Jump to content
The Education Forum

Michael Clark

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,737

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Michael Clark

    Petition to request the Innocence Project to take up exoneration of Oswald

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

     

    Thanks for your reply, Michael. I did come across the Innocence Project when I was looking around for the Innocence Project for Oswald. It didn't occur to me that the petition for Oswald was intended to be part of that.

    I appreciate your analysis of the petition Greg is asking us to sign. And I agree that that the petition is incompatible with the Innocence Project... also with my respect for Greg and the others involved in the venture.

     

    Glad to help

    Petition to request the Innocence Project to take up exoneration of Oswald

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

    Is the Oswald Innocence Project different from the Oswald Innocence Campaign? (If I google the former, I get the latter.)

    (My understanding is that Greg Parker isn't one to agree with OIC's contention regarding Doorway Man. But I have to ask because I haven't heard of an Oswald Innocence Project before.)

     

    Sandy,

    The Innocence Project seeks to free those falsely accused of capitol offenses, perhaps even Death-row only cases. This is why I hesitate to sign the petition; it Is outside of their purview and not compatible to their mission. LHO was never convicted of anything. With much respect for Greg, I have to say that this is not a good avenue to take. Forcing them to decline this effort can help Von Peinians argue that "Even the Innocence Project would not take the case of LHO". Furthermore it would drain resources that would otherwise go to people that The Innocence Project could help.

    CIA Cryptonym research

    in JFK Research

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    On 5/14/2017 at 5:31 PM, Michael Clark said:

    Richard Gibson

    Fromm MMF

     

    Cryptonym: QRPHONE-1

    Definition:

    Richard Gibson

    Discussion:

    These three files leave no doubt that Richard Thomas Gibson was QRPHONE-1. 2018/104-10217-10221.pdf 2018/104-10217-10223.pdf 2018/104-10217-10225.pdf

    Sources:

    104-10217-10223: RICHARD GIBSON

    5/22/66 revised memorandum of oral agreement for Richard Gibson aka QRPHONE-1: "QRPHONE-1's employment by WOFIRM/CIA...began on 1 June 1965...write-off of the funds passed to QRPHONE-1 is to be effected on the basis of the procedure approved by Chief, LCPIPIT and COS/(REDACTED)..." Signed by case officer Aaron C. Laginestra; approved by Chief, LCPIPIT Adrian B. Maslott.

    104-10217-10221.pdf Richard Gibson

    "In December 1963 Subject was interiewed by a consular officer in REDACTED for information on Lee Harvey Oswald who reportedly had some contact with REDACTED

    104-10217-10328.pdf Richard Gibson

    Mr. Gibson was asked to visite Embassy because of a repor by a controlled american source that, as an aex-official of the Fair Play for Cuba Commttee of New York, he might have had some information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald."

    Contributors:

    Bill Simpich • Jeff Morley

     

     

     

     

     

     

    11 oct 1963 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10217-10201.pdf

    6-11-64 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10217-10195.pdf

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10217-10190.pdf

    Jan 2, 63 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10217-10212.pdf

    Jan 25, 1963 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10217-10228.pdf

     

     

    Doc from above....

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10217-10190.pdf

    QREBONY    Not in MFF

    I think this may be of interest to @Bill Simpich and @Greg Parker

     

     

    Petition to request the Innocence Project to take up exoneration of Oswald

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    7 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

    None of your business.

    This is a debate forum. If you advertise your money making disinlormation website, at the expense of free, and free, debate on this forum, then I think membership and forum owners can decide for themselves whether it is their business. I think it is.

    David Von Pein, do you make money on your website?

    Possible photo of E. H. Hunt in Dealey Plaza

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

    I've attached said pic and I was just curious if anyone could tell me where exactly in the Plaza this was taken and at what time. I had heard on a radio program via YouTube that Saint John said the tramp often identified as his father wasn't him but that he has identified this individual as his father. Thanks in advance for any info!

     

    The Hunt-looking character is heading from the in-field, across Elm Street, towards the pergola and the Grassy Knoll.

    4th photo on this page.....

    https://rense.com/general96/marrsphotos.html

     

    What About McGeorge Bundy?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    An important discussion in McG's actions during the Kennedy Administration is that surrounding his culpability in the calling-off of the attack and destruction of the few remaining Cuban airplanes which would end up destroying the supply ships and bombers enroute to the BOP during the 1961 attempted invasion by Cuban Exiles.

    I respect Jim DiEugenio and Greg Burnham and I do not wish to be regarded as encouraging anything but robust and collegial debate. Yet, this matter needs to be explored more. In this linked thread that debate is delineated but not-long pursued.

     

    Does the Cover-up Point to the Assassination Plotters?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    57 minutes ago, Mike Kilroy said:

    I have a vague idea of McCord's possible involvement in this, Michael.  Could you share a couple of good links I could review?

    IMO, researchers, if they are truly interested in solving this case, need to treat the American media and public like a jury.  We need to provide reasonable arguments backed by compelling evidence.  For me, the Helms-Phillips-Kent-Joannides connection fits the bill.  You can prove all four knew about the CIA's control of the DRE and either kept quiet, lied about it or actively covered it up.  And the CIA of today continues to follow their lead and withholds relevant information. That for me is incriminating and requires a full investigation.   

     

    This is a John Newman quote on Wikipedia. Another researcher says the same thing except that he has LHO infiltrating Pro Castro groups. I will look for that citation. Ideally, I would have Newman’s source on this but I do not.

    On 7/28/2017 at 5:55 PM, Michael Clark said:

    "McCord worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. In 1961, and under his direction, a counter-intelligence program was launched against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee." (Wikipedia; Oswald and the CIA by John Newman p.138)"

     

    Does the Cover-up Point to the Assassination Plotters?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Mike Kilroy said:

    For me, the most compelling evidence pointing to the conspirators are those CIA officials who lied and covered up the agency's involvement with the DRE during the time of LHO.

     Richard Helms, David Phillips and William Kent all knew each other, knew the CIA was involved with the DRE during the late summer and fall of 1963, and covered up that connection and their knowledge of it. 

    I add James McCord Jr. to this group as well. McCord had the highest clearances attainable and was running, at the time, operations to infiltrate state-side Cuban groups. McCord was directing LHO, with little or no separation.

    Muckrock: A brief debunking of the “James Angleton’s World War III virus” thesis

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    On 8/26/2018 at 1:55 PM, James DiEugenio said:

    John does not say he thinks Angleton is behind it because of his evil brilliance. He says he thinks this because Angleton was the one guy at CIA who had access to all of the LHO files.  

    Hi Jim, Thanks for the input.

    To be sure, I can almost quote Newman without looking it up. In tha same paragraph, or breath, as the case may be, while he says " no one else had access to the files....." he also said "no one had the diabolical genius to......." . I am definitely not making that up. In fact, Newman is quoted in the article..... as such:

     

    "In my view, there is only one person whose hands fit into these gloves: James Jesus Angleton, Chief of CIAʼs Counterintelligence Staff. ... No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind to manage this sophisticated plot. No one else had the means necessary to plant the WWIII virus in Oswaldʼs files and keep it dormant for six weeks until the presidentʼs assassination "

     

    I also think it is a fair critique that Newman is using some circular logic here. He is saying that no one else could have planted the virus, so he had to have been the one to do it. That leads us to the conclusion that it was done in the first place.

     

    I am challenging the whole WW3 nuclear haulocaust notion. I don't think it's real. Certainly there was some risk, but I think the stakes and, as some surmised during the CMC in October of 1962, with a swap of Cuba for Berlin, with the loss of life involved but a hopeful restraint from the use of Nukes. 

     

    Of course, lying behind my contention is the theory that some time in late 62 and early 63, someone decided that there was really no benefit in freeing Cuba, and handing it over to Spanish speaking Catholics and Mafia interests, and then having to negotiate for a long term maintenance of Guantanamo.

     

    In these theories where LHO is well-planned, critical part of the operation, I fail to see how so much could be riding on  our quirky Ozzie showing-up for work that day. I fail to see how Angleton could be a prime mover in a scenario that relies on Oswald to to play this scripted part so far ahead of show-time.

     

    I think it is more likely that JJA was blindsided by the assassination and horrified to find himself implicated by an association with LHO. Through the use of the Oswald Double, this could have been maintained, even if LHO was not in place.  

    I am not laying this out as my theory that I stand on right now. I just see some probabilities, Hail Mary's, and overly complex situations that deserve some thought as to what-else could explain Newman's important observations regarding JJA "dimming the lights".

    I also have to agree with Emma Best in that I do not see a motive for JJA. JJA is not, as I understand it, a rabid racist, anti Catholic, a radical moralist, a beneficiary of military commoditiy or hardware contracts. He was a Washingtonian and did not have an interest in the maintenance of industry in Dallas or any other place.

    Edit... I went to fix some errors but there are too many; so I will leave it. My iPhone has a shattered face right now and if I post from it, it leads to more errors that I would typically leave in my posts. My apologies.

×
×
  • Create New...