JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn't

[Charles Drago]

Commenting upon, and at times taking issue with, the noble work of a friend.

In both instances, we are looking at staged events that fit into a recurrent pattern in U.S. and world history where innocent individuals (or “patsies”) are baited and framed for cover-up purposes.

Agreed.

In spite of their history, most Americans continue to believe that their nation is “an exception” and that, while conspiracies occur elsewhere, including Europe and the Middle East, especially, they do not occur at home. The truth, of course, is that conspiracies are as American as apple pie.

American exceptionalism, like Aryan superiority, is a product of a division of I.G. Farben.

The assassinations of RFK and JFK were both conspiracies. Both involved the destruction of evidence. Both involved the fabrication of evidence. Both involved framing their patsies. Both involved complicity by local officials.

Agreed.

Both involved planning by the CIA.

This is dangerously simplistic language, Jim. It supports the demonstrably false conclusion that the Central Intelligence Agency was and is a monolithic entity. It does nothing to situate CIA officers within the Sponsor-False Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic assassination conspiracy structure.

[T]he agencies responsible for these events continue to employ the same techniques, not only of killing their targets but of covering them up.

Define "responsible" within the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic construct, please. "Agencies" that ordered the assassination? Implemented the assassination conspiracy?

The more we understand how these things are done, the less likely we are to be deceived again.

AGREED!

The conditions required for movements capable of historic changes include intelligent, charismatic, and inspirational leaders, of whom there are very few like these. While the execution of Czar Nicholas II and his family in Russia and of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette in France meant there was “no turning back”, removing liberal leaders cements the status quo with its distribution of wealth and power.

A well reasoned, if not comprehensive, statement of motive for these crimes.

Thane Eugene Cesar, security guard, a prime suspect in the shooting of Robert F. Kennedy.

So far, so good.

Acoustics expert Van Praag tested an H&R 922 of the kind Cesar had and determined that an H&R 922 had been fired at the same time as Sirhan’s [9].

Unless there were two -- and only two -- H&R 22's in the world that night, you don't have enough to implicate Cesar as a shooter.

Further indications of conspiracy extended to a couple, including a woman in a polka dot dress, who rushed away from the scene shouting, “We shot him! We shot him! We shot Kennedy!” [10].

The "We shot him!" exclamations ring hollow. I interpret this incident as a planned diversion designed to confuse contemporary and future perceptions of the event.

[A]t least one witness reported seeing yet a third shooter in the pantry, perhaps as a back-up if Cesar failed.

Jim, you're jumping to a wholly unwarranted conclusion -- and for no constructive reason. Knowing what we know of Cesar, there is NOTHING to suggest that he would have been trusted with the all-important role of prime hitter. As I see it, Cesar's function, as carried out both during and after the assassination, was to serve as yet another layer of cognitive dissonance.

In fact, there are multiple indications that the CIA was involved.

Again I bristle at the self-destructive use of "CIA" as a one-stop solution to a political assassination. The involvement of CIA officers and other assets in the Kennedy murders cannot be questioned at this point in time. But the agency as a whole remains, to my mind, a FALSE Sponsor.

The CIA, to use a comparison I coined some time ago, was neither the architect nor the carpenter, but it surely was a tool.

And even more strikingly, three prominent CIA officials—George Joannides, David Sanchez Morales, and Gordon Campbell—have been identified as present at the Ambassador.

No such identifications are warranted -- at least not yet.

Bradley Ayers, an Army captain assigned to the CIA at JM/Wave in Miami from May 1962 to December 1964, had met all three and identified them in film footage from the Ambassador [15]. Gordon Campbell had even been Ayer’s case officer while he was working for the agency.

Jim, are you prepared to give Bradley Ayers a clean bill of health and state for the record that, in your considered judgment, he is not now nor ever has been an agent of disinformation assigned to support the coverups of the Kennedy murders?

Wayne Smith, who served as an ambassador with the Department of of State from 1957-1982 with JFK’s Latin American Task Force, also knew Morales [16]. When he viewed the same footage as Ayers, he immediately recognized Morales. As he later told Shane O’Sullivan, “Bobby Kennedy is assassinated [and] David Morales is there? The two things have to be related” [17].

Same question about Smith.

And you better than just about anyone can understand the logical failure within Smith's quote as you offer it above.

James Richards, an expert on the CIA, provided me with a photo of Morales, who looks exactly like the Morales-look-alike at the Ambassador. I don’t even think it’s a difficult call.

Are you able to post the photos together for our comparison? "Exactly" is meaningless as a subjective observation. Have the photos been examined using state-of-the-art equipment and techniques?

The George Joannides figure seems to be wearing a wig. Richards also sent me a photo of Joannides, which makes it obvious why he would have been wearing one: the man was virtually bald! While it has been claimed that Cambell died on September 19, 1962, he was Ayers’ case officer from 1963-1964. Faking a death certificate would be far easier for the CIA than having an impostor working with Ayers.

"Seems to be" wearing a wig?

"Faking a death certificate would be far easier"?

Again, can you post the photos?

David Sanchez Morales also appears to have been involved in the assassination of his brother, John, on November 22, 1963[.]

This is a charge I'd be comfortable with in a court of law. Agreed.

His involvement was confirmed by E. Howard Hunt, who told his son, St. John, that those who were responsible for the assassination of the 35th president included LBJ and CIA officials Cord Meyer, David Atlee Philips, William Harvey, and Morales [24]. Others who knew Lyndon well have also implicated him [25] [26]. And high-level involvement by the government has been confirmed by multiple lines of investigation.

Jim, again you eagerly accept the offerings of a master of disinformation when they happen to support one of your positions. The likes of Ayers and the masterful Hunt are simple truth-tellers when it suits us?

I think not.

The Mafia ... no doubt put up some of the shooters[.]

"Put up"???

I have MUCH doubt, Jim. Elements of LCN were involved up to the tomato sauce stains on their chinny-chin-chins. But the shooters had to be the best hunters of humans in all the world. So while Mafiosi no doubt were sent to Dealey Plaza in support of future False Sponsor provocations, I challenge you to name a Mafia-connected (in the "made man" sense of "connected") gunman firing at JFK.

As Martin Shotz has observed, the purpose of the disinformation operation in the death of JFK is not really to convince the public of the official account but to create enough uncertainty that everything is believable and nothing is knowable.

Agreed. A most important point. Although to be fair, Vincent Salandria, George Michael Evica, and even this humble correspondent reached and communicated this conclusion long before the admirable Shotz so opined.

When Bobby allowed that he was going to use the powers of the presidency to uncover the truth about his brother [60], it sealed his fate. And the lies continue.

Indeed.

Best,

Charles