David Josephs

Bill - It would be interesting to hear what these same doctors think of what is shown on the Z film... Great question. Have/Had they even been shown this evidence? But I would like to understand how this bullet which basically disintegrated, blow out the back of the head. I started a thread asking that same question and concluding that there HAD to be more than one head shot if both front and back get blown out. Is it possible for the avulsion to be caused by a shot from the rear? And one more example of the SIDE OF THE HEAD versus the BACK OF THE HEAD It is amazing the contrast in location between BOH and SOH

In the video he claims this ambulance took JFK from Andrews to the White House... in fact even the news caster repeats that. It gets corrected but... Was there another ambulance, this ambulance maybe, that took him from Bethesda to the White House the next morning?... or is this simply mis-speaking?

That's kind of my point Cliff... don't the ballistics of the bullets and the visual evidence seriously contradict with regards to the headshot(s)? And if the bullets Oswald supposedly used do not do what we saw "One bullet could not do all this damage" then there HAD to be other ammunition involved. If the bullet exploded/was fragible then there HAD to be another shot to cause the other head injury be it the front one or the BOH. By definition these bullets lose their enertia within the target.. that's why a hole is not blown out the other side of a deer when shot with these types of bullets. Both the BOH blowout and frontal "flap" could have been caused by a shot from the front or back - and you're right, unless the actual brain was dissected and analyzed, we may never know. If this xray if real then the vapor trail of particles across the top of the skull is indicative of a frangible bullet, not a FMJ leaving particles as it slices thru the target...

Where's Mr. Purvis? Mr. Williams? If the bullet exploded it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated If the bullet was frangible it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated If the bullet was a 6.5mm FMJ it would have been recovered in much the same condition as CE399 although more probably a bit smashed up. So once again, anyone who believes in a frontal shot that exploded open his head - what blew out the occipital/parietal area?

Jim F wrote: The only support for your bizarre theory stems from the skull flap, which was blown open when the frangible bullet exploded after entering his right temple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet Frangible: Designed to disintegrate into tiny particles upon impact to minimize their penetration for reasons of range safety, to limit environmental impact, or to limit the shoot-through danger behind the intended target. Exploding: Similar to the incendiary bullet, this type of projectile is designed to explode upon hitting a hard surface, preferably the bone of the intended target. Not to be mistaken for cannon rounds or grenade with fuse devices, these bullets have only a cavity filled with a small amount of low explosive depending on the velocity and deformation upon impact to detonate. Usually produced for hunting airguns with the intent of increasing the bullets effectiveness. Jacketed Lead: Bullets intended for even higher-velocity applications generally have a lead core that is jacketed or plated with gilding metal, cupronickel, copper alloys, or steel; a thin layer of harder metal protects the softer lead core when the bullet is passing through the barrel and during flight, which allows delivering the bullet intact to the target. There, the heavy lead core delivers its kinetic energy to the target. DJ: "Back and to the left" and supposedly thru and thru Now maybe I just don't get it.... if it was a FMJ bullet we could expect it to go thru the skull as intended, and not fragment, disintegrate or explode. If this was an exploding/frangible bullet - which based on the particle trail (if the xray can be accepted as real) looks like it may have been, if it exploded.. what exactly was propelled thru the back of the head causing the gaping hole? thanks DJ

A better shot of the white car... seems to have had the time to back into its spot right in front of the emergency entrance... doubtful that other cars were already there for that maneuver (edit: my mistake... pilot car FOLLOWED the limo to Parkland so was not there before limo to park as they did... but still may be the car..) DJ

Maybe in this one? Not sure what I'm looking for though.... Maybe the white police car next to the limo?

Check out page 107 of the February 1962 issue of Popular Mechanics. Bizarre Weapons for the Little Wars by S. David Pursglove http://books.google.com/books?id=reEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA7-IA2&lpg=PA7-IA2&dq=popular+mechanics+february+1962&source=bl&ots=f61QAOeU_Y&sig=hMYw6FZ7Pu0xq5PupV-SHIE-ufc&hl=en&ei=Sz44Tci3M8H68AazgKWrCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%20february%201962&f=false John Armstrong mentioned this on page 364 of Harvey & Lee. Excellent link Michael.... that weapon is very similiar to the 2004 patent application for the "ice" bullet gun earlier in this thread... even to the point that "multiple straws can be used"... except the new gun actually creates the slug as part of the process.... Bottom line - To dismiss technological solutions that appear "impossible" in present day is somewhat narrow minded imo.... "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The story of dirty tricks in American politics begins with the first campaign for President of the United States, in the 1790s. Thomas Jefferson hired journalist and pamphleteer James Thomas Callender to slander his opponent, Alexander Hamilton. After a falling out, Callender turned on Jefferson and published attacks on his previous employer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks His (James Callender) crowning success came with the exposure, in his pamphlet History of 1796, of a sexual relationship between Alexander Hamilton and a married woman, Maria Reynolds, the subsequent blackmail against Hamilton, and Hamilton's alleged financial corruption. Callender presented compelling evidence of adultery, but in 1797's Sketches of the History of America he wrote that the affair was merely a distraction from Hamilton's more nefarious offense: partnering with Reynolds' husband in corrupt financial dealings.[8] Hamilton vehemently denied being a party to any improper financial matter, although he confessed to the adultery. According to Callender, that was just a smokescreen. Although the financial charges were never proven, Hamilton never again held public office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Thomas_Callender Callender eventually targeted Jefferson, revealing that Jefferson had funded his pamphleteering. After denials were issued, he published Jefferson's letters to him to prove the relationship. Later, angered by the response of Jefferson supporters, which included the smear that Callender had abandoned his wife, leaving her to die of a venereal disease,[15] Callender wrote in a series of articles that Jefferson fathered children by his slave, Sally Hemings. "which helped unleash our modern scandal culture" - is this man just now waking up? Evidence that Nixon was corrupt and the Kennedy's fought fire with fire... and started a few fires on their own.... If this was the beginning of a series ultimately linking Nixon to the assassination thru Bush and Operation 40 so be it.... but it sure doesn't feel that way

Thanks for the high res enlargement. I once asked Harry about it, and he assured me the bright area was not retouched. Your enlargement plainly shows that was not so. I believe it was an open gate in the fence which had to be hidden. On the other side of it is the drain grate leading to the storm sewers, a site many believe held a gunman, who hid his rifle in the drain pipe and walked away after firing through the gate. Jack Jack... Above you write NOT RETOUCHED yet the text says it was RETOUCHED... ?? And if it was open, why didn't all the people we see there in yet another photo simply walk thru it? EDIT: mis read it...you say it was retouched... sorry I agree, it was retouched - just wondering why now. and From the 1967 view there doesn't appear to be a gate in the middle of that picket fence... Was this changed?

http://www.primary-surgery.org/ps/vol2/html/sect0017.html Would we consider Perry "inexperienced"??? OPENING THE TRACHEA If you are inexperienced, make a 5 cm vertical incision starting just below the patient’s cricoid cartilage, as in A, Fig. 52-4. When you have had several successes, make a transverse incision 5 cm long 2 cm below the border of his cricoid cartilage. Cut through the patient’s subcutaneous fat, and his cervical fascia ©. CAUTION! (1) From now on use blunt dissection. Use it to raise short flaps and expose his anterior jugular vein and the underlying muscles. Use blunt dissection to define and separate the fibrous median raphe between his right and left sternohyoid muscles. His sternothyroid muscles lie slightly deeper, find them and retract them laterally. You will now see the isthmus of his thyroid gland and part of his trachea. They vary considerably. If the isthmus of his thyroid is small, there is no need to divide it. If the isthmus of his thyroid is large and interferes with your approach to his trachea, divide it. Make a small horizontal incision through his pre–tracheal fascia over the lower border of his cricoid cartilage. Put a small haemostat into the incision and feel behind his thyroid isthmus and its fibrous attachment to the front of his trachea (D). When you have found the plane of cleavage, use blunt dissection to separate the isthmus from the trachea. Put a large haemostat on each side of the isthmus, and cut it. Later, oversew the cut surfaces or tie them (E). Put sutures into the skin edges ready to close the wound round the tube later. Insert a tracheal hook below his cricoid cartilage and pull his trachea forwards and upwards (not illustrated). Have a sucker and a catheter ready. CAUTION! Control all bleeding before you open the patient’s trachea. Cut the membrane below its second or third ring transversely, and keep the sucker near the opening. Then stand clear. If there is blood in his trachea, he will cough it everywhere. Turn a flap (F) containing his second tracheal ring downwards and insert the tube. The flap will act as a guide to direct the tube into his trachea and will make changing it easier. A flap largely eliminates the great danger of a tracheostomy, which is inability to replace the tube quickly when it has come out accidently. When the tube is safely in place, stitch the flap to his skin. CAUTION! (1) Don’t disturb his first tracheal ring. (2) Don’t remove any trachea. (3) Don’t incise more than 40% of the circumference of his trachea, or severe stenosis may follow. Inject 2 ml of lignocaine into the stoma in his trachea; he will tolerate the tube more easily with his mucosa anaesthetized.

As I continued to search around for somehting that would show what a "normal" tracheotomy would look like I find in EVERY CASE a much larger opening than the 2-3cms that Perry claims... They couldn't do what they were doing with only a 2-3cm opening or see what he saw. This diagram is the best I've found to illustrate the point. It's not just "cut it open and stick a tube in" Seems to me from all I've researched about this, the incision we see in F1 may have opened a little but based on this diagram it even looks as if the opening is much larger than the tube which should allow for Perry to see inside rather easily. Tony, since you have Perry's HCSA testimony handy, is there a more full explanation of what he did to prepare the throat for the trachestomy? thanks DJ

As I continued to search around for somehting that would show what a "normal" tracheotomy would look like I find in EVERY CASE a much larger opening than the 2-3cms that Perry claims... They couldn't do what they were doing with only a 2-3cm opening or see what he saw. This diagram is the best I've found to illustrate the point. It's not just "cut it open and stick a tube in" Seems to me from all I've researched about this, the incision we see in F1 may have opened a little but based on this diagram it even looks as if the opening is much larger than the tube which should allow for Perry to see inside rather easily. Tony, since you have Perry's HCSA testimony handy, is there a more full explanation of what he did to prepare the throat for the trachestomy? thanks DJ

Thanks Frank... Curious though... why not seal the building then go to the 6th floor window FIRST and work their way from there. They went floor by floor from the bottom up, other than Baker who of course found nothing but that unidentified man coming down the steps between the 3rd and 4th floors. Even Sawyer, who is there very early, simply runs up to the 4th floor with 2 other officers, looks around and comes down, alone... what was that??? The funneling of people to the TSBD conclusion was indeed very interesting in the moments after the assassination. Dispatcher 12:30 p.m. KKB 364. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there. 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by. Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there. Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it. Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there. Well at least the Chief and the Sheriff got it right!

DH... didn't Hathcock usually shot from 500 to 2000 yards from his target... there was nothing to get away from in many cases. Besides, there is also the fact that on Houston, all eyes that followed JFK would be looking directly at the TSBD whereas down the road a bit all eyes on JFK makes it less likely that a 6th floor sniper would be seen or identified other than what might be considered "plants"... 30, 5'10", 165 lbs... and again... and again... and again. If he can't be placed at the window, and he can't, what does it matter what he MIGHT have done or SHOULD have done. The real assasins, who were in place and ready to fire from about 12:10 on (just about when JFK was supposed to pass by) waited until JFK was in the kill zone with the knowledge that a shooter would be no more than 20-40 yards away for the last 3-5 seconds of the DP trip. AND IT STILL TOOK A NUMBER OF SHOTS TO FINALLY HIT HIM IN THE HEAD.... So the real question is whether or not the back, throat and JC shots were intended or simply poor marksmanship?

that's a great point Pat.... "...which affords the sniper a chance to escape" Given the MASSIVE amount of incriminating evidence conveniently left behind the previous 3 months, and given the assumption that Oswald was indeed a LONE NUT ASSASSIN... the only inconsistency is his attempting to escape at all. The crazed, lone nut killer left himself COMLETELY DEFENSELESS by dropping the rifle with its one bullet left? Whether it be the 2nd floor or the roof of Dal-Tex - shooting down Elm not only is the best shot and escape location but conveniently lines up with a 6th floor SE corner shot (Dal-Tex roof that is). I seem to remember that Dal-Tex was "Searched" but very limited at best... anyone go up to the roof? My point being that a shooter there wouldn't even have to leave in a hurry like the mysterious men leaving the back of the TSBD right afterward... And let us not forget that while standing at the South face of the Picket Fence, JFK just gets closer and bigger with each second. DJ

Oswald was not at the 6th floor window when the car turned onto Houston or any other time after 11:55 that day. If he was, and was indeed a LONE ASSASSIN, then common sense does suggest he would have taken his first and best shot as JFK approached him I think this illustrates pretty well that as the limo approaches there is plenty of time in which the angle of the shot is steep enough to clear anything that may be in the way like the windshield or bow. The "Anomaly" would be that a triangulation of fire was awaiting him off Elm Street halfway down Dealey Plaza with a final gunman not 30 yards from him at the GK. David... first, place Oswald at the window when the shots were fired... if you can do that then we can talk about what he may or may not have done and why. If you can't get him there when the motorcade was SUPPOSED to have passed that window, in the midst of the other armed men seen on the 6th floor at the time, why bother talking about what he did there?

Thanks Bill... once again. DJ

Easy to see how your frame grab and my originals/enhancements are of the same quality... You're way smarter than that Duncan... I've seen you work with photos... if you have taken that frame and determined it is simply the back of his head and is NOT blocked out in that and many other frames... as opposed to Doug Horne with the access and the purpose and the resources... so be it. Covering up some things on the film to obscure reality versus the mass, synchronated changing of ALL the evidence Obscure the holes and eliminate the blood spray versus the clandestine acquisition, changing and replacing of many, many pieces of evidence. Definitely up the CIA's alley, yet why go thru all that troble when the first option accomplishes the same thing without all the legwork?

So Zapruder, Nix, Muchmoore, Altgens, Bronson, etc... were all altered???? Kind of hard to see how all of these were changed to obscure their being in the street, just to cover zapruder. I have seen that interview with Jean/Moorman... Don't know what to tell you other than moving them to the grass in every instance is a bit of a stretch... the mystery continues...

David, There is no black "square" What you are looking at is his hair. The square appearance on the particular area of the image which you posted, has been caused by someone over "enhancing" the image, causing mega pixelation and distortion of the image content. Whatever you say Duncan... this image was done to show the head travel and was not enhanced. And I thought it was Horne who saw the 35mm enlargements abd said that blcak swquare seemed to just hover over the frame as with a variety of other frames with black and white blobs covering the front and rear of his head.... Believe what you will... looks pretty obvious to me. I forget who posted the clear z337 frame saying "they missed this one" in the alteration.. Look at the original z317.. there's a blacked out area in the back of his head there as well..... Makes more sense to me to "cover it up" then to try and align each and every one of the OTHER photos and films you mention in that other thread you started.... But for you, or me, to definitively say one way or another is not possible at this point. DJ

Thanks Karl... can you post the question this drawing is in response to please.... they were well down the street from where those "X"s are and the dotted line indicates to me she moved. Even if she was in the street for a second, they were both back on the grass at the time of the photograph and well before that time as evident in a number of images I posted. DJ

Karl.... In the lower right hand corner of the wide version of Altgens we see the shadows of Brehm, Hill and Moorman In Bronson, it is more than obvious they are on the grass and nowhere near being in the street close enough to touch the limo. She may have stepped in the street at some point, but not when she was taking her photograph The other photo shows how sloped the grass area is... from Bronson's view we would not be able to see their feet There is simply no evidence that puts Hill or Moorman in the street any time after z180 or so... The Bronson photo seems to be about z190 or so and they are obviously standing on the grass. I think there are more than enough examples of how the Z film may have been altered than to try to place Mary and Jean in the street. Like what is that black square doing over the back of JFK's head....

Alright Len, my mistake. I would appreciate it though if you explained what I was a TRUE BELIEVER in? The possibility of a better world? guilty as charged but I am not spouting off anything with religious zeal here. If you want to continue to believe that the Rothschilds, Morgan's, and Rockefellers in the world have YOUR best interest at heart as opposed to the way they are depicted in this history, so be it. Not so much a jewish issue as much a HUMAN one. Given the opportunity, most will steal you blind. The point was that the Federal Reserve System stinks to high hell and has made debtors of most of it's citizens as well as the rest of the world thru the IMF and World Bank. That the History of Money and the History of the Rothschilds articles have valuable information mixed in with crap... And Zeitgeist, like Loose Change, will hopefully open some eyes. I'm no true believer yet somehow I remain optomistic.... maybe pure folly, but I know of no other way to live. Thanks for taking the time to address these issues. I appreciate your candor and approach I don't mind being wrong, just ask my ex wife... and I am obviously wrong on a number of these issues or at least in the manner I went about presenting them. Live and Learn. DJ

misspost