"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today"

[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.