Michael Walton

Yeah, it's really too bad. I've been a member here since I think Dec 2015. And in all the time I've ever posted, I don't think I've EVER - not a one time - bumped a topic. EVER. So that's some pecking order, huh? I'm just trying to speak to the truth, ya know? That's all. There's a certain truth to this case, and everything else is clone fantasies and 2- and 4- and 6 feet of film footage that has been blobbed in, chopped up, or excised. Meanwhile I post a reasonably sane theory and [crickets chirp]...not a one word of forthright debate. And it just dies on the proverbial vine. Yet, other topics that have been bumped and re-bumped, and re-re-bumped. Some are bumped because the member said, "...because it's mine. And because I want to." So yeah, it's really too bad. Too bad, indeed.

OK I'm going to try this again as it seems one of my posts here was reported and thus removed. Probably because I used that member's name in the removed post. So here we go again... The next question in the Great JFK Trivia game. The topic is Philosophy. When a person who fully believes in the conclusions of the Warren Report is placed in an empty room with only two other people in the room - one on his/her left being an ex-president of the U.S. who expressed doubt about the report's conclusions, and the other on his/her right being a paid shill of an author who wrote one of the most inaccurate and "shilly" books ever supporting the WR conclusions, who do you think said WR will support? And why? Tracy - I know, I know. This case brings out the worst in a lot of people.

Here is the next question in the Great JFK Trivia game. The topic is Anatomy. What is the difference between one's back and one's back of the neck? The answer - according to an ex-president of the United States and lawyer who finagled the report that came to be known as the truth of what happened on 11/22, big enough of a difference to pencil in "of the neck" next to "back," even though a photo of one's back clearly shows a bullet hole nowhere near the neck. Contestants - you be the judge...

Yep, another one of Davidson' cryptic replies, this time nothing more than a link to a very bad band's very bad song. Meanwhile, still no debate of his own "theory" nor an honest assessment or rebuttal of Speer's theory.

David Josephs - you've done good work. For example, your MC caper work passes the smell test for me in plausibility and believability. And yes, Pat Speer, a great researcher as well, may not always be correct in his assessments. But neither are you in this case. I liken this "the plats are wrong and the film footage should match up with another piece of film footage but it doesn't" nonsense to being just that - nonsense. Not everything about this case is a conspiracy. But when someone sees a statement here and a measurement there, and a piece of film footage that one person said was 8 feet long while another says it was 6 feet long over there, and then someone's eyes widen and they start suspecting that all of this was all part of the grand conspiracy theory, then that person starts looking less like Pat Speer (or you with the MC caper work) and more like the Mel Gibson character with the foil covered walls. It's just amazing to me how "researchers" simply throw all common sense and plausibility out the window when it comes to this case.

Yep, more crazy numbers from Davidson that only add up in his mind and no one else's. Yep, still no real debate to counter Speer's analysis or mine or others. No big reveal to WHY or HOW the number spewing helps readers understand the case. Yep, just more meaningless numbers.

So now Chris Davidson is quoting as his proof none other than Gary Mack? Really? The same Gary Mack who could never be trusted except to mouth the boilerplate WC? The same Gary Mack who participated in a "scientific" TV show, and where the producers actually added a fake photo of the three guys standing on the steps, but they moved the photo almost down to the sidewalk, to convince people watching that the SB nonsense is the correct answer and, thus, the conclusion? It's pretty amazing that a CTer like Chris Davidson is now quoting Gary Mack, a known l--i--a--r, to try to back up his ridiculous math theories. And let's, for argument sake, accept that Towner's film was shot at 22 FPS. The reply to that is - so what? Why is he worried about a film shot at 22 FPS - or even 16 FPS for that matter - showing the limo way up at the intersection of Houston and Elm? What could that possibly have anything to do with anything sinister? When you have a CTer quoting a known WC mouthpiece, then you can see the desperation to prop up a crazy theory oozing out. And BTW - I'd absolutely love to see Chris Davidson respond to Pat Speer's analysis of this whole thing. Meanwhile, MC compared me arguing here to someone going into the mall and spouting off. The last time I remember going to a mall and returning merchandise, you can rest assured I did so politely...but not that it's your business to begin with. A better comparison would be for me to go to a convention with people saying there's conspiracy everywhere - like little green men, and fake wires hanging up fake moon landing images, and people standing around saying that everything under the sun in the Kennedy case has been faked. Then yes - there's going to be a lot of vigorous debate because, to me, these people do nothing but muddle the entire Kennedy case. Their "truth" and the real truth will never be reconciled.

Your version of the truth and my version will never reconcile. So there's that. Aren't you the same "researcher" who believes in the ridiculous Harvey and Lee nonsense? And that you saw one of the old guys down on the steps holding a black pistol, but then tried to make it a joke to worm your way out of your nonsense? There's such a thing as plausible truth and "truther" truth and I know which one you fall under.

Larsen, does it really matter? Watch the Z film and decide for yourself. It's clear he reacts to a throat shot then lurches forward from the force of the back shot. If we're to believe the "flurry of shells" that the SS agent described, with dented chrome and cracked glass, then it's certainly plausible the throat wound was doable from the front, despite the ambiguity of the witness statements. Further his chest was facing JBC but his neck was turned to the right (look at Bronson photo for proof). It doesn't make sense for a back wound to be bouncing around in his body and popping out of his throat.

Sorry Chris but this is a *forum* which means open debate. It's important to hold all theories up to open scrutiny. It's actually not hard to debate yours because it pretty much is meaningless nonsense. Still as you continue to ramble on about it someone needs to hold it up as well. Since you've now moved into telling me to be quiet or to go away, it's richly ironic that you're now taking the stance that the MSM takes about the entire case

Joe don't forget about the cracked windshield too. Per the dent, this was the president's car. They constantly buffed it and cleaned it inside and out. I find it very hard to believe that the dent was innocent and they'd have just left it there without fixing it prior to Dallas. The dent and crack are in the same general location. Watch the SS agents in the Z film before and after the head shot. They're kind of looking around confused. Then when the "flurry" of shells come in they crouch down before driving off. No doubt shells are hitting everywhere including the dent and crack.

To add to Jim's comment this was also the beginnings of them trying to fight back with "science." From that point on, it seemed like every new show that came out was backed by science with the Target Car and others. This also seems to be when Mack became "science's" mouthpiece. For example when he did that show to move the guys on the steps down almost to ground level. The faking of things all goes back to DM's Looney Tune

Chris all of this is embarrassingly meaningless to me and many, many others who come here. As I've said numerous times even if all of these hidden figures mean something in the overall scheme of things they prove absolutely nothing in the assassination. In addition all theories are supposed to lead to a conclusion. Since I've been corresponding with you on EF you STILL to this day have not answered the simple question of WHAT do your hidden figures prove in relation to the murder. And we're going to continue to wait because I'm sorry to say but it all means nothing.

agreed joe. but i just love to rub it in for them

I would absolutely love to make a new and as accurate as possible animation of the murder based on the Z film. But without all of the shrunken heads, cut off necks and so on like Myers did in order to fit the conclusion everyone wanted. IMO - I would not have to fake anything because there's no doubt what the conclusion would be. Unfortunately, it'd take an enormous amount of time to do so and because I don't know how to use the SW, it'd be even tougher. But I'm almost positive this is the software he used. https://www.lightwave3d.com/overview/

To David Von Pein and all other pure LN/WR believers. Your comment on this? Remember - no twists, turns, long and long-winded WC testimony quotes here. No snide comments from Vince B's and others' books that the CT community is wacky and/or crazy. No shrugs. This is your ex-President speaking, the ex commander in chief expressing his doubts. Your ex highest authority of the land speaking by way of a mainstream media outlet (CBS). Comments please?

I'm interested too, Bart. Nothing is wishy washy here neither. You have to look at that film and wonder if the shiny bald-headed guy is not BL, then who is it? The same people who were standing there in Altgens all seem to be standing there in the later film, The one obvious one was the black guy who was to the left of BL just prior to the shooting - he seems to be gone. You yourself have said that no oddballs were around those steps, meaning the main people were in that immediate area were employees of the building. So there couldn't have been within a matter of about 55 seconds some completely different person who looks like BL would have hurriedly walked up to where those steps were. Also, I have to go by what I see in that footage - it looks like BL. However, the key here is even if it is, PM is still a reality. We'll just never really know until we see a pristine film frame from the TV station - if it ever happens.

Sounds good, Bart. I have a question. Does the "Lovelady on the steps" discussion above in any way mess up PM? Obviously, if down the road we can confirm 100% that it's LHO in the corner, confirm by some other means (like seeing the original TV footage and confirming it's him), then it doesn't matter if BL is on the steps or down on that extension road. But until that happens, how does BL on the steps as detailed above effect the overall bearings of PM?

Now convert 1.8 sec of 18.3fps film into total number of frames. Does that result sound familiar? ------------------------------------- Yes, it's very familiar. Chris Davidson just won't let this "the films have been faked" theory die. I mean, really? Watch JFK and Jackie as they glide by Towner, who's filming. Nothing is happening. JFK sits there looking at the audience...the same with Jackie pre- and post- "splice." We're expected to believe that 7 frames have been removed from Towner during that sequence all to reveal...what? That's the funniest thing about these film alteration theories - no one on here, not Davidson, not Josephs, not others - can still to this day tell us WHAT was removed. Or better WHY they were removed. No one that early in the motorcade has ever said anything or come forward to corroborate something sinister that has happened at that point. Not a one word. You can even see close to the same sequence from the woman who was filming from the 4th floor of the TSDB - people are just standing there clapping, taking photos, and so on. And yet...the film alteration theories never die. Meanwhile, if you choose to believe the assassination was a conspiracy and if the TSBD was nothing but a stage for the police to find fake evidence so they can pin the blame on the "lone nut" Oswald, do you really think that the plotters would have even suggested that their shooters start firing BEFORE the kill zone? The goal here was to blame Oswald with as few shots as possible from the fake sniper's window. That kill zone was obviously pre-planned to happen right down in the knoll area and that's pretty much what happened because IMO, the first shot did NOT start until Kennedy appears again from the freeway sign. So why, pray tell, would the plotters have a crazy shooter as part of their team to fire way up as the car was turning the corner, completely destroying the plot? It's ridiculous to think so. Further, Davidson here thinks that the Z film was filmed at 48 FPS and then 67% of the frames removed. Fantastic. But again, when I and others have asked him over and over again WHY 67% of the frames needed to be removed - in other words, what did these removed frames reveal - then crickets chirp. No reply. Nothing. Exactly. Because all of these removed frames and splices and painted in blobs are just another wacky theory that does nothing but confuse both serious researchers and newbies just getting interested in why Kennedy was murdered.

Chris, unless I'm overlooking it, Andrej has not posted on this thread so why are you addressing your reply to him. Also, a serious question and not to stir things up with you. I've been developing training for over 20 years now. When you present something, you have to list things for people 1-2-3, in order for them to get it. Your post here is you say you'll fill someone in later and then you show a 5-second clip of the Z film. Do you not realize - and again I can't see how your mind works here - that by doing this you leave a troubling and confusing precedent on EF? How can you ever expect a new person visiting here, yet alone a serious researcher, to EVER understand where it is you're going with your posts?

It looks like the same gun to me. That indentation carved into it where the fingers go, the shape of the scope, the tapering of the butt - they all look alike to me.

In your Z frame the woman who was believed to be Calvery but is now an Indian woman from OK - you can tell it's her because her head is turned showing her face. It's definitely her.

Bill Lovelady is smoking a cigarette. Didn't he die of cancer in '71?

Jim that link is a "local" link meaning it exists on your computer. You have to upload the file to a server and then paste that link here.

I am going to concur here. I really do believe that sunlight reflecting bald guy is BL. This film was shot...what 45 to 75 seconds after the last shot was fired? Many of the same people are in the same position in the vestibule that they were in as seen in earlier films. So it seems reasonable to think BL didn't quite go dashing off to save the day by heading over to the knoll area. Amazingly BL can also be seen ape like and back on the steps and in living color in the Hughes film too. And I believe that film sequence was shot much later after the shooting. Sounds like our boy Billy loved lingering around the steps that day. One question...does this have any effect on the PM theory?