Michael Clark

Representative Lowenstein should be on the radar of more people who are interested in these cases. He was assassinated in 1980.

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.

A good EF read on Chomsky

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!

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.

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

Following...

U Mike, your comparing the view count of a ten day-old thread to a 10 year-old thread. Are you going to stand by that comparison?

There is a wide gulf between what Gore Vidal said, presumably about the dark, political and "conspiratorial" events of the 1960's and whatever facts may be on the ground in Trumpland today. I don't think you can say what present day industrialists, especially American industrialists, feel about Trump. Were not looking at the same landscape of power brokers and motives as the one which Gore Vidal describing. Assassinating a President is a far cry from getting a caged ogre elected into the White House. Kirk, Tying Trump to this article and the subject at hand does not look like a well-built and logical argument.

I read the article, with serious interest. NC bedazzled me when I was younger and befuddled me as I got older. Jim's article validates that process I went through and kind of settles it. Regatding books; I am 8 months into this. I have read this forum, original documents, articles and early publications. I see this as a one-time opportunity. Taking on volumes of books really gives your mind over to authors. If you don't follow up with diverse readings you end up with a lack of diversity in your gene-pool, so to speak. I am a reader, books are not a problem. I am taking this time to view and sample the landscape. I have a set of fresh-eyes. Original sources are good for fresh-eyes, reading books changes that. I read Garrison before I saw JFK. That was a long time ago.

Thanks Jim. I read and enjoyed your article. It's important. I always felt like I was left hanging with NC. You gave a good view of the landscape around him. Regarding the naming names comment: There is an EF thread with a comment from you that I come-upon frequently. When I read that comment I get tripped-up. I have not asked for clarification before, probably to keep from going off-topic. I'll ask about it next time. Thanks again.

If the photo-copied newspaper article was worth posting, a transcription of that article is worth posting. Should I look-forward to receiving a grade from you, going forward, on all of my posts? You ask: " who cares..?.... I don't"; and then you speak for others... Hmm... You should save that for your comments on YouTube and the places you dwell under the cover of a pseudonym.

Sure, Paul, But I would boil my question down to a question of why? Why would Chomsky obfuscate the fact of conspiracy?

Jim, do Authors come under pressure to avoid this subject or that subject, or to not dig to deep here or there? I ask because I sometimes wonder if Chomsky or, say, Christopher Hitchens truncated their thought or expression as a result of a learned or recommended limititation. I look at both of them and I feel like one avoided some very clear implications of the historical record and the other turned his focus on a religious iconoclastic shtick that, while sensational and, perhaps, radical, is ultimately just part of the eternal quagmire of religious dogma and haughty yet detached political satire. I though it might be good a time to ask and that you would be a good person to ask. If we take Varnell's well known disappointment in your non-attention to certain aspects of political-socio events and poicy and add my observation that you, I believe, have stated that, at this point, you think we should avoid certain foci, like naming names as a vague example, I am left with the feeling that there are indeed limits and pressures that guide authors and thinkers. I understand that you have areas of interest and may have just not gotten-around to this or that. Yet, I am curious.

Mike, .... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/22548-michael-walton/#comment-355024

Mr. Walton, I am gaining proficiency in transcribing, and using my voice-type features to assist in that endeavor. To be sure, I did the test transcribing and editing on my device. The transcription that I have provided here is the result of that. Newspaper articles are sometimes difficult to read and it is not possible to pull a phrase, sentence, or paragraph in order to make a point. So we end up with old copies of articles with highliter being used for that purpose. My transcription is now available for anyone to copy, save or transfer, in whole or in part, anywhere they want. More importantly, I am trying to transcribe important recorded interviews that are difficult to hear, either due to recording quality or people talking over one-another. I would think that this would be especially interesting to you, and that you would be apreciative of such an effort. I will be sure to bring my first transcriptions to your attention, regardless of your penchant for mocking, ridiculing and distrubting the efforts of others. Michael

I have have a few things that I want to transcribe. I am testing how well the voice-type feature on my phone works for that purpose. I used this article as part of that test. I'll share that transcription. By Arthur Krock New York Tomes, Oct. 3, 1963 In The Nation The Intra-Administration War in Vietnam Washington, Oct. 2- The Central intelligence agency is getting very bad press in dispatches from Vietnam to American newspapers and in articles originating in Washington. Like the Supreme Court when under fire, the CIA cannot defend itself in public retorts to criticism of its activities as they occur. But unlike the Supreme Court the CIA has no open record of its activities on which the public can base a judgmentmen of the validity of the criticisms. Also the agency is precluded from using the indirect defensive tactic which is consistently employed by all other government units under critical fire. This tactic is to give information to the press, under a seal of confidence, that challenges or refutes the critics. But the CIA cannot father such inspired articles, because to do so would require some disclosure of its activities. And not only does the effectiveness of the agency depend on the secrecy of its operations, every president since the CIA was created has protected this secrecy from claimants- Congress or the public through the press, for examples- of the right to share any part of it. This presidential policy has not, however, always re-strained other executive units from going confidentially to the press with the attacks on CIA operations in their common field of responsibility. And usually it has been possible to deduce these operational details from the nature of the attacks. But the peak of the practice has recently been reached in Vietnam and in Washington. This is revealed almost every day now in dispatches from reporters-in close touch with intra-administration critics of the CIA-with excellent reputations for reliability. One reporter in this category is Richard Starnes of the Scripps Howard newspapers. Today, under a Saigon dateline, he related that, "according to a high United States source here, twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from ambassador Henry Cabot lodge... And in one instance frustrated the plan of action Mr. Lodge brought from Washington because the agency disagreed with". Among the views attributed to the United States officials on the scene, including one described as a "very high American official... who has spent much of his life in the service of the democracy.... are the following: The CIA's growth was "likened to a malignancy" which the "very high official was not sure even the White House could control... any longer". If the United States ever experiences [an attempt at a coup to overthrow the government] it will come from the CIA and not the Pentagon." The Agency "represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone." Whatever else these passages disclose, they most certainly established that representatives of other executive branches have expanded their war against the CIA from the inner government councils to the American people via the press. And published simultaneously are details of the agencies operations in Vietnam that can come only from the same critical official sources. This is disorderly government. And the longer the president tolerates it-the period is already considerable-the greater will grow it's potentials of hampering the real war against the Vietcong and the impression of a very indecisive administration in Washington. The CIA maybe guilty as charged. Since it cannot, or at any rate will not, openly defend its record in Vietnam, or defend it by the same confidential press "briefings" employed by its critics, the public is not in a position to judge. Nor is this department, which sought and failed to get even the outlines of the agencies case in rebuttal. But Mr. Kennedy will have to make a judgment if the spectacle of war within the executive branch is to be ended and the effective functioning of the CIA preserved. And when he makes this judgment, hopefully he also will make it public, as well as the appraisal of fault on which it is based. Doubtless, recommendations as to what his judgment should be were made to him today by Secretary of Defense McNamara and General Taylor on their return from their fact-finding expedition into the embattled official jungle in Saigon.

That may be a register. Yet, amusingly, I am recalling those oversized plastic doorbell boxes. The house I am thinking of was built in 72.

"..... Macarthur told the President, "Anyone wanting to commit American ground forces to the mainland of Asia should have his head examined". Kennedy cited Macarthur's judgement to his own generals for the duration of his presidency. To put U.S. combat troops into Laos or Vietnam was a line he adamantly refused to cross for the rest of his life. General Maxwell Taylor said General Macarthur's statement made "a hell of an impression on the President.... so that whenever he'd get his advice from the Joint Chiefs or from anyone else, he'd say, "Well now, you gentlemen, you go back and convince General MacArthur, then I'll be convinced" (from JFK and the Unspeakable)

Why do I get the feeling that PT has opened a school for the dissemination of unsubstantiated narratives, and that TP has been ettending said school?

Hello Ramon, do you have similar pages for Facebook? I use LinkedIn as a strictly professional portal. My interest in history and dark politics don't mesh well with my use of LinkedIn.

Thanks Mr. Caddy. The Southland Center was home to the Mexican Consulate. That is something that I find to be very interesting. "They met on the first Saturday in September in the lobby of the Southland Center, the tallest building in Dallas, and a place that Oswald was familiar with, as he had applied for a job there, and it was the location of the Mexican consulate"

I converted the Batista Wikipedia entry to a PDF of 27 pages. I serched that PDF for the word Guantanamo.... Zero results; -"Guantanamo" was not mentioned once. -"Navy" was not mentioned once.

Ron, that is a phone line interconnection. Welcome, and thanks for the link Larry.

And, to be sure, I have stated recently that, in regard to the JFKA case, I am seeing a spider rather than a snake. I am trying to identify and a have a look at each leg. I am looking for a Gitmo leg. I have seen nothing with regard to evidence, yet, Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks).