Michael Clark

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

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

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

I would think that If these things were true, it would have been used to control the Them and they would not have had to be killed. This is not to say that they were clean, only that they didn't have enough to control the Kennedys without murdering them. These accusations look more like an expos-facto, manufactured justifications and a means to keep those so influenced from looking for both the real answers and justice.

Do you think this could have been done without David Attlee Phillips being privy to the Mexico plan? I'll read up on that point but it seems unlikely from what I think I know. I think Howard Hunt would have to have known as well, but I will do some re-reading on that as well. And Paul wrote: "(28) Why not just wait for the JFK Information Act in October, 2017 and take a rest? Because, I believe it will be too much of a shock for many Americans to read the truth, unless they are prepared for it." The problem with waiting is that "The Great Conspracy-Theorist Purge" may come soon, and the records left sealed. It is a race to figure it out before that happens.

It's more of a symbolic than a specific culprit, although UFC has the convenience of tying-in the Dulles Brothers and John Cabot Lodge, who's fingerprints are often claimed to be detected on some of the evidence. I've also come to think that Francis Ford Coppola is trying to tell us the samething with the oranges that seem to appear in many scenes, especially in the one where Michael is sucking on a half-peeled orange when he is insisting that even the president can be hit if they decided to do it. Traditionally, the New Orleans mob's main racket was in the fruit business, so that is a convenient place to see a culprit. Again, and not just to be sensitive to Lance and his families deep ties to death, destruction, and desire for world domination , I note that the UFC angle is largely notional, but it has the Guatemala Coup as a handy reference point. Mike

Lance Payette wrote: "The problem being, so many people and groups would have been delighted to see JFK dead that you can (and others have) construct about ten different "plots," each with some level of believability and its own motivation and cast of characters. What one believes the plot was is inevitably going to determine when one thinks the plot began to unfold - and then we're off to the races. In the real world, conspiracies inevitably rely on the absolute minimum of participants, the absolute minimum of opportunities for things to unravel. That would be my starting premise with JFK. " ---------------------------- I wrote this in another thread. It it is quite the opposite of Lance's suggested requirements in that it indicts pretty much everyone. Including lover's of peanut-butter-and-banana sandwiches..... ".......I have not yet reached a conclusion. Most recently, however, one realization has led me to see it as an "Organic" (if I may) conspiracy. That realization came from finally having an answer to a question that I have had for a long time. The question was "why weren't the Kennedy's more vocal about the the facts surrounding the assassination?" The quick and easy answer is that there was too much dirt on them that would be exposed. Stretch that out a bit, or a lot, a whole lot, and I am seeing that the whole mess of them are really all gangsters. If you cut into someone else's racket, you get whacked. So, RFK, Teddy, Jackie and their throng all understood that it was all just the way things work in the world that they lived in. I think of The Godfather somewhat when it is repeated that it is just "business". They all just move on. JFK didn't really accept that, and believed that the world could be made better, more fair, and more just. That threatened a lot of rackets. Wars and the businesses that wars support were threatened. Corporate slavery in the Bananna Republics and business prospects in non-aligned nations were potential sources for vast wealth. It all just became an organic movement and a decision that the body was not really interested in having a good heart. Hearts are replaceable in such an organism, I guess. This realization makes me reflect on the Civil War. Forigive me if I skip the attempt at making the relationship explicit since it is just a place I wander to in relation to this discussion. I am of the mind that slavery was the reason that the Civil War was fought. It seems to me that Slavery would have ended soon enough in The South, perhaps 20 years? I am starting to think that the hate and ugliness that Slavery represents, perhaps persist longer than it would have, and runs deeper than it might have, if the war were delayed, or separation was accepted; and we may have come back together again soon enough, in peace. JFK's vision was radical, and a lot of people felt threatened. The body seems to have rejected it's own benevolent heart transplant on its own. Without truth and reconciliation, the pain and ugliness and the death and fear, that still rolls in the wake of that experience will continue."

"George Bush and the Secret Service were registered at the Dallas Sheraton Hotel (400 Ri8-6200) on November 21-22, 1963. (20) Possibly more significant is that is where on November 21,1963 the White House Security Agency (WHSA) set up a radio communications center and secure trunk lines that the president, Secret Service and other security personnel used when the president was in town." http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-southland-center-revisted-w-new.html?m=1 As I mentioned earlier, Ruby and George Senator went to a cafe called the Southland Hotel cafe in the pre dawn hours of 11-23-63. Earlier in this thread, Jack White says that it needs to be sorted out where that cafe was.

If I were a cop I would assume a couple things. -Other cops are going to be right behind me, so the the front door will be covered in short order. -The bad guy is not going to be headed towards the front door. -The bad guy is going to be leaving from the rear or side, if he is leaving. -I am going to have to knock people around, pretty severely, to get through that mess of People.

I believe it started with the Nixon - Kennedy debate. Kennedy warned of forces that wanted to enslave half of the world in the manner that United Fruit Company overthrew the elected Guatemala government, and enslaved it's people. Kennedy saw this as the model that was to be perpetuated throughout Latin Anerica, Africa, Asia and who knows where it would stop, if it would stop. If the takeover was not possible than a continuous war would suffice to enrich the MICC, and also act as a form if population control. So I place it at that debate and certain events thereafter solidified the determination of the conspirators.

I hate say what I am going to say because I get pegged as a Trump supporter, which I am not. That said....... IMHO....... -There is a lot of potential for Trump since he is essentially unaligned. Some of his views and actions jibe with the right, but he is not a right-winger -He appears to be clean. I don't know how a guy like Trump can do what he has done in NY, and NYC, and not be tied-up with the mob, run afoul with labor and not generally be embroiled in serious scandal. I don't even see him being pegged by truthers as having a hand in, or benefiting from, 9-11. -I'm kind of repeating here, or summarizing, but he does not appear to be owned, by anyone. -Referencing the Healthy scepticism of Intelligence services thread... It seems, in that thread, that there is no healthy skepticism of intelligence services. There is only scepticism of Trump. Suddenly intelligence services have become the victim of Trump. That obviously has much to do with the election scandal, but who knows how that truly played-out. -I think trump wants to be a hero. He may know how to do that. We'll have to see. -Once Trump has made a show of repudiating the Obama Administration, and satisfying the true, far and alt-right, we may see some things happen that we never dreamed. Maybe he will shed light on the JFK assassination, the nefarious intelligence activities of the previous 3 or 4 decades, or, (if your a truther) 9-11. Perhaps I am optimistic out of desperation. If so then God help us! Cheers, Mike

Old thread but I saw a correction that should be made... Ted Kennedy's plane crash was also survived by Birch and Marvella Bayh. Birch was US Senator from Indiana. Kathleen Kennedy (sister of JFK) also died in a plane crash, in 1948 I define Facism as Party-rule. Where there really is no other party. Soviet and Chinese Communism were basically Facism. At least it always looked the same to me. The economics from Nazi Facism were different but it was still Party-Rule. Cheers, Mike

Not at all, thanks for the reply. I have not yet reached a conclusion. Most recently, however, one realization has led me to see it as an "Organic" (if I may) conspiracy. That realization came from finally having an answer to a question that I have had for a long time. The question was "why weren't the Kennedy's more vocal about the the facts surrounding the assassination?" The quick and easy answer is that there was too much dirt on them that would be exposed. Stretch that out a bit, or a lot, a whole lot, and I am seeing that the whole mess of them are really all gangsters. If you cut into someone else's racket, you get whacked. So, RFK, Teddy, Jackie and their throng all understood that it was all just the way things work in the world that they lived in. I think of The Godfather somewhat when it is repeated that it is just "business". They all just move on. JFK didn't really accept that, and believed that the world could be made better, more fair, and more just. That threatened a lot of rackets. Wars and the businesses that wars support were threatened. Corporate slavery in the Bananna Republics and business prospects in non-aligned nations were potential sources for vast wealth. It all just became an organic movement and a decision that the body was not really interested in having a good heart. Hearts are replaceable in such an organism, I guess. This realization makes me reflect on the Civil War. Forigive me if I skip the attempt at making the relationship explicit since it is just a place I wander to in relation to this discussion. I am of the mind that slavery was the reason that the Civil War was fought. It seems to me that Slavery would have ended soon enough in The South, perhaps 20 years? I am starting to think that the hate and ugliness that Slavery represents, perhaps persist longer than it would have, and runs deeper than it might have, if the war were delayed, or separation was accepted; and we may have come back together again soon enough, in peace. JFK's vision was radical, and a lot of people felt threatened. The body seems to have rejected it's own benevolent heart transplant on its own. Without truth and reconciliation, the pain and ugliness and the death and fear, that still rolls in the wake of that experience will continue. Cheers, Mike

I saw a lot of sweaty heads. The adulation recalled, for me, Saddam Hussein's purge of Parliament video.

Than Thanks Sandy, Naturally, for many years I thought I was seeing the real head shot in Zapruder. Since a few months ago I know know that that is doubted and disputed by many. I am sure you will allow my complete doubt about everything at this point. Regarding your comments on the neck wound. I assume you are saying that the Bethesda doctors were aware of the neck wound, apart from the tracheotomy incision. The rear head blowout. I may be confused but it seems that many people see that wound in Zapruder. I don't. It's crazy, but it almost seems like we all end up looking at different videos even when we click on the same link. People comment that they see things that I just don't see. It's bizarre, and I have perfect vision. I have other questions, but I'll just put them away and read, and sort things out as best I can. The trouble is that there is just such an enormous amount that has been written about it all. It's unwieldy. In general, for me, it all really doesn't matter. Their was a conspiracy. Oswald didn't do it. And the important, identifiable participants are higher up. Dealing with bullets and Windows and shodowy figures on stoops are not going to identify the major players, uncover the cover-up, reform the misinformers, enlighten the blind, encourage the fearful or raise the dead. Again, thanks for your reply Michael

I know that you did not address me, but I'll chime in. You are posing an equivalence, and you pose it is a necessary equivalence. The first part is ridiculous because it's truth is a law of logic to bolster your argument. Of course it is POSSIBLE that autobiographical situation CAN be imbedded in works of fiction. It does not follow that DAP was part of any illegal domestic conspiracy. It is also possible, and probable in most any case that fictions can and are imbedded in many purportedly factual autobiographies. Everyone is liable to and capable of believing their own BS and personal myth.

Thanks for all that Allistair. I have to hand it you you and folks like you who are willing to sort this thing out, down to the second, after so many years. My mind just doesn't work that way, I lack the imagination that it can be sorted out to such a minute level after so long.

Thanks for the reply Allistair... I noticed a mistake I made when Paul Replied. Ozzie directed a reporter to the phone, not a cop. Cheers, Mike