Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Josephs a question for you


Recommended Posts

1. No one saw him do it

2. He was seen elsewhere just before and just after.. with a woman who told a researcher she was giving him change when the shots were fired.

3. He didn't fire a rifle that day

4. The rifle was the worst POS imaginable for a number of reasons

4. His .38 did not fire automatic rounds - he did not kill Tippit either

David,

I pasted this from another post, so as not to detract from that thread. I would like to offer you the opportunity to qualify the remarks and offer some support for your position on this, because I believe there are some fundamental errors within.

Can you expand a bit on your reasoning for the above claims?

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
1. No one saw him do it

2. He was seen elsewhere just before and just after.. with a woman who told a researcher she was giving him change when the shots were fired.

3. He didn't fire a rifle that day

4. The rifle was the worst POS imaginable for a number of reasons

4. His .38 did not fire automatic rounds - he did not kill Tippit either

David,

I pasted this from another post, so as not to detract from that thread. I would like to offer you the opportunity to qualify the remarks and offer some support for your position on this, because I believe there are some fundamental errors within.

Can you expand a bit on your reasoning for the above claims?

Mike

So Mr. The Crowd goes wild I notice you avoided this like the plague, so how about putting up or shutting up?

Want to actually try to qualify these remarks, or just continue to run aimlessly at the mouth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike... Didn't know you cared so much, now it feels like I have 2 ex-wives.

There is simply no need to avoid you or your posts... Never did see this one and it must have jumped off the first page fairly quickly - but missed your direct "Call out" until your juvenille "assumption" post.

Each one of these points has been made numerous times - plus I'd like to know from which post you chose this little tidbit and whether there is a context you are skipping with your copy/paste skills. a Link to the thread you took it from would be helpful.

I am sure you will attempt to show us all the error of my ways and assumptions - I look forward to you addressing each of these points and my reasoning as well as offering something of substance to prove your position. or do you just randomly pick bits and pieces of posts and argue for the sake of arguing?

1. No one saw him do it

Even Fritz is obviously disappointed when he says that they cannot place him (Oswald) in the window with a rifle at the time of the shots while the one witness, Brennan, in his book "Eyewitness to History" says:

I said brusquely, “He looks like the man, but I can’t say for sure!” I needed some time to think. I turned to Mr. Lish, who had detected my resentment and said, “Let’s go back to the office. We have some talking to do.” As we went, I commented that the man in the lineup wasn’t dressed the same way the man in the window had been.

Brennan was the one and only witness putting Oswald in that window and he refused to ID him... for a variety of reasons... but this left the DPD with no one to ID Oswald.

As I wrote... "No one saw him (LHO) do it" Unless you have something to add to the thread other that insulting attacks

2. He was seen elsewhere just before and just after.. with a woman who told a researcher she was giving him change when the shots were fired.

Do we really need to do the Oswald timeline again? He's seen as late as 12:15-12:20 on the first floor - and please try to remember if he was the lone assassin he has no way of knowing EXACTLY when the limo is passing... based on what the public knew JFK would pass by anytime between 11:55 and 12:25 (luncheon had public start times of both 12 and 12:30). Add to this that Williams is eating his lunch, at a 6th floor window until 12:15 or so. And then again LHO is seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:31 - maybe... the Baker/Truly/Oswald rememberance of this event is still very much at odds with each other.

I wish I could find the person who posted the comment about a woman coming forward claiming to have been giving Oswald change for the Coke machine on his trip from the 1st floor to the 2nd, before he buys the coke. Maybe someone can come to my aid while I continue to look for it.... Bottom line? Oswald was not on the 6th floor when witnesses saw numerous men with rifles moving about on that floor.

Mrs Reid definitely places a coke in his hand as he walks thru her office out towards the front, after the "Baker" encounter.

3. He didn't fire a rifle that day

Google the parafin tests please... 2 positives on his hands and a negative on his cheek... the hands can lead to many different interpretations, the most damaging that he fired a pistol yet the results should have been positive on the shooting hand and negative on the other unless he was incontact with substances that could cause both positives - which he was during his normal day at work.

Nothing on his cheek is the most telling as to why he didn't fire a rifle that day... the fact that nobody fired THAT rifle THAT day is a whole other story...

4. The rifle was the worst POS imaginable for a number of reasons

Really Mike? If I remember correctly you are knowledgeable about weapons yes? You think a 20+ year old rifle, with 20+ year old ammo, a rickety scope, a badly damaged firing pin and a partially filled "non existent" clip shooting a round with a bent hull was a RELIABLE weapon, was not a POS that repeatedly jammed, was hard to shoot by experts and appeared as if it hadn't been fired or oiled in who knows how long?

Really?

4. His .38 did not fire automatic rounds - he did not kill Tippit either

1:34 221 (Ptm. H.W. Summers) *Channel 1 Message*

Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). Last seen running on the north side of the street from Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol which he had in his right hand.

1:34pm 550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) *Channel 1 Message*

The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...H24_CE_2011.pdf

The chain of evidence, the inability to identify the shells in evidence, the fact that LHO pistol was completely loaded and misfired in the theater, that the shells in evidence do no match the bullets removed from Tippit, that he was actually walking in the opposite direction as the WCR states - if it was Oswald at all - which means an even longer trip in which not a single soul sees him...

Your turn Mikey... make us understand how Oswald killed both men with the weapons you'd like him to have used, while leaving evidence that contradicts itself

Plague on...

DJ :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Mr. The Crowd goes wild I notice you avoided this like the plague, so how about putting up or shutting up?

Want to actually try to qualify these remarks, or just continue to run aimlessly at the mouth?

I replied within 90 minutes of today's post Mikey... :lol:

can't remember where you put the gloves or hoping that DVP will fight this battle for you as well?

That's the story with bullies... any retaliation and off they go

and I found where you pulled that quote of mine - it was the first response on a thread about what people thought the REAL story of the assassination might be

We all notice you only went to the thread, took what you wanted from my post, and left... nothing original of your own

nothing to add to the discussion

Here is my post in full and the thread http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15980

An interesting approach Tom... good luck.

So you think we have the WC with "Oswald in the TSBD with a rifle... 3 shots 2 hits... Oswald killed, story over, go home.

I'd be happy if we could simply present a few... "This is why Oswald could not have done it" narratives to high school and let them decide for themselves... we don't teach modern history and we dont teach accurate 19/20th century history... can you imnagine how History since Nixon would be taught!

1. No one saw him do it

2. He was seen elsewhere just before and just after.. with a woman who told a researcher she was giving him change when the shots were fired.

3. He didn't fire arifle that day

4. The rifle was the worst POS imaginable for a number of reasons

4. His .38 did not fire automatic rounds - he did not kill Tippit either

Or that shots really were fired from the GK area.

Your subject of choice, global capitalism, is also a very interesting one I try to follow yet for me it always comes back to the Banks, the National, centralized banking system... capitalism at it's finest...

Anyway...

One simple read of Survivor's Guilt and the 25th Amendment to the Constitution... add in Military Intelligence, Naval Intelligence

and you have the players, the reason and the means. All Mafia men lie, period. It all starts and ends with the Military... most every president, congressman, CIA, FBI, SS Treasury agent etc... in 1963 had been in the military, knew how to take and obey orders, had been to war and by God that young, cocky, Catholic playboy was trying to end the cold war, not win it. Americans win things... or keep them going until they do or everyone has stoped noticing.

The fact that Big Texas Oil and the Fed got a free pass... my guess is those here discussing killing JFK had also been in the military.

The short narrative...?

3 military trained men with rifles ambushed JFK in DP while the Secret Service not only slept but help set it up... those that remained in government covered it up to keep their phoney, baloney jobs and make lots and lots of money.

25th Amendment

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Created, promoted and ratified under the LBJ presidency... only they did it just a little before it was officially and legally okay.

And used quite a bit of more excessive force than prescribed..

My .02

DJ

May not be the most correct of scenarios but I put it out there for discussion

and I've enjoyed reading Cliff's comments on Harriman et al as well as Jack's regarding Dulles to name just a couple...

allows my own theories to either be adjusted or confirmed or combined... that's why this is called

The Education Forum and not "Fantasy World According to DVP and MW"

Still waiting on DVP for answers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. No one saw him do it

Even Fritz is obviously disappointed when he says that they cannot place him (Oswald) in the window with a rifle at the time of the shots while the one witness, Brennan, in his book "Eyewitness to History" says:

I said brusquely, “He looks like the man, but I can’t say for sure!” I needed some time to think. I turned to Mr. Lish, who had detected my resentment and said, “Let’s go back to the office. We have some talking to do.” As we went, I commented that the man in the lineup wasn’t dressed the same way the man in the window had been.

Brennan was the one and only witness putting Oswald in that window and he refused to ID him... for a variety of reasons... but this left the DPD with no one to ID Oswald.

As I wrote... "No one saw him (LHO) do it" Unless you have something to add to the thread other that insulting attacks

Interesting how you put that "for a variety of reasons" I wonder if his reasons included the fact he felt betrayed by the DPD, or possibly was in fear? How about this from Brennan's own book:

"The officer walked over to me sticking out his hand to shake. He greeted me by name and I knew if he knew who I was and what my connection with the case was, then others must know. He asked me, “Does the second man from the left look most like the man you saw?” He was talking about Oswald and I knew what he wanted me to say.

I felt even more angry and betrayed. I hadn’t agreed to make an identification to the local authorities. I knew that there were ways my identity could become known though the leaks in the police department and I didn’t want any part of it. I knew that they had Oswald on enough charges that he wasn’t going anyplace. He had been charged with resisting arrest and carrying a firearm without a permit. There was overwhelming evidence that he had killed Officer Tippit and so my identification in that moment wasn’t absolutely necessary. If they needed me later, I knew I could identify him."

I knew I could identify him, if they needed me later! Sounds like Brennan saw Oswald in that window. Now I wonder why you did not elaborate on "for a variety of reasons"

2. He was seen elsewhere just before and just after.. with a woman who told a researcher she was giving him change when the shots were fired.

Do we really need to do the Oswald timeline again? He's seen as late as 12:15-12:20 on the first floor - and please try to remember if he was the lone assassin he has no way of knowing EXACTLY when the limo is passing... based on what the public knew JFK would pass by anytime between 11:55 and 12:25 (luncheon had public start times of both 12 and 12:30). Add to this that Williams is eating his lunch, at a 6th floor window until 12:15 or so. And then again LHO is seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:31 - maybe... the Baker/Truly/Oswald rememberance of this event is still very much at odds with each other.

I wish I could find the person who posted the comment about a woman coming forward claiming to have been giving Oswald change for the Coke machine on his trip from the 1st floor to the 2nd, before he buys the coke. Maybe someone can come to my aid while I continue to look for it.... Bottom line? Oswald was not on the 6th floor when witnesses saw numerous men with rifles moving about on that floor.

Mrs Reid definitely places a coke in his hand as he walks thru her office out towards the front, after the "Baker" encounter.

So where was he DURING the assassination. You readily admit you have him located just before, and just after. Rowland does in fact see a dark complected man in the window at about 12:15, as I recall. He also sees a gunman, which rather fits Oswald's description, but he never sees the both at the same time. So you have Oswald accounted for till say 12:20, and then again at 12:31. This does not rule him out at all.

As far as someone telling a researcher something, come on, you don’t really believe hearsay like that iss going to fly do you? I am not a CT. I don’t bite that easily.

3. He didn't fire a rifle that day

Google the parafin tests please... 2 positives on his hands and a negative on his cheek... the hands can lead to many different interpretations, the most damaging that he fired a pistol yet the results should have been positive on the shooting hand and negative on the other unless he was incontact with substances that could cause both positives - which he was during his normal day at work.

Nothing on his cheek is the most telling as to why he didn't fire a rifle that day... the fact that nobody fired THAT rifle THAT day is a whole other story...

Paraffin eh? Your kidding me right? You do of course know of the unreliability of this test. Let me refresh for you by asking you to read what Cunningham had to say in WCH3p487.

"And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A total of eight men showed negative or essentially negative results on both hands. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand, but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their right hands."

And then Further:

 

CUNNINGHAM: 

Yes.

We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.

EISENBERG:

So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek? 

CUNNINGHAM:

That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber—in other words, so he wouldn’t pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions. 

Cunningham had explained earlier why a false negative could arise with the rifle (3H492):

EISENBERG: 

A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.

CUNNINGHAM:

Yes.

EISENBERG:

Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?

CUNNINGHAM:

No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter. 

I find it interesting that you would try to use something that is inconclusive, as an indication of exoneration. Note I said interesting, not surprising.

4. The rifle was the worst POS imaginable for a number of reasons

Really Mike? If I remember correctly you are knowledgeable about weapons yes? You think a 20+ year old rifle, with 20+ year old ammo, a rickety scope, a badly damaged firing pin and a partially filled "non existent" clip shooting a round with a bent hull was a RELIABLE weapon, was not a POS that repeatedly jammed, was hard to shoot by experts and appeared as if it hadn't been fired or oiled in who knows how long?

Really?

Yes I have read these claims before. Pure rubbish, and spewed by people who have no idea what they are talking about in regard to firearms. To answer your question, yes, I do think a 20 year old firearm with a partially loaded clip (which is irrelevant) could have done the deed.

Now I don’t know exactly what you mean by "non-existent" clip. There is documented proof the clip was in the TSBD.

nary-wcdocs-78_0014_0016-1.jpg

I also assume in talking about the firing pin, you are referring to it showing signs of much use? Imagine that a war rifle showing signs of use. I also suppose you are going to quote that they were afraid to dry fire it because they feared breaking the firing pin.

I hear this often, and it is comical. You are aware of the fact that you never dry fire a weapon with this type of pin design aren't you? The reason is, that even if the pin is BRAND NEW, you run the risk of breaking it. They were not afraid to dry fire it because it was defective, they were afraid to because that is standard firearms knowledge. Its also the reason these were made to allow gunsmiths, like myself, to test fire weapons and have a striking surface for the pin:

41ZCROUaXNL_SL500_AA300_.jpg

Now a word about the scope. You do realize that it was in very good firing order on 11/27/63 when the FBI tested it? In fact they fired six rounds that made a keyhole in the target!:

ce548-1.jpg

Of course these rounds were fired at 15 yards. Someone with no knowledge would jump all over that, but what they fail to realize is this is a strong indication that the scope was in fact zeroed in at 400 yards. More about this to come.

As for the ridiculousness of the dented shell. Of course it could not have been fired dented, but it sure could have been dented after. Its called a short cycle. I have done it many times, and have seen it done by others. It is simply, not pulling the bolt far enough back to eject the shell, then when you run the bolt forward it hits the chamber lip.

Here are a pile of examples:

223badtube.jpg

4. His .38 did not fire automatic rounds - he did not kill Tippit either

1:34 221 (Ptm. H.W. Summers) *Channel 1 Message*

Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). Last seen running on the north side of the street from Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol which he had in his right hand.

1:34pm 550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) *Channel 1 Message*

The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.

What you would fail to realize is that in the day pistols were automatics, and revolvers were well revolvers. Another epic case of someone not knowing what they are talking about. People who murder with revolvers generally don’t hang around long enough to eject the shells. It is perfectly logical for the officer to assume they were autos, just because they were laying around on the ground. There is no indication that he picked them up and examined them before making the statement. I dare say, can you find the auto and the special in this illustration?

800px-Comparitive_handgun_rounds.jpg

So you see David, once you apply a little common sense, and actually know what you are talking about things become far more clear. So I would have to give you some advice, based on the advise you gave me. I do my research, thats why is it so easy to debunk foolish theories like to ones you propose. Stop parroting someone elses work, your obviously not an idiot, stop being lazy, and do your own work. Things will become clear for you as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'' People who murder with revolvers generally don't hang around long enough to eject the shells. ''

Mike, or anyone, ok it's a revolver. Why in this instance were the shells ejected?

Also, what would be the expected trajectory, velocity, of an improperly ejected cartridge (MC), ditto properly? (MC angled down)

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'' People who murder with revolvers generally don't hang around long enough to eject the shells. ''

Mike, or anyone, ok it's a revolver. Why in this instance were the shells ejected?

Also, what would be the expected trajectory, velocity, of an improperly ejected cartridge (MC), ditto properly? (MC angled down)

John,

Not sure what you mean by "improperly ejected" are you talking short cycle like I mentioned earlier?

I suspect he may have ejected the shells to reload. The man just shot the President, and a Dallas cop and was effecting an escape. Id reload too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'' People who murder with revolvers generally don't hang around long enough to eject the shells. ''

Mike, or anyone, ok it's a revolver. Why in this instance were the shells ejected?

Also, what would be the expected trajectory, velocity, of an improperly ejected cartridge (MC), ditto properly? (MC angled down)

John,

Not sure what you mean by "improperly ejected" are you talking short cycle like I mentioned earlier?

I suspect he may have ejected the shells to reload. The man just shot the President, and a Dallas cop and was effecting an escape. Id reload too.

Yes, the short cycled one, thank you, Mike.

OK, would you reload on the spot after giving the coup de' gras or run and reload?

Who is the first to note the ejected shells, presumably by swivelling the revolving bit and pointing gun up on the spot? Did anyone see this happen?

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'' People who murder with revolvers generally don't hang around long enough to eject the shells. ''

Mike, or anyone, ok it's a revolver. Why in this instance were the shells ejected?

Also, what would be the expected trajectory, velocity, of an improperly ejected cartridge (MC), ditto properly? (MC angled down)

John,

Not sure what you mean by "improperly ejected" are you talking short cycle like I mentioned earlier?

I suspect he may have ejected the shells to reload. The man just shot the President, and a Dallas cop and was effecting an escape. Id reload too.

Yes, the short cycled one, thank you, Mike.

OK, would you reload on the spot after giving the coup de' gras or run and reload?

Who is the first to note the ejected shells, presumably by swivelling the revolving bit and pointing gun up on the spot? Did anyone see this happen?

John,

A short cycle is cleared just like any other round, simply pull the bolt back. Ejection patter would be the same.

Yes there was one man who saw him eject the shells from the pistol. Benevides (sp?)

There may have been more, but I recall him saying he picked them up. This is a strong indication that the officer who made the "auto" statement did not pick them up and made his statement based on the fact that he could see them on the ground, just as if an auto had fired them.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Mike. So B dropped them again? (and did other interesting things, apparently). Presumably they were fingerprinted?

So, what is the ejection (MC) pattern? I know the investigation checked this, but what does an independent verification say? (I think it's important to angle the rifle according to suggested shots.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Mike. So B dropped them again? (and did other interesting things, apparently). Presumably they were fingerprinted?

So, what is the ejection (MC) pattern? I know the investigation checked this, but what does an independent verification say? (I think it's important to angle the rifle according to suggested shots.)

Its a large pattern John. So large in variance that I am positive all 3 of my rifles would replicate it.

I can look into this a bit and let you know.

My buddy Colin did a study on this and I think I can get some diagrams from him.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very grateful, Mike. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike

Let's go through these one by one and put something, worth reading, together.

Question 1.

Do you, or DVP, have any proof that Howard Brennan actually attended a line-up to identify Oswald? Your response seems to focus on Brennan being put under pressure by the DPD to make the identification. The reason Brennan sites as to initially failing to make the ID of Oswald was because he thought the assassination was a "communist conspiracy" and he was frightened for his family's safety. But seeing as how you talk about fundamentals, let's go to the fundamentals.

Can you please show for us the documented proof that Brennan actually attended a line-up?

We'll head to question 2 once we've successfully navigated this one...

Lee

Sure thing,

A quote from Brennan's Book:

"The officer walked over to me sticking out his hand to shake. He greeted me by name and I knew if he knew who I was and what my connection with the case was, then others must know. He asked me, “Does the second man from the left look most like the man you saw?” He was talking about Oswald and I knew what he wanted me to say."

Second man from the left. Sounds like a line up to me. It also appears in his WC testimony.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...