Jump to content
The Education Forum

Michael Clark

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,737

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Michael Clark

    Lee Harvey Oswald and the Linguistic Problem

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Peter McGuire said:

    “On the trail of the non - assassin,” is an excellent way to describe much of the conversation here. And that is why I tired of the matter a few years ago.

    The accused assassin was a Marine , a multilingual married man with a lover on the side who got used by powerful forces who felt Kennedy was a threat to the security of the United States. 

    My only question is out of the hundred or so reasons different people felt Kennedy had to go, which reason was actually a National Security issue? 

     

     

     

    Hi Peter,

    I have a hypothesis that I have stated a few times. I try to avoid repeating ad-infintum, and to the annoyance of other members. But it is brief, and it is in response to your direct question. So I will repeat it.

    The straw that broke the camel's back was Guantanamo.I believe that American control of Guantanamo would not have survived peace negotiations, normalization of relations or detente. A perpetually antagonistic relationship with Cuba is what was prescribed for Cuba and is, indeed, what we got.

     

    Michael

    Daniel Sheehan flow chart of the Kennedy assassination

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    2 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

    Cliff

    Sorry, no disrespect towards you,  but I'll take Talbot's word over yours as to Dulles being the CEO of the Kennedy assassination.

    George, your faux demure to Cliff is weak. It was an unnecessary and disrespectful stab at Cliff. Your belief that Dulles was the "CEO" of the assassination is clear to anyone who pays any attention to your plentiful surmises. Indeed you have said as much in this thread. To say that you accept a published researcher over a forum member is unnecessarily disrespectful. Hell, I would accept a conclusion arrived-at by DVP over anything that you offer.

    The Dual Life of Albert Osborne

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


    David,

    My question, why didn't the FBI simply disappear the alleged Mexico trip. (Poof! Problem solved.)

    Is that the same question as yours?

     

    My answer to this is that the MC trip had to be known to people outside of the agency and the Bureau. That trip and the evidence for it was intended to keep the Anti-Castro Cuban's on board with their part in the assassination, so it was, and had to be known to them. Indeed they probably witnessed LHO's NOLA sheep-dipping first hand. The highly-against-protocol Veciana-DAP LHO meeting served the same purpose, but that was one man who returned to his compadres and said "it's legit, and it's a go".

    In the case of MC, the STORY of LHO's MC trip had to come-out, even if the evidence for it was bogus. In the case of the Veciana-DAP-LHO meeting, a simple threat to Veciana's survival would suffice.

    We see, in these stories and operations, confidence building measures to keep the Cubans in on the plot. Of course, IMCT, they got double-crossed.

    Daniel Sheehan flow chart of the Kennedy assassination

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    9 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

    Dulles slept-walked thru the Bay of Pigs, totally clocked out.

    Who would set up family friends of their girlfriend as handlers of a Presidential assassin?

    Agreed, Cliff, 

    Your point agrees-well with Dulles being sheep-dipped rather than complicit in the Assassination. Thus he was forced into the cover-up, and therefore complicit in that. 

    I believe that Dulles, and Angleton, were stovepiped out of, and insulated from, the assassination operation. Yet both were, through intrigue, facing the possibility of being implicated in that operation, thus ensuring their participation in the cover-up.

    Citizen Lane--Documentary on Mark Lane

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    Wow, this solid evidence of a war against the truth, against American Citizens, against justice,  and evidence of conspiracy.

    Paul Trejo would have to argue that Lane was hot on the heels of Walker and the government did all of this to protect the discovery of the Walker conspiracy. And Paul will find it increasingly impossible to argue that there was no coup, and that the government was not involved. 

    I really did not expect to see the truth come out in these releases, but voila, in strange turn, the truth is being laid bare by the very efforts that were made to disguise it.

    Thanks guys.

    Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    12 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

    the most wiretapped telephone on earth at the time.

    A phone line can only be used 24 hours a day at, best. It can be only tapped 24 hours a day, at best. It wasn't in use 24 hours a day. Your repeated claim, suggests that this was the only phone line in the world that was tapped 24 hours. It's a stupid claim.

    15 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

    would have been watched like a hawk.  

    Your platitudes spill out of you like Junk off a garbage truck. Hawks do the watching.

    17 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

    Yet whatever CIA agent knew about that telephone

    You just told us that "surely any CIA agent would have known that".... More recycled, throwaway plattitudes, from Paul Trejo.

    21 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

    ... the CIA didn't know who impersonated Oswald in Mexico City because the CIA had no part in the JFK Assassination plot.

    This is, in my opinion, a strong reason to drop the CIA as a suspect,

    A pile of garbage logic, Paul Trejo. 

    Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    19 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

    You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that out.  Look how the statement is typed in the report: 

    “Cryptonym for Oswald Project approx. RX-ZIM.” (The hyphen in RX-ZIM is underlined.)  Why is the hyphen underlined?  Surely because minor variations of the cryptonym must have existed without the hyphen, as in, for example, RX/ZIM or RXZIM or RX ZIM instead of RX-ZIM. 

    You can see how similar variations occur across the Web in all sorts of acronyms for illegal CIA operations, such as ZR/RIFLE or MK/ULTRA.  But, of course, CIA apologists don’t want to understand any of these simple matters.

    Ever the defense lawyer for the CIA, Mr. Trejo wants us to believe that a 1978 report of statements by a CIA accountant are unreliable because they are dated and contain hearsay evidence.  A real lawyer, though, might explain that "statements against interest" often comprise exceptions to the hearsay rule, and that it is not unreasonable for a professional accountant like Mr. Wilcott to remember for some time that he had helped to pay the alleged assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

    Mr. Trejo also wants us to believe that this was all a big joke around the Tokyo station of the CIA.    LOL and all that.  "Nuf said!

    I think Paul Trejo is experiencing a flash of, shall we say, "inspiration", from his recent attendance at a "nuance" workshop.

    Oswald's Minox camera

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    31 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

    The rumor-mongering about Lee Harvey Oswald on this thread is what is mind-boggling.

    First get your facts straight, please.

    What CONFIRMATION do we have that Lee Harvey Oswald ever owned a Minox camera?   WHAT??

    What contra-evidence is there that the wealthy Michael Paine was the owner of that Minox camera (as he owned three cars and two homes at the time)?

    Confirmation first, and speculation second, please.

    Regards,
    --Paul Trejo

    That's rich. Paul-"IMHO"-Trejo, the cherry-pickin' prognosticator, is demanding that we deal in "facts"! Lol

    Montreal is more than Permindex

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    "Century International Arms is an importer and manufacturer of firearms that is based in the United States. The company was founded in 1961 in St. Albans, Vermont, with offices in Montreal. In 1995 the company headquarters and sales staff moved to Boca Raton, Florida and to Delray Beach, Florida in 2004"

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_International_Arms

    Mystery Woman

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    13 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

    Two Australian girls said that Osborne had been sitting next to Oswald. Osborne himself denied this. Who are we to believe? I don't know much about the two girls - but Osborne IS a suspicious character, especially in view of the fact that later he would confide to a friend that he had indeed been with Oswald.

     On the other hand I know there's reason to believe Oswald went to Mexico by car - or not at all. The whole story remains an enigma to me. So what's your opinion?

    It’s all minutiae. LHO didn’t kill JFK. There are plenty of wrongly convicted people who deserve exoneration, LHO included. LHO, bullets and pictures are are a waste of time and effort. This case is not about LHO; it is about the assassins an conspirators who were on the clock @ 12:30 AM, on 11-22-63.

    How will gutting Net Neutrality affect the Education Forum?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

    Michael Clark:  “Eventually vary large interests were able to destroy those competitors.”

    Yes, and large interests were permitted to become “very large interests” by the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

    The possible reversal of Net Neutrality seems to have come up very quickly, and worryingly within a climate of hysteria over open channels of information. The NBC news piece linked above by Douglas Caddy suggests that there has been a huge public response to an FCC call for public opinion, overwhelmingly in favour of Net Neutrality, but this response has been dismissed by the Commission as largely "spam" using “fake names and email addresses”. 

    Sandy, you should have a look at the Vidal - Buckley doc. They had debates during prime time on ABC TV during the Democratic Convention in 1968. ABC put them together in a bid for ratings success - which suggests their appeal was to a wide audience.

    I suppose that it is possible that with the end of Net Neutrality, internet providers could package access like they do television programming. We hear occasional rumblings that DirecTV or Tme Warner are going to drop this channel of that channel from their line-up. It could very well become the norm that a website would have to pay to remain accessible to web-users. Would Educationforum be able to pay to remain in, say, Spectrum's basic service Internet accessibility package? Would alternative news outlets even be given a place in any package, at all, for any price?

    How will gutting Net Neutrality affect the Education Forum?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    The origins of this issue have its roots in the creation, interpretation and gutting of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The authors of that act were ill-equipped, and lacked the vision to see what the Internet would eventually become. I can hardly blame them for that. Most people had never touched a computer at that time. What was clearly mishandled however was the failure to recognize certain modes of data delivery as essentially a form of public infrastructure and recognize that competition needed to be insured within that mode. I am speaking of cable services. It is not reasonable to think that multiple cable competitors could all put their lines on poles to deliver services. So, there would be no competition in that mode. Cable should have been seen to be a kind of public highway for competing providers, and it was not. One can take swipes at and mock the limitations of DSL, but there was great potential for competitors in that market, those services reached many millions of people, and technological and infrastructure advancements could have and would have quite easily overcome the limitations of that time. Eventually very large interests were able to destroy those competitors. Threatening Net Neutrality is the Coup de grace in the defeat of the free and open information superhighway that was largely paid for by taxpayers.

×
×
  • Create New...