David Josephs

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-index use this and then any chapter you’d like...

The 10/10/63 memo from the CIA https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/chapter6_3c.pdf to Navy, State and FBI tells them specifically that LEE OSWALD was heard on Oct 1st via a sensitive source tapping the Russian Embassy in Mexico...p2 of the pdf As mentioned, we have very few reports on Oswald from Sept 23 until Nov 1st.... we have the IN&S cc mentioned to Hosty by Jeff Woosley on Oct 18.... It would be natural for the FBI to CYA and do a little checking of their own.... remember, Hoover said to LBJ that the man was not his photo or his voice so there must be a "second man down there".... (not that Ozzie was being impersonated of course...) I THINK... again "THINK" that Hoover.FBI/Hosty knew exactly where Oswald was Sept 24 - Oct 4th --- on his way thru Austin to Odio then on to Dallas and finally the YMCA... Oswald did not call Marina until the 4th to get a ride home... she hung up on him...

Tony... a few people seemed to have that thought... If you take the time, as I'm sure you do, and look at all the Oswald images you can.... the arms are almost always bent significantly... and the shoulders are square, not sloped... and the hairline matches very well.... for as blurry as the image is.... it sure does strongly suggest Oswald.... That photo with Marina is almost exact... the one at the far right, shirtless, is about the only one I've seen with his arms at his side....

After extensive work... (done years ago)... the hairline and stature appears to match pretty well... as for combining frames to find the best, etc... we need to remember something I posted a while back... the size of that area of the negative is minuscule given the size of an 8mm frame... and then, within the small frame size, Prayerman is maybe 1/100th of the area.... I kinda think we was right all along

I posted this on purpose Jim.... All thru Nov the FBI's assets where looking for any trace of his being there.... with no success... On the 8th they even ask their asset OCHOA at Gobernacion... this is the man with access to ALL the travel documentation... no luck... One last point... As I explained in my paper... the FBI had the SIS from the 40's. Their assets in places like Mexico City were very well established and very informative... it was even thought that FBI/Hoover had his own source of LI- related output as quickly as the CIA did.... How does HOOVER not know that Oswald has crossed into Mexico, or even arrived in Mexico City without being reported by the FBI's assets? The first report is from WOOSLEY to HOSTY about the 10/10 cable... on 10/18.... once HOSTY conveys to FBI HQ what he's learned... and Hoover has the 10/10 cable... I for one would have to wonder why HOOVER wasn't aware of Oswald in Mexico.... how many white, ex-marine defectors were the FBI watching anyway? There are woefully few FBI reports on Oswald during October 1963.... the October 22 teletype dismisses HENRY for HARVEY and adds in the bit about Oswald drinking while beating Marina.... it also throws in the FPCC for good measure.... New Orleans is made aware of this info as well... by Oct 22 the FBI and Hoover begin to see the writing on the wall...

Add I n the fact that Ozzie was doing FBI work at the time and the CIA knew it. By using the name Lee Henry Oswald the ball gets rolling on that being the actual Oswald (despite and in spite of the Goodpasture lies about when and where the Mystery Man photots were taken) ... ... yet CIA appears to know what it was doing with the HENRY nomenclature from the very beginning (I do believe there were multiple "OSWALD" files at CIA/ONI/FBI) Win Scott repeats it.... even after everyone knows that's not him nor is HENRY the correct name.... Phillip's ALVARADO would make the accusation against Oswald that ties him to Cuba... but that was all stopped immediately and reversed... Phillips basically breaks his own asset In the contemporaneous reports of the LI- activity for Sept and Oct 1963 we are not informed about Oswald at all from Sept 27/28 and there is one line mention in October's which is not written until Nov 7th.... By Nov 7th, virtually everything there was to know about Mexico City was on the table.... and the one man who is repeatedly overlooked is one Rafael Hernandez OCHOA, a direct FBI asset, #2 at Immigration & Naturalization at Gobernacion literally had every item of evidence FROM MEXICO - pass thru his hands on its way to the FBI... By Early Nov Hoover knew Oswald had not been there.... FWIW... while the CIA repeats "ANAHUAC" in a number of their reports... nothing from any FBI report correctly places Oswald on any bus to or from Mexico...

Yo Micah, they missed one of the bullets found during the autopsy. At 9:18 local time (or even 8:18 Dallas Time) the Secret Service was not only aware of this other bullet but mentioned it to the FBI... When others ask "where did the bullets go"... 1 good possibility is they were simply taken.... not everything needs an ice bullet for this to work... FWIW O'Connor claims a bullet was also removed from the intercostal muscles... What we are to believe of HUMES and his little finger is yet another mystery... Hoover simply lied... the entire FBI seems to have vetoed him... and he still tried to add in the Mexico Angle as late as Dec 12th... Part of the "Double dealing" he refers to was Phillip's set-up of ALVARADO and the BS story he repeatedly told....

Let's use the actual shadows from the image itself... If we slide OSWALD over to his right so that he is where the post is... the shadows SHOULD line up.. But the post shadow is pointed to 11:30 on a the face of a clock... the grey arrow is pointing to the POST SHADOW Now move Ozzie over and his shadow does not fall where the post shadow falls, but well over to his right - or about 10:00 on a clock face (if one drew a line from the post to the picket fence behind it) the way the image appears, the shadow of the post and Oswald virtually meet AT the picket fence... THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT RAY.... This is not some small shift ... this is impossible convergence within yards of the subject with the sun "supposedly" in the same place... This PROVES that the sides of the photo were not take at the same time of the day as the center portion where Ozzie is... and then lo to freakin' behold... we find there are copies of the image with the center portion marked specifically... with Oswald removed... (No I don't believe a word Det Brown said) The image is a composite of not only his face but of the background as well.... how much more proof do you want? And if the FBI and Post Office were so up on where he was and what magazines he was getting... Why do we not see a simple FBI/USPS report stating that one LEE OSWALD received a 5 foot carton from Klein Sporting Goods... wonder what THAT could be... ???? So here we have the POSTAL INSP OFFICE advising the FBI of Oswald's location.... the FBI even went by to check... yet over the next 2 weeks Oswald would receive a 5' carton AND a pistol via REA... both of which have no basis in reality... Talking about Oswald in the backyard with a rifle is as useful as asking how good a shot he was.... It has no bearing on the events....

Ray - it's been asked and answered a few times already - you aint gonna learn what you don't wanna know... Here, let's make this simple... PHOTOGRAPHS DO NOT OFFER PHYSICAL REALITY DUE TO PERSPECTIVE, FOCAL DISTANCE AND FOCAL LENGTH... JUST LIKE THE WAY EYES WORK.... Ray, your stubborn adherence to PERSPECTIVE as an explanation of physical reality is flawed. What something LOOKS like in a photo - especially with shadows, angles and perspective - is the ultimate in subjectivity.... NOT OBJECTIVITY... ANSWER TO YOUR Q>>> They (the shadows moving away from the sun) "appear" to converge due to perspective, and that's all. shadows in the real world trace back thru that which is causing the shadow directly back to the source of light... NOT the other way around.... Sorry Ray, that physical reality doesn't change... the PERSPECTIVE of the view, does.

Exactly ... Ray, you are not really trying to convince us that these shadows, falling AWAY from the light source... could or ever would converge unless the size of the item was so large as to cause the penumbra and umbra as shown above. The sun is in the distance in the photo above, not behind the camera Ray... when you stand and view the way the light falls and creates these shadows you need to account for PERSPECTIVE and you simply are not. Now the sun is in the opposite direction Ray... PERSPECTIVE allows for the lines to get shorter as they move away... longer as they move closer.... NEWSBREAK RAY!!!! If you were to hover 100 feet above the 2 poles, the shadows would APPEAR parallel It is now up to you to show us how a shadow can CONVERGE away the light source without the use of PERSPECTIVE... Have at it buddy...

Funny, I feel exactly the same buddy... Which question are you referring to Ray?

Exactly Michael... and that is exactly what I am going after... exaggerated of course but still the same point.... the angle at which the stair post is casting a shading CONFLICTS with the shadow of the man in the image.... I found these images of the Oswald(s)... the shadow faling behind each man is virtually the same yet the shadow on the nose and the left side of his face is the real problem here...

The key word you have here Ray is APPEAR. The shadows APPEAR TO CONVERGE.... and only because of perspective. In the real world with real physics and without perspective... parallel lines continue on infinitely the same distance from each other... Ask yourself a LOGIC question Ray.... with a single source of light - regardless of how big, or how far, the shadows created by that light source will only converge in the direction of the light... Look at my other image.... the light source is in front of the camera... the shadows of the fence CONVERGE due to distance and perspective... If I was to stand to the side of the shadows, they'd all appear straight. You truly need to understand this illustration to understand perspective...

Can’t change physics Ray... the visual effects of 2d images representing 3d space is what causes the anomaly. You can talk till you turn blue... parallel lines never touch no matter what it may LOOK like in a photo, and shadows converge only towards the source of light... simple physics... adding perspective doesn’t change the physics... while it may appear that way in your two poles example... light doesn’t work that way. and it works in reverse too.. the RR tracks don’t get farther apart as they get closer... it’s an illusion, and that’s what you see with your poles... an illusion based on the location of the camera and the fact it is being observed. Shadows will never converge in the opposite direction of the light source... physical law Ray... not an illusion. You do understand the act of viewing the phenomenon changes it from how things work in physics to how that photo was composed... two very different things.... we just disagree... please don’t paint me with the same brush as JB, I respect what your point is, I simply don’t see it that way ...

This came to mind

And Someone generally over-looked was a man who was also at the training camps and involved with the Sturgis crowd... who looked a lot like Oswald... Primary sources are a bit sketchy... yet I have it on decent authority that Mr. W here could have been involved in the creation of the BYPs... https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwilsonS.htm Some researchers believe that a combination of Interpen members and anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. This included Wilson, James Arthur Lewis, Roy Hargraves, Edwin Collins, Gerry P. Hemming, David Morales, Herminio Diaz Garcia, Tony Cuesta, Eugenio Martinez, Virgilio Gonzalez, Felipe Vidal Santiagoand William (Rip) Robertson.

While there are some shifts between the vertical lines of the ghost image... I think that image was taken just prior to them taking Det Brown on the 29th based on how the distance between the foreground stair post and rear post is seen in the Det Brown / Ghost image yet not in the 133 series In each of the 133 series, the posts line up next to each other... IOW the camera is to the right from where the Det Brown image was taken... and the ghost image has the same exact spacing... For those 2 posts to be in identical places while the size of Oswald and the angles change relative to the backgrounds - means to me the person was added based on the vertical lines we see in the ghost image.. See the gif below.... those look like guidelines to me since the ghost image background, outside these lines, does not match any of the 133 images...

DEAR CONGRESSMAN PREYER : I wanted to send this transcript along to you immediately. We initiated a detailed analysis of the Oswald holding the rifle photos by Detective Superintendent Dlalcolm Thompson who ran the Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years. He is also an ex-president of the Evidence Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers, the Royal Photographic Society and the Institute of Professional Investigators. In short, he knows what he's talking about. As you will see, he is sure that it is a fake photo-a montage of three separate pictures . Naturally, I'll be using him in our film, but I wanted your committee to have this information directly INTERROGATOR. Mr. Thompson would these photographs be acceptable as evidence in a British court of law? Mr. Thompson. No. I have examined these photographs and have established without doubt that there is retouching on them and it is a basic principle with a forensic photographer that he would never, never retouch a photograph in any form of litigation.

The lines were there BUT... only at higher resolution and using gradient enhancement.... IOW, the composite was done VERY well... now, who do we know who has access to expert forgers and photographic manipulators... (398) The 133-B negative (CE 749) was digitally processed at the Aerospace Corp. and the University of California Image Processing Institute using several different image-processing techniques. This process confirmed that the grain distribution was uniform. (173) (See g. IV-31, JFK exhibit 197.) Under very carefully adjusted display conditions, the scanned image of the Oswald backyard negative did exhibit irregular, very fine lines in the chin area. The lines appeared, however, only with the Aerospace gradient-enhancement process, where the technique was applied at a much higher resolution (i .e ., the image area scanned was magnified since only a small portion of the picture was being subjected to the computations) . (399) Although the cause of these lines has not been definitely established, there is no evidence to indicate that they are the result of an attempt to fake the photograph .

Ray... In the bottom image, there must be something about the details of the photo which cause the shadows to appear as if they are converging OPPOSITE the light source... Where are you putting the source of light in the bottom image of yours? I mean we have to agree that - putting aside what we SEE - the physical reality of light and shadow tells us that a shadow will lead to the light source when traced back thru that which is creating the shadow... It would appear that perspective, focal length, and distance play a part in changing that physical fact when looking at 2d images of 3d space... A shadow cannot emanate from an opaque object without a source of light.... how we see that light in its representative form does not change the fact that the shadows MUST converge back to the source of that light... light doesn't work any other way... So if you'd like to explain the visual phenomenon of shadows appearing NOT to converge toward the light in a photograph - have at it... kinda like the RR tracks... they do not and will never converge - they only APPEAR to do so based on visual perspective ... I have to assume the same thing is happening in the bottom image of yours... Light simply doesn't work any other way... and here's the math behind it.... 1) parallel lines never meet & 2) shadows ALWAYS converge to the source of light in 3d space. "The light rays are actually parallel, but appear to converge to the sun due to "perspective", the same visual effect that makes parallel railroad tracks appear to converge in the distance." http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/opt/air/crp.rxml "Convergence of the rays will only tell you where the Sun is located on the two-dimensional photograph. To tell where the rays would converge in three-dimensional space, you would need all of the 3D information that is typically concealed by a 2D representation"

Not sure if you were aware, but LIFE retouched that image quite extensively... You may wish to compare what you see with what they did... other magazines also took liberties and retouched this image for publication...

Sorry, Ray but that’s simply not true... shadows trace back thru that which is creating the shadow to the light source.. They will ALWAYS converge at the light source... laws of physics...

Any thoughts on why the ghost cut-out is so much more skewed to the background than the actual 133-C? That background does not work with that image of Oswald with the Fence included... Oswald here is superimposed over the ghost image, exactly. Doesn't this prove the other images were created? The actual shadow from that stair post creates a conflict with the Oswald shadow given the light source was indeed over the camera's right shoulder.... we should see a post shadow which tracks back thru the post, to the light source... it does not...

Until 1977 the 133-C pose was not known to the public nor entered into any evidence within the WCR... Turns out Roscoe White and Stovall had this other pose in their possession... which begs the question no one seems to be able to answer How would they have known to put Det Brown into the 133-C pose on Nov 29, 1963... when that photo does not surface until 1977? Furthermore, the "found" ghost image cut-out of Oswald is also in the 1977 pose... yet the ghost image itself shows how skewed the actual image would have been if he was left in that position... everything in the background is off... So while Det Brown is in a pose that no one should have had any info about... the ghosted image proves the composite nature of the final images... And there are in fact at least 2 different "ghost" image photos... I show them at the bottom, the one has the ghost directly on the image while the other has created a shadow as if the cutout is hovering over the page slightly... thoughts?

Some would think that these reactions are related to the actual "1st shot" which involves the turn onto Elm and Position A... with Hickey and Rosemary reacting to something hitting the street,,,, Royce Skelton (on top of the triple overpass), December 17, 1963: “Mr. Skelton noticed that as an open limousine turned on Elm Street, it had moved approximately one hundred feet at which time he noticed dust spray up from the street in front of the car on the driver’s side. This dust spray came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository building.” [FBI report: CD205] Mrs. Franzen (on south side of Elm Street, near the Presidential limousine at the time of the shots), November 22, 1963: “She advised shortly after the President’s automobile passed by on Elm Street near where she and her family were standing, she heard a noise which sounded to her as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile. She advised at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President’s automobile.” [FBI report: CE2090: 24H525] Mrs. Franzen (on south side of Elm Street, near the Presidential limousine at the time of the shots), November 22, 1963: “She advised at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President’s automobile. She advised she heard two other sounds which sounded like shots from a firearm and noticed blood appearing on the side of the President’s head.” [FBI report: CE2090: 24H525] Austin Miller (on top of the triple overpass), December 18, 1963: “He heard three shots and also noticed a powder dust spray in the street directly to the driver’s side and rear of the car.” [FBI report: CD205] [signature] George W. Hickey, Jr. Special Agent, U.S.S.S.Just prior to the shooting I was seated in the rear of SS-679-X on the left side. As IOO-X made the turn and proceeded a short distance I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. Nothing was observed and I turned around and looked at the President's car.