Michael Clark

Chris, this does not have to do with the letter. Built, like the letter, and the questioning of Michael Paine regarding the "We both know" call, it demonstrates the same thing that you are pointing out; namely that the WC and the Paine's were doing a careful and skillful tango in order to obscure the truth.

I am enjoying your inquiry into this issue, and always enjoy your posts.

1968?

There is the rub . When I joined, I was pleased that Paul was so ready to answer questions. Then the "witnesses to beating Marina" thread came around and I saw that Trejo has no interest in being truthful or factual. Honestly, it made me angry, and it still bothers me that others are misled by him, like I was. I've been on a campaign to challenge him as often as I could, so ignoring him has not been an option. I have to assume that others are growing tired of my challenges towards him, so I will be shifting gears.

Robert, there was a known problem. It is believed to have been fixed. If you are still having problems, James Groden has asked that it be reported. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24142-internal-server-messages-and-other-errors/

For several resons, I have been toying with the idea that Castro was not to be killed. He was needed to fill the role that he, indeed, did end-up filling for the following fifty years. I can see this whole JVB thing playing-out in such a way that she and her cohorts believed that they were developing a method for killing Castro. It would ultimately not work, or the operation would get foiled, but, the Anti-Castro Cubans would believe that efforts were being made, and that the plan to Kill Castro was real. JVB, LHO, Ferrie and others would believe that were developing a deadly plan. Oschner would know it was not a viable plan. Mary Sherman may have known or figured it out, and perhaps that is why she was murdered. Similar to the Martina Lorenz "Poison pill dissolving in cold cream" story. That's just not a mistake I can see them making.

More info. Yesterday, when this started, when I clicked on the "Home" navigation button I would get to a screen with a lot of information in several paragraphs. One thing it said was something to the affect of : " if you are seeing this message, it means that the server is reachable, but the site is not configured" also, I still often get the error message that I posted in the first post. Refreshing gets me to where I was trying to go.

I reported your post for you Sandy.

I am getting the following messages, and other errors, constantly, since a few hours ago. Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request. Please contact the server administrator at root@localhost to inform them of the time this error occurred, and the actions you performed just before this error. More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Imagine, if you will, being Frank Sturigis. Yes, Imagine being that guy, in that photo that we should all be familiar with, posing on top of a mass grave of Batista supporters, who you just executed in cold blood, in suport of Fidel Castro. It is human nature to justify what we have done. Fast-foreward to Castro's betrayal, thence to the BOPI, and thence to Watergate. Frank is a durable man, his justifications are, probably, likewise, just as durable. There are more, like him, around, and in, the JFKA, and Watergate; and thence through to today.

I think that a cold-blooded killer, sitting around my apartment, having a chat with police, after cold-blooded killer showed-up to kill me, and forced my 15 year-old daughter to get a gun.... might have already have have had its affect on my testimony.

" Watergate burgler, frank Sturgis, is booked at E. 102nd St. police station. He was charged with trying to coerce ex-spy, Marita Lorenz, into changing her testimony to congressional committee looking into assassination of President Kennedy. Sturgis was arrested in her Yorkville apartment a few hours after police say her daughter, Monica Mercedes Perez Jimenez, 15, was was picked up with a loaded automatic in her pocket. She said it was to protect her mother from Sturgis."

...

I have to admit that I meant clean and "free". I guess it's time to fork out some dough to the MFF,

I want a set of clean RP testimony as well. For the record, one of my Mcadams PDF's has this intro: "The testimony of Ruth Hyde Paine was taken at 9615 a.m., on March 21, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C., by Messrs. Albert E. Jenner, Jr., and Norman Redlich, assistant counsels of the President's Commission. "

Douglas, Larry was referring to his CD of research materials available on lancer. http://jfklancer.com/catalog/hancock/index.html

Paul, I heard that Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins had a few beers one evening, and decided to secretly "go rogue" on Aplollo 11. So,..... NASA and the US really didn't land on the moon on the Apollo 11 mission. Don't tell Evan, please.

Excellent Video. It would take a lot of time for me to get my head around a lot of this. A couple takeaways, for me. - @ 8:40 In 1963 there was a CIA Oswald program in place, to embarrass the FPCC. Newman didn't say so but I am assuming this would be McCord. If I could ask Newman a question I would ask him if that is so. -All plans to assassinate Castro and Kennedy actually were meant to leave Castro alive - I did not understand why Newman says this is so, although it fits my working pet CT, which is that Far-right and industrial elements were not interested in a free independent Cuba, with a Mafia presence, and that a US Guantanamo bay facility could be more easily assured in an adversarial situation (boycott). Does Newman explain why he believes the plotters wanted Castro alive? I missed it. -Was it because the plotters wanted Vietnam, or simply hated Kennedy? The above elements are intertwined, but I missed an explanation for this. *****edit so I don't have to bump it -He says the plot counted on Castro Being alive after the assassination of Kennedy -He says the plot counted on Oswald being the assassin and Castro and the Soviet Union being behind the assassination. -He says elsewhere (and briefly mentions it here) that it is the WW3 virus that prevents the invasion of Cuba. -I am toying with the idea that Oswald being the lone assassin was never part of the plotters plans. Oswald was to be implicated in a conspiracy. It was not the WW3 virus that thwarted the invasion but the intentional failure of Dallas and Texas operatives to come up with, in deed to suppress, the evidence of conspiracy. The suppression of Mexico City/LHO indicates that someone with the ability to supress that evidence was in on the conspiracy suppression angle and was not part of the strictly local Dallas conspiracy suppression operation (guns, erestees and detainees, body disappearances). Who would that be? I don't really know right now but I don't think it was Hunt. It might have been Phillips. I will be looking to see if I can make sense of Phillips wanting-to and being capable of suppressing the MC evidence with very few, if any, helpers.

Paul, a CIVILIAN plot involving William Harvey, David Morales, Frank Sturgis and Howard Hunt? Throw in David Phillips and Guy Bannster, whom you have implicated before. Where is this CIVILIAN plot of which you speak? And Hunt is a "flunkie"?

Yes, post number 7, by Doug Caddy on this thread has a link to a good thread. Len Colby got deeply involved in debunking; that always raises red flags for me.

Thanks David, I am not committed. I was just following Trejo's "Hunt is a flunkie" and the Sturgis invite angle. My working pet CT been assuming that the CIA, as an agency, didn't do it. Yet, Trejo, like he often does, steers the reader directly in the direction that he claims is incorrect (i.e. The CIA didit and the Saint-Ruthie ain't no saint) On the other hand, my recent warming-up to the Watergate-Dallas identical DNA angle really warms up if one acepts Hunts Confession, deletes his innocence claim, and recognizes the Cord Meyer-LBJ angle as a hangout. Sorry for repeating myself, I am just developing, and clarifying this for myself.

If one accepts this story, and I assume Trejo does accept it,( or perhaps he is just accepting the "Sturgis invitation" nugget) we have a CIA didit plot, including Sturgis, Maorales, Harvey, with Hunt on the sidelines. Since I don't believe the LBJ didit angle, I have to speculate where this story goes awry, and why. If one sees it as a limited hangout (I am cherry picking) where does the story begin to mislead the reader, and why. The "why" would be to protect the living and to protect Hunt's compatriots. So who was living at the time of the confession, and who were the compatriots? I am seeing the diversion to Cord Meyer and LBJ as a means of leading away from (today and at the time of confession) living compatriots, Liddy and McCord. (Cord Meyer died in 2001). All CIA: Hunt, Sturgis, McCord, Morales, Harvey. Liddy was FBI, and I have a hard time seeing him not being CIA as well; in later years he appears as a well-fledged Mockingbird on Fox News. Walker is no-where in sight, and Trejo leads us straight into a CIA didit plot. *** Cord Meyer death date edited-in

I found a citation for Paul's claim.. From the Rolling Stone article: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/the-last-confession-of-e-howard-hunt-20070405 "In the next few paragraphs, E. Howard goes on to describe the extent of his own involvement. It revolves around a meeting he claims he attended, in 1963, with Morales and Sturgis. It takes place in a Miami hotel room. Here's what happens: Morales leaves the room, at which point Sturgis makes reference to a "Big Event" and asks E. Howard, "Are you with us?" E. Howard asks Sturgis what he's talking about. Sturgis says, "Killing JFK." E. Howard, "incredulous," says to Sturgis, "You seem to have everything you need. Why do you need me?" In the handwritten narrative, Sturgis' response is unclear, though what E. Howard says to Sturgis next isn't: He says he won't "get involved in anything involving Bill Harvey, who is an alcoholic psycho." After that, the meeting ends. E. Howard goes back to his "normal" life and "like the rest of the country... is stunned by JFK's death and realizes how lucky he is not to have had a direct role."

Evan, The most interesting document I have seen so far is the document revealing that Earle Cabell, Dallas Mayor and brother of Deputy director of the CIA Charles Cabel, who was fired after the BOPI, was a CIA "agent". Paul doesn't find this interesting because it undermines his pet theory. I hadn't responded yet because I supposed others had better input on what has already been released. It looks like we can expect "nothing to see here" responses from Paul Trejo until all documents are released, and beyond.

Using Trejo's Hegelian Dialectics one could identify Sturgs as a cupcake decorator.