Jump to content


Spartacus

Did Josiah Thompson rip off David Lifton?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
14 replies to this topic

#1 James H. Fetzer

James H. Fetzer

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:McKnight Professor of Philosophy Emeritus,
    University of Minnesota Duluth;
    web site, http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/,
    Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth;
    web site, http://911scholars.org;
    Co-editor (with John Costella), Assassination Research.com, an on-line journal;
    web site, http://assassinationresearch.com;
    Editor, public issues web site: http://assassinationscience.com;
    new blog, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com;
    "The Real Deal",
    archive, http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Posted 07 January 2010 - 10:44 PM

Josiah Thompson's greatest claim to fame was less the publication of SIX
SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967) than the publication of an article about it in
The Saturday Evening Post (2 December 1967). The cover described it as
"MAJOR NEW STUDY SHOWS THREE ASSASSINS KILLED KENNEDY". And the
article itself, "The Cross Fire that Killed President Kennedy", which was penned
by Josiah Thompson, was subtitled, "A new study based on new evidence and
new concepts argues that at least three assassins were firing that tragic
day in Dallas". Oddly, however, David Lifton had published "The Case for
Three Assassins" in Ramparts (January 1967). Since Thompson has a rather
obscure footnote to Lifton's article on page 175 of his book -- but does
not otherwise credit him -- I wonder how much Lifton may have inspired
him. Here are a couple of sources that provide a general overview on this:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/David_Lifton

In June 1966, Lifton lived and worked in San Francisco, where he was employed by Ramparts
Magazine, on their Kennedy project. The result was a 30,000 word article, "The Case For
Three Assassins" (published as a cover story in the January, 1967 issue), which laid out
the case that more than one assassin was firing at Kennedy, based on anomalies in the
medical evidence. "The Case for Three Assassins" was the first time a major piece of
writing had been done on the backward snap of JFK's head so clearly visible in the
Zapruder film. Physicists were interviewed, and one in particular - Dr. James Riddle, of
the UCLA Department of Physics - went on record with his opinion that the backward
headsnap was impossible if JFK had been struck from behind.


http://www.spartacus...FKthompsonJ.htm

Thompson took a keen interest in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and in 1967
Thompson published Six Seconds in Dallas - A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination. In
the book Thompson argues that four shots were fired by three gunman. Two shots were fired
from the Texas Book Depository, a third, from the Dallas County Records Building, and a
fourth from the grassy knoll. One hit Kennedy in the back, another hit John Connally, and
the third and fourth hit the president in the head. . . . In recent years Thompson has
been highly critical of those researchers such as James H. Fetzer, David Mantik, Jack
White and David Lifton who have argued that the Zapruder Film was tampered with soon
after the assassination.


One might have thought that Lifton's earlier work, which advances similar
themes, would have deserved recognition in his "Acknowledgments". While he
extols the virtues of Vincent Salandria as his primary source of encourage-
ment, there is an irony here, since Vince wrote to me in in February 2009,

"With respect to Josiah Thompson, I am surprised that you do
not know that immediately after the issuance of his book, 'Six
Seconds in Dallas,' I characterized him as a government agent.
I so designated him at my home after I called his attention to
the last paragraph of his book wherein he denied that the mat-
erial analyzed in the book demonstrated that the assassination
of JFK was a conspiracy. He explained the paragraph as 'an
error of exposition.' I said that it was proof enough for me
that he was an agent assigned to help make the JFK assassin-
ation a subject of eternal debate without signifying anything.
He has publicly told audiences that I consider him an agent."

Here is a post from an earlier exchange, where Bill Miller, among others,
was eager to rush to Josiah's defense, not unlike his recent performance
on this forum, where he has tried to minimize its significance and other-
wise obfuscate the issues. Notice, in particular, that Josiah has long
sought to discredit evidence of the shot to the throat, while attempting
to obscure the through-and-through hole in the windshield, which has been
part of his song-and-dance for some time now. The evidence that he has
been undermining research on the death of JFK abounds, where he has used
his "boyish charm" to mislead generations of students who would no doubt
have advanced forward with far greater efficiency but for his obstruction.

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves" - Lenin

----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:09:11 -0500
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Reply-To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Fwd: Re: [jfk-research] Re: Fetzer on acid??
To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, richdell@tampabay.rr.com, jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: jwjfk@flash.net, dmantik@rtsx.com, dlifton@earthlink.net, jpcostella@hotmail.com

Is this some kind of joke? I advance an 11-page study of Jean's
interview with Len Osanic and thereby establish a convergence in
her testimony with that of Mary Moorman, which not only indicates
they were in the street at the same time but that, if the Zapruder
were authentic, it would show (a) Mary handing her photos to Jean,
(:ice Jean coating them with fixative, © the limo moving to the
left (toward them), (d) Mary and Jean both stepping off the curb
and into the street, (e) Jean calling out, "Mr. President!" and
all that, (f) Mary taking her picture, (g) both stepping back on-
to the grass, (h) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but
(h) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would
shoot her, none of which is shown in the film--and your response
is to talk about Mary's Polariod and Jack's research on Badgeman?

Josiah implies that slips in publishing are chimerical, when his
own book commits colossal blunders that demonstrate how insignif-
icat is a mistake in a caption? Has he forgotten that his book
claimed there were three shooters who took four shots, when we
know that JFK alone was hit four times and Connally as many as
three; that there were at least three misses, one of which hit
the chrome strip on the limo's windshield, the second the curb
near James Tague and injured him, the third in the grass near
Mary and Jean? Not only was SIX SECONDS (1967) superseded by
the superior work of Richard Sprague in a series of articles
beginning in COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970) but Tink in
the final paragraph of his own book denies he has proven either
that the assassination was a conspiracy or that Lee Oswald was
innocent, which completely stunned other students of the case.

Vincent Salandria, for example, among the earliest critics of
the Warren Commission, wrote to me last month observing that,
"With respect to Josiah Thompson, I am surprised that you do
not know that immediately after the issuance of his book, 'Six
Seconds in Dallas,' I characterized him as a government agent.
I so designated him at my home after I called his attention to
the last paragraph of his book wherein he denied that the mat-
erial analyzed in the book demonstrated that the assassination
of JFK was a conspiracy. He explained the paragraph as 'an
error of exposition.' I said that it was proof enough for me
that he was an agent assigned to help make the JFK assassin-
ation a subject of eternal debate without signifying anything.
He has publicly told audiences that I consider him an agent."

This is interesting on several levels, not only because Vince
Salandria has seen through Tink Thompson as someone who wants
to make everything believable and nothing knowable about the
death of JFK but also because he sought to defend himself by
claiming "an error of exposition"! So apparently some kinds
of slips DO OCCUR in the process of publication, after all--
except, of course, this one appears to have been deliberate.
Indeed, I would suggest that Jean's book and interview, which
I have summarized in the form of 25 major points, does more to
establish the existence of a cover up by fabricating a film
and thereby supports the occurrence of a conspiracy involving
high officials of the US government than does SIX SECONDS IN
DALLAS if we accept the author's own assessment of his book!

Indeed, there are many reasons not to take his book seriously.
as Jerrold "Fatback" Smith explained in a "belated review" in
1999. Here are some of his observations, which I am quoting:
__________________

Thompson thought that four shots may have been fired from three
locations --- the Depository, the knoll, and possibly the roof
of the County Records Building or the Dal Tex Building. (SSID,
p. 137. Hereafter, all citations are from SSID unless otherwise
noted.) Lone assassin theorists had suggested that witnesses to
smoke from a shot on the knoll had actually only seen puffs of
steam from a nearby pipe. Thompson demolished the "steam pipe"
explanation. . . .

But in some other facets of the case, Thompson presented inter-
pretations which seemed to argue against the evidence. He sug-
gested that Kennedy's anterior throat wound was a product of
the head shot. (p. 51-55) A fragment of bullet or bone veered
downward, severing Kennedy's left cerebral peduncle in the
process and exiting the front of his throat. Since the Zapruder
film showed Kennedy raising his hands to his throat well before
frame 313, Thompson's view is hard to believe:

"A close study of the Zapruder film, however, reveals that the
President's fists are clenched and that the movement carries his
hands above his neck. Gayle Newman described how the President
"covered his head with his hands" (19H488), and Marilyn Sitzman
told me how "he put his hands up to guard his face." These
descriptions accurately characterize what we see on the Zapruder
film. ...Such a movement seems as consistent with a shot lodged
in his back as with a transiting shot: there is no science of
the way a person reacts to a bullet hit. (p. 39)

Since those descriptions do not accurately characterize what
we see on the Zapruder film, one is left to wonder what film
Thompson saw. Appeals to the absense of science in these matters
do little to strengthen the argument.

In the Warren Commission's version of the crime, two of the
alleged killer's bullets had to do double duty. One shot, the
Magic Bullet, had to wound Kennedy and Connally. Another either
had to hit the oak tree in front of the Depository and then
wound James Tague, or it had to strike Kennedy's skull and
then wound James Tague. The Commission never put the matter
quite so concisely, but those were the only possibilities
if the single assassin theory was true.

Thompson suggested that the wounding of James Tague was a
consequence of the head shot. (p. 231) In Case Closed,
twenty-six years later, Gerald Posner chose the tree ---
the head shot being too unlikely a source. (Posner, p. 325-
326) Since both explanations are incredible, it is difficult
to choose between them.

But if Bullet 399 was not Magic, it had to do amazing things
anyway. It had to strike Kennedy in the limousine and be
found near someone else's stretcher by the emergency level
elevator entrance.

The Warren Commission's story was that the bullet must have
been found on or by Governor Connally's stretcher --- a
position utterly defeated by the evidence. Thompson theorized
that Bullet 399 was the bullet which caused the shallow wound
in Kennedy's back. The bullet worked its way back out during
efforts to resuscitate the President. How did it get from
Kennedy's stretcher to the emergency level elevators where
it was found? "To answer this question we must appeal to an
old, traditionally American institution --- souvenir hunting."
Perhaps someone "momentarily snatched it as a souvenir, only
to recognize its importance and quickly secrete it on a
stretcher" where it could be found later with "no questions
asked." (p. 168-169)
. . .

___________________

Well, you get the idea. I quote from Salandria's post and
from this review (which can be found by googling "Six Seconds
in Dallas, a belated review") to show that I am far from the
only person who has become disillusioned with Josiah Thompson.
Vincent Salandria is among the most respected of the early
critics of the official account and the kind of student who
Josiah Thompson so often praises. Jerrold Smith is known to
many as a low-key but competent student of the case, who is
not inclined to be easily taken in. That, alas, cannot be
said for the most active members of this forum, who seem to
be determined to preserve the illusion that Josiah Thompson,
-- who has long since betrayed the search for truth about JFK
and who continues to this day to reveal his true character
(with a little help from his friends, Bill, Barb, and Lamson
included) -- deserves our respect rather than our contempt,
a theme that, at this point in time, has worn just a bit thin.

Quoting bmjfk63 <IMSJLE@aol.com>:

Jack has made so many gross errors I doubt many people who been exposed
to them take him seriously. But as he correctly pointed out it was filmed
for TV about (IIRC) 30 minutes after the assassination meaning it could
not have been faked. Of course as a self proclaimed logical think expert
you must realize that if you now take the position the photo was altered
it has zero value as evidence that the Z-film or any other DP image was
altered.


. . .

Bill Miller

Edited by James H. Fetzer, 07 January 2010 - 11:11 PM.


#2 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,373 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 January 2010 - 12:17 AM

Why can't we all just get along? The Oswald didiots are virtually united in their affirmation of the single-bullet theory. This theory can be ripped to shreds. I'm sure if someone put together a book containing all the evidence the theory is bogus, it would both turn the tide of media acceptance of Posner and Bugliosi back on itself, and unite the CT community.

How about it?

#3 James H. Fetzer

James H. Fetzer

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:McKnight Professor of Philosophy Emeritus,
    University of Minnesota Duluth;
    web site, http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/,
    Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth;
    web site, http://911scholars.org;
    Co-editor (with John Costella), Assassination Research.com, an on-line journal;
    web site, http://assassinationresearch.com;
    Editor, public issues web site: http://assassinationscience.com;
    new blog, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com;
    "The Real Deal",
    archive, http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Posted 08 January 2010 - 05:31 AM

Well, Pat, I am sorry to say, but some of those participating on this forum are not as sincere as are you. If there were not a persistent and enduring pattern of deception and obfuscation, I wouldn't care about him. But he established creds early on with his book, even though -- on closer inspection! -- it appears to have been a major effort to mislead students of the case relative to a blatant conflict between the medical evidence and the film. Here is a recent piece in which I laid out the case that he is presently attempting to thwart in order to preserve the illusion that the film is authentic.

Given what we know today, that is a preposterous position to adopt, especially given the new reports by Hollywood film experts that, after viewing a 6k version (6,000 pixels per frame), they observed the amateurish quality of some of the alterations, where the blow-out to the back of the head was painted over in black and the "blob" and the blood spray were painted in -- precisely as Roderick Ryan had explained to Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1998). And he received the Academy Award for contributions to cinematrography in 2000. How much more proof of fabrication do we need?

OpEdNews

Original Content at http://www.opednews....-090324-48.html

March 28, 2009

Zapruder JFK Film Impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid

By Jim Fetzer

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry about answers". -- Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW (1973).

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) March 27, 2009 -- A debate has been raging just off the radar of the main stream media over the significance of a Polaroid photograph by Mary Moorman, which appears to impeach the famous Zapruder film of the assassination. Although most attention has focused on an argument initiated by legendary photo-analyst Jack White--that the photo reflects a line-of-sight that places Mary in the street, while the film shows her on the grass--a more serious threat emerges from its photographic content, which shows JFK's head tilted downward and slightly to the left. Surprisingly, this removes the final resistance to impeaching the film based upon the medical evidence.

The features of the film that are the center of this latest controversy have been explored by an Australian physicist, John P. Costella, Ph.D., who has a specialty in electromagnetism, including the properties of light and the physics of moving bodies, who is the leading expert on the Zapruder film in the world today. Some of his studies may be found on my public issue web site at http://assassinationscience.com and are archived there as "The JFK Assassination Film Hoax: An Introduction". Indeed, Roderick Ryan, an expert on cinematic special effects, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), p. 160, that the bulging brains (sometimes called "the blob") had been painted in. Ryan would receive a 2000 Academy Award for lifetime achievement. But Costella's studies and Ryan's observations have not brought an end to the controversy for those dedicated to Zapruder authenticity.

The principal protagonists in the debate occurring on several of the leading JFK research forums has pitted Josiah Thompson, author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), an early study largely based upon the Zapruder film, against me, editor of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Most of our arguments in the past have been directed to the line of sight argument advanced by Jack White and to the validity of an experiment conducted by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., the leading expert on the medical evidence in the world today, and me, using a transit in Dealey Plaza, which I summarized in an recent article, "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", at http://JFKresearch.com/Moorman which has as now appeared in a British journal, THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO 13/1 (March 2009), pp. 6-33.

In that article, I observed that, while there are many indications that the film is a fabrication, the most important proof is the inconsistency between the impact damage to the cranium, which is the film's most stunning feature, showing brains and gore bulging out to JFK's right-front, and the medical evidence, which shows a massive defect at the back of his head just to the right of center. Indeed, Escort Motorcycle Officer Bobby Hargis, who was riding to the left-rear, was hit so hard by the blown-out brains and debris that he though he himself had been shot. Thus, the question has become how such a massive blow-out of brains and gore at the back of the head could appear to be to the right-front in the film.

In an earlier article, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery" that appeared in OpEdNews (February 5, 2008), I laid out multiple indications that the Zapruder film is a fabrication. But none of those proofs even reaches to the mutually reinforcing deceptions of (a) the blow out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, (B) the missing right-front in the anterior-posterior X-ray, and © the publication of 313 in LIFE magazine with a caption saying that the bullet had entered the back of his head and blown out the right-front--a caption rewritten twice after breaking the plates. And it implicates Abraham Zapruder in the deception, when (d) he described a blow-out to the right-front during a televised interview that that night (HOAX, page 435)!

None of it was true. Jackie herself reported that, from the front, he looked just fine but that she had a hard time holding his skull and brains together at the back of his head. None of the witnesses or doctors reported it. Not even the mortician! Indeed, the massive defect can even be seen in late frames of the film, including 374. During a phone interview with Joe West, a private investigator, the man who had prepared the body for burial, Thomas Evan Robinson, described the wounds on May 26, 1992, as follows (MURDER, p. 116; HOAX, p. 9):

* large gaping hole in back of head patched by stretching piece of rubber over it. Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris.

* smaller wound in right temple. Crescent shape, flapped down (3")

* (approx 2) small shrapnel wounds in face. Packed with wax.

* wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder. To the right of back bone.

* adrenal gland and brain removed.

* other organs removed and then put back.

* no swelling or discoloration to face. (died instantly)

Those who want to persist in defense of the film, however, observe that Bill and Gayle Newman, Abraham Zapruder and his secretary, Marilyn Sitzman, had reported wounds to the right side of JFK's head. These observations are consistent with the entry wound to the right temple, which caused the massive defect to the back of his skull, but probably also resulted from observing the brains when the flap that the mortician describes was briefly opened when the frangible (or exploding) bullet entered his right temple, creating the flap (which promptly closed) and apparently damaging his right ear.

Indeed, according to E. Z. Friedel, M.D., THE JFK CONSPIRACY (2007), his ear was so badly destroyed that those who wanted to conceal the truth causes of his death brought in an expert to perform a reconstruction. Friedel characterizes his book as a work of “fiction”, but what he has to tell us about these wounds appears to coincide with what witnesses have had to say in describing them. Rich DellaRosa, who founded and moderates JFKresearch.com, has been communicating with him for over a year and believes he has had access to inside information.

Barb Junkkarinen, arguing the other side of the question, recently observed on the JFK forum, jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, that the Newmans, a couple who were on the knoll side of Elm Street at the time of the shooting, had described damage to the right side of his head. Bill, for example, reported,

"By this time he was directly in front of us and I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head" [Affidavit 11-22-63] and

"At that time he heard the bullet strike the President and saw flesh fly from the President's head." .... "He said the president was hit on the right side of the head with the third shot ..."[FBI report 11-23-63]


Similarly, his wife, Gayle, reported,

"Just about the time President Kennedy was right in front of us, I heard another shot ring out, and the President put his hands up to his head. I saw blood all over the side of his head." [Affidavit 11-22-63]

During the trial of Clay Shaw by Jim Garrison in New Orleans, they both reported seeing him hit in the right temple, but she elaborated in the following way:

"Q: Now what was the effect of this shot upon the President's head if you were able to observe?
A: The President, his head just seemed to explode, just bits of his skull flew in the air and he fell to the side."


Her husband offered additional observations tha were also dramatic:

"I caught a glimpse of his eyes, just looked like a cold stare, he just looked through me, and then when the car was directly in front of me, well, that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear came off. "

None of this, of course, could salvage the authenticity of the film unless it could explain how a blow out of brains and gore from the back of his skull could appear to have been blown out to the right-front in the Zapruder film. I was so puzzled by the argument that the Newmans, Sitzman and Zapruder had observed such effects that I wrote to leading experts with whom I have collaborated in the past.

Mantik confirmed that, "Of course!", the medical evidence falsifies the film, which I found highly reassuring. Costella, who has demonstrated that the Zapruder is a fabrication at http://assassination...tella/jfk/intro had a telling observation about why there may have been so much controversy over the Moorman from scratch. Ironically, Costella had been in agreement with Thompson ("Tink") about the line of sight argument, which placed him on Tink's side on that question against Mantik, White, and me. So what he had to add on March 19, 2009, was especially striking:

Jim,

I still sit on Tink's side when it comes to the extant Moorman and what camera position it implies, so make sure that the issues are disentangled.

Re the head wound being inconsistent with the Z film, I think it's beyond doubt. The explanation I like best is David Lifton's in BEST EVIDENCE about the time they got hold of the clear frames in the early '70s. The GIF sequences of deblurred frames on my website make it clear for the newcomer, but it really goes back to DSL.

The only argument that Tink and Miller and the others put forward against this is that somehow JFK's head is massively rotated to the left in 313 and 314, and that we are seeing the part of his head above his right ear. Ironically, the Moorman polaroid itself dismisses this idea (if these were all genuine), as it lines up at about Z-315 or Z-316, and shows that JFK's head is tilted but not spun around as would be required-as you can see from Clip G on my website, his head starts to lift from 314 through to 318 but does not rotate left or right.

Indeed, maybe that's the point of all this Moorman guff. Forget about the pedestal for the moment, and look at JFK. Place the Moorman next to Zapruder frame 315 or 316, and you have two (allegedly genuine) different views of the same instant of time. That shows you that the "red blob" that explodes out the front of his head in the Z-toon is indeed supposed to be coming out of his right temple. If his head had been rotated massively to the left, we'd be able to see his face in the Moorman-but we don't.

John


John's observation--that the Moorman contradicts that explanation and exposes it as a sham, because JFK's head was not dramatically turned to the left--means that the blow out of brains and gore to the right front cannot be attributed to JFK's having turned his head to the left, which means the authenticity of the film has indeed been impeached by the medical evidence. Such a claim was implausible to begin with, but it still left the smallest degree of uncertainty. So the indirect proof provided by the medical evidence combined with the Moorman turns out to be at least as powerful as the direct proof. And this refutation of the film appears definitive, because there is no remaining line of defense.

Author's Website: www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/

Author's Bio: McKnight Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota, Duluth; Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth; Editor, Assassination Research.

Why can't we all just get along? The Oswald didiots are virtually united in their affirmation of the single-bullet theory. This theory can be ripped to shreds. I'm sure if someone put together a book containing all the evidence the theory is bogus, it would both turn the tide of media acceptance of Posner and Bugliosi back on itself, and unite the CT community.

How about it?



#4 Josiah Thompson

Josiah Thompson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 716 posts

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:43 AM

Professor,

As you point out, Lifton’s Ramparts article is cited on page 175 of Six Seconds: “David Lifton, 'The Case for Three Assassins,' Ramparts, January 1967, p. 86." Actually, neither David Lifton nor I were the first to notice the forward movement of JFK’s head between Z 312-313. While we were viewing Zapruder slides at the Archives in the summer of 1966, Vince Salandria pointed this out to me. Apparently, he had heard something about this perhaps from Ray Marcus.

I see that once again you are trying to bring Vincent Salandria into your smear campaign and that you recently contacted him with respect to me. I continue to see Vincent Salandria as one of the original heroes of the critical community and will not say a contrary word about him.

Instead of disagreeing with any view I might put forward, you are trying to destroy my credibility with the members of this forum. Over what is now a decade’s time, you have been trying to get people to believe that I am a government agent. Obviously, this is simply a form of character assassination. Instead of replying to you once again, I will quote these words of rebuke from David Lifton and Jerry Logan. Their posts can be found on the thread entitled “Would An Agent Do That?”:

First from Jerry Logan:

Pamela,

I wouldn't even dare to suggest what you should think but it would be good if you simply thought before you joined in the swift-boating. Someone of your education should recognize the tried and true show trial, McCarthy, swift-boat tactics that are being used on Josiah. It has worked very well in the past and for those who only care about personal victory it's very effective indeed. The utter mindlessness of the approach is beside the point. The 2004 Presidential election was converted to a referendum on John Kerry's war record because people (apparently such as your self) couldn't see that it was an obvious effort to distract public attention from the real issues.

So now, of course, Josiah has to spend his time defending his reputation on nearly endless threads. We're not discussing the assassination, we're discussing speculation about the honor and integrity of a man and everyone knows that where there's smoke there's fire! Fetzer and his cohorts have managed to suppress any substantive discussion of Fetzer's claims and put the fear of God into anyone considering honest disagreement.

What you fail to realize is that it's possible to construct similar fairy-tails about anyone. You, Jack White, or particularly Fetzer himself. It's meaningless. The evidence shows what the evidence shows no matter who presents it or for what reason. But now the debate is about Josiah Thompson instead of what we really care about.

Thanks Pamela,
Mission Accomplished!



Next from David Lifton:

Jerry Logan has written an elegant and logical reply--one that addresses the corrupt logic and paranoid style that lays behind this sort of "agent" accusation.

I strongly disagree with Thompson (very strongly disagree, in fact) on a number issues, and even have been exasperated by some of the positions he takes, failing to understand why he doesn't believe A, but rather believes B. That happens a lot. But no, I do NOT believe that he is an agent.

Further, I agree with Logan: it diverts attention from the issues, to the person. Stick to the issues; take apart your opponent on the facts; but be very careful when getting into a conspiracy theory to explain your opponent's behavior.

For example, Pamela: you claim to have seen the Zapruder film at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the Fall of 1964, and I have (elsewhere, on another thread) set forth my numerous (and valid) reasons for believing why that cannot possibly be true. Why I believe you're spreading an urban legend; why what you're saying belongs on Snopes dot com. Now, I could carry this further and speculate as to why you would disseminate such a clearly impossible claim. That would lead to conjectures about your psychological state (and would be really besides the point, would it not)? But let's say I were to travel down that path. Then, that line of "reasoning" could be carried a step further, to the political arena--perhaps by alleging that by putting someone up to spreading such a false claim on the Internet, circa 2010, you are acting as the agent of some conspirators whose goal is to influence future generations who should forget how the film was totally quarantined, and off limits, but instead remember the claim of that lady who says it was screened in a New York City cinema in the fall of 1964. All very Orwellian (right?). Well, wrong. That's absurd, of course. But my point is: I could view matters through that most peculiar lens, and come up with a conspiracy theory re your motivation.

Now here's another example. I happen to believe--strongly believe--that there was a hole in the windshield (I have no doubt about that at all, as a matter of fact) and furthermore, I believe that Doug Weldon's work is very important AND valid. You take issue with it. Well, not only might I disagree with your interpretation of the data, and your criticisms of his his interpretation; but in addition, I come up with a conspiracy theory to explain WHY you take the position(s) you do--i.e., that you are an "agent" sent out to destroy Weldon.

Now. . let's see. . what might my evidence be? . . hmmm. . . well now, isn't it the case that you were visited by Ken Rahn, the notorious lone nutter who runs a website with all sorts of defenses of the lone nutter theory? Why, isn't it the case that there are even pictures of you and him (and I believe your significant other) cavorting socially? . etc etc. . . Oh my gosh. . look at this web of associations!

But all this is quite beside the point, is it not? You're not a "government agent" any more than Josiah Thompson is an agent. You just happen to hold a set of beliefs (with regard to the windshield) that I believe to be completely incorrect. Does that make you an agent. As for your allegedly viewing the Zapruder film at a New York City theater in 1964? A claim that is so far out that I have to resort to words like "absurd," "ridiculous" and "totally unbelievable" to describe my reaction? In fact, I get personally irritated every time I think of Stewart Galanor or Thom Stamm taking a train to Washington, D.C. to view the Zapruder film at the Archives, while you are glibly claiming you saw it in a New York City theater in the fall of 1964, within weeks of the release of the Warren Report. I may even ask "what were you smoking?" (that night), but no--I do not think you were an agent, sent out by malevolent forces to change the history of 1964.

You are free of course to go down that path. . .Swift boating your opponent. . .(as Logan has put it). . .in effect erecting a "conspiracy theory of motivation" for an intellectual opponent.

All I can tell you is: that way madness lies.

DSL
1/7/10; 7:15 PM, PST
Los Angeles, CA


So that is where you have arrived, Professor. An angry old man who cannot get by debating the issues themselves and instead ends up "swift-boating" anyone who disagrees with you... first and foremost, me!


Josiah Thompson








[quote name='James H. Fetzer' date='Jan 7 2010, 10:44 PM' post='177953']
Josiah Thompson's greatest claim to fame was less the publication of SIX
SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967) than the publication of an article about it in
The Saturday Evening Post (2 December 1967). The cover described it as
"MAJOR NEW STUDY SHOWS THREE ASSASSINS KILLED KENNEDY". And the
article itself, "The Cross Fire that Killed President Kennedy", which was penned
by Josiah Thompson, was subtitled, "A new study based on new evidence and
new concepts argues that at least three assassins were firing that tragic
day in Dallas". Oddly, however, David Lifton had published "The Case for
Three Assassins" in Ramparts (January 1967). Since Thompson has a rather
obscure footnote to Lifton's article on page 175 of his book -- but does
not otherwise credit him -- I wonder how much Lifton may have inspired
him. Here are a couple of sources that provide a general overview on this:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/David_Lifton

In June 1966, Lifton lived and worked in San Francisco, where he was employed by Ramparts
Magazine, on their Kennedy project. The result was a 30,000 word article, "The Case For
Three Assassins" (published as a cover story in the January, 1967 issue), which laid out
the case that more than one assassin was firing at Kennedy, based on anomalies in the
medical evidence. "The Case for Three Assassins" was the first time a major piece of
writing had been done on the backward snap of JFK's head so clearly visible in the
Zapruder film. Physicists were interviewed, and one in particular - Dr. James Riddle, of
the UCLA Department of Physics - went on record with his opinion that the backward
headsnap was impossible if JFK had been struck from behind.


http://www.spartacus...FKthompsonJ.htm

Thompson took a keen interest in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and in 1967
Thompson published Six Seconds in Dallas - A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination. In
the book Thompson argues that four shots were fired by three gunman. Two shots were fired
from the Texas Book Depository, a third, from the Dallas County Records Building, and a
fourth from the grassy knoll. One hit Kennedy in the back, another hit John Connally, and
the third and fourth hit the president in the head. . . . In recent years Thompson has
been highly critical of those researchers such as James H. Fetzer, David Mantik, Jack
White and David Lifton who have argued that the Zapruder Film was tampered with soon
after the assassination.


One might have thought that Lifton's earlier work, which advances similar
themes, would have deserved recognition in his "Acknowledgments". While he
extols the virtues of Vincent Salandria as his primary source of encourage-
ment, there is an irony here, since Vince wrote to me in in February 2009,

"With respect to Josiah Thompson, I am surprised that you do
not know that immediately after the issuance of his book, 'Six
Seconds in Dallas,' I characterized him as a government agent.
I so designated him at my home after I called his attention to
the last paragraph of his book wherein he denied that the mat-
erial analyzed in the book demonstrated that the assassination
of JFK was a conspiracy. He explained the paragraph as 'an
error of exposition.' I said that it was proof enough for me
that he was an agent assigned to help make the JFK assassin-
ation a subject of eternal debate without signifying anything.
He has publicly told audiences that I consider him an agent."

Here is a post from an earlier exchange, where Bill Miller, among others,
was eager to rush to Josiah's defense, not unlike his recent performance
on this forum, where he has tried to minimize its significance and other-
wise obfuscate the issues. Notice, in particular, that Josiah has long
sought to discredit evidence of the shot to the throat, while attempting
to obscure the through-and-through hole in the windshield, which has been
part of his song-and-dance for some time now. The evidence that he has
been undermining research on the death of JFK abounds, where he has used
his "boyish charm" to mislead generations of students who would no doubt
have advanced forward with far greater efficiency but for his obstruction.

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves" - Lenin

#5 James H. Fetzer

James H. Fetzer

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:McKnight Professor of Philosophy Emeritus,
    University of Minnesota Duluth;
    web site, http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/,
    Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth;
    web site, http://911scholars.org;
    Co-editor (with John Costella), Assassination Research.com, an on-line journal;
    web site, http://assassinationresearch.com;
    Editor, public issues web site: http://assassinationscience.com;
    new blog, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com;
    "The Real Deal",
    archive, http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:05 AM

No, Josiah, if you were not poisoning the well, I could care less about you. David seems to have missed the boat (not "swift the boat") in is response to Pamela, which was quite brilliant and hit the nail on the head. Since you don't post her views, but instead attack them, I think it is appropriate that they should appear here, in the interest of "fair play", which I realize is a concept foreign to you. For Josiah Thompson, "fair play" entails reviewing books you have never read and undermining research on significant proofs of conspiracy. Here's Pamela:

You seem to be living inside a bubble, Tink. Try to take a look from the outside. Here goes:

We have the film of the crime of the century. CIA becomes involved at once, and spirits off at least one copy. A script is put in place claiming that complete control has been maintained over the film. The Z-film is suppressed for years, with frames being dribbled out by LIFE here and there. At the same time, there is an underworld where rogue copies are made at least for some LIFE execs, kept in their vaults in their grand homes in Greenwich, CT. There are early viewings, some in livingrooms, at least one in a movie theater.

In you come with your wonderful ideas for a book. You have the right credentials -- Yale (Bones?), Navy (ONI?), a PhD, and you are tapped by the powers that be. They also happen to be the powers behind at least the ongoing cover-up, and maybe even the assassination itself. That doesn't phase you. You are the golden boy. You are ferried around the country for interviews with all the main witnesses. Every door is opened to you. You spend countless hours with a very good copy of the Z-film. You even feel sorry for the poor researchers at NARA who are suffering with slides and film of inferior quality to what you are using. You even realize the WC itself was sandbagged by the poor quality of slides they had available. Did you call out for a new investigation? Did you demand LIFE at least provide researchers with as good a copy as you had? Wait -- you were going to head the LIFE investigation into the assassination, weren't you? You, the super-researcher that had been hand-picked and trained by LIFE. And guess who probably gave LIFE the great idea to find a new fresh face with credibility with the CTs who could be used to counteract the growing current of dissent against the WCR and the govt?

All the time you were in NYC you were apparently oblivious to the underground around you. You were at ground zero of the holy grail of the assassination and nothing about the film or the slides caused you to wonder if it had been altered and if so how. After all these years your position has not changed.

Just what do you expect us to think?


If David Lifton is going to become involved here, he had better read my critiques of your work. They are patient and detailed and cite chapter and verse. I am discussing your research and its grotesque inadequacies -- from the "double hit" to the throat wound to the hole in the windshield. We have proof supporting all of these, but it appears you are laying the groundwork for a conversion from a JFK conspiracy theorist to a proponent of the position that "We will just never know!" I can see it coming, Josiah. David may sit by and say nothing while it happens, but that is not my style.

Indeed, one of the most revealing examples of your unwillingness to acknowledge that you are wrong is the question of the authenticity of the film. If David hasn't read them, he should read "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery" and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", not to mention that Doug Horne has now produced seven Hollywood film experts who are astonished at the amateurish quality of the fakery, where the blow-out to the back of the head was painted over in black and the "blog" and the blood spray were painted in. Denial is no longer reasonable, yet you deny. Why?

Professor,

As you point out, Lifton’s Ramparts article is cited on page 175 of Six Seconds: “David Lifton, 'The Case for Three Assassins,' Ramparts, January 1967, p. 86." Actually, neither David Lifton nor I were the first to notice the forward movement of JFK’s head between Z 312-313. While we were viewing Zapruder slides at the Archives in the summer of 1966, Vince Salandria pointed this out to me. Apparently, he had heard something about this perhaps from Ray Marcus.

I see that once again you are trying to bring Vincent Salandria into your smear campaign and that you recently contacted him with respect to me. I continue to see Vincent Salandria as one of the original heroes of the critical community and will not say a contrary word about him.

Instead of disagreeing with any view I might put forward, you are trying to destroy my credibility with the members of this forum. Over what is now a decade’s time, you have been trying to get people to believe that I am a government agent. Obviously, this is simply a form of character assassination. Instead of replying to you once again, I will quote these words of rebuke from David Lifton and Jerry Logan. Their posts can be found on the thread entitled “Would An Agent Do That?”:

First from Jerry Logan:

Pamela,

I wouldn't even dare to suggest what you should think but it would be good if you simply thought before you joined in the swift-boating. Someone of your education should recognize the tried and true show trial, McCarthy, swift-boat tactics that are being used on Josiah. It has worked very well in the past and for those who only care about personal victory it's very effective indeed. The utter mindlessness of the approach is beside the point. The 2004 Presidential election was converted to a referendum on John Kerry's war record because people (apparently such as your self) couldn't see that it was an obvious effort to distract public attention from the real issues.

So now, of course, Josiah has to spend his time defending his reputation on nearly endless threads. We're not discussing the assassination, we're discussing speculation about the honor and integrity of a man and everyone knows that where there's smoke there's fire! Fetzer and his cohorts have managed to suppress any substantive discussion of Fetzer's claims and put the fear of God into anyone considering honest disagreement.

What you fail to realize is that it's possible to construct similar fairy-tails about anyone. You, Jack White, or particularly Fetzer himself. It's meaningless. The evidence shows what the evidence shows no matter who presents it or for what reason. But now the debate is about Josiah Thompson instead of what we really care about.

Thanks Pamela,
Mission Accomplished!


Next from David Lifton:

Jerry Logan has written an elegant and logical reply--one that addresses the corrupt logic and paranoid style that lays behind this sort of "agent" accusation.

I strongly disagree with Thompson (very strongly disagree, in fact) on a number issues, and even have been exasperated by some of the positions he takes, failing to understand why he doesn't believe A, but rather believes B. That happens a lot. But no, I do NOT believe that he is an agent.

Further, I agree with Logan: it diverts attention from the issues, to the person. Stick to the issues; take apart your opponent on the facts; but be very careful when getting into a conspiracy theory to explain your opponent's behavior.

For example, Pamela: you claim to have seen the Zapruder film at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the Fall of 1964, and I have (elsewhere, on another thread) set forth my numerous (and valid) reasons for believing why that cannot possibly be true. Why I believe you're spreading an urban legend; why what you're saying belongs on Snopes dot com. Now, I could carry this further and speculate as to why you would disseminate such a clearly impossible claim. That would lead to conjectures about your psychological state (and would be really besides the point, would it not)? But let's say I were to travel down that path. Then, that line of "reasoning" could be carried a step further, to the political arena--perhaps by alleging that by putting someone up to spreading such a false claim on the Internet, circa 2010, you are acting as the agent of some conspirators whose goal is to influence future generations who should forget how the film was totally quarantined, and off limits, but instead remember the claim of that lady who says it was screened in a New York City cinema in the fall of 1964. All very Orwellian (right?). Well, wrong. That's absurd, of course. But my point is: I could view matters through that most peculiar lens, and come up with a conspiracy theory re your motivation.

Now here's another example. I happen to believe--strongly believe--that there was a hole in the windshield (I have no doubt about that at all, as a matter of fact) and furthermore, I believe that Doug Weldon's work is very important AND valid. You take issue with it. Well, not only might I disagree with your interpretation of the data, and your criticisms of his his interpretation; but in addition, I come up with a conspiracy theory to explain WHY you take the position(s) you do--i.e., that you are an "agent" sent out to destroy Weldon.

Now. . let's see. . what might my evidence be? . . hmmm. . . well now, isn't it the case that you were visited by Ken Rahn, the notorious lone nutter who runs a website with all sorts of defenses of the lone nutter theory? Why, isn't it the case that there are even pictures of you and him (and I believe your significant other) cavorting socially? . etc etc. . . Oh my gosh. . look at this web of associations!

But all this is quite beside the point, is it not? You're not a "government agent" any more than Josiah Thompson is an agent. You just happen to hold a set of beliefs (with regard to the windshield) that I believe to be completely incorrect. Does that make you an agent. As for your allegedly viewing the Zapruder film at a New York City theater in 1964? A claim that is so far out that I have to resort to words like "absurd," "ridiculous" and "totally unbelievable" to describe my reaction? In fact, I get personally irritated every time I think of Stewart Galanor or Thom Stamm taking a train to Washington, D.C. to view the Zapruder film at the Archives, while you are glibly claiming you saw it in a New York City theater in the fall of 1964, within weeks of the release of the Warren Report. I may even ask "what were you smoking?" (that night), but no--I do not think you were an agent, sent out by malevolent forces to change the history of 1964.

You are free of course to go down that path. . .Swift boating your opponent. . .(as Logan has put it). . .in effect erecting a "conspiracy theory of motivation" for an intellectual opponent.

All I can tell you is: that way madness lies.

DSL
1/7/10; 7:15 PM, PST
Los Angeles, CA


So that is where you have arrived, Professor. An angry old man who cannot get by debating the issues themselves and instead ends up "swift-boating" anyone who disagrees with you... first and foremost, me!

Josiah Thompson

Josiah Thompson's greatest claim to fame was less the publication of SIX
SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967) than the publication of an article about it in
The Saturday Evening Post (2 December 1967). The cover described it as
"MAJOR NEW STUDY SHOWS THREE ASSASSINS KILLED KENNEDY". And the
article itself, "The Cross Fire that Killed President Kennedy", which was penned
by Josiah Thompson, was subtitled, "A new study based on new evidence and
new concepts argues that at least three assassins were firing that tragic
day in Dallas". Oddly, however, David Lifton had published "The Case for
Three Assassins" in Ramparts (January 1967). Since Thompson has a rather
obscure footnote to Lifton's article on page 175 of his book -- but does
not otherwise credit him -- I wonder how much Lifton may have inspired
him. Here are a couple of sources that provide a general overview on this:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/David_Lifton

In June 1966, Lifton lived and worked in San Francisco, where he was employed by Ramparts
Magazine, on their Kennedy project. The result was a 30,000 word article, "The Case For
Three Assassins" (published as a cover story in the January, 1967 issue), which laid out
the case that more than one assassin was firing at Kennedy, based on anomalies in the
medical evidence. "The Case for Three Assassins" was the first time a major piece of
writing had been done on the backward snap of JFK's head so clearly visible in the
Zapruder film. Physicists were interviewed, and one in particular - Dr. James Riddle, of
the UCLA Department of Physics - went on record with his opinion that the backward
headsnap was impossible if JFK had been struck from behind.


http://www.spartacus...FKthompsonJ.htm

Thompson took a keen interest in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and in 1967
Thompson published Six Seconds in Dallas - A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination. In
the book Thompson argues that four shots were fired by three gunman. Two shots were fired
from the Texas Book Depository, a third, from the Dallas County Records Building, and a
fourth from the grassy knoll. One hit Kennedy in the back, another hit John Connally, and
the third and fourth hit the president in the head. . . . In recent years Thompson has
been highly critical of those researchers such as James H. Fetzer, David Mantik, Jack
White and David Lifton who have argued that the Zapruder Film was tampered with soon
after the assassination.


One might have thought that Lifton's earlier work, which advances similar
themes, would have deserved recognition in his "Acknowledgments". While he
extols the virtues of Vincent Salandria as his primary source of encourage-
ment, there is an irony here, since Vince wrote to me in in February 2009,

"With respect to Josiah Thompson, I am surprised that you do
not know that immediately after the issuance of his book, 'Six
Seconds in Dallas,' I characterized him as a government agent.
I so designated him at my home after I called his attention to
the last paragraph of his book wherein he denied that the mat-
erial analyzed in the book demonstrated that the assassination
of JFK was a conspiracy. He explained the paragraph as 'an
error of exposition.' I said that it was proof enough for me
that he was an agent assigned to help make the JFK assassin-
ation a subject of eternal debate without signifying anything.
He has publicly told audiences that I consider him an agent."

Here is a post from an earlier exchange, where Bill Miller, among others,
was eager to rush to Josiah's defense, not unlike his recent performance
on this forum, where he has tried to minimize its significance and other-
wise obfuscate the issues. Notice, in particular, that Josiah has long
sought to discredit evidence of the shot to the throat, while attempting
to obscure the through-and-through hole in the windshield, which has been
part of his song-and-dance for some time now. The evidence that he has
been undermining research on the death of JFK abounds, where he has used
his "boyish charm" to mislead generations of students who would no doubt
have advanced forward with far greater efficiency but for his obstruction.

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves" - Lenin


Edited by James H. Fetzer, 08 January 2010 - 03:59 PM.


#6 James H. Fetzer

James H. Fetzer

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:McKnight Professor of Philosophy Emeritus,
    University of Minnesota Duluth;
    web site, http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/,
    Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth;
    web site, http://911scholars.org;
    Co-editor (with John Costella), Assassination Research.com, an on-line journal;
    web site, http://assassinationresearch.com;
    Editor, public issues web site: http://assassinationscience.com;
    new blog, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com;
    "The Real Deal",
    archive, http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:19 AM

And I can't resist adding that the first paragraph of the earlier post -- which you chose not to include in your response -- makes mincemeat of you defense of the film in relation to Mary Moorman and Jean Hill, another case in which you have adopted the tactic of ducking and hiding rather than confronting the issues. You have never explained how the film could possibly be authentic given the following considerations:

Is this some kind of joke? I advance an 11-page study of Jean's
interview with Len Osanic and thereby establish a convergence in
her testimony with that of Mary Moorman, which not only indicates
they were in the street at the same time but that, if the Zapruder
were authentic, it would show (a) Mary handing her photos to Jean,
(B) Jean coating them with fixative, © the limo moving to the
left (toward them), (d) Mary and Jean both stepping off the curb
and into the street, (e) Jean calling out, "Mr. President!" and
all that, (f) Mary taking her picture, (g) both stepping back on-
to the grass, (h) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but
(h) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would
shoot her, none of which is shown in the film--and your response
is to talk about Mary's Polariod and Jack's research on Badgeman?

Now maybe Bill Miller did not have an obligation to acknowledge that an authentic film would include all of these actions, but surely you had that obligation, given your strident and inflexible position that the film is authentic. Well, if that's the case, then why don't we see (a) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (B) Jean coating them with fixitive, © the limo moving left (toward them), (d) Mary and Jean both stepping off the curb and into the street, (e) Jean calling out, "Mr. President!" and all that, (f) Mary taking her picture, (g) both stepping back onto the grass, (h) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (i) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her, none of which is shown in the film? Should we simply chalk up your resistance to the obvious inference that the film is fake to "sloppy research" on your part, like your "error of exposition" in asserting your book does not prove the existence of a conspiracy? At what point should we no longer believe you?

No, Josiah, if you were not poisoning the well, I could care less about you. David seems to have missed the boat (not "swift the boad") in is response to Pamela, which was quite brilliant and hit the nail on the head. Since you don't post her views, but instead attack them, I think it is appropriate that they should appear here, in the interest of "fair play", which I realize is a concept foreign to you. For Josiah Thompson, "fair play" entails reviewing books you have never read and undermining research on significant proofs of conspiracy. Here's Pamela:

You seem to be living inside a bubble, Tink. Try to take a look from the outside. Here goes:

We have the film of the crime of the century. CIA becomes involved at once, and spirits off at least one copy. A script is put in place claiming that complete control has been maintained over the film. The Z-film is suppressed for years, with frames being dribbled out by LIFE here and there. At the same time, there is an underworld where rogue copies are made at least for some LIFE execs, kept in their vaults in their grand homes in Greenwich, CT. There are early viewings, some in livingrooms, at least one in a movie theater.

In you come with your wonderful ideas for a book. You have the right credentials -- Yale (Bones?), Navy (ONI?), a PhD, and you are tapped by the powers that be. They also happen to be the powers behind at least the ongoing cover-up, and maybe even the assassination itself. That doesn't phase you. You are the golden boy. You are ferried around the country for interviews with all the main witnesses. Every door is opened to you. You spend countless hours with a very good copy of the Z-film. You even feel sorry for the poor researchers at NARA who are suffering with slides and film of inferior quality to what you are using. You even realize the WC itself was sandbagged by the poor quality of slides they had available. Did you call out for a new investigation? Did you demand LIFE at least provide researchers with as good a copy as you had? Wait -- you were going to head the LIFE investigation into the assassination, weren't you? You, the super-researcher that had been hand-picked and trained by LIFE. And guess who probably gave LIFE the great idea to find a new fresh face with credibility with the CTs who could be used to counteract the growing current of dissent against the WCR and the govt?

All the time you were in NYC you were apparently oblivious to the underground around you. You were at ground zero of the holy grail of the assassination and nothing about the film or the slides caused you to wonder if it had been altered and if so how. After all these years your position has not changed.

Just what do you expect us to think?


If David Lifton is going to become involved here, he had better read my critiques of your work. They are patient and detailed and cite chapter and verse. I am discussing your research and its grotesque inadequacies -- from the "double hit" to the throat wound to the hole in the windshield. We have proof supporting all of these, but it appears you are laying the groundwork for a conversion from a JFK conspiracy theorist to a proponent of the position that "We will just never know!" I can see it coming, Josiah. David may sit by and say nothing while it happens, but that is not my style.

Indeed, one of the most revealing examples of your unwillingness to acknowledge that you are wrong is the question of the authenticity of the film. If David hasn't read them, he should read "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery" and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", not to mention that Doug Horne has now produced seven Hollywood film experts who are astonished at the amateurish quality of the fakery, where the blow-out to the back of the head was painted over in black and the "blog" and the blood spray were painted in. Denial is no longer reasonable, yet you deny. Why?

Professor,

As you point out, Lifton’s Ramparts article is cited on page 175 of Six Seconds: “David Lifton, 'The Case for Three Assassins,' Ramparts, January 1967, p. 86." Actually, neither David Lifton nor I were the first to notice the forward movement of JFK’s head between Z 312-313. While we were viewing Zapruder slides at the Archives in the summer of 1966, Vince Salandria pointed this out to me. Apparently, he had heard something about this perhaps from Ray Marcus.

I see that once again you are trying to bring Vincent Salandria into your smear campaign and that you recently contacted him with respect to me. I continue to see Vincent Salandria as one of the original heroes of the critical community and will not say a contrary word about him.

Instead of disagreeing with any view I might put forward, you are trying to destroy my credibility with the members of this forum. Over what is now a decade’s time, you have been trying to get people to believe that I am a government agent. Obviously, this is simply a form of character assassination. Instead of replying to you once again, I will quote these words of rebuke from David Lifton and Jerry Logan. Their posts can be found on the thread entitled “Would An Agent Do That?”:

First from Jerry Logan:

Pamela,

I wouldn't even dare to suggest what you should think but it would be good if you simply thought before you joined in the swift-boating. Someone of your education should recognize the tried and true show trial, McCarthy, swift-boat tactics that are being used on Josiah. It has worked very well in the past and for those who only care about personal victory it's very effective indeed. The utter mindlessness of the approach is beside the point. The 2004 Presidential election was converted to a referendum on John Kerry's war record because people (apparently such as your self) couldn't see that it was an obvious effort to distract public attention from the real issues.

So now, of course, Josiah has to spend his time defending his reputation on nearly endless threads. We're not discussing the assassination, we're discussing speculation about the honor and integrity of a man and everyone knows that where there's smoke there's fire! Fetzer and his cohorts have managed to suppress any substantive discussion of Fetzer's claims and put the fear of God into anyone considering honest disagreement.

What you fail to realize is that it's possible to construct similar fairy-tails about anyone. You, Jack White, or particularly Fetzer himself. It's meaningless. The evidence shows what the evidence shows no matter who presents it or for what reason. But now the debate is about Josiah Thompson instead of what we really care about.

Thanks Pamela,
Mission Accomplished!


Next from David Lifton:

Jerry Logan has written an elegant and logical reply--one that addresses the corrupt logic and paranoid style that lays behind this sort of "agent" accusation.

I strongly disagree with Thompson (very strongly disagree, in fact) on a number issues, and even have been exasperated by some of the positions he takes, failing to understand why he doesn't believe A, but rather believes B. That happens a lot. But no, I do NOT believe that he is an agent.

Further, I agree with Logan: it diverts attention from the issues, to the person. Stick to the issues; take apart your opponent on the facts; but be very careful when getting into a conspiracy theory to explain your opponent's behavior.

For example, Pamela: you claim to have seen the Zapruder film at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the Fall of 1964, and I have (elsewhere, on another thread) set forth my numerous (and valid) reasons for believing why that cannot possibly be true. Why I believe you're spreading an urban legend; why what you're saying belongs on Snopes dot com. Now, I could carry this further and speculate as to why you would disseminate such a clearly impossible claim. That would lead to conjectures about your psychological state (and would be really besides the point, would it not)? But let's say I were to travel down that path. Then, that line of "reasoning" could be carried a step further, to the political arena--perhaps by alleging that by putting someone up to spreading such a false claim on the Internet, circa 2010, you are acting as the agent of some conspirators whose goal is to influence future generations who should forget how the film was totally quarantined, and off limits, but instead remember the claim of that lady who says it was screened in a New York City cinema in the fall of 1964. All very Orwellian (right?). Well, wrong. That's absurd, of course. But my point is: I could view matters through that most peculiar lens, and come up with a conspiracy theory re your motivation.

Now here's another example. I happen to believe--strongly believe--that there was a hole in the windshield (I have no doubt about that at all, as a matter of fact) and furthermore, I believe that Doug Weldon's work is very important AND valid. You take issue with it. Well, not only might I disagree with your interpretation of the data, and your criticisms of his his interpretation; but in addition, I come up with a conspiracy theory to explain WHY you take the position(s) you do--i.e., that you are an "agent" sent out to destroy Weldon.

Now. . let's see. . what might my evidence be? . . hmmm. . . well now, isn't it the case that you were visited by Ken Rahn, the notorious lone nutter who runs a website with all sorts of defenses of the lone nutter theory? Why, isn't it the case that there are even pictures of you and him (and I believe your significant other) cavorting socially? . etc etc. . . Oh my gosh. . look at this web of associations!

But all this is quite beside the point, is it not? You're not a "government agent" any more than Josiah Thompson is an agent. You just happen to hold a set of beliefs (with regard to the windshield) that I believe to be completely incorrect. Does that make you an agent. As for your allegedly viewing the Zapruder film at a New York City theater in 1964? A claim that is so far out that I have to resort to words like "absurd," "ridiculous" and "totally unbelievable" to describe my reaction? In fact, I get personally irritated every time I think of Stewart Galanor or Thom Stamm taking a train to Washington, D.C. to view the Zapruder film at the Archives, while you are glibly claiming you saw it in a New York City theater in the fall of 1964, within weeks of the release of the Warren Report. I may even ask "what were you smoking?" (that night), but no--I do not think you were an agent, sent out by malevolent forces to change the history of 1964.

You are free of course to go down that path. . .Swift boating your opponent. . .(as Logan has put it). . .in effect erecting a "conspiracy theory of motivation" for an intellectual opponent.

All I can tell you is: that way madness lies.

DSL
1/7/10; 7:15 PM, PST
Los Angeles, CA


So that is where you have arrived, Professor. An angry old man who cannot get by debating the issues themselves and instead ends up "swift-boating" anyone who disagrees with you... first and foremost, me!

Josiah Thompson

Josiah Thompson's greatest claim to fame was less the publication of SIX
SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967) than the publication of an article about it in
The Saturday Evening Post (2 December 1967). The cover described it as
"MAJOR NEW STUDY SHOWS THREE ASSASSINS KILLED KENNEDY". And the
article itself, "The Cross Fire that Killed President Kennedy", which was penned
by Josiah Thompson, was subtitled, "A new study based on new evidence and
new concepts argues that at least three assassins were firing that tragic
day in Dallas". Oddly, however, David Lifton had published "The Case for
Three Assassins" in Ramparts (January 1967). Since Thompson has a rather
obscure footnote to Lifton's article on page 175 of his book -- but does
not otherwise credit him -- I wonder how much Lifton may have inspired
him. Here are a couple of sources that provide a general overview on this:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/David_Lifton

In June 1966, Lifton lived and worked in San Francisco, where he was employed by Ramparts
Magazine, on their Kennedy project. The result was a 30,000 word article, "The Case For
Three Assassins" (published as a cover story in the January, 1967 issue), which laid out
the case that more than one assassin was firing at Kennedy, based on anomalies in the
medical evidence. "The Case for Three Assassins" was the first time a major piece of
writing had been done on the backward snap of JFK's head so clearly visible in the
Zapruder film. Physicists were interviewed, and one in particular - Dr. James Riddle, of
the UCLA Department of Physics - went on record with his opinion that the backward
headsnap was impossible if JFK had been struck from behind.


http://www.spartacus...FKthompsonJ.htm

Thompson took a keen interest in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and in 1967
Thompson published Six Seconds in Dallas - A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination. In
the book Thompson argues that four shots were fired by three gunman. Two shots were fired
from the Texas Book Depository, a third, from the Dallas County Records Building, and a
fourth from the grassy knoll. One hit Kennedy in the back, another hit John Connally, and
the third and fourth hit the president in the head. . . . In recent years Thompson has
been highly critical of those researchers such as James H. Fetzer, David Mantik, Jack
White and David Lifton who have argued that the Zapruder Film was tampered with soon
after the assassination.


One might have thought that Lifton's earlier work, which advances similar
themes, would have deserved recognition in his "Acknowledgments". While he
extols the virtues of Vincent Salandria as his primary source of encourage-
ment, there is an irony here, since Vince wrote to me in in February 2009,

"With respect to Josiah Thompson, I am surprised that you do
not know that immediately after the issuance of his book, 'Six
Seconds in Dallas,' I characterized him as a government agent.
I so designated him at my home after I called his attention to
the last paragraph of his book wherein he denied that the mat-
erial analyzed in the book demonstrated that the assassination
of JFK was a conspiracy. He explained the paragraph as 'an
error of exposition.' I said that it was proof enough for me
that he was an agent assigned to help make the JFK assassin-
ation a subject of eternal debate without signifying anything.
He has publicly told audiences that I consider him an agent."

Here is a post from an earlier exchange, where Bill Miller, among others,
was eager to rush to Josiah's defense, not unlike his recent performance
on this forum, where he has tried to minimize its significance and other-
wise obfuscate the issues. Notice, in particular, that Josiah has long
sought to discredit evidence of the shot to the throat, while attempting
to obscure the through-and-through hole in the windshield, which has been
part of his song-and-dance for some time now. The evidence that he has
been undermining research on the death of JFK abounds, where he has used
his "boyish charm" to mislead generations of students who would no doubt
have advanced forward with far greater efficiency but for his obstruction.

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves" - Lenin


Edited by James H. Fetzer, 08 January 2010 - 07:32 AM.


#7 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 08 January 2010 - 03:20 PM

This is a stupid and vile attack on Tink even by Fetzer's shoot from the gutter standards.

1) The NYRB published a letter from Tink in their October 6, 1966 issue.Based largely on the medical evidence he suggested that there was more than one shooter. So perhaps Lifton "ripped-off" Tink rather than the other way round,more likely both came to similar conclusions independently because that the was the evidenced pointed. The letter was quoted on Tinl's Spartacus page so Fetzer can hardly plead ignorance.

http://web.archive.o...son_letter.html

2) Presumably Lifton read SSID and the SEP article odd that he would have failed to notice being plagiarized.

3) Fetzer has repeatedly made it clear he formerly greatly admired SSID and its author and he rarely fails to pass up an opportunity to tell anyone who'll listen about his supposedly superior critical thinking skills. Odd then that he failed to notice the supposed insufficiency of the conclusion till now.

#8 James H. Fetzer

James H. Fetzer

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:McKnight Professor of Philosophy Emeritus,
    University of Minnesota Duluth;
    web site, http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/,
    Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth;
    web site, http://911scholars.org;
    Co-editor (with John Costella), Assassination Research.com, an on-line journal;
    web site, http://assassinationresearch.com;
    Editor, public issues web site: http://assassinationscience.com;
    new blog, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com;
    "The Real Deal",
    archive, http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com

Posted 08 January 2010 - 03:57 PM

Lifton has responded to this on another thread. Check it out. When you add up all of the oddities, obfuscations, misdescriptions, including those you list here, we appear to be dealing with someone who is either incredibly sloppy in his research or else deliberately deceptive. He and I have had an extended series of exchanges about Mary Moorman and Jean Hill, for example, where he insists -- to this day! -- that they are where they should be and doing what they should be doing in the extant film. Yet when you read their own discussions of why they were there and what they were doing -- which were included in an earlier exchange between us -- it drives me up the wall! Not only were they in the street at the same time but, if the Zapruder were authentic, it would show (i) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (ii) Jean coating them with fixative, (iii) the limo moving to the left (toward them), (iv) Mary and Jean both stepping off the curb and into the street, (v) Jean calling out, "Mr. President!" and all that, (vi) Mary taking her picture, (vii) both stepping back onto the grass, (viii) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (ix) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her, none of which is shown in the film. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, neither Tink nor Barb nor Lamson nor Colby nor even Bill Miller(!) has acknowledged that, on this basis alone, the question of the film's authenticity is resolved! When there exists such plain and simple evidence of fakery, which he and his clique persistently deny, it is very difficult for me to drawn inferences about them that are favorable to their dedication and determination to expose the truth and refute falsehoods about the death of JFK. In fact, I am sorry to say, it weighs in the opposite direction. David offers the most charitable explanation. Perhaps they are all incompetent students of the case, who sympathize with Tink because their research standards are no more demanding than his. That is the question. What's going on and on here? I find the situation ridiculous, frustrating and sad. But then, I've explained this already.

[quote name='Paul Rigby' post='177962' date='Jan 7 2010, 11:54 PM'][quote name='Josiah Thompson' post='177936' date='Jan 7 2010, 09:28 PM']Would an agent have done that?[/quote]

Useful to remind ourselves what a real pro had to say about the most basic precepts of intel work:

[quote]“There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,”[/quote]

Hubert Cole. Fouche: The Unprincipled Patriot (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd., 1971), p.140, PRO, FO 27/63

The proposition that the CIA has, presumably from some hitherto unidentified form of scruple, disdained to infiltrate and misdirect the research community is fatuous.

[quote name='Josiah Thompson' post='177936' date='Jan 7 2010, 09:28 PM'](1) Six Seconds included the first compilation of 190 witness reports with respect to shot origin. This compilation showed that a substantial proportion of witnesses thought a shot or shots were fired from the knoll. In addition, a substantial proportion of witnesses found shots to be bunched, something that could not happen if only the rifle found in the TSBD was being fired. Firing tests in the 70s showed that observers were able to pick location of shots with over 90% accuracy, a fact that made these compilations significant. Paul Rigby has been trying to nit-pic this compilation by finding what he believes to be errors in individual reports that show something having to do with the Zapruder film. It is the overall compilation that produces significant results. These results are in contradiction to the official story. Would an agent have done that?[/quote]

Come, come, Tink, get it right. What I've done is demonstrate that you systematically suppressed, distorted, mischaracterised and mislocated eyewitnesses and their testimony in an attempt to buttress a fake film, and suppress realisation of the centrality of the SS to the assassination. If you'd like few refresher examples, don't hesitate to ask. In this matter, at least, at I'm at your service.

[quote name='Josiah Thompson' post='177936' date='Jan 7 2010, 09:28 PM'](7) Reports from Parkland doctors (including McClelland’s report and the diagram) were used to back up the calculation of head movement as showing the impact of a shot from the right front. This had never before been shown to this degree. Would an agent have done that?[/quote]

Not one of your better days in the service of the cover-up, I have to observe. Still flogging this expired quadruped, I see? Very well, let's exhume the evidence to the contrary one more time:

Parkland medical staff:

a) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. [‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.]

B) Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.]

c) Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head," Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4.

d) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967. (Cited by Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2.)

[quote name='Josiah Thompson' post='177936' date='Jan 7 2010, 09:28 PM'](9) Investigation turned up numerous films and photos never seen before...[/quote]

Designed to buttress the central fake. Would an agent have done that? Absolutely. And that's exactly what you did.

[quote name='Josiah Thompson' post='177936' date='Jan 7 2010, 09:28 PM']I could go on ad infinitum.[/quote]

I know the feeling. But you're worth it.

[quote name='Josiah Thompson' post='177936' date='Jan 7 2010, 09:28 PM']I don’t need to attack Fetzer's history or reputation and I won’t.[/quote]

What a hypocrite: You and your motley band of acolytes undertake precisely the kinds of attacks you pretend to abjure on a near-daily basis. This entire post is little more than a sustained ad hominem against a man, whatever his faults, and however much I disagree with him on certain issues, has contributed more to the establishment of truth in the case than you could achieve even if granted the gift of eternity.

[quote name='Josiah Thompson' post='177936' date='Jan 7 2010, 09:28 PM']Too bad Sylvia Meagher did not survive to this day. She would have munched him for breakfast![/quote]

We are talking about the same Sylvia Meagher, aren't we? The one who wrote: "In sum, at least seven eyewitnesses to the assassination indicated that the President's car had come to a complete stop..."? We're not, are we?
[/quote]

[quote name='Len Colby' post='178035' date='Jan 8 2010, 03:20 PM']This is a stupid and vile attack on Tink even by Fetzer's shoot from the gutter standards.

1) The NYRB published a letter from Tink in their October 6, 1966 issue.Based largely on the medical evidence he suggested that there was more than one shooter. So perhaps Lifton "ripped-off" Tink rather than the other way round,more likely both came to similar conclusions independently because that the was the evidenced pointed. The letter was quoted on Tinl's Spartacus page so Fetzer can hardly plead ignorance.

http://web.archive.o...son_letter.html

2) Presumably Lifton read SSID and the SEP article odd that he would have failed to notice being plagiarized.

3) Fetzer has repeatedly made it clear he formerly greatly admired SSID and its author and he rarely fails to pass up an opportunity to tell anyone who'll listen about his supposedly superior critical thinking skills. Odd then that he failed to notice the supposed insufficiency of the conclusion till now.[/quote]

Edited by James H. Fetzer, 08 January 2010 - 04:00 PM.


#9 Todd W. Vaughan

Todd W. Vaughan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 581 posts

Posted 08 January 2010 - 05:31 PM

Do you really expect anyone to believe that the Zapruder film should show such things as “(i) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (ii) Jean coating them with fixative” and “ (viii) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (ix) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her”?

Am I reading this correctly?

Are you serious?


(and BTW, once again while attempting to quote the entire thread in my reply I was told that “You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text”)

Edited by Todd W. Vaughan, 08 January 2010 - 07:17 PM.


#10 Barb Junkkarinen

Barb Junkkarinen

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 676 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Oregon
  • Interests:JFK Assassination issues and evidence

Posted 08 January 2010 - 06:31 PM

Do you really expect anyone to believe that that the Zapruder film should show such things as “(i) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (ii) Jean coating them with fixative” and “ (viii) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (ix) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her”?

Am I reading this correctly?

Are you serious?


(and BTW, once again while attempting to quote the entire thread in my reply I was told that “You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text”)


Exactly my reaction, Todd. LOL. Of the what, 26 second film, Moorman and Hill are on camera for what ... 2 seconds or so?

I can't believe he's seriously dragging all these reams of pap from an old thread onto a new one either. Does he have an "off" button?

Bests,
Barb :-)

#11 David G. Healy

David G. Healy

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,151 posts

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:00 PM

Do you really expect anyone to believe that that the Zapruder film should show such things as “(i) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (ii) Jean coating them with fixative” and “ (viii) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (ix) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her”?

Am I reading this correctly?

Are you serious?


(and BTW, once again while attempting to quote the entire thread in my reply I was told that “You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text”)


Exactly my reaction, Todd. LOL. Of the what, 26 second film, Moorman and Hill are on camera for what ... 2 seconds or so?

I can't believe he's seriously dragging all these reams of pap from an old thread onto a new one either. Does he have an "off" button?

Bests,
Barb :-)


perhaps Barb while you and 'thee' Todd are slogging around attempting to defend a subject you've displayed, and appear to have no expertise in (black art of film compositing)-- you might consider this: when will you take the time to read and write a review concerning case medical evidence discussed in the Doug Horne volumes? I for one am waiting to hear, and see, the latest lone nut dance... Case related medical evidence, that is/was your bag wasn't it?

Think HBO/Hanks & Co's are reconsidering their options these day's?

Edited by David G. Healy, 08 January 2010 - 07:02 PM.


#12 Len Colby

Len Colby

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,224 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brazil

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:10 PM

perhaps Barb while you and 'thee' Todd are slogging around attempting to defend a subject you've displayed, and appear to have no expertise in (black art of film compositing)


More than a bit ironic coming from a VIDEOgrapher who has consistently refused to spell HIS PHOTO/FILM compositing experience/training and worked on books with authors like Lifton, Fetzer,White,Costella etc who also have no such experience and whose conclusions were opposed by several experts (Feilding,Zavada, Groden, Stone etc)

#13 Todd W. Vaughan

Todd W. Vaughan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 581 posts

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:16 PM

Do you really expect anyone to believe that that the Zapruder film should show such things as “(i) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (ii) Jean coating them with fixative” and “ (viii) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (ix) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her”?

Am I reading this correctly?

Are you serious?


(and BTW, once again while attempting to quote the entire thread in my reply I was told that “You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text”)


Exactly my reaction, Todd. LOL. Of the what, 26 second film, Moorman and Hill are on camera for what ... 2 seconds or so?

I can't believe he's seriously dragging all these reams of pap from an old thread onto a new one either. Does he have an "off" button?

Bests,
Barb :-)


perhaps Barb while you and 'thee' Todd are slogging around attempting to defend a subject you've displayed, and appear to have no expertise in (black art of film compositing)-- you might consider this: when will you take the time to read and write a review concerning case medical evidence discussed in the Doug Horne volumes? I for one am waiting to hear, and see, the latest lone nut dance... Case related medical evidence, that is/was your bag wasn't it?

Think HBO/Hanks & Co's are reconsidering their options these day's?



David,

One doesn't need to be an expert in "black art of film compositing", nor do they need to be an expert in "Case related medical evidence", nor do the need to have written a reveiw of Doug Horne's books to ask the question I'm asking.

Do you, David, believe that the Zapruder film should show such things as “(i) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (ii) Jean coating them with fixative” and “ (viii) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (ix) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her”?

Please offer up your opinion.

Todd

#14 Jack White

Jack White

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,640 posts

Posted 08 January 2010 - 07:49 PM

Do you really expect anyone to believe that that the Zapruder film should show such things as “(i) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (ii) Jean coating them with fixative” and “ (viii) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (ix) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her”?

Am I reading this correctly?

Are you serious?


(and BTW, once again while attempting to quote the entire thread in my reply I was told that “You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text”)


Exactly my reaction, Todd. LOL. Of the what, 26 second film, Moorman and Hill are on camera for what ... 2 seconds or so?

I can't believe he's seriously dragging all these reams of pap from an old thread onto a new one either. Does he have an "off" button?

Bests,
Barb :-)


perhaps Barb while you and 'thee' Todd are slogging around attempting to defend a subject you've displayed, and appear to have no expertise in (black art of film compositing)-- you might consider this: when will you take the time to read and write a review concerning case medical evidence discussed in the Doug Horne volumes? I for one am waiting to hear, and see, the latest lone nut dance... Case related medical evidence, that is/was your bag wasn't it?

Think HBO/Hanks & Co's are reconsidering their options these day's?



David,

One doesn't need to be an expert in "black art of film compositing", nor do they need to be an expert in "Case related medical evidence", nor do the need to have written a reveiw of Doug Horne's books to ask the question I'm asking.

Do you, David, believe that the Zapruder film should show such things as “(i) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (ii) Jean coating them with fixative” and “ (viii) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (ix) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her”?

Please offer up your opinion.

Todd


Todd this time is correct. Of the 26 seconds of the alleged "Zapruder film", only about 2 seconds falsely
depict Mary and Jean, as John Costella aptly describes them, the entire time standing like FROZEN TURKEYS.
Frozen turkeys cannot do all the things Todd mentions.

Jack

#15 Evan Burton

Evan Burton

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,985 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW, Australia

Posted 09 January 2010 - 02:03 AM

David has answered the question:

Evan,

I'm not that proficient in using the forum. So here is my response.

1. I never subscribed to the double-head hit theory, so obviously i never made the charge that Josiah Thompson ripped me off or did anything wrong in that regards. FYI: from the outset, I had a different explanation for the small forward motion between Z- 312 and Z-313 (I postulated a forward high angle shot, and you will find that elaborated in Best Evidence); and I also wrote a paper about it that was published in the Paul Hoch anthology.

2. More about the 312-313 motion: After I came to realize that the car stop had been removed and the Z film had been edited, I had (that is, "subscribed to") an entirely different explanation for the 312-313 motion: that it was nothing more than an artifact of the editing process. In other words, 312 and 313 was not contiguous on the original (i.e. unedited) film. That was my position then, and it continues to be my belief today.

3. Yes, I was irritated when the Saturday Evening Post ran that headline, in the December, 1967 issue, about "three assassin", but so what? I did not consider that a ripoff. Subsequently, Josiah Thompson was very helpful in providing me transcripts of his interviews with Sitzman etc., and certain films. He was very helpful.

I want to emphasize again that I never subscribed to the double head-hit theory.So allegations that someone stole it from me is inappropriate and unfair to Thompson.

DSL


Thread closed.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users