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 these  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

    1,375
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Michael Walton

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,447 profile views
  1. Another thing that's dishonest about using the classroom photo is that there are two versions going around. The one that shows more detail in the mouth is substituted for the high contrast version that shows no detail giving the appearance of there being a gaping hole. Of course if you bring this up to the believers they're not even honest enough to admit that and not use it on EF.
  2. Bumping this as an alternative to Russian Gate hysteria... ...and this one as well... https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/17/anti-trumpists-use-mueller-indictments-to-escalate-tensions-with-nuclear-armed-russia/
  3. Outstanding and informative report from Greg. Kudos to him. A couple of things I've noticed from that complete medical report: A single X on it means a tooth is missing. On that report it seems like an X is on tooth #30 which coincides perfectly with the #30 tooth on the chart SL uses. I'm assuming that's a LOWER tooth in rhe jaw - yet there are NO X's on the upper teeth that were supposedly knocked out. A different topic but related to the Hardly story - the believers also question why Harvey looks stocky in some Marine photos, and then looks "slender" afterward. Their reasoning is - well, the stocky one is the clone. But in the medical report, on page 584 they have him down as "medium" build. Why? It's simple - he had bulked up while in the military then obviously lost it after he got out, putting him down to a more slender build.
  4. Shooter Location

    What's really hilarious here is that a simple error by the FBI in saying that the shots occurred in the above photo was just that - an error. Big deal. Yet, we have a sync of two different films on YouTube (below). All you have to do is watch it and it merely shows two things - the films match up perfectly, and two - that the FBI was wrong with this diorama that they made. Fine. It DOES NOT mean what Chris and Dave want it to mean - that some other mysterious and unseen Z film exists. In other words, because of an error in the above diorama Chris and Dave believe that a whole other Z film exists - haha! What a joke. And this happens all of the time on this forum and elsewhere. On another thread, other nutty CTers think that because someone wrote FAILED on Oswald's dental chart that it means there was a CLONE of Oswald without stopping to think that again it could be a more plausible and simpler explanation - a clerical error, two different people recording the records, etc. Haha! But I'm sure Chris and Dave will keep plugging away with their calculators here thinking they've solved something - Haha! What a disgrace to the JFK research community trying to get to the truth of the matter. Is it any wonder why people laugh at the JFK "research" community when they come across this kind of malarkey. And go to the beginning of this thread - this all started when Chris says that the secret agents fired over the tops of spectators from the pavilion for crying out load. And Josephs disagreed with him and when I mentioned that he said he said that "...in jest." Haha!
  5. The KGB and the JFK case

    Tom - insead of blathering on about the evil evil this and the evil evil that, just take all of that away and read these stories: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/17/anti-trumpists-use-mueller-indictments-to-escalate-tensions-with-nuclear-armed-russia/ https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/16/russians-spooked-by-nukes-against-cyber-attack-policy/ There's plenty of "evil" to go around...on both sides of the "aisle." Not saying either is more or less evil.
  6. That's the problem, Jim. If you and others who believe in this nonsense were really, truly seekers of the truth or common sense, then you WOULD read what Parker and others who ARE versed in common sense would have to say. This case was not one big grand conspiracy like you and others want to believe and push here and elsewhere. But of course like Larsen, you can always cop out of this theory by saying - as SL did - that "oh this entire Oswald Project had absolutely nothing to do with the Kennedy case." LOL
  7. The KGB and the JFK case

    Tom, I can't answer your questions because I simply don't know and no one else does for that matter. Even State Secret author Simpich says the same thing. We can read the available records and then speculate. I just find it hard to believe that there was never a single photograph from the most photographed building in the western hemisphere showing the one and only Oswald outside the doors of the embassy down there. In this case, no picture is worth a thousand words. FWIW - here's a pretty simple to follow Duran timeline about what happened: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKduranS.htm Rather than get bogged down into the minutiae of this event, it's clear that the CIA was involved and manipulating the Oswald narrative before and after 11/22. I don't know what else to say about the Russia/Cuba involvement connection other than I don't see, at least in my mind, that direction being plausible. Motive should play a role in this and I just don't see a real motive from Cuba or Russia being the case.
  8. Unaltered Zapruder film

    You have to be one of the most dishonest people on this board, David. Here's what you said: But he was shot from the front Chris.... And there were people between your shooter and JFK... if you're talking just past the pole. ?? NOWHERE in that post do I detect anything "...in jest." Rather than honestly admit that you said this - and to show agreement with my claim that this "theory" is absolutely bullxxxx - you're now claiming that you said this "in jest??!!" What in God's name does me not knowing Chris Davidson have to do with pointing out silly claims like this? OMFG! How can you expect ANYONE on this board or anywhere for that matter to take anything you say on here seriously? If this doesn't take the cake for being dishonest on here I don't know what else would! And don't tell me enough. This is a forum where anyone - not just you, Chris and other "everything is a conspiracy" folks - can post and express their thoughts and rebuttals. You need to get down from your Kennedys and King high horse and face it that you do not know everything about this case and also be a little more honest when people you don't like point things out that go against yours and others' silly theories.
  9. The KGB and the JFK case

    Personally, I don't think LHO was down there. As for who impersonated him - a Leonov look alike or whoever - I don't know. I think the whole ruse was part of the plan to make LHO look like the crazed communist. This will sound like I'm defending the entire institution when I'm not, but it's people that create evilness. Didn't one man create the holocaust? Didn't Stalin kill millions of his own people? Didn't one 19 year old kid kill the FL students? The point being, there is evil everywhere just like there is goodness everywhere. And yes, there was evil going on when the Kennedy murder was planned and executed. But it's unfair to project it onto an entire agency.
  10. Unaltered Zapruder film

    I agree with you 100%. I, too, believe that no shots were fired from the fake sniper's nest. I remember seeing that illustration years ago - always found it interesting. BUT the shots did NOT come from the pavilion like you think they do on your other thread. Do you really think these world-class conspirators would have been that stupid to have taken that huge of a risk firing over spectators' heads, exposing the entire plot? With no clear getaway?
  11. The KGB and the JFK case

    Tom, did you ever read the speech that Castro gave I think 3 or 4 days after the assassination? It's a very revealing read IMO and it hardly sounds like a man braying and bragging about maybe - just maybe - knocking off the US president. And it's on your buddy Jim D's site if you want to read it. Wasn't Khrushchev ousted mere months after 11/22? Don't you find that just a little bit revealing? And it's not because he planned Kennedy's murder. There was a little bit too much lovey-dovey (e.g., peace xxxx) going on for the hard-liners. Again, my IMO. And yes, I remember sneaky old Scott Peterson. And no, I don't think Oswald was sneaky or Petersonesque - just the opposite. He basically threw a fit in the theater and out, looked pretty humble and "deer in the lights" at the midnight conference, and reminded his wife about getting his kid a new pair of shoes. Peterson is a spoiled narcissistic asshole so there's simply no comparison. Your buddy Larsen said it best about what he thinks happened in this case - the plot was a "kill two birds with one stone deal" - getting rid of a president who almost certainly would have been reelected in 1964 and using that murder to invade Cuba so that all of the white-shoe special interests could have their island play land back. But of course they never would have said that. Instead they would have waved the flag and have said, IT'S ALL BECAUSE OF DEMO-CRACY!! YAYY!
  12. The KGB and the JFK case

    This sounds way too far-fetched to me. Oswald did not act nor speak like an assassin from the time he was captured until he was murdered. He said he was a patsy. He seemed angry that something went wrong and it dawned on him that he was taking the blame for the assassination. And he was worried about his daughter getting a new pair of shoes. If he had been acting like McVeigh - all chin up - then yes, maybe. But he never projected that kind of behavior that weekend.
  13. Unaltered Zapruder film

    There are two ways to interpret Rather's interpretation of what he saw. 1. He saw a "different" film meaning the one he saw was the one that shows Kennedy's head go downward from a rear shot - just like he described it on live TV. For argument sake, this means that the other film that so many people here think exists is out there somewhere. There WAS no other film. 2. He saw the film as we have seen it today - where Kennedy's head and body are slammed back onto the seat from a frontal shot hitting him in the temple. But after Rather sees this film he's told to - or decides on his own - to NOT mention that part of the film that he's seeing on live TV. In other words, he deceives the public by not describing a frontal shot that would have caused Kennedy's head and body to slam backward and to the left (as Wecht described it). I happen to believe #2 is the correct interpretation because: 1. It's far more easier to control the message at this point. Rather's broadcast was AFTER Oswald had been murdered, which means he'd now never receive a fair trial to what happened 2. Many film alterationists here (Josephs and Davidson to name a few) think you can just wave a magic wand and presto -- the film would be magically altered. But WHY was it altered? The film SHOWS conspiracy if you believe that Kennedy being slammed onto the back of the seat is a result of a frontal shot. So think about it - these world-class government conspirators went through all of this trouble of masking out things, trimming frames, splicing the film together...and they leave the most crucial part IN THE FILM showing conspiracy. They're obviously the dumbest conspiracy planners in world history LOL 3. They KNEW that the Z film would never be shown to the public in its entirety - only a frame here and there in LIFE magazine - until 1975. So suppressing the evidence was another very easy way to control the message. But now as you're seeing here, Josephs is going to ramble on with his confusing and confused image combinations, combining frames and trying to show HOW it was done without EVER explaining WHY it was done. In his mind, it was because because the government is evil. LOL
  14. OK got it - and I wonderful where this other Oswald ran off to and where his Marguite look alike Mom went? Oh and one more thing - why did the conspirators have to do this? Why did they have to find an Oswald clone 10 years before 11/22, have him live in Oswald's shadow, have him stick around until 11/22, and then disappear forever after his clone was shot in the Dallas jail? Any idea?
×