The Wintry Gales of Reason

Some who represent the opposing sides debating conspiracy have seemingly forgone reasonable debate. Many remain skeptical and willing to discuss the contending evidence, others have made their decision. They do not feasibly consider most verifiable facts to deduce probable outcomes. They cannot imagine primary evidence could refute their current ideas. This has left many on the losing side of history.

"Half a century passes, yet our focus remains not on the moon but on the finger pointing to it.  As the 50th anniversary of the Dallas operation loomed, petitions were being signed to convince the praetorian guard of John F. Kennedy's killers to stand down and allow the truth to be spoken and justice to be pursued during the official observance of the assassination scheduled to be staged - and I do mean "staged"....at the appointed hour, the black mass was celebrated. Cracked bells tolled, crocodile tears flowed, deceit-driven litanies were regurgitated, truth and justice banished, and sheets of foolscap bearing the name of self-anointed warrior petitioners were cut into small, uniform squares with which the conspiracy's contemporary Facilitators would wipe their..." (Charles R. Drago) i.

While I agree that a feasible assassination conspiracy occurred, the "Dallas Operation" is not conclusively proven. Drago's lengthy diatribe regarding his feelings about the official event subsequently held in Dealey Plaza, is irrelevant and biased. His confrontational and pseudo-revolutionary prose is unnecessary and counterproductive to actual discussion. Critics and advocates have personally insulted me for my contentions based on evidence they do not "believe", yet it remains on the primary legal record. Evidence does not require you to believe, it is self-evident. If someone wishes to contend evidence, reasonably must provide a substantial evidentiary basis to do so.  

"Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that a criminal conspiracy resulted in the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime." (Charles Drago)

Drago speculates not only that he possesses an insight keener than his detractors do, but also claims those who doubt are fools or guilty of aiding his asserted dark forces. These futile demands are reminiscent of the sightless bias some past officials exhibited. Perhaps in his seeming militancy, Drago has unfortunately assumed the reprehensible intellectual standards and methods of some he decries. These baseless requirements serve only to enforce flawed standards of intellectual conformity.  

"Are our sins, our failures of judgment and will, attributable to the sub-conscious fear that, as a consequence of the attainment of knowledge of the truth and the effecting of justice, we shall bring about the destruction of the self? Destruction of the nation? Are we prepared to declare total war on our blood enemies: the assassins and their allies? Should we impose moral constraints on our strategies and tactics? What would constitute victory in such a war? Can we untie to overcome the egotism and greed that from the beginning have divided us and guaranteed our impotency? Who are we? Should we define ourselves as warriors? Scholars? Victims? (Charles Drago)

This seems a conflation of actual philosophical inquires and investigating a feasible assassination conspiracy. The assassination conspiracy is a vast murder case with significant evidence to support feasible limited nefarious intent. It is not a logical prism in which to develop or initiate a worldview. No actual blood enemies exist, most directly connected to the case with motive, means, and opportunity are dead.

Drago seeks to find insights among higher quandaries regarding this case. Yet these two pursuits are distant and not reasonably intertwined. The case of John F. Kennedy's assassination cannot reasonably define intrinsic philosophical standards. Drago rhetorical questions and his declaration of war offer ranting in place of compelling evidence. He and those who support hyperbolic grand claims without sufficient evidence are not warriors, nor scholars. They are victims of self-fulfilling speculation.   

"I define justice in the case of the assassination of John F. Kennedy as the utilization of the attainable absolute truth to cleanse or, if necessary, deconstruct and rebuild the system responsible for the assassination and related crimes....I herein restate my original call for the extension of blanket immunity-amnesty to all surviving conspirators, contingent upon their coming forward and telling the truth (the offer to be made by an independent special prosecutor as appointed by the Congress of the United Sates; there can be no meaningful healing of America's most grievous self-inflicted wound that is not self-administered)" (Charles Drago)

What Drago now proposes is not improbable, but impossible. Using the truth to "cleanse" what errors and sins Drago believes some are guilty of is ludicrous. What he suggests is a social tyranny built upon his ideas. Justice is not the suggesting of possible deconstruction of public offices and laws to which you do not subscribe. We live in a democratic Republic where the people can effect change, slow decades long deliberate change. With methodical and reasoned discourse and research, many have and continue to add to the body of knowledge available. 

Just because an assassination conspiracy is feasible, does not mean it is conclusive. Just as some conspiracy critics assert Oswald's guilt, some conspiracy advocates indict many officials without conclusive evidence. President Johnson and Lee Harvey Oswald each deserve the presumption of innocence, unless substantial primary evidence supports their guilt. Emotional pleas do not serve as evidence. Diligent evidentiary verification is more important than self-righteous bias.

"Without the succor offered by these ( and related) lies-as-history- which is to say, with their long denied counter-realities (...the disenfranchisement of the American electorate that took place on November 22, 1963. Et al) broadly accepted in their stead- no rational citizen of good character could do less than plot the drastic overhaul, if not the overthrow of a system of government clearly revealed to be without legal and moral justifications. So perhaps our illusions are more important to that most sacrosanct of crusades, the preservation of the Union, than is the truth. More important than justice...Or we can fight!" (Charles Drago)

Perhaps among the few points I agree with Drago upon is that democratic voting was indeed denied by a sniper's rifle. Yet to demand an overhaul of society is preferable or required to achieve justice is untenable. It does not require a reordered society agreeable to the biased conception of any small citizen group. That is the reverse of democracy, it does not allow reasoned criticism based upon all the evidence, including evidence we may disagree with.

The Union, according to Drago can be set aside if it should complicate his asserted goals. Again, these pseudo-revolutionary calls do not actually have relevant effects on the case as it stands. These demands for greater conflict achieve a vague and self-assured demeanor that fails to support the claims offered. Judging officials and critics based upon merely emotion and personal bias is a quixotic endeavor.

The investigation of this matter, in my view, requires the abandonment of ridiculous beliefs and claims. I would suggest the neutral regard of all verified evidence. I have noted claims similar to Drago's that critics and advocates of conspiracy employ. They like Drago are mistaken. I hope that in time such people might consider the rigorous casework itself. Perhaps they might consider hundreds of thousands of pages documents required to gain reasonable understanding.

Instead of calling for "crusades", "overthrow", and mass indictment of those who oppose your ideas, perhaps attempt to decipher new insights regarding the case. Imagine all the wasted mental and physical exertion that has occurred to launch deficient attacks without evidence. So many personal and grand insults to the asserted faceless enemy and those Drago claims are its minions. He forgets a conspiracy of such massive scale and size is not probable, nor supported by evidence. Many famous critics and advocates of conspiracy have precipitously claimed to have solved the major questions.

"A PLEA FOR THE DECLARATION OF WAR: We are at war with the murderers of John F. Kennedy and the murderer's of America. And I am sickened by the mercy we extend to a merciless enemy each time we treat with collegiality their disgraced surrogates. But before we can know our enemy, we must know ourselves. Define ourselves. Be at peace with and possess the courage of our conviction. Unite in a common crusade, the substance of which renders our superficial stylistic differences meaningless....How should any of us care about truth and justice in this  treat the well respected JFK newsletter editor, ostensibly on the side of the angels, who wrote (I paraphrase), "We have to accept the possibility that Oswald did it alone?" (Charles Drago)

Drago theme is seemingly to declare war on things he contends. Yet this vague declaration has no appreciable value. Drago's tone has the seeming of Robespierre and McCarthy. Emotional pleas to destroy without thought to reason and justification. Everyone who does not agree is an enemy or ignorant.

Those who would generally agree with feasible conspiracy do not go far enough according to Drago. His standards require denouncing opposed views, even should those views enjoy the support of primary evidence.  He fails to understand we must accept the unlikely possibility Oswald is singularly guilty. Only by genuine consideration of this unfeasible possibility can unbiased inquiry occur. Revealing the contending primary evidence, not calling for war shall decide the matter.  

"Or the influential and celebrated researcher, ostensibly on the side of the angels, who, at the Boston public meeting of the Assassination Records Review Board, graciously greeted and patronized the infamous, wizened madam of the Warren whores? Or the widely praised journalist, biographer, and FOIA lawsuit-bringing blog owner, ostensibly on the side of the angles, who refuses to acknowledge the truth of conspiracy because he cannot name the conspirators..." (Charles Drago)

Drago fails to name the people he is so obviously believes are against his "war". He rails against the reasonable treatment of those who disagree with his beliefs. He judges those who may agree as deficient if they fail to meet his various untenable standards. To prove a feasible conspiracy requires the naming of at least some key officials involved. To accomplish this great feat requires using primary exhibits to establish a preponderance of evidence.

Utilizing the same legal requirements officials used as the base standard provides evidence to establish the most probable ideas. These ideas must stand against contending evidence to be feasible. Feasible public and self-criticism should illicit reconsideration of untenable claims. No one has all the important answers supported by verifiable proof. Debate on the matter would not contentiously rage five decades later if all the important questions were answered.

 Hoover and Helms agreed the case might be open forever. ii. iii. I of course disagree, yet only time will tell. Patient, focused, reasonable discourse and evidence are weapons greater than Drago suggestion of ideological plowshares to swords. Such thoughts are deficient; they in my view represent a failure to attain perspective. The death of John F. Kennedy is not a single man's cause, nor shall flawed methods further his legacy. History has revealed many ignorant, vile, and unjust actions in the name of countless governments and societies. Historical judgment should rely upon historical fact and evidence.   

"In our time we dare not be about the historian's cold work, except as a tactic in a greater campaign. Unless of course, we are willing to concede that the for justice in this case cannot be won. Unless we are willing to concede that the case has indeed as Anthony Summers feared, 'toppled over the boundary between current affairs and history.' I for one make no such concessions. We are fighting a war about which future historians can in good conscience argue with professional detachment. But be advised: Their judgments of our acts today will be harsh and even damning if we do not comport ourselves as warriors engaged in what is a truly life or death struggle. If, instead we fade away without commotion, with all of our failures and all of sins in full blossom." (Charles Drago)

Unbiased historical research is paramount. This "cold" work should always have been the central focus of those contending the official findings. Perhaps the debate remains stagnant in some respects due to repeated misinformation touted as fact, and the lack of evidentiary standards used by those engaging in it. The scholar and researcher can accomplish what grand warrior declarations have not. How many dozens of critics and advocates of conspiracy have previously claimed to solve the case? Now consider the seemingly less bold who claim to have written the definitive text on the matter. 

Yet some engage in finding the actual evidence. No talk of philosophical war is upon a rational agenda, they are too busy doing research. We do not waste time insulting our detractors, their own words define them. We attack untenable ideas and offer evidence to support our contentions, and do not make emotional judgments. Corrupt officials and those who blindly seek to judge others on belief, not evidence, use these tactics.

Undertaking commotions of no substance guided by speculation is far worse than fading away. All fade away to some degree in the eternal vault of history. Yet if our deeds and ideas are compelling, we are never forgotten. To abandon reasonable methods and standards of logic for self-gratifying dogma is to surrender before the debate has truly begun.  

"A CALL FOR PASSION: We must understand that, as far as our work is concerned, the repression of passion assures ultimate failure. (Quoting the memoir of Peter Hamill) 'I let out a wail, a deep scary banshee wail...' We are obliged by our special knowledge- and by the very fact that we are alive to comb gray hair- as was John Fritzgerald Kennedy obliged by his privilege, to do the good that others have not the power to do. We can begin by looking the nation searchingly in the face. By treating its deep disease. By kicking over the garbage can." (Charles Drago)

Passion is vital to many endeavors human beings undertake. However, this passion must be controlled; it must be used to benefit the endeavor. If wild passions are unchecked, they can consume us. They can overtake any semblance of objective inquiry. Should we allow reason to be a servant to base passion, our cause is lost. Some concede the goal in favor of comfortable declarations.

Drago assumes "We", he and his supporters, possess a "special knowledge". This poorly conceived tactic has been employed countless times in history. Various religious and official groups have ever claimed a special knowledge or insight unavailable to most. They attempt to claim a conclusive understanding of events that cannot be challenged despite the observable evidence. If the majority of primary evidence does not support an idea, it remains passionately incorrect.

Post Script-2014


"My reevaluation of this work nearly 18 years after its initial publication continues...Today I am mistrustful of the emotions that drive and would justify my bellicose imagery and attitudes. I am exploring...non violent resistance that "truth force" inspires...My blood still boils, my fists still clench...perhaps my original, long shelved idea for the creation of a formal, government-run JFK assassination Truth and Amnesty Commission... Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that a criminal conspiracy resulted in the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime." (Charles Drago)

I am breifly pleased to see that Drago has reconsidered his nearly impossible former ideas. Self-doubt regarding misdirected passion is a reasonable conclusion. Yet his blood still boils. His fists still clench. Now he entreats a Commission according his plans may be acceptable. Having nearly two decades to reflect upon these claims, he returns to his original pronouncement that all who oppose his ideas are fools or responsible.

The substance of these ideas has not truly changed. Despite his enmity for the official story, Drago too has evolved little from his original claims. He like the Commission does not offer conclusive evidence, but the evidence he regards as sufficient. Each desires the repression and condemnation of contending primary evidence and witnesses. Insults and virulent passion are not the basis of valid inquiry.  

 Sincerely,

C. A. A. Savastano

[url=neamg.com]neamg.com[/url]

[url=facebook/NeapMG]facebook/NeapMG[/url]



i. Charles R. Drago, In the Blossoms of Our Sins- An Eleventh Hour Pleas for War and its Absolutions, November 22, 1996, assassinationofjfk.net


ii. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities Report, Bk. 5, Part V, Summary and Findings p.77


 iii. United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect To Intelligence Activities Report Book 5: Performance of the Intelligence Agencies I., Summary and Findings, p. 34


If you wish to view more Charles Drago's ideas, see:home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/fifty/ blossom.html

Charles Drago is essentially right about the patent perfidy and illegitimacy of all US government administrations since 1963. Though one could be benign disingenuous and date it from 1979, the year the HSCA Report was published.
 
The HSCA investigation was an official US government investigation into the JFK assassination and it found that there was a conspiracy*. The investigation was flawed but that is another matter. Insofar as the HSCA did not determine the nature of the conspiracy or who exactly was involved, it was the solemn duty of the US government to conduct a follow up investigation to pursue those aspects.
 
No US government has conducted such an investigation. That is a despicable betrayal of democracy in the US and of its people. It means that every US government administration since at least 1979 is an accessory after the fact to the assassination of the democratically elected President John F Kennedy.
 
Drago is right.
 
 

*The HSCA found that there probably was a conspiracy. Balance of probability is the relevant standard of proof in investigations such as that of the HSCA. Therefore the finding of the HSCA was to all intents and purposes that there was a conspiracy.

Goban,

          Agreeing with Drago does not provide credence for his overreaching statements. Evidence provides the foundation to make reasonable statements. Those who disregard large segments of the official evidence as tainted, unworthy, and compromised have only speculation and their beliefs to rely upon. That is my view is not reasonable inquiry. To disregard all the evidence you do not support requires substantial proof. You can rail and make empty declarations for years and create no change but self assured speculation.

Many governments have conducted unfair and incomplete investigations (Soviet Russia), yet even if the United States was the only one guilty of conducting such a disjointed and incomplete investigation, that still does not prove a single instance Drago and his supporters claim. The failure of government to act in accordance with the law does not automatically reveal nefarious intent, it disregards incompetence and suppression based on illegitimate reasoning as well. Suppression and deception have occurred and still occur regarding far less than Presidential assassination conspiracy (Iran Contra, Watergate, Operation Mockingbird, the effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam, the death of Afghanistan soldier Patrick Tillman). It does not require a huge group, nor the "blood enemies" Drago refers to. 
 
In the depths of emotional vanity and misplaced self importance are such claims made. Instead of demanding answers perhaps seek them and discuss them, rather than declaring the views of all who do not believe in your untenable claims are complicit or fools. Thus Goban, he is wrong on every major contention by standards of reason and evidence in my view. Additionally primary evidence is required. Your free to believe what you wish of course. Yet belief does not prove assertions, evidence does.

Carmine, I agree with Charles Drago in his essential point that no further proof is necessary regarding the ‘Big Picture’ and I have provided ‘credence’ for that in my previous post.
 
In the second paragraph of your post you seem to address my assertion that every US government since 1979, if not since 1963, has been an accessory after the fact to the assassination of JFK.
 
You don’t disagree with my assertion. Instead you offer some excuses for the murderous criminality of successive US governments in this respect.
 
That (and your failure to otherwise address the specific contents of my post) would suggest that if there is any ‘credence’ problem it lies with your position rather than mine – or Charles Drago’s.
 
When you say, ‘In the depths of emotional vanity and misplaced self importance are such claims made’ you seem to flout the principles you repeatedly invoke. What objective (or indeed psychiatric) evidence do you have to substantiate this assertion?
 
I have homed in on this last point in an attempt to deflect the discussion from degenerating into ‘the frog-spawn of a blind man’s ditch/A blind man battering blind men’ (WB Yeats) type of ‘debate’ that is all too common in the blogosphere.

Goban,

            As I previously stated you have every right to agree with Drago, yet that does not give credence to your opinions. Most officials are not accessories after the fact because the enormous conspiracy required. To attempt to lay complicity upon those unconnected who later investigated the situation is not legal, nor reasonable in my view. Again your view of the "murderous criminality" of government is opinion. If Mr. Drago, you, or anyone wished to test these claims sue the government and perhaps in time you may achieve progress. Just as Dr. King's family did.

Your ideas, like Drago's in my view is not based upon evidence and are untenable. Repeating the claim for 18 years, as Drago has done offers no proof. The blanket assertions of those who disagree being criminal or fools is illogical passion without evidentiary foundation. If everyone who disagrees with you is wrong by definition without true consideration, perhaps the problem is not them.

When I stated that I have given my assessment of these untenable claims I did not suggest Drago had mental problems, that is what he suggests of those who do not agree. It is not my responsibility to disprove claims without evidence or reasonable expectations of inquiry. Your free to blame me, as Drago blames dark forces instead of accepting the work and research necessary to prove his claims. I have not, nor shall personally attack anyone I disagree with. I find such tactics childish and unproductive. Perhaps you might suggest to Mr.Drago that he consider similar methods.

Carmine, there’s a temptation to ‘fisk’ this latest post by you but there are so many flaws in it nobody would read the resulting disquisition and anyway you’d probably only come back with more straw man arguments and non sequiturs.
 
I’ll just deal with the following brief extract that’s typical of your overall approach:
 
"Again your view of the "murderous criminality" of government is opinion. If Mr. Drago, you, or anyone wished to test these claims sue the government and perhaps in time you may achieve progress. Just as Dr. King's family did."
 
Regarding your first sentence here, you have already tacitly accepted that every US government since 1979 is an accessory after the fact to the assassination of JFK. The reason you have tacitly accepted this is the obvious one: There is no way to logically refute it.
 
So it’s not just ‘opinion’. It’s a statement of fact.
 
You follow this sentence with two non sequiturs that have no bearing on the validity of that statement. There is no obligation on Charles Drago, me or anyone else to prove a fact that even you have accepted as self evident.

As the lawyers say, res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself).

Do you guys need mediation?  Because I know someone with an Uncle Vito if you do. He has a diploma in it from the Palermo School of Ethics and Decorum.

It’s already too late for Uncle Vito, whoever he is.

To paraphrase Uncle Bob, I’ve stayed on this thread way too long.

Goban Saor wrote:It’s already too late for Uncle Vito, whoever he is.

To paraphrase Uncle Bob, I’ve stayed on this thread way too long.

Joking Goban.  

Whilst I can see Charles' POV - and understand where it comes from... I also empathize with the general thrust of Carmine's MO in tackling the case. 

Charles is certainly welcome to join the forum.

greg parker wrote:Whilst I can see Charles' POV - and understand where it comes from... I also empathize with the general thrust of Carmine's MO in tackling the case. 

Charles is certainly welcome to join the forum.

Charles and you have one thing in common: you both have been banned at Deep Foo Foo. That's gotta be worth a few points.

Stan Dane wrote:

greg parker wrote:Whilst I can see Charles' POV - and understand where it comes from... I also empathize with the general thrust of Carmine's MO in tackling the case. 

Charles is certainly welcome to join the forum.

Charles and you have one thing in common: you both have been banned at Deep Foo Foo. That's gotta be worth a few points.

Yeah,

and I really see no need for a fight here.

To put it in terms Goban might appreciate... Charles is the IRA to Carmine's Sinn Fein. Depending on where you stand, it's good to have both.

greg parker wrote:Yeah,

and I really see no need for a fight here.

To put it in terms Goban might appreciate... Charles is the IRA to Carmine's Sinn Fein. Depending on where you stand, it's good to have both.

ROKC is a Big Tent. I'm living proof of that.

Goban, 

Feel free to offer evidence to support your claims at any time. Show me the flaws that you can actually prove and unlike some I am willing to reconsider my position and admit mistakes if I made them. Again your claims of straw man attacks and the like are deficient in my view. The difference is apparently is I realize my views are not conclusive without substantial evidence.  

I have not tacitly accepted any part of your or Drago's speculation. If you read my previous message I stated it was "not legal" to indict huge groups of unconnected investigators, you seem to only regard what portion of the text you wish. As I said before without substantial evidence it is an opinion. Even if I agreed with Drago's comments that would not make them facts, just as his declarations fail to. Evidence supports Facts, not claims without verification. You make so many claims, yet present your opinions and little else. 

If you make the ridiculous claim, such as I regard some of Drago's, it is incumbent upon the person making the claims to prove them. If I claim something it is upon myself to convince others, not others to conform to my speculation. You may not agree, but anyone can state anything. It does not deserve regard unless it has reason and facts to support it. Perhaps less biased inquiry that does not label people "blood enemies" might help.   

The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. 

H. D. Thoreau

Greg,
        I agree there is room for any view. However I find unsubstantiated criticism without actually offering specifics or evidence to contend me tiresome. As I offered the deficiencies with Drago's claims they included specific examples, Goban's disagreement is supported only by broadly spanning undefined claims. His attempt to characterize my own statement to fit his speculation was unfortunate. 

He states originally Drago is "essentially correct". 

So this would support Drago's ridiculous revolutionary ideas and "blood enemies" claim. America had a revolution in 1776. Perhaps if less time were spent on empty claims and more on reasoned approaches and tenable ideas the case might be further along. It is the many claims of untenable nature made by Drago that refute Goban's argument. Anyone can support Drago as they wish, but they hopefully shall realize his ideas are not wholly based on facts or reasonable discourse.

Thanks to Greg for his timely and typically well judged intervention and to Stan for taking the heat out of a potentially combustible situation.
 
I do deserve censure for not realizing sooner that it was well nigh certain that neither Carmine nor I could persuade the other of the assumed correctness of our respective positions. All we were doing after a certain point was counter-supporting each other.
 
Carmine, to say the US government as a corporate entity is guilty of a crime is not to say every government official is so guilty. Most are probably completely innocent. Beyond that, generally speaking, the higher the position the greater the responsibility.
 
It may be that our differences on this thread are due primarily to our having two different and perhaps complementary perspectives.
 
Yours is the close up and microscopic – the forensic analysis of the details of the JFK assassination that so many members here are so good at. It could be described as the laborious attempt to fill in the gaps in our knowledge left by the failure of successive US governments to follow up on the HSCA report.
 
Mine is the long shot, telescopic or perhaps panoramic view which is focused on the political implications of that failure.
 
I should add that one of the reasons I generally keep away from the close up analysis is that I am not very good at it. I simply can’t get my head around all the variables involved in, say, the movements, timings and evolving witness statements of the people in and around the TSBD on that fateful day.
 
Maybe I’m not very good at the panoramic stuff either but, for what it’s worth, it’s something I feel more confident about.

Greg,
        I agree there is room for any view. However I find unsubstantiated criticism without actually offering specifics or evidence to contend me tiresome. As I offered the deficiencies with Drago's claims they included specific examples, Goban's disagreement is supported only by broadly spanning undefined claims. His attempt to characterize my own statement to fit his speculation was unfortunate. 

He states originally Drago is "essentially correct". 

So this would support Drago's ridiculous revolutionary ideas and "blood enemies" claim. America had a revolution in 1776. Perhaps if less time were spent on empty claims and more on reasoned approaches and tenable ideas the case might be further along. It is the many claims of untenable nature made by Drago that refute Goban's argument. Anyone can support Drago as they wish, but they hopefully shall realize his ideas are not wholly based on facts or reasonable discourse.

Carmine,


what I was alluding to was this: Sinn Fein is the political wing playing within the rules. IRA is the paramilitary wing ostensibly at arms distance. Both play a part in moving toward the same goal.

The JBS was the public face of a certain brand of conservative politics - but it too had operational offshoots at arms length. Oswald himself (apparently) asked if he should work for the cause in an "underground" capacity. Most politicians working on tricky diplomatic issues work several options at once (sometimes in totally opposite directions) to see which is yielding dividends and which one will open up the negotiates or objectives desired.

CD advocates for methods that do not require perfect truth, but nevertheless require a belief that certain dot points and rallying cries are established facts. His advocacy is for methods that are not limited by arbitrary "norms" nor any rules other than his own. 

So while you may or may not be technically correct in your criticisms, your criticisms are largely irrelevant. CD wants to operate outside your paradigms. His is the paraextralegal* path. Yours is the legal path. I'm happy to have numerous paths. I draw the line only at anything or anyone who makes a mockery of justice, the assassination, or of those genuinely trying to unscramble the egg. It would not take much imagination to work out with whom and what my lines are drawn.

*My apologies to all paralegals   

Goban Saor wrote:Thanks to Greg for his timely and typically well judged intervention and to Stan for taking the heat out of a potentially combustible situation.
........ 

Maybe I’m not very good at the panoramic stuff either but, for what it’s worth, it’s something I feel more confident about.

Thanks to Greg and Stan!! I enjoy reading both of your & Carmine's posts and hate to see feathers ruffled. I like Carmine's micro approach as well as your long view.

I may not be good at the panoramic stuff either but it has a better fit on me as well. But I much prefer a humorous lilt to the subject than any hammer and tongs.

'Nuff said.

Terry,

          Thanks for compliment. I'm glad you enjoy my articles. 

Goban,

           We might agree on major points. As I stated I have no personal grievance with you or Mr. Drago, I just prefer alternative methods because I can then later demonstrate the problems of the official case using the official evidence. 

While Drago is free to pursue his view, in my view methods not supported by evidence can backfire and ultimately if pressed, passionate claims do not constitute reliable inquiry.


Greg,

        I agree there is room for all who would attempt to research these important matters. However, in my view, problems and misinformation can be created and represented as truth without the necessary evidentiary support. Over time some ideas of both critic and advocate have morphed into large sweeping claims not supported by most evidence. The subject might be more clear and its true legal flaws more apparent if standards of inquiry were more unified. Where critics largely share a common view, advocates of conspiracy due to varying theories and standards of evidence often argue among themselves lacking a unified method of inquiry. Critically discussing the current popular or enduring views of critics and advocates to see which are the most reliable is worthwhile in my estimation.

Terlin, thank you for the kind words. They’re a welcome tonic in helping to restore equilibrium. The motto beneath your posts is a salutary reminder of the often imperceptibly thin line (to adapt a Beckett joke) between expressing what one believes to be a clearly thought out rational position and making a complete eejit of oneself.
 
Carmine, the enlightened quasi moderation of Greg, Stan and Terlin has helped avert any ill feeling between us I think.
 
In saying Charles Drago is essentially right I was referring to what I believe is the gross criminality of successive US governments since 1979 vis-à-vis the JFK assassination. The question of how that should be redressed and whether violence is justified is another matter entirely.

Goban,

             I agree that the feasible criminality is a valid concern, and I agree suppression and illegality occurred. Our methods vary but our goal is the same. I also agree the redress of grievance is important, but as you said what should be done and what some wish done are entirely separate matters.

Drago is a bag of wind, which is confirmed by his unreadable prose; had to dump him on Facebook recently when, in a discussion on Jewish history, in which I maintained that there was a tradition of Jewish intellectual introspection that was very specifically Jewish in scope and characater, he went beserk and called me - I kid you not - a Nazi because, if I understood his bizarre rant, he thought I was advocating for some kind of racial superiority.