Jump to content
The Education Forum
Josiah Thompson

Would An Agent Have Done That?

Recommended Posts

Would an agent have done that?

One of Professor Fetzer’s most lovable traits is the unerring swiftness with which he starts screaming “Agent! Agent!” whenever he gets his butt kicked in debate. You may have noticed this with respect to other participants of this forum like Len Colby. But this tactic is not limited to this forum. Ten years ago when the book critic for the Milwaukee Sentinel was not properly appreciative of one of Fetzer’s books, Fetzer claimed the book review was a “hit piece” engineered by an intel agency. With me this goes way back to 1998 when I gave a talk at Lancer concerning the Zapruder film. Fetzer’s offense knew no bounds. Finally, Debra Conway had to shut off the power to his microphone as Fetzer wandered through a Richard Pryor joke. (Fetzer had to apologize to the conference for his conduct the next day.) Sure enough, it wasn’t long before Fetzer had me tagged as a “disinformation agent” on his web site.

After pointing out last week that once again Fetzer had used a photo to show the opposite of what it really showed, I was expecting his usual noxious move. As we’ve seen, it came in right on schedule. He is now claiming that my refusal in Six Seconds to proclaim the fakery of the Zapruder film is a clear sign that I was and am a government agent. As has been pointed out on this site, he fails to make the same charge against David Lifton who, in 1967, also made no noises about Zapruder film fakery. In fact, Lifton first discovered the issue about the time he noticed that the Zapruder film was not in accordance with his “body alteration theory.” At least Lifton has enough good sense and sufficient integrity not to buy Fetzer’s “agent” screed. Thank you, David.

It occurred to me to ask a simple question: “If you were a government agent, Tink, would you have done what you have done?” Admittedly it takes a bit of a stretch for me to imagine myself as a government agent but then I know myself better than some of you know me. In any case, this might bring things back to an evidentiary level where Fetzer’s hysterics would be heard only at a distance and the focus could be put on real facts. Immodest, as this seems to me, I’m going to plow through Six Seconds and subsequent work all the time asking the question: Would an agent have done that?

(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?

(2) I prevailed upon the Archives to produce a photo of CE 399 together with the ballistic comparison rounds, all this to show that it is difficult to tell them apart. By visiting Parkland Hospital, I was able to mobilize contemporary records to show that CE 399 was most likely found on a stretcher completely unconnected to this case, on the stretcher of a young boy, Ronnie Fuller, brought into the hospital at about the same time. I showed that Specter’s interviewing of Darrell Tomlinson was dishonest. At Parkland I interviewed O,P. Wright, the Security Director, and a retired Deputy Police Chief. Wright had an educated eye for bullets and carried around for awhile the bullet found on the stretcher. I showed Wright photos of CE 399 and he told me the bullet he handled was not CE 399. He said the bullet he handled had a “pointed tip” and then gave me such a bullet from his drawer. That bullet was photographed and the photo published in Six Seconds. If Wright is correct, then CE 399 was substituted for the stretcher bullet at some time after it came into government possession. Would an agent have disclosed all that?

(3) Following up on CE 399, in the last few years Gary Aguilar and I did further research on the tangled history of CE 399. We queried the Archives for additional documents and located Bardwell D. Odum, the FBI agent who was alleged in a memo to have established an evidence train for CE 399. Odum told us he never had CE 399 in his possession and never carried out the interviews he was alleged to have carried out. Gary and I published this new indictment of government treatment of CE 399. I lectured on it at the 2003 Wecht Conference in Pittsburgh. Would an agent have done that?

(4) After four 4" by 5" Zapruder transparencies disappeared in Dallas in the custody of a LIFE editor, I made 35 mm copies of significant Zapruder frames. For many years these copies were the only high resolution copies of the film not in the hands of the government or LIFE magazine. Doing this subjected me to the risk of criminal prosecution (something LIFE later threatened) but also made possible (5) and (6) below. Would an agent have done that?

(5) These copies of the film permitted me to calculate very precise angles for the slope of Connally’s shoulder as he turns. The slope changes as he turns and then, between Z 237 and Z 238, shifts abruptly in the opposite direction. In addition, these copies permitted an artist to accurately represent the puffing of Connally’s cheeks and the mussing of his hair that occurs at the same time as the shoulder drop. All of this demonstrates the fallacy of the single-bullet theory since it shows the gap between Kennedy’s reaction to a bullet hit and Connally’s. Would an agent have done that?

(6) These copies permitted calculations to be made of the movement of JFK’s head under the impact of what I took to be two bullets. This was a scientific demonstration of the impact of a bullet from the right front and the first dramatic showing of the left backward snap of Kennedy’s head. Would an agent have done that?

(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?

(8) High resolution copies of the Moorman photo were obtained in order to show the likely presence of a shooter at a location behind the stockade fence. This fact was highlighted along with reports from S.M. Holland that cigarette butts and footprints were found at this location behind the fence. All of this, of course, is foundational to the claim that a shot came from that location in opposition to the lone gunman theory of the government. Would an agent have done that?

(9) Investigation turned up numerous films and photos never seen before, some of which appeared to show the presence of two persons near the 6th floor sniper’s nest at the time of the shooting. One of these photo showed a white Rambler station wagon passing the TSBD ten minutes after the shooting. Documents found in the Archives and never published before indicated that a person not Oswald had left the TSBD and made his escape in such a vehicle. Cf. 302s of Richard Randolph Carr. Would an agent have done that?

(10) Photographs and documents from the Archives revealed for the first time that one of the cartridge cases found near the 6th floor window had been dry-fired multiple times in the rifle found on the 6th floor. It had a dent in its tip that would mean it did not contain a projectile on November 22nd. This discovery cast doubt on the government claim that three shots were fired from the TSBD window. Would an agent have done that?

*****************

I could go on ad infinitum. The point is simple. For a decade or more, Fetzer has continued to play the lowest and also the most suspect card in the deck. Don’t believe [whoever, fill in the blank] because he/she is an agent! But it doesn’t work. At least, I have shown above that it doesn’t work with respect to me, my history and my reputation.

I don’t need to attack Fetzer's history or reputation and I won’t. Who needs it? I will continue to puncture pomposity wherever I see it and bring down to earth his most wild and improbable flights of fancy.

To the extent that the rest of you drink the Cool-Aid of character assassination, the research community will wither and die as a living, vital community of inquiry. If Fetzer gets away with this conduct with respect to me, who will be next? As long as you agree with him, you can be assured he won’t find something in your background or history to mark you as an agent. But as soon as you say something critical about him, remember the fate of that poor book critic for the Milwaukee Sentinel. Too bad Sylvia Meagher did not survive to this day. She would have munched him for breakfast!

Josiah Thompson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Thompson,

I, for one, do not believe that an agent would have done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A limited hangout is a form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or "mea culpa" type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be "coming clean" and acting with integrity; but in actuality by withholding key facts is protecting a deeper crime and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.

A limited hangout typically is a response to lower the pressure felt from inquisitive investigators pursuing clues that threaten to expose everything, and the disclosure is often combined with red herrings or propaganda elements that lead to false trails, distractions, or ideological disinformation; thus allowing covert or criminal elements to continue in their improper activities.

Victor Marchetti wrote: "A 'limited hangout' is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering - some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."[1]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Interesting, Pam. When Six Seconds came out I disbelieved the story that tiny charcoal sketches

were substituted for actual photocopies of frames. I wondered whether PHOTOS might reveal

things the sketches did not. Copyright was not an issue, because as in countless Disney lawsuits,

being "hand done reproductions" is not a legal point...IT PUBLICATION FOR PROFIT THAT IS

THE PROBLEM. So SSID could have used EITHER drawings or photos in the book with the same

degree of culpability...and they chose drawings. Why?

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would an agent have done that?

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

“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,”

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.

(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?

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.

(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?

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.)

(9) Investigation turned up numerous films and photos never seen before...

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

I could go on ad infinitum.

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

I don’t need to attack Fetzer's history or reputation and I won’t.

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.

Too bad Sylvia Meagher did not survive to this day. She would have munched him for breakfast!

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would an agent have done that?

One of Professor Fetzer’s most lovable traits is the unerring swiftness with which he starts screaming “Agent! Agent!” whenever he gets his butt kicked in debate. You may have noticed this with respect to other participants of this forum like Len Colby. But this tactic is not limited to this forum. Ten years ago when the book critic for the Milwaukee Sentinel was not properly appreciative of one of Fetzer’s books, Fetzer claimed the book review was a “hit piece” engineered by an intel agency. With me this goes way back to 1998 when I gave a talk at Lancer concerning the Zapruder film. Fetzer’s offense knew no bounds. Finally, Debra Conway had to shut off the power to his microphone as Fetzer wandered through a Richard Pryor joke. (Fetzer had to apologize to the conference for his conduct the next day.) Sure enough, it wasn’t long before Fetzer had me tagged as a “disinformation agent” on his web site.

After pointing out last week that once again Fetzer had used a photo to show the opposite of what it really showed, I was expecting his usual noxious move. As we’ve seen, it came in right on schedule. He is now claiming that my refusal in Six Seconds to proclaim the fakery of the Zapruder film is a clear sign that I was and am a government agent. As has been pointed out on this site, he fails to make the same charge against David Lifton who, in 1967, also made no noises about Zapruder film fakery. In fact, Lifton first discovered the issue about the time he noticed that the Zapruder film was not in accordance with his “body alteration theory.” At least Lifton has enough good sense and sufficient integrity not to buy Fetzer’s “agent” screed. Thank you, David.

It occurred to me to ask a simple question: “If you were a government agent, Tink, would you have done what you have done?” Admittedly it takes a bit of a stretch for me to imagine myself as a government agent but then I know myself better than some of you know me. In any case, this might bring things back to an evidentiary level where Fetzer’s hysterics would be heard only at a distance and the focus could be put on real facts. Immodest, as this seems to me, I’m going to plow through Six Seconds and subsequent work all the time asking the question: Would an agent have done that?

(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?

(2) I prevailed upon the Archives to produce a photo of CE 399 together with the ballistic comparison rounds, all this to show that it is difficult to tell them apart. By visiting Parkland Hospital, I was able to mobilize contemporary records to show that CE 399 was most likely found on a stretcher completely unconnected to this case, on the stretcher of a young boy, Ronnie Fuller, brought into the hospital at about the same time. I showed that Specter’s interviewing of Darrell Tomlinson was dishonest. At Parkland I interviewed O,P. Wright, the Security Director, and a retired Deputy Police Chief. Wright had an educated eye for bullets and carried around for awhile the bullet found on the stretcher. I showed Wright photos of CE 399 and he told me the bullet he handled was not CE 399. He said the bullet he handled had a “pointed tip” and then gave me such a bullet from his drawer. That bullet was photographed and the photo published in Six Seconds. If Wright is correct, then CE 399 was substituted for the stretcher bullet at some time after it came into government possession. Would an agent have disclosed all that?

(3) Following up on CE 399, in the last few years Gary Aguilar and I did further research on the tangled history of CE 399. We queried the Archives for additional documents and located Bardwell D. Odum, the FBI agent who was alleged in a memo to have established an evidence train for CE 399. Odum told us he never had CE 399 in his possession and never carried out the interviews he was alleged to have carried out. Gary and I published this new indictment of government treatment of CE 399. I lectured on it at the 2003 Wecht Conference in Pittsburgh. Would an agent have done that?

(4) After four 4" by 5" Zapruder transparencies disappeared in Dallas in the custody of a LIFE editor, I made 35 mm copies of significant Zapruder frames. For many years these copies were the only high resolution copies of the film not in the hands of the government or LIFE magazine. Doing this subjected me to the risk of criminal prosecution (something LIFE later threatened) but also made possible (5) and (6) below. Would an agent have done that?

(5) These copies of the film permitted me to calculate very precise angles for the slope of Connally’s shoulder as he turns. The slope changes as he turns and then, between Z 237 and Z 238, shifts abruptly in the opposite direction. In addition, these copies permitted an artist to accurately represent the puffing of Connally’s cheeks and the mussing of his hair that occurs at the same time as the shoulder drop. All of this demonstrates the fallacy of the single-bullet theory since it shows the gap between Kennedy’s reaction to a bullet hit and Connally’s. Would an agent have done that?

(6) These copies permitted calculations to be made of the movement of JFK’s head under the impact of what I took to be two bullets. This was a scientific demonstration of the impact of a bullet from the right front and the first dramatic showing of the left backward snap of Kennedy’s head. Would an agent have done that?

(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?

(8) High resolution copies of the Moorman photo were obtained in order to show the likely presence of a shooter at a location behind the stockade fence. This fact was highlighted along with reports from S.M. Holland that cigarette butts and footprints were found at this location behind the fence. All of this, of course, is foundational to the claim that a shot came from that location in opposition to the lone gunman theory of the government. Would an agent have done that?

(9) Investigation turned up numerous films and photos never seen before, some of which appeared to show the presence of two persons near the 6th floor sniper’s nest at the time of the shooting. One of these photo showed a white Rambler station wagon passing the TSBD ten minutes after the shooting. Documents found in the Archives and never published before indicated that a person not Oswald had left the TSBD and made his escape in such a vehicle. Cf. 302s of Richard Randolph Carr. Would an agent have done that?

(10) Photographs and documents from the Archives revealed for the first time that one of the cartridge cases found near the 6th floor window had been dry-fired multiple times in the rifle found on the 6th floor. It had a dent in its tip that would mean it did not contain a projectile on November 22nd. This discovery cast doubt on the government claim that three shots were fired from the TSBD window. Would an agent have done that?

*****************

I could go on ad infinitum. The point is simple. For a decade or more, Fetzer has continued to play the lowest and also the most suspect card in the deck. Don’t believe [whoever, fill in the blank] because he/she is an agent! But it doesn’t work. At least, I have shown above that it doesn’t work with respect to me, my history and my reputation.

I don’t need to attack Fetzer's history or reputation and I won’t. Who needs it? I will continue to puncture pomposity wherever I see it and bring down to earth his most wild and improbable flights of fancy.

To the extent that the rest of you drink the Cool-Aid of character assassination, the research community will wither and die as a living, vital community of inquiry. If Fetzer gets away with this conduct with respect to me, who will be next? As long as you agree with him, you can be assured he won’t find something in your background or history to mark you as an agent. But as soon as you say something critical about him, remember the fate of that poor book critic for the Milwaukee Sentinel. Too bad Sylvia Meagher did not survive to this day. She would have munched him for breakfast!

Josiah Thompson

Bravo, Josiah. You are absolutely correct. If you'd proposed some wacky theories that were easily knocked down, discrediting the entire CT community in the process, it would be one thing. But most of what you wrote about in SSID had short strong legs, and embarrassed no one other than the WC and its lawyers.

While one prone to suspicion might also argue that your book, even with its merits, was designed to distract from the research of others, no one attacking you on this forum has named one book or researcher whose work was ignored in favor of your own. Their basic argument--that your book was designed to prop up a bogus Z-film at the expense of other evidence--makes little sense. I mean, really, how can convincing people something shows a conspiracy be considered an effort to convince people there was NOT a conspiracy when the piece of evidence used to show a conspiracy is UNCHALLENGED by those holding there was no conspiracy??? Are we to believe your efforts were meant to fail, but that you were so good in your role as a double-agent that you accidentally succeeded?

FWIW, I built upon your research of the witnesses and created a database quoting their descriptions of the shots in chronological order. (This can be found in chapters 5 thru 9 at patspeer.com). While I was able to come to conclusions not reached in SSID (It's quite clear from my analysis there was a shot after the head shot) I by no means suspect you'd deliberately deceived me by not coming to this same conclusion. I thought you might find that refreshing.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Hi Paul:

I'm just an innocent country boy now up in the big city. I am not aware that the "man" (Dr. Fetzer) has contributed more than the equivalent of a bucket of warm spit to the JFK inquiry. Please tell me what I am missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to make this short.

Josiah,In 1966 you saw a copy of a Secret Service copy of the Zapruder film.Did the film you see that day show the left turn onto Elm street or the limo stop?

Edited by Michael Crane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

PS: What WERE you smoking that night??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, Lifton first discovered the issue about the time he noticed that the Zapruder film was not in accordance with his “body alteration theory.”

I have never thought that David Lifton's body alteration theory depends on proving that the ZFILM is fake. It seems to me that body alteration is entirely consistent with what we see in the ZFILm.

Can anyone tell me what I am missing?

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fact, Lifton first discovered the issue about the time he noticed that the Zapruder film was not in accordance with his “body alteration theory.”

I have never thought that that David Lifton's body alteration theory depends on proving that the ZFILM is fake. It seems to me that body alteration is entirely consistent with what we see in the ZFILm.

Can anyone tell me what I am missing?

Your missing everything Ray

Just like in the post about Fetzers work not amounting to a bucket of spit

Im willing to bet you have never read any of Fetzers books, from the looks of your last post it seems you have never read Liftons book either

Have you read them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Brilliant post, Pamela! You have hit the nail on the head! And

you and I and Vince Salandria are far from the only ones who

have seen through his charade. The name for what he did is

called "plausible deniability"! Make some contributions for the

sake of distracting from the serious obfuscations. Which he, of

course, continues to this day! WHERE IS HIS RESPONSE TO

THE NEW PROOF OF ZAPRUDER FILM FAKERY? Tink has been

living a lie from the beginning and it's coming apart at the seams.

"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,

( 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

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?

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Well, David, there is a persistent and enduring pattern of deception and obfuscation, which extends from SIX SECONDS to this day. If you can't see through it, then I have taken you for your better. Pamela's post was brilliant; Jerry Logan's was misconceived. As much as I have admired you in the past, I am acutely disappointed to read this coming from you.

Indeed, Josiah Thompson appears to have ripped you off some time ago. Something is wrong that you would make up excuses for his inexcusable conduct. Read my last post and this one and give this matter more thought. You are way off base here and I am having a hard time reconciling this attitude with my very patient and detailed dissections of his modus operandi.

Study my posts, David. I have stuck to the details of his arguments, citing pages and verse, to establish that SIX SECONDS was a work of deception and obfuscation. He not only won't address why he did not confront the massive contradiction between the medical evidence and the film, but it looks like he even ripped you off in preparing his book and article for The Saturday Evening Post.

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.org/wiki/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.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKthompsonJ.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."

Just so I get this right, you are saying that Vince Salandria and Jerrold "Fatback" Smith and I -- who have been dealing with this man's vicious and unwarranted attacks since the Zapruder Film Symposium in 1996 -- don't know what we are talking about? I think it is you who should give this matter more thought. I am sorry, David, but he has been playing a corrosive role in the JFK community now for more than forty years.

His dismissal of the throat wound as an exit wound caused by a fragment of skull or bullet from a shot to the back of the head is a nice illustration. We have Malcolm Perry's statements from the Parkland press conference, Charles Crenshaws's diagrams before and after, and reports on radio and television the rest of the day about it -- not to mention the hole in the windshield. Even Tom Wicker reported about it in The New York Times.

And with the massive evidence that the film is a fabrication, I cannot believe you are not faulting him for his apparent lapse in rationality. Review "More Proof of JFK Film Fakery", "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", and Doug Horne's new expert witnesses from Hollywood! How can you stand by and not denounce him for maintaining an indefensible position about the film's authenticity? Not to challenge him is inexcusable.

His presence has functioned like a cancer. He is in the process of denying every serious contribution he has made to the existence of a conspiracy -- the "double hit" theory, the entrance wound to the throat, the hole in the windshield, to cite three examples, to set himself up to deny his previous "mistaken" belief that JFK was killed by a conspiracy just in in time for the 50th! You can sit by and watch, while I call him on it -- that's your choice! But it's not mine.

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

PS: What WERE you smoking that night??

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...