Ultimate Source for Ultimate Sacrifice?

[Charles Drago]

Over the past year I've had many in-depth discussions regarding Ultimate Sacrifice with an associate (who must remain anonymous on this Forum) who enjoys meaningful connections to principals in the JFK case. This person also is widely read not only on the political assassinations of the 1960s, but also on the fullest possible range of historical and contemporary deep political phenomena.

To cut to the chase: We share an educated guess -- and it's only a guess -- that the ultimate source for Lamar Waldron's and Thom Hartmann's underlying premise in Ultimate Sacrifice may have been E. Howard Hunt.

Assuming that we're correct, it yet remains difficult to determine if Hunt worked on the authors directly or through one or more cut-outs.

How do we support such a hypothesis? For now, we've got to hold most of those cards close to the vest. But in general, and based upon commonly held appreciations of "Eduardo's" 1950s and 1960s areas of operation and his gifts as a storyteller, we are continuing to try to build a case that Ultimate Sacrifice is Hunt's last great masterpiece of disinformation.

I've had the pleasure of meeting Lamar Waldron, and I respect his honesty, integrity, and work ethic.

Further, my co-conspirator and I are fully prepared to accept compelling evidence to the contrary of the Hunt hypothesis and be done with it. But make no mistake: Even if we're shown to be off-base, the Mafia-as-prime-mover of the assassination theory doesn't pass the laugh test.

We decided to bring our thoughts to the attention of this Forum's correspondents with the hope that strong arguments -- pro and con -- will be stimulated.

Charles Drago

Edited July 8, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Jack White]

Charles...I have long thought that BISHOP and KNIGHT were

the prime movers at the operational level; all they needed was

an OK to proceed. LBJ and cohorts signaled the OK.

Of course Bishop was Atlee Phillips and Knight was Eduardo Hunt.

Jack

[Myra Bronstein]

...

How do we support such a hypothesis? For now, we've got to hold most of those cards close to the vest.

...

I don't really see how it's possible to critique your theory when you decline to share supporting evidence.

However, as I was reading Ultimate Sacrifice it was clear to me that it was propaganda.

Obviously that means the authors were either disinformation agents or incredibly gullible and illogical.

[Charles Drago]

...

How do we support such a hypothesis? For now, we've got to hold most of those cards close to the vest.

...

I don't really see how it's possible to critique your theory when you decline to share supporting evidence.

However, as I was reading Ultimate Sacrifice it was clear to me that it was propaganda.

Obviously that means the authors were either disinformation agents or incredibly gullible and illogical.

Myra,

I understand and sympathize with your sense of the ... well ... unfairness of my premise on this thread. So let me come clean: My intentions are to stimulate precisely the sort of response that you have offered while at the same time to be careful not to lead the witnesses, so to speak.

I share your evaluation of Ultimate Sacrifice as propaganda, and based on nothing more than gut feeling derived from personal experience, I've concluded that, in the case of Waldron, at least, gullibility and illogic are valid charges, but being a witting accessory after the fact is not.

I remain eager to hear from correspondents who've developed expertise in Huntology. Is the man's scent to be discerned within the pages of Ultimate Sacrifice?

And of course I'd be most pleased to hear from Lamar and/or Mr. Hartmann. Did Hunt and/or interlocutors directly contribute to your research? If so, to what degree(s)?

Charles

Edited July 8, 2007 by Charles Drago