David Josephs

"Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.[is this a fact or an opinion?] The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such." Your position appears to be that defense of the WCR in debate form is in itself a legitimate and intellectual pursuit - and that this presentation should be allowed and encouraged here simply because a debate requires two sides and the "winner" of such a discussion of opposing views is decided upon by those who view it... I've read and enjoyed your work for years Stephen and if you feel it productive to "debate" the defense of the WCR and related conclusions - have at it. A question then... Have you at any point in time been swayed by DVP's debate to accept the conclusions or evidence of the WCR (or whatever it is he is offering as a "side") thru his presentation in a superior context? --------------- As Cliff refers... there is no debate about the physical realities of the clothing evidence and what they suggest.. there is no debate over the laws of physics yet you would give soapbox to an argument that requires one suspend one's knowledge/understanding of the physical world and accept the "context" which one side of the argument must create for such events to exist. I agree whole heartedly with the statement I quoted of yours above...what is "anti-intellectual" is to allow the ongoing use of published tactics to derail forums and intelligent conversation How many times do the conclusions offered by DVP need to be proven wrong in discussions, debates, analysis or whatever else you want to call it - before it stops being used as ammunition in these "debates", ?? Take care Stephen... I'm done with this - At least debating 2 + 2 = 4 has some mathematical and philosophical possibilities. Debating/discussion the following declarations from the WCR apologist is a waste of my and your time and should no longer be necessary. the wheels on the bus go round and round... COINTELPRO #19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. As for the "HOW?" part of your question, Jon -- That's not very difficult.... ....Lee Oswald had ready access to a weapon (Carcano Rifle #C2766) that he knew was being stored in Ruth Paine's garage. (Hence, the reason for making up the "bookend" set of "I'm getting curtain rods" lies to Buell Frazier on both Thursday and Friday.) ....Lee had ample firearms training in the U.S. military, reaching the grade of Sharpshooter in 1956. (But, for some reason, some conspiracy believers think the United States Marine Corps was in the habit of dishing out "Sharpshooter" ratings to Marines who were rotten shooters. Go figure that logic. I can't.) ....Marina testified in her 1978 HSCA session that Lee, on more than one occasion, would take his rifle out to "target practice" in New Orleans during the summer of 1963

Key to this statement is opinion versus authenticated evidence... All the WCR crowd can build upon is their insistance upon the Faith we should continue to have for these esteemed men and the WCR staff... http://www.ctka.net/2014/The%20evidence%20is%20the%20conspiracy.html "Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that Oswald was indeed at the SE 6th floor window at 12:30, and shots from there are fired by him, AND that he planned to kill JFK with the Mannlicher Carcano rifle. He surely could not have killed JFK with a rifle that was not there in the first place. Oswald has a few items of information he MUST have in order to pull this off, the most important being the knowledge that the motorcade and JFK's limo would pass within shooting distance of the building. Where would he get such information, and what would that info say specifically?" Stephen (and others), I hope you can take the time to read thru this simple exercise regarding what it takes at the bare minimum to enable WCR/DVP's Ozzie to have done what he and the WCR claims he did. If he doesn't have a rifle and is not at the window at the correct time, he cannot accomplish the feat. A simple presentation of the authenticated evidence which accomplishes this has never been offered. Just so we are clear... these are the conclusions being defended... if you feel the evidence from which these conclusions are derived deserves defending then we should find in this defense the evidence to establish this unconnected loner did it. We have conclusions about where shots were fired, how many shots, Tippit, the interrogation, Ruby killing Oswald, conspiracies and SS agents (not) doing their jobs... with only Conclusion #4 being of any real bearing on establishing the guilt of Oswald. starting with "innocent until proven guilty" 4a thru 4f requires authentic evidence and (g) has already been dismissed as unsubstantiated. Let's have him try sticking to the case at hand and present as well as authenticate the evidence which convicts Oswald... As a lawyer Jon, you should have a field day with his presentation - and I for one would appreciate your showing us the legal aspect of such proof... DJ 1. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository. 2. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired. 3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds. 4. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald (a) The Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle from which the shots were tired was owned by and in the possession of Oswald. (Oswald carried this rifle into the Depository Building on the morning of November 22, 1963. © Oswald, at the time of the assassination was present at the window from which the shots were fired. (d) Shortly after the assassination, the Mannlicher-Carcnno rifle belonging to Oswald was found partially hidden between some cartons on the sixth floor and the improvised paper bag in which Oswald brought the rifle to the Depository was found close by the window from which the shots were fired. (e) Based on testimony of the experts and their analysis of films of the assassination, the Commission has concluded that a rifleman of Lee Harvey Oswald’s capabilities could have fired the shots from the rifle used in the assassination within the elapsed time of the shooting. The Commission has concluded further that Oswald possessed the capability with a rifle which enabled him to commit the assassination.19 (f) Oswald lied to the police after his arrest concerning important substantive matters. (g) Oswald had attempted to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Resigned, U.S. Army) on April 10,1963, thereby demonstrating his disposition to take human life 5. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination 6. Within 80 minutes of the assassination and 35 minutes of the Tippit killing Oswald resisted arrest at the theatre by attempting to shoot another Dallas police officer. 7. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning Oswald’s interrogation and detention by the Dallas police 8. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963 9. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy 10. In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official 11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that Oswald acted alone 12. (f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds that the (SS) agents most immediately responsible for the President’s safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD.

There was a man who argued that giving any reasonable audience to insanity as the alternative to the truth is to demean the truth and give credibility to the insanity. He too was considered condescending in his intolerance for the abuse of the truths that have surfaced to make a mockery of official explanations. I leave then to others the fencing task DVP evokes, the give and take of truth for more officially sanctioned explanations supported by the full extent of the evidence. No offense to you intended Mr. Roy.

David Josephs just described a lot of JFK conspiracy theorists. Thanks, DJ. {chuckle} David, don't you think that you're a little too old for the "I know you are, but what am I" come-back? Given what you choose to defend and how, it really is no wonder that's the best you've got. What you do is akin to defending cigarette smoking as not addicting or detrimental to your health and school children should start taking in the bullsh!t as early as possible... No worries, it wont kill you... {roll eyes} Ain't it grand how the Gov't defenders have become the freak show Rock on Dave, rock on.

{sigh} Making an intelligent argument that "Black" is "White" may be constitutionally and philosophically acceptable.... it still remains pretty foolish looking to anyone with eyes to see and a mind to reason. You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know....

Made a statement? Like to the public...? Not that I know... to the FBI and State Dept... yes Starting with the Oct 10th cables to Navy, State & FBI the CIA HQ assumed that the person speaking who identified himself as LEE OSWALD was Lee HENRY Oswald with all the same descriptions of our Ozzie. Between Oct 1 and Nov 22 State, CIA and FBI worked together in Mexico since Amb Mann was very keen on establishing connections between Oswald and Cuba. Again, the big disconnect is assuming that the person claiming to be Oswald on the tapes, and the person they claimed crossed into and out of Mexico are the same person. On Nov 23rd the CIA sends cables admitting that the man IN THE PHOTOS is not Oswald yet never admits to the voice conclusions since they claim the tape was destroyed and only transcripts came to DC... They lied. Here is document where the CIA's John Whitten explains why it believes the phone calls are LEE HENRY/Harvey OSWALD https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1629&relPageId=3 I am actually writing about this now, CASH from INS gets info on the 23rd that Harvey Oswald Lee entered Mexico at Nuevo Laredo (how they knew it was there is addressed in this last article) and conveys this information to CIA who in turn will convey to FBI and LITEMPO (Win Scott's spy network in Mexico) who is to look for signs of Oswald in Mex City https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=2091&relPageId=3 The inspector whose stamp appears on O.H. Lee's visa is MAYDON who tells the FBI that he SEEMS to remember that Oswald was in a car with 3 "a young couple".. possibly the Brills. The info also says he leaves Mexico by Auto I write that I believe this was done on purpose since if the CIA or anyone else wanted to leave a wake of evidence of a bus ride, they would have. A young couple in a car suggests a conspiracy, Alvarado's story is a Cuban conspiracy and Alvarado was a documented CIA asset. Despite the fact that the photos, voice and description of this man are all NOT Oswald, the evidence continues to claim it was Oswald while specifically stating the only time they are sure Oswald is at the Cuban Embassy was on the 28th https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=7602&relPageId=18 btw - that entire file of cables is a great way to see a good chunk of the info in context... Sorry to be so long winded yet nothing about Mexico is cut and dried.... although admitting it was not him, the accusation of his trying to get thru Cuba to Russia is never dropped... From Oct 18 or so on the FBI/State/CIA tried in vain to find evidence of Oswald leaving New Orleans after Sept 24 going and staying in MC, and winding up in Dallas on Oct 4. I hope my work at CTKA shows they were not very successful and what happened to change a Phase 1 Commie plot incrimination to a Phase 2 Lone Nut, unconnected disgruntled little man incrimination leaves a wake of evidence and glaring contradictions. (I just read where it is claimed that Duran, from her "interrogations" was also shown the 1959 Russian stamped passport... exactly like the Australian Mumford on a bus Oswald was never on... just sayin')

Thank you Jon... So does Kellerman's actions constitute Reasonable Standard for the SS protection of the POTUS regardless of the actual and applicable law at the time? No state of emergency was declared and there was no vehicle for them to have invoked any rule under law that would allow them to take the body of a murder victum out of the state of Texas.... POTUS or Not. There would be no difference under the law if it was JFK or Oswald. Texas murder = Texas Autopsy. Was Rose and Texas authority going to fight LBJ and the Secret Service? of course not. But imho they could have - I just don't know whether the circumstances can spercede the law, lawfully. If that makes sense. IMO Kellerman, the SS, and since AF-1 is military, the military as well broke Texas law by taking the body of the dead president I would assume that in court, "Reasonableness" could be argued... it becomes the judge's decision as to whether it affects the intent of the law? DJ

Jon... How does "reasonable standard" apply to military orders on penalty of court-martial? Does this standard apply to a Military trial? The need to have a MILITARY autopsy becomes painfully obvious... the Govt could not legally interfere with Rose's autopsy as it should have been performed, could they? Mr. KELLERMAN. This I can't truly answer. However, I should say that, as for the casket being brought into the hospital, another gentleman came into this little doctor's room, his name I don't recall, but he represented himself to be from the Health Department or commission, some form. He said to me, he said, "There has been a homicide here, you won't be able to remove the body. We will have to take it down there to the mortuary and have an autopsy." I said, "No, we are not." And he said, "We have a law here whereby you have to comply with it." With that Dr. Burkley walked in, and I said Doctor, this man is from some health unit in town. He tells me we can't remove this body." The Doctor became a little enraged; he said, "We are removing it." He said, "This is the President of the United States and there should be some consideration in an event like this." And I told this gentleman, I said, "You are going to have to come up with something a little stronger than you to give me the law that this body can't be removed." So, he frantically called everybody he could think of and he hasn't got an answer; nobody is home. Shortly he leaves this little room and it seems like a few minutes he is back and he has another gentleman with him, and he said, "This is"--the name escapes me he said, "He is a judge here in Dallas," and he said, "He will tell you whether you can remove this body or not." I said, "It doesn't make any difference. We are going to move it," and I said, "Judge, do you know who I am?" And he said, "Yes," and I said, "There must be something in your thinking here that we don't have to go through this agony; the family doesn't have to go through this. We will take care of the matter when we get back to Washington." The poor man looked at me and he said, "I know who you are," and he said, "I can't help you out." I said. "All right, sir." But then I happened to look to the right and I can see the casket coming on rollers, and I just left the room and let it out through the emergency entrance and we got to the ambulance and put it in, shut the door after Mrs. Kennedy and General McHugh and Clinton Hill in the rear part of this ambulance. I am looking around for Mr. Greer and I don't spot him directly because I want to get out of here in a hurry, and I recognize Agent Berger and I said, "Berger, you get in the front seat and drive and, Mr. Stout, you get in the middle and I will get on this side," and as we are leaving--Mr. Lawson, I should say, was in a police car that led us away from Parkland Memorial Hospital. As we are leaving a gentleman taps on the driver's window and they roll it down and he says, "I will meet you at the mortuary." "Yes, sir." We went to the airport, gentlemen. Mr. SPECTER - What do your current duties involve? Commander HUMES - My current title is Director of Laboratories of the Naval Medical School at Naval Medical Center at Bethesda. I am charged with the responsibility of the overall supervision of all of the laboratory operations in the Naval medical center, two broad areas, one in the field of anatomic pathology which comprises examining surgical specimens and postmortem examinations and then the rather large field of clinical pathology which takes in examination of the blood and various body fluids. Mr. SPECTER - Have you been certified by the American Board of Pathology? Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; both in anatomic pathology and in clinical pathology in 1955. Mr. SPECTER - What was your specific function in connection with that autopsy? Commander HUMES - As the senior pathologist assigned to the Naval Medical Center, I was called to the Center by my superiors and informed that the President's body would be brought to our laboratories for an examination, and I was charged with the responsibility of conducting and supervising this examination; told to also call upon anyone whom I wished as assistant in this matter, that I deemed necessary to be present. noun: pathology the science of the causes and effects of diseases, especially the branch of medicine that deals with the laboratory examination of samples of body tissue for diagnostic or forensic purposes. Humes was perhaps the least qualified person in that hospital to perform an Autopsy. FINCK, from Walter Reed and the only Dr in the room qualified to do a decent autopsy, was very unhappy about the entire process when he arrived. His notes were stolen and he was marginalized for the rest of his life - thankfully he spilled some beans at the Shaw trial. Colonel FINCK - From 1955 to 1958 I performed approximately 200 autopsies, many of them pertaining to trauma including missile wounds, stationed at Frankfort, Germany as pathologist of the. United States Army Hospital in Frankfurt, Germany.

So much is tossed around related to JVB and she always has an answer - or one of her minions has... So let's put the only two pieces of evidence to rest - or see if she can address them (NOTE: There's actually another evidence question she needs to address as well - she claims to have taken the bus with Lee to work at Reily. Has she ever given the address of this apartment or which bus she would meet Lee upon? ) The W-2 has a host of problems with it... The forms from these years did not look like the one she offers: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/fw2--1963.pdf In addition, COPY B would have been filed with the return. If this was how it was mailed to her, COPY A would be on top and COPY C would remain in her possession. Has anyone seen this tax return? The COPY A or C of this document? There is not a Withholding Tax Statement during the 60's that puts the income info below the name In addition, the page on top of this book (she would not have been sent a book of W-2's. This appears to be Reily's book since we can see the blled thru of Reily and other info. When I superimpose this sheet back into position onto this book, lining up the holes to the right - it doesn't fit. Finally, This is a link to an interview page where she claims to have been interviewed by Conway. http://doctormarysmonkey.com/jvb/pages/Witnesses%20to%20Anna%20Lewis%20interview.htm " In early January 2000, Debra Conway (owner and co-founder of JFK Lancer) volunteered to video-tape Anna Lewis in New Orleans. In the videotape, Anna said that she and her husband David Lewis had socialized frequently with Judy Baker and Lee Oswald in New Orleans in the Summer of 1963, including a visit to The Five Hundred Club, where they met with Carlos Marcello. Anna stressed that she thought Judy and Lee were lovers at that time. Anna's filmed testimony was witnessed by Anna's daughter Sondra, Dr. Joseph Riehl, Dr. Howard Platzman, historian Martin Shackelford, Judyth Baker, and Debra Conway who asked Anna questions as she filmed her. The photo shown about was taken immediately following the Anna Lewis interview. Has Debra Conway forgotten that she interviewed Anna Lewis?" Has Debra forgotten?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyN37x3OfHs is the Debra interview posted by Wim. At 1:45 - "In about Feb 1962, I met Lee Harvey Oswald in the Park" (by Bannister's place where she went for a date with he husband to be David Lewis, a friend of Jack Martin who was pistol whipped by Bannister. The park as you can see from the map above, was Lafayette park. In Feb 1962 Ozzie was in Minsk. She goes on to say she and David leave NOLA in April 1962... Problem is that even if she meant 1963... in Feb, March and April 1963 Ozzie is in Texas. He does not get to New Orleans until the end of April 1963. This woman is completely lost... she ways Jack Martin and David were NOT working for Bannister when they moved back to New Orleans sometime later in 1962. She then tells stories of Lee in NOLA in 1962... The man Ruby killed and the claimed lover of JVB does not get to New Orleans until the end of April 1963. and NEVER lives in New Orleans in 1962... Fromwhat I can tell - that's the sum total of the evidence which puts her in Harvey's world... and not a soul who has read her book or supports her story has addressed these conflicts. The Evidence IS the Conspiracy... especially here. DJ

The Secret Service Jon. Piece of leather from the backseat of the Lincoln Continental in which President Kennedy was riding when he was tragically assassinated in Dallas, Texas. A haunting piece, literally cut from the limousine in which the President sat when he was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald on 22 November 1963. Clipping is dark blue leather from the border of the backseat cushion of the ''SS-100-X'', the customized open-air limousine that was lengthened, reinforced, and even had the seat raised so on-lookers could have a better view of the President. Following the assassination, F. Vaughn Ferguson, the Technical Service Representative at the White House responsible for the presidential automobiles, was directed by the Secret Service to clean the limousine and get it ready in case the new president, Lyndon B. Johnson, wanted to use it to attend the funeral. When Ferguson arrived at the garage, he found parts of the limo dismantled and the bloodied leather seats ripped out, the result of an FBI search for bullet fragments. He worked throughout the weekend to get the car ready, but President Johnson didn't use it, and the auto was then shipped to custom auto body firm Hess & Eisenhardt in Cincinnati, Ohio. Ferguson kept some of the ripped-out leather as a memento, and lot includes a copy of a typed letter signed from Ferguson, on White House letterhead, which reads in part, ''...The leather, light blue and dark blue, is from the automobile in which John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, was Assassinated...Four days after the Assassination the White House upholsterer and I removed this leather at the White House. The light blue leather is from the center of the rear seat. The dark blue letter is from the border of the rear seat. The spots on the leather are the dried blood of our beloved President, John F. Kennedy...'' Ferguson's limousine leather was acquired directly from him by Raleigh de Geer Amyx, owner of the famed Amyx Collection of Presidential memorabilia. The leather was then acquired from Amyx by Dr. John K. Lattimer, the ballistics expert consulted by the Kennedy family independently of the U.S. Government who confirmed the fatal shots were indeed fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. With a COA and paperwork from University Archives, documenting the chain of title. Leather piece measures just over 0.25'' x nearly 0.75''. Displayed attractively in a transparent pouch mounted to a mat with a caption and a photo of Kennedy in the limousine, all matted in dark blue velour to an overall size of 11'' x 14''. Near fine. Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gruesome-jfks-blood-from-death-limo-auctioned-for-1000/article/2552460 Can't have one of those without one of these....

Given the posts of yours that I've seen and read - the careful way in which you word your responses and the intelliectual analysis/questioning you offer ... You have benefitted this entire Forum immensely. It truly says something, at least in my eyes, when an explanation makes sense to you... A round about way of waying thanks for sure... yet thanks none-the-less DJ

A Number of things Jon. Please read her testimony taken on July 22, 1964.... http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/odio.htm Both she and her sister identified the man, not just her, and they are positive... not kinda or sorta or almost, but identified. She tells the story a number of times before the assassination - never changing the story She searched out no fame or notariety and in fact avoided it and was scared and disappointed by the way she was treated The government went out of their way to discredit her and tried to substitute three other men who all contradicted this conclusion. But they waited until 9/23 to file this report and then did not change anything within the WCR. Harvey Oswald was not found to be on any public transportation out of New Orleans... the 12:20pm bus he supposedly left on only fits the timing and that too was not discovered until Mid Sept - I show how the FBI backdates this information to Dec 1963 and then uses it as his mode of transportation... He was seen in Austin on the 25th or 26th with proof and no record of how he got there. Do you suppose if our Harvey was actually in Mexico we'd not be thrilled to have a photo of him? Bottom line Jon is that he was not in Mexico City or traveling to or from... He is seen and ID'd at Odio's and then again in Dallas, down the street from the SS and FBI at the YMCA on Ervay yet again, there is nothing in the public sector to get him from Mexico to Dallas... If he was not in Mexico during that time and postiviely identified by two people at Odio's while the WCR and evidence does all it can to discredit this ID by summing up with the evidence presented with, "the Commission concluded" since he could not be in two places at once... At least that's what the WCR tried to say. In the first and 2nd essays on Mexico I show LEE in Dallas with Ruby et al, the entire time Harvey is in New Orleans.. Authentic and corroborated evidence places Harvey in Dallas on the 27th... from then to the 4th of Oct is a mystery. One thing for sure though... the CIA and FBI conclude the following within a few days of the assassination and with the full support and assistence of assets within the record keeping portion of the country... Unless he was snuck into Mexico (which documents show was easily accomplished)

Jon, As I've been digging into this for about 6 months now there are a few things which emerge as turths which are difficult to counter: The man Ruby killed was at Odio's on Sept 27th with two Cubans. Which side of the fence he was playing at that time (or whether he was being played) is unknown. Not only does Odio ID him but so does her sister as well as there being corroboration of the visit prior to the assassination. and Finally, the way the WCR treats her and her story (never believe anything until it's officially denied) Her WC interview was in mid July 1964 while the FBI reports, CE3147 & 3148 are dated September 1964. The report itself was finished and delivered on September 24, 1964. Ms. Odio’s story is summarized on p.321-322 followed by the declaration that since OSWALD was traveling on a bus to Mexico at the time he could NOT have been at Odio’s home in Dallas at the same time and it has been developed “that he was not in Dallas any time between the beginning of September and October 3, 1963”. Until the Hearings and Exhibits were published, this was the only mention of Sylvia Odio, 2 Cubans and Leon Oswald. In essence – because he couldn’t have met Odio since he was on a bus to Mexico, he didn’t. The Evidence IS and will always remain, the Conspiracy. He traveled from New Orleans, thru Austin, then up to Dallas. He stopped in Austin at the State Selective Service HQ and at a cafe where he was remembered. When shown a photo of HARVEY, both Ronnie Dugger and Mrs. Stella Norman claim the person they met was “identical with Oswald”. There does not appear to be any evidence related to what HARVEY was doing in Dallas between Sept 26th and Oct 4th when a long-distance call is reported by ?? (Ruth/Marina) from Oct 4th - Dallas to Irving. Since "Oswald" was going to be incriminated and impersonated driving to Mexico with a car full of co-conspirators (per the Phase 1 "blame the Commies" plan), Harvey needed to be kept our of the way. I wish I had some info but I believe the FBI went out of the way not to find anything on Harvey in Dallas while an "Oswald" who we all now know was not Oswald, was leaving breadcrumbs in Mexico. http://jfklancer.com/Page1.html If you haven't you might read this... although you asking about Alice leads me to believe you already have.... From what I can tell, those sightings are either during the Mexico visit or on the drive back and was most probably LEE with a faux family in tow. I know it's a long bit of reading yet if you start with Part one on the Trip to Mexico at CTKA I hope I build a case and compelling story for the thesis... http://www.ctka.net/2014-Josephs/Josephs_Mexico%20City_Part%201.html Take care DJ

http://www.ctka.net/2015/Mexico%20Part%203A.html So basically: Why did the FBI stay with a fraudulent FRONTERA bus manifest until Mid-March 1964 and then drop it as if it never existed? What did the Mystery Photos have to do with the timing of this travel? What is wrong with the existing Del Norte bus evidence? - Part 2 will delve a bit deeper into the FBI's Evidence from the witnesses they were able to find from the records who were on these buses to see if they saw Oswald (again, they could find scores of people with the existing bus records to ask, they just could not find Oswald's evidence) To reiterate, it is my theory that the MEN the evidence describes as Oswald traveling was a composite of people and fraudulent evidence... that the man at the Hotel was not the man on either the bus or the embassies/consulates.. and that other than the Sept 27th visit, I don't think an Oswald was seen by Duran. Finally, Alvarado was most definitely a CIA asset The following gives a bit of credibility to the notion that our Oswald was NEVER in Mexico - at least not officially - from 1959 on

I'll post this last thing and be done... What you've posted is your interpretation of what witnesses said or what they are credited with saying according to FBI or DPD reports - hardly reliable sources we have come to learn and understand. If I was to debate with you I'd say your 4 shot scenario is not possible given the number of people you continue to claim only heard 3 of these 4 shots... but I am not here to debate with you. I posted what your main witnesses actually said and in each case they refer to shots well before z313 - I even included images to help you and others visualize these actions and statements. I've read over your threads and they don't change from previous readings... you interpret what a witness says based on your existing conclusion of 4 monument area shots, rather than reading what they are saying and corroborating it to other statements which show your analysis to be somewhat skewed toward your preconceived conclusion. What I've offered is rebuttal and analysis of your work and rather than expand on the evidence you claim supports this conclusion, you simply speak louder. You write in the other thread: David, let me give you an example of the noise level for the three rifle shots. 2 witnesses located at Record and Main recalled hearing three shots 19 sheriff deputies located outside of DP heard three shots 1 witness a block north of the TSBD to the rear of the building heard three shots 1 witness a behind and to the side of the TSBD sitting in an enclosed building heard three shots more than 70% of the witnesses heard three or more reports. A number of witnesses depicted in A6 reported hearing three rifle shots How does any of the above support 4 shots from the monuments? Which is your conclusion, correct?

This is the only thing I could find which specifically states the calibre of the slug. I have yet to find a DPD report which states so.

Trying to determine where "30.06" comes from... I missed that

If you go back one page you'll see it was Groden

Let's see... Mr. Frasier is FBI FBI did more to hide the facts of the assassination than any other entity FBI created more evidence than it authenticated Can anyone offer a nugget of FBI evidence that incriminates Oswald where the FBI did NOT lie? I have yet to discover one. Great job Robert... as we continue to approach the evidence as it represents the conspiracy and not the assassination these revelations should become more and more commonplace while hopefully becoming more and more part of our collective knowledge of the conspiracy in action.

Good to see you posting again Greg... That statement of Hoover's is fantastic... Another fantastic statement: and we wonder why the evidence is so poor.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappD.html - the link to the Redlich memo These SSA men are looking forward... yes the GK is forward as are many, many things. How do you tell they are not looking at the Overpass? How can you tell anything about what they see or what they think without it just being speculation? How are you in a position to state WHY they turned to their right? You conclude things are "myths" and only offer speculative circumstantial evidence... Maybe, in reaction to the firecracker/gunshot sound just after the turn onto Elm as so many witnesses state, they turned. Dal Tex, TSBD, whichever... Will you deny that MANY witnesses see men with rifles in the TSBD between 12:15 and 12:30? ---- Hickey is looking at the result of a shot hitting the street as a number of witnesses refer to at the top of Elm. (other thing to keep in mind is we lilve this every day - those in DP that day were not expecting this, not observing with intent to recontruct a murder scene. Even the SS who had stayed up late and drank and were definitely not in top shape. ---- "Stood Down" Are you in a position to tell us what the noise level was in these vehicles surrounded by motorcycles? If the first shot does not occur until z220 there would be no reason to look elsewhere. Yet within 2 seconds we see witnesses looking in all sorts of directions... IF a man was on the foot sills of the limo he would have been able to cover JFK. To me, I do see what appears to be a person in the window... and we cannot see the roof at all in any image. From your POV all these people have reasons for not looking directly at JFK? No one is reacting to a noise here which other corroborating witnesses say was a shot not a second or so before? Maybe the shot(s) came from here? You seriously can't prove they did not come from here - you can only guess like the rest of us. And then add those wonderful Werbell silencers and a gunshot sounds like a firecracker... Yes Robert, once the assumptions you make are accepted as facts then you can explain a 4 shot monument area scenario... but your assumptions are part of the problem since shots WERE heard, shots WERE described prior to z313. JC is never in a position to have a shot enter the back near the armpit from the monuments. What you call "unnecessary" others call corroborated evidence of a different scenario whcih cannot be supported by your 4 shots from the monuments - but you dont want to discuss authenticating this evidence - you seem to just want to speak louder and hope we understand better... I have followed your arguments and find them lacking and unconvincing. You seem to build a case on assumption and acceptance rather than evidence, authentication and corroboration... but I may be totally off here. If there are others who agree that you nailed it, great. To claim that all the shots would come from anywhere but the direction they put the patsy is counterintuitive to the "Professional" plan. I'm about done with this now Robert. Again, I applaud your passion yet would like to see more authentication - would the evidence you use to prove your conclusion be allowable in court - which is my measure of the worth of evidence Peace DJ

Sounds to me now you are preaching and not discussing Robert. I appreciate the passion of your conclusions and convictions yet referencing yourself is not exactly authenticating anything. John Connally: We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. Mr. KELLERMAN. As we turned off Houston onto Elm and made the short little dip to the left going down grade, as I said, we were away from buildings, and were there was a sign on the side of the road which I don't recall what it was or what it said, but we no more than passed that and you are out in the open, and there is a report like a firecracker, pop. BREHM AFFIDAVIT: When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction NEWMAN: from the Shaw Trial testimony: If this is the THIRD shot... wouldn't there have been a few more up Elm? And since Moorman and Hill are directly across from Newman - wouldn't that be their third shot as well? Mrs. HILL - After the President was shot, but I wouldn't---it wasn't with the first shot. To me he wasn't hit when the first shot hit. Mr. SPECTER - And what is the basis for your saying that, Mrs. Hill? Mrs. HILL - Well, I just think that he was hit after Kennedy was hit because, well, Just the way that it looked, I would say that he was hit later. Mr. SPECTER - Now, do you associate the time that Governor Connally appeared to have been hit with any specific shot that you heard? Mrs. HILL - The second. Mr. SPECTER - And what specifically did you observe at the time of the second shot? Mrs. HILL - Well, that's what I thought had happened---that they had hit someone in the front part of the car. Mr. SPECTER - And what did you observe at the time of the third shot? Mrs. HILL - President Kennedy was hit again and he had further buffeted his body and I didn't realize at the time what it was-I remarked to my friends in the police station that day--did she notice his hair standing up, because it did. It just rippled up like this. Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the right and so the first shot rung out and, of course, I didn't realize it was a shot, what was taking place right at that present time, and when the second one rung out, the motorcade had done got further on down Elm, and you see, I was trying to get a good look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the second shot. Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that correct? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear. Robert - could you please address how these statements do not support a shot heard and seen prior to Z313 I will go take another look at that thread yet witnesses hearing something does not authenticate it, it just aids in proving that the goverment's side of the story and the physical evidence offered is worthless in determining the crime.

What people are willing to believe has no bearing on what occurred Robert. What the EVIDENCE SAYS has no bearing on what occurred... The "conspirators" did not need to convince anyone of anything... "They killed POTUS, what do you think they'd do to me" - didn't Dr. Crenshaw say this? What people SAID and what got entered into Evidence are two very different things - Baker's affidavit on the 22nd has little to do with his testimony months later... even though the affidavit was more incriminating to Oswald than his testimony... whoever he saw coming down the stairs between the 3rd and 4th floors was something the WC did not want to deal with, so they changed the story. The fact that you can make sense of terribly fraudulent evidence is to be applauded yet what if it came to pass that a shot WAS fired from the sewer - does it actually happening make it any more believeable? Do I understand you that any evidence of a shot other than the 4 you say were fired from the front was planted after the fact? And this is more logical an explanation than 6-8 shots being fired from 3 directions in a triangulation guaranteed to kill the target? The explanation of this case has little to do with LOGIC - everything I've read about double and triple agents and/or projects states that those outside the project simply cannot fathom the motivation of the key players - they simply do not have enough information on this history to come to a realistic conclusion other than pure speculation. The absolutes you state seem to me as being presented as unquestionable conclusions that anyone with half a brain can and should not only understand but accept as the truth. I don't claim to know why things were done the way there were all I can do is authenticate the evidence offered and it it cannot be authenticated it has to be dismissed as evidence. So let me ask you if you could take 1 or 2 elements of evidence for your conclusions and authenticate them. How is John Connally hit in the right rear from the right front or side of the limo? How is the manhole cover gouge made from the front? How is JFK's jacket, shirt and backwound created after the fact and please AUTHENTICATE this evidence. I think this can make for great discussion - which authenticated piece of evidence prooves to you that we can forget about shots from the rear? ---------------- Regarding the windshield shot... I do not have the evidence to conclude one way or the other. I cannot see how the windshield and Tague are connected. Maybe it did hit JFK although Altgens does not seem to show that the windshield had been hit by that point. Maybe it was simply a fragment - (did you know that the cannister at NARA with the scrappings from the window is now empty?) https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10482&relPageId=12 is a link to WCD 80 and an SS report which states on the 3rd page (link is to page 1) "In addition, of particular note was the small hole just left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed" Seems it was Hickey and Kinney who accompanied the limo on the airplane yet neither mentions the windshield in their reports - they were not called to testify.

The FBI was counting on it - this model is done BEFORE the Tague shot is acknowledged. Three shots, three hits as their story went. Robert - you should be happy to see where the FBI places that last shot... z375 I believe This model never sees the light of day and the CEs created from it (CE878-879) is quite the spin on this info

1) I don't see how you can come to a conclusion about a hole or not from those images. All I posted them for was to show that SOMETHING happened to the windshield in DP which was identical to the windshield seen at Parkland. You claimed this damage to be done after the fact - I think this disproves that. What I did say was there were witnesses at Parkland who say they saw a t-n-t hole... 2) Altered to place damage where damage was seen by those who looked? You saying the Parkland images were altered to add this damage? 3) If... If the damage was only indicative of a shot from the rear there would be no need to replace it unless the bullet used did not have or leave any copper within the damage as it should (Tague curb). If it was a t-n-t from the front it had to be removed from evidence. Let's please try and remember that Oswald was set up. That other bullets where involved and other directions which the WCR via the FBI and SS had to cover-up. NONE of the evidence was going to prove he was killed with a shot from behind yet that was the assignment.... why remove all the steel from the WTCs? Why say OSwald was not ot Odio's, why create a fake gun purchase... ?? "WHY" is not something we can know with any certainty, we can only guess. So let's not ask "WHY" questions and stick to who, what, when, where and how. 4) Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any occasion on November 22, after the shooting, to observe closely the windshield? Mr. GREER. No, sir. The only time I was in the car was going to the hospital and I never--I didn't see the car any more. It was just from the shooting until we got to Parkland that I was with the car. I left the car there and never did see it until it was back at the White House garage ... Representative BOGGS. Excuse me, did you say you did not notice this crack from the time that you drove the car after the shooting to the hospital? Mr. GREER. No, sir; I had flags on the car and you know they were waving at a high rate of speed and you have the Presidential flag and the American flag in front of you there; you know when you are going at a fast speed you get a lot of, well, I don't know how you would say it, it attracts you so much that I didn't have any recollection of what happened on the windshield. ---- Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any occasion to examine closely the windshield area after the assassination in Dallas? Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any occasion to examine closely the windshield at any time after the assassination until you saw the car in the garage on or about November 27? Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir; I have not. I simply do not draw the same conclusions as you appear to be jumping to.... You want to give some special meaning to what these men said about the windshield - The fact that so much was avoided related to the windshield suggests to me there was something to hide - but we don't know. Do you believe Weldon's story about the Ford plant glass replacement? Do you believe anyone who says they saw a hole? http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/ (1) Dallas motorcycle patrolmen Stavis Ellis and H. R. Freeman both observed a penetrating bullet hole in the limousine windshield at Parkland Hospital. Ellis told interviewer Gil Toff in 1971: “There was a hole in the left front windshield…You could put a pencil through it…you could take a regular standard writing pencil…and stick [it] through there.” Freeman corroborated this, saying: “[i was] right beside it. I could of [sic] touched it…it was a bullet hole. You could tell what it was.” [David Lifton published these quotations in his 1980 book, Best Evidence.] (2) St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Richard Dudman wrote an article published in The New Republic on December 21, 1963, in which he stated: “A few of us noted the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see which side was the cup-shaped spot which indicates a bullet had pierced the glass from the opposite side.” (3) Second year medical student Evalea Glanges, enrolled at Southwestern Medical University in Dallas, right next door to Parkland Hospital, told attorney Doug Weldon in 1999: “It was a real clean hole.” In a videotaped interview aired in the suppressed episode 7 of Nigel Turner’s The Men Who Killed Kennedy, titled “The Smoking Guns,” she said: “…it was very clear, it was a through-and-through bullet hole through the windshield of the car, from the front to the back…it seemed like a high-velocity bullet that had penetrated from front-to-back in that glass pane.” At the time of the interview, Glanges had risen to the position of Chairperson of the Department of Surgery, at John Peter Smith Hospital, in Fort Worth. She had been a firearms expert all her adult life. (4) Mr. George Whitaker, Sr., a senior manager at the Ford Motor Company’s Rouge Plant in Detroit, Michigan, told attorney (and professor of criminal justice) Doug Weldon in August of 1993, in a tape recorded conversation, that after reporting to work on Monday, November 25th, he discovered the JFK limousine — a unique, one-of-a-kind item that he unequivocally identified — in the Rouge Plant’s B building, with the interior stripped out and in the process of being replaced, and with the windshield removed. He was then contacted by one of the Vice Presidents of the division for which he worked, and directed to report to the glass plant lab, immediately. After knocking on the locked door (which he found most unusual), he was let in by two of his subordinates and discovered that they were in possession of the windshield that had been removed from the JFK limousine. They had been told to use it as a template, and to make a new windshield identical to it in shape — and to then get the new windshield back to the B building for installation in the Presidential limousine that was quickly being rebuilt. Whitaker told Weldon (quoting from the audiotape of the 1993 interview): “And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through…it was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it…this had a clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the back.” Whitaker told Weldon that he eventually became superintendent of his division and was placed in charge of five plant divisions. He also told Weldon that the original windshield, with the bullet hole in it, had been broken up and scrapped — as ordered — after the new windshield had been made. There you go asking WHY again.... We don't know why Robert nor does asking WHY change anything about the answers... If people fired simultaneously as I suspect, movement of the target from one hit could cause others to miss... That is my SPECULATION about your WHY question... Your assumptions keep running away with your logic - "Mafia thugs are not known to be snipers" - where do you come up with this stuff Robert? How many MAFIA THUGS did you ever know? And then again with the "WHY would this or that be" questions when we both know that the evidence which reached the Commissin and report was all BS - no one has been connected to anyone in reality and don't you suppose if hints were dropped that COULD lead back to LBJ he'd be a bit more willing to play along? I am and have always been saying that ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS CREATED to keep us guessing. We are on the same page there... I have even asked and implored LNers to post any authenticated evidence - there is none. Yet that does not mean that corroborated evidence is not authentic... Officer Foster sees the bullet gouge by the manhole cover as do Mr/Mrs Hartman https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11913&relPageId=51 Are you trying to say that no shots were fired from the rear cause I don't see that as possible. Yes Robert, it is amazing that more people did not get hurt... but let's look at the physical damage in those few seconds: Tague, manhole cover, Elm street sparks by Houston, north side of Elm sidewalk mark, windshield, chrome, JFK back, JCK head, JFK throat, JC back, JC front, JC wrist, JC thigh... I have not named WHERE these originate, just that they occurred - you try to name to source locations which is interesting but only a guess. At the end of the shooting we have only one person dead and one person injured - not bad for a bunch of amateurs - the bullets are accounted for just not in the manner we'd like to see... The FBI tells us at 9:18pm during the autopsy that there is another bullet lodged behind JFK's ear... we have both Todd and Johnson giving a bullet to Frasier, we have O'Connor telling us of a bullet removed from the intercostal muscles of JFK, we have no idea what was actually found in the cars of the motorcade as the SS and FBI are the ones we need to believe. We have the manhole cover bullet picked up by unknown blond dude. We have the bullet that hit the curb and nicks Tague. So no Robert, I don't think your last paragraph there is an accurate way to recap the situation. Let's look at the PLAN - Kill JFK, implicate Oswald, Kill Oswald, write a cover-up report that convinces the world Oswald acted alone, go to Vietnam. For over 50 years we've been dealing with this reality - very easy to see and understand yet the "bewildered herds" do not want to believe we were or are capable of such things. So I need to ask you... which truth are the breadcrumbs steering us away from? To me they all lead back to the military industrial congressional complex and the coordinated execution of JFK for monetary and ideological reasons Discussion the Evidence when the Evidence IS the Conspiracy is what Salandria warned us about... and here we are - not being able to help ourselves but to keep busy examining the minutia and letting the rich steal not only the country but the entire state and federal governing bodies. Who really cares if it was a hole or not? Does it matter to the concepts of Conspiracy and Patsy whether there was one shooter in front or 5 all around Dealey? When we start asking the right question (from another thread here I believe) - Can any of the incriminiating evidence be authenticated? and find that none of it can be, maybe we can accept we simply will never know as much about the killing as we will about the Conspiracy to commit and the cover-up whcih follows to this day. DJ