MP George Galloway on 9/11 - Calls for a new inquiry

[Adele Edisen]

Shouldn't the "Sponsors" be the ones who profit the most from such operation?

Adele

[Charles Drago]

Shouldn't the "Sponsors" be the ones who profit the most from such operation?

Adele

Are you suggesting that the Sponsors of JFK's assassination deserve to be rewarded with maximum profit?

Or that we can discover the identities of Sponsors by identifying those who profited most from the hit?

And what sort of metrics do you propose to use to quantify such profit?

[Adele Edisen]

From Charles:

Originally Posted by Adele Edisen

Shouldn't the "Sponsors" be the ones who profit the most from such operations?

Adele

Are you suggesting that the Sponsors of JFK's assassination deserve to be rewarded with maximum profit?

Or that we can discover the identities of Sponsors by identifying those who profited most from the hit?

And what sort of metrics do you propose to use to quantify such profit?

Charles,

Good questions. Perhaps I should have used the word 'benefits' instead of 'profit' because 'profit' also suggests money and wealth as well. The term 'benefits' and 'rewards' may

include non-monetary items or conditions. Political power could be one type of 'reward', or it could be some kind of career promotion. It would depend upon who the particular

Sponsor is, and what that person (or group?) expects the positive result to be for themselves. One would think that Sponsors also take the responsibility and the risk of setting

up the operation, providing rewards to their underlings and protecting them or even eliminating them (to prevent themselves from being discovered).

It might be interesting to see what benefits accrued to some suspects in the JFK case. Police routinely look for such in everyday murder cases where it might become a factor. A

simple example is someone who is listed as a beneficiary on a life insurance policy and who kills the insured to pay off a gambling debt, or just wants the insurance money.


I happen to know of one associate of Jose A. Rivera's who had a major upward shift in his career after the JFK assassination. Whether Rivera or his friend would or could be classified

as sponsors or facilitators is not possible to know at this time, but it is known that Rivera knew a great many details about the impending assassination of JFK seven months before it

happened.

Adele

[Charles Drago]

One would think that Sponsors also take the responsibility and the risk of setting up the operation, providing rewards to their underlings and protecting them or even eliminating them (to prevent themselves from being discovered).

Hi Adele,

Actually, your suggestion does not conform to the model's definition of Sponsor.

A Sponsor gives his or her blessing -- or permission -- for the event and contracts and/or commands the participation of highest-level Facilitators and sub-systems. Facilitators are responsible for doing as you suggest.

It might be interesting to see what benefits accrued to some suspects in the JFK case. Whether Rivera or his friend would or could be classified as sponsors or facilitators is not possible to know at this time, but it is known that Rivera knew a great many details about the impending assassination of JFK seven months before it happened.

In terms of the model's definitions, it is indeed knowable at this time that "Rivera and his friend" are NOT Sponsors of the JFK hit. False Sponsors, perhaps, but not the real deal. Did "Rivera" and/or "his friend" comprise or otherwise have the power to bend the supra-national security state to his/their will?

Benefits accrued across the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model. The values of those benefits can be measured subjectively only.

Thanks, by the way, for engaging in what for me is an enjoyable and enlightening exchange.

Charles

[Adele Edisen]

Charles,

I will adhere to my statement that it is not possible to classify Rivera (or certain other suspects) as sponsors, facilitators, mechanics, even, because we do not have the total picture of their activities or responsibilities in the JFK assassination. We do not know all of Rivera's associates or the activities of these associates. In other words, I consider it premature to jump to conclusions and rush to judgment in such classifications at this time.

I would tend to agree with you that Rivera was not in a position to, as you stated in your question: "Did "Rivera" and/or "his friend" comprise or otherwise have the power to bend the supra-national security state to his/their will?" Probably not on his own, but he may have had a hand in the plotting and planning of the event, whch in my understanding, should come under the auspices of a sponsor, since a facilitator is only in a secondary position, as an aide or helper, in this hierarchical triad of organized murderers.

Therefore, to be on the safer side, I wish to urge caution and sagacity here, because premature conclusions may mislead or discourage the search for more information and validation by investigators of the next generation. Like others here, I, too, await more information, some of which is probably stashed away in NARA in classified documents, if not destroyed, or some other information whch may have been already discovered by newer investigators. At this time, I know of only a few who are actively seeking such information on Rivera, but there are many other actors who were also involved in the assassination of whom we know very little, if anything.

I would rather seek and await more information than advance ideas and make assumptions which cannot be confirmed. I have witnessed too much of that in the history of my own scientific field, as well.

Adele

[Greg Burnham]

Charles,

I will adhere to my statement that it is not possible to classify Rivera (or certain other suspects) as sponsors, facilitators, mechanics, even, because we do not have the total picture of their activities or responsibilities in the JFK assassination. We do not know all of Rivera's associates or the activities of these associates. In other words, I consider it premature to jump to conclusions and rush to judgment in such classifications at this time.

I would tend to agree with you that Rivera was not in a position to, as you stated in your question: "Did "Rivera" and/or "his friend" comprise or otherwise have the power to bend the supra-national security state to his/their will?" Probably not on his own, but he may have had a hand in the plotting and planning of the event, whch in my understanding, should come under the auspices of a sponsor, since a facilitator is only in a secondary position, as an aide or helper, in this hierarchical triad of organized murderers.

Therefore, to be on the safer side, I wish to urge caution and sagacity here, because premature conclusions may mislead or discourage the search for more information and validation by investigators of the next generation. Like others here, I, too, await more information, some of which is probably stashed away in NARA in classified documents, if not destroyed, or some other information whch may have been already discovered by newer investigators. At this time, I know of only a few who are actively seeking such information on Rivera, but there are many other actors who were also involved in the assassination of whom we know very little, if anything.

I would rather seek and await more information than advance ideas and make assumptions which cannot be confirmed. I have witnessed too much of that in the history of my own scientific field, as well.

Adele

Hi Adele,

My only input here, if I may, would be to say that Rivera cannot be a sponsor by virtue of his lack of anonymity. That he can be NAMED excludes him from sponsorship. Sponsors are anonymous, by definition. As Fletch noted, anonymity is that which protects and sustains their power. Churchill dubbed them: The High Cabal. The Chinese refer to this anonymous group only as "The Gentry" -- but they have accepted their existence as a matter of course. FWIW.

[Magda Hassan]

I don't think Sponsors have day jobs either.

[Charles Drago]

Charles,
I would tend to agree with you that Rivera was not in a position to, as you stated in your question: "Did "Rivera" and/or "his friend" comprise or otherwise have the power to bend the supra-national security state to his/their will?" Probably not on his own, but he may have had a hand in the plotting and planning of the event, whch in my understanding, should come under the auspices of a sponsor, since a facilitator is only in a secondary position, as an aide or helper, in this hierarchical triad of organized murderers.

Therefore, to be on the safer side, I wish to urge caution and sagacity here, because premature conclusions may mislead or discourage the search for more information and validation by investigators of the next generation.

Adele

Adele,

Let me be clear: My conclusions, like those of George Michael Evica, regarding Sponsors, Facilitators, and Mechanics are not "premature." They emerge from combined decades of research, study, and testing.

I politely urge you to give due consideration to the Evica-Drago model of the JFK conspiracy; your "understanding" of it is deeply flawed. If "Rivera" and/or "his friend" did not have the power to bend the supra-national security state to his/their will, then by definition within the context of the model they are excluded from the Sponsorship level of involvement.

Further, and again by the model's definition, Sponsors almost certainly neither "plotted" nor "planned" the assassination.

Finally, I must add that JFK assassination investigators of this, the next, or any other generation would be ill-served indeed by anyone feigning uncertainty in instances where firm conclusions have been reached. Accept or reject the E/D conspiracy model as you see fit, but as of this writing nothing we know about Rivera gives the slightest indication that he was, in the model's definition, a Sponsor of JFK's murder.

Nothing.

Charles

[Greg Burnham]

I don't think Sponsors have day jobs either.

LOL!!! 24/7 -- Way too busy...

[Adele Edisen]

Therefore, to be on the safer side, I wish to urge caution and sagacity here, because premature conclusions may mislead or discourage the search for more information and validation by investigators of the next generation. Like others here, I, too, await more information, some of which is probably stashed away in NARA in classified documents, if not destroyed, or some other information whch may have been already discovered by newer investigators. At this time, I know of only a few who are actively seeking such information on Rivera, but there are many other actors who were also involved in the assassination of whom we know very little, if anything.

I would rather seek and await more information than advance ideas and make assumptions which cannot be confirmed. I have witnessed too much of that in the history of my own scientific field, as well.

My thinking at this time is and has been tentative. I have only made suggestions and used words such as "may" or "might" rather than "is" or "has to be", or their equivalents. Believe it or not, we are all dealing with various hypotheses, rather than with proven theories. I am using the proper and clear definition of those two words, hypothesis and theory.

If anyone wants to propose Rivera's role in all this, go right ahead. I will defend your right to say it as a matter of "freedom of speech," but will agree with you only if your proposal turns out to be true. And that may take some time.

Adele