Charles Drago

I (CD) will now appear in green.

And the point you insist on missing is that with Oswald in custody this

"irrevocable proof" could not be brought forward beyond Hoover

pitching it to an un-moved Bobby Kennedy.

As always, quite wrong. You still won't explain your reasoning. You still won't define "custody" in terms of the DPD c. 1963.

The FACT is that Hoover claimed to have evidence of Oswald repeatedly

going to Cuba -- but with Oswald captured alive this charge became

inoperable.

Cliff, saying so doesn't make it so. Still no basis for your claim.

... there's no way that a gangster killing a

patsy in the hands of Dallas police would direct suspicion on Fidel Castro.

Wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Worthy of Bugliosi, I'm afraid.

Charles wrote:

Nothng transpired at any time -- at least to my knowledge -- to prevent the fabrication of an LHO "I did it for Fidel" confession.

A very interesting thought.

Explain to me how this would work.

First, Captain Fritz announces to the world that Oswald confessed to killing

JFK as an agent of Fidel.

Then the Castro agent is killed while in police custody -- before or after he

makes a public statement?

It would have to be before, no? You can't even allow him to yell -- "I'm

just a patsy!"

Sure you can. The explanation: LHO was playing games, first denying guilt, then proclaiming it. Of course the latter would have to have occured under "private" circumstances.

And even though there is no record of this confession, and the patsy was gunned

down by a man with life-long mob ties, the unsubstantiated statements of Fritz are

so powerful that Johnson could claim them "irrevocable proof" of Castro complicity?

Absolutely! You're forgetting how much false evidence linking LHO to Fidel had been set in place to service the disparate ends of the sponsors and facilitators (the latter in part). It was enough to convince Earl Warren and others to back off. And it would have been enough to justify an invasion regardless of LHO's fate -- if, that is, an invasion was one of the sponsors' goals. Which, of course, it was not.

That's one best saved for the tourists, Tim.

See you in the First Class lounge, boys.

Tell it to the other Charlie.

I'm sure your material would positively kill them.

Oops.

Been there, done that.

You missed your calling.

Where's Ed Sullivan when we need him?

Len, Charles...

I understand how you view each others assessment on things, and would really like to offer you a solution... but I can't. Charles, you'll discount material in the same way that Len and others (including myself) will discount other material. We're all probably confident our own assessments are correct, and that statements to the contrary are either incorrect or inflammatory. This is not always the case.

Evan,

I must begin by noting that I find the moderate tone of our exchanges to be refreshing and highly productive.

Now!

(sorry)

Surely you will agree that not all arguments must extend to the vanishing point. Some arguments can be and are settled. Some even to the degree of metaphysical certitude -- beyoand all doubt.

Conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy is one such case.

As for what hit the Pentagon, I cannot respond with similar certainty. From the evidence I have reviewed, damage to the building and immediately adjacent grounds is inconsistent with a 757 strike. Other evidence you reference comes from tainted sources. Even non-conspiratorial, superficially unbiased eyewitnesses differ as to the size and markings of the object that impacted the building. The chances that biological remains of scores of passengers sufficient to provide DNA identifications for one and all could have been recovered from a crash that consumed most of a jumbo jet and its contents are virtually nil. The refusal of the USG to release videos of the attack raises suspicions of cover-up.

And no one -- on this Forum or elsewhere -- has explained the fact that OBL chose to attack on the very day that multiple air defense security stripping exercises were scheduled as anything more than dumb luck.

We should take this guy to a casino post haste.

In regard to Lamby (the Lamson/Colby hybrid), you must excuse my disgust. We are at war, sir, and the enemy deserves all the tender mercies that were evident in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.

No more, no less.

Charles

My responses in red.

Charles wrote:

I haven't the slightest interest in your response to just about anything.

Given your intellectual arrogance, do you think that surprises me one whit?

Given your intellectual failings, who is to say?

Please state whether you believe the following persons are "cognitively impaired" (one by one, please):

Who died and made you commisar?

Norman Mailer

Vincent Bugliosi

Professor John McAdams

Unless you answer that they are, I can then confidently assume you believe they are "complicit in the crime".

As is so often the case, your intellectual failings do you in. Re-read my statement. There is a third alternative. Although I don't believe that, with the possible exception of Mailer, it applies to the individuals you refrence.

In other words, I assume you mean that although they are arguing the LN position, they actually believe there was a conspiracy and therefore their disingenuous arguments obstruct the search for the truth.

There is no foundation in logic for your assertion that I say they are lying. In point of fact, since I cannot speak to their respective degrees of cognitive impairment, if any, I cannot rule out dain bramage ... er, brain damage. I have no doubt that, in the cases of Bugliosi and McAdams, access to the evidence has been reasonable.

Please state your basis for asserting they are lying.

Please re-read my original statement.

I note that VB is about your mirror image. He asserts no reasonable person can believe in a conspiracy.

There is reason to believe that Bugliosi's pose was concocted in response to my own position and similar points of view that have been published in various print and electronic media.

In my opinion, reasonable minds do differ on the conspiracy issue, although it is also my opinion that a reasonable mind should conclude a conspiracy.

Now we arrive at the core of the disease. You and others of like mind would have us mired in uncertainty and debate ad infinitum. Thus we discover the basis for the cover-up: The conspirators understood that they had no chance whatsoever to prevent the raising of questions by citizen investigators regarding the official LN lie. So they brilliantly encouraged those questions, provided conflicting answers, and in the process virtually immunized themselves against discovery and prosecution and punishment.

To the degree that you and others aid and abet the cover-up with your "reasonable minds do differ on the conspiracy issue" idiocy, you stand as accessories after the fact -- witting or otherwise.

I reiterate: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was killed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Where do you fit in, Timmy?

burgundy is me

Okay, Dr. Lecture, my corrections are in pea soup green.

Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, pg 272:

(quote on, emphasis in the original)

FAILURE IN DALLAS

[John] Martino himself tells us very specifically where the plan went

wrong. Lee Oswald did not make it to his contact at the Texas Theatre.

There was no opportunity to get him out of Dallas and eliminate him in

a manner which would directly implicate Castro. (quote off)

Ah, Cliff,

I added the emphasis above so as to lend weight to a related, simple question.

So what?

So lacking the "irrevocable proof of Castro involvement,"

which was the benchmark cited by former-CJCS Lemnitzer for establishing a

pre-text to invade (see Bamford's Body of Secrets), the Yale boys

Harriman/Bundy pulled the plug on the entire Castro-did-it scenario while

LBJ was still in the air Dallas-to-DC.

They were "lacking" in no such thing. That's the entire point in a nutshell. It was all there, and nothing LHO said/did in custody was even remotely enough to negate it.

It's all right there in the historical record.

In fact, this goes for the entire assassination: how/who/why:

"It's all right there in the case file, Clarice. Everything you need to

catch them, these men you seek."

You are not exactly thrilling me with your acumen. But we move on.

I'm still waiting to learn how LHO's post-11/22 survival under the circumstances in which it actually occured could have been sufficient to scuttle a serious, long-planned, all-important retaliatory invasion of false sponsor Cuba.

Charles, how do you sell a guy claiming to be "just a patsy"

as a Castro agent?

Think of Oswald-the-Castro-agent as a product.

There is going to be a product roll-out that involves murdering the

patsy in such a manner which would appear to directly lead to Castro.

But what the actual "product roll-out" involved was a living patsy

shouting his innocence. How on earth does that point to Castro?

And what of two centuries of American jurisprudence that says a man is

innocent until proven guilty?

How would the United States justify to the world an invasion of Cuba when

the man accused of following Castro's orders to kill JFK claims his innocence

and no genuine evidence against him actually exists?

Cliff: All kidding aside, I don't know how to get through to you beyond this point. The "shouting of innocence" easily could have been portrayed as an early stage position by a clever, devious Castro assassin.

"Two centuries of American jursiprudence" was insufficient to deflect the overthrow of the American government. It was then, as it is now, irrelevant to the powers-that-be.

Here's where you fail -- and fatally: There never was "genuine evidence against" LHO, and his survival is irrelevant to the fabricated evidence that, even if his demise had gone according to your plan, would have been enough to make the invasion real if it ever had been the real goal of the plot's sponsors.

Again, for the record:

The DPD was controlled.

And the Dallas boys were hot to trot.

SWHT pg 288:

On Friday evening, Dallas assistant D. A. William Alexander

prepared a set of formal charges for Lee Oswald. These papers charged

Oswald with murdering the President "as part of an International Communist

Conspiracy."

Same with Hoover back in DC:

id

4:19 PM, Hoover memo related that he had told RFK that the killer

has "Communist leanings" and is a "very mean-minded individual." Hoover

also related and confirmed again in a 5:15 PM memo that the subject Oswald

"went to Cuba on several occasions but would not tell us what he went to

Cuba for." It is true that Hoover did pass on what appears to be some early

misinformation about real time events in Dallas but it is hard to interpret the

Cuba reference as a mistake since it would have had to come from Oswald's

files.

Meanwhile, Bundy calls Johnson from the White House Situation Room and

informs him that the lone assassin is in custody.

LBJ wasn't in the White House as the new prez more than ten minutes before

W. Averell Harriman informed him the Russians weren't involved. From that

7PM meeting on: the official story was Oswald-as-lone-nut. There was NO ONE

big enough to over-rule Harriman.

You're missing the obvious -- the painfully obvious. But I just can't do this anymore. So just answer the question: How does LHO's survival, given its circumstances, trump the best laid plans?

IT DOESN'T!

Access to LHO was controlled.

Nothng transpired at any time -- at least to my knowledge -- to prevent the

fabrication of an LHO "I did it for Fidel" confession.

I can't for the life of me imagine how that would possibly go down. Was the DPD

going to first claim Oswald confessed to killing Kennedy in league with Castro,

and then, almost immediately after, Oswald would himself be shot in DPD

hands before he could make a public statement?

How do you sell that to the world as an excuse to invade another country?

You're thinking in 2007 terms, not in 1963 terms. C'mon, man.

You "sell" it with ease. Far greater ease than the war with Iraq was sold 40 years later.

It was one thing for Marcos to use a similar scenario as an excuse to

kill Aquino -- but as an excuse for America to invade Cuba?

No way.

No one would have been in a position to challenge the veracity of such a claim.

What about Oswald? Was his demise to immediately follow

this "false confession"?

I like the headlines the next day: OSWALD KILLS KENNEDY FOR CASTRO; RUBY

KILLS OSWALD FOR JACKIE.

No one in a position to have heard LHO tell the truth about what led him to his cruel fate was in a position to share that info in a believable, verifiable, plan-destroying manner, let alone survive the experience.

Wouldn't Oswald's murder -- having occurred immediately after this un-recorded

"confession" -- diminish the impact of such a confession?

No.

How do you make that stick? First the guy confesses in police custody

and then he's murdered in police custody before he could make a

public statement?

How do you make the LN story stick? Same way, my friend.

And that would have put B-52s in the air?

If that had been the plan? Yes.

Nothing about the pre-assassination sheep-dipping of LHO as a Castro sympathiser/agent

could have been undone by the patsy's oh so brief survival.

His death in police custody un-did all Castro links.

NO!

If the assassination's sponsors truly desired to precipitate a post-assassination invasion of Cuba -- rather than use the "it looks like Castro and some of his Soviet masters did it" "evidence" only to control investigators with the threat of WW III -- it would have happened.

Under what pre-text? Because the Dallas police said the man

confessed to being a Castro agent right before he was shot while in police

custody by a mobster?

What kind of case is that?

In support of the previous sheepdipping? All the case that would have been needed.

That's "sponsors" -- as opposed to some assassination facilitators and mechanics who no doubt participated in the hit because of their belief, encouraged by people at the top, that Castro would fall because of their efforts.

Sponsors, as in plural. Not all sponsors shared

the same agenda post-assassination, I submit.

WRONG WRONG WRONG. THE SPONSORS WERE ON THE SAME PAGE. THEIR FACILITATORS AND MECHANICS WERE BY NECESSITY AND INTENTION OF DIVERSE MOTIVES AND LEVELS OF AWARENESS.

As always,

Charles

Most enjoyable, as always.

Indeed. But I think my brain just pulled a hamstring.

Still nothing?

Well, let's see if you can be helped along toward a focused, reasoned grasp of this thread's deep themes.

Instead of citing Humes' second set of handwritten notes in which the "subcutaneous emphysema" is nothing more than hearsy concerning what Perry allegedly said on the phone, let's look at the testimony.

Perry Warren Commission Testimony:

Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, pg 272:

(quote on, emphasis in the original)

FAILURE IN DALLAS

[John] Martino himself tells us very specifically where the plan went

wrong. Lee Oswald did not make it to his contact at the Texas Theatre.

There was no opportunity to get him out of Dallas and eliminate him in

a manner which would directly implicate Castro. (quote off)

Ah, Cliff,

I added the emphasis above so as to lend weight to a related, simple question.

So what?

I'm still waiting to learn how LHO's post-11/22 survival under the circumstances in which it actually occured could have been sufficient to scuttle a serious, long-planned, all-important retaliatory invasion of false sponsor Cuba.

Again, for the record:

The DPD was controlled.

Access to LHO was controlled.

Nothng transpired at any time -- at least to my knowledge -- to prevent the fabrication of an LHO "I did it for Fidel" confession.

No one would have been in a position to challenge the veracity of such a claim.

No one in a position to have heard LHO tell the truth about what led him to his cruel fate was in a position to share that info in a believable, verifiable, plan-destroying manner, let alone survive the experience.

Nothing about the pre-assassination sheep-dipping of LHO as a Castro sympathiser/agent could have been undone by the patsy's oh so brief survival.

If the assassination's sponsors truly desired to precipitate a post-assassination invasion of Cuba -- rather than use the "it looks like Castro and some of his Soviet masters did it" "evidence" only to control investigators with the threat of WW III -- it would have happened.

That's "sponsors" -- as opposed to some assassination facilitators and mechanics who no doubt participated in the hit because of their belief, encouraged by people at the top, that Castro would fall because of their efforts.

As always,

Charles

Don’t you get it by now Mathew? Facts and reality aren’t important; Peter’s fantasy world is all that matters. Griffen said so it must be true.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=75728

Don't you get it by now, everyone. Facts and reality aren't important; Colby's fantasy world is all that matters. His terrorist heroes/masters said so, so it must be true.

Hi Evan,

It seems to me that the honesty and accuracy of the proffered recollections, important issues to be sure, are just barely beside the main point.

The sponsors of the publication repeatedly have been revealed to be, beyond refutation, serial liars. Or, if you prefer, propagandists of the highest and vilest order. Accordingly, we are obliged, as thoughtful and honorable men, to subject their every utterance to the most intense and sophisticated scrutiny of which we are capable.

They are guilty until proven innocent.

We must bring to bear everything we have learned in our studies of deep political phenomena as we analyze not only what they present, but what they choose NOT to present.

Since I have seen no credible evidence to support the contention that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon on 9/11/01 -- and my access to publicly available evidence has been and continues to be reasonable indeed -- the new book by definition would have to contain previously unreleased material supportive of the USG's conspiracy theory if I am to be persuaded.

Which brings us back to your rephrased question. A regurgitation of previously shared recollections that tend to buttress the official line would be unconvincing by definition.

I do not know what caused the wound to the Pentagon. I am all but convinced that it was not a 757.

In other words, I cannot take the publication's sponsors at their word if such is their claim.

Charles

Not referenced in relation to tubes.

"combat," not "control"

End your non-sequiturs, demonstrate that you grasp the deeper meanings of the subject under discussion, and contribute.

Got more?

Peter,

If the recollections are honest and accurate, would you consider that the incident at the Pentagon was a terrorist act?

Evan,

Please know that I am NOT answering for Peter.

I appreciate your question for its subtext, which I humbly suggest leads directly to the rim of the chasm that separates your mindset from my own (which is quite similar to Peter's point of view, by the way).

Of course the "incident" at the Pentagon was an act of terrorism.

Our separation arises from the fact that you seem to be emotionally incapable of merely considering the possibility that players in the American political structure -- deep and otherwise -- are terrorists.

Do not read this as an ad hominem, but only as my sincere effort to get to the essence of this disagreement.

Charles

Speaking of Ayers, I'd like to share the following in what has to be a rather veiled manner.

I have it on significant authority that Ayers made a very serious pass (in the intel sense) at a "member" of the Kennedy clan during which he volunteered to open the kimono, so to speak.

The effort was determined to be, if sinister is too strong a word, agenda-rich. I'm led to understand that the offer was politely deflected.

Time's up, Purvis.

So!

Whatever they're paying you, it's too much.

Personally, I would like to see some "original work", as this (cognitivelly impaired) term was long ago worn out by another who also did not do his homework on the subject matter.

I am indebted to a friend for passing along observations that prompt the following request:

Please document your "original work" that referenced Warren Commission and/or ARRB testimony in which "subcutaneous" appears in relation to the chest tubes, and where "emphysema" appears at all.

In the mean, best of luck in your competition with Gratz for the "D. B. Cooper Thread Hijacking Award."

I note as an aside that the Single Bullet Theory accurately may be described as "original work."

Charles

With all due respect, Charles is the epitome of intellectual arrogance with his characterization of those who subscribe to the Warren-Posner-McAdams-Bugliosi view of Dallas. So IMO for Charles to call Thomas intellectually arrogant is a bit like the kettle calling the pot black.

What you reference is not a "view." It -- the LN lie -- is a demonstrably false interpretation of events, one that, if embraced by a person who should know better based upon reasonable access to relevant evidence, indicates that said person is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime under investigation.

My assertion is not a reflection of intellectual arrogance, but rather a reasoned, eloquent, and irrefutable distillation of the observable truth.

You meant no respect, sir, so your respect is neither due nor noted.

Duly noted, however, is your confusion of Purvis's non sequiturs with a cogent response to the issues raised by the original intubation papers.

I would be interested in your response to ...

No. That was disingenuous.

I haven't the slightest interest in your response to just about anything.

Charles

Had whoever dreamed up this topic/subject matter (Evica) or whoever, bothered to actually check

Your arrogance, like your ignorance, knows no boundaries.

You cannot even grasp the basic issue at hand -- which is decidedly not the appropriateness of the alleged intubations. Yet you copy-and-paste endless non-sequiturs with all the purposefulness of a bear in a cage, incessantly pacing at the barred access to his next feeding.

You haven't the remotest idea of the level of research upon which the papers in question are based, yet right out of the box you arrogantly disparage what in fact is work as far beyond your comprehension as a plasma television is to a pygmy.

And it's Professor Evica.

Bill, with all due respect, what documentation (if any) do you have to support your assertion that "it only happened one way"?

You are joking right?

Either JFK was killed by a lone-nut gunman or he was killed by (a) professional covert action specialist(s) - one way or anohter - it can't be both, and of all the speculative possiblities, what really happened is the way it happened, not the dozens or hundreds of way it has been perceived by distant observers.

Why speculate on how many ways it could have happened, when the job of the researcher, journalist and histoiran is to determine the truth as best as possible?

While there may be many perspectives of history, it still only happened one way.

BK

Bill,

What documentation do you have to support your assertion that you are Bill and that it is documentation and that it does support the notion that you are Bill and that the notion is supportable and that the documentation is not non-documentation and that support actually supports something which may not in fact exist or if it does may not require support or in fact is over-supported by documentation?

Ah HAH!

When you get down to it, Tim should just copy and paste the question above and enjoy the rest of his days.

Charles

God save us both, sir, for we are in agreement.

At least to a point.

I doubt that the story Douglas shares, if true (and I have no reason to question his belief in its veracity), can be eclipsed in terms of its importance to the development of the deepest possible understanding of the forces that killed John Kennedy.

From whom was the Air Force officer's visit to Moscow kept secret? His own chain of command?

With whom did he meet while in the U.S.S. R.? "Rogue" military and intelligence operatives?

Again we must confront the notion of "a treasonous cabal of hard-line American and Soviet intelligence agents [and military officers] whose masters were above Cold War differences."

For these vile human beings, ending the conflict in Southeast Asia under any circumstances -- including ostensible "victory" -- could be construed only as defeat.

So too their heirs and the "war on terror."

Fascinating tale. And just one of many.

For example: There's the story of Nixon in Viet Nam, personally delivering a crate of gold bars to "Charlie" in exchange for captured civilian personnel.

Charles

My impression from the source who told me this story is that the secret meeting in Moscow in the midst of the Viet Nam War was not a rogue operation but a well-planned meeting of the top military leaders of the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It lasted a full week, which showed that

the subjects discussed were of great significance to all concerned.

Understood, Douglas.

And I don't want to get mired in semantics, but within my key area of study and interest definitions are begged.

One may argue, for instance, that the true "rogue" element of the U.S.G. was represented in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 not by JFK's assassins, but rather by their target. If, that is, by "rogue" one means a disenfranchised, politically ineffective group attempting to make policy inimical to the interests of the entrenched powers.

So for the sake of the exercise, let's take your source at his/her literal, superficial word. The definitions now begged are of "top," "leaders," "U.S." and "Soviet Union."

Would a member of the JCS who was loyal to the Constitution be considered a "top" "leader" in comparison to an officer of lesser rank and appointed position who was deeply entrenched in the deep political system?

Were/are the "U.S." and "Soviet Union" expendable socio-political constructs functioning, as far as the deep political system was/is concerned, as prison camps enclosed by the barbed wire of nationalism and patriotism?

Charles

Just think, RFK planned to appoint Sorenson as the head of the CIA. I would have loved to have heard the speech where he explained how the CIA killed JFK.

Jimmy Carter also had tapped Sorenson for DCI.

Just think ...

oreganizations

Those groups responsible for cutting the weed?

This may begin to explain so many things Gratzian.

I doubt that the story Douglas shares, if true (and I have no reason to question his belief in its veracity), can be eclipsed in terms of its importance to the development of the deepest possible understanding of the forces that killed John Kennedy.

From whom was the Air Force officer's visit to Moscow kept secret? His own chain of command?

With whom did he meet while in the U.S.S. R.? "Rogue" military and intelligence operatives?

Again we must confront the notion of "a treasonous cabal of hard-line American and Soviet intelligence agents [and military officers] whose masters were above Cold War differences."

For these vile human beings, ending the conflict in Southeast Asia under any circumstances -- including ostensible "victory" -- could be construed only as defeat.

So too their heirs and the "war on terror."

Fascinating tale. And just one of many.

For example: There's the story of Nixon in Viet Nam, personally delivering a crate of gold bars to "Charlie" in exchange for captured civilian personnel.

Charles

My Dear Mr. Walker,

Your characterizations of my posts are duly noted.

As is the silence with which you receive -- make that "welcome" -- the posts of Colby and Lamson.

Silence as approval, of course. Lamson plays the "anti-semite" card, and you turn your face. Colby endlessly and vacuously challenges, and you are marked "absent." All of which, given your aggressive posture regarding my words, is indicative of approval of theirs. Or else surely you would have opined to the contrary.

John Cleese in the "All England Twit of the Year Competition" sketch suddenly rushes to mind. Good lord, you're as much a challenge as a matchbook steeplechase.

History judges.

God bless you, good luck in therapy, and be gone.

Charles Drago

PS -- Not so nice try at goading me into an intemperate response. Your agenda is as transparent as it is simpleminded. Huddle with Colby and Lamson. Take your time. Or better yet, go get your shine box.

I would submit that the only way to understand this report is to base analysis on the rejection of monolithic appreciations of "KGB," "CIA," and other commonly over-simplified entities -- including governments.

This is of course true. However, I find it difficult to believe that KGB agents would have assassinated JFK or Mary Meyer. I do find it interesting that a member of the State Department should push this story of KGB involvement in the death of Meyer.

Again, I would suggest that if we are to penetrate the JFK assassination to its deepest levels, we must appreciate the KGB and CIA -- for starters -- as balkinized entities. We agree, John, that neither agency as they are conventionally defined assassinated Kennedy or Meyer. There were no meetings in Langley or Moscow at which the hits appeared on official agendas.

But powerful interests on both sides of the Iron Curtain were similarly threatened by JFK, and their facilitators -- described elsewhere as "a treasonous cabal of hard-line American and Soviet intelligence agents whose masters were above Cold War differences" -- were, in my estimation, significantly involved in both murders.

Charles