Charles Drago

I tried everything to lose my UPLOAD virginity by posting a King-Old Tramp comparison photo.

Alas, I still can wear white.

Charles

More on J. C. King, first from Thy Will Be Done and "Probe" (the latter material in red):

"Castro was targeted for assassination as early as December 11, 1959, by Nelson's old friend from the CIAA [FDR's Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, headed by Rockefeller] days, J. C. King, now the CIA's Chief of Clandestine Services in the Western Hemisphere. Even before Castro had forced Fulgencio Batista to flee Havana, King and Adolf Berle had met to ponder the fate of Freeport Sulphur Company's mining project at Nicaro, in Oriente province. Now the Nicaro deposits and sugar plantations were facing nationalization. It was clear to King that a 'far left' government existed in Cuba. 'If permitted to stand,' he wrote CIA Director Allen Dulles, it would encourage similar actions against American companies elsewhere in Latin America. One of King's 'recommended actions' was explicit:

"'Thorough consideration [should] be given to the elimination of Fidel Castro. None of those close to Fidel, such as his brother Raul or his companion Che Guevara, have the same mesmeric appeal to the masses. Many informed people believe that the disappearance of Fidel would greatly accelerate the fall of the present Government.'"

Which brings us to a crucial point. Freeport Sulphur is a company Wall Street considers a "Rockefeller" company. There are numerous Rockefeller ties to the board of directors (see the sidebar at right). There is a significant tie that led to the stockpiling investigation. And Adolph Berle and J. C. King, as well as John Hay Whitney, were all very closely tied to Nelson Rockefeller himself. So the revelation that J. C. King and Adolph Berle were conversing about the fate of a Rockefeller-controlled company is significant, credible, and highlights the ties between these players and the CIA, where J. C. King-and in later years David Atlee Phillips-presided as Chiefs of the Western Hemisphere Division. In a strange twist of fate, Rockefeller's good friend King was the authenticating officer on a cable giving authority to kill Castro's brother Raul. Interestingly, Whitney's cousin and friend Tracy Barnes sent the cable rescinding the original order a couple of hours later.

And this, again from TWBD:

"On December 22, 1974 ... Seymour Hersh released the results of a two-year New York Times investigation [of athe CIA's Domestic Operations Division, including spying on Americans and CIA funding of publishers].

"In Hersh's [subsequent] New Year's Eve story, 'the Bay of Pigs thing' resurfaced with potentially astounding implications: 'The Times reported Sunday that the new domestic unit was formed in 1964 but Mr. [E. Howard] Hunt recalled that it was assembled shortly after the failure of the Bay of Pigs operation in 1961 ... Hunt placed the date of its founding in 1962, before, not after, the Kennedy assassination, and noted that Helms was strenuously opposed to its establishment. Who, then, ran this secret operation of Bay of Pigs veterans? According to one source at the Defense Intelligence Agency, such operations fell within the domain of the Clandestine Services' chief of the Western Hemisphere Division: Nelson Rockefeller's old friend from CIAA days in the Brazilian Amazon, Colonel J. C. King."

Where does King end up? According to TWBD:

"King continued to haunt the Amazon, according to some reports ... King had seldom allowed himself to be photographed. What was known, however was that he had been called before congressional investigators in July 1975 to answerr questions about the CIA's assassination plots.

"In 1967, King had been questioned by the CIA's inspector general. He insisted that he had onlylimited knowledge of a plan to assassinate Castro. By 1975, when he was questioned by Rockefeller's commission, he could remember nothing at all, even when confronted with documents confirming his part in the earliest National Security Council and CIA deliberations and actions involving Castro and Rafael Trujillo. Yes, an NSC document indicated that he had targeted Castro for assassination as early as 1959, bue he had no recollection and 'denied that the Castro underworld plots originated with him.' Yes, another document recorded him asking Assistant Secretary of State Roy Rubbottom if the United States would be willing to provide sniper rifles to kill Trujillo (Rubbottom had answered yes), but this question did not ring any bells either."

Is anyone able to post a side-by-side comparison of the 1963 King photo and a full-face shot of the Old Tramp?

Charles

Found these online - says the guy's name is John King.

Mark,

Thanks for the time and effort, but this does not appear to be the J. C. King under scrutiny.

Charles

Ron W.,

Fantastic!

The photo on the right drew my attention. I for one see a meaningful resemblance between that view of King and shots of the Old Tramp.

I'll provide more on King's c.v. later.

Thanks for the help. And by the way, a F/F first edition cloth of Thy Will Be Done fetches a hefty sum.

Charles

James,

Thanks. I should have expected that you would come up with a photo of King.

Based upon his appearance in 1963, your view likely originates from the late 40s or early 50s. But I'm wildly guessing here.

By the year of JFK's conspiratorial murder, King was bald on top, gray on the sides, with pronounced jowls. But don't rely on my description; look at the Old Tramp, and you'll see for yourself.

And no, I'm not making that charge. My point only is to encourage outside-the-box thinking.

Truth be told, though, the resemblance is stunning.

Thanks again.

Charles

MY DEEPEST APOLOGIES FOR THIS ACCIDENTAL DOUBLE POST.

JOHN SIMKIN: PLEASE REMOVE.

Charles

John Caldwell "J. C." King, once chief of the CIA's Clandestine Services in the Western Hemisphere Division, was a close friend of Nelson Rockefeller. It was during World War II that King, on behalf of Rockefeller, "surveyed" the Brazilian Amazon. He went on to become president of the Amazon Natural Drug Company -- but not before being deeply involved in Agency assassination attempts against Castro and el Che.

Just minutes ago, while thumbing through Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil, by Gerard Colby, with Charlotte Dennett, I found a photograph of King taken at his Virginia home in 1963.

Not that we don't have substantive matters to pursue, but I'd appreciate the opinions of those who own the book: Does not King strikingly resemble the so-called "Old Tramp" arrested in Dealey Plaza?

I'm not capable of scanning and posting the shot, which appears in the second photo section of the book. Perhaps someone with the right tools would be so kind?

Charles

George Michael Evica has done work on the significance of certain DPD head gear, in particular the bands and colors on caps.

It has been noted that a group of White supremacist officers wore a specific insignia and color pattern. Perhaps Larry Hancock has bumped into this subject.

Charles

The destruction of a target -- human or otherwise -- protected by a relatively competent, large (and therefore impossible to corrupt en masse) professional security force is wholly dependent for success upon the stripping of that force.

Security stripping phenomena in Dallas (JFK) and Memphis (MLK) have been documented by Vince Palamara and Philip Melanson, respectively. As for RFK, security was virtually non-existant.

Regardless of what you may know/believe/assume about the destructions of the WTC buildings, the Pentagon, and Diana, security was stripped from those usually well protected targets immediately prior to their respective demises.

What, if anything, does this tell us about the nature of these events?

Charles

For John Dolva,

I take small satisfaction from the language and tone I've utilized in my exchanges with Mr. Purvis. I know nothing of his background beyond what I glean from his photograph, but I surely would not be surprised to learn of his personal courage and professional accomplishment.

Don't read this as an apology, but rather as an acknowledgment of the passions that are frequently stirred by debate on the JFK assassination. I'm privileged to be able to correspond with members of this forum, and I'm grateful to John for providing access.

As I've expressed here and elsewhere, we are at war with the murderers of John Kennedy. Sometimes, war ain't pretty.

Mr. Purvis does not hesitate to write his mind, so to say, and I doubt he would expect anything less honest and direct from his correspondents. That being said, I for one shall make a renewed effort to eschew sarcasm in favor of collegial discourse.

Except, of course, when nothing but sarcasm is called for ...

Regards,

Charles

Thank you, Michael.

The frustration of which you write has dissipated. There are so many more productive, interesting exchanges to pursue.

Best,

Charles

Bernice,

Thanks so much for the time and effort it took to transcribe such lengthy, critically important passages from Palamara's published research.

These revelations and similar discoveries by Vince are what allow me to write (yet again) the following with conviction:

There is not a scintilla of valid evidence to suggest that President Kennedy prevented the Secret Service from providing full protection.

Reliance upon any evidence presented or conclusions drawn by the Warren Commission without multiple, independet corroborations from impeccable sources doesn't pass the laugh test.

Best,

Charles

At this stage of the game, perhaps a bit of humor is in order -- humor of the enlightening sort, that is.

I swear, some of the posts in which I've been ... well ... interpreted make as much sense as

Bally Jerry, pranged his kite right in the how's-your-father; hairy blighter, dicky-birded, feathered back on his sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harpers and caught his can in the Bertie.

No? How about

Bunch of monkeys on the ceiling! Grab your egg-and-fours and let's get the bacon delivered?

Still nothing? We might try

Charlie choppers chucking a handful?

Sausage squad up the blue end?

Cabbage crates coming over the briny?

Oh, dear.

Now you know how I feel.

Charles Drago

(with great thanks to the Flying Circus)

Sorry, but I'm going to have to insist upon lucidity and logic from my correspondents.

And oh yeah ... courage.

Charles Drago

Mr. Purvis writes, "Most reasonable adults, with whom I am familiar, at least would not run and hide behind someone else's unsupported theories in order to protect their own personal self image and avoid demonstrating clearly their own complete lack of research and knowledge of the subject matter."

How refreshing to witness Mr. Purvis's confrontation with his own intellectual failings.

Sir, since it now appears that your reliance upon what you accurately term the Warren Commission's "unsupported theories" is coming to an end in a burst of self-awareness, and in light of your courageous admission that your research and knowledge of the subject matter at hand to date has been lacking, I raise my cybervoice to welcome you to the land of the rational.

Yes, this is a strange new world for you. But hang in there, and soon you will be both illuminated and warmed by the light of reason.

Charles

"At this stage and at this time (this is a personal opinion only that I express), I don't believe that this young nation could survive THE TRUTH."

What color is the sky on your world?

This "young nation" clearly -- for those willing to see -- cannot and will not survive THE LIE.

In fact, I would argue that America HAS NOT survived THE LIE.

And THE TRUTH -- only THE TRUTH -- has the faintest chance of miraculously breathing life back into the corpse by driving a stake through the black heart of America, Inc.

Charles Drago

Hearsay testimony before a USG commission that lied, altered witness statements, and ultimately endorsed what its members knew to be fabricated "evidence" and ultimately false conclusions cannot trump Vincent Palamara's research.

Read "Survivor's Guilt," and pay special attention to Palamara's assessment of Boring.

Your embrace of this classic argument from false authority (the Warren Commission) is all too typical of the underpinnings of your "I know something you don't know" blather.

What a treat you would have been on the battlefield: "I know the enemy's location, plans of attack, even what they ate for breakfast ... but you figure that out for yourself, you pitiful, undernourished-by-fact, not-worth-saving fools."

Dismissed.

In every sense of the word.

Read slowly for comprehension:

There is not a scintilla of valid evidence to suggest that President Kennedy prevented the Secret Service from providing full protection.

Relax. Read the sentence again.

There. Clearer?

CD

"Handwringing"???

"The war is irretrievable"???

The hands on this keyboard have not been wrung and will not be. They may very well wring a few necks before this thing is over, however.

Fight or get off the pot.

And who wants to retrieve war?

The system's willing executioners (the brain dead majority) are as susceptible to soul cleansing as they are to brain washing.

No force on earth can extinguish the divine spark.

Charles

In the fullness of time ...

The arc of the universe bends toward justice.

Right makes might.

The alternative is simply not acceptable.

Charles

So it was suicide!

Inquiring minds want to know!

Mr. Purvis writes, "JFK, not unlike Custer, allowed his security elements to be everywhere except where it could provide protection. JFK, not unlike Custer, died as a result of his own actions, coupled with the lack of actions of others."

There is not a scintilla of valid evidence to suggest that President Kennedy prevented the Secret Service from providing full protection.

Long ago I vowed never again to dignify such ill-intended absurdity with a response. Yet here I am ...

No more.

Charles

Our Custer dalliance seems to be elucidating any number of hidden -- and not so hidden -- agendas.

My MONARCH mentors would be proud.

And what later became of Benteen?

Honorably discharged. Lived to a ripe old age.

I don't know if his lifestyle was upgraded significantly post-LBH.

Charles

I remain most uncomfortable with being cast in the role of "defender" of George Armstrong Custer. Again, and for the record, in my opinion he was a tool of imperialsim and got what he deserved.

But the back story, if you will, of Custer's demise defies simplistic telling.

Apologies to those who find this exchange tedious or otherwise off point for the forum. I'll make this my final word on the subject for now -- but I reserve the right to return fire at a later date.

To take the more cogent of Mr. Purvis's points as he offers them:

First the wikipedia material: All well and good. I would not dream of minimizing the value of studying personal and professional histories in the effort to understand an individual's performance -- especially under pressure. I would submit, though, that to base one's analyses of that performance solely on the quantifiable record and without taking into account exigencies of the moment under scrutiny -- let alone the X-factors of human behavior and intellectual/psychic growth -- inevitably leads to miscalculation and misunderstanding.

Mr. Purvis writes, "Last time that I checked, Custer was made a 'Hero' !

"The Battle of the Waxxxxa did this, as well as the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

"Last time that I checked, JFK was made a 'Hero' due to PT 109, when in fact, as the Commander of the boat, he most probably should have been court martialed."

Indeed, Custer was America's first modern public relations creation, a master at self-promotion and the beneficiary of his widow's impassioned maintenance of her husband's mythic proportions. Libby C. and Jackie K. were nothing if not devoted to their husbands' respective historiographies -- even hagiographies.

Which has WHAT to do exactly, in the case of Custer, with impartial analysis of the facts of LBH?

As for Mr. Purvis's description of the PT 109 episode: That was "out loud," sir.

Mr. Purvis writes, "The 'Fix Bayonet & Charge' mentality still existed among many of those Commanders during the Vietnam era. They had to demonstrate their abilities (at the cost of many good lives I might add), in order to move on up the ladder.

"In Custer's case, the Civil War was over and all that was left was the 'Indian Wars'. And, not unlike the comments of many Commanders in Vietnam:

'It may not be much of a war but it's the only one we've got!'"

Beyond noting that I respect Mr. Purvis's service to his country, I cannot help but conclude that, at least in terms of this Custer exchange and perhaps extending to his JFK work, it apparently negatively impacts his ability to bring fairness and reason to his perspectives.

Mr. Purvis writes, "Since the Indians could not read or write, in this case, the 'loser' got to write the history, aided considerably by the Wife of General Custer."

Agreed. But others helped his story along -- most significantly, those who colored events and misrepresented personalities in order to take full advantage of Custer's fall.

Mr. Purvis writes, "Just perhaps you might take the time to read up on 'The Rules of Land Warfare' and how these rules came into being.

"One of the principal items deals with the usage of 'non-combatants' as hostages and as a 'shield' between oneself and the enemy.

"Like what Custer did at the Battle of the Waxxxxa.

"The native americans/indians had never dealt with such an individual with this type lack of moral warfare tactics, and was one of the primary reasons for such hate of 'Yellow Hair'.

"To them, a 'Warrior' who hid behind women and children, had no honor or bravery."

Now what exactly does this tell us about the deep political context of LBH and Custer's tactics there? Not nearly as much as it tells us about Mr. Purvis's inability to insulate appropriately his scholarship from his feelings.

There are indeed meaningful parallels between the deaths of Custer and Kennedy. And yes, included among them are the countless bone-headed interpretations of these complex events as offered by the ignorati, if such a term may be coined.

For me at least, this subject is exhausted. I cannot claim to have unearthed any but the most circumstantial "evidence" for a Custer conspiracy. But I stand by my guns in terms of my analyses of Custer's tactics at LBH and Benteen's perfidy that day.

And the Waxxxxa doesn't tell us a DAMN thing about what happened in the high plains country of Montana on Sunday, June 25, 1876.

Charles

Charles,

I'm not familiar with the details of Custer's Last Stand, but based on what you have said, I wonder how Benteen could have been someone's "paid agent." That would imply some plan to be carried out by Benteen, a preconceived way to do Custer in. But Benteen's betrayal of Custer seems to have been by fortuitous circumstance, a consequence of Custer's own tactical decisions, rather than conspiratorial planning.

Ron

Ron,

Legitimate question.

The situation is complex. All we can say with certainty is that Benteen received Custer's order to "come on" and was in a position to do so. He instead chose to linger at what is known now as The Morass. When he joined Reno's whipped battalion some 4 to 5 miles southwest of what would come to be known as Last Stand Hill, Benteen's column was fresh and unbloodied.

The Reno/Benteen position was not being pressured. Captain Weir stood dumbfounded at Benteen's refusal to move. Custer was vollying, almost certainly in an effort to pinpoint his position and underscore the urgent need for reinforcement.

At the peak of his frustration, Weir disobeyed a direct order to stand down, mounted his company, and began a movement toward Custer which ultimately amounted to too little, too late. The high hillock that today bears his name marks the Weir sally's farthest progress. Strong forces to his front and flank, sufficient to threaten a single company, drove him back to Benteen.

In retrospect, Benteen came up with all sorts of nonsense to justify his disobedience of a direct order in the face of the enemy. Today, we remain at a loss to explain his decision; the common worst-cast scenario holds that his hatred of Custer clouded his judgment.

We also know that in June of 1876 the American public's sympathy for the plight of the noble savage was impacting political will to come up with and execute a final solution to the "Indian problem." The defeat -- if not massacre -- of the Boy General by bloodthirsty savages, it could have been argued, would help move public opinion in an anti-Indian direction.

Further, Ulysses Grant harbored great hatred for Custer insofar as the latter had been a prime mover in the legal action taken against Orville Grant, the president's brother, related to stealing materials intended for delivery to reservations.

Would Custer have won the day had Reno pressed his attack on the village? Indian combatants later said as much. His cowardly "retreat" stands as one of the keys to the sealing of Custer's fate; Benteen's disobedience is the other.

Would Custer's battle plan, under optimum conditions, have prevailed? Impossible to say with certainty. But if, as the most recent scholarship indicates, his plan had evolved on the battlefiled to focus on the capture of women and children to be used to force the warriors to stand down, and if Benteen had moved forward to bedevil the camp as Custer made that move ...

My point: Mr. Purvis's tired and wholly discredited views of the events, and his eagerness to see them in a vacuum, would be easily dismissable as just so much armchair commanding were it not for the context of their presentation in this forum.

Was there a high-level, deep political plot against Custer? Did Benteen, under instructions to do so, see an opportunity to insure Custer's defeat by making excuses not to obey his commander's order -- even if Benteen did not envision the wholesale slaughter that would be the result of his perfidy, but expected only a sound thrashing of his blood enemy?

What did Weir know about these events? Was his death at a tender age due to natural causes related to alcoholism, or was his an assisted passing?

Alas, we can but speculate. It's the stuff of grand drama.

Charles