Jump to content
The Education Forum

Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza?


Tim Gratz

Recommended Posts

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. (Tim Gratz)

That's it in a nutshell. Photographic material captured in Dealey Plaza is only part of the process. This is why I have stated that finding out where someone like Conein was on the 22nd of November is vital. Maybe we won't ever be able to do that as I suspect no official record will show him to be in Dallas but that doesn't mean we should give up. Hence, I don't see the point in dismissing what I consider to be evolving evidence.

As to Robertson, I have done some research on comments he made to several mercenaries while in the Congo and they are damning indeed. In this case we have no official documentation or do we have people who want to go on record but in my mind, the matter is settled. Others can disregard this and that is their choice.

Like the catch phrase for a television show once stated, 'the truth is out there'.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

James, the Robertson look-alike photo comes from Altgens, correct? And the Robertson official photo comes from Gray Lynch's book. I noticed the other day that there is a Croft photo taken of Houston and Main within seconds of the Altgens photo. I don't recall...have you ever done a comparison of Rip (Lynch) Rip? (Altgens) and Rip?? (Croft)? What about Conein?, pakse base man? and Barnes??? Sorry if you've already done this...

P.S. According to Pictures of the Pain, Croft still has his color originals. Does anyone know if anyone has tried to purchase them?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, the Robertson look-alike photo comes from Altgens, correct? And the Robertson official photo comes from Gray Lynch's book. I noticed the other day that there is a Croft photo taken of Houston and Main within seconds of the Altgens photo. I don't recall...have you ever done a comparison of Rip (Lynch) Rip? (Altgens) and Rip?? (Croft)? What about Conein?, pakse base man? and Barnes??? Sorry if you've already done this...

P.S. According to Pictures of the Pain, Croft still has his color originals. Does anyone know if anyone has tried to purchase them?

Pat,

Of all the images I have that were snapped at the corner of Main and Houston, Altgens is the best. The others either show the men in question masked or just too blurry. I hope one day be able to share some interesting images of Robertson and O'Hare (Bishop). I think a lot of questions will be answered.

My research into Pakse Base Man has suggested that his name is James Bill Lair. Lair was not in Dealey Plaza. Others say the PBM identification is incorrect so I guess we will agree to disagree. The Conein possible is someone who does indeed require some serious looking at.

As to Croft, securing his color originals would be very exciting. I have no idea if anyone has tried.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

In the thread "Abner 'Butch' Stokes" I think Mr. Stokes conclusively establishes, based on his personal acquaintance with Roberstson, that the photographic look-alike of Robertson is not in fact Robertson. Mr, Stokes wrote:

[/i]I will admit the portrait photo of Rip resembles the man at DP. However, I saw Rip just days before JFK was killed, he looked nothing like the portrait. You would need a Hollywood make up artist to change his skin features that much..If you could find some Brigade members or some of the frogmen he worked with, I think they would tell you the same thing.

IMO, this also abolishes Ron's point that it would be highly unlikely that there would be in DP on November 22nd two people bearing great resemblances to persons connected to the CIA. We now know that the supposed Robertson look-alike was no more than that: a "look-alike". Therefore, there is no reason to suspect the Conein look-alike was anything more than a "look-alike" either.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim,

There are more than two lookalikes. Nothing has been abolished. We agree to disagree on this issue, but before you say something has been abolished, find a statistician (I don't know any) to debunk my contention that the number of occupationally or organizationally related lookalikes on this street corner eliminates any chance of it being coincidence.

Ron

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't agree. As I recall, Mr. Stokes bases his opinion largely on Robertson's skin. I don't see what conclusions one can draw about the skin of the man in Altgens.

Do you see anything wrong with Robertson's skin in his portrait? I don't either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. (Tim Gratz)

That's it in a nutshell. Photographic material captured in Dealey Plaza is only part of the process. This is why I have stated that finding out where someone like Conein was on the 22nd of November is vital. Maybe we won't ever be able to do that as I suspect no official record will show him to be in Dallas but that doesn't mean we should give up. Hence, I don't see the point in dismissing what I consider to be evolving evidence.

As to Robertson, I have done some research on comments he made to several mercenaries while in the Congo and they are damning indeed. In this case we have no official documentation or do we have people who want to go on record but in my mind, the matter is settled. Others can disregard this and that is their choice.

Like the catch phrase for a television show once stated, 'the truth is out there'.

James

Listening to Tim Gratz on this topic is useless, because he employs an hypocritical and two-faced double standard. As I've already pointed out in this thread and elsewhere [with no reply from Tim G.], Mr. Gratz has shrieked on and on about the presence of DGI personnel in Dealey Plaza, and the supposedly probative inferences he insists we must draw from same, based solely on the unsubstantiated second and third hand comments of those virulent anti-Castro terrorists who claim to have seen such a photo.

Despite much effort to locate such a photo [see Fonzi's "TLI" for details], those who claimed it existed have not located it. Yet this doesn't preclude the eager-beaver disbarred lawyer from maintaining that this is clear proof of Castro's complicity. In other words, despite never having seen the alleged photo himself [or finding any proof that such a photo ever existed], he takes it as an article of faith that the photograph exists, and that it proves Castro killed Kennedy.

Meanwhile, back here in the real world, where real photos do exist and depict something that doesn't include Castro, Tim Gratz pooh-poohs it all from the comfort of his armchair, and dismisses the best efforts of others to analyze photos from the actual crime scene that might actually contain images of those responsible for the crime.

Despite this glaring blind spot in his own logic, Tim G. not only continues this feeble charade, but insists that the real photographic evidence will take us no closer to the truth. But that one photograph that doesn't exist and has never been seen by anyone is conclusive proof that Castro killed Kennedy....

Remarkable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert's got you here, Tim. The photo of a supposed DGI agent, if it exists, is meaningless, or the photo of a Robertson look-alike has meaning. You can't have it both ways.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Pat, here I have to disagree with your logic (don't always agree with your opinions but I do most often respect your logic).

First, the possible presence of DGI agents in Dallas is not based on a possible photo. I have never claimed that a photo exists of either Policarpo Lopez or Casas Saez in Dallas. (Someone has suggested that the description of the driver of the Rambler is at least consistent with Policarpo Lopez.) Without yet seeing "Rendezvous with Death" I am not yet ready to dismiss the possibility that Escalante was in Dallas. Here Robert Charles-Dunne has constructed a classical "straw man" fallacy: he is demolishing an argument I never made. It surprises me that you fell for it. The mere fact that Robert claims I have "shrieked" adequately demonstrates the sophistry of his arguments. How does one "shriek" in a written posting? I respectfully suggest that one can often draw conclusions about the validity of a debater's position by how often the debater must rely on such shallow rhetorical devices. You never do Pat, and I certainly try not to.

Even if Robertson was in Dealey Plaza (Mr. Stokes is quite convinced the photo is NOT Robertson) I am not having it "both ways". There is certainly a difference between the presence of an American intelligence agent in Dallas and the presence of an agent of foreign intelligence. Surely you must see this, Pat.

Let me give you just one example. If the US was concerned about a possible hit on JFK by Castro agents, that fact in itself could certainly explain the presence of Robertson in Dallas. As you know, only four days early persons "connected" to US intelligence were looking for violent Cubans in Miami. There was also concern about anti-Castro Cubans who hated JFK (as you probably know, Harry Williams took several of them on a mini-vacation in the Keys to keep them away from JFK). Robertson was familiar with the Cuban exiles given his involvement in JM/Wave.

But the presence of any DGI agents in Dallas surely would be sinister.

If a Soviet premier was assassinated, and a CIA operative was at the scene of the crime, the complicity of the CIA would certainly be suggested. But the presence of any agent of Soviet intelligence would not be sufficient to suggest an internal coup since there would be a myriad of innocent explanations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with much of your post, Tim. If there was a photo which was indisputably the photo of a foreign agent, it would be of more interest to someone trying to solve the case than a photo that was indisputably the photo of an American agent. But we're comparing apples and oranges... You have been incredibly dismissive of the value of a photo which seems to be of Robertson, even though there is no known reason for him to have been in Dealey Plaza. At the same time, you have accepted as EXTREMELY valuable the photo of someone resembling a foreign agent...a photo that we've never seen and is only rumored to even exist.

In short, you've been dismissive of REAL evidence that may not have as much value as others suggest, and insisted that invisible evidence that hints at Cuban involvement is more important. I seem to remember you discussing the purported photo of a Cuban agent as if it was indicative in some way of Cuban involvement. If I'm remembering incorrectly, and you don't believe we should attach any importance to this unseen photo, please say so.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I never said the photo that could not be located was "extremely" valuable. But it certainly bears noting that Veciana thought he saw a Cuban intelligence agent in DP. If people accept Veciana's claims oif having seen Oswald with Bishop, it is hard to think he would lie about that. If the claim is he was doing so to "point the finger" at Castro, why would he also point the finger at Bishop? Certainly Fonzi thought it important enough to follow up.

I would like to see Mr. Stokes respond to Ron's point but I tend to believe that someone who worked with Robertson for years would know whether that is indeed Robertson or only a look-alike. His opinion counts far more than our conjecture.

But even if Robertson was in DP, that fact does not make him a suspect. We know deTorres was asked to be in Miami to look for Cubans (of either persuasion) who might want to harm JFK. Robertson might have been doing the same thing in DP and the fact that his presence there was undisclosed means nothing, of course. Unless you suppose the CIA was going to come forward and say it was privy to a plot against JFK and placed agents in DP but failed to stop it. Somehow that does not seem likely to me.

Had we a photo of Robertson in Havana watching a Castro speech, then I would think his presence was not motivated merely by the desire to observe a master rhetorician. But it is ridiculous to believe that his presence in DP is sufficient to even suggest he was an assassin when there are a number of innocent reasons for his presence (if indeed he was there, which I now doubt).

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Pat, here I have to disagree with your logic (don't always agree with your opinions but I do most often respect your logic).

First, the possible presence of DGI agents in Dallas is not based on a possible photo. I have never claimed that a photo exists of either Policarpo Lopez or Casas Saez in Dallas. (Someone has suggested that the description of the driver of the Rambler is at least consistent with Policarpo Lopez.)

Since nobody has ever claimed that the alleged DGI operative in Dealey Plaza was either Policarpo Lopez or Casas Saez, what do either of them have to do with this? Another red herring from our resident ex-lawyer. Yet we do know the identity of that purported DGI agent, as elucidated by you on June 21 of last year:

I can now report the identity of one person who reported seeing a Cuban spy in a photograph of Dealey Plaza. The man identified the spy as Raul Diaz.

In either event, you have never seen any such photograph [nor has anyone else apparently], you don't have a photo of anyone, nor can you even accurately cite the source for this contention, since you initially claimed that it was a fact testified to by Veciana, but that was untrue as well. If he ever said any such thing, you've not managed to provide a citation for it. Moreoever, as Gaeton Fonzi [whom I should think knows significantly more about this than you or I do] made clear in his book, it was not Veciana who made this allegation, but a friend of his. They sought the photo in vain. Whereas you are happy to claim such a photo exists, despite never having seen it, and insist upon drawing the most provocative but unsubstantiated inferences from it.

As for your contention that your supposition about the presence of a purported DGI agent is not based upon this spurious photo story, you've certainly posted nothing else that would suggest this is true. If you have some other so-called "evidence" for this contention, why have you kept it hidden?

Without yet seeing "Rendezvous with Death" I am not yet ready to dismiss the possibility that Escalante was in Dallas. Here Robert Charles-Dunne has constructed a classical "straw man" fallacy: he is demolishing an argument I never made. It surprises me that you fell for it. The mere fact that Robert claims I have "shrieked" adequately demonstrates the sophistry of his arguments. How does one "shriek" in a written posting? I respectfully suggest that one can often draw conclusions about the validity of a debater's position by how often the debater must rely on such shallow rhetorical devices. You never do Pat, and I certainly try not to.

Yet this is precisely what you've done here, repeatedly:

Kind of similar to OJ's blood at the murder scene. Unless one could prove it was planted, even one drop of his blood, where it should not be, is incriminating. Similarly, one Cuban spy in Dealey Plaza (where he should not be) certainly is highly suggestive of Cuban complicity. June 21/05

If Veciana was a truth-teller, then (1) Diaz was a Cuban spy; and (2) he was in Dealey Plaza when JFK died. In my opinion, that information standing by itself demonstrates that there was PROBABLY Cuban complicity. June 21/05

Diaz, whoever that might be, was supposedly identified by Antonio Veciana, a man who presumably knew Diaz personally. June 22/05

And Antonio Veciana, believed to be a truth-teller by most assassination researchers, testified before the Church Committee that he recognized a photo of a man named Raul Diaz, who he identified as a Cuban intelligence agent, in Dealey Plaza. Neither is THAT speculation. Veciana's testimony was recorded before a court reporter and is part of the official records of the Church Committee. June 22/05

Does anyone know if Dr Manuel Abella is still alive? And query whether the Castro agent Abella thought he saw was the one Veciana testified to before the Church Committee? If so, Abella confirms Veciana. If not, it is possible Abella and Veciana are refering to two separate DGI agents in Dealey Plaza.

Now Robert has a real dilemma since, by his own logic, he must now either accept Veciana's testimony that Diaz was in Dealey Plaza, or reject all of Veciana's testimony, including his testimony that he saw LHO with a CIA officer--one of the primary bases, of course, for implying CIA involvement in the assassination. June 24/05

Well, I find it incredible that Robert would think I would simply manufacture something like that. That accusation questions both my honesty and my intelligence. If I was not honest, do you think I am stupid enough to make up something like that and assume I would not get caught?

I made the statement based on a summary of Veciana's testimony on the web-site of Gordon Winslow, a very well-respected assassination researcher. I have not seen his actual testimony but I would like to because it might shed further light on the Diaz character. June 27/05

Moreover, even if Veciana was lying or wrong about Diaz, there were reports from other sources about other DGI agents in Dallas. My point is that unless every single report was falsified or in error, if there was one DGI agent in Dallas, that is rather persuasive evidence of Cuban involvement. July 4/05

The above comments are a mere handful of the myriad nonsensical assertions made herein by Tim Gratz. We've seen him misstate the source of the original allegation [it was Abella and not Veciana], the circumstances in which the assertion was made [it wasn't during testimony, as I proved more than six months ago, irrespective of the incorrect labelling of same by Gordon Winslow at his cuban exile site], and we've seen Tim continue to claim that the photo that nobody's seen is proof of Castro complicity. Now, when called upon - YET AGAIN - to put up or shut up on this non-issue, not only is there no photo, but the new assertion that his claims of DGI personnel being in Dealey Plaza were not based upon this non-existent photo. The mind boggles at the lack of self-consciousness in making so many contradictory assertions, yet nevertheless expecting to be taken seriously here.

Remarkable.

Even if Robertson was in Dealey Plaza (Mr. Stokes is quite convinced the photo is NOT Robertson) I am not having it "both ways". There is certainly a difference between the presence of an American intelligence agent in Dallas and the presence of an agent of foreign intelligence. Surely you must see this, Pat.

Yet I've pointed out a dozen or so times in the past year that a purported OAS assassin was deported from Dallas shortly after the assassination. You don't seem to draw any untoward inferences from that fact. Why? Do you want to solve the assassination? Or simply continue accusing Castro for being responsible without providing a single piece of actual evidence?

Let me give you just one example. If the US was concerned about a possible hit on JFK by Castro agents, that fact in itself could certainly explain the presence of Robertson in Dallas. As you know, only four days early persons "connected" to US intelligence were looking for violent Cubans in Miami. There was also concern about anti-Castro Cubans who hated JFK (as you probably know, Harry Williams took several of them on a mini-vacation in the Keys to keep them away from JFK). Robertson was familiar with the Cuban exiles given his involvement in JM/Wave.

But the presence of any DGI agents in Dallas surely would be sinister.

Fine. Try actually proving the assertion, and then perhaps we'll have something to resolve. Unless and until you do, this is just so much mental masturbation, and unworthy of further discussion. One would rightfully expect that a former lawyer would place a greater premium than you seem to do on actual evidence. Perhaps this explains why you're no longer a lawyer?

If a Soviet premier was assassinated, and a CIA operative was at the scene of the crime, the complicity of the CIA would certainly be suggested. But the presence of any agent of Soviet intelligence would not be sufficient to suggest an internal coup since there would be a myriad of innocent explanations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...