David Josephs

David, because when the conspiracy theory is presented to those not entrenched in the dogma the theories appear preposterous.

No rational individual is going to believe shots came from a sewer or that 16 shots were fired or a man with an umbrella fired a poisoned dart. We move from possibility to fantasy land and appear nutz.

The simplest explanation is likely the most correct.

It is interesting that when I explain the assassination four shot model to those that know little about the assassination they can see that the model correlates with testimony, that the films corroborate the model and the photographs are supportive. It is the researchers that are off in the twilight zone still attempting to piece together cherry-picked non-sense in order to create some logical explanations that fail to see truth in the simplicity of the solution.

And yes all the 4 shots came from the monument area.

The conspirators were able to convince SSA to lie, the police to lie, witnesses to change their stories, they even got White House aides to lie. We even have evidence that those that would not lie or stop voicing the truth were murdered.

Are you proposing the shot thru the windshield is the shot that wounded KENNEDY in the throat or did it come from the rear and strike curb near TAGUE?

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.

Robert P. Yes, it had to have been highly probably of one shot 1 kill, but nothing can be guaranteed.

I would think that they had allowed for more than 1 shot to be taken if necessary.

There had to be at least three rifle shots heard.

One to mask or obscure the fact that there was a 'silenced' shot. One rifle shot had to be used to account for this initial silenced shot.

A shot causing a fatal wound was essential to draw attention to an obvious cause of death.

They had to go in with a plan that would be capable of covering contingencies.

Robert just as it was necessary to murder KENNEDY it was also imperative that the assassination did not outright have the appearance of a conspiracy. This alone precludes the possibility of more than 4 shots having been fired.

Think about this, if TAGUE had not been injured, how much easier would it have been to sell the lone nut from the rear three shot scenario? TAGUE's injury was one of the first fatal flaws. What if there had been more bystander injuries or limo occupant injuries or deaths?

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

David, I understand the evidence posted.

May I ask some questions?

1) Some witnesses claimed to see a t-n-t hole in the windshield, yet the evidence you posted clearly shows that it was not a t-n-t hole, how do you rationalize this discrepancy?

2) Could the photographs have been altered?

3) If the damage supported shots coming from the rear, why was the evidence so quickly disposed of?

4) Why would GREER and KELLERMAN lie about the damage when this damage was supportive of the WC fiction why could the WC not produce one witness to bolster claims the damage was done in Dallas, more specifically during the assassination? A SSA drove the car to the airport, where is his testimony, another agent may have taken the limo off the plane in Washington, where is his testimony? Doesn't this damage help with the fiction that shots came from the rear?

More than 4 shots?

You are proposing more than 4 shots fired.

I would ask you to rationalize the use of poor marksmen for such an important task, logically, utilizing 1 or 2 of best snipers that could be identified and willing to kill a President would be preferable, then build a course and train them until they could not miss. LBJ's gunman was not a sniper, Mafia thugs are not known to be snipers, yet these are type of characters indented as potential snipers in DP. Plus why would the conspirators use ANYONE that could be readily connected to LBJ or a Mafia figure???

Is it possible that much of the evidence we are trying to rationalize has been created to keep us guessing? Could it be nothing more than deception?

Same as -> Rifle found: Japanese rifle, no, British Enfield, no, 30-30, no, 7.65 Argentine Mauser, no, 6.5 MC They created bread crumb trails away from truth.

Bullets in the grass, ricocheting off of street, manhole cover, curb, back of seat, chrome around windshield, windshield, KENNEDY hit 3 or 4 times, JC hit 2 or 3 times...

Bullets fired from street drain, picket fence, Underpass, Other side of Underpass, TSBD SN, TSBD West window, Dal-Tex 2nd floor, Court Building roof, Records Building roof, from the Queen Mary, GREER, man with a camera, Umbrella Man...

With bullets flying all over DP, a precise, professional, well planned assignation is transformed into amateur hour with wannabe snipers incapable of hitting KENNEDY or even a slowly moving or stopped limo, it seems it was fortunate that many people were not killed in the process of killing KENNEDY.

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.

More than 4 shots?

You are proposing more than 4 shots fired.

I would ask you to rationalize the use of poor marksmen for such an important task, logically, utilizing 1 or 2 of best snipers that could be identified and willing to kill a President would be preferable, then build a course and train them until they could not miss. LBJ's gunman was not a sniper, Mafia thugs are not known to be snipers, yet these are type of characters indented as potential snipers in DP. Plus why would the conspirators use ANYONE that could be readily connected to LBJ or a Mafia figure???

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?

Is it possible that much of the evidence we are trying to rationalize has been created to keep us guessing? Could it be nothing more than deception?

Same as -> Rifle found: Japanese rifle, no, British Enfield, no, 30-30, no, 7.65 Argentine Mauser, no, 6.5 MC They created bread crumb trails away from truth.

Bullets in the grass, ricocheting off of street, manhole cover, curb, back of seat, chrome around windshield, windshield, KENNEDY hit 3 or 4 times, JC hit 2 or 3 times...

Bullets fired from street drain, picket fence, Underpass, Other side of Underpass, TSBD SN, TSBD West window, Dal-Tex 2nd floor, Court Building roof, Records Building roof, from the Queen Mary, GREER, man with a camera, Umbrella Man...

With bullets flying all over DP, a precise, professional, well planned assignation is transformed into amateur hour with wannabe snipers incapable of hitting KENNEDY or even a slowly moving or stopped limo, it seems it was fortunate that many people were not killed in the process of killing KENNEDY

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

David, there is no doubt that there was a hole in the windshield and the molding around the windshield was dented, I am saying that this evidence was created after the fact and then recorded and then immediately destroyed so that it could not be analyzed. The dent and hole or nick in the windshield supported shot from behind fiction, most likely intended to be fragments from the head wound. The evidence was destroyed because it would not stand up to close scrutiny.

Gonna have to disagree with you Robert... we can see the cracks in the windshield in DP in Altgens and at Parkland. Whether Greer and Kellerman see a crack or lied about seeing it is not the point... it's there and those standing around the limo at Parkland claim to have seen a thru and thru hole. He said she said.... Since the windshield cannot be authenticated as evidence - it really doesn't matter what conclusion is offered... yet whatever it is, it occurred during the assassination, same with the dented chrome... there were shots from the rear - Tague, manhole cover, sidewalk results of shots from behind the limo... JFK's back wound and JC's backwound could not be cause by shots from the front.

Pamela - I know you've done amazing work on the limo yet how can you say that when you were neither there or actually saw the windshield that night while others were and did... ?

Those who said they saw a thru and thru hole - lying?

Ford plant worker per Weldon - also a fib?

Finally, I did an analysis to figure out how fast that limo was moving based on how long it took Hill to get from where he was to the back of the limo... by my calcs the limo had slowed to less than 3 mph so that in just over 2 steps Hill makes it.

Hill is 15 feet from the front of the Queen Mary. The WCR claims the speed at 11mph which is of course wrong - since Hill would have to drop down and be running at almost 20mph to catch the limo so quickly - unless everyone was traveling alot slower - it also appears as if frames are missing from Nix as he takes the first steps - this gif should give us an idea of how slow these vehicles were moving...

Also notice Cheney and theother motocop stopping and looking to their right - no Cheney gunning forward, no Hargis stopping and moving across Elm... (even more telling is the Quicktime version of Zapruder. Run it backward from the end to this point and see how the limo slows like crazy...

Yes indeed Robert - really great work even if I don't happen to agree with all of your conclusions...

In Altgens we can see SS agents turning to the right rear.

In the Zfilm we can see Hickey looking at the ground as they complete the turn

Even the FBI in WCD298 did not try to hide an earlier shot when JFK goes behind the sign and we can see a reaction as he emerges so I guess you are saying no one hears this shot.

Does it make sense that shots from UP Elm would not echo in the open area that is by the Dealey plaza overpass where as a shot from the front/side/south in the open areas of DP would indeed echo up at the top of ELM. It has always been my opinion that a coordinated radio connected group of shooters would fire simultaneously to mask the number of shooters.

Once the FBI got a hold of witnesses, like Jean Hill, they basically INSISTED it was 3 shots - it would be my guess that not nearly as many said 3 as what the FBI credits.

It is also my opinion that CE399 was never in Dallas but was sitting in Chief Rowley's desk drawer and given to Johnson to give to Frasier.

And finally to Mr. Von Pein... there is no reason to believe a single thing the FBI, SS, CIA or WC lawyers offers as evidence in this case until it is authenticated.

As Redlich writes to Rankin on 4/27/64 and then disappears to history:

Our intention is not to establish the

point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the

hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole

assassin.

I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture.

Yep, I sure wonder what our Man Hoover would be trying to hide related to himself or Oswald...
or what he's done to not have to worry about it so much...

Q1 - Was Oswald an FBI and/or CIA related asset used for any purpose - gather data, keep tabs, infultrate, disrupt... whatever. and

Q2 - Would his involvement with US intelligent be reason to use him as a patsy in this situation?

Actually - the question that most needs to be answered in my opinion is:

What evidence actually convicts Oswald and

Can any of this evidence representing Oswald's guilt be Authenticated to become Real Evidence as accepted by a court of law?

"The proponent of the evidence must also establish that the object, in relevant respects, has not changed or been altered between the events and the trial. This can sometimes be a tall order, or can require the testimony of several witnesses. If there is any time from the events in question to the day of trial during which the location of the item cannot be accounted for, the chain is broken. In that case, the evidence will be excluded unless another method of authentication can be used."

These are the 12 WCR conclusions related to Oswald's guilt which require Authinticated Evidence to prove:

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.
(Oswald cannot be placed at that window at that time)

2. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired.
(Has nothing to do with Oswald's guilt)

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.
(Has nothing to do with Oswald's guilt)

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. (not proven)

( Oswald carried this rifle into the Depository Building on the morning of November 22,1963. (not proven)

© Oswald, at the time of the assassination, was present at the window from which the shots were fired. (not proven)

(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. (not proven)

(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 (not proven - in fact refuted directly)

(f) Oswald lied to the police after his arrest concerning important substantive matters. (Has nothing to do with proving guilt)

(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 (Has nothing to do with proving guilt - in fact the WCR claims that there is no identifiable motive and that he actually liked JFK)

5. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination (not proven)

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. (Has nothing to do with proving guilt)

7. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning Oswald’s interrogation and detention by the Dallas police : (Has nothing to do with proving guilt and the DPD opught to be chastized for not recording the interrogations - 12 hours worth of question and 5 pages of scribbled notes - what are we missing here?)

8. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963(Has nothing to do with proving guilt)

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 (Has nothing to do with proving guilt)

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 (Has nothing to do with proving guilt)

11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that. Oswald acted alone (Has nothing to do with proving guilt)

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. (Has nothing to do with proving guilt - and is one of the fattest lies we are told)

here are these agents "reacting promptly" after JFK has been hit at least once)

How about this -

None of the evidence we consider indicative of what occurred in Dealey Plaza can be considered Authentic.... NONE of it. (if you have something please name it)

Hole in the windshield? the SS says no (never believe anything until it is officially denied) yet bystanders, and a Ford plant employee says other wise

Limo slowed/stopped? the Zfilm in evidence is spliced in 8 places and does not have 0183 anywhere on it - yet THAT is what we claim is authentic? We have numerous places where movement illustrates the removal of frames:

The Rifle? please

Norman hearing the click-click boom, 3 times, 10 feet from his head and still able to hear a bolt and falling shells - right

FBI takes ALL the evidence on Nov 22nd and returns hundreds more items than it took... oops

Testimony is changed or is said not to match what people claim they said - per for the course

Muchmore says she did NOT film the limo or assassination sequence....

Nix's original is gone

Altgens 7's negative is Lost and is the only image that does not look like the others with the top right cut off where we should see image

I don't think we are in a position to say with certainty what was real or not - I would say tho that we need to give the benefit of the doubt to corroborated witness testimony before we accept FBI/SS/CIA provided evidence of any kind - at least in this case and most of the cases in the 50's and 60's - that is unless you want to beleive this practice did not end in the early 70's...

Maybe this can help

To add a little more speculation, it seems very likely that Oswald may have been a low level source for the ONI in Japan, in regard to Communist planted bar girls working the military scene. However one highly credible sign of intelligence interest in Oswald - at least to me - comes in reports that were investigated by HSCA pertaining to a CIA contact report dated 1962, the report related to information on the Minsk radio plant and was routed to the Foreign Documents Division of the CIA's Soviet Branch of the Directorate of Intelligence. The report very likely was based in a debrief of Oswald upon his return to the US which had long been rumored but denied later by the CIA -- or from information in Oswald's "manuscript".

The report was also investigated by CBS news and a related CIA document provides pretty clear confirmation that the story was not only real but successfully obfuscated by the CIA during the investigations. If you have SWHT 2010 you will find details on page 84/85.

For what its worth, if Oswald had gone into or appeared to get in touch with the Soviet embassy in Tokyo, as Nagell described, it would likely also have come to the attention of the CIA's Soviet Branch, it probably goes without saying that the Soviet Branch not only collected information but conducted operations to obtain intelligence....

Larry - CE1961 places Oswald on a ship from Japan to Taiwan on Sept 14 - Oct 6. (CE1962 - Allen Felde's statement directly contradicts the CE1961 timeline and reinforces it was LEE)

The Donabedian Exhibit #1 has Oswald being treated in JAPAN on 9/16 (previous VD?) 9/20, 9/22, 9/23, 9/29, 10/6, 10/24, 11/3 (an Oswald departed Japan on Nov 2 for SF)

The DoD tries to claim he sated behind yet he was seen and described in Ping Tung during that period.

Unit Diaries show him both leaving and returning on the dates described.

CE1961 puts Oswald at the station Hospital in Atsugi from Oct 7 to Oct 13... the "complete" medical records of Oswald do not include this stay at this time

Folsom Exhibit #1 p3 we see double entries for 6Oct58 - one in SF and one in Japan, same signature - CE1961 tells us he was in the hospital from the 6th to the 13th yet they crossed out the "Hosp" entry and replaced it with a "General Duty" assignment on the 6th...

The Oswald Ruby killed never had "bleeding from the rectum" as he did on 7/12/58. This man also did not have a bullet wound on the left elbow or ever had STD's... I think this is strong evidence in support of the real Lee Oswald in addition to the man who returned from Russia

DJ

If not I would like to know why you are holding onto the belief that ROSEMARY was reacting to a noise?

Sir - I've done the work and that's how I know what you are doing is so shameful...

I posted her statements from later on when she had a chance to recount the story:

Rosemary: As they made the turn from Houston to Elm Street, they'd just gone a few feet when the first shot rang out,

Bill Newman: When his car was probably a hundred fifty feet or so from us, the first two shots rang out: and it was a boom! (smacks his hand) boom! (smacks his hand again) like that. And at that moment, I didn't even realize that it was gunfire.

But as the car got closer to us, you could tell something was wrong. You could see the president kind of looking at the crowd, you could see Governor Connally sort of stretched out, holding himself, eyes protruding, you could see the blood on him -- you know it's just moments or seconds we're dealing with -- just as the car got right in front of us, the president was probably...some ten or twelve feet from me, maybe, or even less. The third shot rang out -- boom! (slaps hand again) and I can remember seeing the side of his head come off.

Forget the movie frames which help to confirm her story... this statement is only one of many I've posted to illustrate your misreading of the eviden

I'm sorry you dont have the gumption to address why you only posted partial quotes and left out the parts which clarify what they were saying and contradicts what you are asserting... but you haven't even attempted it.

When Bill here says "But as the car got closer to us" one can conclude that the 150 feet he referred to was UP ELM, not down....

How many times do witnesses have to say they did not realize the first sound was actually gunfire until after the fact.... but they do say it was a shot which had visible results.

Gotta go now Bob... I'm sure that James and Robert are more than your match in discussing what you've done here....

So boys, who within CI watches and tracks ?

Not more agents?

Are you comfortable with the thought that Jesus Angleton did not run agents?

Oswald could not have been assigned to watch or track potential problems to the DDP based on other infultrations of Cubans in the CIA planning process?

Would we say that Clay Shaw worked for the CIA... or just provided information as necessary and was not an agent.

These are legit questions as I am sure you have much more knowledge about "spies" and spying than I.

A person who calls the police once to report a crime is not an "informant"

A man who writes a detailed description of Russian life and examines each of the following topics might very well be considered a spy...

If your point is that Angleton or CI did not run him... I don't know enough to say one way or the other.

Yet that does not remove Oswald from the ranks of "one who spies" simply because he did not have a CIA (or FBI) business card.

Are we really trying to assert that Oswald and the FPCC was not part of an intelligence operation and that Oswald was not a player in that game

or that this was not a report for intelligence purposes?

David,

I have posted 40 pages of "STRAWMAN" evidence that all points to one conclusion, fairly remarkable feat!!!

No sir - you posted 40 pages of opinion based on incomplete and cherry-picked evidence... which is easily made to look as such.

Speaking LOUDER does not make you any more clear or correct

Rereading the same poorly constructed arguments - the results don't change.

I can post the entirely of the WCR here as well... doesn't make it true or correct cause I say it is....

& If I take the step further and stand by the conclusions without lifting the curtain to reveal the dishonesty, the result only reflects on the person making the ascertion

It's not the evidence's fault you don't present the entire story or fashion your argument with only the evidence which supports your theory... it's yours. and it's transparent.

Years analyzing the lies within the evidence offered by the SS/FBI/CIA makes it very easy to identify your techniques, they wrote the book on it and you are following suit.

Congrats!

Affidavit - Admiral George Burkley: "There was no difference in the nature of the wounds I saw at Parkland Hospital and those I observed at the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. "

So basically Robert you are beyond discussion. If you wil believe this Klein's has a rifle they'd like to sell you...

David, after looking over your post, instead of addressing other issues, it might be more beneficial for you to try to comprehend what is being presented, because if you can understand what actually occurred during the assassination the answers to your other inquiries will be self evident.

I asked this question a few posts back and it is really pertinent, I have posted over 30 corroborating testimonies from witnesses that essentially claimed the first rifle shot heard occurred at Z-313, which caused JFK's fatal head wound, which caused the President to 'slump'. IF this evidence has not made an impact on you, then really, there is no explanation I can give you for P WILLIS or R WILLIS or HICKEY or WEST survey that you would believe anyway.

I suggest you also review the thread on Secret Service agents response to help your understanding as to when the first shot actually occurred.

I wasn't going to bother with you any longer but this reply is so condescending and insulting I had to give it a try. I have found that people like you who put together strawman arguments are usually never willing to delve deeper into their own work but would rather tell others how they cannot comprehend... or they need to go do more research... it's standard COINTELPRO tactic for disruption of forums... it's so obvious it's tedious.

I've shown you how your "corroborating testimonies" are both cherry-picked and dishonest in their presentation... yet you persist

None of the people claim the shot was prior to 313, only YOU make that distinction. only YOU come to that increbily simplistic and misinformed opinion.

I'm sure I've read more about this case in the last 15 years than you can to even begin to understand - I had Vince's book when it was a free pdf by chapter many, many years ago... (Shout out to Vince btw)

What has made an impact is your disregard for logic and the componenets of a coherent argument. Cause you say so don't make it so Robert....

Pointing to a cherry-picked statement out of context and calling them golden eggs reflects more on you than anything else.

I see you not responding to other direct questions about your thesis with little in reply other than Fetzer's classic, "well then you just dont know any better - it's obvious to me"

I posted a number of your quotes next to the full statement - you dont seem prepared or able to address the evidence of your bias toward the information you post as "support".

Engaging with you in this discussion is akin to discussing with DVP Oswald in the window or the ownership of the rifle... it gives credibility to a conclusion which was incorrect and unproven on its face and takes the conversation out of the realm of reality and puts it square into fantasy land.

I's all for NEW and INTERESTING ideas on the events... trying to prove z313 was the first shot may have started out as a nobel quest, you've tutned it into a lesson in how not to read and interpret evidence while making sure not to include ALL the evidence for fear of contradication...

I promose Robert... whatever you do in the future I will stay out of your way. Good luck with the members here, I'm sure they will treat you as you deserve.

DJ

The interview I posted from is pretty specific Robert....

I posted well more than just her stating the first shot was before Z313 Robert...

You wrote: But for now let me frame the purpose of this thread, it is to show researchers that there is abundant and compelling evidence available from witnesses throughout DP and as well as in the motorcade that provided testimony that essentially claims the first rifle shot they heard would have been at Z-313

Only when you provide your analysis of their statements. The most compelling part of the witness testimony in DP is that it contradicts the official story, the films and the photos.

The physcial Evidence the FBI/SS offered IS the Conspiracy.

The difference is between what witnesses claim was THIER first shot, the evidence we have it was not and how you choose to interpret the statements in relation to the point you are trying to prove.

I've gone back to your first posts to review who you choose to post as supporting evidence as and usual I find that the contradictory statements left off

You wrote: MRS. JACK FRANZEN – FBI: “she heard a noise which sounded to her as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President's automobile. She advised at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President's automobile.”

Affidavit: She (Mrs. Jack Frazen) advised shortly after the President's automobile passed by on Elm Street near where she and her family were standing, she heard a noise which sounded to her as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President's automobile. She advised at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President's automobile.

But then you leave off her next sentence:

She advised she heard two other sounds which sounded like shots from a firearm and noticed blood appearing on the side of President KENNEDY's head.

The debris she was speaking of was concrete off the pavement, not blood off his head which she tells you about in the next sentence.

JACK FRANZEN – FBI: “He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President's car and noticed small fragments flying inside the President's car and immediately assumed that someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile.”

Mr. and Mrs. FRANZENS description of the first shot causing the debris flying in the limo can only be describing the result of the President receiving the fatal head wound and the debris flying to the rear and left of the limo.

Sorry Robert but your interpretation of this statement leaves alot to be desired and again leaves off the rest of his statement:

Affidavit: Mr. FRANZEN advised he and his wife and small son were standing in the grass area west of Houston Street and south of Elm Street at the time the President's motorcade arrived at that location at approximately 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963. He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President's car and noticed small fragments flying inside the President's car and immediately assumed that someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile.

He heard a second and third and possibly a fourth explosion and recognized these sounds as being shots fired from some firearm. At the same time he noticed blood appearing at the top and sides of the head of President Kennedy

JAMES TAGUE – FBI: “…when the motorcade was approximately 100 feet from him he heard a loud noise…”

Mr. LIEBELER. Go ahead and tell us what you saw.
Mr. TAGUE. Well, I was standing there watching, and really I was watching to try to distinguish the President and his car. About this time I heard what sounded like a firecracker. Well, a very loud firecracker. It certainly didn't sound like a rifleshot. It was more of a loud cannon-type sound. I looked around to see who was throwing firecrackers or what was going on and I turned my head away from the motorcade and, of course, two more shots.

WILLIAM SHELLEY – AFFIDAVIT: “The Presidents car was about half way from Houston Street to the triple underpass, when I heard what sounded like three shots.

Mr. BALL - Did you see the motorcade pass?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - What did you hear?
Mr. SHELLEY - Well, I heard something sounded like it was a firecracker and a slight pause and then two more a little bit closer together

James Jarman (11-24-63 FBI report, CD5 p334-335) “He said that he heard a shot and then saw President Kennedy move his right hand up to his head."

Mr. BALL - After the motorcade passed, what happened?
Mr. JARMAN - After the motorcade turned, going west on Elm, then there was a loud shot, or backfire, as I thought it was then--I thought it was a backfire.

Robert - I can go on and on but I've made my point. What really irks me here is that you take statements, cherry-pick what you like within them to support your theory and call it a done day. What you are doing here is a shameful example of misinformation in order to support your ideas. That's what the FBI and SS did in the WCR. They supressed anything agains the OSwald did it conclusion and only presented info in the light of day whcih incriminated him.

I'm not sure what kind of game you're playing or why you think it important to inform seasoned researchers of the subject that there are mountains of evidence for z313 being the first shot when there actually isn't. That conclusion is only from your POV with poorly constructed arguments without corroboration or foundation.

No worries sir, I wont be bothering with you any longer if this be the example of your work and presentational ethics... we have a tough enouogh time with those who argue in favor of the WCR let alone those of our own trying to force feed us conclusion such as this.

Take care

DJ

Betzner and Willis are mistaken? Connally, Hudson, Rosemary, Truly all mistaken.

Altgens photo circa 255, mistaken

A (Bill Newman): Okay. My wife and myself were watching the parade come toward us. We had to more or less step off the curb to look up the street, and as the car was approaching I heard two shots -- BOOM, BOOM -- and when the first shot was fired the President throwed his hands up like this (demonstrating), and at the time what we thought had happened, somebody throwed firecrackers or something under the automobile and he was protecting his face. At the time of the first shot Governor Connally turned in his seat in this manner (demonstrating), to look back at the President I suppose, and then the second shot was fired, and then as the car approached us to where we were standing, I could see Governor Connally leaning back in his seat holding his hands down like this (demonstrating), and at that time I could see blood on his shirt, and that is when I actually realized that it appeared, you know, he had been shot. The President all the time was staying in an upright position in his seat and it looked like he was looking into the crowd of people as if he was trying to see someone. I caught a glimpse of his eyes, just looked like a cold stare, he just looked through me, and then when the car was directly in front of me, well, that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off. Now, it is my opinion at the time --

CECIL AULT "Following the first shot Mr. AULT noted that President KENNEDY appeared to raise up in his seat in the Presidential automobile and after the second shot the President slumped into his seat."

Same discussion as with SMITH and MOONEYHAM, ALT must be describing the shot at Z-313, he is also a half a block away.

ALT can not be describing JFK leaning to his left he is describing President KENNEDY movements following being fatally wounded.

At Z-313 Alt notices a gross movement made by the bullet impacting KENNEDY, then after the next rifle shot, JACKIE gets out of the limo and as she does she lets go of KENNEDY and he falls into the seat, after the second rifle shot, this is what ALT is describing.

Help me out here Robert... I am not sure why you choose to ignore the evidence of one if not two shots at least, being fired prior to Z313.

Altgens tells us the limo moved only a short distance after his first photo of the limo coming down Elm.

Witnesses saw sparks behind the limo as it finished the turn onto Elm and Hickey and Rosemary react to this shot

What is JFK doing here as his arms come up and he appears to rise a bit out of his seat?

I hope you understand that I agree with you that many more shots were fired than the evidence suggests and that a shot was fired after z313 for sure.

But Z313 as the first shot? Based on your subjective analysis of witness statements in an attempt to support a theory? your theory?

You stating that they MUST be talking about Z313 does not make it so Robert.... and arguing that other witnesses did not hear an earlier shot does not invalidate the conclusion that earlier shots were fired.

Those who do mention this earlier shot describe it as a street level sound like a backfire or firecracker and different from the later shots.

If they believed it was NOT A SHOT but a backfire, then to them z313 may be first... again, does not make it so.

I have to resepctfully disagree with your conclusion and if need be can offer witness after witness who places shots much earlier than Z313....

What exactly is JFK doing in the bottom gif if there are no shots until 313? as opposed to conflicting evidence about 1st, 2nd, 3rd or more shots.

(Have you read Dino's account of his viewing of the film with 6-8 shots coming from 3 directions?)

Let's add one more bit of corroborate evidence for an earlier shot... John Connally tells us that 150-200 feet after the turn he hears the first shot.

The elevation in West's survey for the first shot is 423.07 which he equates to 171 feet past the corner of Elm/Houston.

The same legend total messes up everything after Z240 and as you can see from the following, the actual LAST SHOT was at 416.83 which is well past Z313 at an elevation of 421.75.

Z186-z240 lies 150 - 200 feet past the corner and while movie magic can possibly move the head shot up Elm 40 feet I don't see how it can effect shots prior to 200 other than with what we see at 157 with the splice and removal of frames or at 207 - again with the removal of frames.

I hope you can take this into consideration within the proof of your theory. We have a reaction in JFK and DP well before he head disappears further down Elm.

Mr. LIEBELER - When the first shot was fired, were you looking at the presidential car then; could you see it then?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it was coming around - it had just got around the corner,you see, from off of Houston Street, making that corner there, come off of Houston onto Elm.

Mr. TRULY. That is right.

And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn.

Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb?

Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.

If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Now, what is your best estimate of the speed as he started to go down the street here marked Parkway?

Mr. TRULY. He picked up a little speed along here, and then seemed to have fallen back into line, and I would say 10 or 12 miles an hour in this area.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Then what did you see happen?

Mr. TRULY. I heard an explosion, which I thought was a toy cannon or a loud firecracker from west of the building. Nothing happened at this first explosion. Everything was frozen. And immediately after two more explosions, which I realized that I thought was a gun, a rifle of some kind.

The President's--I saw the President's car swerve to the left and stop somewheres down in this area. It is misleading here. And that is the last I saw of his ear, because this crowd, when the third shot rang out--there was a large crowd all along this abutment here, this little wall, and there was some around us in front--they began screaming and falling to the ground. And the people in front of myself and Mr. Campbell surged back, either in terror or panic. They must have seen this thing. I became separated from Mr. Campbell. They just practically bore me back to the first step on the entrance of our building.

Mr. BELIN. When you saw the President's car seem to stop, how long did it appear to stop?

Mr. TRULY. It would be hard to say over a second or two or something like that. I didn't see I just saw it stop. I don't know. I didn't see it start up

Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell us when that picture was made?

Mr. WILLIS. That picture was made at the very instant that the first shot was fired.

NUMBER 12.* This is Phil Willis' fifth photo, showing JFK approaching sign; Zapruder in background on grassy knoll pedestal, camera at eye. Willis said he snapped photo in reaction to hearing first shot. Photo was sanpped at Z-202, confirming Z-189 was time of first shot. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GoD.html

(Rosemary Willis recounting what she remembers to a group which includes Rosemary Willis Roach, her sister Linda Willis Pool, and mother Marilyn Willis; Bill and Gayle Newman; Pierce Allman; Bobby Hargis and James Leavelle. Interviewed by Joe Nick Patoski )

Rosemary: As they made the turn from Houston to Elm Street, they'd just gone a few feet when the first shot rang out, and upon hearing the sound, my normal body reaction was to look up and follow the sound that I heard, it was so abrupt

Continues to boggle my mind how our community ignores WCD298 and the conclusions of the Secret Service about the location of shots based on their available evidence.

People on this forum have been trying to find a smoking gun and here we have the FBI/SS telling us about a shot 40 feet down Elm at the foot of the stairs

Altgens & Hudson tell us the same thing.

If the last shot was Z313... how can we as a community let go the conclsuions and images offered in WCD298, which was not only buried but completely misrepresented in the WCR Exhibits.

The FBI/SS placing a shot at the equivilent of Z375 contradicts every piece of physical evidence offered.

I've been posting the conclusions from this Document for years here and elsewhere and it has yet to be picked up as significant by anyone.

Can anyone here explain how we can dismiss this obvious evidence that all the DP evidence given to the WC was a complete lie. The SBT, a complete lie and confirmed as such in this exhibit.

Okay, one last time and then I'll move on. The following shows where the shots hit JFK according to the FBI and SS.

Shot #2 at the "X" in the street at Z313

Shot #3 at the foot of the steps...

The question remains: From what source evidence does the FBI conclude the last shot is where they placed it - in direct conflict with the final conclusions, the films, & the photos in evidence.

I simply cannot understand how this is so easily minimized in the scheme of things. The FBI knew they couldn't show anyone this - so it was buried.

Am I overstating the significance of this Doc under Hoover's signature?

I estimated Z375 from seeing the base of the lamppost in the background based on the line of sight. Hoc can the FBI place a shot there?

Just off the top of my head, Nagell worked for a time in a Army field intelligence while stationed in Korea but when he was stationed in Japan he was assigned to a military intelligence detachment, which would have been a sub organization of one of the Army occupation groups. I've got a lot of his documents from Japan and so does Dick Russell, it probably indicates which specific unit it would have been. Those detachments did a lot of counter intelligence among other duties.

The document you posted looks like a spin off of the Oswald visit info the CIA communicated after Mexico City; as to the Wilcott thing, that another one of those teasers that might mean something if we just has a little more detail. I'm pretty sure Oswald got some spending money for his bar "dangles" (nice work if you can get it) in Japan, who knows if that came from the ONI and then they decided to apply for some CIA funds, etc. Its possible Wilcott could have seen that, especially as it seems that the Navy did a pretty good job of sanitizing the full record pertaining to Oswald, especially in regard to his Japanese tour.

Hopefully Larry will come back to follow this up...

I found another document which basically orders (suggests) that the Mexican authorities arrest Duran which has a reference to P-8593 (Oswald)

Do you attach any significance to this?

Thanks Larry, or anyone who can shed light for that matter

DJ

There are, among people of good faith in this field, at least two orientations toward evidence. To generalize, one is quicker to see patterns and draw conclusions, while the other is reluctant to do so unless the evidence rises to a certain level. I guess I'm of the latter type: Very cautious and reluctant to take it beyond what the evidence reasonably allows. I believe, in fact, that the principal reason that mainstream media often fails to take us seriously is that dichotomy.

This is why I occasionally challenge widely-held beliefs. Things which were once suspected by the research community are slowly morphing into firmly enforced beliefs. It was once suspected that Oswald may have had some connection to US intelligence, but it is now regarded by some as a near-certainty.

Hi Roy...

What do we do as we discover over and over that it is the Evidence which is the Conspiracy... Expecting to have authenticated evidence which proves Oswald was connected to intel... when one need only look at his involvement with Bannister

An anti=Castro, anti-communist "group" dedicated to infultration and disruption in Cuba and within sympathetic groups in the US.

Whether Oswald was handing out FPCC flyers to gather names in an ANTI campaign, or was truthfully supporting FPCC and Castro is to me fairly substantial evidence that Oswald and Intel were connected.

We find each and every person in NOLA that summer was connected - can we cautiously conclude that Oswald's involvment with the charade of the FPCC, the charade of his arrest and fight, the hiring of Steele Jr to hand out flyers, etc, etc,etc...

When it smells like it, looks like it and tastes like it... we could not take steps forward unless the assumption that it IS it is investigated.

I would ask this of you Roy... what if anything has risen to a level of certainty in this case beyond the realization that Oswald did not shoot JFK and the majority of evidence offered to prove guilt is inauthentic and proveably so?

Thanks Roy, always a pleasure reading your posts.

DJ

So we're good with MID? And yeah, the Oswald Project thing is still unclear.. why wold they bother calling it THAT?

btw, it was not the man Ruby killed who was playing the Honey Bee game... it was LEE who also suffered from other ailments the other man never had.

As I understand the records, LEE was in Atsugi by Sept 12th 1957. Harvey was in NOLA working at Pfisterer Dental living at the Senator Hotel with his caretaker "mom" Harvey does not get to Japan until August 1958 and is soon sent to Ping Tung Taiwan while Lee is still in Atsugi repeatedly going to the doctor for his STD.

He definitely has more money to spend than he ever makes... who that source is, knowing a little about Oswald he'd try to get from FBI, CIA and Military Intel if he could...

I would love to see of those Japan docs if any can refute the timing of Harvey in Taiwan and Lee in Japan.

In CE1961 p3 we learn the dates of Oswald's military stays. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0414b.htm

Marines basic training is 13 weeks with 3-8 more weeks of special training if applicable.

CE1961 tells us that Oswald was at basic from Jan 20 to Feb 26 1957... 5 weeks.

CE1962 is Allen Felde telling us the real story of Harvey who was in Basic until MAY, the full 13 weeks, and left with Felde for Jacksonville... which CE1961 says happened in early March. LEE entered the Marines before Harvey and left before him as well...

David, I looked at the document you linked and that Oswald Project is pretty clearly a post assassination research project...at least it seems that way to me at first glance. Do you have any pre assassination documents referencing an Oswald project?

Second, could you clarify what MID organization you mean, the Army Intel MID organization was disbanded in 1903 but various units especially in the Far East had military intelligence detachments, where you referring to one of them?

-- thanks, Larry

I thought I had seen "Lee HENRY OSWALD P-" on a number of Mexico based docs and then the entire Wilcott thing which he relates as the payments prior to the assassination as payments into the Oswald Project.

This is according to the US ARMY MILITARY INTELLIGENCE HISTORY - A SOURCEBOOK (pdf)

In terms of the MID - yes, it did end in some respects in 1902 yet:

In 1903, Secretary of War Elihu Root established

the General Staff with three divisions. The MID was its Second Division.

4 This demonstrated that the stature of intelligence had grown, and its function had become institutionalized at the highest level within the Army for the first time. The MID was a key contributor to the Army.s planning for the Cuban operation. This was the first real mission that tested the proficiency of the new General Staff. The official U.S. Army intelligence history

states that the excellent planning by the Second Division, MID, and the Third or War College Division,

.should have served to silence forever any lingering doubts about the desirability of a General Staff Corps

being formed in the United States Army..5

And then it was Sherman Miles who ran and expanded MID during WWII

On September 1, 1939, he was promoted to Brigadier General and served as military attaché in London for half a

year before returning to the U.S., where he became a senior member of George C. Marshall's general staff. In the

General Staff, Miles was "Assistant Chief of Staff G-2", i.e., the head of the Military Intelligence Division (MID).[15]

In October 1918 the MID published the first Army-wide intelligence training literature titled Provisional Combat Intelligence Manual

To meet the growing demand for trained intelligence specialists in the field, the Military Intelligence

Training Center (MITC) was authorized in May 1942, but did not begin operations at Camp Ritchie,

Maryland, until 19 June 1942. It was staffed largely by MID staff and MI Reserve officers

Was Nagell not in MID or claim to be?

.

This is the reason the FBI nor the WC attempted to establish the location of the limo for any of the shots, because this evidence reveals that the sequence established for the WC three shots is incorrect.

The only shot the WC was explicit about was the shot at Z-313, in which they were emphatic that this was the last shot fired. Which is a bold faced lie.

The shot at Z-313 was the second shot fired but the first rifle shot that was heard.

Twelve people bare witness to the first shot they heard to be when the limo was located at about Z-313, this is a fact according to twelve witnesses.

I know there are those that will say, it is just wrong, they got it wrong, Robert Mady got it wrong, will you still be so sure if I post another 12 witnesses that support the first shot they heard occurring at Z-313? How many witnesses accounts do I need to post for this to become real? Or are you totally convinced that the WC lies already entrenched in your mind are true? This is why you can't understand the assassination, this is why the testimony makes no sense, this is why the photographic evidence does not correlate to any story WC or conspiracy, because your timing of shots and number of shots is not correct.

For those awake enough to grasp this novel information, it will be the start to unveil the truth of the assassination.

Oh, but the FBI and SS did indeed tell us where they thought each of the shots was in relation to the limo Robert...

CE884 tell us that the final shot was 1) SS: 4 feet from marker 5+00 which is 35-40 feet further down Elm than Z313 according to the West Survey and SS market system.

WCD298 shows us the three shots exactly as the FBI's exposure to evidence allowed them: and when photos of this model were entered into evidence they become CE879 with no strings and nomention of this being a model designed to show where the shots were according to the FBI.

The preface of this Commission Document 298 - FBI Letter from Director of 20 Jan 1964 with Visual Aides Brochure tells us that the model is so exact - well, here's the preface

These conclusion have nothing to do with what people heard and when which at best is about as subjective as it gets.

The FBI used films, photos and surveys of DP to pinpoint these shots. I can understand a few feet one way or the other, but the final shot was NOT at the foot of the steps 40 feet past z313, at least not based on the evidence WE are shown

The SS contradicts West's survey along with the legend of his survey they "changed" to fit the facts they wanted.

You can also read Leo Gauthier's testimony as he was the FBI agent who delivered this to the WC. NO SBT, NO SHOT prior to Z224 and a final shot at around Z375.

MANY state that the first shot was as the limo finished the turn onto Elm... SOMETHING happened at around z157 - Isn't there a break in the film at that point?

Pretty fast head turn for one frame, no?

Jon and Thomas - you have both circled the difficulties of Armstrong's theory well I think. It doesnt make sense that there were two parallel lives from childhood on, yet that is what Armstrong suggests. But maybe there was an 'Oswald Project' run by an intelligence agency. I read about half or Armstrongs book, and just don't have the wherewithal to fact check all of the sightings of family members, multiple school records, etc. its either genius research or? But Thomas makes the point that I got stuck on too. Unless we are talking about some Boys from Brazil scenario it just seems too incredible. But an Oswald project seems completely plausible.

Many of the docs related to his being paid by the CIA (and other CIA docs) have "Oswald Project" as a "cc". When I find one in my files I will post. https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1017644 is a link to a reference to the Oswald Project...

Paul -

I HAVE checked the sources, have checked the relationships and have checked the evidence over the past 2+ years with the help of almost daily conversations with John.

There are indeed two ways to look at it: Time moving forward with the connections being established and time looking backward with the evidence created to fit a need - or a combination of them both.

The evidence the WCR offers regarding his schooling in NYC for Sept 1952 thru Jan 1954 completely ignores Harvey's time at the Youth House detention center for skipping school so often. LEE did not miss school and when you take the time to simply add up the numbers and look at the dates... it is an obviously evidence which has been created for a reason.

With the many hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming to the US after WWII, many from eastern europe, finding someone to play the part would not be too hard.... plus they really didn't look all that much alike at that age.

The boy on the right, LEE, is shown in the fall of 1951, 6th grade. He was considered a leader of his class, a fighter who never backed down and was one of the largest boys in the class at over 5 feet and 100lbs.

CE1384 is the health card showing both May 1953 and Sept 1953 Height and Weight.

It states this boy is 5 foot 4 inches tall and weighs 114 lbs.

The boy on the left, as claimed by ROBERT OSWALD, went to the Bronx zoo with him in the summer of 1953.

I contacted the zoo to find out the height of these guard rails... the boy on the left cannot possibly be LEE Oswald from NOLA who moved to NYC in the summer of 1952.

There is of course mountains of evidence whcih illustrates the existence of these two boys. What we find is that after that summer, we do not see too many more photos of LEE (in the school yearbook), only Harvey except for the military and the 1959 passport.

I defend the work because it is the Evidence which gives the conspiracy away, not an Armstrong theory. That he went the extra step like Lane, Lifton and others to interview the witnesses both already done and those ignored to corroborate the real story. Maybe in 2014 mindset it would be very difficult to pull off... in 1952-63 and in the years soon afterward, not nearly as hard.

My guess would be Nagell's group the MID... yet the number of 3 letter orgs within the military is mind-dumbing... The ONI and MID are the two oldest US intelligence agencies. In my humble opinion the CIA was created to insulate the ONI/MID from prying eyes as operations became more black after WWII. Everyone blames the CIA for everything when in reality the ONI and MID among others are the actual culprits.

ROBERT lies about when he was even in NYC with John Pic and Lee Pic places him in NYC in 1952 when Robert claims it was not until 1953.

Mr. PIC - So they moved out in about September 1952, maybe it was late September, early October, somewhere around there, so from about somewhere between September of 1952 and January 1953, my brother Robert came to New York on leave, and we were all invited up to the Bronx

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; we were corresponding infrequently, I would say--not very many letters between I and Lee direct when I was in the service, especially the first part of my tour in the service.

In 1952, after traveling from Camp Pendleton, Calif., to Jacksonville, Fla. I did have a 10-day leave. They were in New York City at that time.

Mr. JENNER. This was then some time in 1953, I take it?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir--1952.

Mr. JENNER. 1952?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. This was----

Mr. JENNER. You mean your mother and Lee that is the period of time they were in New York City?

Mr. OSWALD. That's correct.

Mr. JENNER. Living there.

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you see them?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; not at that time. I spent my leave in Fort Worth, because I did not feel I had enough time to travel to New York and down to Jacksonville, Fla. After completing metalsmith school at Millington, Tenn., I took a 10-day leave.

Mr. JENNER. Fix the time.

Mr. OSWALD. This was July or August of 1953. I had my orders to go to Miami, Fla. I took a 10-day leave and left Millington, Tenn., by car and came to New York City and spent 10 days in New York with Lee, mother, John, and his family.

Mr. JENNER. Where did you stay?

Mr. OSWALD. At mother's apartment, with Lee, in the Bronx some place I do not recall the address.

Do you remember any of the places at which you took snapshots of Lee during this 10-day leave?

Mr. OSWALD. The Bronx Zoo I believe was about the only time I can recall taking any pictures of him.

David,

The two parts of the physical record used to implicate Oswald that I believe were fabricated pre-assassination are (1) the backyard photos, and (2) the paper trail maintained by Klein's. The degree of coordination between the two would have been difficult to concoct so quickly after the assassination.

I'm suspicious therefore of (1) Ruth Paine, in whose house the photos were found, and (2) Klein's management.

With regards to the BYP - Let us remember that they were not discovered until the following day and the CSSS page only lists 2 NEGATIVES and no photos. And then the DPD unexplainedly loses one of the negatives. Whether one of these men brings this evidence with them to the Paine garage is the question. While it may have been done pre-assassiantion, can you offer anything to support that conclusion?

I do have an article in the works related to how the photos HAD to have been created. The 133-C pose from Roscoe White was not found or seen until the mid 70's. What convinces me is the pose which the DPD officer takes when doing compariosn photos on the 23rd of Nov. He is positioned in exactly the pose of 133-C when 133-C was not yet in the possession of the DPD or anyone else... Unless it was already.

When trying to place Oswald's image from 133-c in the rest of the background we see how skewed it is compared to the ghost image supposedly created by Fritz to "see if it could be done". The DPD should have no way of knowing about pose 133-c on Nev 23rd... To me this is pre knowledge

With regards to Kleins - if you could present a scenario for the creation of this evidence prior to the evening of 11/22 please do.

I think that somem of it may be authentic like the order coupon and mailing envelope... what happens once the order arrives at Kleins and what we see on the order form could just as easily been created that night or subsequently than before... but I'd love to hear your thoughts

DJ

David - is there more to you article or are you still working on it? I read what I can find at CTKA.

Parts 1 and 2a are up on the site. Part 2b - all 52 pages of it - will be done this week and submitted to Jim for review and formatting.

Part 3 - Evidence of Oct 2 thru Mid Dec including how INS was alerted, how the travel evidence was altered in Mexico and why the question of who it was impersonating Oswald was never addressed and ignored. I will also touch upon some of the "In Mexico" evidence to establish who knew what and when.

This next part, 2B, will clearly establish that the routes and travel attributed to this Oswald are not possible and that even the references to his coming and going by "auto" are suspect.

I would like to reach out to the community here and ask if anyone has any further knowledge related to this stand alone report related to Mr. Pugh - the man credited with saying INS checked on Oswald coming and going..

This appears to be saying that Oswald's brother entered Mexico the same day as the Evidence on Oswald... Any help?

Hi there Jon... While I'd prefer not to go off onto the Klein's tangent, the subject of pre v post assassination fabrication is the point.

The other point is whether the fabrication is pre-meditatively assassination related or conveniently assassination useful. A 4 man sniper team in Chicago means to me that POST fabrication would be the key to determining the direction of the evidence. Associating PRE fabrication with the assassination specifically would be difficult and speculative at best. How would you go about determining this to any degree of certainty Jon?

We have no other Klein's order form from which to show a C20-T750 order was shipped a 40" FC scoped rifle as the claim about Oswald/Hidell.

Kleins microfilmed the orders as SOP. The Hidell Order may have been in the missing microfilm all along... we don't know.

The FBI and the USPS and their inspectors were VERY closely aligned. Stamps, processing marks, etc... while not trying to sound paranoid, what they were good at to combat "the enemy" was easily redirected to provide the necessary results here.

If these items are really related to the dates on them (which I am also becoming more sure is not the case with some of the most important evidence) how would they incriminate Arthur Vallee and a successful assassination there? - unless that too was "staged" to add hay to our haystack.

Nope... I have to think that the intelligence community has many, many thread running thru many, many people whose purposes can not be known to those who perform. To some they are one thing, yet to others they are something completely different... the nature of intelligence and counter.

Let me finish with this. a LEE Oswald goes to see Robert McKeown at his home over Labor day while Harvey is with his family in NOLA. This Oswald tried to buy 4 scoped rifles for $10,000 from this man connected as well with Ruby's gun-running adventures. Robert says no. Yet the self-incriminating evidence is left to be found with more dead ends.

We need to ask WHAT is this Oswald doing leaving the impression that he is involved in a larger plot which includes these rifles. Kleins in window dressing for a piece of evidence having nothing to do with the actual killing of a president.

The fabricators? Given what I see Phillips/Hunt/etc accomplished with Mexico I don''t think events in Chicago are too far from their reach.