I've addressed eight selected points from your illuminating response. Each begins with an excerpt from my original post. Next come your reactions, which appear in italics. Finally I offer my latest thoughts in RED.
1. I certainly know that Custer died at Little Bighorn. Please define "certainty."
That's a fairly astonishing claim, given your skepticism about even being able to identify those who were photographed in Dealey Plaza. Actually, you not only do not know with certainty that Custer died at Little Big Horn but that you are the biological offspring of your own parents.
How about this: I know that George Washington is dead.
The problem is that you only know indirectly that there was a "George Washington" who served as our first president. If his existence was a legend created by historians for our own national inspiration, then not only did Washington never live but, unsurprisingly, he never died. So while I'm in agreement in believing that he lived and died, it is a matter of high probability (or likelihood), not certainty, which is impossible about the occurrence of everts in history. For a more recent example, think of the alleged 19 Islamic fundamentalists who hijacked nineteen planes!
2. This paragraph makes no sense.
Your remark is what makes no sense, given what you have said about their identification in the other post. There you were giving credence to the theory that they might have been in disguises -- even though there is no good reason to think so -- and that, if they were good disguises, we would not be able to detect them! That's a pretty skeptical position that leaves us in a complete state of uncertainty about their identity. So why are you now adopting the position that your own position -- that their identities cannot be known with certainty -- makes no sense?
[COLOR="Red"]I’ll withdraw the “no sense” assessment. But I’ll maintain that, for reasons having to do with operational security and discipline – not to mention personal security – the hypothesis that highly trained, disciplined intelligence officers presumably with no operational responsibilities would be willing to expose themselves at a crime scene of their making simply to gloat defies what we know about how these characters operate.
Yeah, the “no operational responsibilities” is a leap on my part. But it is no greater a leap than the one you make when you reason that they keenly desired to witness the destruction of JFK, so they violated all rules, abandoned reason, and showed up for the kill.[/COLOR]
Well, lots of odd things happen during these ops that might appear to be unreasonable on their face. Planting a medium to low-velocity weapon on the alleged assassin, which cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK, for example, is an nice illustration. The resemblances in this case are so striking and the number so imposing that their presence is all but assured.
I am the least bit puzzled at your resistance to these identifications, which are, after all, as I have explained several times now, both tentative (subject to revision with the acquisition of new evidence and new alternatives) and fallible (even when they are well supported by the evidence, they could still be false). The major objection to your stance is they seem to have been there!
3. 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?
Not just "equally", but overwhelmingly, since there seems to be no resemblance relationship between Mainman and Mr. Ed, unlike the case of Adams -- unless we notice that they are both animals, both mammals, and such. But Mr. Ed is even more obviously not Mainman.
I’d phrase it more simply: A horse is a horse, of course, of course.
I take it this is a concession on your part. If that is the case, I accept it.
4. 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?
Actually, I made an educated guess, which we can pursue.
Let’s leave fingerprint analysis for another campfire. To your knowledge, is there an established scientific methodology for the comparison of photographic images of faces that can be applied to Dealey Plaza and control images?
I will ask Jack and see what we come up with. That is a useful suggestion.
5.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.
No. You commit a blunder in logic.
[COLOR="Red"]You are correct; my choice of terminology was, shall we say, less than artful. Or, if you prefer, just plain wrong.
UNLESS you accept that the “authority” I meant to reference is that of an expert who can be trusted not to disinform.[/COLOR]
Well, by either standard, Fletcher Prouty is an appropriate "authority" to ID Conein and, in relation to another photo, Lansdale, an identification, we know, that was confirmed by Victor Krulak, former Commandant of the Marine Corps.
6.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"?
Well, it's more than that.
[COLOR="Red"]Again and for the record, we agree that Mainman and Adams are not the same person. Obvious and otherwise inexplicable dissimilarities convince us of this to a significant degree.
BUT regarding the noted similarities between Mainman and Conein, I pose yet again the simple question: Can the similarities be scientifically evaluated?[/COLOR]
The gross features that Jack identified--the shape of the face, the length of the chin, the ear shapes and the supranasal ridge differences do not appear to require quantification. They are more than sufficient to disqualify Adams as Mainman. We can look for more confirmations that Mainman is Conein, but the resemblance is striking--with no obvious alternative candidates.
7.Your presentation of baseline principles of logic is, I would concede, without flaw and typically eloquent in its detail and nuance.
Well, do we agree up to this point? I believe that Lamppostman is David Sanchez Morales, but I am willing to postpone that discussion for another time. Would you now agree with my reasoning about Mainman as I have presented it here?
[COLOR="Red"]I wholeheartedly disagree with you in re the Morales identification. Let’s not postpone the discussion much longer. Nonetheless it is safe to say we are making progress: I agree with your Mainman reasoning in terms of the low probability of an Adams match. Mainman likely is not Adams.
That being stated, I would not hesitate to conduct a scientific Mainman/Adams comparison if such methodology exists. And of course I wish to do the same for the Mainman/Conein hypothesis.
I reiterate: 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. So in your opinion who does Lamp Post Man more closely resemble: “Major Lopez” or DSM?[/COLOR]
I will have to learn more about "Major Lopez". Was there some reason to think he might have been there? The fact that Morales worked with Robertson and Lansdale, for example, offers corroborating circumstantial support for his identification, where the similarity looks very strong to me.
8. Let's see how you do on the exam!
Schrödinger's cat ate my homework.
That was just the mid-term. When your wavepacket collapses, I'll grade it!
25-12-2009, 10:48 PM (This post was last modified: 26-12-2009, 12:12 AM by Charles Drago.)
Jim, my latest thoughts in Christmas GREEN.
James H. Fetzer Wrote:
Charles Drago Wrote:Jim,
I've addressed eight selected points from your illuminating response. Each begins with an excerpt from my original post. Next come your reactions, which appear in italics. Finally I offer my latest thoughts in RED.
1. I certainly know that Custer died at Little Bighorn. Please define "certainty."
That's a fairly astonishing claim, given your skepticism about even being able to identify those who were photographed in Dealey Plaza. Actually, you not only do not know with certainty that Custer died at Little Big Horn but that you are the biological offspring of your own parents.
How about this: I know that George Washington is dead.
The problem is that you only know indirectly that there was a "George Washington" who served as our first president. If his existence was a legend created by historians for our own national inspiration, then not only did Washington never live but, unsurprisingly, he never died. So while I'm in agreement in believing that he lived and died, it is a matter of high probability (or likelihood), not certainty, which is impossible about the occurrence of everts in history. For a more recent example, think of the alleged 19 Islamic fundamentalists who hijacked nineteen planes!
[COLOR="Green"]How does personal observation impact the ability to be certain about events? The woman who I am told was my mother died in my arms. The physician in attendance pronounced her dead in my presence (at our home). Her corpse remained in its bed for two hours before morticians arrived to transport it to the funeral home. During that time and on numerous occasions I sat by the cooling remains, which were moribund and otherwise fit every known (to me) criteria for the remains of a deceased homo sapien female. I understand that there are "false death" states, so I suppose that she may have been in one.
If I had accompanied the corpse to the mortician's workroom and watched as it was embalmed -- a big "if" in our discussion -- and otherwise had made certain that the chain of personal observation had not been broken, would I then be able to state to the degree of metaphysical certitude that that female homo sapien had died?[/COLOR]
2. This paragraph makes no sense.
Your remark is what makes no sense, given what you have said about their identification in the other post. There you were giving credence to the theory that they might have been in disguises -- even though there is no good reason to think so -- and that, if they were good disguises, we would not be able to detect them! That's a pretty skeptical position that leaves us in a complete state of uncertainty about their identity. So why are you now adopting the position that your own position -- that their identities cannot be known with certainty -- makes no sense?
[COLOR="Red"]I’ll withdraw the “no sense” assessment. But I’ll maintain that, for reasons having to do with operational security and discipline – not to mention personal security – the hypothesis that highly trained, disciplined intelligence officers presumably with no operational responsibilities would be willing to expose themselves at a crime scene of their making simply to gloat defies what we know about how these characters operate.
Yeah, the “no operational responsibilities” is a leap on my part. But it is no greater a leap than the one you make when you reason that they keenly desired to witness the destruction of JFK, so they violated all rules, abandoned reason, and showed up for the kill.[/COLOR]
Well, lots of odd things happen during these ops that might appear to be unreasonable on their face. Planting a medium to low-velocity weapon on the alleged assassin, which cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK, for example, is an nice illustration. The resemblances in this case are so striking and the number so imposing that their presence is all but assured.
I am the least bit puzzled at your resistance to these identifications, which are, after all, as I have explained several times now, both tentative (subject to revision with the acquisition of new evidence and new alternatives) and fallible (even when they are well supported by the evidence, they could still be false). The major objection to your stance is they seem to have been there!
Tentative and subject to revision ... AGREED! My point exactly! My main objection is to what I respectfully describe as your rush to judgement. That's all. Because I do not agree that ALL of the resemblances are "striking" and "imposing" -- not even in terms of their sheer number. Your ID of Morales is less striking to me than my ID of "Major Lopez." And I've yet to see evidence that your powers of observation are keener than my own.
4. 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?
Actually, I made an educated guess, which we can pursue.
Let’s leave fingerprint analysis for another campfire. To your knowledge, is there an established scientific methodology for the comparison of photographic images of faces that can be applied to Dealey Plaza and control images?
I will ask Jack and see what we come up with. That is a useful suggestion.
Onward!
5.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.
No. You commit a blunder in logic.
[COLOR="Red"]You are correct; my choice of terminology was, shall we say, less than artful. Or, if you prefer, just plain wrong.
UNLESS you accept that the “authority” I meant to reference is that of an expert who can be trusted not to disinform.[/COLOR]
Well, by either standard, Fletcher Prouty is an appropriate "authority" to ID Conein and, in relation to another photo, Lansdale, an identification, we know, that was confirmed by Victor Krulak, former Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Is Prouty an authoratative purveyor of truth? Can we take him at his word?
6.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"?
Well, it's more than that.
[COLOR="Red"]Again and for the record, we agree that Mainman and Adams are not the same person. Obvious and otherwise inexplicable dissimilarities convince us of this to a significant degree.
BUT regarding the noted similarities between Mainman and Conein, I pose yet again the simple question: Can the similarities be scientifically evaluated?[/COLOR]
The gross features that Jack identified--the shape of the face, the length of the chin, the ear shapes and the supranasal ridge differences do not appear to require quantification. They are more than sufficient to disqualify Adams as Mainman. We can look for more confirmations that Mainman is Conein, but the resemblance is striking--with no obvious alternative candidates.
"Striking" is hardly a scientific evaluation. "Major Lopez" bears a "striking" resemblance to Lamp Post Man -- in my opinion.
7.Your presentation of baseline principles of logic is, I would concede, without flaw and typically eloquent in its detail and nuance.
Well, do we agree up to this point? I believe that Lamppostman is David Sanchez Morales, but I am willing to postpone that discussion for another time. Would you now agree with my reasoning about Mainman as I have presented it here?
[COLOR="Red"]I wholeheartedly disagree with you in re the Morales identification. Let’s not postpone the discussion much longer. Nonetheless it is safe to say we are making progress: I agree with your Mainman reasoning in terms of the low probability of an Adams match. Mainman likely is not Adams.
That being stated, I would not hesitate to conduct a scientific Mainman/Adams comparison if such methodology exists. And of course I wish to do the same for the Mainman/Conein hypothesis.
I reiterate: 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. So in your opinion who does Lamp Post Man more closely resemble: “Major Lopez” or DSM?[/COLOR]
I will have to learn more about "Major Lopez". Was there some reason to think he might have been there? The fact that Morales worked with Robertson and Lansdale, for example, offers corroborating circumstantial support for his identification, where the similarity looks very strong to me.
I'll be back to you soon on "Major Lopez."
8. Let's see how you do on the exam!
Schrödinger's cat ate my homework.
That was just the mid-term. When your wavepacket collapses, I'll grade it!
Hey, I'm a stand-up guy. And I'll have you know that my wavepacket remains quite firm without the benefit of pharmaceutical enhancements, and I'll thank you to exclude it from this discussion. Further, I advise you to seek medical help if wavepacket debate lasts longer than four hours.
Charles Drago Wrote:Jim, my latest thoughts in Christmas GREEN.
James H. Fetzer Wrote:
Charles Drago Wrote:Jim,
I've addressed eight selected points from your illuminating response. Each begins with an excerpt from my original post. Next come your reactions, which appear in italics. Finally I offer my latest thoughts in RED.
1. I certainly know that Custer died at Little Bighorn. Please define "certainty."
That's a fairly astonishing claim, given your skepticism about even being able to identify those who were photographed in Dealey Plaza. Actually, you not only do not know with certainty that Custer died at Little Big Horn but that you are the biological offspring of your own parents.
How about this: I know that George Washington is dead.
The problem is that you only know indirectly that there was a "George Washington" who served as our first president. If his existence was a legend created by historians for our own national inspiration, then not only did Washington never live but, unsurprisingly, he never died. So while I'm in agreement in believing that he lived and died, it is a matter of high probability (or likelihood), not certainty, which is impossible about the occurrence of everts in history. For a more recent example, think of the alleged 19 Islamic fundamentalists who hijacked nineteen planes!
How does personal observation impact the ability to be certain about events? The woman who I am told was my mother died in my arms. The physician in attendance pronounced her dead in my presence (at our home). Her corpse remained in its bed for two hours before morticians arrived to transport it to the funeral home. During that time and on numerous occasions I sat by the cooling remains, which were moribund and otherwise fit every known criteria for the remains of a deceased homo sapien female. I understand that there are "false death" states, so I suppose that she may have been in one.
If I had accompanied the corpse to the mortician's workroom and watched as it was embalmed -- a big "if" in our discussion -- and otherwise had made certain that the chain of custody had not been broken, would I then be able to state to the degree of metaphysical certitude that that female homo sapien had died?
Descartes addressed this kind of appeal by observing that we might be mistaking particularly vivid dreams or have been deceived about what we thought we were observing by an "evil demon". The point is not that this is what was happening but that it is a possibility that undermines complete confidence in any of our experiences, no matter how "personal". I agree that you almost certainly had these experiences but, in the nature of the matter, the "almost" cannot be eliminated in favor of certainty. Even the most convincing experience could have an alternative explanation, if we were under the influence of LSD, for example. There is no reason to fight it. All of our knowledge about ourselves and the world around us is uncertain--not in a simple subjective sense but in a strict objective one. There are always alternative possible explanations, no matter how improbable. Which is why not even our personal experiences can strictly qualify as "certain".
2. This paragraph makes no sense.
Your remark is what makes no sense, given what you have said about their identification in the other post. There you were giving credence to the theory that they might have been in disguises -- even though there is no good reason to think so -- and that, if they were good disguises, we would not be able to detect them! That's a pretty skeptical position that leaves us in a complete state of uncertainty about their identity. So why are you now adopting the position that your own position -- that their identities cannot be known with certainty -- makes no sense?
I’ll withdraw the “no sense” assessment. But I’ll maintain that, for reasons having to do with operational security and discipline – not to mention personal security – the hypothesis that highly trained, disciplined intelligence officers presumably with no operational responsibilities would be willing to expose themselves at a crime scene of their making simply to gloat defies what we know about how these characters operate.
Yeah, the “no operational responsibilities” is a leap on my part. But it is no greater a leap than the one you make when you reason that they keenly desired to witness the destruction of JFK, so they violated all rules, abandoned reason, and showed up for the kill.
Well, lots of odd things happen during these ops that might appear to be unreasonable on their face. Planting a medium to low-velocity weapon on the alleged assassin, which cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK, for example, is an nice illustration. The resemblances in this case are so striking and the number so imposing that their presence is all but assured.
I am the least bit puzzled at your resistance to these identifications, which are, after all, as I have explained several times now, both tentative (subject to revision with the acquisition of new evidence and new alternatives) and fallible (even when they are well supported by the evidence, they could still be false). The major objection to your stance is they seem to have been there!
Tentative and subject to revision ... AGREED! My point exactly! My main objection is to what I respectfully describe as your rush to judgement. That's all. Because I do not agree that ALL of the resemblances are "striking" and "imposing" in terms of numbers. Your ID of Morales is less striking to me than my ID of "Major Lopez."
Well, this "Major Lopez" business is new to me, so it qualifies as a new alternative hypothesis. I don't regard any of my judgments as "rushed" in these matters--and certainly not with regard to the Holt/Hunt matter, where I organized and moderated a symposium at Lancer to address it, where Jerry Rose was sufficiently impressed to change his opinion from Hunt to Holt!
4. 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?
Actually, I made an educated guess, which we can pursue.
Let’s leave fingerprint analysis for another campfire. To your knowledge, is there an established scientific methodology for the comparison of photographic images of faces that can be applied to Dealey Plaza and control images?
I will ask Jack and see what we come up with. That is a useful suggestion.
Onward!
5.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.
No. You commit a blunder in logic.
You are correct; my choice of terminology was, shall we say, less than artful. Or, if you prefer, just plain wrong.
UNLESS you accept that the “authority” I meant to reference is that of an expert who can be trusted not to disinform.
Well, by either standard, Fletcher Prouty is an appropriate "authority" to ID Conein and, in relation to another photo, Lansdale, an identification, we know, that was confirmed by Victor Krulak, former Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Is Prouty an "authority" of truthfulness?
In matters of personal identification, because he knew these men up close and personal, he is an authority in relation to their identification in photos. He possesses appropriate kinds of specialized knowlege, which is also true of Brad Ayers and Wayne Smith, but is not true of David Talbot or his running mate.
6.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"?
Well, it's more than that.
Again and for the record, we agree that Mainman and Adams are not the same person. Obvious and otherwise inexplicable dissimilarities convince us of this to a significant degree.
BUT regarding the noted similarities between Mainman and Conein, I pose yet again the simple question: Can the similarities be scientifically evaluated?
The gross features that Jack identified--the shape of the face, the length of the chin, the ear shapes and the supranasal ridge differences do not appear to require quantification. They are more than sufficient to disqualify Adams as Mainman. We can look for more confirmations that Mainman is Conein, but the resemblance is striking--with no obvious alternative candidates.
"Striking" is hardly a scientific evaluation. "Major Lopez" bears a "striking" resemblance to Lamp Post Man -- in my opinion.
Well, maybe there is an "obvious alternative candidate", after all. Is there any reason to think he might have been in Dealey Plaza with the others?
7.Your presentation of baseline principles of logic is, I would concede, without flaw and typically eloquent in its detail and nuance.
Well, do we agree up to this point? I believe that Lamppostman is David Sanchez Morales, but I am willing to postpone that discussion for another time. Would you now agree with my reasoning about Mainman as I have presented it here?
I wholeheartedly disagree with you in re the Morales identification. Let’s not postpone the discussion much longer. Nonetheless it is safe to say we are making progress: I agree with your Mainman reasoning in terms of the low probability of an Adams match. Mainman likely is not Adams.
That being stated, I would not hesitate to conduct a scientific Mainman/Adams comparison if such methodology exists. And of course I wish to do the same for the Mainman/Conein hypothesis.
I reiterate: 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. So in your opinion who does Lamp Post Man more closely resemble: “Major Lopez” or DSM?
I will have to learn more about "Major Lopez". Was there some reason to think he might have been there? The fact that Morales worked with Robertson and Lansdale, for example, offers corroborating circumstantial support for his identification, where the similarity looks very strong to me.
I'll be back to you soon on "Major Lopez."
8. Let's see how you do on the exam!
Schrödinger's cat ate my homework.
That was just the mid-term. When your wavepacket collapses, I'll grade it!
I'll have you know that my wavepacket remains quite firm without the benefit of pharmaceutical enhancements, and I'll thank you to exclude it from this discussion. Further, I advise you to seek medical help for wavepacket debate that lasts longer than four hours
I seem to have heard something about that possibility on television.
To simplify, I've eliminated most of the preceding exchange and now cut to the chase. Your comments, which I address in ORCHID, are rendered in ho-hum black.
Descartes addressed this kind of appeal by observing that we might be mistaking particularly vivid dreams or have been deceived about what we thought we were observing by an "evil demon". The point is not that this is what was happening but that it is a possibility that undermines complete confidence in any of our experiences, no matter how "personal". I agree that you almost certainly had these experiences but, in the nature of the matter, the "almost" cannot be eliminated in favor of certainty. Even the most convincing experience could have an alternative explanation, if we were under the influence of LSD, for example. There is no reason to fight it. All of our knowledge about ourselves and the world around us is uncertain--not in a simple subjective sense but in a strict objective one. There are always alternative possible explanations, no matter how improbable. Which is why not even our personal experiences can strictly qualify as "certain".
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I’ve been with you on this all along. Our imaginations in concert with our understanding of “known” phenomena provide limitless alternatives, which, we concede, must be weighed in terms of probability/likelihood.
At the same time, in pursuit of justice and in service to the survival of self and others, we must forgo the luxury of infinite possibility and act in as wise, informed, and effective a manner as possible. Act.[/COLOR]
Well, this "Major Lopez" business is new to me, so it qualifies as a new alternative hypothesis. I don't regard any of my judgments as "rushed" in
these matters--and certainly not with regard to the Holt/Hunt matter, where I organized and moderated a symposium at Lancer to address it, where Jerry Rose was sufficiently impressed to change his opinion from Hunt to Holt!
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I respect and honor our mutual friend Jerry, whose presence in our active ranks is sorely felt.
In terms of my “rush to judgement” evaluation, I mean this: In my estimation you make the same error that I made when stating that I “know” Custer died at Little Bighorn. You are not considering all possible explanations for the alleged identifications of intel officers/agents/suspects in Dealey Plaza. For example: forged images to promote dissension in the ranks and public ridicule; flawed if honorable subjective (non scientific) appreciations of likeness; etc.[/COLOR]
In matters of personal identification, because [Prouty] knew these men up close and personal, he is an authority in relation to their identification in photos. He possesses appropriate kinds of specialized knowledge, which is also true of Brad Ayers and Wayne Smith, but is not true of David Talbot or his running mate.
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]Jim, I never have doubted Prouty’s ability to identify these characters. What I do call into question is the likelihood of his truthfulness in promoting those identifications.
We can get into a Prouty debate if you wish.[/COLOR]
Well, maybe there is an "obvious alternative candidate", after all. Is there any reason to think [“Major Lopez”] might have been in Dealey Plaza with the others?
A qualified “yes” to your question, which I’ll go into in as much detail (there’s not a lot) soon.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to my outdoor tub. Although it's 29 degrees farenheit, and terminal shrinkage is a very real risk.
26-12-2009, 01:11 AM (This post was last modified: 26-12-2009, 01:16 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
Charles, of course, there is a difference between the absence of certainty about our empirical knowledge claims and taking action in the world. I would even submit that the examples of knowledge that you have been advancing are beyond reasonable doubt, since there are no alternative explanations that are not simply "far fetched" or unreasonable. I certainly agree that we need to take action on the basis of our best understanding of situations, which is, alas, unavoidable, insofar as not taking an action is equivalent to choosing not to act.
I am a bit disturbed, however, by your insinuation that Fletcher Prouty was not an upright and truthful man. I know Len Osanic, who was Fletcher's long time assistant, and he and I have had occasion to discuss him. From his important books on matters related to JFK and from Len's personal experience, I am very skeptical of any suggestion that he was not one of the "good guys". That bothers me tremendously. As for this "Major Lopez" business, I hope you are not simply offering up someone who looks as much like Morales as you've been able to find.
Enjoy your outdoor tub--and don't let it shrink into obscurity! Best for the holidays and thereafter. Warm regards!
26-12-2009, 03:57 AM (This post was last modified: 26-12-2009, 04:19 AM by Charles Drago.)
Jim,
I want to be very careful about Prouty -- about my discomfort with him and the reasons that prompt it. If he was what he claimed to be -- and to date all I have are second-hand reports and gut instinct to the contrary -- then I would be commiting inexcusable libel were I to present my current position as beyond reproach.
Here's a suggestion for an honorable way to move forward: Let's begin a dedicated "Prouty" thread and invite testimony regarding his bona fides, intentions, etc.
I am disturbed by his associations with anti-Semitic publications and organizations. I am disturbed by what I perceive as a disconnect between what he offered for public consumption about the so-called Secret Team and my own (and others') understanding of a much broader and deeper darkness.
Please note: I stand publicly against the racist, imperialist Zionist state. I stand in moral unity with the people of Palestine -- as opposed to political elements ostensibly on the Palestinian side but who in fact benefit from preservation of the status quo conflict.
Holocaust Deniers and Holocaust Profiteers are equally repugnant. And I will take full credit for coining the latter term.
In re "Major Lopez" and Pakse Base: I have been aware of the character and the facility for some time. As previously noted, it was someone named Al Carrier who brought them to my attention via posts on another forum.
I suggest that you ask James Richards to offer details about Mr. Carrier.
You have my word that I am not "simply offering up someone who looks as much like Morales as you've been able to find."
As a teaser, I offer this from Carrier, as presented on August 2, 2005 on the other forum:
I posses two cables sent through the NSA to Col. Conein at the Saigon Station in November 2, 1963 and November 25, 1963 asking the whereabouts of Major Lopez of Laos and the second asking the whereabouts of Major Lopez and Team 5. I have tracked down who Major Lopez actually was and am confident he is the same as Pakse Base Man and the man on the lamp post in DP at the time of the assassination. This individual has been deceased for since the mid-eighties. Team 5 I have been tracking through association in both activity and in when they met their demise within a month or so of the assassination. This is educated speculation, by the most part, but it makes a hell of an arguement. I will not release the docs or the identities I am puting into place until 1) I can work through the origin/author of the cables 2) I am more confident in the Team 5 personnel identity.
I have issues with smearing the names of individuals who were likely involved at this level, even if the evidence points rather clearly at them. The hands-on shooters in the assassination were merely carrying out their assignment and had no choice but to do so, considering their military obligation and more so what would become of them if they backed out. IMHO, it didn't matter because they were eliminated shortly after anyway, except for the stager, AKA Major Lopez.
Be wary of the vintage of this info: While I haven't found anything more recent, it very well may be that the "Major Lopez"/Pakse hypothesis has been exposed as a feint.
On Pakse Base: It has been argued that David Morales was ordered by Ted Shackley to command Pakse Base and its operations within Laos. Some attacks on the Ho Chi Minh Trail emenated from that facility.
Finally this -- with extreme caution -- from Gerry Patrick Hemming in 2005 regarding our look-alikes issue:
How easy they identify "faces-in-the-crowds" and instead of asking if indeed this is Conein, Vidal, Hargraves, Sturgis, Hunt, Judge Crater, Cock Robin, Edward VIII....why don't they examine whether if these dudes were there, was it with hostile intent, and if not...who ORDERED or LURED them there in the first place??" "...what kind of fools would pull off the "Crime-of-the-Century" and be standing around the crime scene like a bunch of pyromaniac/arsonists at a burning building!!"
And by the way, I am NOT suggesting that "Major Lopez" looks like Morales. I AM suggesting that "he" looks like Lamp Post Man.
26-12-2009, 05:16 AM (This post was last modified: 26-12-2009, 06:26 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
It would not surprise me if "Major Lopez" were a pseudonym for David Sanchez
Morales. I also do not like the a priori (presumptuous) attitude of Hemming in
poopooing the idea that they might have wanted to be there. That is like the
apologists for THE WARREN REPORT (1964) who poopoo the idea that Oswald
could have been framed with a weapon that could not have fired the shots, who
was on the first and second floor when the shooting took place, and who admired
JFK and had no motive to shoot him. Who says these absurdities don't take place?
Bear in mind, by the way, that the agency specializes in the creation of documents
and records that provide false alibis for their agents. This kind of post from Hemming
suggests to me that there exist such documents and records, which is all but meaningless.
I am with Jack on this completely. Prouty is highly reliable and truthful, and many others,
alas, are not. There is no basis whatsoever for dismissing the idea that they were there
to witness an historic event that they had helped to plan. That is what many would do.
But I would also observe most of the names he mentions are not the ones disputed here.
26-12-2009, 01:25 PM (This post was last modified: 26-12-2009, 01:30 PM by Charles Drago.)
Jim,
Let me be clear: I endorse neither the "Major Lopez"/Pakse Base/Team 5 scenario nor Hemming as a teller of truth.
I present these items in support of my position that, to the best of our abilities to judge at this point in time, Lamp Post Man is just as likely to be "Major Lopez" as he is to be DSM.
By the way, when you note that, "It would not surprise me if 'Major Lopez' were a pseudonym for David Sanchez Morales," are you not making the same sort of a priori statement for which you take Hemming to task?
DSM used aliases. So did hundreds of his colleagues. So I would not be surprised to learn that DSM may have gone so far as to use an alias associated with another officer or agent in order to -- and this is a highly technical term -- put shit in the game.
You may have sound reason for suspecting a "Lopez"/Morales union, but Hemming was on firm ground -- of a Prouty-like personal experience variety -- when he questioned the likelihood of a convocation of conspirators at the scene of their greatest, world-historic crime. (More on Prouty below.)
(I would add that solely on the basis of facial resemblance, the "Major Lopez" figure pictured at Pakse Base more closely matches that of Lamp Post Man than any view of Morales known to me. Jack shares this opinion.)
I was a member of JFK Lancer's so-called Hemming Panel -- the only public body ever to question GPH on his life and times. In the wake of that frustrating yet, I'd submit, ultimately worthwhile exercise, I published an article in which I described the man as a brilliant dissembler -- a font of disinformation without peer.
(Case in point: Over breakfast with Jerry Rose and me on the morning of the panel discussion, Hemming nonchalantly posed the rather stunning non sequitur, "Did you know that Chelsea Clinton went on a date with Timothy McVeigh?")
Of course Hemming, in making the Dealey Plaza-related statement I quoted and you rightly question, may have been attempting to throw off the dogs.
But neither you nor I can say so with certainty. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I find his argument -- at first blush and absent analysis of the motives of the man making it -- to be sound based upon my own admittedly humble understanding of how these operations work.
This segment of Hemming's quote resonates: "[W]hy don't [researchers] examine whether if these dudes were there, was it with hostile intent, and if not...who ORDERED or LURED them there in the first place??"
So ... If (and a BIG "if" it is) you're correct in your photo identifications, the question becomes, "Were these intel officers and other suspects in Dealey Plaze to witness the crime they had planned, or were they 'ordered' to the scene in order to be implicated as false sponsors and thus add layers of complexity/insulation to the cover-up?"
My answer: Yes.
Jack,
I do not enjoy a personal history with Prouty, so to some degree I must defer to your judgement vis a vis his trustworthiness.
But such deference is insufficient to prompt me to take his word automatically over that of Hemming on any single issue. Both of them were in the disinformation business. Both of them had personal stakes in the JFK assassination business.
26-12-2009, 04:53 PM (This post was last modified: 26-12-2009, 05:00 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
Well, you say the Major looks like LPM and DSM looks like LPM, so it is not a strectch as a matter of inductive inference to infer that perhaps the Major is DSM. There's nothing a prioristic about that. If they look alike, it may be because they are one and the same.
I just don't get all these arguments about why they shouldn't be there when it is apparent that they were there. The improbability of this many matches of persons who are clearly together at the same location and time makes it virtually certain that they were there.
Elaborate plans for the cover-up, which included stealing the body and getting it under military control, were in place. I don't think they felt they were running any risk in being there. They wanted to be there! They were there. And not under any special orders!
