The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified?

[Lauren Johnson]

I propose that this failed discussion between Josephs and Drago be taken offline by mutual consent and be subject to mediation by mutually trusted and sufficiently expert persons. The result would be a report back to the DPF community as to the status of the discussion showing strengths, weaknesses, misinterpretations and suggestions for moving the discussion forward.

[Charles Drago]

Thank you, Lauren, for your sincere effort to end the madness.

Here are my problems with it:

1. This thread never was intended to be a "discussion" between Josephs and me. If I were to go along with your suggestion, I would be facilitating the removal from consideration of a valid and, if I may, important hypothesis.

I shall not be party to such a disruption -- one that would have been prompted by what in effect, if not in fact, is enemy action.

2. I shall not support what in my opinion is the erroneous notion that Josephs' discharges are worthy of my attention or response.

So let me propose a working compromise: Barring his posting of libelous material and/or outright lies, I'll pledge never again to respond to Josephs (on this thread) and what in my Constitutionally protected opinion are his simplistic and ego-driven distractions, if you and all other readers pledge to apply to Josephs' posts -- including the likely, soon-to-appear "CD is evading the issue" nonsense -- your full powers of deep political analysis.

[David Josephs]

Lauren et al....

My last post presents my case.... I have no obsession with the man.... it does seem that my questioning his premise has set off quite a surge of anger and hostility... accusation and paranoia.

I address CD's post within the context or Scott's work while providing point-counterpoint using the links he provided and digging a bit deeper into what Scott himself, and the other players tells us.

I've tried a number of different ways to illustrate how the scene was set and the questions that CD poses arise from a false assumption about Scott's work. If someone says, "the sky is red." and then asks us to discuss what shade of red you believe it to be?" what is the point of answering or even considering the question when the premise if wrong?

If he can't provide a reasonable defense/justification of his position within Scott's context... which to date he has not.... why not just say so rather than attack the messenger?

If he CAN provide reasonable support for his assertion that LBJ and Phase 1 touts EVER asked or even considered the following quoted question AND his own answer... when in reality those that did die and NOT LET OFF THE HOOK were all those who tried to tell the "CIA/Cuban" story... I urge him to do so. By his own admission he tries a number of different ways of posing his question and STILL noone agrees with or even defends the premise..

I'd venture to say that the number of people who died trying to tell the truth versus the "Commie murderers" that have been hunted down and killed is a bit lopsided.

Must I truly be vilified simply because I chose to challenge the man's premise with facts and references? (as well as endure the childish reposting of a spelling mistake as if it's his trophy?)

Can he simply point to a single person of the time who would answer the never asked "inevitable, outrage-driven" question in the manner he proposes... or is this entire thing an exercise in pure hypotheticals...

So how did LBJ and other Phase I touts respond to the inevitable, outrage-driven question, "Are we going to let those Commie murderers off the hook?"

I think that the most likely response was something along these lines:

-- Powerful individuals within the Soviet and Cuban governments were responsible, but the assassination was not a sanctioned act of those governments. We'll take out the guilty parties in good time -- without spilling the blood of innocents in their tens of millions.

As you can see I have and will continue to tone down the rhetoric and ask the same questions anyone desiring clarification of purpose would ask....
I think it important that this remain live and in the thread...

Should anyone else raise such a questionable premise and then ask hypotheticals around it I am sure CD would request, in fact demand the poster explain themselves...

The sky is not red...

No one asked the question or even believed for a moment that this was a COMMIE plot.... The switch to Phase 2 was solidified by the FBI report which was leaked and finally delivered in Dec.

"Oswald has the fingerprints of intelligence all over him" was obvious from day one and reinforced when Oswald calls Hurt and seals his fate.

This is a civil request for a civil and reasonable explanation for how CD gets from point A to point B within the context of Scott's work....
Can anyone make that connection?... since obviously I see this as completely the opposite... I have no problem being wrong, I am often.
But pointing to the same words, leaning in and speaking louder does not aid in comprehension.

If that is not a reasonable request of any poster, on any subject...

Why are we here?

[Greg Burnham]

.

[Charles Drago]

[Magda Hassan]

I propose that this failed discussion between Josephs and Drago be taken offline by mutual consent and be subject to mediation by mutually trusted and sufficiently expert persons. The result would be a report back to the DPF community as to the status of the discussion showing strengths, weaknesses, misinterpretations and suggestions for moving the discussion forward.

Bless your cotton socks Lauren. I love your spirit and intention. All interactions on the forum would proceed smoothly if we all just keep to the forum rules and decorum. Stick to the research/points/facts/hypothesis. Make your definitions as clear as possible so we are all reading from the same book. Keep the personalities out of it. If you come across some one you can stand so much that you just see red put them on block. Simple.

[Charles Drago]

If you come across some one you can stand so much that you just see red put them on block. Simple.

"Can't stand" is a term most commonly used in schoolyards.

What if you come across someone who, wittingly or otherwise, is doing the enemy's work?

[Magda Hassan]

If you come across some one you can stand so much that you just see red put them on block. Simple.

"Can't stand" is a term most commonly used in schoolyards.

What if you come across someone who, wittingly or otherwise, is doing the enemy's work?

Thank you for your observation. I have to spend my day with dealing children helping them with their poor social skills.
Don Quixote, I suggest you put them on block too if it is not possible for you to interact constructively.

[Charles Drago]

If you come across some one you can stand so much that you just see red put them on block. Simple.

"Can't stand" is a term most commonly used in schoolyards.

What if you come across someone who, wittingly or otherwise, is doing the enemy's work?

Thank you for your observation. I have to spend my day with dealing children helping them with their poor social skills.
Don Quixote, I suggest you put them on block too if it is not possible for you to interact constructively.

Dulcinea,

Putting the enemy "on block" is not a survivable option.

The arms of their windmills have razor-sharp steel edges.

When you figure out how to interact constructively with dragons -- as opposed to Dragos -- let me know.

[Magda Hassan]

Fortunately dragons are a fictional creature so we don't have to worry about them except for reading bed time stories about them and going through the psychologically reassuring process for the children checking for them under bed before they go to sleep. I don't expect to have to go through that process here. We are all adults. Most of us any way. When we have real provocateurs like a Colby or a Cinque or even a good friend like a Fetzer or a Jewitt who lose their way and cannot be redeemed we delete them. Pronto. Easy. No sweat. No sturm und drang. No histrionics. Just 'click' and gone. Members with whom you disagree, don't like, bite back, misunderstand you, don't 'get' you or your definitions, or who don't come up to your standards are not enemy agents set out to destroy this forum.