Charles Drago

Salla and Wayne Madson won't give up on the idea that Lon Cheney's covert crew were going to use the six nukes in a pre-emptive strike against Iran, without telling anybody else about it.

Wayne's also got a military intel background (NSA maybe), but if his "investigation" shows Cheney was moving nukes around for tactical considerations, then we're really in deep xxxx. I don't believe it.

These guys just shot themselves in the foot, Cheney didn't shoot them.

BK

Bill,

Once again, I'd point to a third alternative to explain this situation if it is indeed sinister.

Who would benefit from promoting the idea that America's nuclear arsenal is so vulnerable to plunder?

That "Lon Cheney" (great!) and other phantoms of the bunker are ready, willing, and able to stage a nuclear provocation, perhaps even on their own soil?

(And no, I'm not referencing Salla, Madsen, and like-minded folk who some would charge with opportunism in the wake of accident.)

That one or more officers in this "accident"-prone command structure should be cashiered?

As I've noted elsewhere: If "follow the money" was the indispensable investigative mantra during Watergate, then "question the timing" takes on identical significance when probing intel ops -- the category in which I'm certain this event should be filed.

Charles

Charles,

That's okay. I have never been inside a B-52H so am unfamiliar with the display systems and if they do have some type of visual warning system inside. Happy to accept your source's statement on this for the while.

The flight characteristics section though, well, I think they are wrong - for the reasons I mentioned in my initial post. I'll see if I can locate any B-52 pilots who have flown with the AGM-129 and see what they say.

Thanks for the clarification.

Evan,

I'm eager to learn as much about this incident as I can.

My declaration that "it was intentional" should be read both literally and as a rhetorical device utilized in a discussion regarding the honing of instinct and refining of intellect applied to analyses of intel ops.

In re the display systems: My inference is that what was being described to me is an active alert -- as opposed to an indicator that is manually engaged once N-weaponry is aboard. In other words, a system that automatically detects the presence.

But I certainly may be off on this one. Time may tell.

In the mean, my instincts and more refined perceptions -- for whatever the hell they're worth -- are focused on the unlikelihood of simultaneous breakdown of redundant security systems, both in this case and on 9-11.

Charles

Charles, could you take me through this one please?

- Onboard systems: how does this work or more properly, how does it indicate to the crew they are carrying a nuke?

- Altered flight characteristics: how? Crews need to train with the AGM-129, whether it be with dummy (stores only) versions so they get used to the aircraft with such loads, or training versions fitted with a dummy warhead for range qualification, etc. If the warhead itself is replaced, the inert load would be about the same weight. The shape of the AGM-129 would not have altered, and the weight would not have changed substantially. How would the crews have noticed different flight characteristics?

Thanks.

Evan,

I base my "onboard systems" and "flight characteristics" comments on what I have been told by the previously referenced officer, who is in a position to know. This person would not be more forthcoming, and as I have decided to take his/her word, I suppose you can either take or leave mine.

I have inferred that the issue of weight of load is critical here.

As for the probability of accident v. design: I must fall back on the complexity of safeguards and the unlikelihood that all would break down at essentially the same time.

Charles

We know that:

• Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations.

• Multiple officers are routinely involved in the transportation and loading of nuclear weapons to prevent the kind of “error” that allegedly resulted in this “accident.”

We do not know:

• Who was in charge of the operation to release and transport the nukes.

• How experienced pilots could fly from North Dakota to Louisiana allegedly without knowing they were carrying live nuclear weapons – despite onboard systems designed to alert the flight crew to the presence of same, and altered flight characteristics caused by the unique nuclear loads.

• Why the individual(s) in charge permitted the multi-stage incident to occur in violation of storage, handling, and weapons release protocols and procedures.

• What reason was given for the release of live nuclear weapons that, because of redundant, sophisticated security systems, could not be mistaken for what they were – and what they certainly were not, including inert nukes or conventional or CBR devices.

The release of the missiles was intentional, as was the loading of the weapons onto the B-52 and their transport to Minot.

I have interviewed an active duty military officer of flag rank who routinely is engaged in matters directly related to nuclear weapon storage, handling, and deployment. This person reports that, in essence, to believe the recent event was accidental in nature is to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy.

Or that Bin Laden lucked out on 9-11 vis a vis the “coincidental” security stripping exercises.

You ask if paranoia is my blind spot.

If, in Orwellian fashion, hard-won, refined perspective impairs vision.

I give you John 9:1-41

"All that I know is that I was blind, and now I can see."

I was shooting -- pardon the pun -- for obtuse.

At what point does one's paranoia become a perfect failure?

Aside from demonstrating its author's utter inability to grasp the concept under consideration and his reliance upon sarcasm to camouflage ignorance ...

tres droll!

Charles

That's understandable to a degree. They were thought to be conventional, so no special precautions were taken.

If they thought it was armed with practice / dummy stores, then it is very understandable... although all our dummy stores (inert) are painted blue so you can visually tell.

Sorry, but no one truly responsible for this provocation can be accused of error.

It's another perfect failure, I'm afraid.

Multi-layered safeguards (including the relatively primitive color code you yourself reference) preclude the possibility that the nuclear missiles could have been "mistaken" for anything else.

Either that, or the most sophisticated redundant security systems imaginable just happened to break down all at once.

(Hmmm ... Why am I put in mind of another extraordinary "coincidence" -- when Bin Laden just happened to choose a date for his attacks that coincided with the stagings of the multiple air defense security exercises that amounted to the sine qua non for the "terrorists's" successes?)

Again, the questions must be asked: Have we learned nothing but names and dates from our deep political studies? Have we learned nothing but how to adjust our gaits from our repeated buggerings by authority?

At what point in one's neverending eagerness to be lied to does one become the xxxx? At what point does one's failure to discern the truth become a perfect failure?

Charles Drago

Charles

From one wasichu to another, and without qualification in terms of its point of origin, I proudly present the answer to your question:

Another perfect failure.

Charles Drago

Kathy,

My apologies for assuming, based upon the wording of your post, that you were unaware of Bruce and his work.

Otherwise, we shall agree to disagree.

Respectfully,

Charles

1. Enlarge Oswald's legend as a die-hard Communist.

2. Provide a "Castro was behind it" snipe hunt that would run for 16,038 days (if we can mercifully end it here and now).

Of course they didn't "intend for Castro to be removed." They had put the bastard in power!

CIA had a perfect track record of taking out every leader they ever decided to take out throughout the '50s. I'm sick to puking at hearing about the "OooooOOOOOOooooooooo, CIA plots to kill Castro." CIA never tried to take out Castro. If they had, he would have been taken out. Period.

It's the same reason the Bay of Pigs "failed." Failed, hell! It never was organized to take Castro out at all.

Ashton

Seems we've been on the same pages for quite a while.

(By the way, the term is "snipe[r] hunt.")

For the overwhelming majority of students of the JFK case in particular and deep politics in general, breadth of knowledge is vastly overvalued and tragically under-represented in comparison to depth of understanding.

It is one thing to be able to cite chapter and verse on the "histories" of CIA anti-castro efforts, the Bay of Pigs, and other agency "failures."

It is quite another to summon the requisite insight and creativity to understand them to be perfect failures.

So too the perfect failure of America's current Iraq policy. (In case anyone still seriously argues that, at this distant point in time, the JFK case is nothing more than a ripping yarn.)

I assure you that in the Fertile Crescent (no, I'm not referring to a segment of Jenna Bush's anatomy), all is proceding according to plan.

Charles

For Ashton and BK,

I would benefit greatly from your respective takes on the assassination sponsors' purposes in constructing the LHO-Fidel links.

CHARLES, I REALLY DON'T HAVE A TAKE, YET. STILL TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT FOR MYSELF.

Presumably you've had a chance to read my own view that the highest level of conspirators never intended for Castro to be removed, etc. etc. etc.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CASINO SYNDICATE THAT LEFT HAVANA CASINOS TO MCLANEY ET AL., REALLY WANTED TO DEVELOP VEGAS AND NOT HAVANA AFTERALL, SO THAT MAKES SENSE.

By definition, you would be weighing in on another of my pet constructions (FYI endorsed by G. M. Evica; I'm not alone out here): the three-tiered conspiracy structure of sponsors, facilitators, and mechanics, with the middle level factionalized and compartmentalized.

WHILE I THINK CREATING MATRIX MODELS HELPS UNDERSTAND HOW THEY DID IT, I'M NOT QUITE SURE MYSELF, YET.

NOT TO BE EVASIVE, MAYBE ASHTON, WITH A MORE ORGANIZED MIND, HAS A BETTER TAKE ON IT.

BK

Surely you both have better uses for your time and energies. So if and when the spirit moves ...

Charles

Many thanks.

Kathy,

I love you, but where do I begin?

Do you have the slightest clue who Lenny Bruce was? Or why it isn't likely that he will join this forum?

How about Alan Ginsberg?

Are you prepared to edit the following passage from America?

America I've given you all and now I'm nothing.

America two dollars and twenty-seven cents January 17, 1956.

I can't stand my own mind.

America when will we end the human war?

Go XXXX yourself with your atom bomb

Do you demand that we protect our precious, fragile youth from art?

Art that speaks to our deepest concerns?

ANY art?

This, in a nutshell, is the problem with "moderation" on this forum and with those who would preserve at all costs the virgin ears of our toddling cannon fodder.

Charles Drago

Let's test the limits of moderators' moderation.

" ... an image of Jackie Kennedy climbing from the back seat of the car in desperation to escape the gunfire" is how Christies describes that awful Z-frame.

Lenny Bruce put it this way: Jackie was "hauling XXX to save her XXX."

So who's offended?

And why?

Charles

For Ashton and BK,

I would benefit greatly from your respective takes on the assassination sponsors' purposes in constructing the LHO-Fidel links.

Presumably you've had a chance to read my own view that the highest level of conspirators never intended for Castro to be removed, etc. etc. etc.

By definition, you would be weighing in on another of my pet constructions (FYI endorsed by G. M. Evica; I'm not alone out here): the three-tiered conspiracy structure of sponsors, facilitators, and mechanics, with the middle level factionalized and compartmentalized.

Surely you both have better uses for your time and energies. So if and when the spirit moves ...

Charles

In re Silence:

I am sincerely flattered.

Cliff,

My responses in blue.

You wrote, "The capture of Oswald rendered inoperable major parts of the Castro-did-it 'black op.' How could Hoover claim as a fact that LHO had been to Cuba, or Phillips/CIA claim as a fact that LHO had met with Kostikov -- and make it stick -- with the patsy alive and declaring his innocence?"

Who held LHO? The wholly corrupt and controllable DPD. Who had access to him during intense periods of interrogation? No one who couldn't be counted on to forget/destroy "inconvenient" utterances. What was to prevent the release of a fabricated post-mortem declaration "by" LHO that he did it on instructions of Fidel? NOTHING!

You wrote, "They proposed to [Operation Mongoose chief] Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn,

'the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that...the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic].' This would be accomplished, Lemnitzer continued, 'by manufacturing various pieces of evidence[.]'"

There was abundant "proof" -- of the whole cloth variety -- of LHO's affiliations with Castro sufficient to withstand initial, superficial scrutiny by the Earl Warrens. As history has demonstrated, none of it could have survived in-depth, long-term, honest analyses. But none of it was designed to. It was a feint with a relatively brief shelf life, one intended to scare the rubes into committing to the LN lie.

And to keep us confused, guessing, and arguing ad infinitum!

You wrote, "This indicates to me that Lansky didn't find it a piece of cake to re-establish his operations in the Bahamas. As of November 1963, I'll argue, the return of the easy days of 1950's Havana remained at the top of Lansky's wish list."

I see no reason within the parameters of this argument to conflate the perceived value to Lanksy, et al of gambling in the Bahamas with the alleged value of continued utilization of the Havana-to-Miami drug route.

Do you seriously expect to sell the image of old Hyman Roth wringing his hands before the fire and yearning for what once was?

The game had changed, starting when Trafficante traveled to the Golden Triangle in the effort to eliminate Corsican middlemen brokering Turkish product. Don't underestimate the Devil's wisdom. Change was in the air -- and not half-ass change, either.

Finally, you wrote, "Then why take out Kennedy? He was AWOL in the decision-making over the Diem coup -- his Secretary of the Treasury, one C. Douglas Dillon, verbally bitch-slapped Kennedy for his indecisiveness over Diem.

"What did Harriman/Bundy and the other dedicated cold warriors in his Administration fear from JFK? They over-ruled Bobby on Diem, after all.

"And Charles, if the sole purpose of the assassination was to remove Kennedy, why not whack him in his sleep, which was well within their capability?"

Here, Cliff, we come to the ultimate point -- the significance of which can be measured in inverse proportion to its popular acceptance.

The evolution of John Fitzgerald Kennedy as a politician, intellect, warrior, and spirit had to be dealt with. "Bitch-slap me once, shame on me ... " if you prefer.

They feared JFK's evolving understanding of their game and increasing strength and will to defeat them. They feared JFK's ability to inspire, to lead, to elevate a people from the ignorance and fear upon which the powerful minority depended then, as it does now, for its very existence.

They killed John Kennedy like a dog in the street so that his putative heirs and all the world could bear witness to their work. For generations to come. Which explains the Z-film, by the by.

In other words, the "sole purpose of the assassination" was NOT to remove Kennedy from life. Intelligence operations by definition are multi-purpose (so teacheth Bud Fensterwald). There were many reasons to strike John. Most significant among them were the needs to remove him from short-term influence and to control the future.

And I'm not talking about "influence" as in the re-namings of countless town squares and the hangings of countless portraits.

I am talking about the power to remove the yoke.

They won. All that remains is to determine if their victory is temporary or permanent.

Charles

5. Harriman and other transportation tycoons and criminal

syndicate chiefs conspired to kill Kennedy in such a way as to establish a pre-text

for the invasion of Cuba. Their ultimate goal was the re-establishment of the

Havana-to-Florida smuggling routes that flourished pre-Castro. When Oswald

was captured the plan was foiled (the plot required "irrevocable proof of Castro

involvement," not a live patsy) and Harriman cut his losses by scotching the

Castro-did-it scenario.

My Dear Cliff,

Yet again I must reluctantly take you to task for clinging to that absurdly literal appreciation of the ultimate purpose of the Cuba ruse.

I do so not out of any personal animus; truth be told, I find much to admire and agree with in the majority of your unrelated analyses. My purpose here is once again to direct inquiring minds to the earlier, lengthy exchanges between myself and Robert Charles-Dunne on this matter. Therein the truth doth reside.

At the sponsorship level, the assassins NEVER intended for the death of JFK to prompt an invasion of Cuba. If such had NOT been the case, there was absolutely NOTHING about the capture of LHO that would have necessitated a pull-back from a real invasion plan.

Repeat: There was absolutely NOTHING about the capture of LHO that would have necessitated a pull-back from a real invasion plan.

The false linkage of LHO to Cuba was developed to scare off would-be investigators who otherwise could not be bought off, and to secure the low-level services of certain of the anti-Castro crew.

Period.

The so-called evidence for the false linkage had to be good enough to withstand superficial scrutiny.

The ruse worked. Earl Warren soiled his robes worrying about World War III being unleashed should the Castro-did-it leads prove real. The denizens of Little Havana locked and loaded.

By the time of the assassination, Cuba was no longer in play in terms of drug trafficking. Alternatives -- more profitable alternatives -- long had been identified and activated. We are, after all, talking about the ultimate capitalists when we reference drug traffickers; to think that they would have maintained a dependency on Cuba or endured a significant disruption of their operations when superior options were on the table makes no sense whatsoever.

Further, Castro was then, as he is now, of ultimate value as a bogey man. In other words, he's more valuable alive than dead.

At the facilitator level of the assassination there were, of course, individuals who believed that their actions inevitably would lead to the liberation of Cuba. After the fact they were either bought off or put down.

And spare me the "JCS wanted to invade" argument. The anti-Communist crusade in Southeast Asia had become their number one priority. Cuba was contained. Cuba could be used to justify immense defense expenditures in its region.

Cuba and Fidel would be protected at all costs.

The real fight -- for the military and the drug traffickers (distinction without a difference?) -- was to be fought in and around the Golden Triangle.

Charles Drago

"That Richard Nixon knew the actual reason for the Bay of Pigs operation and why E. Howard Hunt and his CIA co-conspirators insured that it was the resounding flop that it was[.]"

Ashton,

You are quite correct to understand the Bay of Pigs affair as a "perfect failure." As such, it stands both as a template for subsequent, similar operations (up to and including the invasion of Iraq, whose happy collaterals, like those in Cuba, somehow unexpectedly failed to welcome the invaders as liberators), and as a Rosetta Stone of sorts for the deciphering of a wide variety of secret agendas and methods.

Charles

Jack,

You're loyalty to your friend is indeed commendable. So too your willingness to understand the importance of honest skepticism.

And my lunch bill comment was entirely tongue-in-cheek (actually, I had a hamburger).

Charles

An interesting pattern is developing.

Len Colby is calling for -- should I write "demanding"? -- the removal of Peter Lemkin from this forum.

And now Colonel Kurtz is suggesting that it's time for my separation from the service.

I can't represent Peter's posture, but I know that I have not endeavored to silence anyone who posts here. Nor shall I do so.

Is the cordite-like scent of collusion in the air? Why am I suddenly put in mind of John Kennedy Toole?

Or is this simply a joint audition for "Fear Factor"?

Charles Drago

Peter, if we are at war with those who killed JFK, as Charles and yourself have previously said, then John Armstrong is AWOL.

BK

Hi Bill,

I'll take advantage of your reference to my previous posts to offer brief observations about John Armstrong.

First things first: I am not qualified to offer informed, detailed commentary on the merits of his book. Anyone who would do so must demonstrate a familiarity with the material and a record of fact-checking that are, in terms of both depth and breadth of study, commensurate with the work under scrutiny.

The presence of certain demonstrable errors within that immense opus -- as pointed out by Greg and others -- clearly should grab our attention. But they certainly do not by extension disqualify the rest of Armstrong's output.

Armstrong made two surprise visits to Providence during the course of his research. He showed up on the last day of the conference I co-sponsored with Doktor Rahn. And sometime later, out of the blue, he called to ask me to lunch.

Millionaire Armstrong allowed thousandaire Drago to pick up the tab.

But I digress.

If we have learned nothing else from our exposure to and work in the deep political milieu, I trust we have developed instincts that would lead us to examine with keen and critical eye anyone who would present as Armstrong does: a man of seemingly limitless resources who spares no expense to delve into the Stygian depths of the JFK case.

(A similar case in point is that of Noel Twyman, for whom I harbor immense respect. Wouldn't an Armstrong/Twyman extended comparison make for interesting reading?)

This is not to cast undue suspicion on John Armstrong, his motives, and his ultimate product. As it happens, I respect and like the man, and whether Harvey and Lee ultimately is valued for its literal merits or as a negative template, its importance to the evolution of the investigation of the conspiratorial murder of JFK must not be underestimated.

I can understand Jack's loyalty to his friend. And I'm sure that Jack respects those of us who would honestly and fairly reserve judgement on Armstrong based upon our hard-won understandings of how the secret world operates.

Charles

1. Continuing to debate the conspiracy/no conspiracy, or "how" question.

Each and every presentation we make must begin and end with this statement of fact: Conspiracy in the death of JFK is the truth and has been demonstrated beyond all doubt. To engage in debate on this question is, by definition, to play into the hands of the assassins.

Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK evidence who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. It's that simple.

2. Refusing to segregate the "how," "who," and "why" questions.

The layman's natural inclination is to jump to the second and third issues, and by definition to infer that, absent certitude regarding "who" and "why," the "how" must remain in doubt.

3. Failing to understand that we are at war with the killers of JFK.

The rest are, in the words of Hyman Roth, small potatoes.

Charles

I think this is the documentary that has previously unseen colour footage of a home movie of Oswald and family the year before the assassinationtaken at his brother Robert's house.

Might this be the holiday (Thanksgiving) visit, with LHO seated on a couch or chair and playing with a child? If so, it originally was broadcast at least ten years ago on a long- cancelled American tabloid TV program ("Current Affair" perhaps). I have a video tape of the footage -- somewhere.

Charles

The number “7” features quite prominently in matters surrounding the Knights Templar.

Might this extend to 007?

Auric

It would appear that all of these purported "shooters", as well as many others, have been far too busy chasing mythological beings and have thusly not had time to deal with the FACTS of LHO's excellent marksmanship abililty.

Of course, one must understand something before they can explain it to others!

As I've noted elsewhere: This is all so Hannibal Lecter-esque I could just faint!

We're sooo ambitious, aren't we? Do you know what we look like to Mr. Purvis? With our expensive computers and cheap rationales?

We look like rubes! Well-spoken, hustling rubes, with a little information.

Good public education has given us length of concentration, but we're not more than one generation from poor dolts, aren"t we? And this gullibility we've tried so desperately to shed -- pure liberalism. What did our parents do? Did they protest the Viet Nam War? Did they stink of the Lamb?

We know how quickly the conspiracy theorists found us. All those late-night research sessions in poorly lit libraries, while we could only dream of solving the case. Solving anything, getting all the way to the C ... I ... A.

At least when Hannibal promised to go away, he did.

Charles Drago