David Josephs

While most who are posted on that site couldn't conclude the sky was blue on a sunny day, this one does have quite a bit based on reailty... I am of the opinion that this is describing LEE and not Marina's husband based on what I know of H&L... Point remains, a great number of those involved were indeed homosexual men... yet I feel that only adds a twist to their group's dynamic as opposed to an impetus for their group... Add to that, the informant is known to have provided good intel in the past and there is no reason to doubt it... Below that is a report from Garrison's office by Sciambra....this is from the linked text.... Then a 25-year-old insurance trainee in Baton Rouge, Perry Russo, called a local newspaper to say that he knew Ferrie and had heard him talk about how easy it would be to assassinate a president. He also claimed that Ferrie had said “we” will get Kennedy. He did not mention a plot, nor did he mention Oswald or Shaw. Garrison sent one of his attorneys, Andrew Sciambra, to interview Russo and he hit pay dirt. Russo now claimed that Oswald had been Ferrie’s roommate but that he remembered him having a beard. He also thought he had once seen Shaw with Ferrie at a service station. Perry Russo Russo also remembered seeing Clay Shaw at the Nashville Street Wharf when he went to see JFK speak in May of 1962. Sciambra’s memo notes that Russo “remembers this guy because he was apparently a queer. It seems that instead of looking at JFK speak, SHAW kept turning around and looking at all the young boys in the crowd. He said that SHAW eventually struck up a conversation with a young kid not too far from him. It was perfectly obvious to him that SHAW stared at his penis several times. He said that SHAW eventually left with a friend. He said that SHAW had on dark pants that day which fit very tightly and was the kind of pants that a lot of queers in the French quarter wear.” This description did not fit Clay Shaw, who was a very conservative dresser and who wasn’t known for hanging out with young boys. He was way too much of a gentleman to act in an inappropriate way in public. Russo was brought to New Orleans and administered Sodium Pentothal (a so-called truth serum) and questioned by Dr. Nicholas Chetta, the New Orleans coroner, on February 27th. He was questioned by Assistant District Attorney Andrew Sciambra who “asked him if he could remember any of the details about CLAY BERTRAND being up in FERRIE'S apartment.” A few days later, Russo was then put under hypnosis in sessions with Dr. Fatter, a New Orleans family physician. During the interview, Fatter was quite suggestive:

Was that what you wanted Ron? I figured you might be going somewhere with it... DJ

No Ron... I don’t. The reason Ford moved the wound was because he wanted it to appear as if the bullet was moving down from back to front. To connect the wound that was there to the front the path RISES from back to front.... There was no connection between the wound described on his back to the gash they claimed was a tracheotomy... JFK would need to have been bent way over for even the first part of the SBT to work. The SBT was necessary to account for all the wounds while the FBI’s Shaneyfelt played hide n seek trying to hide all the shots...

Now I know you're not for real.... move along sir, you've given yourself away... #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. #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.

the thing is - you haven't offered any alternatives.... only criticism for those of us showing you that the films, photos and statements prove it was them to the exclusion of anyone else.. Your approach to this question reminds me of something... prove I'm wrong about what you're doing. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum & Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation #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. #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.

Yeah, really too bad everyone wasn't wearing a name tag for you Tony.... you could try SEARCHING for an answer instead of just declaring you couldn't find anything and there's nothing to be found.... How about these statements from those involved corroborating each other? or is this just circumstantial to you? John Wiseman, Deputy Sheriff, Dallas County Sheriff's Department. Date Nov 23, 1963 I was standing in front of the Sheriff's Office at 505 Main Street, Dallas when the President passed and the car went around the corner and a few more cars had passed when I heard a shot and I knew something had happened. I ran at once to the corner of Houston and Main Street and out into the street when the second and third shots ran out. I ran on across Houston Street, then across the park to where a policeman was having trouble with his motorcycle and I saw a man laying on the grass. This man laying on the grass said the shots came from the building and he was pointing to the old Sexton Building. ALLAN SWEATT, Chief Criminal Deputy, Dallas County Sheriff's Office. Date: Nov 23, 1963 At approximately 12:30 PM, Friday, November 22, 1963, I was standing with a group of Deputy Sheriff's about 30 feat east of the corner of Houston and Main Street on Main Street. The president's caravan had just passed and about a minute or 2 I heard a shot and about 7 seconds later another shot and approximately 2 or 3 seconds later a third shot which sounded to me like a rifle and coming from the vicinity of Elm and Houston street. Several officers and myself from the Sheriff's department ran around the corner and towards Elm Street and Houston and were told that someone had shot at the President. A man by the name of "Hester" told Deputy John Wiseman that the shots had come from the old Sexton building.

That makes sense Ray.... From Zapruder we see exactly where they were on the pergola to the WEST of the TSBD and yes, just south of Old Elm. yep... they are directly south of an "Elm" street... and did indeed move north into the Pergola/Arcade Thanks!

And finally, here they are standing up afterward and where they were when Zapruder tested his camera

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=871&tab=page These are the FBI reports from the HESTER's... CE1429 You see anywhere the HESTERS themselves were actually interviewed on the 24th or 25th after Charles had already given his affidavit on the 22nd?

Getting back to Mr. Butler’s questions related to this image and to show the type of misleading "evidence" he posts There are problems with this frame based on other photos, films, and witness statements. I’ll start at the top of the scene. Zapruders: Zapruder and Sitzman are positioned where they are supposed be and doing what they are supposed to be doing. Stemmons sign: May be a little hard to identify but, it is where it is supposed to be. The Umbrella Man and Latin Man may be out of position based on how you see Zapruder’s filming angle in the Zapruder film. Hesters: There is a real problem with identifying the Hesters as the people identified as the Hesters in this scene. Jack White, long ago said this couple are the Hesters. He was wrong. According to their testimony they were positioned on the south side of Elm Street and then after the shooting moved to the north side of Elm Street to the Arcade seeking shelter. VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Charles Hester, Address 2616 Keyhole, Irving Age 28 , Phone No. None Deposes and says: My wife, Beatrice and I were sitting on the grass on the slope on Elm Street where the park is located. What Mr. B seems to forget is there is a BIG difference between unsigned FBI accounts which have been shown to be less than reliable in representing what witnesses actually said and SIGNED AFFIDAVITS… the statements which the HESTER’s did not see or sign were created: By Special Agent DOYLE WILLIAMS and HENRY J. OLIVER Date Dictated 11/25/63 as opposed to the signed affidavit of Nov 22nd of Charles HESTER. Beatrice Hester said in an FBI statement of 11-25-63 said she was standing south side of Elm Street. “…Mrs. HESTER advised she heard two loud noises which sounded like gunshots, and she saw president KENNEDY slump in the seat of the car he was riding in. Her husband then grabbed her and shoved her to the ground. Shortly thereafter they went across to the north side of the street on an embankment in an attempt to gain shelter...” Charles Hester said much the same as his wife in a FBI statement of 11-25-63 about being on the south side of Elm Street. “…HESTER stated he saw the President slump in the seat of the car and that he heard two shots fired drom what appeared to be a building located on the corner of Elm Street and Houston Street. He Stated he and his wife were almost in a direct line of the fire and he immediately grabbed his wife and shoved her to the ground. He stated hethereafter immediately escorted his wife across to the north side of the street on an embankment in an attempt to gain shelter... “ If this is true the people identified as Hesters are not the Hesters in this Bronson frame. The situation worsens when you realize there is no one on the south side of Elm to identify as Hesters. This is a sure sign of photo alteration and witness tampering. Newmans and Chisms: The next problem involves the identification of Bill and Gayle Newman and John and Faye Chism. These two couples should be easy to identify in any photo or film. The Newmans have two children with them and the Chisms have one. That’s not the case in this Bronson frame. The two couples that are supposedly the Newmans and the Chisms each have only one child. Neither of the two women shown are holding a smaller child who would not be able to walk. The people identified as Chisms has the woman holding a camera and taking a photo. What happened to her camera and film? Mannequin Row: In the Zapruder film there are 19 people standing between the R L Thornton freeway sign and the Stemmons freeway sign. Most of those 19 people are not shown in this Bronson frame. Umbrella Man and Latin Man: The problem here may not be a problem depending on how one sees that these two people are shown in the Zapruder film. In Bronson this pair seems to be behind the Stemmons sign. But, this may simply be camera angle differences. Presidential Limousine: The limousine is approaching the position where the first shot is about to happen or has already happened to some which is pretty much the official story. This scene nullifies the statement of Bill Newman on 11-22-63 and the Hesters as already discussed. Bill Newman said on 11-22-63: “…Today at about 12:45 pm I was standing in a group of people on Elm Street near the west end of the concrete standard when the President's car turned left off Houston Street onto Elm Street…” Does Mr. B understand that in the BRONSON image, WEST is to the left, North at the top? And, “…Then the car sped away and everybody in that area had run upon [sic] top of that little mound. I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me, that it was on an elevation from where I was as I was right on the curb…” By this time he was directly in front of us and I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head. – Bill Newman These two statements put Bill Newman at the corner of the TSBD where the “concrete standard” is. The “garden” behind Newman is the Pergola or Arcade as called by others. No sir they do not… If he has said the EAST END… maybe…. Recognizable People: On the south side of Elm Street is a recognizable people such as Mary Moormna, Jean Hill, Toni Foster, the Brehms, and the Babushka Lady. Unrecognized People: There are 9 people I put question marks on hoping someone can identify who they are. Other than you, why should we care who these people are; additionally, why don’t you try to ID them yourself? The overall question is can this Bronson frame be considered real and trustworthy or altered and not trustworthy? Is our interpretation of some the elements correct or not correct? Yes Mr. B, the Bronson frame does not conflict with what we see in other frames... In reality, the overall question remains, who do you think you're fooling here?….

Thanks guys.... I fully understand that in many cases opinions form the theories on which research and experimentation is performed... Moderators are not here to dissuade baseless opinions from appearing on these pages... WE are. If your opinions cannot stand the light of day - or the simply "how did you get there?", it's the opinion that needs reconsidering... If you can't even do that...or even let yourself read the work of those who do and can.... why are you here?

I WENT THRU THE THREAD AND DID NOT SEE MENTION OF THIS UNDATED REPORT FROM THE RELEASE.... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32423543.pdf IT'S A VERY DETAILED CHRONOLOGY OF ZRRIFLE, QJWIN AND THE MAFIA'S PLOTS TO KILL CASTRO...

Mr. Butler - you remain on my ignore list yet from time to time I see what you're posting just to be sure your story hasn't changed. Asking someone to support an opinion is all I did. Your opinions have proven time and again to be not only "other worldly" but pure fantasy backed by your presentation of junk science. Have you not noticed that no one agrees with your warped view of things unless they are so new here they know no better, or so like-minded they don't know what questions to ask you? Mr. Chris Scally is so out of your league with regards to the realities and knowledge of this case it ought to be a crime they way you attack that which, and about which, you remain hopelessly clueless. the moderators give you wide berth simply because they, like the rest of us know you can't fix stupid... but only hope at some point it toddles off. Ignorance, on the other hand, can be fixed with just a little effort to see and understand those around you at least trying to help... Case in point.... you take the worst crap you can find on the internet and then CONCLUDE that there has been alteration, insertion, evil deeds done by evil doers.... I applaud Chris for even trying with you.... self-awareness is an amazing thing... you should try it sometime

Excuse me? At what point did you think posting baseless opinions was a positive thing and to be accepted here of all places? If you have a defendable point to make about Altgens alteration, offer it. 1+1=2 doesn’t require an opinion. Whining about being asked to do so, or not to be adult enough to address a critical question about your own statement dismisses the entire point of being here... have as many opinions as you like... HERE, we discuss WHY, not just state what and leave it at that. Butler has been pushing terrible logic for a while now while there are scores of others here from which to derive an opinion that doesn’t make it appear as if you’ve never seen a photograph. I’m terribly sorry my asking you for substance bothered you so. After 20 years of discussing this with truly knowledgeable people, I for one expect a little more than “everybody’s got one” opinions... especially those based on the photographic interpretations of one Mr. Butler here... for example, he argues that Hill and Moorman were up at the Elm/Houston corner and “moved/changed” to their spot in the Zfilm while also changing their clothes... those are his words in my image... So please, guys, at least take a second and ask WHY, before attaching yourself to an opinion. Or don’t, and continue to share your insights with us without a shred of support...

{sigh} Mr. Reynolds... even opinions - if they are to be taken seriously - have some basis in fact. Mr. Butler - upon whose opinions you seem to rely... and the facts of the case have not yet been formally introduced... and it sadly doesn't appear as if they ever will... There is quite a lot of good work on this site... the last thing we need is another opinion based on fantasies and poor analytical skills FWIW

Mr Reynolds.... What are you talking about? Do you have a sense of how light and shadow work, especially in a 2d image? Is it not possible that the roof of the car obscures the man's face by placing it in shadow... like the eyes of the motorcycle copy in the foreground... Are you aware of the location of the sun which creates these shadows? There is truly no reason to cover the driver's face..... (I will show below what a real alteration to an image looks like) What is worth the lime is determining whether that really is someone in the 3rd floor Dal Tex window who shoots and startles the black man sitting on the fire escape... as for "blacked out magic marker alteration... I can find no better example than this z323

Wow Steve.... well done my man...

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10192-10084.pdf PRIO AND THE MDC.... DEC 1963 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10220-10104.pdf SOMOZA SUPPORT OF PRIO PLAN

David, I've been going thru many of the undated/un-noted links to the 2018 doc release. I have not gone thru them extensively yet I wonder since Castro and Prio both wanted Battista out while the US Govt/MAFIA wanted him to stay... there is quite a conflux of competing interests... FWIW - I found a document that confirms FIDEL had the business card of the KGB's LEONOV many, many years before his successful coup.... this was found when Fidel was arrested in Mexico in June 1956.... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32298950.pdf is from 1952 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32328631.pdf from 1959 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10227-10027.pdf 1. PRIO HAS NOT JOINED AMBUD" 2. KUBARK INTEREST PRIO LIMITED TO INFO RE HUS ACTIVITY MEXICO. AMBUD Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC), Cuban exile organization formed on 22 Mar 1961 under U.S. guidance to unify various exile groups. AMBUD-1 Jose Miro Cardona, first Prime Minister of Cuba under Castro, who left Cuba and headed the Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC) exile group. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10220-10107.pdf AUG 1963 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10220-10110.pdf sEPT 63 PRIO TALKING WITH SOMOZA.. "MAY" BE BASIS FOR hsca INTEREST... ??? https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32310605.pdf https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10220-10105.pdf SEPT 30 1963 PRIO LOOKING TO OVERTHROW CASTRO WITH SOMOZA AND US HELP

Do we not suppose that Harry Holmes' army or Hoover's brigade would have noticed and mentioned it? https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/JosephsPistol.pdf The article I wrote linked above is the only one of its kind that traces the chain of possession/custody of that pistol from start to finish... Cutting to the chase: There are obviously two separate and distinct paths the pistol travels once back at the Dallas Police Station on November 22, 1963: 1. McDonald/Carroll > Hill > (initials from McD, Carroll, Hill, Bentley supposedly etched in handle by screw, yet no photo in evidence shows these initials) > Fritz > T.L. Baker > gone 2. Fritz > Davenport & officers > Doughty/Barnes > SA Vincent Drain > FBI and amazingly enough... WESTBROOK and his office is at the center of this charade as well. Gerald Hill transferred to WESTBROOK at the end of October, 1963. ... if pigs could fly....

Couple things Steve... First - REA never collects the shipping - a freebie I guess And what they claimed to have shipped was a $39.95 .38 S&W Spec What's a .38 St. W Spec??

Tony - I ask that you examine one quite obvious question about Marina's reliability when it comes to her testimony... Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?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. .....At the time' that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses. 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. How many pictures did you take? A. I think I took two. Q. When you took the first picture you held it up to your eye? A. Yes; that is what I recall. Q. What did you do next? A. I believe he did something with it and told me to push it again. Q. Are these the only two pictures you ever took in your life at least up to that time? A. Yes. So I would ask simply how anyone including Marina, could use this type of camera which requires the user to place the camera about chest high and look down into a viewfinder which shows the image upside-down FOR THE FIRST AND ONLY TIME IN HER LIFE TO THAT POINT, and not make a single mention of the image, the difficulty in even taking such a photo and the fact that despite supposedly moving and adjusting between photos, gets the images to show virtually identical backgrounds....? I would also ask anyone to reconcile how - if a rifle is sent to OSWALD in March 1963, how the FBI nor the USPS makes any mention of it? We have detailed reports of the mail to and from Oswald all thru 1963, especially in Feb/March/April/May as he is moving all over the place.... Why isn't the FBI or the USPS aware of a 5 foot carton from KLEIN SPORTING GOODS delivered to Oswald's PO BOX for HIDELL ? And just to come full circle... "CE137 is 2 items: a camera and a case... CE138 is supposedly a single item, a flash attachment. Can you say "Minox"? Mr. THORNE. Exhibit 137 is a camera in a leather case.Mr. RANKIN. Have you ever seen that camera before?Mrs. OSWALD. No.Mr. DULLES. Is that a Russian camera?Mrs. OSWALD. No.(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 137 for identification.) Mr. THORNE. Exhibit 138 is a flash attachment for some type of camera. It is an Ansco flash attachment.Mrs. OSWALD. I have never seen it.(The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit' No. 138 for identification.) So Tony, Had you ever noticed that CE137 and 138 do not exist? + 511 CE 136 - Camera. + 512 CE 139 - Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial No. C2766 (this rifle will subsequently be referred to as "the C2766" rifle). + 512 CE 140 - Green and brown blanket.

?? Where had you heard what Tony?

Two parents, two kids both dressed in red.... Chris is not saying the are the same people.... so what’s the fascination Dave? btw, nice to see you on here again...