I find the "Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza" discussion to be troubling and enlightening in equal measure.
As my dear friend, mentor, and colleague George Michael Evica taught us so powerfully, there are third alternatives to most A/B questions.
For example: Q. Is our in-depth public discussion of the intel-officers-in-Dealey Plaza hypothesis supportive of or detrimental to our efforts to discover truth and effect justice?
A. Yes.
Negative A, negative B.
The discussion supports our collective maturation as critical thinkers and investigators of deep political events. Simultaneously it hinders our work by providing to the enemy opportunities to construct classic straw man sophistries with which to lampoon other, in my opinon more important and substantive lines of inquiry.
The danger of which I speak will loom until we have forced the State to lend its imprimatur to the truth.
I agree with you, Jim, that, to coin a term (I think), Widow's Peak Man (WPM) is not Mr. Adams. Yet I remain unconvinced that WPM is the notorious, guilty as hell Conein -- just as I'm far from accepting as valid the photo evidence for the presence of other superstar intel officers in Dealey Plaza and, for that matter, at the Ambassador Hotel.
These images leave much to be desired -- at least to these hawk eyes (reference intended). Here's an interesting exercise: Compare, if you will, the "David Sanchez Morales" candidates from Dealey Plaza and the Ambassador.
(Jack, can you lift ostensible DSM images from Shane O'Sullivan's Who Killed Bobby and create a side-by-side with the DP "Lamp Post Man" views?)
Additionally, would not such presence violate sacrosanct rules of tradecraft?
And yes, I concede that extraordinary events inspire extraordinary behaviors.
For what it's worth, I do believe -- as opposed to know -- that the assassination sponors signed their work more than once. An example: the umbrella in Dealey Plaza.
20-12-2009, 06:54 PM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2009, 03:02 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
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.
20-12-2009, 07:28 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2009, 09:30 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
Charles, Thanks for mentioning (5), the "familiar faces" at Houston and Main, which appears to me to be the real deal. Ask yourself, what is the probability that six men who resemble CIA officials should be present together at that place and time if they were not those CIA officials, who would have a reason for being there, namely, to pay their "last respects"? The photographic evidence is highly probable, on the hypothesis that they were knowledgeable about the assassination, and incredibly improbable otherwise. On this basis, I infer that the measure of evidential support for their CIA identifies is very strong and that the measure of support for the alternative is very weak, approaching zero. It would be an incredible coincidence for that to be the case.
As for the Ambassador film, I tend to believe that Bradley Ayers and Wayne Smith are accurate in their identifications. Gordon Campbell was even Brad's case officer when he was stationed at JM/Wave in Miami from May 1963 to December 1964. I was upset to hear from Peter Dale Scott that additional research had allegedly "established" that they were wrong in their identifications, including their "'finding" that Campbell had died years before. Who these personages who resembler Campbell, Morales, and Joannides are was not part of their research. But without establishing the identifies of these persons whom Ayers and Smith have identified, the burden of proof is on those who want to deny it. I have no reason to doubt them and many reasons to believe them. They both knew them personally.
As for Conein, I have explained above why I disagree with you. I believe that both direct (photographic) and indirect (circumstantial) evidence supports it. I agree that these identifications are a lot like fingerprint comparisons, where there can be many points of agreement without establishing the conclusion with certainty. But that is the case for all empirical conclusions: none of them can be established with "certaintly", so if that is our standard, we will never know anything about the death of JFK. Moreover, our critics will find grounds to disagree, no matter how strong the evidence. I was stunned when Evan Burton sought to dismiss the massive evidence that supports the sabotage of the Wellstone plane, for example, by suggesting that each element had been present in other cases, even after I had posted a lengthy list of features of the crash.
It is not only not true that each of the features of the crash were present on other occasions--consider the cell phone anomaly, the garage doors' spontaneous opening, the odd meteorological phenomenon above the crash site, not to mention the early arrival of the FBI and their declaration that there were "no signs of terrorist involvement" before any investigation had been conducted--but if there were other cases of this kind, they would almost certainly involve sabotage as well. Burton was treating them as separate events by considering their probabilities individually, when the evidence must be taken together as a totality, not piecemeal, by calculating their product. I think Burton's ridiculous charade was the last straw for me with The Education Forum.
My commitment to this and other cases, Charles, is that we must pursue logic and evidence to discover the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I have been exposed to this line of reasoning with regularity in relation to the investigation of the events of 9/11. Especially there, the use of video fakery in New York and the absence of any evidence of a Boeing 757 having hit the Pentagon are only two illustrations of the kinds of issues that many students of 9/11 will not pursue. Well, I am not among them. We have to figure out how all of this was done, why and by whom. Anyone who wants to know what we know now (in the tentative and fallible fashion of science) should visit my blog at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, which represents the latest that I have been able to piece together--absent these recent presentations. And I welcome your critique!
I rarely ever post on forums anymore. I am just not into Political Discussions or Conspiracies, since I am primarily interested in JFK studies. I have also been into JFK studies for many, many years...actually ever since Jack Ruby shot Oswald. I just did not believe what we were being told. Needless to say, I was quite shocked when I heard about the WC conclusions. I suppose that was my first realizaton of our Govt.not telling us the truth and being involved in coverups.
I have read the above posts, in regard to Allan E. and his latest findings. ....which both you and Bernice have replied. Although, I also do not feel that Adams photo is the same person on the street.....regarded as Conein. They do look similar, yet also some differences too. There is just something that doesn't really resobnate with me about the whole thing. ..perhaps as you have pointed out.....so I am skeptical too. Having said that,,I think very highly of both Allan E. and his research. He is one of the very few that actually does any real research. I have always had very good dealings with Allan. So, in this I am in agreement with Bernice and very pleased to see that she took up for him. I do not know of any JFK researcher that I am able to agree with on everything they claim or believe. Many things are only opinion, yet are passed off as gospel truth, without so stating it is only speculation. At the same time, that still doesn't cause me to no longer find them credible. It only implies a difference of opinion, in some areas. I am actually a slow believer in regard to new information. Some things I am agnostic and some things I don't believe unless or until I am able to see it, in order to then actually believe it.
I listened to both your latest talks..one I listened to just last night. There were several areas in which, I do not agree with you, yet that does not cause me to no longer feel you are credible! In fact, I often feel that it is good there are differences of opinion in some areas. I just don't believe in going along with anyone, just to get along. As already stated, I have to see it for myself to believe it. I have also listened to both Allan E and James Richards presentations on your own program. I thought they both did an excellent job. I can't say for positive that Allan is wrong about this photo matter yet...but if he is, then I believe he will be able to see it eventually. ...and if so, I know he will admit it too. He is not one to refrain from admitting mistakes. But if he does continue to believe he is right, then it would just be regarded as another area of researcher disagreemrnt, which is just not all that unusual among us.
It is great to see you have joined this forum and I also think a great deal of you too. I am able to disgree with you in some areas and yet that is also okay. There are many things that we do agree on too. I feel that you will have a much better time here...at least you will be regarded in a much better way then with all those Contrarians, you have been trying to contend with elsewhere. The Mods here will make sure you regarded with respect.
20-12-2009, 11:47 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2009, 11:50 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
Dixie, Thanks for a very thoughtful post. I suppose if the matter of the plaque were not so blatant, I would have more tolerance for Allan's effort to promote Adams as Mainman. But I hold you and Bernice in high regard and am willing to admit, not that Adams is the person under discussion, but that Eaglesham may have a blind spot that makes it difficult for him to sort this one out properly. I do not personally find it a difficult call, but I also agree that my concerns about him based upon this instance are not conclusive and that because you and Bernice have had such positive relations with him, I may be wrong. I will do my best to remain open-minded, in spite of my skepticism. Thanks for taking the time to compose such a fine post. I welcome learning when others think I am wrong--and why. And I'm very glad to be here.
21-12-2009, 02:39 AM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2009, 03:13 AM by Bernice Moore.)
James H. Fetzer Wrote:Bernice, You may be right. Perhaps I am being too hard on the man. But he and I and Jack had several exchanges about this, where Jack produced more than enough studies, in my opinion, to demonstrate that DealeyPlazaMan and Richard Adams are not one and the same. Jack also observed that he had never heard of someone receiving a plaque for having been in a photograph, with which I agree. Yet Allan Eaglesham persists in his claim that DealeyPlazaMan is Adams! If you take a look at the plaque, however, it could hardly be a more obvious fake. It has its second paragraph PASTED IN and compliments him for having been photographed in Dealey Plaza on THURSDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 1963, which is quite frankly absurd. I even featured Allan on "The Real Deal" on 27 February 2009 and James Richards on 6 March 2009, interviews which are archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. I certainly wish it were not the case, but having pointed out the difficulties with the identification he promotes and not changing his mind, I have had my confidence in him shaken. Our subjective degrees of rationality of belief can be compared with objective measures of evidential support to determine our degrees of irrationality by the divergence between them. The plaque fakery is so blatant and Jack's studies so definitive that his rationality in continuing to support this claim requires an explanation. I am willing to grant that he may simply be making a mistake in this instance, but if that is the case, then it still shakes my confidence in his reliability, because he ought to know better. You, of course, are not required to share my beliefs about this, but you certainly need to take a closer look at what I have presented--(1) through (6)--if you want to persist in the belief that he is right about Adams being DealeyPlazaMan. I admire you for speaking out about this, Bernice. You are a wonderful person who continues to make valuable contributions to this case and I would not want there to be any misunderstanding between us. I am glad that you've challenged me to clarify my position in greater detail. His reliance upon the plaque bothers me the most. No one of his sophistication should be taken in.
Hi Dr.Jim...Thanks for the reply...If memory serves me correctly, aw those grey cells...I am recalling that Allan is not 100% sold that it is Adams and that his research continues...also he did not like the looks of the plaque whatever it is..I wondered if it was a frame that perhaps Mrs or one of the children bought and cut out whatever from a copy of the paper or typed out and inserted the info,,to me it appeared somewhat home made...Perhaps someone could check on Rich's to see what Allan's comments made were in these two regards...Yes i caught Allan's as well as Jame's programs on your show...very interesting and enlightening both..FYI..in the past James has been wrong in his IDs and changed his mind I have known him for many years since CAM KOO appeared n the web.. and though now not in any regular contact i still follow his research and have so much oF his findings and work photos collected and saved...within my rat pack...and followed his studies but because i may or others may have differed at times such as when he would send me a photo comparison by email I did not allow such to shake my confidence in him..and his research abilitys and as well he and Allan also work together...just as your difference with Jack over it being Chauncey or Hunt does not..shake your confidence in his abilitys or visa versa ....To me that would be like throwing the Baby out with the bathwater,,,I also in the past have differed with Jack but I still have my great confidence and belief in his work, aways have...many differ such as you have mentioned with Madeleine Brown or Rogers, one close friend and I have differed for years about Madeleine..we still have retained our confidence in each other...it happens people see differently within a photo or information...thank goodness we are not all the same.we are boring enough we humans at times as it is...:rofl:..Thanks for understanding my speaking up, I figured you would as I have spoken up many times through the years for others , yourself , as well as Jack, Rich over time...and manys a time after got creamed for such...:rofl:it happens.it was fun many's a time and at others a shite kicking but never will i say boring.....we are and have been almost 99.99 % on an even keel of understanding in the past I do not think it can get possibly any closer and still be ones self...as FAR AS WHETHER IT IS Conein or ADAMS i am not sure I DO NOT think the ADAMS PHOTO IS AS CLOSE AS some others do..but that's my opinion some do and they are entitled..as far as the 3 tramps they are a PITA TO ME A DIVERSION THAT DAY AT TIMES i have thought...whether actual shooters or more of the in crowd I'LL CALL THEM WHO WERE INVITED TO THE PARTY TO WATCH i will never know chances are...I AM NOT VERY GOOD AT comparng faces...imo never have been, I just guess like others...Take care and carry on with your fine research work which you share so willingly and that the many are so grateful for..if they have a brain that is...the others well IF they ONLY had A brain...:rofl:BUT THERE ARE THOSE THAT WOULD DIFFER WITH ME ON THAT STATEMENT and have BUT I stand firm your one of the best and that's no flower throwing imo that's the truth..take care my friend...BEST b...ps i also be in touch with him to clarify it in my own mind just how much he regards this new research as being solid...ta..:girl:
We all make mistakes, Bernice. In this case, however, Jack and I explained why he was wrong based upon the relevant evidence, including the absurdity of the plaque. So far as I am aware, he has yet to concede he is wrong. If I receive this much response when I am right, I can't wait to see what happens when I am wrong! Let's' hope we hear from Allan Eaglesham to clear the air. Warm regards to everyone!
The person who told Eaglesham about Adams told him that
he had seen a "plaque" presented to Adams "certifying" that
Adams had been photographed by Altgens at Main and Houston.
When we finally get to see the "plaque" it is NOT a plaque
at all, but a framed copy of a printed halftone in the newspaper
with a paragraph of text pasted onto the clipping saying that
the photo showed Adams.
Thus, there was NO plaque, and consideration of it in any way
is irrelevant.
On study of the photos furnished of Adams, along with the Conein
photo previously found by Allan, what I determined is that Adams
is unlikely to be the man in Altgens, based on two things...a slightly
different hairline, and the GREAT DIFFERENCE IN THE SUPRANASAL
RIDGE...that is, the great distance difference between the eyebrows.
That said, the Conein photo is likewise not a perfect match either.
All comparisons of the three photos are clearly not when the men
were the same age. If I were asked in court if the photos showed
a match among any of the three, I would have to say "inconclusive".
It could be "either or neither" of the men in the Altgens pic.
However, this is no court, so I am free to say that the Mainman is
more likely to be Conein for the same reasons that Jim expresses
so well...there seems to be a birdsnest full of CIA agents standing
around that location to see the culmination of their plot. Odds of all
these men (or their DOUBLES) being in this place at this time are
astronomical. The odds of doubles is about the same as the actual
men.
Furthermore, given the nature of covert operations, I am well aware
of the great efforts to cover up loose ends, even in later ops like 911.
Look at this possible scenario:
Forty or so years later, researchers discover Mr. Conein in several
photos and publish this on the ever-monitored internet. The agency
goes into a panic mode and concocts a CYA operation. A near double
is somehow discovered and evidence produced, including a "plaque"
certifying that Mr. Adams was indeed there, even though it took
40 years for his family to come forward with his story. There are
far more complicated faked evidence scenarios than this one. No
scenario can be ruled out.
Adams is safely dead, so cannot tell us. All we have is three or
four photos of him from a family album, a framed "plaque" which
"certifies" him, and the word of his widow. We have no other
testimonies from children or friends who recognized him or heard
his stories contemporaneously. This is very flimsly evidence. Some
of the Adams photos are not comparable to Mainman (attached).
Whether or not it was Conein becomes almost irrelevant if there
were half a dozen others, as James Richards' studies seem to show.
Jack's not quite right. That someone went to the trouble to fake a plaque and that Eaglesham offered it as proof that Mainman was Adams is highly relevant to figuring out what is going on here, which appears to be the kind of scenario that Jack has described in his post--a hasty, panic-mode and amateurish response. It's very interesting as a challenge to sort out a case that is not very complicated but still intriguing.
James H. Fetzer Wrote:Jack's not quite right. That someone went to the trouble to fake a plaque and that Eaglesham offered it as proof that Mainman was Adams is highly relevant to figuring out what is going on here, which appears to be the kind of scenario that Jack has described in his post--a hasty, panic-mode and amateurish response. It's very interesting as a challenge to sort out a case that is not very complicated but still intriguing.
Jim, we agree on this. I guess I don't write very clearly. I am
very tired tonight, having been out of town most of the day;
I have just returned home a couple of hours ago.
