Michael Clark

On 12/22/2017 at 5:58 PM, Gaby Stan said:

Excellent work, Wynne! We all appreciate your recollections' sharing with us, since it is of such great value for all JFK investigators. I am still to see parts from 3 onwards, but noticed part 3 is no longer valid on Vimeo, but instead I found it here on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynx69SWrxTU  Southland Center 1963, Part 3

Can you tell us here those parts of your story that you found puzzling and did not want to record in the films? I am very much interested in every piece of information you can give us, since I am convinced of your honesty about it all. Thank you!

Cheers!

Gabriel

Some of us were hoping to hear more from Wynne.

14 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

Michael,

Thank you for stating that succinctly.

I do believe we are missing more from the end of Towner's film than we have.

 

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

On 12/30/2017 at 6:42 PM, Rich Pope said:

Deleted

Deleted

7 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I never said that the Walker shooting proves LHO was guilty on Nov. 22. Never.

But you will have to admit, Paul, that by accepting the truth of Oswald's guilt in the Walker shooting, it makes it much easier (for anyone!) to accept the notion that this same would-be murderer (who pointed his rifle at the head of someone ELSE prior to 11/22/63) could have also pointed that same rifle at the head of another political figure (JFK) in November. Correct? (How could anyone say NO to that question?)

 

Can you answer this then, Paul?.....

If Oswald was part of a "team" of assassins on 4/10/63, then why did Oswald have to TAKE A BUS to get anywhere both before and after the Walker incident? Where were his "team" members (2 or more you say?) when Lee needed some transportation?

The same question, of course, needs to be be asked concerning any "team" members (co-conspirators) that Oswald allegedly had on 11/22/63 as well. If he's got some HELP (of any kind), why is Oswald left to wing it on his own just after JFK was shot (via a bus, a cab, and his own two feet)?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/hung-out-to-dry.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/edwin-walker-and-lee-harvey-oswald.html

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.

15 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

It's good to have a video -- yet that video still falls short, on three counts:

1.  It's not a limo

2.  It's not a controlled parade, where the cars have a right to hog the road

3.  The film was not taken from the spot where Roy Truly was standing.

Only when those three conditions are met can we even come close to the parameters involved.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

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

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

It's good to have a video -- yet that video still falls short, on three counts:

1.  It's not a limo

2.  It's not a controlled parade, where the cars have a right to hog the road

3.  The film was not taken from the spot where Roy Truly was standing.

Only when those three conditions are met can we even come close to the parameters involved.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

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.

13 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jim,

I've already debunked this -- but you didn't listen.

That second document has a field labeled, "Originally Admitted',' and has a DATE.   That field is the DATE that Lee Harvey Oswald was "Originally Admitted" to the Beauregard Public Junior High School.   That DATE given is January 13, 1954.

To an unbiased reader, that means that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't registered at Beauregard Public School for the first semester.  He spent that semester at some other school.   Not Beauregard.  Young Oswald started this second semester at Beauregard.

But you have refused to admit this simple fact.   Based on your biased refusal, the rest of the evidence just flies right over your head.

So -- why bother arguing with you?   Your mind is made up.  It's much more interesting to engage with David Von Pein against James DiEugenio.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Likewise quoted for the record.

18 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I, for one, welcome David Von Pein to this thread.

For one thing, LNers are a welcome relief from the 50-year nonsense of the CIA-did-it CTers, who can't create a decent argument after a half-century.

For another thing, it is important that the shooting at General Walker on April 10, 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald and one other person must be raised again and again, to show the plausibility of the Walker shooting reports, and to show the weakness of the CIA-did-it CTers on the topic of General Walker.  They'd rather just evade the whole topic -- and it shows.

Yet I will disagree this far with David -- just because Lee Harvey Oswald took a pot-shot at General Walker, is not sufficient proof to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK.  It's just insufficient evidence, period.

It is a fact that Oswald was on a team to try to shoot Walker.  There were at least two persons on that team (and probably a few others in the conspiracy).  We know this from eye-witnesses, and General Walker himself was always on the alert for the second shooter, who got away, he was convinced.

We don't know if Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter, however, since there were two men at Walker's backyard fence, and there were no eye-witnesses to the shooting itself (only the running back to their car, their car scurrying away).

Consider this -- the LNers think that Lee Harvey Oswald could have killed JFK in a moving limo from the TSBD 6th floor -- a super shooter -- and yet Lee Harvey Oswald MISSED General Walker -- sitting still -- from a fraction of the distance?

No -- the Radical Right in Dallas -- including the Dallas Police -- killed JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald.   That's what the final evidence will finally show.  But the ridiculous CIA-did-it CT's that continue to rise after 54 years -- they deserve all the mockery that they get.   I'm always ready to encourage that.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

... quoted prior to upcoming edits

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't think so. This is very dumb:

"That a boy was snatched off the streets of Hungary because secret agents thought he looked exactly like Oswald."

And he says it as though it is something we actually believe.

 

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.

6 hours ago, David Josephs said:

For those who have waded thru Mr. W's trolling to find some real info...

This report is days before the WCR is delivered to LBJ...

The concern over this episode was NOT that she was shown a photo of RUBY... but that the photos she was shown were different from each other.... and that the FBI was trying to hide the fact Ruby was in Mexico too...

The photo, having come from a CIA Op, and now associated with the name Oswald, would do harm to the LI projects of surveillance.  In fact, not long after the WCR is published, the Russians are moving in on the LI apartment requiring the CIA to relocate....

I'm terribly sorry that one needed to deal with a petulant Mr. W just to get to some evidence... 

 

 

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/

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.

6 hours ago, Glenn Nall said:

and what exactly is the provenance of this supposed 'letter?'

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.

28 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Says the man who two pages ago referred to us as "vermin"!!!! Did you seriously not get suspended for that?

Michael thinks it is slanderous to criticise the H&L story and he gets very angry with those that do.

This is the bargain basement mentality we are up against.

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. 

19 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Says you -- the number one insult-meister on this Forum.

--Paul

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.

20 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

What Jack White said was that both the 13" head photo of Oswald and the one that Jim posted (a Fake) were both taken in the Marines.

Although Jack said they were taken two years apart, they look identical to me.   The only difference was that the second one in Jack's line-up was used for a passport. 

Jack White showed a very fuzzy copy of the 13" head photograph.  Here it is again in a much clearer format.  It looks the same as the Fake photograph to me, where BOTH were retouched.

In any case -- you're technically correct -- Jack White himself said that these two photographs were taken a "couple of years" apart.  I see that now.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

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.

7 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

How dare you accuse anybody else, by saying, "He should be banned from this forum, all he does is criticize and fabricate slander about other members..."  You're describing yourself to a "T".

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, you fabricate garbage all the time and you get called on it. That is what it is and unfortunately must be accepted, I guess. Michael Walton fabricates slander of other members all the time. I don't see how that is acceptable.

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Paul,

In the your original post, the photo inset below is the one you said Jack White claimed to be fake:

 

•  

Now if you go to the video you posted, you will find that Jack White does NOT say that that photo is fake. Nor does it have anything to do with the photo showing Oswald with a 13" head. The photo above was taken a couple years later, according to Jack White in the video.

 

Yes Sandy, and Jack makes no claim that the inset photo is fabricated. It is shown briefly, and it is clear that he was working with it but he makes no claim as Paul stated.  Paul made this up and can't bear to admit it.

13 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Paul, I don't know if you know this but just an FYI - Sandy Larsen claims to be agnostic about this whole case.  In other words, he claims that he still has not decided if there was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy or not.  He claims he's still "studying" the evidence if you can believe that.

But to give you an idea of how he weighs the evidence he reads here and elsewhere, a long while back, he actually claimed that one of the bystanders down on the knoll was holding a "black object," meaning a pistol.  He claimed to see this in one of the films (either Muchmore or Nix...can't remember which one).  So to summarize, he actually believed that one of the old guys may have been involved in shooting Kennedy.  When I called him out on it, he actually said he was joking ("heh heh") which I'm assuming after giving it more thought, knew that his outrageous claim was a complete out in left field bogus theory.

Of course Sandy is also a 100% supporter of the Hardly Lee story too. So I just wanted to let you know what kind of "researcher" you're working with here.

Regards - Michael Walton

Typical garbage from Michael "Oh-so-hurt!" Walton. Sandy must have not noticed Walton's genius at some point and so he now, repeatedly, over and over, takes something that Sandy said and fabricates a story around it, making stuff up, in an effort to mock Sandy.  Michael here is making a bogus synopsis of Sandy's thoughts feelings and opinions and it is totally out of place. He does similar things to me. He should be banned from this forum, all he does is critcize and fabricate slander about other members.

The "hurt" in Michael Walton is pathetic, as seen in this gem...

On 5/20/2017 at 8:32 AM, Michael Walton said:

Mike Clark - why would you bring this thread back to life after four years?  I mean, I made a thread months ago and it got zilch views.  I put a lot of effort into it, not making up some pie-in-the-sky story like this. Why don't you bring it up again and discuss it?  I mean really look at it and think it through and see if it has any interesting debate to it instead of this nonsensical thread here?

You probably won't though because I know you think I'm the playground bully here.  You want me and others to think everything under the sun is a conspiracy like you do, and when we don't then we're bullies.

34 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jeff,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  There is much to consider and reconsider in your observations.   I agree that the document directly names Ruth Paine and then Marina Oswald, with a mention of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) only in passing -- and yet I am leaning toward a stronger implication of LHO in agreement with one of your observations, viz., "carefully written to imply information without actually stating information."

In my reading, James Hosty's stated objective in his WC testimony, and to Ruth Paine (according to her WC testimony) was that his visit was all about Marina Oswald.  Yet since she just had a baby only weeks ago, James Hosty would have mercy on her, and not interview her at all, to minimize her stress.  Instead, he would only introduce himself politely to her, and assure her that his interest was entirely friendly.   

In the meantime, however, since he was already at Ruth Paine's house, FBI agent Jame s Hosty decided to ask Ruth Paine  several questions about LHO.  C'mon!  It's clear to me that (1) Hosty claimed he was there to visit Marina Oswald because FBI protocol allowed that it was time to contact any Russian national on his list by procedure, and he arbitrarily chose Marina; and (2) once there, he didn't meet with Marina all, but grilled Ruth Paine about Lee Harvey Oswald.  

That is, LHO was the real target of his visit, and Marina Oswald was only a ruse to get to LHO, because the FBI had no reason at all to pursue LHO in Dallas on November 1, 1963.  You can't raise the issue of the August arrest of Oswald in New Orleans for his FPCC activities, because LHO himself called the FBI to visit him in that New Orleans jail cell.  The FBI found LHO's meeting entirely useless, and the FBI soon closed the Oswald file.  IT WAS CLOSED.  But here is James Hosty in Dallas seeking information about LHO from Ruth Paine.

This was on November 1, 1963 -- shortly before the wiretap was requested and set-up.   

Now, in his book, Assignment Oswald (1996), FBI agent James Hosty goes on and on about the possibility that Marina Oswald "still might be a KGB sleeper agent."   Hosty in his book said that he did consider the possibility back in 1963.   HOWEVER --- on that first visit Hosty had no questions for Marina, but many questions for Ruth Paine about LHO.  That's no accident, in my reading.

If (and only if) FBI agent Hosty truly thought that Marina Oswald might be a KGB sleeper agent, then by spending his first visit almost entirely with Ruth Paine asking questions about LHO (his whereabouts, his living arrangements, his contact information, his place of employment) then by proxy FBI agent Hosty was also seeking to nail LHO and Ruth Paine as Marina's accomplices.

Otherwise (and I find this more likely) James Hosty was also trying to nail Marina, Ruth and Michael as LHO's accomplices.  This would have been in keeping with the politics of Ex-General Edwin Walker -- anybody who comes from Russia, or consorts with Russians, is automatically suspect of being RED.

Yet at the same time, the Dallas Minutemen, led by Walker (according to Hosty, ibid. p. 4) were planning to greet JFK in Dallas in Dealey Plaza with their rifles in hand (according to me).

Thus, the soon-to-be-implemented wire-tap would have been planned as: (1) a way to continue the FPCC sheep-dip of LHO, but there in Dallas; (2) a way to accuse all Communists of killing JFK; (3) a way to accuse Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald of Communism; (4) a way to include whoever called Ruth Paine on that line of Communism; and (4) a way to prove a Communist plot should be suspect #1 in the plot to kill JFK.

In my personal interviews of Ruth Paine over telephone in December 2015, she told me that she is still very interested in learning who set up that wire tap.  She admits that there was a call from Michael Paine on 11/22/1963, at the time reported, and that they did mention JFK and LHO in that context.   She denies the wording as given in the official report.   

Ruth Paine does admit that Michael said, "We both know who's responsible."   She explains that as a generic statement -- in reference to the fact that the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill was all over Dallas that day, and the Dallas Morning News, full page, black-bordered ad, "Welcome, Mister Kennedy to Dallas" stunned many Dallas residents.  The meaning of Michael's comment was interpreted by Ruth Paine as, "Whoever is responsible for these publications was responsible for the JFK Assassination."   That's her explanation.

In any case, Ruth Paine repeatedly asked the Warren Commission to tell her who tapped her home telephone.  They never did.  It's apparently part of the top secret JFK data that is supposed to come out in the final rounds of the JFK Records Act.

So, Bart Kamp shared with us this new release of the Aynesworth document.  Yet what it says is that the FBI did not set up this wire-tap.   I think there is some budding agreement that FBI James Hosty was involved, but if so, he acted on his own, without telling the FBI Headquarters.  Does that sound right to you, too, Jeff?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul said: " In my reading, James Hosty's stated objective in his WC testimony, and to Ruth Paine (according to her WC testimony) was that his visit was all about Marina Oswald. "

That is worth fact-checking to find out if Paul's "Reading" resembles Hosty's "stated objective.." 

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

Extending Jack White's careful analysis of FAKE photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald, especially his interesting technique of splitting a photograph in two, and then combining the left side with a flip-over of the left side --- or combining the right-side with a flip-over of the right-side --- or making the joining strip slightly larger or slightly smaller than in real life, experts can produce some interesting photographic effects.

This is interesting -- and perhaps Tom Hume would support Jack White's analysis with some experiments -- since he's very good at this on the Internet.

1.  Take any photograph -- say of oneself -- and then split it the way Jack White did -- and make two photographs.  One with two left-sides -- and one with two right-sides.

2.  Notice how different the two photographs can look, because as Jack White says, nobody's face is perfectly symmetrical.  It looks like the same person -- but it doesn't -- like an optical illusion.

3.  It is that disturbing symmetry of Lee Harvey Oswald's face in the so-called Marine photograph of Oswald supplied by Jim Hargrove -- that's what I noticed.  His whole head is elongated.  It seems that Jack White was suggesting this when he compared a normal head-size against the original of the "Marine" photograph.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Poooooofffff! Like a puff of smoke, Paul Trejo, the wannabe dialectic prestigitator (and oft-times prognosticator) pretends that he explained-away his false statement. Rather than admit to being wrong or hasty in making his claim he prefers to don the hat of the prevaricator, thinking that no one will notice.