Charles Drago

You guys have a pleasant weekend.

…from what John wrote? John made it clear he was displeased with the (Joseph or Charlie, take your pick) McCarthy like witch-hunt you and your “fellow travelers” were conducting and didn’t consider such behavior acceptable on his forum. Nowhere did he indicate that the thread was meant to be “devoted to a thorough investigation of the manner in which the entity named in its title impacts this Forum” or that rules should be relaxed on it. This is purely a figment of your imagination,. Either you have difficulty understanding plain English, which I don’t think is the case or you are so beset by cognitive dissonance that you understood the polar opposite of what John was trying to say. Go ahead show me up, point to which specific parts of John`s post support you interpretation? Take also of his pronouncement in the “Len Brazil” thread cited in my previous post. Interesting that you acknowledge that you and your buddies posts violate the forum’s rules. Thus you would have no room for complaint if a moderator applied appropriate sanctions. Don't have the time right now to address "Colby's" latest incoherence. I'll do so within 12 hours. Until then, I urge all readers to review posts 1 and 3 on the so-called "'Colby'" thread for a refreshing exposure to truth and sanity. Sincerely, Charles

Now Evan, You just get a grip. Minutes ago, on the so-called "'Colby'" thread, I thanked you and the rest of the powers-that-be for keeping that educational exchange up and open for review. You and/or others may in fact desire the "'Colby'" thread to be taken down. To be blunt, I no longer have a dog in that hunt. I'm away from my private computer as I type these words, so I must be uncharacteristically brief. I'll address the "Colby" post above within, say, 12 hours. Until then, take a nice deep breath, enjoy a pint or three, and take some satisfaction from knowing that you are directly responsible for and engaged in one of the most important educational exercises in the history of this Forum. Sincerely, Charles

Thank you Charles, but the issue is not whether you will be offended; it is about a member violating the Forum rules. I quite understand the distinction, Evan, and I wholly expected you and/or another moderator to make it. I feel it is only fair to thank all who contribute to the decision-making on these pages -- starting with John Simkin -- for permitting this extremely important and educational thread to continue. Sincerely, Charles

For a most revealing experience, I suggest that you read posts 13, 17, and 19 extending over pages 1 and 2 of the "Case of Len Colby" thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13278 Then go to post 14 on the thread's first page. Your opinions on the question I pose there would be appreciated. But please note: Detailed discussion of the issues referenced above should take place ONLY on the "'Colby'" thread. Charles

For the information of readers on this thread: "The Case of Len Colby" is a thread initiated by John Simkin and, as I understand it, devoted to a thorough investigation of the manner in which the entity named in its title impacts this Forum. As such, and by definition, the "'Colby'" thread can exist and have meaning only if certain Forum rules are relaxed for posts appearing there only. When I and others post our analyses of "Colby's" identity(s), methods, and agendas on that thread, we do so within an investigatory/laboratory context. We offer, test, and open to public scrutiny evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, in support of certain hypotheses. There is simply no way to do so other than to reference directly the "Colby" personae. I understand that materials posted on the "'Colby'" thread would not be allowed to appear anywhere else on this Forum. All of this being said, I urge readers to visit "The Case of Len Colby" as soon as possible so as to make their own judgments on its contents. There is no telling how long it will be available. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=13278&hl= I direct your attention to John's initial post, and to my response in post #3. Charles

Forget it, Bill. This guy gets to refer to Forum posters as being mentally ill, criminals, etc. without so much as a caution from moderators. Frankly, I have no problem with his behavior. It is rhapsodically self-damning. Distasteful? Perhaps. But hey, I'm with George Carlin and Lenny Bruce on these issues. Take care, Charles From Post #22 on the "Moderator actions - Political Conspiracies, Records of actions taken by the Mods" thread, Evan Burton inform us that "Craig Lamson has been placed on moderation due to an offensive post." http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry152650 I'm put in mind of the scene in JFK in which "Garrison" tells "Ferrie" that the D.A. finds his little suspect's story not credible. "Really?" asks "Ferrie." "Which parts?" Or better yet, this from Mel Brooks' The Producers (original film): BLOOM (quietly to Bialystock) He's wearing a German helmet. BIALYSTOCK (in a fierce whisper) Shhh. Don't say anything to offend him. But seriously, I wish to go on record that I cannot and shall not be personally offended by a post on this Forum. So, dear moderators, please be advised that, for whatever it's worth, you needn't scold, censor, or in any other form or fashion punish any of our correspondents for even the boldest, most ignorant libel leveled or slander slung in my direction. Charles

Nah! Me voting for, "hahahahahaha That maybe the quote of the day!"

Since there is really no proof that "chemtrails' even exist, I would have to say no. Now THAT'S sarcasm!

More Carcano-related questions -- and answers -- from George Michael Evica on LHO and CE 139 Did Oswald Take Any Rifle to the Depository? The Warren Commission did establish (or seemed to have established) that a folded blanket had once rested on the floor of Ruth and Michael Paine’s garage (at least Marina and the Paines thought so, and the police allegedly found such a blanket). The Commission was unable to place a rifle in that blanket except for Marina’s testimony about seeing the stock (or the barrel) of a rifle when she peeked – but then Marina was an incredible witness and admittedly could not recognize a rifle. Mrs. Paine testified she did not “see” the blanket in her crowded garage any earlier than October 7th, 1963. Ruth Paine also testified that the rifle she allegedly saw in Oswald’s possession had a sling unlike the one on the CE 139 rifle. Michael Paine tried to help; he testified that on some unspecified date before November 22nd, 1963, he remembered “moving about this package [in his garage] which, let’s say, was a rifle, anyway it was a package wrapped in a blanket.” But Paine didn’t help Marina’s credibility much: “I have read … that Marina looked in the end of this [garage] package and saw the butt end of a rifle. Now I didn’t remember that it was something easy to look into like that. I thought it was well wrapped up.” (italics added) The Warren Commission seemed to have discovered an ill-identified “rifle” (which could not be placed in the Oswald’s possession during their various moves) in an alleged package/blanket allegedly in the Paine garage – but not before October 7th, 1963. The Commission did establish that Lee Harvey Oswald was present at the Paine’s residence, Thursday evening, November 21st, but could not place him in the Paine garage. It also could not establish whether he left the Paine residence on Friday morning, November 22nd, with a paper bag, a rifle, or anything in his hands. To suggest that Oswald might have taken a rifle in a paper bag, the Commission took testimony from four witnesses. The Commission’s intention was to suggest that Oswald might have (1) stolen the paper-bag materials from the Depository; (2)constructed the paper gun-case at the Paine house on Thursday night; (3) dismantled the rifle (thereby saving himself only a few inches in length but increasing the time necessary to prepare for the assassination when he would be forced to re-assemble the rifle; (4) placed the rifle in his home-made bag; (5)transported it to the Depository, and (6) carried it to the sixth floor of that building. The Commission was unable to establish as fact any one of these six sequential speculations. (emphasis added by Drago) Had the Commission been able to establish Oswald’s possession of the CE 139 Mannlicher-Carcano through the evening of November 21st, or the fact of that possession any time on the 22nd, its “reconstruction” of possibilities could have been accepted as circumstantial evidence for the transportation of the Mannlicher-Carcano to and into the Depository on November 22nd. In fact, the Commission neither established Oswald’s possession of any rifle through November 22nd nor his transportation of any rifle on November 22nd. Its four paper bag/rifle transportation witnesses offered abundant material for the counter argument that Lee Harvey Oswald did not transport the rifle to or into the building, could not have borrowed the paper bag materials, and did not take those materials to the Paine house. Two of those witnesses testified on March 11th, 1964 – the only two alleged to have seen Oswald with his “bulky” package – that it was too short for even a disassembled Carcano. The difference in lengths given was significant: the CE 139 rifle (dismantled, according to F.B.I. agent Frazier), 35 inches; Oswald’s alleged package, about 28 inches. The Warren Commission was unable to place any rifle in Oswald’s possession and was even unable to argue persuasively that Oswald might have transported a package containing a rifle to (or into) the Depository. Did Oswald Possess a Rifle Inside the Depository? Was Lee Harvey Oswald in possession of a rifle or a short or long package inside the Depository on November 22nd, 1963? No testimony was elicited, either by the Commission or by its investigators and staff members, in answer to that question; it was not, it seems, asked. The Commission tried neither to establish how Oswald got any rifle from the Depository’s first floor to the sixth floor nor to determine whether it was possible to transport a weapon. The Commission could have asked the Depository’s first-floor workers, but it seems to have avoided asking them any questions about Oswald’s possible rifle-carrying trip. Why? The Warren Commission was unable to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) took delivery of a rifle; (2) possessed a rifle; (3) practiced with a rifle; (4) transported a rifle to the Depository; and (5) carried a rifle to the Depository’s sixth floor. And, of course, it was unable to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald ever fired a rifle on November 22nd, 1963.

Since the alleged ownership of CE 139 by Lee Harvey Oswald continues to generate extremely warranted interest, I think all would benefit from reading the following passages from And We Are All Mortal: New Evidence and Analysis in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, by George Michael Evica (1978; University of Hartford Press). Chapter One, pages 7-10 Did Oswald Ever Possess Any Rifle? Marina Oswald was the [Warren] Commission’s sole witness cited for the Report’s conclusions that Oswald possessed a rifle before the alleged attack on General Edwin Walker and that the alleged rifle was moved from Dallas to New Orleans and from New Orleans to Irving, Texas. The Commission’s own records help to establish that no piece of the Oswalds’ luggage or any other container used in moving the Oswalds was large enough to hold the Commission’s disassembled rifle. … The Commission attempted to prove that a rifle was stored in the Paine’s garage prior to the assassination: it failed. Marina Oswald testified to the Commission that she had entered the Paine’s cluttered garage to look for parts to a baby crib; lifting a corner of a folded blanket on the floor, she said she saw part of a rifle stock (in another version of this incident Marina decided it was the barrel she had seen). But Marina’s testimony was not corroborated; she could not distinguish either between kinds of rifles or between kinds of pieces (rifles and shot-guns, for example) … When shown a rifle on November 22nd, at about 9:00 p.m., she was unable to identify it: “Marina Oswald advised an Agent of this Bureau on November 22, 1963, that she had been shown a rifle at the Dallas Police Department … She advised that she was unable to identify it positively as the same rifle kept in the garage at [the] Paine residence … ” Three months after the assassination, Marina’s memory improved so that on February 6th, 1964, when shown what the Commission alleged to be the same rifle, she said, “This is the fateful rifle of Lee Oswald.” But Sunday, September 6th, 1964 … the following odd exchange occurred: Senator Russell: Did you testify that you thought this [CE 139] was Lee’s rifle that was shown to you? Marina (translation): No – I’m sorry. As far as she knows about the arms, the rifle which was shown to her looked like the one he had. Translator (Peter Gregory, an important member of the Dallas/Ft. Worth White Russian community) in English: Yes; That’s right. Senator Russell: That’s all I asked her. That’s just exactly what I asked her. Translator (in English): Yes, that’s right. Most crucially, Marina’s testimony on the alleged assassination weapon was coached, altered, or corroborated by individuals associated with Jack Ruby, the Great Southwest Corporation, George de Mohrenschildt (who admitted consulting with a Dallas C.I.A. agent concerning Oswald), and two of de Mohrenschildt’s associates (the co-founders of a C.I.A.-subsidized Russian Orthodox church in Dallas). The F.B.I. reported that a Marina Oswald interview had taken place on February 18th, 1964, in the office of attorney William A. McKenzie, who had been recently associated with the law firm representing both the Great Southwest Corporation (owned by the Murchisons’ lawyers, the Bedford Wynne family, and the Rockefellers) and George de Mohrenschildt. The F.B.I. reported that: “Marina said to her knowledge Oswald had only one rifle and that rifle is the one he maintained in the Paine Garage.” But Mrs. Declan Ford (another member of the White Russian émigré group) admitted: “… Mr. McKenzie didn’t know what they would talk about but he advised her [Marina], ‘They will ask you if there were two guns, you tell them there was one gun that was used … ’” Peter Dale Scott found this involvement of the intelligence-oriented Russian émigré group in the transmission of Marina’s testimony ominous enough to suggest a House Select Committee investigation, pointing out that Peter Gregory altered Marina’s testimony on the rifle and supplied other details which were corroborated by Marina’s second interpreter – who, with Gregory, helped found an Agency-supported Orthodox parish. Details of Marina’s coached and altered testimony were echoed in statements given the F.B.I. by Charles Camplen and James F. Daley, employees of the Great Southwest Corporation. William A. McKenzie, in whose office the February 18, 1964 Marina Oswald interview as recorded, and who Mrs. Declan Ford asserted had supplied Marina with the Line “ … there was one gun that was used,” had resigned from the Wynne family law firm to represent Marina Oswald. McKenzie had been a law partner of attorney Bernard Wynne whose law firm represented the Wynne/Murchison/Rockefeller Great Southwest Corporation – at whose motel Marina Oswald was hidden by the Secret Service. While acting as Marina’s lawyer, McKenzie was associated with attorney Peter White, who in 1954 arranged for the dismissal of charges against Jack Ruby. The Warren Commission ignored the fact that Peter White’s name, address, and phone number all appeared in Jack Ruby’s notebook – Peter White, the office mate of Marina Oswald’s attorney and representative – though the Commission questioned Ruby’s roommate George Senator about other entries in that same notebook. With evidence available of coached and altered Marina Oswald testimony on the very existence of a weapon and on that weapon’s characteristics, directly traceable to individuals associated with an organized crime figure (Jack Ruby) and with the C.I.A. (George de Mohrenschildt), Marina’s uncorroborated testimony on a “rifle” must remain dubious and suspect.

The first of three essays on the Carcano by Professor George Michael Evica And We Are Still All Mortal: Thomas Dodd and Lee Harvey Oswald By George Michael Evica (from "Agent LHO," a chapter in a work in progress, The Iron Sights) Lee Harvey Oswald, a member of the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee, made contact with a group of anti-Castro individuals and organizations, most of whom Carlos Bringuier (an FBI informant) was either working with or knew well. Oswald's actions and Bringuier's assessment of those actions suggest an attempt by Oswald, a self proclaimed Marxist and one-time defector to the Soviet Union, to penetrate the New Orleans anti-Castro movement on behalf of some yet to be identified U.S. government group. Bringuier reportedly informed his conservative associates about Oswald, including Edward Butler, a political propagandist for the local anti-Castroites. Butler, with U.S. intelligence links, worked at radio station WDSU in New Orleans. While distributing leaflets for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, Oswald was arrested, with media coverage in excess of the event's importance, after a "fight" which might have been staged with Butler's friend, Carlos Bringuier, the former media secretary of the CIA supported Cuban Revolutionary Council in New Orleans. (2) Oswald's subsequent trial was covered (again, beyond even its local significance) by WDSU-TV; and his second leaflet distribution, five days later, was also covered by WDSU-TV. This series of media events set up still another: Bringuier and Oswald "debated" on WDSU with Butler as "host." Butler "exposed" Oswald as a defector to the Soviet Union recently returned to the United States, and the radio material was transformed into a so-called "truth tape" for the intelligence associated Information Council of the Americas: INCA (whose hierarchy included New Orleans individuals with powerful Organized Crime connections). Under pressure from this publicity and other negative news coverage and harassed by government agencies and Congressional committees, the national Fair Play for Cuba Committee dissolved itself. (3) Was this result precisely the object of one of Oswald's covert jobs? (4) Oswald as a government provocateur and agent in both New Orleans and Dallas can be most accurately defined by examining the richly-varied activities of Connecticut Senator Thomas Dodd. Graduating from Yale Law School in 1933, Thomas Dodd was asked by Roosevelt's Attorney General to visit J. Edgar Hoover in Washington. Carrying heavy political recommendations, Dodd impressed the FBI boss, who hired him as an FBI special agent. Assigned to St. Paul, Minnesota, Dodd reportedly was an active member of the elite Bureau team that attacked Dillinger's Little Bohemia roadhouse in Wisconsin.(5) After only a year in the FBI, however, Dodd resigned, going home to develop a powerful political base in Connecticut.(6) Deeply involved in youth programs and social welfare activities, Dodd was evaluated for both state and national offices. But in 1938, the U.S. Attorney General appointed Dodd his special assistant, and when a new civil rights section was organized in the Justice Department, Dodd became one of its earliest agents, successfully fighting crooked cops and corrupt sheriffs in the South in support of persecuted Afro Americans.(7) The threat of war brought significant changes to the Justice Department: Dodd entered counterespionage. Not much is known of this early Dodd entry into U.S. intelligence work, but Dodd's more public role as a key prosecutor of Nazi spies and war-effort profit mongers brought him deserved fame. His greatest triumph, however, was his work as a member of the American Nuremberg team, part of the four-power group trying Nazi war criminals. Dodd became the tribunal's executive trial counsel, its second-most powerful position. According to all historical accounts the most important member of the U.S. Nuremberg effort, Thomas Dodd became an international hero. (8) Years in both national and state political arenas developing a reputation as a fierce anti-Communist and stalker of labor racketeers (embodied in Jimmy Hoffa), Dodd was eventually elected a U.S. Senator, joining the Senate in January, 1959. He swiftly became a major D.C. power player. (9) Dodd was acting chair of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, where his outspoken anti-Communism brought him in close contact with : 1. conservative members of the U.S. intelligence community; 2. highly vocal members of both the China and Cuba Lobbies, and 3. Anti-Communist defectors, informers, and double agents, domestic and foreign. Dodd also chaired the Senate Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee (called popularly the "Dodd Committee"); in that role, he battled the evil he and his staffers found on television and built a national reputation. (10) But two other areas of political concern brought Thomas Dodd directly into the territory of the JFK assassination: "...as a crusading foe of narcotics traffickers...[and] as the leader of a national effort to control the indiscriminate interstate sale of firearms." (11) Just four months before the JFK assassination, Senator Dodd had presided over a Senate Internal Security subcommittee investigation of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (to which, of course, Oswald belonged), calling it "...the chief public relations instrument of the Castro network in the United States." (12) Dodd had taken testimony from several important Castro defectors, including Frank Sturgis' friend, Pedro Diaz Lanz (Sturgis himself later admitted to having intelligence connections to the Internal Security subcommittee). According to an earlier FBI report on the FPCC, the proCastro group had been "...heavily infiltrated by [both] the Communist party and the Socialist Workers party." The House UnAmerican Activities Committee made identical findings. (13) A curious combination: Stalinist Communists and anti-Stalinist Trotskyites burrowing into a pro-Castro organization. While Lee Harvey Oswald was in the custody of the Dallas police and still alive on November 23rd, 1963, news reports on the FPCC stated that it had been "...the subject of a series of investigations by Congressional committees [including those of Senator Thomas Dodd] and the Justice Department over the last three years [1961-1963]." (14) The apparently contradictory political acts of Lee Harvey Oswald, therefore, make logical sense measured against these Dodd/Internal Security/FBI materials. Oswald had, in fact, contacted 1. the Fair Play for Cuba Committee; 2. the (anti- Communist) Socialist Workers Party, and 3. the (anti-Socialist Workers) Communist Party. Oswald could not have set up a more consistent pattern had he been working (whether directly or indirectly) for Dodd's Senate Internal Security subcommittee.(15) Why was Lee Harvey Oswald, dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Marines as a known defector to the Soviet Union, reading rifle magazines at Alba's Garage in New Orleans? And why was he collecting coupons for mail-order weapons?(16) The Dodd connection was the answer. Senator Thomas Dodd commanded the Senate's Juvenile Delinquency subcommittee and its interest in "gun control," specifically mail-order weapons control. Beginning in January, 1963, Dodd held committee hearings on the unrestricted delivery of weapons through the U.S. mails. One of the companies Dodd was interested in was Klein's of Chicago, and one of the weapons about whose unregulated traffic the Senate in 1963 was agitated was the Italian Mannlicher Carcano. "Hidell," of course, allegedly ordered a Mannlicher Carcano from Klein's of Chicago, reportedly found in the Texas School Book Depository on November 22nd, 1963, becoming a major part of the FBI/Warren Commission lone-assassin theory in the JFK killing. (17) Seaport Traders of California was still another mail-order weapons' distributor the Dodd Committee was examining, the very company from which "Hidell" ordered the revolver reported to have been used in the Tippet murder on November 22nd, 1963.(18) A "Communist," pro-Castro, Fair Play for Cuba Committee member with ties to both the Communist and Social Workers parties had been able to order at least two lethal weapons (both of great concern to the U.S. Congress) apparently under a fake name ("Hidell") through the United States mail. Was someone associated with the Dodd Committee trying to connect a mortal threat to the president with the committee's anti-weapons work? A series of incidents involving the son of a Dodd friend who was hired as a Dodd staff investigator strongly suggests precisely that conclusion. Reportedly investigating juvenile delinquency on the U.S. Mexican border, the young sleuth created a major disturbance at the living quarters of a local stripper. Mexican police had to break into a locked bathroom to apprehend the Dodd investigator, found packing a hidden revolver. Dodd had been informed that the FBI reported this same Dodd staffer had been taken into custody wearing a weapon and impersonating a law officer. (19) But the most serious incident featuring the young man occurred exactly at the time Dodd was writing his mail-order weapons legislation. The troublesome investigator had been apprehended attempting to transport three weapons and an enormous amount of ammunition to Hyannisport, Massachusetts, a deadly combination.(20) What made the incident so ominous? President John F. Kennedy was at Hyannisport for the weekend.(21) A young man associated with a committee inquiring into youthful criminal offenders and the transportation of weapons had been involved in a strange incident in Mexico, had impersonated a law officer, and had attempted to send lethal weapons to the same town where the president was visiting: weapons, the Dodd Committee, and a possible threat to President John F. Kennedy. Did some of Thomas Dodd's allies, people in the State Department's Office of Security (Otto Otepka, for example), or in the Justice Department (Hoover's FBI, for example), or in the Treasury Department (in its Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division or in its Bureau of Narcotics), direct Lee Harvey Oswald (with a "delinquency record") to contact two splinters of the American Left; "join" a pro-Castro committee allegedly infiltrated by both splinters; then order a rifle and a pistol through the mails under an assumed name, proving just how dangerous the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and its outlaw members were? If Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed being used by someone associated with the Dodd Committee as a double agent to infiltrate various "subversive" groups and, at the same time, order weapons to illustrate Dodd's mail-order thesis, and if those manipulators of Oswald/"Hidell" were U.S. intelligence agents or assets, how did they have access to the Dodd Committee? As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Dodd had a passkey to Justice Department materials and agents. Senator Dodd himself was a staunch defender of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, and "...the FBI...made itself so much at home in Dodd's [senate] office that staff members joked about assigning the Bureau a desk." (22) The Senator was so well known as an anti-narcotics crusader he was one of the few Congressional participants in Kennedy's national anti-narcotics conference. In his role as a scourge of drug traffickers, Dodd was in direct contact with the conservative Federal Bureau of Narcotics and its anti-Communist agents. As acting chairperson of the Internal Security Subcommittee, Dodd was able to call on his connections to such characters as Frank Sturgis, Pedro Diaz Lanz, J.G. Sourwine, and Paul Bethal, just a few of the many intelligence associated people linking Dodd to a small army of spies and counterspies. And, of course, his acting Internal Security chairmanship "...gave him access to the security and loyalty files maintained by both his own subcommittee and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, as well as the raw [report] files...provided [to Dodd and his staff] by the FBI on request."(23) But access, of course, was a two way street: members of U.S. intelligence were also able to utilize Dodd's Senate staff and his committee files, files containing material on both the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and mail order weapons. Strong circumstantial evidence supports the conclusion that Senator Thomas Dodd (or someone close to Dodd with access to his Committee files) ordered weapons in the name of either Oswald or "Hidell." On Monday, November 25, 1963, Senator Dodd made an interesting error, if, indeed, it was an error. The Connecticut senator stated that Oswald acquired the alleged assassination rifle for $12.78. (24) But $12.78 was the price of a 40-inch Carcano, minus the scope, in November, 1963. "Hidell" (Oswald using an alias, according to the Warren Commission) purchased a Carcano (40.2 inches, again, according to the Commission) for $19.95, with scope, months earlier. But, of course, the rifle that was actually ordered, at least according to the mail-order coupon allegedly used, was a 36-inch "carbine" with scope. Given the cross-breeding between various U.S. intelligence agents and assets and the Senator Thomas Dodd's committee, the persuasive argument developed by the former CIA Chief of Problems Analysis, George O' Toole, discussing the possibility that Oswald sold a rifle to Buell Wesley Frazier the morning of the assassination as part of a police-intelligence plot--for $12.78. (25) Beyond speculation, however, I have learned that according to two unimpeachable sources, Senator Thomas Dodd indeed caused at least one Mannlicher Carcano to be ordered in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald (or in the name of "Alek Hidell") sometime in 1963. Whether that rifle was ordered before November 22nd, 1963, as part of the scenario discussed above: a left-wing former Marine defector buying mail -order weapons to support concretely Senator Dodd's gun control position, or ordered immediately after the JFK assassination to make the same point ((but even more chillingly), the same post-assassination effect was apparently achieved. Did the facilitators of the JFK murder plot, with convenient entry to Senator Thomas Dodd, use the Dodd connection--the Oswald/"Hidell"/FPCC/Communist/Weapons links--to frame Lee Harvey Oswald? And through those links, and with the certain knowledge that at least one weapon had been ordered in either Oswald's or Hidell's name by either Dodd himself or someone with access to Dodd, were Senator Thomas Dodd and his anti-communist allies made mute on any Dodd committee access to Lee Harvey Oswald in the aftermath of the JFK assassination? Notes 1. Sometime between 1964 and 1967, Sylvia Meagher, author of Accessories After the Fact (New York: Vintage Books, 1976 [reprint of the 1967 edition], hereafter cited as Meagher) was apparently in contact with several (unnamed) fellow researchers (Meagher - 194) who "pointed to two related factors" suggesting reasons for "Oswald's otherwise inexplicable mail-order purchases of firearms" (Meagher 194): • Oswald was working for some "federal investigative agency" (Meagher 194); • Oswald was involved with a "Senate committee" attempting "to introduce legislation curbing the mail-order sale of firearms" (Meagher 194). Developing this hypothesis in 1977, I made a note ("Oswald and gun-control") intending to credit Meagher--and promptly forgot it. I therefore did not give Sylvia Meagher credit for her "Senate committee" and "gun control" insights. The pages in my book, And We Are All Mortal, are 252-254. I now set the record straight: Sylvia Meagher was my original source. • The Dodd connection, developed on those same pages and extended in this article, however, was my own. Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt (New York: Henry Holt, 1985, hereafter cited as Hurt), in his version of this Oswald story (300-302) • gives credit to Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams (most probably two of the several researchers Meagher does not name) in their unpublished manuscript, Murder From Within (Hurt 300), but does date the latter work; • cites one page of Meagher in a buried credit; • echoes And We Are All Mortal throughout his discussion of Oswald and mail-order weapons (Hurt 300-302) but does not cite the latter work specifically; and • lists the book in his bibliography as And We Are Still All Mortal, a funny error. I have adopted Hurt's error as the title of this article. Paul Hoch anticipated some of the analysis in the present study: "...Oswald [might have] thought he was placing the gun orders as part of [the Dodd]...effort, on the instructions of whoever he was working for." Echoes of Conspiracy, 11/30/77, page 3. Hoch's speculation was not available to me when I was drafting And We Are All Mortal. 2. For Oswald and Bringuier, see Meagher 384. 3. For Oswald's activities as planned media events, and for Oswald and Bringuier, see Scott, Crime and Coverup (Berkeley, Cal: Westworks, 1977) 13-14, hereafter cited as Scott; see especially Scott's citations. 4. Anthony V. Bouza, Police Intelligence (New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1976), pointed out the Fair Play for Cuba Committee's "association" with Oswald's name resulted in the group expiring "as its members scattered" (149). 5. Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, The Case Against Congress (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968) 34-35; hereafter, cited as Pearson. 6. Pearson 35. 7. Pearson 35. 8. Pearson 35-36. 9. Pearson 36-37. 10. Pearson 38-53. 11. Pearson 54, 63, 66. 12. Pearson 54. 13. Dodd, in I.F. Stone, The Haunted Fifties (New York: Random House, 1963) 348. See also Scott 8, and I.F. Stone's Weekly, February 8th, 1960, June 27th, 1960, and April 24th, 1961. 14. Dodd, the Internal Security Subcommittee and the FPCC, in Hartford Times, November 23rd, 1963. FBI report and UnAmerican Activities Committee cited in Hartford Times, November 23rd, 1963. 15. FPCC subject of inquiries, in Hartford Times, November 23rd, 1963. See also 26 H (CE 3081-3085) 689-693. 16. See Martha Moyer, "The Rifle," The Assassination Chronicles, Volume II, Issue 1, March 1996; cited hereafter as Moyer. 17. See, for example, Washington Post January 27th, 1963; see also Washington Post, November 26th, 1963, in 24 H (CE 2180) 852. See also Congressional Record-Senate, August 2nd, 1963, p.13945, and November 27th, 1963, pp. 22868-22869. For Congressional interest in the Mannlicher Carcano, see Henry S. Bloomgarden, The Gun (New York: Bantam, 1976 [reprint of 1975 edition]) 66-67. 18. Seaport Traders, in R 174. 19. Hurt 301. 20. Hurt 301. 21. Hurt 301. 22. Pearson 94. 23. Pearson 63. 24. 24H (CE 2180) 852. 25. The Assassination Tapes (New York: Penthouse Press, 1975) 204. For still another police-associated "$12.78" rifle, see 24 H (CE 2145)761. (From Assassination Chronicles, Spring 1996)

It seems the appropriate time to clear the air regarding deeper issues related to the Carcano. Accordingly, I'm starting a new thread on which I'll post three separate essays on the subject authored by the late George Michael Evica. Look, then, for Evica on the Carcano

Now Michael, This guy couldn't make short work of the "Minute Waltz." It likely takes him an hour-and-a-half to watch "60 Minutes." As for "sweetie" -- consider it an homage to David Guyatt.

Lam-pooning is not your strong point. (Lamb pooning ... well, I wouldn't presume to guess, sweetie.) When you develop one, please share it with your otherwise adoring public. I herein grant you full permission to accuse me of lying. But you'd best be able to prove it. Sweetie.

To paraphrase Bud Fensterwald: Every intelligence operation has at least two reasons for being. And, of course, at least two objectives (Bud's original lesson).

Forget it, Bill. This guy gets to refer to Forum posters as being mentally ill, criminals, etc. without so much as a caution from moderators. Frankly, I have no problem with his behavior. It is rhapsodically self-damning. Distasteful? Perhaps. But hey, I'm with George Carlin and Lenny Bruce on these issues. Take care, Charles

Wow. You predicted something that happened nearly a year ago. Color me impressed. Then we are in agreement as to "Colby's" motives behind such absurd protestations. There's hope for you yet! Apparently you do not understand sarcasm (note the emoticon rolling its eyes). For "predicting" something that came to pass nearly a year before the prediction I put you in the same class as so called "psychics", palm readers, and astrologists. None of which I think has any merit. My prediction of future action by "Colby" and his masters was prompted by the post you've referenced -- among other, similar outbursts of simple-minded disinformation. Have you been inhaling chemtrails again? My teeth are starting to hurt

Oooooooooh ... SOUND! ("Sound" -- or "insult," in American schoolyard parlance.)

Wow. You predicted something that happened nearly a year ago. Color me impressed. Then we are in agreement as to "Colby's" motives behind such absurd protestations. There's hope for you yet!

Evan, You just won't quit, will you? There are no good reasons to question the identities of Brothers Klimkowski and White. There are innumerable good reasons to question the "identity" and missions of "Colby." And I've cited them. Over and over again. Let's put it another way: According to law deriving from the Magna Carta, a traffic cop cannot pull over a vehicle absent reasonable cause (a broken tail light, a bloody limb hanging out a window, etc.). I have cited the "reasonable cause" upon which I base my exposure of "Colby." Cite equally reasonable cause for charging Jan and/or Jack with being fictive constructs, and then have at it. If not, stop with the straw men nonsense. You're embarassing yourself. Charles

Kathy, Avail yourself of an education in the arts of disinformation and propaganda, then get back to me. For starters, look elsewhere on this thread for my "fearless prediction" that "Colby" would again be ordered to make just such a declaration of enlightened sensibilities in order to confuse (forgive me) the more gullible readers of this Forum. It's all about building and supporting a legend. Look it up. Charles

Kathy, I am obliged to preface my remarks by noting for all interested parties that you and I recently exchanged cordial, mutually respectful PMs. What follows is offered in just the same spirit. Respectfully: NONSENSE! Honest (though by definition, under/misinformed) individuals who refuse to accept the truth of certain conspiracies (JFK, RFK, MLK, etc.) must be treated collegially and honorably. It is icumbent upon those of us who know the truth to prosilytize them with that truth. "Colby" is not "one" of the people I reference at the beginning of the preceding sentence. So all bets are off. "He" is to be treated as what a barrister might term a "hostile witness." Forgive me, Kathy, but if my skin were just a tad thinner I would take immense offense at so ignorant and condescending a statement. If what is colloquially referred to as a "pissing contest" is the most sophisticated interpretation you can conjure for what is going on in my exposure of "Colby," then I simply cannot discern a reasonable basis for further discussion with you on this matter. I'd have better luck with one of your chickens. In terms of my description of "Colby," the answer is "absolute truth." Charles

Evan, I sincerely hope you are not planning to eliminate this thread or make it invisible. Given its subject and significant content, such a decision should be left to John. Leave Peter out of this. Why not make the claim about me? I haven't the slightest problem whatsoever with such a move. My life is an open, well-written book. A simple Google experience finds more about me than any sane person would care to know. I do not post under a pseudonym. I have nothing to hide. Which is more than I can say for "Colby." I find it impossible to discuss this "Len" you keep referencing insofar as I cannot concede "his" existence. Anyway, you get my point. I reiterate: I happily take you at your word. Thanks again. If the gunmen in Dealey Plaza had missed their target as often as you seem to miss my points, we wouldn't be enjoying this lovely exchange. You are committing sophistry -- constructing a logical argument on a false premise: namely, that the individuals you reference are not "speak[ing] up for what they believe." Just because some of my comrades no longer choose to post here does not mean that they have fallen silent on the issues which I continue to address on these cyber-pages. Yours is by no means the only Internet vehicle -- among other communication opportunities -- open to their participation. So again, don't sweat the small stuff, baby. Sincerely, Charles

My speculation is that Nixon's resignation -- better yet, pre-term-ending removal from office -- became a fait accompli prior to the Watergage break-in, which was undertaken, at least in part, as the initiating event of a "silent coup." What prompted such a move? I'm afraid we'll never know for certain. All I'm prepared to say is that Nixon as president posed a threat to his masters and/or was perceived to be most valuable as a sacrifice on the "The System Works" altar of illusion. Wish I could be more definitive.