26-01-2011, 11:25 PM
All,
Is it a stoning offense to suggest that it may be wise to consider the possibility that Fletcher Prouty was not on the side of the angels?
To do so we must subject his revelations to scrupulous fact checking. But that's just for starters.
We must also consider the accrued benefits of his revelations to the searches for truth and justice in this case.
No ... make that a cost/benefit analysis. Where have Prouty's revelations led us? How much closer are we to cracking the case because of what he's shared?
No rhetorical questions here. I'm asking. Seriously.
For me, the jury remains out on Prouty. But as Jack White might legitimately observe, perhaps once again I'm being too cautious as I move forward -- or attempt to -- in this case.
On another matter: All of the arguments elsewhere on DPF regarding the ability of one to recognize a close friend (Lansdale) in a non-full face photographic image seem predicated on the unspoken agreement that the identifiers -- Prouty and Krulak -- would have no reason to lie.
In other words, the point in these instances is not the possibility of making such an ID from said views, but rather the agendas of the identifiers.
So too the Ambassador Hotel IDs of Morales, et al.
For example: To take Bradley Ayers at his word is to ignore his deep political machinations -- up to and including his attempts to penetrate the inner circle of a relatively contemporary elected Kennedy. Of course I cannot take anyone to task for not acknowledging these most recent events insofar as they remain FAR off the record.
Is it a stoning offense to suggest that it may be wise to consider the possibility that Fletcher Prouty was not on the side of the angels?
To do so we must subject his revelations to scrupulous fact checking. But that's just for starters.
We must also consider the accrued benefits of his revelations to the searches for truth and justice in this case.
No ... make that a cost/benefit analysis. Where have Prouty's revelations led us? How much closer are we to cracking the case because of what he's shared?
No rhetorical questions here. I'm asking. Seriously.
For me, the jury remains out on Prouty. But as Jack White might legitimately observe, perhaps once again I'm being too cautious as I move forward -- or attempt to -- in this case.
On another matter: All of the arguments elsewhere on DPF regarding the ability of one to recognize a close friend (Lansdale) in a non-full face photographic image seem predicated on the unspoken agreement that the identifiers -- Prouty and Krulak -- would have no reason to lie.
In other words, the point in these instances is not the possibility of making such an ID from said views, but rather the agendas of the identifiers.
So too the Ambassador Hotel IDs of Morales, et al.
For example: To take Bradley Ayers at his word is to ignore his deep political machinations -- up to and including his attempts to penetrate the inner circle of a relatively contemporary elected Kennedy. Of course I cannot take anyone to task for not acknowledging these most recent events insofar as they remain FAR off the record.