JFK Assassination: The Quintessential 'False Flag' Operation

[Charles Drago]

The only problem I have is with you, Charles.

I am flattered but hardly surprised.

I used the W. W. Norton 1991 paperback editon of John Marks' book, and the rapid induction hypnosis experiment is discussed on pp. 202-3, and I never said that the note was numbered on p. 244, only said that it was at the bottom of the page.

You wrote: "For more about the project, MKULTRA Subproject 128-1, see the last note to Chapter 11 on p. 244."

You cannot even accurately quote yourself.

I inferred: "Last" indicates a final entry in an enumerated sequence.

The only addition I made to what was provided is the claim that the subject was apparently LHO, "...a low-level agent whom the Soviets had apparently doubled." (p. 203)

"The only addition ... " Good grief!

This is precisely why no one of sound mind can take your work seriously. Your "only addition" amounts to a gargantuan leap of faith and, I might add, one that is rather disingenuously presented.

You fold your supposition/"addition" into a citation in such a fashion as to blur the distinction.

Again, you are self-exposed. No researcher worth the name takes you seriously ... and for good reason.

Now how many such agents did CIA have available in a Mexico City motel in July 1963 with such a contested status, and James Angleton's Counterintelligence Staff in Washington wanted so hypnotized?

You tell us. The onus of proof is on you.

The only possible agent I can think of with this questionable doubled status is Oswald, especially since you mention him in connection with Yuri Nosenko who "...said that the KGB had no interest in Oswald." (p. 154)

So you conflate your own limitations with what ... definitive research? ... truth?

You have a most limited view of research - never go with what the suspects somehow disclose!

The fault lies not in the stars, dear Trowbridge ...

NOTHING was disclosed except your own sloppy (again, to be generous) "research" methods.

And, as expected, regarding other findings, you attack my methods rather than the offers and the messages.

You have made it clear that your methods are, to be charitable, suspect.

How else can one establish the value of any research other than by evaluating the research methodology that informs it?

Your "offers" and "messages" must be valued in direct proportion to your research.

Based upon what I've discovered and documented (look it up) to date, your "offers" and "messages" are fatally flawed and absolutely worthless.

Don't expect anything more from me, as I consider you a total waste of time.

Know that you, on the other hand, can expect a lot more from me when I receive the W. W. Norton 1991 paperback edition of The Search for the Manchurian Candidate -- the very same edition you admit to using.

And by the way, again your characterization flatters me.

Yours,

Charles