Why Don't We Admit Our Mistakes?

[Josiah Thompson]

Why doesn’t anyone ever admit they made a mistake?

Ordinary discussion moves forward in terms of give and take. A says: “X.” B says: “But A, you forgot about Z. That fact has to change what you said.” A replies: “You know you’re right, B. Z does change things” OR “You are right about Z. But if you recall Q, you have to understand Z in a way which really confirms what I said.” This is the way ordinary discussion moves forward among most adults. The dialogue back and forth actually produces understanding. On a good day it might even be called inquiry.

I wrote a book over forty years ago that dealt with a number of prickly evidentiary matters. Over the last forty years, a lot of new information bearing on those matters has come to light. So obviously on some of them I had to be wrong. Here’s an example and an important one.

When I measured the position of JFK’s head over time I found it moved forward between frames 312 and 313 and then started moving backward. This gave rise to the hypothesis that JFK got hit in the head twice within a split second... first from the back and then from the front. From the beginning this seemed to me to be an amazing coincidence... two bullets arriving at the same place within 1/9th of a second. But it was only a few years ago that a bright fellow named David Wimp came up with another explanation.

Since frame 313 is smeared along a horizontal plane, he thought some of the measured movement might in fact be due to the smear and not to any real movement. He made some very careful measurements on the film and determined that everyone in the limousine (not just JFK) started moving forward around frame 308. JFK starts that way and then he’s bowled over backward and to the left. The others keep going. Since the driver, Bill Greer, turned around to look in the back seat around Z302, Wimp offered the opinion that Greer took his foot off the accelerator for a split second. This decelerated the limousine while the occupants kept going forward. Most importantly, however, he figured out that most of the “movement” I had measured was actually just horizontal smear in frame 313. I read Wimp’s pieces but couldn’t understand completely the mathematics he used . (You can find his articles at: http://www.megaone.com/rwhepler/motion_blu...ion%20Blur.htm) I got in touch with Wimp, and, with Jim Lesar’s permission, invited him to give an illustrated talk at a conference in Washington, D.C. At that conference, I said publicly that I believed I had made a mistake and that Wimp had satisfactorily explained what I had taken to be movement. Things have become a bit more complicated over the last few years and right now I’m very much in a quandary as to what to believe.

I mention this only to put on the table my own bona fides in this matter. I’m sure there are a bunch of other things in Six Seconds that are wrong and I’d be delighted to have them pointed out. But this head movement was really important and Wimp’s analysis impressive.

I’ve noticed on this board and others that no one ever seems to admit they made a mistake. The brouhaha over Professor Fetzer’s “breakthrough” is a case in point. Professor Fetzer announced it with characteristic modesty:

Madison, WI (OpEdNews) February 5, 2008 — The editor of Assassination Research, James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., has announced the discovery of new proof that the home movies of the assassination of JFK known as the Zapruder film and a second known as the Nix film are fakes... Fetzer observed.. “This proof is based upon the convergent testimony of motorcycle patrolmen, members of the Secret Service, and the Dallas Chief of Police. That it contradicts the official account of the assassination recorded in the films qualifies as a major breakthrough.”

Then Jack White put his imprimatur on it by writing:

"This is perhaps the most important information developed in the past several years..."

[see “New Proof of JFK Film Fakery, ‘Conclusive Evidence,’ Experts Claim” and “The Breakdown of Fetzer’s ‘breakthrough.’”]

It turns out now that the self-accolades were a bit premature. Apparently, Professor Fetzer and his friends weren’t aware of the very clear evidence of the Bell and Daniel films as well as the Altgens and McIntire photos. These additional films and photos match exactly what we see in the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films. Not only did Officer Chaney fade back at the time of the head shot (as shown in the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films) but he’s completely absent in the Bell film and Altgens photo. Even more importantly, he is shown in the Daniel film and McIntire photo some hundreds of feet behind the limousine as it passes the pilot car containing Chief Curry. Either you believe that all these films and photos (Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Bell and Daniel films plus the Altgens and McIntire photos) were all faked up to make Officer Chaney’s advance to the pilot car much slower than it really was, or Fetzer and company made a mistake. Since what Chaney did has very little impact on anything important, if Fetzer and company would simply admit they’d made a mistake one could move on quickly to more important and interesting things.

But they won’t. Since the Altgens, Daniel, Bell and McIntire films/photos have been disclosed, they have produced exactly one new fact. Jack White came up with it.

In a 1969 book, a DPD sergeant riding at the point of the motorcade, claimed that he turned around in the middle of Elm Street while the shooting was going on and rode back to Officer Chaney. Then, together, the sergeant and Chaney rode forward to the pilot car where the sergeant (not Chaney) told Chief Cuffy there had been injuries. Since learning of this story I’ve been trying to figure out what it has to do with the “breakthrough” claim. It too, of course, is falsified by the new film/photo evidence.

Unwilling to admit their mistakes, the claims they make soon become religious postulates around which the faithful gather. The faithful spew insults and unpleasant asides and attack the character of their questioners. And so nothing ever advances.

How different things would be if admitting a mistake was just the regular and expected thing to do when you were shown to be wrong. I haven’t visited this board in some time. I think John Simkin has been trying to put together something worthwhile. I have to go back to New York this weekend to continue work on a case I’ve been working on for the last two years.... the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center on 9/11. Sadly, this means I’ll have to tune out again come Sunday because of work load. But I thought I’d just put out this one idea before leaving.

Why can’t we admit we made a mistake when we make one?

[Evan Burton]

Josiah,

It is understandable to a degree; no-one likes to admit they are wrong. When things are not reasonable clear, such as in a matter of opinion, then it can be quite justified. When evidence is clear that someone is wrong, then maintaining the incorrect position is very counter-productive.

In some cases, where the two camps are completely opposed (such as Apollo), it is more understandable. It is less understandable in cases where everyone agrees on so much - such as an outcome - but each camp has a sacred theory on the sequence of events.

It does fall back to a simple maxim, though - if you are wrong, admit it.

[John Simkin]

Why can’t we admit we made a mistake when we make one?

This is an important question. The main problem is psychological. In most situations, if we make a mistake and this is pointed out, we are willing to be corrected. However, JFK researchers, when publishing their information on the case, they are immediately faced with hostile critics. When mistakes are pointed out, instead of questioning their research, they immediately question the good faith of the critic. The issue then becomes one about the character, history, etc. of the researcher and critic than the original statement. The situation becomes worse because each figure in the debate usually has loyal followers. These people also become involved in what by this time has become a hostile debate. By this stage, it has become psychologically impossible to retract what has already been said.

It is not true that all researchers fall into this category. Larry Hancock, for example, has spent many hours on this forum defending the material published in his book. As far as I can remember, he has never attracted very much criticism (one member did claim he was a CIA disinformation agent but no one took him seriously).

However, Larry relies on documented information. Much of the hostile debate focuses on film and photographic evidence. This material is open to a variety of different interpretations. Personally, I rarely read the threads on this issue. It has no interest to me at all. I am already convinced that there was more than one gunman. It is far more important to find out who was behind the conspiracy than where individual gunman were standing.

The other source of conflict concerns confessions and denials from people who may or may not be connected to the assassination. Some researchers believe characters such as Gerry Hemming, Tosh Plumlee, James Files, Judyth Vary Baker, etc. whereas others seriously doubt their testimony. These people are often the source of hostile debate.

A third factor concerns the identity of the individual/group behind the conspiracy to kill JFK. This is usually tied up closely to the political views of the researcher. Therefore, someone who believes the CIA was involved in the conspiracy, are likely to be very hostile to any researcher who claims to provide evidence that Castro organized the killing of JFK.

[Pat Speer]

From chapter 20 at patspeer.com

This resistance to new perceptions has actually been tested. In 1949, in a landmark study performed by Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman, subjects were flashed playing cards, some of which had a wrong color, i.e. red spades, black diamonds. They found that people would always recognize a normal card within 350 milliseconds, but would fail to recognize what they called a "trick card" 10% of the time, even when given a full second. They found, furthermore, that as one was exposed to more "trick cards," the speed in which one could identify them drastically improved.

This resistance has been studied by historians as well. In 1962, Thomas Kuhn published a landmark work of his own, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". As part of his study, Kuhn looked at the time lapse between the development of new scientific theories and their general acceptance by the scientist's peers. He found, amazingly, that very few scientists, once committed to a theory, have ever changed their minds and embraced the findings of another scientist, even if this scientist's new theory better answered the questions answered by their old theory. Kuhn relates:

"Copernicanism made few converts for almost a century after Copernicus' death. Newton's work was not generally accepted, particularly on the Continent, for more than half a century after the Principia appeared. Priestley never accepted the oxygen theory, nor Lord Kelvin the electromagnetic theory, and so on. The difficulties of conversion have often been noted by the scientists themselves. Darwin, in a particularly perceptive passage at the end of the Origin of the Species, wrote: "Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume...,I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine...But I look with confidence to the future,--to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality." And Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

[Evan Burton]

It is not true that all researchers fall into this category

Very true! I have met many "Apollo Hoax" people who have been more than willing to admit when they have been in error.

[Guest David Guyatt]

QUOTE(Josiah Thompson @ Feb 22 2008, 06:21 AM)

Why can’t we admit we made a mistake when we make one?

It is largely a psychological problem of our times, I think.

The problem is that most of us automatically associates the views we hold as a function and possession of our ego (of which we are often largely daily unconscious of) and the latter struggles - and usually wins - to avoid any form of criticism that diminishes its authority.

It's is a wonderful servant but a Mephisto master.

It requires the ability to reflect and a sustained moral effort in order to step forward and volunteer to be diminished.

[Evan Burton]

Very true - the ego is a very useful tool, but a poor master.

[Josiah Thompson]

Very interesting and acute replies. Nobody is right all the time. It seems to me that when someone admits they made a mistake, they become more credible... not less credible... in the future. What really sours so much discussion in Kennedy assassination circles is the claim that someone who criticizes one's work is "a disinformation agent"... or something like that. Fetzer tried that on me a long time ago and I've been after him ever since.

Very true - the ego is a very useful tool, but a poor master.

[Bill Miller]

Very interesting and acute replies. Nobody is right all the time. It seems to me that when someone admits they made a mistake, they become more credible... not less credible... in the future. What really sours so much discussion in Kennedy assassination circles is the claim that someone who criticizes one's work is "a disinformation agent"... or something like that. Fetzer tried that on me a long time ago and I've been after him ever since.

How true, Josiah. I remember that it was Fetzer who invited me to speak at my first Lancer conference because he liked what I had been doing on the forum and as you may recall ... soon afterwards came Jack's run of alteration claims. It was like overnight the images had become clear to one individual and alleged alteration was now being seen on a daily basis. But the minute I opened up with a response that said, 'Jack, I think you have made a mistake' when I noticed that Moorman's camera was above the tops of the cycles windshields, then anything about me or what I had done to get Fetzer's invite to speak at the conference went out the window. Now I had become the disinformation agent. That theme has been the alteration pushers tool of choice.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Wim Dankbaar]

Worthwhile discussion.

Thanks, Josiah Thompson, for starting it.

Wim

[William Kelly]

Hey, for every positive lead that takes you somewhere, there are dozens if not hundreds of dead ends, so if you don't recognize a dead end when you get there, you'll never know what it's like to find important gems or a treasure trove of puzzle pieces.

I appreciate Tink Thompson for spending this time with us, and would like him to review the thread on the Brown Sportscoat Man, one of the characters in his book Six Seconds in Dallas.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11639

I specifically would like to know if any traces of this suspect appears in any photos, and whether this yet unidentified person can be traced via the Ramber station wagon?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

Edited February 23, 2008 by William Kelly

[Josiah Thompson]

I'm sorry, Bill. All I have to confess here is my own ignorance. I hadn't seen Weston's article... and a damn fine article it is!... and it was published in 1996. That shows how much I know.

I remember how excited I was when I found Murray's human interest photo from the corner of Elm/Houston which shows a white Rambler station wagon passing through the intersection soon after the shooting. I also remember being fascinated by the Richard Randolph Carr documents. It saddens me to see that he self-destructed later on.

With all the different reports Weston mobilized, this certainly is a fascinating loose thread. I'm sorry I can't take it any further.

Hey, for every positive lead that takes you somewhere, there are dozens if not hundreds of dead ends, so if you don't recognize a dead end when you get there, you'll never know what it's like to find important gems or a treasure trove of puzzle pieces.

I appreciate Tink Thompson for spending this time with us, and would like him to review the thread on the Brown Sportscoat Man, one of the characters in his book Six Seconds in Dallas.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11639

I specifically would like to know if any traces of this suspect appears in any photos, and whether this yet unidentified person can be traced via the Ramber station wagon?

Thanks,

Bill Kellt

[William Kelly]

I'm sorry, Bill. All I have to confess here is my own ignorance. I hadn't seen Weston's article... and a damn fine article it is!... and it was published in 1996. That shows how much I know.

I remember how excited I was when I found Murray's human interest photo from the corner of Elm/Houston which shows a white Rambler station wagon passing through the intersection soon after the shooting. I also remember being fascinated by the Richard Randolph Carr documents. It saddens me to see that he self-destructed later on.

With all the different reports Weston mobilized, this certainly is a fascinating loose thread. I'm sorry I can't take it any further.

Thanks for the quick comeback.

Are you familiar with the work of Richard Bartholomew - The Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used in the JFK Conspiracy?

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_i...mblr_frwrd.html

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

[John Simkin]

This resistance to new perceptions has actually been tested. In 1949, in a landmark study performed by Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman, subjects were flashed playing cards, some of which had a wrong color, i.e. red spades, black diamonds. They found that people would always recognize a normal card within 350 milliseconds, but would fail to recognize what they called a "trick card" 10% of the time, even when given a full second. They found, furthermore, that as one was exposed to more "trick cards," the speed in which one could identify them drastically improved.

This resistance has been studied by historians as well. In 1962, Thomas Kuhn published a landmark work of his own, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". As part of his study, Kuhn looked at the time lapse between the development of new scientific theories and their general acceptance by the scientist's peers. He found, amazingly, that very few scientists, once committed to a theory, have ever changed their minds and embraced the findings of another scientist, even if this scientist's new theory better answered the questions answered by their old theory. Kuhn relates:

"Copernicanism made few converts for almost a century after Copernicus' death. Newton's work was not generally accepted, particularly on the Continent, for more than half a century after the Principia appeared. Priestley never accepted the oxygen theory, nor Lord Kelvin the electromagnetic theory, and so on. The difficulties of conversion have often been noted by the scientists themselves. Darwin, in a particularly perceptive passage at the end of the Origin of the Species, wrote: "Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume...,I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine...But I look with confidence to the future,--to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality." And Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Great post Pat.

A discussion of this extremely important subject would make a very good book. I knew it was a problem with historians but had no idea that it was such an important factor in scientific research.

I think one of the problems concerns the investment we make in developing theories. I am reminding of the discussions that took place during the First World War. Initially, the military commanders involved in the conflict advised the politicians that it would be a brief war. The politicians used this information to persuade young men to join the armed forces. The slogan in the UK was that the war would be over by Christmas. German and French politicians used similar slogans.

The problem was that the military commanders were all former cavalry officers and did not take into consideration the development of the machine-gun and the use of barbed-wire to undermine the effectiveness of the cavalry charge. As young men, this tactic had been highly successful. Despite the evidence of the first few months of fighting, the military commanders found it impossible to change their minds about the importance of the cavalry.

In 1926 Sir Douglas Haig, who had been the person in overall command of the British forces during the war wrote an article about the impact that the First World War had made on military tactics. “I believe that the value of the horse and the opportunity for the horse in the future are likely to be as great as ever. Aeroplanes and tanks are only accessories to the men and the horse, and I feel sure that as time goes on you will find just as much use for the horse - the well-bred horse - as you have ever done in the past.”

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWhaig.htm

He clearly had learnt nothing about what had happened during the war. An insight into the reasons why took place after the disaster of the Battle of the Somme.

In May 1915, Arthur Henderson, became the first member of the Labour Party to hold a Cabinet post when Herbert Asquith invited him to join his coalition government. Henderson was President of the Board of Education (May, 1915 - October, 1916) and then Paymaster General in October, 1916. Henderson was the only member of the UK cabinet who grasped the significance of this development and began to call for a negotiated peace. This was completely rejected by the rest of the cabinet and it was Henderson who was forced to resign. The reason given for the rejection of Henderson’s peace plan is highly significant. Henderson was told that if he was right, the lives of the men killed in the conflict so far would have been wasted. Therefore, to enter into peace negotiations would have been an admission that they had made a terrible mistake in November 1914 when they decided that the war could be won within a few weeks without the loss of heavy casualties.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUhenderson.htm

This point was also made during the Vietnam War when it was argued that LBJ should enter into peace negotiations. The same is true today with the Iraq War. It is impossible for Bush to withdraw US troops from Iraq. This will have to be done by the man who replaces him.

I think these historical examples help us understand why researchers into the JFK assassination find it difficult to admit their mistakes. Researchers invest a great deal of time and effort developing their theories. This involves great personal sacrifices. In some cases, men have destroyed careers and relationships. It is therefore psychologically impossible to admit that this sacrifice has been to no avail. They have invested too much into the idea that they are right. Being wrong is something they cannot possibly contemplate.

[William Plumlee]

Why can’t we admit we made a mistake when we make one?

This is an important question. The main problem is psychological. In most situations, if we make a mistake and this is pointed out, we are willing to be corrected. However, JFK researchers, when publishing their information on the case, they are immediately faced with hostile critics. When mistakes are pointed out, instead of questioning their research, they immediately question the good faith of the critic. The issue then becomes one about the character, history, etc. of the researcher and critic than the original statement. The situation becomes worse because each figure in the debate usually has loyal followers. These people also become involved in what by this time has become a hostile debate. By this stage, it has become psychologically impossible to retract what has already been said.

It is not true that all researchers fall into this category. Larry Hancock, for example, has spent many hours on this forum defending the material published in his book. As far as I can remember, he has never attracted very much criticism (one member did claim he was a CIA disinformation agent but no one took him seriously).

However, Larry relies on documented information. Much of the hostile debate focuses on film and photographic evidence. This material is open to a variety of different interpretations. Personally, I rarely read the threads on this issue. It has no interest to me at all. I am already convinced that there was more than one gunman. It is far more important to find out who was behind the conspiracy than where individual gunman were standing.

The other source of conflict concerns confessions and denials from people who may or may not be connected to the assassination. Some researchers believe characters such as Gerry Hemming, Tosh Plumlee, James Files, Judyth Vary Baker, etc. whereas others seriously doubt their testimony. These people are often the source of hostile debate.

A third factor concerns the identity of the individual/group behind the conspiracy to kill JFK. This is usually tied up closely to the political views of the researcher. Therefore, someone who believes the CIA was involved in the conspiracy, are likely to be very hostile to any researcher who claims to provide evidence that Castro organized the killing of JFK.

"...Some researchers believe characters such as Gerry Hemming, Tosh Plumlee, James Files, Judyth Vary Baker, etc. whereas others seriously doubt their testimony.

Thank you John for your vote of confidence. I have never supported those stories. I have always tried to reference everthing I have had to say on this subject to the best of my ability. However, I was called a xxxx and foul things were said about me on your forum and I was cursed out on this forum... go back and take a look at some of the curse words used on me.., and it was said that there were no documents as Plumlee referenced. Sometime later, even years later, those references of mine, as to documents, were declassified and released. They, or some, and there are more to come, have now surfaced and proves what I said years ago... recent example the Mc Allister Hotel in Miami, Beckley St. Apartment house, MF's web site ,ect. as to past references. I tried to get to you and others.(just one of many)

However I will just continue to be one of your "Characters", and let my story and basckground be interwoven with the likes of GPH and the lot. Again thanks for the information. I now know where I stand in your thoughts. Been there before.

If you want me off this forum... just say so..... But do not lump me in with those stories.. I am the first to admit that years ago I got sucked into a big mess of special interest people who only wanted to use my background to fit their theories... and a flood of secret emails were sent over the years to defuse me and discredit what I have had to say because it not not fit into their projects or stroked their egos in the right manner. Some of these issues have never been address in my behalf nor corrected when proven I was right ... there were documents which supported my position as I said then, released now. Its no use... You can't overturn a negative or prove one.

As I said IF you want me off you forum just say so. And I'm gone. I will no longer whip a dead hourse.