David Josephs

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

My "collage" both explained "depth of field" and how Oswald looks like his younger self. I did not skew the image to make it appear Oswald was bigger than he was... I explained it correctly - DEPTH OF FIELD. That you choose to cheat your way into a poor argument is your problem. Now one last time Greg, can you tell us the distance and focal length of the image so you can then give us a scaling factor based on the depth of field of the image - or not? Do you understand that images farther away from the camera and the higher the focal distance and doeth of field, the smaller objects in the background will appear... - or not? Here is the "collage" without the extra images yet with Ferrie and Oswald copy-pasted against each other to illustrate the concept. Try Google Greg, you might learn something. As for your dishonest attempt at an argument... I expect nothing more from you, always.

No need to bump Tommy... Either Greg is trying to show off what little Photoshop skills he has, someone at ROKC who does know how to manipulate images did it for him or he found it already on the internet... either way, he should know how it doesn't come close to the original at all... My bet is he knew that and posted anyway... and it was probably done by one of the minions on the island. You can even see the skewed boundaries. Well, YOU can... Bernie and Greg not so much Here you go Tommy, Greg and Bernie... now everyone is the same height and Ozzie is bigger and wider than Ferrie...

Yo Greg... how about telling us what was done to manipulate the image they way it was? Or did you find it manipulated that way somewhere and think it looked like the actual photo? When we match these two, supposedly identical photos, by sizing Ferrie correctly in both... WTF Greg...? You posted the correct photo in your first attempt... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19762&page=105#entry313831 so we know you have the correct image... why distort it to make your wrong assumption and question appear not as ridiculous as it was? edit - so tweedle dee shows up to show off his intelligence as well... maybe learn the first thing about photography before you open your yap..? That you cannot even tell how skewed and resized and distorted Greg's follow-up image is only shows how little you understand. Go back to sleep.

Illustrating you don't understand photography is appreciated... Once again... distance to the camera and focal length - any clue?

Pay attention David please. It was Greg who wrote a few posts earlier in #1801..."You're the one claiming he went there..." Which is perfectly correct English grammar. GAAL decided to use his expert language skills and correct him in post #1802... "CAP photo small LEE people. Your the one claiming he went there he (LEE) saw smallish , The burden of proof is on you to show when it was he was smallish." Gaal (#1802) Oops! You just don't seem to care how many times you come on here and thoroughly humiliate yourself do you? So, who is the smallest little man in the photo David? Is it 'Harvey' or is it 'Lee'? A straightforward answer would be just dandy. I think the little diddy one looks like LHO. Do you? So when I show you and Greg how foolish this attempt is, I don't see either of you rushing to post how WRONG you both are or how poor you both remain at interpreting what a photograph shows or how they work. C'mon Greg, where's the righteous indignation now that you're shown to not have the first clue related to photography? I post a "straighforward" answer Bernie...what do you do? Yep, just as we thought... Nada. not even the class to admit how wrong you are... or how clueless you remain when it comes to the simplest of analysis. Well done little boys... you're batting .000 so far with these rebuttals... but hey, rock on ...

Jan 27, 1964 Warren Commission members studied copies of the Zapruder film for a week with members of the FBI and the Secret Service. This is according to the 6th floor timeline.

We were told that Zapruder had in his possession the original and a best copy since we know that LIFE first takes the original and comes back for the best copy which Zap also supposedly had... 1 copy Mr. LIEBELER - Now, Mr. Zapruder, after you had the film developed I understand Mr. Sorrels from the Secret Service came over and helped you get the films developed and you gave two copies of your films to Mr. Sorrels, is that correct? Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes. One we have sent to Washington the same night and one went over for the viewers of the FBI on Ervay Street. Mr. LIEBELER - That's the Secret Service? Mr. ZAPRUDER - The Secret Service--I brought one roll there and they told me to dispatch it by Army plane or I don't know what they had done with it but it was supposed to have gone to Washington and one of them, I believe, remained here with Mr. Sorrels. He came to my office quite a few times to show them to different people. 2 more copies All this would be fine if Philips told us that 1 of the 2 Sorrel's copies was sent to Rowley... but that's not what he says... He says "The THIRD PRINT is forwarded". Yet according to numerous timelines offered Zapruder either keeps the "best" copy or Stolley takes it... either way at the time Philips sends the film Zapruder has the original and a copy, and Sorrels has 2 copies since "The third print is forwarded" Question is - if Philips sent one of Sorrels' copies, he would not be sending a "third print" which according to the # of copies admitted to, is in Zapruder's possession. The only THRID PRINT available is 0184 which for 50+ years we've somehow accepted the excuse that 0184 was simply skipped over for some unknown reason... If that doesn't ring alarm bells, what will? I contend that 0184 was already in DC on the night of 11/22, was seen by the FBI and SS (and commented upon as seen by the FBI in the early morning hours of 11/23) and it was this copy which Hawkeyeworks changes before it gets to Dino Dino was adamant with Peter Janney, as he had been with David Wrone, that the film delivered to NPIC for processing by the Secret Service was an 8 mm home movie, and he recalled this clearly and without any doubt whatsoever because Bill Banfield had to awaken the owner of the CIA’s favorite commercial photo outlet (Fuller and d’Albert), and ask him to to open his downtown shop, so that Banfield could purchase an 8 mm home movie projector. While Banfield was procuring the 8 mm projector in downtown WashingtonD.C. in the dead of night, Brugioni, Pearse, and the two Secret Service agents were examining individual frames of the film on a light table with a stereomicroscope. About midnight, when Banfield returned with the 8 mm home movie projector, the film was viewed at least 4 or 5 times, and at different speeds, by the two Secret Service agents, Brugioni (the duty officer), Pearse (the lead photogrammatrist), and Banfield (the production supervisor). By definition, 0184 would have been the FIRST COPY of the film. Sadly, imo, that film and its contents are no longer available yet WCD298 gives you some glimpse as to what was on it... a shot 40 feet down Elm and more shots at locations which are not seen or identified in the films. I am doing an article on WCD298 as definitive proof that what we see in the films and photos is not representative of what happened.... The Evidence IS the Conspiracy... DJ The quality of the National Archives' photographic copy of this hand written report is so poor that many of its words cannot be made out in a scanned copy. Consequently, we have provided below a typed copy ] CD - 87 Folder 1 CO2 34030 11/22 9:55 To: Chief Rowley From: Max D. Phillips Subject: 8mm movie film showing President Kennedy being shot Enclosed is an 8mm movie film taken by Mr. A. Zapruder, 501 Elm St., Dallas Texas (RI8-6071) Mr.. Zapruder was photographing the President at the instant he was shot. According to Mr. Zapruder, the position of the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder. Note: Disregard personnel scenes shown on Mr. Zapruder’s film.. Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date. The third print is forwarded. Max D. Phillips Special Agent - PRS Max D. Phillips Special Agent - PRS SS SA Max Phillips wrote to Rowley

Thanks Roy... appreciated. So tell me since you seem to be at least reasonable enough to have a serious discussion... Do you understand Depth of field? That objects farther away from the camera appear smaller due to the vanishing horizon concept and depth of field.? By copying and pasting Oswald from his position to next to Ferrie we can see how UNTRUE his size is compared to the others. And in reverse, by copying and pasting Ferrie next to Oswald we can see the true effects of photographic depth of field. (I did not resize either copy) What bothers me most is that seemingly intelligent people want so bad to "Catch us" doing something wrong or being dishonest about H&L and the Evidence that they'll forget some of the most basic rules of reality. They will make up stats and offer faith-based theories about real events with real evidence. Does that boy in the back look like all the LEE childhood photos? Same cheeks and smile to me.... but then again I have so much bias... Anyway, posting this photo with that question just shows how desperate these boys are and how willing they are to go to any lengths to confuse the issues. So tell us boys, what focal length, lens and distances are we talking about in this image which you used to prove your point? It appears to be a higher mm lens making the distances look smaller than they are... Thoughts?

So the assumption here is a boy's height in 7th grade determines his size a few years later... It's your contention that a 5'4" 13 year old could not be a 5'7" 16 year old. (yes Bernie, 'your' is not the same as 'you're' - speaking of linguistic skills). And then become a 5'11' 20 year old. You can show how that's not possible or just keep asking questions with that lost look on your faces like you're making some amazing point here. Tell us how tall that boy is please. You know how tall Ferrie was? Sometimes boys will grow up before filling out. But since you are so sure that's not Lee, I guess it's down to your words versus Palmer. I'll take the guy who was there every time over witless speculation & your faith-based beliefs. But at least now you are trying harder to see the differences between the two people. There's hope for you boys yet.

If you read SS Philips note to Rowley and remember that Zap had original and a best copy, 2 to SS, and a final copy to Rowley, it looks like an original and 4 copies.