Michael Clark

On 12/8/2017 at 10:42 AM, David Josephs said:

I knew Igor... at the top right.. has 3 names...  was like 5'3"....

arrested in Irving maybe??

Off the top of my head....  The police stopped by his house on the 23rd after a complaint (from his wife?), checked his gun and concluded that there was nothing to be seen there. He then took off to Philadelphia in a red car, possibly a camero and maybe a convertible, and returned to Dallas within days, with a different car.

His departure on Saturday leads me to surmise that Crafard may have gone with him, some of the way.

His story is interesting because some researcher (Slandria, Tink Thompson, Fonzi?) caught up to him some years later and had one or more lengthy interviews with him. 

Ill check what I just wrote with a re-read when I can.

Mike 

***edit. ok, time to fact check my memory. First off, it wasn't a camaro which was introduced in 1966.

***it was a Thunderbird. Regarding the rest, reading Bill Kelly's  introduction to that thread gets you pretty far, there is no need for me to summarize.

Thanks Mike, that's a great challenge! Thanks for posting it. Finding a story that was been disappeared.....

BTW, great last name, and first name. Ha!

Michael

On 12/6/2017 at 10:51 AM, David Josephs said:

Igor, the short guy (name escapes me)

Vaganov?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/23787-phone-lines-crafard-and-senator-at-the-carousel/

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Tracy,

    

....... we must regard the .......

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo is still carrying a mouse in his pocket....

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No it can't because the alleged license is nowhere-it doesn't exist. However, it fits in perfectly with the other elements of the H&L theory-mistaken witnesses, misinterpreted documents and so on.

You mean that you have spent all this time and effort in debunking Armstrong's book, and you never had a copy! That's crazy. To be sure, I hold you to a different standard than Michael Walton. Tracy, I am shocked and disappointed.

There is a nother link that requires no key for the download. I'll post it here when I find it. 

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

No I was not suggesting such.  I didn't read it in total but spent about 30 minutes scanning through it.  It just seems a little odd.  Both when he chose to leave so quickly with no notice and the depth of questioning on seemingly unrelated issues.  Yet, maybe I missed it in my skimming, but did they ever ask him "did you ever see Lee Oswald in the Carousel?". 

You are right on, Ron. It's all very odd. There is arguably a lot of back and forth about Oswald having been at the club. Most of it starts around p. 40 in this Mcadams text, the text is disjointed. P.40 is after the higher numbered pages.

And if your suggesting I read the testimony in depth, I have. I read it three times, along with Senator's officer Olson's and Kay Olson's. Along with Ruby's testimony it gives me the absolute creeps.

15 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

BS.  He knew his life was in danger because of what he'd heard/seen previously a full 24 hours before Ruby shot Oswald.  That's why he left then.  His testimony is junk, obfuscation, blather. Coached, rehearsed, fluff to fill the Warren Omission volumes.  Seriously, try reading it in just a little depth.  So much mundane crap in it. 

There is almost nothing else out there on Crafard. Maybe nothing else. I was glad to see something.

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes, but don't just generalize and say that Armstrong doesn't cite references or does a bad job of citing things. I know it's a lot of work checking somebody's citations. But if you don't do that you shouldn't be criticizing it.

 

Agreed, it took me five minutes to trace the quote in the article to the book, find the footnote and discover the larger quote and context in the trove of information that is the Nassau Conference. What an incredibly valuable five minutes.

Thanks David. I apreciate your efforts. It was a very important conference.

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael C.,

What Mike W. said was in response to something I wrote. As is typical with him, he spewed some hateful things, probably against Armstrong or Hargrove. I replied by asking if he was a member of ROKC yet, because he was emulating the way certain ROKC member do with their anti-H&L venom.

Though surprisingly he did go on and on in his reply as though I really was wondering about his ROKC membership. No.... I just want him to recognize his hateful attitude.

Thanks Sandy, I looked for it and missed it. Still...

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

..............

Mike Clark ......... 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. ........

 

Thu hurt is strong in this one.....

It's just really disappointing that we can't have a decent discussion about a decent article without the same three hooligans throwing sucker punches, and kiscks to the head, like rabid dogs, thugs or vermin. 

This article stood clear of the the larger Harvey and Lee work, but a hurt-child and dedicated ramshackle couldn't leave it be.

lay dome some straight-up criticism, find fault with references citations or arguments, that's fine. 

Waltons hurt and despondency over his works bending ignored has created a disturbed child who needs to be removed from tha class of normal students.

Walton has whined about no one paying attention to his garbage before, and we all have to pay for his delinquent, childish acting out.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/7252-michael-walton/?do=content&type=forums_topic&change_section=1

50 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

And no, I'm not a member there.

In reference to the ROKC

On 11/15/2017 at 7:17 AM, Michael Walton said:

Who runs that forum? Is there anything good there?

In reference to the JFKassassinationfurum

Why does Michael keep offering these onsolicited didbits. It's kind of odd that he claims to know no nothing about Duncan's Forum when no-one asks. It's kind of odd that he says he's not a member at ROKC, when no one asks him the question. And "Michael Walton" appears to have no other presence on the Internet, in relation the JFK, or anything else.

I think I am going to try to track this guy down and see if he has any clues.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/6325-mark-henceroth/

7 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Why assume that the primary consequence of an intel operation was not the intended result?

Absolutely. You can't necessarily take it to the bank, but it is short-sighted to not even consider it.

50 years of an antagonistic relationship withCuba and a care-free hegemony of Guantanamo informs my thinking that that is exactly what was planned. It would not have happened under JFK, I don't think he could imagine it.

24 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Actually, Michael Walton's criticisms are correct -- but Walton didn't have enough time to deal with the flaws in John Armstrong's points one at a time.

That's rubbish Paul. All he does is pick one sentence and rants and  rants about about a thousand page book that he's never read. Then he comes back again in a few days because he is hurt about something and repeats his hit and run. That is his modus operandi.

John Armstrong does indeed take material from the Warren Commission and twist it to suit his science fiction fantasy of Two Oswalds.

Cherry picking, word-twisting and nuance fumigation are your area of expertise. You are wrong again and you have also not read the book.

Armstrong's modus operandi is taking the "mistaken identity" testimony about all these false sightings of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas and Fort Worth as true and correct -- and from this fabricating an entirely different person, operating under CIA control.   Actually, the cases of seeing "Lee Oswald" in a barbershop, driving Ruth Paine's station wagon, with a young boy, with Marina shopping, at a Lincoln car dealership, at a gun range, at the Carousel Club with Jack Ruby -- and all these "mistaken identity" cases -- all fall apart quickly when one reads the WC testimony.  The witnesses are so shallow that their stories just crumble under cross examination.

What cross examination Paul? There was no cross examination. In the case of the furniture mart, even the WC didn't have to obfuscate the truth, because they got several witnesses (Marina, store owner and friend) together and no one could sort out the truth. The obfuscation was already done by the Oswald double.

And so does the basic Harvey & Lee theory, by direct proxy. A contradiction in terms, a classic Trejo absurdity. But you did not read the book.

On the other hand -- if we were to agree that "Harvey Oswald" was actually "Lee Harvey Oswald," then there are several point with which I can agree with John Armstrong -- in particular:

1.  LEE HARVEY OSWALD's behavior was orchestrated order to blame him as a Communist Assassin working for Fidel Castro.

2.  The "set-up" of LEE HARVEY OSWALD began when he agreed to relocate to New Orleans from Dallas in late April, 1963.

3.  David Atlee Phillips was working with Guy Bannister and David Ferrie in New Orleans to make things appear that LEE HARVEY OSWALD was a supporter of Castro through the FPCC

4.  Their ultimate goal was to convince the USA that Cuba and LEE HARVEY OSWALD killed JFK, so that the USA would invade Cuba.

HOWEVER -- like most CIA-did-it CTers, John Armstrong presumes that David Atlee Phillips was giving orders to Guy Banister. Does he? Citation please . You are making stuff up. 

That's a basic error, according to me.  Actually, Guy Banister was manipulating David Atlee Phillips, with a promise that Fidel Castro's death was their only target. That alone was what enabled Banister to get a few CIA rogues on his side.According to whom? You are just making this up.

 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Bold is mine. Rubbish is Paul Trejo's

I am wondering what members and researchers think of the December, 1995 Nassau JFK Conference. Any criticisms, follow-ups or any other thoughts on this? I find it pretty interesting as I read through it.

http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027.html

"

The three day seminar produced the prospects of all participants meeting again, informally face-to-face, to discuss at a later time, many of the issues in Nassau, Bahamas. Invitations were to be open to anyone willing to attend. And so the process of historical exchange was initiated as was the exchange on the Cuban Missile Crisis. 

It was decided in Rio that a "one-on-one" meeting be held in Nassau with the Cubans. 

Without billing, fancy brochures, press conferences, book marts, and the frills of the agenda, a group of highly motivated individuals gathered to put their collective minds toward trying to resolve some of the issues surrounding the JFK assassination at Nassau. Three Cubans attended the meeting to report on what they had found in regards to Cuban documentation on several issues.  Carlos Lechuga, former Cuban diplomat, attended, as did two retired Cuban State Security officials,  General Fabian Escalante Font and  Arturo Rodriguez. 

Wayne Smith from the Center for International Studies acted as moderator. Others in attendance were: Gaeton Fonzi,  Jeremy Gunn (Council and Chief Investigator for the Assassination Review Board),  John Judge, Andy Kolis,  Peter Kornbluh * (National Security Archives), Mary and Ray LaFontaine*, Jim Lesar  (AARC), John Newman, Alan Rogers, Dick Russell, Tony Summers, Russ Swickard, Peter Dale Scott, Ed Sherry, Noel Twyman  and Gordon Winslow. 
   *Attendance for one day only

AGENDA. The agenda was adhered to fairly well with many agenda questions fixed in advance. The sessions included the following topics, with about two hours set for each. Most exchanges ran over the time allotted. The topics were: 

1. JACK RUBY.

2. CASTRO-KENNEDY CONTACTS IN 1963.

3. DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS AND OTHER CIA FIGURES. 

4. EXILES. (Odio, gunrunning, other exiles, JM/WAVE)

5. OSWALD IN MEXICO CITY. (This included AM/LASH.) 

CUBAN RECORDS. There were no records produced by the Cubans to verify anything presented. When pressed on the availability of records, General Escalante said that there is no procedure set up within the Cuban Government to declassify any record. He speculated as to how Claudia Furiati obtained Cuban documents for publication in her book, ZR. "She probably wrote to the Cuban Government", he said. He has been permitted to look at any record he seeks, but is not permitted to make photocopies 

But in the Portuguese version of her book, ZR, there is a notorized affidavit by General Escalante Font that the State Security documents given to Mrs. Furiati are true and correct copies of the originals. [see her documents from  JFK MENU ]

Tape one  http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027-1.html

Tape two   http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027-2.html

Tape three   http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027-3.html

Tape four   http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027-4.html

Tape five   http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027-5.html

Tape six   http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027-6.html

Tape seven  http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027-7.html

Tape  eight  http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027-8.html

I don't see much information, findings publications or research that was produced as a result of the 1995 Rio de Janeiro JFK conference. I am wondering if members have resources, links of any information that relates to that conference.

In August 1995 the Minister of Culture invited several individuals to Rio de Janeiro to partake "in a governmental program for culture and social discussions enlargement". The Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro co-promoted the seminar "to increase the value of justice questions and to improve the knowledge and practice of 'parallel powers', a characteristic widely present in our society today". It was billed as an International JFK Seminar.

Papers were given by Wayne Smith, Cyril Wecht, Gaeton Fonzi, Gordon Winslow, John Newman, James Lesar, Fabian Escalante Font, Arturo Rodriguez, William Turner and Eric Hamburg. All presentations were structured around the agenda set by Claudia Furiati. Some of the topics covered were, The Warren Commission evidence, the CIA, Mafia, and Cuban Exile theories, Oswald's intelligence ties, the Miami-New Orleans-Dallas Triangle, Mexico City, and the plan to implicate Cuba and the USSR in the assassination of JFK.

http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0027.html

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

We're expected to believe this:

After a few drinks the subject of President Kennedy's assassination came up. Benson told the agent that he had visited the slain President's grave and had "peed" on it. The Cuban agent later identified a photograph of David Atlee Phlllips as "Harold Benson." 

I've been to ANC...numerous times.  I live about 40 minutes away from it. There is no way anyone would have stood at Kennedy's grave, pulled out his penis, and urinated on it without someone having said something. No way.  Which brings me to this...

This is exactly what's wrong with the entire Hardly Lee story - it's a bunch of grabbing words from the WC testimony, dubious antedotes, and misinterpreting of the record to create the fairy tale. That's all it is....

...........

Well, Armstrong's book has citations for his passages. And instead of rambling incoherently about something that you never read, you could have taken the time to check that citation. That's called research. Research is fun and interesting because invariably you come upon many more interesting documents and sources. And, I found the source for the quote that you seem to be soooo hurt-about, but rather than check it out you decided howl-foul with the Walton-Whine.

Here is the larger quote and a link for that quote. FYI, a group of Cuban's, exiles, researchers, investigators and authors got together in the Bahamas in 1995 to sort out and document what they could, while they were alive. 

"Without billing, fancy brochures, press conferences, book marts, and the frills of the agenda, a group of highly motivated individuals gathered to put their collective minds toward trying to resolve some of the issues surrounding the JFK assassination at Nassau. Three Cubans attended the meeting to report on what they had found in regards to Cuban documentation on several issues.  Carlos Lechuga, former Cuban diplomat, attended, as did two retired Cuban State Security officials,  General Fabian Escalante Font and  Arturo Rodriguez. 

Wayne Smith from the Center for International Studies acted as moderator. Others in attendance were: Gaeton Fonzi,  Jeremy Gunn (Council and Chief Investigator for the Assassination Review Board),  John Judge, Andy Kolis,  Peter Kornbluh * (National Security Archives), Mary and Ray LaFontaine*, Jim Lesar  (AARC), John Newman, Alan Rogers, Dick Russell, Tony Summers, Russ Swickard, Peter Dale Scott, Ed Sherry, Noel Twyman  and Gordon Winslow."

From that conference.....

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

That’s a good point, Michael.  There is quite a bit of information in John’s book about Morales, but not in this new article. I’ll try to remember to ask him about that, though I suspect he’ll say that Morales was primarily a tool of Phillips and therefore more of a mechanic than a plotter.  Thanks for the kind words about the new essay.

Roger that Jim, but, Mechanic or plotter, he was Bona Fide CIA, was he not?

I am bumping this because I want to know if it is OK to question the identity of another member, outright! Such as was done here? I raised such a question previously and was sternly warned. I have seen this befor (Pat Speer / Shton Gray, posts by john Simkin. There is something fishy about another member, and it Relates to this Mark Henceroth fellow. I am going to report this post so Admins see it.

China has popped-up quite a bit in my reading, but never (as I recall) as a concerted focus.

E. Howard Hunt and his wife met in China.

I think it is LBJ that makes curious mention of a particular Congressman's "friends in the China Lobby".

Winston Lord (Skull and Bones) visited China with Nixon and Kissinger, but was cropped-out of the photos taken there. I feel that Winston Lord is somewhat neglected in the overall analysis of the politics of this period; his wife was born in China, and both are still alive.

On 12/1/2017 at 10:19 PM, Douglas Caddy said:

I would not have posted the article if I thought a member would recommend to other members to not bother reading it.

So far there have been 187 views of the article by forum members, which apparently means something.

 

We have heard the "Walton Whine" many times. He whines that no one pays any attention to his topics. He has basically given-up posting topics, only having posted one this year, and has instead taken to mulling around like a outcast kid on a playground, kicking around and ridiculing other kids activities because no-on wants to play with him.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/7252-michael-walton/?do=content&type=forums_topic&change_section=1

54 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

.....

What was going on in the world stage that would necessitate, or facilitate this "joint U.S./Soviet ploy"?

What was the end game?

And, I'm not so sure it was an Angleton game being played. I am thinking more military than civilian.

 

Steve Thomas

I have asked myself this question. My speculation is that within Russia, and The USA, the beginnings of a desire to restore an old-world-order, as the New-World-Order were being set into motion; a longitudinal plan to ensure the dominance of big money, restore and establish oligarchy and neo royalism as an international cabal. 

Basically, slavery.

An article by John Armstrong that contains a great deal of info about David Atlee Phillips.

http://harveyandlee.net/Patsy/The_Patsy.html