Michael Walton

7 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

(Grammar, Sandy.  Not talking about spelling.  FWIW, I'm a bad speller, too..).

When all is said and done, it does boggle my mind how Team Hardly uses this as part of their "evidence" to prove that there was an Oswald clone. Said another way, TH says that because it'd be logically impossible for one person to learn Russian fluently, speak English (native) well - but be a poor speller of that native language - and be a HS dropout to boot - that there just had to be an Oswald clone.

Is there such a thing as logical people thinking illogically?

11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

De Mohrenschildt would have made a fascinating witness

One person - like our one and only Lee Oswald - can drop out of high school but be well read. We've all been around a wide variety of people in our lives - HS drop outs; college education folk; PhDs; book smart; clever.

The point is that to base an entire story that there just had to be clones - one a HS drop out who was an expert in a foreign language (but he didn't write so well in his native tongue) - and the other a refugee from Hungary - because it's intellectually impossible is absurd.

And being a hillbilly according to GDM? Big deal. A brain is a brain and anyone with a keen interest in something can teach themselves things, no matter what side of the track they're from.

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

So, there we are.  The quotations from the WC Russian WC witnesses presented by John Armstrong were cherry-picked, and presented without the actual context.  Here, finally, is the context.

I agree here and what I never understand is how can the clone supporters not see the irony that they do not support what the government presents, yet freely pick through it to make a clone story?  It's disingenuous to say the least.

30 minutes ago, Robert Harper said:

Head spun too much during the  days. I always had a feeling that the pictures didn't make sense

Robert sorry to hear about your head spinning trying to make double heads and tails of the clone story. A work of fiction can do that to folks.

Meanwhile good to see Dave "everything's  a conspiracy including  the  kitchen sink" Josephs  is here to come to the rescue to defend the story.

Oh wait I  stand corrected. There's  one theory he does NOT support....one of the shooters was over by the pavillion near a Nash Rambler shooting over the heads  of the crowd.

6 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The question I want you to answer is how did a high school dropout teach himself to read, write, and speak as difficult a language as Russian in a few months of spare time in the Marines?

So in other words just because  he dropped out of HS he wouldn't  have had the mental capacity to learn a second language?

Or put another way, this is the reason why there just had to be an Oswald clone because, you know, it's  important that someone  has got to have a HS diploma to learn a second language? And I  guess the clone had one?

And you  have proof  of  this Jim H?

17 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

That is not hard to believe, IMHO.   Lee Harvey Oswald could not write well -- he could not spell well -- but he could READ very, very well.   That is how he taught himself to read Russian in one year.   It was his OBSESSION.    By tricking his way into the USSR, and spending 2.5 years immersed in the Russian language -- and using his Marxist vocabulary in the USSR -- he became fluent in conversational Russian.    That's not hard to believe at all, IMHO

This is a nice well-rounded summary of LHO's life, Paul. Thanks for posting it.

On 1/23/2018 at 2:05 PM, David Josephs said:

Thanks Jeff...

My confidence level of the "evidence" from that weekend related to Zfilm statements and affidavits is extremely low. 

The 48fps point is simply to illustrate a process that did not require matte work...  just the removal and re-filming of the pieced together final film which allows for the edge printing between sprocket holes to work just fine.

This is where I place the changeover to 48fps:   Frame #1 shows the expected light bleed...  Frame #133 should be similar or at least not look exactly like #135 2 frames later.

I see that the wide turn onto Elm and the switchover to 48fps was accomplished for very specific reasons.  I've posted this composite image a number of times...

Position A is accepted as a location the limo drove thru on its way to z133...  it took over 80 frames from the motorcycle cop - in the bottom image - to make that wide turn.

We see him disappear to the left of Elm looking up the street and then emerges in the exact same position as the limo in Position A.

How does the limo and motorcade get from the turn onto Elm, thru Position A and then to Z133 ?

Dave - here is your reply way back to Jeff Carter. The text in red certainly does sound like *something* needed to be altered in some way according to you.

If you would simply accept the following:

The as is film was shot
The as is film was viewed
The as is film showed conspiracy
Dan Rather lied to the world about what he saw in the as is film
The as is film was suppressed from the public until years later

...if you could accept the above, then we wouldn't have to keep spinning our wheels over and over again like this. All the rest - the plats, the briefing boards - is just garbage and meaningless. Go by what you see in the as is film.  That's all.

45 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Tommy,

The anti-H&L folks want us to believe that “Lee Harvey Oswald” became fluent reading, writing, and speaking Russian after spending two and a half years in the USSR.  But you want us to believe that he couldn’t achieve fluency speaking English after spending at least a decade in our country?  Really?  Should we call that a double standard or a quadruple standard? 

So I guess the gist of this part of the story is that Oswald spoke English, wasn't too good at spelling or writing that language, was taught or learned himself Russian, did so perhaps better than his native English (at least better than his English writing skills) -- and because of all this, Armstrong and his followers come to the conclusion that there had to be two people...clones, in other words?

LOL

21 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Recommend studying running mans step's and Jackie's hand movements in both films.

Chris, do you really truly think that they'd have a shooter over by the pavilion area, risking the huge chance of something going wrong, destroying the planted sniper's nest and revealing the conspiracy if the shooter is caught, or hits a crowd member who moves at the last second, getting her head blown off?

Really? What amazes me is you people love to give the Bad Guys all of these huge brownie points for faking things - Oswald had a double all the way back to 1953; they faked the Z film; they faked other photos and films - as if they were genius planners of this little old shooting.  And yet, you're saying that these geniuses would have taken the huge risk of having a shooter sitting in a car, with an extremely tight field of vision, and shooting over innocent bystanders' heads, out in broad daylight?

LOL

Yes, that's the typical hot takes about the Z film being faked.  The usual "she said she didn't see it that way" and "he saw it do something different" and all of a sudden the entire film has been faked.

Witness statements are one of the worst and most unreliable means of gathering evidence - very unreliable.  None of these people were standing around expecting nor waiting for this to happen, nor consciously paying attention to everything that was going on second by second. And we're expected to believe that because a woman or man says it didn't quite happen that way that we have to come to the conclusion that the entire film was faked?

The ultimate proof is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-CxenlSZHZsX3pHa2s/view

None of you will look at it but I'm posting it here again. How is it possible for a film to be faked and then the film shot across the street matches up perfectly with the faked film? Unless that film, too, has been faked? Which won't surprise me in the least if one of Dave's team or Dave himself will say that other film was faked.

Then what? The Altgens photos were faked too? Muchmore? Bronson?

The Zapata Report backs all of this up completely. They're the only ones who actually handled the film - physically touched it - and concluded it's just a regular old film strip that came out of his camera and was never altered.

So keep plugging away, Dave and team - I'm sure you guys are on a major breakthrough in revealing the whole truth regarding the film. And when you ever discover that other Z film that you're 100% sure exists, let us all know on here.

LOL

10 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Question for anyone reading, has ANYONE EVER reenacted Zaps. filming? I mean has anyone ever pretended to be him and filmed cars going by with bystanders?

The SS and FBI both reenacted the event down Elm Street. The SS one is on YTV everywhere but the FBI color version is very hard to find on YTV.  Not even David Von Pein can find it.

Ironically enough, when the FBI put together their top-secret (meaning the public never saw it until years later) presentation film about the assassination they included a BW version of the Z film.  In that film, the Z film looks and "acts" exactly like it does today (except it's in BW). So if you think about it for a moment, you'd think that there'd be the super secret altered version that Dave here and many of his followers think exists. But it's the exact same one. You can look it up and watch this FBI film on YTV.

Also ironically Dave and his cheerleaders here think the film was altered by the Bad Guys to take out some as yet unknown sinister piece of it or frames of it.  None of them - NOT A SINGLE ONE - can tell you WHAT it was the the Bad Guys removed, nor WHY. Dave likes to go around saying that Oswald was not in MC.  At least with this theory, he has an action (LHO not in MC) and reaction (the government was trying to make LHO look bad). But for the Z film? Nothing.

Meanwhile, if there's anything in this case that shows that there WAS a conspiracy, it's the Zapruder film.  The shot sequence could not have been pulled off like the WR says it was and all you have to do is watch the existing Z film to see that.

Here's a remarkable still color image from the FBI film.  Tell me and us how the bullet in the back (marked by the white patch) could have gone through Connally like they say. And the back wound did not even terminate out the front?

But nope, Dave and his cheerleaders continue to just poke and prod in their "everything and the kitchen sink too" way of thinking that *everything* in this case is faked or altered somehow. Perhaps someday they'll publish their opus that's been verified by the more respectable wing of the research group showing that yes, the Z film - and all the other films and photos - were faked.

LOL

Chris has provided a simple understandable example here.  If Walton can't see the anomaly, the disparity, then he either isn't trying (likely) or . 

====

Michal Cross,

My apologies, that example is wrong. 

=====

Mike Cross...

Now that takes the cake LOL

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I always thought of Dan Rather.

He sold his soul and you  can  see it on live TV on 11.25.63. LOL

56 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

It surely wasn't about, as Mr. Parnell would like us to believe, being afraid to testify under oath.  It is every bit as much a felony to lie to Federal investigators as it is to lie under oath in public testimony.  Anyway, here are some of the people Wilcott did remember:

It's actually more than that Jim H. That crypto code you mention and Wilcott vaguely remembered does not exist on any list of cryptos. Like Tracy has said on here over and over, there are many innocent explanations and pulling quotes out of context from testimony to weave together the clone story. And for all of the many years and dollars Armstrong supposedly spent on this story - and he uses anything and everything to support the story - what actually happened to the clone once Oswald was gunned down on 11/24?

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes... yet interestingly he had trouble with his writing in English. I wonder if that can tell us anything.

Can't a smart guy not have the ability to write English well? Why would that "tell us anything?"

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob's Consortium News  was one of the very few news forums  that allowed writers to address the JFK case as it if was not solved and was open to debate. I will be forever grateful to him for that since it allowed writers like myself and Ray McGovern to address that issue.

Yes I agree with you.  And FWIW, I've encouraged Hargraves to take the Hardvey and Lee story to them and let them look at it as an independent review to getting it announced.  Looks like that's not happened since I recommended it several months ago.

I'm betting CN will fold since Parry was the heart and soul of that site.

What a shame.  I was just getting interested in that site, especially the alternative views on Russia Gate, which I agree is BS.  

2 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Thanks Dave. Will process your response in relation to my question when I have more time for sure.

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

Just go here.  Instead of creating something from a new technology, go to the above.  Download all of the frames of the UNALTERED film there.  Open up the very first frame - you don't even need special software to do this - if you're using Windows, it will open in picture viewer.  Then use your right and left arrow key to shuttle through each frame...you can see it EXACTLY what Zapruder was seeing through his viewfinder. A single image was made 18 times each second that the limo went by. It's not hard to figure out.

9 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Look carefully for anything related to what was seen on that film that weekend... the info is extremely limited and extremely vague... for one of the most amazing films of the century.

Really? That's what you're seeing? Then it's all on you and others like you who see something some "more" or "less" on that film.

So you have the utmost respect for Jeff Carter.  I wonder why that is? Because he was published on Kennedys and King?  Did you know I produced the JFK at 100 trailer for Jim DiEugenio?

Did you know I made all of the PDFs for that series for DiEugenio?

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-at-100

He wasn't even going to do anything about the 100th birthday but I kept prodding him to do it. The result is above.

And I did the Vietnam thing for him too:

https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/VietnamDeclassified2017.pdf

The only reason why you have the "utmost respect" for Carter is he says his two cents and won't argue the goofier points.  He just lets you ramble on about you seeing contrasty  blurry fuzzy things. 

52 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

You do not allow yourself to compare the extant film against a normal film. 

The skips/jerkiness you refer to are there in the extant film.

Look harder.

I've looked at the film more times than I care to admit.  There's nothing to see Chris.  It's perfectly fine. You're the one who's imagining that Zapruder started recording at 18 then hurried up and switched to 48. Jeff Carter clearly explained that there would have been lag or undue pressure on the very thin 8mm film causing it to either lag or break mid parade if you had switched it mid-stream.

Ask yourself - Zapruder was an old guy excited about recording the president of the US driving right by him.  Do you really truly think he would have tried to switch film speeds right as Kennedy came by? Of course not.  I've been shooting video for over 30 years and even a confident shooter like me would have never EVER tried to do such a bone-headed move, especially after all of the live special events I've shot through the years.

The Z/Nix sync link I posted above shows two different films from two different people matching up perfectly in action. My diagram above shows that you can't just go into a film strip shot at 48 FPS and randomly pick frames out and expect the film to run smoothly.  

And the most important question of all here - WHAT exactly did the bad guys see in this so-called altered film that they had to remove frames? This is the biggest fault of all with this theory you and Josephs obsess over. There has to be a known reason as to why the frames were removed in the first place.  To this day, no one who believes this theory has given a legitimate reason why Zapruder filmed at 48 FPS but the Bad Guys had to remove some frames.

If you can't see the light on this, then that's on you, not me. But I know you will not see the light nor will Josephs because once you obsess over something and determined to see something that isn't there, it's very, very hard to let go and admit an error was made.

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT MIKE.  ADD IN THE OTHER FILM EVIDENCE AND A SERIES OF COVER UP ACTIONS EMERGE.  IF YOU DONT WANT TO BELIEVE OR SEE A CONSPIRACY FOR WHAT IT IS, FINE... YOU AINT GONNA LEARN WHAT YOU DONT WANT TO KNOW...  

Once again you're reverting to the "you know more than me" which is irritating to the say the least. Or put another way "you know more than Jeff Carter"or "you know more than the people who did the Zapata report." I'm sorry to say but you don't.

But carry on with Chris and when your theory is proven beyond any reasonable doubt by someone out of the forum, let me know.

9 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Your "why would frames need removing" redundant question begs for speculative answers of which there are many.

Yes, that's exactly my point.  All actions have results.

Blow on a candle = flame goes out
Push a ball = it rolls
?? Sinister ?? = Frames were removed

You have to answer this, Chris, to make your case at least somewhat plausible. There's simply no answer for it because it never happened like you described.

Another thing to consider. Take a look at the image below and provide a plausible rebuttal to it. You cannot.  It's that simple. You cannot simply say that the Bad Guys neatly removed every third frame because it goes against the odds of every third frame neatly showing something sinister and therefore they had to be removed.

IMO - you didn't seem to get mad when Josephs rebutted your "he was shot from the pavillion" thread but you seem to get very angry when I rebut your "67% of the frames were removed from the Z film" theory? Why is that?

13 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

Indeed, and it's, on YOU I might add. If you had any *cred* it might be different, but, alas, all .Johnites trend the same, and you fit the mold to a "T". Carry on.

David Healy - instead of merely trying to turn this back on me to do more work to prove things otherwise, do you have any plausible rebuttal to this instead of cheering Chris on here?

13 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Or, if you prefer (as I suspect most Forum members will), the evil, evil CIA was behind the virtual impersonation of Oswald

Tom,

I'm going to try hard to not say that evil acronym here. But anyway, I look at this from the larger perspective.  Kennedy, despite having his brother run Mongoose which was pretty evil IMO but having to keep it in perspective for those times, was at least trying to reach out to Cuba and Russia both.

With that in mind, IMO, I really don't think that Russia nor Cuba had Oswald on their radars until 11/22. I think after the murder, then they of course scrambled to most probably do a CYA kind of thing. Also, Castro himself suspected something was really fishy with the murder.  He gave a speech 6 days after the murder explaining the fishiness of it.  You can find that speech on the KAK site.

I know this may not be the kind of answer you may be looking for IMO but I'm just trying to keep it real with a looking at it from 50,000 feet view.

After just reading this, I notice I didn't have a need to mention the evil acronym; however, IMO and FWIW, State Secret by Bill Simpich at least shows what the evil acronym was up to running young Lee. I'm guessing that "someone" in the evil acronym saw his usefulness including and up to 11.22. What I don't want to go too far in saying is that all of this evil cabal included the Joint Chiefs, the fine folks at Sullivan & Cromwell, the supporting cast in Stone's JFK film, Ed Walker and his Birchers, and others.

I simply don't think we'll ever know who those folks were in hatching the plan - it's all just speculation IMO. But SS does show in well documented form that it WAS being run from the time young Lee returned from Russia until 11/24.

5 hours ago, David Josephs said:

This isn't the first thread or topic where you've done this Mike.

And that's another thing you tend to do too - when something goes against your "perfect" theory you also claim the poster is not intelligent enough to understand what they're saying or doing.

So me ask you.  Chris posted this:

And you said, "But he was shot from the front, Chris." So let's debate this.  How do YOU know that Chris's post is wrong and you're once again always right? Or put another way, perhaps Chris should have replied to you:

"Just go away, David.  You know nothing."

or...

"You simply do not understand what this is all about, David."

But how do YOU know you're right? You're not always right with this case, David. You THINK you're right about everything...but you're not.

The same here with this ridiculous post on the Z film. Did you even watch the clip I posted? Can you even explain HOW two films, shot from two different directions and by two different people, sync up perfectly filming the same action on the street?  Can you EVEN explain HOW it'd be possible for one of the film cameras to be filming at 48 FPS and then the bad guys would remove frames from the footage, and yet when you take THAT film and sync it up with the OTHER film across the street they still match up perfectly?

You have NO CLUE about what you're talking about here.  And yet, I'm supposedly the idiot who doesn't understand anything!

What a joke!

On 1/23/2018 at 6:35 PM, Michael Walton said:

WHY would the government  do whatever  it is that's  being described here? The answer? There is no reason.

The government would  have had to have a very good reason  to go through all of this trouble of creating subterfuge. But to this day NO CTer can give us a plausible reason of WHY all of this trouble  was done with the Z film.

The reason? Because  the  film is legit. It's  as simple  as that.

And even IF Z was standing  there pressing the FPS button to his heart's  desire what would THAT prove?

The answer is  the  same....nothing.

Bumping this because once again, no one here has bothered to really think about this and give an insightful answer; instead, insults came my way.

There's never EVER an answer to something like this - if the film was shot at 18 FPS, then he hurried up and switched the motor to 48 FPS, and if that happened the higher speed frames were removed by the secret agents, WHY would they be removed? WHAT would those frames show that they needed to be removed?

Here's a sync video I made a while back debunking this nonsense:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxenlSZHZsX3pHa2s

On 1/23/2018 at 6:40 PM, David Josephs said:

then stay away from these threads Mike....

Is that simply too hard a concept for you to comprehend?

That you have nothing to offer on this topic is understood... coming on and showing off your close-mindedness and confusion over the topic helps...

who again?

I've got every right to be here and rebut things just like you do.  Didn't you just rebut your buddy Chris's "he was shot from the pavilion" post? Didn't you also rebut the "Jean Hill and Moorman were up further on the street and may even have been involved" thread? Obviously, you DO have the ability to see that not everything is a conspiracy just like I do LOL

But it never fails - NEVER - that when someone offers you a rebuttal on this forum you ALWAYS take the low road and tell people to get lost, take a hike, or get off the forum.

Sheesh! I'd hate to see how you are in every day life.

As Lance P said elsewhere, CTers see conspiracy  everywhere and get bogged down in the minutiae of the case. Yet when it's  time to discuss WHY things happen they  have no answer.

So here  is yet another  good example of this CTer phenomena. And we  now have to ask WHY?

WHY would the government  do whatever  it is that's  being described here? The answer? There is no reason.

The government would  have had to have a very good reason  to go through all of this trouble of creating subterfuge. But to this day NO CTer can give us a plausible reason of WHY all of this trouble  was done with the Z film.

The reason? Because  the  film is legit. It's  as simple  as that.

And even IF Z was standing  there pressing the FPS button to his heart's  desire what would THAT prove?

The answer is  the  same....nothing.