RE:: "THE DISINFORMATION SERIES, indeed!" [Editor's note: Josiah was nevertheless going on about the business of putting out his DISIN- FORMATION SERIES. It was obvious to me that he was placing too much importance upon the role of Roland Zavada in establishing film authenticity and that he was displaying no evidence of having even read David Mantik's discussion of Zavada's work in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, pp. 356-357. I therefore sought to set the record straight but would have welcomed contributions from others more directly invovled in research on the film.] RE:: THE DISINFORMATION SERIES PART III. -- CHRONOLOGY: THE PROVENANCE OF THE FILM -- Josiah Thompson Posted by Jim Fetzer ® , Sun, Jan 07, 2001, 13:00:14 (1) Here's an exerpt of what I actually said in a post below: . . . Much of what he is saying in this "series" has its roots in Tink's earlier article entitled "Why the Zapruder Film IS Authentic" (JFK DPQ April 1999). . . . Walt Brown extended an invitation to respond to Josiah's piece, which claims that official records of the chain of possession preclude its alteration. A key point to notice in relation to his present posts is that he disclaims the existence of an "official chain of custody", but he trades upon an equivocation. While there may be no single record that qualifies as THE "official chain of custory", he has relied upon numerous official government records in compil- ing HIS "chain of custody". Few of us would suppose that the conspirators who might alter the film would be so kind as to keep official records that establish that it was done. If we are willing to take "official records" for granted, then we might as well accept THE WARREN REPORT at face value and close up shop! So the basic attitude implicit in Tink's series appears to me to be very much open to doubt. . . . (2) Here's what he says in this post about what I had to say: With his usual disregard for facts that stand in his way, Professor Fetzer has referred to the chronology below as an "official chain of custody" or an "official chronology" of the Zapruder film. This, of course, is palpable nonsense. The chronology below was worked out by many researchers who utilized many different sources for information. On this Forum yesterday, Professor Fetzer modified his claim by saying this chronology is based "upon numerous official government documents." Put together from a host of different sources, the chronology below is based both upon government documents and private sources. As to government documents, I suppose signed receipts from one Secret Service agent to another would qualify. As to private sources, one might mention video tapes from WFAA in Dallas, individual interviews with percipient witnesses, Abraham Zapruder's sworn testimony at the Clay Shaw trial, recent inquiries by Roland Zavada during his tracking of the Zapruder film for Kodak and the ARRB, signed affidavits of Kodak employees, etc. (3) Not only does he exaggerate what I have said in order to achieve some rhetorical effect but, more importantly, he completely overlooks some rather significant findings: Something I found peculiar about Thompson's article and its publication in DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY is that new evi- dence has emerged from the ARRB in the form of interviews conducted with Homer McMahon and his assistant, Ben Hunter, who worked at the National Photo Interpretation Center run by the CIA in November 1963, which indicate that a copy of (what appears to have been the original version of) the Z- film was brought to him Friday night of the assassination for study. I disseminated portions of this information via email@example.com back in November of 1998, and I there- fore do not understand why a responsible editor would want to publish Thompson's piece in April of 1999, when its most fundamental tenet had already been demonstrated to be false. (4) Moreover, the discoveries of the ARRB concerning the presence of the Zapruder film at the NPIC the weekend of the assassination have been published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), pp. 311-324, yet he writes as though he were oblivious of them. He also completely ignores David Mantik's recent studies of the film, including an illumin- ating discussion of what Rollie Zavada may or may not have "proved" in his "Addendum: LMJ 'First Day Copy'", MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), pp. 356-357. It is as if Josiah Thompson had never read them. (And there are many indica- tions that he has in fact never read ASSASSINATION SCIENCE or MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA apart from some passages here and there. That is hardly an appropriate attitude for someone who pretends to be qualified to review either of these books.)
PART 1: Background and Overview
PART 2: The Disinformation Page
PART 3: The Controversial Post
PART 4: "**** strikes again!"
PART 5: "**** strikes out!"
PART 6: "Not to belabor the obvious"
PART 7: "Consider the evidence"
PART 8: "Over the edge..."
PART 9: "A Partial Response to Tink"
PART 10: "The one post to read..."
PART 12: "DISINFORMATION SERIES continues"
PART 13: "This crap has got to stop!"