David Josephs
-
Posts
6,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Josephs
-
-
11 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:
If 350 is accurate we also have corroborating evidence for the fragment scrapings placed into the record taken from the inside of the windshield on November 23rd between 1am and 4am by the same men who took the photos and examined the limo.
Fwiw, this is now empty.... and the report below is crystal clear...
-
Not according to Cunningham...
”cracks on outside layer of glass” “no cracks inside layer”
he does say “struck from inside” yet this view is looking at the windshield from in front of the limo.... “point of impact” is described here as the outside of the window....
11 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:In my opinion no shooter in their right mind is going to attempt to fire thru the windshield to hit the president (especially if one shot was all they were gunna get).
And an opinion it surely is Adam... the Evidence I’ve already posted in this thread proves the opposite.... as to WHY again... I posted that too... the shot would not be at such an angle but virtually straight on... as long as McHugh as gone.
Ce350 and Dallas images match as to that impact. Altgens7 matches... limo at Parkland matches.... one has to wonder, like nyc steel in 2001, why the important scene of the crime evidence was destroyed and/or spirited away under the watchful eyes of the FBI and Secret Service...
8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:The damage to the windshield was on the inside of the glass and not the outside. That is important. The fragment that caused it came from behind.
-
4 minutes ago, David Andrews said:
If you've ever driven with a cracked windshield...don't forget that the cracks extend and their numbers increase from the central impact point, worsening with time and continued road vibrations. That could start within seconds of impact.
Fair enough David... yet after driving and flying and driving again and parking... the crack looks about the same as Altgens 7... isn't this in the garage in DC?
-
12 minutes ago, John Butler said:
Thanks David
So, the height of the bridge is 428.4 minus 404 minus 3.27 or about 21 feet for the height of the bridge?
the 404 is STREET LEVEL... adding 3.27 feet brings us to the top of JFK's head in the limo.
The height of the overpass railing is 428.4 - 404.8 = 23.6 feet... the overpass itself where a truck can pass under is probably 16 - 18 feet given that railings and width of the overpass take up 6-8 feet... those railings don't look much more than 3 feet high based on how people are leaning down on them...
The SS agents on the running boards are safely 6-7 feet high... while the bottom of the overpass appears to be about 2 or 2.5 times that height... makes sense?
-
11 minutes ago, John Butler said:
David,
428 ft can not possibly be the height of the railroad bridge. That's the distance to the railroad bridge.
I don't know what the actual height of the railroad bridge from the Elm Street pavement at the foot of the bridge, but it cannot be 428 feet. More like 30 feet for the height of the bridge form the foot to top.
The lines on the plat are 9 feet apart so that every 2 lines elevation drops 1 foot
-
17 minutes ago, John Butler said:
These calculations would be more accurate if the height of the railroad bridge was known above Elm Street.
The street directly under the overpass is elevation 404.8ft.... simply subtract from 428.4 to get distance above STREET LEVEL for the top of the railing... at 3.27 feet for top of JFK's head...
Position A (prior to z133) is actually HIGHER than the railing as is the intersection of Elm/Houston...
If that helps at all
-
5 minutes ago, John Butler said:
My take on this was there were no cracks base on the Altgens 7 photos I have. I must have a photo without high enough resolution to see those cracks.
I posted this already John. "your" image may simply not be as good as others... It's quite obvious here
-
John... the 20:1 and 10:1 plats give us the height of the overpass railing.... 428.4ft there were half dozen surveys done we know the heights of everything...
We also know the heights of the top of JFK's head at various points along the way by removing 3.27 feet from the road elevations. the official data is complete rubbish... jury-rigged by Shaneyfelt... but the WEST data is accurate and will give you relative height to the 428.4ft elevation of the overpass railing...
First official shot, JFK's head would actually be only 1.4 feet lower than the overpass railing... (427.02 vs 428.4) as he is moved forward, he goes lower and lower at the rate of 1 foot for every 18.3 feet traveled. 207 is placed at 3+71.1....
at 3+89.4 - 10 feet down Elm - his height drops to 426.02.... and on and on...Angles of the shot depend on when the shot occurs... working backward from shot angle guesses is not going to give you accurate results John. Use the actual data provided us by WEST.
-
1 minute ago, John Butler said:
David,
I get it. There must have been something else hit the windshield after Altgens 6.
zframe 2?
What's up John? No crack in Altgens 6... crack at the exact spot in Altgens 7....
Crack/Hole must occur between the 2 photos... nothing else hits the windshield except blood and debris.
The replacement of the windshield occurs after the limo is in DC....
-
Just now, John Butler said:
David,
I took this to be the original windshield in Altgens 6 and the other provided by the WC was a replacement windshield with cracks and no shot through the windshield. Many witnesses saw a through and through hole as it is said to be.
Both 6 & 7 show the "original" windshield while still on the limo...
I agree there were many witnesses who saw a hole, I posted their statements, what I'm saying is that by z255 (or there abouts) - Altgens 6 - there is not yet a cracked windshield. In 7 there is so it must happen between the frames z-numbered 255 - 375...
-
9 minutes ago, John Butler said:
David,
Thanks for the correction. A shot from the South Knoll at Z225 as calculated by Chris Barnard and Chris Bristow is possible with a 15 degree angle.
Hey there John...
Looking at Altgens' famous photo #6, there are no marks on the windshield... yet.
Altgens 7 does show the windshield cracked... so it has to happen much later than z225
-
19 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:
David,
What's the yellow line? It's not the path of the limo, is it? It doesn't match up with the kill spot (the confluence of the red arrows.)
Just to my eyeballs, the best straight-on shot would seem to be from the south side of the overpass, rather than the South Knoll. (But that does not rule it out.)
If firing from the south side of the overpass, could a sniper shoot over (rather than through) the windshield and hit the president? I honestly don't know - is such a shot possible?
That would be midline of JFK's head showing the direction he was facing.
The Top of the rail on the overpass is 428.4ft... Top of JFK's head as it enters the Killzone was 420ft and getting lower as it moves forward... (front bumper is 1.2ft lower than the rear bumper due to Elm's 18:1 foot run/rise)
Over the windshield was surely possible, depending on exactly where a shooter was.... the Cancellare photo gives a good look... and I did this composite to show the entire thing... certain parts of that south knoll have the limo coming straight at it...
-
7 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:
David,
That is an intriguing picture!
So Tosh Plumlee believed in 1981 that three shots had originated from the South Knoll, but that at least three of them had missed!
He referred to Gary Shaw's book (presumably "Cover Up" from 1976). I've never seen a copy. Is this picture modified from some WC exhibit? Who put the three white blobs in just above the kill zone?
From my understanding Tosh is the source for everything on that image....
Says right on it that those dots would be where bullets were lodged in the grass... if a shooter was exactly where he put him.
"3=white dots....." and finally I had posted this before, (there were a few at Parkland who described a left side wound to the head... )
While I have all the arrows pointing to the right temple, what this focused on was how far to the south JFK was facing between the z frames 200 and 350.
-
15 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:
I don't know what to make of the fact that Godfrey McHugh was not seated between Roy Kellerman and William Greer. That may be significant, but more research is needed
Found this in my files...
Ralph Martin’s Seeds of Destruction: Joe Kennedy and His Sons (1995), p. 453 [see also the Spring 1998 issue of “KAC”-article by author]: In regard to the preparations for the 11/22/63 Dallas trip, General Godfrey McHugh is quoted as saying: “They’d asked me, for the first time, to please not ride in the President’s car, because they want to give him full exposure. These are the exact words they used. Ken O’Donnell and the Secret Service said, 'the politicians here feel it's most important for the President to be given full exposure, to be seen coming and going...[McHugh said he normally rode in the car in which JFK was a passenger] “in the front, next to the driver, and [I] would take notes.” (emphasis added)
-
6 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:
Our (presumed South Knoll) sniper, intentionally picked a spot from which the shot would be angled, but JFK would be at least six feet from the glass, compounding the degree of difficulty.
Again, great point... yet depending on exactly where a shooter was... “straight on” was not that much of a stretch. The truck and back up Elm a bit appears almost straight on from this south knoll vantage...
fwiw
-
1 hour ago, Paul Jolliffe said:
Why would a professional sniper have designed such a tricky and unnecessarily difficult shot
https://www.bevfitchett.us/sniper-training-2/shooting-through-glass.html
-
1 hour ago, Paul Jolliffe said:
Why would a professional sniper deliberately plan a shot through a slanted windshield on a moving vehicle (a vehicle whose precise, exact location could not be pinpointed in advance), knowing the real risk of deflection?
You make a great point Paul, yet asking Why? doesn’t change the evidence of a hole...
Trying to ascertain the thinking behind actions that day... idk.
Why then do you think McHugh was moved from his customary front-middle position, and why the impact just happens to be directly in LOS to JFK from the SW?
Seems to me someone knew something would be coming from the front, and the South...
-
19 hours ago, John Butler said:
David,
Thanks for that post. If I read you correctly you are saying a shot from the South Knoll can be ruled out. You are using Altgens 6 here which is believed to be at Z 255 or so. One second down from where Chris is using Z 225.
The opposite John. McHugh was removed from where he usually sits... which would have been in the way of a southern thru windshield shot...
Imagine on right is his usual spot...
-
Where McHugh was supposed to be... and where he was in other motorcades... used the rear view mirror as guide.
Shot can’t happen from the south if he’s still there...
-
But this is nonsense. As the frame in the Hughes film depicting McLain at the corner of Houston and Elm matches up with Zapruder frame 160 or so, and 138 at the earliest, McLain would have at most two seconds to to race up to his purported position by the Cabell car at frame 175. That's around two hundred feet. In two seconds or less. That's like 68 miles an hour, on average, for two seconds, which begin and end with him traveling 11 mph. Well that means he would have to have accelerated up to 125 miles per hour for one second, and then braked back to 11 miles per hour within 1 second. When the motorcade in this stretch was traveling less than 11 miles an hour, and heading towards a sharp turn.
I wanted to add further to the notion that where McLain was in relation to frames 138-160 - the infamous frames which were both excised from the Zfilm and artificially made to sync to Towner - is not as easy as simply matching frames.... As I posted above, McLain claims to have stopped at the top of Elm on Houston...
As Pat eludes to here... these speeds are not possible or realistic, but to match the altered films. As the motorcade came to a halt around the ELM corner, McClain simply keeps moving forward... Officially he was by the 12th/13th cars in line with HARGIS.
As I continue to reread the work, Pat seems to just not say what we've worked to prove... How much of HUGHES is removed between the turn and the cut to other cars on Elm when we finally see McLain? If the limo passes thru Position A as claimed it has to make the wide turn and slow everybody down...
Doesn't take long to move up a 4 cars while they stand still... yet he stops and doesn't turn... at least that's what he says.
At the best, McLain was in that first circle at Elm/Houston and remained there...
As to evidence from the DPD thru the FBI and presented at the HSCA being indicative of the truth in the events...I don't think so.
-
Excellent presentation Pat... thanks.... a few thoughts if you'll indulge me
MATH RULES shows conclusively that the limo stopped at the corner of Elm/Houston.... that upwards of 100 frames were removed between 132 and 133 as I've shown with the wide turn of one of the motorcycle cops....
Finally, all animations of the motorcade removes this Elm/Houston "pause" as well as the 157 splice, the 168 to 161 switch in CE884, 207-211 and on and on...
Tying a linear sound track to a spliced visual track - to me - is a futile exercise... so at the very least the audio HAD to be adjusted at some point.Mr. CORNWELL. And at the point in time that you heard Chief Curry state that he was going to Parkland Hospital, would it have then been possible that what you heard was the transmission from the speaker of Officer Courson and not in fact your own?
Mr. McLAIN. It could be possible.It seems to me that the response at the end of this post from McLain places him at the top of Elm/Houston... and he stays there until told to move which is just after the shooting ends...
The "plotted trajectory" and the reality of where he was appears to be 2 different things.Pat writes: Nope, still no McLain. Well, then what about frame 194, a full second after frame 175? Don Thomas admits "The plotted trajectory of McLain's motorcycle has him arriving at this corner just ahead of Mayor Cabell's car" Mayor Cabell's car is the car right behind LBJ's back-up car. So McLain should appear any, uhh, split second, right?
My understanding of the following is that McLain was interviewed and was very candid about where he was and what he saw. We must remember that the HSCA was rubber stamping the WCR by the time Blakey gets to it.... No film breaks, 11mph steady, CE884 are the actual props in the charade aided by a vocal timeline that, like all the other items of evidence in this case, must be made to fit the solution, not the facts....
FWIW... Pat always does an amazing job and is the source and impetus for many of the analysis I've done over the years.... We have a much greater understanding in a great many areas thanks to Pat's work.... I just think sometimes we get stuck in the old paradigms when in the past couple of years, those paradigms have been shifted.
===
https://www.jfk-online.com/bowles.htmlA Rebuttal to the Acoustical Evidence Theory by James C. Bowles
OFFICER McLAIN
Just after I had turned north onto Houston from Main Street, I was moving very slow along the west side of the street. Officer "E" was across the street and a little ahead of me. The motorcade seemed to stop at Elm and Houston as the crowd pressed in on the President. As the President got around onto Elm Street, I was approaching the middle of the block between Main and Elm. It was along there that I heard a shot. I suppose it was the first shot because I looked up and saw the pigeons flushed from their roost on top of the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. I was either stopped or stopping at the time. I looked around in an effort to determine what had happened. I don't recall ever hearing the other shots -- just one which I guess was the first.
While looking about, I looked through an opening in the decorative wall behind the fountain and pond in Dealey Plaza running parallel to Houston Street. I saw the President's limousine going west on Elm Street fairly slow, and a man was running along behind it, holding on to the handrail, and jumping onto the rear of the car. I was sure by that, that something serious had happened. Then Chief Curry radioed for us to go to the hospital -- Parkland Hospital, and the lead jockeys started off code 3 (using sirens with their red lights). So I did the same. I pulled up to Houston and Elm and turned left to go west on Elm. As I turned I saw Bobby (a presidential escort officer) on his hands and knees, and his motorcycle was on its side. For an instant I thought he had been hurt, but then I noticed that he was crawling and attempting to stand up. By the time I reached him, he was on his feet and heading up the hill to my right, the one they now refer to as the grassy knoll.
{snip}
Now, the Committee staff Report says that I was from 80 to 90 feet west of Houston, west bound on Elm Street when the President was hit with the last shot. That's completely wrong! I never left Houston Street until after the chief said for us to go to the hospital and for someone to check the overpass. The agent didn't get onto the back of the limousine until some seconds after the last shot. I saw that happen while I was still on Houston Street, so while I only heard one shot, I could not have been on Elm Street until after the shots had been fired. Had the Committee staff told me what they had in mind, it would have made a difference in my testimony. They were at least deceitful if not outright dishonest with me.
-
Hi Bill...
On 10/1/2020 at 10:49 AM, David Josephs said:Fabian Escalante has been consistent in saying that Guillermo Ruiz (Veciana's cousin-in-law) and Antonio Garcia Lara (like Ruiz, in the commercial office of the Cuban embassy) both saw LHO and it was the one shot in Dallas. They were backed up by ex-consul Alfedo Mirabal and Silvia Duran - whose descriptions of his physicality are not perfect. We all know that Azcue said it was not LHO. If you read Fidel Castro's testimony, he backs Azcue but suggests that he is mistaken.
Again, I am agnostic. You are not. How do you do address the Escalante evidence?
19 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:On my point about evaluating Escalante's evidence - as near as I can tell you, you simply don't believe Escalante and believe Veciana, do I have that right?
From where does Escalante come to these conclusions about RUIZ & LARA? I have his declared "5 shooters" statement yet cannot find reference to Ruiz/Lara in relation to seeing Oswald, other than Veciana's reference to his cousin-in-law being paid to say so...
I am not sure about Escalante, but I feel sure Veciana cannot be trusted on any level.
Seems there were quite a few people who would be paid to help establish Oswald in Mexico... ELENA PAZ, June Cobb, Valencia... to name a few. How do you address the evidence from within the Cuban Embassy proving it couldn't have been our Oswald? Azcue's treatment of an American, Litamil/9 and 7, Summary activity reports detailing the personal conversation of target individuals in the Russian Embassy and their homes.... Over 25 FBI assets looking for any sign of him in Mexico during all of November coming up negative - even so much so as to ask the GOBERNACION where they had OCHOA as asset and STILL no Oswald... no records for OswaldThis despite them alphabetizing him in the FM-11 as "O" and not "L" for O.H. LEE
Are you saying Veciana named the shooters in Dealey Plaza? No, Escalante does: Tony Cuesta, Lenny Patrick, Dave Yaras, Hermanio Diaz Garcia & Eladio de Valle
For all the reasons Newman spelled out in his books, I don't believe Veciana. He has no credibility for me.
Fair enough Bill... yet I always remember that the most effective lies have some verifiable truths within them. In the docs re: Escalante I could find, I see no mention of RUIZ or LARA telling him they saw Oswald... can you help me out with that one?On your statement that "The overwhelming evidence is that Harvey Oswald was in Texas for that period working for the FBI (possibly on assignment from CIA to get info on what the FBI was doing)."
I don't believe in "Harvey Oswald" as a separate individual from Lee Oswald.
Belief requires no evidence.... versus the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'm sorry you won't allow yourself to consider the possibility. I'm starting to find Garrison evidence that looked closely at the size disparity between the various Oswalds at different times.... they couldn't get themselves around it either....You are aware that LOPEZ's notes from the Mexico trip begins to question Oswald's very existence there....I think Oswald was a frenemy of the FBI - an off-and-on source who got mad at Hosty.
April 1963 - Sept 1963... The OSWALD PROJECT involved the direct contradiction of who Oswald "hung out with" and the message he was touting. Why else stage the fake fight but to increase Oswald's Bona Fides?I think Guillermo Ruiz was a double agent that Veciana tried to bring into the game from time to time - and that Ruiz's real affinity remained with Cuba. Your opinions here are extremely valuable... if Veciana was getting orders via the Military, one can only guess as to the purposes and plans involved.
I love the "fudge" document you found on Slawson. I think that is the kind of document that deserves much more analysis - did you ever find the missing pages?
I emailed you the pdf.Bill - the number of people who try to place Oswald in the Cuban/Soviet Embassy is quite remarkable. Many of them paid to, or already working with the Mexicans as doubles. Personally, I don't buy the Russian explanations as there is nothing to suggest they even talked about it.... And to me, I see CIA and STATE working against the FBI and IN&S every step of the way. MANN agrees to every incriminating story about Oswald told.... until they had to be walked back... and then he gets very silent.
Great talking with you
DJ -
25 minutes ago, Greg Wagner said:
Nice work, David. Thanks!
-
In direct contradiction to his drawing and notes.... "CC" initials a cannister with fragments from INSIDE the windshield
when he just tells us that there are "No cracks inside layer"
JFK's Limo Windshield from National Archives---No Holes Barred
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by David Josephs
And then the
FBISS tries to explain a bullet fragment embedded in the the front seat was the result of a fragment hitting the CHROME above the window and deflecting into the seat... when the FBI reports the same thing (this is SS) yet concludes the projectile which caused the hole was embedded in the seat...Below is yet another report of yet another bullet which was never made public... With both the FBI and SS describing this as a HOLE and not just a cracked windshield - it's hard after the fact to claim there was no hole...