View RSS Feed

James Lateer

James Lateer's THE THREE BARONS: THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION

Rate this Entry
Quote Originally Posted by Peter Lemkin View Post
James Lateer has just joined the Forum, and likely will be making his first post shortly. So, if any have questions (or comments) for/to him, you might want to start thinking about what they are.

For myself, I'll admit to Mr. Lateer that while I've ordered his book, I have not yet received nor read it, and my comments were based on what one can gather from the TOC and cover. I don't quite understand why you thought the association of names on a page - or in proximity with one another over a wide range of JFK assassination books would provide valid answers to in-life associations or in-life significance. Many of the JFK assassination books go chasing after known false leads - developed either out of inexacting research or ones that were tossed in by the cover-up teams to confuse the matter. Also, the fact that two names appear on a page or even the same paragraph or sentence is no sure way of their having been associated. Ditto the frequency of a name turning up in many books/pages/etc. While such analysis can give a certain level of information and hints to possible associations as ascribed by a number of authors, that doesn't mean that this presumed or calculated 'association' is related to any true one. I personally have been down many blind 'rabbit holes' in my own research and often the most promising finds have never or hardly ever been touched/mentioned by anyone else before. Some names became 'popular', even 'fashionable' to mention over and over again. Some associations of individuals have been shown to be false or of no particular significance in the case. To me such an analysis would be a valid starting point, but then one would have to take these more frequently mentioned names or more frequent associations and do the hard and long kind of standard research to really validate that they were active participants and at what level. No good JFK researcher denies that, for example, DeMohrenschildt was closely connected into the manipulation/setting-up/'baby-sitting'/sheep-dipping' of Oswald - nor that he was later murdered for knowing a bit too much about his friend Lee and who might have directed him to befriend and puppeteer Lee. That said, I don't think, personally, he had a top level nor major [as opposed to prominent] role in the plot. Ditto the Paines - they were front and center in setting up Lee and likely knew it - but for them it was just another intelligence 'Op' someone else had designed, and they did not question their assigned tasks within. Again, I'm speaking here without having yet read your book. Perhaps I can ask/say more directed comments/questions after I get it. I'm in Europe and had to order from the US. You are welcome to jump in on this thread or start your own in the 'Books' section - as you prefer.
Share/Bookmark
Tags: None Add / Edit Tags
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. James Lateer's Avatar
    In response to Mr. Peter Lemkin, it should be explained as to my approach to solving the JFK plot. After reading about 20 books, I realized that I was 20% there. Pure arithmetic told me that after reading 100 books, I would be 100% there. I feel that this math proved to be accurate. I am now up to book number 160.
    The approach taken by JFK authors has largely proven to be futile. One either figures out the plot or you don't. My experience has been that with a "total immersion" approach, one reaches a certain point where the outline of the plot appears in one's mind. I assembled a database of 1500 names taken from 30 books. I am confident that almost all significant figures are on that list. Statistical factor analysis has provided a method which reveals the "core" of that very long list of suspects. The factor analysis is not perfect, but it confirms what conventional research also reveals.
    Some criticism comes from people who say I have too many details. Excuse me, but this criticism seems unusual. The number of details is the number of details. The number of suspects is the number of suspects. I can't just decide according to my own taste how many people I would like to believe were involved in the plot.
    I now have reached the point where I have seen the closed door on the open-sourced information. Once one gets into the issue of the true story of JFK and the Nazis, one realizes that the necessary information has been the subject of the deepest level of censorship, beyond what one would think possible. Writers translating from German texts just "simplify" the translations to "help out" the "confused" reader The English version is 250 pages. The German version is 380 pages. A suspect is cited 9 times in the English version, 16 times in the German version.
    Fortunately, we old-time baby boomers are not going to have to go to our graves in ignorance about what happened to JFK. That was my dream. Thanks to the limitless power of the internet, we don't have to wait for the censored documents to be revealed by the Archives. It's all out there for the motivated researcher I couldn't ask for more. James Lateer
  2. James Lateer's Avatar
    To Mr. Peter Lemkin: Regarding your lengthy analysis and criticism about the use of factor analysis and JFK. You are completely right that the fact that two people are mentioned on a page of JFK research does not prove much. But this oversimplifies what factor analysis does.

    There may be a group of people that one JFK book thinks are suspects. An example might be the NOLA anti-Castro Cubans. The book The Last Investigation, by Fonzi, focuses almost entirely on them. But another book like Act of Treason by Mark North, focuses on J Edgar Hoover and the Mafia, but may inadvertently mention perhaps 2 or 3 Cubans. And the next book by Mark Lane may focus on the CIA but may also mention 5 other Cubans as minor suspects.

    In all three of these books together, there may be two Cubans who are consistently mentioned, and they tend to be mentioned as a unit of two. In this sense, they are "associates."

    All that factor analysis does is take the 191 names which are common to the 15 major (diverse) JFK books and establish relationships among the 191 people in a way in which the human brain is incapable. This identifies a "factor" which unites these (15) select people as the major relationship within the universe of the 191 suspects. Because the thing all the books have in common is the assassination, presumably the "deep structure" of the common relationships is the association or group of the conspirators.

    It is like pooling all the information in all 30 (or 15) books and identifying the thread that ties them together. It is 100% true that no one author is aware of the deep meaning implied in all the books. If that were the case we wouldn't have 15 unique books. We would only have one upon which all human minds would agree.

    It shouldn't be a surprise that this technique works to a major extent. What other method is there that can take the most prominent 191 names out of 1500 and identify those suspects who are associated. It's like taking 191 common stocks and identifying those that have prices that move together and that move also with, say, the price of oil or the price of copper. It's a process of distillatiion. As I also emphasize, the factor analysis placed the Dulles Brothers side by side. To my knowledge, the Dulles Brothers are never discussed together as a unit in the JFK literature. Yet the computer correctly identified them as a unit. This incredible fact could almost be used to claim that the computer figured out that they are brothers even if no one author knew that they were related.

    Its not sufficient in itself, but it has given me some confidence in my more conventional research. James Lateer