Michael Walton

Just putting this here: https://youtu.be/lFl9pZYSW0s?t=17m3s This reenactment had to be on some kind of tripod and you can tell too because as the camera operator is trying to hold the target, you can see the small jerks that you only see when on a tripod. FYI - I've shot over 300 special event videos in my career, including weddings in large cathedrals, using large telephoto lenses and requiring me to zoom in from great distances to get the "million dollar" close up shot for the client. So imagine seeing this shot through the scope, holding it by hand, and then taking a big a## shot with the kick, using the bolt, and then re-acquiring the target, all the while the car is moving away from you. I'm not saying it can't be done but it really does seem very, very unlikely. And all in 5.5 seconds...sheesh.

Posting this here so when visitors arrive, they can have the 11-23-63 speech available: Castro speech 11-23-63 The funny thing is in today's 24/7 media grind, you have talking head "analysts" spewing nonsense about anything and everything. Back then, you had so-called "respected" reporters like Cronkite, Rather, Brinkley, and so on. But what's amazing to me is no one - not a one of them - had it in them to ask these probing, analytical questions in the aftermath and beyond, and on the air to boot. So it took a communist dictator and a small-time lawyer like Mark Lane to figure it out and do the media's work for them.

Now, it seems like the forum is kicking me out if I don't make my post within 10 minutes or so. I was wondering if anyone knew this to be the case. Pat, if you've noticed that, then it appears the forum "engine" might have a timer built into it that refreshes it. This is just a guess of course, but it's kind of similar to when I login to a Joomla or Drupal CMS website, or even when I login to my banking website. I know a banking website tends to do it because they're trying to protect you from inactivity. But for a Joomla or Drupal CMS website, even when you're typing, it can assume nothing is happening (of course you know it is happening) and will refresh.

Dan Rather ridicules the statements of the workers standing... Agreed and old (or rather young) Dan started misleading the public 52 years ago about what he "saw" when he completely left out the "back and to the left" violent reaction of the JFK head shot. The fix was already on at that point.

What is it about the Hoosier state that makes the electricity go out constantly? I've never figured out that mystery. It's no mystery. It's a conspiracy. Just kidding you, David. Thanks for sharing.

It's Rather ironic that in the photo Lone Nutter Dan is standing at perhaps the best location for a shooter in Dealey Plaza. Love your word play on old Dan. Nice.

How did Katzenbach know on the 24th what the FBI report, which had not yet been written, was going to say? I guess because he was high up enough in the chain of command to know what was really going on. I mean, Bobby Kennedy was pretty much silenced by grief and out of the picture. Hoover and Johnson were Georgetown neighbors and buddies. They had to have known what was going on off the wire. If the government was really and vigorously pursuing the truth of this case, that memo would have never been written in the first place. In fact, they would have done the opposite of what the memo states. I know Americans like to think of high-minded justice, following the rules of evidence collecting, and so on, but that was definitely not going to happen in this case. And one of the biggest and most obvious signs of that was when practically the entire Dallas police force is lined up like a show, the suspected assassin is slowly brought down the hall, a captain of the police force, instead of guarding his charge, walks feet ahead of him, breaking security and allowing a guy who had no business being there to silence him forever on national TV to boot. Did you read the Castro 11/27 speech? Whether you like Castro or not, read the speech. Think of him as a human first - not a communist dictator - and you'll see he had it all figured out while, meanwhile, the government was doing everything it could to sweep things under the rug from the public. Mark Lane had it figured it too as early as December 1963.

I just lost another long post. Not sure what's going on. Pat, I don't know if you're doing this or not, but you may want to type your replies in Notepad (if you're using a Windows machine) first, or in some kind of word processing file if you're using Apple (I don't use Apple so I don't know what they have) then when you're ready, copy and paste it into EF. I mentioned this on another thread and Tom Neal said he does the exact same thing. Doing this allows you to even save your post, walk away, and come back to it later. It's just a way to avoid the maddeningly frustrating incidence of typing a long post in the EF post box only to lose it just as you click POST. Hope this helps. Michael W.

I think this memo is one one of the more blatantly obvious pieces of evidence for a conspiracy without intentionally meaning to do so. I mean think about it - this is just three days after the assassination. Supposedly, Lee Oswald was a lone kook that nobody was supposed to have known about; in other words, he's supposedly working all alone with no confederates and all investigative agencies are supposedly just starting to find out who he is. But now he's dead, shot down by a concerned saloon owner. I encourage you to read a translation of a speech given by Castro on 11/27. Even he, supposedly isolated on his island, knew this was turning into a really rotten deal. Read, too, the part about what he says about Ruby. But regarding Nick's memo, why was he even concerned about the "no confederates" concept? If the then official story was true (LHO was a loner) why even bring it up? Then he wraps it up very neatly in the "facts" portion of his memo. As for evidence: Read the Paines thread on EF The Zapruder film - confiscated and withheld from the public for 12 years; and CBS reporter Dan Rather describing it on TV on 11/25 but completely eliminating the "back and to the left" description of it; he's a reporter who's supposed to describe everything, right? Hoover's call to Johnson telling him that the photos of Oswald in Mexico were not the same person they had in jail. Bringing Dulles back in to run the WC after he was fired from the CIA two years before. Many, many more inconsistencies as well.

Touche, Pat. Thanks.

Regarding Oswald's rights, and his having fair representation, here is one of my all-time favorites, the Perry testimony. As it continues and Perry is describing Kennedy's wounds, he's interrupted by Dulles himself. I've always thought he was badgering the witness. Further, during questioning, Specter presents a long-winded description about feet per second and all of this other crap. But in essence, he's doing a lawyer's trick of leading the witness to a preconveived conclusion (i.e., what the Warren folks want to hear, not what really happened): Mr. SPECTEB. And have you noted in the autopsy report the reference to the presence of a wound on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 7 by 4 mm. in oval dimension and being located 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process? Dr. PEBBY. Yes; I saw that. Mr. SPECTER. Assuming that was a point of entry of a missile, which parenthetically was the opinion of the three autopsy surgeons, and assuming still further that the missiie which struck the President at tha,t spot was a 6.5-mm. jacketed bullet shot from a rifle at a distance of 166 to 250 feet, having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,606 feet per second, and that upon entering the President’s body, the bullet traveled between two strap muscles, through a fascia channel, without violating the pleural cavity, striking the trachea, causing the damage which you testified about being on the interior of the President’s throat, and exited from the President’s throat in the wound which you have described in the midline of his neck, would your findings and observations as to the nature of the wound on the throat be consistent with the set of facts I just presented to you? Dr. PERRY. It would be entirely. So David, I ask you, if Oswald had been alive, or even if Lane or a team of lawyers representing him had been there, do you really think they would have allowed Dulles, Specter and the others to get away with this? There's no doubt in my mind they would have raised numerous objections regarding leading the witness, leading the testimony, and so on, or asked for side conferences to get things back on track. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Perry.pdf

Can someone please just post the full transcript - everything - that's said in that short video? I just want to know what's said from start to finish. I'm deaf and can't hear it at all. Thank you in advance.

Douglas, your link does not work. This one does: http://www.blackopradio.com/schedule.html

Regarding witness S.M. Holland's claim of having seen "a puff of smoke" on the knoll during the President's assassination, Vince Bugliosi offers these eloquent and well-stated words... Yes, David, it's possible for a gun to shoot out smoke and yes, it's possible for it to linger. There are enough witnesses that reported smelling gunpowder in DP after the shooting. It doesn't mean it came from the knoll but it *was* reported. The point, though, is a witness reported seeing this down by the fence and because it didn't dovetail with the government's preconceived notions of the "official" story, it was either swept under the rug or countermanded. Smoke from a gun To put it mildly, VB was a d$%& - it's as simple as that. He took info from the Warren Report and then wrapped his cutting and pasting with verbose, insulting language to make all CT-ers look like kooks. He was a lawyer and he knew that doing this was a great way to make contradicting evidence sound like it's coming from crazy people. This has been the modus operandi of all Lone Nut supporters since the beginning. Oswald couldn't defend himself, but Mark Lane saw through it all very early in the game. I was surprised he developed a solid rebuttal to what the government was cooking up so early. He was really on top of it and it's pretty impressive: A Lawyer's Brief Imagine that he developed the above in December 1963. There's no doubt in my mind that if Oswald had not been assassinated himself, and if he had been represented by someone like Lane, the government's case against him would have collapsed. Which proves even more that the fix was on and, thus, the reason why Oswald was silenced.

SANDY - And frankly I am offended by your saying these things. As well as for your patronizing attitude when you try to school me on the dangers of posting things you consider silly. They may look silly to you, but that doesn't make them so. Sandy, It was not my intention to upset you. Even though I try to err on the side of caution in the JFK case, I've seen my share of eye-rolling when I try to explain the basic facts of the case - that he was assassinated by a conspiracy; that Oswald was set up to take the fall; and so on. The folks who did the initial PM work did a great job IMO. Despite what Gilbride said earlier in this post, the basic similarities of who PM looks like - Oswald - as well as the accounting of where all of the employees were has convinced me that it certainly is LHO. But then when folks start trying to analyze and declare that a cluster of pixels in a very grainy photo is a camera, or a bottle, or a reflection, then it starts getting a little silly. I, and newbies out there, would be much more impressed with the work that Andrej is doing with his 3D animation than trying to declare a cluster of pixels is a camera or a bottle. So my last post's point was the *perception* of newbies visiting EF and calling us a bunch of crazies. It was not my intention to make you think I was calling you one.

It's a camera...he's taking photos... Sometimes common sense has to prevail. Why in the world would this person be taking photos or shooting film? The motorcade has long since passed by. The VIPs are long since past him. If he's slightly back into the main entrance alcove, who in the world is he filming or shooting at that point? You have to ask yourself - in a common sense, real-world approach - if this is Oswald (and despite what Gilbride said in his earlier post I do believe it's a possibility that it is him) - why would he be taking photos and of who? And where's the evidence that Oswald (if it's him) had a camera that day or even brought one into work? There's no evidence that he had a camera with him that day and the only camera they knew of that belonged to him was the Minox but that was supposedly found at Payne's house. Now we're expected to believe that just because in two frames of a motion picture film he's standing up there with a still or motion picture camera filming the crowd long after the VIPs have gone down the street? It's starting to sound again like a "Jackie/Secret Service agent/shiny object/umbrella dart" theory again. I think often times in this case, the simplest approach makes the most sense. And I say this as a 100% CT believer. --- Sandy and others... I'm not trying to upset anyone here, but please be careful with this kind of stuff. I say this because this is an open forum. When people who may want to learn more about this now 52-year-old case and they stumble across it via Google, they're also going to stumble across such sites as John McAdams's site who ridicules people like us and copies and pastes directly from the Warren Report with no real analysis. If there's one thing to be said about those people, they're consistent in the way they present their side of the story. Therefore, it's very easy to persuade newbies that Oswald did it, case closed. But meanwhile, when they come here there are some great posts here. But when someone starts saying "he's holding a camera" and then a blow up of the frame shows a single white dot, it's really starting to make the CT community look like a bunch of kooks (like the UFO/fake moon landing believers). It really takes away from all of the wonderful work that people such as Mark Lane (RIP) and others have done.

Thanks for sharing these as I've never seen them before. 3/14 is especially interesting because the white car in the middle lane is in just about the right position of where the Z313 shot was fired.

RIP Mr. Lane, one of the forerunners of seeking the truth in the Kennedy assassination.

I apologise for not being able to show the solution for Prayer Man (5'9'') for Wiegman at this moment. This relates to my job duties which take up my time until late evenings and also whole weekends. While it is relatively easy to just write how things are, it is a time consuming affair to provide some supporting evidence using 3D modelling. Andrej, I look forward to your work. Your other 3D models have looked great. I think if there's any way to recreate things in three perspectives it's with SU. I agree, too, it's a very time consuming process. Looking forward...

Oh my! This is a strong example of what we're up against, IMO. People like Rather have these strong feelings and strong memories regarding the assassination, in which they painstakingly tried to get at the truth but had to settle on it being Oswald. But their memories of these events are in fact so clouded by age, fear, and (possibly) frustration that they can't get the simplest of details correct...in this case that CBS' re-creation was done in 1967 and involved a target moving down a track, and not a "precisely choreographed" re-enactment involving a Lincoln Continental performed in the early 1970s. I'm not trying to hijack (once again) this thread. But it is related to Dan Rather and CBS, though not related to the specials. But even as early as 11/25/63 when describing the Zapruder film on live TV, Rather's supposedly objective description of the film left much left to be desired, especially the head shot at Z313. He completely left out the "back and to the left" portion of the film. Here's a guy who's paid to report what he sees and I find it very hard to believe that his omission of that part of the film was an innocent oversight. To put it mildly, it was dishonest and deceptive. I described this in another thread with another EF member as seen here.

The issue strikes close to home. When, prior to JFK's arrival in Dallas, the Wanted for Treason posters were distributed, was that incitement (to murder) or free speech? What about the black bordered ad in the Dallas Morning News that started "Welcome, Mr. Kennedy, to Dallas. . " etc. I don't believe any of that "incited" anyone to harm Kennedy--the plot that took his life was far too well planned (in advance)--but those writings were indicative of the "political temperature" of the right wing fringe element already existing in Dallas. I don't think any of the actual plotters involved in JFK's assassination were happy with either of those things, because--had Kennedy or his staff gotten wind of any of that--it could easily have led to a last minute decision to "skip that city." Just a thought. Those posters and the newspaper ad were no more incitement than the ones seen here the morning of 11/22 in Dallas: There's always going to be pro and anti crowds at all political events. All of these, though, had nothing to do with what really happened when the actual coup took place (like you say in your previous post). PS - FWIW that above photo is one of the more interesting ones when you think about it. Why? Because right next to the NAACP sign is a black guy. Amazing.

From the termination letter: Your Prior Similar Reckless and Irresponsible Acts, Together With Your Taking Pride from the Impacts of Your Current Conduct, Preclude the Lesser Sanctions of Reprimand or Suspension." I've never met this guy personally, but time and again when I've read his writings on the assassination, he pretty much copies and pastes from the Warren Report, then will add some smug joiner at the beginning or end of it to try to belittle a CT-er. That word in the quote ("Pride") stands out for me because I can visualize him, after typing his comment, propping his feet up on his desk, hands clasped behind his head, with a smug smirk on his face.

LOL - good one, Ron. Good one, indeed!

I wanted to post this here just to make it available to EF. At least in my mind, whatever was written in the White House movie theater log book was an innocent error. So I'm not sure if the article's author is playing games and being snarky (most probably both) or is genuinely curious how the "JFK" entry in the log book came to be. But later in the article, he does reveal himself to be quite "playful" (i.e., snarky) when he says: "As I said, I’m not really a Kennedy assassination conspiracy buff. There are all kinds of theories about who “actually” killed Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone? Was the CIA involved? Was Lyndon B. Johnson on the grassy knoll with a raygun? I have no idea. But I do know that this log book is strange." And, of course, the article's headline is especially abominable and extremely click-baity. But I guess that's the way it is in today's money-grubbing media world. There's one interesting photo that accompanies the article. It shows the theater on the day a birthday party for both of Kennedy's kids was held. You can make out John, Jr., in it and the rocking chair - probably Kennedy's - is a sad reminder of what might have been. Yet, the photo also gives me a sense of life goes on even after a terrible tragedy. I Accidentally Found a New JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theory PS - I used to post replies on the Gawker Media websites a couple of years ago, but then they came up with this horrible system that basically plays favorites with their favorite few. I think they did this to appease their advertisers. Anyway, I've since given up trying to get my comments there posted. I would have loved to have commented on the article something along the lines of "Stop being ridiculous about this event for the sake of a few clicks." What's amazing to me is the nerve someone would make jokes about this and yet, in the photo, there's two kids in it who will never see their Dad again. UPDATE 1 - after posting this, I just noticed the caption for the photo says "1962." I've reach out to NARA, just for my own curiosity, to see if that's correct and if it is, I'm not sure why the author would use that photo in his article. UPDATE 2 - the JFK Library replied to my email and confirmed that the caption in the above story is correct. It was taken in 1962 so the birthday party in the theater as seen in the photo does not depict an event with a veil of sorrow hanging over it. However, I do question why the article's author would include it in his story. http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKWHP-KN-C25150.aspx

Bart - thanks I corrected it in my post.