Preponderance of evidence --- jfk

[Charles Drago]

Dawn, et al,

Alas, we remain enmeshed in the process of elimination.

This tried and true investigatory method undoubtedly will help us -- as the late Larry Gelbart put it -- to get to the bottom of this case no matter how high it takes us.

One need not name the Sponsors in order to eliminate suspects.

Nor should one feel obliged to name the Sponsors prematurely in order to justify one's methods.

I could offer best guesses, but to do so at the current stage of the investigation would, I think, be counter-productive to our efforts.

That being noted, I must tell you that "the titles of the most secret groups" is a phrase that troubles me. It begs a novelistic response along the lines of "the Bildebergers" or "the Elders of Zion."

I'm afraid that the truth is far less poetic and far more deadly.

One more point: You concede that, "[W]e say 'the CIA did it' when we are really meaning the black ops section of that agency together with whatever entity they are in fact fronting for."

Here's a respectfully offered suggestion: Let us all make a commitment to say and write what we mean.

We must eschew euphemisms and rhetorical shortcuts if we are to succeed. Besides, it's the least we can do to honor the truth, justice, and all who have sacrificed so much in our shared struggle.

Charlie

[Dawn Meredith]

I appreciate you response and see your points. That said I have never truly delved into the messy question of "who done it?". I certainly see it as a legitimate question but not one that I feel we could ever answer with any definitive certainty. What we can say is who did not do it. Beginning with LHO. Or the Mob or Castro.
For me the real issue has always been the why of the kill. And that we do know. All the whys. And who benefitted. Every one in office since, who is a party to the official lie and those wo tell the lies: the media for starters, the history books.
The loser? Us. The entire world.

Dawn

[Mark Stapleton]

Dawn, et al,

Alas, we remain enmeshed in the process of elimination.

This tried and true investigatory method undoubtedly will help us -- as the late Larry Gelbart put it -- to get to the bottom of this case no matter how high it takes us.

One need not name the Sponsors in order to eliminate suspects.

Nor should one feel obliged to name the Sponsors prematurely in order to justify one's methods.

I could offer best guesses, but to do so at the current stage of the investigation would, I think, be counter-productive to our efforts.

I know Sherlock Holmes made the process of elimination famous, and its probably the most logical course to follow. However, Sherlock and Watson usually had all the evidence and suspects laid out in front of them. They usually didn't have to contend with the deliberate destruction of evidence, planted evidence, witnesses being murdered, obstruction by Government, CIA, FBI, the media etc, etc.

Many who were considered suspects have already been effectively eliminated. These include Castro and the Soviets.

No-one has effectively refuted Zionist Israel's standing as a prime suspect, because it's practically irrefutable.

A few years ago, most in the research community were too chickenshit to even face the possibility that JFK's death might have been sponsored (or co-sponsored) by a nation many believed was a trusted and favored ally. The subject was taboo or quickly squelched. Fortunately, this appears to be changing, although the climate of fear still exists, due mainly to the preponderance of highly placed and seemingly patriotic Americans whose primary loyalty is actually to Israel, not America.