Morgan Reynolds Wrote:Allan,
Help me on the framed pic, which Jim keeps calling a plaque. Please describe the facts, since I may have missed something.
Morgan:
On my webpage you will find this sentence:
"In 1999, Mr. Caplett was invited to accompany a colleague on a drive to Dallas to visit an aunt. In the aunt's home he saw on the wall a framed version of Altgens photograph with a newspaper clip acknowledging the presence the aunt's late husband in the famous picture."
Caplett's original description of the framed newspaper clipping was as a "plaque" presented by the Dallas Morning News. He misunderstood, and over-estimated the significance of the picture frame. If you go back through this thread, you will find that I have explained before that this is a red-herring. Fetzer continues to make it his central theme, showing how bankrupt his argument is.
If you wish to discuss this with Frank, please email me and I will provide you with his email address (aeaglesh@twcny.rr.com). He would be amused to know that this is still a contentious issue.
Jim,
You write: How does Morgan propose to explain this phony "plaque"? What does it mean to him that SOMEONE was going to the time and trouble to fabricate a fake plaque?
Asked and answered, as the lawyers say, but I'll summarize here. The Adams family was proud of the newspaper pic yet got the day/date both wrong. Why is this such a "reach" (so implausible) for you? Why reject it out-of-hand? I do not understand your intensity in trashing this interpretation.
And why would Conein or the CIA be afraid of a pic in the crowd? Those guys were full of hubris. Do you think any of them were afraid of Garrison later? Or the media, which they played like a Wurlitzer?
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:Implicate Hemming? What was he doing there? Just a regular guy getting a peek at JFK and Jackie? A JM/WAVE, Alpha 66 guy? Hemming was CIA big-time, for example, Twyman's Bloody Treason devotes his longest chapter to him. As I said, once I saw that pic, I'd arrest Hemming post haste, subpoena every relevant thing I wanted and start cracking that baby wide open. Also, it's alleged he seemed to go where LHO went.
[IMG]file:///Users/morganreynolds/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///Users/morganreynolds/Desktop/JFKhemming16.jpg[/IMG]
Morgan,
Agreed on the limitations of the scientific method and those who would apply it.
I "knew" GPH in the sense that we met and dined together. That plus I was part of the first and, to my knowledge, only panel to question him pubicly. Which means nothing in terms of this exchange. But I am aware of his size and presence. Not to mention his c.v.
For the record, I'm unwilling to conclude that GPH's presence in Dealey Plaza during the attack would implicate him as a co-conspirator only to the extent that I hold open the possibility that he was sent there to add to the complexity behind which the assassination's true Sponsors and Facilitators continue to find refuge.
I'm also sensitive to Jack's appreciation of after-the-fact actions taken to ... as we'd say in the 'hood ... throw shit in the game. The creation by conspiracy Facilitators of what I term cognitive dissonance, both at the time of the murder and in its wake, serves to divert, disinform, and ultimately disarm investigators. Not to mention that it helps to put ostensible allies at each others' throats.
The wrong date and time were in a NEWSPAPER article, which was obviously
faked. We had an intense exchange about this some time back, Morgan, and
I regard this case as one of the most blatant attempts to sweep evidence of
CIA complicity under the rug. The story Allan is weaving strikes me as nothing
more than a fairy tale. Believe what you want. To me, this is complete rubbish.
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:Jim,
You write: How does Morgan propose to explain this phony "plaque"? What does it mean to him that SOMEONE was going to the time and trouble to fabricate a fake plaque?
Asked and answered, as the lawyers say, but I'll summarize here. The Adams family was proud of the newspaper pic yet got the day/date both wrong. Why is this such a "reach" (so implausible) for you? Why reject it out-of-hand? I do not understand your intensity in trashing this interpretation.
And why would Conein or the CIA be afraid of a pic in the crowd? Those guys were full of hubris. Do you think any of them were afraid of Garrison later? Or the media, which they played like a Wurlitzer?
For God's sake, can we stop calling the bloody thing a plaque, in quotes or not?
Do you believe that this is part of CIA attempt to provide Lucien Conein with plausible deniability? (The plausible deniability would be applicable -- of course -- only to people visiting the Adams residence familiar with the webpage titled Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza. Perhaps for afternoon tea?)
I can scarcely believe that I am having this discussion. Feathers/waddles/quacks comes to mind.
