David Josephs

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

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

Jean Hill or not Jean Hill...

This guy on the third floor of the county criminal courts building, this interrogator, SAW her IN THE STREET...

Remember?

Quote

Hostile Interrogator: WHAT WHERE YOU DOING OUT IN THE STREET IN THE FIRST PLACE?(SIC)

Hill: I was trying to get him to turn toward me.

Close Quote

This was 15 minutes after the shooting...

We got therefore three independent accounts for that fact (Hill Moorman in the Street) not seen on the crappy-Zappi Film...

Hill

Moorman

Unknown Interrogator...

KK

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...

David Josephs

How can you even comment on what Moorman was doing during the shooting when you have no clue what she was doing after the shooting!

You cant even tell that Moorman is talking to Jim Featherstone and showing her the pictures that she took!

"I ran to Dealey Plaza, a few yards away, and this is where I first learned the president had been shot. I found two young women, Mary Moorman and Jean Lollis Hill, near the curb on Dealey Plaza. Both had been within a few feet of the spot where Kennedy was shot, and Mary Moorman had taken a Polaroid picture of Jackie Kennedy cradling the president's head in her arms. It was a poorly focused and snowy picture, but, as far as I knew then, it was the only such picture in existence. I wanted the picture and I also wanted the two women's eyewitness accounts of the shooting.

I told Mrs. Moorman I wanted the picture for the Times Herald and she agreed. I then told both of them I would like for them to come with me to the courthouse pressroom so I could get their stories and both agreed. . . . I called the city desk and told Tom LePere, an assistant city editor, that the president had been shot. "Really? Let me switch you to rewrite," LePere said, unruffled as if it were a routine story. I briefly told the rewrite man what had happened and then put Mary Moorman and Jean Lollis Hill on the phone so they could tell what they had seen in their own words. Mrs. Moorman, in effect, said she was so busy taking the picture that she really didn't see anything. Mrs. Hill, however, gave a graphic account of seeing Kennedy shot a few feet in front of her eyes."

How do you not know that?! Why are you even asking if that is Mary Moorman talking to "someone"

You make every CT look stupid by not even having basic knowledge about what photos Moorman is even in!

Edit: For a free history lesson the photo was taken by Frank Cancellare

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..

Tom:

I think she is supposed to be saying that she backdated the calendar for the March date and made a mistake for the October one.

These are both hard to buy.

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.

In other words, haven't you ever wondered WHY these goofy and overworked plotters didn't just SHOOT JFK FROM THE REAR TO BEGIN WITH, in order to avoid all the cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus that you say was required of them later in the day?

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."

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?

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.

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?

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

No Ray, this is what the HSCA stuck with.

This is where the official story is right now.

This is the evidence which originated the whole three shot scenario, with Oswald as the lone assassin.

The acoustics had nothing to do with either originating it or discrediting it.

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?

David:

Yes that evidence descriptive sheet contains the mail notice left at the Paines' for LHO and the mystery bag.

But where do you get that it supplies a return address?

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

Does this provide us the address underneath the sticker?

(7 from the bottom - notice to attempt to deliver)

And if so does the address mean anything?

thanks

DJ

I did a search of the forum and did come up with the Andrews/Tippit encounter on a few pages yet was not able to find out WHY Tippit would choose that car to stop...

Could there be any connection to this car...?

Be interesting to see if Andrews' car could give a cclue as to who/what Tippit was after...

1:24 Dispatcher Somebody pulled in there and bought some gas; driving a white Pontiac '61 or '62 station wagon with the prefix P(ecos) E(llis). He had a rifle laying on the seat.

1:26 87 (Ptm. R.C. Nelson) A white station wagon believed to be P (Paul) E (Ellis) 3435, unknown make or model, late model, occupied by two white males, left this fellow's station going east on Davis and believed they had a shotgun or rifle laying in the back seat.

1:26 Dispatcher Received, 87.

1:26 87 (Ptm. R.C. Nelson) 87 en route down there on Jefferson.

1:26 Dispatcher 87, when you get down there see if you can find that car down there at the scene.

1:26 87 (Ptm. R.C. Nelson) 10-4, Code 2. (Beeps)

1:26 Dispatcher 3

1:26 87 (Ptm. R.C. Nelson) 10-4.

1:34 Dispatcher P (Paul) E (Ellis) 3435, C.E. Storey, 5317 Goodman, 1961 Falcon (four door?).

1:34 87 (Ptm. R.C. Nelson) He wasn't sure of the license number.

1:34 Dispatcher 10-4.

If you doubt image fakery, look at this.

Yes, that is today...but the Pentagon is years ahead in technology...today AND 50 years ago.

Jack

Obviously the medium is drastically different... could an EXPERT tell if these shots were composite CGI or actually filmed at these locations? Would there be something on the film if converted to film... or the digital files that would give away the compositing?

IE the Z film, if reproduced and altered, would have to have been done with artificial light instead of the natural light per the film type... we SHOULD be able to tell if we could test it, whether the extant film is indoor or outdoor film...

Anything like this now Jack... for if not... doesn't this mean ANYTHING could be faked and there'd be no way to tell... ?

DJ

Thank you Michael... these docs are going to take some time getting thru...

Pat... funny that you mention the shirt... as I go thru the section Michael linked to I found this...

And thank you John thru Jack .... I agree... each individual piece of evidence that cannot be authenticated is useless as evidence against Oswald while becoming another Brick in the Wall against the LNer argument...

Amen

btw - Holt tells an amazing story, doesn't he? Fake credentials... weapons in the RR cars... Collins Radio...

Kinda hoped he really was the tramp... makes sense... but obviously not definitive...

I like the guy in the trenchcoat for Hunt... quite ballsy to just stroll around right there after the fact...

Hi Kathleen...

Created this back in July 2007 and thought I had something...

I agree, He was not a Tramp... but he was there, large and in charge...

Armstrong says the Paine's and Beckley evidence yet Day's report talks of ALL OTHER CSSS evidence.. wouldn't that include items from the TSBD like the rifle and boxes... as well as the Tippit CSSS evidence?

Just curious... will need to find a copy of that book asap...