Michael Clark

35 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Paul B.,

Aha, you misunderstood my statement.

I never said that Ike was part of the secret -- only that Walker took the job with this secret purpose.

.........................

Regards 

--Paul Trejo

Paul, It is hardly a misreading. A reader would be hard-pressed to come up with your latter interpretation.

You wrote:

"When Eisenhower rejected Walker's resignation, but instead gave him a command over thousands of troops in Augsburg, Germany, Walker accepted the position -- his biggest promotion ever -- on the secret condition that he would promote JBS literature to his troops."

Cheers,

Michael

On 3/7/2017 at 9:00 AM, Ron Ecker said:

If the assassination was in essence a military coup d'etat, I think it's reasonable to assume that an overt coup, openly taking over, was the plan of last result. But I wonder, in that case, if an overt coup wouldn't have been preferable for the plotters as the plan of first resort. That is, simply relieving JFK of command and removing him from the White House. The PR would be bad, but can you imagine how bad the PR would be if they maimed him first in a failed assassination attempt? They must have been 100 percent certain that the assassination would succeed, which means they must have had every base covered from Dealey Plaza to the ER room in Parkland.

 

 

Thanks for the input Ron, 

I don't see how the ambush, as it shook-out, could have been counted-on to be 100% successful. In  particular, being able to blame a single shooter could have easily been thwarted. Let's say that Jackie or Connally reacted quickly to the shots and pulled JFK down. More firepower would have had to be brought to bear on the limo, making a conspiracy undeniable.

A move by JFK to protect Jackie and himself could have demanded more shots that would have revealed a conspiracy. 

Civilians might have caught wind of the plot, or seen shooters and acted to thwart the plot. A couple plot-traitors could have acted to thwart it.

I just can't see the planners ignoring the possibility of having to face a fact of conspiracy, outright, nor being able do discount the possibility of having to throw in a significantly larger group to finish the job.

In the event of a mild wounding, or complete miss on JFK, I could see an abort made of further immediate attempts at assassinating him. Then, a lone nut, or a couple conspirators could be cornered and eliminated.

What I do think is that it was an all-in situation. If it could be done with a lone-nut, or small group of criminal plotters, that would be preferable. A more reckless, aggressive follow-up had to be in place, again implicaring a smallish group. But even that could fail, and we enter the realm of a military operation of anywhere from a smaller to larger group, and a spread to a regional or nationwide action had to be anticipated.

It certainly sounds liked fiction, but if I am right and there were commanders-in-the-know, in charge of military units that were ostensibly on or en-route to training or other legitimate operations, that could be brought to bear quickly, then those preparations may have left their mark in the records, or on the memories of servicemen who, like everyone else, remembers where they were on that day. Those are pieces of evidence that, plausibly, could still be detected.

Cheers,

Michael

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, let us never forget what DeMohrenschildt's wife said about Oswald.  Let me quote from the first version of Destiny Betrayed, way back in 1992:

"Jean described an afternoon scene in which she saw Oswald and his daughter in the park with Lee carrying his rifle .  Occasionally, he would pull it out and fire at some birds in the area."   When Albert Jenner asked he if she thought that was strange, she replied with "But he was taking the baby out.  He goes with her and that was his amusement." (p. 134, p. 356)

No one of any intelligence or intuition or common sense could possibly believe such a piece of BS.  And the WC did not buy it either.  Just as they did not buy Marina's tale about Oswald's hijacking a jet to Cuba or Oswald trying to kill Nixon.  But the fact that this testimony exists undermines the tenet expressed above that somehow these people were as pure as the driven snow and were not prevaricating in order to demean the portrait of Oswald.  

If it was a .22 caliber plinking gun, maybe; not a 6.5 mm high-powered military rifle. I recall Marina saying he would go to the park and shoot leaves..... pffffft!

I can't believe that George would let Jeanne say something like that.

Cheers,

Michael

59 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

So it was part of what Scott calls phase two? They had real photos but when someone decided to go to the phase two lone nut story the real photos were hidden? That doesn't explain Goodpasture's actions does it? Wasn't her insertion of the false photo done in October? Sorry for the intellectual laziness. I've got some serious stuff on my personal plate right now.

I am in way over my head, but following what I understand from Newman's WWIII Virus seminar, Angleton could have produced or suppressed what was needed to steer things as events unfolded.

Cheers,

Michael

5 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I must be losing it. Could someone remind me of a reasonable explanation for not showing the photos of LHO if they had them? 

Risk of Nuclear War over Cuba?

It seems to me that their could be no possible failure to kill JFK in Texas on 11-22-63. There had to be a back-up plan, or several. There would be no way to guarantee that things would go as smoothly as they did that day. It seems that back-up plans would have had to have gone from the simple sniper attack, to a more reckless follow-up, to as far as a widespread bloody coup, with contingencies for the spread of resistance nationwide.

I have not seen this topic covered elsewhere, and I wrote the following passage on another thread, but it inclined to off-topic on that thread. So I'll post it here and see what people know or think about this subject......

This was originally written in regards to the mystery of the blonde Oswald photographic evidence in Mexico City.

.....................

Hypothesizing. I hope it is welcome.

As it turned-out, JFK was killed by a nutter, LBJ was saved and controlled, and the MIC got it's war in Vietnam, TFX contracts, etc.

If the Dealy ambush failed or was aborted, there would have been a more reckless back-up attempt, by Cubans who would have died, on the way to the Trade-Mart or in their escape from Dealy Plaza. Those Cubans would have been identified as Communists (with Cubans in Dealy as well); and the MIC, the Mafia and anti-Castro Cubans would have had their war in Cuba, casinos, and natural resources, whether JFK survived or not; and they may or may not have got the Vietnam War. Other wars in the Caribbean, Central and South America would have now been on the plate. The LHO Mexico City impersonator consulate photos could have been part of the backup plan to frame LHO as pro-Castro, in a conspiracy, in order to justify a Cuban war. The Vietnam War was far lower risk because their would be no nukes, and the Mafia would get stiffed and that dirty angle would never be realized.

As it was, the Cuban/Communist connection was to be denied because it was not needed, so the garbage LHO MC ID and photos were sent up the chain.

Its all kind of an alternative to Operation Northwoods.

Cheers,

Michael

*** edit *** I just found this thread. Same basic question:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/10115-were-there-contingency-plans-if-the-dealey-plaza-ambush-failed/&page=2

3 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Jim,

.......,.,,,,,,,,

--  Tommy

PS  In my humble opinion, Mystery Man - Moskalev can not be "made to look like Oswald."

 

I agree, but he is, looks, or could be made to be Russian, putting Russia in a defensive and unjustified position if an invasion of Cuba came to be. 

Cheers,

Michael

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

If LHO was in MC the evidence would not need to have been so tainted.  All Oswald had to do was purchase a 3 or 4 part ticket to and from Mexico City by bus from New Orleans... he does not do this, instead he supposedly arrives at each location and buys or converts a ticket there.... he does this repeatedly, according to the FBI's bogus account.

Why does the FBI cover for the CIA here?  Cause Oswald is doing his "Harry-Dean-like" job of infiltration and reporting in Dallas that week with 2 Cubans

If there is reason for Odio to lie, and for the FBI to hold her evidence until late 1964 please tell us.

DJ

 

Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned when your sister saw Oswald's picture on television that she almost passed out. Did she recognize him, do you know, as the man that had been in the apartment?
Mrs. ODIO. She said, "Sylvia, you know that man?" And I said, "Yes," and she said, "I know him." "He was the one that came to our door, and it couldn't be so, could it?"

====

Mr. LIEBELER. But they did in fact, introduce him as Leon Oswald? 
Mrs. ODIO. And I shook hands with him.
Mr. LIEBELER. That is also what you told Agent Hoary when he interviewed you on December 18, 1963, and that is indicated in his report? 
Mrs. ODIO. Oh, yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, a report that we have from Agent Hosty indicates that when you told him about Leopoldo's telephone call to you the following day,
that you told Agent Hosty that Leopoldo told you he was not going to have anything more to do with Leon Oswald since Leon was considered to be loco?
Mrs. ODIO. That's right. He used two tactics with me, and this I have analyzed. He wanted me to introduce this man. He thought that I had something to do with the underground, with the big operation, and I could get men into Cuba. That is what he thought, which is not true.
When I had no reaction to the American, he thought that he would mention that the man was loco and out of his mind and would be the kind of man that could do anything like getting underground in Cuba, like killing Castro. He repeated several times he was an expert shotman. And he said, "We probably won't have anything to do with him. He is kind of 1oco."
When he mentioned the fact that we should have killed President Kennedy--and this I recall in my conversation he was trying to play it safe. If I liked him, then he would go along with me, but if I didn't like him, he was kind of retreating to see what my reaction was. It was cleverly done.
Mr. LIEBELER. So he actually played both sides of the fence? 
Mrs. ODIO. That's right, both sides of the fence.

 

The WC concluded that everything Odio said could not be true - why?  Cause Oswald was in Mexico City or on his way

They go on to say that Oswald was not in Dallas from Sept thru early Oct...  This is the same exact time period that Maurice Bishop meets Veciana in Dallas and they see Oswald.  So despite NOT proving anything conclusive about Mexico, Odio had to be wrong.

I don't think she or her sister were wrong.

Hypothesizing David. I hope it is welcome.

As it turned-out, JFK was killed by a nutter, LBJ was saved and controlled. the MIC got its war in Vietnam, TFX contracts, etc.

If the Dealy ambush failed or was aborted, there would have been a more reckless back-up attempt, by Cubans who would have died, on the way to the Trade-Mart or escape from Dealy Plaza. Those Cubans would have been identified as Communists (with Cubans in Dealy as well), and the MIC, the Mafia and anti-Castro Cubans would have had their war in Cuba, casinos and natural resources, whether JFK survived or not; and they may or may not have got the Vietnam War. Other wars in the Caribbean, Central and South America would have now been on the plate. LHO's consulate pics could have been part of the backup plan to frame LHO as pro-Castro, in a conspiracy, in order to justify a Cuban war. The Vietnam War was far lower risk because their would be no nukes, and the Mafia would get stiffed and that dirty angle never realized.

As it was, the Cuban connection was to be denied because it was not needed, so the garbage LHO MC ID was sent up the chain.

Its all kind of an alternative to Operation Northwoods.

Cheers,

Michael

14 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

The report of Ruth and her estranged husband Micheal Paine calling each other after the assassination with one them saying " we both know who's responsible" is one of the more intriguing gems in their story.

George De Mohrenschildt?

One thing that keeps the Harvey-Lee thing open as a possibility, for me, is that one of them was un-affected, it seems. What I mean is that The DPD LHO seemed to have something odd about him, something like Asperger's, which ultimately made him expendable. One of them was more of a ladies man, a little rougher around the edges, and might have pulled off something like bedding Sylvia Duran, while there. I am not sure that the DPD LHO had that in him.

Cheers,

Michael

3 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, Michael's explanation above means that LHO was not there.  Someone impersonated him.

 

Not to sound like a wise-guy, but, LHO could have been in MC and still have been impersonated at the consulates.

9 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

It seems obvious to me that this interview with Oprah is likely to be honest. Note she professes his innocence, yet still criticizes his bad behavior towards her. Are there any readers who think this is still worth arguing about? Abuse takes many forms. How about we just settle on the fact that he was abusive?

The problem is PT's overstatement of frequency, duration, severity and number of witnesses. That is how this pro-longed debate is being fueled.

23 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

. If CIA had real pics, why insert false ones unless they didn't have real ones? 

CIA claimed they had photos and thought that would be the end of it? Photos were of Harvey Lee or other double? Then when asked to produce them they did not want to blow their impersonation game and the cover of the impersonator? The CIA then just sent them garbage without explanation?

Cheers,

Michael

17 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Michael C

I suggest you check the station number for Z-290 first. It should be about 18 frames up from the X marked in the pavement which signifies the location of the limo when JFK was shot in the head. Knowing the average speed of the limo, the time for the passage of 18 frames one can calculate the distance up from station Z-313, which should be a close approximation of the station at Z-290.

Thanks George, I am not finding a good overhead map with Z frames, but I'll keep an eye out. This link is to forum page.... the 7th post down has a good plot for a Dal-Tex/tague-curb trajectory.

Cheers,

Michael

Ironically, the upper body-posture of mystery man is uncannily similar to that of Prayer-man. That's something that I noticed a while ago, I just felt like noting it finally.

Cheers, 

Michael

1 hour ago, Steve Logan said:

Once again:

MOP-Lee had been accused of killing the President. I had been testified for the Warren Commission. Their conclusions were that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of the crime. I was there to probably give the most damaging testimony about Lee Harvey Oswald and whatever hate you have over him, I cannot make him an angel with a good character. As a wife, I still say he wasn’t a very pleasant person to be with and I’m the same way. We’re both stubborn and whatever. 

 

OW- Was he abusive to you, Marina? 

 

MOP Yes, he was. 

 

 OW-Like, he hit you physically? 

 

 MOP-MOP

Yes, he was. 

 

  OW -Like, he hit you physically? 

 

We have a victim stating that her spouse hit her . Maybe it's just me but in my experience as a Detective, that spent 5 years in a Domestic Violence unit, I'm not buying the once or twice scenario. To read the entire interview, which is short, is interesting . Despite all that could be said in an interview with Oswald's wife, the subject of Spousal Violence is approached by the interviewer and Porter agrees that Oswald was abusive. All the while proclaiming his innocence .

 

That is unless you believe Porter to being a fabricator and maybe the opposite is true. That Oswald wasn't abusive towards her but was guilty.

The testimony of spousal abuse is being used to prosecute a dead man who was denied an opportunity to defend himself from the accusation that he killed the president. It's a non sequitor, a fallacy.

Judge: Mr. Clark, did you rob the bank?

Mr. Clark: No.

Judge: Yet, I see that you were born in July. Thus I find you guilty.

Mr Clark: Damn, that bites.

Cheers,

Michael

21 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Michael C

Using a bird´s eye view of Dealey Plaza draw a line from the TSBD to the limo at Z-290 and the spot whereTague was standing and you´ll find a better match.

George, when I do that I don't get a line to the TSBD. I get a line to the Dal-Tex bldg. Of course, my methods are not particularly sophisticated, so I am open to suggestions. 

Cheers,

Michael

11 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Michael C

There was only one shot from the 3rd floor Dal Tex bldg. 

What about the curb/Teague bullet? The trajectory of that shot points to a Dal-Tex shooter, don't you think?

10 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

Omitting Marina's testimony shows your own bias.  

It's impossible to include Lee's side of the story since he was dead in 1964 when the WC was taking testimony.

In any case, your analysis is biased due to your deliberate omissions.  

The actual evidence shows that LHO beat Marina on several occasions during a four-month period in 1962 (August to November).   George Bouhe was probably the main reason.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, your post shows your bias...

"Several" implies more than twice and can mislead the reader into thinking that she was beaten with some frequency through a 4 month period. The evidence does not show that. The evidence shows that she may have been hit once, possibly twice, during that period.

Thanks, Paul

I am glad to hear that my tendency to bump old threads is not necessarily frowned upon. In this case, it was intended to bump a link to a site with relevant reading material, so I saw little harm in doing so. I now have a good number of stored PDF's to read when I am away from a data connection. Thanks for the particular recommendation of Joachin's book. I find the earliest accounts and documentation to be of particular interest inasmuch as it fascinates me that so much was known so early-on. It is likewise a very sad testament to the fear which, I believe, prevailed at the time. If it were not for this fear, it seems, the truth would have been much more clear to people, and spoken-about, as I was growing-up.

As an anecdotal note, regarding that fear, I believe I came-of-age, in this context, as 15 year-old, when I was watching the movie Flashpoint (TV-HBO). It was not until the end of the movie that I realized that it was about the JFK assassination. I watched Kris Kristoferson hold up the rifle and yell "Who are you! Who are You!", as images of the assassination flashed on the screen. I remember feeling afraid, like I was watching something that I should not have been watching. Another deeply-defining moment of that movie was the part where Kurtwood Smith, the bad G-man, explained (going from memory) that "every morning I wake up and thank god for corruption, crime and lawlessness" because it gave hiim a job, or allowed him to define himself; or something like that...... I can't emphasize how deeply that affected me. I was a different kind of kid, they were different times, I guess,

Cheers,

Michael

On 8/2/2005 at 4:55 PM, Jack White said:

Which CE 399 are you talking about? SIX groove WC version

or FOUR groove HSCA version?

Jack

Wow! That's the first I ever heard of this!

Macbeth: "Nothing is, but what is not!".

Cheers, 

Michael

Bump

37 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Michael W

I believe it tumbled as it neared JFK´s body, not as it left the barrel.

The bullet traveled in a arc trajectory. I assume the shooter was aiming for JFK´s head but the bullet dropped about 8 inches. I believe the shooter was located in the Dal Tex bldg, 3rd floor, which would place him less than 200 ft from the limo. Bullets that travel at muzzle velocity may drop an inch in a 1000 ft.

As the bullet left the barrel it began to point downward sleightly as it arched toward the target. Before it reached it´s target larger air pressure at the top of the bullet  than at the bottom forced the bullet to dip. The ass end of the bullet moved upward as the bullet dipped.This action contributed to the tumble.

 

 

A Dal-Tex shot explains a lot for me. It makes the dual wounding of JFK and JC more plausible. It explains why I see JFK and JC react simultaneously; but it does not, and nothing will, for me, explain a pristine bullet.

Of course this leaves other questions. I don't believe in a throat exit wound. So a bullet entering JFK and wounding JC would have to exit JFK's chest, for which there is no evidence.

Since everything is on the table, in my fluid CT, I have to consider that all kinds of things were swapped and manufactured. So, I consider an exit wound through JFK, exiting near the nipple, and barely penetrating JC, and the related evidence being swapped and injuries being manufactured on JC. The leg wound on JC may have been intentional i(another GK shooter) n order to disable him from making efforts to save JFK.

I am new to all of this but I have realized that there is almost nothing I can accept at face value from the official story, the Z film, or the "evidence".

I also am considering Ashton Grays "no neck wound" theory.

Cheers,

Michael

13 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

You are mistaken about my intentions on this Forum.  My only intent here is the TRUTH.   The Truth about LHO shows a man living in intense emotional pain.  To try to make him out to be some innocent choir boy is simple-minded research.

I'm telling the Truth about LHO (and about Marina, and about Ruth Paine, and about the Russian Expatriates, and about General Walker, etc.) and many readers are beginning to see that.   

My claims are never intentionally misleading.  If you think they are, Michael, then make your point with the facts.   Generic accusations are petty.

You speak of time and effort -- yet you forget that I end up answering more challenges than most others, because so many challenges are directed towards me.   So, my time and effort are also wearing thin.

You say you want to refute my claims -- then do it using facts, facts and only facts.   We are all here for the Truth.

Finally, FYI, nobody is under any obligation here to answer all the posts directed toward him or her.   Hundreds of posts come my way.  I don't have time for them all.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

No one is making LHO out to be a choir-boy. That is a fact. Your statement to the contrary is incorrect and is insulting to those at whom your assertion was directed.

14 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

Yes, correct.   Kleinlerer gave an affidavit to that effect, and the WC didn't ask him to testify.

Literally -- what would be the point?   As Tracy ably noted -- whether LHO ever beat Marina or not really has NOTHING to do with the JFK assassination.  Not in the slightest.

My only reason for dallying with the topic is to show up those CTers who insist -- for no good reason -- that LHO never beat Marina at any time -- in the face of overwhelming evidence that he did.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

That is not what is going on with your postings. You are misrepresenting things that incriminate Oswalds character and saying that you are doing it to make researchers look foolish.

Half-hearted readers see your stuff, and you know it. If they, and we, are fortunate, they will read on and see that your claims are misleading at best; many will not. The best we can do is refute your claims with as little effort and time as possible.

For example, there is a thread waiting for your attention.....