Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza?

[Len Colby]

Is there anywhere I could see or could some one post side by side photos of all the supposed look a likes in DP that day? Other than the ones on this thread the only ones I've seen are the "hobos".

I am inclined to agree with Tim on this one many of the supposed look a likes only looked vaugely like the people they were supposed to be. Considering that there were hundereds of people in the plaza if some looked hard enough they could propably find some one who looks like just about anybody.

One problem is that it's hard to say objectively how much a person in one photo resembles another. This is esp. true in the case of the DP photos where image quality is often poor. Where one person sees a "very strong resemblance" another might only see a vauge one.

My question is what were these people doing in the plaza if they were part of the conspiracy, did they come just to watch?

Edited January 6, 2006 by Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

Considering that there were hundereds of people in the plaza if some looked hard enough they could propably find some one who looks like just about anybody.

This is true, which is why I confine my speculation mainly to the limited group of people at Main and Houston. Within this relatively small group of people, there are too many strong lookalikes to connected individuals to be coincidental.

In the plaza as a whole, I find most of the lookalikes to be unconvincing. Most impressive to me is the Hunt lookalike crossing Elm Street. I mean let's face it, this guy, whoever he is, has been up to no good. He's from Central Casting:

Also impressive is the Cucu Arce lookalike in front of the TSBD, given that the No Name Key lookalike below is standing immediately behind him. (What are the odds, this guy and the Arce figure being virtually glued together in front of the TSBD?)

My question is what were these people doing in the plaza if they were part of the conspiracy, did they come just to watch?

Apparently so. It would be hard for a guy to pass up seeing the crime of the century, especially if his own organization had a prideful hand in it. As arrogant as it may look today, publicly these were faceless men at the time, and in any case their disregard for the many cameras in Dealey Plaza is indicative of how safe they felt the operation was. After the shooting, Rip, Conein, and others are seen in Cancellare crossing the south pasture toward the knoll, after which they apparently headed up to the TSBD to check things out there. Why were none of these intelligent-looking, well-dressed "witnesses" interviewed, as to how many shots they heard, etc.? (I won't ask why they weren't at least identified, since now they have been.)

[Richard J. Smith]

Is there anywhere I could see or could some one post side by side photos of all the supposed look a likes in DP that day? Other than the ones on this thread the only ones I've seen are the "hobos".

Just a few of the many. Coincidence? I think not.

Hunt

Conein-DeTorres

Conein

"Pakse Base Man"(CIA case officer Laos circa 1970)

"Lamppost Man"(corner of Main and Houston)

Edited January 6, 2006 by Richard J. Smith

[Allan Eaglesham]

"Is there anywhere I could see or could some one post side by side photos of all the supposed look a likes in DP that day? Other than the ones on this thread the only ones I've seen are the "hobos"."

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DarkCorners

There are two FFiDP links.

Allan

[Jack White]

Bravo, Mr. Graves!

Gratz and other know-nothings keep throwing out straw men

hoping to distract research.

It is pure grasping at straws to say that people have look-alikes,

thus nullifying any look-alikes in DP photos.

I admire your reply to Gratz.

Jack

[Ron Ecker]

Conein-DeTorres

I don't see the resemblance of the man behind Conein to de Torres.

In the full shot of him on the south pasture, the man looks just like Jeb Bush. But alas, Jeb was only 10 at the time.

[James Richards]

Given the forum format where the concept is to toss around ideas with like minded individuals, I think speculation is fine as long as it is specified as such. Scanning the extant photographic material for clues I also believe to be productive as it just might unearth a gold nugget. It seems to me to do nothing does not make a lick of sense.

I live in hope of a true smoking gun making its way into the public domain but until then we are all trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle with many missing pieces.

IMO, the so-called look-a-likes we seriously need to look at are Lucien Conein. Determining where he and a Laos based rifle team were on the 22nd of November is vital. To also establish the whereabouts of Rip Robertson and Col. Bishop (aka John Adrian O'Hare) is also essential.

I would also like to add this guy below.

FWIW.

James

[John Dolva]

Jack: "...to distract research. It is pure grasping at straws to say that people have look-alikes, thus nullifying any look-alikes in DP photos."

James: "Given the forum format where the concept is to toss around ideas with like minded individuals, I think speculation is fine as long as it is specified as such. Scanning the extant photographic material for clues I also believe to be productive as it just might unearth a gold nugget. It seems to me to do nothing does not make a lick of sense."

Amen

[Tim Gratz]

Re Jack's post that I know nothing, it is absurd on its face, and I think I can say that and maintain my humility. Re his post that I am attempting to "distract research", I reiterate what has been said before. I think it is offensive to judge another's motivation unless there is some real basis for doing so. It would be tantamount to me claiming Jack is attempting to diminish one of JFK's important accomplishments by casting doubt on man's trip to the moon.

Re James' comments that through photographic studies a gold nugget may emerge, I reiterate that I think a photographic comparison cannot possibly establish anyone's presence in DP. If a photographic likeness to an identied person leads to research that may in fact establish that person's whereabouts on November 22nd through other sources, well I guess that is another matter.

Unless that can be done, I would repeat my thought that comparing photographics may not accomplish much.

I do not recall: has there been any progress in determining the whereabouts of any of these "familiar faces"?

Edited January 7, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Re Jack's post that I know nothing, it is absurd on its face, and I think I can say that and maintain my humility. Re his post that I am attempting to "distract research", I reiterate what has been said before. I think it is offensive to judge another's motivation unless there is some real basis for doing so. It would be tantamount to me claiming Jack is attempting to diminish one of JFK's important accomplishments by casting doubt on man's trip to the moon.

Given the number of people who have questioned your motives on this Forum, myself included, perhaps you may wish to ask yourself why so many people have reached this conclusion. I would not agree with Jack that you "know nothing," but as for distracting research.... For somebody who cannot begin to sell their own Castro-did-it scenario based upon evidence, it is arrogant and presumptuous to constantly assure others "there's nothing to see here folks, move along." I dare say there are members of this Forum who know substantially more than you and I combined about matters photographic. Let's let them illuminate what can be, discard what must be, shall we?

Re James' comments that through photographic studies a gold nugget may emerge, I reiterate that I think a photographic comparison cannot possibly establish anyone's presence in DP. If a photographic likeness to an identied person leads to research that may in fact establish that person's whereabouts on November 22nd through other sources, well I guess that is another matter.

As has already beeen pointed out to you, the likelihood of any one Stooge having a lookalike in DP is low, but the likelihood that all Three Stooges had a doppleganger there is yet another astromically impossible coincidence. Just how many such impossible coincidences can a rational mind tolerate?

Unless that can be done, I would repeat my thought that comparing photographics may not accomplish much.

This is preposterous coming from a man who has previously asserted that Castro did the deed, because an anti-Castro activist may have once told somebody that he had seen a photograph of DP [which photo was never located] in which one of the people may have resembled a guy who may have been a DGI operative. That was "case closed" for you. You asserted that it came from sworn testimony [it didn't, as your own source specified], yet you were perfectly happy to accept this third or fourth hand hearsay as probative, without ever copping eyes on said photograph yourself. And now you presume to instruct others on what degree of evidentiary value crime scene photos should have....? Is there no end to your hubris?

I do not recall: has there been any progress in determining the whereabouts of any of these "familiar faces"?

Were it left to you, there'd be no such progress made ever, because you keep insisting it is unworthy of any effort to pursue the photographic evidence from the crime scene. It is an odd investigator, indeed, who insists there was a conspiracy, yet refuses to look at the photos that might demonstrate the conspiracy and help identify the conspirators. Which raises again the issue of why people suspect your motives. Can you not see the cause-effect relationship at work here, Tim? Either your own posts do you an unintentional disservice, or they reveal something about you which you hadn't intended.

As for "progress," can we expect you to deliver at some point during this new year what you promised us last April, the damning news accounts of Castro's willingness to blow up NYC? That might constitute some degree of "progress."

[Jack White]

Re Jack's post that I know nothing, it is absurd on its face, and I think I can say that and maintain my humility. Re his post that I am attempting to "distract research", I reiterate what has been said before. I think it is offensive to judge another's motivation unless there is some real basis for doing so. It would be tantamount to me claiming Jack is attempting to diminish one of JFK's important accomplishments by casting doubt on man's trip to the moon.

Re James' comments that through photographic studies a gold nugget may emerge, I reiterate that I think a photographic comparison cannot possibly establish anyone's presence in DP. If a photographic likeness to an identied person leads to research that may in fact establish that person's whereabouts on November 22nd through other sources, well I guess that is another matter.

Unless that can be done, I would repeat my thought that comparing photographics may not accomplish much.

I do not recall: has there been any progress in determining the whereabouts of any of these "familiar faces"?

I should have qualified "know-nothing". Obviously Gratz is well-educated and certainly a

productive writer. But his writings show he is ill-INFORMED about the JFK affair. There is a

big difference between knowing nothing and being ill-informed.

And JFK had nothing to do with faking the trips to the moon. LBJ and Nixon were responsible

for that. Another case of being ill-informed.

I am giving Gratz the benefit of doubt by not suggesting that he is a govt disinfo agent. He

certainly spouts the CIA phony position of CASTRO DID IT.

Jack

[Len Colby]

It would be tantamount to me claiming Jack is attempting to diminish one of JFK's important accomplishments by casting doubt on man's trip to the moon.

And JFK had nothing to do with faking the trips to the moon. LBJ and Nixon were responsible for that. Another case of being ill-informed.

Jack you obviously misinterpritated Tim's point. He never said that you accused JFK of involvment in faking of the Apollo missions. Most people do rightly give Kennedy credit for NASA feat of landing man on the Moon with in the decade as he promised. By casting doubt on that you are however unintentionally dimming his star. You should make sure you understand what a person has said BEFORE you reply it.

Edited to be less confrontational and off topic.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Len Colby

[Mark Knight]

Jack, you make a compelling point about the [alleged] moon landing. Since July 20, 1969 was nearly six years AFTER JFK's assassination[11/22/1963], while one might claim that JFK was the FATHER of the moon mission, I hardly believe that even his most ardent supporters can claim it as one of his "accomplishments"...since it wasn't [allegedly] accomplished until after his death...unless JFK "accomplished" this FROM THE GRAVE.

Please, let's keep this discussion OUT of the paranormal realm for the time being, Mr. Gratz. I mean, since LBJ gets credit for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 even though it was based on a Kennedy-administration initiative, let's let the credit [blame?] for the moon landing fall where it belongs.

For example, you credit Reagan for the "fall of Communism" and not Joe McCarthy, don't you? Let's see some consistency, Mr. Gratz!

EDIT for clarification: I use the bracketed terms [alleged], [allegedly], [blame] to acknowledge Jack White's viewpoints on the Apollo moon landings, while I don't necessarily agree with said points of view..

Edited January 7, 2006 by Mark Knight

[John Geraghty]

James,

Have you come up with any theories with regard to the group of cuban looking men located near the pergola. I cant post the photos as I am on my laptop and I have the photos on my pc.

John

[Tim Carroll]

I posted the photo to which John Geraghty referred, but was constrained on my attachment space, given the need to post Tosh Plumlee's discharge and benefits documents on another thread. Sorry for the inconvenience.

T.C.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Tim Carroll