Charles Drago

How many participants in the LBH fight have you interviewed?

How many assassins of Caesar did Gibbon interview?

How many times did Sandburg interview Lincoln?

I have been cautioned more than once on this Forum that you are an elderly gentleman who served his country with bravery and honor, but who today has little to do but fulminate against the unfairness of it all. "Go easy," is the message.

(I'm reminded of the "Playboy" cartoon of some years back in which a wizened Hitler sits in a rocking chair on the veranda of a jungle plantation. His cheeks are flushed, his fists are clenched, drool spills from the sides of his mouth.

Behind him is a massive SS bodyguard, his eyebrows raised in frustration as he says, "Please ... it's all been over and done with for years.")

Mindful, then, of your age and national service and the ravages of each, I state gently that, as far as the JFK murder is concerned, you appear to me to be just another in a long line of disinformationalists (intentional or not I cannot say) -- sort of the Fred Leuchter of the JFK set.

Your fatally flawed arguments from false authority and the infrequent nuggets of truth around which they are based and on which they depend for support -- key elements in all disinformation -- thus are tolerated.

That's all.

Have a wonderful day. Be careful on the stairs. And don't go getting all exercised, especially just before you eat.

Charles

To paraphrase Gandhi's response to being asked what he thought of Western civilization:

American independence? It would be a good idea.

Unceremoniously,

Charles Drago

Gene,

I've read worse descriptions of the territory we would explore.

Not to mention at least one other earthly area so labeled

The best guidebook(s) so far: Peter Levenda's Sinister Forces trilogy.

Charles

" 3. [D]id JFK become the target by direction, or did LHO decide to take it upon himself (for whatever reason) to make JFK the target. [sic]" (emphasis added)

Finally it all becomes clear.

Mr. Purvis's baseline, that is.

Why not go for another, equally well-reasoned and likely possibility, this one best expressed in the form of a fictional newspaper headline found in an alternate universe where LHO survived and went to trial:

"'Didn't Know Gun Was Loaded,' Oswald Tells Jury"

Charles

The Brewster-Jennings operation was blown when Plame was outed.

So too were agents being run by Plame and others under the WINAC umbrella -- most notably those looking into nuclear proliferation in general and related Russian/former Soviet actitivies in particular.

As Bud Fensterwald used to preach: Every intelligence operation worth the name has at least two objectives. In this case: "do" Joe Wilson and disrupt WINAC ops.

Bottom line 1: At this stage I'm merely engaging in connect-the-dots exercises -- the kind that, on few occasions, lead to important destinations.

Bottom line 2: Hypothesis -- When the decision was made to "out" Plame and, as an unavoidable consequence, blow her networks, it was not done in ignorance of her work. Whatever she was up to was deemed by the traitors in the White House (and elsewhere) to be either insignificant or too significant.

I'll argue for the latter description.

Bottom line 3: The Rich/Libby/Plame-as WINAC operative connections are too ... well ... rich to be ignored.

Charles

Let's put on the SCUBA gear and dive deep ...

The names "Scooter" Libby and Marc Rich have been bandied about quite freely over the past two days, especially by neocons and their mouthpieces arguing that Bush's commutation of the former's jail time sentence is no different -- and perhaps even more noble -- than Bill Clinton's full pardon of the latter.

They should be careful.

What they dare not tell you is that Libby represented fugitive financier Rich dating back to 1985 (although the representation ended in the spring of 2000).

From a March 2, 2001 CNN story: "'There are no facts that I know of that support the criminality of the client based on the tax returns,' [Libby said].

"Libby then said prosecutors from the Southern District of New York 'misconstrued the facts and the law' when they prosecuted Rich.

"'(Rich) had not violated the tax laws,' said Libby.

"At a later point, Libby said he thought Rich was a traitor for his company engaging in trades with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages. 'I did not condone it, I didn't advise it, I don't admire it,' he said."

From other news accounts of the period: Rich was intertwined with BCCI. Terrorist Abu Nidal's so-called "link man" for the BCCI accounts was an Arab based in Iraq named Samir Najmeddin. Throughout the 80s, BCCI had set up millions of dollars worth of letters of credit for Najmeddin, largely for arms deals with Iraq. Qassem later swore in an affidavit that Najmeddin was often accompanied by an American, whom Qassem subsequently identified as the financier Marc Rich.

Cut to the attack ostensibly on Valerie Plame.

Were the motives of Cheney, Libby, et al restricted to issues relating to the cover-up of their contemporary war crimes and the political ramifications thereof? Or was there a deeper motivation?

Plame's cover outfit, Brewster-Jennings and Associates, was the creation of the CIA's Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control.

When Bush and Cheney take the fall ostensibly for the Plame outing, we'll know that they're doing so to cover up a crime even more hideous than the war crimes of Iraq.

Charles

If the community was so inflamed about JFK's lack of action against Castro, then why wasn't the same energy directed against LBJ (who sponsored far less in that regard)? I think this comparison speaks volumes about other motives, and participants, far different than simply anti-castro Cubans.

[

Agreed, Mr. Kelly, in a most hearty fashion.

Charles

P. S.

To anticipate the question:

Just who do I recognize as the enemy?

The bastards trying to kill us.

Charles

James,

Most significant. Many thanks.

My instincts vis a vis DSM direct me to the origins of his secret world persona. This all leads to some very dark and little understood areas.

Traditional talent spotting within the hidden realm, as we've come to understand it from scholarship and informed fiction, tells only half the story. Likely subjects for turning and burning (via various forms of blackmail, for instance -- honeytraps, etc.) and the efforts to do so fall on the material or prosaic side of the equation.

Spotting malleable psyches (or, for some of us, consciences or even consciousnesses) is another matter.

Were the reasons behind DSM's rejection for service flagged by/for a spotter looking for that rare combination of sociopathy, physical endurance, and mental acuity?

Nurture v. nature ... here we go again.

Or is it even deeper?

Find the mechanisms and its mechanics who spotted, recruited, trained, and aimed DSM, and you find a wormhole into the heart of darkness.

Charles

Ken,

Sincere thanks for reading and being inspired to comment upon my earlier post.

Alas, you chose to take what some wags would term a CinemaScope view of it -- one in which width is more important than depth.

I don't have the time or temperament right now to go into detail, so what follows will have to suffice:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK murder case who does not conclude that the act was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Conspiracy in the death of JFK is the truth. Countless lives -- today and in the future -- depend upon the defense and dissemination of that truth

In my Constitutionally protected opinion, "Folsom" (the quotes are justified, I'd submit) and his/her ilk are conscious enemies of the truth. If we protectors and seekers and proselytisers of the truth allow them to be perceived as bringing to the table a point of view that somehow is respectable ... we lose.

You're right about this much: I am in fact "encouraging the kind of disrespectful dialogue that the forum moderators are trying to stop at this very time." But be precise and note that my targets are the enemy.

Sometimes we're engaged in polite debate and civil discourse.

Other times we're in battle.

"Folsom" is the enemy. He/she deserves nothing but ridicule and contempt, and will receive nothing but ridicule and contempt from me.

Hope this helps.

And by the way, let's allow Mr. Lemkin to speak for himself, shall we.

Charles Drago

double double post post sorry sorry

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the response.

As for Winslow's "questionable" nature -- agreed.

But if I'm reading you correctly, I must take grave issue with this statement from your preceding post:

"And like your friend GME [George Michael Evica] and others, he [Winslow] went from COPA to LANCER and hurt COPA as much as possible."

George Michael did not "go from" COPA to LANCER in the sense that he abandoned the former to embrace the latter. In point of fact, COPA saw fit to reject more than one Evica proposal/abstract (for reasons that cannot be discussed without violating a long-standing "do no harm to fellow seekers of truth" pledge), at which point he got the message and took his important and ultimately well received and published business elsewhere.

Further, and more significantly, I am not aware of a single instance in which George Michael consciously endeavored to "hurt" COPA or any of its principals. During more than one LANCER conference, he and I attempted to counterbalance much of the anti-COPA feelings that were obvious among certain LANCER leaders.

We went so far as to state during respective LANCER presentations that a factionalized research community, as evidenced by dueling Dallas conferences, plays into the hands of the enemy.

I vividly remember calling from the podium (to a packed, pre-keynote house) for LANCER's creation of what I termed (tongue firmly in cheek) a "Fair Play for COPA Committee."

Before the evening's speaking program ended, I received a tearful, melodramatic, public scolding from a LANCER bigwig for daring to make such a suggestion on LANCER's dime, so to speak.

My most vocal and impassioned defender through it all?

George Michael Evica.

Hope this helps.

Finally, in re the USMC investigation, our sources are in fact indentical.

Charles

In the JFK case, ONLY ONE FACT IS CERTAIN. The president's head was

struck by gunfire on Elm Street in Dallas on 11-22-63 at about 12:30 as

he was riding in a limousine, killing him.

Any "fact" beyond that cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jack

Jack,

Let the record show that I harbor the utmost respect for you and for the totality of your contributions to truth and justice.

Let it also reflect the vehemence of my disagreement with your statement as quoted above.

In collegiality and friendship,

Charles

Charles B.,

Check the alignment of the stars. Are the arms of Orion askew?

We are in agreement!

The only mystery surrounding the Carcano is why the conspirators would have chosen to link what for all intents and purposes is a non-functional weapon to LHO.

A few likely solutions come to mind:

1. A "message" was being sent and more false sponsors tainted: Sam Cummings and Interarmco were linked to worldwide Carcano sales. Linked to Cummings are ...

2. In line with Peter Dale Scott's multi-phase conspiracy scenario, competent, uncorrupted investigators would detect conspiracy before the echoes in Dealey Plaza faded. The third phase -- the lone nut fiction crafted to mollify the public AND give shaken officialdom a fallback position -- would be enhanced by the proposition that the dumb-lucky nut in question pulled it off with such an inferior weapon.

So, Charles, if there is a mystery to be discerned in the Carcano, you are right to state that it has NOTHING to do with whether or not that particular weapon was used in the Kennedy shooting, but rather with the conspiratorial subtext of its ostensibly counter-intuitive choice as the LN's instrument of regicide.

Charles Drago

Carcano experts, please chime in.

If I'm not mistaken:

1. There was a clip.

2. It was designed to drop from the rifle after the last round was chambered (fired?).

3. The problem with the weapon found in the "sniper's nest" was that an empty clip was in it.

Is this not so?

Tentatively,

Charles

Tim Gratz,

I was not addressing you personally.

The "b.s." to which I made reference is discerned within the intentional timing and implications of the majority of presentations of Kennedy "abuses."

Implicit in most, if not all, such offerings are the itent to minimize senses of loss and outrage among those of us who pursue justice for JFK and RFK, and the effort to pervert the historical record by insinuating that the loss of the brothers was, well, no great loss.

I have no opinion whatsoever in regard to your intentions -- again, for me, this is not about you. But whether we're talking about Hunt's forged Ngo assassination cables, Seymour Hersh's bought-and-paid-for hatchet job, or the timed release of Jack-and-Bobby-whack-The-Beard or spy-on-the-press "documentation," it remains abundantly clear to me that the agendas of the powers that whacked Jack and Bobby are served by diminishing the brothers to a state of being that at least begins to approach the gutter dwelling level of the assassins.

For what it's worth, I share your contempt for McNamara.

Charles Drago

But "they" might have been a shooter with below-average skills making a serious effort to acquire and strike an elusive target moving away and downhill.

All the previous fire-and-cycle-as-fast-as-you-can-and-target-acquisition-be-damned "tests" in fact tested nothing of value except the public's willingness to bend over forward to please their masters.

When asked what these tests "proved," the answer always comes back, "that it's possible" for LHO to have done the shooting.

It's also possible that LHO sprouted wings and flew out the window in his effort to escape.

So what about additional shooting recreations involving world-class marksmen firing under conditions that, even with the best of intentions, could not come close to approximating the Dealey Plaza environment (and its psychic impacts on an ungifted, pressured rifleman)?

Worthless. Especially so the charade mounted a couple of years ago that included sophisticated, anatomically correct target dummies. If you pay attention to the shooting of these "torsos," you'll note that the anterior exit location on "Kennedy" is not shown from the front.

If it had been (based upon where, in super-slow motion, the body shot appears to be emerging), we would have seen a wound well below the above-collar throat -- a necessity for the round to be able to continue into "Connally."

Wrong? Then why did the producers decline to show a view of the front of the model?

The Italian test remains ... troubling. Perhaps we'll learn more details. But until then, we run with this ball at our own peril.

Charles

I met Larry Howard briefly toward the end of his life. He did not look well, but held his own at the ASK conference that year.

As for the AIC "store" in the West End mall/emporium: I first visited during the year that bullets fired from Jack Ruby's auctioned Oswald pistol initially were being sold. If memory serves, the revolver was on view there, too.

I also recall a drop-dead gorgeous clerk behind the counter. She was blonde, flirtatious, and the daughter of infamous DPD officer Patrick Dean -- or so I was told.

I took one shot. Unlike Jack, I missed.

But I do have a black, long-sleeve T-shirt imprinted with the logo of Stone's JFK. It was a one-off left-over from a supply originally created for invitees to one of the film's wrap parties.

She talked me into it.

I couldn't talk her out of hers.

Charles

P.S. -- Watch that "old-timers" jazz, pally!

James,

The best I can do:

1. I've not seen an iteration of "Hemming Does Dallas" in which the photo you reproduce is used. Not that it matters, because I'm afraid I can't shed any light on the origins of the ID. Sorry.

2. WWM and DCM are in fact one-and-the-same. All I can offer is what Hemming told me: This character was known among denizens of the Miami exile community as "the professor" insofar as he taught languages in Cuba during the Batista years and later often was utilized as a tutor for the wealthier exiles' kids.

While I don't buy Vidal Santiago as WWM/DCM (FVS bears a striking resemblance to Tom Wilson's rendering of Badgeman -- to my eyes, anyway), I wouldn't put any act of disinformation beyond Hemming.

Prior to your initial post on this thread I wasn't aware of Dennis Harber. What does grab my interest is the fact that Hemming has used the term "the professor" to refer to at least two different individuals.

This sort of thing fits with my sense of Hemming as THE master disinformationalist who goes to his wellspring of dramatis personae whenever the mood (assignment?) calls for it.

By any chance was Harber a veteran of U.S. military service and a divorced father?

Most interesting.

Charles

Let's end this B.S. once and for all.

This is war. As it has been and will be.

Quote Eleanor of Aquitaine, as portrayed by Katherine Hepburn in The Lion in Winter: “Of course he has a knife, he always has a knife. We all have knives. It’s eleven eighty-three and we’re barbarians. How clear we make it. Oh, my piglets, we’re the origins of war. Not history’s forces nor the times nor justice nor the lack of it nor causes nor religions nor ideas nor kinds of government nor any other thing. We are the killers; we breed war. We carry it, like syphilis, inside. Dead bodies rot in field and stream because the living ones are rotten. For the love of God, can’t we love one another just a little? That’s how peace begins. We have so much to love each other for. We have such possibilities, my children; we could change the world.”

Who were at the points of the Kennedys' knives?

At whose knifepoints were the Kennedys?

All attempts to draw moral equivalency are by definition doomed.

Pick a side, have the stones to announce your choice to the world, and go at it "tusk to tusk."

But don't you DARE try to tell me or any other thinking, moral human being that the dead of Dealey Plaza and the Ambassador are no different from their killers!

Charles Drago

May I have her younger sister?

Sorry, she's already mine.

How fascinating is the timing in the release of all these stories. Am I being prematurely optimistic to think that ... oh, never mind.

Time for a refresher on William Cullen Bryant (1794–1878)

Truth crushed to earth shall rise again,—

The eternal years of God are hers;

But Error, wounded, writhes with pain,

And dies among his worshippers.

The Battle-Field.

Hopeful and lovely.

Charles

Let's end this B.S. once and for all.

This is war. As it has been and will be.

Quote Eleanor of Aquitaine, as portrayed by Katherine Hepburn in The Lion in Winter: “Of course he has a knife, he always has a knife. We all have knives. It’s eleven eighty-three and we’re barbarians. How clear we make it. Oh, my piglets, we’re the origins of war. Not history’s forces nor the times nor justice nor the lack of it nor causes nor religions nor ideas nor kinds of government nor any other thing. We are the killers; we breed war. We carry it, like syphilis, inside. Dead bodies rot in field and stream because the living ones are rotten. For the love of God, can’t we love one another just a little? That’s how peace begins. We have so much to love each other for. We have such possibilities, my children; we could change the world.”

Who were at the points of the Kennedys' knives?

At whose knifepoints were the Kennedys?

All attempts to draw moral equivalency are by definition doomed.

Pick a side, have the stones to announce your choice to the world, and go at it "tusk to tusk."

But don't you DARE try to tell me or any other thinking, moral human being that the dead of Dealey Plaza and the Ambassador are no different from their killers!

Charles Drago

I know the name of the guy who wrote the report.

May I have her younger sister?

Carlo

PS -- Thanks to Mr. Carroll for fleshing out the story in terms of problems with frangibility and distance to target.

How fascinating is the timing in the release of all these stories. Am I being prematurely optimistic to think that ... oh, never mind.

The dramatic disparity in timing should give us pause.

Let's not put too much stock into this development until the details of the test are forthcoming.

If memory serves, previous exercises with the weapon allegedly "used" and "discovered" at the "scene" did not allow for aiming time. Did the Italian recreations do so, and if so, under what guidelines?

Bottom line: We're still screwing around with the "how" within a "to be determined" context.

Which is precisely what they want.

Charles

A documentary film on the life and JFK research of George Michael Evica is in production, too.

And yes, Bernice, the ceremonies in DP consistently have been under-reported by the mainstream press. I've spoken at a few of the gatherings there and at the JFK cenotaph a few blocks away. In every instance the programs have been moving in the extreme.

Charles