Michael Walton

6 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

Right-wing fanatic Joseph Milteer said something very profound to Willie Somersett on 11/9/63 in Miami: “Well, if they [the Secret Service] have any suspicion they do that [i.e. cover all office buildings], of course. But without suspicion, chances are that they won’t [emphasis added].”16 And so, the alleged lack of threats in Texas, especially Dallas, produced the desired results: security was stripped down.

Seriously, Vince? You're taking this statement and making it sound as if Somersett had some kind of "inside knowledge."  He could have simply meant that when the SS receives credible threat that they beef up security.  When they don't, then they take the standard precautions.

That statement could be interpreted any number of ways, Vince.  And like I said on another thread, the security that day was no better or worst than any other day. The proof is in these photos and you can go to any number of other motorcades prior to Dallas and those photos look more or less the exact same way as the ones below:

8 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You're claiming that photos can't be faked?

I'm stating, not claiming, your "it's fake" claim is bogus.

49 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The autopsy photo is clearly a fraud — JFK’s back wound was at T3.

It's not fake, Cliff.  You're muddling the picture with this. Humes said that wound did not terminate so what does that mean? No SBT. Period. And you seem to think that 1960's technology could magically move a bullet wound around.

Give it a rest.

Here are two of my favorite photos of the motorcade:

It sure seems the cyclists are doing their job here and Greer has his door open to push the crowd back. But what about the folks on the bus? 

I think all of this discussion about, "Oh, the SS backed off opening the way to the murder" is pure speculation. As Kennedy himself said - it'd be easy to get him from a tall building with a rifle.

What no one seems to want to say here is that times were very, very different back then. Unlike today, with nuts running around shooting into crowds and running people over, it was a more innocent time then. You didn't "need" limos that weighed 20,000 pounds, choppers flying around, 10,000 guards pushing all manner of crowds 200 feet away and other extreme measures circa 2018.

On 5/29/2018 at 7:07 AM, Bart Kamp said:

She ain't no Prayer Woman either.

Sure looks to me like it could be her, Bart. Animated GIF below...

The hairline and body shape are pretty spot on.

On 5/29/2018 at 8:44 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

What an important find, and a good piece of detective work by Linda. Mrs. Sanders had a short hair and looking like a boy's hair cut (top picture in Bart's post) which is also seen in Darnell still.

Andrej, you're simply grasping for invisible straws here. Your boxes are basically empty black holes with nothing in them. I understand you're frustrated because several researchers have proven that you tried to lie with your 3D animation by stretching a leg way down onto the second step to "prove" that it's Oswald. Please be honest now and admit that your animation was incorrect.

And to Brian Doyle, who I know lurks on here, then goes running over to the other forum to post. Enough already, Brian. You seem to have a one-track mind on this.  It's time to let go or check yourself into a mind restoration facility.

And you seem to keep saying over and over again that the Chris Davidson "enhancement" image of PM - which is nothing but a bunch of pixelated blobs - shows it's a woman.  It shows nothing of the kind.

Get a life, Brian. There are plenty of other things to focus on regarding this case besides your pixelated blobs "proving" that the person up there is a woman.

1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

As a general rule, "new information" that suddenly materializes 25 years after the fact should not be given credence. For example: if Bellah had told the Dallas Morning News or the Dallas Times Herald (within a day, a week, or even a month) that the motorcade route was changed at the last minute, that would have been important, even sensational, news.

I would like to congratulate Dave L on his reply to Jim DiEugenio's post here in his attempt to hold Jim to a higher standard when it comes to the Kennedy case. I would like to take a moment, fellow EF members, to mention this because it's important to take the evidence and clues in the case and not revert to wild speculation. As much as I believe that Jim Eugenio has written some important analysis on the case, I recently came across a thread on EF where it seems like he is "all Kennedy, all good, all of the time" with no bend or let up in his thinking regarding the Kennedy family; in other words, his way of thinking is the Kennedys do no wrong.  As much as I admire the Kennedys, I and Oliver Stone and I'm sure others know better.

But to take this higher standard a step further, and without attempting to hijack this thread, I would also like to mention to EF readers here that I certainly hope that Dave L also holds himself to a higher standard of the evidence in the case. I say this because it's my undertanding, forum readers, that he is currently writing another book that will have new evidence in the case. Dave L has been teasing fellow EF readers about this and, having worked in the marketing business for over 30 years, I certainly do not want to begrudge Dave L for doing that. It's important to get the word out when you are selling a new book. Ironically enough, I was unaware that when this very forum was started years ago that its initial intention was to do that very thing - to be a place where paid authors such as Jim Eugenio, Larry Hancock, Vince the Secret Service Expert, and Dave L - among others - can come onto this forum, ask questions and comingle with mere mortals such as myself. And of course they can also enourage us mortals to buy their latest book. This was an amazing discovery for me because when you think of a web forum called Education Forum, the idea of selling books certainly does not come to mind first and foremost.

This "selling your wares" concept has even included LNers such as Dave VP to sell his website by pushing the link here, encouraging folks to visit it, to watch his videos and click on his ads.  And of course it's also been a place for LNers like Dave VP to argue the occasional point or two with these authors. There may even be, fellow EF members, an opportunity for lurkers, as Jim DiEugenio so eloquently called someone on this forum, to comingle with said authors.

But to circle back and arrive to that pesky higher standard. I discovered that one of the thrusts of Dave L's new book of new evidence will be that Dr. Malcolm Perry, one of Parkland's doctors who performed the throat incision to try to save Kennedy's life, did not cut into his throat, thus, proving that the body was altered before the autopsy began.  Dave L's proof for this theory is:

** Proof 1 - audio in video interview of Perry does not sync up
** Proof 2 - Bob Groden said Perry told him

I vigorously debated Dave L on this, explaining that Dr. Perry clearly and accurately explained what he did to Kennedy's throat in his 1964 testimony. After being called a shmuck, among other things, by esteemed author Dave L, during our heated debate, and after also being torn a new asshole by other forum members who came to Dave L's defense, it's my understanding that Dave L has not reconsidered writing about this very shaky and speculative and dishonest theory and is moving forward with it. So once again, in the interest of trying to apply a higher standard in this case, I do hope Dave L reconsiders and I do this in support of Dr. Perry, a man who was thrust into the annals of history and is unable to defend himself.

MWW

5/31/2018 - 1:14 AM EDT

Dulles, Virginia

Reading briefly through this thread, it appears there is really no consensus as to how we got to Elm St. that day. 

Ty did you not see the photo showing there is no way to drive  down Main and  be able to cross over to Elm?

It's  physically  impossible  to do unless  Greer wanted to tear out the oil pan on the Lincoln.

So let  me  get  this  straight...

There was no way to cross over from Main due to the curb. They didn't  want him on that route since  it would  take him through wino country.

So they figure  to send him down Elm onto the Trade Mart.

And this is....sinister?

I  don't  get it.

4 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I have no beef with Jim Hargrove or David Josephs.

So I guess you DO believe the tales of intrigue regarding the Oswald clone, contrasty photos and sloping shoulders - HA hilarious!

Truer words!

On 5/24/2018 at 1:35 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

Bless the Universe!

I can now demolish DiEugenio's mis-prepresentations of the historical facts behind the Bay of Pigs, the partition of Laos (a country he apparently cannot bring himself to mention), the over-throw of Diem, and the root facts of the JFK assassination -- without being called a t-r-o-l-l, an agenda-driven provocateur, or Machiavellian.

The historian has no clothes.

Cliff - I don't think you understand what Jim meant.  What he meant by "bye bye" is that there is an Ignore button.  Everyone - from Jim to the loons such as David Josephs and Jim Hargrove to others - are asking the admins to either explain to them how to ignore you or how to use their shiny and magical Ignore button that's built into this forum system. So your posts are, literally falling on deaf/blind ears.  They simply want to live in their one-way echo chambers now and want to ignore ALL dissent to their theories about the Kennedy case.

Of course you're free to continue to post but why bother?

It wouldn't have worked.  There's a median curb separating Elm from Main as seen in the photo below.

4 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I recall that one official of the time said that staying on Main to the TM would have taken the motorcade along Industrial Blvd, and they didn't want the president to see all the winos there.

I guess back then there was no such thing as gentrification LOL

3 hours ago, John Butler said:

That’s not the intention at all.  The intention is to point out inconsistencies in the visual record that no one has noticed in over 50 years.  Or, at least any who have noticed these things they haven’t mentioned it.  

John, there was no cosmic or any other unseen forces in play that day. It was just another day where a president of the US drove down the street in his car and got his head blown off.

Nothing was removed from the Moorman photo.  Although it's hard to see, you can see the sign and then where the bystanders (mostly women) were standing there. I've highlighted one for you to see. It's just an angle that makes a group of folks look obvious in one photo and scarce in the other.

52 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Pathatic that Conspiracy Realists have to deal with Conspiracy Fanatics so wheat and shaft dont mix...

So let me get this straight - John Butler posts something here and Dave Josephs, who posted "It's all in the sloping shoulders" in the Oswald clone thread [see below], and yet calls *John Butler* useless and also a "Fanatic" while I'm assuming Dave thinks of himself as a "Realist?"

Like Bernie says, that IS comedic gold.

Put another way - where in the world is "play nice" EF cop Mike Clark when you really need him reporting Josephs on this kinder and gentler forum?

And Dave, it's "pathetic" with an "e" and "chaff" not "shaft." Unless you're trying to give Butler here the "shaft." LOL

Another of Joseph's comedic gold. You know, separating the wheat from the shaft - HAHA --

The conflicting testimonies are incredibly intriguing and even more so because of their numbers.

I hardly ever gave the "two Oswalds" story much thought and consideration but when one reads all the testimonies it is much harder to dismiss.

Regards the Carousel Club photo of a possible 2nd Oswald, this fellow looks a bit heftier ( stronger ? ) than the Oswald we all saw on national TV starting 11,22,1963. And his right ear seems to stick out farther and differently than the arrested Oswald.

And wasn't Oswald known as a total teetotaler? The Carousel Club Oswald looks like he's knocked back a few beers and has booze stupid eyes as he ogles the stripper on the stage.

The man known as Harvey Oswald, the man Ruby killed, did not drink or smoke, nor did he "beat his wife"...

Lee, on the other hand,  was bigger, bull necked, fighter, drinker, leader...  There is also very good evidence that Lee was gay along with Clay, Ferrie and Ruby... I doubt he'd be ogling lady dancers or even sitting in the audience....

In my work with H&L I've come to find a pattern...  Harvey's shoulders are squared off, while Lee has sloped shoulders

I believe you will find this to be the case in every instance.  Even relaxed, Harvey's shoulders are much higher than Lee's.

just how I see it

DJ

3 hours ago, Paz Marverde said:

Totally agree

Do you EVER NOT agree with people here? Seriously, it *always* seems like you agree with others here.  And seriously, this is not a flippant question.  I *seriously* would like to know LOL

21 hours ago, Paz Marverde said:

I'm deeply interested in this question. Who ordered the dog leg deviation so fatal for JFK? Confirmed it was Cabell? Any news from the latest docs?

For an alternative viewpoint, and one less sinister, here's Dealey Plaza today...

If you look at Main Street beyond the underpass, there's a wall there.  You cannot "turn right" onto the highway to get to the Trade Mart. Now, this is 55 years later but folks may also want to look at those photos taken right after the shooting down beyond the underpass looking back on Dealey - I haven't looked at them but if Main is showing in any of those photos and you could not get over to Elm from it to go on to the TM, then that may explain the reason for the route change. Of course, beyond Dealey - and if they had stayed on Main - there may have been other ways to get to the TM. Maybe it was a timing thing too - to get them there in time for the lunch and speech.

21 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

You and I have joined forces a couple of times on here, notably in criticising H&L and other wild far out wacky ideas.

Hi Bernie - you've raised some interesting points here, especially the possibility that LHO was set up at the last minute vs. not being the long-term patsy. What leads me, personally, to believe he was the only one and being the long-term one is what we can go by based on actual things that happened such as him stirring up trouble in NO, the handing out of the leaflets,  and getting himself on television as the "crazy Communist." 

Of course there could have been other "crazy Communist" patsies out there who also did something similar but their little "15-minute" event is gone forever so we'll never know.  But we did know with LHO because it didn't take long after 11/22 to reveal this footage.

I agree about his strange leaving of the building and hailing a cab, politely turning it over to a lady, then hopping on a bus and so on. It certainly doesn't look like he was in a hurry or had some kind of escape plan if he in fact had just blown the head off of the President. And the arrival at the rooming house and the horn beeping is also interesting. He may well have been set up to be murdered in some kind of confrontation at the TSBD and when that didn't work out for whatever reason, he was told to go to the theater for his next "assignment" there, where he'd be murdered there with his pistol in hand (headline: COP KILLER AND JFK ASSASSIN NABBED IN THEATER GUNFIGHT).

UPDATE - after thinking this through further, we mustn't forget what happened with Tippit. Somehow that murder was all part of the grand plan IMO. If Oswald had been murdered at the TSBD, it may have been too pat and perfect to suddenly point the finger at LHO.  So they had to get him to the rooming house for him to get the gun, then make it appear as if he shot JDT. That would have been the catalyst to gun him down at the theater (e.g., crazed Communist not only killed the president but shot down one of Dallas's finest in cold blood).

Also, FWIW, many months ago on EF I did mention to BK that he's done a good job on the PM theory but the only way we'll ever know is if the TV station would release a pristine copy of the footage to actually try to see who it is vs. using multi-generation copies of the footage. The latest I've heard is it hasn't happened yet. Until that happens, I think the PM issue is pretty much at a standstill and open to speculation such as folks drawing in 3D animation programs (myself being one of them) and blowing up the footage frames to an extreme extent to claim it's a woman. Believe me when I say I'd LOVE for it to be Oswald but those hairs on the back of my neck tell me it's not. And the main reason is because LHO seemed to be a guy who took orders well - if we are to believe the conspiracy narrative of the patsy, he was ordered to do the NO thing; he was ordered to unwittingly sign his name on documents that could be used against him later; and so on. And I think he was ordered to be somewhere *inside* of the TSBD, not roaming around where he could be captured on film, ruining the plan.

When I say "ordered," I don't mean he snapped a salute, clicked his heels and went off. But like Bill Simpich said in State Secret, Oswald was a spy in his own mind so he liked the intrigue of it all and therefore, willingly did the things they told him to do. He obviously and sadly didn't know he was going to take the fall for it all.  As he said in the hallway, he was just a patsy and he was reminding his wife, of all things, to not forget to buy his daughter some new shoes. That comment, to me, makes it appear almost as if he thought this was all one big mistake and he'd get off some how or another.

But of course with this case, anything's possible.

Thanks, MW 

People do not stand with one leg down for extended periods of time - it's a very unnatural thing to do. We simply do not know or never will know who that is on the stoop - we can continue to go back and forth with 3D animations and low-res extreme blow ups of pixelly images to claim it's a man or woman, Oswald or a female employee. But there is simply not enough hard evidence to prove that it's Oswald up there.

And no one seems to ask themselves the significant question because if they do, it will put doubt in their mind.  That question is:

If the plan was to murder Kennedy and set up Oswald to be the patsy, WHY would they allow their patsy to be out there during  these critical moments, risking the whole conspiracy? The planners knew that there was going to be cameras outside during the parade.  They most certainly wouldn't want the person they had set up to take the blame for the murder to be anywhere NEAR these cameras.

Of course, Andrej, Bart and John will totally ignore this because you DO have to take this into consideration, but instead they prefer to just ignore it and go on with their conspiracy belief that it's Oswald up there seconds after the shooting.

Here's a pretty good report of the story:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/michael-skakel-was-convicted-of-murdering-martha-moxley-so-why-is-he-free

I saw the URL of your review Jim and didn't read it because the URL alone tells me what it's going to be. It's going to be all about how RFKJ strived to get his innocent relative off, why the case is weak against MK, how the lawyers did their thing and on and on until he got off. You'll write you're usual wrap arounds of the review supporting it and that'll be your review.

I think there's far more to this story than you or I will know but won't because that's what high-priced lawyers are paid to do. Instead of it being way over here or there, there's some kind of middle ground. I just find it hard to believe that MK or his brother were not involved some how. As I mentioned in those other crimes, they tend to be the victim and killer knowing each other, and it's certainly not some black, deaf, drug-addled person who just wandered into the neighborhood and killed her randomly.

I never said I like Fuhrman or anyone for that matter.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

What happened was just about contrary to what you describe.  Mike Skakel was ganged up on my the likes of the late Dominick Dunne, Mark Fuhrman, and his own father's lawyer. This incited the media against Mike. The DA then went rogue on him and he used, of all things, a one man grand jury, and a whole series of unethical techniques to convict him.  His own lawyer, Mickey Sherman, essentially sold his client down the river. He dumped his all star team of lawyers, and kept some interns instead.  Why?  So he could  pocket a larger fee.  He even charged the family for media appearances.

Not according to witnesses, Jim, who talked to Skakel:

Two former students from Élan School, a treatment center for troubled youths, testified they heard Michael Skakel confess to killing Moxley with a golf club. Gregory Coleman testified that Skakel was given special privileges, saying Skakel bragged, "I'm going to get away with murder. I'm a Kennedy."

Just because he had a bad lawyer, Jim, doesn't mean he's innocent.  Look at OJ - I hope you're not going to say he, too, was innocent and his Dream Team was just icing on the cake. The point I'm trying to make is Skakel knew the girl; he was up in the tree jerking off and peeping into her house; the club was from his family's home. So yeah, maybe if he'd had a Dream Team from the very beginning they'd have come up with some legal bullxxxx to get him off. But they did find him guilty the first time.

And yeah, I know you love the Kennedys and it seems you border on worshipfulness with them. Even I don't like them that much. But take away all of the lawyers and xxxx and this is what we're really talking about here. That's the girl who got her head bashed in with a Skakel family 9 iron...

On 5/23/2018 at 2:40 AM, James DiEugenio said:

I am certain it was this book that got an innocent man out.

For what it's worth, Jim, *someone* murdered that girl.  She was bludgeoned to death with supposedly a golf club. That area is an area of rich people.  If you watch enough detective shows (real ones...not the fake CSI ones) you'll find that in a lot of murder cases, it's usually a family member or someone that lives nearby. Skakel knew Moxley.

And as much as I've always admired the Kennedys, when you have high-priced lawyers, you can make things happen in the legal system than if you don't. That's pretty much what happened here and just because RFK's son wrote a book doesn't mean Skakel was innocent. It's just his side of the story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Martha_Moxley

2 hours ago, Evan Marshall said:

I was assigned to Detroit Homicide on two separate occasions. What does that me me an expert in? Canvassing neighborhoods because I must have knocked on a bazillion doors. My partner and I would start working a case with certain conclusions but when those proved not to be true we would shift directions and look for "new truth".

 

We had Family Tree's at Homicide and I would inherit open case that were often committed before I joined the police department. Looking at these case with a fresh eye we often found that the cases were "investigated" with blinders on.

Perhaps if we locked away our egos and were more careful with what we assumed was fact because it aligned with prior bias, we could actually solve this darn thing!

 

Additionally, it is actually possible to disagree without being disagreeable!

Very well said, Evan.  And you are absolutely right that there is a HUGE amount of bias in folks here and elsewhere when they're "investigating" and "researching" the JFK case. As a matter of fact, the person who replied to you above, Knight, is the person I mentioned that very thing to on another thread on this forum. Here is that post:

KNIGHT -- You totally misinterpreted my post.

If you can effectively rebut the research these people are doing, that would be LEADING. BUT if you won't lead and you refuse to follow, you are only obstructing.

Show me YOUR OWN RESEARCH that disproves what Andrej and Chris are doing...not just "I disagree, so they're wrong,wrong, wrong."

Show me something beyond mere argument. Rebut them with research. Otherwise, it's nothing but obstruction.

WALTON -- This is about the fifth time you've said this, Mark - that I'm misrepresenting what you're saying. And FYI - I just showed my own version of why it can't be a 5-10 guy with one foot down on the lower step.  Someone's height doesn't fall that much, Mark. And earlier up I made my own graphics showing that the leg Stancak made is too long.  You obviously didn't read it.

And I've done more than enough work on the Oswald clone story and how Zapruder's film was NOT filmed in 48 FPS and then 67% of the frames were removed. Yes, you've read that correctly, Mark. I've made videos and illustrations. Those, too, are either ignored or someone goes on a rant about how clueless I am instead of further debate on their theory. In other words, they revert to name calling.

The biggest problem with the JFK story, Mark, is one of bias. I've asked some other researchers on this and they agree - WHY do these people believe in such nonsense? And it seems like the consensus is many of them have a hatred of the US government. In other words, the big, bad government is terrible, always wrong, always sinister and therefore, lies about everything.

EXCEPT - when the written record somehow fits their crazy theory.  Then, they'll quote page upon page of whatever's in the official record, probably grudgingly, but they do anyway.

Folks who don't buy into the craziness, on the other hand, have the ability to question the THEORY, not the JFK story. They have the ability to say - wait a minute. We're expected to believe that around crying people, passersby and news cameras that when the body left PMH that the Bad Guys squirreled away the body either at Love Field or some other undisclosed location, took the body out of the coffin and threw it into the cargo hold, then snuck it out the back door of 26000 and onto a helicopter, in full view of live TV cameras, family members, and others upon arriving at Andrews? I mean...really, Mark?  Do YOU believe in a fantastical story like this?

Here's a perfect example of what I mean.  I know the researcher who posted the thread below is well respected on this forum. But this guy confirmed to me a while back that, to put it simply, he doesn't like the government.  Period.  Do you not think this kind of bias doesn't cloud a person's judgement?  It does, Mark.

I've removed the name of this researcher from the above graphic to abide by the kinder and gentler nature of the new EF.  But the above is what he posted on another forum.  Not a single person bothered to even reply to his post there.  I took a look at it and it was one of those head-shaking and eye-rolling moments for me as well.  Do you remember the Mel Gibson movie Conspiracy Theory, Mark?  When the guy has his walls covered in foil, photos overlapping photos with scribbles, names and drawings on them, Mark?  If you can find the above post and take a look at it, Mark, you'll understand why it was yet another head-shaking, eye-rolling OMFG moment for me and the 326 others who looked at it.

And yet, all I hear about on here is how "well-respected" this guy is. Not everything happened like you and others think happened, Mark, on 11/22.  The law of averages and life in general just don't have this huge convergence of stolen bodies and faked films and cloned assassins (from Europe) like folks like this well-respected researcher and others think happened.

But back to this thread, Mark.  As another researcher who's not allowed to post here said - if you were really looking for truth in this thread, Mark, why haven't you asked Stancak to recreate the character with his over-stretched leg to be anatomically correct?  In other words, reduced by 3 whole inches? Stancak said his future work would concentrate on dealing with correcting that but we've yet to see it. And if you, yourself, were not biased here, you'd be asking him when that was going to happen instead of turning around and telling ME why don't I do my own research and post it, when I already have ad nauseum.

On 5/18/2018 at 3:52 PM, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Hi David , I don't understand your post. I am interested in understanding it, but  rather than explain I would greatly appreciate your help in another area. Would you be willing to provide a guide to the work of Chris (math rules) Davidson. I have asked him to explain his thread and I suspect you are one of the few people who understand what he has done. You have shown great skill with explanatory diagrams and unravelling complex issues (Oswald's Mexico travel for example) and I suspect he is on to something very significant. He doesn't however seem to have a desire to appeal to the masses.

Eddy- do you not remember that I tried to explain this Math Rules caper back in March 2018? I was trying to help you understand - since you asked about it then and are asking about again here - just what exactly the two other researchers are trying to do with all of these mathematical formulas?

So I've copied the exact same reply I sent to you below from back in March 2018. After I posted the below in March, one of the True Believers of the mathematical "work" had a pretty funny reply.  He told me to go boil an egg.  You know, similar to telling someone to "go fly a kite." Whenever I come across that "boil an egg" quote, it gives me a good little laugh.

Eddy,

Let me see if I can help you understand and boil down Chris and Dave's math theory to the bare essentials.

The bottom line is two FBI guys made a diorama of Dealey Plaza the weekend of the murder.  The first version of their diorama showed little toy cars on Elm Street in the position of the shots. They obviously made a mistake because for the Z313 shot - the head shot - they had the car way down almost right next to the knoll steps where the old guys were standing.  We all know that that's not what really happened.

Now try to keep an open mind here.  But how do we know that the head shot did not happen way down there?  It's simple - you just have to watch the existing Zapruder film.  And even better, you can also watch the Nix film.  As a matter of fact, there exists a video on YTV where someone took both of the films and matched them up frame per frame.  The end result proves two things: 1) both films match up perfectly; 2) both films prove that the FBI guys who made their diorama got it wrong.

That, in a nutshell, is basically it. The FBI guys made a mistake.  And during that weekend, the diorama was corrected and the head shot was brought up to where it's supposed to be, more or less the same position as what we see in the Z film and also the Nix film.

Simple, right?  Not according to Chris and Dave.  The Math Team here thinks that something far more sinister happened.  They think that an entirely different Z film exists showing shots that actually happened way down by the steps and the old guys. They also believe that the Z film that we can see on YTV was actually filmed in 48 FPS, and then, sneakily and sinisterly, the Bad Secret Agents took out 67% of those frames.  It *used to be* 67% but now Chris is saying it's 72% of the frames.  But anyway, these removed frames removed enough of the footage to move the shots to where we basically see them on any YTV Zapruder copy.

So where does the Math come in? The FBI also did a survey of Dealey so Chris and Dave here are using Math and Geometry to further "prove" that this non-existent secret never-before-seen-by-the-public Z film exists. That's what it all boils down to.

Now keep in mind here that Dave Josephs, who is completely and totally anti-WC, meaning he supposedly does not believe *anything* in that written record, will actually pick and choose from that lying xxxx of a document to further "solve" this theory. In other words, he doesn't believe the WC except when it helps him "prove" one of this theories.

And now, their more recent exciting and revealing solution to this theory is the Tina Towner film has been discovered to be fake as well(!)

But anyway, this is basically what they're doing - they're adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, and formulizing the numbers - and numbers from those numbers - from the surveys to prove all of this. They're both playing the John Nash secret agent role here.  Remember that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB9Gzz3yhYY

No matter what you tell them - that there's only one Z film and that film *proves conspiracy* because the shooting sequence completely negates the ridiculous SBT - neither of them will listen.  In their minds, they're 100% correct and deep into this theory of numbers and missing frames and fake films and the lying liars FBI agents.

7 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Eddy Bainbridge writes: "Would you be willing to provide a guide to the work of Chris (math rules) Davidson. I have asked him to explain his thread .... He doesn't however seem to have a desire to appeal to the masses."

For the benefit of Eddy and everyone else who is confused by that neverending parade of cryptic equations, there is a clear explanation here:

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1744-skunk-smells-math-sucks

Jeremy thanks for posting this as you actually beat me to it. That's  one of the funniest  posts I've  ever read and the folks there hit it out of the park.

Since Towner is mentioned  above  here's  another unintentionally  funny post. It's  now up to over 700 views and not a  single  person  has  replied  to it...

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?16860-TOWNER-s-background-grows-as-the-foreground-recedes#.WwCFURkpA0M

It's  absolutely  amazing  to me how the person who made that post is considered  a "well respected" researcher on this kinder and gentler  EF forum.

3 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Actually, I have already posted the new James Poser mannequin with shorter legs (only about 1/2 inch longer than the very final version achieved in collaboration with Chris) WHERE IS IT? ARE YOU PUTTING IT ON ANOTHER THREAD AND NOT MENTIONING IT HERE? in one of my previous posts. It is the last post with series of graded overlays. The new mannequin with short legs matched Prayer Man very well. 

Andrej,

I used to have the full blown Sketchup. I now only have the web-browser free version but it keeps crashing. And I don't have the ability to add people.  But I was able to make *something* in it painfully.  Regardless, I found TSBD and imported it and then drew some pillars to the exact heights of the people up there.  Just for the hell of it I drew another one to use as a general reference for a person with a height of 5-6.  Watch the animated GIF below to get the heights:

Here are two different views of this scene, Andrej. See how much higher the 5-10 on the lower step looks compared to yours? This is because I'm not fudging the heights or stretching any legs on the characters to misrepresent someone standing up there leaning on their back foot (because like you said, IF Oswald stood on his back foot in some photos, THEN it just HAS to be Oswald). And I'm also not fudging by stretching a character's leg to make it fit the scenario.

3 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

You totally misinterpreted my post.

If you can effectively rebut the research these people are doing, that would be LEADING. BUT if you won't lead and you refuse to follow, you are only obstructing.

Show me YOUR OWN RESEARCH that disproves what Andrej and Chris are doing...not just "I disagree, so they're wrong,wrong, wrong."

Show me something beyond mere argument. Rebut them with research. Otherwise, it's nothing but obstruction.

This is about the fifth time you've said this, Mark - that I'm misrepresenting what you're saying. And FYI - I just showed my own version of why it can't be a 5-10 guy with one foot down on the lower step.  Someone's height doesn't fall that much, Mark. And earlier up I made my own graphics showing that the leg Stancak made is too long.  You obviously didn't read it.

And I've done more than enough work on the Oswald clone story and how Zapruder's film was NOT filmed in 48 FPS and then 67% of the frames were removed. Yes, you've read that correctly, Mark. I've made videos and illustrations. Those, too, are either ignored or someone goes on a rant about how clueless I am instead of further debate on their theory. In other words, they revert to name calling.

The biggest problem with the JFK story, Mark, is one of bias. I've asked some other researchers on this and they agree - WHY do these people believe in such nonsense? And it seems like the consensus is many of them have a hatred of the US government. In other words, the big, bad government is terrible, always wrong, always sinister and therefore, lies about everything.

EXCEPT - when the written record somehow fits their crazy theory.  Then, they'll quote page upon page of whatever's in the official record, probably grudgingly, but they do anyway.

Folks who don't buy into the craziness, on the other hand, have the ability to question the THEORY, not the JFK story. They have the ability to say - wait a minute. We're expected to believe that around crying people, passersby and news cameras that when the body left PMH that the Bad Guys squirreled away the body either at Love Field or some other undisclosed location, took the body out of the coffin and threw it into the cargo hold, then snuck it out the back door of 26000 and onto a helicopter, in full view of live TV cameras, family members, and others upon arriving at Andrews? I mean...really, Mark?  Do YOU believe in a fantastical story like this?

Here's a perfect example of what I mean.  I know the researcher who posted the thread below is well respected on this forum. But this guy confirmed to me a while back that, to put it simply, he doesn't like the government.  Period.  Do you not think this kind of bias doesn't cloud a person's judgement?  It does, Mark.

I've removed the name of this researcher from the above graphic to abide by the kinder and gentler nature of the new EF.  But the above is what he posted on another forum.  Not a single person bothered to even reply to his post there.  I took a look at it and it was one of those head-shaking and eye-rolling moments for me as well.  Do you remember the Mel Gibson movie Conspiracy Theory, Mark?  When the guy has his walls covered in foil, photos overlapping photos with scribbles, names and drawings on them, Mark?  If you can find the above post and take a look at it, Mark, you'll understand why it was yet another head-shaking, eye-rolling OMFG moment for me and the 326 others who looked at it.

And yet, all I hear about on here is how "well-respected" this guy is. Not everything happened like you and others think happened, Mark, on 11/22.  The law of averages and life in general just don't have this huge convergence of stolen bodies and faked films and cloned assassins (from Europe) like folks like this well-respected researcher and others think happened.

But back to this thread, Mark.  As another researcher who's not allowed to post here said - if you were really looking for truth in this thread, Mark, why haven't you asked Stancak to recreate the character with his over-stretched leg to be anatomically correct?  In other words, reduced by 3 whole inches? Stancak said his future work would concentrate on dealing with correcting that but we've yet to see it. And if you, yourself, were not biased here, you'd be asking him when that was going to happen instead of turning around and telling ME why don't I do my own research and post it, when I already have ad nauseum.

15 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

..."obtuse abuse"...

An apt description.

I don't think we will know conclusively who Prayer Man/Woman [PMW] was unless some new evidence comes forth. I believe Chris and Andrej, who believe differently about the identity of PMW, are headed in the right direction to bring a degree of clarity to the topic.

And so I applaud their work, and I have little regard to those who belittle their experiments in trying to get body dimensions in the photos to match known norms.  That's a WHOLE lot more complicated than simply sitting back and belittling them without actually doing any similar experiments yourself that might refute their work.

In other words...lead, follow or get the heck out of the way. I'm following their work with great interest because it MIGHT clarify some unknown. I have no investment in whether PMW is Oswald, Stanton, or Hamilton, Joe Frank or Reynolds...or anyone else.

It's not belittling that folks who don't agree with PM are doing, Mark.  Folks who don't believe in this baloney have a real sense of plausibility and real-world mind speak in them.

I mean, really, Mark - do you REALLY think half of the crazy theories on this kinder and gentler forum could have happened?  Did you watch any of those police detective shows I mentioned to you earlier (I'm guessing not)?  If so, did you zoom in and listen to how they talk - "it's impossible to have happened that way" and "it doesn't make sense." It would do you some good to watch a few and hear how these seasoned police detectives talk, then maybe come back here and look through the archives and find how outrageously fake (or a kinder and gentler word would be "implausible") they are.

You say get out of the way - that sounds about right coming from you on here, Mark.  There have been many many good solid plausible rebuttals that I'm guessing you've never bothered to read on this forum from many people who don't bother posting any more.  You know why they don't post any more, Mark?  Because of the "get out of the way" attitude you show toward them, Mark.

Sadly, it's either "get out of the way" or all of the True Believers of fantastical theories simply cover their eyes up by clicking on their magic Ignore button. Like I said earlier this entire forum is going downhill.  No reasonable, sane people post rebuttals any more because the crazies don't even bother reading them any more.  I'm finding myself more and more going to other forums, not to join and post but simply to read there because there, you can still see vigorous debate there, not "get out of the way" and people covering their eyes up like the current state of the kinder and gentler EF.