Michael Clark

Earle Cabell’s Wikipedia entry fails to mention that he was a sworn CIA asset, from 1957. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earle_Cabell https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/08/02/dallas-mayor-jfk-assassination-cia-asset/

Wikipedia entries often lack current, updated information. I don’t know how that gets done or by whom, but I thought a thread that would bring good candidate Wikipedia entries to the attention of members might get some traction.

From the video that was shared by Joe: “Curry did not have the final say as to when, or how, Oswald was transferred. It came from his superiors, who was the city manager at that time. So we knew better than to transfer him under those conditions but we didn’t have any choice.” I don’t know who the City Manager was, but the Mayor was Earle Cabell who was a CIA asset and brother of fired Deputy Director of the CIA , Charles Cabell. Earle Cabell 48th Mayor of Dallas In office 1961 – February 3, 1964 https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/08/02/dallas-mayor-jfk-assassination-cia-asset/

Thanks Denis. I appreciate the clarification.

Robert, Would you please give me an example of wahat kind of objection to Trump I might have that could be characterized as petty? Try to be a bit straight-forward here; try to be a straight shooter. What objection to Trump would I, or anyone else in this debate, have, that you would characterize as petty? Start with me, please.

Denis I can only guess at whet you are inferring, if you don’t actually say it. And I do want to know what you are trying to say.Assuming that I”get it” is probably an incorrect assumption. I know that I would get no straight response from Jim If I asked him what his objection was. I hope that you will be more clear as to what your objection is.

Do you mean Liddy?

Or the Hughes/Smathers connection.

Thanks, Mr Caddy.

Meet Attorney General William Barr. (Thanks, Mr. Caddy)

I think Ollie is becoming unglued. The bones of William Barr showing-up Behind the closet door might be a bit too much for him.

That’s great, Michael. Thanks

That would be us, here at the EF, the JFKA conspiracy community. Trump could, and would, I think (if he had enough support) bust all of this crap wide open. I remember him saying, and it struck me as the most candid, uncharacteristic, and probably painful thing I ever heard him say... ( to be sure, I only read this, as a quote) “I have no choice” when he had to delay the comtinued release of JFKA documents, and accept that releases in redected form. I joined this forum after his election and prior to his inauguration. I haven’t changed how I feel about him, nor have I changed what he could do for us. We, however, due to our contempt and anger at the results of the election (and I am less angry due to my fears of dynastic power) cannot see that he is OUR only possible ally. Trump is no conservative, he doesn’t even think in such terms. He is a moral, fiscal and social liberal. How many of his children for whom do you think has has payed for the abortion? He wants to be loved and adored by crowds. There is no conservative principle guiding him or his followers. His base just hates Hillary, hippies and wants to justify their own existence by affirming the life they have lived which was shaped by Howard Stern. The shameful and disgusting mantra, which is affirmed and lauded by Trump and Stern, “FHRITP”, “I can get away with grabbing.....” (or whateve he said) is a reflection of a generation of men who are absolved by Trump, and can never and never will look at themselves and say “ugh, I was wrong. I was disgusting. I need to change”. Our culture has sunk very low, and just because Trump is a Republican does not mean that he is a Conservative; in fact, that is absurd to think that way. All these terms have been thrown on their heads. Those who have disgust for Trump are the conservatives. Those who feel shame for the plight of women are conservatives. The “me too” movement is conservative. Revolution is painful. We are in the midst of a revolution of pardimgms, language, words, terminology and nomenclature. Trump is a liberal, but he is not Hillary, that is what got him elected.

I don’t think an avowed socialist could or would be elected to the presidency, so I don’t think he is a legitimate candidate for a mainstream party. My view of HRC is nuanced. I think she would have made an excellent President. But, and I can’t expires how dismayed that I am so utterly alone on this, dynastic power is absolutely, positively, expialodociusly unacceptable; It is the end of everything for which America exists. I honestly would rather forgot Independence from Britain and become a subject of the crown than see Clinton, Bush and Trump familes cycle for power until one finally wins and rules for the next several centuries. Further, and thus the nuance, I am not so sure that the Clintons aren’t part of the club that WE, HERE, are trying to identify and ferret-out.

I hate him. That said, as far as OUR cause is concerned, his presidency is our only hope. WE are squandering our our only opportunity because of our (legitimate) contempt for him.

I couldn’t support HRC because of the threat that dynastic power poses to democracy. Even without that specific, principled, approach I think that the baggage of a continued Clinton Whte House would carry drove moderates and conservatives that despise Trump into his camp. The peaceful purge of power that elections and term-limits afford are a gift that should never be dismissed. HRC got Trump elected; I don’t think a Trump candidacy would have been possible without a Clinton candidacy.

Robert, you listed me above but failed to characterize how I fit into your list. On some level I feel left out while on another I feel unfairly included. I am confused, please elaborate as to where you are trying position me in this debate. What do you make of my characterization of the influence of Howard Stern on a generation of American men and their influence in the election of 2016?

Trump has tapped-into the Howard Stern feed lot of American men.

Paul, I love, admire and respect your curiosity, courage, insight, intelligence and spirit. Because of that I hate to point out that you fail at your affect. I know we don’t all agree on definitions, meaning and nomenclature. I also know that everyone is not like me or think as I do. But, for your benefit, I will offer, (as I have done before on this same subject) a take on the meaning of a word or two that you tend to use in a manner that leaves me face-palmed; only because, for me, it pulls the rug from an analysis that is otherwise a tour de force. Facism is by definition “Party Rule”. It is characterized by outward symbols of the ruling party.Those symbols and the party which they represent hold outward, absolute power over all people and institutions of government. A Facist deep state is a contradiction in terms. Both parties in the United States find ways of characterizing each other as fascists; but the only affect of this game is division. If there is a crypto-party that represents the intersts of a militarist, industrial, racist and quasi-royalist regime that may or may not also represent some joint or several religious concerns, then it needs to be identified as such. To pull-out the old “facist” card because it invokes a regime, that than which nothing worse can be invoked, does not identify the problem party and feeds into the hands of those who wish to keep us divided. Remember that Nazis were truly Socialists and, based on what I know now, this may be what marked them for destruction more than any concerns about racism, religion or penchant for authoritarianism.

Characterizing the groping of crotches and paying off prostitutes as sexual exploits really misses the mark. I think most us can all look back on our sexual exploits with a reverent smile; we are human. Dogs are lovable and can be forgiven their faux pas’. Trump.......

Comparative bullet-lead analysis (CBLA), also known as compositional bullet-lead analysis, is a now discredited and abandoned[1] forensic technique which used chemistry to link crime scene bullets to ones possessed by suspects on the theory that each batch of lead had a unique elemental makeup.[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_bullet-lead_analysis as for NAA, we have the Supreme Court that says you are wrong, Paul

Stave, Thanks, and interestingly, that memo is dated to 2 days prior to McCord taking his oath of secrecy. Michael

Steve, Mccord’s relation to Oswald is really the critical mass to this whole story of ours, and it has been kept cooled and under control by various machinery and systems. You have added some more potential mass to the pile with your speculation but keep in mind that we already have Newman and Morley telling us that McCord was handling and running Oswald with regard to Cuban groups. If this explains (and I suspect it does) why McCord showed-up at Watergate, then it re-imforces suspicions about guys like Hunt, Sturgis and Barker and implicates Liddy, and the others, and possibly Nixon. Recently It was suggested that Lucien Conein was invited to Watergate, and the curiouser curiouser it gets. This is what has resolved for me as the portrait of what the BOPI, JFKA and Watergate were really all bout. Your speculation certainly explains the thee level of radiation that is given off by the pile as we inspect it with our instruments from a distance and behind a wall. It is rather like Plato’s analogy of the cave, we have to interpret reality by observing the shadows of the players who are not, themselves, within view. Michael