1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Thanks Michael.

Do you think that Michael Clark was picking on me because his impression was that I am one of those "who continue to think Oswald beat his wife?" (Quoting him.)

If that's what he was thinking, no wonder I was taken by surprise reading his post. I actually have a rather high opinion of Oswald, based on everything I've learned about him. I started this thread because I wanted to know what to think when I hear accusations of Oswald's wife beating. I had my doubts, but I wanted to know the truth.

 

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

58 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

..........

I never post long snippets of WC testimony and assume it's all true. For god's sake, I'm constantly challenging the official story and questioning whose testimony is true and whose is false. Don't you pay attention? I'm also one who puts forth hypothesis after hypothesis in carefully laid out threads, and then methodically analyzes them to see if they past muster or not.....

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

15 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

B.A. Copeland,

According to General Walker's personal papers, he knew that LHO was his shooter the weekend after the shooting.

Walker said that someone in a higher office told him that Oswald was caught and then released before midnight.

Walker was convinced that it was LHO.

Regards 

Paul Trejo 

 

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?

41 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Was LHO considered a suspect in the Walker shooting long after the fact? or was it at the time of the shooting itself, as it was being investigated?

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

4 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Oh come on. How could anyone think this.

Think what? And, what do you think?

When I was in college there was a Professor of Philosophy named Robert Garvin. If you were a student in the Humanities, you had hear of him. If it was anywhere near your alley of study, you had to take one of his classes. I took several. That experience with language was one that I could not imagine before attending, and it is one which I imagine that I will never again experience.

While the power of his teachings are beyond my poor-power to add or detract, one particular concept was left embedded in my experience. I'll try to relate that teaching here, watered-down and as unsophisticated as I am able.

The infinite qualifies the finite.

Good defines evil.

Suffering is meaningless without prosperity.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

The human emotion, quality and distinct experience of love is defined by everything that threatens it. So yes, we have criminals and murderers and all sorts of people capable of unmentionable acts to thank for the experiences that we cherish and yearn-for.

If we did not have to protect and look out for our mate and our offspring, we would be no different than a snake which gives birth to a live brood and slithers away. What fun would that be?

Cheers,

Michael

PS I am not trying to get away with the obvious quote-theft, above. I'll leave it unattributed as a little nugget to be discovered by a reader.

***edit 4-6-17***: I learned that my beloved Professor Garvin passed away last year....

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/timesunion-albany/obituary.aspx?pid=180699296

 

On May 27, 2010 at 1:59 AM, John Simkin said:

As a new member you might not be aware of this thread.

Welcome David Joseph's,!

xal-xa-xa !!!

IMO, The hair on the necks of the high-level planners stood-up, during the Kennedy-Nixon debate, when JFK said that the upcoming challenge was with those who wanted to make the world "half-slave"..

Edwin Kaiser's Covert Life: And His Little Black Book Linking Cuba, Watergate and the JFK Assassination

 

Edwin Benjamin Kaiser was a thrill-seeking patriot who became enmeshed with many of America’s biggest conspiracies, the full significance of which is pieced together and explored in this exciting account by his son, Scott Kaiser. Through handwritten letters and contact book entries left by Edwin Kaiser, and a bevy of discovered government documents, an exciting puzzle forms around the life of a man who was at once a patriot, an arms smuggler, a revolutionary leader, an assassin, and a husband and father. In the 1970s Edwin was the military head of an anti-Castro movement called Cubanos Unidos, and during his life he was frequently in contact with Frank Sturgis—during which time Edwin confessed to the author an assassination plot against President Nixon and confirmed Sturgis’ role in the death of JFK. This thrilling mix of paramilitary bravado, government conspiracy, family history, and firsthand anecdote shows how Edwin Kaiser was willing to lay it all on the line to accomplish what he thought was right.

On 2/13/2017 at 8:41 PM, Paul Trejo said:

For the WC, the only undisputed eye-witnesses were Marina and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt.  (George DM heard Jeanne DM exclaim when she saw it, but he was too shocked to walk over to see it -- instead he made a nervous joke to LHO.)

After that, we have Ron Lewis in New Orleans during the summer of 1963, as he claims (1993) he saw LHO carrying it one day.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, it's clear that you are aware of the facts. In fact, your above post, to some extent, truncated my search.

Cheers,

Michael

6 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh Come on!

Sandy, i should have known this was going to happen.  PT did the same thing several months ago when this came up.  He started smearing Robert when he was not here to defend himself.

Ms. Kathy Beckett was nice enough to actually fish out Robert's excellent work in its original form.  As I said it is really a tour de force.

So I would ask, can she do that again in deference to all the fine work that Robert did for this site?

I am curious. 

James, your reference to Mr. dunne's presence was a bit cryptic, and I find little new info on him. Will you elaborate?

Ten years, worthy of a bump.

9 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

I'm making every effort to be careful about the WC testimony --

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

Again -- I am saying that LHO did not kill JFK and did not even shoot at him.  Yet I am also saying that LHO knew who did it.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, you ask a few questions above. I have no problem answering them. However, that is all off topic for this thread.

Cheers, 

Michael

51 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

George heard that Jeanne saw the rifle in the other room, and then he made a joke to Oswald about it.  That's in the WC testimony.  I'm repeating what's there, since some readers here have evidently not read the WC testimony.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Your repeating a latter day Novella. If you were repeating the WC Testimony it would look like this:

13 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

I derive that drama from George DeMohrenschildt's manuscript, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy! (1977)

George's drama is also supported by Volkmar Schmidt (who is named in George's manuscript) in a YouTube video for the PBS Frontline special, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?"

In that video, Volkmar Schmidt confesses that he worked overtime at an engineer's party to convince Lee Harvey Oswald that General Walker was "as bad as Hitler."

This is also cited in George's manuscript.

The drama arises like with a historical context -- the General Walker shooting occurred on 4/10/1963, and it was the buzz of Dallas all week.  Then we move to a question -- why did George and Jeanne DM visit the Oswalds after 10 PM on 4/13/1963, bang the door to get them out of bed, so that Jeanne could take a "tour" of their apartment?

Instantly after Jeanne "found" the Oswald rifle and shouted it out to George, George DM asked Lee Oswald, "Lee, did you take that potshot at General Walker?"

The context is clear to me.  It puzzles me why it isn't clear to everybody.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

The WC testimony is an historical document. It was created to cover the trail of the assassins. George De Mohrenshildts later "Drama" is used to further convict LHO, and cover the trail of the assassins.

Using The WC testimony is appropriate, however you want to argue. Using the latter day fiction of George De Mohrenschildt to exonerate him, while convicting Oswald, is dubious.

Posing fiction as fact, and purporting to be a researcher is lower than dubious.

Cheers,

Michael