Michael Clark

3 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Most WC testimonies are truthful.  Only the WC testimonies of the JFK conspirators contain overt lies.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Priceless.....

1 minute ago, George Sawtelle said:

Michael

I don´t believe anything the government says about CE399. The government covered up the investigation. Anything they say is suspect and can´t be believed.

 

Roger that sir. It does sound like you believe that CE399 was fired at JFK and was barely, if at all, damaged (pristine).

Cheers,

Michael

4 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Why plant a bullet when the extent of the wounds are not known? Makes no sense.

Not even the doctors who first attended Kennedy knew the full extent of his injuries. 

I believe CE399 fell out of Kennedy´s body as doctors or nurses tried to resuscitate him while he was on a stretcher and moved from the limo to the operating room.

I guess it's just a matter of where one is with their theory. The WC says it fell out of Connally's leg.

It sounds like you would say that CE399 never got as far as Connally.

I would say that no one fired the Mainlicher Carcano at the motorcade.

Cheers,

Michael

A relevant thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/18625-ce-573-walker-bullet-not-the-real-bullet/&page=2

3 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

It was referred to as a " thirty-AUGHT-six," as 100 years ago people referred to the year as "AUGHT six," rather than "OH six," as we currently do. There was no "ODD" involved in the common name for the .30-06 rifle or cartridge.

Thanks, I am only going by how people speak the term. When I lived in a Vermont, I heard the "Aught". Here in NY I hear "odd" more often. To be sure, I am not frequently around a lot of gun owners and enthusiasts.

Cheers,

Michael

He is not in very good form here, IMO. Hindsight is 20/20 but it looks like he is a bit nervous on 11-14-63.

William F. Buckley???

edited**** 

When I was in the market for a hunting rifle (ultimately buying a 30-06), I was curious as to what the oft-called "thirty-odd-six" meant; I wanted to know why it was referred to as such. I quickly found-out that the designation referred to "30'caliber, 1906". I never found-out why the word "odd" was used, but I don't think that is relevant. The 30-06 round superseded the 30-03 round of 1903;  a very short life for a military round. 

For the purpose of this post I am just going to focus on the shape of the different bullets, the rounded 30-03 bullet vs. the pointed 30-06 "spitzer" bullet. I read that that the change to the pointed bullet was the result of a technological breakthrough that made the manufacture of the pointed round less expensive and troublesome; the knowledge of the desirability in ballistic characteristics of the pointed round having been known some time before. The technological manufacturing breakthrough is not often noted when looking into this and the improved ballistics are more often cited for the reason for the change in 1906.

It is often said that that the change or choice to or from a round to a pointed bullet has to do with the characteristics of the wounds inflicted by either round and what kind of wounds were desired on the battlefield. I don't believe that this is the case. I believe that the Italian armaments were simply tooled-up for their round nosed bullets and rifles, and that they were simply behind the times throuought the manufacturing life of the 6.5mm MC rifle and cartridge.

The point is that the round-nosed bullet was an odd-duck by the time someone bought that MC rifle as that weapon of choice for Alek Hidell.

As long as no identifiable bullets of fragments of bullets were found in the victims, the car, or elsewhere, the planting of a 6.5 mm MC round, somewhere, would narrow the scope of any investigation and field of possible perpetrators and weapons. A pointed 30-06 round, or any other pointed round, if still identifiable, would leave a much larger range of possible weapons as being suspected in the assassination. (Regardless of what Rachel Maddow reports below).

To me, this explains why several weapons were reported to have been found. Once it was clear that no identifiable, pointed Spitzer rounds were going to be recovered, all that had to be done was to get a 6.5mm round planted, and get an Alek Hidell library card to the appointed patzy. Perhaps, LHO thought he was delivering that card to someone else, as he made his way around Dallas after the shooting, or to the Texas Theater; perhaps he was duped. (Edit: I thought there was a non-photo Hidell card, but I don't see one. The point remains that a Hidell card could place blame on anyone with such a card).

I'm no expert on this stuff, but I have not seen some of my above points having been made before; so I thought I would offer them up.

Cheers,

Michael

20 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

James,

You misread all those posts ----------

-Because there really was a lot of gossip going around the Russian Expatriate community in the Dallas and Fort Worth area about Marina and Lee.  

-Gossip can spread like a plague, and I would imagine, in the era of housewives, such a disease was for more rampant and communicable. 

- This was because Marina Oswald was complaining loudly and bitterly that Lee Harvey Oswald was beating her.

-I am seeing her making excused and hiding what may have been one event, possibly with a door

-- and George Bouhe led the charge for volunteers of Russian families to take Marina into their homes for one or two weeks at a time.  There were many Russian homes that took Marina in during October and November 1962.

-In the course of two months I don't see room for "many" families to take her in for "one or two weeks at a time. In the course of two months this should be able to broken down.

-Some of these people actually saw the bruises on Marina's face.  Others only heard about it.  If we count them all then we get 19, IIRC.  If we only count the EYE-WITNESSES then we can reduce the number to 7 (including two couples counted as one each).

-You claim to have shown that perhaps seven people saw an injury, that might have been an accident. To be sure, there was a story of physical abuse, it probably spread to hundreds.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

LHO was accused of many things. This could very well be one of those quick-mart sandwiches which, after you buy it, get back on the road, and unwrap it, proves to have only a lame slice of bologna in it.

I'm not buying the sandwich.

Cheers,

Michael

11 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

right. that video was 1998?

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

just sayin'.

I want to say 1992??? I think JFK, the movie, just came out.

Cheers,

Michael

I noted that Landsdale's name was stepped-on, so to speak, by a glitch in the audio of the first video.

The Honolulu Conference of 11-20-63 has recently piqued my interest. It does not seem to have it's own thread. I thought I would open this thread up for info and debate. I don't have much to bring to the table. Atttached is a screen shot from a Fletcher Prouty video which I will link later. Here is a link to a related EF thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/16854-nsam-273/&page=2

Cheers, Mike

2 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

I remember reading about 30 years ago somewhere in which Prouty stated something to the effect that Kennedy was not at fault (or didn't order its cancellation, or whatever) for the cancellation of the air strikes -- for which he took the blame and for which pretty much everyone else happily let him have it.

(In this same piece, whatever it was I read, Prouty was describing an island in the Pacific where all the Korean "War" surplus was staged - in the mid-fifties, right? - "in preparation for Viet Nam.")

Glenn,

Prouty mentions both of those things in the posted video. In terms of blaming Bundy for that critical call to not hit the last three Cuban jets, I am looking for other sources that can substantiate Bundy's authority, autonomy and responsibility for that call, apart from Prouty.

Interestingly, Prouty's video has some tantalizing info on the Honolulu conference;' just enough to make you want more. I am just now reading about Bundy's very suspect part in processing the Presidential directives that called for deescalation of the war and then the reescalation of the war prior to, and after the assassination, respectively.

(these directives are called NSAM's. I didn't want to throw around this nomenclature in my paragraph above because I am thoroughly unfamiliar with it all. I don't want to come-off otherwise. I am digging in now)

Cheers,

Michael

One thing I would like to verify is if McGeorge Bundy can be fairly blamed for the call to not hit the last three Cuban jets until an airstrip was captured. Is he a fall guy for JFK? Would he or could he have made that call on a critical departure from the plan?

Cheers,

Michael

43 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Indeed, Michael, I find a lot of amusement in it.

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

Whew! That's enough amusement to last until next Christmas!

To be sure, I was saying that I hope you got a chuckle out of my "cantankerous DVP at the grocery store" sketch.

Cheers,

Michael

On 2/26/2017 at 10:55 AM, Glenn Nall said:

very good. thank you for this...

Glenn, I am glad you liked it.

It is good to hear it from the horse's mouth. I would not have come away from this with the same, and so thorough, an understanding had I read it.

I read of people questioningn Prouty's reliability. I now discount those opinions.

I especially, now, have more faith in his identification of Landsdale in Dealy Plaza in the tramp photos.

Cheers, Michael

18 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh. So THAT'S what you meant. (Figures. You're a CTer.)

David, when you go into a supermarket, do you walk around and, in a bellicose manner, mock, ridicule and taunt people for shopping for groceries?

I have to admit, there is a comedian inside of me that develops caricatures and scenarios like this. I chuckle at my image of you doing this in a grocery store. Lol

To be sure, when I read your posts I come away from them with a sense of a decent person with a good, affable, personality and manner. I also respect the lengths you go through to collect and present a great deal of valuable information.

The labeling, mocking and ridicule mentioned above is an unfortunate exception to that and is the source of my Problem Grocery Store Customer sketch. It can't be easy doing what you do. I hope you can find a little amusement in it.

Cheers,

Michael

***** just want to acknowledge my poor choice of words above. It won't be used again*********

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

But, Jim, Michael was talking specifically about how the "information" and the "issues" (i.e., the major talking points pertaining to JFK's death) haven't changed very much since Mark Lane's appearance on William Buckley's "Firing Line" television program in 1966. And Michael is absolutely right too.

Some "new" things have come up since 1966, of course. But not a single one of them has been significant at all*, and not one of them has undermined or undercut the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone killer of both John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.*

The Warren Commission's work and conclusions will stand the test of time and will continue to be the definitive word on the JFK assassination for all people who have the ability to properly and reasonably and dispassionately evaluate and assess the sum total of the evidence associated with the murders of JFK and Officer Tippit.*

* IMO.

For a few illustrative examples which tend to indicate that Michael Clark is 100% correct when he said what he said above ("the information and issues haven't changed much"), go to the webpages below. In those linked discussions, CTers and I argue about some of the very same already-debunked JFK conspiracy theories that were also the subject of debate and argument way back when Mark Lane was appearing on TV shows and college campuses in the 1960s. Only the year has changed. Same debates, different millennium:
 

 

Deleted-clarified below

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

Walker's papers as collected at the University of Texas at Austin -- 90 boxes worth -- are an under-explored mine.  These boxes have still not been cataloged -- 

.......  Here's one to Senator Frank Church -- perhaps you haven't seen it yet -- though I've posted it nearly a dozen times on the Forum:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf

There is much more than this, I assure you -- but it all appears after the JFK assassination.  

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, you would think that the WC and police would have not failed to dig this up and put it in front of the commission;  not THIS document obviously, but this information. Do you know if this information came up in commission proceedings?

Cheers,

Michael

8 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

Here is my second post about another eye-witness who saw Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina Oswald.  His name is Alexander Kleinlerer,  

  -------------------

  But Alex Kleinlerer made a sworn affidavit that she personally witnessed Lee Oswald strike Marina Oswald in the face -- twice. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Paul, This was covered on the second page, sans drama.

It was also poiinted out that this guy could not be questioned in front of the commission, although, it was stated, he was in town. No reason was given for his unavailability.

He could have signed a blank sheet of paper in exchange for paying his bar-tab.

Cheers,

Michael

Sandy, to be clear, what you are doing is important. You are discrediting one chunk of the WC case. Your doing it in one place under a clear forum title. Sure, this may have all been covered in a book somewhere, but someone will find and read your thread on the internet and walk away with one important nugget. I'll compare it to my recent Oswald rifle possession thread. I would not have doe that if it was already in one place on this forum, now it is. It is important.

Cheers,

Michael

Regarding Paul's post, there's truth to that. Anyone who knows that Oswald didn't do it is wasting their time making that case. The point is to find the bad guys. However, all pieces have a place in the puzzle. To do the wet blanket thing to someone who feels it is important is unnecessary. 

Cheers,

Michael