Michael Clark
-
Posts
4,737 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Michael Clark
-
-
1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:
Michael, Baker said in his affidavit that he " was riding motorcycle escort for the President of the United States. At approximately 12:30 pm I was on Houston Street and the President's car had made a left turn from Houston onto Elm Street. Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots"
How does that gel with Craig's comments that he was stationary on traffic duty? Was Baker lying about being on motor escort?
And Ray, more to the point of your question........
I think Baker was a motorcycle cop, as he said.
His story gets him to a point where the Warren Comission wants him, in 90 seconds.
So if you remove that necessity, he very well could have instinctively blocked traffic at Elm, or could have been ordered to do it, as the emergency unfolded.
Then he may have gone to the radio and got his instructions to go elsewhere.
-
1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:
Michael, Baker said in his affidavit that he " was riding motorcycle escort for the President of the United States. At approximately 12:30 pm I was on Houston Street and the President's car had made a left turn from Houston onto Elm Street. Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots"
How does that gel with Craig's comments that he was stationary on traffic duty? Was Baker lying about being on motor escort?
Well, Ray, Ive seen some things that don't add up. I can't get into the copy-and past search mode right now but, I believe his story changed several times to make the 2nd floor encounter work. I also see him heading beyond the stairs. There is also testimony that no one saw him come up the steps.
So, I am taking advantage of those facts and see who we can allow to be telling the truth, by hypothetically dismissing Bakers account as false. In this case I am allowing Craig's testimony to be true and see if any of that makes sense. Some of it does.
To be sure, I have a bias in favor of guys who stick to their story, in the face of trouble, get fired, shot, forced off mountain roads, car bombed and suicided.
Cheers,
Michael
-
2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:
Sorry Chris but this is a *forum* which means open debate. It's important to hold all theories up to open scrutiny.
It's actually not hard to debate yours because it pretty much is meaningless nonsense. Still as you continue to ramble on about it someone needs to hold it up as well.
Since you've now moved into telling me to be quiet or to go away, it's richly ironic that you're now taking the stance that the MSM takes about the entire case
Correct Michael. However if a forum is like a mall, it would seem like rather bizarre behavior for one to walk into all the shops containing items in which he has no interest, and berating the customers and staff.
Imagine yourself, if you will, at a rack of yoga pants, complaining, nay, yelling-out- that they are not your size, style or color?
Do you really want to be that guy?
-
4 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:
Michael,
With no contentions on my part, allow me to ask a question... how long do you think it took before people started running towards the 'grassy knoll'?
With no contentions on my part, Chris Davidson offered up the following a while back;
Alistair,
I don't know, it's confusing. Every time I look at this stuff I do not see what other people say that they see. I just move on.
I think that very few people are absolute objective viewers. So I usually walk away from these things thinking that people either know something that I don't, or are trying to prove something in particular. I this case, I think people have tried to determine if Baker could have made the second floor encounter.
Likewise, I am taking Officer Craig's testimony that Baker had been directing traffic before heading to the TSBD, and seeing what that does for me.
What it does explain for me is why there are so few cars on lower Elm st. in Couch, and why cars are stopped at Elm. It allows me to place the Officer-typically-Identified-as-Baker, at his motorcycle to use the radio, where he gets his instructions to abandon traffic duties at Elm. He is not parking it.
Honestly, I am not making solid assertions, I'm just playing with things.
Cheers,
Michael
-
3 hours ago, Chris Scally said:
Michael,
As far as I can recall, and I'm reasonably certain of this, there was such a timing analysis done a number of years ago. I don't have it to hand right now, but I know I've seen such a document (and it wasn't Myers' study).
Sorry I can't be more specific right now, but I will try to get more details for you in the next week, if that helps.
Chris
Thanks Chris!
-
55 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Michael,If you watch the following Couch-Darnell composite in full screen, and stop it right at the end, you can see some of the motorcade cars.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/iVgv-G3DWvY
(Why is it that sometimes I can embed a YouTube video and other times I can't?)
I'm pretty sure a that a very careful person who has an intimate knowledge of the motorcade, the films, and the photos of the Plaza would be able to estimate the timing of the Darnell film with pretty good accuracy. I am not that person. (I lack the detailed knowledge.)
Now, whether or not some smart person has done that, I can't say. What I can say is that Woman in White and her friend (who is probably Gloria Calvery) had enough time to get back to the steps after the shooting. The Zapruder and Darnell films prove that. (Plus the fact that careful inspection of all the films showed that there is only one woman in all white, including a white scarf. And so we know that Woman in White in Zapruder is the same woman as Woman in White in Darnell.)
I agree that 30 seconds seems short for us to be seeing what we do see. But when a person is running, they can travel quite a distance in 30 seconds. All Shelley and Lovelady had to do is cross the Elm Street extension and then return to the steps in that thirty seconds. That's easily doable. Woman in White's journey was somewhat longer (I think), but we know without a doubt she had enough time to make it.
Bart's done a lot of good work on his Anatomy of a Second Floor Encounter. I'm not surprised he's resisting this find... I can't blame him. However, this doesn't negate his work. It's just a minor variation of his analysis.
Right now, I see Baker abandoning a traffic control post, on radio orders, and heading towards, but not in, the TSBD. I'm definitely not buying the 90 second thing. It could have been a couple minutes.
-
39 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:
Michael
Refer to www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft7KGYRB6sg
Underneath the video it is written ... This is a complete interview with Roger Craig which some excerpts are in Mark Lane's Men in Dallas.
George, The drop-down comments on that video read:
1975 interview with Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig. Interviewer: Ted Ganfoldo. This is the complete interview with Roger Craig which some excerpts are in Mark Lane's Two Men In Dallas.
--------------------------
I am inclined to think That Mark Lane is correct when he states in his Video, Two Men in Dallas, at the 3:00 minute mark, that it was an April 1974 Interview by Lincoln Carle. The voice of the interviewer sounds the same to me.
-
11 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:
No -- just indicate if it was YES or NO. Or are you still evading it?
Regards,
--Paul TrejoPaul, I think he wants you to do a little research. It's probably a page or two back, in a reply written by the great author and renowned researcher, James DiEugenio.
-
28 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
(What I said in normal text. Bart's response in bold.)
Bart, you know it was more like 30 seconds. And that that's an estimate.
But regardless, the following is what proves that Gloria Calvery and her companion (Woman in White) had time to get back to the steps within that time frame. Because see... there they are on the steps!
How can this be denied?
Sandy, Aside from the assumption that we are seeing Baker crossing the street, when HE SAYS that he crossed the street, do we have a sold indication for the timing of this clip?
What makes me question it is that I simply don't get the feeling that this is 30 seconds after the shooting. It's just a feeling from looking at body language. I feel like it is longer.
Aren't both film clips discontinuous as they head down Houston and then turn onto and head down Elm?
Cheers,
Michael
-
2 hours ago, Chris Newton said:
David,
I'm simply trying to work out the provenance of the "Kostin/Kostikov" letter.
Ruth Paine has delivered conflicting and contradictory statements under oath about said provenance and her story raises questions and that is why we are discussing it. The "devil is in the details".
The letter itself is of great importance.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Valeriy_Kostikov_and_Comrade_Kostin.html?
We both agree that Oswald had a handler but I'm not suggesting that "handler" was Ruth Paine. I believe we are in agreement that whomever was Oswald's "handler" instructed Oswald to write the "Kostin/Kostikov" letter.
I understand your feelings toward the Paines and I respect your judgement about their intentions. The scenario you suggest sounds entirely plausible and could be true. If the facts bear it out I will happily fall into line behind it.
Speaking entirely for myself though, I believe Oswald was setup and the Paines have wittingly or unwittingly supplied a great deal of the most incriminating evidence against him. I think that fact and the mountain of coincidences we must climb to absolve them of any responsibility warrants that extra scrutiny.
I am following this kostikov letter, kind of peripherally.
I am getting the sense that Ruth may be some kind of handler of LHO, but he is unaware of that. Kennedy's trip has been announced and he is starting to wonder what is going on. He's not getting enough info and things are not adding-up.
The letter is kind of like Richard Case Nagell going into the bank and shooting a gun into the ceiling. He is now suspecting that Ruth is a player. He is blowing her plausible deniability, indirectly putting her on notice that he is now suspicious of her. He is also making it difficult for the FBI and CIA to deny that they had foreknowledge of his threat, should something happen.
-
6 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:
Michael, in case Robert does not show up to answer....that was one of the early mysteries of the day and involved a test call relating to the national emergency airborne command post aircraft to a military base in Texas. Silver Dollar was the call sign for the aircraft. Thanks to dedicated research by Larry Haapenan we know all about it now, as it happened the aircraft was on a training flight and was doing circuit tests (as was normal) to locations near where the President was traveling. I suspect a google search will get you all the details, both Larry and I have presented on it numerous times over the years since he did his reasearch.
Thanks Larry, I did find the National Emergency Airborne Command connection to Silver Dollar. It was not designated as "Operation Silver Dollar" so I thought it might be something different and so I asked here. And like I said, I was curious if he was still active.
Again, thanks for your reply.
Cheers,
Michael
-
On 2/4/2006 at 3:46 PM, Robert Howard said:
I have been busier than I have ever been on JFK Research. One of the things that I have discovered is that there is a large amount of articles and links etc, concerning the Paines, some of this is intertwined with new information, (maybe I should point out that while it is new to me it may or may not be new to other members of the forum) On the other hand my JFK Collection includes 5 videos, newly de-classified files and over 75 books, so it's not like I am new to this. I will be posting on this topic as well as some others over the next few days. It will be anything but boring.
Question of the Day: What is 'Operation Silver Dollar"
Mr. Howard, I give up. What is operation Silver Dollar?
To be sure, this is just a ping. I see a lot of great posts from you. I wonder if you are still busy researching.
Cheers,
Michael
-
And I know in another film we do see Hester get up and head to the back. Either way, it's interesting if Hester really is a phto-lab guy and his lab developed the Z-film and parkland photos.
***edit. A related thread
-
Zapruder and the photo-lab owning Hester's, milling around, Sittzman takes a hand-off from Zapruder and heads to the back of the Pedroia, Hester heads back there too.
Film of the assassination was critical to the cover-up. It's just too strange.
Sorry, I have no analysis or evidence, but the coincidences are just too interesting.
The above GIF is intriguing.
-
From this thread:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/15298-mr-and-mrs-hesterwho-were-they/&page=9
Harrison E. Livingston wrote on page 194 of "The Radical Right And The Murder Of John F. Kennedy..." that "The subjects (that) Zapruder filmed in Dealey Plaza shortly before President Kennedy's fatal motorcade came along were Marilyn Sitzman and Beatrice and Charles Hester. Charles Hester owned a company called Commercial Photography. The question is, was the Hester couple related to Robert and Pat Hester, parents of Vicky Mayne, who were part owners with Fritz and Helen Holland, of The National Film Company, a lab that Vicky Mayne told me actually developed numerous of the films and photographs, including photos of the body at Parkland which she saw and which made her throw up (Killing The Truth p. 511-512). She told me she had helped develop the Zapruder film."
It is Livingston's theory that "It is reasonable that another person was operating a camera close by Zapruder with essentially the same perspective, perhaps in the 'pill box' just behind Zapruder in the pergola."
JG
-
16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Ray,Do you have sources for the above statements?
(I assume you meant to say that Nurse Hinchcliffe said she saw a bullet hole in the President's throat before his shirt collar was opened. Given that your point seems to be that the hole was above the shirtline.)
Thanks.
Sandy, I am not finding Hinchliffe's (I am seeing it spelled in several different ways) testimony in any of the regular places. I did find this.
-
On 9/20/2011 at 10:33 AM, John Simkin said:
I see that William Sullivan's book, The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover's FBI, was republished in Japan in June, 2011. I wonder if this edition is the full transcript rather than the heavily edited version by Bill Brown that was published in 1979, after Sullivan was murdered.
Has anyone read this updated version?
Edit*** here is the updated link to the Spartacus page
-
On 8/1/2006 at 1:24 AM, John Simkin said:
William Sullivan carried out the original FBI investigation into the JFK assassination. It was this report that was used by the Warren Commission. You would therefore have thought that Sullivan was a strong supporter of the lone gunman theory. As I pointed out earlier, he was killed while writing his memoirs. These were edited by Bill Brown and appeared two years later. This is what he has to say about the assassination in his book: The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover's FBI (1979)
We got going on the case right away. Officially, the Criminal Division was in charge of the investigation, but there wasn't too much to investigate after Lee Harvey Oswald, the only suspect, was killed. On the other hand, over at my shop we had to untangle Oswald's myriad subversive connections. Were the Soviets behind it? Were the Cubans behind it? Was anyone behind it? It grew into a gigantic intelligence operation with over twenty-eight hundred agents working on the case.
Oswald had spent a lot of time in Mexico, so our Mexican office played an important part in the investigation. We also had agents in Canada, Central America, England, and Italy tracking down leads. We even got a note from a man in France who said he had six letters written by Oswald which would solve the case. He offered to sell us the letters for ten thousand dollars, but he turned out to be a well known European con man who didn't have any such letters. He was later arrested and prosecuted by the French police.
We didn't have much on Oswald in our files prior to the assassination. We knew that he had lived in Russia and that he'd come back with a Russian wife, which was unusual for a couple of reasons. First of all, we never found out just why the Russians allowed Marina to leave the Soviet Union at a time when they were not permitting any Russians to come out. Second, she was a woman of extraordinary intelligence, much smarter than Oswald. Oswald had tried to commit suicide while he was in Russia by slashing his wrists, and we developed evidence that the Soviets looked on him as a nut, a nuisance, and were anxious to get him out of the country. This information was not firm, but was reported to us from a number of sources. There were so many other more subversive characters in our files with worse records than Oswald's and we had so little on Oswald that his case was considered a "Pending Inactive" case. Lee Harvey Oswald was really a cipher, a nobody to the FBI. After the assassination, of course, he became our most important subject.
But even after we zeroed in on Oswald, there were huge gaps in the case, gaps we never did close. For example, we never found out what went on between Oswald and the Cubans in Mexico.
Although his Russian connection had alerted us to Oswald in the first place, the bureau really couldn't keep him under surveillance merely because he had been to Russia and married a Russian wife. I can imagine the reaction of the Civil Liberties Union if we had "Can't American citizens go to Russia without being hounded by the FBI?" Oswald wasn't a criminal, just a nut, and the FBI doesn't have the facilities to keep tabs on nuts.
I always tended to doubt that Oswald was a Russian or a Cuban agent because of his unsuccessful attempt on the life of General Edwin A. Walker. Walker was a right-winger, a John Bircher, but basically a nobody to the Russians or the Cubans. It would have been unnecessary for a valuable agent to take the chance of shooting Walker if Oswald had the assignment of killing the president. If I had to guess I'd say that Oswald acted alone, but I was puzzled by the accuracy of his shooting. Oswald didn't have a record of being an outstanding marksman and yet he hit the president with two shots while his car was moving slowly down the road. His third shot hit Governor Connally. I went to the book depository from which Oswald fired at the president and I looked out the window where he was positioned. I've been around guns all my life and I'm a reasonably good shot, but I must say that that would be quite a task for me. It was, tragically, damn good shooting.
On the other hand, it seemed extremely likely to me that Jack Ruby, a local nightclub owner who knew a lot of low characters, who was a police buff, and who had a working relationship with the local police, could easily have been a police informer. That certainly could explain Ruby's presence at the jail where he shot Oswald.
This whole excerpt seems like a whole load of hogwash to me. It makes more sense that this was written by someone other than Sullivan, after his death, and without a real grip on the case.
Separately, what do you make of the passage that I have rendered in bold?
-
-
21 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:
Michael
The Lane video probably was made in 1974, but when was the interview of Craig and Carle?
I think that interview took place before Craig's book was published, sometime in 1971. I could be wrong however.
George, like I noted above,....
Mark Lane says, at the 3:00 mark, that the INTERVIEW was done in April 1974.
The Interviewer was one Lincoln Carle.
Roger Craig was suicided in May of 1975; days after Weitzman was interviewed and identified Bernard Barker (Watergate Burgler) as a fake Secret Service officer on the Grassy Knoll.
The video, Two Men In Dallas, was released 1976.
Lincoln Carle is also listed in the credits at the end of the final segment.
IMDB entry: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3680604/
Part 1, to check the 3:00 minute mark for the interview date, and Identification of the interviewer.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QyvRfeLDsB4
Part 5, has information in the credits at the end.
-
I found this thread to be a grounding, or centering, force for me.
-
-
9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:
BUMPED yet again for James DiEugenio
This is the fourth time I've posed this simple question to you, James. Why are you ducking it?
During the final week of September,1963, was Marina Oswald eight months pregnant, without health insurance, without money, without having seen a doctor yet, and with Lee Harvey Oswald out of work?
Yes or no?
Regards,
--Paul TrejoDeleted
-
At 3:00 inI this video, the interviewer is identified as Lincoln Carle , April, 1974
The "inconvenient" POMMEL on the scope of the 7.65 MAUSER
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Michael Clark
Replies in blue above.