Charles Drago

Okay Terry, The shared purpose of this and my "Amnesty" post is to get us to consider and answer the question: How do we define and effect justice in the JFK assassination case? Further: How much closer to justice are we now than we were when John Kennedy's head exploded? But wait, there's more: What will satisfy us? When will our job be done? Realistically. Another one: How many divisions do we have? Charles

Gentlemen, I understand (I think) how an amnesty offer is given teeth: the credible stick alone makes the sweet carrot desirable. And Bill, you're right; the bad guys don't care what we write about -- unless our words can stimulate threatening actions. What this all boils down to, for me, is expressed in a simple question: How do we define and effect justice in this case? I've posed the query from too many podiums and in more than a few published essays. But to date, I have failed to note answers that remotely reflect a concensus. How on earth can we make progress toward goals which we cannot even agree to pursue? How much closer to justice are we today than we were when John Kennedy's head exploded? Charles

Terry, I'm in the middle of packing, so give me 12 hours or so and I'll respond with appropriate seriousness to your well-taken points. Don't forget the aloe. CD

http://www.jfklancer.com/amnesty.html This link gets you to JFK Lancer's Amnesty Project page -- and press materials that were generated nearly 10 years ago. Thanks to Debra Conway for the PM of earlier this evening in which she evoked bittersweet memories of that time. William Xanttopolis, the attorney whose eloquent words appear on the amnesty site, was a key player on that weekend in Dallas. He, George Michael Evica, Debra, and I had brainstormed before and after the public discussion of the plan. If memory serves, Chris Courtwright was involved, but he can check in and clarify the record in this regard. I recall this small group gathering in one of our hotel rooms; I sat on the floor drafting the press release for the newly created Lancer Independent News Exchange (LINE) as the ideas ricocheted off the walls. I have not lost faith in the basic wisdom and workability of the idea. Perhaps others in this forum can offer their thoughts. Charles

Yes, Terry. But ... Some years ago at a Lancer conference, I brought forward, in the company of George Michael Evica, the notion of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for our shared inquiry, modeled after that which had been formed in South Africa. My thinking: Justice, at this late date, has nothing to do with throwing anyone in jail, but everything to do with revealing the truth and using it, to the best of our abiities, to make certain that the system will be cleansed. (Apologies to the Manicheans in the crowd, but I cannot, in good conscience, join you.) I'm willing to give a pass to everyone, from the prime movers to the mechanics, who will come forward and tell the truth. It is more important to disempower the killers of John Kennedy than to disembowel them. And hate begets hate. Charles

Don't get too excited about Richard Hoagland. He is the main proponent of the so-called Face on Mars theory. This is not intended as a negative judgment of any such hypothesis, but rather as a heads-up that anything Hoagland proffers will be subject to ridicule because of his Martian civilization contentions. Yet again focus on the "who and why" negatively impacts our efforts to seek and attain justice based on demonstration of the conspiratorial "how." Charles

But there IS concensus. At least on the "how" question. CONSPIRACY! Yet again I submit that we would be well advised when dealing with the media and the public at large to focus on the presentation of proof of conspiracy -- scientific, quantifiable, falsifiable, unassailable proof, deflect all efforts to conflate "how" with "who and why," and end with the ancient question: What, then, are you prepared to do? Charles

HISTORIANS. Myra, Of course. But I'm concerned with countering the negative connotations inherent in the use of "conspiracy theorist" in general, and in particular when applied to those of us who research the JFK assassination. Conspiracy is reality in this case. The "theory" is no more. Hence we confront the name-callers head on by succinctly expressing the truth whenever we describe ourselves as JFK "conspiracy realists." Charles

Mr. Drago, Thanks for pointing this out. (" ... Gary Mack informs me that he can't understand why 'conspiracy supporters' ) I must have missed this Mack quote somewhere. Do you still have it? Or the passage it's from which it is taken? Miles Miles, It was from a very recent post by Mr. Kelly. I'm running late, but you won't have a problem finding it quickly. Charles

" ... Gary Mack informs me that he can't understand why 'conspiracy supporters' - I guess he just can't say 'conspiracy theorists' ..." -- William Kelly How shall we know ourselves? Conspiracy Realists Agreed? Charles

Do you mean the upcoming G-8? W, conveniently, will be travelling to Europe and will stop in. I think it's going to be held in Germany. What are they planning? Kathy Kathy, Who knows? The possibilities range from nothing to a too-late-term abortion for Barbara Bush. Seriously, it was not my intention to predict any event, but rather to suggest a viable primary investigative tool for use in evaluations of so-called terrorist attacks (thwarted and executed). All we can say with certainty is that nothing is off the table when it comes to false flag ops. Charles

****************************************************** "No one -- I mean NO ONE -- includes in criticism of Castro mention of the US-backed horror he overthrew. Viva Fidel!" I want to expatriate to Cuba! At least, I'll get medical benefits down there. I'm just waiting until I'm 70 or 75, when I can retire, have my brother cash my Social Security checks, and send me the money. I'll donate what's left of my ridiculous and worthless 401K Plan to the Cuban government. VIVA CHE! Terry, We'll walk the beach at Giron ... watch the sun set ... scare the gulls. C

Viva Fidel! Seriously. No one -- I mean NO ONE -- includes in criticism of Castro mention of the US-backed horror he overthrew. Viva Fidel! Charles

If the Watergate investigative mantra was "follow the money," inquiries into so-called terrorist plots should be informed by "question the timing." Charles

Too many years ago I was taught to begin a critique on a positive note. Ron Rosenbaum once described his visit to Dealey Plaza in the company of Penn Jones as a tour of the "Stations of the Crossfire." Done. In terms of Rosenbaum's ruminations on the JFK assassination, alas, this witty, literate, and often erudite man is rendered senseless by his laughably off-point armchair psychoanalyses of aggrieved conspiracy believers and, more significantly, by his conflation of the "how" and "who and why" questions. He fails to comprehend that the demonstrable absurdity of many proffered answers to the latter query has ZERO impact on the legitimacy of the science that has answered -- definitively, to the degree of metaphysical certitude -- the former in two simple words: "Criminal conspiracy." As I wrote for another thread: Imagine that the first official US government investigation of the assassination concludes, on the basis of available evidence, that a conspiracy, likely of domestic origin and with political motivations, resulted in the death of JFK, and that Lee Harvey Oswald, clearly connected to more than one American intelligence agency, had been set up as a patsy. Further imagaine that, before the ink is dry on this report, a small, vocal group of self-styled "critics" argues that in fact LHO acted alone -- a conclusion based upon the "evidence" that the real-life WC, and later Posner and Bugliosi and their merry little band of irregulars (indeed, irregularity could account for their shared -- discomforts), actually did present and endorse. How long would these critics' "arguments" have lasted? Fourty-plus years? How about 40 minutes?! It is the imprimatur of the state -- and NOTHING ELSE -- that breathes life into the LN fantasy. Take it away, and what have you got? I'm reminded of William F. Buckley's early 1960s insight: Take away the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal, and what you've got is India. (I know: no longer valid, thanks to Homi Bhabha.) All of Rosenbaum's blather about the emotional and psychological drives toward embrace of conspiracy theories is beside the point -- at least when it comes to answering the "how" question. Emblematic of this sort of nonsense is the too-well-traveled bromide, "We believe in a JFK conspiracy because we can't accept the fact that a nobody killed a somebody." What the hell does that have to say about incontrovertible evidence of a headshot from the front? Ron Rosenbaum also has postulated, tongue firmly in cheek, that the fact that Hitler had one testicle gave rise to the first lone nut theory. Yeah, he's good. We could use him on our side. Charles

Dear Tim, Although we've never met, I think of you and feel you as a member of my extended family. We tilt at the same windmills. My prayers and thoughts are with you. Hasten the day when all of us can gather in that sweetest of symbioses: victory and forgiveness. Warmest regards, Charles Drago

BK, Your bellicose terminology is utterly in keeping with the fact that I attempt to hammer home whenever I address conferences and publish JFK-related essays: We are at war with the killers of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Charles

M. Reymond remains a figure of some controversy. I believe that David Mantik traveled to France in an effort to see the "other" Z-film, which was to be provided by Reymond. If David visits these pages, I hope that he will fill us in on the results of that mission, which I believe were less than satisfying. The A-B-C Dallas contingency structure has been talked about by Gerry Patrick Hemming, too: A "French team" allegedly was waiting with some sort of shaped charge just past the triple underpass. And Umbrella Man's companion, White Windbreaker Man (AKA "The Professor," added Gerry), was supposed to have a grease gun under his jacket and be willing to run up to the care and open fire if all else failed. Again, according to GPH. Balderdash! I think. Charles

New one on me. May I ask after the book's title, author, and publisher? Charles

Mr. Scull, This discussion is about Gary SHAW. Charles

Jack White is uniquely positioned to comment on Mr. Shaw's silence. My understanding is that he has formally and permanently withdrawn from JFK assassination-related public activities. The reasons for this decision are, I think, none of our concern. I applaud Mr. Shaw for his many valuable contributions to our searches for truth and justice. Charles

Myra, Your first of three options may be in need of review. Did you mean to write "the Pentagon" rather than "the CIA" defending itself? My money is on "misdirection." Charles

As Charles Black notes and as I've pointed out for years, once shots were fired in Dealey -- or anywhere else -- at JFK, failure to make a kill was not an option. We part company, however, on a Dallas fallback hit. By its very nature, the (ultimately successful) DP attempt was a complex and, to my mind, site/date/false evidence/patsy-specific operation. If the shooting had been aborted, surely another attempt would be made. In relative terms, there was no hurry. Would that attempt have been made on the same day? My educated guess -- and again, it is only a guess -- is that two distinct same-day Dallas scenarios would have been one too many. Even for the most gifted and inspired of planners. No plan is foolproof. I submit that if the attack on JFK had resulted in a less-than-fatal outcome, the fallback/protective position would be to place blame on Castro, and to do so in the most public and convincing of manners. Indeed, if we accept the security stripping/faux attack hypothesis (an Operation Northwoods-like event, as suspected by Palamara, Evica, yours truly, and others) as probable, this scenario begins to make sense. Had JFK survived and remained capable of governing, he would have been placed under enormous public pressure to strike back at the putative conspirators -- in Havana, of course. Would he have known differently? Sure. Was there the chance that he would resist the calls for revenge on Castro and instead expose the conspirators in his own government and in other, influential and powerful spheres, domestic and foreign? Sure. The attack on JFK was partly the product of imposing intellect, and partly the product of -- it must be said -- twisted courage. The number of bets that can be covered is finite. Once it starts, it has to be finished. No guarantees. The player in Dealey Plaza who called the ball, then, would have possessed pathological cunning and cool. We underestimate the enemy at our own peril. One man's opinion. Charles

How about a Fair Play for COPA Committee? In all seriousness, that organization is to be commended for its contributions to the search for the truth. We should support its efforts, and those of JFK Lancer, without reservation. Charles

David, The following is offered in all humility and informed by experiences gained by too many years in the trenches. For those of us who accept the truth of conspiracy and wish to share it, I cannot conjure a more valuable base line for JFK assassination-related lectures and debates than the following: We are obliged to make it clear to audiences and debate opponents that we must differentiate between the "how" and the "who and why" of the issue if we are to have any chance of discovering the way in which John Kennedy died and the identities and motives of his killers. As you witnessed this evening (I'm writing on Monday, May 29, at 6:40 PM from my New England home) during your appearance on Chris Matthew's "Hardball," Bugliosi will rabidly attempt to create straw men, conflate and intentionally misstate conflicting points of view, and otherwise make every effort to confuse his audiences by flooding them with vast, unmanageable amounts of disinformation. Accordingly, I suggest that you in turn make every effort to focus first on the "how" issue. When inevitably Bugliosi comes back with a "you mean to say" ad hominem ("You mean to say that Lyndon Johnson peed on JFK from the Grassy Knoll???"), scold him as you direct him back on point. By all means inform the audience of the nature of his sophistic trickery, laugh at him, demean him -- and do so by intelligently, cogently, and dramatically correcting his intentional perverting of the historical record. Your condescending smile as the Matthews segment drew to a close was spot-on! Stay on point. Stay with the "how" until the ideal opportunity to move to "who and why" presents itself. Segregation, baby. It's the only way. (God help me, I can't believe I wrote those last six words. Here's betting they're taken out of context ... and soon.) This for starters, if I may. Charles