Just so we're clear: I seek neither to endorse nor repudiate Prouty or Krulak personally or as sources of legitimate intelligence. I'm simply trying to impress upon one and all that even our most favored, trusted sources of deep political data and insight must regularly be the recipients of the best objective evaluations of which we're capable.
Unquestioning acceptance of ANY source can lead only to disaster.
In the case of this thread, for instance, discussion of the validity of photo identification methodology has been conflated with discussion of the reputations of the identifiers.
Prouty and Krulak say that Lansdale was photographed in Dealey Plaza, so it must be so.
Not good enough.
Bradley Ayers and Wayne Smith say that they see Morales in footage shot at the Ambassador, so they must have been there.
Not good enough.
As Jim Fetzer among others has properly pointed out, arguments from true authority should be valued, while arguments from false authority must be rejected.
I for one remain unable to judge Prouty, Krulak, and Ayers to be sources of true authority.
I can go so far as to say that, based upon my study of the evidence, Morales is not visible on the Ambassador footage in question. And I am not prepared to defer to Ayers and Smith on the strength of their authority if doing so means I must reject the data and analysis which comprise the entire basis of my original judgement.
As for Lansdale in Dealey Plaza, I remain agnostic but lean toward -- sorry, Jim D. -- acceptance of his presence. I've attempted to attach two photos. The incomplete profile is of an unidentified man in Dealey Plaza. The full profile is that of Lansdale.
So while I agree with Jim D. that Lansdale's presence at first blush would seem to violate operational discipline, my mind remains open.
If, in my previous post, I was overly harsh, I apologize.
And if one of the photos does not appear, just click on its space.
Charles
Thanks, Charles, for the pix. I find the comparison very interesting.
27-01-2011, 05:00 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2011, 09:13 PM by Albert Doyle.)
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:I don't quite understand what this means.
You begin with the whole Oswald doppelganger thing via Armstrong. Which has no parallel at all in the RFK case. I did some work on that case, and I have never seen this device used to any degree at all there. SO I don' t know where it leads.
Are you sure it has no parallel? If Harvey & Lee is real, (and it looks like it is) this opens up a Pandora's Box of scary possibilities. If we establish the use of doubles in such a way then there's no reason to think they wouldn't employ something similar with the RFK Assassination. If you accept Douglass then RFK was killed for the exact same reasons as JFK. He threatened the Unspeakable in an identical manner with his anti-VietNam stance and threat to investigate the JFK Assassination. If anything these things begin to indicate a strong parallel.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:You then shift to the alleged ID's of the three CIA officers. These have been discredited quite effectively, just look at the photo in Shane's book of Johannides. It is simply not them.
Bear with me here if I suggest it doesn't necessarily need to be them. But I would like to know if Campbell was actually Campbell.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Are you trying to say that somehow there were three guys who were there that night undercover for Bulova who somewhat looked like them and were in on a rogue operation?
This is where it gets tricky. While I endorse thorough scrutiny of facts it could lead to not imagining all possibilities or dismissing further possibilities too soon. It isn't beyond some of the crazier practices of covert ops to study the JFK Assassination and their investigator adversaries and deliberately plant look-alikes in order to discredit them. There would be a secondary sinister psy-ops pay-off to this. They could make fools out of their researcher enemies while leaving a diabolical ace of spades on their victim. There's nothing more evilly satisfying than making fools of your enemies while also leaving a deep psy-ops calling card in the images of the men who actually did it. Don't underestimate the evil potential of those people or what they do. They want people to know who's in charge and against whom they have no hope in fighting.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:I mean this kind of reminds me of say "Get Smart" ... snip ...
But this is the kind of silliness you get into when you entertain an outlandish notion.
Like I said, don't underestimate them. 'Get Smart' was clearly an allegory of CIA. Their adversary was a sinister group called "CHAOS". Hmmm, I wonder what they were (possibly) warning us about? Maybe just a coincidence. Maybe.
In my scant reading on this type of business even the most reckless guessing on some of the things they did would still underplay what they were actually doing.
Charles' side view of the alleged Lansdale has some matching features. The rear of the head has a distinct concave feature that is repeated in both images. The hair and ear appear to be a fairly good match.
The identifiers said they recognized Lansdale's gait as well.
The jaw might not be low enough though.
Anyone else notice how government doesn't employ all its identification technology and abilities in some cases?
Here is the full photo from which the "Lansdale" profile was enlarged.
Albert, I've long suspected -- privately and in print -- that images of real and false Facilitators have been placed within JFK photos in order to set up and taint the reputations of the researchers who breathlessly discover them.
The Lansdale story is endless. What people do not do is study the entire environment of his strange career. For example: the most important part of my book, "The Secret Team", is not something that I wrote. It is Appendix III under the title, "Training Under The Mutual Security Program". This is a most important bit of material. It tells more about the period 1963 to 1990 than anything. I fought to have it included verbatim in the book. This material was the work of Lansdale and his crony General Dick Stillwell. Anyone interested in the "JFK Coup d'Etat" ought to know it by heart.
