David Josephs

John... WARNING WARNING RABBIT HOLE... COINTELPRO tactics at work... AVOID Confrontation at all costs Miss ya John... but don't miss the terrible lack of vision or comprehension for which a select few here always can be counted upon. As an older and wiser man, those tactics just don't hold water anymore... Hope you and yours are well... DJ 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Hi Sean... The story of the cement filled Minox comes from my friend John Armstrong who frequented the archives for many years. He was actually one of the last researchers to be allowed to physically see and touch much of the evidence. In any case He told me a few stories about the evidence he came across... One being that this was indeed cemented shut and was the Minox everyone denies existed. Two was the microfilm canister supposedly containing the Klein's order for the rifle... the canister was empty. Here is a bit more about the Minox.. I apologize if I am repeating other info already posted, I did not read the entire thread as I've been thru this countless times over the years. And yes, the seriel number for this camera belonged to a series not available to the public.. well remembered Sean!

Here you go guys Morales there in the white with hat... Westbrook far right

Hey there Ron, The passage we believe was used is on the 3rd floor from the City Hall DPD building to the Courts building wand is at the end of the south east wing of the 3rd floor. This area was senior DPD staff only with Curry at the west end and all the Deputy Chiefs. The first office as you go down the hall to the "meat and potatoes" staff is Westbrook's. The other pass-through between the buildings we show, was at the main stair landings. While someone other than Westbrook is very possible, adding yet another man to the "in the know" list of players may not have been in his best interest. Besides... has anyone ever found what and where WESTBROOK went and did after the Friday of Oswald's arrest? The toughest question for us was how the timing of bringing Oswald down 1 minute after the Pierce/Putnam/Massey car passes in front of the cameras coincides with when Ruby walked up. A video on the subject found on Youtube suggested that those windows were to the room Oswald was being interrogated within... that was not the case but it did lead us to those windows being the most logical spot for a spotter to be.... given they knew Ruby would enter via the parking lot (which the WCR called an "alley"). Side note: describing it as an "alley" does suggest that Ruby may have walked around the building or hugged the building thru the parking lot until reaching what appears to be an alley leading directly to that door: Remember, Brock and Worley were the only two officers between the stairs and the ramp and they were removed by 11am. Removed by a combination of Pierce, Putnam & Dean responding to orders which are hard to pin down. In the few minutes before the shooting we have a stationary middle camera filming as people come and go. This is the camera that shows the Pierce car moving thru and up the Main ramp about 1 minute before the shooting yet it had been running for quite some time. Studying the film we do not see Ruby pass in front of this camera to arrive at his position. As we wrote, the railing was an easy pass through and nicely hidden from sight. Ruby then just appears next to Croy after the Pierce car passes (which is how I believe Ruby is able to describe the car and passengers in his made-up trip down Main and then down the ramp. I believe we alluded tot he HSCA having not only found this entrance but concludes it the most likely way Ruby gets into the basement... Add the removal of officers and the exact timing of Oswald's arrival and I believe we are very close to the truth. Then there are these passages from that section: HSCA Vol 9 5A (586) Edward E . Pierce, also a building maintenance employee, stated that the door leading from the alley into the first floor was constructed in such a manner that it had to be locked from the outside every time an individual left the building in this fashion. Otherwise it would remain open. Pierce said that on Sunday morning the door was probably opened and closed several times prior to the shooting because the porters were working and needed to get into the alley. (286) Capt. William Westbrook, a member of the DPD special investigative unit, indicated in 1978 that the alley door was not checked that morning (287) (although his basis for this statement was not clear). (587) Servance reiterated the mechanics of the alley door to the Warren Commission and added that the third door at issue-the one leading from the first-floor corridor to the fire escape stairwell-was also unlocked all the time. (288) (598) The alley route was the most likely alternative because of the factors of time and distance, the lack of security in the garage area and along the entire route, and the testimony concerning the security at the doors along the route. This possibility was not considered or investigated by the FBI or the Dallas Police Department and was virtually ignored by the Warren Commission.

Whole bunch of words to once again add and say nothing. Well done Jon…. You do understand that these vapid statements of yours will eventually require some substantiation. But u got opinion and hyperbole down. Why not find a safe little place to spout ur incredulity… ur WAY outta ur league, or don’t u notice that either?

Even a broken clock is right 2x a day… lol But overturn ALL the H&L evidence? Simply too much of it. Namaste… DJ

Real stickler is that Kostikov er al were being watched and recorded wherever they were in Mexico. Many of these meetings occur Sept 27/28 yet if they wanted Oswald in Mexico not a single report in the month of Sept’s CIA summary reports mentions the CIA awareness of these meets. No voice recordings from within the Soviet compound has Oswald speaking. Like all the players there is no reason to believe KGB officers, whose job it is to turn westerners, or Azcue’s with the same job for Cuba, would have treated a wanna be “redefector” the way they described… almost as bad as the never dying Paz party disinformation…

I have the deepest respect and appreciation for DL and Best Evidence…. That said there is something about “chain of custody” that continues to be overlooked. https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/summary-of-the-rules-of-evidence.html This provable chain is but one of numerous ways to “Authenticate” evidence for admissibility. To make it “Real”. There are ways to establish this chain which includes a statement from those involved establishing such a fact. (Like with CE884 and the sealed plat.) The fact is, identifying marks on evidence doesn’t overshadow when and where and how these marks are made…. (Again, like the initialing of the pistol at the station hours after “recovery” doesn’t tie that pistol to the scene of the crime) I think these concepts make it doubly hard to understand the provenance of any of the offered evidence… FWIW… DJ IV. REAL EVIDENCE. Real evidence is a thing the existence or characteristics of which are relevant and material. It is usually a thing that was directly involved in some event in the case. The written contract upon which an action is based is real evidence both to prove its terms and that it was executed by the defendant. If it is written in a faltering and unsteady hand, it may also be relevant to show that the writer was under duress at the time of its execution. The bloody bloomers, the murder weapon, a crumpled automobile, the scene of an accident--all may be real evidence. To be admissible, real evidence, like all evidence, must be relevant, material, and competent. Establishing these basic prerequisites, and any other special ones that may apply, is called laying a foundation. The relevance and materiality of real evidence are usually obvious. Its competence is established by showing that it really is what it is supposed to be. Proving that real or other evidence is what it purports to be is called authentication. Evid. Code § 1400; Fed. Rules Evid. 901. Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways--by identification of a unique object, by identification of an object that has been made unique, and by establishing a chain of custody. You only have to be able to use one of these ways, though it is prudent to prepare to use an alternate method in case the court is not satisfied with the one you have chosen. The easiest and usually the least troublesome way to authenticate real evidence is by the testimony of a witness who can identify a unique object in court. For example, the curator of a museum may be able to testify that he is familiar with, say, Picasso's "Dames de Avignon" and that what has been marked as exhibit so-and-so is in fact that unfortunate painting. It is important to remember, however, that many more mundane objects may be amenable to this kind of identification. A unique contract, or one that has been signed, may be authenticated by a person who is familiar with the document or its signatures. A ring may have an inscription by which it can be identified. Even a manufactured object, like a wallet, may be identifiable by its owner after years of use have given it a unique personality. The second method--identification in court of an object that has been made unique, is extremely useful since it sometimes allows a lawyer or client to avoid the pitfalls of proving a chain of custody by exercising some forethought. If a witness who can establish an object's relevance to the case marks it with his signature, initials, or another mark that will allow him to testify that he can tell it from all other objects of its kind, that witness will be allowed to identify the object in court and thus to authenticate it. Often, if a member of the lawyer's staff or another person early in the chain of custody marks the evidence, big problems can be avoided if a later link in the chain turns out to be missing. The third and least desirable way to authenticate real evidence is by establishing a chain of custody. Establishing a chain of custody requires that the whereabouts of the evidence at all times since the evidence was involved in the events at issue be established by competent testimony. The proponent of the evidence must also establish that the object, in relevant respects, has not changed or been altered between the events and the trial. This can sometimes be a tall order, or can require the testimony of several witnesses. If there is any time from the events in question to the day of trial during which the location of the item cannot be accounted for, the chain is broken. In that case, the evidence will be excluded unless another method of authentication can be used

JM, And when one refuses to only repeat the same unsupported opinions rather than engage in debate with citing evidence… we just keep turning the other cheek? How many vapid posts do u enjoy in rebuttal of any of your researched conclusions? Have u seen today’s self appointed forum overlord provide anything concrete in rebuttal or is it the same tired feckless double talk we get any time H&L is brought up? Why do none of these nay sayers ever address Ely and that memo or the obvious differences in who made statements and who served with the taller Lee? what are the consequences for opinion stated as misinformation in rebuttal to physical evidence anyway?

Agreed…. Go look at the evidence for oneself and come to one’s own conclusion. John has some far out there hypotheses which may come off as his statements in fact…. If Chris didn’t turn everything on its edge and make far reaching hypotheses AND THEN PROVE THEM, we wouldn’t have a fairly detailed map of how we arrive at just over 6 feet of viewable film on a 25ft roll of film spliced in 6 places… the so called “original or “master” as the SS called it. As for Tracy, much of his rebuttal centers around, “why would it be that way when it could be this way”? And shrugging repeated cases of official evidence off as mistakes…. As if the military doesn’t know who they are sending where. tracy at least presents a case and in some areas his rebuttals are spot on… I too do not agree with every page written about H&L… but there has yet to be an explanation for what I posted above. Or the obvious differences in the 2 men’s physiques. Back to back, one CE directly conflicts with the next…. John Ely was right.

Here is something simple for u…. Explain how these are the same person and what is the DoD doing with that induction photo? Please provide something more than ur opinions

again big brain… what have u done to investigate the hundreds of conflicts showing the existence of these 2 men? been doing this just as long, spoken with and collaborated with many u mention and many more. if you actually have something to offer in rebuttal other than your pathetic opinion, you would. But since you can’t be bothered with actual research, actual evidence, actual documentation all you do is appoint yourself opinion N A Z I and pollute these pages… Maybe try looking into Allen Felde and John Ely and what they say about our man Ozzie. C’mon Jon, show us that big brain and use more than ur opinion to debate/refute what is offered. Why is John Ely so confused and Rankin/Jenner so insistent? Finally oh sage of the forum, are u even aware that El Toro and Santa Ana were 2 separate and distinct bases… not one big base…. But u knew that right? You have all this research and analysis at ur fingertips, RIGHT?

So says the self proclaimed expert having never read a book or done any research so the opinions he spouts are uninformed and pedantic. what purpose are you serving here besides the ignorant critic of subject matter far beyond your comprehension ? Every post of urs is a waste of time and thought… but hey, you’re a shining example of how not to behave on an intellectual forum, everyone is good for something.

Hi Paul. yes… th full write up is on k&k in one of the Mexico chapters… the couple decided/reported on were the Brill’s but their entry papers had the name transposed, if I remember correctly, so I remember a search for the “Allen’s” Then again, they were looking at just getting him there by any means possible.. the “card” is provided by OCHOA.

Some more detail on that photo….

Bravo buddy…. Ur work remains personally inspiring. and just for pure speculation… the film to Rowley that disappears into history… 0184? very few other explanations given that Max Phillips memo sent with the “third print”. … oh, and automatic counters punching numbers into films don’t just skip one. 0184 had to exist. The Rowley film Friday night is the only film where a number is not offered. IMO, this is what then goes to Hawkeyeworks and then onto Dino Sat eve. Only Speculation, a hypothesis if u will…. Gotta start somewhere with the evidence available … Again.. Thx. DJ

Of course my friend…. And don’t forget Holmes… you just keep rocking it. Question remains, how impossible is impossible in 1963? When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

Spouting off yet again. Is that all u do here Jon… try and bandwagon with others to nsult other researchers and posters? Do you ever offer anything from your POV or too ashamed you have no original analysis or hypotheses that can increase understanding? (yawn)

Uh, how about the extant film is spliced in 6 places and has more total film than a single side should have. Here is Chris’ 2’7” of Black Film. Yknow, maybe do a little homework before u pull guns blazing. Nothing worse than someone who only knows enough to ask repetitive and previously answered questions…. Try preparing for this forum bud… we’re not amateurs here…

So Jon…. How many films do you count? Zap had 2 films, not 1… Original and best copy… that’s 2. 2 to Sorrels… and another, the third print, fowarded to Rowley. 0183, 0185 let’s say to zap…. 0186, 0187 to Sorrells. Which film # went to Rowley and where did THAT print copy go after that as far as I can see, that film’s journey ends at Rowleys desk. whatchya got big guy?

Would u be so kind as to provide the proof Sitzman did not film anything? Do you have any image of her on the pedestal clear enough to see her face? I don’t. ”debunked anomalies”? Jon, throwing out big words to impress no one nay adds to your limited knowledge of the events. Rather than shooting the messenger, offer proofs for the anomalies from some other source. Have you ever seen the Robert West diagrams? You been here like 15 mins and already ur opinion debunks scientific fact? I think Trump has a cabinet position for u

Do you see it being Crawford led out the back of the theater to waiting DPD cops and a running pickup truck as seen by the store owner… name escapes me. and that would suggest those at the back of the theater… Baggett, Westbrook, Hawkins, etc MUST be aware of this charade to frame Ozzie and remove Crawford from the scene…. Excellent write up.. deep and meaningful. How do you see Vaganov involved? he only lived down the road from all this action and was loaded with the same weapon types that did the killings… Magen was also mistaken for Oswald by ATF ELLSWORTH. Personally I see a strong chance that Vaganov was Tippit’s contract killer. And btw, NAGY was also in town at this time… fwiw.

As we discussed many moons ago…. It all hinges on the frame numbers assigned by Shaneyfelt becoming the 2nd legend and the arbitrary assigning of frame numbers starting with 133, which if I understand you was actually frame 207 in the contiguous film. moving 208 back to where it was actually filmed at extent 133 at 48fps effectively removed the wide turn and that virtual stop with 207 renumbered to 133 and in pops the limo. At this point, z133, the counter at 18.3 FPS on Zap should be 2’7” from the start of the film and represents frame 208… or am I mucking this all up… lol

Sorry to bother Chris…. Wouldn’t a camera back by the fence need a difference focal length to match the image size of the closer Zap camera at a higher zoom… OMG… Does that account for the zoom in after the 207 splice? The switch to the other film taken at 48 fps as well?