Charles Drago

Yes, Michael.

Pat, I disagree. Dallek knows a lot about JFk. "An unfinished Life" is just filled with information, but, on the assassination Dallek is simply intellectually dishonest, IMHO. "Water carrier" is too kind. Dawn Yes, Dawn. An intellectually disciplined, sane, non-criminal examiner of the JFK assassination case can reach but one conclusion. Conspiracy is the truth. Dallek is not "wrong." He is crazy, criminal, and/or a fraud. Nothing else makes sense. Charles

Charles, May I suggest a corollary: Anyone who has read Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust and still regards the JFK final autopsy report as a genuine medicolegal document is both intellectually dishonest and a participant, witting or unwitting, in the cover-up of JFK's murder. Yes, Cliff Another question is begged: If a Dallek has not read Breach of Trust and other seminal works, what right has he to the mantle of historian? Charles

Friends, On another thread ("Legacy of Ashes") which he started, Ron Ecker wrote: "Saw an impressive-looking book in the bookstore entitled Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, by Tim Weiner. "I looked up the JFK assassination in the index. There's a short section, the upshot of which seems to be that Castro did it. From my quick perusal, the notion that the CIA might have been involved is not even considered. "Morales, who I think probably qualifies as a usual suspect in the case, is not even in the index. "Just wanted to point this out before any JFK researchers spend their money on this book." I've performed the same litmus test countless times. To be brief: Since anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination case who does not conclude that the act was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime, how can we respect a historian, biographer, journalist, or other self-described "serious" author or academic who embraces the LN lie? For example, how can we trust Robert Dallek on anything given his idiotic defense of the WC's conclusions? Are we not justified in suspecting the very rationality of the man? The terms extend to the rejection of so-called "experts" who accept or propose a simple-minded "mob-did-it" or "CIA-did-it"-like conspiratorial interpretation. I'm reminded of the old joke, "My brother is insane, he thinks he's a chicken. We keep him around, though, because we need the eggs." Charles

Ron, You beg an issue which, to me at least, is of great significance: The Litmus Test. I'll address it in a new thread. Charles

I always thought there was more to the bird angle - than just naming operations - Nightingale, Mockingbird, Bluebird, Condor, etc., but I didn't consider Angleton's orchid fetish as possibly significant until I recently read of another Orchidologist - Doris Duke, the poor little rich girl, OSS, patron of the arts, jazz, historic preservation and orchids. Mrs. "Oatsie" Oates Leiter Charles, who introduced JFK to Ian Fleming, is on the board of DD's Foundation, distributing millions to charities. I wonder if the orchids got any? I also had a flashback on the scene in Manchorian Candidate where the captive soldiers are drugged and hyptnotized into believing they are before a meeting of the women's garden society. Also consider that LHO read the James Bond novels, checking them out of the library and buying paperbacks that were found among his effects. Oh, and another thing - the late Peter Tomkins, former OSS in Italy, where I think Angleton also served, wrote The Secret Life of Plants. BK Let us not forget Fleming's last words: "It's all been a tremendous lark." (emphasis added) Charles

John, The short answer to your question: I.G. Farben, Mitsubishi, Boeing, General Motors, NASA, CIA, and for all I know, Spacely Sprockets. See Smedley Butler. Charles

That poses a problem because some people will simply disregard the proof! It might be proof that stands up in a court of law, proof that is agreed upon by all the experts in the world, proof that nothing else could possibly have happened.... but there are in some cases who simply will not accept ANY proof, no matter the standard. They have their opinion, and they are sticking to it no matter what. Of course. But intelligence operations, by their very nature, provide "proof" for alternative, innocent scenarios that is supported only by that classic fallacy, the argument from false authority. Example: The "government" has provided "proof" that JFK was the victim of a lone nut. And so it must be true. That "argument" was unsustainable from literally day one because its officially manufactured "proof" was and is demonstrably (through rigorous, unbiased applications of the scientific method) invalid, and because evidence for conspiracy in the death of JFK was and is demonstrably (through rigorous, unbiased applications of the scientific method) valid. Which poses a problem, because some people will simply accept any officially sanctioned "proof." It might be "proof" that cannot stand up in a court of law, "proof" that is decried by all the unbiased experts in the world. Yes, there are in some cases people who will accept ANY "proof" that is manufactured and presented by the parent state, no matter the standard. They have their blind allegiance to false authority, and they will maintain it no matter what. Charles

Of course. But conspiracies happen, too. So we are obliged by the nobility inferred upon us by all we have learned (at hideous costs) about deep political structures, goals, and methods to evaluate a wide range of "unusual events" with the specialist's tools we've mastered. It is just as valid to investigate, say, the crash of JFK Jr.'s plane by utilizing deep political analyses as it is to conduct scientific investigations of possible mechanical or "innocent" causes. Why, in my example, the death of Mr. Kennedy the younger? Because the natures of his politics, interests, and family affiliation clearly were inimical to forces that have the demonstrated means, motives, and willingness to eliminate their enemies by, among other means, staging "accidents." In our world, under certain circumstances it must be "guilty until proven otherwise." I don't know why or how JFK Jr.'s plane was lost. I strongly suspect foul play, and there exists disturbing circumstantial, eyewitness, earwitness, and material evidence (some publicly available, some, alas, not) to support my suspicions. But I am not prepared to state that, to the degree of metaphysical certitude, John Kennedy, Jr., his wife, and his sister-in-law were murdered. Although it sure looks that way. Charles

Shane, I hope I'm not bugging you (as in "annoying") with yet one more seemingly off-the-wall query. But what the hell, I might not get another chance. The full-faced, robust, square-jawed Morales depicted in the photo released by Cuban security services seems to bear little resemblance to the views of the older, thin man with the wall of graying, wavy hair -- or, for that matter, the high school basketball star. I may have answered my own question when I noted differences in the subjects' respective ages. Time takes its toll on us all. And I surely don't want to go down the John Armstrong Highway here. But elsewhere on this Forum, among other venues, we have discussed the doppelganger effect as it is noted in our shared studies in particular (the "two Oswalds" phenomenon is the grandaddy of 'em all) and intel ops in general -- the odd and persistent appearances of multiple characters and events bearing the same name and vital statistics. Do you have any reason to suspect the existence of two (or more, God save us) DSMs? Or have I been at this far too long? Charles Charles

Evan, Please enjoy the following homage to your all-too-common brand of logic. A flea trainer had trained a flea to fly upon command. "Fly, flea," he'd say, and the flea would fly. Then one day he cut off the flea's wings. "Fly, flea," he said, but the flea did not fly. That night, the flea trainer made the following entry in his journal: "When one cuts the wings off a flea, the flea becomes deaf." Charles

For Americans, with regret: Dancing in the dark, 'Til the tune ends, We're dancing in the dark, And it soon ends, We're waltzing in the wonder of why we're here, Time hurries by, we're here, And gone, Looking for the light, Of a new love, To brighten up the night, I have you, love, And we can face the music together, Dancing in the dark by Arthur Schwartz and Howard Dietz Jazz singer Jon Hendriks has opined that these lyrics describe a classic near death experience (NDE). Charles

Shane, I second John Simkin's praise of your reasoned, even-handed approach to subject matter that far too often prompts excesses -- rhetorical and otherwise. The promised interviews with members of the Morales family are eagerly anticipated. Some years ago I was informed that his widow was alive and well and living in Boston. Hmmm ... From Yaquis to Yankees would be a strange progression (regression?) indeed. Can you shed light on the existence of any other intel operative who was known as El Indio and/or The Indian? The fact that Morales was referred to as the Big Indian may support stories that a fellow of less imposing stature sported the same appellation. Best, Charles Drago

BK, Thanks for the quick reply. "My" model is in fact an Evica/Drago co-production. Most of the work was done by George Michael before I met him; I added a few ideas and provoked some re-imaginings, if I might use the appropriate term. In its simplest (overly so?) form, then: TIER ONE -- Sponsors. No sub-divisions. Those with the ultimate authority and resources to give the order, expect it to be carried out, and support the operation through multiple layers of buffers. Suspect (chosen more for illustration of type rather than likely player): David Rockefeller. CONNECTIVE TISSUE: Douglas MacArthur, Charles Willoughby. TIER TWO -- Facilitators. Three sub-divisions, from the top and as follows, (with probable overlap): Overseers; Managers; Field Operatives. Suspects (in order, and only for illlustration of type): David Atlee Phillips, Ed Landsdale, Carlos Marcello; David Sanchez Morales, John Rosselli, Napoleon Valeriano, Lucien Conein; Carlos Bringuier, David Ferrie, Rip Robertson. NOTE: This is the level from which some, but not all, FALSE SPONSORS emerge. CONNECTIVE TISSUE: William Bishop. TIER THREE -- Mechanics. All that can be known for certain, at least at this point in time, is that they were the best hunters of humans in all the world. Again, I do not necessarily level charges at any of the above-named individuals. This is perhaps too bare-bones, but at least it's a start. Hope it helps. Charles

Bill, On other threads I've written of the immense usefulness of the application of the creative process -- in particular, what might best be called "storytelling" -- to the investigations of intelligence operations, and how, by their nature, intel ops are impervious to dissections by Occam's Razor. As I understand Garrison, his "application of models" is synonymous with what I would term "creative investigation." And when he notes how the "clandestine structure ... [is] designed to frustrate the conventional, traditional search ... " Garrison is acknowledging the utter uselessness of the principle of parsimony as a tool for investigating intel ops -- which by definition are protected by cover stories designed to satisfy the principle's principals. Do you agree? Charles

Evan and Peter, The surveillance aspects of Exercise SINGAROO (the eleventh of such [known] conjoinings of the Singapore and Australian navies and air forces took place in May of this year) surely do peak one's interest. According to Andrew Forbes, a Visiting Senior Fellow at the Centre for Maritime Policy at Australia's University of Wallongong, SINGAROO is designed to counter the threat of Islamic-based terrorism as it spreads from Indonesia through Malaysia and the Philippines. Relevant to my previous post: If at least some of this Forbes chap's credentials were not public knowledge, would not our evaluations of the accuracy and truthfulness of his above-reproduced pronouncements regarding the alleged threat's particulars begin on substantively different footing? The undefined Mr. Forbes v. Senior Fellow Forbes: Two very different animals. Charles

Because it is a standard tactic of yours to question people when you are unable to counter their argument. You are unable to address what they have said, so you try and divert attention away from it. A sign of someone who is poorly skilled in the art of debating. I have said this before, and no doubt I'll have to say it again: it matters not whether someone is a spook, a journalist, a plumber, or a dentist - if what someone has said is correct, then they are correct. If they are wrong, they are wrong. What is important is what was said - not who said it. Evan, You meander around the point like a pheromone-challenged tracking dog. One of many critical, primary elements in the effort to establish the truthfulness of an assertion is the evaluation of the asserter's motives -- a trying task under the best of circumstances, and one made all the more difficult in the absence of knowledge of key elements of said asserter's personal and professional profiles. Whatever "Colby" is, it carries the stink of the spook. Peter's questions get to motive, and I stand with him in pressing for answers. Charles

Or humanity? Sounds to me like Colby is calling you a xxxx, Peter. It's an old, old tactic being used by Colby: Accuse others of the sin of which you're guilty. Transference is a fascinating phenomenon -- and, in certain cases, a disgusting one. Charles

The most sophisticated and satisfying cinematic fiction relating to the JFK assassination remains, for me, "The Package." Even though its plot line literally has nothing to do with the events in Dallas. Written by John Bishop. Directed by Andrew Davis ("The Fugitive"). Starring Gene Hackman, Tommie Lee Jones, Joanna Cassidy, and John Heard. Released in 1989. Available on DVD. Charles

Gene, Thanks for your thoughtful response. A "counter-intuitive" concept is, by definition, a product of the creative process. Given the "kill at all costs" proposition as I have stated it previously, it is logical to reason that the conspirators had no choice but to cover their bet at Parkland. A reasonable test of this hypothesis: Were individuals circumstantially (or otherwise) linked to the conspiracy present at Parkland between the time of JFK's arrival and the technical pronouncement of his death? Another: Does evidence exist to suggest that a coup d'grace was administered to JFK actively (via injection of a poisonous substance, for instance) and/or passively (the denial of critical, life-saving procedures)? Charles

Peter, I first saw the document when it was posted on the Jeff Rense website -- if memory serves, at least two years ago. While I haven't found any in-depth analyses of its content and style, my considered opinion is that it is bogus. The game, as always, is afoot. Charles

(emphasis added) Patriotism surely is blind. One makes a fool of oneself only if one does NOT challenge the DOJ, FBI, and any other demonstrably corrupt organ of this demonstrably corrupt government. Charles this demonstrably corrupt government. For all it's failures, this "corrupt government" has provided a standard of living for it's citizens (who are willing to expend the effort) which by far exceeds those standards of any other country in the world. While at the same time preserving the rights and freedoms of those who wish to expouse sentiment against it. Corrupt individuals within the Government DO NOT represent a corrupt government. No more so than do corrupt individuals within State Governments, or even the American Red Cross, or any benevelot society. A standard of living for the few, in exchange for a standard of dying for the many? No thank you. John Kennedy acted against the corrupt government. They didn't even "preserve" his ruined brain. Corrupt individuals ARE the government. You poor man.

(emphasis added) Patriotism surely is blind. One makes a fool of oneself only if one does NOT challenge the DOJ, FBI, and any other demonstrably corrupt organ of this demonstrably corrupt government. Charles

Bravo, Ron. Especially for your final question.

Bill, I quite agree that the willingness -- no, make that eagerness -- of many posters to speak with an authority that is not theirs to tout is deterimental to our common efforts. But I strongly disagree with your opening statement. It is neither "silly" nor counterproductive to note what appear to be, albeit to a layman's eye, irregularities in a given image and to seek expert advice in the effort to confirm or deny the observations in question. Laymen, after all, posed the majority of the first wave of questions challenging the LN conclusion. My expertise as a photo analyst does not extend beyond a yearning for the good old days of Pixie Prints. But I submit that I'm eminently qualified to observe, say, the photo in question and, based upon a highly developed understanding of why evidence in this case has been tampered with, raise the questions I've raised in the precise manner I've raised them. Charles