Charles Drago

I would sooner have a goldfish speak for me or characterize my "beliefs" than endure the attempts to do so by Gratz.

I know, beyond all doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude, that LHO did not assassinate JFK.

"Doubt" is irrevelant.

"Doubt" is the armor within which the conspirators find safety.

I include in the definition of "cognitive impairment" the negative results of the strictures imposed upon intellectual processes by the propagators of enslaving political and religious belief systems.

You know: patriots and priests.

As for Mr. Piereson: I cannot offer a meaningful assessment of his intellectual and ethical standings vis a vis this case insofar as I remain insufficiently informed regarding his access to JFK evidence.

But the reports are not encouraging.

Charles Drago

Add "double posts" to the "Two Oswalds" doppelganger category of JFK mysteries.

Charles wrote:

I submit that at least one comrade in arms likely was stationed at Parkland Hospital and charged with a mission directly related to "kill at all costs."

The coup d'grace.

One can subnit just about anything, I suppose, so long as there is no requirement that there be a factual basis for onr's submission.

Investigations such as that being conducted into the conspiratorial murder of JFK depend for ultimate success upon, among other components, the development of testable hypotheses.

Absent the application of the creative process, or "deductive reasoning" in matters such as these, investigators have zero chance of solving "mysteries" (see below).

Given the previously stated, reasonable proposition of the conspirators' "kill at all costs" approach, it is reasonable to suggest that redundant communications systems at the ambush site and a Parkland coup d'grace were essential components of the plot

(And for the record: There is no mystery whatsoever regarding "how" JFK was killed. Our focus rightly should be on the "who" and "why" questions.)

Charles

John, I hate to put it this bluntly, but do you actually DENY that MLK, despite his greatness, was a serial adulterer (I guess a "womanizer" might be a euphemism)?

Do you actuallly DENY that your former boss Richard Milhous Nixon and your current hero Ronald Wilson Reagan were mass murderers and war criminals (I guess "presidents" might be a euphemism)?

Thanks, one and all (especially Bill ... ), for taking my question seriously and for providing data and insight.

If the photo has been altered (and I'm not even close to reaching such a conclusion), my guess is that the work would have been done relatively recently and for two reasons:

1. Add to confusion and argument within our ranks.

2. Support SBT "arguments."

Is the JFK figure to scale?

Do other photos capture (roughly) this moment?

And why on earth do I think this "JFK" more closely resembles John Edwards?????????

Charles

It's the Dallas motorcade.

Gary Mack has told me that the photograph of the limo was taken on "Main just west of the Adolphus Hotel," and that the original negative is kept at the Sixth Floor facility.

Mack also speculates that the version herein reproduced is darker than other prints he has seen, and that this contrast issue may account for the problem I have identifying the head as that of JFK.

The large crease in the jacket is new to me.

The hairline and part don't seem right.

Nor does the line of the jaw.

But I understand that non-sinister image degradation likely is the culprit here.

Unless the image has been manipulated to support yet another bogus SBT argument ...

Charles

(By the way, I have also argued strongly on an assassination-oriented forum against those who suggest that anyone who doubts a conspiracy is "cognitively impaired". It is clear that reasonable and intelligent persons who have studied the evidence can and do reach opposite conclusions on the conspiracy question.)

Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that the crime was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

If one does not accept this truth as the basis for one's movement from investigation of "how" JFK was killed to investigations of "who" and "why," one by definition is an accessory after the fact of homicide.

Make that "regicide."

Charles Drago

And it gets more insidious.

Those of us who know the truth do NOT claim that, as Bugliosi would have it, "the entrance holes in the president's coat and shirt were more than 2 inches lower in the back than the actual entrance wound in his body."

We KNOW that the entrance holes in the president's coat and shirt line up with the actual T-3 entrance would in JFK's back.

Bugliosi is misrepresenting our position by intentionally playing with semantics. What he does in this and so many other instances ("Why," he asks with gravitas, "would any conspirators choose LHO to do the shooting?" With this question, he implies that we have made such an argument. Which we haven't. And he knows it.) is nothing other than a more sophisticated (and equally sophistic) version of what a Colby does when he knowingly alters the meanings of others' posts by truncating and/or decontextualizing quotes (among other deceiver's tricks).

Charles

From other threads:

Does the image of JFK on the left strike anyone else as odd?

Charles

In his Playboy article Jeff Morley argues that the assassination of President Kennedy should be viewed as an “intelligence failure,” like 9/11, but as Lisa Pease points out, it should be viewed as an “intelligence success.”

Bill and Ms. Pease drive to the heart of this issue: Do we have the requisite courage, imagination, and intellect to challenge our most deeply held, fiercely defended definitions -- including the ultimate shibboleth of the tribal "us" itself.

The conspiratorial murder of John F. Kennedy was not a blow against the state, but rather by the state.

The state acted in self defense.

The leader of those who would overthrow America did not order the assassination; rather, he was its target.

The corrupted system is self-correcting by nature.

The system corrected itself on November 22, 1963.

Crazy, am I?

Very well. Show me one state organ -- as you accept the definition of "state" -- that honestly endeavored to bring the killers of JFK to justice.

Just one.

Uh-huh.

Absent his embrace of this truth, Morley remains part of the problem.

But don't treat him too harshly.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Charles Drago

Charles, I agree with your point about the state's involvement in the cover-up, however, without people like Jeff Morley we just get no debate about the issue at all. In that respect, he is more important than Lisa Pease in the battle for the truth.

John,

I'm not contesting your take on Mr. Morley and the role he plays, but rather expressing wariness and skepticism developed over too many years of disappointment.

I just don't see him being emotionally capable of summoning the "requisite courage, imagination, and intellect to challenge our most deeply held, fiercely defended definitions -- including the ultimate shibboleth of the tribal 'us' itself."

Here's hoping that I am underestimating a good and bold man.

Charles

Nuclear blackmail: We must stage a pre-emptive strike against the truth, Mr. Chief Justice, or the smoking gun in the Kennedy conspiracy may take the form of a thousand mushroom clouds.

Learn from history, dear Americans, or be prepared to live it over and over again.

As I have argued previously -- most felicitously in exchanges with Robert Charles-Dunne and Cliff Varnell -- the prime sponsors of the assassination never intended to bring about a retaliatory invasion of Cuba. Their purpose in thoroughly sheepdipping LHO as a Castro sympathizer/assassin (in a manner sufficient to convince an Earl Warren or Richard Russell) was to use the threat of disclosure of Cuban/Soviet "responsibility" for the president's death as a means to blackmail (there's no other word for it) otherwise honest investigators into endorsing the LN cover story.

Thus the prime sponsors are protected to this very day.

(I might add that the fictional Cuban/Soviet sponsors likely were described as "rogue elements" of their respective governments, thus countering any argument that the act of war in Dealey Plaza was state-sponsored and thus deserving of a massive, American state-sponsored retaliatory counter-strike.)

Charles

They may have shown up in Dallas but they were clearly not the Watergate Cubans. I also believe the implication is that these were pro-Castro Cubans.

And I, like George Carlin, believe that an Invisible Man lives in the sky and sees everything we do. And that He gave us ten rules by which to live, and if we violate any one of them He will condemn us to an eternity of pain and agony and suffering and burning and terror.

And He loves us.

-- EDITED TO CORRECT TYPO --

John, you see some reference to blackmail in that conversation? I sure don't.

Lyndon B. Johnson: Dick... do you remember when you met me at the Carlton Hotel in 1952? When we had breakfast there one morning.

Richard Russell: Yes I think so.

Lyndon B. Johnson: All right. Do you think I'm kidding you?

Richard Russell: No... I don't think your kidding me, but I think... well, I'm not going to say anymore, Mr. President... I'm at your command... and I'll do anything you want me to do....

No blackmail indicated in that exchange.

Hooooo dogie! My guess is that Polecat Lyndon was workin' up a powerful appetite, so he reminded ole Dick just how ornery a big Texas boy can git when the chuck wagon is smokin' and "Come 'n git it!" echoes through the prairie mornin' chill.

John: What are the chances of you settin' up a kids' table at dis here bar-b-q? You know, where Pecos Tim, Dead Eye Purvis, and Little Lamby can jaw away at each other til the crick rises widdout aggervatin' us grown-up cowpokes?

Tex Drago

Beautiful, Jack.

Congratulations, Doug Mackenzie.

Both of you understand that we are at war, and that the enemy is deserving of the same tender mercies that were on display in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 and Manhattan's World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

As I stated at a Dealey Plaza memorial and, later that evening during my Lancer presentation, it is up to us to return the fire.

Charles

In his Playboy article Jeff Morley argues that the assassination of President Kennedy should be viewed as an “intelligence failure,” like 9/11, but as Lisa Pease points out, it should be viewed as an “intelligence success.”

Bill and Ms. Pease drive to the heart of this issue: Do we have the requisite courage, imagination, and intellect to challenge our most deeply held, fiercely defended definitions -- including the ultimate shibboleth of the tribal "us" itself.

The conspiratorial murder of John F. Kennedy was not a blow against the state, but rather by the state.

The state acted in self defense.

The leader of those who would overthrow America did not order the assassination; rather, he was its target.

The corrupted system is self-correcting by nature.

The system corrected itself on November 22, 1963.

Crazy, am I?

Very well. Show me one state organ -- as you accept the definition of "state" -- that honestly endeavored to bring the killers of JFK to justice.

Just one.

Uh-huh.

Absent his embrace of this truth, Morley remains part of the problem.

But don't treat him too harshly.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Charles Drago

Easy now.

Nowhere did I suggest that the book should be shunned or that it would not serve to help us know more about our common enemy.

I simply pointed out that, based upon its publisher's blurb, the book likely will support the "Mob did it" and "Oswald shot Kennedy" myths.

I too look forward to reading Kaiser.

Charles

The key to understanding the shared role of Umbrella Man (UM) and White Windbreaker Man (WWM) lies in the appreciation of the "kill at all costs" edict that came into play once the ambush commenced.

As has been stated on unrelated threads, had John Kennedy survived this clearly serious and conspiratorial attempt on his life, the plotters at the highest, "sponsorship" level could count on being hunted to the ends of the earth. Even a severely damaged -- including to the point of existing in a permanent vegetative state -- JFK would command sufficient symbolic power to pose a mortal threat to his mortal enemies.

I submit that UM and WWM likely served as redundant communications facilitators -- insurance policies in the event of failure of electronic communications systems.

I submit that the message they were sending/confirming in the images we see here was, in essence: Keep shooting!

I submit that at least one comrade in arms likely was stationed at Parkland Hospital and charged with a mission directly related to "kill at all costs."

The coup d'grace.

Charles

Don't get your hopes up.

It seems that the Scheim/Davis/Blakey-Billings/Waldron-Hartmann disinformation chain/cover-up is set to continue.

From Harvard's website description of the forthcoming Kaiser book:

"The conspiracy to kill JFK took shape in response to Robert Kennedy’s relentless attacks on organized crime—legal vendettas that often went well beyond the normal practices of law enforcement. Pushed to the wall, mob leaders merely had to look to the networks already in place for a solution. They found it in Lee Harvey Oswald—the ideal character to enact their desperate revenge against the Kennedys."

Sad in advance,

Charles

Three questions, with sub-queries, about Rahn.

1. During his tenure at the University of Rhode Island and/or at any other time during his active professional life, were aspects of Rahn's academic and/or scientific work/research funded and/or otherwise subsidized by agencies of the USG?

A. If so, which agencies provided assistance?

B. How was the assistance manifested?

C. Was funding and/or other support for international travel provided by the USG?

D. If so, to which countries did Rahn travel, and why?

E. Did Rahn perform classified work for the USG?

2. Was one or more members of Rahn's immediate family sought in connection to, charged with, tried for, and/or sentenced for violation of Federal criminal law(s)?

A. If so, which laws were allegedly violated?

B. Which Federal law enforcement agencies, if any, were involved in, if applicable, the pursuit, apprehension, trying,

sentencing, paroling, and/or pardoning of said immediate family mamber(s)?

3. What is Rahn's position on the Holocaust?

A. Does he deny that the Holocaust took place in the form and fashion generally accepted by mainstream historians?

B. Does he support or reject the methods and conclusions of the so-called Leuchter Report?

C. Does he believe that the Nazis utilized gas chambers, Zyklon-B gas, crematoria, and other forms of mass

execution and corpse disposal in concentration camps?

D. Does he believe that approximately six million (6,000,000) European Jews and individuals from other ethnic groups

were exterminated by the Nazis during World War II?

I do not have answers to these questions. I have neither the authority nor the means to compel answers. I pose these questions with neither prejudice nor the implication of wrong-doing on the part of any human being, living or dead.

Charles Drago

whatsa matter Bill?

Every time I get into an argument on the street with an individual, a TV reporter shows up, and then later I am invited onto a radio show to debate my views on the topic that I had discussed on the street.

Isn't this what makes our media so democratic?

Johann Rush is one of Professor Ken Rahn's NonCons - who was in the radio broadcast room with Psych-Warrior Ed Butler when Oswald declared he was a "Marxist," and films him during Oswald's street operations.

Bill Davey quotes Johann Rush as saying Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg are "leftists sympathetic to Marxist idealogy."

The NonCons have signed on to Rahn's Manifisto that declares that the assassination was a series of chance coincidences," to which I have only one thing to add:

"The intelligence profession does not encourage one to accept coincidence as an explanation for events." - David Atlee Phillips

BK

Bill, et al,

After the holiday, I'll post some intriguing information relating to possible motives for Rahn's perfidy and the "good" professor's position on the Holocaust.

This will be FUN!

Charles

Take a close look at "JFK"'s head.

Charles, in the photo I included in the post, or the video?

Peter,

In the post.

Perhaps it's just a vestige of what for me was a very late night and a very early rising, but I don't see John Kennedy's head in the video capture.

John Edwards, maybe ...

Odds are that poor picture quality is the culprit. But I'm curuious to learn if anyone else shares my reaction.

Charles

Take a close look at "JFK"'s head.

Agreed, Ron.

But in Ford, the S.O.B.'s had a surer thing.

Remember the line from Oliver Stone's Nixon, when John Dean asks the simple but ultimate question, "Why?".

Nixon responds, "It's the lie, John."

The "lie" is the ultimate secret, the only means of control over the masses, which must be protected at all costs.

Ford -- the Warren Commission's favorite bastard/traitor -- is handed a Profile in Courage Award by the only surviving child of John Fitzgerald Kennedy in recognition of Ford's pardoning of Richard Nixon.

With the exception of the murder of JFK, has any act of state had a more negative impact on our world than Ford's pardon of a villain of Reaganesque proportions?

Charles

Odd precognitive double.

See below.