Charles Drago

Damn it! Enough is enough!

Stop this ludicruous exchange. They're winning.

Colby is a waste of time.

Ask yourselves: Who does he influence?

No f***ing one at all!

His mission is not to influence, but to distract.

All he can do is distract you.

Think of all the other ways your energy devoted to this nonsense could have been put to use.

He and his ilk can win only if we concede that they're in the game.

Colby and his ilk are cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Peter especially -- Stop it.

All others, too.

Unless, of course, you believe that all the serious work is done.

Charles Drago

Charles,

I believe two shots were fired at Kennedy from within the presidential limousine. The first hit him in the throat, struck his spine, and lodged in a lung. The second entered the left temple and exited from the right rear of his skull. I believe the wound in his back was a post-mortem fabrication. Ditto the entrance wound in the rear of his head. Hope that clarifies.

Paul

Thank you, Paul.

FYI, one of the most respected and brilliant of the so-called second generation researchers shares your belief regarding the back wound.

I agree, Jack.

But again: All I did was ask for clarification. No flying babies around here.

Signed,

Curious

Gentlemen you may be right about Paul's theory being wrong. But I am glad he opened up a thread so novices might understand the direction of the bold face pot shots. If you disagree please take up a similar thread that makes your argument, which I assume is that the Z-film was not altered?

I'm all ears and my mind is as open as a windsock in a small midwestern airport!

Hold it! The "Gentlemen" is troubling.

Please do not conflate Mr. Miller's comments with my own.

I simply ask Paul to clarify his position.

Charles Drago

Paul,

So I'm clear: You write that you are "an unrepentent in-car shootist ... "

Unrepentent and, to me at least, obtuse.

Am I to understand that you are of the opinion that at least one shot was fired at JFK from inside the presidential limo?

No judgment intended. Just want to know.

Charles

I learned a long time ago that the wrong attachments lead to heartache.

I've wondered the same thing. How can they not know the royals killed their mother, and how can they not care?

Myra,

Why not ask Caroline, Joe, Kerry, Bobby, Jr. ... ?

Why can't we ask John, Jr.?

Why was accessory-after-the-fact to murder Gerald Ford awarded a Profile in Courage lantern?

Why did U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy publicly declare that Castro killed JFK?

Why is Kerry McCarthy sent to Lancer research conferences?

Blood may be thicker than water, but it's thinner than Flav-r-Ade.

Sadly,

Charles

U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy is on public record with his belief? knowledge? that "Castro killed [his] uncle."

This in spite of the fact that he previously had been told by a REDACTED ... or perhaps because of the fact that a REDACTED offered to open the kimono to PK during the congressman's freshman year.

I almost committed an indiscretion.

Charles

But I want to marry Craig!

I'm pretty sure we argue so much because we're actually attracted to each other.

Pardon me while I poke out my mind's eye.

At least he's not a Dixon.

Depending upon the severity of your dental problems, a mason's skills just may be required.

'I guess I do have to offer it again: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the murder of JFK who does not conclude that the act was the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. How would you propose to deal with such people?"

I am a CT as well. I love(d) President Kennedy, and even thinking about him and what he represented, moves me to tears. Our loss, as a nation, and further of the entire world, of the influence and thoughts of this great man carries on to today, and it is heartbreaking to think what we could've been... What a loss!!!

And yes, I want it solved....

BUT

I believe Mr. Simkin started this Forum to allow all the freedom to debate, and not be quashed for speaking one's mind. I am 100% behind him on this. For allowing one side to have a venue, and not the other, is not freedom.

For "us" to be able to create a thread that "they" are banned from, in all fairness, it would be essential, for "them" to create a thread "we" are banned from.

Kathy,

We're at an impasse.

"Fairness" in this case is unwarranted.

All is fair in love and war.

Charles

Myra,

Royalty?

Me???

I know we're concerned about the same subjects, but really ...

Let's not allow Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to pit us against each other.

If we do, they win.

If we won't, they're dead.

Prince Charles

Let's dump the title Charles.

You're a far better person that the actual Prince Charles so it doesn't do you justice.

Lady Myra,

You are welcome at court day and (k)night.

Just Plain C.D.

"I do relate to your sentiments on it being a War......but one we are forced to wage on debating teams."

Peter: No, no, a thousand times NO!

Who forces us to debate that which is known to be factual?

Only the ignoramus and the criminal.

NO MORE CONSPIRACY DEBATE.

Conspiracy education? By all means. But read aloud:

NO MORE CONSPIRACY DEBATE.

Because for the conspirators, DEBATE EQUALS VICTORY.

Charles

Charles,

I have a great deal of respect for you, and am asking with sincerity:

My responses in red.

Thank you for your kind words. I have no doubt that you are a sincere and committed person.

Why would you want them banned from a thread w/regard to their beliefs, leaving people who disagree the entitlement of posting? Is not the purpose of a public forum a back and forth debate?

I propose to ban Gratz, Colby, and Lamson (and perhaps a few others) from but a single thread: The one dedicated to analyzing their numerous comments posted freely elsewhere.

Unfair? You betcha. But this isn't a debating society. This is war.

Who is doing the "informed analysis"-- the parameters of such a thread would allow anyone to post there who wasn't "them"

Correct. Even their defenders would be welcome.

What I'm proposing is a work in progress. It may prove unmanageable. But I think such an experiment is worth the trouble.

As to your statement that "they" are winning I submit to you "they" did not start this thread, nor the one before. Their philosophy(ies) are now one of the major discussions on the PC thread. Perhaps this is what you are saying--that it should not be a personal topic, but done as a group effort, and bringing this into the limelight is not conducive to discrediting their claims.

Let me be direct: Casting light on their possible tactics and motives is precisely what the thread I'm proposing will do. And it's precisely what needs to be done.

I think that if you truly want to win, and others as well, that it would be paramount to your quest to "know your enemy". You then have his MO, and can respond or choose not to. The less he is allowed to speak, the less you learn about him.

I agree with you that a non response would stop any further progress in an discussion, but to educate others, this may not be the best way.

You're repeating my position. These characters will be free to post elsewhere, and I sincerely hope they continue to do so. What we learn of the enemy will be the subject of the proposed thread.

Remember, that this is a largely read forum, and its purpose is back and forth debate. It's not just for us, which is why it is critical for both sides to participate.

Kathy, the "side" the argues for no conspiracy is unworthy of respect beyond that which is afforded to a powerful enemy -- in this case, an enemy of truth and justice.

The conspiracy/LN question has been answered. Definitively. Or as one former Jesuit from Rhode Island might say it, "to the degree of metaphysical certitude." Need I repeat my basic position here -- one that I've just about done to death elsewhere?

Someone may counter with "but he is a disinfo agent, blah blah blah." My question is then 'Does everyone who disagrees with the person presenting the argument automatically become a disinfo agent merely because they disagree with the presenter?" You can say "No", but I say from what I've seen here, that many would says "Yes". If our opponent doesn't agree, we can attempt to discredit him personally and get a group of fellow discrediters behind us, and actually, I ask you---who really looks bad when this occurs?

I guess I do have to offer it again: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the murder of JFK who does not conclude that the act was the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. How would you propose to deal with such people?

Hope this helps.

Charles

A noble goal. Not easy at times after years of repeated attempts to derail, neutralize, stall and othewise thwart threads by a few. Ommmmmmmmmmmmmm

The frustration, Peter, is born of the level playing field afforded to the enemies of truth.

What I'm suggesting is anything but fair and balanced. Those in a position to know the historical truth of conspiracy in the death of JFK who nonetheless wilfully deny it are nothing more or less than targets of opportunity for us. I include in this category the sappers who, in order to infiltrate our lines, falsely claim to acknowledge conspiracy.

You know who I mean: the "mob did it" and "Castro did it" squads.

And let's not forget the Geraldo Brigade: "I believe the Warren Commission got everything wrong except its conclusion," said their leader from somewhere deep within Al Capone's vault.

So ... Let's not argue with them.

Let's expose them.

Charles

Friends -- and Others,

They're winning.

Unless ...

If we don't engage in a direct exchange, they huff and puff and choke on their own venom.

Their sounds and furies are performed to empty seats.

We have the most serious business imaginable to conduct. All of this is an immense waste of resources.

Unless ... Let us use them as the enemy attempts to use us: Listen carefully (not respectfully) and attempt to gauge by their behaviors the larger perceptions and fears and goals (of their masters).

Why not create what in political campaigns is called an "opposition research" file on these characters? Copy their posts to a thread so named -- and from which they are banned -- and invite informed analyses of the portions of the larger picture they inadvertently reveal.

For us, it's win/win.

Can we do this? Should we?

Charles Drago

Myra,

Royalty?

Me???

I know we're concerned about the same subjects, but really ...

Let's not allow Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to pit us against each other.

If we do, they win.

If we won't, they're dead.

Prince Charles

Friends,

I'm not comfortable with the efforts to silence Messrs. Colby and Gratz.

Are they and their posts fair game for our best efforts at analysis? Absolutely.

Are our suspicions regarding their origins and intentions well founded? I have every reason to believe so.

By all means let's hold their feet to the fire.

If they turn out to be agents provacateurs, then we'll deal with them appropriately.

But they won't be gagged in my name.

So there's no mistake: I find their respective intellects to be unimpressive and their motives to be as suspect as they are transparent. Yet I have no choice but to defend to the death their shared right to express themselves.

As negative templates, they are invaluable.

They do us no harm.

Post away, my boys.

Charles Drago

Less than an hour ago (as I write at 10:09 PM Eastern Time on Saturday, August 25), Geraldo Rivera revealed, on a Fox television special, a previously unseen B&W photo of Princess Diana, Dodi Al-Fayed, Henri Paul, and Trevor Reese-Jones allegedly shot through the windshield of the MB moments before the crash.

The driver's eyes are wide open, seemingly in surprise or in involuntary reaction to a flash of light.

The French physician and the vacationing American couple who were on the scene within a minute or so of impact and who were extensively interviewed at the time of the incident once again appeared to share their recollections. None of them reported that the MB was on its roof.

The Americans, however, did note the presence of "a police officer" already on site who was attempting to keep paparazzi from approaching the car.

After Rivera's program, Fox commentator Greta van Sustern (of O.J. Simpson fame) hosted her own hour-long Diana special. She interviewed Dodi's butler, who claimed -- and this is new to me -- that he was in telephone contact with his boss's regular chauffeur at the time of the crash. Allegedly the latter called to report that Dodi was dead -- a fact of which he was certain because he was holding the deceased's hand in the tunnel.

The beat goes on.

Charles

Hi Charles :

You seem to have many questions pertaining to the other film....

You have asked

""Is Mr. DellaRosa being truthful -- to himself and to us? Or is he a victim of creative memory. Or a xxxx?

From what I know of the man, I am persuaded to take him at his word.""

So I take it that you neither, have ever bothered to you go to JFKresearch.

Join and ask the man for information, that perhaps others would also contribute..to..

Instead of on another forum of which he is not a member..

The answers you seek are not to be found here and imo will not be forthcoming...

No one speaks for him....or any of the others...

B....

Greetings, Bernice,

I hope you haven't misinterpreted my post. I have great respect for Mr. DellaRosa, and I endeavored to make this point when I noted that I am inclined to "take him at his word."

You're right to this degree: Rather than take pot shots and make even well-intentioned guesses vis a vis his own writings and the contents of his forum, we should take the time to read the work for ourselves.

And yes, I have a number of questions relating to the "other" film.

An interesting angle: I'm aware that Dr. David Mantik claims to have traveled to Paris with the hope of seeing the footage, only to be denied access at the eleventh hour.

Coincidently (?) enough, less than an hour ago (as I write at 10:09 PM Eastern Time on Saturday, August 25), Geraldo Rivera revealed, on a Fox television special, a previously unseen B&W photo of Princess Diana, Dodi Al-Fayed, Henri Paul, and Trevor Reese-Jones allegedly shot through the windshield of the MB moments before the crash.

The driver's eyes are wide open, seemingly in surprise or in reaction to a flash of light.

Charles

My recollection -- and it very well may be faulty -- is that an earlier colorization of the image had HHM holding some sort of optical device in front of his face.

I may be thinking of Tom Wilson's work, but I can't shake the memory of the hard hat and what one interpreter labeled the "range finder" in his hands.

Does anyone else remember such an image?

I remain convinced that Dallas was the one true ambush, and that, once the unalerted motorcade had turned onto Elm Street, it was "go" at any costs.

The period of ultimate risk for the assassination's sponsors was, I submit, the time between "Green!" and the final fussilade.

If JFK survives, the arms of Orion twist askew.

If the shoot is called off at the last second ...

Try, try again.

If a head is blown off ...

Crack that magnum of Romanee Conti '52, darling. We have much to celebrate.

Use the '35 for cooking.

Charles

Jack,

One more thing: The figure characterized as "Hard Hat Man" who stands to the left of "Badgeman" is interpreted to be holding some sort of viewing device in front of his face.

Allowing for argument's sake that this is a real figure, and accepting that high tech electronics and other devices are in the hands of "authorities" a decade or more before they're allowed to trickle down to consumer configurations, might HHM be shooting the film seen by Mili, DellaRosa, Reymond, et al?

Or ... If in fact there is a "cameraman" in the Nix film -- or elsewhere ... might not a weapon have been neatly concealed within a relatively large camera housing?

Inquiring minds ...

Charles

Charles...Mili saw the OTHER FILM at either NBC or CBS in New York, not Time-Life.

Rich saw it on three occasions. William Reymond saw it numerous times in France

where it was known as the H.L.Hunt version. Greg Burnham saw it once; there are

two others whose names I cannot recall. It is unlikely that six persons could be wrong.

The independent memory of all these persons coincides. Mili told me her story many

years ago before I heard of the others.

Jack

Yes, Jack.

You're correct; Mili told me that it was at CBS that she saw the alternate film.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that such an artifact exists. Two questions come immediately to mind:

1. Why was it made?

2. Why has it been shown to a small, vocal group?

Everyone: I have my own answers, but I'm most eager to learn your own.

Charles