21-12-2009, 07:09 PM
I want to make a couple of points for the record.
>What Allen is omitting here is that there were several exchanges that took place prior to this, including a very early notice he had posted--perhaps as long as six months or even more ago about this--in which he advised that the photograph on his "Familiar Faces" page who had been identified as Lucien Conein was not.<
-- I don't know what "several exchanges" Dr. Fetzer is referring to.
-- I have already explained the "very early notice" in my post. It was an October 2008 statement on my website, that I had received information from Frank Caplett that the LC look-alike was not Conein. I had no basis for believing or disbelieving what Caplett told me, but I felt obliged, for the sake of full disclosure to interested parties, to share what he had told me. The statement is still there, dated 10/15/08.
-- The LC look-alike in James Altgens's photograph has never been identified as Conein, at least not by me. That website is carefully worded. It would be foolish to identify anyone on the basis of a single photograph. Ms. Schallhorn and I noticed resemblances, which we felt obliged to share with the JFK-research community.
>Jack and I went through several exchanges and he also had direct contact with Allan. Based upon Jack's studies, it became increasingly apparent that the person whom he was now taking to be "Mainman", Robert Adams, was not the one in the photo and the alleged "plaque" was completely fake, a fabrication that was put together in a shoddy fashion, which congratulated him for having been photographed with JFK on Thursday, 23 November 1963.<
-- I have already explained that the "plaque" is a red herring. Dr. Fetzer doth protest too much about the "plaque."
>Between October 12, 2008, and November 24, 2009, however, it was mentioned on the web site, which was the very notice that caught my attention and bothered me. It said nothing about the basis for denying the identification. And I am stunned that he would now reaffirm the the faux identification of Mainman with Adams. Jack has shown that is not the case, precisely as I have elaborated in detail in my posts about this matter on this thread and on "What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today".<
-- Jack is entitled to his opinion. I don't agree with him.
>Not only does Eaglesham omit any reference to the studies by Jack White that undermine or contradict that claim, but he even offers the "newspaper clipping naming Mr. Adams as present in the Altgens picuture"--which, it states, occurred on Thursday, November 23, 1963! What utter rubbish!<
-- The onus is not on me to represent Jack's work. As said, I don't agree with Jack's conclusion.
-- Some covert operation this! They cannot even get the date of the assassination right. Obviously the collage in the picture frame was assembled by someone who knew little about the assassination, probably Mr. Adams himself.
>I couldn't have said it better myself.<
-- Not surprising, since you said it in the first place.
>Let everyone study and learn from this case.<
-- Hear hear.
>What Allen is omitting here is that there were several exchanges that took place prior to this, including a very early notice he had posted--perhaps as long as six months or even more ago about this--in which he advised that the photograph on his "Familiar Faces" page who had been identified as Lucien Conein was not.<
-- I don't know what "several exchanges" Dr. Fetzer is referring to.
-- I have already explained the "very early notice" in my post. It was an October 2008 statement on my website, that I had received information from Frank Caplett that the LC look-alike was not Conein. I had no basis for believing or disbelieving what Caplett told me, but I felt obliged, for the sake of full disclosure to interested parties, to share what he had told me. The statement is still there, dated 10/15/08.
-- The LC look-alike in James Altgens's photograph has never been identified as Conein, at least not by me. That website is carefully worded. It would be foolish to identify anyone on the basis of a single photograph. Ms. Schallhorn and I noticed resemblances, which we felt obliged to share with the JFK-research community.
>Jack and I went through several exchanges and he also had direct contact with Allan. Based upon Jack's studies, it became increasingly apparent that the person whom he was now taking to be "Mainman", Robert Adams, was not the one in the photo and the alleged "plaque" was completely fake, a fabrication that was put together in a shoddy fashion, which congratulated him for having been photographed with JFK on Thursday, 23 November 1963.<
-- I have already explained that the "plaque" is a red herring. Dr. Fetzer doth protest too much about the "plaque."
>Between October 12, 2008, and November 24, 2009, however, it was mentioned on the web site, which was the very notice that caught my attention and bothered me. It said nothing about the basis for denying the identification. And I am stunned that he would now reaffirm the the faux identification of Mainman with Adams. Jack has shown that is not the case, precisely as I have elaborated in detail in my posts about this matter on this thread and on "What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today".<
-- Jack is entitled to his opinion. I don't agree with him.
>Not only does Eaglesham omit any reference to the studies by Jack White that undermine or contradict that claim, but he even offers the "newspaper clipping naming Mr. Adams as present in the Altgens picuture"--which, it states, occurred on Thursday, November 23, 1963! What utter rubbish!<
-- The onus is not on me to represent Jack's work. As said, I don't agree with Jack's conclusion.
-- Some covert operation this! They cannot even get the date of the assassination right. Obviously the collage in the picture frame was assembled by someone who knew little about the assassination, probably Mr. Adams himself.
>I couldn't have said it better myself.<
-- Not surprising, since you said it in the first place.
>Let everyone study and learn from this case.<
-- Hear hear.