David Josephs

4 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

And, Sandy, I would remind you and DJ and whomever else is in your ragged little posse to recall that John Armstrong asked me to vet his manuscript.  Long before any of your posse - with the exception of Jim - knew anything about it.  Not you, not DJ, not Dr. Newbie.

Then how is it you don't know a single zigsaw puzzle piece tells little about the entire image....?

Take Stripling out of the equation for a second...  It's not like the lynchpin to the entire batch of thousands of documents which illuminate the duplicity.

If you spent that much time with the work, why do you know so little about the rest of the puzzle pieces around which Stripling fits?
You and the gamg of 4 treat each item of evidence as if it stands along and doesn't fit into other pieces to show us a glimpse of what was going on....

If you're not EVER going to look at this in context, within a framework of deception to pile on the patsy as much evidence as possible so "patsy" becomes "guilty",
in what context DO you place the strange activities of 1953-54 school year?   

I'll post the BJHS perm record and source grade cards as ask again....

Why is 1954-55 at BJHS so sparse regarding attendance while at the same time the NYC records feeding into BJHS are also FUBAR and look amazingly like 2 children's records combined into one....    and why don't the actual grade cards feed into his perm record?

The grades themselves don't match....
12 absences...  when not a single card has anything over 8.

You think New Orleans schools simply forget how to count or copy information?  You think every discrepancy is simply human error in a case where all roads led to Oswald or they weren't taken...

And herein lies the rub....  you wont address a SIMPLE question like what do your eyes see .... but rather keep throwing back your bona fides and the same myopic rhetoric.

an example... we don't SEE black holes, we see the movement of the objects near to it behaving differently than if they were not near a black hole....  the black hole is a logical conclusion from the entirety of the evidence....  100 years ago no one knew much of their existence... 55 years ago another existence was hidden leaving only signs and wavelengths to chase...
 the similarities are eerie..

While we have early photos of Lee to compare to Harvey, the last LEE image have is the 1959 passport photo.   So in essence LEE becomes the black hole around which we see anomalous behavior that stands out from the norm.... Having spent so much time with the data then Robert, how is it you're not aware of this?

Like being both at Atsugi and Ping Tung at the same time....  Being in Dallas and New Orleans at the same time, 
one being a loud, big, strong, fighting marine... the other a quiet, standoffish, politic talking annoyance... obviously much more educated than the real Lee... and obviously in the employ as an asset for the FBI and CIA... the perfect patsy doing work for his benefactors while simultaneously setting himself up....

I'm terribly sorry John didn't spend more time with you discussing 1952, 53, 54....  we spent 2 years and went thru every footnote...  you?

Are you also saying GORSKY was lying when he tells us LEE left the marines in March 1959 with all records forwarded to DC....  in direct conflict to the official narrative
How can you say you have knowledge of the data when it is so obvious you don't.?  

You're aware that Santa Ana and El Toro, in 1963, where 2 very different places.

At the end of the day Robert...  neither of us budges.  If you feel one item/area of evidence has the power to negate all the evidence... 

There always seems to be a handful of critics with nothing but their critique as their only weapon...  CONTEXT simply doesn't exist - and from my POV that is one sure way to completely misunderstand the situations and circumstance presented....  CONTEXT, Robert, changes everything... so you keep jamming your square peg into the round hole and wonder in amazement why it dont fit while the rest of us understand there is something wrong with both the peg AND the hole....

I took a break from the forum since there seems to be no bar too low for critics of other's work to stoop in refusing to accept any evidence contrary to their own opinions...
Show them the evidence and like cockroaches after a light switch goes on... the scramble is on for a tactic that can mitigate the truth, make the poster enter an endless BS-loop with the critic, and take readers minds off the subject at hand....  we post what we do to allow anyone without the background knowledge to see the evidence first hand...

Not thru the filters you boys render it thru....

That tactic is outlined in COINTELPRO....  and is especially effective when combined with other tactics,,,  here are a few for reference - numbered below - that we've seen here over the years I've been here....
Whether consciously or not... the tactic remains the same and is why H&L threads are so incredibly long each time.

Most of those who are the most vocal, remain the least knowledgeable on the subject matter... as if reading the book and doing some research on one's own is simply too much to ask for a posting critic bent on being contrary.   Last time - if you see nothing wrong with NYC's records or BJHS records...  isn't it time for you to move on to a thread where you have something to offer?

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely.

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.

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Just wondering-isn't there some kind of forum rule against posting the same thing over and over again?

Fire, meet Frying pan....

Hi Aldin,

At that time all you needed was a tourist visa, not a passport.  The passport could be the ID for the VISA... Oswald supposedly used his Birth Cert...despite having a passport.
The Passport has little to do with Mexico since they claimed he was showing them the older 1959 Russian stamped passport....  which is strange anyway...

You did need a Vaccination Cert to get back into the US, which we find later was created with Oswald's stamp kit (another story)

I'd suggest going to MARYFERRELL's site and do some digging...  all those docs are fairly easy to find....

The Passport is CE1969  https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139#relPageId=850&tab=page

Take care, welcome here... and please feel free to ask....  

DJ

Oh, I see...  back, behind them...  I'll take a closer look at Betzner

DJ

9 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

I was foolishly going to chime in regarding the head size, I figured what would be the point though?

You sound like an intelligent, thinking person who considers the data and renders an opinion....

I don't have skin in the game whether H&L floats your boat or not.... can't MAKE people see, they need to get it or not....
I know that there are so many more hurdles for your arguments to address the duplicity of Lee Harvey, your mind would spin.... 

This one hurdle presents itself as quite an anomaly.  For the man's head to be that large he must have been farther away from the wall, distorting his true height... or a new background is put in.... (most people in the investigation see the crappy copies)

The man on the left in the previous side by side image is virtually against the wall, while on the right we really have no idea....

Here's a much better image as well....  why do you think his head is so far out of proportion?. and would you say these are the same men?

DJ  

People in glass houses.... should stop walking full speed into walls....  cause nobody that ignorant.
(take it personally at your own risk... I'm just sayin')

March 23, 1953 thru Jan 12, 1954....  how many school days ?

One of the simplest, if not THE simplest question to answer....  just count the days he could have gone to school M-F....  we'll take away vacations and Youth House after.... 

===

When you and the rest finally figure out how to count these days.... maybe you can actually get a seat at the table and be considered more than just an interruption...

Nothing wrong in 1954 here, move along, move along...  nothing to see here.... CIA/FBI in America in the 50's...  no cause for alarm... 

   (thinking of you Tommy G)

Are you putting a camera into Sitzman's hands?

16 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

So, the idea is to create two people who can pass for each other, but one of them has a head 50% larger than the other?  Is that your argument?

Um... sure, that makes sense.  Nobody will ever notice that.

You're being funny, right Robert... cause nobody that ignorant.

Do you understand the image on the right is not possible... period.   whether these are the same man is not the point...

how do you explain the size difference assuming they are the same man?   

Do you know what's wrong with the photo on the right... or you just being you...  

11 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

If Zapruder had inadvertently gone into slow motion, then eased
up to go into normal speed, it could be accompanied with over and
under exposure frames at each speed change if his camera did not get
to speed instantly upon starting or slowing down from slow motion to
normal."

And if those frames are removed intentionally, we would never know about the camera stopping and starting to take 48 & 16 fps ...

Then again it only requires 1 change as the limo rounds the corner...  From 132 to 133 we do not see the stop/start light bleed...  then again, it could have also happened at 157...
or even better 161....

The post alteration frame numbering is a sight to behold....

3 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

0184 goes a long way answering questions re early dupes rumored to be created by an optical film house in NYC. Nice work.

   Nice to see ya David....  Hope you and yours are doing well

DJ

ps... that 0184 was allowed to simply fade into history given the impossibility of it NOT being a print made between 0183 and 0185.
 

deleted

deleted...

Greg, I wish you all the luck and success you can find... 

I'd only suggest to dig a bit more deeply before offering "conclusions", as opposed to theories or hypotheses.   

Some thoughts to consider

1. TOMLINSON's bullet is never authenticated as CE399... in fact, CE399 comes into existence when ROWLEY hands it to TODD
   CE2011 p.2.   https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=430&tab=page  
    
2. Bullets do enter without exiting... FBI reports a bullet behind the ear IN ADDITION TO the bullet they are calling CE399
   Paul O'connor tells us a bullet was removed from the intercostal muscles in the lower right side of JFK's back
   A Dr. Young tells us corpsmen were sent to retrieve bone pieces and find another fully intact bullet....
   Cliff V is mentioning an exotic item that did exist and very possibly was employed to "freeze" JFK in place....
    
3. A lower neck wound was described by LIPSEY which exited the throat...  LIPSEY also tells us the body was flown by helicopter to Bethesda and brought in the back...  Dennis David and a number of others confirm this arrival.  Problem again, that creates to many shots from the rear for one man....
   You have considered DAL-TEX and COUNTY COURTHOUSE to the East and then the south knoll area....for shot origination ?
    
4. Ford moved the hole to make it appear it was coming on a downward trajectory and match the other Ryberg image.... when in fact the evidence says it rose in an upward trajectory from back to front...  rose up....
    
5. And then there are the realities of what a 6.5mm bullet leaves behind as it tunnels thru soft tissue... how JFK was actually sitting, the steep angle of the Connally entrance(s) and finally the right to left movement of the bullet and supposed downward trajectory would have hit the seat after exiting JFK's chest...
   
   A scene from a reenactment... 5 1/4 inches down from the collar is where the red line (bullet) enters... JFK is sitting fairly straight up and that entry appears to match the hole in the shirt from the image I posted above...
   
   Elm is on a 3 degree slope as well, creating a steeper angle downward...  to connect back to front the angle must rise....  so Ford moves the hole.... since adding a second hole there is not possible with 1 shooter... and only 3 bullets used.
   
   
   
   
    
6. The backward and to the left particle trail of fragments which originate at the right temple and spread back and to the left from there...  here is the entry and the location of the fragments below
    
7. 
   
   
      There has been enough work done to prove these fragments could not have originated from a rear shot.  With the larger fragments nears the rear it makes sense since the mass was enough to make it the farthest distances...  the "cloud" of fragments which we see at the front were too small to travel that far....

Bottom line Greg, this is a 10,000 piece puzzle of which we only have 2500 pieces 1/3 are blank, 1/3 come from a different puzzle and 1/3 has the evidence offered and found in 5+ years...  the picture on the box simply doesn't match the pieces provided...

Take care

DJ

22 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

David Josephs, no offense intended but I still have no idea what you are talking about or what all those charts and numbers are supposed to mean or prove. Would it be possible to state in two sentences: sentence #1: what specific point is being claimed or falsified? Sentence #2: what form of evidence or argument is set forth to prove #1? Thanks.

None taken Greg... yet no one said it would be easy...  it's taken me years of working with it to understand, and I still have nowhere near the understanding of the math that Chris does... but I get it once it's down on the paper.

There's a lot more to it than just a couple sentences does justice...  Point of it all was to show 2 and only 2 shots hitting the limo occupants.. and remove all evidence of other shots despite what the witnesses saw or heard. 

1. The Zfilm was altered to remove frames while the FBI/SS falsifies the data.  Math proves it...  It also strongly supports that the film's assassination sequence (z133 - z486) was taken at 48 frames per second not 16 (he 2 settings are the only options) and then reduced from there to it's current 486 frames at 18.3 frames per second
    
2. Shaneyfelt moved the limo off its path by moving it 1.1 foot south and .9 foot UP Elm... this makes the MATH work but not the film to the evidence
   
   The survey notes, the original notes from WEST prove the FBI and SS removed shots, moved locations and generally ignored the initial survey results...
   that Z313 was shot #2 and at station 4+96 down by the stairs and Emmett Hudson, another shot is recorded...
   
   The yellow curbs are important as in the Zfilm we see the z313 yellow curb just in front of Moorman, and the one further down Elm is by Altgens...
   
   Mr. ALTGENS - This would put me at approximately this area here, which would be about 15 feet from me at the time he was shot in the head--about 15 feet from the car on the west side of the car--on the side that Mrs. Kennedy was riding in the car.
   
   
    

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I see. So both you and Greg Parker believe that the U.S. Marine Corps in its medical reports allowed recruits to make estimates of their own height and weight, and even allowed recruits to “exaggerate” their physical characteristics?  Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Uh, Tracy....   then why would they bother taking a photo against a height scale?  Despite how FUBAR it is...

You want a crack at explaining this?

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Thanks David Josephs. Unfortunately I read through about the first 3 pages of the 57 and, sad to say, I have no idea what he is talking about. I catch that there is some argument from math about a change in Zapruder film speed from 18 to 46 frames per second or something, but I could not work out what was the argument or point. One or two commenters on those first three pages expressed the same puzzlement. Would it be possible for you to say as simple clear description in a single paragraph what the argument is? I looked on Mary Ferrell re argument for Zapruder being altered and could not find much substantial. Do you know of a single print article (print much preferred by me over video if possible) that best makes whatever case you think is correct on that, such as this math that you mention? Thanks--

Real quick about that throat wound.... 

Mr. Rankin:

Then there‘s a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time.

We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through.

So that how it could turn, and -- 

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

Now, if you go to the autopsy you will not find this passage anywhere...  not the autopsy the public finally sees.... so one has to wonder from what document Rankin is reading...  there are other problems with there being 2 autopsy reports but that's not for this thread.  What I still have yet to learn is from which Autopsy this unknown info comes....  since Humes supposedly burned everything....  

I'd like to address your whole post, which I will, but want to answer this question first....  Chris knows to correct anything I misstate below... he's 3 or 4 levels deeper into the subject... and the originator of the use of Math in quantifying the fraud.

===

As to what MATH RULES shows....

Shaneyfelt moved the path of the limo off the Robert West surveyor path, to one which enables the limo to appear in the same place yet at the wrong frame # (which were also created by Shaneyfelt)  By changing 168 to 161 in CE884 they take a distance of .9 feet over 3 frames or 2.24mph, to 5 frames 161-166 or a little over 3mph...

Below is the limo shown both as the Zfilm had him at 161, and superimposed over that is where Shaneyfelt put the limo at 168...  The Line of sight from Zapruder to limo would show JFK in the exact same Line...  (which was why they messed with the lane markers afterward)  yet the frame # would be wrong... 7 more from the start (168-161=7) 
5 fewer for the end (171-166=5)... 3 frames for speed adjustment and 18.3 fps....

The red arrows shows the surveyed path, pink is LOS for Zapruder, Green is Zapruder frame 205 when the left front fender clears the sign.
Different analysis uses the front bumper, the back bumper and JFK in the limo 15.2 feet from the front as frame locations...

This was accomplished by moving the limo - physically moving the stand-in limo.. then, looking thru the camera on the pedestal and matching it to the Zfilm...
Chris here shows that due south from Position A is the divergence point for Shaneyfelt and my note explains what he did

CE884 changed in a few key areas...This legend and the original work of Robert West secured by Tom Purvis many years ago challenges everythin you may know about the Zfilm.

Don't we have all sorts of strangeness with Z207 -z222 on the film?   Same places yet new and different frame numbers...
The WHY was to sync the scant few images/films of the shooting around 313 and work backward...

It was also to remove the correct number of frames between 132 and 133....

The B&W image shows the limo stand-in at Position A...  the Queen Mary right on its tail...
Not only was this turn removed, but they had to wait until the QM was again right behind the limo...

Otherwise, why include a spot the limo supposedly did not move thru...  if the limo does

Mr. SHANEYFELT. This shows the photograph that was made from the point where Zapruder was standing looking toward the car, and is a point that we have designated as position A because it is in a position that did not appear on the Zapruder film
The Zapruder film does not start until the car gets farther down Elm Street.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. What is that exhibit number?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Exhibit No. 886.
Mr. SPECTER. And why was that location selected for the position of the car?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. This location was selected as the first point at which a person in the sixth floor window of the Book Building at our control point could have gotten a shot at the President after the car had rounded the corner from Houston to Elm

Seems like that limo could roll back up Elm quite a bit and we stil lcould see and hit that spot on his back...  Chris also proves why the stand-in car was 10" higher than the limo

Note: we have - supposedly - the actual frame by frame film of the assassination from this angle... why recreate it?   Why survey and resurvey 4 and 5 times?

This is what the turn might have actually looked like.  Shaneyfelt refers to the very important Station C as where he WOULD HAVE TURNED... but they simply ignore TRULY's statement about the limo turning wide and almost hitting the little Elm curb.

A limo at 11.2 mph travels farther in 3 frames than .9 foot.  The speed was averaged and for very good reason...
But what we don't see it this massive slowing and accelerating necessary to match CE884's data.... which in turn was designed to all work back to the 6th floor window... 

The frame rates given for Zapruder and Towner are simply wrong and used to hide the cuts and overlaps....

No camera operates at 22 fps...  neither does it operate at 18.3 frames per second (note: the pitch of Elm is exactly 18.3:1 run over rise... so every second of film we should travel 18.3 feet.. makes the math much easier)

A theory held for quite some time is that with a flick of his finger, 16fps jumps to 48fps... and Zapruder now has 3x as many frames as regular speed....
Take out 25% of the frames from 48 you have 36 fps.... take 50% of those out of the film and we get 18 frames per second and with a few adjustments we can get 18.3fps...

Now, the MATH he uses gets deep into angles, distances and locations...  by reading the thread you realize the FBI simply changed the evidence to fit the need...

Where have we hear THAT before?  

DJ

FWIW, the dots on the plat from Shaneyfelt align exactly to the frames used by the NPIC Sunday night to create the briefing boards...
Coincidence?   Doubt it, right?

15 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

He is saying that the whole of the photographic record from Dealey Plaza is self-authenticating. Dozens of people were taking photographs and home movies in Dealey Plaza, and many of those images overlap. Photograph A was taken at the same time as, and included part of the same scene as, Home Movie B, which was taken at the same time as, and included part of the same scene as, Photograph C. And so on.

Because there is a mass of interacting images, altering one image is likely to generate discrepancies with other images, which would give the game away. The nefarious alteration of Image X is likely to require the alteration of Image Y, which will then require the alteration of Image Z. And so on.

Have you done a single thing on your own?  Have you even bothered to check into what Josh is saying?

How many photographs of the assassination sequence do you think there are?  100's?

FFS.... here is a graphic showing ALL the photos taken and the items within their field of view... 
 how many actually capture anything between z161 and z400?

Betzner, Willis and Croft catch the limo before Z200  (If you don't understand the Towner to Zapruder sync - go do some research please)
Altgens at 255 or so....
Moorman, Muchmore (whose FBI report states she did not take any film of the assassination shots - see below)
Bond - all after the limo leaves

Moorman is the only photo of the assassination occurring at an important time.... (edit: got to include Altgens as important but only the Zfilm has another image of that instant...  quite a MASS, huh?)

In terms of films... Towner, Muchmore, Nix, Zapruder, Bronson....  how about you give us the chain of custody for all these films and their copies....
Or explain how they were set to frame rates in the low 20's and high teens... as opposed to actual camera settings of 16 and 48 frames per second

So explain how Moorman's photo is "self-authenticating"... as compared to which other photo/film and synced up how?
(if you read the MATH RULES thread you'd have a small clue)

As you can see there is no MASS of interacting images....   Muchmore doesn't contradict Zapruder or the others as a real shot did hit somewhere in that area give or take about 4 feet....
The FBI had months to pull this all together....  WCD298 does just that... and is filled with information which betrays what the FBI did.

Then again you STILL aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know...  so, whatever... right?

Generalities and non-sequitur is no way for you boys to be making your case... using COINTELPRO tactics whether with awareness or not doesn't change the tactic or result.
Acting dumb simply because the evidence and authentication process is not to your liking... asking for more and more proof of the same things.... it goes on and on Jeremy
If you're not here to disrupt, what would you call it?

Present authenticated evidence....  and try to explain your reply on your own....  which MASS of interaction are you looking at?

When Max Phillips sent a film to Rowley in DC on 11/22, he wrote a note...

This "Note" at the end suggests those frames may indeed have been on THAT copy...
except after that evening we do not know what happens to that film...

do we now know?
DJ

ps...  "the 3rd print is forwarded...."  2 to Sorrels... so one of the Sorrels films was NOT the one he sends to DC
Zapruder had "master" and best copy... thats 1 original and 4, not 3 copies.  0184?

CD - 87 Folder 1
CO2 34030 11/22
9:55

To: Chief Rowley
From: Max D. Phillips
Subject: 8mm movie film showing President
Kennedy being shot

Enclosed is an 8mm movie film
taken by Mr. A. Zapruder, 501 Elm St., Dallas
Texas (RI8-6071)

Mr.. Zapruder was photographing
the President at the instant he was shot.

According to Mr. Zapruder, the position of
the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder.

Note: Disregard personnel scenes
shown on Mr. Zapruder’s film.. Mr. Zapruder
is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints
were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date.
The third print is forwarded.

 

Anthony... you have more supporters than you know, then. 

I'd highly suggest you read the SWAN SONG - MATH RULES thread....  it is long and very complicated but worth the time and effort...  you will see the FBI, Shaneyfelt and Gauthier and gang for who they were and what they did....in WCD298 and CE884

Conclusions are similar...  only that thread shows the math employed to sync the data to the 6th floor TSBD as opposed to where & when the shots actually originated...
sync all the data, films, photos into charts measurements and locations that simply doesn't work in Dealey Plaza..

In the process we see how and where the films were altered to cover a 2nd headshot, limo stop, a shot at z154. the crazy numbering of the frames, the timing discrepancies, the wide turn onto Elm, the shot further down past z313....

16 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Thank you in advance for comments!

Same for you Greg...  you present quite a lot of "accepted" info...  I think a careful read of that MATH read will help you see things in a different light...

FWIW
DJ

Use this search for "MATH" in thread titles... there are a number of generations of that thread thanks to Chris D....
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/search/?q=math rules&quick=1&type=forums_topic&search_in=titles

What a sweet set of documentation Bill... 

my conclusions the subject come from a few docs I've come across... a couple attached... as I did my reaseach and going thru the new release.

It seemed to me that JUNE COBB LICOOKIE was also backing the GARRO/??? play... . (attached).... 

I like to ponder the chances the "Spread art via the CIA to the World" program would back Ms Garros via Phillips to make such an accusation...
and stick to it......  seems to me again that many many roads lead to DAP...

Thanks again
DJ

76-12-04 FILES FOUND - JUNE COBB OCT 5 64 STILL TALKING ABOUT THE PAZ PARTY 104-10012-10038.pdf

8 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said:

Rose's article was in 1985, not in 1977.   The Anthony Summers interview with Duran was in 1979.

Sorry, the 1st article by Hoch is dated in 1977... and I didn't catch the 1984 date on the Rose article in the end notes...  I saw that the entire thing was dated in 1985....

14 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said:

The reason for my immediate concern about your analysis because Silvia Duran is "one of the most important witnesses there is" - if she is not a truth teller, that puts an entirely different cast on her statements and testimony.

So from you're understanding, when in the timeline does DURAN become aware Mexi Oswald wasn't Ruby's Oswald...  before or after her HSCA testimony?

8 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

I have been waiting to see the evidence on which you base your belief that Ochoa and others dummied up the case about Oswald.   The two signatures on the visa application are one good example.  I still have hope.

Bill - all you need do is read the work ....   be like trying to explain State Secret in a few sentences....  the concept is easy to understand just like this one - it wasn't Oswald -... showing the evidence for what it is takes a bit more time.  I'm sorry we are disconnected here and that it takes me a bit longer to explain what I see as a fairly complicated situation.

8 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

I will say one thing - when Silvia Duran was interviewed by Tony Summers years later, and carefully shown some photos and film, she came to the conclusion that the LHO shot by Jack Ruby was not the man she saw in Mexico City on September 27.  That is an item that I don't think you know about.  See this Jerry Rose article - you might have seen it - "The Trip That Never Was - Oswald in Mexico", endnote 5

Correct Bill... didn't read the Rose article but  I have "Conspiracy" and have been thru that.... I prefer to use the source documents like I do with H&L or any other subject for that matter.... They do seem to speak volumes on their own... which is again why I include them in my posts...  they are an integral part of how I present my analysis....

I posted the passage from the Lopez report (Same source where Summers/Rose got the info?)  How else did we/Summers/HSCA find out Duran's description was of a different person?

I looked up the reference in end-note 5 in Conspiracy p.376, and it offers nothing about DURAN or photos of Oswald, only that Summers "reluctantly" reaches the conclusion about an Oswald impersonator being very possible...  The WCR has left me with a bad taste for footnotes that do not support or refer to the passage footnoted....  why bother if the note doesn't clarify the passage? 

I posted the Lopez/Duran discussion along with AZCUE's denial of Oswald earlier....   If someone was lucky enough to find and read Rose's article... or "Conspiracy", great....  the Rose article was in 1977... so unless they were privy to this Lopez conversation, there must have been other signs it wasn't actually Oswald from the evidence... 
This I both say and prove in my series of articles on the topic.

===

Rose takes 7 pages to summarize what he learned in the book CONSPIRACY about Oswald and Mexico...  How exactly do you want me to sum up hundreds pages of analysis and research on thousands of documents without taking a few paragraphs...   Why do you NEVER address the DURAN question about her lying about OSWALD to the HSCA if she knew in 1977 as did AZCUE that it was not Oswald....?  Why redact LITANIL/9 reports about Oswald not being there for 50+ years - didn't help the WCR case much, did it?

I'm not sure why we're having all this difficulty communicating....   do you want, like, 5 sentences to sum up years of work?  It remains the totality of the evidence which creates the wall... not the composition of the bricks.   

What "double dealing" about Oswald's trip to Mexico do you think Hoover was referring to in January 1964?  And like "Patsy", "Double-dealing" has a deeper meaning here...  "double" here could be taken to mean Hoover knew the CIA knew where Oswald was, and that's why they used him at that moment...

I wanted to use the source documents themselves... plus with L/9 no longer redacted and the Lopez report available, and more notes on the CIA dog and pony visits of staffers down there... I guess I am confirming/re-examining what Weisberg mentions/concludes over 10 years prior to Summers in a piece called "Could Oswald have visited Sylvia Odio?" which is fully endnoted with WCD and WCE documents....

Rose offers 3 areas of concentration: Hotel Registry, fellow passengers, & bus/frontier evidence...  all of which I repeatedly addressed on the pages of this and many other threads...

1. The Sept 17 tourist visa made out to "LEE, HARVEY OSWALD" is signed "Lee H. Oswald" in a hand we've seen repeatedly and is recognized as the signature of the man Ruby killed... yet the Hotel Registry (one of Rose's main points) is signed "Lee, Harvey Oswald" as it appears on the Visa...  OCHOA is the source for the HOTEL REGISTRY... something Summers hadn't learned.
   
    
2. Speaking of OCHOA... The first response we see from GOBERNACION is on Nov 8th - Crawford's report shown in the FBI composite of Mexi informants looking for Oswald - prev post... - and there is they have NO INFORMATION on Oswald...  we have to consider they asked OCHOA at Gobernacion given his position and place as an FBI asset.
   
   Then not again until DEC 3, 1963... when the FBI finally starts to get the evidence from OCHOA, and Mexico in general https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61172#relPageId=2&tab=page  fbi oswald mexico city file (105-3702)/  NARA Record Number: 124-10243-10017
    
3. Rose cites the same things:  Hotel registry anomalies among process, procedure, handwriting...  it appears as if all the names were written in by the same person which is procedure if all checked in prior to that same day... but they're all the same except Oswald's... and then his is the only name block lettered for the remainder of his "stay"  Rose calls out these as seen in CONSPIRACY. but fails to mention OCHOA or the Dec 3 1963 docs like the one above listing everything...
    
4. "Fellow passengers" is Jerry's next batch of problems...  I spend numerous pages in the work tracking these "witnesses" and finding they were planted, never on the buses, on different buses (eg.. in Monterrey a new group of passengers gets on the FLECHA ROJAS bus on which they've put Oswald. The WCR publishes the passenger list and departing time...  The Aussie girls who stopped in Monterrey before getting back on the bus to Mexico City are of course not on this list since they took the DEL NORTE bus...  
   
   The FBI can't decide which of the bus lines to put him on....  one of the girls claims they called him "Texas" as he kept saying he was from Fort Worth... despite the McFarlands claiming he told them he was from New Orleans....  
   
   Then there's BOWEN/OSBORNE who does not confirm it was Oswald, in fact quite to opposite stating there were no other English speaking people on the bus.
   As I said Bill...   I spent many, many pages of analysis on these "fellow traveler" statements only to find out that the FBI could find virtually every person mentioned, except Oswald.
   
   Paula Rusioni was placed on the DEL NORTE bus leaving 8:30am Oct 2nd...  (among a number of others whose stories also do not pan out)  except Del Norte did not create passenger lists according to the information https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11550#relPageId=53  WCD1154 p20... yet there it is and with an amazing assortment of names...  https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11183&relPageId=5  WCD785 p4... they claimed Oswald was in seat 12 listed as "Chihuahuenses"   PAULA is never found and her ticket number was never issued... according to the investigation.
    
5. Finally Rose offers the "bus and frontier" records as further proof Oswald didn't go...   The perpetually cheap/frugal Oswald would have bought a 3 or 4 part ticket to Mexico from New Orleans... instead he supposedly travels piece-meal buying a ticket at each stop....   
   
   He talks about the FLECHA ROJAS conflict on his way down and that like the other 3 bus lines, the records for those days were taken the day of the assassination... as were copies sent to other border crossings and Mexico City...   
   
   Arturo BOSCH literally takes a pen and changes a FRONTERA manifest to include Oswald, the FBI uses FRONTERA as Oswald's bus line for months...before finding out it didn't work, and changed it to Del Norte...   how much PROOF do you need Bill?
    
6. The inverted name from LH Oswald to HO Lee is interesting yet as I pointed out... when it came time to see the FM-11 and other "recap" documents, he is repeated alphabetized under OSWALD, "O"... almost as if they were retyped...   quite a level of Hubris in compiling this "evidence" and then recompiling it again in March/Apr/May 1964... with even more stragglers in Aug/Sept... right up to publication with the discovery Sept 14th there was a bus to Houston at 12:20 he could have taken... MUST have taken as no other bus works, yet neither did this one as it gets to Houston at around 11pm... well after the call to the TWIFORDS was supposed to have happened....
    
7. Rose finishes by looking at the specifics of the return trip....  Had you ever wondered about the HIDEEL VACCINATION CARD found in his possession with JUNE 8 stamped all over the practice area?  By having it in evidence they could avoid the fact there were no records of Vaccination for Oswald on the trip... so he MUST have had something to show them..
   
   When these were created is a mystery as the Stamp kit was not something that existed until the evidence returned from the FBI on Nov 24th to be picked up again on the 26th...
     

OCHOA add "notes for clarity" to the FM-11 record for Oswald and tells FBI that they must return all items as they are internal government docs and should not be out of his control....
That he was in a "car" at any point in time going in or out was part of the CIA plan to put Ozzie with Cuban conspirators... Even the one investigation of the "young couple" was turned on its head since the people who went into Mexico are not the people the FBI investigated...  SOP....

The FBI changes its mind about the journey's evidence repeatedly because as it is being constructed they find conflicts which require earlier travel to change so later KNOWN appointments like the TEC on Oct 3rd can be met....   this is SOP for the FBI...  fit the timeline of Oswald's movements to known, fixed event times....

 

The VISA application from Sept 17th as offered in the WCR is split over 2 images.. one image has no signature, the other no No. or Serie: 24085...
The application is for a 6 month stay and nowhere but the Visa itself do we see a 15 day limit... https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141#relPageId=708&tab=page

All the dates are designed to just work in our timeline...  15 days from Sept 17 to Oct 2....  5 days/nights from Sept 27 to Oct 2 based on the allowable time on the back of the visa (which again makes little sense if it was a 6 month or 15-day visa.... 

 

If this doesn't do it for you I recommend reading the articles themselves...  If that's no good either... I guess I need to come up with something a 5th grader would understand...

Thanks for taking the time and for your thoughts....  you remain one of the most important sources of info as well as a shining light in our community.
Many, many others have told me the work changed their minds about Oswald being in Dallas with Odio, not in Mexico...  I hope it can do that for you to some day...

 

Take care
DJ

 

 

 

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-index

A number of years ago now I undertook to examine the documentary evidence related to the infamous trip to Mexico City...

Not all the info currently represents my POV...  I do not think it was LEE rather than Harvey on the trip... rather than Lee and group leave more conflicting evidence throughout southern TX radio stations.  I am working on updates and a more visual presentation... but I got a day job too...

With what we now knew of the WCR, this statement from Lopez and a bad forgery job on a hotel registry led me on my way. 

Lopez choosing not to re-investigate gives the WCR story the seal of approval...   Even if they don't know what happened down there, surely the journey - like a trail of breadcrumbs - would lead us to some answers....

Enjoy! and please feel free to address any questions about the journey here.
DJ

The WCR did not correctly establish a single thing as far as I've been able to find...

The link above is to 6 chapters examining in details the trip's evidence...Parts 3 and 4 are especially meaty yet there were activities which transpired that most are completely unaware such as the bus manifests only for Sept 26/27 and Oct 2/3 are taken by "presidential staff" within hours of the assassination...  One of them - the Frontera return trip - is specifically altered in front of witnesses by Arturo Bosch to add Oswald and change the dates and bus info...   Part 1 is more a look at the history...  Part 2 brings us to Laredo...  Part 3 to Mexico City via Monterrey and the Aussie girls
Part 4 is the lead-up to leaving...    Part 5  begins the morning of Oct 2nd and the infamous taxi charade...  and gets us to Dallas.  Part 6 is a chronological recap discussion

The manner by which the WCR shrugs off conclusions supported by faked evidence for months, NEVER begs the question... why was it altered in the first place?

Let's follow along, shall we?

The 6th grade LEE (far right) was one of the larges in his class... a leader and a bully...        In Aug 1953 ROBERT claims to have taken this photo of his brother at Bronx Zoo
1 month later at PS 44 he is 5'4" 115 lbs which he had been all thru 7th grade as well...  (The autopsy of Oswald says 5'9" 135... when he leaves the marines 5'10" 150.)

Anyway, as I mentioned above, the FBI starts with 3/23/53 and carries to 1/12/54... (I wrote 7th above, my bad)...
171 11/2 days present... 18 11/2 days absent...   11/2 + 11/2 = 11 + 171 + 18 = 200 days   Now the Calendar below... come count with me

March 23 1953 thru Jan 12, 1954 is 200 days of school....
and in '53 he his at Youth House Apr 14 thru May 8th.  School ends 3rd or 4th week of June...  180 days total per semester give or take

109 3/2 + 15 3/2 = 109 + 15 + 3 = 127 days.... from March 23 to June 26th ... 

7 days in March + 22 full days in April + 21 full days in May + 20 full days in June... 7 + 22 + 21 + 20 = 70 possible school days
without Youth house

Mark...  what's going on here?   The FBI deep dive not only shows the records to be wrong... but we have 3 different copies of the single child's cumulative record for NYC...  how dat?

Give the earlier version in the center... which form w=matches the one on the left yet the writing is different, and has no relationship at all to the version on the right...

The was FBI SOP for the day....  copies not originals... and different versions of the same item despite there having only been 1 original...
(they recreated his TSBD application for pete sake)....

And yet you cannot see the conflicts in 1954...which lead to Harvey attending Stripling in Sept/Oct 54...

   "sometimes the light is shining on me...other times I can barely see"  

12 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

Nice tactic?!?!

You asked why an in-depth study was conducted on Oswald and not the other two, I offered rational explanation as to why and you tell me...nice tactic?

You mean actually responding to a person's question? This is a "tactic?" Cointelpro indeed....

2020 is one weird year.

 

So to you it is rational to have conflicting grade, middle & high school records in an effort to explain the killer... but only if he’s killed before trial, etc, etc....

Then why do they conflict so?  You’d think if they were doing what u suggest the info would be Authenticated.... and tell a single story...
(we haven’t even touched on the residences and their conflicts but u ain’t gonna learn what u don’t wanna know.....)

Let’s look at NYC, a simple one, ...how many school days are there from March 23 to mid June.... 20 days per month minus his time at youth house in April/may    Plus 15 absences... 125 days of school in 3.5 mos... nice trick...
 

you think a school administrator would have entered that stupid a number? Nope, FBI did the math using 200 days from March 23 to Jan 7... and mistakenly included summer school in the total...   
It was Dulles who said people don’t read, so few will even bother.... especially since it was not indexed and the same subject reports are scattered over 10 million pages....

There’s so much of which you are unaware yet do you tread softly....   you never answered where u come from on this...

How much have you actually read of the original material... the book, the CD, and especially Baylor’s archive....?
... or is that to troublesome to admit?

1 hour ago, Bill Simpich said:

If you can't offer your analysis concisely and clearly, the problem speaks for itself. 

Guess so Bill.

One of the most document heavy subjects we have....  and yet the images below don’t help u see clearly and concisely, he wasn’t there...

This statement got me started along with the Faked hotel registry matching the bs tourist visa Lee, Harvey Oswald... OH LEE....

Between Mann and FBI sources... And Ochoa... only the CIA remains the sole source..

Enough tit-for-tat for one day, yeah? What the WCR says is pure junk... Lopez and Hardaway were snowed.... it offers none of these report’s conclusions for good reason...