David Josephs

and that is the only misspelling of "angles" in the testimony... nice catch b.... DJ

So Chris, are all the data points (not including fixed landmarks) generated by the recreations exact matches for the actual points we see in the assassination films? A simple yes or no will do. ASKing questions yet again instead of answering them... or even trying... Are you so old and lost that you can't even FIND where the legend in question was discussed or why? You keep saying the same old BS over and over as if you believe it to be the truth... yet you really don't know do you CL? That this legend was created to EXPLAIN THE SHOOTING... using the films as refereence to position the activities AT THE CORRECT LOCATIONS... CE884 is the data being referred to... WCR Chapter 5 page 96... is where this legend is referred to.... and why. "The general location of the car was described and marked on maps by eyewitnesses as precisely as their observations and recollections permitted (261). MORE EXACT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY MOTION PICTURES TAKEN BY ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER, ORVILLE O. NIX AND MARY MUCHMORE, WHO WHERE SPECTATORS AT THE SCENE (262) 261. CE 347, 354, 699. 262. 5 H 137 (Leo J. Gauthler) ; CE884 ; see 5 H 138-165 (Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt). Gauthler is an FBI Inspector... The document is designed to be a LEGEND old man... which means it explains what is presented in the MAP in detail... as he explains... So what you keep saying is that the FBI provided a legend to explain the assassination that does anything but explain the assassination... what it shows is how the Zfilm cannot be used as a reliable source of information for once you apply the legend to the film and correlate what the legend says occurred, when and where, it CANNOT be applied to what the Zfilm shows... CE884 was accepted as the detailed explanation of where the limo was at each of the identified frames.... Except the data relates to a vehicle doing anything but smoothly traveling down Elm.... and in turn creates the math you have no chance at understanding... EVIDENCE old man... we deal here with EVIDENCE... all you do is whine and moan and press for answers that have nothing to do with the discussion... Here. the FBI tells you that CE884 IS the breakdown of the killing.... yet the same WCR tells us that the shot was at 4+95, not 4+65... the Zfilm does not show what this legend suggests... Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a schedule which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 884 and ask you what figures are contained thereon. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 884 for identification.) Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of a tabulation which appears on the plat map. It contains certain positions marked as frame numbers. It indicates elevations and a column dealing with angle of sight from the frame positions to the window and to a horizontal line. It also contains angels of sight the degree of sight and distances from these positions to a point on the top of the bridge, handrail height. Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that concludes the description of the general setting. I would like to move now at this time for the admission into evidence of Exhibit No. 884, which completes all of the exhibits used heretofore. Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted. (The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 884, was received in evidence.) Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that completes the testimony of Inspector Gauthier.

I've defended it time and time again, there are HUGE threads both here and at Duncan's site with tons of my original work. Your search finger broken? Its really very simple. Speer says the bag seen outside the TSBD is a different size than the one in the archives. I say his work is whackjob and prove it. I'm just about to bomb his latest drivel back into the stone age. So tell us "larry", is he right? A simple yes or no will do. Why don't you go on record? Maybe I can turn you into a sheet of glass.... Craig, this is not about what you tell us you are doing to Pat's arguments... It's about the evidence. It's about what people said before they knew better not to say it You, sir windex, want to wage personal war against Mr Speer... not the evidence I presented you. The "bag" in those pictures requires : creation, transportation, concealment, use after breaking down the "rifle", transportation, concealment again, retrieval, folding and placing, and yet, while taking the time to hide the rifle leaves this homemade bag where it is never photographed... where it is given to the FBI, Hicks, and Studebaker when samples of paper is taken and "duplicate" bags are created yet it is finally photographed in the hands of Montgomery who admits to their being a "venetian blind" holding up the bag in those pix.. but not to how it is he holding this bag, or who gave it to him.. So Mr. Lamson... speaking of glass... you will forever be able to argue the conclusions and opinions of others... what you cant and dont address is the EVIDENCE. The source info..... you support the WCR/FBI conclusions, you are bound by their evidence... testimony from those there at the time. Whether I agree with Pat Speer does not change what was actually said, what physical evidence we must use and decide whether is authentic or fabricated... You're transparency screams, "look at me" craig... "I'm making you look over HERE while I dont address what was asked over THERE" you'd think one with such a big brain would be able to better conceal their tactics... So what will it be? You gonna just argue about what Mr. Speer has to say and proclaim yourself today's king of the hill, or could the focus be on the evidence.. and what IT says? I'll let Speer speak for himself ... The evidence will do the same...

Lammy, when do YOU ever say anything about what YOU conclude based on YOUR years at this? all you ever do is ASK... post an ANSWER and see if it holds any water... Defend YOUR postion.. if you even HAVE a postion... nevermind, I see that's not in your job description... In Internet slang, a xxxxx (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]

I realize this requires you to THINK Lammy... which bag did the FBI get, which one did Studebaker give to whom, How does Hicks not have a clue as to what they are talking about when he was specifically left to deal with this bag and since Monty does not take this bag... where did he get the one he was holding in the photos? Use that big Brain Lammy, or is all you can do is point out where you think others are wrong without offering ANYTHING in its place.... This subject becomes yet another aspect of the case you could care less about other than to xxxxx the thread... Now post something pithy and original CL... ADD to the conversation (I forgot, math eludes you... adding anything is beyond you) Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it? Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent. Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you? Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in. Mr. BELIN. By this you are referring to the bag itself? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Was it folded over? Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled - it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over. Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately? Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know - I picked it up and dusted it and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of it, and I don't know Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building? Mr. HICKS. Paper bag? Mr. BALL. Paper bag. Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up. Mr. BALL. Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever see it? Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I don't believe I did. I don't recall it. Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up? Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now? Mr. BALL. The paper sack? Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one? Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2. Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes. Mr. BALL. You picked it up? Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints

For once you get something right... way to go Lammy... The WCR tries to tell us this FANTASY EVENT was what actually took place... that this information EXPLAINS the Zfilm which in turn illustrates the assassination. Now, why on earth would the WCR offer incorrect information in their attempts to explain the situation... You continually ASK OTHERS for answers when you have none of your own... and are further befuddled when the answer is provided... Keep up the good work reinforcing the obvious... there's hope for you yet...

Old man... anyone can be a critic of others work that they dont understand... you just xxxxx and xxxxx until you get what you want... We are SORRY you can't grasp the concepts... your inablility to comprehend does not make it wrong... It only adds to your looking stoopid, once again, with nothing to say about the subject except to insult the messenger. But please, since you simply cannot help yourself look more and more pathetic with every utterance... keep trying to show off that big brain of yours and learn how to add/subtract/multiple/divide The "Garbage" you refer to are offerings from the WCR as an attempt to explain the assassination... All we continue to do is show how and why the info was offered in the first place and how poorly it works... You know, like the rest of the WCR and it's subsequent rubber stamps. Peace out CL... Your entertainment value would just keep skyrocketing if you weren't so pathetically ignorant about the case, the evidence and the calcs. At this point all that's left is to shake one's head and exclaim, "Yup, that's Lammy doing his thing", laugh and sigh. Prove me wrong old man... actually post something of value to anyone, anywhere... just once. If you had the chops, you would. If you knew what you were talking about you'd post a rebuttal... not just more insults and sneers at data that is simply too far over your head to comprehend... See ya old man... now you have something to do for the rest of your day... let us all see that Big Brain...

http://www.history-m...Vol21_0376b.htm This is the map JC White drew to identify his location at the time of the shots: Mr. BALL. Where were you with reference to Elm. Main or Commerce as they go underneath the overpass? Mr. WHITE. Approximately at the north curb of Main Street. Mr. BALL. Approximately the north curb of Main on the corner of the north curb of Main? That would be-- Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. On the west side of the overpass? Mr. WHITE. Yes. Mr. BALL. I'm going to get another copy of this map. Let me see. I can use this. Mark this as Exhibit A to your deposition. Now, a diagram that was drawn by a patrolman, Joe Murphy, and he has made some marks and other witnesses have, but don't pay any attention to that. I want you to look at this drawing and take a pen and mark your position on the railroad overpass in a circle, and put your initials beside it. You have made an "X". Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And you have initialed J.C. White, is that right? Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Over the-what would be the west curb of Main? Mr. WHITE. North curb of Main. Mr. BALL. The north curb? Mr. WHITE. Yes. Mr. BALL. North curb of Main? Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And west side of the overpass? Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Did you see the President's car come into sight? Mr. WHITE. No, sir; first time I saw it it has passed, passed under the triple underpass. Mr. BALL. You were too far away to see it, were you? Mr. WHITE. There was a freight train traveling. There was a train passing between the location I was standing and the area from which the procession was traveling, and-a big long freight train, and I did not see it. Mr. BALL. You didn't see the procession? Mr. WHITE. No, sir. I've attached a composite of the White and Foster Exhibits as to their location... It wouldbe one thing if White accidently says WEST but meant EAST and drew himself on the EAST side of the overpass... But he doesn't. Q1 - From the Bell frames of the overpass - there is NO TRAIN PASSING at that time.... Was there a train? Q2 - White drew himself on the EAST side of the tracks yet claims a nonexistent train obscured his view and he does not see the limo until it passes the overpass... there is no train in McIntrye nor anyone identifyable on the overpass over what would be Main. He knows his East from West as he describes seeing the RR workers and Foster on the EAST side of the overpass... WHY IS THIS MAN LYING ABOUT A TRAIN AND WHERE HE WAS? Mr. BALL - Did you have another officer with you there on duty that day? Mr. FOSTER - Not on that side. He was on the west side. Mr. BALL - He was on the west side? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - What was his name? Mr. FOSTER - J.C. White. Mr. BALL - Do you know exactly where he was when you were at the position you have indicated? Mr. FOSTER - No; I don't. The only thing I know, he was supposed to be on the west side of the banister. Mr. BALL - You were looking to the east? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. This deposition will be written up and submitted to you for your signature if you wish to sign it, or you can waive your signature. Which do you wish to do? Mr. WHITE. You said a while ago to him it would be written up like this? Is that correct? Mr. BALL. No, It will be written up in the form of a deposition. Mr. WHITE. I will waive. Mr. BALL. You waive it. Okay. Fine. Finally, at the same time White's freight train is passing over the overpass Holland and many others describe what they see and hear... does this make any sense? If a train was passing literally directly behind these men, how in the world could they hear ANYTHING let alone describe another sound different from the earlier ones and a puff of smoke... I think we can put to bed that there was NEVER a train crossing the overpass before during or after the assassination... Why does WHITE lie? DJ ps... there is not a single report or radio transmission from White Mr. HOLLAND - His right hand; and that was the first report that I heard. Mr. STERN - What did it sound like? Mr. HOLLAND - Well, it was pretty loud, and naturally, underneath this underpass here it would be a little louder, the concussion from underneath it, it was a pretty loud report, and the car traveled a few yards, and Governor Connally turned in this fashion, like that [indicating] with his hand out, and another report. Mr. STERN - With his right hand out? Mr. HOLLAND - Turning to his right. Mr. STERN - To his right? Mr. HOLLAND - And another report rang out and he slumped down in his seat, and about that time Mrs. Kennedy was looking at these girls over here [indicating]. The girls standing---now one of them was taking a picture, and the other one was just standing there, and she turned around facing the President and Governor Connally. In other words, she realized what was happening, I guess. Now, I mean, that was apparently that---she turned back around, and by the time she could get turned around he was hit again along in---I'd say along in here [indicating]. Mr. STERN - How do you know that? Did you observe that? Mr. HOLLAND - I observed it. It knocked him completely down on the floor. Over, just slumped completely over. That second--- Mr. STERN - Did you hear a third report? Mr. HOLLAND - I heard a third report and I counted four shots and about the same time all this was happening, and in this group of trees--[indicating]. Mr. STERN - Now, you are indicating trees on the north side of Elm Street? Mr. HOLLAND - These trees right along here [indicating]. Mr. STERN - Let's mark this Exhibit C and draw a circle around the trees you are referring to. Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.) There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots.

Thanks B.... While the evidence suggests a shot may have originated there... I find the north side of Elm, with it's line of bystanders as a pretty terrible place to have as a background to the target, especially if there was a desire to avoid injuring innocent people. Add now: and I unless there were shots from both knolls areas... I dont see how a piece of JFK flies EAST and SOUTH with a shot from the SOUTH WEST... I don't think there was any evidence of JFK found on the NORTH side of ELM. I tend to think the shot came from the WEST end of the GK fence... yet the repeated mentioning of an injury to the left temple area suggests a shot from there was possible... Cheers B DJ Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; other officers, Secret Service as well, and somebody started, there was something red in the street and I went back over the wall and somebody brought me a piece of what he thought to be a firecracker and it turned out to be, I believe, I wouldn't quote this, but I turned it over to one of the Secret Service men and I told them it should go to the lab because it looked to me like human bone. I later found out it was supposedly a portion of the President's skull. Mr. BALL - That you picked up off the street? Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes. Mr. BALL - What part of the street did you pick this up? Mr. WEITZMAN - As the President's car was going off, it would be on the left-hand side of the street. It would be the---- Mr. BALL - The left-hand side facing---- Mr. WEITZMAN - That would be the south side of the street. Mr. BALL - It was on the south side of the street. Was it in the street? Mr. WEITZMAN - It was in the street itself. Mr. BALL - On the pavement? Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Anywhere near the curb? Mr. WEITZMAN - Approximately, oh, I would say 8 to 12 inches from the curb, something like that. Mr. BALL - Off the record. (Off record discussion.)

As well as with Zavada and Horne and the personnel involved with the Zfilm.... Refute the evidence big man, the messenger had nothing to do with the creation of the evidence or the many analyses you neither bother withwhich to familiarize yourself...or understand if you ever got around to it... but hey, your opinion is worth something, to someone, somewhere... maybe.

Thanks CL... always a pleasure when you post and show yourself for who you are... I always know I'm right whenever you show up to grandstand... so please, continue exposing yourself, seems to be the only thing you're any good at.... Cheers

The only portion of this case NOT a national security issue... ?? I also found in Zavada's attachments the letter from Phil Chamberlain explaining the FBI watched their film on an "Analyst" projector, which is a 16mm device that allows for running the film forward/backward and to stop on individual frames.. His footnotes states he knows the Analyst projector is 16mm yet "I'm pretty sure we were doing this in 8mm, so it must ahve been another projector" 27 years after the fact the change CLEANS things up a bit.... During the entire letter Phil holds fast to remembering only TWO (2) IIa copies, not three.... but since there are three, he states "I believe three copies have been accounted for" These footnotes are added NOT in the 70's when written but within a few days of sending the notes to Rollie... in 1997. http://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-11.pdf The footnotes remain a nother classic example of, "That was the first story... it needed to be changed"

Actually Zavada has, and you know it. And the overwhelming evidence says it is. But that is beside the point. YOU CAN'T PROVE ITS NOT. And my oh my the alterationists sure have tried...and failed over the years. Your attemps are childish at best and talk about speculation! ROFLMAO! Heck even you very best tried to do "science" and he failed at step one of his claim. The rest? Pure bunk. Like I said davie you got no game, never have, never will. And you are a major league hypocrite to boot. Here we are again... BullSh!t personified... since you can't prove anything, make others prove what you know cannot even be accessed... Why not look at what your buddy Zavada writes? Rollie needs ever standard procedure to have been scraped and even then he can't explain the problems with the film called the "camera-original" He needs the actual personnel who stood next to the SS agents and actually processed and developed and copied the films all to be wrong... ALL of them. He needs them wrong about edge printing, he needs them to be wrong about bracketing, he also needs the SS to be wrong as to which film was where and when... So your entire play here is, "You go first" ?? That's the best you can do to provide evidence of authenticity? "Read Zavada" you even imply... but have you even bothered to? Doubt it highly... Let's start with easy stuff for you... the length and physical condition of the "original" taken from a 33 foot, max length, roll of film. http://www.jfk-info.com/zat1-1c.pdf Zavada tells us that the film at the Archives has 8 inches of white leader, SPLICE, 6 feet 3 inches of "assassination film", then 2 feet 7 inches of black film (no image), SPLICE, then 19 feet 3 inches of black film that flashes to clear, SPLICE, 6 feet 2 inches of black film, SPLICE, and 5 feet 8 inches of black film, SPLICE, then 6 feet 9 inches of "Light - Struck Leader. The home movie side... side "A" is 32'7" in length (a standard roll of film has 25 feet of usuable film and 8 feet of leader for a total of 33') Side "B" has 8" + 6'3" = 6'11" + 19'3" = 26'2" + 6'2" = 32'5" + 5'8" = 38'1" + 6'9" = 44'10"; so side "B" of a 33' roll of film with NO SPLICES winds up being almost 45 feet of film SPLICED 5 times. (EDIT: I missed the 2'7" for a total of 47 feet 5 inches... even worse for ya ) and THIS is what you claim is the original film? which does not even include the test frames taken on side B adding even MORE length to the film... ooops. shall we look a little deeper? The "Original" has no ID number 0183 The copies have 0183 in the wrong place if it was copied from the original The employees state repeatedly that the film was NOT PROCESSED using bracketing - that a single setting was agreed upon and used... the three copies are bracketed The copies 0185 and 0187 do NOT have these numbers anywhere on them and finally... Max Philips sends Rowley a note with the Zfilm he mails the evening of 11/22 explaining that Sorrels has 2 copies, Zap has the "master" and the Third Print is forwarded... except we all know that Zapruder "retained the best first day copy for himself" and subsequently gives it to Stolley on the 25th... he supposedly projected an 8mm film on 11/23 - surely NOT the original... yet even IF it was the original, it would have been in 8mm format... not 16mm. So we come to learn the identified "original" was indeed split to 8mm (and rec'd by Dino the night of 11/23 afterwhich it simply disappears) 0186, seen by the FBI the morning of 11/23 is a 16mm version shown at Kodak with no documentation of what occurs with this 16mm version. McMahon creates his briefing boards (which are not the same as what Dino/Lundahl created the day before) from a 16mm original delivered by an SS agent who tells them the film was produced in Rochester. a 16mm original... take a look at the enlargements... do they appear of a quality that would come from a 16mm original? and can you explain how CIA450 details these boards EXACTLY... and goes on to show that internegs were to be shot and 3 prints were to be made... - coincidence, right? So we need to address - Would a COPY have been left in 16mm format for any reason - 0186 is acknowledged as the film given to the FBI, yet they viewed a 16mm film at Kodak... and why on the SS copies does the edge print info read BACKWARD when viewing the film correctly? Try and address the questions and evidence BEFORE you launch into ad-homs and misdirection CL... just this once. BRING the evidence of authenticity and POST IT or is that simply too much for you?

Yes indeed... the silence of those not wishing to engage in discussion that MIGHT show their conclusions to be suspect... or not entirely supported by the evidence offered. Wasn't it the WCR commissioners and supporters who said... "We've demolished all arguments that anyone but Oswald was guilty and we are NOT going to discuss it or argue about it We're not interested as our conclusion is our conclusion... and there is no valid rebuttal to be had... so don't even bother..." Well sorry, that's not how we operate here. We post the evidence and let readers decide based on the evidence and it's authenticity... First we have an Oswald being treated in Atsugi 6 times between Sept 14 and Oct 6th... and second we have an Oswald in Ping Tung from Sept 14 - Oct 6... and a Marine record of his being on the ship sailing BACK from Ping Tung Oct 6. Pretty good trick since he supposedly never left. ... and even though the DoD claims he stayed behind... there are records of evidence of his being not only seen but involved in a Guard duty incident while at Ping Tung... The Marines go on to report, as does the DoD that Oswald was hospitalized from Oct 7 thru Oct 13... except the chronological Health record shows no activity for this time period. (attached) So the Marine records of who went where and who returned and who sailed what ship with who else aboard is simply WRONG... as any evidence suggesting two Oswalds MUST BE if you're wanting as badly as possible to discredit the theory, the evidence and the conlcusion of LEE and HARVEY. Where again was that elbow scar... Disappeared same as the Marine records I suppose. Oh right... we're NOT "arguing" about it.... we're just to accept what we are told regardless of the evidence... based on the reputation and believeability of those delivering it. Those who disagree and can provide proof, be damned... Two sides to every story sure makes it convenient to ALWAYS maintain a doubt as to whether the GOVERNMENT is telling the truth - or not. This, of course, is not by design, but coincidence that ANY info suggesting ANYTHING other than Oswald's sole guilt... MUST have been wrong and requires undating, or CORRECTING so it fits with the WCR... Perfect.

So the tonsils grew back... ok... I will discuss the mastoid scar in a minute since your link says nothing about the scar and rescaring near the left elbow when the 22 bullet first went in and then when it was taken out... surely that scar didn't just smooth out and disappear.... TODAY, 2013, I am sure there are much fewer problems and scars as a result of Mastoidectomies... In 1945, when Oswald was 6 or 7, and most able bodied doctors were fighting a war or taking car of the wounded... the possbility that a 3" scar was not created is not as cut and dried as you want to make it appear... via the single link to a single description of the procedure as it is performed today. Here is an image of the location and resulting scar location The attached - Oswald's Report of Med Eval, mentions a 3" scar as - visual ops 3" lt mastoid - And if you look at the posted Face sheet on Oswald I posted with the body diagram, they mention a tiny scar by his lip, another tiny scare on the right side of his neck, the swelling of the right eye from the altercation with police at the theater FRIDAY... yet no mention of a 3" scar behind the left ear... I guess we can accept it was so well hidden the Marine Doctors found it doing a cursory entry exam, while Rose doesn't while performing an autopsy. and yet we STILL have the elbow scar... Not interested in arguing about it... that's cool. No argument here. What should be there, isn't... but that's okay cause we have 'splanations for every problem with Oswald's guilt. not that we've heard THOSE words before in this case. Simply amazing to me how many witnesses have to be wrong, how many evidentiary results MUST be the most rare of circumstances rather than SOP.... in most every aspect of every piece of evidence looked at in this case... 999/1000 if a person has a scar, it's an identifying mark... just not Oswald. Even if it was seen and officially identified 5-6 years before... not 50 years. Is there just as easy an explanation for the elbow scar? DJ

Mr Dobson... I've done a number of threads on the subject... the only relevance to the tramps is why Decker let them go (two of them at any rate) that afternoon without a record while OTHER TRAMPS were arrested and spent 3 days in jail that weekend. The evidence is posted at the threads below... for the record - I have no idea who the other 2 or 3 tramps were (I theorize that the older one, Abrahms (the one many claim to be Hunt) was actually arrested and detained... but the other two, not so much) All I can say for sure is that Decker let's 2 or 3 of them go... and the cops in the photos are still a mystery... there are claims that men who were not even at work were part of that parade... "you seriously think?" is not a basis for rejecting or accepting anything... especially here... and no one needs to analyze the photos to determine what occured to these men that weekend. just follow the evidence http://educationforu...showtopic=18721 https://deeppolitics...ps-quot-thru-DP

The thing about Rose is that the Body Diagram includes the words: Surgical wounds only"... even though he puts the upper arm injury sustained from the accidently fired gun while in the marines... So not ALL the wounds shown were surgical - from the autopsy - therefore a mastoid scar, as B.A. states, SHOULD be noted and should be there as well... BOTH injuroes are associated with LEE... not HARVEY http://www.mindserpe...omy/Tonsils.htm In October, 1957 Lee shot himself in the left arm with a .22 derringer. The entrance wound was closed with stitches and the bullit left in his arm. Later an incision was made on the back side of his arm and the bullet removed. Two incisions--two scars. After Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby an autopsy was performed. Photographs were taken of Oswalds arms. There are no scars from a bullet wound, nor are any scars noted on the autopsy report. Oswald was prepared for burial and embalmed by Mortician Paul Groody. Groody was twice asked about scars on Oswald's arms. Groody said he had not seen any scars on Oswald's arms. Years earlier, when Lee Oswald was 6 years old, he had a mastoidectomy operation behind his left ear. In 1956 Lee's Marine medical examination report lists a 3" mastoid scar behind his left ear. When Harvey was killed by Jack Ruby, Dr. Earl Rose performed the autopsy. Dr. Rose noted many scars in his autopsy report, some were as small as 1/16". Dr. Rose also took 27 color slides of Oswalds body which are now in the National Archives. There is no 3" mastoidectomy scar on the autopsy report nor can such a scar be seen in any of the color slides. It was Lee Oswald who had the 3" mastoidectomy scar-not Harvey. Harvey had no such scar.

Again Mr Graves... let's make sure to use the BROADEST posssible terminology rather than be specific and purposeful in our wording. a spelling AND a definition cop.... your uses here know no boundaries.... thank you for setting me straight... YOU cant conclude they are different... fine. I think we can, and they are as do many others. What I understand is you cannot commit to a POV here... and you dont seem to be able to incoprorate more than your fixation on my hands post into your thinking... at least you have not presented anything as such. Are you saying the images are real or a composite... and why do you come to that conclusion...? Sh!t or get off already... What analysis do YOU offer to support anything you believe about them other than the critque of others work? NONE it appears. So you're just another "person" with an unsupported opinion... wishing you could do SOMETHING other than bloviate about others attempts... and hope that Lammy comes and saves your daywith insults and misdirection Well done Tommy. I KNOW WHY the BYP are not genuine all the way back to Italy... you appear wishy-washy about it. You're conclusion is that the hands image is not sufficient to come to a conclusion... Do you offer anything that IS sufficient or do your opinions simply appear out of unsupported thin air?

"Repeatedly" LOL Tommy NEVER said such a thing, Prove me wrong, cite when he did. Proved wrong...

Preceisely Ian... =================== Mr. G... Lammy wants to make sure we use photogrammetry when measuring the differences or similarities of the BYP yet does not seem to possess or provide the results of his own photogrammetry based measurements that may prove this one way or the other... but he asks others to do so... and reminds them that without it any comparison is worthless.... different perspective, LOS, etc,etc.... So I thought what differences were apparent WITHOUT the need to measure anything... Well, the differences on the rifle are real and apparent... at least to me and many others and the hands... it seemed apparent to me when I started to look, that all the other images of Oswald's hands showed very large hands, large knuckles, long slender fingers... and then there is the BYP hands.. which dont. The short stubby fingers have been commented on for many years... I had simply never seen the side by side, so I made one. the BYPs do not exist on an island... they attempt to tie together evidence that is fraudulent and establlish a connection between a name found in one of a number of wallets found that day and Oswald... if none of the evidence actually gets THAT rifle into Oswald's hands... how can his hands be holding that rifle, if in fact that even is c2766? I can also accept finding them at 3:30 on the 23rd... yet there is good evidnece that they existed as early as the eve of the 22nd... or at least one image existed at that time... and was known to Fritz 3 hours before it was found... When we compile and look at the evidence related to all the related aspects which need to be authenticated/justified for those photos to be genuine, rather than just what they LOOK like... we become researchers who analyzes the evidence in CONTEXT... CONTEXT Thomas... an entire complex conspiracy and cover-up is created to divert attention from the actual participants of the assassination yet THESE PICTURES are genuine..?? Listen to yourself. as genuine as Oswald's trip to Mexico City... his bringing a 3-4 foot paper bag to the TSBD, or his being seen in the SE window of the 6th floor at any time... the EVIDENCE does not support these conclusions... the EVIDENCE does not support that these images are authentic... I, personally, have little to do with the evidence the WCR/HSCA/ARRB/ETC established other than to compile it and present it in a form that can be understood. Conclude what you like... you think the hands match and the images are genuine... fine. it wont change the entirety of the evidence surrounding the photos or their obvious implications.... but you will succeed at keeping doubt in the minds of those looking for answers... and give credibility to a presentation of a lie in support other lies... Well done.

Thanks Michael... Now, believing Marina about anything... tough call.

You too Bernice.... always a pleasure talking with you... although I'm in the midst of Passover... DJ

GREAT idea Lammy.... If only you'd follow thru. ======== oh, and Len... good luck selling whatever it is you think you're offering... no one here, there or anywhere is buying it... carry on

Interesting that it says "LEE" in handwritting... when if we are to accept Armstrong's premise... HARVEY here is making an interesting statement.... B, do you know when he got the bracelet and whether HE engraves it or it was done for him by ??? Thanks DJ