Best Spokespersons for the Truth for 50th Anniversary

[Jim Hackett II]

My apologies, Jim. I meant to write "Messrs. Varnell and DiEugenio." I've corrected my original post.

I was just glad I hadn't created a contention point with Jim DiEugenio, or anyone else for that matter.
Agreement is not a requirement to interact with others.

Thanks and Best things to You Charles

[Phil Dragoo]

1. LONG TERM OBJECTIVES -- To reveal and remove from power the assassination's Sponsors; to energize, protect, and empower the people, who comprise the "collateral damage" of the attack on JFK, to re-take control of their political and cultural systems.

2. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES -- To appeal to the hearts and minds of the people (not "Joe Streetcorner") so as to engender outrage and, quickly thereafter, righteous indignation, which in turn can be focused into coordinated national and eventually global campaigns of non-violent protest and political and cultural action.

3. HOW TO TELL THE TRUTH -- We must supplant the chaos that rules our "community" with the highest degree of operational discipline -- a simple (as opposed to simple-minded) strategic communications plan scrupulously adhered to and structured as follows:

STEP A -- HOW was JFK killed? In other words, agree upon and share unassailable evidence for CONSPIRACY. This must NOT be about exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald or anyone else. This must NOT be about inculpating any individuals or systems. Rather, it must be a sober, scientific presentation of evidence that demonstrates, beyond all doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude, that JFK was shot by two or more individuals acting in concert.



Suppressed shots from the Dal-Tex Building hit the pavement as the limousine turned from Houston onto Elm. (Robert Harris, JFKHistory Forum, videos)

Oswald's lack of cheek GSR (McKnight, Breach) removes him from the circle of shooters. Shooters were seen in the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] West and 6[SUP]th[/SUP] East of the Depository.

The Tague shot is best explained as a miss from the Dal-Tex Building.

A shot from the knoll was observed as activity by Bowers, as smoke and/or smell by Powers, O'Donnell, Yarborough, many others.

The back wound was five and 3/8 below the coat collar, five and ¾ below the shirt collar, at the third thoracic vertebra per Burkley; did not extend beyond a finger joint per Humesperhaps a show shot intended to implicate Oswald.

The throat wound was one of entry per Malcolm Perry and other physicians. This characterization so upset Elmer Moore of the Secret Service that he badgered Perry all Friday night. Specter and Dulles would pile on. The expert who was very familiar with gunshot wounds was forced to recant by those who were agenda-driven.

The head wound was "a simple matter of a bullet through the brain" demonstrated by Kilduff per Perry's description. This location was that of a small hole seen by several, filled by mortician Thom Robinson with "a little wax."

This trajectory is described by Sherry Fiester using modern forensic techniques she is familiar with by profession. Trajectory analysis, backspatter analysis, headwound physics observed.

The rear exit described by forty blowing the right hemisphere out a baseball-sized hole came from a frontal entry.

As there were shots from the rear (to the back) and from the front (head, neck) and Oswald did not shoot, the official hypothesis is falseand knowingly so, as the trail of suppressed evidence and testimony is wide and deep and foul.

QED conspiracy, crossfire, coverup.

Dr. David Mantik has done extensive and compelling work to demonstrate forgery in the extant record, in furtherance of an understanding of the true nature of the wounds.


STEP B -- Provide and explain a working model of the conspiracy. For the purposes of this mini-essay, I propose the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model in its entirety (including sub-categories).

The sponsor(s) were the unknown centers of power wishing to preserve Cold War tension, perpetual war, primacy of Federal Reserve, tension of nuclear arms race, resource exploitation, in sum, perpetuation of conditions conducive to exploitation for profit/power.

The facilitators would be those perennially involved in such matters as regime change, false flag operations, psychological warfare, covert movement of assassins, arms, drugs as barter.

The mechanics would be professionals of unquestionable competence, discretion, loyalty or in the alternative, expendibility.

False sponsors would present as a Who's Who of a thousand garish books and a horror show of bias, bigotry, misdirection and imbecility.



STEP C -- WHO killed JFK? This question is best answered by REVERSE-ENGINEERING the shooting. WHO could have done it the way it was done? Who could have stripped security? Who could have selected the motorcade route? Who could have selected the perfect patsy? Who could have covered up the conspiracy and protected its Sponsors and Facilitators? The best rhetorical device to answer these questions might be to ask, "Who could NOT have done these things as they were done?" Or, if you prefer, "Who did NOT have the means AND motive AND opportunity to do the deed as it was done?"


A typical sponsor might be a David Rockefeller, but more likely a person or persons of similar power yet unknown to the pages of the paper of record. A sponsor could not be an ad hoc favorite of popular conjecture, e.g., Johnson, Hoover, Marcello, KGB, Castro, Mossad.

The motorcade ambush was used on Heydrich by British intelligence training the two Czechs.

Secret Service approved the route. Emery Roberts pulled agents off the limo at Love. Greer hit the brakes. Someone likely in the Secret Service halved the motorcycle escort and moved them back; put the limo out front. Removed McHugh from the front seat. Recall it was the Secret Service who had the builder remove the privacy window in 1961.

The patsy was provided by CIA, probably Angleton who John Newman says manipulated Oswald's file. The defection, the FPCC provocations, the backyard photos, the multiple Oswalds usually wildly belligerent (Odio incident) were Phillips' and Joannides' Cuban organizations at workwith full use of Banister the "former" intelligence agent.

Many powerful figures and organizations either had developed animosity toward the murdered president (or his brother who would now be powerless) or stood to gain from his death. Briefly, Johnson differed on foreign policy, and would have been dropped from the ticket to face trial on Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes crimes; Hoover would have been forcibly retiredand despised both brothers. Dulles of course was fired from his life's work by a man he held in the deepest contempt. Military leaders reviled the weak sister. Cubans swore oaths against their betrayer. Mafia lords cursed him in English, Sicilian, Italian.

All those and more are false sponsors.

For the coverup has outlived Johnson, Hoover, Nixon, and will outlive the hated Bushas it did the hated Helms.

The innermost power of the CIA as sword and shield of the cabal, wherein the agency per se is always in total plausible denial while operatives move from that center of power to each and every agency and branch of military service, always in service to power.



STEP D -- WHY was JFK killed?

James Douglass has John F. Kennedy answer this for us. The anecdote of the reading of Seven Days in May, and subsequent response to a friend's query, "Could it happen here." JFK said yes if the young president made a Bay of Pigs blunder, then another, say not going to war in the missile crisis, then pursuing peace too zealously, et cetera.

The key editorial of the time was that the Seven Days in May would come from CIA not the Pentagon.

The regime change model used for economic exploitation utilized CIA, Green Berets, helicopters, napalm, pacification, diplomatic machinations, economic pressures.

So the powerful sponsor could use intelligence, military and government assets to get its way.

JFK stood in its way and was killed. This is the takeaway of Unspeakable, of Battling Wall Street, of Thy Will Be Done.

The Vietnam War had to be foughtbut JFK was in the way. The war profits, the access to drugs of the Golden Triangle, the other resource exploitiation, the mind set of the Cold War business model, all demanded death to the king.

Add that the test ban and backchannel détente and demarche attempts were offensive to the hawks, and the threat to the Fed was a mortal sin, and the threat to the power of the CIA through NSAMs 55, 56, 57 and the oath to shatter it and scatter it to the windall this was weighing heavily on the minds of the sponsors and key facilitators who'd been operating as Dylan's Masters of War ("you play with my world like it's your little toy").

STEP E -- How should we define "justice" in this case?

Justice would be a Gallup poll showing the overwhelming majority of Americans had come to the realization that the twin towers of power manipulation were the forced wars in Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan, to force trade in arms, oil, drugs, and to tighten the strategy of tension as a garrot on the free spirit of mankind.

[Cliff Varnell]

[quote=David Josephs][quote=Charles Drago]David,


On the other hand, science-based repudiation of the SBT is of inestimable evidentiary value.

I've come to the sad conclusion that I'm the only Jacobin on this Forum.

I spent all day yesterday greasing the axles on the tumbrels, making sure the horses were well nourished and the g-blade was gleaming...only to find I'm probably the only SBT zealot here.

When you're the only Jacobin around, it's probably wise to drop the French Revolution analogies...:nuke:

We can thoroughly debunk the SBT by making a simple observation of a phenomenon which literally occurs hundreds and hundreds of billions of times a day on this planet -- someone casually raises their arm like JFK waving in the motorcade and the fabric of their shirt INDENTS along the shoulder-line.

This is the exact opposite of the movement of JFK's shirt required by advocates of a high back wound (CTs as well as LNers).

Isn't making a simple observation of fact much easier than dragging out a couple of PHDs to explain metallurgy?

...Damn, now I gotta take all those tumbrels back to the farm...

[Cliff Varnell]

From Vincent Salandria's "Notes on Lunch with Arlen Specter

http://politicalassassinations.com/2012/11/1560/

I told Specter that I knew there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy notwithstanding his single-bullet theory because the holes in the custom-made shirt and suit jacket of Kennedy could not have ridden up in such a fashion to explain how a shot from the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository Building, hitting Kennedy at a downward angle of roughly 17 degrees, and hitting no bone, could have exited from his necktie knot.

Vincent Salandria, as quoted by Gaeton Fonzi in the masterpiece -- THE LAST INVESTIGATION (emphasis added):

"I'm afraid we were misled...All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy...The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression...[T]he interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long..."

E. Martin Schotz, "The Waters of Knowledge versus the Waters of Uncertainty: Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy" (emphasis added)

Over and over again we hear people asking for more and more information from the government. I suggest to you that the problem is not that we have insufficient data. The problem is that we dare not analyze the data we have had all along. In fact we need very little data. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned you can throw almost the whole 26 volumes of the Warren Commission in the trash can. All you need to do is look at this.
Here [on the left] is the Warren Commission drawing of the path of the "magic" bullet. And here [on the right] is a photograph of the hole in the President's jacket.
Now what does this tell us? It tells us without a shadow of a doubt that the President's throat wound was an entry wound, and that there was a conspiracy without any question. But it tells us much more. It tells us that the Warren Commission knew that the conspiracy was obvious and that the Commission was engaged in a criminal conspiracy after the fact to obstruct justice. The Chief Justice of the United States was a criminal accessory to the murder of the President. Senator Arlen Specter is a criminal accessory to murder. The Warren Report was not a mistake; it was and is an obvious act of criminal fraud.

The prima facie case for conspiracy precludes fact-based rebuttal. There is no doubt about this issue whatsoever -- at least, no doubt that can be supported by logic or common experience.

[Cliff Varnell]

Conspiracy in the murder of JFK is not a question to be debated, but a fact to be observed.

Period.

[Charles Drago]

My Dear Friend of the Constitution,

I share your appreciation of the clothing evidence.

What I don't share is your contention -- shared by others -- that the clothing evidence is "all we need" to accomplish the tasks before us.

The SBT has been falsified.

In terms of the SBT our task is not to establish the fact, but rather to communicate it in a fashion that contributes significantly to the liberation of billions of human beings.

How?

First step: To paraphrase a sentiment that enjoyed some popularity during the recent high-spirited hijinks in Vietnam: Grab them by their souls -- as only ART can do -- and their hearts and minds will follow.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

To which I would add, Premier Cru Supérieur!

[Cliff Varnell]

My Dear Friend of the Constitution,

I share your appreciation of the clothing evidence.

Thank you, Charles. It's not a point I "debate" any longer. I simply point it out.

What I don't share is your contention -- shared by others -- that the clothing evidence is "all we need" to accomplish the tasks before us.

The SBT has been falsified.

In terms of the SBT our task is not to establish the fact, but rather to communicate it in a fashion that contributes significantly to the liberation of billions of human beings.

How?

First step: To paraphrase a sentiment that enjoyed some popularity during the recent high-spirited hijinks in Vietnam: Grab them by their souls -- as only ART can do -- and their hearts and minds will follow.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

To which I would add, Premier Cru Supérieur!

Interesting. I must confess I'm left without one of my glib comebacks.

The clothing evidence isn't "sexy," I'll grant you that. It's mundane. Prosaic in the extreme. That could be one reason why some people resist the notion of its primacy.

David Lifton (iirc) has an audio recording of Gaeton Fonzi's interview with Arlen Specter back in 1966. It was an ambush of Specter Fonzi planned with Vincent Salandria.

I think it would be great if a transcript of the interview were prepped, and a script boiled down and have the encounter re-created. I've heard it said that Fonzi was the inspiration for Peter Falk's Colombo, so a couple of good actors might make it work.

Fonzi wrote about the encounter here:

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/f...ecter.html

[David Josephs]

I call Bullshit Charles....

You
wrote:

"I shall take no part in denigrating or assuming a patronizing
stance toward our audience "

and yet:

"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."

So which is it Charles... will anyone without the ability to wade thru the sea of data and come to our conclusion in the time alloted be considered "cognitively impared or a criminal"
How is this not denigrating or patronizing the undefined "audience" of ours?

your entire premise requires: reasonable access to the "evidence"... of which you make no
distinction about WHICH BS tainted/created/altered/planted evidence Joe Streetcorner
is to look at, UNDERSTAND, and to come to your mandatory conclusion.

(and by Joe Streetcorner you must know what I refer to... any of the millions
of people who are aware of the FJK dilemna but not familiar with the
"evidence" as you call it. All they've seen are the Discovery/History
Mock-umentaries which make it appear Oswald is guilty and it's a very simple
case... and they do it in a simple and direct way.... or is our audience the
lawmakers and mover/shakers in DC who are to put their entire political careers
in jeopardy by taking on the CFR? I still don't see who you think you are
talking to with all these Long Term / Short term proposals


As for the rest of your reply...

Hoover said what he said and wrote what he did... UNASSAILABLE EVIDENCE from the Director of the FBI that a conspiracy needed investigating.
If you have a way to refute or ASSAIL the quote and the conclusion that follows DO SO... Telling me what words I can and cannot use does not get it done.

So sorry to have confused you... We are told we have a 1000 piece puzzle, yet not only are all the pieces not there... but we have pieces mixed in from other puzzles that have nothing to do with the final picture of the one we are assembling. Not hard to follow and nowhere close to the absurd posts of Mr. Doyle. A simple metaphor describing the task of using the available evidence to construct a true picture.

I've read Salandria and Mantik. So what? You think our audience is going to understand Mantik? Oh right, you have yet to define an audience... Has the audience you wish to reach also read these men?
Do you honestly believe if the Pope read the Koran he will give up Christianity?

WHO do you think should read Salandria as any one of his essays illustrates the conspiracy.
Ra[B]ther, I wrote these pieces to explain how easy it was tocome to the truth of h[U]ow and why [/U]our national security state killed PresidentKennedy in order to perpetuate the Cold War. -V. Salandria[/B]

And you are aware then that Salandria does not tap Hoover at all:

J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI?
Let us enumerate the agencies who are candidates for having
accomplished this brilliant charade.
How about J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI? It is not plausible that the
Federal Bureau of Investigation-if it had been involved in the assassination
planning-w[B]ould have chosen as a patsy a person who Attorney
General Waggoner Carr of Texas would indicate immediately after the
killing was a paid FBI informer.[/B] And if J. Edgar Hoover had effectuated
the coup, then how could we explain that immediately after the assassination,
and persisting through today, there has been a yelping in the land
for Mr. Hoover's scalp? If 1. Edgar Hoover were the new ruling tyrant,
there would be far more reluctance on the part of our cowardly government
officials and the media to take him on. No, I think that we can say
with surety that the FBI did not kill President Kennedy.


The mere fact that you ask: "Was JFK killed by one gunman acting alone, or was JFK killed by conspirators?"
is non-sequitur. The question itself assumes there is an issue with the answer when if YOU read Salandria you know that is not the case.

Conspiracy is understood already Charles... THAT is our starting point. HOW and WHY we get that information out to any audience is our task here...

The pounds of flesh you want in your LT/ST Objectives are noble and all... but we have neither the money or expertise for that kind of sustained operation.
Phil answers your concerns very well... yet even in his answer we/"THEY" can argue facts and figures all day and night.

"THEY" can't move the bullet holes
"THEY" can't undo Hoover's declaration of his knowledge of a EVIDENCE generated by the CIA, that suggests a conspiracy (or the illusion of one)
"THEY" can't undo the lies from Mexico City and the conclusion that there either WAS a conspiracy involving Oswald, or it was created to look that way.

Experts on both sides can and will argue the details - as Salandria predicted - you've read the HSCA conclusion...

Yes Virginia, there was a conspiracy, except our government, who agrees with that conclusion IN WRITING
cannot name a single other entity who conspired WITH Oswald... yet it appears that Hoover was right after all

C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to
it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a
result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other
gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.
1. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy.
2. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy.
3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved
in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved.
4. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group,
was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but
that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that
individual membersmay have been involved.
5. The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency, were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy.

[Charles Drago]

I call Bullshit Charles....

You
wrote:

"I shall take no part in denigrating or assuming a patronizing
stance toward our audience "

and yet:

"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."[COLOR=#222222][FONT=Verdana]

So which is it Charles... will anyone without the ability to wade thru the sea of data and come to our conclusion in the time alloted be considered "cognitively impared or a criminal"

How is this not denigrating or patronizing the undefined "audience" of ours?

"Call bullshit" until you're brown in the face.

Your "which is it?" question is the product of a simpleton or something ... else.

The answer is glaringly obvious to all who can see and wish to see.

You accuse me of wanting to present a sea of data when I clearly and fiercely argue for precisely the opposite approach.

My "mandatory" conclusion ...

Just who do you think you're fucking with?

Accordingly, I call "fuck off."

Knowingly or not, you are engaging in the same cycle of irreconcilable argument in which the best of the worst engage in order to prolong argument.

You refuse to be enlightened.

I'm done with this game.

Go play with yourself.

[David Josephs]

"You refuse to be enlightened."

Wasn't that the same cry of the Inquisition before they killed you?


You call your audience either cognitively impared or a criminal if they dont see the light.... and then claim not to denigrate or patronize them them.
and I'm fucking with YOU? jeez CD, talk about Bullshit


Didn't take very long to discover why those outside the DPF feel as they do about it.
....either you agree with CD or your "fucked", or should "fuck off".

Eloquently done CD...

I actually thought this forum would be different... collaborative and informative where the free flow of thoughts and ideas were WELCOME
yet I come to learn that IS true as long as you don't cross paths with the all powerful CD... don't DARE to disagree with CD
and never, ever call CD on anything he posts - which are delivered as if CD was channeling God himself


Who do I think I'm fucking with?
Evidently someone so self absorbed that contradiction amounts to blasphemy.

you aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know....

So I guess next you ban me from posting or ban me from the forum or some such retribution for even DARING to disagree with you....
DARING to show where your own words contradict themselves....

YOU want the world to listen when YOU can't even have the decency to have a discussion about YOUR position with someone who thinks and believes as you do in this case... but from a different vantage point

So fine CD... the last thing I need to do is have an argument with a dictatorial hypocrite.
With this great a bedside manner, you should have no trouble at all converting the cognitively impared and criminals out there to your way of thinking



"I shall take no part in denigrating or assuming a patronizing stance toward our audience "

and yet:

"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."[