Michael Walton

You really do like your emoticons - LOL

Paz, for what it's worth, it's not just Tom Graves. I'm not defending him or anything but it's like that all over this board. For example, the Oswald clone gang...there's no let up with them. I posted a comment on a photo of young Oswald in class, showing that the photo was taken with a flash camera. It's obvious to anyone who looks at it. Their reply? Nope! They don't see it. Then there's the thrumming helicopter theory where they whisked away Kennedy's body from the back of Air Force One as it landed in DC. Then there's the Z film is faked and when you point out it's not because - look - the other film shot at the same time matches up, they say, well, that film was faked too. I could go on but that's the current state of this board. PS - is that really you in your profile photo?

Sorry, Dave. I know the truth hurts....so you tend to just lash out when you can't rebut my rebuttals.

So let me get this straight. When it suits your thrumming helicopter theory, you're willing to use Humes - of all people - as your source? Humes, who was a deeply compromised witness? Pat Spear did an excellent video on Humes and I recently pointed out elsewhere on here that his word was not to be trusted. Yet, here you're using him as your main source? So what are we supposed to make of Perry's original 3/64 testimony under oath...that his entire statement was fake or he lied totally and completely? So now the folks who fully and completely believe that Oswald had a clone, and this clone had a Mother who was also a clone of the first Oswald's Mother (but who never smiled and had a unibrow) are now saying that the WC testimony has been faked, yet they post it over and over again to support their own crazy theories? OMG! Sigh... Jack Kennedy is rolling over in his grave. I live 40 miles from his grave and I can feel the rumbles of his rolling LOL David, I'm going to say this as nicely as I can so you don't have to call me a smart aleck like you did a while back. But do you ever - EVER - stop and think how disgraceful it is to the memory of Mac Perry to be writing this kind of stuff? When the man stood two feet away from Kennedy and was trying to save his life?

It was with a flash Jim. If you can't see it, then you (and others) are simply blind and I'm not going to take time to put an arrow in the photo to point it out because you and others STILL won't see the light, so to speak. And this pretty much sums up the entire "he said, she said" narrative of the Hardly story, Jim. You won't even admit now that the photo was taken with a flash (and therefore, maybe...just maybe I'm right about the shine on a darkened tooth). You won't admit it even when it's plain as day. So if you can't even admit this, there's no way we can ever expect you or others to admit that your Hardly story is full of malarkey. Everyone has called each other names on here, Jim. You're no exception so it's pretty much par for the course.

Nice. My thoughts exactly.

Ah, who knew? Didn't know the genesis of EF was a marketing tool.

You're totally and completely missing the point of my post, Mic, but that's OK. So tell me - do you believe in the thrumming helicopter theory?

Think of your favorite movie, Mic. When did you first hear about it before it came out? Maybe two months...three? And how? Maybe a trailer on YouTube or at the movies? It's called marketing, Mic. Lifton doesn't have the luxury to go on the Today show or CBS This Morning to hawk his book. After all, the mainstream media calls all of us (gasp!) kooks. Right? So this forum can be his way of hawking his book (Stay Tuned!) And yeah - it's my right and privilege to type on this forum that I disagree with Lifton's theory. I mean...really? A thrumming helicopter pulling up to the back of Air Force One when it touched down at Andrews that night? When in plain sight, Jackie comes out bloodied right next to the coffin? White coated body snatchers carrying the body out the back, throwing it onto the thrumming copter to whisk it away? To be examined and carved up by mad doctors with scalpels at the ready? And now Lifton's follow up (STAY TUNED!) - trying to twist Perry's story around...from one that he cut into the bullet wound to try to save Kennedy's life...to not cutting it at all? And it's about a hesitation - an "uh.." and a "inv..." in an interview 4 FREAKING YEARS after Dallas...? Can you really not see the forest from the trees?

Again...big deal? Nothing Earth-shattering here Dave. I know you're sitting in your foil-covered room 24/7 trying to solve the case, but you're not going to. Do you know why? If the CIA was involved in this, do you really think they're going to release anything of significance? But only I and other folks who think more plausibly understand this. In your alternative universe, you think a name revealed on a 55-year-old paper is worthy to mention.

Jim - thanks for using the better photo not the artificially darkened one. The blow up and the regular sized one confirm for me several things. First, the camera definitely had a flash on it. Look at the girl sitting next to LHO and you can see the stark shadows from it. The flash also was not powerful enough to illuminate the entire room which is why further in the BG the lighting of the room gets dimmer. The blow up confirms several things for me as well. The photo is made up of dots - as is to be expected - but there's still plenty of detail; for example, you can see a glimmer/shine in LHO's eyes. This means they're not blobs but actual shine, most probably from the flash. And most telling of all, there is NOT a missing tooth. You can clearly see where the camera flash caught a tooth where the Hardly Gang thinks there's a missing one. Yes it's dark but my guess is maybe he colored his tooth with a pencil blacking it out. It's also why you see him hamming it up as the photo was taken. If he had NOT blackened his tooth, then he would not have had a reason to give a clownish pose and smile like that. But he darkened his tooth then made his goofy pose revealing his colored in tooth for this photo. As Tracy Parnell says here numerous times, the much simpler explanations have the more "ring of truth" in them. And no matter what Larson says to create further subterfuge here, two different dental charts DO NOT show X's on any of the front teeth, and the exhumation photos show teeth in the skull. Meaning one thing - no missing teeth. Meaning something else - only one LHO. Of course the Hardly Gang, being that you're all living in your alternative universe, will not agree with this. Which is fine but just remember - when you throw the REC switch in an automobile, you're not turning on a magic gas-guzzling motor in your car; the "ring of truth" explanation is the correct one - you're just recirculating the same air again to make it colder.

Why of course we are! We know better and can distinguish fact from fiction! LOL!!!

Conspiracists will try to find conspiracy and "distress" and cover-up everywhere they look. It's just their nature. But in my view, Dr. Perry was merely trying to find the right word there. And he came up with "invalid". How many times in your life have you started a sentence and then reached a point where you groped for an appropriate word to finish your thought? Hundreds of times? Thousands? Exactly. It's always ALWAYS "there's just gotta be something more." For goodness sake Anderq it's amazing that you're trying to make something out of nothing.

Come on Bart nothing has been painted in. Someone took the photo and darkened it and when they did it darkened all of the other subtler shades too causing the blob. Do I really need to explain this after all of the BS posted about PM? You should know better than that.

Once again Lifton here is trying to create more "conspiracy" to carry on his original thrumming helicopter and whisking the body away alteration story. And of course to sell more books. All you have to do is read Perry's original testimony which I posted above. The man clearly tried to do what he could to try to save Kennedy. But it's not good enough for Lifton and his readers. He's dropping little hints here and there to prime readers for his next $39.99 conspiracy book. At least we can give Armstrong credit for making his funny Hardly Lee story free to the masses LOL

Once again DO NOT judge the darkened version of this photo. It's a misnomer. Look at the non darkened version. In it you can clearly see the light that caught the darkened tooth...there's a slight sheen to it but it proves there's nothing missing. Bart I'm really surprised at you. You know as well as I do that blowing up photos from this era you're going to have artifacts in them just like in PM and the Altgens photo.

Yes that's exactly right. Funnily and ironically, no one here has the foresight to ask - could all of this have happened like we're saying it did? Now we've got yet another theory saying that a doctor down there didn't make a cut through the wound...even when he said he did for crying out loud. And when the autopsy photo clearly shows the wound like he described it in March 1964. But now as is the usual case here the usual cast of characters are using second hand and hearsay comments to say otherwise. Will you people never stop thinking of alternative reality theories?

He and Davidson have completely ignored not once but twice my rebuttal on the ridiculous Z film alteration that they keep alive, pocket calculators at the ready. The thread is called Shooter Location. What's amazing to me is there's a TV show on YTV called Forensic Files. Real police investigators and policemen are interviewed and I'm amazed at the words they use "it doesn't make sense" and "it's not plausible" when they were working a case. Yet, it's just shocking to me how people on this board think everything happened in this case - the Z film was altered...and therefore, the Nix film too. And this was and that was. Then of course the ridiculousness of Hardly Lee and the body alteration by Lifton.

This story is starting to sound similar to the Hardly Lee story "he said this but someone else said he said something else...but maybe..." Here is Perry's 3/64 testimony: Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe it in detail, the procedures which were followed in the efforts to save the President's life? Dr. PERRY - All right. Well, to regress, then, at the time I began the tracheotomy, I made an incision right through the wound which was present in the neck in order to gain complete control of any injury in the underlying trachea. I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral aspect of the trachea at the level of the external wound. The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea. At this point, I recall, Dr. Jones right on my left was placing a catheter into a vein in the-left arm because he handed me a necessary instrument which I needed in the performance of the procedure. The wound in the trachea was then enlarged to admit a cuffed tracheotomy tube to support respiration. I noted that there was free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum. Although I saw no injury to the lung or to the pleural space, the presence of this free blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound of the right hemithorax, and I asked that someone put a right chest tube in for seal drainage. At the time I did not know who did this, but I have been informed that Dr. Baxter and Dr. Paul Peters inserted the chest tube and connected it to underwater drainage. I don't know how much clearer this is that he cut THROUGH the wound and thus, no body altering, David. I simply cannot believe that Perry would be "compromised." I do believe that some of the weaker witnesses were coached here and there, and others with some strong witness statements totally ignored. But not Perry. So this is a ridiculous premise that you think Perry did not make this incision. And as for the rest of your body alteration "theory," what with the thrumming helicopter sneaking the body away from a back entrance on Air Force One as it pulled in from Dallas, to be taken away for doctors with scalpels at the ready to alter it, this is also right up there with the silly Hardly Lee story. IMO - it's time to give this body alteration fairy tale a rest. It fooled many people (including my sister-in-law and me when I was 18 years old 30 years ago) but no more.

Uhh...big deal? MLK, LHO, Ruby...the usual cast of characters. Some have a 201 #...some don't. This appeared to be released back in 2005. So what?

Really? I thought the more relevant thing on the chart is the display of teeth without a single X mark on any of the so called missing teeth proving that none of them are missing.

February 1, 2018: After analyzing results from our most recent blind bias survey and editorial review, the Politico media bias rating has moved from Center to Lean Left.

There's no missing teeth, Jim et al. Look at the class photo and you can see the light caught something on the black tooth. It's right there in front of you. Then look at both of his dental charts - do you really think a bevy of dentists would have all failed to X out the front teeth if they were really missing? That's just it - they WEREN'T missing. And further the exhumation photos prove there were no front teeth missing. It's really quite simple but the Hardly gang keeps this ridiculous thing going by playing Whack A Mole (if it's not this...it's that...or if it's not that...it's this). Do you really think a guy like Larson would ever have the bxxxs to admit a mistake? The man is totally and completely full of himself. A perfect example - months ago on another thread he made the outlandish claim that he "saw" one of the old guys down on the knoll holding a pistol in one of the films. When I called him out on it, he said it certainly looks like a black object, even though the films prove that absolutely no shots were fired from any of those old guys. I then called him out again ("black object?!") and what was his reply? He had said it all in jest! Yeah, right. So no matter what kind of plausibility you bring here for this case, the Hardly Gang will keep Whacking away.

Yellow cake anyone?

Really? https://www.allsides.com/news-source/politico-media-bias