Charles Drago

Myra,

You're right: LeMay is near the top of the facilitator/false sponsor tier.

I recently posted this on the "Curtis LeMay and John F. Kennedy" thread:

Few discussions of LeMay within the contexts of Northwoods and Dallas are fulfilling absent consideration of General Thomas Sarsfield "In the Clear" Power, who succeeded LeMay as CIC of the Strategic Air Command in 1957 and held that office through November, 1964.

When asked, in Moscow, why he declined to pursue the top spot at MI6, Kim Philby responded, in essence, that the number two position afforded the same perspective enjoyed at number one, with the added benefit of operating in the top man's shadow.

Bill Hayden would take this point.

And then there's the matter of Colonel Howard Burris.

I am most assuredly not arguing that LeMay should get a pass. I am suggesting, however, that we endeavor to avoid being blinded by the glare off his brass and to look into what may be obscured by his shadow.

Charles

Peter, et al,

From my 1990s essay, In the Blossom of Our Sins , in which I addressed precisely the phenomenon you describe:

"Are our individual and collective identities symbiotically linked to the roles we play as Kennedy Assassination researchers/investigators/gadflies to the degree that the termination of those roles, a certain consequence of our ultimate victory, is perceived to be tantamount to the termination of the self?"

and

"Not to worry. We can preserve the self and America with it while continuing to play the role of super sleuth in this case. For when, inevitably, push comes to shove, when belief must either metamorphose into knowledge and action or be abandoned, all we need do is scurry backward into our voting booths like light-panicked lobsters seeking the safety of the trap. Nothing sacred will have been damaged."

Nobody on this end of the conversation is laughing.

Charles

Few discussions of LeMay within the contexts of Northwoods and Dallas are fulfilling absent consideration of General Thomas Sarsfield "In the Clear" Power, who succeeded LeMay as CIC of the Strategic Air Command in 1957 and held that office through November, 1964.

When asked, in Moscow, why he declined to pursue the top spot at MI6, Kim Philby responded, in essence, that the number two position afforded the same perspective enjoyed at number one, with the added benefit of operating in the top man's shadow.

Bill Hayden would take this point.

And then there's the matter of Colonel Howard Burris.

I am most assuredly not arguing that LeMay should get a pass. I am suggesting, however, that we endeavor to avoid being blinded by the glare off his brass and to look into what may be obscured by his shadow.

Charles

Thanks Tim.

My apologies, it was not Schiller that I was thinking of that was the intellectual author of the Warren Report. The person I am thinking of also has a germanic name.

I am told that Schiller was the only journalist allowed to interview the Manson family.

John

Forgive the comic relief:

Gilbert Gottfried: "I was interviewing Charlie Manson in the prison cafeteria and he said to me, 'Is it hot in here or am I crazy?'"

And from the same, well, odd perspective: "I was introduced to Jackie Kennedy and I just had to ask her, 'Do you remember where you were when you heard that ... '"

Hemming on why the guv was hit: "He didn't bid high enough."

Hey, I don't write 'em, I just report 'em.

As for Ruby: He was using a pistol and needed to be up close and personal to effect a kill shot -- and to avoid hitting anyone else, which would have put a serious damper on the chances of a judge and/or jury going along with a temporary insanity defense.

Charles

Greg,

The "real" Oswald?

That's precisely the point, isn't it?

I fear that when we refer to the "real" LHO we unwittingly may be referencing the null Lee, null Harvey third alternative -- the fictive LHO.

Or, if you prefer, the character (pro/antagonist) created by the playwright (plotwright?) for the classic assassination drama that so intrigues us -- you know, the one with a second act that ends in Dallas.

Good point on Lonsdale.

Peter,

I'm with you -- especially your call for perseverance.

Charles

We must understand that the actor Bill O'Reilly plays the character Bill O'Reilly on his Fox series. It's a role -- one that doesn't necessarily reflect the player's own most deeply held political viewpoints and appreciations of history.

So ... Who are we trying to enlist in the cause? The actor or the character?

Seriously.

Indeed, Charles. I was going to make the same point until I saw you beat me to it. Fox News is the WWF of Cable News -- lots of flashing lights, bells and whistles, huffing and puffing -- and acting. But I don't think it matters too much if it's BO'R the character or BO'R the actor. It's the message that will determine the worth of the support, whichever face utters it.

The actor O'Reilly plays roles in farces that are produced, written, directed, edited, and distributed by his studio -- 20th Century Fox. He is scripted. He couldn't ad lib flatulence at a garlic festival. And he certainly has not demonstrated either the courage or the talent or the economic resources to produce his own programming -- in the broader sense of "production," of course.

Therefore, the situation is simple to understand: If the actor O'Reilly's studio bosses so decree, the character O'Reilly will strut the stage on our behalf.

If they do not, the actor O'Reilly will not.

Sadly, perhaps,

Charles

Speaking of O.J., Donald Freed's Killing Time is a must-read analysis of the case.

Hail Mary, full of grace,

The Kennedys are in their place.

Father Charles

James,

I'm flying by the seat of my pants here, but didn't Robert Sam Anson write for Esquire? So perhaps it was an excerpt from They've Killed the President that was spiked.

The value of the lesson John would have us learn is almost beyond quantification, and it is one that I've tried to impart, from podiums and via the written word, to JFK researchers over the past two decades.

That COPA and JFK Lancer repeatedly stage overtly competing conferences in Dallas on and around November 22 -- and that the need for such events never goes away -- dramatically illustrate how and why a factionalized herd remains a predator's dream.

When, from a Lancer podium some ten years ago, I called for the group to end the madness and make a peace overture by, in essence, establishing a Fair Play for COPA Committee (my friend Ian Griggs laughed so heartily he nearly wet himself), a Lancer principal responded with a tearful indictment of the evil competitors and their dastardly deeds.

Nothing changes.

The lions win.

Charles

Especially when the leather couches smell familiar.

We must understand that the actor Bill O'Reilly plays the character Bill O'Reilly on his Fox series. It's a role -- one that doesn't necessarily reflect the player's own most deeply held political viewpoints and appreciations of history.

So ... Who are we trying to enlist in the cause? The actor or the character?

Seriously.

The lions are still in therapy.

File this under "I Knew If I Waited Long Enough ... "

Mr. Purvis and I are in lockstep:

"My thoughts would be that one should first put together a panel of ABSOLUTE forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical science experts, and first off determine exactly how JFK was killed."

Indeed.

Charles

Oh Tim,

And just who knew that LHO was "working for the US"?

The question is criminally simple-minded.

Can you even tell us who/what the "US" is?

The intelligent question: Who knew that LHO would make the perfect patsy because of his involvement (to varying degrees) in such Top Secret operations as a false defector program, the manipulation of liberal religious and academic institutions for intelligence purposes, U2 radar control, RFK, FBI and/or CIA-run anti-Castro provocations, etc. etc. etc.?

See answer below.

Or was it something like this, perhaps offered at a Murchison cocktail party: "You know that guy Lee? Or is it Harvey? The one makin' it with my nephew? Well anyway, he claims he's a spy. Why don't we use him as the patsy?"

Answer: By definition, the self-correcting power structure self-corrected in Dealey Plaza.

Until Tim can offer informed definitions of "government" and "power structure" as the terms relate to reality (as opposed to civics texts), this entire conversation is pointless.

As for the cover-up: The answer to the question, "Was the cover-up conducted by the same people who ordered the killing of JFK, or by individuals who took no part in the assassination but who, for various, in some cases perhaps even noble reasons, saw fit to keep the truth from the American public?" is ...

Wait for it ...

Yes.

Charles Drago

Charles wrote:

Again, the logic is unavoidable: "No one wanted her dead" is an entirely nonsensical response to the question, "How did Diana die?" -- the sort of riposte commonly offered by those who would do all in their power to make certain that such queries are never seriously investigated, let alone answered.

Logic seems to have been avoided in the above if one is to opine that a supposedly accidental death was really an assassination and not having anything but circumstantial evidence that that was the was a reasonable motive needs to be proposed.

Charles wrote:

The decision by Mohammed al-Fayed to turn over a substantial segment of his investigation to a certain American attorney "seasoned" in assassination research and litigation amounted to a major setback for the grieving father's efforts to discover the true circumstances of his son's death. In my Constitutionally protected opinion, of course.

I refer to attorney Mark Zaid

I agree even when I thought you were referring to Mark Lane.

Len,

I'll address the two points you've made in response to my posts.

1. Perhaps this speaks to the basic and, I'd say, irreconcilable difference in our respective world views: You reference "a supposedly accidental death". Initially, the only basis for one's "supposition" that the tunnel deaths were "accidental" in nature is one's acceptance of the authority of the state that makes the claim. To be so trusting, one must remove investigation of Diana's death from all political and historical contexts relating to regicide in general and 20th century political assassinations in particular.

Further, to defer to the state, one must eschew impartial examinations of the crash itself and relevant pre- and post-crash circumstances in favor of the assumption of a debunking posture toward all reasonable objections to the official story.

By definition, in our lifetimes the violent deaths of political figures demand, if not the presumption of foul play, then at least investigations informed by, among other factors gleaned by the study of previous similar events, recognition of the significant probability that the parent state's version of events may be ... flawed.

I repeat: No sensible investigation of the "how" of Diana's death can be concerned initially with the "who" and "why" questions.

Put another way: How does the ostensibly reasonable observation that it is highly unlikely that a large group of EMS personnel were involved in an assassination conspiracy help us to answer the question, "Was the delay in getting Diana to hospital consistent with SOP"?

If we reasonably determine the answer to that question to be "no," then -- and only then -- should we move on to ask "Who caused the atypical delay and why was it caused?".

You seem to argue that, "Since it is unreasonable to assume that a large group of EMS personnel were involved in an assassination conspiracy, it is senseless to investigate the nature of the medical treatment Diana received on the scene and en route to hospital.

This posture, I'm afraid, is itself without sense.

2. At least we agree on the Zaid issue.

Charles

He also spent time working for a Hartford TV station, where he was "helpful" to Professor Evica in covering JFK-related stories.

Charles

Kathy,

The jogging agent was Henry Rybka.

Charles

I still await even ONE evidentiary basis for asserting that any employees or agents of the U.S. power structure were involved in the conspiracy. I suspect the ol' devil may need to get himself a nice warm winter coat before that happens!

One of many, in the form of an author's conclusion reached after researching one of the most important, well-documented, and groundbreaking analyses of the assassination and its larger context: A Certain Arrogance, by George Michael Evica:

"Whoever directed the Oswald [assassination] Game was thoroughly knowledgeable about both the OSS's and CIA's counterintelligence manipulation of Quakers, Unitarians, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed clerics and World Council of Churches officials as intelligence and espionage contacts, assets, and informants."

Read the book.

Case made.

And in the spirit of full disclosure: I wrote the Introduction.

I originally posted the above in Tim's "Time's A'Wastin'" thread. He references it here with: "We do have the recent post by Mr. Drago re the book by George Michael Evica--that I still need to research."

In the meantime, perhaps we all would benefit from the definition of the "U.S. power structure" as Tim perceives it.

For the record: Tim telephoned me for the first and, to date, only time earlier this week. The call was unexpected, and other than exchanges on this Forum it represents the only direct communication between us. We chatted about his experiences in Rhode Island, and made what can only be described as "small talk" about the JFK matter. I found Tim to be polite, engaging, and respectful.

Further, and to be blunt, I find Tim's premise for this thread to be almost unimaginably wrongheaded. In order to maintain his position, he must dismiss the scholarship of the likes of Peter Dale Scott, the aforementioned Professor Evica, Gerald McKnight, David Wrone, David Mantik, Vince Palamara, Gaeton Fonzi ...

And no, I am not presenting an argument from false authority. The authorities I cite are beyond reproach.

Simple naysaying, I'm afraid, does not a counter-argument make.

This sort of exchange is, well, problematic. I am not in a position to challenge Tim's motives for instigating it.

Charles Drago

And what of Oswald Lewinter?

Hmmm ... The "Oswald" part requires no further commentary.

Then there's Milady de Winter, Cardinal Richelieu's spy in The Three Musketeers.

Let's see ... three musketeers ... the knoll, Dal-Tex, TSBD ...

Oswald Lewinter ... about as subtle as Buck Naked.

Bemused,

Charles

The decision by Mohammed al-Fayed to turn over a substantial segment of his investigation to a certain American attorney "seasoned" in assassination research and litigation amounted to a major setback for the grieving father's efforts to discover the true circumstances of his son's death. In my Constitutionally protected opinion, of course.

Need I be more specific?

...

Um, yes.

Please and thank you.

I refer to attorney Mark Zaid.

Based upon informed analyses of Mr. Zaid's positions on the JFK assassination and personal observation of his intellect and maturity under pressure and in real-time (in Dallas, especially during exchanges with Peter Dale Scott), I am of the opinion that he is, at best, a dupe.

In Mr. Zaid's favor: Perhaps, over the past decade, he has come of age. But given his abject failure to advance his London client's case -- at least to my knowledge -- there is little evidence to support such a hypothesis.

Mohamed al-Fayed eschewed the services of more capable, experienced counsel (in the broadest sense -- such as David Wrone, Gerald McKnight, George Michael Evica, and the aforementioned Professor Scott, for examples; I have no idea if any were approached or, if asked to help, were willing to get involved). In so doing, he in essence brought a knife to a gunfight.

Charles

Mr. Carroll,

Be well, and God bless you.

Charles Drago

The decision by Mohammed al-Fayed to turn over a substantial segment of his investigation to a certain American attorney "seasoned" in assassination research and litigation amounted to a major setback for the grieving father's efforts to discover the true circumstances of his son's death. In my Constitutionally protected opinion, of course.

Need I be more specific?

Mr. al-Fayed's operations have been penetrated from the very beginning.

Charles

I still await even ONE evidentiary basis for asserting that any employees or agents of the U.S. power structure were involved in the conspiracy. I suspect the ol' devil may need to get himself a nice warm winter coat before that happens!

One of many, in the form of an author's conclusion reached after researching one of the most important, well-documented, and groundbreaking analyses of the assassination and its larger context: A Certain Arrogance, by George Michael Evica:

"Whoever directed the Oswald [assassination] Game was thoroughly knowledgeable about both the OSS's and CIA's counterintelligence manipulation of Quakers, Unitarians, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed clerics and World Council of Churches officials as intelligence and espionage contacts, assets, and informants."

Read the book.

Case made.

And in the spirit of full disclosure: I wrote the Introduction.

Charles Drago