Charles Drago

Sorry, Stephen. "Opinion" in terms of how JFK was killed is of no import. The fact is that his death was the result of a criminal conspiracy. There are no honest, informed, rational arguments for the LN position or for Oswald having fired at JFK. "Our" case has been built, tested, and proven. Conspiracy is historical fact. And anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. I see no other explanations. But hey, that's just me, man.

Just received from Mr. Mack: I'm not playing games, Charles, nor should you. Two major investigations concluded Oswald shot JFK. I am familiar with the evidence they used to reach that conclusion and so are you. I want to know what the hard evidence is that someone else was firing. As one who is convinced the acoustics findings of two gunmen is correct, I would love to use it...but the acoustics has been called into question. So please answer my question if you can. Gary I responded by forwarding my post in full as it appears above, with a brief, on-sentence intro relating to Mr. Mack's opening sentence: Neither am I, Mr. Mack.

[For the record: Some months ago I initiated a thread in which discussion of the appropriateness of sharing of private messages was encouraged. I took the position that, in the final analysis and absent any agreement to the contrary between correspondents, it is appropriate to make such exchanges public if a greater good is served by doing so.] The following exchange of private messages took place this morning. Mack to Drago: Hey Charles, Would you kindly supply me with the hard evidence that someone other than Oswald was firing? Evidence, Charles, not opinions. My comment referred to hard evidence, hence the qualifier virtually. Just something short and simple so I can relay it in an upcoming media interview. Thanks, Gary Mack Drago to Mack: Right after you provide me with hard evidence that Oswald was firing, Mr. Mack was not quite clever enough when he constructed his question on the false premise that "hard" evidence exists to establish that LHO fired at President Kennedy on 11/22/63. The burden is yours, sir. You are making the accusation, Mr. Mack. Where is your proof? "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle. No one has been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." --Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, quoted by United Press International, November 5, 1969 There is no reliable eyewitness testimony placing LHO in the "assassin's nest" during the shooting. There is no sustainable explanation for how LHO could have done the shooting, paused to admire his work (as eyewitnesses described a "figure" in the "assassin's window" doing after the final shots), wiped down and hidden his weapon beneath boxes, descended from the sixth to the second floor of the TSBD without being seen by individuals on the only available staircase during the time frame, and arrived in the lunchroom to enjoy a soft drink no later than 90 seconds after the shooting ceased. CE 399 -- the so-called "magic" or "pristine" bullet -- may be ballistically linked to a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle allegedly purchased and owned by LHO. However, there is no sustainable evidence whatsoever to support the contentions that LHO ever transported that weapon to the TSBD, that the bullet now in evidence was the projectile found in Parkland Hospital, and that it struck either JFK or JBC. No sustainable evidence whatsoever. Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) tests linking bullet fragments recovered from assassination victims to LHO's alleged ammunition have been fully discredited, have ZERO scientific reliability, and thus have no bearing on this case in terms of establishing LHO's guilt or innocence. There is no sustainable forensic evidence to indicate that LHO fired a rifle on 11/22/63. Positive parrafin tests of his hands are just as likely to have resulted from his handling of printed materials during the performance of his TSBD job as from firing a pistol. Parrafin tests of his cheeks -- where evidence of having fired a rifle would be expected to be noted -- were negative. The presence of LHO's palm print on a portion of the rifle barrel that is not visible when the weapon is fully assembled is suspect. The print was not noted during initial intense examination by the FBI in the Bureau's state-of-the-art lab; rather, it was miraculously discovered after LHO was killed, and after a suspicious visit to the funeral home by government agents who may have applied the print post mortem. LHO's post-assassination behavior hardly can be described as "flight." He went home, and in a relatively unhurried manner. No one ever has suggested a plausible motive for LHO to kill JFK. So, then ... No means. No motive. No opportunity. No physical evidence. No photographic evidence. No eyewitness evidence. The only argument in support of LHO firing at JFK is an argument from false authority -- the state. Charles Drago

Thanks, Don. Rest assured that we're not a minority of three.

David and Jack, The hypotheses you present are NOT mutually exclusive. Vallee understands and espouses this point of view. Acceptance of the esoteric explanation of Operation Highjump, for instance, does not diminish evidence for a decades-long black op to support -- here's a candidate for the Oxymoron of the Year Award -- conventional UFO explanations in order to disguise development of secret aircraft and/or to lampoon conspiracy investigators in general. All, none, or some UFO hypotheses may be on the money. At least that's what Fred Crisman told me last week. Spock

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23227361#23227361 Let the word go forth. (The opening reference, extremely brief, is to an unrelated story. Hang in there.)

Charles, Olberman has an actual brain and a spine, I mean for someone on mainstream news. Did he rebut Mack's Big Lie in any way? Alas, Myra, Keith and Gary seemd joined at the hip.

"Virtually all the hard evidence leads to Lee Harvey Oswald." Thus Gary Mack gives away his game. Mr. Mack spoke those words, as I type this, some three minutes ago, at the end of the Monday, February 18 edition of "Countdown" on MSNBC. Once more for emphasis: "Virtually all the hard evidence leads to Lee Harvey Oswald." -- Gary Mack Contrast this with the truth: No hard evidence whatsoever leads to Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin -- lone or otherwise -- of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I reiterate: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK case who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. Without any room for equvication, Mr. Mack's access to said evidence is reasonable in the extreme. Let there be no doubt, from this day and time, about whose side Mr. Mack is on.

C., Is there a translation available for "Dixie" speakers? I'd hate you-know-who to go off on a tangent and show us yet another illegible survey. Paul All I can tell you, Paul, is why Southern girls go to college: So they can learn how to say "indubitably" instead of "no s**t."

How, and for what purposes, was Mohamed Fayed encouraged to retain the services of attorney Mark Zaid? Is Mr. Zaid yet in the employ of Mr. Fayed? If not, why not?

M. Reymond, Three questions: Will this and other of your works be published in English? What was your involvement, if any, in promoting the idea that an original, unaltered version of the Zapruder film was available for viewing? What was your involvement, if any, in the trip to Europe by Dr. David Mantik in relation to the alleged discovery of the unaltered film? Sincerely, Charles Drago

Indeed, Tosh. The purposes of conspirators' making easy-to-detect alteration(s) in the Z-film -- and by "alterations" I refer only to the undisputed, long-detected splice, the missing frames, and the inversion of frames as published in "Life" magazine: to misdirect honorable, competent citizen-investigators, to generate public displays of disaffection as herein witnessed, and to depict some of the best of us as unreasonable zealots (thus tainting our work in other areas). I remain cautiously agnostic on the issue of greater alteration -- although I don't for a moment believe that those in a position and with a reason to make any such changes suffered the technological limitations under which "civilians" of the period would have operated. The "how" of JFK's murder -- criminal conspiracy -- has been established. The Z-film in any condition imaginable is irrelevant to the establishment of this basic and unassailable historical truth. If in fact alterations other than those referenced above can be demonstrated to have been made, then the Z-film becomes of critical importance to the struggles to answer the "who" and, by extension, "why" questions. Charles

One would have to be terribly Hungary.

The key to lending bona fides to altered or entirely fabricated "evidence" is to package it with legitimate material. Jim, like all of us who bring something greater than a pre-school mentality to the subjects we explore, understands that the more tainted the source -- the U.S. government, or certain agents provocateurs who work within these cyberpages, for examples -- the more likely it is to find grains of truth within their truck loads of suffocating sand. On the other hand, sometimes a fool is simply a fool. Your post quoted here stands as yet another indication both of your unsophisticated view of the secret world's most basic operating principles and of your skin-deep penetrations of the deep political milieu. The wonders, they just keep wondering.

And now for something tangentially related: http://www.rickyhitmanhatton2.com/video/vi...ns-funeral.html Of course the cultured moderati of this Forum would not permit publication of a transcript.

And now for something completely anticipated: Link to the "Parrot" sketch: http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/jokes/monty-python-parrot.html (And it's "shagged out".)

:lol: That is the funniest expression I've ever heard Charles. It's from the (in)famous "Parrot" sketch. "He's not dead. He's resting."

Care to learn Gerry Patrick Hemming's description of the RFK shooter? Again, from the infamous Dallas breakfast: "He used a sleeve gun, under one of those white waiter's jackets."

Nonsense! America is merely fagged out after a prolonged squark.

I think you might be right, Jack. I seem to recall recently that Charles Drago also made reference to this possibility. Len's apparent ability to monitor and post a myriad of 'rebuttals' on a wide range of subjects with such alacrity would normally indicate a researcher of great diligence. But would such a person behave like Len does here? I doubt it. Mark, You're referencing my "surgeon general's" warning about what I recognize to be the entity(s) presenting as "Colby." I'll post it here for the purposes of clarification: WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals. I'd also like to re-submit the following from an earlier post on this thread: I -- and others -- have reached the conclusion that "Colby" is an agent provocateur (hereinafter AP). Spreading disinformation is one of the AP's primary functions. The key ingredient to all disinformation is a grain of truth. Over the long haul, a "Colby" may be expected to post factually correct information and defensible analyses of persons and events. The AP does so in order to establish credentials which in turn will be referenced to support the AP's later spurious and sophistic pronouncements. When exposed to the light, the AP will cite previous instances of truth-telling and then challenge its discoverers to respond to its subsequent statements on their own merits. If I were to accept "Colby's" challenge -- or, for that matter, cave to your schoolyard taunt -- by offering serious and honorable responses to what I and others are satisfied are ludicruous and dishonorable postings -- by definition I would be ceding the contest to "Colby's" masters. SUCCESS FOR THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR IS DEFINED AS ENGAGING ITS TARGETS -- REGARDLESS OF THE ENGAGEMENTS' OUTCOMES. THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR'S MASTERS IS TO CREATE THE ILLUSION OF LEVEL INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PLAYING FIELDS FOR THEIR LIES ON THE GREAT BATTLEGROUND OF HISTORY. THE ONLY WAYS TO DEFEAT THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR -- AND, BY EXTENSION, ITS MASTERS -- ARE TO REVEAL ITS MISSIONS AND TO TREAT IT WITH UTTER CONTEMPT. I highly recommend this course of action in the case of "Colby." Charles

Good Morning, Tosh, Am I correct to assume that the threat to which your team was responding was specific to Dealey Plaza, as opposed to any other location in and around Dallas? If not, then either there were other abort teams from Love Field to the Trade Mart, or your guys just got lucky -- so to speak. Prior to JFK's arrival in the Plaza, did you and/or any other members of the team take note of unnaturally thin security measures there? I speak of the absence of a full security contingent on the ground, open and unguarded windows, violations of Secret Service motorcade protocols related to sharp turns on the route, etc.? If such deficiencies had been noted PRIOR to the president's approach to the Plaza, am I correct to assume that you would have realized that this threat was anything but a false alarm and thus acted in a more pro-active or aggressive manner? How do you account for the failure of other team members to clear the knoll and/or other possible shooter locations? Finally, I strongly suspect that you and your team were sent to Dealey Plaza in order to be scapegoated as false sponsors and/or to muddy the waters for honest investigators. Does this make sense to you? Be well, Charles

Odd that, Evan. I read Charles post in a very different light. It seemed to me his [Charles'] objections about debating with Sir Hiss were set out as clear as could possibly be. It is not a simple 'either or' situation as you suggest, but more complex than that. If he ["Colby"] were half honest I would debate with him - no matter any differences of opinion -- that, after all, is one of the reasons I visit this forum. But with his nibs, it is pointless; futile, fruitless, aimless, barren, hopeless, unproductive, unavailing, useless and abortive. Thank you, David. In terms of the joys and benefits of honorable debate, and within the context of this Forum, I would cite -- as one of many examples -- my extended, collegial, productive, and enlightening (for me, at least) debate with Robert Charles-Dunne regarding the conspiratorial function of tying LHO to Fidel. Our disagreement could not have been more profound -- or more positive in its impacts upon the search for truth and justice in the JFK case. As for Evan: I've always liked the fellow, but I'm not sure how to engage so literal-minded a correspondent.

Evan, I -- and others -- have reached the conclusion that "Colby" is an agent provocateur (hereinafter AP). Spreading disinformation is one of the AP's primary functions. The key ingredient to all disinformation is a grain of truth. Over the long haul, a "Colby" may be expected to post factually correct information and defensible analyses of persons and events. The AP does so in order to establish credentials which in turn will be referenced to support the AP's later spurious and sophistic pronouncements. When exposed to the light, the AP will cite previous instances of truth-telling and then challenge its discoverers to respond to its subsequent statements on their own merits. If I were to accept "Colby's" challenge -- or, for that matter, cave to your schoolyard taunt -- by offering serious and honorable responses to what I and others are satisfied are ludicruous and dishonorable postings -- by definition I would be ceding the contest to "Colby's" controllers. SUCCESS FOR THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR IS DEFINED AS ENGAGING ITS TARGETS -- REGARDLESS OF THE ENGAGEMENTS' OUTCOMES. THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR'S MASTERS IS TO CREATE THE ILLUSION OF LEVEL INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PLAYING FIELDS FOR THEIR LIES ON THE GREAT BATTLEGROUND OF HISTORY. THE ONLY WAYS TO DEFEAT THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR -- AND, BY EXTENSION, ITS MASTERS -- ARE TO REVEAL ITS MISSIONS AND TO TREAT IT WITH UTTER CONTEMPT. Accordingly: WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals. Charles Drago Why is it the first phrase that comes to my mind is "deliberately inflamatory"? Because such a misreading is the best you can offer. By the by, it's "inflammatory." And it's a term, not a "phrase."

Evan, Such a simple-minded reading of my response stands as a self-indictment of intellectual failing upon which I cannot hope to expand. You are dismissed. Charles

For the truly evil, the corruption of innocence is the ultimate spoil of war.