David Josephs
-
Posts
6,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Josephs
-
-
24 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:
Try this way instead:
Side by side, especially since the image on the left is squashed, seems to make it harder for me... how's this?
-
38 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:
More clearly stated,
Move the shooter, as he is facing the limo, to the right of the TSBD and to the right of the limo.
The Bronson flash is the approx 240ft plotted distance to the elev. 418.35 headshot from behind.
Uh, wouldn't this Bronson flash be to the left of Elm facing the limo, to the West/left of the TSBD, not East, looking up Elm at the limo?Then again maybe I 'm just tired and not thinking straight.edit.. you mean the shooter looking down towards the limo from behind. I see. But that would still put 240's target to the left of 265's... I think
I've looked at all the versions of this film I have and they all end before this frame. Kinda wish there was a repository for all the best versions of the key films and photos... knowing full well there has been a 60 year effort to suppress such things.
-
1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:
I have changed the word 'frontal" to "another" to describe the first of two shots for now.
Sorry about that.
This doesn't mean I believe it didn't come from the front, just not sure about the exact location.
The location of the 2nd shot, the extant rear headshot didn't come from the TSBD as listed by Thomas. imo
It did originate from approx 240ft away.
As you read the excerpt, the way it is phrased, picture where the person at 240ft would be in relationship to the person at 265ft as they are trying to connect this back to the TSBD.
Or, to paraphrase, the 240ft shot was to the right of the 265ft shot, and to the right of the silhouette.
From the 6th floor the targets do move left to right...
From a lower Dal-tex floor, the more one moves to the left, south, away from the TSBD SE corner, the farther to the right a shot 240' away becomes; when at some point the 265' shot is to the left of the 240' shot.
Far enough to the south and you are on the county records building roof - the same place Buddy Walthers was, about which he threatened Roger Craig for exposing his position there.
Or something like that.
-
7 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:
A frontal shot is missing from the extant film.
-
-
35 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:
And yet in all the scoffing at my proposal that the paper-bag revolver could be the murder weapon of Tippit, I have not heard anyone suggest a viable, reasonable, innocent possible scenario for how a handgun is thrown in a paper bag on a city street in the middle of the night, in which that handgun is not involved in some crime in which shots were fired and someone does not want the gun found in their possession or association (that is why the weapon is ditched). Has there ever been a revolver disposed of in that manner which is known not to have been involved in a serious crime? And what better recent crime would one look at in this case than the only known recent homicide by handgun in Dallas, the one that occurred a few hours earlier, the killing of officer Tippit?
Greg, I genuinely appreciate the level of time, detail and research you put into these posts. I hope our disagreeing on their ultimate meaning and my critique of your speculations/hypothesis is not taken personally.
Your request about alternatives which you can accept as reasonable sounds eerily like Dulles demanding alternate explanation "if not OSWALD". That is not necessary to disprove a hypothesis... only the examination and authentication of the truths on which the hypothesis is based.
Of course it is possible THAT was the gun used by Crafard, or Braden - depending on whose story you choose. Just like when we delve into the story about the origin of the information that Oswald was a paid FBI informant. The information appears credible coming from both credible, and a bit less so, sources.
Yet things are not true just because speculation about them can be organized in such a manner to make the most sense. The other thing we seem to overlook is that the people you are quoting were professional XXXXX of the first order. Even to the point of lying about anything and everything just for the sake of lying - these men were Mafia and mafia related...
Over the couple of decades posting there are a few red flags in arguments that stand out:
- "why would they"'s - being incredulous is not an argument
- "Has there ever been anything like..." - the lack of precedent does not preclude the creation of a new one
- "what better explanation is there?" - the burden of proof lays in the presenter of the hypothesis. A "better" explanation does not negate the validity of the original hypothesis. Occum's razor is not always the sharpest tool in the bag.
-
The complete lack of source material reference links/images/docs - unlike many others, you do provide snips and pieces to help a reader understand from where you derive your conclusions, yet how hard is it really to give credit where it is due with a link or a mention?
Most of us are standing on the shoulders of those who came before and just trying to raise the bar even farther. More than likely someone has offered the same thoughts with the expectation that the future would pick up the cause when new and more revealing information is unearthed.
We'd get nowhere here without intelligent discourse among members and the challenging of things put forth as facts.. it is only those who seek to disrupt for the pleasure of it that we need to beware of, identify and censure.
In the earliest days of my foray into the JFK malaise I was sure the SBT was possible given what I initially saw in frames 224-230 and set out to better understand why so many said is was not so.
What a long, strange trip it's been. And it ain't over by a long shot.
I look forward to further discussions - and thanks as I had not been aware of this other pistol story before and find it fascinating. TBH, and secretly, I kinda hope you're right about it. Time may tell, if we're lucky.
-
21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:
Either way, we Jews are so relieved to know you deem us to be smart and competent!
Are you offended by the fact I've made these observations?
Sadly, being a Cohen and possibly even Jewish does not preclude one from doing whatever it is that man is doing. On a whole though a Jewish community, or a Rabbi, would never put up with it.
Cohen (Hebrew: כֹּהֵן, kōhēn, "priest") is a surname of Yehudi, Samaritan and Biblical origins (see: Kohen). It is a very common Jewish surname (the most common in Israel), and the following information discusses only that origin. Cohen is one of the four Samaritan last names that exist in the modern day.
One of the greatest explanation of the Jewish relationship with G~d I've heard is that "we have an ongoing discussion with God in order to continually evolve our understand of our existence as humans"; hence the evolving books of the Talmud - which, as the lawyers will appreciate - derives it meanings of the Torah (bible) though precedent and the re-interpretations of these precedents in regards to any specific subject or issue needing resolution or understanding.
Jews - orthodox Judaism - expects a person to chose Right from Wrong in every action they take and every thought they have. To further His cause by spreading as much good as possible.
Yet in the end even Jews are fallible to human frailties, prejudices and temptations. On a whole though Jewish law and the Talmud is about how people can live peacefully together in a society. And, while male-dominated, the reverence for women in Jewish society is virtually unrivaled in all of history.
-
On 4/7/2023 at 11:49 AM, Michael Griffith said:
BTW, my last name is Griffith, not Griffin. You can't even get that simple fact straight.
He misses one letter, you miss the entire boat. COINTELPRO comes to mind with every one of your posts.
Let's see... Jefferson owned slaves yet produced the Declaration of Independence. Obviously being wrong about one thing makes it impossible to contribute and be taken seriously in any other area.
I'd bet TikTok wouldn't even put up with you
-
53 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:
BTW,
David J. deserves much of the credit for bringing the white patch in the extant film to my attention with his concerns that something was amiss.
Tim(engineer, retired I believe)has allowed me to post some of his results, which I have in the past.
Here is just a snippet of what is being conveyed with the white patch.
Although I do not agree completely with the exact frame removal process he describes, based on other math work,
the important aspect is to realize the relationship he refers to, between the limo and the background.
Greer's head-turn, and the conflict between his words and his action as caught on film. He was staring directly at him as he was killed, crawling ahead at less than 3mph. Citation provided.
-
On 5/2/2023 at 7:50 PM, Sean Coleman said:
So how did John Doe do it? Was he a cheat?
The grader of the paper added in the correct answers for him...after he finished the test
y'know, so he could get a better score...
-
38 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:
Of course I was being sarcastic DJ.
Looks like you missed this as MG did earlier.
I gotta pay more attention... what troubles me is that sarcasm to us becomes re-quotable fact for others as they copy and paste into their arguments elsewhere to try and prove a point about Conspiracy Realists.
Marina's testimony...
She knew everything they told her to know... although it sometimes took 3 or 4 takes for it to stick.
On 5/3/2023 at 12:51 PM, Joe Bauer said:Just reread some of Marina's 1964 WC testimony regards Lee and his rifle.
She mentions seeing the rifle disassembled in one of her and Lee's apartments they rented.
Obviously, she knew that the rifle could be broken down like that.
Just a curious admission by her imo.
-
14 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:
Unfortunately, for me, Chris's gif's often leave me even more confused. I remember the "bobble head" gifs, but was never sure I was getting the full implications or even any conclusion reached. I think I get it--indication of two different films, or cameras, or "step" processing mistakes?
That gif illustrates how other objects within the frame are moving vertically with a slight horizontal shift, yet the Stemmons sign remains unmoved. Yes, replacing portions of the frame with images from other frames
14 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:The gif Chris posted just earlier--I can make a guess as to his point, but why not just spell it out? I'm guessing he was pointing to the fact that, in spite of the two widely separated frames, body positions in the frames had not changed. If this is true, that would be indicative of a matte process used in Z alteration, would it not?
Correct... as to the methods I believe he remains silent as that involves speculation and he deals with mathematical fact and leaves that to experts like Healy to resolve.
14 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:Your post David was helpful. It confirms that I have been getting the general gist of what Chris has done
Thanks for the kind words. Having made my career within mathematics and stats, not understanding his work for quite a while was difficult for me to accept... so I just kept trying harder.
It may take some time for others to truly appreciate the spacial thinking he translates into mathematical reality... it is truly one of the most awesome displays in comprehending the subterfuge in the case the JFK community has ever seen and I hope he gets his due someday on a broader stage.
-
On 5/2/2023 at 12:26 PM, Joe Bauer said:
Oswald did a lot of target practice in the months before 11,22,1963.
C'mon Joe... really? or you just being sarcastic here?
Before he gets to practice, he needs to actually have the rifle... that never happened my friend. There is more than enough material, well beyond the work I've done standing on the shoulders of those before me and adding what I could, that proves beyond doubt that Oswald and that rifle were mutually exclusive.
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-the-carbine-on-the-6th-floor
https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsRifle.pdf -
On 4/25/2023 at 7:18 AM, Pete Mellor said:
I presented to JFK Lancer's virtual N.I.D., with kind permission from J.K. Certainly not unique, but I presented a copy of Osborne's 13th April '64 typed letter to his family refuting his bus travel to M.C. with L.H.O.
Hi Pete... saw this and just needed to reach out. Is there any way you can send me a copy of that letter? I'd love to add it to my overall "he didn't go to Mexico" file and use it in future papers...
The investigation
The report
-
41 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:
I'm begging you Chris, please be less obtuse... :>)
Early on I asked Chris the same thing, and with his use of illustration and gif I think he's more than obliged.
At the core, I believe what Chris does is understand what the math should be and then he discovers howt the math was changed to support the altered scenario offered by the zfilm. He also deconstructs the attempts by LN promoters to also use math to hide the reality of how the films tie together visually.
There is what happened, and there is the math and evidence offered which singularly puts shots originating at that window and hitting their targets where the film(s) show them, despite the films being altered after being removed from circulation.
More recently he has unveiled the Shaneyfelt re-enactment shenanigans which were employed to further hide what was done between 207-212 and other key points in the zfilm.
There are some ancient standards within math - like the golden triangle - which Shaneyfelt used as well.
One thing sticks out immediately as manipulated math.. the 18.3fps camera speed despite only a 16 and 48 fps setting.
The rise and run of Elm street is 18.3:1 so amazingly the camera speed becomes 18.3 feet per second with an averaged constant speed of 11.2mph. These two calculations gives rise to virtually all the the fraudulent evidnece offered related to the events of the assassination.
In the real world physical evidence is more valuable than witness statements due to human nature.
In the JFK evidence, the physical evidence has been so manipulated by those controlling it that we must look to the consensus statements of the witnesses and give that more weight and literally dismiss the physical evidence as simply not indicative of the events that day.I realize I sound like a broken record... the (physical) evidence really is the conspiracy in this case, while the statements of those there must carry more weight compared to "normal" murder cases.
Mr. SPECTER. When was it that Mrs. Kennedy made the statement which you have described, "My God, what are they doing?"
Mr. KELLERMAN. This occurred after the flurry of shots.
Mr. SPECTER. At that time you looked back and saw Special Agent Hill across the trunk of the car, had your automobile accelerated by that time?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Tremendously so; yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, to the best of your ability to recollect, exactly when did your automobile first accelerate?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Our car accelerated immediately on the time-at the time--this flurry of shots came into it.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you say the acceleration--
Mr. KELLERMAN. Between the second and third shot.See Hill running to the limo AFTER the z313 shot. The evidence for an addition shot which was graphically shown on Gauthier's Jan 20, 1964 presentation of the DP model and spelled out by the Secret Service was simply made to go away. West's was asked to revise his survey and remove the shot for the final WCR exhibit.
Representative FORD. All right.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, you said earlier that there were at least two additional shots. Is there any area in your mind or possibility, as you recollect that situation, that there could have been more than two shots, or are you able to say with any certainty?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.
Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?
Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?
Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots. -
6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
Not to distract from the flow of the thread, but a Fritz-Wade-LBJ connection is interesting to me at least.
In the Ruby threat I recently started for that work there is a passage related to GRIFFIN's attack of DEAN for which WADE steps in, calls his buddy LBJ, and Griffin is sent back to be scolded by WARREN.
And Ruby down the Ramp becomes the Urban Legend. Just so seedy... ugh.
-
7 hours ago, Bob Ness said:
@davidjosephs
Abdominal wounds require more specialized treatment to repair the damage and treat any infections or other complications. They're often times the way to go if you want to insure a fatal outcome. When I look at the shooting of Oswald, I automatically think that guy knows what he's doing. That is, he kills his target yet doesn't risk anyone else being wounded. Best to do it at an oblique angle rather than straight on. It's a pro job.
Very good point Bob...
A bit different than Tippit, whose stomach wounds might have still killed him, yet the coup de grace final shot to the head while on the ground just screams execution and pro to me... whoever that was knew he had to insure Tippit would not survive.
I had mentioned the ambulance driver's comments re: Tippit, introduces evidence - like his position at the front left wheel and that Royal blue coat which gives one pause to reflect on these minor details which the different people at the scene recall for us yet doesn't fit in with other witness statements.
The more and more I consider what the FBI/CIA/DPD did to Ozzie, the more I see and understand him as the sacrificial pawn he was. Very sad how he was played and then removed as it was deemed necessary to the success of the mission.
-
7 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
I just re read this thread. I thought you had posted a link to your and John's revision to this. Something about not posting it at K&K because of his work. Is this in another thread or am I imagining it?
not so much a revision, just that when John and I worked on the document he did the writing based on our discussions, and the images we found, & I did a little editing yet since it was being put up on the harveyandlee site, I told Jim D in another thread that was why I had not sent it to him.
I took our work and created a PPT presentation for my discussion with DPUK which is what you'd see on the zoom which I was spoking over.
There are quite a lot a very good articles at his site some of which I "assisted" him in completing or enhancing.. and many others that are just John's pov.
Not imagining it Ron.
-
1 hour ago, Nick Bartetzko said:
Thanks for posting. It’s been a long time since I had read it. I don’t dispute at all how serious the injuries were, rather just what Lifton had mentioned about Perry’s alleged comments and Dr Rose as well.
My pleasure... just so many areas of the case with the millions of pages and zillions of topics. I had not even looked at this in the 30 years I've been doing it. Same with Ruby entering the Annex...
Until you devote a few months to finding and verifying the info on a subject, you never truly know how deep the rabbit hole goes - and this for literally every piece of subject matter involved.
Exhilaratingly Exhausting
-
-
1 minute ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:
Query- does anyone know if any there was an attempt to lift fingerprints from the passenger side of Tippits car since the killler allegedly placed his hands on the car when he spoke to the Tippit?
Here you go Larry
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/UFJ3bgrkMxI/m/MoFOGnFGNuAJ
At Captain Westbrook's direction Sargeant Pete Barnes retrieved a
fingerprint kit and began dusting the top side of the passenger door
on Tippit's patrol car for fingerprints (where Helen Markham and Jimmy
Burt saw Tippit's assailant place his hands.)Barnes told the Commission, "I was told that the suspect (who) shot
Tippit had come up to the right side of the car, and there was a
possibility that he might have placed his hands on there." After
Barnes dusted the top of the car door and right front fender Detective
Paul Bentley, Sergeant Bud Owens, and Captain George M. Doughty of the
Identification Bureau inspected the area and can be seen on Reiland's
WFAA-TV film.Barnes removed "smudged fingerprints" from the right passenger window
and "fairly good prints" from the right fender of Tippit's patrol
car. Both sets of fingerprints were turned over to the identification
bureau and now located at the Dallas Municipal Archives and Records
Center in Dallas. Neither set of fingerprints was examined by the
Warren Commission to see if they matched Oswald prints taken at DPD
headquarters.Sergeant Barnes told the Commission, "There were several smear
prints. None of value." But Detective Paul Bentley told the HSCA in
1978, "He (Doughty) lifted good prints from the exterior section of
that door immediately below that rolled-down window." (The "smudged"
prints taken by Barnes were shown to the Commission, while the good
set of prints by Doughty was not.)(Researcher Dale Myers sought to answer the question of whether or not
the fingerprints found by Sergeant Barnes belonged to Oswald
(Harvey). He obtained crime lab photos of the prints found by Barnes
on Tippit's car and Oswald's fingerprint card taken when he was
arrested. Myers then asked the senior crime scene technician for
Wayne County, Michigan, Herbert Lutz, to compare the two set of
prints.)(Myers wrote in his book "With Malice" that Lutz reported the furrows
of the fingerprints taken from Tippit's car were wide, while Oswald's
fingerprint furrows were much narrower. In addition, the number of
ridges and the location of the bifurcations in the patterns were
different. Lutz concluded the fingerprints taken by the Dallas Police
from Tippit's patrol car were not those of Lee HARVEY Oswald. These
fingerprint cards were never entered into evidence in the 26 Volumes.) -
3 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:
I'm not interested in going round and round about my factual statement regarding the history of claims in the zapruder film
When you yourself state you forgot the word DON'T in your post and then don't appreciate the implications of not taking the time to acquaint yourself with this newer body of work.. I agree - not worth either of our time to discuss what you have yet to digest. As to the ancient history your brought up regarding the debunked anomalies, I did not make an argument against them, I agreed and said the newer work in the past 5 years was significantly more revealing and less likely to be as easily explained as Jack White's Moorman comments.
7 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:What is the point here? Please explain since you understand the work.
The point here Chris, is that the white "thing" in/on/over the grass above Greer's head has not change position despite the limo moving forward a significant distance - and the others in that image also changing position - hence the overlay and bleed-thru used to illustrate the point.
If you took the time to even page thru his thread you'd see other such images and gifs which plainly illustrate the obstruction of reality which Shaneyfelt and the FBI used to match the evidence to the altered film.
Changes like moving the path of the limo south and east so that line of sight remained the same while representing different frames of the film, the 10" difference in the stand-ip limo, and the movement of the source of the filming and its effect on the Stemmons sign within the re-enactment.
I did not come back here to engage in circular discussions with those not willing to make the effort to understand the most recent work while standing rigid on the conclusions of 20 to 30 years ago.
As we both know, photogrammetry is a very complicated process, even more so without advanced software if measuring 3D distance from 2D images:
One example is the extraction of three-dimensional measurements from two-dimensional data (i.e. images); for example, the distance between two points that lie on a plane parallel to the photographic image plane can be determined by measuring their distance on the image, if the scale of the image is known
If you are offering conclusions based on your photogrammetry work I for one would love to see the process you employed and the conclusion they produced. Please show your work. I did do a quick Google search for any of this work you may have offered online but the results only point to this thread and some Imperial reflex camera comments.
I fully respect your position on the zfilm based on the knowledge and experience you have - at the moment - but feel certain you will seriously reconsider these conclusions once you embrace the work Chris D. has done... and fully comprehend how nefarious the work of Shaneyfelt was in the face of what Tom Purvis showed us in respect to West's actual survey work.
Robert West's survey concluding the first shot at z207 of the extant film. 10 or so feet before the WCR's placement
-
26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
In short, then, the "miss" at Z-160 is garbage, a hoax
the "miss" or the "shot" is a hoax Pat?
Wishing I had better images of course, yet it appears to me that JFK's head swivels considerably in the span of 1 damaged frame using 153 as an indicator he was definitely looking to his left with 157 appearing as if he still looks in that direction, then the break, and then him facing a different direction.
You don't find it just a bit coincidental that we have a splice in the film with the no intersprocket frame exactly where all us crackpots place the first shot which missed?
How can you rule out a shot there given the circumstances of the film and what we actually see occur just prior and during that period?
Or are you saying the 160 shot did hit him? Sorry for my confusion
.
-
Whatever you say Greg.
Thanks for presenting such well sourced and thought out commentary.
Amazing how you were able to deduce such a convincing conclusion.
Your ability to know what was inside the heads of these people is uncanny.Excuse me if I move on to other things as I have presented all that I wish to on this subject and will let the readers of the thread arrive at their own conclusions.
She knew everything they told her to know... although it sometimes took 3 or 4 takes for it to stick.
Unveiling The Limo Stop
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
I stand corrected... thanks Ron... I knew it was Weatherford, guess my fingers had made up their own mind
what name to type..
I have yet to confirm the last paragraph in the article below. "Weatherford" does not appear in Craig's WC or Shaw trial testimony so he may have said it in the Lane interview... confirmation would be great.
DJ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AJohn_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories%2FArchive_2
In 1963, Jim Bowles was a D.P.D. sergeant. He was later promoted to Dallas Sheriff (Chief of Police). He was asked if he knew about Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford waiting on the roof of a building near the assassination site with a rifle.
- Bowles replied: “Yes, Harry Weatherford was on the roof with a second deputy, and he had a rifle. They were assigned there for security. My first recollection of the suggestion that Weatherford might have been implicated was from the imagination of Penn Jones who, so far as I know, never worried about the other deputy. It would seem strange that a hit man would be stationed with a living witness. It does not fit reason.” [8] - - A reporter asked Weatherford shortly after the assassination if he had shot the President. Weatherford replied, "You son of a bitch, I kill lots of people". - - Harry Weatherford told a different story: " I was standing in front of the Sheriff's Office watching the Presidential Motorcade. The President's car had passed my location a couple of minutes when I heard a loud report which I thought was a railroad torpedo, as it sounded as if it came from the railroad yard." - - "I heard a 2nd report which had more of an echo report and thought to myself, that this was a rifle and I started toward the corner when I heard the 3rd report. By this time I was running towards the railroad yards where the sound seemed to come from. I got with Deputy Allan Sweatt and was searching the tracks and cars, etc, then someone said the shots came from above." [9]