Michael Clark

39 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Michael, in view of ...

....

...my intentions are legitimate.

Best regards, Bernie

Bernie,

I did a quick survey of your EF posting history.

in the last 6 years you have posted @400 times.

Of those 400 posts, 14 were NOT, at a glance, relaeted to the two Oswald problem.

Every other post ( nearly 400) just disrupts threads that explore the dual Oswald issue.

I have questions about the two Oswald problem.

None of your posts that I have read have been of any help in answering my questions. 

None of your posts show any interest in the JFKA. You are just interested in breaking-up this facet of the discussion.

I don't understand and I do not care why you obsess on obstructing the dual-Oswald discussion.

I just wish you would go away.

I am looking for that "All the Presidents Men" youtube scene where Bernard Barker tries to whisper that he works for the "CIA". I'll edit-in that clip, here, if I find it. 

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

 

The following is my opinion:

.....

the bit players who were actually clueless, like DA PHILLIPS, ,.....and so on.

......

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

David Atlee Phillips was clueless? Yet you accept that he met LHO and A. Veciana in Dallas in September of '63?

How do you you explain your Walker-did-it-theory and exclude Hunt, Phillips, Veciania, and LHO?

The Admins of this forum should insist that you blog your junk before dumping it, “ad infinitum", here. 

14 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

I insinuated no such thing about stealing. If you were going to steal you would have stolen from a good writer.

My apologies for casting aspersions on your creative outlet. Just because it's not 'my thing' doesn't detract from its merit, and you're right, it was a cheap shot.

 

 

That is accepted and appreciated. Our relationship is reset. It is forgotten. I am not proud of having stooped low in an effort at retaliation.

4 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

I'll put my songs against your 'scary' stories any day. The only thing scary about them is you thinking they are scary. Did you write them when you were six?

I'll leave you this review. Perhaps you'd like to show me a similar one for your, erm, stories....

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/26044/30-08-2017/catchy-folk-rock-with-a-socialist-edge

Say goodnight Gracy...

For clarification, Sandy shared a cool story about how, as a teen,  he repaired a TV for the guy who invented the TV. Very cool story. Bernie ridiculed Sandy for sharing that story. He then insinuated that I stole somebody else's stories and shared them as my own in an EF thread that I opened, elsewhere in the forum, called "Scary Stories Thread".

Bernie's dirty shot at me: "Maybe you could copy this exchange and sell it off as one of your 'scary' stories...!"

My Scary Stories Thread...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23797-scary-stories-thread/

Bernie, I received a couple of accolades for one of my stories... right on the originating Jeep forum, to which I shared a link in my EF thread.

-"that was the most descriptive story i have ever read in my life!!!!

-"Lol thank you for the entertainment. I felt like i was there!"

-"... awesome story!

-"Wow that was a great read. Very well done made me feel like I was there."

5 hours ago, Bernie Laverick said:

 

The fact that none of you are prepared to delve any deeper into any aspect of your obsessive theory/religion is very revealing. It tells us everything.

 

 Bernie, I looked at your posting history in your profile, and it is you who are obsessed.

I also saw a few of your music videos, and I am still laughing... 😂

At 10:42, of this 11-29-63 phone conversation,  Hoover states that LHO was confronted by police and cleared by LHO's boss at the front door of the TSBD.

The latest and most absolute reason that the Trejo theory is wrong just occurred to me. 

It has been my working assumption that JFK absolutely had to die in Dallas that day; and therefore there were increasingly reckless plans A, B and C in place. Paul's plot and his perps could not have afforded a messy, reckless, desperate fall-back to a plan C or D with bombs or very heavy automatic large caliber guns being brought to bear on the limo and killing or wounding everyone. Paul's plotters could not fall-back on a messy, bloody coup and conspiracy. The consequences of such an outcome preclude any possibility of an attempt at such a thing.

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

My understanding of he case is limited when it comes to naming shooters as a fact.

But in my book anti-Castro shooters would have been sheep-dipped as pro-Castro.

They were going to end up double-crossed no matter what.

 

By bad, that was Trejoeque of me. I think I was just trying to tap it out quickly. 

Century Firearms Manufacturing co. In Vermont was, I believe, linked to the Montreal gun smuggling and importation business, and somehow linked to the assassination.

I think it was Gerry Patrick Hemming who claimed the key to the assassination would be found in Montreal.

6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jim - The question is who hired the shooters? 

The shooters, Anti-Castro Cubans, did the ground work and the shooting for free. Their payback was supposed to be a Cuban invasion. Conspiracy was buried and they got double-crossed.

7 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

.......   The whole Oswald Dealey Plaza thing is as far from Hinckley as you can get and entirely unnecessary for killing Kennedy at the hands of a Lone Nut.

 

Jason

Very good point. A revealed conspiracy was supposed to be the result.

M

18 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Yes,  Paul, I mostly agree.

The assassination could benefit from a refresh in mindset and modality of study. If CTers would look at the method of murder in the way that cops and the FBI look at any standard murder -without trying to conflate method and motive- they might find that method leads to the murderers even with an unknown motive.   

I say : stop looking at who benefits from the murder and start looking at who thinks this is the best way to kill JFK?   Who would choose Dallas?   Who would choose long range rifle shots?   Who would choose a moving target?   Who would choose risky uncontrolled variables like the Dallas doctors, the witnesses, the home movie makers?

 

Jason

Investigators conflate method and motive all the time. How often have you heard of police characterize a likely perp by how a murder was committed? “This was up close and personal, the perp knew the victim”; “ this was obviously a case of simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time”; “this was obviously a thrill killing, we’ll hear from this guy again”; “this was obviously a contract killing”. Jason your claim makes no sense.

The job of the Radical Right was to see no evil and hear no evil, but they were to make a lot of noise and static, creating the expectation of the attempt, and making it difficult to detect. There job was almost exclusively passive in nature until the fact of the hit came-to-be and the time came for clean-up, cover-up and the suppression of witnesses and facts.

34 minutes ago, Roger DeLaria said:

For me, it shows extremely desperate circumstances, where the risk is worth it.

In relation to what Michael Clark was saying, I can see a job being contracted out to scrappy indiviuals, but I question whether an extremely important, high value target job would be handed to scappy individuals where the potential for failure could be high(There's a certain amount risk in any operation, no matter who's pulling it off). There would have to be multiple contigencies in place ready to go, as well as fall guys, if said job failed. If the target survies, it gets even harder. Investigation, evidence, press, etc., all have to be controlled and managed.

Hi Roger, In my view, the failure angle was quite well covered. The Perps were Anti Castro Cubans who would have been identified as Pro Castro, along with the sheep dipped LHO, and a war with Cuba would have stymied any investigation or discussion of the facts; whether JFK was wounded or alive. My theory states that as things turned out, that the Anti Castro Cubans got double crossed by the presentation  of a lone-nut instead of a conspiracy. The perps wanted and expected an invasion of Cuba and they got double-crossed.

More and more, I become convinced that the perps were the same guys that turned up at watergate, in order to get Nixon to act on Cuba. Hunt, Mccord, Barker (all CIA), Gonzales, Sturgis, Baldwin, and Liddy.

Some patsy-perp was killed or wounded on the knoll as per the plan indicating conspiracy. That death, person or body were hidden, to foment the lone-nut tale.

All bases were covered. If the double-cross or the assassination failed, the perps would get their war with Cuba, and few outside of Cuba would have lamented that outcome.

36 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Michael,

The H&L critics are trying to prevent people from seeing that beyond the hundreds of pieces of evidence John assembled in his book, there is a consistent pattern that can easily be seen surrounding the two Oswalds during, for one example, their junior high school years.  PS44 in the Bronx and Beuaregard JHS in New Orleans is just part of that evidence.

Both Robert Oswald and John Pic have said that LEE Harvey Oswald attended school in the New York City borough of Manhattan in 1952.  But no record of that attendance exists in the published Warren volumes or in the documents in the National Archives.  Instead, we have just b&w COPIES of school documents showing LHO attended school only in the Bronx--not Manhattan.  (Judge Florence Kelley gave the FBI the originals of LHO's NYC school records, but they all disappeared.)

Harvey Oswald got into trouble with NYC authorities  because  he failed to go to his classes in one of the Bronx schools he was enrolled in.  Courtroom encounters with the legal system threatened to expose the whole Oswald project, and so Harvey and his caretaker "mom" fled New York and Harvey began attending, part time, Beauregard School in New Orleans.  That is the issue this thread is about.  In the fall semester of 1953, Harvey was in New Orleans and LEE was still in New York.  That's what these two records show:

 

 

But there is more evidence, the clearest of all, that Harvey Oswald was soon taken from New Orleans and sent to Fort Worth, Texas, where he began attending Stripling Junior High School while Lee Oswald was still at Beauregard in New Orleans. 

During this school semester, LEE Oswald was attending Beauregard JHS in New Orleans and HARVEY Oswald was at W.C. Stripling junior high in Fort Worth, Texas.  Since the Warren Commission published the Beauregard records indicating “Lee Harvey Oswald” attended classes at Beauregard for the full fall semester of 1954, evidence that he also attended Stripling school at the same time would be a serious problem.  (Just as the Beauregard and NYC records, both published by the WC, are a serious problem now.)

So, what evidence is there that “Lee Harvey Oswald” attended Stripling School in Fort Worth?  H&L critics refuse to believe ANY of the following:

Stripling assistant principal Frank Kudlaty in 1963 met FBI agent at the school and gave them “Lee Harvey Oswald’s” Stripling records. Those records also all disappeared. Mr. Kudlaty's YouTube interview is here.

On two separate occasions,  Robert Oswald told a Fort Worth newspaper that his brother attended Stripling.  See one of the articles here.

Robert also testified to the Warren Commission that his “brother” attended Stripling.

Harvey Oswald’s classmate Fran Schubert said she attended Stripling with Oswald and watched him walk home from Stripling to his house at 2220 Thomas Place. See Fran's YouTube interview with John here.

In the 1990s, Stripling School principal Ricardo Galindo told John that it was “common knowledge” that “Lee Harvey Oswald” attended Stripling.  Not one “researcher” here has made an effort to contact Galindo to see if he is still alive and if he would repeat his claim.

John also spoke to local student Bobby Pitts, who remembered that Oswald attended Stripling with his younger brother and that he (Bobby) remembered seeing (Harvey) Oswald standing on the porch at 2220 Thomas Place, directly across the street from Stripling.  John also spoke with former Stripling student Doug Gann, who attended ninth grade at Stripling with Harvey and remembered that he live “across the street from the basketball courts and one or two houses to the left,” which exactly describes 2220 Thomas Place, where “Marguerite Oswald” lived at the time of the assassination of JFK.  H&L critics have not one bit of interest in any of these witnesses.  They just want to describe them as liars.

H&L critics have no explanation why a Forth Worth Star-Telegram article from November 2017 would indicate that Oswald’s “teachers and classmates remember him at Stripling, though there is no official record.”  Read the article here.

The H&L critics are forced to say that all the witnesses above are lying, because the critics know that, accoding to the official timeline of the Warren Commission, "Lee Harvey Oswald" could not have attended Stripling School. 

Thanks, Jim. Is it JA's or your contention that Harvey and Lee knew each other or knew that they were part of this manipulation?

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

"Squash these pests under your foot. Swarm of pestilent naysayers. Rabid. Vermin" (from a previous post)

Why are you even allowed to post on here? You always know when someone is veering towards H&L because they become more vicious and aggressive by the week.

Is that how you evaluate evidence? If people you don't like say things you don't want to hear you then presume that, scientifically, the opposite must be the truth? Really?

But then you never say anything either way do you Michael? You come on to throw a few left jabs at anyone who questions far out whacky theories, as though you too are the 'keeper of the keys' and defender of something you clearly know nothing about, but you can never offer anything other than insults . 

It is our undeniable right to question any aspect of this case as we so wish. So grow up and get used to it! That you find this the behaviour of "rabid vermin" says more about your inherent nastiness then proving scientifically that the H&L story is true. I mean. can you believe these people...?

Maybe you could copy this exchange and sell it off as one of your 'scary' stories...!

"I am a highly intelligent person  (IQ = 145) and I don't care what you think about it.." (Sandy Larsen Jan1 2018)

Firstly, IQ tests have long since been thoroughly discredited as a measure of judging intelligence. (Clearly you don't do much reading). And secondly, 145? Even if IQs did say something of someone's intellectual capacity...145 isn't that high. You pronounce yourself as highly intelligent. Hurray! Pat on the back for Sandy. Stand back while the cleverest man in the universe figures it all out. He's fixed tellies before so if anyone is going to get to the bottom of this it will be Sandy 145 Larsen.

But that is just your puffed up grandiose and chronically egotistical self evaluation. Mine is that you present as a straightforward simpleton. At best. 

 

 

Bernie, Your personal attacks on Sandy are disgusting. Stick to the evidence. Sandy's career and experience is quite impressive. You probably have missed it since you seem to singularly circle in the waters at the H&L end of the pool.

Nice slam dunk Sandy. It's great to see you squash these pests under your foot.

I have to say, the rabid persistence with which these pests attack the work of Armstrong makes me think, more and more, that there is something very important in it. It must be of the greatest importance to attract such a swarm of pestilent naysayers. My interest has always been in answering a couple of questions regarding obvious occasions where Oswald was impersonated. I am now thinking that Armstrong's work may very well be the key to the mechanics of the assassination.

Keep up the good work Sandy.

A couple of interesting and relevant  threads were recently opened on ROKC. One connects Fred  Korth with Roy Truly.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1687-roy-truly-fred-korth-connection

And I'll link this ONI thread as well, since I just bumped the thread.

An couple of interesting threads were recently opened over at ROKC.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1687-roy-truly-fred-korth-connection

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1686-fred-korth

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

Roger, again a pleasure to talk with you.

After further  thought of what you say above, my additional response is that you might be mixing motive and method. Is there any reason to do so? Most of the time, the method of murder has little to do with the motive.   

Who uses guns to kill?  People who through their circumstances find guns the easiest way to kill.   

Killing with guns is probably the easiest way to kill for most of us, but is it the easiest way to kill for Dulles, Hoover, LBJ and so forth ...considering they control the investigatory processes?

We know how Kennedy was killed. Forget motive entirely for a second .

Concentrate on the method  used to kill him and remember that everyone always chooses  what they believe will have the highest chance of success . So we start with the method of the murder and from there try to figure out who is most likely to use this kind of method. In other words, if you need Kennedy killed, who in what position would think it easiest to kill him in the way that he was actually killed?

Again forget motive. Who in what position would think it is easiest to kill someone as they're driving by in a convertible in front of hundreds of witnesses and dozens of photographers?  If for no other reason than to indulge me, just concentrate only on the method and stop trying to conflate method with motive. Who would choose this method assuming their only objective is to kill Kennedy?

What does the method of the murder tell us about the circumstances of the murderers, ignoring motive entirely.?.?.?

Jason

 

 

Mobsters or Anti Castro Cuban as motivated parties could have been given the green light, cover and protection from the individuals you are trying to exonerate. Your arguments are fallacies. Intel organizations, financial organizations, political parties, crypto cultures or power groups all could have enlisted scrappy individuals, motivated by money, hatred or political interests to kill JFK. 

Your argument would be more fully-exposed as false if you were to attempt to explain how some of these high level individuals, departments or interests would have, in your theory, killed JFK.

You and Trejo are trying to say that the method used, of shots fired at a motorcade in Dealy Plaza, could have only been the work of Dallas Police, Birchers, Walkers henchmen or the like. The argument never gets out of the gate.

The further implication is that your perps could have only killed Kennedy in Dallas, or in that area, and by the means that were actually used. You can't prove that, and the likelihood of that theory is quite remote.

Furthermore, Trejo implicates E Howard Hunt, David Atlee Phillips and David Morales, but says they did it as a hobby, on their free time. How does your present argument allow you and Trejo to wriggle-out of the participation of the high level and wide ranging conspiracy that you are here trying, failingly I might add, to disprove?

8 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

 

Happy New Year Paul + everyone - - 

Although this epistle from Paul today drifts more into political and social commentary, I think it's important to examine the reasons why one explores or adopt a CT; and examine how one's feelings towards power, authority, and government impact which CT is adopted.

From my perspective, which might be slightly at odds with Paul's point, 90% of the CT community starts with the proposition that the government, the Establishment, wealthy people, law enforcement, the intelligence community, et. al, are inherently conspiratorial, dishonest, and supremely powerful.   From this "truth" they adopt their CT.

I am on a winter break and away from research until mid-January, but it's clear to me as I look through the body of CT resources that almost everyone starts with a conclusion, then finds evidence to support it.  The conclusion almost unanimously begins with something like a group of Illuminati, Billderbergers, or another cabal of wealthy men who secretly control the world --- and all the JFK evidence is molded in to this thesis of how society and the world works.

In my own case, I voted for Obama and reluctantly voted for Clinton.  So I would be tagged as on the Left.  But I have no inherent distrust of the Right.  I've voted for Republicans before, many friends and family are conservatives.   I've known people who work in the White House, I know cops, my friends and family are in some cases now or formerly in US intelligence, diplomacy, or government.  There is NO wide-ranging conspiracy.  None.   Not now, not in 1963.  Not possible.  There are Democrats, Republicans, rich and not-so rich everywhere in law enforcement, intelligence,  the national government, locally, and in the so-called Establishment, both now and 55 years ago.

Each piece of evidence should stand by itself, or at most in relation to other evidence - evidence doesn't serve a conclusion, it can LEAD to a conclusion, or more frequently it merely adds weight to a conclusion, but just as often there is no safe conclusion whatsoever from much of what CTers doctrinal groupthink considers "proof".

 

Jason

Jason, I don't see how you can believe two of your main points.

CT's regarding the JFKA start with the fact that LHO didn't do it, therefore we have been lied to, and people with the power to construct and maintain the lies did so.  There is no irrational leap of faith there. One must start with hypotheses and see if they stand up to scrutiny. The WCR represents a theory just like any CT. 

The generation of the lie and cover-up necessarily was a wide ranging conspiracy. The actual assassination, not necessarily so.