Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza

[Jack White]

Jim addresses many relevant points with which I agree. As I have
said repeatedly, things are not always what they are purported to
be. Certain parties in the plot had the expertise to create confusion
and false trails. VERY INTERESTINGLY, FOUR "ALTGENS" PHOTOS
HAVE SUCH OBFUSCATION. Totally uninvestigated was JUST WHO
IKE ALTGENS WAS.

Jack

All,

My position remains unchanged: it appears to me to be Conein in
the photo and not Adams. I respect others for having a different
point of view. I do not question the integrity of Morgan, whom I
greatly admire. I have no interest in Mrs. Adams, who was not in
Dealey Plaza and really does not know whether Robert was there.

What we do know is that the story that Robert was there has been
supported on the basis of a "plaque" of newspaper clippings, some
of which are fabricated. The most important section is one that we
are told that she (Imogene) had printed up. But it has the wrong
day of the week (Thursday) and the wrong date (23 November).

Jack has posted its image in post #146. So that is a matter about
which there is no doubt. How can anyone in their wildest dreams
imagine that a newspaper clipping about a man having been there
on Friday, 22 November 1963, among the most infamous dates in
American history, would have it wrong? What that means is there
is fraud in the evidence offered for Adams as the man in the photo.

I can't believe that that does not function as a stunning "red flag"
that something is terribly wrong with this story. I don't care how
clever a story about its serendipitous discovery Eaglesham wants
to spin. THIS MEANS WE ARE BEING SOLD A PHONY ACCOUNT. If
someone like Morgan wants to buy into this, that's his prerogative.
But it is absurd for him to take me to task for not accepting it, too.

When we look at the photographic evidence, the comparison does
not support the claim that the Conein-image is actually Adams. As
Jack has repeatedly explained, while he believes the comparison is
"inconclusive", if he were forced to choose one or the other as the
man in the photo, then he would choose Conein for three reasons:

1. distance between eyebrows
2. distance between eyes
3. oval face compared to square face

The first three of the four images that are supposed to be Adams,
in Jack's opinion, are inconsistent with the Conein-image, where it
is only the fourth that causes him concern. Interestingly, I believe
that Charles has the right idea here, because the fourth looks to me
to be a composite of Adams with the Conein-image eyes and brows.

The CIA does these kinds of things all the time. It is child's play.
And the arrogance of the agency is such that it believes that it can
peddle any story to anyone by making enough "adjustments" to the
background and context of the fraud it wants to perpetrate. I have
no doubt at all that Adams is not the man in the photo and that we
are being sold a bill of goods with a phony plaque and a fake photo.

Who knows about Imogene? Maybe she sincerely believes what she
is saying. The fact remains that, if her story were true, it is beyond
belief that the clipping would have a wrong date and the wrong day.
This whole thing smacks of being staged to me. If any of you want
to buy a fraudulent story supporting a false claim of the identity of
Adams with the Conein-image, be my guest. But do not fault me for
rejecting a story that is ridiculous on its face. The situation is absurd.

Jack:

If the man in the Altgens photograph is Lucien Conein, how do you explain Mrs. Adams telling anyone who asked that it was her husband?

I am sure that you will agree that it is dangerous to identify anyone from a single photograph (especially when it is not sharp). Martha Schallhorn and I used careful terms of reference when writing the original article, and our final was conclusion was:

"Neither do we make solid claims about the identities of the men shown in the pictures in this article. We report for the first time that individuals RESEMBLING Theodore Shackley, David Morales, Gerald Patrick Hemming and Lucien Conein were in Dealey Plaza, in addition to those resembling Joseph Milteer, Eugene Hale Brading and Edward Lansdale. We leave it to the reader to surmise on the implications, or lack thereof, of these observations."[emphasis added]



Why can you not accept that it was simple serendipity that Robert Adams, who worked closed by (and resembled Conein), happened to be caught in that photograph?


Allan

Based strictly on the photos you supplied, I still say that a comparison
between the man on Main and those photos is inconclusive. All photos
of Adams except one show him to have very wide-set eyes and eyebrows,
not present in the Altgens man. On that basis I cannot identify the man
in Altgens as being Adams. Adams also had a very broad nose. Also,
we do not know the years of most of the photos, and their quality is poor.

Alternatively, it is also inconclusive that the man in Altgens 4 may be
Conein. My opinion is that based on the photos we have to work with, the
likelihood of it being Adams is less than it being Conein.

My opinion is based ONLY on the photos. Other considerations like the
framed clipping are useless as evidence, having been "discovered" 40
years after the event. More acceptable would be a child who said,
WHEN DAD CAME HOME ON NOVEMBER 22, HERE IS WHAT HE TOLD US,
and this information has not changed in 40 years.

Serendipity is not admissible as evidence without authentication.

Jack

Addendum: Look at ALL of these photos of Adams...especially the eyes
and nose. Tell us whether you can identify the man on Main from them
with certainty. I say it is inconclusive.