David Josephs

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

David, thank you for this. Is photo "1" at upper left of above after your attempt to improve?

That was the file original.  Sometimes adding Sepia or a Green tint helps with detail.  The one I posted earlier in the thread - close up - was as good as I could get it (edit: "it"=the PM image, not this particular scan).

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

p.s. David, is "K" a second figure pulled out of the "blackness" by some (mysterious to me) processes of photo information-extraction? He is called a "tall man". Would that be Buell Wesley Frazier?

This is where Frazier put himself, all the while stating that Lovelady was a step or two down.

Mr. BALL - When you stood out on the front looking at the parade, where was Shelley standing and where was Lovelady standing with reference to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, see, I was standing, like I say, one step down from the top, and Mr. Shelley was standing, you know, back from the top step and over toward the side of the wall there. See, he was standing right over there, and then Billy was a couple of steps down from me over toward more the wall also.
 

.      

A while back we were provided a very high resolution image of a frame of PM which I also attempted to improve.

For the person's right hand to be in the light it must extend beyond the shade border.

His presence was known for a while it seems.  Yet again, the reflected light must suggest that this person was much closer to the steps and to the East, than we think

Yes?

Plus, this image also acknowledges the strange and sudden change in location for Lovelady.

@Jean Ceulemans  is this simply perspective or something else

4 hours ago, David Boylan said:

How did Oswald know about Azcue's pending transfer back to Havana?

David...  what makes you sure the letter refers to AZCUE?

"the Cuban consulate was guilty of a gross breach of regulations, I am glad he has since been replaced."

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP10M00666R000503450006-9.pdf

Page 4 states that AZCUE was scheduled to leave in October but did not until Nov 18th.

Couple things about this letter...  First, the internal letter's date is 1 week after the envelope's postmark.  That's easily shown not to be a "12" but just a "2".

"Has been replaced" sounds to me as if someone was told something about the October planned leaving but never passed along an update.

"he has since been replaced" seems to me like an event in the past - and since both dates are before AZCUE actually left, the letter offers incorrect info.

AZCUE did not breach any regulations... did he?  And anyone "not prepared" at the Cuban consulate should have nothing to do with a breach of regs - which regs? - but with whatever it was Oswald was supposed to have gotten from the Soviet consulate. 

Could that have meant a call to AZCUE and he was supposed to do something?   again, a "breach of regs" ???

What do you think is being referred to here and why does it automatically mean the letter is talking about AZCUE ?

3 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

@David Josephs: To make out of one pixel two ... that's fake and you know it ... you are adding info that isn't there ... 

Logiclly that makes sense Karl - yet you seem to be confusing the process with the "creation" of pixels from no information to something.  That's not what's happening here.  Assume these 9 pixels:

a. b. c. 
d. e. f. 
g. h. i.

The process involves taking the information in "e" and combining it with pixels a-i to create 9 pixels around the core pixel, yet the core pixel "e" is also a piece of another 9 pixel set so the image is "enhanced" by adding/combining transitional pixels to existing image.

ae. be. ce.
de.  e.   fe.
ge.  he.  ie. 

with the process repeating for every pixel overlap within the image.  It also involves the size and shape of the pixels and whether images are mapped using 1:1 restrictions.

Pixels are "created" when Contrast, Brightness etc are changed so that process requires much more care to retain the original image.  Images like this are acknowledged for having added info, yet the addition usually only adds detail to the pixels at very high resolution - and is done to emphasize something, not to represent that which is not there.

So, What is digital image interpolation?
 

1 hour ago, Karl Kinaski said:

 

@David Josephs: Would you explain to us all how you are able to make  out of a few pixels more pixles? Please .. .

 

 

 

 

Using Photoshop there are numerous ways to enhance images.

You can increase the resolution of the image itself while retaining the same size image

Changing the DPI has no impact on image quality unless you choose an option to keep the height and width (in a physical measure) the same, in which case it will have to interpolate new pixel information from the old which will actually result in a loss of quality as many of the original pixels will be lost in the approximation. Keep in mind that interpolation makes an image that looks smoother, but actually lowers the image quality so it should be used with care.

Or you can improve the image and keep it at the 72dpi web standard using the tools available and some trial and error.  . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lprshxl46ac 

There is also enhancing the image itself using the Curves, Levels, Contrast, Brightness and filters.  To show the hovering black square I tried a variety of methods to show the contrast between the black square and the image behind.  At the top left of the image is the "crushed out whites" showing what happens to the deep black areas of the frame.  All of Jackie's hair which is the same black as all the others in the frame, basically disappears whereas the black square only gets stronger.

If you've been on the forum for any time you'd have seen many of the different methods I've used and the end results designed to bring out certain points.

The "more pixels" happens by iterative interpolation so the additional pixels are added based on what the algorithms find in the existing data.

PM simply does not have enough data in the area of the face.  This image looks the same whether it's the 1"x1" 1000dpi version or the 15"x15" 72dpi version posted here.  These is no info for the program to interpolate from.

Edit: I should also add that initially I thought the sleeves were rolled up but below I believe you can make out that the shirt sleeves are down to his wrist.

I'd like to give people some sense of the scale.  "Awful version" give what options @Sandy Larsen ?

I've been enhancing images of PM since it emerged yet need to offer some idea of the size of the image we are analyzing.  There is no "face" there

Trying to determine who that is simply stops short due to the lack of information... data points... within the single frames we are reviewing.

In mm's, the area on that frame is .068 sq mm..
8mm film has a max resolution of 1120 scan lines per frame

Kodak advertises parts of their current film lineup, e.g. Vision3 for Color and Eastman for b/w, as especially made for scanning. According to Kodak, a resolution of up to 1120 scan lines can be achieved with a 8mm film, making Super8 compatible to 2K and Full HD Resolution.

The frames are 3.3mm high so there is 1 scan line for every .003 mms of frame
The area in question is .26mm .26/.003 = 86 scan lines out of 1120. 

This was as bright as I could get the image without it crushing out the whites.  The similarities to how Oswald stands and holds his arms is what suggests to me this could be him.

While people were aware of him by sight, there were not that many who worked at the TSBD who could call Oswald out by name.  I can only imagine that these film's development and subsequent presentation offers much worse image quality than the originals.

Finding an image of Oswald that so closely matches how he stands and holds his head and arms seems, to me, a bit too coincidental.  So I superimposed him into the image.  The fit in uncanny... but does not prove anything.

DJ

12 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

The biggest puzzle for me is; how did the alleged late shot (after Z313) opposite the pergola steps get managed?

Hi Eddy,

I did these a number of years ago before I had the chance to work with Chris D. on the Math.  Working with Chris over the past year the amount of conclusive, detailed information on how the Zfilm was altered - how and why - is becoming sharper and sharper every day.   

The main reason it was altered was to remove two SS driving "mistakes"...  the wide turn onto Elm and the pause on Elm... as well as the removal of extra shots which coincides with these 2 events.  Also involved is the 156-157 splice, 207-212 splice.  Removing the stop turns out not to be as hard as once thought.

In any case, the attached articles delves into what the SS/FBI would know and use as source material to create WCD298's amazing Dealey Plaza Model and then why that was changed to a 2 shot model.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/content/warren-commission-document-wcd-298-how-the-bureau-made-a-fourth-shot-beyond-z-313-disappear

https://www.kennedysandking.com/content/warren-commission-document-wcd-298-fbi-letter-from-director-of-20-jan-1964-with-visual-aides-brochure

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=1 "making it possible for those who have not visited the sites to gain a full and clear understanding of the happening surrounding each event." (JFK & Oswald murders)

3 minutes ago, Ollie Curme said:

Back to the wallet controversy, Julia Postal reported in February 1964 that when Oswald was arrested in the theatre the arresting officers identified him by his name Oswald.  See:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95742#relPageId=7

At that point she could have been mistaken.  But if her recollection was correct, where would the officers have gotten Oswald's name, other than through the wallet at the Tippit scene, or a crooked DPD cop?

Hi Ollie.  I discuss Postal at the bottom of this post,  FWIW

I think you may be mistaken about what Julia is reported to have said... especially at the link you provided.

The wallet you talk about was not looked at until in the car on the way back to DPD.
The wallet at the Tippit scene was acknowledged by a number of people.

BOTH wallets are not either of the wallets offered in evidence with ID connecting Oswald to Hidell, yet those are the wallets supposedly containing the incriminating identification.

Just let that sink in.  The connection of Oswald to Hidell thru ID was one of the more egregious collaborations between the DPD and FBI.

CE1986 and 1990.  FBI day 1, FBI day 3.   On day 1 a "photo" of his HIDELL SSS card is the contents of his wallet, not the actual card...  no other Hidell ID mentioned

Sunday Bookout has nothing but photos provided by FRITZ.  Now we have photos of a new HIDELL item, front and back ... that did not exist on Friday.

And both wallets are now gone, replaced by a red one and one with a Marine group photo - which was never an item listed in the wallet's contents other than that specific wallet from Irving...

QUESTION:  why is there a fake wallet at the Tippit scene, how did it get there other than just that day and how does it come to have and obviously faked HIDELL ID?

Greg's basic reasoning that evidence was not created and placed into evidence for the sole purpose of implicating Oswald is kind of absurd on it's face when we can point to numerous areas where this occurs.  Just not here?

"Myers concluding ***a witness*** is wrong cause they they just are is also absurd and too WCR-like for me, thanks.

@Bill Simpich wrote:
 

What POSTAL said in that report

"Later identified as..."

"We have our man on both counts"

Mrs. POSTAL. They said, "What is going on?" And someone said, "Suspect," and they started in this way, just about that time I got out to the box office, back to the box office, and they stared screaming profuse language and----"Kill the so-and-so," and trying to get to him, and this and that and the officers were trying to hold on to Oswald----when I say, "Oswald," that man, because as I said, I didn't know who he was at that time and they was trying to hold him, because he was putting up a struggle, and then trying to keep the public off, and on the way to the car, parked right out front, one of the officers was----at that time I thought he was putting his hat on the man's face to try to keep the public from grabbing him by the hair, but I later read in the paper it was to cover his face and then he got him in the ear, and all bedlam, so far as the public, broke.

Mr. BALL. Now, was it after Oswald, the man brought out on----out of the theatre was taken away in the car that the officer called and said, "I'm sure we have got our man---- "?
Mrs. POSTAL. No, sir; that officer came out of the theatre and grabbed at the phone and made the call about simultaneously as they were bringing Oswald out.

Mr. COUCH - Well, I picked up my camera. As I recall, I had it in my hand, but it was down leaning against my legs. And I picked it up and made a quick glance at a setting and raised it to my eye. And - uh - you can see from my film that we were just turning the corner. We start the turn and we turn the corner, and you can see people running. As I recall, there's a quick glance at the front entrance of the Texas Depository Book Building. You can see people running and you can see about the first three cars, maybe four, in front of me as we complete the turn.
And then I took pictures of - uh -a few people on my left and a group, or a sweeping, of the crowd on my right standing on the corner.
Mr. BELIN - Did you take any pictures of the School Book Depository Building itself?
Mr. COUCH - Not of the south side at the moment.
<snip>
Mr. BELIN - Did you take any pictures of the Depository Building entrance?
Mr. COUCH - No - Uh -

Truly writes in his affidavit that he a Baker run to the upper floors to "see if we could see who had fired the shots."  Just think about that for a second people...  What would TRULY be doing, unarmed, chasing after a person with a rifle after shooting the president... with a motocop... really?

"No, Sir.  I had it - -"   This motocop had what? enough information to disregard a direct order from the chief of police?

Mr. BAKER - I heard Chief Curry, the chief of the police over there, say, "Get some men over on the railroad track." I think everyone at that time thought these shots came from the railroad track.
Mr. BELIN - By "everyone" do you include you, too?
Mr. BAKER - No, Sir. I had it--I was in a better position due to the wind and you know under it, that I knew it was directly ahead, and up, and it either had to be this building here or this one over here.

He also writes how he's able to see Baker and Oswald talking, in the lunchroom, from his position coming down the stairs which is impossible of course.

Worse yet, for Baker to see 20 feet into the lunchroom thru the window, he'd need to be in a place where boxes blocked his path and view, as shown.

BAKER places himself at "B-1" - taking a wide turn and basically running into the boxes and then completely negating his testimony was his same day affidavit

We all should know by now what BAKER writes on the 22nd about the encounter: 
No window, no door, no lunchroom, no Oswald.

As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, "I know that man, he works here." I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.

Mr. BAKER - As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this--I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don't know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.
Mr. DULLES - Where was he coming from, do you know?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir. All I seen of him was a glimpse of him go away from me.

You've read about the door's closing mechanism, the fact that Vicki's supervisor claims Truly and Baker come up after she goes down forgets to include that Oswald would also have to be on those stairs to have gotten down to the 2nd floor, thru the slow, self-closing door and 20 feet away from the entrance to be seen by BAKER who is ascending these stairs AFTER Vicki is already down and before Baker comes up.

How does Miss GARNER see Vicki descend, Baker/Truly ascend - yet no Oswald in between?

He was never there.

Mr. BALL. Did you see Mr. Truly go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where were you when you saw him go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. I was right in the entrance.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a police officer with him?
Mr. MOLINA. I didn't see a police officer. I don't recall seeing a police officer but I did see him go inside.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a white-helmeted police officer any time there in the entrance?
Mr. MOLINA. Well, of course, there might have been one after they secured the building, you know.
Mr. BALL. No, I mean when Truly went in; did you see Truly actually go into the building?
Mr. MOLINA. I saw him go in.
Mr. BALL. Where were you standing?
Mr. MOLINA. Right at the front door; right at the front door.
Mr. BALL. Outside the front door?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes, outside the front door I was standing; the door was right behind me.
Mr. BALL. Were you standing on the steps?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes, on the uppermost step.
Mr. BALL. You actually saw Truly go
Mr. MOLINA. Yeah.
Mr. BALL. You were still standing there?
Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
Mr. BALL. How long was it after you heard the shots?
Mr. MOLINA. Oh, I would venture to say maybe 20 or 30 seconds afterwards.

Frazier was also standing on that landing in the minute or so after the shooting when Truly/Baker are said to have arrived.  He surely would have seen BAKER running and Truly come join him... but

Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it.
Mr. BALL - Did anybody say anything about what had happened, did you hear anybody say anything about the President had been shot?.
FRAZIER - Yes, sir; right before I went back, some girl who had walked down a little bit further where I was standing on the steps, and somebody come back and said somebody had shot President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL - Do you know who it was who told you that?
Mr. FRAZIER - Sir?
Mr. BALL - Do you know who the girl was who told you that?
Mr. FRAZIER - She didn't tell me right directly but she just came back and more or less in a low kind of hollering she just told several people.
Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Mr. SHELLEY - We ran out on the island while some of the people that were out watching it from our building were walking back and we turned around and we saw an officer and Truly.
Mr. BALL - And Truly?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you see them go into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - No; we didn't watch that long but they were at the first step like they were fixin' to go in.

The films cut off as BAKER reaches the Stairs and can appear as if he is moving across the stairs rather than up... but the available images don't provide conclusive evidence imo.  The red covers BAKER's helmet

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

My understanding

@Scotty Moore 

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I have heard

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

My feeling is

Have either of you spoken to either Malcolm or John about the time they spent together at the archives during the 90's or is all of this 2nd and 3rd hand guessing based on what one has heard?  

People disagree ...  You want to dismiss the documents from the same if not better sources from which you get yours, which clearly outline the existence of both men... dismiss them.  You want to dismiss the interviews as you may have heard something may have been wrong with them, maybe... fine. 

Lifton did the same thing to Palmer and Palmer replied.  From Sept 1957 thru late 1958 Oswald was stationed in Japan with a short stay in CA.

Pfisterer's is in New Orleans.

This Thread is about Bart's work on the person in the NW corner of the landing and not KK's insistence that other researcher's, whose work is easily checkable from extensive footnotes - is somehow the problem here leading to his condemnation of Bart as well.   What a surprise.

This will be the last I post on this I promise. Sorry for stepping into defend a friend and a man who has revealed a huge number of directly applicable documents and provided personal knowledge, prime source interviews on subjects related to the immediate activities of the FBI and CIA within days of the assassination.  These activities only making sense in the context of removing evidence of the duality of the man known as "Lee H. Oswald".

When those with any sense of integrity look at the documentary trial, it becomes as obvious as Oswald never firing that rifle that day.

55 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

@David Josephs; Obviously

Karl, you're so witty.  You work up that trick Baker question all on your own?  

Pathetic how someone knowing so little about a subject - stands so tall to yell so loud.

Poor Malcolm... aligning himself with people who actually do the work instead of finding some little corner of the internet to criticize other's.

You sure whine an awful lot on this forum Karl.  Maybe too much SciFi - lost you're ability to be factual or objective?

Why do you think you whine so much when you're here?

Obviously?

edit: Nevermind KK...  easier just to ignore you,,,  nothing really much to miss in what. you post

@Pat Speer @Karl Kinaski

It is kind of sad that a "documents" guy doesn't take the time to actually review these documents.  

Difference here being that none of you traveled to interview these people to get the information from the source.
None of you, from what I can tell by how you post, have actually read thru and followed the footnotes from the book.

Rather than tell us 2nd hand what Blunt thought of a man he went to NARA with virtually yearly for almost a decade, that he disagrees with a conclusion he was never looking for in the first place.

John and I are good friends.  We have our differences as I've said in the past.  I do not buy 100% of the book, and after many discussions he has seen some of the things for the time-based conclusions they were.  Hargrave keeps a website where the more current work is posted.

I don't believe JVB because I have personally debunked her.

When you can show us how you've "debunked" the conflicts John Ely encountered... or the blatant declaration. by Jenner that his bio required "work", to put it mildly. (below)

I've personally dug up the Tarrant county records of what occurred with Ekdahl, Korth, and Mrs. M Ekdahl Oswald.  
Ebasco, a piece of GE from NY for which Ekdahl worked, was consolidating energy companies in the Fort Worth area among other...  The connection he has to the IRC and what they do - no impact or connection with Pic's Hungarian family in NYC where little Lee and mama stayed upon arrival.

Point is - you're talking out of your hats when you say you've come to some conclusion about H&L and have done none of the work.  

Actually debunk something without supposition or squinty-eyed justifications as to what "else" it could be.  Deal with the evidence offered.

The passport photo from 1959 and mugshot.  Images were sized to match his left eye.

Skepticism is fine...  if you'd like to go down the dyslexia route, so be it.  Dyslexia does not explain the Lawyer's memo or Ely's findings...  or Allen Felde's for that matter.

These CE's are next to each other in the WCR.  And then when they went to find Felde, they wrote a report about the wrong one.

Yep.. all coincidences. 

On 9/14/2023 at 6:02 PM, Nick Bartetzko said:

Mr Cohen....see link....

 

@Vince Palamara @James DiEugenio

At 1:10 of this video we are treated to crystal clear tv coverage of the ER entrance at Parkland...

Vince, if we can find the rest of that coverage it should help with the windshield bullet strike since it seems to me the most clear image at Parkland I've seen.  

Can't seem to find the whole clip though...  is this old news?

5 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

 

BTW Kamp is a fan of Malcolm Blunt and Malcolm Blunt was a cooperator of John Armstrong and his crazy "Harvey and Lee" doorstopper in which they claim that there not only were two Oswalds around (which is IMO an understatement) but two Marguerite Oswalds too. (Which is crazy.) This kind of "research" does more harm to the truth than the WCR. 

 

From someone who thinks Judy Baker is gospel - bricks in glass houses come to mind.

"One man gathers what another man spills..."

28 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

This report also states that the immigration officer failed to record Oswald’s mode of transportation into the country  - so where did the CIA get the “additional information” that Oswald entered Mexico by car? 

Rafael OCHOA - and the info was that he LEFT by Auto... the entry has no designation (btw - this is all in the K&K chapters)

Also notice clues for "after the fact" creation of this evidence...  "HARVEY OSWALD LEE" is alphabetized between MOORE and OUELLET... making his last name, alphabetically - would be OSWALD.

Here is the actual FM-11 for the September entry and is now OSWALD LEE HARVEY.  The Oct 3rd card typed by TIJERINA claims he is now O.H. LEE (below) and is leaving by AUTO.

These 2 images are from the provided/altered FM-11's.  First from October's departure and 2nd from his arrival in Sept. and shows the "Auto" designation.

AND STILL BY END OF FEB 1964 THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS OF ACQUIRING THE ORIGINAL FM-11'S...  THE MX EVIDENCE IS ALL COPIES OF ALTERED ORIGINALS... FBI-STYLE

2nd/3rd paragraphs explains how OCHOA provided the evidence and added the FM11 info as well as the rebuff of the "Auto" designation when recording his leaving.

The other players in this charade are HARVEY CASH, WILLIAM KLINE, OREN PUGH, LESTER JOHNSON and the man reporting that OCHOA added info and many other strange things occurred with respect to those records was ARNOLDO TIJERINA

5 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

David,

1. Do you have any theories as to why the HSCA accepted "Oswald's" trip to Mexico City as a given (and therefore not worthy of checking)?

The subject of Mexico helped get Sprague removed from the HSCA due to his great interest in the subject.
Richard Sprague from Gaeton Fonzi - the CIA and Oswald in Mexico - NOT.docx

77-04-18 FBI - Richard Sprague press conference about FBI hearing tape not being Oswald
- Mexico City Tapes Apr 18 1977.pdf

Your work has clearly demonstrated that the bus trip scenario was fabricated by the FBI after the fact, possibly to conceal a more dangerous fabrication: the CIA's plan to implicate a car-riding "Oswald" and others in a commie-inspired plot to murder the president. (Thank you Paul - I had hoped I accomplished that end) But why did the HSCA accept the "Oswald really did travel to Mexico City" scenario without digging into it?  The CIA told them to stay away from MX, FBI turned all of MX back onto the CIA's "transcripts". And the WCR lawyers obviously were told to go along to get along:  "'fudging' the contents of these calls"

One other question:

2. We all (almost) agree that our Dallas patsy "Oswald" never set foot inside the Cuban diplomatic compound in Mexico City. Agreed

But if I've followed you correctly (a big "if"), you believe no one even remotely "Oswaldesque" set foot in either the Cuban Embassy on September 26 or the Cuban Consulate on the 27th.

If I understand your argument, you believe the entire "Oswald" in Mexico City scenario was created after the fact by CIA officials led by David Atlee Phillips.

I'm glad you focus on that Paul...  Maybe I was not clear in my words...  I "suspect" that a very strong possibility was that no one related to Oswald was ever at these locations other than the Nov 7th Oct Summary mention of "an American speaking English".  I added that thought as a discussion point since the closer one looks the more obvious it is he wasn't there.

Simply by the described behaviors of those at the Cuban locations related to this man: from Duran avoiding mention of the photographic studio she would send "anyone" needed photos for an application to AZCUE summarily throwing this potential US agent out on his heels and/or an opportunity to talk to a disgruntled American and turn him for use as an asset...  that was his job.

Is it your belief then that there was not even one deliberate "Oswald" impersonator at either the Embassy on the 26th or the Consulate on the 27th? Or have I misread your position? (I personally suspect there were two different impersonators, possibly for different reasons.)

It is my understanding that the entirety of the evidence related to our Oswald visiting these locations is a complete fabrication.  Does the person talking to the Soviet Embassy (not there is no mention of Cuban compound at all) at 10:30 or so on the 27th about Odessa - REALLY have anything to do with Oswald?  I don't think so at all.  "Fluent Spanish" also means these were transcribed by Mrs. Tarasoff, not Boris.

 

 

We are then treated to lies about the Saturday call(s), the lies about tapes being erased and the denials about the FBI as well as WCR lawyers, hearing the tape.  We also see from these records, all the calls in question were recorded off Soviet lines: Military attache (wonder where Ozzie would have gotten that number in the first place?) and the Embassy Consulate & Chancery

In addition, the claim is he not only was on the phone after 4pm on the 27th, but had actually visited the Mexico Soviet Embassy - one of the most watched places on the planet - on the 28th.  This dovetails into Mann's statement about not being able to find a shred of evidence Oswald was there outside the CIA transcripts and the hotel registry.  Remember, Hoover's SIS assets - over 20 of them - searched for Oswald throughout Nov with no luck.

I mean, Theresa Proenza at the Embassy, and Sylvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue at the Consulate did talk with someone in a memorable fashion on the 26th and the 27th, right?  Surely, they were not lying about interacting with someone who claimed to be "Oswald", right?

Consider those sources Paul.  These are the same people who dismissed him as well as lied about the Paz rave party.  One has to ask - why do the CIA assets within these locations deny the existence of Oswald in their interviews and reports?   Why are we aware of a number of "fabricators" looking to implicate Oswald including ALVARADO, VILLANOVA, MORA, VALENCIA who all come out of the woodwork after 11/22 with none of these things being reported for Sept/Oct or Nov.

If the CIA created the entire "Oswald was in Mexico City" scenario after the fact (in early October, say) and no one even remotely "Oswaldesque" ever set foot in either the Embassy or the Consulate, then how do we explain the adamant, persistent beliefs of both Proenza at the Embassy on the 26th and Duran and Azcue at the Consulate on the 27th that they had to deal with someone claiming to be "Oswald"?

To be clear Paul, the idea this was entirely made up is simply that, an idea which is only contradicted by those perpetrating the charade.  Other than those 3, who else claims to have interacted with Oswald except for the Russians who we are sure fabricated their end to maintain appearances.  I previously posted the one mention of MX in the Clinton-Russia papers which basically says they will tow the company line and agree with the press reports.

There is the newer reports from CiD that he was with Thomas Eli at the Luna hotel about 10 miles south of downtown MX city sometime between Sept 26 and Oct 3.  Yet we are once again left with Eli, his wife and June Cobb as sources for this meeting, which would not have been needed really since Eli was in New Orleans when Oswald was there and could have easily met there.

What would be the reason for them to fly down to MX, other than to maybe leave a record Oswald did go - yet again, they did not tell that story... they created one.

No one even close to looking like Oswald was ever photographed (I see the LEONOV discussion as a red herring - everyone involved knew who he was) at either compound.. which may have been the real problem here...

IF there was a person impersonating Oswald at that time, he certainly did not look like Oswald (which is why I believe they did not show DURAN the photos and application until 1977) - now, if you were involved (and lived in and around the "spy" world  and realized this - would we expect them to play along or contradict the US investigation into the killing of JFK?

(Again, I do not believe our Dallas patsy "Oswald" ever set foot in Mexico City or its environs in 1963.)

David, your clarification of either or both questions would be very helpful to me.

Thanks.

MX is a real tangled mess if you take anything offered in the reports as real.  Simpich and others appear right in the assumption something else was going on with the use of "OSWALD" at that place and at that time.

I post this as an example of the "spying" LITAMIL-9 did along with reporting of same.  A "tall, blond American student" suspected of being and American agent...  but not Oswald with his FPCC, Russia-stay and declarations of support...  he was just throw out.

 

Just now, Karl Kinaski said:

Double Dating Anna and David Lewis in the summer of 63? What's wrong with that? 

Not what she said in the video interview with JVB sitting right there... repeatedly...  no corrections.

  watch the video and read the paper ?

36 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Well yeah ... that's just like your opinion, man. 

Exactly why, instead, facts are presented in the linked paper...  and those same "facts" undo her stories each time.

Anna Lewis...  Jan-Apr 1962.  or '63 for that matter.  Oooops.  

On 9/15/2023 at 5:57 AM, Karl Kinaski said:

Since nobody here takes into account Judyth Bakers story on Oswald in Mexico

Fiction doesn't belong on this forum unless to debunk it for being offered as "non-" 

https://www.kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JudythBaker-DJ.pdf

As we've seen when the surface is scratched, her stories always fall apart for being 1 part truth and 99 parts not.

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

So was someone doing facial comparisons?  What department was it and when? 

I did the comparisons when I found the above glossy image... the "normal" image used for the SSS/Hidell ID at the left of the 3 is also a bit stretched.  Really interesting how the different generational copies of things will change the aspect ratio depending on a variety of variables over the years.

I'm sorry Jim but I don't have any more info than that right now; I'll keep looking thru my files though and see if something comes up.

I haven't seen any other images of Kostikov other than that 1958 reference and this claim by Brian Litman:

https://www.rferl.org/a/us-ussr-kennedy-assassination-oswald-kgb-contact-mexico-assassinations-officer/28819941.html

https://medium.com/@bdlitman/col-valery-vladimirovich-kostikov-kgb-aka-comrade-kostin-33f7d730adb1

19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Where did you find that?

File name is: ***.   nary-wcdocs-29_0018_0002

I usually write source info into the filename...  Sorry

53 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

But that is not Kostikov right?

Ed and Danny identified him as I think a guy named Moskalev?

And I think they said that Goodpasture should have known him before she sent it up.

No, that is not Kostikov.  I did find this

Oswald regular                                             his right side duplicated                        left side 

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

In addition to the declassified record above produced by Mr. Josephs, the day after the assassination, no one at the Russian Embassy mentioned Oswald being there.

 

 

Not only did they not mention him afterward, they did not mention him while he was supposedly actually there at the time - with the only actual taping of phones going on against the Russian compounds.

That so much happens between Oct 8 and Nov 7 for the October Summary Report to be so casual about the "english speaking American" and how it was Oct 1st's transcript that supposedly connects the two calls/callers.

M/M Tarasoff remain one of the most misunderstood links in the MX City chain of "evidence".  According to Boris, the transcribed tapes of "those" conversation on the 27th and 28th would be in the hands of CIA/MX by Oct 1st yet nothing is said until the 8th, the day after Phillips arrives and is sent by Goodpasture and the Russian desk as they are Russian intercepts.

Boris only translated Russian while his wife took care of Spanish.  The first call on the 27th was in Spanish.  

Tarasoff sends some of these photos to a CIA friend (Millie Rodriguez) for identification and reports claim she said it was Kostikov.  This info comes from NARA copies from Malcolm and is not online.

RIF # 104-10307-10045

Seems pretty simple, straightforward book marketing at its finest.

Doesn't matter what he's said all along - you think anyone but us even has a clue? - by questioning the SBT he almost guarantees a best-seller.

Worse yet, despite scientific impossibility, Landis' words will be taken seriously and confuse those looking into the case for years to come. {sigh}.  The man blew off his primary responsibilities, got plowed until 5am and NOW wants to come clean with a best selling book and more confusion about the facts of the case.  Red card!

@Vince Palamara Hope you don't mind but found this in my stuff... not sure if all this remains the same today for you yet this was a great recap... thanks!

The Secret Service and CE 399
by Vincent Michael Palamara 

       The following is a compendium of all the anomolies
pertaining to what I like to refer to as the "legitimacy" of
CE399, including the Secret Service's handling of it:

[in no particular order]

1) CE2011-O.P. Wright, Darrel Tomlinson, Chief James J. Rowley,
and SA Richard Johnsen could NOT identify CE399 as the bullet
they all allegedly  handled on 11/22/63 ("over-the-counter"
references: "JFK-Conspiracy of Silence", p. 133; "Crossfire", p.
365; "Reasonable Doubt", p. 70);

2) 24H412-Although two FBI agents (Todd and Frazier) initialed the
bullet they received from the Secret Service, Johnsen and Rowley
did NOT, breaking the legal chain of custody;

3) CD7-Although the bullet was "officially" found on a stretcher 
in a corridor of  Parkland Hospital, the FBI(Sibert and O'Neil)
reported that it was found in the emergency room!;

4) a)Sibert and O'Neil  interview of  SAIC Jerry Behn,
11/27/63-the same FBI agents bypassed Johnsen and spoke instead
to Behn(not even IN Dallas) about "the location of a bullet which
had been found on a stretcher at Parkland";

4) b) RIF#180-10104-10481:HSCA interview of SAIC Behn-
Incredibly, Behn "stated that he was in the chain of custody of
CE 399-Behn received the bullet from Johnsen, then turned it over
to the FBI" [DJ: Johnsen gives it to ROWLEY who gives it to TODD who gives it to FRAZIER, no BEHN];

5) Price Exhibits, Warren Commission Volume XXI - O.P. Wright, 
the man who allegedly gave the bullet to Johnsen at Parkland, 
does not even  MENTION this very important find at all in his
report(?!);

6) Darrel Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, Nathan Pool-all described a
DIFFERENT bullet than CE399(pointed, hunting-type)["Six Seconds
in Dallas"; "High Treason", p. 102; HSCA document-interview with
Nathan Pool, 1/10/77; etc.]. According to research done by Josiah
Thompson, the bullet was found on a stretcher used by a young boy
named Ronny Fuller!;

7) LBJ Library document-Memorandum to File-According to Chief
James J. Rowley, CE399  "was found amongst the clothes on one of
the stretchers." If that wasn't enough,  Governor Connally 
stated in his autobiography called "In History's Shadow"," But 
the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me 
off the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object 
fell onto the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. 
The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was 
the BULLET FROM MY BODY, the one that passed through my back, 
chest, and wrist, and worked itself loose from my thigh" 
(emphasis added-p.18; "The Investigator" Feb-May 1994). 
Corroborating Connally's memory, from the 11/21/93 Dallas Morning
News interview with Henry Wade:" I also went out to see 
Connally, but he was in the operating room(note the time frame).
Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was on the 
gurney that Connally was on...I told her to give it to the police,
which she said she would. I assume that's the pristine bullet"
("The Investigator" Feb-May 1994). Finally, Gary Shaw (in the 
11/22/93 "Dateline: Dallas" issue) came across this passage from 
the Warren Commission testimony of Parkland nurse Jeanette 
Standridge:
 
     Specter: "Did you notice any object in Governor Connally's
clothing?"
     Standridge:"Not unusual"
     Specter:" Did you notice a bullet, specifically?"
     Standridge:"No"
     Specter:" Did you hear the sound of anything fall?"
     Standridge:"I didn't"
  
 Is THIS "CE399"? What's going on here?

😎 Bill Greer-Although it is an "official" fact that Agent 
Richard Johnsen gained possession of CE399 (a.k.a. "the magic 
bullet," linked to Oswald's gun) via O.P. Wright (who obtained 
it thru Darrel Tomlinson AND Nathan Pool, who obtained it in the
PRESENCE of Secret Service agent[s]) at Parkland Hospital, what 
has never been widely reported is the fact that Agent Greer 
maintained VERY close proximity to Johnsen and the bullet in
question (18H799-800):

      a) BOTH agents guarded the emergency room(Trauma Room
1)-Greer inside, Johnsen outside(2H126; 18H798);

      b) IF the FBI's report is accurate(see # 3[CD7] above),
Greer was the ONLY agent stationed inside the emergency room with
JFK;
      c)Johnsen rode with Greer in a car on the way to Air Force
One (along with fellow agents David Grant, Samuel Sulliman,
Ernest Olsson, and Paul Landis)-and we're supposed to believe
that ALL these agents remained  silent about the bullet!(18H799;
18H723);

      d)Greer rode with Johnsen near the casket in the REAR of
Air Force One(from the point of time starting with the swearing
in of LBJ, when the MAJORITY of agents/people were up
front[18H799; 2H126))...

      When we consider that  both Greer AND Kellerman remained
silent about this bullet until it was announced by Chief Rowley
that night during the autopsy (via a phone call TO Kellerman!),
we have to wonder about the implications of this "silence"-- in 
a recently uncovered HSCA document, Roy Kellerman stated that 
SA Johnsen told him about the  bullet  while they were still at
PARKLAND(HSCA document, interviews with Kellerman, outside
contact report, 8/24-8/25/77)!!!! This early knowledge is
troubling because of the following:
     
     Once the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital was underway,
Greer "said that a bullet had been found on a stretcher-or rather
as it fell from a stretcher- in Parkland Hospital...could this be
the bullet that went INTO THE NECK and, in the jostling of the
President on the stretcher, FELL OUT?" As author Jim Bishop
reported (thru his interview with Greer [and Kellerman])," GREER's
THESIS had a supporter. Roy Kellerman ... said he remembered a
Parkland doctor astride the chest of the dead President, applying
artificial respiration. Kellerman...thought the bullet in the
BACK...might have been squeezed out by manual pressure..."("The
Day Kennedy was Shot", page 498,530; see also Tomlinson-2H412;
Greer-2H127; Kellerman-2H93)!

      Why would they even need Rowley's call to "alert" them to
the bullet found at Parkland and given to the FBI (two agents --
Sibert and O'Neil -- were in attendance with Greer and
Kellerman at the autopsy)? Why would Rowley "order" Kellerman to
tell the autopsy doctors about something he already knew about?
It gets better (or worse, depending on which way you see it)...    

9) During an interview conducted on 9/29/92, the author learned
that Agent Richard Johnsen DID NOT REMEMBER having possession of
CE399!?!? ("The Third Alternative-Survivor's Guilt:the Secret
Service and the JFK Murder", p. 43-see also pages 30,31,52,53,
and 65;"The Investigator" Dec '93/Jan '94-article by author).
Furthermore, Johnsen mentions in his first report that the
bullet, quote, "may" have originated from Governor Connally's
stretcher -- obviously, one of the components of the "single 
bullet theory" is having the bullet on Connally's stretcher; if 
the bullet was found on JFK's stretcher (or Ronny Fuller's, or
elsewhere), the theory is in big trouble. Interestingly, Johnsen
retired in 1979, having never been questioned by the FBI, the
Warren Commission, or the HSCA, and when I tried, I received very
cantankerous responses(it was the day after contacting Johnsen
that I received  the infamous call from the Executive Secretary
of the Former Agents of the Secret Service, "Percy" Hamilton 
Brown, telling me very angrily to "cease and desist from
contacting any more of my associates...I gave you no authority to
do so." As former agent Bob Lilly told me, "Who died and made him
boss?!" Sam Kinney told me, "Hey, it's a free country!"). As for
Johnsen's "second" report, a sort of mini-report enclosed with
his first report having to do with the acquisition of CE399, it
is UNSIGNED. (18H799-800;this report actually exists seperately,
as new documents uncovered from the LBJ Library reveal, although
the same report as reproduced in the Warren Commission Volumes
gives the impression it is part of the same[first] report, due to
its juxtoposition on TOP of the first report). There may be more
to Johnsen's present "amnesia" over this evidence than meets the
eye...

10) CBS' Eddie Barker [whose son is a Secret Service
agent!] interview of O.P. Wright ("Postmortem", p. 46)-"...I got
hold of a Secret Service man and THEY[sic?] didn't seem to be
interested in coming and looking at the bullet in the position it
was in then. So I went back to the area where Mr. Tomlinson was
and picked up the bullet and put it in my pocket, and I carried
it some 30 or 40 minutes. And I gave it to a Secret Service man
that was guarding the main door into the emergency room..."Who
was the first agent Wright spoke to? And was his use of the word
"they" a mistake? NO...

      HSCA attorney Belford V. Lawson*, in charge of the Secret
Service area of the "investigation," is the author of a recently
uncovered memo in regard to an interview with Nathan Pool
conducted on 1/10/77 and headlined "POOL's CO-DISCOVERY OF THE
'TOMLINSON' BULLET." In the memo, Pool mentions the fact that TWO
Secret Service agents were by the elevator, one of which "
remained there throughout most or all of  Pool's stay". Before we
can catch our breath, a THIRD Secret Service agent enters the
picture; although all these men were in the immediate vicinity of
the discovery of the bullet, one particular  agent "was within 10
feet when Pool recognized the bullet". According to Pool, the
bullet was pointed, and he added that it "didn't look like it had
hit anything and didn't look like it had been in anything".

     Lawson felt that further development of Pool's testimony may
reveal the following:

QUOTE: "A SECRET SERVICE AGENT WAS FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF
TIME CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE ELEVATOR TO PLANT A BULLET; MAY LEAD TO
AN IDENTIFICATION OF THAT AGENT..."

And you thought only "assassination buffs" came up with
compelling  assertions...

*a former adviser to JFK on civil rights; a D.C. political
figure; any relation to WINSTON G. LAWSON, in charge of the
advance security in Dallas?
 

3 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

There could also have been another entrance that did not have surveillance...

Rif#104-10185-10266. 175 pages of LITAMIL/9 reports