Michael Clark

Start a new thread.

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.

"each of you KNOWS that." NOT "Jealous, much?" Surely, you jest. Cheers, Michael

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

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

Thanks Bill,

Paul, You added nothing here; just a cheap, speculative cloaked dagger in Mr. Di Eugenio's back. You are the most prominent Paine apologist and you have interviewed Ruth. Can you say whether she did or didn't work for USAID in SA? Cheers, Michael

Am I missing somethin?, Is there confusion as to where the Coke story came from? Is Bart just rejecting that account or claiming that there is no account of the Coke? Cheers, Michael

Yes Andrej, It may be if only notional interest, but because I like Wynne Johnson and his story, I am fascinated that his account may be the only authorative one placing the meeting in the Southland center. Likewise, and more relevant, is the Main Street Southland Hotel posted above. For a while I was inclined to believe that Ruby, Senator and Crafard had gone to the Southland Center on 11-23. It now looks more like it was the Main St location, where Fritz lived. Cheers, Michael

Here Bill Kelly says that Gaeton Fonzi said that the meeting happened in the Southland Center "I met with former Congressional investigator Gaeton Fonzi, and asked him in which building lobby in Dallas did Antonio Vechina meet with his CIA case officer “Maurice Bishop” and find him meeting with Oswald? Fonzi said, “The Southland Building,” http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/2012_05_01_archive.html?m=1

About 3/4 of the way down on this page is a pic of a different Southland Hotel, at 1200 Main St. This would be the place that Jack White mentioned, adding that Captain Will Fritz lived here. This would jibe closely with Crafard's and Senator's testimony as the place they went to on the morning of 11-23-63. https://srhistorical.wordpress.com

Andrej, did Veciana confirm, to you, that this was in the Southland Center? Cheers, Michael

http://www.syracuse.com/state/index.ssf/2017/03/schneiderman_bharara_trump.html

This video sucked me into the rabbit hole, after my interest in this case had laid dormant for many years. I am copying a post I made on another thread. I would like to nail down where this meeting took place. Also, if there is any earlier, authorative account as to the location of this meeting I would love to hear it. ------------------------- "The building where DAP/LHO/AV may not be of much consequence. It has been, however, something I have been curious about since I hopped down the rabbit hole in November. It was Wynne Johnson's video, about this meeting, indeed, about his presence at this meeting, that sucked me in. I have seen no authorative accounts of the meeting being at the Southland Center aside from Wynne Johnson's. I have read some of AV's interviews and watched some videos, and unless I missed it, he never identified it as being the Southland Center. I have seen William Kelley state that it was the Southland Center as far back as 2007, but he gives no source. Bill White corrected William Kelley on another thread, identifying it as the Southland Cafe, near the police station, and more in line with the testimony of Larry Crafard and George Senator when identifying the cafe they went to on 11-23 with Jack Ruby. Again, I know it is not necessarily very important, but I am curious. If anyone can share an earlier account, for the location of the LHO/DHP/AV meeting, than the 2014 account of Wynne Johnson, I would really love to hear it. Cheers, Michael"

The building where DAP/LHO/AV may not be of much consequence. It has been, however, something I have been curious about since I hopped down the rabbit hole in November. It was Wynne Johnson's video, about this meeting, indeed, about his presence at this meeting that sucked me in. I have seen no authorative accounts of the meeting being at the Southland Center aside from Wynne Johnson's. I have read some of AV's interviews and watched some videos, and unless I missed it, he never identified it as being the Southland Center. I have seen William Kelley state that it was the Southland Center as far back as 2007, but he gives no source. Bill White corrected William Kelley on another thread, identifying it as the Southland Cafe, near the police station, and more in line with the testimony of Larry Crafard and George Senator when identifying the cafe they went to on 11-23 with Jack Ruby. Again, I know it is not necessarily very important, but I am curious. If anyone can share an earlier account, for the location of the LHO/DHP/AV meeting, than the 2014 account of Wynne Johnson, I would really love to hear it. Cheers, Michael

I believe she worked for AID in South America. I read this along with some scathing criticism of the results of that "effort".

Steve, I wish I had taken notes from the beginning when I started reading WC testimonies; with specific attention to times and places for a bunch of characters. It would also be interesting to nail-down all the accounts regarding Lee's ability to drive. I have seen several opportunities for doing this but it was not done, at least in the the testimonies I have read. Perhaps the WC did some questioning, at some point, with an eye towards nailing this down. When a friend or family member asks me what I have been up to, and I respond that I have been reading, I like to have a response when asked what kind of stuff I have been reading. I can usually bring up a interesting tid-bit to validate their curiosity. With this case, it's difficult to bring up anything without invoking a dark cloud. The dual Oswal angle would be an interesting part of the tale but I have nothing solid, in terms of having a casual tale to tell in mixed company. Cheers, Michael

Thanks Joe,

Thanks Tommy, I am guessing that that is what this post will revolve around if it is not allowed to die. Cheers, Michael

Thanks Sandy, I was definitely trying to avoid bickering. So, I was thinking that maybe people who have some explanation for why they think an of-cited second Oswald incident need not be what it seems. For example, at the furniture mart, maybe someone has a good explanation for the problem. I guess I was a bit optimistic when I posted this, last night. I am not so optimistic this morning. I guess any responses will just be that someone is lying, and bickering will ensue. Cheers, Michael

Alright, I lied. I'll ask for an explanation to a specific situation. Can someone explain what happened at the furniture mart?

I have read about a number of situations that speak to the possibility of there being two Oswalds. Some of them I have no other explanation for other than the existence of a second Oswald. I thought I would open a thread for those who don't believe in a second Oswald to make their case in specific circumstances. I don't want to try to control the discussion so I'll ask for non believers to offer explanations for particular instances where a good explanation can be offered that runs counter to a two Oswald theory. I won't ask for explanations for the specific situations I am thinking of and I just hope they might be addressed. So, non-believers in the 2 Oswald theory, help me out here, please; what explanations do you have for some of these circumstances. Let me just request some explanation for the Oswald that can drive a car and the one that can't. Cheers, Michael