Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza

[Jack White]

Charles seems almost alone here in appreciating the importance
of photo fakery and obfuscation in covert scenarios. FAKED EVIDENCE
is a specialty of the CIA, and only the uninformed accept it at face value.

Does the CIA employ CUT-OUTS? Assuredly. Was Altgens a cut-out?
Probably. Was Zapruder a cut-out? Most likely. Just because someone
says they took a specific photo DOES NOT MEAN that they actually
took it. Just because someone is identified in a photo does not mean
it necessarily is that person.

For the uninformed, a cut-out is an intermediary used as a conduit
for evidence or information to keep it from being traced to its
actual source.

From long study, Charles, Jim and I stand apart from the underinformed
regarding sophisticated photo fakery as a tool of covert activity. Other
trusting souls rely on photos being accurate and photo information being
trustworthy. I no longer trust ANY photo related to the assassination.

Jack

Did someone insert a photograph of Lucien Conein to make people think that Robert Adams was there, or did someone insert a picture of Robert Adams to make people think that Lucien Conein was there?

Rod Serling would love this.

Actually, the objectives were to limit and control the scope of critical thinking about the assassination conspiracy by promoting false either/or choices among unsophisticated observers.

Are unsophisticated observers capable of critical thinking?

Let's limit the discussion to the Conein look-alike. We will get nowhere by introducing generalities about photographic alteration. Again: Did someone insert a photograph of Lucien Conein to make people think that Robert Adams was there, or did someone insert a picture of Robert Adams to make people think that Lucien Conein was there?

Limiting the discussion is precisely the problem in this and too many other instances of deep political analysis.

We will get EVERYWHERE by raising the issue of photographic alteration here because it represents a classic Third Alternative of the sort that deep political analysts fail to look for and recognize at our collective peril.

I cannot conjure a more dramatically illustrative example of the embrace of a false dichotomy than that revealed in your most recent response above. You may choose to limit your study of the Conein/Adams issue to an A/B choice. That's entirely your business.

But when you urge others studying this case to do so, you are urging them to retard their evolutions as observers of deep political phenomena.

Accordingly, I implore all who read and comment on DPF subjects to reject calls for oversimplification. Yes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

But sometimes it's an exploding cigar. Or no cigar at all.

Or both.