David Josephs

FWIW   

my attempt at showing connections based on the great work in these pages...

Col Kail seems an interesting crossroads.... right back to Vosjoli

The way this looks, 488th as a brainchild of Crisman is very interesting 

Nice work Chris....

Key action word in there is "supposed"....  I just can't buy a single word these people say...

I for one would love to know how HE knew to use that pose....

And if you check again, the ghost with the red - the red is the shadow caused by the ghost cutout... it is not flush flat like the image to the left of it where there is not shadow...

Here's the original of the shadowed version of the ghost....  I think I got this from the Dallas Photo Archives.... and not the DPD inventory... but I'm not sure

10 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said:

David, do we know who's name (or what) is redacted? and who is AMSTET-1? Has Nechiporenko ever gone on the record to state that he saw, quite literally, the man who was gunned down by Ruby? I've never read his Passport To Assassination book.

AMSTET-1 Jose Antonio "Nico" Garcia Lara, commercial attache in the Cuban embassy during 1962-63. A source of great value on the defection and recruitment front regarding Cubans.

I have the Nechi book but have not yet delved deeply into it.... after it keeps mentioning that Oswald was there on Saturday the 28th...  I just couldn't take anymore and put it down...
I think that book is simply perpetuating the fraud

I have a few of these reports yet this one (the one I posted with 26 names) has the most numbers identified...   This is the only one with no redactions....

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't think that is what Dave is talking about.

He is talking about surveillance summaries by the CIA on both consulates.

Exactly...  an American insisting on getting to Odessa and/or just plain bothering the two compounds with visits and calls - all tapped by a large variety of CIA/FBI/DFS operations - one would expect to hear some of the watched soviets to say something ?!?!

If you look thru the pdf you'll also notice that KOSTIKOV was not one of the people being monitored....

The LI-Project tapping embassy phones was LIENVOY and is from which I first thought we should see contemporaneous reporting of the same events "discovered" after 11/22...

Bottom right of this talks of Albert Kennedy, an American who was noticed called the Soviet Embassy....

We are to remember that David A Phillips arrived in Mexico Oct 7th... Oct 8th has not only this summary report but the LADILLINGER report to HQ about Oswald...  wonder how they could mention it in one place and not in another...  guess we need to ask DAP....

LIFEAT ran phone taps on over 25 people and/or locations in Mexico City including a number of Soviet officers posing as Consulate workers....

This is the LIFEAT Progress Report for Aug, Sept and Oct 1963....https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10211-10183.pdf

Maybe it's just me, I'd think that in the more relaxed setting of one's home we would hear about the AMERICAN who tried to force his way into the Soviet compound on Saturday the 28th, only to return the following week as well as make a number of calls....

When we combine this with the lack of mention of Oswald from LIENVOY Summary reports of both Sept and Oct... I feel this adds more strength to the notion that Oswald was simply not down there...

FWIW - there is no mention of Oswald in any of these summary reports from the year and change prior, when he was supposed to have been in Mexico in 1962...

Unless "they" knew to keep his name out of it, or any mention of an American out of it... the only reason contemporaneous reporting does not include Oswald was 'cause he wasn't there...

That Det BROWN is in the WHITE/STOVAL 133-C pose is proof positive that the images existed well before 11/22... OR

that 133-C was a third print/neg found and never mentioned...

In fact only 1 negative makes it thru the process and is entered as evidence...

There is simply no way Det Brown should have been aware of the 133-C pose unless he saw it prior to Nov 29, 1963.... despite it having gone missing until 1977

And, if the GHOST was just as simple as Brown explains...  why do the actual photo not fit back into the ghost cutout without skewing?

Guess we'd need to ask Roscoe and/or his buddy Mr. G....

Not sure if now would be the best time to help tear down the FBI a bit more...  the current admin seems to be doing pretty well on its own...

People aint gonna learn what they don't wanna know John, and this along with a myriad of other "inconvenient truths" doesn't bode well for human beings...

At this point the opposition simply stays in the game to exercise their right to be wrong...

---

the wheels on the bus go round and round.....

One last thing to keep in mind....  THIS is what Marina sees for the first time in her life....  and proceeds to take 3 or 4 perfect versions in terms of clarity and exposure

Not once would we ever here her say how strange it was to take a photo with her husband upside down.. in fact she stated she held the camera to her face like any other camera....

FWIW

Thanks John...  nope, seems I'm the first to do this kind of thing....

https://kennedysandking.com/content/author/361-davidjosephs  -  I get a bit deeper in these articles

cheers

DJ

Couple of simple points remain:

1. The FBI nor the USPS reported the shipment and receipt of this rifle contemporaneously...  it only appears after Nov 22
2. The manner in which SA DOLAN claims to find the records at Kleins is impossible given the evidence...  The FBI had not yet located "C2766" on any documentation related to Kleins by Sunday afternoon...  when the FBI left on Saturday, the took the microfilm and that is now gone to history
   
   And even by the 24th, the third attempt at documenting the finding of this rifle shipment...  only says that Crescent received this rifle in a box of 10 sent from Italy...  There WAS NO FURTHER REVIEW and there is no other evidence which puts C2766 on any order to Klein...  So the FBI simply took the microfilm, copied it, returned it to Waldman, and subsequently lost it from the archives...  all that's left is the original box.... and 2 conflicting reports about taking AND NOT TAKING the film... (see docs at bottom of this post talking about the copying by DOLAN...  which would not be possible if the FBI left the film with Waldman)
    
3. The rifle with which DAY leaves the TSBD is not CE139.  CE139 had specific markings photographed by the WC..  I enhanced these marking from the WCE's and compared them to an extremely high resolution image of Day and the rifle... 
   
   Somewhat expectedly, the markings on CE139 are not on the rifle DAY has....   I claim it would be impossible NOT to see "CAL 6.5" behind the rear sight.. or any of the other markings..
   
   Point remains...  until the evidence related to the acquisition, packing, shipping, paying for, picking up, getting home, traveling about and storing this rifle is authenticated... which  none of it can... the whole discussion about BYPs being real is moot.

.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=194&tab=page   start here and then compare to the next 2 pages...

DOLAN Takes the film - signed by DOLAN... DOLAN doesn't TAKE the film... signed by all 3 FBI SA
  ????

What if many of the images are locked in a closed thread?

I cannot free up space by deleting these since I can't edit the posts...   ???

Either more space for attachments... or let me deleting old stuff from threads and email which are locked...

Thanks

DJ

Sandy did indeed do quite a lot with this subject..

This is the Marine record vs the Autopsy...  in 1981 he appears to have teeth # 1, 16, 17, 30 & 32 missing or pulled
The only tooth missing in 1981 is #30 shown with an "X" thru it, unlike 1-16-17-32

FWIW
DJ

You can see the 3 molars per side versus the 2 we should have seen... & #9 (which is the front right tooth looking at him) says "rotated" 

This remains one of the main reasons we have no images of LEE Oswald (5'10 165 lbs) showing his teeth...

LEE is the first image, 3rd, 4th, and last.  That last photo would be the final image of LEE OSWALD we'd get to see... the rest are the smaller man with a full set of teeth.

So this is not accurate showing it to be 5 feet deep?  A little over 3.5 feet is a VERY small landing

FWIW

Nice Chris... always a pleasure

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

use this and then any chapter you’d like...

47 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

David,

Do you have any idea why in November the FBI was suddenly looking to see if Oswald had been in Mexico City?

Your information surprises me. I had assumed that the FBI was unaware of the trip till shortly after the assassination.

 

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....

10 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

I have no experience in this field, but after reading the above, is there any way that you can enter all frames, that show PM, into some graphics software, that could generate an optimum single image? 

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

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

DJ: By Early Nov Hoover knew Oswald had not been there

 

David:

What do you base this on?  Two weeks before JFK is killed and Hoover knows the CIA is full of it on MC?

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...

13 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

That doesn't seem a very tenable position to me.  Just my 2 cents...

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...

On ‎2‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 8:11 AM, Micah Mileto said:

Page 1: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62251#relPageId=103&tab=page

 

Page 2: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62251#relPageId=104&tab=page

 

11/25/1963 memo from J. Edgar Hoover to Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, Conrad, De Loach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan:

 

"I told Mr. Jenkins that Oswald had four shells and only fired three shells; that we have one complete bullet found on the stretcher on which the President was carried into the hospital, which apparently fell out of the President's head; that the other two bullets were pretty well broken up but sufficiently complete to allow us to identify them as being the three fired by this particular gun"

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.

1 minute ago, Michael Cross said:

Perspective.

Appearance (perspective) vs. what is physically happening (physical science).  

 

Can't we come to this agreement and move on?

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.

9 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

In fact one of the photos you posted above shows the shadows converging against the direction of the light.

 

https://postimg.cc/rzdmZ9y1][/url

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...

2 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

One day you may understand, David. I can't go on showing you are wrong. 

 

You never answered my question by the way.

Funny, I feel exactly the same buddy... 

Which question are you referring to Ray?

25 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

Not understanding or agreeing to that hinders - actually cocks up - all these conversations.  What we can learn from looking at the phenomena of perspective, is that shadows will SEEM to converge across a frame from a monocular lens in a PREDICTABLE way.  Divergence from that predictable pattern is what we should be looking for in terms of fakery, and is what we do see in the BYP.

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...