David Josephs

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... ?

No doubt Robin's work is always top notch.... Just curious what you make of this statement by Muchmore claiming she "panicked after this (first) shot ran back to the office". How did she wind up getting such clear images of the shot at 313 - where a few frames prio the image goes from jumping all over the place to almost perfect? And does anyone else notice the frames where everything is in focus yet she is panning from right to left...? Doesn't that suggests the limo is stopped or barely moving... which in turn is the only way Hill can catch the limo in only a few steps... If both were moving at 11 mph the minute Hill hits the ground the Queen Mary would keep up with the limo and possibly even pass Hill. The limo at this point cannot be moving at more than 2-3 mph if at all. Some some food for thought when considering "Muchmore's" film evidence.

Bumping for DVP... Wondering when a third party surveyor's accurate data becomes the FBI/SS's "opinions" ?? WCD298 was designed to explain the assassination and understand the particulars "without having to be there" as Gauthier puts it... Wondering also why the FBI needed to make so many "adjustments" to these 3 accurate plats in order to come up with the impossible ce884 limo designations... Mr. GAUTHIER. Our data to build this were compiled on December 2, 3, and 4. It took about 5 weeks to prepare this exhibit in Washington. The attached images shows the 12/5 plat with shot #3 down by 5+00 as CE875 tells us, no photo was taken at 5+00 as this was the impact of the 3rd shot. It also shows the determination of the location for shot #1 10.2 feet further down Elm than what the WCR finally offers The distance from 207 to 208 in the original ce884 is 2.3 feet in a single frame x 18.3 fps = 42.09 feet per second = 28.7 mph. ce884 changes this to 210 bringing the speed down to 2.3/3 = .77 feet per frame x 18.3 = 14.03 feet per second = 9.57 mph yet there is no "210" on the WCR plat or legend while the location for 210 is exactly the same as the original 208. The surveyor was unaware of how the FBI changed the legend for ce884. Anyone reading how this revised legend gets into evidence can do little but shake their head... How can a survey made in May 1964 be the basis for a display of data in January, Dave? Mr. GAUTHIER. Our data to build this were compiled on December 2, 3, and 4. It took about 5 weeks to prepare this exhibit in Washington :::: Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in the onsite tests made in Dallas? Mr. GAUTHIER. I did. Mr. SPECTER. Was a survey made of the scene used to record some of the results of that onsite testing? Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. And by whom was the survey made? Mr. GAUTHIER. The survey was made on May 24, 1964, by Robert H. West, county surveyor, a licensed State land surveyor, located at 160 County Courthouse, Dallas, Tex. Mr. SPECTER. Have you brought the tracing of that survey with you today? Mr. GAUTHIER. I have; yes. Mr. SPECTER. And have you brought a cardboard reproduction of that? Mr. GAUTHIER. A copy made from the tracing; yes. Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the cardboard copy made from the tracing for the inspection of the Commission at this time, please? Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the tracing at this time, please? Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; the tracing is wrapped, and sealed in this container. Mr. SPECTER. Without breaking the seal, I will ask you if the cardboard which has been set up here--may the record show it is a large cardboard. I will ask you for the dimensions in just a minute. Does the printing on the cardboard represent an exact duplication of the tracing which you have in your hand? Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes. And the new legend is slipped into the record - the FBI and Specter vouching for a copy of a tracing of a copy of an original sealed in a container and NEVER opened. Luckily thru Tom Purvis we have the original notes of the surveys done prior to May 1964 which shows the alteration and manipulation of evidence resulting in ce884 and a path down Elm which never happened as described. Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a schedule which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 884 and ask you what figures are contained thereon.(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 884 for identification.) Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of a tabulation which appears on the plat map.It contains certain positions marked as frame numbers. It indicates elevations and a column dealing with angle of sight from the frame positions to the window and to a horizontal line. It also contains angels of sight the degree of sight and distances from these positions to a point on the top of the bridge, handrail height. Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that concludes the description of the general setting. I would like to move now at this time for the admission into evidence of Exhibit No. 884, which completes all of the exhibits used heretofore. Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

Old topics never die they just need a new POV... I remember looking into the different shorthand styles - luckily here at the state we have many who were able to decipher it for me. Add now that Frasier gets ce399 at 7:30 from Elmer Todd yet Todd does not get ce399 from Rowley until 8:50pm and we begin to see how the FBI and SS worked together to create the lone nut story. ce399 was, imo, fired from the Carcano in DC... whether that night or well prior, probably prior since the FBI experts did not test to see if the Carcano was fired that day... I've done a few things on Kennedys and Kings (ctka.net) related to the rifle & BYP evidence... check them out if interested... DJ

Luckily we had someone befriend ROBERT WEST and get from him the notes related to the 3 surveys done prior to the WC which in turn was prompted by a memo from Redlich to Rankin on April 27, 1964... In each of these 3 surveys, shot #2 is found to have been in relatively the same spot based on vertical distances along the sloping Elm. The Survey Plat which is shown in ce585 still shows the location for 3 shots hitting a target on Elm. The final Survey done in May/June 1964 and related to ce884 is overlaid on ce585 showing the shots in relation to the yellow curbs. The first curb with Moorman & Hill, 2nd Curb by Altgens and 3rd curb near the manhole cover. Time/Life survey Nov 26th, SS/FBI Dec 2, 3, 4 creates WCD298 and ce875, February 7, 1964 FBI survey plat jives with other two regarding shot location for #2 at z313 4+65 and another shot when the bumper of the limo is over 4+96. The same FBI agents: Shaneyfelt, Gauthier, Frazier, Rogge and Thompson who were involved in the Dec and Feb reenactments concluding a shot down by the stairs are involved with the WC and their desire to find out what exactly happened - despite the FBI and SS agreeing with the information in WCD298. Maybe a reading of that memo would help clear things up? How is it that by April 27, 1964 the Warren Commission does not know if the FBI/SS described scenarios are even physically possible... what were the first three surveys about? and why does the final survey contradict their earlier work dramatically? C'mon Dave, this is direct evidence of the manipulation of evidence related to the shots, the zfilm and even Altgens' statements. Attached as well is a composite showing how badly these recreations were related to Altgens... April 27, 1964 MEMORANDUM TO: J. Lee Rankin FROM: Norman Redlich The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the Presidential limousine. 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. Our examination of the Zapruder films shows that the fatal third shot struck the President at a point which we can locate with reasonable accuracy on the ground. We can do this because we know the exact frame (no. 313) in the film at which the third shot hit the President and we know the location of the photographer. By lining up fixed objects in the movie frame where this shot occurs we feel that we have determined the approximate location of this shot. This can be verified by a photo of the same spot from the point where Zapruder was standing. We have the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally that the Governor was hit with the second bullet at a point which we probably cannot fix with precision. We feel we have established, however, with the help of medical testimony, that the shot which hit the Governor did not come after frame 240 on the Zapruder film. The governor feels that it came around 230, which is certainly consistent with our observations of the film and with the doctor's testimony. Since the President was shot at frame 313, this would leave a time of at least 4 seconds between the two shots, certainly ample for even an inexperienced marksman. Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally we had assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed behind the sign which occurs between frames 215-225. We have expert testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a minimum 2 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum of 40 frames between shots. It is apparent, therefore, that if Governor Connally was even as late as frame 240, the President would have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even earlier. 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. I had always assumed that our final report would be accompanied by a surveyor's diagram which would indicate the approximate location of the three shots. We certainly cannot prepare such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an occurrence which is physically possible. Our failure to do this will, in my opinion, place this Report in jeopardy since it is a certainty that others will examine the Zapruder films and raise the same questions which have been raised by our examination of the films. If we do not attempt to answer these observable facts, others may answer them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test our assumptions by the investigatory methods available to us. 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. It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the FBI and Secret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a staff project. The important thing is that the project be undertaken expeditiously.

I'm fairly sure it's just plain shorthand Alistair... and the corroboration is Michael being asked to ID the location Friday night... Mr. LIEBELER - Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to have been used to assassinate the President? Mr. PAINE - They asked me at first, the first night of the assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the cover of Life.

We know that the man in the shadows behind Lovelady in Altgens "may" be Shelley yet he is not longer over by the wall as Wesley claims. For Lovelady to be a few steps in front of Wesley and for him not to be in Altgens, then Welsey is stating that he is Prayerman... Even in Hughes with Lovelady a few steps in front of where PM would be seen, we ultimately get a photo fo Wesley and PM in the same frame, so PM could not have been Wesley, or Shelley, or Lovelady. While I am of the opinion that PM has a very good chance at being Oswald, usually we are treated to FBI back-peddling over things like this. The fact remains that not a soul even mistakenly mentions seeing Oswald, unless the questioning was done in such a way as to avoid that Q&A. "Did you see Oswald during the assassination?" was asked... With everyone watching JFK, of course no one sees Oswald during... yet there is also no instance of anyone mentioning Oswald on the steps - while in the same breath no one states they saw so-and-so as they came back into the TSBD... Mrs. Reid is our best example since she sees an Oswald look alike in a T-shirt Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether he had any shirt or jacket on over his T-shirt? Mrs. REID. He did not. He did not have any jacket on. Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there. Mr. BALL - You ate your lunch on the steps? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir. Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was. Mr. BALL - When you stood out on the front looking at the parade, where was Shelley standing and where was Lovelady standing with reference to you? Mr. FRAZIER - Well, see, I was standing, like I say, one step down from the top, and Mr. Shelley was standing, you know, back from the top step and over toward the side of the wall there. See, he was standing right over there, and then Billy was a couple of steps down from me over toward more the wall also. Mr. BALL - We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by. Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there? Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here. Mr. BALL - I see. Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me. Mr. BALL - Do you recognize this fellow? Mr. FRAZIER - That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady. Mr. BALL - Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago. Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

I have a question Bart.... From all the work done we continually see Lovelady in the middle of the stairs by the railing. Except in Hughes he appears to be standing just behind the blue shirted black man over in the corner... the angles are virtually identical. When does Lovelady make his way across, away from where he is in Hughes to get to where he is only a second or so later in Couch/Darnell? And would you say that PM is being these men at this time? Thanks DJ

IYHO, no doubt. Here's the "opinion" of his brother Mr. JENNER - I show you an exhibit, a series of exhibits, first Commission Exhibit No. 281 and Exhibit No. 282 being some spread pages of an issue of Life magazine of February 21, 1964. I direct your attention first to the lower lefthand spread at .the bottom of the page. Do you recognize the area shown there? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Do you see somebody in that picture that appears to be your brother? Mr. PIC - This one here with the arrow. Mr. JENNER - The one that has the printed arrow? Mr. PIC - That is correct, sir. Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother? Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir. Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say-- Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that. Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is. Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture. Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee. Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City? Mr. PIC - No, sir. Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald? Mr. PIC - No, sir. The image on the right is Oswald in Oct 6th grade. The boy at the zoo is taken 18 months later in Aug after his 7th grade in NYC. How does a 5'4" 115lb incoming 7th grader become a 4'10" 90lb kid 10 months later? Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't. Mr. JENNER - Neither one of them? Mr. PIC - No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never guess that that would be Lee, sir. Mr. JENNER - All right. Exhibit No. 288, there is ill the lower left-hand corner, there is a reproduction of a service card and a reproduction, also, of a photograph with the head of a man. Do you recognize that? Mr. PIC - That looks to me approximately how Lee Oswald looked when I seen him Thanksgiving 1962. Mr. JENNER - Directing your attention to Exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 289, do you recognize any of the servicemen shown in that picture as your brother Lee? Mr. PIC - No, sir; I do not recognize them. Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 290, the lower left-hand corner there is a photograph of a young lady and a young man. Do you recognize either of those persons? Mr. PIC - He appears to me as Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962 when I seen him.

The photos of the Marines in uniform are taken less than 6 months apart The attached shows Oswald in images taken 1 week apart as well as the large necked Lee and the scrawny Harvey 10 months apart.

What many seem to forget is we are not talking about a single image or a single item of evidence. In the work I did on Mexico City I start with the Summer of 1963. If Tommy can address the multiple instances of Ruby and Lee being together in Dallas at the same time Harvey and Family is in New Orleans... have at it. Additionally, when John Ely was tasked with compiling Oswald's bio, his primary source up to March 20, 1964 was LIFE magazine as he mentions in the memo to Leibeler followed by his note to Jenner after reviewing the info. The fact the DoD claims he never actually went to Taiwan, Ping Tung while not only his Marine history puts him there but his CO at the time Donovan put him there. This is also where a fellow marine was shot. Oswald also appears on the Unit Diary for Ping Tung Oct 6, 1958. On the evening of October 4th Harvey Oswald was assigned to guard duty at Ping Tung. About midnight, Lieutenant Charles R. Rhodes (Lake City, SC) heard four or five rifle shots coming from the direction of the position that Oswald was guarding. He drew his .45 automatic and ran toward the clump of trees to see what had happened. Lieutenant Rhodes found (Harvey) Oswald slumped against a tree, visibly shaking and crying while holding his M-1 rifle across his lap. Oswald told Rhodes that hesaw men in the woods, challenged them, and then started shooting. Rhodes put his arm around Oswald's shoulder and slowly walked him back to his tent. Rhodes remembered, "He (Oswald) kept saying he just couldn't bear being on guard duty." Rhodes reported the incident to his commanding officer and Oswald was allegedly sent to Japan for "medical treatment" two days later (Oct 6) by military plane. 51 On October 6, Harvey Oswald and Peter Cassisi are listed on Marine Corps Unit Diary #158-58 at Ping-Tung (North Taiwan). (H&L-John Armstrong)

Dear Tommy, Is it really that hard to spell my name correctly - it appears right there on the page... Regarding the two men in the image I posted... they are both referred to as Lee Harvey Oswald. Neither one is Robert Webster. Lee Oswald was discharged in March 1959 - Harvey in September. Santa Ana MCAB and El Toro MCAS are 2 different bases ... they are close to each other, but not that close. Can you somehow relate Robert Webster to the image I posted, the 2 bases in CA and Gorsky's statements?

The man Ruby killed was never in Mexico City Every item of "evidence" getting him there and back was fabricated for that singular purpose. Sylvia Odio and her sister could not have been more plain about who they saw - why else bury her story on 2 pages in the WCR with the final sentence being that it could not have been Oswald as he was en route to and/or in Mexico City. (p322 WCR http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0173b.htm ) btw - if you want to see the Two Oswalds... here you go. One man is 5'10" 165lbs while the other is 5'8" 135lbs. The shoulders give it away. DJ

As if this was some sort of ringing endorsement for truth and honesty.... Virtually every bit of deception that occurs in this case was at the hands of the FBI... Mr. Files lied as part of his profession. Day in and Day out... a xxxx. Between he and the FBI in this case, sadly, he is probably a more reliable source.

The surveyors were not off, the FBI, Shaneyfelt, changed the data. I suggest you start with the idea that the frames and the numbers were an FBI creation. 18.3fps another FBI creation. All measurements to the 6th floor window only... FBI So let's just say we have a film that seems to stop and start without the tell-tale signs at z133.. z133 then is the 1st frame of the motorcade, the first frame with JFK... 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. Mr. SPECTER. Starting with what frame number? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Starting with frame 171, going through frame 334. Mr. SPECTER. And why did you start with frame 171? Mr. SHANEYFELT. This is the frame that the slides start from. This was an arbitrary frame number that was decided on as being far enough back to include the area that we wanted to study By using averages the FBI was able to "smooth out" the movements (to match the smooth movement seen in the film) which the MATH shows goes from 2.24mph to 18mph. Let me be clear as well... the 48fps original was altered and re-shot on the Zapruder camera after removing an AVERAGE of 48/18.3 = 2.24 frames for every 3 original frames. What this suggests to me is z133 was z161 with frames between 132-160 removed changing the original z161 now z133... 162 x 3 = 486 = total # of frames. The film was broken into thirds... 1-161, 162 - 324, 325-486 with all the necessary info between 162-324... When we take the 10 frames from 171-334 (which moves things up Elm 10.2') we get 161-324... and the charade begins... by using averages the FBI was able to remove movement, time and distance from the Zfilm with very few saeeing how it was done... Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because we were able to determine the speed of the camera, and thereby accurately determine the length of time it takes for a specific number of frames to run through the camera at this 18.3 frames per second, and having located these frame positions in the street, we took the farthest distance point we had in the Zapruder film which was frame 161 through frame 313. This was found to run elapsed time from the film standpoint which runs at 18.3 frames a second, runs for a total of 8.3 seconds. Mr. SPECTER. Will you take the first point Mr. Dulles has referred to and mark it as point X. I think we already have some letter designations in the early part of the alphabet. Mr. McCLOY. Where is that point? What significance is that point? The first point? Mr. SPECTER. This frame 161. Mr. McCLOY. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. Is the first frame we have on the Zapruder film.

After having done quite a bit of work on WCD298 and the surveys/reenactments I come to discover that the shot Tom here talks about at 4+96 as the "real" headshot/final shot was created by the FBI/SS to account for 3 shots being fired... For most of us,we understand that more than 3 shots were fired and hit the occupants of the limo but the "story" would be 3 shots = 3 hits... FBI report WCD1 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10402#relPageId=8&tab=page "2 shots hit JFK, 1 shot hit JC" and since there was no place for shots too close together, and no place to fit in a shot at the top of Elm (which, imo was the reason for the 132/133 splice) so they created a shot further down Elm to account for 3 but then had surveyor WEST change that from 3 to 2 shots by dropping the 4+96 shot... So while I originally agreed with Tom about this shot, I've come to understand what the FBI was doing. So if anyone knows: When was the 1st CE884 with frames 168 and 171 to start, changed to the existing CE884 starting with 161-166 starting and covering the exact same distance as 168-171... The Evidence IS the Conspiracy - and it's not any more plain to see than in the evidence that supposedly represents the Zfilm...

The reenactment photo below isrepresenting POS A / CE886 which was nowhere near the path we see the cars when z133 pops up... and the rest of the cars turn onto Elm. Shaneyfelt says that STATION C is the spot where the limo "would" have turned.. CE886 is POS A which is described as the first place a shooter in the TSBD 6th floor window could see the mark on the back of the JFK "stand-in". (which btw was 10" too high. 10" in vertical height on Elm is equal to 15.25 feet horizontal. Except CE884 never made the adjustment for that 15 feet... Why do you suppose they would include the photo and statement about POS A and the line of sight from the "shooter" if the existing zfilm shows the cars lined up behind the limo at z133? Additionally, from z1-132 you will see the far left side motorcyclist disappear into the corner and emerge at the same spot as POS A. It takes him 80 frames to go from disappearing to reemerging... then it cuts to 133. So why include POS A? Because it appears very likely that the limo did indeed make the turn as I show down below and is the reason for the 132-133 splice, and why Zapruder claims he never did stop filming. Station C can work for both turns as long as the assumption isn't that they are in a straight line but 2 sides of a triangle. Mr. TRULY. That is right. And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn. Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb? Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left. If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here.

Robin, Take a look at the Muchmore video I posted. 5 cycles come around the Main/ Houston St. corner. The first set is 3, the second set is 2. What happens to 2 of the 5 from Houston onto Elm. I don't know. I know of no footage that shows it. When she says one kept going straight down Houston, how do we know she is talking about 1 of 3 in the front pack(seen on Z) and not 1 of 2 from the trailing pack? If we can't account for all 5 cycles on Houston, how can her description of this segment be considered true or false. We need more proof. This is all that I'm referring to. chris The Oliver video does not play any longer... yet the discussion of motorcycles got me wondering. the Lawrence Exhibits outline the motorcade. Testimony from Brewer, one of the 5 in front of the lead car and NOT part of the 3 motorcycles which followed the Advance Cars. He says he turned onto Houston and then Elm and down to the Advance Bikes leaving the three we see in McIntyre and in frame 20 of the Zfilm. Sadly I don't know exactly what Beverly said about the motorcycles yet that fact that 2 of the bikes jumped ahead to catch the Advance Cars and deal with Stemmons could confuse anyone. There is nothing from Freeman that I have found so far... not even an entry in the radio logs... Need to find out a bit more about Freeman... DJ Mr. BELIN. Let me try and get a sketch. Officer, I just stepped out of the room to come back in and bring a map of Dallas, which I believe is similar to Commission's Exhibit 371, which I am going to mark here Deposition Exhibit A, which we will call It E.D. Brewer deposition Exhibit A. I have it marked in red pencil here, and on this map of Dallas, on one side of it in one corner of it is a section called, Downtown Dallas, and this Is towards the top of the reverse side of the map. I am going to ask you to look at this map. You see the place here, it looks like Dealey Plaza, Main Street runs into that, which is Houston, then you turned north on Houston and Elm, and then you take Elm? Mr. BREWER. Left on Elm. Mr. BELIN. Left on Elm. You went under the railroad underpass there, which appears to be in green on the map, is that correct? Mr. BREWER. Yea, sir. Mr. BELIN. Then I am going to ask you to take a pencil or a ball point pen, and you might just follow the route that you took. Just mark it parallel to whatever street you took to where you ended up. Mr. BREWER. (Marks on map.) Down Elm under the railroad tracks to Stemmons, under Stemmons to the right, headed north parallel to Stemmons on that entranceway, under that T & p Railroad, and onto Stemmons Expressway, and Just north of the T & P Railroad. Mr. BELIN. Now is that where you stopped your motorcycle? Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir.

I'm kinda surprised - introducing a photo of Lee standing in the same position as the BYP composite of Harvey leads to an interesting observation, imo... The shadows fall in the same place at the same angle from the body for both images yet the nose shadow on Lee in the Philippines matches the body shadow while the nose shadow in the BYP does not... Furthermore, when you take the 133-C image of Oswald and put it back into the ghosted image found at DPD you get a sense of how rotated the images really are... How again did they know to put Det Brown into the 133-C position on Nov 29th when that image was unknown until 1977?

My bad Sandy... I must have you mixed up with someone else... Terribly sorry. As I look back over the thread, it was someone else I had in my mind... Again, sorry for the old and senile curmudgeon in me coming out... Let me address your comments as best I can although a careful reading of the thread with pencil and paper in hand is the best advice. Z161 Z166

{sigh} Mr. Larsen - I'm curious why you are in such a need to understand what this is about yet have argued against not only the content but the sheer process of posting the material in the first place? Please follow... Unlike you, we understand that what is now in 9 pieces in the Archives does not represent what happened in DP on 11/22 Also unlike you, we see the evidence offered to explain what transpired on Elm as a thinly veiled attempt to push a square peg into a round hole. No matter where you are in the world, Time X Speed = Distance, and therefore: Time / Distance = Speed, Time / Distance = Speed, & Distance / Speed = Time (basic algebra) This thread proves the FBI and SS used math to recreate the events in the form of evidence, then made sure the public did not see the film as a film for 13 years. This thread was also able to determine that certain unaltered frame sequences were shot at 48 frames per second or Slow Motion. In turn, to change 48fps to 18.3fps we need to remove almost 2/3rds of the frames. A full 2/3 and we'd have a 16fps final film. Using 168-171 changed to 161-166 we get an idea of what is happening. The film shows the limo moving at a constant rate of speed prior to the Stemmons sign. Except in the original survey, 168-171 covered 9/10ths of a foot for a limo speed of 2.24mph.. 171-185 comes to 17mph.. in less than a second the car accelerated from 2.2mph to 17mph? you see that on the Zfilm do you Sandy? Truly claims the limo almost hits the curb on Elm Mr. TRULY. That is right. And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn. Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb? Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left. If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here. So it was changed. and that turn is removed from the record. At 161 he would have been accelerating from that near stop, yet by 161 he would be traveling much faster that 2.24mph... Look at the difference between 161 and 166... that .9 feet covered in 5 frames was proven by Chris to equate to 5, 48fps frames in a row yet is claimed to be at 18.3 fps. Look how little the white line moves between 161 and 166. the line starts at the left edge of the wheel's hubcap and barely moves forward. Which is why the revised legend CE884 starts at 168-171 with the same exact location/station and covering the same distance as the original 161-166. If you cannot reconcile this first point, there is no use going on. Like all the other directly incriminating evidence, the film's authenticity cannot be established. There is good evidence which shows that the FBI had the film prior to Zapruder's negotiations with LIFE - IOW, Friday night. SS also had a copy in DC friday night... the film, in original form, would show more convincingly the shots coming from the front. As much of that evidence was removed as possible and photos instead of the film are used from there on out. JFK was killed as a result of a well planned execution plan with numerous shooters, and even more there to cover it up. That cover up continues today "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." William ColbyFrom: Barbara Honegger Date: Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:19 PM Subject: Re: Conference on THE WARREN REPORT AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION : FIVE DECADES OF SIGNIFICANT DISCLOSURES To: Greg Smith I told Mae about it when we worked together ... On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Greg Smith wrote: Thanks Barbara! That's priceless. The web attributes it to Mae B only, and therefore, it's discounted in chat and group conversations on social media. You might want to give it better street cred? Your call! On Sep 21, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Barbara Honegger wrote: > Seriously -- I personally was the Source > for that William Casey quote. He said it > at an early Feb. 1981 meeting in the > Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of > the White House which I attended, and > I immediately told my close friend and > political godmother Senior White House > Correspondent Sarah McClendon, who > then went public with it without naming > the source ... > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > > Love to, but can't break away. I'll definitely get the DVD for future very intense scrutiny! On that note, in the words of the infamous William J. Casey, "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

From Vincent Bugliosi's book: "William Suchur [sic], the owner of International Firearms Company of Montreal, informed the FBI on March 12, 1964, per a letter from J. Edgar Hoover to the Warren Commission of April 22, 1964, that “in the 1930’s Mussolini ordered all arms factories to manufacture the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, the same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one concern. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not” (CE 2562, 25 H 808). However, no other Mannlicher-Carcano with a serial number of C2766 has ever surfaced, although one with a serial number of 2766 without any prefix did. .... However, even if another Mannlicher-Carcano did surface with the same serial number as Oswald’s, C2766, it would be irrelevant since we know one with that serial number was sold and sent to Oswald, was found in the sniper’s nest*, and was proved to be the murder weapon." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 340 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" * Slight error on Bugliosi's part here. Vince, of course, knew full well that the rifle was not found "in the sniper's nest" itself. He obviously meant to say "on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building" instead of "in the sniper's nest". But it seems to me that a reasonable interpretation of what William Sucher told the FBI in March 1964 would be that only the four numerals that appear after the letter prefix in a serial number are repeated when stamping the serial numbers on Mannlicher-Carcano rifles. Hence, he said "some bear a letter prefix and some do not". Therefore, when the four digits in a given serial number are identical to the numbers stamped on a previously manufactured gun, a letter prefix is added to the number to set it apart from all other Carcano serial numbers. I certainly think that's one way to interpret Sucher's remarks at any rate. Although apparently Vince Bugliosi did not interpret Sucher's statement in such a manner. Otherwise, I think he would have mentioned such an interpretation in his book, which he did not do. RELATED FLASHBACK.... GIL JESUS SAID (ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2008): [Quoting from Commission Exhibit No. 2562, p.15:] "Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, THE SAME SERIAL NUMBER APPEARS ON WEAPONS MANUFACTURED BY MORE THAN ONE CONCERN. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not." .... Now, where did he say that no two weapons bore the same letter prefix? DAVID VON PEIN SAID (ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2008): Yes, you're correct here (in a way), Gil. I'll admit that. I.E., The above passage which you quoted from CE2562 can, indeed, be interpreted this way: The exact same 5-character serial number can appear on multiple Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles that were manufactured at different plants, which would include the same prefix letter as well as the same four numbers that follow the prefix letter. But I also think the above quote from CE2562 can be interpreted another way, which is probably the correct way of interpreting it, especially when factoring in these two things as a prerequisite: 1.) J. Edgar Hoover's comments to J. Lee Rankin on Page 1 of that 20-page document that makes up Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2562, wherein Hoover is telling Rankin about two specific rifles of interest to the Commission, rifles which bear similar serial numbers, but not serial numbers that are exactly the same, because one of them doesn't bear the "C" letter prefix. And: 2.) The fact that nobody, to date, has produced a single example of another Model #91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that bears the exact same 5-character serial number as the one that was shipped by Klein's to Hidell/Oswald in March 1963. And, as far as I am aware, nobody has ever come up with ANY two separate MC 91/38 rifles that bear the exact same 5-character serial number, regardless of whether the number is "C2766" or some other number. Given the above two facts, I believe that the above quote that you cited from CE2562 could reasonably be interpreted in the following manner: The exact same 4-digit serial NUMBER (i.e., the numerals 0 through 9) can appear on multiple Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles that were manufactured at different plants, but if the very same 4-digit number does appear on any two rifles, then one of these rifles will include a letter prefix in front of the 4-digit number, while the other rifle will not have this prefix. In my opinion, the above explanation is a reasonable one, given the comments by J. Edgar Hoover on Page #1 of CE2562. And it's also a very reasonable explanation when factoring in the following comments regarding this topic of serial numbers that were made by the FBI's Robert A. Frazier to the Warren Commission in 1964: MR. EISENBERG -- "Based on your experience with firearms, is the placement of a specific serial number on a weapon generally confined to one weapon of a given type?" MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is. Particularly--may I refer to foreign weapons particularly? The serial number consists of a series of numbers which normally will be repeated. However, a prefix is placed before the number, which actually must be part of the serial number, consisting of a letter." MR. EISENBERG -- "Have you been able to confirm that the serial number on this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?" MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is." Thanks for the shout out Jim H... and Jim D here is my reply to him... you too Michael.. thanks. Okay Dave - in your opinion then 2766 does not equal C2766 - and I agree with you. CE2562 is a letter to Rankin explaining the existence of a Rifle with "2766" on it - no "C"... so that order was tracked down and what do we find? No prefix on any of these rifles? I can understand some rifles don't have the prefix... but ALL of them Dave? . you suppose all these rifles without a prefix is possible given what we've seen of serial numbers on Carcanos? This is the Century Arms listing of rifles sold to Vermont in June 1962, which includes "2766" and is the only # with a notation on it. I guess it's possible - so all you need do is get the rifle - in a 5 foot carton - to the PO BOX (or at least a notice to pick up said package since the BOX was too small... (We have a copy of that notice for pick-up Dave?) So let me ask again... but first preface with an agreement.. The FBI was keeping tabs on Oswald... there are reports on his activities from March 1 1963 on thru until Nov - right? (just look at the WCD's) How come not a single word is mentioned about this Commie ordering a rifle in March and a Pistol in Jan from the very places the Congress is watching? https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/057/57690/images/img_57690_111_300.png is a FBI report from March 25, 1963 talking about his receiving THE WORKER... so someone at the USPS is keeping tabs on what Oswald is getting in the mail whether it be sinister or not - but we must agree they were watching and reporting How does the FBI miss Oswald - and all the paperwork related to it - ordering and being shipped a 5' rifle in a carton which requires special documentation and a physical interaction with the Dallas Post Office in order to retrieve, yet there is no evidence for this... One more request... PROVE the rifle was removed from Harborside's original inventory of 520 cartons of these "38 E" rifles... that you cannot shows your connecting the dots from Italy to TSBD is fraught with problems

Waldman7 is the Blank order form.... problem being Dave is the Secret Service and virtually everyone else but you understands what C20-T750 referred to: The model 1891 TROOP SPECIAL or TS for short. Thing is, the 91TS Kleins ordered has an ADJUSTABLE REAR SIGHT. And look! the ad running is for a 36" carbine with an ADJUSTABLE REAR SIGHT. In fact, this same ad runs until Feb '63: for $19.95 get a scoped 36" carbine with an adj rear sight A good number of businesses actually plan out their advertising so they are sure to have the item advertised in stock. For March, 1962 they were obviously ordering 91TS rifles to support an ad which would run a full year. Yet within a month of starting these ads Kleins cancels it 91TS order in favor of a rifle they did not advertise until April 1963, a full year later. Why would they do that Dave? They have an ad running for a year specific to this 91TS Adj rear sight rifle yet cancels it and waits almost a year on a model that costs more as well is bigger and heavier? So we agree that: a 36" adj rear sight 91TS model was advertised from March 62 thru Feb 63 as a C20-T750 Klein's ordered 400 91TS rifles in Jan 1962, 2 months before the ad begins running In April 1962 - with the same rifle ad as March for the 91TS - Klein's cancels this order in favor of another rifle which is not specifically named on the order. Any one of 3 different rifles fits the M91/38 designation. Without the FC, TS or Cav. after the numbers, a specific rifle cannot be determined Beretta and Terni are manufacturing plants, not rifle IDs Klein's continues to advertise the 91TS rifle in July yet the ad has changed slightly and only offers the scoped 36" carbine with Adj rear sight for $19.95Except there is no evidence offered that they had the 91TS in stock - if anything, the order for 400 of them suggests they are out or low in stock, if they ever offered that rifle before So Dave, as I've asked you before... what rifle was used to fill C20-T750 orders from Feb 62 thru Feb 63? How about it Dave? From the available info, the only M91/38 rifle sold by Kleins as a C20-T750 was Hidell's - which means M91/38 refers to FC rifles except "Beretta Terni 91/38EFF" gives no indication to Crescent, which rifle they wanted since the "Berreta & Terni" parts refer to 2 different manufacturers, not a model. EFF is also not a model and refers to EFFective date 4/13/62... yet Waldman didn't know that. You and the other WCR apologists claim the FC rifle was shipped instead. Fine. The evidence offered shows Rupp does not remove a rifle from Harborside (where C2766 supposed arrived in Oct 1960) until Aug 1962 and we both know the Aug 62 pull did not included the carton with C2766. So what did they ship for C20-T750 orders until February 1963 when they finally receive the FC rifles and where are the accumulated orders that would have pulled from that Feb shipment.? Please provide proof of answer - show us a single document from anyone anywhere that shows just one of those other 99 rifle on an invoice or being delivered or photographed due to it being the same as the rifle that killed JFK... The order form you hang your hat on has no authentication Davey. FBI SA Dolan both took and left the microfilm depending on the report. Did you know he claims they provided Waldman a copy of said microfilm 2 weeks later? Klein's would have had the copy for review at any time... where'd that go I wonder.... And here is my proof.... Dave still does not understand that some writing on a piece of paper is only the smallest part of authenticating the ownership and possession of an item. Things like getting the rifle to Kleins in the first place, order prep, inventory levels, payment processing, shipping, and finally retrieval of a 5 foot cardboard carton with a rifle. I wonder Dave... since the FBI and US Postal Inspectors and assorted informants were watching Oswald - would you please show us an FBI report prior to Nov 22 which states that informants at the USPS and REA tell us that Oswald has received - in addition to the magazines we've told you he receives - a rifle in a 5' carton from his PO Box and a pistol from REA from which there is no evidence and brings them home to Neely in Dallas, moves it from Neely to his aunt's house on French in New Orleans, then to Magazine also in New Orleans. From Magazine Marina and baby go with Ruth on Sept 23, Ozzie and 2 small suitcases are seen leaving Magazine - these were described as small, 18" suitcases which are supposed to fit a 32" piece of a rifle? Ruth and Micheal testify to NEVER SEEING A RIFLE in their home, in fact never seeing a rifle until Nov 22. Ozzie calls from Dallas on the 4th of October asking that Marina ask Ruth to come get him... Marina basically hangs up o him and he supposedly hitchhikes to Irving. Does he have the rifle with him now Dave? If so, where is it? He hitchhikes to the Paine's (according to the story) and there is no mention of a rifle or pistol from then on until Nov 22 and the ridiculous garage story Ruth concocts. Sorry Dave... there is simply no ground for you to stand on here. There is no proof C2766 ever left Harborside on route to Kleins to Hidell and TSBD. The fact is was there at the TSBD does not equate to the journey you are claiming it took. Try and prove the journey the rifle took with evidence of the journey, not the assumption that if it was there the journey MUST have happened the way we were told by the FBI, Harry Holmes, the Secret Service and the DPD - all of whom tell a different story...

Yes. It's their more detailed recap of the Aug arrest. Commission Document 75 - FBI DeBrueys Report of 02 Dec 1963 re: Oswald/Russia https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477&search=cruz#relPageId=388&tab=page (Note: Go to MFF and Search for MIGUEL MARIANO CRUZ... only a handful of reports copied and placed in numerous locations)