Message #7

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 21:35:51 -0500
From: Doug Weldon 
To: jfetzer
Subject: Marsh (again)

>   can give you a complete response right now. I am too shocked by your
> attitude. If someone's theory has any scientific validity, then he
> should be able to defend it. Rather than refusing to answer questions
> or
> counter arguments because he feels that someone is attacking him.
> As for your acceptance of Fetzer, I can not tell you how disappointed
> I
> am that many people who are new to this case will accept people like
> that. Who is Fetzer and how long has he been researching this case?
> Less
> than 5 years maybe? Is he a well-respected researcher? Only to you and
> the others in his group who would believe what he puts out
> unquestioningly. Who am I? I have been researching the JFK
> assassination
> since about 1972 and was one of the people who helped establish the
> HSCA. I have worked with many of the most well-known researchers in
> this
> case. You can read my research which has been published in researcher
> journals or presented at conferences. I don't have to defend myself.
> But
> I have seen several people come into this research community with no
> real interest in research methods only to promote bizarre theories
> which
> requires people to abandon common sense, scientific method and
> reality.
> When I see that, I point it out. If you consider that to be personal
> attacks, so be it. Surely you must know of some instance where people
> have been promoting bizarre theories such as Cooper or Morningstar
> which
> rely on faked evidence or incorrect analysis of poor-quality exhibits.
> Aren't you troubled by those people and their bad research? Can't you
> accept that fact that some evidence is real and that some government
> agents might accidentally tell the truth some of the time? If you
> accept
> Fetzer, you are headed down a road where all the evidence is faked and
> every federal agents lies all the time. So, what is left to believe? A
> few idiot witnesses who didn't know what the hell they were talking
> about? Or people who make up stories based on rumors they heard? Is
> that
> research?
> Anthony Marsh

   Jim:  Here is Anthony's latest response.  He did send me a number of
pictures of the windshield.  I could potentially accept exhibit 350 as
legitimate , but because of the shading and darkness of the photograph ,
a hole could still be present.  If it is a legitimate photo  it must be
present.  Essentially, the photo does not prove anything.  Furthermore,
as you observed, I have yet to see a proper foundation that establishes
it as a valid piece of evidence.  There is no way to determine when the
photo was taken. Anthony has postulated that later windshield switches
could have taken place.  If he is willing to entertain that possibility
then he also has to acknowledge that very similar cracks were fabricated
with the replacement windshields.  If he accepts the possibility that
such switches took place he is accepting as a matter of faith that there
is proper authentication of time, date, and circumstances of CE350.   I
have yet to see such evidence.   I am baffled that he can entertain
deception for later times but is blind to that possibility in the first
few days.  As we know from the Parkland Hospital photos the process to
sanitize the vehicle began almost immediately.  I need to review Gary
Mack's response further. Have you shared it with Mantik. I would like to
view his rebuttal.


Doug Weldon