Subject: posted at request of Fetzer for those who missed it Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 16:43:39 -0500 From: jack white Organization: jfk educational research Newsgroups: startext.jfk Subject: Re: Reply to Mantik Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 13:31:04 -0600 (CST) From: james fetzer Reply-To: "research@queenbee.net" To: research@queenbee.net CC: james fetzer __________________________________________________________________________ Comments on this latest post from Tink are indicated below. The "JHF" remarks are by Jim Fetzer, "JW" by Jack White and "DM" by David Mantik. __________________________________________________________________________ During the height of KKK activity, around half of its members were in- formants for the government. At the zenith of the "red scare", every- one present for some cell meetings was an informant for the FBI. Any- one who does not understand that the assassination research community has long been infested by agents of disinformation does not even know the game being played. This is only the most recent installment. JHF On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Josiah Thompson wrote: > > REPLY TO MANTIK > > Since David Mantik put his name to this post, I guess the reply should > be made to him. It was posted by David Mantik and James Fetzer and certain > parts of it bear the unmistakable stamp of Fetzerian editing. My bet is that a > draft was run-by Fetzer and changes made by him. > > Why do I think this? > > Here’s a canard of a characteristically Fetzerian kind: > > “Regarding the NPIC, since he [Thompson] failed to report that the new > eyewitnesses worked on the Z film at NPIC during the weekend of November 23-24, > Thompson’s comments were misleading. Since Thompson made a VERY BIG effort to > debunk NPIC’s involvement on this very same weekend, this discovery was a major > defeat for him, but this seems to have been ignored in subsequent discussions.” > > Mantik implies that I knew of these witnesses and hence dishonestly > “failed to report” on them — that is, deliberately suppressed mention of them. > This is the kind of silly innuendo that Fetzer substitutes for argument. This > is not, however, characteristic of the discourse of David Mantik, who, in my > experience, has always bent over backwards to avoid such tactics. The claim > that “this discovery was a major defeat for him [Thompson]” sounds to my ear > Fetzerian. The truth, of course, is that I first heard of these witnesses > during David Lifton’s prepared talk. Earlier, Lifton had promised some sort of > “breakthrough” with respect to NPIC and I’d seen the AARB’s mention that “two > individuals” had made enlargements of single frames only. During his prepared > talk, Lifton stated incorrectly that the witnesses said they had the film > Friday night when the documents indicate something far different. Hence, any > mention of the witnesses would have relied on Lifton’s inaccurate > representation of what they said. As to whether these witnesses constitute a > “major defeat” for me, see below. > > I guess I’d like to know whether it is David Mantik’s intention to > argue > by canard in the future. > For a professional detective with a Ph.D., Thompson displays a knack for leaping to conclusions that would make a sophomore blush. David Mantik sent me the post with a salutation, "Jim, Here is what I would have said." The rest is precisely as David wrote it, word for word, yet Thompson claims to have evidence that I edited, changed or other- wise altered his wording! This is paranoia incarnate in the mental states of a self-deluded private eye. I cannot imagine how anyone of this calibre could have made a significant contribution to any seri- ous endeavor: perhaps HIS work was ghost-written, which may explain at least in part his bizarre preoccupation with this possibility. JHF Speaking of canards, it is striking that Thompson criticizes Lifton for stating that the NPIC witnesses "said they had the film Friday night when the documents indicate something far different". I don't know what documents Tink thinks he's talking about, but the ones from Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter indicate that McMahon believed that the film arrived Friday night, while Hunter believes it arrived the next day. BOTH ARE CERTAIN THE WORK WAS DONE PRIOR TO THE FUNERAL. It is therefore a capital canard for Thompson to criticize Lifton by claim- ing the records show "something far different". That is false. JHF > Then there is Mantik’s defense of Fetzer through mentioning Fetzer’s > “apology” Saturday morning. I would be interested in learning what Fetzer > said. I was in Dallas through Sunday noon and heard nothing of it. On the > basis, then, of an apology whose text no one has seen, “common human decency” > requires us to extend to Fetzer a courtesy he has never extended to anyone > else. > But I’m happy to hear that Fetzer did apologize. Especially, he should > apologize to Michael Parks, a fine guy whom I met for only a minute or so that > afternoon who was doing his best to get some good questions going. He seems to forget that Debra Conway interrupted the whole meeting after Tink's petty tirade to criticize him for attempting to use the occasion to settle an old score from an email exchange, to which she had access. Her remarks, which he must have found humiliating, lasted over five min- utes. His attack upon me was pure drivel, including massive question- begging (by assuming the official government chronology of possession of the film), focusing upon exactly one argument that had been advanced (concerning eyewitness testimony for which he and Art Snyder had set me up) when at least 50 arguments for alteration had been presented, com- mitting the logical blunder of claiming "you can't prove a negative" (the falsity of which had already been explained in ASSASSINATION SCI- ENCE, p. 208, which he has apparently not read to this day), and crit- icizing me for "hiding behind Mantik's skirts" (because I did not take credit for having advanced an argument Mantik had originated). Tink may take pride in claiming credit for the work of others, but I do not. I have considered his and Snyder's critique of David's argument, but I am not convinced that the use Mantik made of Table 3.1 is mistaken or that my endorsement (ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, p. 210) is in error. (For further elaboration, see my post of 26 November 1999 entited "JUST THINK ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON HERE", which is a really good idea. JHF Here's what I said Saturday morning to the best of my recollection: "For those of you who were present for the conclusion of the Zapruder film panel, I was wrong to respond because it deprived you of the opportunity to ask questions you were entitled to ask and for my colleagues to provide answers they were prepared to provide. For that you have my apology. You deserved better." That was it. I did not apologize for the CONTENT of what I had said about the pathetic performance of Tink Thomspon and Art Snyder: my only apology was for my TIMING. I was baited by Tink and Art, and I fell for it. Those who had waited through it all were deprived of the chance to ask questions and David M. and David L. and Jack were unable to present answers to those questions because Debra, as I pre- viously explained, at that point "pulled the plug" and called it off. I do not blame her for doing so. I was wrong, but my offenses were not in the same category as Tink's personal abuses, for which, it is worth noting, he has offered no hint of contrition or apology. JHF With regard to Michael Parks, he has since flown his true colors. In a grossly abusive post entitled "Re: Yellow Curb Marker At Zapruder Frame 356" dated 28 November 1998, he has viciously attacked the work of Jack White with verbal assaults such as, "GIVE ME MONEY. ISN'T THAT THE WAY THE SONG GOES. JUST IN TIME FOR CHRISTMAS. STUFF YOUR STOCKINGS WITH 14 COPIES OF MY VIDEO", and similar tripe. It may be worth observing that attacking critics by implying they are motivated by money is recommended in CIA Document 1035-960, published in ASSAS- SINATION SCIENCE, pp. 445-447. Parks has made no effort to impugn the motives of other students of the assassination who sell their work to the public, as was obviously the case here (with table upon table of books, videos, and other research materials). So why is Parks making a federal case out of JACK'S video? The answer, I believe, would be apparent to anyone who has actually viewed it, namely: that Jack has presented CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of Zapruder film alteration, evidence that is as decisive as any empirical evidence could possibly be! So to avoid having to confront his findings, Parks is doing his best to ridicule and belittle his efforts in an obvious propagandistic move. If he were an honest broker, he would be encouraging everyone to see and study Jack's work. Instead, he is doing his best to discourage that. Anyone who wants to view the evidence for themselves should con- tack Jack at (817) 429-8432 and obtain a copy of this excellent work. Those who owe the public apologies are Tink and Parks, not me. JHF > > Mantik begins his statement: “Jim Fetzer and I both agree that his > (Fetzer’s) comments were highly inappropriate...” Well, I guess so. But what > of Thompson. Ah, his conduct was “tragic”: > > “He [Thompson] chose instead to waste this valuable opportunity by firing a > diatribe against Fetzer that chiefly embarrassed himself [Thompson] — a truly > tragic sight for those of us observing a revered senior statesman in this > case. I could only watch this performance with great dismay (as I did > Fetzer’s).” > > Here the comparison of Fetzer whose comments were “inappropriate” with > “the truly tragic sight” of Thompson, “the revered senior statesman,” “firing a > diatribe... that chiefly embarrassed himself” betrays the hidden hand of the > good professor himself. If this is the case, then my earlier remark that > Fetzer often hides behind Mantik’s skirts is only half-true. It would appear > that Mantik wants to afford the good professor not only a hiding place but also > a mouthpiece. Alas! > > The title “revered senior statesman” does not seem to fit. I see > myself > as only another guy who got mixed up in this case several decades ago and has > seen much silliness come and go. I would see the good professor as generally > under that category — a figure of fun. I see him with a broad, understanding > smile on his face, the professor of critical thinking, trailing spurious facts > and misunderstood studies (e.g. Loftus), a second-rate 19th Century logic book > at his side, pompously accusing others of committing the same fallacies he > himself makes while spouting loony theories (Greer shot the President) and > arguments of the form: “If a single witness has a 2% chance of being wrong...” > As a figure of fun, he should be laughed at. Since he has never personally > made any research discovery or argued anything someone before him had not > already argued, he has no role beyond what he has chosen to be: buffoon. > Just to display the poverty of Tink's intellect, if my work is so unim- portant, then why in God's name are he and Shackelford and Parks among others devoting so much of their time and effort in futile attempts to discredit me and work I have done? If the things Tink says here about me were true, his behavior would be truly demented. Why is Tink even bothering to say anything about me at all? The answer, I suspect, is that a controversy of this kind functions as a major distraction from the truly significant advances in understanding the case that were pre- sented during the conference, including Jack White's proofs of Zapru- der film alteration, Doug Horne's memoranda concering the possession of the film by NPIC the weekend of the assassination, and Doug Weldon's discoveries concering the through-and-through bullet hole in the wind- shield, where he has even located and interviewed the fellow from FORD who was responsible for removing and replacing it already Monday morn- ing. These are dramatic and impressive achievements that provide very powerful evidence of conspiracy and cover-up! The burden of proof has decisively shifted to the antialterationists. But Tink and Shackelford and Parks would rather create a diversionary brouhaha. Ask yourself if that serves to promote assassination research or distort it? JHF Dr. Fetzer was kind enough to allow me to read his response regarding alteration of the Z film as discussed at Lancer and invite me to con- tribute any thoughts I deemed appropriate to this discussion. JW Many internet readers who were not at the Lancer and COPA conferences where I showed THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX must be very confused by the misinformation and disinformation being posted daily attacking my presentation. Many of those commenting negatively admit that THEY HAVE NOT EVEN VIEWED THE PRESENTATION, and are basing their attacks on what others have said. Virtually everything posted so far is in- correct. JW In the interest of presenting THE TRUTH about my presentation of re- search proving Z film alteration, I offer the following succinct out- line of the evidence my study produced: JW (1) Testimony and evidence of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman are crucial to proving the film is altered. JW (2) The Moorman photo, known to be genuine, is a moment frozen in time which can be accurately compared to the Z film. JW (3) Using the Moorman photo, the exact line of sight of Moorman's cam- era can be determined. JW (4) Having located this line of sight, it is easy to prove that Moor- man and Hill as seen in the Z film are not in the proper location to have taken the Moorman Polaroid. In the Z film, they are 8 feet too far east, and about 18 inches too high. This proof is easily repli- cated by anyone who can go to the plaza and make the observations and measurements. JW (5) Locating and photographing the yellow curb markings in the kill zone provides an exact scale for comparison with Z frames. JW (6) Using the curb marking as a scale, it is easy to determine that the Z background has been enlarged 130 percent. JW (7) Using two lampposts for scale, it can be determined that the Running Woman is 130 percent taller than her known height. JW (8) Using the Cancellare photo, it is seen that several anomalies differ from what is seen in the Z film 20 seconds earlier. JW (9) A comparison of 31 motionless people with other photos of them reveals startling unexplained discrepancies. JW (10) Other anomalies, such as inconsistent shadows, need further investigation. JW (11) Interview with French author William Reymond, who was shown AN UNALTERED VERSION of the Zapruder film by former members of French intelligence. JW The above is a summary of my basic video presentation, which, as Jim as observed, is available by phone or mail order. JW In addition, I presented a couple of minutes of slides (not in the video) of computer analysis showing COMPUTER FILTER PATCHES on cer- tain frames. This is an incomplete work in progress by Robin De- Loria and Lincoln Clark, who are continuing to discover these rec- tangular disguises. More on this as it develops. JW I hope this sets the record straight about what my research shows, and that those posting things to the contrary are shown to be mis- taken. I hope that no more critical posting will be undertaken by those who have not yet seen my research. However, I also hope that everyone who views the video will post reviews and accurate summaries of what they consider important or noteworthy. JW Thanks to Jim for allowing me to include this summary, which attempts to set the record straight, in his posting. JW There is no doubt that the Z film as we know it is NOT the camera original. JW For truth, Jack White > But there is a more. > > He brands people who disagree with him as “disinformation” artists and > lists them on his web page. Two people have told me that he threatened them > with lawsuits because of what they said of his book or him. The book itself is > a mess. The articles by Drs. Crenshaw and Mantic (on autopsy x-rays) are > well-worth reading; Mantik’s is superb. But “others” (as the Milwaukee Journal > Sentinel put it) “are of no interest to anyone except James Fetzer.. and his > immediate family and friends.” The book and Fetzer both exemplify a pernicious > trend... a cult of expertise which emphasizes the letters after someone’s name > and the number of times one can call them “distinguished.” This tendency is > anathema to the origins of this community of inquiry. If permitted to continue > it will further marginalize research in this area and the good people who do > it. I pointed that out not in the form of a “diatribe” against a person I see > as a buffoon but as a call to reject the cult of expertise he exemplifies. If > Mantik is too wedded to Fetzer to recognize the distinction then that speaks > only of his blindness. > When I first read THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL-SENTINEL review, it was plain to me that we had taken a professional hit. The only material cited was Crenshaw's excellent piece (which is well-written but hardly new) and Mantik's study of the Zapruder film (which was denigrated by the suggestion that he was only exploring possibilities by "showing how it could have been doctored to depict only what officials wanted it to depict"). There was NOTHING about fabricated X-rays, the substitution of another brain for that of JFK, the evidence that Jack alone was hit four times (once in the back from behind, once in the neck from in front, and twice in the head from behind and from in front), that Lee Oswald had been framed using manufactured evidence, or that the Warren Commission inquiry had been conducted as a political charade, with a phoney bullet, phoney limo, and phoney wounds. I even mentioned to David that it was a clever disinformation technique to plant reviews that were complete distortions of this kind (using friendly book re- viewers, as Document 1035-960 recommends) and then have other assets cite them as though they were authoritative! Little did I then sus- pect that someone who would practice this technique is Tink Thompson! Anyone who doubts my description of the review should locate a copy, which was once available via web site www.assassinationscience.com, and compare it to the contents of the book. You do not even have to read the whole book: just try the Preface and the Prologue. Ask if anyone who had read at least that much of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE could compose such a review with a clear conscience. Now along comes Tink who rarely reads anything and who has never bothered to actually read this book. He now excuses himself by trading upon the work of others, especially when it fits his preconceptions to a tee. That is what he has done in this case above and using Martin as a source below. JHF > Numerous technical points raised by Mantik deserve an answer. However, > because Martin Shackelford has already answered them with more pith and clarity > than I can muster, I’ll simply quote Martin: > > “David: > > Actually, some of those who reported Fetzer's actions at the Zapruder > panel DID report his apology the next day that's how I learned of it. Others > may not have been at the morning session you mention. > > I've studied Doug Horne's "film maps," and included the information > from them in complete detail in my summary of the Zavada report, posted on the > queenbee newsgroup. Nothing in them seems to indicate alteration of the > original film, and much in them suggests that alteration did not occur, but I > will be interesting in hearing your take on them. > > The issue of the septum line is that it's width and location > links the copies on which it appears to the Jamieson lab printer. It appeared > only in the home movie portion because the printer was set for "image only," as > is detailed in the technical reports. If the copies were made at Jamieson lab > in November 1963, it is likely that the original which they match is authentic. > That is the significance of the septum line. > > As for the debate over Loftus, that was pretty much > settled by > Loftus herself, and her own responses provided the basis for Thompson's > statements. Do you feel that your interpretation of Loftus is more valid than > her own? She didn't feel the TABLE was misleading. She felt that you > misinterpreted it, and exaggerated the issue of salience, which was not a focus > of the Marshall study. Salience was described using statistics which had no > basis in reality. Repeatedly focusing on the "limo stop" witnesses fails to > take into account the "limo slow" witnesses and the "limo didn't stop" > witnesses, who also would have considered a stop "salient" HAD THERE BEEN ONE. > The testimony on this issue has been greatly oversimplified and misused. Tague > doesn't add much -- from his position, a slowing might have appeared to be a > stop, as was true from the position of the Morning News witnesses, the TSBD > front witnesses, and others. > > Thompson didn't "fail to report" the "new eyewitnesses" to > NPICas far as I know (and we were in correspondence on Zapruder issues), he was > not yet aware of those witnesses. "Failed to report" implies that he knew of > them and suppressed the information. What the > "new eyewitness" evidence means has yet to be determined, so it's a bit early > to declare "a major defeat for him." > > There's nothing in the first (71597) Horne document (as just > posted by Jim Fetzer) saying that the film was altered -- just a dubious claim > that it was processed by Kodak in Rochester instead of Dallas. We don't know if > the pseudonymous "Bill Smith" of the Secret Service TOLD McMahon the film was > developed in Rochester, or if he told him it was developed by Kodak, and > McMahon ASSUMED it was developed in Rochester, the Kodak headquarters. > > The second (81497) Horne document is somewhat confusing -- McMahon first > says the work was done on Friday night, then says they viewed the film on > Friday night and did the work on Saturday night; his assistant simply reports > they did the work on Saturday night by this time, of course, Stolley had taken > the original film and a copy to Chicago and New York, after purchasing it from > LIFE. There is nothing here that supports the idea of a film altered on Friday > night, and sold in altered form to LIFE on Saturday. Hunter, the assistant, > said copies of the film would "probably have been made in Rochester," lending > support to the idea that Kodak was mentioned, but not Rochester, and that > McMahon transformed his assumption into a "memory." He remembered what he had > assumed, and that became the memory of what he had been told (remember, we are > talking about interviews that occurred 34 years after the event). > > The third (61897; the sequence is from Fetzer's posting) Horne document > is based on an interview of Hunter. Contrary to some theories that NPIC altered > the film, Hunter says they didn't even have the capability to copy a color > film, as the focus of the lab was on still photography, mostly black and white > reconnaissance photos. Their task, as indicated in previously released CIA > documents and confirmed here, was to try to figure out where the shots > happened. This is consistent with the earlier documents, which describe a film > exactly > consistent with the one we have today. > > The fourth Horne document (71597) is from an interview with > McMahon, and > is somewhat more interesting. "McMahon said his opinion, which was that > President Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was > ultimately ignored." So, the CIA analyst reported evidence of conspiracy, and > the Secret Service didn't want to hear it. That's an interesting twist, to say > the least. The Secret Service agent, he said, told him it was his job to make > frame enlargements, not to do analysis. > > It looks to me like these documents undermine more theories > than they support. Maybe we ARE getting closer to the truth, as most theories > have to be wrong. Was this information discussed, or did EVERYONE "fail to > report" it? > > We don't need the Zapruder film to locate Moorman she appears in > many of the films and photos. What kind of idiot would alter her position, > perhaps one of the bestdocumented of anyone's, along with Jean Hill? Anyone > with a copy of the Moorman photo and a chart of Dealey Plaza can pinpoint her > position; then they can do the same thing using the Z film, the Nix film, the > Muchmore film, the Bronson photo, etc., etc. > > You seem to be massively projecting when you say that what > everyone wants with the Z film is “resolution." That's true to a degree, I > suppose, but only if the resolution is the truth. The idea that "the > authenticity crowd" has forgotten that "the road to truth is not necessarily > paved with satin sheets and sweets" is interesting in its assumptions that: (a) > those that believe the film authentic are not on "the road to truth," and( b) > that only the alterationists have faced "prickles and briars." > > Frankly, Mr. Fetzer, Mr. Lifton, and others of the more abusive > alterationists seem to qualify as "prickles and briars" for anyone who dares to > challenge their claims. > > Martin Shackelford > With respect to the Horne documents, Martin massively distorts their significance, where the first summarizes the report of Homer McMahon --who was in charge of the color lab at NPIC in Washington in 1963-- that the developed film was brought to him the weekend of the assas- sination for special processing and was to be treated as "beyond top secret". Martin suggests that perhaps McMahon was told that it was developed by Kodak and ASSUMED that it was done in Rochester. But those who actually read these documents will find that McMahon re- affirms his conviction that the USSS agent who delivered the film INSISTED it had been developed in Rochester. The second summarizes McMahon's belief that this was on Friday night, the night of the as- sassination, and that their work continued into the next day, Satur- day. His assistant, Ben Hunter, believes they began on Saturday and that their work continued into the next day, Sunday. BOTH OF THEM ARE CERTAIN THAT THIS OCCURRED BEFORE THE OFFICIAL FUNERAL ON MON- DAY. Martin would have you believe that these documents are confus- ing, but the only confusing thing about them is Martin's description. There is no doubt in either of their minds that this work was done the weekend of the assassination. Moreover, McMahon states that he personally viewed the film at least 10 times. In the third, McMahon and Hunter report they were instructed to analyze (i.e., locate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, including "studying frames leading up to shots", and then produce color prints showing shots impacting. The fourth (which is a quote taken from the same document as the first) reports that McMahon had concluded that President Kennedy was hit between 6 and 8 times from at least three directions, but that the USSS agent who delivered the film was not interested in his opinion and had already concluded that there were exactly three shots fired from above and behind. Now Shackelford can attempt to trivialize these reports as much as he wants, but these have to be among the most important discoveries in the history of the study of the assassination. So it might be worthwhile asking, why does Shackelford want to dismiss them? JHF Reading this long quote from Shackelford and his earlier deference to THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL-SENTINEL made me smile at Tink's remark about my "hiding behind Mantik's skirts". I explicited endorsed David's argument, which was taking a public stand. Tink is citing these reports in lieu of offering any comments of his own. It is Tink, not I, who is guilty of hiding behind someone's skirts. JHF > An additional comment should be made with respect to Mantik’s long > gloss > on Loftus. My comments were not about Mantik’s use of Loftus, they were about > Fetzer’s use of Mantik. Mantik was rather circumspect with respect Loftus. He > pointed out that these were not her “findings” but of an article she cited in > her book. He even pointed out that her book jacket argues that eyewitness > testimony is unreliable. He got the article wrong with respect to who made the > judgments about salience (they weren’t made by the 151 observers Mantik said > they were made by). After Art Snyder pointed it out, he has now admitted that > his statistical argument was mistaken. But I wasn’t talking about Mantik. I > was talking about Fetzer. It was Fetzer who both in email to me and twice at > the conference spoke of “Elizabeth Loftus’ findings” and it was Fetzer who > started waving around Mantik’s mistaken statistical calculation as if it were > some kind of mantra. Fetzer’s knowledge of anything is about one millimeter > thick. Hence, he doesn’t even read carefully an article he publishes in his > own book but goes prattling on accusing people of misinterpreting Loftus when > it was he who misinterpreted both Loftus and Mantik. The use Fetzer makes of > Mantik’s reference to Loftus and of Mantik’s description of an article she > cited is a kind of litmus test of Fetzer and Assassination Science. > Neither are > reliable. > Why is Tink attacking me, in this case especially? I was endorsing David's argument, which I still believe to be sound. My input was restricted to a single paragraph on a single page of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, p. 210. READ IT! I have reread this paragraph and found nothing objectionable, EVEN AFTER HEARING TINK AND ART'S CRITIQUES. Here is the paragraph in its entirely, which I insist is all true: "A widely-held belief holds that eyewitness testimony tends to be unreliable. It was one of the more remarkable aspects of Mantik's research, therefore, that he discovered a strikingly high degree of agreement among multiple witnesses about shots that hit the President's head. This led him to a review of the current liter- ature on the reliability of witnesses, including Elisabeth Loftus, EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY (1996). On Table 3.1, he discovered a sum- mary of research with 151 subjects, which reported that, when sub- jects considered what they were observing to be salient (or sig- nificant), they were 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect to their observations--reinforcing their importance as evidence and offering one more indication that popular opinions are not always true." That's it! That's all of it. And so far as I can see, each of the sentences that make up this paragraph is true! All four of them! So what precisely are Tink Thompson and Art Snyder doing here? Why are they attempting to create a HUGE CONTROVERSY when there is no basis for doing so? I would admit, of course, that IF there is something wrong with David's argument (ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, pp. 278-279), THEN my endorsement is mistaken. So far as I have been able to dis- cern, neither of them has shown that David's argument is wrong. So why in God's name are they making such an issue out of this? JHF > Since this is a reply to David Mantik, I want to close with a few words > to him personally. > > About two months ago, I received a fax from Millicent Cranor. That fax > seemed to me to exemplify a trend in assassination research which I found > pernicious — hanging names like “turncoat” on people you disagreed with, making > the research community into some kind of cult where there was a party line. I > sent her an email pointing this out and sent it to anyone else in the research > community for whom I had an email address. If memory serves, I sent one to > you. > > Soon thereafter I received a long, supercilious and abusive email from > the good professor. I say “abusive” because in that single email he said the > following: (1) "You have thereby discredited yourself as a commentator on these > issues." (2) "I think you would be more persuasive if you could at least not > commit mistakes in reasoning that philosophy professors teach their students to > avoid." (3) "You, a practicing detective who should know better.." (4) "It has > not been necessary for you to look at any evidence because you have thought > about it and settled the matter for yourself." (5) "This is an unworthy > argument that anyone who is serious about these matters would never remotely > consider advancing." (6) "[with reference to Gary Mack, Anthony Marsh and > Martin Shackelford] I think you are far off the mark in your estimation of who > is and who is not worthy of respect in the assassination community. If this is > the company you keep it behooves us all to take notice and adjust our > evaluations of you accordingly." (7) "You have now earned the title of a > leading antiintellectual and knownothing!" (8) "And who better to expose this > post by Tink Thompson as intellectual rubbish than James H. Fetzer, an expert > in critical thinking?" (9) "I only wish that you were as serious about current > research on the film as you are with preserving your own reputation relative to > past work on the film.. you have simply become another obstacle en route to > uncovering the truth in the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy." > (10)"These are reasons why you have discredited yourself as a commentator on > recent developments in this case, about which you appear to be abysmally > ignorant. If you are sincere in your desire to continue to contribute rather > than rest on laurels earned in earlier times, then contact..." > Here, of course, Tink is practicing the fallacy of special pleading by citing only my conclusions and none of the premises on which they are based. This is such a blatant example that anyone who wants to ascer- tain whether or not Tink is playing fair and even handed should simply track down the email exchange from which it has been extracted, parts of which I recently reposted to refute the absurd suggestion of Parks that Tink had been under some sort of attack over email to which he (Tink) had been unable to respond until the time of the conference as a backhanded apology for Tink's unwarranted personal attacks upon me, another instance of Parks practicing deception and misdirection. JHF > I decided that I did not deserve that kind of abuse... especially from a > blowhard and self-promoter like Fetzer... and I fired back. The fire and > counterfire went through an exchange of some eighteen or so emails before > Fetzer retired from the field of debate. Right now, Fetzer is selectively > posting four of these emails (three from Fetzer and one from me) in the > misguided hope that somehow they will rehabilitate him. In one of the emails > he’s not posting, he mentioned inadvertently that Gary Aguilar had told him > he’d “been handed his hat.” I don’t mean to judge this exchange. I mention it > only as background to what I want to say to you. > Sometimes it is the small things (the "little lies", if you will) that are most revealing of an individual's modus operandi. In this case, he suggests I "retired from the field of debate" when I formally terminat- ed an exchange that had gone far beyond the point of dimishing returns. I mentioned Gary's remark quite deliberately, not "inadvertently". In the Marine Corps, we referred to stuff like this as "chicken shit". JHF > > I told you Friday afternoon before my talk that I was going to attack Fetzer > and the tendency he exemplified. I told you in advance that I regretted any > “collateral damage” that might occur, that I saw you as a friend and wished to > preserve that friendship. I mention this because I too value civility and the > rules of scholarly debate. I do not enjoy invective but I do enjoy puncturing > pomposity. Fetzer came out of nowhere to abuse and pick a fight with me. I > will continue to give it back to him as long as he behaves as he has. I don’t > see that your dog is in this fight. Why not let him speak for himself? He > surely has the wind for it. > > Josiah Thompson > Josiah Thompson > Post Office Box 247 > Bolinas, California 94924 > (415) 868-9022 (phone) > (415) 868-2072 (fax) True to form, what we have here is a classic case of personal attacks, which appears to be the best that Josiah Thompson can do at this point in time. His contributions to the case, I believe, had the ironic ef- fect of creating the impression that the Zapruder film itself had been thoroughly studied. But drawings rather than frames were published in his book. We have seen drawings before: the Warren Commission used them and the HSCA used them again (better drawings by a more skilled artist, but drawings, nevertheless). The use of drawings has been a clever technique to distract attention from the best evidence in each such case: the original photographs and film. We are clearly engaged in a tremendous breakthrough based upon scientific and objective stud- ies of the film, unlike any that have gone before. The accumulating evidence--including studies by Daryll Weatherly, David Mantik and now Jack White--makes the case for alteration beyond any reasonable doubt. Documents released through the ARRB now make it impossible any longer to deny that the film was in the hands of the CIA at the NPIC already the weekend of the assassination. This is powerful stuff, too power- ful to maintain the posture--the pretense--that we know no more than we knew before. We are gaining access to the truth about the cover- up to a degree of detail that none of us in our wildest dreams would have thought possible. And none of these distractions or distortions or misrepresentations is going to deny us access to the truth. JHF James H. Fetzer Although I could address some peripheral points in this dialogue, I prefer instead to reserve my limited time for several emerging new leads. DM Based on Thompson's references to the NPIC witnesses, both during his talk and in the text that I later read, I believed that he had seen these documents. Based on what he has since said, I was mis- taken in this. It was therefore wrong of me to imply that he had suppressed information. For this, he has my apology. DM My computer is currently in sick bay. E-mail responses will be correspondingly delayed. DM David Mantik