Jack White Wrote:In another slide from my Duluth presentation, I expressed
my opinion about Chauncey.
Jack
I guess Chauncey's eagerness to convince people that he was the old tramp is a red flag for me. I tend to believe the opposite of what spooks say.
Thanks, Myra. Give us your opinion of this.
Jack
I'm torn Jack because both Holt and Hunt so closely resemble the old tramp. Plus I have a high opinion of Lois Gibson's skills and she goes with Holt.
But I'm strongly leaning towards Hunt for a number of reasons. He does look more like the old tramp than Holt, who has a slightly more masculine less droopy face. Hunt's chin is a better match. Hunt favored disguises and the old tramp is really the only one wearing a disguise. And of course he liked hats and is the only one in a hat. Also didn't Mark Lane convince a jury that Hunt was in Dallas 11/21/63--the day before the assassination? A jury places him near the scene of the crime. Furthermore, since Hunt was involved in Watergate and since Watergate likely had a Dallas cover-up component, there's a link there albeit a tenuous one.
I agree with Myra and Jack. Having gone round and round with this for years I have come back to my initial conclusion from the 70's: that the old tramp is Hunt. I agree that Holt's story is charming and Ms. Gibson is very convincing. Her skills are undisputed. But just looking at the photos with no training, it is Hunt to my eye. That would also explain Nixon's constant reference to Hunt and the "whole Bay of Pigs" fear he had. The first time I read that quote I thought "Kennedy assassination", many years before Haldamen would write in The Ends of Power that to Nixon Bay of Pigs was a reference to 11/22/63. Hunt figures into all of the above.
After Dorothy was knocked off 12/8/72 I always thought it would be Hunt who would some day talk. To some limited degree. What do people think of his deathbed "confession" to his son Saitn John?
I've addressed eight selected points from your illuminating response. Each begins with an excerpt from my original post. Next come your reactions, which appear in italics. Finally I offer my latest thoughts in RED.
1. I certainly know that Custer died at Little Bighorn. Please define "certainty."
That's a fairly astonishing claim, given your skepticism about even being able to identify those who were photographed in Dealey Plaza. Actually, you not only do not know with certainty that Custer died at Little Big Horn but that you are the biological offspring of your own parents.
How about this: I know that George Washington is dead.
2. This paragraph makes no sense.
Your remark is what makes no sense, given what you have said about their identification in the other post. There you were giving credence to the theory that they might have been in disguises -- even though there is no good reason to think so -- and that, if they were good disguises, we would not be able to detect them! That's a pretty skeptical position that leaves us in a complete state of uncertainty about their identity. So why are you now adopting the position that your own position -- that their identities cannot be known with certainty -- makes no sense?
[COLOR="Red"]I’ll withdraw the “no sense” assessment. But I’ll maintain that, for reasons having to do with operational security and discipline – not to mention personal security – the hypothesis that highly trained, disciplined intelligence officers presumably with no operational responsibilities would be willing to expose themselves at a crime scene of their making simply to gloat defies what we know about how these characters operate.
Yeah, the “no operational responsibilities” is a leap on my part. But it is no greater a leap than the one you make when you reason that they keenly desired to witness the destruction of JFK, so they violated all rules, abandoned reason, and showed up for the kill.[/COLOR]
3. Agreed: Your Mainman is Conein hypothesis is preferable to the Mainman is Adams hypothesis. It is equally preferable to a Mainman is Mr. Ed hypothesis, isn't it?
Not just "equally", but overwhelmingly, since there seems to be no resemblance relationship between Mainman and Mr. Ed, unlike the case of Adams -- unless we notice that they are both animals, both mammals, and such. But Mr. Ed is even more obviously not Mainman.
I’d phrase it more simply: A horse is a horse, of course, of course.
4. I'm assuming that eight points of similarity is the universally accepted standard used to identify fingerprints. Are there similarly governing standards used to identify facial characteristics? If so, have you used them in a manner consistent with the scientific method to identify Mainman?
Actually, I made an educated guess, which we can pursue.
Let’s leave fingerprint analysis for another campfire. To your knowledge, is there an established scientific methodology for the comparison of photographic images of faces that can be applied to Dealey Plaza and control images?
5.In citing Prouty you may be commiting the fallacy of argument from false authority. I am not all that quick to accept Prouty at his word.
No. You commit a blunder in logic.
[COLOR="Red"]You are correct; my choice of terminology was, shall we say, less than artful. Or, if you prefer, just plain wrong.
UNLESS you accept that the “authority” I meant to reference is that of an expert who can be trusted not to disinform.[/COLOR]
6.Agreed. I simply ask, in relation to the quest to identify Mainman, if all avenues of scientific comparison have been exhausted? Have they? Or is what you're claiming nothing more or less than, "It sure looks like him to me"?
Well, it's more than that.
[COLOR="Red"]Again and for the record, we agree that Mainman and Adams are not the same person. Obvious and otherwise inexplicable dissimilarities convince us of this to a significant degree.
BUT regarding the noted similarities between Mainman and Conein, I pose yet again the simple question: Can the similarities be scientifically evaluated?[/COLOR]
7.Your presentation of baseline principles of logic is, I would concede, without flaw and typically eloquent in its detail and nuance.
Well, do we agree up to this point? I believe that Lamppostman is David Sanchez Morales, but I am willing to postpone that discussion for another time. Would you now agree with my reasoning about Mainman as I have presented it here?
[COLOR="Red"]I wholeheartedly disagree with you in re the Morales identification. Let’s not postpone the discussion much longer. Nonetheless it is safe to say we are making progress: I agree with your Mainman reasoning in terms of the low probability of an Adams match. Mainman likely is not Adams.
That being stated, I would not hesitate to conduct a scientific Mainman/Adams comparison if such methodology exists. And of course I wish to do the same for the Mainman/Conein hypothesis.
I reiterate: My simple bottom line is this: I slowly moved toward the "Major Lopez" discussion/illustration with the hope that a former defender of the Lamp Post man as DSM hypothesis would change his/her mind. Our dear friend Jack has done just that. So in your opinion who does Lamp Post Man more closely resemble: “Major Lopez” or DSM?[/COLOR]
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Ms. Gibson is very convincing. Her skills are undisputed.
Wrong.
I find her work wholly unconvincing because I dispute the very validity of her method absent positive results from controlled testing.
Again: Take the skull of a known, photographed individual who is not known to Gibson. Give it to Gibson and let her do her thing. Compare what she comes up with to the test subject's photos.
Until then, what you've got is nothing but fine art.
Myra Bronstein Wrote:I guess Chauncey's eagerness to convince people that he was the old tramp is a red flag for me. I tend to believe the opposite of what spooks say.
Thanks, Myra. Give us your opinion of this.
Jack
I'm torn Jack because both Holt and Hunt so closely resemble the old tramp. Plus I have a high opinion of Lois Gibson's skills and she goes with Holt.
But I'm strongly leaning towards Hunt for a number of reasons. He does look more like the old tramp than Holt, who has a slightly more masculine less droopy face. Hunt's chin is a better match. Hunt favored disguises and the old tramp is really the only one wearing a disguise. And of course he liked hats and is the only one in a hat. Also didn't Mark Lane convince a jury that Hunt was in Dallas 11/21/63--the day before the assassination? A jury places him near the scene of the crime. Furthermore, since Hunt was involved in Watergate and since Watergate likely had a Dallas cover-up component, there's a link there albeit a tenuous one.
I agree with Myra and Jack. Having gone round and round with this for years I have come back to my initial conclusion from the 70's: that the old tramp is Hunt. I agree that Holt's story is charming and Ms. Gibson is very convincing. Her skills are undisputed. But just looking at the photos with no training, it is Hunt to my eye. That would also explain Nixon's constant reference to Hunt and the "whole Bay of Pigs" fear he had. The first time I read that quote I thought "Kennedy assassination", many years before Haldamen would write in The Ends of Power that to Nixon Bay of Pigs was a reference to 11/22/63. Hunt figures into all of the above.
After Dorothy was knocked off 12/8/72 I always thought it would be Hunt who would some day talk. To some limited degree. What do people think of his deathbed "confession" to his son Saitn John?
Dawn
"Ms. Gibson is very convincing. Her skills are undisputed."
Huh? I dispute her skills. When she presented her "Men on the GK"
presentation at the ASK convention back about '93, the questions were
so vehement that she finally left the podium, as I recall.
She is an adequate artist, but no forensic expert! She had good PR
to help sell the book.
24-12-2009, 04:25 PM (This post was last modified: 24-12-2009, 04:53 PM by Jack White.)
Myra Bronstein Wrote:
Myra Bronstein Wrote:
Jack White Wrote:Consider that the Holt photo is 1990s and the Hunt photo is 1960s...
and consider that Holt appears YOUNGER in 1990 than the tramp
did in 1960s.
As for Gibson...her studies are NWAS.
Look at the comparison she used to decide that Rogers was Frenchy!
Jack
NWAS? What's NWAS?
Oh! I figured it out!
...Ew. You really think she's that bad?
What about her assessment of Charles Harrelson? I thought she nailed that one.
In the printing industry, pallates of paper to be reused as
makeready sheets are marked NWAS, meaning "not worth a s...".
Lois Gibson's studies are definitely NWAS.
You are uninformed on the history of Charles Harrelson. It was
researcher Gary Shaw who discovered that Harrelson was the Tall
Tramp back in the 1970s. Gary asked me to compare police mug
shots of Harrelson with the tramp. I found Harrelson to match
with a 99% certainty. I published my findings in Penn Jones'
The Continuing Inquiry. To credit Gibson with the comparison of
Harrelson with the Tramp is to ignore the actual history. All she
did was repeat my study from TCI.
I cannot locate my TCI studies on this new computer right now,
but I will look on my old computer...or I believe the complete
TCI issues are on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website. Look it
up and see what past researchers have done.
I thought many of these issues like the TRAMPS were settled
back in the 70s and 80s. Now, young newer researchers are
unaware of the works of earlier researchers who went over
these things years ago. I never dreamed that researchers in
2009 would be going over things like this as if they were newly
discovered issues.
Jack White Wrote:I thought many of these issues like the TRAMPS were settled
back in the 70s and 80s. Now, young newer researchers are
unaware of the works of earlier researchers who went over
these things years ago. I never dreamed that researchers in
2009 would be going over things like this as if they were newly
discovered issues.
Jack
Well argued, Jack.
The conspirators are well served by the shortsightedness, ignorance, and arrogance of certain "newer" researchers whom you reference.
I submit that the majority of "research" currently being conducted on this case is redundant, ego-driven, and/or wholly underinformed.
That the "how" -- as opposed to the "who" and "why" -- of JFK's murder continues to be investigated and argued brings peace and joy to the conspirators' black hearts.
From Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON (1998) to James Douglass's
JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE (2007) and David Talbot's BROTHERS
(2008), the who and the why have been well covered. My take on
Charles' point is that they are not as widely recognized by the public
as we might like. But the reception of UNSPEAKABLE, which I have
just featured on my blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, how-
ever, suggests to me that that may be changing and substantially
reinforce the public's interest in the death of our 35th president.
Jack White Wrote:Consider that the Holt photo is 1990s and the Hunt photo is 1960s...
and consider that Holt appears YOUNGER in 1990 than the tramp
did in 1960s.
As for Gibson...her studies are NWAS.
Look at the comparison she used to decide that Rogers was Frenchy!
Jack
NWAS? What's NWAS?
Oh! I figured it out!
...Ew. You really think she's that bad?
What about her assessment of Charles Harrelson? I thought she nailed that one.
In the printing industry, pallates of paper to be reused as
makeready sheets are marked NWAS, meaning "not worth a s...".
Lois Gibson's studies are definitely NWAS.
You are uninformed on the history of Charles Harrelson. It was
researcher Gary Shaw who discovered that Harrelson was the Tall
Tramp back in the 1970s. Gary asked me to compare police mug
shots of Harrelson with the tramp. I found Harrelson to match
with a 99% certainty. I published my findings in Penn Jones'
The Continuing Inquiry. To credit Gibson with the comparison of
Harrelson with the Tramp is to ignore the actual history. All she
did was repeat my study from TCI.
I cannot locate my TCI studies on this new computer right now,
but I will look on my old computer...or I believe the complete
TCI issues are on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website. Look it
up and see what past researchers have done.
Jack
Thanks Jack. My ongoing mission is to become better informed, and you're a big part of that. I'm very glad you're reproducing some of your past research here. I hope you continue to do so.
So, we know two out of three tramps:
-Charles Harrelson
-E Howard Hunt
-?
Who was the third one? No way it was Frank Sturgis IMO. Lois says it was Charles Rogers. Was she wrong there too?
...Ew. You really think she's that bad?
What about her assessment of Charles Harrelson? I thought she nailed that one.
In the printing industry, pallates of paper to be reused as
makeready sheets are marked NWAS, meaning "not worth a s...".
Lois Gibson's studies are definitely NWAS.
You are uninformed on the history of Charles Harrelson. It was
researcher Gary Shaw who discovered that Harrelson was the Tall
Tramp back in the 1970s. Gary asked me to compare police mug
shots of Harrelson with the tramp. I found Harrelson to match
with a 99% certainty. I published my findings in Penn Jones'
The Continuing Inquiry. To credit Gibson with the comparison of
Harrelson with the Tramp is to ignore the actual history. All she
did was repeat my study from TCI.
I cannot locate my TCI studies on this new computer right now,
but I will look on my old computer...or I believe the complete
TCI issues are on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website. Look it
up and see what past researchers have done.
Jack
Thanks Jack. My ongoing mission is to become better informed, and you're a big part of that. I'm very glad you're reproducing some of your past research here. I hope you continue to do so.
So, we know two out of three tramps:
-Charles Harrelson
-E Howard Hunt
-?
Who was the third one? No way it was Frank Sturgis IMO. Lois says it was Charles Rogers. Was she wrong there too?
In my opinion, Harrelson and Hunt are 99%.
I have stated three times now my opinion of her Rogers study.
Here it is AGAIN. You decide.
