7 hours ago, Glenn Nall said:

Kind of like George de Mohrenschildt did(n't)...?

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

On 9/10/2017 at 7:59 PM, Craig Carvalho said:

Hello Michael,

Wonderful to see the younger generation showing an interest in this topic. A word of advice. Read everything you can get your hands on... and make up your own mind. 

Best of luck to you!

 

 

 

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

On 9/11/2017 at 4:06 PM, Lance Payette said:

Well, I don't know ... I'm no Operation Northwoods expert, although I did read the Wikipedia article and sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.  Certainly what was proposed was at a level of Dr. Strangelove lunacy.  Once the plan was vetoed by JFK, how much of a stretch would it have been for someone to suggest "Hey, you know what would be the ultimate Operation Northwoods event?"  Certainly the scenario has all the elements: "the Cuban connection" that I feel sure underlies the assassination regardless of whether one is a Lone Nutter, a Small Scale Conspiracy Theorist or a Grand Scale Conspiracy Theorist ... a plan that from the get-go involved some extreme violence and wild "out of the box" thinking (to put it mildly) ... and military characters at the highest level who were furious at JFK and capable of accomplishing pretty much anything they wanted to accomplish.

The problem I always have with anything bigger than a Small Scale Conspiracy is:  How did an unlikely character like LHO become part of it?  I could easily see a small anti-Castro group (perhaps involving rogue military or CIA participants) deciding after LHO returned from Russia that "this guy is right out of central casting to serve as the perfect patsy for shifting suspicion to Castro or at least pro-Castro forces," but I have difficulty seeing any grand, high-level conspiracy thinking it needed someone like LHO (unless, as Grand Scale Conspiracy Theorists always do, you reinvent LHO as someone much more mysterious and significant than I believe the evidence will support).  If the assassination had been put in motion by someone of the level of Gen. Lymnitzer with all his military and ex-military connections, would involving a character like LHO and his Mannlicher-Carcano have been worth the risk of whatever purpose it served?  Surely Operation Northwoods itself would have involved planted evidence pointing toward Castro that was a lot more sophisticated, reliable and compelling than LHO and his non-trusty Carcano.

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.

3 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

If Paul Trejo is right, the assassination has strong motivations in the racial climate of the era;

 

Jason

 

 

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

9 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Thank you, Michael!

LHO sure had a doppelgänger working around him in 1963! And LHO didn't kill JFK, right?  Everyone here knows that.  LHO was a patsy, right?

 

 

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.

4 minutes ago, Bernie Laverick said:

Let's say that one day Oswald can be definitively proved to have been on the front steps during the assassination; it therefore means that all the other 'evidence' against him is wrong. If a LN accepts that he was on those steps he cannot then say, "But I still think all the other evidence condemns him". If he is definitely on the steps the other evidence against him is just wrong, plain and simple.

Likewise, if 'Lee's' skull is found on Harvey's body after an exhumation, then the entire narrative of H&L is therefore wrong and all the other evidence melts into the dust. I know that's sad, and that this tingling feeling you all get being the sole discoverers of this gigantic plot is fading by the minute as the absurdity is revealed with every ludicrous off the wall answer.

I've been a member of this forum for over 12 years. I've seen some great threads. There's been some fantastic work done on here. But always, at any time during this period, there has always been the deliberate spoilers; those whose sole intent is to distract and bog down more honest researchers. I believe that the whole H&L charade is just an elaborate hoax designed to discredit the JFK assassination community, and thereby strengthen the official narrative. 

But Michael, I know what you mean when you deride those who "resort to absurdities and ad-hominems" and then finish with calling us..."disturbed threatened children". Nice.

"...when presented with the strongest of evidence". So how do you explain how 'Lee's' head was found on what should have been 'Harvey's' body? Which do you think constitutes the "strongest evidence" of the following scenarios, all of which have been robustly promoted as being the obvious explanation?

Explanation 1 - 'Harvey' had the exact same mastoid operation by an unknown surgeon in an unknown hospital so that the two boys' skulls would match up should one have to be dug up many years later. (Now abandoned)

Explanation 2 - 'Harvey' had the exact same mastoid operation but performed after he had died despite evidence of natural healing occurring... (Now abandoned)

Explanation 3 - The exhumation and the subsequent examination were all faked and though there was no scar whatsoever the scientists were coerced or tortured into faking the entire findings to make 'Harvey's' skull consistent with 'Lee's'.

We are now left with option 3.

So Michael, what is the "strongest of evidence" for that to have taken place? Is there ANY evidence at all for that scenario? None?

Yet you implore ME to "bring something to the table"!! 

The onus is not mine. I haven't made a ludicrous claim. If I did, the onus would be on me to back it up with facts and evidence. If I didn't have those facts or that evidence, or if all I had when faced with definitive proof that my claim is nonsense was, "it was probably faked", I feel sure you would have little respect. If I did it ad nauseam and had done so year after year and still didn't provide evidence of how it was faked or any other facts to demonstrate this you would soon believe that I had a negative agenda. 

I'm sick of these snake oil salesmen effectively leaving a trail of mucous over the brilliant research some members of this forum have achieved. It lessens their work and has become a bigger obstacle towards reaching some judicial conclusion than anything DVP and his ilk could do. 

As for trying to get inside another member's head. That's desperate. It was a way to demonstrate that for all this super elaborate plot to work we have to believe that they would be prepared to do one of the above to achieve it. And much much more. The H&L guys say they that this secret is so sacrosanct, so top secret and sensitive that they will never allow the truth to emerge.

And yet...it has! Apparently...

Why haven't they been stopped?

 

 

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.

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

Whether the Cubans are trustworthy or not is irrelevant, what is important is what the CIA thought of the Cubans.

 

 

Jason Ward

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, 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.

1 hour ago, Bernie Laverick said:

But you have discovered it, according to you. If this H&L secret is so razor sharp sensitive that not under any circumstances should it EVER be revealed...how come you are being allowed to do so?

Do you fear you may be in danger Sandy? After all you are spreading the 'truth' about one of the most mind boggling acts of incredible subterfuge carried out by utterly ruthless individuals who would stop at NOTHING to ensure that this is never revealed. But you keep revealing it. I ask you again Sandy. Do you not feel in any danger from those who may, consistent with their past and ongoing behaviour, want to shut you up, like many other truth-seekers before you? After all you are spilling the beans man! You've put your head over the parapet and before you lies the cold dark forces of a ruthless machine designed to spit out anyone or anything that would lead to the discovery of this plot. You do agree that these people are capable of anything, don't you? Yet here you are every night being allowed to show the world everything you've got without any fear of recrimination from those who have, according to you, been capable of almost mind boggling gymnastics to remove ANYTHING that may point to the 'truth'. But they just cannot stop Jim, Josephs, and Sandy Larsen. No sir!.

Maybe you're being followed, or your phone is being tapped, or that myself, Greg, Michael, Jeremy, Tracy, et al have been 'sent' here to discredit your efforts as part of some cointelpro operation organised by high placed members of the CIA who know all about H&L and are desperate to extinguish it. It really is doubtful Sandy, you do know this don't you?

Truth is, you will be of no interest to anyone. Because it didn't happen.

These childish excuses to get around the peer reviewed scientific studies that prove conclusively that there was only one historic LHO are now beyond risible. 

I will be proposing that Jim Hargrove is removed from this forum for deliberately, consciously, and wilfully bringing into disrepute. We don't let Fetzer on here for that very reason. We should apply the same ethics with Hargrove as well.

It's not Waterstones you know Jim...

 

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.

1 hour ago, Loli Menezes said:

 

I would like to know why the name of Thomas Cardell Martyn will only appear in the debate on Kennedy's death, associated with Operation Mockingbird, however, it does not appear here in this debate...

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

On 11/15/2012 at 7:30 AM, John Simkin said:

This is a useful website for people interested in Operation Mockingbird.

http://www.frequency.com/video/operation-mockingbird-cia-media-control/52904298/-/5-6500564

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

...

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

LOL, of course you are right Michael. I think I just needed someone to grab me by the shoulders and shake me a bit to bring me to my senses. I'll try not to waste any more time on trolls, ignorati, and other lost causes.

Thanks for the kind words, BTW.

:Thumbs-up: to you, my friend!

7 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Michael,

Who is Mark Henceroth?

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:.......
 

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I still see the Photobucket warning.

Does anybody else (besides Cliff) see a photo?

 

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

8 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

What's the more egregious smear -- comparing someone to Donald Trump, or comparing them to Joe MCarthy?

That's a tough one!

What's the more egregious BigLie -- Holocaust denial or T3 denial?

The former failed, but the latter has enjoyed great success.

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. 

Welcome Glen!

Milteer's statement is the prime example of what I believe was the job of Radical Right elements such as the kKK, JBS and the White Citzens Council: To make noise, stretch resources, distract authorities, dilute and weaken the veracity of actual leads and reports of the plot, and create an expectation of an assassination. In Milteers case, he provided details so the LHO story would have stronger legs when the time came for that story to run.

Are there any genealogists who can trace-out the families of:

General Edwin Walker

or

Vannavar Bush (co-founder of Raytheon)

?

The Radical Right includes the YAF, IMO. The conspiracy had several legs. Near the head of one of those legs was William Buckley Jr. That would be the Northeast Establishment leg, with shipbuilding interests, Raytheon, and big money. William Buckley Jr. was the Queen or Bishop in that stovepiped line of command which bypassed and confused guys like Angleton. 

Raytheon was co-founded by one Vannevar Bush. 

On 9/12/2017 at 5:18 PM, Paul Brancato said:

 

I'm struck by the visit in the spring of 1963 by Hunt and ? - to Madrid, Spain. If you recall who was with him please add that to your response.

 

Manuel Artime?

Cubela fits in there somewhat as well.