David Josephs

This is it... the sum total of ALL the evidence related to the purchase of the supposed murder weapon of JD Tippit.

Serial # hadwritten on the order... sounds familiar

No records related to the $10 cash deposit or the envelope that and the coupon arrive in

No records of the $1.27 Railway collects

No record of the $19.95 forwarded from Railway

No record of anyone at Railway picking up the carton

No record of another Money Order or cash rec'd to pay the COD balance for the pistol

No record of when Seaport recieves the coupon although it is at least 6 weeks before they process it

(if 1/2 or 1/27 is the date on the coupon) and yet both weapons are shipped to the PO Box on the same day...)

but other than that... a perfectly legit transaction...

Thanks Gil...

DJ

All for your pleasure there CL...

Maybe you'll laugh yourself to

Since all this is so amusing to you....

and so far beyond your comprehension that all you HAVE are these cute little comments....

when you figure out how the lane strip moves in your 10" off Altgens position recreation photo...

of how nothing else lines up when using the obelisk as the anchor

Same distance, same focal length, virtually the same location (according to you)... yet two completely different results...

Pull out that lever math of yours and use it on your lane marker... a whole lot of movement for being so close to the camera

and then tell us whether the recreation photo was cropped or not... if they took it from the same location with the same lens, where's the rest of the image?

this should be entertaining...

FWIW...

Chris, the notes from NPIC that weekend point to the one scenario they liked... z213 > z242 > z312 as well as on the PANELS page they write 224 > 256 > 312

It's obvious LIFE worked backward from 312... as the question on this page reads: "from the 8 m film how do they know exact frames of 1st and 2nd shot?"

They didn't... they worked backward... which is why your work shows so much as the math was ALSO created working BACKWARD from 312/313.

LIFE gave us z190 > z264 > z312/3

Here are the 5 frames (other than 313) that shots were ultimately identified on... z242 and z263/4 are repeatedly identified as frames with shots....

Three and ONLY three shots...

Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events sur-

rounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was

a "joint process", McMahon said his opinion, which was that President

Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ul-

timately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were

3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in

selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said

"you can't fight city hall", and then reminded us that his job was to

produce internegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said

that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed

the fim and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings.

Just a quick Chime in...

Gary emails me anytime I post something he feels is not a true representation of historical FACT as presented by the FBI and WCR...

He, nor anyone else for that matter, has provided anything close to an answer for these questions:

If Kleins shipped Hidell C2766 for his order...

1) show us any other order where THAT type rifle was substituted for THAT order

2) show us any order for any of the other 99 rifles on the C2766 packing slips that were sent in place of C20-T750

3) Show us an order that was actually fulfilled by a M91/38 FC 40" rifle - what was ordered?

4) Show us an order that was for C20-T750 and the rifles Kleins used to fulfill those order starting in June 1962... since in January 1962 they cancelled all their M91TS riles from Crescent that WOULD have been used to fulfill those orders...

and this is only one of the many areas in which Gary tows the company line....

Doesn't he suppose that the FBI would have shown us an order for a C20-T750 that WAS shipped a M91/38FC instead... just to show it was being done?

as well as to show these other orders to prove their case for Oswald being Hidell who in turn ordered one thing and rec'd another?

DJ

Can you continue with that thought Bill?

The lead car would not have been at the TSBD until AFTER the men on the 6th floor are seen around 12:15...

Would you say 5 minutes ahead of the limo?

And even if the lead car tells a cop... how do the men around DP get the message, other than just seeing the lead car?

I guess if someone was listening to police band they could relay the message that the limo would be late....

What is strange to me is why these men began looking out the window just about when the limo was SUPPOSED to be in front of the TSBD, if they knew how late it was, or even if they were told exactly where it was... why expose themselves 15 minutes before they needed to, when witnesses could be looking at other things than the motorcade? ... other than to see if the lead car had come by yet???

I am still of the opinion that what Oswald did or didn't know about the timing of the motorcade has HUGE implications related to his actions and guilt.

Oswald on the 6th floor at the right time is just not possible given what we know about what he knew.

Nothing but rhetoric in your response yet again CL.... a great big "F" for the photo expert...

You think 10 inches in any direction will change the vertical LOS that much? at a 3 degree slope... you wanna bet even YOUR MATH will show a greater movement than 10 inches

to accompish the vertical shift in the image

A vertical shift will not change the horizontal LOS. Can you get any sillier?

Same old CL BS... where in my question do I use the word HORIZONTAL?

YOU claim that a movement of 10 inches is enough FOR THE HORIOZONTAL movement of the letters - yet that would and could ONLY BE perpendicular to the LOS...

Yet placeing the camera 10 inches from the Altgens location PERPENDICULAR TO THE LOS would not create enough of a VERTICAL CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE to account for the change in the recreation's

vertical LOS...

YOU LOSE as usual... unless you can show how moving 10 inches from Altgen's spot also changes the vertical LOS as we see it...

The recreation MUST be further up Elm and very near the same LOS as the Altgens... NOT exactly the same... but close.... to both account for the Horizontal AND vertical changes in the LOS...

Now flap your lips and say nothing yet again in your reply...

your argument works with only one type of movement - perpendicular...

Maybe you will realize that moving the camera 10 inches perpendicular to the LOS does NOTHING to the vertical LOS, AND tilting the camera to a more level LOS at this 10 inch location would result in items within the recreation to be further out of VERTICAL alignment as they are...

If the lens was the same and the distance just about the same, the images should match.

Altgens' position was moved much more than 10 inches perpendicular to his LOS....

Why not admit that your LEVER math only works with perpendicular motion on a level plane CL? a bit too stubborn for that?

You are hilarious CL..

Do you not notice that the entire recreation picture is taken from a less extreme low-to-high LOS...

as if the camera is pointed more straight on rather than UP at an angle...

are you going to now show us those math skills and tell us how 10 inches in any direction changes the LOS VERTICALLY on a 3 degree slope ?

Here are the two images in a gif... it is OBVIOUS the walls of the TSBD tilt forward from Altgens to the recreation...

IOW the camera is pointing LESS of an angle upward than in Altgens...

How much further up Elm can the camera move so that it can be used almost head on and STILL be able to match the tree in front of the TSBD?

You think 10 inches in any direction will change the vertical LOS that much? at a 3 degree slope... you wanna bet even YOUR MATH will show a greater movement than 10 inches

to accompish the vertical shift in the image

and finally CL... your re-example of the letter movement once again assumes only perpendicular movement....

If we keep all things constant and simply move 20 feet directly closer to the TSBD and up the 3 degree slope, you wanna bet the photos can be made to look the same

even though the location has changed dramatically?

and since you have no idea from where the recreation photo was taken... you cannot work backwards ASSUMING they were taken from the same place.

The ONLY way your LEVER math works is if you can figure out the EXACT perpendicular change AND the exact angular change VERTICALLY as his position is moved UP both Elm and the slope..

Go get 'em CL...

Once again you try to confuse the issue...

The 20 foot movement was not AT the TSBD but at an angle... the 5 foot movement was not perpendicular.. but at yet another ANGLE

You have NO IDEA how the camera was moved or to where... you make assumptions and ASSUME the LEVER math works since you start your example off with a WRONG ASSUMPTION.

and then support you WRONG ASSUMPTION with wrong movements

Try again CL...

The example you posted (red line movement to blue line) is approx 20 feet on the Don R map. (since Moorman is 40 feet from Altgens)

Your own lines show the slight movement in the LOS to the TSBD lettering as you claim.

If a 20 foot movement can result in a minor change to the LOS - AS YOU HAVE SHOWN AND PROVEN -...

why do you keep claiming only a 10" movement for the recreation camera?

CL - while it is indeed a nice try...

you completely forget about LOS in your LEVER math....

The LEVER Math only works with perpendicular movement CL...

Do you have a photo of where they put the recreation camera? Do you know the lens used for the recreation?

a simple yes or no here CL.

If you do not know where the camera is or the lens used you CANNOT use your lever math...

You ASSUME that the recreation camera and Altgens' camera are the same distance from the TSBD...

You also assume that the recreation image is printed at the correct size, no cropping, just like Altgens again... and you do not know these as facts

You can't use the Altgens camera position to determine the potential MOVEMENT of the recreation Camera - unless the movement is exactly perpendicular to the LOS...

YOU need to figure out the different LOS possibilities for those two images to look so similiar... cause we KNOW where Altgens was, and we also know the curve of the street and the distances involved...

You keep trying to tell us that there are no other locations in DP that the recreation photo could have been taken other than a 10 inch circle around Altgen's original position

That's complete BS and you know it CL...

Moving UP towards moorman and over is NOT the same as moving perpendicular to the LOS... your LEVER MATH is worthless in this example.... but again, nice try....

Let's get a little better idea of where Altgens was and how that alignes with Moorman

Your logic is completely based on EXACT PERPENDICULAR MOVEMENT of the camera in relation to the direction the camera is pointed....

You assume the MAXIMUM change in LOS rather than what is possible based on the reality of the Plaza...

Try this CL... if we were TRYING to recreate Altgens AND move him up closer to Moorman AND maintain a "close enough for gov't work" attitidue

where would YOU move the camera and what would YOU do with focal length and LOS?

If a person was to move closer to the TSBD by 20 feet and then perpendicular for 5 feet... and use a different focal length lens

this person would have a view SIMILIAR to Altgens yet he would not be 220 feet from the TSBD any longer

As this illustrates...moving perpendicular to the arrow pointing AT the TSBD could create the shift you are referring to in your LEVER math

But we are not saying the recreation moved him in that direction... the recreation moved him UP THE STREET, closer to Moorman

Based on the curve of the street we can see that movement in that direction would not affect the "letters on the TSBD" as much as your perpendicular movement would.

So tell us CL... do we see any photos of where they placed the camera for this recreation, which lens was used to take the photo?

And then explain to us your LEVER math as it relates to moving in OTHER directions rather than perpendicular... what are the LOS changes if you are not sure where the recreation camera is?

You first Lamson...

You've done nothing to support your claims...

SHOW YOUR WORK or move on already.....

Jim...

I am hoping this is not simply a matter of semantics...

The Luncheon was scheduled for 12 noon for VIPs

JFK was to arrive at 12:15 (45 mins from arrival at 11:30 at Love to the Trade Mart)

Anyone with knowledge of JFK's route and a desire to shot him from a window in the the TSBD SHOULD expect JFK to pass by around 12:10 - IF ON TIME

The motorcade left Love at 11:50, 20 mins late...

At this point do you believe there were changes in the route to make back that 20 mins or was the rest of the world going to wait until the POTUS got there? I don't think anything was changed

Oswald - if the Lone Nut - needs to know when JFK is passing his building to be ready to shoot him...

If all he knows is what's been published and announced... JFK would be passing his window at 12:10....

When does the LN need to get his rifle ready to fire in that case? and where is he REALLY at 12:10?

On the other hand, witnesses begin seeing men with rifles and men watching the street/overpass between 12:10 and 12:20 ON THE 6th FLOOR and then recede back into the darkness...

Men in the SW and SE windows

Would they have known he stopped to shake hands and was 20 mins late leaving the airport? but knew they needed to be in position ahead of time?

Jim -

Even if JFK landed an hour late and he or Jackie had a 45 minute "emergency"... people in DP and the Trade Mart would have still turned out on time to see him.

The motorcade would still have left and there still would have been teams in DP ready to fire...

IF you are saying that DC could have aborted the assassination due to this TIME ALLOTMENT being used up... THAT I can see and fully understand since people returning to their offices due to their lunch hour being over COULD HAVE interfered with teams in DP.... yet imo, even that had contingency planning...

Gut feeling is that there was no way he was going to leave Dallas alive... Dick Russell writes about alternate plans along Stemmons and at the Trade Mart... and my guess would be there were others at the airport to try and kill him... but that's purely speculation.

To sum up... I agree that the motorcade timing was crucial to the assassination working.... anytime between 12pm and 1pm though would have been PREFERRED due to the emptying of buildings...

Curious... in Chicago and Tampa... what times where the motorcasdes scheduled for?

btw - it has gotten to the point where anything and everything is worth looking into and researching... there was a time Jupiter had only a few moons... now, with clarity, we know there are over 60...

what is mysterious and incomprehensible NOW will change in time... as illumination is brought to the subject...

Keep shining those lights Jim...

DJ

Hey there Tom, Chris...

If dawned on me that since we are comparing Altgens location in relation to Moorman.... a few things come to mind

- according to Don's map, Altgens is 40 feet from Moorman...

- if Altgens' recreation was moved up the street as hypothesized, is there any photo that captures Moorman's POV back toward the TSBD?

Moorman 3 includes the concrete pillar at the far right of the frame...

I took M3 and added Altgens and the recreation photos all centered on the concrete pillar...

Since lenses dont matter according to the resident expert... if Moorman 3 was taken with a 105mm lens instead of the wider angle polaroid lens

how would that compare to the two other photos?

If Altgens moved only 10 inches, the moorman photo should not work at all from her location 40 feet NE of Altgens, when compared to either altgens or the recreation...

If distance is the same, or very close, a change in focal length should not matter

If moorman and altgens are taken from different distances it should NOT work and the recreation could NOT be sized to Moorman 3

No doubt I'm doing something wrong

yet it appears from this overlay that the recreation photo could have EASILY been taken from moorman's location in her #3 image... 40 feet from Altgens.

And that there is simply too much rotation within the photo to have the recreation only off by 10 inches.... unless CL can prove it with his math skills

(PS - if CL is going to mention math repeatedly - don't you think he should show HIS work instead of just claiming he's right and not offer anything to back himself up?)

Is anyone else having trouble with the jfkassassinationforum or jfkforum?

Duncan said he was having speed troubles and was migrating to a new site....

I thought I had the new link... but can't seem to find it.... I had already registered there as well...

at least I thought I did...

DJ

I'm guessing Duncan will post links here and there to lead people to the new location...

The two different versions are now synced up in distance and in frame count by IMPLEMENTING 2 SECONDS OF FILM AT 24FPS. into the 18.3 fps version.

Thanks Chris... I want to clearly understand this....

2 seconds at 24fps into the 18.3 version of the Zfilm I assume.

Can you state your conclusion related to the T film and Z film without pronouns

My understanding is

The WCR slowed the limo to 2.25 mph from 161-166 so the movement would only be .97 feet during that time so the different films would sync... specifically Towner

The Towner Splice also allows the films to sync?

The splice at 156 allows for ??

Where exactly is the 2 seconds of fim at 24fps?

Sure, thanks....is there a lone assassin theorist in the house?

Why again is one of those needed? Isn't THAT POV pretty well defined by now?

What are they going to say? Weitzman was "Mistaken"? Truly and Baker, "mistaken"?

Hill's declaration - "Mistaken" again?

1:34 550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.

Just curious...

The evidence was changed, altered, created, lost, fabricated, lied about - not to mention the wholesale removal of all this evidence without record...

yet we know Dulles didn't want it out... so he changed the evidence...

How can we be sure that any piece of evidence establishing the guilt of Oswald is "AUTHENTIC"?

Excellent, Pat, my first taker! Thank you! Any lone assassin theorists out there ready to weigh in?

Need one more CTer too ....

I'd be interested in your work as well Barry....

I am a reality theorist.... the authentic evidence of this case conclusively shows the conspiracy...

and I'm all about authenticating the evidence...

PM me for my home email address

DJ

and this gif will give you some idea of what the xray is trying to tell us is gone

I need some help from you experts about something I've never figured out about the Z film.

For the headshot, while JFK's head goes back from a shot from the front, how come the head explosion looks awkward. Whenever I see this, I expect something from the back of his head being blown out. Now I've read the witness testimony's and of course some of your work showing that 'blob' in the Z film as his back of the head. But what is actually being blown away in the Z film?

When I see it, I see what it seems like his side of the head/right ear gets blown away and the head flaps over it. Almost makes it look like the shot came from his left to right.

Still can't really figure it out.

Hey there Rodney... this might help...

A shot from the front still opens up the right side of the head... yet the testimony from Parkland does not corroborate the FLAP we see...

I am of the opinion that this flap may not have been as pronounced as we see in the fox photo...

It is obvious from the photos and xrays, they do not work together... his entire forehead and frontal skull cannot just be gone...

Thanks B...

and always big thanks Robin.

You think Fetz will tell us the tree was added after the fact to block the GK and Altgens' position...

perfectly?

I was not aware of that.

I thought the FB I tested the camera and it came out at 18.3 FPS.

Was Zapruder running it at a lower rate?

Thanks you Chris... and here I thought something just popped out at me...

Yet I still think the math allows the Zfilm to excise 2-3 seconds, most probably at the corner and having to do with the splice in Z at that corner.

Well Jim... right out of the gate... if the FBI says so....

How could the FBI test how much winding Mr Z did before he started filming...?

It would seem to me that the FBI would ultimately use a fps rate that made everything work.... if they had a hand in any alteration...

Bottom line is the info provided for accurate measurements in DP from our government is WRONG... which in turn make it virtually impossible to relate frames, to speed, to time.

If the headshot happens 15 feet from Altgens... how in the world does it look like he's that distance at z342?

btw... where is the Queen Mary in Bronson? was it really that far behind the limo?

The more I keep looking the different angles - the more it looks wrong...

DJ

Cue up the Stabilized version of the Zfilm... http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov

It BEGINS at frame 133....

The headshot is STILL at 313... or 180 frames later

180 frames / 18.3fps = 9.84 seconds...

Except when you freeze the frame at z313... it is almost 13 seconds later....

If the stabilized version running at 18.3fps then we are missing almost 3 seconds of film between 133 and 313.

I am not at a location where I can use software to get the exact time elapsed of the film from 133-313...

but the zframes would have to be slowed down by almost 25% to get 13 seconds from 9.84...

The stabilized version is not 25% slower is it?

DJ

Films usually have a starting point (frame 1) and end point (last frame).

Math starts with a question and ends with an answer.

I'll start with Zone1 from the previous post since that includes frame 1-(161 WC starting point).

If the WC started their calculations with frame 161, that tells me there must be a frame 1 starting point.

If they didn't have footage of the limo, at the beginning of the Z film, around the Elm St. turn, they could use the Towner film.

How so?

They could have used a landmark within the plaza to align JFK and start their frame counting from that spot. (Landmark would be the physical corner of the TSBD).

Now, to do that, they would have to be in possession of the Towner film back in 1963/64.

What does the Towner film show when JFK is near the TSBD corner? It shows a splice and removal of frames. The position of JFK after the splice is aligned with the corner of the TSBD.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/TownerSplice-1.gif

So a starting point has been set.

The WC quite easily could have used the Towner frame count at 18.3 FPS to arrive at approx 167 or 168 total frames depending on the missing spliced frame count.

How would the math work on this?

Including the splice frames (approx 8) to where JFK is aligned with the corner of the TSBD is 92 frames. That leaves 76 frames from the corner on down Elm St.

92 frames at 18.3 fps=5.02 sec.

76frames at 18.3 fps=4.15 sec.

Apparently they thought about starting the frame calculations at frame 168 but eventually changed their minds.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Frame168.png

Instead, there is an approx 7 to 8 frame splice and their official calculations start with Frame 161.

Frame 168-161 = 7 frames.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Frame161-1.png

Also take note of the distance adjustment made for frames 161-166 of .9ft traveled in 5 frames.

chris

There are 3600 seconds in an hour and 5280 feet in a mile

At 1mph the limo would travel 1.47 feet in one second (5280/3600)

At 1mph the limo would travel .4 feet in 5/18.3 of a second (5 frames)

At 2mph the limo would travel .8 feet in 5 frames

At 2.25mph the limo travels the .9 feet in 5 frames

The limo was moving 2.25mph from 161-166...

Moving on... from 166-185 = 19 frames or 1.038 seconds

and equates to 19.2 feet the limo moved

At 1mph the limo moves 1.47 feet....

At 13.5mph the limo moves 19.2 feet in 1.038 seconds

In less than a second the limo accellerated from 2.25mph to 13.5mph?

The distances related to Zframes does not work... Zframes are missing...

In the case from 161-166 there are as many as 14-15 frames missing if the limo was up to it's 11mph speed

Thanks David,

My frame100 reference has nothing to do with the pre-limo footage, at least in relation to what I am looking for.

chris

That's fine... yet does this movement look correct to you?

How does the entire shape of the "F" change yet not appear to move at all at the top of the frame?

Shouldn't this be mirror there?

DJ

No worries... you did quite a lot to establish the distance and time problems so I believe you deserve some of the kudos regardless...

Your comment about z100 got me looking... I did not find anything in the testimony but I did go look at the frame....

as well as from 94-101... Tom is very cryptic but usually has a point...

What struck me was the reflection of what looks like the letter "F" and how in all the frames before it moves in both the intersprocket area and above the top sprocket hole in sync....

Except for z100. Is it possible to have a section of the film moving while the reflection of that image doesn't?