Michael Clark

Thanks Jim,

What is interesting is that Oswald was being set-up, or cloned, long before an operation to kill JFK could have been conceived.

So I can imagine a situation where serious intelligence operatives identified a need for such an asset, long before. It's not difficult to imagine a situation where a critical situation came-up, repeatedly, where agents or officials said to themselves: "if only we had a doppelgänger, ready to go!".

So there must have been a program, an operation, to develop such assets long before and after the Kennedy hit. Such an operation should still be identifiable, detectable; even after all these years.

As a side note: I don't have any expertise in this, but I do have some experience with an observation I'll offer. LHO may have been targeted for certain behavioral aspects. I'll suggest that he exhibits certain peculiarities of Asperger's Syndrome which was beginning to be described in 1944.

Doesn't it seem like the CIA is now almost considered a 4th branch of government? It's not supposed to be that way. It is supposed to be a tool for the Executive Branch. Am I wrong?

Trumans letter, with an interesting date of 12-22-63...

http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry Truman's CIA article.html

I think Trump wants to be a hero. Talking about an escalation of the nuke race could get that issue on the table internationally. If that can be done it could end-up as an historic draw-down, making him a hero. He has spoken about an increase in Naval spending and I think that can keep him safe. 

Regarding the election: I follow an academic excercise in finding the truth which I think I learned from reading Jim Garrison in 1993 which was the last time I delved into this matter until a few months ago. I believe he said.... "Assume you are being lied to, observe what actually happens, identify who benefits and see if connecting those dots makes sense".

So following that academic excercise, I am observing what is, to me, the most overwhelming agreement on a political issue that I have ever seen, the election hacking. I am in the process of moving through the next steps so that analysis is incomplete. But, projecting a bit, and repeating what I stated earlier, it is pointing to perpetual hostility with Russia and forcing Trump to sign on to it.

What I have not seen in the media, but I did see it on election night, is all of those districts throughout the upper Midwest that gave 3rd party candidates (Johnson) historic numbers of 3-5%. I don't understand why credit or blame is not being properly assigned to those voters. Perhaps it is because it is too difficult to tell where those votes would have gone. I have my opinion on that but I'll keep it to myself.

In the end, I think, Trump is not right wing, nor a conservative. He is centrist and maybe a populist. 

It looks like he is taking on the CIA up front. The CIA has everyone in fear of what he is doing. And, perhaps he may be able to restore an order and sense of security that we have long since forgotten. 

Believe me, these words would not have come from me three weeks ago, not by a long shot. I guess I find this overwhelming consensus on Russia frightening. I've never seen such a censensus in the absence of a Pearl Harbor or 9-11. 

Perhaps Trump is getting the jump on this problem whereas JFK waited too long.

On 4/18/2016 at 2:29 PM, Kathleen Collins said:

Whose face is that in the window of the ambulance? Is it a reflection?

Kathy C

I was wondering that too. I head to scan the rest of the thread to see if there was an answer. The only person looking into the camera isn't there at all. That's pretty freaky.

If it's true that they have this information, then I think they have had it for a long time. I don't understand the timing. The best guess I can make is that they are trying to establish themselves as the taskmasters of Trump, trying to own him, trying to establish a pattern where they can make him react to them; kind of like how they did with JFK during the Bay Of Pigs. It reminds me of Monty Pythons "The Holy Grail" during the scene with Trojan Bunny Rabbit. 

After the rabbit is in the castle, Arthur asks: 

-King Arthur: What happens now? 
-Sir Bedevere: Well, now, uh, Launcelot, Galahad, and I, uh, wait until nightfall, and then leap out of the rabbit, taking the French, uh, by surprise. Not only by surprise, but totally unarmed! 
-Arthur: Who leaps out? 
-Bedevere: U-- u-- uh, Launcelot, Galahad, and I. Uh, leap out of the rabbit, uh, and uh... 
-Arthur: Ohh... (he and Lancelot slowly put their hands to their heads at the realization that they messed up) 
-Bedevere: Oh. Um, l-- look, i-- i-- if we built this large wooden badger-- 
(twang of a catapult is heard from the French castle and the Trojan Rabbit comes flying towards where the knights are hiding) 
-Arthur: Run away! 

So The CIA in 61' tried to make JFK accede to turning the invasion into an American invasion, and he didn't do it.

It looks like the CIA now is trying to make Trump jump and accept their appraisal that Putin and Russia must continue to be regarded as mortal enemies; that is what we are hearing from every quarter. How am I to know? I just know that I am tired of the national security state, the perpetual nuclear threat and war in general. Was Russia dangerous for so long because it was Cummunist? Shouldn't that threat be downgraded now that it is not? Why is it not being downgraded? NATO seeems to be unnecessarily antagonistic toward Russia and it seems to be moving beyond its intended purpose. 

If Trump is moving to a trans-national Oligarchic world power structure, then JFK will have been right and we will be slaves. If he is indeed intending to smash the Intelligence community's grasp on power, deescalate the traditional tensions between Russia and the US, and deflate the MIC based economy in favor of other endeavors (wall building? Buggy whips?  IDK) then there might be some hope. It's my firm belief that if he is assassinated, we will not see the people cower like sheep as they did in '63. Regardless of the futility of resistance to today's weapons systems, I think the people would come out in arms, and who knows where that will lead.
 

Wow, looks like I need to spend 20 years reading before I post anything here...thanks Jim.

I am thinking that maybe, just maybe, Trump is going to begin the 1963 counter coup. Perhaps it is a knee jerk reaction to the despair I was feeling a month ago. What keeps coming to mind is Trumps willingness and gaul to step-up and position Rafael Cruz, in New Orleans, in 1963, next to Oswald during his sheep-dipping. I consider Eisenhowers warning, Truman's letter bemoaning the creation of the CIA one month after JFK was killed, and Kennedy's warning of April of 1961 at the ANPA. Kennedy knew he needed to smash the CIA; It was life or death for himself, the country, and the world. He made it clear in the televised debate with Nixon that the country and the world was facing another monumental battle against slavery. Is it possible that Trump has listened to this voice from the past and is ready to fix it? Am I delusional?

While I think LHO fired no shots at the President, and therefore all inquiry into him is a quest to prove a negative, and a waste of time, I do find myself wasting time by reading about him. I have seen no mention of a second Marina. WC testimony of Marina and Mrs Whitworth leaves that question open. While much of the time I don't know what to believe of Marina's testimony and statements, the encounter in the Furniture Mart, in early November of 1963, has me at a loss as to whether anyone is lying. I generally come away from it feeling that no-one is lying.

This is of particular interest because, supposedly, LHO is driving, and he does not know how to drive. He is also in the store to get a rifle scope repaired. The store has a sign out front saying that there is a gunsmith within, but the sign is outdated and the gunsmith no longer works out of that store. It sounds like an encounter with a non-Lee and a non-Marina, and you have the whole family impersonated, children included... ???

Mrs. OSWALD. I have never seen Lee drive the car in my lifetime. Lee never drove a car with me or the children in it. The only time I saw him behind the wheel was when Ruth Paine taught him to drive the car, he was practicing parking the car when Ruth Paine was teaching him to drive.

The testimony of Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald, Edith Whitworth, and Gertrude Hunter was taken at 11 a.m., on July 24, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Present were June Oswald and Rachel Oswald, children of Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald; William A. McKenzie and Henry Baer, counsel for .Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald; Peter Paul Gregory, interpreter; and Forrest Sorrels and John Joe Howlett, special agents of the U.S. Secret Service.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/oswald_m2.htm

On January 4, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Guest Tom Scully said:

George Senator testified he still kept an apartment next door to Jack Ruby's during July and August, 1963. There were a total of three calls made on that July 21 date from Ruby's apartment. I am willing to wager that neither the records of the WC nor the HSAC has ever yielded in a publicly available record, who in Gloversville, NY, recieved the July 21, 1963 call from Ruby's aparment.

George Senator was born in Gloversville, but the official record is that he last resided there in 1934, and his testimony below, offered the best opportunity to ask him if he made that call from Ruby's apartment, and to whom. Instead, Senator makes a great argument for the idea that he had no contacts in Gloversville, due to the length of time his ties to the place had been severed.

If the goal is to "leave no stone unturned", this is a stone I can find no closing of as a possible area of futher inquiry....

One of three calls on July 21, 1963:

I went to Gloversville, NY. yesterday. I went to 8 Church St. where it appears that the Senators opened a confectionary shop. I also went to 56 N. Main st. where, I think, they operated Senators Restaurant. It is a bit confusing as to which addresses were residences, and which were the business establishments. The Senators are listed through the 1920's as glovers (glove makers, the city is rich with visible historical clues to that trade). In 1934, 8 Chuch St is listed as the Paradise Grill; later it will be the Senator's Confectionary.  George's name does not appear until the late 1930's and then indicates him as "rem" ( removed to?) NYC in the early 1940's, along with his sister. 56 N Main becomes Senators Restaurant from about 1946 to about 1970.

The library did not have phone directory info so I could not check the phone number quoted from WC testimony. The only phone number I could find was from the early 1920's. I looked at microfiche from 1963, looking for advertisements that would show a phone number. I found no advertising through that period for the restaurant.

I had thought that taking pics of pages from the city directories would allow me to, here, give a complete and accurate timeline but that is not the case. I'll be going back to track down phone numbers and will revisit these city directories with a pen and pad to get a more complete picture. 

4 hours ago, Henrik Fendt said:

To me it looks like he is in a hurry to button his shirt. Is it just me?

Putting on or taking the top off of a bottle?

Here is George Senator's testimony about their middle-of-the-night jaunt. It seems all but obvious that he is talking about the Southland Center. I don't get why it says that he said it is on Commerce.

George Senator: "Then from there we we went to the Southland Hotel Coffee Shop"

Mr Hubert: "Where is that located."

George Senator: "That is on the corner, on Commerce, and I don't know what the little side street is, but it is just below the Adolphus Hotel, on Commerce."

What's also interesting to me is that, during the WC testimony of George Senator, Mr. Griffin is going through Jack Ruby's contact book.  In my copy of the testimony, the only name that is in quotes is "Bishop". George states that the name was not familiar to him.

I posted the following in the "JFK questions" sub forum here in EF. I had not found an appropriate place for it until now. It seems there is little debate on George Senator but I found his testimony very interesting; and it gets more interesting as I read more about the whole conspiracy.

Quote:

"I am trying to figure out if the cafe in which Antonio Veciana says he met Maurice Bishop is the same cafe to which George Senator testifies he went with Jack Ruby in the pre-dawn hours of 11-23-63. George Senator states in WC testimony that he went to the Southland Cafe, on Commerce St., just down from the Adolphus Hotel. I am wondering if anyone has hashed this out and has found that there really was a Southland Cafe on Commerce St., or if he lied, was mistaken or if his testimony was altered or misrepresented. Veciana states that he and Bishop met in a cafe in The Southland Center which which would distinguish that cafe from a location on Commerce St."

If the Southland Cafe that George senator mentions is actually the cafe at the Southland Center, and not on Commerce st., that puts Jack Ruby in the same building that GHW Bush Stayed in that night. It's also the cafe where, according to Antonio Veciana and Wynn Johnson, David Atlee Phillips met with Veciana after meeting Oswald in the hotel lobby. 

Why would Ruby go there in the middle of the night, except to get some grapefruit juice? And why would he be dragging around a couple simpletons to do three things that he could have done himself? 

It seems like he really did not want to be alone.

6 minutes ago, Robin Unger said:

The Fuzzy Prayer Man image proves nothing, it just leads to wild speculation

 

And pinned posts.

LHO is still the distraction that he was always meant to be.

I am trying to figure out if the cafe in which Antonio Veciana says he met Maurice Bishop is the same cafe to which George Senator testifies he went with Jack Ruby in the pre-dawn hours of 11-23-63. George Senator states in WC testimony that he went to the Southland Cafe, on Commerce St., just down from the Adolphus Hotel. I am wondering if anyone has hashed this out and has found that there really was a Southland Cafe on Commerce St., or if he lied, was mistaken or if his testimony was altered or misrepresented. Veciana states that he and Bishop met in a cafe in The Southland Center which which would distinguish that cafe from a location on Commerce St.

This is my first post to the forum, if I am not following convention or protocols please let me know.

Regards, Mike

Greetings, I was born and raised in the northeast USA. I graduated from the State University of NY with a BA in English. I am now a telecommunications technician. From a young age I was politically aware and had doubts about the official story on the assassination of JFK. In my late teens I began to do some reading on the subject. From the beginning of my college studies until last year I did not dig deeply into the JFKA. Last fall (2016) I dug in deeply and am now committed to keeping the events of the 60's and 70's fresh in my mind and to stay up to date on and continue my research. I want to thank the forum hosts for maintaining this forum and allowing me to participate.