Michael Walton

OK got it - and I wonderful where this other Oswald ran off to and where his Marguite look alike Mom went? Oh and one more thing - why did the conspirators have to do this? Why did they have to find an Oswald clone 10 years before 11/22, have him live in Oswald's shadow, have him stick around until 11/22, and then disappear forever after his clone was shot in the Dallas jail? Any idea?

Oh, that's right. Sorry it slipped my mind as it is hard to keep up with the Hardly story (hence the whack a mole vibe). So in other words, the skull with teeth in them that was in the exhumation coffin was one of the Oswalds...and the the smiling Oswald with the missing tooth in the classroom and the dental record saying Failure...that belonged to the other Oswald. Right?

It's got nothing to do with the "government always being honest and never telling a lie." We know that that is not true. Who runs the government? People. Who runs industry? People. And yes, people do lie. They also come up with nutty conspiracy theories with no basis on plausibility or logic to them. But - it's important to not make an over-arching comment on what I said above.

This whole theory just feels and smells like whack a mole. I'm sorry Sandy but it's true. This is not an attack on you (just want to be clear on that so you understand what I'm saying here). There's just no way around the fact that those exhumation photos clearly show real teeth embedded into the skull. As soon as we hear that the skulls were switched to explain why the teeth are there, well, that's where the head slapping and eye rolling start. I'm sorry Sandy.

For my money, State Secret is far more revealing and important on the how of it all compared to the who of this story.

Not lying. Just wrong. Clearly wrong. All part of the vast conspiracy du jour way of thinking. An example - when David Josephs says that there had to be two Oswalds because, well, there's one photo of LHO with non-sloping shoulders and there's another photo that shows him with sloping shoulders, well, there just HAD TO BE two Oswalds, Josephs isn't lying. He's just wrong. Another example - when Chris D says that the film is fake because Zapruder hurried up and turned on the 48 FPS switch on his camera when the car went by, and then when the secret agent took the 48 FPS film and excised 67% of those frames, he's not lying. He's just wrong. A third example is when Jim Hargraves promotes the same Oswald clone story, that secret agents found an Oswald look alike youth 10 years before the assassination. This youth, from Hungary, looked exactly like the Dallas Oswald and even this Hungarian boy's Mom looked exactly like the Dallas Oswald's Mom - except she was frumpy and never smiled. And the secret agents let this clone and his Mom live almost in the Dallas Oswald's shadows. Jim, Sandy, Dave et al are not lying - they're just wrong. A fourth example is when Chris D says a shot came over spectators' head from over in the pavillion area of Dealey Plaza and hit JFK. He's not lying. He's just wrong. And amazingly David Josephs agrees with me on this and also said Chris D is wrong. But of course David Josephs never EVER posts goofy animated GIFs for these guys. He only posts them for me and others who he can't stand when we call him out on his silliness and multitude of silly theories. Do you understand what I'm saying now?

That's just it Rick - there IS no other film. It's clearly explained above in my previous post. Of course, if you want to believe that there is a second, third, or however many "other" films out there, that's your right. But where is this film? Where is it? Think about it! What could it possibly show other than the 26 sec shooting sequence? This, too, I've asked over and over again but no one - NO ONE - has ever given a logical or plausible answer here. If you or anyone here cannot even begin to state with any plausibility WHAT this other film showed, then it's a no-brainer. It doesn't exist.

So here's what you said in reply to the photo COMPARISON he made on the other forum: John, That's interesting. I don't buy it because of the corroborating evidence, but it's interesting. Regardless, for argument's sake I will concede. Because the loss-of-tooth evidence isn't even necessary for my proof. How do you explain that in 1958 Oswald was missing a tooth and needed a fake one (a prosthesis) to replace it, but in 1981 no longer needed it? Did a tooth grow back while he was dead? So you're now concurring with Ray here but also conceding over there? I'm confused.

Nowhere in the existing film does he "stand up" and that's why witness statements are one of the weakest parts of any investigation. Watch some true detective shows on YTV where seasoned investigators say the exact same thing. What you're trying to say here is because a witness saw something then changed his/her mind, it proves that the other evidence like the film has been altered. Nothing could be further from the truth. But this is pretty much how other "researchers" here treat the available evidence which leads to all kinds of crazy and erroneous conclusions.

Sandy - there are many logic fallacies - remember I said there were you 10 and you said there were many more? Which you're correct about? But the larger point is the logical fallacy I identified - and there is one of them - called ad hominem. In other words when all else fails, folks stoop to a lower level and attack the individual rebutting them. That's what I meant when I read your "mental health and illness" comment and it appeared that the admin concurred. So how you interpreted that as me attacking you is unclear - you made the mental sickness comment not me and I pointed it out as a logical fallacy. Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Is that the best you can do, Ray? He did that to show a comparison of two images combined. As a comparison. Do you not understand that? He did NOT do it to muddle things - merely as a comparison. Wow!

Exactly. I said this numerous times. Don't take it to NBC but why not Consortium News? After all, they published DiEugenio there - maybe let a seasoned reporter there look at the theory and if it holds water, maybe they'll publish it, though I don't doubt because in all honesty the whole HL story is a real whopper IMO.

I'm not attacking you and even so, even the admin thought you you went overboard with the "mental health" comment. I've always found you to be an interesting individual Sandy. You seem to be totally and completely devoid of self awareness when you put your thoughts and comments here. If you had self awareness in abundance, then you'd have the ability to see that your theories may be / could be wrong. But because you lack that, your way of thinking is "everyone is wrong and i'm always right." Regardless, I did put my rebuttals to your theory here.

The biggest fallacy of this theory is that you have to make several assumptions before you then say this one is true. Assumptions like: The head in the coffin was switched because the skull in the coffin shows he had his front teeth and none were missing (no evidence this ever happened) The FAILURE word means - not interpreted - that he had a missing tooth and thus, needed a fake one Ignore other evidence arguing this theory in order for it to make this theory work. Like: (SL) There does not need to be a missing tooth at all. Ed Voebel's testimony is unnecessary. Aunt Lillian's testimony is unnecessary. The Life magazine photo is unnecessary. BIGGEST ONE - secret agents found an impostor ten years before 11.22, groomed him, had him living in Oswald's shadow for some unknown secret mission So isn't this cherry-picking to fit the theory? And even in death, Oswald's narrow-shaped mouth always seemed to cover his front teeth up:

Oh, OK. Sure sounds like a logic fallacy to me. Stooping to personal slander when one has no other recourse to argue against their point. And I never realized honesty played a role in it LOL

James, don't take my word for it. Read Jeff Carter's articles about the film here (4 parts): https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/alexandra-zapruder-26-seconds-a-personal-history-of-the-zapruder-film-part-1 Amazingly, Dave "everything's been faked" Josephs has the "utmost respect" for Carter probably because Carter was published on Kennedys and King and so was Josephs (you know, one of those "like me" kind of deals). Well, I *was* published there but not with a byline LOL. If this is still not enough, then read the Zavada report. These people actually touched and handled the existing film. Conclusion - no alterations: http://rochester.nydatabases.com/story/zavada-report-jfk-assassination-evidence If this is still not enough, then look at this synched film from two different angles shot by two different people. They match perfectly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWEXZyMJMtA Download each and every frame of the film here: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ View each frame one at a time. You be the judge. The "it's all faked" crowd here hate it - hate it - when I post this kind of stuff and revert to the usual: "your inexperience regarding Z-film study is noted. Without loon nut, blind support of the extant Z-film (currently housed at NARA under the control of the 6th Floor Mausoleum), well, let's just say, the Z-film is the lynch-pin of the 1964 WCR LHO's did all by his lonesome. Without it, the WCR case collapses... of course, its suspect, of course, it's going to be scrutinized. You know NO bounds, lad! 20 years behind times... I sense a WCR support conversion, soon!" Ask yourself - why was the film as we see it today suppressed from the public until 1975? Why did Dan Rather lie about what he saw in the film on 11/25/63 on live TV (you can find this on YTV) - but they still wouldn't show it to the public? Think about it. If the film had been altered to hide conspiracy, then why not show it? Instead they did the opposite - the film was too explosive, too obvious that more than one shooter was involved. So they did the easiest thing - they didn't show it to the public. It's that simple. But of course the "experts" here will argue the opposite - it was faked; it was trimmed; the wall of the building in the background looks suspicious; the film was shot at 48 FPS then 67% of the frames were removed...and a whole bunch of other malarkey.

And you'll have to excuse Dave "everything and the kitchen sink is a conspiracy" Josephs for thinking everything was faked. The man knows no bounds. Just recently he actually believed that a part of the street was actually painted in in the Z film. And when others here disagree with his craziness here he resorts to personal attacks . So keep that in mind when you read his long rambling posts here.

Isn't this a logical fallacy when all else fails the person starts stooping to questioning a person's mental capacity when said person disagrees?

No because there's no such thing. You can't put a report together about something that doesn't exist. Otherwise, you're literally creating something from nothing.

Thanks for posting that Tracy. This is the only forum I belong to but perhaps I should join that one because it really seems like there are many, many more saner heads over there than there are here - LOL. After the usual rah-rah by Clark - and of course the usual suspects like David Josephs - the saner heads there kicked in and scrapped this silly little "theory" to the dustbin where it belongs. EDIT - even when he was knocked out, the narrow shape of his mouth tends to cover up his teeth: Every time I see LHO his mouth and teeth shape remind me of Damien Lewis, very similar:

Mervyn - great job on this. The smiling Oswald photo is definitely a posed event and it's entirely plausible that LHO simply blackened his teeth out to ham it up in class. If the one and only Oswald could rise from the grave and we asked him about this, he'd probably say "Yeah, just goofing around" and then if one of us would tell him that others make this out to be his impostor with missing teeth, I'm sure he'd roll his eyes and giggle.

Bill - does this in any way change the State Secret narrative?

The whole point of SS is Oswald and Webster were witting participants, Jim. That's what Simpich meant - Oswald read spy and detective novels so he liked the intrigue of it all. There is simply no way that LHO nor Webster could have done the things they did to get into Russia and out with little or no resistance. This was the height of the Cold War. If Oswald has been the little old nobody that the WR tries to paint him as being - and if he had defected and then come back - they would have arrested him in the US and probably tried him for treason. But he just waltzed right back into America with nary a peep and a Russian wife to boot. Once again you're using another logical fallacy - Simpich says LHO was a spy in his own mind; therefore, he was not one. And yes I've read SS too many times than I care to admit.

Yes, Jim, but what does this have to do with the clone story? As the logic fallacy says: Fallacy Ex: Premise: You loved The Matrix. Premise: Keanu Reaves is in The Matrix Premise: Keanu Reaves is in Speed. Conclusion: You must love Speed. (Affirming The Consequent Fallacy: you may have like The Matrix even if you don't like Keanu Reaves, or in spite of the fact that he was in it, or maybe you liked him in it but hate him in everything else etc.) So if Oswald was a low level agent - as presented in a much more accurate and logical story like Simpich's State Secret - it does NOT also equate that there was an Oswald clone running around in parallel. This is what I meant about how there are a lot of clearly illogical parts of the clone story.

Paul - I couldn't find 12 but did find 10. Wow, amazingly the list I found sure fits a lot of things I've seen in this thread. Especially the ad hominem one where someone who rebuts the clone theory and they're attacked. And then another one - the bandwagon one - where someone gets on here and says "good going Team Hardly" without adding anything to the discussion. Thanks for sharing these fallacies - you learn something new every day. Here's what I found on Google: https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic and Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm