Michael Walton

David Lifton, I'm going to go out on a limb here. But could it be that it's much easier to fudge or make up a story for Duran vs. all of the other evidence that exists that LHO was not down there? I mean look above at what Josephs has. What I'm trying to say is - and to use another example - that guy who claimed that he saw the 6th floor shooter and tried to give a description when we all know it would have been impossible to do so. So in this case, the MC police had beaten this poor girl down there (Duran). And then - presto! - we have her "OMG it's him!" statement. Then on the other side of the coin, we have Hoover saying what he did on the above memo; we have NO photo evidence at all of the real LHO down there; we DO have photos proving that they're desperate to show it was him yet they release laughingly bad photos of completely different people; we have State Secret's info on the Duran and LHO events showing it was fake; and of course one of the most-watched government buildings on Earth at the time, yet no proof at all of LHO; and on and on. Thoughts?

Paul, this is an amazing quote IMO from you. Why? Because you seem to actually support State Secret. So for argument's sake, let's take away all of the "promotions" and so forth of the CIA did it crowd (as you claim). I have no monetary interest in this case - I'm like all the others out there. I just want to get to some kind of truth in this case. So if according to State Secret we're seeing machinations taking place with LHO from the time he returns to TX from Russia until 11/22 and with everything else we know - the Paines steering the family around; George DM and so on - I just don't see how anything *else* can possibly be going on. I'm concerned too about too many people being involved. If we're seeing the intel community "hijacking" Oswald to steer him into Dealey Plaza (per State Secret), would the planners really have had that many other people in the DPD involved in this, and then even more in the radical right community? A couple of corrupt cops is one thing - all you have to do is look at the "oh xxxx here it comes" expression on Fritz's face when LHO is gunned down. But a whole other JB Society bevy of plotters? And you mention proof. If there's any proof that you're looking for, look no further than State Secret. The "5-10 165" announcement over the radio mere minutes after the guns went off is one very strong piece of proof that the hijacking of Oswald started at that very moment and that proof goes right back to State Secret. Think about it - no one saw LHO up there in the window, yet they come out with that description that quickly. From whom? From those intel files that State Secret explains.

Ruby said a lot of things. There is a film clip on YTV where a reporter on the street asked him something like (paraphrasing here) "who did it (murder JFK)" and his reply was something like: "If Stevenson had been VP at the time, this would have never happened" or something like that. In other words, LBJ did it. The point though is *someone* got him to kill Oswald. All of the hooey about him doing it for Jackie is pure BS. Oswald was most probably supposed to die in the theater when he was arrested when he flipped out with the pistol. When that didn't happen, there was panic and rather than try to make it look like a "it just so happened" death for Oswald (in other words, "crazed assassin pulls pistol and is gunned down by heroic cops") they said - what the xxxx just get someone in there and silence him. Which is what happened. Amazingly it happened on live TV for all the world to see. The funny thing, too, about the LHO murder is it's almost as if they didn't give a xxxx any more about making it look like a normal act. In other words, get the deed done and then we'll come up with an excuse for it ("he did it for Jackie") later, which is why that excuse is so lame when you really think about it. But as for Ruby's affiliations and related to this thread, I find it very hard to believe that Paul's T's love theme (sorry Paul, you're a nice guy but a little too obssessed with this radical right thing) that the radical right did the job on JFK and LHO. Bill Simpich's State Secret is the key - you can see the machinations taking place. LHO was a low level mark for the intel community and upon leaving Russia, at the time they didn't quite know what else to do with him. When the signal was given for Dallas, it was simple matter of building up the "crazed communist" narrative, moving him around like a chess piece, until 11/22. I find it very hard to believe that the right could have had this much imagination and initiative to pull something like this off.

Paul, it's called a wink and a nod.

Jim - you do this all of the time, too LOL. You constantly post testimony from the WC...the same source of information that you and others claim is 100% bogus, false information! You can't have it both ways - you can't claim that the WC testimony that you constantly quote from is all bogus, then use it for the HL fantasy. Isn't that like a double negative - cancelling each other out? LOL Have you even read Greg Parker's stuff? He even discovered that Oswald had roundworm for crying out loud. To me that's a helluva lot more new analysis on Oswald than the HL crew have done of late. The most I've noticed of late from you, Larsen and others is "SHOW US!" We have! And "It's all in the contrast" and "Shoulders matter, buddy!" LOL

I wanted to mention Jim's comment about why that photo of LHO is so poorly done with the horrible tacked on nose and goofy smile. There's nothing sinister about it as it's just a bad touch up job. I've been looking for other examples but the only one I could find was the Elvis in his coffin one. The Elvis touch up was obviously a much better touch up than the Oswald one. But believe me when I say I've seen in the past some pretty bad touch up jobs for photos in newspapers and other publications. If I come across more will post here. But here's a quote from a guy who worked in that industry before digital retouching: "A photographer's job was to produce an image that needed no retouching. When it did, typically an oversize print was made (at least twice the size needed for the final reproduction) and it would be airbrushed to perfection, then color separated for the printing plates." The key to this quote is if the photo was taken with a cheap home camera, then the blow up process may screw it up for publication, requiring touch up. But blowing up a cheap print will be distorted requiring more work for the touch up person. Whoever did that LHO photo touch up should have been fired as it was horribly done. They should have brought in the crew who did the touch up for the BYP - LOL. But there's nothing sinister about - it's NOT a matter of "Oh, this was Lee and they tried to cover it up to make it look like the clone" or whatever.

One of the files looks like it's about WIRogue and according to this: https://www.tpaak.com/tpaak-blog/2015/12/2/who-was-wirogue-1 ...perhaps it's something to do with his being hired as one page that shows up has a sign page and "you agree to this and that." Of course with that many pages blanked, it could mention other stuff too.

Bernie - this is the current state of the HL defense: Basically going round and round with the teeth, then the testimony (that according to them they don't even believe in and is faked), then the Jack White poster, then the Japan adventure, then back to the teeth. Fun and games.

Jim - if ears, eyes, and nose match...what else is there? Your whole premise is there are photos of Oswald, some showing the Hungary version and others showing the Texas version. But if you compare photos that you and others state are two different people and they match - ears, eyes, nose, etc - proving that it's the same person, what then? All of the other stuff - the cajoling of testimony, pulling bits and pieces from the testimony - the same testimony that appears that no one on your team believes is true and has been faked (you just said that above) - and fitting it like a round peg in a square hole is just hearsay and noise. None of it would hold up in a court of law. So what then?

If Larsen, Hargrove or others doubt the transformation image I posted above, as well as the eyes-ears-etc matching, then they're simply beyond redemption. Kind of like the Jim Jones crowd who followed Jones down to South America, and to their eventual death. I've seen this before on EF. I posted another photo that clearly shows it's the same person. Larsen was like "BUT, JIM...BUT, JIM..." - kind of like tugging Hargrove's shirt not quite sure what to say. Almost as if he's discovered that baby Jesus was not a porcelain-skinned, blue-eyed, blond-haired babe. As for Hargrove, he cops out by simply saying he's not good with faces. Yet, in the HL story, you can be sure that the school photo most definitively shows a missing tooth and other photos most definitively show two different Oswalds. That's pretty much all you need to know about the current level of "defense" of the story.

Glenn, one other thing to point out. At the end of the video, you can see the recreation that was done. From all appearances this is the same recreation done when they put a piece of tape on the back of the JFK stand in where the back wound was on his body. You can see it in the video (the tape). At this point, there appears to be no fudging of the record - no Specter standing there saying the back wound happened in the neck region and so forth. So this photograph - which is actually from a film that used to be online but no longer is - pretty much shows what the 6th floor shooter would have seen. Then you simply have to ask yourself - if there was no back exit wound, and if that hole doesn't even line up with the throat wound - then that should pretty much settle the SBT nonsense. PS - that recreation film used to be online in pristine condition. I recall seeing it on YouTube and grabbed the frame you see in my video. For the life of me I can't find it any more except for a very bad copy of it. Not even Dave Von Pein - with all of his videos he has - can find it.

Joe and Pat, thanks. And this is mainly for Joe. Joe, watch the Z film. He reacts to the throat wound THEN his body lurches forward from the back wound. It looks almost as if an invisible hand is pushing him forward. His head even bobs from this force. I made a video about it here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc/view?usp=sharing This is my interpretation of it. The point being, the back wound terminates and this is what Humes said in the report. But about the residue, and like PS said, how could we possibly ascertain any residue when Kinney handled the bullet with his own bare hands?

Does anyone have any thoughts on whether it's possible that CE399 could have been the bullet that caused JFK's rear back wound and really did fall out vs. being planted on the stretcher?

Sadly if Ford and Edison and I'm sure others would have figured it out back in the early 20th century, we would have never even heard of the Middle East. https://jalopnik.com/5564999/the-failed-electric-car-of-henry-ford-and-thomas-edison

You are correct, Jim. Any one is free to think this looks like the same person or not. The only problem - actually the main problem - here is when someone is trying to uphold a story like the HL team is doing. Then, in that case, all reasonable sanity is completely thrown out the window to protect the "brand." I, Tracy, and others have nothing to gain by disagreeing with the HL story. At the same time, I do find it very interesting that I (a CTer) and Tracy (a LNer) BOTH come to the same conclusions regarding the HL story. And I believe Bernie and Jeremy are also both CTers. As for Oswald's hair, can't people change throughout their life? I went from a bowl cut in the 60's to a shag in the 70's to a trim in the 80's and 90's and now I'm practically bald. The same with Lee Harvey Oswald. Basing an entire conspiracy theory on hair styles and "concluding" that this same person was two different people is a huge leap of fantasy.

Thanks Tracy. I agree about the pre DNA investigation techniques. I remember seeing in a police book how ears eyes and so on were used as a form of ID. If any of the HL supporters doubt the similarities then they're simply beyond redemption LOL And Joseph's "it's in the shoulders" post was one of the most ironically funny posts I've ever seen in this thread. And the "it's the CONTRAST, buddy!" post was not too far behind. But brace for it I'll now be up for more ridicule and threats from old Dave. It's funny how when we post info based on common sense, plausibility, the ring of truth, and of course evidence, they revert to school yard insults, then have the nerve to call us out if WE say how ridiculous they're whole story is. LOL

And Jim - no comment on David Josephs sloping shoulders expertise? The funniest thing about his nonsense on this was he actually posted a photo of TWO DIFFERENT SLOPES of sloping shoulders - one steep and one shallow - in the very same illustration showing his sloping shoulders analogy. I've pointed that out in my own little ski illustration. And no comment on the teeth? The Smiling Marine Oswald photo shows many matches with the skull photo of his teeth.

Looks like you couldn't figure it out Jim. The illustrations I posted show that it's all one person it's as simple as that. If you watch the transformation from one to other, you can see how his head was tilted downward for the middle photo, and his head tilts upward in Dallas. The point being - it's the same person. The ears, eyes, brows, and nose all match up. Any person with even decent eyesight can tell this. But I know of course you will deny it, even with overwhelming evidence right before you. I know the book and CDs need to be preserved so no amount of visual evidence is going to sway you that the HL is wrong.

Of shoulders and contrast. Here's my masterpiece. Thank me on the way out And I'm throwing this back on here too as it didn't get enough vigorous debate from the HL supporters. The coffin teeth obviously match the smiling Marine photo teeth and NO TEETH were missing in the coffin.

I worked on my masterpiece reply last night. It involves contrast, 13 inch heads, sloping shoulders and no bridges, including the kind you cross and the kind that fills in missing teeth. I will post it this weekend and it will refute once and for all the HL fairy tale. If it makes me appear to be a trouble maker that's great as well. Stay tuned...

Sandy Larsen confirmed on another thread that the Richard Helms testimony doc does not cut off like this lazy WAPO story suggests. That's the doc I was speaking of but thanks anyway.

Yes exactly that. I've said this numerous times here. There is NO plausibility and realistic narrative in the whole HL story. The story is like a murderer who keeps claiming he's innocent when he was found at the scene bloodied and standing over the victim. Any seasoned homicide detective would laugh Jim out of the room and throw the book and CDs in the trash if he read the HL story. Anyone on here who supports it is just paranoid and thinks the entire case is rigged or sees little monsters in the shadows.

So see - there you go again, Jim/John. Paraphrasing the testimony of the so-called false Warren Commission papers. I mean, what else is there to create a murder case...or to create this phony HL story?

Not exactly sure what you mean by that Jim. Evidence is evidence whatever the source. Don't you basically do the same thing? I mean, if you're really a guy named Jim Hargrove and not Armstrong in disguise, aren't YOU paraphrasing JA's own work to support the HL caper? Don't you even paraphrase the Warren testimony, which according to you and many other paranoids on this forum is supposed to be 100% false? Yet, you pull bits and pieces from it to support your story? You know, the "fitting the round peg into the square hole?"

I'm sure Tom Graves would have given the HL gang a run for their money as well. He started this thread but knew from the start the whole story was just that...a story. I'm not sure if he was banned here as well or just quit. Jim - does it really matter if Greg Parker cannot debate here? He's posted more than enough great rebuttals to the whole HL caper on his own forum, including one that I don't think has ever been mentioned here - that the one and only LHO had roundworm.