Michael Clark

On 1/11/2018 at 7:49 PM, David Andrews said:

Michael, how does this work?  I get a 404 Not Found at the Krusch link, and "Not Found On This Server" for the individual books.

David, the links worked when I posted them.

5 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Mice "cover job," again.

(Dang it.  Hard to type "vermin" on a tiny android.)

Not to worry, though.  I'll just wait at least the Forum Rules-required 24 hours and "bump" it.

Who will "cover" it almost immediately then? 

You, or his "Ditto", "I agree 100%" personal cheerleader?

Should you flip a virtual bitcoin?

 

--  Tommy 

 

That's bizarre TG. What are you talking about..... "cover"?

Do you realize how strange your posts are?

7 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Maybe try "reading with comprehension" classes... safer than the LSD

Only those who are perpetually stuck within an unsupported and uncorroborated theory/rebuttal loop have trouble following the responses since they

1. offer support for what I am saying
2. offer support in opposition to what you are offering
3. provide the visual support and links for those to follow up on their own

What they don't do is point to a book and state "the answer's in there"... without a second word unless persistently and painfully extracted...

bottom line... what beyond this terribly thin excuse for a connection do you have to put the KGB in the middle of the JFK assassination?

From what I'm reading, Permindex and Canada (connected ultimately to Sun Life of Canada/London and the purchase of BELL via TEXTRON) is a much more likely scenario...

Maybe the real problem here is you simply don't understand the extent of the FBI cover-up to his NOT being at ODIO's on the 27th... not being at the Sports Drome on the 28th, and that HENRY - the greatest disconnect next to GOODPASTURE's Oswald photo... was a Angleton/CIA construct for a number of reasons... many of which we simply cannot know.

But if you have more than what you've offered... please expand... so far, nothing has been moved forward on this theory at all...

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

10 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

The above statement actually makes no sense whatsoever. ....

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

On 2/16/2018 at 2:01 PM, Steve Thomas said:

 

Steve Thomas

 

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?

2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Paul,

Are you capable of thinking in relativistic terms, Maestro?

You are?  Good!

Well, are men generally taller than women?

--  Tommy 

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

9 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Oh,

Am I supposed to have read the transcript of his 1998 lecture?

 

--  Tommy 

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?

12 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Care to comment on the rest of the post?

--  Tommy 

 

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?

9 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

David,

 

With all due respect, according to contemporary CIA records, 5' 3.5" Sylvia Duran, to the Mexican Police in late November, 1963, first started describing the Oswald Impersonator (with whom she and Azcue had probably not even dealt!) as being short and blond-haired

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=3025&search=#relPageId=7&tab=page

Nikolai Leonov was only 5' 7" tall, and he was blond-haired.  (Five-seven is short, yes?)

Then in 1978 when she was testifying to the HSCA, Duran added that "Oswald" had blue or green eyes, and that he was wearing a coat.

Yep, Nikolai Leonov had blue eyes, all right.  And wouldn't you know it ... as "Third Secretary" at the Soviet Embassy, (KGB colonel) Leonov was in the habit of wearing a coat, especially, one would think, on work days, no matter how warm it might be in Mexico City in late September.

So, your implication that Sylvia Duran didn't start describing the (probably non-existent) Oswald Impersonator in a Leonov-like-way until 1978 is highly misleading at the best.

 

--  Tommy 

 

PS  Regarding your insinuation that colonel Leonov was only a "translator," I found a little something today that you might find interesting ,,,

"Between 1983 and January 1991, General Nikolai Leonov was Sub-Director of the State Security Committee (KGB) of the Soviet Union, the second most important post within the KGB structure. Previously he was Sub-Director of the KGB’s Analysis and Information Department (1973-1982) and Sub-Director of its Latin American Department (1968-1972). General Leonov is Doctor in Latin American History, at the USSR Academy of Sciences, and author of the book, Essays on Contemporary Central American History (Moscow: Ed. Nauka, Academy of Sciences, 1973). In 1985 he published his memoirs under the title Difficult Times (Moscow: International Relations). Currently he is a professor at the Institute of International Relations in Moscow."

https://cepchile.cl/cep/site/artic/20160303/asocfile/20160303183724/rev73.leonov-lect_ing.pdf

 

PPS  Although I've never "dropped acid," I'm thinking that I might have to do so just to be able to understand your highly scattered and "mysto," modern poetry-like posts ... dude.

 

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

17 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Dave, you can ..........

You have deliberately misquoted me. Fix it.

20 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Michael Walton:

QUOTING FROM YOUR POST (above): 

QUOTE ON: 

.........

QUOTE OFF:

 

As far as I'm concerned, this guy should be disqualified from participating in any discussion on the JFK assassination.

Michael Walton: Go see a good therapist and get your psyche checked.

To those who may be reading this post: I don't care what this shmuck says to the "local people" at this website, most of whom  are sensible,  know better and already have their own "war stories" from dealing with him. I do care, now that the Internet has international reach, that the nonsense he distributes could be read, and lead to serious misunderstanding about my work, on a global scale.,

.....

DSL

3/9/2018 - 8:45 PM PST

 Agreed

18 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Friday, 3/9/2018 - - 7:05 PM PST

Hi Michael Clark:

I really did appreciate your email, which I found not just informative, but genuinely amusing.

OK. . . here's the email address that I believe you wanted:  DSL74@cornell.edu

Repeating:  DSL74@Cornell.edu

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Please put "JFK" or "Friend from Education Forum" in the subject line.

Many thanks.

Best,

DSL

Hi David, it looks like I already e-mailed you. I'll look back and see if I have anything new.

BREAK,...

Allow me to ask a question I am sure you have entertained before. I see your Cornell email addy. I want to ask what you think of John Liggett. I mentioned Cornell because Malcolm Liggett, John's brother, was faculty at Cornell ( I think).

All the Best,

Michael

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As I said before, I really do not know why these arguments descend into the personal stuff.

I a really against it because this discussion does not deserve it.  In fact, is demeaned by it.

Every time someone disagrees with us, we ask, "Who is this person? How dare he!"  

Mike does not buy Lifton's book.  Just like he does not buy Armstrong. 

What's the big deal?  

It's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of incessant, mocking, normative ridicule and harassment, and you know it, Jim. Walton has claimed that he did video production work for you. He has the "brah" thing going-on with you. You never say a word about his "special" child-like antics. So you are good to go. You know that with a few pointed criticisms from you, you would have a gnat on your sassaphrass. But your OK with it, because he is on David Lifton. 

Your playing dumb here, and it is beneath you. Ask David Josephs.

34 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

To all those who are following this person and his posts.. .:

Walton is setting up his own "reality distortion field" for those naive, credulous or foolish enough to believe (or rely upon) anything he has to say.

When it comes to my book, practically every single statement he makes about how this covert operation worked (or how and where the body was altered) is either factually wrong or a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of what I said in Best Evidence.  His postings --sentence after sentence- -are filled with falsehoods and straw men containing multiple misrepresentations about my supposed beliefs.

I asked him earlier to provide some personal history as to his personal background and education.

The reply: NADA. A deafening silence. (Does anyone have reliable information as to who he is?)

If you believe this uninformed person and his goofy posts, which repeatedly misstate facts and weave together his imaginings into a fabric of sheer fantasy, then implicitly one must subscribe to the following absurd proposition:  that, by cleverly misquoting a few documents "here and there," I cleverly deceived the top executives at Macmillan (and also at Book of the Month Club), along with hundreds of thousands of readers whose interest led to my work being at the top of the best seller lists for 3 plus months in the spring of 1981, and then being published by three additional major publishers (Dell, Carrol & Graf and New American Library [1993]).  And oh yes: I also deceived UCLA law prof Liebeler, who was so concerned with the evidence I brought to his attention in October 1966 that he drafted a 13 page memo about it to Chief Justice Warren, the entire staff of the Warren Commission, Senator Robert Kennedy and LBJ. And, oh yes, I somehow caused all the witnesses, whose accounts I documented in Best Evidence (and which can also be viewed on the Best Evidence Research Video) to not have remembered what they witnessed and which a wide assortment of official documents reported as fact).  Its difficult to describe this individual  --and his strained connection to reality--accurately without violating the rules for civil discourse on this forum. 

But OMG! If only Michael Walton had been around, and sharing his profound wisdom and insights for the past several decades. .. : just think!  So much of  this JFK controversy could have been avoided!

Sure Michael Walton . . . in your dreams.

Meanwhile, how about addressing the questions that I previously asked?

Surely you have some general idea of who you are? 

Surely you are able to describe that, without engaging in falsehood and fantasy?

Why not share it?  Its so easy.  Just pretend you are taking a selfie, only doing it with words.

You know how to employ words in the service truth. . .don't you?

What are you hiding?

DSL

3/9/2018 - 3:10 PM PST

 

David, His MO has been to try to relate in some way to members of the forum. He comes off as fairly decent, until, inevitably, you disagree with him about something, then he forever mocks and misrepresents (and worse) what you say or offer, and it never stops.

I recall, recently, when you called him a smart aleck. I thought , " Bummer, Lifton just bought a permanent personal pest". What you probably don't recall is that this happened about a year ago as well, and you used the same term, "smart aleck". Walton demurred a bit, you accepted his attempt to back off, and you bought some time. But you own this pest now, as long as you and he are both present here.

The point is that Walton is here to wade into personal cyber relationships, it is not about the subject matter..Once he senses that you aren't his "brah", he goes into permanent, personal tantrum mode.

I believe I have figured out, partially who he is, or at least who he pretended to be at other times. If you post your email, as I have seen you do before, I will let you know what I have found. I will also look through your posts for that email address.

Also, you may not recall your past brush with this problem because last summer he changed his avatar from a pic of a 40-something, carbon based unit, to that of a child. It's kind of fitting but against the rules without permission.

I 

51 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Sandy, that's easy to say, but the resemblance is strong enough that the WC, all of its proponents, and official history say that these pics are of one and the same man. If that's not strong resemblance, it's certainly strong something.

 

Those two guys are, definitely, different men, IMHO. Depending on the context of the comparison, I could go either way if someone wanted to judge the apropriateness of whether there is a "strong resemblance" or not.

I am not an H & L adherent, yet I admire Armstrong's tenacious, dogged search for as much of the truth about this part of the case that he could.

There was definitely an imposter running around, under orders, and directed from higher governement entites, both to confuse us, as well as put people like Angleto and Hoover off guard, off balance, and make them suspicious and doubtful of their own people and organizations.

The Furniture Mart incident has me convinced that the effort to doppelgang Oswald included an operation that doubled DPD-LHO's (hereafter, Lee's)  family.

I am fairly well convinced by the evidence that the doubling operation was alive during his time in Russia, and that his identity was being mixed with a double back during his time in Atsugi.

Sandy's finding's are an imortant piece of that evidence. Something happened to Lee's teeth when he was young, and whatever was done to remediate the situation "failed" and was fixed in the spring of '58. The X-rays of the corpse are natural teeth.

Something is up. Sandy has done excellent, and very important work.

Those  are my thoughts on the subject.

All the Best,

Michael

9 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

David,

With all due respect, relax, my friend.

Take some deep breaths.

In through the nose, out through the mouth ...

Your buddy,

--  Tommy 

 

Teresa Proenza?  You mean that member of the Cuban Communist Party who was the Cultural Attache or some such thing at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City?  

And Nikolai Leonov, the noticeably short, skinny, 30 year-old, very thin-faced, blond or dark-blond haired, blue-eyed, suit-wearing KGB colonel "Third Secretary 'diplomat'" at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City?

You do realize, don't you, that I believe KGB-boy Leonov didn't go to the Cuban Consulate at all on Friday, September 27, but that Fidel Castro had Cuban Consul Eusebio Azcue describe, in 1978,  the (non-existent) "Oswald" with whom Azcue had "virtually dealt" on 9/27/3 in such a way as to  point a guilty finger at Leonov (and the KGB in general)?

 

It's a trap, David...