Michael Walton

SANDY - Just so you know, Cliff, what you write doesn't fall on deaf ears. EDIT: Well probably on SOME deaf ears. Oh, haha, beautifully played, Sandy! I'm so glad I'm not an amputee to save you the grief of making a joke like, "Just so you know, Cliff, I noticed a reply to you is missing...and that's not the only thing missing too - wink wink - haha." Or thank goodness I'm not blind or you could have joked, "Hey, Cliff, no blind items to your recent post...blind in more ways than one - haha!!" Beautiful job. As my deaf Mom told me years ago, "Don't ever stare at people who are different," I'm really glad you enjoyed your "staring" moment at my expense - hee hee! Anyway, so what is it I'm supposed to say when Cliff's blabbering on about millennials? I mean what the #### are we supposed to do here, coddle an already over coddled generation just so we hope they at least buy into what happened on 11/22? We're talking a 30 year generational age gap here and I can't help it if Kennedy was killed in a low-tech fashion. Smart young kids will see through the BS and know what happened, and if the rest find the case "boring," or if it's not Matrix-like enough for them, there's nothing I can do about that. Why is Cliff even worried about that? Jeez... Besides, another reason why I was not going to reply is because I already said my piece to Cliff about his high-tech theory. If he wants to believe an alphabet soup entity of the CIA was using all kinds of gizmos and gadgets that day, that's his perogative. I happen to believe it was not necessary, that with some well planned shooters in the right place, and lots of practice beforehand, they'd get the job done. And they certainly did.

I know this is all speculation but the video says LBJ not being a suspect is at 18%. Behind all of the somber nods and frowns during that entire weekend, I've always thought this photo spoke volumes: Even the guy who took it said he thought it was "sinister." I recently saw on the JFK Library site some photos of JFK inspecting the Coast Guard at Anacostia River. It's always fascinating to see those vintage photos of him as President. But once again, and as at other occasions, there was LBJ with him during this event: So it's not like Kennedy shipped him off to no man's land and he seemed to include him a lot in functions. I know there was no love lost between the two but the wink, it happening in Texas, and LBJ's impending and possible indictment certainly makes it plausible he at least knew it was coming. Put another way - I'd never, ever feel this way about Obama and Biden. Or put yet another way - if Obama had been murdered, can you imagine the outrage if Biden and one of his cronies had winked at each other with a bloodied Michelle Obama standing next to him and it was captured in a photo? Here's another nice clip that speaks volumes, especially Ruby at the end talking about "the man in office."

Here's my very, very bad rendition of one of the rooftop concert songs. Can you tell I'm a Beatles fan too to have even tried doing this? https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxOFJrTWhiZzY2UGs

CLIFF - MKNAOMI was a CIA-funded, supra-institutional death squad staffed with civilian doctors and engineers, military brass, and mobbed up drug cops. Who gives a quad-x what Pet Theorists think when no theorizing is required to study a solid lead? OK...so what? So the CIA had some death squads. It doesn't mean they were there in Dealey Plaza that day. Regarding the back wound, none of us have all of the answers about it. According to Humes it was shallow and did not go very deeply. Then he and others there brought up how this may have happened - maybe ice bullets, maybe this or that. The evidence we DO have are the autopsy photos, especially of his back showing the wound as well as his clothes. The clothes match up with the wound. We also have bullet fragments inside of the car. I'm not saying these fragments were from the back wound, but what I'm saying is that's the evidence we have 53 years on. So at Z225, the back shot hits him, right after the throat shot. This back shot pushes him forward, bobbing his head backward and then forward. My hunch is that no shots were fired from the TSDB. I think the shots came from elsewhere as my picture shows: https://doc-0s-bk-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/87veu16j6586u1p9kdruia8v405o8rra/1471392000000/12170580501158663845/*/0B7Hr9Lrku-CxSG51OXF1eXZJdUk I think it was unnecessary for the bad guys to go "high tech" (plastics, darts, toxins, etc.) during the shooting when "low tech" would work just as well. I think your theory about some CIA alphabet soup entity using super gizmos and gadgets that day is too James Bondsey for me. The shooters that day knew what they were doing. There's no doubt they quietly scouted the location, made their plans, did target practice in a secluded area with perhaps the same geo layout as DP, and were ready to go. And they also had the complete and utter element of surprise and confusion working in their favor. After two days of nothing but smiling, cheering, happy crowds, every one from the SS to Kennedy had to have been feeling pretty good about how the trip was going.

David, I think it's important to take a step back and look at ALL of the evidence. Yes, we can argue the handwriting, the printings, and so forth on the MO. But the real clincher for me is that how in the world was Oswald supposed to have walked miles away from his employer's office (JCS) to mail this thing when his time card shows all of his time was accounted for down to the minute? That has to be factored in, in addition to the scope being out of alignment, a bent lip on one of the shells in the so-called sniper's nest, two wallets supposedly belonging to him and one obviously a throw down at the Tippit scene (Oswald would have had to have been the dumbest criminal of all time to have let that happen), Oswald's clear lack of motive for doing what he was accused of, the fake backyard photos (he even knew and understood the process when shown the photos in jail), his "I'm nothing but a patsy" quote just as he's pulled away from reporters, his "deer in the headlights" look during the midnight news conference, and so on. And just because the government said something about his guilt doesn't make it correct. Look how the Zapruder film was supressed until 1975 - where they couldn't falsify or twist things around to suit their case, they simply swept it under the rug away from the eyes of the public. http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf

I think this thread is an example of one of many I've read here where researchers try to speculate on what happened. There's actually nothing wrong with speculating. Cops do it all of the time when they're investigating a crime. But it seems like some researchers call out others for speculating where as their own information they post is also speculation (e.g., my speculation is right; yours is wrong). So does speculation on both sides of the aisle just basically cancel out everything? Perhaps. Meanwhile, I wanted to comment on the plastic/powder/frangible/not frangible bullet theory. I think we're giving the Bad Guys way too much credit regarding using some super-secret, super-exotic bullet/dart/projectile to kill the president. That's not to say they didn't plan this very well - my own speculation runs along the lines of Oswald was either supposed to be killed near the TSBD or, having failed that, be killed in the Texas Theater. When all of that failed, they said to hell with it and just sent in their Mobster to do it on live TV no less. But as far as the mechanics of the shooting itself, weren't there metallic fragments found all over the inside of the car? To me, it flies in the face of common sense to think that they'd mix the bullets up, using metal ones in some of the guns, and plastic/powdery/dart ones in the other guns. I think this is just one of several examples of researchers over-thinking what may have happened. As for the "he sat there between shots because toxins froze him" theory - I really don't think that happened either because, as I said earlier, no one can predict how one is going to react to gunshot wounds. I would encourage other researchers to look around on the internet because there are plenty of videos out there showing a variety of victims being shot. Some just collapse while others continue to stand or sit as if they're shocked. I think it's a really, really big leap of faith to think that the Bad Guys would use some kind of poison or toxic chemical to "freeze" Kennedy in place. As I also mentioned, Jackie was not shot or sprayed with anything but she looks confused and "frozen" too until Z 313.

CLIFF - No, I actually read the evidence. Give it a try, sometime. Yes, Cliff, I'm fully aware of the evidence of the case, having read just about any book, article, or story I've been able to get my hands on in the past 30 years, as well as statements in the WR. But that is another interesting phenomena I've found on this forum. That is, researchers have taken bits and pieces of the written record from witnesses, doctors, nurses, government officials and hold it up as gospel. I'm not saying that every single thing EVER said in the record is not correct. However, people do make mistakes. Didn't these two FBI agents also say during their viewing of the autopsy that they saw "surgery to the top of the skull" or some such statement? And didn't these few words from two government officials, who had no medico experience to speak of, start an entire cottage industry in the JFK case, perhaps reaching its pinnacle when David Lifton wrote his "body alteration" book (which, when I read it at 18 years old I believed it but since then, I think it's way too outlandish for it to have happened)? And elsewhere, I can't understand why researchers find a single sentence on page 30, another on page 459, and a third on page 234, stitch them together and say, "See, here's the proof." Just because these agents were in the room mere yards away from the body did not make them experts at what they were observing. A torn piece of skin, for example, with a pretty clean tear, does not mean someone whisked away the body from the plane and cut it open making alterations. The same goes for the "dissolving" or "plastic" bullet statement. Possible? Yes, anything is possible. Is that how it happened just because two agents said so in the record? No. As for your toxins theory, no one can predict how a body is going to react when bullets enter into it. For research purposes, I've viewed dozens and dozens of video clips of people being shot in the back of the head, the front, in the chest, back, and so on. It's absolutely nothing like we see in Hollywood movies with arms flailing and bodies flying around. As a matter of fact, I've yet to see anyone take a shot to the chest or back and go into arms flailing and convulsing mode. President Kennedy seemed to react in a pretty typical manner. His hands went up to his throat from that shot, the back shot hit, and then he was probably more stunned than anything after seeing nothing but smiling, waving, cheering crowds for the past two days. Even Jackie looks "frozen" after the initial shots. Was some kind of toxin sprayed onto her, too, causing her not to push her husband down onto the floor? Then there's Connally, who also pretty much reacted like I've seen elsewhere - a grunt, a moan, no flailing arms, and then his wife grabs him. Even Oswald yelled out and just collapsed from Ruby's shot, and as far as I know, Ruby's bullets had no toxins on them. Which brings me back to this thread topic - the steep angle of the back wound. I'll let the graphic below tell my thoughts on that one: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxc1VxMlE2WEQtRVk As I mentioned above, I just don't think any the Bad Guys would have done any firing from that building. It was there simply as a way to reveal the so-called - and faulty - evidence against Oswald. There were too many other far better and more hidden locations to position shooters and do the shooting from there to take the risk of firing from the TSBD. This is just like the MLK case, where they tried to make the bathroom window as the shooting "scene" where they could easily position a shooter in the tall, thick bushes closer to the balcony, and which were cut down the very next day.

I'll let these images tell my post here. https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxZERPRWlhXzBWMTQ https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxcmwzUDZWZjhmZ0U https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxSG51OXF1eXZJdUk Cliff - Expanding on that right-there-in-the-historical-record Scenario I can buy the first shot to the throat as a paralytic, the shot to the back a toxin. The shot to the throat wasn't a kill shot -- the second hit, to the back, had to be a kill shot. IMO. Really Cliff? Is it possible that you've read one too many spy and cloak and dagger novels? It never fails to amaze me why the research community always seems to suspect poison darts, stun bullets, and the like. There was simply no need to go through such an elaborate and possibly faulty spy weapons when some simple bullets would do the job.

Me too. Bullets. The metal kind. And by the way, Bob, you're no innocent babe in the woods when it comes to "hijacking other threads." We're ALL guilty of it.

TOM - To accept the opinion of an "expert" regarding the assassination requires evidence FAR BEYOND that of a 'normal' case. Tom so let me get this straight. According to your logic, all experts who present evidence that the Z film is authentic are wrong because...they need even more evidence to prove their case? Even after they picked up and examined the NARA Z film, which none of us have ever done? And yet crazy Danny on his Facebook page spouts that, "Oh, yeah, I've transferred films and I've just never seen images over in the sprocket holes like you can see in the Z film and it must be fake." And you immediately fall for it? And then your old buddy in "facts far above a normal case" Chris shows a strip from his own 8mm Z camera on this thread. He doesn't have the guts to say anything about his post but the image proves that, yes, there are images in the sprocket hole areas and yes, even old Chris disagrees with crazy Danny. And you continue to argue on this thread? After even old buddy Chris has proven you and crazy Danny wrong? And when I said on this thread that yes, images in the sprocket holes were normal, you disagreed with me, too? So according to you, crazy Danny is right, I'm wrong, Chris is wrong, while over on The 67% Solution, Chris is right, I'm wrong, and the Zavada report is wrong? Do you not see how delusional your answers are here with all of this? You hold the Zavada report to a "far beyond" level, yet Danny spews nonsense and Chris plays around with math and animated GIFs of his wife's car driving down the street, and that's your "far beyond" standards?

RON - But instead he sat there as if paralyzed till they blew his brains out. And that was the purpose of the dart(s), to make sure he sat there till dead. Connally didn't collapse or throw himself down either. The agents up front, who weren't even hit with anything, froze. Even Jackie froze..was she hit with a dart, too? No one really knows how one is going to react when hit with a bullet, Ron. That entire group had seen nothing but smiling, happy, cheering crowds for the past two days. It's not like they were sitting around saying, "OMG, here come the bullets. Don't forget to throw yourselves down." The point is, I don't think they would have used darts. And just because Kennedy froze doesn't mean he was suddenly hit by a high-tech dart causing him paralysis. Even Reagan froze up when he was shot, before the SS agent pushed him into the car. But he survived and we know he was hit with bullets.

You didn't know that the CIA had such weapons in 1963? It's a matter of record. Yes, Ron, I'm completely and 100% aware of the Agency's mind-control, dart shooting, poison pen, hiring the Mafia to do its dirty work, wet works history and methods. I just don't think they'd take such a huge risk of using any of them that day when an easy, from a good distance crossfire with bullets, and with shooters from behind and in front, could have done the job more efficiently. Try to look at it from the big picture - they had already greased the screw as far back as June 1963 when they had their Crazy Commie Oswald primed to take the fall (unknown to him) by getting him to hand out Commie papers in NO; they had over-done photos of him holding not only the rifle he was going to take the fall with, but also holding a Commie handbill and a pistol to boot (talk about overkill); they had the rifle purchase paperwork ready to go (except they forgot one thing...he was working at JCS all day as documented by his time card...oops); they had an impostor going around firing other people's targets at a rifle range and still another going around bragging he'd be getting a lot of money soon while he's out test driving cars; then they have yet another impostor down in MC trying to reach out to a Russian assassin (but they screwed up with that one too because the impostor looked and sounded nothing like the man that was captured in Dallas - oops #2). So you have to ask yourself - why in the world would they go through all of this meticulous planning and then, switching gears, they'd take a chance of ##### it all up by shooting darts? Further. they needed bullet wounds and fragments to make it all tie together as neatly as they could.

Cliff - MKNAOMI dart is far more likely. Really, Cliff? A dart? With that much pinpoint accuracy to hit Kennedy from a reasonable distance and to avoid detection? And when the U.S. had finally gotten a rocket off the ground just a few years before after several false starts in mid-launch? I had been reading a few posts of yours elsewhere so I wasn't quite sure where you stood on the whole thing. I did notice a lot of anger but the messages were quite ambiguous. But now I've got it. A dart. OK.

Jeremy - If you know of no such experts, what is it that prevents you from agreeing with Zavada and Fielding? Because none of these people want to listen to reason. They're all just anti-education and act similar to the Mel Gibson character in the film "Conspiracy Theory" with foil taped all over their walls and photos of people who merely glanced over at them walking down the street taped all over their walls. It's why this whole country is going down the toilet because Trump pretty much panders to them, makes them feel like - FINALLY - someone is listening to me! Yeah! But they're too ignorant to realize that Trump is just playing them along to get their vote. They used to be on the fringe and you'd never hear from them unless one of your relatives married one. But thanks to the internet, the crazies have come out of the woodwork. 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 as I pointed out with my own crazy brother-in-law: These people remind me of my ridiculous brother-in-law who 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. And it's also why one of our proudest astronauts, who worked his tail off, went to college, and educated himself, finally had had enough and punched one of the crazies while cameras were rolling. All you have to do is take out Aldrin and put in Zavada or me and in place of the idiot badgering him with nonsense, put in anyone on The 67% Solution or Sprocket Holes threads: And to top it off, here is the guy who started it all with this Z film craziness. Would you listen to ANYTHING this man has to say? One other thing -- I've actually been accused of being a Lone Nut believer, meaning I think Kennedy was killed only by Oswald with no help elsewhere. This couldn't be further from the truth as I KNOW it didn't happen that way, that it was a massive conspiracy to get rid of him. So what does that tell you about the people on The 67% Solution and Sprocket Hole threads? Just like my Salem hacking brother-in-law, who absolutely refused to listen to the correct answer about the RECIRC switch in the car, the same goes here. A CT believer explaining why the Z film is authentic and I'm not only wrong, but I must be wrong because I'm a Lone Nut believer. It's hilarious.

This was posted over at the Sprocket Hole thread. It pretty much is a final answer from me on The 67% Solution thread (aka Swan Song). This forum is known as the Education Forum but if you don't want to be educated, then people who have the answers are wasting their time: Sandy - The awful thing they (the bad guys) saw and had to get rid of was the Secret Service driver coming to a complete stop so that the final bullet could finish off Kennedy. Sandy, You may want to watch this. From what I can see, it clearly shows the car slowing down and almost stopping before the head shot. I'm assuming you mean they tried to get it rid of that but it looks like it's still there to me: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxRDVUT3ROS2psbTg Tom - Thanks! They? Only Walton says they couldn't do it. BTW, could you proof-read my earlier post re JFK's invisible head wound due to shadow, the ridiculous-looking blob on the side of his head that is supposed to be an exit wound, and that all the eyewitness reports such as a 'bucket-of-blood' from the back of his head is not visible on the z-film? Tom, I've never said nor doubted the buckets of blood as seen by witnesses. I'm sure you've seen the photo below so yes, we all know it was all over the place: As I explained before, a consumer 8mm film camera with an adequate lens and zoomed in to a distant point is just not going to capture as much detail as you'd like to think, especially as compared to today when you can shoot something in HD with your phone. For the time, there's pretty decent detail as you can actually see a piece of brain fall out of this head right after 313. But because his head was turned to the right toward the sun, the side of the head is illuminated. Unfortunately, the back was in shadow and in film - as in video - something always is lost when you have that much contrast between light and dark. I've shot over 300 special events in my career using $10,000 cameras and $5,000 lenses and even today, on a "hot" (hot as in bright with sunshine), you're constantly fighting the camera's iris to find that perfect shot. But when you do, even then, something is always too dark or too bright. It's just the way it is. The same goes for the Z film. You can see the whitish skull flap, the pink of the gore coming out of his head, but in the shadows and on a day full of light and dark, the back of the head loses a lot of detail. You can even notice this darkness on the lower side of his head in the freeze frame below. And this was before the head shot: The same goes for the blood. There's just no way a consumer camera circa 1963 is going to capture every single piece of brain matter and blood flying around after 313. It's just not possible. Have you ever noticed in the Z film how even their faces kind of look not clear and slightly blurred? Again, this is the 8mm and an OK lens. As a comparison, look at this 35mm (I'm guessing) photo taken earlier with a much better lens. If Zapruder's camera had been 35mm and a great lens, we'd see a lot more detail: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxYXR5WWxkZ05QRkU As was mentioned numerous times here, you may be surprised to know that I'm far from being the only one who thinks the Z has not been faked. The ARRB hired Zavata and Milch to thoroughly investigate the film that was at NARA at the time and concluded that no alteration took place. Now, if you then come back and say, "That's because there's some other "original" film out there that was shot at 48 FPS and showed some truly horrible things in and showed clear conspiracy and the bad guys took that film and removed 67% of the frames in it and painted a blob on Kennedys and so and so forth, then we're pretty much back to square one. If that's what you'll then say, then YOU - not me - have to then prove three things: 1. What was so terrible in this "other" film that the Bad Guys went through all of the trouble of altering it? 2. Where is this other film? 3. How do YOU (and Chris, Dave, Dave, Jim Fetzer and others) know what was in it if the film has NEVER been seen before? If you can't answer these three questions conclusively, then I'm sorry to say but the whole Z film alteration theory collapses like a deck of cards. Then if you can't answer them but want to keep playing Whack A Mole here, jumping around from topic to topic, then it'd probably be a good idea to just wrap this up. Because you're going to continue to believe what you want, and I'm going to continue to know what really happened. The "same difference" goes to the The 67% Solution thread (aka Swan Song). If you can't answer the above three questions conclusively - the same with Chris over on The 67% Solution - but want to continue posting and saying yes, it happened, there's a blob...there's 67% frames removed, then I can't help you.

Sandy - The awful thing they (the bad guys) saw and had to get rid of was the Secret Service driver coming to a complete stop so that the final bullet could finish off Kennedy. Sandy, You may want to watch this. From what I can see, it clearly shows the car slowing down and almost stopping before the head shot. I'm assuming you mean they tried to get it rid of that but it looks like it's still there to me: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxRDVUT3ROS2psbTg Tom - Thanks! They? Only Walton says they couldn't do it. BTW, could you proof-read my earlier post re JFK's invisible head wound due to shadow, the ridiculous-looking blob on the side of his head that is supposed to be an exit wound, and that all the eyewitness reports such as a 'bucket-of-blood' from the back of his head is not visible on the z-film? Tom, I've never said nor doubted the buckets of blood as seen by witnesses. I'm sure you've seen the photo below so yes, we all know it was all over the place: As I explained before, a consumer 8mm film camera with an adequate lens and zoomed in to a distant point is just not going to capture as much detail as you'd like to think, especially as compared to today when you can shoot something in HD with your phone. For the time, there's pretty decent detail as you can actually see a piece of brain fall out of this head right after 313. But because his head was turned to the right toward the sun, the side of the head is illuminated. Unfortunately, the back was in shadow and in film - as in video - something always is lost when you have that much contrast between light and dark. I've shot over 300 special events in my career using $10,000 cameras and $5,000 lenses and even today, on a "hot" (hot as in bright with sunshine), you're constantly fighting the camera's iris to find that perfect shot. But when you do, even then, something is always too dark or too bright. It's just the way it is. The same goes for the Z film. You can see the whitish skull flap, the pink of the gore coming out of his head, but in the shadows and on a day full of light and dark, the back of the head loses a lot of detail. You can even notice this darkness on the lower side of his head in the freeze frame below. And this was before the head shot: The same goes for the blood. There's just no way a consumer camera circa 1963 is going to capture every single piece of brain matter and blood flying around after 313. It's just not possible. Have you ever noticed in the Z film how even their faces kind of look not clear and slightly blurred? Again, this is the 8mm and an OK lens. As a comparison, look at this 35mm (I'm guessing) photo taken earlier with a much better lens. If Zapruder's camera had been 35mm and a great lens, we'd see a lot more detail: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxYXR5WWxkZ05QRkU As was mentioned numerous times here, you may be surprised to know that I'm far from being the only one who thinks the Z has not been faked. The ARRB hired Zavata and Milch to thoroughly investigate the film that was at NARA at the time and concluded that no alteration took place. Now, if you then come back and say, "That's because there's some other "original" film out there that was shot at 48 FPS and showed some truly horrible things in and showed clear conspiracy and the bad guys took that film and removed 67% of the frames in it and painted a blob on Kennedys and so and so forth, then we're pretty much back to square one. If that's what you'll then say, then YOU - not me - have to then prove three things: 1. What was so terrible in this "other" film that the Bad Guys went through all of the trouble of altering it? 2. Where is this other film? 3. How do YOU (and Chris, Dave, Dave, Jim Fetzer and others) know what was in it if the film has NEVER been seen before? If you can't answer these three questions conclusively, then I'm sorry to say but the whole Z film alteration theory collapses like a deck of cards. Then if you can't answer them but want to keep playing Whack A Mole here, jumping around from topic to topic, then it'd probably be a good idea to just wrap this up. Because you're going to continue to believe what you want, and I'm going to continue to know what really happened. The "same difference" goes to the The 67% Solution thread (aka Swan Song). If you can't answer the above three questions conclusively - the same with Chris over on The 67% Solution - but want to continue posting and saying yes, it happened, there's a blob...there's 67% frames removed, then I can't help you.

Sorry Tom but this claim of blobs painted in, extra frames filmed and then taken out, and other nonsense is, to put it politely, way, way out there. I just find it hard to believe that rational people can make such irrational claims. And I'm still waiting for everyone to tell me what the so-called original film showed that they had to go through all of this trouble in the first place. If none of you can give this a convincing answer and back it up with solid evidence, then any and all of these way, way out there claims are just that - way, way out there.

But how do you know that the SS didn't do it that way? You know no more than I do. If I'm wasting your time, then nobody is twisting your arm to reply. And I'm still waiting for everyone to tell me what the so-called original film showed that they had to go through all of this trouble in the first place.

That's right continue ignoring my questions that you can't answer, while asking me questions.Answer the questions I've posed to you first... Tom, this pretty much proves what I've known all along - you don't want to listen to anyone who disagrees with you. I just explained previously WHY there is no hole there. The catch is yes, I DO agree with you that there IS a hole there because I strongly believe that his whole right side of his head was shot out and it extended back toward the back. But the reason why I DO NOT agree with you about Walt, Hanna-Barbera, and Ub having to come in and paint over this hole (which sounds so ridiculous that it's starting to sound comical) was because there's a simpler and far more reasoned explanation for what you're seeing in the film. You didn't even bother to read it but it was right there. So, nice guy that I am I'll put it right here in front of you. But it's up to you to read it: Kennedy's right side of his head was in shadow, Tom. The sunlight was over on the left side. That's why it looks so dark there, so "blobbish." That combined with the very tiny film crystals on the 8mm film stock is not going to show something in incredible detail. And what people don't realize too is it's not just the film stock. It's also the lenses. The Z camera was a prosumer grade machine circa 1963 with a decent but not great lens. Nothing like they used when filming Gene dancing with Jerry. You're just not going to see the detail you think you're supposed to see as if it was shot on 35mm film using a high-grade Fuji or like lens. So there it is, Tom. But speaking of answering people's question here, I'm STILL waiting for all of you guys to tell me: But as a mentioned over on Chris's thread - which I'm unofficially renaming from Swan Song to "The 67% Solution," none of you, not a one, can answer this: What were the Bad Guys seeing in the so-called original film that was so terrible that they had to go through all of the trouble of removing 67% of the frames, a la Chris, painting in blobs, and all of this other nonsense? What was it? And further: Where is this original film and how does everyone, including Chris, Tom, Dave, Dave H, Jim Fetzer, and all of other wackos, know what's in this mystery film, but why Jeremy, Zavada, me and others, don't know what's in it or have never seen it? As was said in the other thread, it's like counting how many angels fit on the head of a needle - NO ONE has ever seen this EVER happen before, but we have all of these Fetzer acolytes standing around saying, "Oh, yeah...blob there!" and "Oh, yeah...48 FPS and 67% removed, oh, yeah...!" But when you ask them why, it's, "Because we say so! We know better and you don't!" I'm still eagerly awaiting...

Chris - The simplest explanation is usually the one that makes the most sense. We don't know how the SS made the Z film transfer to BW. For all we know, they might have just projected the Z film on a screen and the SS AV tech aimed his camera at the projected image and captured it on film. Very low tech but possibly very plausible, given that AV departments in the government worked cheaply. I used to do this myself when I worked in AV (not film but video) and it worked fine. You did things the best way you could on a shoestring. Because the AV camera was not synched with the projected film, perhaps when the shutter closed that single frame was not captured and possibly others. But does it really matter, Chris? Why does a frame after the shooting that you think is missing be of concern? And as I said above, what was in that single frame you're claiming to be missing that was so terrible that it just HAD to be eliminated? You might want to compare the BW film with this version, which is just the unstablized frames of the Z film, downloaded from the internet, just whizzing by at what the Zavada report states was the recording time of a little more than 18 FPS. I made this a while back so yes, there is a tested fake element I added to it. But the point here is watch the running girl in both, Chris. She's bouncing along naturally in both. Use her as your benchmark, Chris. It's all natural, Chris. Perfectly normal and not faked, Chris. Once you use the bouncing girl running and the guy stepping back onto the curb as benchmarks, it all just flows normally from there, Chris. No painted-in blobs...no 67% of frames removed... https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxRDVUT3ROS2psbTg

Dave Healy - bull pookie son... you can bump anything to anything. Tell us what kind of artifacts - now we know you're panicking... <boring> Why should I tell you, Dave? You don't or won't believe it anyway, so why bother. Sigh... do you have anything GOOD to add here other than swooping down, saying ridiculous BS, and then flapping off again? I dont' think you've EVER offered anything useful here except your ill-informed opinions, the same ones you offer when sitting around the bowling alley snack table inhaling cigarettes and drinking a 64 oz Diet Coke. Tom - Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Twenty years later, NPIC still didn't have the skills so they.. So when did Hanna Barbera, Iwerks (or even Walt himself for ###'s sake) come in and do this, Tom? Did you even watch the video above I posted? Probably not. According to you, they were painting in H-B characters in the 1940s on 35mm Hollywood film cels then overlaying them using an optical printer (that's a fact). Yet, you think they painted in an animated blob on Kennedy's head (what for I have no #### idea why they would)...but why not take it a step further? Why not paint in Connally's scowl as the bullet hits him, but paint it in right at 225 when Kennedy starts throwing his hands up? That would make the SBT more plausible. Or why not animate Kennedy's entire body, throwing him down onto the floor of the limo as the bullet hits at 313? I mean, why not, Tom? They painted Jerry Mouse to sing and dance with Gene Kelly, right? Get Hanna and Barbera to hold the film cel down, Iwerks to direct, and Walt to magically stroke the brush, right? Kennedy's right side of his head was in shadow, Tom. The sunlight was over on the left side. That's why it looks so dark there, so "blobbish." That combined with the very tiny film crystals on the 8mm film stock is not going to show something in incredible detail. And what people don't realize too is it's not just the film stock. It's also the lenses. The Z camera was a prosumer grade machine circa 1963 with a decent but not great lens. Nothing like they used when filming Gene dancing with Jerry. You're just not going to see the detail you think you're supposed to see as if it was shot on 35mm film using a high-grade Fuji or like lens. But as a mentioned over on Chris's thread - which I'm unofficially renaming from Swan Song to "The 67% Solution," none of you, not a one, can answer this: What were the Bad Guys seeing in the so-called original film that was so terrible that they had to go through all of the trouble of removing 67% of the frames, a la Chris, painting in blobs, and all of this other nonsense? What was it? And further: Where is this original film and how does everyone, including Chris, Tom, Dave, Dave H, Jim Fetzer, and all of other wackos, know what's in this mystery film, but why Jeremy, Zavada, me and others, don't know what's in it or have never seen it? As was said in the other thread, it's like counting how many angels fit on the head of a needle - NO ONE has ever seen this EVER happen before, but we have all of these Fetzer acolytes standing around saying, "Oh, yeah...blob there!" and "Oh, yeah...48 FPS and 67% removed, oh, yeah...!" But when you ask them why, it's, "Because we say so! We know better and you don't!" Absolutely, incredibly ridiculous. These people remind me of my ridiculous brother-in-law who 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. It's just sheer stupidity and ignorance combined.

And your point, Chris? And have you determined why they went through all of this trouble? WHAT was in the so-called original 48 FPS film that the Bad Guys felt they needed to remove? I'm waiting, Chris...

Quite frankly, I don't believe such a slow bullet could have ever made it to JFK's back, making the shallow back wound a myth; at least in my eyes anyways. So what are you saying happened, Bob? Humes probed the back wound and it terminated not very deeply. You can see the wound on the autopsy photo. You can see the bullet hit Kennedy in the Z film right after he throws his hands up - he lurches forward and his head bobs backward and then forward from the force of the bullet. I'm genuinely curious what your alternative theory to the back wound myth is.

The inset (red border) is from David Healy's excellent primer. The frame removal process is the body. David Healey?! Another Fetzer acolyte? So you're a Fetzer acolyte, Chris?! No wonder. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/healy1.html This quote from the above: I'm not forgetting Jim Fetzer, who's got the balls to shake up a few of the institutions involved (past and prersent [sic]) and demanding answers to some serious questions! Good job Dr. Jim... I'm not a writer - so bear with me and the ramblings, then again you've probably figured that out! Emphasis on *ramblings* And Chris, they're going through all of this trouble to remove...what? What exactly did they take out, Chris? And don't answer with "frames" but what were they seeing in the film that was so scary that they had to go through all of this? And how do YOU know what they had to remove, Chris, without you - or me, or anyone - even seeing the "original 48 FPS" to know, yourself, that "yes, they had to take out all of these frames because in the original there was....what, Chris?! You can't answer this, Chris, because you don't know because you're imagining that "something" was removed from the film...but don't know what!? Do you not see the insanity of all of this?!

Doug - On August 5, 1963, representatives of the United States, Soviet Union and Great Britain signed the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which prohibited the testing of nuclear weapons in outer space, underwater or in the atmosphere. Yes, thanks for posting this Doug and it's a good post by Danny. I agree that President Kennedy saved us from two nuclear wars when he refused to send the military at the BOP and for fighting off his war mongering generals and went the quarantine route during the CMC. I think both of these events are ones that eventually led to his elimination. Sandy - Common sense -- which seems to have escaped Michael -- tells most people that if alterations were made, they would have been done on large prints. Which later would be photographed back onto 8 mm film. Or something along those lines. Sigh...Sandy, please go and read what Jeremy wrote about you CAN'T bump up Kodachrome film without causing a lot of aritifacts. So think of this timeline: Take the 8mm film, bump it up to 16mm? 35mm? [artifacts]; paint in the blob; bump it back down to 8mm; send this version to NARA where it's currently stored. Really, Sandy? Really? OMG. Chris - Added on edit: "Also, while the new Eastman color negative stock is almost grainless, there is a difference in grain between a print-up and a 70mm print made from a 65mm negative" OMFG! You can't be serious, Chris. Bumping up an 8mm film to 70mm...in nineteen xxxxxxing 63?! Or whenever the Bad Guys decided to do it?! Hahahaha..... Tom - On the chance that someone complains that this was wasn't done until 1964: Gene Kelly in "Anchors Aweigh" 1944: Mouse dancing! So now the Bad Guys brought in Hanna Barbera to paint in the blob, Tom?! I thought it was Ub Iwerks they brought in. Holy ####! And here it is: Secret Service in-house film made in early 1964 reviewing 11/22. Starts at 3:32 and the doctored, blob-painted-in-by-Hanna-Barbera, 67% of frames removed because Zapruder shot it at 48 FPS, yet the girl runs smoothly like she does in 2016 altered, faked, blobbed, bumped up and then down version, starts at 11:38. And check out the title card at 4:17. You know, it's funny because I think the whole WC is nothing but BS. But that title card IS one of the few things they got right.