Michael Walton

Mike Clark - how can that be? Read the earlier posts in this thread. Nobody cared about the Walker "shooting" until Oswald was dead. Then all it took was a little drum-beating by those in the know and POOF - you have the so-called Crazy Kid Oswald also shooting at Walker. And this is supposedly the same person who performed one of the most remarkable shooting feats in world history. He was so good at it that instead of making it easy on himself, where he could have shot the president at a wide open angle and coming toward him in the car, he instead waits for the car to go AWAY from him. He's says "Yep! This is how I'm going to do" and fires off two beautifully aimed shots, one piercing the president's upper back, the bullet zigging and then zagging to come out of his throat only to slam into Connally. Then he fires his second shot that had so much spin on it, it threw the president backward and to the left. But oops, supposedly this world-class marksman did fire off one round that was so bad, it was 50 feet ahead of his target, nicking the curb. But that's OK because we also know this expert shooter also fired at Walker. Of course badly missing that target as well. Not even Hollywood or a hack writer could come up with such an outlandish, silly plot.

Another lefthander, huh, Dave? I would have LOVED to have gone up to Indy, or you come down to KY, for a match-up: http://designerandpublisher.com/_forum-images/ky-post.jpg

How can that be explained? Because when you shoot film, each frame is like a photograph. Yes, Z did a decent job of following the action, but he was hand holding the camera after all. So yes, there's going to be some slight bobs and weaves from him. If one is clear, then at the instant the shutter opened, he was holding it steady enough for the shot to be clear. Then, the shutter closed, more real life took place, he may have bobbed slightly, the shutter opened and that frame is going to be slightly or more blurred. Another thing that's terribly misleading is the stabilized version of the Z film. The *unstabilized* version shows the real bobbing and weaving of Z. It's not hard to figure out. Jeez, if people would just get it out of their heads that the films were NOT - I repeat NOT - painted in nor excised nor altered with, this silliness about the photographic evidence would just go away. But it just won't go away by people who refuse to let it go. And this *why* the Z film was suppressed for so long. If this entire case had been honestly and vigorously pursued by the folks in DC, do you really think the film would have been buried from the public until 1975, and the dishonest media would have not tried to write a story (like LIFE) that Kennedy had actually turned 180 degrees around to try to force down the public's throat the fake premise of a single lone assassin? It's amazing to me how it keeps going on and on and on - Moorman's photo has no blur; the Z film was tampered with. Amazing how folks can't see the forest from the trees.

When you follow action with a camera - like she did - and snap, you're going to have less or no blur. Watch what she did in the Z film - from the time you see her until she's gone - she was following the limo. If she had just held the camera still and the car drove into the shot, it'd be more blurry.

The problem is that Ike Altgens was using a magic camera lens that day. So was Abe Zapruder. No magic cameras, people, nor gizmos were used that day, John. It all depends on the cameras, aperture, lenses, and so on. Don't get impatient with the video below - watch it and listen. I mean really, really listen and if you open your mind up a little (or a lot) you'll learn the difference between magic and why things happen the way they do in photography. It's really not that hard to figure out, but you have to really want to learn something in order to get it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUYuUs1aaCU

I used to watch the History channel when it was about, you know, history. But when they started making shows about aliens, pawn shop business owners, car restorers, and hillbillies I checked out.

Cliff - so, your evidence is Larry Hancock's SWHT (2010). I have discussed Larry's ideas with him on this Forum, and we disagree on some basics. According to me, Larry's CIA-did-it CT is still filled with guesswork. Says Paul Trejo, the guy who hilariously and ridiculously believes his "Walker did it and told Oswald to do it" backed with facts galore theory. Sigh...

Tom, I get it. I was making a point of PM and how witness statements can not always be reliable. But I get it when I said: But I am really thinking that GIF shows it's Bill L up there on the steps in front of LO/PM. Thanks.

Martin, good question and good insight on your post. I think it just gradually happened once the K memo came out. They all had their marching orders. Even late in the game, when Ford scribbled in "neck" in the almost final report, they knew what it needed to say. Did someone on high tell Ford to scribble it in? I doubt it. Ford was playing along like the rest of them and being a lawyer like he was - knowing the game of subterfuge they were all playing - he scribbled it in to just give it that final touche. And then of course it's so very easy to stand up in front of a bank of microphones, look earnest, and state, "My adding the word 'neck' in the final report was earnest and I did it with entirely pure intentions. Thank you." Then he meets a big-wig from France years later and reveals in private it was a conspiracy.

Yes - I like this Sandy. I really, truly want to know if that's LHO standing up there and I'd love it if someone could sneak into the TV station and squirrel away the raw film of that footage. I think it's interesting that they refuse to release it. My thoughts on that are - if the raw film confirms it's Elmer or some other factory worker and not LHO, then why hide it? So in my mind, the raw film may very well reveal it's LO up there in the shadows. But I am really thinking that GIF shows it's Bill L up there on the steps in front of LO/PM. I think, too, we have to remember. No one - not a single person - there that day was thinking, "OK wait...here he comes. Now look... who's that up there...don't forget to count the bangs and smell the smoke." This happened so very, very quickly and the reason why I mention this, and I think it's important to keep in mind, is the memory does play tricks on us. I'm not saying every single witness there got it wrong; but to actually ask these blue-collar folks to remember how many steps they took to the right, how many steps the cop took, where they were standing down to the inch when a woman came up crying, how far she was from them when she came up, and on and on and on...well, there's going to be fairly inaccurate answers. I kind of relate it to the phenomena of when we were kids and look back on the houses we lived in we thought they were so large. Then, 30 years later, we go back to them and think WTF - that "large" house shrunk a lot.

Yes, very well done, David. Here's my video (at the end of it) that's somewhat related to your pictures. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc

Sigh... That's just it, David VP. Those two holes do NOT match up. Watch the video I posted and look at the white patch on the stand-in's back. See it? Now imagine a bullet hitting there. That white patch is EXACTLY where the bullet hit, not in the upper "neck" or in the ridiculous government drawings moving it hither and to into the neck region to fit their own agenda. So now try to draw or imagine (can you? I wonder because you seem to be an extremely "literal" person) the bullet at that white patch coming out....in the throat? Really? At a downward angle? Bawawaaahahaha! There's even a seat back that's in front of the stand-in and the bullet would even hit there for goodness sake. The Connally stand-in is sitting even higher up than the JFK one. And this is all taken by the government, not Oliver Stone. Bullets traveling at 2000 feet per second do NOT magically change course. I've seen enough execution videos showing rifle shots and pistol shots going through gristle and bone and I've yet to see one hit a person at the entrance and MAGICALLY go outward 6 inches up or down or sideways. It's ridiculous for you to keep believing that and if you do, you need to get your eyes or head examined for clarity and plausibility. And while we're on the subject of heroes, it's one thing to drag a murdered president through the mud like the mainstream media has done through the years. Your hero Vince was no saint. He lived with a mistress for 20 years while lying to his wife all along. And he became a professional author, taking his marching orders to write agenda-driven works of (non)-fiction. Just like Plagar-Posner and all the other hacks.

My response as to why Shaneyfelt moved something around to misrepresent the Z film? It's very simple. Because he could. It's far easier to create subterfuge in the written record, in statements, in testimony, than it is painting in blobs and removing frames in a film. The burden of proof - and I say this tongue in cheek because we know this was no vigorous pursuit of the truth - was on them to fit a round peg in a square hole. They had their marching papers with K's "sweep all conspiracy under the rug" memo. So yes, it was easy to fudge things to fit their aims, just like Ford did when he wrote "neck" in the final report.

Who cares? Yes, my thoughts exactly. There's no way clothing with holes in them that low can somehow point *upward* when they supposedly were shot *downward* and then go on to wound JBC. Although this video is on a different topic look at the end of it, of the government's own reenactment: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc The image you see of looking through the scope had to have been taken before they came up with the SBT. Look how you can see the accurate marking on the stand-in's coat for the back wound. Remember David - I didn't take this photo, nor Cliff, nor Jim DiEugenio, nor any other "crazy" CT-er. It was taken by the side that you so dearly and loyally support - the government's and the same side Vince B supports as well...no questions asked. Can you not tell us that just looking at that image alone would have created doubt in a jury of our peers if LHO had gone to trial?

unsub

Could it be because humans, being a fallible species, got it wrong, as in: Person #1 heard: Secret Person #2 heard: service Person #3 heard: agent Person #4 heard: killed Person #5 heard: pool Person #6 heard: of Person #7 heard: blood Reported: "Secret service agent killed [found in a] pool of blood. This, we cannot confirm."

Oh boy, some more of Lifton's crazy theories to keep things in the limelight and to hope to sell some more books. How in the world could any of the so-called bad guys even know what the results were going to be that early in the game when the plane arrived from Dallas? Even as late as early 1964 when Life magazine was going to run that article that Kennedy turned completely around, thus taking the throat shot, how could they have known what to cut up or out or into with the body the night of the autopsy three months earlier? You can see the whole thing unfold on live TV when the plane arrives, it opens, the truck comes up and gets the coffin and the family, and then on to Bethesda. Jackie Kennedy never left the casket the entire time it was on the plane. I remember reading his book back when I was a dumb 16-year-old and thinking, "Wow." But now, thirty years later and seeing this case veer off into a cottage industry of ridiculous and weird theories, sanity and plausibility have convinced me that all of the craziness of squirreling away the body and removing 67% of the frames in the Z film and painted in blobs on other films and Jimmy Files being an assassin and Howard Hunt being either a tramp or a radioman or Greer shooting the president is right up there with the little green men on the moon that was never walked on by Neil Armstrong.

Yes, that's correct. Not everything is a conspiracy. I think a lot of people on this forum think that everything was oh, so very easy to just wave a wand over the Towner film, and the Z film, and other visual evidence and presto! Everything matches up perfectly, black blobs were painted in, people were removed from frames, and so on. Yes, there's a jump in the Towner film. There are some frames missing. So what? It proves nothing and from all indications of what can be seen in the Towner film, it's showing no conspiracy in it. No shots were fired until right after Kennedy appears from behind the freeway sign. Think about it - we need to give the planners credit for planning this out. They weren't going to just start firing at random, way up when the car first turned onto Elm. They *had* to start firing at around Z225 because if they didn't - if they started much earlier - it would have totally destroyed the ruse that the lone gunman was firing from the 6th floor all by himself. They also knew that no shots could be fired from that window earlier than that because of the oak tree blocking the view. Do you really think they didn't think of all of this? It's NOT like they were thinking, "OK, well, we'll set up the snipers nest up there, throw some bullet shells down, stick a rifle between some boxes...but oh, yeah, let's start firing right when the car turns onto Elm. That will look real good because if we do that then the shooters down in front of the car will have to start firing real early too." I mean, really? You have to make things logical, think like the planners did, instead of assuming Kennedy is hit right as the car turns, just because he waved and his hand goes from an open one into a ball. I mean, let's start thinking a little more logically and plausibly.

Read Perry's testimony. It's not what's missing or "edited" but the way it was conducted. I can't remember exactly but Dulles kind of jumps into it, changing the subject, and interrupting Perry's flow of the testimony. Does it mean Dulles was sitting there rubbing his hands together and thinking, "Oh, I've got to disrupt this?" No, but once again, it's so much easier to create subterfuge in the written record of this case than to paint in blobs and black paint in the films. To me, *that's* far more proof of sweeping things under the rug and subverting the truth than hearing others talk about removing frames in a film. Then, of course, you have Ford adding "neck" in the final version of the report before release. Really? Again, the photo showing Kennedy's back wound is proof that the SBT could not have happened like the lawyers said it happened. But again, to fudge that official record, Ford wrote it in. Keep in mind, too, that Ford later reveals to the French prime minister in a private talk that yes, there was a conspiracy.

I don't get this post. I posted what I thought was a genuine research thread last weekend. I wanted to hear what people thought and granted it's pure speculation but it got minimal replies and coverage and is long gone from the first page of EF. Yet, a "legacy" post about Profiles in Courage and Sally Yates comes up and it's still going with people arguing about things and then veering way off topic of an off topic thread. I come here to debate the assassination and I'm just seeing more and more of this stuff. Doug, can we try to stick to the assassination please?

Brad, use the search on his site. It's blog software and it's run by Google and you know what they do.

I just want to know what happened on 11/22. I think John Kennedy was the real deal. He and his family didn't have to get involved in politics. His Dad was worth $200 million back then, but his Dad encouraged his family to get involved for the greater good. I think that is sorely missing today and has been for a long, long time now. I know I cause a lot of eye-rolling when I always take the opportunity to say - yes, 11/22 DID change the course of American history. I really believe that the fxxxed up mess this country finds itself in started on 11/22. To some, they're going to say "baloney." Fine - think whatever you want. But you cannot deny that if Kennedy had lived, things would have continued to be reasonably upbeat and positive in America. And if not - if by some crazy reason Kennedy had screwed up while in office - fine, then he would have been voted out like other presidents have.

Jim just to clarify was she really coming out or going to have a Ruby interview? I was not aware she was a drug abuser.

Yes, David, I'm so, so glad you think the government got it all right. I mean, how could they not; they are, after all, the government, the same government where the assistant attorney general, instead of writing a memo saying to the likes of "We're going to dig and keep on digging until we get to the bottom of this," he writes a memo saying that all leads to conspiracy are to be swept under the rug, to be stifled, and to lead to conclusions - before the real investigation is to even begin - that no conspiracy is to be discovered or investigated further. I mean, wow - that's pretty much the marching papers of the all-seeing and all-knowing government to its agents and investigators. That is definitely going to be an honest, vigorous pursuit of the truth as to what happened. And I'm so glad you agree with that. You mentioned Howard Brennan above, the government's star witness who just so happened to look up within the six-second time frame of the shooting, and after a single ex-Marine had pulled off one of the most remarkable shooting feats in world history, a feat that not even several expert marksmen under controlled conditions could pull off, and he looks up to see this same expert shooter holding 80% of the gun out the window to pull off this feat. I mean, really? This same shooter would have had to be leaning out the window himself to have gotten a decent look through the scope. But the all-seeing and all-knowing government got it right - yep, that's what happened. And I'm so glad that you believe it al

Wasn't the parade running late? I think I've read elsewhere (add links to this if you know where it is) but the parade was supposed to have arrived in Dealey by 12:15pm. So LHO's movements were hardly someone who thought to himself, "Wow, to make sure I succeed at this, I better stay up in my sniper's perch that I've lovingly built as early as I can because I have no idea what time he's arriving here." But here he was, out front, eating his lunch, getting a bottle of pop.