• Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We are opening registration!! If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We require you use your real name, a valid email address, and your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. Additionally, you will have to send us your photo for use as an avatar and submit a brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Michael Walton

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Michael Walton

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,104 profile views
  1. Thanks Thomas it helps a lot when someone summarizes something this complex.
  2. Thanks, Jeff.
  3. To reply to this thread by bumping it, what should really be bumped are the very first two posts from way back. The reason being as much as I think John McAdams is a complete and mean asshole (look on Kennedys and King for his story) he's right. I think Judy Baker is a fraud and did not know Lee Oswald. No one knew about this woman until 30 years after the assassination. Her story is one of those attention-seeking types, just like Bev Oliver and "I was the babuska lady." Now if I sound mean here I'm just aggravated as xxxx about people claiming to be involved in this case when they're really doing it for attention, cash, or both.
  4. Jeff - thanks for posting. Would you happen to know where the phone tap originated from - meaning from M Paine's place of work or their home phone?
  5. I agree, Joe thanks.
  6. Off topic of course but if ever a photo spoke a million and one words, it's that winking photo. I tend to transpose it to an event today and then ask yourself "could you see it happening in that event?" An example is Biden winking to a crony if Obama has been murdered and both men standing next to Michelle who has blood all over her. I just cannot see it happening like the LBJ one.
  7. To Thomas Graves - I'm asking this as a student as I want to learn something here. Is John Simkin's posts, and the book he refers to, pro "Oswald was down there" and you're basically rebutting those claims that he wasn't? I just want to make sure I understand what I'm reading here. Thanks.
  8. The last post on here was 2013, four full years ago. And then nothing. Yes, the KKK is terrible. Yes, hillbillies and rednecks make all kinds of statements because...well, that's what they do. My Dad was a redneck so I can speak from experience. They're basically cowards, doing their dirty work in the dark of night and wearing sheets with eye-holes (or is it assholes)? One of the last posts on here was David Andrews - a good one - who said: Terri - first you put up the name of one of the purported Dealey shooters, then you take it down, then you accuse Terry Adams of being ignorant because he apparently didn't get the name right. In reading your website, I'm curious to know how in your long sweet life you came about encountering the Zodiac killer, the Vancouver kidnappers, the Pig Farm killers, and the 9/11 hijackers. Do you also know Judyth Vary Baker? That pretty much sums up this entire thread and for a while, it got the (s)troops stirred up and fired up back in 2013. The usual suspects started saying, "Oh, yeah...KKK...Dealey shooters...oh, yeah. It's gotta be." And then....four full years...nothing. Then, as is usually the case, Michael Clark brings the corpse back to life because, well, the woman said she knew a Dealey shooter...and she knew Zodiac...and...and...? And, oh, yeah because of Paul Trejo, who seems like a nice guy but can't make up his mind whether Oswald was an arch-conservative in bed with Ed Walker or a red Commie - or maybe both. Who knows with Paul? On a good day, when he sticks his finger out the window to check which way the wind is blowing, that's the conspiracy theory du jour.. Mike Clark - why would you bring this thread back to life after four years? I mean, I made a thread months ago and it got zilch views. I put a lot of effort into it, not making up some pie-in-the-sky story like this. Why don't you bring it up again and discuss it? I mean really look at it and think it through and see if it has any interesting debate to it instead of this nonsensical thread here? You probably won't though because I know you think I'm the playground bully here. You want me and others to think everything under the sun is a conspiracy like you do, and when we don't then we're bullies.
  9. Mike Clark - where were we... That's actually beautifully said, Mike. Not even Einstein would have been able to keep up with the garbage on this thread. Mike Clark - Kicking cans on the playground... Trust me, Mike, there are NO angels on this forum "playground." Absolutely none. Mike Walton - my last post here... Yeah, I know I said that here. So this is my last-last post here, but don't hold it against me if I lurk here again. It's just hard to let go when you see silliness here, just like on the H&L caper and the Ruby Didn't Do It caper.
  10. There could be many reasons, some most obvious, but that is not my responsibility. This is so, so funny, Chris. And very lazy of you too. Because you're taking a piece of evidence from the case and twisting and contorting it to fit YOUR theory, and yet you refuse to show in that piece of evidence itself where the physical properties were changed? Really funny. I've now counted a half dozen "I thinks" or "maybes" or "IMOs" in Joseph's write-ups, pictures and drawings. I thought math majors use math as their way of concluding with 100% certainty of theories. For example, Einstein used math to confirm his theory of relativity? The SBT was the biggest thing hanging over the government when they were putting together their report. Anyone with a brain knows that. They knew someone on the 6th floor could not have performed the shooting as seen in the Zapruder film. They couldn't just wave a wand over all of the films - all of them - and make everything match up to fit the SBT. It was impossible to do this. It would have required an enormous amount of time and effort to even begin trying to do the physical act of doing this with no guaranteed outcome. I just tried taking two frames of the film, opening them in Photoshop, and tried to "splice" the halfs of them together like Joseph's ridiculous claim above when he mentions "perhaps" (very weak for a math major) that 156 and 157 were spliced together. It's impossible to do and I'm using new tech like PSD. They didn't even have that back in 1963. David Josephs likes to brag about this motto he came up with on this case - The Evidence IS the Conspiracy." I actually agree with that statement, even the Zapruder film. That film PROVES - unaltered - that the government had its work cut out for it when they knew that it was impossible to pull off the shot sequence that they were trying to say took place. The film proved conspiracy. But in THIS case, Josephs and Davidson do not think so. They think the film was also doctored. Neither of them have ever worked in the film and video business. I have, for 30 years now. One of the first mediums I've ever worked with is the very same kind of 8mm film that the Z film was shot on. This was the early 80's. I edited it with this little cut and tape contraption. Let me tell you - if Josephs and Davidson think that the government could have pulled off what they're claiming, then they don't know or understand what's involved. It's as simple as that. This is my last post on this. You just cannot talk reason with these people and people like them. All logic is thrown out the window with them. They remind me of my own brother-in-law. He used to sit around spewing nonsense while hacking on his Salems. One time, we went out in my car and I turned on the air conditioner. I flipped the RECIRC button and he said, "Oh, you shouldn't do that! It guzzles up a lot more gas when you throw that RECIRC switch." As if the switch turns on this magical extra motor to make it colder. I tried to explain that it doesn't, that it just recirculates the air, making it colder. I knew this because I researched it previously and was curious what exactly the switch did. He replied, "Naw! It guzzles up more gas." Then he took a hack on his Salem and just looked out the window.
  11. Mark McNight clearly explained everything, a plausible, viable reason for this mess. David - lining up photos and making elaborate photo compositions is NOT going to help convince me nor others but if it does for you, fine. Position A is meaningless to me. How many ways do I have to explain that to you? You're trying to convince me of something that's unprovable. The same with Chris - it's all hokum. And by the way, Mark, Pat Speer and Jeremy ALL have said the same thing with regards to the inner workings on how this whole thing got started. I'm merely the supporter and vocal cheerleader of it. We all know the SBT is bullxxxx but they were desperate to make it work however they could. And as Mark, Speer and Jeremy explained, that's HOW they got it to work. That's all. The films were not - I repeat NOT - manipulated, altered, extra frames removed, etc. They had to take the evidence that was round and fit into a square result, which is what McNight meant by the lawyer being treasonous. They basically passed a lie on to the public.
  12. In both the SS survey and the "altered" FBI survey, the point of the third shot/third hit didn't go away...UNTIL the WC "made" it disappear under the sleight-of-hand of having the original survey sealed, attesting that a "tracing" of the survey was good enough for their purposes, and then using a "cardboard representation" of the "tracing" of the "sealed survey" as evidence...as opposed to UNsealing the survey and using the actual evidence they had in hand! Mark, this is a good analogy. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it was much easier to massage the story like this compared to assuming that the film was shot in 48 FPS, 67% of the frames removed, and so on like Chris and Dave and others believe. So I agree and I'm sure others do as well that in order to tie up all of the shot scenarios, wounds, and what was seen in the Zapruder film, measurements had to be massaged in order for the SBT to be plausible, at least in the lawyers' minds. That was far easier to do than collect all of the films, remove frames, leave splices in other films, and so on. Now if only I can convince Chris, Dave, and others to just let this silly measurements and movie alteration fantasy die a quiet death, we can all go home happy.
  13. CHRIS: Start a new topic and present the rebuttal. Uh, Chris, this is NOT the hilarious Swan Song - Math Rules (aka The 67% Solution) thread. It's the Tina Towner splice thread. The original debate involved why there's a splice in that film - as if a splice equals the bad guys cutting out four masked gun men who surrounded the car to fire upon it - all within 4 frames of film. So if you want to continue debating your numbers and measurements, shouldn't you really be over there and not here? *** DAVID: Your inability to fathom the reasons behind events in this assassination does not negate any of this work. It took me - a finance and math major - quite some time to understand what Chris is offering... That's good to hear. My degree is in drawing pictures and pasting them together so that does explain why you can make sense of it all better than me. It has always been my assumption that parts if not all of the film was shot at 48 fps, and even Horne touches on that possibility. That's the very sticky word in this whole case - assuming things. Regarding the film, there's no REASON to assume anything about it. Yes, the camera has the control to bump up the film to 48 FPS. But I don't think you, Chris, or anyone else can truly understand that an original film shot at 48 FPS and then frames removed from it will really change anything that can be easily masked over. Think about it. If one second of film was shot at 48 FPS and then someone removed 67% of those frames, that comes to about 32 frames removed leaving 16 frames. Watch the film anyone can see online, or even better download every single frame, put them on your computer and toggle back and forth and watch it. All movement is smooth. There are no jumps, skips, and other odd behavior. So we're expected to believe, working backwards, that if say, between frames 250 and 251 that 4 additional frames used to be there, and now they're not, what in those 4 frames were so terrible that they needed to be removed? And how do YOU or Chris know which frames were removed? For example, how do you know whether 4 frames were removed there and not, say, between 199 and 200? It boggles my mind how you, Chris, and anyone else can think that this could be done. And let's argument the merits of it. Yes I'm going to use your favorite word here - why? Why - or better what - was removed from those 32 frames? How can anyone expect that in a sequence of pictures tightly threaded together one after another that something sinister could be removed in time to disguise it? You can't. Chris can't. And my advice, too, is read what Jeff Carter says about it. Read the Zavada report. You, Chris, and others are really grasping for something that isn't there. Use it or not. Yet coming here to post incredulity while also slamming those who do understand is extremely counter-productive. You seem to think that because I and others are "slamming" you when we don't agree. There's no slamming here, but I'm sorry, I'm not going to just let people think they're all right and everyone else is wrong with something as silly and ridiculous as this is. The same is true for the silly Harvey and Lee caper, Ruby didn't shoot Oswald, and so on. But again, I've come to understand this about you. You wrote a great report on the MC caper. To me, that is a definitely plausible thing because there's an outcome to it. The outcome being it's all part and parcel with making the crazy kid patsy look guilty. But then I read you elsewhere and I ask - what happened here? The MC caper was not enough? Now you're suspicious about the microphone in the Ruby shot Oswald photo? You seem to back up the silly Harvey and Lee caper? And you think frames were removed in the Z film? It's just puzzling how someone can write an article on MC - with a very plausible and solid outcome - and then throw all reason out the window and start believing anything. And why? Because that's what you assume? Or because they could?
  14. Feel free to join Walton and whoever else is not interested by not responding. I sure would appreciate it. If we weren't interested we wouldn't be here, Chris. But we are. Meanwhile, Pat Speer and Jeremy clearly made a worthwhile rebuttal to all of this. Why don't you take a look at it and debate it?
  15. See this is exactly what I mean. No explanation. No answers. No defense of the theory or discussion of others rebuttals. No rebuttals to Jeremy and Speers. Now Josephs is taking the same tact and telling me to scoot off. David you can think whatever you want about my knowledge of this case. I think I have a decent knowledge of the case and I think where we and others and me diverge sharply is I dont buy into everything under the sun as being a conspiracy. I think that's where a lot of folks here get themselves into trouble. You yourself told me "See Michael I think they did because they can." I mean really...? Why would you think that? They already had their patsy 6 foot in the grave. All they had to do was massage the story here and there to make it all official in the WR. Why would you ever think they'd go through all of this extra work, film manipulation and so on....because they "could" when they didn't need to? It doesn't make sense.