Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza

[Bernice Moore]

Bernice, Allan Eaglesham has to know better. Jack has proven that Mainman and Adams have very different facial features and the "plaque" he continues to cite--now in the form of an alleged newspaper article--is clearly fake and even reports the wrong date (of Thursday, 23 November 1963)! Eaglesham was posting that the Conein-look-alike was not Conein BEFORE he had conducted an investigation of Adams. Adams is not Mainman. So as a matter of rationality of belief--of believing what is reasonable, given the available evidence--Eaglesham knows better. That much is entirely obvious.

There is a second kind of rationality, however, which is known as rationality of action. That entails adopting methods or means that are appropriate to attaining your objectives and goals. It can be rational in the sense of rationality of action to feign a belief even when you know it is false, if your goal is to appear to be believe it because that advances your aims. The only aim that makes any sense of this abuse of reason is that of concealing or obfuscating the evidence we have that Lucien Conein was in Dealey Plaza during the JFK assassination, alas! There seems to be no reasonable alternative explanation.

I have not been for a bit to the forum and have much to catch on..i have been busy within the horne studies war going on at the e.f..but i will speak freely and clearly..i am amazed and it is sad to find that this arguing has and is still continuing on..imo...it is true that ctrs are their own worst enemies when they dare to disagree with each other there is no forgiveness for anothers opinion it appears..i for one am very sad to see this going on so long and continuing...sincerely bernice..please excuse the caps..thankyou..

The issue of Mainman is being argued with more passion by all
than is necessary. IMO, Adams "resembles" Mainman, but without
further proof, is unlikely to be him. Mainman also has an
uncanny resemblance to Conein, but without further proof his
identification is not certain. IF Conein was a plotter, it is reasonable
to assume he has more reason to be there than Adams.

If asked to assign a probabllity, I would say:
Adams...20%
Conein...80%

Jack

PS: I think the plaque is a non-issue. It looks too "home-made"
to be evidentiary.

Hi JACK YOU ARE VERY SENSIBLE AND USING COMMON SENSE HERE IMO...THANK YOU...MAY I ASK YOU AS A THIRD PARTY NOT TO PUT YOU ON A SPOT BUT FROM WHAT I RECALL IN MY STUDIES ABOUT THIS AREA CONEIN ETC..IS THERE OR WHAT POSITIVE PROOF IS THERE THAT IS WAS CONEIN, FROM WHAT I RECALL HIS PRESENCE WAS BASED ON WHAT SOME THOUGHT WHO WERE VERY QUALIFIED LIKE COL PROUTY...WHO KNEW HIM OR OF HIM AND OTHERS THAT SIMPLY THOUGHT THEY BELIEVED IT WAS HIM FROM THE RESEMBLANCE IN THE PHOTO AND BY PHOTO COMPARISONS...YOU ARE CORRECT I DO BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE MORE LIKELY FOR SOMONE WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THE PLANNING OF TO BE THERE DURING THE ASSASSINATION, ON THE OTHER HAND AS DR.JIM HAS SUGGESTED AND THAT AGAIN IS MY OPINION ON WHAT IS BEING SAID..AND HAS BEEN...EXCUSE ME NOT BE BE ARGUMENTATIVE DR.JIM BUT...THERE IS NOT A PRAYER IN HELL THAT ALLAN EAGLESHAM IS A DISINFO OR IS INVOLVED IN ANY SUCH PLAN..I KNOW THIS MAN HAVING WORKED WITH HIM FOR A FEW YEARS NOW AND THAT SUGGESTION IS WAY OUT THERE IMO..THANK YOU BOTH...TAKE CARE BEST B..SORRY CAPS THIS TIME OF NIGHT THAT'S ABOUT ALL I CAN DO WITHY MY HANDS IT IS MUCH EASIER..TA..B:banghead: