David Josephs

While it's true that arguing with David is normally a journey going nowhere, most arguments with other CTs are equally round in nature. While I disagree with many of David's arguments and tactics, I recognize that he has made a great contribution to research of the case via his youtube channel, where dozens if not hundreds of hours of early news footage are congregated. I think he also contributes to our over-all knowledge by honestly answering questions about not only what he thinks, but why.

While this last one might sound strange, one has to consider that I have spent far too much time arguing the case with LNs far more annoying than David, and that many of them use fake names and are always on attack. David, on the other hand, will occasionally let his hair down, and admit "I don't know why Bugliosi said such a thing" or "I have no choice but to believe such a thing, because a world where Mark Lane is more honest than Vincent Bugliosi is a world I can't live in." (Note: these are not actual quotes).

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....

David:

So the break in the chain occurs after Hill?

Well, many have always suspected this guy, like the late Roger Feinman.

And I think Duke also.

Funny, the date on that report is 12-5.

Two weeks, and they still could not get the story straight.

They must have known early that the WC was going to be a joke.

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

Even setting Markham and her "1:06 or 1:07" estimate aside for the moment

we could go with Markham and Bowley's just-as-sensible testimony that Tippit was shot between 1:05 and 1:07

In Barry Ernest's book, The GIrl on the Stairs, he found another witness who lived directly in the neighborhood who said she heard the shots at 1:06. The TV was on, and she looked at her clock when she heard the gun go off.

These three are the best witnesses as to the time element. (Markham became unreliable AFTER the shooting, when she panicked.)

Further, Barry's witness then looked out her door and saw someone running from the scene. It was not Oswald.

Funny, how she was not interviewed by the DPD or FBI.

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.

you're a joke

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.

The sheer FACT you don't have the sense God gave a child to question the BASIS for these conclusions is what's amazing.

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

BOTH the Warren Commission AND the HSCA were satisfied that Oswald ordered, paid for, and took possession of Revolver V510210 and Rifle C2766.

Do you really want to think that BOTH the WC and the HSCA (14 years apart, with a different group of investigators and committee members and lawyers) didn't know what the hell they were talking about when they concluded that Lee Oswald bought and possessed both of those weapons?

Do conspiracy theorists REALLY believe that?

Amazing if they do.

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."

You simply don't get the point, David.

If we were all on a jury, it seems you'd be the guy who'd not only hold out because you're able to make a leap of faith – that what you or a witness presume to be true is true – that your fellow jurors (I hesitate to call them your "peers" in light of the next part) aren't able to, but you'd also berate them as "idiots and fools" for not seeing things your way.

A fine example is your comment "probably because they (the FBI) didn't need to do that (look into the REA portion of the transaction) to establish and confirm what Seaport had already established and confirmed -- namely: That Lee Harvey Oswald (aka A.J. Hidell) had ordered (and undoubtedly picked up and took possession of) Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210."

Seaport did not "establish and confirm" anything other than that they received an order, shipped it, and got paid for it; nothing about Seaport or its paperwork "established and confirmed" that Oswald had "undoubtedly picked up and took possession of" anything.

Likewise, Seaport's paperwork paperwork does not "establish the fact" that the pistol was either "sent to Oswald's P.O. Box," OR that "at least a notification card was sent to the box," OR anything about "Oswald possibly needing to go to the REA office to get the gun itself;" Seaport's paperwork ONLY shows that they shipped the pistol via REA and got paid for the order. That is all that Seaport's paperwork proves.

That Oswald "possessed" that weapon at the time of his arrest is a reasonable inference, but only if in fact it can even be proved that the weapon that was later in evidence is actually, absolutely, unquestionably the weapon that was taken from him in the theater; it cannot. I don't say that because I'd "like to believe" anything you disagree with, but merely because it's true based on facts.

It is also true that from the time the pistol left Seattle until it was transferred to the FBI in Dallas, absolutely nothing is firmly "established and confirmed" about the whereabouts or possession of that weapon.

(Nothing about any other weapon has any bearing on the disposition of this weapon, and diverting our attention to the rifle does not "establish and confirm" anything other than that you're willing to rely upon inference to "prove" your point.)

You mistake what you consider to be "reasonable conclusions" with what, in your mind, everyone should recognize as "ironclad facts" when they are not ... or at least you promote them as such when they are not, and attack those who don't find your "facts" to be as "ironclad" as you portray them, as if repetition and intimidation will convince them of the error of their ways.

Leading a Crusade against the Infidels in the East will do nothing toward convincing Buddhists that Jesus the Nazarene is the One True God born of a Virgin, or Muslims that Mohammed was a blasphemer; you'll not convince Jews that Christ is the Messiah, nor Methodists that Mary was a Virgin by telling them repeatedly that you believe all of those things to be true, or that you think they're foolish and crazy and hell-bound because they're not members of your Church.

Nor will anyone who believes anything among those things or more that you do not, convince you of the error of your ways: they could spend hours and days schooling you in human physiology, but if you believe in the Virgin Birth, you will still do so afterward: after all, how many Catholic MDs are there in the world?

In this case (or any other criminal matter), it's not what any of us believes to be true, but only what we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt is true – to even those who may have some doubts – that matters. And the fact is that, insofar as the questions raised by this thread's topic are concerned, you cannot dispel doubts with facts, but only with inferences (and insults), and you haven't.

You have, however, established what you believe to be true, and that you think anyone who disagrees with you and what you consider to be "reasonable" is stupid. It still doesn't make any of it so.

Just curious, Duncan. Why did you put my name in the title? This guy is news to me.

JT

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

..I post below a last vesion of Hughes 3, to illustrate why I think the optical illusion / randomly generated image hypothesesis is in a tight spot here:

*the image shows what I call "secondary shadows": if you look closely, you will notice that the cap actually casts a shadow over his eyes and part of his nose.

This would be an extraordinary level of sophistication for an optical illusion: an inexistent cap projecting an inexistent but very real-looking (respecting the light conditions of the scene)shadow.

And again, this optical illusion would have to manifest itself so credibly while the rest of the original data remains almost pristine, undisturbed by the process.

It actually can be claimed validly that the white line of the window frame is incomparably higher in definition in the processed version than in the original we started from.

This would mean that the process would at the same time objectively enhance data (the window frame) but also generate totally fake, very higly credible optical illusions (the man in the window)......

still hoping someone with the required expertise and skills can hep us detect flaws in what I am doing, here is a summary of the technical points of the debate so far:

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:

...seems that you would prefer I come here agressively to force my own conclusions on people bearing different points of view, with blatant affirmations and no explanations at least trying to support them.

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

Coulda, woulda, shoulda ... but nothing whatsoever to say he DID.

Would you have preferred that I just go ahead and lie and pretend that that I know that Oswald picked up his revolver at such-and-such location (either REA or the Post Office)?

Make no mistake about what I'm saying -- LHO absolutely, positively DID pick up that V510210 S&W revolver in March '63. I'm just not sure WHERE he picked it up. But just basic common sense (coupled with the facts listed below) prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald picked up the revolver that he ordered from Seaport:

1.) Oswald ordered a S&W revolver from Seaport in early 1963.

2.) Seaport shipped S&W revolver V510210 to Oswald/"Hidell" on 3/20/63.

3.) Oswald was arrested with Revolver V510210 in his hands on 11/22/63.

To deny that Oswald took possession of the V510210 revolver under the above conditions is downright silly.

Plus, there's no indication whatsoever that REA sent the revolver back to Seaport, which certainly would have happened if the gun had never been picked up by anybody. And this same thing applies to LHO's Carcano rifle. That gun was never sent back to Klein's by the Post Office. Hence, somebody picked it up. And since Oswald is the person who ordered the rifle and paid for it, the person most likely to pick it up at HIS OWN POST OFFICE BOX is Lee Oswald. Isn't this just basic math? I think it is.

Sorry Dave but #1 is yet to be proven... even the HSCA didn't touch those, these are the ONLY items the HSCA bothered with and they were both XEROX copies....

So on what evidence do you conclude that Oswald placed the 38 order? and if you can do that, please show us the transfer of funds from REA to Seaport... along with REA's reciept of the COD $1.27...

29. March 12, 1963. U.S. postal money order No. bearing handwritten fill-ins as follows: Klein's Sporting Goods, A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915. Dallas, Tex. Blue ink, ballpoint pen. Location: Archives. (CE 788; JFK exhibit F-509A and 509B.)

30. March 12, 1963. Enlargement of microfilm reproduction of Klein's order form for rifle from A. Hidell, superimposed on envelop, postmarked March 12, 1963, addressed to Klein's, Dept. 358, 227 W. Washington Street, Chicago 6, Ill., with return address: A. Hidell. P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. Location:Archives. (CE 773: Cadigan's exhibit 1; JFK exhibit F-504.)

#2 - REA shipped the product for Seaport and it was shipped to HIDELL, NOT Oswald. You can prove when Seaport processed the order (if, as you say Oswald waited to mail it) by simply showing us the $10 COD deposit slip... or any indication from Seaport when they rec'd the order...

#3 - Yeah, that's still up for discussion Dave... how about showing us the chain of possession for that gun once the DPD has it... I've been thru the archives... nothing... usually there is a CSS or Property slip that is created when evidence is brought in....

How can you PROVE that the gun in evidence was the gun taken from Oswald.... in LAW there is this little thing for evidence called AUTHENTICATION which allows us to believe THAT WHICH WAS FOUND is the same as THAT WHICH IS ENTERED IN TO EVIDENCE...

You can prove this we assume Dave?

thanks

DJ

..here is what the processed image of the Sniper's Nest from the Hughes film shows.

Sir,

your replies do not deal with the situation...

If the man in Bond 4 was the man on the steps and your process shows there is a policeman there before and after the shots.... yet in reality it was this other man, the final output is not reliable.... which is why I ask you to enhance and make visual the features of the man's face sittin gon the steps in Bond4... this is somehting we KNOW to exist, so instead of CREATING something that was not there to begin with... your process can show us how it reveals the facial features that are most definitley in the data set, as you claim.

The "hughes" image you posted tells us very little... you claim you see something... outline it please... lighter the background... and as John asks... show us the starting point with the same refernce star so it's in the same place on both images...

Can you do that without the soapbox opera you provide with each reply?

Finally, using a reference point like the star and then stating it is NOT a refernece point is very bad form Franz... Of course I can size your images to match the original... then again... I've tried repeatedly and cannot get the scale to work...

Please post the original starting image and the EXACT SAME SCALED IMAGE after the process... of the Bond 4 enhancement... or any other before/after you'd liek to provide yet ON THE SAME SCALE - exactly please

thanks

DJ

Franz, you obviously had the time to address some of the posts here... just not the one most compelling to your process and authenticity.

Please explain how the image you CREATED within Bond 4, well after whoever was there in Betzner and Willis left, and come to the conclusion we are seeing anything of value?

Here is Bond 4... 2 of 3 men are sitting on the steps, the third ran up the steps...

I took your little area of enlargement/enhancement and played with it and was able to fairly easily make a comparison to your 273rd iteration.

Your process destroys the detail ABOVE the fenceline and simple takes what is there and tweaks it until you like it...

The insert I CREATED does not reveal anything NEW, but simply ALTERS the pixels...

I can see how the enlargment product you use is helpful in creating a better ALTERED ORIGINAL so I tell you waht...

PROVE IT WORKS... show us the expression of the man on the higher step... he obviously has a mouth, nose, ears, eyes, etc...

Show us how you can make this person LOOK like a person as opposed to making tricks of light and shadow APPEAR to be a person....

Thank you Franz... and please... just the short answer - I do not need a lecture on how I think, or how human beings behave...

stick to the process and show us how it works on images we KNOW are there....

Peace

DJ

Looks like his right hand is already in his pocket by the time he reaches and passes this other man....

yet it did look like something was in that hand as well...

So was he our 6th floor shooter?

Here you are Franz... see the man turning and up the steps he went?

Why again are you enhancing Bond4 to discover the BDM as a shooter well AFTER the actual BDM image left?

thanks

DJ

please click gif to run...

Okay Franz...

I went back into the thread to find your Bond 4 work... and when scaled so your STAR is the same size we see the scaling and images are not even close.....

Now something that does not even DAWN on us here...

BOND 4 was taken well AFTER the shots.....

The THING you are enhancing is probably the man who ran up the steps after the shots were fired and is on or near the bench that's there

*"this same phenomenon can be verified when men are watching wet t-shirts contests, were throwing water on textile allow for showing very precise information on what is actually behind. Access to this newly available information is usually received with enthusiastic response by observers".

The added data (water) reveals real, coherent and verifiable information present below the original layer, that would not be visible without this specific "interpolation"...

The fact that what is seen may be natural or artificial is a different point...

uh, not so much Franz... While I appreciate the imagery...

ADDING WATER changes the original pixels to such an extent that they are REPLACED by other REAL pixels that can now bleed thru and be seen

This is NOT the process you are describing... no matter how many interations you go thru you will NEVER be able to "remove" a layer of clothing on a photo and depict what is REALLY there...

but only what the original pixels SUGGEST is there and how the math makes up the difference... you've CREATED a new image Franz... not enhanced the old one.

Tell you what then Franz... since you believe your process is similiar to the wet Tshirt example... Use your process to tell us what is holding the bag up... what is Montgomery holding in his had that extends into the bag and keeps it upright...

thanks

A scoped Johnson 30.06?

--Tommy

NOW we're talking... Wesley's of course, right?

To be honest, I got a note for Gary Mack about an oral record left by Montgomery... he literally says that he looked inside and saw a "venetian blind" which was what helped hold up the bag... Sorry, but I don't buy that....

I would express you position (again' date=' correct me if I got you wrong) as saying "This interpolated data has a data content value of, by definition, "0" on a scale of 100", because all the original data has been totally, sytematically, utterly destroyed.".

I am only saying that all data content is not destroyed, and the information value will vary between "0" and "100", depending of the interpolations numbers and caracteristics (the variables), but will have a propension to value above "0", regardless of the variables, thus manifesting itself in a way that can easily be recorded, to be used for other interpolations."

[/quote']

Franz,

Sorry but this not what I am saying, and btw I have no HARD FEELINGS about you or the topic, just that you spin these long winded rationalizations of the end results and the process but fail to provide the goods...

What I am saying is that the original image is the BASIS for all this data manipulation... that the final result will of course offer some resemblance to the original, but along the way the process has added data that may or may not be in the original at all....

Again with the Tshirt analogy... the water CHANGES the pixels... if not, then you could easily remove things in the image

And the textile / pixel is not "replaced": it is only interpolated with water, and thus "modified". But it is not turned into a patch of previously inexistence matter: it is still textile, which caracteristics relating to human vision have been slightly modified by the temprary addition of water. It is still clothing...

This is simply not an accurate description of what is courring here Franz... you are mixing real life and the frame by frame existence of photos... you can interpolate from now until forever, you are NOT going to create an image from a first photo/frame of what exists (dry Tshirt) in a second photo AFTER the water is poured ... you may be able to APPROXIMATE it from the data in the original... but it will NOT be the 2nd image that is actually photogrpahed or filmed...

Same thing with your Badgeman work.... while your argument supporting this is interesting and filled with imagery and supposition about things like BadgeMan being a REAL PERSON based on what the HSCA says or what White/Mack say... the SUGGESTION of the image of a man created by the foliage and whatever else IS THERE... so by default if a mathematical process is going to use the pixels offered to "SMOOTH THEM OUT" by creating a vector based enlargement FIRST, THEN running the math against this newly created and ARTIFICALLY ENHANCED image... it will offer things in the image that are CREATED by the guessing of the math and NOT from uncoving anything NEW in the original data....

While we KNOw the image itslef is not pixelated, turning the pixels into vectors ADDS AND REMOVES data so the enlargment is smoother... but once the "enlargement process" is completed you have a whole new image...

Can you please post STEP ONE of your process whereby you take a piece of Bond 4 and ENLARGE IT using the Kneson product and create a vector based gif or png file.... again, like fractals, the image does not exist until the math does its work.... it was NOT ALWAYS THERE Franz... it was never there to begin with

So here is where we stand... show us the original and the enlargement that you put into the PROCESS ENGINE.... we'll deal with the math/filter/interpolation process next....

thanks...

DJ

*"this same phenomenon can be verified when men are watching wet t-shirts contests, were throwing water on textile allow for showing very precise information on what is actually behind. Access to this newly available information is usually received with enthusiastic response by observers".

The added data (water) reveals real, coherent and verifiable information present below the original layer, that would not be visible without this specific "interpolation"...

The fact that what is seen may be natural or artificial is a different point...

uh, not so much Franz... While I appreciate the imagery...

ADDING WATER changes the original pixels to such an extent that they are REPLACED by other REAL pixels that can now bleed thru and be seen

This is NOT the process you are describing... no matter how many interations you go thru you will NEVER be able to "remove" a layer of clothing on a photo and depict what is REALLY there...

but only what the original pixels SUGGEST is there and how the math makes up the difference... you've CREATED a new image Franz... not enhanced the old one.

Tell you what then Franz... since you believe your process is similiar to the wet Tshirt example... Use your process to tell us what is holding the bag up... what is Montgomery holding in his had that extends into the bag and keeps it upright...

thanks

So I thought that proceding like I did' date=' using undisputed photo evidence first to validate the process, before moving to undiscovered images, was the good thing.[/quote']

We are simply trying to understand your processes and confirm that DATA is not being ADDED until an image that is acceptable is produced….

Your conclusions are not yet supportable since you fail to understand that your little IMAGE ENHANCER program, Kneson, ADDS DATA…

http://www.imagener.com/help/unsharp.html

Resharp Function Sharpness Control

All digital images can benefit from being sharpened at some stage in their lives. This is especially true for enlarged images, but enlarged or not, all captured images - digital or analog - suffer from blurring or softening of detail in some way. This is precisely the motivation behind Kneson Software’s addition of the Resharp function in Imagener Professional and Imagener Unlimited. However, our customers have been asking for more information about this function as use of it does require a certain level of skill and knowledge to master.

Blurring occurs when the representation of an object is at a lower contrast or retains less detail than is present in the original. Sharpening compensates for this loss by improving the visibility of the information in the image. It works by applying a matrix of numbers over an array of the pixels in the image with the matrix centered over one pixel at a time. Sharpening can add image data that improve the appearance or impression of sharpness.

This function is formally known as "Unsharp Mask." We named it "Resharp" to avoid any confusion, but the technique is actually a darkroom technique for improving the sharpness of paper prints that was used before the age of digital pictures.

There are three variables to the function, Amount, Radius, and Threshold. Each variable interacts with the other so it is possible to obtain nearly identical effects with very different settings. Keep the following characteristics in mind:

Amount

•A measure of the strength of sharpening, roughly as a percentage of the increase in edge contrast.

•Works best within the 50-200% range (enter 50 up to 200 in the amount box in Imagener).

Radius

•A measures of the number of pixels over which the function operates.

•Needs to be set with care as radius has the greatest effect.

•A radius of three may in fact cover seven or more pixels.

•In general, low figures give crisp edges; larger figures produce broader edges, and increase overall contrast.

Threshold

•Measures the minimum difference between two boundaries that the function will operate on.

•Is based on 255 levels and therefore will only accept a numerical value of 0 to 255.

•Zero threshold tells the function to operate over the entire image.

•A value of 127 (about half of the 255 levels) will cause sharpening to occur only where pixels are next to other pixels that are 50% lighter or darker.

You wrote:

*the process (this is crucial) is NOT based on an IMAGE processing approach. It is on the contrary based on a DATA processing approach, meaning that it is not about ameliorating the visual content of the image as seen by the human eye, but rather about extracting the core information content of the image.”

We GET IT Franz… again see Fractals-math creating images.

Here is your enlargement method:

”Kneson Unlimited Enlargement method-An interpolation technology that transforms images into vectors allowing outstanding image enlargement clarity.

There is OBVIOUSLY more info/data/programming in the Vector than the bitmapped image and as enlargening it adds the info to retain the original look… but this is an ARTIFICIAL creation of NEW DATA….

http://mchobe04.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/bitmap-and-vector/

http://vectormagic.com/home/comparisons

Until you provide even a test file of the LAYERS you are discussing, there is little more to discuss."

...sorry, I had missed it...

Just tell me how I can send you a file....

Post some of them right here please, I’m not the only one interested in this… show us 5 KEY layers and the result of the math on those layers

Thanks

btw - djosephs@calottery.com is where you can send the larger files...

I will look for the Bond 4 images you posted... and compare again...