David Josephs

Robin, He sent me these studies directly, at my request, and I told him the same things. Aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know... And thanks for all the great gallery updates... DJ

These are all the available frames with Brennan on them...This takes up thru z207, a point after which LIFE believed a shot was fired... Seems he should have been looking up by then...

Thanks for the kind words Mitch... If the Zfilm was an original representation of what occurred, why bother with 4 recreations? Why use 161 or 171 as the "first" frame of the sequence when we have the entire film? Why? April 27, 1964, after 3 surveys finding arriving at the same results: "We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to frame 190. We could locate the position on the ground which corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish by photography that the assassin would have fired the first shot at the President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin." Why? There are 6 different frames on which shots are located and the experts questioning how LIFE knew the frame #'s for the 1st and 2nd shots... Now let me take it a step further.... Shaneyfelt took the established frames locations along WEST's surveyed route (along the "+" signs) and moved the limo in a southerly direction by 1.1 feet which resulted in a change in JFK's position at that frame by also moving down Elm by .9 foot. .9 foot is the plug figure used in ce884 for the distance between 161 and 166, which originally was 168 and 171. The information provided in WCD298 and all the ce885=ce895 exhibits is painfully incorrect by a HUGE factor. An example... there is a 10 inch vertical difference between the recreation JFK and the actual JFK. Hitting a mark on the back of the stand-in winds up being 15.25' short of where JFK would actually be. Mr. SPECTER. What was the adjusted frame for the first view that the marksman had of the President's stand-in coming out from under the tree? Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is frame 210 and has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 893 and represents the 10-inch adjustment for the difference in the height of the car as compared with frame 207. Attached is CE893 as mentioned showing frame 210 and claiming this represents the 10" vertical movement from frame 207. Again, moving 10" vertically moves the limo forward 15.25' (10"/12" = .833 x 18.3' = 15.25' horiztonally for a 10" vertical movement) As Chris D. helped me understand, the line of sight for 166 and 171 after Shaneyfelt's movement, is the same. Yet when you compare where the limo is when JFK is at 166 to where Shaneyfelt put him for 171 we find 171 is further up Elm than 166... ooops, not possible. The inset is frame z168, still before 171 and not yet reaching the lane stripe. If the limo was actually where Shaneyfelt put it for 171, the limo would be 3-4 feet short of that stripe. This is the primae facia evidence for FBI alteration of the evidence in order to make it virtually impossible to piece back together - I believe Tom Wilson came to the same conclusion. ce884 represents the breadcrumbs left over from the alteration of information. If you can contend that the 132-133, 156-157, 207-212, 302-303 and 315-316 evidence of splicing, tearing and/or removal of frames does not equate to alteration, fine. That the 6 plus feet of film at the archive, supposedly 0183, does not have 0183 printed on it without a splice attaching that piece is in reality the camera original. I'm not going to get into a discussion over "whether or not"... I am going to continue to present the evidence of what the FBI did, starting with WCD298 up thru ce884 and how these two findings are in direct conflict with each other Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building. As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination. --- I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture. At this point, April 27, 1964, the primary reports offered related to the Dealey activity are the FBI's WCD298, The SS's ce875, FBI's ce884, and WCR's ce585. The conclusion still at this point, was 3 shots = 3 hits at z220, z313, z350 yet LIFE is telling the WC the shot was at z190. That's an awful lot of confusion for a situation where you have a filmed record of the event which supposedly is THE ACCURATE ACCOUNT of what occurred.

So basically you'll argue against anything and everything. You can't trust your own eyes to see how the shadows fall on top of each other and in the same direction away from the subject. Their lengths are almost the same as well. That it does not follow for you that shadows falling at an angle creating a shadow on a nose also at that angle might suggest the BYP face and the position of the sun in that photo are in conflict? With regards to Oswald being two people with different heights and weights, this is not confined to military records. What do you have to say about Ely report and then the followup memo from Jenner to Rankin? Any ideas why "material alterations and omissions" would be necessary? Amazing how many conflicts there are within the man's history and how many third party investigators stumble upon the same inconsistencies suggesting the existence of two men. Believe it or not Tracy, I respect what you're doing. I take issue only with the fact you don't like to include ALL the evidence, just that which you want to contradict. There are literally hundreds of instances of conflict throughout the H&L book. Of instances where Oswalds are in multiple locations at the same time (the Robert McKowen incident while Oswald and family are in Ft Worth for one, for two - Anna Lewis swearing twice with JVB in the room that she and her husband and Lee and Judy are in New Orleans Jan-Apr 1962 when the Oswalds are in Minsk) I have no doubt that out of these hundreds of conflicts, some are the result of speculation based off some evidence. that other nefarious activities may have been going on at the time involving Cubans, Oswald-look alikes, the FBI and the CIA... the entire Alice TX episode with Lee, a foreign woman and 2 children months before the 2nd child is born for example. Point is for every single hole you think you've uncovered there are 40 more related to it that you cannot, but because so few people are fully versed in the H&L evidence, you get away with it. What amazes me most is this need to prove John wrong about a subject that is truly not that far outside the activities of the time. As more and more of what Dulles and his "staffers" did throughout the war and up thru the 60's, the H&L not only makes sense but would be something our CIA would want to try and succeed at... While the rest of the world had been spying successfully for hundreds of years, the US intelligence community was in its infancy. Tracy, I'm sorry you need to attack this with so much passion. It appears that you forget all the strange and amazing things our CIA and FBI did over the years... so much so you can discount evidence rather than give it the deep and considerate thought you give your rebuttals. Please stop cherry-picking and do your homework. As for what you've seen or not... or whether I am trying to change your mind... I'm not. You've decided regardless. But for those reading your work, they should know that you leave out 10 times as much supporting evidence as you present conflicting. Between Gorsky, Donovan, Felde, Grafe, and a list of Marines who knew one but not the other, you're telling only a small portion of the story - which worked for the WCR but doesn't fly here.

As the last post on a page, it was lost in the shuffle... You echoed my thoughts about the DPD not being there for Brennan... and from all accounts, Brennan is the only witness claiming to have seen the shooter other than Euins whose story had to be discounted immediately. I did this little gif focusing on Brennan... he doesn't appear to be looking up at any time... and he kinda shoots himself in the foot with this testimony, no?

As I've been developing my article which traces the alteration of the Zfilm to the ultimate alteration of ce585 with the offering of the fraudulent ce884, the first thing that jumps out at me are the results of the first 3 surveys regarding shot #1 and how this was changed for the WC's version. On ce535 - a version which is readable directly from WEST - we see the location marked for Shot #1 as the same as was found in Dec for the SS and Feb for the FBI: 3+81.3 @ elevation 423.07. When the shamefully admitted ce884 was finally uncovered, this changes to 3+71.1 at elevation 423.75. a Difference of 10.2 feet (note: Elm has an 18.3':1' run:rise, for every 18.3' horizontal Elm drops 1' vertically.) Elevation 423.07' - 423.75' = .68' .68' x 18.3' = 12.44' = the distance between these two spots is 12.44' - 10.2' = 2.24 feet further than ce884 suggests. 2.24' is the distance between 207-208 on the first ce884 (yellow). This equated to the limo moving at almost 30mph for those 2 frames then slowing down to around 11mph in the next frame. In the white version, 208 is changed to 210 slowing that speed from 30mph to just under 10mph - much more acceptable and realistic... but moving the same physical location to a different frame means we lose the 2.24' and wind up with a 423.75' elevation @ station 3+81.3. To move from 3+71.1 to 3+81.3 the elevation would no longer be 423.07 but is 10.2'/18.3' = .56' vertically lower than 3+81.3 Elev 423.75' - .56' = Elev 423.19 = 10.2 feet down Elm from 3+71.1 = 3+81.3 So where is 423.07 since the opnly fixed frame in this game was z207 @ 423.75 @ 3+71.1? Elev 423.19' - Elev 423.07' = .12' * 18.3' = 2.196' further down Elm. 3+81.3 + 2.196 = 3+83.496 or 3+83.5 208 and 210 cannot both be 2.24' from 207. Shaneyfelt and Frazier placed the maximum of 3 shots where they made the most sense since the only accurate frame # we have for a shot is 313. ce884 also occurs after Tague comes forward. The "Shot that Missed" becomes a shot which was never officially acknowledged in the WCR other than on ce535. The last image is an overlay of ce585 and the clear plat showing that shot notations are still showing a 3rd shot 35-40 feet past z313... and is why ce884 ends at z313 The infamous WCD298 which was the result of the Dec survey also shows shot #3 down by Altgens at the foot of the stairs. Whether this was a real shot supported by real evidence is hard to tell. 3 surveys, the surveyor's notes and a number of witnesses state a shot was fired after z313 in the area by the foot of the Knoll stairs. WCD1, the FBI report, concludes 3 shots = 3 hits. The surveys need to match this conclusion. Rather than place a shot at the top of Elm during the turn onto Elm and the creation of the amazing Position A, it was decided to put the shot near station 5+00 some 35 feet further down Elm than Z313. The final piece of the puzzle related to the WCR survey plat is the difference between the actual route of the limo, and the frame number dots created by Shaneyfelt and documented in West's notes. So, other than not wanting to show all the shots fired, but only 3 until May 1964, then 2 after that... do the conflicts in the evidence for shot #1 point to something else other than hiding 2 real shots too close together to be possible from one shooter?

Maybe some of these will help with your question Micah. This is Humes' description of the wound for the WCR. I then took this description and placed it on a few images of a 3D skull and brain to give you an idea of what he was describing. In reality, most of the damage HUMES describes is related to the pre-craniotomy he (or someone else) performed on JFK prior to 8pm. If a single bullet entered at that red spot - ask yourself if the following accurately represents the results of such an entry. And then ask yourself how those fragments got to be at a point above the entry and exit as offered when in fact they represent a straight line from the right temple to the middle occipital. Commander HUMES - Exhibit 391 is listed as a supplementary report on the autopsy of the late President Kennedy, and was prepared some days after the examination.This delay necessitated by, primarily, our desire to have the brain better fixed with formaldehyde before we proceeded further with the examination of the brain which is a standard means of approach to study of the brain.The brain in its fresh state does not lend itself well to examination.From my notes of the examination, at the time of the post-mortem examination, we noted that clearly visible in the large skull defect and exuding from it was lacerated brain tissue which, on close inspection proved to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.We also noted at this point that the flocculus cerebri was extensively lacerated and that the superior sagittal sinus which is a venous blood containing channel in the top of the meninges was also lacerated. To continue to answer your question with regard to the damage of the brain, following the formal infixation, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck and I convened to examine the brain in this state.We also prepared photographs of the brain from several aspects to depict the extent of these injuries.We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the saggital plane, as you may know, is a plane in the midline which would divide the brain into right and left halves. This laceration was parasagittal. It was situated approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline, and extended from the tip of occipital lobe, which is the posterior portion of the brain, to the tip of the frontal lobe which is the most anterior portion of the brain, and it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm.The base of the laceration was situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. By the vertex we mean--the highest point on the skull is referred to as the vertex.The area in which the greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.The margins of this laceration at all points were jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration.In addition, there was a laceration of the corpus callosum which is a body of fibers which connects the two hemispheres of the brain to each other, which extended from the posterior to the anterior portion of this structure, that is the corpus callosum. Exposed in this laceration were portions of the ventricular system in which the spinal fluid normally is disposed within the brain.When viewed from above the left cerebral hemisphere was intact. There was engorgement of blood vessels in the meninges covering the brain. We note that the gyri and sulci, which are the convolutions of the brain over the left hemisphere were of normal size and distribution.Those on the right were too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description.When the brain was turned over and viewed from its basular or inferior aspect, there was found a longitudinal laceration of the mid-brain through the floor of the third ventricle, just behind the optic chiasma and the mammillary bodies.This laceration partially communicates with an oblique 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral peduncle. This is a portion of the brain which connects the higher centers of the brain with the spinal cord which is more concerned with reflex actions.There were irregular superficial lacerations over the basular or inferior aspects of the left temporal and frontal lobes. We interpret that these later contusions were brought about when the disruptive force of the injury pushed that portion of the brain against the relative intact skull.This has been described as contre-coup injury in that location.This, then, I believe, Mr. Specter, are the major points with regard to the President's head wound.

So Item #3 says that they "witnessed this line-up" - not necessarily a line-up for Brennan's sake. Brown and Dhority were at the 6:30, not the 7:55 it seems. The "officers with witness" were with Barbara, not Brennan. As I read it Steve, it appears the Barbara line-up was crashed by Sorrels and Brennen. The other DPD men were simply not involved and since he "Failed to ID" why would they make more of that in a report or testimony? With regards to the use of "WE", it seems he uses "we" as the preferred pronoun regardless. "We" in the case you name refers to he and Brennan.. FWIW DJ Mr. SORRELS - I did not talk to Oswald again, and I was around there. When I contacted Washington, I was informed that Inspector Kelley was being directed to be there, and he would be there later on that evening, that they had caught him out on the road, and he would come there to help out.I also got information to Captain Fritz that I had this witness, Brennan, that I had talked to, and that I would like very much for him to get a chance to see Oswald in a lineup. And Captain Fritz said that would be fine.So I instructed Special Agent Patterson, I believe it was, after I had located Brennan---had quite a difficult time to locate him, because he wasn't at home. And they finally prevailed upon his wife to try to help me locate him, and she, as I recall it, said that she would see if she could locate him by phone. I called her, I believe, the second time and finally got a phone number and called him and told him we would like for him to come down and arrange for him to meet one of our agents to pick him up at the place there. And when they came down there with him, I got ahold of Captain Fritz and told him that the witness was there, Mr. Brennan.He said, "I wish he would have been here a little sooner, we just got through with a lineup. But we will get another fixed up."So I took Mr. Brennan, and we went to the assembly room, which is also where they have the lineup, and Mr. Brennan, upon arrival at the police station, said, "I don't know if I can do you any good or not, because I have seen the man that they have under arrest on television," and he said. "I just don't know whether I can identify him positively or not" because he said that the man on television was a bit disheveled and his shirt was open or something like that, and he said "The man I saw was not in that condition."So when we got to the assembly room, Mr. Brennan said he would like to get quite a ways back, because he would like to get as close to the distance away from where he saw this man at the time that the shooting took place as he could.And I said, "Well, we will get you clear on to the back and then we can move up forward."They did bring Oswald in in a lineup.He looked very carefully, and then we rooted him up closer and so forth, and he said, "I cannot positively say."I said, "Well, is there anyone there that looks like him?"He said, "Well, that second man from the left," who was Oswald--"he looks like him."Then he repeated that the man he saw was not disheveled.

And just for sh#ts and giggles - using that same LEE photo - notice the shadows fall the same exact same way as the BYP yet the nose shadows are as different as they can be... "Sometimes you get shown the light in the strangest of places, if you look at it right...."

Fair enough... I think you took my sentence a bit too harshly though... I never worte you couldn't post here...not even close. All I said was a "real discourse" can begin once you get out of your tiny comfort zone and look at more of the evidence. The gif shows that this person's face in the two images do not match. The relationship between ears, mouth and eyes, which does not change on a person over time, does not match. Amazes me how you can take victory laps on subjective analysis - but hey, whatever. I spent 2+ years working thru every item of evidence with John. Some was definitely, and admittedly the result of speculation and highly circumstantial evidence. Yet none of this evidence stand alone on an island but is the culmination of years and years of compiling and noting the conflicts. As you've said Tracy, this thread has to do with images of Marge... When you get a chance, read thru the testimonies of those who knew the 2 different women. If you can't find Testimony you can try the footnotes section of H&L and track down the sources yourself. In 1960 when these women see Lee's actual mother in New Orleans, our Harvey's MO is living in Texas at 1410 Hurley way. After this sighting in New Orleans we do not have another instance involving Lee's real mother, just like we do not have an image of Lee after his 1959 passport photo. There is more if you read Lillian Murret and her husband's testimony... It mirrors Pic's and others stating that "Lee" was not the man that left, he was small, talkative and nothing like the class leading, thick-necked marine we see in the photos. While it makes sense he would bulk up during the marines - going from the 5'8" 130lb 18 year old to the 5'11 150+ lb 20 year old... can you explain how he then goes back to 5'9" and 135lbs by the time he's 24? And just for you Tracy, Attached is a collage if it can help you in any way. Before that though... what's up with the 2 Marge's in 1960 - one seeing friends in New Oreleans and the other on Hurley in Ft Worth. Then read HER testimony and let me know how many errors in her own history she brings up.... DJ http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0074a.htm p19 H&L In the summer of 1943 the tall, nice-looking -Marguerite Oswald answered an advertisement in the newspaper for a sales position in a New Orleans hosiery shop.35 She applied and was hired by Mrs. Oris Duane, the manager of Jean's Hosiery, located at 727 Canal Street. She remembered Mrs. Oswald as a good worker who always had a neat appearance. p214 H&L By studying FBI interviews with neighbors, and the Warren Commission testimony of John Pic and Robert Oswald, we learn that their mother worked at Clyde Campbell's Men's Store (Fort Worth, 1956), the City of Fort Worth (1957), Paul's Shoe Store (Fort Worth, 1957), Family Publications, and Cox's Department Store (Fort Worth, 1958-59). In 1959 the tall, nice-looking, well-dressed Marguerite Oswald returned to New Orleans where she continued her usual occupation of working in clothing stores. Mrs. Logan Magruder, who had known Marguerite for nearly 20 years, saw her at Krieger's, while Mrs. Oris Duane, who had known her since 1943, saw and spoke with her at Goldrings.115 Marguerite Oswald was last seen in New Orleans in 196q-1961. ========== In 1960, two women that were good friends with Marguerite Oswald, Mrs. Logan Magruder and Mrs. Oris Duane both reporting meeting her in New Orleans. (This was the tall, attractive version.) Both women spoke to her at the time. Mrs. Magruder saw and chatted with her while working in Kreiger’s Department store and Mrs. Duane saw and spoke to her in Goldring’s Department store selling dresses. A conflict arrises here as the Warren Commission states that Marguerite was supposed to have moved out of New Orleans in June of 1956 to Ft. Worth, Texas never to return. In September of 1960 she moved to Boyd Texas, north of Ft. Worth and opened a small variety shop on Main street and opened a bank account at the Continental State Bank. Yet, here are two women who had been friends with Marguerite since the 1940’s who say they saw and spoke to her where she should not have been. Apparently the FBI never investigated this lead in Louisiana. http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2010/01/marguerite-oswald-as-doppelganger.html

Here are some other photos you can use as well. I tried to size the two images in th gif to the mouth and still the ears cannot match, and if I try to match the ears, the rest doesn't match. Not definitive by any means... just food for thought. As there only being a small handful of evidence - as the UK site suggests - is a terrible understatement of fact. One of the greatest being his time in the Phillipines. Unit Diaries put him there, His CO Donovan puts him there.. yet the DoD tries to claim he never left Atsugi while his medical records all have him receiving treatment in Atsugi. Donovan admits to being forgetful during his WCR testimony and then we learn he was FBI from 1953-56. Also included is the DoD declaration that he never went to Taiwan. and the Unit Diary showing he not only went, but returned as well.. ooops. Please don't insult those of us who have actually taken the time to research the evidence to state all this is based on some photographic interpretation and hearsay. This is only the tip of an iceberg I'm sure you are not prepared to take on but for one bite here and there. When you can address ALL the evidence, not just what you believe to be low hanging fruit that you can attack, we can begin a real discourse on the topic. So how about start with this. Prove the evidence does not support two men, both named Lee Oswald with one in Atsugi and the other in the Philippines at the same time. Thanks

A colorized version to help differentiate between people...

All valid points Steve.... I just have found that approaching this logically usually leads in the wrong direction...

Sandy, I posted this not because of the repeating of the Baker story but of Bookout's telling of the Shelley part of the story. Oswald eating lunch outside with Shelley happening well after the assassination and the supposed Baker encounter creates a timeline that allows Oswald and Shelley to be back out on the landing about 6-10 minutes after the shooting. I am 100% convinced the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter never happened. Just look at how the WC handles the Baker Affidavit in his testimony. If their story is true then his affidavit is a lie. I've made the point before that without the lunchroom added, the person coming down the stairs 1-2 flights higher up is much closer to the sniper's nest area as well as the rifle's resting place by these stairs on the 6th floor. The description is even fairly close. If this was Oswald, why change the story during testimony? If this was not Oswald, who works at the TSBD fitting that description and was not out front? I do not believe that Baker is scatterbrained and completely neglected to write his affidavit, the SAME DAY, telling the same story as his testimony would so many months later. There must have been a reason to swap one story for the other and the ID of the person on the stairs is possibly our answer. As for rendering moot the statement that he was out front with Shelley - what does the Baker encounter have to do with that? Your timeline fits better with Oswald meeting up with Shelley after he returns with Lovelady and goes out front (if that's what he did) I don't want to derail the thread with Baker discussions when we are talking about Shelley and Lovelady. One must think though, did the whole thing hinge on Oswald staying inside for those 30 seconds or would there be contingency plans for all possibilities? I for one believe in their contingency planning which is why there were so many "SS imposters" in DP... they were the clean-up crew to get photos and films. I come to learn on a side note that Jaggers-Chile-Stovall was only blocks from DP and had photographic alteration equipment that no other companies in the area had... if photos needed fixing quickly (Altgens 6 comes to mind) JCS could do it and quickly. Food for thought...

Sandy, Bookout describes Oswald's interrogation responses like this: It suggests that Shelley was the source for Oswald leaving for Home. But it also plays a little havoc with the timeline you've offered. Also wondering why "SHELLEY" is almost removed, twice. Can Shelley telling the truth work with this? - this is the only interrogation report that mentions this - I believe.

Looking thru the entire list I found another steno with MM initials... There were MANY officers from Traffic involved that day... just another possibility TRAFFIC DIVISION Mullican, Madge, Stenographer-Secretary 6 (on a side note I believe this Sorrells is related to our Sorrells....Sorrells, Eunice, (Chief's) Secretary 8 and the only office staff at a level 8)

deleted

deleted -

From what we've been able to find it appears that only 2 copies have the 6pm correction: In Box 15 of the DPD Archives Box 15, Folder# 1, Item# 111. and Box 5 file 3 item #3 Yet as you say Steve, these changes did not make ce2003 or CD81. I did the same exercise as Alistair. "4th" is written over to make it "3rd" On pages 10 and 11 there are also changes trying to keep the # of interviews correct. A 3rd interview occurs Sat the 23rd at 12:35. a 4th interview happens at 6pm (does this actually happen?) while a 5th interview at 9:30 am is changed to 4th. The other problem is they missed a significant change.. At the end of the first paragraph on page 10 "He is placed back in jail at 1:10 PM" Changing 12:35 to 6 pm on page 9, then reiterating 6 pm on page 10 forgets that he was placed back in jail. The page 9 6 pm is a CYA for the photograph statement since the train of thought is completed regarding the 12:35-1:10 pm interview at the top of page 10. Can't "bring him back in" if he never left.... Steve - your question, "what good would it accomplish" ie to change draft versions after the final has been produced.... The time conflict was just never recognized. Could these changes have been made in preparation for Fritz's book? (edit - Fritz didn't write one... did he)

Well done everyone... Imagine the horror on Fritz's face when he realizes he asked AND SHOWED Oswald these prints before the evidence shows they were available to him. And for certain 133-C existed at this time since Det Brown is placed in that exact pose 13 years before it becomes public. Rose will testify to seeing 1 print with 2 negatives... and then proceeds to forget the photo and ultimately lose one of these negatives... 1 negative to create 3 images.... Steve - if there was no Sat evening lineup... Mr. BALL. Now, you say you sat in on the interrogation of Oswald later that day? Mr. ROSE. On Saturday evening--that Saturday evening. Mr. BALL. What time? Mr. ROSE. I don't remember--it was late--it seemed like it was around 9 or 10 o'clock, I don't remember. Mr. BALL. Who was present? Mr. ROSE. Well, Captain Fritz, Detective Sims, and myself--I don't remember--there was an FBI agent and a Secret Service agent there, but I don't remember their names. what's Rose here talking about?, he goes on to describe the showing of the BYP to Oswald? Mr. BALL. That this took place in Captain Fritz' office? Mr. ROSE. In Captain Fritz' office--yes. Well, the occasion was--I got back to the office and I took this small picture of Oswald holding the rifle, and left the rest of them with the Captain and I took one up to the I.D. bureau and had them to make me an enlargement of it, and they made an almost 8" by 10" enlargement of this picture and I brought it back to the captain and Oswald was brought in and the captain showed him this picture, and Oswald apparently got pretty upset when he saw the picture and at first he said, "Well, that's just a fake, because somebody has superimposed my face on that picture." Then, the captain said, "Well, is that you face on the picture?" And he said, "I won't even admit that. That is not even my face." I remember that part of it distinctly. I remember him volunteering some information about when he was in Russia. I read some work on the Altgens 6 timeline suggesting that Jaggers, which was central to AP/City Hall and DMN and where Oswald worked, had the most advanced photographic manipulation equipment in the US and was set up specifically to make changes to images and create new negatives. food for thought.

Thank Alistair! That's the trouble with lies, a few little mistakes in the retelling of them makes them stand out like a sore thumb. I'm convinced those images the photos that is, were already at the DPD. After the fact we learn from the CSSS reports that no photos were brought in when if they had actually found negatives and matching photos they would have kept them together on a single CSSS form. I believe it is Stovall who claims that these were included in the BLUE SUITCASE as "Misc photos and maps" yet when the FBI's HOSTY recaps what was in that suitcase, the lists do not even come clse to each other... 200 circulars? Anyway, the ONLY reference to evidence that calls out found PHOTOS is that reference. I personally believe Rose/Stovall brought the negatives with them. Steve - you make a great point about the jacket for a line up that never happens but DOES happen at 2:15. Makes sense that the 12:35pm interview which lasts a while would include this comment...as they transition to this line-up. makes perfect sense - yes? Regarding Klein's and Waldman... I did quite a bit of work published at ctka on the Rifle evidence*. I found that there exists both a report stating the film was given to DOLAN of the FBI, signed only by Dolan... and another 2 pages earlier with all 3 FBI agents who investigated at Kleins, signing that WALDMAN kept the film in his own safe (last attachment). The other document reports Waldman making a comment about the Dodd committee "on his back". I'd theorize that the connection of Dodd's committee and Kleins and the FBI is well more than a coincidence. Waldman could only have been the right guy from Kleins to subpeona if they needed to stay away from the truth. Michael Scibor was also at Kleins that night with Waldman. The most unique night in his life with his assisting the FBI catch the killer of POTUS and he "was very uncooperative and evasive". ?? Add in the US Postal Inspector Holmes whose story of that day conflicts with virtually every bit of evidence and yet again we have a corner of the conspiracy which is FUBAR.... ... enough of that, Happy Holiday and New Years to everyone... healthy happy New Year. DJ * https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf

Considering we know that no SS agents were in the TSBD at this time either they are reassigning someone to the SS who they do not want to name, someone NOT SS pretended to be with credentials via Holt's story, or there really was a SS agent there... again, it seems to me that anyone who could cause a problem later had their name conveniently forgotten and by officers who appear to know the names of just about everyone else. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=631&tab=page https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29104#relPageId=9&tab=page Both of these state the time for the 3rd interview as 12:35pm so if these are the corrected version they dropped the 6pm 3rd interview time... OR those with the corrections were done well after the fact. Fritz's notes reflect a 6:35pm time as I posted yet I feel that the 11:25 scratched out would have been to account for the hour before he was questioned again. Do you know if anything is recorded for what happened between 11:30 and 12:30 on Saturday?

Indeed Robin... And that camera speed.... http://shikan.org/bjones/Moviecam/Keystone-K32/k-32_p7.html Her camera, like Zapruder's and Towner's and Nix's ran at either 12 or 16 frames per second or at slo-mo speeds of 24 and 48 fps. Like Zapruder the FBI changed the speed of the camera so it would appear as if more frames are taken and thereby speeding up the amount of time actually elapsed. NPIC did a 16 fps analysis on Zapruder that weekend as well. Shaneyfelt's testimony does not contradict Muchmore's statement about not taking assassination images, Dulles: You think she did? Shaneyfelt: On the film there are pictures And although the FBI's Gauthier delivers WCD298 to the Commissioners on January 20th which specifically identifies WCD298 as a complete & accurate representation of what happened, the FBI's Shaneyfelt will be involved with 6 more surveys resulting in the movement and/or replacement of every single measurement from the first 3 surveys. With regards to January 27, the FBI performs another survey (Dec 2,3,4 was for the SS even though it becomes the backbone for the FBI's WCD298) on February 7, 1964. Shaneyfelt being involved in "analysis" of this data only 1 week later and only 1 week prior to them doing another survey is very revealing to me. Especially since WEST's 2/7 notes arrive at the same conclusion as the 12/5 SS Dec survey... final shot at elevation 416.83 at station 4+95, not 4+65. All the Muchmore JFK frames determine is that the head shot happens exactly where everyone says it does... and in less time than any man can work the bolt and fire again, another shot 30 feet down Elm hits a target as the limo is speeding away. The problem we have... if 4+95 was not really a shot... where can the FBI put a 3rd shot and still keep the Boom.....Boom..Boom sequence... surely not up at 156 where many believe a shot was fired. Overarching concern for the FBI was how to turn the reality of 4-8 shots into 3 and only 3? Initially they had 3 shot locations: 423.07, 418.35 & 416.83 - until ce884. All are street level elevations where 1' vertical = 18.3' horizontal. Since it takes over 2 seconds to work the Carcano (37 frames) there MUST also be at least a 2 foot vertical change in JFK's location. yet we only have 418.35 - 416.83 = 1.52 feet 1.52 * 18.3 = 28 frames = 2 shooters so the third shot goes away, shot #2 becomes shot #3, shot #1 move up Elm 12 feet and becomes the SBT at frame 207 (with JC reacting after 224 a second later) and NO SHOTS before adjusted z207. Which Shots Missed? The ones taken by a second or third shooter down by the foot of the GK stairs and the ones at the top of Elm accounting for the splices at 156/157 and 207-212.

Interesting thoughts Steve... I am still amazed how every single change removes a problem for the conspirators and makes Oswald look more guilty. This is the page - draft p9 which claims Oswald was returned to his cell at 11:33 am with another interview starting at 12:35. This must be a revised page, still rough draft, that places him back in his cell at 1:10pm on the 23rd. Yet his notes tell yet a different story. Note #2 on the below composited page states: 2nd interview 23rd Present 10:35-11:34 So what do you suppose happens between 11:35 and 1:10 that Fritz first recalls a 3rd interview at 12:35 pm which needs to be changed to 6:00 pm while 11:35 is changed to 1:10... when does Fritz recall the photo (negatives) did not arrive at DPD until around 4pm? This is Box 1 Folder 15 where the archives say the rest of the "typed draft" Steve, do we know where the final report is? 8. Statement typed, by J. W. Fritz. Page 12 of typed draft of the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald. See box 01 for other pages of this draft, (Original), date unknown. 00001011 1 page 03 18 008 1011-001.gif 1. Interrogation, by an unknown author. Typed rough draft with handwritten corrections pertaining to the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, (Original), date unknown. 12 pages 00000412 01 15 001 0412-001.gif 0412-002.gif 0412-003.gif 0412-004.gif 0412-005.gif 0412-006.gif 0412-007.gif 0412-008.gif 0412-009.gif 0412-010.gif 0412-011.gif 0412-012.gif The other thing to notice is the notes say "6:35" not 6 pm like the correction states, but 6:35 from what was originally "12:35". Only a slight coincidence here... now let's look at the note itself. 11:25? Since we have little history for these documents, changing 11:25 to 6:35 on this page doesn't seem to be to difficult a task. Wouldn't we expect to see "11:25 am" on the 1st draft? So one wonders where the 12:35 pm time comes from. Your next point #2 about Hosty... Wasn't it Hosty who told Levelle about Oswald and in turn got sent to Siberia by Hoover? Wasn't Hosty in charge of keeping tabs on "them" the Oswalds? #3 then ... I've read that the ATF men would be considered Secret Service men to many who they showed ID and they were the first ones on the scene in addition to DPD and the Sheriffs (who were told not to help at all, so one wonders why Boone and Montgomery are in such a rush taking care of assassination related investigation AND were involved with the finding of the rifle and shells...) Then we also have the potential impostors in DP on the conspiracy side maybe there to insure chaos. Mr. BELIN - Was anyone around in the back when you got there? Mr. HARKNESS - There were some Secret Service agents there. I didn't get them identified. They told me they were Secret Service. "...[FBI Agent James] Hosty told the [House] Select Committee that at the time of the assassination 'Frank' Ellsworth...had indicated that he had been in the grassy knoll area and for some reason identified himself as a Secret Service Agent.' 8 Ellsworth, deposed by the Committee, denied Hosty's allegation. We know, however, that he was in the immediate area.9 Interestingly, he and seven other ATF agents were among the first law enforcement personnel of any description to reach the sixth floor of the TSBD. If Ellsworth was in the vicinity, it remains to be asked how Hosty knew about it. (Peter Dale Scott, "Deep Politics," pg. 274) "In 1963, if you would have asked me if I was a Secret Service agent, I most likely would have answered yes-our roles overlapped that much." (Frank Ellsworth to author Gus Russo in 1994, "Live By The Sword," pg. 473)

You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know Tommy. Deal with the evidence presented, not your opinions. Not only talking about "looks" Tommy... there is much more evidence offered than some photos. Can you explain with evidence how an incoming 5'4" 115lb 7th grader in Sept 1952 becomes a 4'10" 90lb 9th grader by Aug 1953 Typographical errors? Shown some examples of your conclusion here Tommy... you saying so carries no weight at all. When there is corroboration for these memories they gain more and more weight regardless of the time involved. Again, this is you just listing things you can't understand - use some examples so those reading this can see how empty your attacks remain. Your limited understanding of Popov's Mole shines thru Tommy. Let me know when you've connected the FBI/CIA evidence for Oswald going to and coming from Mexico City with Popov's Mole hunt ala Simpich/Scott. The evidence of activities at the Mexico City consulates have nothing to do with where Harvey or Lee were at the time other than Phillip's asset Alvarado coming forth on Nov 23rd to tell his interesting story. Rebutting one discussion with statements about another is effective at changing the subject... and reveals how little you understand about Mexico City or H&L. I can appreciate you having an opinion Tommy, but then you hope one of your buddies comes along to present evidence to support your adopted position. Let's not deal with the photos at all... why would the DoD lie about where Harvey was when he was in Ping Tung? On Sept 16, 1958 "Oswald" is both in Ping Tung and at MACS-1 US-NAS NAVY 3835. 58-12.jpg is the 9/14 Diary showing Oswald leaving for Ping Tung Yet on Sept 20, 22, 23, & 29th he is seeing a doctor at MACS-1. We have Donovan and others confirming Oswald at Ping Tung along with the Unit Diaries. Your opinions notwithstanding Tommy, try a discussion WITHOUT your opinion. Use facts, or evidence agreed upon as factual to counter this specific H&L topic.. Please know that I really couldn't care about your opinion posts unless it's backed with something concrete. Stay on topic Tommy... we are discussion the EVIDENCE for H&L as I have provided with each post... there's more below for you to express your opinions... Can you offer anything that actually attempts to convince us you've studied the topic and have a clue about what you are arguing about... ... or just more opinions... ?