"And he said 'I shot Walker'"

[Michael T. Griffith]

Real interesting but where to start? My quick notes based on the Police and FBI reports

Kirk Coleman on the day after tells Police the only description was the man who got in the 1949 or 1950 Ford was middle sized with long black hair, Kirk tells the FBI almost a full year later(with a sudden photographic like recollection) that the white man was real skinny, dark bushy hair, a thin face, with a large nose, about 5'10 19 years old and about 130 pounds wearing Khaki pants and a sports shirt, gets into a 1950 white or beige Ford and drives away in a hurry.

But, of course, you see nothing suspicious here. Coleman ran to the fence to look at the parking lot right after he heard the shot. He saw a man near a car, saw the man look at him, saw the man get into the car, and saw the man speed off out of the parking lot. Just one big whopping coincidence, right?

Later tells FBI that car drives off at normal rate of speed.

I'm guessing you don't know that we have dozens of examples of FBI agents misrepresenting what witneses told them. You choose to dismiss the account Coleman gave right after the event and to rely on the FBI's version of what he allegedly said to them later.

I'll take his first account, since it was given much sooner after the event occurred.

The other man 6'1 200 pounds, no age, long sleeve shirt with dark pants, Tells Police the man in the other car doesn't seem to be in a hurry, the only description of the car is black with a white stripe and later tells the FBI the 2nd man is leaning into the back seat of an open door, 2 door black over white 1958 Chevrolet sedan, Kirk doesn't see 2nd man leave.

Coleman initially tells the Police that the lights in the car park were not on and later tells the FBI that he was able to observe this even though it was night time because the car park was lit by a flood light.

Besides two men occupying the same car park on a church meeting night, who at one point were about ten yards apart of each other, I can not find any meaningful connection?

Humm, so it's just a coincidence that Surrey saw two men, driving a car with no license plate, walking around Walker's house and looking into his windows, right? Of course.

Robert Surrey on the night of the 8th( two days before) says the men were in their 30's and between 5'10 and 6 foot and one was 160 and the other 190 pounds.
They were well dressed in suits, dress shirts and ties.
They got out of a 1963 4 door Ford dark brown or maroon. They walk up alley to the Walker house and look through the windows and Leave about half an hour later, Surrey gets into car and checks glovebox for ID? (a new 1963 car was left unlocked?)
Tells FBI he was not certain if he could identify either man again, but was of the opinion that neither man was identical to Lee Harvey Oswald.

You know that you've omitted some key information. You didn't mention that Surrey said the men's car had no license plate. You also didn't mention that Surrey said the two men did not return to their car for about half an hour. But, nothing suspicious here, right?

And secondly, real life isn't like TV's CSI, legible fingerprints from crime scenes can be difficult to recover from non-porous surfaces and especially difficult from porous surfaces like paper. For instance from Oswald's rifle bag, only two relatively small prints were recovered.

It wasn't his rifle bag. The bag was a phony piece of evidence. Are you not aware of any of the glaring problems with the "rifle bag"?

From Google AI
Recovering fingerprints at crime scenes can be challenging due to various factors, including the surface type, environmental conditions, and the age and quality of the fingerprint itself. While some surfaces like glass are relatively easy to process, others like textured or curved surfaces, or those exposed to heat or harsh conditions, present significant difficulties. [SNIP]

Mr. EISENBERG. That would be the outermost limit that you can testify concerning?
Mr. LATONA. We have, run some tests, and usually a minimum of 24 hours on a material of this kind, depending upon how heavy the sweat was, to try to say within a 24-hour period would be a guess on my part.

So the seven fingerprints that were found on the note were all put on the note within 24 hours of its being examined by the FBI?!

Fingerprints have been recovered from paper years after being touched. In some cases, fingerprints can stay on paper for decades.

But at the end of the day, Experts did in fact positively linked Oswald's writing to the Walker note. Sorry bout that.

Yeah, and he wrote the note without leaving a single fingerprint on it. And Marina read the note without leaving a single fingerprint on it. Sounds totally plausible.

Do you have any idea how carefully and convincingly someone's handwriting can be forged by people who are trained in handwriting forgery?

And besides, wouldn't conspirators clearly spell out the Walker connection with Walker's name, a clear date and more incriminating evidence?

If they had done this, you would be citing the note as ironclad proof of Oswald's guilt. As some researchers have suggested, Oswald could have written the note for a reason that had nothing to do with the Walker shooting, and when the authorities found the note they decided to use it to pin the Walker shooting on Oswald. But,l the note could have been forged, which would explain why Oswald's prints were not found on it.

Griffith get a grip, you have fake photos, films, x-rays, autopsy photos, forged documents, the list is endless and quite pathetic.

No, it's not "endless." How many documents were fabricated/altered and how much evidence was planted in the cases of the Birmingham Six and the LAPD Rampart scandal? How many phony documents were created to conceal illegal transactions in the Iran-Contra conspiracy? How many hundreds of documents did Oliver North and crew shred after the arms-for-hostages story broke and before federal agents arrived? How many fake photos and documents did the KGB produce during the Cold War?

You guys act like people engaged in illegal activity have never planted, altered, or destroyed evidence.

Anyway, I have dealt with the vast differences in parallax caused by Marina's changing POV,

HUH??? The "vast differences in parallax" You don't even know what in the world you're talking about. There are no "vast differences in parallax" between the background objects in the backyard photos. Rather, there are incredibly tiny, microscopic differences that had to be measured in millimeters: 0.1 mm, 0.8 mm, 0.5 mm, etc. Do you know what 0.5 mm is in inches? It's 0.019685 inches. 0.019685 inches is less than 1/50th of an inch.

which conclusively show that the photos were NOT taken on a tripod and that there was more than a solitary backdrop. Marina stood in 1 position and took at least three photos. Do the experiment yourself before you make yourself look the Fool yet again!

This is just gibberish. Again, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. You don't even understand the basics of the science and mechanics involved here.

Oswald and Marina both would have had to move for Oswald to allegedly take the camera from her, forward the film, and hand the camera back to her. Three photos taken in this manner would have produced enormous differences in the distances between the background objects in the photos, especially since the camera's trigger was a lever that had to be pushed down while holding the camera at waist level. Yet, the backyard rifle photos contain only microscopic differences in distances between the background objects, an effect that would be difficult to achieve even using a modern camera with a soft-touch digital trigger button.

Look closely at the relative movement between background objects, like the shutters, stairs, roof behind and ETC, and there is massive amounts of parallax happening right before your eyes.

Just shaking my head. Again, we're not talking about "massive amounts of parallax." We're talking about extremely tiny, virtually microscopic amounts of parallax. Again, the differences were in millimeters/tiny fractions of inches. For example, the HSCA PEP found that the "gate bolt to screen" difference in distance between 133-A and 133-B, adjusted for scaling distance, is 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B). 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches, i.e., 1/168th of an inch.

Your graphics are downright goofy and show that you don't understand the basics of the problem.

George de Mohrenschildt's backyard photo signed by Oswald.

You bet. Just like the Hunt note, right? You guys swear up and down that the Hunt note, written and signed by Oswald, in which Oswald asks about his next "assignment," is a forgery. The HSCA's handwriting experts said they could not reach a firm conclusion because the note is a xerox of the original, but they noted that the "the writing pattern or the overall letter designs are consistent with those as written on the other [Oswald] documents" and that the handwriting "does agree basically with the overall writing characteristics of the previous Oswald writings." Moreover, three renowned handwriting experts examined the note for the Dallas Morning News and concluded it was written by Oswald.

In short, you guys are entirely willing to argue that the Hunt note was forged, but you refuse to allow that Oswald's signature could have been forged.

And to top it off, a photographic negative exists which came directly from Oswald's camera which is definitive proof of the authenticity of the photo. As they say in the classics, That's All Folks!!

Again, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. The negative is a big problem for your side. You didn't bother to read my article "The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos," did you? I discuss the negative in the article.

Here's one question for you regarding the negative: How could the DeM photo have been produced from the 133-A negative when the DeM photo is considerably clearer than 133-A? How could both photos have been produced from the same negative, especially if they were both printed with the regular photo printing machines commonly used at drugstores, etc.? The DeM photo was clearly not taken with the cheap, inferior IR camera, but with an expensive, high-quality camera.

Revealingly, the HSCA PEP acknowledged that the DeM photo was “probably made in a high quality enlarger with a high quality lens” because of its higher resolution (6 HSCA 148). This clearly indicates it was not processed at the same place the two original prints, 133-A and 133-B, were processed.

And, the fact remains, as I discuss in my article, that the impossible variant shadows in the backyard rifle photos have never been duplicated. The HSCA PEP tried very hard to do so, but failed.

[Lance Payette]

I think Bill's point was the critical one: Marina immediately coming forth with the Walker account upon being shown the note on 12-3-63, and holding to that story for decades, pretty much seals the deal. The note and Marina really cannot be explained away.

All the focus in the counterpart thread at the Ed Forum seems to be on Marina supposedly being under great duress, fearful of being deported, and telling the Walker tale to protect herself and her children. I have yet to see one word as to WHAT SENSE this makes. The discussion seems to take for granted that it DOES makes sense (which I fear it somehow does in the minds of rabid CTers).

Did "they" (whoever you think "they" are) fabricate and plant the Walker note within a week of the JFKA and twist Marina's arm to play along with the Walker story under threat of deportation? WHY? What would be gained by tying the dead Oswald to the Walker attempt? Can someone explain to me why on earth "they" would be thinking in these terms a week after the JFKA? Marina's account as documented in the SS and FBI memos on 12-3 was detailed and specific - was that all concocted in advance by "them"? And why was Ruth's testimony at the WC so benign when "they" could have so easily prepared her to slip in a few zingers about Oswald's hatred for Walker?

Or is the theory that Marina came up with this on her own? Why would she have done that? Doesn't it raise all kinds of questions about why she didn't tell someone at the time (as indeed it actually did)?

Is it somehow impolite, or against the rules of the Conspiracy Game, to ask WHAT SENSE any of this makes? There are never any answers from the CTers. Would someone like to take a stab at how this all supposedly worked and WHAT SENSE it would have made? Pretend you're Agatha Christie or Arthur Conan Doyle and stun us with a scenario that leaves us slapping our foreheads and exclaiming "Well, by God, it DOES make sense! Wow, that was clever of those crafty conspirators!"

I find it kind of dismaying how these threads always devolve into a "did not, did too" debate over details, which seems to me to be playing the Conspiracy Game on the CTers' turf. I simply challenge them to tell me WHAT SENSE their theory that the note was fabricated and Marina was coerced makes in the context of the JFKA. Is that too much to ask?

[Michael T. Griffith]

This is dubious hearsay given by Marina when she was being held in a hotel room and threatened by the Secret Service and the FBI and was scared to death of being deported.

According to James Hosty in his book “Assignment Oswald” an Immigration and Naturalization Service attorney told Marina Oswald, just before his first post assassination interview with Marina on Wednesday 11/27/63, that she definitely was not going to be deported. Here is a snippet from Hosty’s book page 120:

After just a few minutes the INS attorney and Gopadze came out of the room. The INS attorney, acting jittery and nervous, headed straight for the door and quickly left. Brown and I huddled with Gopadze and asked him what that was all about. Shaking his head in disgust, Gopadze told us that the INS man had just informed Marina that the INS was most definitely not going to deport her, but that they still wanted her to cooperate with the FBI.

And if one reads further on about Hosty’s interview, it turns out that Robert Oswald was present and was trying to be sure Marina was treated properly.

This is another prime example of the disconnect between lone-gunman theorists and the facts. Marina Oswald repeatedly said she was threatened with deportation if she did not "cooperate." But, you take the word of James Hosty, of all people, and claim that Marina was assured she would not be deported.

It takes a minute to think of a more unreliable, discredited source than James Hosty. 

Also, I note that no one is dealing with the evidence that CE 573 is not the Walker bullet and with the fact that Walker himself, an experienced military officer, insisted that CE 573 was not the bullet that was fired at him.
 

Griffith,

Why can't you accept the possibility that Oswald didn't see the wooden cross-piece in the window frame due to a bright light inside Walker's room?

Because it's totally ridiculous. Did Walker have a giant flood light in his dining room?! Moreover, since it was late at night (9:00 PM), even a very bright light inside the dining room would not have made the window frame invisible but rather would have made the frame contrast even more with the window glass. There is no way that anyone using either the iron sights or the scope could not have seen the window frame, bright light or no bright light, at night.

This is yet another example of the absurd assumptions you guys have to make to believe in the lone-gunman theory.

Two more points:

One, no, Sirhan has never "admitted" that he killed RFK. He has never ceased to say that he has no memory of even being in the pantry that night, much less of shooting RFK. For a time, he took the word of others and assumed that he shot RFK, but he changed his mind after he became aware of the evidence that he could not have shot RFK.

Two, no, contrary to Steve Galbraith's erroneous claim, the CIA's mind-control program was not a "complete failure." Galbraith made this claim in a reply he wrote barely 24 hours after my response, so I suspect he didn't bother to read Kinzer's book on the subject. I also recommend Hank Albarelli's historic 2009 book A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments.

Dr. Herbert Spiegel, a New York psychiatrist and world-renowned expert on hypnosis who teaches at Columbia University, has concluded that "Sirhan was probably programmed through hypnosis to fire a gun in the presence of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy without knowing what he was doing and without being able to recall either the events or the process of being programmed" (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-feb-05-le-textbooks5.3-story.html)

I again recommend the video The Real Manchurian Candidate, which is available on YouTube. In the video, another leading expert on hypnosis, Dr. Daniel Brown of Harvard University, explains his years-long examination of Sirhan and his conclusion that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to shoot RFK and not to remember doing so and being programmed to do so.

[John Mytton]

Just shaking my head. Again, we're not talking about "massive amounts of parallax." We're talking about extremely tiny, virtually microscopic amounts of parallax. Again, the differences were in millimeters/tiny fractions of inches. For example, the HSCA PEP found that the "gate bolt to screen" difference in distance between 133-A and 133-B, adjusted for scaling distance, is 0.15 mm (1.96 mm in 133-A vs. 2.11 mm in 133-B). 0.15 mm equals 0.005905512 inches, i.e., 1/168th of an inch.

Your graphics are downright goofy and show that you don't understand the basics of the problem.

Like your many Zapruder failures, here again, you haven't got a clue!

Here's the HSCA's methodology and you simply have a complete misunderstanding of the numbers. It really is so basic that a child could understand, the HSCA measurements were based on tiny photos and therefore your conclusion of "microscopic amounts of parallax" is beyond laughable.



Here in another of my "goofy" educational aids and as I previously schooled you, the HSCA Photographic Panel demonstrated massive amounts of relative parallax movements between the objects in each backyard photo.
And in your HSCA example of "gate bolt to screen", as can be seen in my "goofy" graphic, the vertical parallax movement is hardly "microscopic" and in fact is quite consistent with how Marina took the photos.

I have highlighted and stabilized the gate bolt, and the screen behind can be seen clearly moving more than a "tiny fraction of an inch"! Hahaha!



BTW on your Backyard photo fraud page you seem to rely on Jack White who believes in Moon Landing and 9/11 fakery, which goes a long way to explain your belief system.

JohnM

[Bill Brown]

One, no, Sirhan has never "admitted" that he killed RFK.

In the Sirhan interview with Frost that I mentioned, in the video posted by Steve Galbraith, right at the one minute mark Sirhan said he sincerely regrets his actions.  What do you think he was talking about, i.e. what actions do you think Sirhan is saying that he regrets?

[Lance Payette]

Breaking news: Prepare yourself, people. The Walker incident has been solved. Greg Doudna has a new book coming out (yes, we NEED another book) CONCLUSIVELY proving that the Walker shooting was a publicity stunt in which Walker himself participated. Greg says "conclusively" twice in his post at the Ed Forum, https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/31685-frontlinepbs-jfka-witness-interviews-access-issue/page/2/#comments, so you know it's the real deal. Curiously, his bombshell post was ignored by the rest of the participants.

In any event, there were three participants in addition to Walker himself - two Walker aides and, yep, Oswald. One aide was in the parking lot in a car with the engine running and the headlights on in order to blind any observer. He gave a signal to Walker and two men in the alley (another aide and Oswald), whereupon Walker hit the floor and the shot was fired harmlessly by the other aide. The aide handed the rifle to Oswald, who ran like a rabbit. Walker waited until the aides were safely home before phoning the police. You'll want to read Greg's post for yourself, which seems to me to eliminate any need to buy the book.

Yes, you're right, Greg is nuttier than the proverbial fruitcake. He is one of those JFKA researchers who actually has academic credentials (he has expertise in the Dead Sea Scrolls, another of my interests) but is, alas, nuttier than a fruitcake insofar as the JFKA is concerned. He is absolutely hellbent to break new ground in the JFKA with massive 75-page off-the-wall "analyses" to which few pay serious attention. He must be very, very bored (as am I, admittedly, but I'll get over it when I have this damn Achilles surgery tomorrow and am back in action in a few months).

You will notice that Greg's latest, like so many CT narratives, suffers from two familiar fatal flaws:

1. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In the unlikely event Walker wanted to drum up sympathy for himself, he scarcely would have needed a scenario as absurdly elaborate and risk filled as the one Greg posits. Regardless of his political views and sexual proclivities, Walker was a major military figure who presumably had more planning ability than Curly, Larry and Moe.

2. It simply inserts a cardboard Oswald, the Most Interesting Man in the World, into a scenario in which the actual Oswald simply doesn't fit. What does Oswald's participation add to the scenario Greg posits? How would Walker and his aides have known anything about Oswald or have recruited him? Wouldn't the inclusion of Oswald have increased the risks by a factor of, oh, 1000 or so? What would have been Oswald's interest in participating in this nonsense? Why was it necessary for Oswald to write the note to Marina, tell Marina anything at all, or leave the other incriminating evidence? What did Oswald do with the rifle used to fire the shot? Honestly, WHAT THE HELL?

It's all totally ad hoc and very typical of Greg: Can I craft a new and innovative scenario that includes Oswald - because he pretty clearly was involved - but that nevertheless exonerates him or at least makes him just a cog in someone else's elaborate conspiracy? Well, yes, you can - but at the expense of logic, rationality and believability.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

In the Sirhan interview with Frost that I mentioned, in the video posted by Steve Galbraith, right at the one minute mark Sirhan said he sincerely regrets his actions.  What do you think he was talking about, i.e. what actions do you think Sirhan is saying that he regrets?

Sirhan admitted in his trial that he shot JFK RFK. He claimed "diminished capacity." He also admitted to the police that he shot JFK RFK. And he admitted in a parole hearing that he shot JFK RFK. He said he remembered firing the first shot but not any other shots.

How much more do we have to have? Was he hypno programmed to make these confessions too? As we know, you cannot reason with unreasonable conspiracy believers (there are some reasonable ones remaining). Michael Griffith is a textbook example of it.

You can read about the case here (this is from the state Supreme Court decision on Sirhan's appeal not the trial; but it cites details of the trial): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-supreme-court/1826802.html

Note this part in particular: "At the trial it was undisputed that defendant fired the shot that killed Senator Kennedy. The evidence also established conclusively that he shot the victims of the assault counts. The principal defense relied upon by defendant was that of diminished capacity."