Page 20 of 29 FirstFirst ... 1017181920212223 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 285

Thread: Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza

  1. #191

    Default For Morgan and Charles on Adams vs. Conien . . .

    All,

    My position remains unchanged: it appears to me to be Conein in
    the photo and not Adams. I respect others for having a different
    point of view. I do not question the integrity of Morgan, whom I
    greatly admire. I have no interest in Mrs. Adams, who was not in
    Dealey Plaza and really does not know whether Robert was there.

    What we do know is that the story that Robert was there has been
    supported on the basis of a "plaque" of newspaper clippings, some
    of which are fabricated. The most important section is one that we
    are told that she (Imogene) had printed up. But it has the wrong
    day of the week (Thursday) and the wrong date (23 November).

    Jack has posted its image in post #146. So that is a matter about
    which there is no doubt. How can anyone in their wildest dreams
    imagine that a newspaper clipping about a man having been there
    on Friday, 22 November 1963, among the most infamous dates in
    American history, would have it wrong? What that means is there
    is fraud in the evidence offered for Adams as the man in the photo.

    I can't believe that that does not function as a stunning "red flag"
    that something is terribly wrong with this story. I don't care how
    clever a story about its serendipitous discovery Eaglesham wants
    to spin. THIS MEANS WE ARE BEING SOLD A PHONY ACCOUNT. If
    someone like Morgan wants to buy into this, that's his prerogative.
    But it is absurd for him to take me to task for not accepting it, too.

    When we look at the photographic evidence, the comparison does
    not support the claim that the Conein-image is actually Adams. As
    Jack has repeatedly explained, while he believes the comparison is
    "inconclusive", if he were forced to choose one or the other as the
    man in the photo, then he would choose Conein for three reasons:

    1. distance between eyebrows
    2. distance between eyes
    3. oval face compared to square face

    The first three of the four images that are supposed to be Adams,
    in Jack's opinion, are inconsistent with the Conein-image, where it
    is only the fourth that causes him concern. Interestingly, I believe
    that Charles has the right idea here, because the fourth looks to me
    to be a composite of Adams with the Conein-image eyes and brows.

    The CIA does these kinds of things all the time. It is child's play.
    And the arrogance of the agency is such that it believes that it can
    peddle any story to anyone by making enough "adjustments" to the
    background and context of the fraud it wants to perpetrate. I have
    no doubt at all that Adams is not the man in the photo and that we
    are being sold a bill of goods with a phony plaque and a fake photo.

    Who knows about Imogene? Maybe she sincerely believes what she
    is saying. The fact remains that, if her story were true, it is beyond
    belief that the clipping would have a wrong date and the wrong day.
    This whole thing smacks of being staged to me. If any of you want
    to buy a fraudulent story supporting a false claim of the identity of
    Adams with the Conein-image, be my guest. But do not fault me for
    rejecting a story that is ridiculous on its face. The situation is absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack White View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Allan Eaglesham View Post
    Jack:

    If the man in the Altgens photograph is Lucien Conein, how do you explain Mrs. Adams telling anyone who asked that it was her husband?

    I am sure that you will agree that it is dangerous to identify anyone from a single photograph (especially when it is not sharp). Martha Schallhorn and I used careful terms of reference when writing the original article, and our final was conclusion was:

    "Neither do we make solid claims about the identities of the men shown in the pictures in this article. We report for the first time that individuals RESEMBLING Theodore Shackley, David Morales, Gerald Patrick Hemming and Lucien Conein were in Dealey Plaza, in addition to those resembling Joseph Milteer, Eugene Hale Brading and Edward Lansdale. We leave it to the reader to surmise on the implications, or lack thereof, of these observations."[emphasis added]



    Why can you not accept that it was simple serendipity that Robert Adams, who worked closed by (and resembled Conein), happened to be caught in that photograph?


    Allan
    Based strictly on the photos you supplied, I still say that a comparison
    between the man on Main and those photos is inconclusive. All photos
    of Adams except one show him to have very wide-set eyes and eyebrows,
    not present in the Altgens man. On that basis I cannot identify the man
    in Altgens as being Adams. Adams also had a very broad nose. Also,
    we do not know the years of most of the photos, and their quality is poor.

    Alternatively, it is also inconclusive that the man in Altgens 4 may be
    Conein. My opinion is that based on the photos we have to work with, the
    likelihood of it being Adams is less than it being Conein.

    My opinion is based ONLY on the photos. Other considerations like the
    framed clipping are useless as evidence, having been "discovered" 40
    years after the event. More acceptable would be a child who said,
    WHEN DAD CAME HOME ON NOVEMBER 22, HERE IS WHAT HE TOLD US,
    and this information has not changed in 40 years.

    Serendipity is not admissible as evidence without authentication.

    Jack

    Addendum: Look at ALL of these photos of Adams...especially the eyes
    and nose. Tell us whether you can identify the man on Main from them
    with certainty. I say it is inconclusive.

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Drago View Post
    Jack,

    If you would look at the best version of the Altgens "Conein" and comment:

    The forehead seems very high. And there is an odd horizontal line (shades of the equator at Backyard Photo man's chinny chin chin!) immediately beneath the widow's peak and extending across the image.

    Is the latter a printing/re-printing artifact?

    Do you see any indications that the Altgens "Conein" face is a two- or three-part composite?

    Charles
    I see no evidence of tampering...which does not mean that there was none.

    Jack

  3. Default

    Jim addresses many relevant points with which I agree. As I have
    said repeatedly, things are not always what they are purported to
    be. Certain parties in the plot had the expertise to create confusion
    and false trails. VERY INTERESTINGLY, FOUR "ALTGENS" PHOTOS
    HAVE SUCH OBFUSCATION. Totally uninvestigated was JUST WHO
    IKE ALTGENS WAS.

    Jack

    Quote Originally Posted by James H. Fetzer View Post
    All,

    My position remains unchanged: it appears to me to be Conein in
    the photo and not Adams. I respect others for having a different
    point of view. I do not question the integrity of Morgan, whom I
    greatly admire. I have no interest in Mrs. Adams, who was not in
    Dealey Plaza and really does not know whether Robert was there.

    What we do know is that the story that Robert was there has been
    supported on the basis of a "plaque" of newspaper clippings, some
    of which are fabricated. The most important section is one that we
    are told that she (Imogene) had printed up. But it has the wrong
    day of the week (Thursday) and the wrong date (23 November).

    Jack has posted its image in post #146. So that is a matter about
    which there is no doubt. How can anyone in their wildest dreams
    imagine that a newspaper clipping about a man having been there
    on Friday, 22 November 1963, among the most infamous dates in
    American history, would have it wrong? What that means is there
    is fraud in the evidence offered for Adams as the man in the photo.

    I can't believe that that does not function as a stunning "red flag"
    that something is terribly wrong with this story. I don't care how
    clever a story about its serendipitous discovery Eaglesham wants
    to spin. THIS MEANS WE ARE BEING SOLD A PHONY ACCOUNT. If
    someone like Morgan wants to buy into this, that's his prerogative.
    But it is absurd for him to take me to task for not accepting it, too.

    When we look at the photographic evidence, the comparison does
    not support the claim that the Conein-image is actually Adams. As
    Jack has repeatedly explained, while he believes the comparison is
    "inconclusive", if he were forced to choose one or the other as the
    man in the photo, then he would choose Conein for three reasons:

    1. distance between eyebrows
    2. distance between eyes
    3. oval face compared to square face

    The first three of the four images that are supposed to be Adams,
    in Jack's opinion, are inconsistent with the Conein-image, where it
    is only the fourth that causes him concern. Interestingly, I believe
    that Charles has the right idea here, because the fourth looks to me
    to be a composite of Adams with the Conein-image eyes and brows.

    The CIA does these kinds of things all the time. It is child's play.
    And the arrogance of the agency is such that it believes that it can
    peddle any story to anyone by making enough "adjustments" to the
    background and context of the fraud it wants to perpetrate. I have
    no doubt at all that Adams is not the man in the photo and that we
    are being sold a bill of goods with a phony plaque and a fake photo.

    Who knows about Imogene? Maybe she sincerely believes what she
    is saying. The fact remains that, if her story were true, it is beyond
    belief that the clipping would have a wrong date and the wrong day.
    This whole thing smacks of being staged to me. If any of you want
    to buy a fraudulent story supporting a false claim of the identity of
    Adams with the Conein-image, be my guest. But do not fault me for
    rejecting a story that is ridiculous on its face. The situation is absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack White View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Allan Eaglesham View Post
    Jack:

    If the man in the Altgens photograph is Lucien Conein, how do you explain Mrs. Adams telling anyone who asked that it was her husband?

    I am sure that you will agree that it is dangerous to identify anyone from a single photograph (especially when it is not sharp). Martha Schallhorn and I used careful terms of reference when writing the original article, and our final was conclusion was:

    "Neither do we make solid claims about the identities of the men shown in the pictures in this article. We report for the first time that individuals RESEMBLING Theodore Shackley, David Morales, Gerald Patrick Hemming and Lucien Conein were in Dealey Plaza, in addition to those resembling Joseph Milteer, Eugene Hale Brading and Edward Lansdale. We leave it to the reader to surmise on the implications, or lack thereof, of these observations."[emphasis added]



    Why can you not accept that it was simple serendipity that Robert Adams, who worked closed by (and resembled Conein), happened to be caught in that photograph?


    Allan
    Based strictly on the photos you supplied, I still say that a comparison
    between the man on Main and those photos is inconclusive. All photos
    of Adams except one show him to have very wide-set eyes and eyebrows,
    not present in the Altgens man. On that basis I cannot identify the man
    in Altgens as being Adams. Adams also had a very broad nose. Also,
    we do not know the years of most of the photos, and their quality is poor.

    Alternatively, it is also inconclusive that the man in Altgens 4 may be
    Conein. My opinion is that based on the photos we have to work with, the
    likelihood of it being Adams is less than it being Conein.

    My opinion is based ONLY on the photos. Other considerations like the
    framed clipping are useless as evidence, having been "discovered" 40
    years after the event. More acceptable would be a child who said,
    WHEN DAD CAME HOME ON NOVEMBER 22, HERE IS WHAT HE TOLD US,
    and this information has not changed in 40 years.

    Serendipity is not admissible as evidence without authentication.

    Jack

    Addendum: Look at ALL of these photos of Adams...especially the eyes
    and nose. Tell us whether you can identify the man on Main from them
    with certainty. I say it is inconclusive.

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Allan Eaglesham View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack White View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Allan Eaglesham View Post
    Jack:

    If the man in the Altgens photograph is Lucien Conein, how do you explain Mrs. Adams telling anyone who asked that it was her husband?

    I am sure that you will agree that it is dangerous to identify anyone from a single photograph (especially when it is not sharp). Martha Schallhorn and I used careful terms of reference when writing the original article, and our final was conclusion was:

    "Neither do we make solid claims about the identities of the men shown in the pictures in this article. We report for the first time that individuals RESEMBLING Theodore Shackley, David Morales, Gerald Patrick Hemming and Lucien Conein were in Dealey Plaza, in addition to those resembling Joseph Milteer, Eugene Hale Brading and Edward Lansdale. We leave it to the reader to surmise on the implications, or lack thereof, of these observations."[emphasis added]



    Why can you not accept that it was simple serendipity that Robert Adams, who worked closed by (and resembled Conein), happened to be caught in that photograph?


    Allan
    Based strictly on the photos you supplied, I still say that a comparison
    between the man on Main and those photos is inconclusive. All photos
    of Adams except one show him to have very wide-set eyes and eyebrows,
    not present in the Altgens man. On that basis I cannot identify the man
    in Altgens as being Adams. Adams also had a very broad nose. Also,
    we do not know the years of most of the photos, and their quality is poor.

    Alternatively, it is also inconclusive that the man in Altgens 4 may be
    Conein. My opinion is that based on the photos we have to work with, the
    likelihood of it being Adams is less than it being Conein.

    My opinion is based ONLY on the photos. Other considerations like the
    framed clipping are useless as evidence, having been "discovered" 40
    years after the event. More acceptable would be a child who said,
    WHEN DAD CAME HOME ON NOVEMBER 22, HERE IS WHAT HE TOLD US,
    and this information has not changed in 40 years.

    Serendipity is not admissible as evidence without authentication.

    Jack

    Addendum: Look at ALL of these photos of Adams...especially the eyes
    and nose. Tell us whether you can identify the man on Main from them
    with certainty. I say it is inconclusive.

    The serendipity in this instance is backed by Mrs. Adams's account.

    Of course I cannot identify the man on Main from the photographs with certainty. Of course, it's inconclusive. The fact is, the man on Main resembles both Lucien Conein and Robert Adams, but the contextual considerations prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Adams.
    This is not true. It has not yet been established that Altgens even took the photo.

    Jack

  5. Default

    Charles seems almost alone here in appreciating the importance
    of photo fakery and obfuscation in covert scenarios. FAKED EVIDENCE
    is a specialty of the CIA, and only the uninformed accept it at face value.

    Does the CIA employ CUT-OUTS? Assuredly. Was Altgens a cut-out?
    Probably. Was Zapruder a cut-out? Most likely. Just because someone
    says they took a specific photo DOES NOT MEAN that they actually
    took it. Just because someone is identified in a photo does not mean
    it necessarily is that person.

    For the uninformed, a cut-out is an intermediary used as a conduit
    for evidence or information to keep it from being traced to its
    actual source.

    From long study, Charles, Jim and I stand apart from the underinformed
    regarding sophisticated photo fakery as a tool of covert activity. Other
    trusting souls rely on photos being accurate and photo information being
    trustworthy. I no longer trust ANY photo related to the assassination.

    Jack

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Drago View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Allan Eaglesham View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Drago View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Allan Eaglesham View Post
    Did someone insert a photograph of Lucien Conein to make people think that Robert Adams was there, or did someone insert a picture of Robert Adams to make people think that Lucien Conein was there?

    Rod Serling would love this.
    Actually, the objectives were to limit and control the scope of critical thinking about the assassination conspiracy by promoting false either/or choices among unsophisticated observers.

    Are unsophisticated observers capable of critical thinking?

    Let's limit the discussion to the Conein look-alike. We will get nowhere by introducing generalities about photographic alteration. Again: Did someone insert a photograph of Lucien Conein to make people think that Robert Adams was there, or did someone insert a picture of Robert Adams to make people think that Lucien Conein was there?
    Limiting the discussion is precisely the problem in this and too many other instances of deep political analysis.

    We will get EVERYWHERE by raising the issue of photographic alteration here because it represents a classic Third Alternative of the sort that deep political analysts fail to look for and recognize at our collective peril.

    I cannot conjure a more dramatically illustrative example of the embrace of a false dichotomy than that revealed in your most recent response above. You may choose to limit your study of the Conein/Adams issue to an A/B choice. That's entirely your business.

    But when you urge others studying this case to do so, you are urging them to retard their evolutions as observers of deep political phenomena.

    Accordingly, I implore all who read and comment on DPF subjects to reject calls for oversimplification. Yes, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    But sometimes it's an exploding cigar. Or no cigar at all.

    Or both.

  6. #196

    Default

    Jack,

    Whenever you have the time, I would benefit from your thoughts on the Lovelady/LHO figure and the shirt(s) as I referenced them earlier.

    Thanks!

  7. Default

    In addition to "Conein", researchers have identified at
    least five men on the corner of Main and Houston.
    Adams has been "identified" as a possible Conein
    LOOKALIKE. How about the other four? What are the
    odds of so many "dead ringers" of CIA operatives
    all being on the same corner on November 22? Call it
    serendipity or coincidence if you want. I call it evidence.

    Jack
    Attached Images Attached Images

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Drago View Post
    Jack,

    Whenever you have the time, I would benefit from your thoughts on the Lovelady/LHO figure and the shirt(s) as I referenced them earlier.

    Thanks!
    I replied already. I studied that exhaustively years ago and concluded
    that comparison was INCONCLUSIVE. I will try to find some of my old
    studies...but they were several computers ago, and may exist only in
    some of my old slides.

    I was unable to conclude that it was either Oswald or Lovelady. The
    shirt is a key to the study...was it red and blue plaid, or brown with
    orange threads? Were buttons missing? I think the evidence favors
    in NOT BEING LOVELADY. However, other evidence seems to eliminate
    Oswald. This leaves us with YOUR THIRD ALTERNATIVE.

    Does this explanation suffice?

    Jack

  9. Default

    The Rip Robertson double is almost a certain match on the nose.


    Was he caught giving some kind of signal?

  10. #200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack White View Post
    I was unable to conclude that it was either Oswald or Lovelady. The shirt is a key to the study...was it red and blue plaid, or brown with
    orange threads? Were buttons missing? I think the evidence favors
    in NOT BEING LOVELADY. However, other evidence seems to eliminate
    Oswald. This leaves us with YOUR THIRD ALTERNATIVE.

    Does this explanation suffice?

    Jack
    Thanks, Jack.

    I'm aware of your past work on this matter, and I'm familiar with the plaid v. brown & orange thread issue.

    I'm going to start a new thread on this issue.

    Charles

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •