David Josephs

I believe that is the wrong side of the street for Chaney Bernice.... the lead car was AHEAD of the limo and speeding away in McIntyre "Halfback" was even farther behind I believe the men identified are from the left side of the limo, Hargis and ?? who, Hargis, also said he stopped and crossed over in front of Chaney... Mr. HARGIS - I don't know whether it was the Secret Service car, and I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off, and I stopped and got off my motorcycle and ran to the right-hand side of the street, behind the light pole.

and finally... read Roy Truly's testimony regarding begin taken to Fritz by Lumpkin... WHEN this occurs and what he knows about the rifle and the location it was found... According ot him the rifle was found 30 minutes BEFORE the official 1:22 time.... but you know all that right Len?

and the second point that you and everyone else seems to run from... Why would Boone and Weitzman SPECIFICALLY STATE a 7.65mm caliber in a legal document, an AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT... if they were only guessing? Why would Weitzman sign this document ON THE 23rd, AFTER Day had already identified the rifle, after Drain had already TAKEN the rifle and everyone in the world knew it was a 6.5mm Made in Italy (btw, Day NEVER says its a Mannlicher Carcano... ever. Why would a Deputy Sheriff sign his name to an erroneous AFFIDAVIT if he was not sure of what he saw? Unless that was what he saw

Klein's offered a 36" model... C20-T750 M91 TS for sale with a scope mounted... only YOU are talking about a 40" FC model which they switched to in April 63. Please follow Len.... Starting in August 1962 Kleins advertiased a 36" M91TS rifle with scope as C20-T750.... Hidell ordered C20-T750 from the Feb issue... YOU are saying Kleins shipped him C2766 I am saying they didn't... not only didn't they but I AM ASKING YOU... what rifles they shipped to customers who ordered C20-T750 between Aug 62 and Feb 63.... YOU are saying it was a 40" model like C2766... Prove it. All the evidence we have points to Kleins ONLY mounting a scope on the TS 36" model and selling it as a set. IF the FBI printed any other order from the microfilm with either C20-T750 ordered, or one of the other 99 rifles sent with the C2766 packing slips it would be supporting evidence that Kleins was indeed sending a 40" FC rilfe for these orders.... BUT THE FBI DID NOT PRINT ANY OTHER ORDERS... and the microfilm is now gone. Not a single person in the entire country comes forward stating THEY TOO rec'd a 40" FC rifle for the C20-T750 they ordered.... Since the ONLY EXAMPLE of Kleins WRITING a 40" FC seriel # on an order for C20-T750 is Hidell's AND it is written in pencil AND the Hidell address line does not match the rest of the order... ALL I AM ASKING YOU is why should we believe this was PRACTICE rather than the EXCEPTION and that Kleins' NEVER SHIPPED a 40"FC rifle for these orders.... That the Kleins order form WAS CREATED AFTER THE FACT when the FBI chose to print one and only one order from Kleins. Follow?

There is no proof one way or ther other Len... I am saying they DID have 36" rifles and the gunsmith DID mount scopes on 36" rifles as he said he did and that Kleins DID sell C20-T750 as a scoped 36" rifle, the M91 TS.... and you have nothing to post or claim they didn't. I'm saying that if the FBI printed any of the orders for C20-T750 from the microfilm we would have seen that not a single of the other 99 rifles on those packing slips would have been shipped from as early as August 1962. I'm trying to tell you that the Kleins documentation is all full of SH!T... and was created by Waldman and the FBI to serve the singular purpose of placeing C2766 into Hidell's hands.. Take a close look at the different type faces on the Kleins order form with C2766 on it... the "A. Hidell" typing does not match the rest of the order... in fact it appears that the address block and Waldman's handwritting had nothing to do with the originally prepared order for a C20-T750 rifle... Finally... do you have anything that shows the $1.50 shipping charge getting to the shipper and being deposited? Businesses, even in 1963, kept records of sales for tax purposes. If this was sent Parcel Post, for $1.50... just produce the records that shows the item picked up and the shipping charges rec'd from PP. (You will have the same problem with Railways receipt of the shipping charges for the revolver as well... another set of BS documents framing Oswald)

Posted this before.... Here are the VC #'s assigned to the seriel numbers from the same page as the C2766 packing slip. Does it not seem prudent that we have the order copies from these other rifles to see what was ordered and what was shipped? AK9305 has an earlier VC# than C2766... It might have been shipped PRIOR to C2766... Wonder what was ordered?

Tommy... thanks Nice post... problem is I get nauseous every time I hear Rather talk about it.... He's a tool of the first order... DVP - Why would "people" think that? Who/What from your understanding would have given them that impression?

I read of late but..duh gone now..that there was a stick within the bag...here is the CIA report..re rifle you mention....take care b Thanks again Bernice According to Monty it was actually a venetian blind, if you can believe that.... Point remains... There is still no understandable reason for Boone and Weitzman to have SPECIFIED 7.65mm and Mauser when "a rifle" written in the AFFIDAVITS would have sufficed. the overall LACK of descriptive terms in some cases and then the unnecessary minute details in other cases - usually of insignificant items - has always amazed me as one looks thru the inventory listings... Why state and SIGN an AFFIDAVIT the NEXT DAY, to the 7.65mm fact, when the rifle so plainly says 6.5 & Made in Italy ??

Nicely done Bernice.... I had seen the "Mauser" stamp on rifles but never the 7.65 - which again is rare since the 7.62mm was more popular. Add to these rifles the CIA report from Italy stating it was 7.35 caliber model 91 rifle, and "the description of a 'Mannlicher Carcano' is in error"... and finally... how did they get another rifle out of the TSBD??? What, pray tell, is Monty gripping that is holding up the bag?

Everyone is entitled.... yet I am sorry you cannot see the obvious difference between the hands... Regarding Maclom and Pickard... there is also the mention from the AeroSpace analysis which CLEARLY identified a line crossing the chin. and was summarily explained away using HSCA-ese (398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing Institute using several different image-processing techniques. This process confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See g. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appeared, however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process, where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i.e., the image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the picture was being subjected to the computations) . (399) Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely establishedthere is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an attempt to fake the photograph . This is because similar, although less pronounced, lines were found using the same digital enhancement technique on a known authentic photographic negative. Therefore, those lines may have been a product of the enhancement process.

So in other words you have no idea why DB tells us the man he saw has a squared off haircut while Oswald's hair tapers off - exactly OPPOSITE of what DB tells us. He may have "looked like" him, but the physical description does not match... Be like he said the man had a 3 inch black birthmark on this face... "looked" like Oswald, but obviously was not him. Nice try though edit: that witnesses later changed their "first story" is no surprise dude.... most every first story that exonnerates Oswald were eventually changed...

Len, There were no TS rifle ever delivered for them to PHASE OUT... unless you can show they EVER rec'd 36" M91 TS rilfes from someone. I do not think you can conclude an ongoing business practice with only ONE example Len. Don't you suppose if there were other C20-T750 orders in the 6 previous months AND they were shipped a 40" FC rifle in it's place, the FBI would LOVE to have that extra corroboration? "See everyone, Kleins did this all the time" Don't you find it suspect that only the Hidell order was printed and the rest of the microfilm is now GONE? And still you do not answer my question Len.... What rifle did Kleins ship customers for C20-T750 orders between August 1962 and Feb 1963? Produce any single piece of evidence that C20-T750 customers rec'd the same rifle as Hidell was supposedly shipped. btw - I AM saying the 38 E rifles were the TS 36" model... and that the handwritten "C2766" and VC# we after the fact to connect Hidell to C2766... (that you did not "get" the tongue in cheek capitalizations of REASONABLE is too bad.... I was being satirical)

DVP... look at the 5th page of Fritz's notes... 3rd interview 11/23 6:35pm ooops.

Could be why they didn't take him in to a line up... Be a bummer for someone that close and with such a good view to ask the suspects to turn around and find Oswald NOT having the haircut he saw....

Thanks for bringing up Benavidas DVP... if anything he ADDS something about the suspect he saw that proves it was NOT OSWALD... he was very specific about the back of the man's head Mr. BELIN - Okay, well, I thank you. I was flying from St. Louis to Des Moines, Iowa. at about this time. Is there anything else? Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back. Domingo himself was a pretty dapper guy... very clean cut.... and seemed pretty sure of what he saw and added to his testimony... Are you serious, Bill? Or just playing with the LNer (me)? Well, I'll bite anyway.... The people I mentioned positively identified the man pictured below (except for Domingo Benavides, who didn't make a "positive" identification of Oswald, AFAIK, until 1967 on CBS-TV; but Benavides did tell the Warren Commission that the man he saw kill Tippit "looked like" Oswald [6 H 452]): The man in the photo above, by the way, is the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald. And it's a picture of the man who was arrested in the Texas Theater. Do conspiracy theorists want to pretend that witnesses like Ted Callaway, the two Davis girls, Bill Scoggins, and Sam Guinyard (among others) actually identified a DIFFERENT "Oswald" when those witnesses each picked the man pictured above out of a police line-up shortly after Tippit's murder? You surely aren't suggesting something so crazy....are you Bill? BTW, that photo of Oswald above is interesting for another "bushy" reason. There has been much talk about how Tippit murder witness Helen Markham supposedly described Oswald's hair as being "bushy". It's debatable whether Mrs. Markham ever used that word to describe LHO's hair, but let's assume she actually did say "bushy" to a reporter shortly after the Tippit murder. Perhaps she saw Oswald's hair in much the same condition it was in after his arrest (as seen in the above photo). And while Oswald's hair isn't exactly long, perhaps it could pass for "bushy" in the eyes of some people who only saw his hair for a few fleeting moments on Tenth Street on 11/22/63. It's possible, of course (and even quite likely, in fact), that Oswald's hair only achieved its mussed-up status after the wild brawl with the police in the theater, but it's also interesting to note this testimony of Helen Markham when she was questioned by Warren Commission counsel about the condition of LHO's hair: JOE BALL -- "Is it your memory that his hair was bushy?" MRS. MARKHAM -- "It wasn't so bushy. It was, say, windblown or something. What I mean, he didn't have a lot of hair." Food for "bushy"-haired thought.

http://jfkassassinationfiles.com/suspect_purchased_rifle This 11/23 article quotes Curry as saying Oswald will eat, shower, sleep and be transferred "tomorrow morning" (page 4) DJ

"Advertised"? 5pm on Sunday? Not that I've ever seen or heard.... http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1124.html A Change in Plans The original plan had been for the sheriff to assume custody of Oswald at the city jail and handle the transfer. Late last night, for unspecified reasons, it was decided that the city police would move the prisoner. Police Chief Jesse Curry declined to comment on suggestions that he had scheduled the transfer of Oswald at an unpropitious time because of pressure from news media. Chief Curry announced about 9 o'clock last night that the investigation had reached a point where Oswald's presence was no longer needed. He said that Oswald would be turned over to the county sheriff today. Asked when this would take place, the chief said: "If you fellows are here by 10 A.M., you'll be early enough." When newsmen assembled at the police administrative offices at 10 o'clock, Chief Curry commented: "We could have done this earlier if I hadn't given you fellows that 10 o'clock time."

Appreciated Bernice... Let me take it one step further... Putting aside faces, angles, stereoscopes... is the right hand that we see in the BYP the same as ANY of these three other hands we KNOW are Oswald's? The arrest image - slender fingers, pronounced knuckles on the fingers, upturned thumb... The BYP... short, stubby fingers, no pronounced knuckles, deep groves up to the wrist (btw, this is from the BYP Lamson posted) and finally... that space between ring finger and pinkie... Would anyone claim the arrest right hand is the same as the BYP right hand?

yes Robin... thanks... But in Altgens it appears as if there is no place where that tree's shadow falls... and no one standing in its shade... Probably just a trick of th elight... similiar to LBJ barely being visible in the same image... Cheers DJ

The length of shadows vary based on the height of the object... we can see the shadow from the tree opposite Zapruder at the top of Elm extends quite a distance (z200) yet it does not appear to me that there is any shade at all cast by that 30' tree in front of the TSBD (seems to reach the 3rd story in Bell). Not a single person in that photo is in that shade yet many are shielding their eyes from the sun... Not necessarily ominous... yet it does seem contrary to the natural laws of light and shadow. Wouldn't we expect to see SOME shade there? just sayin... DJ

FWIW the math took me a while to understand and visualize... and I majored in math/finance.... when I have more time I will find and help explain what I understand in that area... search first though Proving a 4th copy I think is more than enough of a task at this point... The Doorman issue is an insult to the intelligence.... not so much the notion, but the manner inwhich a well respected researcher butchers simple things like probability and corroboration... (he uses Fritz's notes to claim Oswald said he was out there yet dismisses info on the same page of notes that says Oswald changed clothes when he got home.... how does comparing a shirt Oswald had not yet been wearing to an image taken in DP while claiming that is the shirt we see... ??) I come to no conclusions about ANYONE until they start posting... in this world you are what you write and what you can authenticate.... I appreciate your interest and questions... Hopefully it will help others see as well... re: Craig... if he had the littlest bit of class and ability he would simply address the issue, not the messenger. whenever he comes adhomming into a thread - no matter whose - I know we are on the right track. "digestion" may be tough with all that grissle, but have at it... his 3 little inches argument is good for a chuckle... given it has little to do with what occurs.... you can choke that one down on your own... the thread is right here on EF somewhere DJ

Can't tell you how many times I've lost posts... So much so I now copy them into a word doc during the course of composing - especially long ones - so I have something to copy/paste back. Or I simply compose the response in word and do the same.... Zavada claims there is a small % of lightness difference... Problem being the stop/starts on the family side of the film all have this telltale LIGHTENING of the first few frames. I look forward to your reply.... yet please do not forgo the title of the thread... 0184 or another copy is mentioned in and among those with copies of this thing... and it seems to have been sent to Rowley by Phillips on 11/22 DJ

yes there is indeed a lot going on.... but I'm going to have to agree with CL here... SEARCH. Include "Chris Davidson", "Tom Purvis", "Survey" "Drommer plat" and "Math" in your searches. Once the alteration is no longer a question (like conspiracy/cover-up) in your mind, as it has in mine... HOW becomes the next task. I can't give you the Reader's Digest version of years of work on this. A hint though... distance and time are related to frames per second. If the limo is moving 1 foot per frame, this equates to the limo's speed IF we accept 18.3fps. If the distances covered do not reveal a steady rate of speed - which they dont - and speed up/slow down is included as they are in real world events - the information offered us by the WCR proves what we see is not what occurred. IE the transition to 207-208 jumping from 12 to over 28mph and then back down again or the jump in 171 from 3.74 to over 17mph... Lamson will stomp and scream and misdirect and whine alot, but will never refute. He does not understand the math or the analysis and his only purpose is to xxxxx.... If he had soemthing to offer... believe me he would, he never shuts up about his 3 little inches... but a simple search will prove time and again he has little to say on this subject other than adhoms. You recap of what the math shows in question form is interesting... the MATH helps explain how what we see and what has been offered as evidence, was created and/or supported. You say that using the math shows why z133 is when we see the limo appear, what is so special about 161-166, why z224 is not mentioned as showing a shot, why Altgens tells us he was 15 feet from JFK at the time of the shot (z345, not z313), why Hudson on the steps tells us a shot was fired while the limo was right in front of him, why/how these frames and time measurements work with the only other films that can be used to time sync Zapruder. Am I breaking down that paragraph of your post correctly? Is the math something that I (with a bit of work) can do and will the results of the math show all of the above? Are you able expand on each of the above points or are they just self evident once I run the math, Also I hadn't ever considered whether the Zapruder images I'm familiar with included any stop starts, I just always thought it was one continuous shot. Why do you say z133 is a restart frame and what are the 'telltale start-up signatures' that should be there and are missing? I posted an image that clearly shows the difference between a start-up frame - Z001 - and one that is not - z133. I also include testimony that substantiates Z filming the motorcade without stopping. I'm at a loss for how that is not clear in my post.... Please take some time and do some diligence. If you grasp the math first time thru... wonderful, let me know. But it will be up to you to connect the dots... Curious... are you a long time student of the case... just dabbling right now... are you aware of the Altgens/Hudson references made and just addressing the MATH here... I'm a bit perplexed ?? Mr. LIEBELER - Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and that is the time at which the first shot was fired? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired. Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - I don't know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I'm having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President's car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself. Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President's car when he was hit in the head. Mr. ALTGENS - Well, I was about 15 feet from it. Mr. LIEBELER - But it was almost directly in front of you as it went down the street; isn't that right? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes.

Let's take a different approach... Finding images of Oswald's hands is surprisingly difficult... What I've done is compile what I could find showing Oswald's right hand. One of the obvious comments has been the fingers on that right hand look very short, fat and stubby on the BYP.... Yet the only image that replicates this is a very suspect image of "Oswald" in Japan.... which I venture to say is quite a stretch to conclude that is the same man as the one killed by Ruby. In every image of Oswald being arrested... his hands/fingers are slender and large... the image at the right is of Oswald with Marina in Russia... again - slender large hands/fingers. The 2nd image below the BYP blowup of his hand IS his right hand on the day of arrest and compares in no way to the BYP. Big knuckles... long fingers.... vs those stubby short fingers that do not taper but simply end. No pronounced knuckles... just little sausages.... Finally... the image of Oswald wearing his wedding ring on the right hand on the train.... makes sense, he was just married. If you look at the bottom right arrest photo his Marine Ring is LARGE... it sticks out away from his fingers quite a bit where the BYP and Japan image appear relatively flat... (albeit the image is too grainy to actually make out detail)... Rings move from hand to hand with ease... ring finger to ring finger? I find that one hand is usually larger than the other and rings on certain fingers fit others when switched.... Is there something special about wearing a wedding ring on the RIGHT hand? A Russian thing? In any case... I think the attached collage shows that the man arrested and fingerprinted has hands much larger and slender than what is shown in the BYP. (btw - I used the image Lamson linked to for my BYP) And gives more credibility to the notion the face don't match the body's features.