Michael Walton

I'll save everyone from going to the NY Times link above by pulling this quote: "In Act I of two, the sleepless Jackie berates Jack for falling asleep in the bath, where he is soaking to soothe his back. She injects him with morphine, then herself for good measure. As Jackie is helped to bed, Jack hallucinates. First comes his sister Rosemary, made mad by a lobotomy, who accompanies him on a trip to the Moon’s Sea of Serenity, where they bump into a drunken, antagonistic Nikita Khrushchev and the Red Army Choir. Then Jack meets the younger Jackie for a deliberately slushy love duet." [shaking head] Ugghh....

I am re-posting the link to the document titled, "The media and the Kennedy assassination: the social construction of reality," by Ross Frank Ralston of Iowa State University as a new thread. A member of this forum posted this deep inside of another post. I would like to thank this person for posting it (I try not to use other members' names in posts without their permission). I'm doing this not only for members but for new folks just learning about the case. Sometimes, really good stuff about the case gets buried in multi-post threads and, thus, gets lost in the shuffle. I don't know anything about the author but I will say that he did an outstanding job writing about the history of the media and its manipulation by government officials, the old boys network (no pun intended) in media, and how, within hours of the murder, the suppressing and twisting of the unvarnished truth and evidence of the case had begun. I know supporters of the official story will read from their usual scripts and say, "How in the world could this be pulled off?" My answer to this is simple - sorry, but it *can* be done because it happened to me years ago. The truth is painful and sometimes unbelievable. It does NOT mean it could not happen. Many years ago I ran a multimedia facility for a federal agency producing hundreds of in-house products for national dissemination. I ran it successfully for four years. About 18 months from my own Zero Day (the closing of this office), I was at the mall with my family and ran into one of the agency's assistant regional commissioners, who had retired months before. After chatting with him, he asked me how things were going and I told him that we just got done making a national program about [redacted]. He looked puzzled and replied, "Oh, interesting. I thought the multimedia facility was going to be closed." I didn't give it much thought, we chatted a little more, and we went on our way. Eighteen months later, my Zero Day came - the office was closed and relocated to another state. Now I know this is a tiny microcosm of an event compared to the Kennedy assassination. But here's a guy who had already retired (as in like Allen Dulles being "retired" by Kennedy) and he and others were in the loop making executive plans for the agency. And of course, me being the peon I was muddling along, was clueless. So, yes, it can be done. When you have the full force of the top echelons of government working to suppress evidence and twist the truth, and then have the national mouthpieces on board to spread the lies to an unsuspecting public, it's not nearly as difficult or unbelievable to pull off as it may seem. And I always like to say too: If the government was really, truly seeking the honest truth of this case and with full transparency, would one of the most important pieces of the case - the Zapruder film - have been kept from the public for 12 years? I think not. I highly encourage you to read this document. Here is one of many great quotes from it: "We must ask why. The only hypothesis capable of explaining the media persistence of the "Single-Bullet Theory" and lone assassin is a hegemony between the media and government." The media and the Kennedy assassination: the social construction of reality Note about the above link - I notice that it takes a while for the file (PDF) to load. I think it may have something to do with the host server being wonky. But you also have the ability to download the file to your computer, which is what I did.

I would like to know more about the "guy at JCS" quote Vince mentions. Is there a link to testimony or more info about it or a recording of it? And what time it took place?

You might find this quote interesting from a recent document posted by another commenter: "The reification process is consistent with the individualistic/great man theory of history. Former CIA Director Allen Dulles may have had this in mind when he suggested that past cases of political murder in America by individuals acting alone might hold the key to the solution of Kennedy's fate: Dulles: It's a fascinating book, but you'll find a pattern running through here that I think you'll find in the present case. The last one is the attack on Truman. There you have a plot, but these other cases are all habitual going back to the attack on Jackson in 1835. Russell: The Lincoln Assassination was a plot. Dulles: Yes, but one man was so dominant that it almost wasn't a plot. (Warren Commission Executive Session Transcript, December 16, 1963:52)." This quote dovetails nicely with the Walker shooting. Once Oswald was safely in his grave, the government could then continue to paint Oswald in any way they wish (like the "great man" method listed above). They could say he shot at Walker and even, to boot, he was a wife beater. NOTE - the document link above loads very slowly and I suspect the server they're using is wonky so it may take a minute to load the PDF.

Myra, This is a great link. Thanks for posting it here. And I take this quote from the document: "We must ask why. The only hypothesis capable of explaining the media persistence of the "Single-Bullet Theory" and lone assassin is a hegemony between the media and government." And there you have it...

Yes, Chris, he says it falls forward and it does. But what speaks much, much louder is what he did NOT say - that his head is then thrown violently backward. As a reporter reporting, his obligation to his audience was to report *everything.* Thus, the disinformation had begun at that point. I plan to start an "unaltered Z" thread when I'm ready.

What exactly is "flawed" Michael? The concept that a film exists in the Archives which is currently in 9 pieces? That the 6+ second portion showing the assassination has nothing which identifies it as film #0183? David, You do realize that note was written 34 years after the film was recorded by a government beauracrat? I mean, why go by a bunch of scribbled notes? Go to post #63 above and work with the best evidence - all frames of the Z film. Download them, import them into your favorite video editing software, blow them up, scrub your timeline and look at each of them one frame at a time. There's nothing to see. Everything looks like it should - the movements of the people walking, stepping, waving, and so on look like they should. Even look at the flag on the front of the car. It'd be extremely difficult to fake a flapping flag with its unpredictable waving motions. And the faking would have had to have been done in 1963 with rotoscoping, which was non-existent at the time. They would have had to hire Hanna-Barbera to animate the flag (smile). Look at other posts I made about the SS reenactment film that includes one of the earliest copies of the Z film. It looks exactly like the frames you see that you can download at post #63. In a previous post here, I was told I was "parroting" my replies. Well, yeah, what do you expect? There's only so many ways you can say that there was no need to forge the film and for that very reason, the public didn't get a chance to see it until 1975. That's why the film is one of the best pieces of evidence of the case. It may be hard to believe but not every single piece of evidence needed to be forged in this case. One piece of evidence I do believe was faked was the back yard photos, and there was quite a bit of faking on the mail order of the rifle. But the Z film was simply withheld from the public while at the same time the disinformation campaign started about it soon after (like Rather saying the president's head fell forward at Z313).

Jim, this part - especially in bold - had me rolling on the floor laughing: "As most people who have studied the case know, this would have meant that Oswald would have had to be firing through the branches of an oak tree—which is why the Commission moved this shot up to frame 210. But CBS left themselves an out here. They actually said there was an opening in the tree branches at frame 186, and Oswald could have fired at that point. This is patently ridiculous. The opening at frame 186 lasted for 1/18th of a second. To say that Oswald anticipated a less than split second opening, and then steeled himself in a flash to align the target, aim, and fire—this is all stuff from the realm of comic-book super heroes. Yet, in its blind obeisance to the Warren Report, this is what CBS had reduced itself to." It's utterly amazing to me, given what we know half a century later, how anyone in their right mind out there can give these people a shred of credibility for what they broadcast on national TV. This is why I put very little faith in *anything* the FBI and WC put out in their official reports. Talk about hammering square pegs in round holes to fit the evidence. Jeez.

OK, Chris, OK. I don't think any amount of logic or sane reasoning will convince you of anything otherwise. You continue on with your thread here. I agree that Math proves results. But the only way it does that is if one's hypothesis is correct in the first place - Math just confirms things. What you're trying to do here - your hypothesis - is flawed so therefore no amount of Math will help.

Once again, how many frames are missing from this segment??? Frames missing? In a jogging clip that has absolutely nothing to do with the Zapruder film? There's simply no comparison between the two. I encourage you to instead of playing around with clips that are unrelated to the Z film, download all of the frames of the Z film itself, and then play around with those. You can find them here: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ I know you're putting a lot of effort into this thread, but you're really reaching for something that isn't there.

Who knows, it could be him and he may have been down there at the time. But a photo comparison sure doesn't cinch it for me as they look nothing alike: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-CxQWVpMW1VdHY4VEU

Chris, I just made a GIF of frames 154-166. All you have to do is watch the little girl running in the upper right corner (I think her name is Rosemary). She runs very smoothly in this GIF - no jumps...no hidden or missing frames...no stutters. The car is basically gliding down Elm Street at a constant speed, again, smoothly and like it should. Also, look at the guy taking pictures and he has one leg on the street and then steps back onto the curb (near the girl). Again, smooth motion. This also happens to be at the exact moment when Kennedy, looking over at his left, suddenly looks over to his right to wave to the group of ladies on the curb. There's nothing sinister about his head movement. He was doing this all day long, looking to his left, waving, quickly to his right, waving, brushing his hair back, and so on. Look at this clip at the 3:00 mark and you'll see this very quick left-to-right-wave movement: https://youtu.be/2vhVenvzxQg You can see another clip similar to it later at 3:16. Here's the GIF So I'm not sure where you're going with this thread. There were no alterations made to the Zapruder film. If you want me to make another short GIF of frames elsewhere on the film, let me know.

I've always found this one incredibly insightful too. The description on the YouTube page is hilarious BTW: https://youtu.be/xd1wuXrVPjo

I'm not doubting what Prouty has to say. But I'm wondering was Lansdale ever known to wear glasses? The guy in the photo appears to be wearing eyeglasses, not sunglasses. I looked up other photos of him online and could not find him wearing eyeglasses. See the animated GIF below: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxczd5THIwOEpiY2c So that is something to think about. Despite Prouty's army buddy telling him it was Lansdale, perhaps it really isn't. As for the Mr. X part of the film, I think that was Oliver Stone's way of bringing a neat and tidy summary of all of the various theories together into a coherent storyline that the audience could understand. He basically used this same technique in Platoon but instead of the young grunt Chris sitting on a bench and talking to his grandma, he did it with voiceover narration as "letters to grandma."

Michael, A valuable piece for whom? If you are interested, take the gif and count the total number of frames. Compare it (frame count) to the same segment in the extant Zfilm? Minus your preconceived notion that the extant zfilm is authentic, what major difference is there between the two? chris Chris, You can continue to measure distances, create animated GIFs, and use all kinds of mathematical formulas and calculations but it's not going to prove anything. In other words, you're reaching for something that isn't there. When Zapruder shot the film that day, there were 18.3 frames of 8mm film stock going through his camera's gate and being exposed to light. And that's the way it's been ever since. Today, when the film is transferred digitally and if you encode the transfer in a digital editing software like Adobe Premiere, and then export the timeline to 30 fps, you're going to have extra digital frames in the digital file. But it doesn't change anything - yes there are extra *digital* frames but when you view this file, you're still seeing the same Zapruder film that was recorded in his camera. But nothing sinister has taken place during this process. Yes, optical effects have been around for years and are the forerunners to digital effects. Keep in mind, though, that there really was no need for the government to manipulate the film. The reason is simple - it was snatched up immediately by Life magazine, who shared it only with government officials, and kept it out of public view for 12 years except for the odd frame here or there. Take a look at the video here, especially at the 11:37 mark: https://youtu.be/pRiOTr2J9iM This is the SS's reenactment film of the assassination and at that mark above, you'll see the Z film in black and white. When they made this film, the Z film was never to be shown to the public, but they did include it in this "eyes only" reenactment film. Watch the Z film carefully in it. Except for it being in black and white, it looks *exactly* like the Z film we have in our possession today. There's nothing sinister about it; there's no special Rosetta Stone in it. This proves, and should prove once and for all to those who continue to believe in alteration, that the Z film has not been altered. No people, objects, guns, or sewers were magically erased from its frames; no magical extra frames were added to it to change its outcome. This is what I meant by the Z film being one of the most important pieces of evidence in this entire case. The true value of the film is it shows us - the public - things they didn't want us to see, like the head being thrown violently backward; the throat shot, then the back shot, then Connally reacts to his shot. By suppressing it, the lawyers could go to work and come up with the ridiculous Single Bullet Theory to keep everything neat and tidy (Oswald did it alone). And it's for this very reason that the government suppressed it for so long. And it's also why the media started its disinformation campaign on behalf of the government, especially when Dan Rather got on live TV and described the film on 11/25/63 and said the fatal shot pushed the president's head downward, never once mentioning the violent backward movement. Sure, Dan, sure. Now think about that for a minute. If the government was really trying to vigorously pursue the truth of this case, why not just show the film in its entirety to the public right then and there? Why not show it and then have Rather or Cronkite, upon showing the Z313 part and honestly say, "...then the president's head is thrown violently backward and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy." Instead, Rather, CBS, and the government lied about what they were seeing in the film. And then years later, during the uproar when the public finally got to see it, they started coming up with crazy alternative theories like the jet effect and so forth. It's much, much easier to suppress and manipulate the evidence to fit a foregone conclusion than it is to try to edit film frames the size of a pinky nail with 1960's film editing technology. And how do we know that? Because we now get to see what the government was seeing mere months after the murder in the above SS version of the Z film. I encourage you to read the story below, which I found from another member on this forum. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/mediaassassination.html The key passage in the above story is this one: "...only four hours after the murder, Life magazine grabbed up one of the main pieces of evidence--the Zapruder film-- misrepresenting the content to millions of readers in its very first post-assassination issue and then continuing the lie with ever-changing captions and Zapruder frames in its special issue supporting the Warren Commission report..." Please don't misinterpret the above quote. It does *not* mean the Z film itself was altered. What it does mean is, like Rather did on CBS, the government and media were not telling the truth of what the film was actually showing.

Sevareid actually compares the critics of the WR--Meagher, Thompson, Popkin etc-- with those who say Hitler Lives. Thanks for the Hood College lead - I'll check it out. Wow! Amazing he lumps together assassination researchers with Hitler Lives. UPDATE - Unfortunately, the Hood College archive only has transcripts of Parts 1-3 but not the "Hitler Lives" speech in Part 4.

I realize this thread is about Jim's article on the CBS stories in 1967 so I don't want to jump around here too much. David, I know you think the media, government, and god knows who else is this bastion of honest, high-road officials keeping their citizens in the loop. Take a look at the clip below - isn't this when the fraud really began, literally days after Kennedy's in the ground at Arlington, and Oswald himself was just put in the ground when this segment aired? You know as well as I do if Oswald had lived, the Zapruder film would have become one of the most important pieces of evidence to prove his innocence. But the plotters knew if Oswald was in the ground, silenced forever, it would have been very, very easy to manipulate the truth. And manipulate it they did because they knew that the Zapruder film would not be shown to the public for years to come, while they get the media - in the case below Dan Rather - to start twisting what they didn't want the public to see or know. I'm paraphrasing here but as Rather says: "The shot pushed the president's head down." This guy was a reporter and he'd just described the film as he saw it like that? Please, give me a break. https://youtu.be/LuHdK-4M1Wc

Regarding the Sevareid commentary shown earlier in this thread, is there some kind of transcript out there of what he says? I'm deaf so I can't hear what he's saying and clicking the CC button on the YouTube player is a voice-to-text translator which is wildly inaccurate. Any help appreciated on this. Meanwhile, could it be these guys were separated at birth? Separated at Birth?

You might want to add that LHO's brother Robert was born 4/7/34. He went on to pretty much sell his brother out: 3:30 - 3:40 P.M. Robert Oswald, Brother, in Ten-Minute Visit "I cannot or would not say anything, because the line is apparently tapped. [They were talking through telephones.] . . . I got these bruises in the theater. They haven't bothered me since. They are treating me all right. . . . What do you think of the baby? Well, it was a girl, and I wanted a boy, but you know how that goes. . . . I don't know what is going on. I just don't know what they are talking about. . . . Don't believe all the so-called evidence." When Robert Oswald looked into Lee's eyes for some clue, Lee said to him, "Brother, you won't find anything there. . . . My friends will take care of Marina and the two children." When Robert Oswald stated that he didn't believe the Paines were friends of Lee's, he answered back, "Yes, they are. . . . Junie needs a new pair of shoes." (Robert Oswald told the Warren Commission, "To me his answers were mechanical, and I was not talking to the Lee I knew.") Sure, Bob, sure.

David Von Pein, You're really missing the whole point about what CBS portrayed on these shows. Let's say you own a Shoney's restaurant in Indiana and you notice one day you receive a supply of green-colored hamburger patties. Corporate tells you to sell them regardless of your concern about them. You know you shouldn't do this, so you go to the local TV station and tell the reporter that corporate management is telling you to sell green-colored hamburger patties to your customers. So now the TV station will do an expose called, "Shoneygate! Should you be concerned?" This is going to be an honest critique of Shoney's food service practices. The station management gets wind of the story and the vice president of the station happens to be a Shoney's franchise owner and the real kicker is he's also good friends and fraternity brothers with Shoney's worldwide's CEO. On the day the story airs, you sit down to watch it. The story, originally titled "Shoneygate! Should you be concerned?" is now called, "WXIN-TV Presents...Shoney's An Inquiry." In it, corporate officials talk about how industrious and honest Shoney's is. There's a soothing voiceover talking about how wonderful the company is and you see happy smiling customers taking scrumptious bites of their Shoney's hamburger sandwiches. You see happy smiling cooks in the kitchen cooking bloody red hamburger patties. Not a one green-colored hamburger patty is seen on the hot grill. Then, the narrator begins to explain how rumors and innuendo started when a single franchise owner reported receiving green-colored hamburger patties and management told this owner to use them regardless of concern. As you hear this narration, the station shows a freeze frame of you that they grabbed when they interviewed you with the title below saying "disgruntled franchise owner" and the freeze frame of you is not great - maybe your eyes are half closed and your mouth is agape. The story concludes that there is no evidence of green-colored hamburger patties ever being served at Shoney's restaurants. Then the studio anchors, back on the air, shake their heads solemnly and say, "And that's the way it is...good night." Then an ad appears - "This newscast was sponsored in part by Shoney's Worldwide." Fade to black. Now, I'm exaggerating here (just a little bit) but this is basically what happened with those CBS stories. An honest critique of the WC was completely thrown to the wayside and, instead, the WC was dusted off, polished, and propped up to continue to preach the official word of the WC as being the only word regarding the assassination.

BRAD: A few personal comments from the peanut gallery (me): Several of my Professors in college 'back in the day' consistently told me & my classmates that almost everything we see broadcast on TV is a lie. That includes cooking shows & home lawn care shows; the cooking shows don't show you the burnt food, the cut fingers, the damage to your body certain foods cause just as lawn care shows leave out cancer & other diseases that some lawn care chemicals expose happy homeowners with pretty yards to (not to mention the wildlife & their environment struggling to survive constant & consistant mini-nukings from lawn enthusiasts). It's all a farce, the learned ones told us back in class. Brad, I think comparing what CBS did with the assassination and cooking and lawn shows is disingenuous. Yes, cooking and lawn shows, and other shows like "This Old House" on PBS are well prepared (i.e., they have a script) before they go before the camera. But these shows are more along the lines of "here's what you can do, too" and for the most part, they're true because if you follow their instructions, you can do at home what they do on the show. For example, I recently watched Julia Child's cooking shows from back in the early 60s on Amazon and I hardly think Child was standing there trying to deceive her audience. To the contrary, I learned a better way on how to make an omelette.

This thread again exemplifies why the research community has become little more than a tiresome debating society. Don - I agree with you. It is amazing to me how the LN community seems to be able to stay on topic over and over and over again, preaching to the choir (the CT community as well as people who don't know any better), while the CT community seems to bicker, fight, and argue over things. I think it does much more harm than good to the overall message that the CT community presents to the public because the CT community does have an extremely important message to tell.

only the very top of President Kennedy's head—somehow provide any kind of definitive proof that JFK has just been hit by a bullet, then I fear that person's imagination has run away with itself: CLICK HERE FOR THE Z206—Z211 CLIP David - thanks for sharing those frames. I'm relieved because nothing changes regarding the stuff I've been working on.

Paul, I was not aware of the missing frames too and I bought the VHS copy of the Assassination Science version back in the late 1990's. According to the Wikipedia page, it does mention frames are missing: In October 1964, the U.S. Government Printing Office released 26 volumes of testimony and evidence compiled by the Warren Commission. Volume 18 of the commission's hearings reproduced 158 frames of the Zapruder film in black and white. However, frames 208–211 were missing, a splice was visible in frames 207 and 212, frames 314 and 315 were switched, and frame 284 was a repeat of 283.[14] In reply to an inquiry, the FBI's J. Edgar Hoover wrote in 1965 that 314 and 315 were switched due to a printing error, and that the error did not exist in the original Warren Commission exhibits. In early 1967, Life released a statement that four frames of the camera original (208–211) had been accidentally destroyed, and the adjacent frames damaged, by a Life photo lab technician on November 23, 1963. Life released the missing frames from the first-generation copy it had received from Zapruder with the original.[15] (Of the Zapruder frames outside the section used in the commission's exhibits, frames 155–157 and 341 were also damaged and spliced out of the camera original, but are present in the first-generation copies.) Also, you can watch the movie frame by frame on YouTube here and see the missing frames. Despite these missing and misplaced frames, I'm currently working on a web page and putting together some video clips where I hope to show, among other things, that the Z film has not been altered in any way. After watching it over and over, I just do not see anything that's been fudged, changed, or altered. All motion and movement in it is as smooth as it can be from a piece of film that was running through the camera at 18.3 frames per second. As a CT minimalist, I believe it'd be far easier to have a lawyer come up with a crazy idea like SBT and keep pushing it upon the public for 53 years - and have folks like McAdams, Von Pein, Myers, et al keep preaching their brand - rather than try to take a film, with each frame of it the size of a pinky nail, and alter it to fit the conclusion. I'm probably going to catch a lot of grief from this forum when my web page is ready, but that's OK. I'm confident in my beliefs to present the material for people to either support it or trash it.

It was a high velocity bullet. A little streamlined piece of metal designed to penetrate flesh. What's magic about it? If you watch the Zapruder film in slow motion you can see both Kennedy and Connally reacting simultaneously. How do you account for that? It was a high velocity bullet. A little streamlined piece of metal designed to penetrate flesh. What's magic about it? If you watch the Zapruder film in slow motion you can see both Kennedy and Connally reacting simultaneously. How do you account for that? Oh, really? I don't see that at all I see a man reacting to a throat shot, a back shot, and then JC turning and then reacting. And to take it a step further JC, to his dying day, *never* believed that he was hit with the same shot Kennedy was hit with. It was a high velocity bullet. You can't have it both ways. You can't say it was "high velocity" and then, during the autopsy, Humes finds that this "high velocity" bullet couldn't even make it out of JFK's back and stopping there. While at the same time - if you believe the SBT - this so-called back shot supposedly went into the back wound, somehow work its way upward to exit a higher point in JFK (his throat) then go on to do all of JC's wounds.