30-05-2012, 06:01 PM
Here are selected posts from 2007 as originally published on before-the-fall EF:
"Further - to continue on this bit - it would appear that the operation also made use of doubles - precedent with the doubling of Oswald -- Haven't been able to work that all out yet - but lookalikes may have been used for the purpose of both obfuscation as well as the protection of the identity of the operatives. Ever hear anything like that?"
- Lee Forman
_______________________________________
[B][B]The use of doubles for the purposes you cite is an absolutely key insight into the identities of the prime facilitators not only of the JFK assassination, but of other deep political operations across a broad swath of history.
From Richard Popkin through John Armstrong and beyond, the doppelganger gambit at play in the JFK conspiracy is well documented.
If the operation to kill the president is best understood as drama (or, if you prefer, a dramatic construct; Evica's original theory, one that I wholeheartedly endorse), then you would be well advised to find and read in full a copy of The Double in Literature, by Robert Rogers (Wayne State University Press, 1970).
Rogers, on "the functions of doubling," offers this:
"If a character is not what he seems to be in the sense of being a fragment rather than a whole, it may be asked if he is real ... [R]econsider [Angus] Fletcher's assumptions when he states that the allegorical hero 'is not so much a real person' as he is a 'generator' of secondary personalities, partial aspects of himself." (emphasis in original)
Later, discussing what he terms "doubling for dramatic conflict," Rogers notes, "In essence, doubling of characters does not simply make the representation of intrapsychic conflict possible; it allows for the potential development of that conflict in the most dramatic way possible ... a dynamic opposition of psychic forces permeates practically all modes of literature. Shaw's dictum, 'No conflict, no drama,' goes right to the heart of the matter for the genre he was most interested in. It is impossible to think of any play deserving the name drama which is without sharp conflict. What obviously holds for the drama might not seem to obtain for so-called nondramatic literature; but to say so is to mistake conventional label for literal fact."
I would argue that the primary (but by no means exclusive) function of the double in an intelligence operation such as the JFK assassination is to create cognitive dissonance -- or conflict, if you will -- in the minds of investigators and witnesses.
(As an aside: To the degree that John Armstrong buttresses the "two Oswalds" perceptions, he simultaneously exposes and abets the agenda of the author(s) of the LHO doppelganger play-within-a-play.)
Two Oswalds. Two Zapruder Films. Two brains. Two brain exams. Two sets of autopsy notes. Two sets of X-rays. Two sets of autopsy photos.
And the granddaddy of them all: TWO conflicting conclusions by official United States government panels investigating the assassination.
Another common element of the doppelganger phenomenon is termed bi-locality -- a character impossibly being in two places at the same time.
Thus the "impossibility" of LHO being in Mexico and the U.S. simultaneously, for one of many examples, fits the doppelganger gambit's design and serves its ends quite neatly.
Further, I would suggest that this and related condundra, far from revealing flaws in the assassination plot (in both senses of the word), rather are well-designed, intentionally executed, critically significant elements of that plot.
So we are prompted to ask: Was LHO in Mexico or elsewhere?
We are prompted to choose A or B. (And as a consequence of so doing, we remain mired in an "endless" mystery that in fact was solved a long time ago.)
In fact, it is the NULL A, NULL B option -- or the third alternative -- that leads us to the truth.
Was LHO in Mexico or elsewhere?
The answer is YES, if the persona in question is the dramatic character LHO.
Pre-Oswald? Take a look at the case of Gordon Lonsdale.
As far as JFK is concerned: Who had the literary background to create such a drama? Who were the writers among the suspects?
Charles Drago
One could go on at some length to draw comparisons between the JFK dramaturgy and, for instance, characters from Shakespeare and their dramatic functions.
Ruby as Falstaff.
Angel and Leopoldo as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
Playwright Barbara Garson went TOO far, I'm afraid, with MacBird -- but nonetheless, that satire did have its moments.
Back to the matter at hand: Dual identities, or aliases, or war names, are but distant cousins to the vastly more sophisticated and ravaging (to the psyche) doppelganger game as I try to understand and explain it.
An operation like the JFK murder by definition and before tampering -- as a product and representation of creative human consciousness -- contains all of the elements critical to the classic story form (main and supporting characters, rising and falling action and denouement, sub structures [or acts], irony etc. etc. etc.).
As such, it is subject/vulnerable to deconstruction and other analytical approaches not unlike those brought to bear on more traditional literary and dramatic forms.
The best way to defeat the analysts of the literal tale is to create what is called -- and not by accident -- a cover story -- one with more compelling, confusing, contradictory, and seductive elements than that of the original.
Peter, I agree that LHO's doubles were numerous; any argument would be of a semantic nature. For me, all the "others" equal one other -- the Non-Oswald.
Pick just one "doubled" element of the JFK story -- for the sake of argument, let's stipulate the two-casket gambit. Show me how exposure and analyses of this element of the plot (again, in both senses) have done anything but serve the purposes of the plotters.
Permit me to conclude by returning to a point I've made repeatedly in the past: This line of inquiry is designed to answer the "who" question -- not the HOW.
How = conspiracy.
Masterful uses of the arts of the storyteller, fabulist, dramatist, novelist, and even, if we look far enough back into time, the magician (in the Giordano Bruno sense; the murder of Ioan Culianu is of enduring relevance to our inquiries) were beyond the overwhelming majority of JFK assassination suspects.
Who were the conjurers of these dark arts? On whose behalf were they conjured?
The answers will lead to the tops of the "facilitators" and "sponsors" ranks, respectively.
[/B]
And the magic words for Dealey Plaza ...
Abra Cadaver!
Seriously. I commend to the attention of this Forum's correspondents Eros, Magic, and the Murder of Professor Culianu, by Ted Anton, published by the Northwestern University Press in 1996.
It is simultaneously an accessible primer for a challenging area of scholastic inquiry and an investigation into what the author makes a convincing argument for being the first political assassination of a professor on American soil.
Contemporary science (social and otherwise) dismisses "magic" as fantasy or stage trickery. Culianu and his mentor, the legendary Comparitive Religions scholar Mircea Eliade, understood the word in its accepted Renaissance definition: what we today term "behavior modification," but based on the identified and manipulated erotic motivations of subjects.
They referred to the "art" of memory as the primary tool used to manipulate intellects, imaginations, and ultimately free wills.
The "magician" of the past, Culianu would argue, is the publicist, advertising executive, and psychologist/psychoanalyst of today.
And the magic words for all the contemporary world ...
Artichoke. Ultra. Mockingbird ...
Charles [/B]
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=10440
"Further - to continue on this bit - it would appear that the operation also made use of doubles - precedent with the doubling of Oswald -- Haven't been able to work that all out yet - but lookalikes may have been used for the purpose of both obfuscation as well as the protection of the identity of the operatives. Ever hear anything like that?"
- Lee Forman
_______________________________________
[B][B]The use of doubles for the purposes you cite is an absolutely key insight into the identities of the prime facilitators not only of the JFK assassination, but of other deep political operations across a broad swath of history.
From Richard Popkin through John Armstrong and beyond, the doppelganger gambit at play in the JFK conspiracy is well documented.
If the operation to kill the president is best understood as drama (or, if you prefer, a dramatic construct; Evica's original theory, one that I wholeheartedly endorse), then you would be well advised to find and read in full a copy of The Double in Literature, by Robert Rogers (Wayne State University Press, 1970).
Rogers, on "the functions of doubling," offers this:
"If a character is not what he seems to be in the sense of being a fragment rather than a whole, it may be asked if he is real ... [R]econsider [Angus] Fletcher's assumptions when he states that the allegorical hero 'is not so much a real person' as he is a 'generator' of secondary personalities, partial aspects of himself." (emphasis in original)
Later, discussing what he terms "doubling for dramatic conflict," Rogers notes, "In essence, doubling of characters does not simply make the representation of intrapsychic conflict possible; it allows for the potential development of that conflict in the most dramatic way possible ... a dynamic opposition of psychic forces permeates practically all modes of literature. Shaw's dictum, 'No conflict, no drama,' goes right to the heart of the matter for the genre he was most interested in. It is impossible to think of any play deserving the name drama which is without sharp conflict. What obviously holds for the drama might not seem to obtain for so-called nondramatic literature; but to say so is to mistake conventional label for literal fact."
I would argue that the primary (but by no means exclusive) function of the double in an intelligence operation such as the JFK assassination is to create cognitive dissonance -- or conflict, if you will -- in the minds of investigators and witnesses.
(As an aside: To the degree that John Armstrong buttresses the "two Oswalds" perceptions, he simultaneously exposes and abets the agenda of the author(s) of the LHO doppelganger play-within-a-play.)
Two Oswalds. Two Zapruder Films. Two brains. Two brain exams. Two sets of autopsy notes. Two sets of X-rays. Two sets of autopsy photos.
And the granddaddy of them all: TWO conflicting conclusions by official United States government panels investigating the assassination.
Another common element of the doppelganger phenomenon is termed bi-locality -- a character impossibly being in two places at the same time.
Thus the "impossibility" of LHO being in Mexico and the U.S. simultaneously, for one of many examples, fits the doppelganger gambit's design and serves its ends quite neatly.
Further, I would suggest that this and related condundra, far from revealing flaws in the assassination plot (in both senses of the word), rather are well-designed, intentionally executed, critically significant elements of that plot.
So we are prompted to ask: Was LHO in Mexico or elsewhere?
We are prompted to choose A or B. (And as a consequence of so doing, we remain mired in an "endless" mystery that in fact was solved a long time ago.)
In fact, it is the NULL A, NULL B option -- or the third alternative -- that leads us to the truth.
Was LHO in Mexico or elsewhere?
The answer is YES, if the persona in question is the dramatic character LHO.
Pre-Oswald? Take a look at the case of Gordon Lonsdale.
As far as JFK is concerned: Who had the literary background to create such a drama? Who were the writers among the suspects?
Charles Drago
One could go on at some length to draw comparisons between the JFK dramaturgy and, for instance, characters from Shakespeare and their dramatic functions.
Ruby as Falstaff.
Angel and Leopoldo as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
Playwright Barbara Garson went TOO far, I'm afraid, with MacBird -- but nonetheless, that satire did have its moments.
Back to the matter at hand: Dual identities, or aliases, or war names, are but distant cousins to the vastly more sophisticated and ravaging (to the psyche) doppelganger game as I try to understand and explain it.
An operation like the JFK murder by definition and before tampering -- as a product and representation of creative human consciousness -- contains all of the elements critical to the classic story form (main and supporting characters, rising and falling action and denouement, sub structures [or acts], irony etc. etc. etc.).
As such, it is subject/vulnerable to deconstruction and other analytical approaches not unlike those brought to bear on more traditional literary and dramatic forms.
The best way to defeat the analysts of the literal tale is to create what is called -- and not by accident -- a cover story -- one with more compelling, confusing, contradictory, and seductive elements than that of the original.
Peter, I agree that LHO's doubles were numerous; any argument would be of a semantic nature. For me, all the "others" equal one other -- the Non-Oswald.
Pick just one "doubled" element of the JFK story -- for the sake of argument, let's stipulate the two-casket gambit. Show me how exposure and analyses of this element of the plot (again, in both senses) have done anything but serve the purposes of the plotters.
Permit me to conclude by returning to a point I've made repeatedly in the past: This line of inquiry is designed to answer the "who" question -- not the HOW.
How = conspiracy.
Masterful uses of the arts of the storyteller, fabulist, dramatist, novelist, and even, if we look far enough back into time, the magician (in the Giordano Bruno sense; the murder of Ioan Culianu is of enduring relevance to our inquiries) were beyond the overwhelming majority of JFK assassination suspects.
Who were the conjurers of these dark arts? On whose behalf were they conjured?
The answers will lead to the tops of the "facilitators" and "sponsors" ranks, respectively.
[/B]
And the magic words for Dealey Plaza ...
Abra Cadaver!
Seriously. I commend to the attention of this Forum's correspondents Eros, Magic, and the Murder of Professor Culianu, by Ted Anton, published by the Northwestern University Press in 1996.
It is simultaneously an accessible primer for a challenging area of scholastic inquiry and an investigation into what the author makes a convincing argument for being the first political assassination of a professor on American soil.
Contemporary science (social and otherwise) dismisses "magic" as fantasy or stage trickery. Culianu and his mentor, the legendary Comparitive Religions scholar Mircea Eliade, understood the word in its accepted Renaissance definition: what we today term "behavior modification," but based on the identified and manipulated erotic motivations of subjects.
They referred to the "art" of memory as the primary tool used to manipulate intellects, imaginations, and ultimately free wills.
The "magician" of the past, Culianu would argue, is the publicist, advertising executive, and psychologist/psychoanalyst of today.
And the magic words for all the contemporary world ...
Artichoke. Ultra. Mockingbird ...
Charles [/B]
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=10440