Michael Walton

To Thomas Graves - I'm asking this as a student as I want to learn something here. Is John Simkin's posts, and the book he refers to, pro "Oswald was down there" and you're basically rebutting those claims that he wasn't? I just want to make sure I understand what I'm reading here. Thanks.

The last post on here was 2013, four full years ago. And then nothing. Yes, the KKK is terrible. Yes, hillbillies and rednecks make all kinds of statements because...well, that's what they do. My Dad was a redneck so I can speak from experience. They're basically cowards, doing their dirty work in the dark of night and wearing sheets with eye-holes (or is it assholes)? One of the last posts on here was David Andrews - a good one - who said: Terri - first you put up the name of one of the purported Dealey shooters, then you take it down, then you accuse Terry Adams of being ignorant because he apparently didn't get the name right. In reading your website, I'm curious to know how in your long sweet life you came about encountering the Zodiac killer, the Vancouver kidnappers, the Pig Farm killers, and the 9/11 hijackers. Do you also know Judyth Vary Baker? That pretty much sums up this entire thread and for a while, it got the (s)troops stirred up and fired up back in 2013. The usual suspects started saying, "Oh, yeah...KKK...Dealey shooters...oh, yeah. It's gotta be." And then....four full years...nothing. Then, as is usually the case, Michael Clark brings the corpse back to life because, well, the woman said she knew a Dealey shooter...and she knew Zodiac...and...and...? And, oh, yeah because of Paul Trejo, who seems like a nice guy but can't make up his mind whether Oswald was an arch-conservative in bed with Ed Walker or a red Commie - or maybe both. Who knows with Paul? On a good day, when he sticks his finger out the window to check which way the wind is blowing, that's the conspiracy theory du jour.. Mike Clark - why would you bring this thread back to life after four years? I mean, I made a thread months ago and it got zilch views. I put a lot of effort into it, not making up some pie-in-the-sky story like this. Why don't you bring it up again and discuss it? I mean really look at it and think it through and see if it has any interesting debate to it instead of this nonsensical thread here? You probably won't though because I know you think I'm the playground bully here. You want me and others to think everything under the sun is a conspiracy like you do, and when we don't then we're bullies.

Mike Clark - where were we... That's actually beautifully said, Mike. Not even Einstein would have been able to keep up with the garbage on this thread. Mike Clark - Kicking cans on the playground... Trust me, Mike, there are NO angels on this forum "playground." Absolutely none. Mike Walton - my last post here... Yeah, I know I said that here. So this is my last-last post here, but don't hold it against me if I lurk here again. It's just hard to let go when you see silliness here, just like on the H&L caper and the Ruby Didn't Do It caper.

There could be many reasons, some most obvious, but that is not my responsibility. This is so, so funny, Chris. And very lazy of you too. Because you're taking a piece of evidence from the case and twisting and contorting it to fit YOUR theory, and yet you refuse to show in that piece of evidence itself where the physical properties were changed? Really funny. I've now counted a half dozen "I thinks" or "maybes" or "IMOs" in Joseph's write-ups, pictures and drawings. I thought math majors use math as their way of concluding with 100% certainty of theories. For example, Einstein used math to confirm his theory of relativity? The SBT was the biggest thing hanging over the government when they were putting together their report. Anyone with a brain knows that. They knew someone on the 6th floor could not have performed the shooting as seen in the Zapruder film. They couldn't just wave a wand over all of the films - all of them - and make everything match up to fit the SBT. It was impossible to do this. It would have required an enormous amount of time and effort to even begin trying to do the physical act of doing this with no guaranteed outcome. I just tried taking two frames of the film, opening them in Photoshop, and tried to "splice" the halfs of them together like Joseph's ridiculous claim above when he mentions "perhaps" (very weak for a math major) that 156 and 157 were spliced together. It's impossible to do and I'm using new tech like PSD. They didn't even have that back in 1963. David Josephs likes to brag about this motto he came up with on this case - The Evidence IS the Conspiracy." I actually agree with that statement, even the Zapruder film. That film PROVES - unaltered - that the government had its work cut out for it when they knew that it was impossible to pull off the shot sequence that they were trying to say took place. The film proved conspiracy. But in THIS case, Josephs and Davidson do not think so. They think the film was also doctored. Neither of them have ever worked in the film and video business. I have, for 30 years now. One of the first mediums I've ever worked with is the very same kind of 8mm film that the Z film was shot on. This was the early 80's. I edited it with this little cut and tape contraption. Let me tell you - if Josephs and Davidson think that the government could have pulled off what they're claiming, then they don't know or understand what's involved. It's as simple as that. This is my last post on this. You just cannot talk reason with these people and people like them. All logic is thrown out the window with them. They remind me of my own brother-in-law. He used to sit around spewing nonsense while hacking on his Salems. One time, we went out in my car and I turned on the air conditioner. I flipped the RECIRC button and he said, "Oh, you shouldn't do that! It guzzles up a lot more gas when you throw that RECIRC switch." As if the switch turns on this magical extra motor to make it colder. I tried to explain that it doesn't, that it just recirculates the air, making it colder. I knew this because I researched it previously and was curious what exactly the switch did. He replied, "Naw! It guzzles up more gas." Then he took a hack on his Salem and just looked out the window.

Mark McNight clearly explained everything, a plausible, viable reason for this mess. David - lining up photos and making elaborate photo compositions is NOT going to help convince me nor others but if it does for you, fine. Position A is meaningless to me. How many ways do I have to explain that to you? You're trying to convince me of something that's unprovable. The same with Chris - it's all hokum. And by the way, Mark, Pat Speer and Jeremy ALL have said the same thing with regards to the inner workings on how this whole thing got started. I'm merely the supporter and vocal cheerleader of it. We all know the SBT is bullxxxx but they were desperate to make it work however they could. And as Mark, Speer and Jeremy explained, that's HOW they got it to work. That's all. The films were not - I repeat NOT - manipulated, altered, extra frames removed, etc. They had to take the evidence that was round and fit into a square result, which is what McNight meant by the lawyer being treasonous. They basically passed a lie on to the public.

In both the SS survey and the "altered" FBI survey, the point of the third shot/third hit didn't go away...UNTIL the WC "made" it disappear under the sleight-of-hand of having the original survey sealed, attesting that a "tracing" of the survey was good enough for their purposes, and then using a "cardboard representation" of the "tracing" of the "sealed survey" as evidence...as opposed to UNsealing the survey and using the actual evidence they had in hand! Mark, this is a good analogy. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it was much easier to massage the story like this compared to assuming that the film was shot in 48 FPS, 67% of the frames removed, and so on like Chris and Dave and others believe. So I agree and I'm sure others do as well that in order to tie up all of the shot scenarios, wounds, and what was seen in the Zapruder film, measurements had to be massaged in order for the SBT to be plausible, at least in the lawyers' minds. That was far easier to do than collect all of the films, remove frames, leave splices in other films, and so on. Now if only I can convince Chris, Dave, and others to just let this silly measurements and movie alteration fantasy die a quiet death, we can all go home happy.

CHRIS: Start a new topic and present the rebuttal. Uh, Chris, this is NOT the hilarious Swan Song - Math Rules (aka The 67% Solution) thread. It's the Tina Towner splice thread. The original debate involved why there's a splice in that film - as if a splice equals the bad guys cutting out four masked gun men who surrounded the car to fire upon it - all within 4 frames of film. So if you want to continue debating your numbers and measurements, shouldn't you really be over there and not here? *** DAVID: Your inability to fathom the reasons behind events in this assassination does not negate any of this work. It took me - a finance and math major - quite some time to understand what Chris is offering... That's good to hear. My degree is in drawing pictures and pasting them together so that does explain why you can make sense of it all better than me. It has always been my assumption that parts if not all of the film was shot at 48 fps, and even Horne touches on that possibility. That's the very sticky word in this whole case - assuming things. Regarding the film, there's no REASON to assume anything about it. Yes, the camera has the control to bump up the film to 48 FPS. But I don't think you, Chris, or anyone else can truly understand that an original film shot at 48 FPS and then frames removed from it will really change anything that can be easily masked over. Think about it. If one second of film was shot at 48 FPS and then someone removed 67% of those frames, that comes to about 32 frames removed leaving 16 frames. Watch the film anyone can see online, or even better download every single frame, put them on your computer and toggle back and forth and watch it. All movement is smooth. There are no jumps, skips, and other odd behavior. So we're expected to believe, working backwards, that if say, between frames 250 and 251 that 4 additional frames used to be there, and now they're not, what in those 4 frames were so terrible that they needed to be removed? And how do YOU or Chris know which frames were removed? For example, how do you know whether 4 frames were removed there and not, say, between 199 and 200? It boggles my mind how you, Chris, and anyone else can think that this could be done. And let's argument the merits of it. Yes I'm going to use your favorite word here - why? Why - or better what - was removed from those 32 frames? How can anyone expect that in a sequence of pictures tightly threaded together one after another that something sinister could be removed in time to disguise it? You can't. Chris can't. And my advice, too, is read what Jeff Carter says about it. Read the Zavada report. You, Chris, and others are really grasping for something that isn't there. Use it or not. Yet coming here to post incredulity while also slamming those who do understand is extremely counter-productive. You seem to think that because I and others are "slamming" you when we don't agree. There's no slamming here, but I'm sorry, I'm not going to just let people think they're all right and everyone else is wrong with something as silly and ridiculous as this is. The same is true for the silly Harvey and Lee caper, Ruby didn't shoot Oswald, and so on. But again, I've come to understand this about you. You wrote a great report on the MC caper. To me, that is a definitely plausible thing because there's an outcome to it. The outcome being it's all part and parcel with making the crazy kid patsy look guilty. But then I read you elsewhere and I ask - what happened here? The MC caper was not enough? Now you're suspicious about the microphone in the Ruby shot Oswald photo? You seem to back up the silly Harvey and Lee caper? And you think frames were removed in the Z film? It's just puzzling how someone can write an article on MC - with a very plausible and solid outcome - and then throw all reason out the window and start believing anything. And why? Because that's what you assume? Or because they could?

Feel free to join Walton and whoever else is not interested by not responding. I sure would appreciate it. If we weren't interested we wouldn't be here, Chris. But we are. Meanwhile, Pat Speer and Jeremy clearly made a worthwhile rebuttal to all of this. Why don't you take a look at it and debate it?

See this is exactly what I mean. No explanation. No answers. No defense of the theory or discussion of others rebuttals. No rebuttals to Jeremy and Speers. Now Josephs is taking the same tact and telling me to scoot off. David you can think whatever you want about my knowledge of this case. I think I have a decent knowledge of the case and I think where we and others and me diverge sharply is I dont buy into everything under the sun as being a conspiracy. I think that's where a lot of folks here get themselves into trouble. You yourself told me "See Michael I think they did because they can." I mean really...? Why would you think that? They already had their patsy 6 foot in the grave. All they had to do was massage the story here and there to make it all official in the WR. Why would you ever think they'd go through all of this extra work, film manipulation and so on....because they "could" when they didn't need to? It doesn't make sense.

Chris continues to go on with this but has never once replied to Jeremy B's and Pat S's rebuttals to all of this. And as I've said elsewhere people like Chris who latch on to misinterpreted testimony and won't let go are like the little dogs who grab onto a passerby's ankle. You simply can't reason with them. The only thing that you can get them to say is "thanks" when someone agrees with them and "go away" when someone doesn't. And let's say for argument's sake Chris is right. That the angles of the road in the reports need to be corrected. What then? What is the outcome? I've asked this numerous times and there's been no convincing reply from Chris nor anyone else. No convincing result that justifies all of this number crunching and angle calculating. And remember too that another researcher who supports all of this told me privately "I think they did it....because they could." So there's that too.

Pretty amazing scene of the copter shot of him arriving in the Kremlin to be sworn in. Not a cheering soul in sight outside. Then when he enters the great hall, all arms like strings are attached come up to clap as if on cue. Reminds me of the old Stalin films.

I agree about the silliness of this thread. First, there's such a thing as internal bleeding. I was reading an autopsy recently of someone who took a shot similar to LHO's and when the chest was opened up, the pleural cavities were filled with blood (they said something like 1,000 cc of blood). People don't always start gushing blood out. I'm not saying it can't happen but it doesn't just start gushing out. That's more Hollywood fiction: https://youtu.be/emeGfvVJaBY Watch the gushers above - I like this movie but silly gushing. Second, I don't think they used a boom to hold that mic up there. I think the cord was draped around a pipe up there and then just letting it hang. I remember doing that 20 years ago for a video shoot of group meetings similar to press conferences. Seeing and not seeing the mic in different photos is like Robin said, just a high and/or low angle.

That's fine, Mike. Mike for me works as well.

CLARK - Although there may be some good stuff on EF, for the most part, it's one vast echo chamber of people getting into the nitty-gritty (a bystander with a white...no...gray...dress...no it's a head) over and over and over again stuck in an infinite loop with no real outcome, as well as a lot of loony, crazy, and silly theories (the cloned Oswald and his mom caper; the Z film being filmed at 48 FPS and then 67% of the frames removed; Ruby didn't shoot Oswald; and many, many more). So I'm putting this here, not for you because we know where you stand, but for the true newbies out there just getting curious about the case, and to catch these newbies before they fall into the muck. For newbies, please read these articles and volumes as a starting point to become educated about the JFK assassination. Go to these links first and read every word you can. Then come back here and see how the things you will find here stand up: James Douglass https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/dp/1439193886/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494690272&sr=8-1&keywords=jfk+and+the+unspeakable How the media, at the early going, papered over what really happened: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/why-cbs-covered-up-the-jfk-assassination Critique of the doorstop: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/bugliosi-vincent-reclaiming-history-cranor Pat Speer site - I do not agree with everything he says, but Speer is a great researcher. Take the time to read about the ridiculous and fake 3D animation that the ABC television network tried to pass on to an unsuspecting public. Watch the videos there too: http://www.patspeer.com/ Gil Jesus site - it has not been updated but a lot of good plausible stuff here: https://www.giljesus.com/ Bill Simpich - State Secret: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Preface.html David Josephs - Oswald DID NOT go to Mexico City. Why is this important? Because the official story is he was down there meeting with a Russian assassin. He was NOT there. Josephs writes about it here: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-index Jeff Carter - for newbies, there's a 26 second film shot of the assassination. You may have seen it. Remember - it was NOT doctored nor altered in any way, no matter what you read here on this forum. Go here: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/alexandra-zapruder-26-seconds-a-personal-history-of-the-zapruder-film-part-1 and here - note - this is unfortunately not a complete report, but it will explain further why the film was NOT altered in any way, no matter what you read on this forum: http://www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm Bart Kamp et. al. - the Prayer Man theory. A very good one. We will unfortunately never know until the TV station that owns the rights to the news film releases a pristine copy to be analyzed to see if the man in the corner is Oswald or not. They refuse to release it: http://www.prayer-man.com/ Finally, there will be documents released this fall (2017) purporting to be those remaining of the assassination. Knowing how things have gone with this case over the past 55 years, I don't expect anything earth-shattering but you never know.

That's your problem - not mine. You just go right on believing then.

CLARK -- There's no such thing as a "saboteur" on a forum, only people who oppose or agree theories and ideas here. You seem to have fallen for this theory - that all of the films, every single one of them, have somehow, some way, been tampered with by this huge coordinated effort by the sinister conspirators. You also seem to have fallen for the theory here that based on measurements of the road, angles and so on, that some kind of sinister whatever-it-is has covered something-or-other up. As for sarcasm, I can't help myself. The sheer funniness of how people's minds work here have earned my sarcasm. And the really sad thing is - how can a researcher who I think did good research work elsewhere (no names here) also be involved in this funniness? It's amazing to me how the mind works, but on the other hand, this same researcher told me privately, "I believe they did [it]...because they can." That single line has helped me enormously in understanding how people on this forum think, or as yet another researcher here said, they "...lap up" all manner of conspiracy theories without any rational thought involved. All common sense, all arched eyebrows and "hmmm..." thinking is completely thrown out the window here. Look at the title of this thread - Splice in Towner Film. That's the beginning of this thread. I've already pointed out way back in the beginning - OK, so as the film is showing the car go by, there's a multi-frame jump in it. OK fine. Big deal. This was shot way up at the intersection. If you choose to believe that the conspirators were trying to frame Oswald for the murder, and if you choose to believe that the shooting had to take place to make it look as if the shots came from the fake 6th floor sniper's nest, why on Earth would they have their shooters start shooting that early? It would have completely destroyed the illusion of the 6th floor sniper's nest. It would have completely destroyed the plan of allowing frontal shooters hidden down in the knoll area the opportuntity to shoot from their positions. I hope you can figure that out but if you can't, I'll take this opportunity to tell you. If there were frontal shooters down there, there's no way they could have hit Kennedy when the car is at the intersection of Houston and Elm as depicted in the Towner film. Do you understand now? And yet, once again, some "lapping it up..." "researcher" here says, "Oh, look. Look how the film breaks as the car is going by. OMG - that's where the shooting starts but the evil, sinister plotters got a hold of the film - and all of the others - and just started synching it all up and cut 5 frames from the Towner film because...well...hmm..oh, because a shiny reflection is off the car which is the first shot and..." Do you not see the craziness of this? Think about it. Think about a bevy of film cutters going through all photos and films, cutting out 5 frames in Towner, splices in Zapruder, switched frames in Nix...and on and on. And what is the end result? That's the key here. Davidson's theory is just all angles, math, numbers, and switched frames and now he's saying that a shot whizzed by Kennedy's hair, fluffing it as goes on to hit JBC. But what is all of this jumble of stuff add up to? It adds up to my own version of math - zero. Null. And to take this a step further, how can anyone put any faith in any of YOUR posts on here when you can't even identify Jack Ruby when five different photos are lined up in a row? Your reply to that is you're terrible with photo identification. Fine. Then don't bother "sabotaging" a thread - as silly as that thread was - by saying it wasn't Ruby in the photos but, "Oh, well...I'm terrible with photo ID-ing." Meanwhile, the looniness just keeps going on and on here.

Yup, looks like Chris, Dave et. al. have solved the crime. All angles of the road, shooters, the car, and so on have been confirmed. All splices and removed frames have been confirmed as well. So are you guys ready with your final report? Are you guys ready to reveal it all to a mainstream media outlet like the NY Times or Washington Post? Or do you anticipate finding even more frame removals, splices, and angles first?

David very well said. You explained it very well about the different TYPES of CTers. The "lapping it up" comment is spot on.

I'm only quoting what you called this thread, Kathy - "It wasn't Ruby." How is anyone suppose to interpret that? Why does it always seem that "researchers" here call a thread something misleading, then back track on it. I'm not most researchers, Kathy. The Oswald and his Mom clone story is nothing but a silly fairy tale concocted by a guy and his minions to sell a slick bill of goods - at $60 a pop - to an unsuspecting public.

This thread should have never gone on this far. As DVP said, it's embarrassing for even modest researchers to even think to post here to support "it wasn't Ruby." As for the mic appearing and disappearing from different angles in different photos (as Unger points out) why would that even be considered strange? Yet again, as one researcher said elsewhere "something sinister could be done...because they can."

I generally get the feeling that you just read threads that you don't really care about and and just start raising a stink out of ignorance. Uh, aren't you the one that said way back on EF that you really don't "care" one way or the other what the outcome of all of this is, that you're kinda/sorta just farting around here? I happen to "care" enough about this case that'd I like for it to have some conclusion some day. Like for example, if PM is ever proven to be Oswald. Or if this year's document release releases enough to show even more that it couldn't have happened the WC said it did. But I also "care" enough when common sense is just thrown to the wayside here. I mean, two extra wires and down in a manhole cover to make a command center? With Smathers commanding and the extra guy holding the ladder? As Jimmy Nichol said - "It's getting better....it's getting better all the time." LOL

Like I've said ad nauseum on this forum, not everything is a conspiracy in this case. Being overly curious does NOT mean you're going to find something in someone's testimony. And things have to be logical in order for it to have happened. Logic on this forum is one of the main things on here that seems to be lacking. To understand what I mean, just go through the forum to some of its greatest hits - the Harvey and Lee caper; the Z film having painted in blobs and 67% of its frames removed. And now we're expected to believe, against all logic, that they had some super secret command center set up right in the basement of Ruby's nightclub, teams rushing in and out with papers in hand, reporting on every move, every counter move, and so on. And we're also expected to believe that this command center, years later, is taken over by a telecom company because, why tear down this super secret communication center? Let's use it, yeah! I mean, really? As one other poster said elsewhere, it has to sound logical and plausible. But as another poster said elsewhere on this forum, "I think it happened [this way] because they could do it." If you choose to believe that Oswald - as he himself said - was the patsy to take the fall, I think perhaps the most difficult thing to make happen was getting him into the building by getting him hired there one month before the murder. In my mind, that might have been tricky. But they made it work. But all of this other stuff like this super secret command center is truly and outrageously comedic. And once again, and as happens here many, many times, someone finds a little hole here or there in the testimony and then the entire thing is transposed onto another crazy theory and - PRESTO! - you have a super secret command center theory.

Telecommunications were necessarily a part of the Dallas coup de ta. >> Really? How do you know that? Sure sounds like a big supposition to me. Jack Ruby's Carousell Lounge occupied the lot that is now the HQ of the major carrier of that region. >> Uh, so what? I would think a "major carrier" in today's telecom industry would clear out the cobwebs with fiber optics from an old building instead of tapping into what's already there. i am looking to research the history of that "lot", here, in this thread. Larry Crafard, a Carousel employee, according to his WC testimony, spent more than 4 hours talking to a girl who had called the Carousel Lounge, on the night of November 22, inquiring about a job. According to his testimony, she was leaving Dallas, on a bus, first thing in the morning, for (as they say), parts unknown. Why would she be calling about a job at 11PM on 11-22-63? >> Strippers and nightclub types are night creatures and work all hours of the day. So she's calling about a job, yet is leaving the next day. That's a muddled message here. And even if she was looking for a job and/or leaving, how is this related to the assassination? Is the current telecom building a central telco interchange? Was the Carousel Lounge, back in '63, a hub; a jumble of telco lines? >> Again, who cares? So now you're thinking that there was this grand scheme with operators at the ready deep in the bowels of the club, ready to receive Morse code that "Yes, he's dead. His head was blown off." And then these sinister and evil operators would make a direct call to...whom? Even George Sawtell, on another thread, said he's got to take things into consideration and "make sure it sounds logical." Props to him. Does this grand telecom dream here sound logical? Plausible? Hardly.

No, the Marine in the photo is not the supposed LHO impostor photographed in MC. It looks nothing like him. Moving on....

LOL I guess I should have thrown in "overly-sensitive" and "defensive", as well. No comma needed there after defensive, Tommy. So maybe you're taking after Oswald now - speaking multiple languages but having a struggle writing? LOL And keep on a-bumping too, Tommy. We know you want to stay relevant here.