Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Michael Clark

Members
  • Content count

    2,701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Michael Clark

  1. New Article by John Armstrong

    Well, Jim, I don't see how the asperges's has a definitive affect on the larger H&L story, and indeed I don't think it should at all. I think it only has relevance inasmuch as one side or the other is afraid to give a nanometer to the other side and I think that's sad. I think it is at least clear that there was some legitimate confusion about the identity of LHO and anti-Armstrong radicals would not even admit that. That said, I independently came to the conclusion that the NOLA-TV interviewed LHO may have had Aspergers. Also, I don't think the statements from your correspondent claiming that the Marines would have been aware of this are correct. Back in 1958 I don't think they had a full grasp of the condition, and I don't think, given what they may have known then, that they would have cared. The NOLA-DPD LHO had some combination of exploitable talents and possibly weaknesses. He certainly does not look like a prime candidate for typical Marine Corp. service. I think Aspergers is possible, and some related gifts were part of the reason he was selected for Marine and, IMO, intelligence service.
  2. Marge-O shown Ruby pic by FBI on 11-23

    Some information on FBI agent Odum. http://jfkfacts.org/lee-harvey-oswalds-address-book/
  3. A very interesting thread is underway at Jfkassasssinationforum, revolving around WC testimony of Margerite Oswald having been asked to identify a photograph of Jack Ruby on 11-23. FBI agent Odum's recounts the story but does not state that the person is Jack Ruby. I am just a few minutes into considering the implications but the first thing that comes to mind is that LHO implicated Ruby, and the FBI had to find-out if Marge and Marina knew of a Ruby-LHO relationship. If Marge or Marina said that they knew of such a relationship, getting Ruby to kill LHO would not work to wrap-up the Lee-as-LN package. https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,14961.0.html ....... walked into the room in the presence of my son, and all of the agents. As I stated before, Marina and I knew nothing of what went on. We did not know how Lee was shot or anything, because we did not sit down and watch television. Mr. RANKIN. What son are you talking about? Mrs. OSWALD. Robert. So this is approximately the Wednesday, the 25th--no---Sunday was the 24th. About the 26th--it was a few days after Lee was shot, a couple of days. So I walked into the room, and I picked this paper up and turned it over, and I exclaimed, "This is the picture of the man that the FBI agent showed me." And one of the agents said, "Mrs. Oswald, that is the man that shot your son." Believe me, gentlemen, I didn't even ask his name. And nothing more was said. Now, that is very unusual. Mr. RANKIN. Now, the picture that you are talking about that you picked up, was a picture in the newspaper? Mrs. OSWALD. In the newspaper. The bottom part of the newspaper. I can see that like I can see the picture. I had never seen the picture before. Mr. RANKIN. Did you later learn whose picture that was? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, when I returned to my home in Fort Worth, Tex., about a week later, Mr. Blair Justice, of the Star Telegram, brought me all the papers, that was the next time I saw the pictures and knew it was Mr. Ruby. And it was a bottom page, and it was this picture shown me. Now, this is what I want to know. Mr. RANKIN. Tell us who was there when you said that, about the picture in the paper? Mrs. OSWALD. Mr. Mike Howard, Mr. Garry Seals--well, all of the agents there. The room was full. And Robert Oswald was there. The room was full. Mr. RANKIN. Was Marina there? Mrs. OSWALD. Marina was in the bedroom. Marina and I stayed in the bedroom with the children. We could get snatches of the television and so on. The children had diarrhea and so on. We were busy. As I picked the paper up and turned it over, it was on the back. This picture I saw, the same picture. Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether your son Lee Oswald knew Jack Ruby? Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, I have no way of knowing that. I just hope that he did, if I am right. If Lee is an agent, I hope he knew Jack Ruby. Representative FORD. When you made that statement, after looking at the newspaper, did you say it loudly enough for people in the room to hear it? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir, because they answered me. They said, "That is the picture of the man that shot your son." But nothing has been said since that. That is the part that I question all about this. And then I am not asked to be subpenaed at Jack Ruby's trial or anything. The FBI says yes, they showed me a picture, but that wasn't a picture of Jack Ruby, not even giving me a chance. I don't understand. Something is not according to Hoyle. I keep telling you gentlemen. Now, I can identify this picture, I believe, out of a hundred pictures. It was a black and white glossy picture of a big face and shoulders.
  4. Marge-O shown Ruby pic by FBI on 11-23

    AFFIDAVIT PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss : I, Bardwell D. Odum, having first been duly sworn, depose as follows: I am presently a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, and have been employed in such a capacity since June 15, 1942. On November 23, 1963, while acting officially in my capacity as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I obtained a photograph of an unknown individual, furnished to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency, and proceeded to the Executive Inn, a motel, at Dallas, Texas, where Marina Oswald was staying. In view of the source of this picture, and, in order to remove all background data which might possibly have disclosed the location where the picture was taken, I trimmed off the background. The straight cuts made were more quickly done than a complete trimming of the silhouette and I considered them as effective for the desired purpose. I desired to show this photograph to Marina Oswald in an attempt to identify the individual portrayed in the photograph and to determine if he was an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald. It was raining and almost dark. I went to the door of Marina Oswald's room and knocked, identifying myself. Marguerite Oswald opened the door slightly and, upon being informed that I wished to speak to Marina Oswald, told me that Marina Oswald was completely exhausted and could not be interviewed. Marguerite Oswald did not admit me to the motel room. I told her I desired to show a photograph to Marina Oswald, and Marguerite Oswald again said that Marina was completely exhausted and could not be interviewed due to that fact. I then showed Marguerite Oswald the photograph in question. She looked at it briefly and stated that she had never seen this individual. I then departed the Executive Inn. The conversation with Marguerite Oswald and the exhibition of the photograph took place while I was standing outside the door to the room and Marguerite Oswald was standing inside with the door slightly ajar. Attached hereto are two photographic copies of the front and back of a photograph.* I have examined these copies and they are exact copies of the photograph of the unknown individual which I showed to Mrs. Marguerite Oswald on November 23, 1963. Signed this 10th day of July 1964. (s) Bardwell D. Odum, BARDWELL D. ODUM. Affidavit of FBI agent Odom.
  5. New Article by John Armstrong

    Paul, If you cannot abdmit that you made a mistake, and you continue to blow smoke, obfuscate, redirect, distract or pull some other kind of faux intellectual stunt to avoid correcting your mistake, this then, is itself, an insult. You hold some bogus personal myth about yourself that tells you that you can pull that kind of bogus BS and it's ok. It's not. It's insulting. People around you are smarter than you think they are and your belief to the contrary is condescending. Your ongoing inability to correct your false claims makes you a pathological prevaricator. There is no way around it. You see it as a weakness to admit a mistake. Intelligent, decent people see it as honorable admirable and, really, the only way forward.. So Paul Trejo, no more smoke, obfuscation redirection or prevarication, because those things are insulting, and we are smarter than you would like to believe,. Admit that you were wrong, it's that simple.
  6. St. John Hunt's letter to Caroline Kennedy

    Glenn, I might be misunderstanding your question but St. John Hunt wrote on his own FB page that he wrote this letter. So, St. John IS the provenance.
  7. New Article by John Armstrong

    Bernie I am not even and H&L adherent. I don't even know how else to describe the way that a few folks, yourself included, make it impossible to debate anything remotely related to H&L or Armstrong. Armstrong's new article only covers 1963, makes no claim about the larger H&L story, and you guys come out and start with the same old stuff, disrupting the thread with off topic stuff. It really resembles animalistic behavior: roaches, dogs, pirhana, vermin, whatever. You could bring an unsuspecting friend, and say, "watch this"; then drop an Armstrong quote in the forum and watch the madness ensue. You could take it humorously if you want. It is kind of funny except for the bad blood and ill will that it generates. I have questions for Jim about certain things but I just don't bother, because it's impossible to have a debate about anything H&L, even about a small limited, related incident. That's sad and frustrating.
  8. New Article by John Armstrong

    Lol! I just ran a google search of "educationforum L1@r", and guess what pops up?
  9. New Article by John Armstrong

    I would gladly put together a list of esteemed researchers, with quotes, who have called you out as one who makes stuff up, chronically, if you like.
  10. New Article by John Armstrong

    More obfuscation from Paul Trejo who can't admit that he was wrong when he said that Jack claimed that the Carousel or the passport picture was faked. When you don't admit that you were wrong that becomes something else.
  11. New Article by John Armstrong

    Paul, you fabricate garbage all the time and you get called on it. That is what it is and unfortunately must be accepted, I guess. Michael Walton fabricates slander of other members all the time. I don't see how that is acceptable.
  12. New Article by John Armstrong

    Yes Sandy, and Jack makes no claim that the inset photo is fabricated. It is shown briefly, and it is clear that he was working with it but he makes no claim as Paul stated. Paul made this up and can't bear to admit it.
  13. New Article by John Armstrong

    Typical garbage from Michael "Oh-so-hurt!" Walton. Sandy must have not noticed Walton's genius at some point and so he now, repeatedly, over and over, takes something that Sandy said and fabricates a story around it, making stuff up, in an effort to mock Sandy. Michael here is making a bogus synopsis of Sandy's thoughts feelings and opinions and it is totally out of place. He does similar things to me. He should be banned from this forum, all he does is critcize and fabricate slander about other members. The "hurt" in Michael Walton is pathetic, as seen in this gem...
  14. The latest from Ruth Paine

    Paul said: " In my reading, James Hosty's stated objective in his WC testimony, and to Ruth Paine (according to her WC testimony) was that his visit was all about Marina Oswald. " That is worth fact-checking to find out if Paul's "Reading" resembles Hosty's "stated objective.."
  15. New Article by John Armstrong

    Poooooofffff! Like a puff of smoke, Paul Trejo, the wannabe dialectic prestigitator (and oft-times prognosticator) pretends that he explained-away his false statement. Rather than admit to being wrong or hasty in making his claim he prefers to don the hat of the prevaricator, thinking that no one will notice.
  16. Larry Crafard, employee of Ruby until 11-23-63

    Off the top of my head.... The police stopped by his house on the 23rd after a complaint (from his wife?), checked his gun and concluded that there was nothing to be seen there. He then took off to Philadelphia in a red car, possibly a camero and maybe a convertible, and returned to Dallas within days, with a different car. His departure on Saturday leads me to surmise that Crafard may have gone with him, some of the way. His story is interesting because some researcher (Slandria, Tink Thompson, Fonzi?) caught up to him some years later and had one or more lengthy interviews with him. Ill check what I just wrote with a re-read when I can. Mike ***edit. ok, time to fact check my memory. First off, it wasn't a camaro which was introduced in 1966. ***it was a Thunderbird. Regarding the rest, reading Bill Kelly's introduction to that thread gets you pretty far, there is no need for me to summarize.
  17. I am surprised that there is no EF page on Larry Crafard. Here is a link to his WC testimony: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/crafard.htm
  18. Ruby 'wanted to be a hitman' article

    Thanks Mike, that's a great challenge! Thanks for posting it. Finding a story that was been disappeared..... BTW, great last name, and first name. Ha! Michael
  19. Larry Crafard, employee of Ruby until 11-23-63

    Vaganov? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23787-phone-lines-crafard-and-senator-at-the-carousel/
  20. New Article by John Armstrong

    Paul Trejo is still carrying a mouse in his pocket....
  21. New Article by John Armstrong

    You mean that you have spent all this time and effort in debunking Armstrong's book, and you never had a copy! That's crazy. To be sure, I hold you to a different standard than Michael Walton. Tracy, I am shocked and disappointed. There is a nother link that requires no key for the download. I'll post it here when I find it.
  22. Larry Crafard, employee of Ruby until 11-23-63

    You are right on, Ron. It's all very odd. There is arguably a lot of back and forth about Oswald having been at the club. Most of it starts around p. 40 in this Mcadams text, the text is disjointed. P.40 is after the higher numbered pages. Mr. GRIFFIN. We also discussed at lunch whether or not there you have any recollection of any connection between Ruby and Oswald, and you mentioned to me a statement that you heard made at one time. Would you tell us what that was? Mr. CRAFARD. I believe that was the one I made just as we got out of the car. Mr. GRIFFIN. That is right. 45 Mr. CRAFARD. If I recall the words, I said, I told you that I believe that before I left Dallas I had heard someone state that Oswald had been in the Carousel Club on at least one previous occasion, that I wasn't positive who had made the statement, that I believed that it was made before I left Dallas. Mr. GRIFFIN. Did you indicate to me you had some idea? Mr. CRAFARD. I thought it had been Andrew. Mr. GRIFFIN. By that, you mean Andy Armstrong? Mr. CRAFARD. Yes. Mr. HUBERT. You say before you left Dallas? Mr. CRAFARD. Yes. Mr. HUBERT. What do you mean, before you left Dallas the last time? Mr. CRAFARD. Before I left Dallas after the assassination. Mr. HUBERT. You mean before you left Dallas on November 23? Mr. CRAFARD. Yes. It seems to me that something had been said about Oswald being in the club, and I figured that probably it had been Andrew who said this because I had talked to him--been with him-- more than I had been with anybody else on that day. Mr. HUBERT. Have you seen Andrew since? Mr. CRAFARD. Only at the Ruby trial in Dallas. Mr. HUBERT. Did you mention it to him, then? Mr. CRAFARD. No; I hadn't even thought about it. Mr. HUBERT. Did he talk to you about it then? Mr. CRAFARD. No. Mr. HUBERT. Well, now, this statement must have been made to you between 12:30 on the 22d and about really 5 or 6 o'clock in the afternoon of the 23d. Mr. CRAFARD. That is right, sir. Mr. HUBERT. You didn't see Andy after that, did you? Mr. CRAFARD. I only saw Andy--I never saw Andy after the 22d, when President Kennedy was assassinated. Mr. HUBERT. That is right. Andy woke you up, you all looked at TV, and then Jack came in and they all went off and you went to bed. Mr. CRAFARD. That is right. Mr. HUBERT. Of course, you got up the next morning and talked to Ruby. Mr. CRAFARD. Yes. Mr. HUBERT. It wasn't Ruby who said that, was it? Mr. CRAFARD. I don't believe so. Mr. HUBERT. It wasn't George Senator who said it? Mr. CRAFARD. No. Mr. HUBERT. Did you see anybody else? Mr. CRAFARD. No. Mr. HUBERT. Did you talk to anybody else other than that girl on the phone? Mr. CRAFARD. No. Mr. HUBERT. She didn't mention it to you? Mr. CRAFARD. No. Mr. HUBERT. Who else could it be but Andy Armstrong? Mr. CRAFARD. I said I believe I heard this statement had been made before I left Dallas, I am not positive that it was made before I left Dallas, I might have heard the statement afterwards, after I left Dallas or after I went back, but I believe I heard the statement before I left Dallas on the 23d. Mr. HUBERT. If you did hear it before you left Dallas, it had to be Armstrong; isn't that right? Mr. CRAFARD. Yes. Mr. HUBERT. There is no question about that? Mr. CRAFARD. No. Mr. HUBERT. Because you didn't speak to anybody else that you could have gotten it from? Mr. CRAFARD. No. Mr. HUBERT. Now, you think it is possible that you read it in the paper? Mr. CRAFARD. No; I don't believe so. I didn't read the papers on it too much. I had a couple of the papers---- Mr. HUBERT. Do you think you got it over the radio or TV or any other news media? 46 Mr. CRAFARD. No. Mr. HUBERT. Your thought is that you got the statement that Ruby--that Oswald had been in the Carousel Club from a person? Mr. CRAFARD. Yes. Mr. HUBERT. Now, if it was after you left Dallas, can you help us as to what person that might have been? Mr. CRAFARD. No; I cannot. ................... Mr. HUBERT. Now, I come to, in effect, the question I asked you this morning, Larry. I don't want you to feel bound by what you said at another time unless it was the truth. Mr. CRAFARD. I realize that. Mr. HUBERT. I suggest to you that the real motivation for leaving Dallas was that you had found out that Oswald had been in the club, and that the matter was getting a little too thick for you and you wanted out of it. Mr. CRAFARD. No. Mr. HUBERT. That is not true? Mr. CRAFARD. No, sir; that is not true. .................... Mr. CRAFARD. That is right, if I wasn't in Dallas. I believe that I heard the statement before I left Dallas on the 23d. Mr. HUBERT. That being the case, unless you want to tell us some other things, it had to be Armstrong. Mr. CRAFARD. That is right. That is all I can--I can't say for sure who it was, and I can't even say for sure that I heard the statement before I left Dallas. But I believe that it was. ..................... Mr. CRAFARD. I know definitely that I was told by somebody that Oswald had been in the club, but I haven't given that fact too much thought until we was talking this afternoon during the lunch break there, and it seemed to me the statement had been made to me before I left Dallas.
  23. Larry Crafard, employee of Ruby until 11-23-63

    And if your suggesting I read the testimony in depth, I have. I read it three times, along with Senator's officer Olson's and Kay Olson's. Along with Ruby's testimony it gives me the absolute creeps.
  24. Larry Crafard, employee of Ruby until 11-23-63

    There is almost nothing else out there on Crafard. Maybe nothing else. I was glad to see something.
  25. New Article by John Armstrong

    Agreed, it took me five minutes to trace the quote in the article to the book, find the footnote and discover the larger quote and context in the trove of information that is the Nassau Conference. What an incredibly valuable five minutes.
×