David Josephs

I am so done with all these charades. Enjoy your narrative... I'm done bothering with it... 60 years and you support the medical evidence from the WCR... Rock on.

And therein lies the entire problem my man... you think the official record is the truth and continue to try and use it to explain the events in Dallas when the BRAIN, SKULL and AUTOPSY work was all a sham designed to support a conclusion that MUST lead back to Oswald in the 6th floor window. When and if you ever come out of that fog, maybe you'll be able to evaluate what happened realistically. Until then all your analysis amounts to is support for an incredibly corrupt and compromised government investigation. As I've said, members here are very smart, conscientious and insightful. Seeing thru charade of yours will not be hard. Pretty sad state of affairs when a respected researcher sells his soul to support such an obviously corrupt report. Don't you find it kind of disingenuous to accept the medical evidence as fact while rejecting so much of the other "evidence" offered in that rag and accompanying 26 volumes and 1550 WCDs? You are aware there was a conspiracy to kill JFK as well as to cover up the facts, right?

You have no idea how that fragment got to be where it was found... none. Only assumptions based on a wrong shooting conclusion fostered by the WCR, the FBI and the Military. And now you are going to tell us that a large number of city personnel did not walk the plaza grass area looking for "evidence" on the 22nd... that that grass area was NOT swarmed over by hundreds of people and this "largest skull fragment" from the right rear of his head as a result of a south-eastern frontal shot, winds up west of the limo ... and is not seen or found until the following day... and amazingly it's location helps support the bogus "shot from behind and only from behind" scenario you and the WC continue to push. How fortuitous is that, right? And wow Pat, you showed him a picture of where it was found and somehow convinced him this was in front of the limo..? Gee, you're good... how DID you do it?

I am simply astonished by this. I'm terribly sorry you cannot work thru what occurred between Parkland and 8pm to so drastically change the wounds in order to hide a frontal shot. Seems as if you, along with the many, have been fooled by accepting the autopsy materials as genuine and indicative of the damage in Dallas... when as one goes thru the entire case we find example after example of altered, created, and "lost" evidence at the hands of the FBI, CIA, military, etc... Yet you have the temerity to assert these agencies are presenting truth and these non-military personnel, and military personnel finally allowed to speak the truth... are lying. Let the chips fall where they may... You've made your case... the members have their own brains. Thanks for stating your position with clarity...

Amazingly well done Chris... thanks for all the great work DJ

Wasn't the Harper fragment found the day after they scoured Dealey for debris? I thought that was the case... so how that piece gets where it was, as I see it, does not relate to the result of a shot... but the placing of a bone in a location.. well after the fact... to support a rear shot scenario. But hey, I'm wrong about so much on this thread who's to say... Yet if I remember correctly, no one sees this bone on the 22nd

Since the "key sources" remain the Parkland physicians and nurses, how do you explain not a single one of them using the word "EAR" - whether above, besides, or behind - to describe the wound in the rear of the man's head? (i posted all their quotes once already) Like the graphic you feel is not indicative of what they all said, this just your opinion... as surely you are aware of each of the Parkland testimonies as well as drawings place the wound to the right rear and center rear of the skull... Why is it ok to accept it when they don't mention a temple wound (although Jenkins, Huber and McClelland did mention temple wounds as well as Perry's throat wound from the front - but no other shots from there I suppose?) but not okay to abide by all of their similar descriptions of the location of the hole out the back? I'm sorry you don't like my graphic, despite it being based on the words from each of these people's mouths, along with a visual on each one. But all of these people are wrong about where they saw a hole and right about not mentioning a small hole in the temple? and you don't see a conflict in that reasoning?

That's what I see as well Eddy. And can't really understand why they would have left that like that unless they did not think the images would ever be seen, despite it being more in line with the autopsy conclusions and xrays. These Fox images are just so insincere in the depiction of the wounds and have to have been taken after the enlargement of the tracheotomy and "surgery to the top of the head". Didn't they normally close the eyes of the dead before they take photos like this?

Appreciate the kind words

The remnant of the original lower sprocket hole?

I've erased all my posts on this thread as I find it a complete waste of my time and effort. Simple facts... The 3 main bones in our discussion intersect behind the ear. The skull and brains were severely altered between Dallas and the 8pm unveiling. The men at Bethesda lied repeatedly about the injuries and especially about the existence of 2 brain specimens and 2 brain examinations... to deny these facts is to exhibit an amazing level of intellectual dishonesty and should be viewed on this forum as extremely suspect... I for one have had it with the intellectual dishonesty exhibited. I am rough and aggressive, I know that... I get even more so when people PLAY DUMB (#9) when obvious conflicts to conclusions are made evident. I apologize to Pat for my aggressiveness and choice of words... and promise to abide by the rules of the forum.

..

..

..

Hi Micah, You talking about the color ones from the back of his book image or the ones we've been posting? The 2 reviewers gush over the quality of the images in his book so I have to assume you mean them... I guess we can ask Dr. M and see...

..

..

..

..

..

This description? Attention Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting at approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, weight one hundred sixty-five pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a 30 caliber rifle. Attention all squads. The suspect from Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male about thirty, slender build, five feet ten inches tall, one hundred sixty-five pounds, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle. No further description at this time, or information. 12:45. Tippit - from what I've gathered - was doing whatever he was in the final hour of his life on his own volition... it does seem as though he was looking for Oswald, which to me shows knowledge of the man well before 12:30 on 11/22. As the DPD has said, he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed... seeing how so many were manipulated it is not hard to see that Tippit was set up to be killed, Oswald was set up to take the blame (Westbrook's wallet) so he could be killed at the theater... and the wallet would have the evidence to tie Oswald, Hidell and the weapons all together. Pretty amazing to me that a man supposedly pulls a gun on a fellow policeman and these men, armed to the teeth with riot guns and sidearms did not hit him with a rifle butt or pistol, or even shoot him... maybe they hadn't started doing that in 1963... If Tippit was looking for Oswald, how does he wind up at 10th and Patton just as an armed man (or two) are also at 10th and Patton as well as a police car with 2 men in it at that exact spot as well? And why is there not a single question asked of Oswald about the Tippit murder for which he was supposedly arrested? He denied shooting anyone so asking where he was, where he walked from/to, how he got to the theater... the interrogation reports have the strangest answers in them regarding his travel from the TSBD to his home and to the theater... FBI HOSTY/BOOKOUT (no Whaley, no taxi, no Tippit) After hearing what had happened, he said that because of all the confusion there would be no work performed that afternoon so he decided to go home. OSWALD stated he then went home by bus and changed his clothes then went to a movie. (IOW the arrest shirt was not the same as the work shirt Bledsoe supposedly saw and described the arrest shirt... hmmm) OSWALD admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie stating he did this because he felt like it , giving no other reason.

..

..

From your POV, How would the DPD know to use the name Oswald prior to his capture? In the transcripts I have from 12:28 to 1:53 the name "Oswald" is not used once...

..