Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza

[Jack White]

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.

[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:

[Jack White]

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:

I have not done an in-depth study of Conein. Prouty told me that
Conein was in Dealey Plaza, and said he might have been in disguise.
Prouty at first thought he might be the man in the hardhat on Elm.
I am not certain he saw Mainman, but he knew Conein well and
would have recognized him. He had a theory that Conein would
want JFK to see him just as he was being shot, so that Kennedy
would KNOW who killed him.

Allan was the FIRST to say the Mainman was Conein, and then backed
off of identifying him when Adams was discovered.

I studied photos of Adams and because I did not know the ages of the
man in the comparison photos, I could reach no firm conclusion that
Adams was Mainman. I would need a 1963 photo for comparison.

I have previously stated my opinion of Adams vs Conein.

Jack

[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.

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 BEING 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:

I have not done an in-depth study of Conein. Prouty told me that
Conein was in Dealey Plaza, and said he might have been in disguise.
Prouty at first thought he might be the man in the hardhat on Elm.
I am not certain he saw Mainman, but he knew Conein well and
would have recognized him. He had a theory that Conein would
want JFK to see him just as he was being shot, so that Kennedy
would KNOW who killed him.

Allan was the FIRST to say the Mainman was Conein, and then backed
off of identifying him when Adams was discovered.

I studied photos of Adams and because I did not know the ages of the
man in the comparison photos, I could reach no firm conclusion that
Adams was Mainman. I would need a 1963 photo for comparison.

I have previously stated my opinion of Adams vs Conein.

Jack

hi jack thnkyou for your reply..i believe it was martha allan's research partner that saw the photo on main and caught the conein resemblance and brought that about and as faR AS I KNOW HE ALLAN HAS NEVER REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS BEING A EXPERT IN ANYWAY IN IDING PEOPLE WITHIN THE PHOTOS..MOST OF THOSE i think correct me if in error allan ..THAT HAVE BEEN UPLOADED ONTO HIS SITE HAVE BEEN AND IS STATED JAMES RICHARD'S STUDIES NOT ALLAN'S....sorry i do not recall her last name now..but .i do recall now that you mention it and duh forget the elm street hardhatman's name as he has been id..but you did jar my memory of your studies way back thinking he may be conein..i attach a wee photo study comp you did i think .and .yes i agree it would be best if a 63 photo of adams was available...if...thanks again...best b..

[James H. Fetzer]

Bernice,

I wish there were an alternative explanation. If you review my posts on this thread, you will find that Allan was debunking the identification BEFORE he had conducted any research. Why? He has repeatedly cited the plaque or, in his more recent postings, the newspaper article. Why? Has anyone ever heard of receiving a plaque for being in a photograph? The plaque is such an obvious fake, even including the wrong date, how could anyone be taken in? You don't have to be an expert on JFK to see that it is a shoddy fraud.

Jack has shown by means of several studies that there are numerous basic differences in the facial features of Mainman and Adams. So why is Allan not responding to any of these points? The full body image photo may have been taken in Dealey Plaza, but bears no obvious relationship to the image of Mainmain immediately above JFK's head. And Allan has gone so far as to suggest that I am somehow complicit when I am trying to sort it all out. If you can tell me what's going on with him, then that would be wonderful!

Conein, of course, worked closely with Lansdale, whom we know was also there from the "tramp" photo, in which he was identified by Victor Krulak, fomer Commandant of the Marine Corps, and by Fletcher Prouty. Allan has tacked on a remark from Fletcher that says he is not absolutely certain it is Conein, but does not include the full text of the correspondence that may have induced Fletcher to qualify his opinion slightly. And James Richards told me recently that, if Landsdale was there, then Conein was probably there, too.

Jim

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 BEING 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:

I have not done an in-depth study of Conein. Prouty told me that
Conein was in Dealey Plaza, and said he might have been in disguise.
Prouty at first thought he might be the man in the hardhat on Elm.
I am not certain he saw Mainman, but he knew Conein well and
would have recognized him. He had a theory that Conein would
want JFK to see him just as he was being shot, so that Kennedy
would KNOW who killed him.

Allan was the FIRST to say the Mainman was Conein, and then backed
off of identifying him when Adams was discovered.

I studied photos of Adams and because I did not know the ages of the
man in the comparison photos, I could reach no firm conclusion that
Adams was Mainman. I would need a 1963 photo for comparison.

I have previously stated my opinion of Adams vs Conein.

Jack

hi jack thnkyou for your reply..i believe it was martha allan's research partner that saw the photo on main and caught the conein resemblance and brought that about and as faR AS I KNOW HE ALLAN HAS NEVER REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS BEING A EXPERT IN ANYWAY IN IDING PEOPLE WITHIN THE PHOTOS..MOST OF THOSE i think correct me if in error allan ..THAT HAVE BEEN UPLOADED ONTO HIS SITE HAVE BEEN AND IS STATED JAMES RICHARD'S STUDIES NOT ALLAN'S....sorry i do not recall her last name now..but .i do recall now that you mention it and duh forget the elm street hardhatman's name as he has been id..but you did jar my memory of your studies way back thinking he may be conein..i attach a wee photo study comp you did i think .and .yes i agree it would be best if a 63 photo of adams was available...if...thanks again...best b..

[Jack White]

Regarding the Mainman image...I am highly influenced by conversations
and correspondence with Fletcher Prouty, who knew both Conein and
Lansdale, and who had INSIDE SOURCES. He assured me that both of
them were present to see the execution. He told me that Conein was
the sort of guy who would want JFK to see him in the crowd so he would
know who killed him. Therefore I believe that both were there. This is
one thing that prejudices me to think that anyone who looks so very much
like Conein probably is Conein. The main problem with Conein vs Adams is
that we do not have 1963 photos of either, so photo studies alone are not
conclusive.

Jack

[James H. Fetzer]

Jack adds, "PS: I think the plaque is a non-issue. It looks too 'home-made' to be evidentiary." But Eaglesham continues to cite it, even though it is an obvious fake. Not even the newspaper article can be taken seriously. So why does he continue to offer it as support for his thesis of Mainman as Adams? I am really sorry about this, Bernice, but his position is nonsense. Why is he citing fabricated proof?

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.

[Allan Eaglesham]

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.

Pray tell: what have I blown my cover as?



Let me try again to state my case. Mrs. Adams has the Altgens photograph on her wall in her home. Frank Caplett, a member of COPA, saw the framed photograph when he visited Mrs. Adams's home with her neice, and remarked on it. He was told that the man with the widow's peak was Robert Adams, Mrs. Adams's late husband. Frank, aware of my website and the suggestion that the man with the widow's peak resembled Lucien Conein kindly contacted me in October 2008 -- as is still stated on my website -- and informed me that the LC look-alike was "in no way, form or fashion, Conein." I obtained Mrs. Adams's address from Caplett and wrote to her, providing her with necessary context, and asking her to confirm or deny that the LC look-alike was her husband. She failed to respond.


In October or early November, 2009, Frank contacted me again, and offered to contact Mrs. Adams to ask if he could visit to obtain photographs of her husband. Naturally, I was pleased to receive his offer and strongly encouraged him to proceed. In late November, Frank emailed several photographs of Robert Adams, which, in my opinion corroborate Mrs. Adams's claim that the man in the Altgens photographs, was, indeed, her husband, a postal worker in Dallas.


I have examined Jack's comparisons and, in my opinion, he is wrong in his conclusion.


Having examined the photographs sent by Frank, I felt obliged to share them -- and my conclusion -- with those interested in this issue. In my opinion, the issue is closed. Others may disagree, just as some disagreed over the years that the man in question looked like Conein! Dr. Fetzer is entitled to agree with Jack. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem, naturally, with the mud he has thrown in my direction on this forum. But that says much more about him than it does about me.

Now, returning to a couple of the points raised by Dr. F.:

The triple-image photograph is from James Richards, not me. Don't you know whose information you were quoting? The fact is, you poured scorn on my use of a photograph of the Conein look-alike that you, yourself, had used.

"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." Your rhetoric is more strident with each post. Professor, you doth protest too much -- much too much. (I wonder what the hell is really going on here.)

So, you don't intend to invite me again to be a guest on Real Deal? Aw, what a pity...

[James H. Fetzer]

I have examined Jack's comparisons and, in my opinion, he is wrong in his conclusion.Well, since you deny being an expert on these matters, while Jack clearly is, I don't get it. Jack not only has superior competence for making these judgments but has offered proof that Adams and Mainman are not the same. I find non-responsive sarcasm to be reliable indicator of deceit and deception. I invite everyone to make up their minds for themselves. The evidence is clear.

[Dawn Meredith]

I have examined Jack's comparisons and, in my opinion, he is wrong in his conclusion.Well, since you deny being an expert on these matters, while Jack clearly is, I don't get it. Jack not only has superior competence for making these judgments but has offered proof that Adams and Mainman are not the same. I find non-responsive sarcasm to be reliable indicator of deceit and deception. I invite everyone to make up their minds for themselves. The evidence is clear.

Dr. Fetzer, because he disagrees with yourself and Jack does not make him deceptive. Please do not call forum members derogatory names. This behavior may be tolerated on other sites but not here. Arguments must be devoid of such behavior. Name calling should be seen as beneath us. It demeans the poster, and weakens the argument.
Dawn