David Josephs
-
Posts
6,169 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Josephs
-
-
13 minutes ago, Ron Ege said:
IMO, as you have indicated, there is a very high probability of Oswald being "aware of it"; most likely, we will never know how much of "it", he was.
The other thing that suggests to me he knew very little yet was "aware" was the private reaching out to the intelligence community versus his saying - right here in front of everyone, G~d and country - that the FBI/CIA set him up, that he was an informant for the FBI and was working in the TSBD as such... handing out FPCC flyers to garner the names of supporters who come to the meetings... working with/taking direction from Guy Bannister...
Furthermore, how does a man like Oswald get cleared to work at Jaggers in the photographic areas when he was a known Russian defector ... Jaggers did extensive work with the DoD.
Oswald reported for work at JCS on October 12th. He filled out a w-4 employee withholding certificate and listed his address as 3519 Fairmont (the address of Gary and Alexandra Taylor DeMohrenschildt) in Dallas.
Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall's business came from commercial accounts in the Dallas area, but they also handled supersecret projects for the Navy Bureau Materiel and the Army Mapping Service.The Cuban Missle Crises begins October 14th lasting until the 26th.
Robert Oswald invited Harvey, Marina and June to his house in Ft. Worth for Thanksgiving dinner. John Pic and his family, who recently transferred from Tachikawa AFB in Japan to Lackland AFB in San Antonio, were also invited. After John arrived he and Robert drove to the Greyhound Bus station in Fort Worth to pick up Harvey, Marina, and June. Thanksgiving Day of 1962 was the last time that either Robert Oswald or John Pic saw their "brother" prior to the assassination. Before leaving Pic invited Lee Harvey and Marina to visit them in San Antonio anytime they wished. Oswald then wrote his name in Pic's address book as "Harvey" and listed his address as PO Box 2915, Dallas, TX. (John Pic Ex #60 below)
I add this as further and ongoing proof that the Harvey Oswald in the photo below - as repeated numerous times by Pic - was not the naturally born Lee OSWALD. While Pic testified truthfully to the matter, Robert was not as forthcoming.
FWIW
. 
-
2 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:
Wasn't the theater incident just 45 minutes after the JFK event in Dealy Plaza?
12:30 vs 1:45 Joe
-
1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:
"Just like it was in 1963 on that Nov day, the ticket booth is set back into the theater entrance..."
No.
Good one Bill... they were not exactly in the same spot...
THING IS, IT WAS STILL SET BACK OFF THE SIDEWALK AND WOULD NOT BE SEEN FROM THE SHOE STORE... in the google maps link you can see where the original ticket booth was...
Too bad you couldn't actually offer anything in support of your reply - as usual, let everyone else do the work, wouldn't want to get your hands dirty.
-
On 1/29/2023 at 3:01 PM, Jake Hammond said:
I'll get on it tomorrow chaps, don't think I'm ignoring anyone ! Weekends are normally a bit hectic Essentially I was making the point that if you look at all the conspiracy stuff that lets face it doesn't really fit together then you can point a lot of fingers. Also, unfortunately ( I mean that genuinely) Ruth Paine and Marina both have to be bare faced XXXXX and completely compromised in order for Oswald to not have being up to something that day and have taken a gun to work. There is very much a wider conspiracy to cover up after the fact, there was also at least an element of fore knowledge of something by the alphabet agencies. Oswalds behaviour and ( apparent) state of mind suggest he was part of it in some way. I'll try and find the show I was thinking of. The deleted word rhymed with tyres.
This rifle Jake? People seem to forget the journey that rifle must take to wind up in evidence starting at a PO Box in Dallas, to New Orleans, to Irving (with the following supporting its existence in that garage
) and the testimony about what occurs the following morning...
https://www.kennedysandking.com/content/oswald-on-november-22-1963 assumes Oswald did do it in an attempt to see if any of the incriminating evidence makes any sense on the timeline of his actions.
Also did a number of presentations on the Rifle and how impossible it was for the FBI to find it with the info they had that weekend.
btw, as I see it - "aware of it" and "part of it" would look very similar despite having completely different meanings... a PATSY is generally aware but usually not directly involved else they would have information to share after being arrested. Establishing bone fides for his "infiltration" work would also make him look incredibly guilty by association.
-
On 2/15/2023 at 8:45 PM, Ron Bulman said:
You can still kind of see the Texas Theater sign sticking up in the distance, I can't make out the marquee though.
Just like it was in 1963 on that Nov day, the ticket booth is set back into the theater entrance and would be impossible for anyone to see someone entering the theater, and/or paying for a ticket, from the sidewalk in either direction
Liz Bridal at 213 W Jefferson was where Hardy shoes was... Theater was 231 W Jefferson. The above is a view from the recessed shoe store to the Theater.
Brewer's story (which was actually forwarded by Tommy Rowe, who moved into Ruby's apartment after his arrest) is complete crap just like the rest of the WC evidence...
-
One gets the feeling the HSCA/WC was aware of this CIA NPIC study-of/working-with the film over the weekend at NPIC with the creation of the 2 sets of briefing boards since that frame 190 shows up repeatedly despite the obvious... where do they see a shot at 190? (
The information on these pages is to me amazingly interesting and revealing... especially the questions asked on the page posted in the middle...
Please to remember that 18.3 fps = the exact run/rise of Elm street... IOW 1' vertical drop = 18.3' horizontal movement. At the camera's setting of 16fps and 48fps those timings between shots placed on certain frames get even shorter.
The other thing that strikes me is the "other possibilities" column... do they mean "and" or "or" when they show shots at 206 and 213 (bookends to the frames removed/damages by Life)
The other question is "on which film were they counting frames?" The boards Dino created would have had different information than what Homer's boards of the altered film did...
The boards by Homer and the NPIC sheet at the bottom display the same information... whether the sheet was used to create the boards or the other way around, IDK.
FWIW
-
Played a bit with the contrast and brightness yet surprisingly there is no other place on the entire image which takes the shape of a circle over an area of the head associated with a frontal shot entry wound...
Some will say this is perfectly natural as we can see "something" within the black circle so it can't be anything added after the fact...
Look at Groden's color version again and see the V-shaped cutout in that area... no black circle
One is to remember the numerous "circles" that have no explanation that makes sense... the 6.5mm planted disc in the xray and the 2 round burn marks which no other radiologist says resembles any burn they've ever seen - on the Anterior xray with the 6.5mm disc. These are the circles Ebersol claims were burn marks...
Dr. Chesser offers a much better explanation of these "burns" as well as the detailed analysis I mentioned. you can find his revised Youtube presentation below:
Dr. Chesser gave me permission to post... and this is a review of the work with a few more of the slides related to the burn marks on the xray
-
20 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:17 hours ago, David Josephs said:
You don't answer questions put to you directly if they make you sound or look bad...
1. Are you a doctor of anything having to do with anything from the neck up?
2. Have you seen the same things at the archives that these ill-informed/foc doctors have and reported on?
Yes or no will be fine.
Oh my. This is a ridiculous set of questions.
So the answers are:
1. No
2. No
Curious...
What changes did MANTIK make to his presentation as a result of your informed analysis?
What changes did WECHT make to his presentation as a result of your personal presentation?There is no doubt your work has had an impact on those within the community... yet claiming everyone who disagrees with you and is in the medical community is only out to shill a book or a POV for whatever reason is especially lame in my view.
That you can take a qualified neurosurgeon's analysis and feel that your work supersedes this because you have conflicting results as opposed to reconsidering your laymen's analysis is quite amusing Pat. You play a doctor on TV and know how to make photocopies... amazingly, that doesn't make you an expert in the field but someone with a well informed opinion and a whole lot of paper.
So remind us again... according to you there was only 1 brain exam or do you agree there were 2? the 1500cc brain was or was not the brain in his head when he was shot? Since this is a thread about the brain and all.
Better yet, since it takes you a dozen posts to get to the heart of a question, I'll go right to the source.
So first we have the conclusion of JJ HUMES from the Supplemental:
This supplementary report covers in more detail the extensive degree of cerebral trauma in this case. However neither this portion of the examination nor the microscopic examinations alter the previously submitted report or add significant details to the cause of death.
AND THIS, for example, FROM THE HUMES "previously submitted report" (which does not contain anything as mentioned in the Exec Session about a fragment coming out the front of his throat btw so who knows which of the autopsy reports they are talking about - just not the one in evidence)
"Aside from the above described skull wounds, .. there are no significant gross skeletal abnormalities."
(This is Humes' being detail-oriented and complete since JFK's back only shows nasty degradation, and metal.. I use this as an example of the honesty and attention to detail we can expect from this HUMES autopsy report - I would have thought even HUMES was aware of the terrible back problems his president suffered thru)
.
Does this look like no significant gross skeletal abnormalities to your expert eyes? If Humes et al did not see anything wrong with the mans' spine/skeleton who's xrays were they looking at?
HUMES continued in the Autopsy Report in evidence:
Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close
inspection proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere . At this point it is noted that the falx cerebai is extensively lacerated with disruption of the superior saggital sinus .The complexity of these fractures and the fragments thus produced tax satisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared. (but which we are not going to show you)
(The whole point of an autopsy report is to accurately describe the wounds.. yet Humes simply cannot do it - and this is the man you want us to believe over the word of actual specialists...
)
A supplementary report will be submitted following a more detailed examination of the brain and of microscopic sections. However, it is not anticipated that those examinations will materially altar the findings.
====== Okay Pat... from your experience what does "major portion" mean to you? In the real world a majority is usually more than 50%. If the brain was 1500gms as you like to claim, before the shooting, than each hemisphere is about 750gms with a potential minimum loss of 375gms...
PAGE 1 LINE 1 of Supp Autopsy:
Following formalin fixation the brain weighs 1500 gms.(Abstract: Based on more than 8000 autopsies of male and female patients without brain diseases the normal brain weight of adult males and females in relation to sex, age, body-weight, and body-height as well as Body Mass Index were calculated. The average brain weight of the adult male was 1336 gr; for the adult female 1198 gr. ) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8072950/#:~:text=The average brain weight of,average of about 3.7 gr.
What is the effect of formalin fixation on brain weight?
Mass and volume of the brains changed considerably during a 3-week fixation period. On average mass increased by 50g, volume by 57 ml. Mean brain density decreased during the first week and attained its final value almost at the end of the third week. Most changes seem to happen during the first week. (50/1500 = 3%).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2588832/#:~:text=Mass and volume of the,happen during the first week.1500 - 375 = 1125 + 3% = 1158gms. Wow, sure sounds as if a 1500cc brain with a "major portion" of the right hemisphere existing as lacerated and extruding from a large hole... it would lose a little weight...
So how much does a brain need to start out as to wind up at 1500gms after losing a minimum of 50% of one hemisphere and gaining 3% from foralin? 1923gms Pat... so let's see how that stacks up against your assumptions.
Now, From your 16c:
Now, the thought occurs that all this discussion of Kennedy's skull and scalp bypasses Exhibit A for the argument Kennedy was killed by a tangental gunshot wound--Kennedy's brain.
Now, this should not be controversial, but, unfortunately, it is.
And a large percentage of conspiracy theorists think such a discussion a total waste of time. Autopsy photographer John Stringer told the ARRB he failed to recognize the photos of Kennedy's brain as photos he was purported to have taken, and this allows these theorists to both reject the veracity of the photos currently in the archives, and reject the descriptions of the brain included in the Supplementary Autopsy Report, which correspond to these photos.
And that's too bad...as a close reading of the brain damage described by the doctors in the Supplementary Autopsy Report is strongly suggestive---that the doctors got it wrong.
One of the great complaints about the medical evidence is that the weight given for Kennedy's brain at the Supplemental Exam--1500 gms--is just too much. Some take from this that Kennedy's brain had been swapped out, and that a substitute brain had been studied in its place.
Such thoughts go too far, in my opinion.
---
Let's try these on for size.
Suppose Kennedy's pre-mortem brain weighed 1500 g. This is not unreasonable in that the brains of some famous and semi-famous men were reported to have weighed as follows:
Roger Craig (1300 g), Vladimir Lenin (1340 g), J.D. Tippit (1350 g), Michael Jackson (1380 g), Corey Haim (1390 g), Ron Goldman (1400 g), Martin Luther King (1400 g), Lee Oswald (1450 g), Dale Earnhardt (1450 g), David Ferrie (1480 g), Christopher Wallace (1490), Dylan Klebold (1500 g), Chester Bennington (1530 g), River Phoenix (1540 g), Russell Armstrong (1600 g), William Pitzer (1625 g), and Andy Irons (1664 g).
And no, this isn’t a biased sample. A 2018 study by South African doctors presented in the International Journal of Morphology reported that the medium brain weight of 32 deceased males aged 41-50 was 1386.56g, and that the largest of these brains weighed 1638g. (As I posted above)
So, yeah, a 1500g pre-mortem brain weight for Kennedy is not unreasonable. (agreed)
---
Suppose then that the formalin procedures added 25% onto this weight.
---
Well, this means the formalin procedures would only have to have added 20% onto the weight of Kennedy's pre-formalin-infused brain.Sometimes what seems impossible is well within the grasp of the possible.
Uh, no Pat, why not take a second and actually look it up? you are off by 25/3= 833%
"Sometimes" impossible things are made to appear possible when bogus suppositions are allowed to change reality to fantasy...
And this is why I have a hard time with the opinionated conclusions of a layman who trusts the WCR & JJ HUMES over much more qualified people without a career which could easily be cut short by a military court-martial.
You want to play "compare the statements" have at it. The assumptions and shortcuts which are obvious in a cursory look at just a single chapter of your work makes it very difficult to accept much of anything you offer without first doing my own "deep dive" - which in this case I have, being in personal contact with a number of "experts in the field".
You want so bad to believe the evidence offered is authentic and indicative of the Dallas injuries you'd bend over backward to assume measurements which are WAY out of line with reality and have the temerity to bash those who put your analysis skills in this area to shame.
Why did you go out of your way to embellish what formalin does to a brain Pat? Because it's the only way you can justify the completely bogus weight offered by these men... and let yourself believe that replacing JFK's brain - with the tell tale signs of what really happened to him - "goes too far" ?
Why resort to BS "suppositions" which are so easily refuted, just to make an analysis sound more right than it really is?
Even more respect flies out the window when the evidence from the WCR and related documents is used in an attempt to show what actually happened... like you're not even aware of the cruel joke played on us all those years ago, and are willing to accept the conclusions of a desperately corrupt "investigation" which by definition produced desperately corrupt evidence.
Maybe more attention to that screenplay is in order...
-
-
40 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
My point was
You don't answer questions put to you directly if they make you sound or look bad...
1. Are you a doctor of anything having to do with anything from the neck up?
2. Have you seen the same things at the archives that these ill-informed/foc doctors have and reported on?
Yes or no will be fine.
-
10 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
Who am I to argue with PhD's who have seen the original images and knows much more about anatomy than I.
Oh my. If this were true, you would jump in line behind the Clark Panel, HSCA FPP, the forensic anthropology consultants and a neroranatomist like Riley.
Nice list. Real cream of the crop... All I did was ask Pat.
Reading a thousand books doesn't put your fingers into a man's head, literally. But hey, what do I know anyway.
Good luck on your screenplay
-
1 minute ago, Gil Jesus said:
The Z film shows that he was holding his hat with the opening facing him and his thumb facing him. There's just no way he was hit by the same bullet that hit the President and only that bullet. He may have been hit by two separate bullets, as his doctors believed.
Oh I agree Gil... just saying that z230+ is a bit late for a comparison relative to the JFK shot.
Definitely hit by a different shot as a result of a miss as JFK moved after being hit.
-
No disrespect intended here Gil... z232 is a bit late to determine where his wrist was when a shot was fired while they are obscured by the replacement of the sign within the film (see Davidson's work currently up). From z225 below you can see how JC's right wrist is much lower as he holds his hat in his lap... The order to "fire", broadcast over a radio to multiple shooters, would result in nearly simultaneous shots.. IMO. And if we accept that communication was accomplished using radios, simultaneous shots are almost expected, I'd think.
But there are more than enough reasons to shoot the Silly Bullet Theory to hell. such as JC sitting stoic while we can see JACKIE already reacting in response to JFK's reaction to being shot. JFK was hit at least 10-15 frames earlier (by the fraudulent count of frames offered us by Shaneyfelt)
Again, WCR evidence proves the conspiracy
The WCR itself proves the shot impossible. Any shot to where they say it hits JFK has no chance at hitting JC, just the back of the seat.
Specter proves it. (the image is reversed for ease of presentation)
This Australian special proved it as well. Didn't anyone tell them the bullet ROSE as it supposedly transits JFK? And it was supposed to exit the throat, not the chest...
-
17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
It took forever but you finally admitted Mantik's orientation for the mystery photo was in error.
I never said it was in error, only I, like you, think it should be rotated a bit more clockwise, but what the heck do I know, I am just a layman researcher... like you.
I've been talking with a Dr. who was able to see the full F8 image at the archives and says the top and left of the image was cropped off showing detail which orients the image they way it should be, as Mantik laid it out.
The layer of abdominal wall fat noted above is cropped out of the Fox copies, but was clearly visible on the archive photos. The layer of fat allows orientation to the angle of the camera, and makes it much easier to orient oneself to the view of the skull. The photographer was situated at the head of the table, directing the camera toward the feet, and focusing on the inner skull.
In addition to the layer of fat, the right eyebrow and eyelashes were visible, and also the area of the V incision is seen. These landmarks allow definite orientation to the parts of the skull which were captured in the photograph.
Who am I to argue with PhD's who have seen the original images and knows much more about anatomy than I... the F8 overlay I did was a guess, a way of illustrating the actually placement of the hole to the extent it can, as I posted, I would rotate my F8 down so that hole was at the rear right of the skull but cannot do that on the F7 image.
Have you seen the original F8 at the archives ?
-
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.
-
40 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
Yes, I must be a real nutcase. I studied the medical evidence not by swallowing gallons of ooze from questionable sources, but by comparing what is in the official record vs what is in textbooks and scientific literature.
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?
-
17 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
Yes, it was found on the day after. But no, no one "scoured" the plaza for debris. The Harper fragment was the largest skull fragment found outside the limousine. The z-film shows a large fragment rocketing into space in the direction of where it was found. Coincidence?
P.S. The "fragment was moved" nonsense is yet another Mantik invention. I proved to him that the fragment was not found behind the limo's position, but in front of its position. So he had to cough up something to explain how a fragment from low on the back of JFK's head could end up in front of where he was struck. Voila! Someone moved it!
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? -
11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
I go through these witnesses and more one by one on my website and demonstrate that the blow-out wound low on the back of the head proposed by all too many is nonsense.
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...
-
4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:
Take the simple breakdown from above(the path switch) and allow it to help correlate the designations below:
Using 5.1ft/5frames = 12.697mph
Frames Z168-186 = 21.6ft = 14.938mph @ 18.3 frames (1second)
14.938mph - 12.697mph = 2.24mph
Z161-166 = 2.24mph
That’s a match.
Amazingly well done Chris... thanks for all the great work
DJ
-
7 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:
Also here is study of the Harper fragment's chain of custody: http://www.old.reddit.com/r/JFKeveryday/comments/jz5hvu/small_wounds_in_the_front_of_jfks_head_part_12
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
-
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
The key sources...The Parkland physicians and nurses...The Bethesda doctors and assistants...failed to see a bullet hole in this location. Most of these witnesses said things which ran counter to the official story. But none ever stepped up and said "Oh yeah, there was a bullet hole on his forehead."
And there's a reason for this, IMO. There was no such hole.
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?
-
1 hour ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:
What I see is a near complete dark circle (about 320 degrees with the bottom right appearing to be missing). I also see a faint jagged circular hole below the centre and to the right inside the black circle. It's clearer at extreme enlargement.
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?
-
11 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:
I see and read your passion DJ and appreciate your honesty. You're human.
Appreciate the kind words
-
18 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:
If anyone cares to point it out, I'll supply the necessary adjustment in a gif.
The remnant of the original lower sprocket hole?
) and the testimony about what occurs the following morning...
Rock on.
Appreciate the kind words
Texas Theater: Fill in the blank!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Indeed Joe... it is simply set back a few feet from the theater entry walls on either side... Point remains that someone on the sidewalk 50 yeards down the street would have no idea what happens within that entry alcove...
That and it wasn't Brewer but ROWE.