Michael Clark

U

16 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

This thread should be renamed The Kennedy  Assassination  A Primer and pinned to the top of this forum. Not only does JD cover the case well but Giglio has some outstanding links to other resources.

Yet, only 300 odd views of it. Meanwhile, the craziness and zaniness on this forum continues with, for example, Chris carrying on with the ridiculous Towner Frame Split thread - 13,000 views and counting.

That's  why it's  even more important  to pin this to the  top so there's  some kind of  balance before visitors start wading  through  the  muck.

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?

38 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Doug, This is really a great point that I've tried to make. The antagonists are .....

..... These existential choices are coming to the foreground because of the potential success of the bold  implementation of this same international corporate agenda.

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.

16 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - did you read Jim's article? Or have you rad any of his books?

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. 

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't know what you mean by me not naming names.  I guess no one reads my books here. I don't know how I could be more specific than I was in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed.

I think that my essay explains why Chomsky did as he did through his pal Selwyn Bromberger.  At least that is how I took it.  The work of Ray Marcus was stunning in this regard. And apparently Chomsky forgot it happened. He and his pals decided that the forces that took out Kennedy were simply too powerful to take on.  And were also too secret and covert. Whereas, by 1969, when Ray's visit happened, the resistance to Vietnam was getting very widespread and even soame MSM figures  had turned against it like Cronkite.  Remember this was after Tet.  If you read McNamara's book, even Dick Helms thought we should withdraw by then.

As per Hitchens, this guy ended up being for the Iraq war, and helped  the special prosecutor in the Clinton case.  He had nothing but idiotic remarks on the JFK case and it was clear that he did not know anything about the circumstances of the murder or the specifics of JFK's presidency.  I mean anyone who could blame JFK for the demise of Diem and his brother deserves no attention at all. It was clear that none of these guys--him, Cockburn, or Chomsky-- knew what on earth they were talking about either in Vietnam or about the Warren Commission. And its incredible that they condoned the likes of what Hoover, McCloy, Ford and Dulles had done with the Commission.

 

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.

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

When it works, great, then use it.  Don't make it a post though - it just disrupts the thread. Who cares if you're "testing" something.  I don't and I'm sure others don't either.

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.  

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - subject for another thread, not this one.

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.

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

MIKE CLARK:
OMG you're actually "testing" computer things on a public forum?!  Can't you just start a private blog like with Blogger and test there?  This is NOT your personal playground, Mike! Jesus! Is it any wonder people are fleeing this forum in droves?

Mike, ....

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

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

.............

MIKE CLARK:
OMG you're actually "testing" computer things on a public forum?!  Can't you just start a private blog like with Blogger and test there?  This is NOT your personal playground, Mike! Jesus! Is it any wonder people are fleeing this forum in droves?

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

21 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

It certainly does!  The Starnes article is what sent Arthur Krock of the NYTimes to DefCon 11 the very next day.  I didn't see the Krock piece here, so....

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.

15 minutes ago, Tom Hume said:

This photo looks a little better than the one you posted.

Yes, it appears to be an open door on the left, the door is obscuring the door molding on that side.

If it is the doorway leading from the kitchen to the garage, the door-swing direction was changed in the remodel, and a partition was added to the right of the door. That looks like maybe an air-return opening in the upper right of the picture. If you have a modern picture showing that same air-return, that would lend credence to the authenticity of the old photo.

 

 

 

 

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)

6 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

It is not surprising to me that Klienlerer was the only one to witness the abuse firsthand. LHO could hardly be expected to go around in public slapping Marina around-that was bound to attract attention. The abuse he witnessed occurred at the Hall's home indoors where no one else could see. On this occasion LHO lost his temper and slapped her. He wasn't worried about Klienlerer who was admittedly afraid of him. If Klienlerer said anything it was his word against LHO's.  But while only Klienlerer saw the abuse, several others including Marguerite saw the bruises. Marguerite confronted LHO who told her to mind her own business. Marina may have said LHO wasn't violent at one point, but the book Marina & Lee says otherwise. To sum up, plenty of evidence LHO abused Marina.

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"

9 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Well, you're right that Gitmo doesn't get discussed much.  Maybe the long form research would begin with reading the newspaper coverage and the JCS documents from the time Batista fled on forward to the Johnson administration.

In the 1970s, we financed a CIA-influenced election in Jamaica to keep that island accessible to US and British military and intelligence, so in the 1960s the loss of Gitmo to a Soviet-backed nationalist would surely have been a casus belli,  The intel precautions must have been considerable.

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.

41 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Larry, I'm new here too.  I've read the forum for years, 

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

All this may have been seen by other members before but I have to ask.  In the picture on page 9 does that look like the breaker boxes for the building right by the first floor door to the back loading dock. 

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

There are potentially other nuggets in this FBI booklet.

   

Ron, that is a phone line interconnection.

Welcome, and thanks for the link Larry.

14 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Wha?

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).

On 6/19/2017 at 0:10 PM, David Andrews said:

Wha?

Gitmo is rarely spoken about in the JFKA case. It had to have been in jeopardy when one thinks of the possible outcomes of a Batista government, a Castro takeover, a BOPI success, Detente with Castro, or normalization with any other future Cuban government. 50 years of boycott got us around all of those issues. 

I was hoping to spur some discussion, or, at least, find out if there is any discussion or research on Gitmo, in this context, to be had or seen.

19 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Garrison really frightened the powers to be with his intelligence, his commanding and professional presence and his high level communication skills both spoken and literary.

Garrison was more gifted in these ways than most of our presidents.

View and listen to some of the many pubic speaking videos of Dallas DA Henry Wade and then compare them to those of Jim Garrison. The disparity is cringing.

Same with their writing skills.

 

 

Fully agreed Joe. Every time I see him on film I am struck by similar feeling.

I do have to speculatively call him on two matters and for Jumping-the-shark on one other.

-My unlearned eye makes me wonder why I don't see him up in the face of organized crime with regard to the JFKA.

-I have always wondered if he did as much as he could or should have to protect some of his witnesses.

-When he did his "equal time" presentation he jumped-the-shark with the elephant-hanging-by-a-string metaphor.

I am an admirer.

25 minutes ago, Jeffrey Reilley said:

14:40...Morales?

WC Vol. 16 -237; for reference

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_237.pdf

Garrisson is saying that the Mystery Man had a companion whom he identified as CIA, and he (JG) can place him in Dallas in Nov. of 63. 

I am not recalling a picture of the companion.

Guantanamo didit. Jus' sayin.

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

 Not every person who knew him witnessed the violence or the bruises. 

7 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Sandy,

Not every person was a witness to the abuse. 

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

Tracy, That kind of comment is beneath you. I am kind of surprised. Surely you don't want to go over how few witnesses there were to abuse, if indeed any can be substantiated or accepted.

Sorry for the bump. I meant to edit that in above.

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

OK David, its hard to compress a rather lengthy chapter into a few paragraphs but here  you go:

By the time Roselli arrived in Los Angeles he was in transition from street hood to enforcer, moving out of the rackets per se into gambling and running protection for games in LA, most importantly the high dollar off shore gambling ships. At that point he took his first syndicate job, putting a major racetrack gambling wire into operation. That gave put him in touch with a number of east coast mob money guys and brought him to the attention of Meyer Lansky, who became his real behind the scenes mentor.  Lansky was so impressed with Roselli he used him in Cuba to clean up some of the most egregious casino problems which were embarrassing the gambling industry there – Roselli had learned how to get people’s attention without leaving bodies strewn all over the place. For him it was about deals and deal making.

 

Back in LA, he used his east coast connections to bring big money into investments in the entertainment industry, a good way to launder cash – and he figured out ways to frustrate the movie industry unions while at the same time making money off the industry. The FBI was always frustrated by LA and Roselli; it was a city that used outside money to make more money rather than producing it through typical street crime (at least in his era).

 

With his entertainment connections, his money connections and his backing by Lansky, Roselli was in a great position to broker deals in gambling and entertainment as Vegas grew, his business card described him as a strategist and he helped folks like Giancana put casinos into Vegas. And he brokered his influence with entertainers and entertainment, Roselli made money off investment deals, and legal sidelines such as casino services. By the time you get to 1960 he had been gone from the street for a very long time, he knew people and he was trusted since he provided services and competed with none of the godfathers or with the syndicate. Was he a mob guy, sure, but a very different type of mob guy.

 

He was special in terms of the Castro plot because he had worked in Cuba, had connections to the old casino crowd there and also knew folks who still had channels into Cuba via the exile community in Florida – specifically Trafficante.  And up to that point in time he was known as the type of guy who could bring people together and ensure nobody talked. If the CIA was going to use criminal assets to operate inside Cuba, he was a great choice for making the right introductions that was his real attraction. That was really all there was to it, another agreement to make introductions, hook up people and get a deal done – which is really all he did for the CIA if you really dig into it.  It’s just that he did it twice, the second time for William Harvey – who clearly found him as a kindred spirit, Harvey always went full bore into anything he did, a really intense guy, and the same thing could be said for Roselli.  Roselli just dressed a lot better.