26-12-2009, 05:16 AM
(This post was last modified: 26-12-2009, 06:26 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
It would not surprise me if "Major Lopez" were a pseudonym for David Sanchez
Morales. I also do not like the a priori (presumptuous) attitude of Hemming in
poopooing the idea that they might have wanted to be there. That is like the
apologists for THE WARREN REPORT (1964) who poopoo the idea that Oswald
could have been framed with a weapon that could not have fired the shots, who
was on the first and second floor when the shooting took place, and who admired
JFK and had no motive to shoot him. Who says these absurdities don't take place?
Bear in mind, by the way, that the agency specializes in the creation of documents
and records that provide false alibis for their agents. This kind of post from Hemming
suggests to me that there exist such documents and records, which is all but meaningless.
I am with Jack on this completely. Prouty is highly reliable and truthful, and many others,
alas, are not. There is no basis whatsoever for dismissing the idea that they were there
to witness an historic event that they had helped to plan. That is what many would do.
But I would also observe most of the names he mentions are not the ones disputed here.
Morales. I also do not like the a priori (presumptuous) attitude of Hemming in
poopooing the idea that they might have wanted to be there. That is like the
apologists for THE WARREN REPORT (1964) who poopoo the idea that Oswald
could have been framed with a weapon that could not have fired the shots, who
was on the first and second floor when the shooting took place, and who admired
JFK and had no motive to shoot him. Who says these absurdities don't take place?
Bear in mind, by the way, that the agency specializes in the creation of documents
and records that provide false alibis for their agents. This kind of post from Hemming
suggests to me that there exist such documents and records, which is all but meaningless.
I am with Jack on this completely. Prouty is highly reliable and truthful, and many others,
alas, are not. There is no basis whatsoever for dismissing the idea that they were there
to witness an historic event that they had helped to plan. That is what many would do.
But I would also observe most of the names he mentions are not the ones disputed here.