Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:25:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: james fetzer
To: J Stevens
Subject: Re: Fetzer (2)
Let me agree with Jan Stevens at least to this extent: it would be
far more effective and productive to consider each of Jack's points
in relation to Martin's comments and rebuttals than to dismiss his
remarks and qualifications wholesale as I have done in Fetzer (2).
Let me therefore consider each of these matters in sequence, namely:
Jack White wrote:
> >Random thoughts on disinformationalists and evidence, as discussed here a
> >lot lately:
> >>>>>>>>>>By their fruits ye shall know them. >Matthew 7:20
> >>>>>>>>>>Judge not, that ye not be judged. >Matthew 7:1
> >>>>>>>>>>Neither cast ye your pearls before swine. >Matthew 7:6
> >>>>>>>>>>Thou hypocrite... >Matthew 7:5
> >>>>>>>>>>Beware of false prophets... >Matthew 7:15
> >>>>>>>>>>If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck...
> >>>>>>>>>>The lady doth protest too much, methinks. >Hamlet III, ii, 256
> >>>>>>>>>>Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
> >>>>>>>>>>>John 8:32
> >(Ironically, this is the official MOTTO OF THE CIA, engraved in stone in
> >the lobby
> >of the Langley headquarters! Propaganda at its finest!)
> > 1. JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy;
> > 2. Evidence exists which shows CIA complicity;
> > 3. Proof exists which shows CIA operations typically use
> > 4. CIA operative David A. Phillips was a master of propaganda;
> > 5. Phillips likely as a participant in planning the assassination;
> > 6. The assassination/coverup plan surely included propaganda;
> > 7. The CIA issued a secret memo of how to counteract WC critics;
> > 8. Many documented CIA disinformation campaigns are quite complex;
> > THEREFORE:
> > 1. It is reasonable to assume that JFK disinformationalists are
> >at work;
> > 2. We know of instances of this in media and publishing;
> > 3. The way is paved for Posner, McMillan, etc. to create and sell
> > 4. We can reasonably assume that disinformationalists infest the
> > 5. To be effective, they must be convincing and seem like one of us;
> > 6. However, some are openly obvious, figuring that novices will
> >not notice;
> > 7. Some, however, assume the role of respected researchers;
> > 8. One way to spot them their total denial stance regarding evidence.
> >>>>>>>>>>>Importance of evidence is directly proportional to the vehemence
> with which it is attacked by disinformationalists and LoneNutters.
> Therefore, it is very likely:
> > 1. Oliver Stone was right.
> > 2. Badgeman was a shooter.
> > 3. Beverly Oliver shot an important film on Elm Street.
> > 4. Roscoe White was involved in the JFK plot.
> > 5. Phillips, Hunt and Clay Shaw were participants.
> > 6. Jack Ruby was involved with the plotters.
> > 7. Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy.
> > 8. Two LHOs were created as part of a false defector program.
> > 9. Multiple shooters fired in Dealey Plaza.
> > 10. CE399 was manufactured evidence to support the SBT and frame LHO.
> > 11. The Files story may have some elements of truth.
> > 12. The backyard photos are fakes.
> > 13. The autopsy photos are fakes.
> > 14. If some photos/films have been altered, then all are suspect,
> > Zapruder, Nix, and others.
> > 15. Anyone admitting some evidence alteration while denying
> >possibility of other
> > is being illogical.
> > 16. Self-claims of expertise to refute tampering assumes full
> >knowledge of
> > technical techniques used by those doing the tampering.
> >>>>>>>>>>>Only the CIA paymaster knows for sure which posters here are
> paid disinformationalists, but all intelligent researchers have a good idea
> who they are...and should ignore them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>Genuine JFK researchers have a motive...a desire for truth,
> justice and history to prevail.
> >>>>>>>>>>>LoneNut disinformationalists have NO motive to devote so much
> time and effort to supporting the obvious big lie of the Warren Report.
> They are not stupid people. Why do they persist in this crusade to prop up
> murderers among us? The logical conclusion...it is a job.
> >I could go on and on, but am out of time. Add to my list if you think of
> >Disinformationalists are welcome to dispute the above, and thus reveal
> >Jack White
> >Martin Shackelford wrote:
> >> Jack:
> >> Your "random thoughts" come close to sounding like The Gospel
> >> According to Jack White, especially when you declare that anyone
> >> disagreeing with your Gospel will "reveal themselves" as
> >> disinformationalists. This is the kind of asinine intimidation attempt
> >> that we've seen too much of lately. You need to take a vacation from Jim
> >> Fetzer and get your head straight.
There is no appropriate reason for adopting such a nasty tone toward
Jack White. Martin's use of name calling (he has called me a "liar"
repeatedly, referred to research published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE
as "pseudo-scientific crap", calls Jack's comments here an "asanine
intimidation attempt") has far exceed the boundaries of propriety for
a long time. I think it would be appropriate for some of you who are
his fans to call him on it, and I specifically include Jan Stevens.
> >> Speaking of hypocrites, there are even more of them quoting the
> >> BIble (and the Koran, and the Talmud, etc.) than there are wrapping
> >> themselves in the flag.
> >> "By their fruits ye shall know them"? Who's judging the fruit,
> >> Jack--you? I suppose you are also defining the "false prophets"? Gee, I
> >> thought it was ME that Fetzer compared to a religious fanatic!
These quotes are largely symbolic and undeserving of this kind of
nasty response from Shackelford. Sarcasm and bitterness should be
out of place here, though I admit I have sometimes felt compelled
to respond in kind--I recall an instance in particular after having
been the recipient of one of Martin's really nice posts!--but I do
not think any of us should make that a practice. Let's cut it out!
> >> "Neither cast your pearls before swine"--your explanation for
> >> often declining to post evidence?
> >> What is "Judge not, that ye not be judged" supposed to mean in
> >> this context, Jack? Don't criticize anyone's hypotheses? "Thou
> >> hypocrite"--addressed to who, Jack? These both come from the same
> >> chapter. Let's look at a good translation of the entire passage:
> >> Do not judge, and you will not be judged, because the judgements
> >> you give are the judgements you will get, and the standard you
> >> use
> >> will be the standard used for you.
This is just more nastiness on Martin's part. If I were attempting
to emulate him, I suppose I would call it "crap". That's what it is.
> >> Why do you observe the splinter in your brother's eye and never
> >> notice
> >> the great log in your own? And how dare you say to your brother,
> >> "Let me
> >> take that splinter out of your eye," when, look, there is a great
> >> log in your
> >> own? Hypocrite! Take the log out of your own eye first, and then
> >> you will
> >> see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother's eye.
> >> Did you send these quotes to Jim Fetzer, or don't you think they apply
> >> to him?
What I find most interesting about all this ranting and raving about
some very familiar quotations is that Martin TAKES FOR GRANTED he is
the object of implied criticism here. Why does he do that? Does he
have a guilty conscience? I am not bothered by reading them. Why
is he? And why is he making such a huge deal out of this anyway?
> >> The other quote also deserves a fuller quote in context: "If
> >> you make my word your home you will indeed be my disciples; you will
> >> come to know the truth, and the truth will set you free." This is
> >> actually quite a subtle passage, and could be easily considered by the
> >> CIA as a blueprint for disinformation--"be OUR disciples, accept OUR
> >> truths." (Do I hear a chorus of "Give me that alt. time religion, give
> >> me that alt. time religion"?)
> >> I suppose that tossing in a marginally relevant passage from
> >> "Hamlet" ("The lady doth protest too much, methinks") isn't too far off
> >> the mark, as Shakespeare was writing around the same general period that
> >> the scholars of King James were busy mistranslating your family Bible,
> >> but what are you suggesting? That those who deny being disinformation
> >> agents really are? All those who deny it? So the only innocent people
> >> are those who decline to defend themselves? Crap, Jack, and you know it.
Again, Martin resorts to one of his favorite terms, "crap"! It would
appear that he can't get along without resorting to linguistic abuse.
Why is he so defensive? Jack has never mentioned his name. So why?
> >> The quote that has no business whatsoever being in this
> >> collection, perhaps one of the dumbest guidelines I've ever heard, is
> >> "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck...."
> >> I've noted in the past that Sen. Joe McCarthy was fond of that one, for
> >> good reason--it is a cheap substitute for thinking, and he didn't want
> >> people thinking about his phony charges. That's the parallel--not that
> >> I'm saying anyone who uses the statement is a McCarthy--just that
> >> they're offering the statement as a substitute for thought.
No, things that look like, talk like, and walk like ducks usually are
ducks. The point concerns drawing inferences to conclusions that are
capable of explaining all of the relevant available evidence. So far
from being a "dumb guideline", it is a simple way of pointing toward
a fundamental principle known as "inference to the best explanation",
which is discussed in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and elsewhere. Since he
knows better, it is interesting that Martin should chose to attack it.
> >> All that said, there are certainly things upon which we agree
> >> in your summary:
> >> 1. JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy (YES).
So the nasty preliminaries aside, we now get down to issues and find
that Martin agrees with the first one. Let's chalk that up for Jack.
> >> 2. Evidence exists which shows CIA complicity (Depends on what you mean
> >> here, Jack.
> >> Did the Agency kill JFK, or were some CIA employees involved
> >> without the Agency's
> >> sanction? I don't know the answer to this one, though I suspect the
> >> latter was true.)
There are widely differing accounts over who was involved from the
CIA, but that former or current contract or other employees were in-
volved certainly seems to be the case. Chalk this up for Jack, too.
> >> 3. Proof exists which shows CIA operations typically use disinformation.
> >> (Is the Pope
> >> Catholic? I would think this one goes without saying.
> >> Disinformation is an integral
> >> part of CIA operations, as is clear from Philip Agee's CIA Diary
> >> discussion of day
> >> to day operations in Latin America.)
Good! Nice statement of agreement. Another point credited to Jack.
> >> 4. CIA operative David A. Phillips was a master of propaganda. (Another
> >> given.)
Good. Another point of agreement. Noel Twyman's BLOODY TREASON, by
the way, has a lot to say about the CIA. A fourth point for Jack.
[Martin inadvertently omits Jack's 5., which is that Phillips was
a likely participant in planning the assassination. I presume he
would agree with Jack here too. This is a fifth point for Jack.]
> >> 5. The assassination/coverup plan surely included propaganda. (An
> >> assumption, but a
> >> logical one.)
Good. Another point of agreement. This is the sixth point for Jack.
> >> 6. The CIA issued a secret memo of how to counteract WC critics.
> >> (Well-known.)
A copy appears in ASSASSIATION SCIENCE. Yet another point for Jack.
> >> 7. Many documented CIA disinformation campaigns are quite complex. (I'm
> >> not sure I
> >> agree with this one, Jack. From what I've read, a good
> >> disinformation campaign is
> >> relatively simple. Pick a theme, or a few basic themes, and
> >> repeatedly hammer them
> >> home--re-read some of Jim Fetzer's posts--he knows how to use this
> >> approach.)
> >> [I thought, by the way, that a Proposition was supposed to be clearly
> >> stated, not made up of eight different elements of varying credibility.]
If the film was edited/altered, of course, that would be an example
of a complex mode of disinformation using a simple vehicle. Since he
attacks me here, I cannot resist observing that an elegant strategy
of disinformation would be to create a motion picture that is taken
to be authentic but which actually sufficiently distorts what actual-
ly happened as to seriously mislead students of the crime, and then
implant a few "serious researchers" in strategic locations within the
community (perhaps even giving them accurate but relatively umimport-
ant information to distribute to bolster their credentials) but give
them the task of thwarting anyone who comes close to the realization
that the film--an absolutely vital piece of evidence--has been faked,
fabricated, or reprocessed. That would make them essential guardians
of mistruth. Make sure they are especially good at viciously attack-
ing anyone who questions the dogma of Z-film authenticity by doing
everything they can do to discredit, embarrass, or otherwise harass
them in a wide a forum as possible. That just might work, unless at
least some of them were resistant to these tactics. That might call
for more drastic measures. But, by all means, they should do what-
ever they can do to lead others away from evidence of film editing.
That is a scenario that, I think, makes a great deal of sense here.
This point is again one where the difference is a matter of degree.
Eight points that Jack has made, eight points with which Martin has
agreed--apart from differences in degree. Chalk up eight for Jack.
> >> 1. It is reasonable to assume that JFK disinformationalists are at work.
> >> (An assumption,
> >> but again a logical one--unfortunately probably greatly inflated by
> >> paranoia. In the
> >> 60s, FBI surveillance was relatively limited, due to manpower
> >> factors, but Hoover
> >> wanted it scattered in such a way as to leave the IMPRESSION that
> >> there was "an
> >> FBI agent behind every mailbox." Some people seem to have bought
> >> into the same
> >> phony assumption as it relates to the CIA--let's not hand them power
> >> they don't have!
> >> I'm not afraid of them, nor do I give them as much credit as you
> >> seem to.)
Interesting that this again is a difference of degree. Jack's point.
> >> 2. We know of instances of this in media and publishing. (YES)
CASE CLOSED and JAMA's articles appear to be examples, but perhaps
more telling, Carl Bernstein discovered that the major media had
entered into agreements with the CIA, including CBS, The New York
Times, and Time/LIFE, as he reported in "The CIA and the Media",
ROLLING STONE (20 October 1977), as cited in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE.
This of course is another point of agreement with Jack. His point.
> >> 3. The way is paved for Posner, McMillan, etc., to create and sell lies.
> >> (Frankly, given
> >> the nature of elite power, this wouldn't require a CIA--just an
> >> Establishment with allies
> >> in publishing. The CIA is a tool.)
This is consistent with comments above. Another point for Jack.
> >> 4. We can reasonably assume that disinformationalists infest the
> >> Internet. (No, Jack, we
> >> can't. "Infest" is far too paranoid. There may well be a few
> >> around--how many would
> >> they need, anyway?)
A difference in degree. How many would they need to be? Depends
upon how influential and secure they are. Another point for Jack.
> >> 5. To be effective, they must be convincing and seem like one of us.
> >> (Probable)
Probable, indeed! That would be essential. Another point for Jack.
> >> 6. However, some are openly obvious, figuring that novices will not
> >> notice. (This is a
> >> little silly. Even novices aren't that naive, and most come on the
> >> Net suspecting a
> >> conspiracy, likely to be suspicious of those who deny one.
> >> Clearly, if you are
> >> sowing confusion, you want someone with a clear, logical-seeming
> >> argument for
> >> the WC version available as an alternative--but you don't need a
> >> team of them.
> >> They can easily simply encourage, and perhaps supply information
> >> to, others who
> >> sincerely share their views--they may not even appear on the Net
> >> themselves, but
> >> just monitor it. Why hire a John McAdams when you can use him for
> >> free, feeding
> >> him occasional information, as Posner did with his partial phone
> >> records? He'll be
> >> a much more effective advocate if he believes what he's saying.)
Disagreement over whether John McAdams is a spook or only acts like
one. Martin's case seems as good as Jack's. Call it Martin's point.
> >> 7. Some, however, assume the role of respected researchers. (This may be
> >> true, but it
> >> assumes a major investment over a long period of time, something
> >> that operations
> >> like COINTELPRO seemed to avoid. It was easier to drop someone
> >> into a situation,
> >> achieve the desired results of creating division or leading people
> >> in the wrong
> >> direction, then move them on to another situation where they were
> >> needed--again,
> >> personnel were not plentiful, and the FBI tried to use them
> >> economically. I would
> >> assume the CIA would do the same, from what I've read about CHAOS.
> >> The danger
> >> here, of course, is that if you assume a long-term agent, you open
> >> the floodgates to
> >> every wacko yelling "disinformation agent" whenever someone
> >> challenges their
> >> theory, with potential serious harm to innocent researchers, and
> >> an increase in
> >> already disturbing divisiveness in the research community--exactly
> >> the kinds of
> >> things that were among the goals of COINTELPRO.)
This appears obvious. Martin's rebuttal is weak. Point for Jack.
> >> 8. One way to spot them [is] their total denial stance regarding
> >> evidence. [I guess you
> >> need to explain this one. Was the kid who said "The Emperor isn't
> >> wearing any
> >> clothes" taking a "total denial stance"? If I look at the
> >> so-called "evidence" of
> >> alteration of the Zapruder film, find none of it convincing, and
> >> express my honest
> >> opinion, am I taking a "total denial stance"? If I say that the
> >> photographic evidence
> >> shows unmistakably that Oswald wasn't standing in the doorway in
> >> the Altgens
> >> photo, is that a "total denial stance"? If you can't convince
> >> people that you have
> >> real evidence supporting your claims, are you going to fall back
> >> on accusing them
> >> of having a "total denial stance" because they honestly believe
> >> you're flat wrong? I
> >> think this item needs a LOT of clarification.]
Jack's point is too strong, since "total denial" would not ordinarily
be required. On the other hand, some selective use of "total denial"
would seem appropriate. Martin's blanket denials of Z-film editing/
alteration are (in my view) a telling example. I would not have been
forced to the conclusions I have embraced about him but for his total
denial of editing/alteration. I think Jack is right. Jack's point.
> >> And now we come to the most illogical statement in your post:
> >> "Importance of evidence is directly proportional to the vehemence with
> >> which it is attacked by disinformationalists and Lone Nutters." Oh,
> >> really? Lately, there was a vehement attack on the claim that Greer shot
> >> JFK? Was that by "disinformationalists and Lone Nutters"?
> >> Does the vehemence of the attack prove that the claim that Greer shot
> >> JFK is "important evidence"? This is, and I cannot state this too
> >> strongly, probably the STUPIDEST way to evaluate evidence that I've ever
> >> seen.
This is obviously a "rule of thumb", namely: a generalization that
has exceptions. What is stupid is to treat a principle of this kind
as though it had no exceptions. (Using words like "stupid", notice,
is consistent with other forms of ad hominem attack from Martin that
should be condemned. See my first indented comment above.) I think
there is something to Jack's rule of thumb, which may even apply to
Martin's alleged counterexmaple (the Greer hypothesis). That Greer
might have shot Jack, after all, cannot be decisively ruled out once
we realize that the film has been extensively edited/altered. So I
suspect that the intensity of debate on this issue may actually con-
firm Jack's rule rather than refute it. In any case, there is every
reason to suspect that, as investigators close in on important new
discoveries, those entrusted with guarding them might very well be-
come increasingly anxious to defend them. I give this point to Jack.
> >> This leads us to your conclusion that "Therefore [based on
> >> this STUPID guideline] it is very likely:"
> >> 1. Oliver Stone was right. (About there being a conspiracy? Yes. About
> >> the need to
> >> open the files? Of course. But JFK contained a certain amount of
> >> misinformation,
> >> including some of the Prouty stuff--about that, Stone wasn't
> >> right at all. Ultimately,
> >> the statement that "Oliver Stone was right" goes beyond what
> >> even Stone himself
> >> would claim. Of course, if you insist--did you know that he was
> >> asked whether he
> >> thought the Zapruder film had been altered, ran it by some of
> >> his special effects
> >> experts, and concluded--according to Jane Rusconi--that the
> >> alteration claims
> >> were a total crock. Zapruder's daughter agrees, according to
> >> what she said in a
> >> recent oral history interview shared in part with me last week.)
I do not believe that Oliver Stone's position can settle a matter for
which there is so much empirical evidence internal to the film and so
much external evidence (from eyewitnesses and comparisons with other
films). In fact, this is acutely distressing as an argument from MS,
because it is the kind of misleading appeal that distracts attention
from the best evidence in this case. This point, about which there
was initially only a difference of degree, decisively goes to Jack.
> >> 2. Badgeman was a shooter. (This is a matter of considerable legitimate
> >> controversy.
> >> Once again, the useless guideline of vehemence sheds no light on
> >> the issue.)
This is an open question, in my mind. I give this point to Martin.
> >> 3. Beverly Oliver shot an important film on Elm Street. (The babushka
> >> woman may have;
> >> the FBI seems to have used it in a reconstruction; whether
> >> Beverly was the woman
> >> filming remains a matter of legitimate controversy. Again, the
> >> guideline is useless.)
Forget the guideline, is the point correct or not? I think it would
be silly to doubt she shot an important film. This point is Jack's.
> >> 4. Roscoe White was involved in the JFK plot. (I suspect he was up to
> >> something, but I
> >> don't know exactly what. I was looking forward to more from
> >> Larry Howard, and still
> >> hope that someone will continue his research, but again the
> >> guideline is useless.)
This seems to be a difference in degree. However, I split the point.
> >> 5. Phillips, Hunt and Clay Shaw were participants. (Possibly, but your
> >> guideline is no
> >> help here. More important is the evidence pointing to them.)
Yes, disregard the guideline! The evidence goes this way. For Jack.
> >> 6. Jack Ruby was involved with the plotters. (Probable, but not because
> >> of your
> >> guideline, because of his stalking of Oswald, his probable late
> >> Saturday night
> >> calls, his likely inside contact with the police, etc.)
There is plenty of evidence against Ruby. This point goes to Jack.
> >> 7. Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy. (Probable--again, due to evidence, not
> >> to your
> >> guideline.)
There is plenty of evidence supporting this. The point goes to Jack.
> >> 8. Two LHOs were created as part of a false defector program. (I'm not
> >> sure I've seen
> >> this attacked with vehemence, Jack. There have been questions
> >> raised about the
> >> meanings ascribed to some of the evidence John has unearthed,
> >> and recently
> >> Jim Hargrove has initiated quite a civil discussion of the
> >> issues.)
There appears to be agreement here. I also give this point to Jack.
> >> 9. Multiple shooters fired in Dealey Plaza. (YES--due to the evidence,
> >> not a "guideline".)
There is plenty of evidence for this. So I give this point to Jack.
> >> 10. CE399 was manufactured evidence to support the SBT and frame LHO. (I
> >> think it
> >> was planted before the Single Bullet Theory was conceived, but I
> >> agree that it was
> >> probably planted to frame Oswald--again, based on the evidence,
> >> not a guideline.)
Again, at most, difference in degree. I also give this point to Jack.
> >> 11. The Files story may have some elements of truth. (The most vehement
> >> person in the
> >> Files debate is Bob Vernon, who is pushing the story--your
> >> guideline doesn't even
> >> seem to apply here, and even if it did, the evidence remains the
> >> main issue.)
I give Files an 80% truth rating, with sufficient shortcomings to
establish that he was thoroughly briefed but was not present at the
assassination. Martin's position is not quite clear. Jack's point.
> >> 12. The backyard photos are fakes. (Maybe. Some of the evidence on this
> >> hasn't stood
> >> the test of time, and your guideline isn't enough to salvage it.
> >> Other factors, however,
> >> suggest a problem with the backyard photos, so this remains an
> >> open issue.)
The evidence of fakery of the backyard photographs is conclusive.
I cannot believe Martin would demur. This is clearly Jack's point.
> >> 13. The autopsy photos are fakes. (I don't buy this one, Jack, and y
> >> guideline isn't
> >> going to help out here at all. Kathy Cunningham and Kathlee
> >> Fitzgerald, among
> >> others, make a good case that the photos are authentic, but
> >> often misinterpreted.)
This is of course a controversial point. The evidence, as I see it,
indicates that at least some of the photographs were faked. Indeed,
either some of the photographs were faked or some of the wounds on
the body were altered. It is easier to fake the photographs. That
there is a division of the house, however, is clear. Split point.
> >> 14. If some photos/films have been altered, then all are suspect,
> >> including Zapruder, Nix
> >> and others. (No help from the guideline here, Jack. It's
> >> useless. Photos and films
> >> are only legitimately suspect if there is evidence of
> >> alteration. As Zapruder, Nix,
> >> Muchmore and Bronson are consistent with each other, either they
> >> were altered
> >> to match before Muchmore was shown on WNEW-TV on November 26,
> >> 1963, or
> >> they are all authentic. This is an argument among a list of
> >> statements.)
There is an increasing body of evidence that several of the films,
including Nix, have been altered. Much new work is going on regard-
ing this matter, none of which may ever persuade Martin Shackelford.
This is a crucial issue, but the evidence--and the point--is Jack's.
> >> 15. Anyone admitting some evidence alteration while denying possibility
> >> of other is
> >> being illogical. (Another argument among a list of statements,
> >> and an illogical one
> >> at that. Admitting alteration of evidence where there is proof
> >> of alteration is in no
> >> way inconsistent with denying alteration where that proof is
> >> lacking.)
The whole case is littered with phoney evidence: the backyard photos,
the Tippit shell casings, the survey plots, the Zapruder film, the X-
rays, on and on. Take a look at ASSASSIATION SCINECE for new work on
this subject that makes it beyond reasonable doubt. Point for Jack.
> >> 16. Self-claims of expertise to refute tampering assumes full knowledge
> >> of technical
> >> techniques used by those doing the tampering. (A third argument
> >> among a list of
> >> statements--none of this relates to your guideline, Jack. Are
> >> you saying that there
> >> was alteration, but it was too cleverly done to clearly
> >> prove--but the alterationists
> >> have cleverly spotted it anyway? Very amusing, but not very
> >> convincing.)
Jack's remarks coincide with the observations of Roderick Ryan,
Ph.D., a leading authority on film who has worked for Kodak for
over forty years, that he is baffled by most of the anomalies he
has learned about from David Mantik and Noel Twyman, because they
cannot be explained on the hypothesis that the film is authentic.
He describes this as a "custom job" where ordinary technicians are
simply not familiar with the techniques that were employed here.
I find Ryan's position corroborating Jack's. For my reasoning on
this matter, look back at Fetzer (1). This is also Jack's point.
> >> So, "all intelligent researchers have a good idea of who [the
> >> disinformationalists] are." Fine. If you know of any intelligent
> >> researchers, ask them for a list and post us. Don't leave us in
> >> suspense, and don't threaten people's reputations by being vague. You
> >> don't need to stoop to this kind of thing.
Why Martin takes for granted that he is the target is intriguing.
I think Jack's post is excellent and that Martin's comments are
valuable. As I add up the total, of the 32 numbered points Jack
has made, I find Martin in full or partial agreement on no less
than 28, where I would agree with Martin on 2 and split 2 more.
What I do not understand is the nastiness of many of Martin's re-
marks, especially those directed against early parts of the post.
> >> Martin
> >> In favor of truth, justice and accurate history--and evidence.
Let me close by thanking Jan Stevens for forcing me to reconsider
my post Fetzer (2), which was based upon the impressions that I
derived from early parts of Martin's commentary and not from the
thoughtful consideration of each item one-by-one, as I have done
in this post. I would of course agree that, depending upon how
much weight one places upon Jack's "rule of thumb", it would be
possible to arrive at a different count. Conscious of that, I
have tried to get at the intent of the items on his list, which,
as I previously described it, still appears to me to be brilliant.
James H. Fetzer