22-12-2009, 04:52 AM
Of course, Col. Prouty did not know that Robert Adams -- a dead ringer for Conein -- was standing at the corner of Houston and Main.
-- Allan Eaglesham
Allan is supposed to be an expert on identification using photographs. Here he commits a Freudian slip by saying that Robert Adams was a "dead ringer" for Lucien Conein, when he had to mean Mainman. His claim, after all, is that the man in the photo is not Conein but Robert Adams. Presumably, he meant to say that Adams was a "dead ringer" for Mainman, not for Conein.
No matter. Jack has proven that the differences between Adams and the man in the photo disqualify Adams from being Mainman. What is his proof? Interestingly, I have posted it not once but twice above. If Eaglesham has actually been reading these posts, he has to know better. And if he has not been reading these posts, then what is he doing here ignoring the evidence?
Jack uploaded six of the slides from my original presentation and then, since there was a seventh, uploaded it as well. I refer to the first six as numbers (1) to (6), where the missing slide -- which he added subsequently -- is number (1.5). You can verify the content of each of these studies by scrolling back to the posts where they were introduced. They are readily accessible here.
In the first, (1) 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, (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 one had been included above, perhaps there would have been decidedly less resistance to my critique of Eaglesham. But Allen seems to have missed it.
In the third, (2), Jack observes that Adams has a long oval face, Mainman is square and Conein slighly triangular; that the hairline peaks do not match, since Adam's peak is an odd shape and does not point to his nose. Conein's peak points to his nose, but he seems to have more hair than 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. Adams has wide flaring nostrils, while Mainman does not.
SUMMARY:
From (1.5), we know 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.
From (2), we learn that he hairline peaks do not match, since Adam's peak is an odd shape and does not point to his nose. Conein's peak points to his nose, but he seems to have more hair than Mainmain. Adams' left ear does not flare out at the top, but Mainman and Conein's left ears flare out.
From (3), also learn 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. Adams has wide flaring nostrils, while 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, Jack has adduced more than enough proof that Adams is not Mainman -- nor Conein, for that matter.
So when Allan Eaglesham asserts that Adams is a "dead ringer" for Mainman (or for Conein, for that matter), either he is ignoring the obvious differences between them (in which case he is incompetent) or he is aware of them but asserting the opposite (in an apparent endeavor to deceive).
His performance on this thread has destroyed any lingering confidence that I may have had in the aftermath of our original disagreement. I appears to me that this man is not incompetent, in which case, if we apply logic to the evidence, it follows that he is engaged in an apparent endeavor to deceive.
-- Allan Eaglesham
Allan is supposed to be an expert on identification using photographs. Here he commits a Freudian slip by saying that Robert Adams was a "dead ringer" for Lucien Conein, when he had to mean Mainman. His claim, after all, is that the man in the photo is not Conein but Robert Adams. Presumably, he meant to say that Adams was a "dead ringer" for Mainman, not for Conein.
No matter. Jack has proven that the differences between Adams and the man in the photo disqualify Adams from being Mainman. What is his proof? Interestingly, I have posted it not once but twice above. If Eaglesham has actually been reading these posts, he has to know better. And if he has not been reading these posts, then what is he doing here ignoring the evidence?
Jack uploaded six of the slides from my original presentation and then, since there was a seventh, uploaded it as well. I refer to the first six as numbers (1) to (6), where the missing slide -- which he added subsequently -- is number (1.5). You can verify the content of each of these studies by scrolling back to the posts where they were introduced. They are readily accessible here.
In the first, (1) 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, (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 one had been included above, perhaps there would have been decidedly less resistance to my critique of Eaglesham. But Allen seems to have missed it.
In the third, (2), Jack observes that Adams has a long oval face, Mainman is square and Conein slighly triangular; that the hairline peaks do not match, since Adam's peak is an odd shape and does not point to his nose. Conein's peak points to his nose, but he seems to have more hair than 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. Adams has wide flaring nostrils, while Mainman does not.
SUMMARY:
From (1.5), we know 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.
From (2), we learn that he hairline peaks do not match, since Adam's peak is an odd shape and does not point to his nose. Conein's peak points to his nose, but he seems to have more hair than Mainmain. Adams' left ear does not flare out at the top, but Mainman and Conein's left ears flare out.
From (3), also learn 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. Adams has wide flaring nostrils, while 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, Jack has adduced more than enough proof that Adams is not Mainman -- nor Conein, for that matter.
So when Allan Eaglesham asserts that Adams is a "dead ringer" for Mainman (or for Conein, for that matter), either he is ignoring the obvious differences between them (in which case he is incompetent) or he is aware of them but asserting the opposite (in an apparent endeavor to deceive).
His performance on this thread has destroyed any lingering confidence that I may have had in the aftermath of our original disagreement. I appears to me that this man is not incompetent, in which case, if we apply logic to the evidence, it follows that he is engaged in an apparent endeavor to deceive.