28-12-2009, 04:02 PM
Jim, Jack,
Let's agree to mostly agree.
Agreed?
I recently posted the only alleged "Major Lopez" photo I have. It is alternately claimed that it was taken at Pakse and at Long Tieng in 1970.
I can share the following:
In an August 4, 2005 post on another forum, the aforementioned Al Carrier included this in a response to GPH: "I possess a copy of the file on our 'Major Lopez' and have tracked down the family the deceased man. I also hold three photos of him at various times in his career. I keep quiet about his identity and do not release the file info out of respect to his family and consideration that he acted out of duty and in reality likely had no choice."
To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Carrier chose not to make public the "Lopez"-related data in his possession (other than the photo I posted).
Mr. Carrier also claimed to have a "trail" from Conein to Charles Siragusa -- names more recently linked by Douglas Valentine. But that's another topic altogether.
More Hemming on Conein:
During his mid-70s trial on drug-related charges, wrote GPH, "I called Conein as a defense witness [Pro Se with assistance of counsel] and personally asked him one last question: '....did you receive funds from Madame Nhu before your meeting with her at the Murchison Ranch on the afternoon of November 22nd, 1963...?' The federal Prosecutor objected to the question and Judge Wm. Hoeveler sustained same -- I then stated '...no further questions for this witness Your Honor.'
"I have never suggested that Conein was part of the JFK murder team, despite insider knowledge of his failing to prevent the killing of Madame Nhu's husband and his brother Diem -- which he was ordered to do by RFK as a part of the coup in Saigon."
Now don't think for a nanosecond that I'm endorsing the Great Fabulist as anything other than just that: a masterful creator/disseminator of disinformation.
Nor am I prepared either to vouch for the truthfulness of Mr. Carrier or to voice suspicions of his motives for posting the material cited above (and many other caches of fascinating-if-troubling deep political manna).
I simply note for the record that our public work seems never to lack the involvement of at least one deep, dark, semi-mysterious font of information who matches -- or at least comes close to matching -- the GPH archetype.
The information itself is what I like to term novelistic in the extreme (the "Major Lopez" character; GPH's aforementioned Chelsea Clinton/Timothy MacVeigh union, etc.), and thus maintains the powers to excite and influence that commonly are associated with artistic expression.
Jim, you often cite the work of just such an individual -- on whom I am most assuredly not prepared to cast aspersions -- who today regularly posts on another forum, and who acts according to the GPH model when he regularly vows never again to contribute to public discussions of our topics, only to return at moments of peak interest.
This gentleman has been helpful to me in the past when I've struggled to find photographic support for various hypotheses; perhaps you can ask him to join our discussion here. All of us would find his participation to be of great and enduring value.
The game we attempt to penetrate is deep, complex, and as old as the second oldest profession itself.
It is in recognition of just this reality that I maintain that pursuit of the Dealey Plaza phantom look-alikes on the literal level is, to be succinct, self-destructive.
Charles
Let's agree to mostly agree.
Agreed?
I recently posted the only alleged "Major Lopez" photo I have. It is alternately claimed that it was taken at Pakse and at Long Tieng in 1970.
I can share the following:
In an August 4, 2005 post on another forum, the aforementioned Al Carrier included this in a response to GPH: "I possess a copy of the file on our 'Major Lopez' and have tracked down the family the deceased man. I also hold three photos of him at various times in his career. I keep quiet about his identity and do not release the file info out of respect to his family and consideration that he acted out of duty and in reality likely had no choice."
To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Carrier chose not to make public the "Lopez"-related data in his possession (other than the photo I posted).
Mr. Carrier also claimed to have a "trail" from Conein to Charles Siragusa -- names more recently linked by Douglas Valentine. But that's another topic altogether.
More Hemming on Conein:
During his mid-70s trial on drug-related charges, wrote GPH, "I called Conein as a defense witness [Pro Se with assistance of counsel] and personally asked him one last question: '....did you receive funds from Madame Nhu before your meeting with her at the Murchison Ranch on the afternoon of November 22nd, 1963...?' The federal Prosecutor objected to the question and Judge Wm. Hoeveler sustained same -- I then stated '...no further questions for this witness Your Honor.'
"I have never suggested that Conein was part of the JFK murder team, despite insider knowledge of his failing to prevent the killing of Madame Nhu's husband and his brother Diem -- which he was ordered to do by RFK as a part of the coup in Saigon."
Now don't think for a nanosecond that I'm endorsing the Great Fabulist as anything other than just that: a masterful creator/disseminator of disinformation.
Nor am I prepared either to vouch for the truthfulness of Mr. Carrier or to voice suspicions of his motives for posting the material cited above (and many other caches of fascinating-if-troubling deep political manna).
I simply note for the record that our public work seems never to lack the involvement of at least one deep, dark, semi-mysterious font of information who matches -- or at least comes close to matching -- the GPH archetype.
The information itself is what I like to term novelistic in the extreme (the "Major Lopez" character; GPH's aforementioned Chelsea Clinton/Timothy MacVeigh union, etc.), and thus maintains the powers to excite and influence that commonly are associated with artistic expression.
Jim, you often cite the work of just such an individual -- on whom I am most assuredly not prepared to cast aspersions -- who today regularly posts on another forum, and who acts according to the GPH model when he regularly vows never again to contribute to public discussions of our topics, only to return at moments of peak interest.
This gentleman has been helpful to me in the past when I've struggled to find photographic support for various hypotheses; perhaps you can ask him to join our discussion here. All of us would find his participation to be of great and enduring value.
The game we attempt to penetrate is deep, complex, and as old as the second oldest profession itself.
It is in recognition of just this reality that I maintain that pursuit of the Dealey Plaza phantom look-alikes on the literal level is, to be succinct, self-destructive.
Charles