Michael Walton

Wow, Cliff, you sure do like to say many other people lie. If I were around you, I think I'd even be afraid to tell you that the sky was blue for fear you'd call me a xxxx too

OMG, so funny Tom. Love the way you crossed out words except those to make the reply. Great job!

Here you go, Cliff. Even old Bernie Sanders doesn't think the Comey thing ruined HC's election chances. http://nypost.com/2016/11/14/sanders-says-its-not-comeys-fault-that-clinton-lost/ Read the part - and the one I especially agree with - that explains why she really lost. I'll give you a hint - it has nothing to do with Comey and everything to do with her being the candidate of the urban elite and losing touch with the blue-collar class, the people who voted the Democratic ticket for years. I also want to mention that although I agree with Sanders, what HC did - downloading and uploading official government emails to a personal server - is a definite no-no. Anyone else from a secretary to a media specialist to any other government employee would know better than to do that. We all know that any of these people would have been reprimanded and probably even fired. But for her and all of the excuses - "oh, she doesn't know tech" and all of this b####it, was really sickening to take and revealed pure hypocricy.

A newspaper article wrote that Tampa and Chicago had also been possible murder sites, these places leading up to 11/22. Are we supposed to just completely ignore that and accept that Dallas was picked in '61? This really seems too far-fetched for me. Yes, there were people back then who hated all of the Kennedys with a passion like people felt when Obama was sworn in. The Bay of Pigs fiasco certainly created a lot more enemies for JFK. The real tipping point came after the Cuban Missile Crisis when he refused to invade Cuba and start WWIII. I think that was the real catalyst that began the planning for his eventual murder. I hardly think that there was a group of Bad Guys in '61 standing around a map of the U.S., one points to Dallas, the other nods, and smiles, and they determine it's Dallas.

Lucien is mentioned in the NY Post article. Wasn't the whole French/Lucien/Corsican plot debunked in TMWKK? How could they have selected in '61 that Dallas would be the kill city? It doesn't seem logical or plausible.

Here's the clincher for me (from the article): Dallas was selected as the location for the assassination “as far back as 1961,” according to Bazata, since it was an anti-Kennedy “hothouse for murder” with one of the most corrupt police departments in the country. The clincher that this is all hokum. Really? Dallas selected as the kill site during the same year JFK was sworn in? Wow, I mean...just wow. Lucien? Isn't this the same corny plot story that they used for TMWKK series? And I remember years ago reading an article about some goofy BS that Oswald was supposed to have fired warning shots while the real assassins would do the killing. So it sounds like this book is repurposing a decades-old tale? OMG - people would do *anything* to make a buck off of this thing. Disgusting.

I wish he had, Bob. It would have been fascinating if he had captured it. I think in the rush and mad confusion, he was probably looking all over the place, picked up his camera, started filming, and then captured the "gold standard" footage of a tall, short, dwarf Lovelady and Frazier walking on that short street And if T Graves read this - Tom I'm only jesting here, not smearing you or anything

Bob, I think he heard the shots, was ribbed, then looked up. If all of the shots happened within a 7-second time frame, that would have been hardly enough time for him to pick up his camera and film it. He said that just before the shots he had stopped filming, probably because he could see the underpass ahead and assumed that since the parade was over there was nothing else of importance to film.

This all relates back to the JFK assassination. That coup d'etat laid the foundation for America as a glorified banana republic. And that's what we have today. Yes, Ron, absolutely agree. When I talk to young people about how none of us realize how our entire political discourse changed on 11/22, their eyes glaze over. But it really is the truth. If JFK had done some monumental f### up and was voted out of office, that's one thing. But to bodily remove him via assassination is a totally different ballgame. And his brother too. And especially when we know today it was done by you-know-who. The whole system is rotten to the core now. I was discussing this last night with a friend and mentioned the folks in Indiana who are going to lose their jobs at Carrier because the company wants to pay Mexicans 50 cents an hour to build their machines. I said, "Where is their representation in Washington? They have none because "corporations are people too" and have far better representation because they can afford it. Meanwhile, the greed factor continues. Instead of Carrier keeping the jobs in America they just have to become insanely obsessed with instead of making $1 billion they need to make $1.05 billion. It's ridiculous.

I agree with Jim D 100%. If HC had this in the bag, that little escapade with the FBI wouldn't have mattered. But she didn't have it in the bag, far from it. HC knew she was in trouble the weekend before the election when she made last-minute trips to states that had been Democrat strongholds for years. The polling system pretty much got it all wrong too. They didn't go out to canvass the places where the forgotten folks came out in droves to vote for Trump. On the day of the election, the NY Times had her winning by an 84% chance. This, to me, proves the polling was way off track and not polling the "little people," the folks who bought into Obama's "hope" message in '08 and '12 but felt it was business as usual in Washington. She was one of the most establishment candidates they could have picked (another Clinton...really?) and when they picked another establishment figure like Kaine over someone who could have added a little bit of left-wing flavor to it like Warren, that was pretty much the end of it. Also, 48% of Dems did not come out to vote. I can count two here - my wife and I both did not vote. The media, too, especially like CNN, got it all wrong, smugly predicting her win, not factoring in those "forgotten folks" mentioned above. As for all of the "Trump's not my president" and the other nonsense, it's time to sit back and see what he will do once sworn in. I'm an optimist, but I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. He seems to be trying to say things lately that are quite different than all of his "sell it to the crazies" statements he made during the campaign. I'm banking too that he did a masterful sales job on those same crazies. I know this is a fact because I have several of those "crazies" in my family so I know whereof I speak and know how they think. Here are two great articles that paint an in-depth picture. HC is just using the FBI thing as her excuse for dropping the ball on what she doesn't seem to actually get what happened on 11/8: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/business/economy/can-trump-save-their-jobs-theyre-counting-on-it.html http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-wolff-trump-win-exposes-medias-smug-failures-945733

Denny, Regarding the Couch statement, he and the other reporter seeing the barrel being withdrawn from the window, it certainly debunks the "Oswald did it" theory. If they had already heard all of the shots, the guy ribs him and says look up, he looks up and sees the barrel being withdrawn, I can't imagine old LHO having been up there, just pulling it in to then start his mad dash to stash it well hidden between boxes, run clear across to the other side of the 6th floor stairway, down to the 2nd floor where he then switches from huffing and puffing to calm breathing just in time for him to buy his Coca Cola - and Baker confronting him. What we don't know - but I wish I knew - was who exactly was up there building the "nest," throwing down the spent shells, and pulling the barrel out of the window causing the "tell" of the lone assassin shooting from there? It'd be fascinating to know but we probably never will. As for the bloody trail, back to the TSBD, I believe that was a piece of Kennedy's head that was carried from the road into or near the building. Why the guy picked it up and went there of all places is beyond me. This may also have been the piece that Jackie might have been reaching for when she climbed out of the car. His statement, too, confirms the mass confusion of what was going on seconds after the shots. People were running around like chickens with their heads cut off and the Bad Guys were certainly banking on this, of people watching the motorcade calmly and least expecting something like this happening. I am putting together a post that will show a rear head shot that looks almost exactly like JFK's Z film head shot and from all appearances, this statement by Couch certainly debunks that all of the shots came from the rear. If Kennedy had only been shot from the rear, then that bloody piece of his head would have flown into the car, not backward onto the trunk where it was picked up by someone and carried leaving a bloody trail. The clip I have of the head shot certainly confirms this, at least it does for me.

We have to learn to talk, to disagree respectfully. I blame Republicans for their politics of division, and implore Democrats to take the high road and stop demonizing Trump. It's too soon. We have the moral high ground, but looking down at the deplorables destroys any possibility of constructive engagement. I agree 100% with you, Paul. It's time to wrap up the outrage about his election and get on with things. He said the right thing when he was at the WH recently and though I'm not letting that be the excuse to erase all of the hateful things he's ever said, it's a tiny ray of hope, at least for me. I've always thought, too, that the crazy things he was saying during the campaign was to keep the crazies stirred up on his side. Meanwhile... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/business/economy/can-trump-save-their-jobs-theyre-counting-on-it.html No matter who is president, here are some folks who may or may not have voted for Trump who now want him to come to their rescue. If Carrier, the company who is moving their factory to Mexico so they can pay Mexicans 50 cents an hour to build their products, wants to move, it's their right to do so. Remember, according to the Supreme Court, "businesses are people too" and they have the right to do whatever they want. So how is Trump, or *any* president D or R, going to reconcile that? IMO, this is the REAL problem of America, of companies moving manufacturing out of the country, of taking their money and parking it overseas (Apple anyone), and keeping their stock prices high, while abandoning the so-called middle class.

I'm late here but as deplorable as Trump was during the campaign and with the s##t he says and has done with women, I think we should give him a chance and see what happens. One thing that was a turn-off to me with Clinton is her neo-con philosophy with Russia. As much as we may not like who and what Putin has done, it's really not our business. If Trump wants to try to reach out to him and have cordial relations, then so be it. Better that than the ridiculous drum beating and s###t stirring. And in an odd way - as Jim D has pointed out - Trump seems to be doing the same thing that Kennedy was trying to do, giving his peace speech in June, having the private line to the Kremlin, and he even reached out to try to get along with Castro. I read today that the Democrats blew it on 11/8 because: 1. They went establishment by going with Clinton; 2. They did it again when they went with Kaine for VP instead of someone like Warren; and 3. 48% of them did not vote. Bernie Sanders pretty much called the election in an August 2015 speech he gave.

The sadly hilarious James Files assassin story is one more "roach out of the woodwork" like Bev Oliver and Judy Baker.

OK Bob I'll take you up on this offer and will put it together and post it. And then we'll see what happens and see if there's any discussion in debating it here.

There's really not all that much to contribute to this case any more. I come to learn new stuff and the one that did help me was the possibility that Oswald is in the doorway (PM). I also learned that the guy leaning over is *not* Oswald but Lovelady. The run-up to the murder was also a big thing for me, having learned about who Kennedy was. I was thinking about posting something that would have completely destroyed the BS laden jet effect. I found a gunshot wound clip that looks amazingly like JFK's and the really amazing thing is the gun barrel had to have been no more than 5 feet from this poor guy's head. He's shot in the back of the head and there is absolutely NO so-called jet effect or nerve twitching theory like they said was the reason for Kennedy's back and to the left movement. I asked two people who are members of this forum if they thought it'd be interesting to EF to post. One said probably not and the other I've not heard back from so I'm taking that as a "no" as well. But unless there's a major reveal in the future (like for example if the news station ever releases the PM footage and it shows it was LHO) there's really not much more to contribute. Meanwhile, if people continue to post crazy and outlandish theories about the case, it's important that there be rebuttals to them. There's no "smear tactics" here. Tom, fair enough that I didn't pick up on your humor. I think I have a pretty good sense of humor (anybody who has the balls to joke about their own deafness like I do has to have one) but I had no idea you were pulling legs in your posts.

It's Lovelady in the chair, on the steps and walking west w Bill Shelley. Agree with Bart. Tom, with all due respect, I thought we went over this? Not everything is a conspiracy in the JFK case, Tom. And you're mentioning what S### ###n thinks? Wow. This guy is all over the place on the forum and he's even digging up nonsense on the ridiculous Z film thread, which hadn't been updated since August. It's pretty disappointing to see you hold in esteem someone who's poking old and rotting threads on this forum. But I digress and I guess it's your right to do so.

Sorry Sandy but this has long been put to bed, not by me but by the Zavada report. http://www.jfk-info.com/zreport.htm Further, all you have to do is watch the synched up Nix and Z films. It must have been a million to one lucky guess that the Bad Guys removed just enough frames from the Z film so that they sync up perfectly. Really? As I've said over and over again, not everything about the Kennedy case is a conspiracy. The Z film shows conspiracy so I guess the Bad Guys, in all of their effort to remove frames, forgot to remove the parts that show conspiracy. My suggestion is look elsewhere in the case to dig into something besides the Z film. And please don't mention your engineering and "numbers" background. Zavada did that for us and the remaining is just a good dose of plausible and common sense thinking.

He's saying that some staff member, off the record (confidentially), expressed concern to Kelley about the outside chance of the bullet having the strength to go through Connally. And the "wild" part of the statement probably was expressed by this person to Kelley.

Thank you. I'm reading your articles on MF - very interesting.

I might be asking this too soon having not read any of the links in this thread - and I plan to do so. But after RFK says "...on to Chicago," it looks like he starts going one way, then is steered gently to go the other way to his death. Did anyone notice this? Is there any evidence that if he had gone the other way that there was a Sirhan redux set up the other way to shoot him there as well?

At least for me, it's not a question of whether they look alike. Rather, it's the same person as seen through different lenses and lighting scenarios.

It's all camera angles and lighting Tom. You might want to read this young lady's post about how the above make her look different. And I agree - it's amazing we're talking about the same lady in the various photos. I mean look at JFK here and then here. Granted, he has sunglasses on, is stripped to his shorts and a polo shirt in the first one, but still, he doesn't have that stylish, commanding look like he does in the second one. I don't mean to gang up on you here, but can't you give the Lovelady thing a rest? He was just a blue-collar warehouse worker thrust into a history-making event. That's all.

Just one question: Do you think Lovelady was photographically captured, by Couch, walking down the Elm Street Extension a few seconds after the assassination? As I mentioned above, when I saw Lovelady in the PM film, I was convinced and ate pie that yep, it's Lovelady alright. This is after thinking for years that the Altgens photo showed Oswald as the man in the doorway. I am very intrigued and hope that someday that film is pried from the TV station's hands and a high-res analysis is performed to see who the person standing there in the shadows is. It could be a real deal-maker for the case. Oswald himself said he was out front and directed someone to a telephone so that, combined with the man in the shadows, is very intriguing. So the Altgens photo and the footage, combined, shows it's Lovelady. What viable and - more importantly *plausible* - role could he have had in the assassination? So what if he walked down that other street? He's seen elsewhere in the color footage and later at the police station when Oswald walks by. The people who put this 7-second assassination together were pros and had it all planned out. They were depending on the innocence of the times - people standing around watching the president go by with not a care in the world. And with security that would have gotten the head of the Secret Service fired and jailed if it had happened the way it did in today's world - windows wide up; the limo driving by a busload of people on Main Street; crowds surging up to the limo on the street; etc. My hunch is the "epileptic and ambulance" episode moments before the shooting was the distraction for the shooters to move into place. They came out of the shadows, fired their guns, and retreated. Then the massive cover-up begins, with the very first one being someone flashing a SS badge up in the knoll area. And then it begins in earnest, with a faceless person whispering "It's a white man, 5-10, 165 pounds, slender" within 15 minutes of the shooting. Never mind that it'd be next to impossible for *anyone * to identify a man's height and weight when he's crouched by a window sill 80 feet up in the air. So where does this leave Billy? It doesn't. Not everything about this case is part of the conspiracy. No. 5.

My thoughts exactly, Bob.