Michael Walton

Paul FWIW credit where credit is due. I saw that on Parker's forum, loved it and stole it from him.

But all in jest just case, right, Sandy?

To get this thread somewhat back on topic, I find it very hard to believe that Mark Lane would have ever taken any money from the Russians since he also wrote a defense of Oswald less than a month after 11/22: https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.html

Bumping this. It was completely ignored by Chris and Dave who instead kept their calculators running on overtime and of course since then there's been a lot self-congratulations for accomplishing....what? We don't know. Just more silliness and ridiculousness. And here's the ultimate proof of the silliness - two films from across the street filmed at the same time using 1963 era equipment - and they match up perfectly.

Micah, you're not going to find or get the ultimate truth or straight answers from these people. They were under pressure to stick to the official story and sweep it under the rug and let time take care of it. For example, here are some highlights from Humes (my emphasis in red): "Though the evidence is less well defined, Humes emphasizes that his autopsy found that the other bullet that struck Kennedy, the so-called "magic bullet" that was the first to hit Kennedy and that also hit Texas Gov John Connally, was also fired from above and behind. He says, "There was an 'abrasion collar' where this bullet entered at the base of the President's neck, and this scorching and splitting of the skin from the heat and scraping generated by the entering bullet is proof that it entered from behind. Unfortunately, at the time of the autopsy, the tracheostomy performed on the President at Dallas in an attempt to save his life obliterated the exit wound through the front of his neck near the Adam's apple. Soft-tissue wounds are much more iffy than bone wounds, but there is no doubt from whence cometh those bullets - from rear to front from a high-velocity rifle." Now look at the back autopsy photo. Can you take anything seriously with what Humes said? Look at the FBI reenactment below - how could a bullet hit where the white patch is, go UP and out the guy's throat - and not be shatteredv hitting ANY bones along the way, then proceed to go into Connally? The above quote is from Humes from that Australian site link up above - and he said this 29 years after the autopsy. Now ask yourself - how can you believe anything these people have said about this case when the official party line started the day Oswald was murdered himself?

In other words - everything and the kitchen sink, too, is some sort of vast conspiracy. Without ever stopping to think that could all of this - ALL of it - have happened in one grand sequence of events?

Sure, Sandy, sure. We get it. Just like we get it when you said you saw one of the old guys down on the knoll holding a pistol (cop-out term - black object) - LOL I guess you had all kinds of ground-breaking evidence for that verified (according to you) theory, too, right? Right!

Knowing what we know on this forum, I wonder who still believes the world is flat on here and who believes it's round - LOL!

Actually according to Sandy Larsen, the whole Hardly story had nothing to do with the JFK case. Which sounds like a pretty big cop out IMO. There's no tagging going on here. If you can believe it, one of your authors, Josephs, criticized Davidson's more kookier theories that the shots were fired from the pavilion over spectators' heads, risking injury and exposing the plot. When I concurred - and because he knows I don't support any of HIS kooky theories - he said don't use my name here and actually changed his position from critical to "...I only said this in jest [him criticizing Davidson's kooky theory]." THAT is the current state of the JFK "research" community. And all of the other non-Hardly parts of JA's story have been written elsewhere so there's no reason to read that part of his book. Enough, Jim. We get it. You and others believe there were two Oswalds and two Oswald Moms living in each others' shadows until 11/22 when such time one pair disappeared forever, one went to his grave...but whose skull was switched because they had a tarot card reader who predicted an exhumation 18 years after the burial. We get it.

I sometimes wonder as well. Jim, this is a rather disingenuous comment from you. I've asked you several times on this board if you believe the Hardly story. You've never replied. If you do, well...anyone has the right to believe that Neil and Buzz didn't walk on the moon or little green men were found on the desert floor by the military. The point though is this - when you're on the radio or asked to be a co-speaker about Vietnam with Oliver Stone in Dulles, VA, you can't have it both ways. You can't hold yourself above the fray as a "legitimate" author and authority of the JFK narrative, then come on here and pretend to egg on Josephs and others to continue with the more kookier theories about this case. Of course if you lack the courage of your convictions to tell this kookier element here, "You know, I just don't know about this stuff guys..." then how can you possibly expect more grounded researchers here to take anything you have to say seriously? As Eleanor Roosevelt said about our hero [paraphrasing here] - "He should try more courage and less profile."

FWIW - this is another great example of people like Josephs, Hargraves, Larsen and others completely and totally trying to twist the existing record to fit outlandish theories like Hardly, the Z film fakery, and others. I mean - hahaha! If ANYONE fails to hear the twang or drawl in his voice here, then that person does NOT deserve to be taken seriously as a researcher - and I don't care how many times you've been published on a so-called "legitimate" website. Really? "CUM FOWAD"

Another thing that's dishonest about using the classroom photo is that there are two versions going around. The one that shows more detail in the mouth is substituted for the high contrast version that shows no detail giving the appearance of there being a gaping hole. Of course if you bring this up to the believers they're not even honest enough to admit that and not use it on EF.

Bumping this as an alternative to Russian Gate hysteria... ...and this one as well... https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/17/anti-trumpists-use-mueller-indictments-to-escalate-tensions-with-nuclear-armed-russia/

Outstanding and informative report from Greg. Kudos to him. A couple of things I've noticed from that complete medical report: A single X on it means a tooth is missing. On that report it seems like an X is on tooth #30 which coincides perfectly with the #30 tooth on the chart SL uses. I'm assuming that's a LOWER tooth in rhe jaw - yet there are NO X's on the upper teeth that were supposedly knocked out. A different topic but related to the Hardly story - the believers also question why Harvey looks stocky in some Marine photos, and then looks "slender" afterward. Their reasoning is - well, the stocky one is the clone. But in the medical report, on page 584 they have him down as "medium" build. Why? It's simple - he had bulked up while in the military then obviously lost it after he got out, putting him down to a more slender build.

What's really hilarious here is that a simple error by the FBI in saying that the shots occurred in the above photo was just that - an error. Big deal. Yet, we have a sync of two different films on YouTube (below). All you have to do is watch it and it merely shows two things - the films match up perfectly, and two - that the FBI was wrong with this diorama that they made. Fine. It DOES NOT mean what Chris and Dave want it to mean - that some other mysterious and unseen Z film exists. In other words, because of an error in the above diorama Chris and Dave believe that a whole other Z film exists - haha! What a joke. And this happens all of the time on this forum and elsewhere. On another thread, other nutty CTers think that because someone wrote FAILED on Oswald's dental chart that it means there was a CLONE of Oswald without stopping to think that again it could be a more plausible and simpler explanation - a clerical error, two different people recording the records, etc. Haha! But I'm sure Chris and Dave will keep plugging away with their calculators here thinking they've solved something - Haha! What a disgrace to the JFK research community trying to get to the truth of the matter. Is it any wonder why people laugh at the JFK "research" community when they come across this kind of malarkey. And go to the beginning of this thread - this all started when Chris says that the secret agents fired over the tops of spectators from the pavilion for crying out load. And Josephs disagreed with him and when I mentioned that he said he said that "...in jest." Haha!

Tom - insead of blathering on about the evil evil this and the evil evil that, just take all of that away and read these stories: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/17/anti-trumpists-use-mueller-indictments-to-escalate-tensions-with-nuclear-armed-russia/ https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/16/russians-spooked-by-nukes-against-cyber-attack-policy/ There's plenty of "evil" to go around...on both sides of the "aisle." Not saying either is more or less evil.

That's the problem, Jim. If you and others who believe in this nonsense were really, truly seekers of the truth or common sense, then you WOULD read what Parker and others who ARE versed in common sense would have to say. This case was not one big grand conspiracy like you and others want to believe and push here and elsewhere. But of course like Larsen, you can always cop out of this theory by saying - as SL did - that "oh this entire Oswald Project had absolutely nothing to do with the Kennedy case." LOL

Tom, I can't answer your questions because I simply don't know and no one else does for that matter. Even State Secret author Simpich says the same thing. We can read the available records and then speculate. I just find it hard to believe that there was never a single photograph from the most photographed building in the western hemisphere showing the one and only Oswald outside the doors of the embassy down there. In this case, no picture is worth a thousand words. FWIW - here's a pretty simple to follow Duran timeline about what happened: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKduranS.htm Rather than get bogged down into the minutiae of this event, it's clear that the CIA was involved and manipulating the Oswald narrative before and after 11/22. I don't know what else to say about the Russia/Cuba involvement connection other than I don't see, at least in my mind, that direction being plausible. Motive should play a role in this and I just don't see a real motive from Cuba or Russia being the case.

You have to be one of the most dishonest people on this board, David. Here's what you said: But he was shot from the front Chris.... And there were people between your shooter and JFK... if you're talking just past the pole. ?? NOWHERE in that post do I detect anything "...in jest." Rather than honestly admit that you said this - and to show agreement with my claim that this "theory" is absolutely bullxxxx - you're now claiming that you said this "in jest??!!" What in God's name does me not knowing Chris Davidson have to do with pointing out silly claims like this? OMFG! How can you expect ANYONE on this board or anywhere for that matter to take anything you say on here seriously? If this doesn't take the cake for being dishonest on here I don't know what else would! And don't tell me enough. This is a forum where anyone - not just you, Chris and other "everything is a conspiracy" folks - can post and express their thoughts and rebuttals. You need to get down from your Kennedys and King high horse and face it that you do not know everything about this case and also be a little more honest when people you don't like point things out that go against yours and others' silly theories.

Personally, I don't think LHO was down there. As for who impersonated him - a Leonov look alike or whoever - I don't know. I think the whole ruse was part of the plan to make LHO look like the crazed communist. This will sound like I'm defending the entire institution when I'm not, but it's people that create evilness. Didn't one man create the holocaust? Didn't Stalin kill millions of his own people? Didn't one 19 year old kid kill the FL students? The point being, there is evil everywhere just like there is goodness everywhere. And yes, there was evil going on when the Kennedy murder was planned and executed. But it's unfair to project it onto an entire agency.

I agree with you 100%. I, too, believe that no shots were fired from the fake sniper's nest. I remember seeing that illustration years ago - always found it interesting. BUT the shots did NOT come from the pavilion like you think they do on your other thread. Do you really think these world-class conspirators would have been that stupid to have taken that huge of a risk firing over spectators' heads, exposing the entire plot? With no clear getaway?

Tom, did you ever read the speech that Castro gave I think 3 or 4 days after the assassination? It's a very revealing read IMO and it hardly sounds like a man braying and bragging about maybe - just maybe - knocking off the US president. And it's on your buddy Jim D's site if you want to read it. Wasn't Khrushchev ousted mere months after 11/22? Don't you find that just a little bit revealing? And it's not because he planned Kennedy's murder. There was a little bit too much lovey-dovey (e.g., peace xxxx) going on for the hard-liners. Again, my IMO. And yes, I remember sneaky old Scott Peterson. And no, I don't think Oswald was sneaky or Petersonesque - just the opposite. He basically threw a fit in the theater and out, looked pretty humble and "deer in the lights" at the midnight conference, and reminded his wife about getting his kid a new pair of shoes. Peterson is a spoiled narcissistic asshole so there's simply no comparison. Your buddy Larsen said it best about what he thinks happened in this case - the plot was a "kill two birds with one stone deal" - getting rid of a president who almost certainly would have been reelected in 1964 and using that murder to invade Cuba so that all of the white-shoe special interests could have their island play land back. But of course they never would have said that. Instead they would have waved the flag and have said, IT'S ALL BECAUSE OF DEMO-CRACY!! YAYY!

This sounds way too far-fetched to me. Oswald did not act nor speak like an assassin from the time he was captured until he was murdered. He said he was a patsy. He seemed angry that something went wrong and it dawned on him that he was taking the blame for the assassination. And he was worried about his daughter getting a new pair of shoes. If he had been acting like McVeigh - all chin up - then yes, maybe. But he never projected that kind of behavior that weekend.

There are two ways to interpret Rather's interpretation of what he saw. 1. He saw a "different" film meaning the one he saw was the one that shows Kennedy's head go downward from a rear shot - just like he described it on live TV. For argument sake, this means that the other film that so many people here think exists is out there somewhere. There WAS no other film. 2. He saw the film as we have seen it today - where Kennedy's head and body are slammed back onto the seat from a frontal shot hitting him in the temple. But after Rather sees this film he's told to - or decides on his own - to NOT mention that part of the film that he's seeing on live TV. In other words, he deceives the public by not describing a frontal shot that would have caused Kennedy's head and body to slam backward and to the left (as Wecht described it). I happen to believe #2 is the correct interpretation because: 1. It's far more easier to control the message at this point. Rather's broadcast was AFTER Oswald had been murdered, which means he'd now never receive a fair trial to what happened 2. Many film alterationists here (Josephs and Davidson to name a few) think you can just wave a magic wand and presto -- the film would be magically altered. But WHY was it altered? The film SHOWS conspiracy if you believe that Kennedy being slammed onto the back of the seat is a result of a frontal shot. So think about it - these world-class government conspirators went through all of this trouble of masking out things, trimming frames, splicing the film together...and they leave the most crucial part IN THE FILM showing conspiracy. They're obviously the dumbest conspiracy planners in world history LOL 3. They KNEW that the Z film would never be shown to the public in its entirety - only a frame here and there in LIFE magazine - until 1975. So suppressing the evidence was another very easy way to control the message. But now as you're seeing here, Josephs is going to ramble on with his confusing and confused image combinations, combining frames and trying to show HOW it was done without EVER explaining WHY it was done. In his mind, it was because because the government is evil. LOL

Uh huh. Right, right. OK, got it.