RE:: "This crap has got to stop!" (REVISED) [Editor's note: All good things must come to an end, and no doubt this debate had become wearisome to many members of the forum. This post was an attempt to summarize the key fea- tures of the exchange, and I would be willing for my position to be evaluated on that basis. I drew the title from a then-current post by Rich DellaRosa, figuring he could not object to the use of his own title. In my view, this post is "the one post to read" in this debate.] RE:: DISINFORMATION SERIES PART VII. EPILOGUE -- Josiah Thompson Posted by Jim Fetzer ® , Mon, Jan 08, 2001, 14:38:56 This post is divided into three parts, which are set out as follows: (PART 1) "What's in a word?", discussing the word "disinformation"; (PART 2) Additional proof of Tink's corruption, if such were needed; (PART 3) A summary of where we now stand related to disinformation. ___________________________________________________________ (PART 1) "What's in a word?", discussing the word "disinformation" Those who are familiar with the thread, "The one post to read ..." and the thread "Disinformation Defined" can skip to Part 2. What I do not understand is why, after I have explained exactly what I have been doing since my first post about disinformation went on my site in 1998, both Josiah Thompson and Bill Kelly STILL do not grasp it! Kelly, who is not a philosopher, may not appreciate the nature of philosophy, because what I have been doing might be considered to be "the philosophy of disinformation" by drawing distinctions that no one has drawn before! That was the purpose of the exercise from the start; consequently, there is no reason to expect that distinctions that have never been drawn before are going appear in any dictionary! A man with a Ph.D. in philosophy, however, ought to understand what philosophers do, which leads me to infer that he never read the page! To have created such a controversy without having even read the page may appear to be the height of irresponsibility, especially relative to serious subjects such as the death of JFK! But that's the score! Read it here: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RE:: What's in a word? RE:: RE:: A Modest Reply -- Josiah Thompson Posted by Jim Fetzer ® , Sun, Jan 07, 2001, 12:06:19 The word "disinformation" is amenable to various shades of meaning, as I have sought to explain on my DISINFORMATION page, where I distinguish between five different senses. If there were not at least five different senses, I would not need to distinguish between them. In a deft maneuver intended to influence the unwary, Josiah Thompson offers a definition from the FBI (posted by Bill Kelly) that defines ONE SPECIFIC, VERY STRONG, sense of "disinformation": "DISINFORMATION :: Carefully contrived misinformation prepared by an intelligence service for the purpose of misleading, deluding,disrupting, or undermining confidence in individuals, organizations or governments" (Leo D. Carl, editor, THE INTERNATIONAL DIRECTORY OF INTELLIGENCE (Mclean, VA: International Defense Consultant Services, 1990), p. 110. This is very useful to someone like Thompson, who employs straw man arguments that exaggerate opponents' reasonable positions until they appear to be unreasonable, so he can attack them! He has done that repeatedly on this forum, and I foresee no point at which he will cease employing informal fallacies and rhetorical devices of this kind in order to create false impressions and distort positions. That is very useful technique in spreading disinformation. In this instance, this definition (let us call it "disin- formation 6" to distinguish it from "disinformation 1", "disinformation 2", "disinformation 3", "disinformation 4", and "disinformation 5" previously defined on my web site) carrys the connotation of intelligence service involvement. Anyone who claims--as I have not--that Josiah Thompson is committing "disinformation 6" would be thereby be implying that Thompson works for some "shadowy government agency"! So this is a very clever move. But it has nothing to do with my proofs that the MILWAUKEE JOURNAL-SENTINEL re- view and the arguments that Thompson has provided satisfy the core conception of disinformation, namely: that they abuse logic and language in a deliberate effort to mislead, confound, and confuse (in this case, the public) about key questions (here, in relation to the assasssination of JFK). He has substituted another interpretation for the intended. The fallacy that is being committed here is called "equivo- cation", which occurs when a word is used with one sense in the premises of an argument, but with another sense in the conclusion. My use of "disinformation" involves the abuse of logic and language in a deliberate effort to mislead, confound, and confuse (in this case, the public) about key questions (here, in relation to the assassination of JFK). It does not require involvement by an intelligence service. Here is a simple textbook example. Blondie: "Was he mad when you spilled coffee on him?" Dagwood: "Yes." Blondie: "Then you should have had him locked up like any other mad- man!" In the first instance, "mad" means angry; but in the second, it means insane. So the premises can be true while the conclusion is false, even though the same word occurs in both. This is a fallacy that freshmen and sophomores are taught to avoid. Here a philosophy Ph.D. is committing it. Thompson, notice, performs a semantic "slight-of-hand" to twist the meaning of "disinformation" as it occurs in the premises (which, in MY sense, are true) in the conclusion he would foist off upon the unwary (where, in HIS sense, what I have said is false). This is a classic rhetorical device to mislead the unwary. Please read VERY CAREFULLY the paragraph in which this "slight-of-hand" transpires: > So let me ask the obvious question. Has Professor Fetzer > proven that poor Ernst-Ulrich Franzen, the poor editorial > writer for the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel who had the bad > luck of being handed Fetzer's book for review was in fact > an intelligence agent engaged in spreading "carefully > contrived misinformation prepared by an intelligence ser- > vice for the purpose of misleading, deluding, disrupting, > or undermining confidence in individuals, organizations > or governments?" Sorry. I mean that's what the professor > said he proved. Except, of course, that is NOT what I said I had proved. If reference to "an intelligence service" were deleted from this sentence, however, then it would correspond to what I have maintained, namely: that Ernest-Ulrich Fransen was engaged in speading carefully contrived misinformation for the purpose of misleading, deluding, disrupting, or under- mining confidence in individuals, organizations, or govern- ments--or, in this case, a book, its authors and contents! Does anyone doubt that Tink has has "resorted to selective quotation and word excision in order to create a misleading impression and smear me"? Or that Ernst-Ulrich Franzen has performed a professional hit by ignoring the key findings reported in the book--the fabrication of the X-rays and the substitution of someone else's brain in diagrams and photo- graphs--while trivializing the discovery of overwhelming evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered? That is what I claim to have proven and, indeed, what I have proven. Let anyone who doubts it return to "The one post to read ..." So not only does Josiah Thompson not refute my conclusions, his own post actually demonstrates my point. Because here, once again, he is resorting to the abuse of logic and lang- uage--specifically, by committing a fallacy of equivocation --in order to spread carefully contrived misinformation for the purpose of misleading, deluding, disrupting, or under- mining confidence in individuals, organizations, or govern- ments--or, in this case, a book, its authors and contents! Does anyone doubt that he has committed an equivocation? I could not have asked for a better example of his craft. [ADDENDUM: Just for the record, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I publish articles and books on the theory of definitions, including the books, DEFINITIONS AND DEFINABILITY (1991), James H. Fetzer et al., eds., and PRINCIPLES OF PHILOSOPHICAL REASONING (1984), James H. Fetzer, ed. This happens to be one of my professional areas of specialization within philosophy.] ____________________________________________________________ (PART 2) Additional proof of Tink's corruption if such were needed In his post, "By all means, let us 'consider these books!'", RE:: RE:: strikes again! -- Jim Fetzer Posted by Josiah Thompson ® , Wed, Jan 03, 2001, 22:41:37 this guy resorts to sarcasm, ridicule, selective quotation and even word deletion in order to achieve his intended rhetorical effect, as I have explained in the crucial posts, "Consider the evidence!" and "The one post to read . . .". Here I shall return to this post and demonstrate that he actually commits several deliberate sleights-of -hand in an effort to pull the wool over the eyes of the members of this forum. I shall present the whole of his post but divide it up into segments for the sake of discussion. Here are my "proofs". SEGMENT 1: Ah Professor Fetzer, it is indeed a delight to do exactly what you have asked be done. Let's do it. Let's "consider these books." As far as I know, your second editorial effort "Murder in Dealey Plaza," has received exactly one print review from Mr. Vince Palamara, a contributor to the book twice-over. That appeared in Walt Brown's journal, "JFK Deep Politics Quarterly" and was positive. Walt Brown did not know Mr. Palamara was a contributor to the book he was reviewing. Had he known this, he would not have published the review. So for opinions on your second effort, you may have to rely on the likes of me. COMMENT on 1: MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) had in fact also received a very favorable review in PUBLISHERS WEEKLY, which he could easily have discovered, had he actually been serious about all this. So that sentence was false. [Another review has just appeared: see the post, "A New Review from Kalamazoo".] Everyone who knows Vince recognizes that he among the most open and honest of all students of the assassination, so attacking him is a gratuitious smear of a good man. Walt Brown previously published an ad hominem attack upon me by Josiah Thompson, so I doubt that the reputation of his journal is going to be injured by publishing an obviously competent review by Vince Palamara. SEGMENT 2: And there are those minor problems (ahem!) ^× your identifying of a smashed button from Tippit's uniform as the fragments removed from Governor Connally's body. And, oh yes, the problems we've seen with mis-statements about Mary Moorman, her contentions and her position when taking her famous photo. These are just for starters. COMMENT on 2: These remarks in passing are actually rather telling. The only complaints he has ever lodged against the book--specific objections as opposed to gen- eral smears--have been derived from Todd Vaughan (about the evidence photo in my discussion of Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE) and the Moorman photo (where he is not even aware that she is quoted in MURDER on p. 346). His only other specific objections have been to ridicule the photograph of the editor that appears on the back of the cover and to assail the list of the editor's other books for including three that are "forthcoming". Ask yourself what that implies? It suggests that this guy may have LOOKED AT the book, but he has NEVER ACTUALLY READ IT. The book may be good, but I do not claim that it is flawless. I really believe that he has never read it! SEGMENT 3: You offer your own advertisement for your first book on the back cover of the second. There we find your smiling photo along with the statement that you "also edited the highly acclaimed Assassination Science (Catfeet Press, 1998) widely praised as a rigorous and ground- breaking contribution to Kennedy Assassination research." Highly acclaimed? Widely praised? A rigorous and ground-breaking contribution to Kennedy assassination research? COMMENT on 3: Why does he say that I "offer my own advertisement" of my first book on the back of my second? Is he so unfamiliar with publishing that he thinks I write passages that are composed by the publisher? That betrays his own ignorance. Moreover, apart from the published reviews (see below), some very favorable endorsements appear on the book's back cover: "ASSASSINATION SCIENCE is a watershed. Past and future assassination studies will have to be read through the painstakingly logical lens with which it scrutinizes the murder of John Kennedy. The contributors collectively offer an exhaustively documented and tightly reasoned argument bound to give the most loyal defender of the Warren Commissioners or Gerald Posner pause for thought. There is no sentimentalism or sensationalism here, even though the web of bureaucratic roadblocks and deceit encountered by Fetzer in his investigations would make for an exciting thriller. Instead, the cool clinical breeze of rigorous thinking blows throughout." --Kerry Walters, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor, Gettysburg College "ASSASSINATION SCIENCE--particularly Dr. David Mantik's chapter on the Zapruder film--constitutes a significant addition to the literature on the JFK assassination. Those who believe that the Zapruder film (characterized by some as the closest thing to 'absolute truth' when it comes to the shoot- ing) is unimpeachable are in for a surprise. In addition, the publication of certain documents (such as the full text of the White House transcript of the Dallas doctors' 11/22/63 press conference), as well as Fetzer's musings about what is knowable and the record of his jousting with the establishment (from The New York Times to the Justice Department) all make interesting reading." --David S. Lifton, Author of BEST EVIDENCE "Although certain to provoke further controversy, this book supplies impor- tant scientific assessments of the medical evidence laid before the Warren Commission, together with a valuable narrative account of the American Medi- cal Association's entry into this contentious field. I was particularly grip- ped by compelling new arguments that the Zapruder film had been altered along with related documentation concerning the Warren Commission's re-enactment of the shooting in Dealey Plaza. " --Peter Dale Scott, Author of DEEP POLITICS AND THE DEATH OF JFK "Every serious student of the Kennedy assassination should read this excellent compilation of articles, which dissect and destroy The Warren Commission Re- port in a meticulous, objective, and analytical manner. The authors are all accomplished professionals and their investigative studies unquestionably shift the evidentiary burden to those who through ignorance, naiveté, or conscious pro-government bias continue to defend THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT, the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." --Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D., Past President, American Academy of Forensic Sciences Maybe I am missing something here, but these endorsements qualify as high praise and acclamation from some of the most distinguished students of the assassination. Their collective praise certainly sounds to me like a ring- ing endorsement of the book as "a rigorous and ground-breaking contribution to Kennedy assassination research". [Kerry Walters, by the way, conducts a college course on the assassination of JFK.] Could he have looked at the cover and seen my photograph but not read the endorsements that appear above it? SEGMENT 4: That may be your own opinion but it is not the opinion of the world-at-large. If anyone wants to go to the library and check the usual sources, they will find that "Assassination Science" was deemed worthy of receiving exactly three reviews in the print media ^× all negative! COMMENT on 4: The sources he uncovers are the PUBISHERS WEEKLY review (see below), a review in THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL-SENTINEL, and a review in THE HUMANIST. He does not cite other reviews, for example, in FAIR PLAY MAGAZINE, THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO, THE PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, THE JFK/DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY, or THE FOURTH DECADE. While THE POST-GAZETTE might not be expected to be on his reading list, I find it peculiar that he would be unaware of reviews "in the print media" that have appeared in at least three of the leading journals devoted to JFK assassination research. It suggests perhaps he reads neither journals nor books on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. SEGMENT 5: Publisher's Weekly pointed out that the book was "marred by reproductions of Fetzer's many letters of protest to the Justice Department, the New York Times and everyone else he felt distorted the truth." COMMENT on 5: As I have explained in earlier posts, "Consider the evidence!" and "The one post to read . . . ", the original sentence read (in its entirety), "The dis- cussion of the Zapruder film is especially noteworthy, and the book is marred only by reproductions of Fetzer's many letters of protest to the Justice De- partment, the New York Times and everyone else he felt distorted the truth". So he dropped the first sentence ("The discussion of the Zapruder film is especially noteworthy"), no doubt because that is the last thing he wanted his audience to hear, and delted the word "only" from what remained, which converted as sentence that PRAISED THE BOOK into a sentence that DAMNED IT! Now that's a clever piece of selective quotation and word excision combined in a single artful effort to mislead, deceive, and confuse THIS AUDIENCE. SEGMENT 6: A brief review by Ernst-Ulrich Franzen in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel pointed out that the book wasn't "worth the time and money of the average reader." Franzen went on to say that parts of the book "are of no interest to anyone except James Fetzer, the book's editor, and his immediate family and friends." COMMENT on 6: Since I have already explained how Franzen performed a professional hit on this book--by ignoring two of its most important findings and trivialing the third--in my earlier posts, "Consider the evidence!" and "The one post to read . . .", let me simply add that, unless this guy had some reason to think that Ernst-Ulrich Franzen was a credible source (as some sort of ex- pert on the assassination), why would he take his evaluation at face value IN LIGHT OF THE POWERFUL ENDORSEMENTS THAT APPEAR ON THE BOOK from David S. Lifton, Peter Dale Scott, and Cyril W. Wecht, all of whom are ack- nowledged experts on the assassination? I ask you, what in the world would motivate anyone to take the word of Franzen over the word of Lifton, Scott, and Wecht, if he were not deliberately selecting the evidence in order to create a false and misleading impression about the quality of this book? [ADDENDUM: And similar questions can be raised about the five endorse- ments that appear on the cover of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA. If the book really does have "only one good chapter", as he has repeatedly proclaimed, then why has it been endorsed by leading experts on the assassination of JFK? This realization, which can be confirmed by anyone who has the book in hand, sheds further light on what he was already about in what I call "Segment 1" above. Is it possible that he didn't read them either? "A rich and fresh collection of fascinating and darkly compelling revelations, demonstrating beyond any doubt the existence of conspiracy and cover-up behind the JFK assassination." --Michael Parenti, author of HISTORY AS MYSTERY and TO KILL A NATION "No jury would have convicted Lee Harvey Oswald in the face of the arguments set forth in this excellent volume. MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA masterfully exposes the fallacies of the Warren Commission Report through objective, incontrovertible, medical, scientific, and investigative analyses of both old and new evidence. The conclusions are as solid as the credentials and research experience of the contributing authors. It is time that the truth in the JFK assassination be revealed and that Unites States history be rewritten." --Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D., Coroner, Allegheney County; and Past President, American Academy of Forensic Sciences and American College of Legal Medicine "MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA is a deeply disturbing book which documents the deceit and deception that marked the government's handling of the evidence in the Kennedy assassination. The authors, all highly skilled professionals, describe the cover-up, from the falsification of the autopsy results to the alteration of the Zapruder film. Anyone who reads this work will be appalled by the systematic distortion of the truth--that JFK died as the result of a conspiracy--by certain officials of the U.S. government." --Michael L. Kurtz, author of CRIME OF THE CENTURY: THE KENNEDY ASSASSIATION FROM A HISTORIAN'S PERSPECTIVE. "Fetzer and his team of experts uncover so many smoking guns that it's impossible not to spot the fire that the Warren Commission and Gerald Posner have tried hard to deny. A thought-provoking and disturbingly compelling sequel to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE." --Kerry Walters, Bittinger Professor of Philosophy, Gettysburg College "Fetzer has assembled tense, suspenseful essays on our government's perfidious efforts to conceal a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy. Two brains examined, photographs missing, X-rays altered, notes and reports burned, drawings fabricated. The account of JFK's autopsy is more shocking than the story of Jekyll and Hyde." --Stewart Galanor, author of CALCULUS: A VISUAL APPROACH and COVER-UP] SEGMENT 7: The longest review was in Humanist where the reviewer pointed out that the book "is yet another sectarian attempt to win converts" and directly places you in his sights: "Fetzer has very little evidence for any of these claims... Fetzer also offers a preposterous tale that... This is nonsense... That Fetzer would believe such drivel calls into question his judgment on other matters." The reviewer concludes by saying: "What we do not need is the creation of fables, either by the Warren Commission or by Fetzer." COMMENT on 7: THE HUMANIST piece is a nausiating review that does not meet even minimal standards. It is a deliberate smear that is clearly calculated to trash the editor, the authors, and the book. There is no other reasonable inter- pretation. But the point I want to make is not about THE HUMANIST review, but the use that Josiah Thompson made of it. Notice in the segment of his post I present here that there is something a bit odd about the quotations he uses from THE HUMANIST: "Fetzer has very little evidence for any of these claims... Fetzer also offers a preposterous tale that... This is nonsense... That Fetzer would believe such drivel calls into question his judgment on other matters." Notice, in particular, the use of ellipses, " ... "s, which hint that I hold some position too absurd to even state! But what precisely were those positions that are subject to the reviewer's ridicule? THOMPSON DOESN'T TELL US. The reason he doesn't tell us is that they concern a single "Editor's note" on p. 341, which conveys the contents of a conversation between David Mantik and someone named Oswald LeWinter, whom David met in Rancho Mirage. LeWinter told him that he was a former CIA official, knew that the film had been edited almost immediately under the auspices of the NSA, and that the order to do so would have had to come from a level of government at least equivalent to that of LBJ or J. Edgar. This note consumes less than 1/2 a page of a 468 page work, about 1/1000 of its contents. The paragraph published in THE HUMANIST begins with this: "Fetzer also offers a preposterous tale from a supposed CIA official who maintains that the CIA gave a copy of the film to the National Security Agency at Fort Meade, Maryland, to edit". But it was the film, not a copy, that was involved here; and how does this author even know this story is false? He also attacks the idea that Hoover and the CIA would have worked together, but no one said that--only that authorization had to come from a high level! Whether what David was told is true or not, nothing here reflects badly on us. To avoid making obvious what would be obvious to anyone who read the re- view who was actually familiar with the book, therefore, Josiah Thompson simply deletes the sentence fragments that would reveal the deception. I have to admire his ingenuity! But it reflects as clearly as many of his other acts of deceit, deception, and obfuscation what he is really about. SEGMENT 8: So it would seem that the world-at-large does not consider your efforts at promotion in the same awestruck way you do. When we "consider these books," we find them rather uneven. Here and there a good article, but overwhelmed by the editor's unfortunate presence ^× a fact pointed out by all the reviewers. Finally, puncturing pomposity becomes tiresome even when the target is as broad as the one you present ("As a professor of logic, critical thinking, and the philosophy of science, I can assure you...."). I think I'll probably stop responding to you since our identities now seem to be crystal clear. Josiah Thompson COMMENT on 8: In these closing passages, he (in effect) congratulates himself for his ingen- uity in employing selective quotation, word excision, suppression of evidence, and reliance upon dubious authorities--he likewise never identifies or even gives the name of the reviewer for THE HUMANIST, but treats him, too, as if he were an expert on the assassination--which is now combined with an artful combination of ridicule, sarcasm, and further obfuscation. If anyone still does not understand that Josiah Thompson is not an open, honest, seeker of truth and is therefore not the person he pretends to be, then I must admit that I do not know how else to convince you. To paraphrase Charles Drago, anyone sincerely interested in this question who doubts that Josiah Thomp- son practices the black arts of disinformation is either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired! (I could not have put it better myself.) ____________________________________________________________ (PART 3) A summary of where we now stand related to disinformation The situation with respect to Josian Thompson, I think, is as follows: (a) He conducted this entire assault upon me for denying that he is the person he appears to be WITHOUT EVEN READING THE DISINFORMATION PAGE that provides the context for the post that I presented as an example of disinformation of Type I, which, as I explain there (review the page using the URL provided above), may amount to no more than a difference of opinion! Because he did not read the page, he made inferences that were completely unwarranted about my charges against him, charges that, I now believe, were more than fully justified. Ironically, because he misunderstood the situation BY NOT READING THE DISINFORMATION PAGE, he (in my opinion) drastically overplayed his hand and revealed that he is indeed a dispenser of disinformation in the ways I have proven above. (b) He appears to have read no more than selected passages, at most, of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) and MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000). I have the distinct impression that he is a very lazy person who is incapable of anything other than sloppy research. A suitable illustration is his claim that ASSASSINATION SCIENCE "was deemed worthy of receiving exactly three reviews in the print media"! As we have seen, he overlooked five more reviews (and more no doubt exist), including FAIR PLAY MAGAZINE, THE PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO, JFK/DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY, and THE FOURTH DECADE. It may be excusable that he had not seen the review in THE PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, but the review in FAIR PLAY MAGAZINE (by Richard Bartholomew) has been available on my web site for years (though the correct URL now needs to be restored) and the other three were in prominent JFK assassination research journals. So it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he only located three reviews "in the print media" because they were the only ones he wanted to acknowledge--because they could be used to effect his rhetorical aim! (c) Just for the record, I would like to explain that, unless sarcasm, ridicule, selective quotation, word excision, and other forms of abuse of logic and language--including the commission of informal fallacies and other rhetorical devices--is being used IN A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT to deceive, mislead, or otherwise confuse an audience, it should not qual- ify as "disinformation". So while Bill Kelly misses the point of the whole exercise (of attempting to develop a theory about disinformation that draws distinctions that are not already found in a dictionary), I do agree that such occurrences MUST BE DELIBERATE to properly qualify as "disinformation". While involvement of an intelligence service is NOT required of disinformation, the deliberate abuse of reason is an essential element. And it may be useful to illustrate this point in relation to the eight different reviews that I have cited here, most of which may be found in the thread "The meeting with Baden and Wecht". REVIEW :: ATTITUDE :: DISINFORMATION :: COMMENTS MILWAUKEE JOURNAL-SENTINEL :: VERY - :: provably :: a professional hit by Ernst-Ulrich Franzen THE HUMANIST :: VERY - :: provably :: unless the author is mentally deranged PUBISHERS WEEKLY :: + :: clearly not :: a professional review FAIR PLAY MAGAZINE :: VERY + :: clearly not :: a brilliant and very detailed review by Richard Bartholomew PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE :: VERY + :: clearly not :: a nice newspaper piece by Paul Rosenberg THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO :: VERY + :: clearly not :: an excellent notice by Rikky Rooksby JFK/DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY :: + :: no :: a generally favorable review with zingers by Walt Brown THE FOURTH DECADE :: VERY - :: no :: Hal Verb's preconceptions overrode his understanding Thus, apart from identifying and exposing Josiah Thompson as an agent of disinformation (which does not imply that he works for some "shadowy government agency"), I would hope that this entire, prolonged exercise would have greatly enhanced our appreciation for and understanding of many different kinds of disinformation, most of which are not even to be found in the dictionary, as a contribution to the philosophy of dis- information and ultimately to better understanding of the death of JFK. Related link:


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..."




Special Cases
Social Issues