David Josephs

12 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

It's over at the Sixth Floor Museum;

https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/2895/image-of-the-sixth-floor-of-the-former-book-depository-befor?ctx=9ef5b771-736e-4eee-8c6c-cfcd670e2c86&idx=0

No info other than what's at the link

Thanks Buddy.. I'm going thru the 84 pages of photos now in fact...

On 2/27/2019 at 11:19 PM, Tony Krome said:

Below is the south/east corner of the sixth floor as per the Sixth Floor Museum's description

How do you explain the joists running the opposite way and the different windows?

Look through the arched window and you will see a building across the road. The road is Houston and the arched window faces EAST.

 

When was this taken Tony?  Who's image is it?  Dallas Archive?

Thanks...  if you can find the 3rd 4th and 5th floor interior images....  I've never seen this one... with the completed floor

Would love to know it that same block is out of the 2nd set of windows... the elevator ventilation has to escape out somewhere at the top and the bottom....

Thx

DJ

7 hours ago, Lewis Reynolds said:

Heres the Dallas website photo and the enhanced one together.

Every wonder why your Oswald in the window has no body - and the windows are disgustingly dirty...  Let me show you something Lewis...

I did this to show that most any random set of light and shadows can be made to look like something is there when it isn't..

Case in Point:   Kneeling bush boy.  Now we both know there was no one kneeling at that spot in the Moorman image... or any other image for that matter...

But if you knew no better, you could argue that this was a real person....  it's not.

And then there is the non-existent "Badgeman-woman-child" which is simply the sky, leaves and sunlight.  But that man in the hat to the west WAS real and right where the footprints in the mud and on the bumper were found....  FWIW

Between the dirt, artifacts and generations of images... conclusions are virtually pointless....  There is a pile of evidence that there were 2 men on the 6th floor up to and thru the assassination....  one in a white t-shirt, the other in a brown sport coat and horn-rimmed glasses....  both were seen leaving the TSBD...

So maybe instead of p!$$!ng into the wind on this one...  dig a little deeper into what actually happened from 12:30 - 1pm...

You'd be amazed at the extent of the lying from Shelley, Lovelady, Piper, Truly...

14 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

David,

You are wrong here.

The image in the Dallas news website

I beg to differ Keyvan...  as I showed above... random patterns can be made to be almost anything... and once seen - it becomes virtually impossible to UN-see it that way.

Where is the man's body? Why do you not take any of the artifacts and dirt into account as you "see" Oswald...

Could it be someone else?  Maybe the T-shirt man from the WEST Window?

Below left corner is what a person in a window looks like:  Head, Body, Legs, Arms....

I've always found David Healy to be extremely reliable when it comes to what could and couldn't be done with film....

then again we ain't gonna learn what we don't wanna know
DJ

Enough with stuffing a round peg into a square hole guys....  Odds and what y'all are discussing are mutually exclusive.

The only true statement so far is:

7 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:

PRETTY F#@KING UNLIKELY

What's worse is that the odds of numerous, different things happening is the product of multiplying the individual odds of each event... if one could even do odds for the individual events...

You'd have a better chance getting Ozzie to Mexico or proving he ever touched C2766 or any other Carcano for that matter.

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

I think I'm on the right track 

Well... sort of.

You've skipped ahead already though...  Where did the shot you are concerned with, come from?  IOW - What is the finite # of possibilities as to the location of the shooter?

How many windows overlook Dealey Plaza that have the POTENTIAL to be used as a sniper's perch?
How many different people had access to each one of those locations?

See?  Before we even get rolling we are hit with an impossible task given the actual FACTS as opposed to the WCR.

Even if we were to accept shots from the 6th floor window AND that Oswald pulled the trigger... there aren't any finite sets of #'s we can define that gets him from one place to the next.

This mind-problem is not one that can be expressed as a probability in real terms until we define and accept a set of basic facts...
which, sadly, all these years later is still difficult to do.

Only with those things which are Objective can we create a probability....

15 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Anyone good with maths here?

Scenario;

JFK is shot through the head by person X

Less than an hour later, a few miles away, another man, who was called JFK by his colleagues due to similarities, is shot through the head by the same person X 

A similar fictional scenario to put it in perspective would be;

Abraham Lincoln is shot through the head by person X

Less than an hour later, a few miles away, another man, who was called ABE by his colleagues due to similarities, is shot through the head by the same person X

What would be a good formula to work out the odds?

The calculation would have to account for person X not personally knowing either victim

Hey there Tony...   I do Odds for a living....

What "odds" are you trying to calculate here?  Person X "not knowing" either victim is not calculable at all... and how does that have anything to do with odds?

To determine the odds of something happening we have to find sets of finite numbers to explain the situation... and then we need to determine which formulas to use based on the number of possibilities. 

Let's start at the beginning....   Person A is shot by person X.   You ask - what are the odds of Person X not knowing Person A... (what does that mean in reference to Oswald and JFK? that they didn't dine together or that each was aware of the other's existence/presence?  Maybe if you rephrase the Q?

the first ODDS Question could be:  What are the Odds that it is person X and not person Y who did the shooting?
Is there a FINITE # SET that we can apply to find the total population of those who COULD have shot Person A?  Sure we can...

• Do we know for a FACT from which way the shot originated so that we can begin removing #'s from the set...  in our case many agree the shot which killed Person A came from the front and to the right where there could not have been more than 30 people in a position to accomplish such a feat.
  Yet, one of the facts is that our person X was behind Person A... the odds of Person X shooting Person A from the front are ZERO.
  
  So let's assume the shot is agreed to have come from the same direction person X was in relation to Person A....  what happens to the finite set of #'s now?
  How many people are behind Person A with the ability to shoot a rifle...  Sadly this is yet another FACT which we cannot know... the # of windows, the # of spectators, the different kinds of rifles/silencers available... etc...
  
  And this is just the very first part of the first half of the question!

Events like these are not something that ODDS can explain Tony....  "Astronomical Odds" has no real meaning if the event being observed is not from a finite set of possibilities based on agreed upon FACTS...   Cinque/Fetzer tried to pull an odds statement out of the Prayerman issue... based on what may or may not have been changed in the Altgens photo.... and whether or not visual things "matched" or not...  can't be done.

Define the # universe we are in... THEN we can do odds...  

=====

Google: hypergeometric distribution.  this is how we figure Odds for things like Powerball where you have 2 matrices, without replacement of the numbers chosen and millions and millions of combinations of plays.  Matching 5 of 5 numbers with the Lottery picking 5 numbers from 69  AND matching 1 of 1 with the lottery choosing 1 of 26 gives odds of around 300,000,000 : 1 .

Excel does the math for you luckily.  There is also the Poisson distribution which is applied to very large number problems

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32309706.pdf

Hi again Steve...  came across an ACSI Lt. Col from a January 1960 FBI memo that is talking about who could run a coup in Cuba and replace Castro

Gen Pedraza has none of the confidences needed and they are hearing about MASFERRER, MIRANDA, and/or NORMAN ROTHMAN and associates

"ACSI - Lt. Col MAURICE METCALF - duty officer with State, CIA, ONI, & OSI...

FWIW - cheers

DJ

At the following link are files related to the PITTMAN's travel thru Paris & UK to get to Visas to Moscow

They date from Oct 5, 1959 thru Oct 16, 1959 and are HEAVILY REDACTED.... https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1648&sort=date&page=3 

Why such heavy redaction related to a writer and his wife via Paris, UK, train to Moscow....?

On 4/10/2019 at 12:39 PM, Paul Jolliffe said:

So McCord's 1962 "Q" clearance came just as the CIA was looking for evidence to make its case that the missiles in Cuba were offensive, not defensive.

SO DOES THIS MEAN HE WAS less OR more IMPORTANT THAN ALL THE REDACTED NAMES....   

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32363606.pdf 

Hey there Steve... thought you might find this interesting related to "The HARVEY Story"

T.B.C.   ???  previous paragraph says "I was phasing into LPOVER cover assignment & out of KUDOVE"

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32272374.pdf  

30 minutes ago, Jim Glover said:

Yet I am not convinced because nobody there said Lee was there

... and there were three and only three shots fired.... 

Carolyn Arnold puts Oswald on the 1st floor walking by the double doors leading to the stairs out front... FBI simply changed what she said... So the idea that a potential item of Fact which conflicted with the pre-determined outcome would be buried, or not even asked by the FBI is no real stretch.

In an interview with the journalist Earl Golz in 1978, Carolyn Arnold claimed that “she saw Oswald in the 2nd–floor lunchroom as she was on her way out of the depository to watch the presidential motorcade …. She left the building at 12:25pm.”  (Arnold had some reason to remember having gone into the lunchroom. She was pregnant at the time and had a craving for water. She also recalled, in 1978, that this was “about 12:15. It may have been slightly later.”)

She was not the only witness who questioned the reliability of the FBI’s version of their statements. Arnold Rowland, for example, pointed out several errors to the Warren Commission and mentioned that the FBI agents “just didn’t seem interested at all” in evidence that contradicted the lone–gunman account (WCHE, vol.2, pp.182–185). Carolyn Walther, like Arnold Rowland, had seen another man standing near the gunman, and was similarly unimpressed with the FBI’s attitude to her evidence. She told Earl Golz that “I talked to them [FBI agents] and it seemed like they weren’t very interested. They were going to set out to prove me a xxxx and I had no intention of arguing with them and being harassed. … And if they didn’t want to believe it or had some reason not to, well, then, that was all right with me.” (Earl Golz, ‘Was Oswald in Window?,’ Dallas Morning News, 26 November 1978, p.13A.)

The Warren Commission treated Carolyn Arnold as it treated many other awkward witnesses. She was not called to testify before the Commission. Neither of her statements was published in the Warren Commission’s Report or in its 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. The Commission discounted her evidence and that of Eddie Piper, and concluded that “Charles Givens … was the last known employee to see Oswald inside the building prior to the assassination … at 11:45am” (WR, p.143). Carolyn Arnold’s five colleagues from the Texas School Book Depository who stood with her as the motorcade passed, and who could have commented on the reliability of her account, were also ignored.  

FWIW, Wesley was a suspect for a while (While Shelley was actually arrested and released) and went thru a strange variety of activities the rest of the 22nd... as well as being questioned for hours and asked to sign a confession,   

Were you aware that Linnie Mae's husband BILL RANDLE was interviewed and stated he was personally acquainted with Oswald - but nothing more was learned.  Marvin Randle was in the hospital so Linnie Mae stayed with her mom and brother...

Guess all I'm saying is that this case is Alice in Wonderland: Thru the Looking Glass where up is down and everything you'd expect to follow established rules... doesn't.

31 minutes ago, Jim Glover said:

Thanks for your work

Thanks for your kind words....

DJ

9 hours ago, Stephanie Goldberg said:

If Marina took the gun photos of Oswald on March 31, 1963

"If" statements provide access to interesting paths in some cases...  but not when they contradict fact, then we aren't speculating anymore...  for IF Marina took the photo THEN Oswald would have actually gotten the rifle... which did not happen.  So I'd be wary of "IF" statements that takes a proven FACT and undermines it....

Case in point...

When recounting her one and only time with a camera...she would have known that you look down into the camera AND that the image she was looking at and so perfectly captured would be upside down...

Not only did she not recall how to correctly hold the camera she says nothing of the supreme difficulty it would be doing this for the first and only time in her life...

Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures. I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know.

Mr. McDONALD. Did Lee appear to be nervous at all when you took the photograph? 
Mrs. PORTER. No. He was just angry with me because I refused. I was making fun of him. 
Mr. McDONALD. Did you use a tripod at all? 
Mrs. PORTER. Did I use what? 
Mr. McDONALD. A tripod. In other words, was the camera attached to a stand? 
Mrs. PORTER. No. 
Mr. McDONALD. OK. You held it in your hands.
Mrs. PORTER. Yes. 

Q. If I show you this camera which was Commission exhibit No. 750 and raise the top part so you can see there is a viewfinder and ask you just to look at the camera, would that refresh your recollection that that was the camera you allegedly took the photographs of Lee with? 
A. Well, I honestly do not remember if I look straight at the object or look down. 
Q. But seeing the camera today you still have no memory of what the camera looked like? 
A. No; I am sorry I am unprofessional about it. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/001/1134/images/img_1134_550_200.jpg

I'm fairly convinced that Oswald was the man standing in the corner of the TSBD landing

You see, what is strange about Lovelady is that in HUGHES we see him to the WEST of the opening and the stairs yet moments later Lovelady is much further over to the East with the faint outline of another person deeper in the corner.

Wesley claims: 

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. (in the image at bottom left Lovelady was down and to the left of Wesley - the tall man in the middle of the landing - Wesley is not in Altgens claiming he was back and in the dark)

Mr. BALL - We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President's car going by. 
Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there? 
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't, because I was back up in this more or less black area here. 
Mr. BALL - I see. 
Mr. FRAZIER - Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me. 

Is Frazier referring to a later time when Lovelady is indeed a few steps below him...  but that is well after the motorcade goes by

26 minutes ago, Jim Glover said:

David and Keyvan, I did not know they had Photo shop for the Commission exhibit and the Dallas Morning News in 1963. Can you show how they did That?

Hey there Jim...

Pretty sure you can Google photographic manipulation and see many results created from layering glass plates with different pieces of the negative/positive on different sheets to create the final image.... 
https://www.colorexpertsbd.com/blog/darkroom-photo-manipulation-photoshop-walk-history

With Dillard's negative, one need only have or create a negative of the image you wish to superimpose.  It works exactly like Photoshop layers except it's done in the real world...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=59&v=_2mQsUIc97E  - Watch Konrad Eek work up a print using only darkroom techniques

I think I even found the image used to create the impression he is in the window

Either a reversed image of his arrest photo

or from a Dallas newspaper photo...

Hi Paul...

54 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

But since "Oswald" was never there, we can guess why Angleton wanted to grab those photos and tape ASAP - they were of a different "Oswald"!

On possibility here Paul is that Angelton was after things not related to Oswald at all... Mexico City Station was one of the most productive in the world for the CIA... At the time he would be right to be concerned over the CHICOM (Chinese Communists), the Czechs, the Yugoslavians, DFS, Cubans, Haitians, and on and on...

FWIW James McCord was also both FBI and CIA and his backstop story was that he had worked for the CIA the entire time... whether that's just a cover or actually true I have yet to find out...

As I continue to try to piece together what happened down there, I find that one option keeps popping up with pretty strong evidence...

The entire existence of "OSWALD in Mexico" was a story orchestrated by David Phillips, Goodpasture and possible Hunt..with the FBI providing the bogus evidence... knowing full well that he was elsewhere doing work that could not be divulged... infiltration of Left Wing groups and reporting their intentions to the FBI. 

I believe the CIA is involved simply because so many of the players were from outside the US that they stretched their mandate to include domestic intelligence on those who may take the info to those who need it outside the US....

It was much more likely Oswald was an FBI asset and a CIA informant simply due to where he'd been and what he'd done.  The conflict for me begins at Atsugi - a covert CIA location for U-2 spying and intelligence gathering...

From what I can tell... he was in reality an aircraft mechanic, not a radar operator...  gives Harvey and Lee another notch in the "Pro" column

DJ

From the "ain't it strange" coincidence files.....

On the same day Oswald starts at the TSBD... James McCord takes his CIA Oath

So then - if that is true isn't there a conflict with this report heading?

If transcripts from JCS meetings were destroyed in 1974...  how did they make hand-written notes FROM the transcripts in 1976?

FWIW....

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/DOCUMENT/940228.htm

28 February 1994

The attached document tells a horror story in the annals of government information and accountability. In August 1974, the Joint Chiefs of Staff destroyed all the minutes and transcripts of their meetings going back to 1947, and in 1978 essentially stopped keeping any such records. Only 30 pages of notes have survived, much to the dismay of military historians and scholars of the Cold War. (Needless to say, we have already filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the 30 pages.)

The events of August 1974 provide interesting context for the JCS action. President Nixon was leaving office under the "smoking gun" of a Watergate tape. Congress had passed new pro-disclosure amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, which would go into effect later that fall over President Ford's veto.

In the context of the end of the Cold War, the JCS action sets a terrible precedent for openness in government internationally -- an area in which the United States claims leadership and should set the highest possible standard. Instead, the JCS behavior is all too reminiscent of the stories we've heard over and over in the past two years of our cooperative work with Eastern European and Russian researchers: General Jaruzelski in Poland destroying several hundred transcripts of Politburo meetings and many other documents when Solidarity won the elections of 1989, Markus Wolf of the Stasi destroying thousands of intelligence files as soon as the Berlin Wall fell, etc.

Bill Burr and Matt Shellenbarger of our staff made some phone calls and came up with the name of the apparent villain in this case -- then-Brigadier General Gerald E. Cooke, who served as Secretary of the JCS in August 1974. We haven't been able to track him further. The Joint Chiefs in August 1974 included as chairman, Gen. George Brown (USAF), and as members, Adm. James Holloway (USN), Gen. David Jones (USAF), Gen. Creighton Abrams (USA), and Gen. Robert Cushman Jr. (USMC).

The fact that the JCS horror story has come to light does represent a glimmer of hope, however. Two years ago a staffer at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) noticed a footnote in an obscure naval history journal which suggested that the JCS minutes had been disposed of in the 1970's. NARA then initiated a series of letters to the JCS asking for an explanation, which led to the document at hand. Since only about three per cent of the U.S. government's records are ultimately preserved for posterity, decisions about the destruction or retention of records are extremely difficult. All too often, as in the JCS example and in the more recent example of the White House electronic mail, the bureaucratic self-interest of the agency involved carries the day, overriding the statutory obligation to preserve records of historical, legal, administrative or evidentiary significance. The bottom line is: Unless we reinvent the National Archives and Records Administration as an activist, visionary information watchdog, it will be relegated to the role of the nation's attic; and there, among the cobwebs, will roam the ghost of government accountability.

One of the things you may consider is the difference between the documents with BLOCK letters and script...

and then compare the signatures.  I believe you will find they group by that distinction...

the signature on this first doc with BLOCK letters does not match either the script TSBD application Signature, another Oswald signature or even the copied signature "by Brian"....

the ASC application has both block and script with a date very similar to the Seaport coupon with yet another signature

yes, writing changes over time...  but how often do people combine printing types as they write?

Meyer is named on Hunt’s .org chart as the leader which includes “French Conman”

Permindx...Angleton.......Bloomfield....Nagy.....Shaw... CIA.....Meyer....Morales/Harvey 

and the hole just keeps going from there.... with European Royalty.

Nagy is cleared by Meyer’s Org Div

Nagy creates CMC and Shaw is CIA informant... Montreal and the Mafia are closely connected....

To be truthful, there are much better and detailed writings on these relationships... this was the first I ever saw with CIA Meyer with direct connection to the French Canadian side of things....

Sure thing Ron...  first thing in the morning.