David Josephs

Of course you are David... well aware... I include them for those that aren't.

I believe, in order to save themselves from being implicated, arrested, and all the nasties that come with the DPD, FBI etc... little Wesley and his sister and the 30.06 and the car rides for the assassin and the conversations could make things look very bad for them and the family...

Dougherty may be slow but he knows if something is or is not in someone's hands as they walk by... especially a 4 foot paper bag that amazingly stretches from his palm to his armpit... or from his outstretched hand and not quite reach the ground as Linnie Mae tells us.... he says he's sure like 25 times ...

So you want to imagine this bag was just over 2 feet long and was his lunch... a bounty hanging down to the ground as he walked...

that Oswald actually uttered the words "curtain rods"...

why DID he go home thursday night... that question seems much more relevant than how big was the bag... it was as big as they made it, so it would fit a rifle... TWICE. plus a "replica"....

Isn't the lunch on the 6th floor where the weapon, hulls and nest are, and who left it there not 15 minutes before the limo comes by (when he was originally scehduled to pass the window) more relevant than the bag they created on the spot cause how else could Oswald get the rifle there? He'd be dead soon anyway...

Those two belong with Brennen, Bledsoe, Whaley, and a host of others that said what was expected of them...and walked away alive... just like the legion that said what was planned for them to say.. leave the cluesthat needed leaving

and finally those that stuck to their stories.... in the face of it all... not for fame or glory but usually great hardships or worse

David... the people who lied to get thru... survive and reinforce the lie

Few who don't, do....

thanks.

DJ

Mr. Josephs, the one thing I do not understand from Kellerman is why did he touch his left cheek with his left hand just before the fateful head shots. Is there anything on that fact? It is a long point in time before any "sonic boom" took place to cause him to move his hand upward.

He supposedly was talking into his mike... yet there is evidence that these radios were not operational... that he could not have spoken to Lawson...

But I hope that answers the question.

Mr. SPECTER. As you are positioning yourself in the witness chair, your right hand is up with the finger at the ear level as if clutching from the right of the head; would that be an accurate description of the position you pictured there?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Good. There was enough for me to verify that the man was hit. So, in the same motion I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson, this is Kellerman,"--this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into. the back seat

Well KC... there's only a small handful of people able to answer that question...

You might PM them directly... but I've not heard them described as having sound... which, if they did, would be one of the first things to mention... one would think.

DJ

Let's try and keep it simple...

DSL... there was no bag made by Oswald, no bag taken from the TSBD to the Paines, and no bag taken from the Paines to the TSBD holding ANYTHING...

There was no bag when Oswald came inthe back door, (how many "in other words" are needed?)

Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.

Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.

Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

no bag when Oswald was NOT on the 6th floor... just like the clip that materializes after the fact... in the possession of the DPD...

whether there was a bag in the SE corner on the floor is "their word" - and can be believed or not as there is no physical proof that bag ever existed on the 6th floor.

Oswald is set up as part of a conspiracy to kill JFK and y'all are arguing as to whether the man set up to do so brought a rifle he never owned or had in his possession in a bag he never made

which was too small based on the people who claimed to have seen it to carry the rifle he never owned... and Monty's own partner helps catch Monty in his own lies AND let's us know that

Studebaker's drawing is of the bag UNFOLDED....

Exactly how much MORE evidence is needed here for y'all to understand the bag was created and removed from the TSBD that same day... by the same people who planted the rifle, the shells and who killed JFK...

Day takes the rifle with him... yet leaves this unphotographed "gun carrying case" behind.... as I posted before Hicks does not corroborate Day, and Studebaker does not know he supposedly gave it to a member of his own police department? Seems Mr. Montgomery knows who Studebaker was.... and the wonderful WC does not ask him how he comes to be in the possession of said bag out front of the TSBD... (if I remember correctly, this was HOURS after it was found and as ALYEA states, Day and others came BACK TO THE TSBD to recreate photos... what occurs in these interesting hours between say 1:30 and 4pm on 11/22???

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

Mr. BELIN. All right, what is the fact as to whether or not the penned rectangle on RLS Deposition Exhibit G--does any portion of that rectangle represent the place where the paper was found, assuming that is the southeast corner?

Mr. JOHNSON. It looks like somebody penned that in to show the sack was laying there. That would show it unfolded. (and watch the BELIN CYA kick in)

Mr. BELIN. Well, what you would say then is that the penned portion is actually longer than the sack before it was unfolded, is that what you are saying?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. It shows to be here, if you are taking this as actual size.

Mr. BELIN. Right. Of course, this is photographed at an angle and sometimes this can be inaccurate insofar as perspective. But would this penned in the approximate same distance from the south wall that you saw the sack?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I couldn't say exact distance. All I know is my partner picked that up right out of that corner, and how far it was from the wall in either direction, I don't know.

Mr. BELIN. Would it be somewhere in the location of where the penned in rectangle is on RLS Deposition Exhibit G?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; it would be in this corner, in the southeast corner of the building, and there were some pipes on that side. It would be in that corner--in the southeast corner of that building.

Mr. BELIN. All right, is there anything else you can remember about that sack?

Mr. JOHNSON. No; other than like I said, my partner picked it up and we unfolded it and it appeared to be about the same shape as a rifle case would be. In other words, we made the remark that that is what he probably brought it in.

That is why, the reason we saved it.

ALYEA:

Only recently I saw a picture of Lt. Day with a news still cameraman on the 6th floor. Day was shown pointing to the location where the rifle was found. This was nearly 3:30 or after. It was my understanding that Day and Studebaker had taken the prints, rifle and homemade sack back to police headquarters. I personally would like to know what they were doing back at the scene unless it was to reconstruct shots they had failed to take during the primary investigation. But this evidence had been destroyed and they were forced to create their own version. The photo I have seen of the barricade wasn't even close. I have also seen recently a police photo of the assassin's lair taken from a high angle which indicates that it was shot before the barricade box arrangement was destroyed, but it did not show the barricade itself. This has no bearing on the case other than the public has never seen the original placement. . .

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; this is the record I made of the gun when I took it back office. Now, the gun did not leave my possession.

Mr. BELIN. From the time it was found at the School Book Depository Building?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I took the gun myself and retained possession, took it to the office where I dictated----

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. (this may refer to 11:45 and V. Drain)

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. 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. I believe that's all, Mr. Hicks.

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 take a picture of it before you picked it up?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.

Mr. BALL. Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures.

Nearly 6000 (sic) posts to say nothing: C.Lamson is a wizard. Read his posts or the telephone book of New York City: it's the same...

exactly.... like listening to Norm Crosby

Randle cannot even get her address correctly in her testimony...

She also states she sees Oswald walk across WESTBROOK whcih is to the WEST of her yet the window in the kitchen looks out to the SOUTH...

CE442-446 give you a good look. the Paine's were 5 houses down to the WEST...

Mr. BALL. Mrs. Randle, where do you live?

Mrs. RANDLE. 2438 Westfield, Irving, Tex.

Mr. BALL. That was before you moved down the street to the corner of Westfield and Fifth Street?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

There is no “Westfield” in Irving… It is “Westbrook” and the house where she lived was addressed on Fifth street on the corner of WESTBROOK…

How does one get their own address wrong?

Mrs. RANDLE. I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport.

Mr. BALL. What street did he cross to go over?

Mrs. RANDLE. He crossed Westbrook.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0096a.htm

The remaining exhibits are in the pages that follow and shows how little of Oswald Randle could have seen… the carport and driveway are on the west side of the house while the window is on the south.

Her story is no better than his...

and then there is that little part about CREATING the bag, and the fact there are many dissimilarities between the paper and the tape from the bag and what was in the TSBD...

Unless someone can get:

- the rifle into that garage

- Oswald into the garage to break down the rifle at some point in time

- Oswald MAKING the bag THAT WEEK while leaving only one fingerprint on it (and not being seen by the wrapper who never left his post)

- Oswald into the garage to unwrap the rifle pieces or as a whole and THEN break it down

- the parts into the bag and leave the bag "somewhere" to be retreived Friday morning...

- Mrs. RANDLE. He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it. How far is it from Oswald's hand to the ground with his hand at his side...? almost 3 feet??

- this package into the TSBD while making it appear to the one person who saw him that he had "NOTHING IN HIS HANDS"

- it hidden somewhere in the TSBD

- retrieved from it's spot without being noticed with enough time to reassemble it and get to the window by when oswald THINKS the limo would be passing

- Oswald into the window at the right time

- Oswald to leave this bag in plain sight in the corner where he supposedly shoots yet takes the time to hide the rifle

- SOMEONE to actually pick up the bag, give it to Montgomery so those pictures are taken when NO ONE admits to doing so... In fact Day says the FBI took it, Hicks says he never saw the bag and Monty has no idea how he comes to have the bag in front of the TSBD...

other than that... the Randle/Frasier bag story holds up just fine...

The film was shot at 48 frames per second and frames removedTher is a WHOLE ot make it 18.3 frames per second....No..NO...No...

Nice sentence there old man... did you remember to wipe the spittle from your screen as we can all see you frothing and cursing as you type away with your two chubby little index fingers...

That's all you have? "Estimates" what a complete joke you are old man... lost in the woods yet again.

Tell us how far off these ESTIMATES are then old man... let's see you PROVE they are estimates... or is this simply more BS you pull out your wrinkly old a$$..

Explain how z313 can be both 465 feet AND 495 feet from the same fixed point...

This one point should be enough for you to STFU already.... Cant do it, cant understand it but sure can condemn it....

Old man... you're so lost it's become a running joke....

and I KNEW you couldn't help yourself from yet again posting AIR... nothing but you and your hot air...

We see nothing in a single post of yours that constitutes a supporting reference...

POST YOUR EVIDENCE old man... or just keep playing with your defeated three little inches...

You've done nothing but ASK and ADHOM while offering ZERO in support of any comment you've EVER made on this forum.....

DVP and McAdams must send you cheery support emails with your stipend while telling you what a great job you're doing,

stroke your little attack mongrel ego so you keep nipping at the heels of your superiors...

that's all you amount to old man... a wanna be street mongrel hoping the humans let him play a while before being swatted away so you go bother someone else for a spell...

All your accusing and insulting adds so much to your arguments, right old man?

Can't state what you think or believe cause then you;d have to defend it... and you're just not knowledgeable enough to do so...

So you do the SAME OLD TIRE THINKG over and over and over... and think you're saying something to someone... anyone...

Do you not notice that you have no supporters on a single thread here... no one agrees with any of the BS you spew...

everyone sees you for the old fool you remain....

Just look at every single one of your posts - just in this thread... you have yet to say ANYTHING related to the topic other than "everyone else is wrong" and "I'm the expert"

Instead of referring to Zavada, use his reports to support your argument, just once old man... see if your own declarations and interpretations can stand up to ANYTHING..

You're just a chicken Sh!t old man with nothing better to do, and not enough intelligence to know better....

carry on, xxxxx... as it appears you just can't help yourself....

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.Gauthier mentions Angels of sight........I think Specter's work certainly did need Angels...imo..b

and that is the only misspelling of "angles" in the testimony...

nice catch b....

DJ

Thanks James,

No since in dealing with Craig on this, everything is flawed, according to him.

I'll keep posting tidbits for the rest of you.

chris

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.

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'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

You continue to play with fantasy figures from a fantasy event

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...

On 4/4/2013 at 11:11 AM, Bernice Moore said:

Correct David, also the Harper fragment was found more towards the centre of the park, i believe...this area i have always found interesting, a possible north or south drain shot area as well as possible from the overpass.....thanks, for now...b David here is a wee bit further in the text from Jerry Dealey...re the south side overpass shot...fyi...b.

''There were 2 Dallas Police Officers stationed on the Underpass, but

they were down at the Main St (middle) and Elm St end. A shooter in

the angle would have been sheltered from them and the 20-30 railroad

workers up there, and have access to the Postal Annex parking lot..''

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

Why no splices on the family side of the film?????.

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"

yet, you can't answer a simple question, one that you surely know the answer to (after all it's your own experience), why is that, Craig?.... Can YOU prove the alleged in-camera original Zapruder Film currently stored at NARA is in FACT the **ORIGINAL** film shot by Abraham Zapruder.

Let me save you some face, you can't! Nor can Rollie Zavada, Tink Thompson, Gary Mack, etal.... best ANY of you have is pure speculation!

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

On 4/1/2013 at 9:49 PM, B. A. Copeland said:

I completely apologize for the delayed response Mr Graves. Yes that is what i was asking about. I was going to begin a new topic on this exact topic but I found this topic instead lol. My question is simple, given the history of Oswald's surgeries, wounds (gunshot, mastoid, etc) What do JFK researchers think concerning the total absence of any wounds whatsoever my Earl Rose and (for example) the total absence of a Mastoid Surgery scar in photos such as this:

It clearly is not there. I personally do not lean towards an Oswald Dopp. theory but I tend to go where the evidence leads. It definitely seems reasonable to conclude there may have been indeed an Oswald Dopp. but ultimately I am still open. I just wanted to know, what I seem to clearly perceive, as the absence of a previously documented and what should be present mastoid surgery scar behind Oswalds left ear. I also have thought about this many times and wondered if perhaps it was present but in the shadowy area in the above photograph behind the ear but I am certain Dr Rose would have documented it if it existed. Thanks for any and all thoughts.

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.