Albert Doyle Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:You continue NOT to get it!

I am NOT arguing that CIA officers and agents weren't involved in the JFK conspiracy.

I am trying to penetrate your titanium skull with a simple message: To state that "THE" CIA was involved in any deep political event is to imply that the agency committed the acts as official policy. It is to imply that it is a monolithic bureaucratic entity and is neither factionalized nor deep.

Further, to so state is to promote a simple-minded, shallow political appreciation of how the deep world works.

Was there a senior staff meeting in the DCI's office with an agenda on which "Kill JFK" was included?

So to answer your question: Yes indeed, I can and do state that [size=12]THE CIA WASN'T A PRIMARY PARTICIPANT IN THE ASSASSINATION!!!!!!!!![/SIZE]

My reply to that is you fall into your own trap of the multi-dimensional nature of deep political behavior when you refuse to recognize that when CIA formally denied any involvement in JFK's killing it was acting as a unified bureaucratic entity when it did so. As long as Fort Bragg had a Special Forces training facility with a mock-up of Dealey Plaza and trainers who practically bragged in the open about killing Kennedy, as Dan Marvin told, then CIA as an organization knew about their participation in the assassination. No matter what you say many of the primary participants in the assassination were CIA officers. Angleton, Phillips, Hunt etc were all CIA employees, which makes them CIA. The important point here is that CIA, no matter how fractured, splintered, compartmentalized or factionally controlled was still CIA and responsible for the actions of its members under its formal structure. In my opinion, to honor this internal division in CIA in order to prove deep political theory is to let them off the hook as far as accountability. While everything you say is true, it is that very multi-dimensional deep political nature of CIA that makes this true at the same and in coexistence with deep political theory. To honor the "dumb head" of the official front desk of CIA is to honor their ploy. They must be held to accountability and even though they, as a group, pretend not to know, they can't be allowed the privilege of formally not knowing when reality requires otherwise. Meanwhile there were many documented cases where CIA formally created memos trying to tell all involved assets how to disseminate anti-conspiracy propaganda. What I'm trying to say is at a theoretical level it makes no difference if this formal CIA entity is detached from the covert actors as long as it acts in effective agency with those who committed the assassination. In fact I can't think of a more precise definition of the totality of sponsorship than the words "central intelligence". At that point you are close to "evil eye". It could even be argued that the CIA itself was the "hardware shop" of the true sponsors and created as such for that very purpose.

Albert Doyle Wrote:My reply to that is you fall into your own trap of the multi-dimensional nature of deep political behavior when you refuse to recognize that when CIA formally denied any involvement in JFK's killing it was acting as a unified bureaucratic entity when it did so.

Quote:Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks,
or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories
by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.

Quote:A photo was taken at 12:30 and disseminated to newspapers just over a half hour later. It was published the same day. You claim there was alteration to that photo, but have yet to suggest how it was done, by whom, when or where. There was a margin of about a half hour, in which time - per your assertions Altgens must have delivered his film to AP (unless you doubt his word, too), the photo was altered without his knowledge (unless you doubt his word, too), all without being detected. When asked how you think this was accomplished, you have offered zero, other than to say because it was altered there must have been time in which to do it.

Except today we have your most recent invention, a mobile photo lab on site. Did that mobile photo lab also contain a nuclear particle accelerator from New Orleans, or Saddam's weapons of mass destruction? Was it parked outside the AP offices? Do you have photos of it?

Ralph Cinque, on 18 May 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:
Yes, I am quitting. I give up talking to you, Lamson. You're helpless and hopeless. You're as dumb as dirt. You don't know your ass from a hot brick.

And speaking of your ass, Dolva's now kissing it. Good for you! You guys know where you can go, and you know what you can do when you get there.

Oswald was the Doorman. The Lovelady pics were faked. And that includes that goofy video in which they embedded him.

And that's my last word to you, YOU BLITHERING IDIOT.

=====================================

So, this is the kind of post we get from Fetzer's partner. Although I almost never agree with Lamson about anything ever--and we've gone at this for about 15 years--we have NEVER stooped so low as this. Now, Jim Fetzer do you care to deny that you guys are RIGID in your beliefs? Are you going to deny that Ralpy is SHOVING his beliefs down the throats (or up other parts) of those who don't agree with him? Are you going to deny that he is committing an ad hominem?

(Posted here as proof of Fetzer's and Cinque's true behavior, just in case EF moderators make it invisible)

Charles Drago Wrote:What in the name of all that is holy does that have to do with the ordering, planning, and execution of the assassination?