Michael Clark

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?

Part 1 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QyvRfeLDsB4 Part 2 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE Part 3 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hygDvRpam_w Part 4 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R6vXeg50rjs Part 5 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=COKE8gVTOuU

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. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=COKE8gVTOuU

I found this thread to be a grounding, or centering, force for me.

.........

Deleted

At 3:00 inI this video, the interviewer is identified as Lincoln Carle , April, 1974

As per below. The interview was April, 1974.

Craig was suicided In May of 1975, days after Weitzman was interviewed, testifying to Bernard Barker's (Watergate Burgler) presence at the scene of the JFK assassination, on the Grassy Knoll.

The interviewer is identified, as per Mark Lane, Lincoln Carle ( spelling of his name is as per IBDM profile, and the film credits).

There are the "Rectos": The Lone Nutters There are the "Versos": The conspiracists. Where are, and who are, the folks that say: "Yup, he deserved it, and we did it".

George, Roger Craig was interviewed in May of 1974, days after Weitzman was interviewed, and 3 months before Nixon resigned. Weitzman identified Bernard Barker (Watergate Burgler) as a Grassy Knoll Suspect. Craig was suicided before he was called to testify, days after the Weitzman interview. In that May of 1974 interview, Two men in Dallas, Craig was on camera, and very clear, that the rifle he saw was, a Mauser.

And part 2.. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/antonio-veciana-with-carlos-harrison-trained-to-kill-2

Another review... https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/antonio-veciana-with-carlos-harrison-trained-to-kill-1

Hi Ray, I understood that it referred to Garrison's case; and not to Jim's work. It was a new word for me. I asked a few other people if they had heard of it, and none had. So I just figured I would share the definition. Cheers, Michael

pro·lix prōˈliks,ˈprōliks/ adjective (of speech or writing) using or containing too many words; tediously lengthy. "he found the narrative too prolix and discursive" synonyms: long-winded, verbose, wordy, pleonastic, discursive, rambling, long-drawn-out, overlong, lengthy, protracted, interminable; More

In this thread http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/18011-evidence-of-revision-jfk-assassination-rarities/ Ricky White implicates the ONI. The ONI seems to quietly pop-up and disappear frequently in the case of the JFKA. I haven't seen many threads that detail the involvement of the ONI.

This is a question I have had for a while. I have only read a bit of it. I figured that I would bump and revisit it.

And I am confused as to the clip type. As I understand it, A Manlicher Carcano uses an en bloc clip and a Mauser uses a stripper clip. Also, as I understand it.... An En Bloc (MC) clip would have fallen or been ejected from the gun when the last round was loaded or ejected. A Mauser stripper clip would have been free upon loading the internal/integral magazine. Such a clip would have been pocketed by the rifleman upon loading the gun. An MC En bloc clip would have fallen to the floor with the ejected round. I've been tooling around the forum for a while and I have not previously seen this issue raised. My apologies if it has been through the mill on numerous occasions. Cheers, Michael

Excellent post Joe! This point stands out: "The DPD obviously stated such also as the national media reported the rifle as a Mauser and who do you think the national media got this information from...Roger Craig himself?" I have wondered..... What happened to the ejected bullet? Someone would have picked it up and held it for mutual inspection. If it were a rounded 6.5, it would have been obvious. Did anyone make a statement as to the ejected round? Is it a WC exhibit?

Yes Steve, It was Vince Salandria. I did not mean to lift a quote. I certainly had read this take before and attributed it to a general observation among interested parties. In this Simkin bio, it is close to being verbatum. http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKsalandria.htm

Interesting. And I am surprised that the YouTube link is still working. i, admittedly, am credulous. That said, I believe that Ricky White believes in the story he is telling.

Paul, It looks as though you may not have seen Mr. McBide's response.

Roger Craig states that Patrolman Baker was assigned to traffic control at the corner of Elm and Houston. When he left his post, traffic filled Elm St. and prevented Craig from crossing Elm in order to confront the Rambler driver and the man running to that car, whom Craig later identified as LHO. I am posting this because I do not recall this account having been brought up with regard to Baker's timeline. From Roger Craig's Book: When They Kill a President "Back to November 22, 1963. As I have earlier stated, the time was approximately 12:40 p.m. when I ran into Buddy Walthers. The traffic was very heavy as Patrolman Baker (assigned to Elm and Houston Streets) had left his post, allowing the traffic to travel west on Elm Street. As we were scanning the curb I heard a shrill whistle coming from the north side of Elm Street. "

It is in a February, 43 BC. letter to Trebonius. Here it is... TO GAIUS TREBONIUS (IN ASIA) - ROME, 2 FEBRUARY 43 B.C. How I could wish that you had invited me to that most glorious banquet on the Ides of March! We should have had no leavings! While, as it is, we are having such a trouble with them, that the magnificent service which you men then did the state leaves room for some grumbling. In fact, for Antony's having been taken out of the way by you - the best of men - and that it was by your kindness that this pest still survives, I sometimes do feel, though perhaps I have no right to do so, a little angry with you. For you have left behind an amount of trouble which is greater for me than for everyone else put together. For as soon as a meeting of the senate could be freely held, after Antony's very undignified departure,1 I returned to that old courage of mine, which along with that gallant taking over the province, as though he were "succeeding" to the governorship, without allowing his predecessor even the thirty days beyond his year given him by the Julian law. citizen, your father, you ever had upon your lips and in your heart. For the tribunes having summoned the senate for the 20th of December, and having brought a different piece of business before it, I reviewed the situation as a whole, and spoke with the greatest fire, and tried all I could to recall the now languid and wearied senate to its ancient and traditional valour, more by an exhibition of high spirit than of eloquence.2 This day and this earnest appeal from me were the first things that inspired the Roman people with the hope of recovering its liberty. And had not I supposed that a gazette of the city and of all acts of the senate was transmitted to you, I would have written you out a copy with my own hand, though I have been overpowered with a multiplicity of business. But you will learn all that from others. From me you shall have a brief narrative, and that a mere summary. Our senate is courageous, but the consulars are partly timid, partly disaffected.3 We have had a great loss in Servius.4 Lucius Caesar entertains the most loyal sentiments, but, being Antony's uncle, he refrains from very strong language in the senate. The consuls are splendid. Decimus Brutus is covering himself with glory. The youthful Caesar is behaving excellently, and I hope he will go on as he has begun. You may at any rate be sure of this - that, had he not speedily enrolled the veterans, and had not the two legions5 transferred themselves from Antony's army to his command, and had not Antony been confronted with that danger, there is no crime or cruelty which he would have omitted to practise. Though I suppose these facts to have been told you, yet I wished you to know them still better. I will write more when I get more leisure.