Charles Drago

You meant to type "Jeers," I trust. "Colby" has inspired you to remove information and end discussion ... why, how odd. Please keep this thread open, dear moderators.

Clearly a fabrication! These guys would have missed.

Evan, Contrary to what is indicated by the majority of my posts on this Forum, I neither seek nor enjoy taking opportunities for personal attacks. I'll take you at your word here and thank you for your magnanimity. Seriously. Although I must take issue with the following: Given the subject of this thread, the "Forum rules" which you reference apparently and properly have been relaxed -- or better yet, appropriately modified to permit unfettered expressions of opinion and fact regarding "Colby" and "his" game. Each to his or her own role in the great game. But to the degree that the closing, emphasized-by-me section of the immediately preceding quote may be interpreted as an effort to sow disruption, I recognize my moral duty to call you on it. The problem, it seems, is all yours. Thanks again, Charles

Indeed they do -- to Charlie McCarthy. Another famous puppet from American vaudeville and early television. These guys just can't stop talking about themselves.

Excellent tactic! Just continue to ignore my lessons regarding the distinctions between an honest and legitimate "poster" and a "Colby" disinformation entity. Not to me, at least. But it would matter if you were a composite character/fictive construct employed by the worst people on the planet as a tactic in a grand strategy which I and others recognize. By the way, I would never claim that you are 16 years old. See below. Such a practice casts the most serious doubts on your motives, personal courage, and perhaps even sanity. Why and what are you hiding?

Thank God good taste prevailed. But hey, takes one to know one. In the face of such idiocy, the only intelligent and sane response is what you're are reading at this very instant. The mind boggles at such a sophisticated understanding of the workings of propaganda and disruption. One simply cannot put a price tag on such lofty logic. Creating the illusion of a single erudite, encyclopedically knowledgeable "person" who can stand as the living, human refutation to the best of "his" enemy's champions has no value whatsoever, right? Do they let you play with live ammo? Yes. Not to mention your motives, personal courage, and perhaps even sanity.

Dave, Thank you for your candid and thoughtful reply. My comments follow. I could not be in stronger disagreement with you here. You see, there is a war going on between the deep political forces that committed the American political assassinations of the 1960s -- among other world-historic atrocities discussed on this Forum -- and those of us who oppose their hegemony. Accordingly, we must bring hard-earned levels of sophistication to our appreciations of the "Colbys" of the world. When we do so, "his" pathetic bleatings are revealed for what they are and for whose agendas they service. "Colby's" messages are, in the final analysis, unimportant except insofar as they fit certain well-established patterns. "His" function is to naysay, obfuscate, and most significantly support the illusion that -- I'll stick to the subject matter I know best -- the JFK "lone nut" lie, for example, is as honestly presented and plausible an explanation for how the president was murdered as is the so-called "theory" of conspiracy. The ONLY way to deal with "Colby" and his ilk is to expose them. They must not be collegially received. They must not be respected or tolerated in any way whatsoever. Were any tender mercies on display in Dealey Plaza on that terrible day? Where "Colbys" are concerned, we must attack the messenger. I'm sincerely troubled to learn of your difficulties. Let me state, however, as gently as possible that this thread must remain focused on the issue of "Colby." See above. Unless one is prepared to identify oneself with one's work, that work, I'm afraid, simply cannot be taken seriously. I mean no disrespect. I'm afraid not. There are qualitative differences to note between common variations in language produced at different times by a single author, and instances of multiple posters writing above a common signature. The "Colby" posts referenced here and appearing elsewhere, in terms of their content, timing, and diversity of subject matters, and placed within the context of suspiciously similar work of disinformation specialists and agents provocateurs operating elsewhere (I'm immediately put in mind of Holocaust Deniers), support my contention that "Colby" is a vehicle for multiple posters -- even if in fact a "Len Colby" can be demonstrated to exist. By the way, I'm composing this at the end of a very busy day. As a professional writer, I'm acutely aware of my literary performance at any given time. Right now I'm exhausted, and anyone with a mind to do so could demonstrate how this response is, shall we say, less artfully crafted than many other Drago offerings. However, my literary fingerprints are all over the vocabulary, constructions, pacing, and less quantifiable though clearly discernable aspects of this post. But suppose I had written the preceding paragraph this way: Im really tired and I apolagize for my writing which is not up to parr however my vocabulary, words,and other elaments of my writing are just like other samples ofmy writing. Do you get my drift? You are to be commended, sir, for your forthrightness. You and all other readers of this thread should be aware that the material I present here represents but a small percentage of accumulated data supporting my conclusions. Again, Dave, I thank you for your contributions to this dicussion. Regards, Charles

Now for my latest Fearless Prediction -- one that, once made public, likely will be rendered moot. Expect, within the next 24-36 hours, the "Colby" entity to post, on a thread unrelated to topics herein under discussion, a "subtle" reference to "his" liberal, establishment-bashing sensibilities. As in post 110 of the "Will Obama be Assassinated" thread, where "Colby" too-cutely references "his" alleged anti-conservative leanings at a time when the exposure of the intel op that has culminated in this thread was building momentum. I LOVE dese guys!

Interesting on any number of levels -- not the least of which is the addition to our list of related doppelgangers that this analysis represents.

Evan, If the single example of "Colby" multiplicity that I have presented for review on this thread does not suggest to you the likelihood of at least two individuals posting under the "Colby" signature, then I doubt I could help you to discern bases on which to build questions regarding the validity of the SBT, or the Frank Olson "suicide" conclusion, or the Gulf of Tonkin "attacks" scenario, or the "innocent" explanation for the 18.5 minute gap in a Watergate tape, or the "all-natural" contours of Jane Fonda's breasts. Your "totally without basis" assessment, stated with authority, is at best a wholly subjective, fatally vulnerable opinion. Sheer balderdash! You can quickly substantiate my identity in any number of non-invasive fashions. You may feel free to check me out by, for instance, going to the Lancer website or to Google and search for data and images. I'm all over the place (Oh lucky world!). To the best of my knowledge, the face of "Colby" appears only as a Forum avatar that bears a too-striking resemblance to the actor Denzel Washington. I've Googled "Colby" and visited "his" business website. Can't find bio material or photos anywhere. (By the by, are you convinced that the "Colby" Forum avatar is a truthful depiction of the "person" posting under that name?) But my point has never been that a historical "Len Colby" never existed. Rather, I have submitted evidence to substantiate my charge that the "Colby" who allegedly posts here is in fact at least two -- and probably more -- individuals on common missions of disruption, obfuscation, and God knows what else. And oh yes, I have NEVER written a word for public consumption over an alias -- which is more than anyone can say for "Len Brazil." See above. I'll readily concede that a "Len Colby" exists. But you are going to be quite hard-pressed to defend the notion that the posts I've referenced within this thread are the product of a single mind. The "Len Brazil" operation, as "Colby" substantiates it, stands as prima facie evidence for the "Colby" entity's willingness to engage in identity-related subterfuge -- which in fact "he" brags about and continues to commit. Or as a barrister might say in defending such evidence, "It goes to state of mind." In other words, "Colby" has admitted that "he" uses at least one alias -- on a website that clearly is designed to deceive unwary readers. Indeed, "Colby's" 9-11 website itself stands as prima facie evidence for "his" masters' efforts to deceive history by offering what to unwary, ill-informed, and/or naive observers are scientific bases derived by "experts" -- who refuse to identify themselves -- for claims that are supported only by "peer reviews" signed with aliases.* Dressing a pig in surgical garb does not qualify the pig to remove my spleen. As I've stated so often in the past, "Colby's" masters aren't interested in winning arguments, but merely prolonging them so as to create, if I may coin a term, "plausible confirmation" -- as opposed to "plausible denial" -- for otherwise wholly implausible and discredited claims and historical interpretations. The actions of "Colby" on this Forum clearly are in service to just such an agenda. And by the way, I would not dream of resorting to invasions of privacy such as the posting of passports in order to substantiate the identity of a person who I herein concede likely exists. Again, it isn't the physical reality of anyone that is at issue, but rather the identities and agendas of individuals who present as this Forum's "Colby" entity. Evan, given my concession that a Len Colby likely exists, your question is rendered moot. The only way I or anyone else can "prove" that the "Colby" posting here is a variety of Hydra is through the presentation of circumstantial evidence such as the study of "Colby's" language and the "Len Brazil" perfidy committed elsewhere on the Internet. I'll close by noting the furtive efforts by "Colby" to dismiss my discovery of evidence pointing to the multiple nature of "his" "identity." Is "Colby" the best they can do? Charles ______________________________________________ * As Jan Klimkowski has explained: On the Education Forum, "Colby" routinely demands citations, peer-reviewed papers& official documents from posters whose views he is opposed to. Well, the "Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories" looks very rigorous and academic: http://www.jod911.com/ The website proudly proclaims that it publishes "peer-reviewed papers". But there's a problem. The website states, "The authors must indicate a desire to stay anonymous and provide an anonymous ID which can be published on the internet. Anonymity is provided to prevent harassment from fringe members of the 911 conspiracy movement." Maggie Hansen and I questioned the nature of this peer review process. Anonymity is no part of any proper peer review process. However, "Len Brazil" aka "Colby", an advisor to that website, was able to clarify what "peer review" amounted to. "Colby" wrote: "As for Maggies 'point' that people normally use their real names at peer reviewed journals, that is the truth but JOD911 is no ordinary peer reviewed journal. Two of the advisors use obvious pseudonyms (Shagster and Debunking911) and three use partial pseudonyms (JamesB, ScottS and me). Calling it 'peer reviewed' was meant to be a tongue in cheek stab at the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" which makes the same claim but apparently their only peer review process is posting articles on a closed forum before publication." http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...10872&st=60 In other words, the website is telling lies. It is not engaged in a proper peer review process. However, casual visitors to that site would not have the benefit of its "advisor" "Brazil/Colby" informing them that the peer review claim was "tongue in cheek". Casual visitors may innocently have believed it was akin to "The Lancet" or "The New England Journal of Medicine". So, it's not just a lie. It's a Big Lie.

This common ground we're finding ... it can't go on much longer, can it???

Mike, We're arguing semantics ... except as follows: "Opinion" is irrelevant in the JFK assassination case in terms of the "how" -- conspiracy -- and certain other elements, including the SBT. The Single Bullet Theory is a lie. Not opinion. FACT!

If our enemies are smart, they'll seriously retool the "Colby" entity so as to take into account the fact that we are on to "him" and their games. According to Gerald R. McMenamin, author of Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics, "Reference writings," against which suspect writing samples can be compared, must be identified and collected before meaningful analyses can be conducted. Alas, in the cases of "Colby" posters, "reference writings" neither can be identified nor collected. There are simply too many significantly divergent examples from which to select a consistant reference style. So further applications of McMenamin's analyses are stymied -- other than within so-called "negative template" applications. McMenamin does note the following: "Individual differences in writing styles are, therefore, due to the writer's choice of available alternatives." He adds, "Identification and analysis of a writer's choices, i.e., of his or her style markers, constitute stylistic analysis which is well established as a method of author identification in literary and forensic contexts." [emphasis added by Drago] So "Colby" and "his" masters are either choosing to present as clearly recognizable divergent authors/entities, sufficiently incompetent and/or arrogant to the degree that they do not fear exposure, or profoundly disturbed. Perhaps even possessed. Where's father Karas when we need him? When "Colby" asks, "So what exactly would two or more people gain from pretending to be one," "he" is conducting a circular argument akin to Vincent Bugliosi's (I paraphrase), "Why would conspirators choose a shmuck like LHO to do their work?" No one, least of all I, would suggest that "Colby's" masters intend to present such easily identifiable multiple authors for "his" posts. This is a straw man argument. "Colby" and "his" masters hold you and me in contempt. They think we're stupid and gullible. Such is their fatal flaw. They are losing. We have them on the run. "Colby" and "his" masters are not used to being called on their pseudo-intellectual posturings. If "Colby" is in search of qualifications for posts, "he" might start with "his" own for any number of pontifications offered by "his" collective entity on subjects clearly beyond "his" meager intellect -- as displayed, of course, on these cyber pages. This is a joke, ladies and gentlemen. "Colby" are exposed. Keep sticking your extremities in my meat grinder. It smells like victory.

Let me state for the record that Silence of the Lamson is but a single entity. The consistency of the seemingly endless expressions of his/her insights, eloquence, and intellect, as captured above, cannot be denied.

Not to split hairs (or hares, if you use that gun to hunt), but you have not demonstrated that the theory that a single bullet struck JFK and JBC as concocted and proffered by Arlen Specter and/or his masters "was possible." Rather, you have addressed yourself to the issue of the possibility of the projectile you describe penetrating twin targets in your specifically cited fashions. The historical SBT, when considered properly and fairly -- which is to say, exactly as presented by its fabricator(s) -- was, is, and ever shall be fiction.

Bill, I understand your point. But I must insist that even absent exhumation of JFK, there is sufficient evidence to convince all sane non-conspirators that the SBT is disproven. That the body remains the best evidence cannot be denied. But is not, say, the evidence presented by David Mantik relating to the "difficulties" posed for single bullet theorists by certain anatomical realities sufficiently hard? Or the observations of Berkley, Sibert, and O'Neil? Or the body chart/shirt and jacket cross-authentications? The SB Theory is as worthy of serious consideration as a BS (burning spear) Theory would have been. It is a firmly grasped straw, a fictive construct that has lasted longer than the time it took to be initially presented only because it bears the imprimatur of the suspect parent state. I submit that we cannot concede that the SBT, let alone the disproven larger LN theory it would support, remains in the least bit viable. Mack recently confirmed to a journalist his (Mack's) position that there is no consensus on the JFK case. Why do we bother with such a man other than to expose him? Charles PS -- Mr. Mack, if you do not intend to respond to me publicly, don't waste your time with a PM I shall not read.

No one should underestimate the potential significance of the question raised on this thread. Semiotic analysis is a most relevant discipline in our efforts to decipher, if you will, intelligence operations -- and, for that matter, operatives.

Anagrams for CHARLES DRAGO: SCHOLAR RAGED A LORD CHARGES ORCHARD GALES SOLAR CHARGED CHARRED GOALS And not relevant but interesting: HARDCORE GALS Not relevant to YOU, perhaps ...

Mark, I'm happy to be able to number you among those who doubt that the two posts I referenced were written by the same person. As I'm sure you appreciate, the issue here is not spelling or vocabulary or grammar or punctuation or subtext, but rather all of these elements and others, combined. Some may try to pass off the significant, telling differences between posts as inconsequential lapses of literary ability due to any number of external factors (weariness, distractions, etc.). In doing so, they are sidestepping -- intentionally or otherwise -- the deeper analysis. The alleged "poster" of the materials I reference presents numerous similar examples of external and internal literary inconsistencies. Permit me to make my point in a more demonstrative fasion: Readers of this Forum have been exposed to my writing style and whatever perspectives, values, and intellectual underpinnings it reveals. Suppose a post appeared over my signature that was constructed and read as follows: Mark you get my point and I'm glad that your with us. At least two people are responsible for the postings I gave to your atention. Im not talking about mispelling or no comas but really everything shared together and it happens ofen. Would you sense a ... problem relating to the putative "poster's" identity? Charles

To the knowledge of Forum posters/viewers -- including the surviving principals -- did E. Howard Hunt contribute in any way whatsoever (personally and/or through cutout) as source, inspiration, sounding board, etc. to Lamar Waldron and/or Thom Hartmann during the research, writing, editing, and/or expansion phases of Ultimate Sacrifice and/or any other JFK-related enterprises?

Arguing and quarreling over superficial Z-film alteration issues prolongs the long ago-settled conspiracy-no conspiracy "debate," factionalizes researchers, and diverts energies better applied to the quest for justice in the JFK assassination case. In other words, internecine alteration-related fights, like so many others, play into the conspirators' hands. Has the Z-film been altered? Is the Z-film unaltered? The only sensible answer is "yes." And so once again we must reflect on the myriad values inherent in recognizing and, when warranted, embracing the so-called "third alternative" whenever we study deep political events. The dualities that haunt the JFK case in particular, and what I'd argue are the majority of deep political investigations in general, present in so many fascinating areas and manners. Two Oswalds. Two rifles. At least two near-identical plots (Chicago and Dallas). Two presidential corpses. Two caskets. Two sets of autopsy photos. Two conclusions regarding conspiracy by two USG investigative bodies. Double agents everywhere. And I've barely scratched the surface. Doppelgangers abound. The trickster wears a cloak and carries a dagger. But all is not lost. See these either/or presentations for what they are: essential elements of intelligence operations. Then join hands in solidarity with the most vehement proponents of opposing viewpoints (within the ranks of those who accept the overarching truth of conspiracy in the murder of JFK, of course). Victory is within our grasp. Common ground is the only ground we can defend. The only ground from which we can mount a final, successful offensive. Charles

Are you aware that a psyops/propaganda operation was mounted in the '90s in which Ford sent signed copies of the WCR to jurists and elected politicians at the state level? The leadership of the Rhode Island General Assembly (House and Senate), plus selected high level RI judges (Superior and Supreme Courts). received books inscribed by Ford with his "no evidence of conspiracy" lie. I have seen three such volumes. Lest we conclude that ours is the study of dusty history ... Charles

Educating Rita Not a feature film and hardly "about" education, but from the BBC production of John le Carre's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, the scenes in which teacher and former Circus officer Jim Prideux interacts with the young boys at his prep school. Bit of a stretch here, too: Jeremiah Johnson.

I might add that one of this Forum's moderators agreed with me that "Colby" was unfairly misquoting me at the time of the original incident. In Post #75 on the "Defense Historians Document 9/11" thread, Kathy Beckett, taking my point, wrote the following to "Colby": Mr. Colby, Please correct your quote regarding what Charles Drago actually said. That is only fair. Charles wrote "the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]" , not "the near total absence of damage to the building ". End of Beckett warning. "Colby" is exposed. By "his" own words. We must demonstrate zero tolerance for "Colby" and "his" ilk. Charles Drago

Because, Michael, such is the brief of his ilk. "He" once attempted to decontextualize one of my posts, and I hammered "him" mercilessly until moderators had to act on my behalf and "he" backed down. "Colby" will not deal with me because "he" dare(s) not. Understand "Colby's" brief, and "he" is easily dispatched. Charles "Drago" - I already called you on your completely inaccurate retelling of what transpired, but of course you failed to reply or make a correction. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=151859 I "will not deal with you because I dare not"?!?! Absurd! I have in the past and will do so whenever I see fit. "Colby" isn't earning "his" keep: On the thread in question, I wrote, "the near total absence of damage to the building [the Pentagon] and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]." "Colby" admits that "he" in fact -- and I quote "him" -- "truncated [that passage] to 'the near total absence of damage to the building' because ["Colby"] wasn’t responding to the part about the lawn." "Truncated"??? How about "purposefully decontextualized"!!! If, gentle reader, you cannot discern a conscious effort on the part of "Colby" to decontextualize my work in order to make it appear that I did not acknowledge or was not aware of damage to the Pentagon, then you should seek immediate entry to remedial reading classes. As the evidence presented above clearly demonstrates, "Colby" cannot be trusted. Not here. Not anywhere. "Colby" is beneath my contempt. Read it again. "Truncated" or "purposefully decontextualized"? You decide. Charles Drago