JFK Assassination Forum

Good morning Lance. I don’t believe you understand the issues here. I assure you I care very much about the truth and facts. The issue is new information, not possibly known before 2019 but known now (because of the car identification), that Walker aide Robert Surrey was witnessed having walked out of the alley position from where the shot was fired, only seconds after the shot was fired. Yet he does not have a rifle. But it was him.

Now it is all well and good for you to say it makes no sense that Oswald would be there too at the same time as Surrey in that alley, but you need to explain then do you think Oswald was or was not there too with Surrey. One starts with facts first, not with interpretation and then deny facts because the interpretation doesn’t seem to make sense.

And if you are tempted to kneejerk deny Kirk Coleman’s man No. 2 was Surrey going to Surrey’s car, then I don’t think you have read and appreciate the argument there.

Even the FBI in their investigation thought Coleman’s man No 2 was either a Walker person, involved in the shot, or a frightened witness, one of those three, take your pick—who are you to know better. Maybe show a little more humility in commenting on things you haven’t read or understand. That said, I normally like your astute analyses on most things. You’ve got this one wrong here though.

My abstract of the argument:
https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Walker-chapter-summaries-110pdf.pdf

I did read or at least skim most of the long thread at the Ed Forum. My point in regard to your Walker scenario is different from my points in relation to the alteration of the Z film. I am going to post again on that thread because I want to keep that discussion in one place. Yes, your Walker theory is creative and internally consistent. Where it makes no sense to me is when we pose the question, "Why would General Walker, if wishing to be able to claim that an attempt had been made on his life, have resorted to such an elaborate scenario with so many obvious risks when the same claim could have been made on the basis of an extremely simple scenario?" No one had the presence of mind to say "Uh, General, couldn't we just ....?" With both Walker and Tippit, there seems to be a desire on your part for innovative, mind-boggling complexity. Everyone in those scenarios seems to me to have been completely lacking in common sense. But I will await your 140,000-word book and contribute my shekels if it's on Kindle.

Yup. That's what the evidence indicates.

A pristine bullet is one that hasn't hit anything. CE399 ceased being a pristine bullet once it entered JFK's back. A Carcano bullet does not remain stable after passing through soft tissue. It will tumble which explains why it is damaged at the base of it rather than the nose. This isn't exactly rocket science.

    Tying yourself to the mast Never ends well.

I could have a bit of word playing fun with the name Luna Committee but it's just too easy.

I thought you already had it all figured out.

You guys keep telling is us we're wrong. All we are asking you to do is show your hand. You guys seem to want to keep running a bluff.

Good morning Lance. I don’t believe you understand the issues here. I assure you I care very much about the truth and facts. The issue is new information, not possibly known before 2019 but known now (because of the car identification), that Walker aide Robert Surrey was witnessed having walked out of the alley position from where the shot was fired, only seconds after the shot was fired. Yet he does not have a rifle. But it was him.

Now it is all well and good for you to say it makes no sense that Oswald would be there too at the same time as Surrey in that alley, but you need to explain then do you think Oswald was or was not there too with Surrey. One starts with facts first, not with interpretation and then deny facts because the interpretation doesn’t seem to make sense.

And if you are tempted to kneejerk deny Kirk Coleman’s man No. 2 was Surrey going to Surrey’s car, then I don’t think you have read and appreciate the argument there.

Even the FBI in their investigation thought Coleman’s man No 2 was either a Walker person, involved in the shot, or a frightened witness, one of those three, take your pick—who are you to know better. Maybe show a little more humility in commenting on things you haven’t read or understand. That said, I normally like your astute analyses on most things. You’ve got this one wrong here though.

My abstract of the argument:
https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Walker-chapter-summaries-110pdf.pdf