Charles Drago

Mr. Purvis writes, "Unfortunately, few persons (as a whole) have taken the time and effort to factual research 'Custer's Last Stand, and not unlike the JFK assassination, continue to promote the myth and BS which has been handed down over the years.

"Same old 'Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up' attitude!

"Now it seems, we have some Giant Conspiracy to eliminate George Armstrong Custer."

You would be well advised, sir, to redirect your condescension and tsk tsk's toward yourself. They neither intimidate nor impress me, as they seem to do with others on this forum.

Oh, if only we knew what you know ...

Tell it someone who gives a good ....

In point of fact it is you, sir, who mindlessly parrots and promotes conventional myth when you reject well-informed, well-reasoned analysis in favor of the tired, no longer defensible "Custer was an egomaniac" canard. Your failure to demonstrate a grasp of the political context of Custer's demise is most telling as it speaks to the superficiality of your "argument."

Mr. Purvis writes, "If you will check, you will find that Custer had the 'Gatlin Gun' [sic] with these rear echelon elements, which in effect means that he totally ran ahead of his firepower support, as well as running off and totally ignoring the potential need for additional supplies and ammunition.

"Just as he did at the Battle of the Waxxxxa."

Nonsense! Custer rejected the Gatling Guns for what was to be his final campaign because of the inability to transport such cumbersome weaponry cross country at the pace he accurately predicted would be required. This decision proved wise; these primitive heavy machine guns would have been useless and indeed counterproductive throughout the march of the Montana column.

Given that Custer divided his command into four battalions at the earlier engagement, his actions at the Waxxxxa have ZERO substantive relevance to LBH tactics; the fact that it was widely accepted among the officer corps that Custer had abandoned Major Joel Elliot's contingent at Waxxxxa in the face of a post-cavalry"victory" counterattack by Indians encamped nearby is cited to account for Benteen's hatred of his commader at LBH. Your conflation of the facts of the battle and the opinions of it formed afterward is born either of ignorance or intentional misdirection.

Mr. Purvis cites, "[General Terry] gave Lt. Col. Custer explicit instructions to lead the Seventh Cavalry up the nearby Rosebud River to arrive no sooner than 26 June to allow Gibbon’s troops, slowed by the Gatling Gun Division, time to take up their positions.

"Custer paid little heed to General Terry’s instructions and soon after departing up the Rosebud, headed directly for the valley of the Little Big Horn making forced marches late into the night and starting again before dawn.

"Not to mention the fact that he totally disobeyed orders, and even though fully aware of a larger force, nevertheless split his smaller force."

Again, the Purvis/Bugliosi phenomenon rears its ugly head. Permit me to quote, verbatim, the most relevant portion of those instructions:

"It is impossible to give you any definite instructions in regard to this movement, and were it not impossible to do so the Department Commander places too much confidence in your zeal, energy, and ability to wish to impose upon you precise orders which might hamper your action when nearly in contact with the enemy. He will, however, indicate to you his own views of what your action should be, and he desires that you should conform to them unless you shall see sufficient reason for departing from them." (emphasis added)

Thus Custer hardly "totally disobeyed orders." Mr. Purvis again chooses crass simple-mindedness (as opposed to elegant simplicity) to direct his "analysis" -- and in so doing, by the way, he demonstrates his contempt for the intellects of his readers on this forum.

If, Mr. Purvis, your grasp of the battle at LBH and its relevant antecedents and consequences, in tandem with your inability and/or unwillingness to offer fair and full analysis of those events, are utilized as a litmus test for the value of your treatments of the JFK assassination ...

Well, I've made my judgment, and I invite others here to make their own.

Charles

I have visited the Little Bighorn battlefield on three post-wildfire occasions. I have traveled on horseback from the so-called Crow's Nest to the LBH valley (Lakota name for which translates as Greasy Grass), and I have toured the Last Stand sector in the company of the on-site National Parks historian of the time.

My library of Custer- and LBH-related volumes is extensive (200-plus books, monographs, pamphlets, etc. and climbing), and I have devoted decades of research and study to this monumentally intriguing and troubling incident.

I have published essays on the subject, although not for at least 20 years.

So much for credentials, such as they are.

I carry no water for Custer (or for Reno -- although others did, and had the Congressional Medal of Honor to show for it). In the most flattering of light he is revealed to be a force for imperialism and cultural (if not literal) genocide.

That being stated for the record, perhaps the following may be of some interest.

At first blush, it would seem that a discussion of the action at Little Bighorn on June 25, 1876 is wholly inappropriate for this forum. Yet I submit that, absent the framing of the actions of Custer and certain of his key subordinates that day within a deep political context, all efforts to find meaningful metaphors in the Greasy Grass for contemporary political events are doomed.

For if we choose to view Custer’s strategy, tactics, and motives in evidence on that long-ago Sunday afternoon from a CinemaScope perspective (where a story’s width is more important than its depth), we reveal a terrible weakness in our ability to understand how deep political processes operate — then as well as now.

In short: Custer was betrayed by the officer to whom he sent a direct order to come to his assistance. That man, Captain Frederick Benteen, disobeyed and deserted his commander, refused to ride to the sound of Custer’s guns (including volley fire designed as clear-cut signals for help) when fully capable of doing so, and thus bears direct culpability for the destruction of the five troops comprising the command battalion.

And Benteen was neither a coward nor a fool.

Custer and the men with him died because the commander foolishly expected his subordinates to obey orders — which is to say, because his workable plan of attack was sabotaged by a treasonous Benteen and an incompetent, impaired Major Marcus Reno.

And at the root of this perfidy, one finds political agendas of the darkest order.

Visit the field as I have, and you will understand that the tragedy of the engagement at LBH is yet palpable, the sorrow resonates. Victory celebrations held in the massive Indian encampment that night were, to be kind, premature. For fourteen years later, at Wounded Knee, the destruction of a people that Custer’s demise was designed and memorialized to hasten came to pass.

Mr. Purvis writes, "If one will read up on the history of General Custer, then they will find that there is far more reasons for his defeat than merely charging 'head-on' into the Sioux Nation."

Agreed (although we dishonor the historical record if we let linger the "Custer v. Sioux" canard. Other tribes were represented, including Cheyenne clans, and those warriors performed heroically and at great sacrifice.)

Mr. Purvis continues, "The smaller elements of Custer's forces were isolated, and Custer had again (see Battle of Waxxxxa) run off and left his rear guard forces as well as supplies ..."

Such an "analysis" is Bugliosi-esque in its selectivity and for the sophistic reasoning it promotes. Yes, Custer rode ahead of the his pack train. But he most assuredly did not "run off" insofar as that terminology implies criminal negligence if not cowardice. In point of fact Custer's plan of attack might very well have succeeded -- had not Major Reno and Captain Benteen exhibited cowardice and disobedience of direct orders respectively.

In a nutshell: Custer divided his force into three columns: Benteen to scout for escaping "Indians" (I'll use the term reluctantly and for the sake of brevity), and Reno to cross the LBH and charge the huge village from its southern flank while Custer's command force rode north to ford the river and close the circle.

Upon noting the size of the village, Custer sent written and verbal orders to Benteen to rejoin his command after first returning to the supply caravan: "Benteen. Come on. Big village. Bring pacs [sic] PS Bring pacs." The original message, written and signed by Custer's adjutant, W.W. Cooke, today is preserved at West Point.

Benteen received the message, and within the sound of Custer's guns and perfectly capable of obeying his orders, Benteen did nothing.

A nexus of political and business interests had much to gain by Custer's defeat. From elimination of a whipped -- or, better yet, dead -- Custer from the field of 1876 presidential candidates, to the ultimate demonization of the killers of Custer that would make palatable their final, brutal subjugation and the opening of their lands to railroad, mining, and other business interests, the Boy General faced an array of enemies that, to readers of this forum, may seem all too familiar.

And Benteen, who loathed Custer, might very well have been the paid agent of the latter's demise.

Months after the battle, the only officer under Benteen's command who attempted to obey Custer's order to "come on" wrote to his friend, the widow Elizabeth Custer, that he knew terrible truths about why her husband was left to die. I speak of Captain Thomas Weir, after whom the Weir Point battlefield landmark is named.

(There's a lot more to this "friendship," but such is another story.)

Soon after he sent that communication, Weir was dead.

Custer was a son of a bitch. But compared to the forces that destroyed him — forces all too similar to those that took out the Kennedys — he was the Son of the Morning Star.

So ... was there a Greasy Knoll?

Charles

The goals of the sponsors of Bugliosi, Posner, McAdam, Rahn, et al: protect and perpetuate.

Their battlefield of choice: History.

PROTECT the perpetrators by PERPETUATING not the lie, but the debate.

This is a most critical distinction. Endless debate of the "how" and "who" and "why" of the JFK assassination extends to other events and issues. It establishes a self-renewing ground rule for the investigations of all subsequent deep political actions: we'll never be able to know the truth.

Further, endless debate serves to factionalize the greater community of honorable researchers, thus fatally weakening our efforts and, in the final analysis, reinforcing minority control of the ... agenda.

And in the process, the bastards remain untouchable.

Thus the only strategy available to us is to live the truth: The debate is over. Conspiracy is truth. So every word we write and speak about this case must carry a tone of utter contempt for those who, knowing better, nonetheless would continue the "how" engagement on a collegial, level playing field.

In other words, we do NOT present proof as one side of an unsettled argument. Never again! Rather, we wield the truth as a weapon, and we do not miss an opportunity to bludgeon the LN's pimps by exposing them for exactly what they are.

There can be no "response" to Bugliosi. Just repudiation.

Or else his masters win.

Charles

To these eyes, the images/renderings under scrutiny suffer from the same problem that impacts "enhancements" of Badgeman and Hardhat Man: they are cartoonish to a fault.

I mean no offense to anyone's artistic abilities (or sensibilities, for that matter). And colorisation surely carries with it dramatic impact.

But work done on Stetson Man, if I may coin a term, reveals to me a Disney character firing a bazooka.

Would a DPD detective/assassin wear his signature cowboy hat during the shooting? Would a non-DPD assassin endeavoring to disguise himself and falsely implicate the department intentionally keep chapeau in place? Wouldn't the large, distinctive Stetson capture the eye?

Would someone be so kind as to post the colorised version of Hard Hat man -- Dick Tracy redux?

Charles

Charles B.,

I understand your pessimism and frustration -- because I've experienced it over the years.

And yes, one might accurately describe my previous post as a "locker room" exhortation. But such outbursts serve an invaluable purpose.

Hoka hey! It is a good day to die!

Win one for the Gipper!

Remember the Alamo! (alimony?)

I've managed to survive bouts with defeatism by reminding myself that, as was the case with John and Robert, surrender is not an option for we who have chosen to return the fire from the knoll and the pantry and the boarding house.

It's that simple.

How many divisions does Bugliosi have?

Charles D.

Bugliosi has won my ass!

This is war. If you can't handle it, shoot yourself in the foot and go home.

Charles Drago

The Altgens image appears to be edited. The unnatural slant, from the shoulder down past the elbow, looks like a very bad editing job, IMO. I have to ask...where is his shoulder?

Unless the man who appears to be standing behind him was in front of him...it makes no sense to me.

His shoulder does look odd. Or his lack of shoulder I should say.

I suppose it would not be difficult to determine if there had been a window of opportunitiy to alter the image before it came into the public domain. When was the film developed? When was it first viewed, and by whom?

If an opportunity did exist for alteration -- and to be frank, I doubt this is the case -- those wishing to mire investigators in ambiguity and confusion would have been well-served by superimposing LHO's body under Lovelady's face (and NOT vice-versa).

Here we are, after all, 44 years on and still wondering ...

Charles

Myra,

Your choice of icon speaks to a familiarity with the joke in question.

Seriously -- and I'll say this directly to my friend Vince -- his endorsement of "Ultimate Sacrifice" is indeed a major gaff. Perhaps he would like to join our discussion and defend his assessment.

Charles

Gentlemen (and I use the term loosely),

Such rare wit! What's next, the "let me be frank with you" joke?

C

... and promises not to append his signature with "'Ultimate Sacrifice' is the best JFK book ... buy it!" ???

He writes the definitive analysis of the Secret Service, but do they call him "Vince the Investigator"? Nooooo ...

He establishes new benchmarks for doggedness and excellence in research, but do they call him "Vince the Master Researcher"?

Nooooo ...

Make ONE wrong-headed endorsement ...

Sorry, but I couldn't resist reworking the old "Sammy the Bridge Builder" joke. And if you don't know this wonderful meditation on the nature of fame, hunt it down.

Charles

Vincent,

So we've moved from sharing podiums to sharing Internet forums ...

So be it. Know that you're among some of the most educated, erudite, accomplished, and honorable JFK researchers extant -- and a few Mockingbirds, but what the hell!

Good to have you aboard. George Michael sends his best.

Charles

Chris,

Let me clarify: I am neither making nor inviting the referenced sinister interpretation, but merely suggesting that others will. I think Bill was genuine, committed to the truth, and a most valuable partner in our efforts.

Should a JFK researcher's employment by the federales set off alarm bells? Probably. But sometimes a GS 12 is just a GS 12.

CD

Myra,

There is yet another story of a naval vessel off of Giron ... one that might have been on a horrific covert mission.

A noted researcher in our community is in possession of material supplied by an ex-Marine who alleged that he was part of a large assault force on board the ship in question. He said that, in the midst of the fighting, with the ship still over the horizon, ammunition was delivered to these troops while they were still below deck. He further noted that such a procedure was verboten insofar as it put the armed men at great risk should their ship be hit.

If true, were these guys being set up as victims in a false flag attack designed as a fallback casus belli?

I'd be most interested in reading comments on the ammo-below-decks issue from those with relevant expertise.

Charles

Chris,

It fits quite neatly.

Other recollections worth noting:

-- The amnesty initiative itself never was intended to be applied in a vacuum, so to speak. It was to be a tactic in a larger strategy that likely would have incorporated grand jury, public relations, and creative media elements.

-- I believe that, at the time, Bill Xanthopolous was a federal employee, and thus he demonstrated no small degree of courage when he stepped forward to help create and implement the amnesty plan. (Of course a much more sinister interpretation of his motives will be forthcoming, one based upon his income source. Wait for it. C'est la vie.)

-- Over a martini or three later that evening, I ventured a guess that an amnesty program would not make the transition from concept to reality. The "I've got some boards, you've got some curtains, let's build a stage and put on a play!" syndrome always has been a part of our so-called community's profile, and I'll include myself at the top of the list of sufferers.

-- Our dear friend Ian Griggs was quite vocal in his opposition to the plan. A copper through and through, he pushed hard against any process that did not include criminal prosecution and severe punishment for the killers. My respect for Ian knows no bounds, then and now, and I warmly recall shaking his hand as we agreed to disagree.

-- Mary Ferrell never ventured a public assessment of the idea (to my knowledge, at least), so I'm obliged to keep confidential her privately offered reactions.

-- The amnesty initiative sprung, at least in good part, from my call for JFK assassination researchers to define justice in this case, at this late date. What will satisfy us? What will send us home? What will constitute victory in our war against the murderers and their murderous hegemony? To date, answers remain, if not elusive, then for me less than satisfying.

Finally, Chris, I apologize for the delay in responding to your most recent PM. Check your home E-mail over the next few days, please.

Charles

Uncle Junior's cancer surgeon was ... Dr. Kennedy.

And when he was fantasizing/dreaming about his ideal future, he visualized a front-page headline, "Junior Soprano Weds Angie Dickinson."

Then there was the episode in which Tony meets his father's mistress, who also had bedded JFK.

If only there had been another season, we might have visited the Greasy Knoll.

This speculation is most decidedly NOT for general consumption, insofar as it would provide endless fodder to those who would decry all conspiracy realists as wingnuts.

I am under the impression that this forum IS IN FACT for "general consumption" on the world-wide web.

Hope this helps.

Charles

Maybe it will help those who would decry all conspiracy realists as wingnuts.

Yawn.

Kathy,

The Kennedy Memorial in Dallas was designed by Philip Johnson and erected in the West End of the city in 1979.

It is technically and ostensibly a cenotaph -- a memorial dedicated to a deceased person whose remains are elsewhere.

For the record, I am not seriously suggesting that JFK's remains were dumped into the concrete there. By the same token, I would not be surprised if someday we were to learn that the Arlington grave is either empty, or its contents have been, well, tampered with.

This speculation is most decidedly NOT for general consumption, insofar as it would provide endless fodder to those who would decry all conspiracy realists as wingnuts.

Hope this helps.

Charles

I'm not sure why I'm posting this -- I've held off in the past -- but the downward-spiraling absurdity of these "arguments" begs me to respond.

In kind?

You be the judge.

For many reasons -- some of which should be apparent -- I cannot quote the source of this idea? insight? fantasy? And I surely cannot lend even a scintilla of credence to the story. I must admit, thought, that it appeals to my novelistic sensibilities.

Suppose ... just suppose ... the Kennedy cenotaph in Dallas is not that at all, but rather ... need I type it ... the Kennedy tomb.

Now for some truth (a refreshing change):

At a JFK Lancer conference in Dallas within the past ten years, conference attendees gathered at the cenotaph for a Sunday morning remembrance. At the end of his moving remarks, Professor Evica suggested that we all approach the slab, place our right palms upon it, and pay our respects to John.

I have not yet lived through a more moving experience.

Charles

What were the Kennedys supposed to do? Call the cops?

The cops did it!

Charles

Access to photographs of the crash scene in the IMMEDIATE aftermath of the event would be invaluable to open, honest researchers. Two areas of inquiry come to mind:

1. CONDITION OF THE CAR -- Is the mangled wreckage visible in video of its removal from the tunnel the result of impact or post-impact manipulation?

2. IDENTITY OF FIRST RESPONDERS -- Can images of the paramedics, fire fighters, paparazzi, and others who were present within minutes of the crash be identified?

Charles

John,

I am most in tune with your ... how shall I put it ... streams of consciousness.

I urge you in the strongest terms to read Peter Levenda's Sinister Forces trilogy. This massive works speaks volumes to the concerns we apparently share.

Levenda's is a superbly written, researched, and reasoned meta-argument, and I submit that we cannot understand, to any meaningful degree, the events of 11/22/63, their progenitors, precursors, and consequences, without a grasp of the realities into which Lennon set foot and Levenda analyzes.

"They" are ahead of "us" in this regard -- to our enduring peril.

I look forward to an expansion of this exchange.

Charles

We DO KNOW what happened:

John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

We DO KNOW how he was killed:

By multiple gunmen.

We DO KNOW the legal term of art used to describe these gunmen and their sponsors:

Criminal conspirators.

Charles

Greg,

The final observation in your previous post was well written. Yes, we know more and trust less.

But how does this bring us closer to justice?

Charles, knowledge leads us on the right path. Healthy cynicism stops us buying a bill of goods from blue ribbon committees.

Agreed on the value of knowledge as a guide to righteousness. But how healthy is a cynicism that does not result in systemic change for the better -- change that, after 44 years of our labors, we have yet to observe, let alone bring about?

How do you define justice in this case?

By asking me how I define it, you are really looking for a subjective definition. I'd prefer to stick to how it is understood within the context of the society rather than the circumstance. It is not (yet) too late to commence another investigation. Even if those responsible are all dead, justice will have been served by having the historical record amended. It may further be served by compensation given to certain individuals, if that is deemed just and desirable.

All of the remedies you suggest are indeed just. But society is an evolving entity -- hardly static, I'm sure you'll agree -- and part of what we can accomplish as we pursue justice in the case is the expansion of our understanding of the objective definition of the word. What gives you hope that yet another investigation -- to be conducted or at least controlled, I assume, by the heirs of the perpetrators of the crime under scrutiny -- will result in any substantive movement of the arc of the universe toward justice? As for the historical record -- or, if you prefer, the target of opportunity for Bugliosi, Posner, and their ilk -- of what is it comprised? Didn't the HSCA amend it by issuing the "probable conspiracy" conclusion?

As for our war: I deeply appreciate the fact that you share my understanding of the war in which we're engaged. I would suggest, however, that in many respects it is, if not an unprecedented form of conflict (as the Gracchi brothers might insist), then at least one that boasts unique rules of engagement.

This sounds like the same logic that led to "Extraordinary Rendition", torture, Gitmo and Military Tribunals...

You're a highly intelligent guy, Charles. If you and others wish to pursue a particular course of action regarding getting amnesties on the political agenda, then that is what you should do. It's not that I think it's a terrible idea, or that I oppose in moral grounds -- to me, it's simply that it puts the cart before the horse. A JG or congressional inquiry first - then amnesties as one possible tool in the armory.

Thanks for pointing out the similarities in my language to the criminal pronouncements of Bush and his masters. Point taken. So permit me to clarify my thoughts in this regard.

My (too?) simple definition of justice in the JFK case: Let us use the truth to make certain that the chances of a similar event taking place -- on and beyond our watch -- are minimized.

As for the grand jury route, I'll do everything I can to help make it so. Such an investigation would stand as a viable "stick" to raise along with the "carrot" of amnesty. From day one I've envisioned the latter, I might add, as but a single tactic in a much broader and more complex strategy.

Charles

Greg,

The final observation in your previous post was well written. Yes, we know more and trust less.

But how does this bring us closer to justice? How do you define justice in this case?

As for our war: I deeply appreciate the fact that you share my understanding of the war in which we're engaged. I would suggest, however, that in many respects it is, if not an unprecedented form of conflict (as the Gracchi brothers might insist), then at least one that boasts unique rules of engagement.

I look forward to your response.

Charles

John,

Your rationale is sensible, but you need to consider an additional motive.

It falls more squarely into what might best be termed the spiritual realm. Lennon was an artist, and art in service to propaganda is, I would argue, the most potent behavior modification weapon imaginable.

Witness what Oliver Stone accomplished with "JFK."

Witness what Leni Riefenstal accomplished with "Triumph of the [George F.] Will."

Both losing causes, but you take my point.

The assault on Lennon was an assault on the divine.

I have zero emotional attachment to The Beatles, and only slightly more connection to a few Lennon/McCartney songs, but nonetheless I'm able to understand the deeper cultural and spiritual significance of Lennon much as his killers understood it.

In the early 1950s ... thats 1950s ... Charlie Parker stated publicly that heroin is allowed into American Black ghettos to keep the population controlled, self-loathing, and small.

Bird didn't need anyone's help to kill himself.

Charles