Michael Clark

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

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*********

What I am surprised about, but was not very clear about, is that, so soon after the assassination and the release of the WC report, the lies, inconsistencies, deliberate shortcomings and fraud of the official report were so well known and quite throughly laid out, by investigators, researchers and scholars. If Mr. Lane, and others like him, were given hours to go over his findings, on national TV, without being interrupted by the perp-tool-stooge, William Buckley, I think the people of the US would have had much greater ability and courage to set the record and direction of America back on its proper course. Cheers, Michael

Deleted-clarified below

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

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

Sandy, to be sure, I think you meant Michael "Walton" in your post. To answer your question, I think he is making the case that you were coming down on one side or the other. If that was the case then it's fair game. Anyone can make a case, and anyone can criticize it. I think you clearly were trying to gather facts. The fact that you were doing that speaks for itself, IMO. I think you are doing a good job of trying to get to the verifiable facts. If you don't mind me saying so, in other threads, you are more often, it would seem, trying to make a case. Not in this case. Michael Walton was coiled-up to strike at you. In this case he did it without justification, probably without reading. That is valuable information, at no loss to you; you have discovered an entity who has a hard-on for you; you can ignore any disguised criticism from him going forward. Cheers, Michael

Introduction:Aug 5, 1993. Bay of Pigs. The committee that was formed to discuss the bay of Pigs. A final report that was found much later. BOP was escalated from 30 to 3000 men. Ships had arms for 25,000 (?) men. BOP excellerated right after the inauguration. 8:00. Warning that combat aircraft HAD To Be destroyed. JFk would not approve until the middle of April. Dulles presses. Men are at sea already at sea near Vieques. 7 of 10 combat aircraft destroyed. JFK ordered the last three to be desltroyed. 4 B26's were dispatched and fighters had to be destroyed as a prerequisite to the landing. 10:00 study group put together a report called "Zapata". Released in 83. Dulles, Burke, on the study group. Taylor.(Chairman), RFK. 14:00 Last time CIA would run military ops. Beetle Smith. Frmr ambassador to USSR. Smith, director as CIA under Truman. Beetles inclusion in Zapata group. Important as to why JFK was killed. Points out that the president has TEMPORARY war powers. No such agreement for CIA to rescind war powers after action. Smith " Democracy can not wage war" war powers are temporary. Smith: covert actions only up to a certain size. Covert actions up to 2 or three people or no longer secret. 18:00 Smith: covert actions need to go under a different roof. Destroy CIA's war-making powers. Taylor present to Smith. Agreed unanimous vote. Letter to JFK 6-13-61. Letter to CJCS Prouty asked to prepare briefing to chIefs. "President regards JCS as principal advisor to JFK. JCS has same responsibility in Cold War as Hot War. Rejected, not sent. Prouty told to file it. Military demurred. 21:00 beginning of JFK trouble began with that study group. Refusal of JCS to supplant CIA. 22:00 McGeorge Bundy. Study group concluded that the most significant reason for failure of BOP was the canceling of air strikes. Prouty claims this was Bundy. Bundy tells Cabell not to fly the air strikes. Dulles out of the country. 3 supply ships, 16 B-26's destroyed. interviewer. Why did Bundy call off strikes? Prouty can't explain, but cites that that is the record. 26:30.Report. Item 43. Bundy called off the air strikes. NSC directive. Under IkE, 1954, NSC directive 5412 precluded military from covert ops. 30:00 break 30:02 break 32:00 covert operations becoming huge, 10's of thousands of men and weapons, no longer covert. Bradley, Eisenhower, bitterly resent growing involvement in Asia. 34:00 over 50 meeting Krulak attended Krulak sent to Vietnam, late Aug, Sept. JFK orders Taylor and Macnamara to Vietnam. Late September. Taylor-Macnamara report. Actually written in the Pentagon, dictated by JFK. Returned to JFK oct. 2, 1963. Contains plan for 1000 men back by Christmas. The rest by 65. 39:00 NSAM 55 ? CIA being kicked out of covert ops. 40:30 poor quality of history books. Kennedy killed by bullets and historians. 42:00 Mockingbird Interviewer on Taylor Macnamara report. 2.6 million American rotated through Vietnam. $570 billion war. 45:00 Eisenhower MIC speech. Carter, Reagan assassination attempts. 47:00 Honolulu conference . 60 leaders, and entire cabinet. 11-21 glowing report on vietnam NSAM 273 50:00 Macnamara orders Pentagon Papers written. Les Gelb. Internal security for secretary of Defense, along with Ellsberg. Richard Secord, Eagleburger, Bill Bundy. Pentagon Papers chronological. No mention of JFK assassination. NSAM 273. Pentagon Paper written in 68. History not told truthfully told. Les Gelb , NYT.

Fletcher Prouty video. At about 47:00 the Honolulu conference is noted.

I would have oved to have seen this thread roll-out. I do admire Ashton's language command. Cheers, Michael

I was wondering how that would shake-out. I THINK I know where you were coming from, and going, Sandy. But you WERE just laying the info out there, doing a good job of letting the chips just fall. Cheers, Michael

I am kind of surprised that the information and issues haven't changed much.

This thread ran for 13 days a few years ago. It has a bunch of links and references to a lot of information. It would take a long time to dive in and get my head around it. I'm bumping it to see if there are some follow-ups to it. Cheers, Michael

Previously unknown Walt Whitman work unearthed. I posted this a few days ago

I made a voice memo of this Video thinking that I'll get it transcribed at some point. A couple things stand out to me, but I haven't listened to it in a month or so.. - Coley mentions that three DMN employees were privy to the scene of the blood and photos. He begins to mention them and explains that they died unexpectedly afterwards, he is cut-off by the interviewer and they do not return to the subject. - Coley says that Ruby was still there at the office when he returned at 11ish AM. He seems certain that Jack was there the whole time but does not clearly state how he knows this. Certainly, he would have heard other employees, over the next week or so, or longer, state that, indeed, Ruby had remained at the DMN throughout that morning. -The WC testimony is another example of how Ruby is allowed to guide the hearing, sucking up the commission's time and basically say whatever he wants. It crazy. Cheers, Michael

I get it. Can't blame a guy for trying to help the cause... Cheers Michael

Admins, I posted this in another thread but it has seen only a handful of views, so I'll make the same request here. If you see fit, please add sub forums for the following topics. I have not found an appropriate place to post some things that might interest people. These are a couple topics that interest me. My apologies if they already exist. latin latin inscriptions Ancient Greek Ancient Greek inscriptions Cheers, Michael

I was a lurker for a short time and have been a member of this forum for only a few months. I am very thankful for its existence, particularly in the realm of JFKA research. When I look at the larger forum, however, I see much greater potential. I don't see myself being able to do much to fill-out that potential but I can do something. Since this sub-forum seems to be, by far, the most utilized, I decided to post this here. There must be many varied interests and areas of expertise among the members here. I am thinking that if I, we, fill-out other areas with nuggets of our knowledge and areas of interest, the larger EF might greatly benefit. If that happens we all benefit and it would likely ensure the longevity of this sub-forum To that end, I will be making it a point to post items, within my area of interest experience, education and expertise, to other areas of the forum. I'll post links to my additions on this thread. This would serve to perhaps keep this thread alive, attract interest, commentary, discussion and debate in those subforums and on those topics; hopefully it will spurn others to join-in and add to those subforums and post links, here, as they do that. Cheers, Micheal

I posted in response to the "infiltration of this forum" thread the other day... "I like this place and the people in it. I like to treat it like my living room or dinner table. I know we are all virtual strangers but I don't want to see it turn out like the comments area of youtube or your typical news article. I kind of think of it as the Senate as opposed to the House. It's kind of unique among Internet forums." I don't know if my comment will resonate with anyone. I think there is more of the parliamentary decorum here than in most other forums of which I have been a member. I like to think it can get better. In my exploration of older posts I think this forum is evolving in that direction. That said, I think I see the vision in which the larger EF was founded and it's kind of sad to see underutilized. I had decided to make a post, suggesting what can be done to give the EF a better chance to reach its potential; this happened just a few hours ago, before I stumbled upon this thread. So, new thread, coming soon! Cheers, Michael

Paul, I believe that you have said that you have read Walker's papers. If you have read the papers cited above, can you say whether those papers were generated at the time of the shooting, in the period between the shooting and the JFKA, or afterwards? Cheers, Michael PS. Do any papers indicate knowledge of LHO prior to the Walker shooting? If so, were they generated before or after the JFKA?

If you ask me, no. Because LHO didn't own a rifle, and no-one decided that he owned a rifle until after the assassination. If he did have a Hiddell ID card on him when arrested, then the person who gave him that card and the person who forged the money order and received the rifle are the only ones to know that he would, in the future, own an MC rifle. If Walker had any role in that, then Walker "considered" Hiddell a suspect at the time of the shooting. Who that would become was a wild card at hat point. AFAIK there were, officially, no leads on the Walker shooting before the JFKA. That rifle was a wild card for the planners. Frazier could have ended up as the patsy if there was not a more convenient schlep to lay the accusation on. The pristine bullet was also a wild card for the planners. Whoever planted that bullet had a few others in his pocket, depending on how things shook-out. There must have been other guns around the plaza in close proximity to other potential patzies. There was probably a pristine Mauser bullet in that pocket for at least the one Mauser rifle that was accidently found and presented at the TSBD. This raises a good question... When was the walker bullet recovered and entered into the evidence of an investigation? I'll have to dig for that. Cheers, Michael

Think what? And, what do you think?