Michael Clark
-
Posts
4,737 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Michael Clark
-
-
Thanks Denis. I appreciate the clarification.
-
On 5/3/2019 at 9:16 AM, Robert Wheeler said:
Michael may have other issues with Trump, from the serious to the petty.
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
On 5/3/2019 at 9:43 AM, Denis Morissette said:Thanks, Michael, but no thanks.
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.
-
7 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
But the text is quite interesting from McCord to Mo and John Dean regarding Watergate as well as Leading
Do you mean Liddy?
-
31 minutes ago, David Andrews said:
Of course, this would have been from Mob-connected sources, such as Bebe Rebozo.
Or the Hughes/Smathers connection.
-
Thanks, Mr Caddy.
-
Meet Attorney General William Barr. (Thanks, Mr. Caddy)
-
5 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:
Olliver North did not seek a second term to head the NRA.
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.
-
6 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:
The Curious Case of William P. Barr
That’s great, Michael. Thanks
-
6 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:
Michael - please help me understand your post. Who is WE? What is OUR cause?
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.
-
21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
I'm not so sure about that. The alternative was Bernie Sanders and, while I think he would make a fantastic president, I also think there remains an awful lot of voters who fear the "socialist" label and so wouldn't have voted for him.
HRC isn't as bad as a lot of people say she is. (In fact she is highly qualified.) She was unfairly painted as evil by the conservative media, and low-information voters fell for it; she wasn't liberal enough for those on the far left and they also painted her as evil; her October Surprise didn't help any. And then finally we discover that there are apparently a lot of voters who don't care if their president is a l-y-i-n-g, hating, buffoon as long as he's not a Washington politician. Makes no sense to me.
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.
-
22 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:
I find this logic reasonable. But we’ve had two + years of Trump. What do you think now?
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.
-
6 hours ago, David Andrews said:
David Andrews – “the Deporables [sic.] vote”
I quoted the phrase used in the media by a particular candidate to blame Trump's win on a congregate of the populace that she so designated (for good or ill) as Trump's electors, and I used it with historical and grammatical correctness, as in: "A basket of deplorables."
For the record, I have been so disappointed in the Democratic Party through the Clinton and Obama years that I didn't vote Democrat in 2016, even to spare us Trump. I damn well didn't believe he'd win, either.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:
- Paul Brancato – “his ‘base’, which is a well conceived loose knit group of ‘deplorables’ like racists, homophobes, anti-immigrant, anti abortion, mixed with undereducated undernourished underemployed white people who are justifiably angry.”
- David Andrews – “the Deporables [sic.] vote”
- Cliff Varnell – “carrying water for a white supremacist.”
- Bob Ness – “The disenfranchised, low information types, radicals etc.” (Bob, your first paragraph was pretty spot on as far as I am concerned. The first sentence in the second paragraph too.)
- Michael Clark – “the Howard Stern feed lot of American men.”
I remain convinced that calling potential voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and other flyover states, "deplorables", "racists", "white supremacists", "homophobes", "radicals", etc. is not a winning strategy.
A guy like Obama can maybe get away with it a little. He already had a solid base of African American voters and while that base would vote for him anyway, he was able to get very high levels of participation of the already solid base. ie. alienating and insulting potential white voters were easily offset by enthusiastic black voters.
Obama did not spend all that much time calling people deplorable. Voters like myself would probably even give Obama a pass on insults since, as a person of color, and more importantly, his primary constituency of African American voters, might actually have some justifiable grievances with respect to their current or historical treatment by "the system."
When Hillary or five (5) white guys, like those listed above, start calling Trump voters "deplorable", it comes across as disingenuous.
Not only do you turn off potential white voters by insulting them, you suppress the black voter participation rates. When five (5) white guys and a white women (especially an extremely wealthy white woman running for President) try to appeal to black voters through the adoption of slogans that are meant to appeal to the specific and real grievances and concerns of Black voters, it comes across as pandering.
As anyone can see from the African American (Male) voter participation rate in 2016, Hillary did quite poorly versus Obama. Despite the tendency for Democrats to treat the Black Vote as a fait accompli, the inability to appreciate the black voter block's ability to recognize pandering, and then that voting blocks willingness to stay home on election day, makes Trump's win less surprising. In short, Black voters are not as "gullible" as white liberals make them out to be. The 5 White guys and Hillary can then avoid the false notion that Trump only won because of his natural appeal to deplorables, racists, and homophobes, etc. like myself.
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?
-
23 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:
In general, I think ........
.......The Republicans have managed to make up for their slide by recruiting and appealing to people who didn't even used to vote. The disenfranchised, low information types, radicals etc. It seems to me out of necessity and survival the remaining traditional Republicans have to choose between that group or centering the Dems. Not a great choice for them.
Trump has tapped-into the Howard Stern feed lot of American men.
-
9 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:
Deep State? ......
.... The aim? Control of the multicultural majority by a well funded white minority with the help of anything with can keep voter participation down. It’s fascism out in the open.
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.
-
9 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:
President Trump's gross sexual exploits.
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.......
-
On 2/19/2017 at 10:20 AM, Michael Clark said:
NAA info from 2010
http://forensic-science-fall-2010.wikispaces.com/Neutron+Activation+Analysis
"In the past, NAA evidence was not admissible into courts on the grounds that testimony it "proved" was not concrete enough to be allowed as evidence. In fact, a not-so-ancient trial involving NAA evidence, using trace element blood comparison samples was admitted into a lower court, despite the objection of the Defense. After being convicted, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, who declared the evidence inadmissible, as the technique was not yet proven. This was a large step backwards for NAA in courts, as it hurt the reliability of future, more concrete evidence done by neutron analysis."
-
1 hour ago, Paul Baker said:
Hello Jim,
I
You're not qualified to describe NAA and CBLA as 'junk science', because it isn't. I don't care that the FBI won't use it in court. It is a viable, proven analytical technique, and just because you - and others - are incapable of interpreting its results doesn't make it invalid.
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
-
4 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:
Project Idealist:
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp63-00313a000500140033-6
"14 OCT 1963
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Project IDEALIST - Status
1. Project IDEALIST is the employment of the U-2 over
denied areas to obtain high resolution photographic data of
technical intelligence quality. Of increasing importance in
recent years has been its secondary capability of SIGINT
collection.
2. The Project has in its inventory nine U-2 aircraft,
seven of which are J-75 configured with the two additional...Steve Thomas
Stave,
Thanks, and interestingly, that memo is dated to 2 days prior to McCord taking his oath of secrecy.
Michael
-
3 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:
Just speculating...
But, if McCord had something to do with the U-2 program,
and Oswald had anything to do with Francis Gary Powers getting shot down,
is it possible McCord was aware of Oswald beyond what he might have read in the newspapers?
Steve Thomas
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
-
On 4/19/2019 at 1:51 PM, Steve Thomas said:
Michael,
PROJECT AQUATONE - OPERATIONAL CONCEPT
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp62b00844r000200080051-9
Document Type:
Collection:
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):
CIA-RDP62B00844R000200080051-9
Publication Date:
February 5, 1958
Content Type:
SUMMARY
File:
Attachment
Size
119.43 KB
Body:
PROJECT AQUATONE - OPERATIONAL CONCEPT
1. Objectives:
a. Primary objective of the proposed operations is to obtain coverage
of 23 extremely high priority targets in the USSR. For operational planning
purposes these targets have been grouped into some 13 areas each having
homogeneous weather. Three areas have been determined to have higher
priority than the other ten.Document Type:
Collection:
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST):
CIA-RDP62B00844R000200260063-6
Publication Date:
January 26, 1956
Attachment
Size
79.84 KB
Body:
ApproO F It @VY63/01/24: CIA-RDP62B00844ROO4200260063-6
26 January 1956
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence
SUBJECT Project AQUATONE
1. Project AQUA TONE in its procurement phase consists of
the production and delivery of planes and equipment designed particularly
for intelligence purposes. Since, therefore, it is of joint interest to the
Air Force and the Central Intelligence Agency, the procurement has been
joint, with the Central Intelligence Agency entering into all major contractshttp://area51specialprojects.com/sp_u2.html
Declassified Legacy of the Secret Heroes of the CIA and Air Force U-2 ...
area51specialprojects.com/sp_u2.html
Only the declassified activities of the CIA participation in U-2 Project Aquatone and Air Force Project Idealist are posted herein. 6 131,815 35 149. This page was ...
Steve Thomas
Steve,
Thanks for these offerings. They really make the whole McCord picture more complete and interesting. AQUATONE kept pupping-up in my reading lately; but I had not looked at it in isolation.
Michael
-
-
On 4/17/2019 at 3:27 PM, Douglas Caddy said:
From the article: The [Vietnam] war did not go well for Mr. Conein. He was increasingly unhappy as a small covert operation grew into a huge military disaster. He retired from the C.I.A. in 1968 and contemplated a war-surplus trading venture in Vietnam. In 1971, he declined an offer from E. Howard Hunt, another retired C.I.A. officer, to join President Richard M. Nixon's ''plumbers,'' the secret team that bungled the Watergate burglary.
Lucien Conein, 79, Legendary Cold War Spy
By TIM WEINERJUNE 7, 1998
Now that is interesting. What if Conein had been arrested at Watergate? What would have been the point of having him show-up at that party?
-
54 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:
The foreman of Watergate grand jury No. 1 has been watching the confrontations with another president
Washington Post
April 15, 2019
From the article: Pregelj said his grand jury interacted little with Sirica or the special prosecutor, but grew close to the assistant prosecutors who worked with them day-to-day after they were convened June 5, 1972.
Photo:
James W. McCord Jr. demonstrated how to rig a bugging device in a telephone at a May 1973 hearing. (Charles Del Vecchio/The Washington Post)After three weeks of hearing routine street and violent crimes, they got the case of the June 17 Watergate burglary. When one burglar — James W. McCord Jr., a former CIA officer providing security for the Nixon campaign — began cooperating, it unraveled a scheme that occupied three grand juries over more than two years.
Jesse Curry's famous Quote?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Michael Clark
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
1961 – February 3, 1964
https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/08/02/dallas-mayor-jfk-assassination-cia-asset/