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

[Allan Eaglesham]

And each should be considered on its own merits.

[Charles Drago]

Jim,

As usual, you're too kind. I've barked up more wrong trees than a nearsighted bloodhound with a deviated septum.

With that stipulation in mind, I'll offer responses to some of your comments as gathered from your two most recent posts here.

I have known Brad for quite a few years now, and he and I have had quite a few lunches and other meetings together. . . . Morley and Talbot may be correct, but I would be fascinated to know how they became convinced he was wrong[.]

I have not met Mr. Ayers and cannot offer a first-hand evaluation of his character or bona fides. I am, however, in possession of information that would seem to lend credence to the claim that he is not on the side of the angels. I must be circumspect when writing publicly about this insofar as I am bound by my word to remain silent about details. Accordingly, you and everyone else would be wise to take this non-revelation revelation with more than a single grain of Brazilian sea salt. Suffice to say that, for me, Morley and Talbot are vastly superior sources in terms of honor and agenda.

I also agree with Jack. It is extremely rare for any of us to notice faces that remind us of Jack Nicholson, Julia Roberts, George Clooney, or any of a vast number of prominent public personalities with whom we are familiar. That suggests to me that Charles is (atypically) barking up the wrong tree.

A statistical analysis of the kind he suggests, I believe, properly conducted,would show that practically none of us looks enough like other persons as to be mistaken for one another. [emphasis added] That requires a special, highly unusual, effort of the kind that was employed by using Oswald look-alikes in taking out JFK.

WOOF!

Resemblance, I submit, is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, this is an inexact science at best until serious biometric measuring takes place. An example: While the Conein look-alike would raise the eyebrows of most informed observers, the Morales/Dealey Plaza candidate is, for me and I daresay many, many others, a subjective "stretch" worthy of a Cirque du Soleil acrobat.

As for my suggested statistical analysis: Our beliefs regarding its likely outcome at the moment radically differ. How can we undertake such a study? Do you think the exercise would be rewarding?

I am rather troubled by the apparent willingness to disregard photographic identifications, such as those in Dealey Plaza. Based upon the evidence we have available, I believe we have photos of Conein, Lansdale, Robertson, Morales, Milteer, and several others in the record. I have no real doubt.

For the record, I am the last person to "disregard photographic identifications" of suspected assassins in Dealey Plaza. I hold these analyses to be of immense consequence to our shared missions to discover truth and effect justice.

But I do have three major problems with what we have before us:

1. Until there is more than "belief" to go on -- which is to say, absent quantifiable validations of the identifications, all we've got is personal opinion.

2. I "believe" that we're being suckered by these offerings. Proof of conspiracy in Dealey Plaza was established beyond all reasonable doubt long before the look-alikes were spotted. Public discussion of these identifications, I submit, must be carefully contextualized: They are not required to answer the "how" question, which was settled before the crossfire's echoes had faded from the Texas afternoon; they may, however, help us answer the "who" and "why" questions.

3. Everything we know about Morales leads us to conclude that he was sufficientlly arrogant to violate sacrosanct tradecraft and show up for the execution for which he was partially responsible. Everything we know about how events such as Dealey Plaza are planned leads us to conclude that false sponsors and doppelgangers were inserted at the scene of the crime (and elsewhere, pre-and post-assassination and to this day) to confuse, to misdirect, indeed to mesmerize. BUT ... and this is my main point ... to shout A HA! and trumpet these identifications absent presentation of deeper issues relating to the conspiracy's construction is to play into the hands of those for whom magick is the indispensable spice for the conspiracy stew.

In conclusion: If I'm proven wrong, I'll so stipulate in the most public of manners.

Further, and for the e-record, I prefer to believe and have fair reason to suspect that David Sanchez Morales was in Dealey Plaza to witness the murder of his blood enemy.

But to date I have no proof. And neither does anyone else.

Respectfully,

Charles

PS

Given the current New England weather, I'd love to be barking up the wrong palm tree.

[Dawn Meredith]

Jim
A few posts back you referred to a picture taken of Bush 41 in Dallas 11/22/63. While I completely believe Bush was involved in the assassination of JFK it cannot be maintained that this IS him in that photo. A strong resemblance yes. I have seen this pic several times but it taken from too far away to conclude anything, imo.
I just looked in Family of Secrets to see if Russ Baker utilized this picture, as Baker's work furthers the evidence of Bush involvement in the assassination, including much evidence that Bush was actually in Dallas 11/21 and 22, then later lied about it. However he does make the mistake of printing that picture together with a definitive finding. In fact such would be potentilally libelous, to put the former CIA director and president literally at the scene.

I find merit to your view- and Jack's- that conspirators would be present at the scene and found Prouty's identification of Lansdale very convincing.

That said, I think we all need to be careful with regard to the photographic evicence. Or hearsay evidence such as what Morales' friend Bob Dorf told Fonzi -(The Last Investigation p390): "Well we took care of that son of a bitch didn't we?" Morales likely did say that to Dorf, but we have no way of knowing exactly to whom "we" refers, or the extent of Morales' literal involvement.
Dawn

[Phil Dragoo]

Efforts to depict Mainman as Adams parallel those to present an innocent identity for Umbrella Man.

A glutinous feel persists in each case.

[Charles Drago]

Mainman likely is NOT Adams.

Mainman likely is NOT Conein.

In my moderately-informed opinion.

That an effort to misdirect and sow confusion and rancor among our best JFK researchers by claiming that Mainman is Adams and in so doing tacitly support the false identification of Mainman as Conein is likely.

That Umbrella Man, like White Windbreaker Man beside him, played a significant role in the execution of the ambush is likely

In my well-informed opinion.

[James H. Fetzer]

There is no reason at all to suppose that evil doers in their wildest dreams would have though that the faces in the crowd would become such a topic of interest in research on the death of JFK--nor, of course, that it would become a kind of mini-industry among those who want to know the truth! There is also no reason at all to be bothered that sometimes there will be differences of opinion about matters of this kind, where critical exchange--advancing arguments for and against different positions--is among our most important tools in advancing our understanding of the case. Not all opinions are equal. Those that are better supported by logic and evidence are those more deserving of assent--even though new evidence and alternative interpretations may cause reconsideration. Allen Eaglesham advanced a bad argument and I called him on it. Each of us is going to notice different things. I spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, so I am going to notice inadequacies in argument. Jack spent a liftime analyzing photographs, so he is going to notice anomalies in them. Similarly for the rest of us. It is rational to be responsible to new arguments and there is no reason for concern if, now and then, we may cross swords over crucial issues. The assassination was an historic event--the biggest operation in the history of the agency--and many who knew what was about to happen wanted to be there. There is nothing surprising about that. Because James Richards and Allan Eaglesham, among others, have done such fine work on this in the past, we have an excellent idea of who they were and where they were standing. What surprises me is not that there might be an occasional dispute over one or another of these identifications, but that there would be any doubt that they would want to be there! They did; they were; and in a striking number of cases, we have been able to identify them. That, I think, is a nice confirmation of foreknowledge and of complicity in the death of our 35th president. And the odds that we are wrong about this, as Jack and Peter have observed, are virtually infinitesimal. Some of them, who were most deeply involved, wanted to be there and their presence was caught in photographs and on film. What is remarkable, all things considered, is not that they were there but that we discovered them. For that we have Richards and Eaglesham, especially, to thank. But We not likely to figure all this out if we disregard evidence--such as these photographs--or abuse logic in the process!

[Jack White]

There is no reason at all to suppose that evil doers in their wildest dreams would have though that the faces in the crowd would become such a topic of interest in research on the death of JFK--nor, of course, that it would become a kind of mini-industry among those who want to know the truth! There is also no reason at all to be bothered that sometimes there will be differences of opinion about matters of this kind, where critical exchange--advancing arguments for and against different positions--is among our most important tools in advancing our understanding of the case. Not all opinions are equal. Those that are better supported by logic and evidence are those more deserving of assent--even though new evidence and alternative interpretations may cause reconsideration. Allen Eaglesham advanced a bad argument and I called him on it. Each of us is going to notice different things. I spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, so I am going to notice inadequacies in argument. Jack spent a liftime analyzing photographs, so he is going to notice anomalies in them. Similarly for the rest of us. It is rational to be responsible to new arguments and there is no reason for concern if, now and then, we may cross swords over crucial issues. The assassination was an historic event--the biggest operation in the history of the agency--and many who knew what was about to happen wanted to be there. There is nothing surprising about that. Because James Richards and Allan Eaglesham, among others, have done such fine work on this in the past, we have an excellent idea of who they were and where they were standing. What surprises me is not that there might be an occasional dispute over one or another of these identifications, but that there would be any doubt that they would want to be there! They did; they were; and in a striking number of cases, we have been able to identify them. That, I think, is a nice confirmation of foreknowledge and of complicity in the death of our 35th president. And the odds that we are wrong about this, as Jack and Peter have observed, are virtually infinitesimal. Some of them, who were most deeply involved, wanted to be there and their presence was caught in photographs and on film. What is remarkable, all things considered, is not that they were there but that we discovered them. For that we have Richards and Eaglesham, especially, to thank. But We not likely to figure all this out if we disregard evidence--such as these photographs--or abuse logic in the process!

Jim...I like your appeal to LOGIC. In all my studies I ask myself, "is this logical?" I tend to accept things that are logical and reject things that are not logical. I think your observations above are LOGICAL. The planning for killing JFK were intense. Those doing it hated him passionately. They wanted the satisfaction of seeing the result of their planning. To the public and even law officers, these agents were "unknowns". They had no fear of being recognized. Their failure to think about the intensity of future study of photos revealing them was a flaw in their thinking. It matters little if researchers are wrong about one or two of the persons or their lookalikes. There were just too many of them there for it to be logically acceptable.

Jack

PS...I have not studied photos ALL of my life...only about 60 years so far.

[Charles Drago]

Jim, Jack, et al,

There is no reason at all to suppose that evil doers in their wildest dreams would have though[t] that the faces in the crowd would become such a topic of interest in research on the death of JFK--nor, of course, that it would become a kind of mini-industry among those who want to know the truth!

Perhaps.

There is every reason to conclude that efforts were made by the facilitators to account for and, in certain well-known instances, confiscate cameras and/or film that likely had captured evidence of multiple shooters.

It is equally likely that they assumed that, despite their due diligence, inconvenient images would emerge from Dealey Plaza. Accordingly, those on the ground who were sufficiently well-known to insiders -- as opposed to future civilian researchers -- must either have taken steps to disguise themselves or concluded, in essence, screw 'em all, what are they gonna do about it?.

So again, I'm not arguing against the presence of these characters at the scene of their world-historic crime. And in fact I STRONGLY argue for the directed presence of false sponsors in DP for the express purpose of inculpating them and their affiliates.

There is also no reason at all to be bothered that sometimes there will be differences of opinion about matters of this kind, where critical exchange--advancing arguments for and against different positions--is among our most important tools in advancing our understanding of the case.

Agreed.

Not all opinions are equal.

AGREED!

It is rational to be responsible to new arguments and there is no reason for concern if, now and then, we may cross swords over crucial issues.

En garde!

What surprises me is not that there might be an occasional dispute over one or another of these identifications, but that there would be any doubt that they would want to be there!

Desire, in theory, is trumped by discipline.

They did; they were; and in a striking number of cases, we have been able to identify them.

Ahh, we come to the core of our disagreement. From my perspective all we have are suspicions and subjective judgements. It is the certainty you evince that troubles me.

That, I think, is a nice confirmation of foreknowledge and of complicity in the death of our 35th president.

It would be. It could be.

And the odds that we are wrong about this, as Jack and Peter have observed, are virtually infinitesimal.

Says you. And I very well may be as thick as a Christmas fruitcake, but come hell or high water I'm going to find a way to scan comparable (size, motives for assembly, etc.) crowds and look for Conein, Morales, Milteer, Robertson, and for that matter Humphrey Bogart and Snooky Lanson.

For that we have Richards and Eaglesham, especially, to thank. But We not likely to figure all this out if we disregard evidence--such as these photographs--or abuse logic in the process!

Again, and in the event that my objections are being misinterpreted, I most assuredly am not arguing that we should disregard the evidence in question. Rather, I'm pleading for a great deal more attention to be paid to it -- in the form of photographic and biometric analyses and other types of quantifiable testing.

And Jim, I hope you know that I'll warmly and openly receive your evaluations of the logic of my argument and the clarity of its presentation.

Charles

[Charles Drago]

PS...I have not studied photos ALL of my life...only about 60 years so far.

The origin of that very funny line, to the best of my knowledge, is one of the long-forgotten sub-genre of Maine jokes.

Traveler to resident of Bar Harbor standing by the roadside: "Have you lived here all your life?"

Resident: "Not yet."

Traveler: "Where does this road go?"

Resident: "Don't go nowhere. Stays right he-ah."

Traveler: "Do you realize there's not much between you and an idiot?"

Resident: "Just a curbstone."

[Charles Drago]

Bernice was kind enough to post the attached photo of Pakse Base characters. The one standing on the right appears, to these eyes at least, to be a dead ringer for the Lamp Post Man figure in Dealey Plaza who some claim to be David Sanchez Morales.

It is my understanding that the Pakse image is of a Major Lopez, aka Humberto (Bobby) Castillo-Leon.

According to a certain Al Carrier, who for a time posted on another forum and seemed to rival the oft-referenced James Richards as a font of very deep information and images, Lopez/Castillo-Leon "was the son of a Truman and later Eisenhower State Departmental Official who attended and graduated under the original family name. He was killed in a bar brawl at Ft. Bragg in early '82. His photo and that of Pakse Base Man are identical IMO."

I should also acknowledge that Carrier argued persuasively for a Lopez/Conein connection -- which in turn would support identification of Conein as Main Street Man.

Nearly five years ago, Carrier publicly stated that, "Team 5 [presumably from Pakse Base] appears to be our assassins, from what I have been able to discover."

Can anyone update us on Al Carrier, his current involvement (if any) in JFK research, and the back stories to his claims?