Message #6

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:53:21 -0500
From: Doug Weldon 
To: jfetzer
Subject: [Fwd: It goes on and on (fwd)]

Jim: Per our conversation please find my reply to Anthony.  His e-mail
address is amarsh@flash.net                     Doug Weldon wrote:

>  I have enclosed a copy of Jim's response.  I am perfectly prepared to
>
> defend my own position but I find Jim to have provided a brilliant
> defense of his position.  I have always admired your research but I
> admit I am disappointed.  The first area of disappointment is the way
> in
> which you took your argument from a scholarly disagreement to some
> sarcastic innuendoes that can only be interpreted as personal attacks.
>
> Such is unnecessary.  I am further disappointed by your cavalier
> dismissal of the information provided by my source.  I purposely
> provided you with a small amount of information.  I honestly expected
> your response to be one of inquiry to determine further details that
> would substantiate the validity of his experience.  I was then
> prepared
> to buttress his account with similar information to that provided by
> Jim.  Unfortunately, rather then exercising a scholarly approach, you
> entrenched yourself in immediate denial.  The improper
> characterization
> of words such as "hearsay" does not enhance your argument.  I am
> willing
> to entertain some cogent and legitimate rebuttal to some points that
> are
> certainly confusing.  I would expect the same courtesy in return.  You
>
> wrote a very thoughtful and intelligent paper in 1995 on the
> limousine.
> However, I am convinced that it is based upon a false premise - the
> legitimacy of the windshield. Though respected researchers such as
> Harold Weisberg and Jim Fetzer are convinced upon the information that
> I
> have provided them ( even though I have not yet had the opportunity to
>
> buttress the validity of the information to these outstanding
> individuals with further background details not reflected in the tape)
> I
> find it to be a somewhat arrogant posture to so casually dismiss this
> contention on the basis of minimal information.  I am convinced that I
>
> could persuade any reasonable forum that the windshield was destroyed
> on11/25/63 and that it evidenced a penetrating shot from the front.
> Whether CE 350 is a legitimate photograph taken in the early hours of
> 11/24/63 can  only be true if its lack of clarity conceals the
> presence
> of that bullet hole.  Any captain can go down with their sinking ship.
>
> There is no possible way to progress if a person refuses to consider
> the
> validity of contrary positions.  Too often the statement of  "don't
> confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up" is the foundation of
> many
> researcher's positions.  I am frankly disgusted with the dogmatic
> attitude of many of the researchers in this area.  It undermines all
> of
> us who truly care in reaching a resolution to this defining point in
> our
> history.  Healthy disagreement can lead to constructive results.  I
> encourage such.  "Group think" is certainly counterproductive.
> However
> , being blinded with tunnel vision again reinforces the conspiracy-nut
>
> stereotype portrayed by the media and subjects all researchers to
> ridicule.  I, again, sincerely express my disappointment.
>
> > > 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



  [ Part 2: "" ]

Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:46:07 -0500
From: Doug Weldon 
To: amarsh@flash.net
Subject: Re: It goes on and on (fwd)

 I have enclosed a copy of Jim's response.  I am perfectly prepared to
defend my own position but I find Jim to have provided a brilliant
defense of his position.  I have always admired your research but I
admit I am disappointed.  The first area of disappointment is the way in
which you took your argument from a scholarly disagreement to some
sarcastic innuendoes that can only be interpreted as personal attacks.
Such is unnecessary.  I am further disappointed by your cavalier
dismissal of the information provided by my source.  I purposely
provided you with a small amount of information.  I honestly expected
your response to be one of inquiry to determine further details that
would substantiate the validity of his experience.  I was then prepared
to buttress his account with similar information to that provided by
Jim.  Unfortunately, rather then exercising a scholarly approach, you
entrenched yourself in immediate denial.  The improper characterization
of words such as "hearsay" does not enhance your argument.  I am willing
to entertain some cogent and legitimate rebuttal to some points that are
certainly confusing.  I would expect the same courtesy in return.  You
wrote a very thoughtful and intelligent paper in 1995 on the limousine.
However, I am convinced that it is based upon a false premise - the
legitimacy of the windshield. Though respected researchers such as
Harold Weisberg and Jim Fetzer are convinced upon the information that I
have provided them ( even though Ihave not yet had the opportunity to
buttress the validity of the information to these outstanding
individuals with further background details not reflected in the tape) I
find it to be a somewhat arrogant posture to so casually dismiss this
contention on the basis of minimal information.  I am convinced that I
could persuade any reasonable forum that the windshield was destroyed
on11/25/63 and that it evidenced a penetrating shot from the front.
Whether CE 350 is a legitimate photograph taken in the early hours of
11/24/63 can  only be true if its lack of clarity conceals the presence
of that bullet hole.  Any captain can go down with their sinking ship.
There is no possible way to progress if a person refuses to consider the
validity of contrary positions.  Too often the statement of  "don't
confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up" is the foundation of many
researcher's positions.  I am frankly disgusted with the dogmatic
attitude of many of the researchers in this area.  It undermines all of
us who truly care in reaching a resolution to this defining point in our
history.  Healthy disagreement can lead to constructive results.  I
encourage such.  "Group think" is certainly counterproductive.  However
, being blinded with tunnel vision again reinforces the conspiracy-nut
stereotype portrayed by the media and subjects all researchers to
ridicule.  I, again, sincerely express my disappointment.

> > 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