"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today"

[James H. Fetzer]

One further--methodological--observation. Here is a quote from Hemming and your observations in response:

This segment of Hemming's quote resonates: "[W]hy don't [researchers] examine whether if these dudes were there, was it with hostile intent, and if not...who ORDERED or LURED them there in the first place??"

So ... If (and a BIG "if" it is) you're correct in your photo identifications, the question becomes, "Were these intel officers and other suspects in Dealey Plaze to witness the crime they had planned, or were they 'ordered' to the scene in order to be implicated as false sponsors and thus add layers of complexity/insulation to the cover-up?"

My answer: Yes.

But this sounds like a rather more complicated--even convoluted--explanation than mine, namely: They knew it was going down. They wanted to be there. They were there! By Occam's Razor, an explanation that explains the data as well as an alternative but based upon fewer or less complex premises is a preferable explanation. That would be mine.

[Charles Drago]

Well, you say the Major looks like LPM and DSM looks like LPM[.]

No I don't.

I say "Major Lopez" from the Pakse Base photo more closely resembles Lamp Post Man than does any photo of DSM with which I'm familiar.

But I'll go the extra mile: I see not the slightest resemblance whatsoever between Lamp Post Man and DSM photos.

I just don't get all these arguments about why they shouldn't be there when it is apparent that they were there. The improbability of this many matches of persons who are clearly together at the same location and time makes it virtually certain that they were there.

Jim, I continue to be less than clear. Permit me to try again.

It is NOT apparent to me that they are there. Based solely on image evaluation, the Old Tramp could be Hunt, not so much Holt; Main Man could be Conein and can't be Adams. The Lansdale-from-the-back figure: anybody's guess. Milteer could be the geezer in Dealey Plaza. Robertson as "Robertson" -- maybe, maybe not. Lamp Post Man as DSM -- almost certainly not.

In my opinion!

The funny thing about all of our back-and-forth messages is that you and I never have been less than all but in lock-step on most important points regarding the murder of JFK.

Here's the core of my difficulty with your certainty that "they were there:" Such an unwarranted (in my considered opinion) leap of faith endangers our greater work.

We don't need to see these bastards in Dealey Plaza to be reasonably certain that the National Security State executed the order to execute John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

The characters you see and I don't are, in Hollywood parlance and in terms of our greater work, dress extras.

Elaborate plans for the cover-up, which included stealing the body and getting it under military control, were in place. I don't think they felt they were running any risk in being there. They wanted to be there! They were there. And not under any special orders!

OF COURSE they recognized the risk. Why else devise and implement so elaborate and long-lasting a cover-up?

[Charles Drago]

But this sounds like a rather more complicated--even convoluted--explanation than mine, namely: They knew it was going down. They wanted to be there. They were there! By Occam's Razor, an explanation that explains the data as well as an alternative but based upon fewer or less complex premises is a preferable explanation. That would be mine.[emphasis added]

Quite reasonable, James, but for one condition:

I contest the validity of the data.

P.S. -- Are we in the process of driving each other crazy (er)?

[Jack White]

Charles and Jim are making this excessively complicated.

From my reading, they agree on most points.

The degree of agreement is what they dispute.

Jim is 95 percent CERTAIN. Charles does not DISAGREE, but is
95 percent SKEPTICAL. Jim's argument is based on REASONING
and Charles insists on EVIDENCE. Both positions are acceptable.
Skepticism is healthy. Reasoning is essential.

Both are too wordy in defense of their positions. I favor
extremely brief postings, like mine here, for instance.

Jack

[Charles Drago]

OK

[James H. Fetzer]

Let's agree to disagree, Charles. I think we have passed the point of diminishing returns. Post your "Major Lopez" photos, if you like.

[Jack White]

Let's agree to disagree, Charles. I think we have passed the point of diminishing returns. Post your "Major Lopez" photos, if you like.

I for one would like to see photos of "Major Lopez". What is their significance?

Jack

[Charles Drago]

Jim, Jack,

Let's agree to mostly agree.

Agreed?

I recently posted the only alleged "Major Lopez" photo I have. It is alternately claimed that it was taken at Pakse and at Long Tieng in 1970.

I can share the following:

In an August 4, 2005 post on another forum, the aforementioned Al Carrier included this in a response to GPH: "I possess a copy of the file on our 'Major Lopez' and have tracked down the family the deceased man. I also hold three photos of him at various times in his career. I keep quiet about his identity and do not release the file info out of respect to his family and consideration that he acted out of duty and in reality likely had no choice."

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Carrier chose not to make public the "Lopez"-related data in his possession (other than the photo I posted).

Mr. Carrier also claimed to have a "trail" from Conein to Charles Siragusa -- names more recently linked by Douglas Valentine. But that's another topic altogether.

More Hemming on Conein:

During his mid-70s trial on drug-related charges, wrote GPH, "I called Conein as a defense witness [Pro Se with assistance of counsel] and personally asked him one last question: '....did you receive funds from Madame Nhu before your meeting with her at the Murchison Ranch on the afternoon of November 22nd, 1963...?' The federal Prosecutor objected to the question and Judge Wm. Hoeveler sustained same -- I then stated '...no further questions for this witness Your Honor.'

"I have never suggested that Conein was part of the JFK murder team, despite insider knowledge of his failing to prevent the killing of Madame Nhu's husband and his brother Diem -- which he was ordered to do by RFK as a part of the coup in Saigon."

Now don't think for a nanosecond that I'm endorsing the Great Fabulist as anything other than just that: a masterful creator/disseminator of disinformation.

Nor am I prepared either to vouch for the truthfulness of Mr. Carrier or to voice suspicions of his motives for posting the material cited above (and many other caches of fascinating-if-troubling deep political manna).

I simply note for the record that our public work seems never to lack the involvement of at least one deep, dark, semi-mysterious font of information who matches -- or at least comes close to matching -- the GPH archetype.

The information itself is what I like to term novelistic in the extreme (the "Major Lopez" character; GPH's aforementioned Chelsea Clinton/Timothy MacVeigh union, etc.), and thus maintains the powers to excite and influence that commonly are associated with artistic expression.

Jim, you often cite the work of just such an individual -- on whom I am most assuredly not prepared to cast aspersions -- who today regularly posts on another forum, and who acts according to the GPH model when he regularly vows never again to contribute to public discussions of our topics, only to return at moments of peak interest.

This gentleman has been helpful to me in the past when I've struggled to find photographic support for various hypotheses; perhaps you can ask him to join our discussion here. All of us would find his participation to be of great and enduring value.

The game we attempt to penetrate is deep, complex, and as old as the second oldest profession itself.

It is in recognition of just this reality that I maintain that pursuit of the Dealey Plaza phantom look-alikes on the literal level is, to be succinct, self-destructive.

Charles

[Jack White]

Jim, Jack,

Let's agree to mostly agree.

Agreed?

I recently posted the only alleged "Major Lopez" photo I have. It is alternately claimed that it was taken at Pakse and at Long Tieng in 1970.

I can share the following:

In an August 4, 2005 post on another forum, the aforementioned Al Carrier included this in a response to GPH: "I possess a copy of the file on our 'Major Lopez' and have tracked down the family the deceased man. I also hold three photos of him at various times in his career. I keep quiet about his identity and do not release the file info out of respect to his family and consideration that he acted out of duty and in reality likely had no choice."

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Carrier chose not to make public the "Lopez"-related data in his possession (other than the photo I posted).

Mr. Carrier also claimed to have a "trail" from Conein to Charles Siragusa -- names more recently linked by Douglas Valentine. But that's another topic altogether.

More Hemming on Conein:

During his mid-70s trial on drug-related charges, wrote GPH, "I called Conein as a defense witness [Pro Se with assistance of counsel] and personally asked him one last question: '....did you receive funds from Madame Nhu before your meeting with her at the Murchison Ranch on the afternoon of November 22nd, 1963...?' The federal Prosecutor objected to the question and Judge Wm. Hoeveler sustained same -- I then stated '...no further questions for this witness Your Honor.'

"I have never suggested that Conein was part of the JFK murder team, despite insider knowledge of his failing to prevent the killing of Madame Nhu's husband and his brother Diem -- which he was ordered to do by RFK as a part of the coup in Saigon."

Now don't think for a nanosecond that I'm endorsing the Great Fabulist as anything other than just that: a masterful creator/disseminator of disinformation.

Nor am I prepared either to vouch for the truthfulness of Mr. Carrier or to voice suspicions of his motives for posting the material cited above (and many other caches of fascinating-if-troubling deep political manna).

I simply note for the record that our public work seems never to lack the involvement of at least one deep, dark, semi-mysterious font of information who matches -- or at least comes close to matching -- the GPH archetype.

The information itself is what I like to term novelistic in the extreme (the "Major Lopez" character; GPH's aforementioned Chelsea Clinton/Timothy MacVeigh union, etc.), and thus maintains the powers to excite and influence that commonly are associated with artistic expression.

Jim, you often cite the work of just such an individual -- on whom I am most assuredly not prepared to cast aspersions -- who today regularly posts on another forum, and who acts according to the GPH model when he regularly vows never again to contribute to public discussions of our topics, only to return at moments of peak interest.

This gentleman has been helpful to me in the past when I've struggled to find photographic support for various hypotheses; perhaps you can ask him to join our discussion here. All of us would find his participation to be of great and enduring value.

The game we attempt to penetrate is deep, complex, and as old as the second oldest profession itself.

It is in recognition of just this reality that I maintain that pursuit of the Dealey Plaza phantom look-alikes on the literal level is, to be succinct, self-destructive.

Charles

I only met Hemming a couple of times. I would not trust him
any farther than I could throw him; he was about 6'8" and weighed
about 300 pounds. Many of his tales were plainly absurd, but some
sounded plausible. I remember Carrier on the S forum; he seemed
to have clandestine connections of some sort if I remember right.
Then he sort of "disappeared". I am always wary of most guys
with intelligence connections...one of my reasons for discounting
Chauncey Holt. The main exception I can think of is Fletcher Prouty.
Virtually everything he ever said checked out...and he was on the
RIGHT SIDE. And a guy whose chief hobby was model railroads
and the history of railroads is unlikely to be a bad guy. Several
times when we talked we discussed railroad history. I also have
great respect for one of Fletch's confidants, Greg Burnham.

Jack

[Peter Lemkin]

Jim, Jack,

Let's agree to mostly agree.

Agreed?

I recently posted the only alleged "Major Lopez" photo I have. It is alternately claimed that it was taken at Pakse and at Long Tieng in 1970.

I can share the following:

In an August 4, 2005 post on another forum, the aforementioned Al Carrier included this in a response to GPH: "I possess a copy of the file on our 'Major Lopez' and have tracked down the family the deceased man. I also hold three photos of him at various times in his career. I keep quiet about his identity and do not release the file info out of respect to his family and consideration that he acted out of duty and in reality likely had no choice."

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Carrier chose not to make public the "Lopez"-related data in his possession (other than the photo I posted).

Mr. Carrier also claimed to have a "trail" from Conein to Charles Siragusa -- names more recently linked by Douglas Valentine. But that's another topic altogether.

More Hemming on Conein:

During his mid-70s trial on drug-related charges, wrote GPH, "I called Conein as a defense witness [Pro Se with assistance of counsel] and personally asked him one last question: '....did you receive funds from Madame Nhu before your meeting with her at the Murchison Ranch on the afternoon of November 22nd, 1963...?' The federal Prosecutor objected to the question and Judge Wm. Hoeveler sustained same -- I then stated '...no further questions for this witness Your Honor.'

"I have never suggested that Conein was part of the JFK murder team, despite insider knowledge of his failing to prevent the killing of Madame Nhu's husband and his brother Diem -- which he was ordered to do by RFK as a part of the coup in Saigon."

Now don't think for a nanosecond that I'm endorsing the Great Fabulist as anything other than just that: a masterful creator/disseminator of disinformation.

Nor am I prepared either to vouch for the truthfulness of Mr. Carrier or to voice suspicions of his motives for posting the material cited above (and many other caches of fascinating-if-troubling deep political manna).

I simply note for the record that our public work seems never to lack the involvement of at least one deep, dark, semi-mysterious font of information who matches -- or at least comes close to matching -- the GPH archetype.

The information itself is what I like to term novelistic in the extreme (the "Major Lopez" character; GPH's aforementioned Chelsea Clinton/Timothy MacVeigh union, etc.), and thus maintains the powers to excite and influence that commonly are associated with artistic expression.

Jim, you often cite the work of just such an individual -- on whom I am most assuredly not prepared to cast aspersions -- who today regularly posts on another forum, and who acts according to the GPH model when he regularly vows never again to contribute to public discussions of our topics, only to return at moments of peak interest.

This gentleman has been helpful to me in the past when I've struggled to find photographic support for various hypotheses; perhaps you can ask him to join our discussion here. All of us would find his participation to be of great and enduring value.

The game we attempt to penetrate is deep, complex, and as old as the second oldest profession itself.

It is in recognition of just this reality that I maintain that pursuit of the Dealey Plaza phantom look-alikes on the literal level is, to be succinct, self-destructive.

Charles

Am I missing something or having drunk too much wine this week..but I don't know where the photo of Major Lopez is...please enlighten or lighten or mention.