Who Was Our First Judas?

[Charles Drago]

RESOLVED: The highest level Facilitators of the JFK assassination conspiracy anticipated -- and indeed encouraged -- the inevitable appearance and growth of what today we refer to as a "critical community" of Warren Report dissenters.

RESOLVED: A component of the Facilitators' overall mechanism to control our community is its cadre of moles who burrow into our midst.

QUESTION: Who comprised the first generation of moles within the first generation of Warren critics?

I'm particularly interested in John Kelin's take on my propositions and answer to my question.

[Peter Lemkin]

A very interesting, almost metaphysical, question! Do you mean of the 'researchers' only....? As the very first were likely to be found among the planted 'witnesses', pre-planted journalists, attention and direction of gaze diverters, police running in pre-determined directions, police and others tampering with evidence and objects, statements made by or on behalf of the plotters, et al.

[Albert Doyle]

I skimmed the article 'Coup d'etat' by Medford Evans and was surprised to learn the questioning of the Secret Service's response went all the way back to the time and Manchester's input.


I was somewhat shocked to see Evan's scathing criticism of the right and its tolerance of a bogus Warren Commission verdict was ended with two sentences that basically agreed an "Irishman" (catholic) could never be president or accepted by the plutocratic establishment that murdered him. After reading this I wasn't sure if Evans was criticizing or justifying it.


Lane's 'Last Word' exposes a lot of the wolves in sheep's clothing.

[Charles Drago]

Peter,

I'm thinking about the group of published or otherwise renowned WC critics who emerged before the end of 1965 -- or, if you prefer, the individuals John Kelin writes about in his marvelous book, plus others he chose not to reference.

Albert,

Without necessarily referencing Lane directly, and in an effort to keep my original animal metaphor intact, one of the mole's jobs would be to accuse others -- falsely or not -- of being moles themselves.

[John Kelin]

Charles, you unnecessarily flatter me.

I certainly agree with your two premises. As for the question that follows them, I am reluctant to name names on a public form, especially on something so speculative. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men and women?

That said, we must judge by words and deeds.

[Seamus Coogan]

Charles, you unnecessarily flatter me.

I certainly agree with your two premises. As for the question that follows them, I am reluctant to name names on a public form, especially on something so speculative. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men and women?

That said, we must judge by words and deeds.

I agree JK. I think an obvious one is Epstein. He was always a spook by the looks or tapped by them judging by your book. I think it's more a case of unseen hands giving encouragement to our resident lunatics that we should be careful of. That and dodgey non entities that turn up here and talk smack about BS topics.

[Dawn Meredith]

Charles, you unnecessarily flatter me.

I certainly agree with your two premises. As for the question that follows them, I am reluctant to name names on a public form, especially on something so speculative. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men and women?

That said, we must judge by words and deeds.

I agree JK. I think an obvious one is Epstein. He was always a spook by the looks or tapped by them judging by your book. I think it's more a case of unseen hands giving encouragement to our resident lunatics that we should be careful of. That and dodgey non entities that turn up here and talk smack about BS topics.

Darn Seamus, you beat me to it. I did not see this thread til just now, was in court all day yesterday and the day before...I was just about to say Epstein. One good book (Inquest) to suck us in then infiltrate and stir up the muck. It's been a few years since I read John K's great book, so I don't recall his treatment of Epstein. I think by now the critical community is totally filled with spooks. I could name names but agree with John, not a good idea on a public forum. Some do/did it so very well.

Dawn

[Seamus Coogan]

Charles, you unnecessarily flatter me.

I certainly agree with your two premises. As for the question that follows them, I am reluctant to name names on a public form, especially on something so speculative. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men and women?

That said, we must judge by words and deeds.

I agree JK. I think an obvious one is Epstein. He was always a spook by the looks or tapped by them judging by your book. I think it's more a case of unseen hands giving encouragement to our resident lunatics that we should be careful of. That and dodgey non entities that turn up here and talk smack about BS topics.

Darn Seamus, you beat me to it. I did not see this thread til just now, was in court all day yesterday and the day before...I was just about to say Epstein. One good book (Inquest) to suck us in then infiltrate and stir up the muck. It's been a few years since I read John K's great book, so I don't recall his treatment of Epstein. I think by now the critical community is totally filled with spooks. I could name names but agree with John, not a good idea on a public forum. Some do/did it so very well.

Dawn

Lol yeah its good to know we agree on somethings lol. Yeah and I am with you I think Inquest is a useful little book. But definitely it was hook and bingo. Yeah spooks are all over this thing I have to say and I'd hate to say whom as well. It reminds me of the hilarious adage there were more FBI staff involved with the communist party than real civilian ones lol. I dunno if I am that good a spotter unless it's real obvious. Disinfo I am okay but are they spooks or just misguided I dunno. To be honest I think that's what we have nowadays. Figures that think they are god and believe any BS that get's put in front of them.

[John Kelin]

As far as Epstein is concerned, I think that Inquest is a useful book, but only up to a point. Ultimately it misleads the trusting reader.

In his memoir If You Have a Lemon, Make Lemonade, Warren Hinckle puts it this way: "...at the end of this careful document so destructive of the commission's work, Epstein abandoned the discipline of reason for the certainty of intuition. He implied that, despite the fact that he had just proved the commission was not competent to resolve with any certainty if it was raining, its gratuitous assumption that Oswald was the lone assassin was probably the right one, in the first place. The commission's defenders bent over gratefully to accept the graduate student's whiplashes in order to rejoice in the warm glow of his leap to faith." (Lemon, mass market paperback edition, p. 224.)

I would be remiss in not pointing out something that troubles me. In this same memoir, which I find well written and entertaining, Hinckle ostensibly defends Jim Garrison while also implying ("...[a] glass of bourbon in his left hand, the scales of justice in his right") he was a drunk (p. 213).

[Charles Drago]

I would be remiss in not pointing out something that troubles me. In this same memoir, which I find well written and entertaining, Hinckle ostensibly defends Jim Garrison while also implying ("...[a] glass of bourbon in his left hand, the scales of justice in his right") he was a drunk (p. 213).

It could just as well be Hinckle painting a portrait of the post-modern reformer -- Dean Martin Luther.