20-12-2009, 06:27 PM
Jim, et al,
I find the "Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza" discussion to be troubling and enlightening in equal measure.
As my dear friend, mentor, and colleague George Michael Evica taught us so powerfully, there are third alternatives to most A/B questions.
For example: Q. Is our in-depth public discussion of the intel-officers-in-Dealey Plaza hypothesis supportive of or detrimental to our efforts to discover truth and effect justice?
A. Yes.
Negative A, negative B.
The discussion supports our collective maturation as critical thinkers and investigators of deep political events. Simultaneously it hinders our work by providing to the enemy opportunities to construct classic straw man sophistries with which to lampoon other, in my opinon more important and substantive lines of inquiry.
The danger of which I speak will loom until we have forced the State to lend its imprimatur to the truth.
I agree with you, Jim, that, to coin a term (I think), Widow's Peak Man (WPM) is not Mr. Adams. Yet I remain unconvinced that WPM is the notorious, guilty as hell Conein -- just as I'm far from accepting as valid the photo evidence for the presence of other superstar intel officers in Dealey Plaza and, for that matter, at the Ambassador Hotel.
These images leave much to be desired -- at least to these hawk eyes (reference intended). Here's an interesting exercise: Compare, if you will, the "David Sanchez Morales" candidates from Dealey Plaza and the Ambassador.
(Jack, can you lift ostensible DSM images from Shane O'Sullivan's Who Killed Bobby and create a side-by-side with the DP "Lamp Post Man" views?)
Additionally, would not such presence violate sacrosanct rules of tradecraft?
And yes, I concede that extraordinary events inspire extraordinary behaviors.
For what it's worth, I do believe -- as opposed to know -- that the assassination sponors signed their work more than once. An example: the umbrella in Dealey Plaza.
But that's a story for another campfire.
Warm regards from snowed-in Rhode Island!
I find the "Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza" discussion to be troubling and enlightening in equal measure.
As my dear friend, mentor, and colleague George Michael Evica taught us so powerfully, there are third alternatives to most A/B questions.
For example: Q. Is our in-depth public discussion of the intel-officers-in-Dealey Plaza hypothesis supportive of or detrimental to our efforts to discover truth and effect justice?
A. Yes.
Negative A, negative B.
The discussion supports our collective maturation as critical thinkers and investigators of deep political events. Simultaneously it hinders our work by providing to the enemy opportunities to construct classic straw man sophistries with which to lampoon other, in my opinon more important and substantive lines of inquiry.
The danger of which I speak will loom until we have forced the State to lend its imprimatur to the truth.
I agree with you, Jim, that, to coin a term (I think), Widow's Peak Man (WPM) is not Mr. Adams. Yet I remain unconvinced that WPM is the notorious, guilty as hell Conein -- just as I'm far from accepting as valid the photo evidence for the presence of other superstar intel officers in Dealey Plaza and, for that matter, at the Ambassador Hotel.
These images leave much to be desired -- at least to these hawk eyes (reference intended). Here's an interesting exercise: Compare, if you will, the "David Sanchez Morales" candidates from Dealey Plaza and the Ambassador.
(Jack, can you lift ostensible DSM images from Shane O'Sullivan's Who Killed Bobby and create a side-by-side with the DP "Lamp Post Man" views?)
Additionally, would not such presence violate sacrosanct rules of tradecraft?
And yes, I concede that extraordinary events inspire extraordinary behaviors.
For what it's worth, I do believe -- as opposed to know -- that the assassination sponors signed their work more than once. An example: the umbrella in Dealey Plaza.
But that's a story for another campfire.
Warm regards from snowed-in Rhode Island!