18-02-2011, 08:24 PM
I thought the ol' perfessor had given up, but no, he's back, bigger, badder and bolder than ever. He postulates that ol' Morgan might have lost his way, a bold claim, especially in an age of GPS! Me? Lost? Hardly. More importantly, he postulates that the figure in the DP photo is Lucien Conein, and now reaches, really reaches, to imply that those CIA supervillains tampered with Mrs. Adams' brain. Oh boy, oh boy. Jim is nothing if not bold and what a reach in this instance!
Jim, in effect, accuses me of rejecting his CIA conspiracy theory in favor of a coincidence theory. I plead guilty. Yes, detectives do not like coincidences in criminal investigations but the answer to that is to investigate and find out if the two events in question are a coincidence or amount to something sinister.
To all conspiracy buffs, this just in: Coincidence is a fact of life. It's commonplace. Such occurrences even show up in criminal investigations. "From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. An example is the birthday problem, where the probability of two individuals sharing a birthday already exceeds 50% with a group of only 23." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence
With the evidence we have at hand, the identification of the Adams/Conein image is quite easy: it's Mr. Adams. A student of JFK's assassination, Frank Caplett, happened across the photo and its fake "newspaper caption" in Mrs. Adams' home nearly four decades after the infamous crime, and recognized its significance. Years after that Frank happened across Allan Eaglesham's website and volunteered the new data to Allan which identified the figure as Adams. The testimony of Frank and Imogene are unimpeachable, which means trustworthy.
So how does JF get out this bind?
1. "The agencies have a powerful motive to try to explain it away to create uncertainty about his identity." Powerful motive? Nonsense, slight is all that could reasonably be conceded. Conein's descendants might have a "powerful motive" to cover up his presence at DP that day, but not the means. The Company? Worried about this decades later? With its mighty Wurlitzer at its disposal? You really believe what you've asserted? Jim, you overrate yourself as well as the "threat" posed by JFK researchers generally. And you believe The Company executed its "vital" cover up ("create uncertainty about his identity") by placing a framed photo in the Adams' house, a man it bothered to find who bore a strong resemblance to Conein? On the chance the photo's presence in his house would find its way one day onto the internet? You've got to be kidding.
2. The newspaper caption is not a true clipping, it is a caption produced by a printer at Imogene's request. She admits it. The caption is not "fraudulent," as I've discussed before, because the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition defines fraud as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage." At worst, the deception was a "hoax," done in fun or to be humorous, although Adams' presence in the famous photo was obviously a point of family pride. In my interview, as explained earlier, she laughed when she admitted that she got the day and date wrong. To err is human, right Jim? I guess I must explain to you how it could easily happen: the photo appeared in the newspaper on November 23, so she used that date and then she thought, I'll have to backdate the day, and that would make it Thursday, right? No, wrong, she got both wrong. Better to look at the calendar than try to think it through! I once had a neighbor who was a printer and he took pride in his English erudition and proofing things for clients. Printers try to do that. It's just as "surprising" that the printer did not catch the error and correct it as that Imogene alone made the error. Why would The Company make such an error? As a joke on us? You tell me. Your three-alarm response to the erroneous caption is nonsense on stilts.
3. No, the DP figure is not a "dead-ringer" for Conein (Jim, why borrow my language?). It's a ringer for Adams. For one thing, Conein's hairline was always too low to be Adams. That is an important ID element for me. You might look at my previous posts, including Conein years later in a video, still with a lower hairline than Adams had. And citing Jack White does not help your case because he has found the photos inconclusive.
4. You write that "As for Imogene...the CIA relies upon drugs like LSD and hypnotic suggestion far more often than we imagine. I would not be surprised if she had been given the suggestion, in a quasi-hypnotic trance, to believe that her husband Robert had actually been in Dealey Plaza and was caught in the photo." Fantastic! I mean that literally: conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque." An unrestrained imagination is right! Jim, you're the best. I'm pleased we have you on record explicitly stating your conspiracy theory. It is an extraordinary claim and that requires extraordinary evidence. Remember that? You might start with some evidence, any empirical evidence at all, for CIA involvement in control over Imogene, leave aside extraordinary evidence.
Science is nothing more than refined common sense, Jim. I believe you have tilted a bit too much into refinement and might try a shift back toward common sense.
Jim, in effect, accuses me of rejecting his CIA conspiracy theory in favor of a coincidence theory. I plead guilty. Yes, detectives do not like coincidences in criminal investigations but the answer to that is to investigate and find out if the two events in question are a coincidence or amount to something sinister.
To all conspiracy buffs, this just in: Coincidence is a fact of life. It's commonplace. Such occurrences even show up in criminal investigations. "From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. An example is the birthday problem, where the probability of two individuals sharing a birthday already exceeds 50% with a group of only 23." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence
With the evidence we have at hand, the identification of the Adams/Conein image is quite easy: it's Mr. Adams. A student of JFK's assassination, Frank Caplett, happened across the photo and its fake "newspaper caption" in Mrs. Adams' home nearly four decades after the infamous crime, and recognized its significance. Years after that Frank happened across Allan Eaglesham's website and volunteered the new data to Allan which identified the figure as Adams. The testimony of Frank and Imogene are unimpeachable, which means trustworthy.
So how does JF get out this bind?
1. "The agencies have a powerful motive to try to explain it away to create uncertainty about his identity." Powerful motive? Nonsense, slight is all that could reasonably be conceded. Conein's descendants might have a "powerful motive" to cover up his presence at DP that day, but not the means. The Company? Worried about this decades later? With its mighty Wurlitzer at its disposal? You really believe what you've asserted? Jim, you overrate yourself as well as the "threat" posed by JFK researchers generally. And you believe The Company executed its "vital" cover up ("create uncertainty about his identity") by placing a framed photo in the Adams' house, a man it bothered to find who bore a strong resemblance to Conein? On the chance the photo's presence in his house would find its way one day onto the internet? You've got to be kidding.
2. The newspaper caption is not a true clipping, it is a caption produced by a printer at Imogene's request. She admits it. The caption is not "fraudulent," as I've discussed before, because the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition defines fraud as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage." At worst, the deception was a "hoax," done in fun or to be humorous, although Adams' presence in the famous photo was obviously a point of family pride. In my interview, as explained earlier, she laughed when she admitted that she got the day and date wrong. To err is human, right Jim? I guess I must explain to you how it could easily happen: the photo appeared in the newspaper on November 23, so she used that date and then she thought, I'll have to backdate the day, and that would make it Thursday, right? No, wrong, she got both wrong. Better to look at the calendar than try to think it through! I once had a neighbor who was a printer and he took pride in his English erudition and proofing things for clients. Printers try to do that. It's just as "surprising" that the printer did not catch the error and correct it as that Imogene alone made the error. Why would The Company make such an error? As a joke on us? You tell me. Your three-alarm response to the erroneous caption is nonsense on stilts.
3. No, the DP figure is not a "dead-ringer" for Conein (Jim, why borrow my language?). It's a ringer for Adams. For one thing, Conein's hairline was always too low to be Adams. That is an important ID element for me. You might look at my previous posts, including Conein years later in a video, still with a lower hairline than Adams had. And citing Jack White does not help your case because he has found the photos inconclusive.
4. You write that "As for Imogene...the CIA relies upon drugs like LSD and hypnotic suggestion far more often than we imagine. I would not be surprised if she had been given the suggestion, in a quasi-hypnotic trance, to believe that her husband Robert had actually been in Dealey Plaza and was caught in the photo." Fantastic! I mean that literally: conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque." An unrestrained imagination is right! Jim, you're the best. I'm pleased we have you on record explicitly stating your conspiracy theory. It is an extraordinary claim and that requires extraordinary evidence. Remember that? You might start with some evidence, any empirical evidence at all, for CIA involvement in control over Imogene, leave aside extraordinary evidence.
Science is nothing more than refined common sense, Jim. I believe you have tilted a bit too much into refinement and might try a shift back toward common sense.