RE:: "Consider the evidence!" [Editor's note: Ever ready to call me names, such as "bloviator", "gasbag", or even "brownshirt", in this post I laid out what I considered to be rather convincing evidence that Thompson was abusing logic and language in a deliberate attempt to mislead, de- ceive, and confound members of this forum about a matter of great importance, the death of JFK. In this post, I explain the reasoning that led me to conclude that the review of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE that appeared in the MILWAUKEE JOURNAL-SENTINEL is an instance of a deliberate hatchet-job that proper- ly qualifies as "disinformation" as I had claimed.] RE:: RE:: FROM GASBAG TO BROWN SHIRT! -- Josiah Thompson Posted by Jim Fetzer , Fri, Jan 05, 2001, 23:02:53 Here are some considerations in weighing whether or not to take anything this pathetic creature has to say from this point onward. Recall his offense that I consider Ernst- Ulrich Franzen of the MILWAUKEE JOURNAL-SENTINEL to be a disinformation agent. He thought that that was improper and offensive and ought to be taken off my disinformation where it stands as an example of disinformation of Type IV. But here is the reasoning that supported that conclusion: (1) in order to review a book, any competent and non-cor- rupt referee would (surprise, surprise!) actually read it; (2) in this book, the Preface lays out its major themes, which in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) appear on p. xiii: (a) some of the autopsy X-rays have been altered to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the President's head, while others have been changed by the imposition of a 6.5 mm metal object; (b) diagrams in the National Archives purporting to be of JFK's brain must be of the brain of someone other than John Fitzgerald Kennedy; and, (c) the Zapruder film of the assassination has been ex- tensively edited using highly sophisticated techniques; (3) a reasonable review of this book would therefore have to acknowledge that it presents evidence for at least (a), (b), and (c), which--true or false--are its principal con- tentions; indeed, they are even highlighted by appearing in italics, the only italicized sentences in the Preface; (4) the actual published review, which is accessible via my web site, does not even mention thesis (a) or (b) and mitigates thesis (c) by falsely claiming that the chapter is only intended to demonstrate how the film MIGHT HAVE BEEN EDITED as opposed to HOW IT ACTUALLY WAS EDITED; (5) this gross misrepresentation of the book, therefore, had to be a product of incompetence or corruption; but it was cleverly written and clearly not the product of incom- petence; therefore, it was the product of corruption. A corrupt review of this book was an act of disinformation. Just for comparison, an in-depth review of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE by Richard Bartholomew appeared in FAIRPLAY MAG- AZINE #22 (May-June 1998). (This is another review that Josiah Thompson somehow overlooked.) I was astonished at how clearly Bartholomew had understood the book, because his review explains how the book's major claims (a), (b), and (c) are established by the evidence presented therein. So I asked him how he was able to do it. "It was simple", he said, "I followed your blueprint. I read the Preface!" (6) The editors should have responded to my complaint that the review had been incompetently (really: corruptly) com- posed. But they did not. In one scenario I can imagine, Ernst-Ulrich Franzen suggests to his editors that, if they want to know if he was fair to the book, then they should contact some leading experts in the field, such as Josiah ("Tink") Thompson. Whether or not this was done in this case, this is how it is done. This is standard practice. (7) Josiah Thompson poses as an open, honest, and diligent seeker after truth and objects when I explain why I think he is not the person he pretends to be. I have remarked upon his use of sarcasm and ridicule and his tendency to take words, sentence fragments, sentences, and even para- graphs out of context, which is clearly his stock-in-trade. (8) Anyone who has been following the on-going exchange on this thread should have had ample opportunity to discover whether or not I was right about this. I presume that, if there were clear and conspicuous evidence that this is in- deed his modus operandi, then there would be good reason to accept my conclusion that he is not the person he pretends. (9) One of the rather striking arguments he has presented during this thread is the claim that ASSASSINATION SCIENCE has been trashed by many different sources, including the noted review publication, PUBLISHERS WEEKLY. He went so far as to quote from that review in his post, "RE:: By all means, let us "consider these books!", as follows: "'Assassination Science' was deemed worth of receiving ex- actly three reviews in the print media--all negative! PUB- LISHERS 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'" (Wed Jan 03, 2001, 22:41:37). (10) This turns out to be a stunning illustration of this guy's modus operandi. Not only does he pretend to have done research that established there were exactly three print reviews--all negative--thereby overlooking reviews in FAIRPLAY MAGAZINE and THE PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE (and others, such as the DEALEY PLAZA ECHO, for example), as I have now explained, but he takes the only negative sentence from the PUBLISHERS WEEKLY review and edits it! The whole review appears above (RE:: strikes out!), so I shall not repeat it in its entirety. But I shall quote the rather crucial sentence--the final sentence-- that he edits, which, in its entirety, reads as follows: "The discussion of the Zapruder film is especially note- worthy, and the book is marred only by reproductions of Fetzer's many letters of protest to the Justice Depart- ment, the New York Times, and everyone else he felt dis- torted the truth" (PUBLISHERS WEEKLY, 13 October 1997). As I have already explained in the earlier post, the PW review was, on balance, very favorable; but in order to convey the impression he wanted--that the book is some kind of dogshit!--he edited the sentence, first, by om- itting the sentence that praises the discussion of the Zapruder film (which must have been the last thing that he would want to let his audience know!); and, second, in a deft piece of disinformation, he struck the word "only"! Now this might not sound like much, but consider the fol- lowing two sentences in terms of what they mean, namely: (i) 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' (the version published by Josiah Thompson in his forum post); (ii) the book is marred only 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 (the version published by PUBLISHERS WEEKLY in its review). Notice the different. By omitting the word "only", Josiah Thompson converts a sentence that PRAISES THE BOOK (where the only feature that mars it is these letters of protest) into a sentence that DAMNS THE BOOK (where this feature is presumably only one among a great many that mar the book)! REALLY! There it is before your very eyes! If you don't believe me, go back and reread these posts. And when you consider the context--the hype, the twist, the spin--it is all too obvious that this was a deliberate attempt to trash the book and to smear me through the clever use of editing. Certain conclusions follow from (8), (9), and (10), given as premises. Among them is that Josiah Thompson relies up- on sarcasm and ridicule and has the tendency to take words, sentence fragments, sentences, and even paragraphs out of context, if that will gain him a rhetorical advantage. He did this in this case and has done similar things in many other posts. But it follows from this that he is not an open, honest, and diligent seeker after truth. And it fol- lows from this that he is not the person he pretends to be. As I previously observed, his avowed intention to "review" MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, given his intense dislike for me, which verges into the obsessive and abnormal, is completely improper 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 death of the 35th President of the United States. This debate has gone on long enough. You decide. No one should make up your mind for you. Consider these books. Consider this dispute. Judge for yourself. Do it now! Because if you cannot even comprehend what has been going on before your very eyes within the framework of this for- um, then you haven't a ghost of a chance of figuring out what actually happened to President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.


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 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