Charles Drago

In further praise of Garrison: I don't think George Michael Evica will mind that I share a story he first told me as we sat around his kitchen table one fine morning too many years ago. We had spoken the previous evening of one of the earliest JFK research conferences that Evica had co-sponsored in Hartford and at which the New Orleans D.A. had spoken at length. "Garrison sat exactly where I am now, and at just about this time of day," Evica told me. "And I'll never forget how he looked up and said, 'Where am I? Seriously, George Michael. There are times when I just don't know where I am any more.'" That's my paraphrase, but it's close. Why do I suggest that an admission of confusion is worthy of "praise"? Simply because many of Garrison's mightiest contributions to justice were made during the height of the attacks on his credibility, ethics, and sanity. So even Garrison's brief confrontation that day with the toll being taken on him reveals, for me at least, the human dimensions to a heroic figure who knew what he was up against and whose personal courage must never be underestimated. Charles

I should direct your attention to Peter Levenda's "Sinister Forces" trilogy, too, and its lengthy treatment of the Manson phenomenon that stands in the starkest of contrast to Bugliosi's whitewash. This massive work simply cannot be overestimated in terms of its significance to the understanding of the depth and breadth of our shared subject matter. Charles

Charles B., I'm grateful that you share my sense of the power of visual reconstructions to illustrate -- and reinvigorate -- old examinations of evidence. Would our shared work not benefit from the reactions of surviving Parkland and Bethesda medical personnel to the EFX materials, for instance? And that's just for starters. Charles D.

I'm almost certain that this work was commissioned for "JFK." The film's autopsy scenes in which the body was visible were shot in grainy B&W, and the images move quickly. It would be most interesting to hear from the mannequins' designer and from Oliver Stone regarding the origins and development of these pieces. And one is left to wonder, given what appears to be a photo of the "president" undergoing emergency treatment, just how much material was left on the cutting room floor. Charles

Charles, What 'recent' Special Effects (EFX) materials? Thanks, DHealy See: "The Head Wound: Great Similarity" thread. The images, you should know, are quite disturbing.

At a JFK/Lancer conference some years ago, Doug Horne illustrated his presentation of problems with the medical evidence with a set of adult human skulls on which conflicting descriptions of the head wound(s) had been drawn. It occurred to me then -- and I said so at the podium -- that anatomically correct sculptures of JFK's head and torso, replete with graphic depictions of those same wounds -- likely would provide poweful visual arguments for alteration, the non-viability of the SBT, the disparities (or not) between Parkland and Bethesda observations, etc. Robert Groden made an extremely modest attempt to do just this in his first large-format book. I submit that the recently posted special EFX materials, disturbing though they may be, underscore my earlier point. Charles

And the ultimate insult to injury: the Kennedys give a Profiles in Courage Award to the S.O.B. Ford's "courageous" act: pardoning Nixon. Which amounts to a coverup rivaling, in terms of the damage it inflicted upon this country and the world, its affront to history and the truth, and its sheer cheek, that of the WC itself. The picture of Caroline handing it off is truly sickening. Charles

In the mid 1990s, if memory serves, Ford's masters had him send inscribed copies of the WC to certain elected officials in the US. Here in Rhode Island, recipients included the then-speaker and majority leader of the House of Representatives. The inscripition was a reiteration of the Unelected One's "Trust me, it was one guy" lie. Charles

Ron, All we can say for certain about the actual Dealey Plaza mechanics firing weapons at the president that day with the intent to kill him is that they were the best available killer/marksmen. If it cannot be demonstrated that Sarti or any other suspect possessed such skills, then he or she must be crossed off the list. The lives of the event's planners depended upon a kill. A wounded, governing JFK would hunt them to the ends of the earth. So all the babble we hear and read about Nicolletti and Rosselli and Holt and Files and Wallace as gunmen must be weighed against their respective capabilities as hunter/killers capable of doing the job in question. With apologies to Michael Corleone: This wasn't a case of walking up to the guy and blowing his brains all over his nice Ivy League suit. This was war, where you killed him from scores or hundreds of yards away as he moved downgrade in an outdoor setting replete with uncontrollable environmental impacts and security threats. Of all the yarns spun about alleged mechanics, my favorite was produced by Gerry Patrick Hemming upon the occasion of his public grilling at a Lancer conference. He claimed, in typical high style, that the killer in a northwest TSBD window was a former SS sniper, one of the Rat Line boys, who had been assigned to take out Connolly. Why the governor? Hemming claims to have asked him. "Because he didn't bid high enough." Are you afraid that one of the assassination researchers will identify you? "Just make sure they spell my f***ing name right!" Makes more sense than Mac Wallace, I'd say. Charles

This all gets PRECISELY to my main point. If I were allowed to make just one contribution to our efforts, it would be to impress upon all of us the significance of the following: Constantly, eloquently, powerfully, courageously, brilliantly, and righteously differentiate between the "how" and "who/why" of the assassination. All of Bugliosi's pontifications on the nature of the conspiratorial mindset -- like all other psychobabble introduced into this investigation in order to stall it -- simply cannot be brought to bear on the scientific examinations of the "how" that have led to discovery of the conspiratorial truth. The classic example, for me at least, is that old chestnut, "People believe in conspiracy because they can't accept that a pathetic little man struck down a great man." What the hell does that have to do with unassailable forensic, medical, eyewitness, earwitness, photographic, and circumstantial evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt and to the level of metaphysical certitude conspiracy in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy? We must not allow Bugliosi and his ilk to get away with this. The conflation of the "how" and "who/why" issues is all they've got. It's that simple. Charles

So Bugliosi writes: "any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." Should I be flattered? I wrote: "Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the case of the assassination of JFK who does not conclude that the murder was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime." Given the length of Bugliosi's new book, we are left little choice but to conclude that his access to the evidence indeed has been reasonable. We must recognize Bugliosi as the enemy. We must not content ourselves with demolishing his sophistic arguments. We must treat him with plain contempt and relentless ridicule. Charles

John Dolva, I deeply appreciate your meditation on the quantum reality that is the subject we study. However, I must register the strongest possible disagreement with the following: "Fourty three years, almost half a century, and there is no unassailable proof." Even within the context of your splendid paean to abstraction, this statement is demonstrably false. The proof of conspiracy is clear in its multiplicity. Conspiracy in the death of JFK is the truth. It does indeed lie in full view. It always has. So much for the "how." The "who" and "why" remain ... elusive. Use the truth as we know it as a weapon. Use it brutally. We are at war. So ... how many divisions do we have? The sad answer: "Countless." We could not be more divided. Charles

Ron, If I may: The evidence of CIA agents at the Ambassador, while tantalyzing, remains open to serious, honest challenge. David Talbot, in Brothers, for instance, claims to be privy to analysis and interpretation of the images in question that refute the basic claims of the BBC documentarian. Time will tell. As for why the CIA would concoct Regicide: I agree that there is no reason to believe that it would. But the assassination's sponsors and their heirs clearly would see the value of protecting their military planners by ham-handedly attempting to implicate them in the manner under discussion. Finally, the real targets of this "get 'em hot and bothered, then pull the rug out from under 'em" operation are not just JFK assassination researchers, but in the agregate all who challenge official stories by proposing conspiracy alternatives. Thus 9-11 and Diana and RFK and MLK researchers are, by extension, tainted by the same brushstroke. Charles

Bill Kelly, You wrote: "What about creating fake records that indicate Angleton/Harvey/et al were involved in the assassination, then its proven to be fake and they are exonerated. "Then along comes other evidence, not so easily dissmissed, yet it is now shown that they were wrongfully accused before and therefore all the evidence is tainted?" Precisely my point. In the case of the patently absurd Regicide: Subsequent efforts to suggest and document flag officers' complicity in the assassination and coverup must overcome the dreaded "here they go again" burden. Charles

Ron, I lean toward the convergence of interests hypothesis, which would indicate that both scenarios -- scam AND intel op -- are likely to have been underway simultaneously. Just an informed guess. Terry, All that remains to be said is, Toots, you're sweet. Charles

***************************************************** First of all, after clicking on the link, I got this before my stunned and confused eyes: Regicide: The Official Assasination of John F. Kennedy (Hardcover) by Douglas Gregory (Author) Is this some European way of spelling the word, "assassination?" French in origin, possibly? Otherwise, let's get the ass back into assass-ination, or have I committed another faux pas? Prey tell, si vous plais? Or, is that sil vous plais? Oh, hell. Who am I kidding? I'm better in Spanish than I am in frog-speak. Oh Terry, That was out loud. Regicide, in my opinion, embodies that most fascinating and devilish variety of disinformation: It points to some of the truly guilty parties in such outrageously flawed ways as to invite massive negative criticism not only of the arguments, but of the conclusions, too. There goes the baby with the bathwater. A brilliant defense of flag officers' culpability in the assas(s)ination, n'cest pas? Here's the sought flawed logic: Operation Zipper is patent nonsense, so all talk of Joint Chiefs complicity in the hit is by definition nonsensical. Au reservoir, M. Charles

Most valuable would be access to the outtakes, which are said to contain otherwise unseen (by mere mortals) evidence supportive of the conspiracy truth. Hasn't David Lifton written of this? Charles

Good Afternoon, Myra, You will find the story in the December, 1998 issue. I own a copy, and within its pages I've inserted a catalog from the late, lamented President's Box Bookshop in which the coffee table book in question is offered for sale. I can't put my hands on the material right now, so I'm relying on memory when I write that it's a Time-Life production. Of course I also relied on memory when I mistakenly described the history of the library. I guess even the best establishment intel operatives can mess up every now and then. The magazine story headline and photo credits: "Inside the Legendary Performer’s Palm Springs Compound" Photography by Mary E. Nichols and John Bryson. Go to: www.architecturaldigest.com and type sinatra palm springs in the search box. If you can get your hands on a copy of the original, you can EASILY see that Frank's heel is right on the face of JFK as it appears in an oval frame. I gotta tell you, I'm so glad that I started this thread. Originally it was for a lark. But now that it has drawn at least one bull goose looney out of the brushes, who knows what other benefits may accrue. Charles

Charles, have you obtained an advance copy of the book? I am going to amazon right now. Dawn Hi Dawn, No, I purchased the book at my local Borders store. It's also listed as "in stock" on Amazon. There are three Borders stores within 50 miles of my southern New England home, but only one carried it when I checked yesterday at noon. Believe me, it would be worth the effort for you to hunt it down today. Charles

It is also worth noting that this is something Mr. Drago simply made up, if we can judge by the caption meant to accompany the photo of Sinatra in his library. The caption on Architectural Digest's website reads : QUOTE ON: Sinatra in one of his guest rooms. Sinatra, who was a voracious reader, sits in the Kennedy room. The guest room, where the senator stayed for two days in 1960 during a campaign visit to California, was later converted into a library, but a plaque commemorating Kennedy’s visit remained. QUOTE OFF http://www.architecturaldigest.com/homes/h...01?showall=true (Click on the photo of the spa) Yawn. Strike "constructed," add "renovated". But if, old man (there's that pesky English patois again ... I think), you're calling me a xxxx, have the guts to say so, and put your pounds where your mouth is. I suggest you use currency; coins would cause a blockage.

From page 3: "Bobby Kennedy was America's first assassination conspiracy theorist." I have read the first chapter of Brothers, and the experience must be described as both enlightening and moving in the extreme. All Saturday plans are now cancelled. My sense of what's to come is that those of us who are mystified, angered, and troubled by the post-assassination behavior of the Kennedys are about to be shaken to the cores of our conceits. Charles

Look not upon my outward appearance But take what is in my hand --Rumi Rex has just given us this assurance. Do you still want more proof? Yawn.

Dear Rex, Thanks so much for your response. It is most welcome indeed. The MFF has established itself as an invalulable and unique resource; in its efforts to maximize public access to the historical record, the organization routinely demonstrates the courage to speak truth to power -- and in the most eloquent and influential of manners. If I have been less than artful in the presentation of my concerns regarding the MFF's origins and the disposition of Mary's holdings, I apologize. Please allow me to try again. As seasoned students of intelligence operations and of those who conceive and execute them, we have accepted the charge to look deep beneath surfaces in our searches for truth. Sometimes we conclude that a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes, where there's smoke, there's fire. Given the breadth, depth and, in some instances, uniqueness of Mary's collections and their overarching significance as -- again I'll use the term -- a counter-National Archives, we would be remiss if we did not also acknowledge their value as targets of opportunity for those who would seek to control the future by controlling the past. So when Mr. Curme appeared in Dallas to make his extraordinary offer to Mary, alarm bells went off. And I was not alone in hearing them. I found Ollie to be a charming, seemingly ingenuous dinner companion with virtually no specialized knowledge of the president's assassination and related issues -- all the more reasons to delve deeply into the motives for his largess. To state it all generically, if you will: Had you been informed at the time that a fabulously wealthy venture capitalist with no previously demonstrated public interest in the JFK murder was looking to buy up one of the most important privately held collections of documents and publications related to the assassination, my guess is that your instincts and experience would have prompted you to raise the same questions that Evica and I continue to ask. I would be enormously pleased -- not to mention relieved -- to learn that Oliver Curme's purchase of the Ferrell archives is nothing other than a most felicitous instance of private and public interests coinciding. So too would I welcome proof that Mary's materials are intact and well guarded. Further, I submit that those of us who cherish Mary's memory are obliged to raise these questions and press for meaningful answers. As the custodian of her holdings, Rex, we turn to you for reassurance on these matters. Sincerely, Charles

I recall that back around 1991 you announced at a Third Decade conference that you had ambitions to write a novel about the JFK assassination. Is the story about me slandering Mary's memory something you made up to put in your novel, or did you make it up for some other reason? Yawn.

Why wait, indeed!