Michael Clark

I think this is a good place to post this.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Ad with regard to 9-11. If there was something awfully nefarious that happened, to create a Pearl Harbor, a Maine incident, or a Tonkin Incident, Trump just may know about it. I don't see how he couldn't. He just may be clean with regard to that as well. I only seriously dug into 9-11 last September. I have questions. I would like answers. Some of the answers are not satisfactory. The arenas for questioning that event are contentious and ugly. So I stay away, but I do have my list of questions. If I knew where and how to get my questions answered I would go there, but I don't. I don't trust the MSM. The alternatives are improving, I think.

I get it Kirk. I am however, trying to stay on topic. I try not to treat this forum like my Facebook timeline. In the "Healthy Scepticism" thread I began to notice that there was anything but healthy scepticism of intelligence agencies being discussed. So I tried to make a few points about that and then left it alone. I recall being rather blunt at one point, I was kind of rude, and I hurt my case but that was my attempt to point out that that thread was, almost from the get-go, beyond the scope of this forum. I'll have to disagree with the characterization of the three subjects above and the potential (wish) for openness as "myopic". Myopic implies pessimism and I doubt that you meant that; it is clear that I was expressing optimism, even if it was the Hail-Mary variety. The Hail-Mary may be all we have, and, with regard to the three "wishes", they are all on-topic. If I were to venture off topic, you would hear a lot of stuff that can be heard in a hundred other places, but, IMHO, they don't belong here, strictly speaking. I kind of wish Paul had given me an ack on some of my points, rather than just throwing the jab. I think that some of the things I mentioned were worthy of an up or down, and what I like about this forum is that more often than not you will get that kind of feedback rather than just typical trolling barbs from miserable people that have nothing better to do or no way of making themselves feel good than throwing stones from behind a computer. One important point I had made, which Paul curtly replied to, was that Trump appears to be relatively clean. I made my points before about Labor and the Mafia etc. There is also no Skull and Bones, maybe their is no secret societies, no Iran-Contra. The guy may never have killed anyone or ordered any one killed. That would be astonishing compared to what I have read in the last few months, in my studies of the last 50 years. What I have read in the last few months is a lesson in power politics and how people get owned and controlled and, eventually, horribly corrupt; to the detriment of American citizens, soldiers and many poor souls who find themselves getting killed. Perhaps Trump is and can avoid that gambit. Perhaps the Intelligence community right now is no different than it was during the BOPI, Vietnam, Iran Contra etc.. Maybe Trump will change that. Maybe he can. Maybe he is clean enough, maybe he is not owned. Maybe he can keep from getting assassinated. Maybe all of this bluster is happening just to satisfy a base to whom he made promises, according to a formula that was put together to win an election. Perhaps things might normalize somewhat once that is done. He obviously craves adulation, he may want to be a hero. But I am repeating myself. Myopic, in the sense of being nearsighted, with regard to the three "wishes"? Yes, because I am staying on topic. I'll not get into full blown, wide-ranging political discussions because it would be off topic. Myopic, In the sense of being pessimistic? I'm the one who is pointing out the potential for a silver lining, but within the focus of this sub-forum, so, no. Am I stupid? No. I understand that there is a lot of fear out there. But let me suggest that there is not "a healthy scepticism of" the media out there. Both the left and right MSM are feeding off that fear. It is dividing families and communities. It's impossible to make a political joke about one side or the other without the hair standing up on someone's neck. Am I dreaming? no. Am I hoping? Yes. Am I optimistic? Not really. Am I Myopic? No, because I am not nearsighted, and I am fighting pessimism. Cheers, Michael

Mr. Caddy finds the best stuff. This was posted on another threads. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/01/29/trump-follows-nixon-nsc-model-except-worse-column/97215090/

Greetings Don. I see your post from today but it just looks like material quoted from earlier in the thread. I dont see anything new. How is your search and book coming? meanwhile, I watched this the other day and it seems to have some relevance...

I get it. And I can also come up, in my head, with other scenarios where WBF still has a hand in it. But, alas, I find myself theorizing about LHO and the TSBD, and I don't think JFK was shot from there. I usually try to avoid this area of the conspiracy but I end up finding my way here anyhow.

$25 to bring a rifle to your work place, where the President is expected to cruise-buy the next day, and become an accessory to the assassination of the President? What kind of assassin would be calling 24 hrs ahead of time, looking for a crappy rifle to shoot a President? And who would involve themselves in such nonsense? I wouldn't take my gun out to shoot a deer without knowing that I could group 5 rounds in a 4" circle at 125 yards. No assassin would just take a rifle like that from a guy and use it to shoot a head of state, and no one would take such an offer seriously.

Based on this logic -- if Frazier had been standing next to LHO (i.e. Prayer Man) on the front steps, it seems absolutely certain he would have insisted upon this testimony. Regards, --Paul Trejo While I am not buying into the romance angle, and after reading Frazier's recent(ish) account, to which I posted a link, I am inclined to agree..... IF that is WBF on the steps. If it is not WBF, PM could still be LHO. Michael

Alistair, no, I thought I had read several differing recollections of the quote earlier in this thread. I just wanted to get the WC testimony quoted.

The JFK assassination research community should work to bring our cause to the attention of Trump; we know that the vast majority of people do not believe the official myth. He may not even be aware of the forthcoming document release. This could make him a hero to many, can he resist? How would we go about this?

Yes, thank you

Thanks Alistair, It also seems to me like someone should have interviewed the lunch truck guy, or nailed down where he got his lunch from. They may have, but I have not seen or heard anything about it. Somewhere I think that I read that he was seen, or claimed to be eating with the colored guys, first or second floor.

The exact wording between lee and Frazier as to what was in the package. It's the third and fourth Line down. I'm trying to highlight it but my iPad seems to want to highlight one word or a whole paragraph.

I'm posting this because there seems to be some confusion on what was said about the package of curtain rods. WC Testimony: Wesley Buell Frazier Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?" And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today." That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that. Mr. BALL - What did the package look like? Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long. Mr. BALL - It was, what part of the back seat was it in? Mr. FRAZIER - It was in his side over on his side in the far back. Mr. BALL - How much of that back seat, how much space did it take up? Mr. FRAZIER - I would say roughly around 2 feet of the seat. Mr. BALL - From the side of the seat over to the center, is that the way you would measure it? Mr. FRAZIER - If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take a few inches. Mr. BALL - How wide was the package? Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I would say the package was about that wide. Mr. BALL - How wide would you say that would be? Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, say, around 5 inches, something like that. 5, 6 inches or there. I don't-- Mr. BALL - The paper, was the color of the paper, that you would get in a grocery store, is that it, a bag in a grocery store? -------------------------- Mr. BALL - What did he do about the package in the back seat when he got out of the car? Mr. FRAZIER - Like I say, I was watching the gages and watched the car for a few minutes before I cut it off. Mr. BALL - Yes. Mr. FRAZIER - He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in. So, eventually there he kept getting a little further ahead of me and I noticed we had plenty of time to get there because it is not too far from the Depository and usually I walk around and watch them switching the trains because you have to watch where you are going if you have to cross the tracks. One day you go across one track and maybe there would be some cars sitting there and there would be another diesel coming there, so you have to watch when you cross the tracks, I just walked along and I just like to watch them switch the cars, so eventually he kept getting a little further ahead of me and by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in front of me but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had plenty of time so I just took my time walking up there. Mr. BALL - Did you usually walk up there together. Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we did. Mr. BALL - Is this the first time that he had ever walked ahead of you? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did. Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him? FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that. Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part-- Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand. Mr. BALL - Right hand? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body? Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down. Representative FORD - Under his right arm? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package? Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word. Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying? Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever. Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper? Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

While retrieving another quote, i came upon this. I though it had some relevance to this thread, if not immediate significance. WC testimony: Wesley Buell Frazier Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning? Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day. Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.

"Buell would later tell the Warren Commission, set up to investigate the shooting, that he didn't think the brown paper package was long enough to be a rifle. To this day he doesn't believe Oswald was carrying a gun. Members of the panel, who included Gerald Ford, later to become 38th President, insisted he must have been mistaken about the brown package carried by Oswald. 'I told them it wasn't big enough to be a rifle, but they said I must have been mistaken,' he said. 'They asked if I was traumatized by the events, but I wasn't. I know what I saw and the package was about two foot in length. I know how long a rifle is and it is not two feet. 'I came under a lot of pressure to change my story, but I refused. I told them what I saw and I know they did not like it.' " http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3326233/I-drove-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-book-depository-don-t-believe-shot-JFK-52-years-assassination-Oswald-s-friend-says-convinced-patsy-real-gunman-grassy-knoll.html