Michael Clark

10 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Wow, I see in the papers, today is Rapper, Special Ed's birthday! Pretty cool name! And fitting since Rappers within themselves are so special. I think we may have missed our chance for a Special President Education, but now I think I can live with it. heh heh

 

Michael, if you come out with a theory, your theory is fair game for scrutiny. Just as mine is.
 I'll pay you a complement for what I think is a good topic you've brought up with Paul.I love political speculation

Michael says:

Regarding Pence being re-elected: That completely depends on who the Democrats send into the election. The Democrats have to go with a moderate to win-over moderate Trump supporters. You can get another 1 million democratic voters out in NY, and it won't make a difference in the Electoral College. You have to bring-in and send-out Democratic voters in swing-states; a Bernie Sanders is not going to do that. .

Michael, it seems very seldom that I find you on the sensible, conservative side of the argument. But I think you generally have a point with Paul, even though I agree more with Paul's vision. But I think the truth is, it could go either way. It all depends on the showing the Democrats make in 2018. If there is  just more steady drip and slow Trump death, and the Democrats can take both houses, they'll be in a place in 2020 where they could do their big agenda and sweep. The 3/8 of the population that are Trump supporters are still firm, but are they expecting any economic bang for their buck of support? I don't really see Trump providing that to them, though other areas of the country could do very well..Have they fallen in love with the idea of Trump, and can just be fleeced like children.?  I hope not. Remember those swing states were once Democratic.

But issue wise favors the Democrats. A candidate with some of Bernie's agenda, single payer health care for all, making education affordable for the middle class(including some forgiveness for student debt). Higher taxation for the top 2%, decrease in defense spending all pretty much get good marks in public polls. But you can't have an avowed socialist as a candidate, as much as I like Bernie. I say after we've seen this white backlash against the multi cultural Democrats, they should  get a preferably younger, tall, good looking white dude. In some cases it  doesn't matter to the American public what their politicians are  saying as many Americans are apt to vote against their interests.There are a lot of Trump supporters who joined the chant about eliminating Obamacare who didn't realize they were or about to be recipients of Obamacare.In America, elections are more about candidate image, and personality than issues.

 

There is a lot in there that I can't speak to, due to lack of political Savvy. I agree with most of the rest.

One thing that I am a big believer in is divided government. The full control of both houses and the executive is the worst case scenario, no matter which party it is.

I'd like to see the Dems take one house, then I have a choice for who I support for President. If the Dems take both houses, I will likely vote republican for the next POTUS; unless of course they field a tool like Trump.

Cheers,

Michael

3 hours ago, Jim Root said:

Hi Paul

Was aware that Oswald repeatedly tried to get in touch with Johnathon Abt and had several others attempt to contact him.  Two of my questions have always been connected to the attempts to contact ABT.  1).  "Why and how was Oswald aware of Abt?"  2). "With the many attempts by Oswald to contact Abt, why was there only one attempt to contact John Hurt (which was left completely out of the Warren Commission Report)?"

Jim Root

Jim,

I wanted to quote you to make you aware. There has been a bit of off-topic banter here regarding Johnatonh Abt since you posted earlier. I also found your Johnathon Abt thread. I raised a few questions above, and was hoping you might be able to provide some insight.

Cheers,

Michael

I found This on another thread. I don't know where it comes from though.

On Saturday afternoon, November 23, 1963, around 3:30 PM Oswald made a telephone call to Ruth Paine

Ruth Paine: I said, “Well, hi.” And he said he wanted to ask me to call Mr. John Abt in New York for him after 6:00 PM. He gave me a telephone number of an office in New York and a residence in New York…He said he was an (the) attorney he wanted to have…

Various reading Material....

Roger Craig: When They Kill a President

Peter Dale Scott on CIA Drug Trafficking, Managed Violence & the Russian 9/11

http://www.constantinereport.com/peter-dale-scott-cia-drug-trafficking-managed-violence-russian-911/

7 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

George,

IMHO, you neglect the greater possibility of a JFK Kill Team, separate and completely opposed to a JFK Cover-up Team.

Any retired US General, with a deep, personal hatred for JFK, and perhaps some actual paranoia, could (and would) Mastermind the JFK Kill Team.

To conceal this situation during the Cold War, the FBI could (and would) Mastermind the JFK Cover-up Team.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Walker was an odd-ball loner. He had no friends accept those he could attract with hatred and racism. Please correct me if I am wrong. I know there is some basis-in-fact for this, however.

Do you think he would risk his life, counting on a cover-up to the highest levels?

I'm not seeing it.

Cheers,

Michael

25 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

 

David - I nearly always agree with you, including this time. The same group of conspirators could be called rogue, or compartmentalised. I believe it's more a semantic argument than a basic disagreement. 

Just to add a nuance, and some post-911 verbiage, Stove-piping may be good term, as opposed to compartmentalized. Stove-piping came to mind when, In the Freeport Sulpher thread, I was considering Craig Varnell's suggestion that Dulles was not involved in the planning and execution; but got left as a sucker (patsy) to do clean-up duties.

I am still considering this.... the job was stove-piped down from the Eastern Establishment, to guys like Hunt, bypassing Dulles, playing dirty tricks on Angleton, separating functions between the Mob, Cubans, and Dallas players. DAP was active.

Angleton got surprised, Dulles was less surprised but forced to act in a cover-up.

It's just a working theory but it is elegant.

Cheers,

Michael

9 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

Jenner himself refers to Ruth's previous testimony. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Mr. JENNER - Were you aware of the name John Abt before you received the telephone call you testified about from Lee Oswald?

Jenner does not say that Ruth ever memtioned a John Abt.

I am heading off to search for name "abbot"

****edit** No mention of "Abbot nor Abbott"

20 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Thanks for the input, Michel.

Looks like an unbiased and authoritative resource.  Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Now, anyone else?  What are your favorite research tools and sources?

Did I mention Wikipedia and the fact that, according to https://mediabiasfactcheck.com , Wikipedia is a "Least-Biased" news source with "High" factual reporting? (as is, by the way, https://bellingcat.com )

--  Thomas / Tommy

Thomasinayaritavich, 

I am not vouching for the Mcadams site.

It is WC testimony so I'll take it at face value, and it has/is a clickable index.

Regards,

Michel

11 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

The key is the phrase, "BEFORE you received the telephone call...from Lee Oswald."

This is what Ruth told me as well.  She never heard of Abt until Lee Oswald called her and ORDERED her to get in contact with John Abt for him.  

Ruth was put off by his attitude -- especially since Lee Oswald didn't seem to appreciate the massive trouble he was in.  He seemed to think he was in the driver's seat.

Yet because Ruth liked Marina Oswald so much, she did make the phone calls. 

If I was a deeper CTer, I'd opine that General Walker and Guy Banister coordinated this little gambit -- and that their sources would ensure that John Abt would be "out of town" for the weekend.

Another little laugh for them -- like the Mexico City laugh.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, Where is the evidence for what you say? There is no evidence in the WC testimony of Ruth Paine, that I have, that says she was asked by LHO to call a John Abt? There is no mention, by her, of that name.

That three letter word is mentioned once, in all of her testimony. Ambiguously.

That three letter word is not mentioned at all in Michael Paine's testimony. AFAIK

1 hour ago, Jim Root said:

Hi Paul

Was aware that Oswald repeatedly tried to get in touch with Johnathon Abt and had several others attempt to contact him.  Two of my questions have always been connected to the attempts to contact ABT.  1).  "Why and how was Oswald aware of Abt?"  2). "With the many attempts by Oswald to contact Abt, why was there only one attempt to contact John Hurt (which was left completely out of the Warren Commission Report)?"

Jim Root

Top Ten Education Forum Threads........ lol!

Marquette University JFK Assassination Witness Page

A clickable index to all (?, or a bunch of)  Warren Commission, Shaw trial, and HSCA witness testimony; ARRB docs, FBI affidavits, and more.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

Lopez Report

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt_2003/contents.htm

Boris Yetsin's Kennedy papers

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23805-boris-yeltsins-jfk-lho-papers/

Rare and out of print JFK books

https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fapp.box.com%2Fs%2F8b408e6999f8799dfd0a

10 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - I think what you are doing isn't turning over stones, it's imagining what might be under them. You're theory that somehow Trump has been set up to take a fall is an example of that. Might be true I suppose. That's the best I can say.

Fair enough Paul, I am not sure if you read my reply to Kirk, but there were two points.

-Flynn was poison, and a number of people had to have known that. Heck, I knew that.

-Comey had to know the consequences of his actions. I left the question of intent open. Kirk made some observations that went further on the question of intent than I did.

I don't want to paint Trump as a victim, I can't stand him. However, I have seen squirrelier means of getting people into, or out of office, for sure.

1 minute ago, Thomas Graves said:

Well, evidently (and I emphasize the word "evidently" because I'll have to check) you've been been warned to not reply to my posts or effectively and cleverly get your almost-visible visage on the "front page" again (and my most recent post ... or one which I or a like-minded member have posted in the past and which I've decided to "bump" ...  off of the highly-visible  Page One of our beloved JFK Assassination Debate forum by your (uhh oh, here comes another one of those tricky gerunds, folks) posting "Nice post, Toomy" , or "Huh?", or some such clever thang (sic).

Whatever, I can't read your sentences, your mucking up this thread. Just drop it ... let it go.

10 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

The only reason LHO would have needed a "Transit Visa" is if his actual destination was really Russia.  But it wasn't.  Marina Oswald is firm on this point.

The only reason LHO went to the Russian Embassy to get a "Transit Visa" was because the Cuban Consulate had already denied LHO an instant visa to Cuba.

LHO made a fuss about it in the Cuban Consulate, because he claimed he was an FPCC Officer, and so had a right to go to Cuba without prior communication.

Also, said LHO, he was in a street fight with "gusanos," like Carlos Bringuier -- it was right there in the newspapers -- so that earned him the right to an instant visa to Cuba.

Also, said LHO, he was a registered member of the Communist Party, and he showed his Communist membership card.  So, he DEMANDED instant visa to Cuba.

He was denied.

Duran and Azcue agreed that this FPCC resume was BOGUS.   Also, the Cuban Consulate had a complete list of the names of FPCC Officers, and LHO was not on that list.  Also,   there is no such thing as a Communist membership card.   What a moron.

Any normal Communist wanting a quick passage to Cuba would have called ahead, with letters of reference from big shots in Cuba.  This was obviously BOGUS.

So, they sent LHO on a wild goose chase.  They told LHO that if Russia gave him a "Transit Visa", that is, if he would say his ultimate destination was business in Russia, then they would let him go to Cuba for a short while.  

LHO, boaster that he was, boasted that Russia would give him the Transit Visa immediately, because he used to live in Russia, and they were thick as pecan pie.

Instead, Nechporenko and Kostikov looked at LHO as "psychotic," to used Nechiporenko's exact word.   They sent him away empty handed -- TWICE.  Even after LHO brought a loaded pistol to the Embassy -- and wept in front of them, like he was having a nervous breakdown.   (Well, it worked in the USSR in 1959, why not in Mexico City?)

They escorted him out.  Then LHO went back to Sylvia Duran and lied to her face, telling her that the Russians said "yes" and so she should just give him the instant passage to Cuba.   (Obviously, LHO was something of a racist, and thought very little of Mexican intelligence.)   Sylvia Duran called the Russians to confirm, and they said, "no, no, no."  So, Sylvia turned Oswald over to her manager, Eusebio Azcue.

Azcue didn't like LHO very much, and told him, "You're no friend of the Revolution," as he escorted him out of the building.

So -- Michael -- the Transit Visa itself was a BOGUS move on the part of LHO.  He wanted to get into Cuba, Cuba, Cuba, as Marina Oswald repeatedly testified.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

This is an argument that YOU are trying to make. Why don't YOU provide the documents, instead of forcing others to do so if they wish to correct the record that you foul-up.

Paul Trejo wrote: "The only reason LHO went to the Russian Embassy to get a "Transit Visa" was because the Cuban Consulate had already denied LHO an instant visa to Cuba."

I'm hoping Paul provides some documents to fix this. I may do it later if he does not.

In any event, LHO did not go to MC and we are only trying to straighten out a fictional story as we have it.

Cheers,

Michael

55 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Michael,

I was responding for Tim (who hasn't been here in a coon's age) to Mr. Simpkin's first post, this thread.

What do you not understand?

Or are you prohibited by the monitors from communicating with me any further on this forum (except, perchance, by PM)?

I mean, you did kinda cryptically allude to that possible sad state of affairs (for you, not me) on another thread (or two) a couple of days ago.

Or did I just over-optimisticlly infer that?

--  Thomas

I haven't PM'd you. I won't. This and my previous post are at variance with the guidance given me. I was overcome by incredulity.

10 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Michael said:

How did it happen? A pre election letter from Comey, a recommendation to Trump that he hire the tainted and inoculated Mr. Flynn. Trump then, as is his way, tries to twist an arm that he shouldn't be twisting, he asks for personal loyalty from someone who should not be making person pledges of loyalty.

I can't imagine arriving at that theory.But I'll grant that must be strangely comforting for you to nurse such a view.

Flynn and Trump are tied by mutual financial interests in Russia. They met back in 2015, before Trump and Comey probably ever met.

To assume Comey has anything to do with this is, we'll just say is completely groundless. Kirk, Comey made the Hillary email disclosure, just before the election. Hillary even says that Comey disclosure caused her the election. How on earth can you you say that my point is groundless. Your just swatting at an enemy (me), that is just not there. I could say I am typing this on my IPad right now and you would find some fault with that. Get a grip, please.

 

So you're theory posits that Comey is really a Tea Party Republican. He's a Republican, but not every Republican is a Tea Party Republican. Kirk, I said: "What was the end-game? ... Temp-Trump cedes to a Tea Party Republican. 

Kirk, you are seeing enemies everywhere. You are so blinded with, I don't know what, that you misread simple statements. Trump will cede to the VP, Pence, not Comey. Do you disagree that Pence is a Tea Party Republican? You may want to check the expiry-date on your litmus test swabs.

And there are factions within the FBI, like there is anywhere else.

Re: Comey, Michael, I got to be  truthful. IMO, You and a significant number of other posters here see nobody's actions as real, meaningful, or spontaneous and naturally occurring in life (except maybe JFK, of course!!) and almost everything as result of some invisible heavy handed conspiracy. Kirk, I like most people on here are trying to figure-out who killed JFK. I like many people here are looking under every stone. Regarding who's actions are real, meaningful and spontaneous, I have no idea who your talking about, unless it's LHO, in which case I think your wrong, and I'll keep turning over stones, if you don't mind. If you're talking about Comey, I'll remind you that there is a difference between awareness of what may be the repercussions of ones actions, and the intent to cause those repercussions. Comey knew what affect that disclosure might have on the election. I'm not saying he intended to cause the outcome. He may or may not have had a choice to do what he did, I don't know.

Why can't 1+1 =2? I tend to go with a rather conventional , and  rather boring conclusion for the perpetually conspiracy minded, but actually it is richer. It's a story of inner conflict, initially brought on by hubris. I think he should never have opened his mouth, but felt obligated to publicly conclude his investigation of HC, and chastise her but ultimately his aim was to  remove a dark shadow over the election, or at least he thought. Then in the last 10 days, he got a bunch of new e-mails and felt since he mistakenly had out himself  earlier, he had to cover his ass, and he ultimately had to face that he might have thrown an election.I tend to think he was trying to redeem himself in his investigation of Trump, not through any partiality toward Hillary, but his own instinct of justice. The truth is something like that, probably.

The one conspiracy I could see was that I believe I read that Hillary's e-mails were first  found in Weiner's computer on Oct. 5th, and not shared with Comey for nearly 3 weeks. Ok, smells funky.

 

Regarding your apparent deduction that I am a hopeless conspiracy theorist, let me ask you this.... How many senators, representatives and insiders wanted Trump in office? Note: I am NOT asking you how many wanted Trump in preference to Hillary?

My answer: Probably not a single one!!!

So, is it really outlandish to hatch a simple plan to make a fool look like a fool and show him to the door before he wrecks the place? I don't think so.

 

3 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

John,

Just curious.  Do you support Putin's theft of Crimea and his "secret", ongoing invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014?

Do you support the FSB's blowing up of Russian apartment buildings (killing 300 Russian citizens) so that martial law could be declared, the upcoming elections be canceled, and then-prime minister Putin be automatically appointed president when Yeltsen "decided" to retire during said period of martial law?

Do you support Putin's meddling in the recent U.S. elections so that his "Useful Idiot" Trump could become president?

Etc?

--  Tommy

PS  In other words, is the United States of America the only evil government in the world?

 

Huh?

15 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

LOL, next up, Pat Speer? I hope!

37 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

 

Pence scares me way more than Trump ever could.

 

They both scare me too. But Trump carries the inertia of a lot of fanatic people who are outside of the mainstream party system. Pence is within the system, caged if you will.

Trump is unstable, unenlightened, narcissistic, devoid of imagination, and absolutely unable to accept fault, blame or failings. That makes him, IMO, by far, more dangerous.

Cheers,

Michael

19 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - again I disagree. I think the Democratic Party has to move left to get enough voter turnout. I understand your electoral college analysis, but you may be discounting several things. First is the effect of fake news. Second is voter suppression, which will of course continue to be the Republican strategy of choice (by necessity), but which can be overcome with the right candidate and message. Do you remember the weird anti-Sanders news regarding his 'Black Lives Matter' civil rights bonafides? Fake news. Guaranteed. And there are younger, hipper, Democrats waiting in the wings, such as Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Biden, who would have crushed Trump, and Elizabeth Warren, with impeccable anti-establishment credentials. Even with Hillary Clinton they should have won, and would have were it not for the fake news and hacking operations. The electorate will get wiser as a result of the 2016 loss, assuming of course that we don't slip into a military totalitarian regime, which I'm worried about, but doubt will happen. Just my two cents...

Paul, Thanks for your polite and well-considered offering.

Regarding fake news. I am kind of thinking that fake news has its greatest affect in a radicalized, polarized environment. I am thinking a centrist candidate will have some immunity to that, and would bring some measure of desperately-needed calm, unity and communication.

And... I do not recall the fake Sanders/BLM bonafides. I can clearly imagine it however.

Regards, 

Michael

9 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Michael said:

How did it happen? A pre election letter from Comey, a recommendation to Trump that he hire the tainted and inoculated Mr. Flynn. Trump then, as is his way, tries to twist an arm that he shouldn't be twisting, he asks for personal loyalty from someone who should not be making person pledges of loyalty.

I can't imagine arriving at that theory.But I'll grant that must be strangely comforting for you to nurse such a view.

 

Well, as it turns out, Flynn will go down in history as having played a large role in taking down Trump. So I guess you are questioning the part about somebody having set this up, knowingly. Well, we know there were people that knew of the danger Flynn posed, including Sally Yates. Why would others be unable to come to the same conclusion? Obama forced Flynn to resign, after all. I knew he was bad news for anybody. How could that be lost on anyone in Trump's inner circle? Trumps a stupid tool, but you can't say that about his entire circle.

Kirk, you still have me crammed into the wrong hole and it's uncomfortable. I know you are aware of my aversion to dyanastic power, because you have previously mocked-it.

What you are probably unclear about, because your eyes are still red and watery, is that a person in Trump's position, non-aligned, non-establishment, afforded a great opportunity to buck the trends of the last 50 years. It's too bad that that opportunity came in the form of a Trump, and with his baggage.

On 2/17/2006 at 6:30 AM, John Simkin said:

It is true that I have posted a great deal about corruption in American politics. It is one of my main interests in history. See my pages on people like Ulysses Grant, Orville Babcock, William Belknap, William Tweed, Richard Croker, Tommy Corcoran, Bobby Baker, etc.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAgrantU.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbabcock.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbelknap.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAtweed.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcroker.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcorcoran.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbakerB.htm

It is not of course anti-American to be against corruption. For example, see my pages on people who exposed this corruption: for example, Thomas Nast, Charles Parkhurst, Seth Low, Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, Ida Wells, Gerald Nye, etc.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAnast.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAparkhurstC.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlowS.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jsteffens.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jtarbell.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWwells.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAnyeG.htm

Although I believe that FDR was one of your best presidents, a great deal of corruption started during his administration. As I have pointed out, the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence Complex started in 1940 with the blessing of FDR. I believe this is closely connected to the death of JFK and the fortunes of the MICIC definitely revived under LBJ with the Vietnam War. George Bush is only the latest front man for the MICIC.

The Democrats were responsible for a great deal of this corruption as they were the party of power for much of the 20th century. However, in recent years, the Republicans have taking over this role with Reagan and the two Bushes. Between them, they have sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in order to satisfy the needs of their financial backers. A large percentage of these lives taken were of young American soldiers. Am I being anti-American to be concerned about that? I would have thought it is criminals like George Bush who really deserve the label of being anti-American.

I have posted numerous accounts of the corruption of Tony Blair and his government. Does that make me anti-British? Blair leads a party that I was a member of for over 35 years. That does not stop me from exposing his corrupt government. I am against corruption wherever it takes place and whoever does it. We cannot build a democratic society until we root out all corruption.

I had an opportunity to fix 21 links with one bump, so I did it.

http://spartacus-educational.com/USAgrantU.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/USAbabcock.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/USAbelknap.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/USAtweed.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/USAcroker.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcorcoran.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbakerB.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/USAnast.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/USAparkhurstC.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/USAlowS.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/Jsteffens.htm (presumed. Above link showed J. Steffens)

http://spartacus-educational.com/Jtarbell.htm (presumed. IDA Tarbell)

http://spartacus-educational.com/FWWwells.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/USAnyeG.htm

John Simkin wrote: "It is true I have not posted much on the Forum about the KGB or Stalinism. After all, unlike George Bush and the CIA I do not consider them a serious threat to my liberty. However, I have written a lot about them on my website. For example, see the following:"

http://spartacus-educational.com/RUSnkvd.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/RUSstalin.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/RUSpurge.htm

"These two index pages will take you to the other pages on the evils of communism."

http://spartacus-educational.com/ColdWar.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/Russian-Revolution.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/Russia.htm

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Getting back to the theme of this thread, and whether the. JFK Cover-up Team was the same as the JFK Kill Team, it is useful to decide exactly WHAT Oswald was doing in Mexico City.

Marina Oswald testified emphatically that Oswald was there for the sole purpose of getting an instant visa into Havana, Cuba.

Oswald wasn't there to visit the Russian Embassy.  He wasn't there to visit with Kostikov, Kostin or Leonov.

Actually, the only reason that Oswald went to the Russian Embassy was to fake out the Cuban consulate into granting him an instant visa to Cuba.

 

Paul, Ostensibly, LHO was trying to get a Transit Visa to Russia, via Cuba. 

He would have needed a Russian Visa to get the Transit Visa. So, assuming he actually wanted to accomplish the task of obtaining a Transit Visa in order to get to Russia, or if he planned to stay in Cuba, there was no "fake-out"; getting the Russian Visa was a necessary step to undertake prior to getting the Cuban Transit Visa.

Asssuming he was in MC, the whole charade may have been "a fake-out". But even in that case, the Russian Embassy visit would have been no more a "fake-out" than the Cuban Conulate visit.

You consistently omit the Transit Visa aspect, presumably because it interferes with your theory that LHO was trying to smuggle his rifle into Cuba to assassinate Castro.

Cheers,

Michael

On 11/1/2005 at 10:50 AM, John Simkin said:

William Torbitt is the pseudonymous author of Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal (1970). When the book was published the author claimed he was a lawyer working in the southwestern part of the United States.

During the Second World War he served in the United States Navy. After completing a law degree from the University of Texas he worked as a prosecuting attorney (1949-51). He admits that his clients includes people involved in committing political murder. He claims he has also represented people involved in the "financial dealings of organized crime in Texas".

In Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal Torbitt claims that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a "fascist cabal... who planned to lay the blame on honest right-wing conservatives, if their first ploy, to lay the blame on Oswald and the Communists, was not bought."

Torbitt argues that a Swiss Corporation named Permindex engineered the assassination. Also involved included Defense Industrial Security Command, organized by J. Edgar Hoover and William Sullivan. Torbitt claims that DISC agents included Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby with Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, Canada in charge.

According to the author Permindex was comprised of:

(1) Solidarists, an Eastern European exile organization.

(2) American Council of Christian Churches led by Haroldson L. Hunt.

(3) Free Cuba Committee headed by Carlos Prio Socarras.

(4) The Syndicate headed by Clifford Jones, ex-lieutenant governor of Nevada. This group also included Bobby Baker, George Smathers, Roy Cohn, Fred Black and Lewis McWillie.

(5) Security Division of NASA headed by Wernher von Braun.

According to Torbitt, others involved in the assassination included Lyndon Johnson, Walter Jenkins, Fred Korth, John Connolly, William Seymour, Robert McKeown, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Lee Harvey Oswald, Ruth Paine, Micael Paine, Gordon Novel, and Clint Murchison. For example, he claims that Seymour impersonated Oswald in the School Book Depository and killed J. D. Tippit.

Torbitt adds that the "anti-Castro Cuban part of the plan was to tie the Castro regime into the murder of Kennedy and thus to have the U. S. military give all service to the overthrow of Castro".

In his book Who Shot JFK? (2002) Robin Ramsay argues that Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal was an attempt by the Central Intelligence Agency to link the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. "Torbitt took Garrison's inquiry into the ClA's links to the assassination and converted them into a story about the FBI's responsibility for the assassination. (This, in my view, tells us that the author/s of Torbitt were working for the CIA, trying to diminish the 'Garrison effect.')"

Torbitt also argues that J. Edgar Hoover and Louis M. Bloomfield planned the execution of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. He names Albert Osborne as the man who organized these two assassinations.

What do members think of Torbitt's book?

You can read the full manuscript here:

http://www.parascope.com/articles/1196/torbitt.htm

The above link to Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal is broken. It can be found here:

http://www.whale.to/b/torbitt.html

The comment "we both know who is responsible" suggests that they have a best guess. That is the point of making the call. It is "evidence", albeit planted evidence, that they did not have intimate, actual, factual, first-hand knowledge. An actual perp would never say that. So, yes, I am saying that the admission that they "both know who is responsible" is a clever cover; it's fake, manufactured "evidence" that they didn't know first hand and were not involved.

This has always been my take upon reading that testimony.

Cheers,

Michael

Edit*****'Jeff Cater's later post explains, I believe, that their is no testimony of the call. I guess I based my "take" on the rumors and later accounts of the call that he references.