David Josephs

Bump....

In light of our understanding the zfilm we have was not the one that comes out of Z's camera... shouldn't we be concentrating our efforts on uncovering WHERE/HOW this film was changed?

I can't discuss Salandria's minutia with Fetz any longer... he's so wrapped up in the micro detail he can't see straight.

But I can ask the rest to address the FACT - via Zavada - that the extant Zfilm has no 0183 imprinted in the assassination sequence, only the SS copies of it.

If Jamieson created copy 0184, which they'd have had to, THIS is the film used to create the duplicate "copies" at NPIC AFTER it was altered at Hawkeye.

0183 gets xferred to SS copies.... supposedly... yet is not on the original... Isn't that end of story here?

Cheers

DJ

Can the theory be proven wrong?

And, in the meantime, a motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand side and the chief yelled to him, ‘Anybody hurt?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ He (the chief) said, ‘Lead us to the hospital.’ And the chief took his microphone and told them to alert the hospital, and said, ‘Surround the building.’ He didn’t say what building. He just said, ‘Surround the building.’ ” [Warren Commission testimony: 7H345]

Follow it thru for us then Jim... take us from this moment in time to the McIntyre photo. There are three lead cyclists... any one of them Chaney? Has he already passed them too?

Chaney motors ahead, tells the lead car and is then asked to lead them to Parkland. THEN what does he do?

Does he shoot ahead to lead as the Chief asks?

Does he just stop... then start again thereby creating his position in McIntyre?

Was he altered OUT of McIntyre? and all the other source films/photos?

Can YOU explain please how Chaney goes from being next to the lead car to being last in the procession in the McIntyre photo?

=================

Now, with regards to Doorman... I've already dissmissed your "probabilities" which is some of the best hocus-pocus you've offerred up.

I also showed you multiple areas that DONT match... which, as I explain 4000 times already - makes the probability ZERO that is was Oswald.

Not to mention if we trust Fritz' notes - which is what you used to conclude what you did - then he was also correct about the changing of his clothes... which renders you position moot.

I am done Jim. We will always appreciate your tireless work... your commitment to exposing....

yet you are starting to sound like the naked emperor... insisting on the acknowledgement of the beauty of your clothes...

while your a$$ remains hanging out for all to see.

Jim... Lammy doesn't even belong on the same planet in serious JFK discussion... much easier to simply ignore... talk about a shill.

And I think we've established a LONG time ago that we are fighting the same battle....

You ask , "so WHEN was this supposaed to have happened" (Chaney)

Winston Lawson, ". . . I recall noting a police officer pulled up in a motorcycle alongside of us . . .". And when is this supposed to have happened, Robin?

Forrest Sorrells, "AND I SAID, 'LET' GET OUT OF HERE' AND LOOKED BACK, ALL THE WAY BACK, THEN, TO WHERE THE PRESIDENT'S CAR WAS . . . IN THE MEANWHILE, A MOTORCYCLE OFFICER HAD RUN UP ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE . . .". So just how dumb are we supposed to be?

All that matters here Jim is that it happened AFTER you say it did and was not part of the Zfilm fakery... simple.

That you seem above adminting a mistake in conclusion - the ability to lose a battle yet continue on winning the war - is disheartening. We have multiple sources that show it not possible to have happened in the SEQUENCE you attribute to it... but probably happened 15 seconds later... maybe even sooner than that. We both know in a state of emergency the brain slows time down by adding multi-layer memories....

Between the east of the overpass and the west, the limo catches the lead car... Chaney had yet to motor anywhere as we see in McIntyre.

If you feel that CAPITOLS and repeated posting of the same info (like leaning in and yelling at someone who doesn't speak english as if it helps) will make your point... I think you are achieving the opposite... you are alienating those who have fought beside you for many many years....

Zavada's own report clues us in on the fakery. The only section of the "original" that does not have the idenitfying ORIGINAL MARKINGS is the assassination sequence.

How much more plain can it be... and he was PROVING its originality. Let alone the amount of blank space as Horne has shown.

Let's try again Jim.... I KNOW the film in evidence is as unauthentic as the autopsy report. Rather than arguing the point... concede the stupidity of those like Lammy who spends most his day looking at himself and not giving a rat's A$$ about the case itself... AND MOVE ON.

Unless it really is your whole purpose to degrade the work and efforts of others by associating the crudest and most incorrect conclusions with the JFK Conspiracy.. making our jobs that much more difficult....

We have to DISPROVE your vociferous rantings while agreeing with your conclusions... feels like a rock and hard place.

Peace Jim...

DJ

David,

You are doing a great job of showing that Lamson is unreasonable, but

bear in mind that the shills will not even admit that Frame 374 proves by

itself that the film has been altered, when it makes it so very OBVIOUS:

q

Just a word of caution. Using Costellas candy pop version is not a good fundament for this enquiry.

Fair enough John... post a better source file if you have.

My point is that it is a "pop version" for the entire frame, not just JFK's head. Anything done to the entire frame should produce the same kinds of effects as we see over JFK's head.

I even posted Lammy's png-ginourmous version that shows quite plainly a SQUARE over JFK's head, not just some black on full contrast. Below.

Can you explain why the Square is so "square" in this one section of the frame and why he avoids posting any other section of that frame for comparison?

All I did was push the brightness and contrast... nothing else. Doesn't HIS black square give you any cause to be skeptical about that frame's original state?

If this effect occurs with every instance of that depth of color, SHOW IT... or am I being unfair in my request?

DJ

On 2/27/2013 at 11:47 AM, James H. Fetzer said:

Well, then, you must have never read posts by Lamson, Colby and other shills

who are omni-present on this forum. Where are the disproofs that the Doorman

(1) was not Billy Lovelady,

(2) was not the man in the checkered shirt, and

(3) that Lovelady and the man in the checkered shirt were not the same person?

I can't believe how many participants in this forum have no reasoning ability at

all--where these posts by Farley, Cohen, and (even) Karl Kanaski prove my case.

WHERE ARE YOUR REFUTATIONS? WHAT DO WE HAVE WRONG? SILENCE

IS NOT A FORM OF PROOF. AND UNSUPPORTED DENUNCATIONS ONLY GO

TO SHOW YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF SERIOUS THOUGHT. WHERE ARE THEY?

I posted this before Jim... and you ignored it then as well...

From how badly you mangle the probabilities you presented to how easy it is to show the INCONSISTENCIES between Oswald and Doorman=Lovelady.

Maybe stop screaming and acting surprised and DEAL with the images.

Yet on the other side of the FAKE coin is Fetzer's declaration about Chaney....

I submit we have definitive proof that Chaney did not do what he said he did until much later... well after McIntyre.

Here is the limo/lead car and all others emerging from the underpass... the lilmo, as we see from Alt7, is a ways back from the lead car yet has already passed it coming out the other end.

We have to agree that no more than a few seconds pass from Alt 7 and the frame of the Daniel film I post here on the left.

I have always agred that the Z-film we see has been changed from its original state (try to remember that Zavada tells us the original does NOPT have the 0183 marking on it... the 0183 was determined to be the original since the SS copies have the 0183 on them.

quote from top of 1a. page 6 : "No processing labratory edge print was seen on the motorcade section of the film we examined. The processing edge print: "PROCESSED BY KODAK (dot) D NOV 63 (month and year)" did appear on the family scenes half of the original roll as evidenced by being printed through onto the Secret Service copies"

Later in 1b page 18 we get to the authenticity of 0183:

".... the perforated identification of (0183) was not seen, but should have been present at the end of the remining blank - unexposed balance of side two if standard handling practice had been followed. We do confirm the Zapruder "Out of the Camera" original was identified "0183" by noting the identification present as "printed through" onto both first generation SS copies made by Jamison film company and located adjeacent to the family scenes"

IOW... since the SS copy has 0183, the original motorcade sequence that does NOT have 0183 must be from the same film as the Zappy family side....

Again, the ONLY PORTION that does not have the 0183 is the assassiantion sequence yet we are supposed to accept that since there are copies with 0183 printed thru the family side... and SHOULD be on the motorcade side... it is STILL the original out of the camera film...

I'm not going to get into a discussion with Lammy over his silly misdirection tactics... he can continue and just play with himself....

I am,on the other hand, going to hope that Jim looks carefully at these images and has a bit of a reversal on his Chaney conclusion as being indiciative of Z-film fakery, when there are more than enough bits to conclude the Zfilm we now have is not the film that came out of ZAP'S camera.

On 3/1/2013 at 9:41 AM, John Dolva said:

Just a word of caution. Using Costellas candy pop version is not a good fundament for this enquiry.

Fair enough John... post a better source file if you have.

My point is that it is a "pop version" for the entire frame, not just JFK's head. Anything done to the entire frame should produce the same kinds of effects as we see over JFK's head.

I even posted Lammy's png-ginourmous version that shows quite plainly a SQUARE over JFK's head, not just some black on full contrast. Below.

Can you explain why the Square is so "square" in this one section of the frame and why he avoids posting any other section of that frame for comparison?

All I did was push the brightness and contrast... nothing else. Doesn't HIS black square give you any cause to be skeptical about that frame's original state?

If this effect occurs with every instance of that depth of color, SHOW IT... or am I being unfair in my request?

DJ

Misdirection again.... do you never stop? LOL

This is not about the depth of black in one certain area... this is a simple questioni that you simply cannot answer.

Using any entire frame version of z323 you like. and show us how the blacks and dark areas - ANYPLACE BUT THE BACK OF HIS HEAD can be manipulated to give the appearance that it extends beyond its source....

Don't want to use the attached below? Fine... use any source file you want... just get the effect to work ELSEWHERE in the frame..

Or go away defeated once again.

Love the way you misdirect... the ENTIRE frame is of the same origin. The ENTIRE FRAME should react the same way to changes in contrast....

So you dont address why it does not happen with all the other "shaded heads" and blacks in that frame.... and try to misdirect with "image quality" BS.

Why are none of the other areas of that frame reacting to the changes in contrast/brightness the same way as the square hovering over JFK's head...

Show the ENTIRE FRAME Lammy... make any other similar black area do the same thing.... with any image you want to use... I will post yet another full frame -

take a look.... wut up wit dat...? all the other black areas stay in their respective places.... hmmmmm

Finally... here's the png you posted... the GOOD one... with a little contrast and brightness...

My goodness... does that look like a square over the back of his head that doesn't match the pixel structure of the info around it?

LOL....

Make the same CRUSH happen to Greer's head them Lammy....

It's in the same darkness and should be crushed out just like JFK's if the frame was untouched...

Not a single other shadow in that frame behaves like the one covering JFK's head...

It's cool though... we know you only come out when others are correct and you have nothing to say or do about it....

Now... throw a few insults, a couple of childish names, state yet another unsupported opinion and call it a day...

That's all you ever seem up to the task for in EVERY instance...

Prove me wrong old man.

Like a third grader with a sharpie

One would expect to see ALL the blacks crushed and extending beyond their natural boarders, yet only the black square over JFK's head is doing so...

THAT sqaure was not part of the original frame.

Obvious to most with any sense and a pair of eyes.

Here are only the frames with this other Oswald look alike

DJ

It's a gif

It was also mentioned at DPF... here is what I think you/they are referring to, at the 13/14 second mark of the video?

btw - please let's remember he changed his clothes before going to the theater....

Can you think of a good reason to ditch a jacket which covers your body while you're hiding a gun in your waistband..

As opposed to putting the pistol in his jacket pocket....

DJ

I saw this and replied over at DPF....

While the images are too rough for an ID... there are a few signs that may help..

Looking at Ruby in Jones, he has a severe crossover when he walks, left foot to the right of the right foot...

I think the "ruby" character in the film does the same thing. yet he does seem a bit tall for it to be Ruby...

Regarding Oswald....

The similiarities are striking... yet this could not be the same person Whaley takes....

No second heavy blue/grey jacket

Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn't pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had. He was dressed in just ordinary work clothes. It wasn't khaki pants but they were khaki material, blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants.

He, his shirt was open three buttons down here. He had on a T-shirt. You know, the shirt was open three buttons down there.

Mr. BALL. You said that a jacket--

Mr. WHALEY. That jacket now it might have been clean, but the jacket he had on looked more the color, you know like a uniform set, but he had this coat here on over that other jacket, I am sure, sir.

Mr. BALL. This is the blue-gray jacket, heavy blue-gray jacket.

Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.

* James Chaney (motorcycle patrolman on right rear of the Presidential limousine): “I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and that Parkland was standing by.”

Chief Curry instructs Chaney to take him to Parkland... and then Chaney rode up to the lead cycles to tell them the news...

Jim... just point out Chaney in this photo for us... LEADING the way to Parkland after talking to Curry in that little white car...

and gaining on the three lead cycles....

If he's not there... where is he?

On 2/18/2013 at 10:12 PM, John Dolva said:

It might be a good synchronisation point if it is the moment when the driver turns to look back in Z and here exposes the rear view mirror.

Guess it dpends if you believe Z313 occurred where it did rather than 30 feet further down the street according to the WCR.

Here is the driver's turn - the second turn - within a second of the headshot. the frame order is down then over

The only way these sync is if we move that shot down to where Altgens and the WCR said it happened.. Station 4+95 as opposed to the plat legend's 4+65 feet.

DJ

btw - personally I don't think we can even know whether there was a hole or not. too many conflicting stories. Yet you don't destroy evidence if it's benign.

and that windshiled was definitely destroyed and replaced with a duplicate.

Does this help?

Cliff...

Kinda like DAVEY DOES DALLAS: The man swallows the WCR whole.

- a must see.

And if all we are talking about it Betzner or Weaver... and NOT at the time of the shots...

Who cares?

LMAO

Lamson STILL playing with his 3 little inches..... must be why the holes all line up...

Tell us why the hole in the back is NOT 3 little inches higher than the holes in the shirt and jacket

Since according to you, at the time of the shot, the fabric of the shirt and coat is riding 3 inches higher on JFK's body..

~Yawn~

~Stretch~

~Snooze~

We greatly appreciate you posting your resume. Was actually wondering what you do for a living...

Hoover knew there was a conspiracy.

None of the Hoover quotes you've presented prove that Hoover "knew there was a conspiracy". He was being honest and above board about the POSSIBILITY of a connection between Oswald and Ruby. That's what his "conspiracy" statements indicate.

Please point me to any Hoover quote (or maybe even some hard physical EVIDENCE, that'd be refreshing) to show that John Edgar Hoover of the FBI "knew" that a conspiracy existed in the murder of JFK. Can you do that, David?

I kinda doubt you can. But good luck.

David...

Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining....

You on the other hand are simply a shill... a parrot and a fraud. The sky is red... the water orange and the sun sets in the east.

You're not worth talking to about this subject... like discussing evolution with a born again Christian... there simply is no point...

Go back to playing your silly games... I'm not buying what you sell

I don't see ANYTHING from either man [Craig Lamson or David Von Pein] that refutes Hoover's awareness and declaration that there was a conspiracy....

How can they even BEGIN to argue against the following?

"that while I think there was no connection between him (Ruby) and Oswald, I did not want the report to be 100% sure on that." (this is written 3 days after the FBI report already states that there is no connection.)

Sounds to me like J. Edgar was being quite forthright and honest. Which seems mighty strange in light of the way most conspiracists paint Mr. Hoover -- i.e., as a worthless bastard who would do anything it takes to frame Lee Oswald as a lone assassin.

The more Hoover quotes you post, the more bullet holes you get in your feet--from your own gun.

David... that you are once again lost in your own mind's WCR excuses is no big surprise.

Hoover knew there was a conspiracy... that's ALL we are tlkaing about here. That he promoted the LONE NUT conclusion only bolsters the obvious...

He decided to help fool the world as to who was responsible.

Try to follow...

1) he knows there's a conspiracy and says so to LBJ and writes such to his Sr. Staff

2) he is convinced that exposure and/or investigation of this conspiracy is not in the best interest of the NEW government

3) he plays along and forever includes the CIA's Mexico charade in the same breath as BOP as prime examples of the CIA duplicity.

Pull your head out long enough to think like a human being rather than a McAdams parrot.

Before he was shut off... Hoover KNEW the CIA was lying to him, State, ONI and everybody else.... and chose to help hide that along with most everything else...

At some point David... ever YOU have to exhibit some common sense... no?

Cliff...

Is this the type of LNer acceptance of the iron clad evidence in support of a conspiracy you anticipated?

DVP/Lamson can do this ALL DAY LONG... and will.

btw - have either offered anything but "Hoover knew Oswald did it" in response to the notion that HOOVER knew there was a conspiracy...

I don't see ANYTHING from either man that refutes Hoover's awareness and declaration that there was a conspiracy....

How can they even BEGIN to argue against the following?

"that while I think there was no connection between him(Ruby) and Oswald, I did not want the report to be 100% sure on that." (this is written 3 days after the FBI report already states that there is no connection)

FBI REPORT: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402

Further, investigation has developed no proof of any prior

contact or association between Oswald and his murderer, Jack Leon Ruby.

"I further stated there may be some aspects Mr. Rankin will want to have run out farther; that there may be letters written to members of the Commission; that we have letters from people who claim to have seen Oswald; that up to the time we submitted the report we had cleared up all these angles except the Cuban thing which I discussed generally and explained that the informer recanted and blew that angle out of the window; that sort of thing may be popping up all the time. I advised Mr. Rankin if he wanted any leads followed out or any implementation of what we have already done we will give him 100% cooperation"

and the LAST LINE of the FBI report:

Leads are still being covered, and the FBI will continue to check out any

additional allegations or information which come to its attention. (DJ: uh, yeah... not so much)

THE DECEMBER 9, 1963, FBI REPORT http://www.jfklancer.com/Hoover.html

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

Put your dress and handbag away, David.

That's really the best you can do here Lee?

We have members discussing Hoover, his knowledge, Mexico City, LBJ and all you have are childish insults...?

What an amazing waste of time you are....

-------------------

And yet... you STILL have nothing to refute Hoover's knowledge, his declarations and his physical evidence other than, "go see JFK again"... Pure marketing brilliance Lee.

How involved must a conspiracy be to the CIA that they needed to send Hoover on a wild goose chase in Mexico?

While Hoover is on the heels of a conspiracy... State and ONI seem to be right on board with it... as Katz's memo showed.

MAYBE Hoover simply siezed upon an opportunity - But we're not having a "discussion", are we....

Your turn to insult again... we're ALL dripping with anticipation at your next witty utterance...

If Oswald was FBI, as we suspect... this little piece of the puzzle successfully binds his hands to NOT look further.... we ALL understand that... yes?

I can see the T-shirt now... "J. Edgar - ask 'em about Mexico - Hoover"