Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: For Charles Drago

  1. Default For Charles Drago

    GO_SECURE

    monk


    "It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."

    James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)

  2. Default No blood? No gunshot wound evident?

    I recall in the early '70s, while driving along a city street, a car in front of me stopped in the traffic lane and the occupants got out to check on a gentleman laying on the sidewalk. I stopped as well, and the man appeared to be in his early/mid 20s, unconsious but breathing. An ambulance was summoned, but before it arrived, I heard the man groan and then stiffen, and he then went limp and appeared to have died. There was no blood that I saw, and no evidence of a gunshot or wound of any kind was noticed, but I learned from a newspaper report that the gentleman was DOA, and had been shot in his armpit. So, to imply Oswald was shot later because of a lack of blood evident, I have witnessed a situation where the victim was shot but had no obvious bleeding, and therefore don't believe the shot in ambulance story.

  3. #3

    Default

    "Even as DCI Dulles did not give orders, he took them." -- Greg Burnham

    Indeed.

    Allen Dulles, true Facilitator and false Sponsor of the JFK assassination.

    Ditto "the CIA."

    Thanks, Greg.

  4. Default

    Big deja vu moment for me.

    I've posted on this forum before that many years ago now, I had delightfully discovered the Rich DellaRosa JFK Assassination Forum.

    I thought I had the assassination all figured out. "This guy Dulles. It's so obvious. Why isn't everyone shouting this from the hills?"

    I posted my Dulles theory on the board, and Greg was kind enough to take the time to correct me. I remember Robert Charles-Dunne also took the time to leave a lengthy response that would help in re-shaping my thinking of what happened to President Kennedy.

    "Stan, Dulles didn't give orders. He took them," Greg said at the time.

    The truth has a funny of way taking hold, if you allow it in and don't feel the necessity to be "right" all the time.

    Their are some great minds that have been drawn to this case, and I do feel there is something collective in nature going on. If you can recognize light, it's always a good start.

  5. #5

    Default

    The CIA had enough involvement that they can't be let off the hook with sponsor/facilitator logic. After all it is their job to expose such things, which is a betrayal of their function towards our democracy. What worries me about this sponsor/facilitator business is due blame and action is backed-off of because people are waiting to present the perfect china shop of evidence. These people risk looking like they are afraid to confront CIA.

  6. #6

    Default

    I smell a rat over there. Has ANYONE ever suggested that Ruby fired a blank? "Harvey" could not have faked that reaction and why would he? Not to say he was not finished off for good measure. No clue there. I could not help but weighing in as I see that he has no bio, and a gogle search of him turns up zero. From where did he come? Says he's a retired atty but the pics looks too young to be retired. And since when do you get to call names at EF? Gee the place has really gone downhill eh? :rocker:

    Dawn

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Doyle View Post
    The CIA had enough involvement that they can't be let off the hook with sponsor/facilitator logic. After all it is their job to expose such things, which is a betrayal of their function towards our democracy. What worries me about this sponsor/facilitator business is due blame and action is backed-off of because people are waiting to present the perfect china shop of evidence. These people risk looking like they are afraid to confront CIA.
    Albert,

    What to you is fear of commitment is, to me and other, the struggles to discover truth and effect justice.

    In your zeal to finger the CIA as the ... dare I use the term ... collective "mastermind" of the JFK assassination, you join Phillip Nelson and Jim Fetzer in (inadvertently?) providing deep cover for the true Sponsors.

    Again -- and I harbor no illusions about your ability to dismount from the lame Langley nag -- the CIA was/is a horse, not a rider.

    You've yet to define "the CIA" in terms of the JFK assassination. And that's because you can't.

    Were senior CIA officers involved in the plot as high- and mid-level Facilitators? YES! (Confrontational enough for you?)

    Did those senior CIA officers sponsor the plot? NO!

    By definition, could any CIA officer be in a position to sponsor the plot? NO!

    Further, when you obsess over CIA involvement, you implicitly describe the assassination as an act of the American deep political state. This simplistic conclusion helps insulate the true Sponsors and the systems they rule.

    But since you insist upon rejecting the validity and effectiveness of the Evica/Drago Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model, then by all means provide your own conspiracy model and defend it (in the academic sense) as I defend E/D.

    We're all cyber-ears ...

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Drago View Post
    But since you insist upon rejecting the validity and effectiveness of the Evica/Drago Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model, then by all means provide your own conspiracy model and defend it (in the academic sense) as I defend E/D.

    We're all cyber-ears ...



    But that's too easy Charles and is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not rejecting the Evica model - it's highly important and has taught me something. And I'm no more threatening to protect the real sponsors than Mark Lane is with his title "My Indictment Of The CIA". I think it says something that Mark Lane, at his age, chooses to send a last message directly accusing the CIA. Lane doesn't accuse them of being the masterminds nor do I. Those are words you put in my mouth, not I. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that the Evica model does soundly expose CIA involvement to a significant degree and that their involvement can be pressed and emphasized within the Evica model without dismissing or ignoring the greater sponsors. Whether intended or not the overemphasis of the sponsor part of the model might come at the expense of recognizing real players and their significance.

    I might equally accuse others of dismissing responsible recognition by ignoring how CIA is responsible for preventing such things within their own house. CIA Internal Affairs just so happened to be run by Angleton. The Assassination was no more CIA's than Viet Nam was, even though Viet Nam is referred to as "The CIA's war". From what I've read it is fairly reasonable to conclude there were greater sponsors influencing the facilitators. So now that we know that why not go after those CIA violators? In my opinion it's not an all or nothing proposition.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan Wilbourne View Post
    Big deja vu moment for me.

    I've posted on this forum before that many years ago now, I had delightfully discovered the Rich DellaRosa JFK Assassination Forum.

    I thought I had the assassination all figured out. "This guy Dulles. It's so obvious. Why isn't everyone shouting this from the hills?"

    I posted my Dulles theory on the board, and Greg was kind enough to take the time to correct me. I remember Robert Charles-Dunne also took the time to leave a lengthy response that would help in re-shaping my thinking of what happened to President Kennedy.

    "Stan, Dulles didn't give orders. He took them," Greg said at the time.

    The truth has a funny of way taking hold, if you allow it in and don't feel the necessity to be "right" all the time.

    Their are some great minds that have been drawn to this case, and I do feel there is something collective in nature going on. If you can recognize light, it's always a good start.
    Hi Stan,

    I remember a year ago or so when Charles and I first began getting acquainted with each other...you recounted what had taken place a decade earlier on the JFKresearch Forum. I hadn't thought about that exchange since it originally took place. When I began reading this guy's junk on the EF, it seemed like the most rational reply that I could offer him. So, thank you for refreshing my memory, it came in handy--and, it felt good, too. I thought Charles would especially appreciate it, as well. I was proved right by this reply to Albert:

    "Again -- and I harbor no illusions about your ability to dismount from the lame Langley nag -- the CIA was/is a horse, not a rider."
    Bingo.
    GO_SECURE

    monk


    "It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."

    James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawn Meredith View Post
    I smell a rat over there. Dawn

    More likely an overactive imagination.


    This theory necessitates the ambulance crew shutting-up while CIA plugs Oswald in the ambulance with a silencer. Most likely a simple interview with the ambulance crew would dismiss this theory.

    Another nearby clue would be analysis of Ruby's gun to see if all the other bullets were real. If the cops thought he was trying to get off another round then this blank theory crumbles.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •