Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Serious question for serious researchers
16 views
Skip to first unread message
pjsp...@aol.com
Jan 23, 2012, 11:43:02 PM1/23/12
to
In looking back through the statements of the back of the head witnesses
online, I was reminded that Dr. William Kemp Clark, who refused to do any
interviews on his recollections, even with the HSCA, is purported to have
spoken with David Naro on three occasions in 1994. Well, this always
struck me as odd. I mean, who was Naro, and why would Clark suddenly speak
to him?
This time, however, I decided to dig a little deeper, and see if I could
find any reference in this newsgroup's archives to a more detailed record
of Clark's statements than the one quick quote repeated ad infinitum
online. It was then I realized that the quote widely attributed to Clark
was attributed to Dr. McClelland on all posts on the subject prior to
2002. This leads me to suspect that Naro had in fact interviewed
McClelland, and that someone--Aguilar? Palamara?--had incorrectly claimed
it was Clark...and that people have been claiming it was Clark ever since.
And so, seeing as I only started researching this stuff in 2003, I'm
asking those with some history with this stuff if they KNOW for a fact
whom Naro interviewed.
online, I was reminded that Dr. William Kemp Clark, who refused to do any
interviews on his recollections, even with the HSCA, is purported to have
spoken with David Naro on three occasions in 1994. Well, this always
struck me as odd. I mean, who was Naro, and why would Clark suddenly speak
to him?
This time, however, I decided to dig a little deeper, and see if I could
find any reference in this newsgroup's archives to a more detailed record
of Clark's statements than the one quick quote repeated ad infinitum
online. It was then I realized that the quote widely attributed to Clark
was attributed to Dr. McClelland on all posts on the subject prior to
2002. This leads me to suspect that Naro had in fact interviewed
McClelland, and that someone--Aguilar? Palamara?--had incorrectly claimed
it was Clark...and that people have been claiming it was Clark ever since.
And so, seeing as I only started researching this stuff in 2003, I'm
asking those with some history with this stuff if they KNOW for a fact
whom Naro interviewed.
pjsp...@aol.com
Jan 24, 2012, 5:12:17 PM1/24/12
to
Well, I dug a little deeper, and found that some early reports by Aguilar
claim Naro interviewed Clark. Which raises the question of why more than
one poster on this newsgroup claimed he'd interviewed McClelland. There's
also this:
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/files/COPA1994.TXT
This is an email from Aguilar to Marsh announcing the 1994 COPA line- up.
Naro is listed as a participant, and the title of his presentation says he
interviewed Clark.
I have to admit, however, that I have trouble believing it. Clark avoided
interviews for decades. Why would he grant three interviews to a steel
salesman? The thought occurs that Naro befriended Clark under false
pretenses, and got him to make some statements he'd never have made if
he'd known he was being "interviewed."
The possibility also exists in my mind that Naro talked to someone other
than Clark, perhaps McClelland, and only became convinced it was Clark
months later, while reading a book on JFK. He then got all excited and
told someone about it, who told someone else about it, who got him invited
to COPA, etc.
If anyone here knows more of the story--details about Naro and whether he
took notes, etc--it would be greatly appreciated.
claim Naro interviewed Clark. Which raises the question of why more than
one poster on this newsgroup claimed he'd interviewed McClelland. There's
also this:
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/files/COPA1994.TXT
This is an email from Aguilar to Marsh announcing the 1994 COPA line- up.
Naro is listed as a participant, and the title of his presentation says he
interviewed Clark.
I have to admit, however, that I have trouble believing it. Clark avoided
interviews for decades. Why would he grant three interviews to a steel
salesman? The thought occurs that Naro befriended Clark under false
pretenses, and got him to make some statements he'd never have made if
he'd known he was being "interviewed."
The possibility also exists in my mind that Naro talked to someone other
than Clark, perhaps McClelland, and only became convinced it was Clark
months later, while reading a book on JFK. He then got all excited and
told someone about it, who told someone else about it, who got him invited
to COPA, etc.
If anyone here knows more of the story--details about Naro and whether he
took notes, etc--it would be greatly appreciated.
Robert Harris
Jan 24, 2012, 5:33:55 PM1/24/12
to
In article
<f42b5251-3caf-4b54...@k28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
was, because we can see this damage ourselves.
I made three videos on this subject, which you should find helpful, Pat.
This one was my first Youtube presentation, which makes the location and
nature of the damage very clear. More importantly, it demonstrates that
the damage was inflicted well after the explosion at 313.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ
This is a followup video I made which includes the relevant portions of
Dr. Boswell's ARRB testimony, fully corroborating my explanation for the
nature of the large protrusion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
And this video addresses the idiotic argument that what we are seeing is
an optical illusion caused by Jackie's hand:-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXglIRrg3Kg
The best witnesses to this damage are not the members of the Parkland
staff. The best witnesses are you and I, who have a crystal clear view of
this damage and can easily see when it first appeared.
Robert Harris
<f42b5251-3caf-4b54...@k28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> In looking back through the statements of the back of the head witnesses
> online,
It really doesn't matter what the subjective opinion of various witnesses
> In looking back through the statements of the back of the head witnesses
> online,
was, because we can see this damage ourselves.
I made three videos on this subject, which you should find helpful, Pat.
This one was my first Youtube presentation, which makes the location and
nature of the damage very clear. More importantly, it demonstrates that
the damage was inflicted well after the explosion at 313.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVfIh-8nXyQ
This is a followup video I made which includes the relevant portions of
Dr. Boswell's ARRB testimony, fully corroborating my explanation for the
nature of the large protrusion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaoBB1rwkc
And this video addresses the idiotic argument that what we are seeing is
an optical illusion caused by Jackie's hand:-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXglIRrg3Kg
The best witnesses to this damage are not the members of the Parkland
staff. The best witnesses are you and I, who have a crystal clear view of
this damage and can easily see when it first appeared.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Jan 24, 2012, 10:49:33 PM1/24/12
to
Pat, I hope you will pay particular attention to this one, because you
argued that the large protrusion was an illusion caused by Jackie's
hand.
In it, you will see what the protrusion looked like if indeed, her hand
had covered that part of the head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXglIRrg3Kg
Robert Harris
In article
<2c4d7408-0e93-4c1b...@f12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
pjsp...@aol.com
Jan 27, 2012, 6:12:34 PM1/27/12
to
Seriously, NO ONE here knows anything about David Naro, or why some
researchers presented the quotes he attributed to Dr. Clark as quotes made
by McClelland?
researchers presented the quotes he attributed to Dr. Clark as quotes made
by McClelland?
Mitch Todd
Jan 29, 2012, 2:31:50 PM1/29/12
to
Maybe the question is, did Naro record the alleged conversation with
Clark, or is there any other evidence of extended contact with Clark?
From what I've been able to find, Naro himself seems to have
disappeared entirely from the assassination debate not long after
COPA '94.
<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote
Clark, or is there any other evidence of extended contact with Clark?
From what I've been able to find, Naro himself seems to have
disappeared entirely from the assassination debate not long after
COPA '94.
<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote
pjsp...@aol.com
Jan 30, 2012, 10:43:59 AM1/30/12
to
I agree, Mitch, that there's something strange about the whole thing.
Naro appears out of nowhere to say he's had a series of conversations
with the reclusive Dr. William Kemp Clark. He quotes Clark as if Clark
had confirmed McClelland's description of the head wound, and then
disappears. And then certain people on this newsgroup start
attributing the quotes Naro claimed came from Clark, to McClelland.
Well, that last part could just be a mistake.
But, if Naro really spoke to Clark, why did no one follow up on this
in any of the journals? Why is there NO published account of Naro's
conversations with Clark? Clark was both the most important Parkland
witness and the least forthcoming. If he'd really broken his silence
it should have been HUGE news. But instead of having a clear record of
what he said and the circumstances of his saying it, there's second-
hand mush: "some guy appeared saying he'd spoken to him and then
disappeared." Well, I don't believe it, and have a really hard time
believing it will stand the test of time.
On Jan 29, 11:31 am, "Mitch Todd" <recipien...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe the question is, did Naro record the alleged conversation with
> Clark, or is there any other evidence of extended contact with Clark?
> From what I've been able to find, Naro himself seems to have
> disappeared entirely from the assassination debate not long after
> COPA '94.
>
> <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote
Naro appears out of nowhere to say he's had a series of conversations
with the reclusive Dr. William Kemp Clark. He quotes Clark as if Clark
had confirmed McClelland's description of the head wound, and then
disappears. And then certain people on this newsgroup start
attributing the quotes Naro claimed came from Clark, to McClelland.
Well, that last part could just be a mistake.
But, if Naro really spoke to Clark, why did no one follow up on this
in any of the journals? Why is there NO published account of Naro's
conversations with Clark? Clark was both the most important Parkland
witness and the least forthcoming. If he'd really broken his silence
it should have been HUGE news. But instead of having a clear record of
what he said and the circumstances of his saying it, there's second-
hand mush: "some guy appeared saying he'd spoken to him and then
disappeared." Well, I don't believe it, and have a really hard time
believing it will stand the test of time.
On Jan 29, 11:31 am, "Mitch Todd" <recipien...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe the question is, did Naro record the alleged conversation with
> Clark, or is there any other evidence of extended contact with Clark?
> From what I've been able to find, Naro himself seems to have
> disappeared entirely from the assassination debate not long after
> COPA '94.
>
Anthony Marsh
Jan 30, 2012, 6:43:51 PM1/30/12
to
On 1/30/2012 10:43 AM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> I agree, Mitch, that there's something strange about the whole thing.
> Naro appears out of nowhere to say he's had a series of conversations
> with the reclusive Dr. William Kemp Clark. He quotes Clark as if Clark
> had confirmed McClelland's description of the head wound, and then
> disappears. And then certain people on this newsgroup start
> attributing the quotes Naro claimed came from Clark, to McClelland.
> Well, that last part could just be a mistake.
>
> But, if Naro really spoke to Clark, why did no one follow up on this
> in any of the journals? Why is there NO published account of Naro's
> conversations with Clark? Clark was both the most important Parkland
> witness and the least forthcoming. If he'd really broken his silence
> it should have been HUGE news. But instead of having a clear record of
> what he said and the circumstances of his saying it, there's second-
> hand mush: "some guy appeared saying he'd spoken to him and then
> disappeared." Well, I don't believe it, and have a really hard time
> believing it will stand the test of time.
>
Maybe because Baxter had threatened them to keep silent?
> I agree, Mitch, that there's something strange about the whole thing.
> Naro appears out of nowhere to say he's had a series of conversations
> with the reclusive Dr. William Kemp Clark. He quotes Clark as if Clark
> had confirmed McClelland's description of the head wound, and then
> disappears. And then certain people on this newsgroup start
> attributing the quotes Naro claimed came from Clark, to McClelland.
> Well, that last part could just be a mistake.
>
> But, if Naro really spoke to Clark, why did no one follow up on this
> in any of the journals? Why is there NO published account of Naro's
> conversations with Clark? Clark was both the most important Parkland
> witness and the least forthcoming. If he'd really broken his silence
> it should have been HUGE news. But instead of having a clear record of
> what he said and the circumstances of his saying it, there's second-
> hand mush: "some guy appeared saying he'd spoken to him and then
> disappeared." Well, I don't believe it, and have a really hard time
> believing it will stand the test of time.
>
0 new messages