Michael Walton

John, just an FYI, the photo you posted of the bridge showing people up there is quite a narrow photo, meaning there is a lot of space up there, especially south of Elm Street. Unless I'm reading White's testimony incorrectly, it sounds like he was down south of where Elm is as well. Perhaps this would nullify the ability for someone to be down in that area shooting. But as for the moving train, if he was south of Elm then I'm sure there could have been a number of trains down there moving. That's why in your photo you do not see any trains in it. If you look at an overhead photo of Dealey Plaza, you'll see that entire bridge is quite large.

Chris, thanks for the correction. Yes, it looks like Zapruder had the lens setting on zoom that day and not wide angle. I changed the original post.

Here's White's testimony. It's pretty interesting to note that a freight train was actually moving during the shooting and White claims not to have heard the shots or saw anything. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/white_jc.htm

That looks like a well-designed instruction paper that came with a circa-1963 8mm film camera explaining how to set your lens for wide, medium, or zoom.

What I'm really confused about is why in the world are people here like Brad and Ray and others arguing about what Dan Rather saw and then somehow trying to convince themselves that *this* is the reason why the movie was faked? It's so crazy because the film - without a single amount of alteration - *shows* conspiracy. And there have numerous outstanding articles here that show that the media and the government was doing everything they can to make their "theories" like the SBT be the only it happened. It's much much easier to control the message and create subterfuge about a house of cards conclusion than it is to fake an 8mm film from 1963. But instead many members just have to think that *everything* was faked, causing confusion and, yes, truly crazy and outrageous theories like frames being painted in and Zapruder's original film being filmed at 48 FPS and then 67% of the frames being removed...all for...why? And they still do not tell us - to this very day - WHY these things were done because the Z film we can see now still shows conspiracy! These geniuses and masterminds that faked the film had to have been the dumbest Bad Guys in world history.

Yes, Chris, but then he's thrown violently backward too. And please don't say it's the jet effect because I already debunked it in another video elsewhere here. A reporter's job is to report - fully - what they see. Rather did not. Bill posted a quote that Rather made years later saying why he did not. I can't remember word for word but it was pretty lame as to why he didn't mention the backward and to the left. I've always chalked it up to this is the beginning of the government's disinformation campaign. You've posted over 2,000 posts on this forum so you have to know on here the many posts and articles that have been made here about how the government was in cahoots with the MSM from day one until now how they want the official story of the WR to be the *only* way it happened, no questions, no rebuttals. So to use your analogy, it's kind of like you're saying someone like Cyril Wecht would appear on TV and describe what *he* saw and totally eliminate the backward and to the left of JFK after the head shot. We all know he wouldn't do that because he's describing what he *fully* is seeing, bot subterfuge like Rather did and then make up an excuse for it 35 years later. And if you don't believe this, all you have to do is look at how LIFE magazine handled *their* coverage of the murder. They at one point were even going to run as part of their coverage that Kennedy and Jackie both turned almost completely around to face the building when the throat shot occurred. It was another desperate attempt to cover up what really happened.

Here's a theory I've been rolling around in my head lately. That autopsy photo that shows the top of the president's head, the one with a dark round spot in the hairline, has bothered me. It's probably nothing because I simply cannot imagine the autopsy personnel completely overlooking it and saying nothing about it. It doesn't appear on the autopsy face sheet. So it was probably something innocent. What, I don't know...a clot? A speck? It just sure seems perfectly round to me though. Still, the so-called mystery photo has bothered me too. That beveling around the edge is just that - beveling. Another researcher posted some photos on his website and here showing what an entrance wound to the skull looks like and sure in the #### doesn't look like the beveling in the so-called mystery photo. So I tied the two together - you know, deductive reasoning - and came up with the video below. There's no sound in it - just read the cue cards and it will make sense...I hope. And feel free to offer support, more information for the good of the forum, or tear me a new one, too. I'm game. Thank you. Edited by Admin

Tom, can you clarify what it is you're asking me?

The films were not faked. If you take the Z film, Muchmore, and Nix and sync them up, it's obvious that they all look the same. If frames had been removed from one or the other it would be physically impossible to make them match up. The "craziness" that I'm pointing out is that how can otherwise sane people fall for outrageous claims and when you try to explain things to them with facts and plausible reasoning, they don't want to hear it They see little green goblins under every nook and cranny. And no matter how much you try to reason with them, it's a losing effort. My own brother-in-law was just like this. 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. Was he crazy? No, but he was one of those kind that just could not open his eyes and mind enough to want to learn new things or at least listen to others and take it in.

Sandy, no one is high here. Not herbally nor up on horses. We're all just trying to get to the truth about the case but we all have very different ways of trying to get there.

Touche, Bill. Touche, indeed.

Sandy, This morning, while at Starbucks waiting to go to my office to work across the street, I happened to glance on this forum and caught your reply before you deleted it. It was along the lines of: "I've just about had it with you, Michael, calling us crazies..." blah blah and then you challenged me to an IQ test. If I upset you about calling you and others "crazies" here, I'm sorry, but I have be brutally honest on this forum. The people who post here are believers, no doubt, but the theories and suppositions are, at least in my mind, crazy, outrageous, and ridiculous. You seem to equate intelligence with reasoning which is so far from the truth as to be...well, crazy. You can have an IQ of 2,000 but it doesn't mean that you or a person with that high of an IQ has the ability to critically analyze things and come to a reasonable and plausible conclusion. A perfect example of this is John Nash of A Beautiful Mind. The guy was a certified genius, yet his paranoia and seeing and hearing things (remember in the movie he was seeing conspiracy everywhere, in newspaper and magazine clippings, strangers walking down the street, and so on?) led him to be labeled insane (aka crazy).

As I've said ad nauseum on this forum, the B/H Z camera, high tech for that time, would be blown out of the water with today's 20 mega pixel phone cameras. A single frame of 8mm film was the size of a pinky nail. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/4e/8a/6f/4e8a6f573ce8e0720332abcea3060722.jpg As with any media that small, when you blow it up you're going to see dark and light "blobs" and the graininess more. It was a very bright day that day and the contrast of sunlight and shadow definitely made things a little too bright or dark washing things out. In this case, the back of JFK's head, with his dark hair in shadow, was going to be a little bit darkened. What many of the crazies on this forum think is a painted in blob to cover up a hole is nothing more than what's described above. You can see this exact same "blob" effect on the back of Kennedy's suit: http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo103/bmjfk63/Selectionposterimages2.jpg Look how dark and "blobbish" it is. So what happened there - is that where the secret dart from the mystery umbrella went into him, paralyzing and freezing him in place for the coup de grace? And that was painted out too? It's so ridiculous and outrageous that if people opened up their eyes, they would see that the Z film was the single biggest case proving conspiracy. The shot timing alone, where Kennedy reacts to a throat shot, then a back shot, and Connally not reacting until seconds later, demolishes the SBT. Then of course JBC himself stuck with his statement until the day he died that he was NOT hit with the same bullet that hit JFK. It's why the government suppressed the film until '75. But no - the crazies have just got to think it's more - the painted in frames and all of the other ridiculous nonsense.

Thanks, Jim.

unsub

Jim, the only thing I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around is when Hoover wanted to surveil MLK around the time of the March on Washington, RFK approved it. And JFK had to have known about it. The only thing I can think of is people do change. Perhaps when RFK went through the trauma and turmoil of 11/22, perhaps he began to see the light more? I'm sure he did a lot of reflection on how things were handled after the assassination and perhaps came to some regret on what he and JFK (like the MLK surveillance). Thoughts?

unsub...

Bill - I'm a little puzzled. You pointed out a definite "avulsion" in JFK's head - you even have an arrow pointing to the "thing" that's kind of sticking out the back of his head as seen in the Nix film. My GIF shows that that hole is one of exit because it clearly has beveling as what you'd expect from an out shoot. So one plus plus equals two. Brad - sorry to burst your bubble but Lifton and Horne are money makers here - they're going to say outrageous things about the case to sell more books and DVDs. I don't - I'm only interested in the truth. Their theories about the film being faked are right up there in craziness just like Lifton's crazy "They snuck the body out of the airplane like mad scientists and did all manner of alterations on his body" theory. It's silly and outrageous and not everything in this case is a conspiracy. That's the problem with this case - the Bad Guys were NOT omnipotent - they couldn't just snap their fingers and say "here, paint a blob on the film" and "hey you, over there.....bring the body out of this exit door on the other side of the plane. hey, rick! don't forget when you cut open his head, make sure you make that blow out look like it came from oswald's building!" do you not see how outrageous this is, brad?

Nice work, Bill. I've never thought it was altered as well. I've always felt the film *showed* conspiracy, which is why the government kept it under wraps all those years. Here's some stuff I put together: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxU0V1ck1GZFN6TWM https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxNm9MNTY3UHVrR1k Then you have the beveled outshoot in the back of the head (link below is animated GIF and may take a moment to load): https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms

John Newman is a former intelligence employee. He clearly and methodically documented his work in Oswald and the CIA. Just because he's a Jesus freak doesn't mean he can't accurately write a book about what took place, based on documentation, of a man who "defected" to the USSR and came back and lived to tell about it. Really, Lance, don't you find it the least bit strange that during one of the craziest moments of the Cold War, when Hoover and the other paranoids in DC were looking under every nook and cranny for Communists, Negroes, and other subversives, that a former Marine, who actually worked on the base that monitored U2 flights, defected to the US's sworn enemy, stayed, there, then pretty much waltzed back into the US with nary a peep? But I know who you are - you're the guy who goes around saying, "Oh, I have no vested interest in this case so I'm looking at it strictly in black and white" blah blah blah. I've worked in the multimedia business for 30 years now. I could write how to do this or that in multimedia. I also have no religious affiliation. Does that mean if I write about why I don't believe in god that it also means I can't write about multimedia? Really, Lance, I thought smart lawyers knew better than that.

I know. But if you believe that he took a shot in the temple and it came out the back of his head, and his rear head shot happened almost at the exact split second, then there is also a way for him to taken a frontal throat shot. Watch the film - as soon as he reaches to his throat, watch how the force of the back shot hitting him lurches him and his head forward. Of course the government came up with all kinds of crazy xxxx to cover it up, like the single bullet theory and the jet effect for the "back and to the left" movement. I already debunked that one with this movie: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxU0V1ck1GZFN6TWM https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxNm9MNTY3UHVrR1k Then you have the beveled outshoot in the back of the head: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms You have to tell yourself - what the government claimed LHO did was not possible nor plausible. Connally himself said to the day he died he did NOT get hit by the same "throat" shot as Kennedy which destroys the SBT.

Yes, Bill, thanks. Judith is a fake. Bev is too. Google and find the story about her so-called big reveal years ago - she was going to reveal never seen photos but it was all a ruse.

OMG not the Ashton Gray thread! That, too, is so outrageous, so ridiculous. Gray wrote this silly theory but when I called him out on it, he denied it was his! Start ass end backwards and you'll see. And it's so, so outrageous. Watch the Zapruder film - it tells you everything you need to know about what happened. But if you don't watch it with eyes wide open, you'll fall for goofy outrageous xxxx like Gray's and the 67% Solution. Gray fancies himself as a Bohemia writer - just look at the fu manchu and "cool" floppy hat. He's neither.

Yeah, I mean it's just too outrageous, too silly to think that the US government was falsifying all of this, to create a legend if you will, of Oswald way way back in the 1950's. For what purpose? For what end? They didn't even know Kennedy was going to be president for goodness sake so how'd they be able to create this fantastical back story? And I think the Jim H impostor memo above by Hoover is reasonable and simple - there was a whole lot of crazy intrigue going on back then because let's face it, Hoover breeded paranoia over silly communism while he himself was covering up his own life as a homosexual and Negro hater. So the above memo is nothing more than a "be on the lookout" for someone who could be impersonating one of the CIA's own moles (Oswald) who was a witting agent trying to flush out a KGB spy. But as it is with the people on this forum, the first little word or phrase they read they latch onto and start creating these batxxxx crazy theories about the assassination.

Are the photos above of the authentic "attractive" Marguerite or the "dumpy" fake Marguerite? Fake? That is a very long leap, indeed, Jim H. Faked by whom? How?