Charles Drago

Not me. Jack has been shown time and time again to post blatant mis-information and outright dis-information. Talk about an agent provocateur. Of course understanding this requires people who are intellectually honest. Do you qualify Drago?

Man, what stinks in here?

Somebody crack a window!

Dawn,

By all means, why don't you clear this up for us?

Charles

To Whom It May Concern:

Jack White is a hero to all who struggle for justice and truth for John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

That Jack often finds it difficult to control his passions should be appreciated as being indicative of his courage and his commitment to that cause.

Treating with collegiality the agents provocateurs who, in the service of the enemies of truth and justice, stalk these cyber pages is an unforgiveable offense.

Apparently the commisars of this Forum would sooner publish politely phrased attacks on the truth than emotionally phrased defenses of the truth.

Jack deserves emeritus status -- and the attendant privileges derived therefrom -- on the JFK Forum.

Absent Jack's free and unfettered access here, let men and women of good conscience boycott the JFK Forum.

Who stands with me in his defense?

Charles Drago

To Whom It May Concern:

Jack White is a hero to all who struggle for justice and truth for John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

That Jack often finds it difficult to control his passions should be appreciated as being indicative of his courage and his commitment to that cause.

Treating with collegiality the agents provocateurs who, in the service of the enemies of truth and justice, stalk these cyber pages is an unforgiveable offense.

Apparently the commisars of this Forum would sooner publish politely phrased attacks on truth than emotionally phrased defenses of the truth.

Jack deserves emeritus status -- and the attendant privileges derived therefrom -- on the JFK Forum. Who stands with me in his defense?

Charles Drago

Who financed Hitler?

Who benefited from Hitler?

Who made Hitler possible?

Hitler did not emerge from nothingness.

World War II was NOT just. And it is not over.

Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not murder.

THOU SHALT NOT SEEK A DISTINCTION!

Those who ordered the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are indeed war criminals.

So would be many of the instigators and accomplices.

Agreed. Including those members of the military who were "just obeying orders."

Do members believe that Nazi War Criminals should have been executed?

Was it right to execute Karl Brandt? Should his body have been used for scientific experimentation? Was Brandt right to compare his crimes with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

John,

No. Not even Hitler, had the opportunity existed.

No one. Ever. For any reason.

Obviously, then, "no" to Brandt question one. Ditto for two.

Those who ordered the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are indeed war criminals.

You is or you ain't.

The Geneva Conventions are themselves abominations -- or, if you prefer, war crimes -- insofar as they make palatable the ultimate crime itself.

War.

Charles

Or was it all a message: Now you know that we know that you know ... ?

It's almost (cough) enough to make one suspect that, in terms of the "evidence," conflict and not resolution was the conspirators' goal.

Conflict with its attendant cognitive dissonance and polarizing qualities, that is.

How do the few control the many?

By keeping the many at each others' throats.

Charles

With Miles Davies

Miles Davies -- A great favorite of Lee Harvey Oswield.

Great catch.

Incidentally, on friend Stone, are you aware that he made a rather thorough investigation into the story of Santa Romana et al?

David

I am not, sir.

But I have a most urgent interest in this matter insofar as it overlaps with a major creative project on which I'm hard at work. Can you be more forthcoming -- with the knowledge that I'm not in a position to reciprocate (at least not for a while)?

Feel free to PM me.

Thanks.

Charles

Ed wrote: "Marina told me, 'I was a woman with two husbands '."

Robert Webster told someone I know and trust that he "was married to Marina Oswald."

The "when," "where," "why," and "for how long" questions were not posed by my friend, a health care worker who once dealt professionally with Webster, and who possesses only the most rudimentary knowledge of the JFK case.

The exchange occured many (if pressed to guess, I'd say at least 15 - 20) years ago. I have not spoken with the source since 2002.

FWIW

Charles

The answer:

Yes.

For whatever they're worth, David, I'm glad to add a few thoughts.

Cinematic storyteller George Lucas owes his unquantifiable material success to his decision to work with Joseph Campbell during the earliest stages of the Star Wars franchise's development.

The deeper one's understanding of universal myth and archetype, the more developed one's abilities to translate that understanding into mythic storylines that in turn may be dressed in all manner of superficial garb, the more likely one is to capture the imaginations of those seated round the campfire -- regardless of their cultural origins.

(Phil Woods, the greatest living jazz saxophonist [sonny Rollins is beyond comparison] and a good friend, put it this way: "Play 'September Song' beautifully, and you can make a Pygmy cry.")

Whether we're considering the "dead king myth," as you reference it, or the hero's quest, or any other primal storyline that has evolved and otherwise grown, in terms of complexity and velocity toward the godhead, in lockstep with the development of the human brain, the manipulations of these tales by gifted artists cannot be overestimated for their powers both to enlighten and control mankind.

As I've referenced in previous posts, my friend, mentor, and occasional writing partner George Michael Evica was first to understand the JFK assassination plot as a dramatic construct (no time now for details, but it's all there). I agree, and I'd further argue that the durability of the Lone Nut absurdity may be attributed in equal measure to the brilliantly poured mythic/archetypal foundations of its storyline and the imprimatur of the mother-state/storyteller.

Okay. Get a grip, Charles.

Oliver Stone was spot-on when he described JFK as a "counter-myth" to the Warren Report. It's really quite simple.

So art, and art alone, will propel us with sufficient power to reach our common destinations: truth and justice for John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

But wretched prose cannot be endured.

Best,

Charles

And JFK was a drama based on two non-fictional books.

Now Bugliosi's "non-fictional" book on JFK will be dramatized, ala Stone's movie, and we will have to see how many liberties the screenwriters take with the facts.

And I appologize to all the Bozos out there who were insulted by my associating them with TG.

BK

Bill,

JFK was indeed informed by Jim Garrison's and Jim Marr's respective non-fiction volumes. But in the final analysis it was fiction, replete with composite characters, wholly imagined scenes, plots and sub-plots, sub-texts, story arcs, character development, and all the other elements of drama.

Bugliosi's book purports to report facts, but is in fact concocted of untruths.

Now we must bear in mind the critical distinction between untruth and fiction.

The screenwriters will take not a single liberty with the facts for the simple reason that the story they would dramatize is fact-free. I'm still unclear as to the format of the mini-series. Will it be a drama or a documentary? Will an actor portray the noble Bug as he bravely pursues the truth? Or will what we see more closely resemble, say, Ken Burn's upcoming War?

Make no mistake: The killers of Kennedy fully understand the unique powers of art to set fire to our imaginations and, by extension, manipulate the masses over the long haul. In the Bug mini-series they are consciously attempting to create an anti-JFK. Remember, it's all about balance. It's all about the illusion of a level playing field on which the conspiracy/LN "debate" may be continued ad infinitum (nauseam?)

A generation or three from now, when someone trots out Stone's film, a xxxx or a dupe will counter with the Bug B.S. And the point will be, "See, honorable, informed people can disagree."

Yet we know that, in terms of the conspiracy/LN issue, honorable, informed people cannot disagree with the truth of conspiracy and maintain their honor.

I repeat: Bear in mind the critical distinction between untruth and fiction.

And by the way, I prefer "Clarabelle."

Bill,

Here's the problem with your point of view: Oliver Stone's cinematic fiction JFK led to the ARRB.

In other words, it accomplished what 30-plus years of academic research could not bring about.

Art alone has the power to stir the heart, to provoke the emotions absent which intellectual discourse cannot reach the human soul.

John Le Carre was asked why he never addressed the Kennedy assassination in a novel.

"It's too difficult," he is said to have responded.

Maybe for Mr. Cornwell.

This being said, every JFK assassination-related novel I've read to date (and I don't include Delillo's Libra in that category) is either junk literature or stretched past the breaking point (McCarry's The Tears of Autumn).

But we're not done.

Charles

The Norse God of Thunder comes to earth, finds the sexiest human woman on the planet, and for 24 hours he makes constant, powerful, uninterrupted, supernatural love to her.

When it's over, the woman is barely able to speak. "You're amazing, I've never known a man like you."

And the God says, "I must speak the truth. I'm not a man. I'm Thor."

And she says, "You're thor? I won't be able to thtand up for a week!"

Hear/recite this joke in a heavy French-Canadian accent.

Jean and Claude are in the Yukon. It is snowing heavily and there is nothing to do. They are bored.

Jean, he say to Claude, "Claude, why not we play a game, Twenty Questions?"

Claude say to Jean, "Jean, how we play this game?"

Jean say to Claude, "Is easy. I think a thing in my head, I no tell you. You try to guess the thing in my head by asking me questions I can answer 'yes' or 'no.' Sound like fun?"

Claude, he nods and says to Jean, "Okay you think a thing in your head and no tell me, then I guess."

So Jean, he thinks and thinks, and finally he decides on moose penis.

"Okay," Jean says to Claude. "I have a thing in my head. You try to guess."

Claude, he says, "Okay, Jean. This think you think in your head and no tell me. Is this thing a thing you can eat?"

And Jean, he thinks, Well, I suppose if you are lost in the Yukon and shoot a moose, and all the other parts you eat and only that is left and you still are hungry, you could eat this.

So Jean says to Claude, "I answer your first question, yes; this thing I think in my head and no tell you, you can eat it. Ask your next question"

And Claude says, "Is it moose penis?"

Last year, the World's Dirtiest Limerick Contest was won by Sister Mary Theophane, of the Saint Aloysius Orphanage in Davenport, Iowa.

She traveled to Ireland to receive the First Prize cheque of 100,000 pounds at the annual Filthy Limerick Convention. There, before thousands of the filthiest, she took the stage, hand outheld.

"Congratulations, Sister," the host said. "I know all of us are wondering why a woman of God would enter this sort of contest."

The winner replied, "Our orphanage is in financial crisis. I did it to save the children."

After a round of hearty applause, the host said, "Okay Sister, whenever you're ready, recite the winning entry and the check is yours."

At which point Sister's face turned crimson. "But I can't say it!" she cried. "I could barely bring myself to write it."

"You know the rules," the host responded. "You have to deliver the Limerick or you don't get the money."

Sister began sobbing, the crowd was mortified, and finally the host hit upon a compromise. "Sister, why don't you just hum along over the filthiest parts and say the least offensive words? Deal?"

Sister nodded, regained her composure, and said, "Alright. For the children, I'll give it a try."

The crowd became silent. The air was electric as Sister began.

"Da dum da dum da dum,

"Da dada dee da dee dum,

"Da dada dee da, da dada dee da,

"And they shagged in a river of xxxxe."

(And I cleaned that up!)

A blind inmate walks into a bar.

... a quick visit the home of Francis Urquhart, one time incumbent of 10 Downing Street, and a kindly donator of all his worldly goods to the flagstones beneath the tower of the Palace of Westminster ...

David

I'll be next door at Bill Hayden's place.

The resemblance is ... uncanny.

Charles

Thank God for Bill Paxon and that this project is on.

Just what we need, Ten Consecutive Weeks on TV,

long enough to keep it in the public mind and

remind them about the still sealed records.

And everytime there's something in the media about this show

is an opportunity to respond in kind.

This will keep the media wars going for at least another year.

BK

Bill,

I share you sentiments to a point.

But keep in mind that Bugliosi, Posner, and their ilk are weapons aimed at history -- which is to say, at future generations who are most likely going to gain their appreciations of history from sources that bear the imprimatur of mainstream respectability.

Remember that it is the imprimatur of the mother state alone that supports the LN lie. Absent such sponsorship, that absurd concoction would not have endured for 44 seconds, let alone 44 years.

So let's not kid ourselves about the nature of the game. Our generation is a lost cause in terms of JFK/MLK/RFK/Iraq, etc. etc. etc. But who gives a flying how's-your-father what we know?

Our common demographic is ... beside the point.

Fear for our children, and theirs, and theirs.

And so our mission is clear.

Charles

Guy runs into a dentist's office, says, "Doc, you gotta help me. I think I'm a moth."

The doctor says, "Why did you come in here? I'm a dentist."

Guy says, "Your light was on."

I had an uncle who thought he was a chicken.

We would have had him institutionalized, but we needed the eggs.