Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Great Fetzer/Thompson Zapruder Debate Hoax


Recommended Posts

Kathy, it's written that the most succesful forms of propoganda induce the individual to maintain that they've made a certain action out of their own free will. This occurs despite the fact that stepping back from the issue and looking at it clearly, one arrives at the conclusion that choosing between an intentionally created dichotomy was not "free will" at all but a designated response by those that created the dichotomy to begin with.

Of course, you may be right about all of this.

After all, the federal government has outlawed the use of propoganda on its citizens...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks for pointing out my math mistake Mr Colby. Perhaps you can use my slip up to further discredit the post which DOES offer supportive evidence. I've outlined the similarities between what is occuring here and what is employed by propogandists. There are a number of very similar occurances. Perhaps the fact that I pointed out the fact that there was extreme division between the camps irritated you? Is it because you are so solidly in line with one camp in particular. I guess I'd be upset too if I started to think my allegiances were the possible result of a manipulation. You need to check your history as well. MOST people believed LHO either did not act or did not act alone long before the Z-film debate occured.

Jason, have you ever been a part of either of the two groups involved? Are you or have you been privvy to the provate conversations of either?

Craig, I witnessed the debate first hand on just one of the forums but did not participate in the specific experiments done by each team designed to bolster their theory. I suggested and then constructed a statistical methodology for analysing the variance of the lines of sight so that one might find the most statistically likely position of Moorman. I suggested a more neutral approach. That being said, this was not agreed upon by any of the members so as I was not involved I did not hear the private conversations of either group. Hearing or not hearing these conversations I assume will impact the level of credence you give to the above theory.

Thanks, so how about sharing your thoughts on the LOS ans the results of your analysis. It just might put exactly" where you are coming from" in a more clear light.

BTW, I was serious about the photo, its a requirement of members here..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig, the ANOVA was never completed. Both sides of the issue would not agree that it would be effective at solving the problem at hand. They simply maintained their methodology was more effective and used the results to simply bolster their own argument. I don't think an independent study was welcomed given the amount of polarization of the groups.

My procedure was relatively simple and involved marking corresponding plot points down on a grid directly below what was determined to be a potential line of sight from the stationary drum scan of moorman's photo. A minimum of 50 plot points would generate a "spread grid". The statistical analysis would determine the most statistically probable position of the lens straight down to the ground based on the spread of the plot points. I think the final bone of contention was from Jack who said if I would plot these points then I would most certainly be struck by a car as Mary was in the street.

Since I didn't complete the study, I couldn't form a valid opinion on the authenticity of the z-film based on the available construct. I hadn't subjected it to any statistical verification. My INITIAL reaction was that the line of sight hypothesis put forth by what's now referred to as the "alterationist" camp was flawed. I was prepared to be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Craig, the ANOVA was never completed. Both sides of the issue would not agree that it would be effective at solving the problem at hand. They simply maintained their methodology was more effective and used the results to simply bolster their own argument. I don't think an independent study was welcomed given the amount of polarization of the groups.

My procedure was relatively simple and involved marking corresponding plot points down on a grid directly below what was determined to be a potential line of sight from the stationary drum scan of moorman's photo. A minimum of 50 plot points would generate a "spread grid". The statistical analysis would determine the most statistically probable position of the lens straight down to the ground based on the spread of the plot points. I think the final bone of contention was from Jack who said if I would plot these points then I would most certainly be struck by a car as Mary was in the street.

Since I didn't complete the study, I couldn't form a valid opinion on the authenticity of the z-film based on the available construct. I hadn't subjected it to any statistical verification. My INITIAL reaction was that the line of sight hypothesis put forth by what's now referred to as the "alterationist" camp was flawed. I was prepared to be wrong.

Thanks, I've been involved it this from the early days and I did not remember your proposal...sorry.

I really don't buy the propaganda angle. Its really not an issue from where I sit in the debate and its not a motivation. II'm convinced (and its' simply my opinion) that Fetzer and White have too much invested to admit error. They are holding on at all costs , and (again my opinion) it is costing them. Jack has a history of not being able to admit his error when he is heavily invested in a position, Jim as well. There is lots of unimpeachable work that destroys those guys that they simply choose to ignore.

There is NO DOUBT that the iusse is deeply personal at this point, on both sides. That is unlikely to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This may help Len...They are explained in more detail at this particular site but it's not limited to these tactics. Obviously there are more 'black methods' of propoganda such as falsely planting information that's supposed to be attributable to one source when it really comes from another. You should no my intent is NOT to sow discord. Quite the opposite really. I denounced this years ago and I do so today.

You know what they say about the "road to hell". Thompson et al and Fetzer et al could say their "intent is NOT to sow discord" but by accusing them of being disinfo agents you being disingenuous or naive by seeming surprised that could be result. Saying "enough already" is one thing accusing people of ulterior motives is another.

Regarding the email or IM when someone responds to your post. That does happen on this forum. Fetzer and Thompson would have to indicate how they were getting their alerts years ago.

This is rather silly you have yet to demostrate examples of what you speak, (sorry your memories of what happened years ago doesn't suffice) then you'd have to show that the particular forum did NOT have an alert service at the time. Even if you could do that you couldn't rule out the possibility that as obsessed partisans they didn't keep checking to see if the other had replied.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA)

In 1936 Boston merchant Edward Filene helped establish the short-lived Institute for Propaganda Analysis which sought to educate Americans to recognize propaganda techniques. Although it did not last long, they did produce a list of seven propaganda methods that have become something of a standard.

Bandwagon: Pump up the value of 'joining the party'.

Card-stacking: Build a highly-biased case for your position.

Glittering generalities: Use power words to evoke emotions.

Name-calling: Denigrating opponents.

Plain folks: Making the leader seem ordinary increases trust and credibility.

Testimonial: The testimony of an independent person is seen as more trustworthy.

Transfer: Associate the leader with trusted others.

Do you see anything familiar here? And this was how many years ago?

This proves little because as Kathy and I pointed out many people use these teqniques and T & F don't use all of them.

Sorry you "theory" concists of nothing more that speculation and undocumented "observations" "Glittering generalities" and "Name-calling" (comparing peoples methods to those used by Hitler and accusing them of being disinfo agents).

As for you LoS idea I don't see why objections from either or both camps should stop you, are you afraid they might have been right and it wouldn't work? To be honest it sounds loony to me but perhaps it would make more sense in execution than as described.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason, do you not see that by applying your own logic it is now you that could be accused of propaganda. How do we not know that your "mission" here isn't to sow discord and mistrust? Are you employing Macchiavelian techniques to "divide and conquer"? Are you a disinfo agent? No Jason, I dont really belive that, I'm just demonstrating how unproductive, even destructive throwing wild outlandish accusations can be.

Edited by Denis Pointing
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason, do you not see that by applying your own logic it is now you that could be accused of propaganda. How do we not know that your "mission" here isn't to sow discord and mistrust? Are you employing Macchiavelian techniques to "divide and conquer"? Are you a disinfo agent? No Jason, I dont really belive that, I'm just demonstrating how unproductive, even destructive throwing wild outlandish accusations can be.

I believe that this is a FIRST. Finally Denis says something that I agree with.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason, do you not see that by applying your own logic it is now you that could be accused of propaganda. How do we not know that your "mission" here isn't to sow discord and mistrust? Are you employing Macchiavelian techniques to "divide and conquer"? Are you a disinfo agent? No Jason, I dont really belive that, I'm just demonstrating how unproductive, even destructive throwing wild outlandish accusations can be.

I believe that this is a FIRST. Finally Denis says something that I agree with.

Jack

HA HA, nice one Jack..mayby some day I will be able to return the compliment. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
This may help Len...They are explained in more detail at this particular site but it's not limited to these tactics. Obviously there are more 'black methods' of propoganda such as falsely planting information that's supposed to be attributable to one source when it really comes from another. You should no my intent is NOT to sow discord. Quite the opposite really. I denounced this years ago and I do so today.

You know what they say about the "road to hell". Thompson et al and Fetzer et al could say their "intent is NOT to sow discord" but by accusing them of being disinfo agents you being disingenuous or naive by seeming surprised that could be result. Saying "enough already" is one thing accusing people of ulterior motives is another.

Regarding the email or IM when someone responds to your post. That does happen on this forum. Fetzer and Thompson would have to indicate how they were getting their alerts years ago.

This is rather silly you have yet to demostrate examples of what you speak, (sorry your memories of what happened years ago doesn't suffice) then you'd have to show that the particular forum did NOT have an alert service at the time. Even if you could do that you couldn't rule out the possibility that as obsessed partisans they didn't keep checking to see if the other had replied.

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA)

In 1936 Boston merchant Edward Filene helped establish the short-lived Institute for Propaganda Analysis which sought to educate Americans to recognize propaganda techniques. Although it did not last long, they did produce a list of seven propaganda methods that have become something of a standard.

Bandwagon: Pump up the value of 'joining the party'.

Card-stacking: Build a highly-biased case for your position.

Glittering generalities: Use power words to evoke emotions.

Name-calling: Denigrating opponents.

Plain folks: Making the leader seem ordinary increases trust and credibility.

Testimonial: The testimony of an independent person is seen as more trustworthy.

Transfer: Associate the leader with trusted others.

Do you see anything familiar here? And this was how many years ago?

This proves little because as Kathy and I pointed out many people use these teqniques and T & F don't use all of them.

Sorry you "theory" concists of nothing more that speculation and undocumented "observations" "Glittering generalities" and "Name-calling" (comparing peoples methods to those used by Hitler and accusing them of being disinfo agents).

As for you LoS idea I don't see why objections from either or both camps should stop you, are you afraid they might have been right and it wouldn't work? To be honest it sounds loony to me but perhaps it would make more sense in execution than as described.

Mmmmmhm. You demonstrate a lot of the examples I'm talking about Leonard. I perused your quality postings here such as a Moorman poll seemingly to merely cause infighting, posting a video of Peter Lemkin you offer no response for and then clipping and pasting a larouchian theory from another area of the Education forum merely to make fun of it. You deciding what constitutes evidence for a theory is like asking a college theater major for economic evidence the recession is over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think an independent study was welcomed given the amount of polarization of the groups.

Oh for Christ sakes ... these guys were asked to go to anyone skilled in perspective and they would have seen that using their measurements that Moorman could not possibly have been in the street and not a single one of them jokers cared to seek validation if for no other reason than to prove me wrong. Now why would some boob wish to spend years arguing a flawed position when they could have settled it with little effort. Could it be that they did check and didn't like what they saw???

Here are two stands - both 58" tall. The tops of the cycles windshields were also 58" tall, thus the wooden stands could be used to represent the passing Hargis and Martin bikes. The difference as to how they stack-up to the colonnade is immense when seen from the street compared to the slope above the curb. (see below)

58_inch_stand_test_grass_vs_street_.gif

Now that the differences are great ... only one matches the passing 58" tall cycles. (match seen below)

58_inch_stand_test_c.gif

This 'Moorman being in the street' stuff was an embarrassment and could have been avoided to any and all researchers who can make simple observations and follow-up with a few simple test. Instead it was turned into a circus where one side simply pretended not to see it. I believe Fetzer even said it wasn't relevant ... Fetzer also offers no expert to support his claim of it not being relevant.

'Perspective' is as much of a law of nature as gravity is a law of nature. Anyone can go into the Plaza this minute and test this within a matter of seconds and yet a certain select group didn't post a single word illustrating how Moorman got those windscreens to stack-up like they did in her photo if standing in the street. What a sorry day for research when people who are trying to come across as so intelligent - end up looking like boobs operating a carnival illusion so to make a buck on fabricating sensationalism.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mmmmmhm. You demonstrate a lot of the examples I'm talking about Leonard.

Sooo maybe I'm a disinfo agent as well!?!?!? But you're proving my point lots of people use such tactics, yes I’ve been known to and you're a master of it yourself – are you on the CIA’s payroll?

I perused your quality postings here

Aren't you the one supposedly against personal attacks? And you’re the guy who started a divisive thread and began it by comparing 2 member's methods to Hitler’s but claims to be against divisiveness, name calling and personal attacks, is that ironic, hypocritical or both? I think it's probability the former because I suspect you're wrapped in your fantasies you fail to see the contradiction

such as a Moorman poll seemingly to merely cause infighting,

Your history is way off as you could have seen if you’d bothered to check. The bitter infighting over ‘Moorman in the street’ and related issues began long before I started the poll. I tried to use its results (to no avail) to get “my” side (anti-alterationists) to drop the issue and thus end the battle. Google ‘cognitive dissonance’

posting a video of Peter Lemkin you offer no response for

At first Peter didn’t seem to mind. I agree w/ the other member who said it puts him in a more sympathetic light than his posts. Posts which frequently included labeling those he disagreed with (including me) Nazis. Google ‘cognitive dissonance’. I though other members would enjoy it and didn't think he would objeject.

and then clipping and pasting a larouchian theory from another area of the Education forum merely to make fun of it.

You omitted the “larouchian [sic] theory” was about who was responsible for the JFK assassination and that John Simkin, the forum’s administrator thought it relevant. I wanted to see if the theory’s proponent could justify it, as I suspected she couldn’t. Google ‘cognitive dissonance’

[PS Terry - You still owe me the money from the brt you lost]

You deciding what constitutes evidence for a theory is like asking a college theater major for economic evidence the recession is over.

Non-sequitur and ad hom: ‘You’re obnoxious, therefore you’re not a good judge of “what constitutes evidence”’. Once again you engage in a tactic you supposedly oppose. Google ‘cognitive dissonance’

I was going to say this yesterday but I had problems w/ my internet connection; you seem to be powered by sour grapes. Tink’s and Fetzer’s camps spurned your “statistical” LoS idea and you come to imagine them as villains, I point out the deficiencies in your latest loony idea and become your new boogyman.

Your “theory” is almost as preposterous as the “evidence” you cite in its favor.

1)You claim without presenting much evidence that they engage in “propagandist” tactics but fail to take into account many others, including yourself, employ the same methods.

2) You failed to show that a propagandist equals someone with ulterior motives, that isn’t always the case, I don’t even know if normally is the case. I imagine most people who write and produce political ads actually support the candidate/cause/party they work for. I think Rove is an SOB but have no doubt he is a fanatically loyal Republican.

Unless you say something worthwhile in a subsequent response, don’t expect me to further reply to you in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Len,

Not to mention one of my favorite parts of all of this:

This occurs despite the fact that stepping back from the issue and looking at it clearly, one arrives at the conclusion that choosing between an intentionally created dichotomy was not "free will" at all but a designated response by those that created the dichotomy to begin with.

This shows that he, unlike the rest of us, has the ability to step "back from the issue and look at it clearly." Also he then elaborates on it and demonstrates that he can perceive when one is operating under free will or under something else...

Usually, he is pretty sharp,and I think, although I am not sure why, that Jason is pullin' our leg.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mmmmmhm. You demonstrate a lot of the examples I'm talking about Leonard.

Sooo maybe I'm a disinfo agent as well!?!?!? But you're proving my point lots of people use such tactics, yes I’ve been known to and you're a master of it yourself – are you on the CIA’s payroll?

....AS A MATTER OF FACT.....

I perused your quality postings here

Aren't you the one supposedly against personal attacks? And you’re the guy who started a divisive thread and began it by comparing 2 member's methods to Hitler’s but claims to be against divisiveness, name calling and personal attacks, is that ironic, hypocritical or both? I think it's probability the former because I suspect you're wrapped in your fantasies you fail to see the contradiction

....COMPARING NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR TO PAST EXAMPLES OF NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR CONSTITUTES NAMECALLING. MMMMM. DON'T SEE THE IRONY SO I MUST STILL BE WRAPPED IN FANTASY.....AND YET, EVEN AT MY WORST...YOU'RE STILL PINNED TO THE MAT.

such as a Moorman poll seemingly to merely cause infighting,

Your history is way off as you could have seen if you’d bothered to check. The bitter infighting over ‘Moorman in the street’ and related issues began long before I started the poll. I tried to use its results (to no avail) to get “my” side (anti-alterationists) to drop the issue and thus end the battle. Google ‘cognitive dissonance’

LOLZ...I BETTER KNOW WHAT COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IS WITHOUT GOOGLE. HERE'S ONE FOR YOU THOUGH LEONARD....GOOGLE "PUTZ"

posting a video of Peter Lemkin you offer no response for

At first Peter didn’t seem to mind. I agree w/ the other member who said it puts him in a more sympathetic light than his posts. Posts which frequently included labeling those he disagreed with (including me) Nazis. Google ‘cognitive dissonance’. I though other members would enjoy it and didn't think he would objeject.

OBJECT EJECT?? OBIWAN JE JOBI? ALTHOUGHT YOU THOUGH HE WOULD ENJOY IT, WAS THAT REALLY YOUR INTENT?

and then clipping and pasting a larouchian theory from another area of the Education forum merely to make fun of it.

You omitted the “larouchian [sic] theory” was about who was responsible for the JFK assassination and that John Simkin, the forum’s administrator thought it relevant. I wanted to see if the theory’s proponent could justify it, as I suspected she couldn’t. Google ‘cognitive dissonance’

SO YOU.....BASICALLY POSTED SOMETHING YOU (THOUGH) SHE COULDN'T JUSTIFY IN THE FIRST PLACE....RATIONALIZED IT INITIALLY AS WANTING TO SEE IF SHE COULD JUSTIFY IT BUT THEN REALIZING YOUR TRUE A-HOLE NATURE AND JUST PUTTING IT UP TO MAKE HER LOOK FOOLISH???? HMMMM? YEAH???? LIL CLOSER RIGHT LEONARD???

[PS Terry - You still owe me the money from the brt you lost]

You deciding what constitutes evidence for a theory is like asking a college theater major for economic evidence the recession is over.

Non-sequitur and ad hom: ‘You’re obnoxious, therefore you’re not a good judge of “what constitutes evidence”’. Once again you engage in a tactic you supposedly oppose. Google ‘cognitive dissonance’

WHAAA! SO WHAT?

I was going to say this yesterday but I had problems w/ my internet connection; you seem to be powered by sour grapes. Tink’s and Fetzer’s camps spurned your “statistical” LoS idea and you come to imagine them as villains, I point out the deficiencies in your latest loony idea and become your new boogyman.

FETZER WAS ALL FOR IT AT THE TIME, JACK DIDN'T THINK IT WAS SAFE AND JT DIDN'T CARE. I WAS LOOKING FOR CONSENSUS BEFORE UNDERGOING GATHERING VARIANCE POINTS. YOU PUT QUOTES UP AROUND STATISTICAL SO I GATHER YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD MEANS. YOU POINTING OUT MY "LOONIASITY" AMUSED ME BECAUSE YOU REALLY GOT YOUR MOJO GOING AT THE THOUGHT....I'M SORRY "THOUGH" OF HOW WELL YOU MAY HAVE LOOKED IN FRONT OF YOUR PEERS.

Your “theory” is almost as preposterous as the “evidence” you cite in its favor.

WHEEEW..I'VE BEEN OWNED!

1)You claim without presenting much evidence that they engage in “propagandist” tactics but fail to take into account many others, including yourself, employ the same methods.

I'M RACKED WITH SELF LOATHING!

2) You failed to show that a propagandist equals someone with ulterior motives, that isn’t always the case, I don’t even know if normally is the case. I imagine most people who write and produce political ads actually support the candidate/cause/party they work for. I think Rove is an SOB but have no doubt he is a fanatically loyal Republican.

YOUR FIRST TWO SENTENCES REALLY ILLUSTRATE THE NEED FOR YOU TO REMAIN ON YOUR MEDS LEO. GOOD ONYA ABOUT ROVE THOUGH.

Unless you say something worthwhile in a subsequent response, don’t expect me to further reply to you in this thread.

PROMISE?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Len,

Not to mention one of my favorite parts of all of this:

This occurs despite the fact that stepping back from the issue and looking at it clearly, one arrives at the conclusion that choosing between an intentionally created dichotomy was not "free will" at all but a designated response by those that created the dichotomy to begin with.

This shows that he, unlike the rest of us, has the ability to step "back from the issue and look at it clearly." Also he then elaborates on it and demonstrates that he can perceive when one is operating under free will or under something else...

Usually, he is pretty sharp,and I think, although I am not sure why, that Jason is pullin' our leg.

...AND YOU WOULD BE QUITE CORRECT KATHY. MOST PERCEPTIVE.

FROM TIME TO TIME....I LIKE TO GIVE STAUNCH OPPONENTS A COMMON ENEMY. SOMETIMES IT WORKS! ABOUT 9 YEARS AGO OR SO I GOT FETZER AND THOMPSON TO PUBLICALLY AGREE, THREAD NEXT TO THREAD, THAT THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE OSWALD WAS INVOLVED IN THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION....................................AND LOOK HOW FAR WE'VE COME!!!!! OH WELL, I THINK JACK WHITE MADE A NEW FRIEND?

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

Good one, Len! Of course, Jack has it exactly right, except that it works rather differently. More often than not, I respond on the forum and, if the matter is important enough, I send a copy to my colleagues for their information and criticism, as appropriate, unless it involves some issue where I need their technical assistance. Ordinarily, I do not want impose upon them, because it can be such a waste of time. But I do appreciate your sentiment when you offer the following observation, which makes me feel better about you than ever before:

I've dealt with both of them for years and greatly respect one and consider the other a crank, however I've seen no evidence that either aren't anything but stubborn men overly obsessed with this issue. I also imagine that if it weren't for them and their allies a lot more people would believe LHO did it all by himself.

"Just what we need...another nut!!"

Denis most of my posts on this forum predate your August 2007 post where you describe yourself as a "newbie". If you could read those previous posts, you may find most of them are quite measured and rational. I would have appreciated the first response to my post from you be of a little more substance rather than an ad hominem attack on my mental status. How about something more substantive or was it your purpose merely to broadcast a condemning statement to a larger audience?

Well let's review the situation after a long absence you turn up again and propose a far fetched theory which smacks of acute paranoia (even by the standards of a CT forum) for which you offer no supporting evidence. To top it off you start off with a totally irrelevant reference to the ultimate bogyman and prove incapable of 2nd grade math (8000 / 50 = 40), so what do you expect?

I've dealt with both of them for years and greatly respect one and consider the other a crank, however I've seen no evidence that either aren't anything but stubborn men overly obsessed with this issue. I also imagine that if it weren't for them and their allies a lot more people would believe LHO did it all by himself.

Jack wrote: "It is a case of Thompson repeatedly posting false/adhominem charges and Fetzer defending the truth after each attack."

An absurd mischaracterization of the debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...