Michael Clark

On January 31, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Alistair,

The reason Captain Will Fritz contradicted himself in his re-telling of the LHO dialog is because Captain Will Fritz was lying as fast as a race car.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I'm not sure if this point was mentioned and isolated so I'll post it. Sorry if this is repeated.

Fritz said that LHO told him that he had brought his lunch, and had it with him in the front seat or at his side while driving with Frazier.

Frazier said that LHO did not bring a lunch with him. 

It seems clear to me who would be telling the truth here, and who would have a motive to lie. It seems to me like Frazier is telling the truth.

Cheers,

Michael

11 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Yes, Michael -- except that the assassination was one conspiracy, and the cover-up was a completely different conspiracy, with different players and different purposes.

Regards,
--Paul Tr

i already said that. .... no "Yes, Michael -- except......"

8 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I know where your heading Paul. JFK wanted the movie made to show the danger of a military takeover. He talked to Kirk Douglas about his being cast. But it wasn't out until a few months after his death. Interestingly enough the character that played what would be JFK's Curtis Le Maye was Burt Lancaster, who later was one of the plotters in Executive Action, the first dramatic movie about the JFK assassination. I watched it again on youtube a few years ago and I thought the actor Will Geer reminded me of Allan Dulles, but his part as a conspirator was not the same.

LeMay

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Yet, perhaps, we will hear from Marina Nikoayevna Prusakova soon.

A woman who knew Lee Harvey Oswald and George De Mohreschildt, Michael Paine (and wife) well. Wouldn't that be something?

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

 I agree with the most recent point of view you expressed, which is that the murder of JFK changed the course of our history in completely negative ways.

Quote me, or I didn't say it.

Yet, perhaps, we will hear from Marina Nikoayevna Prusakova soon.

12 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Dorothy Kilgallen did write that about Marina Oswald.  Along with a lot of other critics of the Warren Commission.

That other snippet you have from Simkin turned out to be false.  Florence Smith did not have the Kilgallen JFK file.

Thanks Jim, I am digging through old EF stuff.

51 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

Have you read Seth Kantor's book, Who Was Jack Ruby? (1985)

iMHO, this is the best book on the topic.

For Seth, Jack Ruby was a stooge for the Dallas cops.

Regards,

--Paul 

No, but thank you Paul. I don't think I'll have much time for anything other than original sources at this point. Also, reading books will only contaminate my information as I gather it from the sources. I can always contaminate it later. 

What is amusing is that I am, involuntarily, developing a stage-play in my head. It's quite entertaining. It lends itself to a partial musical-angle as well. There is nothing like creative ardor that flows without having to force it.

Cheers, 

Mike

***edit, to be sure, I am reading many articles and, obviously forum posts, so I can't claim that I am just reading original sources.

43 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - I want to be clear my list wasn't aimed at you. Since you responded I engaged. How long have you been interested in the JFK assassination? What have you read about it?

What list?

Paul, If you were an admin who had serious concerns about my identity or intentions I would be glad to answer you. If this were a matter of friendly "hi, how ya doin. Nice to meet ya"' banter, I would, likewise have no problem answering your questions. As it is, however, you have posted a thread about the forum being "infiltrated" and you are now quizzing me on that thread. There is no chance that I'll be submitting to your questions under these circumstances. 

Have you looked at my profile, and read through my posts, and come up with anything to lead you to think that I am "infiltrator"? What is more, I recall defending you, not long ago, when someone suggested that you were a Marxist and subtly suggested that you were lyxxg about it. Do you recall that? Has the role of the Grand Inqusitor been handed off to someone else? 

To be sure I have stated twice, perhaps thrice, once in reply to YOUR inquiry, that I did not vote for a particular candidate. Rest assured I will never do that again.

Cheers,

Mike

From the above article: "In another of her stories, Kilgallen claimed that Marina Oswald knew a great deal about the JFK assassination. If she told the “whole story of her life with President Kennedy’s alleged assassin, it would split open the front pages of newspapers all over the world.”

"Life Magazine also successfully negotiated with Marina Oswald the exclusive rights to her story. This story never appeared in print."

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

Perhaps we'll be hearing from Marina soon.

I think Paul, that people have come to believe that they can figure out what "school" a person comes from in just a few minutes, a short conversation, or what memes they give a "like" or repost. I kind of think that that is true, for the most part. I don't style myself as the "politically mysterious guy", I don't wave flags or banners, put bumper stickers on my car or repeat what talking heads are saying. I have always been politically ambiguous to myself and people around me. If I register in a party it is because I want to vote in that party's primary. Come Election Day, I vote for my choice of candidate.

In today's political climate, asking someone where they get there news is like asking someone how they vote, how much they make, whether they pray and how they pray, etc. I don't ask and I don't answer those questions unless it is a friend, but a friend will already know those things. I am fine with being judged here on what topics I address and how I address them. I'm not ok with being judged by where I get my news or who I vote for. This forum is concerned with the JFK assassination. The garden variety politics I don't involve myself with, unless there is some relationship to the topic at hand. Rarely do I add my 2 cents if it does not have relevance to the forum subject. I think that is the way it should be.

Cheers, 

Mike

8 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - what do you read for information? 

Gambit declined.

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Who is JR?

Jack Ruby

Ray Mitcham wrote:

"Wasn't there dispute over the  chin of Oswald  in the BY photos?

Yes. And the whole "two Oswalds" debate carries similar arguments. One characteristic of the "other" Oswald is an ornery nature. I think the guy in the link I just posted fits that description IIRC. To be sure, one reason I posted this here is the guys ability to make his way down elevator shafts, especially if the power has been shut off, and if by chance the elevator is on the 7th floor of a 7 floor building.

Cheers, 

Michael

11 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Lets hear what you have to say about Steve Bannon being appointed to the NSC. How many of you think this is some kind of necessary house cleaning? You don't drain the swamp by inundating it with the biggest alligators around. If you support Bannon, or Muslim banning, you are a racist, pure and simple. And you need to read up on the Weimar Republic.

I have no television. I watch no television. I have lived that way for many years with only a couple of brief exceptions. I know how clueless I come across to many people. Without television, or without following Bannon by reading his stuff or visiting his websites, it is more possible than you can imagine, to not have a clue as to what he is about. 

What people who watch TV cannot imagine is how clear it Is to me how much the MSM is dividing and tearing us apart. 

If I am one of the unnamed subjects of your post, I'll say how clear it is to me that many, nearly all people today, are not comfortable unless they can put someone in their left or right pocket. Avoiding TV as I do, I have not been radicalized one way other, so I don't fit in any pocket, right or left.

Being a long time sceptic of the media, intelligence services and criminal administrations, I would applaud anyone who is successfull at knocking down and tearing apart the latter two entities that I just mentioned.

I do wish that this administration would do something to minimize the fear felt by people on the left. 

Killyourtelevision

Michael

I think this is a good place to post this.

25 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

(IMO we have already shown-but not proven- that it was a conspiracy)

Conspiracy is written all over every aspect of the assassination and the cover-up, IMO

19 minutes ago, Henrik Fendt said:

I have wondered for a long time if Oswald's entire role in the plot was to deliver the rifle to the TSBD and nothing else (in his own mind at least)? IMO that would explain the brown package (if we assume that Frazier is wrong about the size) and it would also explain why Oswald could be another place in the building at the same time as the shooting.

I find it difficult to believe that a conspiracy of this magnitude would revolve around LHO changing his Thursday routine to get home and return to the TSBD on Friday with a rifle sitting on the back seat of WBF's car, and then walking into work, with WBF, with the rifle under his arm. 

7 minutes ago, Henrik Fendt said:

Thank you very much for your detailed reply Alistair, much appreciated. The reason I joined this forum is because I feel (like many of us I'm sure) that my mind won't come to rest until the JFK murder is totally solved - will it ever be, or has it already been? But now I feel my mind won't come to rest until I know who Prayer Man is, so I guess that would have to be step number 1 on my way to rest my mind  

May I suggest, Hendrik, that the focus on LHO is not a very productive endeavor. LHO was meant to be and always has been a distraction. It makes perfect sense that proving that LHO didn't or could not have done it would be huge milestone, but I don't think that really leads to who did do it. If, for example, Frazier came out and said that PM is Oswald, then everyone would need to shift gears and turn to the next question. You don't need to exonerate LHO before you shift those gears and turn. Right now, my focus is on JR and his host of characters and what they were doing between between 7AM on 11-22 and 8PM on 11-23. It looks like fertile ground to me. Reading the WC testimonies is a good place to look. IMHO

Cheers, 

Michael

"In 1965 Dorothy Kilgallen managed to obtain a private interview with Jack Ruby. She told friends that she had information that would "break the case wide open". Aware of what had happened to Bill Hunter and Jim Koethe, Kilgallen handed her interview notes to Florence Smith.

On 8th November, 1965, Dorothy Kilgallen, was found dead in her New York apartment. She was fully dressed and sitting upright in her bed. The police reported that she had died from taking a cocktail of alcohol and barbiturates. The notes of her interview with Jack Ruby and the article she was writing on the case had disappeared. Florence Smith, died two days later of a cerebral hemorrhage. Her son, Earl Smith III, said that she had been suffering from leukemia."

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKsmithF.htm

deleted... humorous context lost

22 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Your so bent on this image you have of a CTer friendly President, you seem to pass off everything he's actually doing.

And how can you say that I am "so bent"? I am not bent. I was clear that it was a very long-shot hypothesis. How many times do I have to say things like: "maybe, just maybe" to make it clear that I am not trying to make a serious assertion? The title of this thread is a stretch, how can any connection be made between the JFK assassination and Trump? The thread was opened to point out that Trump will be the president when records are supposed to be realeased. Not much more can be said. So the thread turned to typical political issues that have nothing to do with JFK. I made a very tentative observation and was clear about it being tentative. Saying that I am bent on this is a demonstration of ill will, poor form, and a complete distortion of what I said. I'll just repeat that I was the one who tried to stay on topic and maintain some relevance to the forum objective. At this point it should be obvious that I am looking for some acknowledgement of that, if only as a gesture of good will.

7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Trump will not be helping shed light on our nefarious past any time soon, and he knows nothing.

Intentionally or not, he appears to be putting himself in a position where he could if he were so inclined. HRC would not have done it. kasich could not have done it. Bernie would likeley have been killed trying to do it.

Kirk, my bad on the Myopic definition. I was sure that I looked it up a few months ago when writing something. So, for the purpose of interpreting my statement above, please keep in mind my misunderstanding of the definition.

What you are doing does not pass one of my basic tests for personal action or behavior. That test is: "Would you want everyone to do as your are doing?" If everyone on this forum engaged in the discussion that you want to engage in, the thread would be closed. If the the thread were not closed this place would be chaotic and ugly.

I am being persued by you partly BECAUSE my comments were limited to the topic. You say that I don't have any idea of what you are referring to, and list all the things that I can dIscuss if I wanted to demonstrate that I did know what you are referring to.

I thought I had more to say but I am repeating myself. I made some good points before and went into some depth with my perspective. I gave you enough where you could have acknowledged a couple important points that I made, most importantly acknowledging that I am remaining on-topic and not willing to muddy-up a forum that I like by engaging in a discourse which it was not meant to host.

I see that you are very much a political guy, and you believe that that all things can be understood through the perspective you have developed. I looked through your postings and you are not really here to explore the JFK assassination. You are here largely for the little concurrent political banter that does arise. I am not at all about any of that, not on this forum anyway. I have places and times where I discuss those things. I just don't do it here, for the most part.

It's kind of funny that I am being taken to task for staying on subject, and NOT delving into everyday political banter.

So Kirk, it seems like you have a scorecard with my name on it, and you are having a hard time filling it out, checking boxes and  grading me. That means I have done well. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that you file unknowns in the bad guy bin. That's unfortunate, but it seems par for the course these days; everyone is expected to carry their political mop and bucket wherever they go and get to work. I'll avoid doing that in places like this.

Cheers, Mike