18-01-2010, 03:58 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2010, 09:31 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
Egad! This is about as absurd as anything I have ever seen in JFK research -- this claim by Allan Eaglesham -- which Jack White has debunked over and over again. The fabricated plaque was pasted together and cites him for having been photographed in Dealey Plaza on Thursday, 23 November 1963! Anyone who is willing to be taken in by this rubbish can always defend themselves by observing, "Well, at least they got the year right!" Eaglesham obviously had an assignment -- to post something that could be used as the basis for raising doubt about this identification -- which he has carried out! How else can we explain it? I am in a state of disbelief. Here's a summary of evidence for this scam:
Of course, Col. Prouty did not know that Robert Adams -- a dead ringer for Conein -- was standing at the corner of Houston and Main.
-- Allan Eaglesham
Allan is supposed to be an expert on identification using photographs. Here he commits a Freudian slip by saying that Robert Adams was a "dead ringer" for Lucien Conein, when he had to mean Mainman. His claim, after all, is that the man in the photo is not Conein but Robert Adams. Presumably, he meant to say that Adams was a "dead ringer" for Mainman, not for Conein.
No matter. Jack has proven that the differences between Adams and the man in the photo disqualify Adams from being Mainman. What is his proof? Interestingly, I have posted it not once but twice above. If Eaglesham has actually been reading these posts, he has to know better. And if he has not been reading these posts, then what is he doing here ignoring the evidence?
Jack uploaded six of the slides from my original presentation and then, since there was a seventh, uploaded it as well. I refer to the first six as numbers (1) to (6), where the missing slide -- which he added subsequently -- is number (1.5). You can verify the content of each of these studies by scrolling back to the posts where they were introduced. They are readily accessible here.
In the first, (1) shows the raw data of the photo from (I take it) Main Street in the center, of Conein on the right, and of Adams on the left.
In the second, (1.5), Jack offers a comparison of the general features of their faces, where Adams has a long face, long chin, and left ear top-in, while Mainman has a square face, short chin, and left ear top-out.
Conein, likewise, has a square face, short chin, and left ear top-out. If this one had been included above, perhaps there would have been decidedly less resistance to my critique of Eaglesham. But Allen seems to have missed it.
In the third, (2), Jack observes that Adams has a long oval face, Mainman is square and Conein slighly triangular; that the hairline peaks do not match, since Adam's peak is an odd shape and does not point to his nose. Conein's peak points to his nose, but he seems to have more hair than Mainmain. Adams' left ear does not flare out at the top, but Mainman and Conein's left ears flare out. He finds it unlikely that Mainman is Adams, but leaves it open whether or not Conein is Mainman.
In (3), Jack reports that the supernasal ridge of Adams is about twice as wide as on Mainman and that his left ear is vertical, while Mainman has a left ear that flares out the the top. Adams has wide flaring nostrils, while Mainman does not.
SUMMARY:
From (1.5), we know Adams has a long face, long chin, and left ear top-in, while Mainman has a square face, short chin, and left ear top-out.
From (2), we learn that he hairline peaks do not match, since Adam's peak is an odd shape and does not point to his nose. Conein's peak points to his nose, but he seems to have more hair than Mainmain. Adams' left ear does not flare out at the top, but Mainman and Conein's left ears flare out.
From (3), also learn that the supernasal ridge of Adams is about twice as wide as on Mainman and that his left ear is vertical, while Mainman has a left ear that flares out the the top. Adams has wide flaring nostrils, while Mainman does not.
Since hair can easily be cut (it's called a "haircut") but the supernasal ridge, the general features of the face (absent plastic surgery) and of the left ear are (more or less) permanent features, Jack has adduced more than enough proof that Adams is not Mainman -- nor Conein, for that matter.
So when Allan Eaglesham asserts that Adams is a "dead ringer" for Mainman (or for Conein, for that matter), either he is ignoring the obvious differences between them (in which case he is incompetent) or he is aware of them but asserting the opposite (in an apparent endeavor to deceive).
His performance on this thread has destroyed any lingering confidence that I may have had in the aftermath of our original disagreement. I appears to me that this man is not incompetent, in which case, if we apply logic to the evidence, it follows that he is engaged in an apparent endeavor to deceive.
From (1.5), we know Adams has a long face, long chin, and left ear top-in, while Mainman has a square face, short chin, and left ear top-out.
From (2), we learn that he hairline peaks do not match, since Adam's peak is an odd shape and does not point to his nose. Conein's peak points to his nose, but he seems to have more hair than Mainmain. Adams' left ear does not flare out at the top, but Mainman and Conein's left ears flare out.
From (3), also learn that the supernasal ridge of Adams is about twice as wide as on Mainman and that his left ear is vertical, while Mainman has a left ear that flares out the the top. Adams has wide flaring nostrils, while Mainman does not.
Since hair can easily be cut (it's called a "haircut") but the supernasal ridge, the general features of the face (absent plastic surgery) and of the left ear are (more or less) permanent features, Jack has adduced more than enough proof that Adams is not Mainman -- nor Conein, for that matter.
So when Allan Eaglesham asserts that Adams is a "dead ringer" for Mainman (or for Conein, for that matter), either he is ignoring the obvious differences between them (in which case he is incompetent) or he is aware of them but asserting the opposite (in an apparent endeavor to deceive).
For those looking over our shoulders and wondering why Dr. Fetzer is so upset about my sharing new information on the Conein look-alike, you may find this interesting:
He made the claim, "Altgens photographs Lucien Conein in Dealey Plaza, smiling as JFK passed by." He over-reached himself then, just as he over-reaches himself now in his nastiness.
It's difficult to comprehend how such posts come from a professor of philosophy.
18-01-2010, 09:15 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2010, 09:26 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
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.
18-01-2010, 09:30 PM (This post was last modified: 18-01-2010, 09:33 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
Here Eaglesham has made a comparison, not with the image seen directly above the head of JFK, but with someone else where you cannot tell the date or the time it was taken. Certainly, there is nothing here to show that it was taken on 22 November 1963! This probably is Adams, so he is comparing a photo of Adams with a later photo of Adams! But so what? That is an obvious attempt to pull a bait-and-switch on the members of this forum. I would have thought it was beneath Allen Eaglesham to try a phony stunt like this, but I clearly was mistaken. He has again discredited himself! This is junior high school level fakery!
Allan Eaglesham Wrote:Another comparison. Of course, Mr. Adams was older in the photograph on the right, but his body type remained the same.
James H. Fetzer Wrote: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.
19-01-2010, 02:32 AM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2010, 03:58 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
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.
Allan Eaglesham Wrote:
James H. Fetzer Wrote: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.
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..
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.
Bernice Moore Wrote: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..
