Charles Drago

Antti, I truly believe you're on to something of importance. I first raised the "two DSMs" possibility some months ago on these pages. I pointed out both the physical dissimilarities between the tall/robust and short/thin figures from various photos, and the Big Indian/El Indio nicknames that may well have been shared by at least two operatives of the period. Elsewhere and a bit longer ago I opened discussion on the so-called doppelganger phenomena that seem to haunt intel operations. Charles

Harry, Frank Durr names Edward G Lansdale as his "person of interest." Durr speculates that the assassins were Filipino mercenaries with ties to Lansdale. Michael, Most interesting. I've just ordered the book. Napoleon Valeriano long has been a person of interest hereabouts. Charles

If you believed that, you would be taking issue with Jack's continual attempts to hijack my threads with Armstrong's snake oil. We'll have to agree to disagree on all but the business above. You surely have the right to choose not to believe me when I write for the record that I respect your mind and its product. Your implicit accusation of disingenuousness on my part when I do so is duly noted -- and just as duly laughed away. Respectfully, Charles Charles, maybe this is another of those "cultural" things. But then, maybe it's just me. In any case, I like to see action match people's words when an opportunity arises for that to occur. To me, it does not make sense that on the one hand, you can call my work "far too important to be sidetracked" - yet not raise a voice of protest when my threads are hijacked, sidetracked, or used as a sales arena for a book I've made patently clear is a tawdry collection of misused and misquoted evidence. I have said in the past how much I admire your stance on the assassination and your writing ability. I backed those words up with action when I sent you a PM some time back (Let me add as an aside that neither the fact that nothing eventuated from it, nor your friendship with Jack has tarnished that admiration). Thank you, Greg. As far as I'm concerned, nothing has been broken in terms of our positive connections and mutual respect. (As far as the PM content goes, I regret not having produced as yet. If apologies are owed, consider them offered.) Indeed, talk is cheap and action truly counts. Frankly -- and this is not intended as a value judgment -- I don't share your proprietary sense of any thread I've started. But each to his own. And I'd submit that there likely are more effective ways of counteracting efforts (real or imagined) to diffuse or otherwise render moot your posts than initiating the sort of exchanges in which you and Jack have been engaged. (You may well argue that Jack "started it," but such is hardly the point at this stage of the match.) I'll defend to the death (someone's ... not necessarily mine) your right to do as you've done. And for what it's worth, I admire your willingness to fight for what we both believe is right. Whether Armstrong's product turns out to be snake oil or water from Lourdes (same thing?), I believe Jack's defense of it is honest and well-intentioned -- and ultimately harm need not accrue. If you're right about Armstrong, you are powerfully equipped to make your case. And you might see Jack's repeated efforts to sell/hype the work as opportunities to expose what I'm certain you consider to be its fatal shortcomings and overall disengenuousness. Anyway, I'm pretty much done with this. I send my sincere best wishes to you and to Jack White for a 2008 overflowing with good health, prosperity, and great victories in our common cause. Charles

If you believed that, you would be taking issue with Jack's continual attempts to hijack my threads with Armstrong's snake oil. We'll have to agree to disagree on all but the business above. You surely have the right to choose not to believe me when I write for the record that I respect your mind and its product. Your implicit accusation of disingenuousness on my part when I do so is duly noted -- and just as duly laughed away. Respectfully, Charles

Peter, You have articulated a most significant concept -- one that too few of us have appreciated for some time. The Dallas production, in all of its dramaturgy, stands as the template for subsequent stagings along similar thematic lines.

I long have been troubled by Patrick Kennedy's -- my congressman -- and his family's social interactions with accessories after the fact in the murder of JFK. Most glaring case in point: Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg and Senator Edward Kennedy presented a Profiles in Courage Award to Gerald Ford. Congressman Kennedy is, to my knowledge, the only relative of JFK who has publicly opined on the particulars of the Dallas conspiracy. In a newspaper interview a few years back, he forcefully stated his belief that Castro killed his uncle John. The family must play the game, so none of this should surprise us. But it all is so very, very sad. Charles

John, I share your concern regarding the whereabouts and conditions of Mary's original archive materials. Some months ago I exhibited the unmitigated gall to "out" the wealthy venture capitalist who bought Mary's holdings and funded the Ferrell Foundation and its website, and to ask after the location of her collections. Rex Bradford, whom I respect, provided a non-answer. And a regular contributor to this Forum subsequently announced that he knew my "game" and would not let me play it. I'd like you to consider joining me -- and, I hope, others -- in strongly urging Rex to come forward and tell the whole story. Rumor has it that the Ferrell materials were/are stored in shpping containers which were/are deposited on the Massachusetts estate of their purchaser, Oliver Curme. If so, I fear that they are subject to the not-so-tender mercies of weather, varmints (of numerous varieties), and other threats. Make no mistake: Mary's collections include(d) many one-of-a-kind documents and other irreplaceable items. If they have been culled, the loss cannot be measured. Is the game afoot? Charles

John, Would you care to comment on my Ultimate Mantra: Anyone with reasonable access to JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that the act was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. Charles

QUOTE(Greg Parker @ Dec 29 2007, 01:47 PM) QUOTE(Jack White @ Dec 26 2007, 03:11 PM) To understand LHO trip to Russia, read Armstrong's Harvery and Lee. Jack Jack, in the past I'd been giving you the benefit of the doubt. But this can be construed in no other way but as an attempt to bait me. Well, jack, I'll take your bait and pull you into the water with it every time. Here is all anyone needs to know about you and Armstrong. <Removed by Moderator>. ---------------------- JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present for many of his [Armstrong's] interviews given [of Stripling witnesses]. JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"? ---------------------- JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty. JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her. Which if either of these statements is true: That "Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s" or "At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years" Which if either of these statements is true: "he was a college classmate" or "I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her." Greg, I hope I don't have to go into detail regarding the high regard in which I hold your research and insight. That being noted for the record, I submit that you've gone a bit overboard on the charges against my friend Jack as noted above. "Three" interviews can be one man's "many" and another man's "few." "Classmates" in the American idiom may refer to individuals who matriculated at the same institution at the same time, but who may not have taken the same courses in the same class room at the same time. A gentleman named Richard Robida has been my friend since we were three years old -- some fifty years. I haven't seen him since the mid '70s, but the characterization of our relationship is valid. None of this, of course, says word one about the work of John Armstrong. Respectfully, Charles

Jack, in the past I'd been giving you the benefit of the doubt. But this can be construed in no other way but as an attempt to bait me. Well, jack, I'll take your bait and pull you into the water with it every time. Here is all anyone needs to know about you and Armstrong. <Removed by Moderator>. ---------------------- JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present for many of his [Armstrong's] interviews given [of Stripling witnesses]. JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"? ---------------------- JW in Post #28 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty. JW in Post #37 in the "Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance" thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her. Which if either of these statements is true: That "Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s" or "At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years" Which if either of these statements is true: "he was a college classmate" or "I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her." Greg, I hope I don't have to go into detail regarding the high regard in which I hold your research and insight. That being noted for the record, I submit that you've gone a bit overboard on the charges against my friend Jack as noted above. "Three" interviews can be one man's "many" and another man's "few." "Classmates" in the American idiom may refer to individuals who matriculated at the same institution at the same time, but who may not have taken the same courses in the same class room at the same time. A gentleman named Richard Robida has been my friend since we were three years old -- some fifty years. I haven't seen him since the mid '70s, but the characterization of our relationship is valid. None of this, of course, says word one about the work of John Armstrong. Respectfully, Charles

Just so everyone is aware of Mr. Andersen's hypothesis: JFK was coerced into staging his own death; some sort of sophisticated "squib" device was attached to his head to provide evidence of a head shot; at least one corpse and perhaps one conspirator were in the limo trunk; JFK was shot once, in the right shoulder; he was spirited out of Dallas (initially in said trunk) to the same Baltic Sea villa complex where the Romanovs lived in exile after their faked demises (think the SMERSH facility in From Russia with Love, or The Village from The Prisoner); he died there; Francis Cardinal Spellman gave his blessing to the plan; LBJ cooperated; it is the Tippett body beneath the Eternal Flame.

FLUSH

Because of the way she said it the most logical explanation is that she simply misspoke; people have suggested she meant Daniel Pearl whose murder Sheik Mohamed has been accused of. "Logical" is an understatement! Although I think it just as likely that Ms. Bhutto meant to say that Sheikh Omar Saeed saw O Brother, Where Art Thou and opined that the film, in Hollywood jargon, "really killed [at the box office]." Or perhaps that the Sheikh had expressed his distress that "[barack] Obama has been laden" with a lot of political baggage. And why stop here? LHO "misspoke" when he claimed, "I'm just a patsy!" What he meant to say was, "I'm such a Nazi!" Hey, just the other night, while at dinner with a lady friend, I meant to say, "Would you please pass the salt," but it came out, "You've ruined my life, you blood-sucking shrew!" Slips happen. Sarcasm aside yes slips happen. Perhaps Mr. Drago who seems to think otherwise can explain why Bhutto would tell a British audience that her opponents were tied to the person who killed OBL as a way to put them in a bad light and put that crime on par with beheading British tourists? I wonder if he ever watched the clip, somehow I doubt it. As always, "Colby" is wrong. I even watched the BBC broadcast in which the OBL reference is edited out in its entirety. You're just too easy. No sport at all. "Colby" is the latest version of the $10,000 toilet seat. (And I can't tell you how much I love the comparison!) Military-Industrial Complex waste -- in both senses of the word.

Because of the way she said it the most logical explanation is that she simply misspoke; people have suggested she meant Daniel Pearl whose murder Sheik Mohamed has been accused of. "Logical" is an understatement! Although I think it just as likely that Ms. Bhutto meant to say that Sheikh Omar Saeed saw O Brother, Where Art Thou and opined that the film, in Hollywood jargon, "really killed [at the box office]." Or perhaps that the Sheikh had expressed his distress that "[barack] Obama has been laden" with a lot of political baggage. And why stop here? LHO "misspoke" when he claimed, "I'm just a patsy!" What he meant to say was, "I'm such a Nazi!" Hey, just the other night, while at dinner with a lady friend, I meant to say, "Would you please pass the salt," but it came out, "You've ruined my life, you blood-sucking shrew!" Slips happen.

You forgot the comma in your thread sub-title.

Greg, I shall assume that your tongue is embedded in your cheek on this one. So who made that last-minute decision? Presumablly she did. I don´t if it was luck it seems like she made a habit of waving to the crowds the assassin could have been stalking her for a while Please detail the bases for your presumption.

By his own account, the acting head of her political party was apparently with her in the SUV. He said they saw her fall and "we thought she was unconscious." If he was in fact in the SUV and was not complicit, then the hypothesis that she was shot by someone in the SUV without this person knowing it seems akin to Greer shooting JFK without Jackie or the Connallys knowing it. If I'm not mistaken, Rabin had no friends or cohorts with him in the car that he entered, only a "bodyguard" and a driver, and he could thus be shot in the car without friendly witnesses. Agreed, Ron. But is it not too soon to absolve the "acting head of her political party" by taking his word for things? What do we really know about this person who, upon Ms. Bhutto's death, rose to the top? Who was the "we" who saw Bhutto fall and who "thought she was unconscious"? How long after Rabin's assassination did we learn details about his death car? I am suggesting NOTHING OTHER THAN KEEPING ALL RATIONAL ANALYSES ON THE TABLE UNTIL WE ARE SUFFICIENTLY INFORMED TO MAKE AT LEAST PRELIMINARY DECISIONS. And I'm not necessarily suggesting she was "shot by someone in the SUV." (emphasis added) Rather, I submit that we should give strong consideration to the possibility that one or more parties in the vehicle may have been in on the plot and charged with the responsibility to make sure Ms. Bhutto suffered fatal wounds. Let's try to eliminate these possibilities according to the lessons we've learned over too many years of inquiry into too many similar tragedies. Charles

Greg, I shall assume that your tongue is embedded in your cheek on this one. So who made that last-minute decision? The question is begged: Who was in the vehicle with Bhutto? The Rabin template in its broadest form is strongly suggested. Charles

The first step in speaking the truth is ... ... speaking the truth! Cynthia McKinney on the dias with other Democratic presidential candidates ... simply saying the words. Screw percentages. Saying the words. Speaking the truth. Which cannot speak for itself.

VERY Preliminary Thoughts BK's post speaks to us in terms of our special responsibility to respond with hard-earned wisdom and courage to this and other political assassinations. His reference to events of 9/9/01 is spot-on. Let's start calmly and with focus. 1. Who benefits? 2. Segregate the "how" question from the "who" and "why" inquiries -- to the degree that we can. As I write, we have been told that the cause of death was head trauma caused when Bhutto dropped from her through-the-sunroof perch after having been shot. Immediately we are put in mind of the Rabin hit, and how evidence suggests that he might have been killed after initial shots were fired and he entered his security vehicle. Who was inside her SUV? How, if at all, was security stripped/denied? Was her SUV equipped with security glass and armor? Was an autospy conducted? If not, why not? If so, who was/were the prosector(s), and where is the report? Etc. We all know the drill. 3. Now it's on to the cui bono? stage. The short answer: Anyone who stands to gain from chaos in the region. Include in that group the masters of George Bush -- which is to say, the perpetrators of 9-11. 4. If "follow the money" was Watergate's mantra, the investigative mantra of all other intel ops must be "question the timing." So ... Why now? Finally: How can we leverage the aftermath of this tragedy to assist in our efforts to define and achieve justice for JFK? For starters. Charles

Friends, A sympathetic history of the First Generation of WC critics was long overdue when John Kelin published PFAFG. His work is, in my estimation, honest, comprehensive, literate, and in all respects a significant contribution to the struggle for justice. John readily acknowledges the glaring absence of Mary Ferrell from his pages. But who among us is ready to fault him for failing to draw out, let alone capture, the essence of that remarkable, elusive woman? Mary flattered me with friendship and repeatedly stunned me with support. I last heard her voice when I called her hospital room during the final illness. Her mind was focused, her emotions were controlled. She maintained her strength and optimism throughout. But for all that Mary revealed of herself over the years, she barely scratched the surface. As I may have noted elsewhere on these cyber-pages, Mary Farrell was possessed of the most powerful and refined intellect I have ever encountered. I became convinced of this at a classic MF hotel suite soirée during a Lancer conference. Let me put it this way: Peter Dale Scott was taking notes -- especially after Mary had corrected certain of his errors of fact. David Mantik was literally struck dumb when Mary told him, "I really enjoyed you today." It was left to me to break the ice by asking, "When was the last time a woman said those words to you, Mantik?" Laughing out loud, he responded, "It's been so long, it's not even in the memory banks!" And George Michael Evica, who also was present that night, who loved Mary deeply, and who works with her now, long ago had informed me of how he stood in awe of her mind. Why bring this up here? Because like all of us, John Kelin took from Mary Ferrell nothing more or less than what she was willing to give. So don't boycott PFAFG because of her absence from the body of the work. Great job, John. Charles Drago

I'm not surprised that a writer for a publication titled "Christianity Today" would have a problem with this or any other Book of Secrets that isn't the New Testament. Religions (the "organized" is understood) are not concerned with "truth." They sell "revelation." And never the twain shall meet. Humankind descended from monkeys ... hmmm ... In an age of increasingly vocal so-called evolutionary "scientists," is this an attitude that ought to be encouraged? Religion is simply politics by other means. Ask Mike Huckabee; imagine getting caught in his One True Crossfire (how about that Christmas ad, replete with crucifix)! I consider myself to be a spiritual man. I accept the reality of the Divine Presence. I attempt -- and almost always fail -- to emulate Gandhi, who said, "I am a Muslim and a Hindu and a Christian and a Jew and so are all of you." Like the countless wars waged in its countless names, religion is a racket. Remember Woody Allen's take on a classic concept: "If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, He'd never stop throwing up."

Friends, Last night I found my long-overlooked copy of Compassion and the Unspeakable in the Murders of Martin, Malcolm, JFK, RFK, by peace activist James W. Douglass. This 17-page pamphlet reproduces Douglass' keynote address to the International Thomas Merton Society as delivered in Mobile, Alabama on June 13, 1997. I think it appropriate that, in the season of peace, we contemplate the words of Douglass and Merton as I excerpt them below: The Warren Report gave us the unspeakable in prose, with a void at the center of its almost one thousand pages. Remember Merton's description of the unspeakable. It sounds as if he is describing the Warren Report: It is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said; the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced, and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss. It is the void out of which Eichmann drew the punctilious exactitude of his obedience ... (Raids, p. 4) The Warren Report is a monument to the unspeakable. Yet it provoked no revolution. That void of citizen response remains at the heart of our national security state. The unspeakable that rules us now took power on November 22, 1963, and was confirmed by the Warren Report. By denying the void at the heart of our system, we have allowed it to undermine everything. The unspeakable rules by the power of our denial. In conclusion, Douglass writes: Is it not our right as a people to abolish the military-industrial complex and its intelligence agencies that have murdered our leaders and millions of other brothers and sisters? As we begin to be jolted out of our long sleep ... how can we come together again? What are the present seeds of that nonviolent revolution needed to abolish war, poverty, and racism, a global Poor People's Campaign? Must we begin by facing our own denial of the blood of the Sixties? Compassion is the most powerful force on earth and in heaven. Friends, when will we realize that?

John, I share your enthusiasm for John Kelin and his "Fair Play." And his first book-length effort, Praise from a Future Generation: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy and the First Generation Critics of the Warren Report, is a beautifully written, highly informative, and long-overdue homage to the so-called first generation of JFK assassination researchers (in many ways a wonderfully matriarchal society). I look forward to hearing from John, whose presence at Lancer conferences always ensured that first-class reporting on the programs would be forthcoming. Charles