Michael Clark

Hi Denis, It’s all in the interview.

Jim Coley went to the pool of blood with Jim Hood, not Hugh Aynesworth. Jim hood put his finger in it and tasted it and said it was blood. That’s something you would do in 1963. Jim coley started getting threats the day that the story ran, through phone calls at his home. Jim Hood died in an unexplained plane crash 3 or 4 years later. It’s all in the youtube interview.

I think David has found some evidence for Lee, in the H&L scenario.

Excellent!

Hi Chris. Does my post make sense to you?

I see the misunderstanding here, I think. Shadow lines will actually diverge. But the view from an observer will see the shadows converged as one focuses further away.. If I were to a point a floodlight at two poles that were 4 feet apart and measured the distance between the shadows, that distance would yield a larger measurement as I move away from the poles along the shadow. If the flood light was 20 feet from the two poles this would be quite exaggerated. If the floodlight were 75’’, 1000’ or the distance to the sun, the effect would be less apreciable, but the measured distance between the shadows would still be greater then the 4’ distance between the poles, while the viewer standing at the poles would see them converging. However, to a viewer, standing at the poles, the shadows cast by the light at 50 feet would appear to converge even though a tape measure, 200 feet away would prove them to be diverging. Then we get into what I will guess would be the orthoganal relationships. If we put that light between the poles, obviously, the shadows would divegege absolutely, since the poles are 4 feet apart. If we move the light 1 foot away from the line of the poles (1/4 of the distance between the poles) we reach a point that would still yield no observable or actual convergence. If we move 2 feet from the pole line (half the distance between the poles) we yield no convergence but have a hypothetical observable convergence on a flat earth wth lights that can cast an infinitely long shadow. At 3 feet (3/4 of the distance between the poles), I’ll say that we observe apparent parallel shadows as far as we can see in a real world situation. At 4 feet and beyond (the same distance as is in between the poles) we perceive covergence from the vantage point of the poles, but, were we to measure the distance between the shadows, that distance would get smaller and smaller, but it would never get to 4 feet. So since we are talking about the sun, 1AU away from Dallas, John is right technically, but he is just playing symmantic games. He is wrong in the application of his understanding of life on Earth.

This Landsdale doc, for example, originates from the “Office of the Secretary of Defense”. I have not yet re-read the doc to find further support for my above speculation. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/202-10001-10201.pdf

Jim Hargroves said: No problem, Michael. Thank you for focusing on this once secret memo. I've loaded up p. 19 of the doc you found to my web server, highlighted in yellow the parts I found most interesting, and have reproduced it below. I think this document shows that the CIA wanted to put 874 of its agents into U.S. military positions in FY 1967. Do you read it differently Thanks Jim, The salient point I am getting from this is that this whole program should have ended on November 1, 1963 with Landsdale’s resignation. If there are Cter’s who consider, like me, the possibility that Landsdale may have demurred and revolted from the JFKA ( as much as he dared), then his November 1, 1963 resignation may be explained, for us, by his unwillingness to proceed in the conspiracy and possibly as his effort to undermine it. From documents recently released, Landsdale appears to be well-trusted by JFK and even a second Secretary of Defense, handling the intelligence-controlled military assets. I have posted another set of documents which shows Landsdale to be the alternative and equal, if not higher, authority to Macnamara when it came to CIA military ops. I will look for and post those docs.

P. 19 of this document is the key. I hope to transcribe this when I get the opportunity Jim, I didn’t mean to jump-over your post. I made my earlier post in haste, and when I returned I noticed that p. 19 is of the utmost trelevance.

Len that is just a sucker punch. You could have asked Jim. And I am pretty sure that you are wrong about that. While I am not very knowledgeable about the Mcadams case, I believe Jim was taking the view that Mcadams used his senior position to threaten and intimidate a graduate assistant. If so, there was a fair case made against Mcadams, even if they ultimately lost. I am not sure, due to not having dug deeply into the matter, that there really was a good case against Mcadams. From my understanding, academia is no walk in the park. There is a lot of nast backstabbing in the academy.

The following was from a post I made in the New Documenrs release thread. The CIA skimmed the cream from the Military in a big and comprehensive way..... P. 28 Department of Defence Directive. December 5, 1957. Policies governing the assignment of Military Personnel to the CIA. Cancels the 1952 Directive 1315.2 which governed the use of military personnel in the CIA. "Certain military personnel should be assigned to the CIA to provide adequate military participation and support at appropriate levels in the agency..... personnel should be the best qualified and most experienced available, with a well-founded understanding of their own service..." https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/202-10002-10121.pdf

We are next...

Thanks Wade, I thought this would be a good time to post this link...

Thanks for your contributions Wade! I have spent some quality time reading your posts and have recently started to follow this thread. I have a remark to make and a couple observations to make regarding Gary Weans book, or the single chapter of it that I have recently read. First off, while Gary’s over frequent use of the word Michukma ( or whatever that word is that does not google well) I only have a problem with the overuse and and simply annoying nature of the word. No one group should get a free pass from reasoned and plausible scrutiny in this case. Even now the word Mafia needs to be hyphenated if one wants to use it with regard to ethnicities other that Italian. Beyond that, I have two observations, and perhaps thay are something open which you can comment. The first points to a problem with the credibility of Wean’s story; the second points towards his candor and possible desire to deflect attention. Keep in mind that I have only read a single chapter and these issues might be fully laid- out elsewhere in the book; but heregoes... In the meeting with John Tower, just a few weeks after the JFKA, Howard Hunt is mentioned as a principle in a way the strikes me as if he were a household word, or an intimate of those present at the meeting. Who could have posssibly known about, or enough about EHH at that time to speak of him in such a familiar manner? I suppose I could be reading too much into it, or not allowing some room for Wean to speak, years later, about a meeting in which EHH might have been mentioned by a knowing John Tower, (who may have wanted this mans name in the record), in a manner that reflected the near household name of Hunt in the seventies, rather than with a doubtful recognition of a person a who surely must have been far more, if not completely, obscure a of EHH in late 1963. Secondly, in that single chapter, some very important names are not even evaded. It’s like they don’t exist at all. I am thinking of DeSimonne and David Yaras. There might be others worth mentioning here, including LA politicians, whom I came across while reading the recent releases. Does any of this resonate with you. Can you fill in some gaps from Wean’s book, or from your relationship with him? thanks again, Michael

I would normally, with regard to most topics, say yes, this is as good as any. Yet, with H&L there are groups of adherents and those who are vociferously opposed. I would go ahead and start a new thread. Perhaps there will be some measure of restraint for the questions from a new member. Also, it will not be as easy to divert away from your fresh inquiry by digging into the the older posts on this thread. Start a new thread, IMO.

Am I chasing my tail? If that question is dependent on whether I will find an answer, the yes, I may be; but I won’t know until I’m dead. The thing is, is that it is important to do this now, while the JFKA and it’s results are still in living memory. On the the other hand, if I believe some things, know other things and have important questions, I should put them down in writing or on some other media or my time is wasted. I can only go so far and so frequently with friends family and acquaintances; I can’t force this responsibility on them. I am glad, however, that I can answer some questions with authority, understand where I cannot, and know the difference. Certainly, after more than a few drinks one should not go there.

Hi Mark, This link will work for you, I think. https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Harvey_And_Lee.pdf

Hi Mark, I don’t know that I have that link. I will look. In the meantime let’s ask Jim. Hi Jim, do you know where Mark can download H&L?

I hope that the indiscretion of one member does not lead to a rule painted with a very wide brush. Last year Tom Scully and I did some discreet cross-posting and accomplished something important (IMO). We left it at that. The mantra, or guiding principal.... "Would you want everyone to do as you do?" Is in play here. That principal should not be hard-and fast, especially where mature and intelligent adults are voluntarily congregated for a common purpose.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10100-10273.pdf 52 locations with 2 codes redacted 19-4 17-22

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10074-10141.pdf 16-18

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10068-10164.pdf 13-9 13-10

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10100-10273.pdf 52 locations with 2 codes reacts 19-4 17-22

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32344138.pdf

No sir Foreign lntel agents spying on you is to be expected. CIA agents plotting against you and the president is treason Very probable My point is that the fact that there is no evidence he was there does not mean he wasn’t there. Withheld evidence of LHO in MXC could be a Sword if Damocles, hanging over and controlling JJA. I’m not saying it’s true. I’m just saying it’s possible. And if JJA is innocent in the JFKA, it’s probable.