Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza

[Allan Eaglesham]

My, Morgan...so much indignation over such a trifle. If Mr. and Mrs. Adams
are totally truthful and Adams IS the man in the suspicious photo, and even
if Jim and I agree to that, IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the JFK case. All it
does is guarantee that the man is NOT Conein. I have already stated that
comparison of the photos is INCONCLUSIVE. What that means is that it is
not provable from the photo that it is either Adams or Conein. In any event,
I have stated repeatedly that it cannot be proved to be either...so it is a
meaningless distraction. It is NOT important if it is Adams. It is only important
if it can be proved to be Conein. I do not see it as an absurd situation at all;
a spectator who resembles Conein and Adams is seen in a "suspicious" photo.
Researchers disagree over the significance of this image. In any event it does
not change information that Prouty said Conein was in DP, that Conein was
in Fort Worth the previous night, or that this man is standing in the midst of
about five "doppelgangers" or lookalikes for known CIA personnel. I concur with
Prouty that Lansdale and Conein were involved and both in DP.

This is not a "federal case" since nothing has been proved yet, and is not likely
to be proven. I see no reason for anyone to bother Mrs. Adams, since if she
is correct, her information is totally irrelevant. It would be important ONLY if
she said it was not her husband.

Thanks for you interest and comments.

Jack

I agree with Jim on one thing: the situation is absurd. We agree on precious little else on this thread. Yes, I appreciate Jim's public acknowledgement that I am a man of integrity. The analytic importance is that we therefore stipulate that Imogene Adams said what I said she said.

His central problem is that, as professor Fetzer repeatedly emphasizes in other contexts, an explanation must take into account the "totality of the evidence." The totality of the evidence here includes an inconvenient Imogene Adams, an informed witness to the photo, who has identified her husband in the newspaper photo since its release, who tells us her husband's friends called him about it the next day, that she had a caption professionally produced, and admits she got the "date wrong." Jim dismisses Imogene's account with a withering blast of charges:
1. He has "no interest in Mrs. Adams"
2. She was not in Dealey Plaza and "really does not know whether Robert was there"
3. There is "fraud in the evidence"
4. We have a stunning "red flag"
5. "Something is terribly wrong with this story"
6. "Adams is not the man in the photo"
7. We have a "phony plaque and a fake photo"
8. "It is beyond belief that the clipping would have the wrong date and the wrong day"
9. "This whole thing smacks of being staged to me"
10. And we dare not fault him "for rejecting a story that is ridiculous on its face."

Oh my, I do declare. The word "fulmination" comes to mind. Bluster. Huffing and puffing to blow Ms. Adams testimony down.

Doesn't work for me. At all. No interest? Fetzer has no interest, so we must therefore exclude it from the evidence collection about the photo? The totality of the evidence is supposed to exclude key testimony from Adams? Really!? As I accurately surmised earlier, Fetzer, White and Drago find Ms. Adams' tesimony worthless. They provide no contrary testimony from anyone who might have known Adams or Conein. Fetzer is even suggesting that Mr. Adams lived a lie about his whereabouts on November 22, 1963, deceiving his widow for decades. Nice going, Jim. These accomplished researchers "merely" want Imogene's testimony deleted from the evidence record despite their "earnest quest" to identify the figure in the photo. Oh yeah. Jack states it this way: "What I do is analyze photos. I do not conduct field research." I gave him my field research, and such digging may be below his pay grade, but Jack is unwilling or unable to use any of it in his attempt to identify the man in the photo. He is a narrow technician, we are led to believe, a photo purist, at least in this instance.

What justifies the haughty dismissal of Imogene's testimony? Her account would not be worthless in a real investigation since it is unimpeachable (i.e., entirely trustworthy), but it threatens the Fetzerian theory of Conein...er, the man in the picture. So the professor deletes Imogene's testimony from the "totality of the evidence." Neat. Given the choice between her testimony and the contrary opinions of these "top JFK authority figures," I'll take Ms. Adams' testimony every day of the week (buttressed by my personal evaluation of the photos).

Jim almost shouts that the wrong day/date in the caption proves "fraud in the evidence," "something is terribly wrong," etc.

According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[1] In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain.
A hoax also involves deception, but without the intention of gain, or of damaging or depriving the victim; the intention is often humorous.

Ms. Adams has committed no fraud, that is, she committed no crime. Her ready "confession" to her caption shows no shame or criminal intent (I can't believe I have to point out such obvious points to a brilliant professor or even on a DPF forum, but my learned antagonists force it). If Jim prefers he may call the caption a hoax because it is a "deception" meant in teasing fun and a point of family pride "without intention of gain, or of damaging or depriving the victim; the intention is often humorous." Hey Jim, the family enjoyed the picture framed with a "newspaper-like caption," that's all it was and is. It was fun, it was nice. Yet you find this "ridiculous on its face"??? Oh my.

What is the proposed alternative explanation? I don't see one in evidence for our evaluation. Fetzer will not spin out his alternative theory to account for the stipulated fact of Ms. Adams' testimony. It would look too stupid if he did. In other words, we have evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is Mr. Adams in the pic. Since the professor rejects a common-sense, innocent interpretation of the facts that point to Mr. Adams in the photo, he owes us an explicit explanation/theory to account for the facts. You know, "the whole thing is staged," Ms. Adams is MK Ultra, a CIA plaything despite all appearances to the contrary, blah, blah. She's under the control of the "dark side," etc. Go for it. I'd love to begin destroying it, posthaste. It would prove absurd, totally lacking any plausibility, evidence, you name it. You spin out your alternative explanation of the facts Jim, do not confine yourself to banging the table about your beliefs while throwing around shadowy generalizations about the abilities of those 10-foot-tall guys at the CIA and their foresight and thoroughness in planting and controlling framed photos with captions possessed by elderly widows that emerge decades later from a modest Dallas home.

After twenty-one pages and >6,000 viewings, the issue at hand is now a "trifle." It would be important if the evidence corroborated the theory that Conein was on the corner of Houston and Main, but it's "irrelevant" that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't Conein. Yeah, right.

When I wrote to Fletcher Prouty, drawing his attention to the Conein look-alike, he responded: "...I noted this same photo you have found and the likeness between that person and Lou...I'd say that the guy is Conein." Well, now we know that "the guy" was not Conein. I suspect that Col. Prouty would be glad to have this issue tied down. I don't believe he would view it as trifling or irrelevant.