"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today"

[Charles Drago]

Jim, Jack, et al,

There is no reason at all to suppose that evil doers in their wildest dreams would have though[t] that the faces in the crowd would become such a topic of interest in research on the death of JFK--nor, of course, that it would become a kind of mini-industry among those who want to know the truth!

Perhaps.

There is every reason to conclude that efforts were made by the facilitators to account for and, in certain well-known instances, confiscate cameras and/or film that likely had captured evidence of multiple shooters.

It is equally likely that they assumed that, despite their due diligence, inconvenient images would emerge from Dealey Plaza. Accordingly, those on the ground who were sufficiently well-known to insiders -- as opposed to future civilian researchers -- must either have taken steps to disguise themselves or concluded, in essence, screw 'em all, what are they gonna do about it?.

So again, I'm not arguing against the presence of these characters at the scene of their world-historic crime. And in fact I STRONGLY argue for the directed presence of false sponsors in DP for the express purpose of inculpating them and their affiliates.

There is also no reason at all to be bothered that sometimes there will be differences of opinion about matters of this kind, where critical exchange--advancing arguments for and against different positions--is among our most important tools in advancing our understanding of the case.

Agreed.

Not all opinions are equal.

AGREED!

It is rational to be responsible to new arguments and there is no reason for concern if, now and then, we may cross swords over crucial issues.

En garde!

What surprises me is not that there might be an occasional dispute over one or another of these identifications, but that there would be any doubt that they would want to be there!

Desire, in theory, is trumped by discipline.

They did; they were; and in a striking number of cases, we have been able to identify them.

Ahh, we come to the core of our disagreement. From my perspective all we have are suspicions and subjective judgements. It is the certainty you evince that troubles me.

That, I think, is a nice confirmation of foreknowledge and of complicity in the death of our 35th president.

It would be. It could be.

And the odds that we are wrong about this, as Jack and Peter have observed, are virtually infinitesimal.

Says you. And I very well may be as thick as a Christmas fruitcake, but come hell or high water I'm going to find a way to scan comparable (size, motives for assembly, etc.) crowds and look for Conein, Morales, Milteer, Robertson, and for that matter Humphrey Bogart and Snooky Lanson.

For that we have Richards and Eaglesham, especially, to thank. But We not likely to figure all this out if we disregard evidence--such as these photographs--or abuse logic in the process!

Again, and in the event that my objections are being misinterpreted, I most assuredly am not arguing that we should disregard the evidence in question. Rather, I'm pleading for a great deal more attention to be paid to it -- in the form of photographic and biometric analyses and other types of quantifiable testing.

And Jim, I hope you know that I'll warmly and openly receive your evaluations of the logic of my argument and the clarity of its presentation.

Charles