Charles Drago

Since excessive speed (approaching 90 MPH at or near the time of impact) is a key element in the official story of the crash, the MB damned well better be wrecked.

Yet did not more than one of the earliest witnesses at the scene describe a car that had sustained only relatively minor damage?

I've read that the instrument known as the "jaws of life" was used to extricate some of the victims, and this powerful tool can mangle the sturdiest of automotive bodies.

Paul, I'm not familiar with reports of the car being on its roof. Can you provide a reference?

If true: When might the car have been flipped?

Another, seeminging unrelated question: Earliest witnesses (paparazzi) also reported that "emergency personnel" were at the crash site when they (the witnesses) arrived -- which is to say, mere minutes after impact. Who were these people?

I have my own scenario for how the deed many have been executed -- from security stripping to a decoy limo-and-motorcycles caravan deployed to confuse witnesses. But it's only that: ill-informed if imaginative speculation.

For now.

Charles

The incidents I'm about to describe took place during a late 1990s winter visit to London in the company of my two dearest friends, a physician and an attorney who are brothers.

Day Two -- Happenstance: During an otherwise splendid walking tour of the Inns of Court, a member of the group approached and stood just a few feet in front of me, where I was certain to notice him. He was a short fellow in a black-and-red patterned parka. He had short-cropped, dark, greasy hair and wore a backpack. As we moved on, this character abruptly left us.

Day Three -- Coincidence: The physician and I were at the Tower of London (not the record shop in Piccadilly; the other one) waiting for the first morning tour to begin when, lo and behold, the same little fellow walks over to us, stops just a few feet away, and after less than five minutes of making himself obvious, saunters off. At that point I informed my companion that this was the second time in two days that the creep had appeared -- identically clad and encumbered, by the way. Later that evening, over dinner at the marvelous Cibo, I informed the attorney of the coincidence.

Day Four -- Enemy Action(?): At approximately 5 PM the three amigos, in the company of literally hundreds of Londoners, enter a tube station near Trafalgar for the ride back to our Earl's Court flat. So there we are, jammed into one of what had to be a 10-car train. We're standing near the door. And guess who steps through at the last second and makes a point of standing close to me?

I catch the eye of the physician and nod my head gently in the direction of Parka Man. And I watch my friend's eyes widen in amazement. Then his brother takes a look. Same parka. Same backpack.

Parka Man disembarked at the next stop.

So ... What are the odds?

Enemy action?

Charles

And I always use the term "Texas theater" to describe the entire weekend.

John is right; the most recent edition is the best.

For the record, there was at least one intermediate version, published as a ring-bound, 8 1/2 by 11 inch volume and with additional material.

Robert and Peter,

I must take issue with Peter's flattering assessment of my word "weaving" insofar as I consistently fail to make my points clearly and unambiguously.

I never intended to suggest that "the masters" (oh dear; I have only myself to blame for the ongoing use of this sci-fi term) were opposed to the use of nuclear weapons in all circumstances. The N-attacks on Japan do indeed support the notion that, under controlled conditions -- which is to say, absent the threat of retaliation in kind -- the dropping of an atomic bomb remained a viable option in the closing months of WW II.

It was fear of an uncontrollably escalating nuclear exchange that the you-know-whats were hellbent on avoiding.

The maintenance of East-West tensions at the highest controllable levels was, and is, the name of the game.

Thank you for the link, Robert, from which this paragraph stands out:

Admiral William D. Leahy, President Truman's chief of staff, opposed the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. So did General Dwight D. Eisenhower. As Leahy wrote in his memoirs, "[T]he use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender….n being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

I suspect that Admiral Leahy voiced the majority opinion of his peers when he offered his professional judgment that the A-bomb was of zero help to the war effort in late summer, 1945. The counter argument, then, was no more or less than a cover story, one utlized to obscure the greater, deep political reasons for the attacks.

Whose deep agendas, then, were served by the destructions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Peter, we do indeed disagree. There was immense profit motive behind the decisions.

Who profited?

Charles Drago

OK, I'll play.

Lets firstly set this event in its historical context. A question.

In your view,What was the reason for Diana's assassination. Another question.

What party/Parties (a) planned it, and ( carried it out. and lastly.

Why did the murder take the form of a "road accident"

If speculation is all you have please speculate away.

Kathy, I'll ask again. Is it your contention that the ambulance crew that treated Diana were part of the conspiracy.

If we are to make a serious effort to understand how Diana was killed -- an effort that in large measure is informed by what we've experienced during, and learned from, our investigations of the JFK case -- then these questions must remain unaddressed until such time as a plausible, evidence-based assassination argument can be presented.

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.

And no, I most certainly do not place Steven in that category.

Some immediately valid questions regarding the emergency crew that treated Diana and the procedures they utilized:

Was the long delay in transporting Diana to hospital consistent with standard operating procedure?

Who summoned emergency services?

When did the ambulance arrive?

Who were the members of the crew? What can we determine about their respective backgrounds? Any intel and/or criminal connections? Degrees of experience with auto wreck victims? etc.

Also:

Were emergency personnel unrelated to the ambulance crew on the scene before the ambulance arrived? Before paparazzi arrived? Who summoned them? Were they identified?

What sort of equipment was necessary to remove Diana and Trevor Reese Jones safely from the wreckage?

Who removed them? How long did the process take?

Were Henri Paul and Dodi al-Fayed declared dead prior to removal from the limo? Were their bodies accessible to emergency medical evaluation prior to removal?

How does the condition of the MB as it was transported from the tunnel on a flatbed compare to the limo's condition immediately post-impact?

If the answers to these and hundreds of additional relevant questions posed as part of the investigation of how Diana died support a preliminary conclusion of foul play, then -- and only then -- should we move on to the kinds of questions posed by Steven.

Charles Drago

Mr. Colby,

We aren't even close to justifying a "whodunit" or "whydunit" investigation of Diana's demise.

First we must address and satisfactorily answer the "howdunit" question.

And that question, I submit, remains open.

We must not conflate these areas of inquiry -- at least not at this stage of the game.

Is it reasonable, you may ask, to question the "how" of Diana's death?

Based upon what we know to date: quite reasonable indeed.

Charles Drago

Right, so now the ambulance crew are part of the assassination

Lets see, Royal family, MI5, MI6, French secret service, Paris coroners office, French health service, Diana's body guard, and other assorted bogymen to numerous to mention. Did I miss anyone? I hear Elvis is alive and well, and living it up with Hitler in Argentina. I have no time for our "Royal family" and quite frankly wouldn't put much past them, I have no doubt they heaved a collective sigh of relief when the Queen of hearts snuffed it, but this wild baseless speculation is little short of preposterous.

Steven, et al,

Have we learned nothing from our labors on the JFK case?

Before we start dismissing conspiracy in the death of Diana based upon an assessed unlikelihood of participation by the suspects of the moment, let us focus exclusively on the "how" of the event under scrutiny.

After all, do claims that space aliens whacked JFK take anything away from, say, David Mantik's destruction of the SBT?

Charles Drago

Robert,

You have nothing to apologize for -- at least to me. As I have written more than once, my respect for your thinking is great indeed. And surely you'll agree that there are more similarities than conflicts in our respective appreciations of the pre-assassination patsying of LHO.

We even share the sense that there is little more to gain from additional iterations of our differences on this topic.

So where does this leave us? I'll accept your apology even as I reiterate that you've done nothing to offend me. I've thorougly enjoyed and deeply benefited from our exchanges. And in the event that I've crossed the line in any of my responses to you, then I too apologize.

Yes, we respectfully disagree.

And I must add a few more thoughts of my own.

Again you write, "Only Oswald's absence could have allowed the employment of all the evidence manufactured in advance, including the flight from Redbird and the 'Oswald' luggage 'found in Mexico City."

And again I fail to understand why an officially supported story of the intent of a murdered-by-Ruby Oswald to flee to Cuba via Mexico City would not have served the invasion justification purpose just as well.

The conspirators concoct an Oswald confession in which he acknowledges his fealty to Fidel -- a chimera to which any number of compromised DPD officals and other "witnesses" lend convincing endorsement with their "eyewitness" testimony.

You add, "Moreover, Charles' insistence that nobody in a position of power would dare to court the threat of a nuclear exchange between the US and the Soviets, and that the threat of same was used to gain the compliance of all who might have yielded to the temptation to track the evidence to the very end of its string, likewise ignores numerous historical precedents."

Now we're much closer to understanding what lies at the core of our differences. I've readily conceded that many powerful individuals of the period not only would so dare, but did all in their power to bring about a nuclear exchange that they were convinced was "winnable."

However, I am suggesting that, then as always, power is relative. These individuals, I would argue, were overpowered. And simultaneously bought off. They were given JFK on the slab, their Viet Nam adventure was greenlighted, their drug sources, partners, and networks in Southeast Asia were protected, and a neutralized (by, among other means, the threat of one day being identified as the sponsor of the assassination) Cuba was left in place to scare yesterday's hot dogs and apple pies out of Johnson's willing executioners.

And if none of that was enough to convince them to give up the invasion of Cuba business ... Well, the lesson of Dealey Plaza surely was indelible.

Writing about precedents, you argue, "In Viet Nam, Kennedy assigned to CIA a variety of tasks. In some instances, CIA tossed a few token, face-saving measures in the direction of the White House, in order to feign compliance with his instructions; in other instances, they simply disregarded his direct orders as though they had never been received, as seems to have been the case with the Diem assassination."

And I counter with my understanding of the CIA as neither monolith nor prime mover, but rather as a multi-compartmented, factionalized, hierarchical instrument of policy change. This is key: CIA is not a "what," but rather a "who".

You go on to note, quite cogently, "[For a] more relevant instance, vis a vis a nuclear confrontation between the superpowers, let us recall that at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, one Maurice Bishop directed his underlings in the Cuban exile movement to directly disobey the President's wishes. Based upon the evidence provided by Antonio Veciana, we know that Bishop - whom we must assume was CIA, whether or not he reflected the Agency's wishes - not only disregarded Kennedy's admonitions against Cuban exile raids against Cuba, he did so in order to treasonously provoke precisely the nuclear confrontation that Kennedy wished to avoid."

Then you ask the logical question: "How can we reconcile Charles' insistence that nobody was nuts enough to foment a nuclear war, and that this threat was used to pressure all and sundry into compliance with the coverup, with the historical fact that General LeMay and others like Bishop were only too happy to incite actions against Cuba; not necessarily nuclear, but nuclear if deemed necessary?"

Your history lesson as offered above is quite on the money.

But then you seem to suggest that this Bishop fellow and LeMay were acting on their own initiatives. Or were they doing the bidding of "the CIA" or "the military" respectively? Or was "the military" taking orders from "the CIA," or vice-versa?

Of course there were many nut jobs eager to go to war. I've never questioned this fact. But nuclear war was and is the last thing their masters would desire or allow to take place.

No profit motive.

And just who are these "masters" I so frequently reference?

I don't know yet. But their presence and influence and power are palpable throughout this story.

Finally, and for the record, when you note that, "I wish only to eventually live up to Dr. Scott's prediction and meet the challenges it presents," I can respond only with my informed opinion that you more than most remain quite up to the task.

Regards,

Charles Drago

So where is David Morales?

Likely, in the dry earth.

And Barry Seal?

Hmmm ...

But if the former set up his own faux demise, he sure did lay the groundwork thick and well. And the long line of official cars at the funeral made it all the more ... official.

My opinion: The Morales to whom we commonly make reference is dead.

I have my doubts, as did Mary Ferrell, about Seal.

But who am I to say?

Charles

Tim,

You've hit the nail on the head with your selection of tense:

"It was the Havana-to-Florida drug smuggling funnel that was coveted more than anything." (emphasis added)

Of course I would add, "by powerful factions within the 'facilitator/false sponsor' level."

Back to tense: Can you imagine any international conglomerate worth the name that would not have had contingencies in place should its most valued business asset suddenly become compromised?

The "Havana-to-Florida drug smuggling funnel" was such an asset. So too were the Corsican middle men. But when it was decided to eliminate the latter in favor of more direct and profitable dealing within the Golden Triangle, the former became expendable.

Cuba had been ceded to JFK's world view. Its only values were as a bogeyman and as a false sponsor of the assassination -- the component that would insure the highest level plotters' security.

Southeast Asia could not and would not be lost.

Charles

You can prove more than that, because I can, and your knowledge of this case is in the top 5 percentile.

Charles

This is an easy one, Cliff.

Do you recall JFK noting shortly before the finale that, while indeed there were plotters in the weeds, there was no need to worry. "The Secret Service," he reportedly said, "have taken care of it."

Leaks happen. That's why we have plumbers.

How brilliant, if initially counter-intuitive: To significantly minimize you target's protection, flood the system well in advance of the real attempt with rumor upon rumor of assassination teams in place -- and not just in one city. In other words, cry wolf. Force the target to say, in essence, "What am I supposed to do, live in a bunker?"

Charles

Bonner's volume is second only to Nerin Gun's Red Roses From Texas in terms of its fair market value.

The latter, in NF condition, demands twice as much as IOAH.

For clarification: I am aware of multiple "abort team" fables.

Also, my "detonate explosive charges" material is offered not as references to actual occurences, but rather as illustrations of two -- of many -- possible means of aborting the assassination that could have worked if the intent of such an operation was to save the president's life even at the expense of the lives of some of the mechanics on the scene.

Another possibility: Fire weapons behind the fence at 12:15 PM in such a manner as to abort the motorcade's passage and make certain that the abort team's E&E from the scene was facilitated.

And Cliff, the fact that we note substantive disagreements in these exchanges by no means limits their value or the enjoyment of the process.

Best,

Charles

Paul,

We are on the same page.

I for one am most keenly interested in JFK's journey, if you will -- his intellectual growth and spiritual evolution.

Certainly the latter phenomenon does not lend itself to quanitfication. And I suspect that, for large groups of materialists and moral relativists, use of the term doesn't pass the laugh test.

Nonetheless, an appreciation of the words spoken by JFK at American University on June 10, 1963 -- one enhanced by a comparison with previous public pronouncements (for fine example, his inaugural address) -- reveals to me a flowering mind and liberated spirit undergoing metamorphoses that no force on earth could hinder.

But that tiny pieces of base metal projected at high speed could banish from our shared plane.

Charles

Cliff,

Abort teams?

Detonate hidden explosive charges via remote control at Love Filed as AF 1 is landing, or in the middle of DP at 12:15 PM.

No motorcade.

Follow up with behind-the-scenes hang-outs.

No black wall monument in DC.

The entire Abort Team myth doesn't pass the laugh test.

Charles

I think President Kennedy was well beyond liberal and even beyond progressive.

He was positively revolutionary.

Three words: American University speech.

Talk about being out of the mainstream.

Furthermore he was out of the mainstream on pretty much every subject or issue.

And the mainstream was crawling with fossils and fascists.

As David Talbot said:

"He is still a man ahead of his time."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...35905-4,00.html

A revolutionary idealist.

I suppose there never will be a time for someone like that.

I wholly agree.

Charles

Cliff,

This last was a cogently argued hypothesis but with, alas, a fatal flaw:

"Perhaps the assassination had two major sponsors ..."

By definition, there had to be one and only one sponsorship group of singular purpose. Based upon an understanding of basic human nature and an appreciation of the peculiarities of the powerful, I submit that substantive conflict at the highest level of the plot simply never could have existed.

Now I fully accept that there were cross purposes among those who operated at what I term the "facilitator" level (including "false sponsors"). These conflicts, I'd say, were desireable to the true sponsors insofar as they contributed to the post-assassination cognitive dissonance experienced by honest investigators.

At the top: All of one mind.

Again, my hypothesis, one that I'm wholly prepared to rethink should the occasion arise.

Best,

Charles

Maybe it was all the doing of the Collie Cartel.

[i am with you Ron in believing the key link is Cuba. However, I have problems with the last paragraph. You seem to be suggesting that the original conspirators covered-up the evidence linking the assassination to Castro. The record shows that this was the work of LBJ, Hoover and Dulles. I am not convinced that these are the same people who organized the assassination. LBJ and Co covered up the assassination, not because they organized it because they did not like where a full-investigation of the assassination would go. If the same people organized the assassination and the cover-up, the US would have invaded Cuba.

John,

My problem is with the near-universal referencing of "the conspirators" and/or "the original conspirators." The terms are all-encompassing, vague, and simplistic, and their endless applications are, in my opinion, ultimately detrimental to our shared efforts to discover truth and effect justice.

I don't have the temerity to suggest that the three-tiered conspiracy structure that I postulate has been demonstrated to be an accurate depiction of reality. But I maintain that, as we move the focus of our investigative efforts (on this forum, at least) from the established "how" (conspiracy) to the questions of "who" and "why," we must come to some concensus regarding the design of the plot.

At further risk of being labled a nitpicker (or a nit-something else, I fear), I offer this: In my informed (I can but hope) opinion, the same people conceived of and sponored the organization, or grand design, of the assassination and the broad contours of one of their vile, brilliant creation's most important components -- the cover-up.

We are in lockstep agreement that "LBJ and Co" directed the cover-up. We part company here: In my grand design hypothesis, however, they did not possess, singularly or in the agregate, either the power or the authority or the chutzpah to defy the conspiracy's prime movers -- for whom they labored, to whom they reported, and, like JFK, at whose pleasure they served.

Hence I most respectfully and utterly disagree with your statement, "If the same people organized the assassination and the cover-up, the US would have invaded Cuba."

Instead: Since the same people conceived of the assassination in all of its elements, including the cover-up, ordered its facilitation, and possessed the power -- indelibly demonstrated in Dealey Plaza -- to eliminate opposition to their plans, the US invasion of Cuba could not and indeed did not take place, according to plan.

Either that, or "LBJ and Co" thumbed their collective nose at the forces that destroyed JFK, and as a result suffered not the slightest negative consequence.

Charles Drago

Can you honestly imagine that they would choose to exercise what George Bernard Shaw termed "the most extreme form of censorship" on President Kennedy, simply in order to remove the leader of a tiny nation?

Certainly not. If anyone has argued that here, I missed it. The goal of the assassination was to get rid of JFK. Unless it was arranged as some kind of "accident," they would need a patsy. Castro was the ideal patsy, for blaming him could spark an invasion of Cuba, killing "two birds with one stone" to use that phrase once again.

The U.S. military was dead serious about getting rid of Castro, as all their false flag proposals called Operation Northwoods starkly show. But that was not the purpose of killing JFK. Getting Cuba back would be a bonus, but JFK was going to die no matter what.

Once they planned to make Castro the patsy, it meant that the assassination had to be brutal and bloody, the work of a Castro hit team that would enrage the nation. Oswald was the secondary patsy, to seal the deal by being exposed as a shooter who then was to flee to Cuba.

It makes perfect sense to me, and certainly seems the most likely purpose of the sheep-dipping of Oswald, the plane out of Redbird, and the whole bit. I think they panicked a bit when Oswald was taken alive, as it eliminated all the post-assassination evidence they had planned to use against him and Castro. They decided that the American people, guided properly by the media and their new, saddened president, were dumb enough to accept Oswald as a lone nut.

Ron,

Oh, never mind. Agree to disagree.

Hasten the day that we know for sure.

Charles

Put this post in the "Correspondents' Privilege" file.

I must add the following postcript to my most recent, lengthy, and allegedly "final" serve to RCD.

He wrote, “Having gone to all the trouble to lay on this patina of superficially compelling evidence of Cuban complicity, why wouldn't there have been an invasion? It's a gimme; two for the price of one … And yet you maintain, without providing the slightest evidence for the assertion, that all of the above details were purely intended for a private audience, to frighten them into compliance with the coverup, and would never have found a broader audience.”

Two points in rebuttal:

1. The plot's sponsors went to the trouble of ordering the laying on of the "patina" which you reference to insulate themselves from incorruptable investigators. This was the sine qua non for their self-preservation. All formal, parent state-sponsored inquiries had to be stopped at the LN point, and the only way to do that would be to convince the honest searchers -- who from Day One would have had clear-cut evidence of conspiracy in hand -- to stand down and endorse the LN lie for the greater good of the country and indeed all of humanity. Nothing short of the threat of nuclear war could have made this happen.

2. You too, sir, make the leap from knowledge to supposition "without providing the slightest evidence for [your] assertion." Your "invasion called off" hypothesis is no more or less valid than my "no invasion intended" position. They are, at best, best guesses -- interpretations that say more about their respective proponents, perhaps, than about anything else.

Okay. It's raining at Wimbledon and I'm heading for Anna Kornakova's locker.

Charles Drago

Veazie Street Elementary School, room 309, Miss Gaughan, sixth grade.

I might add that the decision to scuttle the Castro-did-it scenario in favor of the lone-nut scenario was made hastily that afternoon as a result of Oswald's arrest. By evening Johnson was calling the authorities in Texas to tell them that "you have your man." In hindsight, after they had time to think about it, the plotters may have regretted this decision, thinking in Drago fashion that portraying Oswald as a Castro agent could have worked irrespective of Oswald's arrest. But I think they made the "right" decision under the circumstances.

They should have called me.

Hey, I was only 11 years old, but a precocious 11!