Michael Walton

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Why not try doing that and see if I'm right?

David L - can you give it a whirl and see what happens?

6 hours ago, David Lifton said:

TEM #2: Audio analysis

A friend who has audio expertise has been examining the a record of what Perry said at that crucial point on the tape. He notes that when Perry's lips are moving, there ought to be words on the tape; and when not moving, there ought not to be the sound of any words. He states that, without any question, there are serious anomalies in this regard, and he believes that they constitute evidence that tape has been altered ("monkeyed with," in my prior posts).  He is preparing some exhibits, and when his work is completed, and I have    reviewed it, I will pass it along.

Why don't you just put this video online for others to judge, Dave L? Why do you get to hold all of the cards regarding this? Let others see it and make their own judgement.

This really sounds bogus to me. Why, during an entire interview, is one single word being held up as the ultimate proof that Perry cut below the wound and thus further "proof" of body alteration?

David

I stand by what I've  written here and I  know that others who've  read your thrumming  copter and body stealing theory malarkey agree.

What I  think is even  more disgraceful  is how you're  distorting Mac Perry's  testimony into even more body alteration  malarkey. Lucky for  you  Perry has passed on so your malarkey can stand unchallenged, so you  can continue  to  keep it moving along with little push back. And those who are too ignorant to know better will obviously  fall for it.

59 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Paz, this is the perfect example of Josiah Thompson School -- we MUST rely on the analysis of inferior evidence by an expert to buy this as proof of conspiracy.

So why is the clothing evidence which you  seem  to  obsess  on carry any more weight than a bullet case  with  a  dented lip?

Any murder investigation  is like a puzzle  Cliff. You  find  pieces of it to put it together.

So if you  think this dented lip is weak why don't  you  explain  why? Perhaps  Will Fritz bit on it?

11 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You grasp nothing about my way of thinking.

BTW - that picture on your website showing his collar is incorrect.  It's sunlight shining in that area as well as on his jacket.  It may be a little bit of his collar but not as much as you may be seeing his collar showing. So you may want to fix that or not show that particular photo as it can be misleading.

1 hour ago, Rick McTague said:

Thanks for the reply, Michael.  So to understand your explanation of the 3 documented casket entries, the two types of caskets (the ornate bronze one and the pink shipping casket seen - not "heard about" - by two different people), the wrapping of JFK in a sheet leaving Parkland and being removed from a body bag at Bethesda in the presence of Paul O'Connor (as opposed to him "hearing" it was a body bag), and Jerrol Custer taking JFK x-rays to be developed when he saw Jackie and the entourage enter Bethesda are all got their stories wrong about what they saw (not "heard about").

I did not say that I am adherent to body modifications, I only asked about these items.  If I believe these witnesses were not mistaken, that does not imply that I believe in the body modifications.  I think they were credible, believable witnesses of what they saw, and you think they all got their stories wrong. Simple as that.

Thanks again.

My suggestion is read those links.  I don't have 100% all of the answers here but those links went into quite a bit of detail with how Lifton took a word here and a word there and turned it into a body alteration theory.  The key too is try to just put yourself - like a time machine and a fly on the wall - in Parkland on the day of the murder.  Just think of your own life experiences how things happen then think of it back then.  The casket being wheeled, loaded, the plane taking off, people - lots of them - milling about on the plane ride back - people peeking into the coffin room, seeing the wife, and on and on. It seems highly unlikely that someone hurriedly grabbed the body out of the coffin mid-flight, blood dripping around, hurriedly stuffing it into a body bag - and where then to hide the body and bag - and not a single person on the flight ever reporting this to happen. Not a one.

Lifton pretty much weaved this body alteration story together like from bits and pieces of statements made years later after the event like Armstrong did with his Hardly Lee clone story. And now, sadly, Lifton is trying to do it again by saying that a guy caught in the cross hairs of history, Dr. Perry who actually tried to save Kennedy's life, made false claims that he never cut into the throat wound to stick the tube in, thus, trying to bolster the body alteration further. 

2 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Neither Jackie or her staff were around the coffin for the complete duration of the flight.

Yes, they were Ray and even if they weren't who and what in the world were they doing grabbing a bloody corpse out of a coffin mid-flight in a tight place like an airplane? Come one, Ray.

Do you really think this could have happened unnoticed and not a single person has EVER gone on the record who was in that airplane state anything suspicious?

Get real.

40 minutes ago, Rick McTague said:

MW,  I would like to ask your explanation of the three documented multiple casket entry times, multiple caskets (ornate bronze / pink shipping) and multiple conditions of JFK's body

People get their stories wrong all the time, Rick. You know the old rumor story.  You say to someone on day one, "The dog was brown" and one year later you hear it again as "The white cat ate the brown bird."

This case is no different. This kind of thing happens on many, many other theories in this case. Someone hears from someone who was there that the "zipper" was unzipped and all of a sudden a new theory was born - he was not wrapped in a sheet but in a zipper bag so therefore his body just had to be altered.

Some links that explain some of this.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lifton.txt

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm

If it doesn't explain everything enough to your satisfaction, then continue to believe that the body was some how, some way squirreled away to be cut up by mad doctors.

But keep this in mind - there has to be a WHY to all of this too, not just a HOW. Why would they be cutting up the body when no one had even settled on the how yet? Look at this newspaper picture from 11/27:

Even five days later, they still couldn't explain how a shot that supposedly hit him in the rear and came out of his throat actually was a frontal throat wound. So they had him turning all the way around to face the warehouse to get that shot.

So they went through all of this trouble to alter his body to, among other things, cover up the throat wound as one of entrance to one of exit and yet someone who leaked this to the newspaper forgot to tell the reporter? Wouldn't that be the ultimate example of putting the horse before the cart?

On 3/8/2018 at 5:51 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

I took the picture which Micah has posted as it looks to be of a better quality compared to those which I was able to view via a Google search. Of course, the wound is dark and the resolution not perfect, however, I guess it is still possible to reconstruct parts of what was the original incision made by Dr. Perry and a crude alteration performed later. 

Andrej can you please not post such large and graphic images of President Kennedy's graphic throat wound please? It is very upsetting especially for those who may be sensitive to these types of things.  As a matter of fact, I think it would be especially upsetting to the Kennedy family if they happened to stumble upon these very graphic and upsetting images on the Education Forum.

I would kindly ask you to remove those images please as they upset me greatly and if they are not removed, I will have to report your post as offensive to me and I'm sure other researchers.

Thank you.

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

I was referring to the EOP wound. I don't believe the occiput was blown out. See my long post about it above.

Mic, come on.  Don't dodge my post.  You can say you're discussing the head wounds and all of that and try to wiggle out of it.  But I'm clearly asking you to address the logistics of how this whole thing went down. This is, after all, the Lifton thread as in Lifton = body alteration.

3 hours ago, Paz Marverde said:

Cliff, I admire Salandria. That said, I frankly do not understand why, in your mind, there is a sort of "Salandria vs. Thompson"

I can answer that for you.  Cliff's way of thinking about this case is "everything is up in the air...EXCEPT for the autopsy photos which have been faked."

Of course if you think about it, why would Cliff ever limit himself to just fake photos.

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

The case is made of brass, not butter. It would take a harder impact than simply being dropped on the floor to deform the case that much. The empty case weight so little, and basic physics tells us that force equals mass times velocity. So unless the case was moving faster than mach 0.5 (pulling a number out of thin air), hitting a wooden floor didn't do that damage.

For me, it's almost as if it's a too good to be true piece of evidence.  I do believe that all three were laid down to blame LHO because I also believe that no shots came from there - even fake shots from there would have been difficult to do because of the person there having to carefully scoot out of the "nest" in time to not be discovered.

But whoever laid them down, it's almost shocking that that person would lay something down when they know it couldn't be fired - unless that person was not a gun expert and didn't know heads or tails about a casing that's dented.

Wouldn't it be amazing if LHO set up the sniper's nest but did no shooting.  But putting a dented lip there was his way of showing it was an inside job?

This looks like the dented lip one. I'm no gun expert but is it really impossible for a bullet to not be able to be fired if the lip was dented like that? Or could the lip be dented when it lands on the floor after ejection?

6 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Let's talk about the hole in JFK's cranium, shall we?

Mic, what you fail to understand about this theory are the logistics of it. Don't get hung up on the holes and ripped scalp and so on of the photos and the head injury.  We know his head was blown to bits.

Instead, back up and think how this entire theory could have possibly taken place. The body's put in a coffin at Parkland. It was wrapped with sheets and the head was wrapped as well. It's put in an ambulance.  The wife and his staff are all right there, feet away from it all.

Now ask yourself - is it really, truly possible that some how, some way, this coffin surrounded by the wife and staff, was some how stolen or whisked away? Perhaps at Love Field, where someone on the plane took a photo of it as it was being brought on board, with the wife walking behind it?

Or perhaps two hours later as the plane lands? Remember the wife and staff are around the coffin for the duration of the flight. But as it lands and as the wife walks out of the plane on that transport thing and the coffin is right there and then into the ambulance, some how, some way, secret agents were able to get the body out of that same coffin - I'm guessing mid-flight right in front of everyone - put it in a body bag, and as the plane lands, in full view of everyone, they whisk it out the back door of the plane onto a thrumming helicopter?

So now ask yourself, Mic.  Could it really, truly have happened that way? Could it, Mic? While all of this was going on and when all these people were some how around and kind of looking at each other and bumping into each other in the hall ways and on the plane and so forth?

And not a single one of them ever came forward with something like, "Well, yeah, I remember as we arrived at Love there was a decoy ambulance and the one from Parkland drove off and went into a hangar and I saw white-coated doctors taking the coffin out of the ambulance.  I seen it." Or "Yeah I went to the bathroom in mid-flight and took a peek inside of the room where the coffin was...no one was there, but I noticed two military guys in there, one closing the lid and I glanced on the floor and there was a body bag with a body in it. Jackie stepped in and I looked at her and she nodded and smiled.  I seen it."

Not a single person ever came forward, Mic, in 55 plus years. All of these people out and about and no one ever saw this happen and reported it.

It makes a great story but knowing how life goes, it didn't happen that way and there was no reason for it to have happened that way.

On 3/8/2018 at 3:14 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

Why is it assumed this photo is authentic?

Because that's from the record, Cliff. Just because you think it's faked doesn't make it so. In other words, if I took a photo of you with a Polaroid right in front of you and handed the photo that came out of the camera, would you call it fake?

7 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Sandy, that's easy to say, but the resemblance is strong enough that the WC, all of its proponents, and official history say that these pics are of one and the same man. If that's not strong resemblance, it's certainly strong something.

The ears and eyes do it for me.  What Sandy fails to understand is people do change over a period of time.

9 hours ago, David Josephs said:

... if you don't know if the Wiki article is correct... why did you link to it?

Why wouldn't it be correct, Dave? Because you say so? It's not perfect but sources tend to be cited and if it's not cited, they usually put a [citation needed]. And no source of information is 100% correct anyway.

Yep sloping  shoulders solves DE crime.

Inspector Clouseau strikes again.

9 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

tommy...  your worry about appearances over substance is well understood here and most anywhere you express opinions...

I always  knew and suspected this about  Dave but this nice little  post confirms it.

Somewhere along the  way Dave developed  a problem with authority. Therefore  he's  made at the world and authority  which explains  why he believes  everything in the WC is wrong.

Except  of course  when something  supports one  of  his pet theories. Then he quotes at will.

The irony  is rich.

46 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Two men who strongly resemble each other with mothers who also strongly resemble each other would be a coincidence too far. (How about the fathers? Did they also strongly resemble each other?)

Ron, FWIW this is a very good thing to mention and I agree with you. The only thing I can think of is the TX Oswald's Dad donated his sperm to help European war victims over there and to build up the devastated population lost during WWII.  Perhaps the woman in Europe over there who looked exactly like the TX Marge - even down to the mole under her eye but did not smile enough and was dumpy - lost her husband in the war and decided to start a family so she went to the sperm bank and was impregnated with the TX born Oswald's Dad's sperm.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

And now its come full circle...

The walking talking non sequitur poster child of 2018...
The man who has made music a weapon of mass destruction...
The ROKC "shove it" ambassador

How's the sloping shoulders and contrast theories coming along, Dave.

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Take a pinch of clerical confusion, add a few oddball witness testimonies and mix thoroughly. You are now ready to make your Tin-Foil-Hat Pie by constructing any amount of crackpot gibberish theories the paranoid imagination can conjure up.

LOL - good one.

As I mentioned, the photo on right was probably a studio portrait that was touched up.  The one on left is a candid and shows the mark under her eye:

...and here's another one from the 40's:

As I mentioned, this mark on the eye has to be explained.  There's simply no way that we can expect anyone to believe - except of course the Hardly gang - that woman born in TX and a woman - supposedly the TX one's clone - born thousands of miles away in some European country, would BOTH have a mark under their eye. The odds of that happening are simply unbelievable.

And Jim still has not replied about the clown pose in the classroom, how there is a tooth there that the flash from the camera caught.

2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

James,

 

With all due respect, has YOUR face changed over the years? 

You know, after you got "all grown up, and everything"?

I clearly  explained why it's  not in the ones he posted but it IS in the holiday  one that he curiously  did NOT put in his reply.

It's there Jim it's there.  You can deny it all you want but it's there:

The above photo was taken by a pro because it looks staged like a pro would do it, but even then they just left the eye mole in the photo. The other photos you posted are probably photos taken at a studio and they used to touch these photos up to remove blemishes and even enhance features like eye color.  I know because my parents used to have them on their mantle and the style of them looks exactly like the Marge photo with enhanced blue eyes:

That's all it is Jim.  Just a another blowing something out of proportion to create the Hardly story.

Here's another over-done portrait from that era.  Note how the facial features are too smooth and over cleaned up.

But smiling Marge and dumpy Marge and one and the same Jim. And you STILL don't have any answer - like you admitted to Tom Neal - on the dental records.  That too is just one more hole in your Swiss cheese hole of a theory LOL

16 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I don’t have a ready explanation for the lack of an “X” on a front tooth in at least one of the USMC dental charts, but I do believe the picture speaks for itself.

The reason why you have no explanation about the records Jim is because there's really nothing to explain.  There are no X's on any of LHO dental papers which nullified anything was missing where you and others want them to be missing.  The exhumation photos also show teeth where they are supposedly missing, which confirms there was only one Oswald, not clones.

Further, you keep referring to this photo:

...but ironically believers of this theory fail to acknowledge that there actually IS a darkened tooth there - it's very obvious as the camera flash caught it, making a gleam on it.  That's NOT empty space like you and others want to believe.

And regarding the two Moms, I posted the below yesterday showing the smiling Marge in '47 and the dumpy Marge in '64 and BOTH of them have a mark/mole under their right eye. It's simple.  There was never two Marges, but only one. I further showed that the dumpy Marge did smile and if you dig enough, you can find the smiley Marge looking miserable or dumpy.  Again, it's one person with different smiles and a mole under her eye.

***

So here's the dumpy never smiling Marge actually smiling - GASP!

And here's the happy smiling other Marge in the 1940's:

The Hardly gang wants us to believe that these women were clones, not manufactured clones like Ex Machina but by some astronomical odds near identical humans. But what would the odds be for clones supposedly born thousands of miles apart in different countries - yet both of them would have a mark or a mole underneath one of their eyes?  Do you see it above in the holiday photo and also below? Clear as day.

Are we talking a billion to one odds...a trillion? Some DNA findings have smaller odds than that LOL