The Great Fetzer/Thompson Zapruder Debate Hoax

[John Dolva]

A lonely, frustrated man sat in his cell after world war I and reached an epiphany. He was so impressed by the effective use of American and British propoganda during world war I, he would later come to perfect it and use it with devastating results. He wrote...

"Propoganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea" - Adolph Hitler

Fellow members of this and other forums, I propose that the great Fetzer/Thompson debate regarding the authenticity of the Zapruder Film was specifically created, effectively delivered and continues to be promoted for the sole purpose of polarizing allegiances and controlling behavior with regards to the JFK research community. In other words, I believe that this entire affair has been specifically engineered for nefarious purposes specifically aimed at creating dissention and turmoil within the community itself. If this sounds overly "conspiratorial" in nature then consider this...

"400 million is spent per year (by the American government alone) to employ 8,000 people to create propoganda..." (Praxteinis & Aronson p. 4)

That's well over 45 people per U.S. state alone dedicated towards the dissemination of propoganda alone. Consider Fetzer and Thompson in and of themselves. You are all aware of their differences now consider their similarities. That takes a little time but they're there. With regards to propoganda and public belief, in our case the research community, it's been written that propoganda is more effective when the message is delivered by "a higher degree of perceived authority". WHO would those individuals be?

"The higher degree of perceived authority that disseminates the message, the more likely the message is to be believed and internalized".

Consider WHEN this debate began and WHERE it originated over WHICH idea and WHO was involved. It matters little whether or not the message is right or wrong when it comes to propoganda. What matters is what the BEHAVIORAL reaction is of the recipients. If the intent of the debate was to polarize sides and cause stringent allegiances to one or the other, you can see clearly this has worked. The debate however has focused efforts by those caught in it's wake. Once the message was internalized by the recipients or became an idea to rally behind, members of the forums in a sense, became propogandists themselves.

Ad hominem attack, glittering generalities, black and white arguments are other methods of propoganda. Can you see their use around the Fetzer/Thompson debate?

There is the possibility that Fetzer and Thompson are propogandists themselves and that they are working in tandem along with select other individuals to polarize the research community. I've considered this on numerous occassions by watching the timing and location of the arguments. I'd encourage others to do the same. Part of an effective propoganda campain is "argumentum ad populum" or using sources to "appeal to the people". At that point, once the masses have been reached, the creation of chaos and unworkable relationships is solidified by "consensus gentium" or agreement of the clans. Here, it's not whether or not the Z-film is authentic for agents engaging in propoganda, it's that clans and all the behavior and beliefs of clanship have in common been effectively formed. If it's to far of a stretch to believe Fetzer and Thompson working this together then consider that they needn't be. Consider this old adage which might be just as effective...

"The enemy of your enemy is a friend. Introduce them together whenever you can". This scenario would have known polar opposites brought together over a singular issue in which it is known by the propogandist the two perceived authorities would clash over with effective results.

When you find yourself embroiled in this battle again and again over the years (consider how long this has been going on and WHEN it typically fires up again) I think it's important to take a step back from this and ask yourself if you are MEANT to engage in a debate that seems quite deliberately manufactured to have a myriad of outcomes and sub arguments.

Jason

Having been often accused of being off with the pixels at the bottom of the garden (alas, 'tis true (but don't tell anyone)) I'm ready to be corrected, but it strikes me that the point made is being missed (because of the ego stuff?) and has a validity to me because I have found that this derailing episode repeats its self at certain points. What the points are is for everyone to make their minds up about but the humming progress is certainly derailed for SOME reason.

The reasons presented are mere speculations and pointed to as being so. All in all, with an equanimous read, not a bad contribution at all! (IMO)!!