It's my understanding that certain scientific disciplines may be relevant to the identification processes of which we write.
Back to the skull/facial reconstruction business: I have yet to see a blind test run on the skull of a known individual. Which doesn't mean such an experiment has not taken place. And certainly I understand that it would be difficult in the extreme to find such a skull and secure permission to subject it to the appropriate tests.
As for photos: Are there not objective measurement criteria to be applied? Width between eyes? Ear lobe configuration? etc.?
I'm familiar with the "Hemming" DP photo you reference. Would it be possible for you to post it and the best Hemming comparison view(s)?
I might add for the sake of future discussion that even if Hemming's presence in DP during the attack can be established, in and of itself it cannot implicate him in the conspiracy.
Charles Drago Wrote:So too the skull reconstructions which "prove" that Martin Bormann died in Berlin and Josef Mengele drowned in South American waters.
Slightly off-topic but...
In his book, Dopplegangers: Bodies in the Berlin Bunker, British author W Hugh Thomas forensically proves, beyond reasonable doubt imo, that Bormann escaped Europe at the end of WWII, and thereafter lived and later died in Latin America.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Allan,
I like your spelling out the Fetzer conspiracy theory we might term "CIA Cover for Conein in the Crowd." That's what I meant by calling it "convoluted," so let's amend it to "Convoluted CIA Cover for Conein in the Crowd"!
The innocent "Adams Family" storyline works a lot better.
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:Allan,
I like your spelling out the Fetzer conspiracy theory we might term "CIA Cover for Conein in the Crowd." That's what I meant by calling it "convoluted," so let's amend it to "Convoluted CIA Cover for Conein in the Crowd"!
The innocent "Adams Family" storyline works a lot better.
It's really not all that difficult to understand. A guy who looks like Lucien Conein did in those years was caught by accident in a famous photograph taken in Dealey Plaza. He, like other CIA assets, knew JFK was going to be bumped off and wanted to be there. It's a bit sick, but assassination was their specialization.
To create a distraction, they introduced a guy who looked somewhat like Conein and fabricated a "plaque" to commemorate his having been included in a photo taken during the assassination. The "plaque" even describes his being there on the wrong day (Thursday) and the wrong date (23 November). Absurd!
As though this were not transparently ridiculous enough, then induce one Allen Eaglesham to splash the notice that "The man identified as Conein is not Conein", for which he has no justification. Jack has confirmed the resemblance is far greater to Conein than it is to Adams, who is simply cast as the stooge.
Ad hominems involved discrediting a message by attacking the messenger. In my opinion, this is a transparent rear-guard action to try to conceal the presence of a big-time CIA assassin in Dealey Plaza. Morgan can believe anything he likes, but it disappoints me that he would fall for this incredible drivel.
It's not I who is indulging in them anyway. How does Morgan propose to explain this phony "plaque"? What does it mean to him that SOMEONE was going to the time and trouble to fabricate a fake plaque? And if Conein wanted to change his appearance to be less like it was in 1963, would that be difficult to do?
Allan Eaglesham Wrote: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."
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.
Yes...that is OK, provided you also specify that I find the comparisons
to be inconclusive for various reasons on further study. I think
the odds are that Conein was in DP, and this fellow certainly looks like
him. It is much like the LHO-Lovelady image in Altgens 6. It is unimportant
if the man in the doorway is Lovelady; it is important ONLY if it is LHO.
Same here in THIS Altgens photo...(interesting!)...it is unimportant
if it is Adams; it is important ONLY if it is Conein.
For what its worth, since Altgens disavowed several of his photos (5 and 8),
and 7 is questionable and 6 shows LHO-Lovelady, and 4 shows Conein-Hemming-
Adams...I am beginning to wonder whether ALL Altgens photos are suspect!
What if someone is playing a trick (as Prouty suggests was Conein's practice)
of creating false trails. What if he had himself and Hemming INSERTED into
photos as a private joke? What if he had lined up a doppelganger in Adams
in case the joke is discovered? I believe that ALTGENS needs further investigation,
especially given that he and his wife died together by carbon monoxide; Adams
also is conveniently dead.
This matter is by no means cut and dried as everyone feels, but may be
part of a wilderness of mirrors. Are we looking at reflections or reality?
I say the Adams-Conein comparisons are INCONCLUSIVE, as I have stated
from the beginning. If forced to choose, I'd say Conein.
Charles,
Yes, your references to scientific measures in face recognition and reconstruction are fine and dandy, I just wanted to point out how good our skills are absent all that. Also, scientists usually don't impress me much. Too many of them lose sight of what science is all about, it's just refined common sense, and are in the hip pocket of the government, their great "benefactor," and doing math gymnastics to impress their peers. Bunch of "inside the box" thinkers, by and large. I'm always the guy in the seminar who is simple-minded, unabashedly, challenging what the basement and foundation are made up of in the speaker's storyline while the speaker goes on talking about his wonderful 78th floor. The root of the truffle is the whole truffle.
Yes, your attached photo is one I like as a comparison with the the Altgen image. Works for me, it's a match, that's the same guy.
You probably know this set of photos: [IMG]file:///Users/morganreynolds/Desktop/JFKhemming16.jpg[/IMG][IMG]file:///Users/morganreynolds/Desktop/JFKhemming16.jpg[/IMG]JFKhemming16.jpg http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhemming16.jpg
More confirmation pics IMO. [I'm not getting these pics dragged in here for some reason.]
Then we have this video with an older Hemming going on for a few minutes about the spy biz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ASsGRgNQco
and the extensive set of statements about Hemming at http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhemming.htm
None of this eliminates the irreducible element of subjectivism in making close photo calls, but another fact to consider is that Hemming was about 6'4" and that is consistent with the guy in Dealey Plaza. The guy is tall.
Implicate Hemming? What was he doing there? Just a regular guy getting a peek at JFK and Jackie? A JM/WAVE, Alpha 66 guy? Hemming was CIA big-time, for example, Twyman's Bloody Treason devotes his longest chapter to him. As I said, once I saw that pic, I'd arrest Hemming post haste, subpoena every relevant thing I wanted and start cracking that baby wide open. Also, it's alleged he seemed to go where LHO went.
[IMG]file:///Users/morganreynolds/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///Users/morganreynolds/Desktop/JFKhemming16.jpg[/IMG]
James H. Fetzer Wrote:It's really not all that difficult to understand. A guy who looks like Lucien Conein did in those years was caught by accident in a famous photograph taken in Dealey Plaza. He, like other CIA assets, knew JFK was going to be bumped off and wanted to be there. It's a bit sick, but assassination was their specialization.
To create a distraction, they introduced a guy who looked somewhat like Conein and fabricated a "plaque" to commemorate his having been included in a photo taken during the assassination. The "plaque" even describes his being there on the wrong day (Thursday) and the wrong date (23 November). Absurd!
As though this were not transparently ridiculous enough, then induce one Allen Eaglesham to splash the notice that "The man identified as Conein is not Conein", for which he has no justification. Jack has confirmed the resemblance is far greater to Conein than it is to Adams, who is simply cast as the stooge.
Ad hominems involved discrediting a message by attacking the messenger. In my opinion, this is a transparent rear-guard action to try to conceal the presence of a big-time CIA assassin in Dealey Plaza. Morgan can believe anything he likes, but it disappoints me that he would fall for this incredible drivel.
It's not I who is indulging in them anyway. How does Morgan propose to explain this phony "plaque"? What does it mean to him that SOMEONE was going to the time and trouble to fabricate a fake plaque? And if Conein wanted to change his appearance to be less like it was in 1963, would that be difficult to do?
Allan Eaglesham Wrote: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."
Jack's comparison reveals only that the peak of Mr. Adams's widow's peak was blown slightly to one side.
According to the professor, I have been induced by someone. By whom, may I ask?
The drivel here issues from Fetzer who appears to have an emotional need for CIA-inspired machinations here, when, in fact, all we have is a newspaper clipping in a frame on a wall. He continues to clutch at the "plaque" -- the red herring unwittingly introduced by Frank Caplett -- like a drowning man.
