"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today"

[Bernice Moore]

DAWN..:alberteinstein:B:lollypop:

[Bernice Moore]

ARRESTS...ALSO a young man by the name of William Gaston Allen, working for The Dallas Times Herald, which is long gone, I believe, ......he was in Forth Worth and covered, as a photographer, he was at his office processing ,back in Dallas, when the call came through, he ran, a block away, from TSBD ,and was at the corner of Elm and Houston, in time to see the last bus leaving, he stayed there in that immediate area, and took 6 rolls , shy of 100 frames of activity around Dealey, "I just shot everything that moved around there for awhile"...he had a runner, going back and forth with all these, processing them, he was the only one there connected to TDTH or UPI,now, he took photos of the three tramps, and Florer, now he may have, and probably did get photos of anyone under suspicion taken in by DPD....if we can find some of his photos, never know this photo might have come from one of his....

Now, there is a reference to a man being taken by DPD, and only speaking Spanish, and because he could not speak English, it said, they let him go.????....It is in the JFK Assn. Chronology, have been looking but not found it yet, but will, to see if there is a reference, I believe he was described as a young man..now I recall, it did not say what he said, in Spanish, in the Chron. but if there is a reference it may......as if the DPD, Texans wouldn't be able to understand, sheesh....

We do have some of the Allen photos but certainly not near 100 frames.he took the photos of the tramps etc as mentioned ...as far as the spanish speaking man that was let go..i finally found the photo a few years back..it was originally in the Garrisin collection and Jim apparently showed it to Roger craig who said something to the effect it looked like or reminded him of the driver of the station wafon he saw pick up lho after as he ran down thegrassy knoll..it is posted below it was in the old Tony Marsh collection...thanks..there is one more of an arrest that is not familar that came from James along with his lookalike ..attached...all who were , arrested were let go and not held.and no clear concise records kept except for the supposed 3 tramps found years later by the Fontaines.see the crap book imo mrs.paine's messy garage.if you also wasted your money on it....:dontknow:....b...

[Charles Drago]

And you MUST be kidding about Len "Brasil" Colby being there.

Jack

Kidding?

Me?

Yeah, you're right.

But a boy can dream, can't he?

[Charles Drago]

Apart from Joannides wearing what appears to be a wig at the Ambassador, I am unaware of any claims that any of these persons were disguising their appearance. That does not appear to be the case for any of the "tramps" and it does not appear to be the case for any of the "familiar faces" in Dealey Plaza. If there is a basis for this suggestion, Charles, I would like to learn more about it.

One quick reference: According to Marjorie Hunter, writing in "Colson Confirms Backing Kennedy Inquiry but Denies Knowing of Hunt's CIA Aid," New York Times (June 30, 1973), p. 15, Hunt had been sent by Colson to New England to find dirt on EMK. For that project, he may have made use of disguises developed by the CIA.

I'll find other, more direct references to Dealey Plaza. But if we agree that the "tramps" were in fact conspirators, then by definition they are disguised as tramps.

And if you argue that Hunt is the old tramp, then is it not logical to assume that the appearance of relatively advanced age and the disparity between the "tramp's" ears and those of Hunt are functions of advanced disguises?

And if Hunt did wear sophisticated disguises during his EMK dirt digging, then is it farfetched to conclude that he had made use of similar techniques during previous operations?

For now,

Charles

[James H. Fetzer]

Charlels,

1) I was not suggesting that CIA agents never used disguises but that none of those in Dealey Plaza appear to be in disguise;

2) calling three men, who appear to be normally dressed, "tramps" was the only form of distortion involved, not any disguises;

3) I infer that you have not been reading my posts: I deny that Hunt is the eldest of the three, whom I believe is Chauncey Holt;

and,

4) return to 1): my point was about the apparent lack of disguises by anyone who was in Dealey Plaza during the assassination.

I agree that sometimes these guys have resorted to disguises, as in the case of Joannides at the Ambassador, if I am right.

I hope you will read and respond to my lenthy post above, which I wrote to assess where you and I stand on these issues.

Jim

[James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

1) he made the identification in 1996, some years earlier;

2) I have corrected the misspelling of "supranasal"; and,

3) your studies are "good enough" to establish your points.

None of this can be "conclusive", as I have explained above.

Jim

[Charles Drago]

About the nature of knowledge, in its ordinary sense, knowledge is defined as warranted, true belief. Belief is what we take to be the case. When a belief is true, it is the case. Our only way to judge, however, is on the basis of evidence and logic to determine if the evidence is sufficient to warrant the belief, in which case it may be treated as "knowledge".

Agreed.

Knowledge claims in matters empirical--about the contents and events of the world and its history--are incapable of being known with certainty.

I certainly know that Custer died at Little Bighorn. Please define "certainty."

When we come to discussing aspects of the assassination, including the identities of those seen in photographs taken in the plaza, we are not going to be able to determine their identities with certainty.

This paragraph makes no sense.

This means that empirical knowledge is both fallible (it can still be false, even when we have ample proof that it is true) and tentative (since the discovery of new evidence or alternative hypotheses may require that we revise our conclusions), which are never beyond the possibility of empirical disproof. There is no way around this.

So Custer may not have died at Little Bighorn?

On the other hand, we may be able to rule some identifications out on the basis of known features of those who are involved. That appears to be the case here, when Jack has ruled out the identification of Mainman with Robert Adams on the basis of multiple differences in their features, including the shapes of their heads and distances between their brows.

So is Jack's disqualification of Adams as Mainman "beyond the possibility of empiracal disproof"? Or is it an "ampliative inference"?

Jack's work is empirical and could be mistaken, but I can find no reason to think that is the case.

So that we understand each other: You are NOT arguing: Mainman is not Adams, therefore Mainman is Conein. Am I correct in this assumption?

What those who would deny this inference need is a reasonable alternative explanation.

Agreed: Your Mainman is Conein hypothesis is preferable to the Mainman is Adams hypothesis. It is equally preferable to a Mainman is Mr. Ed hypothesis, isn't it?

It is always possible to hold out for more proof. If there are eight points of similarity in fingerprints, for example, you could hold out for eight more.

I'm assuming that eight points of similarity is the universally accepted standard used to identify fingerprints.

Are there similarly governing standards used to identify facial characteristics? If so, have you used them in a manner consistent with the scientific method to identify Mainman?

If there are major points of comparison between Mainman and Conein, you could hold out for more. But even those who knew him, such as Fletcher Prouty, have concluded that Mainman is Conein. And that they have said their identifications are not certain does not discount them. [emphasis added]

In citing Prouty you may be commiting the fallacy of argument from false authority. I am not all that quick to accept Prouty at his word.

If we are waiting for certainty in matters of this kind, we will be waiting forever. It is not possible for empirical conclusions to enjoy the kind of certainty that deductive arguments possess. We must therefore be very circumspect in dismissing conclusions on the ground that they are not certain. Certainty in cases of this kind is not possible.

Agreed. I simply ask, in relation to the quest to identify Mainman, if all avenues of scientific comparison have been exhausted? Have they? Or is what you're claiming nothing more or less than, "It sure looks like him to me"?

Before I address the possible identities of those at the Ambassador Hotel, I would like to know if there is any serious disagreement with anything I have said here. So far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with what I have explained. So if there is a disagreement, I would like to know the nature of that disagreement.

Your presentation of baseline principles of logic is, I would concede, without flaw and typically eloquent in its detail and nuance.

My simple bottom line is this: I slowly moved toward the "Major Lopez" discussion/illustration with the hope that a former defender of the Lamp Post man as DSM hypothesis would change his/her mind. Our dear friend Jack has done just that.

What is your opinion on the DSM matter in light of the "Major Lopez" appearance?

This is fun, and I do hope to learn more from you, Jim. The way I figure it, I'm getting world-class tutelage on a 100% scholarship!

[Charles Drago]

Charlels,

1) I was not suggesting that CIA agents never used disguises but that none of those in Dealey Plaza appear to be in disguise;

Sorry, but we have yet to agree that any CIA agents were photographed in Dealey Plaza. You state as fact that which has yet to be established as fact.

2) calling three men, who appear to be normally dressed, "tramps" was the only form of distortion involved, not any disguises;

We cannot determine with existing technology if relatively sophisticated facial disguises were used by the "tramps." And while their shoes and facial grooming were indeed inconsistent with what we expect to find on your typical hobo, the condition of jackets, shirts, etc. are poorly described in the literature.

3) I infer that you have not been reading my posts: I deny that Hunt is the eldest of the three, whom I believe is Chauncey Holt;

Point.

4) return to 1): my point was about the apparent lack of disguises by anyone who was in Dealey Plaza during the assassination.

Then again, a good disguise wouldn't be noticed, would it?

[James H. Fetzer]

Charlels,

1) I was not suggesting that CIA agents never used disguises but that none of those in Dealey Plaza appear to be in disguise;

Sorry, but we have yet to agree that any CIA agents were photographed in Dealey Plaza. You state as fact that which has yet to be established as fact.

Taking the "tramps" as examples, the person who looks like Charles Harrelson looks like Harrelson as I observed him in other interviews. The person who looks like Chauncey Holt looks like he did in person. The person who looks like Charles Rogers (aka Richard Montoya) also looks like the man in the pamphlet. The point being that there is no indication that any of them was disguishing his appearance, although, as you observe, none of this can be know with certainty. In discussions with Chauncey, he identified himself and also explained to me his role as a contract agent for the CIA, who was instructed to prepare fifteen sets of forged Secret Service credentials for use around Dealey Plaza. I have read his book manuscripts, discussed his story with him and his wife and daughter, watched many of his videotapes of his life story and listened to his radio interview in becoming convinced that he is the "real deal" -- even though that can only be known with high probability and not with certainty, since there is a miniscule chance that this might all be part of an elaborate charade.

2) calling three men, who appear to be normally dressed, "tramps" was the only form of distortion involved, not any disguises;

We cannot determine with existing technology if relatively sophisticated facial disguises were used by the "tramps." And while their shoes and facial grooming were indeed inconsistent with what we expect to find on your typical hobo, the condition of jackets, shirts, etc. are poorly described in the literature.

We can see how they were dressed in the photographs we have. Their appearance looked quite ordinary, although the first appeared better dressed than the second or the third. None of them looked like hobos.

3) I infer that you have not been reading my posts: I deny that Hunt is the eldest of the three, whom I believe is Chauncey Holt;

Point.

4) return to 1): my point was about the apparent lack of disguises by anyone who was in Dealey Plaza during the assassination.

Then again, a good disguise wouldn't be noticed, would it?

I reiterate: Harrelson looks just like he does in other inteviews, Chauncey like he did in real life --and in photos from the family album. There is no reason to think that either of them was in a disguise -- nor, indeed, is there any reason to think that the first of them, whom I am referring to as "Charles Rogers" in agreement with Lois Gibson, was in any kind of disguise. That the second looks like Harrleson and the third looks like Holt -- for those of us who have observed them in other contexts -- creates a presumption that those are their true identities, though none of this is known with certainty.

[Bernice Moore]

QUOTE DR.JIM..The person who looks like Charles Rogers (aka Richard Montoya) also looks like the man in the pamphlet.END OF QIOTE.. HERE IS A COMP OF MONTOYA ..B:willy: