A Simple Question for Josiah Thompson

[Len Colby]

Does Len have any basis for these attributions to me? I have observed that the Duluth conference may turn out to have been the most important in the history of the JFK assassination. Even Vincent Bugliosi has observed that these are the only exclusively scientific books published about the assassination -- though I would add BEST EVIDENCE (1980) to that list, where I have always regarded ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) as successors to David Lifton's work. While my 29th book will appear early this year -- THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010) -- no one I know, including me, would make the exaggerated claims that you attribute to me.

Come on Jim after 4 1/2 years you should know I don't make claims I can't back up, unless I say they are based on personal experience. I did make a small mistake thought, you didn't say a "conference [you] organized was the most important ever held" but rather "it may have been the most important small conference on any subject in history," See below your reply to Tink on the JFK Research Yahoo Group w/ his message below it. I highlighted the appropriate parts. [Underling and bolding mine ALL CAPS Fetzer's]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/3858

What in God's name has possessed this man? He cannot abide the fact

that I have attained degrees of distinction that will forever elude

him? That he is a relic of bygone ages and reflects the distant past

of JFK research, while I and those with whom I collaborate represent

its future? Does anyone who knows how to read a vita have any real

doubt that a guy who has earned honors and distinctions throughout

his career--including the first Distinguished Teaching Award at the

University of Kentucy, which was presented by the Student Government

to 1 out of 135 assistant professors; the MacArthur Visiting Profes-

sorhip for a Distinguished Visiting Professor at New College of the

University of South Florida; and a Distinguised McKnight University

Professorship at the University of Minnesota, a system-wide award--

and has published 27 books is a distinguished scholar? Any doubt?

How else is anyone supposed to refute the claims he makes--most of

which he pulls out of thin air!--that my academic career has been

"pedestrian"? HOW ELSE? Then he whines and moans when I lay out

the evidence that PROVES HE IS WRONG! What kind of madness is go-

ing on in his mind? He says all kinds of things that are simply

wrong. Often visiting positions are merely visiting positions,

where you are not being reviewed for a permanent position. It's

obvious to me that he does not know that Cincinnati, for example,

was a strong Department of Philosophy when it invited me for a

visit--and that I remained a second year on an NSF Fellowship,

writing my first book, SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. He's never accomp-

lished anything remotely as significant as that. So why carp?

Moreover, New College of the University of South Florida is in

fact the honors college for USF and runs a fascinating program,

where every student has 600 SATs, every student does a thesis,

and no grades but only narrative evaluations are provided by the

faculty. There are about 400 students and 40 faculty, and it is

something close to the Platonic Ideal of an intellectual academy.

But of course he doesn't know any of these things. He makes it

up as he goes along and hopes some of the muck will stick. This

is a sign of advanced mental deterioration. I would feel sorry

for him if he were not so grossly abusinve of the facts in this

case, which make him completely untrustworthy when it comes to

even more serious matters, like the death of JFK. I am still

here, after all, and he can't even get it straight in my case!

Consider, for example, my first position at Kentucky. Tenure

is not a right and I was denied tenure. Everyone knows that.

The fact is that the head of the department at the time, one

Dallas High, was a Ph.D. in religion, not even in philosophy,

and wanted "a different kind of philosopher of science", one

more like Hans Jonas, who is actually a theologian. Because

of his intellectual orientation, he wanted someone he could

relate to more easily. Moreover, he wanted Kentucky to have

a Ph.D. program. I thought we had a nice M.A. program that

benefitted students who wanted to strengthen their credentials

before applying to Ph.D. programs. He didn't like that and

moved to deny me tenure. Kentucky did eventually get its own

Ph.D. program and now, when these programs are ranked nation-

ally, out of 99 programs, Kentucky ranks dead last! So Dallas

got his wish! It must be quite an accolade for the University.

Virginia promoted me to (visiting) associate after Kentucky

denied me, a rather facsinating result, considering that UVA

was then and remains among the most prestigious of all public

universities. They even brought me back years later as full

professor, rather remarkable if they did not hold me in high

esteem. It was great to live in Chapel Hill for a year, of

course, but I knew coming in that I was a replacement for a

faculty member on a temporary basis and there was no prospect

for having a permanent appointment. So either he just doesn't

know what goes on in higher education or he is simply lying out

his ass! Of course, don't overlook the possibility it is both!

Consider the University of Minnesota, Duluth. A nice medium-

sized public university with about 10,000 students, it is a

beautiful place to live, with the city distributed across a

range of bluffs overlooking Lake Superior. Since I arrived

in 1987-88, I published 24 books and more than 100 articles

and reviews. I founded an international journal, and inter-

national society, and an international professional library.

Where does he come off denigrating accomplishments like this?

I know of no faculty member anywhere whose combination of

achievements exceeds my own!

So it is clearly not knowledge

that motivates him but pure and utter spite! He cannot abide

the fact that I have accomplished more in less time--even in

relation to the assassination--than he will in his whole life!

Consider, too, the McKnight Professorship Program. That is

a system-wide distinction, not awared by UMD but by the Uni-

vesity of Minnesota. Just as the Student Government of UK

had 135 assistant professors to choose between, the Univer-

sity of Minnesota had simply hundreds of full professors to

choose between. It describes the program as follows: "The

goal of the Distinguished McKnight University Professorship

program is to honor and reward the highest-achieving faculty

at the University of Minnesota who have recently attained

full professor status--especially those whose careers have

advanced at Minnesota, whose work and reputation are identi-

fied with Minnesota, and bring renown and prestigue to the

University, and who can be expected to make addtional sig-

nificant contributions to their discipline." Along with

the title, which is permanent, comes a $100,000 research

grant. What has this guy ever attained that is comparable?

And he must take some kind of sick, sadistic pleasure in

attacking me for not having attended JFK conferences over

the past few years, when he knows that he has played an

active role in denying me a place on the podium. The one

in Pittsburgh, for example was one to which I had been

invited by Cyril Wecht. But this guy subverted the in-

vitation, using his personal influence to have me "dis-

invited"! It was then I realize that there was no way I

would be given a fair shake by the in-crowd in the JFK

community. I have since devoted myself to making what

we have discovered known to the American people via TV,

documentaries, and hundreds upon hundreds of talk radio

programs. What has he done that is remotely comparable?

The man is so completely and totally dishonest and not a

little demented that he even takes the initiative, drive,

and detmination I have shown in creating conferences and

books and treats it AS THOUGH IT WERE NEGATIVE!

The con-

ference I organized in Minneapolis in 1999 contributed to

the contents and publication of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA,

perhaps the best book ever published on the death of JFK

.

And the conference I organized in Duluth in 2003 led to

the publication of THE GREAT ZARPUDER FILM HOAX.

It may

have been the most important small conference on any sub-

ject in history

, where this guy did his level best to sub-

vert it, minimizing the very idea and actively discourag-

ing persons who were planning to come from attending. I

would not bother with all this drivel were it not the case

that you are being conned by a xxxx, a thief, a con man,

and a fraud. He is the most despicable person whom I have

known in my entire life. You might be taken in by him were

I not to detail the depths of his depravity and deception.

Quoting gumshoe882000 <josiah@...>:

> In dealing with Fetzer you get used to the idea that sooner or later

> he's going to be vomiting his CV all over you. Characteristically,

> he advertizes himself here as "a distinguished scholar."

>

> He's not and the spin he lays on his own CV is revealing.

>

> In the late 1970s, he got his ass booted from the University of

> Kentucky. For the next ten years, he wander the academic desert

> picking up single year-jobs at such intellectual powerhouses as the

> University of Cincinnati or the University of South Florida. Of

> course, he also did single or double-year stints at the University of

> Virginia and the University of North Carolina. The usefulness of

> these visiting assistant or associate or full professor gigs is that

> they give the institution a chance to look at a prospective hire

> before hiring them on tenure track. None of these institutions bit,

> so Fetzer was left to wander from one to another for a decade before

> washing up on the shores of the University of Minnesota (Duluth),

> another intellectual powerhouse. Fetzer spins this chronicle of

> failure by saying "he taught at a wide variety of institutions of

> higher learning." If he's such "a distinguished scholar".... such a

> high-powered dude.... how come no first rate university would have

> anything to do with him?

>

> Yeah, he's written a ton of articles and books... all intrinsically

> forgettable, the hallmark of what might be called "the academic

> businessman"... a guy who's a bit lacking in ideas but churns out

> junk to impress deans at second-rate institutions.

>

> He tries the same manoeuver with respect to his work on the Kennedy

> assassination. Much junk, little value. What's hilarious is his

> citing of his 2003 "conference" at the University of Minnesota

> (Duluth) as a conference he chaired. Not only did he chair

> this "conference" where upwards of nineteen or so people attended

> (most of whom were giving silly ass talks on how fake was the

> Zapruder film), he arranged the whole thing. The only thing he

> forgot to do was to have the "conference" give him some equally silly-

> ass award so he could cite that in his CV.

[Josiah Thompson]

Thank you, Len. In reading this post, I had a real breakthrough. For the first time, I think I understood what Fetzer has been up to.

His attacks on me over the last week never made any sense to me. I’m no threat to him. I’m an old man who will be seventy-five in a week or so. I don’t have any web site. I don’t have any publisher ready to snap up a book on the Kennedy assassination. So why does Fetzer think he has to assassinate my character with this noxious claim about me being an agent? There’s nothing unusual about flinging the charge of “agent” at someone. The research community has been alive with people calling other people “agents” for about forty-five years. So why does Fetzer start in again with this now? Why now when he was publicly rebuked about it by Wecht, Mantik, Aguilar, Turner, DeSalles, etc. ten years ago?

Your post made it clear to me. He truly has some weird delusions of grandeur about himself and his work as a flack in this case. You give the very citation where Fetzer describes the conference of about nineteen true believers on Zapruder film fakery as “the most important small conference on any subject in history.” That, folks, is downright downright silly. And then you quote him describing his book MIDP as “perhaps the best book ever published on the death of JFK.” Finally, you have him describing himself. After vomiting his CV for the umpteenth time, he says of himself modestly: “I know of no faculty member anywhere whose combination of achievements exceeds my own!”

There is no profit in showing how unreal these appraisals are. What is interesting here is the fact that he makes them at all. Then it came to me. Fetzer sees himself in a completely unreal way. It’s like he’s living in a dream where he will end up leading the parade in its magisterial progress towards a new understanding of what happened in Dallas. Finally, it will be understood by everyone that the Zapruder film and other films were altered and it was James Fetzer who courageously figured this out and led the way. I think he truly believes that if he can dirty me up enough that no one will pay attention to me that he can achieve his end. If only he can get me out of the way, the path will be clear.

The reality, of course, is quite different. It’s not me standing in his way. It’s the evidence that has piled up over the years. Fetzer has been at this for almost fifteen years now. He and Jack White and John Costella and David Lifton have been searching for proof of Zapruder film fakery for longer than that. They haven’t found it. After successive claims for “the seven-foot woman,” “Moorman-in-the-Street,” and thirty or forty other Jack White examples, they have not been able to show a single discrepancy between the Zapruder film and other films and photos from Dealey Plaza. That’s not me. That’s a failure in putting your theory up against the data coming back from the world. David Lifton for some time has been trying to indict the Zavada study of the camera and film to show that Zavada was wrong when he found the camera-original to authentic. We all saw how far, even with Fetzer’s help, the “full flush left image penetration” argument has gotten after six years of trying. This again is not me holding up the parade. It is the raw complex of facts concerning the manufacture of Zapruder’s camera and its capabilities that won’t conform to what they want that complex to be. The world of fact contradicts Fetzer theory. I could croak tomorrow and he wouldn’t be any better off.

So Fetzer focuses on me. He wrongly thinks that if he can just dirty me up enough in people’s minds, he can become the hero he knows he is. That’s why his attacks have become so reckless and odious. It is almost as if he cannot help himself. What do you think?

Josiah Thompson

Does Len have any basis for these attributions to me? I have observed that the Duluth conference may turn out to have been the most important in the history of the JFK assassination. Even Vincent Bugliosi has observed that these are the only exclusively scientific books published about the assassination -- though I would add BEST EVIDENCE (1980) to that list, where I have always regarded ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) as successors to David Lifton's work. While my 29th book will appear early this year -- THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010) -- no one I know, including me, would make the exaggerated claims that you attribute to me.

Come on Jim after 4 1/2 years you should know I don't make claims I can't back up, unless I say they are based on personal experience. I did make a small mistake thought, you didn't say a "conference [you] organized was the most important ever held" but rather "it may have been the most important small conference on any subject in history," See below your reply to Tink on the JFK Research Yahoo Group w/ his message below it. I highlighted the appropriate parts. [Underling and bolding mine ALL CAPS Fetzer's]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/3858

What in God's name has possessed this man? He cannot abide the fact

that I have attained degrees of distinction that will forever elude

him? That he is a relic of bygone ages and reflects the distant past

of JFK research, while I and those with whom I collaborate represent

its future? Does anyone who knows how to read a vita have any real

doubt that a guy who has earned honors and distinctions throughout

his career--including the first Distinguished Teaching Award at the

University of Kentucy, which was presented by the Student Government

to 1 out of 135 assistant professors; the MacArthur Visiting Profes-

sorhip for a Distinguished Visiting Professor at New College of the

University of South Florida; and a Distinguised McKnight University

Professorship at the University of Minnesota, a system-wide award--

and has published 27 books is a distinguished scholar? Any doubt?

How else is anyone supposed to refute the claims he makes--most of

which he pulls out of thin air!--that my academic career has been

"pedestrian"? HOW ELSE? Then he whines and moans when I lay out

the evidence that PROVES HE IS WRONG! What kind of madness is go-

ing on in his mind? He says all kinds of things that are simply

wrong. Often visiting positions are merely visiting positions,

where you are not being reviewed for a permanent position. It's

obvious to me that he does not know that Cincinnati, for example,

was a strong Department of Philosophy when it invited me for a

visit--and that I remained a second year on an NSF Fellowship,

writing my first book, SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. He's never accomp-

lished anything remotely as significant as that. So why carp?

Moreover, New College of the University of South Florida is in

fact the honors college for USF and runs a fascinating program,

where every student has 600 SATs, every student does a thesis,

and no grades but only narrative evaluations are provided by the

faculty. There are about 400 students and 40 faculty, and it is

something close to the Platonic Ideal of an intellectual academy.

But of course he doesn't know any of these things. He makes it

up as he goes along and hopes some of the muck will stick. This

is a sign of advanced mental deterioration. I would feel sorry

for him if he were not so grossly abusinve of the facts in this

case, which make him completely untrustworthy when it comes to

even more serious matters, like the death of JFK. I am still

here, after all, and he can't even get it straight in my case!

Consider, for example, my first position at Kentucky. Tenure

is not a right and I was denied tenure. Everyone knows that.

The fact is that the head of the department at the time, one

Dallas High, was a Ph.D. in religion, not even in philosophy,

and wanted "a different kind of philosopher of science", one

more like Hans Jonas, who is actually a theologian. Because

of his intellectual orientation, he wanted someone he could

relate to more easily. Moreover, he wanted Kentucky to have

a Ph.D. program. I thought we had a nice M.A. program that

benefitted students who wanted to strengthen their credentials

before applying to Ph.D. programs. He didn't like that and

moved to deny me tenure. Kentucky did eventually get its own

Ph.D. program and now, when these programs are ranked nation-

ally, out of 99 programs, Kentucky ranks dead last! So Dallas

got his wish! It must be quite an accolade for the University.

Virginia promoted me to (visiting) associate after Kentucky

denied me, a rather facsinating result, considering that UVA

was then and remains among the most prestigious of all public

universities. They even brought me back years later as full

professor, rather remarkable if they did not hold me in high

esteem. It was great to live in Chapel Hill for a year, of

course, but I knew coming in that I was a replacement for a

faculty member on a temporary basis and there was no prospect

for having a permanent appointment. So either he just doesn't

know what goes on in higher education or he is simply lying out

his ass! Of course, don't overlook the possibility it is both!

Consider the University of Minnesota, Duluth. A nice medium-

sized public university with about 10,000 students, it is a

beautiful place to live, with the city distributed across a

range of bluffs overlooking Lake Superior. Since I arrived

in 1987-88, I published 24 books and more than 100 articles

and reviews. I founded an international journal, and inter-

national society, and an international professional library.

Where does he come off denigrating accomplishments like this?

I know of no faculty member anywhere whose combination of

achievements exceeds my own!

So it is clearly not knowledge

that motivates him but pure and utter spite! He cannot abide

the fact that I have accomplished more in less time--even in

relation to the assassination--than he will in his whole life!

Consider, too, the McKnight Professorship Program. That is

a system-wide distinction, not awared by UMD but by the Uni-

vesity of Minnesota. Just as the Student Government of UK

had 135 assistant professors to choose between, the Univer-

sity of Minnesota had simply hundreds of full professors to

choose between. It describes the program as follows: "The

goal of the Distinguished McKnight University Professorship

program is to honor and reward the highest-achieving faculty

at the University of Minnesota who have recently attained

full professor status--especially those whose careers have

advanced at Minnesota, whose work and reputation are identi-

fied with Minnesota, and bring renown and prestigue to the

University, and who can be expected to make addtional sig-

nificant contributions to their discipline." Along with

the title, which is permanent, comes a $100,000 research

grant. What has this guy ever attained that is comparable?

And he must take some kind of sick, sadistic pleasure in

attacking me for not having attended JFK conferences over

the past few years, when he knows that he has played an

active role in denying me a place on the podium. The one

in Pittsburgh, for example was one to which I had been

invited by Cyril Wecht. But this guy subverted the in-

vitation, using his personal influence to have me "dis-

invited"! It was then I realize that there was no way I

would be given a fair shake by the in-crowd in the JFK

community. I have since devoted myself to making what

we have discovered known to the American people via TV,

documentaries, and hundreds upon hundreds of talk radio

programs. What has he done that is remotely comparable?

The man is so completely and totally dishonest and not a

little demented that he even takes the initiative, drive,

and detmination I have shown in creating conferences and

books and treats it AS THOUGH IT WERE NEGATIVE!

The con-

ference I organized in Minneapolis in 1999 contributed to

the contents and publication of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA,

perhaps the best book ever published on the death of JFK

.

And the conference I organized in Duluth in 2003 led to

the publication of THE GREAT ZARPUDER FILM HOAX.

It may

have been the most important small conference on any sub-

ject in history

, where this guy did his level best to sub-

vert it, minimizing the very idea and actively discourag-

ing persons who were planning to come from attending. I

would not bother with all this drivel were it not the case

that you are being conned by a xxxx, a thief, a con man,

and a fraud. He is the most despicable person whom I have

known in my entire life. You might be taken in by him were

I not to detail the depths of his depravity and deception.

Quoting gumshoe882000 <josiah@...>:

> In dealing with Fetzer you get used to the idea that sooner or later

> he's going to be vomiting his CV all over you. Characteristically,

> he advertizes himself here as "a distinguished scholar."

>

> He's not and the spin he lays on his own CV is revealing.

>

> In the late 1970s, he got his ass booted from the University of

> Kentucky. For the next ten years, he wander the academic desert

> picking up single year-jobs at such intellectual powerhouses as the

> University of Cincinnati or the University of South Florida. Of

> course, he also did single or double-year stints at the University of

> Virginia and the University of North Carolina. The usefulness of

> these visiting assistant or associate or full professor gigs is that

> they give the institution a chance to look at a prospective hire

> before hiring them on tenure track. None of these institutions bit,

> so Fetzer was left to wander from one to another for a decade before

> washing up on the shores of the University of Minnesota (Duluth),

> another intellectual powerhouse. Fetzer spins this chronicle of

> failure by saying "he taught at a wide variety of institutions of

> higher learning." If he's such "a distinguished scholar".... such a

> high-powered dude.... how come no first rate university would have

> anything to do with him?

>

> Yeah, he's written a ton of articles and books... all intrinsically

> forgettable, the hallmark of what might be called "the academic

> businessman"... a guy who's a bit lacking in ideas but churns out

> junk to impress deans at second-rate institutions.

>

> He tries the same manoeuver with respect to his work on the Kennedy

> assassination. Much junk, little value. What's hilarious is his

> citing of his 2003 "conference" at the University of Minnesota

> (Duluth) as a conference he chaired. Not only did he chair

> this "conference" where upwards of nineteen or so people attended

> (most of whom were giving silly ass talks on how fake was the

> Zapruder film), he arranged the whole thing. The only thing he

> forgot to do was to have the "conference" give him some equally silly-

> ass award so he could cite that in his CV.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

That's a good one, Len! Glad you tracked that one down. I like it -- a bold statement! Fascinating stuff! Thanks! Jim

Does Len have any basis for these attributions to me? I have observed that the Duluth conference may turn out to have been the most important in the history of the JFK assassination. Even Vincent Bugliosi has observed that these are the only exclusively scientific books published about the assassination -- though I would add BEST EVIDENCE (1980) to that list, where I have always regarded ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) as successors to David Lifton's work. While my 29th book will appear early this year -- THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010) -- no one I know, including me, would make the exaggerated claims that you attribute to me.

Come on Jim after 4 1/2 years you should know I don't make claims I can't back up, unless I say they are based on personal experience. I did make a small mistake thought, you didn't say a "conference [you] organized was the most important ever held" but rather "it may have been the most important small conference on any subject in history," See below your reply to Tink on the JFK Research Yahoo Group w/ his message below it. I highlighted the appropriate parts. [Underling and bolding mine ALL CAPS Fetzer's]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/3858

What in God's name has possessed this man? He cannot abide the fact

that I have attained degrees of distinction that will forever elude

him? That he is a relic of bygone ages and reflects the distant past

of JFK research, while I and those with whom I collaborate represent

its future? Does anyone who knows how to read a vita have any real

doubt that a guy who has earned honors and distinctions throughout

his career--including the first Distinguished Teaching Award at the

University of Kentucy, which was presented by the Student Government

to 1 out of 135 assistant professors; the MacArthur Visiting Profes-

sorhip for a Distinguished Visiting Professor at New College of the

University of South Florida; and a Distinguised McKnight University

Professorship at the University of Minnesota, a system-wide award--

and has published 27 books is a distinguished scholar? Any doubt?

How else is anyone supposed to refute the claims he makes--most of

which he pulls out of thin air!--that my academic career has been

"pedestrian"? HOW ELSE? Then he whines and moans when I lay out

the evidence that PROVES HE IS WRONG! What kind of madness is go-

ing on in his mind? He says all kinds of things that are simply

wrong. Often visiting positions are merely visiting positions,

where you are not being reviewed for a permanent position. It's

obvious to me that he does not know that Cincinnati, for example,

was a strong Department of Philosophy when it invited me for a

visit--and that I remained a second year on an NSF Fellowship,

writing my first book, SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. He's never accomp-

lished anything remotely as significant as that. So why carp?

Moreover, New College of the University of South Florida is in

fact the honors college for USF and runs a fascinating program,

where every student has 600 SATs, every student does a thesis,

and no grades but only narrative evaluations are provided by the

faculty. There are about 400 students and 40 faculty, and it is

something close to the Platonic Ideal of an intellectual academy.

But of course he doesn't know any of these things. He makes it

up as he goes along and hopes some of the muck will stick. This

is a sign of advanced mental deterioration. I would feel sorry

for him if he were not so grossly abusinve of the facts in this

case, which make him completely untrustworthy when it comes to

even more serious matters, like the death of JFK. I am still

here, after all, and he can't even get it straight in my case!

Consider, for example, my first position at Kentucky. Tenure

is not a right and I was denied tenure. Everyone knows that.

The fact is that the head of the department at the time, one

Dallas High, was a Ph.D. in religion, not even in philosophy,

and wanted "a different kind of philosopher of science", one

more like Hans Jonas, who is actually a theologian. Because

of his intellectual orientation, he wanted someone he could

relate to more easily. Moreover, he wanted Kentucky to have

a Ph.D. program. I thought we had a nice M.A. program that

benefitted students who wanted to strengthen their credentials

before applying to Ph.D. programs. He didn't like that and

moved to deny me tenure. Kentucky did eventually get its own

Ph.D. program and now, when these programs are ranked nation-

ally, out of 99 programs, Kentucky ranks dead last! So Dallas

got his wish! It must be quite an accolade for the University.

Virginia promoted me to (visiting) associate after Kentucky

denied me, a rather facsinating result, considering that UVA

was then and remains among the most prestigious of all public

universities. They even brought me back years later as full

professor, rather remarkable if they did not hold me in high

esteem. It was great to live in Chapel Hill for a year, of

course, but I knew coming in that I was a replacement for a

faculty member on a temporary basis and there was no prospect

for having a permanent appointment. So either he just doesn't

know what goes on in higher education or he is simply lying out

his ass! Of course, don't overlook the possibility it is both!

Consider the University of Minnesota, Duluth. A nice medium-

sized public university with about 10,000 students, it is a

beautiful place to live, with the city distributed across a

range of bluffs overlooking Lake Superior. Since I arrived

in 1987-88, I published 24 books and more than 100 articles

and reviews. I founded an international journal, and inter-

national society, and an international professional library.

Where does he come off denigrating accomplishments like this?

I know of no faculty member anywhere whose combination of

achievements exceeds my own!

So it is clearly not knowledge

that motivates him but pure and utter spite! He cannot abide

the fact that I have accomplished more in less time--even in

relation to the assassination--than he will in his whole life!

Consider, too, the McKnight Professorship Program. That is

a system-wide distinction, not awared by UMD but by the Uni-

vesity of Minnesota. Just as the Student Government of UK

had 135 assistant professors to choose between, the Univer-

sity of Minnesota had simply hundreds of full professors to

choose between. It describes the program as follows: "The

goal of the Distinguished McKnight University Professorship

program is to honor and reward the highest-achieving faculty

at the University of Minnesota who have recently attained

full professor status--especially those whose careers have

advanced at Minnesota, whose work and reputation are identi-

fied with Minnesota, and bring renown and prestigue to the

University, and who can be expected to make addtional sig-

nificant contributions to their discipline." Along with

the title, which is permanent, comes a $100,000 research

grant. What has this guy ever attained that is comparable?

And he must take some kind of sick, sadistic pleasure in

attacking me for not having attended JFK conferences over

the past few years, when he knows that he has played an

active role in denying me a place on the podium. The one

in Pittsburgh, for example was one to which I had been

invited by Cyril Wecht. But this guy subverted the in-

vitation, using his personal influence to have me "dis-

invited"! It was then I realize that there was no way I

would be given a fair shake by the in-crowd in the JFK

community. I have since devoted myself to making what

we have discovered known to the American people via TV,

documentaries, and hundreds upon hundreds of talk radio

programs. What has he done that is remotely comparable?

The man is so completely and totally dishonest and not a

little demented that he even takes the initiative, drive,

and detmination I have shown in creating conferences and

books and treats it AS THOUGH IT WERE NEGATIVE!

The con-

ference I organized in Minneapolis in 1999 contributed to

the contents and publication of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA,

perhaps the best book ever published on the death of JFK

.

And the conference I organized in Duluth in 2003 led to

the publication of THE GREAT ZARPUDER FILM HOAX.

It may

have been the most important small conference on any sub-

ject in history

, where this guy did his level best to sub-

vert it, minimizing the very idea and actively discourag-

ing persons who were planning to come from attending. I

would not bother with all this drivel were it not the case

that you are being conned by a xxxx, a thief, a con man,

and a fraud. He is the most despicable person whom I have

known in my entire life. You might be taken in by him were

I not to detail the depths of his depravity and deception.

Quoting gumshoe882000 <josiah@...>:

> In dealing with Fetzer you get used to the idea that sooner or later

> he's going to be vomiting his CV all over you. Characteristically,

> he advertizes himself here as "a distinguished scholar."

>

> He's not and the spin he lays on his own CV is revealing.

>

> In the late 1970s, he got his ass booted from the University of

> Kentucky. For the next ten years, he wander the academic desert

> picking up single year-jobs at such intellectual powerhouses as the

> University of Cincinnati or the University of South Florida. Of

> course, he also did single or double-year stints at the University of

> Virginia and the University of North Carolina. The usefulness of

> these visiting assistant or associate or full professor gigs is that

> they give the institution a chance to look at a prospective hire

> before hiring them on tenure track. None of these institutions bit,

> so Fetzer was left to wander from one to another for a decade before

> washing up on the shores of the University of Minnesota (Duluth),

> another intellectual powerhouse. Fetzer spins this chronicle of

> failure by saying "he taught at a wide variety of institutions of

> higher learning." If he's such "a distinguished scholar".... such a

> high-powered dude.... how come no first rate university would have

> anything to do with him?

>

> Yeah, he's written a ton of articles and books... all intrinsically

> forgettable, the hallmark of what might be called "the academic

> businessman"... a guy who's a bit lacking in ideas but churns out

> junk to impress deans at second-rate institutions.

>

> He tries the same manoeuver with respect to his work on the Kennedy

> assassination. Much junk, little value. What's hilarious is his

> citing of his 2003 "conference" at the University of Minnesota

> (Duluth) as a conference he chaired. Not only did he chair

> this "conference" where upwards of nineteen or so people attended

> (most of whom were giving silly ass talks on how fake was the

> Zapruder film), he arranged the whole thing. The only thing he

> forgot to do was to have the "conference" give him some equally silly-

> ass award so he could cite that in his CV.

Edited January 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

For reasons I do not profess to understand, Evan Burton closed the thread about whether Josiah Thompson had ripped off David Lifton at precisely the point where it became most interesting. In a post that Evan put up for him, Lifton has made three important points about his position, which afford an excellent opportunity to distinguish between Lifton's, Josiah's and my positions in relation to these three very important points. Lifton's comments are given in italics:

1. I never subscribed to the double-head hit theory, so obviously i never made the charge that Josiah Thompson ripped me off or did anything wrong in that regards. FYI: from the outset, I had a different explanation for the small forward motion between Z- 312 and Z-313 (I postulated a forward high angle shot, and you will find that elaborated in Best Evidence); and I also wrote a paper about it that was published in the Paul Hoch anthology.

I know that David Lifton does not subscribe to the double-head hit theory because he does not believe that shots were fired from behind. This is as fascinating as Robert Livingston's observation to James Humes that, because there was an entry wound to the throat, the neck had to be dissected very carefully, because, if there were evidence of shots from behind, then there had to have been at least two shooters and therefore a conspiracy, which took place before the body arrived at Andrews Air Force Base (ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, pages 170 to 182).

I did not cite Richard Feynman's discovery of the double-hit because I thought (a) that David Lifton accepted it or ( because I thought Josiah Thompson had stolen it. I did not intend to convey that impression. My point was that it is very odd that Josiah should be disavowing what most of us considered to be the most scientific argument in his book, which he has done by appealing to false premises. He disavows it on the basis of the argument that the "startle response" and the hit took place at the same time, which is a physical impossibility.

Lifton's visit to Feynman at CalTech is described on pages 48 to 51 of BEST EVIDENCE (1980). That Josiah Thompson should have made such a thorough and precise study of this double-hit, when Feyman had made the same discovery independently, was entirely convincing to me that the double-hit is present in the film. Because of his commitment to authenticity of the film, therefore, it strains credulity to suppose that both Feynman and Thompson should be mistaken about this, which I do not accept. Yet today Josiah wants to disavow it.

2. More about the 312-313 motion: After I came to realize that the car stop had been removed and the Z film had been edited, I had (that is, "subscribed to") an entirely different explanation for the 312-313 motion: that it was nothing more than an artifact of the editing process. In other words, 312 and 313 was not contiguous on the original (i.e. unedited) film. That was my position then, and it continues to be my belief today.

David Mantik has concluded that both the double-hit and the back-and-to-the-left motion of the body are artifacts of the editing of the film, which, of course, are further reasons for doubting its authenticity. David Lifton, too, has long since concluded that the film is a fabrication and that, as he observes here, frames 312 and 313 were not continuous in time. It is my inference that the frame represents a merge between two shots, which were combined to create the impression of only one shot to the head, but where the fakery involved was highly amateurish.

Indeed, as I suppose we all know by now, Doug Horne enlisted the abilities of technical experts on film restoration from Hollywood, where they viewed a 6k version of the film -- a digitalized copy at 6,000 pixels per frame -- and they were stunned by the feeble quality of the alteration, where the massive blow-out to the back of the head was painted over in black and the bulging brains to the right-front -- the "blob" -- and the blood spray were painted in, precisely as Roderick Ryan had explained to Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), pages 159 to 160.

Since Twyman, Lifton, and Mantik are convinced that the film is a fabrication -- based upon extensive independent investigation -- they have ample grounds to suspect that the double-hit is only an artifact of the alternation of the film. But that option is unavailable to Josiah Thompson, who persists in his defense of the film's authenticity. That is what makes me so perplexed by his present attempt to deny the double-hit, which Feynman had discovered in 1966 and Thompson had -- presumably, independently -- established in SIX SECONDS (1967).

3. Yes, I was irritated when the Saturday Evening Post ran that headline, in the December, 1967 issue, about "three assassin", but so what? I did not consider that a ripoff. Subsequently, Josiah Thompson was very helpful in providing me transcripts of his interviews with Sitzman etc., and certain films. He was very helpful. I want to emphasize again that I never subscribed to the double head-hit theory.So allegations that someone stole it from me is inappropriate and unfair to Thompson.

On pages 86 through 90, Josiah explains that he traveled to the National Archives to test Vincent Salandria's observation that the President's head was driven backward and to the left under the impact of a bullet fired from the right front. He describes setting up parallel projectors in order to superimpose one frame upon another. And that, with the assistance of a young physics student, Bill Hoffman, he was able to measure the motions -- both forward and backward -- with great precision. And on pages 90 through 95, he defends his double-hit analysis from alternative explanations.

In particular, he considers alternative (A1) that the President's head perhaps struck some fixed surface in the car, thus reversing its direction in travel. But the film reveals no such fixed surface. He considers alternative (A2) that Jackie had pulled the president into her arms after the impact, thus accounting for the left-backward snap. But the film shows no movement on her part to grab him and, as he observes, her failure to pull him down was a source of torment to her for the rest of her life. So that alternative can be excluded, too.

That left alternative (A3) that the car suddenly accelerated or decelerated during this time, thus throwing the President either forward or backward. But this he rules out on the basis that witnesses did not report the limousine accelerating until after the head shot. "The combined testimony of all these witnesses indicates that the car did not accelerate until some 3 seconds after the President was struck in the head. And the Zapruder film sows conclusively that no acceleration or deceleration occurred in this critical period" (SIX SECONDS, page 92).

Now if Josiah would accept the massive evidence that impugns the authenticity of the film, I would have no problem with his recent attempts to disavow it. But -- given Feynman's discovery of the double-hit, Josiah's meticulous study (with graphs) of its occurrence, and his elimination of alternative explanations -- so long as he maintains the authenticity of the film, he has no basis to reject it. Indeed, it appears to be the strongest indication of conspiracy presented in his book -- and his attempt to reject it has no foundation. So what is going on here?

I would be very glad if this thread will draw him out to explain where he stands today on the conflict between the medical evidence and the Zapruder film (as I have explained in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"), which he did not address in SIX SECONDS; and where he stands given the very simple and direct proof of fabrication by seven or eight -- including Roderick Ryan -- film experts. Since he has recently denied that he is an expert on film, would he at least concede that, if Doug's reports are accurate, then the film is a fake, after all?

Thank you, Len. In reading this post, I had a real breakthrough. For the first time, I think I understood what Fetzer has been up to.

His attacks on me over the last week never made any sense to me. I’m no threat to him. I’m an old man who will be seventy-five in a week or so. I don’t have any web site. I don’t have any publisher ready to snap up a book on the Kennedy assassination. So why does Fetzer think he has to assassinate my character with this noxious claim about me being an agent? There’s nothing unusual about flinging the charge of “agent” at someone. The research community has been alive with people calling other people “agents” for about forty-five years. So why does Fetzer start in again with this now? Why now when he was publicly rebuked about it by Wecht, Mantik, Aguilar, Turner, DeSalles, etc. ten years ago?

Your post made it clear to me. He truly has some weird delusions of grandeur about himself and his work as a flack in this case. You give the very citation where Fetzer describes the conference of about nineteen true believers on Zapruder film fakery as “the most important small conference on any subject in history.” That, folks, is downright downright silly. And then you quote him describing his book MIDP as “perhaps the best book ever published on the death of JFK.” Finally, you have him describing himself. After vomiting his CV for the umpteenth time, he says of himself modestly: “I know of no faculty member anywhere whose combination of achievements exceeds my own!”

There is no profit in showing how unreal these appraisals are. What is interesting here is the fact that he makes them at all. Then it came to me. Fetzer sees himself in a completely unreal way. It’s like he’s living in a dream where he will end up leading the parade in its magisterial progress towards a new understanding of what happened in Dallas. Finally, it will be understood by everyone that the Zapruder film and other films were altered and it was James Fetzer who courageously figured this out and led the way. I think he truly believes that if he can dirty me up enough that no one will pay attention to me that he can achieve his end. If only he can get me out of the way, the path will be clear.

The reality, of course, is quite different. It’s not me standing in his way. It’s the evidence that has piled up over the years. Fetzer has been at this for almost fifteen years now. He and Jack White and John Costella and David Lifton have been searching for proof of Zapruder film fakery for longer than that. They haven’t found it. After successive claims for “the seven-foot woman,” “Moorman-in-the-Street,” and thirty or forty other Jack White examples, they have not been able to show a single discrepancy between the Zapruder film and other films and photos from Dealey Plaza. That’s not me. That’s a failure in putting your theory up against the data coming back from the world. David Lifton for some time has been trying to indict the Zavada study of the camera and film to show that Zavada was wrong when he found the camera-original to authentic. We all saw how far, even with Fetzer’s help, the “full flush left image penetration” argument has gotten after six years of trying. This again is not me holding up the parade. It is the raw complex of facts concerning the manufacture of Zapruder’s camera and its capabilities that won’t conform to what they want that complex to be. The world of fact contradicts Fetzer theory. I could croak tomorrow and he wouldn’t be any better off.

So Fetzer focuses on me. He wrongly thinks that if he can just dirty me up enough in people’s minds, he can become the hero he knows he is. That’s why his attacks have become so reckless and odious. It is almost as if he cannot help himself. What do you think?

Josiah Thompson

Does Len have any basis for these attributions to me? I have observed that the Duluth conference may turn out to have been the most important in the history of the JFK assassination. Even Vincent Bugliosi has observed that these are the only exclusively scientific books published about the assassination -- though I would add BEST EVIDENCE (1980) to that list, where I have always regarded ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) as successors to David Lifton's work. While my 29th book will appear early this year -- THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (2010) -- no one I know, including me, would make the exaggerated claims that you attribute to me.

Come on Jim after 4 1/2 years you should know I don't make claims I can't back up, unless I say they are based on personal experience. I did make a small mistake thought, you didn't say a "conference [you] organized was the most important ever held" but rather "it may have been the most important small conference on any subject in history," See below your reply to Tink on the JFK Research Yahoo Group w/ his message below it. I highlighted the appropriate parts. [Underling and bolding mine ALL CAPS Fetzer's]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/3858

What in God's name has possessed this man? He cannot abide the fact

that I have attained degrees of distinction that will forever elude

him? That he is a relic of bygone ages and reflects the distant past

of JFK research, while I and those with whom I collaborate represent

its future? Does anyone who knows how to read a vita have any real

doubt that a guy who has earned honors and distinctions throughout

his career--including the first Distinguished Teaching Award at the

University of Kentucy, which was presented by the Student Government

to 1 out of 135 assistant professors; the MacArthur Visiting Profes-

sorhip for a Distinguished Visiting Professor at New College of the

University of South Florida; and a Distinguised McKnight University

Professorship at the University of Minnesota, a system-wide award--

and has published 27 books is a distinguished scholar? Any doubt?

How else is anyone supposed to refute the claims he makes--most of

which he pulls out of thin air!--that my academic career has been

"pedestrian"? HOW ELSE? Then he whines and moans when I lay out

the evidence that PROVES HE IS WRONG! What kind of madness is go-

ing on in his mind? He says all kinds of things that are simply

wrong. Often visiting positions are merely visiting positions,

where you are not being reviewed for a permanent position. It's

obvious to me that he does not know that Cincinnati, for example,

was a strong Department of Philosophy when it invited me for a

visit--and that I remained a second year on an NSF Fellowship,

writing my first book, SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE. He's never accomp-

lished anything remotely as significant as that. So why carp?

Moreover, New College of the University of South Florida is in

fact the honors college for USF and runs a fascinating program,

where every student has 600 SATs, every student does a thesis,

and no grades but only narrative evaluations are provided by the

faculty. There are about 400 students and 40 faculty, and it is

something close to the Platonic Ideal of an intellectual academy.

But of course he doesn't know any of these things. He makes it

up as he goes along and hopes some of the muck will stick. This

is a sign of advanced mental deterioration. I would feel sorry

for him if he were not so grossly abusinve of the facts in this

case, which make him completely untrustworthy when it comes to

even more serious matters, like the death of JFK. I am still

here, after all, and he can't even get it straight in my case!

Consider, for example, my first position at Kentucky. Tenure

is not a right and I was denied tenure. Everyone knows that.

The fact is that the head of the department at the time, one

Dallas High, was a Ph.D. in religion, not even in philosophy,

and wanted "a different kind of philosopher of science", one

more like Hans Jonas, who is actually a theologian. Because

of his intellectual orientation, he wanted someone he could

relate to more easily. Moreover, he wanted Kentucky to have

a Ph.D. program. I thought we had a nice M.A. program that

benefitted students who wanted to strengthen their credentials

before applying to Ph.D. programs. He didn't like that and

moved to deny me tenure. Kentucky did eventually get its own

Ph.D. program and now, when these programs are ranked nation-

ally, out of 99 programs, Kentucky ranks dead last! So Dallas

got his wish! It must be quite an accolade for the University.

Virginia promoted me to (visiting) associate after Kentucky

denied me, a rather facsinating result, considering that UVA

was then and remains among the most prestigious of all public

universities. They even brought me back years later as full

professor, rather remarkable if they did not hold me in high

esteem. It was great to live in Chapel Hill for a year, of

course, but I knew coming in that I was a replacement for a

faculty member on a temporary basis and there was no prospect

for having a permanent appointment. So either he just doesn't

know what goes on in higher education or he is simply lying out

his ass! Of course, don't overlook the possibility it is both!

Consider the University of Minnesota, Duluth. A nice medium-

sized public university with about 10,000 students, it is a

beautiful place to live, with the city distributed across a

range of bluffs overlooking Lake Superior. Since I arrived

in 1987-88, I published 24 books and more than 100 articles

and reviews. I founded an international journal, and inter-

national society, and an international professional library.

Where does he come off denigrating accomplishments like this?

I know of no faculty member anywhere whose combination of

achievements exceeds my own!

So it is clearly not knowledge

that motivates him but pure and utter spite! He cannot abide

the fact that I have accomplished more in less time--even in

relation to the assassination--than he will in his whole life!

Consider, too, the McKnight Professorship Program. That is

a system-wide distinction, not awared by UMD but by the Uni-

vesity of Minnesota. Just as the Student Government of UK

had 135 assistant professors to choose between, the Univer-

sity of Minnesota had simply hundreds of full professors to

choose between. It describes the program as follows: "The

goal of the Distinguished McKnight University Professorship

program is to honor and reward the highest-achieving faculty

at the University of Minnesota who have recently attained

full professor status--especially those whose careers have

advanced at Minnesota, whose work and reputation are identi-

fied with Minnesota, and bring renown and prestigue to the

University, and who can be expected to make addtional sig-

nificant contributions to their discipline." Along with

the title, which is permanent, comes a $100,000 research

grant. What has this guy ever attained that is comparable?

And he must take some kind of sick, sadistic pleasure in

attacking me for not having attended JFK conferences over

the past few years, when he knows that he has played an

active role in denying me a place on the podium. The one

in Pittsburgh, for example was one to which I had been

invited by Cyril Wecht. But this guy subverted the in-

vitation, using his personal influence to have me "dis-

invited"! It was then I realize that there was no way I

would be given a fair shake by the in-crowd in the JFK

community. I have since devoted myself to making what

we have discovered known to the American people via TV,

documentaries, and hundreds upon hundreds of talk radio

programs. What has he done that is remotely comparable?

The man is so completely and totally dishonest and not a

little demented that he even takes the initiative, drive,

and detmination I have shown in creating conferences and

books and treats it AS THOUGH IT WERE NEGATIVE!

The con-

ference I organized in Minneapolis in 1999 contributed to

the contents and publication of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA,

perhaps the best book ever published on the death of JFK

.

And the conference I organized in Duluth in 2003 led to

the publication of THE GREAT ZARPUDER FILM HOAX.

It may

have been the most important small conference on any sub-

ject in history

, where this guy did his level best to sub-

vert it, minimizing the very idea and actively discourag-

ing persons who were planning to come from attending. I

would not bother with all this drivel were it not the case

that you are being conned by a xxxx, a thief, a con man,

and a fraud. He is the most despicable person whom I have

known in my entire life. You might be taken in by him were

I not to detail the depths of his depravity and deception.

Quoting gumshoe882000 <josiah@...>:

> In dealing with Fetzer you get used to the idea that sooner or later

> he's going to be vomiting his CV all over you. Characteristically,

> he advertizes himself here as "a distinguished scholar."

>

> He's not and the spin he lays on his own CV is revealing.

>

> In the late 1970s, he got his ass booted from the University of

> Kentucky. For the next ten years, he wander the academic desert

> picking up single year-jobs at such intellectual powerhouses as the

> University of Cincinnati or the University of South Florida. Of

> course, he also did single or double-year stints at the University of

> Virginia and the University of North Carolina. The usefulness of

> these visiting assistant or associate or full professor gigs is that

> they give the institution a chance to look at a prospective hire

> before hiring them on tenure track. None of these institutions bit,

> so Fetzer was left to wander from one to another for a decade before

> washing up on the shores of the University of Minnesota (Duluth),

> another intellectual powerhouse. Fetzer spins this chronicle of

> failure by saying "he taught at a wide variety of institutions of

> higher learning." If he's such "a distinguished scholar".... such a

> high-powered dude.... how come no first rate university would have

> anything to do with him?

>

> Yeah, he's written a ton of articles and books... all intrinsically

> forgettable, the hallmark of what might be called "the academic

> businessman"... a guy who's a bit lacking in ideas but churns out

> junk to impress deans at second-rate institutions.

>

> He tries the same manoeuver with respect to his work on the Kennedy

> assassination. Much junk, little value. What's hilarious is his

> citing of his 2003 "conference" at the University of Minnesota

> (Duluth) as a conference he chaired. Not only did he chair

> this "conference" where upwards of nineteen or so people attended

> (most of whom were giving silly ass talks on how fake was the

> Zapruder film), he arranged the whole thing. The only thing he

> forgot to do was to have the "conference" give him some equally silly-

> ass award so he could cite that in his CV.

[Len Colby]

That's a good one, Len! Glad you tracked that one down. I like it -- a bold statement! Fascinating stuff! Thanks! Jim

You're most welcome Jim I enjoying making the forum aware of your egomania.You wrote:

"no one I know, including me, would make the exaggerated claims that you attribute to me."

Not only were you wrong but post hoc changed "exaggerated claims" to "a bold statement!", a classic example of cognitive dissonance.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

What you miss is that the Duluth conference was extremely important because (1) the subject concerned unraveling one of the greatest mysteries of history, (2) the participants were extremely talented and well-prepared to address the issues, and (3) we managed to disentangle crucial aspects of the cover-up and thereby contribute to its resolution. Since everyone's presentation has now been posted (thanks to Rich DellaRosa), you can find the whole series under "Zapruder Fakery" on YouTube. If I am on occasion exuberant in praise of what we (collectively) have accomplished, that is because it has been so substantial about such a pivotal historical event.

What made it great was the brilliance of John Costella, David Mantik, David Lifton, Jack White, and David Healy! For some reason, you and Tink never seem to appreciate that a crucial dimension of my role as a student of the assassination is encouraging, supporting, and publishing the work of others who are more qualified than I in relation to various aspects of the case, including the medical, the ballistic, and the photographic evidence. You find it easier to attack me than come to grips with their magnificent achievements.

As a professor of philosophy who spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, I am in an advantageous position to assess the quality of the arguments that are advanced about the assassination of JFK. Consider, for example, my contributions to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), which should get the idea across. I am justifiably proud because we--David Mantik, Bob Livingston, Chuck Crenshaw, Jack White, John Costella, and I, with a little help from our friends--have successfully accomplished our task of sorting out the authentic from the fabricated evidence, which has enabled us to reconstruct what actually happened in Dealey Plaza.

And, thanks to the excellent work of Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997) and James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE (2007), we have an excellent idea of not only how it was done and covered up but by whom and for what reasons. That, in my opinion, is not an inconsiderable achievement. But, of course, you are unable to share in our accomplishments, because you, for reasons of your own, have chosen to oppose us every step of the way. John Costella, by the way, has created a page of resources about research on the authenticity of the film at http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/ with links:

JFK assassination research

NEW: YouTube videos of the Zapruder Film Symposium, Duluth, Minnesota, May 2003

Rich DellaRosa has kindly uploaded to YouTube videos of the Zapruder Film Symposium held in Duluth, Minnesota in May 2003:

John Costella interview to camera

John Costella presentation: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9 Part 10 Part 11 Part 12 Part 13 Part 14 Part 15 Part 16 Part 17 Part 18 Part 19 Part 20 Part 21 Part 22

Jim Fetzer presentation: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

David Healy presentation: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9 Part 10 Part 11

David Lifton presentation: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9

David Mantik presentation: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8

Jack White interview to camera: Part 1 Part 2

Jack White presentation: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9 Part 10 Part 11

JFK assassination film hoax — a simple introduction

For a quick introduction to why the “Zapruder film” of the JFK assassination is a hoax, click here.

Impeccable eyewitness proof of film alteration

For those people who prefer warm-blooded eyewitness testimony over the cold facts of hard science, the almost-incidental testimony of impeccable law enforcement officials in the lead car of the Presidential motorcade provides irrefutable evidence that the Zapruder film and Nix film of the assassination are fake.

An overview of the proof was published in February 2008, and the proof was discussed at length on radio: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5. The eyewitness compilation referred to is published here (see pages 85 and 86).

Stabilized copies of the Zapruder film

I have now uploaded seven videos to YouTube:

Zapruder HD Stable Pan

Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z001-Z257

Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z198-Z301

Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z274-Z357

Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z325-Z389

Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z372-Z425

Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z408-Z486

In the first video, the view ‘pans’ so that the presidential limousine is stabilized in the center of the image. In the remaining six videos, the background has been stabilized; in other words, they are the equivalent of having six different cameras mounted on the Zapruder pedestal, each pointing in a fixed direction, i.e., they don’t ‘pan’ to follow the presidential limousine.

If you want research-quality (1080) copies of these videos, they are still available in the original QuickTime format (with the filenames I originally gave them), which are the master videos uploaded to YouTube:

clip_G.mov (Zapruder HD Stable Pan, 69 MB)

clip_A.mov (Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z001-Z257, 53 MB)

clip_B.mov (Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z198-Z301, 15 MB)

clip_C.mov (Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z274-Z357, 13 MB)

clip_D.mov (Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z325-Z389, 9 MB)

clip_E.mov (Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z372-Z425, 8 MB)

clip_F.mov (Zapruder HD Fixed Camera Z408-Z486, 12 MB)

Research-quality copies of all 486 individual frames of the Zapruder film can also be viewed or downloaded from assassinationresearch.com/zfilm.

Panoramic view of Dealey Plaza

In 2002 I used advanced mathematical and computer imaging techniques to stitch together a sequence of photographs of Dealey Plaza taken by legendary JFK researcher Jack White from the Zapruder pedestal, using the topographic survey commissioned by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s. I then overlaid three extant photographs taken by the Dallas Police Department in the days following the assassination, and finally overlaid the frames of the Zapruder film itself:

Composite panorama

Composite panorama with gridlines, bearings, and angles of depression

Panorama showing only the frames of the Zapruder film

Panorama showing only the frames of the Zapruder film, with gridlines, bearings, and angles of depression

How can I find out more?

A summary of my most important contributions to research on the Zapruder home movie of the JFK assassination has been published in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (edited by Prof. James H. Fetzer), and my presentation to the Zapruder Film Symposium in Duluth, Minnesota in May 2003 has now been released on DVD.

To order The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, go to amazon.com. To order any of the DVDs of the Zapruder Film Symposium, go to assassinationscience.com. All proceeds are ploughed back into supporting assassination research; I don’t get a cent.

Other JFK research

Click here for other web pages of mine relating to JFK research.

That's a good one, Len! Glad you tracked that one down. I like it -- a bold statement! Fascinating stuff! Thanks! Jim

You're most welcome Jim I enjoying making the forum aware of your egomania.You wrote:

"no one I know, including me, would make the exaggerated claims that you attribute to me."

Not only were you wrong but post hoc changed "exaggerated claims" to "a bold statement!", a classic example of cognitive dissonance.

Edited January 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

What made it great was the brilliance of John Costella,

Oh yea, John is brilliant allright...if you consider a PhD in Physics who can screw up the basic physics of Photographic Parallax brilliant!

And lets also mention all the others united in brilliance at that conference who missed John's rookie mistake and to this day still can't bring themselves to the intellectually honest position of admiting Johns error.

John's brilliance exposed!