Michael Walton

You might want to watch this, Brad. This is all happening in real time. I simply can't imagine his body being whisked away by mad doctors with scalpels ready and waiting. It's silly to think this when no one knows what was really happening and mass confusion.

I don't mean to rain on the proverbial parade here but I just cannot buy into these guys' theories expressed in the movie. In the trailer, it shows how a cue ball hits another ball causing the back and to the left head movement. I thought that was pretty revealing and a good concept. But Doug Horne firmly believes that the Z film was altered and I just don't buy it because the Zavada report proved it had not. In addition to this, the Z film SHOWS conspiracy so if the bad guys went through all of the effort to remove conspiracy from it, why in the world did they actually LEAVE IN the conspiracy reveals in the film? This is why the film was suppressed from the general public for many years and it's also why there was such outrage from the public once they had a chance to see it that it led to the establishment of the Church committee. It's why Dan Rather lied on national TV when describing what he "saw" in the film. And it's why Life magazine tried to manipulate what it shows several times in its JFK issue. Then we have all of this silliness about switched coffins, the squireling away of the body to do a pre-autopsy manipulation of the body, and so on. How could the bad guys have known that early in the game what the official story was going to be? Only when Oswald was murdered on Sunday could they shut everything down, suppress evidence, opposing witness statements and so on, and then come out with the ridiculous Warren Report. But not everything in this case was a conspiracy. As another EF member said elsewhere, the bad guys were not omnipotent - they couldn't just snap fingers and wave a wand and have mad scientists hovering over the body cleaning it up; they couldn't just bring in an army of SFX wizards to fix the Z film. And even if they had, they did a very poor job of it since the film clearly shows that someone on the 6th floor could not have done what the bad guys are trying to sell in the WR.

It's nice to see you have 70's Reds games on your channel. I grew up cheering for Rose, Bench, Morgan and the others. I remember when I was 7 years old, we walked over from Newport to the newly opened Riverfront. We had good blue seats and before the game, Bench was down by the rail signing autographs. I went down late and tried to reach my hand through the others to see if he'd take it. He actually pushed hands away to make a "parting of the seas" and reached up and grabbed mine to sign. A great moment for me as he was one of my favorites along with Rose.

Micah, the proof of it being a bullet hole is the cop standing there pointing at it. Questions were asked, the shooting was investigated, and holes were found. I know the police are not always right but do you really think they'd just assume, "Oh, look...here's a hole. Maybe a bullet hit here? Or not?" The same is true very early in the JFK murder. Things were seen, witnessed and so on until it was all swept under the rug by the official story.

What you say makes sense, David. For what it's worth, the auto function is getting much better. I read a while back that Google bought out this small start-up that has come up with a better speech to text translator. After I read that over the ensuing months, I've noticed a big improvement on auto captions. For example I was watching the 11/22 Cronkite bulletin elsewhere on YT and was amazed at how much better it was. You can always tell when it's auto vs inserted text when the captions roll up one line at a time.

This is a really nice collection, David. The CC button shows up but when I click on it, the subtitles (auto mode) don't come on. Is it possible for you to go into it and turn it on? It wouldn't just be for me as you can imagine how older folks actually do use captions.

Regarding this - Bart, can you just confirm that the TV station still refuses to this day to release the camera original or raw film from the TV cameraman, right? That is the only thing I really and truly care about with this. And I am so, so hoping that someday it happens so we know who that is once and for all.

Robin, like I said, wonderful job on that site of photo and image collection. I go there often. Thanks for clarifying your status there too.

I'm trying to stay neutral here. I know Robin has done a great job on his site of collecting all kinds of photos from A-Z people in this case. I believe he's got ads on it as well. Nothing wrong with that if it pays the web hosting bills. Robin, not being critical of that - it is what it is. But I do agree with Vince here. Vince, Jim, Larry, Mark, Vince S, Wecht, and others have done a good job of telling the story of this case that the government should have done all along but didn't. I liken it to what my favorite baseball players do, those like Bench and Rose. They're professional athletes and they sign cards, photos and so on for fans who enjoyed watching them as athletes. But a Secret Service agent who was supposed to be guarding the life of the president, who dropped the ball big time that day, and who goes around shilling that moment, even today, just seems really tasteless and almost macabre. It's one thing for a ball player to sell a signed card of himself, and quite another for an ex-agent to sign his name on an autopsy photo of the dead president with his head blown off.

I've never believed nor I ever will that Castro plotted or was in on the plot to kill JFK. As Jeremy' link shows, it was one more way the US tried to make Castro the boogeyman down there. But meanwhile, as the cover-up of Kennedy had already begun in earnest by our own government, Castro gave this incredibly prescient speech just five days after Kennedy was killed: http://www.ctka.net/2016/castro-speech/fidel-castro-november-27-1963-speech.html Although I don't agree with his entire analogy above, he had some great points while meanwhile, our own government was making things up like the ridiculous Single Bullet Theory My favorite from above: Who? Why? A gangster, a gambler, the owner of a night club, with nudity and all, known to be a playboy, a goon. He manages to position himself in front of the suspected murderer. An individual known to the whole police department for what he was: as a gambler, as the owner of immoral night clubs, as someone who was arrested by those same police. How then can that same police force then mistake him for a news reporter, given that all those officers knew him perfectly well? How can he be there, impersonating a journalist, and shoot the suspect just like that? And what does he claim afterwards? The most ridiculous, the most absurd thing. This gambler, this vicious man, this gangster with a criminal record, he declares that he did what he did to prevent the President’s widow from having to go back to Dallas for the trial.

Oh yeah perfect! When I clicked that OPEN IN NEW WINDOW, it opened and then EMBED was there. Terrific! Thanks so much. One more thing... Do you know if you know who does the c in a circle thing with Drive videos like they do on their "commerical" Y site? Have they hassled you with anything you have there so far?

Dave - thanks for this. Notice in your graphic where it says EMBED ITEM that is completely missing for me in my dropdown for any shared and public video, even though all of the videos I share and make public are shared and public. I can't imagine why it's missing for me and it's shown for you. No doubts for me too about OJ - his blood all over the place, the gloves, his motive ("if I can't have her, no one else can") and so on. I blame the DA's for not having the trial moved out of LA and his lawyers for playing the race card.

Wow, wow, wow. I just looked at the Daily Beast and this is what the headline was: Fidel Castro Finally Dies, But His Apologists Live On Cuba's communist dictator is finally dead. Good riddance. His apologists live on but they will look foolish in the rearview mirror of history. It's amazing to me how horribly biased the MSM is. Granted Che, one of Castro's henchmen and who did his share of murdering Cuban citizens and became a cult hero with his photo all over the place, was no angel. Diplomacy goes both ways IMO. When Batista was overthrown - and thus all of the American interests there were nationalized - there went any sense of diplomacy from Washington. And of course they used the "scourge" of Communism to get Americans to go along with it.

David - great that you found another way to embed with GD. I tried doing the embed thing with it but I think you have to sync your GD account onto your desktop in order to get the embed code - is that correct? Otherwise I can't figure out how to do it. I'm a big OJ fan too. Please tell me, David, that you think he is guilty too...am I right? If I am then it looks like we finally agree on something

I agree it really is remarkable that no one else was injured in the car, especially with flying pieces of bullet like the ones that hit the chrome and windshield (unless those were bullets too).

Question - not being argumentative here and of course this is pure speculation - but if the shooters were in the Dal-Tex building, knoll, or wherever they were, don't you think it'd have been more appropriate to have used automatic weapons? I watched that video above of that guy using the Enfield(?) and although it seems fast, the shooters had to have known that they only had a 5-7 second window to do the shooting and be 99.9% accurate to not blow someone else's head off beside JFK's and then quickly get out. It just seems like a bolt-action gun would have been too risky to have used in this situation.

Wow, that sure is a mixed bag of messages between Manchester and Bishop. Both of their writings seem a little hackneyed, full of hyperbole, and somewhat hysterical. McHugh "barked" - yeah right And other stuff. Whew. BTW - who in the h**ll wrote that book review on TDOAP? Jesus, talk about one-sided. Hey Dave, to say a big FU to you know who about the copyright issue, why don't you just build a site, put all of your videos on your server, and self-embed them onto pages? That way you won't have to depend on you know who's video embedder. Adobe makes some fantastic "drag and drop" software that allows you to do this now. If you want to send me one of your very short MP4 videos, I can set up a test page to give you an idea.

Thank you, David. I had no idea this was an old / regurgitated story about the hair snipping. In TDOAP, whose POV was the story told from? Just curious.

Very, very well said Vince. My thoughts exactly. Love the "laughing all the way to the bank" line too

I remember back I think in 1975 when I saw this guy being interviewed about what happened and him breaking down, sobbing. I'm sure it was terribly traumatic for him. But as I was reading the above link, I found this: Excerpted from Five Presidents: My Extraordinary Journey with Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford by Clint Hill with Lisa McCubbin. Copyright © 2016 by Hill McCubbin LLC. Reprinted by permission of Gallery Books, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, Inc. Ugghh... so here's Hill shilling yet another book on his time as an SS agent. I had never heard this story about Jackie clipping a lock of Kennedy's hair. But why in the world would he wait 53 years to reveal this in a book he's trying to sell? And why would he reveal such a personal moment? Because don't you know...it's the dollars. Always the dollars.

I saw a copy of the Zapruder in NYC in 1964. I have talked about that in my 2013 NID presentation "Midnight Blue to Black" in some detail. Here's a link to a photo of the Charles Theatre, where I...... We're not talking about a chosen few who some how, some way got a sneak peek of it in a movie theater. You may support the idea that Rather is making your point for you too. But all you have to do is listen to him inaccurately describe what he "saw" in the film and it's obvious he's talking s##t on 11/25. Do you remember the moon landings, Pam? I do. And I remember them showing live coverage on all three networks. Now ask yourself - if an innocent, vigorous government was truly seeking the truth of what happened on 11/22, why didn't they show the Z film for all - and I mean everyone, every single citizen with a television set at home - to see? Finally, why was there such an uproar in 1975 when the film was finally shown to a mass audience, the one where Groden snuck a copy of it onto live late night TV? It was so uproarious it led to the Church committee hearings on assassinations. From your logic here, you make it sound it like "everyone" saw it in 1963 or '64, shrugged, then saw it again in '75 and everyone suddenly grew a conscious. You have to know this, which is the whole point of whether the film was altered/faked or not. It wasn't because you have to keep in mind too that the film SHOWS multiple shots from different angles. Why, pray tell, would the bad guys leave that in if they even bothered to alter it any other way?

I just don't get the "exceptional" thinking. Yes, it's a great country. But I would love to see you in a room full of people, Glenn, with folks from England, France, Rio, Africa. And you're sitting around talking about world affairs and you at one point, look them all in the eye and say, "You know, our country, the US of A...we're Exceptional." After some polite and slightly awkward laughing from them, you continue to just stare at them until they stop laughing. And then: "We are. We ARE Exceptional." I just don't get that kind of thinking.

Isn't this the same dude that when Reagan was shot, he got up to the podium and said (paraphrasing here): "The president has been shot, the vice president is not available, so I am the man who is in charge of the [government] White House." He must have been really power hungry.

Kirk, agree with what you said. Sandy, agree about WWII. You may want to read this though as the hegemony with the US started before WWII: https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/COPA1998VJS.html The funny thing about this though is people can be patriots and love their country but still offer dissent with how things are run. But according to the "true" patriots (the flag-on-their-lapel kind) any kind of dissent is deemed traitorous. Like SL said above, I'm very grateful for being born in the USA but we mustn't forget that governments are run by people...and we know over the course of history the terrible things *people* not governments can do to others.

Two different ways they did it in SA, Pat: http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/24/74/70/5492246/6/rawImage.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/37/bd/c9/37bdc9c8e1b444e8d7cb21dac9dcb575.jpg