Michael Clark

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

I explained the Transit Visa fully in my post above.  It was an afterthought following the Cuban consulate's denial of LHO's request for an instant visa to Cuba.

I also gave my source on this, namely, the Lopez Report (2003).  Sounds to me like you never read it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

5 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Paul,

I have read your post a few times. I just read it twice again, quickly, then slowly. You make no mention of the Transit Visa. I am at a loss to see how it was explained if you never mention it. You may feel justified in complaining that I am being picky, but the subject of the visas does not entail very much and could be easily dealt with. 

There are two visits to the Cuban Consulate, and one to the Russian embassy. There are visa requests. You make no mention of a Transit visa. I see a problem with the transit visa and the way that it fits into your theory. You decide to omit the transit visa rather than deal with the problem. 

I have found a couple ways that you might be able to cram it into your theory, but it's awkward; and I shouldn't be trying to fix your theory.

Why do you omit the transit visa and how does it fit into your story?

Cheers,

Michael

Paul,

The MC LHO walked into the Cuban Consulate, stating immediately that he wanted to go to Russia, Via Cuba. He was told that he needed a Transit Visa. Duran may even be saying that he walked-in, asking for a Transit Visa.

Interestingly, in my 48 page PDF of Sylvia Dura's testimony, there is no use of the word "Instant". There are 11 uses of the word "Transit".

In all of your renditions of this story, you use "Instant" visa every time. You do not, at all, use the term "Transit" visa. You even use quotes on the word "instant" even though it is not used, at all.

Paul, You are making stuff up. You are using false quotes to back-up an invented story.

Testimony of Sylvia Duran

Bumped for some light reading, later on.

1 minute ago, Steve Rymer said:

I love original thinkers.

Steve,

I have pulled-off many, impressive, Mcguyver-like feats in my day; to the astonishment of friends and co-workers.

To be sure, I am a modest person. I am taking some liberties in this post. This is not the norm.

Cheers,

Michael

3 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Steve R.

I like your term "Political Atheist" but at first thought one could interpret this to mean someone who doesn't religiously align themselves to "any" political group and the main candidates who lead and represent them and their commonly held views.

Trump is not really an "outsider" in this regards.  He is a lifetime insider in the "Corporate" political party.

Yes, this is a real political party.  Distinctly separate from the two main ones we are used to but more powerful than either.

Trump clearly represents and promotes the interests and agendas of this political group ( our top 1% to 5% of our wealthiest citizens who own and control over 75 to 80% of our nation's corporate assets ) as a number 1 priority well over the rest of Americans.

Corporate America is that 1% to 5%. This is the small minority class of wealthy which owns and controls "the majority interest" in them which is basically the bulk of our nation's assets.  

The Corporate political party loves not being recognized as such ( obvious why ) but their powerful dark shadow presence is always there and influencing and manipulating and controlling elections and candidates and the other two main stream political parties more often than not.

Trump's blustering and outraged yelling, finger and hand waving, podium pounding rhetoric about illegals and Obama care and so many other insecure emotion based ( fear, anger and personal frustration ) issues are all just over-the-top animated reality show theatrics ( which he is very experienced with ) and meant to dupe millions of angry and frustrated and easily manipulated American voters into thinking Trump and his wealthy class party are somehow the ones to lead them into their own promised land of ...what ... a society free of all that scares and frustrates them? 

But, this crazy reality show theatrics political gain format works in it's end game goal!

Just like tens of millions of Americans now being absolutely enthralled with the inane TV shown daily doings of characters whose celebrity fame and attraction is nothing more than having incredibly large backsides, acting outrageous, married to other odd people, haggling over pawned items and storage lockers and other crazy contexts.

It's not unreasonable to say that our society and culture in the last 20 to 30 years has been seriously dumbed-down due in great part to this massive reality show media blitz ... coupled with the fear and hate mongering radio and TV political talk pundits who do this daily.  

Trump's popularity is born more from all these sad negative decline aspects of our current societal state than anything close to this created image of USA greatness saving crusader.

To me, Trump is actually not mentally and emotionally right.  He seems to be living in his own delusional world of narcissistic grandeur that is so over-blown and out-of-touch with reality, that it is bound to POP and become exposed for what it truly is...a delusion.

Just hope we all get through this crazy T.V. Reality show presidency without too much damage.

Again however, Trump is the Corporate Party's man. They are just hoping to get as much of their agenda priorities through with him in office as they can before he may be asked  ( or ordered ) to go back to his previous occupation.

 

Joe, Very well put,

Cudos!

Cheers,

Michael

1 minute ago, Steve Rymer said:

Don't mean to be disrespectful, but it's not real. Government is the art of looking busy whilst never changing the things that really matter. Have you ever heard a politician say "Well, we've been doing it this way for xx # of years and it's works just fine. We've looked at numerous other methods and this really is the best way" or do constantly change things for the sake of changing them? If you are old enough you can watch old, abandoned polices re-introduced as new ones - just to shake things up.

There is no best practice in government policy.

One radical way to save money would be to stop changing stuff and stop funding quangos, committees, think-tanks, surveys, marketing campaigns, feasibility studies etc. My wife is a teacher and they can barely keep up with the changes imposed on them.

Steve, 

No disrespect taken. I am a dreamer. Sometimes that is stated as being an original thinker, or thinking outside the box. It's a good thing. IMO.

Cheers,

Michael

1 minute ago, Steve Rymer said:

Maybe, but did Reagan? Bush 43? Or even Obama?

Anyway, I don't really do politics - not this stuff anyway. It's a con.

Got any comments on Comey's connection to previous Clinton investigations? Which is where I started...

Regarding Comey and Clinton, I briefly looked. I will look more. But this discussion will likely have become stale before I have anything to say.

i have, within the last year, looked much more closely into the Clintons, Bushes, drugs, arms and murder. It is unsettling but, again, my knowledge is cursory and I'm not prepared to really make a case out of what I have found.

on the surface, I think Comey is good, honest, has integrity, is fair, intelligent and Savvy. Regarding any Clinton taint, I am starting from the premise that it was unavoidable and undesirable to him.

Cheers,

Michael

3 minutes ago, Steve Rymer said:

Maybe, I would prefer to see an end to postal voting and voting machines. This is where most of the dodgy stuff is. I would also recommend voter ID - it would stop multiple casting, the dead voting and busing in from other districts. There's also voter purging which is an issue - don't have a solution to that - maybe no disqualifiers.

Steve

Steve,

To be sure, I was not thinking about voting. I was thinking more about the efficiency of administration, control and allotment of resources, environmental responsibility and protection and the sharing of those responsibilities concerns and values. Also, those boundaries, at the headwaters are self defined. Downstream they would need to be defined but should never be changed.

Cheers,

Michael

1 minute ago, Steve Rymer said:

Agreed. Savvy and moderately intelligent in a specific way.

I also agree he probably dreams of deals and share your opinion of business ethics, but he's not really done anything yet. I doubt he will use his position to line his pockets - that comes after holding office, but he's already rich.

My concern is he lacks the knowledge to not be led all over the place.

Problem is, he HAS to be led. He is in unfamiliar territory. And he will be by people with their own self-interests, intelligence and Savvy. It's inevitable. 

I think a captain has to have a cursory knowledge of all the functions of every compartment and piece of equipment on the ship. Trump knows how to bark orders, but knows nothing about our ship.

Cheers, 

Michael

14 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Mr. Ryder - 

Mr. Rymer,

of course Clinton would have been preferable. Or do you look forward to seeing the EPA gutted? Have you been fooled by your non mainstream media sources of information into believing that climate science is a hoax? 

In these times it's the Republican Party that has gerrymandered their way into the WH and into control of Congress. It's this party, the white man party if you will, that suppresses the vote. 

 

 

Regarding Gerrymandering:

I have always thought that congressional districts should be permanently re-drawn by watershed.

my 2 cents, 

Michael

41 minutes ago, Steve Rymer said:

Michael,

Same question to you?

Steve, fair enough.

-Regarding Trumps intelligence.

I'll have to divide that up into say, intelligence and (fishing for a word here, The selection of which will be insufficient due to haste) Savvy.

I see intelligence, for the sake of this post, as the ability to dig-into and understand a subject matter that is relevant in your efforts to meet certain goals. 

Savvy is your ability to make the best use of your findings given the real-world, on-the-ground, present realities.

I'll add two anecdotes here:

I recall a commercial for some enterprise that related to the finding of candidates for job positions. One candidate for a programming position told the hiring-folks: "I dream in code". The hiring folks said something to the affect of: "We found our guy"!

I also recall, back when I was a 16 Year-old, I became addicted to a particular video game. I became so obsessed that I started dreaming about playing that stupid game. I remember that my capability improved the more I dreamt about it. I soon renounced all video games, and still never touch them.

I am suggesting here that intelligence, beyond my above definition, gas to do with effectively coming to valid and useful solutions to problems, in your off-time, indeed in your sleep. If you don't have or or don't lead a balanced life, your dreams and obsessions can lead you to become seriously wanting as an individual or as a person who's responsibilities grow beyond the confines of, say, a video game console.

So I think that I have some level of intelligence such that some people would call me intelligent. I imagine that Donald Trump dreams of money and deals. I fear that he does not dream of much else; especially ethics, enlightened self-interest or the myriad of endeavors that are the focus of Humanism. 

So, yes, I think he is intelligent. That in itself does not mean much. Is he Savvy? In the world of his obsession, yes; i.e. Making money and deals.

I have found that I have a certain Savvy for video games. I am glad that I have abondoned that application of my intelligence and no longer nurture that savvy.

I will edit-in parts 2 and 3 of this post soon.

1 hour ago, Steve Rymer said:

Not impolite at all Michael,

I actually don't think it's relevant (not my opinion), but Trump's suitability.....

........

I would argue just the same for a left-wing outsider.

Steve

Steve, thanks for the reply. Since, again, there is a lot to unpack in there, I'll avoid a point-counterpoint or list of concurring and agreeing opinions.

Id be glad to respond to any questions of a more-narrow scope, but I carry no pretense as to the importance of my opinions. I am just saying that I am a willing participant in a polite, reciprocal discussion.

Cheers,

Michael

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

I have read the Lopez report. Unfortunately, my first reading of anything really only gives me an idea of what is in the item in question. I can then re-read it looking for particular details, and make notes. I can also use such a document as a reference for particular details.

I believe that I recall a "Transit Visa" being mentioned.

You ignore this item. It causes a problem for your story.

Cheers

Michael

Paul,

This is a polite challenge. I do wish you would take it up.

Cheers,

Michael

18 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

David,

Stop pouring it on. 

Then again, more "Icing on the cake" isn't a bad thing.

 

 

 

Where were we?

17 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

David,

Stop pouring it on. 

Then again, more "Icing on the cake" isn't a bad thing.

 

 

 

Where were we?

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

Good post, Michael.

-- Tommy

Tommy,

I am not in agreement. I think Michael could have more fruitfully spent that time going over his recommended reading list and bringing something interesting to the fore. As it is, and as is your want to-do, he walks around the playground, kicks over, smashes, mocks and ridicules other kids projects.

I am following this thread with interest, if not understanding. The failure of the distractions is a testament to the compelling nature of the work being hashed-out here.

Cheers,

Michael

11 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

.....

I also gave my source on this, namely, the Lopez Report (2003).  Sounds to me like you never read it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I have read the Lopez report. Unfortunately, my first reading of anything really only gives me an idea of what is in the item in question. I can then re-read it looking for particular details, and make notes. I can also use such a document as a reference for particular details.

I believe that I recall a "Transit Visa" being mentioned.

You ignore this item. It causes a problem for your story.

Cheers

Michael

1 minute ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

I explained the Transit Visa fully in my post above.  It was an afterthought following the Cuban consulate's denial of LHO's request for an instant visa to Cuba.

I also gave my source on this, namely, the Lopez Report (2003).  Sounds to me like you never read it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

I have read your post a few times. I just read it twice again, quickly, then slowly. You make no mention of the Transit Visa. I am at a loss to see how it was explained if you never mention it. You may feel justified in complaining that I am being picky, but the subject of the visas does not entail very much and could be easily dealt with. 

There are two visits to the Cuban Consulate, and one to the Russian embassy. There are visa requests. You make no mention of a Transit visa. I see a problem with the transit visa and the way that it fits into your theory. You decide to omit the transit visa rather than deal with the problem. 

I have found a couple ways that you might be able to cram it into your theory, but it's awkward; and I shouldn't be trying to fix your theory.

Why do you omit the transit visa and how does it fit into your story?

Cheers,

Michael

This thread has not seen much attention, and is relavant to some banter that is going off-topic on a few other threads.

7 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

[Moved here from the "Does Lifton's Best Evidence..." thread]

 

Dear Paul,

You're funnier that Kellyanne Conway ..........

 

What do I expect now?  

A snide response from Paul Trejo.

Oh well, I suppose I deserve it.

 

Comments anyone?

Tommy,

How do I go-about getting a "Final Post to Michael Clark" thingy?

Cheers,

Michael

4 hours ago, Steve Rymer said:

 

To anyone that does not hate Trump (on a personal level) and is prepared to take a reasoned look at the situation (not the events). 

Steve

Steve, This may be impolite, but I am kind of vetting you for your sincerity, with this question.

Please share you're fillings and opinions about a few things regarding Trump, the person. I Won't completely define the question but I'll say that I would like to hear what you think about Trumps intelligence, maturity and his fitness to lead this country.

Cheers,

Michael

5 hours ago, Steve Rymer said:

A Wikipedia page referencing a 'dossier' containing "unverified allegations" first published unchecked by Buzzfeed and ........

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

Now the establishment is trying to correct that.

Steve

Steve, you are covering too much ground there. There really is no room for a kind of debate that is not found everywhere on the internet. There are 20ish individual items in there that could be debated. 

Each item, however, is couched in a blurb of debatable items, and is therefore incoherent. 

Cheers,

Michael

I am hoping that this subforum can be a little different than what is seen everywhere else. 

This thread follows the story of a forum member who claims to have gone to school with the son of a  Dealy Plaza shooter.

Paul Trejo does a good job of keeping the door open and drawing-out that member for more information.

Im not saying I believe it, just saying it is interesting.

Cheers, 

Michael

19 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Still -- what exactly was LHO doing in Mexico City in the final week of September, 1963?   Marina testified repeatedly that LHO was there for the sole purpose of getting a visa into Cuba, Cuba, Cuba.  No place else -- certainly not Russia.

 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Why the Transit Visa? Who do you omit it from your scenario? Where does it fit?

It seems like you are avoiding a place where you can't comfortably fit with an explanation for the Transit Visa.

And, to be sure, this gets us no closer to being back on-topic.

Cheers,

Michael

20 minutes ago, Steve Rymer said:

Hello all,

Not been on this site for some 11 years, but thought I would dip in and take a look.

Can't really believe what I am seeing.

Specifically:

1. Politics is a dog-and-pony PR exercise designed to distract the population and provide the illusion of choice.
2. It is usually manipulated by the dominant state/local powers using a combination of propaganda, voting procedures, Gerry-mandering, systemic procedural tricks and fraud to return a 'business-as-usual' candidate.
3. Candidates are usually pre-vetted/pre-compromised or pre-purchased - or a combination thereof.
4. Plausible sociopaths are highly desirable. They can lie and invade other countries without remorse.

Many appear to believe Clinton would have been preferable to or better than Trump.

The level of infantile thinking required to buy into this is quite stunning.

Wow, that was succinct. I blurted out a few yup!s while reading that.

Thanks, and welcome back!

Cheers,

Michael