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

[Jack White]

Jack,

1) he made the identification in 1996, some years earlier;

2) I have corrected the misspelling of "supranasal"; and,

3) your studies are "good enough" to establish your points.

None of this can be "conclusive", as I have explained above.

Jim

Jim...please point me to the 1996 identification by Prouty
of Mainman. I am not aware of it. Thanks.

Jack

[Jack White]

Jack,

1) he made the identification in 1996, some years earlier;

2) I have corrected the misspelling of "supranasal"; and,

3) your studies are "good enough" to establish your points.

None of this can be "conclusive", as I have explained above.

Jim

ARRESTS...ALSO a young man by the name of William Gaston Allen, working for The Dallas Times Herald, which is long gone, I believe, ......he was in Forth Worth and covered, as a photographer, he was at his office processing ,back in Dallas, when the call came through, he ran, a block away, from TSBD ,and was at the corner of Elm and Houston, in time to see the last bus leaving, he stayed there in that immediate area, and took 6 rolls , shy of 100 frames of activity around Dealey, "I just shot everything that moved around there for awhile"...he had a runner, going back and forth with all these, processing them, he was the only one there connected to TDTH or UPI,now, he took photos of the three tramps, and Florer, now he may have, and probably did get photos of anyone under suspicion taken in by DPD....if we can find some of his photos, never know this photo might have come from one of his....

Now, there is a reference to a man being taken by DPD, and only speaking Spanish, and because he could not speak English, it said, they let him go.????....It is in the JFK Assn. Chronology, have been looking but not found it yet, but will, to see if there is a reference, I believe he was described as a young man..now I recall, it did not say what he said, in Spanish, in the Chron. but if there is a reference it may......as if the DPD, Texans wouldn't be able to understand, sheesh....

We do have some of the Allen photos but certainly not near 100 frames.he took the photos od the tramps as mentioned etc...as far as the spanish speaking man that was let go..i finally found the photo a few years back..it was originally in the Garrisin collection and Jim apparently showed it to Roger craig who said something to the effect it looked like or reminded him of the driver of the station wafon he saw pick up lho after as he ran down thegrassy knoll..it is posted below it was in the old Tony Marsh collection...thanks..there is one more of an arrest that is not familar that came from James along with his lookalike ..attached...all who were , arrested were let go and not held.and no clear concise records kept except for the supposed 3 tramps found years later by the Fontaines.see the crap book imo mrs.paine's messy garage.if you also wasted your money on it....:dontknow:....b...

I had not seen that comp by Richards. I think he has nailed another one.

Jack

[James H. Fetzer]

About the nature of knowledge, in its ordinary sense, knowledge is defined as warranted, true belief. Belief is what we take to be the case. When a belief is true, it is the case. Our only way to judge, however, is on the basis of evidence and logic to determine if the evidence is sufficient to warrant the belief, in which case it may be treated as "knowledge".

Agreed.

Knowledge claims in matters empirical--about the contents and events of the world and its history--are incapable of being known with certainty.

I certainly know that Custer died at Little Bighorn. Please define "certainty."

That's a fairly astonishing claim, given your skepticism about even being able to identify those who were photographed in Dealey Plaza. Actually, you not only do not know with certainty that Custer died at Little Big Horn but that you are the biological offspring of your own parents. You might have been adopted, for example. You believe that based upon a variety of evidential indicators, such as your birth certificate, baby book, old photos and other indications that you are who you believe you are -- even though none of this can be known with certainty. For a current example, think about Obama's birth certificate -- a case in which there may be more reason for skepticim than most. We only know what day it is on the basis of reference to calendars, newspapers, television programs and all that, which -- taken together in their totality -- create a coherent set of evidential indicators that support specific beliefs about the date. But, when you stop to consider that this could be an elaborate charade to mislead you -- who knows why? -- you begin to realize that, even though there is every reason to believe it to be true (with a very high probability, if you like), it is still possible -- no matter how remotely -- that you might be the victim of an elaborate hoax. Just because you read it in the newspaper (watched it on television, and so forth) does not guarantee that it is true (think of "Three Shots Fired", images of a plane hitting the South Tower, and so on). None of these things can be known with certainty.

When we come to discussing aspects of the assassination, including the identities of those seen in photographs taken in the plaza, we are not going to be able to determine their identities with certainty.

This paragraph makes no sense.

Your remark is what makes no sense, given what you have said about their identification in the other post. There you were giving credence to the theory that they might have been in disguises -- even though there is no good reason to think so -- and that, if they were good disguises, we would not be able to detect them! That's a pretty skeptical position that leaves us in a complete state of uncertainty about their identity. So why are you now adopting the position that your own position -- that their identities cannot be known with certainty -- makes no sense?

So Custer may not have died at Little Bighorn?

Are you unfamiliar with the observation that history is a pack of lies that the living play on the dead? I believe that Custer died at Little Big Horn, but I most certainly would not claim to know that with certainty. As I am attempting to explain, in relation to events that occur during the history of the world, the best that we an do is to know them with high probability. Some still believe that Elvis lives or that JFK did not die in Dallas.

So is Jack's disqualification of Adams as Mainman "beyond the possibility of empirical disproof"? Or is it an "ampliative inference"?

Falsification only requires establishing key differences in any one respect, while verification implies establishing similarity in every respect. It is only marginally ampliative to infer that they are not alike in certain respects when those respects can be established with -- in this case -- very high probability. The general features of their faces, their supranasal ridges and the directionality of their peaks indicate that they are not the same person -- assuming, of course, that their features have not been altered by the photographic process or otherwie distorted, which is why, even in this case, there is an ampliative dimension and the result is therefore not conclusive in the strict sense, even though it establishes the result beyond reasonable doubt insofar as there appears to be no reasonable alternative explanation

So that we understand each other: You are NOT arguing: Mainman is not Adams, therefore Mainman is Conein. Am I correct in this assumption?

Yes, that is correct. I am arguing that the differences between Adams and Mainman are sufficient to disqualify Adams as Mainman -- not with certainty, but with high probability. But insofar as it is the case that the only alternative available is that Mainman is Conein, it is also reasonable to draw the additional inference that Mainman is Conein -- absent a reasonable alternative explanation. That is a second inference from the premise that Mainman is either Adams or Conein but Mainman is not Adams to the conclusion that Mainman is a Conein -- which, as before, cannot be established with certainty but where there appears to be no alternative reasonable explanation.

Agreed: Your Mainman is Conein hypothesis is preferable to the Mainman is Adams hypothesis. It is equally preferable to a Mainman is Mr. Ed hypothesis, isn't it?

Not just "equally", but overwhelmingly, since there seems to be no resemblance relationship between Mainman and Mr. Ed, unlike the case of Adams -- unless we notice that they are both animals, both mammals, and such. But Mr. Ed is even more obviously not Mainman.

I'm assuming that eight points of similarity is the universally accepted standard used to identify fingerprints. Are there similarly governing standards used to identify facial characteristics? If so, have you used them in a manner consistent with the scientific method to identify Mainman?

Actually, I made an educated guess, which we can pursue. Even the FBI exaggerates the certainty of its results: "Fingerprint Identification is the method of identification using the impressions made by the minute ridge formations or patterns found on the fingertips. No two persons have exactly the same arrangement of ridge patterns, and the patterns of any one individual remain unchanged throughout life. Fingerprints offer an infallible means of personal identification." Consider the case of those who create latex false-fingerprints, as we find portrayed in various motion pictures. They are not "infallible", but yield results that are highly probable. Infallibility is no more attainable in relation to fingerprints than certainty in identification is possible with regard to photographs. Since each of us has a different face, however -- with the exception of identical twins -- the greater the similarity in facial features, the greater the probability they are faces of the same person -- absent rather extraordinary circumstances, such as we encounter in "Face Off", where two characters actually have an exchange of their physical faces.

If there are major points of comparison between Mainman and Conein, you could hold out for more. But even those who knew him, such as Fletcher Prouty, have concluded that Mainman is Conein. And that they have said their identifications are not certain does not discount them. [emphasis added]

In citing Prouty you may be commiting the fallacy of argument from false authority. I am not all that quick to accept Prouty at his word.

No. You commit a blunder in logic. There are two kinds of appeals to authority, only one of which is fallacious. Appealing to Einstein in matter of physics is non-fallacious, since Einstein is an expert on physics. Appealing to Einstein on matters of religion, however, would be a fallacious appeal, since Einstein is not an expert on religion. Given that Fletcher Prouty had worked with and knew Lucien Conein, appealing to his opinion is non-fallacious -- just as appealing to Bradley Ayers or to Wayne Smith's opinions about the men at the Ambassador is non-fallacious, for that matter.

If we are waiting for certainty in matters of this kind, we will be waiting forever. It is not possible for empirical conclusions to enjoy the kind of certainty that deductive arguments possess. We must therefore be very circumspect in dismissing conclusions on the ground that they are not certain. Certainty in cases of this kind is not possible.

Agreed. I simply ask, in relation to the quest to identify Mainman, if all avenues of scientific comparison have been exhausted? Have they? Or is what you're claiming nothing more or less than, "It sure looks like him to me"?

Well, it's more than that. Jack has found that the general features of Adams and of Mainman are not the same: 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.

This already excludes Adams as Mainman with high probability. Jack has also established 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 addition, Jack reports that the suprarnasal 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.

All of this excludes Adams as Mainman with very high probability. It does not prove that Conein is Mainman, but the similarities are striking -- and even Fletcher Prouty thought Mainman was Conein. Absent an alternative explanation, the identification of Mainman as Conein appears to be highly likely, especially in the absence of an alternative explanation. But this is not a matter where we can establish conclusions with certainty!

Before I address the possible identities of those at the Ambassador Hotel, I would like to know if there is any serious disagreement with anything I have said here. So far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with what I have explained. So if there is a disagreement, I would like to know the nature of that disagreement.

Your presentation of baseline principles of logic is, I would concede, without flaw and typically eloquent in its detail and nuance.

Well, do we agree up to this point? I believe that Lamppostman is David Sanchez Morales, but I am willing to postpone that discussion for another time. Would you now agree with my reasoning about Mainman as I have presented it here? That would give me confidence that we are making progress. We can take up the Ambassador and Lampost issues shortly.

My simple bottom line is this: I slowly moved toward the "Major Lopez" discussion/illustration with the hope that a former defender of the Lamp Post man as DSM hypothesis would change his/her mind. Our dear friend Jack has done just that.

What is your opinion on the DSM matter in light of the "Major Lopez" appearance?

This is fun, and I do hope to learn more from you, Jim. The way I figure it, I'm getting world-class tutelage on a 100% scholarship!

Well, I appreciate those kind sentiments. Let's see how you do on the exam!

[James H. Fetzer]

On Fletcher on Mainman, see page 7 of "Familiar Faces" or check posts by Allan and by me much earlier in this thread, where Allan quotes from a letter he received from him about this question. He included this in his response on page 4 of this thread:

Jack:

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

"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."

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

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

For reasons I do not understand, when I consult the same source, I find this reference is numbered [42]. And of course I have explained several times in this thread why it is a gross exaggeration to claim that Adams was a "dead ringer" for either Mainman or Conein, when they resemble one another far more closely than Adams does either of them! It's really not even a close call.

[Jack White]

I dispute 100 percent that Frenchy is Montoya.

Jack

[Myra Bronstein]

I wonder why so many of the spook twins were hanging around Main and Houston streets knowing full well that the fireworks would take place on Elm. After going to all that trouble to arrange such a memorable welcome for President Kennedy, and taking a personal interest in the success of the event, why stand one block away from the action?

[Jack White]

On Fletcher on Mainman, see page 7 of "Familiar Faces" or check posts by Allan and by me much earlier in this thread, where Allan quotes from a letter he received from him about this question. He included this in his response on page 4 of this thread:

Jack:

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

"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."

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

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

For reasons I do not understand, when I consult the same source, I find this reference is numbered [42]. And of course I have explained several times in this thread why it is a gross exaggeration to claim that Adams was a "dead ringer" for either Mainman or Conein, when they resemble one another far more closely than Adams does either of them! It's really not even a close call.

I was unfamiliar with this. Thanks. I talked to Fletch
numerous times, but this never came up. I wish I had
made notes of our phone talks.

Jack

[James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

This is most interesting. Chauncey told me he had been instructed to meet with Charles Harrleson, whom he already knew, and Richard Montoya, whom he did not. I have always presumed that "Frenchie", whom I take to be Charles Rogers, and "Richard Montoya" were one and the same person. I have certainly always been talking about "Frenchie" in referring to Montoya, so I am learning something if there was another person than Charles Rogers who not only went by the name of "Richard Montoya" but was separate from Charles Rogers. Some of Bernice's photos of "Richard Montoya" do not look like "Frenchie" to me. So I think some ambiguity has entered my discussion simply because I was unaware of the existence of a separate Richard Montoya. I would be glad to see more comparsions. I have always assumed -- correctly, I take it -- that Chauncey was talking about the first of the three "tramps" photographed in Dealey Plaza.

Thanks.

Jim

[James H. Fetzer]

Myra, They probably did not want to risk being shot--or making themselves more conspicuous and drawing attention. Who would have believed that anyone would be discussing these things in such minute detail nearly fifty years after the assassination? Jim

[Jack White]

Jack,

This is most interesting. Chauncey told me he had been instructed to meet with Charles Harrleson, whom he already knew, and Richard Montoya, whom he did not. I have always presumed that "Frenchie", whom I take to be Charles Rogers, and "Richard Montoya" were one and the same person. I have certainly always been talking about "Frenchie" in referring to Montoya, so I am learning something if there was another person than Charles Rogers who not only went by the name of "Richard Montoya" but was separate from Charles Rogers. Some of Bernice's photos of "Richard Montoya" do not look like "Frenchie" to me. So I think some ambiguity has entered my discussion simply because I was unaware of the existence of a separate Richard Montoya. I would be glad to see more comparsions. I have always assumed -- correctly, I take it -- that Chauncey was talking about the first of the three "tramps" photographed in Dealey Plaza.

Thanks.

Jim

Jim...long before I ever met you Chauncey phoned me several times
and sent me a packet of about 6 pages of materials to convince me
of his bona fides. This was right after he first came forward and claimed
to be the old tramp. He was very charming to talk to, and told good
stories about counterfeiting operations and murders in the desert and
living in a CIA safehouse in Mexico, etc. etc. As I recall, he said nothing
about being the old tramp who was photographed in the plaza. He told
me about his shenanigans in New Orleans regarding LHO. He told
me about counterfeiting SS badges in Dealey Plaza, and then going
to a boxcar, and being arrested by police. I questioned him about the
boxcar, and he went into much detail. I do not remember whether I
confronted him with the information that the arrested tramps were
reported to police by Lee Bowers, who saw them in a GONDOLA car,
not a boxcar.

I never did ask how he got my office address and office phone number.

Chauncey was a charming conman who was an excellent story teller.
He was not the old tramp. I am 99 percent convinced that the old tramp
was E. Howard Hunt.

I guess we will continue to disagree on this, just like on O.J.

Jack