Michael Clark

I saw that as well. Tracy shouldn't be posting every tid-bit of Greg's without giving it a once-over himself. If Tracy is claiming some relevance of this quote then that is on Tracy.

Not for nuthin, but Mel Alton gave it 5 stars. Go figure...

I've found it peculiar that we didn't get more information out of Russia, or from Russians elsewhere, asfter the assassination.

From this thread (it's a beauty).... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/12851-michael-paine/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-290417 Paul also claims that Oswald went to Mexico City, with his rifle in a duffel bag, intending to go to Cuba and kill Castro.

David, the links worked when I posted them.

That's bizarre TG. What are you talking about..... "cover"? Do you realize how strange your posts are?

David, you quoted TG as though they were my words. Walton did the same thing a couple days ago.

I know it's a struggle for you, perhaps you should use some of your crayons, construction paper and scissors, put on a bib to keep things neat, then read Tom's post, then read mine again, use the crayons and paper ( be careful with the scissors!) and try to create a picture of what is being suggested here. Don't miss nap time or snack time. Then see if you get the picture. Raise your hand and ask for help if need be. Maybe some of the smarter kids will help you out, unless of course, they have all moved away from you due to their past experiences with you. Good luck!

I think Tom's points are good ones.This important discussion that Sandy has raised should be viewed in isolation from the H&L story. Tie them together if you want but Sandy's analysis is either correct or incorrect, independent of Armstrong's theory. What keeps coming to my mind is the picture of a smiling, red-eyed picture of LHO, with the one discolored tooth. Could it be that two teeth were compromised, one more so than the other, during the fight, and some measure was taken, to bond those teeth together, and that is what eventually failed, in the spring of 58? I knew a kid who lost a front tooth, and it was not properly taken care of. He could, and did, take the tooth out on occasion, and stick it back in, as a gag. In the end, however, the corpse has healthy, natural incisors.

Excerpts. Quixotic The Roosevelts, we are told, had already sold their ranch a year before the Ekdahls arrived, though it was in exactly the same area, "about 15 miles outside Fort Worth,"according to a 1985 article in which the Roosevelt children remembered living there. With WWII heating up, however, Elliott had felt called to quit the job of managing his wife's radio station and the ranch she had purchased with an inheritance from her long-deceased father, Joseph B. Googins, to return to the Army Air Corps. The title to the ranch was transferred from Ruth Googins Roosevelt in 1944, and then acquired in 1946 by Sid Richardson, the owner at the time the federal government condemned it for Benbrook Lake. History demands that someone in Tarrant County with access to deed records find out who that intervening owner was.

Excerpts wiki He faced charges of corruption, including accusations that he had recommended the purchase of the experimental Hughes XF-11 reconnaissance aircraft against a Lockheed model that was believed to be superior. he was hired as vice president of the Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce (see Aerospace Industries Association), a post he held until 1935. That year he moved to Fort Worth, Texas, and became involved in broadcasting and farming. Roosevelt pursued many different careers during his life, including owning a pre-war radio station network (Texas State Network) in Texas and living as a rancher. He again moved to Florida and was elected mayor of Miami Beach (1965), being unseated two years later.[2] After a business career marked by ties to organized crime, he was investigated by the Senate ("Jackson Committee") in 1973 In 1973, Roosevelt was accused of involvement in an assassination plot on the Bahamanian Prime Minister during the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations hearings on corruption. In 1968, he and an "alleged mobster front man," Michael J. McLaney, offered Louis Mastriana $100,000 to assassinate Prime Minister Lynden Pindling. Mastriana was paid $10,000 up front, most of which came from Elliott Roosevelt (as proved by a signature on a check for the money). The assassination plot was conceived after Prime Minister Pindling's failure to issue a gambling license to an associate of Meyer Lansky, (whom Michael J. McLaney worked for until his conviction in 1971). It was uncovered by Mastriana; he taped all of his conversation with Elliott Roosevelt, allegedly using equipment from the US Postal Service. Elliott maintained that this was a lie until his death.

Quixotic Joust entry. I read this a couple times and I am not sure, but it looks like a young LHO lived, for a time, on property rented from, or recently purchased from, Elliott Roosevelt. This was when Marguerite was married to Ekdahl. http://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2012/05/colossal-failure-to-research-ekdahl.html

Wiki entry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Roosevelt

From a recent thread by David Boylan ( linked below) Veciana and "Mr. Bishop." Interesting doc from Feb 1964. "On February 28, 1964 seven Cubans representing the SNFE, and two Americans who were described as lawyers from Orlando, Florida, met in the office of ELLIOT ROOSEVELT, Miami. Five of the Cubans known to the source were ANTONlO VECIANA,. RICHARD VERANES, one GARCIA (first name unknown), one MEDINA; .possibly CARLOS MEDINA, and ARMANDO FLEITES. The two Americans were a Mr. BISHOP and BOB PETRIE, both lawyers, allegedly from Orlando." http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/docid-32302103.pdf David Boylan's thread http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24642-veciana-and-mr-bishop/?tab=comments#comment-370159

Hi Steve, This is the thread I was inquiring about on your "The Women of JFK" thread. I got to reading about Elliott Roosevelt and It quickly became very interesting; so much so that I began to wonder why he does not have his own thread. I'll just post this here, I lieu of a thread for Elliot himself. I read this a couple times. Even so, I could not be sure, but it seems like the author is claiming that a young LHO lived, for a time, on property owned by, or recently vacated by, Elliot Rosevelt, just south of Fort Worth. http://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2012/05/colossal-failure-to-research-ekdahl.html

Thanks Steve, I've come across this thread a few times and I figured it should be filled-out. Bill Hunteer's work is a logical addition.

I am looking for a link to Bill Hunter's award winning story, "Three Days in Dallas". If anyone has a link, please share.

George Senator had testified before the Warren Commission on April 21 and April, 22 1963. Bill Hunter was hot to death at 2AM on the 23rd. ............. Mr. SENATOR. No. Mr. GRIFFIN. Sue Blake? Mr. SENATOR. No; I don't know her. Mr. GRIFFIN. I am not going to hand you the next exhibit, which is 5305-0, because there are no names written on there of any persons. And I am not going to hand you Exhibit 5305-P. I will take that back. I will hand you that. There is a name "Bishop" written there. Does that name mean anything to you? Mr. SENATOR. I think I have heard of the name, but I don't know who it is. I don't know what that is. I believe I have somewheres heard of that name. Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, I am going to read to you from Exhibit 5305-Q, and tell me if you recognize any of these names. Monte? Mr. SENATOR. No. ................... I wonder if the name "Bishop", the only name in Ruby's adress book that was in quotes, was David Atlee Phillips. Could Senator have told Bill Hunter, Koethe and Tom Howard more about "Bishop" than he testified to the WC that he knew? I wonder if this is what got Hunter killed. Was he privy, somehow, to what Senator did or didn't say at the hearings, earlier that day? Was he going to write something that would have been at odds with Senator's testimony?

Tommy, Will you post what Duran actually said in her testimony? That would help.

Have you read the one paragraph that I referenced, from the document that David posted? If so, surely you don't mind answering the few questions I posed, do you? It's just a teensy-weeny paragraph. And just a few short questions....Here they are: In the Leonov lecture that David posted, do you think that Leonov's observations on P. 3, paragraph 2 are correct? If so, how enlightening are those comments with regard to this thread, the case at hand, and how do they work into your theory?

Sure. In the Leonov lecture that you posted, do you think that Leonov's observations on P. 3, paragraph 2 are correct? If so, how enlightening are those comments with regard to this thread, the case at hand, and how do they work into your theory?

I find David's quotes quite coherent. (bold emphasis added).

You have deliberately misquoted me. Fix it.

Agreed