Michael Walton

I remember starting the book and I stopped maybe 30 pages in. It just seemed too far-fetched for me to believe. There's no doubt Oswald was a very low-level "agent" who was being moved around without really knowing what he was being moved around for. A perfect example of this is even on the day of 11/22 when he saw the commotion out of the window before JFK's arrival, he asked a co-worker what was going on. But I don't think he was involved enough to be in the know about a monkey virus to kill Castro. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/no_author/a-murdered-doctor-a-secret-lab-and-the-killing-of-jfk/

Wow. I mean, just, wow.

What I can't seem to understand here and elsewhere is - why is this even being debated? I'll be the first to admit that in my zeal, for years I thought the man in the doorway was Oswald. I even made a video of it - look up Six Seconds that Changed America on YTV. But after joining this forum and discovering the footage of PM, and seeing with my own eyes Lovelady leaning over the railing looking at the car go by during the actual shooting, I ate humble pie and admitted - yep, it's Lovelady. Even though for years prior, when I'd look at the Altgens photo, it was like I had two little men on my shoulders, one whispering in one deaf ear "It's Oswald" while the other whispered in the other deaf ear "It's Lovelady." So as I read this thread, I'm like - so what? Does it really matter what kind of shirt Lovelady had on that day? There's some color footage of him standing on the steps and the shirt looks plaid. Fine. Big deal.

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/cia-releases-files-that-describe-ruthless-chilean-dicta-1787899872

I know she doesn't have a chance in hell to win, but I'm writing in Tulsi Gabbard on November 8th and I'll do the same in 2020. She'd be a huge breath of fresh air for this country.

I know looks have nothing to do with what these people have to say. But those two guys are the creepiest, weirdest looking guys I've seen in a while. And being deaf, and flawed myself, I'm allowed to say that.

Larry - I say this with respect to you but I'm really surprised that you would cut the "media" some slack ("it's a business so they can't help themselves"). This has been going on forever - look how Mark Lane couldn't even get his article published in the US and had to go to England to do it - and this was literally a month after the murder. Then all of the subterfuge, suppressing of evidence, the CBS "reports" fiasco, the character assassination of JFK and on and on. 11/22 is, IMO, the worst thing to happen to this country since Lincoln was murdered. Look how the course of reconstruction was changed forever the minute Lincoln died and a Southern bigot took it over. Fast forward 100 years later. I know Kennedy was human like the rest of us, but he pretty much saved the country twice from potential nuclear disaster; he was reaching out to Russia and Cuba; he believed that Vietnam could be helped but without a total US immersion; and - POOF - he was gone. And look what happened afterward. And the people working behind the scenes who put it all together know what happened. And that's why it's a very taboo subject, because that's what they want to continue to happen. Look the other way...nothing to see here. As for us and many others, it's basically one loud echo chamber of dissent. It's not hard to follow the dots and put it all together, but all it takes is yet another wink and a nod and anything worthwhile is buried again by talking heads with smug smiles and eye rolling, another book published by a conglomerate "media" company propping up the WR, and so on.

Doug - are you aware that poll is three years old from 2013?

Paul, Thanks for confirming where that "LH said photos are fakes" statement came from. The one part I may agree with you here on is LH may have even made the photos himself. It's very possible and it's also possible that, like he was told to hand out the leaflets in NO, he may have been unwittingly doing this, thinking "OK, I'll hand out the leaflets and make photos of myself holding a Communist newspaper and weapons if it means helping ---- [my case officer] infilterate known Communists." I can see that happening as he's being manipulated around up to 11/22. So we then move on to the weekend of 11/22 where we now have LH saying he's nothing but a patsy, that they've arrested him because of his defection to Russia, that the photos are fake, and I'm guessing he's thinking all the while, "Holy s++t - THIS is why all of this is going down." I can see that happening too. Then he tries to call his [probably fake] cut out in Raleigh Saturday night. As for Fritz, I don't think he had anything to lie about with regard to what LH said about the photos being faked. I do think he was in on the elimination of LH on Sunday, though. He looks almost hilariously pained as he walks 8 feet ahead of LH as he's brought down the aisle to his doom. But it's obvious to me he broke the chain of protection allowing Ruby to shoot LH and I don't think that was an accident.

BTW, isn't it fascinating that the paragon of the Left, the Nation magazine historically has resisted exposing the JFK case? Jim, in my opinion, I think the assassination is one of the most shameful events in this country's history and no one - not even a so-called liberal publication like Nation - wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole then or now. We all know how Mockingbird and the CIA has infilterated the media and I think they can do just about anything they want with any media company. As much as I think Trump is nothing but a bullying buffoon, he was raising some very ugly truths at the recent debate, one being why didn't Clinton, as a Senator, fight to get rid of the carried interest line item? Because she and her wealthy corporate donors use those same write-offs to their advantage. So like Trump was raising some very ugly truths, 11/22 is equally ugly and is one of those truly taboo, bury-it-at-all-costs events and it's especially telling that this is the same event that one of of the most secretive agencies out there is still trying to control the message.

And some people still wonder if he was an agent. Or a phony wannabe agent. Gimme a break! Jim H - very well said. And the nail has been hit squarely when you mention LH's U2 work in Japan. The funniest thing of all about this whole thing is, to this day, WR apologists will just shrug and write all of these things off as "mere coincidence." We would be talking astronomical odds for a guy to be working with the U2 in the radar department, he defects, he changes his mind and comes back to the U.S. without so much as a peep, hands out the leaflets, works for a while at JCS, meets with a known CIA agent in September, is accurately described as the JFK assassin within 10 minutes of the shooting - for what reason we have no idea - his billfold is found at the scene of the murder of a policeman, proclaims he's nothing but a patsy and that they've arrested him for "defecting" two years previously, he tries to call a guy in NC thinking that's going to be his cut-out, is gunned down on live TV, and hilarious photos of him holding the weapons and a Russian newspaper to boot are "found" in his belongings. I mean, Jesus, I would love to have those odds when the new casino opens in DC in December And I know I may sound like I'm preaching to the choir here, but I'm *really" putting this here for new visitors to EF. I hate to say it but there is so much garbage on this forum - one being my all-time favorites "The 67% Solution," that I think it's important to list, whenever possible, the strong, credible, and plausible parts of the case so newbies can separate the wheat from the chaff.

I'm posting this here because the title of this thread is "Yes, Oswald was an Intelligence agent." I think you will find some very good info about this at the link below. It also confirms that Oswald was seen talking to David Phillips, a CIA guy, in September 1963. With the info below and with everything else we know about LH (his fake defection; his returning during the height of the Cold War; his handing out Cuban leaflets in NO; etc.), there's no doubt that he was being manipulated into his role as patsy for 11/22. I'll never believe that LH was in Mexico, though. For me, there's just no credible evidence (e.g., a photo) that he was ever down there. Even Hoover admitted this to Johnson when he saw the photos and heard the tapes the weekend of 11/22. But the link below will show you the "fingerprints of intelligence" all over LH... http://www.groverproctor.us/jfk/jfk80.html

That's a very interesting link, Doug, and I also went on and clicked on one of the links in it and read the Raleigh Call story too. As I read it, I realized that I'd already read this before, but always find it a fascinating re-read. On EF, there's currently a thread about coincidences in the JFK case, but for the Raleigh Call, there's no way it could be that as Proctor shows. Do you or does anyone else know if there's anything new to the Raleigh Call since he wrote his article?

Sorry about that Michael... No problem, Bob. That second GIF (not mine) is pretty interesting though. If you keep watching it over and over it looks almost like the body was standing a little more erect in one on them (but still doing the weird lean) then he leans backward in the other one. You can tell this, too, by the shadow of his head as it falls onto the bottom of the fence. So to recap, the bad guys took several photos of someone posing as Oswald back there, telling him (or not) to stand that way then to lean backward toward the fence (or not). Marina said she only took one photo of LH; perhaps that was the photo they used for his head to do the head pasting since the BYP head looks very similar IMO. Does anyone know what the providence is for LH's statement when he was shown the photos in jail and he said they're fake, with his head pasted onto someone's body? If someone can tell me and others where exactly that statement came from, then I'm always going to believe that these photos were faked to drum up the charges against him. Thanks.

My biggest problem with Hunt is can he be trusted? Wasn't he an author of mystery and spy novels? How do we know he was just pulling the wool over everyone's eyes?

I said way back on #71 or #72 of this thread that his head looks too large and made an animated GIF to show it, but I guess it took over 260 more posts for everyone else to catch up Oh, well... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=23028&page=5#entry333160

Is there some kind of journal where someone could one day publish a peer-reviewed article proving that the backyard photographs were most likely taken with a tripod? You're thinking way too highly about this because there's no such thing when it comes to the JFK case. Supporters of the official story pretty much go by what the government said what happened and cherry pick the evidence to fit a round peg in a square hole. And if too much dissent is expressed to them, then they either sneer, shrug, or both. And any and all official story supporters are in turn supported by the mainstream media. On the other side of the aisle, you have those who think there was a conspiracy based on discrepancies with the available evidence, and others who think what happened is just too wild or implausible to be possible. An example of this is the Single Bullet Theory, an entirely ridiculous official "conclusion" of how a single bullet did extensive damage to two men and came out intact. Then, there are some who think everything - and boy, do I mean *everthing * - was a conspiracy anywhere and everywhere they look. They'll say the Zapruder film is a fake, the Nix film is a fake, there was no throat wound, Oswald did not have a pistol when arrested, Jackie shot her husband, the Secret Service driver shot him, and on and on. It seems like it's similar to what Google did during its early days - throw s---t on the wall and see what sticks. And the worst part about that side of the aisle is no one *on* that side of the aisle ever seems to agree with anyone else, no matter how viable or plausible a theory may be.

Putting this here - animated GIF of "mystery" photo and other one combined: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms

"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie, stating he did this because he felt like it, giving no other reason. Oswald further admitted attempting to fight the Dallas police officers who arrested him in this movie theater when he received a cut and a bump." -- 11/22/63 FBI Report by James Bookhout and James Hosty; WR, p.613 Yes, Dave, but oh, did Oswald say so, so much more. So what was Oswald supposed to say when asked why he was carrying a gun? That he was a raving lunatic, a former defected-to-Russia Marxist who just shot the president, then while he was at it, shot a police officer, too, down the street from his rooming house? And oh, yeah, while he did that, he scattered the gun's shells all over the place and, for even better good measure, he threw down his wallet at the scene that contained an ID card under the name Hidell? I would love to know whether he made his "because I felt like it" statement before or after his "I'm a patsy" statement. Crazy Kid was no dummy so I'd love to have seen his expression on his face when it dawned on him, "Holy s###, so *that's* why they told me to take the gun and meet up with ------ at the theater."

This photo seems to go back further than the Oswald-shooting Ruby: I just don't think that's Ruby in the photo with Nixon. Ruby was more of a two-bit player that worked around the fringes than someone well-known enough to have their photo taken with RN and Bush. I think, too that this is an example of people trying to find anything and everything regarding the case as cause for conspiracy. I do believe the "Rubenstein" mentioned is the same one, but the photo, no.

Nice post, Doug. And an intriguing quote from it: “I was simply astounded that you had ever heard about my being the one to embalm Pres. Kennedy, or rather to put him back together. I’m under orders from the White House, Secret Service and the FBI not to discuss any factors relating to points of entry of bullets, nor their effects. So I can’t tell you anything that would be interesting evolving from natural curiosity." And so it goes. Just like the Zapruder film was kept under wraps from the general public until 1975, the government, in effect, just wanted to sweep all controversy and dissent under the rug. The last thing they wanted was having one of the few people who actually touched the body to reveal something other than the official BS story.

There's a great little clip of Ruby leaving the courthouse and he's asked about his involvement and he says something to the effect of, "If Adlai had been vice president, Kennedy'd still be alive" or something along those lines. Quite revealing. Search the YTV channel Saintly Oswald and it's there.

Your description of the shooting is in many ways very accurate, and I agree with you that JFK seems to be responding to one shot when another shot appears to hit him in the back. Great, then we agree on something. And because it's plain as day that that's what we're seeing in the Z film, then we're on the right track. The part I have a problem with is the frontal throat shot. I believe Sandy and I have conclusively proven the throat wound... Then what do you believe in, Bob, if you're saying that what you see in the Z film is "very accurate," why contradict it and now say you have a problem with it? conclusively proven the throat wound... Really, Bob. Conslusively? Wow, a pretty strong statement there. You have no idea what did or did not exist 53 years ago. Uh, isn't that like calling the kettle black, Bob?

What I can't seem to understand with this thread is, instead of first, second, and third guessing whether the throat wound was a bone fragment, a bullet fragment, or a dart feather that caused the throat wound, why can't anyone just open their eyes up and watch the Z film? It's very, very clear - especially in the version of it below - that Kennedy's hands are already reacting to the throat wound when one-half to a second later he is hit in the back, causing his head to bob backward and then forward from the force of that back shot. So how can that be? First, it proves conspiracy right off the bat - this was supposed to be Crazy Kid up on the 6th floor firing a shot, one that the government wants us to believe went through his back, somehow zigged and then zagged, and then pops out of his throat, continues its high-speed and pristine path to do all of the damage to JBC. We know it didn't and couldn't have happened that way. So what do we have left? It's obvious from his reaction that the throat shot hit him first, THEN the back shot. This negates the SBT and also negates the crazy theory on this thread - as well as all of the other crazy sub-theories of fragments, bones, and what have you. Then, the doctor - one of the few who saw the wound before the cut was made - said it was one of entrance. No one - not a single one of us - was there that day, so you have to take the word of this doctor, who saw gunshot wounds daily. Yet, this thread continues on and on and on with theories, sub-theories, and sub-sub-theories. Will the madness ever end? I mean, when is it ever going to end? And in all honesty, how is it actually helping the research community to talk about things here that didn't even exist 53 years ago?

Everyone except that lyin', money-grubbin' Beverly Oliver. (lol) Good one, Tom, for having a sense of humor +1. Sandy, come on, you should me enough on this board to ever think I believe everything here.