Greg Burnham Wrote:"Sorry" if I feel what way, David? Lacking in strength following surgery? Or were you referring to something of substance that you have yet to name?

I suppose I should just stay out of these quibbles for the time being. Perhaps I missed something, too.

As I said, I haven't the strength for this right now. But I wish I did. I got out for a walk yesterday. It was nice. Our city purchased a new statue that
is dedicated to those who served in WWII to replace the original that was beginning to show signs of age...as I am. My wife snapped a picture of me
standing below it--even while I wore my hard neck brace/collar. The statue is about 1/2 mile from home. When I got home I collapsed. A little too
far a little too soon. The statue is called: Unconditional Surrender

Greg Burnham Wrote:"Sorry" if I feel what way, David? Lacking in strength following surgery? Or were you referring to something of substance that you have yet to name?

I suppose I should just stay out of these quibbles for the time being. Perhaps I missed something, too.

As I said, I haven't the strength for this right now. But I wish I did. I got out for a walk yesterday. It was nice. Our city purchased a new statue that
is dedicated to those who served in WWII to replace the original that was beginning to show signs of age...as I am. My wife snapped a picture of me
standing below it--even while I wore my hard neck brace/collar. The statue is about 1/2 mile from home. When I got home I collapsed. A little too
far a little too soon. The statue is called: Unconditional Surrender

Adele Edisen Wrote:Hey, Everybody,

One thing I learned in College at the University of Chicago when Robert Hutchins was Chancellor, and classes were conducted by the Socratic discussion method of teaching, was that DEFINITIONS were very important to be understood and agreed upon. It clarifies thinking for members and allows for more calm and orderly discussions, understanding, agreement, and even disagreement. It does not impede the expression of ideas, it may actually broaden and expand understanding and knowledge.

So, please, define your terms. We are not mind readers, and we all need to know what it is that is being discussed or questioned. That may be why these melees occur when this is not happening. When someone does not understand something, a definition (or description or name) may be essential.

My two cents. Thanks for reading.

Adele

Quote:How were the most powerful people in and around government who, innocent of any involvement in the conspiracy, were told and accepted as being true what today we call the Phase I story, mollified when they asked (and I believe many of them did), "If we go along with this cover-up of Cuban and Soviet complicity for the greater good, how and when will the guilty Cuban and Soviet parties be punished?"

Quote:That's not what I'm asking at all, Bill, so allow me to pose the question again -- this time a bit more artfully.

Quote:Don't over-complicate my question.

I'll try to ask it one more time:

How were the most powerful people in and around government who, innocent of any involvement in the conspiracy, were told and accepted as being true what today we call the Phase I story, mollified when they asked (and I believe many of them did), "If we go along with this cover-up of Cuban and Soviet complicity for the greater good, how and when will the guilty Cuban and Soviet parties be punished?"

Quote:How could non-conspiratorial Cold Warriors who accepted as true the Phase I argument that Cubans/Soviets did it AND agreed to go along with the patsying of LHO in order to stave off nuclear war be expected to let the "real" killers of JFK off the hook forever?

Quote:Get back to me when you can offer more than your opinion.

Quote:CD: The WW III scare that is the Phase I scenario was created for a reason: To force powerful figures not involved in the conspiracy to go along with what to them would be immediately recognizable as the patently false LHO-alone Phase of the cover-up.

Jim D:Not so sure I agree with this. And I am familiar with Scott's work on it and Newman's riff on that tune.

Quote:I created this thread to solicit answers to the following question:

How were the most powerful people in and around government who, innocent of any involvement in the conspiracy, were told and accepted as being true what today we call the Phase I story, mollified when they asked (and I believe many of them did), "If we go along with this cover-up of Cuban and Soviet complicity for the greater good, how and when will the guilty Cuban and Soviet parties be punished?"


David Josephs responds by posing a question I didn't ask:

"Who was aware of this Phase 1 story?"


Don't get me wrong: David's is an interesting question -- one worthy of its own thread. But like so many other responses this thread has generated to date, it contributes nothing of value to the effort to answer my original query.

Charles Drago Wrote:

Adele Edisen Wrote:Hey, Everybody,

One thing I learned in College at the University of Chicago when Robert Hutchins was Chancellor, and classes were conducted by the Socratic discussion method of teaching, was that DEFINITIONS were very important to be understood and agreed upon. It clarifies thinking for members and allows for more calm and orderly discussions, understanding, agreement, and even disagreement. It does not impede the expression of ideas, it may actually broaden and expand understanding and knowledge.

So, please, define your terms. We are not mind readers, and we all need to know what it is that is being discussed or questioned. That may be why these melees occur when this is not happening. When someone does not understand something, a definition (or description or name) may be essential.

My two cents. Thanks for reading.

Adele

Thank you for this, Adele. I truly respect your work, your mind, and your intentions in this exchange.

Please be aware that I have defined my terms at least THREE TIMES on this thread, which I originated. If you read from the opening post, you will see how I have attempted to reword/clarify the expression of my initial, relatively complex hypothesis.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide further clarification -- which at this point would amount to dumbing down the material and patronizing the majority of DPF correspondents. And to be blunt, I do not believe that further clarification is necessary in order to make my work accessible to bright readers who have a moderately sophisticated grasp of this case in particular and deep politics in general.

I shall not cross the border from simple to simple-minded.

As previously stated, I am not particularly proud of the fact that I lose patience with individuals who do not bring the requisite intelligence and/or learning to our discussions.

And then there are a select few whose repeated misreadings and misrepresentations of fact are, in my informed opinion, ego-driven and/or offered in service to dark agendas.

I have created many DPF threads on which I state a hypothesis and invite honorable argument. In doing so I am not seeking obeisance, but only honest debate.

My prose is not always as artful as I might wish it to be. But it is always the best of which I am capable at the moment I create it.

Warm regards.

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Everyone - this scenario can only be understood and explored within the perameters of Peter Dale Scott's Phases, as articulated in Charles' posts #1 & 11.

For myself, I think Prof Dale Scott's analysis is insightful and has a significant degree of historical corroboration.

Charles' questions exist primarily within this analytical framework.

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:What I originally wrote:

"An example: It is impossible for me and others not to see ritual and magic(k) driving the brutal subjugations of indigenous aboriginal/tribal peoples by their imperialist conquerors long after military and material objectives of conquest have been met."

The replacement by violence of one controlling spiritual/scientific/political system by another may be understood as magical ritual in the sense that Giordano Bruno might have used the term.

(After he conquered the Aztec Empire, Cortés ordered that the Metropolitan Cathedral of the Assumption of Mary of Mexico City be built on the vanquished race's most sacred ground. Stones from the temple of Huitzilopochtli, the Aztec's god of war, were used in its construction.

Mt. Rushmore was carved into the summit a natural "temple" within the Black Hills, territory of immense spiritual significance for the vanquished Lakota [Sioux] peoples.

It is as if Barbarians had sacked post-Renaissance Rome and painted over the Sistine Chapel ceiling portraits of their bloodthirsty deities and leaders.)

What Bruno represented to the controlling spiritual/scientific/political system of his time was mortally threatening heresy: He combined an embrace of Copernicus's heliocentrism with understanding and promotion of the ancient Hermetic tradition.

Bruno also spoke openly of the Church's hellish condition, conjuring descriptions that might have been written about today's Church:

From The Torch-Bearer: "You will see, in mixed confusion, snatches of cutpurses, wiles of cheats, enterprises of rogues; also delicious repulsiveness, bitter sweets, foolish decisions, mistaken faith and crippled hopes, niggard charities, judges noble and serious for other men's affairs with little truth in their own; virile women, effeminate men and voices of craft and not of mercy so that he who believes most is most fooled, and everywhere the love of gold."

I do not even remotely approach the status of Bruno scholar, so I'm treading very carefully so as not to cross the dilettante line.

What I cannot help but note, however, is that JFK represented a Bruno-like threat to the controlling spiritual/scientific/political system of his/our time.

And what I cannot help but conclude is that those at the pinnacle of the Sponsorship level secretly included spiritual -- or magical -- ritual within the larger conspiracy they set in motion.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a heretic.

The executions of heretics are presented as magical rituals. And the heretics know it.

As Jan reminds us in his signature, another victim of the Conquistadors, the last Inka Tupac Amaru, invoked his greatest deity as he spoke his last words: "Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."

"Mother Earth, witness how my enemies shed my blood."

Upon hearing his death sentence, Giordano Bruno said, "Maiori forsan cum timore sententiam in me fertis quam ego accipiam."

"Perhaps you pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it."

Bruno was roasted by the friars in 1600.

Some 363 years later, Kennedy's mind was blown out in a car.

We are told that his last word's were, "I'm hit."

An unknown comedian suggested that they might have been, "I need a hardtop like I need a hole in the head."

I prefer to think of them as, "And we are all mortal."

The guidance on DPF is not to quote entire posts when replying to them, as it wastes bandwidth.

But no bandwidth is wasted by repeating these fine phrases.

I'm interested in the assassination of JFK as an act of ritual public sacrifice.

The slaughter of the heretic performed by hired serfs who did not know their Master, nor their Master's motivation.

Eugenics is about the purification of the stock, and the casting out of the unclean.

In occult terms. In Levenda's sense.

Tenochtitlan and Jasenovac are ritual sacrifice on a mass scale.

The essence of the occult meaning of King lies in the famous French phrase:

Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi!

In occult terms, JFK could not be shamed into retirement, or assassinated behind closed doors.

"That little Kennedy… he thought he was a god".

David Josephs Wrote:and he goes on to insult Adele and me once again....