Salandria-Schotz-Douglass material

[Albert Doyle]

The silent background hum of the big lie is equal to the unspeakable. When you give too much credit to the facilitators as sponsors you remove attention from the place it belongs. The way it works is the facilitators never could have been so bold without their confidence that the sponsors would make sure they never answered to their deeds. While the facilitators can be exchanged easily the sponsors are more important for their maintenance of the safety and security of the corruption of the big lie, or unspeakable. That's why Douglass is so effective because he manages to fathom the works of the sponsors by placing the focus on their political motives and their results rather than trying to figure out the mechanics of the actual killing itself.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Hi Albert

I understand your point and you may be right.
However, you cannot say that i have ignored the sponsors. I have stated in this thread as in many other threads that the true sponsors of the crime can be found in Donald Gibson's books "Battling Wall Street and The Kennedy Assassination cover up" and in "A Certain Arrogance" and Evica's essay "Perfect Cover".
Discussing the facilitators, i was responding to the Evica/Drago Sponsors/Facilitators/Mechanics. That's all. Now if you wish to reduce the model to sponsors only, not a problem.

[Albert Doyle]

Not necessarily aimed at you Vasilios. I was sort of thinking out loud concerning Charles' approach.

[Charles Drago]

The silent background hum of the big lie is equal to the unspeakable. When you give too much credit to the facilitators as sponsors you remove attention from the place it belongs. The way it works is the facilitators never could have been so bold without their confidence that the sponsors would make sure they never answered to their deeds. While the facilitators can be exchanged easily the sponsors are more important for their maintenance of the safety and security of the corruption of the big lie, or unspeakable. That's why Douglass is so effective because he manages to fathom the works of the sponsors by placing the focus on their political motives and their results rather than trying to figure out the mechanics of the actual killing itself.

Good post. Two points in response:

1. Sponsors' were motivated by political agendas -- but also social, economic, and -- I'll get grief for this -- even spiritual agendas.

(Of course the definition of "political" could be expanded to include all of the above -- as could that of "social.")

2. While we agree that exposure of the Sponsors should be our primary goal, there is nothing necessarily preventing us from looking at all three levels of the conspiracy -- and the sub-levels for Facilitator and Mechanic.

[Bill Kelly]

Hi all,

Seeing the "A Philadelphia Lawyer Analyzes..." thread on this forum made me think it would be a good idea to post some related material.

James W. Douglass asked me to make this stuff available on the web last year, as he readied the trade paper edition of JFK and the Unspeakable. I think this is bonus material (for lack of a better term) at the end of the book.

First is Vince Salandria's "False Mystery" speech from the 1998 COPA conference. Next is E. Martin Schotz's "The Waters of Knowledge" speech from the same COPA event. Lastly is the James Douglass essay, 'The Martin Luther King Conspiracy Exposed in Memphis."

This stuff has all appeared elsewhere, on the web and in print. While all of it should match, I would consider these links definitive.

I realize that many have seen these items. For those who have not, I highly recommend them.

Salandria
http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/vs.html

Schotz
http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/schotz.html

Douglass
http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/jwd.html

Yes, thanks for posting them John.
It's hard to believe that was 1998 COPA.
Remember I was talking with you afterwards when Salandria was walking out past us and I asked him for a hard copy of his speech?
You also got a copy and posted it on line and later began to work with him on his book, a fine job and important milestone.

Thanks again for all you do,

Bill Kelly
JFKCountercoup.blogspot.com

[John Kelin]

Actually Bill, as I recall it you buttonholed me after Vince's speech, and propelled me back toward where he was surrounded by a cluster of admirers. We waited patiently for the coast to clear and had a brief chat. Got the speech copies, etc etc.

I think you wanted his input on your grand jury idea.

Without trying to sound overly-dramatic, if you had not insisted I accompany you I would not have wound up writing my book. I'm not the type to impose myself on others without a good reason. (That's not to suggest you were being pushy.) So you get a certain amount of credit or blame; I'm not sure which. I have acknowledged that elsewhere, perhaps on this forum or on a similar forum which shall remain nameless but it bears repeating, since I omitted that detail in the book's Intro.

And now I'm being reminded of something else. A couple of days ago Jim Douglass left a message on my phone machine. He wonders whether I know of a survey he dimly recalls, done back in the 1960s, asking a number of prominent Americans their views on the JFK assassination. One of those asked was Thomas Merton, who responded that there had been a conspiracy.

I don't know of this survey. I Googled "Thomas Merton JFK" and variant keywords, but the only hits I get are to Jim's book.

Does anyone know what he might be referring to?

Although now that I think about it a little more, I have a photocopy of an article from FACT magazine (or something like that), which put that question to a number of prominent types. I don't recall Merton being among them, but I could be wrong. I'll have to dig it out.

I still haven't returned Jim's call. Shame on me. It's been four or five days. I'm on it now.

EDITED BY CHARLES DRAGO -- REPETITIVE QUOTES REMOVED -- John, et al, please see my editorial comment attached to Bill Kelly's post below. -- CD

[Bill Kelly]

Well John, I'm certainly glad that my being pushy led to something significant as Salandria's book and yours certainly are.

I recently came across a reference to Merton that had nothing to do with Douglas, which surprised me.

Give James Douglas my regards,

Bill Kelly

EDITED BY CHARLES DRAGO -- REPETITIVE QUOTES REMOVED -- This is directed specifically at William Kelly: Bill, for the love of God please STOP quoting in full the posts immediately preceding your own. Each and every time you do so I will eliminate the waste product. You and so many others on the EF continue to do this -- thus making the threads all but unreadable AND eating up bandwidth for no good reason. I value your work immensely, but this nonsense has got to stop. -- CD

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Hi Charles

This is an old post, and i just happened to re visit it and read the following remark of yours about Morales. I should have asked you then, maybe my question is out of date, but to remind you here are your remarks:

Your decision to eschew mention of Morales because of your quite on-target suspicion of Waldron's deep agenda would be viewed by those who ghost-wrote, so to speak, Waldron's books as a significant victory.

Remember that truth is the essential ingredient of disinformation. Every claim by the likes of Waldron or Posner must be scrutinized individually; such a process is the key to countering disinformation.

Morales was in it up to is ears

Do we have any proof apart from his drunken confession "we took care of that son of a bitch, didn't we?" that he was up to his ears as you said?

[Peter Lemkin]

Evica's Arrogance indicates Dulles in Zurich the day the Germans put Lenin on a train for Petrograd to remove the pressure on the Eastern front. The very demon of the Cold War was born to benefit clients of Dulles.

Recently in Afghanistan the very useful Posner defends the tragically maligned Karzai against charges the latter is a CIA asset and drug lord. Alas the slandered Karzai is slain.

And Petraeus goes from the battlefield to Langley.

Gates and Brzezinski coauthored the 2004 CFR paper Iran: Time for a New Approach. The latter recently said now is not the time to destablize Iran.

Instead the secular regimes of Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Syria are destabilized.

What was the interest in Iraq.

The so-called national interest is only a clockwork maskey for the sake of concealing the interests served.

The Commission was not born in Katzenbach; it was incubated by Sigourney Weaver's Alien mother.

Who are those shape-shifting reptiles and why do they use our military and intelligence as meat puppets.

Wow!, you got that bunch right Phil!!! [along with all the rest...]

On the occasion of this thread being resurrected, I re-read the three papers.....and suggest others do the same!....Don't ever let it be said we don't know all but the tiny details on what's been going on in America and the World; who's killing who and why; who's lying to who and why....etc. The sad part is it still goes on - the uspeakable beast grows and devours and most Sheeple don't even bleat...just watch TV and go to McDonalds, while they send their children off to kill other people's innocent children - all in the name of the Unspeakable Beast behind it all..............

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Thank you very much, John.

FWIW, I have serious problems with Mr. Schotz's conclusion as to the identities of the Sponsors of JFK's murder.

He writes: "At the time of the assassination what would have happened if it had been acknowledged that the assassination had been a high level conspiracy of the US military intelligence apparatus?"

My answer: Yet again, and in the absence of presentation by the author of the conspiracy model on which his analysis is built, a Facilitator of the assassination would have been identified as its Sponsor; as a consequence, the coverup would have been preserved and enhanced.

Charles i have not read the book "History will not Absolve us" but i have read the numerous reviews that are currently available on the internet. There is one to be found at
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back...story.html

At the end of the review we find one imaginary conversation between JFK and Allen Dulles in heaven Kennedy is sitting in a rocking chair when Dulles comes sauntering along.......
.......Dulles does most of the talking. He tells JFK that he, JFK, had assaulted democracy by first running on an anti-communist platform, then turning away from it after his election. And the people, Dulles says --- meaning the CIA, apparently --- had the right to correct that mistake. Dulles says that if JFK had suffered a fatal stroke instead of being assassinated, the transition of power would have worked just the same: "We didn't take over the government, we just shot you." At the end of this dialogue, Kennedy not only accepts what Dulles says, he asks his forgiveness!
Now i repeat i have not read the book and i have the greatest respect for Vince Salandria, but if that's true, this acceptance by Kennedy is very subtle, devious, dangerous and provocative.
It would mean that although Schotz blames the right people for the murder he has JFK to admit that he was rightly executed and legitimizes their decision to kill him.
Again i have not read the book and maybe i have misunderstood the above passage, so i would ask the members of this forum to clarify the issue if they could.