Thank you for the nice words, they are greatly appreciated.
Tony Poshepny is a most interesting character. He mixed with a curious collection of folk including Bill Lair, Ted Shackley, Lucien Conein, Ed Lansdale and several agency ghouls known for some heavy handed activity.
I do not have any real conviction of Poshepny being in Dealey Plaza but offered up the comparison because he does bear a similarity to LPM.
The whole look-a-likes thing can have one running around in circles, which I can testify to personally especially when we have Fletcher Prouty and Gen. Krulak saying Lansdale was there (Tramps photograph) and then we have a man at the corner of Main and Houston who seriously resembles Conein. What are the odds of that? Tantalizing indeed.
Ultimately, I decided that the look-a-likes thing it was pretty much a waste of time given that it can never be proved that these individuals were there. If the photographic evidence is all we have then sadly we have nothing.
I think it is more productive to chase other more tangible angles.
I have had a most interesting conversation with James Richards
about these things. I advised him of your hypothesis that the
Lamppost Man might be Major Lopez and sent him attachment
(1). He knows quite a lot about this fellow, who also used the
name "Bobby Leon", but affirmed that LPM is not Major Lopez.
I asked about my supposition that it is David Sanchez Morales.
He sent me a photograph of Sanchez taken around 1968, which
I have also attached (2). He does not believe that it was David
Sanchez Morales and, using this photograph, which looks like a
person of interest at the Ambassador, I am inclined to agree.
He also sent me a photo of Tony Poshepny (aka "Tony Poe"),
who, it turns out, was Lucein Conein's "go to" guy. It was his
opinion that, if Conein was there, it would not be surprising
if Poshepny were also there. The photo he sent, attachment
(3), suggests that he is the strongest candidate of the three.
James also made the general observation that, given how much
these guys resemble CIA officials, it would be highly improbable
if, by chance, there were a group of innocent civilians who just,
by chance, happened to look like their counterparts in the CIA
and who happened, again by chance, to be at Main and Houston.
That probability would be equal to each of them just happening
to bear a resemblance to his counterpart and just happening to
be that that intersection with others who just happened to also
resemble their CIA counterparts and happened also to be there.
That probability would be very low, even converging toward zero.
If, by comparison, they were there because they knew what was
going down and wanted to find a location that would enable them
to witness the assassination without being conspicuous, then the
probability that they would be gathered together at Houston and
Main becomes very high. It is clearly the preferable hypothesis.
Jim
P.S. The attachments do not appear to be in the order I intended,
but rather in the sequence (2), (3), and (your own) (1).
Charles Drago Wrote:Peter,
Post #60. Man standing on far right.
Below, kindly compared to Lamp Post Man by Jack White.
Charles
I think that an ID of lamppost man could well depend on an ID of the other young man hanging from the same lamppost - something a stranger typically won't join one in doing. The two look like they''re mugging for the cameras across the street.
Recall that we usually peg a certain behatted pair as Robinson and O'Hare - so why are the lamppost twins not thought of as companions?
James Richards Wrote:Ultimately, I decided that the look-a-likes thing it was pretty much a waste of time given that it can never be proved that these individuals were there. If the photographic evidence is all we have then sadly we have nothing.
I think it is more productive to chase other more tangible angles.
29-12-2009, 02:30 AM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2010, 06:32 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
No, I disagree--even profoundly! It renders concrete the somewhat abstract notion that our own government could participate in the assassination of our own highest elected official. It is not the core of evidence of conspiracy and cover-up, but it makes for a powerful indication of what was going on. And it does not have to be proven conclusively: the probabilistic arguments that I have already presented--with a nudge from James Richards--make the case.
