In The Shadow of Dallas and LA

[Charles Drago]

Thanks, Phil.

[Zach Robertson]

x

[Charles Drago]

Thank you, too, Zach.

[Charles Drago]

The jury is still out for me whether the man at the Ambassador is Morales or not, but I find it very curious the CIA would not reveal his travel records from June 1968.

Hey Zach,

I submit that it's more likely that the CIA has withheld the travel records to support an operation designed to misdirect and fracture the critical community than that it did so to conceal evidence of Morales's presence in L.A. on June 5, 1968.

After all, how difficult would it be to forge records? Why bother with the concealment exercise?

I do believe that the plots to assassinate both Jack and Bobby Kennedy originated from David Morales.

I am most respectful of your work as it appears on the EF, so please accept the following query in the spirit in which it is posed.

How do you define "originate?" Are you arguing that Morales was a Sponsor of the plot, or a Facilitator?

Thanks,

Charles

[Zach Robertson]

x

[Charles Drago]

It is quite possible and probable that a couple Movers were in Dallas on 11/22. These people would be there as Sponsors for the Cells. They would be on the ground with the operators to let them know the Op was real and there was equal risk. Morales would not have to be there at all, although all these people would trail back to him, as he was the Originator for the plot. [emphasis added by Drago]

Well reasoned -- especially the part I've highlighted. The "equal risk" business is very real; it first was referenced to me some years ago by an all-too-legitimate player at the operational level.

Your use of the terms "Sponsors" and "Movers" are, however, confusing. See below.

However, I do not think these Establishment-type people would be the driving force behind the assassination.

In the Evica-Drago conspiracy model -- Sponsors/Facilitators/Mechanics -- your "driving force" seems to equate with our Sponsors, while your "movers" equate with our Facilitators.

I cannot accept that Morales was, in your word, the "originator" of the plot insofar as that would place him on the Sponsor level -- a level which he never approached. The disruption of order brought about by the violent removal of a powerful head of state at a time of great Cold War tensions simply would not be allowed if the conspirators were not acting with the blessing of those at the highest levels of supranational power.

In short, you don't believe that an order to kill JFK was given, and I cannot imagine that JFK would have been killed as he was killed without just such an order.

Once it was clear there would be no invasion of Cuba, Movers with ties to SE Asia would ensure there would be a war in Vietnam. There was more money to be made there than in Cuba anyway.

Agreed -- if by "Movers" you mean, in Evica-Drago language, Facilitators.

[Zach Robertson]

x

[Charles Drago]

Zach,

Ours is precisely the type of Internet exchange that I most thoroughly enjoy.

I just cannot see a bunch of guys in white suits with supranational power sitting around a table plotting JFK's demise because of the Oil Depletion Tax etc.

Neither can I. And not just because the people I have in mind seldom dress in white.

I submit that the decision among the Sponsors of the JFK assassination to go ahead with the operation likely was made based upon absence of opposition from their equals. Silence was consent. The supranational forces of which I speak are referenced by Evica in A Certain Arrogance when he writes of intelligence officers whose "masters were above Cold War differences."

Neither JFK's threatened reduction of the Oil Depletion Allowance nor any of the other motives commonly referenced in this case -- and commonly used to prop up False Sponsor arguments -- would have been sufficient in and of themselves to prompt the go-ahead.

I am led to believe -- but don't quite yet know -- that all of these factors, plus what I term the perceived (by the Sponsors) inherent power of JFK to initiate major and lasting paradigm shifts in how business is done and how control is maintained not just in the U.S. but around the world, produced the critical mass necessary to force the Sponsors to act.

I look forward to your thoughts regarding ACA. You'll note that in my Introduction I further address what here we're calling supranational forces. Once you've done so, we'll have a firmer foundation upon which to carry forward this debate.

I can't really see Morales taking orders from anyone except occasionally from Ted Shackley and I do not think Ted Shackley was involved in the assassination.

Morales has fascinated me since the day I first heard his name. Nowhere have I read that he would stray from the reservation -- at least not very far. His actions derived from orders.

Nor have I read anything about Morales that would lead me to conclude that he had the authority to manipulate the systems initialized to facilitate the murder and coverup.

Finally, the noise that was generated by assassination preparations would have been loudly and clearly heard by forces far higher in the food chain than Morales. If those forces A) saw no need for JFK's removal, and B) were not completely satisfied that the risks posed by the planned operation to their long-term interests and even survival were minimized and controlled, then no mid-level operative the likes of Morales would have been permitted to move forward.

Shit runs downhill. How would Morales have conscripted the services of an Alan Dulles, for example?

First, the supranational people would bring in Morales as a hired gun because he has a reputation of getting things done.

Precisely.

If this was the case, surely the guys in white suits would dispose of Morales shortly after the assassination much like the Burt Lancaster character in Executive Action.

Not necessarily. No one is irreplaceable, but Morales was a superb operative at his level and was controllable. They kept him alive for years, and he provided security and invaluable service until his own alcohol-fed indiscretions forced them to act.

I can't see Morales working for people he doesn't really know just for some money.

Lust for money, I'm afraid, later became one of Morales's aforementioned indiscretions.

Also, I see Morales as being involved in this assassination because he believed in it 100% - not as some mercenary.

Beware the false choice. Embrace the third alternative.

Q. Did Morales help plan and execute the assassination of JFK because he believed the fate of his beloved country depended on it, or was he in it for the money?

A. Yes.

Morales has himself a powerful sponsor the man in the white suit is indeed tight with Dave for many years. If this were the case, Morales would be protected for life under the wing of his supranational sponsor. Surely Morales would not have been allowed to be disposed of in 1978 if this were the case.

There is no evidence to suggest that it was the casae.

Zach, I'm afraid that you're ascribing moral compunctions to amoral men. Morales was a tool on the belt of Facilitator/carpenters who were sub-contracted by Facilitator/architects who were commissioned by Sponsors/supranational clients.

Were any tender mercies present in Dealey Plaza? Who was more protected than the dissected Johnny Roselli? The silenced Sam Giancana? The hammered Jimmy "Marteduzzo" Hoffa?

I submit that the Sponsors never met Morales -- and cared nothing at all for his well-being.

Pets get old. When they begin defecating on your white carpets, you have them put down.

[Phil Dragoo]

They would be on the ground with the operators to let them know the Op was real and there was equal risk.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/USO/appD.html

~

I am led to believe -- but don't quite yet know -- that all of these factors, plus what I term the perceived (by the Sponsors) inherent power of JFK to initiate major and lasting paradigm shifts in how business is done and how control is maintained not just in the U.S. but around the world, produced the critical mass necessary to force the Sponsors to act.

Reading Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency, after George Michael Evica, A Certain Arrogance, with introduction by Charles Robert Drago, the twin concepts form a helix of a Drago book.

The above interchange has hammered out a glowing ingot, those resources from the Third World which could no longer be out of reach simply because of "that little Kennedy".

And we have just the man to do it.

Morales' place on the Great Mandala.

[Zach Robertson]

x