Michael Clark

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

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?

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.

Some of us were hoping to hear more from Wynne.

Chris, I do not doubt that. As I conjectured above, Truly’s lie about the wide turn gave some cover to those who deleted the middle of the Zapruder film. The editing of the end of the Towner film may have served to hide whatever it was that needed to be deleted from the Zapruder film.

Deleted Deleted

Cudos to DVP for calling Paul Trejo out on his misrepresentations, obfuscations and other misrepresentations that cannot, here, be clearly and honestly characterized and stated.

There is an interesting thread over on ROKC regarding the FPCC. I am surprised that there is almost no mention of James McCord Jr''s involvement with the FPCC at the time of the JFKA, anywhere in the JFK assassination investigative community.. Wikipedia puts it out here, and it has not been deleted. I have also asked Harry Dean about it and he confirms the Wikipedia claims. To the passing reader, James McCord Jr. was a CIA agent at the time of the JFK assassination and one of the Watergate burglars. As a CIA agent he was in charge of "infiltration" of the FPCC in 1963. ROKC thread. https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1680-was-the-fpcc-cia-operation-under-the-direction-of-gibson Wikipedia Link and quote:. " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._McCord_Jr. ".... then-Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles once introduced McCord to an Air Force colonel as "the best man we have".[9] In 1961, and under his direction, a counter-intelligence program was launched against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. James McCord Jr. Is still alive.

Paul Trejo will, next, demand HD satellite images, and then thermal imaging or some-such nonsense.

The "parameters" are Truly's lie versus the Towner film. Truly's lie is that the Limo slowed down noticibly and turned hard to clear the abutment. The Towner film, which is not filled with lies, misdirection, obfuscation, prognostication, manipulation, deceit, criminality, prevarications, paid-endorsements, preconceived notions and absurd theories ......... shows that the limo swiftly rolled through the turn.

Likewise quoted for the record.

... quoted prior to upcoming edits

He's not dumb. He is seeking negative attention after failing to to get the positive attention that he sought prior to the beginning of this year, on this forum. His posts were ignored; he is hurt, he gave up, and now he seeks attention in a way that is harder to ignore; by misrepresenting, mocking and ridiculing others, individually and as groups. Negative attention seeking behaviors are common among children, and also adults with emotional disturbances.

Truly’s lie gives an explanation for why the Zapruder film was cut. We don’t know why the film was cut but it appears that something had to be deleted from the historical record. If an honest investigator or commissioner wanted to know why the Z-film was cut he would be told that the SS deleted it to save them from the embarrassment of having jeapardized the President with the wide slow turn. Truly’s lie would support the other lie.

Thanks David. Transcribed from document above. "Soon after Oswald's arrest and prior to his murder by Ruby, cropped photo of this man was shown by the FBI to Oswald's mother who disclaimed any knowledge. After Oswald's death his mother publicly claimed the FBI had shown her a photo of Ruby prior, repeat prior to the killing of her son."

Some information on FBI agent Odum http://jfkfacts.org/lee-harvey-oswalds-address-book/

AFFIDAVIT PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY STATE OF TEXAS, County of Dallas, ss : I, Bardwell D. Odum, having first been duly sworn, depose as follows: I am presently a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, and have been employed in such a capacity since June 15, 1942. On November 23, 1963, while acting officially in my capacity as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I obtained a photograph of an unknown individual, furnished to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency, and proceeded to the Executive Inn, a motel, at Dallas, Texas, where Marina Oswald was staying. In view of the source of this picture, and, in order to remove all background data which might possibly have disclosed the location where the picture was taken, I trimmed off the background. The straight cuts made were more quickly done than a complete trimming of the silhouette and I considered them as effective for the desired purpose. I desired to show this photograph to Marina Oswald in an attempt to identify the individual portrayed in the photograph and to determine if he was an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald. It was raining and almost dark. I went to the door of Marina Oswald's room and knocked, identifying myself. Marguerite Oswald opened the door slightly and, upon being informed that I wished to speak to Marina Oswald, told me that Marina Oswald was completely exhausted and could not be interviewed. Marguerite Oswald did not admit me to the motel room. I told her I desired to show a photograph to Marina Oswald, and Marguerite Oswald again said that Marina was completely exhausted and could not be interviewed due to that fact. I then showed Marguerite Oswald the photograph in question. She looked at it briefly and stated that she had never seen this individual. I then departed the Executive Inn. The conversation with Marguerite Oswald and the exhibition of the photograph took place while I was standing outside the door to the room and Marguerite Oswald was standing inside with the door slightly ajar. Attached hereto are two photographic copies of the front and back of a photograph.* I have examined these copies and they are exact copies of the photograph of the unknown individual which I showed to Mrs. Marguerite Oswald on November 23, 1963. Signed this 10th day of July 1964. (s) Bardwell D. Odum, BARDWELL D. ODUM. Affidavit of FBI agent Odom.

A very interesting thread is underway at Jfkassasssinationforum, revolving around WC testimony of Margerite Oswald having been asked to identify a photograph of Jack Ruby on 11-23. FBI agent Odum's recounts the story but does not state that the person is Jack Ruby. I am just a few minutes into considering the implications but the first thing that comes to mind is that LHO implicated Ruby, and the FBI had to find-out if Marge and Marina knew of a Ruby-LHO relationship. If Marge or Marina said that they knew of such a relationship, getting Ruby to kill LHO would not work to wrap-up the Lee-as-LN package. https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,14961.0.html ....... walked into the room in the presence of my son, and all of the agents. As I stated before, Marina and I knew nothing of what went on. We did not know how Lee was shot or anything, because we did not sit down and watch television. Mr. RANKIN. What son are you talking about? Mrs. OSWALD. Robert. So this is approximately the Wednesday, the 25th--no---Sunday was the 24th. About the 26th--it was a few days after Lee was shot, a couple of days. So I walked into the room, and I picked this paper up and turned it over, and I exclaimed, "This is the picture of the man that the FBI agent showed me." And one of the agents said, "Mrs. Oswald, that is the man that shot your son." Believe me, gentlemen, I didn't even ask his name. And nothing more was said. Now, that is very unusual. Mr. RANKIN. Now, the picture that you are talking about that you picked up, was a picture in the newspaper? Mrs. OSWALD. In the newspaper. The bottom part of the newspaper. I can see that like I can see the picture. I had never seen the picture before. Mr. RANKIN. Did you later learn whose picture that was? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, when I returned to my home in Fort Worth, Tex., about a week later, Mr. Blair Justice, of the Star Telegram, brought me all the papers, that was the next time I saw the pictures and knew it was Mr. Ruby. And it was a bottom page, and it was this picture shown me. Now, this is what I want to know. Mr. RANKIN. Tell us who was there when you said that, about the picture in the paper? Mrs. OSWALD. Mr. Mike Howard, Mr. Garry Seals--well, all of the agents there. The room was full. And Robert Oswald was there. The room was full. Mr. RANKIN. Was Marina there? Mrs. OSWALD. Marina was in the bedroom. Marina and I stayed in the bedroom with the children. We could get snatches of the television and so on. The children had diarrhea and so on. We were busy. As I picked the paper up and turned it over, it was on the back. This picture I saw, the same picture. Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether your son Lee Oswald knew Jack Ruby? Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, I have no way of knowing that. I just hope that he did, if I am right. If Lee is an agent, I hope he knew Jack Ruby. Representative FORD. When you made that statement, after looking at the newspaper, did you say it loudly enough for people in the room to hear it? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir, because they answered me. They said, "That is the picture of the man that shot your son." But nothing has been said since that. That is the part that I question all about this. And then I am not asked to be subpenaed at Jack Ruby's trial or anything. The FBI says yes, they showed me a picture, but that wasn't a picture of Jack Ruby, not even giving me a chance. I don't understand. Something is not according to Hoyle. I keep telling you gentlemen. Now, I can identify this picture, I believe, out of a hundred pictures. It was a black and white glossy picture of a big face and shoulders.

Well, Jim, I don't see how the asperges's has a definitive affect on the larger H&L story, and indeed I don't think it should at all. I think it only has relevance inasmuch as one side or the other is afraid to give a nanometer to the other side and I think that's sad. I think it is at least clear that there was some legitimate confusion about the identity of LHO and anti-Armstrong radicals would not even admit that. That said, I independently came to the conclusion that the NOLA-TV interviewed LHO may have had Aspergers. Also, I don't think the statements from your correspondent claiming that the Marines would have been aware of this are correct. Back in 1958 I don't think they had a full grasp of the condition, and I don't think, given what they may have known then, that they would have cared. The NOLA-DPD LHO had some combination of exploitable talents and possibly weaknesses. He certainly does not look like a prime candidate for typical Marine Corp. service. I think Aspergers is possible, and some related gifts were part of the reason he was selected for Marine and, IMO, intelligence service.

Glenn, I might be misunderstanding your question but St. John Hunt wrote on his own FB page that he wrote this letter. So, St. John IS the provenance.

Bernie I am not even and H&L adherent. I don't even know how else to describe the way that a few folks, yourself included, make it impossible to debate anything remotely related to H&L or Armstrong. Armstrong's new article only covers 1963, makes no claim about the larger H&L story, and you guys come out and start with the same old stuff, disrupting the thread with off topic stuff. It really resembles animalistic behavior: roaches, dogs, pirhana, vermin, whatever. You could bring an unsuspecting friend, and say, "watch this"; then drop an Armstrong quote in the forum and watch the madness ensue. You could take it humorously if you want. It is kind of funny except for the bad blood and ill will that it generates. I have questions for Jim about certain things but I just don't bother, because it's impossible to have a debate about anything H&L, even about a small limited, related incident. That's sad and frustrating.

I would gladly put together a list of esteemed researchers, with quotes, who have called you out as one who makes stuff up, chronically, if you like.

More obfuscation from Paul Trejo who can't admit that he was wrong when he said that Jack claimed that the Carousel or the passport picture was faked. When you don't admit that you were wrong that becomes something else.