Michael Walton

What I know comes from Don Thomas and Doug Horne. I believe they are better suited to discuss this subject with you than I am. This is funny, George. I don't know what Carer's background is but I can tell you I worked on 8mm film 35 years ago when I was in college. I made several short movies with that medium, one being stop motion. I had a camera, the film, and a small film editing cutter where I had to splice the film to make my edits, very, very different than the videos I make today using Adobe Premiere and After Effects. I can tell you, looking back on those experiences, it doesn't make me an expert at it but it gives me plenty of insight to tell you that what you are expecting the Bad Guys to have done, removing frames, painting in blobs, and pasting in objects like lamp posts - and for who knows what reason as many people who expect that that's what happened STILL to this day have still not told us WHY these alterations had to have been done - was impossible to have been done back in 1963. Have you watched the '63 film The Birds? Watch the crow chasing scene. I've never been all that impressed with Hitchcock's movies and I actually believe he was a pretty lazy director because he liked to sit in his chair and direct as much as possible indoors. And the crow chasing scene contains a lot of the "best" special effects of that era when you see the kids running down the street. That was the best they could do and you can tell it's all pretty fake. And yet, as I've said numerous times, we're expected to believe that major alterations were done on the Z film on the weekend of the assassination and the film we see today contains those alterations? And as Carter pointed out above and I said several times elsewhere on EF, one of the earliest times we can get a glimpse of what the government was actually seeing of the Z film - but the public still did not have that opportunity to do so - was the FBI "eyes only" film on what happened. In that version, in black and white, is the exact same film we see today. What does that mean? It means that if they had performed elaborate special effects in the Z film that completely covered up any semblance of conspiracy as seen in it, why didn't they then show it on TV for all to see? They didn't because the BW copy in that FBI film IS the one and same film that came out of Z's camera. What makes Doug Horne any more of an expert on this film than Carter, or myself, or Zavada, who DID handle the film, thoroughly expecting it? Because Horne interviewed two government officials who saw the film?

Thank David. Yeah, in Chrome it says you need to download the Flash player. That's what my browser is showing. It's too bad your version is not clear. I found an extremely clear version of it and made some freeze frames from it a while back and then downloaded it from YTV. But then I deleted the film and now I can't find it any more on YTV which is weird. You can see one of those clear freezes in here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc/view Just skip to the end and don't read any of the text since I know you won't agree with any of it

Your two-min clip on your page doesn't work for me. It says you need the Flash player so I'm guessing the source file is .FLV? Or is it .MP4? If it's .MP4 would you mind sending me the direct link to it so I can download it? Wow they sure filmed that color reenactment fast. It whizzes by and you'd think maybe they'd do it at normal speed like the real limo was going. Or do it fast and then slow.

David, I know we don't agree on this case, and I look at your hero Vince as a man who lucked out on the Manson case and then sold his soul to the (corporate) devil for cash and to mouth the corporate line. But I do agree with you on the complete zaniness and craziness of some of these so-called "theories." A frozen lamp post....really? I mean, Jesus. Anyway as I've always said, good job on your video collection. And by the way, one of the hardest to find clips is that color reenactment film shot I believe by the FBI. They used a Queen Mary limo and it's through a rifle scope. The Kennedy stand in has a chalk mark drawn on his back (not his neck as Gerry Ford wanted us to believe). Do you have that in your collection? Can you send the link? If not, do you have any idea why it's so hard to find?

Micah, To sum it up... Dale used to believe in conspiracy in the case. He switched sides. I've always believed that he sold his soul to the (corporate) devil for recognition, some cash, and a shiny trophy. I have three such awards myself. Not Emmys, mind you, but Tellys, that I was awarded 20 years ago. I did no such soul selling though. And those trophies made wonderful paper weights...before paper became obsolete Anyway, the Emmy was probably for some "technical achievement..." such, such. If you have not read Speer's blistering critique of Myers's cartoon, go here: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c%3Aanimania

Karl, You bumped a 7-year-old thread and yet the guy who posted to it before you back in 2010, Craig, is asking you to prove that the lamp post was pasted in. It's your theory after all. So here we are, 7 years later - have you taken Craig's lead and proven the lamp post was pasted into the film? And much more importantly - if it was pasted in, what would be the significance of doing so in relation to the assassination?

Let's put it this way, Thomas. You're really hard to gauge on this forum. For example, you don't buy into the loony Harvey and Lee. It appears we agree on that. Elsewhere, like this one, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at. Yes, I remember saying that. As time went on, perhaps your attempts at humor or light-heartedness seemed to be at the wrong time on some posts...at least they were for me. So that's what I said about the t -rolling. The PM you sent was also hard to gauge. When someone says "What's the matter? Don't want to..." I think a lot of people with basic reading comprehension skills would take that as someone trying to show someone else up. But anyway good luck with this thread. As I said previously, I find it hard to believe that DM would have exposed himself so obviously in a public setting while his dangle was out there stirring things up. We'll never really know until we have a clear photo of LHO and DM, arm in arm, with LHO holding Fair Play papers up in his hand.

Tom - Arrogant.... So now I'm arrogant even though the truth can be very painful? I can't help it if Larsen has created some crazy (to me) posts on here. And what was I before when I was posting on the crazy (oops, there I go again) Harvey and Lee thread? Was I arrogant there, too? Or was I alright because you, too, agree that that story is...well, crazy? And what about Larsen over there who supports it? I guess he's what...skolarly? And by the way, talk about arrogant. Here's the personal message you sent to me yesterday. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxRmpTbGJHWnNaU28

David Healy - Hollywood production... Sure, Dave, sure. They had a bevy of "Hollywood" editors, matte artists, and painters at the ready. They even had Hitchcock, pulled away from The Birds, on stand by to direct it all. One thing they shot down was he wanted to incorporate the sodium vapor process to mask out the front head shots, but that would have required the car, Jackie, and the Connallys to be flown to Hollywood to film it all. So he just reverted to blobs. "Just paint in blobs," was his lone direction before leaving disgruntled. Do you not see how silly this sounds? http://filmmakeriq.com/lessons/hollywoods-history-of-faking-it-the-evolution-of-greenscreen-compositing/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_vapor_process David Josephs, FWIW, you did a nice job on the Mexico City caper. I try to look at this case as "how does the ends justify the means?" The MC caper, IMO, has a real "means" to it. In the continuing quest to make Lee look like a wildman Communist, they had him picking fights and handing out leaflets in NO; they had people lining up out the door "testifying" that he beat his wife; they had hilariously overdone pictures of him holding all of his weapons (and some leftwing newspapers to boot); and yes, one more "ends" to justify the means was making up the story that he was down in MC, supposedly cavorting with a Russian assassin and raising hell. But this is where many CT-ers get themselves in trouble just because of what one person said in the testimony, or because one other official said he didn't see something and suddenly, the whole thing is blown out of proportion. "Yep, there's the proof. This guy put some briefing boards together but he didn't see anything for several hours. Yep, there's the proof the film was being squirreled away to be altered." There are no "ends" here because it would have been impossible to remove what the film shows. The film we see today SHOWS plenty in it to destroy the SBT. So if they knew that, why in the world didn't they at least try to remove it? They didn't because it's far easier to keep the film from the public (which they did) and have their folks in the media lie about it (which they did). CT-ers should be grateful that Zapruder was there that day to film it. Can you imagine what this case would be like if he had not been? The Muchmore and Nix films and stills would be all we'd have and those - combined - show nothing compared to the Z film. But for some odd and strange and weird reason, many CT-ers want it all - they want a shooter in the storm drain right next to the car; they want blobs painted into the Z film; they want Jackie or Greer shooting JFK; they want the umbrella guy shooting a dart; they want the three guys standing down on the steps, one of them holding a black pistol in his hand; they want a 12 year old Lee and his 12 year old Hungarian clone, and their near identical mothers - one smiling and one sad with a unibrow - walking around way back in 1953 for some untold and unforseen caper to take place years later. To be honest, it's incredibly scary how the human mind works.

Yayy, nice job, Sandy. I stand corrected. Balding Guy and Neck Scratcher are two different people! Hurray! So now - what does it all mean? Balding guy is obviously not Morales. And Scratcher? You'd think maybe Oswald would shoot him a knowing glance as he walks by him. "Oh, there's Dave. I'll shoot him a knowing glance, like I'll shoot my executioner Ruby a knowing glance seconds before he murders me." Nope. Doesn't even bother. When you run a covert operation, you do NOT send the people who run it into the field, especially one where disruption and possible photography and film cameras are going to be around to record it. So hurray glad you caught my error. But I still stand by the crazy thing you mentioned in the other thread, how you said one of the three old gentlemen standing up on the steps as Kennedy gets his brains blown out was holding a black pistol. And I'll also stand by the other crazy thing you said on still another thread, when you said a guy standing out in the outfield of a MLB ballpark and throwing a ball to home plate has to "aim" the ball the equivalent of 150 feet in the air for it to reach there.

George, here is something even better for you: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ Go there and you can look at and download each and every frame of the film, including the ones you think are missing. Jeff, I've always believed that right after he throws up his hands due to the throat shot hit, he's hit almost immediately afterward in the back. For another thread I made this video but it describes this sequence. That head bob has always done it for me. At least that's my interpretation of it. Then a second later JBC gets hit, totally destroying the craziness of the SBT: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc/view

There's nothing more to say about this, Tom. The neck scratcher and the guy seen five seconds later (as seen in my collage) are the same guy. And it's not Morales. Meanwhile, a few posts earlier, Sandy Larsen points out the neck scratcher has a camera strap around his neck - just like he said on another thread he said he saw one of the old guys on the steps in Dealey holding a black pistol, so Sandy is nothing if not consistent - and not one comment was made by you in reply. The only way to clarify is if you could post a photo of exactly what you mean mean but it sounds like you don't know how to do that. So I'm not sure what else to say.

Can you post a freeze frame with an arrow? It'd help to see what you're seeing because things go by quickly in the clip.

I don't think so, Tom. Look here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-CxSG0zZkMwUVJZUk0/view?usp=sharing Gangly guy is holding that slim clothing box in both photos. Look, too, at the one on the left - he has glasses on. Sunglasses? Maybe. But look at the BW of Morales. There's no way anyone would convince me that gangly guy is Morales, who was short and stocky. And his head has a full wad of hair unlike Gangly, who has thin greased back hair. The smart ones like DM and GB worked behind the scenes. Remember how GB scolded LHO when he discovered that LHO was writing the Camp Street address on the cards he was handing out?

"Sneakily..." I don't think the neck scratcher is Morales. He's holding a package in his left hand. Look at the 4:00 mark and you can see the exact same guy at 3:55. The 4:00 version is balding at the top of his head and he looks gangly. Gangly 3:55 and 4:00 guy is one and the same and it can't be Morales. Morales looks much stockier and older photos show him with a thick wad of hair, unlike gangly guy. Plus, Banister, Morales, and so on were pros. Do you really think they'd be lurking around taking a chance on having themselves filmed or photographed while Ruskie Oswald was stirring up the XXXX and making hay to have himself identified as the "crazy Commie" in Dallas months later?

Paul - I know it gets heated here. We're all human and get frustrated when people don't agree with our stated beliefs. I'll admit I've posted stuff here that's borderline "not nice" and I know others have, too. But in the grand scheme of things, having that button is way too easy to just ignore others. Remember when they were arguing for the 13th amendment in Congress? Remember how nasty it got? That's how I look at forums. Can you imagine if there was some kind of IGNORE button down on the floor and you'd just be able to not listen to your opponent? Then what's the point of having a forum.

Regarding the IGNORE button, I think it's an incredibly lazy way to dodge others' posts on this forum. ANY forum should not have that capability; otherwise, the whole purpose of a forum is defeated. I think it should be removed by the admins.

I applaud Jeff Carter's article. It's concise, to the point, and sheds light on the Zapruder film's provenance as much as can be done, as well as proving the film is authentic. As I've mentioned numerous times on this board, there is just no way that the Zapruder film was forged or altered. Especially telling in his article is this statement: "An internal LIFE memo would note that “C.D. Jackson bought the copyright to Zapruder's film to keep it from being shown in motion.” As the story says and as I've mentioned elsewhere, you have to ask yourself why would that memo say that, to keep it from being shown? Or more tellingly, if there was nothing to hide in the film, why not show it? The answer is simple - because there was plenty to see to the contrary and, therefore, it's much, much easier to "keep it from being shown" than to try to forge or alter the film. The only part that I do not agree with is the shot sequence. Researchers and others continue to believe that the president was hit before he went behind the sign. I disagree with that. I do not believe he "froze" from a shot before disappearing behind the sign, despite what the experts and witnesses say. And especially because of what the witnesses say because as I mentioned elsewhere, this was an extremely fast sequence and no one was standing around being totally self-aware of what was taking place before them. I would encourage you to watch this video: Researchers, myself included, often get wrapped up with the six second firing sequence. But sit back and watch the above. Watch the president during the normal course of the parade. The man is waving, moving around, grabbing his hands, smiling, fluffing his hair and so on. Of interest are three freeze frames from the video seen above: Here Here and Here IMO, *that* is what we are seeing before he disappears behind the sign and no one can convince me otherwise because if others are to believe that he takes a violent, painful throat shot and just freezes, disappears behind the sign, reappears holding the exact same position as he was before disappearing, and then suddenly twitches his hands up to his face from some crazy delayed reaction to the pre-sign shot, well, I find that very hard to believe any human being would react from a shot to the throat that way. Instead, he looks to his left, the women over on the right side curb yell out, he suddenly looks, waves, and as seen in the above examples, he just holds his hand there. Then, right as you see him after the sign - boom - the first shot hits and he throws his hands up from the reaction...and so on.

Nope, looks like the same person to me with four years of aging: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxdS03TDM3dFJ1aGM No Hungarian-American clones here.

The more interesting question is if Kennedy had lived would they have still gotten rid of Khrushchev?

I also agree with Graves about Oswald being impersonated but not the fairy tale version. The Leon Oswald sightings, the guy shooting wildly at a shooting range, and the car dealership incident are all examples of someone going around making and doing outrageous claims to memorialize the events months later. And Hargrove's posted photo of an Oswald look a like watching a burlesque show in Ruby's nightclub is an example of being where he probably wasn't supposed to be seen. What are the odds of a look a like being in an establishment owned by the guy who ends up killing mastoid Oswald on 11/24? But as Graves said this impersonation was all part of the plan, NOT the silly fairy tale espoused by Armstrong. And sadly folks on EF will continue to fall for the craziness of it. What was Barnum's famous quote?

Yes, Jim, I can see doubles being useful in spycraft. But there was absolutely no point for Oswald to have a double. He was too low-level, just a guy who spoke Russian, was sent into Russia to sniff around (most probably to try to find a mole), got married, had a kid, was let back into the U.S. (with ease during the height of the Cold War), then like a chess piece, was handled by numerous people (Banister in NO to get him to look like a Communist; and the White Russians). Somewhere along the way, the assassination was planned (probably shortly after the CMC) and they had a perfect fall guy. They got him to pose for the BY photos (or they were faked); he was down in NO to look like a Communist; and so forth. The motorcade route was planned so Paine got him the job at the book building. And here we are today. I'll take his word for it. As he said "I'm only here because I lived in Russia" and "I'm a patsy." And he also said that the BY photos were faked and he can show how later. It's why he reacted violently in the theater. He was not stupid and knew as the day went on he was taking the fall for it; hence, his statements in the hallway. Thankfully, it was recorded for posterity. The mastoid surgery on his head and the exhumation proved once and for all there was only one Lee H. Oswald. He was malnourished as a kid, went into the military, bulked up a little (probably had a decent diet, more than he ever did while living with his one and only mother Marge), got out of the military, went on to Russia and back and so forth. People do change in bulk and appearance, Jim. The mugshot Oswald and the screaming at the theater Oswald are the same person but they actually look different (please for the love of god do not say even here it's two different ones!). It's lighting, angles, expressions, and so on. In the large scheme of things, the fairy tale story of two of them does not make any sense when related to the JFK murder.

When I played sports in HS and college, the game programs would often fudge my height. I'm basically around 6-2 but they sometimes would say 6-2 1/2 and sometimes 6-3 (especially in the football programs). This is not to say that this is what was going on with Oswald but the point is this...has anyone ever held up their fingers to see what the difference is between 5-9 and 5-11? I mean it's hardly a huge difference in height. But amazingly, this "5-9 here" and "5-11 there," along with incorrect reporting records from school, has been spun into a fairy tale of a Hungarian boy and an American boy being cloned up by the super secret agency...and for what end? Like Graves said, you'd think this spy agency would have at least brought all of these people together - at least once - to sit them down and to go over the details before turning them loose. "Remember, you're always 5-9 in height. And Marge and Marge II - remember always smile and be happy and pluck your unibrow." But I guess frumpy, dumpy, mean Marge forgot to do that, going on with a dour attitude, sloppy dress, greasy nicotine-stained fingernails, and letting her unibrow grow branches. And yet the argument continues, with Jim continuing to post papers from Oswald's life showing the 5-9 here and 5-11 there to bolster the fairy tale. I'm amazed, too, that Sandy Larsen, I guess with a straight face, continues to rub his chin and say, "Hmm, what about this...or that?" At least over on the Australian board, they express what's on their minds much more directly about the "deep meaning" of this fairy tale and about the folks who continue to fall for it.

Nothing happened until Z224 or so. But people want to continue to believe what they want. It makes no sense for the planners to have fired earlier than that. If we are to believe that the planners set up a false sniper's nest on the 6th floor, with boxes piled up, the throw down gun stashed between boxes, spent shells on the floor (one with a dented lip), and if we are to believe that the patsy (LHO) was up there doing the firing, and if we are to believe that only 3 shots were fired, then it makes absolutely no sense at all that these same planners would have allowed the shooting team to fire before then because it would have destroyed what they had planned in the first place as described above. But for some people on this forum, it's simply not enough to believe the above. They think that the Z film and other films were filmed at a higher film rate, that frames were removed, that the shooters fired much earlier than Z224, that blobs were painted into the films, and so on. They see conspiracy EVERYWHERE and hang their beliefs on a mere phrase in testimony, on lining up a half dozen photos in Photoshop and creating looped animated GIFs, all to convince themselves and others that how it was described above just could not have happened that way...that there has to be more. But in conclusion for this thread, the Z film is authentic, it shows conspiracy, which has been the biggest and most revealing piece of evidence for the case for conspiracy and it's why the film was buried until Groden revealed it in '75.

Kathy, I concur and this is what I've been trying to say all along with John Butler's posts. Believe me when I say that everyone has a right to post stuff here within reason, and perhaps far-fetched. But time and again, Butler, when you disagree with him, starts dragging you through the mud. If you keep at it with him, then he snitches and reports you and you get warned or removed. Even if you try to post sensible, reasonable stuff here to help him learn something, he completely ignores you.