21-12-2009, 03:39 PM
Here is the situation from my point of view.
About three years ago, I received an email from the man who calls himself “Treefrog” saying that he had been informed that the Lucien Conein look-alike at the corner of Main and Houston was not Conein. Treefrog did not provide the source of his information but did provide contact information—the address of a woman in Dallas who could provide the identity of the man in question. I wrote to this woman, explaining the situation carefully and enclosing a self-addressed stamped envelope to facilitate a reply.
The woman failed to respond. I did not think that this hearsay information warranted mention on the website (http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP/).
In October of 2008, I was contacted by email by a Frank Caplett, who, it became clear, was the man who had contacted Treefrog. I immediately put the bare bones of Mr. Caplett’s story on the website, and sent another letter—again with SASE, etc.—to the lady in question. Again, she failed to respond.
A few weeks ago, I was contacted again by Mr. Caplett. He seemed irritated that, in the absence of a response from the lady in Dallas, I had not accepted his word that “this guy is in no way, form or fashion Conein.”
Mr. Caplett soon contacted me again, saying that he planned to attend the 2009 COPA meeting in Dallas and that he would contact the lady and ask if he could visit again and take a photograph of what he called “a plaque” on the wall which provides proof that the man in question was the woman’s late husband.
Allow me to emphasize here that the term “plaque” was Mr. Caplett’s, not mine.
Soon after the COPA meeting Mr Caplett sent me about a dozen photographs of photographs he had taken during a pleasant visit with the widow of the gentleman captured in the Altgens photograph. Caplett’s use of the official-sounding word “plaque” was unfortunate. In fact, he was referring to a picture frame in which newspaper clippings had been placed, including the Altgens photograph, as a memento of Mr. Adams’s presence in Dealey Plaza.
I believe that Mr. Caplett sent the photographs also to Jim Fetzer, who sent them to Jack White. Soon after my modification of the website, I received this from Fetzer:
Allan,
For a sophisticated guy, I am shocked by your naivety in a matter of this magnitude. Occam's Razor only applies to alternative theories when they are capable of accounting for the available, relevant evidence. The idea of a plaque for appearing in a photograph would be absurd--except for the purpose of attempting to obfuscate the identification of a "bystander" who was caught in a photo, when he should never have allowed himself to be so conspicuous! A lucky photo of a CIA op had to be obscured. That you in your position with your knowledge of the case should allow yourself to be played for a sucker causes me profound concern. Jack has it exactly right and has offered a far superior argument. My confidence in you is shaken.
Sorry about that. We are interested in the truth, not phony obfuscation.
Jim
The sentence, “We are interested in the truth, not phony obfuscation.” was beyond the pale. I decided not to grace such rudeness with a response. I’ve had no interaction with Fetzer on this issue, but I did have several civil exchanges with Jack White on another forum.
I pay for my website and I am responsible for its content. Its purpose is to impart accurate information and let the chips fall where they may. Anyone who has followed my work on the Pitzer matter will understand that I have changed opinion before as new information has unfolded. My objective is not to uncover conspiracy, but to find facts. My co-author Martha Schallhorn agrees with the addendum posted on the website, that the Conein look-alike is not Conein. Given the totality of the information available, we are happy with this conclusion.
It's your prerogative to disagree with our opinion.