Michael Clark

Paul, I have read and saw much of what Veciana has said. Allow me to qualify that most of my observations (I won't call it research) were in the early part of my last 6 months, since I have started digging into this case. In the beginning I was just starting to sort out who folks like VA, DAP, and Angleton were. So, no; I have no informed understanding of Veciana's story. Also, I have recently formed my own pet theory. My response to your post is informed by that theory. Surely, that meeting raises as many questions as does provide answers. Most of those question arise in the form of "why the he'll would he (DAP) do that? My answer, and I am not expecting you to accept it, is that he wanted it to happen. That explanation is simple and self-evident, and I am thinking that it is correct. It was no mistake. What purpose did it serve? Today it is evidence that CIA and Anti Castro Cubans were involved, jointly, in a plan to assassinate JFK. At around 3PM on 11-22-63, it was evidence that Anti Castro Cubans were involved in a plan to assassinate JFK. It's elegant, and probably true. Cheers, Michael

"The curiouser and curiouser it gets! Thanks Wynne! Cheers, Michael

The lightening fast identification of LHO as a suspect was crucial in letting the assassins get away. It gave an excuse to not lock down roads and airports in an effort to catch a team of conspirators. Lee probably followed instructions to leave the scene ASAP. it kept a dragnet looking for one guy, on foot, who doesn't drive, rather than stopping, questioning, and searching suspicious cars or hideouts. Cheers, Michael

Absolutely, they would be collectors items.

I wrote this on another thread and copied it here. -------------------- "The Veciana/Oswald meeting is now looking to me as a sort of sheep-dipping of the Anti-Castro Cubans. Clandestine cameras or photographers may have taken pictures of AV and LHO together, or coming and going at the same time. Perhaps DAP was taking the pics. These photos could be used to implicate the Ant-Castro Cubans as part of the conspiracy, blowing the plan to blame it on Commie-Cubans. Once LHO became news on the afternoon of 11-22-63, Vecania would have known that they were double-crossed. A Similar situation/scenario probably happened with Ruby and the Mob." ----------------------- The above post came from the following thread, which is a brainstorming thread for my developing CT. Cheers, Michael

I looked up Glenn L. Carle last night and found his web page. I was curious if his middle name might be "Lincoln", and if he might be the "Lincoln Carle" in the Mark Lane hosted video, "Two Men in Dallas" featuring an interview with DPO Roger Craig. I sent him an e-mail and he quickly replied. He said that his name is Glenn Lincoln Carle, but he was unrelated to the Lincoln Carle who did the Roger Craig interview.

Apart from the focus of this thread, who here knows how to, and is comfortable contacting spooks? I am trying to connect some dots and I don't want to just set-off into a stupid venture. PM me please. ****** edit, I went-ahead and stuck my foot in it, whatever IT is....... Cheers, Michael

Testimony of George Senator. Senator is being asked, name-by-name, if he recognizes any names written in Jack Ruby's address book... Mr. GRIFFIN. It looks like Donald Wiley. Do you recognize that name? Mr. SENATOR. No. Mr. GRIFFIN. I will read you the other names on here. Pauline Foch. Mr. SENATOR. No. Mr. GRIFFIN. Etheridge? Mr. SENATOR. I don't know. Mr. GRIFFIN. Ray Hawkins? Mr. SENATOR. No. Mr. GRIFFIN. Sue Blake? Mr. SENATOR. No; I don't know her. Mr. GRIFFIN. I am not going to hand you the next exhibit, which is 5305-0, because there are no names written on there of any persons. And I am not going to hand you Exhibit 5305-P. I will take that back. I will hand you that. There is a name "Bishop" written there. Does that name mean anything to you? Mr. SENATOR. I think I have heard of the name, but I don't know who it is. I don't know what that is. I believe I have somewheres heard of that name. Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, I am going to read to you from Exhibit 5305-Q, and tell me if ..... "Bishop" is the only name that is transcribed in quotes....

DVP, wasn't inclined to speak for CTers, but it looks as though Mr. Josephs may have cleared things up for you.

David Josephs, in this thread, requested some help on a particular matter. Perhaps you should open a thread on that particular subject, maybe making a case, one way or another, in your introduction?

Roger that. As per my above post. I think I (we?) have wound-down through this thread topic.

Sorry, DVP, You have lost me. I looked back to the thread title in order to get back on topic. That's what I am thinking at the moment but I don't have much to add in that respect.

DVP, you are on tilt, desparate or.... IDK? Would you care to clarify?

Minor mistake, as were the "birds" as opposed to the "leaves". Thats just an attempt at obfuscation, DVP, the details of which I'll assume you were cued-up to by my above post which you chose to ignore. You never know, perhaps Jeanne corrected herself, such that her testimony came into line with Jim D's recollection. I shall have a look... Real researchers, even those with a good memory, don't have time to dig into the nitty-gritty in order to present you with all of the failings of your arguments. I am glad that, for the time being, I am here to do-so.

Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. She (Marina) said, "Oh, he just loves to shoot." I said, "Where on earth does he shoot? Where can he shoot?" When they lived in a little house. "Oh, he goes in the park and he shoots at leaves and things like that." ----------------------- ......So, LHO takes a high powered military rifle to the park, with his two year old, and shoots at leaves? I can see George doing a face-palm at the hearing; she tried though, she was trying to tow the line! ------------------ Mr. JENNER. Had you been there before? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No. Mr. JENNER. That is the first time you had ever been there? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I don't remember. Maybe I was. I don't think so. Mr. JENNER. All right. Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I don't think so. Mr. JENNER. You got there. Now, just relax---- Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I am trying to think hard, because every little fact could be important. Mr. JENNER. But you are excited. Relax, and tell me everything that occurred, chronologically, as best you can on that occasion. You came to the door and either Marina or Oswald came to the door, and you and your husband went in the home? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. That is right. Mr. JENNER. Then, go on. Tell me about it. Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And I believe from what I remember.... ------------------ Nice try jaenne-d, Good thing that they told you that the oath doesn't mean anything in these procedings and assured you that no-one would be under threat of prosecution for perjury.

I would Jim, but the problem is two-fold. First. My thread was directed at nay-sayers; kind of trying to meet on common ground. And my single, noted instance would already be acknowledged by an adherent such as, if I may, yourself. Second, this thread, as the title implies, was meant to deride the H&L phenomenon. There is no point bringing up a particular instance when folks are half-cocked with the aim of knocking it down. Heck, I could knock it down, calling the witnesses fibbers or unreliable. To be sure, this is just a bad-blood thread. I am glad that you are enjoying the challenge. Also, to be sure, the one instance that I mentioned in my thread was the Furniture Mart incident. I can't discount all the testimony. On top of that, it suggests an impersonation of the entire Oswald Family.... baffling! Cheers, Michael

Mrs. OSWALD. I know that De Mohrenschildts had said that the rifle had been shown to him, but I don't remember that. Mrs. Oswald. the De Mohrenschildts came to us, and as soon as he opened the door he said, "Lee, how is it possible that you missed?" I looked at Lee. I thought that he had told De Mohrenschildt about it. And Lee looked at me, and he apparently thought that I had told De Mohrenschildt about it. It was kind of dark. But I noticed---it was in the evening, but I noticed that his face changed, that he almost became speechless. ------------ Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there? Mr. JENNER. You say--- Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. A rifle. Mr. JENNER. A rifle, in the closet? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. In the closet, right in the beginning. It wasn't hidden or anything. ------ Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, then, what did you do? Go into some other part of the house? Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. It wasn't very much. I believe it was only two rooms. And then I returned back, and told George do you know what they have in the closet? I came back to the room, where George and Lee were sitting and talking. I said, do you know what they have in the closet? A rifle. And started to laugh about it. And George, of course, with his sense of humor--Walker was shot at a few days ago, within that time. He said, "Did you take a pot shot at Walker by any chance?" And we started laughing our heads off, big joke, big George's joke. And later on, according to the newspapers, he admitted that he shot at Walker. Mr. JENNER. Now, when George made that remark in the presence of Lee Oswald, "Did you take a pot shot at Walker?" Did you notice any change----

Yes Jim, I wish there was less mocking and ridiculing. I said before that this story has tremendous breadth and width, and covers ground that even detractors accept. The theory necessarily entertains all extremes by its fully researched nature. It's a shame that people want to have fun by going to the waekest points on the structure and take a sledge hammer to it just to prove a point. I posted a thread, weeks back, hoping to get some clarification on some truly "what-the-heck!" moments in the case that really could use some explanation, but there were no takers. I guess it's just more fun to point out the weakest areas of the structure, and harp about that, and sling dung at the researcher. Cudos-to-you, and... Cheers, Michael

Cliff,.... I know, I know. If a bomb destroyed the limo and killed everyone in it, they still would have blamed LHO and the Magic Bullet. It's hypothetical, if something happened that did, in fact, at the time, belie the LN scenario, such that it was, in fact, at the time, abandoned... Cheers, Michael

I'll venture a guess... it's a non-official term. Commie-Cuban Attacks on the East Coast Revised to... Commie-Cuban assassination of the President in Dallas. After the fact, aborted and downgraded to A deranged, lone-nut, American, Commie Sympathizer.

It's like watching a tennis match. Your neck gets sore, but you just can't stop watching because you are amazed at Jim's stamina and skill in single-handedly holding his own against a team on the other side of the court. Cheers, Michael

I would say that that was easy, no convincing necessary. She wanted out of Dallas, toute de suite. Cheers, Michael

By snatching, I assume you mean, taking the body from Parkland. And I assume you are then referring to a presumed session under a scalpel, prior to the official Autopsy. Sure, all, of that would be planned.

Cliff, that is the consensus. I think all the information that I mentioned had to be coalesced and evaluated to see if it could be made to stick. As we know, there is plenty of evidence that the LN scenario is a falsehood. Some damning, undeniable piece if info could have popped-up in those few hours that would have made a conspiracy irrefutable. Also, something could have come out in the next few days to make a conspiracy irrefutable. There was always the possibility that they would have to walk that story back and work with a conspiracy scenario. The LN declaration was made in the first couple hours, but it was necessarily tentative. Cheers, Michael