David Josephs

Facts without perspective and context are meaningless... Wow, are you a waste of time.

No, I don't need to "take the next step" . I make ZERO claims about the entry wound nor will I. I have stated that quite clearly. IF YOU want to speculate, by all means be my guest. I'll decline. I'll deal directly with that which can be proven via fact, thank you very much. Craig, you make very specific claims about the entry wound by promoting the FACT (in your opnion) that the jacket and shirt were 3+ inches out of alignment with the entry would in the back - otherwise why make the claim to begin with? Laying the jacket/shirt flat directly implies an entry location that is 3+ inches higher than the autopsy photos and description - again, otherwise why bring it up... just for the sake of arguing? Do you believe a bullet created the holes in the jacket and shirt? Do you believe a bullet caused the wound in JFK's back? did you honestly spend 20 pages simply arguing that there was a fold at the top of JFK's jacket? and that this assertion carried no claim with it?? If that is really what all this has been about you're an even greater waste of time than orignally believed. When you're ready to actually make a claim based on these FACTS of yours, start a thread so you can be picked apart like you try to do to others. You're simply a critic Those who can -- do. Those who can't -- criticize.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15981&view=findpost&p=199005 Rather than posting it twice

Varnell can be as convinced as he wants but the hard facts simply blow him out of the water. This is really simple Jim and you can ask Varnell to end it once and for all... Just show us a fabric arrangement that can produce the betzner artifact that is not a 3+ inch horizontal fold...and works in the correct lighting as seen in Betzner and that arguement is over. How more simple can that be? So WHY are YOU not pushing your PAL Varnell to simply prove his position works. It's not hard Jim. Why not lean on him to actually prove me wrong or him right. BTW, try not to be a hypocrite...it just makes you look more foolish.... Simple proof of concept photos will do the trick. So snap to it Jim. Instead of complaining why not actully DO somehting? As I tend to focus on the images more than Jim and Varnell let me take a stab at it A few illustrations and a request for a real answer from Mr. Lamson This is F5 with the shirt hole, jacket hole and scapula added. For the sake of this discussion, we will accept the F5 photo and the identification of the bullet hole on the body as being correct – okay? The holes in the Jacket and Shirt line up with the hole in his back as well as to each other. Craig seems to assert that BOTH the Jacket and Shirt have ridden up 3+ inches or 7.62+ centimeters. This suggests either 1)that the holes we have in the Jacket and Shirt should line up to be 3+ inches LOWER than the hole in his back; or 2)the hole in his back must be 3+ inches higher than the holes in the clothing. If Craig could please tell us which of the three arrows in Croft represents the entry (since the fold is the SAME in each photo per Craig) that best lines up with the holes in the Jacket, Shirt and Body maybe we’d be in a position to actually discuss something of value. If the Pink line, based on the Ryberg illustration, then the folded jacket has no bearing as this is above the fold. If the Yellow line then we should have 3 holes in both the Jacket and Shirt as this is directly thru the fold If the Green line, is the angle steep enough to extend back to the 6th floor and why do we not see the holes in the jacket and shirt 3+ inches lower than the hole in the body? At this point I am NOT disputing the 3+ inch fold - accepting that as truth for a moment Craig, you need to take the next step and explain how that translates to the physical evidence and autopsy photo as shown in the top composite.

Hey there Craig GREAT to hear from you. Keep up the GREAT work. You are truly an inspiration to us all. thanks DJ

Not if you don't let them. David, I see you have been a Forum member for six years, but it seems you have been much more active posting in the last year or so. You're well-versed, well-spoken, and a very good critical thinker. The good points you often make speak to that. Although it sounds like I am singling you out, I am really directing these remarks to some of the members that "that think and post rationally," as referenced you above. Why would anyone that knows and still cares about President Kennedy's murder 47 long years after it occurred, and still has the fires of curiosity and understanding burning, want to spend their time debating someone who brags about knowing little (and by their own admission, could care less) about the assassination of an American president? Some members design their posts to infuriate others. To become infuriated is playing the game on their terms. (I'm just coining a phrase; I realize that studying President Kennedy's assassination is not a game, but in the vacuum of this Forum it sometimes seems that way.) Switching gears David, what do you know about Maggie Field? Michael - Thanks for the kind words... been on vacation at the beaches in Atlantic City and other than reading "Brothers" have taken a break from reading and dealing with the likes of the Lamson's out here. For years I read and posted on Lancer as well as read/lurked here but had some problems with my sign on and they were not accepting new members so I was in a Catch-22. Thru discussions with Larry Hancock who was gracious enough to contact John for me - I was able to get back to contributing what I can where I can. I have not read each post on this thread since my break yet can see from the following posts just on this page Craig remains himself thru and thru. He has no answers, only arguments - baseless at that - so I do indeed heed your advice and warning to the other posters and not bother with him any longer. Mike Williams and I started out that way, and I have no problem being disagreed with as long as the arguments make sense and are presented without personal attack, neither of which Craig seems capable of doing. JFK and the Unspeakable is next on my must read list - I am interested in how this and "Brothers" interrelates, contradicts and supports each other. Maybe instead of discussing folds he can explain why the Commission had such a hard time with how a frontal shot was accomplished from Oswald's supposed location. That is if he's read the executive session transcripts - yet given they are a factual record of what these men thought in what they supposed was "private".... I amsure he will dismiss their concerns as easily as he does all the other "facts" of the case. sincerely DJ ps... I am not familiar with Maggie Field... but will be by the end of the day, thanks

What's wonderful is that people like Mr. Lamson will continue to infuriate anyone who thinks and posts rationally. He's pulled his face and mind so close to the chlorophyll in the leaves of the trees that he's totally forgotten to look at the forest at all. His imperical evidence is that since there is a hole in the shirt and jacket 4.5 inches down from the collar and he can prove what amounts to be EXACTLY a 3+" rise in the shirt and jacket based on shadows made out in detail from a poor image to begin with then the shot MUST have hit JFK 1.5 inches down from the collar. Never mind what everybody saw, what the autopsy doctors saw, how far Humes stuck his finger in, how Humes described a 45-60 degree downward angle and that he could feel the end of the wound, how it was represented on the autopsy sheets, where the bullet holes were in the jacket and shirt... JUST NEVER MIND all that.... Like Howard Brennan, Mr. Lamson can magically tell dimensions based on this visual representation. Building a soapbox on one poorly represented piece of supposed evidence shows how insincere you are about the realities of this case. How convenient it is for you to dismiss all the other evidence that destroys your suppositions and simply respond with accusations and insults. Besides... from the way you put it... there should be at least 3 bullet holes in the jacket... 1 and 2 in and out of the horizontal fold and a third at the point it pierces the jacket where it it laying on his shirt.... or did it hit too low to go thru the folds as it shows in Croft and Towner or too high to have been part of the hiked up jacket and shirt...???

Yes, thats exactly what I do. Photographic principles cannot be swayed by politics nor bias. Facts are facts. Of course the big problem for folks like you is that you DON'T look at the photos in a vacuum. You apply your BELIEFS and bias and you make horrible mistakes because of it (that and the level of photograpic knowlege in is near zero). You simply have no objectivity. Facts are facts, regardles of who's ox they gore. Learn to deal with it. Impeachable fact... there is a 3" blindfold over your eyes and ears... "I don't do medical" So, in essence, you cannot tell if the hole in his back, as observed and recorded by Doctors and photographs as illustrated above is in the place it should be given the 3+" hike in the shirt and jacket? As a photographic analyist these things are not apparent to you... That from what may appear to be a fold on the top left of his jacket (and your use of a fine image to illustrate your point so clearly) has a direct bearing on the entrance wound moving from his shoulderblade to his neck, on the right side of his back. Photographic analysis par excellence CL... keep up the stellar work

Yes, thats exactly what I do. Photographic principles cannot be swayed by politics nor bias. Facts are facts. Of course the big problem for folks like you is that you DON'T look at the photos in a vacuum. You apply your BELIEFS and bias and you make horrible mistakes because of it (that and the level of photograpic knowlege in is near zero). You simply have no objectivity. Facts are facts, regardles of who's ox they gore. Learn to deal with it. As you say, facts are facts... Learn to deal with it. Explain your 3+" jacket and shirt ride-up theory as it relates to the bottom photo. No more of your BS, no more hiding behind folds and shadows and light. Simply explain how once the jacket and shirt are gone and all that's left is a bullet hole and the official record of the bullet hole done at the autopsy... compared to this drawing used by the WCR to illustrate where that hole was.... you can claim the shirt and jacket were bunch up over his head for all that matters... or you can just ignore the reality of where the shot actually hit, as you've done this whole thread. If you are indeed correct Craig, why oh why is the actual bullet hole NOT in his neck at all but just to the left of the right shoulder blade. Maybe they could bend his head back a little farther so the hole looks as close to his neck as possible.... and it's STILL NOT IN THE NECK. The scapula forms the posterior (back) located part of the shoulder girdle. In humans, it is a flat bone, roughly triangular in shape, placed on a posterolateral aspect of the thoracic cage. Let the Lamson tap dance begin... again.

Wow, David, ignorance becomes you. The jacket is folded 3+ inches, and that is unimpeachable. I don't need to explain anything else. It's you who now needs to deal directly with this folded fabric. You can't explain it away. You can't prove it does not exist. Does it make the SBT possible or impossible? I don't know and I don't care. I don't deal in speculations. I'll leave that for the wingnuts. Forget the jacket entirely.... the photo clearly shows the wound is nowhere near the neck as depicted in Ryberg... In fact, the photo shows the wound to be right about where the holes are in the shirt and jacket... You can tap dance around that all you want... Bunched up... funny... maybe the time has come for you to stop holding on to your three and a half inches so tightly

Wow, nice clear image you got there Craig... the fact you are pointing to a shadow on his left shoulder should prove to everyone that his jacket and shirt are up around his ears so a shot to the left of the spatula winds up being thru his neck. No wonder you don't like to post your image analysis during a discussion... Is that how you explain this?

deleted by poster....

Why don't you just try the search function. There are a couple of very long treads where you will find it all. Why not post that one picture worth those thousand words instead of having us wade thru thread after thread to find what may, or may not be what you are trying to say in your posts on this thread? You claim Betzner proves it... show us Craig... do you not have these images anymore? I keep an 8Gb flash drive with everything, so in 5 minutes I can post an image that supports my posts, or attempts to refute others. Or I open Photoshop/ImageReady and do a little work to see if what you are saying is even remotely possible. You not being able to point to a supporting argument or supporting images is not my problem. I don't believe what you are claiming and I posted an image supporting my point... If you can link us, or show us where I/we are so wrong... I'd be more than willing to rethink my position... but you do none of that. I already know you're wrong about this... not my concern to make your case for you. Laughing, insulting and saying you've already did it, proves nothing. Show us your work here and now... or are you concerned someone might have an issue with it, call you on it and show where you might be mistaken in your analysis and conclusions? It's not like you being wrong is even remotely possible though

Craig, How about posting some of the work you've done to illustrate what you are talking about instead of simply throwing insults around? This took all of 5 minutes and give you a decent idea that the shirt hole and back hole line up pretty well and the back hole is NO WHERE NEAR the neck. Even taught my daughter the word "Spatula" which is that bone, right by which the shot hit... NOT up in the neck by any stretch of the imagination. Now I know you're the "photo expert" and you'll tell me all about how my overlay is not "perfect" - it doesn't intend to be, just an illustration of the "close enough for government work" it can be ...pun intended could you post your photographic work here to support what you are claiming? should be easy to dive into your vast catalog of images to prove your point... no?

Thanks Robin... Did a look thru Survivor's Guilt hoping to get some clarification about Howlett and Patterson... this is what I found and it seems Sorrels gets his hands on THE moorman photo... but I have yet to do my digging... Do we know how and when Moorman gives Sorrels the photo? And based on this write-up... how do Howlett and Patterson get to Moorman and the photo that disappeared? Agent John Joe Howlett (Dallas Office agent, stationed at the Trade Mart): Howlett, a Dallas office agent stationed at the Trade Mart on November 22, 1963, merely detailed his Secret Service career in a short but cordial letter to the author dated November 26, 1997. (For the record: V.P. LBJ Detail, October–November 1962; transferred to the Dallas office, February 1963; temporarily as-signed to Chief's office, January 27–31, 1964, February 3–5, 1964, April 14–15, 1964; several temporary assignments at LBJ Ranch, 1963–8; temporary mem-ber of WHD in June/July 1968). Agent Howlett’s job during the Warren Com-mission’s investigation was to see if Oswald could have done in the first few seconds what the Commission claimed he did, involving a couple tests of Howlett carrying the rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, placing the rifle down, then alternately walking and “fast walking” down the stairway to the second-floor landing and entering the lunchroom where Oswald encountered DPD Officer Marrion Baker. Both tests barely met and possibly slightly exceeded Oswald’s real time, assuming, of course, that he did what the Commission claimed he did in the first place.37 Howlett also testified briefly before the Warren Commission—as Counsel Albert Jenner put it, “… you have been present throughout my examination of Mrs. Paine and my examination of the premises, and you have assisted me … In making measurements and also in recounting the appearance of rooms, front lawn, garage, and otherwise ….”38 By the time of the HSCA hearings, Howlett was working in the Little Rock, Arkansas office.39 Conclusion: Howlett did his job the best that he could. Agent William H. Patterson (Dallas Office agent, stationed at Love Field): SA Patterson’s November 25, 1963 report contains the following: “During the interview of the subject’s wife [Marina Oswald] she advised that the FBI had contacted her about the location of her husband about 10 days prior to the as-sassination and she told them that her husband worked in the building from which the President was killed [note: as written, this is ridiculous]. She also stated that she had been interviewed in October and gave the same basic in-formation to the FBI. While I was at the police station, I engaged an FBI agent in a conversation and found out that he was on the subversive desk. He stated that Oswald had contacted two known subversive agents about 15 days before the shooting but the entire information was top secret and he could not tell us any more but he felt sure that the file would be turned over to our Chief [Row-ley]. The wife also advised that she had seen the rifle that was used in the shooting at her home about three weeks before the shooting. She advised that she was a Castro supporter and from the interview it was felt that she is still a hard core communist. She stated that he [Oswald] had never mentioned killing the President but would not mention anything about shooting Connally. She stated that she did not know the man that killed her husband [Ruby]. It was felt by the interviewer [Patterson] that she was not telling the truth and still believed in communism.”64 [Emphasis added.] In addition to the fact that Marina barely spoke English and no interpreter is listed as being present in Patterson’s report, Marina has never said that she was a Castro supporter or a hard core commu-nist; exactly what she allegedly was not “telling the truth” about is hard to dis-cern from the agent’s report. The information about Oswald, if true, is startling, in and of itself. The FBI’s early knowledge about Oswald is an undisputable matter of record. Conclusion: Patterson’s reporting leaves a lot to be desired. Agent Sorrels was responsible for the Secret Service’s acquisition of the Zapruder film, the Orville Nix film (again, Nix was a friend of Sorrels), the Moorman photo, and the Phil Willis photos—in short, the major photographic evidence in the case.107 DJ

I hear you Jim.... BUT In one sentence you say Marina cannot be taken seriously as a witness and in the next you state she said she never saw a rifle with a scope. If she is unreliable, she's unreliable. I had these same discussions with Bill Miller. Either a witness is discredited or not... if not, then we can't hang our hat on the things she says that are in support of our theories and not when they aren't. Bottom line is I agree with you about the Photos... especially the manner in which they were found and how Fritz refers to them hours before they're even discovered at the Paine garage DJ

Still one of my favorites Lee... "The American system is the most ingenious system of control in world history. With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power the system can afford to distribute just enough to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority. It is a country so powerful, so big, so pleasing to so many of its citizens that it can afford to give freedom of dissent to the small number who are not pleased. How wise to turn the fear and anger of the majority toward a class of criminals bred - by economic inequity - faster than they can be put away, deflecting attention from the huge thefts of national resources carried out within the law by men in executive offices." Howard Zinn: A People's History of the United States

Read it and will be reading it again (and probably again..) I also agree with your assessment about needing it to be indexed... Hopefully the time will come when it is scanned/entered into a digital file and offered on CD with the books so we can search more effectively. Any chance of someone doing a "Cliff notes" type version without coloration? The key factual points, with understandable graphs/charts that can show quickly, for example, the photographic evidence differences among so much else. If Doug would send me a complimentary copy I could get right on that! And I MUST get Douglass' book. Reading "Brothers" first should be interesting to follow with UnSpeakable. To my previous point, you name half dozen books used by Douglass that would be great to read, but who has that kind of time? Take Care Jim, DJ

You're going to have to be a bit more specific than that mike... Why cant it be an entry wound? And please tell me what a Mercury bullet would do striking the right temple of the man... The cloud on the xray and the zillions of tiny particle suggest it was not a FMJ bullet... or am I wrong... DJ

This is the largest version of the photo I've ever seen... Google is amazing! Click on it... it's 4234 × 5283. Also know there's a fine presentation on the subject but I don't have my flash drive with me... and I can't seem to find it on google... okay, not always amazing... tomorrow edit: found it - http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=3&topic_id=85804&mesg_id=85804&page= DJ http://oswald-framed.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-dartmouth-professors-analysis-of.html http://www.oswaldsghost.com/Site/Press_Information_files/Oswald%27s%20Backyard%20photo_1.jpg

Oh boy Mike... bringing up the backyard photo as proof he picked up the rifle when we don't even fully know that that photo as authentic... Furthermore, if you look carefully at that photo you'll see the ring that holds the (brain fart.. shoulder sling??) at the top of the rifle, is on the bottom (underside) of the rifle... If you look at photos of the rifle in evidence, the ring is on the side. I'm not convinced they're the same rifle or even Oswald in the photo... another subject, another disagreement... DJ

Sounds an awful lot like the "company line" here to me Mike. The AP quote is almost a dead giveaway... I had it from another thread, I think on Lancer but the effect is.. "I thought the shots came from across the street until I found out later they didn't." The fact that he completely ignores the backward motion of the man is a surprise... but from his angle I do not know what it woudl ahve looked like to him. Themost telling for me once again is the "sounded like a firecracker" comment. Firecrackers are usually at ground level (same with the motocycle backfire analogy) which to ME suggests a street level shot... ala the GK to the throat. What is your take on the shot that hits him in the throat... the first shot as he calls it. DJ

Again, A pleasure to see you posting here Jim... Mike and I have had some differences of opinion and I do believe he has areas of expertise... but there are those that he sincerely needs to do quite a lot of reading about, as do I for that matter. If I could recommend posting the links to your reviews and articles... here let me... http://www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_review.html and possibly paraphrasing for us... Reading, digesting, understanding, putting into context and believing the vast amount of information at your fingertips is a monumental undertaking. As I menitoned elsewhere, your review of Horne allowed me to reread other reviews (ie Mantik's) in a whole new light. and it still takes a few reads to "get" it. and I've read ALOT. To many DVP can make some sense... problem is he also closes doors to understanding or even searching out more and conflicting views on the subject matter. Mike is no dummy, but we all have a style and we sometimes forget that manners and etiquette are all the more important in places like this. He's just now reading Moyer and it took me years to stumble upon that wonderful piece... we're part time sleuths on this case and try really hard to get up to speed on subjects only to find there are 10 million more pages to find and read.... {sigh} I have not even had the chance to read your Bugliosi review - all nine parts of it, mostly because most every review of that book focuses on his accusatory and derogatory style. Gets tiresome to read about him... and he's just so wrong. Very sad. But I will... I'd like to respond to your comments 1 - What's the evidence that he didn't pick it up? No one at the PO remembers him picking it up, okay. It should not have stayed at the PO to begin with, okay... but nothing says he really didn't pick it up... or is there? I defer to you on that one 2 - the first result being both hands positive, cheek negative. Guess I'll have to read the review to learn more about the test and Hoover, etc... How possible is it to fire a rifle, get positive results on the hands and none on the cheek with that sort of rifle... that's knowledge I do not have at my fingertips... Mike and I got off to a bad start but made our way thru it and will hopefully learn a thing or two from each other. I look forward to your contribution to this forum and hope my little "speech" is recieved in the same respectful manner it was delivered. Sincerely, DJ

Disarm with charm... Without a doubt, the most difficult thing here is to arrive with an open mind and the possibility, however remote, that one is completely wrong - given the information to prove such - and the humility to admit it. Besides, we were back channelling a brokered peace long before we started the thread... got to keep up appearances, no?

Sounds good to me Pat... and I totally agree. Just thought it was pretty interesting how his drawing overlaid on the Fox photo lines up so well. I'd very much like to hear your comments about the differing wound descriptions based on how the scalp and skull lay at the time of viewing. While McClelland's drawing is specific to that one area - do you believe he was excluding damage to the other areas of the head or simply illustrating that one area? DJ