RE:: "DISINFORMATION SERIES continues . . ." [Editor's note: From the beginning, it had always struck me that Shackelford, Thompson, and Snyder continued to attack me rather than those who were doing the important work on the film. I inferred that they were using me as a symbol to discredit the work of Jack White, David Mantik, Daryll Wea- therly, Harrison Livingstone, and others unnamed without actually confronting the details of their work directly. While it may have been a brilliant strategy, I sought to cope with their numerous and aggressive attacks by exposing the abuses of logic and language that were implicit in most of them.] RE:: DISINFORMATION SERIES PART IV. -- NPIC, PHOTO CONSISTENCY -- Josiah Thompson Posted by Jim Fetzer ® , Sun, Jan 07, 2001, 17:05:11 . . . seemingly without end. This fellow makes two clever moves, which are embedded within a framework of taking for granted what he claims to have proved, which is fallacious: (I) SPECIAL PLEADING (selecting some evidence to discuss and ignorning other, potentially more important evidence, in this case by not even mentioning the following report): Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97 Date: 07/14/97 Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon . . . Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events sur- rounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was a "joint process", McMahon said his opinion, which was that President Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ul- timately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were 3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said "you can't fight city hall", and then reminded us that his job was to produce internegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed the fim and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings. One might have thought that this comes as fairly sensation- al news; but Josiah Thompson DOES NOT EVEN MENTION IT! This is the kind of behavior we would expect of a used car salesman, who emphasizes the great stereo and the handsome upholstery but neglects to point out that the transmission is shot and the engine needs a ring job. Yet we are hear- ing this from someone who poses as an assassination expert? (II) POPULAR SENTIMENTS/APPEAL TO PITY (integrating what most people think--or can be persuaded to believe--about the relative consistency of the photographic record with the idea that, anyone who thinks that it could have been subject to extensive editing must be crazy, a line that he has used just a few too many times, in the following): Once we have started this progression of moving from the claim that the Zapruder film has been altered to also claiming that the Nix and Muchmore films have been altered, don't we have to continue? Doesn't this mean that we end up claiming that the whole photographic record of the assassination has been falsified? When we reach that point, don't we have to turn away in disgust mumbling to ourselves, "This is just crazy!"? Thus, if we question any part of the photographic record, he contends, then we have to question it all, which means that we must be crazy, because how could anything of such an extensive degree of complication possibly been pulled off? THE OVERALL RHETORICAL TACTIC: BEGGING THE QUESTION It should be observed that, if the photographic record were anywhere near as completely consistent as he main- tains, then it would be virtually impossible to discover discrepancies between the photos, the films, and the eye- witness reports. But of course we are aware of massive conflicts between the photos, the films, and the eyewit- ness reports. If you have any doubt, read the chapters in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) and MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) that deal with this subject in extensive and meticulous detail. This guy thinks that he can pull the wool over your eyes by offering a mere plausibility argument that does not depend upon citing even a single instance of an actual photograph or an actual frame or an actual eyewitness report! Speaking of nerve, he has the temerity to attempt to mislead, deceive, and confuse the members of this forum with arguments that no self- respecting philosophy student in his junior year would accept! I find it fascinating that he would treat the members of this forum with such contempt! Does anyone really think that, by the sheer power of his words, this guy--without offering a single shread of photographic evi- dence of anything he says!--can fool you into believing such whopping lies? Just to make the point as blatantly as possible, what is all of Jack's work about if this guy is right? What about the work of Daryll Weatherly, Ron Redmon, Chuck Marler, Milicent Carnor, Richard Bartholo- mew, David W. Mantik, Harrison Edward Livingstone, Robert Morningstar, Alan Eaglesham, and no doubt others unnamed? They may all be mistaken in some respects, but is it rea- sonable to suppose all of them are wrong in every respect? This kind of argument is far to facile to be reasonable, and, indeed, considerations of the kind I have reviewed-- even apart from the specific, meticulous, and extremely detailed studies that have taken place--suggest why it should not be taken seriously. What should be taken ser- iously is why this guy is trying to mislead, deceive, and confuse the members of this forum with plainly fallacious arguments and rhetorical devices that carry us away from rather than toward the truth about the death of JFK. Why?
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 11: "THE DISINFORMATION SERIES, indeed"
PART 13: "This crap has got to stop!"