What Allen is omitting here is that there were several exchanges that took place prior to this, including a very early notice he had posted--perhaps as long as six months or even more ago about this--in which he advised that the photograph on his "Familiar Faces" page who had been identified as Lucien Conein was not. As I recall, I first noticed it on his web site. I was a bit taken aback, especially by the absence of any explanation, and initiated an exchange with him. At that point in time, as I understood it, he had not actually seen, much less studied, photographs of the purported "faux Conein". He made contact with Frank Caplett, who sent me some photographs, which I in turn sent to Jack White. Frank Caplett may have originated this story, but the matter at hand is whether it is true.
Jack and I went through several exchanges and he also had direct contact with Allan. Based upon Jack's studies, it became increasingly apparent that the person whom he was now taking to be "Mainman", Robert Adams, was not the one in the photo and the alleged "plaque" was completely fake, a fabrication that was put together in a shoddy fashion, which congratulated him for having been photographed with JFK on Thursday, 23 November 1963. No one with the least familiarity with the assassination should have been taken in. When I realized that he had drawn a conclusion--which I now gather was forwarded by Tree Frog--I was dumbfounded and sent him an email, which I shall post below with my summary overview of the situation.
Background about this matter, which Allan Eaglesham provides, may be found by comparing the discussion of the photograph found at
http://www.jfkresearch.com/eaglesham/page7.jpg with the advisory notes added at
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP/, where he states, "Information received October 12, 2008, and confirmed November 24, 2009: The Lucien Conein look-alike was not Conein." In the first paragraphs of the post to which I am replying, he says:
About three years ago, I received an email from the man who calls himself “Treefrog” saying that he had been informed that the Lucien Conein look-alike at the corner of Main and Houston was not Conein. Treefrog did not provide the source of his information but did provide contact information—the address of a woman in Dallas who could provide the identity of the man in question. I wrote to this woman, explaining the situation carefully and enclosing a self-addressed stamped envelope to facilitate a reply.
The woman failed to respond. I did not think that this hearsay information warranted mention on the website (
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP/).
Between October 12, 2008, and November 24, 2009, however, it was mentioned on the web site, which was the very notice that caught my attention and bothered me. It said nothing about the basis for denying the identification. And I am stunned that he would now reaffirm the the faux identification of Mainman with Adams. Jack has shown that is not the case, precisely as I have elaborated in detail in my posts about this matter on this thread and on "What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today".
Moreover, if you visit the page purporting to explain how Allan Eaglsham knows that the image in the photo is Robert Adams and not Lucien Conein by a link at
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP/, you will not only find a handful of photos of Robert Adams but the following obervations:
"On November 24, 2009, I received several photographs of Robert H. Adams from Mr. Caplett, including one of an identity card, taken in the home of the aunt referred to above. A comparison with the Lucien-Conein look-alike is provided below as well as a framed picture which shows a newspaper clipping naming Mr. Adams as present in the Altgens picture."
Not only does Eaglesham omit any reference to the studies by Jack White that undermine or contradict that claim, but he even offers the "newspaper clipping naming Mr. Adams as present in the Altgens picuture"--which, it states, occurred on
Thursday, November 23, 1963! What utter rubbish! In my last email to him, I made the following observations:
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:14:01 -0600 [11/25/2009 10:14:01 AM CST]
From:
jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Allan Eaglesham" <aeaglesh@twcny.rr.com>
Cc: "Jack & Sue White" <jwjfk@flash.net>,
jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Adams--Dealeyman--Conein
Allan,
For a sophisticated guy, I am shocked by your naivety in a matter of this
magnitude. Occam's Razor only applies to alternative theories when they
are capable of accounting for the available, relevant evidence. The idea
of a plaque for appearing in a photograph would be absurd--except for the
purpose of attempting to obfuscate the identification of a "bystander" who
was caught in a photo, when he should never have allowed himself to be so
conspicuous! A lucky photo of a CIA op had to be obscured. That you in
your position with your knowledge of the case should allow yourself to be
played for a sucker causes me profound concern. Jack has it exactly right
and has offered a far superior argument. My confidence in you is shaken.
Sorry about that. We are interested in the truth, not phony obfuscation.
Jim
Quoting "Jack & Sue White" <jwjfk@flash.net>:
[Hide Quoted Text]
I have never heard of a newspaper providing a "plaque" to anyone certifying
that they were in a photo. That is the equivalent of finding a hijacker passport
in the WTC rubble.
Conein was a CIA operative. If it was discovered that he was in some
11-22 photos, search for a doppelganger came up with a photo of Adams
as an SMU student. He had the appropriate features and background. The
rest is CIA covert activity. But they overdid it with the DMN "plaque". That
is just unbelievable.
They had 40+ years to get the fakery right, after Adams was safely deceased.
If still living, he might have disputed the allegation.
The JFK affair was not an ordinary murder. It is filled with fake photos and
documents. Why would "Occam's Razor" apply to this investigation? That
is like saying Marina took the Backyard photos or Zapruder took the Zfilm.
Why exempt the Adams "evidence" from being faked?
It is possible that Adams IS the man in the photos. But the evidence is flimsy.
Show me some 1964 evidence, and I will take it more seriously. Show me
a 1963 photo of Adams. A "plaque" from a newspaper "certifying" that
someone is shown in a photo is not evidence.
I do not know WHO the man in the photo is. I have seen nothing yet to
convince me that it is Adams OR Conein. Based ONLY on available photos,
the 11-22 man resembles "Conein" more than Adams in my opinion.
Jack
PS. I have never heard of "Frank Caplett" so cannot judge his veracity.
On Nov 25, 2009, at 8:13:30 AM, Allan Eaglesham wrote:
Good morning, Jack:
The widow's peak, obviously, is hair and can take on slightly different
shapes. The issue here is that Adams and Dealey man both had unusually
well defined widow's peaks, and Adams was standing at the corner of Main
and Houston when the photograph was taken. Would he pretend to his family
to be someone that he wasn't? Frank Caplett has seen a plaque from the
Dallas Morning News on the wall of the Adams residence stating that Adams
is in that famous photograph. Is Caplett lying?
This is a case, if ever there was one, for applying Occam's razor. The most
obvious explanation is correct: Adams and Dealey man are one and the same.
Wishing you well,
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack & Sue White [mailto:jwjfk@flash.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 12:14 AM
To: Allan Eaglesham
Cc: Jack & Sue White
Subject: Re: Adams--Dealeyman--Conein
Allan...to me the operative phrase is:
"However, I feel the shape of the head and the hairline
may rule Adams out."
Look at the photos and tell me whether the widow's
peak of Adams matches.
To me, Adams does not look like the Dealey man.
His head is too oval shaped.
Jack
On Nov 24, 2009, at 4:51:49 PM, Allan Eaglesham wrote:
Hi Jack:
Thanks for copying me on this. For me the operative phrase here is
"I found that the facial features are almost ridiculously similar."
The man said he was there, and, according to Frank Caplett, a plaque
showing the Altgens photograph hangs in the family home displaying
a note from the DMN acknowledging his presence in the famous photo.
With best regards and Happy Thanksgiving.
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack & Sue White [mailto:jwjfk@flash.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:35 PM
To:
jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: Jack & Sue White; Allan
Subject: Adams--Dealeyman--Conein
Jim...this is about as good a comparison as I can make. I have
corrected the perspective on the Adams photo and enhanced it.
It all comes down to the dates of the photos compared to the 11-22
photo...earlier or later. I found that the facial features are almost
ridiculously similar. However, I feel the shape of the head and the
hairline may rule Adams out.
The lighting and other photographic conditions also may affect the
comparisons since the conditions and quality of images varies.
My conclusion is INCONCLUSIVE. However, I would rate probably of
matches: Adams, 30%, Conein, 70%...but it is possible that it was
EITHER or NEITHER in the Dealey photo. The main problems with
Adams are the long oval face and the irregular frontal hairline. It is
a difficult comparison, since the similarities are very close and the
conditions different.
I hope this is helpful. Use it in any way you want. I am also
sending cc to Allan Eaglesham.
Let me know what you think.
Jack
SITUATION SUMMARY:
(1) The evidence Jack has adduced in support of the inference that Robert Adams is not Mainman, which I previously posted on "What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today", is clear and compelling. Since it was not posted in this thread, I shall now repeat it here:
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17
Why this is an instructive case to study . . .
Jack uploaded six of the slides from my original presentation, but there were actually seven. I tried to upload all seven in a ppt file, but the uploader would not accept it, so I have asked Jack if he could add the missing slide, to which I shall refer as (1.5). The first, (1), which appears above, 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 (missing) slide, (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 slide had been included above, perhaps there would be less resistance to my critique of Eaglesham.) In the next slide (with multiple comparisons), (2), Jack observes that Adams has a long oval face, while Mainman is square and Conein's slighly triangular; that the hairline peaks do not match, since Adam's peak is an odd shape and does not point to his nose, while Conein's peak points to his nose, but he seems to have more hair than does 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. Moreover, Adams has wide flaring nostrils, but 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, I believe that Jack has adduced more than sufficient proof that Adams is not Mainman. He is not convinced that Mainman is Conein, but this identification has been around for a long time. If there were some more direct basis for refuting it, I would suppose that it would have been advanced long ago. Indeed, if it is not Conein, then why would there be so much concern to prove it is Adams, even to the extent of fabricating (4), an (obviously phony) plaque? This shows that someone is going out of their way to substitute Adams identity for that of Conein. Without claiming that the identity of Mainman as Conein is definitive, it is further supported by the presence in Dealey Plaza of Edward Landsdale, as I mentioned during my presentation, since it was widely known that they had the practice of accompanying one another, having engaged in many covert operations in Vietnam and elsewhere together. Jack has provided sufficient proof that Mainman is not Adams and, based upon other considerations, including other photographs of Conein, including not (5) but (6), I regard the identification as Conein to be well-founded. Because this is a simple case in relation to the complexity of the assassination in its totality, I regard it as an instructive case to study. I hope this reassures Bernice that I am taking this matter seriously and would not lightly question Allan Eaglesham's involement in this matter absent good reasons for doing so, which I have explained here and in prior posts.
(2) Allan Eaglesham has to be familiar with this evidence, since (i) most, if not all of it, was sent to him previously in email exchanges, yet (ii) on this and on the other thread, he continues to defend his position, as shown by (iii),
"Information received October 12, 2008, and confirmed November 24, 2009: The Lucien Conein look-alike was not Conein", his latest reaffirmation.
(3) Most astonishing of all, he continues to cite the faux plaque--now said to be "newspaper clippings"--as though they carried any evidential weight! As I explained to Jack above, even though they are obviously faked, they count as evidence of fakery, which appears to have been motivated by a desperate attempt to obfuscate the existence of a photograph of Conein in Dealey Plaza.
(4) His appeal to Occam's Razor, incidentally, drew a smile to my face since, as a professional philosopher of science, I have written about it, including the entry in GLOSSARY OF EPISTEMOLOGY / PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE (1993) I co-authored with Robert Almeder, which reads as follows:
Occam's Razor. A methodological maxim that is attributed to William of Occam, which asserts that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity: "It is in vain to do by many what could be done by fewer!" Occam's Razor suggests that simpler theories should be preferred to more complex theories. Simpler theories are generally preferable, however, only when other things (such as their clarity, scope, and power) are equal.
In particular, a simpler theory is preferable to a more complex only when they are both capable of explaining the evidence! The case of JFK is an apt instance, since the official account is vastly more simple than the truth. In this instance, Eaglsham's theory cannot explain the evidence, as (1) has shown; he has persisted in endorsing it in spite of that, as (2) has shown; he does not even acknowledge that the "plaque" is crap, as (3) has shown; and misuses an appeal to Occam's Razor in support of an untenable position, as (4) has shown.
Under these circumstances, even though I would be willing to apologize if I were wrong about this, I cannot find any fault in my email to him in which I explained my conclusions--which included several exchanges between him and Jack as shown here--which I hereby reassert:
. . . A lucky photo of a CIA op had to be obscured. That you in
your position with your knowledge of the case should allow yourself to be
played for a sucker causes me profound concern. Jack has it exactly right
and has offered a far superior argument. My confidence in you is shaken.
Sorry about that. We are interested in the truth, not phony obfuscation.
Jim
I couldn't have said it better myself. Let everyone study and learn from this case. Even a usually reliable source can commit blunders of the greatest magnitude and refuse to admit them. That is not the response of a rational mind in pursuit of the truth. My confidence in him has been shaken. We--Jack and I and, I presume, the rest of you--are interested in the truth about the assassination, not phony obfuscation.
