Michael Clark

Related thread

On 2/21/2017 at 4:53 PM, Steve Thomas said:

iPad issue. Nothing here

Title edit request: "Chunky" to "Shapely".

jus' sayin.

Cheers,

Michael

29 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

LOL I'll bite. How do you know?

Lol! Thanks for biting. Answer coming soon...

When I was a Cellular Technician in Vermont I did a whole lot of driving in my truck. Once I convinced one of our net-ops guys that having a single Alice In Chains CD spinning, 24X7, on our test-gear-call-line, was unlikely to get our guys to use the test gear with any consistency, he put an awesome CD in the player. I then spent a couple years listening to to Steven Hawkins: A Briefer History of Time, all of my driving time. At some point I was able to quote long passages of that book, verbatim. I'll just say that it beats sleeping in a Holiday Inn Express at making you feel smart.

Cheers,

Michael

1 minute ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Do you know how many deer I've killed over my lifetime? 

Bullets travelling 2200 feet per second simply do not come to a halt after penetrating a mere inch of flesh.

Agreed, and if some technology could be developed to stop a bullet, in md-flight, the bullet would still mash-up upon itself...... ask me how I know....

Cheers,

Michael

LHO was up to his eyeballs in dirty stuff. If he hit her once, perhaps twice, he may have been trying to avoid worse. He may have been re-appropriated from an operative to a patsy because handlers felt it was too late. The message for Marina was clear once Lee was dead.

From this perspective it might be interesting to note that Jim Garrison was first cued-up to a problem of conspiracy, not 3 years after the fact, but on the afternoon of the assassination by a simple act of physical violence, when Guy Banister pistol-whipped Jack Martin.

Cheers,

Michael

On 4/19/2006 at 8:54 PM, Ron Ecker said:

I have grown suspicious of the big flap that opens up on JFK's head after Z313. Ditto the blackened-out back of JFK's head with nary a trace of all the brain matter that shot out the back and hit those riding behind.

I know the argument that Jackie must have closed the flap on the way to the hospital, but she doesn't say she did, she says (as best I can interpret her words) that she was trying to hold his hair down over the hole in back, and when she said she saw a piece of his skull and it was flesh-colored and not bloody, she may have been talking about a piece that flew from his head (perhaps the piece she tried to fetch on the trunk) and not the flap.

I know the argument that the back of JFK's head is in shadow and that we don't see the debris shooting out the back because it was too fast for the camera, but I intuitively question there not being the slightest fleeting trace of it, particularly when we have no trouble at all seeing all the blood and debris that comes out of the front.

I did not question the authenticity of this episode in the film until I recently began looking harder at the medical evidence, and I have trouble understanding how the Parkland doctors failed to see such a massive wound in the side of the head even if Jackie closed it as best she could. Not even when nurses Bowron and Hinchcliffe washed JFK's hair did they see one trace of this wound that was open so graphically in the Z film.

Granted, a couple of Parkland doctors allowed as how the head wound had somehow moved around toward the front, though the others did not see it do so, but they allowed this only after being brow-beaten by an SS agent who came from Washington to show them autopsy material, or until they had seen the dubious material in the archives.

McClelland has described looking down into a hole while JFK was on his back, and after several readings I still don't know what he's talking about, since the others didn't see such a wound to look down into, and McClelland drew a picture showing nothing but a hole in the back of the head, which he was in no position to look into while standing over JFK's face.

The other factor contributing to my doubt of the flap's authenticity is the strength of the body alteration theory (two documented casket entries at Bethesda plus a third attested to by witnesses), which involves the wound in the back of the head at autopsy moving around to become parietal and temporal and not just occipital. It is possible that at the same time it was decided to create such a wound, by taking a hammer to JFK's head or whatever, it was decided to put a corresponding wound in the Z film, and hence this massive flap that even Clint Hill didn't see when he was right there over the president on the ride to Parkland, nor was it seen by doctors attending him.

Which brings me to the question of when or if there was in fact any opportunity for the Z film to be altered to include this flap. I believe that some say yea and some say nay. I have not yet had time to look into that question. But if there is one thing in the film that does look artificial and inconsistent to me, it is the flap in the side of the head.

If anyone can straighten me out on this, feel free.

Ron,  I am wondering how your thoughts have evolved on this after 12 years. I have avoided the subject because photo-analism gets so contentious. From what I see in the Z Film, there is a massive blowout in front of the right ear, and I see nothing else.

Have you resolved any of this, inasmuch as it conflicts with testimony, to your satisfaction?  Have you accepted photo-alteration? 

Cheers,

Michael

27 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Just to get you started, Michael, here is a link to a company that manufactures a "frangible" hollow point bullet. Contrary to popular belief, frangible bullets are not "fragmenting" bullets. They are made from compressed metal powder and, under duress in a wound, will disintegrate back to powder and make a rather devastating cloud of metal powder that stops immediately and does NOT exit. Sound familiar?

http://www.drtammo.com/DRT-Technology

Ok, thanks for that. I was unaware of that. 

5 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

LOL Got a great big lake here about 300 metres from my place called the Pacific Ocean.

Sounds awesome! 

1 minute ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

LOL @ using Metric being treasonous! I feel badly for any thinking person trapped in Trump's America. I say that with sincerity, and if any of you need a place to stay some day....

I'd move to BC in a heartbeat...... gold mining, fishing, hunting, killing trees, etc....... trade Jeeps for trucks and I'll just stay out of the way of horses... sign me Up! I just need a network technicians job, and a lake for my boat.

1 minute ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

..... travelling at 2200 fps (or 700 mps - are you Canadian like me?) 

Nope. I am on a personal path to conversion to metric. There's just no point in being clueless about Metric measurements. It's not that hard. Unfortunately, to some people it is treasonous. I would be safer around some people handing out FPCC leaflets than talking metric.

4 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Here is a question for you ballistic experts. The 6.5mm M91/38 Carcano short rifle propels a 162 grain bullet at a muzzle velocity of just under 2200 feet per second. 

In roughly 50 yards, how did the bullet slow down enough to only penetrate the flesh (intercostal muscles) of JFK's back a mere inch?

What speed do you think a 162 grain round nosed bullet would be travelling if it only penetrated flesh a mere inch?

If the bullet hit a rib travelling 2200 fps, wouldn't it simply smash through the rib instead of deflecting off of it, considering the rib is not a heavy bone? 

( I typed the following but wandered away from the page. Posting now)

I am not seeing how a bullet traveling at @ 700 MPS would make a shallow wound. If you want to account for it by the back brace, then you have to expect more damage to the bullet. You just can't stop that bullet in the space of 2-3 inches without seriously deforming it. 

-it couldn't be tumbling or it would have been way off the mark.

-if it were tumbling it couldn't have made a clean hole.

-something funny is going on to cause that bruise.

Cheers,

Michael 

35 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Paul - looking over an old thread resurrected by Michael Clark about Joachim Joesten, you claimed in 2013 that Walker accepted Eisenhower posting him to Augsburg Germany on the 'secret condition that he would promote JBS literature to his troops'. What is your source for that claim?

On 03/01/13 Paul Trejo Wrote: 

"John, these are all questions that I still cannot answer. I'm still digging as fast as I can.

I will say this, however. Walker was very chummy with Nazi types in Germany during his command in Augsburg (11/1959 to 11/1961). He made good friends with the editor of the Deutsche Nationalzeitung newspaper, formerly a Nazi newspaper and still a right-wing journal in 1963, That editor, Dr. Gerhard Frey, was connected with Joseph Goebbels during the Nazi era.

I will give ex-General Edwin Walker the benefit of the doubt -- until actual facts are presented. My current theory (always evolving) is that Walker was a conformist all his life -- but the Cold War was confusing to him. He led the racial integration of Little Rock High School in Arkansas in 1957, but by late 1959 he tendered his first resignation from the Army to President Eisenhower, citing a "conspiracy".

In late 1959 Walker personally met Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society (JBS) and came to believe that President Eisenhower was a Communist (as Robert Welch taught). 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.

Along with Major Archibald E. Roberts, Walker began his Pro-Blue program the very first day that he arrived in Germany. He spent most of his time on this project, and he influenced thousands of young soldiers with the JBS doctrine -- similar to the doctrine of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy -- that the US Government was filled with Communists.

This treasonous talk, laughingly called Anticommunism, was really Anti-American. This is what Robert Welch and his followers had always wanted. They objected to WW2, because as they said, the USA joined the Communists to defeat Germany, while they should have supported Germany to defeat Communism.

While in Germany, Walker evidently increased his communication with the new German Anticommunists like Dr. Gerhard Frey, Hasso Thorsten and others, and they evidently impressed him very much. For example, only 18 hours after the JFK assassination, Walker called the Deutsche Nationalzeitung to boast that the same shooter who killed JFK (Lee Harvey Oswald) was the same shooter who shot at him on 10 April 1963.

This was several days before Marina Oswald announced this allegation to the FBI and the world. There is plenty of smoke there, I say.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo"

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

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

And, since this just got bumped, I'll add a link to a related thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/6089-joachim-joesten/

16 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Did Jim Garrison say the above in the interview as printed?

I wonder what percentage of Garrison critics could ever compare to, understand or let alone even imagine anything close to the full measure of Garrison's intellect, his grasp and perceptions of the realities of the real world around us including the precariousness of the individual versus the state, the powerful versus the powerless and the abuse of these rights and tenents and where it is taking us.  And the courage and integrity to risk his life in exposing these abuses as much as the national media would allow him coverage to do so?

I doubt if it's 1%.  

 

Joe, Thanks for highlighting that passage. The character assassination that started when he took-up the challenge of the Kennedy case and it has never ceased. He was truly a great and supremely courageous American, and a visionary.

Cheers,

Michael

1 minute ago, David Andrews said:

Look for the thread on DPD Westbrook's involvement in the Tippit shooting and theater arrest for the most recent on that.

Thank you David. I will look. I remember the quote from someone: "then who the hell did I see being taken out the back door?"; or something like that.

Cheers,

Michael

10 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Michael Clark brings back so many old threads that new ones disappear prematurely.

 

I often put links into threads to tie them to related threads. If I could do that without bumping them I would. I also restore broken links on threads, again, bumping them.

Sorry for the inconvenience; if I get pinged some more regarding that I'll stop.

PS: no guesses on the Bikini/The Fonz riddle?

Cheers,

Michael

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael,

You should take a look at my hypothesis here: Why Humes Thought the Back Missile Hit at a Sharp Angle -- a Hypothesis

If nothing else, just take a glance at my diagrams.

Pat Speer describes his 45 degree theory in a post right after mine.

I had a chance to look at your hypotheses on that thread Sandy, well done.

Thaks for referring me to it.

Cheers,

Michael

Sandy asked: 

"Where was the entrance wound for that round?"

Cliff answered:

"The round bruised the larynx then deflected down ripping the trachea before leaving an air-pocket overlaying the C7/T1 right transverse processes and a hairline fracture at the T1 TP.."

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

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

It sounds like Cliff is talking about a frontal throat shot. This thread is about a back wound. I doubt he is suggesting that a throat entry wound caused the back, presumably an exit, wound. Perhaps we shall find out.

Cheers,

Michael

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Who said anything about vaporizing?

" a bullet with fine enough particles that they are hard to discern on x-rays."

Sorry Sandy, that's all I was referring to. I should have been more careful, such as not to impart ridicule. I removed the quotation marks.

Cheers,

Michael

Linking to a related thread

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/706-backyard-photographs/

36 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Are you sure that it's even possible for all bullet fragments to be so fine?

It's not possible in my book. Frangible does not mean vaporizing. Frangable means fragmentating. The best it can do is to leave it unidentifiable.

Cheers,

Michael

Connally's leg wound is kind of a mystery as well, if you don't believe in a magic, pristine, CE399.

Cheers,

Michael