Charles Drago

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

Thats a fair call, how about it Charles? Stephen, I respect your request. But to respond to "Colby" is to do "his" masters' bidding. I won't play. And neither should you. Respectfully, Charles Translation from Dragobabble: "Not being able to substantiate my claim, I’ll make lame excuses instead." 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.

Thats a fair call, how about it Charles? Stephen, I respect your request. But to respond to "Colby" is to do "his" masters' bidding. I won't play. And neither should you. Respectfully, Charles

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.

From chycho.com Germany becomes the First Country to admit Clandestine Chemtrails Operations For all those activists who have been investigating and reporting on clandestine government operations around the world to manipulate our weather patterns, this news from Germany is groundbreaking. The TV news report states that “the military planes of the German Federal Army are manipulating our climate; this is what the weather researchers are presuming and their suspicions are confirmed… “We can state with a 97% certainty that we have on our hands chemical trails (chemtrails) comprised by fine dust containing polymers and metals, used to disrupt radar signals.” “This is their main purpose, but I was surprised that this artificial cloud was so wide-spread. The radar images are stunning considering the needed tons of dispersed elements -- although, the federal army claims that only small amounts of material were propagated. The military heads claim that the substances used are not harmful.” “In the United States of America there are protest after protest for many years now, against these military operations and now people are mobilising in Germany as well. Per example JOHANNES REMMEL of the Greens. “It's obvious that enormous regions are being polluted with clandestine actions, but all of this has to be made public. The government must provide explanations to the unsuspecting population.” This is a very significant development in the battle to find out why our governments are spraying chemicals into our atmosphere; however it is only the tip of the iceberg. As far as researchers have been able to conclude, chemical spraying by our governments have been in full operation since mid-to-late 1990’s (possibly earlier). Right now we can only speculate as to what type of chemicals are used in these operations, however one thing is certain, if we saw a car driving down the road, spewing out a plume of smoke the way these planes are doing we would be very concerned. Considering that half the species in the world could be wiped out due to global warming, the least we could do is to demand that our governments explain what it is that they are spraying us with, specially if military heads are claiming “that the substances used are not harmful”. As we know, when the militaries of the world say we have nothing to be concerned about then we have everything to be concerned about. Keep in mind that chemtrails have been categorized as an “exotic weapons systems” by the 107th CONGRESS of the United States in House Bill H. R. 2977.

That's male occhio.

JFK was told about the kid. Know what he said? "I need this like I need a hole in the head." (edited to enhance offensiveness)

A first impression, for what it's worth: Upon initial viewing of the image -- and before your most recent post -- my IMMEDIATE reaction was that someone has altered a photo of Patrick Kennedy.

Gives new meaning to "'tater tots," doesn't it? Bratwurst, anyone? Toddler cobbler would hit the spot. Care for some zygote cheese on your salad? It's almost the season for offspring lamb.

Now THIS is rich. To HELL with Peter Dale Scott! We must trust he who is revealed below: 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.

This legendary avian presence allegedly sighted in recent days in fact has been to ground. Listening. Watching. Sharpening his talons. Hear his plaintive call ... The shortest of thrusts is the deadliest of thrusts. Those who would dispatch a potentate or prophet cannot succeed absent the treachery of at least one member of their target's innermost circle. Is that a dagger in your toga, Brutus baby, or are you glad to see me? Hey Jude, pass the salt. Thanks for the Dallas tour book, Walt. It's OK honey, you get some rest, watch on TV, and I'll wave to you through the sun roof.

Jack, A most stimulating and important question. When, within the context of analyses of events such as those we study on this Forum, we direct our attention to "the Russians" or any other meta-group ("the CIA," "the KGB," "the military," "Cubans," "Americans," etc.), we beg the larger, more important issue relating to what I'll term the Matryoshka concept of political analysis. The Matryoshka, of course, is the Russian so-called "nesting doll," or the thing-within-a-thing doll, if you will. Let's stay in the neighborhood for a moment. Which Russians would have been in Dealey Plaza? The KGB? OK, which faction of the KGB? Andropov/Brezshnev hard-liners, or Khrushchev loyalists? Moving far afield: Were Cubans there? Communist Cubans? Ok, which Communist Cubans? Hard-line Peking Commies, or Soviet (Khrushchev)-inspired Commies? Was the CIA there? OK, which faction of the CIA? Yankees or Cowboys? To the degree that we simplify these terms, we condemn ourselves to endless labors in search of truth and justice which will not be discerned, let alone achieved, in our lifetimes. Don't misunderstand me, my friend. I am not taking you to task. I haven't the temerity. I'm simply attempting to use your question to make a point and stimulate response. What George Michael Evica referred to as the treasonous cabal of American and Soviet hard-line intelligence officers whose masters were above Cold War differences depended for its/their protection and success upon the fostering among the multitudes of simplistic notions of East and West. As did their aforementioned masters, who beyond doubt may be discovered at the ultimate sponsorship level of the JFK assassination. Charles

I don't think they're pointing. Someone is playing the "Horst Wessel Song."

You're quite capable -- and extraordinarily eager -- to insult yourself. I'm just piling on because nothing exceeds like excess. British public servants accused of dishonesty? Next thing I know you'll be claiming that it's a man's life in the British Dental Association. Why don't you go off in a corner somewhere and salute something?

Perhaps the most telling flaw in Chomsky's approach to analysis of what happened in Dallas is his consistent refusal to consider evidence from a criminologist's perspective. Or, if you will, to play the CSI game. As we know, the basic medical, photographic, recorded audio, eyewitness, earwitness, and other forensic evidence in the agregate prove conspiracy beyond all doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude. I have every reason to believe that Chomsky, once he began to study that evidence, quickly would accept the truth of how JFK was killed. But then what? On to the who and why of the crime? Not likely. Chomsky has bigger fish to fry. Or so he thinks.

CRAZY, are we??? Peter Dale Scott offers a rather insightful mini-analysis of Chomsky's and Howard Zinn's shared distaste for pro-conspiracy public comments by "significant" progressives. The fatal flaw in NC's JFK assassination analysis is his slavish adherence to a sum-equals-parts conception of human nature. As I read Chomsky, he argues that the corrupt system that had elevated Kennedy to the presidency would not have needed to replace the figurehead which it had spawned, nurtured, and, on 11/22/63, yet controlled. There is no room in Chomsky's world for the X-Factor: the awakening of the spiritual impulse. JFK exhibited just such a metamorphosis. Hence the need for the self-correcting system to act on its own behalf by removing and replacing a flawed part. Was the Cold Warrior who signed off on the Bay of Pigs invasion the same man who, some 26 months later, reminded us that "we are all mortal"?

How about G.H.W. Bush and his "resume mucho"? KIDDING!

Richard, You should consider the following caveat, which I wrote and post whenever I perceive the need to do so: 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.

As it happened, did Bowers' perch in the tower provide a shooting angle?

I am confident that David will discuss his book on the forum. I met him in Dallas a couple of years ago when he was doing research into the case. You might want to look at this interview I carried out with him on the way that historians deal with cases like the JFK assassination: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6853 John, I was struck by the following comments by Mr. Kaiser: "I do not think internal CIA documents say A when not A is the truth very often, but it is obvious that many things are never documented, and any response to any other agency is based upon what is in the documentation, nothing more. (When some one asks, inside the CIA, 'what is our conneciton to x?', the answer is, in actual fact, 'what is in the files about X?')." (emphasis added by Drago) In other words, Mr. Kaiser argues that there is but one "level" (my word) of internal CIA documents, and that all agency-to-agency communications in which documents are cited refer to holdings from such a repository. He goes on to note: "I have just discovered (actually Newman discovered it) a case in which a senior FBI official created an alternative vision of history but that is VERY rare." Just how did Mr. Kaiser arrive at this conclusion? Is the falsifying of history indeed a rare occurence at the Hoover Building? Or is he arguing that such falsification by a "senior FBI official" is rare? Or is Mr. Kaiser inadvertantly telling us more about his (in)ability to discover more than one such instance? I have reason to believe that Mr. Kaiser's book will fall into the "Mob did it" genre -- an interestingly timed follow-up to the Waldron/Hartman nonsense.

"Rant," sir? It is you, sir, who is burdened with the task of demonstrating governments' honesty and integrity in their respective investigations of political assassinations of the 20th and 21st centuries. Arrogance and ignorance make such a cute couple.

I would employ -- better yet, cast -- this man as president of the United States as that role currently is conceived. He seems to have been born to play the part. Of course he runs all the risks associated with type casting. But that's his problem. DeMille