Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza

[Charles Drago]

One need look no farther than this thread's vituperative exchanges on the "familiar faces" theme to appreciate how the pursuits of such relatively insignificant chimere within the larger quests for truth and justice serve the agendas of the killers of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

[David Guyatt]

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

I concur entirely Dawn. What is often tolerable elsewhere is not acceptable here. Our rules are very clear on this point (see: http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...d.php?t=58), and the reason for these inhibitions are also well known and quite obvious.

Civilized behaviour and language is an absolute requirement even when parties vehemently disagree.

This injunction applies to all members at all times.

[James H. Fetzer]

I appreciate propriety, but in my universe, an impolite truth trumps a polite falsehood. If we can't see through a case as simple as this one, there is no chance of figuring out what happened to JFK.

[David Guyatt]

Better still... a polite truth trumps a polite falsehood and completely trumps an impolite one.

This applies to those who may not be entirely familiar with the minutiae of the argument but are non-the-less interested onlookers on the subject - and who are also long enough in the tooth to have seen countless bloody feuds take hold because of a few ill chosen words used in the heat of the moment.

Passion for the subject is entirely commendable, but it sadly and often has a way of being nudged aside by the beast of lesser nobility.

[James H. Fetzer]

I've already told Myra, Magda, and Peter (on the other thread) that I will try to do better. I'm a bit stunned by this emphasis on propriety. If I don't meet your expectations, then I will welcome the boot! By all means, enjoy your tea and crumpets! Some of us still want to figure out what happened to JFK. I don't mean to insult you, but there is more concern over my tone than there is for the fraud being perpetrated before your very eyes! I really don't need this.

[Allan Eaglesham]

I've already told Myra, Magda, and Peter (on the other thread) that I will try to do better. I'm a bit stunned by this emphasis on propriety. If I don't meet your expectations, then I will welcome the boot! By all means, enjoy your tea and crumpets! Some of us still want to figure out what happened to JFK. I don't mean to insult you, but there is more concern over my tone than there is for the fraud being perpetrated before your very eyes! I really don't need this.

My cover is blown. I'm a provocateur. I'm a fraud.

This is silly. Beyond that, when luminaries of the JFK-research community behave like this, we are all diminished.

Is it possible to close these threads so that we may all move on?

[Dawn Meredith]

I've already told Myra, Magda, and Peter (on the other thread) that I will try to do better. I'm a bit stunned by this emphasis on propriety. If I don't meet your expectations, then I will welcome the boot! By all means, enjoy your tea and crumpets! Some of us still want to figure out what happened to JFK. I don't mean to insult you, but there is more concern over my tone than there is for the fraud being perpetrated before your very eyes! I really don't need this.

My cover is blown. I'm a provocateur. I'm a fraud.

This is silly. Beyond that, when luminaries of the JFK-research community behave like this, we are all diminished.

Is it possible to close these threads so that we may all move on?

With all due respect Allan, I don't think a thread should be closed because it has become off topic. The solution is to move on, and allow posters to continue the conversation regarding the possible identity of people in Dealey Plaza. No one here thinks you are a fraud. The only way arguments end is by ending them. Someone has to refuse to frespond further.
Dawn

[Allan Eaglesham]

I've already told Myra, Magda, and Peter (on the other thread) that I will try to do better. I'm a bit stunned by this emphasis on propriety. If I don't meet your expectations, then I will welcome the boot! By all means, enjoy your tea and crumpets! Some of us still want to figure out what happened to JFK. I don't mean to insult you, but there is more concern over my tone than there is for the fraud being perpetrated before your very eyes! I really don't need this.

My cover is blown. I'm a provocateur. I'm a fraud.

This is silly. Beyond that, when luminaries of the JFK-research community behave like this, we are all diminished.

Is it possible to close these threads so that we may all move on?

With all due respect Allan, I don't think a thread should be closed because it has become off topic. The solution is to move on, and allow posters to continue the conversation regarding the possible identity of people in Dealey Plaza. No one here thinks you are a fraud. The only way arguments end is by ending them. Someone has to refuse to respond further.
Dawn

Dawn:

Thank you. Point taken.

Allan

[Myra Bronstein]

I've already told Myra, Magda, and Peter (on the other thread) that I will try to do better. I'm a bit stunned by this emphasis on propriety. If I don't meet your expectations, then I will welcome the boot! By all means, enjoy your tea and crumpets! Some of us still want to figure out what happened to JFK. I don't mean to insult you, but there is more concern over my tone than there is for the fraud being perpetrated before your very eyes! I really don't need this.

My cover is blown. I'm a provocateur. I'm a fraud.

This is silly. Beyond that, when luminaries of the JFK-research community behave like this, we are all diminished.

Is it possible to close these threads so that we may all move on?

With all due respect Allan, I don't think a thread should be closed because it has become off topic. The solution is to move on, and allow posters to continue the conversation regarding the possible identity of people in Dealey Plaza. No one here thinks you are a fraud. The only way arguments end is by ending them. Someone has to refuse to frespond further.
Dawn

I agree. Let's not lock it. I don't want to look like we're stiffling discussion.

Jim, I really appreciate that fact that you're thinking about what we've said. And I appreciate your posts to that effect on the other thread. I think we've reached the point of diminishing returns wherein further debate on the same points will only undo some of our progress. I didn't meant to have two active threads on this and I don't want to seem like we're piling on.

Allan, I know I've already said that I'm impressed with your restraint.

So I'll just ask that everyone put this on ice for a little while and focus on other topics. I'm really pleased, and impressed, with the discussion we've already had.

[Morgan Reynolds]

When I first looked at Allan Eaglesham's page on "Lucien Conein look-alike was not Conein," my first impression was, "Yes, Allan's right, it's Adams, not Conein." First impressions are usually right. Each man had a reason to be at Dealey Plaza so that's a wash, and the framed newspaper pic on the Adams' family wall of a family member's presence at an historic event is an entirely understandable point of pride (not a "plaque," so stipulated). Looking around for additional photos of Conein, a 1981 video convinces me it wasn't Conein in the Altgen photo, if only because Conein never did develop that extreme "peninsula" prow of hair Adams had, with such a receding hair line on either side. So now will advocates of Conein in the Altgen photo argue Men's Hair Club changed Conein's forehead appearance (!?).
http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/org.wg...b1123abc7d