Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza

[Allan Eaglesham]

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.

The serendipity in this instance is backed by Mrs. Adams's account.

Of course I cannot identify the man on Main from the photographs with certainty. Of course, it's inconclusive. The fact is, the man on Main resembles both Lucien Conein and Robert Adams, but the contextual considerations prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Adams.

[Allan Eaglesham]

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

Did someone insert the a photograph of Lucien Conein to make people think that Robert Adams was there, or did someone insert a picture of Robert Adams to make people think that Lucien Conein was there?

Rod Serling would love this.

[Charles Drago]

Did someone insert the a photograph of Lucien Conein to make people think that Robert Adams was there, or did someone insert a picture of Robert Adams to make people think that Lucien Conein was there?

Rod Serling would love this.

Actually, the objectives were to limit and control the scope of critical thinking about the assassination conspiracy by promoting false either/or choices among unsophisticated observers.

[Allan Eaglesham]

Did someone insert a photograph of Lucien Conein to make people think that Robert Adams was there, or did someone insert a picture of Robert Adams to make people think that Lucien Conein was there?

Rod Serling would love this.

Actually, the objectives were to limit and control the scope of critical thinking about the assassination conspiracy by promoting false either/or choices among unsophisticated observers.

Are unsophisticated observers capable of critical thinking?

Let's limit the discussion to the Conein look-alike. We will get nowhere by introducing generalities about photographic alteration. Again: Did someone insert a photograph of Lucien Conein to make people think that Robert Adams was there, or did someone insert a picture of Robert Adams to make people think that Lucien Conein was there?

[Charles Drago]

Yes.

[Charles Drago]

Did someone insert a photograph of Lucien Conein to make people think that Robert Adams was there, or did someone insert a picture of Robert Adams to make people think that Lucien Conein was there?

Rod Serling would love this.

Actually, the objectives were to limit and control the scope of critical thinking about the assassination conspiracy by promoting false either/or choices among unsophisticated observers.

Are unsophisticated observers capable of critical thinking?

Let's limit the discussion to the Conein look-alike. We will get nowhere by introducing generalities about photographic alteration. Again: Did someone insert a photograph of Lucien Conein to make people think that Robert Adams was there, or did someone insert a picture of Robert Adams to make people think that Lucien Conein was there?

Limiting the discussion is precisely the problem in this and too many other instances of deep political analysis.

We will get EVERYWHERE by raising the issue of photographic alteration here because it represents a classic Third Alternative of the sort that deep political analysts fail to look for and recognize at our collective peril.

I cannot conjure a more dramatically illustrative example of the embrace of a false dichotomy than that revealed in your most recent response above. You may choose to limit your study of the Conein/Adams issue to an A/B choice. That's entirely your business.

But when you urge others studying this case to do so, you are urging them to retard their evolutions as observers of deep political phenomena.

Accordingly, I implore all who read and comment on DPF subjects to reject calls for oversimplification. Yes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

But sometimes it's an exploding cigar. Or no cigar at all.

Or both.

[Allan Eaglesham]

>You may choose to limit your study of the Conein/Adams issue to an A/B choice. That's entirely your business.<

It is NOT entirely my business. It is the issue under discussion on this thread, and has been from the beginning. You may choose to broaden the discussion to the black hole of photographic alteration. That's entirely YOUR business, but it isn't helpful in the least.

[Jack White]

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?

Thanks,

Charles

Charles...thanks for your comments. You are correct about the shirt
being a key issue...it gave the WC tremendous trouble, more than
I can relate in a few sentences from memory. Did he change his
shirt, or did he not? Hamlet would say THAT IS THE QUESTION. It
not only affects the Altgens photo, but the testimony of various
witnesses and other evidence and photos. Years ago I did many
studies of the MAN IN THE DOORWAY issue, and will look to see
whether I still have any. Way back then I reached the conclusion
in Altgens 6 that I have reached regarding Altgens 4...confusing,
irrelevant and INCONCLUSIVE. Was this accidental or planned?

I noticed something just yesterday which set off alarm bells.
Reading Altgens testimony, I noted that he was asked what his
occupation was. Paraphrasing, he said I AM THE OPERATOR OF
THE WIRE PHOTO MACHINE AT THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS.
All these years we have been led to believe that Altgens was
an AP PHOTOGRAPHER! He operated a machine which sent and
received wirephotos! This makes me wonder JUST WHO WAS
IKE ALTGENS? Was he a plant for the occasion of November 22?
His testimony is equally confusing. It is a near certainty that
he did not shoot at least three of the photos attributed to him!
Most of the "Altgens photos" show various suspicious activities.
Did he take ANY photos that day? Or is he like another alleged
photographer, A.Zapruder? Was he a convenient asset to be
used to claim authorship of evidence? Even the double death
of Altgens and wife in bed from "carbon monoxide" is suspicious.

I presume most have read WILDERNESS OF MIRRORS or the works
of Prouty. Both stress the point that covertly planned operations
have BUILT-IN OBFUSCATION to simulate an amusement park maze
of mirrors, where the way out is only an illusion of reflections. Or
as the Apostle Paul said, WE SEE THROUGH A GLASS, DARKLY.

We have four suspicious photos, ALL ATTRIBUTED TO ALTGENS,
the operator of a wire photo machine. Did he take them? I think
not. Were they part of a carefully planned WILDERNESS OF MIRRORS?
I think so.

Jack

[Jack White]

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!?

Morgan...What I do is analyze photos. I do not conduct field research.
Whether or not the "Altgens 4" shows Adams is irrelevant and inconclusive.
IF it is Adams, fine...that rules out it being Conein...BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN
THAT CONEIN WAS NOT THERE!

I believe that ALL photos attributed to Altgens are suspicious. It goes
far beyond the Adams issue. Numerous photos, whether genuine or
faked, seem to show a "gathering of spooks" on the corner of Main and
Houston. Altgens 4 is but one of them.

Jack

[Jack White]

Did someone insert a photograph of Lucien Conein to make people think that Robert Adams was there, or did someone insert a picture of Robert Adams to make people think that Lucien Conein was there?

Rod Serling would love this.

Actually, the objectives were to limit and control the scope of critical thinking about the assassination conspiracy by promoting false either/or choices among unsophisticated observers.

Are unsophisticated observers capable of critical thinking?

Let's limit the discussion to the Conein look-alike. We will get nowhere by introducing generalities about photographic alteration. Again: Did someone insert a photograph of Lucien Conein to make people think that Robert Adams was there, or did someone insert a picture of Robert Adams to make people think that Lucien Conein was there?

Limiting the discussion is precisely the problem in this and too many other instances of deep political analysis.

We will get EVERYWHERE by raising the issue of photographic alteration here because it represents a classic Third Alternative of the sort that deep political analysts fail to look for and recognize at our collective peril.

I cannot conjure a more dramatically illustrative example of the embrace of a false dichotomy than that revealed in your most recent response above. You may choose to limit your study of the Conein/Adams issue to an A/B choice. That's entirely your business.

But when you urge others studying this case to do so, you are urging them to retard their evolutions as observers of deep political phenomena.

Accordingly, I implore all who read and comment on DPF subjects to reject calls for oversimplification. Yes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

But sometimes it's an exploding cigar. Or no cigar at all.

Or both.

Charles, once again you hit the nail on the head! Photo fakery is one
of the keystones of covert operations. If some disbelieve that, they
need to read PHOTO FAKERY, THE HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHIC
DECEPTION AND MANIPULATION by Dino A. Brugioni, founder of the
CIA's photographic Interpretation Center. Chapter One is fittingly
titled PHOTO FAKERY IS EVERYWHERE. I may start a thread on the
book for those ill informed.

Jack