For Charles Drago

[Charles Drago]

IMO, from the evidence I have seen and studied, Dulles would qualify as a facilitator. Not in any way a false sponsor.

A point of clarification may be in order: We agree on much, Jim: Dulles indeed qualifies as a Facilitator, but not as a Sponsor. As opposed to false Sponsor, a role for which he has been and continues to be, either out of malice or ignorance, nominated.

[LR Trotter]

Mr Jewett makes a valid point regarding the sad state of ambulance service in the early '60s. As seen in Dallas, they were operated by funeral homes. It's really scary to think about it now, just how lacking the accepted norm was. In early '62, as a teenager I was involved in an accident, along with another student while we both were passengers on a bus. Now, this accident occured about 5 or 6 miles from the Texas Medical Center in Houston, but the ambulance was a converted '58 Chevrolet station wagon, stick shift, and with the least powerful engine available, and I am convinced it was a well used station wagon before the "conversion". The "attendants" worked at the funeral home, and had no idea what a paramedic was. And, no air conditioning. So yes, in a major city, a real ambulance was unlikely to arrive when called. We were fortunate to have a non-profit Mercy Corps Ambulance operated by R S Bill who saved many lives. I apologize for drifting off topic, but some of the younger folks have no idea how things have changed. Also, being in a time or segregation there was even a race issue regarding where the ambulance was sent from. But, that being said, I tend to believe LHO may have died before being placed in the Oneal Funeral Home ambulance, and was shot by Jack Ruby. I say that not as a researcher, as I am not one, but as a student of research.

hock:

[Phil Dragoo]

I am delighted to see Jim mention Hunt as Dulles' Man Friday, plenipotentiary, gofer, the deniable agent in the chain.

Schweitzer is an agent provocateur wearing a suicide vest of stink bombs.

Greg's NSAM 273 work as it relates to Bundy opens for me a door to the little acknowledged fact so many of these folk were social or familial.

In the web of Vasislis under separate heading the Acheson entry opened to show his daughter Mary was married to William Bundy. As the Bundy sister Harriet was married to the Belin (connected to DuPonts) serving as counsel to Treasury and acting Secretary November 22.

To be sure "CIA" doesn't figure, but Angleton developed Oswald as a magnum opus per Newman. Dulles may well have used Hunt as a conduit, as Dulles himself was used.

Surely there aren't two universes where David Rockefeller develops a William Bundy and a Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Where Acheson sends a deniable message to Stalin and Kim Il-sung that Korea is not first-tier, just as April Glasby advised Saddam Hussein that Kuwait was a regional matter.

All of this class has long established linguistic cues.

Which is why the placement of Johnson at a throne of power he never knew but only slavered for is despicable.

The development of the clarity is progressing, and every now and again a clown comes into the ring to distract the bronco to save a rider.

Dulles' animosity shows in his remarking, "that little Kennedy. . .thought he was a god" as if to say, "He was never one of us."

Douglass develops the defiance of Lodge to attempts by Kennedy to spare the Diem brothers. Lodge, too, was of a class.

The revelation of Gates to Leahy, "Senator, all governments lie to each other; it's how business gets done."

Gates serving GHWBush as DCI, and both GWBush and BHObama as SecDef in the War for Poppies, the War to Make the Middle East Safe for Iran--for how else interpret the Gates-Brzezinski CFR paper (2004) "Iran: Time for a New Approach."

They did not begin running the world with the Truman legislation of 1947, nor did they cease when the limo roared from Dealey Plaza.

The CIA would be a means to an end. Dulles worked to build the headquarters Kennedy would dedicate.

But the jerseys are much more subtle, coats of many colors. Loftus/Arons say Kim Philby senior gave the oil to the Saudis and of course Kim Philby junior fooled Angleton the genius.

When one reads Moscow Station by Ronald Kessler to see how easily the KGB penetrated the Embassy and how botched was the work of the ONI, you have to ask yourself, are they simply going through the motions.

They're still there. And when there's progress in unmasking them, they send out brochures for Michael Schweitzer College.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3416[/ATTACH]

[Albert Doyle]

I can see why some might theorize that Ruby shot a blank. Once you enter the world of CIA doubles anything is possible. In a way it would explain why Ruby would be willing to offer himself as a sacrifice. But for those looking in to this seriously and able to discuss it factually the suggestion that no blood at the scene would indicate a blank is qualified by how Oswald appeared at the hospital. If he was still relatively blood-free at Parkland upon arrival it sort of disproves the blank theory. I'm not sure Schweitzer is a dirty disinformationist as much as getting carried away. And don't forget any CIA shooting of Oswald in the ambulance would require the cooperation of ambulance attendants Hardin and Wolfe.


I'm with Lane and his emphasis of CIA. I think it is necessary and called for. And what speaks the most is I don't see anyone criticizing Lane. In my mind if CIA are the ones with their hands around your throat you deal with them first - no matter who is sponsoring them...

[Peter Lemkin]

Photographer Who Snapped
Infamous Oswald Photo
Said 'No Blood At Crime Scene'
By Greg Szymanski
10-19-6

Bob Jackson, former photographer for the Dallas Tiimes Herald who captured on film Ruby shooting Oswald, reveals for the first time on American radio he didn't see a speck of blood on the body or at the crime scene.

For those JFK assassination researchers and truth seekers, a startling revelation was made on American radio Thursday, as Bob Jackson, former Dallas Times Herald photographer, made public for the first time that there was "not a speck of blood anywhere" on the body or at the crime scene when Jack Ruby supposedly shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald.

Jackson was on assignment for the Dallas paper on the morning of Nov. 24, 1963, when Oswald was being transferred from his holding cell and snapped the picture "seen around the world," a Pulitzer Prize winning photo of Oswald grimacing with Jack Ruby fully visible with pistol in hand, shooting Oswald.

After 43 years, Jackson told listeners of Greg Szymanski's radio show, The Investigative Journal, he witnessed no blood on Oswald after the shooting, as well as "not a speck of blood" at the crime scene leading all the way to when Oswald was put in the ambulance.

"I sure did think it was strange not to see any blood whatsoever," said Jackson, whose award-winning photo was later published first on the Times Herald front page and then in the Saturday Evening Post.

"I stayed on the scene well after Oswald was taken away in the ambulance and I never did see any blood, not one drop."


Jackson's startling revelation adds fuel to the fire of researchers who claimed Oswald was never shot by Ruby, but later killed by CIA operatives in the ambulance after Oswald was sedated against his will.

Jackson's testimony, never before released in the American media, backs up other researchers who claim Oswald and Ruby faked the shooting as a part of an undercover operation designed to eventually eliminate Oswald's knowledge of the real JKF assassination team as well as his part played as the government's patsy.

"Oswald probably was told to fake the shooting and then was double crossed by Cia operatives who killed him in the ambulance in order to eliminate any loose ends in the Kennedy assassination," said one researcher who claims Oswald was used as a patsy.

On the Investigative Journal, Jackson was joined by researcher Brian David Andersen, a long time JFK truth advocate, who said Jackson's testimony gives further credibility to the discrepancy to the type and angle of the wound reported in Oswald's autopsy and the angle of the gunshot would captured in Jackson's photo taken as Ruby supposedly fired the pistol into Oswald's chest.

"The bullet should have went straight through Oswald if you look at Bob's photo, but later the attending physician said the angle of the bullet was at an upward angle" said Andersen after he questioned Jackson on the radio show, indicating the possibility that Oswald was actually shot after he was placed in the ambulance. "The absence of blood also indicated this to be a real possibility."

Regarding the Kennedy autopsy, Andersen was also privy to inside information, showing the final doctor's report used by the Warren Commission was rigged.

"When growing up in Irving, Texas (suburb of Dallas) my neighbor was Dr. Charles Baxter M.D., the Parkland Hospital coordinating surgeon on John Kennedy," said Andersen. "On November 23 1974, while I was photographing a hand surgery being conducted by the doctor, Baxter explicated and thoroughly detailed all of the events that occurred related to him regarding the treatment of Kennedy that was purposely excluded from the Warren Commission Report. The truth is so more outlandish than any kind of fiction."

In the radio interview, Jackson added that he was also present in the presidential motorcade seven cars behind the lead vehicle - the day Kennedy was shot, hearing three distinct shots coming from the direction of the book depository.

"I looked up after the shots and saw a rifle being pulled in from the window but I couldn't make out who it was," said Jackson . "I also remember seeing two police officers run right into the book depository and remember thinking who ever fired the shots never had a chance of getting out of the building without being caught or killed."


Regarding the Oswald photo seen by tens of millions of people, Andersen set the scene as it took place in 1963.


"In the basement of the Dallas Police Department on November 24, 1963 were two photographers. Jack Beers pointed a twin-lens reflex camera while working for the Dallas Morning News and took a photograph of Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald

"One sixteenth of second after Jack Beer pressed the button on his camera, Bob Jackson with a 35mm camera and working for the Dallas Times Herald, pressed the button on his camera.

"Beers immediately returned to the darkroom and processed his photograph that was instantly sent out on the wire services around the world. Everyone who witnessed Beer's photograph for the next two hours stated he would win the Pulitzer Prize.

"HoweverBut...Also...and Hold On!

"The City Desk of the Dallas Times Herald ordered Bob Jackson to remain in the basement of the Dallas Police Department for over an hour and half therefore his film was not processed until two hours after Oswald had been shot.

"After Jackson's picture was printed in the darkroom, Felix McNight, managing editor of the Times Herald shouted and stomped his feet as he tried to describe the fantastic photograph to the photo editor of Life Magazine but to no availthe magazine was under a tight publishing deadline and the Life editors believed they had the best photo therefore Beer's photo was published in the most popular American publication in 1963.

"Bob Jackson's photo was published on the front page of the Times Herald and in the Saturday Evening Post. Bob Jackson's photo won the Pulitzer Prize and numerous other awards and his photograph is an icon of American history. Jack Beer's photo became an almost forgotten footnote in American History by 1/16 of a second."

[Jim DiEugenio]

I would not at all be surprised if Gary Mack put him up to this.

They are pals and Jackson has been a supporter of the official story.

[Seamus Coogan]

I can see why some might theorize that Ruby shot a blank. Once you enter the world of CIA doubles anything is possible. In a way it would explain why Ruby would be willing to offer himself as a sacrifice. But for those looking in to this seriously and able to discuss it factually the suggestion that no blood at the scene would indicate a blank is qualified by how Oswald appeared at the hospital. If he was still relatively blood-free at Parkland upon arrival it sort of disproves the blank theory. I'm not sure Schweitzer is a dirty disinformationist as much as getting carried away. And don't forget any CIA shooting of Oswald in the ambulance would require the cooperation of ambulance attendants Hardin and Wolfe.


I'm with Lane and his emphasis of CIA. I think it is necessary and called for. And what speaks the most is I don't see anyone criticizing Lane. In my mind if CIA are the ones with their hands around your throat you deal with them first - no matter who is sponsoring them...

Totally F***** agree with that last sentence and so would Gerald Ven. Hey speaking of that SOB. How is he going. He'd be welcome here. His posts on Dulles are totally magic.

[Charles Drago]

Until you define "CIA' as you use the term within the JFK assassination context and argue for "its" precise placement within the Evica/Drago model, your argument does not rise above the Jesse Ventura level.

Which is to say, it does far more harm than good.

[Albert Doyle]

Until you define "CIA' as you use the term within the JFK assassination context and argue for "its" precise placement within the Evica/Drago model, your argument does not rise above the Jesse Ventura level.

Which is to say, it does far more harm than good.

With all respect that's too easy. We can't afford to arrange a perfect china shop upon demand while CIA murders people because of their witnessing. I think most researched people have a pretty good understanding of the CIA players involved in this. While the original players are long gone they have a legacy that continues to operate the same way.

While I respect and endorse the Evica model as the best framework by which to analyze the Assassination I see this situation as saying "Throw those CIA fish back because they weren't caught in the Evica net". There's an almost dogmatic stubborness involved in saying to people "Only this fine Evica net can be used because it is woven properly" while ignoring that fact you're holding up an empty net. I personally think people are afraid to confront the CIA.

CIA most likely murdered Richard Case Nagel long after the assassination in the 1990's. That means they are acting on their own long after the influence of the original sponsors. Since the contact between the CIA and Sponsors was very subtle or deeply protected it is unlikely any clear evidence will ever be gotten on how exactly that happened. I know this cannot sound right anyway it is said, but I feel this intellectual restriction comes at the cost of actually doing anything meaningful according to what JFK intended and what probably got him killed. One can flatter one's self by tending one's eloquent china shop, however the real action, and real results, are out here. And, no, this isn't an attack on the Evica/Drago model. I think it is the best form and absolutely necessary. It just isn't exclusive. In my opinion the insistence that it must be followed exclusively is also 'harmful' to what JFK intended. Jesse, with all his warts, did an important thing. He got the conspiracy side on TV.

I argue it is very important to use the general term "CIA". To pick out and select the individual violators like Debra Conway suggests is to permit the general institutional concealment of how CIA protects these players and exerts an overall influence through its office. In a way this is also 'harmful' because it protects the "sponsorship" of those players by the overall institution.

Mark Lane - The "harmful" Jesse Ventura yahoo...


.

[Charles Drago]

I give up.

The wingless flea is deaf.