 

    In fact, 168-171 becomes 161-166 in CE884.  Nothing of importance occurs from frame #1-171 nor 435-486?
    I could get into the math, but not going to here...  the MATH RULES thread takes care of that...

    I think if you were to look very seriously at POS A Jeff and what its significance is, you may start to see things differently...

     

     

     

    .

    Now I understand that there were more than 3 shots fired yet the scenarios only require 3.  A shot which may have occurred as the limo finishes turning onto Elm (POS A) has been removed.  Now whether that was the 156/157 break, it does appear that Hickey and Willis are reacting to a shot.  Hickey looks down by the limo while Rosemary is looking toward that location.  The film shows it better.  

     

    In any case, there must be a reason for what Shaneyfelt does with CE884 and why CE585 is played down.

     

  9. 52 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

    hi David

    you say "quite a lot can be done in 20 hours" a little too casually. NPIC and Hawkeye were working primarily with U2 / satellite input, not motion picture. If something was so obvious to know to remove relatively immediately, then wouldn't have the film just been seized in the first place, no copies made.

     

    48 fps, as you have established, would allow for fairly seamless frame removal after the fact. Here's what makes me pause: at 16fps projection, the sequence would play back at a full 3 times slowed down (i.e. the approx 7 second shooting sequence would be 21 seconds). A fair amount of people saw the film Friday, and a number have discussed that experience, but I don't recall anyone who even hinted it played before them in slow motion, even though it would be one of the most obvious things.

    There sure is precious little said about those viewing as well...   From what I remember they showed the film at Kodak at much higher speeds.  And yes, for alteration to work some of what we know to be true according to Zapruder, can't be.  What I find equally puzzling is how a 16fps camera can move at 18fps when to that point weren't projectors showing at 16?

    Other than the variable models which ran at 15fps-25fps, projectors ran at 16fps to match the camera speeds which I believe were changing to 18fps right around 1963...

    I find the conclusion of 18.3 fps just another FBI trick to accomplish what was necessary.

    To me, this suggests he started filming the motorcade well before what we see on z133.  And if so, then we must deal with Pos A and everything that suggests. Even without the statement, POS A remains a wrench in the works.  I'd suggest reading Shaneyfelt's testimony and the "MATH RULES" thread.  There is nothing right about POS A yet it was important enough to include in the "4th survey to debunk them all" with photos and everything...

    Any ideas?

    Mr. LIEBELER - And it proceeded then down Elm Street toward the triple underpass; is that correct?
    Mr. ZAPRUDER - That's correct. I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street.

    58d98ae54205d_bh-17.jpg.b509bbee333b775adca6b2e803aefd47.jpg

     

    BELL & HOWELL 253 AX 
    8MM SILENT PROJECTOR & CAMERA OUTFIT

    • Standard 8mm Bell and Howell complete home movie outfit with 253AX projector (completely refurbished), camera with sundial, and flood lights. All in New condition with all original factory packing in the original boxes. Projector features 400' reel capacity, set running speed of 16 frames per second, forward projection only. Using the DFC, DFA or DCH 150 watt 120 volt bulb and 1 inch f1.6 lens. Like New condition and runs beautifully. With all instruction books, 400' reel and test film. Camera, projector and flood lights in perfect working condition and ready to use - $349   (No Discount)
  10. 1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

    hi David J - I'll have to respond piecemeal...

    re: Rowley print

    I concur with Chris Scally that it was the Rowley print which was used at NPIC for the Brugioni event. Brugioni said the work was led and directed by  Secret Service agents who arrived with the film, and their response to Pearse suggests that they in turn were following predetermined instructions. 
     
    The Brugioni briefing boards are a missing JFK Record, last seen in 1975. Secret Service also had a set of same, also missing. Maybe destroyed with other items in 1992?
     
    My line of inquiry suggests the first (Brugioni) NPIC analysis was covered up because its conclusions could not be reconciled with the developing lone nut paradigm (I suspect too many shots in area around the Stemmons sign). An alteration analysis holds that the Brugioni event was covered up because alteration on the film subsequently ensued. 
     
    We can at least agree that an NPIC event was covered up, and there is a missing record to be found or at least try to establish when and maybe why it was destroyed.

    Interesting Jeff...  I've spoken with Chris a number of times and don't remember his mentioning that....  I too thought Sat's Dino event was 20 hours after the film is in DC...

    Quite a lot can be done in 20 hours....   Any thoughts about the 48fps speed throughout?

  11. On 3/25/2017 at 11:50 AM, Jeff Carter said:

    hi David

    You are right that there is very little to account for the Rowley copy received in DC late Friday.

    It is my understanding that copy did not have the inter-sprocket information of the original. So if that copy had been altered, that work would subsequently required a further effort to join the alteration with the missing information from the original. The alteration would have generational loss that the added missing information would not.

    Hi there Jeff (great work on the BYP too !)

    I can appreciate the assumption - yet what do we have to offer any conclusive proof of that?  Any documentation that gets it from Rowley's desk to the next stop?

    Thanks Jeff...  I'd also be interested in your thoughts about Zapruder filming at 48fps.  A film with over 1200 frames at 48fps cut down to 486 gives us 18.3fps on a camera that only has 16 & 48 fps settings...  (btw - the 3 degree incline on Elm works out to 18.3':1' run over rise... just sayin')

    Make the cuts, cover up a blob or two and then refilm it with Zapruder's camera...  we now have a new full flush left original that no one wants to let Doug Horne test for the difference between Kodachrome II and Kodachrome IIA...   I guess what I'm saying is we needn't make the alteration so complicated, the jumpiness of the film makes it fairly easy to hide this removal...What's to prevent 0184, or any copy of the original that day with full flush left images from being sent?  And I thought I remember reading a quote from Mrs. Zapruder saying the SS comes by Friday eve and takes the original with them... it's from Fetzer's compilation so I'm not sure.

    and finally, if the film was accurate there would be no need for Shaneyfelt/Frasier to create POSITION A supported by Truly's testimony about the side turn... as well as realign each of the frame references as well as disgregard the results of the earlier surveys.....   all this screams a cover-up of the data to make reconstruction impossible.

    Wasn't it Tom Wilson who said the film did not add up as it progresses thru Dealey... especially at the head shot...  

    Food for thought... thatnks for the great work

    DJ

     

  12. Personally I've been more interested in the Rowley film in DC late FRIDAY night. This would be the first and earliest film no longer in Dallas.  

    Yet I've not seen or read what happens to that film once in Rowley's hands.  With more than 20 hours before it even gets to Dino... what is going on with that copy and why couldn't it have been used to create the replacement original before films start leaving Dallas on Saturday?

    Anyone know?

  13. On 3/24/2017 at 8:26 AM, James DiEugenio said:

    The FBI found out that the guy who was supposed to have recorded that information, Mr. Maydon, actually did not.  Later it is discovered that the FM 8 did not have the record of transportation, but the FM 11 did.  The problem is the FM 11 is based on the FM 8.

    The FM-8 he supposedly had was also a plant just as the application was...  The application shown here is for a FM-5, 6 month visa.  Not the 15 day version. And I've posted the full WCR versions which cut off the top or bottom depending on which you look at...    Also remember it was William GAUDET who gets the VISA after Mr. LEE's.  GAUDET connects Oswald to Bannister and 544 Camp.

     

    From a previous post we see the SEPT 26 card has "LEE HARVEY OSWALD" yet looking at the FM-11 which records all the FM-8's and 5's coming in has "HARVEY OSWALD LEE" as it shows on the faked visa and hotel register...

    The Sept FM-11 regarding ENTRY is split into 2 pages, this one with line 807=Oswald  

     

    img_56976_98_300.png

     

    and the next page showing "AUTOBUS" for the mode of transportation.  Oswald is 7 lines down from the top

    img_56976_99_300.png

     

    and finally yet another FM-11, from October although if you look closely this one appears to be the ENTRY FM-11 since there is no EXIT DATE...  It has Harvey Oswald LEE which matches the created FM-8.     https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=56976&search=FM-11#relPageId=110&tab=page 

     

     

  14. 4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

    PT: You're ignoring the fact that the Mexican Immigration service counted LHO entering and exiting Mexico as a passenger in a car.

    A few posts after this PT says he is not a real researcher.  He then says he does not have to prove the above statement, since others have.  Nice way to get yourself off the hook.

    There is no American documentation for the whole "Oswald to Mexico by auto and leaves by auto".  Therefore whatever evidence of this exists has to come from Mexico.  (DJ emph)

    The FBI found out that the guy who was supposed to have recorded that information, Mr. Maydon, actually did not.  Later it is discovered that the FM 8 did not have the record of transportation, but the FM 11 did.  The problem is the FM 11 is based on the FM 8.

    Kind of fishy?  I'd say its a whole aquarium.

    (BTW, this info is all from David Joseph's multi part essay.  Which is largely based on primary documents.)

     

     

    The key here is "AMERICAN" documentation.  There is H.O. LEE related to GREYHOUND at the border on the way to San Antonio

    58d57fa22eb30_63-10-01Greyhound43599showsMrLEEarrivingonDelNorte.jpg.27c29acfdc2e441224b683148558ac1e.jpg

    These are copies of the original cards typed by Mexican Immigration and given to HARVEY CASH, American Consul, Nuevo Laredo, MEXICO.

    This dovetails into a problem at Customs with PUGH, JOHNSON & KLINE when CASH tells KLINE that the documents do not mention the mode of transportation, an obvious lie.  The real key is where Tijerina gets his info...  the FBI's main asset at Gobernacion... who also "changes" the FM-11

    Notice too that on the way in he's Lee Harvey Oswald, yet on the way out he's back to H.O.LEE, as shown above, getting a bus ticket on Greyhound from his bus ticket from Monterrey to Laredo.  CE2537

    58d57efbc6e31_63-11-23STATECablegramcontentsof3x5cardsTijerinatypedforCASHOswaldintoandoutofMexico.jpg.070dd64f43067d7e675bc961190d211f.jpg

  15. 1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

    David,

    Here is another example of your misrepresentation of the FACTS.   For the Warren Commission, Marina Oswald was under oath.  She told the truth.

    When Marina was first arrested by the FBI and isolated by the Secret Service (for the crime of being the wife of a suspect) she DENIED EVERYTHING.

    That is strictly normal behavior.  You are comparing apples and oranges, David.

    Regards,
    --Paul Trejo

    Paul - it's time for you to find another subject to butcher mercilessly.   

    Quote

    She told the truth

    Sorry buddy, you're delusional

  16. On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 11:03 AM, Mark Knight said:

    I raised the issue of the bus ticket because Mr. Josephs had raised the issue of the bus ticket.  He quoted Marina's testimony, in which she was of the opinion that, IF her husband had purchased a bus ticket, it would've been a round-trip ticket because it was cheaper that way.

    I was simply pointing out that, Marina's conjecture notwithstanding, had Oswald TRULY been trying to get to Cuba, he would have had NO NEED for a round-trip bus ticket, since he'd be going to CUBA and NOT back to Texas.

    I had NO IDEA that this concept was so extremely difficult for you to understand. Not all of my replies are directed at you; pay attention to the rest of the conversations in the thread.  You might understand better what's being said.

    And you make a very good point about a round trip ticket not being on Oswald's radar...  yet why not buy a ticket to Laredo for which MAJOR GREEN of Continental Bus tells us there were 2 buses leaving on the 26th, at 4:40pm and 8:15pm?  an FBI report from 12/10

    What happens instead is very strange...  On Dec 16 we get another report for which GREEN adds 2 more buses that only go to Houston.  Why only Houston? Possibly because he tells us the first stop for the 12:20pm bus is Houston.  So the FBI interviews the Houston bus ticket agents.  Not only do none remember Oswald, only 1 ticket is sold for this part of the trip (Houston to Laredo).  Despite having the ticket # they obviously cannot connect the ticket to Oswald.  

     

    To most people this puts the question of whether Oswald traveled thru Houston to Laredo to rest...  not the FBI.  

    Between Dec 16, 1963 & February 20, 1964 the FBI interviews (12/20) the driver of the bus between New Orleans and Beaumont, where the driver is changed and also interviewed stating there is no memory of Oswald.  Not the most concrete evidence but another brick in the wall.

    Nothing on this part of the trip until 2/17 we get an FBI report stating that BOWEN/OSBORNE claims he was the only American on that bus.  The WCR chose not to believe him

    January 1963:  On 2/20 we get WCD240/CE2191 related to interviews in Houston from January.  "With the exception of Hammett, none recall seeing Oswald" is important since Hammett claims there is only 1 ticket agent at the counter (CE2191 p6) yet the report below shows 2 others: Stephenson and Marshall - Hammett is not listed anywhere as a Ticket agent yet becomes the corroboration for a possibility.  Since there is no evidence for the 12:20 bus to Houston AND the bus drivers both state they don't remember Oswald AND no one but this one man has any recollection of Oswald..  Hammett's evidence MUST be corroborated...  it's not.

    img_11039_5_300.png

    Yet not only was he interviewed he claims the person he sold the ticket to on Sept 25 looked like Oswald yet the clothes described were mentioned to Marina who claims her Oswald did not have clothes like that.  CE2121 begins by mentioning the showing of a TICKET STUB to Hammett...  Except that ticket stub is not offered in any of the exhibits or could be found at the archives...  If ANYONE has an image of this stub - please post....

    Hammett tells a story different from every other Houston-related person asked... this person might have been Oswald... yet without the ticket or any other documentation related to this leg of the trip, we have nothing to corroborate HAMMETT.

     

     

    On the singular word of HAMMETT, Hoover sends this note to Rankin dated MAY 4, 1964 admitting they still do not have any idea how Oswald gets from New Orleans to Houston - we also need to mention, if we'll take just one person's word, that there is evidence Oswald was in Austin on Sept 25th for a meeting at the SSS (p8 CE2137)

    img_11301_2_300.png

    Here's a map of the trip and the cities mentioned along the way.  The FBI used their power and assets to create a story with self corroborating evidence...  lickily they offer this evidence for us to analyze and correlate to what they're hiding.

     

     

     

  17. On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 7:08 PM, Paul Trejo said:

    David,

    You deliberately distorted the clear evidence: Marina Oswald said about the alleged bus trip, "IT SEEMS."

    Marina Oswald was not there.  Marina Oswald did not see LHO get on a bus.   Marina Oswald never saw a bus ticket.

    We have plenty of data showing that LHO lied to Marina continually.

    You're reaching, dude.   You can't use Marina Oswald as evidence tha LHO took a bus to Mexico City -- she wasn't there.

    She only knows the lies she was told by LHO himself.

    Regards,
    --Paul Trejo

    Paul - how you can so thoroughly EFF up a simple thing is amazing.  

    "IT SEEMS" is the reply to another question.

    Mr. RANKIN. And did he return by bus, also?
    Mrs. OSWALD. It seems, yes. Yes, he told me that a round-trip ticket was cheaper than two one-way tickets.

    You're so eager to catch me being wrong you've gone blind to your own ignorance.

    The WCR refers to this Q&A to publish "Oswald went to Houston via the 12:20 bus" for which there is not a shred of evidence.
    This is the sum total of all the evidence getting him to Houston...

    Mr. RANKIN. Do you know how he got to Mexico City?
    Mrs. OSWALD. By bus.

    This is not something she could know... and it will be another 7 months before she produces the famous Liebeler suitcase of Mexican "stuff" including a ticket stub which opens yet another can of worms.  But then you'd have to go read the work first, not something you seem able to accomplish on your own.

    Quote

    Marina Oswald was not there.  Marina Oswald did not see LHO get on a bus.   Marina Oswald never saw a bus ticket.

    Which is why the WCR using her testimony as the source of FACTS is a complete joke...  What Lee did or didn't say to her is not what she says... until later when she lies about what she first said about the trip and what Oswald supposedly said...  Marina is the xxxx.

    Quote

    LHO was out of work for weeks in New Orleans and never told Marina for WEEKS.

    Also, LHO was working with Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street for MONTHS in New Orleans, and Marina Oswald never had any clue at all.

    If Oswald was working for the CIA and/or FBI as an asset to infiltrate leftist organizations while pretending to be pro-Castro, why in the world would he tell Marina?

    Mr. RANKIN. At New Orleans, who did your husband work for?
    Mrs. OSWALD. He worked for the Louisiana Coffee Co.

    He worked at Reilly from May 15 until July 19 1963.

    Mr. RANKIN. How long did he work for this coffee company?
    Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was from May until August, to the end of August.
    Mr. RANKIN. Was he discharged?
    Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
    Mr. RANKIN. And then was he unemployed for a time?
    Mrs. OSWALD. Yes
    .

    Mrs. OSWALD. It began to happen quite frequently after he was arrested there in connection with some demonstration and handing out of leaflets.
    Mr. RANKIN. Was that the Fair Play for Cuba demonstration?
    Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

    Mr. RANKIN. When did his Fair Play for Cuba activity occur---before or after he lost his job?
    Mrs. OSWALD. After he lost his job. I told him it would be much better if he were working, because when he didn't work he was busy with such foolishness.

    Paul - would you call what Oswald did with Bannister a "job" or as Marina put it "busy with such foolishness"?  Seems she was aware he was working, awazre he no longer was working and then was involved in the Pro-Castro foolishness.  It's 1963 - you honestly believe men shared what they did all day with the little woman?  

    Even the Secret Service maintained there was no connection between Oswald and 544 Camp - why do you suppose Marina would know about it?

    Bottom line here Paul is you get all excited when you believe you've "caught" someone and post using your fingers and not your brain.
    You misinterpret virtually everything you read and then go on the offensive when it's pointed out to you.

    YOU and you alone remain what's wrong with this public forum...   You remain blissfully ignorant of all you still don't know or understand yet take every opportunity to lodge foot in mouth when making your arguments.

    Please don't bother addressing this post...  my hip waders are at the cleaners from the last pile of BS of yours...  You simply don't have the skills or the knowledge to play this game... which I guess is why your posts are repeatedly so poor.


     

  18. On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 3:40 PM, James DiEugenio said:

    David:

    (Back to the real world)

    Based on the evidence you adduced above, plus the wrong (stamped) passport (RP, p.282), what do you make of these witnesses, especially Mumford and Winston?

    Did they ever see anyone who called himself Oswald?

    Or  was it all a dog and pony show? That is they were rehearsed about everything?

     

     

    Let's remember this all started because the Hotel Register and the Visa are both incorrectly signed as LEE, Harvey Oswald  or H.O. LEE

    As stated, the FBI has him on FLECHA ROJAS from the Monterrey to Mexico City with the same cast of characters.

     

    Mumford, as I wrote in the essay, and her friend get back on the bus in Monterrey

    WCD1245. p274  is the beginning of the typed version passenger list #11889 for Flecha Rojas bus #516 for passengers who ONLY got on in Monterrey (i.e. Mumford and Winston).  Their names, as expected, do not appear on this list.  

    So if they were on DEL NORTE... and OSWALT is put on FELCHA ROJAS by the FBI, corroborated by the same people, and the CIA claims the FBI says he was on ANAHUAC 

     

     

    Look at the time the FLECHA ROJAS bus leaves Monterrey...  15:30 or 3:30pm...

    Mumford, and McFarland left on DEL NORTE at 7:30pm getting to MC at 10am.  a 3:30pm departure from Monterrey gets them in at 6am.

    Dog and pony show from the word GO...  And it gets even worse on the way back to Dallas....

     

  19. On 3/23/2017 at 0:30 PM, Paul Trejo said:

    David,

    It doesn't matter which person in the conversation mentioned the name of Kostikov -- the caller asked leading questions.

    I repeat, IMHO the LHO impersonator coaxed the name out of the clerk. 

    It was a deliberate intent to link the names of Oswald and Kostikov. 

    Also, David, IMHO you are the one who is butchering the facts for this absurd "Harvey and Lee" science fiction.

    Regards,
    --Paul Trejo

    Stay on topic PT...  I posted the transcript above.  So to you:

    "I don't remember the name of that consul" is the impersonator coaxing out a name?  According to John Newman he had been with Kostikov a number of times by the tim eof this call.  Don't you suppose that the Oswald impersonator would incriminate Oswald more completely if it was HE who mentions the name and not on the Russian side?

     

    The man who made the incriminating phone call to Kostikov had also phoned from the Cuban Consulate three days earlier, on Saturday 28 September. In this instance, not only was Oswald impersonated but the phone call or the transcript appear to have been fabricated. The Cuban Consulate and the switchboard at the Soviet Embassy were closed on Saturdays. Silvia Durán, an employee at the Cuban Consulate, who was mentioned by name on the transcript, denied that she had taken part in the call on the 28th.  

     

    See Paul, this is cause-and-effect....  The events of Sept 28 simply did not happen as recorded below.    Your opinions remain unsupported theories for which you refuse to do ANY work to support or defend beyond "I read it somewhere"...  Even the authors and posters you quote don't agree with your representation of their work.

    For the record, I did NOT focus much time on Sept 27-Oct 3, or the meaning behind this episode - others have taken on that role.
    I focus on the FBI's evidence trying to get Ozzie from here to there and back again...

    You see Paul... the FBI threw out all sorts of ideas.  The final story does not include Anahuac.  the CIA summary touches on these details one by one rather than compare them to the evidence.  "FBI believes Oswald....   

    Problem being Mumford & her Australian friend tells us that Oswald in on the Del Norte bus from Monterrey

    Why do you suppose Miss Mumford, and the McFarlands would lie about Oswald being on that bus?...  ?  the FBI identified Mumford, the McFarlands and BOWEN/OSBOURNE as traveling on the FLECHA ROJAS bus

     

     

     

    Mr. BALL. Now, you got on the bus at Monterrey on the evening of September 26 at 7:30 p.m., you just told me?
    Miss MUMFORD. Yes.
    Mr. BALL. And what was the company that operated that bus, do you know?
    Miss MUMFORD. That was also Transporter del Norte.

    Miss MUMFORD. Oswald was the first one we spoke to. He left his seat and came down to the back of the bus to speak to us.
    Mr. BALL. That was after the bus had left Monterrey?
    Miss MUMFORD. Yes          …. Then we arrived in the Mexico City bus station and he didn't speak to us, attempt to speak to us at all. He was one of the first off the bus and the last I remember seeing him he was standing across the end of the room.

     

    (May 19, 1964)
    Mr. BALL. Well, you were shown pictures of a man (Bowen/Osborne) later on by the Federal Bureau of Investigation agent, were you not?
    Miss MUMFORD. Yes.
    Mr. BALL. And they showed you pictures of Oswald, didn't they; Lee Harvey Oswald?
    Miss MUMFORD. No.
    Mr. BALL. You didn't ever see a picture of Oswald?
    Miss MUMFORD. No.

     

     

     

  20. The WCR actually uses Marina's testimony as proof he left on a bus...

    Despite the fact Marina is gone before Oswald leaves.  Additionally, she makes a very good point about cheap Oswald...

    He WOULD have bought the cheapest ticket possible...  Not one ticket, not one leg of the trip includes a round trip ticket.
    Each of the sections of the trip along the way shows evidence of a new and separate ticket.  
    A ticket was available from New Orleans to and from Mexico City with a 4 part Round trip ticket.

    He supposedly buys a ticket in Houston only 30 mins before the bus leaves...  and what they don't tell you is that the bus to Houston doesn't arrive until 10:50pm if on time.
    Mrs Twiford was supposedly helping the FBI when she in fact made it virtually impossible for the man who called to be the same man for which no ticket to Houston from New Orleans exists.

     

  21. yes, let's get back to Marina, the WC and Mexico City

    Mr. RANKIN. When you were asked before about the trip to Mexico (CE1781 & 1792), you did not say that you knew anything about it. Do you want to explain to the Commission how that happened?  http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0209b.htm
    Mrs. OSWALD. Most of these questions were put to me by the FBI. I do not like them too much. I didn't want to be too sincere with them. Though I was quite sincere and answered most of their questions. They questioned me a great deal, and I was very tired of them, and I thought that, well, whether I knew about it or didn't know about it didn't change matters at all, it didn't help anything, because the fact that Lee had been there was already known, and whether or not I knew about it didn't make any difference.

    And the SS interview Nov 29th: 

    “She was asked whether she had any knowledge of Lee's trips to Mexico or Washington, D.C.  She replied in the negative.  She was asked whether she or Lee had any cameras and she replied that Lee bought one camera in Russia and a second one in the United States . She said one was a small camera and the other was a box camera. She added that she was not proficient with operating any Cameras and she never had an opportunity to do so.”

    She NEVER had an opportunity to do so - (operate any camera)  ??

    Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures.
    I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know.

    She goes on to describe a photographing process which is not possible with the box camera and well as the taking of up to 3 of this photos...  just another example of Marina's cooperation

    -----

    You'd have to go to my 8000 page tome (kidding) on Mexico at the new CTKA site to dive into the details of this evidence... Suffice to say, Marina would basically do whatever was necessary to help incriminate her dead husband...

    https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11913#relPageId=42&tab=page

    img_11913_42_300.png

     

  22. 22 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

    Dear David,

    My "vast knowledge"?

    LOL  You gotta be kidding.

    I can't hold a candle to your infinite, spaghettified database and fractured wisdom!

    --  Tommy :sun

    PS  What?  No "convincing" graphics or documents this time?

    LOL

    No sir, you will never learn what you don't want to know...  your offering a rebuttal based on what you KNOW rather than what you THINK would be nice once in a while though...

    Amazing how you remain the only poster on these threads lost in a fog.  Well done!

  23. On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 6:41 AM, Paul Trejo said:

    Bill,

    If (and only if) that was the case, then would you agree that the impersonator was trying to link the name of Oswald with the name of Kostikov?

    Regards 

    --Paul Trejo 

    The person who mentioned the name KOSTIKOV was on the Russian side of the conversation Paul, not the Oswald side.

    ---- Paul, can you please stop butchering the facts and take a minute and look things up before writing them down (to be forever known as a Trumpistic move)

    One has to interpret the replied "YES" as related to the KOSTIKOV question from the guard...  

    We also know that Oswald was not at the Cuban Consul on the 1st of Oct - most understand that the calls were all impersonated...

    Translator says this OSwald sounds the same as Sept 28th Oswald (Saturday)

    CORNWELL - Let's just talk hypothetically for a moment. Is there any chance that he was at the Consulate on more than one day?
    TIRADO - No. I read yesterday, an article in the Reader's digest, and they say he was at the Consulate on three occasions. He was in Friday, Saturday, and Monday...That's not true, that's false.

    CORNWELL - All right. Let's try a different hypothetical. If the one in the Reader's Digest is definitely wrong, is it possible that he first came on like a Thursday, and then came back on a Friday?
    TIRADO - No, because I am positively sure about it. That he came in the same day.

    After the following transcriptions and the MX to HQ to MX cables...  on Oct 16th Scott sends his update to Ambassador Mann reinforcing the KOSTIKOV reference.

    The only reference attributed to OSWALD is in his letter to the Soviet Embassy in DC - he refers to "COMRADE KOSTIN"   https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1133#relPageId=57

    The WCR claims he was talking about KOSTIKOV without any supporting evidence.    We don't even have any proof the guard actually says this since there are no original tapes to compare.  You don't suppose Phillips was involved in inserting KOSTIKOV into the mix, do you?  :ph34r:

     

     

     

  24. 15 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

    Dear David,

    I must confess that I haven't.

    Could you please give us a 100-page synopsis?

    --  Tommy :sun

    No real surprise there Tommy...    most who attack the premise and the evidence don't have all the puzzle pieces... yet insist on telling us what the entire picture looks like

    There are hundreds of conflicts along the timeline and discussed in that 1000 page book... backup research and original Archive documentation is contained in the Baylor collection of notebooks with a selection offered on a CD which accompanies the book.

    I would venture to say that every book on the subject can and has been challenged.
    Yet, when the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence proves the premise and what is offered as rebuttal focuses on "mistakes and over-sight" one has to wonder how many "mistakes" constitutes coincidence versus how many of these conflicts support and corroborate the premise.

    I'm curious Tommy - how many times do you think these two men were side-by-side?  Who, in your vast knowledge of this situation, would have seen both men within any realistic time frame so as to make a comparison - other than Ruby?

    Do you believe the CIA of the 50's and 60's was incapable of implementing a plan such as this?  
    Do you believe that duplicates were used in spycraft to confuse the enemy?  (didn't Nagell say he used the name HIDELL?)
    Do you understand that a faked or combined history would be very difficult to uncover in 1960 since the records which illustrate this plan would be extremely difficult to obtain, if you weren't the FBI or the Dept of Defense.?

    Angleton added that CI/SIG kept lists of defectors to the United States and managed sensitive cases involving Americans which were not being handled by any other US Government department. He said these functions were deliberately referred to only in “fairly camouflaged terms” and were “very much fuzed over,” even within the CIA, in order to preserve the Unit's secrecy. Angleton told the HSCA

    Even better Tommy - read and learn about what it is you're going to condemn BEFORE you condemn it...  otherwise you continue to sound and look foolish like the rest of this little contrary group who remained convinced arithmetic is Subjective and there is not one reliable witness in this case...

    You guys sound like the HSCA...  :rolleyes:

     

     

  25. 5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

    George,

    I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the man running away from the book depository was an Oswald impostor. Since there are plenty of problems with the official account of Oswald's movements immediately after the assassination, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the running man was the actual, one-and-only Lee Harvey Oswald.

    But I would rule out the possibility that the running man was someone who had been inducted into a dastardly secret scheme when he was 12 years old, in the remote hope that when he grew up he would physically resemble a completely unrelated person. Anyone who has read the 'Harvey and Lee' threads on this forum, as well as the threads on Greg Parker's forum ( https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-the-harvey-lee-evidence ) and W. Tracy Parnell's website ( http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/ ), will know how poorly supported that particular theory is.

    Just curious...  Have you read Armstrong's book, seen the CD images and/or looked thru the Baylor notebooks?

    Thanks

    DJ

×
×
  • Create New...