Disinfortmation Agents

[Josiah Thompson]

Professor Fetzer's advertisement for himself continues. The only fly in the ointment is that I'm not selling anything. Six Seconds in Dallas has been out-of-print for thirty-five years or so. I just think Professor Fetzer does really bad work and have said so... again and again.

Let's take a look at a couple of things he says in his latest love note.

Fetzer says: "Anyone who read the review by the writer for the Milwaukee paper would notice that he does not even explain the book's principal findings--about the alteration of the autopsy X-rays and the substitution of a brain--but instead trivializes the book's contents in ways that Thompson has endlessly repeated. But, as anyone who has actually read the book (or at least its Preface and Prologue) is aware, I spell out--actually emphasize!--those key findings from the start, which means that he can only have missed them on purpose! There is no other explanation. And I am sure Pat can confirm what I am saying here."

When a reporter reviewed Fetzer's book in the Milwaukee paper, he dumped on it and said Fetzer's family would be about the only readers interested in it. Fetzer immediately charged that the reporter was doing a "hit piece" presumably for some shadowy intelligence agency. His explanation now. The reporter "on purpose" must have neglected to read the "key findings" in the book. This is obviously sinister. Well, wait a minute. How about the more likely chance that the reporter read the book, and, like many others, thought the whole thing was stupid?

I pointed out that my own review of his latest book on Amazon.com was not nearly as harsh as what some other readers said. Fetzer replies: "I have no doubt that Josiah recruits his friends and buddies to put up trash posts on amazon.com. They are so similar I even suspect that they were all written by the same person: Tink himself! So for him to cite them is simply more of the same."

Why would anyone bother? Do I have to deny this latest paranoid fantasy of Fetzer's? Okay, I will. I don't have a clue who any of these folks are who panned his latest book but I admire their discernment. Just for added good measure, I had nothing to do with the three latest books on the Zapruder film which also refer to Fetzer's work pretty much as a joke. The authors are Richard Trask. David R. Wrone and Harrison Livingstone. References to the pages where they dump on Fetzer can be provided on request.

Now a very personal word to Professor Fetzer: Why can't you get used to the fact that the trouble with your work is the work itself and not some evil genius like me conspiring behind the scenes against you? If you'd do a better job, critical people could applaud your work instead of knocking it. I imagine you won't do that. I imagine you'll continue trying to salve your wounded ego with the same old, tired complaints to the ultimate boredom of everyone concerned. It is more than a little revealing that you choose to fling insults here instead to dealing with some very acute criticisms of your Wellstone book on the Education Forum's site for your book. Over there, several people (including an Australian Navy guy with aviation experience) is handing you your hat!

It is a common ploy among propaganda experts to plant a story that conveys

the message they want to spead and then "discover" and "endorse" it.  Anyone

who read the review by the writer for the Milwaukee paper would notice that

he does not even explain the book's principal findings--about the alteration of

the autopsy X-rays and the substitution of a brain--but instead trivializes the

book's contents in ways that Thompson has endlessly repeated.  But, as any-

one who has actually read the book (or at least its Preface and Prologue) is

aware, I spell out--actually emphasize!--those key findings from the start,

which means that he can only have missed them on purpose!  There is no

other explanation.  And I am sure Pat can confirm what I am saying here.

I have no doubt that Josiah recruits his friends and buddies to put up trash

posts on amazon.com. They are so similar I even suspect that they were all

written by the same person:  Tink himself!  So for him to cite them is simply

more of the same.  I am not hurt by his behavior:  I am disgusted by him!

Here's another example of obvious lies and deliberate distortions:  he says,

"I do think that he pretends that people are "experts" when they're not, that

he publishes non-facts as if they were facts and provides a kind of tabloid

quality research to an area which, as Pat points out, is desperately looking

for the real thing."  Anyone who has ever picked up one of my books can

assure you that there is nothing remotely "tabloid" about any of them.  It

is absurd to make this suggestion--so why does he make it?  And the qual-

ifications of my contributors are always published on the CONTRIBUTORS

page.  So why does he make these false, vile, and disgusting comments?

I think the reason is obvious, but it should not be trivialized.  Anyone who

cannot see through this man's duplicitous conduct will never have the least

chance of figuring out what happend to JFK.  If you want to know the state

of the art in 1967, by all means read SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS.  If you

want to know what we know now about the death of JFK, try ASSASSIN-

ATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE

GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).  Of course, you can count on him

to repeat his claim that I am always promoting these books.  Well, that's

certainly true, because, page for page, they present more new discoveries

about the case than any other books ever published.  But please know this,

too.  I do not profit from these books.  I recycle the royalties to support

additional assassination research.  He knows it, but he would never tell

you.  Gee, I wonder why?  Think about it.  Something nasty is going on. 

Just about everything Fetzer posts, turns into an advertisement for himself and his books. 

With respect to Amazon.com, I don't think my own reader's comments are in any way out-of-place or unusual.   The last time I looked 9 out of the 10 most recent reviews knocked Fetzer's latest book badly.  One writer wrote:  "Fetzer, in all of his books, has yet to add anything of real historical value. Within the conspiracy world, Fetzer is a god. Within legitimate academic circles of real historians, he is a carnival con artist. This will eat at him forever." I don't think Fetzer's work qualifies to be that of "a carnival con man."  Such a description is stronger than anything I've ever written about him.  I do think that he pretends that people are "experts" when they're not, that he publishes non-facts as if they were facts and provides a kind of tabloid quality research to an area which, as Pat points out, is desperately looking for the real thing.  Apparently, if the comments on Amazon.com are any indication, a lot of other readers have Fetzer's number.  He'll have to come up with a new conspiracy to explain why these folks knock his products.

Fetzer claims I want to return things to their 1967 basis.  This, of course, is nonsense.  Let me rebut it by pointing out a major mistake I made in "Six Seconds."

I measured there that JFK's head moved forward about two inches between Z312 and Z313.  This forward movement followed by the obvious left, backward snap suggested to me that he had been hit in the head from the rear and then, almost instantaneously, from the right front.  Within the last few years, Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory, was able to show me how this involved a serious mistake in measurement. 

As you all know, Z312 is quite clear while Z313 is smeared from movement of the camera.  Using fairly complicated math, Snyder was able to demonstrate to me that I was measuring the smear on frame Z313 and not the movement of Kennedy's head.  That socalled "two-inch movement" was an illusion; it came from the smear.

David Wimp and Joe Durnavich came to much the same conclusion.  Wimp, however, has gone futher.  He has shown that JFK's head begins moving forward about Z308 and that everyone else in the limousine... Kellerman, Greer, Jackie, Mrs. Connally, John Connally... also begin a moderate movement forward at that time.  After Z314, JFK flips backward and to the left while all the rest continue moving forward.  The explanation:  When Greer turned to look in the back seat at circa Z302 his foot tapped the brake, decelerating the limousine and throwing forward all the limousine's occupants.  There is no longer any clear evidence in the Zapruder film of Kennedy being hit in the back of the head.  (I say "clear" because there may be some evidence of a hit from the rear at Z327/328) The Z312-Z317 sequence... the bowling over of JFK to the left rear....  is the unambiguous result of a shot from the right front.

This is wonderful progress by careful research.  Because of it, I am delighted to admit... even proclaim... that I made a mistake in 1967.  This kind of research requires more than the National Enquirer method of research espoused by Professor Fetzer.  In fact, such research would never have have been undertaken had anyone paid any attention to Fetzer's now bankrupt obsession with proving the Zapruder film a hoax.

Even when we disagree, I find Robert Charles-Dunne's posts extremely valuable.

And Pat Speer's remarks are entirely appropriate.  But Tink's are something else.

Josiah Thompson would have you believe that "real research" began and ended

with him and his cronies!  I have had interminable exchanges with him for many

years, beginning around 1996, when I organized and moderated a symposium

on the authenticity of the Zapruder film.  I have since created a video on JFK

("JFK:  The Assassination, the Cover-Up, and Beyond"), chaired or co-chaired

four conferences on the death of JFK (Minneapolis 1999, Dallas 2000, Dallas

2001, and Duluth 2003), published three books (ASSASSIATION SCIENCE

1998, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA 2000, and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX

2003).  I have brought together some of the most qualified individuals to ever

study the case, including a world authority on the human brain, who was also

an expert on wound ballistics; a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D. and board

qualified in radiation ontology, which means that he makes decisions affecting

life and death in his professional work based upon his interpretation of X-rays;

a physician who was present when JFK was brought into Trauma Room 1 and,

two days later, supervised the medical treatment of his alleged assassin; the

leading photo analyst in the history of the case, who served as an advisor to

the HSCA and later assisted Olver Stone in creating "JFK": another Ph.D. in

physics who is an expert on light and the physics of moving objects, who has

made the most important scientific discoveries about the film ever; and the

like.  Thompson, for whatever reason, has committed himself to attacking me

and these books, which have been dedicated to taking rumor and speculation

and politics out of the case and placing its study on an objective and scientific

foundation.  Anyone who wants to assess this man's credibility must compare

any one of these books with the three hatchet-job reviews he has posted on

amazon.com.  I have dealt with him for too long to become engaged in more

of his enless savage tirades, which are grossly baseless and extremely unfair

to the excellent studies that have been made by my contributors.  Just ask

yourself how likely it is that no new discoveries would have been made in

the nearly fifty years since SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS appeared!  My books

include the most recent work on the most important topics by the very best

experts I have been able to bring together.  Why in the world would these

books be so utterly lacking in significance?  Something is going on.  It seems

to me that his efforts are dedicated (a) to besmurching my reputation to dis-

courage others from reading these books, which somehow serves to give a

boost his own, apparently inadequate, self-concept, ( to restore to some

degree a reputation that has been undermined by keeping the pubic from

realizing that his work was based on the study of fake film, no matter how

admirable its theft; and, © to turn the status of knowledge about the death

of JFK to the state in which it existed before the extremely important work by

highly qualified experts appeared in the books I have published.  I invite the

members of this forum to consider the situation very carefully for themselves,

since anyone with access to any on of these books should be able to compare

the book and its contents with the nasty review this guy has posted and make

a determination for themselves.  In the meanwhile, he would trade upon your

gullibility by suggesting that, to be a disinformation agent. you must work for

the federal government.  But that is false.  To be a disinformation agent, you  

only have to have an agenda that directs your use of misinformation, which is

false information.  The agents of politicians, advertisers, and corporations are

experts at this craft.  Those who rely upon false information without knowing

any better are simply misinformed; those who rely upon misinformation with

the deliberate intention to mislead, however, are practicing disinformation.  By

providing an extremely narrow and highly misleading definition of "disinforma-

tion" itself, Thompson himself appears to be disseminating misinformation with

the intention to mislead on this very forum in this very discussion!  I have made

preliminary efforts to sort out different kinds of disinformation, which appeared

earlier on my web site, http://www.assassinationscience.com.  I suggest anyone

with a serious interest in this subject may want to visit and scroll down the menu

bar and find many additional discussions of this extremely important subject that

every student of history needs to understand.  In the meanwhile, if you want to

understand what's going on with Thompson's attack upon me--the likes of which

he has posted literally hundreds of times since 1996--then I suggest you simply

compare one of these books and its contents with the review the man has posted.

SEE ABOVE:

"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 couldn't agree more with you, Pat.  From the very beginning, real research into this case has been hamstrung by the lunatic fringe.  Precisely to the extent that "assassination science" replaces real science and honest research, precisely to that extent will research on the case be relegated to jokes for late night comics.

I also liked your nuanced account of the media's response to the case.  Painting the media in broad strokes, really misses what is going on.  If the media was so controlled by the military industrial elite, then how come LIFE and the SATURDAY EVENING POST became locked in such a pissing contest in the fall of 1967?  A full account of the media's response to this case would take hundreds if not thousands of pages in order to account for the nuances of competitive journalism.  It's much easier to make some general statement and get a cheering section to back it.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 27, 2005 by Josiah Thompson

[Tim Gratz]

We may have another example of REAL disinformation in the "McCone memo" discussed in a different thread.

[Tim Gratz]

Theoretical question:

If the CIA prompts placement of a media story through its relationship with a journalist, if the story is true, by definition that is not "disinformation", is it?

And surely there cannot be anything wrong that, can there be? Query if the story is placed in an American outlet, since operations within the US are outside the CIA's charter.

Well, what if the CIA is planning an invasion of Cuba and wants to mislead Castro when or if the invasion is coming. Disregarding the constitutionality of the invasion or its legality under international law or its advisability, is there anything wrong with that?

Maybe a better analogy: placement (let's say in this case by military intelligence) of a story or stories to mislead the Nazis about the D Day invasion. That disinformation would be justified, I assume.

Of course I am not trying to justify any disinformation about the assassination, even if the CIA was not itself involved with the assassination.

Edited September 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

Your points are valid, but my only reference was to LIFE magazine, specifically and in particular, for the reasons stated, not the media as a whole. [Those were Vince Salandria's broadsides.] I did so because Tim Gratz commented that LIFE was first among those media responsible for fostering doubts about the WC's conclusions. To reach that conclusion, of course, one must first ignore all LIFE's prior acts of bad faith, falsification and misrepresentation, as I itemized.

That various media paid attention to the assassination several years later is no mystery: the public wasn't buying into the mythology presented by Warren, et al, and the Garrison investigation galvanized public interest in the assassination, necessitating a media response. That LIFE finally got around to addressing Connally's assertions, several years after his testimony, is not to LIFE's credit. It was tardy to the point of uselessness, until it was left with no option but to give the issue some play.

Likewise, if the media were so anxious to pursue other avenues as you claim, one wonders where all the large publishing houses were when the idea of Tink Thompson's "6 Seconds" was being shopped around. One notes that Random House agreed to distribute this book [as it did with other Geis titles], but sure didn't publish it. Publisher Bernard Geis took a flyer on "6 Seconds," which was dramatically different to his usual fare of Hollywood memoirs and other [relatively speaking] fluff. [Nelson Algren and a few other authors, excepted.] Had Geis not been the ballsy maverick he was, one wonders if "6 Seconds" would have ever seen print, or if Tink would have been reduced to self-publishing, as Weisberg had been. Perhaps Tink had other suitors, and can comment on this, but if so, it seems rather odd to have gone with a small indie house rather than one of the corporate giants that might have exercised tremendous commercial clout on his behalf.

However, I would like to now pass comment on the general performance of the mass media: it stunk. One could write an entire book on its slipshod, half-assed, unprofessional behaviour. Whether it was the New York Times' unqualified assertion that Oswald was "the assassin" [singular] in its initial headlines, or the uncritical acceptance by virtually all media organs of whatever was issued by government sources, one can find little in the way of distinguished or even intelligent reportage. To merely uncritically regurgitate what one is told isn't reporting; it's stenography. I wish to hell I could point back to a single instance in which a major media organ rose to the occasion, asked the vital questions and reported the facts fairly. Perhaps you can, because I sure as hell have never found any such instance. But then I've only been seeking same for 40 years.

Oddly enough, I detected no such shrinking violet behaviour from the international press of the day. Living in Canada, I got to read the US wire service stories, but the latitude for more pointed commentary existed in a way that wasn't the case in the US. Canadian periodicals regularly gave play to critics from the UK and Europe whose works were rarely seen Stateside. I have boxes full of old, tattered press clippings that illustrate the chasm between the reportage in the US and everywhere else.

As for the fact that large US media corporations later fed the public appetite by publishing heretical books, or financing Oliver Stone's film, etc., that latter-day willingness to exploit and massage the public's appetite is no substitute for the early reportage that should have taken place, but didn't. These events were merely an acknowledgement that the media's best efforts to placate, assuage and misdirect public attention hadn't worked.

I would also like to draw specific attention to some tremendous work done in the '70s by one Earl Grolz in Dallas. Unfortunately for us all, for every man like Earl, there were a hundred Hugh Aynesworths.[/color]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Robert, your points are well taken. The U.S. media did a HORRIBLE job covering the Kennedy assassination. As a relative newbie I decided six months or so ago to explore just what was being said in the days after the assass and looked through all the Life, Time, U.S. News and Newsweek mags from Nov 63 May 64. I was dumbfounded. The reporting was so ill-informed and prejudicial against Oswald it was ridiculous. By mid-December Newsweek was running articles about Oswald (containing material obviously leaked by Hoover) with subtle titles such as "Portrait of a Psychopath."

Around two weeks after the assassination, there was an article in a Toronto paper asking whether or not an autopsy had even been performed on Kennedy. I found this amazing article online. You mean NOT ONE news source in America had even asked that question? Not one televison anchor man, in his zeal to calm down speculation, had assured America that yes, virginia, there was an autopsy and yes, everything will be revealed. How crazy is that? I did a quick look-up of the Lincoln assassination and found that not only was his autopsy discussed in print within a week of his death, but that the article was written by one of the witnesses to his autopsy, a military man to boot.

The media black-out of the autopsy was such that the New York Times was still reporting in late January that the bullet causing the back wound had fallen out onto a stretcher. They got this from the out-dated FBI script. This would be akin to someone reporting today that New Orleans is well-prepared to withstand Hurricane Katrina, at least acccording to FEMA director Brown. What?

[Tim Gratz]

Interesting post, Pat. Query whether there is any possibility some news media were fed the "war scenario" as Earl Warren was to shut them up.

I do believe, however, that despite increased public attention on the weaknesses of the WC Report, Life would not have published "A Question of Reasonable Doubt" (which I recall influenced my thinking) if it was part of a nefarious plot, or operation if you will, to promote the LN thesis.

Edited September 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

[

I do believe, however, that despite increased public attention on the weaknesses of the WC Report, Life would not have published "A Question of Reasonable Doubt" (which I recall influenced my thinking) if it was part of a nefarious plot, or operation if you will, to promote the LN thesis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, the best liars tell the truth 95%of the time....

[John Dolva]

[

I do believe, however, that despite increased public attention on the weaknesses of the WC Report, Life would not have published "A Question of Reasonable Doubt" (which I recall influenced my thinking) if it was part of a nefarious plot, or operation if you will, to promote the LN thesis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, the best liars tell the truth 95%of the time....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I haven't seen it but have read of the existance of a document described as 'the first' to suggest a conspiracy as being a product of JBS released soon after the assassination possibly by a guy who wrote a regular newsletter called something like 'the ... report'. Sorry can't be more specific at this point. It slipped by before I realised the significance. I'm mentioning in case someone knows. In meantime am continuing to hunt for it.

Assuming this is the case and assuming that the 'forces' behind such produce are connected to the assassination then it seems to me to be reasonable to think that they would wish to take charge and direct the search for conspiracy. (part of the problem/part of the solution)

Considering the Angleton Orchids, then this is therefore a layer of deception. Similarly, should Time be seen as a defender of an untenable position it would have more attention turned to it. Instead preempt and take charge.

[Jack White]

I suggest that all read the letters of Vincent Salandria at:

http://www.jfkresearch.com/forum/index.php...pid=14881&st=0&

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thompson wants to ridicule my suggestion that he operates as though he

were a "disinformation agent" and dismisses Vincent Salandria's similar

conclusions as "looney tunes". I have already outlined my case against

him in earlier posts on this thread. Here are some of Salandria's reasons

for arriving at that opinion. Notice that these statements are being made

quite recently, some in 1994 but several in 2000. Read them through and

ask yourself if Salandria and I are "looney tunes"! This is very important

for understanding how major developments in this case--about the X-rays,

the brain, the autopsy photos, and the Z film--are distorted and subverted.

Ask yourself, Why would anyone want to do a thing like that? Why, indeed!

These quotes are taken from the two sections of the Salandria/Morrissey

correspondence on Michael Morrissey’s web site:

http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/corr.htm

Vincent Salandia letter 3/1/94

On Thompson, I believe he was an agent from the beginning. I met him when I was called to get him and other peace demonstrators out of jail. He then curled around me trying to get me to write Six Seconds in Dallas with him. I separated myself off when he saw the front entry throat hit as an exit caused by exiting bone. Perhaps this is a delusion of grandeur, but I feel that he was sent in to give me media exposure and thereby neutralize and/or coopt me. . .

Vincent Salandia letter 3/9/2000

. . .I have accused Josiah Thompson of being a CIA agent. Josiah Thompson wanted to write "Six Seconds in Dallas" with me. In our first conference on the book he advised me that the Kennedy neck wound was the result of a particle of bone exiting the neck from a head wound. I shook Thompson's hand and bid him adieu. After the book was published, I invited him to my home for a gathering. I pointed out my outrage regarding his last paragraph when he asked what the book proved. His answer was that it did not prove a conspiracy but proved that the Warren Commission had brushed certain things under the rug. One of our former group members accused Thompson of being a CIA agent. I joined with him by writing my agreement with that proposition to Thompson. Bob Dean was equally outraged when at a conference on the assassination Thompson identified himself as an agnostic. Dean argued to Thompson that his book proved a conspiracy.

Do you recognize the similarity to the Newman book, which proves that Oswald was a CIA agent and then instructs you that you cannot so conclude? Five years later Newman stated that it is crazy to think of the assassination as the work of a high level CIA plot. Rather, he embraces a renegade theory. . .

Vincent Salandia letter 3/15/2000

My guess is that the government sent far more agents into my life than I ever detected. I have told you about Josiah Thompson's efforts to join me as a co-author of Six Seconds in Dallas. Was that not an effort to provide an easy cross over path for me? Professor Jacob Cohen of Brandeis suggested that he could have me published in all of the major magazines of the country? Was that not an effort to arrange my cross-over? Would I have actually fully known that I had crossed over? If I did not want to know, I could deny it to myself. I could have conceived of myself merely as accommodating slightly to editorial needs of the media who would be opened up for me. But you can be sure that I could never again have spoken of the warfare state's institutions as killing Kennedy without losing my access and perquisites.

Vincent Salandia letter 4/7/2000

John, you are inquiring about the accuracy of Josiah Thompson's description in 1995 at the COPA conference of how we came to meet one another.

Thompson's account here is right about my being called by the ACLU to go to the suburbs to see what I could do to get Thompson and another group of peace people out of jail. His embellishments made at the 1998 COPA speaking engagement are wrong. I was not the brilliant lawyer that he described me as in his 1998 COPA speech. Rather, I talked quietly to the police, and mystery of mystery they let the whole group out without an argument. . .

John, Thompson is absolutely wrong when he says that "...the two were soon collaborating on new articles." We were not collaborating on "articles." Rather, we were collaborating on the book which turned out to be Six Seconds in Dallas.

I quit immediately when Thompson tried to convince me that the Kennedy throat wound was a consequence of a bit of bone exiting from the throat which emanated from the head hit. I told Thompson that I would not be associated with a work which left open to the government contrary to fact a means of extricating itself from the need for a single-bullet theory in order to comport with a three-shot assassination. I saw him as possibly at some future time seeking to help the government to explain away its dire ammunition shortage if and when the single-bullet fantasy was thoroughly discredited.

I became immediately suspicious of Thompson, because I thought that he might have represented an effort for the government to ease me into the major media and get me gradually over to being ultimately one of their critics. Later, as I have previously reported, after Six Seconds in Dallas was published, I invited him over to my home for a party.

At the affair, I put to him how he could have written the last paragraph of "Six Seconds" which concluded with the question of what does all of this prove? He answered his question by flatly stating that it did not prove a conspiracy.

"Tink, how could you write that?" I asked him.

He answered: "An error in exposition, Vince. An error in exposition."

After comparing notes with Ray Marcus. . ., he and I concluded that Thompson was an agent. I so advised Thompson of my feeling in writing. Please note, that when I call someone an agent, I do so quite openly and don't deny it. John, you have my correspondence on this matter.

Now, so many years later, Thompson's "error in exposition" is converted into another explanation. Thompson currently describes himself as an agnostic on the issue of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination.

We also know from the government documents that he was approached for possible employment by the CIA prior to the assassination. . .

I suggest that all read the letters of Vincent Salandria at:

http://www.jfkresearch.com/forum/index.php...pid=14881&st=0&

Jack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 27, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Whereas Time/Life Magazine:

1. Had in their possession the original Z-film.

2. Completed a re-enactment survey on 11/25 & 11/26/1963

3. Which survey accurately placed the impact point of the first shot fired

4. Which survey accuratlely placed the impact point of the Z-312/313 headshot

Then one must question exactly WHY?

Time/Life Magazine did not either contest the WC claim as being unable to locate the impact point of the first shot fired, or at least assist the poor & obviously inept efforts of the WC as relates to this information.

As they say: YOU BE THE JUDGE!

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

P.S. Mr. Thompson:

My appreciation for your work and your book.

History, which is ultimately the best judge of all, will place your work at the top of the listing of those who have attempted to provide accurate, reliable, and responsible information.

In that regard lies your contributions to this subject.

Tom

P.P.S. Now that you have additional information which was also in the possession of Time/Life, perhaps that portion of the puzzle as regards the "missing" Z-frames which you managed to provide to the world, may be better understood.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Now that we have sung the praise of Josiah Thompson, here's an overview of a

book published in 1998, some 30 years later, that presents new discoveries in

the case--findings of the first importance!--in a book he trashes on amazon.com

with a savage review and to which he refers as "Assassinated Science", going so

far as to suggest that it features non-experts and has a "tabloid" character. My

suggestion is that we test that proposition, beginnng with a summary of the book.

As you read this, ask yourself if it deserves the brutal treatment is has received

at the hands of Josiah Thompson. It has eleven contributors, after all. Is it at

all reasonable to suppose that NONE OF THEM have anything worthwhile to say?

_________________________

Assassination Science provides a collection of studies by physicians, scientists, and other serious students that is intended to place the investigation of the death of JFK on an objective and scientific foundation. The contributors are among the best-qualified individuals to ever examine the medical and the photographic evidence in this case, including a world authority on the human brain who is also an expert on wound ballistics, a physician with a Ph.D. in physics who is also board certified in radiation oncology, a philosopher who is an expert on critical thinking and also a former Marine Corps officer, a physician who attended both the dying President and Lee Harvey Oswald at Parkland Hospital, a leading expert on the photographic evidence who served as a special advisor to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), and other highly-qualified students of the assassination of JFK.

Assassination Science is distinctive among works on the assassination of President Kennedy for several reasons, First, it is the only collaborative study that brings together the original work of physicians, scientists, and other serious students: there are eleven contributors, rather than only one. Thus, readers have the benefit of exposure to the research efforts of multiple investigators who set forth their findings in clear and accessible language. Second, it includes the most important studies of the medical evidence since the publication of David Lifton's Best Evidence in 1980 and the most important studies of the Zapruder film ever presented. These results completely undermine previous investigations of the death of JFK, including especially the official government inquiries of the Warren Commission and of the HSCA.

Third, it provides the only comprehensive and detailed critique and response to a series of articles published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1962-63. These articles, which were based upon interviews with the physicians who performed the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, were hyped by the Editor-in-Chief of JAMA, George Lundberg, M.D., who proclaimed that they were being welcomed into the "peer reviewed" literature on the assassination, in spite of the fact that they had not been refereed by experts on the crime and he knew that at the time. Nevertheless, they received enormous attention by the national press, even though they were based upon the selection and elimination of evidence to provide a biased report in support of a predetermined conclusion.

Fourth, it reports a and explains the most important scientific findings in the history of the study of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, which include:

* the discovery that some autopsy X-rays have been fabricated to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head caused by a shot from in front;

* the discovery that other autopsy X-rays have been altered by the imposition of a 6.5 mm metal object that was not present on the original X-rays;

* the discovery that diagrams and photographs that are supposed to be of the brain of JFK must be of the brain of someone other than John Kennedy;

* the discovery that the President alone was hit by at least four shots: one to his throat (fired from in front), one to his back (fired from behind) and two to his head (fired from behind and from in front);

* the discovery that the official "magic bullet " theory cannot possibly be true;

* the discovery that an absolute minimum of at least six shots were fired in Dealey Plaza during the assassination;

* the discovery that the Zapruder film of the assassination, which has been viewed as the nearest thing to "absolute truth" by some, has been extensively edited using highly sophisticated techniques;

* the discovery that Lee Harvey Oswald appears to have been framed using manufactured evidence, including the back-yard photograph;

* the discovery that the Warren Commission inquiry was a political charade featuring -a phoney bullet -a phoney limo -phoney wounds.

Fifth, it reports and records repeated efforts to bring these discoveries to the attention of the American people, including a national press conference held in New York City on 18 November 1993, which explained many of these findings and how they were discovered, but which the nation's newspapers have yet to print; strenuous and repeated attempts by telephone, letter, and fax to convince the American Broadcast Network (including Nightline and ABC WORLD NEWS WITH PETER JENNINGS) to cover this story that were without success; repeated efforts to inform the nation's leading newspaper, The New York Times, that its coverage of the assassination, including book reviews and even obituaries, was biased and irresponsible, but which The Times has chosen to completely ignore.

Sixth, it reports and records repeated and strenuous efforts to bring these new findings and discoveries, which completely undermine previous investigations by the federal government, to the attention of the Department of Justice. The correspondence between James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., and Mary Spearing, Chief of the General Litigation and Legal Advice Section, provides a case study of the difficulties encountered in the pursuit of justice in a bureaucracy. In spite of his best efforts, he was unable to convince the Justice Department that the new findings concerning the fabrication of the X-rays and the substitution of diagrams and of photographs dictate a reinterpretation of the evidence in this case, even though previous government inquiries took for granted that this evidence was authentic.

Seventh, it reports and records sustained efforts by American citizens to contribute their time and their talents to clarifying the nature of what has previously been assumed to be the "best evidence" in this case in an effort to bring closure to the American people. The members of this group, including distinguished scientists and recognized authorities within their respective fields, have sought to fill the vacuum created by the failure of the government to adequately investigate the assassination and to compensate for the dismal record of the press by reporting new discoveries that appear to demonstrate conclusively that there was a large-scale conspiracy and cover-up by the government in the death of JFK.

The studies published here are thus intended to convey at least three general lessons. One, that even journals as prestigious as JAMA are not immune from political abuse, indications of which abound with respect to its coverage of the medical evidence in this case. Two, that new discoveries, including scientific findings of fundamental importance, continue to be made, supporting the possibility that truth is not beyond our grasp. Three, that journals, newspapers, and agencies on which we all depend do not always serve the people's interests. The pursuit of truth, the protection of justice, and the preservation of democratic institutions require eternal vigilance. As long as we are ignorant, we are not free.

___________________________

Here is a link to the CONTENTS of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE on amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0812693663...008#reader-link

P.S.  Mr. Thompson:

My appreciation for your work and your book.

History, which is ultimately the best judge of all, will place your work at the top of the listing of those who have attempted to provide accurate, reliable, and responsible information.

In that regard lies your contributions to this subject.

Tom

P.P.S.  Now that you have additional information which was also in the possession of Time/Life, perhaps that portion of the puzzle as regards the "missing" Z-frames which you managed to provide to the world, may be better understood.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 27, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

Professor Fetzer has been waving the Salandria correspondence around the internet for some time now. The use of such smear material is characteristic of Fetzer. I am delighted to be able to reply to it finally.

Disagreements over evidence have been endemic in the community of Kennedy assassination researchers since the beginning. Now and then it spills over into charges that “X is an agent of the CIA” or that “Y is a disinformation agent.” Fetzer published a whole template of disinformation with a place for each person on his enemies list.

Sadly, Vince Salandria started along a similar course in the winter of 1967-68. From the correspondence used by Fetzer as part of his smear, it would appear that Salandria is still at it in his seventies. What Fetzer does not tell you is that Salandria’s correspondence shows that he thinks Paul Hoch, John Newman, Bill Turner, the Nation magazine and the Philadelphia branch of ACLU all may have been functioning as intelligence agency assets at one or another time. I guess I should be proud to be linked with that group.

Let me tell you exactly what happened.

Back in February or March 1966, I was teaching at Haverford College as an Assistant Professor of Philosophy. Years before I’d commanded the UDT-21 detachment that did the combat reconnaissances of Blue and Yellow Beaches north of Beirut during the U.S landings there in July 1958. This experience turned me around politically and by 1965 I had become part of a vociferous Vietnam anti-war movement first in New Haven and then in Philadelphia. The sheriff of Media, Pennsylvania over near Swarthmore had announced publicly, “If any of them damn peaceniks come into my district, I’m gonna bust them.” A young physics professor named Bill Davidon and I heard of this, gathered up some innocuous leaflets from the American Friends Service Committee, and went over to Media on a Saturday morning. The cops watched us for awhile and then arrested us for “littering.” This was illegal because we had never let a leaflet hit the ground. But no matter. We were hauled off in squad cars to the Delaware County jail. Bill and I were held there for a few hours while the jailers made unpleasant remarks: “We better delouse those cells after we get those peacenik fags out of there.”

Bill and I had no real idea how we were going to get out. I guess we figured that either his wife, Ann, or my wife, Nancy, would show up in awhile with some cash to bail us out. We were surprised when a lawyer in a necktie showed up to get us out. He was from the local branch of the ACLU and his name was Vince Salandria.

At that time, I was pretty naive concerning law enforcement procedures but I knew enough to know that the lawyer had pulled off a primo job of bluffing. After we were brought out into the squad room, Salandria started talking to us in the presence of the cops gathered around. In substance, he said: “The ACLU has been in touch with Attorney General Katzenbach. Now when the FBI agents arrive in a few minutes (looking at his watch)... I want you to tell them that not only have your civil rights been violated but that you are suing for false arrest Captain so-and-so, Lieutenant so-and-so, Sergeant so-and-so and Patrolman so-and-so.” We were out of there in less than five minutes with no charges lodged. Either that day or days later I asked Salandria about it and he admitted that no one had ever called Attorney General Katzenbach.

Salandria’s memory fails him on this. There was no “group of peace people” to be gotten out of jail... just Bill Davidon and me. Davidon and I had no idea that the ACLU would attempt to get us out of jail although we were delighted that they had... and had managed it with no charges filed. Neither of us knew that Vince Salandria had anything to do with the ACLU.

I had read Salandria’s articles in Liberation magazine and The Minority of One in 1965. They were excellent. I told him that I liked them and we talked further about the assassination. This led to us traveling together to Washington in the summer of 1966 to do research at the National Archives. Together, we began work on a long joint article on the case. Salandria says we were working on a book. This is just untrue. It was to be a long article that might run in a national magazine. That was the plan. At a certain point in July or August, I think, we began to disagree over the interpretation of evidence. Salandria says it had to do with the nature of the throat wound. It may have been. I just don’t remember. I continued on my own and in September went up to New York to meet with Willie Morris at Harper’s. When he couldn’t see me for five or six hours, I decided to kill the time by visiting with a friend of a friend at Bernard Geis Associates. That’s how Six Seconds came to be.

In the winter of 1966-67, I heard rumors that Vince Salandria and Ray Marcus were claiming I was a CIA agent. I didn’t pay much attention to them but ultimately they got to Sylvia Meagher and M.S. Arnoni, the publisher of Salandria’s articles in The Minority of One. John Kelin was kind enough to make available to me correspondence from this time. On December 18 and 20, 1967, Arnoni sent a letter to both Salandria and Marcus which contains the following excerpts:

I am, of course, referring to the idea, conveyed to me by Vince in your and his own name, of Thompson being a CIA agent. I have listened to Vince carefully, and, for the first time ever, taken precise notes of our conversation to be able to refer back to them upon rethinking the matter.

In my considered judgment, the whole structure of the “evidence” involved is classically psychological, bespeaking Thompson’s pursuits in no way whatsoever, but rather reflecting the frame of mind of whomever begot the suspicion and proceeded to add “convincing” details and deductions.

I wish to urge you to make a special effort to see through the fallacy involved. I urge you to do this out of respect for both your intellect and integrity. Because I have such respect, it hurts me to consider that the quality of your thinking may deteriorate more than passingly.

I shall not go into Vince’s deductions, all of which – to my mind – have absolutely nothing to do with objective and external evidence, but are such reflections of his own psychology as are related to its past manifestations – true to his personality, but untrue to subject matter. But it would be sad if his catalytic psychological needs were allowed to feed such bitterness in you as may have accumulated against Thompson. However injured you may consider yourself to be, and whatever the degree of justification in your feeling so, not one thread is thereby spun between Thompson and the CIA.

For her part, Sylvia Meagher wrote on January 11, 1968:

But I cannot take seriously the suggestion that Tink is a CIA plant... Whatever their shortcomings and errors, both Epstein and Thompson have made a solid, significant, and probably historic impact against the fraudulent Warren Report. It is my belief that the imperfections in each case subside into relative insignificance, in comparison with the positive achievement. Yet both have been the subject of bitter, dogmatic, and even vicious attack other critics.

By the spring of 1968, I had dropped out of contact with Vince Salandria. I never bothered to renew that contact because I thought his claims were both hurtful and indefensible. I saw him once at the COPA conference in Dallas in 1998 and argued against the positions taken by him and Marty Schotz.

I do have to agree with one thing in the Salandria correspondence. Salandria said he met me at a party and took me to task for a comment in Six Seconds. At the close of a final chapter entitled “Answered and Unanswered Questions,” the last section is entitled, “Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot the President?” and runs for fifteen pages introducing new reports and photos appearing to show two people near the Sixth Floor sniper’s next. The section ends with a question, “What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not prove that the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time the shots were fired. Nor does it prove Oswald’s innocence..”

Salandria says that my reply when confronted with this comment was, “An error in exposition, Vince. An error in exposition.” I don’t remember his question or my reply right now but it all sounds right. What I should have said, however, was: “You’re right, Vince. That comment was really stupid. I spend a whole book proving that the murder was a conspiracy with shots from many directions and then say, at the end of a section, ‘It doesn’t prove a conspiracy.’ It beats me how it got through the editorial process but it obviously did. I wish it hadn’t.”

Since Fetzer has been flashing Salandria’s “charges” around the internet for months, I have said nothing. I’ve now taken the time to reply in detail. If anyone has any questions about this ancient history, I’ll be glad to answer them. Except for Fetzer’s bile, this whole sad history could have been left to molder away in the past of forty years ago.

Thompson wants to ridicule my suggestion that he operates as though he

were a "disinformation agent" and dismisses Vincent Salandria's similar

conclusions as "looney tunes". I have already outlined my case against

him in earlier posts on this thread. Here are some of Salandria's reasons

for arriving at that opinion. Notice that these statements are being made

quite recently, some in 1994 but several in 2000. Read them through and

ask yourself if Salandria and I are "looney tunes"! This is very important

for understanding how major developments in this case--about the X-rays,

the brain, the autopsy photos, and the Z film--are distorted and subverted.

Ask yourself, Why would anyone want to do a thing like that? Why, indeed!

These quotes are taken from the two sections of the Salandria/Morrissey

correspondence on Michael Morrissey’s web site:

http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/corr.htm

[Pat Speer]

I'll be honest. Those Salandria letters scare the crap out of me. Not because of the possibility Thompson was an agent. But because people actually follow Salandria's reasoning on this.

Let me see:

Thompson was offering Salandria mass exposure for his ideas.

Thompson had a few ideas of his own that Salandria couldn't stomach.

The ideas in dispute could be used potentially somewhere down the road to refute the central theory of Salandria's work.

So, THEREFORE, this man who has befriended Salandria and offered to help him expose his ideas, Thompson, is most likely a disinformation agent intent upon diluting and discrediting Salandria's work.

To me, these seem like the thoughts of a sick mind, an obvious paranoid! A rational mind would have saw the glass as ninety percent full and jumped at the opportunity to expose his ideas to a mass audience, without significant worry he was being co-opted by "them." The only way I can understand Salandria's fear of Thompson is if Thompson insisted on complete editorial control of the book. If that is the case, then Salandria's fear might be justified.

What about it, Tink? Would Salandria have been allowed to disagree with your neck wound theory in the book, and make a case for alternative scenarios, including the CT-approved but otherwise unproven shot from the knoll? Or did you make it clear to him it was your book and that you alone would decide its direction?

Was it entirely your opinions that drove Salandria to suspect you? Or did your behavior have anything to do with it? If so, was it just a misunderstanding?

Edited September 27, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Josiah Thompson]

Here's the most I can remember about this, Pat.

In the summer of 1966, Salandria may have been working on a book himself. I'm not sure. John Kelin sent me a copy of my own letter to Salandria dated July 9, 1966. In that letter, I ask him in a handwritten PS: "Do you have a publisher for your book on the assassination? I know a senior editor at Lippincott who might be of some assistance." It's important that I refer to "your book" not "our book." In spite of what Salandria says, there never was any "our book. Vince and I were not working on a book. We were simply working together on a joint article to publish in some national circulation journal like the Atlantic, Harper's or the New Yorker.

I liked to write but Salandria didn't. It was summertime and I wasn't teaching. There never was any question of our doing a book together as I'd have to return to teaching in the fall. The only project between us was this article.

Over some time that summer, we had more and more instances of disagreement. What a surprise! Finally, it was just simpler for me to proceed on my own and I did.

As to what control Salandria would have had over the article. I presume he would control it as he had already written on the assassination, was a lawyer for the Philadelphia School Board, significantly older than I was and someone of consequence in Philadelphia. I was nobody. A young guy with a wife and kid trying to make it as a college professor.

I was never offering Salandria "mass exposure for his ideas." I was going to be simply a gofur who could write and was smart enough to analyze the material in front of him. When our ideas no longer matched up in terms of the interpretation of evidence I moved to finish up what I had already written. If recollection serves, he never wrote anything with regard to our joint article. However, clearly the way the article interpreted the case grew out of our work together.

By the way, I never did find out why he was claiming I was a CIA agent. I still don't have a clue. I suspect it still has to do with differences in the way we interpret evidence in the case. Over the years, I never have criticized Vince Salandria. I think many of his ideas are indeed pretty loopy. But I've never attacked back because of his paranoid claims. Even though we're both in our seventies now, I still see him as one of the true heroes of the critical examination of the Warren Report. He may be wrong but he's not venal or self-aggrandizing like Fetzer. Most importantly, his early research was really good!

I'll be honest.  Those Salandria letters scare the crap out of me.  Not because of the possibility Thompson was an agent.  But because people actually follow Salandria's reasoning on this. 

Let me see:

Thompson was offering Salandria mass exposure for his ideas.

Thompson had a few ideas of his own that Salandria couldn't stomach.

The ideas in dispute could be used potentially somewhere down the road to refute the central theory of Salandria's work.

So, THEREFORE, this man who has befriended Salandria and offered to help him expose his ideas, Thompson, is most likely a disinformation agent intent upon diluting and discrediting Salandria's work. 

To me, these seem like the thoughts of a sick mind, an obvious paranoid! A rational mind would have saw the glass as ninety percent full and jumped at the opportunity to expose his ideas to a mass audience, without significant worry he was being co-opted by "them."  The only way I can understand Salandria's fear of Thompson is if Thompson insisted on complete editorial control of the book. If that is the case, then Salandria's fear might be justified.

What about it, Tink?  Would Salandria have been allowed to disagree with your neck wound theory in the book, and make a case for alternative scenarios, including the CT-approved but otherwise unproven shot from the knoll?  Or did you make it clear to him it was your book and that you alone would decide its direction?

Was it entirely your opinions that drove Salandria to suspect you?  Or did your behavior have anything to do with it?  If so, was it just a misunderstanding?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited September 27, 2005 by Josiah Thompson