01-08-2011, 03:25 AM
To jump from historical Dallas to the present day, the US (with assistance from others) is busy destabilizing the entire planet (from side to side, and top to bottom)(well, at least to New Zealand). The destabilization seems to be in not only political terms, and in terms of foreign policy and warfare, but also domestically and in the fields of science, meteorology, nutrition, medicine, information management and exchange, and others, busily weaponizing anthropology, sociology, neuro-cognitive sciences (psychology and psychiatry have long been tools), electro-magnetics, robotics, virology, and the old bugaboo of genetics.
So the question for those investigating things with the Evica-Drago model: would you allow a newbie to offer an adjunct or parallel question/inquiry of some plausible potential?
Given the assumption that events like that in Dallas (whether we call them "state crimes against democracy" or "crimes of deep state" or simply conspiracies, using the legal terminology for that word) require some coherent understanding of a larger pre-picture (outcome, intent, purpose), it is natural to assume that -- somehow, somewhere -- there was a plan. [Peter Levenda and other authorities on the occult and the Jungian side of things notwithstanding, such events do not materialize out of the ether.]
Now, these plans, of course, were "put in the burn bag", handled by discreet, covert means, shredded, and knowledgeable intimates were sworn to secrecy. [Sometimes they slip up; sometimes they are killed because of what they know, etc.] But here I am not talking about the detailed event-specific planning; I am talking about the larger plan into which the intended event is designed to fit.
I surmise that the eventual "sponsor #1" (the top dog) probably used a system not unlike the one I will describe in a moment and which has been described in some detail. I doubt seriously that the entire "game" or issue was one in which "top dog #1 sat back in his leather chair one day and said "Woof! I want Jack Kennedy killed". That said event was a sub-plot in a larger plan is perhaps part of a developing thesis.]
The system noted in the paragraph above is described in the book Into the Storm: A Study in Command, by Tom Clancy with General Fred Franks, Jr. (Ret.), Putnam Books, New York 1997. [On leadership/training in Desert Storm.]
Franks is easily researched as a high-level officer in the US military with ample G2 capacities, capabilities, etc. and whose forces trained in a simulation-based system. (Something of the tactics and precepts taught within that TRADOC system is knowable and definable; they were training to a doctrine. Doctrines are published; even when secret, they eventually emerge.) The CIA is known, under Miles Copeland, to have used simulation capabilities. Cheney and friends were into "red-teaming". Mossad uses war gaming and simulation heavily. Tom Clancy is a "spooky" character with ties into the military -- specifically, the US Navy -- which has its own extremely-high-caliber simulation system in Newport, RI. [Perhaps Charles Drago knows more of this, but no matter, because we're not going there, even metaphorically.] Clancy's novels are essentially simulation scenarios brought to life in narrative format. Clancy's name is attached to a wide variety of at-home simulation products.
In the book (see the online version here), on page 154ff, the authors' speak of "nested concepts".
But I digressed, because further analysis of the events in Dealey Plaza won't involve simulation, people from the 90's, or armored warfare. What would help us to know is how these sponsors think.
They might be seen with greater clarity if a reconstruction/deconstruction were to be done, if thinking in "reverse zoom" allowed the construction of the "nested concepts" to be done in a way that pointed more clearly to the source of the planning.
If we can see parallels in terms of how events are masked with disinformation, in which false leads are planted during the event or shortly thereafter, in ways in which investigations are side-tracked, infiltrated, etc., then we might be able also to see how the "nested concepts", the plans, were constructed, used, repeated, updated, etc. Looking backwards, through "lessons learned" deconstruction, we might be able to sense "source". It is like sampling the silt in the bayous to ascertain where the headwaters are.
Using a kind of "epidemiological tracing" or "type-and-cross match" of plans and similarities across time (to say nothing of mapping of social networks), a good deal of fresh information may emerge.
This may work even more functionally if used across events and over time.
![[Image: sna2.jpg]](http://knowledgecafe.care2share.wikispaces.net/file/view/sna2.jpg/30810569/sna2.jpg)
So the question for those investigating things with the Evica-Drago model: would you allow a newbie to offer an adjunct or parallel question/inquiry of some plausible potential?
Given the assumption that events like that in Dallas (whether we call them "state crimes against democracy" or "crimes of deep state" or simply conspiracies, using the legal terminology for that word) require some coherent understanding of a larger pre-picture (outcome, intent, purpose), it is natural to assume that -- somehow, somewhere -- there was a plan. [Peter Levenda and other authorities on the occult and the Jungian side of things notwithstanding, such events do not materialize out of the ether.]
Now, these plans, of course, were "put in the burn bag", handled by discreet, covert means, shredded, and knowledgeable intimates were sworn to secrecy. [Sometimes they slip up; sometimes they are killed because of what they know, etc.] But here I am not talking about the detailed event-specific planning; I am talking about the larger plan into which the intended event is designed to fit.
I surmise that the eventual "sponsor #1" (the top dog) probably used a system not unlike the one I will describe in a moment and which has been described in some detail. I doubt seriously that the entire "game" or issue was one in which "top dog #1 sat back in his leather chair one day and said "Woof! I want Jack Kennedy killed". That said event was a sub-plot in a larger plan is perhaps part of a developing thesis.]
The system noted in the paragraph above is described in the book Into the Storm: A Study in Command, by Tom Clancy with General Fred Franks, Jr. (Ret.), Putnam Books, New York 1997. [On leadership/training in Desert Storm.]
Franks is easily researched as a high-level officer in the US military with ample G2 capacities, capabilities, etc. and whose forces trained in a simulation-based system. (Something of the tactics and precepts taught within that TRADOC system is knowable and definable; they were training to a doctrine. Doctrines are published; even when secret, they eventually emerge.) The CIA is known, under Miles Copeland, to have used simulation capabilities. Cheney and friends were into "red-teaming". Mossad uses war gaming and simulation heavily. Tom Clancy is a "spooky" character with ties into the military -- specifically, the US Navy -- which has its own extremely-high-caliber simulation system in Newport, RI. [Perhaps Charles Drago knows more of this, but no matter, because we're not going there, even metaphorically.] Clancy's novels are essentially simulation scenarios brought to life in narrative format. Clancy's name is attached to a wide variety of at-home simulation products.
In the book (see the online version here), on page 154ff, the authors' speak of "nested concepts".
But I digressed, because further analysis of the events in Dealey Plaza won't involve simulation, people from the 90's, or armored warfare. What would help us to know is how these sponsors think.
They might be seen with greater clarity if a reconstruction/deconstruction were to be done, if thinking in "reverse zoom" allowed the construction of the "nested concepts" to be done in a way that pointed more clearly to the source of the planning.
If we can see parallels in terms of how events are masked with disinformation, in which false leads are planted during the event or shortly thereafter, in ways in which investigations are side-tracked, infiltrated, etc., then we might be able also to see how the "nested concepts", the plans, were constructed, used, repeated, updated, etc. Looking backwards, through "lessons learned" deconstruction, we might be able to sense "source". It is like sampling the silt in the bayous to ascertain where the headwaters are.
Using a kind of "epidemiological tracing" or "type-and-cross match" of plans and similarities across time (to say nothing of mapping of social networks), a good deal of fresh information may emerge.
This may work even more functionally if used across events and over time.
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"