David Josephs

David - if there was solid evidence you'd point to it or post it. You telling us to TRUST YOU since you know the evidence is there is pretty lame. Especially since the evidence you call up can all be shown for the crap it is... 1) For that money order to be purchased by Oswald he needed to have left work at some point during that day - assumedly prior to the 10:30AM stamp on the envelope - walk from JCS at 544 Browder to 400 N Ervay, the USGPO with the FBI field office just next door - purchase the PMO and then get to Zone 12 in time for them to pick the letter up, process it and get it into the Air Mail. Why again doesn't Ossie just mail it from the GPO he is standing in when purchased? 2) Handwriting determinations are done using ORIGINAL MATERIALS. Where did you get this info Dave? Could it have been from Holmes' recap of the morning? I wonder when, in the 1 hour it takes before he calls back - I wonder when the SS & FBI had an opportunity to make that comparison with the original PMO? It wasn’t ten minutes that they hollered, “Eureka!” They had the stub! I called it in immediately to the chief on the open line to Washington and said, “I’ve got the money order number that Oswald used to buy this gun, and according to the records up there, they had shipped it to this box that he had rented at the main office in Dallas at that time, which he later closed and opened another at the Terminal Annex because it was closer to the School Book Depository.” So he said, “Well, we’ll run that right through the correlators or whatever they do up there.” In about an hour, he called back and said, “We’ve got it! Both the FBI and the Secret Service labs have positively identified the handwriting as being that of Oswald.” Any ideas? Any documentation on this hasty comparison or are you simply taking Holmes at his word? 3) Well that's one. The stamp on the back does appear similar to the Kleins stamp... but not identical. 4) An unsigned summary report is not the same as a signed affidavit Dave... The FBI can and did write whatever suited them in these "Summary" reports. But let's look at what Wilmouth said and what the record shows. He claims there were two items for $21.45 that day in the deposit from Kleins and that the first was an AMEX MO which he identifies by the preceeding and following amounts. The other $21.45 is claimed to be a PMO which his bank would have forwarded to FRB of Chicago. Yet I see what may be SEVEN instances of $21.45 on that deposit which is dated one thing while the dlip is dated another. In any case... Green arrows point to items which appear the same as the first $21.45. Where do you see a group total of $6,178 in this deposit Dave? The subtotal on the evidence says something else entirely... ??? Also - with a total of $13,827.98 we'd see yet another running total for $7,649.98. Where's that Dave? Until you authenticate this deposit as being on the day in question - it's just some piece of paper. Your faith in it is heartwarming yet sadly not proof of anything but your beliefs. 5) It does not appear that the PMO in Evidence even has a new 9-digit ABA routing # or the older ####-#### 8-digit format. What's the ABA for this PMO Dave? Section 7070 - Processing Old Style Money Orders"Punch card" money orders that have the ABA routing number 0000-0119 will be handled as mutilated items. They should be identified as old style "punch card" money orders on the PS Form 1901 for code 004. 7050 -Processing Mutilated Money OrdersThis section relates to the handling of mutilated paper money orders with ABA routing numbers 0000-0020 or 000000204. 7050.10 -Mutilated paper money orders must be grouped in batches not to exceed 200 documents in a batch. If the total number of mutilated items does not exceed 200, they may be handled as one batch. For larger quantities, make as many batches as necessary, not exceeding 200 in any one batch. 7050.20 -Insert a USPS Batch Locator Control Document at the beginning of each batch of mutilated money orders. 7050.30 -Prepare an adding machine listing of each batch showing the following information: FRB name or code at the top. The amount of each item. The total amount of the batch. FRB clearance date. Batch number. 7050.40 -Batches of the paper money orders that cannot be machine processed without first being MICR amount encoded may be delivered to the USPS representative without processing, provided the above requirements are essentially met. 7050.50 - The total amount of mutilated items should be entered on the PS Form 1901, code 110. So Dave - which marks can you point to - are made by the FRB processing this PMO so the Postmaster could trace it back incase there's a problem? The PS Form 1901 the USPS would have kept... no can find? The tapes related to this process? ANYTHING which can be pointed to on that PMO which shows it was processed by the US banking system or the USPS? 6) As for the PMO being found at 9:30 in Alexandria. and handed to SS SA PARKER at 10:10pm at Harold Marks Home. - You are then admiting that HOLMES' story is a complete lie and that the PMO could not have been found based on the story he tells. - WCD87 p89 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=89&tab=page tells us via the SS that the PMO was recovered in Kansas City - WCD87 p94 only a few pages later, we learn that at 7:55pm in KC the SS SAIC learns that the PMO was found and conveys this info to KROZ. At no point in this document does it claim the PMO was found 35 minutes later in VA. According to the Chicago SS office, the PMO was found in Kansas City as expected and as was looked for most the day. At the top of this same page KROZ is told to keep looking in KC If Harry Holmes was aware of the knowledge that PMO were sent to VA and was working with the SS... why do the SS SA's in KC along with the USPS employees continue looking in a place the USPS and/or Archive employees would know that PMOs were no longer sent there? As usual David - you present conclusions as if they've been authenticated and corroborated when they are only accurate in your mind and to your belief system. You need to PROVE the EVIDENCE YOU USE IS AUTHENTIC - otherwise it's just rhetoric. PROVE something Dave... anyone can vomit up unsubstantiated info. Turn your vomit into something of value and authenticate the evidence Dave... just as you would expect anyone offering it to prove someone's guilt would demand... thanks

Perfectly put Clive. Tommy and by default Albert remain in the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality. Do either profess a knowledge of imagery, analog v digital, or any of the other nuances required to understand that while Duncan can claim to see whatever he like - as so many before him - the images are there for all to see. If you want to see a woman in a hat and glasses with a purse taking a photo - more power to you. To claim to ID gender and see details in this fuzz is laughable despite the seriousness with which Duncan appeared to have offered it. We are also to remember what Duncan replied to me when I asked him directly about it - seems his answer and Clive's theory might have some relationship. 12 December 2015 - 12:52 AM It serves a purpose http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22524&page=1entry320025 Duncan has provided amazingly good work over the years - my only guess here is that he is enjoying the result of pushing this boulder down the mountain and does not for a second think he can PROVE anything - He does soom to be saying "Anyone but Oswald" in this analysis as if it was important somehow to maintain the charade. Again - can anyone address why they think Shelley tells us Lloyd Viles is up there with him during the motorcade - when he obviously was not. Why hide his true location unless he was covering for who was actually there? When we asnwer that question - and remember the image of Shelley at the ITM in NOLA with Oswald and the Cubans - the Manager of the Misc department is obviously hiding alot.

Not "Copy B" Kathy. Most citizens will happily show their Copy C of their W-2 - the one you keep while Copy B - goes to the IRS. If there are other forms for those years then by all means - produce them. Yet between there not being a matching form in any year and her having the wrong copy of the W-2 and finally.. where is the Reilly Coffee copy? The other thing that always intrigued me was the bus ride they shared daily for months - guess they were cautious just not overly - no one on the bus or the driver would recognize the same two getting on blocks apart and sitting together and getting off together... every day? If any of the physical evidence supported her story she would offer it, instead we get this W-2 and Anna Lewis as her bona fides. What other do with that is up to them - I find it terribly assumptive to think we'd all just nod our heads and be amazed. But then that's why there are sheep, wolves and the dogs who protect the sheep. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. None of that is produced in this instance.

That's really too bad Greg. Here, outside the confines of your Forum where more eyes and minds can add to the discussion, your presentation of Prouty's POV related to Sponsors can be held up to real scrutiny by those with many more years thinking more deeply about this than I. Those who feel discussions degrade into something unintended tend to feel even more strongly when their POV or conclusions are called into question with solid evidence and argument. Yes, we disagree with you and the post at the top of this thread lays out the reasons why in a straight forward and amicable manner. Evica names Sponsors. Prouty, and by proxy - you feel that once named they are and always have been False. That Real Sponsors are impossible to know. I'm sorry you're not going forward with a presentation of the impossible to know Sponsor and Why that is so... I'm sure many here would benefit from the different interpretation of what was inteded by the creator of the model. What part of this leads you to believe that the names mentioned here are all False Sponsors. Are we to understand that Prouty believed there were those who superceded these three families and their global alliances and remain so thoroughly veiled by their position that no one is aware of who they are? Surely the R-M-M alliances which stem from and operate thru the Rothschild empire were not beholden to yet an even higher level of elite cabal member? Who gave the orders which David Rockefeller was required to follow - you know, just to put things into perspective. As you may know or not, I've made this subject and the identification of the Bankers, Lawyers and others who make up the Sponsor level a pet project of mine. In my writing of this history of Spying in the US we find that only the most wealthy families were able to offer up resources for the craft. US spies were international yet had to pay their own ways since until the FBI's SIS there was no unified spying effort from the US. These elite families bred the original spies who in turn amassed proprietaryknowledge. The sharing of such knowledge with the governments (or not) which employed them makes for a very interesting situation of who knew what, when. And what was this info able to allow these richest of worldwide families to accomplish? "Knowledge is power" cannot be illustrated any better. Below is a list of the world's wealthiest and most influence familes past and present - all False Sponsors of the trials and tribulations of the common man? Not one guilty Real Sponsor in the batch? I respectfully beg to differ with that conclusion and feel that McGeorge Bundy was Sponsor class level while performing as a lead Facilitator. Same goes for 5 of the 6 Wise Men which includes Harriman and McCloy (also a Cravath, Saine and Moore partner btw). George Kennan was not at all involved at that level yet remains one of the few who pegged the Soviets for what they are and was listened to by this elite level - FDR especially (whose family and connections are on par with the R-M-M trifecta Evica mentions). It's all good Greg... I'm sure we can get along with differing points of view here. I hope there comes a time when you feel it worthwhile to engage in this discussion. Until then books like None Dare Call It Conspiracy illustrate the workings of the Sponsor class and partly how they came to control this country. You're right, no one knows who Colonel House was. Doesn't mean he was invisible or unknowable...or was not a Direct Facilitator for the Real Sponsors of the world at that time. DJ

No worries Greg.. always a pleasure. The desire here is to have you weigh in on the matter with input from a larger audience; since you are such a learned student of the Prouty POV. Are you willing to take a few minutes to explain why the Prouty POV of invisible-unknowable Sponsor differs so greatly from what Mr. Evica writes and from the observations of so many of us when we focus on these entities? Roswell Gilpatrick was Asst Sec of Defense under McNamara as well as a partner in the law firm Cravath, Swaine and Moore who represented TEXTRON and Royal Little among many. Thru the CIA, TEXTRON was given the go ahead to buy a company $100M in the red with a realistic expectation to return a 25% profit immediately. After the purchase and the CIA's movement of helicopters to Laos, BELL was tapped to manufacture reaplcements as well as the tons of supporting parts to keep these terrible birds in the air. Prouty writes how terrible an idea it was to use helicopters in this fight. Sun Life of Montreal (now where have we seen Montreal connected to all of this - Permendex maybe?) backed by Sun Life of London along with a few other Insurance companies enable TEXTRON to buy BELL with a 7 year repayment grace period. Good to have friends at Hancock or Prudential as well as the First Bank of Boston. This is the essence of the Military Industrial Complex and the revolving door of Congress-Military-Industry(Banking). Are you ready to say that the controlling interests in this purchase and the growth of Textron into US defense in the years prior and after are NOT the working of a Sponsor level in a position to influence decisions as large as what the DoD spends its money on while owning the asets on both sides of the coin? SPONSORS -- Those with the authority and motive to sanction the assassination and the connections to engage facilitating agents and systems. I think we agree that Dulles was not the controlling force behind this but a high level facilitator.... Who, if not this named group with named ownership, was in a position to engage him and his agents and his systems? Who had the most to gain by JFK's death ? and then we need to ask ourselves who indeed gained the most. DJ

The nameless, faceless, and stateless Sponsors. Stateless, yes. Nameless and faceless? Never marry a Pet Theory...Who were the most powerful stateless entities in 1963? Couldn't agree more Cliff.... This assumption that a Sponsor need be unknown and invisible is the offspring of Prouty's thinking as forwarded by Mr. Burnham, and obviously not by the creator of the Model quoted below. Those representing the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic Evica/Drago model of the assassination heirarchy claiming the Sponsor is by definition unknowable are adding a roadblock to understanding these levels and those who represent them. In classic misdirection - these supporters will claim that any Sponsor identified is automatically a False Sponsor and I could not disagree more. 158 out of 120,000,000 familes are responsible for the overwhelming lion share of the campaign contributions. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?_r=0 "Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found". The names in this list are not familiar at all - yet they are not invisibile. The Kock's support of Scott Walker and his anti-union / anti-collective bargaining stance has spread to these other wealthy families... and we are supposed to accept they are not the Sponsors of the world simply because they are visible? I sure would like to hear a defense of that conclusion. While I appreciate the point of view it seems to me to work directly into the hands of the same Sponsors we are supposedly chasing. In essence, "if we illuminate the background, name or affiliations of said Sponsor - they are automatically no longer a Real Sponsor but automatically a False one leading us into more quicksand" - which again I feel is terrible destructivbe to our efforts. LBJ used this technique in college with his secret club. If anyone was to ask if a member was a member, the question itself automatically dismissed the member from the club so they could answer truthfully - No. the member would then be reinstated at the next meeting. Mr. E went out on a limb and identified the Sponsor level and a few members as example with David Rock at the top of the list. If we'd like to discuss the possibility that David Rock and friends were or were not a realistic option as the prime movers within this Sponsor level - great. I'm pretty sure we can make a strong case for Bundy as Sponsor-Rep moving in both the Sponsor and Facilitator realms. And I doubt anyone can convincingly argue that Harriman was not also a huge mover within the Sponsor level. The Rock-Morgan-Mellon alliance is a direct decendent of the Rothschild dynasty and accounts for the ownership and control of virtually every country's national banking system on the planet. Add to this the Insurance and manufacturing strengths and we are led directly to the heart of the TEXTRON BUYS BELL HELICOPTER deal - which Prouty touches on very briedly in his JFK/Vietnam book. Sadly he does not pursue this lead as I did to find the names within the JFK Cabinet and advisors are directly tied to not only Textron but the banks and legal firms supporting and defending them. The BELL story is really quite amazing and revealing and anyone who wishes to see and understand the Sponsor level at work ought to read up on the subject. To claim the Sponsors are invisible is to play into their hands and make the search hopeless. The Koch brothers are Sponsors of actions which shape and change our world every day - just ask the people of Minnesota. If we are not willing to make these statements and believe we can not only find the Sponsor but hold them accountable - what's the point? I am by no means a scholar of Evica's work so I'd like to confine this discussion to what Mr. E wrote regarding the "Sponsor" or "initiator" level. I have found nothing to suggest that Mr. Evica felt the Sponsor was some unknowable entity. In fact the few sentences he writes about False Sponsors does not make that connection at all. In reading this great work - Perfect Cover by Michael Evica, we do get a list of Sponsor-level entities and the people behind them. That Albert Jenner is directly involved with the Sponsor level entities and is instrumental in crafting the WCR story speaks volumes to those trying to understand how the Sponsor runs the world. http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Evica/Perfect_cover.html The initiating order was the U.S. Establishment, the Ruling Class, the Power Elite, the National Security State: the anti-JFK personae in Big Oil, banking, defense and their Intelligence and Military assets. Driven by both real and opportunistic anti-Communism, the Establishment aimed at reducing union strength, reducing production costs, and increasing the power of its “military-industrial complex” with its outposts in Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Western Europe. Specifically, the initiating order was inside the complex of corporate and financial institutions of the Rockefeller-Morgan-Mellon alliance: the advisors, associates, and partners of David Rockefeller. What the Rockefeller-Mellon-Morgan power elite perceived in JFK’s administration was a managed economy with wealth distribution driven by a strong president. The initiators, having decided that JFK had to be eliminated, sent their contract through D.C. power brokers (for example, Irving Davidson and Robert Maheu) to the facilitating order. The facilitating order was made up of compromised U.S. intelligence figures, chiefly elements of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, compromised by coups, assassinations, and complicity in the international trade in drugs and guns. The compromised intelligence persons were assisted by their Cosa Nostra partners. The facilitating order organized the failure of the anti-Castro plots and kept its machinery in position, set up the False Sponsors through intelligence assets acting as conduits, and passed the murder contract through Organized Crime mediators to Texas and Dallas personae. The initiating order had a network of financial ties to the Southwest and specifically to Texas, and so the facilitating order included crucial elements of the so-called “Southern Rim.” The “shooters”? The executing order at Dealey Plaza was made up of Dallas police, Dallas plainclothes officers, and Dallas area Treasury agents (Secret Service and ATF)—or hired Southwest assassins with local and federal law enforcement credentials impersonating those law persons—or both. The intelligence facilitating mediators were in close contact with the Dealey Plaza assassins. False Sponsorship: The False Sponsors of the assassination constitute a checklist of the usual suspects in the JFK assassination, either alone or in various combinations. What has frustrated productive analysis of these suspects and blocked the discovery of the framing of the False Sponsors has been the collapsing of the three orders of assassination: originating, energizing, and executing, first deliberately by the assassination planners; and second, inadvertently, by JFK researchers and writers. The primary initiators were not the primary facilitators, and the primary facilitators were not the primary operators. Researchers who have uncritically accepted False Sponsorship disinformation or who have developed their own theory of the assassination similar to the False Sponsorship fiction have sometimes extended their choice of sponsor to control of the post-assassination autopsy, or the subsequent (and on-going) cover-up, or both: see, for example, John Davis’ Organized Crime/Carlos Marcello hypothesis (with Marcello neutralizing J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI). The autopsy cover-up and the post-autopsy cover-up, however, were engineered by the U.S. military and the Federal government respectively. The False Sponsor program implicated a series of anti-JFK groups and organizations as the planners, organizers, and executors of the murder of JFK. Since each False Sponsor was already equipped with admitted anti-Kennedy political motives, what was developed further was the False Sponsor’s means or opportunity or both to murder JFK. He then goes on to name 15 FALSE SPONSOR Entities. Not one touches upon this ultra elite 1% of the 1% but only suggests them via the Facilitator level - where most researchers incorrectly place the Sponsorship of this crime From some other research I came across: Bell Helicopter was a member of the Aircraft Manufacturers Association, like Lockheed, Martin-Marietta and the General Dynamics Corporation. This Association was represented by Albert Jenner when it was a defendant in a Federal antitrust lawsuit. Albert Jenner went over Ruth Paine's account of OSWALD with her on the morning that she testified. [WC Paine Testimony p455] http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21719&page=15#entry300186 expands on the Textron/Bell purchase and the rest of this thread's topics It seems to me then. that the "initiators" as Mr. E calls them - the Sponsors - are just as knowable and identifiable as the other members of the heirarchy. Will there be Invisible Sponsors that we simply can never know due to how they insulate themselves? Of course. Yet to state that a Sponsor cannot be known and all those who are named are by definition False, does a terrible disservice to those unraveling this mess document by document, involved entity by entity. I've had this discussion elsewhere on the internet and was summarily shut down for going against the grain and trying to forward what Michael Evica wrote. Did Mr. E change his mind about these declarations? As I have not read all his work I could not tell you... maybe those who have and are intimate with the writings and POV can step up and let us know if this 1995 conclusion ever changed. There are a great number of wonderful minds here - Does the community truly feel that a visible, name Sponsor is by definition False? and that we can never know who the Sponsors are... I for one think Mr. E was dead on with this work which opens the door to understanding the Textron/Bell business and the entities swirling around that transaction. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11439 - thread on "A Certain Arrogance" which also delves deep into the who's who of the assassination.

"When Kennedy became president in 1961 he appointed Rostow as deputy to his national security assistant, McGeorge Bundy. Later that year he became chairman of the state department's policy planning council." Bundy reorganized his role from adviser to policy creator while streamlining the process and bypassing oversight. That Rostow was at the center of Bundy's plans which was heavily hawkish on Vietnam and in turn on anything affecting the dominoes falling toward USSR is a big part of your answer. What Jim and others help us remember is there was a big world out there... Vietnam was only a small part of Kennedy's foreign policy over which so many were concerned. And of course it leads back to the Wise Men and in turn the shadows of the sponsors... Alsop's list is both sponsor and false-sponsor filled... Bundy, to me, is the key to seeing how the MIC got their agenda forwarded and how the presidency was put directly under the Nat'l Security Apparatus' thumb in the guise of more poser to the executive branch. - yet none of those in this chain of command are elected - they all "advise". Thanks all, great thread... I had not given the Rostow's enough attention...

Yours is a very good question, Lance. I'd also like to see that answered. And I'd also like to see John Armstrong post his new information. I just kinda gave up on both. Hopefully Armstrong is just needing more time to finish his work. But I know how things go. There are some loose ends I've wanted to wrap up on some prior topics myself, but just can't seem to find the time. Life goes on. http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf I think you meant this doc. and the link to the report Chicago FRB employee LESTER GOHR's FBI report https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=200&tab=page There does not appear to be any follow-up with the FRB of Chicago or the USPS.

The Autopsy we are finally given states: Skeletal System Aside from the above described skull wounds there are no significant gross skeletal abnormalities. Were they looking at the same man as in this xray?

Simply amazing once again. There were many more at Youth House who saw and wrote about Ozzie than Hartogs. the description in that book is not the same as his own reports on the boy. Regardless of these reports, there are some basic reailities which are avoided by concentrating on a descrption rather than one's own eyes. The boy in the photo is from Aug 1953. The boy entering 8th grade in Sept 53 is 5'4" 115lbs - regardless of how hard and poorly GP tried to change the data to 54" or 4'6". It is obvious that a school administrator would never write that attendance on a record since it's simply not possible. (all the grade cards and other NYC school evidence which would be used to create the perm record below are gone. There is no way to corroborate the Perm record the FBI offers - no matter how incorrect it is. The NYC records for the Spring semester - which includes the 17 day stay at Youth House from April 15 thru May 7. The records claim that Oswald started at PS44 on March 23, 1953 and attended 109 3/2 days while missing 15 3/2 for a total of 127 total days of school between March 23 and June 26, 1953. He did not attend PS44 between 1/16 and 3/22 yet starts on 3/23. There are 70 total school days between 3/23 and 6/26. When Greg can explain how 127 fits into 70 better than how the FBI explains Oswald attending or missing a total of 200 days of school between 3/23 and January 1954 we may actually get somewhere. As long as he denies these records being altered he continues to avoid the main issues of the topic. The records are easily proven to be fabricated. When we look at that entire time period between March 23 1953 and Jan 8 1954 we find 210 total days removing Sat/Sun. Except there is a summer break in there the FBI evidently did not consider when they reworked this evidence. (there are three different version of the same "Perm School Record" for NYC) but no worries, nothing wrong here, just move along.... So while GP would like to discuss the BS offered by Dr. H as some kind of proof of something vital, we have the problem that the same NYC shools which put him into Youth House does not show enough absences to even cover THAT stay, let alone the regular absences and for some reason the FBI and school records which support them tries to cram 127 days of school into 70. Once again the closed-loop corroboration of one document which agrees with the FBI's incorrect analysis of his attendance is par for the course. What GP does not want to say is that the way the record reads, LEE continued to attend one of the 3 PS44's in NYC while Harvey was at Youth House....

The Secret Service did Jon. The same Secret Service which had a copy of the Zfilm before sunrise Sat morning. The same Secret Service which generated CE399. The same Secret Service who on Dec 5th knew of shots fired further down Elm. The SS is at the center of this thing... WHEN the xrays were taken is as important as what they show. Finck tells us that xrays had been taken by the time he arrived. These are the post skull destruction images and xrays and had still not yet been "fixed" to move the opening in his head from the front to the back. The number of xrays and photos was changed repeatedly. From the ARRB - MD12 is a complete list of xrays and photos. MD190 is a note signed by Ebersole turning 14 xrays over to Kellerman. The corrected (6) 10x12" xrays turn into (6) 8x10" xrays Ebersole's HSCA depo doesn't compare real well with Sibert/O'Neal, does it? Or the total number of xrays, or what Finck remembers. The real question remains... who secures the morgue so that Humes or ?? can change the wounds? Ebersole I believe was not in the morgue until after the 8pm casket opening. the prime suspects remain Galloway, Kenney & Burkley claiming that the Kennedy's did not want a complete autopsy. At the end of the day though, the FBI had investigative control and produced the authoritative report which Johnson tells Russell - "And then Russell tells him, 'I just don't have time. I'm too busy. I'm too busy.' LBJ, 'Well, just make the time. That's not going to be anytime anyway to begin with. All your going to do is evaluate the Hoover report he's already made. Ebersole: Upon removing the body from the coffin, the anterior aspect, the only things noticeable were a small irregular ecumonic area above the super ecolobular ridge and a neatly sutured transverse surgical wound across the low neck. As we turned the body on the autopsy table there was a textbook classical wound of entrance upper right back to the right of the midline three or four centimeters to the right of the midline just perhaps inside the medial board to the upper scapula. Again I would like to emphasize this was a textbook wound -- round, smooth, pure pellish, no raised margins. The back of the head was missing and the regular messy wound. At that point we had a wound of entrance, i.e., the back wound, and no known wound of exit. The initial films showed the usual metallic fragments in the skull but no evidence of a slug, a bullet. This was a little bit disconcerting. We were asked by the Secret Service agents present to repeat the films and did so Once again there was no evidence of a bullet. I assume you are familiar with portable X ray It is not the kind that gives a fine diagnostic but it is helpful in picking up metallic fragments. It would stand out like a sore thumb either intact or shattered. The autopsy proceeded and at this point I am simply an observer. Dr. Humes in probing the wound of entrance found it to extend perhaps over the apex of the right lung bruising the pleura and appeared to go toward or near the midline of the lower neck. Sibert/O'Neal: During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger

Thanks Dawn... Has she ever been able to explain having the wrong copy (B copy) of a W-2 from 1963 which never existed as a form... For those who have not seen the comparison.... The 1963 W-2 reflects the reordered tax & wage boxes from 1962. And all three have the amount earned above the person's name. this is what this form looked like all thru the 50's and 60's. The other thing to notice is how only parts of the bleed-thru match exactly while others do not. The entire page was shifted up and over as can be seen by the bleed... yet from the following we can see many conflicts between the top copy and what lay beneath. The top page is moved over to the left and slightly down. I created an overlay layer showing what we should see on that layer underneath based on the movement of the top and the matching writing/amounts. Something very wrong with that image and that W-2.

So much for the scientific method of analysis. If he can't even correctly line up the model - how accurate can the results be? and he claims to have use this image as the basis for the model? We don't need to question results until the experiment can be shown to have been set up correctly in the first place. It obviously hasn't.

Yes... Delgado's testimony should be carefully reviewed... Why does the FBI and Hoover try to show Delgado was full of it? And you of course used these 4 reports in addition to his testimony... right? Like this one: I seem to remember you LOVE FBI reports as sources for your conclusions.... How does this testimony work in with that report? Mr. LIEBELER - You mentioned that your MOS, I believe it is called, your military occupation specialty, has an indication that you are qualified to speak Spanish or another language; is that correct? Mr. DELGADO - Right. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you take tests while you were in the Army to establish your proficiency in the Spanish language? Mr. DELGADO - Yes, I took the language proficiency test, and also the OCS test, the regular test they give you when you first go into the service, and I passed them all. It's in my 201 files, my military records. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you pass the Spanish proficiency test? Mr. DELGADO - Yes. In fact I was offered to be sent to Monterey language school. Mr. LIEBELER - To continue your studies in connection with the Spanish language? Mr. DELGADO - Yes. Mr. LIEBELER - You took the Spanish proficiency test when you came into the Army at Fort Ord; is that correct? Mr. DELGADO - Yes.

Here you go Greg, with the same level of understanding you have from your study of Harvey and Lee... you get your review. I'm sure, like your attacks on John and his book, it will fall on deaf ears and be of no consequence to anyone... at least now we can play on the same, level field. -------------- Nothing written in this volume is based in fact.... the author guesses, alters evidence, speculates and then writes whatever his faith-based opinions conclude. When we look at a source, if one is ever offered, it says the exact opposite of what the author tells us it said... every time. Then the author wants us to believe that the entire book is not devoted to disproving the H&L theory at every opportunity... The book is a complete waste of time and fails to prove a single thing it attempts... It remains one mans attack on the sensibilities of any intelligent person choosing to pick it up at all as well as a one man crusade against the published work of his betters. Why would anyone waste their time? --------------- I see what you mean Greg... not reading the work or learning a thing about what it says makes condemning it so much easier... I bet you'd think someone who wants to discuss a topic you wrote about would read the work first? But you;ve shown me a better way.. Thanks. I will go see what you think the big deals about Delgado and Donovan are as they are two of the key sources of evidence for... wait for it.... Harvey and Lee being two people... but the book is not about disproving that...

bump bump bump sell sell sell faith beliefs opinions speculation.... the best fiction book on the assassination since Stephen King's...

Implore? All I said is you'd next be whining to the moderators - lo and behold, like clockwork. That you cannot tell the difference between an original and altered image when it's that obvious speaks volumes of your abilities to do any critical thinking. What again are you doing here?

This is Ozzie copied and placed by Ferrie and Ferrie copied and placed by Oswald... You want to believe this is how big the boy was... no surprise given all you do is faith-based belief.... You want to prove something, prove it... ask one of your minions to work out the calcs - even they are going to ask you about perspective focal distance, lens size and depth of field. Throwing out excuse after excuse for why it appears that way rather than understanding the Occum's razor answer only continues to make you look foolish on top of deceiptful... thanks tommy... nose brown enough for you yet or do you need a few more hours up there?

Bernie, go home. With each post you show how unprepared and foolish you are. You've gotten to be such a sad little thing when once you actually had your own voice. When your leader finally stops posting faith-based opinions and finds a fact or two - snowballs will fly in a very hot place.... How is it that you still refuse to look up how perspective works in photography? Ignorance must be bliss - right little man? One more example to illustrate PERSPECTIVE and DEPTH OF FIELD... with a higher mm lens the distances between front and back are highly skewed... you cannot use objects within the photo to judge distance since the size of objects is completely relative to its position in the image. Obviously, the baby's head is not larger than Lovelady's. In the original image it APPEARS that they are much closer to each other than they really are and with this copy-paste of the baby's head next to Lovelady's you hopefully understand a bit about how photography works. Every time with you Bernie... you keep coming to this knife fight with rubber bands and chewing gum... and expect to be taken seriously.

tommy - deception is still deception. I don't need to muck up the image to prove why distance changes the size relation of things in a photo... This is yet another failed attempt at refuting evidence with which you never aquainted yourselves to start.... And the arrogance involved in not even wanting to Google the terms "perspective" and "depth of field" to learn how wrong it was is even more of an example of the hubris this little group exhibits. You little boys want to be right SOOOOO badly you'd resort to just about anything including deceiving the members here... and then patting each other n the backs for doing so Well done! edit: you say something parker?

I'm not claiming anything. I am informing you that the image in which you claim Oswald is but some tiny little guy is due to perspective and focal distances. That when you copy from one part of the image and move to another - either closer to the camera or farther away - the size comparison becomes even more obvious. Since I am not a photogrammetry expert, and that is the only way to tell distances in a 2d representation of 3d space, we cannot know where he is standing in relation to Ferrie until much more is known about the photo. We do know he is farther away. We do know that if this image was taken with a 35mm lens the distances would be much different than a 150mm lens from farther away. We also know that the camera is much closer to the left side of the image than the right, which also distorts the distances. You simply picked the wrong image with which to try and prove your argument and then acted the fool when told so.... Now, instead of being a man... you have to play the disgruntled fool. whatever Greg... you're so transparent you might as well not even be there.

That you bore us all to death with one poor argument after another which requires me at least to leave for a little bit soas not to deal with your poisonous BS - AND that you are waiting and watching for me - is just the way it is. You've deceived others by posted an altered image after you already posted the actual one... and the post of the fake image has no text... hmmm You cant seem to understand how perspective works so you will post ANYTHING and EVERYTHING but your admitting you are clueless when it comes to photographic analysis - almost if not as bad as your document analysis. That you need to resort to Lamson-like trickery just to make a point which you couldn't to begin with is just, so, YOU. So I understand you don't get photography - that you've made obvious. But you can read about how perspective works, right - you still know how to do research... You get the basic concept that distance and focal length will distort the sizes and shapes of objects in different parts of the image.... I posted the example above. Is changing the subject and doing the same song and dance all we're ever going to be getting from you anymore?

Kenneth... Zapruder had 2 films on the morning of the 23rd, not 1. Sorrels has one and he gave one to the FBI Phillips also sends a copy. When Phillips says the THIRD PRINT IS FORWARDED he assumes that Zapruder only has the master... Either Sorrels or Rowley has an extra copy the night of the 22nd.

NO . You put up a distorted image. Mr. Joseph only transferred one section of the photo to another (WITHOUT enlargement) to show that objects closer to the camera appear bigger.,gaal ++++++++++++++++ I think you have violated the spirit (if not the letter) of Forum rules by deliberately posting false information. When Jack White's poster was talked about ,you Mr. Parker, screamed FRAUD again and again. What should we speak of you ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????. gaal Greg was in effect arguing your case for you, photographically speaking. You should be grateful. After all, Greg didn't make Oswald look smaller than he really was. He made him look larger than he really was. --Tommy So you are aware that it was Greg who tried to decieve us with that skewed image? Do you not understand how depth of field and perspective works either? Sad. Do you not see that the quadrilaterals at the back are smaller than at the front? Gee... MAGIC, right? How can they all be the same size yet look so different in size in the same image...

Look at the bottom Steve... Greg has left the discussion as most creatures who fear the light tend to do when the switch is hit... Scamper scamper little greg.... find a way to turn these lemons into lemonade