Charles Drago

Is it appropriate to use a given scholar's "take" on the assassination as a litmus test for his or her work in other areas?

dgh: absolutely call it credibility... Manchester included

I eagerly await your thoughts.

Charles

Agreed. My basic premise: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination who does not conclude that the crime was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Why should anyone care about what Cockburn thinks?

He is just another establishment stooge.

Jack

Jack,

I don't necessarily disagree with you on Cockburn; he remains steadfastly opposed to giving due, unbiased consideration to all but the official USG 9-11 conspiracy theories, for example.

At the same time, I am not prepared to conclude that everyone who subscribes to the official, fictional accounts of the Kennedy murders is either an accessory after the fact or an establishment wittol, so to speak. I do mean to suggest that the research community, of which I humbly count myself a member, has failed in its implicit responsibility to imbed the truth as we know it into mainstream intellectual and academic communities.

You've heard my presentations in Dallas when I've attempted to make this point at some length and with numerous examples.

Charles

Today (Saturday, April 7), at approximately 11:05 AM Eastern time, on C-SPAN's "In Depth," Alexander Cockburn responded to an E-mail question about his thoughts on "Case Closed" by stating that he accepts the Warren Commission's conclusions, but doesn't really agree with Gerald Posner.

Once again we must ask ourselves two important quesations:

What sort of impact we are having on the quest for justice in the case of the unsolved, conspiratorial murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy when we cannot persuade the boldest, most progressive, liberal of intellectual lions to accept the truth?

Is it appropriate to use a given scholar's "take" on the assassination as a litmus test for his or her work in other areas?

I eagerly await your thoughts.

Charles

You might also search for Max Roach -- "South Africa Goddamn," "Mendacity," and other politically charged compositions that rival the Mingus canon.

Or is that "cannon"?

Charles

If 60s protest music is of interest, you cannot avoid confronting Charles Mingus.

And "confronting" is just about the best word to describe what the great composer/bassist was all about.

There are some very important Mingus videos on YouTube, and I urge you to have at it.

Charles

[i am also not implying that what they were fighting for was not right and honorable. But one should be smart enough "not to enter a gunfight armed only with a knife."

Charlie Black

Charlie,

I'm afraid that you've found the perfect cliche to describe what the Kennedys did to themselves.

They brought knives to a gunfight.

Beyond this point, we must agree to disagree. I believe our argument is more semantical than anything else. At least I HOPE it is.

Recall the Turkish proverb: The speaker of truth is driven from a dozen villages. (rough translation)

Charles

Hello Charles

I certainly wont argue the summation which you mentioned of "some" of the forces aligned against him....but I still strongly question ( even out of his feeling of some "needed security"), the complete absence of protocol involved in Robert's "introduction" into some of these areas. This, IMHO, was a bad move, but Robert's agressiveness in areas where it is acknowledged that he didn't belong, was politically, professionally, and militarially insulting, to some very political, professional and military individuals. This is where I feel that major mistakes were made that at least "hastened" JFK's demise.

I feel that there was becoming a quick history of what appeared to be, the administrations total disdain of protocol, and the forced establishment of JFK's personal wishes.

Whether JFK's wishes or will, were in the overall best interests of the United States, is something that others much brighter than me, should judge.

Democracies are by their very nature much slower to react and much less efficient in some areas than are dictatorships. However, if we are to have democracy, some of these "slow rules and protocols" cannot at times be set aside by the chief executive or anyone else.

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

Charlie,

Your baseline argument is made all the more vexing -- let alone disappointing -- by the cogency and accuracy of many of the points you would present in support thereof.

I exclude from this description the sentiments offered in your final paragraph above. Indeed, we could not be in more profound disagreement, for the "rules and protocols" you would hold sacrosanct are in many instances improvements over earlier carved-in-stone versions set aside by bold, visionary leaders.

An example of revolutionary behavior from Watergate: Barry Goldwater and a delegation of GOP powerbrokers convene a private meeting with RMN, and then proceed to convince the Trickster to abdicate -- in effect setting aside the protocols of the elders of Ervin.

Should Barry have been whacked for his perfidy?

My point: The "revolution v. evolution" either/or argument is wrongheaded when applied to the democratic process. BOTH approaches have their place, depending upon time and circumstance. And yes, you can try to make the counterargument that, under such terms, the removals of the Kennedy brothers might easily be contextualized as revolutionary democratic acts.

But it won't work, because murder won't pass muster.

When you cite the outside-the-envelope behaviors of the Kennedys within the context of a discussion of the likely motivations of their assassins, you inevitably lead your readers to the conclusion that, as Spiro Agnew said of the Kent State Guardsmen/Executioners, while you don't condone the actions, you can sympathize with those who took them.

"Play by the rules or face the firing squad." In a nutshell, this seems to be your message to the democratically elected leaders of America (which excludes the current criminal regime, of course).

"Don't cry for Jack and Bobby, because they were asking for it, and they got it." In a nutshell, this seems to be your message to us all.

Charles

Another reason to value as well as understand the motivations behind RFK's involvement in areas of government other than the Justice Department may be discerned in our appreciation of the president's appreciation of the forces aligned against him.

In terms of the Pentagon: With 31-Knot Burke and Curtis the Barbarian among the Joint Chiefs, Little Tommy Power at SAC, and Burris the Brain whispering in Lyndon's elephantine ear, how could President Kennedy NOT realize that he was in the military's crosshairs?

Enter his brother -- who could be trusted as no other.

And still it was not enough.

Charles

Caution indeed is called for when attempting to evaluate Miner's major "revelations," and I thank you for the previous reference to his story.

When the notion of a Truth and Amnesty Commission was first raised in the context of JFK's assassination (by George Michael Evica and yours truly at a Lancer conference), we had in mind (among many categories of individuals) people like Miner who, innocent of complicity in the murder, nonetheless very well may have broken the letter and/or spirit of the law by concealing evidence.

Miner is a minor ... player, that is. A thousand pardons I'd gladly offer to him and his ilk in return for full access to what they know and hold.

Charles

[Do members of the forum, other than J. Raymond feel that I cannot post my beliefs that the Kennedy's were not Gods? Is it sacrilege ?

Charlie Black

Not me, man.

Post away.

As must those whose instincts are sufficiently well developed that they appreciate your "argument" that the Kennedys did it to themselves as being a manifestation of one of the earliest and most nefarious, ongoing components of the cover-up.

By all means continue, sir. As John Kennedy reminded us, none of us are "Gods." We are all mortal.

Charles

ADDENDUM

I neglected to note that Miner stated that he has been released from the pledge of confidentiality he made to Greenson by the psychiatrist's heirs.

And a point of clarification may be in order: I do NOT conclude that Robert Kennedy or any emmisary of his family played any criminal roles in the murder of Marilyn Monroe.

RFK was patsied. And he came to realize it, and took measures -- successful, as it turned out -- to evade the trap's endgame.

The SOBs couldn't close the deal. At least for another six years.

One man's hypothesis.

Charles

In a recent Los Angeles Times feature,, "The Marilyn Monroe Story," John W. Miner adds interesting grist to this mill.

At the time of Monroe's passing, Miner was a Deputy District Attorney of L.A. County and headed that office's Medical-Legal Section. In that position he was designated as liaison to the County's Chief Medical Examiner.

Miner was present for the Monroe autopsy. Based upon his observations and those of coroner Thomas T. Noguchi, he reached the following conclusion:

"Marilyn Monroe took or was given chloral hydrate to render her unconscious. Someone dissolved Nembutal in water by breaking open 30 or more capsules. That person then administered the Nembutal-loaded solution by enema to Miss Monroe using an ordinary fountain syringe or enema bag. As the drug was slowly absorbed, the tissues of the large intestine reacted to the trauma of exposure to the poisonous substance by an inflammatory response producing congestion and a marked purple color. That congestion and purple color were in evidence when the body was opened at the autopsy. Never regaining consciousness, Marilyn Monroe died.

"It must be concluded from the medical evidence alone that Marily Monroe was killed by person(s) unknown."

(So we're looking for Public Enema Number One?)

But Miner is not done. In 1962 he also was an Associate Clinical Professor in the Psychiatry Department at USC's Medical School. There he became acquainted with Ralph Greenson, MD -- Monroe's psychiatrist.

Miner now reveals that Greenson allowed him to listen to selected (there's the rub?) tape recordings of the psychiatrist's sessions with Monroe, after first having been informally questioned by Miner on the suicide question.

Of Miner's summary of what he heard, the following are of interest to this site's correspondents:

"For those many writers who maintain that she was going to blow the whistle on J.F. Kennedy (that horse had left the barn) about their sexual relationship, she shoots down such speculation when she expresses utmost admiration for the President and explicitly says she would never embarrass him."

"Her remarks disprove those who claim that she killed herself because Robert Kennedy broke off their relationship because it was she who broke it off."

Additionally, Miner reports hearing Monroe speak with great excitement of pending projects that, until his revelations, were not well known -- if at all. Thus despair at professional decline can be ruled out as a motive for suicide.

Okay ... deep breath.

I am not suggesting that we take Miner at his word, but only that, as an exercise and based on what Miner now writes, we speculate on the identity and motives of the forces who took out Marilyn.

My hypothesis: Extraordinary efforts had been made by Giancana and company to get Marilyn to turn on the Kennedys (the debacle at the Cal-Neva Lodge shortly before her death likely was the scene of a most intense episode thereof), but she steadfastly refused. So the plan was altered.

RFK was informed in a most convincing manner that Monroe was going public with news of her affairs with the Kennedy brothers, and had no choice but to go to her L.A. home and demand that she cease and desist. Her protestations to the contrary on that final afternoon/evening left RFK unconvinced.

But the damage was done; Kennedy was observed by neighbors and others entering and leaving the premises, and his argument with Monroe was captured on tape. What was NOT recorded were threats by Monroe to go public or threats by RFK to harm her.

But hey, close enough for government work. The hit went ahead as planned, but subsequent blackmail attempts were blunted.

Yes, all of this amounts to a radical rethinking of the events surrounding the unsolved murder of Marilyn Monroe. But it certainly conforms to the levels of conspiratorial thinking that we've learned to expect from these SOBs.

Worth pondering, I'd submit.

Charles

Mr. Black,

God bless, and good luck with the new medications.

Charles

Let's see ... The Kennedys were hit because of "lack of maturity, deplorable manners and arrogant behavior" ...

Ladies and gentlemen, the conspirators have been identified!

Miss Manners and Marth Stewart did it!!!

Then they killed Jack and Bobby.

Hey, it makes as much sense as any of this wretched "they got what was coming to them" disinformation.

Charles

*********************************************************

"Ladies and gentlemen, the conspirators have been identified!"

That's right, Mr. Drago. And, their names are Rockefeller-Morgan, Harriman, McCloy, Bundy, Cabot, and their lap-dog mouth-pieces: the Dulles brothers of Sullivan and Cromwell Associates, and their subsequent followers. Plus, their P.R.-Media mogols:

Make no mistake when you mention Martha Stewart's name. She, at least, did time for the crime.

My Dear Ms. Mauro,

Our respective, non-satirical identifications of prime sponsors and facilitators run along remarkably parallel tracks, and diverge, I suspect, only as they approach more esoteric territory.

Permit me to suggest that satire (as I offered it in my previous post, for example) remains an effective, indeed indispensable weapon in the arsenal of truth seekers.

Charles

Enter "Phil Woods," and be amazed.

Especially relevant to this site: Seek Woods' 1968 B&W performance of "And When We Were Young," his tribute to the just-assassinated RFK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8udjNCTJBg

Also contemporary Woods with strings:

Charles

maybe, maybe not

I get it.

And I appreciate your response not only for its perceptions, but also for how it tends to confirm my hypotheses, as follows:

1. All intelligence operations worth the name have at least two objectives (Bud Fensterwald). Why can't we both be right?

2. There is a so-called "third alternative" that presents as we ask, Was LHO of the left or the right?

My answer: Yes.

How about LHO as playing and/or being played for and against both sides. For whatever my read of the guy(s) is worth, I can more easily accept an Oswald who placed himself above the fray and the symbiotic relationship enjoyed by its adversaries.

The description of LHO as a hippie before his time makes a great deal of sense to me.

Charles

Let's see ... The Kennedys were hit because of "lack of maturity, deplorable manners and arrogant behavior" ...

Ladies and gentlemen, the conspirators have been identified!

Miss Manners and Marth Stewart did it!!!

Then they killed Jack and Bobby.

Hey, it makes as much sense as any of this wretched "they got what was coming to them" disinformation.

Charles

Was there available a more elegantly simple way of creating "cognitive dissonance" among future investigators?

Two Oswalds. In more ways than one.

"I'm the decider."

I commend to your attention, "A Certain Arrogance: U.S. Intelligence's Manipulation of Religious Groups And Individuals in Two World Wars And the Cold War -and the Sacrificing of Lee Harvey Oswald," by George Michael Evica.

And the "Sinister Forces" trilogy, by Peter Levenda.

Two sides of the same coin.

Charles

Thanks Charles. I've had the hardest time finding good books about Jonestown and the CIA link.

Even Mark Lane's book leaves a lot of unanswered questions, and he's usually the oracle.

Myra,

Do you know "Was Jonestown a CIA Medical Experiment?: A Review of the Evidence" (Studies in American Religion, Vol 35),

by Michael Meiers. Currently available on Amazon for $160, but well worth the expense if possible.

Charles

Another lovely double post double post.

It is Kennedy's June 10, 1963 American University commencement speech that is referenced, and from which George Michael Evica drew the title of his first book, "And We Are All Mortal."

One of the greatest American political speeches? Without question.

It also sealed Kennedy's death warrant.

Neither John nor Robert Kennedy left this world as they entered it. They matured -- physically and spiritually and intellectually. They "got religion" relatively late in their shortened lives, and it is such growth that must be recognized and honored.

In one sense it matters not a whit which president was gunned down in Dealey Plaza, insofar as the consequences of that murder far transcend the loss of all that JFK might have accomplished had he lived.

In another, though, it matters a great deal. For if we refuse to appreciate the assassination in its most basic reality -- as the public butchering of an extraordinary human being, a husband, a father -- we risk losing the emotional drive that remains the sine qua non for the success of our shared endeavors.

As for the character assassination of JFK: it was and remains a critically important component in the cover-up. "He deserved what he got, so why get all hot and bothered?" Isn't that the point in continually damning the dead?

This is similar in style and intent to the "JFK assassinated himself" tactic in effect whenever it is alleged, without proof of any description, that the president forced his guards to stand down as a matter of habit. "He was asking for it!"

I have sound reason to believe that the Kennedy family knows precisely who struck John and Robert. As for their silence on the matter, there is naught but conjecture.

Charles

Whatever Hoover, et al may have had on the Kennedys, apparently it wasn't enough to keep Jack and Bobby in line.

Of course the desired consequences of their murders transcended immediate relief from Kennedy political power.

Gerald Patrick Hemming, during his Lancer-sponsored panel discussion and on other occasions, stated that the Kennedy family could not afford not to seek vengeance, and in fact took out more than one sponsor of the Dallas hit.

Nice pitch for a Hollywood thriller, Jer. But as a history lesson, it cries out for documentation.

Is the family attempting to protect its most vulnerable members by maintaining its silence? If so, then why wasn't the death of JFK JR a deal-breaker?

And why weren't the arms of Orion twisted askew when Warren Commission Cover-up Artist Jerry Ford was awarded a Profile in Courage lantern?

During his "Dark Side of Camelot" book tour, Sy Hersh was asked if he had learned anything about JFK that was too terrible to publish. "I heard things I didn't want to believe," was his response.

What? That the president was a communist? A de facto enemy agent? That he ordered Marilyn's muder? That his father was one of Hitler's willing executioners (a la Prescott Bush)?

SO what?

The greater loss suffered on 11/22/63 is measured not in a single wasted life, but in the holocaust that has ensued.

Charles

Edwin Walker's event was a put-on to help frame up the patsy.

If one of the unmarked Mannlichers could fire into the house, the guy would be a lone nut gunman after the fact...

Ok, so I'm trying to understand the Walker episode. It's almost up there with the Tippit mystery.

I'm leaning towards believing, along with Shanet, that it was part of the setup to make the patsy look like a hard core left wing gun-totin' wacko.

But... if that's the case then why wasn't the Walker episode publicized more after Oswald's death to reinforce the image they were manufacturing of him?

Was it publicized a lot to help incriminate the patsy but I'm not aware of it?

Seems like the propagandists would want maximum mileage out of the incident; why bother to set it up otherwise?

Okey Dokey ...

Assume, for the sake of argument, that a cabal of flag officers rested at the top of the "facilitators" stratum, and that a few of the brightest, savviest lower level operators wanted to send a message that they would not be trifled with or scapegoated by the over-the-horizon brass. And so they demonstrated that no group was immune to "utilization" in the grander plan.

We assume at our own peril that that plan went off relatively smoothly pre-11/22.

Yours on point,

Charles "B.S." Drago

One of Bud Fensterwald's enduring lessons: Any intel op worth the name has at least two objectives.

Hunt's grand finale: Give to his miscreant son an opportunity to make a few bucks while simultaneously strengthening the Great Misdirection by adding "deathbed" to his "confession."

Charles