Would An Agent Have Done That?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Brilliant post, Pamela! We may differ on other issues, but you have hit the nail on the head here. As I have elsewhere observed, we are not the only ones to have drawn the inference that Tink has been selling us down the river. Consider the conclusions of Vince Salandria and of Jerrold "Fatback" Smith, which lead to the same conclusion, namely, that there is something wrong with his modus operandi:

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves" - Lenin

----- Forwarded message from jfetzer@d.umn.edu -----

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 04:09:11 -0500

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Reply-To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Fwd: Re: [jfk-research] Re: Fetzer on acid??

To: jfk-research@yahoogroups.com, richdell@tampabay.rr.com, jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Cc: jwjfk@flash.net, dmantik@rtsx.com, dlifton@earthlink.net, jpcostella@hotmail.com

Is this some kind of joke? I advance an 11-page study of Jean's

interview with Len Osanic and thereby establish a convergence in

her testimony with that of Mary Moorman, which not only indicates

they were in the street at the same time but that, if the Zapruder

were authentic, it would show (a) Mary handing her photos to Jean,

(cool.gif Jean coating them with fixative, © the limo moving to the

left (toward them), (d) Mary and Jean both stepping off the curb

and into the street, (e) Jean calling out, "Mr. President!" and

all that, (f) Mary taking her picture, (g) both stepping back on-

to the grass, (h) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but

(h) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would

shoot her, none of which is shown in the film--and your response

is to talk about Mary's Polariod and Jack's research on Badgeman?

Josiah implies that slips in publishing are chimerical, when his

own book commits colossal blunders that demonstrate how insignif-

icat is a mistake in a caption? Has he forgotten that his book

claimed there were three shooters who took four shots, when we

know that JFK alone was hit four times and Connally as many as

three; that there were at least three misses, one of which hit

the chrome strip on the limo's windshield, the second the curb

near James Tague and injured him, the third in the grass near

Mary and Jean? Not only was SIX SECONDS (1967) superseded by

the superior work of Richard Sprague in a series of articles

beginning in COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970) but Tink in

the final paragraph of his own book denies he has proven either

that the assassination was a conspiracy or that Lee Oswald was

innocent, which completely stunned other students of the case.

Vincent Salandria, for example, among the earliest critics of

the Warren Commission, wrote to me last month observing that,

"With respect to Josiah Thompson, I am surprised that you do

not know that immediately after the issuance of his book, 'Six

Seconds in Dallas,' I characterized him as a government agent.

I so designated him at my home after I called his attention to

the last paragraph of his book wherein he denied that the mat-

erial analyzed in the book demonstrated that the assassination

of JFK was a conspiracy. He explained the paragraph as 'an

error of exposition.' I said that it was proof enough for me

that he was an agent assigned to help make the JFK assassin-

ation a subject of eternal debate without signifying anything.

He has publicly told audiences that I consider him an agent."

This is interesting on several levels, not only because Vince

Salandria has seen through Tink Thompson as someone who wants

to make everything believable and nothing knowable about the

death of JFK but also because he sought to defend himself by

claiming "an error of exposition"! So apparently some kinds

of slips DO OCCUR in the process of publication, after all--

except, of course, this one appears to have been deliberate.

Indeed, I would suggest that Jean's book and interview, which

I have summarized in the form of 25 major points, does more to

establish the existence of a cover up by fabricating a film

and thereby supports the occurrence of a conspiracy involving

high officials of the US government than does SIX SECONDS IN

DALLAS if we accept the author's own assessment of his book!

Indeed, there are many reasons not to take his book seriously.

as Jerrold "Fatback" Smith explained in a "belated review" in

1999. Here are some of his observations, which I am quoting:

__________________

Thompson thought that four shots may have been fired from three

locations --- the Depository, the knoll, and possibly the roof

of the County Records Building or the Dal Tex Building. (SSID,

p. 137. Hereafter, all citations are from SSID unless otherwise

noted.) Lone assassin theorists had suggested that witnesses to

smoke from a shot on the knoll had actually only seen puffs of

steam from a nearby pipe. Thompson demolished the "steam pipe"

explanation. . . .

But in some other facets of the case, Thompson presented inter-

pretations which seemed to argue against the evidence. He sug-

gested that Kennedy's anterior throat wound was a product of

the head shot. (p. 51-55) A fragment of bullet or bone veered

downward, severing Kennedy's left cerebral peduncle in the

process and exiting the front of his throat. Since the Zapruder

film showed Kennedy raising his hands to his throat well before

frame 313, Thompson's view is hard to believe:

"A close study of the Zapruder film, however, reveals that the

President's fists are clenched and that the movement carries his

hands above his neck. Gayle Newman described how the President

"covered his head with his hands" (19H488), and Marilyn Sitzman

told me how "he put his hands up to guard his face." These

descriptions accurately characterize what we see on the Zapruder

film. ...Such a movement seems as consistent with a shot lodged

in his back as with a transiting shot: there is no science of

the way a person reacts to a bullet hit. (p. 39)

Since those descriptions do not accurately characterize what

we see on the Zapruder film, one is left to wonder what film

Thompson saw. Appeals to the absense of science in these matters

do little to strengthen the argument.

In the Warren Commission's version of the crime, two of the

alleged killer's bullets had to do double duty. One shot, the

Magic Bullet, had to wound Kennedy and Connally. Another either

had to hit the oak tree in front of the Depository and then

wound James Tague, or it had to strike Kennedy's skull and

then wound James Tague. The Commission never put the matter

quite so concisely, but those were the only possibilities

if the single assassin theory was true.

Thompson suggested that the wounding of James Tague was a

consequence of the head shot. (p. 231) In Case Closed,

twenty-six years later, Gerald Posner chose the tree ---

the head shot being too unlikely a source. (Posner, p. 325-

326) Since both explanations are incredible, it is difficult

to choose between them.

But if Bullet 399 was not Magic, it had to do amazing things

anyway. It had to strike Kennedy in the limousine and be

found near someone else's stretcher by the emergency level

elevator entrance.

The Warren Commission's story was that the bullet must have

been found on or by Governor Connally's stretcher --- a

position utterly defeated by the evidence. Thompson theorized

that Bullet 399 was the bullet which caused the shallow wound

in Kennedy's back. The bullet worked its way back out during

efforts to resuscitate the President. How did it get from

Kennedy's stretcher to the emergency level elevators where

it was found? "To answer this question we must appeal to an

old, traditionally American institution --- souvenir hunting."

Perhaps someone "momentarily snatched it as a souvenir, only

to recognize its importance and quickly secrete it on a

stretcher" where it could be found later with "no questions

asked." (p. 168-169)

. . .

___________________

Well, you get the idea. I quote from Salandria's post and

from this review (which can be found by googling "Six Seconds

in Dallas, a belated review") to show that I am far from the

only person who has become disillusioned with Josiah Thompson.

Vincent Salandria is among the most respected of the early

critics of the official account and the kind of student who

Josiah Thompson so often praises. Jerrold Smith is known to

many as a low-key but competent student of the case, who is

not inclined to be easily taken in. That, alas, cannot be

said for the most active members of this forum, who seem to

be determined to preserve the illusion that Josiah Thompson,

-- who has long since betrayed the search for truth about JFK

and who continues to this day to reveal his true character

(with a little help from his friends, Bill, Barb, and Lamson

included) -- deserves our respect rather than our contempt,

a theme that, at this point in time, has worn just a bit thin.

Quoting bmjfk63 <IMSJLE@aol.com>:

Jack has made so many gross errors I doubt many people who been exposed

to them take him seriously. But as he correctly pointed out it was filmed

for TV about (IIRC) 30 minutes after the assassination meaning it could

not have been faked. Of course as a self proclaimed logical think expert

you must realize that if you now take the position the photo was altered

it has zero value as evidence that the Z-film or any other DP image was

altered.

. . .

Bill Miller

You seem to be living inside a bubble, Tink. Try to take a look from the outside. Here goes:

We have the film of the crime of the century. CIA becomes involved at once, and spirits off at least one copy. A script is put in place claiming that complete control has been maintained over the film. The Z-film is suppressed for years, with frames being dribbled out by LIFE here and there. At the same time, there is an underworld where rogue copies are made at least for some LIFE execs, kept in their vaults in their grand homes in Greenwich, CT. There are early viewings, some in livingrooms, at least one in a movie theater.

In you come with your wonderful ideas for a book. You have the right credentials -- Yale (Bones?), Navy (ONI?), a PhD, and you are tapped by the powers that be. They also happen to be the powers behind at least the ongoing cover-up, and maybe even the assassination itself. That doesn't phase you. You are the golden boy. You are ferried around the country for interviews with all the main witnesses. Every door is opened to you. You spend countless hours with a very good copy of the Z-film. You even feel sorry for the poor researchers at NARA who are suffering with slides and film of inferior quality to what you are using. You even realize the WC itself was sandbagged by the poor quality of slides they had available. Did you call out for a new investigation? Did you demand LIFE at least provide researchers with as good a copy as you had? Wait -- you were going to head the LIFE investigation into the assassination, weren't you? You, the super-researcher that had been hand-picked and trained by LIFE. And guess who probably gave LIFE the great idea to find a new fresh face with credibility with the CTs who could be used to counteract the growing current of dissent against the WCR and the govt?

All the time you were in NYC you were apparently oblivious to the underground around you. You were at ground zero of the holy grail of the assassination and nothing about the film or the slides caused you to wonder if it had been altered and if so how. After all these years your position has not changed.

Just what do you expect us to think?

Pamela,

I wouldn't even dare to suggest what you should think but it would be good if you simply thought before you joined in the swift-boating. Someone of your education should recognize the tried and true show trial, McCarthy, swift-boat tactics that are being used on Josiah. It has worked very well in the past and for those who only care about personal victory it's very effective indeed. The utter mindlessness of the approach is beside the point. The 2004 Presidential election was converted to a referendum on John Kerry's war record because people (apparently such as your self) couldn't see that it was an obvious effort to distract public attention from the real issues.

So now, of course, Josiah has to spend his time defending his reputation on nearly endless threads. We're not discussing the assassination, we're discussing speculation about the honor and integrity of a man and everyone knows that where there's smoke there's fire! Fetzer and his cohorts have managed to suppress any substantive discussion of Fetzer's claims and put the fear of God into anyone considering honest disagreement.

What you fail to realize is that it's possible to construct similar fairy-tails about anyone. You, Jack White, or particularly Fetzer himself. It's meaningless. The evidence shows what the evidence shows no matter who presents it or for what reason. But now the debate is about Josiah Thompson instead of what we really care about.

Thanks Pamela,

Mission Accomplished!

[Josiah Thompson]

No. The Zapruder film copy that Vince Salandria and I viewed in the Archives in the sunner of 1966 we were told was an FBI copy of the Secret Service first day copy. It had no features not contained in the various copies of the Zapruder film that I saw at LIFE and anywhere else.

Josiah Thompson

I am going to make this short.

Josiah,In 1966 you saw a copy of a Secret Service copy of the Zapruder film.Did the film you see that day show the left turn onto Elm street or the limo stop?

[Michael Crane]

Thank you Josiah for answering my question.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Michael Crane

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David, You might want to clarify your position in relation to mine. In the thread, "Did Josiah Thompson rip off David Lifton?", he has quoted you in attempting to fend of my charge that he has been practicing deception and obfuscation. I would appreciate it if you would clarify, because he loves to cite people out of context if he thinks he can get mileage against me my doing that. Many thanks! The thread should be easy to find.

Jerry Logan has written an elegant and logical reply--one that addresses the corrupt logic and paranoid style that lays behind this sort of "agent" accusation.

I strongly disagree with Thompson (very strongly disagree, in fact) on a number issues, and even have been exasperated by some of the positions he takes, failing to understand why he doesn't believe A, but rather believes B. That happens a lot. But no, I do NOT believe that he is an agent.

Further, I agree with Logan: it diverts attention from the issues, to the person. Stick to the issues; take apart your opponent on the facts; but be very careful when getting into a conspiracy theory to explain your opponent's behavior.

For example, Pamela: you claim to have seen the Zapruder film at the Bleeker Street Cinema in the Fall of 1964, and I have (elsewhere, on another thread) set forth my numerous (and valid) reasons for believing why that cannot possibly be true. Why I believe you're spreading an urban legend; why what you're saying belongs on Snopes dot com. Now, I could carry this further and speculate as to why you would disseminate such a clearly impossible claim. That would lead to conjectures about your psychological state (and would be really besides the point, would it not)? But let's say I were to travel down that path. Then, that line of "reasoning" could be carried a step further, to the political arena--perhaps by alleging that by putting someone up to spreading such a false claim on the Internet, circa 2010, you are acting as the agent of some conspirators whose goal is to influence future generations who should forget how the film was totally quarantined, and off limits, but instead remember the claim of that lady who says it was screened in a New York City cinema in the fall of 1964. All very Orwellian (right?). Well, wrong. That's absurd, of course. But my point is: I could view matters through that most peculiar lens, and come up with a conspiracy theory re your motivation.

Now here's another example. I happen to believe--strongly believe--that there was a hole in the windshield (I have no doubt about that at all, as a matter of fact) and furthermore, I believe that Doug Weldon's work is very important AND valid. You take issue with it. Well, not only might I disagree with your interpretation of the data, and your criticisms of his his interpretation; but in addition, I come up with a conspiracy theory to explain WHY you take the position(s) you do--i.e., that you are an "agent" sent out to destroy Weldon.

Now. . let's see. . what might my evidence be? . . hmmm. . . well now, isn't it the case that you were visited by Ken Rahn, the notorious lone nutter who runs a website with all sorts of defenses of the lone nutter theory? Why, isn't it the case that there are even pictures of you and him (and I believe your significant other) cavorting socially? . etc etc. . . Oh my gosh. . look at this web of associations!

But all this is quite beside the point, is it not? You're not a "government agent" any more than Josiah Thompson is an agent. You just happen to hold a set of beliefs (with regard to the windshield) that I believe to be completely incorrect. Does that make you an agent. As for your allegedly viewing the Zapruder film at a New York City theater in 1964? A claim that is so far out that I have to resort to words like "absurd," "ridiculous" and "totally unbelievable" to describe my reaction? In fact, I get personally irritated every time I think of Stewart Galanor or Thom Stamm taking a train to Washington, D.C. to view the Zapruder film at the Archives, while you are glibly claiming you saw it in a New York City theater in the fall of 1964, within weeks of the release of the Warren Report. I may even ask "what were you smoking?" (that night), but no--I do not think you were an agent, sent out by malevolent forces to change the history of 1964.

You are free of course to go down that path. . .Swift boating your opponent. . .(as Logan has put it). . .in effect erecting a "conspiracy theory of motivation" for an intellectual opponent.

All I can tell you is: that way madness lies.

DSL

1/7/10; 7:15 PM, PST

Los Angeles, CA

PS: What WERE you smoking that night??

Edited January 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Brilliant post, Pamela! You have hit the nail on the head! And

you and I and Vince Salandria are far from the only ones who

have seen through his charade. The name for what he did is

called "plausible deniability"! Make some contributions for the

sake of distracting from the serious obfuscations. Which he, of

course, continues to this day! WHERE IS HIS RESPONSE TO

THE NEW PROOF OF ZAPRUDER FILM FAKERY? Tink has been

living a lie from the beginning and it's coming apart at the seams.

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves" - Lenin

But Jim, why would the government fake a film suggesting that there was no impact on the back of Kennedy's head at frame 313?

Is it your contention that the government tried to fake a film suggesting one shooter from behind, but, did a really bad job? Or do you, when watching the Zapruder film, honestly say to yourself, "Yep, that sure looks like the work of one man firing from behind?"

Edited January 8, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

In fact, Lifton first discovered the issue about the time he noticed that the Zapruder film was not in accordance with his “body alteration theory.”

I have never thought that David Lifton's body alteration theory depends on proving that the ZFILM is fake. It seems to me that body alteration is entirely consistent with what we see in the ZFILm.

Can anyone tell me what I am missing?

What you're missing is that the Z-film shows a gaping hole above and in front of Kennedy's ear, and the Parkland witnesses thought this hole was a few inches further back on Kennedy's head. From this, those holding the body was changed between Parkland and Bethesda have had to expand their theory to incorporate that the film proving the Parkland doctors to be incorrect was a fraud. They have also had to attack the credibility of witnesses like Newman and Zapruder, who depicted the large head wound in the exact location it is in the Zapruder film on television before half the country even knew Kennedy had been shot.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Pat Speer

[Paul Rigby]

You seem to be living inside a bubble, Tink. Try to take a look from the outside. Here goes:

We have the film of the crime of the century. CIA becomes involved at once, and spirits off at least one copy. A script is put in place claiming that complete control has been maintained over the film. The Z-film is suppressed for years, with frames being dribbled out by LIFE here and there. At the same time, there is an underworld where rogue copies are made at least for some LIFE execs, kept in their vaults in their grand homes in Greenwich, CT. There are early viewings, some in livingrooms, at least one in a movie theater.

In you come with your wonderful ideas for a book. You have the right credentials -- Yale (Bones?), Navy (ONI?), a PhD, and you are tapped by the powers that be. They also happen to be the powers behind at least the ongoing cover-up, and maybe even the assassination itself. That doesn't phase you. You are the golden boy. You are ferried around the country for interviews with all the main witnesses. Every door is opened to you. You spend countless hours with a very good copy of the Z-film. You even feel sorry for the poor researchers at NARA who are suffering with slides and film of inferior quality to what you are using. You even realize the WC itself was sandbagged by the poor quality of slides they had available. Did you call out for a new investigation? Did you demand LIFE at least provide researchers with as good a copy as you had? Wait -- you were going to head the LIFE investigation into the assassination, weren't you? You, the super-researcher that had been hand-picked and trained by LIFE. And guess who probably gave LIFE the great idea to find a new fresh face with credibility with the CTs who could be used to counteract the growing current of dissent against the WCR and the govt?

All the time you were in NYC you were apparently oblivious to the underground around you. You were at ground zero of the holy grail of the assassination and nothing about the film or the slides caused you to wonder if it had been altered and if so how. After all these years your position has not changed.

Just what do you expect us to think?

As others before me have observed, a truly outstanding post. I commend you for it.

Paul

[David Lifton]

Ray,

The two are in fact closely related. Please read Pig on a Leash for details. Also see the long Zapruder film footnote in chapter 24 of Best Evidence, where I attempted to address this matter, a good 15 years before the technology of the Internet (the advent of Quicktime and Windows Media Player, in their more sophsticated incarnations, circa 2002) made it feasible to debate and illustrate these points. No time to pursue it here. The large head wound shown on the Zapruder film (e.g., see frame 335 and 337) was NOT seen at Parkland Hospital four minutes later. I became aware of this about four years AFTER I discovered the primary evidence of body alteration and interception (1966-67). That evidence stands alone, and is not impeached by the fact that the phony imagery on the Zapruder film--the details of which have become more clear, with the passage of time) superficially appears to (and I stress the words "appears to") corroborate the Bethesda autopsy findings. This divergence between what was clearly visible in certain film frames, and what was seen at Parkland Hospital four minutes later, provided further evidence (along with the car-stop witnesses) that the Zapruder film is a forgery.

DSL

1/8/10; 1:20 AM

Los Angeles, CA

In fact, Lifton first discovered the issue about the time he noticed that the Zapruder film was not in accordance with his “body alteration theory.”

I have never thought that David Lifton's body alteration theory depends on proving that the ZFILM is fake. It seems to me that body alteration is entirely consistent with what we see in the ZFILm.

Can anyone tell me what I am missing?

[David Lifton]

David, You might want to clarify your position in relation to mine. In the thread, "Did Josiah Thompson rip off David Lifton?", he has quoted you in attempting to fend of my charge that he has been practicing deception and obfuscation. I would appreciate it if you would clarify, because he loves to cite people out of context if he thinks he can get mileage against me my doing that. Many thanks! The thread should be easy to find.

DSL REPLYING:

Jim,

Let me clarify my position, and as briefly as possible.

1. I do not believe that Josiah Thompson is an agent. I never agreed with that, and I do not now. Putting aside (for the moment) your own very serious differences with Thompson. I never agreed with Ray Marcus when he first used that term—way back in the mid-1960s—and my position has not changed. (FYI: Marcus was always labeling people with whom he disagreed as "agents"—the result (I came to think) of his long involvement with the radical left.) However, I do not deny that he (apparently) encountered the same pattern of behavior as you (and others) have. I just don't agree with that particular explanation.

2. Let's turn to your debate with Thompson. Yes, I do believe Thompson engages in obfuscation, avoidance, and denial. As E. B. White once wrote, words are tools of thought, so let's define our terms. "Obfuscate" means "to make something obscure or unclear, especially by making it unnecessarily complicated." I believe you are accurate when you describe Thompson "as someone who want to make everything believable and nothing knowable about the death of JFK." That is an excellent characterization of how he approaches issues. Do I think that makes Thompson an agent? No, I don't. For whatever reason, that's the way he behaves. Do I agree with it, or like it? No. I find it deplorable.

3. Regarding specifics and Thompson: I do not believe that the throat wound is an exit, and –to me—the notion that it is the exit of a fragment of the head shot (Thompson's position) is indefensible. That is my opinion. Is that evidence he is/was an agent? No, it is not. Let's take another example: I do not believe the explanation that the bullet found at Parkland Hospital was found on the "wrong" stretcher because it was retrieved from Stretcher A, and then placed back on Stretcher B because of a "conscience struck" souvenir hunter. To me, that is absurd. Again, does that mean Thompson is an agent? No. (And I'm not making excuses for him or defending him.)

4. I wrote The Case for Three Assassins" in the summer of 1966. It was published (first of all) in the UCLA Daily Bruin (occupying the full issue) on November 22, 1966, and then it was a cover story in Ramparts Magazine, January, 1967. That was the first article I ever wrote and I was proud to see it placed on the cover (in a strip at the right). It was the first time a physicist took a public position that the backward thrust of Kennedy's head and body violated Newton's Laws. The Case for Three Assassins was the first time that anyone spelled out the fact that the failure of the Single Bullet Theory placed "another assassin" behind JFK, whereas the backward snap of the head placed a "another assassin" in front; and so if both propositions were true, then there were "three assassins." Going from "two" to "three" assassins was a big deal in the fall of 1966 (when Editor Warren Hinckle had to decide whether to green light the article), and I was proud when the article was published. Some eleven months later, the Saturday Evening Post (on December 2, 1967) featured a synopsized version of Thompson's book, with a cover story headlined "Major New Study Shows Three Assassins Killed Kennedy." Was any mention made of the Ramparts article? No. Was I a happy camper? No, not at all. Did I think he was an agent? No, I just thought that was sloppy ethics. I was surprised that a national magazine such as the Saturday Evening Post was treating "three assassins" as some kind of scoop, as if the publication of my work 11 months before, and bearing so similar a headline, did not exist.

5. Let's turn to the essay Tink wrote "Bedrock Evidence" arguing for Z film authenticity, versus the essays in your anthology, Hoax. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that (a) the Z film is a forgery and ( your anthology has played an important role in publicizing the issue and that (to invoke the language of dialectical materialism), the alterationists are on the right side of history. The Zapruder forgery (and the fakery of other civilian imagery, in this case) will (I believe) eventually be exposed and come to be known as one of the great forgeries of our time. Josiah Thompson is destined to find himself on the "wrong" side of the debate. Well, so be it. I suspect he and I will both be long gone before this matter is fully resolved. Does that make him an agent? No. Is it possible he's just not a very good analyst? Possibly. In any event, I'm positive that, considered collectively, the work of all the authors in the Hoax anthology-- Costella, Mantik, Healey, Jack White, myself, and Doug Horne-- is superior to his analysis.

I hope this clarifies my position. But there's one final point I wish to make, and that concerns the time line of my own process of discovery. I did not suspect that the Zapruder film was a forgery until 1969, and then my own sense of it moved forward a step at a time. It was only in 1970 that I learned all about optical printers. This entire story is laid out in "Pig on a Leash". Certainly, by the time CIA Document 450 was sent me by Paul Hoch (circa 1975) I was convinced. And that led to my inclusion of a 750 word footnote about the indications the Z film was a forgery, in Best Evidence, published in 1980.

But please do note: even though I was totally immersed in all this, my original starting point was 1969. Even then, I wasn't fully comfortable with it until 1971, by which time I had personally gone to Dallas and interviewed five of the key car-stop witnesses: Moorman, Jack Franzen, Arthur Chism, both Newmans. And that's also when I spoke to Mrs. Zapruder (again, see Pig on a Leash).

Now that was my experience, and what is my point? Now let's turn to Thompson's experiences, and the tendancy I've observed to evaluate it against knowledge and data known today. First of all, to this day, Thompson believes the Zapruder film is authentic. Now does that mean the position he holds is not just wrong, but intellectually dishonest? Why can't he simply be someone who is completely wrong? Also I must ask: how can it be justified to go back to 1966, look at the "dot"s retrospectively, and then fault Thompson for not having connected them the way we do now? And then erect a (largely) political theory that Six Seconds was an attempt to keep those who followed from discovering that the Z film was altered? I don't agree with any of that.

Anyway, it certainly didn't prevent me from pursuing the question of inauthenticity.

I hope this clarifies my position.

As recently as a few days ago, I was strongly criticizing Thompson for not being pro-active in focusing on fraud in the evidence. Thompson has called my body alteration theory "extravagant." I find that insulting and demeaning. But I don't think that makes him an agent.

I could keep citing examples. There is no end to it.

When it is all over, I will sound like Brutus, saying, "But Caesar was an honorable man."

Well, assessing motivation is a very personal thing—and I hope you know, when it comes to the issues, where I stand.

I believe there is massive fraud in the evidence, and that the assassination was a major government plot, and an inside job.

I really do not believe that Thompson believes any of that, and that is unfortunate.

Yet I must also say this: Thompson made available to me transcripts from his interviews with Sitzman, and some others, plus the Zapurder contracts, plus the Bell film, the Hughes film. I did some serious single frame photography, and learned a lot. What he did for me was a great favor.

So now, he's not an agent, and I don't believe any of that. But, when it comes to some critical issues, he has taken some critical positions, and –in my opinion—they are quite incorrect. And that will contribute to a legacy consisting of some very mixed signals.

DSL

1/08/10

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Paul, I just want to say that I appreciate the posts that you, Pam, Jack, and David have contributed to this thread. When you add up all of the oddities, obfuscations, misdescriptions, including those you list here, we appear to be dealing with someone who is either incredibly sloppy in his research or else deliberately deceptive. He and I have had an extended series of exchanges about Mary Moorman and Jean Hill, for example, where he insists -- to this day! -- that they are where they should be and doing what they should be doing in the extant film. Yet when you read their own discussions of why they were there and what they were doing -- which were included in an earlier exchange between us -- it drives me up the wall! Not only were they in the street at the same time but, if the Zapruder were authentic, it would show (i) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (ii) Jean coating them with fixative, (iii) the limo moving to the left (toward them), (iv) Mary and Jean both stepping off the curb and into the street, (v) Jean calling out, "Mr. President!" and all that, (vi) Mary taking her picture, (vii) both stepping back onto the grass, (viii) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (ix) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her, none of which is shown in the film. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, neither Tink nor Barb nor Lamson nor Colby nor even Bill Miller(!) has acknowledged that, on this basis alone, the question of the film's authenticity is resolved! When there exists such plain and simple evidence of fakery, which he and his clique persistently deny, it is very difficult for me to drawn inferences about them that are favorable to their dedication and determination to expose the truth and refute falsehoods about the death of JFK. In fact, I am sorry to say, it weighs in the opposite direction. So I am grateful to hear from you, Pam, Jack, and David, too, even though he offers the most charitable explanation. Perhaps they are all incompetent students of the case, who sympathize with Tink because their research standards are no more demanding than his. That is the question. What's going on and on here? I find the situation ridiculous, frustrating and sad.

Would an agent have done that?

Useful to remind ourselves what a real pro had to say about the most basic precepts of intel work:

“There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,”

Hubert Cole. Fouche: The Unprincipled Patriot (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd., 1971), p.140, PRO, FO 27/63

The proposition that the CIA has, presumably from some hitherto unidentified form of scruple, disdained to infiltrate and misdirect the research community is fatuous.

(1) Six Seconds included the first compilation of 190 witness reports with respect to shot origin. This compilation showed that a substantial proportion of witnesses thought a shot or shots were fired from the knoll. In addition, a substantial proportion of witnesses found shots to be bunched, something that could not happen if only the rifle found in the TSBD was being fired. Firing tests in the 70s showed that observers were able to pick location of shots with over 90% accuracy, a fact that made these compilations significant. Paul Rigby has been trying to nit-pic this compilation by finding what he believes to be errors in individual reports that show something having to do with the Zapruder film. It is the overall compilation that produces significant results. These results are in contradiction to the official story. Would an agent have done that?

Come, come, Tink, get it right. What I've done is demonstrate that you systematically suppressed, distorted, mischaracterised and mislocated eyewitnesses and their testimony in an attempt to buttress a fake film, and suppress realisation of the centrality of the SS to the assassination. If you'd like few refresher examples, don't hesitate to ask. In this matter, at least, at I'm at your service.

(7) Reports from Parkland doctors (including McClelland’s report and the diagram) were used to back up the calculation of head movement as showing the impact of a shot from the right front. This had never before been shown to this degree. Would an agent have done that?

Not one of your better days in the service of the cover-up, I have to observe. Still flogging this expired quadruped, I see? Very well, let's exhume the evidence to the contrary one more time:

Parkland medical staff:

a) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. [‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.]

Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.]

c) Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head," Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4.

d) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967. (Cited by Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2.)

(9) Investigation turned up numerous films and photos never seen before...

Designed to buttress the central fake. Would an agent have done that? Absolutely. And that's exactly what you did.

I could go on ad infinitum.

I know the feeling. But you're worth it.

I don’t need to attack Fetzer's history or reputation and I won’t.

What a hypocrite: You and your motley band of acolytes undertake precisely the kinds of attacks you pretend to abjure on a near-daily basis. This entire post is little more than a sustained ad hominem against a man, whatever his faults, and however much I disagree with him on certain issues, has contributed more to the establishment of truth in the case than you could achieve even if granted the gift of eternity.

Too bad Sylvia Meagher did not survive to this day. She would have munched him for breakfast!

We are talking about the same Sylvia Meagher, aren't we? The one who wrote: "In sum, at least seven eyewitnesses to the assassination indicated that the President's car had come to a complete stop..."? We're not, are we?

Edited January 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

DSL REPLYING:

Jim,

(snip)

Is it possible he's just not a very good analyst? Possibly. In any event, I'm positive that, considered collectively, the work of all the authors in the Hoax anthology-- Costella, Mantik, Healey, Jack White, myself, and Doug Horne-- is superior to his analysis.

DSL

1/08/10

Is it possible that David Lifton is a very poor analyist? Yep!

Costella screws up!

Lifton screws up!

White screws up!

Horne screwws up!

[Jack White]

Thank you, David. It is important that you made this statement for the historical record.

Jack

[Jack White]

Paul, I just want to say that I appreciate the posts that you, Pam, Jack, and David have contributed to this thread. When you add up all of the oddities, obfuscations, misdescriptions, including those you list here, we appear to be dealing with someone who is either incredibly sloppy in his research or else deliberately deceptive. He and I have had an extended series of exchanges about Mary Moorman and Jean Hill, for example, where he insists -- to this day! -- that they are where they should be and doing what they should be doing in the extant film. Yet when you read their own discussions of why they were there and what they were doing -- which were included in an earlier exchange between us -- it drives me up the wall! Not only were they in the street at the same time but, if the Zapruder were authentic, it would show (i) Mary handing her photos to Jean, (ii) Jean coating them with fixative, (iii) the limo moving to the left (toward them), (iv) Mary and Jean both stepping off the curb and into the street, (v) Jean calling out, "Mr. President!" and all that, (vi) Mary taking her picture, (vii) both stepping back onto the grass, (viii) Mary getting down and tugging at Jean's leg, but (ix) Jean remaining upright, because she didn't think they would shoot her, none of which is shown in the film. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, neither Tink nor Barb nor Lamson nor Colby nor even Bill Miller(!) has acknowledged that, on this basis alone, the question of the film's authenticity is resolved! When there exists such plain and simple evidence of fakery, which he and his clique persistently deny, it is very difficult for me to drawn inferences about them that are favorable to their dedication and determination to expose the truth and refute falsehoods about the death of JFK. In fact, I am sorry to say, it weighs in the opposite direction. So I am grateful to hear from you, Pam, Jack, and David, too, even though he offers the most charitable explanation. Perhaps they are all incompetent students of the case, who sympathize with Tink because their research standards are no more demanding than his. That is the question. What's going on and on here? I find the situation ridiculous, frustrating and sad.

Would an agent have done that?

Useful to remind ourselves what a real pro had to say about the most basic precepts of intel work:

“There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,”

Hubert Cole. Fouche: The Unprincipled Patriot (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd., 1971), p.140, PRO, FO 27/63

The proposition that the CIA has, presumably from some hitherto unidentified form of scruple, disdained to infiltrate and misdirect the research community is fatuous.

(1) Six Seconds included the first compilation of 190 witness reports with respect to shot origin. This compilation showed that a substantial proportion of witnesses thought a shot or shots were fired from the knoll. In addition, a substantial proportion of witnesses found shots to be bunched, something that could not happen if only the rifle found in the TSBD was being fired. Firing tests in the 70s showed that observers were able to pick location of shots with over 90% accuracy, a fact that made these compilations significant. Paul Rigby has been trying to nit-pic this compilation by finding what he believes to be errors in individual reports that show something having to do with the Zapruder film. It is the overall compilation that produces significant results. These results are in contradiction to the official story. Would an agent have done that?

Come, come, Tink, get it right. What I've done is demonstrate that you systematically suppressed, distorted, mischaracterised and mislocated eyewitnesses and their testimony in an attempt to buttress a fake film, and suppress realisation of the centrality of the SS to the assassination. If you'd like few refresher examples, don't hesitate to ask. In this matter, at least, at I'm at your service.

(7) Reports from Parkland doctors (including McClelland’s report and the diagram) were used to back up the calculation of head movement as showing the impact of a shot from the right front. This had never before been shown to this degree. Would an agent have done that?

Not one of your better days in the service of the cover-up, I have to observe. Still flogging this expired quadruped, I see? Very well, let's exhume the evidence to the contrary one more time:

Parkland medical staff:

a) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. [‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.]

Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.]

c) Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head," Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4.

d) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967. (Cited by Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2.)

(9) Investigation turned up numerous films and photos never seen before...

Designed to buttress the central fake. Would an agent have done that? Absolutely. And that's exactly what you did.

I could go on ad infinitum.

I know the feeling. But you're worth it.

I don’t need to attack Fetzer's history or reputation and I won’t.

What a hypocrite: You and your motley band of acolytes undertake precisely the kinds of attacks you pretend to abjure on a near-daily basis. This entire post is little more than a sustained ad hominem against a man, whatever his faults, and however much I disagree with him on certain issues, has contributed more to the establishment of truth in the case than you could achieve even if granted the gift of eternity.

Too bad Sylvia Meagher did not survive to this day. She would have munched him for breakfast!

We are talking about the same Sylvia Meagher, aren't we? The one who wrote: "In sum, at least seven eyewitnesses to the assassination indicated that the President's car had come to a complete stop..."? We're not, are we?

Jim, I think now you've got it!

Thompson did all his research in the 60s and 70s, and then "dropped out". When he "came back"

about ten years ago to "defend his early work", he was not up to speed with new research, and is

not competent to address more recent work which has moved far past him.

I have no opinion regarding whether he is a "conscious agent of disinformation". That may just

be a perception. His early work was important, as David says. His recent work can be more

charitably characterized as obstructionism. Like my friend Robert Groden, it distresses him that

his early work is being challenged by newer information.

Agent or not, perception IS reality. You perceive him as an agent; so do many others. However,

as David points out, that does NOT make him an agent...maybe just out of touch. But as an

obstructionist, he is making the same arguments that agents make.

Jack

[Mark Knight]

I'm coming away from this "discussion"--and I use the term only because Dr. Lifton and Pat Speer have kept it from becoming the written equivalent of a "lynching"--with a great deal of respect for Dr. Lifton...and a lower opinion of Dr. Fetzer. Josiah Thompson's SSID was, in its day, a bombshell dropped on 'the establishment'...whether it was derivative of Dr. Lifton's work or not. In the '60's, I had never heard of RAMPARTS...but I sure as hell knew The Saturday Evening Post. I thank Josiah Thompson for opening the door, even if only a crack by today's standards. He may not deserve a monument in Dealy Plaza, but IMHO he doesn't deserve the accusations being thrown about.

Ans, as others have pointed out, all this discussion of Josiah Thompson is, indeed, taking away from the examination of the evidence. So PLEASE...let's go back to arguing over the evidence, rather than the [real or imagined credentials] of those presenting the evidence.

[Pamela Brown]

You seem to be living inside a bubble, Tink. Try to take a look from the outside. Here goes:

We have the film of the crime of the century. CIA becomes involved at once, and spirits off at least one copy. A script is put in place claiming that complete control has been maintained over the film. The Z-film is suppressed for years, with frames being dribbled out by LIFE here and there. At the same time, there is an underworld where rogue copies are made at least for some LIFE execs, kept in their vaults in their grand homes in Greenwich, CT. There are early viewings, some in livingrooms, at least one in a movie theater.

In you come with your wonderful ideas for a book. You have the right credentials -- Yale (Bones?), Navy (ONI?), a PhD, and you are tapped by the powers that be. They also happen to be the powers behind at least the ongoing cover-up, and maybe even the assassination itself. That doesn't phase you. You are the golden boy. You are ferried around the country for interviews with all the main witnesses. Every door is opened to you. You spend countless hours with a very good copy of the Z-film. You even feel sorry for the poor researchers at NARA who are suffering with slides and film of inferior quality to what you are using. You even realize the WC itself was sandbagged by the poor quality of slides they had available. Did you call out for a new investigation? Did you demand LIFE at least provide researchers with as good a copy as you had? Wait -- you were going to head the LIFE investigation into the assassination, weren't you? You, the super-researcher that had been hand-picked and trained by LIFE. And guess who probably gave LIFE the great idea to find a new fresh face with credibility with the CTs who could be used to counteract the growing current of dissent against the WCR and the govt?

All the time you were in NYC you were apparently oblivious to the underground around you. You were at ground zero of the holy grail of the assassination and nothing about the film or the slides caused you to wonder if it had been altered and if so how. After all these years your position has not changed.

Just what do you expect us to think?

Pamela,

I wouldn't even dare to suggest what you should think but it would be good if you simply thought before you joined in the swift-boating. Someone of your education should recognize the tried and true show trial, McCarthy, swift-boat tactics that are being used on Josiah. It has worked very well in the past and for those who only care about personal victory it's very effective indeed. The utter mindlessness of the approach is beside the point. The 2004 Presidential election was converted to a referendum on John Kerry's war record because people (apparently such as your self) couldn't see that it was an obvious effort to distract public attention from the real issues.

So now, of course, Josiah has to spend his time defending his reputation on nearly endless threads. We're not discussing the assassination, we're discussing speculation about the honor and integrity of a man and everyone knows that where there's smoke there's fire! Fetzer and his cohorts have managed to suppress any substantive discussion of Fetzer's claims and put the fear of God into anyone considering honest disagreement.

What you fail to realize is that it's possible to construct similar fairy-tails about anyone. You, Jack White, or particularly Fetzer himself. It's meaningless. The evidence shows what the evidence shows no matter who presents it or for what reason. But now the debate is about Josiah Thompson instead of what we really care about.

Thanks Pamela,

Mission Accomplished!

So Jerry objects to my adding definition to what is right in front of us and in SSID? What is 'fairy tale' about that? Why is Jerry so upset? Is this clarity perhaps spoiling a project in which he is involved?

Perhaps Jerry can add definition to the emergence of Tink, along with himself and Barb, writing articles that seem to have the intent of doing little more than attempting to shut down Fetzer's work? What's really going on here, Jerry? Working behind the scenes with the likes of Gary Mack? Trying to tie up loose ends, as it were, before 2013? *Close* the case once more?