Charles Drago

Thank you, Michael, for your insights.

You wrote: "The Central Intelligence Agency was accustomed to working with, trusting, and in some cases risking the lives of their own operatives to protect people they needed of all races and politics. Perhaps more than others, because of their intimate involvement in the affairs of so many different countries and cultures, they learned early that its not the racial origin of someone that determines their worth."

That the CIA used -- and abused -- human beings without regard to race is beyond question.

I disagree with you, perhaps no more than semantically, to this extent: Racial origins must be factored into evaluations of the psyches of prospective officers, agents, and other human tools. Accordingly, racial origins clearly help determine the strengths, weaknesses, and roles of the tools.

I'd like to explore the possibility of a Morales "double" -- in the broadest, doppelganger sense of the term. If I'm not mistaken, there was another operative of the period known as "The Indian," or "El Indio."

I'll never forget the first time I mentioned Morales's name in public. It was at an ASK workshop session featuring Bill Turner. All I had was a hunch. Gaeton Fonzi was in the audience. During the Q&A I asked, "Mr. Turner, do you know about David Sanchez Morales, and if so, how significant was his role as connective tissue between American intelligence and organized crime?"

Turner looked at Fonzi, whose "The Last Investigation" was just months away from publication. "I don't recognize the name. Gaeton, was Morales important?"

Fonzi nodded. "Very," he said.

Later that afternoon I was approached in Dealey Plaza by one of the conference attendees, who told me that there were two "big Indians" in the mix.

We all might benefit from a discussion of the "other" one.

Charles

I'm most curious about my reaction to the latest published photos of Morales -- and by the way, kudos to Messrs. Morley, Talbot, and Bradford.

To be blunt, I was taken aback by Morales's African coloring and features.

Don't get freaky. Permit me to explain.

I remain keenly interested in Morales's psyche. In a previous post I wondered how he was spotted, recruited, trained, and set loose upon the world. By all reports he conducted himself with a confidence and authority that are rare as hen's teeth -- and at a time when an African-American, or at least someone who could "pass" as such, was a third-class citizen in the good ole U.S. of A.

My thoughts turn to Colin Powell -- another house slave who rose to his most recent prominence on the disenfranchised backs of African-Americans in Florida.

I know, I know: Morales was Mexican and Yaqui. But in the culture of the 1950s and 60s, the distinction between that heritage and African origins was, for all intents and purposes, one without a difference.

How was Morales convinced to work for the oppressor as a prime faciliator of oppression?

Morales was the muscle for the inbred physical cowards who kept and keep his own people enslaved. How was he bought? With what psychic currency?

Is it simply a matter of "build a better mouse trap and a psychopath will beat the world to your door"?

I'm telling you: Get to the heart of Morales, and you get to the heart of the darkness that controlled him.

By definition, he was a tool, not a mechanic.

Charles Drago

No more apologies for double posts that are not the fault of posters.

At a Dallas breakfast before JFK Lancer's so-called Hemming Panel, GPH told Jerry Rose and me that indeed the TSBD team repelled down the building's elevator shaft.

As I recall, Hemming identified the shaft wafters to Weberman as Hunt and Sturgis.

If it indeed was Hunt, after leaving the shaft he apparently went somewhere to the north of the building where he donned a trench coat, to walk calmly across Elm again (photographed in the process), then proceeded to a train car to rejoin Sturgis and switch into tramp's clothing.

This was all part of a plan to make the operation as complicated as possible, thus confounding researchers for decades.

On the TSBD, the Thomas article referenced in another thread has some interesting photos of the inside of the building. I've never seen them before. I wonder where they came from and if there are more.

Ron,

I think you're on target when you conclude that complexity was designed into the overall operation in order to confuse and render impotent generations of investigators and researchers.

However, to shooting team members on the ground (figuratively!) in DP, complexity would equal risk -- unacceptable risk.

The distinction is between smoke and mirrors (quite literally: the cordite clouds on the knoll and the Oswald doppelganger, for two of many pre- and post-shooting examples) on one hand, and no-nonsense protection of the actual hunters and facilitation of their E and E procedures on the other.

An elegantly simple execution insulated by a diabolically conceived and executed complexity of false leads, false sponsors, disinformation ...

Charles

At a Dallas breakfast before JFK Lancer's so-called Hemming Panel, GPH told Jerry Rose and me that indeed the TSBD team repelled down the building's elevator shaft.

Then and now I find the notion laughable. Who controlled the car? Who removed the equipment later? Who would want to enter that enclosed, trap-like environment? Why wouldn't securing a back staircase stand as a simpler E&E method? Wasn't the elevator "stuck" on the second floor ("first floor" for all you architecturally-challenged Europeans)?

Has any mention been made of a search of the TSBD basement?

Charles

Let's be prudently parsimonious as we contemplate possible lines of attack against JFK JR.

In the minds of conspirators, a barametric device -- for the sake of argument -- may have been viewed as vulnerable to malfunction -- perhaps to the degree that one or more occupants might have survived the crash if the explosive was triggered at low altitude or did less damage than anticipated.

Conspirators would have covered their bet by delaying the arrival of S and R assets as long as possible.

Survival time in those waters was measured in not many hours.

To my thinking, the only roles that particle beams and Manchurian candidates play are to keep researchers off track and further taint us with the "nutcase" slander.

At least as far as the investigation into the unsolved murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr. is concerned.

Charles

Another disturbing one-and-out report, aired on a major cable news network on the first morning of the disappearance, indicated that an emergency beacon of the sort with which JFK JR's airplane was equipped had been detected in western Long Island Sound -- in a position that turned out to be over 100 miles from where we would learn the crash took place.

During the earliest, critical moments of the search and rescue operation, then, air and sea assets were directed to the beacon's putative location. But soon the signal disappeared, and valuable resources and time were wasted as a result.

Even the most conservative analysts of the death of JFK JR and family -- especially those who enjoy reasonable familiarity with the manner of his father's passing -- must concede that a diversion designed to misdirect rescue efforts likely would have been part of a John-John murder conspiracy.

Covering bets, as they say.

What my own research tells me about the false beacon story is that such events are not common.

Charles

I'm so cheered by all this rational second thinking.

Terry ... Do you enjoy Big Sur in autumn?

Enquiring Mind

This nasty must have come from the pen of Josiah Thompson. It certainly does not read like something a woman would have written. O'Reilly is tough. Compare my appearances on "Hannity & Colmes", which are also archived on YouTube. Try either http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojY4VF52JJQ...ted&search= (Norman Mineta's retirement was announced the next morning) or

(where I was even able to say they had their "facts Foxed" for the second time).

Several years ago, I had an inappropriate relationship with a woman, who happened to be the Chancellor's best friend. For reasons I still do not understand, she turned on me and I paid for it. I retired several years later, after 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. It was a great career. Anyone who wants to check it can visit http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ for themselves. If Tink was not behind this post, which trades on rather obscure information, I will eat my hat! Someone around here is a pussy, but it ain't me.

Anyone with a serious interest in Bugliosi's book should visit http://www.assassinationscience.com, especially the section entited "The Latest on JFK", which includes a recent piece by Gerald Posner, my response, the H. L. Hunt "confession", a piece I published in THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES, and reviews of Bugliosi's book by David Mantik and me. That might provide a more suitable basis for drawing inferences about my ability to debate the author of this monstrous book than this carefully contrived attack. I would relish the opportunity to confront him in a public forum.

Jim,

Bravo! Don't take this B.S. for a minute! And by the way, you don't owe any one of us an explanation for your personal choices. It is your work alone that is legitimately open to public review.

Regards,

Charles

Absent the serious study of books like Baker's, there can be no true understanding of the case.

Whether positive or negative in nature, these templates MUST be appreciated for what they reveal of the agendas of friends and foes.

Charles

The objective is to have a debate on those issues with leading proponents of both sides of the question. Presumably public exposure to our POV helps advance the case for a conspiracy.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WORNG

The objective is to DENY debate, because the conspiracy question has been answered to the degree of metaphysical certitude.

CONSPIRACY IS TRUTH.

There is NO NEED WHATSOEVER for help as far as the case -- the PROVEN case -- for conspiracy is concerned.

There is GREAT NEED for help in explaining the truth to the conspiracy's surviving victims.

Until and unless we understand this CRITICAL distinction, the conspirators have nothing to fear.

It's CONFRONTATION that we seek.

Charles

This thread should be pinned.

Jack,

I'll go with Lisa.

Then again, there was Homer driving the limo, staring at the Knoll and saying, "Oooh ... hunters!"

Then BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG

Then "Doh!"

You have likely seen Wecht, Marrs and Fetzer in action. If limited to one "debater"

...which of those three would you choose, or would you nominate one I have not thought of?

Okay,

I want to be careful here. Dr. Wecht, Mr. Marrs, and Professor Fetzer have earned our respect many times over. And Jim Fetzer is my friend.

Each would bring to the confrontation myriad strengths and, beyond any question, the courage of his convictions.

But I would pass on all three for a Bugliosi operation, and for reasons relating to my perceptions of their respective abilities to execute the strategy that I favor.

In other words, I don't see these gentlemen as working effectively within the relatively narrow parameters of the confrontation as I -- seemingly alone -- envision it. And I don't think it serves any useful purpose to be more forthcoming.

Right now I'd have to go with Professor Gerald McKnight or Dr. David Mantik, with an ever so slight preference for the former.

But I remain open to suggestions.

Charles

I understand, Jack.

And I'm glad that you share my sense of the need for confrontation.

Yeah, the notion of "debate" is embedded in this thread's title. Which was enough to set this contrarian off!

Just to be clear: I'm not calling for a Chris Matthews-esque shouting match, but rather the deployment of a weaponized hybrid of intellect and emotion, tightly controlled, dramatically rendered, and precisely aimed.

Charles

Well I would not be that confrontational, I am afraid.

Why call someone "intellectually dishonest"?

I would simply show how many facts demonstrating a conspiracy are almost incontravertible and let the audience reach its own conclusions regarding the honesty of one's opponent.

But I do agree that it could be important to engage Bugliosi in a debate or confrontation, call it what you will. This would be a way to do an "end run" around the establishment media so protective of the LN thesis! Question is whether Bugliosi would ever agree to debate?

Tim,

You wouldn't be confrontational???

What the hell happened in Dealey Plaza? A polite expression of political differences?

This isn't the Oxford Debating Society. This is war.

This wizened puppet is a mortal enemy of your country. He defends the regicidal maniacs who killed your president.

Why call him intellectually dishonest?

Well ... If he's rational, and if he enjoys reasonable access to the JFK evidence, and if he yet champions the LN lie, then I for one cannot conjure a more accurate description of the SOB.

Charles

For Messrs. Gratz, Lane, and White:

Thanks for carrying on this important exchange

I wish to be clear on the distinction between "debate" and "confrontation" as I reference it for our shared purposes.

As I've previously noted, the former term carries with it the implication that both points of view under consideration, while oppositional, are equally worthy of respect as intellectually honest positions expressed by rational advocates.

Yet by definition, a ratonal human being who is reasonably well informed regarding the evidence in this case who yet defends the LN position is NOT being intellectually honest when doing so.

Further, and again by definition, such an individual cannot be an advocate for truth and justice in the case of the unsolved (in terms of "who" and "why"), conspiratorial homicide of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Accordingly, a "debate" with Bugliosi would serve only to fortify -- for the culture and for history -- the proposition that the LN "argument" is as likely to be factual as is the conspiracy position.

And again, the prime targets of opportunity for Bugliosi's masters are ... the culture and history.

However ... A "confrontation" with Bugliosi (or Posner, or any of their ilk) that begins with an unambiguous statement of the thoughts and sentiments expressed above and further is comprised of a mixture of unassailable fact, blunt contextualization of the opponent's failings and motives, and mercilessly cutting humor, simultaneously reveals and champions the truth and denies to the liars the high ground upon which they depend for protection: history's level playing field.

Debate? Never!

Confrontation? Until the battle is won!

Charles Drago

The latest would-be heir to Ian Fleming's literary legacy has been named.

Sebastian Faulks is the author of Devil May Care, the new James Bond novel that will be published on May 28, 2008 by Penguin Books (UK) and Doubleday (US).

Faulks' French trilogy (The Girl at the Lion d'Or, Birdsong and Charlotte Gray) are the best known of his novels. The latter was made into a film starring Kate Blanchett.

His most recent novel is Engleby, published this year to some acclaim.

Faulks was a journalist (as was Fleming, who worked for the Sunday Times and Reuters) and the Literary Editor of the Independent.

Early word has it that Devil May Care will present James Bond as an aging and wounded man, whose ways with the ladies have not diminished.

Against my better judgment, I have a very good feeling about this.

Charles

Best choice yet, Michael -- IF Professor McKnight understands and accepts the "stick to the 'how'" strategy.

CD

Fleming factoids:

I think it was Dulles who was a Bond fan who continued for some time to contribute as a irregualar writer for Life? I fairly recently read an early Bond (50's?), the name escapes me, (Casino? Golfinger?) but in it is a statement that '"so and so"(baby?) needs new shoes".

John,

The "baby needs a new pair of shoes" quote doesn't immediately ring a Fleming bell. But since the term is related to gambling and is American in nature, I'm thinking either Live and Let Die or Diamonds are Forever -- both of which are set for the most part in the US and within a criminal and/or gambling milieu.

But Jack ... it remains for us to underscore the simplicity of the "how" part of this case.

Pre-encounter rule setting must include a "'how'-only" stipulation. Every time Bugliosi strays, he gets mercilessly scolded. Hounded. Devastated!

This exchange only incidentally would be about the quality of his research. Demonstrations of the T-3 posterior wound of entrance as fact and how this fact alone proves conspiracy are followed by illustrations of how and WHY Bugliosi CHOSE to get it all so very wrong. That's where you expose his locked-in-1964 stasis and his dark agenda.

Relentless reminders that he is OFF POINT, OFF POINT, OFF POINT will serve to make him a laughing stock whenever he attempts one of his "Why would Castro hire Oswald?" circumlocutions.

The opening statement would be all-important. It would have to include an up-front version of my "conspiracy is fact, anyone denying it is crazy or criminal" premise, followed by anticipation and demolition of the bases of the "arguments" he will present. It also will put him on notice of how straying from "how" will not be tolerated.

Jack, the complexities of this case are many and deep. But they do not extend to the proof we have of "how" JFK was killed.

Conspiracy is open and shut. As someone else accurately posted, a six-year-old could do it.

Charles

Again, if the event's raison d'etre is to demonstrate conspiracy, then two LHO's and Z-film authenticity are irrelevant issues.

All that is needed is a presentation of the physical, photographic, audio, medical, eyewitness, and earwitness evidence proving that more than one assassin shot JFK.

Conspiracy is historical fact. Game, set, match.

Keep to "how."

Keep it simple.

If, and only if, a separate and distinct part of the program is devoted to the identification of likely suspects and motives do any other areas of study become relevant.

This is all about intellectual discipline.

STAY ON MESSAGE!

HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW?????????

(Sounds like a receiving line at a Native American wedding.)

Charles

Peter Levenda goes into greath depth on The Aviary in his Sinister Forces trilogy.

The Fleming canon is riddled with "in jokes," if you will. These references were simultaneously benign (meant to tickle his colleagues and others in the know) and bellicose (signals sent to the enemy camp). Don't doubt for a nanosecond that the Bond books were read closely by the enemies of Fleming's friends -- East and West.

The few "serious" literary analyses of the Bond books (Kingsley Amis's The James Bond Dossier is at the head of a small pack) fail to exhibit anything approaching a sophisticated understanding of the secret milieu from which Fleming emerged and whose ends he often served. Much is made of the fact that the first -- if memory serves -- twelve chapters of From Russia with Love are almost exclusively focused on the innermost workings of the KBG's most secret department. But these reviews are just about exclusively related to the novelistic functions and semiotic meanings of the settings, characters, and operational inner workings.

What message was Fleming sending to Redland (one of his wonderful terms) with his published topographies of its supposedly well hidden territories?

So much to see ... so little time.

As far as the Bond books are concerned, the same view never palls.

Charles

The James Bond novels of Ian Lancaster Fleming invaded my consciousness when I was thirteen years old.

Fleming remains one of the most interesting yet least appreciated (for his knowledge, access, and influence) of Cold Warriors. Many of the Bond saga's plots and characters hint at the depth of their creator's knowledge of and insight into some of the deepest secrets of the period -- some of which are zealously protected to this day.

Take, for example, the KGB assassin "Red" Grant, who stalks 007 in From Russia with Love. In "Granitski," Fleming presents us with a lunar cycle serial killer whose predilections are observed, shaped, controlled, and utilized by what today we would describe as the Soviet's versions of MK/ULTRA and ARTICHOKE manipulators.

FRWL appeared on April 8, 1957!

(Note too that, when Grant assumes the cover of an MI6 officer sent to facilitate Bond's return from the USSR with the LEKTOR coding device, he uses the surname "Nash" -- which is the transliteration of the Russian slang for "one of ours." Fleming spoke Russian.)

Then there's the alliance between Bond/MI6 and the Corsican mob, as depicted in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. One suspects that the affection and respect displayed by 007 for Marc-Ange Draco, putative leader of the Union Corse, was inspired in Fleming by all too real relationships within the secret world.

And what to make of SPECTRE (the Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion -- emphasis added), a private enterprise made up of former intelligence operatives and other criminals that routinely deals in false flag operations and is motivated solely by greed?

A tad familiar, perhaps?

Fleming, of course, was a noted journalist. And so the MOCKINGBIRD warbles and the Mighty Wurlitzer wails throughout his fictions.

We're not surprised, then, that newsman Richard Hughes does indeed equal Dikko Henderson in You Only Live Twice. And John le Carre didn't hesitate to transfigure Hughes into William Craw for The Honourable Schoolboy.

Kudos to Sterling Seagrave and Bill Kelly for understanding the other-than-literary significance of Fleming and noting it in the "Asian Connections" thread.

Sterling: Since you're but a single degree of separation from Fleming, we'd be most grateful for your input here.

you only live twice

once when you are born

once when you look death in the face

-- after Bassho, Japanese poet

Ian Fleming's last words are reported to have been, "It's all been a tremendous lark."

Perhaps it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive.

Charles Drago

All of these exchanges regarding Ian Fleming prompts me to begin a new thread.

Charles