Michael Clark

An interesting topic has arisen and I would like to see it continued and expanded. ------------------------ Mark Knight wrote: Posted 14 hours ago "Since this is the JFK assassination forum, I'm not going to sidetrack myself with Watergate itself. The common denominator in all this is Nixon. Nixon didn't pull any triggers himself. We all can agree to that. But I think that the key to it all is Nixon. The hush money conversations about Watergate shows a Mafia-style knowledge on Nixon's part. Bags of untraceable cash? Yeah, we can do that. So who (plural) was bankrolling all this? To what end? Johnson gave the MICC Vietnam. We weren't getting out very quickly on LBJ's watch. But Johnson was savvy enough to know that when he lost Cronkite's support, he'd lost America's support as well and a second term simply wasn't in the cards. What I don't understand--and I lived through that era-- is what happened to Gene McCarthy after RFK's assassination. Humphrey, initially a stand-in for LBJ, never had the nomination sewed up. McCarthy was "persuaded" to step aside...somehow. Money? Threats? Blackmail? Not sure, but I'd wager that Nixon's backers found a way to "convince" McCarthy to drop out. I don't think anyone on the Democrat side of the ledger was was behind it. McCarthy seemed to fold his cards after RFK's death, and he only offered a token challenge to Humphrey. Once Humphrey was the nominee, Nixon's election was assured. Until someone decided they weren't getting their money's worth from Nixon, and Watergate came about. The cabal giveth the White House, and the cabal taketh away. Not convinced the warhawks were the only kingmakers of the Nixon presidency." Paul Brancato wrote: Posted 23 minutes ago "The big question I have now (I know I'm way off topic) is whether the 'deep state' which to my mind controls the center of the Democratic Party, has lost control of the Republican right, and of Trump and his criminal gang in particular. When Bush and Romney start looking like good guys you gotta wonder. "

Roger that. But we digress from the topic of my pet CT thread. Debate is what these threads are all about. Walker stuff spills everywhere, all to often.

Jason, it just does not make sense to me that a Dallas/Walker/KKK/JBS driven plot would include all the MC stuff, including so many CIA assets, rogue or not. LHO, the CIA sheep-dipped Commie does not fit that conspiracy. I now see why you want to see LHO as "crystallized" as close to 11-22 as possible. The earlier and earlier LHO's crystallization happens, the more and more difficult it is to accept your theory. If it was going to be a Lone Nut, it did not matter what the ideology of the perp was. Michael

Is "The Alien Presence" a code name for "Guantanamo"? lol

Yes, I don't expect to find much support, but it answers the largest question I have. Why did we not invade? Why set-up the Commie-LHO, stage an obvious conspiracy, and then fall back to the Lone-nut angle? A WW3 threat does not answer that question for me. That threat would not have been new on 11-22-63. This is the largest factor that drove me to this theory. Second largest=Castro's survival and the perpetual antagonism (we could have killed him).Third largest= Watergate.

Replying to Mark Knight, I am thinking that the sole purpose of the Watergate break-in was simply to get caught, and light a fire under Nixon's butt. It very well may be that Hunt, Mccord and Liddy, and their families, were under a direct and certain threat to cause a Cuban invasion, or they would be killed. Hunt Liddy and Mccord may not have been aware of a the preferred status of perpetual antagonism with Cuba, or they would not have been in a position to tell the Cuban exiles of that plan. They would have been beyond furious, and exacted revenge.

Paul, thanks for your input. This is an evolving CT. I'll make a few remarks. Some of them repeat what I suggested above, some of it is new. I have to point out that I believe that there was no intention to invade Cuba after the assassination. The promise of a Cuba invasion was a ruse to get the the anti Castro Cubans to act, and actually do the shooting. They got double-crossed. That is the main point of the theory and has not changed. What is new, since I started the thread, is that I believe that the assassination was carried-out largely to secure US control over Guantanamo Bay. I believe that it was determined that unfettered control of Guantanamo could only be born-out by an antagonistic relationship. I believe that Kennedy would have eventually persued detent, normalization or war with Cuba. An invasion and war would have eventually led to some kind of normalization, and Guantanamo's status would again come into question. Whoever led Cuba, would address that issue, and the leader could or would die, be overthrown or assassinated and Guantanamo would again be challenged. My theory has the convenience of being born out by the history of the last 55 years. Guantanamo never has been challenged or questioned under the adversarial relationship. Now, I repeat myself that I believe that the adversarial relationship had the added benefit of neutralizing off-shore Mafia power, and a competing tourist market. It also satisfied racial and anti-Catholic prejudices. In my theory, Anti-Castro Cubans did-it for the price of a free Cuba and they got double crossed. That is why they showed-up at Watergate.The adversarial relationship was preferred and Nixon was never going to invade. On the ground, the double-cross was managed locally, in Texas and Dallas. But I am now comming to believe that a wider range of elements on the right approved of and assisted in the plan. i don't believe that we were actually trying to assassinate Castro. That was a ruse as well. Castro and Communism meant antagonism and isolation. To be sure, Its all speculative and a working hypothesis.

I tried to a insert a link. It did not work.

I am replying here because I miss John Dolva. He has no been online here since before I became a member. It bothers me that members disappear without a trace. .............. on topic... Facism is Partyism, Literally, factually, and dangerously. I hope you are doing well John Dolva, Cheers, Michael

Thanks for you thoughtful review of my disheveled CT, Jason. It deserves a reply and and my CT needs an update.

....

Taking portions of a quote can be deemed to be disingenuous, cowardly, insincere and worse. Please allow me to do-so without applying the aforementioned recriminations.... You said.... "these letters I posted from Walker's FBI file from tipsters implicating Walker in the JFK assassination were white noise created by The Right" The statements made were made regarding evidence of conversations heard before the assassination. The affadavit was made after the assassination. So, no, Jason, it is evidence of the "static and noise", made prior to the assassination. It is not a post assassination diversion. " "But you are not really linking these letters to action from the Right and instead are saying in broad terms that the Right wants to make things difficult to investigate; right????" No, Jason. You are trying to make these statements relative to the assassination investigation, when they are actually evidence of prior-to-the-assassination noise, static and obstruction of the protection of our President.

I have to say that our Dealy Plaza fellow that is thought to be Landsdale, has a tall, thin head. Landsdale has a stocky head. To be sure, whoever he is, walking, slipping himself, in between that situation and the gate, is a person of paramount interest. I find the Krulak and Prouty identification to be nearly impeachable. I just think Landsdale has a a more- squarish head. To be sure, I am not your photo-analysis guy.

That is a question that answers itself. I am listening. Please rephrase.....

It has been my contention that, prior to 12:30 on 11-22-63, it was the job of the KKK, JBC and radical right, to create static, background noise and foster rumors, in order to tax and strain the resources of (non-Dallas) law enforcement, the FBI, Secret Service and even the few remaining loyal higher echelon resources if the CIA.

Douglas Caddy would, I believe, recount his last exchange with E Howard Hunt, while leaving a restaurant in 19 seventy-sumthin. Paraphrasing.....: Douglas: " So, Howard, why was JFK killed?" Hunt: " Because he was about to reveal an important secret to the USSR." Douglas: "What secret was that? Hunt: "The alien presence."

Love that Harry. Cogent and brief Accept my apologies If my words caused you grief. Cheers, Michael

That's a cop-out, Jason. Paul Trejo likes to "cite" the "WCR", or "Garrison". Are you going to do the same?

Sandy, It's clear that the FBI and CIA were not disconnected. Mccord was working LHO and the FPCC. Hoover would not be ignorant of our Soviet abortive defector.

I will. Don't be surprised if I come up with something that looks like my working pet CT; which was half typed-out, before you replied;) Alas, I will give it a rest. Cheers, Mike

If it were from any of the other chapters I could have and would have searched for walkers name, and come back with my results. I just don't have 6.

Well, I don't see that as a necessary conclusion. The Dallas and right wing elements are leaving the FBI no choice but to blame Oswald. But, They are actually doing very little to make that happen on their own. For example, we would never have heard a peep about a mauser, and there never would have been a call to get all hands out to see what's going on in the railroad yard, if they were the ones he'll bent on blaming Oswald. There are further examples.

Thanks Jason, I have a good chink of simplichs book, but not chapter 6. I use an IPAD and can't search well (yet, no ctr f). I need to get an MF account.

Walkers guilt and a USG cover-up are the subject of this thread.