David Josephs

Thanks Zach... means alot I actually do.. the man we see crossing Elm afterward in a trenchcoat and hat looks so much like Howard Hunt, I tried to work back from where he might have walked from: Here is what I found.. DJ

You keep believing that Greg... EVERYBODY has their correct height and weight on the Driver's license too - right? Luckily, you not buying it is not the end of the road for the rest of us... I appreciate your input and will continue to re-analyze... in fact - it was you who showed me the records for FALL 1953 at BJHS were really LEE's so thank you for that if I hadn't already posted that (believe I did)... that doesn't make Myra's story any less interesting or the other details of H &L both being in NOLA in 54, 55.... I informed Armstrong and have discussed 1953 and HARVEY... he too is reconsidering that one section as it all hinged upon those grades and the 89 days.... so pat yourself on the back IN THIS ONE AREA and keep on bringing it elsewhere... I started this new one for MO alone... You'll notice I started one for H&L as well.... you proved you point about the FALL 1953 in that other post... but you haven't done so well with Sept/Oct/Nov 1958... just to name one area Again, thanks for bringing the counter to all this... as we are supposed to do... we don't need to convince each other, just present what we have... btw - I am hoping to visit Palmer McBride in the next few weeks and am in contact with the woman who investigated Oswald's time at Pfiester.... Cheers and have a great weekend... chat again soon DJ

Let me ask you a question Robert asked me today... who in the world keeps W-2 forms (from 7-8 years ago from the age of 15/16) with him as he moves around the country, goes into the marines, halfway around the world and back... yet when needed to prove he worked at Pfiester in 55... his W-2's are "found" to be among his possessions although not listed on a single inventory of items taken from him from any location? This is what you are reduced to. Sorry David. It's not good enough to prop up a theory. So sorry you feel that way Greg... did you happen to find where they listed finding his W-2's in the DPD inventories from 11/22 or 23? (note: I am going thru the Dallas Archives to retrieve every piece of evidence related to the collection of Oswald's possessions... from John's work we find that the W-2s came back from the FBI... just not sure if they were ever sent to them) I have another point though... we are both aware that the FBI took a couple hundred items that night... and that these items ALL had DPD intitials on them.... Yet when returned for the "official" taking of the evidence on the 26th, there was over twice as much with all those NOT taken from Dallas WITHOUT DPD initials.... Even if the FBI only really took half the items - the remaining would have been inventoried and initialed in Dallas... Except maybe they DID take all the items?? Mr. EISENBERG. Do you know why Exhibit No. 820 was not reprocessed or desilvered? (DULLES CROSSES OUT ACTUAL TESTIMONY AND REPLACES IT WITH HIS OWN ANSWER) Mr. CADIGAN. No, this is a latent fingerprint matter. Do we understand that ALLEN DULLES SIMPLY WROTE IN CADIGAN'S RESPONSE and THAT'S HOW IT WAS PRINTED IN THE REPORT? Can you tell us Greg, how many other bits of testimony were summariuly changed to suit the Commissioner's purposes... wasn't Dulles at more WC sessions than anyone else? There was insuffieienct time, with the resources of the FBI in DC, to fingerprint and de-silver the LARGE VOLUME of evidence... does that sound like a couple hundred or almost 500? Any reason you can think of for Dulles not to want to publish that the FBI had the evidence, ALL THE EVIDENCE, that weekend? Back to Oswald's W-2s The ONLY initials on the W-2's are "168RF"... Robert Frazier and those are on the BACK of the COPIES of the W-2s. You'll be able to show us a Chain of Custody for these W-2's - right? You know like all the other COC's that are so reliable like CE399 and those shells POE marked that disappeared. I'm terribly sorry that a little critical thinking is outside the box for your Greg... I simply asked a question.... Does it sound logical to you that a 16-19 year old who then travels the world would YEARS LATER still have the W-2's from part time jobs from which he already - supposedly - filed returns for? And if you are convinced this is possible and likely... prove they were found in Oswlad's possessions.. Thanks DJ

In my attempt to bring H&L to life for those interested in researching more... sometimes illustration is the best avenue... Why Nagell would have an Identical form of Oswald ID in his possession, yet with a different photo and different signature is puzzling to say the least. Why Oswald looks so different in virtually the same time periods is puzzling And finally a gif anchored in size to the right eye... the rest of the body SHOULD match... it doesn't I am NOT presenting this as difinitive evidence of anything other than to use your own eyes and see for yourself Cheers DJ

Thought I'd put together what I've found regarding MO... H&L: The FBI conducted a thorough investigation into the background of the real Marguerite Oswald from the early 1940's to the mid-1950's. But after interviewing Lee p.196 McCracken at 3830 W. 6th in Fort Worth, her neighbor in 1957-58, their investigation stopped. They never interviewed co-workers who knew and worked with the real Marguerite Oswald at Clyde Campbell's Men's Store (1957, spring), the City of Fort Worth (1957, fall), Paul's Shoe Store - Ft. Worth TX (1957-58, Christmas), Family Publications (1958), or Cox's Department Store ( 1958). http://www.history-m...H25_CE_2217.pdf (12/2/63) She (a friend of the REAL MO's) informed that she had seen MARGUERITE OSWALD only once since they moved from Covington 16 years ago, and this was about three years ago (1959/60/61) when she saw her in Eriegers Department Store in New Orleans, where she was working in the Ladies Lingerie Department . They spoke only briefly, she stated . MO: Because of Lee's so-called defection, and my accident, the way I was treated, left destitute, without any medical or compensation, I decided to devote my life to humanity, and I became a practical nurse. And I have worked for $5 a week, living in the place. As you can see from the photos, while LEE's MO was in the department stores, HARVEY's was a nurse and continues to be a nurse (photo 1975)... LEE's MO disappears from the radar after her firend's comment above... there is no record of LEE's mother after NOLA 1960/61. Cheers DJ

No Greg, you don't. Armstrong and others are saying the 5'7" woman who was LEE's mother is not the same as the 5'2" caretaken of HARVEY. There are other photos of the sisters together and sorry, those are not flats that Lillian is wearing... the bend in the ankle would be straight, not angled down for say 1-2" heals versus the2-3 heels MO is wearing.... Basically the retail sales lady who was never a nurse a day in her life becomes a nurse just like LEE who never studied a day of Russian in his life, suddenly is not only fluent, but extremely fluent in reading, writing, speaking and understadning one of the toughest languages in the world. Let me ask you a question Robert asked me today... who in the world keeps W-2 forms (from 7-8 years ago from the age of 15/16) with him as he moves around the country, goes into the marines, halfway around the world and back... yet when needed to prove he worked at Pfiester in 55... his W-2's are "found" to be among his possessions although not listed on a single inventory of items taken from him from any location? and the FACT that when over laid, the address is in the identical location on differently laid out forms... DJ

Hi Bernice - hope all is well with you... Here I have Hughes compared to Dillard... there is DEFINITELY someone in the SE window and possibly in the one two over... The BIG question... is where are Williams/Norman/Jarman in WEAVER or Hughes... plus WHAT is that at the 5th floor SE window?

http://www.jfkassass...ic,7025.24.html GREAT photos of the inside of the TSBD... thank you Martin H. Here is the 7th floor SE corner looking out DJ

Hi Mark... nicely put. Yet I must disagree with your Osama conclusion... it was the Pakistani Army who supported the terrorists, MOST of them were Saudis, the list of hijackers is woefully incorrect and NEVER been updated and finally, the FBI NEVER LISTED 9/11 when describing and listing Osama's crimes.... like Saddam the US MILITARY created Osama to fight Russia while giving unbelieveable power to the local drug lords in Afghanistan.... why are we STILL in Afghanistan? one word - HEROIN. didn't you know that Rummy, Chaney and Dub'ya KNEW that Saddam pulled it off....? How long before we were invading Iraq? If you'd liek the complete low-down on 9/11 http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline Take your time and read ALL OF IT... Talk about blow your mind - the Able Danger stuff alone is amazing. Peace DJ "Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq," Clarke said on Sunday's 60 Minutes. "I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.' ========== Two of the most amazing statements that I keep near and dear and their source: U.S. Foreign Policy -- A Study in Hypocrisy By William Blum My experience in writing and speaking about what U.S. foreign policy has really done in and to the world is that it’s often like telling people that I was abducted by aliens, except that many of those people would sooner believe the abduction story. For those of you who are not heavily into alien abduction stories, let me try to set the proper atmosphere by mentioning two of the laws of politics which came out of the Watergate scandal of the 1970s. (It doesn’t matter if you don’t know much about Watergate; the laws are still understandable.) The First Watergate Law of American Politics states: “No matter how paranoid you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine.” The Second Watergate Law states: “Don’t believe anything until it’s been officially denied." Both laws are still on the books. Keep them handy in your head. i.e. ========= Condoleezza Rice: But I don’t remember the al‐Qaida cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about. Richard Ben-Veniste: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB [Presidential Daily Briefing] warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB? Condoleezza Rice: I believe the title was, Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States. "I don't think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile" And the military had conducted numerous drills of planes crashing into the Pentagon. For example, see this official military website showing a military drill conducted in 2000 using miniatures; this article concerning a May 2001 exercise of a plane crashing into the Pentagon (see also this article and this one); and this article about yet another drill of a plane hitting the Pentagon from August 2001. and more examples closer to home... WCR conclusions 9-12 The American Laws in Action over 10 years BEFORE they were realized 9. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy (official denial) 10. In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official (official denial) 11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that. Oswald acted alone (official denial - no one else involved) AND FINALLY - THE SECRET SERVICE DID NOTHING WRONG 12. (f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds that the (SS) agents most immediately responsible for the President’s safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD. (official denial - the SS was NOT responsible for the lack of JFK's safety) and here they are... those MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR JFK's SAFETY: One isn't paying attention, the other is watching it happen....

Robert... thanks for this... great pix Question... MO is supposedly 5'2", according to her pasport... the photos of her at 21 in 1928 with her sister shows she is a good 4 inches taller... Is/was Lillian Murret 4'10" ?? And how about Eckdahl... Do you know his height? Cuase the woman who married him was 5'7" And when along the way did she become a nurse? Seems to me it was AFTER 1958. I could not afford to buy a bed for my grandchild, because I have worked prior to this for nothing. The job that I had quit I was making $25 a week, gentlemen-a 24-hour live-in job. The jobs prior to this I worked for $10 a week, 7 days a week, a live-in job. Because of Lee's so-called defection, and my accident, the way I was treated, left destitute, without any medical or compensation, I decided to devote my life to humanity, and I became a practical nurse. And I have worked for $5 a week, living in the place. Now, when they lived in the home on Mercedes Street that he rented, I was employed as an OB, a nurse, in Fort Worth, Tex., at an OB's salary. And that salary, gentlemen, will astonish you. I worked, lived in, for $9 a day, 24 hours duty. On an OB case I am very busy with the baby all day long because people are coming in and out, giving presents and so on. I have a 10 o'clock feeding for the baby. And it is approximately 11 o'clock before I am through and in bed. The baby is up again at 2 o'clock. It is approximately 3:30 before I am through again with the baby. The baby is up again at 5:30. And it is approximately--then my day starts. I am stressing the point that 1 worked for $9 a day during all that, a $9 a day job. So that is 7 days a week, $63. Now, this is the first time I have had a nurse's salary, I want you to understand. As you see, the way I am properly dressed--I don't say I mean to be the height of fashion, but I have before becoming a nurse I was in the business world, From H&L p101 In the fall of 1947 Georgia's neighbor, Lucille Hubbard, drove the short, dumpy, heavy-set Marguerite to a house to pick up some clothes after she got a job as a nurse Seven years later, in the fall of 1954, Harvey Oswald lived in the rear apartment at 2220 Thomas Place and attended Stripling, while his short, dumpy, heavy-set "caretaker/mother" worked as a nurse. Nine years later, on November 22, 1963, the same woman, the short, dumpy, heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" im poster occupied the same rear apartment and still worked as a practical nurse.

Lee... I'm pretty sure this is the ORIGINAL DILLARD that we see in every other location... http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=22&pos=6 There were no boxes in the 5th floor windows... It simply looks as if he is pasted in there and that his neck is twice as long as it should be... while the negative version looks even stranger... If you have another Dillard enlargement showing Norman with his head on correctly, I'd like to see it. This is the "sharpest" I've seen. DJ

According to both Pool and Tomlinson they took an unidentified SS agent up the elevator leaving the other stretcher unattended. I wonder if there were OTHER Chain of Evidence problems found in CE2011?? How about those pesky Tippit hulls... Seems the same problem occurs here... Davis' and Benavidas cannot ID the hulls, Poe cannot ID hulls... The only MARKS on the hulls are by men who were NOT AT THE CRIME SCENE... Barnes and Dhority... The only marks on CE399? Men who were NOT IN THE SAME STATE AS WHERE THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED... and yet these items of evidence are the cornerstone of the WCR and LNer arguments the world over. If they cannot be traced back to the location where they were found - doesn't that remove them from being considered AUTHENTICATED EVIDENCE? Isn't this what Gary Mack calls HARD EVIDENCE of a conspiracy - where the only identification of the evidence comes from those not involved in the gathering of it? DJ

Pot...meet Pa Kettle. Reminder: Jim D. is a person who seriously thinks that Jim Garrison was right re the JFK case. And Jimbo's also a person who is deluded enough to actually think that BOTH Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just MADE UP the paper bag that each of those witnesses said they saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63. Talk about "empty bombast...sound and fury signifying nothing". Jim and all other conspiracy theorists have a patent on such bombast. Another LNer at another forum asked a good question a few months back when he asked: What have the JFK conspiracy theorists really accomplished? Anything of significance whatsoever? (Other than "bombast" and speculative theorizing that never ends?) Food for thought as the 50th approaches. Interesting how DVP can talk to us about Jim, Frazier, Randle, Oswald, paper bags, FOOD, the 50th... yet when it comes to dealing with the FACT that the men who had the opportunity to mark the shell MAY ACTUALLY HAVE, DAVID !! Except the bullet that Rowley gives to Todd is NOT the same one he got from Johnsen... He says so himself... So the bullet that has Todd and Frasier and Cunningham's initials is a 6.5mm round weighing 159.7 grains or so... that ROWLEY GAVE TO TODD The bullet that was found by Tomlinson and given to Wright and given to Johnsen MAY have had initials on it... who knows... THAT BULLET never made it out of Rowley's office... if it ever got there.... the world at large has never seen the bullet that Tomlinson gave to Wright.... ANYBODY can initial an empty envelope and tell us whatever they want WAS inside.... if CE399 WAS in that envelope, why do Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley not identify it as such? If they NEVER SAW THE BULLET in the envelope... initialing it does not change what's inside... Stay with CE399 DVP and try to wiggle your way out of the SS's either LACK of proper procedure in creating a chain of evidence for this bullet, OR Rowley perpetrating a crime by replacing THAT BULLET with what becomes CE399.

The pictures are taken in pairs, a brief moment apart. There is nothing special about the photos. When placed in a stereoscopic viewer, however, a 3D effect is achieved. This same effect can be achieved at home, using photos taken on your own camera. When one reads about Forensic photography, it becomes clear that the photos showing matted hair were the establishing shots--photos taken of the body at the beginning of the autopsy, and that the Groden color photos of the back of the head were taken later to demonstrate specific wounds. When one reads about autopsies in general, and not just the gunk on Kennedy's autopsy, moreover, it becomes crystal clear that they would have washed the blood and brains from Kennedy's hair before taking any photos of the wounds on the scalp and skull. IOW, the color back of the head photos were intended to show a wound, the bullet entrance on the back of Kennedy's head by the EOP. I see it. Do you? Yes Pat, I do see what they tried to say was the entrance wound... Yet I must disagree with your description of the two F3 photos I posted... When stereoscoping, only the camera moves... not the items in the photos... moving the ruler down and not changing the angle of the photo does not make a 3D effect work... Same photo subject, side by side angles... These are two different photos... btw - if each of the FOX PHOTOS had a twin... where are they and why aren't they available with the rest of the images out there? Let me ask you Pat... do you see a horizontal line across the BOH starting just above the ruler? and wouldn't that FOLD be in the right place to match with F6/7's fold exposing the brain?

Bringing this back to current as I am finally getting to his books... Read the FBI Secrets one... whcih basically paints the FBI as Hoover own private army against communists.. Reading "To Kill a President" now.... To me, it comes down to the credibility of his #1 informant Ramon.... maybe it's the style of his writing yet the way he writes Ramon's dialog as he describes the Bay of Pigs plot and then the JFK assassination just doesn't ring as being true to the informants words - and rather like a paraphrase for ease of reading. And while you would think this would contain a lot of FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE... much of it is relayed as stories told over drinks among FBI buddies... or from transcripts of illegal wire taps... He KNOWS PEOPLE who KNOW people.... One of the more interesting items to me is his naming RICHARD CAIN as an agent on the GK... at least that's how it sounded to me, and that Cain worked for and against everyone Maybe we can find Cain in the films/videos... ?? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcainR.htm Swearingen is also of the opinion that Roselli fired from the sewer (I know it still sounds silly), yet those who saw the OTHER zfilm claim JFK was lifed up out of his seat when shot... other witnesses from the day say the same thing... and has Oswald taking a "first shot" while the team does the actual killing... Swearingen goes on to make the point that not a single bug picked up any talk of an assassination plot against JFK... but then there were many things the mob did not talk about and still did... Cheers DJ

I came across another larger version of Dillard with Norman in the window and it srtuck me as very odd... the extended neck and head and then the negative image... Along side photos of Norman at the window and just standing there... THIS is the man who after a 150dB shot is fired 10 feet from his head has no problems hearing the hulls and bolt... SHOULDN'T there be a shadow on the left side of Norman as we see with Williams? Why/how is Norman's left shoulder and right next to his neck lit up by sun? DJ

Here is the photo Zach spoke of (I think) with the bystanders enlarged... I also included a blowup of Weaver and the corner of Main/Houston Cheers DJ

No but Kilduff said so as a direct quote from Burkley in the Parkland press conference... JFK Hit once in the Head, JC hit in the chest and the wrist - 2 shots check out the youtube video of the entire press conference 1:12 - "He (JC) was shot twice..."

Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir. I talked to him again later on that morning. Mr. BALL - About what time? Mr. JARMAN - It was between 9:30 and 10 o'clock, I believe. Just to put the timing into perspective Gil... This conversation takes place earlier in the morning. Wouldn't one think that there'd be a paper around showing the route? The "quiet reader" doesn't read the newspaper? and this discussion dovetails into some thoughts of mine about how Oswald would even know when to be at the window... even IF he knew the details from the newspaper AND had seen some of the VIP invitations, if he was to be involved, he had to KNOW when to be at the window so he did not miss the motorcade... I find it UNREALISTIC to assume that Oswald did not know when and where the motorcade was doing its thing, or that the motorcade was coming at all... Since we do not know the manner in which Oswald spoke these words... he could just as easily been making simple conversation (or Jarman was fed the words)... Knowing the president is coming LATER IN THE DAY and seeing people gathering at 9-10am, there may not be a connection. Additionally - all we ever has are 2nd hand accounts of what he said... there are no interrogation transcripts, just poor notes. Trusting one of the Three Men who claim to be able to hear at all after experiencing 3 150dB rifle shots within 10-15 feet of their heads, is a big leap of faith imo.... I believe, in a very simple way, Jarman is trying to help incriminate Oswald by showing his interest in the motorcade and the direction... when in reality it adds the question of what Oswald really did know about the motorcade. Add to this his affidavit: AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DALLAS BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared James Earl Jarman, Jr., c/m 33, 3942 Atlanta Street, Dallas, Texas HA8-1837 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says: I work for the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, as a Checker on the first floor for Mr. Roy S. Truly. On Friday, November 22, 1963, I got to work at 8:05 a.m. The first time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was about 8:15 a.m. He was filling orders on the first floor. A little after 9:00 a.m. Lee Oswald asked me what all the people were doing standing on the street. I told him that the President was supposed to come this way sometime this morning. He asked me, "Which way do you think he is coming?". I told him that the President would probably come down Main Street and turn on Houston and then go down Elm Street. (DJ: If he read this in the paper - why "probably"... and doesn't his answer strike you as supplied - unless he saw the map there would be no reason for Jarman to assume the turn onto Elm) He said, "Yes, I see". I only talked with him for about three or four minutes. The last time I saw Lee Oswald on Friday, November 22, 1963 was between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 noon when he was taking the elevator upstairs to go get some boxes. At about 11:45 a.m. all of the employees who were working on the 6th floor came downstairs and we were all out on the street at about 12:00 o'clock noon. These employees were: Bill Shelley, Charles Givens, Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray (last name not known) and a Spanish boy (his name I cannot remember). To my knowledge Lee Oswald was not with us while we were watching the parade. /s/ James Earl Jarman, Jr. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 23rd DAY OF November A.D. 1963 /s/ Patsy Collins Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas Let's remember the discussion about Worrell and how it was questioned whether people would be coming to the area so early... or whether Worrell was there at all... Mr. SPECTER - What time, to the best of your recollection, did you arrive at the intersection of Elm and Houston? Mr. WORRELL - Well, about 10, 10:30, 10:45, something around there. There weren't many people standing around there then. Mr. SPECTER - Well about how long before the Presidential motorcade came to Elm and Houston did you get there? Mr. WORRELL - An hour; an hour and a half. Bottom line Gil is this is evidence of what Oswald MIGHT HAVE SAID as relayed to us by someone with very questionable statements. How a "backfire" (a street level noise) becomes 3 rifle blasts 10 feet from their heads and then a THIRD SHOT finally comvinces these men that the shots are RIGHT ABOVE THEIR HEADS???? is beyond me... and then it's only NORMAN who figures out where the shots come from while he hears the "tink" of the hull and the working of the bolt... please. Mr. JARMAN - After the motorcade turned, going west on Elm, then there was a loud shot, or backfire, as I thought it was then--I thought it was a backfire. Mr. BALL - You thought it was what? Mr. JARMAN - A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President. And then at that time I didn't, you know, think too much about it. And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one. Mr. JARMAN - Well, after the third shot was fired, I think I got up and I run over to Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray Williams, and told them, I said, I told them that it wasn't a backfire or anything, that somebody was shooting at the President. "NORMAN: Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor." Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear? Mr. NORMAN. Three. Mr. BALL. Do you remember whether or not you said anything to the men then as to whether or not you heard anything from above you? Mr. NORMAN. Only I think I remember saying that I thought I could hear the shell hulls and the ejection of the rifle. I didn't tell I think I hear anybody moving, you know. Mr. BALL. But you thought, do you remember you told the men then that you thought you heard the ejection of the rifle? Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And shells on the floor? Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Falling? Mr. NORMAN. Yes. Mr. BALL. Did anybody say anything as to where they thought the shots came from? Mr. NORMAN. Well, I don't recall of either one of them saying they thought where it came from.

This is an xray of JFK from 1947 showing the pins and screws... http://www.two-views..._f_kennedy.html The autopsy says: Skeletal System Aside from the above described skull wounds there are no significant gross skeletal abnormalities. and we cannot find a photo of JFK's lower back from the autopsy... or are there? This seems to me to say that the man on whom an autopsy was performed was not JFK.... What does it say to you?

Yes indeed Nick... me too... and thanks Pat... weren't the PAIRS supposed to be stereoscoped versions so the image could be seen in 3D? Shot at the same time... This is not the same image from difference angles... this is the same image a few seconds before or after the ruler was moved... EACH image would have a 3D pair, no? so I guess the question is where are all these OTHER photos? and when along the way did they wash/wet JFK's head? Had to come after this larger image... yet with all the blood and gore and such... How is it possible that JFK's hair is dry here, yet soaked CLEAN in these others? And finally,,, doyou believe it is THAT FLAP OF SCALP folded over to the left in the large image, that the Drs are holding in place, or something much larger? DJ Mr. SPECTER - What was done with the President's body after he was pronounced to be dead? Miss HENCHLIFFE - Well, after the last rites were said, we then undressed him and cleaned him up and wrapped him up in sheets until the coffin was brought.

Was looking for something else and found this thread... Curious, Greg.... Since Craig here leaned the exacto knife from the front to the back of the cup... wouldn't that account from the shift from parallel to not as you move off axis? (you can tell by the angle of the bottom of the knife) If the knife was taped to the inside of the cup perfectly vertical... would the same things occur as you moved the camera left and right? Somehow I think whether the "signpost" used in the analogy is vertical or not makes a difference... no? DJ

Thanks Pat...

Was watching a video on Youtube about Groden's photos.... when this scene pops up... Now I have the OTHER "hands holding the scalp" F3... but there is no ruler in that one... Look at the distance from the top left corner of the ruler to the "red spot/hole/whatever it is" we can SEE the ruler has moved... yet very little else has. You can't get the ruler to be farther away from a point IN THE PHOTO by moving the photo... or by slightly moving the camera - so it is NOT the same photo. Where is this OTHER F4 image from? It's not in Killing of a President (see page 81 for the image on the left) thanks DJ

Pamela... and by default GM.... "GM has said that ITTC used the WCR reenactment as the basis for its dimensions." Lamson: And we get to the very crux of your mistake. There are no surveyed frames. There are only GUESSES. A recreation is GUESSES piled on top of more GUESSES. In our MATH 101 threads we show conclusively that the data offered to represent the Zfilm - in the original legend, revised legends and subsequent recreations.... is horribly wrong Not only are they wrong, but they can't even be fudged a little to represent the Zfilm... So as Purvis, Chris and I have tried to show, the margin of error is simply not enough for the recreation to create data THAT WRONG... The entire 161 thru 313 sequence could not happen as offered in the legends and distances from the WCR... but they should not be so far off as to show a change from 3mph to 18 and then to 12mph in the course of a few seconds.... So while Lamson is correct, the data comes from a recreation... he fails to aknowledge how badly misrepresented the actual event is within this data... If the reenactment was used for the dimensions... and the recreation was only an approximation... based on best guess.... how can the ITTC show make the claims it does? The recreation numbers REQUIRE the limo to accellerate from 3mph to almost 26mph so that the average speed from frames 161-166, 166-185, & 185-186 match the legend created. And then from 255-313 we have the limo traveling at 10.5mph - when in reality it was traveling MUCH slower... So how can ITTC have anything correct, if they are using the WCR reenactment as their basis? Curious... Why hasn't anyone used more modern instruments and recreate the film EXACTLY, instead of how Myers did it? Once there is an ACCURATE digital representation of the Zfilm... distances within the model SHOULD be perfectly accurate and we SHOULD be able to know the speeds between ANY distance.