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

    Backyard Photographs

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    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.

     

     

    The Biggest Lies.... Untangled

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

     

    Jim Hargroves said:

     

       1 hour ago,  Michael Clark said: 

    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. 

    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. 

     

    The Biggest Lies.... Untangled

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    8 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

    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

     

    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. 

    Surprised there is no discussion on this

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    12 hours ago, Len Colby said:

    Still has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

    Somehow I doubt Jim would be bothered if YT and FB had blocked McAdams.

     

    Some how I dount DiEugenio would care  

    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 Biggest Lies.... Untangled

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    15 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

    Bringing back an old thread to make another link to Gordon Mc!endon. You point out David Atlee Phillips. When I mentioned Crichton I was not yet aware of the close association between McLendon and a fellow member of Crichton’s 488th Strategic Intelligence team, Colonel Frank M. Brandstetter, known as Brandy, who in 1959 was green lighted to join Crichton’s 488th by Colonel Rose, ACSI. In Brandy - Portrait of an Intelligence Officer, a co-written autobiography, the friendship with McLendon is highlighted and clearly life long, as is his two decade relationship with ACSI.

    The takeaway for me is that is is a mistake to view the Pentagon and the CIA as wholly separate. Somewhere on this thread a poster suggests we include General Lansdale. I agree completely. Lansdale was on loan from the Military (Air Force) to the CIA. This clearly puts him within LeMay’s sphere of influence as well as CIA brass. He was put in charge of Operation Mongoose, which was run out of JMWAVE. Lansdale appointed William Harvey to head the operation. What more evidence do we need to see my point?

    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

     

    Bill Decker and John Tower

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    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

    New Article by John Armstrong

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Mark Lawson said:

    Yes it did - and I thank you very much.  I have read the entire contents of the http://harveyandlee.net/ Web site, but having this same (or more) information searchable within one PDF file will be most useful.

    In the meantime, since I came to this late-2017 message thread in search of specific John Armstrong-related information, might this be as good a place as any to continue discussion of his (and others') "two Oswalds"  theory?  I am obviously new to the forum, and will post biographical information soon, but for now would appreciate receiving any pointers that forum members would be willing to offer.  Best, ML

    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.

    Chasing Our Tails?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    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.

    New Article by John Armstrong

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    54 minutes ago, Mark Lawson said:

    Michael, did you ever post the above-referenced file link?  If so, would you mind repeating it, please?  Thanks! ML

    Hi Mark, I don’t know that I have that link. I will look. In the meantime let’s ask Jim.

    On 12/23/2017 at 7:40 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

    ....::..
     

    Hi Jim, do you know where Mark can download H&L?

    VOICING FOR BANNED MEMBERS

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    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.

     

    How contemporaneous reports prove Ozzie in MX a scam

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    7 hours ago, David Josephs said:

    Michael, 

    have you read Wilderness of Mirrors?

    No sir

    Quote

     

     Your summary just does not sound like something JJA would let happen To himself... remember he’s head od CIA CI.... a master planner and plotter...  whether he was KGB like Philby is an issue more real to me than his being duped in MX.

    Foreign lntel agents spying on you is to be expected. CIA agents plotting against you and the president is treason

    Quote

    and then there’s that Russian officers book claiming he was in MX... and Nosenko, another false defector, provides BS on Oswald.  

    It seems even today we do not understand that Russian CI is designed to muddy the waters, not steal secrets but plant lies which dictate policy getting us running in circles.

    Finally, also look very closely at the entire Alvarado incident...  that was DAP, entirely.  The dates, his story, his background....

    Very probable

    Quote

    when Cuba is taken off the table, see how DAP manipulates his asset... 

    I’d need to see much more to be convinced JJA was fooled here somehow...

     

    Quote

     As to Oz in MX... what proves he was there?

    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.

    How contemporaneous reports prove Ozzie in MX a scam

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

    It was my understanding that what Scott/Simpich are saying is that some lower level rogues horned in on an upper level sanctioned mission that somehow they knew about.

    What David is showing is that instead of the lower level guys duping the upper level guys, the lower level guys really did not know what was happening. And then the CIA got Echeverria to cover up their plotting.

    Michael: per the other point, Angleton could not  admit that Oswald was not down there.  Because then that would have blown the whole CYA cover up that the cables caused on the 22nd.

    Gotcha

    I am seeing DAP as blindsiding and duping Angleton. DAP is one of the rogues, along with Hunt and Morales. I don’t see DAP as being low level.

    I guess the bottom line for me is, and I don’t expect any agreement on this, is that Angleton was not a conspirator. He was stovepipe out of the plot, duped, and framed, all at the same time.

×
×
  • Create New...