Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza

[James H. Fetzer]

It has the wrong day (Thursday) and the wrong date (23 November 1963), so I
don't think anyone is going to be impressed by your endorsement. This guy is
almost certainly not the man in the photo, as Jack's comparisons have shown.
It certainly looks like Conein to many of the rest of us, but ask youself what is
this guy Adams doing with a fabricated newspaper article? and why would any
one be written up for appearing in a photograph, even in Dealey Plaza, unless
there were some extraordinary reason. They needed a cover for Conein being
captured in a famous photograph. As I recall, it's called "plausible deniability".

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

[Allan Eaglesham]

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

Morgan:
Thank you for your comments and for posting the link to the interview with Conein, which I look forward to viewing. You are right that Adams's widow's peak was more pronounced than that of Conein, but hair length is a complicating factor. In the interview, Conein does not seem to have a widow's peak, but then he was significantly older and, possibly had lost some hair by then. If Conein did not have a widow's peak there would have been no basis for making the comparison in the first place.

Anyway, this is moot, since the man in Altgens's photo is so clearly Robert Adams.

Thanks again.

[Morgan Reynolds]

You're welcome Allan. I appreciate your calm under fire and reasonable interpretations of new data.

Jim, I'm not sure I have all the facts on the Altgen photo. Ike Altgen was a Dallas AP photographer, so stipulated, and the famous photo in question ran in newspapers, right? So the family would naturally be proud Mr. Adams was there in a photo a newspaper published, almost front and center, and would plausibly frame and hang it. Regarding a caption mentioning Adams, I'm not sure what the evidence is there. It is improbable a newspaper would mention Adams by name unless a reporter on the scene had interviewed him. The family might have made its own caption from news print or other means to enhance the "officialness" of the photo's appearance, a matter of family pride. Enlighten me on the known facts here. Yes, the CIA might provide such a false story, but it is unnecessary because it isn't Conein and wouldn't pass a reasonable cost/benefit test, too convoluted. Besides, these guys weren't scared one bit.

In any event, Jim fails to mention the video I cited, which is key. It is convincing "new" evidence to me that it wasn't Conein in the Altgen photo. This proposition, to clarify, is very different from claiming that Conein wasn't there or wasn't a participant in the assassination, since he likely was. Even the alleged 1962-3 photos of Conein show too much hair on his upper forehead to be the person in the Altgen photo. So I conclude it is not Conein in the Altgen pic. If you want a 100% sure ID of a CIA guy in the crowd, I'd pick Gerald P. Hemming.

[Jack White]

Morgan...thanks for your interest. Jim puts more credence in the
"plaque" than I do. It is extremely amateurish. The CIA would have
done a much better job.

It is fairly well believed that Conein was in Fort Worth, and likely
in DP as well. The man on the curb looks remarkably like him.
Adams had a longer thinner face than the curbman' square head
and Adams had a lopsided widow's peak instead of symmetrical.
It is too close to call, depending on photo dates. I say inconclusive,
but if FORCED to a preference, I prefer Conein.

Jack

[James H. Fetzer]

My opinion on this has not changed: anyone who can't see thought this Adams'
deception doesn't have a ghost of a chance of figuring out who killed Kennedy.
Allan loves to have 'em line up on his side. This is not a good day for Morgan.

You're welcome Allan. I appreciate your calm under fire and reasonable interpretations of new data.

Jim, I'm not sure I have all the facts on the Altgen photo. Ike Altgen was a Dallas AP photographer, so stipulated, and the famous photo in question ran in newspapers, right? So the family would naturally be proud Mr. Adams was there in a photo a newspaper published, almost front and center, and would plausibly frame and hang it. Regarding a caption mentioning Adams, I'm not sure what the evidence is there. It is improbable a newspaper would mention Adams by name unless a reporter on the scene had interviewed him. The family might have made its own caption from news print or other means to enhance the "officialness" of the photo's appearance, a matter of family pride. Enlighten me on the known facts here. Yes, the CIA might provide such a false story, but it is unnecessary because it isn't Conein and wouldn't pass a reasonable cost/benefit test, too convoluted. Besides, these guys weren't scared one bit.

In any event, Jim fails to mention the video I cited, which is key. It is convincing "new" evidence to me that it wasn't Conein in the Altgen photo. This proposition, to clarify, is very different from claiming that Conein wasn't there or wasn't a participant in the assassination, since he likely was. Even the alleged 1962-3 photos of Conein show too much hair on his upper forehead to be the person in the Altgen photo. So I conclude it is not Conein in the Altgen pic. If you want a 100% sure ID of a CIA guy in the crowd, I'd pick Gerald P. Hemming.

[David Guyatt]

Welcome to DPF Morgan. I look forward to reading some very interesting discussions.

[Morgan Reynolds]

Jim,

Please cease and desist in your ad hominems and argument by intimidation. I cannot be intimidated, period. Been through it all (or nearly all). Your tactics have, if anything, a counterproductive effect on Morgan, who relishes a challenge, and likewise has an adverse effect on the appeal of your argument upon most third party observers, I suspect.

Q1: Can you or Allan please fill in my lack of knowledge about the caption? Amateurish would point to family production, not professionals of the CIA. Yes, this can be argued many ways, I just want whatever facts are available.

Q2: Can you comment on Conein's hairline in his 1962-63 photo versus the Altgen figure? Conein has too much hair in all his photos, including the 1981 interview video cited earlier, to be the Altgen figure, IMO. What say you?

Q3: Is the Dealey Plaza figure Adams? Yes, I strongly believe so but it is not a 100% "lock" like Gerald P. Hemming is. I do not have a strong suspicion about some John Q. Citizen (Frank Caplett according to Allan) volunteering to "correct" something in "error" on the internet. This is very likely perfectly innocent, though new interviews and more data likely could resolve this aspect of the dispute. A volunteer citizen stepping forward to "correct" something typically has no idea he is about to set off a brouhaha. I've been approached by earnest citizens with something to say or offer about 9/11, that is, to correct me.

Isn't the bottomline proving that CIA agents were present in Dealey Plaza? That is the real game afoot. It isn't truly, truly about whether Conein is in the Altgen photo. A resemblance is there, yes, but on close inspection the case fails, IMO. You want it to be Conein, badly it seems, and I don't care either way, it's just about getting it right.

Btw, Jack White has lowered his assessment of the odds to 55 it is Conein and 45 Adams from his previous 80-20 in favor of Conein. Hope that's OK to reveal, Jack.

[Charles Drago]

I am all but certain that conspirators other than those with technical site responsibilities were in DP during the attack. I am equally confident that individuals who, while innocent of involvement in the conspiracy, would later fall into the Likely Suspect category were sent to Dallas on or about the 22nd so as to support the False Sponsor aspects of the plot and/or to falsely incriminate them for future blackmail purposes.

I find the "Conein" and "Morales" and "Robertson" and even the "Hemming" photo IDs to be unconvincing. Nor do I accept the Ambassador Hotel IDs (Morales, et al) as legitimate.

And I should add that, for the same reason, the forensic reconstructions presented by Lois Gibson regarding the Tramps -- especially "Frenchy" -- are, for me, invalid.

So too the skull reconstructions which "prove" that Martin Bormann died in Berlin and Josef Mengele drowned in South American waters.

The reason: None of the identification METHODS have been subjected to objective scientific analysis.

Morgan, your "lock" on the GPH photo ID interests me a great deal. Can you go into detail regarding the evidence that convinces you?

Many thanks,

Charles

[Allan Eaglesham]

Let me see if I can get a handle on this deception per Professor Fetzer. The CIA found a Dallas man, Robert Adams, who resembled Lucien Conein, and to provide plausible deniability for Conein being "captured" in Altgens's famous photograph they put together a picture frame with newspaper cuttings and erroneous information about the day and date of the assassination. This was given to Mrs. Adams to hang in the hallway of the Adams residence so that if any visitor familiar with Allan Eaglesham's website, "Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza," brought up the subject of Conein's role in the conspiracy -- perhaps over afternoon tea -- Mrs. Adams could direct the visitor to the picture frame with words such as, "Lucien Conein? Ole three-fingered Lou? Oh no! That was my husband Robert. He worked at the post office."

[Morgan Reynolds]

Charles,

Thanks for your contribution here.
First, let's begin with a general proposition:
Humans have a remarkable ability to distinguish faces at least in part because it is a very important social skill. Faces have dimensions that are quite similar, yet we can distinguish among them in the ordinary course of events rapidly and efficiently (accurately), that is, "holistically," i.e., faster and better. We are far better at this task than most, if not all, within-category discernment. There is considerable research about this ID skill existing from two months on and it engages vast amounts of the brain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_perception[/FONT]
plus the difficulties with scientific and computer applications in facial recognition make our "human computers" look very good.
Second, that leaves me with the sad conclusion for now that reasonable people can disagree about particular close calls from photos in face perception, there being an irreducible subjective element we must live with until new data helps to narrow the zone of disputation in particular cases like Conein.
That said, everyone can play the face perception game, though some will inevitably be better than others if we did some testing. Apparently, there is no correlation between this skill and IQ, given no brain damage, so that won't tell us anything.
Third, I do not object to your general opinion about intel/ops and false sponsors being present, even if we cannot prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree with you on Conein and Morales being unconvincing photo ID matches. But Hemming is different, that is a "lock" IMO based on instant first impression. I looked for more photos and the others confirmed my initial reaction. The Altgen image is very clear and it matches the Hemming photos on the web. I'm so confident that if I were a prosecutor and wanted to prove to the jury that CIA agents were present in Dealey Plaza, I'd lead with the Hemming photo. In other words, I'm confident 12 impartial and true citizens would agree. That's a different audience to persuade than researchers and advocates at DPF! If I had been Jim Garrison back in the day, I would have had Hemming arrested immediately upon receiving this info and interrogated. Alibi? He wouldn't have one that could withstand investigation plus the positive incriminating evidence would fall readily to hand, I strongly suspect. In any event, you do not agree with me on the Hemming face ID but what can I say? Look at more Hemming photos and see if you still find it unconvincing. Maybe you already have, and our difference persists and that's OK.
On Rip Robertson, I find that an excellent match but there is only one photo to compare with the Altgen image (inadequate data) so it does not rise to "convincing." But what is presented makes it a likely match, again IMO.
I do not have an opinion on the other cases you mention except for the tramps but I'll reserve that for another occasion, it's off-topic right now.