26-12-2009, 01:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 26-12-2009, 01:30 PM by Charles Drago.)
Jim,
Let me be clear: I endorse neither the "Major Lopez"/Pakse Base/Team 5 scenario nor Hemming as a teller of truth.
I present these items in support of my position that, to the best of our abilities to judge at this point in time, Lamp Post Man is just as likely to be "Major Lopez" as he is to be DSM.
By the way, when you note that, "It would not surprise me if 'Major Lopez' were a pseudonym for David Sanchez Morales," are you not making the same sort of a priori statement for which you take Hemming to task?
DSM used aliases. So did hundreds of his colleagues. So I would not be surprised to learn that DSM may have gone so far as to use an alias associated with another officer or agent in order to -- and this is a highly technical term -- put shit in the game.
You may have sound reason for suspecting a "Lopez"/Morales union, but Hemming was on firm ground -- of a Prouty-like personal experience variety -- when he questioned the likelihood of a convocation of conspirators at the scene of their greatest, world-historic crime. (More on Prouty below.)
(I would add that solely on the basis of facial resemblance, the "Major Lopez" figure pictured at Pakse Base more closely matches that of Lamp Post Man than any view of Morales known to me. Jack shares this opinion.)
I was a member of JFK Lancer's so-called Hemming Panel -- the only public body ever to question GPH on his life and times. In the wake of that frustrating yet, I'd submit, ultimately worthwhile exercise, I published an article in which I described the man as a brilliant dissembler -- a font of disinformation without peer.
(Case in point: Over breakfast with Jerry Rose and me on the morning of the panel discussion, Hemming nonchalantly posed the rather stunning non sequitur, "Did you know that Chelsea Clinton went on a date with Timothy McVeigh?")
Of course Hemming, in making the Dealey Plaza-related statement I quoted and you rightly question, may have been attempting to throw off the dogs.
But neither you nor I can say so with certainty. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I find his argument -- at first blush and absent analysis of the motives of the man making it -- to be sound based upon my own admittedly humble understanding of how these operations work.
This segment of Hemming's quote resonates: "[W]hy don't [researchers] examine whether if these dudes were there, was it with hostile intent, and if not...who ORDERED or LURED them there in the first place??"
So ... If (and a BIG "if" it is) you're correct in your photo identifications, the question becomes, "Were these intel officers and other suspects in Dealey Plaze to witness the crime they had planned, or were they 'ordered' to the scene in order to be implicated as false sponsors and thus add layers of complexity/insulation to the cover-up?"
My answer: Yes.
Jack,
I do not enjoy a personal history with Prouty, so to some degree I must defer to your judgement vis a vis his trustworthiness.
But such deference is insufficient to prompt me to take his word automatically over that of Hemming on any single issue. Both of them were in the disinformation business. Both of them had personal stakes in the JFK assassination business.
Charles
Let me be clear: I endorse neither the "Major Lopez"/Pakse Base/Team 5 scenario nor Hemming as a teller of truth.
I present these items in support of my position that, to the best of our abilities to judge at this point in time, Lamp Post Man is just as likely to be "Major Lopez" as he is to be DSM.
By the way, when you note that, "It would not surprise me if 'Major Lopez' were a pseudonym for David Sanchez Morales," are you not making the same sort of a priori statement for which you take Hemming to task?
DSM used aliases. So did hundreds of his colleagues. So I would not be surprised to learn that DSM may have gone so far as to use an alias associated with another officer or agent in order to -- and this is a highly technical term -- put shit in the game.
You may have sound reason for suspecting a "Lopez"/Morales union, but Hemming was on firm ground -- of a Prouty-like personal experience variety -- when he questioned the likelihood of a convocation of conspirators at the scene of their greatest, world-historic crime. (More on Prouty below.)
(I would add that solely on the basis of facial resemblance, the "Major Lopez" figure pictured at Pakse Base more closely matches that of Lamp Post Man than any view of Morales known to me. Jack shares this opinion.)
I was a member of JFK Lancer's so-called Hemming Panel -- the only public body ever to question GPH on his life and times. In the wake of that frustrating yet, I'd submit, ultimately worthwhile exercise, I published an article in which I described the man as a brilliant dissembler -- a font of disinformation without peer.
(Case in point: Over breakfast with Jerry Rose and me on the morning of the panel discussion, Hemming nonchalantly posed the rather stunning non sequitur, "Did you know that Chelsea Clinton went on a date with Timothy McVeigh?")
Of course Hemming, in making the Dealey Plaza-related statement I quoted and you rightly question, may have been attempting to throw off the dogs.
But neither you nor I can say so with certainty. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I find his argument -- at first blush and absent analysis of the motives of the man making it -- to be sound based upon my own admittedly humble understanding of how these operations work.
This segment of Hemming's quote resonates: "[W]hy don't [researchers] examine whether if these dudes were there, was it with hostile intent, and if not...who ORDERED or LURED them there in the first place??"
So ... If (and a BIG "if" it is) you're correct in your photo identifications, the question becomes, "Were these intel officers and other suspects in Dealey Plaze to witness the crime they had planned, or were they 'ordered' to the scene in order to be implicated as false sponsors and thus add layers of complexity/insulation to the cover-up?"
My answer: Yes.
Jack,
I do not enjoy a personal history with Prouty, so to some degree I must defer to your judgement vis a vis his trustworthiness.
But such deference is insufficient to prompt me to take his word automatically over that of Hemming on any single issue. Both of them were in the disinformation business. Both of them had personal stakes in the JFK assassination business.
Charles