27-01-2011, 04:30 AM
Gentlemen,
Just so we're clear: I seek neither to endorse nor repudiate Prouty or Krulak personally or as sources of legitimate intelligence. I'm simply trying to impress upon one and all that even our most favored, trusted sources of deep political data and insight must regularly be the recipients of the best objective evaluations of which we're capable.
Unquestioning acceptance of ANY source can lead only to disaster.
In the case of this thread, for instance, discussion of the validity of photo identification methodology has been conflated with discussion of the reputations of the identifiers.
Prouty and Krulak say that Lansdale was photographed in Dealey Plaza, so it must be so.
Not good enough.
Bradley Ayers and Wayne Smith say that they see Morales in footage shot at the Ambassador, so they must have been there.
Not good enough.
As Jim Fetzer among others has properly pointed out, arguments from true authority should be valued, while arguments from false authority must be rejected.
I for one remain unable to judge Prouty, Krulak, and Ayers to be sources of true authority.
I can go so far as to say that, based upon my study of the evidence, Morales is not visible on the Ambassador footage in question. And I am not prepared to defer to Ayers and Smith on the strength of their authority if doing so means I must reject the data and analysis which comprise the entire basis of my original judgement.
As for Lansdale in Dealey Plaza, I remain agnostic but lean toward -- sorry, Jim D. -- acceptance of his presence. I've attempted to attach two photos. The incomplete profile is of an unidentified man in Dealey Plaza. The full profile is that of Lansdale.
So while I agree with Jim D. that Lansdale's presence at first blush would seem to violate operational discipline, my mind remains open.
If, in my previous post, I was overly harsh, I apologize.
And if one of the photos does not appear, just click on its space.
Charles
Just so we're clear: I seek neither to endorse nor repudiate Prouty or Krulak personally or as sources of legitimate intelligence. I'm simply trying to impress upon one and all that even our most favored, trusted sources of deep political data and insight must regularly be the recipients of the best objective evaluations of which we're capable.
Unquestioning acceptance of ANY source can lead only to disaster.
In the case of this thread, for instance, discussion of the validity of photo identification methodology has been conflated with discussion of the reputations of the identifiers.
Prouty and Krulak say that Lansdale was photographed in Dealey Plaza, so it must be so.
Not good enough.
Bradley Ayers and Wayne Smith say that they see Morales in footage shot at the Ambassador, so they must have been there.
Not good enough.
As Jim Fetzer among others has properly pointed out, arguments from true authority should be valued, while arguments from false authority must be rejected.
I for one remain unable to judge Prouty, Krulak, and Ayers to be sources of true authority.
I can go so far as to say that, based upon my study of the evidence, Morales is not visible on the Ambassador footage in question. And I am not prepared to defer to Ayers and Smith on the strength of their authority if doing so means I must reject the data and analysis which comprise the entire basis of my original judgement.
As for Lansdale in Dealey Plaza, I remain agnostic but lean toward -- sorry, Jim D. -- acceptance of his presence. I've attempted to attach two photos. The incomplete profile is of an unidentified man in Dealey Plaza. The full profile is that of Lansdale.
So while I agree with Jim D. that Lansdale's presence at first blush would seem to violate operational discipline, my mind remains open.
If, in my previous post, I was overly harsh, I apologize.
And if one of the photos does not appear, just click on its space.
Charles
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene