RE::**** strikes again! [Editor's note: This post was a response to the surprising suggestion by Josiah Thompson that I was carping about a meeting held at a resort in West Virginia because I had not been invited. This struck me as quite outrageous for reasons explained herein. But it made me deeply suspicious of a man who would seemingly fabricate explanations with no basis in truth.] RE:: RE:: The meeting with Baden and Wecht -- Josiah Thompson Posted by Jim Fetzer , Wed, Jan 03, 2001, 21:55:43 This guy has nothing better to do than make things up as he goes along. I did not know about the meeting, would have been unable to go, thought it was a great thing, had absol- utely no problems with it--so why is this guy making up a shabby story about me that has no truth to it? One might have thought that such lowly tactics were beneath him, but it appears very little falls into that category. When he cannot best me in argument by actually citing chapter and verse, he distorts what I have said in order to attack it. His book, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), an important book that, ironically, was one of the first to draw me into the case, had nevertheless already been superceded by the work of Richard E. Sprague, COMPUTERS AND AUTOMATION (May 1970). His posts on this forum evince a nostalgia for the past, especially those glory years (of 1967 to 1970), when, to hear him tell it, research on the death of JFK appears to have been almost a form of cocktail conversation! It is very sad--pathetic, actually--to see someone whom I used to admire abuse this forum to promote his own ego. His conduct appears to be like that of an agent provocateur, who makes friends in order to bring about consequences that are harmful to the interests of those he befriends. Some have suggested that he is simply jealous of those of us who are conducting symposia, organizing conferences, creating videos, authoring articles, and publishing books that advance our understanding of the case. What would he have us do? Chit-chat it up with Tink? His assault on expertise is especially telling, because many of the most important advances that have been made since 1992, especially, have been by persons with special competence in physics, medicine, and radiology. These attacks are very peculiar, until you realize that, if everyone's op- inions are supposed to be of equal value, that tends to create a climate in which everything can be believed but nothing can be known! Of course, every argument has to be evaluated on its own, but there are persons who, by virtue of their background and training, are far better positioned than others to successfully sort out certain kinds of things. Does anyone want to compete with Robert B. Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain, as to whether the brain shown in diagrams and photographs at the National Archives is or is not the brain of JFK? or with David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., board certified in radiation oncology, as to whether the autopsy X-rays at the National Archives have or have not been fabricated? The fact that he has gone so far out of his way to attack me is especially telling, because my areas of expertise include logic, critical thinking, and the philosophy of science. They represent some of the important kinds of skills necessary to evaluate arguments and appraise evi- dence, which is a kind of expertise that this case sorely needs. There is no lack of "evidence" available here: the problem is to sort out the authentic evidence from the inauthentic. I invite anyone who wonders what in the world has been going on in this forum to consider the contributions made in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) and in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000). Ask yourself if the kind of studies presented there are or are not the kind that blow the case wide open: the discovery that the X-rays have been fabricated in two different ways; the finding that the brain shown in the official diagrams and photo- graphs is not the brain of JFK; the discovery that Jack was hit at least four times: once in the back (from be- hind), once in the throat (from in front), and twice in the head (once from behind and once from in front); that an absolute minimum of six shots had to have been fired during the assassination; that the alleged Oswald weapon could not have killed the President; that the bullets he is supposed to have used could not have inflicted the damage; that the single-bullet theory is not just false but cannot possibly be true; and on and on. If you be- lieve that these are results that advance our understand- ing of this case, then ask yourself why this guy is going so far out of his way to trash the editor who brought them to print and to tarnish the scholars who discovered them. There were eleven contributors to the former, nine to the latter. Nevertheless, this guy (outrageously, in my view) claims that there is "only one good chapter" in MURDER. Apart from my own work, he thereby insults the exceptional work of Ira David Woods III, Vince Palamara (x 2), Douglas Weldon, David W. Mantik (x 3), Doug Horne (x 2), Jack White and (of all people) Bertrand Russell, one of the towering intellects of the 20th century, who even received a Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950! Just ask yourself--leaving my own contributions (x 2) to one side--is this a remotely reasonable attitude to adopt toward this book? Because if it is not an even remotely reasonable attitude to adopt to- ward this book, then something very strange is going on. I submit that this is not a remotely reasonable attitude to adopt toward this book and that something strange is going on. Indeed, even the "one good chapter" he endorses--by Gary Aguilar--contradicts his own anti-alterationist posi- tion. As a professor of logic, critical thinking, and the philosophy of science, I can assure you that no one with a serious interest in discovering the truth about the death of JFK could possibly assail these authors and these books as this man has so viciously, vindictively, and repeatedly done in this forum and elsewhere. His avowed intention to "review" this book, given an intense dislike for me, which verges into the obsessive and abnormal, is completely im- proper and obviously corrupt! Persons who perform actions that are completely improper and obviously corrupt are not admirable people, but persons who deserve to be despised, especially in a forum dedicated to searching for the truth about the assassination of the 35th President of the United States. This has gone on long enough that only the newest members of this forum are ill-positioned to understand the issues that divide him from me. We cannot both be right. If ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA are important contributions to advancing understanding of the death of JFK, then his wholesale attacks upon them must be wrong. And if his wholesale attacks upon ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA are right, then these books must not make important contributions to advancing understanding of the death of JFK. You decide. No one should make up your mind for you. Consider these books. Consider this dispute. It has gone on long enough--far too long, in my estimation. Almost everyone must be in the position to judge for themselves. Do it! Judge for yourself! Because if you cannot even comprehend what is going on before your very eyes within the framework of this forum, you haven't a ghost of a chance of figuring out what actually happened to John Fitzgerald Kennedy!


PART 1: Background and Overview
PART 2: The Disinformation Page
PART 3: The Controversial Post


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 13: "This crap has got to stop!"




Special Cases
Social Issues