Michael Clark

As per below. The interview was April, 1974.

2 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Michael

Thank you for the video.

IDK, Lane's voice must have changed. It appears the voice of the interviewer is other than Lane's.

The video of Craig is from another time, not 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.

2 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Michael

Thank you for the video.

IDK, Lane's voice must have changed. It appears the voice of the interviewer is other than Lane's.

The video of Craig is from another time, not 1974.   

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".

2 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

Just a heads up

Craig backed off of his claim that he saw mauser on the barrel in an interview (LA Free Press) in 1968 and in his book "When they kill the President" of 1971. Earlier Wietzman said he made a mistake when he identified the rifle as a mauser.

The above is not a rebuttal of David's or Alberto's work. I've not read David's article on the rifle and I'm not sure of Alberto's claim, mainly because my computer is an old one and I haven't been able to download all the evidence presented by Alberto.

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

8 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Michael, in the context of Vince Salandria's comments, he was talking about Garrison's case being

"complex and prolix" not Jim's contribution, which I sure you meant.

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

14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, this is what Vince Salandria thinks of me and my book, Destiny Betrayed, second edition:

 

Vincent Salandria, advisor to Jim Garrison

“Jim, you have written extremely well on a subject that is enormously complex. As to be expected, your conclusions and mine are not always precisely congruent. But on a subject as complex and prolix as the Garrison investigation you have demonstrated the integrity, intelligence, work ethic and passion for the truth that gave birth to a work product which you can be rightly proud. You have produced the finest history of the desperate struggle of Jim Garrison to employ his public office as a public trust in unsuccessfully prosecuting Clay Shaw.

“When I first met Jim in New York, I told him that he would learn more about the power behind the killing of Kennedy from what would happen to smash his prosecutorial efforts than what he would learn through his investigation. Your explication in your book of the infiltration of Jim’s office by the CIA supports my prediction.

Thank you Jim for your fine work.”

From the horse's mouth.

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

2 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

In the Mark Lane production "Two Men In Dallas" Roger Craig states that "stamped right on the barrel was 765 Mauser "

referring to the rifle that constable Seymour Weitzman and he ( Craig ) were just inches from when "gun buff" Weitzman IDd the rifle as a Mauser.

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?

It is stated in one post here that Craig and Weitzman could not see the Mauser stamp because of the positioning of the scope covering this?

Isn't it common sense that many DPD personnel looked at that gun in the first 24 hours of discovering it before sending it off to the FBI and

would have noticed such an obvious ( and hugely important ) mistake Weitzman claims he made much sooner than before the national media was reporting the gun as a Mauser to millions of viewers?

Why would Roger Craig cling to his Mauser stamp claim the rest of his life if he knew he was lying and how easily this lie could be so easily exposed?

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?

9 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Michael,

 

I was just reading something along these same lines just the other day - maybe it was Salandria?

 

Whoever I was reading (and I'd hate to attribute it to anyone in particular in case I get it wrong), was saying that the conspiracy was so transparent that it was meant to be discovered. The damage came afterwards when the federal government failed to follow up and that said to the American people, "See, this can happen and there's "nothing you can do about it."" 

 

Steve Thomas

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.

On 3/25/2016 at 0:29 AM, Paul Brancato said:

Thanks for keeping the thread on life support

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 

23 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Michael,

 

Could you provide another line or two from Cicero's quote? I'd like to roll that around in my brain for a while.

 

Steve Thomas

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.

Further, I was, again, watching the aptly named 12-1-66 Firingline episode. This was the interview of Mark Lane by William Buckley Jr.. I was struck by Jr's framing of Eisenhower, hypothetically of course, as a Communist. It was shocking to me, and it appeared to me to be an assertion of the existing psychological war on the American People.The assertion seemed outrageous to me and it's presence on national TV spoke to that above mentioned refrain of Shakespeare's MacBeth.

I have been wanting to put a term out there, but I have not felt that I could intelligently integrate it into this discussion. It's meaning in literary criticism suggests, goes beyond, and ultimately falls short of the psychological results the Dallas Coup. The term is "Future Shock". While the term usually has more to do with the impact of accelerating industrialism on social psychology, I see, and am searching for, a comparable term that describes the planned, and actual, impact of the JFKA on the American and world psychology.

The message was that our President could be assassinated, and his ideals and dreams as well as those of people who believed that peace and justice were attainable, would be killed and buried with him, with impunity.

We were not meant to actually believe in the Warren Comission's findings. We were meant to believe that this could be done and their was nothing that we could do about it.

Cicero called the assassination of Caesar a "Wonderful Banquet". With the assassinations of RFK, MLK, Malcom X, and a host of others, banquets became akin to McDonalds take-out.

MacBeth's refrain of "Nothing is, But what is not" became the solace fed to an accepting populace.

18 minutes ago, Ian Lloyd said:

Yep, me too...just can't think what else could be being referred to as the "reticule"...

Crosshairs.......

1 hour ago, Ian Lloyd said:

Is the circled item in the pic below what you are referring to as the "Reticule Adjuster Screw"?

 

That is what I think is the Knob on the bolt handle

Bucky Effing Dent.

As a kid I was a huge Yankee fan and I liked Bucky Dent. I happened to have been watching the game when he hit that big homer over the Green Monster. I had fingers crossed, I was praying, and it happened!

I was jut one of those moments, and I was a young kid.

I have an unshakeable Identificatiion with fighting guys in a lot of different scenarios throughout history. Foremost among those scenarios, for me, would be the Battle of Leyte Gulf. I would have liked to have been one of those sailors on a Task Force 77.4.3 destroyer. I identify with those guys who were called to the deck to witness the "retreat" of the massive Imperial Japanese Navy Center Force. I would have liked to experience that feeling of pride and joy slip to dread and fear as the realization that that Japanese formation was actually attacking, and that the protection, that you had thought was in between you and the enemy, had inexplicably disappeared. I would like to believe that the dread of that moment quickly turned to courage and determination as our pack of little destroyers headed off to face a fleet which included the largest Battleship ever, sporting the largest guns to ever be mounted on a ship. I want to be with those guys, even today.

7 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Ron: 

I agree there was pre-arrangement of a sort, and that's very important,  but this problem has not been analyzed correctly.  My own analysis, and what I believe to be a valid explanation, will be included in Final Charade.  (I cannot get into that, at this point.)  But, changing the subject, and  FWIW: I am far more concerned about the Paines, in the Feb/March 1963  time frame, than in the October 15/17th 1963 time frame. My question is, more or less, how did the Paines get involved with Oswald, in the first place? (Sure, I know the "official" explanation; they were introduced by DeMohrenschielt, at a party, etc.)  And what, to my mind, has never been resolved, is the possible hand (once again) of Allen Dulles.

Read on. . .

FYI: Michael Paine's mother--also named Ruth--was the mistress (in years past) of CIA Director Allen Dulles, Mary Bancroft.  Mary Bancroft was a major person in Allen Dulles' life. Mary Bancroft wrote a book--Autobiography of a Spy, published in 1983, which is must reading for anyone who wants to understand the possibility of a Dulles-through-Bancroft-to Paine "connection."  No proper questioning or investigation of this linkage was ever conducted--as far as I can tell. 

But there's the  possibility of a key link, and it was not just "never pursued"; it worse than that: it wasn't even known to exist, back in the 1963/64 time frame.

Food for thought.

DSL

4/19/2017 - 6:15 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

David, You might find this interesting....