05-02-2011, 05:23 PM
Jack, do you maintain that the DP photo in question has been manipulated and the image of the man pictured, in particular, is phony? If so, why so?
Whatever the origin of the photo may be, don't you agree Adams (photo 4) is a ringer for the DP image? I'm still not clear on your answer here. I gather that if you had to concede that it is a ringer, you would then dismiss the compelling resemblance as faked.
Of course, we do not know beyond reasonable doubt the provenance, proof of non-manipulation, chain of custody and related matters necessary for admission of the DP photo as evidence into a court of law. However, a layman like me looks to you and other experts to document the case for fakery in this DP photo if that is your contention now. I'm the intelligent layman you must convince, I'm all ears.
If you have evidence for fakery, that would materially alter the discussion. Some of that has been addressed already, for example, if spooks were attempting to conceal Conein's image in the pic, why did they substitute the image of such a "brotherly" visage? Because they were trying to stir up confusion and trouble decades later among JFK buffs? From the grave? With a CIA-framed newspaper photo and Imogene-admitted phony and mistaken newspaper caption on a wall of her home discovered decades later by a school teacher?![[Image: point%20laugh.gif]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/smilies/point%20laugh.gif)
I'm glad you're willing to look at "ALL information" because that includes Imogene Adams' testimony, that of Frank Caplett and the Adams' family photos. Introducing those as evidence is not about the sympathy factor, it's about the credibility factor, the addition of new, credible evidence. That evidence changed Allan's mind about the likelihood of the photo showing Conein at DP, thereby challenging the enunciated opinions of some JFK assassination researchers. The new testimony backed by photo "documents" are unimpeachable = entirely trustworthy. Or call such testimony merely hard to top, very hard, I don't care, but I'd like to see the attempt to impeach it, something beyond dismissal or ridicule.
Bottomline: The conclusion that Adams was at the DP and happened to be a bystander captured in the image explains the DP image extremely well, thank you very much. This explanation accounts for the totality of the evidence. No other thesis presented even attempts to do this. It's not just about a few pictures, Jack. All together, three cheers for "ALL information," hip hip hooray... I'm glad we agree. I so stipulate.
Whatever the origin of the photo may be, don't you agree Adams (photo 4) is a ringer for the DP image? I'm still not clear on your answer here. I gather that if you had to concede that it is a ringer, you would then dismiss the compelling resemblance as faked.
Of course, we do not know beyond reasonable doubt the provenance, proof of non-manipulation, chain of custody and related matters necessary for admission of the DP photo as evidence into a court of law. However, a layman like me looks to you and other experts to document the case for fakery in this DP photo if that is your contention now. I'm the intelligent layman you must convince, I'm all ears.
If you have evidence for fakery, that would materially alter the discussion. Some of that has been addressed already, for example, if spooks were attempting to conceal Conein's image in the pic, why did they substitute the image of such a "brotherly" visage? Because they were trying to stir up confusion and trouble decades later among JFK buffs? From the grave? With a CIA-framed newspaper photo and Imogene-admitted phony and mistaken newspaper caption on a wall of her home discovered decades later by a school teacher?
I'm glad you're willing to look at "ALL information" because that includes Imogene Adams' testimony, that of Frank Caplett and the Adams' family photos. Introducing those as evidence is not about the sympathy factor, it's about the credibility factor, the addition of new, credible evidence. That evidence changed Allan's mind about the likelihood of the photo showing Conein at DP, thereby challenging the enunciated opinions of some JFK assassination researchers. The new testimony backed by photo "documents" are unimpeachable = entirely trustworthy. Or call such testimony merely hard to top, very hard, I don't care, but I'd like to see the attempt to impeach it, something beyond dismissal or ridicule.
Bottomline: The conclusion that Adams was at the DP and happened to be a bystander captured in the image explains the DP image extremely well, thank you very much. This explanation accounts for the totality of the evidence. No other thesis presented even attempts to do this. It's not just about a few pictures, Jack. All together, three cheers for "ALL information," hip hip hooray... I'm glad we agree. I so stipulate.