23-12-2009, 01:46 PM
Jim,
As usual, you're too kind. I've barked up more wrong trees than a nearsighted bloodhound with a deviated septum.
With that stipulation in mind, I'll offer responses to some of your comments as gathered from your two most recent posts here.
I have not met Mr. Ayers and cannot offer a first-hand evaluation of his character or bona fides. I am, however, in possession of information that would seem to lend credence to the claim that he is not on the side of the angels. I must be circumspect when writing publicly about this insofar as I am bound by my word to remain silent about details. Accordingly, you and everyone else would be wise to take this non-revelation revelation with more than a single grain of Brazilian sea salt. Suffice to say that, for me, Morley and Talbot are vastly superior sources in terms of honor and agenda.
WOOF!
Resemblance, I submit, is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, this is an inexact science at best until serious biometric measuring takes place. An example: While the Conein look-alike would raise the eyebrows of most informed observers, the Morales/Dealey Plaza candidate is, for me and I daresay many, many others, a subjective "stretch" worthy of a Cirque du Soleil acrobat.
As for my suggested statistical analysis: Our beliefs regarding its likely outcome at the moment radically differ. How can we undertake such a study? Do you think the exercise would be rewarding?
For the record, I am the last person to "disregard photographic identifications" of suspected assassins in Dealey Plaza. I hold these analyses to be of immense consequence to our shared missions to discover truth and effect justice.
But I do have three major problems with what we have before us:
1. Until there is more than "belief" to go on -- which is to say, absent quantifiable validations of the identifications, all we've got is personal opinion.
2. I "believe" that we're being suckered by these offerings. Proof of conspiracy in Dealey Plaza was established beyond all reasonable doubt long before the look-alikes were spotted. Public discussion of these identifications, I submit, must be carefully contextualized: They are not required to answer the "how" question, which was settled before the crossfire's echoes had faded from the Texas afternoon; they may, however, help us answer the "who" and "why" questions.
3. Everything we know about Morales leads us to conclude that he was sufficientlly arrogant to violate sacrosanct tradecraft and show up for the execution for which he was partially responsible. Everything we know about how events such as Dealey Plaza are planned leads us to conclude that false sponsors and doppelgangers were inserted at the scene of the crime (and elsewhere, pre-and post-assassination and to this day) to confuse, to misdirect, indeed to mesmerize. BUT ... and this is my main point ... to shout A HA! and trumpet these identifications absent presentation of deeper issues relating to the conspiracy's construction is to play into the hands of those for whom magick is the indispensable spice for the conspiracy stew.
In conclusion: If I'm proven wrong, I'll so stipulate in the most public of manners.
Further, and for the e-record, I prefer to believe and have fair reason to suspect that David Sanchez Morales was in Dealey Plaza to witness the murder of his blood enemy.
But to date I have no proof. And neither does anyone else.
Respectfully,
Charles
PS
Given the current New England weather, I'd love to be barking up the wrong palm tree.
As usual, you're too kind. I've barked up more wrong trees than a nearsighted bloodhound with a deviated septum.
With that stipulation in mind, I'll offer responses to some of your comments as gathered from your two most recent posts here.
James H. Fetzer Wrote:I have known Brad for quite a few years now, and he and I have had quite a few lunches and other meetings together. . . . Morley and Talbot may be correct, but I would be fascinated to know how they became convinced he was wrong[.]
I have not met Mr. Ayers and cannot offer a first-hand evaluation of his character or bona fides. I am, however, in possession of information that would seem to lend credence to the claim that he is not on the side of the angels. I must be circumspect when writing publicly about this insofar as I am bound by my word to remain silent about details. Accordingly, you and everyone else would be wise to take this non-revelation revelation with more than a single grain of Brazilian sea salt. Suffice to say that, for me, Morley and Talbot are vastly superior sources in terms of honor and agenda.
James H. Fetzer Wrote:I also agree with Jack. It is extremely rare for any of us to notice faces that remind us of Jack Nicholson, Julia Roberts, George Clooney, or any of a vast number of prominent public personalities with whom we are familiar. That suggests to me that Charles is (atypically) barking up the wrong tree.
A statistical analysis of the kind he suggests, I believe, properly conducted,would show that practically none of us looks enough like other persons as to be mistaken for one another. [emphasis added] That requires a special, highly unusual, effort of the kind that was employed by using Oswald look-alikes in taking out JFK.
WOOF!
Resemblance, I submit, is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, this is an inexact science at best until serious biometric measuring takes place. An example: While the Conein look-alike would raise the eyebrows of most informed observers, the Morales/Dealey Plaza candidate is, for me and I daresay many, many others, a subjective "stretch" worthy of a Cirque du Soleil acrobat.
As for my suggested statistical analysis: Our beliefs regarding its likely outcome at the moment radically differ. How can we undertake such a study? Do you think the exercise would be rewarding?
James H. Fetzer Wrote:I am rather troubled by the apparent willingness to disregard photographic identifications, such as those in Dealey Plaza. Based upon the evidence we have available, I believe we have photos of Conein, Lansdale, Robertson, Morales, Milteer, and several others in the record. I have no real doubt.
For the record, I am the last person to "disregard photographic identifications" of suspected assassins in Dealey Plaza. I hold these analyses to be of immense consequence to our shared missions to discover truth and effect justice.
But I do have three major problems with what we have before us:
1. Until there is more than "belief" to go on -- which is to say, absent quantifiable validations of the identifications, all we've got is personal opinion.
2. I "believe" that we're being suckered by these offerings. Proof of conspiracy in Dealey Plaza was established beyond all reasonable doubt long before the look-alikes were spotted. Public discussion of these identifications, I submit, must be carefully contextualized: They are not required to answer the "how" question, which was settled before the crossfire's echoes had faded from the Texas afternoon; they may, however, help us answer the "who" and "why" questions.
3. Everything we know about Morales leads us to conclude that he was sufficientlly arrogant to violate sacrosanct tradecraft and show up for the execution for which he was partially responsible. Everything we know about how events such as Dealey Plaza are planned leads us to conclude that false sponsors and doppelgangers were inserted at the scene of the crime (and elsewhere, pre-and post-assassination and to this day) to confuse, to misdirect, indeed to mesmerize. BUT ... and this is my main point ... to shout A HA! and trumpet these identifications absent presentation of deeper issues relating to the conspiracy's construction is to play into the hands of those for whom magick is the indispensable spice for the conspiracy stew.
In conclusion: If I'm proven wrong, I'll so stipulate in the most public of manners.
Further, and for the e-record, I prefer to believe and have fair reason to suspect that David Sanchez Morales was in Dealey Plaza to witness the murder of his blood enemy.
But to date I have no proof. And neither does anyone else.
Respectfully,
Charles
PS
Given the current New England weather, I'd love to be barking up the wrong palm tree.