David Josephs

That nicely oiled, well maintained MC sure works well... Why is it that we never see a photo of a man with a rifle trying to replicate the position and movements of Oswald based on the boxes, window opening, the space available next to the pipes in the SE corner and actual MC used?? Does it appear that HIS MC is in the same condition as whatever was found in the TSBD... on whatever floor it was found? Duncan, are you supporting this view or simply posting the video without taking a side as you usually do? thanks DJ

Sounds good... you must have a much better version as my M01/z272 is nothing but a blur... I'd like to point out though... as I did on Tom's "newbie" thread... that the syncing of the films was not as big a deal as is made out to be... Muchmore starts at z272... Nix at about z295.... If the films are synced to 312, the head shot, per LIFE and NPIC, and frames are counted backward to the splices it all works... Except if the headshot was really 40 frames or so down Elm... while a "Second" shot is seen at either 242 or 264 242 - 37 frames (2 seconds) = 205... wasn't there a splice at 205?? 264 - 37 = 227... wasn't there a shot right about 227 or slightly before - at least in the z film we see.... Once the three films are synced to 312 and backward to their cut-in start showing the limo... we have 3 perfectly synced films all showing the same thing in the same time... only thing wrong is the numbers of the corresponding z frames DJ

From his FBI report.... BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight. I had started a thread eslewhere adding this testimony (as recorded by the FBI - what a shocker) to Altgens comments... Now if we look at the other films that depict the limo from the turn onto Houston up to when Muchmore starts her camera at z272 we find there are no films of this portion of the trip OTHER than Zapruder... or am I missing something? So in terms of "syncing" the films... all that was needed was to sync Zap to Muchmore after 272 and Nix after approx 295.... We do not see the limo, other than in photos, from the turn until Muchmore in any other film... we KNOW there is a splice at 205/206 and we have the NPIC/Life magazine shot sequence that shows no 223 shot but a 242 and 264 2 seconds is 37 frames... 242-37=205.... 264-37=227... the Stemmons sign becomes even more important to the "splice" in Zap.... 312 is a fixed point from whcih frames are counted backward... by syncing the headshot in the three movies and working backward How strongly does this suggest that "syncing" ALL THE FILMS (all three) was not nearly as difficult a proposition as it appears? Thanks DJ

Thanks Michael.... Douglass' book is something to commit to memory for sure.... I'm surprised I didn't remember that section about Burroughs... Cheers DJ

According to the plats available, there should have been a street lamp in the muchmore shot... if she started at 272... What I think I am suggesting is that cutting 2 seconds out of Z PRIOR to the start of the limo scenes in Nix and Muchmoore, there would be no effect and no discrepency with these two films... Not like they needed syncing other than when Nix and Muchmore start up... the first frame from Muchmore with the limo (actually 2nd) at z273.... Since there is not a single film that captures the limo prior to z275 (Nix started even later than that) all that needs to sync is the Zfilm TO the others.... Something very curious though... WHERE IS THE LAMPOST ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ELM BY NEWMAN?? the line of sight, if this corresponds to 273.. goes right thru that lampost... If she started earlier the lampost would move thru the film... if later, then Brehm would be farther into the picture we know there is a splice of some sort at 205/206, 2 seconds is 37 frames... the NPIC table talks of a shot at 242 a couple of times seems to make more sense this way... thoughts?

Sadly I come to find from Jim that Dave R is misquoting... Haire never said anything about anyone else back there, according to Jim, who I think should know his own work.... In Jim D's review of Douglass we see it pop up again... I don't see anything in Burrough's testimony supporting this... was it from something else? Thanks DJ http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html Mather did high-security communications work for Collins Radio, a major contractor for the CIA. How major and sensitive? Collins had outfitted raider ships for sabotage missions off the coast of Cuba. They also installed communication towers in Vietnam. Further, Mather had installed electronics equipment on Air Force Two. (p. 297) After Wise's call, the Bureau wanted to talk to Mather. But Mather didn't want to talk to the Bureau. So they talked to his wife Barbara. She surprised the G-men by saying her husband had been a close friend of J. D. Tippit. How close? When Tippit was shot, his wife phoned them. Many years later, the HSCA also wanted to talk to Mather. He didn't want to talk to them either. They persisted. He relented upon one condition: he wanted a grant of immunity from prosecution. But he still had no explanation for how his license ended up on a car with an Oswald double in it right after Oswald's arrest. This is all interesting, even engrossing, on its own. But the author takes it further. Citing the valuable work of John Armstrong, he then builds a case that there were two Oswalds at the Texas Theater on November 22, 1963. One was arrested and taken out the front door. The second Oswald was hiding in the balcony and later escorted out the back by the police. Before anyone gets too dismissive, there are two Dallas Police Department reports that refer to Oswald being in the balcony of the theater. (p. 293) And there are two witnesses who saw an Oswald lookalike escorted out the rear: Butch Burroughs and Bernard Haire. (I should add here, in a 4/8/08 interview I did with Armstrong for this review, he said there was a sheriff's officer who also saw this second Oswald on the stairs between the mezzanine and the first floor.) The author postulates that the man who exited the rear is the man who ended up in the Falcon. He then wraps this up by saying that this double was ultimately flown out of Dallas on a military transport plane. This is based on the testimony of retired Air Force officer Robert Vinson. It is contained in a 52-page affidavit given to his attorney James P. Johnston of Wichita, Kansas.

If there is a way to get a question to Jim Marrs.... He mentions twice about "OTHERS" with Haire in the back alley... are these "others" ever identified and do they coroborrate? thanks DJ http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.DR1/.Orig/.dr34.txt Bernard J. Haire, owner of Bernie's Hobby House two doors from the theater, walked out of his shop shortly before 2:00 pm, and saw police cars backed up to Madison Street. He walked out front where the crowd had gathered, but he could not see what was going on. (Haire can be seen at the edge of the crowd in front in at least one photograph snapped as Oswald was taken out.) He walked through his store into the back alley, which was also crowded with police cars. Haire and others watched as the police escorted a man from the rear of the Texas Theatre; the man wore a "white pullover shirt," and was very "flush" in the face as though he had been in a struggle. Haire's description of this man "white shirt" with a "flush face" is consistent with witness statements of Tippit's killer before, during and after the shooting. For twenty-five years, Mr. Haire and those he was with thought they had witnessed the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald in the alley behind the Texas Theatre. When informed by researcher Jim Marrs that Oswald had been brought out the front of the theater, Haire asked, "Then who was the person I saw police take out the rear of the theater, put in a police car, and drive off?" (Marrs, Crossfire, 354)

Mr. LIEBELER - You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; that's correct. BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight. So I imagine these are simply mistakes? Two of the closet people to the car and they could not judge distance... one a pro photographer needing to focus his equipment... It's 40-45 feet from z255 to z313... it's at least 6 seconds from first to last shot Is this a mass illusion or is there something there?

Creepy, if true. The opposing page's headline is: "Let's Talk Fur" -- but I can't tell for certain if it's Jackie or not. That's got to be one of the strangest sights on a presidential desk - ever. and there's nothing else on the desk! Maybe Dulles brought it in... he was such a jokester...

I was looking at the color photo of the WC giving LBJ the report when I noticed the magazine on his desk I inverted and enlarged it... http://redbud.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/kennedy/Oath%20of%20Office/C732-1-WH64.htm LBJ was sitting at his WH desk reading a gossip mag and looking at pix of Jackie (is that Jackie?) when the WC members show up? Just felt creepy and was wondering if anyone else noticed this... DJ

What about these quotes leads to the conclusion they are talking about the last photo? and if this was the case, how do we not see them stepping back up onto the curb in Muchmoore? Seems the way she says it she stepped back up onto the grass after photo #4... and was no where near the street by the time Altgens was taken at z255 Same with Jean... from the second she appears in Zap she is stationary other than her looking at her boyfriend.... And this doesn't even take into account the analysis of the photo that places her in the grass... Funny, Jean's boyfriend JB Marshall was never even called to testify...

Thanks for your comment Dean... I am sure you know everything there is to know about each and every piece of the assassination so I appreciate you letting us know that you know.... "She stated that as the President's car drove off she started to leave the grassy area and was stopped by a Mr. FEATHERSTONE, a newspaper man with the KRLD Radio and TV Station who questioned her concerning her observance of the incident. " Look at that... learn something new everyday... that piece of info should help make or break the case for sure, right Dean? How again is knowing this little tidbit going to change the proof that Moorman was on the grass or not when she took her last photo? Do we really need to start off with a pissing match over how much you know versus how much I know about each piece of minutia in this case? I had always assumed that was Moorman... and also felt that was Hunt in the trenchcoat at the bottom left... again, so what? Do we need to know where Zapruder ran off after the assassination to know he was on the pedastal or not? Why all the hostility?

Mrs. Jean Hill and I were standing on the grass by the park on Elm Street between the underpass and the corner of Elm & Houston. I had a Polaroid Camera [sic] with me and was intending to take pictures of President Kennedy and the motorcade. As the motorcade started toward me I took two pictures. As President Kennedy was opposite me I took a picture of him. Didn't she also say she stepped back up onto the grass after photo #3 or 4? No reason to believe she didn't jump out when the motorcade made its turn... took #3 and 4 then stepped back up to AVOID GETTING RUN OVER... look at Altgens - by this time she is well back off the street as seen by her shadow... Look at Bronson below with Z embedded... Noone is in the street... Same with Muchmoore... If Moorman was in the street, her photo doesn't work and she gets run over by motorcycles... I am blown away by DSL promoting this idea when it is more than obvious from a number of sources that she was NOT in the street for the last photo... In fact I don't think she was inthe street for #3 either based on the height of the windshield on the bike being similiar to that in Moorman 5.. If Moorman #4 was in the street... facing back UP the street toward JFK and TSBD it might have been tilted UP since both the street rose in that direction and she was so short.. THAT would have been the photo that shows shooters in the TSBD... a possibly on a different floor than the 6th... "possible" Finally... is this moorman talking to someone... I thought she and Jean went across the street..

Jim, That's exactly my point-- "They are both hard to buy." Also, why would LHO's supposed date of purchasing the rifle be important to her anyway??? --Thomas And it really was the SHIPPING date that she has... for both weapons... one ordered in Jan...one in March... Ordered 3/12... rec'd 3/18, shipped 3/20..... how could she possible know the SHIPPED date... unless she was the one who had gone to get the rifle from the PO... lol DJ EDIT: Mr. JENNER - Now, I turn to March, and I direct your attention to the upper left-hand corner of that card, and it appears to me that in the upper left-hand corner are October 23, then a star, then "LHO" followed by the words "purchase of rifle." Would you explain those entries? Mrs. PAINE - Yes. This was written after. Mr. JENNER - After? Mrs. PAINE - This was written indeed after the assassination. Mr. JENNER - All right. Mrs. PAINE - I heard on the television that he had purchased a rifle. Mr. JENNER - When? Mrs. PAINE - I heard it on November 23. Mr. JENNER - Yes. Mrs. PAINE - And went back to the page for March, put a little star on March 20 as being a small square, I couldn't fit in all I wanted to say. I just put in a star and then referring it to the corner of the calendar. Mr. JENNER - That is to the entry I have read? Mrs. PAINE - Put the star saying "LHO purchase of rifle." Then I thought someone is going to wonder about that, I had better put down the date, and did, but it was a busy day, one of the most in my life and I was off by a month as to what day it was. Mr. JENNER - That is you made the entry October? Mrs. PAINE - October 23 instead of November. Mr. JENNER - It should have been November 23? Mrs. PAINE - It should have been November 23. Mr. JENNER - And the entry of October 23, which should have been November 23, was an entry on your part indicating the date you wrote on the calendar the star followed by "LHO purchase of rifle" and likewise the date you made an entry? Mrs. PAINE - On the 20th. Mr. JENNER - This is the square having the date March 20? Mrs. PAINE - Yes. Mr. JENNER - Is that correct? Mrs. PAINE - I might point out that I didn't know Lee had a middle name until I had occasion to fill out forms for Marina in Parkland Hospital. Mr. JENNER - That is when you learned that his middle name was Harvey and his initial was H? Mrs. PAINE - Right.

I am trying to nail down a process.. complete with photos as examples if possible... of what a fake photo versus real photo would look like at the granular level circa 1963... Do we have anything that shows the grains of pigment lining up / not lining up correctly or just the text describing the process? Are there any exhibits to support the authenticity of the BY Pix... like showing how the line across the chin at the miscro level is consistent with the rest of the photo? and finally... it is very interesting how resident photo experts insist that "Photogrammetry" between two photos is worthless for meaningful analysis or comparisons yet the HSCA report stated:.... (376) Finally, in addition to these methods of visual inspection, the materials were studied photogrammetrically. "Photogrammetry is the science of ascertaining the positions and dimensions of objects from measurements of photographs of these objects." (16°x) In the Oswald backyard pictures, photogrammetry was given particular emphasis in studying critical shadow areas. http://ephemera.typepad.com/ephemera/2009/02/authenticating.html A New Approach to Authenticating Historic Photographs Scientists at the Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) in Los Angeles have developed a new method for authenticating historic photographs that could have broad implications for museum collections, art historians, collectors, and conservators. The secret they've revealed lies deep within the photograph itself--each chemical printing process leaves behind a series of markers that collectively can be as distinctive as a fingerprint, if you know where to find it. In the past, the accepted methodology for the authentication of photographs has been based on the visual or microscopic inspection of photographic images--never a foolproof process. Now, using nondestructive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry and Fourier-transform infrared spectrometry analysis, GCI Senior Scientist Dusan Stulik, GCI researcher Art Kaplan, and photographic conservator Tram Vo have been able to successfully identify the hidden chemical signatures associated with different photographic processes and to provide a scientifically-based method for "provenancing" and authentication of a majority of 20th century photographs. This development comes at a good time, as with the rise in digital photography, original prints made by seminal artists such as Henri Cartier-Bresson and others of his prominence have skyrocketed in price and desirability. More than 150 different photographic processes have been tested, developed, and used since the beginning of photography. Photos produced using these processes differ in chemical composition, in internal structure, or both. Analyzing thousands of photographs, GCI scientists found major elements related to various photographic processes such as silver, gold, platinum, iron, barium and strontium, as well as trace elements of aluminum, silicon, potassium, manganese and potassium, among others. But importantly, they discovered it is the precise measurement of barium and strontium – particularly when compared to the baseline of photographic papers of known provenance collected by the GCI and other researchers--that provides the best clues into the origins of prints. Both barium and strontium are found in the baryta layer, a mineral coating which began to be incorporated into black and white photographic paper by the end of the nineteenth century and was in use by nearly all major photograph paper manufacturers until the 1970s. Used to protect the photographic emulsion against impurities from paper, the baryta coating also helped to produce a more brilliant image. "We've found that photographic papers produced by different manufacturers at different times contain distinct concentrations of barium and strontium. These distinctions in the composition of photographic papers and photographs can be used to determine who made the paper, and when," explained Stulik. "This finding is significant for museum curators, collectors and conservators of photographs because a precise analysis of the baryta layer could, for instance, demonstrate that a photograph in question has been mistakenly identified as being much older than it actually is, or that a certain photographic paper was not actually available during the life of a particular photographer." Using a multidisciplinary approach--accessing the expertise of the curator, historian and the scientist--is key to the GCI scientist's success. Recently, Stulik and Kaplan were invited to Paris to partner with the Henri Cartier-Bresson Foundation and the Atelier de Restauration et de Conservation des Photographies de Ville de Paris in performing chemical analysis on Henri Cartier-Bresson's original photographs, undertaking the initial work needed to build an archival database for the well-known photographer's existing prints – against which his other vintage prints could in future be compared. "Importantly, this new approach is not just a theoretical approach, it's also practical. It expands our knowledge of Henri Cartier-Bresson's prints tremendously--his processes, the photographic paper he used, and where and when he printed photographs. We will be much more able to characterize his prints in future. It's directly applicable," said Dr. Anne Cartier-Bresson, director of the Atelier de Restauration et de Conservation des Photographies de Ville de Paris, and Henri Cartier-Bresson's niece. "To my knowledge, this is the first time this type of methodology has ever been applied to this kind of problem. To study one photographer in all of these aspects is unprecedented." Added Cartier-Bresson, "There are now many forged copies of photographic prints on the market, so this innovative approach is an important advance for the art market and for collectors and museums. It's crucial to be able to scientifically analyze prints to be sure they are identified properly. I hope we can continue our collaboration with the GCI to further this important research." GCI Scientists also worked with the Photography Conservation Students of the Institut national du patrimoine, the Musée d'Art Moderne, the Bibliothéque nationale de France, the Musée Carnavalet and the Maison Européenne de la Photographie.

DVP... I know of no one who has put this more succinctly... Salandria from the Last Investigation "I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously. "The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."

No, of course not. No shots came from the front, at all. And the photos and X-rays aren't "phony", at all. (The HSCA's photo panel was full of idiots and/or cover-up artists, right David Josephs?) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html btw, David... the link in your post... the man on the far left in the trenchcoat... E Howard Hunt.... y'know... from Plausible Denial.

No, of course not. No shots came from the front, at all. And the photos and X-rays aren't "phony", at all. (The HSCA's photo panel was full of idiots and/or cover-up artists, right David Josephs?) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html (The HSCA's photo panel was full of idiots and/or cover-up artists, right David Josephs?) I can't imagine talking about the agenda of the HSCA, Blakey and ALL it's panels will help your case much, do you David? Either the panel was full of idiots or the autopsy room at Bethesda was... somebody was seriously wrong about the damage to the head and the authenticity of the photos/xrays created there... But don't we have to fast forward a few years to get to the truth about the xrays and photos... directly from those who did or sis not take the original products... who developed the original products? And aren't they pretty unanimous about what we have in the archives is not a true representation of what occurred? I could quote chapter and verse David but you are probably more aware of the testimony of Crenshaw, Stinger, Reibe, Robinson, Reed, and on and on than I am... The HSCA pulled a quick one with the medical evidence... but could not skate away from the acoustic other than to say no one on the planet was actually invlved in a conspiracy... just that there was one... DJ

Jim, There is a good question in there... and maybe you can help me understand... Doesn't the acceptance of the HSCA acoustics suggest the only other spot for the shots was the SE corner window or does it allow for a DalTex roof shot... DT 2nd floor? TSBD SW window? and if we maintain 3 sniper teams as the most plausible of scenarios... shouldn't the tape have picked up this third location? one caveat... I've come to believe the teams would be sync'd via collins radio equipment and fire simultaneously thereby making 3 shots sound like one... or 2 more quiet rifles disappear under a loud one... DJ

I was under the impression that most people understood using an out-dated and thoroughly discredited document like the official autopsy as reference material was pretty worthless. Haven't there been enough of the doctors and medical staff, as well as the "governmental presence" in DP to confirm shots from the front, regardless of what the autopsy report, xrays and phony photos tell us? I have no problem with physics telling us that force is meet with equal force so it would be natural for his head to push slightly back against the oncoming bullet..... but we're not going to rely on the autopsy report on this matter... this would be the single most important thing to exclude from the autopsy... and why, imo, Humes burned his and Finck's notes. I also think the graphic is pretty self evident... the lines follow the shoulders, ears and back... and it's obviously a shot from the front...

I've seen the Other versions that uses certain landmarks in the limo yet adjustments are not made for these landmarks as the limo moves to the right of frame... If I am wrong here, so be it... please let me know where and how... yet to me, if we do some simple alignment, I think the forward head movement is an illusion.. DJ

Excellent... thank you Tom. Not knowing enough about this piece of the puzzle Lee, I am very comfortable leaning on your instincts... and those named by Tom. Glad to see you still posting here and adding to the collective knowledge pool DJ

I can see that... thanks... Any thoughts as to why he would have his initials on there?

Hi Jim, Don't believe I mentioned a RETURN address but simply the address that may appear beneath the sticker since Irving, TX was the "original" address written directly on the bag... it was just a thought... do we know who/where the PO receipt is referring to? EDIT: my mistake... 2515 is the Paine house and 606 Nassau"s" does not exist... the receipt refers to where IT was sent, not the package I guess... then again, if the address UNDER the label is the Paine house... and the writing is trying to look like Oswald's... sending himself the paper bag... nice. I did a google search and the home was there in 1963... built in '56.... but no ownership records. I'm with Lee... Bouhe, like the rest of the upper class Russian white group... was very taken back by George and his antics as well as surprised at the low birth and non-social presentation of the Oswalds. Finally... I did a little work on the bottom part of the bag... Am I seeing things or does this really say FBI on it.. UNDER the postmark?

There are those that state Andrews was making it up... the entire story... If he wasn't... there had to be a reason Tippit stopped him... Was it Similiar to the car he was looking for? or to the Person driving the car? Can't imagine it being just random... thanks DJ