Deep Politics Forum

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:

Martin Hay Wrote:[T]he FBI remains top of my list of suspects for sure.

I've often wondered if Hoover let James Earl Ray escape. When they picked up the obviously planted bundle from the doorway of Canipe's, they had evidence that should have led them straight to Ray - a radio with his Missouri State Pen inmate number on it. They could have traced the serial number on the radio, found out where and when it was sold, and then the inmate number would have given them Ray's name. But they didn't. Instead they searched for Eric Galt, surely knowing that it was an alias, until Ray was safely out of the US. And then they made only a half-assed attempt to extradite him, supplying the British court with little more than Charlie Stephens' "identification" and the promise of some fingerprint evidence that the bureau never delivered. And I can't help thinking that the FBI were hoping the UK would refuse to extradite him on such flimsy evidence so that they wouldn't have to try him with such a weak case and could continue convicting him in the press.

"Suspects" for WHAT?

I swear to Christ, it's as if the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model never was presented.

Have we learned NOTHING from our studies?

"The FBI" and "the CIA" conspired to kill neither JFK nor MLK.

You conflate the hammer with the carpenter.

You conflate the carpenter with the architect.

You conflate the architect with the homeowner.

The Sponsors are wetting themselves from laughter.

Charles, I wish you could make your points without being such an asshole.

edit

What you edited, Lauren, and what I've saved on my computer, was a response in which you called me a "prick" after you noted that you continue to learn from me. See below.

What the fuck do you think we're engaged in? A polite discourse with honorable debaters?

If you don't realize that we're at war ... if you don't understand that there are hostile actions being directed at us ... you have no business here or anywhere else where the fight is being waged.

I'm an "asshole" and a "prick," you say.

VERY insightful. VERY helpful. VERY courageous.

If you don't like what I write, fuck off.

If you expect polite discourse in the midst of hostilities, fuck off.

If you're not ready to fight, fuck off.

But if you wish to engage, then get over your pea-brain hang-ups and have at it.

Clear, shithead?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________


Dear Charles Drago,

Lauren Johnson has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Gerald McKnight, the FBI, the MPD, and the MLK assassination - in the Political Assassinations forum of DEEP POLITICS FORUM.

This thread is located at:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...to=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************

---Quote (Originally by Lauren Johnson)--- ---Quote (Originally by Charles Drago)--- ---Quote (Originally by Martin Hay)--- [T]he FBI remains top of my list of suspects for sure.

I've often wondered if Hoover let James Earl Ray escape. When they picked up the obviously planted bundle from the doorway of Canipe's, they had evidence that should have led them straight to Ray - a radio with his Missouri State Pen inmate number on it. They could have traced the serial number on the radio, found out where and when it was sold, and then the inmate number would have given them Ray's name. But they didn't. Instead they searched for Eric Galt, surely knowing that it was an alias, until Ray was safely out of the US. And then they made only a half-assed attempt to extradite him, supplying the British court with little more than Charlie Stephens' "identification" and the promise of some fingerprint evidence that the bureau never delivered. And I can't help thinking that the FBI were hoping the UK would refuse to extradite him on such flimsy evidence so that they wouldn't have to try him with such a weak case and could continue convicting him in the press.
---End Quote---

"Suspects" for WHAT?

I swear to Christ, it's as if the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model never was presented.

Have we learned NOTHING from our studies?

"The FBI" and "the CIA" conspired to kill neither JFK nor MLK.

You conflate the hammer with the carpenter.

You conflate the carpenter with the architect.

You conflate the architect with the homeowner.

The Sponsors are wetting themselves from laughter.
---End Quote---
Charles, I wish you could make your points without being such an asshole.
---End Quote---
Look Charles, now you are acting like Fetzter. You know full well I was addressing your meanness. I fully understand your points. But just like Fetzter, you switch the subject from your tone to my supposed misunderstanding your points. How about you self-righteously accuse me of not be willing to pursue the truth.

I have and continue to learn from you despite your demeaning posts. And I sincerely mean that. I also sincerely mean that you are a prick. [EMPHASIS ADDED BY DRAGO FOR THIS POST.]
***************


There may also be other replies, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again.

All the best,
DEEP POLITICS FORUM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unsubscription information:

To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit this page:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sub...bcf82f89ea

To unsubscribe from ALL threads, please visit this page:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sub...lderid=all

Martin Hay Wrote:Meanwhile back at the ranch...

Brilliant.

Pithy.

Très drole.

Shall we expect a substantive response? Or just more of the same "short bus" exclamations?

Charles Drago Wrote:Lauren,

I wish you could understand my points without being such a fucking literal idiot.

I am guessing that you are telling me that you don't appreciate my presence her at DPF. Since I am unworthy, I have no right to call you on your arrogant attitude. I fully recognize that I am not a researcher. I am not nearly as well informed as you. And that is not my goal. I frankly just want to learn.

But I will say this. Tomorrow when I get up, I will be a little better informed than I was today. And you'll still be a asshole.

Edit: I see that you think we are at war by responding to my deleted post. Thanks you for that. Well, think what you want. I just don't like your attitude. When you actually manage to make a point, I read and think. That won't change. You present a perspective that I value and have found quite challenging to my perspective. For example, I still think about your thesis about the Chicago plot. Hmmm. I let that one simmer on the back burner. I guess I find myself becoming more convinced but I am not quite there yet.

Nevertheless. You think I am a fucking idiot. I think you are both a prick AND an asshole. So what? I am not going to engage you in some silly war. We both know who the enemy is -- or at least we would if we knew who the sponsors are. To me, you are not my enemy and we are not at war with each other. Period.

I think you would be more effective in your posts if you were not so full of invective. But then what would I know? I'm just a fucking idiot.

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:Lauren,

I wish you could understand my points without being such a fucking literal idiot.

I am guessing that you are telling me that you don't appreciate my presence her at DPF. Since I am unworthy, I have no right to call you on your arrogant attitude. I fully recognize that I am not a researcher. I am not nearly as well informed as you. And that is not my goal. I frankly just want to learn.

But I will say this. Tomorrow when I get up, I will be a little better informed than I was today. And you'll still be a asshole.

Edit: I see that you think we are at war by responding to my deleted post. Thanks you for that. Well, think what you want. I just don't like your attitude. When you actually manage to make a point, I read and think. That won't change. You present a perspective that I value and have found quite challenging to my perspective. For example, I still think about your thesis about the Chicago plot. Hmmm. I let that one simmer on the back burner. I guess I find myself becoming more convinced but I am not quite there yet.

Nevertheless. You think I am a fucking idiot. I think you are both a prick AND an asshole. So what? I am not going to engage you in some silly war. We both know who the enemy is -- or at least we would if we knew who the sponsors are. To me, you are not my enemy and we are not at war with each other. Period.

I think you would be more effective in your posts if you were not so full of invective. But then what would I know? I'm just a fucking idiot.

You started this.

You called for civility in the heat of battle.

You began the "asshole" and "prick" exchange.

And now you're offended.

So fuck off. Or stay. It's of no consequence to me.

But if I've let you down with my language and attitude, then perhaps it's because I previously elevated you.

And the same person who did so also comes on like an "asshole" and a "prick."

How can that be?

Figure it out, fucking idiot.

And you'll have a true friend in me -- the asshole prick.

Charles Drago Wrote:

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:Lauren,

I wish you could understand my points without being such a fucking literal idiot.

I am guessing that you are telling me that you don't appreciate my presence her at DPF. Since I am unworthy, I have no right to call you on your arrogant attitude. I fully recognize that I am not a researcher. I am not nearly as well informed as you. And that is not my goal. I frankly just want to learn.

But I will say this. Tomorrow when I get up, I will be a little better informed than I was today. And you'll still be a asshole.

Edit: I see that you think we are at war by responding to my deleted post. Thanks you for that. Well, think what you want. I just don't like your attitude. When you actually manage to make a point, I read and think. That won't change. You present a perspective that I value and have found quite challenging to my perspective. For example, I still think about your thesis about the Chicago plot. Hmmm. I let that one simmer on the back burner. I guess I find myself becoming more convinced but I am not quite there yet.

Nevertheless. You think I am a fucking idiot. I think you are both a prick AND an asshole. So what? I am not going to engage you in some silly war. We both know who the enemy is -- or at least we would if we knew who the sponsors are. To me, you are not my enemy and we are not at war with each other. Period.

I think you would be more effective in your posts if you were not so full of invective. But then what would I know? I'm just a fucking idiot.

You started this.

You called for civility in the heat of battle.

You began the "asshole" and "prick" exchange.

And now you're offended.

So fuck off. Or stay. It's of no consequence to me.

But if I've let you down with my language and attitude, then perhaps it's because I previously elevated you.

And the same person who did so also comes on like an "asshole" and a "prick."

How can that be?

Figure it out, fucking idiot.

And you'll have a true friend in me -- the asshole prick.

I just opened a beer: "The fucking idiot drinks to the asshole prick." Now, back to the war. And once again, I know that you and I are not the war. Over and out.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3799[/ATTACH]

So Deutch was compromising files on Russian sites and Clinton was passing missile missives to Chinese

Goss' COS Millis called the men the worst DCI and president for counterintelligence ever

and sucked a shotgun in a bathtub of the Breezeway Motel in Alexandria in 2000

Which is not to say that CIA or presidents or Russians or Chinese called the shot

but rather that you can't fight here

This is the war room

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:Lauren,

I wish you could understand my points without being such a fucking literal idiot.

I am guessing that you are telling me that you don't appreciate my presence her at DPF. Since I am unworthy, I have no right to call you on your arrogant attitude. I fully recognize that I am not a researcher. I am not nearly as well informed as you. And that is not my goal. I frankly just want to learn.

But I will say this. Tomorrow when I get up, I will be a little better informed than I was today. And you'll still be a asshole.

Edit: I see that you think we are at war by responding to my deleted post. Thanks you for that. Well, think what you want. I just don't like your attitude. When you actually manage to make a point, I read and think. That won't change. You present a perspective that I value and have found quite challenging to my perspective. For example, I still think about your thesis about the Chicago plot. Hmmm. I let that one simmer on the back burner. I guess I find myself becoming more convinced but I am not quite there yet.

Nevertheless. You think I am a fucking idiot. I think you are both a prick AND an asshole. So what? I am not going to engage you in some silly war. We both know who the enemy is -- or at least we would if we knew who the sponsors are. To me, you are not my enemy and we are not at war with each other. Period.

I think you would be more effective in your posts if you were not so full of invective. But then what would I know? I'm just a fucking idiot.

You started this.

You called for civility in the heat of battle.

You began the "asshole" and "prick" exchange.

And now you're offended.

So fuck off. Or stay. It's of no consequence to me.

But if I've let you down with my language and attitude, then perhaps it's because I previously elevated you.

And the same person who did so also comes on like an "asshole" and a "prick."

How can that be?

Figure it out, fucking idiot.

And you'll have a true friend in me -- the asshole prick.

I just opened a beer: "The fucking idiot drinks to the asshole prick." Now, back to the war. And once again, I know that you and I are not the war. Over and out.

And I raise a glass to you, my comrade.

Charles Drago Wrote:

Martin Hay Wrote:Meanwhile back at the ranch...

Brilliant.

Pithy.

Très drole.

Shall we expect a substantive response? Or just more of the same "short bus" exclamations?

Why don't you start by posting something of substance that makes sense to folks other than yourself? Then I'll post a "substantive response".

Charles Drago Wrote:

Martin Hay Wrote:[T]he FBI remains top of my list of suspects for sure.

I've often wondered if Hoover let James Earl Ray escape. When they picked up the obviously planted bundle from the doorway of Canipe's, they had evidence that should have led them straight to Ray - a radio with his Missouri State Pen inmate number on it. They could have traced the serial number on the radio, found out where and when it was sold, and then the inmate number would have given them Ray's name. But they didn't. Instead they searched for Eric Galt, surely knowing that it was an alias, until Ray was safely out of the US. And then they made only a half-assed attempt to extradite him, supplying the British court with little more than Charlie Stephens' "identification" and the promise of some fingerprint evidence that the bureau never delivered. And I can't help thinking that the FBI were hoping the UK would refuse to extradite him on such flimsy evidence so that they wouldn't have to try him with such a weak case and could continue convicting him in the press.

"Suspects" for WHAT?

I swear to Christ, it's as if the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model never was presented.

Have we learned NOTHING from our studies?

"The FBI" and "the CIA" conspired to kill neither JFK nor MLK.

You conflate the hammer with the carpenter.

You conflate the carpenter with the architect.

You conflate the architect with the homeowner.

The Sponsors are wetting themselves from laughter.

In the spirit of true comradeship I would like to explain to Lauren and all other interested parties the reasoning and emotions behind the word choice, subtext, and tone of my post above.

After repeated attempts at engaging the correspondents herein referenced and others with well-reasoned, respectfully constructed and presented arguments urging deeper, better-informed, deep politics-directed appreciations of conspiracy theory in general and JFK conspiracy theory in particular, they continue to fall back on the most simple-minded, self-destructive positions imaginable.

And then, having contributed yet again to the slow strangulation of our allegedly joint efforts, they slap each other on the back and raise their glasses to shared triumphs.

Just look at the only response they've been able to muster:

"Meanwhile back at the ranch ... " [sic]

You can't put a dollar sign on such high-quality intellectual product.

I have had e-fucking-nough of this insanity!

I stand by my original post -- the questions it poses, the chain of errors it reveals.

Let all who disagree come forward with well-reasoned counter-arguments.