Michael Walton

38 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Now you've got it!

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?

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael,

I agree with the exhumation finding. Just like I agree with the dental record.

It is you guys who don't agree with one or the other.

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?

27 minutes ago, Rick McTague said:

I think I do, David ???.  Those who disagree with the LN theory are all wrong.  Those who present evidence disproving it are all wrong.  Yes, I understand that is what you are saying.

Do you understand that you are saying that the government would never lie to the American people, they only tell the truth, they would never cover up the truth, they would never stoop to alter evidence and witness testimony, they would never blame the entire affair on one guy then cover up for it all these years?

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.

21 minutes ago, Rick McTague said:

So William Reymond and Rich Dellarosa were lying?  They were describing in detail something they saw that doesn't exist?

And Dino Brugioni didn't create briefing boards showing events that are very different from the extant Z film?  He was lying about the hours he and his associates spent with a version of the film, working in detail for several hours to create a separate set of briefing boards overnight Saturday 2-23 / Sunday 2-24?

They describe in detail "what it could possibly show other than the 26 sec shooting sequence".  But they are all lying?

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?

3 minutes ago, Rick McTague said:

observances of the other Z film as noted

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.

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You are, of course, right Ray.

If we look at the Life photo without modifications, it looks like Oswald's front tooth/teeth are missing. If we look at the photo as modified by Mytton -- WHERE HE HAS ADDED TEETH -- then we don't see missing teeth! Should that come as a surprise? LOL

Of course we should make our judgement based on the original photo.

The critics will come up with excuses for the missing teeth till the cows come home.

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.

17 hours ago, Rick McTague said:

FWIW, The "up, then fall to the left" is how Bill Newman described the head shot; he said that JFK "stood up".  Later, after viewing the extant Z film, he recanted and said he must have been mistaken.

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.

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You said that I was, "Stooping to personal slander...."  Which is attacking me.  And which is something I did not do.

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.

12 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Mytton is famous for creating misinformation. He photoshopped  the teeth behind the upper lip in the or don't you understand, Tracy?

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!

14 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Again, if you believe you have solved the case here, why not take it to someone in authority who can do something about it. I can answer my own question-it's because you know you haven't done anything and this would all be taken apart by anyone that lives in the real world. They would inform you that one notation in a dental chart (BTW military charts are prone to errors according to Norton) doesn't trump all of the other evidence.

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.

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What slander? I said that mentally ill people should not be held to the same standard as people with normal mental health. I'm defending them.

Why don't you address the topic instead of attacking me?

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:

On 2/14/2018 at 12:09 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

No... it's an act-of-compassion clause. It's entirely possible that some people who are dishonest may be that way due to mental illness. Those people should not be labeled dishonest. Doing so would be like labeling an elderly or sickly person lazy.

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

On 2/13/2018 at 9:38 PM, Jamey Flanagan said:

So, let me ask you this Michael Walton, and not condescendingly but really wanting to know. Is it of your opinion that the current Zapruder film has not been doctored in any way other than the "Oops, we accidentally damaged the film in these spots"? And if that is your honest opinion then we must assume that you think Zapruder was either lying or "misremembering" when he said he started filming and never stopped and started back. And that you believe there are no limo stops whatsoever unless you count a very slight, almost imperceptible breaking. And Greer turns his head back twice in the span of an eighteenth of a second or possible twice that time. Am I correct so far? If you are questionable about any of that and the film has been doctored in any way and for any reason then why wouldn't it be a reasonable leap of logic to question anything and everything about the film? So much of what is seen in the film has NEVER been described by eyewitness accounts. I have yet to hear an eyewitness describe the violent backwards head snap seen on film. That would be kind of hard to miss. And the fact that the spray of blood and brains from the fatal headshot (or headshots if you ascribe to the two shot there from behind and then a frontal) dissipates in record time. What is it seen for? One frame? Two? Enough brain matter and blood to splatter Jackie and the rear motorcycle officer? Just curious as to your thoughts on those issues?

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.

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

(Of course, some unfortunate folks have low mental capacity, disability, and disease. I can't blame them for not being able to function rationally.)

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.

17 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,207.0.html

Of course, the H&L people already have the explanation they are seeking so they reject all else.

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:

23 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Paul, no credit is due me. I dragged part of a continuing thread over here in order to focus on this one issue. I did not create the close-up. However, I do appreciate your view and it does offer a plausible explanation worth considering.

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.

On 2/9/2018 at 2:15 AM, Bill Simpich said:

This photo at page 6 of the new file posted by David Josephs today proves that that the 10/2/63 of "Oswald" in Mexico City is Leonov

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

1 minute ago, Jim Hargrove said:

EXCUSE ME?

Mr. Simpich says three times in the first chapter of SS that "Oswald was a spy in his own mind." 

HAVE YOU BOTHERED TO READ THE BOOK?

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.

14 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

And then, of course, there is the war between JFK and the CIA, as recorded by Arthur Krock in the NY Times shortly before our government killed JFK.

 

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.

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

If one wished to undertake the mammoth effort to go through every sentence published by John Armstrong, one could demonstrate this, easily.

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