Michael Clark

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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

23 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Alistair,

I certainly agree with you that if LHO had been financially comfortable, he would never have abused his family the way he did.

Was it abuse?  Yes, because even poverty cannot excuse his behavior.

--------------------

 baby June was in dire straits, and LHO just expected her to get over it.  He really did have a job.  He could have taken on a debt for his own baby -- but he refused.  That was unlovely.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

10 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

At one point I thought you were a worthy conversationalist -- but now you're only trying to look clever, with clever turns of phrase and insults.

I've decided to set all your posts on IGNORE and to converse with people who at least TRY to carry on a conversation.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

We'll see how that works for you.

4 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I never claimed to be a "real researcher" Michael.  

Also, I don't work for you.  And your attitude could use an adjustment.

You can look things up for yourself, if you try.

It's there if you look.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

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.

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

Do you read the Warren Commission volumes yourself, or do you hope that others will read it for you and tell you what it said?

 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

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

2 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

It's already been done here many times, Michael.   You can Google it yourself.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

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.

1 minute ago, Paul Trejo said:

We have plenty of data showing that LHO lied to Marina continually.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Document it, or it didn't happen.

4 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

 the Mexican Immigration service counted LHO entering and exiting Mexico as a passenger in a car.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo\

Document it, or it didn't happen.

Cheers,

Michael

On 12/24/2011 at 6:23 PM, Greg Parker said:

There are three key areas that make up the argument for two Oswalds:

1. Sightings of Oswald when he was known to be elsewhere.

As far as I can tell, no sighting of Oswald has ever been dismissed by the proponents of "Two Oswalds". Yet the sheer number and variety of them alone suggests some are

the products of fertile imaginations / planted phony stories (e.g. the DPD form showing Oswald and Ruby involved in a disturbance) ;

mistaken identity (e.g Ruby and Oswald at sex parties - my own research shows this was far more likely to have been Larry Crafard) or;

by deliberate impersonations on a ad hoc basis (e.g Mexico City)

2. Some people describing Oswald one way - others in a completely opposite way.

Asperger's would account for this, as Oswald would appear very intelligent to some depending on the immediate environment and circumstances - while others would describe him as superficial, repetitive, mechanical for the same reasons.

3. Changes in Oswald's appearance - particularly after he came back from USSR.

This can be accounted for in a very non-spooky way but I am holding it back for my book -- it is not guesswork. The proof of why his appearance was different is in the 26 volumes.

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

On 1/21/2015 at 8:21 AM, James R Gordon said:

Over the last few weeks the administrators have become aware of the weight that the present forum is required to carry. The JFK Assassination Debate forum is clearly ...

------------ 

 I would be very interested in what fellow members think about this proposed action.

 

James

 

 

 

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

On 5/5/2009 at 0:54 PM, William Kelly said:

From Joe Smith's Portrait of a Cold Warrior (p. 94)

....."You'll never get the Huks to surrender because the Philippine government wants them to," Paul (Linebarger) stressed. "They'll give up only if they think they're going to get something they want which is even more important to them than the satisfaction they get from defying authority by fighting in the hills...."

(p335)...First of all, Howard Hunt would have liked to have used in a key role a Batista follower who was a friend of J.C. King and especially of former ambassador to Cuba William D. Pauley....Gerry (Droller) of course, was following the line laid down by Tracy Barnes - the official position of taking care not to remove Castro in order to bring back the Batista gang, which was the reason the task force had to be established under Tracy Barne's control and not left to J.C. King....

...After August 1960, the operational planning of the Cuban task force changed course. Since Hunt and Droller couldn't form a political organization sufficiently coherent to confront Castro, the emphasis shifted to a larger-scale military action. Napoleon Valeriano, Ed Lansdale's man, who had been training the Cuban exile guerrilla fighters, was dismissed and $13 million to train a full-fledged fighting brigade was approved. John Kennedy didn't know it, but there was no chance that the operation, which had originally been approved in March, 1960, could be undertaken before the November elections....

(p.342) ...J.C. King and his crew of former FBI men were more disturbed by Goodwin and Schlesinger than by General Taylor's investigating committee. They believed they had a chance with Maxwell Taylor - he and King had gone to West Point together - while they thought there was no hope with Goodwin and Schlesinger.....

SO PHILLIPINE NAPOLEON VALERIANO WAS GIVEN PERSONAL PSYCH-WAR LESSONS FROM LANSDALE'S PRIMARY MENTOR IN THE BLACK ARTS, PAUL LINEBARGER, AND THEN BROUGHT TO NICARAGUA TO TRAIN THE CUBANS AS GUERRILLAS - BK

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

Bump

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael,

It seems to me that breaking the forum up to multiple main pages would mean only two or three active threads for each. And at least for me, constantly changing pages to find a topic that's been posted to. (I have a variety of interests.)

As for maintaining good behavior, I wish that that were done on every thread.

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

14 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

It's bifurcating, isn't it?

Not unlike the-one-and-only Oswald's Intell files did over the years, with more and more "marked cards" in them each time, and sent to different other Intell branches each time, in a couple of "mole hunts", which ended up making some gullible JFK assassination "researchers" think there MUST have been a long-term doppelganger project!

--  Tommy

Huh?

Just now, Thomas Graves said:

I meant to say the rubber ducky.

--  Tommy

But wait a second!  "Rub" is a slang word for "a killing," isn't it?

Start a new thread.

1 minute ago, Thomas Graves said:

And therein lies the rub.

Thats quotable....

I failed to mention a major point that I meant to make.

The exclusive, authoritive, peer-reviewed, published, researchers forum, if it were to be maintained with a collegiate decorum, might serve to guide the non-exclusive forum in how to interact. I would think that researchers who want to "move-up" to that forum would put on their Sunday-Clothes and use their parliamentary abilities, or affronts as the case may be, to open that door to themselves.

Indeed, the greater part of members, not being included in that forum would reduce the need for real researchers and authors to constantly clean-up after uninitiated, inexperienced and careless folks, such as myself.

Cheers,

Michael

I am thinking that this should be revisited.

I think there should be several equal sub forums in the JFK Assassination debate. I see that an effort was made to do this and it does not appear to have had the hoped-for results.

So, may I sgguest....

First:  and most importantly, there should be a subforum exclusively for published and peer-reviewed researchers and authors, to the exclusion of folks like myself who have an interested in the subject but are not satisfied with reading alone and feel the need to ask questions and posit thoughts and theories.

Second: basically the existing JFK Assassination Debate forum for all members.

Thirdly: A photo analysis sub-forum. I'll demure from giving a dtetailed explanation as to why.

Fourthly: As you have already provided, a research forum. With the above suggested divisions, bouncing from one sub-forum to another, for all content, would be a common excercise, and works such as those recently presented by Sandy and Tommy wouldn't be necessarily lost in the weeds.

-Lastly, I'll note that it was suggested, favorably by John S., in another thread, that a large number of stickies reduces the exposure of the forum page to search engines. That suggestion was followed-up upon and the report was that there was more traffic. It seems that the number of stickies has, again, grown to a number greater that that which was present before that solution was suggested.

Cheers,

Michael

With increasing frequency threads are getting bogged down in an effort to clean up after Paul Trejo's claims. If it is not inappropriate or against the rules, or perhaps with Mr. Trejo's blessing (because indeed he often proves to be a "big" person and does not hold a grudge),  a Trejo thread should be opened so that the subjects that derail and bog-down other threads can be persued there. He does seem to enjoy attention, positive or negative.

Just a thought.

33 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

each of you KNOWS that.

Jealous, much?

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

"each of you KNOWS that."

NOT

"Jealous, much?"

Surely, you jest.

Cheers,

Michael

8 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Except, that is clearly not the case.   I provide new information and new perspectives to many threads on the FORUM, and each of you KNOWS that.

Jealous, much?

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

PT,

"Except, that is clearly not the case."

-Are you claiming that you did not say it? It clearly seems that you are trying to influence the casual observer. Paul's disclosure that you admitted to that was just a confirmation that you are doing what was already obvious to me, and I dare-say, us.

"I provide new information and new perspectives"

-You don't really provide new information. Real researchers do most of that work for you. You pick and choose that which suits your theory and, in my estimation, protect and serve a constituency who are obvious to the reader, regardless of whether you disclose the nature of your interest or relationship to them.

What is most troublesome is that you paraphrase, and convert to prosaic misrepresentations, facts that are dug up and presented by true researchers in the course of their efforts to make legitimate arguments; posing whimsical portrayals of your fantastical historic accounts. It is exhausting to follow you around like the owner of a cat that has had anal-surgery-gone-wrong, cleaning up the mess and trying to maintain the idea that maintaining free speech, and free feline bowels, are preferable to putting up with the stench of the offending glands, removing the cat to the country, or putting it down.

Democracyismessy

Cheers,

Michael

42 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

Ruth Paine is a Quaker charity lady, going way back.  She has been involved in Community Organizing for a lifetime.

Part of her Quaker charity did lead her to South America, in Nicaragua, where she took Quaker funds to neighborhoods where the local government was murdering Catholic nuns and others organizing the poor.

While she was there, of course, the murders continued.   While she was there, additionally, she would prepare reports for the Quaker newsletter, including photographs.

Because of the continuing murders, some of the locals began to circulate rumors, recognizing that Ruth Paine was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald back in the 1960's.  So, the local Catholic nuns became worried that the publicity was too much for the community, and asked Ruth Paine to please leave, because of all the worry.  Ruth Paine felt bad about it, but of course she saw the legitimate worry in this case where people were being killed on a daily basis.  So, she left.

That's what happened.  Now -- in the Probe Magazine cloak-and-dagger drivel, led by Carol Hewett and her quislings (and echoed by James Di Eugenio to this very day), Ruth Paine was herself part of the death squads in Nicaragua.   According to the misguided mind of Carol Hewett, since Ruth Paine worked for the CIA to murder JFK in 1963, so she "must have" worked for the CIA in support of the Nicaraguan death squads.

This sort of political pornography is the disgusting output from Probe Magazine in the 1990's that intelligent people have always despised.

A lawsuit on behalf of Ruth Paine still seems to me to be the correct action to take here.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Thanks for the clarification, yet you make no mention of USAID.