22-12-2009, 04:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 22-12-2009, 04:23 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
Charles,
No, I think they were there because they wanted to be able to say that they were there for a major event in removing JFK from the presidency.
They thought they had a fool-proof plan: stealing the body, changing the wounds, fabricating films; a designated patsy. They wanted to be there.
No one ever imagined in their wildest dreams that students would pour over this case with a fine-toothed comb, including all these photographs.
The difficulty I am having is finding an alternative explanation that fits the facts of how Allan has handled this otherwise straightforward case.
Allen had posted that Mainman was not Conein even before he had seen any proof. A note sent by Frank Caplett was good enough for him. Why?
When I asked what was going on, Caplett responded with the story about this guy who was supposed to have been given a plaque and all that.
It doesn't take an expert to see this plaque was a fake. So why is somebody faking a plaque to make it look as though Adams was Mainman?
Once I had sent Jack the photos and he had begun producing proofs of their differences, a rational mind would have qualified its position.
That, however, has not been Eaglesham's modus operandi. Instead, he has dug in his position and simply ignored Jack's dispositive proofs.
Maybe others are willing to tolerate this kind of abuse of logic and evidence, but I am not. We are engaged in research on a crucial matter.
Notice that -- to the bitter end -- he is asserting that Adams is a "dead ringer" for Mainman or even for Conein, when that is clearly false.
I don't know what to say. He is either not as competent as we have assumed or he is not as sincere as we all thought. Too bad either way.
This is not a very complicated situation. Conflicts like this are virtually unavoidable. Why is Allan acting so unprofessionally? That's the question.
Jim
![[Image: quote.gif]](http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/buttons/quote.gif)
No, I think they were there because they wanted to be able to say that they were there for a major event in removing JFK from the presidency.
They thought they had a fool-proof plan: stealing the body, changing the wounds, fabricating films; a designated patsy. They wanted to be there.
No one ever imagined in their wildest dreams that students would pour over this case with a fine-toothed comb, including all these photographs.
The difficulty I am having is finding an alternative explanation that fits the facts of how Allan has handled this otherwise straightforward case.
Allen had posted that Mainman was not Conein even before he had seen any proof. A note sent by Frank Caplett was good enough for him. Why?
When I asked what was going on, Caplett responded with the story about this guy who was supposed to have been given a plaque and all that.
It doesn't take an expert to see this plaque was a fake. So why is somebody faking a plaque to make it look as though Adams was Mainman?
Once I had sent Jack the photos and he had begun producing proofs of their differences, a rational mind would have qualified its position.
That, however, has not been Eaglesham's modus operandi. Instead, he has dug in his position and simply ignored Jack's dispositive proofs.
Maybe others are willing to tolerate this kind of abuse of logic and evidence, but I am not. We are engaged in research on a crucial matter.
Notice that -- to the bitter end -- he is asserting that Adams is a "dead ringer" for Mainman or even for Conein, when that is clearly false.
I don't know what to say. He is either not as competent as we have assumed or he is not as sincere as we all thought. Too bad either way.
This is not a very complicated situation. Conflicts like this are virtually unavoidable. Why is Allan acting so unprofessionally? That's the question.
Jim