Michael Clark
-
Posts
4,737 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Michael Clark
-
-
1 hour ago, Paz Marverde said:
Really interested, Ron. Do you please remember his name?
-
7 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
And the 2018 Academy Award winner for Best Actor In A Fictional Drama Series is....
[...envelope please...]
Michael Clark
You have avoided every salient point in this dedate. The question remains....
48 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:David Von Pein, you are covering-up for the murders of witnesses, the failure of chief Chief Exececutives to extradite witnesses, and ignoring the salient points in the indictment and prosecution of the accused in the assassination of the President.
How does it feel to be David Von Pein?
-
David Von Pein, you are covering-up for the murders of witnesses, the failure of chief Chief Exececutives to extradite witnesses, and ignoring the salient points in the indictment and prosecution of the accused in the assassination of the President.
How does it feel to be David Von Pein?
-
1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:
So the coroner of New Orleans is part of the "cover up" too, eh? He said Ferrie died of natural causes. But you've decided to call Ferrie's death a "murder", despite the lack of evidence for such an assertion, correct?
More Weasling by David Von Pein....
-
25 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
And what EXACTLY was that "evidence", Michael?
Fill me in on that evidence....because, as you know, I "do not know jack about New Orleans" or the Shaw case.
And you have been appraised of the accusations
8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:Let me add why that is so interesting. Because, as Bill Davy found out, while prepping his fine book, Let Justice be Done, the CIA had left a note saying that on some previous occasion they had already destroyed Shaw's "Y # file-33412".
If that is not interesting enough for you, how about the fact that, a few years ago, Joan Mellen discovered that, through the CIA's historical review program, Shaw had been a highly paid, valuable contract agent for several years.
All of this new information utterly dissipates the malarkey that Shaw told the public and under oath at his trial. Namely that he had no association with the CIA. And also the junk that the CIA sold the HSCA that he was only part of their businessman's contact service program. Because, as CIA analyst Marguerite Stevens wrote, besides those destroyed files, Shaw also had a covert security clearance. When Bill Davy showed that Stevens document to Victor Marchetti, he told Bill that if you are only a DCS contact, there was not a need for a covert security clearance. He suspected that this meant that Shaw was involved with the Domestic Operations Division of Clandestine Services. Which was run by Tracy Barnes and used people like Howard Hunt. (Davy, p. 196)
What makes that so interesting is a letter I discovered many years ago from the late Gordon Novel. He had written to a prominent researcher that the CIA had sent out an order quite early, that is several months after the assassination, that Shaw's true role inside the agency had to be camouflaged. Novel wrote that letter in the mid seventies, before any of this newly declassified information had come to light. The declassified record would indicate he was correct.
Now, please add the above into the following new info:
1. The facts of the voluminous declassified record of Shaw being in the Clinton/Jackson area with Ferrie and Oswald in the late summer of 1963, which he lied about. under oath.
2. The overwhelming evidence that Shaw was Bertrand--there are now 14 witnesses on this issue; and he had called Dean Andrews to defend Oswald, and Martin Hay found out that Andrews later admitted Bertrand was Shaw. Shaw also lied about this key point under oath.
3. The numerous witnesses that Ferrie knew Shaw to the point he was in his office at the ITM (another issue he lied about).
4. All the discoveries about Permindex/CMC being just as bad as we all suspected--another issue that Shaw lied about.
5. The further eyewitness testimony by Woodrow Hardy that Oswald was seen at Shaw's house with Ferrie. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 216)
6. Ferrie's two diagrams, one of a plot to kill Castro, one resembling what happened to Kennedy in Dallas, down to the point that Ferrie had written the words "Elm Street" on the diagram. (ibid)
Now, does that brief profile suggest an innocent man to anyone? It didn't to Garrison and it does not denote innocence to any rational person I think.
People don't perjure themselves, to the point of going to jail for 20 years, nor does the CIA destroy files repeatedly, if there is nothing to hide.
There was a lot to hide with Shaw, in direct relation to the JFK case. And the CIA knew it. And Gordon Novel knew it because Allen Dulles himself hired him to infiltrate Garrison's office. (ibid, pp. 232, 33). This is what I mean about DVP. He is so ignorant about this stuff that he does not know he is jumping into a whirlpool. And there is no escape.
Then he wonders why people think he is being paid.
Do you understand what treason is, David Von Pein?
-
15 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
And what EXACTLY was that "evidence", Michael?
Fill me in on that evidence....because, as you know, I "do not know jack about New Orleans" or the Shaw case.
That evidence, that supported a Grand Jory indictment, that caused David Ferrie and Eledio de Valera to be murdered and Ronald Reagan to refuse extraditions is a matter of public record. If you want to cover-up criminal activities and Capital offenses, then you should appraise yourself of the details, as well as the punishment, for such crimes.
-
27 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
I know enough to know that there was NO SOLID EVIDENCE against the man that Garrison was prosecuting.
There was enough evidence to convince a grand jury to indict Clay Shaw for conspiracy to assassinate the president of the United States.
And there was enough evidence to have David Ferrie and Eladio de Valle murdered on the very same day, before they could testify against Clay Shaw.
And there was enough evidence to cause Governors, like Ronald Reagan, to soil there pants and obstruct proper extradition requests.
David Von Pein. This is the stuff you are up against. This is the stuff you have spent your life justifying. How do you live with yourself?
-
2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
You don't actually expect me to fall at the feet of DiEugenio when it comes to ANYTHING he says about the JFK murder case, do you Michael?
Get real. (And take a glance at the litany of things [quoted in my last post] that Jimmy has gotten COMPLETELY WRONG when it comes to evaluating the facts in this case.)
With a laundry list of absurdity like that one (and this one) staring everyone in the face who cares to look, the only question that remains is:
Why would anybody who considers themselves to be a reasonable person ever take James DiEugenio of Los Angeles seriously about ANYTHING relating to the events of November 22, 1963? (Which is not just a smart-ass or smart-alecky remark on my part.....it's a truly valid and legitimate question from my point-of-view.)
I know that you did accuse a NOLA DA abnd elected judge of maliciciuos prosecution, and fail to address the salient points in the case of Clay Shaw. Furthermore, your defense of al your other positions is... “ but, but , but ...... the Warren Commission said....”
NISM?
-
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:
Oh really? Then why do you suppose this occurred?....
- "Instead of referring to [Clay] Shaw (or "the defendant") a great number of times as he tried to connect him to the conspiracy and murder, as any prosecutor would do if he believed the person he was prosecuting was guilty, unbelievably Garrison only referred to Shaw once in his entire summation [to the jury], and then not to say that the evidence showed he was guilty. Not once did Garrison tell the jury he had proved Shaw's guilt or that the evidence pointed toward Shaw's guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1380 of "Reclaiming History" (2007)
David Von Pein evaded all of this....
6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:Let me add why that is so interesting. Because, as Bill Davy found out, while prepping his fine book, Let Justice be Done, the CIA had left a note saying that on some previous occasion they had already destroyed Shaw's "Y # file-33412".
If that is not interesting enough for you, how about the fact that, a few years ago, Joan Mellen discovered that, through the CIA's historical review program, Shaw had been a highly paid, valuable contract agent for several years.
All of this new information utterly dissipates the malarkey that Shaw told the public and under oath at his trial. Namely that he had no association with the CIA. And also the junk that the CIA sold the HSCA that he was only part of their businessman's contact service program. Because, as CIA analyst Marguerite Stevens wrote, besides those destroyed files, Shaw also had a covert security clearance. When Bill Davy showed that Stevens document to Victor Marchetti, he told Bill that if you are only a DCS contact, there was not a need for a covert security clearance. He suspected that this meant that Shaw was involved with the Domestic Operations Division of Clandestine Services. Which was run by Tracy Barnes and used people like Howard Hunt. (Davy, p. 196)
What makes that so interesting is a letter I discovered many years ago from the late Gordon Novel. He had written to a prominent researcher that the CIA had sent out an order quite early, that is several months after the assassination, that Shaw's true role inside the agency had to be camouflaged. Novel wrote that letter in the mid seventies, before any of this newly declassified information had come to light. The declassified record would indicate he was correct.
Now, please add the above into the following new info:
1. The facts of the voluminous declassified record of Shaw being in the Clinton/Jackson area with Ferrie and Oswald in the late summer of 1963, which he lied about. under oath.
2. The overwhelming evidence that Shaw was Bertrand--there are now 14 witnesses on this issue; and he had called Dean Andrews to defend Oswald, and Martin Hay found out that Andrews later admitted Bertrand was Shaw. Shaw also lied about this key point under oath.
3. The numerous witnesses that Ferrie knew Shaw to the point he was in his office at the ITM (another issue he lied about).
4. All the discoveries about Permindex/CMC being just as bad as we all suspected--another issue that Shaw lied about.
5. The further eyewitness testimony by Woodrow Hardy that Oswald was seen at Shaw's house with Ferrie. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 216)
6. Ferrie's two diagrams, one of a plot to kill Castro, one resembling what happened to Kennedy in Dallas, down to the point that Ferrie had written the words "Elm Street" on the diagram. (ibid)
Now, does that brief profile suggest an innocent man to anyone? It didn't to Garrison and it does not denote innocence to any rational person I think.
People don't perjure themselves, to the point of going to jail for 20 years, nor does the CIA destroy files repeatedly, if there is nothing to hide.
There was a lot to hide with Shaw, in direct relation to the JFK case. And the CIA knew it. And Gordon Novel knew it because Allen Dulles himself hired him to infiltrate Garrison's office. (ibid, pp. 232, 33). This is what I mean about DVP. He is so ignorant about this stuff that he does not know he is jumping into a whirlpool. And there is no escape.
Then he wonders why people think he is being paid.
-
I thought that that these posts should be preserved in isolation from the thread in which they originated.
-
Steve
I've been called a lot of things lately, and erudite - someone transformed from a roughened/uninformed state to a polished/knowledgeable one through a devotion to learning - is one of the nicest. I still use this phrase (whistling past the graveyard) frequently, and most recipients look at me quizzically ... might be showing my age now. The idiom has become a bit dated, and younger folks (like my kids) usually have no inkling of where I'm coming from. When I read Evan's post, it struck me along the line of the following: thinking of assassins who killed the President is about as dark as it gets. Your own government takes out a very popular leader, and then hides the truth for 50 years. So, when we try to contemplate who would actually pull those triggers, its a bit scary and difficult to live with. So, its the first meaning of the term (imho) where we are intimidated (i.e. spooked) and trying to keep our wits about us as we pass by the scary "graveyard" of possible/alleged assassins ... Corsicans, Cuban nationals like Manuel Orcarberrio, CIA-trained snipers, Mafia hitmen, nameless foreign nationals without a country (QJ/WIN), Malcolm Wallace, Roscoe White, Otto Skorzeny and fellow Nazis, young Mexicans trained by Albert Osborne, et al.
I therefore took Evan's caution along the lines of that we may be consoling ourselves (out of fear) by speculating upon all the possible candidates. While I know many are more interested in who paid for the bullets, contemplating the actual killers is fundamentally unsettling. I'm always impressed by folks who frequent the Forum and seem to know what they're talking about (e.g. Al Carrier, Lee Forman, Evan) when it comes to shooting and ambush tactics. They have insider information and subject matter expertise, which I respect. One thing is certain: someone pulled a few triggers (more than one person) in Dealey Plaza and it wasn't young Lee Harvey. The shots were expert, and designed just for JFK (and not Jacqueline, which is a feat unto itself). They blew JFK's head off at high noon in a motorcade ... quite a statement. I would suspect that the actual shooters were not allowed to stay on the planet too long, and will forever remain nameless.
Gene
-
Paul:Robert Blair was an 18th Century Scottish poet who was educated in the Netherlands and Edinburgh . He is most well known for his final poem titled The Grave written in 1743 on the subject of death and the graveyard. Its popularity in Scotland gave rise to the so-called graveyard school of poetry. Blair was man of the cloth who followed his father, one of the King’s chaplains, into the ministry. He only published three poems in his relatively short life time but one of these brought him a great deal of fame. It is a long piece of blank verse, numbering 767 lines, called The Grave. Later editions of this poem were illustrated by the artist William Blake who furnished a number of disturbing images to go with Blair’s words of great foreboding. A portion of this poem mentions the idea of whistling past the graveyard: (e.g. The Skeleton Reanimated). ThisOft in the lone church yard at night I've seen,By glimpse of moonshine chequering thro' the trees,The school boy, with his satchel in his hand,Whistling aloud to bear his courage up,And lightly tripping o'er the long flat stones,(With nettles skirted, and with moss o'ergrown,)That tell in homely phrase who lie below.There are two meanings for this idiom, both dependent on the same metaphoric setting and action; one is mostly positive, the other is not. The first meaning connotes bravery, or at least nonchalance, in the face of danger or difficulties. The second meaning describes an individual who is genuinely confident and cheerful while in pursuit of a course of action, at the same time blithely oblivious to the real risks involved. This second meaning has the element of turning a blind eye to something you should be attending to – stop deluding one’s self and ignoring the obvious ... a pejorative element of burying one’s head in the sand rather than facing reality. Another context is the foolish confidence of one who does not understand the real dangers or difficulties of the situation in question. Linguists believe this expression will eventually pass from popular usage since today we are more suburban-born and automobile-dependent ... and few of us have the experience of walking past graveyards and cemeteries.I think what Evan is trying to tell us is that much of the guessing about who the assassins were (QJ/WIN, et al) is speculation by those who don't have experience in this deadly craft. And that we may be ignoring the obvious ... namely, a few trained shooters from JM/WAVE ranks and an imported military sniper from SE Asia.Gene
-
-
On 7/14/2018 at 7:50 PM, Evan Marshall said:
It's so easy and gratifying to make assumptions that confirm our core beliefs but without evidence we're simply whistling pass the grave yard
-
Another Very cool Time Team episode
The Trouble with Temples episode 16-1
A hoard, sacrifices, a (IMHO) pre Roman human-head-looking stone; several temple foundations.
One thing that has never seen, in my viewing of TT, is the mention or understanding of a Nympheaum. I think that was sorely missed here.
Enjoy,
-
-
On 7/6/2018 at 6:14 AM, François Carlier said:
Hello everybody,....
......before I go on, I must digress a little bit.
People who know me may remember that for years I have been advocating the study of critical-thinking skills. Indeed, that's the key.
........ I know as much as he knows), but he hasn't read the slightest book on critical thinking, or so it seems (meaning that I know a lot more than him in that area, and that's crucial).
As I have always said, what has always struck me in all this Kennedy-assassination debate, is the lack of understanding of critical-thinking rules and laws by most, if not all, conspiracy theorists.
And that's sad.
May I suggest to Jim DiEugenio to read these books :
- Robert Baker et Joe Nickell, Missing pieces, Prometheus Books, 1992
- Michael Barkun, A culture of conspiracy, University of California Press; 2013
- Antony Flew, How to think straight, Prometheus Books, 1998
- Martin Gardner, Science : good, bad and bogus, Prometheus Books, 1989
- William D. Gray, Thinking critically about new-age ideas, Wadsworth Publishing. Company, 1991
- Peter Knight, Conspiracy Culture : From the Kennedy Assassination to the X-Files, Routledge, 2000
- Elizabeth Loftus, Eyewitness testimony, Harvard University Press, 1996
- Kathryn S. Olmsted, Real enemies, Oxford University Press, 2009
- Hy Ruchlis, Clear thinking, Prometheus Books, 1990
- Hy Ruchlis, How do you know it's true ?, Prometheus Books, 1991
It's a short list, but it will be helpful to begin with.
That's my contention here : conspiracy theorists do not apply logic, nor common sense. Otherwise, they would simply end up admitting that the only truth is the official version.
..... So many "experts" are nothing but ignorant....... How many times have I thought : "That member shows bias, that member is using a fallacious argument, that member is so illogical, …" ? As they say on a web site devoted to critical thinking, there are several ways in which arguments can go awry.
For example, who in this forum has ever read "The thinker's guide to fallacies" ?
It can be downloaded for free on line :....
It should be mandatory reading. I mean, every member should be asked to read such a book before beginning to post comments here. The overall quality of the debates would be greatly enhanced and improved.
Fallacies are plentiful here. They should be spotted and members should try all they can to erase them.
That's what I think.
...... It's hard for people to admit that they had been wrong. It shouldn't be. I, for one, would have no difficulty. But to most people, it is hard.
..........
- There are none so deaf as those who will not listen. Indeed I know one thing : I could spend hours, days, weeks, months, years, even decades here, giving all the evidence in the world to prove the validity of the single bullet, backed by all the best scientists in the world, it would be to no avail in front of conspiracy believers, who want to believe and could not care less about the facts.
In this particular thread, I defer to David Von Pein, 100%..........
Just a refresher on Francois' recent reintroduction....
-
12 minutes ago, François Carlier said:
Yeah, sure.
Instead of trying to debate with sound arguments -- which you cannot do -- just pretend that : "you are right and those who disagree should not have the right to post here".It is pathetic, if you ask me.
You came back to this forum touting your superior critical thinking skills. I have yet to see any of that. You rise above no one that can be found on a YouTube comment board with the exception that you are compelled to a certain level of decorum by the forum rules.
It is too bad; I am an educated observer of such skills, and I keep a look out for that particular set of skills in the area of thought and expression. You sir have not touched beyond the realm of the normative. I am waiting and watching.
-
-
-
Frustration in CIA due to lack of coordination and communication from Army regarding Cuban operatiions.
Tom K.
Robertson
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10217-10182.pdf
-
-
Docs in support of previous post
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10239.pdf
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10240.pdf
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10241.pdf
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10242.pdf
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10247.pdf
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10249.pdf
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10250.pdf
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10253.pdf
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10259.pdf
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10261.pdf 12-12-64
Dec 16 1964 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10255.pdf
March 4, 64 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10129.pdf
April 16, 64 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10111.pdf
Jan 64 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10149.pdf
june 18, 64 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10160.pdf
June 15, 64 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10164.pdf
June 15, 64 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10165.pdf
May 20, 1964 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10181.pdf
May, 20, 1964 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10183.pdf
May 5, 1964 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10192.pdf
May 5, 1964 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10193.pdf
May 5, 1964 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10194.pdf
I stopped moving forward through the list here. Going back in the list now.
6-4-63 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10215-10189.pdf
6-18-63 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10215-10188.pdf
9-11-63 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10215-10183.pdf
9-13-63 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10215-10178.pdf
9-18-63 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10215-10175.pdf
9-24-63 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10215-10173.pdf
9-21-64 https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10234-10424.pdf
-
21 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
More head-in-sand weasel words of your own.
What's your opinion of Garrison's "case" against Shaw?
I didn't use weasle words, you did.
You accused a DA and later elected (not even appointed, ELECTED!) judge of malicious false prosecution.
I called you out on that.
Following your diversionary questions would let you off the hook.
Gambit declined.
CIA Cryptonym research
in JFK Research
Posted · Edited by Michael Clark
Re: 1962 Helsinki WYF
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10215-10091.pdf
DTDIRIC; TPPAPHEAT
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10215-10093.pdf
VALINK/6; VATRIP/1
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10215-10100.pdf
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10215-10101.pdf
Cuebala defection
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10215-10103.pdf
AMCONCERT/1; reference made to near defection of Cuebela, in March