So the unnamed but household word researcher who hijacked the Amnesty Proposal is still running amok and you refuse to name him/her?
Why should the unnamed guilty come forward and confess when you won't even name the guilty among you?
BK
Bill Kelly Wrote:So the unnamed but household word researcher who hijacked the Amnesty Proposal is still running amok and you refuse to name him/her?
Why should the unnamed guilty come forward and confess when you won't even name the guilty among you?
BK
In my opening post on this thread I wrote:
"Please do not waste DPF bandwidth in efforts to convince me to name the name."
Thanks for honoring that, Bill.
For the record, the "running amok" characterization is entirely yours -- which is to say, not mine.
And to point out what should be an obvious distinction: The researcher's bad behavior and that of the killers of JFK are not exactly on a par.
So ... Nice "gotcha" turn of phrase, my friend. Brought a smile to my face.
But not a name to my lips.
Charles Drago Wrote:Bill Kelly Wrote:So the unnamed but household word researcher who hijacked the Amnesty Proposal is still running amok and you refuse to name him/her?
Why should the unnamed guilty come forward and confess when you won't even name the guilty among you?
BK
In my opening post on this thread I wrote:
"Please do not waste DPF bandwidth in efforts to convince me to name the name."
Thanks for honoring that, Bill.
For the record, the "running amok" characterization is entirely yours -- which is to say, not mine.
And to point out what should be an obvious distinction: The researcher's bad behavior and that of the killers of JFK are not exactly on a par.
So ... Nice "gotcha" turn of phrase, my friend. Brought a smile to my face.
But not a name to my lips.
Well, I'm sure whoever this person is has not stopped there, and did not only disrupt the Amnesty project you supported, but has done other mischief and will continue to do more.
You don't have to name the name, it should be a matter of public record, as the participants in the Lancer forum should be identified in their program and John Kelin has written about it, he should know who the guilty party is.
I really don't care as long as they don't interfere with my work.
BK
Bill Kelly Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:Bill Kelly Wrote:So the unnamed but household word researcher who hijacked the Amnesty Proposal is still running amok and you refuse to name him/her?
Why should the unnamed guilty come forward and confess when you won't even name the guilty among you?
BK
In my opening post on this thread I wrote:
"Please do not waste DPF bandwidth in efforts to convince me to name the name."
Thanks for honoring that, Bill.
For the record, the "running amok" characterization is entirely yours -- which is to say, not mine.
And to point out what should be an obvious distinction: The researcher's bad behavior and that of the killers of JFK are not exactly on a par.
So ... Nice "gotcha" turn of phrase, my friend. Brought a smile to my face.
But not a name to my lips.
Well, I'm sure whoever this person is has not stopped there, and did not only disrupt the Amnesty project you supported, but has done other mischief and will continue to do more.
You don't have to name the name, it should be a matter of public record, as the participants in the Lancer forum should be identified in their program and John Kelin has written about it, he should know who the guilty party is.
I really don't care as long as they don't interfere with my work.
BK
Two points of clarification and correction, Bill:
1. The point of the unnamed researcher -- to the best of my ability to know it -- was not to "disrupt the Amnesty project" in the sense that an agent provocateur would attempt to wreak havoc. Rather, I have reason to believe that his/her intent was to hijack the idea and take credit for all that might spring from it.
2. I have corresponded with John Kelin in order to secure his recollection of events. He was not privy to the machinations of the unnamed researcher (which took place out of public view and, for the most part, over the three-to-five month period immediately following the end of the conference).
I am not aware of any behavior by the unnamed researcher before or since his/her actions related to the Amnesty Initiative that would lead me to suspect that he/she is an agent provocateur. In my opinion, this person -- whose has made not insignificant contributions to our shared efforts -- was then, and is now, driven by ego and greed as much as by commitment to the cause.
Bottom line: When George Michael bowed out, the unnamed researcher could not pick up the ball. The Amnesty Initiative died.
And perhaps that is exactly why that person originally was importuned to act as he/she did.
One more point, offered in the spirit of full disclosure: Brother Kelin, when asked to share his recollections of the Amnesty Initiative "players" who came forward at the conference, did not include mention of the unnamed researcher. I remember that person being on the podium of the impromptu session, but I'm willing to acknowledge the possibility that I am mistaken in this regard.
I am confident, however, that my recollections otherwise are sound -- especially those relating to George Michael's actions.
I have taken the liberty of re-posting Charles Drago's 1996 essay "In the Blossom of our Sins" on my web site:
http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/blossom.html
I had a version on my hard disk that had very horrid, nineties-era HTML formatting. I've spruced it up a little.
Charles, I hope this is okay with you. I think its themes generally bear upon this thread. If you would like me to remove it, however, I will.
But if it is okay, then I invite you, Charles, to read it over and make any editorial corrections/updates/whatever that you see fit.
Sometimes I have a great notion to collect a handful of such essays, accessible via links on a main page, as material for interested readers in this, the fiftieth anniversary year.
Or jump in the river and drown.
Just kidding. Leadbelly on my mind today.
John Kelin Wrote:I have taken the liberty of re-posting Charles Drago's 1996 essay "In the Blossom of our Sins" on my web site:
http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/blossom.html
I had a version on my hard disk that had very horrid, nineties-era HTML formatting. I've spruced it up a little.
Charles, I hope this is okay with you. I think its themes generally bear upon this thread. If you would like me to remove it, however, I will.
But if it is okay, then I invite you, Charles, to read it over and make any editorial corrections/updates/whatever that you see fit.
Sometimes I have a great notion to collect a handful of such essays, accessible via links on a main page, as material for interested readers in this, the fiftieth anniversary year.
Or jump in the river and drown.
Just kidding. Leadbelly on my mind today.
It's fine. I'm flattered.
But please use the updated version that I am sending to you now via your private e-mail address.
Charles Drago Wrote:...But please use the updated version that I am sending to you now via your private e-mail address.
Done and done.
Same URL as before.
Some readers may need to refresh their browsers, if they visited the earlier version.
http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/blossom.html
I read both versions. Either is an epic dialogue on historic drag queen as doppleganger for Lady Liberty.
The argument that Dealey Plaza is not the venue is useful. As you indicate, it didn't start with Dallas.
I would argue it didn't end there; that was the departure from withdrawal from Vietnam.
They blew his mind out in a car, to show the nation that the lights had changed.
No longer would it be permitted to dream. Or to see things as they might be.
As you indicate, James Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters is a lyric tale of martyring the peacemaker.
Donald Gibson in Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency shows the enemies were Rockefeller-Morgan, Luce, of course the Cold War hawks and spooks, we might add the drug cartels and the oil sisters.
Angleton preparing the patsy, his files, his Mexico City legend as learned in the work of Lisa Pease, Ed Lopez, Dan Hardaway, John Newman.
Dulles lining up George DeMohrenschildt, Ruth Paine, Phillip's Alpha 66 and Joannides' DRE, all courtesy of the Bay of Pigs Controlled Failure.
The war was too big to fail, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, CIA sword and shield for the unnamed sponsors whose interests demanded bull markets in arms, oil, drugs, and of course the Fed that feeds no matter who bleeds.
Then Malik is down, and Martin, Robert, though the whole world is watching the rough beast slouch toward Chicago to the Nixon Counterinnaugural
The nation never put two and two together to understand how it got in that war
When John O'Neill warned of a 911-type attack his briefcase of confidential files was stolen when he was called to the phone at an FBI seminar
He died in the (engineered) collapse of the towers
And another Decade of War was on
Ending badly as the president and CIA equip another proxy army for another crusade
The fairies in dog collars defend putting rounds downrange in Dealey as a deed done by a rental clown between episodes of the Dick Van Dyke Show
Preparata showed a banker rose above the butchers' convention at Versaille and raised Germany like a phoenix with a madman to lead it against the bear until the eagle was allowed to swoop in on behalf of the lion
Vincent Bugliosi is but a vain tool, Posner another, others mere scatologists volunteering
To aid those who continue to conspire
to plunge us again and again
into darkness
unto death
Greetings...
I recently watched a 9 part series I believe done on the history channel which contained all sorts of information about the assassination and included several of the posters from this forum. I found it to be informative but somewhat inconclusive.
Is there any consensus in this board about the nexus involving the NOLA crowd and the failed bio weapon attack on Castro as to whether this was even true... and then LHO was then sent to Dallas to be the fall guy?
My take away is the NOLA crowd were *managers* and mechanics... LHO being pretty low on the totem pole. Is the idea that he expected to be participating in an op in Dallas... not knowing the dets and was set up... which he figured out too late.
It seems like the same anti castro... we want at Cuba crowd... hated JFK for multiple reasons and when they couldn't get at Cuba they redirected at JFK and put LBJ in who would run the covrer up, ramp up the war and leave the CIA alone.
It appears that the idea to whack JFK was popular enough with the right that the CIA felt they could pull it off and get cooperation and cover.
Generally correct Orling. Of course Charles will grumble that CIA was given cover and taking orders from the more powerful and hidden elite sponsors who invisibly influence things and get CIA to take the blame and do their dirty work for them - to which I guess I would agree. The general template of Oswald being an Operation Northwoods patsy pretty much fits in my opinion.