05-01-2009, 03:29 AM
Not to me, Myra. Although I do dig your use of a pentagon.
I can't argue for a "right" and "wrong" version, but only reiterate my favored three-tiered model: Sponsors, Facilitators, Mechanics.
Your design seems to focus far too heavily on False Sponsors (LBJ, for example, who resides at the core of the graphic representation as you render it), many of whom were elevated to such status (involuntarily) from the Facilitators level in order to protect the real Sponsors.
(Another way to think of this: "The CIA" is not the sculptor, but "only" the hammer that strikes the chisels. Or: "The CIA" is not a policy maker, but rather a policy implementer. Neither Helms nor even Angleton should be seen as a Sponsor of the hit.)
To be sure, all individuals and groups noted in your model belong there. Where we differ is on the appreciation of their respective positionings within the conspiracy structure.
I can't argue for a "right" and "wrong" version, but only reiterate my favored three-tiered model: Sponsors, Facilitators, Mechanics.
Your design seems to focus far too heavily on False Sponsors (LBJ, for example, who resides at the core of the graphic representation as you render it), many of whom were elevated to such status (involuntarily) from the Facilitators level in order to protect the real Sponsors.
(Another way to think of this: "The CIA" is not the sculptor, but "only" the hammer that strikes the chisels. Or: "The CIA" is not a policy maker, but rather a policy implementer. Neither Helms nor even Angleton should be seen as a Sponsor of the hit.)
To be sure, all individuals and groups noted in your model belong there. Where we differ is on the appreciation of their respective positionings within the conspiracy structure.