Michael Clark

I found a Time Team Fans Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/376406515870431/?multi_permalinks=842076552636756&notif_id=1507679304829120&notif_t=group_highlights

The coincidentalist in me wonders how he, on a boat from the USA to England, ends up being declared dead, and subsequently buried, in a Greek port; on January 17, 1964. His papers lie in a Houston, Texas univiserity. His background is odd. It would be interesting to see his US book-tour schedule. Please forgive the off-topic poke. cheers, Michael

George, that's what I am seeing. One step from endorsing the JFK assassination itself. I've felt the same vibe from Trejo as well.

Tom, do you have any interest in this fellow? (I've had a CT'er's curiosity about him, but no place to offer it, I figured I would insert a blurb here) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._H._White White died of heart failure on 17 January 1964 aboard ship in Piraeus (Athens, Greece), en route to Alderney from a lecture tour in the United States.[2] He is buried in First Cemetery of Athens. In 1977 The Book of Merlyn, a conclusion to The Once and Future King, was published posthumously. His papers are held by the University of Texas at Austin.[12]

Jason, you are really sounding like you are a pickle from the same jar as Trejo. One of his many, but noteworthy, put-offs, is lumping everyone that doesn't buy his bunk as a CIA did-it CT'r. Feel free to grate your fellow forum members if you want to, just letting you know in case you missed it.

And both Fred Korth's and John Conally's daughters. They were both Secrataries of the Navy.

Lol, Mr. Walton swapped-out his adult profile pic for a childhood pic a few months ago.

I missed this post from a month ago. It's good to see you here again, Lance. Your above post closely aligns with my thinking.

That's funny. Your giving Trejo credit for ferreting-out that little tid-bit.... lol!

If Patsy means that the DPD LHO was a willing, knowledgeable participant in the plot to kill JFK, and then sacrificed, I do not believe that to a certainty. Again, I don't need to get to the bottom of that to achieve my goal. I definitely believe he was set up, but how much he knew, and as to how involved he was, I am not certain.

Have you read the book? I haven't. I have read enough of other works to firmly believe that their was an imposter operation working with the intent of placing the DPD LHO here and there in the months leading up to the assassination. I assume that Armstrong came to the same conclusion and studied that angle to the ends of the Earth. When one studies, in such a focused way, something like that, they are sure to come to some conclusions that no one else is going to get their head araound, unless they studied it in a similar fashion, Like Jim Hargrove has. If you haven't read the book, and demonstrated some readiness to accept this that or the other thing, then your tossing-out the whole kit-and-kiboodle is meaningless, IMO. For me, I am convinced of the imposter, and If I felt the need to get to the bottom of that, then I would start with H&L. I am absolutely convinced that LHO did not shoot JFK, so, for me, the Prayer Man issue or the Second floor encounter, or other minutiae is a waste of my time; unless it was my specific goal to convince others, and that is not the case. It has been my goal to put pieces together that tell the story of what happened, for my own consumption. I appreciate the work of guys like Armstrong and the Prayer Person folks, and I hope they get traction. But, it does not suit my need, I already believe that LHO didn't do it, and he had a doppelgänger working around him.

And, to be sure, what the CIA thought of their capabilities, or how you choose to parse that out, is only important if you are considering a CIA-did-it, or CIA-did-it with Cubans case.

Jason Said, Whether the Cubans are trustworthy or not is irrelevant, what is important is what the CIA thought of the Cubans. The evidence of CIA and administration opinion of the Cubans as untrustworthy and useless for secure operations is posted above. Where is your evidence that the administration and CIA thought highly of Cuban operatives and believed them trustworthy enough to engage in operations vital to CIA secrecy? The Cubans are not a race, btw - and we in 2017 showing the 1963 CIA criticism of the Cubans is not racism. The communications traffic is massive of CIA and FBI staff complaining that the Cubans are useless for covert purposes and do not know the meaning of operational security, but we will wait for you to post documents showing that the CIA thought otherwise and hired Cubans for anything that remained secret or successful. Jason Ward Jason, I was talking about the shooters who killed Kennedy and the people who backed them. I think it's silly to make a claim that "Cubans don't understand security" and could not be counted on for an operation when we're talking about a handful of people. They managed to secure their nation and keep Castro alive and their island secure for nearly 60 years with no coups or any assassination attempts. That kind of speaks for itself. Regarding racism, you'll have to work with me when I characterize American attitudes towards a population of Catholic, Spanish speaking and perhaps largely dark or swarthy, as a racist attitude. I would likewise characterize attitudes towards the Italian Mafia, Jewish Americans and perhaps Irish Americans similarly. That is my working definition here, for your convenience.

If, as has been often suggested, that there was a plan to blame the hit on a Communist Conspiracy, then the most likely candidates for a second or alternate set of shooters, would be Cubans. The myth being here parlayed, that there are no trustworthy Cubans, is silly, and racist.

Bernie, you are over-the-top and out of line IMO. Sandy has nothing to worry about, he is putting forth and re-presenting the information that Armstrong has already published in his book, "Harvey and Lee". Likewise Jim Hargrove demonstrates a mastery of the information in that book; a mastery of information that is to be admired even if you do not subscribe to a single claim in Armstrong's work. You and Walton, and to a lesser extent, Tracy, demonstrate a desperate attempt to detract Armstrong to the point that I don't think that either of you could bear to admit to even the most obvious truths and facts raised in that book. Tracy is the exception in that he is a straight shooter and won't deny the obvious or resort to absurdities and ad-hominems when presented with the strongest of evidence. Bernie, you have resorted-to, above, an attempt, a desperate and ugly one IMO, to get under the skin and in the head of another member and I think you are the one whose membership here should be questioned. Walton has derided Armstrongs book as being too expensive and here extols Simplichs book which is free. I don't think he has even read Armstrongs book, and to you, Bernie, I ask... have you read it? Walton pretty much goes around the forum an kicks down the projects of others who have hurt his feelings in the past. That is a recurring theme for him. He acts out against those who have ignored or poo-pooed his work or those who he believes have snubbed him. Read the book, bring something to the table, show that you are a straight shooter. Until then you both just sound like disturbed threatened children with an agenda.

Repeating Lola's question. I didn't want to bury her question with my link-restoration post.

The link above is broke. I am guessing that this link to a Youtube vide is a proper restoration of John's broken link.

...

:Thumbs-up: to you, my friend!

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=4163.5;wap2 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/6325-mark-henceroth/ perhaps "Michael Walton" knows.... .............. from http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-942.html JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 942) DAVID VON PEIN SAID:The only thing Martin Hinrichs did is to slide JFK to the right in that photo [below]. That's all. Nothing else. Big deal.So, what is that supposed to prove? Especially since we all know that JFK was sitting three inches higher than Connally.Connally is also much more "scrunched up" in that awful jump seat that he had to sit on during the Dallas motorcade, giving the false impression that JBC was smaller than he really was.Just take a look at this photograph of the SS-100-X limousine and imagine the large frame of John Connally sitting on this jump seat. Heck, he was practically sitting on the car's floorboard:MARK HENCEROTH SAID:Yeah, I don't see why we need a 3D animation at all really. This is easy stuff. Apparently no professional 3D expert is willing to take the job on of showing us exactly where that shot came from. Too bad, as I am sure we would all like to know how it ends up.DAVID VON PEIN SAID:.......

Yes, the photo is not there. The potophuket destruction of history expands. The reliance on outside hosting of photo resources emasculates the value of the forum. James Richards posts are a great example.

Sandy, I apreciate your tenacity on this subject more than you know. Yet, your energy is spent on a couple of people who feed on and thrive on kinetic, downward negetavistic gravity and, especially in the case of Mark Henceroth, er, I mean Michael Walton , are just bitter about the cost of the book. That bitterness, and hurt, just justifies his not having read the book that he spends soooo much time crying about. Even the free, painless, reading of the WCR is beyond his wherewithal to address on this subject. Lastly, Mark Henceroth, er, I mean, Michael Walton, just has a bone for you. Sandy, your researching and presentation abilities are of great value to the JFKA research community. You are wasting, IMO, your efforts, debating trolls and committed sysyphian task-drivers. It is clear that Oswald was doubled and replicated for a task and tasks, including the JFKA. Armstrong covered the full length and breadth of that situation. You don't need to defend every square foot. Cheers, Sandy, Michael

Sorry Cliff, no disrespect intended. Quite the opposite, I have much respect for you.

"Worse" is a problem word in you question Cliff. It's a non-critical term with wide ranging relativistic meaning. That kind of term is Donald Trump's specialty; he uses such meaningless terms and they can be adopted by anyone to fill-out their justification and penchant for hate and all his minions think they are in agreement about something.

The Zapruder film proves conspiracy. Two patsies would have been far easier to frame for the assassination than one, and far fewer questions would have been raised. Dissent and doubt is tolerated far less when men are fighting a large, justified war. That's one reason why I believe the shooters were anti-Castro Cubans, and they got double-crossed. The second patsy was obscured and disappeared to remove the pre-text for war; and that is also why the Mexico City evidence that turned-up was bogus. Guantanamo, it was decided, was more easily held in an antagonistic relationship with Cuba, and with Castro alive, than with any friendly, sovereign government; and any friendly, sovereign, Cuban government would be of Catholic, Spanish speaking, swarthy people who catered to the Mafia, and competed with tourism, and proliferated drugs, and gambling. The conversion to the lone nut scenario was highly risky and, in truth, a failure, as most people don't, and never have, believed it. The maintainence of Guantanamo, the isolation of an undesirable race of people, and the denial of mafia interests was, however, successful. The double-cross was the doings of the southern racist radical right; but they did not do the deed. That's my CT, minus some ancillary spider legs and other perps.