26-12-2009, 06:55 PM
One further--methodological--observation. Here is a quote from Hemming and your observations in response:
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.
But this sounds like a rather more complicated--even convoluted--explanation than mine, namely: They knew it was going down. They wanted to be there. They were there! By Occam's Razor, an explanation that explains the data as well as an alternative but based upon fewer or less complex premises is a preferable explanation. That would be mine.
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.
But this sounds like a rather more complicated--even convoluted--explanation than mine, namely: They knew it was going down. They wanted to be there. They were there! By Occam's Razor, an explanation that explains the data as well as an alternative but based upon fewer or less complex premises is a preferable explanation. That would be mine.