Michael Clark

Bill, Allistair, I get it. It's bad form to post like I did. Some members go into great detail with their observations. It is only when I don't go into detail that it doesn't feel right. It does feel good when you provide the documentation and stick with hypotheses that your documentation can support. It's just frustrating when you give the conspirators all the benefit of the doubt when they have the weight of all levels and quarters of the government helping them run. 

23 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mike,

Yet consider it from the viewpoint of the DPD cops who actually testified for the WC.......

....... It is actually possible, since Baker-Truly both testified that they lost some time at the 1st floor elevator.)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

To me, Baker looks more like he is running by than running to the steps. I just look at sandy's argument and make a decision as to how it looks to me; I try not to get too into it.

As far as testimony goes, I don't want to call anyone a prevaricotor, but the WCR as a unit is a lie and there is too much solid info that there was tremendous fear, intimidation pressure and outright falsification, omission and deletion of accounts to just accept everyone's story at face value. There were enough people there, looking and pointing at the TSBD to influence Baker's actions. 

I cant discount the story of the  5th floor guys eating lunch who heard shots fired, the ceiling shake and dumping debris on them to not think that a gun was fired as a diversion, and part of the set-up, on the 6th floor.

Prayer man looks like LHO to me, he looks like he is chatting with Frazier. I can't believe that Frazier was unaware of anyone standing in that position. LHO said he was on the steps at the time. Frazier going to the basement to eat lunch is bizarre. He is too close to Oswald to believe, without solid evidence, that he was not wrapped up in all of this somehow. No one would be able to put a gun in my car, and tell me it was curtain rods, without me knowing better or at least being suspicious.

Perhaps Frazier was helping a conspirator from the basement, maybe dealing with guns, or providing communications from the phone distribution board in the basement. It just doesn't make sense that he went down there for lunch at that time. His body language doesn't jibe with how an innocent man would look or act at that time. 

I know other forum members are much more careful and detailed when presenting an argument, and that is good. I'm not presenting an argument. I'm just making observations that are not studied. Observations can be helpful in finding truths and eliminating non truths. Certainly you can't eliminate a point or possibility that has not been considered.

Cheers, Mike

Thanks Paul. I've been re-reading Newman's presentation(s) today and find it difficult to feel like I get it. It's more the format than anything. I can see that what he is saying and what you are saying do not jibe with each other, but are using much of the same info. If you would be so kind as to link Simpich's work and any larger explanation of your work, it would be interesting to read them concurrently. I find that there is no better way to get an understanding of what something IS, than to get an understanding of what something IS NOT. A triangulation of related if if divergent theories will definitely fill them all out better than reading just one, or reading them in series, hoping I get to them all.

Thanks again, and I hope you don't mind my tasking you with the link requests. I can and will search for them but I can't be sure to find exactly what you are referring to, or with regard to your own work, the most relevant or complete work as it relates to this discussion.

Cheers, 

Mike

To be sure, my interest in the Southland Center comes from a couple things. The first is that my renewed interest in the assassination story was sparked by seeing Wynn Johnsons video. Regardless of the repercussions to the field of research into the assassination or lack thereof, I find it to be a charming, romantic story about kids, being kids, falling in love and being innocent. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to them, they are witnessing a historical event of gargantuan and draconian proportions. It's just an an amazing story. Then I had to look up who DAP was and whoosh, I got sucked down the rabbit hole. The last I delved into the assassination story was prior to the internet, and the amount of info readily available now is astonishing in comparison. Back in the day, I had a book, and a friend had a book and we swapped books at one point, and that was it.

The second point of interest is that I read George Senator's testimony because he had local ties, Gloversville, NY. Then I though I was on to something with the whole Ruby, Crafard, Senator visit to the Southland Cafe. I was not aware until today that the Southland Center cafe had long since been identified as the place for the DAP/LHO/AV meeting. So now Wynne Johnsons story is far less interesting because it does not add anything new, whereas before I thought that it did. 

As to the photos above. It looks more like Bush than it does not. But he looks to be too young. I'm no photo analyst so I'll leave it at that. 

Because this is kind of a pet subject of mine, and in the interest of keeping an old thread updated, I'll note a few things.

George Senator, when asked where he, Ruby and Crafard stopped for coffee after taking pictures of billboards in the middle of the night, places the location of the Southland hotel cafe as "off Commerce st., just down from the Adolphus Hotel" (quote may not be exact)

larry Crafard places it off commerce but does not name it.

Jack White, on another thread, said he believed that the cafe they stopped at was another hotel, called The Southland, near the police station. He called it a "copshop" but wasn't sure. He reference the Mary Ferrelll website for that info, albeit nonspecifically.

Cheers

 Michael

On 2/10/2006 at 3:12 PM, William Kelly said:

That's all very interesting.

If the Sheraton is adjacent to or part of the Southland Complex, there's an all night coffee shop where Jack Ruby and Larry Crafard stopped for a break after taking photos of the Impeach Earl Warren billboard on the night of the assassinaton.

The Southland lobby is also where LHO met with DAP/MB and Antonio Vechiana, which was an incredible breach of tradecraft or deliberate.

Also, if Oswald didn't leave the TSBD in a Rambler, but as the official story claims, walked east four blocks, if he kept going straight he would end up at the Sheraton/Southland, possibly his original destination.

BK

Interesting. I didn't know that, back in 2006, the Southland Canter was identified as the location for the meeting with LHO, DAP and Veciana. I had believed that Veciana only identified it as "an office building" and that Wynn Johnson was the first to identify the location.

On February 4, 2006 at 11:41 PM, Chuck Robbins said:

Thank you, Robert.

The phone number you provided for the Sheraton caught my attention. Attached is an image of a note recovered from Jack Ruby's place.

I realize that Jack Ruby could have had that number for any number of reasons.

What bothers me is that there seems to have been ZERO effort to obtain an explanation from Ruby re: who he was in contact with at the Sheraton and at what time.

I wish this attachment was still available. Does anyone have this attachment or know what it was?

Thanks for the clarification, Mr. James D.

The executive order reversal around the weekend of 11-22-63 has forever been a part of my understand of the explanation for the assassination. It never lapsed from my memory in the 25 years that I had paid no attention to the subject. I am surprised that it seems to be such an obscure subject today.

To be sure, I have figured-out that I am on a forum that includes great and accomplished writers, researchers, and people with storied backgrounds and experiences. I gravitated to this forum, exclusively, because I got sick of the nastiness of other forums and you-tube commentery. Hopefully I'll have a job again soon and won't be interjecting myself so frequently in a debate among the accomplished heavy-hitters that make this such a great place.

This is probably the presentation.

http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/newman_1.html

i guess I have been wanting to see "John Newman's WWIII Virus Theory Explained" somewhere, but it is not out there, or presented as such.

Cheers, Michael

I should just read the book. Here is a thread with some if not all the info. I'll have to read, or re-read this.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/7952-john-m-newman/

Larry, I will look for that transcription again. 

I, here, tried to elaborate but kept deleting my sentences because it is pointless for me to recall from memory something I read when I first delved into this whole thing a few months ago.

Briefly, Algleton deliberately ("diabolically") inserted information into Oswald's file which would, at the time of the assassination, lead to two choices... WW3, or a cover up of a conspiracy, because of intelligence failures involved. I can't say that the LN scenario was specifically envisioned.

Would you, please, direct me to some of the reading that you mention? I have been looking for a more accessible source for Newman's transcribed presentation; It includes all the "er"'s "ahh"'s "ahem"'s and directives to the overhead projector operator that make it a difficult read.

I am surprised that I can't just Google "Newman's WWIII virus" and come up with a clean copy of the presentation, essay or blog. I hope my recollection here is not so far off as to render my recollection as purely "making stuff up". I have read it twice, and on several occasions looked for a better copy.

Cheers,

Michael

I'll just add here a reference to John Newmanns WW3 virus theory. It gets little mention on this forum and that surprises me. It is a plausible explanation as to why the SBT and LN theory was accepted so quickly. Indeed, it proposes that the LN theory was manufactured and planted months in advance such that it would bear fruit at the time of the assassination. I won't link the version I did find because it is a difficult to follow transcript of a presentation that Newman made years ago. I hope that someone has, finds and will share a better source for that theory.

Cheers,

Michael

9 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

With all due respect - and I mean that - this again is conspiracy logic.  It's the classic "post hoc" ("confusing cause and effect") fallacy.  Yes, many different people and groups benefitted from the assassination of JFK.  This is why a host of different conspiracy theories are plausible.  The logical fallacy is to assume that because these people and groups benefitted from the assassination, one or more of them must have caused the assassination.  It assumes a connection that is not necessarily there.  I can't tell you how many people have said to me, "Want to know who killed JFK?  Look at who benefitted."  Wrong.  Your post is one small example, but most of the conspiracy theories are riddled with this "dot connecting" logical fallacy.  I realize that even mentioning the Lone Nut theory is like waving a red flag in front of a bull around here, but this is one thing that impresses me about the theory - it does flow from point A to B to C with a minimum of speculation and logical fallacies.  This is precisely why people are fans of murder mysteries - they invite you to commit the post hoc fallacy and reach an "obvious" conclusion, only to find out at the end you were dead wrong.

The follow the money logic is not conspiratorial logic. It is a simple excercise to develop leads. Few if any people say that everyone that benefited from the assassination are guilty unless it is just a notional based on the fact that we have a cover-up and the beneficiaries turn a blind eye. Indeed it is a fair charge that anyone with a responsibility to expose the truth that does not do so, is complicit in a Coup. The impossibility of the SBT, the urtter inadequacy of  WC investigation, the fact that the WC stated up front that they reserved the right to alter and delete testimony, the fact that the FBI altered witness accounts and numerous other facts spell-out that there was a conspiracy. It's not a virus of weak minded people infecting their logic. It is the fact that we are being lied to about a seminal, nay, terminal event in US history. Of course the LN/WC/SBT theory nicely "flows from point A to B to C with the minimum of speculation..". That's the point. It was pre-packaged for mass consumption.

LBJ didn't believe the SBT, neither did Hoover, Boggs, Richard Russell, Conally and the vast majority of the American people. The LBJ tapes are a great source because you can hear these men, in their own voice saying that it's impossible. So CT'ers have the principals in the cover-up, the beneficiaries and possibly even the players saying it just ain't so. There is no flawed logic necissarily in the thinking of CT'ers.

Cheers,

Michael

On January 25, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

Harry Dean told me a lot about his personal experiences as a member of Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement when he was in Chicago, Illinois in 1959-1960.   

............................................................

In conclusion -- there was a time -- perhaps short-lived -- when FPCC officers were welcomed into Havana Cuba with open arms.  It didn't last, and perhaps Harry Dean was among the last of that old guard.   That's how I interpret the events.  The Lopez Report correctly expresses the mood of the Mexico City Consulates and Embassy's about LHO -- LHO was a joke.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Thanks for the reply Paul.

I guess I have some beliefs that I carry, or at least have not eliminated yet, which don't allow me to see all of that as possible or likely. In regard to this particular issue, I still have not ruled out a second Oswald, or at least an impersonator that really does not look like Lee, such as the blonde guy in pictures in MC, being the Oswald that raised a stink at the consulate. It becomes a question of intelligence. Like his ability to shoot a gun, LHO's intelligence is portrayed on one end of the spectrum and then the next.

I guess that being in the company of guys like DAP and AV, he might have been suficiently impressed to believe that he was truly making his way up the chain with spooks. Even if he did not know exactly who they were, these guys would have had a presence that could have impressed him enough to try to get into Cuba. But I still question whether he believed that would be possible. It seems just as, if not more likely that, if they knew he would fail, then it would have been simple enough to tell him that, and instruct him to, make a visible display of disappointment, as did actually happen.

As usual, I ask a question, I get answers from knowledgeable folks like you, and it just gets more complicated.

ill just keep searching.

Thanks again, 

Mike

It's a book I will have to read. 

I've been absorbed in academic religious studies since my second year of college. After graduation I no longer spent much time on the eastern relogions that so fascinated me in college. My focus has been on Roman and Greek Pagan, Abrahammic and Egyptian Religion. The discussion in earlier posts, especially about the Gospel of Thomas, is riveting for me. I did not see the "Q" document, Markan priority or two-source theories for the gospels mentioned, but it's fascinating, and you don't get paranoid about Lance's angry UFC relatives and mobsters coming after you for dissing their ancestors on the internet.

Regarding the role of the early church in shaping Christian Dogma, my deep and detailed studies of Roman religion put that and my own experience growing up as a Catholic into a manageable and coherent perspective. I though I was a good rebel as a teen while still maintaining an open mind towards religion and religious community and it's place in my life. I found that I was wrong, and only recently have I truly separated the wheat from the chaffe of my religious upbringing.

It was suggested that perhaps this conversation move elsewhere and I am interested in reading and being part of that. I would definitely follow the conversation, and I would be glad to lead and get it started but I would bet that I would find myself hanging out their alone. The Gospel of Thomas is a great place to start.

Cheers, Mike

From Huckleberry Finn

Sometimes we'd have that whole river all to ourselves for the longest time. Yonder was the banks and the islands, across the
water; and maybe a spark--which was a candle in a cabin window; and sometimes on the water you could see a spark or two--on a raft or a scow, you know; and maybe you could hear a fiddle or a song coming over from one of them crafts. It's lovely to live on a raft. We had the sky up there, all speckled with stars, and we used to lay on our backs and look up at them, and discuss about whether they was made or only just happened. Jim he allowed they was made, but I allowed they happened; I judged it would have took too long to make so many. Jim said the moon could a laid them; well, that looked kind of reasonable, so I didn't say nothing against it, because I've seen a frog lay most as many, so of course it could be done. We used to watch the stars that fell, too, and see them streak down. Jim allowed they'd got spoiled and was hove out of the nest. . .

It's from a play, but a favorite that will always stick with me.

From Shakespeare's "The Tempest"

PROSPERO

Abhorred slave,
Which any print of goodness wilt not take,
Being capable of all ill! I pitied thee,
Took pains to make thee speak, taught thee each hour
One thing or other: when thou didst not, savage,
Know thine own meaning, but wouldst gabble like
A thing most brutish, I endow'd thy purposes
With words that made them known. But thy vile race,
Though thou didst learn, had that in't which
good natures
Could not abide to be with; therefore wast thou
Deservedly confined into this rock,
Who hadst deserved more than a prison.

CALIBAN

You taught me language; and my profit on't
Is, I know how to curse. The red plague rid you
For learning me your language!

I was just thinking about presidential term limits, and I had to refresh myself regarding which amendment governed that. It is the twenty second amendment. And, as Is typical for me, whenever I am engaged in focused, extensive study, all things tend to swing into that orbit, whether they belong there or not, and I have to weed those items out.

So I read through the twenty second amendment and I went to weed it out of the JFK assassination orbit. I realized it may have a place, at least it may be toyed with to see if it has a place in this debate. I earlier, in this thread, stated that I saw the begininnings of the conspiracy start at the time of the Nixon-Kennedy debate.

Please remember that I am just toying with this.....

It occurred to me that, if that time frame for the beginning of the plot is correct, the 22nd amendment would have or could have some affect on when the assassination would be carried out. And, WHEN it was carried out would or could carry some indication as to who might have, or who would not have done it when t was done.

As it was, JFK had served more than two years when he was shot. Therefore, LBJ was entitled to run for president in the 64, and 68 election. This timing puts points onto LBJ's scorecard as a likely perp. This also takes points off the scorecard of a right-wing, Walker/Bircher or southern conservative perpetrators scorecard. As far as the MICC goes it's probably a wash if they felt that they could get the economic, budget and foreign policies that they wanted out of him. It's also possible that he was owned and could be manipulated and controled due to the fact that they had him buried so deeply under his own dirt that they could get what they wanted or get rid of him when they wanted.

It's not a well developed theory. It's just a set of some hasty observations, with a host of suppositions, that I thought I would share while reading about the 22nd amendment.

Cheers, Mike

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

.......  They knew what was supposed to happen in Mexico City, but they didn't tell LHO.  They just drove on into the thick of it.  They knew LHO was set-up to fail (and that Morales would impersonate him afterwards) and then they would drive LHO back to Dallas.

The Lopez Report (2003) reveals the facts.  LHO took to Mexico City a pitiful resumé to "prove" he was an FPCC Officer.  It was well-known that Fidel Castro loved the FPCC, and gave them instant entrance into Havana anytime they wanted it.  Anyway, this was what Guy Banister told LHO, and LHO evidently believed it.  LHO really believed he was going to be handed this "instant visa" to Havan

I have some doubts about that. That Cuba would let Anericans into Cuba, willy-nilly, seems doubtful to me. If he wanted to actually end up in Cuba legitimately, he would have made some kind of contact. And he would have had such contacts throughly the FPCC. If he wanted to transit through Cuba to Russia, he had those contacts as well. They would not have said, "sure comrade hop on the next plane, and we'll send you right on to Russia".

In Castro's HSCA statement, he said that Cuba was locked down tight to Americans. You say that Banister knew that to be true. Oswald would have known it as well.

He went there to be seen and identified and remembered, by everyone. He never intended to go to Russia. He never intended to be allowed to transit through; and he never intended to stay in Cuba after the first transit leg. IMO

Cheers, Mike

23 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

All the CIA-did-it CTers have for argument's anymore are INSULTS.

It is a dying CT. Obviously.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

 

Painting a vase with a Mop again.

Paul, I don't see a lot of people offering the kind of ridicule that you do, with the frequency that you do.

I am not seeing how you benefit from it unless, like LHO handing out FPFC pamphlets, you just want to be known as the champion for a particular cause when all is said and done.

Cheers, Michael

Today I happened upon an article entitled "The incredible story of Mike Robinson" and I read it. I just came upon this thread and ran a search (of just this thread) for "Mike Robinson". The search came up blank. I don't have time to read this whole thread right now, but I figured I would post the article here in case it is as relevant as the thread title suggests.

http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-incredible-story-of-mike-robinson.html

Paul Trejo wrote:

"If (and only if) we take the non-published, fictional work by David Atlee Phillips, The AMLASH Legacy (1988), as somewhat autobiographical, then we can say that Phillips was definitely part of the Mexico City plot.

However -- taking Phillips' account at face value -- it is clear that Phillips himself, like most people at 544 Camp Street, was outside the loop. "

Paul, if you see a mistake or some ambiguity in the above, please clarify or correct it if you are so inclined. I have done a few re-reads of that and I am seeing two postulations that are in direct contradiction of one another. I'll do a few more re-reads but I am close to giving up.

Cheers, Mike