If the man in the Altgens photograph is Lucien Conein, how do you explain Mrs. Adams telling anyone who asked that it was her husband?
I am sure that you will agree that it is dangerous to identify anyone from a single photograph (especially when it is not sharp). Martha Schallhorn and I used careful terms of reference when writing the original article, and our final was conclusion was:
"Neither do we make solid claims about the identities of the men shown in the pictures in this article. We report for the first time that individuals RESEMBLING Theodore Shackley, David Morales, Gerald Patrick Hemming and Lucien Conein were in Dealey Plaza, in addition to those resembling Joseph Milteer, Eugene Hale Brading and Edward Lansdale. We leave it to the reader to surmise on the implications, or lack thereof, of these observations."[emphasis added]
Why can you not accept that it was simple serendipity that Robert Adams, who worked closed by (and resembled Conein), happened to be caught in that photograph?
Thanks Allan for your praise and praise to Jim Fetzer and Jack White for refusing to cuss me out.
I do not have a whole lot to say except to note that Jim and Jack have not changed their positions. The implications are interesting. I did not know in advance what their response would be. Apparently the testimony of Frank Caplett and Imogene Adams identifying Robert Adams in the photo had no impact. I must infer that the new evidence is worthless (in their opinion). I wonder what would change their opinions? Maybe we could find Conein's widow and ask if that's her husband? Oh, yeah, if she says NO that would be covering up her husband's presence in Dealey Plaza that day. In any event, Jim and Jack adhere to their earlier "Conein enthusiasm," strongly in Jim's case while inconclusive for Jack but leaning toward Conein and against Adams. These positions are based on their personal assessments of the photos and not much else. The testimony of Frank and Imogene carry no weight.
J&J's unwillingness to weaken or reverse their opinions is a little hard to understand so let us tease out further implications. Certainty or even an "odds on" belief that Adams was not in the Altgens photo implies that widow Imogene Adams is wrong about her deceased husband appearing in the 1963 picture. That means she is either mistaken about the whole affair and innocently believes to this day that her husband appeared in the photo or else she lied to me in claiming her husband appeared in the photo. She did not sound confused to me in the least, she was clear and coherent, entirely rational, so I rule that out error or confusion on her part. The widow identified her husband in the treasured newspaper photo in her home, a rather easy thing to believe. What about lying? I would shift the burden at this point to Jim so he can explain what her motive was in concocting this story in 1999 or earlier. Why does she insist it is her husband in the photo? Jim rejects the widow's identification of her husband, confirmed by her recollection of events at the time and "immortalized" in her framed photo with her amateur caption to look like it was from the newspaper, because Jim relies on his superior visual perception and facial identification skills. This seems more a conceit than something in evidence. I doubt Jim's photo analysis and conclusions would prevail in a court of law. After the jury heard from Robert Adams' 86-year-old widow, the professor's opinion would be shredded in cross-examination, no matter how confidently held.
A conspiracy here, a conspiracy there, I see a conspiracy everywhere, oops, not this time, I beg to differ. We have serendipity this time, a coincidence if you will. I interviewed two honest, credible people about the person in the Altgens photo and in this case I'll take their testimony over Jim's and Jack's anytime, not to mention my own photo opinion contrary to theirs.
Finally, Jack, I look forward to your interviews of Frank Caplett and Imogene Adams confirming or rejecting your photo analysis. Isn't outside evidence useful in resolving an inconclusive photo identification? Maybe you can test to see if Imogene makes an error in picking her husband's face out of a photo lineup that includes Lucien Conein!?
I am not a photo-analyst, but Jack is and it was he who noticed the differences that
I have cited. I find those physical difference more imposing that the story that has
been spun here. The newspaper clipping with the wrong date and the wrong day is
simply incredible. Something is very wrong with the story Eaglesham is offering. I
don't see why you want to elevate this to a federal offense. We disagree about the
relative weight of the evidence. I sense a cover-up of Conien's presence that day,
but I don't insist that I could not be wrong. I could be, but I don't think I am. OK?
Jim
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:Thanks Allan for your praise and praise to Jim Fetzer and Jack White for refusing to cuss me out.
I do not have a whole lot to say except to note that Jim and Jack have not changed their positions. The implications are interesting. I did not know in advance what their response would be. Apparently the testimony of Frank Caplett and Imogene Adams identifying Robert Adams in the photo had no impact. I must infer that the new evidence is worthless (in their opinion). I wonder what would change their opinions? Maybe we could find Conein's widow and ask if that's her husband? Oh, yeah, if she says NO that would be covering up her husband's presence in Dealey Plaza that day. In any event, Jim and Jack adhere to their earlier "Conein enthusiasm," strongly in Jim's case while inconclusive for Jack but leaning toward Conein and against Adams. These positions are based on their personal assessments of the photos and not much else. The testimony of Frank and Imogene carry no weight.
J&J's unwillingness to weaken or reverse their opinions is a little hard to understand so let us tease out further implications. Certainty or even an "odds on" belief that Adams was not in the Altgens photo implies that widow Imogene Adams is wrong about her deceased husband appearing in the 1963 picture. That means she is either mistaken about the whole affair and innocently believes to this day that her husband appeared in the photo or else she lied to me in claiming her husband appeared in the photo. She did not sound confused to me in the least, she was clear and coherent, entirely rational, so I rule that out error or confusion on her part. The widow identified her husband in the treasured newspaper photo in her home, a rather easy thing to believe. What about lying? I would shift the burden at this point to Jim so he can explain what her motive was in concocting this story in 1999 or earlier. Why does she insist it is her husband in the photo? Jim rejects the widow's identification of her husband, confirmed by her recollection of events at the time and "immortalized" in her framed photo with her amateur caption to look like it was from the newspaper, because Jim relies on his superior visual perception and facial identification skills. This seems more a conceit than something in evidence. I doubt Jim's photo analysis and conclusions would prevail in a court of law. After the jury heard from Robert Adams' 86-year-old widow, the professor's opinion would be shredded in cross-examination, no matter how confidently held.
A conspiracy here, a conspiracy there, I see a conspiracy everywhere, oops, not this time, I beg to differ. We have serendipity this time, a coincidence if you will. I interviewed two honest, credible people about the person in the Altgens photo and in this case I'll take their testimony over Jim's and Jack's anytime, not to mention my own photo opinion contrary to theirs.
Finally, Jack, I look forward to your interviews of Frank Caplett and Imogene Adams confirming or rejecting your photo analysis. Isn't outside evidence useful in resolving an inconclusive photo identification? Maybe you can test to see if Imogene makes an error in picking her husband's face out of a photo lineup that includes Lucien Conein!?
Again, I ask one and all to consider a third alternative.
Namely: If not in the "Conein" instance, the photographic record may have been altered to indicate the presence of Facilitators -- real and false -- at the scenes of these crimes.
The only Facilitators I know to have been in Dealey Plaza during the attack on JFK are Lyndon Baines Johnson and certain Secret Service agents whose identities I cannot state with equal certitude.
My educated guess is that others likely were present. But (with the exception of those indicated above) I have yet to see a photo that I can accept as containing a genuine image of an assassination Facilitator -- or, for that matter, Sponsor -- on site during and/or immediately pre- or post-shooting.
Jim, not OK, not OK at all. You are not being responsive to my challenges. Is Ms. Adams lying in your opinion? If so, please explain why. I want you on record calling her out, which you have not been brave enough to do thus far. Or are you calling me a liar? I really, really want to know about that.
The newspaper story, including the homemade caption from the print shop, is "incredible"? Why do you say that? Incredible? Really? It's all a "story that has been spun here"? By me? I'm the "spinner"? It is far from incredible, very ordinary really. Are you claiming Allan and I are just "spinning" stories? Despite your many contributions to knowledge about conspiracy theory and "inside jobs," perhaps you have been too deep into conspiracy theory for too long and have taken leave of your senses, I don't know. I do know you are not exercising good judgment in this instance.
Ms. Adams claims her husband was at an historic event and happened to be a person in a famous newspaper photo from that event. What is incredible about that? Do you claim Ms. Adams is lying about her trip to the printer to memorialize her husband's appearance at Dealey Plaza with a caption? On behalf of what cause? Are you claiming that her framed photo and testimony are inauthentic (faked) evidence--based on what? Of course you are declaring the framed photo and her testimony are false, intentionally. You know so much about the features of Mr. Adams and Conein that you declare Conein the authentic person in the photo, not Mr. Adams, and we are supposed to bow to your authority and that of Jack White? You never met either man, Ms. Adams knew Mr. Adams rather well. You say you have a strong impression of "physical difference (sic) more imposing that (sic) the story that has been spun here." I've spun a story? Is that your claim? A false story? You are tossing out accusations about the veracity of Ms. Adams or me or both without being explicit. Be a man and tell me whether I am the liar or Ms. Adams or both. And neither you nor Jack apparently intend to talk to the woman to gather more information and assess her veracity. In this case, I find your investigative methods woeful.
30-01-2011, 07:13 AM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2011, 08:36 AM by Jack White.)
Allan Eaglesham Wrote:Jack:
If the man in the Altgens photograph is Lucien Conein, how do you explain Mrs. Adams telling anyone who asked that it was her husband?
I am sure that you will agree that it is dangerous to identify anyone from a single photograph (especially when it is not sharp). Martha Schallhorn and I used careful terms of reference when writing the original article, and our final was conclusion was:
"Neither do we make solid claims about the identities of the men shown in the pictures in this article. We report for the first time that individuals RESEMBLING Theodore Shackley, David Morales, Gerald Patrick Hemming and Lucien Conein were in Dealey Plaza, in addition to those resembling Joseph Milteer, Eugene Hale Brading and Edward Lansdale. We leave it to the reader to surmise on the implications, or lack thereof, of these observations."[emphasis added]
Why can you not accept that it was simple serendipity that Robert Adams, who worked closed by (and resembled Conein), happened to be caught in that photograph?
Allan
Based strictly on the photos you supplied, I still say that a comparison
between the man on Main and those photos is inconclusive. All photos
of Adams except one show him to have very wide-set eyes and eyebrows,
not present in the Altgens man. On that basis I cannot identify the man
in Altgens as being Adams. Adams also had a very broad nose. Also,
we do not know the years of most of the photos, and their quality is poor.
Alternatively, it is also inconclusive that the man in Altgens 4 may be
Conein. My opinion is that based on the photos we have to work with, the
likelihood of it being Adams is less than it being Conein.
My opinion is based ONLY on the photos. Other considerations like the
framed clipping are useless as evidence, having been "discovered" 40
years after the event. More acceptable would be a child who said,
WHEN DAD CAME HOME ON NOVEMBER 22, HERE IS WHAT HE TOLD US,
and this information has not changed in 40 years.
Serendipity is not admissible as evidence without authentication.
Jack
Addendum: Look at ALL of these photos of Adams...especially the eyes
and nose. Tell us whether you can identify the man on Main from them
with certainty. I say it is inconclusive.
30-01-2011, 07:31 AM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2011, 08:52 AM by Jack White.)
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:Jim Fetzer remains adamant that the Altgens photo in question shows CIA spook Lucien Conein rather than Robert H. Adams, the person Allan Eaglesham and I believe is pictured.
To help resolve this controversy, I called Frank Caplett, special ed teacher, the man who contacted Allan a few years ago with new information that convinced Allan the photo shows Adams, not Conein, whereupon Allan changed his "familiar faces" website identification from Conein to Adams. I hit if off with Frank in our conversation of nearly two weeks ago, partly because we both are Green Bay Packer fans with our respective Wisconsin connections, and I found him completely convincing. He supplied me with the photos he had of Adams and explained that in 1999 he embarked on an auto trip on Memorial Day weekend with Edith Ellis, a teaching colleague, and they stopped in Dallas to visit Edith's aunt, Imogene Adams, as part of their Texas itinerary. Frank recognized the famed, framed photo (not "plaque" as he initially mislabeled it) with "newspaper" caption on a wall in Imogene's house. Since Frank was a lifelong JFK assassination buff, he was excited at this discovery but waited to learn more while Edith and Imogene enjoyed their visit. In response to Frank's eventual question, widow Imogene replied, "Yes, that's my husband." After many years of marriage, Robert H. Adams died of lung cancer and Imogene never remarried. She is a retired nurse, 86 years old. She added, "His friends called him the next morning when they saw his picture in the paper."
Nine years later Frank happened to see Allan's website and contacted him about the mistaken identification of Conein for Adams, an innocent spectator on the day of the assassination who was on his lunch break from his postal job at the facility nearby. Convinced by the photos and story from Frank, Allan changed his website to account for the new information. So this account depends upon two "serendipity" events: 1) Frank's visit to Imogene Adams' home and unplanned discovery of the framed photo, and 2) discovery of Allan Eaglesham's website nine years later and motivation to initiate a correction of what he believed was a mistaken identification.
Yesterday I called Imogene Adams to hear what she had to say. She lives a few blocks from Love Field and is listed in the Dallas white pages, address and all. Initially she was suspicious about who I was and why I was calling. As the conversation rolled on, she relaxed. She confirmed the visit by Edith and Frank over a decade earlier and I asked if the framed photo with caption was on a wall in her house: "Yes, it was." What about the "newspaper" caption? She said it was a corrected caption to "mention my husband." So you made the caption? "Yes." What about the wrong day and date? "I did have the wrong date." Did you make the caption yourself? "I took it to a print shop and they made it for me." So this was a matter of family pride that your husband was in a famous newspaper photo at an historic event, the assassination of president Kennedy? "Yes."
Conclusion? It is Robert Adams in the Altgens photo by all common sense standards. I find Imogene Adams the most improbable conspiracist/Langley contract agent I can imagine.
I like Jim Fetzer and Jack White but must point out they are both "invested" if only mildly in the Conein picture misinterpretation. Perhaps an eagerness to prove CIA presence at the event has clouded their judgment and driven them to endorse a far-fetched conspiracy theory involving Imogene Adams. Such speculation aside, we find that on p. 65 of "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" edited by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., in an article authored by Jack White, ""Mysteries of the JFK Assassination: The Photographic Evidence from A to Z," pp. 45-112, the following:
"Lou Conein was famed for his CIA exploits in Southeast Asia...Prouty claimed that the JFK assassination had all the complex marks of being an operation planned by Conein. Records exist that Conein was in Fort Worth on 21 November. Prouty claimed that Conein was in Dealey Plaza the next day to see his plan in action.
It appears that Prouty was right. The Altgens photo above shows at the corner of Main and Houston a man who is the spitting image of Conein. He was not the only operative there to see the plan carried out."
White also mentions Conein in a boxed "W is for Whodunnit?...coup command" on p. 108 with eight individuals plus the CIA, etc.: Dulles at the top, then Johnson, Nixon and Hoover on the next line, then Phillips, Hunt, Lansdale and Conein. Mentioning Conein as a suspected perp is warranted but we can no longer rely on the Altgens photo for support.
Fetzer writes:
On The Deep Politics Forum, for example, I pursued the identification of Lucien Conein in comparison with an alternative, Robert Adams, whose credentials were bolstered by means of a faux plaque <http://www.deeppoliticsrforum.com/forums...-2191.html> given to him for appearing in a photograph in Dealey Plaza. Not only did a comparison by Jack White establish a closer degree of resemblance to Conein than to Richards, but the plaque includes a news clipping congratulating him for appearing in this image taken on "Thursday, 23 November 1963"! The weight of the evidence shifts perceptibly when you discover that the arguments for one candidate are shoddy, while those for the other are not. CIA documents proving that Conein was not in town at the time to provide an alibi are easy to produce. And the same is true for other ops working for the government. http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/10/...or_22.html
And:
At about 1.5 hours into my presentation, a series of slides [attached: link here <http://religionandmorality.net/multimedi...Slides.ppt> ] was missed, where I explained that a controversy has arisen over the identification of a man in Dealey Plaza who has been IDed as Lucien Conein, a notorious assassin for the CIA. Allan Eaglesham <http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2009/02/...ation.html> , who has done good work on "Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza <http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm> ", had posted a notice that this person was not Conein but a local resident named Robert Adams, who allegedly had been presented with a plaque for having been in the photograph. Jack White <http://www.jfkstudies.org/> and I found this puzzling, so I asked him to study the images of these persons so see what he could determine. The facial features of Adams and the man were quite different, where Adams has a long face, a long chin, and his left ear top-in. Conein and the man, by contrast, both have a square face, short chin, and left ear top-out. He established further differences, including that the Adams supranasal ridge is twice as wide as that of the man and of Conein. The plaque turned out to be an obvious fake, which shows that promoting misinformation on JFK is alive and well to this day! http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html
And http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=16811
If Jim and Jack want to pursue this further, I suggest that Jack call Imogene Adams for a personal interview since he is less than an hour by auto from her house. Frank Caplett also lives in the DFW area east of Mesquite, so he would be easy to interview face-to-face.
The irony of all this to me is that CIA guy Hemmings IMO is in the background in the same picture yet goes overlooked. Of all the "familiar faces" photos in Dealey Plaza that morning, Hemmings is the "ringer" I would be most comfortable to ID as CIA before a jury of disinterested citizens, but that is another debate.
Thanks, Morgan, for the excellent work. I can find no fault with
your investigation.
However, as I have pointed out frequently, I find the photo matches
of the man to both Adams and Conein to be INCONCLUSIVE based
on photos alone. To me it remains a minor mystery WHICH HAS
LITTLE BEARING ON WHETHER CONEIN PARTICIPATED IN THE EVENT.
I point out that my Duluth presentation which you quote was done
many years ago and was based on the ID of the man by Eaglesham,
long before Adams ever surfaced. I have forgotten the other researcher
who found registration at a Fort Worth hotel for Conein on November 21.
I also strongly am influenced by Fletcher Prouty, who said Conein was
involved. Therefore, it is IRRELEVANT whether the Altgens photo
shows Conein or not. It would be IMPORTANT if it did, but I repeat,
neither Conein nor Adams can be positively identified by available photos.
This is much like the Altgens MAN IN THE DOORWAY issue, whether
Oswald or Lovelady. If it was Lovelady, it is irrelevant. If it was Oswald
it is important. Likewise, if the man on Main is Adams, it is irrelevant;
if it is Conein, it is important.
Charles Drago Wrote:Again, I ask one and all to consider a third alternative.
Namely: If not in the "Conein" instance, the photographic record may have been altered to indicate the presence of Facilitators -- real and false -- at the scenes of these crimes.
The only Facilitators I know to have been in Dealey Plaza during the attack on JFK are Lyndon Baines Johnson and certain Secret Service agents whose identities I cannot state with equal certitude.
My educated guess is that others likely were present. But (with the exception of those indicated above) I have yet to see a photo that I can accept as containing a genuine image of an assassination Facilitator -- or, for that matter, Sponsor -- on site during and/or immediately pre- or post-shooting.
Thanks, Charles, for again bringing up the overwhelming likelihood
that MANY photos of DP activities are PROVABLY ALTERED. It may
even be possible, as you say, that photos were altered to insert
doppelgangers of various persons into pictures for reasons we can
only guess at. Many doubt the possibility of such altered photos...
BUT SUCH ALTERATIONS HAVE BEEN PROVED OVER AND OVER. Why
should this one photo be an exception? It is even doubtful, based on
facts and Altgens' testimony, that he made exposures 5, 7 and 8.
I say this issue remains a mystery, and that it is not as cut and
dried as some think.
Jack White Wrote:This is much like the Altgens MAN IN THE DOORWAY issue, whether Oswald or Lovelady. If it was Lovelady, it is irrelevant. If it was Oswald it is important.
Thanks.
Jack
The Lovelady/LHO figure bothers me, Jack. A lot.
It's all about the shirt -- right down to the manner in which it is half-buttoned. Perhaps you can create a side-by-side of the figure on the steps and LHO wearing the half-buttoned shirt in which he was arrested.
In terms of the timing of the first open publication of the Lovelady/LHO Altgens image: Would there have been sufficient time to alter it to show the controversial figure?
In terms of the shirt itself: Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the official story have LHO changing his shirt when he got back to the rooming house?
You get what I'm driving at. Is my doppelganger/shirt hypothesis fatally flawed by matters related to timing?
If you would look at the best version of the Altgens "Conein" and comment:
The forehead seems very high. And there is an odd horizontal line (shades of the equator at Backyard Photo man's chinny chin chin!) immediately beneath the widow's peak and extending across the image.
Is the latter a printing/re-printing artifact?
Do you see any indications that the Altgens "Conein" face is a two- or three-part composite?
