Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Josephs

Members
  • Posts

    5,243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Josephs

  1. I second that Bernice thank you to Mr. Nelson for a refreshing look at how the man lived amidst so much about how he didn't. Now I know they're not rare yet the ones of Dulles and JFK walking in from the helicopter at Allen's ribboning ceremony are eerie. DJ
  2. Couple of thoughts Was there water/cleanser in the bucket or was it to scoop up "evidence" and be off with it? If anything fell out of JFK's back it could be in that limo as well and what easier cover than a bucket did the bucket remain behind? and the other is a question that I will work on researching later... Was it Dillion or thru Dillion who handed down the promotions and penalties.. who told Boring what was to be done and had Behn pay for it? If not Dillion than who ? DJ and oh yes... Blaine's book... isn't it about time for the other side to push back after IARRB? Been reading ALOT of Vince's work... Horne and Vince - what how why when and where. Boring is Interesting!!
  3. Thank you Bernice... excellent once again. I have limited time to actually research in my day to day so the links and photos (and simply finding the time to read and post here) has been very gratifying. I look forward to looking thru your posts and contributing what I can DJ
  4. Excellent Bernice.. and thanks once again.. Seems I've read that the President, in a motorcade, is supposed to arrive last... according to SS protocol all other "lower" dignitaries pass first - then the President, who would want to even bother with the people behind the President, that's why they go first, to honor him. I prefer to site a source for that, and since I do not have one handy I will put forth that this is only my understanding. VMP states in Ch 6 that JFK was moved from the 7th position to the 5th Other vehicle shuffling: “All those in the motorcade proceeded to get into their cars. There was the usual amount of minor confusion—people hustling around to locate their car number …” —— Presidential Aide Larry O’Brien80 President Kennedy’s limousine had the #7 taped to its outside windshield, on the lower left corner, yet it was in the fifth position, only the fourth vehicle in the motorcade.81 Footnote 81: Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, Murder From Within, unpublished manuscript, pp. 29, 37–39; High Treason, p. 135. The Secret Service learned a lot about proper motorcade vehicle order after the violent mob attack on Vice President Nixon’s car in Caracas, Venezuela in 1958; as depicted on p. 36 of Know Your Government: The U.S. Secret Service by Gregory Matusky and John Hayes (New York: Chelsea House Pub-lishers, 1988), the number ‘1’ was taped prominently on the windshield, making the car vulnerable to attack without proper pilot and lead cars (and motorcycles) clearing the way. See also Anthony Summers, The Arrogance of Power: The Secret World of Richard Nixon (Penguin USA, 2001), photo page (Caracas motorcade), as well as the 1995 Discovery Channel documentary Inside The Secret Service regarding the 1958 Caracas trip: it is mentioned that the Secret Service learned a lot from this trip Is it my imagination or in most of these photos, JFK is always the lead car - the other 3 vehicles before him in Dallas... the lead motocycles, the lead car, then the limo... 3rd, I believe. I must be missing something. DJ
  5. In Mexico City ... Tough to see through the blizzard of paper, but motorcyclists appear to be on either side of the limo (as well as in front). SS agents also beside car. http://www.life.com/image/50388643 Peter Fokes Thanks Peter.. yet once again.. Look at that incredibly tall building with LOTS of windows in the background while photographers are IN FRONT of the limo on foot... Can't possibly be going 40+ mph Looks like the limo finished turning right in front of that building and is moving fairly slowly.. Was it simply a sign of the times... slow moving "parade" type motorcades, with JFK out in the open.. Thanks for the photo yet as I am seeing... it seems that SS protection protocol was not strictily adhered to in many instances with JFK yet the biggest one has to be the photo truck moved away from the front (and Burkley so far away) - most of the shots in this thread had to have been taken by those on that truck. DJ
  6. While a little later to the research party, my interest started when I found THAT Life magazine my parents had kept. Years went by, interest waned and while in a used book store I found and bought Rush to Jugdement and have been intellectually hooked, stimulated and amazed ever since. Thank you. My question - What are your thoughts on whether Humes and Boswell did that surgery in front of Robinson at Bethesda from 6:40 - 7:00 and then bold face lied about it the rest of their lives - Doctors under orders... ? We look forward to your thoughts and answers DJ
  7. Thanks Bernice... In each instance, or most, the photo flatbed must have been in place... at the front. 'cept in Dallas. changed that morning {sigh} thanks to VMP as well... an amazing read and opened my eyes to so much.
  8. Looking for a little help with this one Doing some searching online (while reading Survivor's Guilt) and cannot seem to find an image or video of a motorcade in the "correct" formation around JFK. Chapter 6 describes flatbed trucks in front of JFK for photographers, how he's supposed to arrive LAST to a location, after the VP, Senators, etc... have already arrived and are either waiting for him or have continued on to the destination... and the last minute changes the reversed ALL the protection from the front and minimized protection from the rear. The Pres walks in last, arrives last... standard protocol. Just not in Dallas that day. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1.html those I have found show JFK in the lead car or close to it and have very little protection around him. http://www.historylink.org/db_images/req098.JPG http://www.irishtimes.com/150/images/articles/kennedy.jpg http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Hawaii2.jpg http://www.thewildgeese.com/blogs/uploaded..._dub-711335.jpg http://www.jfkresearch.com/JFK_Tampa/Motorcade_tpa.jpg If someone could post one just to prove the point about the change in protection from what was "normal" I'd appreciate it... thanks DJ
  9. Not sure Todd... sorry I am speaking of the image to the right of the tree behind the three men on the steps in Moorman. Here's another not so great close up... this is where the muddy footprints and bumper prints were found. As opposed to other images this one is just too obvious that whatever that is it'snot part of the foliage or the fence... Would love to see a higher quality image and analysis... DJ
  10. Why? and How? hey craig... I do not know who published this first, possibly Gil Jesus, http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...p;mode=threaded, just not sure.... is that on the rifle in custody and in all the pictures, the shoulder strap is connected to an oval ring sling that is mounted on the left side of the rifle, the rifle in the backyard photos has its ring mounted on the bottom of the rifle http://i42.tinypic.com/25z4g3k.jpg and Gil goes on to name a few more reasons - just not related to that photo. I've read your posts here Craig and while I agree with your measurement and angle analysis you'd have to agree that creating this photo, these photos, was not rocket science at the time. Add to the fact that the DPD had to go back a second time to find them, like the print on the gun barrel that "appears" the next day, or the clip that "appears" after the fact, or that Oswald went home on a Thursday - just "out of the ordinary" type stuff that makes one question the motive and reasoning. It would be great if you could show the photo is not possibly a composite based on your knowledge - or at least why you think it isn't and more importantly - to please acknowledge my post about the timing of Frtiz' questions and the discovery of the photos/negatives... I still can't see how, after the fact, he remembers questioning him with the photos on his mind when he knew full well when those photos were found and brought in... a mistake? an offhand remark where he is mistaken about the time when others corroborate the chronology? or a simple clue about when/where those photos might have been made. btw, I learned long ago to NEVER use 2d measuring tools on 2d representations of 3d images, simply does not work. So I appreciate where you are coming from with most of your posts... but some of these topics require more than measurable data: common sense and "what would an innocent group do with evidence" come to mind. DJ
  11. Thanks Lee... appreciate and agree with your thoughts. We do get sucked into the minutia arguments with the other side quite often... part of the point of the conflicting evidence... I also apprecite the thought about the report yet I think we have to give it more weight than you do... much like the Baker and Weitzman affidavits that emphatically contradict later testimony. I cannot see how one goes back in time, as Fritz does in this report, and literally create timelines that are in conflict with existing hard evidence. He knows when these negatives were booked into evidence, Baker knew when he actually ran into a person on the stairs and Seymour identified the rifle - a whole day later, exactly as he did the day he "found" it. Dismissing these afterward when even more conflicting information is available discounts the notion that the FBI/CIA et al could care less what was contained in the "official record" and that these little hints and mix-ups are the cracks in the veneer of the conspiracy/cover-up. Worse yet is that the photos themselves prove the rifle to be different than the one attributed to him in evidence. So just like Hancock's premise that proof is in the whispers, heresay and unchecked comments that build upon themselves to paint a certain picture, I see that we find pathways to reality in these discovered gems - when looked at from the standpoint of, what would an innocent DPD do and say versus one that was not, these anomolies take on new depth. my .02 DJ
  12. I would never take ANY of this on faith, thats just a recipe for disaster. The bottom line here is that there is no real PROOF about the timing of the introduction of the BY photos in any of this. Lots and lots of conflicting data and recollections. Nothing out of the ordinary, but no proof .... Very interesting thread - I've read thru the entire thing and was very happy to find reference to the Fritz notes but we're missing a piece of evidence An observation On page 9 it appears Fritz is trying to trap Oswald into saying he lived where Frtiz seems to know the photos were taken... NOT that he showed Oswald these photos ONLY that Frtiz is aware of their existence and knows what they look like... this is at 12:35pm on 11/23/63 and as we've already seen in the FBI report dated 2-3-64 Det Rose does not find the negatives until 3:20pm 11-23-63 Add this now, he books them into evidence at 4:30pm on 11-23-63 - when the 12 photos were printed is not yet determined Faked or not (I am not touching that one in this post) I find it hard to understand how Fritz can be questioning/trapping Oswald regarding photos that had not been yet found, not yet known to be found, not yet known they would be found or even prints yet made so FRITZ himself would know what he was asking Oswald to describe. I look forward to the discussion DJ
  13. Thank you Greg.... Not normally my style to quote/use Myers' or McAdams' websites in support of my theories so i tend to be overly cautious about information from those sources - in this case though they seem to make a lot of sense. Interesting that Myers does not address the other image to the west behind the tree and three men - I'd be interested to see th results of the same analysis for that image. and Jack, not so much what Crawley said or didn't say (obviously you'd know better than anyone what his representations were to you and Gary) as much as how the conclusion has not been proven wrong, nor has Dale's, nor GMack agreeing with the "other photo scientists" that the physics do not work. Bottom line to me at least is that there is very little evidence we can trust, much less than I had ever thought was possible to alter, change, replace, etc.... just to keep us wrapped in the minutia while the real issue of power and control is kept at arm's length. DJ
  14. Thanks Todd, I was aware of Dale's recreation and knew of his conclusions - I had hoped to find analysis in support of the theory to balance all the evidence against it. From the Dale Myer site http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_6.htm "The only photographic expert to allegedly confirm the existence of Badge Man was British photographic technician Geoffrey CRAWLEY. Yet, in a 2001 interview, CRAWLEY revealed that producer Nigel TURNER falsified the true results of his 1988 study in the hopes that his documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, might lead to a reopening of the assassination case. In reality, CRAWLEY concluded that the Badge Man figure, if human, would had to have been standing considerably behind the stockade fence in an elevated position - both of which seemed unreasonable to CRAWLEY under the circumstances. CRAWLEY concluded that MACK and WHITE had misinterpreted background foliage for the three figures." http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/mack.htm Discovery Program Sparks Controversy Among Theorists By W. Tracy Parnell On February 26 2003, the Discovery Channel featured a documentary entitled “Death at Dealey Plaza” ...... As Mack explains, “The show was produced for a general audience, not conspiracy researchers. It was simply about the photographers and what they captured on film. The discussion about who killed JFK is another subject for another day.” {note: we all know the problems with this show... the point of pasting this here is Gary's response to the question below. If his position has changed since this statement I am not aware of it at this moment} Q: Why did the program imply that there was no assassin visible in the Moorman photo? Was Gary involved in the Moorman recreation? Gary Mack: “I was fully involved in the restaging and no claim was made that there was not an assassin in the Moorman photo. The photo expert concluded only that if someone was there, the camera could not photograph him clearly enough to identify. I agree, and that is the same conclusion that Geoff Crawley and several other photo scientists have told me over the years based on the physics involved.” Gary may be referring to the identification of the person himself rather than someone in a police uniform. Either way it shows that Crawley has maintained his position over the 15 years between 1988 and 2003. I am not 100% in agreement with all of Dale's conclusions or statements yet the analysis that places these images 40-50 yards beyond the fence based on size, or not even there at all, seems logically presented and well supported. As with the image of the "person" in the SWest 6th floor window in Dillard, I had hoped there was something that would effectively illustrate support of the Badgeman theory - but as of yet, I haven't been able to find any. Bernice's post helps us see that the illusion is very convincing - but IF that person is actually 120+ feet from the fence and 10+ feet up in the air (or even higher if Moorman was actually in the street) what we "see" and even conclude is based on a faulty foundation. IF he is actually at the fence, you'd think the analysis would support rather than contradict the fact. DJ
  15. Jack, doesn't it bother you that the images do not match... that we do not have a single photo reconstruction that can actually place people of the right size in the correct location to prove Moorman authentic? If anything but to prove or disprove what you and Gary have been saying all these years. Did you not place people back there when you and Jim Fetzer were doing the Zapruder analysis of Moorman? I have not been able to find any reference to a reinactment but will keep looking until I get the opportunity to do one myself someday. and thanks again for making your work available to students of the subject like me who can't hop a plane to Dallas. I have been to the Plaza, and was amazed at how small it really is, and how eerie it felt. Yours and the work of so many others keeps the subject fresh and interesting. I may not agree with everything you present but greatly appreciate the opportunity to review and learn from it. DJ
  16. Who referred to the Turner image as PROOF? Maybe if you read the original post instead of jumping all up and down like a little kid you'd see that Jack did: "This photo proved to Nigel that the people sizes and approximate locations matched Moorman." Another way of saying this is that the photo was PROOF to Nigel that Moorman's people were correctly sized You have no idea of what you are talking about, I am interested in the photo because it shows Jack and Larry on the bumper of a car standing behing the fence This is important to me because of what Skinny Holland saw (Puff of smoke, mud on the bumper, footprints) and I have never seen a picture with anyone standing on the bumper behind the fence Once again it is you who does not know what he is talking about. The footprints on the bumper were not related to badgeman at all but to the image of the person in my post... farther west and along a different portion of the fence. Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool.... I know that the Turner picture is not a re-creation as Jack has told you over and over yet you keep thinking we have to compare the Turner image to the Moorman image to see if the sizes fit, I could care lees about your GIF, it is useless! The Turner picture is not accurate! Why dont you go to Dallas with 3 friends and do an accurate re-creation yourself? You keep asking why it hasnt been done in 40s years, go do it yourself so you've seen no more proof that these images are real than anyone else save Jack (and GMack) who in this thread swear the images are there but are still skeptical about their origin. Plus I don't need to go there as the photo Jack posted was taken from Moorman's location with people standing right behind the fence - saying that does not represent badgeman doesn't change the fact that is really does and can be used by people like Nigel Turner to PROVE Moorman photographed an assassinfiring a rifle I dont need that for me to back the Badgeman theory as I have for 20+ years it's more than obvious you do not need to prove what you believe to be true - you need only believe it. The Lone Nut Theory and Single Bullet Theory work that way - they are believed to be true regardless of the evidence or the proof against such nonsense. Thanks for your close attention to my posts and taking the time to show me the error of my ways. But don't take my word for it, Jack makes it plain as day: "BUT...the figures ARE in the Moorman photo. I CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY THEY DO NOT MATCH. Among the possibilities are that the images are not genuine."
  17. Dean - Why? because the authenticity of the moorman images is extremely important and Jack is recognized as one of a few experts on this subject. One of the places to start is to position people just behind the fence where they would need to be so a shot could be possible (surely GMack has a good idea where that might be) and place the camera in the same location (maybe a bit tougher given the "in the street" argument but close enough) and take a photo. and then judge for oneself if the moorman images are the correct sizes within reason and a margin of error. From what I posted and from manipulating the 1989 image over the Moorman crop in Photoshop, the 1989 images are NOT the correct sizes at all, not even close. If Nigel really used this as his proof that Moorman had caught assassins on film, there's something wrong going on. because Jack writes that it is indeed NOT an attempt to replicate the exact image "but to determine whether the people images were the correct sizes as seen from the location of Mary Moorman across the street." What I got thru my head the first time I looked at it is that this photo does NOT represent the correct sizes and approx location in Moorman - that if they are in the approx location then it proves the images in Moorman are either much farther away and much higher up in the air based on line of sight... or they simply are not real images of people and only tricks of light and shadow. Jack hopes "these photos will answer all of your questions" and they do... they prove that the people sizes/approx locations do NOT match Moorman. So if we're going to have a civilized discussion about the thread's topic, "Badgeman people sizes and locations" then we need to address the fact that the 1989 photo does not forward the cause but in fact refutes it. Dean - I'm not trying to disuade you from your praise of Jack or Gary, or from your belief in Badgeman. I only ask that you do more than just take the images at face value especially when referred to as PROOF. If you would simply post an overlay gif like the one below showing an accurate representation of the "people sizes" so they match Moorman it would go a long way to prove the point. I realize we do not know the size of the people - except Arnold who we do know the size of and can be used as a baseline - but unless badgeman was Andre the Giant he should be relatively close to a normal sized person. We see the Zapruder on the pedestal analysis http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman yet has no one in the past 47 years done an exact replication of Badgeman within Moorman? And if indeed she was in the street, the images behind the fence would have to be even higher up in the air since we'd be lowering the originating line of sight. Ease up a bit Dean - I hadn't seen the 1989 photo before yet had seen and read much about the badgeman images, even watched all 9 episodes of TMHKK and was very convinced by Arnold's reaction to the photo enhancement. But I'd like a bit more proof thank you. DJ
  18. Jack, "This photo proved to Nigel that the people sizes and approximate locations matched Moorman" and then you write "Accept the Nigel photo for what it is. Comparing measurements to Moorman is futile because there are TOO MANY UNKNOWNS." So how, why would this prove anything to Nigel? that's a pretty definitive statement for a comparison that has "TOO MANY UNKNOWNS" and with which to say the images in the photo are actually people - but then again you've seen moorman in a way few have. Whether or not Jack and Larry are in the exact spots or not they are simply too big, thereby too close to the camera for them to represent the images in Moorman. Move them back far enough to be the right size (height, width) and they are no longer at the fence. Not trying to be difficult Jack but as you made clear, photographic size interpretation is an exact science... the people in the image have to be a certain distance based a certain focal length and lens to be represented in the image as a specific size. Recreation has to be exact to do an exact comparison BUT we can plainly see from the photo comparison that people standing behind the fence, right at the fence, are simply too big to represent people potentially seen in the moorman photo. Surely in these past 40 years someone has taken a photo using the same type camera standing anywhere within 3 feet of where moorman is seen in Muchmore and Zapruder with people standing just behind the fence.... the photo you posted is pretty close - no? If there is a photo that proves it possible that the images in moorman are indeed the correct distance from the moorman camera... I'd like to see it please... thanks DJ I''ve always been very skeptical about the Arnold, badge and hatman images whereas this image matches to the sound evidence, muddy footprints and witness testimony. You think this shooter was in addition to badgeman or have you not given this image as much credibility?
  19. Bump.... Mr. White, Jack... No disrepect intended - but in either orientation they are no where near the same sizes at all. I can appreciate the comparison image was an approximation, but even an approximation has to be close... there are numerous examples around the internet of the size argument leading to these men being many, many yards behind the fence so their relative sizes match. Moving "Jack" and "Larry" left or right would not change the fact that they are MUCH LARGER than they appear in Moorman and simply could not be at the fence as you describe. And finally, they way Jack holds the rifle, very similiar to badgeman, makes it even more difficult to understand how we would see the Badge behind his arm and how it would have even reflected any light. I hope to understand this photo and your interpretation more fully after your reply. Thank you DJ
  20. Thanks William... some interesting insights that I'll need to look into for myself yet you make alot of sense. I assume the personal stories we see/hear about Roswell are part of the psy-op yet they seem pretty convincing which menas the Military went to great lengths to make it appear like alien technology and biology. It's a little too convenient that the majority of earthly sightings are within miles of secret US airforce bases. DJ
  21. A little confused... in your gif we don't see anyone LEADING Rosemary but following. I thought it was this thread but GMack said the woman with her hands to her head and face is Rosemary's sister and if you look at your frame 65 in the gif you see she does not have a camera. Unless I've got the wrong person... DJ
  22. This photo proved to Nigel that the people sizes and approximate locations matched Moorman. Jack With the greatest respect for your work Jack I have always had concerns over the Badgeman, Hatman and Arnold images in Moorman. I played with your images and find that I can neither get it to match vertically or hoizontally... that in each case the proportions don't provide a match when overlaid. Can you provide an overlay which shows the actual positions in these two images are the same? AS you can see, once I did a vertical orientation to "Ken" as Arnold and to the top of the wall, the other men are not even close. and if you match horizontally the men are way to big. Thanks DJ
  23. Kennedy’s 1963 efforts to end the Cold War, cooperate with the USSR on joint space missions, and share classified UFO files with the USSR created a final showdown with MJ-12. The trigger was Kennedy’s agreement with Khrushchev on November 12, 1963 on space cooperation that led to the National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) instructing the new Director of the CIA, John McCone, to share UFO information with NASA, and due to NSAM 271, with the USSR. Kennedy’s explosive NSAM to the CIA Director was relayed by William Colby, then (Deputy) Chief of the CIA's Far East Division, to James Angleton in CIA counterintelligence. It was Angleton who had the authority to implement Kennedy’s NSAM. On the bottom of Kennedy’s NSAM next to the signature space appears the following handwriting: "Response from Colby: Angleton has MJ directive 11/20/63" Colby is here acknowledging that Angleton, two days before Kennedy’s assassination, had the MJ directives – the burned document – and would use them to respond to Kennedy’s NSAM. This handwriting directly implicates Angleton in the Kennedy assassination due to the cryptic MJ-12 assassination directive. http://www.examiner.com/x-2383-Honolulu-Ex...ssination-order I thought I had seen you commenting on some of the MJ-12 UFO/CIA discussions and wondered if you felt this document was authentic and whether the criptic Angleton message in handwritting helped to establilsh the "M" group more definitively. Thanks WK
  24. and herein lies the root of the evil we are discussing. Dub'ya and gang did it right to our collective faces knowing full well there aren't any consequences other than book tours, speaking engagements, board positions and more wealth. Welcome to America
  25. A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group. In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état, or coup, does not involve a mass uprising. The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority. Both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections can be seen as coup d'etats 9/11 was a coup d'etat JFK was definitely a coup d'etat The Fed bailout could even be considered a coup... if one squints a little.... The unbridaled growth of the National Security State and Mil Ind Complex during the 50's MUST be considered a form of coup Sadly, "Good" must fight "evil" within the law - with the proper proof and process. A Posse can just go out and lynch the bad guys. Tell me William, you say "and they're all well known" - I've seen a variety of lists as to who people thought ordered it and carried it out and then covered it up and keeps it covered to this day. I have read many of your posts and articles and am very interested in who is at the top of your list of "well knowns" and how to we convict them? DJ
×
×
  • Create New...