Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Michael Walton

Members
  • Content count

    1,204
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Michael Walton

  1. OK my bad on that as it looked like it was yours. I did just want to clarify though that photo, the round hole and so on. With Chesser's recent work, the Z film and other stuff, I just cannot imagine that hole being in the correct position way up on the top of the head. On a related topic here, when you watch the Muchmore and Nix films, it shows the head shots from alternate angles. I do sometimes wonder how the shot we're discussing here could actually happen. His lean to the left is much more pronounced so the head shot from the front would seem more difficult. PS - I did not make these images below nor do I agree with the pergola shooter theory:
  2. Robin, That exit wound on the top would be near impossible. With JFK leaning slightly toward the left and head tilted down but sitting more or less upright, you'd have to have the gun literally under his chin to have an exit at the top of the head like that. Here'd be an approximate trajectory: Instead, this is far more likely for a number of reasons: Chesser said he spotted fragment spray from front to back in that location. The backward movement after the shots shows the same. I posted a video online showing a guy being shot in the front and side and his head and body movement is very similar to Kennedy's. And the composite image I made makes sense: Looking from top view, the blue dot (below) shows the hole on top. As mentioned, it'd have to be under his chin to come out there. Instead, the red dots and line is much more likely. Another thing too is Speers said that that wound is tangential, meaning similar to a glancing shot. A hole in the middle of the top of the head would not be tangential: Chris Davidson has posted numerous images on here from reenactment shows showing that a hole on top would be impossible. But at above, the red dots and red line seem far more likely. Although hard to see, here is a composite with the top of head autopsy photo with the limo: The yellow dot is where the hole is. Again, there's no way a shot could have entered the head that low to exit there.
  3. New Article by John Armstrong

    Oh Sandy not those school records again! Greg Parker and others totally debunked this as simple cases of written errors in the record. I mean come on, don't you have anything new here? A photo, perhaps, of the two LHO's together with the Secret Agent in the middle with his arms around both...and the two Marges behind the two LHO's?
  4. New Article by John Armstrong

    Jim - read my last reply to you. It's respectable. It's simply asking you that instead of going around in circles here, go to Consortium News. Have Armstrong reach out to R Parry and say, "Look, we've been working on this for 20 years. We strongly believe we have a very good chance of breaking the JFK case wide open with this. Can you just take a look at it and if you think there's a viable story for your readers, we can work with your reporter." How hard would that be to do Jim? This is not "elementary school tactics" as you say - go to them and see if you can get this public and if they accept it, think of the potential history-making implications here. But honestly I have to ask myself - why am I even typing this, doing the initial legwork for you? YOU and Team Hardly need to take the next step with it, not one of your detractors.
  5. http://www.grandhaventribune.com/News/2012/07/16/STRANGE-GH-Coopersville-man-says-2-JFK-caskets-arrived-at-Bethesda Here's the guy explaining why there was a decoy. "For the media..." I'm thinking it was a simple matter because everyone was on paranoid alert that they were afraid something else was going to happen.
  6. Yes I read that too and agree with that assessment. But it does NOT mean the body was squirreled away from the back of the plane. Or that they carved up the body. Come on Sandy you're smart enough to figure it out.
  7. Does anyone here have any comnent on Keyvan's controversial post?
  8. So I guess they flew it from Dallas to DC in a copter Ray? Because Lifton did say that it was flown away in a copter.
  9. Pat, I wanted to comment on your comment. You're right that David Lifton has been around for 50 years. But his basic premise - that some how, some way, while Kennedy's wife was with the coffin during the entire time from Dallas until you see her get off the plane with it, military and/or intelligence personnel squirreled the body away from the back of Air Force One, put it in a helicopter, and flew away with it so other military/intelligence/medico personnel could look at it and cover up all manner of conspiracy - is right up there with many of the other "out-there" theories that have been bandied about over the years. One that comes to mind is the Hungarian boy who looked almost exactly like Oswald, his Mom looked exactly like Oswald's Mom (except she was short and dumpy and never smiled) and for 10 years before 11/22, these clones lived in each other's shadows until 11/22. And, oh yes, because the US Oswald had a mastoid operation, the secret agents performed one on the clone so they'd match up. So IMO, it doesn't matter how long Lifton has been around, nor does it matter how long Armstrong has been around. And yes, maybe they spent years interviewing witnesses, collecting snatches of statements from these people. I'm not saying all of the statements are incorrect. But to take a statement here and there and weave a story of body snatching and Oswald clones, at best, completely muddles the conspiracy record and, at worst, is dishonest to the Kennedy case.
  10. Sandy - this is a composite. If you take picture of a room with a chair in it, and then take another picture of the same room and chair but with a vase next to the chair, and then if you crop the vase out and crop the room out except for the chair, then overlay the cropped chair onto the photo of the room, it becomes two different photos of the same thing! In other words, it doesn't matter what is around the open head photo - BOTH photos show the back of the head from the same approximate angle. The difference is one shows the scalp covering the wound and the other shows what it looks like when the scalp has been peeled away over to the left. If you look in the open wound photo you can even see what appears to be a puncture in the scalp and fat with the hair plugged into it. Now imagine laying that loose piece of skin back down over the open wound. Further, that punched out hole in the skull is beveled meaning an out shoot. Now could this be a 1 in a million coincidence and that beveled punch out is instead an entrance wound from the rear? Who knows. But at least from what I can see it looks like an out shoot. As Speers said, personnel said that standard autopsy procedure was not followed in this case. I've seen cutting open the head in autopsies on YouTube and in that one, yes, they followed procedure. But not in this case due obviously because the head was so messed up.
  11. Micah read Speer's quote and look at mine above. That hole is an exit. It's physically impossible to get an exit hole at the top of the head. You'd have to take a pistol and aim it under his chin to get an exit hole that high up. Joseph's photo is incorrect and mine is correct. Read Speers. The scalp peel back DID NOT follow standard operating procedure in this case. Watch the Z film. His body is thrown *backward* but his head DOES NOT pivot upward from a shot coming out of the TOP of his head.
  12. Here's a theory I've been rolling around in my head lately. That autopsy photo that shows the top of the president's head, the one with a dark round spot in the hairline, has bothered me. It's probably nothing because I simply cannot imagine the autopsy personnel completely overlooking it and saying nothing about it. It doesn't appear on the autopsy face sheet. So it was probably something innocent. What, I don't know...a clot? A speck? It just sure seems perfectly round to me though. Still, the so-called mystery photo has bothered me too. That beveling around the edge is just that - beveling. Another researcher posted some photos on his website and here showing what an entrance wound to the skull looks like and sure in the #### doesn't look like the beveling in the so-called mystery photo. So I tied the two together - you know, deductive reasoning - and came up with the video below. There's no sound in it - just read the cue cards and it will make sense...I hope. And feel free to offer support, more information for the good of the forum, or tear me a new one, too. I'm game. Thank you. Edited by Admin
  13. BEST EVIDENCE?! OMG that mad fairy tale of thrumming helicopters and mad scientists with scalpels at the ready to carve up the body?! You've got to be kidding. I stopped believing that 30 years ago when I was 18 years old LOL
  14. New Article by John Armstrong

    I am right. And I have posted plenty of rebuttals that I developed on my own. They're all over on the Gems thread and you've never once posted counter arguments to them. You just get all mad and upset about them and then start using insults like the above. As in NOOB. The whole Hardly story deserves a rational person's disdain because it's an irrational, fake story that does nothing in the way of advancing the truth of the Kennedy case. But don't just take my word for it. Here's what Paul Trejo said earlier and it's one of the better summaries of the Hardly Story. So I guess you'll call him a noob now too and go yelling to EF's admins right? That's pretty much par for the course - when you have nothing else, you then revert to insults: FROM PAUL TREJO: Jim, You must know by now that many of your detractors here already accept the idea of a US Government Cover-up of the JFK Assassination. The US Government actually admitted it -- twice. First, US Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that the US Government would not release all the evidence in the JFK Assassination "in your lifetime." This was the first confession of the US Government that they were withholding the Truth about the JFK Assassination "for National Security." The second confession was the HSCA, which concluded that JFK was "probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy." So, astute and objective readers of the JFK Assassination history have always recognized a Cover-up by the US Government. Nor is it disloyal to the US Government to consider this historical aspect. HOWEVER -- that proves exactly nothing about the H&L CT. The attitude of the H&L literature is one-sided. You repeat it here. Just because the Warren Commission arrives at a "Lone Shooter" conclusion, y'all feel justified in making up your own CIA spy story fiction to explain what happened. For one thing, just because the US Government Covered Up the core facts of the JFK Assassination, you have leaped to the conclusion that the US Government actually plotted and executed the JFK Assassination. That conclusion is simply unwarranted by the fact of a US Government Cover-up. The US Government told us why they had to withhold the core facts, namely, "National Security." It is a leap of unfaith to conclude that the US Government, e.g. the CIA, was the killer of JFK. James Wilcott, in my reading, was a clerk who jumped to conclusions, based on almost no data at all. The closest corollary to James Wilcott in the WC testimonies is the sporting goods store repair man and clerk, Dial Duwayne Ryder, of the Irving Sports Shop. He said he mounted a scope for a man named "Lee Oswald" there during the first 2 weeks of November. His only evidence was the repair ticket with the name "Oswald" on it. And he lost it. Nor were the details clear in his memory. In the same way, CIA accounting clerk James Wilcott testified in 1978 -- 15 years after the JFK Assassination -- that "he believed" he had personally disbursed money for "the Oswald Project or for Oswald." This was based on what another CIA agent had told him. But he lost the paperwork. These are like Bigfoot sightings. They are clearly "mistaken identity" cases. If you have better evidence than this, Jim, kindly present it here. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  15. FBI showed Marquette a photo of Ruby on 11-23

    Thanks for posting that David. Now we really know that old Marge Oswald WAS wrong when she said that was Ruby in the photo. So really this all comes back around to my original reply to this thread, that this whole premise of her being shown a photo of Ruby before Sunday was nothing but a bunch of hooey. From CONTRAST in photos to DROOPING SHOULDERS you really are something else when it comes to this case. We can ALWAYS count on you to find something conspiratorial in this case LOL
  16. New Article by John Armstrong

    Jim - and readers here - I'd appreciate it if you could show a little bit of honesty here. You KNOW I'm not the only one here who has rebutted the Hardly Lee story. And for those readers go here because this is where it really all started: ...and elsewhere... https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f13-the-harvey-lee-evidence
  17. New Article by John Armstrong

    Consortium News is a start. It's alt news yes, but seems respectable. Jim DiEugenio has been published there. They've been writing a lot about how Russia Gate is a scam (and I agree with them for the most part). And about how the Democrats lost the election due to their own incompetence, which is also true. They do publish JFK stories too. Or what about Jeff Morley and JFK Facts? Let him take a look at everything and see if he'll publish it on his website. Contact Cy Wecht and see what he thinks. I never said anything about you going to Russia Times - I'm talking about a respectable media outlet. Why not one in the UK even? The Guardian perhaps? Team Hardly really really seems 100% confident that you're 100% accurate with 0% errors or let downs. There are other JFK researchers who have written outstanding work but even they admit that it's not perfect. Simpich is one example. But Team Hardly is batting 1.000 so why not take it to the next step and try to get it out to the public at large? Instead of going round and round here and spinning your wheels over and over again, why not take it to the next step? You seem confident that everything we've said here is wrong and everything you've said is right. Fine - take it up a notch.
  18. Here's my take: The beveled hole is an outshoot so the entrance had to be either in the temple or forehead. Dr. Chesser is saying the same thing based on his review of the X rays. I do have a hard time picturing still where the shot came from though. Even if the line was straighter below, there's still an upward angle to it: I really don't think the shot could have come from that street storm drain opening. The angle would be too steep and high and I just don't think that the planners would have risked putting someone down there when there were plenty of locations much further away from the street. But I still do wonder where it came from. The backward movement of the body is a strong indicator that there was a front shot - I made a video showing guys being shot from behind and their heads never recoiled backward (not posting it here due to sensitive members). I read Sherry Fiester's writings and I'm a little puzzled as to why Pat Speer mentioned her here. Unless I'm reading the wrong person, she supports the fantastical story that the SS agent fell forward in his car and hitting an AR-15 causing a head shot to Kennedy. I mean...really? No way that could have happened.
  19. New Article by John Armstrong

    Exactly Paul. Well said.
  20. New Article by John Armstrong

    Jim in all seriousness care to reply with a serious (meaning believable) answer?
  21. New Article by John Armstrong

    Good point. And which one of my Moms would have smiled a lot and which one would have frowned? LOL
  22. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    No I didn't forget it. But I think the storm drain would have been too steep an angle.
  23. New Article by John Armstrong

    I would absolutely love to see that happen. A panel of the 3 wize men that make up Team Hardly - DJ, JH, and SL, with MC as designated cheerleader and insult thrower vs. Parker LOL
  24. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    Thanks for clarifying and my apologies. When I saw your reply earlier I thought, "Oh, God...not Larry Hancock too." LOL Because although I don't agree with everything you write, your Someone Would Have Talked is a good one.
  25. The latest from Ruth Paine

    I had always thought it was a Rambler. There's a photo of it taken at 12.40. You can see it at 3.33 in the video below which is pretty interesting - filmed in Dallas.
×