22-12-2009, 08:30 PM
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
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