28-05-2018, 09:44 PM
Mr. Dagosto: As usual, I am humbled and grateful for the careful attention given to my posting about the above. Thank you again for this helpful analysis. I count myself fortunate to have help in analyzing and critiquing (and fixing) my theories.
In putting together the first-ever organizational chart for the JFK assassination, I have followed the principle of following the most likely explanation, not the conclusively proven explanation. I did not recognize any "default" conclusion like the presumption of innocence, the presumption of "no conspiracy", the requirement of some existing published backup, etc. etc.
If I came to a fork in the road (logically), I took one, (the best looking and sounding one). If there were ten alternatives, I took the best two or three and pursued them until I reached a dead end. Invariably, there was always one of them that proved out.
Of the 70 plus people on my chart, I read a complete biography or the equivalent on about 20. And that doesn't include the biographies of those I ruled out or rejected which was at least an equal number.
There is actually only one real, accurate chart. Everybody can't have their own cast of players. There was only one plot, it just comes down to how close a person is to knowing and identifying the people on it.
I have been amazed that not one person has challenged me on the inclusion of anyone on my chart. The usual criticism has been that with 70 people in the plot, somebody would have talked and therefore, there couldn't really be 70 people. And, needless to say, there are no competing or alternative charts in existence (that I know of).
I haven't read the complete work of Vince Palamara but I have read his writing on the internet on various topics. Like all the veterans who published years before me, I have only respect for their patriotism (sounds corny but it's true). [Especially appropriate on Memorial Day, come to think of it.]
Their work will live on for future generations when they are gone.
I do agree with you totally that if the Secret Service were complicit, it would only be the top dogs (and a few smaller dogs). Also, there were undoubtedly some incompetent Secret Service people, drunks, party animals, etc. etc. We apparently still have those today, unfortunately.
Our theories probably don't differ in basic approach. But your take on the "state of mind" of, say, Jackie or JFK or RFK or Milteer would probably all be different. It is not easy, at all, to prove what was in the mind of JFK or Milteer (or anybody for that matter). Nobody is a mind reader. Especially 55 years after the fact. But you can get deep into the politics which a leader believed in. You can get a feeling for his tendency to lie or tell the truth. You can understand where he grew up, what was his religious loyalty and so forth. And who did he socialize or hang out with? What were his habits over the long term, from college until old age?
All of these tools must be used to identify the killers, because we will never see a smoking gun, never a deathbed confession, none of that. But in my judgment, circumstantial evidence is more than adequate to prove what happened to JFK. You just need a whole lot of it to piece all the puzzle together.
James Lateer
In putting together the first-ever organizational chart for the JFK assassination, I have followed the principle of following the most likely explanation, not the conclusively proven explanation. I did not recognize any "default" conclusion like the presumption of innocence, the presumption of "no conspiracy", the requirement of some existing published backup, etc. etc.
If I came to a fork in the road (logically), I took one, (the best looking and sounding one). If there were ten alternatives, I took the best two or three and pursued them until I reached a dead end. Invariably, there was always one of them that proved out.
Of the 70 plus people on my chart, I read a complete biography or the equivalent on about 20. And that doesn't include the biographies of those I ruled out or rejected which was at least an equal number.
There is actually only one real, accurate chart. Everybody can't have their own cast of players. There was only one plot, it just comes down to how close a person is to knowing and identifying the people on it.
I have been amazed that not one person has challenged me on the inclusion of anyone on my chart. The usual criticism has been that with 70 people in the plot, somebody would have talked and therefore, there couldn't really be 70 people. And, needless to say, there are no competing or alternative charts in existence (that I know of).
I haven't read the complete work of Vince Palamara but I have read his writing on the internet on various topics. Like all the veterans who published years before me, I have only respect for their patriotism (sounds corny but it's true). [Especially appropriate on Memorial Day, come to think of it.]
Their work will live on for future generations when they are gone.
I do agree with you totally that if the Secret Service were complicit, it would only be the top dogs (and a few smaller dogs). Also, there were undoubtedly some incompetent Secret Service people, drunks, party animals, etc. etc. We apparently still have those today, unfortunately.
Our theories probably don't differ in basic approach. But your take on the "state of mind" of, say, Jackie or JFK or RFK or Milteer would probably all be different. It is not easy, at all, to prove what was in the mind of JFK or Milteer (or anybody for that matter). Nobody is a mind reader. Especially 55 years after the fact. But you can get deep into the politics which a leader believed in. You can get a feeling for his tendency to lie or tell the truth. You can understand where he grew up, what was his religious loyalty and so forth. And who did he socialize or hang out with? What were his habits over the long term, from college until old age?
All of these tools must be used to identify the killers, because we will never see a smoking gun, never a deathbed confession, none of that. But in my judgment, circumstantial evidence is more than adequate to prove what happened to JFK. You just need a whole lot of it to piece all the puzzle together.
James Lateer