Disinfortmation Agents

[Josiah Thompson]

I think you're very close to hitting the nail on the head, Gary.

Sometime ago on another board, Bill Kelly quoted a technical definition of "disinformation agent." If memory serves, Kelly said it is a term specifically developed to cover false information disseminated by the KGB. He cited a particular word in Russian which was used by the KGB for this sort of thing --- "dezinformaya" --- or something like that. Consequently, it has made the jump to English and means misinformation of some sort disseminated by an intelligence agency. The bogus Lee Harvey Oswald letter to Mr. Hunt, earlier mentioned in this thread, would be a perfect example of this.

In Kennedy assassination circles, it is used by James Fetzer, Ph.D., to smear those who disagree with him. He had a whole bogus scholarly template put together with varying levels of "disinformation" and then topped it off with some quotes about CIA use of journalists and others to spread "disinformation." I think Fetzer even claimed that some benighted journalist for a Milwaukee paper who said only Fetzer's relatives would be interested in Fetzer's book was carrying out some sort of "hit piece" for an intelligence agency. I am proud to be named among those opponents of Fetzer who were called "disinformaiton agents." It's probably libelous because it means an agent of an intelligence agency who under orders of the agency spreads misinformation. But given Fetzer's identity, who cares.

I'm trying to remember if Jack White has ever referred to me or others as "disinformation agents." I believe Mr. White's favorite term for those who disagree with him is "provocateur."

Having often been the victim of them, I find ad hominem attacks unnecessary and degrading to the people who make them.  In logic courses, an ad hominem attack is considered a logical fallacy.

Having just seen (on the Chauncey Holt forum) someone else being accused of being a "disinformation agent" (and having posted a joke about the definition of such) I thought a serious discussion of same might be in order.

I do not think one necessarily needs to be paid to be a disinformation agent.  Moreover, even if one is paid for writing the truth, that would not constitute him or her a disinformation agent (else all professional writers would be so classified).

There are two types of information: fact and opinion.  I do not think that any post that constitutes an opinion would fall into the category of "disinformation".  If the author of the post was pursuing an agenda, and did not honestly believe the opinion, he or she would be being intellectually dishonest but I do not think that is technically information.

To be technically accurate, I would submit only a primary source could be a disinformation agent.  A primary source (even to include I would say an author who reports on an interview he or she conducted) would be a disinformation agent if he or she deliberately and dishonestly reported something.

If someone posts a fact developed by another, that can hardly constitute being a disinformation agent even if the information is false.  For one thing, how would the poster even know it was false?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There ARE disinformation agents. They fall into these categories:

1. WITTING

a. paid agents who are employed to spread false information or propaganda

b. political agents whose actions are based on party loyalty (Swiftboat Veterans)

c. persons with personal or pecuniary agendas (right/left wingers and authors)

d. contrarians, who just like obstructionism

2. UNWITTING

a. persons with mistaken but sincere beliefs, like space enthusiasts

b. persons employed by groups with an agenda, like NASA or the CIA, etc.

c. persons employed by certain media

d. persons who have not examined the evidence

e. persons who believe what they see on TV or read in the media

It is far more complex than this. Each case must be considered on its

evidence...for instance James Files or Judyth Baker, and the people

promoting such stories.

Jack

I think your definition of disinformation agent is too broad. It would cover just about anyone--or at least anyone one disagrees with. "People with mistaken but sincere beliefs?" I would put you in that category, regarding your Apollo Hoax ideas, as I suppose you would me. But I would not call that disinformation. There is a difference between disinformation and misinformation. Here is a definition of disinformation I grabbed off the internet:

1.Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: "He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service" (Ken Follett).

2.Dissemination of such misleading information.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

I would disagree with Gary's point #2 unless the adjective "knowing" is included.

Example the KGB disinformation "Oswald letter to Mr. Hunt". All of the assassination authors who wrote about that letter were not KGB disinformation agents.

I would think a disinformation agent would be someone who knows a goverrnment or intelligence agency has propogated a lie and nevertheless speads it.

I know that during the Cold War both the KGB and the CIA spread disinformation. The Winston Churchill quote comes to mind (I think I can get it approximately correct): In war truth is so precious it must always be protected by a bodyguard of lies.

[Josiah Thompson]

Well put, Tim. It would seem that a "disinformation agent" is someone in the pay of an intelligence agency who knowingly disseminates false information. Would that agree with your definition.

I would disagree with Gary's point #2 unless the adjective "knowing" is included.

Example the KGB disinformation "Oswald letter to Mr. Hunt".  All of the assassination authors who wrote about that letter were not KGB disinformation agents.

I would think a disinformation agent would be someone who knows a goverrnment or intelligence agency has propogated a lie and nevertheless speads it.

I know that during the Cold War both the KGB and the CIA spread disinformation.  The Winston Churchill quote comes to mind (I think I can get it approximately correct):  In war truth is so precious it must always be protected by a bodyguard of lies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Tim Gratz]

Absolutely.

I totally agree that your earlier post that the term is often used to smear people who disagree with their theory of the assassination.

Once, on this Forum, several months ago, someone claimed that when you were working on the assassination for "Life" magazine it was not a serious attempt to solve the assassination (because "Life" was supposedly under the control of the CIA). I recall that "Life" was one of the first major media to raise questions about the Warren Commission. I am sure many people in the US first began to doubt the Warren Commission because of "Life" magazine.

It is unfortunate that issues cannot be debated on their merits without the need to impugn people's motives.

At the same time I would grant the possibility that disinformation had been generated to stall or sidetrack investigations.

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn wrote:

That you would state that even Posner is not PURPOSEFUL disinformation is one more reason your motives are thought to be less than sincere. I mean come on, Posner defines this term. If not him then WHO???

Dawn, by my definition Posner cannot be a disinformation agent because all he does is argue his opinion and interpretation of events. He does not claim a personal knowledge of any of the facts in his book. Clearly he presents his facts as an advocate of his lone assassin theory.

But it is wrong to assume that an intelligent person cannot believe Oswald was the lone assassin (as strange as that seems to us).

Recently Jefferson Morley wrote (in a different thread):

I don't want to cast aspersions on people who believe there is no proof that any named person besides Oswald was involved in the crime. They are correct.

Surely you do not think Morley is a disinformation agent, even if he works for the Washington Post? (He is critical of his paper's coverage of recent developments in the case.)

It seems strange to me that so many of the advocates of a vast government conspiracy seem so wont to attack the motives of those with whom they disagree. I don't think it as as reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy as it is reminiscent of the thought processes of the John Birch Society which often theorized from the effects of a person's decisions that the person must be a Communist. One who does not subscribe to the vast conspiracy viewpoint could just as easily argue that those who do are motivated solely by an irrational hatred of the establishment, but I do not see such attacks by people who do not subscribe to your views.

I think it is wrong to attack a person's motives absent proof of any bad faith. We need to understand that reasonable minds subscribe to almost all theories of the assassination, and probably 99% do so in good faith.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I think you're very close to hitting the nail on the head, Gary.

Sometime ago on another board, Bill Kelly quoted a technical definition of "disinformation agent."  If memory serves, Kelly said it is a term specifically developed to cover false information disseminated by the KGB.  He cited a particular word in Russian which was used by the KGB for this sort of thing --- "dezinformaya"  ---  or something like that.  Consequently, it has made the jump to English and means misinformation of some sort disseminated by an intelligence agency.  The bogus Lee Harvey Oswald letter to Mr. Hunt, earlier mentioned in this thread, would be a perfect example of this.

In Kennedy assassination circles, it is used by James Fetzer, Ph.D., to smear those who disagree with him.  He had a whole bogus scholarly template put together with varying levels of "disinformation" and then topped it off with some quotes about CIA use of journalists and others to spread "disinformation."  I think Fetzer even claimed that some benighted journalist for a Milwaukee paper who said only Fetzer's relatives would be interested in Fetzer's book was carrying out some sort of "hit piece" for an intelligence agency.  I am proud to be named among those opponents of Fetzer who were called "disinformaiton agents."  It's probably libelous because it means an agent of an intelligence agency who under orders of the agency spreads misinformation.  But given Fetzer's identity, who cares.

I'm trying to remember if Jack White has ever referred to me or others as "disinformation agents."  I believe Mr. White's favorite term for those who disagree with him is "provocateur."

Having often been the victim of them, I find ad hominem attacks unnecessary and degrading to the people who make them.  In logic courses, an ad hominem attack is considered a logical fallacy.

Having just seen (on the Chauncey Holt forum) someone else being accused of being a "disinformation agent" (and having posted a joke about the definition of such) I thought a serious discussion of same might be in order.

I do not think one necessarily needs to be paid to be a disinformation agent.  Moreover, even if one is paid for writing the truth, that would not constitute him or her a disinformation agent (else all professional writers would be so classified).

There are two types of information: fact and opinion.  I do not think that any post that constitutes an opinion would fall into the category of "disinformation".  If the author of the post was pursuing an agenda, and did not honestly believe the opinion, he or she would be being intellectually dishonest but I do not think that is technically information.

To be technically accurate, I would submit only a primary source could be a disinformation agent.  A primary source (even to include I would say an author who reports on an interview he or she conducted) would be a disinformation agent if he or she deliberately and dishonestly reported something.

If someone posts a fact developed by another, that can hardly constitute being a disinformation agent even if the information is false.  For one thing, how would the poster even know it was false?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There ARE disinformation agents. They fall into these categories:

1. WITTING

a. paid agents who are employed to spread false information or propaganda

b. political agents whose actions are based on party loyalty (Swiftboat Veterans)

c. persons with personal or pecuniary agendas (right/left wingers and authors)

d. contrarians, who just like obstructionism

2. UNWITTING

a. persons with mistaken but sincere beliefs, like space enthusiasts

b. persons employed by groups with an agenda, like NASA or the CIA, etc.

c. persons employed by certain media

d. persons who have not examined the evidence

e. persons who believe what they see on TV or read in the media

It is far more complex than this. Each case must be considered on its

evidence...for instance James Files or Judyth Baker, and the people

promoting such stories.

Jack

I think your definition of disinformation agent is too broad. It would cover just about anyone--or at least anyone one disagrees with. "People with mistaken but sincere beliefs?" I would put you in that category, regarding your Apollo Hoax ideas, as I suppose you would me. But I would not call that disinformation. There is a difference between disinformation and misinformation. Here is a definition of disinformation I grabbed off the internet:

1.Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: "He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service" (Ken Follett).

2.Dissemination of such misleading information.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Personally,

I would by far, rather be referred to as an "intelligence operative", than as an "un-intelligent operative".

Of which there are many!

Tom

[David G. Healy]

Tim Gratz wrote:

[...]

I recall that "Life" was one of the first major media to raise questions about the Warren Commission. I am sure many people in the US first began to doubt the Warren Commission because of "Life" magazine.

[...]

Can you cite ANY main stream USofA media that've raised questions about the accuracy, and/or the WC investigation as a whole?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Once, on this Forum, several months ago, someone claimed that when you were working on the assassination for "Life" magazine it was not a serious attempt to solve the assassination (because "Life" was supposedly under the control of the CIA).  I recall that "Life" was one of the first major media to raise questions about the Warren Commission.  I am sure many people in the US first began to doubt the Warren Commission because of "Life" magazine.

Much of that "doubt" was caused by LIFE's own foolishness and sleight of hand. 

*  This would be the same LIFE that airbrushed the backyard photo that ran on its cover, in order to enhance the speculation that Oswald was holding the murder weapons in those pix. 

*  This was the same LIFE that transposed critical Z-film frames, in precisely the same fashion as did the WC, in order to falsely corrupt any critical analysis of their pictorial contents. 

*  This was the same LIFE that fought tooth and nail in court to ensure that a Z-film copy pilfered by its own contractee, Josiah Thompson, wouldn't appear in his book, nor would allow him to use illustrations of those Z-film frames.  Why not ask Tink his opinion on how sincere LIFE was about revealing the truth about the assassination?  He had a front-row seat for LIFE's struggle against the truth ever being revealed.

*  This is the same LIFE that fought tooth and nail in court to prevent Jim Garrison being granted access to what was thought to be the most vital piece of evidence in the assassination.

*  This is the same LIFE magazine that attempted to rationalize two contrary facts - Parkland assertions of a throat wound being one of entry, though sustained after JFK had passed the shooter - by falsely declaring as fact that the President had turned around to wave to well-wishers, thereby giving an assassin to his rear the chance to hit him in the front.

*  This is the same LIFE that financially subsidized CIA-backed anti-Castro exiles and sponsored CIA-backed raids upon that country.

Yet you assure us that LIFE was key in trying to educate the public on the "facts" of the assassination, while mocking the demonstrable truth that it was, for all intents and purposes, in CIA's pocket.  Dear boy, you grow more laughable by the day.

It is unfortunate that issues cannot be debated on their merits without the need to impugn people's motives.

What is unfortunate is that even at this late date, certain people make it their daily business to assure others that xxxxe is actually Chanel No. 5.  And when called on their nonsense, resort to ad hominem attacks on the "intelligence" of their detractors, while nevertheless feigning a pout over how unfortunate it is "that issues cannot be debated on their merits without the need to impugn people's motives."

If people choose to live in a state of perpetual ignorance, that is their business.  When they insist that others cohabit in that state with them, they become a danger to history and democracy. 

At the same time I would grant the possibility that disinformation had been generated to stall or sidetrack investigations.

"The possibility.....?"  My, how astonishingly liberal of you to even consider the concept.....  D'ya think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 25, 2005 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote=Robert Charles-Dunne,Sep 25 2005, 05:25 PM]

Once, on this Forum, several months ago, someone claimed that when you were working on the assassination for "Life" magazine it was not a serious attempt to solve the assassination (because "Life" was supposedly under the control of the CIA). I recall that "Life" was one of the first major media to raise questions about the Warren Commission. I am sure many people in the US first began to doubt the Warren Commission because of "Life" magazine.

Much of that "doubt" was caused by LIFE's own foolishness and sleight of hand.

* This would be the same LIFE that airbrushed the backyard photo that ran on its cover, in order to enhance the speculation that Oswald was holding the murder weapons in those pix.

* This was the same LIFE that transposed critical Z-film frames, in precisely the same fashion as did the WC, in order to falsely corrupt any critical analysis of their pictorial contents.

* This was the same LIFE that fought tooth and nail in court to ensure that a Z-film copy pilfered by its own contractee, Josiah Thompson, wouldn't appear in his book, nor would allow him to use illustrations of those Z-film frames. Why not ask Tink his opinion on how sincere LIFE was about revealing the truth about the assassination? He had a front-row seat for LIFE's struggle against the truth ever being revealed.

* This is the same LIFE that fought tooth and nail in court to prevent Jim Garrison being granted access to what was thought to be the most vital piece of evidence in the assassination.

* This is the same LIFE magazine that attempted to rationalize two contrary facts - Parkland assertions of a throat wound being one of entry, though sustained after JFK had passed the shooter - by falsely declaring as fact that the President had turned around to wave to well-wishers, thereby giving an assassin to his rear the chance to hit him in the front.

* This is the same LIFE that financially subsidized CIA-backed anti-Castro exiles and sponsored CIA-backed raids upon that country.

Yet you assure us that LIFE was key in trying to educate the public on the "facts" of the assassination, while mocking the demonstrable truth that it was, for all intents and purposes, in CIA's pocket. Dear boy, you grow more laughable by the day.

It is unfortunate that issues cannot be debated on their merits without the need to impugn people's motives.

What is unfortunate is that even at this late date, certain people make it their daily business to assure others that xxxxe is actually Chanel No. 5. And when called on their nonsense, resort to ad hominem attacks on the "intelligence" of their detractors, while nevertheless feigning a pout over how unfortunate it is "that issues cannot be debated on their merits without the need to impugn people's motives."

If people choose to live in a state of perpetual ignorance, that is their business. When they insist that others cohabit in that state with them, they become a danger to history and democracy.

At the same time I would grant the possibility that disinformation had been generated to stall or sidetrack investigations.

"The possibility.....?" My, how astonishingly liberal of you to even consider the concept..... D'ya think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Robert: Please don't stay gone so long. This forum needs your imput to keep its members honest. (Even when they are not).

Good to be reminded also that, inspite of his "6 Seconds In Dalls" Dr. Thompson has a rather inconsistant past.

Dawn

[Josiah Thompson]

All I can do is tell you what I recall about those days working at LIFE. A fuller account can be found in Richard Trask’s very excellent new book, National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, 2005) pages 363-366.

In October 1966, I met with Loudon Wainwright, Dick Billings and Ed Kern in the Time/Life Building. I never saw Wainwright again but Kern, Billings and I were very closely over the next couple of months. In Dallas, we were helped by Patsy Swank, LIFE’s Dallas stringer.

On November 25, 1966, an issue of LIFE carried a black cover with Zapruder frame 230 centered on it. The cover asked in type that got progressively larger: “Amid controversy over the Warren Report Governor Connally examines for LIFE the Kennedy assassination film frame by frame... Did Oswald Act Alone? A MATTER OF REASONABLE DOUBT.” As far as I know, this article was the first break in a virtual chorus of support from the establishment media for the Warren Report.

In the months I worked with Kern and Billings on the Kennedy case, I never got a whiff of any attempt to look the other way or not pursue the investigation aggressively. When I wanted to talk with Dr. Boswell or Dr. Gregory, this was quickly worked out. Look at CE 399 and other evidence in the Archives? Sure. Interview witnesses like Bill and Gayle Newman or Marilyn Sitzman? You bet. Spend some time with S.M. “Skinny” Holland? Sure thing.

At this time, there was blood in the water on this story. Any journalist would have given his right arm to break open the Kennedy case. Both in Dallas and New York we heard rumors that the New York Times had a ten or twelve investigator team in the field. I think we all felt that this case was about to break open and we wanted to be the people who did it. There was absolutely no attempt on the part of the management of LIFE to influence or restrict what we did.

On the other hand, I thought we had a stronger case than the one that got published on November 25th. However, I don’t see this as an effect of senior management at LIFE trying to water down the story. At that time, the practice of what has been called “committee journalism” at LIFE and TIME meant that something like a dozen people had to sign off on our article. Institutionally, that sort of requirement leads necessarily to a watering down of the product. “My God, what if we’re wrong about this?” I can hear some middle-level editor asking. The article could have been longer and it could have been more hard-hitting. But neither of these effects resulted from management trying to cover up the truth. If they had wanted to do that, they wouldn’t have shown Connally the Zapruder film in the first place. They wouldn’t have had him pick out the frame when he was hit after Kennedy had been hit and thus kayo the single-bullet theory.

The following June, Berney Geis and I attempted to get permission to use frames from the film in Six Seconds. At the same time CBS News wanted to use it in their four-part documentary. We offered Time Inc. all commercial interest in the book.... that is, all author’s royalties and all publisher’s profits. The Time Inc. Board of Directors turned down both CBS and us. Geis and I consulted Doug Hamilton, a law professor at Columbia who recommended that we use artist’s renderings and not the frames themselves. That’s what we did. To this day, I think the turndown from the Time Inc. board flowed from the complexity of their business interest in the film and not from any attempt to suppress it.

With regard to the other incidents and claims Mr. Dunne makes, I wasn’t at LIFE at the time so I have no inside knowledge at all.

Mr. Dunne also mentions “a Z-film copy pilfered [from LIFE] by its own contractee, Josiah Thompson.” This is rather mild. James Fetzer, Ph.D., is claiming right now on another thread on this site (the one devoted to his silly book on the Wellstone crash) that my “stealing”the Zapruder film had something to do with me leaving Haverford twelve years later.

Actually, I’m rather proud of making copy of the Zapruder film in the Time/Life Building in November of 1966. I’m happy to take credit for it and have done it again and again. I testified before the ARRB about it. I offered an oral history about it for the Sixth Floor Museum’s oral history. Finally, I published an account of it in Richard Trask’s new book on the Zapruder film. If there was anything about it that reflected badly on me, I probably should have shut up. But I didn’t. In any case, the reader can judge for himself/herself whether there was anything morally demeaning in what I did. Here’s what happened as drawn from Trask’s new book:

“Early November 1966 I flew to Dallas and met Kern and Billings and Patsy Swank there. [swank was a LIFE stringer who had originally let magazine personnel know about the existence of the Zapruder film.] Using 4" by 5" transparencies, we interviewed Dr. Charles Gregory who in 1963 had treated the wounded Governor John Connally. We returned to the hotel leaving the transparencies with Henry Suydam, LIFE’s Miami bureau chief. We returned from dinner to the hotel room. I said I’d like to study the transparencies and take them to my room. Before leaving the room, I inventoried the stack of transparencies and found that four (in the 230s) were missing. They were present there when we showed the transparencies to Dr. Gregory. I left the stack in the room. I learned subsequently that the next morning Ed Kern distracted Henry Suydam while Billings searched Suydam’s room. The missing transparencies were not found.”

“Mid-November 1966 I didn’t know what was going on. I suspected that there was some power struggle at LIFE in motion, but I had not a clue what it was about and who was on what side. I decided that it would be an extremely good idea for a good copy of the relevant frames to exist outside the Time-Life Building. I put a 35 mm camera with a copying stand and 15 or so rolls of film in my brief case and went up to New York on the Thursday or Friday before the issue entitled “A Matter of Reasonable Doubt” closed. Kern and Billings left by about 5:00 PM. I stayed. I set up my copying stand over the light table in Kern’s office and started copying the 4" by 5" transparencies. Kern came back and said, “What’re you doing, Tink?” I replied, “I’m copying some frames from the goddam film. I need to study them down in Philadelphia.” Kern said nothing and then left. I spent the next two hours or so copying the remaining frames until my film was exhausted. We learned in the lawsuit [later filed by Time Inc.] that the following Monday Kern told the editor of LIFE, George Hunt, that he had come back and found me copying the film. Hunt later signed a consultancy contract with me which legally gave me permission to have a copy for my own research use. “

National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film by Richard B. Trask (Danvers, Massachusettes: Yeoman Press, 2005), pages 364-365.

Once, on this Forum, several months ago, someone claimed that when you were working on the assassination for "Life" magazine it was not a serious attempt to solve the assassination (because "Life" was supposedly under the control of the CIA).  I recall that "Life" was one of the first major media to raise questions about the Warren Commission.  I am sure many people in the US first began to doubt the Warren Commission because of "Life" magazine.

Much of that "doubt" was caused by LIFE's own foolishness and sleight of hand. 

*  This would be the same LIFE that airbrushed the backyard photo that ran on its cover, in order to enhance the speculation that Oswald was holding the murder weapons in those pix. 

*  This was the same LIFE that transposed critical Z-film frames, in precisely the same fashion as did the WC, in order to falsely corrupt any critical analysis of their pictorial contents. 

*  This was the same LIFE that fought tooth and nail in court to ensure that a Z-film copy pilfered by its own contractee, Josiah Thompson, wouldn't appear in his book, nor would allow him to use illustrations of those Z-film frames.  Why not ask Tink his opinion on how sincere LIFE was about revealing the truth about the assassination?  He had a front-row seat for LIFE's struggle against the truth ever being revealed.

*  This is the same LIFE that fought tooth and nail in court to prevent Jim Garrison being granted access to what was thought to be the most vital piece of evidence in the assassination.

*  This is the same LIFE magazine that attempted to rationalize two contrary facts - Parkland assertions of a throat wound being one of entry, though sustained after JFK had passed the shooter - by falsely declaring as fact that the President had turned around to wave to well-wishers, thereby giving an assassin to his rear the chance to hit him in the front.

*  This is the same LIFE that financially subsidized CIA-backed anti-Castro exiles and sponsored CIA-backed raids upon that country.

Yet you assure us that LIFE was key in trying to educate the public on the "facts" of the assassination, while mocking the demonstrable truth that it was, for all intents and purposes, in CIA's pocket.  Dear boy, you grow more laughable by the day.

It is unfortunate that issues cannot be debated on their merits without the need to impugn people's motives.

What is unfortunate is that even at this late date, certain people make it their daily business to assure others that xxxxe is actually Chanel No. 5.  And when called on their nonsense, resort to ad hominem attacks on the "intelligence" of their detractors, while nevertheless feigning a pout over how unfortunate it is "that issues cannot be debated on their merits without the need to impugn people's motives."

If people choose to live in a state of perpetual ignorance, that is their business.  When they insist that others cohabit in that state with them, they become a danger to history and democracy. 

At the same time I would grant the possibility that disinformation had been generated to stall or sidetrack investigations.

"The possibility.....?"  My, how astonishingly liberal of you to even consider the concept.....  D'ya think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Josiah Thompson]

[quote=Robert Charles-Dunne,Sep 25 2005, 05:25 PM]

Once, on this Forum, several months ago, someone claimed that when you were working on the assassination for "Life" magazine it was not a serious attempt to solve the assassination (because "Life" was supposedly under the control of the CIA). I recall that "Life" was one of the first major media to raise questions about the Warren Commission. I am sure many people in the US first began to doubt the Warren Commission because of "Life" magazine.

Much of that "doubt" was caused by LIFE's own foolishness and sleight of hand.

* This would be the same LIFE that airbrushed the backyard photo that ran on its cover, in order to enhance the speculation that Oswald was holding the murder weapons in those pix.

* This was the same LIFE that transposed critical Z-film frames, in precisely the same fashion as did the WC, in order to falsely corrupt any critical analysis of their pictorial contents.

* This was the same LIFE that fought tooth and nail in court to ensure that a Z-film copy pilfered by its own contractee, Josiah Thompson, wouldn't appear in his book, nor would allow him to use illustrations of those Z-film frames. Why not ask Tink his opinion on how sincere LIFE was about revealing the truth about the assassination? He had a front-row seat for LIFE's struggle against the truth ever being revealed.

* This is the same LIFE that fought tooth and nail in court to prevent Jim Garrison being granted access to what was thought to be the most vital piece of evidence in the assassination.

* This is the same LIFE magazine that attempted to rationalize two contrary facts - Parkland assertions of a throat wound being one of entry, though sustained after JFK had passed the shooter - by falsely declaring as fact that the President had turned around to wave to well-wishers, thereby giving an assassin to his rear the chance to hit him in the front.

* This is the same LIFE that financially subsidized CIA-backed anti-Castro exiles and sponsored CIA-backed raids upon that country.

Yet you assure us that LIFE was key in trying to educate the public on the "facts" of the assassination, while mocking the demonstrable truth that it was, for all intents and purposes, in CIA's pocket. Dear boy, you grow more laughable by the day.

It is unfortunate that issues cannot be debated on their merits without the need to impugn people's motives.

What is unfortunate is that even at this late date, certain people make it their daily business to assure others that xxxxe is actually Chanel No. 5. And when called on their nonsense, resort to ad hominem attacks on the "intelligence" of their detractors, while nevertheless feigning a pout over how unfortunate it is "that issues cannot be debated on their merits without the need to impugn people's motives."

If people choose to live in a state of perpetual ignorance, that is their business. When they insist that others cohabit in that state with them, they become a danger to history and democracy.

At the same time I would grant the possibility that disinformation had been generated to stall or sidetrack investigations.

"The possibility.....?" My, how astonishingly liberal of you to even consider the concept..... D'ya think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Robert: Please don't stay gone so long. This forum needs your imput to keep its members honest. (Even when they are not).

Good to be reminded also that, inspite of his "6 Seconds In Dalls" Dr. Thompson has a rather inconsistant past.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Josiah Thompson]

"Good to be reminded also that, inspite of his "6 Seconds In Dalls" Dr. Thompson has a rather inconsistant past."

Ms. Meredith, perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me what you have in mind with the phrase "a rather inconsistent past."

[quote=Robert Charles-Dunne,Sep 25 2005, 05:25 PM]

Once, on this Forum, several months ago, someone claimed that when you were working on the assassination for "Life" magazine it was not a serious attempt to solve the assassination (because "Life" was supposedly under the control of the CIA). I recall that "Life" was one of the first major media to raise questions about the Warren Commission. I am sure many people in the US first began to doubt the Warren Commission because of "Life" magazine.

Much of that "doubt" was caused by LIFE's own foolishness and sleight of hand.

* This would be the same LIFE that airbrushed the backyard photo that ran on its cover, in order to enhance the speculation that Oswald was holding the murder weapons in those pix.

* This was the same LIFE that transposed critical Z-film frames, in precisely the same fashion as did the WC, in order to falsely corrupt any critical analysis of their pictorial contents.

* This was the same LIFE that fought tooth and nail in court to ensure that a Z-film copy pilfered by its own contractee, Josiah Thompson, wouldn't appear in his book, nor would allow him to use illustrations of those Z-film frames. Why not ask Tink his opinion on how sincere LIFE was about revealing the truth about the assassination? He had a front-row seat for LIFE's struggle against the truth ever being revealed.

* This is the same LIFE that fought tooth and nail in court to prevent Jim Garrison being granted access to what was thought to be the most vital piece of evidence in the assassination.

* This is the same LIFE magazine that attempted to rationalize two contrary facts - Parkland assertions of a throat wound being one of entry, though sustained after JFK had passed the shooter - by falsely declaring as fact that the President had turned around to wave to well-wishers, thereby giving an assassin to his rear the chance to hit him in the front.

* This is the same LIFE that financially subsidized CIA-backed anti-Castro exiles and sponsored CIA-backed raids upon that country.

Yet you assure us that LIFE was key in trying to educate the public on the "facts" of the assassination, while mocking the demonstrable truth that it was, for all intents and purposes, in CIA's pocket. Dear boy, you grow more laughable by the day.

It is unfortunate that issues cannot be debated on their merits without the need to impugn people's motives.

What is unfortunate is that even at this late date, certain people make it their daily business to assure others that xxxxe is actually Chanel No. 5. And when called on their nonsense, resort to ad hominem attacks on the "intelligence" of their detractors, while nevertheless feigning a pout over how unfortunate it is "that issues cannot be debated on their merits without the need to impugn people's motives."

If people choose to live in a state of perpetual ignorance, that is their business. When they insist that others cohabit in that state with them, they become a danger to history and democracy.

At the same time I would grant the possibility that disinformation had been generated to stall or sidetrack investigations.

"The possibility.....?" My, how astonishingly liberal of you to even consider the concept..... D'ya think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Robert: Please don't stay gone so long. This forum needs your imput to keep its members honest. (Even when they are not).

Good to be reminded also that, inspite of his "6 Seconds In Dalls" Dr. Thompson has a rather inconsistant past.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

With regard to the other incidents and claims Mr. Dunne makes, I wasn’t at LIFE at the time so I have no inside knowledge at all.

Mr. Dunne also mentions “a Z-film copy pilfered [from LIFE] by its own contractee, Josiah Thompson.”  This is rather mild.  James Fetzer, Ph.D., is claiming right now on another thread on this site (the one devoted to his silly book on the Wellstone crash) that my “stealing”the Zapruder film had something to do with me leaving Haverford twelve years later.

Actually, I’m rather proud of making copy of the Zapruder film in the Time/Life Building in November of 1966.  I’m happy to take credit for it and have done it again and again.  I testified before the ARRB about it.  I offered an oral history about it for the Sixth Floor Museum’s oral history.  Finally, I published an account of it in Richard Trask’s new book on the Zapruder film.  If there was anything about it that reflected badly on me, I probably should have shut up.  But I didn’t.  In any case, the reader can judge for himself/herself whether there was anything morally demeaning in what I did. 

Not at all, Tink.  If my wording was "mild," it was because I find nothing immoral about your actions at all.  Like all others who read "6 Seconds," I was thrilled that you had done so. 

However, that you felt the necessity to "liberate" a copy of the film's key frames demonstrates precisely what I had wished to draw to Tim Gratz's attention: far from being impartial seekers of a noble truth, LIFE did all in its power to ensure that its own readers would never seen the critical frames in their proper order; not even in their own august periodical, let alone in some book that called LIFE's own prior assertions into question.

I also am glad that you mentioned Ed Kern, Tink.  Vince Salandria, whom Tim Gratz has called all but insane in past posts, reached a far less benign conclusion about LIFE's motivations than you have done.  The following is an excerpt from a COPA symposium speech given by Vince, and I think it helps illustrate precisely the point I was raising for Tim Gratz's benefit:

We will now relate how Life magazine served our military-intelligence community. Time Inc., the owners of Life, bought the rights to the Zapruder film in 1963 and withheld it from public viewing. Please pardon me for not believing that this censorship was designed to enlighten our people. We shall see that Life both censored the Zapruder film and lied about its contents. In its September 6, 1964 issue Life sought to explain away the wound in President Kennedy's neck as follows:

...it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm. film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed --- toward the sniper's nest- -just before he clutches it.

But we now know that the Zapruder film tells us that the President did not turn his body far around to the right, and that his throat was not exposed toward the alleged sniper's nest. So Life was not only censoring the Zapruder film, but while having it in its sole possession, was lying about its content and therefore obstructing justice through censorship and falsification of the Zapruder film's content.

My October 2nd, 1964 issue of Life magazine contained a color reproduction of frame 313 of the 8 millimeter Zapruder motion picture showing the moment of bullet impact on President Kennedy's skull. The caption for that Zapruder frame read: "The assassins shot struck the right rear portion of the President's skull, causing a massive wound and snapping of his head to one side." To me it appeared that striking a head from the rear and causing it to snap to one side ran counter to a Newton law of motion. So, I decided to collect oher copies of the same issue of Life.

In the next copy I acquired I found that Life had changed the caption to read: "The direction from which shots came was established by this picture taken at instant bullet struck the rear of the President's head, and passing through, caused the front part of his skull to explode forward." But in this copy of the magazine Life had changed the Zapruder frame to a later one which showed that the President's whole body had been driven not only leftward but also backwards against the back seat of the limousine by a shot supposedly fired from the rear. That frame with that caption impressed me as causing even more difficulty for the Warren Report.

The next copy of Life that I found put together the exploding-forward caption with Zapruder frame 313. Life finally got the deception right. I reported these findings in my March, 1965 articles in Liberation magazine.

Later, in 1966, I inquired of Life about the three versions of the same issue. Edward Kern, a Life editor, replied in a letter to me dated November 28, 1966. In his reply he said: "I am at a loss to explain the discrepancies between the three versions of LIFE which you cite. I've heard of breaking a plate to correct an error. Ive never heard of doing it twice for a single issue, much less a single story."

Well, unlike Edward Kern, I was not at a loss to explain the three versions. To me the three versions of Life and Life's lies about what the Zapruder film revealed show in microcosm an elegant example of how the U.S. media criminally joined with U.S. governmental civilian personages, and with the national security state apparatus to employ deceit in seeking to prop up the Warren Report.

Henry R. Luce created Life magazine. He was an ardent Cold Warrior having championed the American Century and having lobbied for the National Security Act of 1947. His widow, Claire Booth Luce, was a former member of the House of Representatives and a former ambassador to Italy. She was one of Allen Dulles' lovers. In his book, The Last Investigation, my dear friend, Gaeton Fonzi, who worked for U.S. Senator Richard Schweiker while the Senator was investigating the Kennedy assassination, told how Claire Booth Luce lead them on a wild goose chase. She effectively used up their governmentally-paid-for time by sending them on a fruitless search for fanciful persons.

Congressman Gerald R. Ford, who had been a Warren Commissioner, and who was later to become President, signed that October 2, 1964 Life article. He concluded this article with the following statement: "This report is the truth as we see it, as best we know it, and on this, we rest."

The three versions of Life demonstrate clearly the criminal conspiratorial joining together of the U.S. intelligence community, the civilian aspects of our government, and our media to support the Warren Report. They were and still are all in bed together.

If Tim Gratz still believes LIFE magazine to have been an impartial and objective observer/reporter of events, rather than a dedicated accessory to the crime after the fact, it is only because he knows nothing about LIFE, its history, or its deeds.  Which hardly makes LIFE a unique topic; it's only one of multitude of topics about which he knows nothing, but about which he concludes much.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[John Dolva]

With regard to the other incidents and claims Mr. Dunne makes, I wasn’t at LIFE at the time so I have no inside knowledge at all.

Mr. Dunne also mentions “a Z-film copy pilfered [from LIFE] by its own contractee, Josiah Thompson.”  This is rather mild.  James Fetzer, Ph.D., is claiming right now on another thread on this site (the one devoted to his silly book on the Wellstone crash) that my “stealing”the Zapruder film had something to do with me leaving Haverford twelve years later.

Actually, I’m rather proud of making copy of the Zapruder film in the Time/Life Building in November of 1966.   I’m happy to take credit for it and have done it again and again.  I testified before the ARRB about it.  I offered an oral history about it for the Sixth Floor Museum’s oral history.  Finally, I published an account of it in Richard Trask’s new book on the Zapruder film.  If there was anything about it that reflected badly on me, I probably should have shut up.  But I didn’t.  In any case, the reader can judge for himself/herself whether there was anything morally demeaning in what I did. 

Not at all, Tink.  If my wording was "mild," it was because I find nothing immoral about your actions at all.  Like all others who read "6 Seconds," I was thrilled that you had done so. 

However, that you felt the necessity to "liberate" a copy of the film's key frames demonstrates precisely what I had wished to draw to Tim Gratz's attention: far from being impartial seekers of a noble truth, LIFE did all in its power to ensure that its own readers would never seen the critical frames in their proper order; not even in their own august periodical, let alone in some book that called LIFE's own prior assertions into question.

I also am glad that you mentioned Ed Kern, Tink.  Vince Salandria, whom Tim Gratz has called all but insane in past posts, reached a far less benign conclusion about LIFE's motivations than you have done.  The following is an excerpt from a COPA symposium speech given by Vince, and I think it helps illustrate precisely the point I was raising for Tim Gratz's benefit:

We will now relate how Life magazine served our military-intelligence community. Time Inc., the owners of Life, bought the rights to the Zapruder film in 1963 and withheld it from public viewing. Please pardon me for not believing that this censorship was designed to enlighten our people. We shall see that Life both censored the Zapruder film and lied about its contents. In its September 6, 1964 issue Life sought to explain away the wound in President Kennedy's neck as follows:

...it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm. film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed --- toward the sniper's nest- -just before he clutches it.

But we now know that the Zapruder film tells us that the President did not turn his body far around to the right, and that his throat was not exposed toward the alleged sniper's nest. So Life was not only censoring the Zapruder film, but while having it in its sole possession, was lying about its content and therefore obstructing justice through censorship and falsification of the Zapruder film's content.

My October 2nd, 1964 issue of Life magazine contained a color reproduction of frame 313 of the 8 millimeter Zapruder motion picture showing the moment of bullet impact on President Kennedy's skull. The caption for that Zapruder frame read: "The assassins shot struck the right rear portion of the President's skull, causing a massive wound and snapping of his head to one side." To me it appeared that striking a head from the rear and causing it to snap to one side ran counter to a Newton law of motion. So, I decided to collect oher copies of the same issue of Life.

In the next copy I acquired I found that Life had changed the caption to read: "The direction from which shots came was established by this picture taken at instant bullet struck the rear of the President's head, and passing through, caused the front part of his skull to explode forward." But in this copy of the magazine Life had changed the Zapruder frame to a later one which showed that the President's whole body had been driven not only leftward but also backwards against the back seat of the limousine by a shot supposedly fired from the rear. That frame with that caption impressed me as causing even more difficulty for the Warren Report.

The next copy of Life that I found put together the exploding-forward caption with Zapruder frame 313. Life finally got the deception right. I reported these findings in my March, 1965 articles in Liberation magazine.

Later, in 1966, I inquired of Life about the three versions of the same issue. Edward Kern, a Life editor, replied in a letter to me dated November 28, 1966. In his reply he said: "I am at a loss to explain the discrepancies between the three versions of LIFE which you cite. I've heard of breaking a plate to correct an error. Ive never heard of doing it twice for a single issue, much less a single story."

Well, unlike Edward Kern, I was not at a loss to explain the three versions. To me the three versions of Life and Life's lies about what the Zapruder film revealed show in microcosm an elegant example of how the U.S. media criminally joined with U.S. governmental civilian personages, and with the national security state apparatus to employ deceit in seeking to prop up the Warren Report.

Henry R. Luce created Life magazine. He was an ardent Cold Warrior having championed the American Century and having lobbied for the National Security Act of 1947. His widow, Claire Booth Luce, was a former member of the House of Representatives and a former ambassador to Italy. She was one of Allen Dulles' lovers. In his book, The Last Investigation, my dear friend, Gaeton Fonzi, who worked for U.S. Senator Richard Schweiker while the Senator was investigating the Kennedy assassination, told how Claire Booth Luce lead them on a wild goose chase. She effectively used up their governmentally-paid-for time by sending them on a fruitless search for fanciful persons.

Congressman Gerald R. Ford, who had been a Warren Commissioner, and who was later to become President, signed that October 2, 1964 Life article. He concluded this article with the following statement: "This report is the truth as we see it, as best we know it, and on this, we rest."

The three versions of Life demonstrate clearly the criminal conspiratorial joining together of the U.S. intelligence community, the civilian aspects of our government, and our media to support the Warren Report. They were and still are all in bed together.

If Tim Gratz still believes LIFE magazine to have been an impartial and objective observer/reporter of events, rather than a dedicated accessory to the crime after the fact, it is only because he knows nothing about LIFE, its history, or its deeds.  Which hardly makes LIFE a unique topic; it's only one of multitude of topics about which he knows nothing, but about which he concludes much.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fascinating information, Robert.

Lee described his reason for having so many post boxes as being that it was easier for him to have mail redirected as he moved than to for example notify address changes to subscriptions he had. One magazine he subscribed to was Time. After the assassination, in the post box in the Dealey Plaza Post Office that he had only had for a month or so, Harry the postal Inspector in keeping a close watch on it only found one item in it : A copy of Time with the cottect post box address, not redirected. As it was one of the last issues in that subscription it means that in this instance he DID notify directly of an address change. Wheteher this means anything, I don't know. *

Also, 20 years or so ago I had a friend I've since lost touch with, who had moved to Australia from Indonesia. One thing he told me was of his surprise in reading Australian versions of Time issues he had read in Indonesia just how much he had 'missed out on'.

I'm going go to the local library and check the October issue of the Austaralian or International Time copy this week and see what it says.

EDIT:: * There are from memory 8 cities mentioned as ones where the illegal CIA FBI Postal Inspection Service mail opening operations were happening. One of three that I have seen named is New Orleans.

Given that Lee notified Time magazine of his change of address to Dallas, and that it is extremely likey that his mail was being monitored then it seems reasonable to assume that not only was Lees location on record at Time but also that the agencies were aware of it. This is quite apart from any other (of which there are) indications that they were aware. In other words all up I think it's fair to say that they knew. Whether or not Luce knew of this Time subscription or if the info stayed put in the Time mailing list is another question. Perhaps the fact that no such record has previously been mentioned is an indicator.

Edited September 25, 2005 by John Dolva

[Pat Speer]

Robert, I think you're missing part of the picture. The media botched their initial reporting of the Kennedy assassination so badly that they felt they should play ball with the government to help restore order and confidence in American institutions. By 1966, however, after Weisberg, Epstein and Lane's books were released, the media was kinda split, with some publications wanting to give the critics a fair shake and others wanting to shut them down. The November, 1966 review of the autopsy photos and Boswell's statements were part of the government's response. When Life came out that Thanksgiving with their article on Connally, this shifted the momentum noticeably towards the critics. CBS then contacted McCloy and began strategizing on how to reverse this momentum. This resulted in both the so-called Miliary Review of the autopsy materials, and the CBS 4-part defense of the Warren Commission in June, 67. This defense, by the way, did assert that the WC was wrong about a number of things, including the order of the shots. In late 67. after Thompson's book came out, raising further questions and even gaining the support of the Saturday Evening Post, the government responded withyet another review of the autopsy materials, by what is known as the Clark Panel review. Their report tried to answer some of Thompson's questions by changing the location of the entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's skull, a movement which I believe (and will eventually prove) was a mistake.

So to say the media has always bought and sold the government line is a gross misrepresentation of history. The attitudes' of various networks and publications have changed with the weather. After all, wasn't The Men Who Killed Kennedy shown by a large and wealthy media conglomerate? Wasn't JFK financed and distributed by a large and wealthy media conglomerate? Weren't many of the most influential conspiracy books distributed by mainstream publishers? My take on Life Magazine is that they were all game to push for conspiracy as long as it was a foreign conspiracy, but got gun-shy when Garrison started talking smack about Johnson and the CIA.

The current battle as I see it is not between the research community and the evil government, or the research community and the evil media, but between the research community and itself. As long as the research community is associated in the minds of those in power, i.e. the government and mainstream media, with UFO's. fake moon landings, and rampant paranoia, then JFK research will be treated as such by those in power, i.e. our letters and articles will be inserted into the circular filing cabinet. I was once a record buyer for a large record wholesaler. I would read 30-100 one-sheets a day on upcoming record releases. There were certain buzzwords, particularly on rap releases, that I learned meant the record had no story--i.e. that no one outside the artist's friends would buy it. Those of us within the research community who wish to take our stories beyond the bounds of the CT community need to figure out how to remove those buzzwords from our one-sheet, how to make our story both palatable and credible enough for someone like Mike Wallace to risk his reputation on it.

Edited September 25, 2005 by Pat Speer