Gordon Gray Wrote:Looking at photos of Steve Wilson, it could also be him IMO.
He was at No Name Key and later Lake Poncetrian.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4438[/ATTACH]
Thanks Gordon.... If this guy was running from a scene and you were shown Oswald's photo... I bet MANY would say that was Oswald...
Cheers
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Like Charlie, I too am no botanist--nor am I a facial recognition enthusiast. However, it is a slippery slope when we begin to attempt to speculate about the identity of an individual seen in a photo
and the location depicted therein given that we have NO reliable basis upon which to make such claims if we were to choose to speculate. Moreover, even the provenance of the material itself has
not been forthcoming.
But, if I must speculate as others have seen fit to do in this thread...then I think that the individual seen at the very beginning of this clip could be David Mantik! Look at the similarity to the fellow
in the screenshot below. So why would David Mantik be in the same film as Steve Wilson and/or LHO at Lake Poncha--No-Name-Key--train?
Answer: Don't speculate based on superficial similarity. Beware that dopplegangers abound!
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Which is why I usually just create as decent a comparison as I can and post it to be analyzed/reviewed and discussed...
The image in the film is much to fuzzy for an ID yet you might agree that the similarities are striking in the collage of faces.
To the Steve Wilson image, he too could get away with being considered an Oswald "look-alike"... NOT that he ever did or was used as such...
Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining.... he can feel it.
.......
Whether I jumped to a conclusion, or stated an educated guess... I needn't have to put up with what was directed toward me. Others may feel differently...
I sometimes forget that all we can control is our own presentation.. our own emotions...
I should have simply ignored the approach from the start.... and let cooler heads prevail.
I apologize to the membership if I diverted their attentions needlessly by choosing to call it as I saw it.
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
1. In the post in which he opened this thread, Gordon Gray drew our attention to an image from a "Russian language documentary" of an individual bearing a resemblance to LHO. He asked if the image was familiar to anyone and if it was captured "in the Philippines or maybe on some place like No Name Key".
2. Less than an hour later, Josephs responded with this bold statement: "I would put it at No Name before anyting [sic] else... "
3. I quickly came back with:
"I'm no botanist, but the vegetation in this image does not strike me as being particularly tropical.
"That plus the fact that neither an image nor a verifiable report of LHO at No Name Key has surfaced to date make the statement that this view should be accepted as having been taken "at No Name before anyting [sic] else" utterly under-informed and undisciplined -- which is to say, nonsensical."
4. Josephs took immense offense at my comments. Yet when pressed by me to justify his No Name Key conclusion, all that he could offer were evasions, attempts to deflect the conversation from questions regarding his analysis, shift the burden of proof for a claim I never made to me, and ultimately declare that he will not explain the rationale behind his No Name Key identification because I am rude:
"why and how I come to this speculation is not anything I prefer to discuss with you at this point... given your initial response...
that you can't make those connections yourself speaks volumes"
5. So with what are we left?
My legitimate question, and Josephs's evasions.
And so I have no choice but to ask the question AGAIN:
Do you, Josephs, stand by your assertion that there is good reason (which you've yet to state) to conclude that the photo was taken at No Name Key "before anyting [sic] else"?
Because THAT is the question I originally raised, and THAT is the question you are dodging.
Answer the question. Share with us why the No Name Key identification should be accepted "before anyting [sic] else". Show us why you made that knee-jerk assertion.
1. In the post in which he opened this thread, Gordon Gray drew our attention to an image from a "Russian language documentary" of an individual bearing a resemblance to LHO. He asked if the image was familiar to anyone and if it was captured "in the Philippines or maybe on some place like No Name Key".
2. Less than an hour later, Josephs responded with this bold statement: "I would put it at No Name before anyting [sic] else... "
3. I quickly came back with:
"I'm no botanist, but the vegetation in this image does not strike me as being particularly tropical.
"That plus the fact that neither an image nor a verifiable report of LHO at No Name Key has surfaced to date make the statement that this view should be accepted as having been taken "at No Name before anyting [sic] else" utterly under-informed and undisciplined -- which is to say, nonsensical."
4. Josephs took immense offense at my comments. Yet when pressed by me to justify his No Name Key conclusion, all that he could offer were evasions, attempts to deflect the conversation from questions regarding his analysis, shift the burden of proof for a claim I never made to me, and ultimately declare that he will not explain the rationale behind his No Name Key identification because I am rude:
"why and how I come to this speculation is not anything I prefer to discuss with you at this point... given your initial response...
that you can't make those connections yourself speaks volumes"
5. So with what are we left?
My legitimate question, and Josephs's evasions.
And so I have no choice but to ask the question AGAIN:
Do you, Josephs, stand by your assertion that there is good reason (which you've yet to state) to conclude that the photo was taken at No Name Key "before anyting [sic] else"?
Because THAT is the question I originally raised, and THAT is the question you are dodging.
Answer the question. Share with us why the No Name Key identification should be accepted "before anyting [sic] else". Show us why you made that knee-jerk assertion.
You made the assertion.
Defend it.
Will no one join me in demanding an answer?
While I agree with your point, Charles, I don't feel the need to demand that he answer. However, I don't respect anyone who makes a habit of recklessly speculating about material facts.
In my view there is no basis for the "guess" David made. But, I am able to leave it at that while keeping a mental note of it.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
My point -- at least initially -- was to utilize this example of what I consider to be reckless abandonment of research principles and general reasoning as a teaching moment.
Then came the evasions of a sort that I identify with, among others, Ralph Cinque and "Albert Doyle."
Enough has been said. My point has been made.
The original assertion, in all of what I would term its reckless certitude, remains unsupported by fact. And so I submit that the person who made it simply cannot show us how he reached his conclusion without exposing himself to ridicule.
Let all who care to consider these facts make their own judgments. Mine is that he is hoisted on his own petard.
