Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Charles Drago]

Jim Phelps and Mike Rago are impressive researchers, imo. Best JFK thread I've seen.

Mark,

Just a brief entry to remind one and all of your initial, hearty endorsement of the work of two (or more) worthless minds that have added to the pollution at the EF swamp.

You'll recall that I quickly shared my informed opinions that Phelps and "Rago" are, at best, mentally deficient, emotionally disturbed trolls. At worst, I noted, they may be agents provocateur.

I informed you that "Rago" is the laughing stock of the legitimate JFK research community. To give credence to anything "he" might proffer is a self-indictment of immense proportions.

And Jim DiEugenio added that, "IMO, Rago's mission is to try and indoctrinate enough people with this nonsense to make us look like fools next year."

I cautioned you, as a friend, NOT to hitch your wagon to "Rago's" white dwarf. And now it appears that "Rago" -- an entity that posts under a number of names on many forums -- has been banned at EF.

Finally, I made a point of submitting the following (in bold) to you:


Here's "Rago" opening the kimono:

"Yes I do think that Oswald was a 'patsy' and an assassin. He probably thought that he was the only assassin. I think he was a willing participant. I do not think that he knew about the other assassins."

"Rago" is a self-admitted ignoramus ("he" celebrates the claim that "he" does not read literary analyses of the assassination). "His" techniques of flooding Internet forums with confrontational -- as opposed to informational -- material, hiding behind aliases, and attempting to establish credentials as a bona fide researcher and then putting forward outlandish theories so as to impugn the minds and motives of the larger research community are those of the agent provocateur.

Are you so desperate, Mark, to find support for your own hypotheses that you run to the arms of the likes of "Rago"?


Mark, you seem to be parroting "Rago's" ignorance defense when you "admit" that you "know little about the [Evica-Drago] conspiracy model," that you "don't have a JFK conspiracy model," and that you "don't even know what it is."

You continue, "As you can see, I'm not well equipped to answer your question about the pre-requisites for sponsorship. I'll have to repeat Conspiracy Model 101 won't I."

I resurrect all this, Mark, not to ridicule but only to address issues relating to poor judgment and lack of a common foundation on which to build research.

If you buy "Rago," then how can we trust your judgment on anything?