21-12-2009, 04:53 AM
Semantics can sometimes interfere with research.
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
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