Paul Kuntzler's Washington Conference

[Mark Stapleton]

To me this is truly ironic. I remember back in my youth pitying the poor Russians with their controlled media and wondering why they were content to be such sheeple. I have lived to see the situation almost reversed, with the sheeple being in America with a controlled media, and Russia's Pravda reporting like a free press. I don't know how free Pravda actually is nowadays, but it can't be any worse than what we've got today in the U.S. "republic."

Here is the report that appeared in Pravda:

http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/19...80596-Kennedy-0

Did the U.S. government cover up the details pertaining to the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy? An answer to this question will be much sought after by participants of a conference that kicked off on Monday, May 15th, in Washington, D.C. According to the report of the Warren Commission, President Kennedy fell victim to “Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone.” However, the “alternative” versions of the tragedy argue that two or more people shot at JFK in Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, on November 22nd, 1963. The above versions allege that U.S. government covered up the truth behind Kennedy’s death.

Douglas Horn, the former chief analyst of U.S. Congress on the Kennedy case, took part in the conference. He was among other experts calling the official version of the tragedy into question. The participants will include the historian from Minnesota James Fetzer, and the specialist in radioactive oncology David Mantic. Thomas Lipscomb, a well-known U.S. author, is expected to unveil more data indicating discrepancies in evidence used by the Warren Commission, which was set up by President Johnson to investigate Kennedy’s murder. In particular, Lipscomb is reported to have found evidence showing that the famous amateur footage (by Abraham Zapruder who happened to witness the assassination) was obviously cropped away by some unknown party.

Some of the participants of the conference have information showing that the 26-second footage filmed by Zapruder on 8 mm camera is just one of eight existing amateur documentaries on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. However, with the help of some interested party, Zapruder’s short film became the main piece of material evidence for the Warren Commission.

Experts are trying to locate other documentaries.

The participants will reportedly present new data to support the version about the “CIA conspiracy.” According to the theory, CIA agents might have replaced Kennedy’s brain with that of another person during the president’s autopsy.

By a strange twist of fate, the plane carrying Senator Ted Kennady, the brother of the late President John F. Kennedy, was struck by lightning right on the day when the conference kicked off in the U.S. capital. No one was harmed during the incident yet the news seemed to serve as yet another reminder of grim fate controlling the Kennedys.

You can discuss this story on the Pravda Forum:

http://engforum.pravda.ru/

The US mainstream media--yes that's you I'm talking about-- represents the most offensive, gutless, greedy collection of shameless criminals I've ever seen.

[Michael Hogan]

Mark Stapleton wrote: "The US mainstream media.......represents the most offensive, gutless, greedy collection of shameless criminals I've ever seen."

Yes, Mark. And let it be noted our fourth estate has been carrying on in that fine tradition for many, many decades now.

The American public, by and large, has long since become anesthetized and apathetic to the truth.

Our collective political attention span has been reduced to about the length of an American Idol episode.

Mike Hogan

Edited May 20, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Bruce Cormier]

Dr. Fetzer et al,

All in all though, given the high degree of suspicion, mistrust and serious dislike apparent, in this thread as well as in the accounts of the participants, among all the parties involved----wouldn't it have been an overall better idea to hold a press conference and then all of you just throw knives at each other?

At least it would've made "good copy" in places other than Russia. Yeesh...................

Sincerely,

"Dave"

Good Lord. Having witnessed the first hour of the conference -- after which things evidently became even stranger -- and then subsequent rock throwing and score settling among PARTICIPANTS here, I'm delighted that coverage to date has been confined to Pravda.

[Terry Adams]

the Russians at Pravda are reporting on the press meeting, but not the US press so far.....

To me this is truly ironic. I remember back in my youth pitying the poor Russians with their controlled media and wondering why they were content to be such sheeple. I have lived to see the situation almost reversed, with the sheeple being in America with a controlled media, and Russia's Pravda reporting like a free press. I don't know how free Pravda actually is nowadays, but it can't be any worse than what we've got today in the U.S. "republic."

Ron,

If the paper that I read is the Pravda that I had heard about all of my life, I have been missing some very interesting and enligtening information (Example: Kevin Costner's "massage"). But, as you stated, Where are the Sheeple? I saw some very beautiful people in the photography that was provided. I certainly got a kick out of the "cat story". Again, as stated above, if this is the official paper of the Russian Government, I want to become a subscriber.

Terry

[Ron Ecker]

Where are the Sheeple? I saw some very beautiful people in the photography that was provided.

My point was that the Russians aren't sheeple anymore. (The Soviet Union collapsed.) It's Americans who are now the sheeple, with government and media that is starting to look more like the old Soviet Union than the country I grew up in.

[Bill Cheslock]

Ever wonder why Dan Rather, recently of CBS, has never been seriously asked by the American media where he actually was on November 22, 1963? He said he was standing just west of the triple underpass, and saw the presidential limo speed by him. Yet, no photos or film footage show him where he said he was standing.

Yet, when he questioned the validity of W's National Guard record, he was taken to task. It cost him his job.

[John Simkin]

My point was that the Russians aren't sheeple anymore. (The Soviet Union collapsed.) It's Americans who are now the sheeple, with government and media that is starting to look more like the old Soviet Union than the country I grew up in.

Although Pravda writes about political assassinations in the United States they are reluctant to publish stories about it happening in Russia. Dmitry Kholodov is just one of a dozen investigative journalists murdered in Russia over the last few years.

The case of a young Russian journalist murdered while investigating alleged military corruption is to go to the European court of human rights after his parents insisted Russian authorities had botched the investigation.

Dmitry Kholodov, a 27-year-old reporter for the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper, was killed in October 1994 while investigating alleged corruption involving high-ranking military leaders, including then-defence minister Pavel Grachev.

Kholodov died in an explosion after accepting a booby-trapped briefcase he was reportedly told contained secret documents exposing top-level corruption.

The official investigation into his death progressed slowly and drew extensive criticism from the media and the Russian public. The first arrests came four years after the murder, and the subsequent court proceedings were marred by alleged irregularities.

Six defendants, four of them military officers, were finally tried in Russian courts for the murder but all were acquitted.

Kholodov's parents, who have been campaigning for justice for his murder for more than a decade, were told this year they could no longer appeal the case as the statute of limitations has expired.

But now the European court of human rights has agreed to hear charges that Russian authorities failed to properly investigate the murder.

[Josiah Thompson]

Fetzer writes: "Conversations with Joan Mellen are different. She makes pronouncements and expects everyone to fall all over them! She made this claim that I had not read her book, which in the ordinary sense is true, but gave me no opportunity to explain that I had analyzed her book. I did not want to raise the serious questions I had about it at that time, but in my opinion she has a grossly exaggerated sense of its importance."

So the ex-professor from the University of Minnesota (Duluth) can analyze books without reading them! Now that is rich!

Poor Joan Mellen walked into this one without knowing who Fetzer was. She should have asked any of the people who did "press conferences" with Fetzer in the past what it was like. They would have given her a blueprint for the self-aggrandizing grandstanding that occurred. Fetzer has never seen a microphone he didn't like. Hence, the Washington invitation drew him back from more pressing conspiracies --- the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2 and 7, the missile that hit the Pentagon, the death ray that brought down Wellstone's plane, the photos of the moon mission made on a sound stage in California, etc. Many of us had hoped that with the collapse of his Zapruder fakery claim, he would move on to even sillier conspiracies. But the microphone drew him back. He just couldn't stay away from it.

Note how carefully Fetzer steps around the fact that he never had an appointment to "the University of Minnesota" --- that is, the main campus in Minneapolis/St. Paul --- but to its lesser satellite: "the University of Minnesota (Duluth)." Since credentials have always meant so much to Fetzer, in retirement he has to retrospectively upgrade his own by eliding the difference between "the University of Minnesota" and "the University of Minnesota (Duluth)."

Josiah Thompson

There is no pleasing some people. After discussion with Paul Kuntzler, he agreed that it was a good idea to order copies of books for the press conference. I ordered copies of mine at my editor's 50% discount. I took it for granted that he would discuss the same plan with Joan Mellen. I could not have ordered her books at discount, because I am not their author. I was not plotting against her. None of us were selling books, but it would have been great to have had them available to give to reporters. As it happened, even the copies of my books, which included chapters by David Mantik and Douglas Horne, did not arrive in time.

Conversations with Joan Mellen are different. She makes pronouncements and expects everyone to fall all over them! She made this claim that I had not read her book, which in the ordinary sense is true, but gave me no opportunity to explain that I had analyzed her book. I did not want to raise the serious questions I had about it at that time, but in my opinion she has a grossly exaggerated sense of its importance. She has next to nothing--in most cases, literally nothing--about LBJ, Hoover, or the Texas oil men, for example. In her zeal for planting the seeds of the assassination in New Orleans, she completely ignores its Dallas roots.

Although she includes Barr McClellan's Blood, Money, and Power, which fingers LBJ, in her bibilography, she appears to be unaware of Madelene Duncan Brown's Texas in the Morning or of Billie Sol Estes A Texas Legend, both of which also place much of the responsibility for the assassination on the shoulders of Lyndon Baines Johnson. I am sure that she would respond that, since Billie's book has only just appeared, she should not be held responsible for what he has to say, except that he said a lot of it before in an important interview he gave to a French investigative reporter, William Raymond, which was published years ago.

The very idea that Jim Garrison, whom I admire, "came up with the truth closer than anyone has before or since" is a gross misrepresentation. No doubt, the CIA was deeply involved. But a far more extensive study of the individuals and groups who appear to have had roles in the assassination, including LBJ and Edgar, was authored by Noel Twyman, whose Bloody Treason she includes in her bibliography but does not seem to appreciate, citing it only once in relation to an interview, according to her own index. Similarly, she includes Murder in Dealey Plaza, but does not seem to understand what it has to tell us about the death of JFK.

There appears to be next to nothing about the autopsy, the X-rays, the substitution of another person's brain for that of JFK, or the alteration of the Zapruder film, all of which are discussed extensively in Murder, in her book. So far as I have been able to discern, the important objective and scientific evidence that the most basic evidence in this case as been subject to alteration, distortion, or fabrication has not penetrated her consciousness. That may work for a professor of creative writing--and others, including Tom Lipscomb, have praised her book as "very well written"--but for a book that pretends to be definitive, that simply won't do.

It is the case that, in introducing each speaker, I offered observations that were intended to place their presentations in context. They averaged about 30 seconds apiece. In the case of Mellen, I was sensitive to her exaggerated sense of the importance of New Orleans and her apparent ignorance of the objective and scientific evidence in the case, so I used my introductory remarks to create a framework that would better define how her work fit into the broader context of JFK research. It took 45 seconds and read as follows (I had described each of our contributions as "anchors to reality" that responsible theories must accommodate):

"Our multiple anchors to reality substantially impact alternative theories about the case. The Mafia, for example, which no doubt put up some of the shooters, could not have extended its reach into Bethesda Naval Hospital to alter X-rays under the control of agents of the Secret Service, medical officers of the US Navy, or the President's personal physician. Neither pro- nor anti-Castro Cubans could have substituted someone else's brain for that of JFK. The KGB, which had the same ability to edit films as Hollywood or the CIA, could not have gained possession of the Zapruder film. Nor could any of these things have been done by Lee Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead. Our next speaker, a professor of English at Temple University, has explored Oswald's experiences in New Orleans and thereby shed light upon this enigmatic man and his involvement with our own intelligence agencies. I am delighted to welcome Joan Mellen."

I knew that Joan was probably not going to like the fact that I emphasized evidence that undermines her claims to centrality in relation to New Orleans, but I thought it was indispensable that she not convey the impression that New Orleans was the end-all and be-all of the assassination of JFK. Although Kuntzler had been rigorous in enforcing strict time limits on the rest of us, he did not once give Joan little notes with the time she had remaining on them. We clocked her presentation and it ran about 18 minutes. So I would have to say that, if anyone took "the lion's charge" of the time, it was Joan Mellen, as the tapes will show.

Indeed, that is easy to establish. I spoke for 12 minutes exactly in my opening, which offered a brief history of the case, including the Warren Commission's conclusions and the necessity to introduce the "magic bullet" theory. I laid out the evidence refuting the "magic bullet" theory and, on the basis of independent evidence, the proof that there had been at least six shots from at least three directions. I then explained what David Mantik had discovered about the X-rays, by way of introducing him. I was showing 35 slides as I proceeded. With 30 second introductions for Horne, Lipscomb, and Morely, and 45 for Mellen, I used 14:15 altogether.

Of course, I was moderating the program and it should come as no suprise if the moderator--who, in this case, was also a presenter--should consume more time than other participants, even if their name happens to be Joan Mellen! But that was not the case and she spoke nearly twice as long as any other other member of the panel apart from me. As for Lipscomb preparing the press release, maybe she does not know it, but he is an accomplished journalist who was doing his best to present what we were doing in the best possible light. I find it the least bit bewildering to read her complaint that "Mr. Lipscomb, for reasons that were not clear to me, was somehow in charge of writing the press release". But then she was probably not paying a lot of attention to the rest of us. She is a person who is first and foremost concerned with herself and no others.

To the gentleman who wrote about selling ("hawking" books): Mr. Fetzer ordered at the expense of the organizer 100 copies of his book, and none of mine. I sold no books, brought no books, ordered no books, and was not there to sell books, for the record. I appreciate your introducing this point. I did not sell my book at this event. I referred to it, yes.

To Pat Speer: Jeff Morley did finally speak. He was a late addition to the panel, and so is not mentioned in the press release. He spoke about his Joannides case, but then added that he did not believe that there is any credible evidence that there was a conspiracy! Maybe in fifty years we'll have that evidence, he said. So, as everyone who reads this discussion knows, despite all his research, he stands with the 25% minority of this country that still believes that Oswald was the lone assassin. He also defended Gerald Posner as "a friend of mine." Why of all the hard-working researchers in this case he was chosen to be on this small panel is beyond me. It was Tom Lipscomb who put him on the panel, by the way. I might add that although the organizer invited me to be on this panel, driving from Washington to New Jersey for dinner just to persuade me, the moderator Mr. Fetzer had not read my book, nor had Mr. Lipscomb, who was somehow, for reasons not clear to me, in charge of writing the press release.

To Mr. Horne and his complaints, allow me to add that we were told this press conference was to be one hour long. His complaint should be to Mr. Fetzer for seizing the lion's charge of the time, making a new speech each time he introduced a speaker. I was surprised to learn that Mr. Horne had hoped that I would "walk out." He had seemed to me to be a sympathetic individual.

[Bill Miller]

Your capacity to allege mistakes wildly outruns our tendency to commit them. We were well aware of the asphalt build-up on the street.

I hadn't mentioned the alleged build-up on the street, but when the road surface was redone - Gary Mack went out and looked at the asphalt depth and if I recall correctly, it was about an inch or somewhere in that neighborhood. It wasn't nearly as thick as you guys guessed at.

Our reference point was always measurements above the curb. But we had to take measurements on the street (since we were not at liberty to resurface it) and then compensate for the asphalt build-up. How else could we make any measurements in the street?

My complaint wasn't about you standing in the street ... my complaint is referenced in the animated overlay showing your transit's LOS that you claim matched Moorman's. How can someone so smart not understand that point when you have heard it said so many times.

But it's not the first time that you and the rest of this crew have claimed that we did something wrong about the Moorman. The blunders, so far as I have been able to determine, have all been on the other side, including a whopper by your leader on another forum. This photo does not establish any "boner" on our part, because you have assumed we ignored the asphalt build-up in making our calculations. That requires a different line of argument, one which you have yet to provide. When you sort it out, let me know. But this stuff is getting just a bit stale.

Again, I am talking about your LOS photograph showing the corner of the pedestal touching the corner of the colonnade window seen in the background. Your pretending not to understand what I am talking about is at least a higher road than White took for he merely lied about the gap only being seen in the Thompson Drum Scan, but his attempt to avoid admitting his error is only a half of a step below yours.

I am also not sure who the leader is that you speak of for I did my own investigation into the matter. As you recall, I am the one who pointed out that Moorman's camera lens is standing above the tops of the motorcycle windshields, which it should not have done while holding the camera to her eye to take a photo. I am the one who pointed out Mary's shadow barely reaching over the curb not two seconds before the cycles passed by her and Jean. I am the one who showed that the one photo Mary did take from in the street as she had stated was the McBride photograph where her camera shows her looking through the cycle's windshield and not over the top of it. And I am the one who said Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman what she thought about the claim that she was in the street when she took her famous Polaroid and Mary said, "I think the whole thing is just plain silly".

So you guys made boners then and are making them now by not admitting to them.

Bill Miller

Edited May 22, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Josiah Thompson]

Bill Miller wrote: "As you recall, I am the one who pointed out that Moorman's camera lens is standing above the tops of the motorcycle windshields, which should not have done while holding the camera to her eye to take a photo. I am the one who pointed out Mary's shadow barely reaching over the curb not two seconds before the cycles passed by her and Jean. I am the one who showed that the one photo Mary did take from in the street as she had stated was the McBride photograph where her camera shows her looking through the cycle's windshield and not over the top of it. And I am the one who said Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman what she thought about the claim that she was in the street when she took her famous Polaroid and Mary said, 'I think the whole thing is just plain silly.'

I would just like to say that I've followed this debate for years and Bill Miller is quite correct in saying that he made all the discoveries described above. Whether Fetzer admits this or not is irrelevant. Bill Miller did exactly what he said he did and it was a nice job of analysis indeed!

Your capacity to allege mistakes wildly outruns our tendency to commit them. We were well aware of the asphalt build-up on the street.

I hadn't mentioned the alleged build-up on the street, but when the road surface was redone - Gary Mack went out and looked at the asphalt depth and if I recall correctly, it was about an inch or somewhere in that neighborhood. It wasn't nearly as thick as you guys guessed at.

Our reference point was always measurements above the curb. But we had to take measurements on the street (since we were not at liberty to resurface it) and then compensate for the asphalt build-up. How else could we make any measurements in the street?

My complaint wasn't about you standing in the street ... my complaint is referenced in the animated overlay showing your transit's LOS that you claim matched Moorman's. How can someone so smart not understand that point when you have heard it said so many times.

But it's not the first time that you and the rest of this crew have claimed that we did something wrong about the Moorman. The blunders, so far as I have been able to determine, have all been on the other side, including a whopper by your leader on another forum. This photo does not establish any "boner" on our part, because you have assumed we ignored the asphalt build-up in making our calculations. That requires a different line of argument, one which you have yet to provide. When you sort it out, let me know. But this stuff is getting just a bit stale.

Again, I am talking about your LOS photograph showing the corner of the pedestal touching the corner of the colonnade window seen in the background. Your pretending not to understand what I am talking about is at least a higher road than White took for he merely lied about the gap only being seen in the Thompson Drum Scan, but his attempt to avoid admitting his error is only a half of a step below yours.

I am also not sure who the leader is that you speak of for I did my own investigation into the matter. As you recall, I am the one who pointed out that Moorman's camera lens is standing above the tops of the motorcycle windshields, which should not have done while holding the camera to her eye to take a photo. I am the one who pointed out Mary's shadow barely reaching over the curb not two seconds before the cycles passed by her and Jean. I am the one who showed that the one photo Mary did take from in the street as she had stated was the McBride photograph where her camera shows her looking through the cycle's windshield and not over the top of it. And I am the one who said Mark Oakes asked Mary Moorman what she thought about the claim that she was in the street when she took her famous Polaroid and Mary said, "I think the whole thing is just plain silly".

So you guys made boners then and are making them now by not admitting to them.

Bill Miller

[John Simkin]

Was the Conference reported in any newspaper other than Pravda? Did Jeff Morley write a report for the Washington Post?

[Bruce Cormier]

Was the Conference reported in any newspaper other than Pravda? Did Jeff Morley write a report for the Washington Post?

John, the answers are 'no' and 'no'. to my knowledge.

[William Kelly]

I hope Jeff Morley doesn't write a report for the Washington Post.

There's no reason to take those cranks seriously.

It was a set up by the Times books publisher and Kuntzler, the Miller transcription company guy to ropie in any new important developments (Morley, Mellen) and mix with the Zapruder gumbo and allow Fetzer do his circus act and discredit any and all other serious research that is being done so the case never gets the attention it should.

If Kntzler wanted to help the case he could have had his company transcribe the videotapes of the really significant presentations at COPA conferences and put it on the internet, and the book publisher could publish an anthology of all the significant magazine and news articles of the past years, and they could all stop wasting their money and donate it to some of the starving non-profit orgs or give some working grants to independent researchers that are still on this case.

BK

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is the first day of my retirement as professor emeritus. UMD bestowed a nice package of benefits,

including several years of health and dental insurance and a six-figure lump sum as well as many other

fringes, including retaining my email privileges and web site. So I will continue to be jfetzer@d.umn.edu.

Not that it matters, but I already explained how I analyzed Mellen's book, so this claptrap is completely

silly. Start with the index and the references and check out some key citations. What is missing can be

more important than what is present. In this case, the question is not whether I have read her book but

whether she has read mine. The scientific evidence presented there overwhelmingly outweighs her vast

number of interviews, especially at this late date. She also appears to have been very subjective in her

appraisals. Whether or not I might be right about all of this, of course, doesn't matter to this guy. I have

likewise explained what happened at the press conference. We gave it our best shot, but circumstances

worked against us. Better to try than not to try at all. When I joined the University of Minnesota, by the

way, all campus appointments were made by the Twin Cities. We were all members of the University of

Minnesota faculty, so he is wrong on that point, too. I taught on the Duluth campus, but it would be at

least five years before UMD secured autonomy in making appointments, which was probably not a good

thing. But he doesn't care about truth here any more than he does about JFK, which is very sad because

I once held him in high esteem. He now strikes me as a nasty, embittered, shallow and pathetic person.

Fetzer writes: "Conversations with Joan Mellen are different. She makes pronouncements and expects everyone to fall all over them! She made this claim that I had not read her book, which in the ordinary sense is true, but gave me no opportunity to explain that I had analyzed her book. I did not want to raise the serious questions I had about it at that time, but in my opinion she has a grossly exaggerated sense of its importance."

So the ex-professor from the University of Minnesota (Duluth) can analyze books without reading them! Now that is rich!

Poor Joan Mellen walked into this one without knowing who Fetzer was. She should have asked any of the people who did "press conferences" with Fetzer in the past what it was like. They would have given her a blueprint for the self-aggrandizing grandstanding that occurred. Fetzer has never seen a microphone he didn't like. Hence, the Washington invitation drew him back from more pressing conspiracies --- the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2 and 7, the missile that hit the Pentagon, the death ray that brought down Wellstone's plane, the photos of the moon mission made on a sound stage in California, etc. Many of us had hoped that with the collapse of his Zapruder fakery claim, he would move on to even sillier conspiracies. But the microphone drew him back. He just couldn't stay away from it.

Note how carefully Fetzer steps around the fact that he never had an appointment to "the University of Minnesota" --- that is, the main campus in Minneapolis/St. Paul --- but to its lesser satellite: "the University of Minnesota (Duluth)." Since credentials have always meant so much to Fetzer, in retirement he has to retrospectively upgrade his own by eliding the difference between "the University of Minnesota" and "the University of Minnesota (Duluth)."

Josiah Thompson

There is no pleasing some people. After discussion with Paul Kuntzler, he agreed that it was a good idea to order copies of books for the press conference. I ordered copies of mine at my editor's 50% discount. I took it for granted that he would discuss the same plan with Joan Mellen. I could not have ordered her books at discount, because I am not their author. I was not plotting against her. None of us were selling books, but it would have been great to have had them available to give to reporters. As it happened, even the copies of my books, which included chapters by David Mantik and Douglas Horne, did not arrive in time.

Conversations with Joan Mellen are different. She makes pronouncements and expects everyone to fall all over them! She made this claim that I had not read her book, which in the ordinary sense is true, but gave me no opportunity to explain that I had analyzed her book. I did not want to raise the serious questions I had about it at that time, but in my opinion she has a grossly exaggerated sense of its importance. She has next to nothing--in most cases, literally nothing--about LBJ, Hoover, or the Texas oil men, for example. In her zeal for planting the seeds of the assassination in New Orleans, she completely ignores its Dallas roots.

Although she includes Barr McClellan's Blood, Money, and Power, which fingers LBJ, in her bibilography, she appears to be unaware of Madelene Duncan Brown's Texas in the Morning or of Billie Sol Estes A Texas Legend, both of which also place much of the responsibility for the assassination on the shoulders of Lyndon Baines Johnson. I am sure that she would respond that, since Billie's book has only just appeared, she should not be held responsible for what he has to say, except that he said a lot of it before in an important interview he gave to a French investigative reporter, William Raymond, which was published years ago.

The very idea that Jim Garrison, whom I admire, "came up with the truth closer than anyone has before or since" is a gross misrepresentation. No doubt, the CIA was deeply involved. But a far more extensive study of the individuals and groups who appear to have had roles in the assassination, including LBJ and Edgar, was authored by Noel Twyman, whose Bloody Treason she includes in her bibliography but does not seem to appreciate, citing it only once in relation to an interview, according to her own index. Similarly, she includes Murder in Dealey Plaza, but does not seem to understand what it has to tell us about the death of JFK.

There appears to be next to nothing about the autopsy, the X-rays, the substitution of another person's brain for that of JFK, or the alteration of the Zapruder film, all of which are discussed extensively in Murder, in her book. So far as I have been able to discern, the important objective and scientific evidence that the most basic evidence in this case as been subject to alteration, distortion, or fabrication has not penetrated her consciousness. That may work for a professor of creative writing--and others, including Tom Lipscomb, have praised her book as "very well written"--but for a book that pretends to be definitive, that simply won't do.

It is the case that, in introducing each speaker, I offered observations that were intended to place their presentations in context. They averaged about 30 seconds apiece. In the case of Mellen, I was sensitive to her exaggerated sense of the importance of New Orleans and her apparent ignorance of the objective and scientific evidence in the case, so I used my introductory remarks to create a framework that would better define how her work fit into the broader context of JFK research. It took 45 seconds and read as follows (I had described each of our contributions as "anchors to reality" that responsible theories must accommodate):

"Our multiple anchors to reality substantially impact alternative theories about the case. The Mafia, for example, which no doubt put up some of the shooters, could not have extended its reach into Bethesda Naval Hospital to alter X-rays under the control of agents of the Secret Service, medical officers of the US Navy, or the President's personal physician. Neither pro- nor anti-Castro Cubans could have substituted someone else's brain for that of JFK. The KGB, which had the same ability to edit films as Hollywood or the CIA, could not have gained possession of the Zapruder film. Nor could any of these things have been done by Lee Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead. Our next speaker, a professor of English at Temple University, has explored Oswald's experiences in New Orleans and thereby shed light upon this enigmatic man and his involvement with our own intelligence agencies. I am delighted to welcome Joan Mellen."

I knew that Joan was probably not going to like the fact that I emphasized evidence that undermines her claims to centrality in relation to New Orleans, but I thought it was indispensable that she not convey the impression that New Orleans was the end-all and be-all of the assassination of JFK. Although Kuntzler had been rigorous in enforcing strict time limits on the rest of us, he did not once give Joan little notes with the time she had remaining on them. We clocked her presentation and it ran about 18 minutes. So I would have to say that, if anyone took "the lion's charge" of the time, it was Joan Mellen, as the tapes will show.

Indeed, that is easy to establish. I spoke for 12 minutes exactly in my opening, which offered a brief history of the case, including the Warren Commission's conclusions and the necessity to introduce the "magic bullet" theory. I laid out the evidence refuting the "magic bullet" theory and, on the basis of independent evidence, the proof that there had been at least six shots from at least three directions. I then explained what David Mantik had discovered about the X-rays, by way of introducing him. I was showing 35 slides as I proceeded. With 30 second introductions for Horne, Lipscomb, and Morely, and 45 for Mellen, I used 14:15 altogether.

Of course, I was moderating the program and it should come as no suprise if the moderator--who, in this case, was also a presenter--should consume more time than other participants, even if their name happens to be Joan Mellen! But that was not the case and she spoke nearly twice as long as any other other member of the panel apart from me. As for Lipscomb preparing the press release, maybe she does not know it, but he is an accomplished journalist who was doing his best to present what we were doing in the best possible light. I find it the least bit bewildering to read her complaint that "Mr. Lipscomb, for reasons that were not clear to me, was somehow in charge of writing the press release". But then she was probably not paying a lot of attention to the rest of us. She is a person who is first and foremost concerned with herself and no others.

To the gentleman who wrote about selling ("hawking" books): Mr. Fetzer ordered at the expense of the organizer 100 copies of his book, and none of mine. I sold no books, brought no books, ordered no books, and was not there to sell books, for the record. I appreciate your introducing this point. I did not sell my book at this event. I referred to it, yes.

To Pat Speer: Jeff Morley did finally speak. He was a late addition to the panel, and so is not mentioned in the press release. He spoke about his Joannides case, but then added that he did not believe that there is any credible evidence that there was a conspiracy! Maybe in fifty years we'll have that evidence, he said. So, as everyone who reads this discussion knows, despite all his research, he stands with the 25% minority of this country that still believes that Oswald was the lone assassin. He also defended Gerald Posner as "a friend of mine." Why of all the hard-working researchers in this case he was chosen to be on this small panel is beyond me. It was Tom Lipscomb who put him on the panel, by the way. I might add that although the organizer invited me to be on this panel, driving from Washington to New Jersey for dinner just to persuade me, the moderator Mr. Fetzer had not read my book, nor had Mr. Lipscomb, who was somehow, for reasons not clear to me, in charge of writing the press release.

To Mr. Horne and his complaints, allow me to add that we were told this press conference was to be one hour long. His complaint should be to Mr. Fetzer for seizing the lion's charge of the time, making a new speech each time he introduced a speaker. I was surprised to learn that Mr. Horne had hoped that I would "walk out." He had seemed to me to be a sympathetic individual.

[Josiah Thompson]

Fetzer writes: "When I joined the University of Minnesota, by the way, all campus appointments were made by the Twin Cities. We were all members of the University of Minnesota faculty, so he is wrong on that point, too. I taught on the Duluth campus, but it would be at least five years before UMD secured autonomy in making appointments, which was probably not a good thing. But he doesn't care about truth here any more than he does about JFK, which is very sad because I once held him in high esteem. He now strikes me as a nasty, embittered, shallow and pathetic person."

So let this "nasty, embittered, shallow and pathetic person" point out how slippery is the Professor's latest gambit. The philosophy department of the University of Minnesota's main campus has a distinguished tradition and reputation. The philosophy department of the University of Minnesota (Duluth) has neither. So to boost his own credentials, Fetzer elides the difference. He never had an appointment to that distinguished department although he leaves that impression by labeling himself "a University of Minnesota professor." The fact that appointments to the lesser campuses were watchdogged by Minneapolis/St. Paul in the late 1980s but are no more does not change the fact that Fetzer is just claiming a credential he never had. What a surprise!

Josiah Thompson

quote name='James H. Fetzer' date='May 30 2006, 03:30 AM' post='63913']

This is the first day of my retirement as professor emeritus. UMD bestowed a nice package of benefits,

including several years of health and dental insurance and a six-figure lump sum as well as many other

fringes, including retaining my email privileges and web site. So I will continue to be jfetzer@d.umn.edu.

Not that it matters, but I already explained how I analyzed Mellen's book, so this claptrap is completely

silly. Start with the index and the references and check out some key citations. What is missing can be

more important than what is present. In this case, the question is not whether I have read her book but

whether she has read mine. The scientific evidence presented there overwhelmingly outweighs her vast

number of interviews, especially at this late date. She also appears to have been very subjective in her

appraisals. Whether or not I might be right about all of this, of course, doesn't matter to this guy. I have

likewise explained what happened at the press conference. We gave it our best shot, but circumstances

worked against us. Better to try than not to try at all. When I joined the University of Minnesota, by the

way, all campus appointments were made by the Twin Cities. We were all members of the University of

Minnesota faculty, so he is wrong on that point, too. I taught on the Duluth campus, but it would be at

least five years before UMD secured autonomy in making appointments, which was probably not a good

thing. But he doesn't care about truth here any more than he does about JFK, which is very sad because

I once held him in high esteem. He now strikes me as a nasty, embittered, shallow and pathetic person.

Fetzer writes: "Conversations with Joan Mellen are different. She makes pronouncements and expects everyone to fall all over them! She made this claim that I had not read her book, which in the ordinary sense is true, but gave me no opportunity to explain that I had analyzed her book. I did not want to raise the serious questions I had about it at that time, but in my opinion she has a grossly exaggerated sense of its importance."

So the ex-professor from the University of Minnesota (Duluth) can analyze books without reading them! Now that is rich!

Poor Joan Mellen walked into this one without knowing who Fetzer was. She should have asked any of the people who did "press conferences" with Fetzer in the past what it was like. They would have given her a blueprint for the self-aggrandizing grandstanding that occurred. Fetzer has never seen a microphone he didn't like. Hence, the Washington invitation drew him back from more pressing conspiracies --- the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2 and 7, the missile that hit the Pentagon, the death ray that brought down Wellstone's plane, the photos of the moon mission made on a sound stage in California, etc. Many of us had hoped that with the collapse of his Zapruder fakery claim, he would move on to even sillier conspiracies. But the microphone drew him back. He just couldn't stay away from it.

Note how carefully Fetzer steps around the fact that he never had an appointment to "the University of Minnesota" --- that is, the main campus in Minneapolis/St. Paul --- but to its lesser satellite: "the University of Minnesota (Duluth)." Since credentials have always meant so much to Fetzer, in retirement he has to retrospectively upgrade his own by eliding the difference between "the University of Minnesota" and "the University of Minnesota (Duluth)."

Josiah Thompson

There is no pleasing some people. After discussion with Paul Kuntzler, he agreed that it was a good idea to order copies of books for the press conference. I ordered copies of mine at my editor's 50% discount. I took it for granted that he would discuss the same plan with Joan Mellen. I could not have ordered her books at discount, because I am not their author. I was not plotting against her. None of us were selling books, but it would have been great to have had them available to give to reporters. As it happened, even the copies of my books, which included chapters by David Mantik and Douglas Horne, did not arrive in time.

Conversations with Joan Mellen are different. She makes pronouncements and expects everyone to fall all over them! She made this claim that I had not read her book, which in the ordinary sense is true, but gave me no opportunity to explain that I had analyzed her book. I did not want to raise the serious questions I had about it at that time, but in my opinion she has a grossly exaggerated sense of its importance. She has next to nothing--in most cases, literally nothing--about LBJ, Hoover, or the Texas oil men, for example. In her zeal for planting the seeds of the assassination in New Orleans, she completely ignores its Dallas roots.

Although she includes Barr McClellan's Blood, Money, and Power, which fingers LBJ, in her bibilography, she appears to be unaware of Madelene Duncan Brown's Texas in the Morning or of Billie Sol Estes A Texas Legend, both of which also place much of the responsibility for the assassination on the shoulders of Lyndon Baines Johnson. I am sure that she would respond that, since Billie's book has only just appeared, she should not be held responsible for what he has to say, except that he said a lot of it before in an important interview he gave to a French investigative reporter, William Raymond, which was published years ago.

The very idea that Jim Garrison, whom I admire, "came up with the truth closer than anyone has before or since" is a gross misrepresentation. No doubt, the CIA was deeply involved. But a far more extensive study of the individuals and groups who appear to have had roles in the assassination, including LBJ and Edgar, was authored by Noel Twyman, whose Bloody Treason she includes in her bibliography but does not seem to appreciate, citing it only once in relation to an interview, according to her own index. Similarly, she includes Murder in Dealey Plaza, but does not seem to understand what it has to tell us about the death of JFK.

There appears to be next to nothing about the autopsy, the X-rays, the substitution of another person's brain for that of JFK, or the alteration of the Zapruder film, all of which are discussed extensively in Murder, in her book. So far as I have been able to discern, the important objective and scientific evidence that the most basic evidence in this case as been subject to alteration, distortion, or fabrication has not penetrated her consciousness. That may work for a professor of creative writing--and others, including Tom Lipscomb, have praised her book as "very well written"--but for a book that pretends to be definitive, that simply won't do.

It is the case that, in introducing each speaker, I offered observations that were intended to place their presentations in context. They averaged about 30 seconds apiece. In the case of Mellen, I was sensitive to her exaggerated sense of the importance of New Orleans and her apparent ignorance of the objective and scientific evidence in the case, so I used my introductory remarks to create a framework that would better define how her work fit into the broader context of JFK research. It took 45 seconds and read as follows (I had described each of our contributions as "anchors to reality" that responsible theories must accommodate):

"Our multiple anchors to reality substantially impact alternative theories about the case. The Mafia, for example, which no doubt put up some of the shooters, could not have extended its reach into Bethesda Naval Hospital to alter X-rays under the control of agents of the Secret Service, medical officers of the US Navy, or the President's personal physician. Neither pro- nor anti-Castro Cubans could have substituted someone else's brain for that of JFK. The KGB, which had the same ability to edit films as Hollywood or the CIA, could not have gained possession of the Zapruder film. Nor could any of these things have been done by Lee Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead. Our next speaker, a professor of English at Temple University, has explored Oswald's experiences in New Orleans and thereby shed light upon this enigmatic man and his involvement with our own intelligence agencies. I am delighted to welcome Joan Mellen."

I knew that Joan was probably not going to like the fact that I emphasized evidence that undermines her claims to centrality in relation to New Orleans, but I thought it was indispensable that she not convey the impression that New Orleans was the end-all and be-all of the assassination of JFK. Although Kuntzler had been rigorous in enforcing strict time limits on the rest of us, he did not once give Joan little notes with the time she had remaining on them. We clocked her presentation and it ran about 18 minutes. So I would have to say that, if anyone took "the lion's charge" of the time, it was Joan Mellen, as the tapes will show.

Indeed, that is easy to establish. I spoke for 12 minutes exactly in my opening, which offered a brief history of the case, including the Warren Commission's conclusions and the necessity to introduce the "magic bullet" theory. I laid out the evidence refuting the "magic bullet" theory and, on the basis of independent evidence, the proof that there had been at least six shots from at least three directions. I then explained what David Mantik had discovered about the X-rays, by way of introducing him. I was showing 35 slides as I proceeded. With 30 second introductions for Horne, Lipscomb, and Morely, and 45 for Mellen, I used 14:15 altogether.

Of course, I was moderating the program and it should come as no suprise if the moderator--who, in this case, was also a presenter--should consume more time than other participants, even if their name happens to be Joan Mellen! But that was not the case and she spoke nearly twice as long as any other other member of the panel apart from me. As for Lipscomb preparing the press release, maybe she does not know it, but he is an accomplished journalist who was doing his best to present what we were doing in the best possible light. I find it the least bit bewildering to read her complaint that "Mr. Lipscomb, for reasons that were not clear to me, was somehow in charge of writing the press release". But then she was probably not paying a lot of attention to the rest of us. She is a person who is first and foremost concerned with herself and no others.

To the gentleman who wrote about selling ("hawking" books): Mr. Fetzer ordered at the expense of the organizer 100 copies of his book, and none of mine. I sold no books, brought no books, ordered no books, and was not there to sell books, for the record. I appreciate your introducing this point. I did not sell my book at this event. I referred to it, yes.

To Pat Speer: Jeff Morley did finally speak. He was a late addition to the panel, and so is not mentioned in the press release. He spoke about his Joannides case, but then added that he did not believe that there is any credible evidence that there was a conspiracy! Maybe in fifty years we'll have that evidence, he said. So, as everyone who reads this discussion knows, despite all his research, he stands with the 25% minority of this country that still believes that Oswald was the lone assassin. He also defended Gerald Posner as "a friend of mine." Why of all the hard-working researchers in this case he was chosen to be on this small panel is beyond me. It was Tom Lipscomb who put him on the panel, by the way. I might add that although the organizer invited me to be on this panel, driving from Washington to New Jersey for dinner just to persuade me, the moderator Mr. Fetzer had not read my book, nor had Mr. Lipscomb, who was somehow, for reasons not clear to me, in charge of writing the press release.

To Mr. Horne and his complaints, allow me to add that we were told this press conference was to be one hour long. His complaint should be to Mr. Fetzer for seizing the lion's charge of the time, making a new speech each time he introduced a speaker. I was surprised to learn that Mr. Horne had hoped that I would "walk out." He had seemed to me to be a sympathetic individual.