Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza

[James H. Fetzer]

I don't blame Allan Eaglesham for grasping after straws when he has blown his cover, big time! Not only has he advanced a preposterous case for his candidate for Mainman, Adams, who has very different facial features, which are not amenable to change across time (absent plastic surgery), but he has appealed to a fabricated plaque for support! You even cited the article that's the core of the plaque with the wrong date! How dumb is that? Surely, no one who examines this "plaque"--even in the images Jack has posted--could be taken in by this chicanery. Sure, when I make a post, I read it through to see if I said what I intended to say. I typically do that right after I first post it. You are trading in trivia. He does not appear to be standing in the same place as the Conein look-alike. And he does not look like Conein. You are also massively ignorant of the basics of publishing journals or books. I am not infallible. I invite the best students I know to make contributions, typically on subjects where they know more about their topics than do I. Consistency across multiple authors on complex subjects like this--unless I had some impeccable source to guide me--is completely unrealistic, about on a par with your identification of Adams as Mainman! I must say, Allan Eaglesham, this is the most blatant scam I have witnessed in JFK research since I got serious about it in 1992. You are making yourself look completely ridiculous. I know that photo is the third of the three on the far left, which I suspect you were introducing in order to lay the groundwork for this fantasy scenario. I will clean it up bye and bye, but you are the source and the problem here, not my use of a triple-image photo that you may have created yourself. And, to illustrate how ignorant you are about publishing, I edited a special double-issue of SYNTHESE, a famous journal for philosophy of science, epistemology and methodology, on probabilistic explanations. To my astonishment, the contributors--all very competent and well-known in the field--each offered very different theories about that (relatively narrowly defined) subject. They could not all have been true together, yet I thereby displayed the full range of thought on the subject. I don't censor my contributors and you are really out of your depth in all of this--including, especially, your farcical defense of Mainman as Adams! If you can't do better than that, you have no business in JFK research. You have completely discredited yourself, I am sorry to say, and I previously had no serious doubts about you, even featuring you as a guest on "The Real Deal", where I would no longer consider doing that after you have displayed your utter incompetence or complete corruption. Those are the only choices. It's not even a close call. You should hide in shame.

Not only has he ignored decisive indications that Mainman and Adams are not the same person -- based upon comparisons of physical features of their faces, which are not amenable to change (absent plastic surgery) -- he cannot even distinguish between Jack White's contributions to one of my books and my own! I had not expected this level of incompetence from Allan Eaglesham, who in my opinion has blown his cover with this absurd claim to have shown that Adams is Mainman, which Jack has demonstrated to be untrue. And he still cites this absurd "plaque", which is a cut-and-past job that doesn't even have the right date! Ask yourself, who ever heard of anyone receiving a plaque for being in a photograph? That is about as ridiculous as it gets. And the plaque is an obvious forgery. I will state this categorically: one of us is a complete and total fraud! I leave it to the members of this forum to sort out the real deal from the photo faker.

Dr. Fetzer, your name is on the cover of The Great Zapruder Film Hoax as the editor. You take credit for the book therefore you bear at least some responsibility for its contents. If you advised Jack to delete the offending words and he chose not to, I expect you will appraise us accordingly.

I clarified some time back on this forum that the term "plaque" was Frank Caplett's, not mine. You have Frank's email address if you wish to verify this. The "plaque" is a red herring. Why do you say that I still cite the (absurd) "plaque?" When and where did I last cite it? You keep bringing it up, not I.

I see that you edited your previous post, removing reference to my showing a photograph of Mr. Adams on the grass in Dealey Plaza, with your suggestion that it might not have been taken in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. I hope that some alert members of this forum saw that post.

Do you really think that I am so desperate as to post a photograph of Mr. Adams from a distance and pretend that it was taken in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 when it wasn't? My God!

There is a delicious irony here, folks. The act is, Dr. Fetzer failed to recognize a photograph that he has used in his own work. See the attached file.

To suggest that one us has to be a "complete and total fraud" is a sad, straw-man argument. I think that the members of this forum have more sense than to be influenced by such word games. No: one of us is being well balanced and reasonable and the other not.