+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified? (/thread-10358.html)
The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified? - David Josephs - 19-03-2013
You mean like this one you sent me Charles?
Takes a real man to hit and run... and then hide in the shadows....
Can't put up and wont shut up... you're a real inspiration.
Quote:Today 11:35 AM
Charles Drago
Founding Member
Run out, borrow a dick, and go fuck yourself.
The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified? - Charles Drago - 19-03-2013
Charles Drago Wrote:Josephs has attempted on at least two occasions today to engage me via PM in a trade of insults. His messages were ugly. Very ugly. I won't share with DPF readers my brief response -- one commonly comprised of three choice words.
This is too easy.
Or as Ian Fleming would have put it:
"No self-respecting man could get through the day without his battery of four-letter words to cope with the roughage of life and let off steam. If you're late for a vital appointment with your superiors, and you find that you've left all your papers at home, surely you say, well, Freddie Uncle Charlie Katie, if I may put it so as not to offend."
The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified? - Charles Drago - 20-03-2013
David Josephs Wrote:and he goes on to insult Adele and me once again....
I shall not allow Josephs to characterize falsely my words to Adele or anyone else. I responded to her with compliments and an expression of gratitude for her post:
"Thank you for this, Adele. I truly respect your work, your mind, and your intentions in this exchange."
I have nothing further to discuss with David Josephs. I shall not read his PMs, and I shall not suffer his obsession with me any longer.
As for his DPF posts, past and future:
Caveat lector.[/QUOTE]
The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified? - David Josephs - 20-03-2013
Deleting what you wrote doesn't make it disappear Charley....
You've proven yourself to be less than honorable and even less of a man.
Quote:Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that the crime was committed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
I shall take no part in denigrating or assuming a patronizing stance toward the people -- the "collateral damage" of the JFK assassination -- whose hearts and minds we must win if liberation is to follow.
-- Charles R. Drago
The PEOPLE visit the 6th Floor Museum and watch Discovery Channel.... THAT's their reasonable access...
but then again - what would you know of the PEOPLE.
and PLEASE, respond one more time... you stated you'd not give me 30 more seconds of your time - that you wouldn't address me, read my posts or PM's....
but you just can't help yourself... can you? Anything you need to do to rationalize the utter nonsense that comes out of our your mouth.
hutup:So let me save you the time.... :finger: seems to be the only thing you know how to do...
DELETE DELETE DELETE
The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified? - Magda Hassan - 20-03-2013
Charles hasn't deleted any thing. I have put some of the posts on moderation as they do not conform to forum rules.
The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified? - Adele Edisen - 20-03-2013
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.
Charles,
Thank you for your kind words and warm regards. These are greatly appreciated.
I certainly did not expect to cause any more turmoil.
When I wrote my little note, I had no particular person in mind. It was more related to the time when I was a contributing member of the Simkin Education Forum years ago, where I encountered in my reading of forum posts many exchanges of disagreements and arguments amongst various other posters. Like many people here who had similar experiences at the same forum, I realized I was not benefitting from my time at that forum. I began to feel alienated and isolated, and yearned for some place where people could be more respectful of each other and of the important topic we were to be discussing. When no one seemed to be making any sense at all, and I was not learning anything, and could not bring a discussion to an understandable level, I figured it was time to go. Then Jan rescued me and I settled in at the Deep Politics Forum.
What I saw as one problem at the Educ. Forum was the lack of agreement on the terms being used. That in itself often was cause for argument. Then there was the expectation that others agreed with some sort of common, stereotypical thinking. We certainly have seen a lot of that in political debates here in this country, and that's besides the lies and exaggerations.
I wish we could start all over again, with more patience and tolerance. We, many of us, have been through the battles and are getting a bit weary and achy in the knees and backs, and are gettting tired and older. But we should all, meaning also me, myself and I, try to be good role models for the younger ones here. They will have to fight the future battles for truth which we older ones will eventually have to miss.
We all should ask questions when something is not clear. That's what Socrates did. He was a perpetual student, and that's how he became the wisest man in Athens.
Thank you, Charles.
Adele
The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified? - Gordon Gray - 20-03-2013
The people who created the Oswald in Mexico/agent of Castro/Soviets scenario were most likely Phillips, Hunt, and co. I doubt it was their intention to use this to intimidate LBJ and later any subsequent investigation into accepting a LN scenario. In light of the consensus among Congressional leadership, the Military, the Intelligence community and others among the deep state, for an invasion of Cuba and a possible first strike against the Soviet Union during the Missile Crisis, I don't see how those objectives would have changed much in a year. It seems to me that Phase Two was a fall back position when Hoover, in the interests of himself and the Bureau, made it clear to Johnson that this information was fabricated. Rather than risk exposing the CIA's involvement in the assassination, they chose Phase Two. Certainly Dullas was on board with Phase Two when the Warren Commission was convened.
The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified? - Jan Klimkowski - 20-03-2013
Adele Edisen Wrote: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.
Charles,
Thank you for your kind words and warm regards. These are greatly appreciated.
I certainly did not expect to cause any more turmoil.
When I wrote my little note, I had no particular person in mind. It was more related to the time when I was a contributing member of the Simkin Education Forum years ago, where I encountered in my reading of forum posts many exchanges of disagreements and arguments amongst various other posters. Like many people here who had similar experiences at the same forum, I realized I was not benefitting from my time at that forum. I began to feel alienated and isolated, and yearned for some place where people could be more respectful of each other and of the important topic we were to be discussing. When no one seemed to be making any sense at all, and I was not learning anything, and could not bring a discussion to an understandable level, I figured it was time to go. Then Jan rescued me and I settled in at the Deep Politics Forum.
What I saw as one problem at the Educ. Forum was the lack of agreement on the terms being used. That in itself often was cause for argument. Then there was the expectation that others agreed with some sort of common, stereotypical thinking. We certainly have seen a lot of that in political debates here in this country, and that's besides the lies and exaggerations.
I wish we could start all over again, with more patience and tolerance. We, many of us, have been through the battles and are getting a bit weary and achy in the knees and backs, and are gettting tired and older. But we should all, meaning also me, myself and I, try to be good role models for the younger ones here. They will have to fight the future battles for truth which we older ones will eventually have to miss.
We all should ask questions when something is not clear. That's what Socrates did. He was a perpetual student, and that's how he became the wisest man in Athens.
Thank you, Charles.
Adele
Once again, 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.
Adele - you are a wise and patient truth seeker.
Even when we have disagreed on interpretations, and we have, you have displayed what Hemingway famously called Grace Under Pressure.
Equally I agree with Charles that we are engaged in a War.
And for me, the battle is not just against the Sponsors of the Public Slaughter of JFK.
It is a battle against Power and Hypocrisy.
It is a struggle with those who lust after Control, who glory in Power over others, who despoil the planet in their myopic meaningless games, who rape - and facilitate the rape of - innocent children to turn leaders into puppets.
Can I clamber into a ring and go ten rounds, under Marquess of Queensberry rules, with these Criminals?
No. They play by their own rules, in their own arenas.
DPF is our arena.
It's not very grand. The stands are not packed. We are at best a boil on Their lardy butts. At worst, irrelevant.
Every day I read posts here that hugely irritate me. Sometimes these posts are but red herrings. Sometimes they may possibly seek to derail the journey towards truth.
Every day I read posts here that give me hope, that illuminate and that serve the path of truth.
DPF is currently fighting for its soul, so I will do what we, the founders, pledged not to do, and discuss forum business in public.
My threshold for banning members is high.
I am perhaps prepared to be more patient than other founders before casting members out of our home, our arena.
But I have a threshold.
My own interpretation of this thread is that Charles pitched it high.
He cited the work of Prof Peter Dale Scott and wanted to use this thread to explore a hypothesis. And right from the start, that hypothesis was ignored, and discussion took place in another dimension.
A Twilight Zone - if you will.
I have started threads designed to explore a hypothesis, to provoke dialectic insights, and seen them hijacked and derailed in this fashion. An example being the MK-ULTRA Iceberg thread.
I abandoned the thread.
But we are all made differently.
Charles has not abandoned his thread, or his desire to explore the original hypothesis.
As we founders have stated several times, DPF is not a deep political kindergarten.
Equally, a child can ask fascinating questions which lead to new discoveries, fresh insights.
I wish I could behave with Adele's grace under pressure.
My parents were teachers.
I have the gene, and some patience.
I know I do not have the patience of Adele.
My instinct is sometimes to bite, sometimes to try again.
Sometimes to turn away.
We are all different.
Here's the key.
Is DPF worth fighting for?
I say YES.
Will I fight for it?
YES.
Here's a plea.
Let's turn our minds, our experience, our pens on the real enemy.
Those who murdered JFK.
Those who seek only Power and Control.
The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified? - Jim Hackett II - 20-03-2013
Jan,
and all the mods,
thanks for providing this arena. It is no catbox as er... other places are.
The phrase 'Fight the enemy' alone designates DPF as not your brand x community.
Not the norm as political sites go.
The no 'theory and no LN bunk' idea isn't new but the deep politics perspective is.
Once any interested person looks into the case and concludes on the evidence as it now exists that there was a conspiracy and no theory in the murder of John Kennedy, then a world view choice is made.
In this place questions can be asked that in other places would bring down the hellfire of LN debunkers of DP concepts - hence no discussion no answers given another hijacked thread....
Threads will be hijacked here too as we all have seen.
There is much good data here on this site. In old threads and new ones, much better than brand x or brand y sites.
Jim
The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified? - Charles Drago - 20-03-2013
Jan,
Amen.
And thank you for your many kindnesses, most especially and on this thread:
"My own interpretation of this thread is that Charles pitched it high.
"He cited the work of Prof Peter Dale Scott and wanted to use this thread to explore a hypothesis. And right from the start, that hypothesis was ignored, and discussion took place in another dimension.
A Twilight Zone - if you will."
I think it appropriate to re-post my introductory offering:
Charles Drago Wrote:Peter Dale Scott's masterful multi-phase JFK assassination cover-up hypothesis is both a distillation of previous research (his own and that of others) and a greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts template for post-Dallas deep state conspiracies and their aftermaths.
http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3835
Scott's Phase I describes the production of wholly contrived evidence suggesting that "the" Soviets and the Cubans had conspired successfully to kill the president. Release of this information to the public, it was argued by LBJ and others, would result in irresistible calls for retaliation in the form of a war that, in the now-infamous phrase, "would cost 40 million American lives."
LBJ claimed that this very argument was enough to get Earl Warren to head the commission that would endorse Phase II of the cover-up: the admittedly contrived fallback position that Oswald acted alone.
So how did LBJ and other Phase I touts respond to the inevitable, outrage-driven question, "Are we going to let those Commie murderers off the hook?"
I think that the most likely response was something along these lines:
-- Powerful individuals within the Soviet and Cuban governments were responsible, but the assassination was not a sanctioned act of those governments. We'll take out the guilty parties in good time -- without spilling the blood of innocents in their tens of millions.
How else might movement from Phase I to Phase II have been facilitated peacefully?
The bold section above was not highlighted in the original. I draw everyone's attention to it now -- especially to the word "inevitable" -- to support my statement for the record that yes, at the core of my hypothesis are my assumptions that the Phase I story was created to be used and was used in the fashion I describe, and that those who bought it almost certainly would have asked the "When/how will be strike back?" questions.
Forgive me for being a cockeyed optimist, but I never suspected that I would have to provide the following definition to even one DPF reader:
hy·poth·e·sis (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.
I failed to declare the obvious with an air of discovery. Then all hell broke loose. And at one point it occurred to me that if the Dealey Plaza shooters had missed their target as often as some correspondents on this thread have missed my point, John Kennedy would have lived to comb gray hairs.
Perhaps if I had opened the proceedings with "WHAT IF ... " or "LET'S CLOSE OUR EYES AND MAKE BELIEVE ... " we might avoided the ugliness.
All of this being stated:
Adele, I thank you for your clarifying, much needed words here. You can share my foxhole anytime.
And that goes for you too, Jan -- and Magda, and Dawn. Despite what I might have written last night.
My best to you,
Charles