PDA

View Full Version : Gerald McKnight, the FBI, the MPD, and the MLK assassination



Martin Hay
05-10-2012, 03:23 PM
Gerald McKnight is the author of one my all-time favourite books, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, which is, for my money, the best critique of the official investigation into JFK's death ever written. So I was quite excited to come across a copy of his hard to find (in the UK anyway) 1998 book, The Last Crusade: Martin Luther King Jr., the FBI, and the Poor People's Campaign.

Man was I disappointed when I came across this passage:

“...thereis nothing in the released documents to support, and persuasive evidence to reject, assertions that the FBI and the MPD conspired to assassinate King. Had Hoover and the FBI elites actually planned to neutralize King by assassination, it is reasonable to assume theywould have called off their COINTELPRO campaign against him and destroyed these records once the decision was finalized. Any truly independent federal investigation into the King assassination uncovering this kind of incriminating evidence would place the FBI atthe top of its list of prime suspects. It is equally untenable and baseless to imagine that the Hoover FBI, a virtually independent security state within a state that had succeeded so spectacularly over almost 50 years under the operational premise that control was the name of the game, would conspire with parties outside the bureau to kill King.” (pgs. 81-82)

When I read the above, I found myself saying out loud, “Are you serious,Jerry?” because I just don't see how the man who wrote Breach ofTrust could also be responsible for writing such unmitigated nonsense. There is, in my opinion, nothing about his argument that is reasonable or logical, let alone "persuasive".

Firstly, I have no idea how anyone could attempt to use Hoover's well-documented hateful campaign against Dr. King as some kind of“proof” that Hoover was not responsible for his murder. To me that's like saying you can rule out the KKK as having any involvement because they've spent a century persecuting African Americans and allegedly made numerous attempts on King's life! Seriously, does that make sense?

Secondly,despite McKnight's claim, destroying the records of its campaign would not have removed the FBI from any list of suspects. Why?Because it was never a secret anyway. Officials of the Justice Department and everyone in the SCLC knew about the surveillance and wiretaps and Hoover had been feeding his “friends” in the press derogatory information about King for years. Hell, in 1964 he publicly called Dr. King “the most notorious liar in the country.”And because it was no secret, destroying records would actually have cast more suspicion on the FBI, not less. On top of that, Hoover never had to fear being investigated because he was always going tobe the investigator. He would lead the Bureau's investigation down the lone nut path and, just as they had done with the Kennedy assassination, the mainstream media would dutifully play along. And once the fix was in, the cover-up became institutional and there wasnever going to be a “truly independent federal investigation”. Did anyone ever seriously believe that the HSCA would find the FBI responsible for the assassination? It was never gonna happen! Not even if the bullet that Killed King had Hoover's fingerprint on it. It was always going to be a case of the fox investigating the chicken coop and Hoover was smart enough and arrogant enough to know it.

Finally, this stuff about conspiring with “parties outside the bureau”,which is presumably meant to dispel the notion of Memphis Police involvement, ignores the obvious fact that the director of the MPD, Frank Holloman, was a 25-year veteran of the FBI who, as McKnight admits, “was professionally close to Hoover, having served seven years as inspector in charge of the director's Washington office.”(p. 47) On top of that, key members of the MPD investigation like N.E. Zachary and Glynn King had attended the FBI academy. So just how far “outside the bureau” was the MPD? Not very. In fact, McKnight himself writes about their special relationship: “...relations between the FBI and the MPD resembled a textbook version of cooperation between local and federal law enforcement agencies. There appeared to be none of the instances of paranoia revolving around issues of control, refusal to share file resources, or attempts by the bureau to shoulder aside the local police and grab the headlines that historically marred relations between Hoover's agency and local police functionaries. Frank Holloman, the Memphis director of public safety, characterized this relationship as 'unique.'” (p. 46) How McKnight can provide these details and less than 40 pages later seem to completely ignore them is quite baffling to me.

Gerald McKnight may be right and there maybe "persuasive evidence" to reject the idea that the FBI and MPD conspired to kill Dr. King. But you won't find it in his book.

Seamus Coogan
05-10-2012, 03:44 PM
Hey its great to have you here mate. What's really sad about all of this is that Stu and Larry have done some great stuff in the JFK field. But overshot the mark on this one. Having had the privellege of reading you're draft it's a very good piece. Some of the errors you pointed out had me gob smacked.

Martin Hay
05-10-2012, 06:59 PM
Hey its great to have you here mate. What's really sad about all of this is that Stu and Larry have done some great stuff in the JFK field. But overshot the mark on this one. Having had the privellege of reading you're draft it's a very good piece. Some of the errors you pointed out had me gob smacked.

Cheers mate.

Hopefully my review will be up soon. I'm looking forward to finding out whether knowledgable folks agree with me or not.

Phil Dragoo
05-10-2012, 08:03 PM
Martin, I have McKnight Breach and appreciate its serial revelation the players knew they were acting a farce. My favorite piece is the end note re the AEC Oak Ridge Lab confirming the Dallas paraffin test, and showing seven known M-C shooters positive.

Indeed how could the same unmasker posit such flimsy screens for FBI complicity.

You spotted the enormous water buffalo crouched behind the couch: Frank Holloman, a quarter-century in the Gestapo and a favorite of Himmler.

In fact it would be the FBI intimidators driving King to move from the white hotel to the black motel, where the inside first-floor room was mysteriously changed to the second-floor exposed location.

Who else but the FBI asset Holloman to thank for the security stripping.

Somehow the police cancelled their earliest APBs and BOLOs and settled on one of the two Mustangs, the one with the patsy.

And thanks to William Pepper, Orders to Kill, and other researchers we know military intelligence agent and later CIA employee Marrell McCollough arrived in the lot and remained in a car (perhaps radioing the arrival on the balcony of the target), and subsequently dashed up the stairs to check King’s vitals.

In Brothers we are told CIA spied on Bobby (killed two months after King), while FBI spied on King.

Did a Jamie’s Wall prevent their collusion?

Is there a reason beyond accident for the shooting of Sullivan, the Angleton opposite in the Bureau and one of Hoover-Himmler’s devils (as opposed to Holloman the angel)?

Since McKnight’s elimination of FBI we have its sniper Lon Horiuchi, its dark agency in OK Bomb and TWA 800.

And the current POTUS has extended the tenure of Director Mueller by two years.

Not only was FBI not provably innocent then, it is assuredly, actively not innocent now.

Martin Hay
05-11-2012, 03:53 PM
Thanks Phil. I couldn't agree more; the FBI remains top of my list of suspects for sure.

I've often wondered if Hoover let James Earl Ray escape. When they picked up the obviously planted bundle from the doorway of Canipe's, they had evidence that should have led them straight to Ray - a radio with his Missouri State Pen inmate number on it. They could have traced the serial number on the radio, found out where and when it was sold, and then the inmate number would have given them Ray's name. But they didn't. Instead they searched for Eric Galt, surely knowing that it was an alias, until Ray was safely out of the US. And then they made only a half-assed attempt to extradite him, supplying the British court with little more than Charlie Stephens' "identification" and the promise of some fingerprint evidence that the bureau never delivered. And I can't help thinking that the FBI were hoping the UK would refuse to extradite him on such flimsy evidence so that they wouldn't have to try him with such a weak case and could continue convicting him in the press.

Charles Drago
05-11-2012, 04:29 PM
[T]he FBI remains top of my list of suspects for sure.

I've often wondered if Hoover let James Earl Ray escape. When they picked up the obviously planted bundle from the doorway of Canipe's, they had evidence that should have led them straight to Ray - a radio with his Missouri State Pen inmate number on it. They could have traced the serial number on the radio, found out where and when it was sold, and then the inmate number would have given them Ray's name. But they didn't. Instead they searched for Eric Galt, surely knowing that it was an alias, until Ray was safely out of the US. And then they made only a half-assed attempt to extradite him, supplying the British court with little more than Charlie Stephens' "identification" and the promise of some fingerprint evidence that the bureau never delivered. And I can't help thinking that the FBI were hoping the UK would refuse to extradite him on such flimsy evidence so that they wouldn't have to try him with such a weak case and could continue convicting him in the press.

"Suspects" for WHAT?

I swear to Christ, it's as if the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model never was presented.

Have we learned NOTHING from our studies?

"The FBI" and "the CIA" conspired to kill neither JFK nor MLK.

You conflate the hammer with the carpenter.

You conflate the carpenter with the architect.

You conflate the architect with the homeowner.

The Sponsors are wetting themselves from laughter.

Martin Hay
05-11-2012, 06:06 PM
Meanwhile back at the ranch...

Phil Dragoo
05-11-2012, 11:46 PM
Donald Gibson in Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency, presents Rockefeller Morgan financial interests as a major opponent of JFK’s policies.

In Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil, by Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett, we see Nelson Rockefeller involved in genocidal pacification of South American tribes in pursuit of minerals and oil, and the poppies of Bolivia.

David provided much of the financing of the regime-change and assassination operations and the pair maintained family and professional ties to Allen Dulles and Henry Kissinger.

In southeast Asia lay important minerals and profitable poppies. The war was the pretext for its exploitation, and the military under LBJ was the muscle, CIA remaining the more significant tactician.

The impetus for the removal of King was his opposition to this war. Just as the FBI had been integral to the pursuit of the Cold War, a business model fixed in 1945 or earlier, thus it fell to them to provide the actualization of the decision made higher, perhaps at the level of David Rockefeller.

Now we find the war on terror providing rationalization for the extraction of the Afghan poppy product, source of 90% of the world’s heroin, as well as for other purposes.

The current POTUS (with whom George Soros equates Mitt Romney as someone he can work with) has extended Robert Mueller’s term by two years.

The FBI has served as the faithful 20-Mule Team in the cabal’s extraction of the world’s borax (not to be confused with the film Borat).

Of course Martin doesn’t see John Edgar Hoover sitting in the bathtub with Clyde Tolson plotting the demise of that “(expletive) King.”

Rather that its presence in the form of Earl Holloman is very like the role of Hoover’s provision of all the investigation for the Commission in 1963-4.

Hoover had his heart attack and Sullivan had his hunting accident.

And the band plays on.

Lauren Johnson
05-12-2012, 12:48 AM
[T]he FBI remains top of my list of suspects for sure.

I've often wondered if Hoover let James Earl Ray escape. When they picked up the obviously planted bundle from the doorway of Canipe's, they had evidence that should have led them straight to Ray - a radio with his Missouri State Pen inmate number on it. They could have traced the serial number on the radio, found out where and when it was sold, and then the inmate number would have given them Ray's name. But they didn't. Instead they searched for Eric Galt, surely knowing that it was an alias, until Ray was safely out of the US. And then they made only a half-assed attempt to extradite him, supplying the British court with little more than Charlie Stephens' "identification" and the promise of some fingerprint evidence that the bureau never delivered. And I can't help thinking that the FBI were hoping the UK would refuse to extradite him on such flimsy evidence so that they wouldn't have to try him with such a weak case and could continue convicting him in the press.

"Suspects" for WHAT?

I swear to Christ, it's as if the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model never was presented.

Have we learned NOTHING from our studies?

"The FBI" and "the CIA" conspired to kill neither JFK nor MLK.

You conflate the hammer with the carpenter.

You conflate the carpenter with the architect.

You conflate the architect with the homeowner.

The Sponsors are wetting themselves from laughter.
Charles, I wish you could make your points without being such an asshole.

Charles Drago
05-12-2012, 01:25 AM
Lauren,

I wish you could understand my points without being such a fucking literal idiot.

Lauren Johnson
05-12-2012, 01:37 AM
[T]he FBI remains top of my list of suspects for sure.

I've often wondered if Hoover let James Earl Ray escape. When they picked up the obviously planted bundle from the doorway of Canipe's, they had evidence that should have led them straight to Ray - a radio with his Missouri State Pen inmate number on it. They could have traced the serial number on the radio, found out where and when it was sold, and then the inmate number would have given them Ray's name. But they didn't. Instead they searched for Eric Galt, surely knowing that it was an alias, until Ray was safely out of the US. And then they made only a half-assed attempt to extradite him, supplying the British court with little more than Charlie Stephens' "identification" and the promise of some fingerprint evidence that the bureau never delivered. And I can't help thinking that the FBI were hoping the UK would refuse to extradite him on such flimsy evidence so that they wouldn't have to try him with such a weak case and could continue convicting him in the press.

"Suspects" for WHAT?

I swear to Christ, it's as if the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model never was presented.

Have we learned NOTHING from our studies?

"The FBI" and "the CIA" conspired to kill neither JFK nor MLK.

You conflate the hammer with the carpenter.

You conflate the carpenter with the architect.

You conflate the architect with the homeowner.

The Sponsors are wetting themselves from laughter.
Charles, I wish you could make your points without being such an asshole.

edit

Charles Drago
05-12-2012, 01:48 AM
What you edited, Lauren, and what I've saved on my computer, was a response in which you called me a "prick" after you noted that you continue to learn from me. See below.

What the fuck do you think we're engaged in? A polite discourse with honorable debaters?

If you don't realize that we're at war ... if you don't understand that there are hostile actions being directed at us ... you have no business here or anywhere else where the fight is being waged.

I'm an "asshole" and a "prick," you say.

VERY insightful. VERY helpful. VERY courageous.

If you don't like what I write, fuck off.

If you expect polite discourse in the midst of hostilities, fuck off.

If you're not ready to fight, fuck off.

But if you wish to engage, then get over your pea-brain hang-ups and have at it.

Clear, shithead?
__________________________________________________ ________________________________________________


Dear Charles Drago,

Lauren Johnson has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Gerald McKnight, the FBI, the MPD, and the MLK assassination - in the Political Assassinations forum of DEEP POLITICS FORUM.

This thread is located at:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?10130-Gerald-McKnight-the-FBI-the-MPD-and-the-MLK-assassination&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************

---Quote (Originally by Lauren Johnson)--- ---Quote (Originally by Charles Drago)--- ---Quote (Originally by Martin Hay)--- [T]he FBI remains top of my list of suspects for sure.

I've often wondered if Hoover let James Earl Ray escape. When they picked up the obviously planted bundle from the doorway of Canipe's, they had evidence that should have led them straight to Ray - a radio with his Missouri State Pen inmate number on it. They could have traced the serial number on the radio, found out where and when it was sold, and then the inmate number would have given them Ray's name. But they didn't. Instead they searched for Eric Galt, surely knowing that it was an alias, until Ray was safely out of the US. And then they made only a half-assed attempt to extradite him, supplying the British court with little more than Charlie Stephens' "identification" and the promise of some fingerprint evidence that the bureau never delivered. And I can't help thinking that the FBI were hoping the UK would refuse to extradite him on such flimsy evidence so that they wouldn't have to try him with such a weak case and could continue convicting him in the press.
---End Quote---

"Suspects" for WHAT?

I swear to Christ, it's as if the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model never was presented.

Have we learned NOTHING from our studies?

"The FBI" and "the CIA" conspired to kill neither JFK nor MLK.

You conflate the hammer with the carpenter.

You conflate the carpenter with the architect.

You conflate the architect with the homeowner.

The Sponsors are wetting themselves from laughter.
---End Quote---
Charles, I wish you could make your points without being such an asshole.
---End Quote---
Look Charles, now you are acting like Fetzter. You know full well I was addressing your meanness. I fully understand your points. But just like Fetzter, you switch the subject from your tone to my supposed misunderstanding your points. How about you self-righteously accuse me of not be willing to pursue the truth.

I have and continue to learn from you despite your demeaning posts. And I sincerely mean that. I also sincerely mean that you are a prick. [EMPHASIS ADDED BY DRAGO FOR THIS POST.]
***************


There may also be other replies, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again.

All the best,
DEEP POLITICS FORUM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unsubscription information:

To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit this page:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/subscription.php?do=removesubscription&type=thread&subscriptionid=15209&auth=db8113ffa9718bc7d95ccdbcf82f89ea

To unsubscribe from ALL threads, please visit this page:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/subscription.php?do=viewsubscription&folderid=all

Charles Drago
05-12-2012, 02:07 AM
Meanwhile back at the ranch...

Brilliant.

Pithy.

Très drole.

Shall we expect a substantive response? Or just more of the same "short bus" exclamations?

Lauren Johnson
05-12-2012, 02:24 AM
Lauren,

I wish you could understand my points without being such a fucking literal idiot.

I am guessing that you are telling me that you don't appreciate my presence her at DPF. Since I am unworthy, I have no right to call you on your arrogant attitude. I fully recognize that I am not a researcher. I am not nearly as well informed as you. And that is not my goal. I frankly just want to learn.

But I will say this. Tomorrow when I get up, I will be a little better informed than I was today. And you'll still be a asshole.

Edit: I see that you think we are at war by responding to my deleted post. Thanks you for that. Well, think what you want. I just don't like your attitude. When you actually manage to make a point, I read and think. That won't change. You present a perspective that I value and have found quite challenging to my perspective. For example, I still think about your thesis about the Chicago plot. Hmmm. I let that one simmer on the back burner. I guess I find myself becoming more convinced but I am not quite there yet.

Nevertheless. You think I am a fucking idiot. I think you are both a prick AND an asshole. So what? I am not going to engage you in some silly war. We both know who the enemy is -- or at least we would if we knew who the sponsors are. To me, you are not my enemy and we are not at war with each other. Period.

I think you would be more effective in your posts if you were not so full of invective. But then what would I know? I'm just a fucking idiot.

Charles Drago
05-12-2012, 03:19 AM
Lauren,

I wish you could understand my points without being such a fucking literal idiot.

I am guessing that you are telling me that you don't appreciate my presence her at DPF. Since I am unworthy, I have no right to call you on your arrogant attitude. I fully recognize that I am not a researcher. I am not nearly as well informed as you. And that is not my goal. I frankly just want to learn.

But I will say this. Tomorrow when I get up, I will be a little better informed than I was today. And you'll still be a asshole.

Edit: I see that you think we are at war by responding to my deleted post. Thanks you for that. Well, think what you want. I just don't like your attitude. When you actually manage to make a point, I read and think. That won't change. You present a perspective that I value and have found quite challenging to my perspective. For example, I still think about your thesis about the Chicago plot. Hmmm. I let that one simmer on the back burner. I guess I find myself becoming more convinced but I am not quite there yet.

Nevertheless. You think I am a fucking idiot. I think you are both a prick AND an asshole. So what? I am not going to engage you in some silly war. We both know who the enemy is -- or at least we would if we knew who the sponsors are. To me, you are not my enemy and we are not at war with each other. Period.

I think you would be more effective in your posts if you were not so full of invective. But then what would I know? I'm just a fucking idiot.

You started this.

You called for civility in the heat of battle.

You began the "asshole" and "prick" exchange.

And now you're offended.

So fuck off. Or stay. It's of no consequence to me.

But if I've let you down with my language and attitude, then perhaps it's because I previously elevated you.

And the same person who did so also comes on like an "asshole" and a "prick."

How can that be?

Figure it out, fucking idiot.

And you'll have a true friend in me -- the asshole prick.

Lauren Johnson
05-12-2012, 03:37 AM
Lauren,

I wish you could understand my points without being such a fucking literal idiot.

I am guessing that you are telling me that you don't appreciate my presence her at DPF. Since I am unworthy, I have no right to call you on your arrogant attitude. I fully recognize that I am not a researcher. I am not nearly as well informed as you. And that is not my goal. I frankly just want to learn.

But I will say this. Tomorrow when I get up, I will be a little better informed than I was today. And you'll still be a asshole.

Edit: I see that you think we are at war by responding to my deleted post. Thanks you for that. Well, think what you want. I just don't like your attitude. When you actually manage to make a point, I read and think. That won't change. You present a perspective that I value and have found quite challenging to my perspective. For example, I still think about your thesis about the Chicago plot. Hmmm. I let that one simmer on the back burner. I guess I find myself becoming more convinced but I am not quite there yet.

Nevertheless. You think I am a fucking idiot. I think you are both a prick AND an asshole. So what? I am not going to engage you in some silly war. We both know who the enemy is -- or at least we would if we knew who the sponsors are. To me, you are not my enemy and we are not at war with each other. Period.

I think you would be more effective in your posts if you were not so full of invective. But then what would I know? I'm just a fucking idiot.

You started this.

You called for civility in the heat of battle.

You began the "asshole" and "prick" exchange.

And now you're offended.

So fuck off. Or stay. It's of no consequence to me.

But if I've let you down with my language and attitude, then perhaps it's because I previously elevated you.

And the same person who did so also comes on like an "asshole" and a "prick."

How can that be?

Figure it out, fucking idiot.

And you'll have a true friend in me -- the asshole prick.

I just opened a beer: "The fucking idiot drinks to the asshole prick." Now, back to the war. And once again, I know that you and I are not the war. Over and out.

Phil Dragoo
05-12-2012, 07:24 AM
3799

So Deutch was compromising files on Russian sites and Clinton was passing missile missives to Chinese

Goss' COS Millis called the men the worst DCI and president for counterintelligence ever

and sucked a shotgun in a bathtub of the Breezeway Motel in Alexandria in 2000

Which is not to say that CIA or presidents or Russians or Chinese called the shot

but rather that you can't fight here

This is the war room

Charles Drago
05-12-2012, 12:25 PM
Lauren,

I wish you could understand my points without being such a fucking literal idiot.

I am guessing that you are telling me that you don't appreciate my presence her at DPF. Since I am unworthy, I have no right to call you on your arrogant attitude. I fully recognize that I am not a researcher. I am not nearly as well informed as you. And that is not my goal. I frankly just want to learn.

But I will say this. Tomorrow when I get up, I will be a little better informed than I was today. And you'll still be a asshole.

Edit: I see that you think we are at war by responding to my deleted post. Thanks you for that. Well, think what you want. I just don't like your attitude. When you actually manage to make a point, I read and think. That won't change. You present a perspective that I value and have found quite challenging to my perspective. For example, I still think about your thesis about the Chicago plot. Hmmm. I let that one simmer on the back burner. I guess I find myself becoming more convinced but I am not quite there yet.

Nevertheless. You think I am a fucking idiot. I think you are both a prick AND an asshole. So what? I am not going to engage you in some silly war. We both know who the enemy is -- or at least we would if we knew who the sponsors are. To me, you are not my enemy and we are not at war with each other. Period.

I think you would be more effective in your posts if you were not so full of invective. But then what would I know? I'm just a fucking idiot.

You started this.

You called for civility in the heat of battle.

You began the "asshole" and "prick" exchange.

And now you're offended.

So fuck off. Or stay. It's of no consequence to me.

But if I've let you down with my language and attitude, then perhaps it's because I previously elevated you.

And the same person who did so also comes on like an "asshole" and a "prick."

How can that be?

Figure it out, fucking idiot.

And you'll have a true friend in me -- the asshole prick.

I just opened a beer: "The fucking idiot drinks to the asshole prick." Now, back to the war. And once again, I know that you and I are not the war. Over and out.

And I raise a glass to you, my comrade.

Martin Hay
05-12-2012, 03:31 PM
Meanwhile back at the ranch...

Brilliant.

Pithy.

Très drole.

Shall we expect a substantive response? Or just more of the same "short bus" exclamations?

Why don't you start by posting something of substance that makes sense to folks other than yourself? Then I'll post a "substantive response".

Charles Drago
05-12-2012, 04:03 PM
[T]he FBI remains top of my list of suspects for sure.

I've often wondered if Hoover let James Earl Ray escape. When they picked up the obviously planted bundle from the doorway of Canipe's, they had evidence that should have led them straight to Ray - a radio with his Missouri State Pen inmate number on it. They could have traced the serial number on the radio, found out where and when it was sold, and then the inmate number would have given them Ray's name. But they didn't. Instead they searched for Eric Galt, surely knowing that it was an alias, until Ray was safely out of the US. And then they made only a half-assed attempt to extradite him, supplying the British court with little more than Charlie Stephens' "identification" and the promise of some fingerprint evidence that the bureau never delivered. And I can't help thinking that the FBI were hoping the UK would refuse to extradite him on such flimsy evidence so that they wouldn't have to try him with such a weak case and could continue convicting him in the press.

"Suspects" for WHAT?

I swear to Christ, it's as if the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model never was presented.

Have we learned NOTHING from our studies?

"The FBI" and "the CIA" conspired to kill neither JFK nor MLK.

You conflate the hammer with the carpenter.

You conflate the carpenter with the architect.

You conflate the architect with the homeowner.

The Sponsors are wetting themselves from laughter.

In the spirit of true comradeship I would like to explain to Lauren and all other interested parties the reasoning and emotions behind the word choice, subtext, and tone of my post above.

After repeated attempts at engaging the correspondents herein referenced and others with well-reasoned, respectfully constructed and presented arguments urging deeper, better-informed, deep politics-directed appreciations of conspiracy theory in general and JFK conspiracy theory in particular, they continue to fall back on the most simple-minded, self-destructive positions imaginable.

And then, having contributed yet again to the slow strangulation of our allegedly joint efforts, they slap each other on the back and raise their glasses to shared triumphs.

Just look at the only response they've been able to muster:

"Meanwhile back at the ranch ... " [sic]

You can't put a dollar sign on such high-quality intellectual product.

I have had e-fucking-nough of this insanity!

I stand by my original post -- the questions it poses, the chain of errors it reveals.

Let all who disagree come forward with well-reasoned counter-arguments.

Charles Drago
05-12-2012, 04:10 PM
Meanwhile back at the ranch...

Brilliant.

Pithy.

Très drole.

Shall we expect a substantive response? Or just more of the same "short bus" exclamations?

Why don't you start by posting something of substance that makes sense to folks other than yourself? Then I'll post a "substantive response".

Sorry, Martin. I have neither the time nor the inclination to lecture to the short bus kids.

And stop trying to project your ignorance onto the world at large. What I write makes a great deal of sense indeed to those who do not suffer from anal-cranial inversion.

Phil Dragoo
05-12-2012, 08:38 PM
In 2008 we had the ridiculous and the sublime.

Saint John Hunt gave us BOND OF SECRECY.

James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE: WHY HE DIED AND WHY IT MATTERED.

I heard Saint John Hunt telling his story to George Noory on Coast to Coast AM, downloaded, printed, punched and bound his ebook.

BOND OF SECRECY is the deathbed deflection of a career intelligence officer who is the author of 42 works of fiction—43 counting BOND OF SECRECY.

E. Howard Hunt, who confessed to Congress he’d forged cable traffic to frame JFK for the murders of Nhu and Diem claimed on his way out the door that it was LBJ what done it, cunningly relying on the jealousy of Cord Myer and the world-class talents of Lucien Sarti.

I sent Saint John Hunt a five-page email; there’s much to say but it can be condensed: Howard Hunt shunts the bloodhounds to the grave of the dead Texas facilitator. Even Hunt’s company is a facilitator. Who is the sponsor: not LBJ, not anyone in CIA. I speculate it may be Jabba the David, and if not, he’s heard something from his business associates scattered round the wonderful world, though some of them have the sod pulled up to their necks.

James Douglass delighted us with 400 pages of lyric historical diorama resting on 100 pages of well-compacted notes. JFK beset at every turn by the fog of the unspeakable.

Oh what characters we’ll see. A swarm of cloaked reapers moving to the tune of masked sponsors, that elite which uses nations and politics and religion to its ends.

My view of Hoover, and Johnson, and Nixon is that they were terra cotta warriors in the terra cotta legions of the high room of men whose whim is their mission.

3800

Martin Hay
05-13-2012, 06:46 AM
Meanwhile back at the ranch...

Brilliant.

Pithy.

Très drole.

Shall we expect a substantive response? Or just more of the same "short bus" exclamations?

Why don't you start by posting something of substance that makes sense to folks other than yourself? Then I'll post a "substantive response".

Sorry, Martin. I have neither the time nor the inclination to lecture to the short bus kids.

And stop trying to project your ignorance onto the world at large. What I write makes a great deal of sense indeed to those who do not suffer from anal-cranial inversion.

Good, then stay of my thread.

And stop trying to project your paranoid nonsense on those of us who wanna discuss what occurs in the real world.

Charles Drago
05-13-2012, 01:49 PM
"Your" thread?

I OWN this forum, you little pissant. You are on DPF because my co-owners and I allow you to be.

You have offered nothing but disruption here to date. I strongly suggest that you return to the EF, home of Morrow, Fetzer, and Cinque. You have no business here among the adult and righteous.

Martin Hay
05-13-2012, 02:39 PM
"Your" thread?

I OWN this forum, you little pissant. You are on DPF because my co-owners and I allow you to be.

You have offered nothing but disruption here to date. I strongly suggest that you return to the EF, home of Morrow, Fetzer, and Cinque. You have no business here among the adult and righteous.

Don't call me names, Charles.

I guarantee you wouldn't have the balls to call me a "pissant" to my face.

Would you like to explain to me how it is that by starting a single thread, aimed at creating a discussion without the type of childish name calling and personal attacks you have brought to the table, I am the one who has offered "nothing but disruption"?

Charles Drago
05-13-2012, 03:26 PM
Another tough guy heard from.

Take your "guarantee" empty threat of physical violence, and your cowardly, avoid-debate-at-all-costs "Meanwhile back at the ranch ... " ad hominem, and your literal mind elsewhere ... pissant!

Martin Hay
05-13-2012, 03:30 PM
Fine, have it your way, Charles. I'm not gonna get dragged into your childish bullshit.

I was led to believe this was a forum for intelligent people but you have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the exact opposite is true.

Please delete my account.

Greg Burnham
05-13-2012, 04:40 PM
Fine, have it your way, Charles. I'm not gonna get dragged into your childish bullshit.

I was led to believe this was a forum for intelligent people but you have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the exact opposite is true.

Please delete my account.

Martin,

If I might interject something here. Charles regularly uses the "fire test" to initiate the novice member and also to confirm bonafides. If/when you emerge from the other side of the oven you'll be glazed, but unharmed.

Charles Drago
05-13-2012, 06:34 PM
[T]he FBI remains top of my list of suspects for sure.

I've often wondered if Hoover let James Earl Ray escape. When they picked up the obviously planted bundle from the doorway of Canipe's, they had evidence that should have led them straight to Ray - a radio with his Missouri State Pen inmate number on it. They could have traced the serial number on the radio, found out where and when it was sold, and then the inmate number would have given them Ray's name. But they didn't. Instead they searched for Eric Galt, surely knowing that it was an alias, until Ray was safely out of the US. And then they made only a half-assed attempt to extradite him, supplying the British court with little more than Charlie Stephens' "identification" and the promise of some fingerprint evidence that the bureau never delivered. And I can't help thinking that the FBI were hoping the UK would refuse to extradite him on such flimsy evidence so that they wouldn't have to try him with such a weak case and could continue convicting him in the press.

"Suspects" for WHAT?

I swear to Christ, it's as if the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model never was presented.

Have we learned NOTHING from our studies?

"The FBI" and "the CIA" conspired to kill neither JFK nor MLK.

You conflate the hammer with the carpenter.

You conflate the carpenter with the architect.

You conflate the architect with the homeowner.

The Sponsors are wetting themselves from laughter.

Thanks, Monk. Hay is welcome here.

Above is my post to which he responded with "Meanwhile back at the ranch ... " If my reference to the "Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model" didn't ring a bell, he might have either asked for an explanation or sought out one on his own. Had he done either, the balance of the post might have made sense to him.

Had Hay responded to my "'the FBI' and 'the CIA'" construction and claims with honest query and/or disagreement, we would not be having this exchange.

So the ball is in his court. I've admired many of Hays's posts on EF, and I think that more of the same would make him an asset at DPF. And he's more than welcome to his threats of duels. He will be treated -- at least by me -- in a manner consistent with his own approach.
.

Greg Burnham
05-13-2012, 08:09 PM
[T]he FBI remains top of my list of suspects for sure.

I've often wondered if Hoover let James Earl Ray escape. When they picked up the obviously planted bundle from the doorway of Canipe's, they had evidence that should have led them straight to Ray - a radio with his Missouri State Pen inmate number on it. They could have traced the serial number on the radio, found out where and when it was sold, and then the inmate number would have given them Ray's name. But they didn't. Instead they searched for Eric Galt, surely knowing that it was an alias, until Ray was safely out of the US. And then they made only a half-assed attempt to extradite him, supplying the British court with little more than Charlie Stephens' "identification" and the promise of some fingerprint evidence that the bureau never delivered. And I can't help thinking that the FBI were hoping the UK would refuse to extradite him on such flimsy evidence so that they wouldn't have to try him with such a weak case and could continue convicting him in the press.

"Suspects" for WHAT?

I swear to Christ, it's as if the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model never was presented.

Have we learned NOTHING from our studies?

"The FBI" and "the CIA" conspired to kill neither JFK nor MLK.

You conflate the hammer with the carpenter.

You conflate the carpenter with the architect.

You conflate the architect with the homeowner.

The Sponsors are wetting themselves from laughter.

Thanks, Monk. Hay is welcome here.

Above is my post to which he responded with "Meanwhile back at the ranch ... " If my reference to the "Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model" didn't ring a bell, he might have either asked for an explanation or sought out one on his own. Had he done either, the balance of the post might have made sense to him.

Had Hay responded to my "'the FBI' and 'the CIA'" construction and claims with honest query and/or disagreement, we would not be having this exchange.

So the ball is in his court. I've admired many of Hays's posts on EF, and I think that more of the same would make him an asset at DPF. And he's more than welcome to his threats of duels. He will be treated -- at least by me -- in a manner consistent with his own approach.
.

You're welcome, Don Drago.

I too grow weary of the "CIA or FBI done it" drivel. However, it speaks more to the efficiency of their own psy-op programs than it does to the integrity or intellect of those who fall for it.

Phil Dragoo
05-13-2012, 08:28 PM
This is the word (suspects), and this is the matter: Resolved: That the major assassinations were not the decision of one of the classic false sponsors (e.g., CIA, FBI, Hoover, Johnson, Mafia, et cetera), but of a category called Sponsor whose motives transcend nationalism, religion, any particular ideology or provincial pursuit.

I don’t think Charles is showing any special affection here, but rather returning to a concept evolved from the work he shared with George Michael Evica in developing a theory of organization.

Years ago Craig I. Zirbel told us to focus on Johnson, then Barr McClellan, then Phillip Nelson, then Robert Morrow.

I categorize Johnson as another expendable tool, along with Hoover, Nixon, and others.

So many public figures are drenched with blood, but did not make the decision to pick up the knives, the guns, the napalm, and more exotic weapons.

L. Fletcher Prouty and Peter Dale Scott suggest the high cabal of Winston Churchill’s phrase.

When I see Hunt naming, framing, Johnson, I know in the instant they’re not in that car, so following it will not yield the sponsor.

Lyndon would say, “It’s not fried, Momma, it’s Shake-n-Bake, an’ I hepped.”

Yes, Junior, you certainly did.

Greg Burnham
05-13-2012, 10:43 PM
This is the word (suspects), and this is the matter: Resolved: That the major assassinations were not the decision of one of the classic false sponsors (e.g., CIA, FBI, Hoover, Johnson, Mafia, et cetera), but of a category called Sponsor whose motives transcend nationalism, religion, any particular ideology or provincial pursuit.

I don’t think Charles is showing any special affection here, but rather returning to a concept evolved from the work he shared with George Michael Evica in developing a theory of organization.

Years ago Craig I. Zirbel told us to focus on Johnson, then Barr McClellan, then Phillip Nelson, then Robert Morrow.

I categorize Johnson as another expendable tool, along with Hoover, Nixon, and others.

So many public figures are drenched with blood, but did not make the decision to pick up the knives, the guns, the napalm, and more exotic weapons.

L. Fletcher Prouty and Peter Dale Scott suggest the high cabal of Winston Churchill’s phrase.

When I see Hunt naming, framing, Johnson, I know in the instant they’re not in that car, so following it will not yield the sponsor.

Lyndon would say, “It’s not fried, Momma, it’s Shake-n-Bake, an’ I hepped.”

Yes, Junior, you certainly did.

Excellent, if not artistic, summation, Phil! As usual...

Tracy Riddle
12-28-2013, 02:01 PM
This started out as an interesting thread before it was derailed into the ditch.

I noticed in William Pepper's AN ACT OF STATE that Hoover is only mentioned a handful of times. The larger scenario at work is that of the Pentagon (specifically army intelligence) worrying about MLK leading a poor peoples' march on the capitol and having it turn into the Russian Revolution. After all the riots across the US during the previous year, and with all the troops in Vietnam, there just weren't enough available to put down any large scale violence that might threaten the Federal Government itself.

This was a much bigger problem for the Army than it was for Hoover. Army officers, with their rigid anti-Communist mindset, were certain that only they stood in the way of a Communist Revolution. In their view, they had a duty to the country to keep that from happening. They could either massacre thousands of protestors in the capitol with the whole world watching, or simply take out the leader of the movement with one bullet - for the "good of the nation." What if the Czar's military could have killed Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders before they took over? Surely no good American military man would let this happen.

So they used their assets in organized crime, the MPD and the CIA to do the dirty work, with military snipers present as backup.

Magda Hassan
12-28-2013, 10:35 PM
What if the Czar's military could have killed Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders before they took over? Surely no good American military man would let this happen.


The Czar's police were busy supporting the Bolsheviks as they feared the Anarchists.

David Guyatt
12-29-2013, 08:06 AM
This started out as an interesting thread before it was derailed into the ditch.

I noticed in William Pepper's AN ACT OF STATE that Hoover is only mentioned a handful of times. The larger scenario at work is that of the Pentagon (specifically army intelligence) worrying about MLK leading a poor peoples' march on the capitol and having it turn into the Russian Revolution. After all the riots across the US during the previous year, and with all the troops in Vietnam, there just weren't enough available to put down any large scale violence that might threaten the Federal Government itself.

This was a much bigger problem for the Army than it was for Hoover. Army officers, with their rigid anti-Communist mindset, were certain that only they stood in the way of a Communist Revolution. In their view, they had a duty to the country to keep that from happening. They could either massacre thousands of protestors in the capitol with the whole world watching, or simply take out the leader of the movement with one bullet - for the "good of the nation." What if the Czar's military could have killed Lenin and other Bolshevik leaders before they took over? Surely no good American military man would let this happen.

So they used their assets in organized crime, the MPD and the CIA to do the dirty work, with military snipers present as backup.

Ever since I read Pepper's book, I've felt that it made sense that the Pentagon were the sponsors of the MLK hit. I also harbour suspicions that they were the principal sponsors of the JFK hit too - because of his meddling in their cold war strategy, plus the oh so precious military industrial complex that had been developed in WWII.

Tracy Riddle
12-29-2013, 02:48 PM
I totally agree, David. The Pentagon is the real 900 lb gorilla in the room. The CIA gets to take the bad press - not that they aren't responsible for anything, but it's like the people who say "the mafia did it!" It ignores the close relationship between all these groups. The CIA's relationship with the Pentagon has sometimes been very rocky, but they cooperated on many things as well. The early CIA Directors (before Dulles) were all active-duty military men.

David Guyatt
12-29-2013, 03:40 PM
I totally agree, David. The Pentagon is the real 900 lb gorilla in the room. The CIA gets to take the bad press - not that they aren't responsible for anything, but it's like the people who say "the mafia did it!" It ignores the close relationship between all these groups. The CIA's relationship with the Pentagon has sometimes been very rocky, but they cooperated on many things as well. The early CIA Directors (before Dulles) were all active-duty military men.

Yep. One "lead manager" and a lot of interconnected participants. The same crew who run things today, too.

Tracy Riddle
12-29-2013, 09:02 PM
Right. I mean, look at Operation Northwoods - who drew it up? The Pentagon. Who was going to be assigned to go out and do the dirty tricks stuff? The CIA (and probably organized crime, though they were smart enough not to write that down in the plans).

David Guyatt
12-30-2013, 08:53 AM
Right. I mean, look at Operation Northwoods - who drew it up? The Pentagon. Who was going to be assigned to go out and do the dirty tricks stuff? The CIA (and probably organized crime, though they were smart enough not to write that down in the plans).

We're entirely on the same page here, Tracy.

On the supposed terrorist attack on the Pentagon on 911, I suspect this was simply and only to act as deflector shield to turn attention away from the Joint Chiefs as having any responsibility for the main show on that day... "we got hit too!" would've been the argument, I think.

My take also is that long ago the Pentagon wanted to have a separate source of funding besides that granted by the US state via politicians - who could pull it, or restrict it, in order to effect control over them. Hence the post Vietnam era - and growing all the time - US military involvement in the global drugs trade and the illicit sale of state bought arms to various parties around the world. In the early days of Indochina, people like Edward Lansdale, who later became a Major General, learned how the French military were running the Indochina war by trafficking opium, and thought what a damn good idea this was. Added to that, the US military had also seen how the SS and others used drugs (not to forget the highly profitable fake currency printing and distribution) as a way of financing their post WWII escape networks (like Odessa) in their latin American safe-havens.

On FUSD, in other words "fake US dollars" readers can do some digging on "superbills" (now known as 'superdollars' just t confuse things), but few will get back to the actual reality now, as so many artificial and confusing layers have now been added to the story placing the responsibility on Korea, Russia or various middle easter destinations. But the plates for these virtually perfect bank notes were found in South Africa, along with the plate man, who was arrested there by the US Secret Service. He was, curiously, a former US serviceman (Navy), who jumped ship in Cape Town many decades ago.

Magda Hassan
12-30-2013, 09:06 AM
....
On FUSD, in other words "fake US dollars" readers can do some digging on "superbills" (now known as 'superdollars' just t confuse things), but few will get back to the actual reality now, as so many artificial and confusing layers have now been added to the story placing the responsibility on Korea, Russia or various middle easter destinations. But the plates for these virtually perfect bank notes were found in South Africa, along with the plate man, who was arrested there by the US Secret Service. He was, curiously, a former US serviceman (Navy), who jumped ship in Cape Town many decades ago.
Now, that is some interesting secret history ::ninja::

David Josephs
12-31-2013, 12:08 AM
David - could you please source the "plates in Africa" comment.... I can't find info on it anywhere...
Thanks

----
To resurrect the passion of Mr Drago here for a moment...

JCS? CIA? DoD? MI? ONI?

I have always asked the question - WHO gave LeMay, Burkley, Galloway, the CIA, the ONI their orders at the SPONSOR level - or did they even have to? and what about Bundy and the other civilians?
who generated the initial smoke screen... SPONSOR or order taker?


The motivation of those who enjoy SPONSOR status is to raise the lever on those who will accomplish the desired end following their own motivations... while knowing in their heart of hearts that failure has its price.
The desire of the SPONOSR is to control absolutely... no competition, no losses - simply control all of it as thoroughly as possible for all of eternity...

"Ever since I read Pepper's book, I've felt that it made sense that the Pentagon were the sponsors of the MLK hit." -David G.


Help me out here David... how does the Pentagon benefit from the killing of MLK... as opposed to the actual SPONSOR level in which civil unrest leads to an entire population at each other's throats, too busy to watch the real villians rob us blind... The PENTAGON has no horse in that game from what I can tell.

Is it possible that MLK happened WITHOUT Sponsor sanction? Just the FBI getting fed up along with other Military neo-cons... as we both understand, killing MLK did nothing but martyr him and help the civil rights movement.. which in turn keeps the nation divided.. If the SPONSORS were ultra-national (and my belief is that most are European in backing and support) wouldn't a divided and war internal US be a help to their "plan" of complete and total control?

The PENTAGON spends money which enriches the SPONSORS...
The PENTAGON protects the interests of the SPONSORS around the world
The PENTAGON is an employment office for those aspiring to be useful to the SPONSOR level... or a reward for those who already have...

It is short-sighted to assume or suppose that HUMANS with all the power and money and control the SPONSOR level enjoys would not follow 1000's of years of social evolution...

Garrett Hardin quotes Situation Ethics by J Fletcher: the morality of an act is a function of the STATE OF THE SYSTEM at the time it is performed

The SPONSOR level has succeeded in creating a "State of the System" where their excesses cannot break thru that afternoon's realilty TV show or 53rd year of "One life to Live" (gee - talk about not getting THAT message)

And where internally - the ends always justify the means...

While we can see and feel and punish the Facilitators - it is tautological to find the SPONSORS beyond reproach and justice...
What I fail to understand BEYOND the model is what the system looks like WITHOUT the SPONSORS....

If you can offer any insight into that I'd appreciate it... From Plato to Hardin and beyond, I see no example of how it would work on a global scale
but am very interested in anyone's ideas

DJ


Facilitators come and go... SPONSORS are eternal, at least until the human condition and consciousness changes... to what is my current interest.

Like that scene from Goodfellas where Henry tells his wife not to worry... only wheelmen who fall asleep go to jail, not those who have it all worked out ahead of time....
or this one when he is first arrested "Keep your mouth shut, and NEVER rat on your friends"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-TemfMIxrk

Magda Hassan
12-31-2013, 12:22 AM
David - could you please source the "plates in Africa" comment.... I can't find info on it anywhere...
Thanks



DJ I moved David's follow up to this thread (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?12865-Fake-US-Dollars#.UsIOw6G9o6I) as I didn't want to derail this thread.

David Guyatt
12-31-2013, 08:47 AM
David, I responded to Magda's comments which you can find in the Banking folder under Fake US Dollars. I'm going to copy and paste it here as well, below:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Magda Hassan https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=81257#post81257)

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by David Guyatt https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=81256#post81256)
....
On FUSD, in other words "fake US dollars" readers can do some digging on "superbills" (now known as 'superdollars' just t confuse things), but few will get back to the actual reality now, as so many artificial and confusing layers have now been added to the story placing the responsibility on Korea, Russia or various middle easter destinations. But the plates for these virtually perfect bank notes were found in South Africa, along with the plate man, who was arrested there by the US Secret Service. He was, curiously, a former US serviceman (Navy), who jumped ship in Cape Town many decades ago.



Now, that is some interesting secret history ::ninja::



Yep, you'll not find it written about in any depth anywhere. I desperately wanted to write the story, some years ago, but on balance couldn't stand it all up - although I believed (and believe) it to be true, and had a very large research file about it, not to mention some insider info at that time.

I could bore you to tears about Intaglio printing presses and bank note quality paper - and I could additionally, talk at some length about a strange Poppy Bush era money switch that apparently went down in Manuel Noriega's Panama, that allegedly saw the sum of $8 billion fake bills switched on a two for one basis. I wrote about this in "The Pegasus File" and besides Chip Tatum's account, had confirmation of the Iranian aspect from a former intelligence connected Shah era Iranian - who witnessed part of it go down.

That Tatum story later led to a contact that went into great detail about the South African angle I mentioned above. I used to receive small parcels in the post that contained micro cassettes that were so arranged as to make it impossible for the envelope to be opened and tampered with, without leaving a trace. I had many of these cassettes over several years, and knew the voice to a T. Lots of accompanying paperwork too.

Then, during the South African Truth & Reconcilliation hearings, I listened to testimony given during the laughable "truth" and "reconciliation" of one Dr. Wouter Basson ( aka Dr. Death) - as nasty a bugger as you could ever pray not to meet. He was charged with an assortment of vile crimes (think nazi Dr. Mengele, and you've got it), including over 200 murders. And in the end, he got a gentle spank on his botty for his troubles. Some reconciliation, eh.

Anyway, during that period of testimony, up jumps a voice discussing one Basson murder "it" was a witness to, and guess what? I instantly recognised that voice...

It's a small world.

David Guyatt
12-31-2013, 09:13 AM
To add a little more to this, the arrest of the plateman by the US SS did not appear in any newspaper anywhere. That I am aware of anyway, and I looked. Hence you'll find nothing anywhere about this event. Period. For all intents and purposes it never happened. I don't even know if a prosecution took place. I suspect not given the below. But, at least, a main player was taken out of circulation, and the activities of people connected to one US agency were brought to a halt by the good work of members of another US agency. Not so much a turf war, I think, as a cleaning of the stables on this matter.

I was sent a contemporaneous micro-cassette giving a blow by blow account of the arrest, beginning just priot=r to it going down, then as it happened etc., complete with "sound effects". Besides that I had a full background of personalities involved and contacts etc. And the contacts of the plateman were extraordinarily interesting. A certain address of an apartment in Langley, Virginia. A drop box it seems. And that address was instantly recognised, as being the drop box also used by one other at an earlier time in that other persons career.

It's all long ago and I now am drawing on memory.

As I said, I wanted to write this story. Desperately so. But how do you stand something like this up? It would have been laughed off as being one man's crazed ravings.

So, in the end, I did nothing. I still regret that.

Tracy Riddle
12-31-2013, 02:02 PM
David Josephs - I have a problem with this shadowy "Sponsors" model because it sounds as though one group of nameless individuals is running the world (your quote: "Facilitators come and go... SPONSORS are eternal, at least until the human condition and consciousness changes") - when in fact the world is run by many different Elite and criminal groups. The US is divided up into several different factions - sometimes they cooperate, sometimes they compete with each other.

The Pentagon (the military-industrial complex) is absolutely enormous, and not run by one person or group. I worked in the defense industry for 10 years, and I live in a community with a heavy military presence. Unless you've been in that world, you can't get your head around how many agencies and departments and levels of bureaucracy there are. The US now has 16 intelligence agencies (that they've admitted to). They can't even keep track of where the money is going and what it's being spent on.

I used to have a high security clearance, but that doesn't mean you get to see any document stamped with that classification. You only get to see what your security manager lets you see (the "need to know.") There is so much compartmentalization, you literally don't know what the people in the next room are working on. And you don't ask. This is the perfect climate for conspiracies. This is how you can have drug & arms trafficking and human trafficking and false flag operations being done by different factions. Factions made up of a few dozen or a few hundred people.

High up in the officer classes, at least since the late 19th century, they were indoctrinated with militarism and anti-communism and American "exceptionalism." Think of ancient Sparta and modern Prussia. Many of them had nothing but contempt for civilians, especially those on the Left, but also the money-grubbing Wall Street types too. They saw themselves as the true guardians of the American Way of Life. They have a totally different mindset than civilians. Think of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, or Burt Lancaster in Seven Days in May.

“In [Gen. Lyman] Lemnitzer’s view, the country would be far better off if the generals could take over.” (James Bamford, Body of Secrets)

Albert Doyle
12-31-2013, 08:29 PM
David Josephs - I have a problem with this shadowy "Sponsors" model because it sounds as though one group of nameless individuals is running the world (your quote: "Facilitators come and go... SPONSORS are eternal, at least until the human condition and consciousness changes") - when in fact the world is run by many different Elite and criminal groups. The US is divided up into several different factions - sometimes they cooperate, sometimes they compete with each other.







The evidence of Sponsors is like the evidence of God. They have to exist because of all that points to them in all things involved in the assassination. Although I've come to the conclusion that perhaps machiavellian chess players like Angleton and Dulles either created the suggestion of Kennedy's assassination or were given strong hints for it by their intel/pentagon peers and then bounced the idea out to the Sponsors who then approved and sent it back to those main facilitators for action. That way those who controlled and profited from the assassination (Sponsors) would be safely above and out of the loop. I think CIA had a particularly key role in being the reality-creators or chess masters designed for this very purpose. I see a not-necessarily-accidental coincidence between God being called Universal Intelligence and our political fixers (CIA) being called "Central Intelligence". I think we know who thought they were God and it wasn't JFK.

I think the Drago model holds true.

David Josephs
12-31-2013, 10:33 PM
David Josephs - I have a problem with this shadowy "Sponsors" model because it sounds as though one group of nameless individuals is running the world (your quote: "Facilitators come and go... SPONSORS are eternal, at least until the human condition and consciousness changes") - when in fact the world is run by many different Elite and criminal groups. The US is divided up into several different factions - sometimes they cooperate, sometimes they compete with each other.

The Pentagon (the military-industrial complex) is absolutely enormous, and not run by one person or group. I worked in the defense industry for 10 years, and I live in a community with a heavy military presence. Unless you've been in that world, you can't get your head around how many agencies and departments and levels of bureaucracy there are. The US now has 16 intelligence agencies (that they've admitted to). They can't even keep track of where the money is going and what it's being spent on.

I used to have a high security clearance, but that doesn't mean you get to see any document stamped with that classification. You only get to see what your security manager lets you see (the "need to know.") There is so much compartmentalization, you literally don't know what the people in the next room are working on. And you don't ask. This is the perfect climate for conspiracies. This is how you can have drug & arms trafficking and human trafficking and false flag operations being done by different factions. Factions made up of a few dozen or a few hundred people.

High up in the officer classes, at least since the late 19th century, they were indoctrinated with militarism and anti-communism and American "exceptionalism." Think of ancient Sparta and modern Prussia. Many of them had nothing but contempt for civilians, especially those on the Left, but also the money-grubbing Wall Street types too. They saw themselves as the true guardians of the American Way of Life. They have a totally different mindset than civilians. Think of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, or Burt Lancaster in Seven Days in May.

“In [Gen. Lyman] Lemnitzer’s view, the country would be far better off if the generals could take over.” (James Bamford, Body of Secrets)


According to the Drago/Evica Model - from which we must take our meanings:
SPONSORS -- Those with the authority andmotive to sanction the assassination and the connections to engage facilitatingagents and systems.
Among them in my (C.Drago) opinion: the mostpowerful supra-national entities who were -- and are -- above Cold War and Clashof Civilization cosmetic differences.

FALSE SPONSORS – These are selected primarily from involved high-levelFACILITATORS and otherwise uninvolved entities who logically might have comeunder suspicion.
Among them in my (C. Drago) opinion: LBJ, the CIA, the Mob, anti-Castro Cubans, Big Business, Big Oil, Castro, Khrushchev, etc.


Tracy - I do not see it as "one group of nameless individuals is running the world" but those that control very obvious industries and countries... and I agree, there are of course MANY groups...

Yet in the human world there is ALWAYS a TOP OF THE PYRAMID and everyone else... many of whom working their angles to get to this TOP.
You honestly think the drug lords of Afghanistan RUN anything without the approval, mercy and payment of others?
Who has more power than the Federal Reserve?
Who influences more in this world than the CFR and related "groups"?

Your statement about the Pentagon virtually INSURES that the SPONSORS are not there... too much BS to deal with... to many hurdles... they, as you wrote are indeed the "guardians of the American Way of Life" which means Business/Financial expansion while devastaing any competition... The IMF and World Banks are perfect examples. Bechtel in Bolivia... Haliburton in the Middle East... etc, etc, etc....

The SPONSOR could care less about the "American way of life" other than how it lines pockets and increases control.

As I have tried in the past to illustrate, the SPONSOR level not only controls some of the movements but takes advantage of ALL of the movements they can... not EVERYTHING that occurs is according to some plan... yet I think we can be sure that by definition, the SPONSORS are in a position to exploit these occurances - It just makes a bit more sense to see that MANY things that happen do happen for a reason, as you've said - that we as mere mortals with limited vision can barely grasp, see or understand in a SPONSOR context.

The SPONSOR has at their resource thousands and thousands of workers thinking of ways to "maximize profit" via any means possible... in virtually every industry and corner of the globe.

Not every action of the SPONSOR need be detrimental to the populations it affects... SPONSORS deliver to the masses via altruism, everything they can think of to make profit...
whether that which they deliver is in the best interest of those who are taking it - is an entirely different conversation... and leads us back to the Tragedy of the Commons...

The sad part here is that SPONSOR envokes visions of Michael Douglass' "Star Chamber"... only on a global scale. To believe that these SPONSORS do not work in both their own and the group's best interest is to ignore all of human evolution.

This has been going on for a long time... and while this illustration may be overstepping slightly... much of what we do today comes from the tactics of Queen Elizabeth the 1st and the British East India Trading Company.

"The prosperity that the officers of the company enjoyed allowed them to return to Britain and establish sprawling estates and businesses, and to obtain political power."


5619

Peter Lemkin
01-24-2014, 05:41 PM
For a mind-blowing great talk [Part I of II] by William Pepper on the King Assassination...listen here!! (http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/99367)::sherlock::