Michael Walton

The verdict on Jeremy's little 4-act, two-man play: Bravo!

Good for you, Sandy. I'm happy for you that the "strength of the evidence" has changed your mind. It has done the same for me - it shows that the shoehorning of this evidence to fit a clone narrative just isn't plausible and doesn't have the ring of truth to it.

Sandy - if you read State Secret, there is a lot going on behind the scenes there. The call in of someone impersonating LHO and Duran (when LHO was never even down there as written by your buddy David Josephs) is showing that the machinations are taking place, the greasing of the screw if you will. If we are to believe that LHO was going to be the guy to take the fall for 11/22, then the laying the groundwork is happening as shown in SS. Keep in mind too that everyone involved in this had a deep hatred for Kennedy, most probably because they felt betrayed because he didn't send in the troops during the BOP event. So there's means and motive. I find it very hard to believe that these people, who were deeply motivated to lay all of this groundwork and were hell-bent on seeing it all come to fruition on 11/22, would even bother getting someone like Nagell involved. Also, keep in mind that his original contact (probably in his own warped story-making) was someone who wanted him to do the *opposite* with LHO - to get rid of him to stop the murder. Also, would they really have even involved a loose cannon like this guy? I highly doubt it. So his story just doesn't seem plausible. That's the key - the *plausibility* of the story. There's simply no room to fit him into the narrative of SS. When you look at it that way, you then have to ask yourself - ...and what about all of the other crazy stuff he claimed and his constantly shifting stories and his never revealing the photo he had with LHO as well as the audio tape he claimed he had? Where is this additional proof? There is none. It's like what they did in the OJ trial - a typical bait and switch. His lawyers were bragging they were going to reveal who actually murdered Nicole but they never did but when the trial ended they never did and simply played the race card with a very suspectible jury. As for Dick Russell, what can I say? It won't be the last time in recorded history where a writer has been able to listen to someone's yarn and spin it into a story to sell to the public.

David you might want to read the link I posted up above. There, you'll find that Nagell couldn't possibly have done what he's claiming. There's too much contradictory statements he's made through the years (he was there; he wasn't; he held up the bank because he wanted to expose the plot; he didn't and robbed the bank because he needed psychiatric care; and on and on).

The Nagell story is bunk and a fairy tale: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nagell2.htm I liken it to others who came out of the woodwork to claim their own slice of fame like Bev Oliver and Judy Baker. Read State Secret. Do you really truly believe that if they'd planned this carefully that they'd have a live wire like Nagell running around to ruin the whole thing? Of course not. That card is NOT proof that he was in the know Sandy. He probably copied it and manipulated it and then presented it. Nothing more. And Tom Hume - sorry, but your secret agent codes are also silly.

That's the problem, Sandy. The evidence has been debated endlessly here with no end in sight. Parker has, Tracy has, Jeremy, you, I, and others have all stated your interpretation of the available evidence. That's what I mean about my post further up. It's HOW people interpret the evidence with pre-existing beliefs that cause these kind of endless arguments. An example of this is another murder case I've been reading about it. It happened 15 years ago and there's been a retrospective of it. I'll admit that the evidence is circumstantial but the accused was found guilty. Meanwhile, his family members still deny he did it and is innocent. The point here is because they love this guy and he's a member of their family, there's "no way" that he did this crime. Because of their pre-judgement (that good old so-and-so is our brother and son and we love him) he didn't do it and unless they found a photo of him standing over his dead wife with a bloody ax in his hand, they're going to continue to believe that to be the case. But regarding JFK, if you read Meagher's story about the case, you'll see that she analyzes the evidence with no pre-judgement. That's why she and others can present it so well and therefore it has the ring of truth and plausibility in it. That's what I mentioned above. I've talked with several other researchers, those who I have respect for, and they too think there's this batxxxx crazy wing among the conspiracy crowd. That's why I've said numerous times here that something is very odd when someone can write a clear concise narrative of how LHO was impersonated in MC and also write that he was never even down there. When you look elsewhere - with how they paraded witnesses around saying LHO was a wife beater and how the fake BYP's were found, and others - then you start to see a pattern of deception of him being set up. It's like a lawyer said recently - if you look out the window and it's sunny out and you go outside and see puddles on the ground and people walking around with wet clothes on and dripping umbrellas, the circumstantial evidence shows that it recently rained. You don't have to see the rain come down to conclude that it was raining. So when someone writes about MC, but then shows he's all over the place, and then expresses his thought process that you cannot trust anyone because, well, Government Is Bad, then that explains why for some everything is sinister and was manipulated and there was a clone and the photos and films were faked and on and on. So there's really no sense in debating the evidence. It's been debated ad nauseum with no end in sight. Jim Hargrove is here for one reason - to continue to keep this story alive and to sell the product. That's all. If that was not his intention, then he would have never posted that book and CD photo beautifully displaying the product.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/paul-groody.html Tracy - I'm not sure what to make of this post. First, I don't trust Groody for one reason - I think he was in it to make a buck and he therefore would have some dramatic stories to put into his book to push book sales (like the other guy we know here in this thread is pushing the other $60 product). And if you read his story, it's pretty inconsistent. But for what it's worth, if this is about whether Oswald's head was examined during autopsy or not, there is some evidence to support that it was. View the photo below showing Oswald pre- and post-autopsy. Once the skin wrapping the head is cut open to reveal the skull, the tautness is lost forever. No amount of magic by the funeral people can ever put it back the way it was. He was pretty skinny and young too so that flab is NOT a result of normal skin flab.

In order to really, truly analyze the documentation to this case, you have to turn off all irrational thoughts about not only the case but about your ability to trust public institutions and so on. Because they don't have this ability to do that, this has what led Josephs, Larsen and others to believe that "everything is a conspiracy." I recall seeing elsewhere that Josephs used the term "the evidence IS the conpiracy." That's actually a perfect example of what I mean. Evidence is the stepping stone that leads to guilt OR innocence. It does not favor the case one way or the other. Everything is not sinister in this case as well. For example, there is plenty of evidence that Oswald was set up to take the fall without saying that the "evidence is the conspiracy." Here's a short list: - The shell casing with a dent lip (proving the shell could not have been fired) - The timeline of shots could not be pulled off as shown in the Z film - Oswald's patsy statement - The termination of the back wound - Connally's statement that the shots could not have happened as stated - The number of wallets that belonged to the supposed assassin But because of the mindset of Josephs and others - that he cannot trust ANYTHING the government or public officials say - he pre-judges anything and everything about this case to the point where he: - Thinks there was a clone of Oswald back in1953 that "somehow" played a role in setting the real LHO up - Thinks all films and photos - even the Towner film that was shot way up at the top of the intersection - was altered - The measurement drawings taken of the street were altered by officials because "somehow" they would show conspiracy if they were not altered In my opinion, this is why the conspiracy wing of this case is in such shoddy shape today. Back in the 60's you had respectable opposers to the case like Mark Lane and Sylvia Meagher. Her radio broadcast from back in 1967 is a pefect example of someone showing respectfully how things could not have happened the way the WR says it happened. She took the evidence and made clear, thoughtful plausible analysis of it and came to her conclusions. Unfortunately, as time went on others - perhaps starting with James Fetzer - came out of the woodwork and started coming up with truly outrageous - and outrageously false - stories of guns down in the sewer drain, shiny objects being held by the limo driver, the old guy down on the knoll holding a black object (a gun?), the secret agent codes of Nagell and on to the funny but sad Oswald clone story, and all other nonsense. That's why today the conspiracy wing has a negative connotation to it, where it's wrapped up with "buffs," nuts, and so on and is laughed out loud about by even those who don't always buy into the official story. It's also a very strange occurrence when even those who believe and know that there was a conspiracy but don't buy in to ALL of the ridiculousness are themselves then called naive and worst, just because they don't believe in all of the foolishness floating around.

Tracy - if you go way up you'll read Joseph's reply to me about when I asked "Do you really truly believe everything?" Based on his reply - that he doesn't trust any word from anyone from officialdom - and only trusts the alternative or opposing views like Howard Zinn's alternative view of history - then you're not going to convince him of anything. When I read his reply, I thought to myself - I rest my case. I knew there had to be something odd about his way of thinking and his reply confirmed what I'd always thought. To his way of thinking - no medical doctor with 50 plaques on his wall is going to be good enough for him. It's just going to be more of the same, more "No, no. They're wrong. They're lying" and it's not because these doctors are genuine medical people and could make a mistake. It's simply because in someone like his mind, the "official" report or statement is a lie, that no one in authority tells the truth. That's the simple analysis of it if you read what he wrote. My hunch, too, is Sandy Larsen thinks the same way though don't expect neither of them to ever have the ability or balls to admit that that's how they think. As for Jim Hargrove he pretty much tipped his hand when he put the HL package photo on here. He keeps peddling this xxxx for millionaire (cough) John Armstrong hoping suckers buy it. So it's pretty much a lost cause with his people.

Parnell and others have debated endlessly Jim just as you have. To be honest it's tiresome for grown ups to keep telling it like is to the kids who refuse to listen. And good see you're taking the secret agent codes seriously enough to shoehorn them into your funny story. Congratulations...

I agree. Although the PM footage is not clear enough to make a crystal clear ID of Oswald, the general shape of him has a lot of potential for it to be him. Another good thing is what Bart did ID'ing as many of where the employees were at the time. It'd be odd if "Joe Schmoe" from down from the bank would have walked two blocks to that shadowy area to watch the President of the US coming by. Of course stranger things have happened but I doubt it.

Instead of me answering that, maybe I should ask you... Do you really, truly believe all of the stuff that I've read about you on this forum could have happened? You must have a really deep-seated dislike or mistrust of the government to think that they could have done the things you and others think happened with the JFK case. Or perhaps you just don't have the ability or a "ring of truth" bell in your head. If you did, I really think that you (and others) would not fall for the HL caper, the funny Humes secret agent codes, the sinister changing and forging the plats of the street displays, all of the films and photos were somehow doctored, and all the rest. The best I've read of you is the MC impersonation. That definitely has the ring of truth to it and it's been further proven with State Secret, that someone was faking Oswald (and Duran) down there. If the planners' sole goal was for Lee to take the blame, there really was no need for him to go down there in the first place when they could have had someone impersonate him (and Duran too). It's simple common sense and often times, common sense and the simpler answers are the ones that prevail. I've noticed, too, that one of the biggest problems with "researchers" is that they tend to read a statement or piece of testimony and try to shoehorn a sentence or word into their outlandish beliefs to "prove" they have the answers. So it really, truly is surprising for me to have someone like you write a well-documented story (MC) but then also believe in the funny stuff as well. And no one is running, David. To be honest, the silliness on this thread - though funny - can be tiresome too. It's often like telling your kid there are no monsters in your closet but they keep going on and on and on "But, but, but...." Even kind, patient parents have a limit.

What I find truly hilarious - and probably the most unintentionally ironic posts of late here - is how Jim Hargrove is having a hard time keeping up with Tom Humes' funny ICO secret code posts. As if! OMG really and truly so funny. I'm giggling even as I type this.

So what you're saying, Doug, is the drive off the bridge was an elaborate conspiracy to do Ted Kennedy in?

Paul, How do you account for the fact that Oswald was being impersonated when he supposedly went to Mexico City? How do you also account for the fact that back in 1960, two descriptions of Oswald were given (the so-called 5-10 165 lbs description). And within 15 minutes of the killing, the first description of a suspect is this same description that was cooked up for him three years before. Without anyone acknowledging WHERE this first suspect description came from. No one could have gotten that description of a man in the window crouching down 100 feet up in the air - yet it happened and kept being repeated. The point is, I find it very hard to believe that the Right Wingers and Ed Walker could have come up with all of this. It just doesn't have the ring of truth. We all know that many Right Wingers hated Kennedy, just like they hated Obama and Left Wingers hate Trump 50 years later. But it just doesn't seem possible to have pulled this off without having not been in the know, with all that we know now that was going on in NO and up to 11/22.

Uh, really Joe? You actually think that about this forum? You must not read all of the threads on here. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I do agree with what Jim D says about this post. It's got nothing to do with the JFK murder which is why I come here. But I will say this too. John Kennedy had a lot of potential to do good for the country and I think his death began the long nightmare for this country that has led up to the political mess we're in today. At the same time, it's important to remember that the Kennedys were no saints. In a JFK book review, a commenter said it best: Those of us who look upon the Kennedy brothers as heroes, and for whom the impact of their deaths created emotional wounds which will never completely heal, are acutely sensitive to and on-guard against character assassination and tabloid accusations which over many years and periodic revivals seem designed to diminish the memory of their lives so that the significance of their deaths may be devalued. Having to confront certain issues which are present in the story being examined has been ugly and difficult for me, and — maybe it’s helped me grow up a little. Maybe it has forced me to venture outside of my comfort zone, maybe it’s a good thing to be able to at least look at things we would not choose to be true whether they are true or not, maybe we are better off if we have the courage and willingness to admit that knowledge is indifferent to what we want to be true.

Hoover said the pix and voice weren't LHO's either. I know you know this but I'm putting it here for newbies.

Jim what you wrote makes sense and I can see the stories from NO to MC and elsewhere coming together. Sounds like Ferrie et al did their part while he was in NO then handed him off to the Paines when he returned to TX. In your reply you mention that in your transcript of VMI that there have been new documents released that clarify this further. I just read the VMI transcript and there's no mention of new documents so can you clarify what these new files are?

Thanks for the reply, Larry.

I'm bumping this because I think it deserves legitimate debate and no one is mentioning it. Somewhere along the line, these stories have to have a cohesive conclusion. I just find it hard to believe that if Simpich is correct on the right path to what happened, that Morales and his ilk down there with possibly Roselli and his people being involved, how does Ferrie fit into all of this? I think it's a legitimate question that should be discussed, not ignored. Otherwise, the whole research community will continue to have its own cliques (the right wingers did it; ferrie did it; state secret did it). ----------------- PREVIOUS POST: I'm having a hard time tying together the Shaw/Ferrie story with the Morales/CIA hijacking of the hit story that Bill Simpich writes so well about in State Secret. https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html Are we to believe that while the patsifying of Oswald (per SS) was going on that over in NO Ferrie, Shaw et. al. were also involved in the Simpich story? Were they two separate conspiracies - or one big one all somehow being worked on together? I'm not doubting the NO aspect of the story but SS really shows a lot of "almost a smoking gun" documentation of what was taking place. If the NO part of it was involved, I'm not sure how they could have been involved when someone impersonated Oswald and Duran (per SS).

I'm not saying these were 100% rumor and innuendo. But I'm having a hard time reconciling the IL and FL plots to what actually happened. The reason is because according to Simpich's State Secret, someone impersonated Oswald and Duran when he supposedly was in MC. We know that there was a plan to murder Castro and some how this plan was hijacked by possibly Morales. If they knew many things already about the supposed patsy back in September, and they eventually steered him into the book building in October for a job to set him up as the patsy, and because they may already have had a plan with the police to drop fake evidence against him, I find it hard to believe that theses IL and FL plans were legitimate. And the so-called "stalking" of Kennedy seems far-fetched to me. And now I'm reading that LA and even DC had big plans as well? It seems like this is getting a little bit out of hand here.

I'm having a hard time tying together the Shaw/Ferrie story with the Morales/CIA hijacking of the hit story that Bill Simpich writes so well about in State Secret. https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html Are we to believe that while the patsifying of Oswald (per SS) was going on that over in NO Ferrie, Shaw et. al. were also involved in the Simpich story? Were they two separate conspiracies - or one big one all somehow being worked on together? I'm not doubting the NO aspect of the story but SS really shows a lot of "almost a smoking gun" documentation of what was taking place. If the NO part of it was involved, I'm not sure how they could have been involved when someone impersonated Oswald and Duran (per SS).

Every time I flip through Video On Demand and see this guy staring back at me with his Autopsy episodes makes me cringe. IMO - he has no credibility. Especially knowing what an embarrassing job he did back in the 70's when he couldn't even figure out how to display the so-called Mystery Photo.

Bill Simpich in State Secret explained it best about Oswald's whereabouts: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter6.html LHO said he was "out front with Shelley," just like he said he was a patsy. Knowing what I know of the whole story, there's really no reason to doubt what he said. Oswald was just a worker drone like the rest of them so it's not like any of them were standing around accounting for everyone's presence or not. Their main focus was to see the parade and with LHO standing back in the shadows, we can't possibly expect 10 people to come up and say, "Yeah he was out there." When I was shooting news in Fountain Square in Cincinnati 25 years ago when Bush visited, do I remember the people who were standing in front of, next to, and behind me? Of course not. Taking all of this into account, I believe it's Oswald and I think it has the general appearance of him in the film. To be honest, arguing whether he's holding a camera, a cup of coffee, or a box of chocolates is beside the point. We'll never really know with 100% certainty unless the TV station releases a pristine copy of the film from the negative for further analysis.

Bart - what are your thoughts on Bill Simpich's State Secret? I personally think he did a great job on that.