Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza

[Allan Eaglesham]

If Lucien Conein was caught by chance in a photograph in
Dealey Plaza, that is further evidence of CIA/intel complicity.

For that reason, the agencies have a powerful motive to try
to explain it away to create uncertainty about his identity.

There are important considerations that weight against the
alternative identity of this person as Robert Adams, such as:

(1) The newspaper clippings/"plaque" has the wrong day of
the week (Thursday) and the wrong date of the month (23
November instead of 22 November). It is clearly fraudulent.

(2) Once we acknowledge fraud in the evidence, we have to
be especially cautious in avoiding being taken in, where the
scientific evidence has to be given preference to anecdotal.

(3) The figure is a dead-ringer for Conein and has important
differences from Adams, as Jack has shown based upon not
just one but a series of studies of the photographic evidence.

As for Imogene, after my 4-hour interview with Adele Edisen
yesterday, I am convinced that 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.

Since the more reliable studies support the identification of the
person and Conein and the plaque undermines the claim that it
was Adams, I find the weight of the evidence supports Conein.

Please listen to the interview at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.
Nothing Morgan has offered alters the state of the evidence. He
has, alas, only cited the aspects of the evidence that support him.

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?

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.

Has Morgan lost his way? Morgan??

I am lost for words.

[Morgan Reynolds]

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.

[Jack White]

Yes. I still maintain that the photo comparisons USING THE
AVAILABLE (POOR QUALITY) IMAGES IS INCONCLUSIVE.

Given higher quality larger images, a conclusive study MIGHT
be done.

I stand only by ONE conclusion unless disproved. Adams had
wide-set eyebrows. The man on Main and Houston had eye brows
very close together, based on all available reproductions. Therefore
I hesitate to accept that the man can possibly be Adams unless
better photos become available. Eyebrows do NOT grow closer
together with age.

For numerous reasons, I think the image in Altgens is not genuine.
However, since the image of the man appears in four other exposures
by different photographers, other important issues are raised about
this particular corner, and needs further study.

Jack

[James H. Fetzer]

One thing I know for sure is that I can count on you for a forceful, articulate, and persuasive presentation of your point of view! In that regard, I love your post. It only dawned on me that the agency is far more deeply into LSD, hypnosis, and related arts from my interview with Adele Edisen, which is already on "The Real Deal" archives at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. This extraordinary interview runs four (4) hours as the longest that I have ever conducted. But once you listen to what Adele has to say, I think you will clearly understand, not only why I kept her on for four (4) hours but also why what she had to say makes it entirely plausible that Imogene might have been subjected to a hypnotic inducement with regard to her alleged "recollections" of her husband's experience. The harder evidence of the photographic comparisons, I believe, weighs strongly in my favor. The man in the photo is not Adams. And I also believe that, in photos from the past, the distinctive hairline coincides virtually exactly with Conein's hairline in the past. So, even though Morgan has made a persuasive pitch, I am not convinced and, in fact, remain at least as strongly of the same opinion as I have before. But I take great pleasure and delight in the caliber of the intellectual exchange between us.

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.

[Jack White]

I side with Jim on the extensive use of mind control, hypnosis,
drugs, etc in the JFK case as well as many others. In other instances,
threats, intimidation, harrassment, even eliminations or other methods
of persuasion were (are) used without compunction. As Jim suggests,
this can even be done without the subject realizing that they are
being controlled. Therefore citing an "innocent little widow lady"
as proof will not do. She may be telling the truth "as she believes
it" without realizing that she has been manipulated.

There are many interpretations of the "Adams" presence in DP,
including a role as doppelganger.

I am sorry I cannot concede that the man is Adams, but in my
opinion the eyebrows rule out Adams without better materials
to work with.

Jack

[Charles Drago]

There are many interpretations of the "Adams" presence in DP, including a role as doppelganger.Jack

Jack,

Not to beat a dead horse, but I can't help acknowledging yet again that we're on the same page here -- and we don't have a lot of company.

Yet.

Those who have trouble with the doppelganger aspects of intel ops in general and the JFK assassination in particular might be well served to evaluate these events as by-design theatrical productions.

The extended goal of maintaining a sense of powerlessness among the people -- a belief that nothing ever can be known about such events -- is to preserve minority hegemony through the prolongation of such uncertainty among the majority. It's all about confusion, contradiction, and control for power.

CCCP.

Charles

[Jack White]

There are many interpretations of the "Adams" presence in DP, including a role as doppelganger.Jack

Jack,

Not to beat a dead horse, but I can't help acknowledging yet again that we're on the same page here -- and we don't have a lot of company.

Yet.

Those who have trouble with the doppelganger aspects of intel ops in general and the JFK assassination in particular might be well served to evaluate these events as by-design theatrical productions.

The extended goal of maintaining a sense of powerlessness among the people -- a belief that nothing ever can be known about such events -- is to preserve minority hegemony through the prolongation of such uncertainty among the majority. It's all about confusion, contradiction, and control for power.

CCCP.

Charles

Charles...I agree. I was tipped off by Fletcher Prouty about the
theatrical scripts prepared for EVERY OPERATION. He said NO intel
operation is begun without a written "screenplay", which is then
subject to many meetings, refinements, and rehearsals. Fletch
called them SCENARIOS, and said that Lansdale and Conein were
the two BEST scenario writers in the CIA for covert operations.
He said Conein in particular was adept at creating multiple false
trails to confuse investigators and news accounts. He claimed to
recognize a Conein tactic in the staged "arrest" and "parade"
through Dealey Plaza of the THREE TRAMPS. The guys were not
assassins...just bit players to divert attention.

I agree with you and Prouty. Too bad that others do not "get it."

Jack

[Jack White]

Regarding Adams, I also mention for consideration that he
was a US POSTAL EMPLOYEE, in the Terminal Annex Building,
also the location of POSTAL INSPECTOR HOLMES. Postal Inspector
Holmes seemed to be extraordinarily involved in the events of
Dealey Plaza.

Now what would be a good way to locate a doppelganger?
Well, likely all postal workers have ID photos on file; at that
time postal workers were government employees.

So, find a government worker whose photo looks like someone,
and manipulate that person to be in a certain location. Far-fetched?
No, near-fetched.

Jack

[Charles Drago]

Charles...I agree. I was tipped off by Fletcher Prouty about the
theatrical scripts prepared for EVERY OPERATION. He said NO intel
operation is begun without a written "screenplay", which is then
subject to many meetings, refinements, and rehearsals. Fletch
called them SCENARIOS, and said that Lansdale and Conein were
the two BEST scenario writers in the CIA for covert operations.
He said Conein in particular was adept at creating multiple false
trails to confuse investigators and news accounts. He claimed to
recognize a Conein tactic in the staged "arrest" and "parade"
through Dealey Plaza of the THREE TRAMPS. The guys were not
assassins...just bit players to divert attention.

Jack

Evica and Prouty should have met to discuss the theatrical aspects of intel ops.

(Perhaps at last they have. Who's to say?)

George Michael discovered this reality from the outside as he applied the full breadth and depth of his intellect, intuition, and multi-discipline (including literature and theater) training to deep political study.

Prouty saw it from the inside.

I'm not the world's biggest Prouty fan, but he hit the nail on the head in this instance.

Charles

[Charles Drago]

Now what would be a good way to locate a doppelganger?
Well, likely all postal workers have ID photos on file; at that
time postal workers were government employees.

So, find a government worker whose photo looks like someone,
and manipulate that person to be in a certain location. Far-fetched?
No, near-fetched.

Jack

"Near-fetched" indeed.

Shades of Eric Stavro Galt.