Charles Drago

Robert, I recall your earlier Nazi-JFK link posts, and I admire your insight into this largely neglected area of study. I was not privy to the Evica Schacht-the-younger exchanges. But logic tells us this much: If Dr. Robert Schacht was part of the plot, there would have been no need to raid his Providence files to remove evidence that, as Evica noted, LHO's application to ASC is a "still-protected American intelligence operation."

Robert, I was with Evica when we simultaneously asked this question about 18 months prior to publication of A Certain Arrogance and before he interviewed Schacht's son.

Linda, George Michael Evica spent an enormous amount of time and energy on C.D. Jackson. I have reviewed his Jackson research materials, which will be catalogued, along with the balance of his papers, over the next few months. From my ACA intro: [Evica] then identifies the likely director of the propaganda component of the aforementioned Oswald Game. "C. D. Jackson was 'the psyops expert who organized and ran General Dwight David Eisenhower’s Psychological Warfare Division at SHAEF … an official of the Office of War Information … [and] a veteran of the North African campaign.' "Jackson’s career and its impact upon American history, heretofore marginally understood at best (he is widely identified as the Time-Life editor who purchased the Zapruder film) are major focuses of A Certain Arrogance. Nowhere is both the validity of Albert Einstein’s observation that 'the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion' and the contemporary relevance of Professor Evica’s discoveries more clearly evident than in the author’s exposition of the Jackson oeuvre. In particular we are drawn to the discussion of how mass media early on was identified as a key weapon in the mind control arsenal. "In a 1946 letter to Jackson, General Robert McClure, at one time Eisenhower’s chief of intelligence for the European theater, boasted to his psyops counterpart of the scope of their manipulation. “'We now control 137 newspapers, 6 radio stations, 314 theaters, 642 movies, 101 magazines, 237 book publishers, 7,384 book dealers and printers, and conduct about 15 public opinion surveys a month, as well as publish one newspaper with 1,500,000 circulation … run the AP of Germany, and operate 20 library centers.'” Fairness and balance, it seems, did not originate with the Fox Network’s alleged news division.

Robert, George Michael was indeed extremely interested in Dr. Schacht and the First Unitarian Church in Providence, RI. I helped him get together with the good doctor's son, who proved to be a courteous and helpful source. On a glorious July 4th weekend I escorted the Evicas, along with my uncle Arthur, on a tour of the East Side of Providence that included the church, an imposing edifice on Benefit Street. From my Introduction to A Certain Arrogance: "As he meticulously follows Oswald’s ASC paper trail, [Evica] is led not toward the Swiss campus, but rather into brick walls and empty rooms. A prime example: Oswald applied to the college on March 19, 1959. Less than two months later, when the chairman of ASC’s American Admissions Committee (and, at the time, the pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Providence, Rhode Island) submitted to Switzerland the applications and related materials of prospective American students, Oswald’s folder was included. Today those documents – critically important evidence in the investigation of the crime of the 20th century – do not exist in any official repository. Yet copies, or perhaps even originals, were in the Providence ASC file seized by the FBI after the assassination. This troubling absence, within a broader context fully substantiated in A Certain Arrogance, inevitably leads the author to conclude that Oswald’s application to ASC is 'a still-protected American intelligence operation.'”

Good, Robert. Bear with me: JFK wants to secure communications with loyal flag officers, etc. And not just for the superficial reason, but also to run so-called barium tests through the system. There's no way he can hide the effort, and he knows it. So he floods the system with feints. This line of thinking likely is open to the charge of being overly novelistic. But since the assassination was a dramatic construct, how better to understand it than by being sensitive to its elements?

JFK, in recognition of the treason around him at the highest levels, sets up a ... what's the word ... private executive communications system and restricts access (which is to say, acknowledges it for tactical reasons)???

Four Leaves equals/inspires "ECOMCON"???

The difference between English and what Americans speak: Some years ago I was in Manchester on business. At one point I was being driven to my hotel by a Jacqueline Bissett-esque beauty who was married to a much older man. I asked if she knew the joke about the old bull and the young bull -- a magnificent distillation of the difference between youth and maturity. She nodded and said, in a deep and breathy whisper, "Do you mean, 'Let's stroll down and have the lot'?" The American version/punch line: And old bull and a young bull stand atop a hill looking into a valley where a herd of beautiful young cows are grazing. The young bull blurts out, "Let's run down the hill and f**k a cow!" And the old bull calmly says, "Let's walk down and f**k 'em all."

So you're telling us that the WTC was bugged?

Has anyone considered the termite theory? It would be the first time in history that termites brought down a skyscraper, but 9/11 was a day of many firsts. Biting commentary, to be sure. Although your deliver was rather wooden.

Which was supposed to mean what? It's too bad that Hemming had an aversion to speaking plain English whenever sharing inside info. (An exception: when he told Weberman that E. Howard Hunt went down the TSBD elevator shaft by rope. Sturgis, too, as I recall, I'm not sure, though how can I forget such vital information.) Hemming told Twyman, in what Twyman describes as an emotional moment, that "the Patriots did it." Was he referring to the eventual Super Bowl champs, or whom? At the same table GPH claimed that, prior to the Oklahoma City bombing, Chelsea Clinton had been set up on a blind date with Tim McVeigh. What it means is that Hemming was a sophisticated dissembler of half-truth with an agenda that at best is partially understood.

The Homer of the JFK case -- a/k/a Gerry Patrick Hemming -- told me that the gunman in the TSBD was a "Nazi Rat Line sniper" whose target was JBC, at whom he fired "on full automatic." Why the governor? Hemming in heavy German accent: "'Because he didn't bid high enough.'" Was the sniper concerned that researchers would discover his identity? GPH again: "'Just be sure zey shpell my name rrright!'"

I'm not sure about the bases on which to make a comparison, Ron, but I'd suggest that the benefits derived from killing JFK must be appreciated from a very deep perspective. Those families and enterprises most threatened by a new New Deal, an end to the Cold War, the removal of Golden Triangle growing fields from the international drug trade, the elimination of a hemispheric bogeyman in Cuba, a true war on poverty, racial equality, and ultimately the spiritual rebirth of the United States of America had far more to loose than a murderous, venal Texas hack named Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Lamar, I'm pleased to be able to communicate with you again. The last time we spoke was in Dallas some years ago when I offered technical assistance during one of your Lancer presentations. I trust that you and yours are well. To be blunt, I don't buy your thesis. One of many reasons: Are you seriously suggesting that the Kennedys approached Rusk, McNamara, et al with a classic, "Excuse me doctor, but I have a friend who can't get it up, what should he do?" ruse? And that the ruse worked? Further, would you care to go into detail regarding the manners in which E. Howard Hunt and/or his known surrogates informed and otherwise directed your research for the two volumes under scrutiny? If you wish, we can continue this on www.deeppoliticsforum.com Best, Charles

I'd like to see citations. Did anyone set off one of the "bombs"? Were the "bombs" in fact light fixtures? Dentures? Inter-uterine devices? Absence of evidence of cheese is not evidence of absence of cheese. Peter Lemkin believes that JFK didn't commit suicide. How do they know they're looking at the Lusitania? Perhaps its the Luisa's Anus. Citations, please. Lusitania truthers be damned! Us Edit made to eliminate truthfulness.

With each passing day I grow more certain that EHH was responsible for the creation and maintenance of false leads and false sponsorships -- pre- and post-killing.

Here's the KEY, Jack: We're both right. CD

Well put, Robert. Here is a prime example of how Hunt inadvertantly gives away his game. In asserting as a matter of widely accepted fact that an overt hierarchical structure would be maintained within the covert JFK conspiracy, Hunt seeks to misdrect investigative efforts while subtlely reinforcing a wholly erroneous meta-view, if you will, of the deep political paradigm. Let's get this straight: Because Bill Harvey had institutional "seniority" over Phillips and Meyer, by definition he would have maintained that position within the plot structure??? Hunt would have been the first to realize the absurdity of such an assumption. Hunt knew better. And he tried to play us for suckers all the way to the end.

The tears in question are at the collar button and on the tie knot.

You are quite welcome. I can think of no more important question. I commend and join this effort. If I may focus on where I see the disagreement: "Those people" did not "take over" the government by killing Kennedy, but rather regained full control of the government that they had maintained for decades (if not longer) and that had been eroded to an unsettling degree (from their perspective) by JFK. I wonder, Bill, if you share my sense that the JCS even in its most lunatic incarnation looked to the figure of ultimate military authority for a de facto "go" order? More on this on the Deep Politics Forum.

Robert, Thank you. I'll make certain that the Evica family reads your kind words about George Michael. Again, and not to dwell undeservedly on semantics, I read your comments as reflecting your certain knowledge of conspiracy. For what it's worth, my thoughts on the case -- at least as far as this exchange is concerned -- are not informed by any information that is not readily accessible in the literature. Of course this characterization, which was commonly held in 1963, was one of the two major factors that led to the selection of Dallas as the killing zone (the other, of course, relates to the efforts to include LBJ as a False Sponsor of the assassination and thus enhance control of his presidency and protect the true Sponsors). Hey, don't knock it. "President" Bush is looking forward to his first library visit. Thanks again, Robert.

[emphasis added by Drago]Robert, Your posts, like those of BK, are consistently of immense interest, and all thoughtful, principled observers of the JFK assassination welcome them. But I must disagree with your comments as copied above. You more than most must move from "belief" to certitude. There was and is a conspiracy. Further, I submit that the term "government" is rendered moot by the events of 11/22/63. Who governed us then? Who governs us now? That individuals holding powerful positions within agencies of the over-government of the U.S. conspired to kill JFK is established beyond reasonable debate. But to imply that, based on their participation, said over-government did the deed is to perpetuate the myth that in large measure the assassination was undertaken to preserve. More on this at www.deeppoliticsforum.com Respectfully, Charles

Bill, I'm afraid we find ourselves in profound disagreement. Was the murder of JFK a coup against the state/system or an instance of the self-correcting state/system righting itself? Did JFK embody the pre-existing state/system or a mortal threat to it? Those who killed JFK did not emerge in 1963 as new players. They were/are the long-established state/system which JFK endangered. By killing JFK they did not take control, but rather maintained their control. It is we who threaten their national security.

We should care, Jack, because a Holland/Russo "feud" is designed to prompt observers to choose between liars and thus implicitly endorse one of their assassination-related lies. This is an example of perception control: Limit possibilities, and the truth is eliminated from consideration. This charade also serves to bolster Russo and his fabrications by allowing him to castigate a WC defender. Sophisticated stuff. Let's talk about it further on the DPF. Charles

We like free speech. You missed your period.