Michael Clark

I really don't know. But, his purported Marxist leanings would not mesh well with White Russians, in any case. If White Russians had a hand in any part of the plot, their job would be to suffer his presence and besmirch his character until he was dispensed with. Cheers, Michael

While my scatalogical allusions have a solid foundation in literary sources (Jonathan Swift, Chaucer), I realize it is not everyone's cup of tea and it often fails to amuse as it is meant to do. To be sure, it has gotten me in trouble before. I'll avoid such references going forward. Cheers, Michael

I have a hard time saying one way or another what is going on with Oswald. I don't know what behaviors are Oswalds and what is a ploy. I seem to think that George De M.'s was as he stated, he would have gotten Lee a job in the oil business. As it was, it seems that he was doing what he was supposed to be doing. I think he was desirous of getting, and actually was, in the intelligence business. I don't think he was that interested in being cozy with the Russian's in Dallas. It was part of his job. Cheers, Michael

I didn't realize that the admins had moved those threads. I thought you guys had put them there. I though it was a good idea and started going there tho look at things. It seemed unfortunate that they no longer seemed adjacent to the JFKA forum. Regarding past members... I don't know, but I've looked into it and it seems to me that this forum is a shell of its past life in terms of authors and researchers who have left. There seems to be many reasons but I suggested the "exclusive" forum in hopes of getting some of them back. Again, I am thinking of peer reviewed and published authors and researchers. This forum has an illustrious history, IMHO. If I were in charge here, I would sacrifice ten of me for every one of those folks I could get to come back. More importantly, a place for those folks to do their thing without having to set the plebes straight would be beneficial. To be sure, I am a plebe.

Well, the two pinned stickies happen to be photo-analysis threads. And I already suggested that such threads could have a separate-but-equal home.

Yeah, it seems that some of the stickies could be condensed. And, like I mentioned, removing stickies was the solution to a reduced traffic problem a few years ago. IiRC there were 8 stickies, and deleting 3 or 4 of them made a difference. Not that anyone is indicating a search problem, as before. Jus sayin.

Please don't see it as a charge, or attack. As I said above, the front page is kind of squashed for space. You can see my point in my initial bump of this thread. Also, perhaps you have noticed similar comments from another member recently. My intent in mentioning you and Tommy was to point out, again, that the home page is busy. You and Tommy are doing good work. I was pointing out that space was getting tight. You can see that in my comments regarding stickies and past remedies to the search function problem. It was not an attack at you.

I've been busy tonight!

Thanks Sandy, the word is "attack" is unfortunately used too often, perhaps it's just for lack of a better word. I definitely appreciate what you do. I have noticed that you have started some threads in the "research" area and I think that it seems like they are out on "the back 40". my suggestions were meant to look for a way around that. As cheesy as it seems, I am usually focused on the front page., kind of forgetting what is beyond. I am guessing, and I think I have heard others say the same thing. So, yeah, if something interests you, go find it, the front page is only notional. But, actually, it isn't. It's like the front page of a newspaper; it's a big deal. Thank for your thoughts on the "exclusive" section. Personally, after looking over the history of the forum, I would really like to see some of the most esteemed members return. I can see why they may have gone. This was at one time an exclusive forum. Now it is not exclusive and a lot of great minds and writers are gone because of that, IMO. It would be nice to have them back, even if they are huddled in their own corner. Thanks for being generous, I have obviously not been sensitive enough in what I meant to say. I didn't mean to call you out as much as I wanted to say that the front page is getting squashed for space. To be sure, I have a bias against photo-analysis threads since I pretty-much refuse to enter that fray. It has its own life, and takes on a different, contentious character that I think unnecessarily spreads to other threads. I'll break off for now. thanks for your input and cheers, Michael

Unedited and bumped

Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. .........She had some hundred dresses. Mr. JENNER. A large number of dresses? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. About a hundred dresses. When we carried them out to live with the Mellers, my car was loaded with her dresses. It was all contributions from the various people, in Fort Worth and Dallas. Mr. JENNER. In addition to dresses and clothing, what other things? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Well, mainly baby things. She had two cribs, I remember. She had a baby carriage. -------------------- Not bad for a working class schlepp who was trying to make his way up and out of the life of a discharged marine, who knew three languages, and was trying to work his way into an intelligence niche within the White Russian community. Lee was probably a bit too proud to play the poh' boy, but he was doing his job. He may have been doing it too well. ####### FYI, TREJO HAS ME ON IGNORE ######### Cheers, Michael

We'll see how that works for you.

You waste the time of many researchers here by challenging them to follow your posts in order to clean things up. I look things up. One of the first places I look, for truth, is to see what you are posting, so I can aid in clean-up activities and have a better idea where truth may actually lie.

I read them and quote them when I make claims. To be sure, I have had made claims without posting my proof; but almost always say that that is the case. With regard to your claims, Paul, it has become the custom to follow you around the forum with a shovel and bags to maintain a semblance of dignity in order to maintain the burden of free speech. Cheers, Michael

Bump

Real researchers here take the time to refute your claims over and over. Document your claims Paul, over and over, so real researchers don't have to refute your claims, Paul, over and over.

Document it, or it didn't happen.

Document it, or it didn't happen. Cheers, Michael

Come back Greg!

I was taking care of a friend who had surgery. She has no interest in the case but recorded a program for me in my absence. We were watching the program together. She saw images of Lee at the DPD. Soon after, she saw the Lee-and-Marina-on-the-train photo and she cried-out: "That's not him!". There was no input from me about Harvey and Lee. I had already taxed her patience previously with anything I had to say about the case. Cheers, Michael

I saw James Grodon come and go without an ack, so I figured I would quote-him-up once and drop the subject. Cheers, Michael

Landsdale, Hawaii conference, .... any chance of getting Bill Kelly back?

Bump

Thanks for your reply. What do you think of the "exclusive researcher-author forum"? Do you see any benefit in separating "photo-analysis" forums or "research" forums from the general "Debate" forum? Did you have any qualms about your own threads wherein you you requested that there be no replies to it until you were done with your presentation? Do you recognize that you and Tommy have been flooding the home page, and thereby burying other threads? Do you see any redeeming benefits to my suggestions? Where is Tommy? Cheers, Michael

Huh?