Michael Walton

Members
  • Content count

    654
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Michael Walton

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,907 profile views
  1. ANOTHER ONE OF LARSEN'S LAUGHERS: ----------------------- But Tracy, the two men don't look alike. Side-by-side they look like two different men. I agree that if you compare eyes alone, they look similar. (One person commented that the eyebrows are the same, and another said they look different, so I don't know about that. I forgot to compare eyebrows when I looked at Mike Walton's transposition of the two.) I agree that the mouths look the same. But overall they look different. I think the only time the two might be confused is when you've seen one, and then see the other at a later date or time. In other words, they sort of look the same. BTW, I found the following from looking at Mike's transposition: Eye, nose, and mouth spacing is very close. The ears on one (Lee, I think) are significantly higher. The chins are different. Lee has a pointed chin, and Harvey has a slight cleft chin that makes it more square at its tip. Though that might disappear if he gained weight. ------------------------ Yeah, he's a man of science alright. Just read his scientific analysis above. He can't even keep track of which fictional character Hargrove is rambling on about here. And just like he said he saw one of the old guys down on the steps as JFK's head got blown off - one of them was holding a black pistol...or camera. And then he qualified it as a joke (heh, heh - just joking here). And then another Larsen Laugher is he said a guy standing out in the outfield of a MLB park has to throw the ball to home and actually aim it the same height as 15-story building. You read that right. But when another member said he threw the ball to home on one hop, Laughing Larsen replies befuddled, "I don't know what that means." Here's the graphic I made months ago to prove him wrong. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxTXo1QXVBRUhfTUU Can anyone tell me that by throwing a ball from the outfield to home you'd have to aim it that high? So Jim Hargrove, keep entertaining a man of science (and doesn't know any better) with your fairy tale. The Laughing Larsen.
  2. I don't think this is fun at all, Jim. To be honest, I think it's shameful that you continue to push this ridiculous fantasy onto people who don't know any better. Furthermore you're just as bad as LNers who continue to push LHO as the sole assassin and have the big bucks in the media to keep it rolling along. Your fantasy story only takes folks away from the real truth of the case so in a way you actually aid the LNers story line.
  3. Could you have selected the left photo because there's so much detail missing, Jim? And therefore, there's "similarities" but you can now say they didn't look all that much a like? Here's an animated GIF. Give it a moment because it's quite a large file and may take a moment to load. But watch the transformation. It sure looks like the same person to me - the younger one filled out in the face somewhat, probably due to working out in the military; and the later one, 4 years later. Thinner (no longer working out), no more military style hair cut. They both even have that slight rounded shape of hair on the sides of their head even if the younger one has that buzz cut with a lot of his side hair missing. The ears are the same; the mouth is the same. It's the same person Jim, not clones separated thousands of miles apart by some stroke of luck brought together by the super secret agency. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxdS03TDM3dFJ1aGM
  4. Paul - I still simply cannot believe how you can somehow in your mind reconcile the notion that Oswald, while publicly stirring things up as a Communist in NO, how the plotters made a fake trip for him down in MC with the idea that he was cavorting with a Russian assassin, was a nobody. Yet you still believe, mind-bogglingly, that he was actually an unwitting right-winger who shot at Ed Walker. And then to top if off, Oswald himself said - when he knew the jig was up - stated for all to hear and be recorded - that the only reason he was there was because he lived in Russia and he was a patsy. It just doesn't make sense, Paul.
  5. Thanks I appreciate it Michael C.
  6. Michael Clark - can you please post the link to that blog so I can see it? Thanks.
  7. I suspect HARVEY Oswald was a WW II... Jim, even with this clone story having an extremely tenuous grip on realism, it seems like you've now ventured into supposition? You suspect this? And you can't prove this or that? If that's true, how can you expect anyone to believe this story? You also mention the Hungarian being an orphan. How is it possible, if the orphan's family to be dead, that the planners would some how, some way find almost an exact look a like of Marge Oswald to have almost the exact looks as the smiley happy version of Marge? In other words, in a million-to-one chance they found TWO look a like Lees separated thousands of miles apart, and yet we're also expected to believe that in another million-to-one chance they found two Marge look a likes too? Do you not see how absurd that is? Or is the pitching for dollars scheme so great that any chance for the truth is simply brushed away?
  8. PT - whining like a big baby and making lots of noise... Wow, that's a pretty unbelievable statement for you to make, Paul. How can LHO be unimportant when Hoover himself was already telling Johnson the intrigue that the man on the recording and in the photos was not him...while LHO was sitting in jail? Even Hoover, being as astute as he was, had to know something was going on when that happened and Oswald not just some "nobody" as you claim him to be. I actually did a double-take when I read your comment here and then it hit me - yep, Paul is so wrapped up in his Ed Walker and Oswald theory - the one he endlessly pushes for dollars on an unsuspecting public - that he'd never want to look at anything else.
  9. To summarize Davidson's theory, he believes Z had his camera set to record at 48 FPS. Then, for some unexplained, unknown reason, 67% of the frames were removed and supposedly in those 67% of frames the evidence of conspiracy was removed. What he has failed to reveal to this day is *what* was removed during this 67% solution that would have been so revealing to have gone through this whole convoluted process? Even if Z had recorded at 200 FPS the film shows that the SBT could not have happened like the WR says. So we're expected to believe that this 67% solution happened yet they still left in the part the part that reveals the SBT being impossible? The most he posts is pictures and clips and animated gifs with incomplete phrases and expects readers of this board to decipher what he's trying very hard to say.
  10. David Healey, I don't want to get into an argument with you here since it seems like you're pretty set that fakery was added to the film. But it's obvious you didn't even bother to read the links I posted. FYI - there was *no such thing* as green screening in 1963. Instead, they used the SV process which was probably the best way they knew how back then to put moving people in front of a projected or matte background. You probably won't bother to go to this link as well but be my guest and see if you can catch the faked element I added into this copy of the Z film. It was done in a hurry but even by today's standards, with digital equipment, it'd be hard to pass muster with faked stuff added in 50 years ago. FYI - only one other person bothered to look at it and caught the faked element so hurray for that person for being eagle eyed. Z Film with Fake Element
  11. See Tom, this is what I mean. It's just very very hard to take you seriously on this board. You claim to want to get to the bottom of the truth of the case and then you go to a dormant thread that hadn't been posted on since 2015 and type HUNGARIANS? You post a rude PM to me (e.g., "Hey! Embarrassed to post again, eh?!") then in that ex-car salesman way of yours (you did say you're an ex-car salesman, right?) worm and weasel your way around on replies. You're either extremely bored or with too much time on your hands or both. As another member on here said why are you bumping long-closed threads if they don't anything to the dialogue of the case? Thank you, Michael Walton
  12. What I know comes from Don Thomas and Doug Horne. I believe they are better suited to discuss this subject with you than I am. This is funny, George. I don't know what Carer's background is but I can tell you I worked on 8mm film 35 years ago when I was in college. I made several short movies with that medium, one being stop motion. I had a camera, the film, and a small film editing cutter where I had to splice the film to make my edits, very, very different than the videos I make today using Adobe Premiere and After Effects. I can tell you, looking back on those experiences, it doesn't make me an expert at it but it gives me plenty of insight to tell you that what you are expecting the Bad Guys to have done, removing frames, painting in blobs, and pasting in objects like lamp posts - and for who knows what reason as many people who expect that that's what happened STILL to this day have still not told us WHY these alterations had to have been done - was impossible to have been done back in 1963. Have you watched the '63 film The Birds? Watch the crow chasing scene. I've never been all that impressed with Hitchcock's movies and I actually believe he was a pretty lazy director because he liked to sit in his chair and direct as much as possible indoors. And the crow chasing scene contains a lot of the "best" special effects of that era when you see the kids running down the street. That was the best they could do and you can tell it's all pretty fake. And yet, as I've said numerous times, we're expected to believe that major alterations were done on the Z film on the weekend of the assassination and the film we see today contains those alterations? And as Carter pointed out above and I said several times elsewhere on EF, one of the earliest times we can get a glimpse of what the government was actually seeing of the Z film - but the public still did not have that opportunity to do so - was the FBI "eyes only" film on what happened. In that version, in black and white, is the exact same film we see today. What does that mean? It means that if they had performed elaborate special effects in the Z film that completely covered up any semblance of conspiracy as seen in it, why didn't they then show it on TV for all to see? They didn't because the BW copy in that FBI film IS the one and same film that came out of Z's camera. What makes Doug Horne any more of an expert on this film than Carter, or myself, or Zavada, who DID handle the film, thoroughly expecting it? Because Horne interviewed two government officials who saw the film?
  13. Thank David. Yeah, in Chrome it says you need to download the Flash player. That's what my browser is showing. It's too bad your version is not clear. I found an extremely clear version of it and made some freeze frames from it a while back and then downloaded it from YTV. But then I deleted the film and now I can't find it any more on YTV which is weird. You can see one of those clear freezes in here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc/view Just skip to the end and don't read any of the text since I know you won't agree with any of it
  14. Your two-min clip on your page doesn't work for me. It says you need the Flash player so I'm guessing the source file is .FLV? Or is it .MP4? If it's .MP4 would you mind sending me the direct link to it so I can download it? Wow they sure filmed that color reenactment fast. It whizzes by and you'd think maybe they'd do it at normal speed like the real limo was going. Or do it fast and then slow.
  15. David, I know we don't agree on this case, and I look at your hero Vince as a man who lucked out on the Manson case and then sold his soul to the (corporate) devil for cash and to mouth the corporate line. But I do agree with you on the complete zaniness and craziness of some of these so-called "theories." A frozen lamp post....really? I mean, Jesus. Anyway as I've always said, good job on your video collection. And by the way, one of the hardest to find clips is that color reenactment film shot I believe by the FBI. They used a Queen Mary limo and it's through a rifle scope. The Kennedy stand in has a chalk mark drawn on his back (not his neck as Gerry Ford wanted us to believe). Do you have that in your collection? Can you send the link? If not, do you have any idea why it's so hard to find?