Michael Walton

It is an intriguing question -- did Frazier and Randle invent the fib about the curtain rods, or did Lee Harvey Oswald? Paul, as you tend to do, you stay on topic (your topic and yours alone) and completely ignore other researchers' work. Pat Speer, Gil, and Jim above, post many great points about Frazier, the bag, Oswald bringing it in, and so forth. We're talking three researchers who actually worked on these issues extensively and back it up with graphics and diagrams and yet, we might as well just throw it out the window. Instead of ignoring this, you might want to parallel your version of the story with theirs because right now, if your theory is tied back to the "Oswald and Edwin Walker" deal, it won't stand up.

[wrong thread]

Thanks Robin. Some people aren't happy unless they see "evidence" of a conspiracy EVERYWHERE. Even though it doesn't help us solve the crime of The Crime of the 21st Century. LOL ----------------------- Tom - stop stealing my lines on this forum and come up with your own I'll have you know I'm currently patenting the line conspiracy is everywhere. RU and TG - John simply does not want to learn anything new. Or he's one of the all-time great t###s on this forum. Probably a little bit of both.

As I mentioned earlier, this fairy tale is just too far-fetched to have happened the way the wizards are claiming it happened. I simply can't imagine that LHO was the only kid out there who had a mother who moved around as much as his Mom did and the school's records not getting it 100% accurate in their filling everything out. There had to be a Jim Bob or Smitty out there too who was in truant school, got shuttled around by his Mom, and then the school records lady, cigarette in hand and taking a deep sigh, didn't complete the records 100% precisely and accurately. And yet, it's amazing how the wizards here have taken these discrepancies in the records and have bobbed and weaved them into this Harvey and his clone (and Mom clone too!) fiction.

Thank god you are a voice of reason and good sense here, Robin.

Oh, no...not the 67% Solution again. The biggest question regarding that is - if the film was shot at a higher film rate and then frames were removed, which frames were removed and, most importantly, WHY were they removed? The film debunks the SBT. The timing of the shots and the reaction to injuries shows that one bullet could NOT have created all of the injuries the WR says. So you mean to say that the original film of 48 FPS, which NO ONE here and elsewhere, has EVER seen, had "x" number of frames removed (hence my nickname for the other thread being the 67% Solution), and we don't know WHY they were removed, and yet they left in the frames that shows conspiracy?! Sorry to say but the 67% Solutions wizards can be lumped right in with the wizards of the Oswald and his Mom clone fairy tale.

Bill, the Z film now makes me and you a "witness" of sorts to the shooting. I would put more weight into my own analysis of what I see compared to those women. The car was going past them so they didn't have the advantage of being back from the action. Plus, they were not standing around expecting any of this to happen, so there's that as well. Further, can you imagine someone taking a throat shot and just doing...nothing? That's what I see - nothing is happening where Woodward and the others are looking on and before he goes behind the sign. And he continues to do nothing until just right after he reappears from behind the sign. There's no stress, no nothing from anyone until his hands start to fly up to his face.

Jim I don't know if you noticed but at the top of this thread I posted two comments that were left on the article site and one mentions the SFM being the source of the harassment.

My reasonable explanation is reason. As in plausibility and could it really happen.

As we keep pointing out, the cumulative school records indicate that Oswald was attending both school simultaneously in the Fall semester of 1953/54. Oh Sandy come on. So what?! Have a little flexibility here. So records show a kid going to two different schools. Why don't you step back and look at the larger - much larger picture - here. Do you really sincerely think that a kid from Hungary and a kid from Texas/NY/LA was being steered around by some unknown mysterious secret agency...and by a million to one shot, these two different kids born thousands of miles away had mothers - and different fathers - and the mothers had almost identical features and yet one looks "dumpy" and never smiles and has a unibrow and the other is smiling and happy? And all during both of these kids' growing up years they're squirreled away to some secret facility, and one is taught Russian, joins the Marines, goes to Russia, comes back, and then is steered to Dallas to take the fall for JFK's murder? And the other just...disappears? And all of this steering around went on for 10 long years! Just steering them around. And the only "evidence" Hargrove and Armstrong uses is some incorrect school records? I mean do you not see - looking at it from a real-world "could it really have happened" way - how crazy and silly this whole story is? Now you can reply with yet more quotes and records comparisons but if you genuinely ask yourself this and continue to believe it, then I feel sorry for you for falling it for it, as well as for others who paid $60 bucks for the book.

This is a nice find, Robin. Here's mine taking all of the individual frames and then running it at that speed. The extra frames in lower left are from the encoding at a different speed. Unfortunately, there's a fake element in there that I used for another post: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxRDVUT3ROS2psbTg By the way, on your site that Willis photo of the black "spot" on the wall is very clear in your version. Amazingly, you can no longer see it in the Bronson photo from across the street. I read that it was a black couple who had been sitting there and eating lunch waiting for the limo to go by. But it just seems so weird how it's not "obvious" any more as the car gets closer.

Sorry Bill but I'm going to disagree with you again. It would have been impossible for ANY shots to have been fired from the supposed sniper's nest at that point because of the tree. There's no way that the planners would have risked an intricate plan to make this happen only to start firing early without a clear shot from up there. They had to know this; otherwise they would have risked the official story being off if they started firing too soon and later the cops going up there and finding out the tree would have been in the way. If they had gone as far as stuffing a rifle between boxes and throwing down shells, they'd have to have known to look out the window and say, "Yep, don't start firing until such and such a time." Watch, too, many of the other film clips of him before Dealey Plaza - he was fluffing his hair, sitting back, leaning forward...at one point he pointed backwards as he was carrying on a brief chat with JBC. The point being - he was moving around throughout the entire parade. What you're saying about his hand coming up to his face is nothing more than him giving a brief wave to the ladies over on the right side and then his hand just stopping as he's looking around. That's all. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that one of them said, "We yelled out and he looked over at us and waved." That's what you're seeing. And he did this numerous times previously - you can see a pretty decent full parade here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOA7QOCJtv0 Also I found this photo and synched it up with Z-225 and it's a near match, meaning this was all normal movement from him as seen previously during the parade. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxYXR5WWxkZ05QRkU There's no sudden and dramatic action from him until his hands snap up to his throat and face, and then he lunges forward from the back shot. Also, your reply seems to imply the back shot or one of Kennedy's hits also hits JBC. Please don't tell me you think or believe in the SBT? Like you said on another thread, we're all entitled to believe in what we want, but I'll be very surprised if a so-called photo expert - as folks tend to call you around here - would be this gullible. As for witnesses, this may sound like cherry picking but I simply cannot buy into all witnesses' statements. I've always told myself that this was an extremely quick action in that period starting at Z225 until the head shots. Totally out of the blue and unexpected. It's not like these ladies were standing around - and everyone for that matter - saying, "OK, wait! Let's all pay attention now. Here come the shots. Remember everything!" Memories, nerves, confusion, and so on are definitely going to factor into these statements. And one person's saying, "His hand came up to face as he was shot" could be another person's saying, "He waved and smiled to me." You're free to start posting testimony here to make your point but it's not going to change my mind about this. I've read enough statements of stuff elsewhere and I've thought "WTF - were these people really even there?" Quite honestly, I'm surprised at your reply here. Not because you disagree with me or our theories differ but because people call you a photo expert here but I'm disappointed at your analysis on this. I think one of the problems is you're relying too much on witness statements and not taking into account game-changers like what was he doing throughout the parade, the tree, trying to put yourself in the minds of the planners, and so on.

I agree Tracy. This whole Harvey and Lee story has the mad scientist vibe to it, like some brilliant secret agent type agency was sitting around concocting this "let's find a guy from Hungary and out of millions of people in the U.S. some how, some way find his almost exact look a like - and each boy's Mom having almost identical features to boot - and then just steer them around in their every day mundane lives, like millions of the rest of us live our lives." "And then at the right time, we'll keep steering them around until we (the secret agents from the X secret agency) decide to murder the current president and then we'll have one of them near the building where the president drives by and then the other one will just disappear but then the other's Mom will come out and say..." I mean, I could go on and on but, I mean...really? I mean Jesus, if the Kennedy assassination wasn't such a tragedy, this story is getting into farce and comedy here like Dr. Strangeglove. When I first read the Harvey and Lee story I found it "interesting" but made no real commitment to it. Then, over the years I'd just go back to it again and again but every time I revisited it, more and more hairs would just stand up on the back of my neck like, "This can't be. It's just too weird and would never hold up in the real world." But I guess some people's smell test is just too weak or non-existent and they keep falling for it like other crazy stuff in this case.

I really don't have much more to say about this. I know, the answer to that would be "Then why are you posting this reply?" So I'm just going to say it again. This story is just too impossible to believe. I'm sorry but it is. I think taking statements literally like Armstrong and Hargrove do (e.g., "the slender boy..." one comes to mind) and some how wrapping it and weaving it into a fairy tale of two Oswalds with near identical faces, but one being bigger than the other, and their respective Moms have nearly identical faces, but one being short and dumpy and never smiling while the other smiles and is happy - it just seems just way too far-fetched. I know they'll come back and ask about the records and the pictures and all the other nonsense, but I look at it as records don't need to be 100% accurate to be 100% accurate - I know that doesn't make sense but put another way, kids come, kids go, the boy was dragged from place to place for most of his life. There's going to be some discrepancies in the record keeping.

Brad, An interesting story about Groden. But I'm confused. Yes, it sounds like Groden may be a money-grubber. That's sad. We do have to give him credit for shining the light on the Zapruder film for all to see back in 1975. If you know your history, the Z film was hidden from the public from the day it was shot until then. It's my understanding that when Groden exposed it to a national audience, the outcry led to the Church Committee hearings on assassinations. Yes, I agree that I don't like money-grubbers about this case but we do have to thank Groden for doing this because it brought to light that the WR was nothing but a railroading POS document and nothing more and it clearly exposed the SBT as nothing but a POS fairy tale as well. But on the other side of the coin, I can't seem to understand how you can find fault with Groden, and yet with some of the members of this forum and their absolutely outrageous and ridiculous claims about this case and some bordering on the crazy and lunatic fringe - you're all "Alright! Keep it up, guys! Your work is ground-breaking, guys! Onward, lads." And you seem to make these statements regularly and consistently. Yet, when other members here offer critiques of them, they're trolls and worst. So it seems your statements on this board are very inconsistent - you criticize one of the early trailblazers of this case; you shower praise on the borderline lunatic fringe of this board, and call people who offer honest critique of those lunatics' posts "trolls." Where do *you* stand on this case? And please do not type a 1,000 word essay now on "I was in class when it happened and we were crying and I'll never forget it...." and on and on. Where do you stand?

I don't quite see the sequence of shots as Bill described it. I agree the throat shot hits when Bill says and then the head bobbing back and forth is I believe the force of the back shot slamming into him 1/2 second after the throat shot. I agree where JBC is hit - much later than JFK and obviously nullifying the SBT. Here's a video I made for another thread but it shows the head bobbing. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc

Two interesting comments from that story page on Groden: If you believe Groden is wrong about the assassination, then you believe the citizens of Dallas County, who were there, were wrong, because their observations conflict with the official government lie that one man performed the assassination by firing three shots in six seconds with a junked rifle. But you won't learn about the witnesses from watching local Dallas news or reading the DMN, because they have for decades assisted in the cover-up by pumping out stories that lie about the events of 11/22/63. *** Schutze, in the paragraph below, stops short of mentioning Sixth Floor Museum executive director, Nicola Longford. In the federal lawsuit, which was held in the Earle Cabell Courthouse almost three years ago, Kizzia presented multiple emails authored by Longford, that show how Longford orchestrated the attacks on Robert Groden. Longford coordinated with DPD Assistant Chief Vince Golbeck, DPD captains and lieutenants, as well as the City's District Parks Maintenance Supervisor, Steve Warden. In emails Longford sent after Groden's night in jail, she practically high-fived these City employees in celebration of a job well done of harassing Groden. In fact, Longford thought so highly of Warden's part in harassing Groden, that she hired him as the Operations Manager at the Sixth Floor following his retirement from the City. Talk about conflict of interest! Longford is dirty on several fronts.

Well said, Sandy. I've seen it all too many times on here than I care to admit. Very well said, indeed.

I theorize that... And yet you didn't even bother to click on the You Tube video I posted above explaining dropped frames? It clearly shows that, like the cut policeman, it's a video artifact and nothing more. Did you even bother to click on the other link showing that it was impossible to fire a shot from the construction site you mention as an "alternative" shooting site? Your stubbornness in not reading opposing views and perhaps trying to learn something from them is almost as bad as your trolling here, John. And yes, go ahead and run to the admins and report my horrible post here like you did the other time. As I mentioned, people who can't rightfully defend their theories either revert to name calling or running crying to the admins reporting "abuse."

"Yet, sir," he sniffed, "every man has access to good taste. Every man and woman, sir." Taste - and that too. Years ago when I was producing a new-employee orientation video, I picked intro music that would be "mellow" - not too loud, not too "down," a bit vanilla (it was, after all a way to introduce new employees to the company). I played it back back to my colleague and he sniffed, "Hmm, I don't know about that...try this." The piece he gave me was a raving, loud, almost metal-like rock and roll piece (of xxxx). I KNEW this wasn't going to work with the client, but I humored him - "Sure, Art, sure. Let's give it a whirl." Needless to say, the client loved the video but the second they heard Art's music, they gave me a WTF look, like "You put the video together but picked THAT music?!" Art was conveniently out of the office that day. I apologized profusely, played back the other piece for them, they smiled, I re-edited the video with the vanilla music, and the project was done.

All I'm saying is be a little more flexible. Listen to everyone a little harder. This is great Bill. Thanks for posting this and I agree with you 100%.

David - unfortunately, not everyone has access to editing software nor a music library. You can easily download free music clips (if you know where to look) and if you had the proper software to edit your audio, it wouldn't come blasting through.

The other thread had nothing to do with photographs or the day of the assassination, so why Brad decided to post in it about a photo on the day of the assassination is, well, unkown really. Brad did it because Brad tends to get things mixed up throughout this forum. He seems to be a nice guy but on almost every post I've read from him, he twists and turns and is all over the place. And he seems to forget that this is a forum, which basically means not everyone is going to agree with one's theories here. Instead, when someone posts something to debate a thread (like Butler previously did when he thought films of the SW corner of Dealey were altered) he called people who disagreed with it "trolls." Hence, you're a xxxxx too. It's human nature - when someone is not smart enough to defend an argument they revert to name calling. Chris Scally is right about the cut policeman. The split one is an anomaly that probably happened when the film was transferred. It could also simply be a frame of video dropping during the transfer process. Here's an example of frame drop in video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDaBgVPXIyw As for other shooters, yes, John, many people theorize there are shooters elsewhere than in Dealey Plaza proper. Dal-Tex is not literally the plaza so that can be an example of a shooter outside the plaza. The construction site you mention is pretty far down from the plaza. The best way to look at it is with this 3D image of the plaza. How could someone way down past the building be able to fire and hit the limo from that position? It's not possible. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxSG51OXF1eXZJdUk

Jeff Carter, I agree with you. I'm not buying into anything anyone says about Oswald simply because he was dead. The Bad Guys had to prop up the Oswald was the lone nut assassin story and what better way to fit everything together neatly was to make him look like crazy Commie with a mean streak. It's easy to create fiction about a dead man. By the way are you the author of the essay on the fake backyard photos? I'm reading that now and you did a great job.

Putting this here. According to those here who are taking the literal words of the WRC folks about wife beating, she must have had feelings for him: