Re: Why We Haven't Been to Mars Yet

On Aug 14, 12:24 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 11, 4:52 pm, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Wille Mook wrote:
[...]
Clearly, the CIA has the capacity if it wishes to ensnare and
discredit a President.

Or support a boob like the current one.

Does it seem reasonable that the CIA would operate to protect the USA
*from* a President that it had determined was proposing a course
detrimental to the USA if it had to?  from a candidate that might
become such a President? what about political activists in the USA?

Who are they to make that decision? I question decsion-makers that are
unelected officials.

what about political activists outside the USA?  On this spectrum,
where would the CIA limit itself?  If it does not limit itself then it
MUST evaluate and plan to use its authority responsibly (by its light)
all the time.

Congress and the Supreme Court oversee what the Executive Branch does,
which includes the CIA.

You may think the President a boob or not.  The CIA - if it has the
responsibility of protecting the USA from a popular politician it
thinks is a mole for a foreign power - evaluates THAT risk -
regardless of what else is going on.

Again, I question unelected decision-makers.

[...]


Are you claiming the Cuban exile community mostly in Miami liked JFK?

I don't know - the JFK library is saying that.

What about everywhere else?

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/JFK+in+History/JFK+and....

What you fail to mention in your commentary is that these three NSAMs
were written on June 28, 1961 - two months AFTER the invasion!!  

That is not a failure! It is a point that states that JFK as a lesson
learned from the BOP that he no longer trusted the CIA.
He wanted all paramilitary operations handed over to the Joint Cheifs
of Staff (the Military!).

I thought you meant those NSAMs *caused* the BOP failure.

No, no! These NSAMs were written as a RESULT of the BOP failure!

 I see now I misread what you wrote.  So, yeah, all I'm saying is that the NSAMs
didn't have any impact on the BOP since they were written after.  That
they got a few noses out of joint - that's absolutely true.  Was that
enough for them to organize an assasination of the President of the
United States?  NO.

It was another straw of many. The last? Probably not, but certainly it
added to the weight on the Camel's back, so to speak.

Did it cause some in power to revisit the theory
that the Kennedy's were moles like Alger Hiss and Armand Hammer?  That
would be the response.  They wouldn't even admit to themselves that
they were doing it for selfish reasons.  They would develop the
information they needed to honestly say the President needed to be
killed - if that's indeed what happened.

Who makes that decision? Right-wingers in industry that honestly
thought the Russians were crazier than our own crazies?!
Hell man, Linus Pauling was called a "Red" by many including Hoover.
Pauling had the double helix down way before Watson and Crick and was
barrded from leaving the country because the State Dept., thanks to
Hoover, called him a Red. That same sort of lunacy, dubbed
McCarthyism, is what leads to thinking that JFK was supporting them
and not us.

You seem to think that the timing should have been before hand. No!

I thought you were saying the BOP was caused by these NSAMs - I
misread what you wrote.  I am saying just what you are saying - that
the NSAMs were a reaction to the failure of the BOP.

Good.

JFK wroet these memos as a reaction to the failure of the
BOP. What part of THAT dont YOU get?!

That's exactly what I was saying because I thought you were implying
the JFK caused the failure at BOP and these NSAMs proved it.  In
response to that apparent statement - which you didn't make I now see
- I was saying that these NSAMs came after the BOP and could not have
affected the BOP one bit.

It was the BOP that caused the NSAMs not the other way around.

The invasion had already failed.   What these NSAMs are about are Bundy,
McNamara and Kennedy's efforts to make damned fucking sure the
President, or any future President for that matter, wouldn't have his
fucking *** hanging out after committing resources and people (even
non-nationals as in this case!)

The memos were based upon lessons learned. Do you not see where the
CIA was stripped of power?

Absolutely.

Or at least that was what was attempted by
these memos?

That wouldn't have been enough for the CIA to organize a coup.  There
had to have been information already circulating that the Kennedy's
were on Stalin's payroll or something like that.  

Or, that the MIC, of whick Ike warned the contry about on his way out,
decided that JFK was going to cost them too much money by making the
DOD basically go dormant during the Cold War.

Even if it were
unlikely, if there was any scintilla of evidence, they would have
analyzed that in light of his recent actions and stated goals, applied
a Bayesian analysis to it and generated a paper saying that the
President was not acting on behalf of the best interests of the USA
and had violated his oath of office -and was part of a Communist
conspiracy - yadayadayada..  before they organized a coup - if that's
what they did.  LBJ had to have been a part of it - it would be
interesting to see whom he met with in the days and weeks preceding
the assasination of Diem.

Wealthy Texans within the oil and defense industries?

That is, look at the dates of the invasion - look at what happened -
and look at the dates on the NSAMs - and what the President was
saying.

Yes, I know!

Me too!  lol.  I thought you had said (but I see now you did not) that
the NSAMs proved JFK had screwed around with things and caused the BOP
failure.  Since the NSAMs came after - they were the result of the BOP
- not the cause of the BOP - on that we agree - I thought we did not.
That's all.

In the intervening two months from April to June the President was
given a lot of stories FROM the CIA and DOD explaining the 'failure'
in Cuba - and in response to that the President with HIS advisors was
laying down the law to both those groups of assholes - don't *** with
the President!

Right, but do you see where it saif "Joint Chiefs of Staff" several
times, and "paramilitary", also several times, and how paramilitary
ops were to be turned over to the JCS?!? Translation: Covert
operations going away from the CIA and shifted over to the military,
as per JFK's memos.

Yes - and in retro-spect - JFK needed to tread a little more lightly
in dealing with these fellows - reassuring them personally that this
was in the best interests of the USA and so forth - it might not have
changed things - if they did organize a coup - but it is likely that
it might.  haha - but we're piling speculation upon speculation here -
and I get rather tired of that - haha.

I think you're missing a huge point regarding the "follow the money"
angle about all this. Clearly, JFK wasn't killed over pure idealogy
related to Communism vs. Capitalism. He was killed because a powerful
group was being hit in their pocketbooks due to his policies. Those
same felt and got what they wanted out of LBJ. Who does that leave?

That's all this is.   Any effort to paint it as anything more is
ludicrous - any effort to say it had any impact on April's operations
- is also ludicrous and impossible.

Okay, so these memos get written AND Dulles, Cabell and Bissell, the
top 3 men in the CIA get replaced a few months later

Yes - but I doubt that given the nature of these men's commitment to
the USA - that their sacking alone would have resulted in a CIA backed
coup to kill JFK.

No, but they sure as hell could be counted on when the operation came
down, no?
Bissell, the plans guy, what kind of plans did he do? Coup de etat and
that sort of thing. Assassinations!
Cabell, sacred cow of Intell since WWII. His brother just happens to
be the mayor of Dallas in 1963!
Dulles, sits on the Warren Commission after being sacked by JFK all
they while investigating the assassination itself! More like making
sure the CIA doesn't get implicated actually. You don't smell a rat in
these three?!

Now ask yourself that if the same three had been Soviets in the KGB
and the same thing happened over there with their Premier; you'd be
fine with LHO lone nut as the killer? Somehow we are supposed to
simply be above that sort of thing because were are we! What
Bull***!!!

 I *do* think if there was any stain on the private
life of ANY of the Kennedy's that suggested there might be a
connection back to Stalin, the Communists, and so forth - THAT would
have been re-evaluated in light of THESE decisions - and blown into a
rationalization to implement a pre-existing SIOP that involved a coup
of a harmful President.  That is, if these men or others like them,
did organize to kill JFK, they convinced themselves it was the right
thing to do given the best available evidence at the time..

Or they were driven by greed. I think you project your emotions onto
them.

 Of course
once this happened - if it happened - the requirement to maintain the
secret and so forth - would take precedence following the killing.

Clearly all the CIA did during the Cold War years under Ike made them
more emboldened. Does that make it right? It is "groupthink" gone
arwry until something like the JFK assassination comes about. They can
convince themselves it was the right thing to do until they go to the
grave, but is it? Was the coup in Iran given the whole Shah business
in 1978-9? Guatemala, Argentina, Congo, and so on...?

I have read that the CIA and especially the plans division is likened
to a gun. It is suppose to point outward and at the enemy to protect
the US. But who has control of that gun and who decides where it
points? What happens when a whole bunch of CIA people find themselves
out of a job? Does that ability to wield the gun simply go away
because of a bunch of pink slips got distributed? Or, can another
with enough resources and $$$ pick up the pieces and create their own
"gun"? Perhaps access to the gun can be subverted at the top levels
with just knowing exactly what buttons to push?

and you're
telling me the memos were what again?

a response to the failure of the BOP.

You fail to see the firing of
the top CIA officials and the memos with "JCS and paramilitary" all
over them together to paint the bigger picture.

I see that - and that is something totally different than what I
thought you were saying.  I do not believe that the mere sacking and
reassignment of authority would be sufficient to trigger a coup.

Not trigger (pun!) the coup but assist with the coup.

I *DO* believe that a) plans for executing a coup were already pre-
existing - given the arc of resonsibility listed above, and b) that
following the changes called for in these NSAMS - old data about JFK
was revisited, and people honestly felt that the pre-existing plan
needed to be carried out.- this is the most likely scenario in my view
- if the CIA was involved at all - which it may not have been.  haha.

Heck even the House Select Committee on Assassination in 1979 lised
"rogue elements" within the CIA were involed along with Cuban Exiles.
Have you read the HSCA report?

[...]


Sure we are the good guys in white hats, with God on our side, and the
Godless Russians and their KGB were the evil wearers of black hats.
Gimme a break!

People actually believed that back then - many did.

Yes, I know. My father was in Military Intelligence from 1958 - 1980
specializing in the Soviet Union. He speaks fluent Russian to this
very day.

Well, I might be willing to give you a break, but I doubt anyone alive
back then would - and they didn't give the President a break either -
if they were involved with this.

My dad was in counterintelligence.

McCarthyism fell on its face and it is good that it did because rather
than out a bunch or people that were evil it became more of a way to
control people through fear. A terrorist kills people, what have the
US communists ever done to anyone in the US other than be different
and believe in a failed system? I think I'm more concerned about being
blown up. Really don't have to create a bunch of pulp telling me the
evils of terrorism in the face of suicide bombers, now do you?

[...]

As fellow Irishmen JFK was considered less likely to really come down
on McCarthy as they were old friends.

Yes HUAC was a response to the Soviet Bomb - and the UN.  I think
there is some evidence that the CIA opposed the UN on grounds that
were outlined in their forming documents.  Unfortunately the people of
the US supported the UN at that time - and haha - there are elements
in our government that have been going about changing that attitude
since that time.  The outing of Alger Hiss was just the first step.

What is so bad about the UN, in your opinion?

Check out the timeline -

1945 Defeat of Germany and Japan - with Russians as allies.

February 4-11: Yalta Conference meeting of FDR, Churchill, Stalin -
the 'Big Three'
Soviet Union has control of Eastern Europe. The Cold War Begins

May 8: VE Day - Victory in Europe. Germany surrenders to the Red Army
in Berlin

July: Potsdam Conference - Germany was officially partitioned into
four zones of occupation.

My father worked in Frankfurt babysitting the Russians that were in
the American zone from 1974-1975. I graduated from
Frankfurt American High School. By my 18th birthday I had spent 8
years in what was once called West Germany.

Right.  If he was presented with evidence that a President was a
Soviet mole planted in the USA a generation before- schooled to sell
out the USA to Russia in a cleverly crafted plan - if there were real
evidence developed - and then shown these then secret NSAMs - would HE
come to the honest conclusion that a coup needed to take place?   What
if the Vice President sat in on the meeting?   I can imagine that
there were a dozen honest men - true and unsullied - with clearances
and reputations for keeping secrets well.  That this was bounced off
of - as a way to convince those they were acting prudently in the best
interests of the nation - assuming, of course, the CIA was involved in
such an act - which it may very well not have been.

The JFK assassination was a right-wing domestic coup. If JFK was
killed because enough powerful people convinced themselves he was bad
for the country then we needed a change alright, and that would be
from those that planned and implemented that coup!

[...]

However, committee
member Richard Nixon received secret information from the FBI which
had led him to pursue the issue. When it issued its report, HUAC
described Hiss's

Nixon got is information from Hoover (and the FBI) who felt HE had to
do more than that upstart agency the CIA.

I got that impression too!  In JFKs campaign speech about Democratic
supporters of Nixon - he said Nixon is okay as a follower - but as a
leader he makes him nervous.  He said Nixon reminds him of the symbol
of his party.  Ivory in his hair, a long memory, and poor vision.
Good at being led around by the nose, attached to the tail of the
elephant in front - but as a leader - prone to trample and destroy
things we hold dear.  A great speech.

The CIA felt it had a sacred trust - this is the way they've described
it - and it is consistent.   The USA was drawn into two world wars it
did not benefit from fighting.  It was attacked by surprise and it
could not weather a surprise attack in the nuclear age.   What to
do?   The CIA is an important element in maintaining peace in the
nuclear age, while maintaining US superiority in income and might.

Interesting concept today as we see the dollar losing hegemony to the
euro on a daily basis.

Whenever a nation or people industrialize - this is the lesson of the
great wars of the 19th and 20th centuries - they use their wealth to
build their military might and then project power outside their
region.  The bulk of humanity was poised to industrialize at the end
of the second world war.  And we had developed nuclear weapons.  If
the USA assisted in this global development - the theory went - we
would accelerate the propensity of poorer nations to go through the
very same destructive phase the USA, Europe and Japan went through.
Who are the most radical folks around today?  Muslims!  Who are
growing richest fastest on oil wealth?   Muslims.  The correlation
still stands.  - in the minds of those who see it.  There are other
things going on to be sure - and to a large extent we don't see how we
are creating our own problems - at least not inside CIA HQ.  People
who talk about global peace and getting along and helping one another
- those people are the enemy in this view - because they're promoting
inevitable social advance that results in those very same people
getting the bomb and using it on us.  That and the need to take pre-
emptive action - puts the challenges to our intelligence community in
perspective.   Are they right?   They think so - and its not open to
discussion - because they know that the American people think more
highly of others than they do - and they know the American people have
a moral character they cannot afford to develop.

The problem is, through common mode failure, the CIA and others are
bringing about the very thing they were organized to prevent - the
absolute destruction of the USA.  JFK - irrational as his visionary
goals and plans were in the middle of the 20th century - were the
exactly right things for this nation to be doing in that era - and
that they did not get done - whether the CIA was involved or not -
harmed the USA today and continued following of the rational path -
uninformed by a higher vision - will guarantee our failure - no matter
how irrational that may seem to us now.

Clearly you believe that the CIA has been taken over by special
interests?

[...]

October 1 : Communist Mao Zedong takes control of China and
establishes the People's Republic of China
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
***THIS SCARED THE *** OUT OF PEOPLE****

Not really. We thought we could defeat Mao by supporting Chiang Kai
Shek.

I think you are confused by the stories we told ourselves at the time
to feel better - and what we really felt.  haha.  Kids do that -
you're 8 years old, everyone's saying Oh ***, China went communist -
and then the adults talk brave bull***, and the kids believe it!
lol.

And Regan makes China our most favored nation WRT trade all the while
touting China's lousy human rights. Hell, if you REALLY want to make a
difference then boycott Chinese goods! Can't you say? We are tied to
them and it would wreck our economy, etc., etc. Then what good is our
whining about their human rights when the one thing we could do to
change things we can't do because we're tied to then economically.
Better to just shut the hell up then...

December 1 - Chiang Kai-shek moved to Formosa and created Nationalist
government

We we more than just supported.

Sure until Reagan.

Yep, we are stuck with them and still bitch about their human rights.

[...]

The CIA hires all sorts of people -haha- Noriega and Saddam Hussein
were on CIA payroll at some point.  That has nothing to little to do
with their goals and organizing principles.

Why hire them then?

To carry out the policies of the USA - keep folks focused in their own
backyards.  Korea divides Japan and China and keeps China out of the
world's oceans.  Israel keeps the old Ottoman Empire from reforming.
A divided Yugoslavia keeps a united Europe focused inward.  Corruption
and drugs keep South America down while tribal conflict keep Africa
down, while we remove all the riches at bargain basement prices.

Remember, the moment people get rich, they spend gobs of money on
weapons systems and project power outward.  The CIA wants to help
other agencies keep that from happening in the nuclear age.  So, we do
whatever it takes to keep people focused in their own back yard.

The problem with this program, is that the USA cannot help being seen
for what it is - even in secret - and it will become everyone's enemy
- and people will oppose us.  Crazy people with nothing to lose will
oppose us openly.  Prudent people will do so covertly.

Why doesn't China help us more to get the handful of loose nukes under
control?   Why do they help proliferate and develop the first muslim
bomb?   Why don't they get better control of their borders?   They
spend a lot of effort keeping Tibet down - but let the muslims run
riot in their Western frontier - a frontier Osam bin Laden is likely
to be inhabiting.  Why is that?   Our own military trains gang bangers
to be better murderers, while the golden triangle provides drugs for
them to distribute on their return, and the Chinese provide weapons.
Meanwhile, the chinese are patiently making stuff at low cost to be
sold at Walmart - and taking our mortgages and notes in lieu of real
payments.

The Europeans are doing a pretty good job buying up the US as well.
Budweiser is owned by the Belgians now. That's as bad as letting
Harley-Davidson go to the Japanese which we didn't let happen!

I cannot say what will happen in the future - but it may be that one
day, one day soon perhaps - muslim terrorists will set of russian
loose nukes in 5 or 6 cities in the USA - and on that day - China
announces a multi-billion dollar aid package, along with writing down
ALL of its US debt.  The USA on that day will be bankrupt.   Raw
materials in Africa, South AMerica, and the Middle East will begin
flowing to China - and we will not be surprised to learn that China is
a lot more generous with development dollars and sharing the wealth -
with all these places - than the USA is.  It may be that the way China
sees it - when all these nations grow richer - and begin to project
power - the Chinese have a plan to make the USA target for the next
300 years.

300 years is a long time.

This is what I mean when I say common mode failure - the Chinese, and
Europeans and Asians, and Australians, and Aficans, and South
AMericans, and Mexicans and Canadians, read Noam Chomsky.  They really
do.  They also have a vital literature surrounding Chomsky's core work
- and they don't see it as anti-Americanism- they don't feel the same
'hate america' emotion Chomsky exudes.  haha..  I remember one day at
MIT I asked Noam why he didn't just state facts without all the anti-
american bile - he'd get more converts that way, and be more
effective.  I pointed out that he seemed to be writing merely to
identify malcontents for the CIA. - and get embarassing things into
the public record closely associated with anti-american feelings.   He
interrupted me and said I was an ***!  lol.  I didn't get a chance
to ask him what impact he thought his works had on those overseas?
How their intelligence communities saw things - how their history
books would be written.

Did you know that Noam Chomsky believes in Lee Harvey Oswald lone nut
WRT the JFK assassination? Chomsky with all his talk is actually a
lone nutter like some American-can-do-no-wrong right-wing delusional
idealist! He's a great linguist that should have stayed within his
field. I don't him anymore.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpF6HwMVZUA

and how that would evolve over time - to harm the USA.

You forgot Osama bin Laden and his Muljahaden, of
which Reagan referred to as Freedom Fighters akin to the Americans
fighting the British during the Revolution.

Sure.  Clinton knew where to send the cruise missiles after the first
attack against the USA because WE built those camps for them!   OF
course while Newt Gingrich worried that his Lewinsky diatribe would
fail to stick if the President looked too presidential - they got away
and established new hideouts.  Good job Newt!  lol.  This will go down
in history as a parallel with Rome - the senators worried about power
in DC while we ignored what we should have been paying attention to.
And what should we have paid attention to?   Why they turned against
us.  The turned against us for the simple reason that we over-promised
and then failed to deliver on those promise when they ran afoul of our
long term goals - it is our adherence to these rational and logical
goals that are killing us - and our total lack of imagination in
dealing with the world in anything but ideological terms - with the
ideology being the secret belief system incorprated in the CIAs
founding.

 - which Nixon exploited to get into
trouble over Watergate -

Nixon called it when he said if Hoover were still alive this wouldn't
be a problem for him.

Yes, I agree. A guy like Deep Throat, who we now know was Mark Felt,
would not have been able to operate had Hoover been alive.

 Hoover had a dossier on everyone who was
important and could use it to bury anything.

I have read Anthony Summers book on Hoover, Bill Turner's book on
Hoover, Ovid Demaris and Cartha DeLoach's book on Hoover.

The trouble in the
modern world is that people have become desensitized to so much.  That
is why some folks believe the CIA is behind the kidnapping of truant
children and using them in sex slave trade - in order to maintain
power over key people.   I'm not saying this is true, but I am saying
it is consistent with goals and means of the agency.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280183.shtmlhttp://en.wikipe....

Please note the parallels between Whitaker Chambers and Jeff Gannon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitaker_Chambers

Today the charge of 'child molester' has the same gravitas as
'communist' in the 1940s.

Except being labeled communist was a right vs. left thing and everyone
hates a child molester.

Every one hated a communist back in the day.  To maintain that same
power- the CIA or FBI needs to be able to accuse anyone of something
people will simultaneously believe of anyone - and hate them for it -
regardless of their prior history.  That is why there is a media
frenzy on this subject - to maintain the proper epistomology in the
nation.  Foreigners can see it when they come here - and I can see it
when I leave.

and since the fall of the Soviet Union - Bush
1 and Bush 2 have viewed the US Democratic party as a threat to the
'American Way of Life' - and have not troubled themselves to worry
about using CIA info-war tactics against the American public to
maintain control by the Republican party.

Clearly government agencies should not be too left or too right to be
of any value in a balanced USA.

Actually juding things according to 'left-right' is being held captive
by an ideological paradigm that causes people to ignore reality - at
great cost to society - due to common mode failure.  Consider the
monument building of Easter Islanders leading to their collapse - or
how easy it was for the Spanish to take over the Aztec culture
following the assasination of their leaders - again due to common mode
failure

Are you saying that Easter Island and the Aztecs went 100% right or
100% left with no sense of balance?

I'm saying that their thought process-whatever it was- didn't allow
them to approach their problems creatively and come up with a solution
that would have worked.

"plans" division of the CIA was not set up under Truman and Ike
allowed it to occur by turning a blind eye to
it until it became obvious during the Church Commitee investigation in
1974 that it had gotten out of hand
during the previous 2 decades.

You are naive in the extreme - and are blind to the actual operations
of the CIA - preferring only to read the handouts of the CIA itself as
an explanation of its role in the world.

I beg your pardon? The actual operations of the CIA differ than that
of Truman's vision of the Agency he signed into law.

Yes, you quote a handout from the very agency itself and then claim
you're not doing it?  haha...

The CIA claims to be the agency that Truman set up when that serves
their purpose. Surely you are aware that Truman never
approved of a "Plans" division.

I don't know anything about that.  I do know however, that this or
that detail won't make a damned bit of difference if there is no
allowance for creative thinking - and this or that detail won't harm
the nation if there is.

I never said that the Agency didn't develop a Plans Division. In fact,
I stated that they did, still do, and that Truman never approved of
it. What part of all that don't you get?

So?   Truman probably wouldn't have approved of a lot of thing.  As
the agency any agency grows it evolves.  The point is, what sort of
creative response to our difficulties is it capable of?  Is it over
lain by an ideologically dictated straightjacket?  Does it believe its
own lies?:   If so, it will suffer a common mode failure and bring
about the very thing it was put in place to avoid.

How different would the world be if we hadn't created a plans division
and the have to go about creating enemies to keep said plans division
busy?

Much of the organizing documents, and the legal history of the agency
and its other more secret counter-parts, is still secret - so you
acting like you're speaking with authority - is ludicrous.  

There are historical aspects that have been unclassified by various
committees (Church and Rockerfeller) that have through investigation
revealed agency misdeeds. I quote nothing from authority that hasn't
been revealed to the public. An intellience agency shouldn't be so
secretive that it hides its own corruption from a checks and balances
society that claims to be free. Nothing ludicrous about that Mr.Mook!

I am certain that more thought went in to how to respond to these
failures than went into getting this information and analyzing it on
the outside.   There are only 435 members of Congress and 100 senators
- there are over 100,000 workers in the CIA and US intelligence
communities - they're expert at managing political opinion - the
politicians are more like talented naturals but lack the depth of
knowledge of the trained expert.  So, it wouldn't surprise me that in
any run in between the agency and Congress - the agency will suffer a
lot less  than it might - and Congress will suffer lasting changes in
response.  What happend to Rockerfellars career or church's career
after?

Rockerfeller retired rich like we was before he got in and was caught
flipping off another congressman that got a big laugh. Church, not
sure.

Secret agencies exist to maintain secrets - I serously doubt you have
penetrated any critical secrets now held by the USA - and quoting
declassified literature puts you at risk of having your belief system
managed by those releases.

Lemme see, believeMookor read the likes of Peter Dale Scott,

You are setting up a false choice.

who has
spent countless hours doing research?

You are now setting up expert authority -

Do yourself a favor and look up
Peter Dale Scott.

Do yourself a favor and realize what I say doesn't need any further
information than what we all already know.

Riiight! Your intepretation of reality is correct. Riiight.

The only accurate way to view things is to look at the details of what
actually happened and piece together some ideas based on patterns of
activity.   As I mentioned, the history of the Kennedy's is
interesting for this reason - suggesting the agency thought of Joe
Kennedy - the father - the same way it thought of Alger Hiss following
his outing by Whitaker Chambers - Joe Jr. died, Jack was assasinated
in his first term, Robert was assasinated after he won the California
primary, Ted was discredited the day before the first moon landing
which his brother initiated.

All done by the CIA according to you?

Not at all.  I'm not saying the CIA did any of the things it might
have done, or was capable of doing, or even at some level planned on
doing.  I don't know anything about what happened with Teddy Kennedy.
All I know is that the timing of the events at Chappaqui*** were
interesting that's all.

Do you think that I support the actual operations more than Truman's
vision of it? Please be clear.

You are reading public documents about the operation of a secret
agency and taking it at face value is ludicrous.

Explain to me what you know about Truman and his personality that
makes today's CIA out to be the agency that he envisioned.

What agency do you know of that is exactly the same as when it was
founded?   none.  Do you know the largest agency in washington
today?  

In dollars or what?

the most buildings and people and whatnot?   Agriculture.

Oh...

Do you know the oldest agency in washington today?   Agriculture.
Things grow over time.  The income tax was a way to pay off the debt
for the first world war.  It was to be rescinded at some point -
according to papers at the time.  That's how the AMerican people
swallowed it.  Besides, only Rich Northeastern Tycoons would pay it.
Senators argued that they should put a 5% cap on it - but others
argued they didn't want to send a message to future generations that
5% income tax would be acceptable.  lol.  Did the income tax get
rescinded?  no.  did it grow? yes.  will it continue to grow and
change - following its own inevitable and internal logic?  yes.   The
CIA is the same.  To say that it must live according to the rules set
out by Truman is unrealistic.  To say it must have elements within it
that give it a creative ability to reinvent itself - and reject fixed
ideologies - is not (but unlikely in today's environment)

Covert wars are bad and they foster corruption. Period. I don't care
where the come from they should cease or at least not be allowed to
proliferate.


Do you know anything about Hoover? Do you know how the agency changes
or what makes it change? You do not have to know every secret detail
to know how the agency works based upon cause and effect.

That's right.  Fire codes are written in response to fires.
Structural codes in response to failures.  SEC rules in response to
successful crooks.  Ken Arrow proved that such processes as we use to
make decisions - cannot work as we expect.  There will always be
common mode failure.  

Please define "common mode failure" as you use the term a lot.

The success of any system hinges on the fact
that as old elements fail, new elements arise naturally to take their
place.   Such is not the case in human affairs - yet.  But perhaps
before we bring about the total destruction of America - we can figure
it out.  Not by engaging in the old arguments and politics - but by
giving birth to something new - to misquote Tennyson!  lol.

The Russian/Georgia thing going on right now, do you have any clue as
to who is our ally and who is our enemy?

They are doing what benefits the USA - they are focusing the attention
of Russia and Europe into their own back yards, and doing it in a way
that benefits McCain - the war hero - against Obama.

Wait, so do we have a media war going on right now? Is the liberal
media, of which the conservatives bitch about daily and is obviously
behind Obama, at war with the "they" to whom you speak aupporting
McCain? Would that be the US Information Agency or is there a more
global propaganda branch at work here that is not the "liberal media"?
Who supports McCain as a form of media?

How both are being viewed and
how the information is being manipulated? Take a guessMook, who do we
support in the Georgia/Russia thing?

The USA - and to a lesser extent - McCain.

Who, exactly?

[...]

So when LBJ asked Hoover if anyone was shooting at him while he too
was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63; it was just a good acting job to make
him look vulnerable and less like a suspect? No having LBJ "know"
would have never worked. No doubt the perps benefitted by an LBJ
presidency and a coup does fit, but not by LBJ himself.  He had no
need to know.

I don't know anything about that.

Among other things...

*** you too sweetheart!   haha-  I read your bull*** and respond to
it, and this is how i get talked to?  fucking jackass!

Temper, temper. We were doing real fine here until you lost it...
Perhaps the dig was below the belt. But a response like yours is
suppose to do what exactly? I hope you feel better but I won't
respond in kind.

You know a lot about a lot, but the amount you don't know is still
much more than what you know and it will always be that way. Such is
life. Better to be just committed to being smarter and more
knowledgable tomorrow than you are today as a sort of process and
leave it at that...with a sense of humor to boot. You do that and guys
like Guth won't be able to get to you as is his want. ;)

[...]

The military is given a difficult task in the modern world - and has
basically undermined any ability for this nation to generate the
political leadership that it needs.   Common mode failure.

So we need spook (covert) warfare, according to you? Make up your
mind!

We will fail - no matter what we do.  We can design the system to
sustain failure, or we can undergo a rigid common mode failure that
destroys everything all at once.

CMF again. Sounds like we need to focus and how to avoid that.

[...]

Don't forget the Gore connection to MC, err, Armand Hammer.

I don't knowanything about that.

Among other things...

Listen you goddamned motherfucker, I don't need to be spoken to like
that!  If we were talking in a bar or over dinner - and you said that
to me as I was talking to you - I'd kick your fucking ass -

Geez Mook, get a grip. Besides you might try to kick my ass and fail.
I tend to defeat hotheads simply because their hotheadedness is
wrong! Got it?

The death of Kennedy can be proven to be a coup de-tat not by careful
analysis of the details of his death - as in the movie JFK - but
rather - the fact that his brother Robert was killed when it was clear
he would win the nomination in 1968 by another lone gunman.

Those too events, though similar, were different. Clearly Sirhan, who
is still alive, looks a lot more guilty than does a dead Oswald.

Sirhan was one of the famous subjects of MK-ULTRA experiments
according to some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA#Conspiracy_theories

Yes, I have heard that.

So was the una-bomber -

And MK ULTRA guinea pig?

On July 18, 1969 - one day before a manned landing on the moon -

2 days. Actually, it was one day, but you have the day wrong.
Chappaquid*** was July 19, 1969 and Apollo 11 was July 20, 1969.
Wiki states the Mary Jo Kopechne died on July 18th. I guess the
incident spanned two days with the party being on July 18 and the
investigation by the police being the next day, etc. Anyway, you're
right the the timing and that of moon landing is wierd to say the
least.

Especially given the Kopekne and the 6 others at the 'party' managed
RFKs campaign.  These folks clearly got together to organize to
benefit from the PR bounce of the moon landing - and get ready for the
'72 presidential campaign.  The MK-ULTRA techniqes were easily capable
of exposing the Senator to drugs that would cause a complete memory
lapse and loss of control.   Again, Crimmins the chaffeur brought the
Senator there, and when Kennedy asked the driver to take him and
Kopekne away from the party, her to her hotel and he back home -  the
driver gave him the key - and he took it saying he didn't want to
break up their comraderie?   lol.   Teddy is either lying or was
drugged at that point - and Crimmins was working for the CIA or
drugged himself - in a way very similar to the way LSD and other drugs
were introduced to country clubs and so forth. I'm not saying I know
this - I'm saying that the events that happened are consistent with
this view of events - to discredit Teddy before the moon landing.

Perhaps. Look at John Edwards now. Similar type thing. Was the woman
Edwards had an affair with a plant?

No - there is no overriding need for the agency to be involved.  If
Teddy got elected, he would have uncovered the coup - in this thesis -
that created the need to take action- if the original idea that a coup
indeed took place.

Why can't Teddy uncover the coup as a senator?

I don't know what need the agency had to hurt Edwards.  If they did,
Edwards is too good looking powerful and rich to require one - all you
have to do is wait around and hope he'll fall.  Failing that you then
up the ante in quiet controllable ways.  If that's what's happening.
The way MK-ULTRA worked is that people got drugged without their
knowledge.  Now, it was the goal of the program to find drugs that
caused people to behave in ways that would embarass them.  They looked
at hypnotism too.  How do people become trusted by others?  I am sure
there are courses on that in the agency and experts that are trained -
along with ways of penetrating any organization.

Assuming this was a goal and the agency was involved, it is far more
likely a trusted Edwards aide became a confidante and advisor that
Edwards trusted - and whom suggested at an appropriate time it
wouldn't be so bad if he had a tryst if he wanted one - plant the idea
- if that failed to materialize the behavior they desired - then they
could up the ante - drugging Edward's drinks and so forth  - again, if
there was a sound reason for the agency to want that - which doesn't
exist in my book.

Drugs aside, the use of women to compromise men has been around for a
long time.

Teddy on the other hand was JFKs and RFKs brother.  I am certain that
if he were ever elected president in 1972 - that the first order of
business for him - and the nation - would be to get to the bottom of
the assasinations.  Assuming the agency was involved in the original
coup - this would have created a powerful reason to discredit him.

Ted Kennedy being with Kopechne was probably enough to undo him. The
death was most likely an accident regardless if he were drugged or
not. I don't believe she was supposed to die. Do you?

Teddy
Kennedy - attending a party in celebration with Mary Jo Kopecne - Mary
Jo an aid to Robert Kennedy's failed bid at the presidency.- and
witness to Robert's death just a year before - was found drowned at
Chappiqui*** at Martha's Vineyard.- in Teddy's car - Teddy claimed to
have driven the car - after getting the keys from his Chauffer
Crimmins.  Which was weird, Teddy seldom drove himself.

The whole thing was weird and it costed Ted any hopes of winning the
White House.

Yes - which would have been the point of discrediting him.  If he had
DIED in the accident along with Mary Jo, that would have caused too
much of an outrage - JFK - '63,  RFK - '68, EMK - '69 .. no,he needed
to be discredited - and the techniques developed by MK-ULTRA assured
that.

Harder to prove or even surmise that RFK and Sirhan-Sirhan.

of course - we can't know these things - i just think the timing is a
bit odd - that's all I'm saying - and its consistent with the larger
pattern of JFK and RFK getting killed.

Its like looking at pixels from a space probe.  Lots of noise, but
when you look at a lot of pixels a pattern emerges.

Again, I find it interesting to the point of incredulity - that the
day before the moon landing - with Nixon in the White House - that
Chappiqui*** happened to Teddy THAT DAY-
Imagine the news headlines following the moon landing - had
Chappiqui*** not happened!   HE likely would have beaten Nixon in
1972 - and won re-election in 1978 - and would have carried out much
of the program of his brother - AND REVEALED THE COUP DE TAT - and;the
CIA would have many more problems than the Church committee.

Hard to say for sure.

Had RFK gotten into office, depending on what the facts were
obviously.  But if there were a larger conspiracy like we're
hypothesizing here - the CIA wouldn't have survived in its present
form.

But, we cannot know for sure.  That's the nature of secret operations
- they're supposed to be that way!  The only thing is to look for a
repeating patterns that have consisten motivation.   I jokingly said
where was G. Gordon Liddy that day?  lol.

Vying for a talk radio show, maybe...

That came years later

Clearly LBJ's CIA was a lot more like Ike's CIA and both were much
different that JFK's vision for his CIA.

Nonsense.  The CIA helped orchestrate JFKs death at the behest of LBJ
and other powerful interests following the suspicion that JFK was a
Soviet mole.

Based upon your logic, JFK committed suicide and used the CIA as his
method.

I didn't say that at all, and my 'logic' doesn't suggest that at all.

The point is that the CIA is supposed to work for the president within
the Executive Branch of the govt.

Within limits.  I think it reasonable to believe in the modern age,
that they would review any occupant of the White House and get rid of
him or her if they thought doing so would be in the best interest of
the nation.  Its not something done lightly, but I would not be
surprised if it were not part of their standing orders.

This begs the question of who has the authority to make "national
security" decisions regarding those that are supposed to protect our
national security. I have heard the term secret goverenment thrown
around.

I doubt that the President would have thought it possible for any
agency under his control to challenge him let alone assasinate him.

Notice how all presidential tickets look very different than JFK/LBJ.

I don't understand what you mean by that.


The point is that in hindsight JFK and LBJ were very different people.


Unless of course you state that Ike's CIA orchestrated JFK's death and
LBJ inherited it.

I think it may have been likely that if there were a larger conspiracy
LBJ knew about the assasination plans well before they happened.  He
had to - to do otherwise would have introduced a weak link in their
plans.  He had to be on board or it wouldn't have gone forward -if it
was more than a lone gunman.   Why didn't he run again in '68?   Why
didn't he help Humphrey more?   Why didn't he move heaven and Earth to
investigate RFKs assasination very thoroughly?

I don't doubt that LBJ knew that there was a conspiracy,

IFthere was a coup - he HAD to be in on it.  There is no way they
would have let him out.

After the fact, yes.

but at the
time admitting that was too much for the country to deal with on top
of JFK's death.

The country would have fallen apart.  The riots in August 65 showed
how far the nation could have gone - it wouldn't have just been a
subgroup of citizenry - it would have been EVERYONE - it would have
been a common mode failure - done earlier rather than later, and at
our own hands rather than the hands of the Chinese and everyone else.

It was much easier just having Oswald be the
scapegoat.

Do you read your shakespeare?   It had a dramatic symmetry - as did
the killing of RFK, MLK, and even folks like Huey Long and George
Wallace going all the way back to Lincoln or - we know the dramatic
pattern even before we hear the story - and so, we don't question it
because it is part of the dramatic story.   The dramatic structure is
so incorporated into our psyche that unhappy people enact it - and
reinforce it.  There have been 17 attempted assasinations of
Presidents - 3 have been successful,

Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and JFK is four. I just read a book on
assassination.


2 resulted in injuries - and
there were even 2 against Nixon - one by Arthur Bremer, the guy that
shot wallace two months later. - Samuel Byck attempted to crash a
commercial airliner into the White House killing Nixon - but shot the
pilot and copilot when they refused - and then himself.

You are aware of how the specter of an international
communist conspiracy was laid out to the new LBJ govt. to the point
where LBJ went out of his way to take the lone nut LHO bait, don't
you?

No.

It was laid out in Mexico City during the summer of 1963 with Oswald
or a double having gone to Mexico City in an attempt to defect to
Cuba.

There was plenty of evidence to connect LHO to a Cuban and/or a
Russian communist conspiracy to kill JFK.

<shrug>  We cannot know anything for sure about these details.  We can
see however a pattern, JFK is killed in 63, RFK is killed when running
for President in 68 - and Teddy is discredited the day before he is to
make an announcement that would have kicked off his bid for Presidency
in 72.  - that's a helluva interesting pattern - and haha - it doesn't
take a helluva lot of time and study to see - and so it lets me live a
reasonably normal life and have some fun - not shut up in a room
reading lots of arcane and likely inaccurate books - lol.

In which case you state basically the same thing that I did above:

hmm..  No, the President does not control the CIA except nominally -
the CIA has been given ultimate authority over the future of this
nation - defacto power - regardless of what is written in the handouts
we can see.  Such power is hard to get back - harder to get back in a
way that's beneficial to all concerned.   As Ted Kennedy said, the CIA
has a sacred trust - the problem is even the best efforts of the best
people are subject to common mode failure - which occurs in complex
systems even when all the details are done right.

LBJ's CIA was a lot more like Ike's CIA and both were much
different that JFK's vision for his CIA.

This is where we disagree.  LBJ does not control the CIA - LBJ serves
as long as those elements that judge LBJ not to be a harm to its view
of national security deem it so.  The moment LBJ crosses the line -
he's given ample warning - and he *knows* what's next - being party to
the last assasination - if it wasn't a lone gunman.

The point is that JFK tried to do something about the CIA while
president, whereas both Ike and LBJ were hands off, laizze faire type
presidents

Well, in the case of LBJ that's consistent with the idea that he
knew.  It is likely that Eisenhower knew the roles of the agency
better than JFK or LBJ did when they came into office.  After all he
was a military man and trusted organizations to carry out their roles
- and knew where his limits lie.  JFK stepped over those limits in
this thesis - I don't think that if the agency acted it did so by
following a strict procedure - and that it wouldn't have happened if
they couldn't have developed some credible threat to the USA from
JFK.  That likelywill be released with theother stuff 80 or so years
from now.  Of course, LBJ would have been scared shitless of the
agency following JFKs death- if the thesis of their involvementin a
coup - is correct - which is may not be.

Well LBJ's Vietnam policy sure as heck was different than was JFKs.

when it came to the CIA and their wealthy friends. Do not
forget who intel's favorite fellows are in industry.

I don't think the agency bows down to anyone.

This is where we disagree. The agency as an agency does what it is
directed to do. The president and the National Security Council are
supposed to be who provides that direction. However, the agency is not
a monolithic entity as are none of the goverenment agencies. That said
at various levels there is outside influence within government. Hell
all one need do is look at the sheer number of lobbyists in Washington
to get a feel for just how much influence there is. The CIA being
secret as it is has a unique brand of lobbyist. What makes you think
that at least at some level secret lobbyist influence with the CIA
can't simply be bought? Surely you have heard enough and believe that
the CIA or at least CIA operatives actually run drugs? Or is that all
a bunch of BS?

 They are ideologically
driven and operate for teh benefit of the USA against anyone who would
harm the USA - either knowingly or unknowningly.  They don't care
about fairness, they don't care about money

Wrong!!!

- they print the money -

The CIA is now the Treasury Dept.?

those who become very wealthy do so in part because they seek to
become very wealthy - and those sorts of personalities have a
fascination not only with wealth and power - but death also.  These
sorts of personalities are drawn to the agency - the agency uses them
like it uses all things to advance its ideological agenda.

Surely you have
heard of the "power elite"? Perpahs you have heard Bush refer to his
"base".

Bush was DCI back in the day.  He proved himself to the agency,
selling his interests in Zapata, running for office, defending Nixon
when he was indefensible - proving his worth - the agency didn't work
for Bush, Bush proved he was worthy to work for the agency.

Sounds like Bush bought his way in sort of like a seat on the stock
exchange.

Unfortunately, this makes common mode failure more certain - it is
only the success of wild cards like Kennedy - in reigning in th
eagency and then the pieces reinventing itself appropriate to the new
era that Kennedy would have created - that we have a continuation of
vitality and life for AMerica - the failure of Kennedy - of all the
Kennedy's magnify the common mode failure when it comes - and only
then do we see if we are lucky - that the small failures we avoided-
were actually opportunities for growth and change - that would have
made us stronger and longer lived.

The Manchurian Candidate was released in 1962 - which involved the
assination of a Presidential candidate who was brainwashed.  hmm...
do you think they were preparing the American people for the 1963
assasination of JFK?   maybe.

Secret operations are hard to prove by their very nature.  YEt the
goals of secret agencies cannot be hidden - they cannot help BE what
they are.  So, one looks for patterns.   JFK was killed by a lone
gunman.  Ok.  But when RFK was killed when he ran for office the
following term - that's a pattern.  Then Teddy Kennedy is dishonored -
THE VERY DAY BEFORE HE WAS TO EMERGE VICTORIOUS following the moon
landing his brother helped bring about?  another pattern - and movies
floating the ideas in fiction form that Presidents need to be
assasinated if they're brainwashed?   a year before a president gets
assasinated?

Well, was JFK a Soviet mole or not?

I don't know - even if he wasn't that wouldn't stop some elements
within the intelligence community to think so.  I mean, our top
scientists passed our most sacred secrets to the Soviets, our most
trusted journalists and political leaders were Soviet moles, the
Soviets were making gains around the world

It flows both ways. We got key defectors as well. Someone once said
that a country deserves the leaders it elects. Well, countries also
deserve the traitors and defectors it gets!

The whole idea that we need leaders to prosper and are vulnerable to
traitors - undermines the genius and strength of a free people.

No one is 100% free nor is anyone 100% invulnerable.


- Kennedy wanted to join
with the Soviets and share with them missile secrets they wanted
desperately, caved to them on Turkey, failed to secure Cuba, had cold
feet in helping out in Vietnam, wanted to end racial differences, end
poverty - nationalize medicine, education, give college educations to
all Americans - sounded pretty pinko to some I bet.  It wouldn't take
much to believe that there were elements within the intelligence
community that developed 'evidence' that such was the case -
sufficient to 'take out' the President.

Other than Vietnam, what was so different between JFK and LBJ?

LBJ changed the space program from sailing on the vast new ocean of
space - uniting the world in joint adventure in the nuclear age -
beating our nuclear technology into plowshares of exploration - LBJ
took this grandiose vision of an interplanetary humanity leaving Earth
the way those in the rennaisance left Europe - and turned it into a
moon program.  Nixon turned it into a man on orbit program.   Soon, we
will have no man in space.

Naw, our competition with the Chinese and Russians will prevent that.

JFK signed the Peace Corps into existence with a presidential order.
LBJ reigned in the peace corps and Nixon merged it with another
agency, which turned it into a front for CIA operations.  JFK lay down
a blank check to the world, to assist free people wherever and
whenever they needed it - to have all free men and women join together
against a common enemy ignorance, privation and fear.  LBJ created a
great society where the USA would be a beacon of hope and a model for
others to emulate - but which the USA had no compunction to help.
Need I go on?

My point was that JFK and LBJ differed mostly on Vietnam.

I am
not talking ideals here, actual policy...

Right.

Clearly LBJ and JFK differed on Vietnam policy. What else?

On every level - the very first thing that LBJ did was cut the budget
for the space program - and shape it into a moon program - with no
follow on after - this the very day he gave a speech over the slain
President in the rotunda.  He felt it was important for the nation to
see it continue following the assasination - Kennedy felt it was
important for the world to have a new frontier appropriate to the
ablities of our age, and that we lead the world into that frontier.
Kennedy believed that Buckminster Fuller was right (they were both
natives of Massachusetts, and both served in the US Navy and both
attended Harvard) that science had an unlimited capacity to create
wealth and he saw that the only way the USA could maintain its leading
role in the world was to lead the way and take practical steps to help
our younger brothers along the way.  LBJ was a poor dirt farmer from
Texas and felt that if the USA was going to spend its resources
enriching the world, it could only end up impoverishing itself.

I don't doubt that LBJ had little use for science whereas JFK saw it
as a means to an ends.

Again, who knows?  The  idea is consistent however.

These are patterns - suggesting a larger conspiracy - and suggesting
that your naive view that the President a hired hand that never spends
more than eight years in office - can control agencies committed to
secure the USA against even a rogue president - is naive.

Your view of a "larger conspiracy" is naive

You're only saying that because I called your analysis naive earlier.

No read on...

as it implies a string of
events on a timeline rather than a deeper politcal notion

We cannot know what the motivation or politics are.

Bull***! They have been the same for millenia. Julius Ceasar and the
Senate. To get and to maintain power. Period.

The CIA was derived from OSS - it was needed in the nuclear age for
the USA to survive in the coming epoch - and avoid a global
thermonuclear war - and avoid getting drawn into it.   This ideology
drives the  agency - power is used for that goal to maintain the
'American way of life' and secure it against these threats - that
cannot be addressed in any other way in the present age.  They do not
seek power, nor do they want power - according to this ideology -
which they no doubt believe.  They seek only to secure the safety and
power of the nation as a whole - and events are tying them into knots
- and without the ability to creatively reinvent themselves - will
lead to a rather massive common mode failure.

In some sense the agency is far in advance of the Roman senate - and
has a lot more in common with the Vatican.

 We can know what
happened and when and where people are.  JFK being killed by a lone
gunman - is reasonable perhaps - as an isolated incident.  JFK being
killed, followed by LBJ - a very power hungry indivdual, not seeking
relelection in 68, followed by RFK being killed in 68, followed by
Teddy Kennedy being discredited in 69 before the moon landing -
suggests a pattern of activity to keep the Kennedy's out of the white
house in the 60s and 70s.   This is consistent with the notion that
there were secrets that would come to light if the President  were a
Kennedy that some very powerful folks didn't want to come to light.

This is Deep Politics in a manner in which "conspiracy" as a notion is
naive. My point.

I think if the agency is involved in this thing in the way were
theorizing - my feeling is that they will view it as a continuing and
everlasting problem that they don't know how to resolve efficiently.

more akin to
a 3-dimensional matirx than a single line with pattern points.

I don't know what you mean and definitely don't know why you are
saying that.

Yep, I figured as much. Read, "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK", by
Peter Dale Scott.

I don't want to.  I was merely pointing out the obvious - having lived
through all this ***.

So have the rest of us old enough to remember.



Don't
confuse martix with the movie either,

??

I am comparing a straight line
(your view) to a mathmatical matrix where things cross and the
patterns you speak about exist and have existed for centuries and only
the names and places change.

I think more in terms of eigenvalues - there's an orientation where
rotational moment is maximum.

That is your spin. LOL!

Yes, Literally!  lol.


Yes, I know...

Read "Deep Politics". Peter Dale Scott.



Do I have to?   I'd rather spend my summer nights with the love of my
life,  holding her hand and looking at the stars and dreaming.

No, you WANT to, you just don't know that you do. You will find the
book enlightning.

Eric
.