Interesting thought Michael....  doubtful to get a true course answer though - if you are indeed correct.... or even if not.

As to Aliens....  Can anyone name an organism that have ever arrived at the shores of a hospitable environment AND allowed the indigenous to remain and flourish?

Is there anyone who can believe that a species advanced enough to travel the vast galactic distances would become so incredibly lame the instant they hit our Solar system?

And then there's pure common sense...  Send a probe first.  That's what intelligent beings would do...

Do you honestly believe that a species with the ability to first find us, yet not send a signal?  Just show up and proceed to crash into everything? 

Anyway...  while we'd like to believe, some simple common sense makes it extremely difficult.

38 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

On April 5, 2018, a team of intelligence agents entered the White House and went directly to the library where Nixon's Message to the American People about the Alien Presence was hidden. Using thermal imaging they found it. The Message was hidden in the binder of Volume 2 of American History. The envelope on its outside bore Nixon's handwriting that said, "To be opened in the 2018."

What's the source on this Doug?

You usually provide links... 

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

Didn't Nagell deliberately get himself arrested for bank robbery so that he would be in jail on or around November 22? If true, I would say that foreknowledge is the only explanation. But who did he think was going to do it? He wasn't a lone nutter, was he?

 

 

Yes Ron... shot twice into the ceiling and sat down waiting for the police...  I believe it was the files in his trunk that he wanted the "FEDS" to find...  but Larry can speak to that with much greater depth.

Nagell claims he was sent by the KGB to stop Oswald from killing JFK by himself killing Oswald.  Or at least he thinks that... his double-agent status is hard to follow... purposefully no doubt.

PAZ,

Larry Hancock did a huge paper on Nagell - I have the pdf so it must be available...  it's 55 Mb

THE MAN IN THE MIDDLE
RICHARD CASE NAGELL'S VIEW OF AN EVOLVING CONSPIRACY

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-arm/id/4259  is the link to a 78 page notebook John A put together...

In virtually every case, the WC lawyers use the full "Lee Harvey Oswald" when referring to him.... Lee Oswald as well but usually by the commissioners as opposed to the lawyers....

These are the few times I could find "HARVEY" without "LEE"....

FWIW....

Mr. DULLES - And you wouldn't have said "Harvey Oswald," would you? 
Mrs. PAINE - I knew he had a middle name but only because I filled out forms in Parkland Hospital. It was never used with him. 
Mr. JENNER - You do recall definitely that you asked for Lee Oswald? 
Mrs. PAINE - I cannot be that definite. But I believe I asked for him. Oh, yes; I recall definitely what I asked. I cannot be definite about the man's reply, whether he included the full name in his reply. 
Mr. JENNER - But you did? 
Mrs. PAINE - I asked for the full name, "Is Lee Oswald there." 

(This is Sept 21-23 1963 - Ruth and Marina et al left the 23rd...the 3rd day after the 2nd night - after her Quaker trip)

Mr. JENNER - Now, you were there for 2 full days and 3 evenings. Would you tell us, conserving your description in your words, what did you do during these 2 days and 3 nights. When I say "you", I am including all three of you. 
Mrs. PAINE - Of course, afternoons we usually spent in rest for the children, having all small children, all of us having small children. 
Mr. JENNER - Whenever this doesn't include Lee Harvey Oswald would you be good enough to tell us? 
Mrs. PAINE - When he was not present? 
Mr. JENNER - That is right. 
Mrs. PAINE - My recollection is that he was present most of the weekend. He went out to buy groceries, came in with a cheery call to his two girls, saying, "Yabutchski," which means girls, the Russian word for girls, as he came in the door. It was more like Harvey than I had seen him before. He remembered this time. (huh? DJ) I saw him reading a pocketbook. 

Here too is a WCR Exh list of letters FROM Lee - from Dec 17, 1959 there are no letters until January 30, 1961

Between the letter of May 5 and May 25, 1961 Oswald goes from telling Robert of his marriage and baby to wishing to return to the US.

Did something happen during that time, Steve, which supports the 2 man theory??
Btw...  we don't seem to have the letters FROM ROBERT of which Lee/Harvey speaks  or any of the letter from his mother for that matter... this also holds true about letters FROM Marge.  (see below for a list of letter TO Oswald)

If Marge and/or Robert Oswald was writing the real LEE - the 5'11" 165lb man...  HARVEY would not have any of these letters... would he?

LETTERS FROM ?? TO LEE

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 12:08 PM, Mark Stevens said:

Does anyone know who "T/9" is? I'm fairly sure this person is a Cuban who doubled for the CIA, L/9 is Soeto, is T/9 a completely different cryptonym?

L/9 is LITAMIL-9 which can be looked up at MFF Cryptonym database...

He was a cultural attaché at the Cuban Consulate...

38 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

A "forklift" is not what was used at Andrews (on the port side, and at the rear port-side door).

I guess it's more of a scissor-lift.... 

I misunderstood

Quote

"This image shows that Lifton's claim that you could not see what was going on on the starboard side is ridiculous...  -Doyle

The "forklift" was not used in Dallas...

It was used at Andrews...  at night...  

Pardon the interruption....

Has anyone SEEN these photos?   Links to these photos?

Thanks
DJ

On ‎4‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 5:27 AM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

All I can tell you is follow the photographic and film evidence, everything else is a false narrative.

The series of articles I wrote have a main theme...

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy....

Following this or any evidence leads only to the conspiracy; in relation to the small amount of true info which applies to the actual assassination.

Since these items of evidence fail the authenticity test, they would never see a court of law.

And that is my point...   I challenge anyone to point to an item of evidence which can be proven AUTHENTIC in the legal sense.

If not authentic, the evidence and its implications are moot.   DVP talks about the evidence but never allow the discussion to get to the point where this evidence is rendered REAL.  

There is a huge hole in the rifle authentication...  enough to generate reasonable noble doubt that any rifle let alone that one was ever involved in these transactions.

If the evidence cannot be proven authentic, Oswald’s use of it also becomes moot.   Just like Ozzie not being on the 6th floor at the time....

Immediate non starters...   that there are many who saw a different yet eerily similar film to Zapruder’s... and the activities described match what we’d expect to see on the cutting room floor somewhere in Northern NYState.  

So please... before evidence is used to Prove or Support a factual conclusion..

 it must be authenticated by its uniqueness, or by chain of custody....

With very few exceptions, the visual record of events has been severely altered.

ie... look at Altgen’s 2nd to last photo of the car speeding away compared to the others....  and that is the one hoot of his without a negative....  the photos and films showing anything were extremely limited.. a small handful which where dealt with as needed.

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy...  and always will be....  we chase the shadows and ripples of fact hoping to see what really caused them...   imo that is...

DJ

Aint it buddy?

I just came across this document from the recent release...   https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32158959.pdf

30 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Sandy,

How did they so accurately choose two boys whom they just kinda hoped would grow up looking alike?

Was it Dr. Strangelove-like double sperm deal that worked out better than they could have ever hoped for?

Or what?

--  TG

 

Your assumptions are inaccurate as usual.  It resembles a Straw Man argument/tactic...  At least that's what I've heard...

You start from your own misguided opinions about plans to which no one is privy.....

And proceed to insert feet in mouth with childish glee...

As to the words of wit and sarcasm sent in my direction....  You so funny... 

Post something serious occasionally ....so we know the difference...   

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Michael,

Should I have said "religion," instead?

--  TG

 

Pretty sure you don't want me to SHOULD all over you and an ongoing behavior which betrays an ongoing agenda which remains impossible for you to control....

The only truly off the wall, unsupported drek ever peddled with seriousness remains your thinly disguised attempt at forum ridicule with that pet theory in search of support....   

It takes special members to ridicule the work of others while contributing so little to furthering the cause.... Or, if having contributed in the past, how little respect is offered as opposed to how so very much is expected.

{ cool trick TG pulled on h&l there... Even when asked nicely, he can't resist}

4 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

So let's table the marketing message(s), Watson. Oh, and scratch access to the Zapruder in-camera original film, NARA has ceased visitations and/or access to same film...

Oh David.....   You made a funny.

In camera ... At NARA.... ?

The 6 feet of film?   

Love ya man.  DJ

To ponder:

If the shooters were connected via COLLINS RADIOS... the "Fire" command would allow 2-3 shooters to fire within a split second of each other...

.... also, the area where the Tramps walk past Lansdale....  same area as you have a shooter for the 2nd z313 shot...

Except it appears too large and that he shouldn't be all black

Is still hidden....   Can you unhide my posts please?

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 4:00 PM, Chris Davidson said:

470.666666 - 16.6666% = (1/2 x 1/3) =
392.22 - 353 =
39.22 Remaining

This is AFTER 133  (486 - 133 = 353)

Q: 39.22 frames at 18.3 fps, not 48... right?

39.22 / 18.3 = 2.143 seconds....  & also equals 39.22 * either (48/18.3) =  103 whole frames or  (48/18) = 105 whole frames at 48fps

Let's look at the likely candidates for removal...

z154 - z158...  while it appears that z157's top is spliced into z156's bottom...  JFK's head turn in 1 frame seems impossible

z207 (WEST location fro a shot) thru z212  -  1 of 2 shots removed

z207 to z208 on CE884 is 2.24 feet which = 28mph....  it was not possible for the limo to travel that distance in 1 frame so 208 was changed to 210 in CE884 to bring the spped down under 10mph

On CE585 we can see the faint writing stating that Shot #1 at frame 207/8 was a bit farther up Elm...   So while JFK and JC appear to be hit nearly simultaneously... there was a fraction of a second separating the 2 shots...  Many feel JFK was hit, possibly twice between 190 and 223...

Z302 - 303 is another example of an extreme head turn and the fact that the image is relatively uniform in focus despite - supposedly - the limo or the camera was moving...

And again at 314-316

and again at 350 - right where the shot by the stairs occurs

Mr. LIEBELER - You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; that's correct.

.....There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. 

18 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Thanks David,

Two more for you:

(18/48) x (2) x (1.2) x (1/.9) = whole frames 

(1 - .11111) x 18 = frame rate 

 

18 X 2 = 36 X 1.2 =  43.2 X 1.1111 = 48 / 48 = 1

(1-.11111) = .888889 X 18 = 16 frames per second (1 of the 2 settings for speed on the B&H)  the other was 48fps

If the film was not altered or taken at 48fps it would have been taken at 16fps

What happens to all the calcs when you revert back to the normal camera speed - and why was 18.3 so much more important to use than 16?

First big reason was the incline of Elm with a rise/run of 1'/18.3'

16/18.3 = .8743

From the first splice, 133, to 313... 180 frames @18.3 frames drops to 157 frames at 16 fps.  z313 - 157 frames = z156, the location of the 2nd splice and exactly half the frames.

180 frames minus 157 frames = 23 frames @ ~1 foot per frame is the length of the limo

z156 - z133 = 23 frames = length of the limo

 ===========

{thinking out loud}

486 frames @ 18.3 = 425 frames @ 16.    61 frame diff
353 frames (486-133) = 309 frames @ 16   42 frame diff...   

42 frames would be the distance between 313 and the final shot per the SS...

Jim... there's a 2nd page to that report in John's file

3114 Harlendale?

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

If you remove 5 frames between the first and last, the position of the limo will match the extant film.

first and last?  133 and 135?   you talking about that jag to the left in the unstabilized version

that sentence really doesn't help clarify it buddy...   

At about 1 foot per frame,  2 frames divided by .25 = 8 frames at 48 fps

to 134 to 135 at 18.3 = to 133.1 - 133.2 - 133.3 - 134 - 134.1 - 134.2 -  134.3 - 135 at 48 Ffps

remove half (4 frames) leaving 4      133.1, 133.2, 134.1, 134.2
remove half (2 frames) leaving 2      133.3,              134.3

2 frames left, 5 removed... from a 48 fps film...

but I still don't understand what you mean by "the position of the limo will match the extant film"  

when and where?

18 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

David,

Just a slight tweak on that.

The more frames they have initially, the less distance the limo appears to move per frame, especially after a block of frames has been removed.

If you look back at my speed increments for z133-z149(average 14.88mph) or from z133-z166 (average 13.44mph) and break that down into a 48fps film:

14.88 x 1.47 (1mph) = 21.87ft per sec

13.44 x 1.47 (1mph) = 19.76ft per sec

21.87 / 48 = .455ft per frame x 5 removed frames = 2.275ft

19.76 / 48 = .411ft per frame x 5 removed frames = 2.058ft

Converted from the extant film, 2 frames would equal a distance of either:

2 x 1.08ft (13.44mph) = 2.16ft

2 x 1.195ft (14.88mph) = 2.39ft = distance between JFK and Connally in the limo.

So, when the extant film starts, between z133-z135 (2 frame span), what happens to the film?

P.S. Graphic representation to follow, in a little while.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok buddy... help me understand...  (133-135 is a 3 frame span though...)

Here is 133, 134, 135, 136 & 137 stabilized around the light pole

or not stabilized and the camera shift shows a perfect 1 frame movement... kinda looks like a splice after a camera jiggle as a result of a shot....

3 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Steve, in light of the way you've laid these occurrences out..  Is it conceivable that Oswald's cover was blown regarding infiltrating say DRE and Alpha 66 and his handler(s) realized this so he was by then useless in that respect, but, he could be useful and expendable as a fall guy or "patsy" in another operation?  I know, just speculation.  But reasonable?

This is important Ron....

Most everything Oswald "did" could be used for those 2 purposes...

Infiltration of the "commies" requires looking and acting like a commie...  except Oswald, while going against Castro for Odio's benefit was for Castro via FPCC while working for Banister/FBI to ID FPCC supporters.

Whether you believe Tampa and Chicago plots were foiled or not, a perfect DALLAS patsy was moved into place in early October...  working in a building where connections to co-conspirators would not be too hard to make...

Everything Oswald did for the FBI winds up being the incriminating evidenced against him...

No Ron, not too speculative at all...  I see it as an integral part of the Phase 1 Phase 2 plan and contingencies

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 7:41 AM, Steve Thomas said:

Well, I think I got my answer, and it comes from Lee Oswald himself!

 

Frontline interview with Robert Oswald, November 19, 2013.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/interview-robert-oswald/

 

Following his return from Russia in the latter part of June, 1962, Lee Oswald gets a call from SA John Fain asking for a meeting. Oswald agrees. Afterwards, Robert asks him how it went. Lee answers, "Well, everything went all right. They even asked me if I had ever been an agent of the Federal government or the CIA."

"I said, What did you tell them?"

"He says, Well, don't you know? and just laughed."

 

Warren Commission Hearings Volume XVII page 738

CE 824 - Copy of an FBI report by Special Agent Fain, dated August 30, 1962.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134&relPageId=764

 

“He (Oswald) agreed to contact the FBI if at any time any individual made any contact of any nature under suspicious circumstances with him.... he promised his cooperation in reporting to FBI any information coming to his attention.”

 

Steve Thomas

Pretty sure it was standard for the FBI to have anyone in Oswald's position to keep the FBI informed of attempted contacts....

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 7:41 AM, Steve Thomas said:

Does anyone know when Oswald was first identified, or rumored to be a government informant?

So I gather you are saying that his trip to Russia, as part of the defector program, qualifies him as a "government informant"?

Didn't SNYDER in Russia believe his approach and what he said struck him as rehearsed and guided?

From WEBERMAN

In September 1975 Counter-Intelligence Staff member Paul Hartman drafted a Memorandum for the Chief, Counter-Intelligence Staff (ANGLETON), stating that on November 27, 1963, he was instructed by Raymond Rocca, his immediate superior, to check Agency files in order to determine if OSWALD had been used by, or was connected with, the CIA. Paul Hartman checked with Records Integration Division , Deputy Director/Plans, Domestic Contacts Division , Division D, SE Division, the Cuban Operations Group of the Latin American Division, Medical Services, Counter-Intelligence/Operational Approval, CRS, and Office of Security/Security Research Service: "The results were negative" as well they should have been, since OSWALD worked for ANGLETON, not the CIA. [CIA 1188-1000]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well written, David. The whole thing.