+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: "What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" (/thread-2769.html)
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - Charles Drago - 21-12-2009
Permit me to suggest the following exercise:
Can we find multiple photographic images of heavily attended, outdoor political events of the 1960s at which JFK was NOT present, and then scan the crowds for look-alikes not just of known intel officers and agents, but also of show biz celebrities?
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - Allan Eaglesham - 21-12-2009
Here is the situation from my point of view.
About three years ago, I received an email from the man who calls himself “Treefrog” saying that he had been informed that the Lucien Conein look-alike at the corner of Main and Houston was not Conein. Treefrog did not provide the source of his information but did provide contact information—the address of a woman in Dallas who could provide the identity of the man in question. I wrote to this woman, explaining the situation carefully and enclosing a self-addressed stamped envelope to facilitate a reply.
The woman failed to respond. I did not think that this hearsay information warranted mention on the website (http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP/).
In October of 2008, I was contacted by email by a Frank Caplett, who, it became clear, was the man who had contacted Treefrog. I immediately put the bare bones of Mr. Caplett’s story on the website, and sent another letter—again with SASE, etc.—to the lady in question. Again, she failed to respond.
A few weeks ago, I was contacted again by Mr. Caplett. He seemed irritated that, in the absence of a response from the lady in Dallas, I had not accepted his word that “this guy is in no way, form or fashion Conein.”
Mr. Caplett soon contacted me again, saying that he planned to attend the 2009 COPA meeting in Dallas and that he would contact the lady and ask if he could visit again and take a photograph of what he called “a plaque” on the wall which provides proof that the man in question was the woman’s late husband.
Allow me to emphasize here that the term “plaque” was Mr. Caplett’s, not mine.
Soon after the COPA meeting Mr Caplett sent me about a dozen photographs of photographs he had taken during a pleasant visit with the widow of the gentleman captured in the Altgens photograph. Caplett’s use of the official-sounding word “plaque” was unfortunate. In fact, he was referring to a picture frame in which newspaper clippings had been placed, including the Altgens photograph, as a memento of Mr. Adams’s presence in Dealey Plaza.
I believe that Mr. Caplett sent the photographs also to Jim Fetzer, who sent them to Jack White. Soon after my modification of the website, I received this from Fetzer:
Allan,
For a sophisticated guy, I am shocked by your naivety in a matter of this magnitude. Occam's Razor only applies to alternative theories when they are capable of accounting for the available, relevant evidence. The idea of a plaque for appearing in a photograph would be absurd--except for the purpose of attempting to obfuscate the identification of a "bystander" who was caught in a photo, when he should never have allowed himself to be so conspicuous! A lucky photo of a CIA op had to be obscured. That you in your position with your knowledge of the case should allow yourself to be played for a sucker causes me profound concern. Jack has it exactly right and has offered a far superior argument. My confidence in you is shaken.
Sorry about that. We are interested in the truth, not phony obfuscation.
Jim
The sentence, “We are interested in the truth, not phony obfuscation.” was beyond the pale. I decided not to grace such rudeness with a response. I’ve had no interaction with Fetzer on this issue, but I did have several civil exchanges with Jack White on another forum.
I pay for my website and I am responsible for its content. Its purpose is to impart accurate information and let the chips fall where they may. Anyone who has followed my work on the Pitzer matter will understand that I have changed opinion before as new information has unfolded. My objective is not to uncover conspiracy, but to find facts. My co-author Martha Schallhorn agrees with the addendum posted on the website, that the Conein look-alike is not Conein. Given the totality of the information available, we are happy with this conclusion.
It's your prerogative to disagree with our opinion.
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - James H. Fetzer - 21-12-2009
What Allen is omitting here is that there were several exchanges that took place prior to this, including a very early notice he had posted--perhaps as long as six months or even more ago about this--in which he advised that the photograph on his "Familiar Faces" page who had been identified as Lucien Conein was not. As I recall, I first noticed it on his web site. I was a bit taken aback, especially by the absence of any explanation, and initiated an exchange with him. At that point in time, as I understood it, he had not actually seen, much less studied, photographs of the purported "faux Conein". He made contact with Frank Caplett, who sent me some photographs, which I in turn sent to Jack White. Frank Caplett may have originated this story, but the matter at hand is whether it is true.
Jack and I went through several exchanges and he also had direct contact with Allan. Based upon Jack's studies, it became increasingly apparent that the person whom he was now taking to be "Mainman", Robert Adams, was not the one in the photo and the alleged "plaque" was completely fake, a fabrication that was put together in a shoddy fashion, which congratulated him for having been photographed with JFK on Thursday, 23 November 1963. No one with the least familiarity with the assassination should have been taken in. When I realized that he had drawn a conclusion--which I now gather was forwarded by Tree Frog--I was dumbfounded and sent him an email, which I shall post below with my summary overview of the situation.
Background about this matter, which Allan Eaglesham provides, may be found by comparing the discussion of the photograph found at http://www.jfkresearch.com/eaglesham/page7.jpg with the advisory notes added at http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP/, where he states, "Information received October 12, 2008, and confirmed November 24, 2009: The Lucien Conein look-alike was not Conein." In the first paragraphs of the post to which I am replying, he says:
About three years ago, I received an email from the man who calls himself “Treefrog” saying that he had been informed that the Lucien Conein look-alike at the corner of Main and Houston was not Conein. Treefrog did not provide the source of his information but did provide contact information—the address of a woman in Dallas who could provide the identity of the man in question. I wrote to this woman, explaining the situation carefully and enclosing a self-addressed stamped envelope to facilitate a reply.
The woman failed to respond. I did not think that this hearsay information warranted mention on the website (http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP/).
Between October 12, 2008, and November 24, 2009, however, it was mentioned on the web site, which was the very notice that caught my attention and bothered me. It said nothing about the basis for denying the identification. And I am stunned that he would now reaffirm the the faux identification of Mainman with Adams. Jack has shown that is not the case, precisely as I have elaborated in detail in my posts about this matter on this thread and on "What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today".
Moreover, if you visit the page purporting to explain how Allan Eaglsham knows that the image in the photo is Robert Adams and not Lucien Conein by a link at http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP/, you will not only find a handful of photos of Robert Adams but the following obervations:
"On November 24, 2009, I received several photographs of Robert H. Adams from Mr. Caplett, including one of an identity card, taken in the home of the aunt referred to above. A comparison with the Lucien-Conein look-alike is provided below as well as a framed picture which shows a newspaper clipping naming Mr. Adams as present in the Altgens picture."
Not only does Eaglesham omit any reference to the studies by Jack White that undermine or contradict that claim, but he even offers the "newspaper clipping naming Mr. Adams as present in the Altgens picuture"--which, it states, occurred on Thursday, November 23, 1963! What utter rubbish! In my last email to him, I made the following observations:
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:14:01 -0600 [11/25/2009 10:14:01 AM CST]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Allan Eaglesham" <aeaglesh@twcny.rr.com>
Cc: "Jack & Sue White" <jwjfk@flash.net>, jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Adams--Dealeyman--Conein
Allan,
For a sophisticated guy, I am shocked by your naivety in a matter of this
magnitude. Occam's Razor only applies to alternative theories when they
are capable of accounting for the available, relevant evidence. The idea
of a plaque for appearing in a photograph would be absurd--except for the
purpose of attempting to obfuscate the identification of a "bystander" who
was caught in a photo, when he should never have allowed himself to be so
conspicuous! A lucky photo of a CIA op had to be obscured. That you in
your position with your knowledge of the case should allow yourself to be
played for a sucker causes me profound concern. Jack has it exactly right
and has offered a far superior argument. My confidence in you is shaken.
Sorry about that. We are interested in the truth, not phony obfuscation.
Jim
Quoting "Jack & Sue White" <jwjfk@flash.net>:
[Hide Quoted Text]
I have never heard of a newspaper providing a "plaque" to anyone certifying
that they were in a photo. That is the equivalent of finding a hijacker passport
in the WTC rubble.
Conein was a CIA operative. If it was discovered that he was in some
11-22 photos, search for a doppelganger came up with a photo of Adams
as an SMU student. He had the appropriate features and background. The
rest is CIA covert activity. But they overdid it with the DMN "plaque". That
is just unbelievable.
They had 40+ years to get the fakery right, after Adams was safely deceased.
If still living, he might have disputed the allegation.
The JFK affair was not an ordinary murder. It is filled with fake photos and
documents. Why would "Occam's Razor" apply to this investigation? That
is like saying Marina took the Backyard photos or Zapruder took the Zfilm.
Why exempt the Adams "evidence" from being faked?
It is possible that Adams IS the man in the photos. But the evidence is flimsy.
Show me some 1964 evidence, and I will take it more seriously. Show me
a 1963 photo of Adams. A "plaque" from a newspaper "certifying" that
someone is shown in a photo is not evidence.
I do not know WHO the man in the photo is. I have seen nothing yet to
convince me that it is Adams OR Conein. Based ONLY on available photos,
the 11-22 man resembles "Conein" more than Adams in my opinion.
Jack
PS. I have never heard of "Frank Caplett" so cannot judge his veracity.
On Nov 25, 2009, at 8:13:30 AM, Allan Eaglesham wrote:
Good morning, Jack:
The widow's peak, obviously, is hair and can take on slightly different
shapes. The issue here is that Adams and Dealey man both had unusually
well defined widow's peaks, and Adams was standing at the corner of Main
and Houston when the photograph was taken. Would he pretend to his family
to be someone that he wasn't? Frank Caplett has seen a plaque from the
Dallas Morning News on the wall of the Adams residence stating that Adams
is in that famous photograph. Is Caplett lying?
This is a case, if ever there was one, for applying Occam's razor. The most
obvious explanation is correct: Adams and Dealey man are one and the same.
Wishing you well,
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack & Sue White [mailto:jwjfk@flash.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:14 AM
To: Allan Eaglesham
Cc: Jack & Sue White
Subject: Re: Adams--Dealeyman--Conein
Allan...to me the operative phrase is:
"However, I feel the shape of the head and the hairline
may rule Adams out."
Look at the photos and tell me whether the widow's
peak of Adams matches.
To me, Adams does not look like the Dealey man.
His head is too oval shaped.
Jack
On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:51:49 PM, Allan Eaglesham wrote:
Hi Jack:
Thanks for copying me on this. For me the operative phrase here is
"I found that the facial features are almost ridiculously similar."
The man said he was there, and, according to Frank Caplett, a plaque
showing the Altgens photograph hangs in the family home displaying
a note from the DMN acknowledging his presence in the famous photo.
With best regards and Happy Thanksgiving.
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack & Sue White [mailto:jwjfk@flash.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:35 PM
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: Jack & Sue White; Allan
Subject: Adams--Dealeyman--Conein
Jim...this is about as good a comparison as I can make. I have
corrected the perspective on the Adams photo and enhanced it.
It all comes down to the dates of the photos compared to the 11-22
photo...earlier or later. I found that the facial features are almost
ridiculously similar. However, I feel the shape of the head and the
hairline may rule Adams out.
The lighting and other photographic conditions also may affect the
comparisons since the conditions and quality of images varies.
My conclusion is INCONCLUSIVE. However, I would rate probably of
matches: Adams, 30%, Conein, 70%...but it is possible that it was
EITHER or NEITHER in the Dealey photo. The main problems with
Adams are the long oval face and the irregular frontal hairline. It is
a difficult comparison, since the similarities are very close and the
conditions different.
I hope this is helpful. Use it in any way you want. I am also
sending cc to Allan Eaglesham.
Let me know what you think.
Jack
SITUATION SUMMARY:
(1) The evidence Jack has adduced in support of the inference that Robert Adams is not Mainman, which I previously posted on "What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today", is clear and compelling. Since it was not posted in this thread, I shall now repeat it here:
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17
Why this is an instructive case to study . . .
Jack uploaded six of the slides from my original presentation, but there were actually seven. I tried to upload all seven in a ppt file, but the uploader would not accept it, so I have asked Jack if he could add the missing slide, to which I shall refer as (1.5). The first, (1), which appears above, shows the raw data of the photo from (I take it) Main Street in the center, of Conein on the right, and of Adams on the left. In the second (missing) slide, (1.5), Jack offers a comparison of the general features of their faces, where [Adams] has a long face, long chin, and left ear top-in, while Mainman has a square face, short chin, and left ear top-out. Conein, likewise, has a square face, short chin, and left ear top-out. (If this slide had been included above, perhaps there would be less resistance to my critique of Eaglesham.) In the next slide (with multiple comparisons), (2), Jack observes that Adams has a long oval face, while Mainman is square and Conein's slighly triangular; that the hairline peaks do not match, since Adam's peak is an odd shape and does not point to his nose, while Conein's peak points to his nose, but he seems to have more hair than does Mainmain. Adams' left ear does not flare out at the top, but Mainman and Conein's left ears flare out. He finds it unlikely that Mainman is Adams, but leaves it open whether or not Conein is Mainman. In (3), Jack reports that the supernasal ridge of Adams is about twice as wide as on Mainman and that his left ear is vertical, while Mainman has a left ear that flares out the the top. Moreover, Adams has wide flaring nostrils, but Mainman does not. Since hair can easily be cut (it's called a "haircut") but the supernasal ridge, the general features of the face (absent plastic surgery) and of the left ear are (more or less) permanent features, I believe that Jack has adduced more than sufficient proof that Adams is not Mainman. He is not convinced that Mainman is Conein, but this identification has been around for a long time. If there were some more direct basis for refuting it, I would suppose that it would have been advanced long ago. Indeed, if it is not Conein, then why would there be so much concern to prove it is Adams, even to the extent of fabricating (4), an (obviously phony) plaque? This shows that someone is going out of their way to substitute Adams identity for that of Conein. Without claiming that the identity of Mainman as Conein is definitive, it is further supported by the presence in Dealey Plaza of Edward Landsdale, as I mentioned during my presentation, since it was widely known that they had the practice of accompanying one another, having engaged in many covert operations in Vietnam and elsewhere together. Jack has provided sufficient proof that Mainman is not Adams and, based upon other considerations, including other photographs of Conein, including not (5) but (6), I regard the identification as Conein to be well-founded. Because this is a simple case in relation to the complexity of the assassination in its totality, I regard it as an instructive case to study. I hope this reassures Bernice that I am taking this matter seriously and would not lightly question Allan Eaglesham's involement in this matter absent good reasons for doing so, which I have explained here and in prior posts.
(2) Allan Eaglesham has to be familiar with this evidence, since (i) most, if not all of it, was sent to him previously in email exchanges, yet (ii) on this and on the other thread, he continues to defend his position, as shown by (iii), "Information received October 12, 2008, and confirmed November 24, 2009: The Lucien Conein look-alike was not Conein", his latest reaffirmation.
(3) Most astonishing of all, he continues to cite the faux plaque--now said to be "newspaper clippings"--as though they carried any evidential weight! As I explained to Jack above, even though they are obviously faked, they count as evidence of fakery, which appears to have been motivated by a desperate attempt to obfuscate the existence of a photograph of Conein in Dealey Plaza.
(4) His appeal to Occam's Razor, incidentally, drew a smile to my face since, as a professional philosopher of science, I have written about it, including the entry in GLOSSARY OF EPISTEMOLOGY / PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE (1993) I co-authored with Robert Almeder, which reads as follows:
Occam's Razor. A methodological maxim that is attributed to William of Occam, which asserts that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity: "It is in vain to do by many what could be done by fewer!" Occam's Razor suggests that simpler theories should be preferred to more complex theories. Simpler theories are generally preferable, however, only when other things (such as their clarity, scope, and power) are equal.
In particular, a simpler theory is preferable to a more complex only when they are both capable of explaining the evidence! The case of JFK is an apt instance, since the official account is vastly more simple than the truth. In this instance, Eaglsham's theory cannot explain the evidence, as (1) has shown; he has persisted in endorsing it in spite of that, as (2) has shown; he does not even acknowledge that the "plaque" is crap, as (3) has shown; and misuses an appeal to Occam's Razor in support of an untenable position, as (4) has shown.
Under these circumstances, even though I would be willing to apologize if I were wrong about this, I cannot find any fault in my email to him in which I explained my conclusions--which included several exchanges between him and Jack as shown here--which I hereby reassert:
. . . A lucky photo of a CIA op had to be obscured. That you in
your position with your knowledge of the case should allow yourself to be
played for a sucker causes me profound concern. Jack has it exactly right
and has offered a far superior argument. My confidence in you is shaken.
Sorry about that. We are interested in the truth, not phony obfuscation.
Jim
I couldn't have said it better myself. Let everyone study and learn from this case. Even a usually reliable source can commit blunders of the greatest magnitude and refuse to admit them. That is not the response of a rational mind in pursuit of the truth. My confidence in him has been shaken. We--Jack and I and, I presume, the rest of you--are interested in the truth about the assassination, not phony obfuscation.
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - Allan Eaglesham - 21-12-2009
I want to make a couple of points for the record.
>What Allen is omitting here is that there were several exchanges that took place prior to this, including a very early notice he had posted--perhaps as long as six months or even more ago about this--in which he advised that the photograph on his "Familiar Faces" page who had been identified as Lucien Conein was not.<
-- I don't know what "several exchanges" Dr. Fetzer is referring to.
-- I have already explained the "very early notice" in my post. It was an October 2008 statement on my website, that I had received information from Frank Caplett that the LC look-alike was not Conein. I had no basis for believing or disbelieving what Caplett told me, but I felt obliged, for the sake of full disclosure to interested parties, to share what he had told me. The statement is still there, dated 10/15/08.
-- The LC look-alike in James Altgens's photograph has never been identified as Conein, at least not by me. That website is carefully worded. It would be foolish to identify anyone on the basis of a single photograph. Ms. Schallhorn and I noticed resemblances, which we felt obliged to share with the JFK-research community.
>Jack and I went through several exchanges and he also had direct contact with Allan. Based upon Jack's studies, it became increasingly apparent that the person whom he was now taking to be "Mainman", Robert Adams, was not the one in the photo and the alleged "plaque" was completely fake, a fabrication that was put together in a shoddy fashion, which congratulated him for having been photographed with JFK on Thursday, 23 November 1963.<
-- I have already explained that the "plaque" is a red herring. Dr. Fetzer doth protest too much about the "plaque."
>Between October 12, 2008, and November 24, 2009, however, it was mentioned on the web site, which was the very notice that caught my attention and bothered me. It said nothing about the basis for denying the identification. And I am stunned that he would now reaffirm the the faux identification of Mainman with Adams. Jack has shown that is not the case, precisely as I have elaborated in detail in my posts about this matter on this thread and on "What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today".<
-- Jack is entitled to his opinion. I don't agree with him.
>Not only does Eaglesham omit any reference to the studies by Jack White that undermine or contradict that claim, but he even offers the "newspaper clipping naming Mr. Adams as present in the Altgens picuture"--which, it states, occurred on Thursday, November 23, 1963! What utter rubbish!<
-- The onus is not on me to represent Jack's work. As said, I don't agree with Jack's conclusion.
-- Some covert operation this! They cannot even get the date of the assassination right. Obviously the collage in the picture frame was assembled by someone who knew little about the assassination, probably Mr. Adams himself.
>I couldn't have said it better myself.<
-- Not surprising, since you said it in the first place.
>Let everyone study and learn from this case.<
-- Hear hear.
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - James H. Fetzer - 21-12-2009
When I said "we had several exchanges", I meant that there were several exchanges between Eaglesham, Jack and me. They are included in the post. I didn't think this was debatable.
Where does Eaglesham even discount the "plaque"? His doing so now may be a sign of a guilty conscience, but I have not noticed his having done so. On the contrary, he cites it here:
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP/
using the link provided. There is no indication that he regards it as fakery; indeed, anyone would infer that he thinks it is authentic, in spite of having the wrong day and the wrong date:
On November 24, 2009, I received several photographs of Robert H. Adams from Mr. Caplett, including one of an identity card, taken in the home of the aunt referred to above. A comparison with the Lucien-Conein look-alike is provided below as well as a framed picture which shows a newspaper clipping naming Mr. Adams as present in the Altgens picture.
This appears to me to be too little, too late. I have held him in esteem in the past, but his performance here has shaken my confidence. Others will have to judge this for themselves.
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - Jack White - 21-12-2009
In all this discussion, too much is being made of the Adams allegation.
The main point is that on 11-22-63, the Dealey Plaza area appears
to have been filled with a half dozen doppelgangers or lookalikes for
CIA operatives...not to mention the unexplained presence of military
intelligence operatives like James Powell.
I respect Allan's position that Adams is the man in Altgens. I respect
Jim's agreement with me that the man appears to be Conein or a
lookalike. But whether it is Adams or Conein is irrelevant to all the
other lookalikes being there. James Richards has produced comparisons
showing many. Fletch Prouty identified Lansdale. Lansdale and Conein,
according to Prouty, were co-workers on covert actions. If Lansdale
was there, why not Conein also. And what about all the others. It is
no more likely that lookalikes were there than the real people.
So let's suppose that the man WAS Adams...that does not answer any
question about all the others.
I suspect that the Adams story came up recently ONLY because someone
was worried that photos showed a high level CIA official grinning as
JFK headed for the kill zone. I suspect that ex post facto "evidence" may
have been concocted to say that Adams was there, not Conein. Pardon
my suspicions; I am suspicious of ANY "evidence" that surfaces 40 years
AFTER the crime, expecially if it exculpates one of the suspects.
To be convincing, the Adams identification must have contemporaneous
proof, not tardy "evidence 40+ years later.
Jack
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - Allan Eaglesham - 21-12-2009
>When I said "we had several exchanges", I meant that there were several exchanges between Eaglesham, Jack and me. They are included in the post. I didn't think this was debatable.<
-- The fact is, I have had no exchanges on this subject with Dr. Fetzer outside of this forum. If his email communication had been civil, there would have been an exchange, as between Jack White and me.
>Where does Eaglesham even discount the "plaque"? His doing so now may be a sign of a guilty conscience, but I have not noticed his having done so. On the contrary, he cites it here:
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP/ <
-- I "discounted" the plaque immediately after Mr. Caplett clarified that there was no plaque, that it was a framed collection of clippings. The word "plaque" was removed from the website in November.
>There is no indication that he regards it as fakery; indeed, anyone would infer that he thinks it is authentic, in spite of having the wrong day and the wrong date<
-- The fact that it has the wrong day and date is denial of fakery. If someone were faking this, they would have inserted the correct day and date.
>This appears to me to be too little, too late.<
-- Too little, too late for what?
>I have held him in esteem in the past, but his performance here has shaken my confidence. Others will have to judge this for themselves.<
-- Exactly as others will judge you, Professor, and your performance on this forum.
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - James H. Fetzer - 21-12-2009
As for our "exchanges", I connected Jack with Allan and was receiving copies of their discussions as well as of Jack's work. I presumed that we all knew that we were communicating with one another.
Enough has been said for the members of this forum to make up their own minds about this. I invite everyone to consider all of the evidence that has been presented. There is more than enough.
Jack is right about the multiplicity of familiar faces in Dealey Plaza. Given the others of whom we are aware and that Lansdale was photographed there, too, it is not surprising Conein would be there.
It is significant that Fletcher Prouty also endorsed the identification of Mainman as Conein. In one of my communications, I said that, if "Adams" is not a close facsimilie of Conein, he must be Conein himself.
Allan may have removed the word "plaque", but he has continued to cite the (now) "newspaper clippings" as evidence that Mainman was Adams and not Conein. Think about it. That is simply stunning!
Allan could set things right by removing his endorsement of the identification of Mainman as Adams and noting that the evidence is not merely equivocal but has been challenged in studies by Jack White.
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - Allan Eaglesham - 21-12-2009
>As for our "exchanges", I connected Jack with Allan and was receiving copies of their discussions as well as of Jack's work. I presumed
that we all knew that we were communicating with one another.<
-- The fact of the matter is that I received one rude email from Professor Fetzer, which was copied to Jack, and which I did not answer. I then sent two emails to Jack that were not copied to Fetzer.
>Enough has been said for the members of this forum to make up their own minds about this. I invite everyone to consider all of the evidence that has been presented. There is more than enough.<
-- On this we agree.
>Jack is right about the multiplicity of familiar faces in Dealey Plaza. Given the others of whom we are aware and that Lansdale was photographed there, too, it is not surprising Conein would be there.<
-- Lansdale was there (perhaps), so Conein was probably there. Perhaps again. If LC was there, he wasn't captured on film by James Altgens.
>It is significant that Fletcher Prouty also endorsed the identification of Mainman as Conein. In one of my communications, I said that, if "Adams" is not a close facsimilie of Conein, he must be Conein himself.<
-- The simple fact is that Mr. Adams resembled LTC Conein. That's it, and that's all.
>Allan may have removed the word "plaque", but he has continued to cite the (now) "newspaper clippings" as evidence that Mainman was Adams and not Conein. Think about it. That is simply stunning!<
-- It is simply stunning that the professor believes that Mrs. Adams has a picture of Lucien Conein on her wall.
>Allan could set things right by removing his endorsement of the identification of Mainman as Adams and noting that the evidence is not merely equivocal but has been challenged in studies by Jack White.<
-- I'll resist the temptation to advise Dr. Fetzer on how he could set things straight. The issue is simply this: Robert Adams -- who bore a striking resemblance to Lucien Conein -- was photographed at the corner of Houston and Main. His widow knows it, his niece knows it, Frank Caplett knows it, and now we know it. Good night, and good luck.
"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today" - James H. Fetzer - 21-12-2009
Our exchanges were being copied by me to Jack and Jack to me. I thought
it was obvious to Allan that we were in communication.
Lansdale's presence has been confirmed by Fletcher Prouty and by Victor
Krulak, the former Commandant of the Marine Corps.
My point was that this was someone who bore a striking resemblance and
not Conein himself. And that turns out to be correct.
Notice he does not deny that he has continued to use the alleged "newspaper
clippings" in support of his position, which is corrupt.
Jack has produced proof after proof that the man photographed at Houston
and Main was NOT Robert Adams, as I have explained.
I find it outrageous that someone in whom many of us had placed our trust
about photographic interpretations has grossly abused it.
If this kind of flimsy response reassures anyone about this man's integrity,
be my guest. He has now destroyed my confidence in him.