"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today"

[Jack White]

As for our "exchanges", I connected Jack with Allan and was receiving copies of their discussions as well as of Jack's work. I presumed
that we all knew that we were communicating with one another.

Enough has been said for the members of this forum to make up their own minds about this. I invite everyone to consider all of the evidence that has been presented. There is more than enough.

Jack is right about the multiplicity of familiar faces in Dealey Plaza. Given the others of whom we are aware and that Lansdale was photographed there, too, it is not surprising Conein would be there.

It is significant that Fletcher Prouty also endorsed the identification of Mainman as Conein. In one of my communications, I said that, if "Adams" is not a close facsimilie of Conein, he must be Conein himself.

Allan may have removed the word "plaque", but he has continued to cite the (now) "newspaper clippings" as evidence that Mainman was Adams and not Conein. Think about it. That is simply stunning!

Allan could set things right by removing his endorsement of the identification of Mainman as Adams and noting that the evidence is not merely equivocal but has been challenged in studies by Jack White.

Jim...I think you misspoke about Prouty endorsing Mainman as Conein
I think. Fletch died before this identification came up, as I recall.
But Fletch DID SAY Conein was in DP, but misidentified him as
being on Elm Street. PLEASE CORRECT ME IF MY MEMORY IS WRONG.
I could be misrembering. If Prouty identified Mainman as Conein,
I would be absolutely convinced. Fletch knew him well!

Jack

[Allan Eaglesham]

Jim...I think you misspoke about Prouty endorsing Mainman as Conein
I think. Fletch died before this identification came up, as I recall.
But Fletch DID SAY Conein was in DP, but misidentified him as
being on Elm Street. PLEASE CORRECT ME IF MY MEMORY IS WRONG.
I could be misrembering. If Prouty identified Mainman as Conein,
I would be absolutely convinced. Fletch knew him well!

Jack

Jack:

In the interest of full disclosure: this aspect is covered in the article as follows:

[B]"When we wrote to Col. Prouty about this, he responded [43]: "...I noted this same photo you have found and the likeness between that person and Lou...I'd say that the guy is Conein." Although later in his letter he stated, "I make no solid claim for Conein in the Dealey Plaza picture," he went on to say, "but I do know that many of the Vietnam-trained, Mongoose inner circle were there." [/B]

[B][B][B][43] L. Fletcher Prouty, written communication, May 7, 1996.[/B][/B][/B]

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

[James H. Fetzer]

http://www.jfkresearch.com/eaglesham/page7.jpg

The key paragraph reads, "In the Altgens picture showing the limousine
turning onto Houston Street, standing close to the man resembling Mr.
Hemming, is someone who looked like Lucien Conein.

Photos: A face in the crowd; L. Conein; L. Conein in 1963; Composite

When we wrote to Col. Prouty about this, he responded [42], ". . . I
noted this same photo you have found and the likeness between that
person and Lou . . . I'd say that the guy is Conein." Although later in
the letter he stated, "I make no solid claim for Conein in the Dealey
Plaza picture," he went on to say, "but I do know that many of the
Vietnam-trained, Mongoose inner circle were there."

So I suppose you could say that he made an identification of Mainman
as Lucien Conein, but qualified it as "non-solid" or tentative and fallible.
I take that to mean that he thinks that it is Conein as his first response,
but he is wants to acknowledge that, in this case, he could be mistaken.

[42] L. Fletcher Prouty, written communication, May 7, 1996

My take is that he identified Mainmain as Conein, but then qualified it.

Since Jack has demonstrated multiple respects in which Adams is NOT
a "dead ringer" for Mainman, it is simply abusive for Allan to make that
claim here. He has not even discussed, much less rebutted, Jack's proofs.

[James H. Fetzer]

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.

[Allan Eaglesham]

It was not a Freudian slip. To say more would be to repeat myself.

[Charles Drago]

Jim...I think you misspoke about Prouty endorsing Mainman as Conein
I think. Fletch died before this identification came up, as I recall.
But Fletch DID SAY Conein was in DP, but misidentified him as
being on Elm Street. PLEASE CORRECT ME IF MY MEMORY IS WRONG.
I could be misrembering. If Prouty identified Mainman as Conein,
I would be absolutely convinced. Fletch knew him well!

Jack

Ladies and Gentlemen,

If my assignment were to counter efforts to expose, via discovery of photographic images, the presence of intelligence assets in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, I would find and/or create false matches, encourage their discovery and endorsement by honorable, influential investigators, and then make certain that valid, quantifiable counter-claims were promoted.

The "Mainman" episode* stands as an example of just such an operation.

Given the rancorous public exchanges here and elsewhere among some of the most respected and important JFK assassination scholars regarding the identity of "Mainman," how do you think the discovery of actual views of the historic Conein would be received by the general public and within our own community?
_____________________________

* I ask again: Jack (and/or anyone else), can you offer comparisons of Shane O'Sullivan's views of a David Sanchez Morales candidate at the Ambassador Hotel and the Dealey Plaza figure identified as DSM? Do they depict the same individual?

I ask again: Can anyone post comparisons of the earliest known -- which is to say, pre-Conein ID -- copies of the "Mainman" photograph and the version from which the ID initially was made? Are they identical?

[James H. Fetzer]

Charles,

No, I think they were there because they wanted to be able to say that they were there for a major event in removing JFK from the presidency.

They thought they had a fool-proof plan: stealing the body, changing the wounds, fabricating films; a designated patsy. They wanted to be there.

No one ever imagined in their wildest dreams that students would pour over this case with a fine-toothed comb, including all these photographs.

The difficulty I am having is finding an alternative explanation that fits the facts of how Allan has handled this otherwise straightforward case.

Allen had posted that Mainman was not Conein even before he had seen any proof. A note sent by Frank Caplett was good enough for him. Why?

When I asked what was going on, Caplett responded with the story about this guy who was supposed to have been given a plaque and all that.

It doesn't take an expert to see this plaque was a fake. So why is somebody faking a plaque to make it look as though Adams was Mainman?

Once I had sent Jack the photos and he had begun producing proofs of their differences, a rational mind would have qualified its position.

That, however, has not been Eaglesham's modus operandi. Instead, he has dug in his position and simply ignored Jack's dispositive proofs.

Maybe others are willing to tolerate this kind of abuse of logic and evidence, but I am not. We are engaged in research on a crucial matter.

Notice that -- to the bitter end -- he is asserting that Adams is a "dead ringer" for Mainman or even for Conein, when that is clearly false.

I don't know what to say. He is either not as competent as we have assumed or he is not as sincere as we all thought. Too bad either way.

This is not a very complicated situation. Conflicts like this are virtually unavoidable. Why is Allan acting so unprofessionally? That's the question.

Jim

[Jack White]

Jim...I think you misspoke about Prouty endorsing Mainman as Conein
I think. Fletch died before this identification came up, as I recall.
But Fletch DID SAY Conein was in DP, but misidentified him as
being on Elm Street. PLEASE CORRECT ME IF MY MEMORY IS WRONG.
I could be misrembering. If Prouty identified Mainman as Conein,
I would be absolutely convinced. Fletch knew him well!

Jack

Ladies and Gentlemen,

If my assignment were to counter efforts to expose, via discovery of photographic images, the presence of intelligence assets in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, I would find and/or create false matches, encourage their discovery and endorsement by honorable, influential investigators, and then make certain that valid, quantifiable counter-claims were promoted.

The "Mainman" episode* stands as an example of just such an operation.

Given the rancorous public exchanges here and elsewhere among some of the most respected and important JFK assassination scholars regarding the identity of "Mainman," how do you think the discovery of actual views of the historic Conein would be received by the general public and within our own community?
_____________________________

* I ask again: Jack (and/or anyone else), can you offer comparisons of Shane O'Sullivan's views of a David Sanchez Morales candidate at the Ambassador Hotel and the Dealey Plaza figure identified as DSM? Do they depict the same individual?

I ask again: Can anyone post comparisons of the earliest known -- which is to say, pre-Conein ID -- copies of the "Mainman" photograph and the version from which the ID initially was made? Are they identical?

Charles...I am not familiar with the Ambassador Hotel photos, so have
no opinion.

Let me remind everyone that the two people who first brought to our
attention all the doppelgangers in Dealey Plaza were James Richards
and Allan Eaglesham. I agreed with many of the studies by both of
them and disagreed with a few. It was Allan who first proposed that
Mainman was Conein, based on a photo of Conein which he discovered
in a book. He promoted his discovery for several years until someone
showed him a photo of Adams, which caused him to reverse his opinion.

I admit that there is a close resemblance of Mainman, Adams, and
Conein...enough that it should be investigated. However, there is
no proof that I would yet say is conclusive to identify the man in
the photos.

I am swayed toward Conein for these reasons:

1. The apparent presence in the plaza of many of the chief suspects
(or doppelgangers). Richards and Eaglesham have pointed out more
than a half dozen. Prouty named two. I believe Hunt and Harrelson
were there. Let's say there were TEN. What are the odds of ten high
agency personnel or lookalikes being there in a crowd of 500? The
odds are astronomical! I believe the plotters were there to see the
end result of their plot, and gloat. They thought they would not be
recognized, and they were not...until researchers poring over photos
found them many years later.

2. Adams is a latecomer to the lookalike list. For 40+ years he was
a nobody, so far as being identified. Then suddenly, though now dead,
he becomes a Dealey celebrity. I find that suspicious, knowing the
lengths the agency goes to to float false stories. I could easily accept
Adams being there if there were strong contemporaneous reports.
But all we have is a suspicious framed altered newspaper clipping
that "identifies" him. Had I been him, I would have told family, friends,
acquaintances and maybe news media about seeing the president,
hearing shots, watching the motorcade, crossing to the plaza, etc.
etc. But what do we have? A framed clipping, a widow's word.
It does not ring true. Show me more proof.

3. We lack high quality photos of Adams and Conein in 1963. All we
have are UNDATED photos of questionable quality. Photos of both
seem to be at different ages than Mainman.

4. Scant material is available about Adams. Just who was he? What
connections did he have? Are there friends, co-workers, family or
others that he told his story to years ago? Was there more to his
story than just "standing on the corner"?

If I were called to testify tomorrow, I would have to say "Based on
available evidence, conclusive identification is not possible; however,
based on the same evidence, I would say that I believe Conein was
present in Dallas*, and the man in the photos closely resembles him."

(*I am highly swayed by Fletcher Prouty telling me that Conein was
in Dealey Plaza; Prouty had inside sources.)

Jack

[Peter Lemkin]

As for our "exchanges", I connected Jack with Allan and was receiving copies of their discussions as well as of Jack's work. I presumed
that we all knew that we were communicating with one another.

Enough has been said for the members of this forum to make up their own minds about this. I invite everyone to consider all of the evidence that has been presented. There is more than enough.

Jack is right about the multiplicity of familiar faces in Dealey Plaza. Given the others of whom we are aware and that Lansdale was photographed there, too, it is not surprising Conein would be there.

It is significant that Fletcher Prouty also endorsed the identification of Mainman as Conein. In one of my communications, I said that, if "Adams" is not a close facsimilie of Conein, he must be Conein himself.

Allan may have removed the word "plaque", but he has continued to cite the (now) "newspaper clippings" as evidence that Mainman was Adams and not Conein. Think about it. That is simply stunning!

Allan could set things right by removing his endorsement of the identification of Mainman as Adams and noting that the evidence is not merely equivocal but has been challenged in studies by Jack White.

Jim...I think you misspoke about Prouty endorsing Mainman as Conein
I think. Fletch died before this identification came up, as I recall.
But Fletch DID SAY Conein was in DP, but misidentified him as
being on Elm Street. PLEASE CORRECT ME IF MY MEMORY IS WRONG.
I could be misrembering. If Prouty identified Mainman as Conein,
I would be absolutely convinced. Fletch knew him well!

Jack

From memory, not old notes, Prouty said Conein was in Dallas [as he said Landsdale was], but did not ID him correctly in the correct photo - his sources told him Conein was there that day. Very significant is that Conein and Landsdale often worked together - and both were apparently there.

[Charles Drago]

Charles...I am not familiar with the Ambassador Hotel photos, so have
no opinion.

Jack,

The best views of the DSMA (David Sanchez Morales/Ambassador) Man would come from screen captures from O'Sullivan's DVD, RFK Must Die.

I am swayed toward Conein for these reasons:

1. The apparent presence in the plaza of many of the chief suspects
(or doppelgangers). Richards and Eaglesham have pointed out more
than a half dozen. Prouty named two. I believe Hunt and Harrelson
were there. Let's say there were TEN. What are the odds of ten high
agency personnel or lookalikes being there in a crowd of 500? The
odds are astronomical![emphasis added]

Are they?

Again I submit for consideration: Scrutinize three or four c. 1963 well-attended public events at which JFK is NOT present. How many JFK assassination suspect doppelgangers will you spot?

My hope is that you won't find any. My guess is that you'd find a few.

I believe the plotters were there to see the
end result of their plot, and gloat.

A very novelistic conceit to be sure -- one I'm seriously thinking about developing.

They thought they would not be recognized, and they were not...until researchers poring over photos found them many years later.

Then why the disguises?

Is it not widely argued that the tramps are sporting CIA-developed facial camouflage?

Also, the cover-up as it initially was conceived and subsequently expanded and otherwise adapted clearly anticipates -- indeed is predicated upon the expectation of -- future investigations. Hence the use of doppelgangers: to confuse, misdirect, and engender disharmony among investigators.

2. Adams is a latecomer to the lookalike list. For 40+ years he was a nobody, so far as being identified. Then suddenly, though now dead, he becomes a Dealey celebrity. I find that suspicious[.]

So do I.

Hence my now thrice-offered query regarding comparisons between earliest known versions of doppelganger photos and versions in which suspects first were detected.