Jump to content
The Education Forum

Michael Clark

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,737

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Michael Clark

    Research Storage

    in JFK Research

    Research Storage

    in JFK Research

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    LOL, I found what is apparently Paul Trejo's source, for his claim that LHO brought the rifle to work to sell the GPH.

    Warning to anyone contemplating buying this book. It has no index, page notes, end notes or bibliography. Page one is page one. The last page is the last page. I did not buy it for the code stuff, some of which is easy to see, much of which is questionable. I bought it for more info on the “two sets of tramps” info discussed in http://theoswaldcode.com/ . There are two paragraphs about this in the book. The author claims there were firecrackers on the grassy knoll as a deception, Oswald was waiting in the lunchroom for Gerry Patric Hemming to pay him for the rifle, and that he himself used to sell pot to he head of the FPCC.
    The info about the tramps in the grain car at 2:00 on the website is intriguing and seems to be documented, unlike the book.

    http://jfkfacts.org/lee-harvey-oswalds-address-book/

    Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    22 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

    Michael

    I believe Allen Dulles had Kennedy killed. At the time of the assassination Dulles did not work for the CIA. So he could not have been the leader of or part of a rogue unit within the CIA that killed Kennedy.

    George, I have seen polite attempts to point out the logical emptiness of your initial and subsequent posts on this thread. I have seen knowledgeable people post that they aren't even going to bother with it, or elements of it. "Clarifications", like the above, just fill the room with more smoke. Your logic, when mapped-out, looks like an Escher drawing. I am quite convinced, finally, that you are unaware of the flaws in your premises, consequentials, and the paths to your conclusions. 

    You may be right; you may have found ground-zero for the conspiracy, but your roadmap to ground zero should be discretely stored away or destroyed; it is incoherent, IMO.

    Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    1 hour ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

    We don't know who these people who I suspect are assassins (Tramps and Police officers) really are.  They have not been thoroughly investigated.  All I really know of Harold and John is that they were both in the Army and that they are both dead.  Who are their known associates?  As for Wise, all we know is he worked as a police officer for the DPD.  Does he have a military record?  Does he or did he have CIA/Mob connections?  Don't get me wrong, I want to exclude all these people as possible suspects from my list.  I need the proof to do so.

    It's probably a better idea to look for proof to put them on your list of perpetrators. Until you accomplish that, they should be on your list of suspects.

    Proof CIA did not plan or execute the JFK assassination

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    On 5/2/2017 at 9:18 AM, George Sawtelle said:

    I've not read much critique on the veracity of Tosh Plumlee's account of an abort team in Dealey Plaza the time and day of the assassination. I take that to mean most people familiar with Plumlee's account believe him.

    That would be a mistake, IMO. Mr. Plumlee is a historical player and a witness to the events that are, at the same time, germaine and concurrent; and he himself is caught, physically, in the trajectory of the facts and implications of the assassination and all such events and operations of that time, and moment, even if you only believe a portion of what he has to say. It's simple enough to say that it runs afoul of the forum rules to call him a xxxx, but it is also impolite, impolitic, and would not encourage him to post here going forward. I do not doubt that Mr. Plumlee would entertain questions that rise above the normative.

    He said the CIA had flown in a team to stop the assassination. He was the co-pilot who piloted the plane which carried the abort team. 

    A quote from Mr. Plumlee would impart some confidence that we are on firm ground as we proceed. If he claimed that, it is likely on this forum and therefore you would be hard-pressed to say that digging-it-up would be an onerous chore.

    If the CIA planned and executed the assassination they would have known who the snipers were and where they were located. Their agents and/or handlers would have been in radio contact with them. If the CIA wanted to stop the assassination, they only needed to contact the snipers and ask them to stand down before the snipers were in place.

    And we quickly come to a quagmire. The first presumption carries not an iota of truth. For example, if the CIA paid the mob to do it, it is very likely they only knew that the check had been written. If some faction wished to abort at the last minute, there more than likely were a number of impediments and operators that would not stand in the way of a crime with such immense inertia. Any action to halt the assassination would become potential evidence that the assassination was planned and point the way to its perpetrators.  

    Now it's possible a particular section of the CIA planned and executed the assassination without the knowledge of the director or supervisors of other CIA sections. If this is the case the assassination would not fall under the auspices of the CIA. The section responsible would be considered a rogue unit within the agency.

    Heading into the last paragraph, keep in mind that we have nothing but mucked-up shoes to put the information therein into an kind of perspective. It is an If-then statement that simultaneously attempts to serve as a conclusion and a thesis, if you will, for this thread. We already parried the idea that the agency would necessarily know and directly control the assassins in real-time. The second sentence introduces the word auspices, with the implication being that this particular word, auspices, absolves the agency of guilt, or ownership of the "I-did-it" crown.

    -------------------------

    George, I have to point out that you have managed to say almost nothing, offered no "proof", such as quotes when you easily could have, and used a considerable number of words to do it all. It's not easy to do that.

     

     

    Three Tramps.

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

    Apologies David.  I was fishing last night.  ......

    The book The Oswald Code by AJ Weberman is junk.  Yes, that Bob Dylan dumpster diving Weberman  (a real researcher, unlike me, in an e-mail, called him a "kook").   The book has no table of contents, source notes, end notes, appendix, index, nothing.  It is jumbled, jumps back and forth about Gerry Patrick Hemming said this to he said that with comments from Sturgis/Fiorini thrown in randomly.  I bought the book based on information on the website about it, and, Weberman being  co author of coup DeEtat in America from 1975.  When I read the on line version of That book in the 2000's I thought it was revolutionary for it's implications of the CIA at the time of it's publication.  I've read it was inspirational to Henry Gonzalez in his pursuit of the establishment of the House Sub Committee on Assassinations. 

    ......

    I'd Almost say in spite of the source the information it's worthy of consideration.   

     

    A. J. Weberman is, as far as I know, the only source for Dallas Canstable Seymour Wetzman's claim that Bernard Barker was one of the fake SS agents on the grassy Knoll. It's a shame that Weberman gets discredited because, for me, The Barker-on-GK claim  is hugely important.

    Three Tramps.

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

    Close, but the document I was referring to is his voluntary Prouty interview with the ARRB, quite an extensive one which addresses a number of his articles and actual knowledge relating to the Dallas trip and protection.  There were also a number of ancillary internal ARRB memos about his statements and related inquires into the 112th.  Unfortunately I can't find it on the MFF at present and Rex is on vacation so he can't check right now.  I obtained the documents myself directly from NARA and provided them to JFK Lancer, they scanned them and made them available on a CD titled Keys to the Conspiracy.  It is offered by Lancer but Ron tells me he checked and the link on their site is to my book not the CD.  I will take it up with the folks at Lancer and try to straighten out the availability and also see if we can get the interview document on MFF.  I had assumed it was there by now but Rex bashed me about the head once again for thinking every single document was on MFF so it may not be.....yet.  Sorry for the confusion, but it is something everyone following this thread should have a chance to see, looks like that is just not as easy as I thought it would be...darn.

    Thanks Larry, I just read the one I posted and I came back to note that that interview was only a half hour long. I guess that interview got a bit too hot for the Church Committee, or a good portion of the interview was deleted.

    Three Tramps.

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    46 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

    I googled Fletcher Prouty, ARRB and Fletcher Prouty Assassinations Records Review Board, got box 5 of ___ files (left name at work), no way to access.  Have not tried to look at MFF.  Any ideas where to look?  Not Trying to be a pest, curious about the "needed context".  Grin, RB.

    Ron, This might be the document to which Larry referred.

    https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31974#relPageId=1&tab=page

     

    Veciana and the CIA

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

    My first question would be when he made the claim. If it was recently, which I assume it was, I would say it doesn't hold much weight. As far as unsound reasoning, you better tell that to Harold Weisberg who was a former OSS man. He said Phillips would never have met with 2 assets in public. Do I deny Phillips was Bishop? My take is this-we have heard the "evidence" for Phillips as Bishop. Let's look at the other side of things. And if you check out my website, I have 10 articles showing the problems with Veciana's story. The bottom line is this-short of a "smoking gun" in the 2017 documents that ties Phillips to Oswald, the Veciana allegations go nowhere. After all, we know both men wanted to get rid of Castro so if they were working together it wouldn't be shocking. But Oswald is what makes the story irresistible to many and maybe Veciana realized that would be the case.

    Thanks Tracy, The Glenn Carle blog entry is dated to 2012. 

    Veciana and the CIA

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    15 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

    Which is exactly why I believe Veciana's story of Phillips meeting him and LHO together in a public place is nonsense. Phillips would have never exposed himself like that. BTW Larry, you have to be nice to me-I just ordered your book :).

    Tracy, That line of reasoning is forever repeated to discount the LHO/AV/DAP meeting in Dallas in September of 1963. It is not sound reasoning. If they met together it was because they had to meet together. Phillips had to assure AV that LHO was real, in place, and ready to do or be whatever it was that AV expected him to do or become, when the time came. Whatever plan they had required AV to be able to recognize LHO or be assured that DAP had fulfilled his part with a man in Dallas. There was no way around it. It's perfectly logical. And, if alternative, solid evidence would ever be necessary, to tie LHO to anti-Castro Cubans, aside from that produced in MC, it was produced at that meeting. Photos of that meeting existed at some point. Perhaps DAP took the pics himself. Having this meeting in the Southland Center gave further confidence that DAP was shooting-straight due to known entities and tenants in that building, like the Mexican Consulate and G. H. W. Bush' Zapata Offshore inc. (and who knows what else). Such associations would have sealed the deal for AV.

    Tracy, I don't recall right now, so I ask.... do you deny that DAP is Bishop? Were you aware of Glen Carle's affirmation of that association between the two names? What do you make of Carle's claim?

     

    *** Reegarding Bush and Zapata offices at the Southland Center... the source for that info no longer contains that bit of Info. I definitely read that info back in November.

    Veciana and the CIA

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    7 hours ago, Robin Finn said:

    former CIA officer Glenn Carle:

    "During the 1960s, Maurice Bishop was the alias used by an infamous CIA officer in Mexico City, whom conspiracy theorists believe met Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before President John F. Kennedy was murdered in 1963. The alleged meeting is cited as clear evidence that CIA officers were somehow involved in Kennedy’s assassination.

    I knew Maurice Bishop, whose real name was David Atlee Phillips. A long time ago, he got me into the agency."

    http://glenncarle.com/tag/central-intelligence-agency/

    That's very interesting. CIA officer Carle is confirming that Phillips is Bishop, and, he is describing him as "Infamous". Why would Carle describe him as "Infamous"? What actions or operations of Phillips would Carle describe as "Infamous"? This is the guy that recruited Carle into the CIA? I am going to have to look into more of what Carle has to say.

    Thanks Robin!

    Veciana and the CIA

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    18 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

    Maybe more like planned confusion?  Obfuscation?  Bishop was Phillips.  Phiilips was Barnes.  Barnes was Bishop.  Bishop was Smith or Jones.  Phillips was Bishop? 

     

    Planned confusion and obfuscation are what code-names are all about, right?

    David Andrews' observation struck a chord with me. I think there is something going on there.

    Veciana and the CIA

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    2 hours ago, David Andrews said:

    On a lower operational level, but yes.  My sense is that there were migratory field names at CIA, and they were used to confuse field contacts and destroy culpability, but perhaps also to certify persons dropping the name ( e. g., "Bishop") to other persons observing an op at CIA.

    Agreed, the name,"Bishop" may have been more the name of a title or position. 

×
×
  • Create New...