Charles Drago

If what you say is true, Charles, they why won't (or is it can't?) you provide evidence of where Len is wrong? Surely that is the best way to counter an argument - prove it wrong.

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

You think I’m "a breeder of disinformation"? Show the errors in what I wrote above.

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.

You think I’m "a breeder of disinformation"? Show the errors in what I wrote above.

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.

I'm now off to eat a few children ...

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.

PDS's chapters on the subject are crap as I will make clear soon.

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.

My case is, admittedly, a circumstantial one. Deeper probing of AAZ's activities will probably reveal more. Twitchers have spotted 'The Great Drago' swopping and soaring over 'The North West Frontier.' What does he make of all this?

Chappers

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.

Paul...I will toss out an idea for consideration.

What if the Russians had their OWN cinematographer there

to record the event?

Jack

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."

I wondered how long it would be before you were around to insult me. I don't think I need to prove anything. After all, it's you who's accusing British public servants of dishonesty, not me. Do you have any evidence at all to support such libel? I thought not. As for the arrogance and ignorance slur, all I can say is that I expect little better from you.

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.

Richard,

Most enjoyable exchange. One more go-around may be in order. This time I'll anticipate St. Patrick's Day and opine in green.

But I do know about Bernays, Dulles, Operation Mockingbird, MKUltra, and the Pentagon's 'Operation Information Roadmap' and in my cynicism believe that there are very elaborate psyops, cointelpro, disinfo and misinfo permeating the net and the world.

They're making more lemonade out of the immense IT lemon, methinks.

"No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine."

-- William Blum

You sure know how to cheer up a crowd!

I also know that there are some who seem to express bravado in their resistance to (whatever) but that is their defense against a grinding sense of impotence. Most I know, though, do not feel like much of a threat to anything. I detect in them .... and in me, I'm afraid, a sense of hopelessness that we (I) nevertheless rail against.

I'm a charter member of this club. But what choice do we have as moral, thinking human beings but to fight on?

There are indeed forces at work that desire calamity for calamity's sake. But perhaps that area of inquiry is simultaneously too far afield and too close to the truth for this Internet venue.

That is a great area of speculation. Really fun. If I am interpreting what you said correctly.

My point was/is that beyond acquisition and preservation of wordly wealth and power lies the spiritual impulse. For the ur-materialists it may emerge, at least in part, from fear of death as the great equalizer. And so the ultimate side is chosen -- darkness or light.

I direct your attention to and unabashedly recommend Peter Levenda's Sinister Forces trilogy.

The next response...

"I believe, further, that there is no necessary reason to abandon the nation state, per se. Given the current options apparently embodied in the elites’ view of the ‘new world order’, (see statements made by David and Nick Rockefeller, for examples) I think I’ll support some arrangement a little less ‘unified’…… if you don’t mind. I’m just a little wary of the folks who appear to be running that show."

Might there be a third alternative?

I think this is really a most important question. I feel remiss because I began David Griffin's discussion on a better form of world organization in '9/11 and American Empire' and thought he was describing what might work and still respect folks' independence (and nations).

But anyway, I think your question would be a great topic for a thread. Really constructive. At least feeling like we're doing something productive.... rather than simply documenting the slide into fascism.

Just because I've raised the question, don't presume that I have even the faintest idea of how to answer it.

So, anyway, I've really enjoyed our discussion. Thanks.

My sentiments exactly. You're quite welcome.

Charles

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

Dear Richard,

These multi-color exchanges tend to get unwieldy, but I'll give it one more go -- this time in blue.

Dear Charles,

just some of my meandering thoughts.….

In your comments (I tried to recapture the red) you stated:

And I'm one of those full-blown wack-a-loons who shares your belief, but who also understands that those who would "remove active dissent from the American scene" are not controllers, but rather their pawns among the controlled.

There's too much at stake to alter a system that is working so very, very well.

I have to question what appears to be your basic presupposition. What are you regarding as the “system” and what about it is “working so very, very well”?

I define the "system" as the social/political/economic basis for the concentration of power and wealth among the few, and their control of the many by the maintenance of mass delusions regarding the efficacy of current "democratic" systems. Better yet, let's use your description:

I think I agree with the first part of the goal you are describing here; that is, that there have been efforts to “reinforce false senses of functioning of democracy”. I admit I make the assumption (not unfounded, actually) that the ‘overlords’ (heavens, what can I call that group who are the puppeteers?) via the CIA, et. al. (as one group already acknowledged to have done this in the past and presumably still doing it) control and manipulate the media in this nation. And it is the media who help bolster and reinforce the false belief that democratic processes still have a role in the running of this place. They reinforce what Heinberg (probably not original with him) has called the ‘consensus trance’. Also, democratic processes at the local level do appear to work somewhat and further support the illusion that democracy extends up into the national level. Which it does not.

Okay ... We're on the same page so far. But then ...

I do not believe ‘hate laws and detention centers’ are straw men. To think that they are would require one to believe that they are irrelevant and unnecessary from the puppeteer’s point of view. Since my underlying assumption is that one goal, at least, entails a draconian restructuring of society and diminution of individual freedom, the existence of camps and thought control laws (so called) easily fit into that agenda.

I have no problem in acknowledging that "hate laws and detention centers" likey have been created as both contingencies to deal with possible societal upheavals as you describe them below AND as straw men as I previously use the term.

I'll never forget the late Bud Fensterwald's great lesson: All intelligence operations have at least two objectives.

Some other factors also seem to be relevant here as well. I’ll simply list some without elaboration. Peaking resources is one (that governments have been well aware of for a long while now and which, many believe is the major factor underlying current geopolitical turmoil), global warming (pro/con) is another. The overpopulation of the planet another. The looming end of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is a huge factor as is the exodus of manufacturing from the U.S. (not an accident, I believe), the astounding debt of the U.S., potential collapse of the U.S. economy, creation of the NAU, destruction of the middle class, problems with global food production, the desires among elements of our country to maintain and enhance global hegemony, the threats of pandemics … and the list goes on. Mass starvation and population die off are thought by some (see Dale Allen Pfeiffer, Eating Fossil Fuels) to be almost a certainty as oil/natural gas-based fertilizers, oil-based pesticides and the production of and use of machinery (takes oil to make ‘em and oil to run ‘em) become less available (if the peak oil folks are correct). There are no substitutes for oil and natural gas in these processes. A hectare of land with all that stuff can support, say 40 persons. Without it, only 10. A dire set of circumstances for the world population if folks like Colin Campbell, Richard Heinberg, Pfeiffer and others are correct.…. - a 4 - to - 5 billion die off?

Turmoil at home is also likely to occur if further war is waged in the middle east and central asia.… Bombing Iran (which appears to have never left the table), confrontations with Russia, China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are also looming. NATO’s attempt to secure the mineral resources of Kosovo for the industrial and financial interests of the west and the continuing efforts to control the Caspian Sea Basin’s petroleum and natural gas reserves … and all the other resources in Central Asia certainly raise the specter of more ‘endless’ war. How would Americans react?

Well argued, fair enough. But again, the viewpoints we express are not mutually exclusive.

The internet is a fragile bulwark at best. See Mike Whitney’s article regarding the Pentagon’s ‘Operation Information Roadmap’ based on information obtained by the BBC's FOIA request to get a glimpse what is currently happening and more that certainly could occur at the whim of the militarists in Washington.

It may be that enough folks will become aware to alter things. Maybe 911 truth (for example) and the increasing awareness of factors (and others) as noted above will help provide resistance to the hegemonists.… but that may well be wishful thinking. My dark suspicion is that the folks moving the agenda we see evolving have thought long and hard as they strategize - they’ve had many many years to plan - they aren’t dummies I would guess - .… and the rest of us are woefully behind the curve. We shall see.

Again, agreed.

And the controllers' control exists. So where's the need for drastic, self-threatening change?

Could you explain this a bit more and perhaps flesh out the definition of ‘controller’ control’.

I'll try. Just look around. Or to attempt to make my point in the form of a question: What have we done for ourselves lately?

Or as I noted previously:

One of the purposes of creating what I've judged to be straw men threats is to inflate our egos -- to make us think that we pose serious threats to the controllers.

I did not agree with the ‘straw man’ hypothesis you presented initially, thus I don’t agree with the derivative; i.e., that these things exist to inflate our egos.

Not solely, I'll agree.

I think some folks may like to imagine they are threats but that is just bravado. Even Alex Jones (here, now I have referred to him) who you might think would exemplify that, more frequently seems to border on a variant of despair.

I too have noted the melancholy chord structures of Jones' -- and others' -- favored arias.

Show me how we've threatened them to date? Show me how we will threaten them in the near-term. Long-term. Ever.

I have attempted (in my sleepiness) to argue, the forces moving the world towards calamity have little to do with ‘how we have threatened them’ per se. Some motives appear to have to do with how ‘they’ want the world to be. (see Georgia’s Stonehenge and the writings thereon as one example …. but there are many many other examples.… many much more hideous)

There are indeed forces at work that desire calamity for calamity's sake. But perhaps that area of inquiry is simultaneously too far afield and too close to the truth for this Internet venue.

Until and unless we are prepared to abandon the patriotic impulse and embrace the truth that tribalism is the problem and not the solution, the controllers will continue to control.

As I noted above, it is not that ‘we’ are a significant or substantial threat. But ‘useless eaters’ are, well, useless. And by definition unwanted and unnecessary. We use too many resources. ‘Uselessly’. And to the degree that we do not go along with the program... an irritant mainly, but the hungrier we get.… potentially dangerous.

Indeed. Pass the potatoes.

I believe, further, that there is no necessary reason to abandon the nation state, per se. Given the current options apparently embodied in the elites’ view of the ‘new world order’, (see statements made by David and Nick Rockefeller, for examples) I think I’ll support some arrangement a little less ‘unified’…… if you don’t mind. I’m just a little wary of the folks who appear to be running that show.

Might there be a third alternative?

-------------------

[as an aside, you may wish to read,

Exclusive! The FBI Deputizes Business

By Matthew Rothschild

I've read it. Highly recommended to all.

David Kaiser grapples March 15th.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-d...155&s=books

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs...huttoreport.pdf

Do YOU have any evidence (other than the clearly interested and unsupported claims by the PPP) which would impugn the honesty of the experts sent out from Scotland Yard, or is this just another "they're from the government so they must be bent" rant?

"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