The question is always posed, why would all these operatives expose
themselves together on this particular corner?
To gloat. To get an orgasmic thrill of being there to witness their
handiwork. And some have said that they hoped JFK recognized
them so he would know who killed him...but too late to stop them.
I agree with Jim on one thing: the situation is absurd. We agree on precious little else on this thread. Yes, I appreciate Jim's public acknowledgement that I am a man of integrity. The analytic importance is that we therefore stipulate that Imogene Adams said what I said she said.
His central problem is that, as professor Fetzer repeatedly emphasizes in other contexts, an explanation must take into account the "totality of the evidence." The totality of the evidence here includes an inconvenient Imogene Adams, an informed witness to the photo, who has identified her husband in the newspaper photo since its release, who tells us her husband's friends called him about it the next day, that she had a caption professionally produced, and admits she got the "date wrong." Jim dismisses Imogene's account with a withering blast of charges:
1. He has "no interest in Mrs. Adams"
2. She was not in Dealey Plaza and "really does not know whether Robert was there"
3. There is "fraud in the evidence"
4. We have a stunning "red flag"
5. "Something is terribly wrong with this story"
6. "Adams is not the man in the photo"
7. We have a "phony plaque and a fake photo"
8. "It is beyond belief that the clipping would have the wrong date and the wrong day"
9. "This whole thing smacks of being staged to me"
10. And we dare not fault him "for rejecting a story that is ridiculous on its face."
Oh my, I do declare. The word "fulmination" comes to mind. Bluster. Huffing and puffing to blow Ms. Adams testimony down.
Doesn't work for me. At all. No interest? Fetzer has no interest, so we must therefore exclude it from the evidence collection about the photo? The totality of the evidence is supposed to exclude key testimony from Adams? Really!? As I accurately surmised earlier, Fetzer, White and Drago find Ms. Adams' tesimony worthless. They provide no contrary testimony from anyone who might have known Adams or Conein. Fetzer is even suggesting that Mr. Adams lived a lie about his whereabouts on November 22, 1963, deceiving his widow for decades. Nice going, Jim. These accomplished researchers "merely" want Imogene's testimony deleted from the evidence record despite their "earnest quest" to identify the figure in the photo. Oh yeah. Jack states it this way: "What I do is analyze photos. I do not conduct field research." I gave him my field research, and such digging may be below his pay grade, but Jack is unwilling or unable to use any of it in his attempt to identify the man in the photo. He is a narrow technician, we are led to believe, a photo purist, at least in this instance.
What justifies the haughty dismissal of Imogene's testimony? Her account would not be worthless in a real investigation since it is unimpeachable (i.e., entirely trustworthy), but it threatens the Fetzerian theory of Conein...er, the man in the picture. So the professor deletes Imogene's testimony from the "totality of the evidence." Neat. Given the choice between her testimony and the contrary opinions of these "top JFK authority figures," I'll take Ms. Adams' testimony every day of the week (buttressed by my personal evaluation of the photos).
Jim almost shouts that the wrong day/date in the caption proves "fraud in the evidence," "something is terribly wrong," etc.
According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[1] In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain.
A hoax also involves deception, but without the intention of gain, or of damaging or depriving the victim; the intention is often humorous.
Ms. Adams has committed no fraud, that is, she committed no crime. Her ready "confession" to her caption shows no shame or criminal intent (I can't believe I have to point out such obvious points to a brilliant professor or even on a DPF forum, but my learned antagonists force it). If Jim prefers he may call the caption a hoax because it is a "deception" meant in teasing fun and a point of family pride "without intention of gain, or of damaging or depriving the victim; the intention is often humorous." Hey Jim, the family enjoyed the picture framed with a "newspaper-like caption," that's all it was and is. It was fun, it was nice. Yet you find this "ridiculous on its face"??? Oh my.
What is the proposed alternative explanation? I don't see one in evidence for our evaluation. Fetzer will not spin out his alternative theory to account for the stipulated fact of Ms. Adams' testimony. It would look too stupid if he did. In other words, we have evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is Mr. Adams in the pic. Since the professor rejects a common-sense, innocent interpretation of the facts that point to Mr. Adams in the photo, he owes us an explicit explanation/theory to account for the facts. You know, "the whole thing is staged," Ms. Adams is MK Ultra, a CIA plaything despite all appearances to the contrary, blah, blah. She's under the control of the "dark side," etc. Go for it. I'd love to begin destroying it, posthaste. It would prove absurd, totally lacking any plausibility, evidence, you name it. You spin out your alternative explanation of the facts Jim, do not confine yourself to banging the table about your beliefs while throwing around shadowy generalizations about the abilities of those 10-foot-tall guys at the CIA and their foresight and thoroughness in planting and controlling framed photos with captions possessed by elderly widows that emerge decades later from a modest Dallas home.
My, Morgan...so much indignation over such a trifle. If Mr. and Mrs. Adams
are totally truthful and Adams IS the man in the suspicious photo, and even
if Jim and I agree to that, IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the JFK case. All it
does is guarantee that the man is NOT Conein. I have already stated that
comparison of the photos is INCONCLUSIVE. What that means is that it is
not provable from the photo that it is either Adams or Conein. In any event,
I have stated repeatedly that it cannot be proved to be either...so it is a
meaningless distraction. It is NOT important if it is Adams. It is only important
if it can be proved to be Conein. I do not see it as an absurd situation at all;
a spectator who resembles Conein and Adams is seen in a "suspicious" photo.
Researchers disagree over the significance of this image. In any event it does
not change information that Prouty said Conein was in DP, that Conein was
in Fort Worth the previous night, or that this man is standing in the midst of
about five "doppelgangers" or lookalikes for known CIA personnel. I concur with
Prouty that Lansdale and Conein were involved and both in DP.
This is not a "federal case" since nothing has been proved yet, and is not likely
to be proven. I see no reason for anyone to bother Mrs. Adams, since if she
is correct, her information is totally irrelevant. It would be important ONLY if
she said it was not her husband.
Thanks for you interest and comments.
Jack
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:I agree with Jim on one thing: the situation is absurd. We agree on precious little else on this thread. Yes, I appreciate Jim's public acknowledgement that I am a man of integrity. The analytic importance is that we therefore stipulate that Imogene Adams said what I said she said.
His central problem is that, as professor Fetzer repeatedly emphasizes in other contexts, an explanation must take into account the "totality of the evidence." The totality of the evidence here includes an inconvenient Imogene Adams, an informed witness to the photo, who has identified her husband in the newspaper photo since its release, who tells us her husband's friends called him about it the next day, that she had a caption professionally produced, and admits she got the "date wrong." Jim dismisses Imogene's account with a withering blast of charges:
1. He has "no interest in Mrs. Adams"
2. She was not in Dealey Plaza and "really does not know whether Robert was there"
3. There is "fraud in the evidence"
4. We have a stunning "red flag"
5. "Something is terribly wrong with this story"
6. "Adams is not the man in the photo"
7. We have a "phony plaque and a fake photo"
8. "It is beyond belief that the clipping would have the wrong date and the wrong day"
9. "This whole thing smacks of being staged to me"
10. And we dare not fault him "for rejecting a story that is ridiculous on its face."
Oh my, I do declare. The word "fulmination" comes to mind. Bluster. Huffing and puffing to blow Ms. Adams testimony down.
Doesn't work for me. At all. No interest? Fetzer has no interest, so we must therefore exclude it from the evidence collection about the photo? The totality of the evidence is supposed to exclude key testimony from Adams? Really!? As I accurately surmised earlier, Fetzer, White and Drago find Ms. Adams' tesimony worthless. They provide no contrary testimony from anyone who might have known Adams or Conein. Fetzer is even suggesting that Mr. Adams lived a lie about his whereabouts on November 22, 1963, deceiving his widow for decades. Nice going, Jim. These accomplished researchers "merely" want Imogene's testimony deleted from the evidence record despite their "earnest quest" to identify the figure in the photo. Oh yeah. Jack states it this way: "What I do is analyze photos. I do not conduct field research." I gave him my field research, and such digging may be below his pay grade, but Jack is unwilling or unable to use any of it in his attempt to identify the man in the photo. He is a narrow technician, we are led to believe, a photo purist, at least in this instance.
What justifies the haughty dismissal of Imogene's testimony? Her account would not be worthless in a real investigation since it is unimpeachable (i.e., entirely trustworthy), but it threatens the Fetzerian theory of Conein...er, the man in the picture. So the professor deletes Imogene's testimony from the "totality of the evidence." Neat. Given the choice between her testimony and the contrary opinions of these "top JFK authority figures," I'll take Ms. Adams' testimony every day of the week (buttressed by my personal evaluation of the photos).
Jim almost shouts that the wrong day/date in the caption proves "fraud in the evidence," "something is terribly wrong," etc.
According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[1] In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain.
A hoax also involves deception, but without the intention of gain, or of damaging or depriving the victim; the intention is often humorous.
Ms. Adams has committed no fraud, that is, she committed no crime. Her ready "confession" to her caption shows no shame or criminal intent (I can't believe I have to point out such obvious points to a brilliant professor or even on a DPF forum, but my learned antagonists force it). If Jim prefers he may call the caption a hoax because it is a "deception" meant in teasing fun and a point of family pride "without intention of gain, or of damaging or depriving the victim; the intention is often humorous." Hey Jim, the family enjoyed the picture framed with a "newspaper-like caption," that's all it was and is. It was fun, it was nice. Yet you find this "ridiculous on its face"??? Oh my.
What is the proposed alternative explanation? I don't see one in evidence for our evaluation. Fetzer will not spin out his alternative theory to account for the stipulated fact of Ms. Adams' testimony. It would look too stupid if he did. In other words, we have evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is Mr. Adams in the pic. Since the professor rejects a common-sense, innocent interpretation of the facts that point to Mr. Adams in the photo, he owes us an explicit explanation/theory to account for the facts. You know, "the whole thing is staged," Ms. Adams is MK Ultra, a CIA plaything despite all appearances to the contrary, blah, blah. She's under the control of the "dark side," etc. Go for it. I'd love to begin destroying it, posthaste. It would prove absurd, totally lacking any plausibility, evidence, you name it. You spin out your alternative explanation of the facts Jim, do not confine yourself to banging the table about your beliefs while throwing around shadowy generalizations about the abilities of those 10-foot-tall guys at the CIA and their foresight and thoroughness in planting and controlling framed photos with captions possessed by elderly widows that emerge decades later from a modest Dallas home.
01-02-2011, 04:08 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2011, 04:26 PM by Allan Eaglesham.)
Jack White Wrote:My, Morgan...so much indignation over such a trifle. If Mr. and Mrs. Adams
are totally truthful and Adams IS the man in the suspicious photo, and even
if Jim and I agree to that, IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the JFK case. All it
does is guarantee that the man is NOT Conein. I have already stated that
comparison of the photos is INCONCLUSIVE. What that means is that it is
not provable from the photo that it is either Adams or Conein. In any event,
I have stated repeatedly that it cannot be proved to be either...so it is a
meaningless distraction. It is NOT important if it is Adams. It is only important
if it can be proved to be Conein. I do not see it as an absurd situation at all;
a spectator who resembles Conein and Adams is seen in a "suspicious" photo.
Researchers disagree over the significance of this image. In any event it does
not change information that Prouty said Conein was in DP, that Conein was
in Fort Worth the previous night, or that this man is standing in the midst of
about five "doppelgangers" or lookalikes for known CIA personnel. I concur with
Prouty that Lansdale and Conein were involved and both in DP.
This is not a "federal case" since nothing has been proved yet, and is not likely
to be proven. I see no reason for anyone to bother Mrs. Adams, since if she
is correct, her information is totally irrelevant. It would be important ONLY if
she said it was not her husband.
Thanks for you interest and comments.
Jack
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:I agree with Jim on one thing: the situation is absurd. We agree on precious little else on this thread. Yes, I appreciate Jim's public acknowledgement that I am a man of integrity. The analytic importance is that we therefore stipulate that Imogene Adams said what I said she said.
His central problem is that, as professor Fetzer repeatedly emphasizes in other contexts, an explanation must take into account the "totality of the evidence." The totality of the evidence here includes an inconvenient Imogene Adams, an informed witness to the photo, who has identified her husband in the newspaper photo since its release, who tells us her husband's friends called him about it the next day, that she had a caption professionally produced, and admits she got the "date wrong." Jim dismisses Imogene's account with a withering blast of charges:
1. He has "no interest in Mrs. Adams"
2. She was not in Dealey Plaza and "really does not know whether Robert was there"
3. There is "fraud in the evidence"
4. We have a stunning "red flag"
5. "Something is terribly wrong with this story"
6. "Adams is not the man in the photo"
7. We have a "phony plaque and a fake photo"
8. "It is beyond belief that the clipping would have the wrong date and the wrong day"
9. "This whole thing smacks of being staged to me"
10. And we dare not fault him "for rejecting a story that is ridiculous on its face."
Oh my, I do declare. The word "fulmination" comes to mind. Bluster. Huffing and puffing to blow Ms. Adams testimony down.
Doesn't work for me. At all. No interest? Fetzer has no interest, so we must therefore exclude it from the evidence collection about the photo? The totality of the evidence is supposed to exclude key testimony from Adams? Really!? As I accurately surmised earlier, Fetzer, White and Drago find Ms. Adams' tesimony worthless. They provide no contrary testimony from anyone who might have known Adams or Conein. Fetzer is even suggesting that Mr. Adams lived a lie about his whereabouts on November 22, 1963, deceiving his widow for decades. Nice going, Jim. These accomplished researchers "merely" want Imogene's testimony deleted from the evidence record despite their "earnest quest" to identify the figure in the photo. Oh yeah. Jack states it this way: "What I do is analyze photos. I do not conduct field research." I gave him my field research, and such digging may be below his pay grade, but Jack is unwilling or unable to use any of it in his attempt to identify the man in the photo. He is a narrow technician, we are led to believe, a photo purist, at least in this instance.
What justifies the haughty dismissal of Imogene's testimony? Her account would not be worthless in a real investigation since it is unimpeachable (i.e., entirely trustworthy), but it threatens the Fetzerian theory of Conein...er, the man in the picture. So the professor deletes Imogene's testimony from the "totality of the evidence." Neat. Given the choice between her testimony and the contrary opinions of these "top JFK authority figures," I'll take Ms. Adams' testimony every day of the week (buttressed by my personal evaluation of the photos).
Jim almost shouts that the wrong day/date in the caption proves "fraud in the evidence," "something is terribly wrong," etc.
According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[1] In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain.
A hoax also involves deception, but without the intention of gain, or of damaging or depriving the victim; the intention is often humorous.
Ms. Adams has committed no fraud, that is, she committed no crime. Her ready "confession" to her caption shows no shame or criminal intent (I can't believe I have to point out such obvious points to a brilliant professor or even on a DPF forum, but my learned antagonists force it). If Jim prefers he may call the caption a hoax because it is a "deception" meant in teasing fun and a point of family pride "without intention of gain, or of damaging or depriving the victim; the intention is often humorous." Hey Jim, the family enjoyed the picture framed with a "newspaper-like caption," that's all it was and is. It was fun, it was nice. Yet you find this "ridiculous on its face"??? Oh my.
What is the proposed alternative explanation? I don't see one in evidence for our evaluation. Fetzer will not spin out his alternative theory to account for the stipulated fact of Ms. Adams' testimony. It would look too stupid if he did. In other words, we have evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is Mr. Adams in the pic. Since the professor rejects a common-sense, innocent interpretation of the facts that point to Mr. Adams in the photo, he owes us an explicit explanation/theory to account for the facts. You know, "the whole thing is staged," Ms. Adams is MK Ultra, a CIA plaything despite all appearances to the contrary, blah, blah. She's under the control of the "dark side," etc. Go for it. I'd love to begin destroying it, posthaste. It would prove absurd, totally lacking any plausibility, evidence, you name it. You spin out your alternative explanation of the facts Jim, do not confine yourself to banging the table about your beliefs while throwing around shadowy generalizations about the abilities of those 10-foot-tall guys at the CIA and their foresight and thoroughness in planting and controlling framed photos with captions possessed by elderly widows that emerge decades later from a modest Dallas home.
After twenty-one pages and >6,000 viewings, the issue at hand is now a "trifle." It would be important if the evidence corroborated the theory that Conein was on the corner of Houston and Main, but it's "irrelevant" that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't Conein. Yeah, right.
When I wrote to Fletcher Prouty, drawing his attention to the Conein look-alike, he responded: "...I noted this same photo you have found and the likeness between that person and Lou...I'd say that the guy is Conein." Well, now we know that "the guy" was not Conein. I suspect that Col. Prouty would be glad to have this issue tied down. I don't believe he would view it as trifling or irrelevant.
01-02-2011, 05:35 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2011, 06:08 PM by Jack White.)
Allan Eaglesham Wrote:
Jack White Wrote:My, Morgan...so much indignation over such a trifle. If Mr. and Mrs. Adams
are totally truthful and Adams IS the man in the suspicious photo, and even
if Jim and I agree to that, IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the JFK case. All it
does is guarantee that the man is NOT Conein. I have already stated that
comparison of the photos is INCONCLUSIVE. What that means is that it is
not provable from the photo that it is either Adams or Conein. In any event,
I have stated repeatedly that it cannot be proved to be either...so it is a
meaningless distraction. It is NOT important if it is Adams. It is only important
if it can be proved to be Conein. I do not see it as an absurd situation at all;
a spectator who resembles Conein and Adams is seen in a "suspicious" photo.
Researchers disagree over the significance of this image. In any event it does
not change information that Prouty said Conein was in DP, that Conein was
in Fort Worth the previous night, or that this man is standing in the midst of
about five "doppelgangers" or lookalikes for known CIA personnel. I concur with
Prouty that Lansdale and Conein were involved and both in DP.
This is not a "federal case" since nothing has been proved yet, and is not likely
to be proven. I see no reason for anyone to bother Mrs. Adams, since if she
is correct, her information is totally irrelevant. It would be important ONLY if
she said it was not her husband.
Thanks for you interest and comments.
Jack
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:I agree with Jim on one thing: the situation is absurd. We agree on precious little else on this thread. Yes, I appreciate Jim's public acknowledgement that I am a man of integrity. The analytic importance is that we therefore stipulate that Imogene Adams said what I said she said.
His central problem is that, as professor Fetzer repeatedly emphasizes in other contexts, an explanation must take into account the "totality of the evidence." The totality of the evidence here includes an inconvenient Imogene Adams, an informed witness to the photo, who has identified her husband in the newspaper photo since its release, who tells us her husband's friends called him about it the next day, that she had a caption professionally produced, and admits she got the "date wrong." Jim dismisses Imogene's account with a withering blast of charges:
1. He has "no interest in Mrs. Adams"
2. She was not in Dealey Plaza and "really does not know whether Robert was there"
3. There is "fraud in the evidence"
4. We have a stunning "red flag"
5. "Something is terribly wrong with this story"
6. "Adams is not the man in the photo"
7. We have a "phony plaque and a fake photo"
8. "It is beyond belief that the clipping would have the wrong date and the wrong day"
9. "This whole thing smacks of being staged to me"
10. And we dare not fault him "for rejecting a story that is ridiculous on its face."
Oh my, I do declare. The word "fulmination" comes to mind. Bluster. Huffing and puffing to blow Ms. Adams testimony down.
Doesn't work for me. At all. No interest? Fetzer has no interest, so we must therefore exclude it from the evidence collection about the photo? The totality of the evidence is supposed to exclude key testimony from Adams? Really!? As I accurately surmised earlier, Fetzer, White and Drago find Ms. Adams' tesimony worthless. They provide no contrary testimony from anyone who might have known Adams or Conein. Fetzer is even suggesting that Mr. Adams lived a lie about his whereabouts on November 22, 1963, deceiving his widow for decades. Nice going, Jim. These accomplished researchers "merely" want Imogene's testimony deleted from the evidence record despite their "earnest quest" to identify the figure in the photo. Oh yeah. Jack states it this way: "What I do is analyze photos. I do not conduct field research." I gave him my field research, and such digging may be below his pay grade, but Jack is unwilling or unable to use any of it in his attempt to identify the man in the photo. He is a narrow technician, we are led to believe, a photo purist, at least in this instance.
What justifies the haughty dismissal of Imogene's testimony? Her account would not be worthless in a real investigation since it is unimpeachable (i.e., entirely trustworthy), but it threatens the Fetzerian theory of Conein...er, the man in the picture. So the professor deletes Imogene's testimony from the "totality of the evidence." Neat. Given the choice between her testimony and the contrary opinions of these "top JFK authority figures," I'll take Ms. Adams' testimony every day of the week (buttressed by my personal evaluation of the photos).
Jim almost shouts that the wrong day/date in the caption proves "fraud in the evidence," "something is terribly wrong," etc.
According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[1] In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain.
A hoax also involves deception, but without the intention of gain, or of damaging or depriving the victim; the intention is often humorous.
Ms. Adams has committed no fraud, that is, she committed no crime. Her ready "confession" to her caption shows no shame or criminal intent (I can't believe I have to point out such obvious points to a brilliant professor or even on a DPF forum, but my learned antagonists force it). If Jim prefers he may call the caption a hoax because it is a "deception" meant in teasing fun and a point of family pride "without intention of gain, or of damaging or depriving the victim; the intention is often humorous." Hey Jim, the family enjoyed the picture framed with a "newspaper-like caption," that's all it was and is. It was fun, it was nice. Yet you find this "ridiculous on its face"??? Oh my.
What is the proposed alternative explanation? I don't see one in evidence for our evaluation. Fetzer will not spin out his alternative theory to account for the stipulated fact of Ms. Adams' testimony. It would look too stupid if he did. In other words, we have evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is Mr. Adams in the pic. Since the professor rejects a common-sense, innocent interpretation of the facts that point to Mr. Adams in the photo, he owes us an explicit explanation/theory to account for the facts. You know, "the whole thing is staged," Ms. Adams is MK Ultra, a CIA plaything despite all appearances to the contrary, blah, blah. She's under the control of the "dark side," etc. Go for it. I'd love to begin destroying it, posthaste. It would prove absurd, totally lacking any plausibility, evidence, you name it. You spin out your alternative explanation of the facts Jim, do not confine yourself to banging the table about your beliefs while throwing around shadowy generalizations about the abilities of those 10-foot-tall guys at the CIA and their foresight and thoroughness in planting and controlling framed photos with captions possessed by elderly widows that emerge decades later from a modest Dallas home.
After twenty-one pages and >6,000 viewings, the issue at hand is now a "trifle." It would be important if the evidence corroborated the theory that Conein was on the corner of Houston and Main, but it's "irrelevant" that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't Conein. Yeah, right.
When I wrote to Fletcher Prouty, drawing his attention to the Conein look-alike, he responded: "...I noted this same photo you have found and the likeness between that person and Lou...I'd say that the guy is Conein." Well, now we know that "the guy" was not Conein. I suspect that Col. Prouty would be glad to have this issue tied down. I don't believe he would view it as trifling or irrelevant.
IF the man on the corner can be proved to be Adams, it is indeed irrelevant
to the JFK assassination. BUT IF it is Adams, that does not mean that Conein was
NOT in DP. It does mean that a LOOKALIKE for Conein was also there. The photo
also shows "lookalikes" for Gerry Patrick Hemming and Rip Robertson standing
by Adams. Who were these lookalikes? What are the odds of one picture showing
3 lookalikes for 3 CIA operatives associated with the assassination? Even if all
three are not the people they look like, THAT IS HARDLY TRIFLING.
As for Prouty, I do not believe that he would accept at face value that the image
is that of Adams. He tended to look beyond "official explanations."
Jack White Wrote:My, Morgan...so much indignation over such a trifle. If Mr. and Mrs. Adams
are totally truthful and Adams IS the man in the suspicious photo, and even
if Jim and I agree to that, IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the JFK case. All it
does is guarantee that the man is NOT Conein. I have already stated that
comparison of the photos is INCONCLUSIVE. What that means is that it is
not provable from the photo that it is either Adams or Conein. In any event,
I have stated repeatedly that it cannot be proved to be either...so it is a
meaningless distraction. It is NOT important if it is Adams. It is only important
if it can be proved to be Conein. I do not see it as an absurd situation at all;
a spectator who resembles Conein and Adams is seen in a "suspicious" photo.
Researchers disagree over the significance of this image. In any event it does
not change information that Prouty said Conein was in DP, that Conein was
in Fort Worth the previous night, or that this man is standing in the midst of
about five "doppelgangers" or lookalikes for known CIA personnel. I concur with
Prouty that Lansdale and Conein were involved and both in DP.
This is not a "federal case" since nothing has been proved yet, and is not likely
to be proven. I see no reason for anyone to bother Mrs. Adams, since if she
is correct, her information is totally irrelevant. It would be important ONLY if
she said it was not her husband.
Thanks for you interest and comments.
Jack
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:I agree with Jim on one thing: the situation is absurd. We agree on precious little else on this thread. Yes, I appreciate Jim's public acknowledgement that I am a man of integrity. The analytic importance is that we therefore stipulate that Imogene Adams said what I said she said.
His central problem is that, as professor Fetzer repeatedly emphasizes in other contexts, an explanation must take into account the "totality of the evidence." The totality of the evidence here includes an inconvenient Imogene Adams, an informed witness to the photo, who has identified her husband in the newspaper photo since its release, who tells us her husband's friends called him about it the next day, that she had a caption professionally produced, and admits she got the "date wrong." Jim dismisses Imogene's account with a withering blast of charges:
1. He has "no interest in Mrs. Adams"
2. She was not in Dealey Plaza and "really does not know whether Robert was there"
3. There is "fraud in the evidence"
4. We have a stunning "red flag"
5. "Something is terribly wrong with this story"
6. "Adams is not the man in the photo"
7. We have a "phony plaque and a fake photo"
8. "It is beyond belief that the clipping would have the wrong date and the wrong day"
9. "This whole thing smacks of being staged to me"
10. And we dare not fault him "for rejecting a story that is ridiculous on its face."
Oh my, I do declare. The word "fulmination" comes to mind. Bluster. Huffing and puffing to blow Ms. Adams testimony down.
Doesn't work for me. At all. No interest? Fetzer has no interest, so we must therefore exclude it from the evidence collection about the photo? The totality of the evidence is supposed to exclude key testimony from Adams? Really!? As I accurately surmised earlier, Fetzer, White and Drago find Ms. Adams' tesimony worthless. They provide no contrary testimony from anyone who might have known Adams or Conein. Fetzer is even suggesting that Mr. Adams lived a lie about his whereabouts on November 22, 1963, deceiving his widow for decades. Nice going, Jim. These accomplished researchers "merely" want Imogene's testimony deleted from the evidence record despite their "earnest quest" to identify the figure in the photo. Oh yeah. Jack states it this way: "What I do is analyze photos. I do not conduct field research." I gave him my field research, and such digging may be below his pay grade, but Jack is unwilling or unable to use any of it in his attempt to identify the man in the photo. He is a narrow technician, we are led to believe, a photo purist, at least in this instance.
What justifies the haughty dismissal of Imogene's testimony? Her account would not be worthless in a real investigation since it is unimpeachable (i.e., entirely trustworthy), but it threatens the Fetzerian theory of Conein...er, the man in the picture. So the professor deletes Imogene's testimony from the "totality of the evidence." Neat. Given the choice between her testimony and the contrary opinions of these "top JFK authority figures," I'll take Ms. Adams' testimony every day of the week (buttressed by my personal evaluation of the photos).
Jim almost shouts that the wrong day/date in the caption proves "fraud in the evidence," "something is terribly wrong," etc.
According to the Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition fraud can be defined as: "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage".[1] In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain.
A hoax also involves deception, but without the intention of gain, or of damaging or depriving the victim; the intention is often humorous.
Ms. Adams has committed no fraud, that is, she committed no crime. Her ready "confession" to her caption shows no shame or criminal intent (I can't believe I have to point out such obvious points to a brilliant professor or even on a DPF forum, but my learned antagonists force it). If Jim prefers he may call the caption a hoax because it is a "deception" meant in teasing fun and a point of family pride "without intention of gain, or of damaging or depriving the victim; the intention is often humorous." Hey Jim, the family enjoyed the picture framed with a "newspaper-like caption," that's all it was and is. It was fun, it was nice. Yet you find this "ridiculous on its face"??? Oh my.
What is the proposed alternative explanation? I don't see one in evidence for our evaluation. Fetzer will not spin out his alternative theory to account for the stipulated fact of Ms. Adams' testimony. It would look too stupid if he did. In other words, we have evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is Mr. Adams in the pic. Since the professor rejects a common-sense, innocent interpretation of the facts that point to Mr. Adams in the photo, he owes us an explicit explanation/theory to account for the facts. You know, "the whole thing is staged," Ms. Adams is MK Ultra, a CIA plaything despite all appearances to the contrary, blah, blah. She's under the control of the "dark side," etc. Go for it. I'd love to begin destroying it, posthaste. It would prove absurd, totally lacking any plausibility, evidence, you name it. You spin out your alternative explanation of the facts Jim, do not confine yourself to banging the table about your beliefs while throwing around shadowy generalizations about the abilities of those 10-foot-tall guys at the CIA and their foresight and thoroughness in planting and controlling framed photos with captions possessed by elderly widows that emerge decades later from a modest Dallas home.
After twenty-one pages and >6,000 viewings, the issue at hand is now a "trifle." It would be important if the evidence corroborated the theory that Conein was on the corner of Houston and Main, but it's "irrelevant" that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't Conein. Yeah, right.
When I wrote to Fletcher Prouty, drawing his attention to the Conein look-alike, he responded: "...I noted this same photo you have found and the likeness between that person and Lou...I'd say that the guy is Conein." Well, now we know that "the guy" was not Conein. I suspect that Col. Prouty would be glad to have this issue tied down. I don't believe he would view it as trifling or irrelevant.
IF the man on the corner can be proved to be Adams, it is indeed irrelevant
to the JFK assassination. BUT IF it is Adams, that does not mean that Conein was
NOT in DP. It does mean that a LOOKALIKE for Conein was also there. The photo
also shows "lookalikes" for Gerry Patrick Hemming and Rip Robertson standing
by Adams. Who were these lookalikes? What are the odds of one picture showing
3 lookalikes for 3 CIA operatives associated with the assassination? Even if all
three are not the people they look like, THAT IS HARDLY TRIFLING.
As for Prouty, I do not believe that he was accept at face value that the image
is that of Adams. He tended to look beyond "official explanations."
Jack
Tell me, Jack -- who accepted AT FACE VALUE that the image is that of Adams? I certainly did not.
No one has said that Conein was not in Dealey Plaza, although you and Fetzer keep implying it; it's a convenient smoke screen. And "trifle" was your word, not mine.
Jack, I am not indignant, only frustrated at the rejection of direct evidence, authentic evidence, by a smart and sensible guy like you. A trifle this dispute is not if only because if our reasoning and methods of gathering and evaluating evidence cannot establish the truth in this case, what can we prove going forward?
What standard of proof are you imposing? The civil law standard is a preponderance of evidence and that clearly identifies the figure as Adams in this case. The proof is so compelling IMO that it meets the criminal law standard of proved beyond reasonable doubt. The alternative to Imogene Adams' explanation for the man in the photo being her husband would prove unreasonable, that is, improbable in the extreme, laughable in fact. Vince Bugliosi or any competent attorney would have a field day ridiculing the anti-Imogene theory in court. That is why the alternative explanation is not spelled out, it is kept in the closet, mostly concealed from my close inspection.
Let me state again that neither Allan nor I ever disputed the proposition that if it is Adams in the pic, then it is not Conein, a necessary but not sufficient condition to prove Conein was absent from Dealey Plaza that day. That is obvious and to keep reiterating it as a distinction of your conclusion is tiresome, to put it as politely as I can.
To drop Imogene's direct, unimpeachable evidence down the memory hole is wholly unacceptable to me and most anyone I can think of. It constitutes poor criminal investigative practice and impedes discovery of the truth. Hence, Morgan's frustration.
Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.[1]Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, directly supports the truth of evidence, from which the truth of the assertion may be inferred.
For example: a witness who testifies that he saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant's gun shot the bullet that killed the victim gives circumstantial evidence, from which B's guilt may be inferred.
In direct evidence a witness relates what he or she directly experienced. (Usually the experience is by sight or hearing, though it may come though any sense, including touch or pain. State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.)
Jack White Wrote:My, Morgan...so much indignation over such a trifle. If Mr. and Mrs. Adams
are totally truthful and Adams IS the man in the suspicious photo, and even
if Jim and I agree to that, IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the JFK case. All it
does is guarantee that the man is NOT Conein. I have already stated that
comparison of the photos is INCONCLUSIVE. What that means is that it is
not provable from the photo that it is either Adams or Conein. In any event,
I have stated repeatedly that it cannot be proved to be either...so it is a
meaningless distraction. It is NOT important if it is Adams. It is only important
if it can be proved to be Conein. I do not see it as an absurd situation at all;
a spectator who resembles Conein and Adams is seen in a "suspicious" photo.
Researchers disagree over the significance of this image. In any event it does
not change information that Prouty said Conein was in DP, that Conein was
in Fort Worth the previous night, or that this man is standing in the midst of
about five "doppelgangers" or lookalikes for known CIA personnel. I concur with
Prouty that Lansdale and Conein were involved and both in DP.
This is not a "federal case" since nothing has been proved yet, and is not likely
to be proven. I see no reason for anyone to bother Mrs. Adams, since if she
is correct, her information is totally irrelevant. It would be important ONLY if
she said it was not her husband.
Thanks for you interest and comments.
Jack
After twenty-one pages and >6,000 viewings, the issue at hand is now a "trifle." It would be important if the evidence corroborated the theory that Conein was on the corner of Houston and Main, but it's "irrelevant" that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't Conein. Yeah, right.
When I wrote to Fletcher Prouty, drawing his attention to the Conein look-alike, he responded: "...I noted this same photo you have found and the likeness between that person and Lou...I'd say that the guy is Conein." Well, now we know that "the guy" was not Conein. I suspect that Col. Prouty would be glad to have this issue tied down. I don't believe he would view it as trifling or irrelevant.
IF the man on the corner can be proved to be Adams, it is indeed irrelevant
to the JFK assassination. BUT IF it is Adams, that does not mean that Conein was
NOT in DP. It does mean that a LOOKALIKE for Conein was also there. The photo
also shows "lookalikes" for Gerry Patrick Hemming and Rip Robertson standing
by Adams. Who were these lookalikes? What are the odds of one picture showing
3 lookalikes for 3 CIA operatives associated with the assassination? Even if all
three are not the people they look like, THAT IS HARDLY TRIFLING.
As for Prouty, I do not believe that he was accept at face value that the image
is that of Adams. He tended to look beyond "official explanations."
Jack
Tell me, Jack -- who accepted AT FACE VALUE that the image is that of Adams? I certainly did not.
No one has said that Conein was not in Dealey Plaza, although you and Fetzer keep implying it; it's a convenient smoke screen. And "trifle" was your word, not mine.
Morgan...I am not an investigator. I analyze photos. I do not make
trips to interview witnesses. I do not make long distance phone calls.
I am mainly interested in looking at evidence like photos, documents
and books.
Looking at the Eaglesham original identification of the Altgens man
as Conein, I was impressed that there was a great resemblance. Years
later when he changed his mind and said NO, IT WAS A MAN NAMED
ADAMS, I looked at photos he sent me of Adams and was NOT equally
impressed. Most of the Adams photos he sent did NOT look like the
man in Altgens (only one did). But the fact that there was a Dallas
lookalike for the man diminished the chances of the photo showing
Conein, but did not eliminate them. I made my position well known
on JFK forums for several years. The Altgens man is NOT IMPORTANT
if it is NOT Conein, whether it is Adams or anyone else.
My position remains UNCHANGED from the time Adams was introduced
into the scene. PHOTO COMPARISONS are inconclusive. There is a
VERY STRONG REASON that I do not ID Adams in photo comparisons.
The supranasal ridge is totally different. ADAMS PHOTOS show a man
with VERY WIDELY SPACED EYEBROWS, as I have shown and stated
on every occasion. The Altgens man has closely spaced eyebrows.
Therefore, BASED ON PHOTOS (and not witness interviews nor opinions
of others) I cannot change my opinion that comparison of photos
is inconclusive.
In the investigation of the murder of JFK, the misidentification of lack
of identification of spectators along the curb route, IS A TRIFLE lacking
significance, UNLESS an UNIDENTIFIED person can be identified as
someone of suspicion. IF the man on the curb IS Adams, it is totally
irrelevant to the investigation. IF the man is associated with the CIA,
it becomes very relevant. To me, this is self apparent, and I see no
reason to change any conclusion I have drawn from study of photos.
Attached is an additional photo of Adams. Note the great distance
between the eyebrows over the nose, not present in the "Altgens"
photo.
