+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: "What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" (/thread-2769.html)
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - Jack White - 22-12-2009
Charles...I certainly am not an expert on probabilities.
But ever since I started studying LHO some 40 years ago,
I am constantly on the lookout for look-alikes...not just
in Dealey Plaza, but anywhere. Anytime I am out, I look
at faces to see whether people resemble ANYONE. I note
that the odds are very high against seeing anyone who
resembles any known celebrity or friend. For instance,
in a restaurant with 100 diners, if Sue and I see NOBODY
who is a look-alike for any person we know, I figure that
is ZERO probability. If we repeat this a 100 times and only
see one look-alike...I guess the odds are .001. Only one
time in 40+ years of doing this have I seen a virtual
identical double. It was a young lady known both to Sue
and me, who appeared to be sitting two tables away.
She looked right at us and showed no sign of recognition.
As we left the restaurant, we both looked right at her
again. It had to be her twin...but she has no twin sister.
One double is very rare. Ten doubles are incalculable.
Jack
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - Charles Drago - 22-12-2009
Jack,
Please understand: I am indeed convinced that the doppelganger gambit was played -- and continues to be played -- by JFK conspirators.
I simply remain unconvinced that the Morales, Conein, Milteer, Robertson, and even Lansdale candidates in Dealey Plaza photography are the real deal.
As for the tramps ... ?
Were false sponsors sent to DP on that day? Of course. So perhaps some do appear in the photos we're examining.
Were upper level facilitators on the scene? I doubt it, but I wouldn't be shocked to learn that I'm wrong.
My argument is that opinion and flawed samplings do not make the case.
In re the latter: Your observations, including the instance of you and Sue in the restaurant, are flawed due to small sampling size.
Why don't we take close looks at, say, crowds at the 1964 national political conventions. How many JFK suspects can we spot among them?
One other point: The identification of the Dealey Plaza sunglasses-wearing, pre-yuppie yuppie as DSM is on its face (pun intended) absurd. Which begs the question, how can we quantify resemblance in order to establish minimum qualifications for doppelganger candidacy?
Highly touted facial reconstructions are utterly worthless unless and until the method has been tested successfully in blind studies (the skulls of known, pre-mortem photographed individuals handed over for rebuilding).
Has this happened?
At a certain point during this exchange, I suffered the very distrubing sense that the expression of my skepticism is reminiscent of disinformational questioning by some of the known agents provocateurs who frequent other Internet forums. I trust that you can discern substantive differences between their methods and motives and my own.
Respectfully,
Charles
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - Bernice Moore - 23-12-2009
charles i am afraid this is all i have now apparently i did not download my studies and posts made on another forum..to save....but perhaps this will give you some idea when it comes to iding who we might think is in a photo, then again i have read where some have accepted that these are the two mentioned..so again until there is a positive way as i believe you suggest to definetley prove one way or the other it is up to the individual..there is a big difference to me imo saying it could be or it is a possible and saying it is so and so meaning a positive and a definite..i believe jacks's got it right...best b..
Photograph that Shane O'Sullivan claims shows Gordon Campbell and George
Joannides at the Ambassador Hotel on the night Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated.
Journalist Jefferson Morley who uncovered the Joannides story - and the only known
autheticated photos of Joannides - asserts emphatically and unequivocally that neither
Gordon Campbell nor George Joannides are the men depicted in this photograph.
Morley notes that Campbell died in 1962 and that there is no corroborated evidence
that Joannides was in Los Angeles in June 1968.
Joannides at the Ambassador Hotel on the night Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated.
Journalist Jefferson Morley who uncovered the Joannides story - and the only known
autheticated photos of Joannides - asserts emphatically and unequivocally that neither
Gordon Campbell nor George Joannides are the men depicted in this photograph.
Morley notes that Campbell died in 1962 and that there is no corroborated evidence
that Joannides was in Los Angeles in June 1968.
charles here are a couple of Joannides for you..b..
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - Charles Drago - 23-12-2009
Bernice,
Many, many thanks for posting the O'Sullivan photo.
I'll go through his book carefully (photos are scattered as opposed to gathered in a dedicated section); if a decent view of the Morales candidate is available, I'll try to scan and post it next to the DP version.
Happy Holidays!
Charles
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - Bernice Moore - 23-12-2009
charles you mention the earliest possible photos in which may be seen dopplegangers just a thought try shaw and harris cover-up...many of the photos have been studied by the younger fellas into the photos especially those who attend duncan's forum...they compare often..i have some saved there is also one some think could be hunt i sent it to jackonce ,posted below ,,crossing the open park in a i think a cancellare ?taken after..there is a resembance.ALSO THE one found may years ago of a possible ruby in front of the tsbd...i have some saved if you would like to see them as i find i could post and then you could compare for youself...it does become habit forming just lettting you know like an allergy or habit also some may call it...you mentioned morales..if you have not seen these you may enjoy for now...b..ps now jack may recall the names of the newspapermen who said they were standing on the base of the pole at the corner of houston and main.. i show the crop that many believe to be morales but here again we have a difference, but most go with morales and ignore the reporter..again to each their own or squabble from one end of the web to the other there are many who will accomodate...b:girl:
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - James H. Fetzer - 23-12-2009
Since I recently had an exchange with Peter Dale Scott about this issue, it
may be useful for me share a (slightly abridged) version of our exchange.
A few of our more personal remarks have (appropriately) been removed.
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:12:47 -0500 [10/23/2009 01:12:47 PM CST]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Peter Dale Scott" <pdscottweb@hotmail.com>
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: RE: The JFK Assassination: New York Times Acknowledges CIA Deceptions
Peter,
Giving this matter more thought, I would be keenly interested in knowing
how they were able to reject Brad's identifications. Since he did this
from photographs, but he had met them personally, unless they were in a
comparable position in relation to the same photographs and had Brad's
familiarity with them, I am not quite sure how they could establish he
was wrong. I have known Brad for quite a few years now, and he and I
have had quite a few lunches and other meetings together. . . . Morley
and Talbot may be correct, but I would be fascinated to know how they
became convinced he was wrong, especially since altering photographs
is not a challenge, once the agency became aware that they had been
identified. Again, I am not asserting that Brad is right and they are
wrong. What I want to know is how they can be sure that they are
right and he is wrong. This is a question about methodology and even
epistemology, if I may inquire.
Warm regards,
Jim
Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:
Peter,
That's fascinating! Thanks for letting me know.
Warm regards,
Jim
Quoting "Peter Dale Scott" <pdscottweb@hotmail.com>:
Dear Jim,
. . . .
Jeff Morley and David Talbot researched at length the Joannides spotting
in the Ambassador and rejected it -- people who knew him rejected the
Morales spotting, the third man identified was already dead in 1968.
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:31:27 -0500
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: pdscottweb@hotmail.com
CC: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Fw: The JFK Assassination: New York Times Acknowledges CIA Deceptions
Peter,
I received this note today with a copy of your recent piece in GLOBAL
RESEARCH. Do you know Bradley Ayers, THE ZENITH SECRET? He noticed
Joannides in photographs taken at the Ambassador Hotel. I mention it
in the final paragraph of my review of RECLAIMING HISTORY, which I am
attaching for reference. . . .
Warm regards,
Jim
----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:21:18 -0500
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Fw: The JFK Assassination: New York Times Acknowledges
CIA Deceptions
To: "Mike Montesano" <mike1mo@yahoo.com>
Cc: "John Hankey" <xjhankeyx@yahoo.com>, jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Mike,
Thanks for the note and the copy of the article by Peter Dale Scott.
I watched some of the History Channel's stuff, which was a mixed bag.
Some footage in the "3 Shots" piece I had not seen before. You are
right about Nixon and Bush having hazy memories about whether or not
they were in Dallas. Nixon flew out that morning and in Jesse Curry's
JFK ASSASSINATION FILE, there is a photo of G.H.W. Bush in front of
the Book Depository in early-to-mid-afternoon. Both appear to have
been involved. If you haven't already read it, see if you can find James
Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE, which is an excellent study.
Best wishes,
Jim
Quoting "Mike Montesano" <mike1mo@yahoo.com>:
I don't know if this means anything to you guys (I have not read it)
but figured I should pass it on. Also, THE HISTORY CHANNEL had been
airing several shows concerning the assassination etc. On one of
them (Which one I don't recall because it was late and I was very
tired) they showed footage of Nixon and George Bush Sr getting off
Air Force One and the news reporter stated Nixon and Congressman
George Bush getting off Air Force One. They were apparently getting
off the front, while Kennedy etc was getting off the back? I'm not
a scholar on this whole thing and might have facts confused, but I
have heard others state that Nixon didn't recall where he was that
day and Bush stated that he was not in Texas, but he gave a place
other that he was at. Any ways, thanks.
Mike
--- On Wed, 10/21/09, Global Research E-Newsletter
<crgeditor@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Global Research E-Newsletter <crgeditor@yahoo.com>
Subject: The JFK Assassination: New York Times Acknowledges CIA Deceptions
To: mike1mo@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 6:45 PM
The JFK Assassination: New York Times Acknowledges CIA Deceptions
By Peter Dale Scott
URL of this article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15752
Global Research, October 21, 2009
The New York Times, on October 17, published a page-one story by
Scott Shane about the CIA’s defiance of a court order to release
documents pertaining to the John F. Kennedy assassination, in its
so-called Joannides file. George Joannides was the CIA case officer
for a Cuban exile group that made headlines in 1963 by its public
engagements with Lee Harvey Oswald, just a few weeks before Oswald
allegedly killed Kennedy. For over six years a former Washington
Post reporter, Jefferson Morley, has been suing the CIA for the
release of these documents. [1]
Sometimes the way that a news item is reported can be more
newsworthy than the item itself. A notorious example was the 1971
publication of the Pentagon Papers (documents far too detailed for
most people to read) on the front page of the New York Times.
The October 17 Times story was another such example. It revealed,
perhaps for the first time in any major U.S. newspaper, that the CIA
has been deceiving the public about its own relationship to the JFK
assassination.
On the Kennedy assassination, the deceptions began in 1964 with the
Warren Commission. The C.I.A. hid its schemes to kill Fidel Castro
and its ties to the anti-Castro Directorio Revolucionario
Estudantil, or Cuban Student Directorate, which received $50,000 a
month in C.I.A. support during 1963.
In August 1963, Oswald visited a New Orleans shop owned by a
directorate official, feigning sympathy with the group’s goal of
ousting Mr. Castro. A few days later, directorate members found
Oswald handing out pro-Castro pamphlets and got into a brawl with
him. Later that month, he debated the anti-Castro Cubans on a local
radio station.
That the October 17 story was published at all is astonishing.
According to Lexis Nexis, there have only been two earlier
references to the CIA Joannides documents controversy in any major
U.S. newspaper: a brief squib in the New York Daily News in 2003
announcing the launching of the case, and a letter to the New York
Times in 2007 (of which the lead author was Jeff Morley) complaining
about the Times’ rave review of a book claiming that Oswald was a
lone assassin.
(The review had said inter alia that “''Conspiracy theorists''
should be ''ridiculed, even shunned... marginalized the way we've
marginalized smokers.'' The letter pointed out in response that
those suspecting conspiracy included Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon,
Robert Kennedy, and J. Edgar Hoover.)
The New York Times has systematically regulated the release of any
facts about the Kennedy assassination, ever since November 25, 1963,
when it first declared Oswald, the day after his death, to have been
the “assassin” of JFK. A notorious example was the deletion, between
the early and the final edition of a Times issue, of a paragraph in
a review of a book about the JFK assassination, making the obvious
point that “MYSTERIES PERSIST.” [2]
Apparently there was similar jockeying over the positioning of the
Scott Shane story. In some east coast editions it ran on page
eleven, with a trivializing introductory squib, "Food for Conspiracy
Theorists." In the California edition, headlined “C.I.A. Is Still
Cagey About Oswald Mystery,” it was on page one above the fold.
One can assume that the Times decision to run the story was a
momentous one not made casually. The same can probably be said of
another recent remarkable editorial decision, to publish Tom
Friedman’s op-ed on September 29 about the “very dangerous” climate
now in America, “the same kind of climate here that existed in
Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.”
Friedman did not mention JFK at all, and his most specific reference
was to a recent poll on Facebook asking respondents, “Should Obama
be killed?” [3] Four days later the Wall Street Journal expressed
similar concern, adding to the “poll on Facebook asking whether the
president should be assassinated, a column on a conservative Web
site suggesting a military coup is in the works.” [4]
Friedman’s column broke a code of silence about the threats to Obama
that had been in place ever since two redneck white supremacists
(Shawn Adolf and Tharin Gartrell) were arrested in August 2008 for a
plot to assassinate Obama with scoped bolt-action rifles. Andrew
Gumbel’s story about them ran in the London Independent on November
16, 2008; of the fifteen related news stories in Lexis Nexis, only
one, a brief one, is from a U.S. paper.
It is possible to take at face value the concern expressed by
Friedman in his column. The Boston Globe, a New York Times
affiliate, reported on October 18 that “The unprecedented number of
death threats against President Obama, a rise in racist hate groups,
and a new wave of antigovernment fervor threaten to overwhelm the US
Secret Service.” [5]
But there may have been a higher level of concern in the normally
pro-war Wall Street Journal’s reference to a military coup. Such
talk on a conservative web site is hardly newsworthy. More alarming
is the report by Robert Dreyfuss in the October 29 Rolling Stone
that Obama is currently facing an ultimatum from the Pentagon and
Joint Chiefs: either provide General McChrystal with the 40,000
additional troops he has publicly demanded, or “face a full-scale
mutiny by his generals...The president, it seems, is battling two
insurgencies: one in Afghanistan and one cooked up by his own
generals.” [6]
One can only guess at what led the New York Times to publish a story
about CIA obstinacy over documents about the JFK assassination. One
explanation would be the similarities between the painful choices
that Obama now faces in Afghanistan – to escalate, maintain a losing
status quo, or begin to withdraw – and the same equally painful
choices that Kennedy in 1963 faced in Vietnam. [7] More and more
books in recent years have asked if some disgruntled hawks in the
CIA and Pentagon did not participate in the assassination which led
to a wider Vietnam War. [8]
Six weeks before Kennedy’s murder, the Washington News published an
extraordinary attack on the CIA’s “bureaucratic arrogance” and
obstinate disregard of orders... “If the United States ever
experiences a `Seven Days in May’ it will come from the CIA...” one
U.S. official commented caustically. (“Seven Days in May” is a
fictional account of an attempted military coup to take over the
U.S. Government.) [9]
The story was actually a misleading one, but it was a symptom of the
high-level rifts and infighting that were becoming explosive over
Vietnam inside the Kennedy administration. The New York Times story
about the CIA on October 17 can also be seen as a symptom of rifts
and infighting. One must hope that the country has matured enough
since 1963 to avoid a similarly bloody denouement.
Notes
1. “C.I.A. Is Cagey About '63 Files Tied to Oswald,” New York Times,
October 17, 2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/us/17inquire.html.
2. Jerry Policoff, The Media and the Murder of John Kennedy,” in
Peter Dale Scott, Paul L. Hoch, and Russell Stetler, The
Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (New York: Random House/Vintage,
1976), 268.
3. Friedman, in decrying attacks on presidential legitimacy,
recalled that “The right impeached Bill Clinton and hounded him from
Day 1 with the bogus Whitewater “scandal.” It is worth recalling
also that the public outcry about Whitewater was encouraged
initially by a series of stories by Jeff Gerth, since largely
discredited, in the New York Times. See Gene Lyons, “Fool for
Scandal: How the New York Times Got Whitewater Wrong,” Harper’s,
October 1994.
4. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125452861657560895.html.
5. Bryan Bender, “Secret Service strained as leaders face more
threats Report questions its role in financial investigations,”
Boston Globe, October 18, 2009,
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/10/18/secret_service_under_strain_as_leaders_face_more_threats/.
6. Robert Dreyfuss, “The Generals’ Revolt: As Obama rethinks
America’s failed strategy in Afghanistan, he faces two insurgencies:
the Taliban and the Pentagon.” Rolling Stone, October 29, 41.
Several other articles entitled “The Generals’ Revolt” have been
published since 2003, including at least two earlier this year and a
number in 2006, when retired generals’ pushed successfully for the
removal of Rumsfeld over his handling of the Vietnam War.
7. Gareth Porter, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the
Road to War in Vietnam (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 2005), 266.
8. See for example James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He
Died & Why It Matters (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008).
9. Washington Daily News, October 2, 1963; discussed in Peter Dale
Scott, The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War
(Ipswich, MA: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2008), 286.
© Copyright Peter Dale Scott, Global Research, 2009
The url address of this article is:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15752
© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - James H. Fetzer - 23-12-2009
Peter wrote that there was "not enough" to back the IDs. The article states
that, "Morley and Talbot investigated this story, interviewing many family
members and associates of these three men, and concluded that the
identifications were mistaken." Those, however, are not the same position.
I am quite sure that Jefferson Morley and David Talbot, the author of the
book, BROTHERS, which I like very much, are honorable men. My point
is that they cannot accurately claim that Ayers and Smith are "mistaken"
unless the have established the identities of those they wrongly identified.
So if Brad and Wayne, for example, were "mistaken", then who were these
three persons? Campbell, Morales, and Joannides "look alikes"? How many
"family members" would implicate them in yet another assassination? In
order to conclude they were mistaken, it would be necessary to have IDed
them. To the best of my knowledge, that is a step that they did not take.
The claim that Gordon Campbell was dead by 1968 is fascinating by itself.
The CIA, of course, specializes in the fabrication of documents, records,
and fake IDs. A reason agents are required to maintain diaries is that it
enables the agency to create false records as alibis for their covert acts.
Bradley Ayers and Wayne Smith knew them personally and identified them
at the Ambassador. Take a look at the footage of them reviewing the tape
and their (very confident) identifications. Surely Brad is not going to be
wrong about a man he knew as well as his case officer, Gordon Campbell.
Facial images, I believe, are as conclusive as fingerprints, absent the use
of plastic surgery or of facial disguises. While "Joannades" appears to be
wearing a wig, I did not notice any signs that they were otherwise seeking
to distort their physical appearance. I think Brad and Wayne got it right!
I also agree with Jack. It is extremely rare for any of us to notice faces
that remind us of Jack Nicholson, Julia Roberts, George Clooney, or any of
a vast number of prominent public personalities with whom we are familiar.
That suggests to me that Charles is (atypically) barking up the wrong tree.
A statistical analysis of the kind he suggests, I believe, properly conducted,
would show that practically none of us looks enough like other persons as to
be mistaken for one another. That requires a special, highly unusual, effort
of the kind that was employed by using Oswald look-alikes in taking out JFK.
I am rather troubled by the apparent willingness to disregard photographic
identifications, such as those in Dealey Plaza. Based upon the evidence we
have available, I believe we have photos of Conein, Lansdale, Robertson,
Morales, Milteer, and several others in the record. I have no real doubt.
The thesis of the ubiquitousness of dopplegangers is a logical possibility, of
course, but our unique genes -- apart from the case of identical twins --
tends to differentiate our phenotypes as a function of our genotypes. And
when was the last time you thought you were dealing with identical twins?
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:46:53 -0500 [10/24/2009 08:46:53 PM CST]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Peter Dale Scott" <pdscottweb@hotmail.com>
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: RE: The JFK Assassination: New York Times Acknowledges CIA Deceptions
Peter,
I am looking at this and things are not adding up. For example, Gordon
Campbell, they understand, died on September 19, 1962. But he was Brad's
case officer, whom he obviously would have known well, and Brad served at
JM/WAVE from May 1993 to December 1994, after Campbell had allegedly died.
As for Morales, both Brad and Wayne Smith confirmed that the person in the
film appeared to be Morales. They were both quite definite, in my view,
where Brad tossing in body language (his way of moving) and Wayne Smith,
who appears to have known Morales very well, confirmed the identification.
The photo of the man who may be George Joannades appears to be wearing
a wig. I don't even think it's a close call. I can imagine many reasons
why people would want to deny that these guys were the trio under review,
but I can't think of a single serious reason for Brad or for Wayne to lie.
I am sure you will grant that they MIGHT be the parties we are discussing
and that the question is whether there is enough evidence here to drawn
an affirmative conclusion. I think this disproof is very sloppy, indeed,
and I am dismayed that it is being taken seriously. I am not impressed.
I am impressed, however, that William Colby observed that the CIA owned
every one of significance in the mainstream media. I am sure you think
that Jefferson Morley and David Talbot are impeccable sources. But, if
that's true, how could they have missed the Campbell death contradiction?
I am not happy with this. I think the Smith and Ayers' identifications
are the real deal and that having lots of others deny it is meaningless.
They don't mention (what I take to be) the obvious wig and they haven't
done enough to rule them out. You may forward this to them, if you like.
Jim
Quoting "Peter Dale Scott" <pdscottweb@hotmail.com>:
They are sophisticated journalists and interviewed Ayers along with many
others. The results were mixed but not favorable enough to back the IDs.
It seems clear that the third man Campbell was already dead by 1968.
All this is written up by them somewhere on the Web. And you can hear
a summary of what they found at http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Unreda=cted_-_Episode_8
Peter
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - James H. Fetzer - 23-12-2009
As it happens, once I post a comment, I take another look,
and very often add or revise what I have had to say. Those
who are replying to comments of mine, therefore, may want
to verify that the post they are discussing is the same as the
post they have been sent as part of the notification process.
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - Peter Lemkin - 23-12-2009
I think a few different phenomenon need to be considered here. Intelligence agencies are known to recruit look-alikes and use them in certain missions. They also keep track of civilians not in their employ, but who look like person in their employ. As Jack and I and others have pointed out the chances that SO MANY persons who either were or looked like operatives would all be in Dallas in the Plaza THAT day are one in a trillion [or less - much less]. The separate questions are whether they were the persons some suspect they were or look alikes; whether they chose to be there or were told or maneuvered to be there; and if they had an operational role, observational role or were placed there to be set up/shut up. While some may be a mistake, they can't all be - the odds of that are just too astronomical. While some could be look-alikes working for an intelligence agency, they can't all be innocent chance look alikes. I'm more concerned in the gestalt of the phenomenon, than in endless arguments as to this or that one, which I feel the Bad Guys use to divide us [and thus conquer] - which might have been the idea in the first place. There is nothing wrong with work to determine if X is X or a look-alike Y, but the rabbit didn't live or come out of the hat. The hallmarks of magic and intelligence shows are confusion, deception and mis-direction. Step back and look at the magic show we were presented and are presented with still. That look alikes were at more than one execution operation is even more damning, IMO. It is my hunch thar many to most of the suspects are exactly the most damning possibility....although, perhaps not all. That not all are, changes nothing.
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - Bernice Moore - 23-12-2009
ecruity:Peter Lemkin Wrote:I think a few different phenomenon need to be considered here. Intelligence agencies are known to recruit look-alikes and use them in certain missions. They also keep track of civilians not in their employ, but who look like person in their employ. As Jack and I and others have pointed out the chances that SO MANY persons who either were or looked like operatives would all be in Dallas in the Plaza THAT day are one in a trillion [or less - much less]. The separate questions are whether they were the persons some suspect they were or look alikes; whether they chose to be there or were told or maneuvered to be there; and if they had an operational role, observational role or were placed there to be set up/shut up. While some may be a mistake, they can't all be - the odds of that are just too astronomical. While some could be look-alikes working for an intelligence agency, they can't all be innocent chance look alikes. I'm more concerned in the gestalt of the phenomenon, than in endless arguments as to this or that one, which I feel the Bad Guys use to divide us [and thus conquer] - which might have been the idea in the first place. There is nothing wrong with work to determine if X is X or a look-alike Y, but the rabbit didn't live or come out of the hat. The hallmarks of magic and intelligence shows are confusion, deception and mis-direction. Step back and look at the magic show we were presented and are presented with still. That look alikes were at more than one execution operation is even more damning, IMO. It is my hunch thar many to most of the suspects are exactly the most damning possibility....although, perhaps not all. That not all are, changes nothing.
quote peter they can't all be innocent chance look alikes. I'm more concerned in the gestalt of the phenomenon, than in endless arguments as to this or that one, which I feel the Bad Guys use to divide us [and thus conquer] - which might have been the idea in the first place. There is nothing wrong with work to determine if X is X or a look-alike Y, but the rabbit didn't live or come out of the hat. The hallmarks of magic and intelligence shows are confusion, deception and mis-direction. Step back and look at the magic show we were presented and are presented with still. That look alikes were at more than one execution operation is even more damning, IMO. It is my hunch thar many to most of the suspects are exactly the most damning possibility....although, perhaps not all. That not all are, changes nothing.[/QUOTE]
got you Peter..for the heck of it i went into the rat's nest :dong: to have a look how many lookalike possibilitiesi had saved that have been found within dealey plaza by the photo analyists..i figured i recalled many but i was surprised by the amount found..many were from james richard's work in past years but not all..the other fellas had been very busy as well aside from those that Jack has presented to us of course here is just one comp.from Jame's work...for instance...for you to have a look at...b:questionmark:and ponder there are many others...:hmmmm2:
b