David Josephs

Always seemed to me that Sprague and Prouty had a unique view of the assassination and surrounding events... I find it very difficult to believe what these men open our eyes to is just more propoganda... Does ToA standup over the years? Sprague was fired for appearing as if he was going to actually investigate something... Thank goodness he did get some of the work done and continued it on his own... Add to this the desciption of at least 6 shots seen on the Zfilm at NPIC that night and Homer's declaration about seeing 6-8 shots and I believe Sprague is not so far off from what happened. Cheers DJ http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp17.html The CIA's problem Given this background of the HSCA status in late 1976, it can easily be seen that the CIA was up against much more serious opposition than it ever had been before in the JFK murder and cover-up. They had ruined Jim Garrison's reputation and curtailed his investigation by various dirty trick means. They had been in solid control of the Warren Commission by the simple expedient of having four of the Commissioners belonging to them; Dulles, Ford, McCloy and Russell. They were also able to kill enough people who knew the truth, to slow down any truth-seeking that might have taken place. They also hid documents, destroyed and altered evidence, lied about other evidence, and bald facedly (Dulles) admitted that they wouldn't tell the President or the Commission if Lee Harvey Oswald had been a CIA agent (which he had been). In the Rockefeller Commission situation they were in complete control of that attempt to reinforce the Warren Commission's findings. And in the Church Committee investigation, the Schweiker/Hart subcommittee on the JFK case was very limited and controlled in what they could do. But in the new situation, in Richard A. Sprague and his professionals with so much knowledge of the CIA's role in the murder and the cover-up, they faced a crisis. They knew they had to do several things to turn it around and to continue to keep the American public from realizing what was happening. Here is what they had to do: Get rid of Richard A. Sprague. Get rid of Henry Gonzalez. Get rid of Sprague's key men or keep them away from CIA evidence or keep them quiet. Install their own chief counsel to control the investigation. Elect a new HSCA chairman who would go along, or who could be fooled. Cut off all Sprague's investigations of CIA people. Make sure none of the people were found or bury any testimony that had already been found, or murder CIA people who might talk. Keep the committee members from knowing what was happening and segregate the investigation from them. Create a new investigative environment whose purpose would be to confirm all of the findings of the Warren Commission and divert attention away from the who-did-it-and-why approach. Control the committee staff in such a way as to keep any of them from revealing what they already knew about CIA involvement. Control committee consultants in the same way, and staff members who might leave or who might be fired. Continue to control the media in such a way as to reinforce all of the above. Continue to murder witnesses or assassins in emergency situations if necessary. The CIA successfully did all twelve of these things. The techniques they used were much more subtle and devious than those they had used before, although they did continue with murders of potential HSCA witnesses and with media control Chapter 5 The Assassination of John Kennedy http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp5.html The assassination of President Kennedy can be considered one of a series of acts by the Power Control Group to regain the control they had lost when Nixon was defeated in 1960 and Kennedy threatened their existence. The evidence pointing toward intelligence involvement and the use of a variety of intelligence techniques in the assassination is substantial. Until and unless an investigation is conducted by a group with power and money equivalent to that of the Power Control Group, with the power to issue subpoenas and to protect witnesses, it will be very difficult to draw a completely accurate picture of the conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

thanks Greg... I figured as much... Can't hardly WAIT to get to the underlying real story about Tippit's murder... I do believe they are related only in that Tippit needed removal and Oswald needed to be branded a cop killer... and there needed to be a "trail" leading to the Texas Theater... the calm and cool Oswald - when Baker sticks a gun at him a minute after supposedly killy JFK - turns to a quivering mass of nerves in front of Brewer's store? and then sneaks into a movie? this after dropping the hulls linking his gun to the murder at the scene... Geez... why not just wear a "I am Lee Oswald and I just killed JFK and Tippit" T-shirt would have saved everyone a lot of running around...

Roy Truly... less than 5 minutes after the assassination... and he was standing directly in front of the TSBD almost directly beneath the windows where shots were supposed to have been fired from... Campbell, standing right next to him, says the same thing.... also within minutes of the shots... Are DVP's witnesses any more reliable or believeable than these? Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got to the seventh floor? Mr. TRULY. We ran up a little stairway that leads out through a little penthouse on to the roof. Mr. BELIN. What did you do on the roof? Mr. TRULY. We ran immediately to the west side of the building. There is a wall around the building that you cannot see over without getting your foot between the mortar of the stones and, or some such toehold. We did that and looked over the ground and the railroad tracks below. There we saw many officers and a lot of spectators, people running up and down. Mr. BELIN. Did the officer say to you why he wanted to go up to the roof? Mr. TRULY. No. At that time, he didn't. Mr. BELIN. Did he ever prior to meeting you again on March 20th tell you why he wanted to go on the roof? Mr. TRULY. No, sir. Mr. BELIN. Where did you think the shots came from? Mr. TRULY. I thought the shots came from the vicinity of the railroad or the WPA project, behind the WPA project west of the building. Mr. BELIN. Did you have any conversation with the officer that you can remember? About where you thought the shots came from? Mr. TRULY. Yes. When--some time in the course, I believe, after we reached the roof, the officer looked down over the boxcars and the railroad tracks and the crowd below. Then he looked around the edge of the roof for any evidence of anybody being there. And then looked up at the runways and the big sign on the-roof. He saw nothing. He came over. And some time about then I said, "Officer, I think"--let's back up. I believe the officer told me as we walked down into the seventh floor, "Be careful, this man will blow your head off." And I told the officer that I didn't feel like the shots came from the building. I said, "I think we are wasting our time up here," or words to that effect, "I don't believe these shots came from the building." OCHUS V. CAMPBELL, 7120 Twin Lakes Lane, Dallas, Texas, furnished the following information: He is the Vice President of the Texas School Book Depository Company, with offices located on the second floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building in Dallas. On November 22, 1963, he was present at his office at the above named building and at about 12:30 PM on that day, he and several other associates were together stationed about 30 feet in front of this building facing away from the building observing the passing motorcade containing President KENNEDY. At this time, he heard a loud report, which at first he considered to be a fire cracker or some object set off by a crank and believed the noise came from away from his building. This illusion, he explained, may have been due to the sound bouncing off the building and other objects in the vicinity. Mr. BELIN. Before you turned and went back into the building did you---did Mr. Campbell say anything to you? Mrs. REID. He said, "Oh, Mrs. Reid, no, it came from the grassy area down this way," and that was the last I said to him. Mr. BELIN. All right. When he said "this way" which direction was he pointing? Mrs. REID. Well, I hope I get my directions. In the direction of the parade was going, in the bottom of that direction

Hopefully this is not repeated info - Applin's testimony is very interesting, and while some of his quotes are used in the thread I think there were two that stand out 1) which fist Oswald used when McDonald touched his waist... and 2) what the arm with the pistol looked like... Applin was right there watching the entire thing and cannot say definitively that Oswald pulled the pistol..... Mr. BALL - What did you do then? Mr. McDONALD - After I was satisfied that these two men were not armed or had a weapon on them, I walked out of this row, up to the right center aisle toward the suspect. And as I walked up there, just at a normal gait, I didn't look directly at him, but I kept my eye on him and any other persons. And to my left was another man and I believe a woman was with him. But he was further back than the suspect. And just as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped abruptly, and turned in and told him to get on his feet. He rose immediately, bringing up both hands. He got this hand about shoulder high, his left hand shoulder high, and he got his right hand about breast high. He said, "Well, it is all over now." As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand went to the waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the bridge of the nose. If Applin is right and Oswald swings his RIGHT HAND at McDonald while McD is reaching with is LEFT, there is no way he also grabs the gun with his right hand... Mr. BALL - Did he cock his fist? Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir; knocking my cap off. Mr. BALL - Which fist did he hit you with? Mr. McDONALD - His left fist. Mr. BALL - What happened then? Mr. McDONALD - Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction was for me to go at him with this hand. Mr. BALL - Right hand? Mr. McDONALD - Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him on the face, but I don't know where. And with my hand, that was on his hand over the pistol. Mr. BALL - Did you feel the pistol? Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Which hand was--was his right hand or his left hand on the pistol? Mr. McDONALD - His right hand was on the pistol. Mr. APPLIN - Well, when he stood up, the officer stepped over to search him down. The officer, Oswald, or the man, took a swing at him. When he did, the officer grabbed him. Mr. BALL - Took a swing at him with his fist? Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir; he did. Mr. BALL - With his left or right? Mr. APPLIN - Right fist. Mr. BALL - Took a swing at him and what happened then? Mr. APPLIN - Well, the officer, I heard him say, "Here he is." And during the proceeding of that, I guess about 5 or 10 seconds later, there was another--I think it was two officers, or one, passed me and ran down there to him. Mr. BALL - Did you see a gun? Mr. APPLIN - Well, the gun didn't come into view until after about four or five officers were there. Mr. BALL - Wait a minute. I can't follow you when you say it was "this way," sir. You told me that this officer asked Oswald to stand up? Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Did he stand up? Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir; he did. Mr. BALL - Then did he put his hand some place on Oswald? Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir; along about Mr. BALL - Where? Mr. APPLIN - I guess about his hips. Mr. BALL - Then what did Oswald do? Mr. APPLIN - He took a right-hand swing at him. Mr. BALL - What did the officer do? Mr. APPLIN - The officer grabbed him then. Mr. BALL - Had you seen the pistol up to that time? Mr. APPLIN - No, sir; there was not one in view then. Mr. BALL - How soon after that did you see the pistol? Mr. APPLIN - I guess it was about--I guess it was about 2 or 3 seconds. Mr. BALL - Who pulled the pistol? Mr. APPLIN - I guess it was Oswald, because--for one reason, that he had on a short sleeve shirt, and I seen a man's arm that was connected to the gun. Mr. BALL - What did the officer do? Mr. APPLIN - Well, the officer was scuffling with him there, and---- Mr. BALL - Did you hear anything? Mr. APPLIN - Well, about the only thing I heard was the snap of the gun and the officer saying, "Here he is." Mr. BALL - You heard the snap of a gun? Mr. APPLIN - Yes, sir. Mr. APPLIN - I guess it was Oswald, because--for one reason, that he had on a short sleeve shirt, and I seen a man's arm that was connected to the gun. uh, oops... don't cops also wear short sleeves? or are we going to say he had on two jackets like Whaley... or no jacket like Roberts, or a brown jacket like the Tippit witnesses Oswald was in a long sleeve brown short... the person with the pistol had short sleeves...

Aint gonna go learn what you dont want to know.... btw - is this yet ANOTHER thread where DVP gets his hat handed to him and skulks off to lick wounds and regroup? At the end of the day there is still No idea how the coupon and $10 bill got to Seaport No accounting for the $10 other than the internal ORDER FORM No accounting for the $19.95 to or from REA No accounting of the $1.27 received and deposited by REA No proof as to how the murder weapon gets from Hill to Davenport and into evidence So to be straight here... the pistol is much more a mystery than the rifle... and the bullets had gunk on them as if they were taken from an ammo belt... and the vast majority of DPD officers use 38 Specials...

Agree... need to understand which "volumes" they are discussing... I finally found a report from Talbert on Tippit - as crappy as it appears, this is the BEST copy...... first though, no mention of Davenport in Talbert's testimony yet it does talk about the shot to Tippit's right temple... and finding Oswald IN THE BALCONY.... Sure would like to see Davenport's report... not sure if it will simple be the original of this... which in itself is very revealing Davenport actually helps Tipppit our of the ambulance and such... and then we see Davenport change the time of DOA from 1:00pm to 1:15pm and confirm that Talbert asks for the shell/button... at 1:30... somehow this becomest he time of DOA in Talbert's report... Davenport seems to have his hands on an awful lot of Tippit evidence and yet he is not called, has only ONE entry in the call logs 12:41 258 (Ptm. R.A. Davenport) 258, Code 5. and his reports are gone.... and not a single supervisor says a single word about him in their testimony... at least not that I've seen yet... just keep digging, just keep digging...

Thanks John... there is no BOX 39 - you do this for any other box #'s above 20? I will continue to look When something like the folowing surfaces AGAIN... with Sawyer I believe once again saying that these items were found on the FIFTH (5th) floor... as in the other transcripts - I guess it can be chalked up to a mistake, yet these men announce this at 1:11pm, AFTER a search... Are we really to believe they did not know what floor they were on?

Ok Jim, thanks Add the scratching out of POE for Davenport as the source for these hulls, "taken from oswald's gun" and we begin to see the interesting saga of the shells hulls ands bullets that evening... Even the inventory from Tippit has the # of 38 shells scratched out... Need to ID ALL the hulls starting with the Q74-77 fiasco with Poe and Barnes... oh yes... what happened to Barnes? He signs the form below when he specifically says he was not involved with the pistol Mr. BELIN. Did you have anything to do with identifying either the slugs that were eventually removed from Officer Tippit's body, or the pistol? Mr. BARNES. No. oops...

Pat, I can speak only for myself but I must say that David Von Pein has contributed absolutely nothing to my knowledge of the case. If it hadn't been him posting that stuff on youtube it would've been somebody else. Of how much use it actually is is questionable to begin with. And as to why he thinks what he does, does anybody really care to possess that piece of useless (and probably disturbing) information? In all areas of the internet where the DVP's xxxxx in order to present conclusions as they see them... we have this dilemna... Refute with actual reference to the results of the analysis and SHOW the lack of value the evidence is based upon - or let it stand.... My salvation when I'm thru with DVP is that those who CARE, will search out the answers they want to find... those that believe, hook line and sinker after having stumbled upon his "stuff" are not the audience... will not question or be bothered... the bewildered herds... So Martin, he continuously contributes to my understanding of the futile effort defending the WCR and its successors has become... The BS meter flies off the chart when anyone with a brain reads that stuff.... When "we" stick to the evidence and lack of authenticity at every turn, we are taught once again, how those that disagree "DEAL" with it... Meet evidence with evidence.... ?? or ad hominem, misdirecetion and ridcule....

Assuming you are directing to me Jim.... Hill turns the pistol over to Baker... Davenport fills out the CSS form with the original not scanned and the copy buried without reference to his name in Box 8. Baker's detailed report in box 15-2-15 or 5-5-4 (better copy) does not mention Davenport and Baker's entire testimony has nothing to do with anything... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_tl.htm As I am going thru Box 9 and Davenport's name pops up on reports that are bunched in with other reports and NOT listed by his name in the index... He turns over the pistol, turns live 38 rounds to the USSS without any reference as to where or why... He is NOT called to testify... Need to do a bit more digging here... you have anything specific re: Davenport? DJ

Is this more corroboration that Tippit had been killed and wisked away very quickly... DOA at 1:15.... now where have we seen THAT time before? thanks again to Davenport... STILL like to know how he gets possession of the pistol in all this and why HE turns a pistol into CSS and not TLBaker.

Thanks. That's the best compliment I could ever receive from an Internet CTer. I wouldn't expect anything less from anyone who belongs to the strange CT circus that has been assembled here at this and other Internet forums. But at least I'm not "stoopid" enough to believe that ALL of the evidence collected by the DPD, the SS, and the FBI has been (or even could have been) faked to frame an innocent patsy named Oswald. This is neither about belief or being stoopid.... when anyone investigates the authenticity of the evidence, they find the evidence available to us is not sufficient enough to authenticate it. There is invariably something wrong with it.... A document on its own stating that "something" happened, is NOT on its own, proof of anything. It requires substantiation, corroboration and authentication for it to be taken seriously by serious people... if YOU on the other hand want to accept whatever crap the WCR tells you, that's your problem. So instead of trying to make this THREAD about ALL the evidence... try for once to stay on topic... There is corroborated testimony that McDonald gave it immediately to Carroll, who ultimately give it to Hill while in the car... Hill SAYS he gives it to TL Baker and AT THAT POINT he and the others finally marks the weapon AT headquarters. (btw - they do not bother to search Oswald until midnight) Problem is that TL Baker NEVER states this anywhere in his lengthy report nor does he tell us what happened next to the pistol Box05 05 004 Report On Officer's Duties date unknown T. L. Baker Photocopy Photocopy of report by T. L. Baker regarding various aspects of his duties from November 22 through 24, 1963 UNTIL: ....as I am looking thru the Dallas Archives I come across this: DAVENPORT - who is not mentioned at all during this whole process finally turns the 38 over to CSS ... While Box 9, folder 1 #15. does not exist as mentioned - I found the CSS form in Box 8 CSS Form (Crime Scene Section), by R. A. Davenport. Original form concerning a Smith & Wesson SN Special, (Original), 11/22/63. 00002560 1 page 09 01 015 (no scan) When did Davenport get it? surprise surprise... Davenport never testified.... and the "original" is no available... and our friend TL Baker is no where to be seen... Between Baker and Davenport... we do not know what happens... as the form says that Dhority/Barnes receive it yet Davenport supplies it? and if you notice THIS TOO WAS TAKEN BY the FBI, DRAIN, that evening.... along 400 or so other items of evidence... again, per Lt. Day... So basically, from midnight 11/22 until 11/26 when it appears on the list to be given to the FBI ONCE AGAIN... we have no idea what happens to this pistol... perfect, just perfect.

A conspiracy theorist who thinks it was "THE WORLD AGAINST OSWALD" is preaching to me about God-given "sense". It's a new zenith in irony. And Pot/Kettle-ism. I'm lovin' it. Are you really that stoopid and naive David? You debate like a child, you don't have the sense or awareness to know how ridiculous you sound yet day after day you present yourself as the poster child for sheer ignorance.... and you think you are convincing anyone, illuminating anything... From my POV, your posts are without a doubt the BEST EVIDENCE for how impossible it is to defend the WCR in all its glory... You stumble over physical evidence like a clod and massacre the analysis each and every time... Congrats are in order though... you continually achieve OUR goals in showing how impotent the WCR really was and remains in anything other than proving Oswald's innocence and the government's complicity.. So PLEASE keep posting your attempts at rationalization, wit, intelligence and apology - the LNers have GOT to cringe whenever they see you coming... much appreciated... I'd talk facts and evidence with you yet you still can't see your own hand in front of your face... here's the ONLY piece of evidence offered has ANYTHING to do with a pistol similiar to what the DPD claims was taken from Oswald... you'd think with evidence THAT GOOD, they'd have kept track of it.... BOX 9 Folder 1 #15. CSS Form (Crime Scene Section), by R. A. Davenport. Original form concerning a Smith & Wesson SN Special, (Original), 11/22/63. 00002560 1 page 09 01 015 (no scan) and of course, it does not really exist - you of course can show us the DPD docs related to the 38 taken from Oswald, right? . Toodles David... if the otheres here want to play your game, so be it. You sir ought to be elected Head Lone Nut of the bewildered herds wandering lost throughout this world.... you're a joke

And before they sailed around the world - it was flat... FACT before it was discovered we were NOT the center of the universe - the EARTH WAS, FACT Before it was discovered there ARE NO WITCHES - women were burned for being one - FACT The WC and the HSCA saying something is so DOES NOT MAKE IT SO... sorry DVP... just doesn't work that way... If the evidence is not there to support their conclusions, their conclusions ARE INVALID... My handing you a business card saying I'm Pablo Picasso - DOES NOT MAKE IT SO.... Do LNers and the infamous DVP believe EVERYTHING coming out of the government as explanations fro what they do, did and will do? THAT'S amazing David... we have a name for people like that... Lemmings. The sheer FACT you don't have the sense God gave a child to question the BASIS for these conclusions is what's amazing...

And another thing... Here are four seperate SEAPORT CUSTOMER shipments... and this testimony: Mr. BALL. Now I also show you a white copy of invoice No. A-5371 which has been marked on the face as DL-27. Can you tell me what that document is? Mr. MICHAELIS. This document is the first copy of the invoice No. 5371 which is kept in the office as permanent record and is filed in the numerical order. NUMERICAL ORDER... suggesting that the orders are filled using an order pad with sequential numbers... just like REAL BUSINESSES USE! Three of these orders are marked 3/21/63... the Hidell order was shipped 3/20 so Michaelis recording THE NEXT DAY that his pistols was sold via a certain invoice is not so hard to imagine... he gets his sales report and marks them off.... simple. Problem is with the NUMERICAL ORDER of these serial numbers... is that a bit further down the sheet is a sales recorded 3/25 also to a Seaport customer, yet the Inv # is BETWEEN the dates on 3/21... This is an entire CASE OF .38 specials as Michaelis testifies to.... there is no problem shipping a pistol at any time... Why are the only 4 digit invoice numbers on the page not in the correct order and how is there over 2000 of these orders processed in a single day??

Now this puzzles me a bit... Exhibit M4, the COPY of the REA contract, has the MIRROR IMAGE of Exhibit M2 copied onto it... For it to be Mirror image, M4 would have had to be laid onto the BACK of M2 and all the M2 info has to show thru not only itself but also the back of M4... or M4 was copied onto the back of the copy of M2?? Not sure I get how this worked... Robin? thx DJ

Doesn't this seem a bit unreal to the readers, posters and lurkers here? A number of WCR critics spending post after post and their precious time trying to convince DVP that in the REAL WORLD, transactions in business are recorded... IRS is a bit of a stickler about getting their money... Seaport would have initiated "something" with the reciept of the $10 deposit and the order form..... yet there was no envelope, and while the coupon has Seaport's address, do you suppose Hidell paperclipped a $10 bill to the coupon and dropped it in the mail? Of course not... Mr. BALL. Now, this particular mail order, did you have anything to do with filling that order? Mr. MICHAELIS. No. Mr. BALL. And all of these records are under your control, are they? Mr. MICHAELIS. Well, not particularly at that time because my actual supervision of the Seaport Traders, Inc., activities started later during the year. mean in September and October, when the girl in charge left. Mr. BALL. You have no personal knowledge, then, of the transaction by which the gun was shipped and sold? Mr. MICHAELIS. Not prior to the first investigation. So of course he's the PERFECT person to call regarding THIS transaction... as opposed to Emma Vaughn who actually handled and fulfilled the order... so in essence here... Michaelis is trying to interpret what happened as much as the WC lawyers Mr. BALL. It is given a No. DL-29. Will you describe it, please? Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes; that is a copy of the receipt which we got from the Railway Express Agency showing that on March 20, 1963, one carton with a pistol was shipped to A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. It shows, furthermore, that Railway Express is instructed to collect a c.o.d. fee of $19.95. And it shows furthermore the number of the original receipt, which is 70638. Mr. BALL. Number of original receipt? Which receipt? Mr. MICHAELIS. Of the Railway Express receipt. Mr. BALL. IS this it here? Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes. Mr. BALL. Original receipt, Railway Express receipt, is that correct? Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes Mr. BALL. Does it identify the invoice in any way? Mr. MICHAELIS. No. So REA would have an original receipt with 70638... whereby "70638" would be PRINTED as opposed to handwritten, since REA would ALSO have to keep records... REA writes "70638" referencing some OTHER DOCUMENT yet Michaelis feels this "COPY OF EXPRESS RECEIPT - (Contract on Original)" as written on its face - IS the orignal?... Sorry but NO WAY... the exhibit itself says it's not the original... wonder where THAT might be and it gets better - he is trying to say that Ex#5, DL-30, which is a document dated 3/20/63.. the SHIPPING DATE, is the proof that subsequent to delivery approx a week later $19.95 was rec'd by REA and sent to Seaport... YOU GETTING THIS? a DOC created prior to shipping describing what needs to be COLLECTED FROM THE CUSTOMER is proof of the customer having paid? Mr. BALL. Is there anything in your files which shows that the Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95? Mr. MICHAELIS. The fact that the exhibit number--may I see this green one? Mr. BALL. Five. Mr. MICHAELIS. Was attached to the red copy of the invoice. Mr. BALL. Red copy of the invoice being---- Mr. MICHAELIS. No; was attached to the red copy of the invoice, exhibit number---- Mr. BALL. Two. Mr. MICHAELIS. Indicates that the money was received. Mr. BALL. Is there anything else that you know about this particular transaction that you would like to tell me? Mr. MICHAELIS. No, sir; I believe I answered all the questions of this transaction. Uh, not so much.... Klein's kept the envelope since one was sent with the order Seaport nor the WCR has any answer as to how the $10 deposit was sent or rec'd... DVP can rant all he likes about this, but there is no evidentary record of what happens to the ordering coupon from whatever that date is (I blew it up as you can see... and it is STILL impossible to tell, 1/2/?? 1/27/??) but it had to be before 3/13/63 since that's the Seaport invoice date... Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes; Mr. Rose usually opens the mail and distributes the mail. This particular order would have gone to the person in charge at that time of the Seaport Traders, who was Emma Vaughn. Mr. BALL. Who? Mr. MICHAELIS. Emma Vaughn, V-a-u-g-h-n. Mr. BALL. Then what would have happened? Mr. MICHAELIS. She would have processed the order in writing up invoice No. 5371. After 1 week she gave out the order to the order filler and packer. Mr. MICHAELIS. The order received by mail is written up and invoiced in quadruplicate on a snap-out form. The first white copy remains in the office and is filed on a numerical order. The second copy is used as a packing slip whereby the upper part of the invoice is torn off and used as a shipping label and the lower part used as a packing slip. The third copy is filed permanently in the office under the name of the respective customer after the order has been shipped. The fourth copy is the acknowledgment of the order copy and lists on the back side a statement which has to be signed by the respective customer. Since we do not know when Hidell mailed the coupon, or in what... we have no idea how/when the order gets to Emma... what was there to open? Further more - there is nothing here to suggest that Emma would have sat on that order PRIOR to 3/13... as obvious from the TYPE WRITTEN invoice on 3/13 versus the STAMP from 3/20, the shipping date, there is No REASON to believe that this order arrived much PRIOR to 3/13 at Seaport... To recap so far... 1) No one directly involved with the order receipt, the packing, the shipping or collection of money ever spoke to anyone related to the WC/FBI investigation 2) The physical evidence is not offered related to the deposit of a $10 cash-deposit for this order, supposedly sent with the order coupon... envelopes can be thrown away, - but a simple look at the cash deposits, or the deposits at all, for the month of March 1963 compared to the COD orders received and documented with a cash deposit - should be easy to find the - missing $10. No? They did it for Klein's and got that one wrong... pointed to the wrong MO... 3) Where is the original REA document from which Michaelis4 was created? - a Doc that says COPY on it cannot be considered an Original in anybody's world. 4) There is no physical evidence that REA sent Seaport $19.95, that Seaport deposited $19.95 or that REA rec'd/deposited $1.27 for shipping 5) There is no physical evidence that Hidell, Oswald or anyone else ever picked up that gun 6) There is no physical evidence regarding what happens to the S&W 38 Spec once it leaves the Texas Theater Does anyone have this document? - BOX 9 Folder 1 #15. CSS Form (Crime Scene Section), by R. A. Davenport. Original form concerning a Smith & Wesson SN Special, (Original), 11/22/63. 00002560 1 page 09 01 015 (no scan) 7) The bullets supposedly recovered from the pistol all had markings that HILL describes as scotch tape... yet what is quite obvious is that the sticky 1/2 inch patch could also be caused by leaving bullets in a gunbelt... ther is NOT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that sctoch tape was ever used with these bullets... that's absurd... Mr. HILL. There were six in the chambers of the gun. One of them had an indention in the primer that appeared to be caused by the hammer. There were five others. All of the shells at this time had indentions. All of the shells appeared to have at one time or another scotch tape on them because in an area that would have been the width of a half inch strip of scotch tape, there was kind of a bit of lint and residue on the jacket of the shell. Instead of all this back and forth with DVP's constant backpeddling and excuses for why normal people did not do normal daily business activites at a time when HIDELL was a nobody... LEt him keep posting and trying to explain it all away... We all get it... DVP and the WCR evidence is bure BS... has always been pure BS... and will always be pure BS.... and the DVP's of the world simply cannot swallow that pill. Cheers DJ

Do you know off hand the order after the assassination these photos are taken? 1. Muchmoore 2. Bond 4 3. Towner 4. Stoughton thx DJ

Could this be the same person Duncan?

Sums it up pretty well here Duke.... take care. DJ "Now what's to be found by racing around, you carry your pain wherever you go, Full of blues, and tryin' to lose, You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know."

I was just theorising that it may be the same "Hatman" figure, as he has become commonly known, that you discovered in Moorman. Duncan... by Bond 4... did any of the Overpass people make it to the fence? That couldn't be Holland or one of the others? I realize it is not THAT much after the shots.... an excellent spotting too btw... amazing what keeps becoming popping up in these photos... Cheers DJ

Hi All, Seems to me that just to the image's left of the supposed Badgeman image and the smoke from his rifle is BDM still standing right there... And since we do not see the Black couple sitting on the bench just a bit to the right of BM, isn't it very possible that this is one or both of that couple? The shapes, even though at different angels, is very similiar... Thanks for your thoughts DJ

Franz, There is no expertise or special skills required to see the basic flaw in what you are doing is that the process simply adds too much data to the original set of info, then manipulates the data based on the original "screen" and produces outputs that only SUGGEST what may be there - just like your wet Tshirt analogy from way back that you dropped quickly once you saw it directly addresses the flaws in the process... If you took a photo before the water, and then again after, you SHOULD notice that the pixels in the two photos are now very different... all the processing in the world could not produce the 2nd image from the first or vice versa... the "water" is only similiar to the process in that it CHANGES pixels by guessing and re interating - and then comparing to the original... It will always give the appearance of some relationship to the original since obviously, that's where all the data is coming from, yet you still do not post the FIRST STEP, the vector mapping of the original... this is BEFORE the process... so please.. before posting the color enhanced EXTRA DATA versions, post a LARGE version of one of the enlargements... The enlargement to vector process also adds info and drops other... While I greatly appreciate the time and effort - the end result is no mare than computerized manipulation of the original image in such a way as to CHANGE the data of the original and therefore corrupt the end result DJ

Okay Franz... nice tap dance yet again... Whether BDM is seen in 4 other images BEFORE the shots are fired is again, of no consequence whatsoever when processing Bond 4 as you did... Apples and Oranges... there is no direct relationship with what we see in Bond and what is seen in Willis/Betzner or any other image if BDM you claim to have found.... We don't need some controlled crosschecked experiment here Franz... just enlarge the face of the man on the steps and run your process... \ Since we both agree this person has facial features and since you continue to claim your process brings out hidden things within the images that is simply enhacning what's there and dropping what's not... DO IT. Post the enlarged image you start with and next to it the same exact sized/scaled image AFTER the process - if you can bring a DPD cops' face into focus from nothing but blur and shadow, this should be easy.... Showing us your process works on something we KNOW to be there could help us believe you are actually improving on what we've been doing in the past... But if all you're going to continue to do is post completely non-descript blobs of color and proclaim "THERE'S OSWALD" or "THERE'S the BDM" you are actually doing exactly what you claim you are not: your offered explanations have been extremely lacking in substance and very long on excuses.... reference points that are not, scaling that is off, and a complete lack of understanding that the interpolations that you posted at different intervals for Bond 4 ALL ADDED DATA to the original that was never there.... Prove me wrong DJ