Message #5

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 16:41:28 -0600 (CST)
From: james fetzer
To: dweldon
Cc: james fetzer 
Subject: It goes on and on (fwd)

Doug,

Tell Anthony to use "forward" rather than "return" so we do not continue
to pile up the ">>>" indentations, which make these messages increasingly
difficult to read.  I have provided my comments below, which are indented.

Jim

P.S.  Why not send me his email address and we can exchange between the
      three of us more easily without your having to serve as our host?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:39:58 -0500
From: Doug Weldon 
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: It goes on and on

Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Doug Weldon wrote:
> >
> >  Anthony:  I am forwarding this at Jim's request.
> >                                     Doug Weldon
> >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 23:35:49 -0500
> > > From: Doug Weldon 
> > > To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
> > > Subject: Re: for your interest
> > >
> > > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doug Weldon wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > james fetzer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Doug,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Furthermore, two motorcycle patrolmen in addition to Richard
>
> > > > Dudman
> > > > > > obser-
> > > > > > ved what they regarded as a through-and-through bullet hole
> in
> > > the
> > > >
> > > > > > wind-
> > > > > > shield.  With your significant testimony from a participant
> in
> > > the
> > > >
> > > > > > recon-
> > > > > > struction of the windshield, I don't understand what is left
> for
> > >
> > > > > > dispute.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, james fetzer wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doug,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't understand what Marsh means when he says I have
> not
> > > > > > identified the
> > > > > > > location of the hole in the windshield.  It appears marked
>
> > > with
> > > > a
> > > > > > large
> > > > > > > arrow on p. 143, where I also mention that excellent
> prints of
> > >
> > > > the
> > > > > > Altgens
> > > > > > > photograph may be found in COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (1970)
> and
> > >
> > > > in
> > > > > > Groden's
> > > > > > > THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT (1993).  He should also take a
> look
> > >
> > > > at p.
> > > > > > 36 of
> > > > > > > Groden's book, where, as I point out on p. 144, photos of
> the
> > > > > > windshields
> > > > > > > appear side-by-side.  I was reporting an observation made
> by
> > > Roy
> > > >
> > > > > > Schaeffer
> > > > > > > and providing supporting evidence.  I don't care whether
> he
> > > > thinks
> > > > > > this is
> > > > > > > "research" or not, but it is doing something to present
> the
> > > > evidence
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > a rather significant instance in which the SS participated
> in
> > > > the
> > > > > > cover-up.
> > > > > > > >From Marsh's remarks, I don't think he has actually read
> what
> > > I
> > > >
> > > > > > have said.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jim
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > P.S.  Your are welcome to forward any of this as you think
>
> > > > > > appropriate.
> > > >
> > > > An arrow pointing to a general area is not what I would call
> being
> > > > specific. If there were any scientific validity to Fetzer's
> argument
> > >
> > > > then he would not be afraid to specify the location of this
> supposed
> > >
> > > > hole by giving exact measurements, the way the FBI examination
> team
> > > > did.
> > > > Please ask him to do so. I have examined the general area
> pointed to
> > >
> > > > by
> > > > the arrow and there is no hole there. No damage whatsoever.
> > >
> > > This is silly!  The arrow on the upper photograph on p. 143 of
> > > ASSASSIN-
> > > ATION SCIENCE points to the spiral nebula with a dark hole in the
> > > center,
> > > precisely as I describe it on p. 144 of the book.  Immediately
> below
> > > this
> > > photograph, of course, is a photo of the windshield the Secret
> Service
> > >
> > > produced.  The best prints of the Altgens can be found in
> COMPUTERS
> > > AND
> > > AUTOMATION (May 1970), pp. 44-45, and THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT
> > > (1993),
> > > pp. 30-31.  The two also appear side-by-side in Groden's book on
> p.
> > > 36.
> > > The arrow does NOT point to a general area but to the hole's
> location.
> > >
> > > > The problem with these theories is that when I try to nail them
> down
> > >
> > > > and
> > > > point out that there is nothing there, they can easily claim
> that
> > > they
> > > >
> > > > really were talking about another area, and so it goes time and
> > > again.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am not talking about a "theory" but photographic evidence that
> is
> > > plain
> > > to see.  Your words here are what is "bizarre", though I suspect
> that
> > > you
> > > have looked at this photograph so long without seeing what I am
> > > talking
> > > about that you are unable to perceive something that should be
> > > obvious.
> > > Remember, I am talking about a phenomenon that appears on the
> surface
> > > of
> > > the windshield exactly where the President's left ear would be if
> it
> > > were
> > > visible as I also explain in ASSASSINATION CHRONICLES (Summer
> 1997),
> > > p. 5.
> > >
> > > > I have run into these bizarre theories many times and every time
> I
> > > ask
> > > >
> > > > for specific information, the person becomes quite defensive and
>
> > > > accuses
> > > > me of something. Please, just provide information when I request
> it.
> > >
> > > > That's all. If someone's theory is valid, then he should be able
> to
> > > > defend it.
> > >
> > > I really think that you ought to ask someone who does not already
> > > "know"
> > > that it is not there whether they can see a small, white, spiral
> > > nebula
> > > with a dark spot in the center at the exact location where the
> > > President's
> > > left ear would be if his left ear were visible (since it is
> obscured
> > > by
> > > this phenomenon), which occurs just to the right and slightly
> above
> > > the
> > > upper right corner of the rear-view mirror, slightly to the left
> of
> > > the
> > > crack location in the SS photo.  It's in the foreground, not
> > > background.
> > >
> > > > At least Fetzer should be willing to concede that I am correct
> in my
> > >
> > > > observation that the area where his arrow points is NOT the same
> as
> > > > the
> > > > area where CE350 shows a crack. So he is talking about a hole in
>
> > > > addition to the crack. Or he is claiming that every photograph
> > > showing
> > > >
> > > > the windshield damage is a fake and that all the people
> associated
> > > > with
> > > > the limousine lied except for his handful of people who claimed
> that
> > >
> > > > there was a hole.
> > >
> > > I really don't know what you is talking about.  I have produced
> the
> > > photo
> > > and indicated where you can find better copies.  Which copies are
> you
> > > ex-
> > > amining?  The evidence is there, plain as day.  And to suggest
> that I
> > > am
> > > playing games with you or with anyone else is insulting and
> offensive.
> > >
> > >                          He has absolutely NO WITNESS who ever
> said
> > > that
> > > > there
> > > > was a HOLE AND a CRACK. NONE. Those witnesses who said it was a
> hole
> > >
> > > > are
> > > > talking about the one location being either a hole or a crack,
> not
> > > two
> > > >
> > > > separate locations.
> > > > Can you get Fetzer to at least admit that the hole he is talking
>
> > > about
> > > >
> > > > is in another location than the crack seen in CE350?
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Marsh
> > >
> > > This is quite ridiculous.  The location is the same.  I am
> certainly
> > > NOT
> > > maintaining that there were BOTH a through-and-through hole in the
>
> > > wind-
> > > shield AND a crack in the windshield AT THE SAME TIME.  I AM
> > > maintaining
> > > that there was a through-and-through hole in the windshield in a
> > > photo-
> > > graph that was taken AT THE TIME OF THE ASSASSINATION, but which
> was
> > > no
> > > longer present WHEN THE SECRET SERVICE LATER produced a
> windshield.
> > > My
> > > position is completely consistent and supported by several kinds
> of
> > > evi-
> > > dence, including the Altgens photograph and at least three
> eyewitness
> > > reports, including two motocycle patrolment and a reporter for the
> ST.
> > >
> > > LOUIS POST DISPATCH, who subsequently pubished an account of his
> > > exper-
> > > ience, which is reprinted on p. 167.  It is also supported by the
> guy
> > > who changed the windshield for Ford.  What evidence supports your
> > > view?
> > >
> > > James H. Fetzer
> > >
> > > .
> > > .
>
> Again, the fact that Fetzer is unwilling or unable to specify and
> indicate with precise measurements exactly where he believes this hole
> is does not inspire confidence in his scientific method. When he is
> vague, it gives him an easy out when I point to the area he is
> discussing. He can simply say that I am pointing to the wrong area. We
> could go through this 100 times and each time he can change the area
> he is talking about in order  to negate any argument I make.

  This is silly, since Anthony obviously located the area exactly where
  I said it was located, namely:  where he finds what he takes to be a
  "white area", apparently missing the dark hole in the center.  In the
  absence of access to the original windshield, I could not do better
  than to estimate the distances, as should have been obvious.  Were I
  to do that, I would say that its 1/2" at most from the upper-right
  corner of the rear-view mirror, where Jack's left ear would be vis-
  ible were his left ear not obscured by a small white nebula.  In my
  letter to the editor of ASSASSINATION CHRONICLES (Summer 1997), p. 5,
  I observed that I had received a copy of CE-900 in which the dark spot
  at the center of the white spiral nubula located right where the Pres-
  ident's left ear would be if it were visible appeared to have been re-
  moved.  I suggested that one reason this case may have proven so dif-
  ficult to resolve is that the government continues to alter evidence.   

> I am quite surprised that Fetzer would put into print a claim that this
> area where he thinks there is a hole is exactly the same location as the
> damage seen in CE 350.

  I do that because that is where the photos to which I have repeatedly
  invited your attention shows the hole as being and where the fellow at
  Ford who changed the windshields said it was located as well as more-or-
  less where the eyewitnesses at Parkland (including two motorcycle pat-
  rolmen and a reporter for the ST. LOUIS POST DISPATCH) located it.  That
  it corresponds to the location of the cracked area is hardly surprising
  if, as appears to be the case, the substitution was deliberately intend-
  ed to conceal a through-and-through hole by replacing the windshield.
  The crack was located at a place dictated by the original damage, not
  vice versa, an hypothesis that is at least as reasonable as any other. 

> The best source for these photos is not a book. It is a copy
> internegative from the National Archives, which is what I have. Then
> someone can make his own blow-ups from those second-generation
> negatives, which I have.

  How do you KNOW that this is the best evidence?  You BELIEVE you have
  the best evidence,  But how can you be so sure?  Photographs and films
  are NOT "the best evidence" before the law.  As I explained on p. 210
  of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE in discussing the Zapruder film, "legal pro-
  cedure permits photographs and motion pictures to be used as evidence
  in courts of law only when a foundation for their introduction has been
  established by eyewitness testimony.  According to MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE
  3rd edition (1984), Section 214, concerning photographs, fo example,

    The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted 
    into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of 
    illustrative drawings, maps and diagrams.  Under this theory, a
    photograph is viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testi-
    mony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testifed that
    it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts
    personally observed by the witness.

  So it would appear that the eyewitness testimony of the motorcycle
  patrolmen and of Richard Dudman cannot be casually dismissed.  In
  taking for granted that the photograph in your possession from the
  National Archives is authentic, you are simply begging the question
  which needs to be settled on other grounds.  I assert categorically
  that, in my judgment, what you have is a genuine photograph (it is 
  A PHOTOGRAPH) but that you are unable to establish when and by whom
  it was taken (for certain, you cannot prove when it was taken).  If
  we were to assume that records and documents stored in the National
  Archives were INVARIABLY AUTHENTIC, then we would not have to worry
  about the autopsy X-rays and photographs or the Zapruder film.  But
  we KNOW on the basis of Mantik's very meticulous studies that these
  X-rays have been fabricated (and, indeed, in two different ways) as
  he has explained in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE.  So what good reason do
  we have for assuming that the photograph you have is the real thing?

> The only thing in the area being pointed to by the arrow is a white
> area, which is clearly in the background, someone's clothes. The bottom
> margin of this white area follows the contour of JFK's jacket exactly.
> The odds that a bullet hole would match the contour of JFK's jacket
> exactly are astronomical. The white background is being cut off by JFK's
> jacket in the foreground. Again, a little simple research would have
> cleared this up before it rose to the level of a theory.

  [Minor point:  You mean "infinitesimal" where you say "astronomical".]

  Of course, there is a question of what is seen.  But I find it pecul-
  iar that you resort to evidence not available to me or to Doug to dis-
  count evidence to the contrary that is readily available.  Are you of
  the opinion that there is NO dark spot at the center of the small white
  spiral nebula in the photographs to which I have invited your attention,
  namely:  the one that appears on p. 143 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, the
  one that appears on pp. 30-31 of THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT, and the
  one that appears on pp. 44-45 of COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION?  If that is
  your position, then I could ridicule it in the same vein that you rid-
  icule me by putting words in your mouth that you never uttered, such
  as:  So are you suggesting that Richard Sprague and Robert Groden al-
  tered these photographs to include a dark spot that was not there or-
  iginally?  When did they do that?  And why did they do that?  Are you
  not impugning their integrity as students of the assassination of JFK?
  That is a cheap tactic, and you ought to be embarrassed to employ it.
  Moreover, if this "white area", as you call it, actually WERE in the
  background (behind rather than in front of the various passengers), I
  would appreciate knowing WHY the President's left ear is not visible!
  My hypothesis explains why it has been obscured, but your's does not
  explain why it is NOT visible when, by your hypothesis, it should be!

  [Incidentally, it is not "research" to make a claim that you cannot
  support with relevant evidence, as you do in this paragraph.  Taking
  for granted the issue under consideration is not SCHOLARSHIP.  And
  the hypothesis that a bullet passed through the windshield is NOT a
  "theory"!  I suspect you chose that word to imply that this is "only
  a theory" as a speculation or conjecture for which evidence is lack-
  ing.  That, however, is clearly NOT the case, as I have explained.]

> I have a couple of computer scans of these photos which I send to you
> separately so that you can see it for yourself.

  Sure, send them to Doug and send them to me.  My address is Department
  of Philosophy, University of Minnesota, Duluth, MN 55812.  My thanks!
  But all we are going to discover is that there are inconsistent photo-
  graphs, where the Altgens shows what appears to be a through-and-thro-
  ugh hole in the windshield in a photo taken at the time, while another
  shows a cracked windshield without a through-and-through hole, which
  is something we already knew (cf. THE KILLING OF A PRESIDENT, p. 36).
  What we don't know is precisely when your photos were actually taken.

> I really don't expect Fetzer to answer all my questions, but I put them
> out there so that you can see some of the problems with this theory.
> Fetzer has still not explained how there could apparently be a hole in
> the windshield which he sees in the Altgens 1-6, yet that is only a
> crack in Ce 350 which was taken only about 12 hours after the
> assassination and supposedly before any windshield switch took place.

  As far as I can see, I HAVE answered all your questions.  Here is one 
  I have for you:  How do you KNOW when this photograph was taken?  Why
  can this photo NOT have been taken later AFTER the windshields were
  switched at Ford?  How can you be positive about this point?  Doug
  has located the person in charge of removing and replacing it when
  it was at the Ford factory on Monday morning, when he first saw it
  already stipped down to the metal.  Is he supposed to be LYING too?
  For if I understand your position, not only have two motorcycle pat-
  rolmen and a respected reporter LIED about their observations from
  Parkland but the guy who actually supervised the removal and replace-
  ment of the windshild is ALSO lying about what he did at the time--
  a curious situation, insofar as he appears to be scared almost out
  of his wits in fear that something bad will happen to him for know-
  ing what he knows--and he KNOWS because he has first-hand knowledge!
  If he WERE lying, he would at least know that he had nothing to fear. 

> Is he then going to have to change his argument to include a windsheild
> switch while the limo was under guard at Parkland Hospital in order to
> counter my argument? That is one problem with these bizarre theories.
> They are not well thought out, so when further arguments are made, the
> originators have to scramble to think up new aspects of the theory.
> And again, Fetzer ignores any of my questions for which he does not
> have convenient answers. I pointed out that the FBI examination team
> clearly indicated at about 1AM on 11/23/63 that there was a crack in the
> windshield and they did not indicate that it was a hole or that there
> was additional damage to the windshield. How does Fetzer get around
> this? Does he claim that these professional crime scene investigators
> mistook the hole for a crack? Or does he claim that everyone who said
> it was a crack was part of a cover-up? How would they know so early on
> what to cover up and why? Did they create a fake CE 350? This is the
> problem with these bizarre theories. When evidence is presented which
> contradicts them, they have to start going down that slope of claiming
> that all the evidence is faked. Ok, so if they want to play that game,
> I could likewise claim that someone drew in a fake hole in Altgens 1-6.
> So, what evidence do I have? Well, I don't have second hand reports or
> optical illusions. I have the crime scene examination team notes. I
> have the photos taken shortly after the assassination. Negatives and
> blow-ups, not books. Fetzer does not seem to be able to deal with these.
>
> Anthony Marsh

  Anthony, do you understand that there are more than fifteen indications
  of Secret Service complicity in setting up the President for the hit?
  Do you understand that the FBI was filtering the evidence right from
  the start to insure that the Director's view--that exactly three shots 
  had been fired from above and behind from a high velocity weapon--was
  supported by the available evidence?  Do you NOT understand that the SS
  and the FBI both appear to have been involved before and after the fact
  so that their "testimony" cannot be taken for granted, especially in a
  case like this where there is evidence on both sides?  Do you NOT real-
  ize that a cover story HAD to be planned in advance?  Were you there at
  1 AM on 11/23/63 to VERIFY that that was when this report was made?  Do
  you know precisely WHEN this alleged report was made PUBLIC?  And tell
  me of even ONE QUESTION of yours that I have not answered.  Of course,
  my answers are not the same as yours because you and I do not interpret
  the evidence the same way.  That is no reason to put words in my mouth
  ("Would he say this?  Would he say that?") in a scurrilous effort to
  make my position look ridiculous.  Of course I am NOT going to posit a
  windshield switch at Parkland to answer your questions.  There is a far
  simpler explanation:  the photo in your hands was taken AFTER the wind-
  shield was switched at Ford on Monday!  It would not have taken a roc-
  ket scientist to realize that there was a problem here, which might be
  obscured by making an entry in a crime scene log.  Who do you think was
  to be entrusted with the investigation in this case--mental retards?  I
  find it curious, moreover, that you would suggest that the evidence on
  my side consists of "optical illusions" and "second hand reports".  I
  am sure that even a sleazy thinker like you can admit that the photos
  to which I have invited your attention DO display a dark hole at the
  center of the small, white spiral nebula indicative of a through-and-
  through hole in the windshield, which is NOT an "optical illustion"!
  And even a sleazy thinker like you can admit that the eyewitness re-
  ports of two motorcycle patrolmen, a reporter for the ST. LOUIS POST
  DISPATCH, and the guy who actually changed the windshielf at Ford do
  NOT qualify as "second hand reports"!  So why do you call them that? 
  What you are doing here is the verbal equivalent of fabricating evi-
  dence!  I would have thought this was beneath you, but apparently I
  was wrong.  I would have thought that you would look at the evidence
  and attempt to appraise it objectively, instead of tenaciously hold-
  ing to previously formed views that have been undermined.  I would
  have thought that you were a serious student of the assassination,
  but, based upon this exchange, I would have to admit I was mistaken.

  P.S.  I would be interested in knowing your age, educational back-
        ground, including any study of reasoning, and your profession.

  Jim

  James H. Fetzer
  McKnight Professor
  University of Minnesota
  Duluth, MN 55812
  jfetzer@d.umn.edu




DISINFORMATION PAGE