Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Hmm. Three CIA officers were allowing themselves to be recorded by movie cameras and still cameras for hours while the conspiracy was actually ongoing? Why would you do it? Just to risk being caught? How did Dick Helms forget to be there then? Sounds sensible to me. And Fetzer still tries to revive this stuff, even though Shane himself renounced it in his book.
Just to play devil's advocate, to put this in perspective realize we have a complete CIA false defector, FBI agent provocateur, Harvey & Lee double, and possibly Jensen MKULTRA zombie Lee Harvey Oswald waltzing around in broad daylight while being blatantly covered-up and denied by the government. In this case it might not be too great an offense to suggest CIA placed faces on the scene under the thin guise of Bulova Watch executives. They were getting away with murder at the time under the political atmosphere of Warren Commission rule and VietNam War marshall law. These guys were rogue and after the Kennedy caper were probably not afraid to flash their balls in public (forgive my French). Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them and Salandria suggests they did it deliberately to give people the hint of what the order was in this country and who was behind it. If Harvey & Lee is real then this creates a much higher possibility of our boys from Bulova being real too. There was no chance of the conspiracy being investigated under Johnson and no chance of RFK's assassination being investigated under Nixon as well.
Seamus Coogan Wrote:I've had some problems signing in and so fourth. I have had a look at the replies and. Greg is owed a big sorry from me. That site is clearly not his and I realised about ten minutes after I posted. But cheers to Bernice for pointing out my 'pointing of the Borax' so to speak.
The issue here is being cautious. No after my latest faux pas that sounds a little well hypocritical lol. But its only hypocritical when one doesn't acknowledge the irony of the situation and one has to re-correct in particularly when they think have been signed in. But as I said I find the image of Lansdale compelling. I also have been trying too type in here I agree with Burnham that the ID by Krulak is also extremely interesting. Do I have a firm opinion on it all no I don't. In all of this everyone is forgetting that Prouty named the 'tramps' as actors or a sideshow.
Whether involved or not. As for Gregs other 'real' points concerning shots from the Storm Drain and Zapruders purported connections they are all for another time or thread and I heartily agree with you. In much as the same I agree with Greg I over shot the mark on some things I said.
Yours Seamus.
I am normally quite forgiving, Seamus, but you made the same or very similar false claims against me on LANCER earlier this year. I corrected you about them then, yet you have persisted in making them here, as well. Actions speak louder than words.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Sheamus; a thought, what you posted about Greg, that was, imo like gossip, past along to you from others, read in their posts or within perhaps emails, possibly. Now in case you are not aware, and the adm of this new forum should be if not, as it may show up again, is that some years back Lancer and Rich's JFK Research, at times, growled at each other,back and forth, as i shall put it, now Rich's has been gone quite some time, so it has not been kept going by the membership that were there, though there have been some snaps at each other at the ef, it has not boiled over to any extent and i certainly hope it never des as it is simply not fair that it should, now there are some at Lancer and you may well be aware of the whom, that appear to be still on the crapper as i refer to it, you'll notice and more than likely have in the past on their board that if Greg's name or research is mentioned let alone lord forbid, Jack White' and others of the past and now like Dr.Jim, or again God forbide the zapruder film being faked, now there's a bomb, if there ever was one and at one time was not up for discussion on that board it simply was not allowed, no matter what an individual believed, and to each their own belief, theirs others, do not and should not personally affect you nor anyane else,but there are a certain few, some whom many years ago, were booted from Rich's, for reasons that are better off left behind,some more than 10 years ago, but they will not and cannot resolve the situation within their heads, they appear at any opportunity, to jump in with a crappy remark, about the work, or none work as they have also stated, iN THE PAST NOW WHEN HARVEY AND LEE FIRST CAME OUT, IT WAS VERY HEATEDLY RECEIVED AT LANCER, oops sorry caps, it was downed in so many words, before it even reached many hands, why ? simply because Jack White had worked well with John on the research, of double comparisons, information, and so on, he was a big part of it in the end, and it was being sold and handled strickly by Rich and Shelby, therefore it was no good, period, now I have noticed there are some who have educated themselves by reading and verifying all the documentation that is within, and is now searched for , by many, but is no longer readily available, sometime, sheamus, for the heck of it, unless you know the whose by now, do a few searches on there mentioning certain names as i have , and i believe you will see when tracked down, who the crappers are that have and do pass along the made up gossip etc,because that is what it is, to make such as Greg look bad, and BTW nothing you will note, is ever or has been their fault, not a mistake, error, nor getting booted from a forum, their ego's are so fragile, they cannot ever admit a mistake of such enormity. You perhaps will also notice that as the years pass by, the years they have been involved within the research has also grown longer by additions,of years,also that some have met, about all involved, and they have confided in them, of course,very few have if any, but there are some like Jack who is a walking historian of the JFK assassination,who lives next door in fort worth, also you will notice the names they try to throw around,as if they know all and are very good friends of theirs of course, which cuts no ice any way you look at it or for them bu they don't get it, never have, or what they have seen that no one else has, where they have been, and how much on the side info was passed along to them, that of course they cannot release, and on and on, they know all, done all seen all, and are imo the biggest crappers. and many a new member buys into the crap they speil, they simply have not as yet learnt any better,and because they are new are naive, which is the norm in the beginning, and as they are courted,which they are, of course believe they would not be fed information that was not true, it is sad that it still exists and hangs on,seeing that many others did relegate to where it should be placed, in the past..as has been suggested, now by several, no matter what check it out, if gossip or crap about so and so, research for yourself, you may find and often that the person it comes from has a long, long problem with a revenge or hostile or jealous attitude, i feel sorry for them as they have and do waste much time, poisoning the well..and they do so for a reason, sometimes it is jealousy with a capital J, other times the egg shell ego comes into play, there now i was not going to say anything more but, i felt after reading your comments that perhaps this may help, i do blame you as Greg has said posting what you have again a second time when he already has corrected you, on Lancer, but then I do not blame you as it is apparent you have been fed the B/S by some on Lancer, your problem imo is that you took what they has to say to heart, never thinking, they would lead you astray, so we all have learnt as i mentioned in every Prouty thread we do, and it has happened again, it has never failed, i have learnt more this time than in a while, and so have we all , now if agreeable gentlemen can we let the personal arguing rest, and get on with the research discussions, and play nicely, with thanks to all.sorry for rambling also, .best b:danceing:
Thanks for the support. I apologize for any contribution I might have made to digressing from the point of your thread. However, sometimes "issues" need to be addressed as they arise. I appreciate your indulgence.
Hopefully we are all adults that long ago learned that :gossip: is just that and reveals more about the one who spreads it than it reveals about the subject of the false claim.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:which breaks every rule of covert ops
I don't have any problem whatsoever with Jim's implicit understanding of covert operations -- an understanding that is the product of years of diligent research and important published writing.
If we are to hold analysts and historians to a "you had to be there" standard, then why bother with the exercises of analysis and historical enquiry?
I don't buy the Ambassador Hotel IDs for a number of reaons, but one simple reason will suffice for this particular argument: The spooks allegedly on scene were masters of and otherwise fully conversant with the processes of incriminating conspirators for future control. Which his to say that what in all likelihood kept them away from the scene of the crime was not fear of public identification so much as fear of blackmail by their alleged comrades.
Charles Drago Wrote:Jim DiEugenio: "which breaks every rule of covert ops"
Quote:I don't have any problem whatsoever with Jim's implicit understanding of covert operations -- an understanding that is the product of years of diligent research and important published writing.
Great, I don't either--unless and until he begins to challenge the eyewitness accounts of CREDIBLE individuals who are in a much better position to know about these matters than is he. This is a no brainer.
Quote:If we are to hold analysts and historians to a "you had to be there" standard, then why bother with the exercises of analysis and historical enquiry?
Agreed. However, no one is holding Jim to such a standard--and your suggestion that I am doing so is a Straw Man. He drew first blood by claiming that the positive ID made by both Colonel L Fletcher Prouty and General Victor Krulak were "iffy" identifications.
What part of the Lansdale identification is "iffy" Charles? Is it the Letter from General Krulak that positively identifies Lansdale? Is it the letters from Col. Fletcher Prouty positively naming Lansdale or is it the YouTube video made by Len Osanic?
Quote:I don't buy the Ambassador Hotel IDs for a number of reaons, but one simple reason will suffice for this particular argument: The spooks allegedly on scene were masters of and otherwise fully conversant with the processes of incriminating conspirators for future control. Which his to say that what in all likelihood kept them away from the scene of the crime was not fear of public identification so much as fear of blackmail by their alleged comrades.
No comment since that is off topic in this thread...and I have NEVER even spoken about the Ambassador Hotel "spooks" --so I'm mystified as to why you raise this subject here and now in this thread.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Greg Burnham Wrote:Great, I don't either--unless and until he begins to challenge the eyewitness accounts of CREDIBLE individuals who are in a much better position to know about these matters than is he. This is a no brainer.
"Credible," Greg, is a subjective judgement. This too from the "No Brainer" department.
Greg Burnham Wrote:Agreed. However, no one is holding Jim to such a standard--and your suggestion that I am doing so is a Straw Man. He drew first blood by claiming that the positive ID made by both Colonel L Fletcher Prouty and General Victor Krulak were "iffy" identifications.
[COLOR="red"]If anyone is building a straw man, Greg, it's you. Did you or did you not write to Jim:
"Huh? What are you claiming to know about covert ops, Jim? WHAT? Please give me some basis for your claim BEYOND being an historian? Huh? WHAT? I'm serious. How do YOU know--first hand--what are "the rules of covert ops" ? Huh? Seriously, that is a very dis-educated claim--an unsupported assertion; unless, of course, you have FIRST HAND knowledge of what "every rule of covert ops" consists of, I find no reason to place any faith in your "guess" about something of which you are poorly prepared to speak."
If you seriously argue that this language does not suggest that you are rejecting Jim's assertion based upon the fact that it is the product of research as opposed to "FIRST HAND knowledge," then you and I have very different appreciations of the mother tongue.[/COLOR]
Greg Burnham Wrote:What part of the Lansdale identification is "iffy" Charles? Is it the Letter from General Krulak that positively identifies Lansdale? Is it the letters from Col. Fletcher Prouty positively naming Lansdale or is it the YouTube video made by Len Osanic?
I reiterate: the sources, not the methodology. Stay on point, please.
Greg Burnham Wrote:No comment since that is off topic in this thread...and I have NEVER even spoken about the Ambassador Hotel "spooks" --so I'm mystified as to why you raise this subject here and now in this thread.
[COLOR="red"]It is most decidedly NOT "off topic in this thread."
Normally I'd have neither the time nor the inclination to hand-hold you through an exercise in reading comprehension. But in this case I'll make an exception.
The methods and motives of photo identification comprise a significant sub-aspect, if you will, of this thread. So too does the issue of motivation behind said identification. If this mystifies you, I suggest you re-read the thread from its beginning with special attention to nuance and subtext.
I might add that while I respect your right to define the parameters of this thread to the best of your abilities, do not for a moment think that your limitations as a reader and interpreter will define, inform, or otherwise limit my own perceptions and those of others.
You do not "own" this or any other thread. Your efforts to ignore and/or narrow its areas of focus -- as I interpret them -- are wasted.[/COLOR]
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Hmm. Three CIA officers were allowing themselves to be recorded by movie cameras and still cameras for hours while the conspiracy was actually ongoing? Why would you do it? Just to risk being caught? How did Dick Helms forget to be there then? Sounds sensible to me. And Fetzer still tries to revive this stuff, even though Shane himself renounced it in his book.
Just to play devil's advocate, to put this in perspective realize we have a complete CIA false defector, FBI agent provocateur, Harvey & Lee double, and possibly Jensen MKULTRA zombie Lee Harvey Oswald waltzing around in broad daylight while being blatantly covered-up and denied by the government. In this case it might not be too great an offense to suggest CIA placed faces on the scene under the thin guise of Bulova Watch executives. They were getting away with murder at the time under the political atmosphere of Warren Commission rule and VietNam War marshall law. These guys were rogue and after the Kennedy caper were probably not afraid to flash their balls in public (forgive my French). Frankly, I wouldn't put it past them and Salandria suggests they did it deliberately to give people the hint of what the order was in this country and who was behind it. If Harvey & Lee is real then this creates a much higher possibility of our boys from Bulova being real too. There was no chance of the conspiracy being investigated under Johnson and no chance of RFK's assassination being investigated under Nixon as well.
I don't quite understand what this means.
You begin with the whole Oswald doppelganger thing via Armstrong. Which has no parallel at all in the RFK case. I did some work on that case, and I have never seen this device used to any degree at all there. SO I don' t know where it leads.
You then shift to the alleged ID's of the three CIA officers. These have been discredited quite effectively, just look at the photo in Shane's book of Johannides. It is simply not them.
Are you trying to say that somehow there were three guys who were there that night undercover for Bulova who somewhat looked like them and were in on a rogue operation?
Do you know the standard of proof this concept now bears? These men were identified. We know who they are and knew who they were way back in 1969. You would now have to prove:
1. They did something conspiratorial that night or day.
2. They had some kind of background in covert operations.
3. How they managed to keep this from their friends and families forever.
I mean this kind of reminds me of say "Get Smart" or "True Lies".
But this is the kind of silliness you get into when you entertain an outlandish notion.
Just so we're clear: I seek neither to endorse nor repudiate Prouty or Krulak personally or as sources of legitimate intelligence. I'm simply trying to impress upon one and all that even our most favored, trusted sources of deep political data and insight must regularly be the recipients of the best objective evaluations of which we're capable.
Unquestioning acceptance of ANY source can lead only to disaster.
In the case of this thread, for instance, discussion of the validity of photo identification methodology has been conflated with discussion of the reputations of the identifiers.
Prouty and Krulak say that Lansdale was photographed in Dealey Plaza, so it must be so.
Not good enough.
Bradley Ayers and Wayne Smith say that they see Morales in footage shot at the Ambassador, so they must have been there.
Not good enough.
As Jim Fetzer among others has properly pointed out, arguments from true authority should be valued, while arguments from false authority must be rejected.
I for one remain unable to judge Prouty, Krulak, and Ayers to be sources of true authority.
I can go so far as to say that, based upon my study of the evidence, Morales is not visible on the Ambassador footage in question. And I am not prepared to defer to Ayers and Smith on the strength of their authority if doing so means I must reject the data and analysis which comprise the entire basis of my original judgement.
As for Lansdale in Dealey Plaza, I remain agnostic but lean toward -- sorry, Jim D. -- acceptance of his presence. I've attempted to attach two photos. The incomplete profile is of an unidentified man in Dealey Plaza. The full profile is that of Lansdale.
So while I agree with Jim D. that Lansdale's presence at first blush would seem to violate operational discipline, my mind remains open.
If, in my previous post, I was overly harsh, I apologize.
And if one of the photos does not appear, just click on its space.
