How reliable is Josiah Thompson?

[Bill Miller]

Do you have any idea what your talking about...?

Your efforts are duly noted. Why not take a few bucks and buy him a coffee, better yet, BRING him a cup of coffee.... that should cover the extent of your knowledge concerning DP related films and photos....

so many wannabe's so little time..... LMFAO! (c'mon bill, I'm waiting.... tap-tap-tap)

I thought you were against people jumping into threads without an invite ... surely you don't want to be known as a 'hypocrite' on top of a 'double talker' ... or do you!

David Healy: 'I believe the Zfilm is altered' - 'I have not seen any proof of alteration'.

edited to remove phrase in prior post

Offensive remark removed by moderator.

Edited February 27, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Pat Speer]

Sorry. At this point, I just don't remember.

Mr Josiah Thompson,

You once wrote, I believe it was in an article as early as in the late sixties, that you believed the shot from the grassy knoll may have been fired from a long barreled pistol. What made you believe that?

Wim

The advantage of the pistol theory is that it explains why no 11-22 witnesses saw anyone running or walking with a rifle. Long barreled pistols are more accurate. As a consequence, anyone believing there was a shot fired from the knoll would naturally lean to the possibility it was fired from a long barreled pistol.

But you probably knew that already.

[Antti Hynonen]

I am asking that those members who are violating Forum rules cease to do so immediately.

Further inappropriate comments/violations of rules will result in automatic moderation measures. Please consider this the first and last warning on this thread.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

[Paul Rigby]

Theme the second: Mislocation of witnesses…

The PI who wasn't gallant...

“Reynold’s girlfriend…had described it to us…but her memory of the house and the rather solid post-Victorian structure partway down the lane didn’t match…Back in San Francisco, Sheila had described a house that was vaguely Colonial. This couldn’t be it. But it must be, for beyond it was the vacant lot and then the dark-brown, shingled guesthouse with the green shutters,”

Josiah Thompson. Gumshoe: Reflections in a Private Eye (London: Pan Books Ltd, 1988), p.79.

Mrs Hester was not the only adult female on Elm to be dismissed by Thompson as a directionally-challenged amnesiac. Not content with refusing to credit her statement, he repeated the trick with no less than seven others. His serial contempt for the reliability of female eyewitness was presumably born of the highest motive – a Yale secret society member’s patriotic zeal or somesuch, one feels sure – and not something as everyday and tacky as misogyny.

Three of the women in question shared something important in common with Mrs Hester: They stated to the FBI that they had stood, as a group, on the south side of Elm St, approximately fifty yards along its length toward the underpass, during the shooting. None were to be seen on the second public version of the Zapruder film, obliging Thompson to exclude them from his main table of witnesses in Six Seconds, and dump them instead into its dustbin appendage, “Other witnesses Mentioned in Government Reports” (p.271). This was a bare list of unallocated witnesses, and the print source for their names, with no observations, or statements of location, permitted.

Gloria Jeanne Holt, statement to FBI’s SAs Eugene P. Petrakis & A. Raymond Switzer, 18 March 1964:

Left the TSBD “at approximately 12.10 p.m.”

“I left the Depository building and walked down toward the Stemmons expressway underpass west of the building approximately fifty yards and took up a position on the curb on the south side of Elm Street to await the presidential procession. I was accompanied by Sharon Simmons, now Mrs Nelson, and Stella Jacob…I was still standing on the curb at the time the president was shot.” 22H652

Stella Mae Jacob, statement to the FBI’s SAs Eugene P. Petrakis & A. Raymond Switzer, 18 March 1964:

Left the TSBD “at approximately 12.00 p.m.”

“I left the Depository building and walked down toward the Stemmons expressway underpass west of the building approximately fifty yards and took up a position on the curb on the south side of Elm Street...I was accompanied by Sharon Simmons, now Mrs Nelson, and Jeanne Holt…I was still standing on the curb at the time President John F. Kennedy was shot,” 22H655.

Sharon Nelson (nee Simmons), statement to the FBI’s SA E.J. Robertson, 18 March 1964:

Left the TSBD “at about” 12.20 p.m.

“At the time President Kennedy was shot I was standing on the sidewalk on Elm Street midway between the Texas School Book Depository Building and the underpass on Elm Street. I was with Jeannie Holt…and Stella Jacob…,” 22H665.

The presence of the three south Elmers, in a group, in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, was confirmed by Deputy Sheriff C.L. “Lummie” Lewis:

“I ran around the corner and came across Houston Street to Elm Street to the Park. I saw some people there. I began to talk to them getting names and information. I talked to the following named people: 1) Simmons, 2) Holt, 3) Jacobs. See statements taken from all three named people,” 19H526-7

.

Thompson was uninterested in the whereabouts of the statements taken by Lewis from Simmons, Holt and Jacobs. This was only to be expected.

“Sheila had said the can was square and that she’d left it unburied alongside the trunk of the first bush. Nothing. Had she been mistaken? Had they found it? Anyone who looked could have found it easily. But had anyone looked? That, I reminded myself was why I was here. The second bush also held nothing. And the third. And the fourth, fifth, and sixth. ‘They must have found it,” I told myself. ‘Sheila couldn’t be this far off.’

But she had been. Under the eighth bush, well down into the middle of the yard, my hand brushed something metallic,”

Josiah Thompson. Gumshoe: Reflections in a Private Eye (London: Pan Books Ltd, 1988), p.83.

Holt, Jacob and Simmons all worked within the TSBD. So, too, did four other women to fall foul of Thompson’s apparent contempt for female testimony.

According to their statements to the FBI, at about 11.30 a.m. on 22 November 1963, Karen Westbrook, Karan Hicks, Gloria Calvary and Carol Reed left the TSBD to view the presidential motorcade close-up. All four, as a group, occupied a position on the north curb of Elm approximately half way between Houston St and the underpass. Thompson’s main witness table, however, only included three of the four; and he directly reversed a crucial observation of one of these three. The fourth member of the group, Carol Reed, was consigned to the aforementioned dustbin, “Other witnesses Mentioned in Government Reports,” along with the three south Elmers, Simmons, Holt and Jacob.

The three women included in Thompson’s main table were Westbrook, Hicks and Calvary. Thompson, in the table column entitled “Remarks,” accurately summarised their shared belief that they heard the first “explosion” when the presidential limo “was almost directly in front” of them. Not so Calvery’s. Her “The car he was in was almost directly in front of me where I was standing when I heard the first shot” mysteriously became, in Thompson’s summary, “JFK directly in front of her on last shot.”

The statements of the four, together with Thompson’s witness table summaries, as contained within the column entitled, “Direction of Sound/Shots,” to follow:

Karen Westbrook, statement to FBI SA Alfred D. Neeley, 19 March 1964:

“I was with Mrs Gloria Calvery...Mrs Carol Reed...and Mrs Karan Hicks. We walked to Elm Street and stopped at a point on the north edge of Elm Street about halfway between Houston Street and the Triple Underpass. We were standing at this point when President John F. Kennedy was shot. The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion,” 22H679

Westbrook, witness 159 in Thompson’s table: “Car ‘almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion,’” (p.267).

Karan Hicks, statement to FBI SA Alfred D. Neeley, 20 March 1964:

“On November 22, 1963 I left my office about 11:30 AM to see the Presidential Motorcade which was to pass along Elm Street in front of the building. I was with Mrs Gloria Calvery…Mrs Carol Reed …, and Miss Karen Westbrook…We walked to Elm Street and stopped at a point on the north edge of Elm Street about halfway between Houston Street and the Triple Underpass. We were standing at this point when President John F. Kennedy was shot. The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion,” 22H650/1

Hicks was witness 67 in Thompson’s table:“1st shot, car directly in front of where she was standing,” (p.259).

Gloria Calvery, statement to FBI’s SA Alfred D. Neeley, 19 March 1964:

“On November 22, 1963 I left my office, South-Western Publishing Co, Room 203, Texas School Book Depository Building about 11:30 AM to see the Presidential Motorcade which was to pass along Elm Street in front of the building. I was with Mrs Carol Reed…Mrs Karan Hicks…, and Miss Karen Westbrook…We walked to Elm Street and stopped at a point on the north edge of Elm Street about halfway between Houston Street and the Triple Underpass. We were standing at this point when President John F. Kennedy was shot. The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion,” 22H638

Calvery was witness 21 in Thompson’s table: “JFK directly in front of her on last shot,” (p.255).

Carol Reed, statement to FBI SA E.J. Robertson, 19 March 1964:

“At the time President Kennedy was shot I was standing on the curb of Elm Street about mid-way between the Texas School Book Depository Building and the Elm Street Railroad overpass. I was with Karan Hicks…, Miss Karen Westbrook…, and Mrs Gloria Calvery…at the time President Kennedy was shot,” 22H668.

Reed, witness 244, was thrown unceremoniously into the unallocated witness dustbin, “Other witnesses Mentioned in Government Reports,” (p.271).

To summarise, then, we are now up to five of the closest female Elm St. eyewitnesses (Holt, Simmons, Jacob, Hester, and Reed) removed entirely or mislocated, and their testimonies either ignored and/or misrepresented; and an additional three (Westbrook, Hick, and Calvery) whose mutually reinforcing testimonies are similarly discounted. One shouldn’t need to be a feminist to find Thompson’s performance appalling, just an attentive reader with an honest keyboard. After all, how hard was it to plot honestly and with some precision the north curb eyewitnesses in particular?

”The third assassin, however, was in a very precarious position…His shot from the knoll had frightened the few people standing along the north curb of Elm Street,”

Josiah Thompson. Six Seconds in Dallas (Bernard Geis, 1967), p.193.

Paul

[Pat Speer]

So, Paul, I gather Josiah's making a few mistakes, while collating what was at that time hard to come by information for the public, offends you on some deep personal level?

This whole thread reminds me of Ashton Gray's attacks on Douglas Caddy. Hmmm, let's find someone with an actual hand in the history of which we write, find a few errors or inconsistencies in his writings and/or statements, and BLOW IT ALL UP to imply he's part of some vast conspiracy to deny us bench-sitters the God's honest truth. (Which is what? That the Zapruder film is fake, and that Josiah, alone among his contemporaries KNEW it was fake in 1967, and was trying to hide this from who exactly? Lifton? Groden?)

IMO, this kind of attack hurts the forum like no other. While John has tried heroically to bring authors, researchers and historians together, to take a fresh look at the evidence, and to try to find some sort of consensus, his efforts have been undermined by people nit-picking the more famous of our forum members into non-participation.

In short, I feel that pointing out that Josiah is human and made a number of mistakes in his book is fair game, particularly as we regularly criticize men like Posner, Bugliosi, and Baden for similar mistakes. But to color his mistakes as evidence of his misogyny, or evidence that he deliberately skewed a handful of the thousands of facts in his book supporting there was a conspiracy, so that people would conclude there was no conspiracy, is unfair, and, frankly, a bit bizarre.

[Bill Miller]

I am asking that those members who are violating Forum rules cease to do so immediately.

Further inappropriate comments/violations of rules will result in automatic moderation measures. Please consider this the first and last warning on this thread.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

With all due respect, it seems that the rules are what ever a moderator wants them to be at any given moment. One moderator says one thing, while another says something else. Maybe a lack of consistency is becoming part of the problem. Below are positions held by a moderator(s) opinion on a particular forum rule ............... yet seem contradictory to each other. (The second being over definitions that no one has explained what they had to do with 1963 techniques Vs. modern forensic testing)

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers.

Example 1

Posted remark: "...bootstrap a piece of incomplete and somewhat shoddy work into “a major breakthrough” in Kennedy assassination research..."

Moderator response: "This perilously close to accusing Prof Fetzer of poor research, which is prophibited by our rules:"

Example 2

Posted remark: "Just to prove your incredible lack of information & poor research, let us mention two items:

MOL & U2"

Moderator response: " .... is claiming you have a lack of information & poor research skills, he adds material to support this claim (his opinion). In my opinion this is a valid debate tactic."

Now isn't it fair to assume that every remark made about another member or their claim is just an "opinion"?

Edited February 27, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers.

Example 2

Posted remark: "Just to prove your incredible lack of information & poor research, let us mention two items:

MOL & U2"

Now isn't it fair to assume that every remark made about another member or their claim is just an "opinion"?

Since this is my post quoted, I might reply.

BM is mistaken.

My comment ("Just to prove your incredible lack of information & poor research, let us mention two items: MOL & U2") goes the the end research product & NOT to the abilities of the researcher.

That's the difference. For example, a researcher can be excellent & yet on occasion produce a poor result.

Thus, technically, forum rule # 4 was not violated. It would have been had I said, for example: "You are a poor researcher."

In any event, BM involves himself in a larger incriminating contradiction.

How so?

Well, to quote from a post BM made today (on the thread: "Interesting photo oddity"):

Jack's little girl in the fuzzy frame is the man's pants seen in the good clear frame. I'd be curious as to how close together are these frames because motion blur causes such distortion of the image that someone can about make-up all kinds of alternatives out of nothing. Jack calls this one 'Magic'. Such foolishness is an embarrassment to the research community as a whole IMO and is why Groden has said that Jack's alteration claims have caused so much damage to any CT's wanting to progress forward that its ill-effects are unmeasurable.

Oh yes ... the alleged camera stand is in reality a scratch on the film. The blur is an object just under Nix's field of view. This object is out of focus.

Does anyone know when all this madness started and why??? I mean - for years Jack had seen this stuff and didn't start claiming such nonsense, so what happened ... did he just wake up one day and decided to start claiming alteration over everything they saw?

This post has been edited by Bill Miller: Today, 12:26 AM

This looks pretty much like a crude yet scurrilous attack on Jack's abilities as a researcher.

WHAT?

Alert the piffle patrol.

Edit: spelling

Edited February 28, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

This looks pretty much like a crude yet scurrilous attack on Jack's abilities as a researcher.

It was certainly the inference I made concerning the alteration claims that I have seen to date. It all of a sudden reminded me of the old gold rush where certain individuals were all of a sudden seeing something wrong with images that had no reason to have been altered. And that 'someone added Zapruder and Sitzman' to the pedestal was a real hoot in light of the same image was taped for TV not 35 minutes following the shooting. Thus according to Miles - Jack's mistakes are because of poor research. However, my point is that what one moderator says is OK if its your opinion - another says its a rule violation. The rules should be more precise and clear IMO.

And I am still waiting to hear what MOV and U2 have to do with 1963 techniques in altering images Vs. todays forensic science and its ability to detect an alteration alleged to have taken place 45 years ago.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Bill Miller

[David G. Healy]

I am asking that those members who are violating Forum rules cease to do so immediately.

Further inappropriate comments/violations of rules will result in automatic moderation measures. Please consider this the first and last warning on this thread.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

With all due respect, it seems that the rules are what ever a moderator wants them to be at any given moment. One moderator says one thing, while another says something else. Maybe a lack of consistency is becoming part of the problem. Below are positions held by a moderator(s) opinion on a particular forum rule ............... yet seem contradictory to each other. (The second being over definitions that no one has explained what they had to do with 1963 techniques Vs. modern forensic testing)

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers.

Example 1

Posted remark: "...bootstrap a piece of incomplete and somewhat shoddy work into “a major breakthrough” in Kennedy assassination research..."

Moderator response: "This perilously close to accusing Prof Fetzer of poor research, which is prophibited by our rules:"

Example 2

Posted remark: "Just to prove your incredible lack of information & poor research, let us mention two items:

MOL & U2"

Moderator response: " .... is claiming you have a lack of information & poor research skills, he adds material to support this claim (his opinion). In my opinion this is a valid debate tactic."

Now isn't it fair to assume that every remark made about another member or their claim is just an "opinion"?

funny you mention the word forensic... seems to me I've mentioned that word in different context many, many times -- concerning the Zapruder film too....

And, there are other places to post... alt.conspiracy.jfk for instance. That is, if this forum is getting a little to tough on ya!

Oh, and when it comes to 1963 optical film printing/possible alteration of Zapruder film, techniques and modern film forensic methodolgies (of which you not displayed ANY understanding, so I suspect there will be no debate with you concerning the subject matter....So if your still waiting, you missed the boat, ou've had years (8 years in fact) to comment on that little piece thats housed on JFK Research then republished in TGZFH, not a peep out of you! Just gnashing of teeth!

Photoshop, nor .gif animations does not make a photo analyst....

I await your pal Robert Groden, he has some optical film printing technical questions to answer.... I also have a few comments regarding Moe Weitzman email I'd like Robert to comment on....

Edited February 28, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Antti Hynonen]

Bill Miller Posted Yesterday, 10:13 PM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Feb 27 2008, 01:06 PM)

I am asking that those members who are violating Forum rules cease to do so immediately.

Further inappropriate comments/violations of rules will result in automatic moderation measures. Please consider this the first and last warning on this thread.

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

With all due respect, it seems that the rules are what ever a moderator wants them to be at any given moment. One moderator says one thing, while another says something else. Maybe a lack of consistency is becoming part of the problem. Below are positions held by a moderator(s) opinion on a particular forum rule ............... yet seem contradictory to each other. (The second being over definitions that no one has explained what they had to do with 1963 techniques Vs. modern forensic testing)

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers.

Example 1

Posted remark: "...bootstrap a piece of incomplete and somewhat shoddy work into “a major breakthrough” in Kennedy assassination research..."

Moderator response: "This perilously close to accusing Prof Fetzer of poor research, which is prophibited by our rules:"

Example 2

Posted remark: "Just to prove your incredible lack of information & poor research, let us mention two items:

MOL & U2"

Moderator response: " .... is claiming you have a lack of information & poor research skills, he adds material to support this claim (his opinion). In my opinion this is a valid debate tactic."

Now isn't it fair to assume that every remark made about another member or their claim is just an "opinion"?

Bill,

I think you raise an important issue about moderation and our rules. Therefore I'd like to address it briefly, despite the fact that this discussion is absolutely off-topic.

I agree that moderators can't work in a way which would allow them to deal with each type of case in a similar way. The limitations we moderators experience in this field is due to technical-, time- and time zone constraints. Besides visits to this Forum are a hobby for me, not a full time job.

I think there should be a clearer set of policies and rules for example for penalties and moderation measures. These more detailed rules would enable less of the individual judgement based calls, which you are so unhappy with.

The specific case you brought up and debated with Miles on a different thread (I think it was a different thread), had to do with my decision not to limit another members (Miles') analysis and criticism of your research. I wanted to allow it, not because I for some reason want to show favoritism towards Miles, but because healthy debate does include - and should include - critical thinking & questioning of the work of others.

The Forum rule no. 4 and the sentence "Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers." does not mean one member should not be allowed to be critical of another's research, especially if the opposing claim is supported by other research or material supporting this opposing view.

I mean, what is the point of having a JFK assassination debate forum, if the work of fellow members should not be critically analysed or debated? The key here is to debate according to the Forum rules, and to avoid the personal attacks which are present here far too often. I have done and will continue to do my best to weed it out.

If you or anyone else has any good ideas on how to improve the Forum rules or moderation in general, or would like to continue this discussion, please do not do it on this thread, but do it here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...45&start=45

Thanks!

Edited February 28, 2008 by Antti Hynonen

[Bill Miller]

funny you mention the word forensic... seems to me I've mentioned that word in different context many, many times -- concerning the Zapruder film too....

And, there are other places to post... alt.conspiracy.jfk for instance. That is, if this forum is getting a little to tough on ya!

Oh, and when it comes to 1963 optical film printing/possible alteration of Zapruder film, techniques and modern film forensic methodolgies (of which you not displayed ANY understanding, so I suspect there will be no debate with you concerning the subject matter....So if your still waiting, you missed the boat, ou've had years (8 years in fact) to comment on that little piece thats housed on JFK Research then republished in TGZFH, not a peep out of you! Just gnashing of teeth!

Photoshop, nor .gif animations does not make a photo analyst....

I await your pal Robert Groden, he has some optical film printing technical questions to answer.... I also have a few comments regarding Moe Weitzman email I'd like Robert to comment on....

David, the above comment you made is nothing more than the same stupid things you say all the time. More misspellings, poor grammar, and nothing specific about the topic being mentioned. Instead, you play on words like 'possible alteration' ... I mean what are you trying to say??? Just creating a film with an optical printer is an alteration. (Alteration: To adjust for a better fit.) Any fool can alter film dating back to 1963 ... just give me a pair of scissors or a sharp knife and I can alter the film with seconds. My point is that it could not be done on Kodachrome II and go undetected by an expert and todays modern science. There are problems (according to experts who actually work with and know the chemical characteristics of Kodachrome II film) which from my understanding this is not the type of film that you have experience with. And until you have the qualifications as someone like Zavada - your opinion is of no value. What's even more ridiculous is that you have said that you have seen no proof of alteration and yet you still post things that contradict your own words as if you are too blind or ignorant to see what you have done ... and even I think you're smarter than that.

And what about what ever in the hell you are talking about that is housed on JFK Research ... What ever it is, I can only assume that you had seen it before posting to this forum, 'I have seen no proof of alteration'. So if it didn't convince you, why do you bother bringing it up as if it means something ... is this just more double-talk and grandstanding on your part ... I certainly see it that way.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Paul Rigby]

So, Paul, I gather Josiah's making a few mistakes, while collating what was at that time hard to come by information for the public, offends you on some deep personal level?

A few random mistakes, Pat? How many misrepresented, omitted and/or mislocated witnesses do you need? Isolated mistakes occur, no question, and no one is to be hung for them. But clear patterns? Sorry, your defence just doesn't convince. Thompson, incidentally, savages William Manchester in Six Seconds for just one.

Then there is a broader issue. Thompson played a not insignificant role in constructing the dominant assassination paradigm, a model which continues to hold considerable sway to this day. If the foundations of this construct can be demonstrated to be rotten, as they have been, good things may yet follow.

This whole thread reminds me of Ashton Gray's attacks on Douglas Caddy. Hmmm, let's find someone with an actual hand in the history of which we write, find a few errors or inconsistencies in his writings and/or statements, and BLOW IT ALL UP to imply he's part of some vast conspiracy to deny us bench-sitters the God's honest truth. (Which is what? That the Zapruder film is fake, and that Josiah, alone among his contemporaries KNEW it was fake in 1967, and was trying to hide this from who exactly? Lifton? Groden?)

There are too many for them to be accidental. End of. Did Thompson know the Z film version circa 1967 was a fake? I can't construct any alternative explanation that works better. In order to cover something up, after all, you have to have a pretty good idea what the truth is.

IMO, this kind of attack hurts the forum like no other.

Oh, I don't mind - attack away. I'll survive. So, too, will the forum.

While John has tried heroically to bring authors, researchers and historians together, to take a fresh look at the evidence, and to try to find some sort of consensus, his efforts have been undermined by people nit-picking the more famous of our forum members into non-participation.

So we give a free pass to any old nonsense as long as the figure responsible is famous? This isn't Hollywood; and genuine debate, as opposed to the sanitised simulacrum which passes for political discourse in the Anglosphere, is messy, intermittently nasty, occasionally uplifting etc.

I also observe that when all is said and done, criticism is nit-picking. If you want a one-party state, stick to the Lancer forum.

And why your silence when others of a very different opinion to you are attacked on much less rational grounds? The truth is you're engaged in special pleading, not defending a generalised moral position.

In short, I feel that pointing out that Josiah is human and made a number of mistakes in his book is fair game, particularly as we regularly criticize men like Posner, Bugliosi, and Baden for similar mistakes. But to color his mistakes as evidence of his misogyny, or evidence that he deliberately skewed a handful of the thousands of facts in his book supporting there was a conspiracy, so that people would conclude there was no conspiracy, is unfair, and, frankly, a bit bizarre.

What really surprised me, rereading Gumshoe, was how consistent his attitude to women was. I can understand your desire to keep class and gender out of the discussion: You are, after all, a right-wing American male. So is he.

Paul

[Pat Speer]

What really surprised me, rereading Gumshoe, was how consistent his attitude to women was. I can understand your desire to keep class and gender out of the discussion: You are, after all, a right-wing American male. So is he.

Paul

Surely, that last statement must be a joke. My girlfriend, at least, is laughing. If, after reading Josiah's posts and mine you conclude we're "right-wing", YOUR research is far more questionable than ours, Paul. Holy smokes. Josiah was an anti-Vietnam war activist at a time when it meant something. He was involved in radical activities against the government at a time when it could have gotten him killed. And me, I only marched in protest of the war in Iraq BEFORE the war, and walked the suburbs of Las Vegas in 2004 in support of Kerry. I also denounce the Bush Administration at every opportunity, and urge Bush and Cheney's immediate impeachment. If them's not right-wing credentials I don't know what is.

[Josiah Thompson]

Pat, when I get a minute I'll get around to refuting Rigby's latest silliness. But the claim that I'm "a right-wing American male" I just had to jump on.

When "Six Seconds" was about to run in the "Saturday Evening Post" I had the galleys in my pocket when I was arrested with all the folks at the Pentagon. At that time, in Philadelphia I was known in the press as "Hanoi Hannah's helper." I was arrested for handing out anti-war literature and that right-wing zealot, Vince Salandria, bluffed me and other anti-war activists out of the police station without us getting charged. That was the sixties. In the seventies, came resistance to the war. In the seventies and eighties, as a dectective I represented a passel of left-wing radicals: Bill and Emily Harris in the kidnapping of Patty Hearst, Huey Newton on murder charges, Stephen Bingham on murder charges in the San Quentin Six case, Chol Soo Lee on murder charges, et al. In the 1990s, I represented Tim McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing. Then around the turn of the new century I represented the survivors of the SLA in the new round of prosecutions: Sara Jane Olson for attempted murder, Bill and Emily Harris for bank robbing and murder. So for the last fifty years I've been a person of the left. Actually, I was turned around politically by what I experienced as a frogman in Lebanon in 1958 when the US invaded Beirut on the basis of faulty intelligence. When I burned my Navy reserve card in the 60s, the FBI came to see me.

But the left that you and I belong to, Pat, is not the paranoid, self-aggrandizing wingnut Left of he whose cup Rigby drinketh too much of. The rest of Rigby's criticism is on a par with his opinion as to our politics. That's what happens to your critical intelligence when you drink the cool-aid.

So Rigby, defend your statement. Tell all the inquiring minds who want to know just why you think Speer and Thompson are "right- wing American males." My bet is... you'll just shut up! And then we'll have a perfect example of the subject of another thread: Why won't anyone ever admit they made a mistake?

What really surprised me, rereading Gumshoe, was how consistent his attitude to women was. I can understand your desire to keep class and gender out of the discussion: You are, after all, a right-wing American male. So is he.

Paul

Surely, that last statement must be a joke. My girlfriend, at least, is laughing. If, after reading Josiah's posts and mine you conclude we're "right-wing", YOUR research is far more questionable than ours, Paul. Holy smokes. Josiah was an anti-Vietnam war activist at a time when it meant something. He was involved in radical activities against the government at a time when it could have gotten him killed. And me, I only marched in protest of the war in Iraq BEFORE the war, and walked the suburbs of Las Vegas in 2004 in support of Kerry. I also denounce the Bush Administration at every opportunity, and urge Bush and Cheney's immediate impeachment. If them's not right-wing credentials I don't know what is.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Josiah Thompson

[Bill Miller]

Surely, that last statement must be a joke. My girlfriend, at least, is laughing. If, after reading Josiah's posts and mine you conclude we're "right-wing", YOUR research is far more questionable than ours, Paul. Holy smokes. Josiah was an anti-Vietnam war activist at a time when it meant something. He was involved in radical activities against the government at a time when it could have gotten him killed. And me, I only marched in protest of the war in Iraq BEFORE the war, and walked the suburbs of Las Vegas in 2004 in support of Kerry. I also denounce the Bush Administration at every opportunity, and urge Bush and Cheney's immediate impeachment. If them's not right-wing credentials I don't know what is.

Pat, Paul starts with a conclusion and works his way backwards, thus he gets caught up in saying silly things to make it appear that he has legs.