Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza

[Jack White]

Jack, I assure you that I never said or implied that "AGING CAUSES THE EYEBROWS TO MOVE CLOSER TOGETHER." Further, I've dismissed the "distance between eyebrows" part of your analysis because distance between eyebrows in the (anchor) DP photo cannot be reliably discerned.

What I say is that the photo of the older Adams, as in photo 4, is a ringer for the DP man, an absolute ringer. You don't deny that, do you? And I agree with Allan that Adams photo 4 is not the same Adams as in photo 2 by your reasoning! Now that's pretty crazy IMO. You might dismiss it as a debating tactic but it illustrates a weakness in photo ID when age differences really matter. At least we agree that age can make a big difference in photo analysis. That's why comparison of photo 4 vs. DP photo is so important, far more important than photo 2 vs. DP photo, namely, it removes most if not all of photo identification error due to a substantial age difference. That's a nice scientific advantage. It means trying to take age issues out of the ID problem, trying to narrow the problem and get closer to an "all else equal" comparison.

On squinting, I have no quarrel with your observation that squinting causes vertical wrinkles, as I said before, though it also causes a transverse furrow to form or deepen in my case too. I agree squinting is not the primary explanation for the man's facial expression in the DP photo.

Yes, I see you put the vertical furrow to good use in the Montoya/Frenchy ID case but that adds little to the present debate. As they admonish us in the investment world, past performance is no guarantee of future results. Well, that's a little too harsh. I love a worthy opponent like Jack, especially since we agree on so many other things!

I disagree that Morgan is my OPPONENT. We are on the same side.

However, I admit to having much greater information and study of
photo fakery than Morgan does, as well as comparison of one photo
against another. I have also studied JFK PHOTOGRAPHY to a much
greater extent than he has for many more years.

We do know that the JFK case is literally overflowing with FAKED
PHOTOS, particularly related to Oswald or images in Dealey Plaza.
I can PROVE that sophisticated tampering of images was done to
literally dozens of photos, so why should an "alleged Altgens photo"
showing lookalikes on the corner of Main and Houston be any
DIFFERENT from the others. It makes no difference who the lookalikes
are...UNLESS they are genuine instead of lookalikes.

In fact, I find ALL photos attributed to "Altgens" to be suspicious
after in-depth study.

One trouble is that the average layman (as opposed to a photo
professional) is FAR TOO TRUSTING of photographs. I refer Morgan
and all to pages 4 and 5 of PHOTO FAKERY by Dino Brugioni, former
head of the CIA's NPIC. People are far too trusting of the myths,
"photos never lie" or "a picture is worth a thousand words"...and
that is why fake photos are one of the most important tools of
covert operations.

The ONLY "evidence" tying LHO to the MC rifle is the "backyard
photos"...and they are provable fakes. The ONLY evidence that
the limo did not stop are Zapruder and other films.

I believe we can add Altgens to the list of "controlled" photos
for various reasons. Anyone who "accepts a photo as genuine
without documented provenance" is naive and gullible, just as
the CIA expects. Depending additionally on information which
surfaces 40 years later adds nothing to credibility. Introducing
the sympathy factor (would a little old widow lie?) adds nothing.
Sincere people can be duped an/or pass along false information
as well as liars.

Opponents? No. Just looking at ALL information available.

Jack