The lbj false sponsorship operation to continue

[Charles Drago]

Stan,

While I'm not prepared to endorse (or deny) the Rockefeller/Dulles initiation, I can state with confidence that your thoughts on the Sponsorship issue are closer to the truth than most.

It is my "sense" -- nothing more concrete than instinct based on an, if I may, deep appreciation of the issues -- that the Sponsors exist(ed) at the supra-national level.

Charles

[Dawn Meredith]

David Rockefeller.

I specifically wanted to ask Charles where he (Rockefeller) fits in his (Charles') model of Sponsors and False Sponsors.

I am also most curious to hear what Jim DiEugenio has to say about Rockefeller.

Kennedy appears to have been a big impediment to how the Rockefeller's did business, both at home and abroad.

How many Rockefeller men in JFK's cabinet? Who did Allen Dulles really work for? John McCloy?

Or, does the "Sponsor" element of the conspiracy travel even further down the rabbit hole?

Below is a link from an interview William Weston did with Steve Gaal that was posted on the Education Forum that may be of interest:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....ntry213762

And, I have to say, it's been a big pleasure reading the postings of Jim DiEugenio on the JFK forums these past months.

And, for the love of God, can someone get Robert Charles-Dunne on Black Ops Radio?

Stan, great to see you over here. And I agree that having Jim D. participate is wonderful. David Rockerfeller, in my opinion ranks way up there, as a Mr Big. Some here discount the idea of The New World Order, which I find hard to believe since they are now in your face using this term with regularity. Rockerfeller once tried to make it sound like an idea for world peace, couching his remarks in that fashion when we know the last thing they care about is peace. Walter Cronkite, speaking at a Bilderburger meeting made a comment about being glad to be on the side of Satan, when referring to the NWO. I will google and look for the vid.

I wish we could get the brilliant RobertCharles- Dunne to join DPF. As well as Black Ops Radio.

Dawn

[Jack White]

Jack:

Your name was David Rockefeller, correct?

Not exactly. I said, IF FORCED TO CHOOSE ONE, on the basis of
available information, I would name David Rockefeller and his
henchmen (Kissinger, Bryzinski, Dulles, et al) and the rest of
the New World Order Crowd. Those were names I named.

Jack

[Jack White]

Charles, I want to be FAIR. I have named a name as Mr. BIG (Sponsor).
It may or may not be correct...but is as good as evidence allows.

Please be fair by naming YOUR Mr. BIG (Sponsor). (However, as I noted,
I do not believe there was an organizational chart).

Thanks.

Jack

Good Morning,

I'm afraid I can't do that simply because I don't know. And I'm not ashamed to admit it. I'm still working via the process of elimination.

I feel confident to state for the record that there was no "Mr. Big" in the cartoon sense. There was, however, a very small assemblage of ... forgive the vague terminology ... Earth Movers who, having conducted a de facto risk/reward analysis, made the decision to engage the most gifted and powerful of Facilitators under their control and thus set the plot in motion.

I think it far more likely that if there were a single individual in command of any major element of the plot, he or she would have sat atop the Facilitator level. Angleton is a candidate, but I'm hesitant to be definitive.

Whoever designed the plot understood theatrics and had a grasp of historical precedent (the literary pursuits of Angleton, Phillips, and, to a lesser degree, Hunt track back to the former, as do Lansdale's creative impulses; Bill Kelly's work on what he terms "Valkyrie in Dealey Plaza" resonates with me in terms of the latter).

Further, we must understand the likely non-denominational character of some of the Sponsors, Facilitators, and Mechanics. Remember, I and others believe that for the most powerful forces on the planet, the Cold War was a fictive construct -- a theatrical production. All of my work in the deep political arena is predicated on this conclusion/hypothesis.

Accordingly, I see a very strong link -- beyond timing -- between the removals of JFK and Khrushchev.

(Not to mention the irony of the removals' respective methodologies: the leader of God's Free World is blown apart, the leader of the evil, totalitarian system is peacefully replaced.)

Finally, I'll step over a few lines and declare that I (and others) sense a spiritual dimension within the motives of certain Sponsors.

Jack, I wish I could be more specific. In the past you've characterized me as being overly cautious in certain aspects of my JFK work. And you may be right.

Best,

Charles

Caution is the best policy. These Deep Political guys are not fools.
They cover their tracks well, leaving few clues for us to sniff.

I will agree with you that they make GREAT USE of FALSE SPONSORS.
I call them patsies or fall guys...something to lead us on false trails.
Oswald was one. Castro was one. Kruschev was one, etc.

I disagree that LBJ was one. He was one of THEM, not a patsy.
However, ANY dead guy can safely be named as a patsy...since he is
no longer around to dispute his patsyhood. So, in a sense, it is SAFE
to make a dead guy a false sponsor. Just not during his lifetime.

Jack

Jack

[Jim DiEugenio]

Thanks Stan.

As per Mr. Dunne, fine if he wants to do it. Let me know.

But let me tell a little story about how up the chain David Rockefeller was.

In the seventies, a writer for Penthouse managed to infiltrate an upcoming Bilderberger Group meeting. He actually got on the list and attended a meeting.

The guy who was the secretary arranging the invite list was McGeorge Bundy. The meeting lasted for a about four days. David Rockefeller did not arrive until the last two days. He came in on his private jet, and the word buzzed around that he was in his limo on the way into the meeting. Everyone spread the word that he did not like smokers and he was a teetotaler. In a flash all the cigarettes were put away and the booze disappeared in time for his entry.

King of Kings.

[Charles Drago]

Caution is the best policy. These Deep Political guys are not fools. They cover their tracks well, leaving few clues for us to sniff.

I will agree with you that they make GREAT USE of FALSE SPONSORS.
I call them patsies or fall guys...something to lead us on false trails.
Oswald was one. Castro was one. Kruschev was one, etc.

I disagree that LBJ was one. He was one of THEM, not a patsy.
However, ANY dead guy can safely be named as a patsy...since he is
no longer around to dispute his patsyhood. So, in a sense, it is SAFE
to make a dead guy a false sponsor. Just not during his lifetime.

Jack

Think Third Alternative here, Jack.

Q. Was LBJ a False Sponsor or a Facilitator?

A. Yes.

And as we all know, many individuals and groups were given False Sponsor status during their lifetimes/in the immediate aftermath of the attack: LBJ, Castro, Khrushchev, anti-Castro Cubans, the Mob, Big Oil, for examples.

NONE of them were true Sponsors.

ALL of them were Facilitators

EDIT: In the next post below, Jan Klimkowski points out my glaring error in assigning Facilitator status to Castro and Khrushchev. I wish to correct myself here and to thank Jan for his due diligence. CD

Charles

[Jan Klimkowski]

Think Third Alternative here, Jack.

Q. Was LBJ a False Sponsor or a Facilitator?

A. Yes.

And as we all know, many individuals and groups were given False Sponsor status during their lifetimes/in the immediate aftermath of the attack: LBJ, Castro, Khrushchev, anti-Castro Cubans, the Mob, Big Oil, for examples.

NONE of them were true Sponsors.

ALL of them were Facilitators

Charles

Charles - is what sense was Castro an active Facilitator of the plot to assassinate JFK?

[Charles Drago]

Think Third Alternative here, Jack.

Q. Was LBJ a False Sponsor or a Facilitator?

A. Yes.

And as we all know, many individuals and groups were given False Sponsor status during their lifetimes/in the immediate aftermath of the attack: LBJ, Castro, Khrushchev, anti-Castro Cubans, the Mob, Big Oil, for examples.

NONE of them were true Sponsors.

ALL of them were Facilitators

Charles

Charles - is what sense was Castro an active Facilitator of the plot to assassinate JFK?

Good catch, Jan. Castro was NOT a facilitator. Nor was Khrushchev. I'll so indicate now in my previous post.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Good catch, Jan. Castro was NOT a facilitator. Nor was Khrushchev. I'll so indicate now in my previous post.

Charles - thanks for clarifying.

Of course Khrushchev and Castro were useful bogeymen, or geopolitical patsies, should the need for such creatures have become overriding.....

[Dawn Meredith]

Good catch, Jan. Castro was NOT a facilitator. Nor was Khrushchev. I'll so indicate now in my previous post.

Charles - thanks for clarifying.

Of course Khrushchev and Castro were useful bogeymen, or geopolitical patsies, should the need for such creatures have become overriding.....

James Douglas' remarkable book puts to rest for all time any notion that Khrushchev and Castro were anything but JFK's co-conspirators for the casue of peace.
Jan I know this case is not your area but if you read no other assassination book ever you should treat yourself to this one. I wish it could be read by every person alive.

Oliver Stone had his reputation badly tarnished for his film JFK but nonethe less he has been back on tv and in other forums talking about the importance of this book.

So important was the backchanneling between JFK and Khrushchev and the threat to each country's plans for war that after JFK was killed K. was basically put out to pasture. Yet our idiotic MSM still refers to LHO as a "Commie", implying that those governments were behind the assassination. Chris Matthews is particularily offensive.

Dawn