Playing Whack-A-Mole with Fetzer.

[Josiah Thompson]

Discussing anything with Fetzer is like playing Whack-A-Mole. He keeps ducking and covering, never admitting anything he says is wrong, moving on to a new topic when his errors are pointed out. It is a tactic of appalling intellectual dishonesty.

The present claim concerning Moorman-in-the-street started out with Jack White writing in MIDP, “Because it was an instant photo that was copied and widely published within hours of the assassination, the Moorman Polaroid is guaranteed to be an authentic image.” Because the Moorman Polaroid was “guaranteed to be an authentic image,” White believed he could use it to undermine the authenticity of the Zapruder film. The Z film showed Moorman taking her photo while standing on the grass with the lens of her camera at least 50 or so inches above the ground. White thought he was able to show a LOS in the Moorman photo that placed her camera either 44.5" or 41.5" above the turf. He made a mistake. The LOS he carelessly believed was in the Moorman photo wasn’t there. The true LOS in the Moorman photo placed the position of Moorman’s camera right where it appears in the Zapruder film.

Now this has all been shown beyond any reasonable doubt. So what does Fetzer say? He doesn’t just admit, “Hey, guys, we were wrong about that. The LOS does match the Z film. She really was in the grass when she took her photo... right where the Z film and other films place her.” No. Fetzer now claims the Moorman photo itself has been faked. He said yesterday at 10:41 PM on this site, “It follows that the photo taken on the grass is not the one that Mary took in the street.” Does this mean that the photo Mary Moorman has kept is not the photo she took? Does this mean that the Moorman photo filmed by NBC-News around 1:00 PM on that Friday and broadcast nationwide at 3:16 PM is not the photo she took that day? Or that the identical Zippo, AP/UPI, Drum Scan and Gordon Smith copies are not copies of the photo she took that day? Apparently, this is what Fetzer means to maintain in order not to have to admit that the Moorman claim was a mistake. Today, he wrote, “Why the photo would be faked, I do not profess to know, but my guess would be there was something in the pergola area that had to be obfuscated when the alteration was done.”

Get it? The whole Moorman claim gets started because White believes it “is guaranteed to be an authentic image.” Later, when their claim has been shredded, instead of abandoning it and admitting they made a mistake, they jettison the authenticity of the photo itself. And where was the photo altered? Right in the area (“something in the pergola area”) in which they hoped to prove their claim but ultimately were tripped up. And why would anyone alter this particular area? “I believe that Jack may have hit on the crucial reason... for fiddling with the Moorman in the pergola area specifically,” writes Fetzer today on this site at 8:32 PM, “has to do with the images of Sitzman and Zapruder, who might or might not have been there at all... Perhaps Zapruder did not take the ‘Zapruder film’ because the evidence presented here suggests he wasn’t even there!”

Fine. So instead of White and Fetzer being wrong we now have to believe that the Moorman film has been altered in the area of the pergola. And why? To conceal the fact that Zapruder and Sitzman were not standing on the pedestal while Zapruder filmed. Not only, then, is the extant Moorman Polaroid not the photo Moorman actually took on November 22nd, but the Zapruder film is not the film that Zapruder took on November 22nd. The Hesters talked with Zapruder and Sitzman just before they got up on the pedestal. Other witnesses saw Zapruder and Sitzman on the pedestal. Zapruder himself reported on television that afternoon that he stood on the pedestal to take his film. Sitzman told me and others the same thing. The Willis, Betzner, Nix, Muchmore, Moorman and Bronson films all show individuals dressed like Sitzman and Zapruder standing on the pedestal. James Altgens shot a still photo of Zapruder and Sitzman walking away from the pedestal in the seconds after the shooting. The film screened by Zapruder to technicians at the Kodak plant that afternoon appeared to have been shot from the pedestal. The Zapruder film we have is indisputably shot from the pedestal.

To urge disbelief in this overwhelming weight of evidence as a means to avoiding the admission of error is both dishonest and silly.

The same dishonesty can be shown in small compass. Yesterday, Fetzer introduced consideration of a frame from the Towner film as a means to blunt the simple “windscreen” argument of Bill Miller. He got everything in his argument wrong. He misidentified the police motorcyclist and hence got the position of the camera wrong. He claimed that the Towner frame proved that our “argument about [Moorman] being run over if she were in the street has no basis in fact” but forgot that Houston Street had six lanes free and Elm Street only three. He claimed that “the Zippo [copy] is our best evidence” but forgot that the FBI and UPI copies have higher resolution and also lack the disfiguring thumb-print. Most importantly, Fetzer failed to grasp the very simple fact that the Towner frame actually confirmed the Miller argument. It would be impossible to make any more mistakes about something in short compass. Has Fetzer admitted any one of them? Of course not, he won’t reply to the post that points them out.

This has been Fetzer’s behavior for the last several years. A particular “proof” of film alteration is exposed as mistaken but later Fetzer continues to cite it as if it had never been exposed. It was precisely for this reason that we brought to this board our work in putting together a systematic approach to debunking one of Fetzer’s major claims. We hoped that here, feeling the eyes of the rest of you on him, he might be persuaded to observe a modicum of intellectual honesty. Sadly, given what is highlighted above, he has not.

Fetzer complains a lot about ad hominen arguments being used against him. I want to point out that is not an ad hominem put down. It is a recital of what Fetzer has actually done in his behavior on this board on this topic. Fetzer feels free to use character assassination against anyone who opposes him. This is not that. This is an appeal to Fetzer to observe the mimimal standards of intellectual honesty in carrying out discussion. If he is wrong, he should admit his error. If not, he should explain why he is not wrong. Right now, he should simply explain whether he and White have given up arguing that Moorman’s photo was taken from the street not the grass.

Josiah Thompson

Edited March 12, 2009 by Josiah Thompson

[Pat Speer]

Tink, at patspeer.com I have four videos. (These are also on youtube). These videos discuss the medical evidence, and attempt to demonstrate that the so-called mystery photo was taken of the back of Kennedy's head, and that Dr. Baden and his pals on the HSCA were mistaken in their orientation of this photo, and their placement of the entrance on the back of Kennedy's head.

I am asking you to watch the videos, and tell me if you do not agree that Baden et al (including Wecht) were incorrect on this point.

Your response appreciated,

Pat

[Josiah Thompson]

Sorry, Pat, but I'm still swatting Fetzers.

This is an enormously contentious issue. Sure I'll look at the videos but my opinion in this area is not worth anything. You have to be a pro in reading x-rays and understanding the anatomy of the the head to be able to understand this. Hey, come on in... the water's fine!

Tink

Tink, at patspeer.com I have four videos. (These are also on youtube). These videos discuss the medical evidence, and attempt to demonstrate that the so-called mystery photo was taken of the back of Kennedy's head, and that Dr. Baden and his pals on the HSCA were mistaken in their orientation of this photo, and their placement of the entrance on the back of Kennedy's head.

I am asking you to watch the videos, and tell me if you do not agree that Baden et al (including Wecht) were incorrect on this point.

Your response appreciated,

Pat

Edited March 12, 2009 by Josiah Thompson

[Pat Speer]

Sorry, Pat, but I'm still swatting Fetzers.

This is an enormously contentious issue. Sure I'll look at the videos but my opinion in this area is not worth anything. You have to be a pro in reading x-rays and understanding the anatomy of the the head to be able to understand this. Hey, come on in... the water's fine!

Tink

Tink, at patspeer.com I have four videos. (These are also on youtube). These videos discuss the medical evidence, and attempt to demonstrate that the so-called mystery photo was taken of the back of Kennedy's head, and that Dr. Baden and his pals on the HSCA were mistaken in their orientation of this photo, and their placement of the entrance on the back of Kennedy's head.

I am asking you to watch the videos, and tell me if you do not agree that Baden et al (including Wecht) were incorrect on this point.

Your response appreciated,

Pat

Tink, I've been trying to avoid fighting with other CTs over the alteration issue for the simple reason that it gets us nowhere. There is official evidence available--that is accepted by the mainstream media as legitimate evidence--that beyond any real doubt suggests there was more than one shooter. The medical evidence is such evidence. The location of Kennedy's back wound--even as interpreted as the HSCA FPP--suggests the shot creating this wound would not have hit Connally in his right armpit. Similarly, the location and descriptions of Kennedy's head wounds suggests there was more than one head shot.

The KEY to getting this acknowledged by the medical establishment is, by my estimation, exposure. I have attempted to expose the flaws and inconsistencies in the medical evidence on my webpage and in my videos. It doesn't take an expert to tell the front of a head from the back of a head. It just takes two eyes and an analytical mind. I think you'll come to agree.