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

[Bernice Moore]

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: