A mathematical reason to study the JFK assassination

[Charles Drago]

Let me understand you correctly Charles... you are saying that the OIL, WEAPONS and DRUG businesses of the world were of "small concern" to the Sponsors of the assassination?

Yes.

Emphatically, as a matter of fact.

Beyond this, I remain at a loss to discern a common language, world view, or set of cognitive processes on which you and I can base the construction of a sensible dialogue that does not once again quickly disintegrate into frustration-driven exchanges of ad hominems.

So endeth this exchange.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Beyond this, I remain at a loss to discern a common language, world view, or set of cognitive processes on which you and I can base the construction of a sensible dialogue that does not once again quickly disintegrate into frustration-driven exchanges of ad hominems.

So endeth this exchange.

Amen.

[Phil Dragoo]

The public execution of the 35th U.S. president was a burst transmission



Unpacking its layered nest you will find the parts necessary to backconstruct the manipulation of the world



Witness the epic efforts of John Newman, John Armstrong, George Michael Evica, James DiEugenio, James Douglass



To look over their shoulders and conclude too soon is to interrogate any of the seven blind men about the elephant



The elephant was riding a tortoise



Who was riding the elephant



Welcome to the mandala



Nelson Rockefellah



Please remember



It's not amber



Flo



Another round for our friends here

[Albert Rossi]

The elephant was riding a tortoise



Who was riding the elephant

And it's tortoise-elephants, all the way down ...

[David Josephs]

Let me understand you correctly Charles... you are saying that the OIL, WEAPONS and DRUG businesses of the world were of "small concern" to the Sponsors of the assassination?

Yes.

Emphatically, as a matter of fact.

Beyond this, I remain at a loss to discern a common language, world view, or set of cognitive processes on which you and I can base the construction of a sensible dialogue that does not once again quickly disintegrate into frustration-driven exchanges of ad hominems.

So endeth this exchange.

That's really very sad Charles...

I am asking questions and you are answering them, in part. no ad homs, no insults and no misunderstandings...

What makes you so EMPHATIC in your understanding... fair question I feel... no?



The "common language" comes from the explanation of the model below...
The "world view" we both have is not as far apart as you would make it appear Charles...
The "cognitive process" of Q&A seems more than sufficient to address our differences in understanding without falling into a pit of "frustration driven exchanges"

SPONSORS -- Those with the authority andmotive to sanction the assassination and the connections to engage facilitatingagents and systems.
Among them in my (CD) opinion: the mostpowerful supra-national entities who were -- and are -- above Cold War and Clashof Civilization cosmetic differences.

FALSE SPONSORS These are selected primarily from involved high-levelFACILITATORS and otherwise uninvolved entities who logically might have comeunder suspicion.
Among them in my (CD) opinion: LBJ, the CIA, the Mob, anti-Castro Cubans, Big Business, Big Oil, Castro, Khrushchev, etc.


Charles - can you IDENTIFY who would even qualify as "the most powerful supra-national entities" who in turn would consider the monopolies on OIL, WEAPONS and DRUGS as "small concerns" in 1963?
I can't be the only one who would like to know 1) WHO even qualifies as such and 2) what are considered "BIG concerns" of the Sponsors...


If it be to simply maintain the FRAME, an altered and manipulated world-view that precludes the masses from even considering the REAL STORY behind events...
I can accept that... OZ doesn't need a curtain to hide behind if nothing it going on.... I simply ask that you take it one step further....

For what purpose would these SPONSORS attempt to create a mass populace of bewildered herds asking no questions, believing what they are told, and looking for the next great reality TV show?

To what end were the SPONSORS motivated to kill JFK...? all the BS that follows is just that... the dog and pony show. With JFK dead, the SPONSORS could now pursue their goals with much less interference...
the possibility of PEACE, the end to the Cold War, elimination of poverty, social welfare reform, the end of the federal reserve, the end of aggressive US "intelligence".... were all OPPOSITE to what the SPONSORS seek to desire...

Which changes in the months/years following MOST SATISFIED THE SPONSORS?
Were ongoing world conflicts and police actions resulting in the increases in military spending, US borrowing from the Fed, and a need for even more $$$ for black ops via drugs the END GAME? or at least part of it?


Charles, I'm just trying to understand you and your views. The level of thinking and discussion on this forum is at a height I rarely encounter in my real world... I come here specifically for that reason...
if I try to have some of these conversations, or present some of these truly horrible acts of HUMAN BEINGS to those in my everyday... I can't.

I sure would appreciate you putting away the weapon set you carry around and just TALK to me... just because I may disagree with some of the things you state - or believe the problem is a HUMAN one and not an institutional one...
I am neither an idiot, agent, or criminal and do not appreciate being treated as such.


In the end Charles, when I first got here you and I had some interesting conversations - you were very interested in my work with images and my thoughts on some of the details specifically the Zfilm. I, on the other hand, was interested in the model and how it has been applied. I am not much further into an understanding of this model other than it being used to chastise posters for being too far off the wall. I've tried to ID SPONSORS versus FACILITATORS and have taken that model into my research about the command structure at Bethesda that night. I SEE what is being said, I simply do not see anyplace where a serious discussion about the AFTER part... has taken place.

AFTER the SPONSORS win... what do we see occurring directly related to them that would in turn support them being SPONSORS?
AFTER we bring the system and those responsible down... what form of society and government do you see possible that removes these HUMAN ELEMENTS from the equation?


Charles,
if you could address the questions about SPONSORS that I've posed, I am sure there are many, including me, who would benefit for your answers... or maybe direct us to those who have an understanding of the model and can clarify BIG from SMALL concerns... and the recognized END GAME of these entities, and share that with us without what appears to be an irrational fear of the direction of the potential discussion...

Thanks

[Steve Minnerly]

Phil wrote - Unpacking its layered nest you will find the parts necessary to backconstruct the manipulation of the world
_____________________________________________________

Thats why I'm saying this is an event filled with information.

As Jim DiEugenio said on Black Op Radio - (paraphrase ) "When you know the Kennedy assassination you know how the world works".

[Albert Rossi]

As Jim DiEugenio said on Black Op Radio - (paraphrase ) "When you know the Kennedy assassination you know how the world works".

-- or at least U.S., quite possibly international, power politics work. That is absolutely correct. I've been saying it for 45 years. It's my political credo.

[Charles Drago]

As Jim DiEugenio said on Black Op Radio - (paraphrase ) "When you know the Kennedy assassination you know how the world works".

-- or at least U.S., quite possibly international, power politics work. That is absolutely correct. I've been saying it for 45 years. It's my political credo.

So who "knows" the Kennedy assassination?

What does "know the Kennedy assassination" mean?

[Albert Rossi]

As Jim DiEugenio said on Black Op Radio - (paraphrase ) "When you know the Kennedy assassination you know how the world works".

-- or at least U.S., quite possibly international, power politics work. That is absolutely correct. I've been saying it for 45 years. It's my political credo.

So who "knows" the Kennedy assassination?

What does "know the Kennedy assassination" mean?

The paraphrase is in need of a more precise lexical choice, I agree. Would "understand" or "grasp" as substitutes of "know" be any better?

[Magda Hassan]

I think Charles is referring to the entirety of the event and on its many levels of comparmentalised effects. Forensic, psychological, political etc. How can any one really 'know' what happened? Even those participating in it don't really 'know' any thing except their own particulat role in it. Like the blind Indian men describing an elephant from the one part of the elepants body they can touch and describe. Charles will correct me if I am wrong.