For Charles Drago

[Albert Doyle]

Until you define "CIA' as you use the term within the JFK assassination context and argue for "its" precise placement within the Evica/Drago model, your argument does not rise above the Jesse Ventura level.

Which is to say, it does far more harm than good.

With all respect that's too easy. We can't afford to arrange a perfect china shop upon demand while CIA murders people because of their witnessing. I think most researched people have a pretty good understanding of the CIA players involved in this. While the original players are long gone they have a legacy that continues to operate the same way.

While I respect and endorse the Evica model as the best framework by which to analyze the Assassination I see this situation as saying "Throw those CIA fish back because they weren't caught in the Evica net". There's an almost dogmatic stubborness involved in saying to people "Only this fine Evica net can be used because it is woven properly" while ignoring that fact you're holding up an empty net. I personally think people are afraid to confront the CIA.

CIA most likely murdered Richard Case Nagel long after the assassination in the 1990's. That means they are acting on their own long after the influence of the original sponsors. Since the contact between the CIA and Sponsors was very subtle or deeply protected it is unlikely any clear evidence will ever be gotten on how exactly that happened. I know this cannot sound right anyway it is said, but I feel this intellectual restriction comes at the cost of actually doing anything meaningful according to what JFK intended and what probably got him killed. One can flatter one's self by tending one's eloquent china shop, however the real action, and real results, are out here. And, no, this isn't an attack on the Evica/Drago model. I think it is the best form and absolutely necessary. It just isn't exclusive. In my opinion the insistence that it must be followed exclusively is also 'harmful' to what JFK intended. Jesse, with all his warts, did an important thing. He got the conspiracy side on TV.

I argue it is very important to use the general term "CIA". To pick out and select the individual violators like Debra Conway suggests is to permit the general institutional concealment of how CIA protects these players and exerts an overall influence through its office. In a way this is also 'harmful' because it protects the "sponsorship" of those players by the overall institution.

Mark Lane - The "harmful" Jesse Ventura yahoo...


.