Michael Walton

Jim I remember months ago before our falling out when I heard about this film and I suggested you write a review of it. But after reading Pat's post I don't get the impression at all that what he wrote was a cheap shot in reply to what you've been posting here. I applaud you for knowing the backstory of the script and what really happened with the PP. But all scripted films take liberties with the truth some more than others. Even Stone's films are often considered metaphors for the larger meaning of the story. IMO his JFK film was one that needed to be told back then after years of whitewash. Wall Street's message was about greed and how it corrupts. And so on. I do agree with you about Bradlee. I sometimes wonder if he was informing on his friend JFK. But as Pat described it sounds like they weren't trying to convey what really happened with the PP. Does that mean Graham, Bradlee and the rest were beacons of honesty and truth? Most probably not. But if we want history lessons in film there are plenty of documentaries out there one good one being Stone's Untold History of the US. But beware on the JFK segment because he's pretty blunt about his faults as well as his good deeds. Which is entirely appropriate.

I agree. It has to be them. I'd be shocked if there was a second woman in white especially one with a white scarf on her head to boot.

The dot further up is where the green pole used to be. I used it as a very rough FoR.

Jim H - are you sure about that? Reason why I ask is the mock up shows color and I don't think they had color copy machines back then. But if the *original* is color as seen above, I doubt that would be a copy of something.

Lance, let's look at it this way. Any good defense attorney would have raised many, many other instances of reasonable doubt in a jury trial if Oswald had not been gunned down on 11/24. I'm too tired and/or lazy to point them out here but they do exist and this is but one example. Is it a slam dunk? Probably not but like Scott Peterson, OJ and others, Lee Oswald at least deserved his day in court to face a jury of his peers to see if he was guilty or not...and with a good lawyer or bevy of lawyers next to him. The inconsistent number of shots and sequence of shots in the Z film alone raises enough doubts in many, many people's mind to show that something really fishy took place on 11/22. I don't know what kind of attorney you are, but you have to have that "does it pass the smell test" built into you to analyze and determine if there's a whiff of truth in many things regarding this case. From the day LHO was gunned down, the entire government apparatus kicked into high gear to prove and bury this case that a single individual did the deed and it's been that way for the past 54 years. And it all began with the Katzenbach memo and has continued on.

I write for a living - among other things - so it's nice to have an editor there to clean things up. Thanks for the correction. It's hard to say what the stockier woman has on, but I'm guessing heels. But the woman in white almost certainly has high heels on. Now, whether they threw them off to make the dash back to the entrance in time to be filmed in the news footage or not is another thing. If you look at the map below to get an idea of where they were standing on 11/22, you can see the entrance in the upper right of the image - I think it's plausible for them to have arrived to be captured by the news footage.

Questions: I read Oswald was a pack rat and kept everything. Was the purchaser's stub (I'm assuming that would have been given to him) ever found in his possessions (Paine garage, etc)? Also because of his alleged pack rat status, was the cardboard box that the rifle was shipped in ever found in his possessions?

Yes, FWIW, I agree that the women you ID standing by the sign in Z are the same two women seen on the steps in the news footage also showing Lovelady as well as PM in the shadows. At least for me, it's perfectly possible for both of them to have ran or walked briskly in their high heels, all shook up after the shooting, from the sign position to the steps where they were probably hysterical about the president being murdered practically right in front of them, and Lovelady being there as well, perhaps lending a comforting hand or word to them.

You may want to read this. Oliver is fake and so is Arnold. You have to let the hair stand up on your neck when you read these stories. If it stands up enough for me, and from other things I read, then that's enough "proof" if someone was involved or not. Arnold has NOT been seen in ANY photos of Dealey. Not a one. But if you want to think he's involved, then that's your right to do so. Yarborough was wrong as well. You can clearly see one guy throwing himself down in the Z film. But obviously that was not this Arnold guy. Witness statements and what they "saw" is one of the weakest links to the case because humans are very fallible. Although the existence of the apparently bogus Secret Service agent had been mentioned 15 years earlier by witnesses such as the policemen Joe Marshall Smithand Seymour Weitzman (see Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.107), there is no conclusive evidence that Arnold himself was actually in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. He is not visible in any photographs or films, and none of the witnesses on the knoll mention his presence. He did, however, receive some support from Senator Ralph Yarborough, who was riding in the motorcade. Yarborough contacted the journalist Earl Golz, who had made Arnold’s story public, and told Golz that he had seen a man fall to the ground in the way Arnold had described. Yarborough may have seen Arnold, or he may instead have seen William Newman, who certainly fell to the ground close to the grassy knoll immediately after the fatal shot.

The Arnold story is right up there with Beverly Oliver and Judy Baker. Just another charlatan and faker trying to inject himself into the story. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm

That GIF is interesting because there's a lot of different people moving at different speeds - some are running, some walking briskly. I'm sure that anything is possible - I can imagine the all in white woman seeing the shots down there, panicking or being blown away (no pun) and then hurrying back to the entrance. If you watch the GIF right at the very end you can see she's sort of hurrying up the steps - not galloping two at a time, but hurrying up. So I can imagine her seeing the murder, hurrying back hysterical, seeing Lovelady there - maybe saying "OMG they shot him!" then hurrying to go back into the building. Another thing too is this definitely happened way after the main caravan has left Elm Street because there's no cars going down the street and the two press cars are just sitting there. But the woman in white in the Z film has to be the same woman in white on the steps.

If you watch this: It gives you a pretty good idea of the distance the walk would have been from down by the sign up to the steps. I can picture the women down by the sign, the shots are fired, then they walk back up the main entrance where Lovelady sees them as they approach. However, I find it hard to believe that they would have run to the concrete island, looked around, then be back on the steps to then be approached by the woman who seems to be Calvery walking up the steps. All in that short of a time span. If that's Lovelady standing on the steps as the woman approaches him, it's almost as if he never even moved from his original position he was in as seen in Altgens 6.

Oswald said he was "out front with Shelley." In Altgens 6 the guy identified as Shelley - with the suit on - looks a little heavier than the real Shelley. Here is Altgens 6: He seems to have a little bit of a belly on him and Shelley looks quite skinny: Could the suit guy be anyone else other than Shelley? Also, I found this on Greg Parker's forum. A guy in the background when LHO was in NO looks remarkably like Shelley. Compare the collage photo with the photo taken in NO:

Larry, thanks for being kind in posting this. What I'm not getting here is why the big secrecy and mystery by Josephs and DiEugenio about this? About whiting out the cryptos and not revealing them? Both of them had have known these were on the MF site. Also last I checked this was the Education forum. Why all of the "we know now look it up yourself" arrogance? You never see this copping of attitude over at the Greg Parker forum. As for the MC narrative haven't we been through this before? So two people down there with cryptos say they never saw LHO down there. Great. But it hardly seems like anything new.

That also bothers me a lot as well - the fact that no one ever mentioned it in either TX or DC. Thanks.

That's what I said above and agree with your assessment.

Sandy, your reply makes no sense. But to clarify, there was a lot more going on with the Watergate affair than the official Redford/Hoffman story let on. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/01/rearranging-the-watergate-myth/ https://kennedysandking.com/articles/bob-woodward

?? Not sure what you mean by that. But as for what's going on currently, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Pat - do you care to speculate on that black spot on the forehead? Chesser also mentions the possibility of it being a shot there, There was discussion of this on another thread. It certainly looks more than just wet balled up hair. Also if you line up that spot with the rear beveled hole in my illustration it certainly could be an in and out. My only concern has always been his head was tilted downward so the shot hitting at that spot would be quite a low angle.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Although the Z film is 54-year-old technology, some of the frames are quite clear. Here's #304. If you download them and blow them up on your own computer you'll see they're pretty clear - not all of them of course due to camera jerk:

I'm simply astounded that anyone would ever expect either of these two women to be somehow involved in the murder.

Here's another article regarding who was really behind Russia gate - the DNC https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/29/the-democratic-money-behind-russia-gate/ My first link above has some pretty good quotes in it as well. IMO, America always needed some kind of enemy after WWII as they were practicing brinkmanship. Oliver Stone's Untold History of the US does a good job of covering this. Interestingly enough, the episode about JFK is called "To the Brink" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Untold_History_of_the_United_States When you watch that episode of the series, you can really feel how the brinkmanship caught up with Kennedy on 11.22.63. I like, too, the way Stone does not gloss over Kennedy's weaknesses like his womanizing and the fact that he was slow on civil rights. I know Jim DiEugenio champions JFK as this beacon of civil rights. But even Eleanor Roosevelt is quoted in the Stone episode as saying she wished Kennedy had "...less profile and more courage..." which I thought was a funnily accurate quote. I mean, why didn't Kennedy just go down to the Lincoln Memorial on 8.28.63 instead of waiting to see how it would all turn out? I know this post is getting off-topic so I'll just weigh in on it - I really don't think the Russians had anything to do with Kennedy's murder. There has to be some kind of motive to the murder and at least for me, there isn't any real reason for the Russians to want to rub him out, especially after he gave the American University speech 6 months before 11.22. That speech was played several times to the entire USSR people. PS - Oliver Stone's series is on Netflix streaming so if you have NFLX you can watch it there.

Gene, maybe they collected all of this info simply because they were tasked to? I would think any investigative body was going to investigate the person that they're supposed to investigate, perhaps going back to his history. Yes, Oswald never had a chance in hell anyway...he was after all 6 feet under. Still, they basically did their jobs.

For me, I don't think Russia has anything to do with it. America always needs some kind of enemy so the Russia thing is just that - stirring things up to have an enemy: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/11/the-fbi-hand-behind-russia-gate/

Tom, I'm so very glad you mention State Secret by Bill Simpich. I've recommended it numerous times on here but it just seems to cause a lot of eye glazing overness. At least for me, any serious researcher should read it because it's truly a starting point on the manipulation of our man in TX/NY/LA. For me as well, the closing bookend for SS is when our man blurts out he's nothing but a patsy as they whisk him away.