Charles Drago

Try "connecting the dots", and if and when you can figure it out, then get back to me on it and I just may describe the remainder of the bullet track through the mid-brain!

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

I was under the impression that it was more like a "squirrel cage" in which most of the squirrels were either blind and/or toothless!

Don't be so hard on yourself.

Under many social circumstances, hallucinating senior citizens can be quite amusing.

Plain and simply put. many, many reasonable men do not believe there is evidence for a conspiracy[.]

Any reasonable man -- or woman -- who has access to the evidence of conspiracy yet chooses not to accept is ... wait for it ... cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

My teeth are starting to hurt.

Charles, I am quite certain it was the guy who placed the ad who asked Sen. Edwarsds the question. I had a brief phone conference with him once where he started to talk about "Regicide" and I urged him not to go public with his thoughts on that since it would bring discredit to the assassination research community.

Not surprised, Tim.

I am obliged to note that "reasonable and intelligent minds" can indeed differ on the "WHO" and "WHY" assassination questions.

Within reasonable limits, that is.

Which is to say, neither space aliens nor Mafiosi nor Cubans sponsored the hit.

But as many as two out of those three candidates likely were involved as facilitators and/or patsies.

Charles

Whether by accident or design, the presentation to Edwards of the Regicide material all but neutralizes the senator as a potential source for assistance in our shared quests for truth and justice for JFK.

This incident carries with it the same stench that emanated from the recent New York Times full page pro-conspiracy (truth) ad.

Charles

So, Charles, is Vincent Bugliosi "cognitively impaired or complicit in the crime"?

I assert that anyone who cannot recognize that reasonable and intelligent minds differ on the evidence needs to come back to reality.

Answer to your question: Yes.

Reasonable and intelligent minds cannot differ on the JFK legitimate evidence any more than they can on the evidence for the shape of the earth.

This isn't "I'm OK, you're OK."

This is war.

Conspiracy in the death of JFK is FACT.

Pick a side.

(Let me guess.)

Charles Drago

Evan,

The only effective -- let alone sane -- way to understand what happened to JFK is to conduct what I've termed a three-phase investigation and to zealously segregate those phases.

PHASE ONE -- HOW was Kennedy killed?

PHASE TWO -- WHO could have done it the way it was done?

PHASE THREE -- WHY did they do it?

The first question has been answered beyond all doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude: The evidence -- medical, eyewitness, earwitness, photographic, and forensic -- in its totality supports no conclusion other than conspiracy.

This is not theory. This is not opinion. This is not belief. This is fact.

And once again, likely to the dismay of some, I must reiterate the mantra:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK case who does not conclude that the president was assassinated by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Answering the second question requires what might best be termed the reverse-engineerings of the hit itself and the cover-up, and the manners in which circumstances were manipulated to make them possible as they went down.

And the third question is put to rest when the motives of those identified in the previous phase are delineated.

Back to Phase One: There is not a scintilla of untainted evidence to support a Lone Nut argument. Those of us who enjoy "reasonable access" to the evidence and who are neither "cognitively impared" nor "complicit in the crime" are honor-bound to countenance no debate whatsoever on this question if in fact the would-be proponent of the LN argument is in a position to know better.

Further, we are obliged to inform well-intentioned newcomers to the assassination investigation that conspiracy in the death of John Fitzgerald Kennedy is established fact. The HOW question has been answered.

I trust this response is in keeping with the spirt of your inquiry.

Charles Drago

Charles,

I cannot imagine disagreeing with RCD about ANYTHING, but your analysis is brilliant and absolutely correct, imho.

Dawn,

Thanks for the kind words. And for the opportunity to re-read my original post, which I find to be rather smug.

I don't pretend to have definitive answers on this or any other complex, challenging issue related to the JFK assassination. When I state that mine is the "only defensible" position vis a vis the Castro patsying question, the "with which I am familiar" is understood.

At least by me.

I remain open to new, conflicting data and interpretations. And the next time I admit to being wrong won't be the first time.

As for the referenced Drago/Charles-Dunne exchanges, all I can add of value is that the experience was enlightening and thoroughly enjoyable.

Charles

To Whom It May Concern:

In order to grasp the deep political complexities of the patsying of Fidel, may I humbly suggest that you read my exchanges with Robert Charles-Dunne on this subject as they recently appeared elsewhere in this Forum.

I remain confident that my explanation is the only defensible position on the issue. Robert disagrees.

To reduce my point of view to a wordbyte: The assassinations' sponsors NEVER intended for the United States to retaliate against Castro. What transpired is exactly what they called for; thanks to the fabricated evidence implicating LHO in an international Communist conspiracy, fingers were pointed at "rogue elements" of Cuban and Soviet intelligence as the guilty parties. Earl Warren's now famous expression of fear that 40 million people could die if his commission dug too deeply into the crime is PRECISELY what the sponsors set out to provoke.

Castro was then, and is now, more important to the perpetual war agenda in his role as bogey man than as a singe mark on a Havana sidewalk.

The JCS and the weapons manufacturers were bought off by the promise of prolonged war in Southeast Asia.

The anti-Castro Cubans who were misled into thinking that the Castro patsying would result in the "liberation" of their homeland either were bought off with cash/and or lucrative employment, threatened into silence, or eliminated.

Long before 11/22/63, Cuba had been replaced as a key component in international drug running schemes (as had the Union Corse), so OC was free to follow the path of least resistance. Or agree to disagree over sausage and peppers in the basement kitchen.

The assassinations' sponsors retained near-full control of assassination events. If they had wanted to obliterate Cuba, it would have happened. Nothing that transpired with LHO -- not his capture, not his incarceration -- would have been sufficient to thwart such a plan if it had really existed.

Charles Drago

Opus Dei is a far from done.

In more ways than one.

For me, third floor "candidates" include Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush, Bush the Lesser ... and those are just the winners.

Charles

John,

Three quick observations are in order.

1. If "follow the money" was Watergate's dominant investigative mantra, then "question the timing" has a similar role to play when one is scrutinizing certain sub-categories of intelligence operations -- notably those mounted within the propaganda rubric.

I may have missed this data, so can you tell us (again?) when and where DiEugenio wrote and published the article?

If it appeared within the past month or so, during the period when controversial analyses, charges, and counter-charges have been focused on the operators and operations of this Forum and have run roughshod through its cyber pages, then a subtle whiff of rodent may be discerned in the air.

2. Throughout his previously published work, DiEugenio has demonstrated third-rate writing skills. Yet the essay you've posted for us is, for the most part, neatly executed. To this writer, the inconsistencies are glaring.

In other words, this does not read as typical DiEugenio prose. So we are left with three choices: 1. He got better; 2. He got a better editor; 3. His sole contribution to the piece is his byline.

3. Or perhaps, in this case, a cigar is just a cigar.

I'll close by revisiting my first observation. It would not be wholly unfair to characterize me as one of the "tormentors" who, in response to Jack White's latest round of difficulties here, took this Forum to task by challenging what remain for me its more problematic, self-defeating policies.

I offer no apology for what I've written. You are strong and principled, and well-intentioned criticism can only enhance your work.

Have I and others helped embolden those who would fatally weaken this Forum's efforts to seek and secure truth and justice for John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

Perhaps.

But look on the bright side. We're flushing them out.

Charles

Indeed, John.

One of the more distressing memories of a rather distressing weekend is that of the wizened lady who then served as chair of the University of Rhode Island's Political Science Department, which sponsored Rahn's JFK assassination and "critical" thinking course.

She evinced not the slightest level of discomfort as Rahn's -- how shall I put it -- inadequacies were revealed.

In another post I noted how Rahn's students were the first to rush to their captor's defense in a classic manifestation of the Helsinki Syndrome. For truly they were held hostage to his deeper, darker agendas.

Another story for your consideration: At the time I met Rahn, he was steadfastly maintaining his intellectual neutrality on the conspiracy issue. His course, he assured me, was most directly concerned with promoting critical thinking and the scientific method.

It wasn't long before he tipped his hand to the contrary. Over a conference-planning dinner, Rahn leaned over the table and in a tone and posture that can only be described as conspiratorial asked, "Can I convince you that Oswald acted alone, Charlie?"

I interpreted his question then as an offer of employment. Nothing has happened since to change my mind.

As for the sort of critical thinking he instills in his hostages/students, I offer the following: One of the undergraduate Rahnoids who presented at the conference argued that, since a national study of ER physicians indicated a low level of expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of gunshot wounds, the observations of the Parkland ER doctors who noted an entrance wound in JFK's throat and an exit would on the president's posterior skull should not be trusted.

The failure of critical thinking here could not be more obvious. The ONLY data base of physician expertise in gunshot wounds that would apply in this case is that of the doctors whose observations are under evaluation.

Rahn awarded an "A" to the little thinker for his powerfully reasoned argument.

And by the way, the taxpayers of Rhode Island paid for all of this excellence in education.

Charles

The default "it was a mistake" position in this case is as ludicrous as the "we all believed intel that turned out to be faulty" post-Iraq invasion lie told by Bush and his fellow gangsters.

Not to mention the "19 cave dwellers got lucky when they chose to do their evil deed on the same day that top secret air defense exercises helped usher them to their targets" B.S.

In order for the nuke transport in question to be explained away as a "mistake," one must accept that multiple layers of security -- not to mention simple piloting skills -- coincidentally broke down at the same time.

I have read no credible evidence whatsoever to suggest that the attacks of 9-11, the justifications for the Iraq invasion, and the events that comprise the subject of this thread reasonably can be attributed to honest mistakes and/or failures -- of judgment or anything else.

Does the term "perfect failures" ring a bell?

Charles

I know him -- all too well.

I co-produced and co-hosted a JFK Research Conference with Rahn in Providence, April 16-18, 1999.

Previously on this Forum I've described, in some detail, his ludicrous conference presentation in defense of the NAA test conclusions used by the WC to "prove" the LN position, and the manner in which, within a matter of minutes, they were deconstructed and thoroughly demolished by Steward Galanor.

In response, all Rahn could offer was a defensive and, as it turns out, disingenuous claim that his research as presented was merely a "work in progress."

To which Galanor responded, "Now just a minute, Dr. Rahn. At the beginning of your presentation, you stated that, in the wake of your definitive paper, the argument that more than three bullets were fired in Dealey Plaza would be finished forever. That doesn't sound like a 'work in progress' to me. May we see your research notes?"

(I'm paraphrasing -- closely. But don't take my word for any of this; audio recordings were made of the entire conference, so ask Rahn for copies. And check with Stewart.)

Rahn was reduced to a grade school ploy. "I left my notes in my other briefcase," he stammered. "I'll produce them for you in the next few days."

To which Galanor responded, "I seem to recall that you used the same excuse at a previous conference. And nothing was ever delivered."

There's more. Much more. But I'll step back until others check in. For now, I suggest that, among many questions begging to be asked, one or more of our correspondents get to possible motivations for Rahn's actions.

Charles Drago

As I say, I'm not sure, 'cause my English comprehension ain't good.

No, your English comprehension is perfectly acceptable. It is your diction that "ain't " that good

I don't think Bill was attacking you - more likely he was attacking Jack who has been communicating the idea through whoever has been daft enough to act as his conduit that he has been banned from this forum.

Thanks to Bill and Andy for clearing that up. I hereby move that this thread now be put out of its misery (death by total neglect). Does anyone second the motion, or is there someone who needs to be attacked first?

Since I started it, may I have the pleasure of throwing the switch?

Charles, to be fair to Mr Tribe, you have mischaracterised the role of teachers, educators much more than he has made any mischaracterisation of your work.(which I don't believe he made any real comment on - excepting and accepting the pied piper remark which was specific to your campaign re: Jack - not your work - and further specific to the masses of political conspiracy forum conspiracies not JFK).

You seem to be unduly precious and sensitive about Mr Tribes posts. Your generalised and unfounded comments on his abilities as an educator are considered slights, delivered in a manner which I feel are out of place on this forum.

I think you have just given a new meaning to diatribe

Hi Gary,

First things first: good line (diatribe)!

Please know that I accept your criticism as constructive and well-intentioned. Nonetheless I'll stand by my critique of Mr. Tribe, one that is based solely upon my interpretations of his commentary herein published.

In essence, I read him as being dismissive of conspiracy "theorists" and patronizing regarding the (non)suitability of, in the case of this Forum, JFK assassination conspiracy studies in our schools.

I know that he wholly mischaracterized my goals, and he unambiguously stated that he would not read my contributions to this Forum even though he ham-handedly denigrates them.

As for my comments on his abilities as an educator: To the degree that he has demonstrated same in his posts, what is there not to criticize? He's just the latest in a long line of naysayers who shout CONSPIRACY THEORY! whenever knowledge and logic are called for.

For what it's worth, this all has gone on long enough. I'm done with this tribe-unal.

Sincerely,

Charles

Well done, John.

The parallels could not be more revealing, the lesson could not be more clear.

Charles

[No doubt a persusal of his posts to the forum -- something I have no intention of carrying out -- would give a more exhaustive list.

Now that, Mr. Tribe, is the definition of scholarship.

At this point, I'm obviously leaving myself open to a strom of abuse from gentlemen such as Mr Drago to the effect that I'm obviously deficient as a teacher in that I don't re-write the entire curriculum to base it solely on the various conspiracies which have dominated the forum over recent years. But the fact remains that most educators are much more interested in the Battle of the Somme, the Nuremberg Trials, Citizenship Education, and so on, than we are in "chem trails" or "faked photos".

My Dear Mr. Tribe,

Your mischaracterizations of my work and goals, whether attributable to ignorance, malice, or a combination thereof, are as grotesque as they are seemingly interminable.

You provide an all-new, 21st century definition of "lost Tribe." And that's where the cuteness ends.

Until so-called educators en masse come to understand and teach the established truths of the Battle of Dealey Plaza and the Clay Shaw trial, and the importance of cynicism, anti-authoritarianism, and independent thinking to the definition of "citizenship," you and your ilk will continue to turn out the precious little humanettes who must at all costs be protected from verbal profanity even as, defenseless, they are profaned by societal masters and their classroom propagandists.

"Citizenship education." Not since "homeland security" has a term more sickeningly reeked of Fascism.

I witnessed one of the ways that young citizens are "educated" by, in my Constitutionally-protected opinion, a propagandist working on the assassins' behalf when I experienced first-hand a certain American university professor in action. I'll share the saddest aspect of it: The undergraduate students in his Kennedy Assassination and Critical Thinking class were first to rush to his defense when his related work -- in particular his "definitive" material in defense of original NAA conclusions -- was revealed to be fatally flawed -- and, I would argue, based upon events as they transpired, deceitfully presented -- at a JFK conference he co-sponsored.

"Stockholm Syndrome" anyone?

Is there nothing else you can do to earn a living?

Charles Drago

Bill,

My point is your savage attacks on Charles are out of line, imo. He is a respected member here, not an 'immoral joker with no regard for the rights of others'. That's an absurd claim.

Mark,

Thanks for your kind words.

The "attacks" you reference may be savage. So too their author. But I am put in mind of Matthew 11:8 -- “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A man dressed in soft clothing?"

No harm done.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to shout **** in a crowded Sunday School class.

Yours in filth,

Charles

Good for Mort!

I'm very curious to read reviews of his recent gigs, and I wouldn't hesitate to experience one "live" if circumstances permitted.

If you hear any reports, please advise.

If that's the sort of fellow you are this should hold your interest for days

I had no idea the character of Basil Fawlty was based on a real person.

Loosen the bow tie, old chum. It's cutting off the blood supply to the ol' noggin.

[Charles,

I do not want to shut you up, thus you have missed my point in much the same way you missed the forum moderators point in not using gutter language in the presence of minors. The 'garbage' came about when you started yet another thread in an effort to bring about attention to a select few who don't know when and when its not appropriate to use bad language. Thats the bottom line!

This whole thing came about over some of you attempting to defend Jack's right to say what ever he damned well wanted to as if because he is 'Jack' - he somehow had earned a right to do what ever he liked in someone else's house. That position is so indefensible that anyone with half a brain and an ounce of moral background isn't going to become involved in such lunacy. Do you think for a minute that Debra Conway needs to have a three forum panel tell her the difference between right and wrong!

None of you jokers who had seen these rules posted had complained or said a thing in defiance about them. It was only when Jack became moderated that you took a position ... a position by the way that is so wrong that you somehow thought you'd strengthen it by posting the 'F' word and then try to pass it off as justified. I can tell you this much ... if someone ever thought they were helping me over my right to freedom of speech by posting the 'F' word on a public forum, then I'd tell them to not bother helping me at all because they haven't the basic common sense to know when they are actually hurting my cause.

Let me ask you this ... Did you ever hear President Kennedy use words like $#it, @$$hole, or the 'F' word in any of his public speeches and if not - just why do you think that was??? If one needs to have others form a panel so to moderate whether or not they have crossed a line or not on a public forum by using such words in clear violation of the forum rules, then it reflects one of two things ... one is that this person never had a good moral standard instilled in them by those responsible for raising them correctly - or that person is just a selfish immoral individual who doesn't have any respect for the rights of others.

I will say this once more because it relates to what is happening here. It is said that the difference between a smart person and a stupid person is that the smart person will eventually know when they are wrong - the stupid person will not! Now I have voiced my opinion and I will let you continue on because there comes a time when one becomes aware that he is not dealing with rational moral individuals if he has to keep trying to find ways to explain why it is wrong for someone to use foul language on a public forum that has minors using it for educational purposes. Like I said before, none of you would attempt to say that garbage in a church in front of your parish, nor would you try and defend such idiocy in a court of law because you would know better. Why you think its defensible here is beyond my comprehension.

Bill Miller[/b]

My Dear Mr. Miller,

You refer to me as an "irrational ... immoral ... joker."

You expect -- not without good cause, I regret to note -- that your attacks will be tolerated by the same moderators who take Jack to task for his use of "obscene" language.

You and yours no longer are of any interest to me whatsoever. God bless you.

Now go away.

Charles Drago