Michael Walton

Grrreeat post Tracy. One more nail in the HL farce coffin as told by Jestering, er I mean John A and his followers.

Mike C, I just did post a rebuttal. Jim (see I'm playing nice now) continues to use missing records and so forth as his "evidence" but his so-called evidence is a neither here nor there kind of evidence. In other words, it's a huge leap of faith to say "One record says he was here while another says he was there so therefore, there was a clone." The most it proves is there was some pretty shoddy record keeping in the military and in the school system. That's all. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23677-a-couple-of-real-gems-from-the-harvey-and-lee-website/&do=findComment&comment=348891 Then when you get into the photo evidence - a boy skinny, a boy bulked up, a wide face, a thin face, a mom smiling, a mom sad, never smiling, with a unibrow, that's just sheer speculation as well. No proof. The only way I'd ever believe this crazy story is if all four twins were photographed in the same room with their handler standing in the middle. But we're never going to see that. As far as what Graves said ("So what if Armstrong, Hargrove, Josephs, et al., confused newbies, obfuscated the real facts of the case, and contributed to flaky "Deep State" thinking in the research community?")... I agree. There was NOT conspiracy everywhere in this case. Many people think so but there was no need to have it everywhere. As far as doubles vs doubles, yes, I do believe there were people going around claiming to be Oswald, but ONLY in the months preceding 11/22. Stirring things up to make memorable moments (the wild car dealer driving; the shooting gallery incident). But NOT 10 whole years back with some super secret cloning incident. Then Jeremy points out the fraud John and Jim leaves out with the Evans statement, then he latches on to another statement. And it just keeps going round and round and round again...

Mike C, This is a great post because when you look at the day that way, a lot of things become very clear. Such as: 1. If LHO was alone and hell-bent on making a name for himself, why didn't he just shoot Kennedy as the car came toward him up on the 6th floor? Or even better, why not just be down on the ground with a pistol, run up to him and blow his brains out in a showy way? Instead, the planners had it set up in that short and sweet 6-second area down there. Right where the umbrella guy and the tall black guy starts waving. (PS - not saying they were involved but using them as the benchmarks for where it starts). 2. Your thinking here completely washes away the "shots were started way up earlier on Elm" theory. The reason is simple - would they really have gone through all of this effort to throw down bullet shells, hide a throw down gun, stack boxes, but actually FORGET that a large tree was blocking the view from the staged 6th floor sniper's nest? And start shooting when the car was obscured up there? 3. This completely demolishes the ridiculous "Oswald did it because he hated Ed Walker" theory. No organization that low down in the pecking order would have been able to pull this off with this much detail and planning. I say this for one reason - like every president before or since, Kennedy was loved and loathed by the public in equal measures but he was *loathed* by members of his own government. If you're a student of those times, LBJ, Hoover, Dulles and others had no scruples and their own personal agendas. So he was basically swimming upstream in his own government (PS - not saying those names were involved but just making a point of what was going on then). 4. It proves the BYP were fake. And how am I taking that much of a leap of faith related to your post? Simple. Someone needed to take the fall for a detailed coup like this. From all indications, Oswald would make a perfect one. He was being shuttled around - almost as if he had a hand pressed firmly onto his back - most probably unwittingly to get him into the building a month before 11/22. 5. It proves that he was also a patsy. From all indications, I'm going to take his word for it "I'm here because I was in Russia...I'm a patsy." 6. This completely demolishes the ridiculous Harvey and Lee nonsense. That whole story is based on the idea that because military and school records were not 100% accurate, well, therefore, there just HAD to be an Oswald double. And the double was an orphan from Hungary with no family. And the double is linked up with a woman who looks almost exactly like the real Oswald's mother. But she has a unibrow. It's good to give the planners credit but not THAT much credit. 7. The "flurry of shells." Once Connally was wounded and yanked down out of the way, it was a free for all as heard from Kellerman (or Greer) - the "flurry of shells." Also Connally yelling out "THEY'RE going to kill us all." Pure speculation here but I wonder if JBC knew it was coming but did NOT know he was going to be shot. As in [thinking] "OMG here it comes....Ughh! My God, THEY'RE going to kill us all!" 8. The total befuddlement of the witnesses around the shooting that day. Very quick - in and out. No one was standing around expecting this so therefore, it's why there are some really WTF witness statements from that day. Nice post.

Oh OK I got it. No harm, no fowl/foul. Thanks.

I'm assuming you're joking Ron. He did that four whole years before they got rid of him in 1960. I'd hardly think they would have waited that long.

I think one of the biggest and craziest things regarding this whole silly Harvey and Lee fairy tale - with Jocular Jim and his don't know any better followers (like Laughing Larsen) keeping it moving along - is this: It's so very easy to spin a "neither here nor there" yarn like this based on files that are not 100% accurate, and school records that aren't completely accurate. As Parnell said when I mentioned how do we know that things going on with the one-and-only Oswald's medical records being recorded in a master file, we just don't know how or when these things were handled. Oswald was one of thousands of soldiers being moved around from ship to shore and back again. All of these people, including those keeping the records, were just doing their jobs. That's all. The same with the school records. And yet the entire file scenario has been spinned into this ridiculous story. And why? Jocular Jim has never told us why. Why would the bad guys being doing this 10 whole years before 1963? Why would they take a kid and his Mom and if by magic, find a kid that looks like him from 10,000 miles away, bring him here, and then the found kid, whose entire family was wiped out over in Hungary, is matched up with a woman who also just so happens to look like the U.S. kid's Mom? Jocular Jim keeps backing up his arguments with more and more discrepancies in the files. He's basically saying "Oswald 1 was here according to one record, but over here, a record says he was there. So therefore, there just had to be an Oswald 2." When I asked earlier above about the record-keeping and how do we know that they were just keeping medical records in a master file, Parnell said it could be that way, but we just don't know. But when you flip this on its head and ask the exact same thing to Jocular Jim - how do we KNOW that if one record says he was there and another says he was here - how do we KNOW there just had to be two clones? If Jocular Jim was really honest about it, he would say "True. We don't really know." But he won't because if he does then the whole house of cards charade of a story will just collapse. Didn't Jocular Jim say this a while back? Something to the effect of "It's a great story but if it's proven wrong....who cares?" or something similar?

I just can't buy into this story. From 63 until 75 my deaf housewife mom and dock worker dad bought and sold 5 houses. My dad never made big bucks and the only work my mom could get was cleaning a real estate office at night. Neither came into any big bucks to make this happen. They were just resourceful. This is not nearly as many as Marge Oswald but we're expected to believe that all of this house buying and moving around has sinister reasons? We're expected to believe that while in the military Oswald had a clone there? On another clone thread I posted a GIF that shows LHO transforming from 59 to 63. It's him and Hilarious Hargrove and Laughing Larsen fumbled and STILL couldn't believe their eyes that it was the same person. And yet the clone story keeps rolling along doing nothing but adding more confusion to the "new students of JFK" that they claim they're trying to educate.

Good point Jeff. But can you comment on my GIFs? Just wanted to get your thoughts.

Tom Before bumping a thread please wait for Hilarious Hargrove or Laughing Larsen to reply to my question which I think has merit. Otherwise if you post nothing of importance and bump it everyone goes right back to the echo chamber. Thanks Mike PS I'm not being snide PPS I'm not being arrogant PPPS I just want some anawers

You might want to check out I think on Kennedys and King there's a story on there where they recreated and used a nighttime laser beam from the knoll area and it appears that the throat shot was likely. I know what you mean about it possibly being impossible. But the shot had to have come from somewhere and there's no evidence of a shot hitting him in the lower part of his rear skull and the bone or fragment breaking off and coming out of the throat. To me that just seems way too implausible. Look at the back autopsy photo and his back neck and lower skull area are clean. I know we have our own thoughts on this case. For me I have to go with something that seems plausible. Watching the Z film seems to do it for me as well as the medical doctor (Perry) who was right on top of him at the hospital. As for Gray, you may want to read this. I don't agree with everything Speer writes but he's written some outstanding, well-thought-out pieces about the case where as Gray may not even be Gray but someone else entirely. Speer's writing on exposing Dale "Fred and Barney" Myers's fake JFK animation is one of my favorite pieces. Check it out if you have not done so already.

Right. Glad this thread helped you and you probably saw months ago I totally disagree with it. Still do. He takes a shot in the throat, then the back shot lurches him forward. That's what I see anyway. And Perry, who touch his body trying to save him, said the exact same thing. Here's a video I made about it: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc I have to go by what I see and what Perry said. He was a medical doctor who'd been around and seen many gunshot wounds. Plus the back wound terminated so they couldn't have lined up. Thus, that's my conclusion. Ashton was so ####ed at my rebuttal he threatened, like the XXXX he is, to sue the EF so they told me to leave him alone - ha.

Regarding the medical papers - how do we know that Oswald's folder didn't just move with him as he moved? Or how do we know that they didn't radioed things in to the medical office, where things were recorded in a master file? For example, if he's on the ship and the file's there, and he goes and sees someone about his genital problems, they write it down (or type it). Then when he leaves the ship, the file travels with him; he goes again and more data is added. And so on... It seems like a really big leap of faith that Tracy documents his activities from ship to shore and ship again and then someone else, looking at his medical records and noticing that he's receiving medical care, makes the assumption that because he's receiving that care can't possibly be where Tracy documents his whereabouts. And then to top if off - THAT is the proof that there were clones running around...in the military of all places?

This is a well-thought-out article by Josephs. I, too, have always believed the photos were faked and actually over done...hilariously. It's almost as if it wasn't enough to have him holding the rifle; he also had to have him with the pistol and the Communist papers too. There is one thing I think that's interesting that I came across. In 1967 a guy (Cappel I think his name is) recreated the BYP and he actually did a pretty good job. I've combined the two here. Please be patient as it may take a moment for these animated GIFs to load. The first one I lined up the left post: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxUmhReFRHaU9UbEk The next one I lined up the shadow under their noses: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxOE9RQy1CTHUxZEk Surprisingly, the nose shadow may be debunked here as the '67 photo's shadow does look like it can fall right under the nose while the other shadows do not. One other one and I've always thought Lee's head seemed a little too large on his body so I a slightly shrunk it here. What do you think? https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxX3NxbUpWdGxHQ1U

Agreed. Michael C. As a matter of fact, there is some outrageously bad witness testimony throughout this case. I chalk it up to the event happening so quickly and when no one was expecting it, that these people were just not aware enough of what was going on around them.

ANOTHER ONE OF LARSEN'S LAUGHERS: ----------------------- But Tracy, the two men don't look alike. Side-by-side they look like two different men. I agree that if you compare eyes alone, they look similar. (One person commented that the eyebrows are the same, and another said they look different, so I don't know about that. I forgot to compare eyebrows when I looked at Mike Walton's transposition of the two.) I agree that the mouths look the same. But overall they look different. I think the only time the two might be confused is when you've seen one, and then see the other at a later date or time. In other words, they sort of look the same. BTW, I found the following from looking at Mike's transposition: Eye, nose, and mouth spacing is very close. The ears on one (Lee, I think) are significantly higher. The chins are different. Lee has a pointed chin, and Harvey has a slight cleft chin that makes it more square at its tip. Though that might disappear if he gained weight. ------------------------ Yeah, he's a man of science alright. Just read his scientific analysis above. He can't even keep track of which fictional character Hargrove is rambling on about here. And just like he said he saw one of the old guys down on the steps as JFK's head got blown off - one of them was holding a black pistol...or camera. And then he qualified it as a joke (heh, heh - just joking here). And then another Larsen Laugher is he said a guy standing out in the outfield of a MLB park has to throw the ball to home and actually aim it the same height as 15-story building. You read that right. But when another member said he threw the ball to home on one hop, Laughing Larsen replies befuddled, "I don't know what that means." Here's the graphic I made months ago to prove him wrong. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxTXo1QXVBRUhfTUU Can anyone tell me that by throwing a ball from the outfield to home you'd have to aim it that high? So Jim Hargrove, keep entertaining a man of science (and doesn't know any better) with your fairy tale. The Laughing Larsen.

I don't think this is fun at all, Jim. To be honest, I think it's shameful that you continue to push this ridiculous fantasy onto people who don't know any better. Furthermore you're just as bad as LNers who continue to push LHO as the sole assassin and have the big bucks in the media to keep it rolling along. Your fantasy story only takes folks away from the real truth of the case so in a way you actually aid the LNers story line.

Could you have selected the left photo because there's so much detail missing, Jim? And therefore, there's "similarities" but you can now say they didn't look all that much a like? Here's an animated GIF. Give it a moment because it's quite a large file and may take a moment to load. But watch the transformation. It sure looks like the same person to me - the younger one filled out in the face somewhat, probably due to working out in the military; and the later one, 4 years later. Thinner (no longer working out), no more military style hair cut. They both even have that slight rounded shape of hair on the sides of their head even if the younger one has that buzz cut with a lot of his side hair missing. The ears are the same; the mouth is the same. It's the same person Jim, not clones separated thousands of miles apart by some stroke of luck brought together by the super secret agency. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxdS03TDM3dFJ1aGM

Paul - I still simply cannot believe how you can somehow in your mind reconcile the notion that Oswald, while publicly stirring things up as a Communist in NO, how the plotters made a fake trip for him down in MC with the idea that he was cavorting with a Russian assassin, was a nobody. Yet you still believe, mind-bogglingly, that he was actually an unwitting right-winger who shot at Ed Walker. And then to top if off, Oswald himself said - when he knew the jig was up - stated for all to hear and be recorded - that the only reason he was there was because he lived in Russia and he was a patsy. It just doesn't make sense, Paul.

Thanks I appreciate it Michael C.

Michael Clark - can you please post the link to that blog so I can see it? Thanks.

I suspect HARVEY Oswald was a WW II... Jim, even with this clone story having an extremely tenuous grip on realism, it seems like you've now ventured into supposition? You suspect this? And you can't prove this or that? If that's true, how can you expect anyone to believe this story? You also mention the Hungarian being an orphan. How is it possible, if the orphan's family to be dead, that the planners would some how, some way find almost an exact look a like of Marge Oswald to have almost the exact looks as the smiley happy version of Marge? In other words, in a million-to-one chance they found TWO look a like Lees separated thousands of miles apart, and yet we're also expected to believe that in another million-to-one chance they found two Marge look a likes too? Do you not see how absurd that is? Or is the pitching for dollars scheme so great that any chance for the truth is simply brushed away?

PT - whining like a big baby and making lots of noise... Wow, that's a pretty unbelievable statement for you to make, Paul. How can LHO be unimportant when Hoover himself was already telling Johnson the intrigue that the man on the recording and in the photos was not him...while LHO was sitting in jail? Even Hoover, being as astute as he was, had to know something was going on when that happened and Oswald not just some "nobody" as you claim him to be. I actually did a double-take when I read your comment here and then it hit me - yep, Paul is so wrapped up in his Ed Walker and Oswald theory - the one he endlessly pushes for dollars on an unsuspecting public - that he'd never want to look at anything else.

To summarize Davidson's theory, he believes Z had his camera set to record at 48 FPS. Then, for some unexplained, unknown reason, 67% of the frames were removed and supposedly in those 67% of frames the evidence of conspiracy was removed. What he has failed to reveal to this day is *what* was removed during this 67% solution that would have been so revealing to have gone through this whole convoluted process? Even if Z had recorded at 200 FPS the film shows that the SBT could not have happened like the WR says. So we're expected to believe that this 67% solution happened yet they still left in the part the part that reveals the SBT being impossible? The most he posts is pictures and clips and animated gifs with incomplete phrases and expects readers of this board to decipher what he's trying very hard to say.

David Healey, I don't want to get into an argument with you here since it seems like you're pretty set that fakery was added to the film. But it's obvious you didn't even bother to read the links I posted. FYI - there was *no such thing* as green screening in 1963. Instead, they used the SV process which was probably the best way they knew how back then to put moving people in front of a projected or matte background. You probably won't bother to go to this link as well but be my guest and see if you can catch the faked element I added into this copy of the Z film. It was done in a hurry but even by today's standards, with digital equipment, it'd be hard to pass muster with faked stuff added in 50 years ago. FYI - only one other person bothered to look at it and caught the faked element so hurray for that person for being eagle eyed. Z Film with Fake Element

See Tom, this is what I mean. It's just very very hard to take you seriously on this board. You claim to want to get to the bottom of the truth of the case and then you go to a dormant thread that hadn't been posted on since 2015 and type HUNGARIANS? You post a rude PM to me (e.g., "Hey! Embarrassed to post again, eh?!") then in that ex-car salesman way of yours (you did say you're an ex-car salesman, right?) worm and weasel your way around on replies. You're either extremely bored or with too much time on your hands or both. As another member on here said why are you bumping long-closed threads if they don't anything to the dialogue of the case? Thank you, Michael Walton