Discrediting Secret Service complicity in the elimination of JFK…

[Charles Drago]

...the most complex cover-up known to man was instituted to protect the SS and its designated hit man.

Yup, that's it: At the end of the blood-red brick road lies nothing more than a bodyguard with a handgun. It really is that simple. Exactly as it was in the case of RFK, when a corpulent racist in a cheap uniform destroyed a very different American future.

Now, the Romantics among us might lament the absence of a rather more prepossessing figure - I don't know, let's say, a Hapsburg nobleman, of long connection with AWD, armed no doubt with a cape, an eye-patch, perhaps a volume or two of Rilke, and, not forgetting, a state-of-the-art, Pentagon-approved laser death ray, well-suited for firing from storm drains - but we must deal with what is, not cheap pulp fiction.

And the cheap pulp fiction, in this instance, is that whole motley, unsubstantiated fantasy - a distinctively male one, at that - of co-ordinated teams of "mechanics," watchers, signal men, smoke-machine operators etc. This is comic-opera stuff: The professionals keep the core of their business uncomplicated and effective.

Which brings me to the very point I made to you at the outset: Are there researchers who insist upon a solution that reflects their own personalities? You've proved the intelligence of that question in spades.

Paul

A pre-Galilean view of the universe.

If you're serious, and we use this post as a litmus test for the rest of your work, then you rank down there with the "we just can't accept that a nobody killed a somebody" crowd.

The "comic-opera" [sic] in fact is precedented and, to seasoned, perceptive, courageous observers, recognizable as the only viable method for attaining the short- and long-term goals of the assassination's sponsors.

No wonder, then, that you can't see it.

If you're playing a game, then to hell with you.

As for this:

"Are there researchers who insist upon a solution that reflects their own personalities? You've proved the intelligence of that question in spades."

Not even a royal flush -- which is what your entire hypothesis so richly deserves -- could detect, let alone prove, any intelligence in anything you've written on this thread.

This "analysis" is akin to the aforementioned "nobody killing somebody" nonsense -- at least as you would utilize it to dismiss all evidence contradicting your no-evidence hypothesis. And the words "insist" and "evidence" are the all-important considerations here.

From the git-go I have "insisted" upon nothing but consideration of "evidence." Throughout my personal journey through this case, I have embraced numerous preliminary positions only to reject them in the face of compelling counter-arguments. As previously stated, this often has taken place publicly.

Would that you could summon the intellectual courage to do the same.

As a general evaluation tool applicable to just about all human endeavor, however, you're on to something.

Your embarrassing defense of this indefensible position tells us much about the maturity and perception and character you bring to your work.

I've tried to encourage and even praise your willingness to stand alone to fight the good fight. I've taken myself to task -- privately and on this public thread -- for being less than considerate and polite to you.

But it does no good.

My hope -- if not my expectation -- is that your own journey through these dark places we frequent will continue, and that you will mature and otherwise grow more thoughtful and dignified in the process.