N.B. The following is being provided here out a sense of fairness and free speech. The opinions expressed belong solely to the author and do not necessarily reflect, in any way, the opinions of the Board Administrator, Moderator or Sergeant-at-Arms.

The author has invited and even solicited replies to this submission. Informal replies and/or rebuttals may be made in the forum; however, equal space will be afforded to any and all formal replies and rebuttals. Please contact me via private email. -- Rich DellaRosa

 INTRODUCTION

        Professor James Fetzer has recently appointed himself "disinformation detector" of this Forum.  He has issued a call to "root out and excise those who are perpetuating disinformation." He has branded "disinformation" mongering a form "of the same deadly cancer that has infested our country for all too long!"   In a call for patriotic extirpation of "disinformation" (and, one would guess, of those he has identified as "agents of disinformation") he has proclaimed:  "Toleration for disinformation is no virtue; perseverence in the search for truth is no vice! We must come to grips with these difficult issues if we are to regain our former form of government. There is no other way to restore democracy. And there is no excuse for backing down from those who would betray us!"

 
DISINFORMATION SERIES PART I. - INTRODUCTION, THE ZAPRUDER FILM

From the outset, the Zapruder film has been an essential piece of evidence in this case. 

        It was reviewed by both the Secret Service and the FBI in November and December 1963 and undergirded their conclusions that Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate shots.  Beginning in January 1964, it was a central focus of the investigation run by Arlen Specter to attempt to reconstruct the crime.  Problems growing out of trying to resolve the evidence of the film with the minimum firing time of the rifle gave rise to the single-bullet theory.  Not only did the Zapruder film give rise to the single-bullet theory but it also caused the theory lethal difficulties.  Governor Connally looked at the film in March 1964 and came away convinced he was not hit with the same shot that hit Kennedy.  Governor Connally looked at the film for our LIFE investigative team in the fall of 1966 and picked out Z 236 as the frame when he was hit.  In this way, the Zapruder film produced an Achilles heel for the Warren Report from which it was never to recover.  Finally, it was disagreement over this theory which forced the infamous paper compromise of September 1964.

  
Except for the few still frames published in LIFE magazine, the American public did not see the film until 1975.  In 1966 or 1967, you had to drive to Washington, D.C., go to the National Archives, and make a special request to see the film.  It would be then run in an 8 mm. projector for you.  What you would see was a muddy version of the film much worse than the version later sold by Penn Jones.  Finally, in 1975 Bob Groden showed the film on Geraldo Rivera's "Goodnight America!"  I appeared on that show with Bob and I remember distinctly the impact the film.  For months up to that show, many of us had been lobbying Congress to get a re-investigation of the case started.  We were making progress but it was very much a long shot whether anything would happen.  With electrifying suddenness after the showing of the film, public opinion coalesced solidly behind the new investigation.  I had watched the effect of the film on congressmen and on senators and knew it was powerful.  But it wasn't until the man-in-the-street got a chance to see the film did the drive for a new investigation become uncontainable.  In large part, Bob's showing of the film that night on Geraldo's program brought about HSCA.

        Why did the film have such a powerful effect?

  
The answer is obvious.  When the American public saw the President hit in the head and bowled over backwards and to the left, there was an immediate intake of breath.  "What?  No one had told us about this.  It looks like he was shot from the right front.  Something has to be done.  We have to look into this."  The impact of the film is clearly found in frame 313 and following frames.  It is immediate and powerful.  It reads to the eye as if John Kennedy was shot from the right front.  This is the way the American public read it and that is why they clamored for new investigation.

        Without the Zapruder film, the critics could never have found purchase for most of their most profound arguments attacking the conclusions of the Warren Report.  Without the showing of the film on national television, there never would have been a reinvestigation.  Far from offering a papering-over of difficulties for the government, the Zapruder film has been a thorn in the side of government orthodoxy from the outset.  Without the film, we would not be where we are now.  On what possible basis, then, does it make sense to argue that the film which made possible a wholesale attack on government orthodoxy (which by itself brought about a re-investigation of the case) is in fact a product of that orthodoxy? 

 
DISINFORMATION SERIES PART II.  -  LOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

        The first part of this series emphasized the crucial importance of the Zapruder film for attacks on the orthodox government account as contained in the Warren Report.  The existence of the Zapruder film both made necessary the development of the single-bullet theory and brought about its destruction.  Virtually by itself, the showing of the Zapruder film brought about the convening of a congressional committee to reinvestigate the case.  Why would the purported alterers of the film put such a powerful weapon in the hands of those who wanted to attack the official story?  If one had possession of the film and all its copies, one could as easily destroy it as alter it?  Why alter it and run the obvious risk of discovery when one could more easily destroy it -  a simple mishap say, in developing the film!

        Of course, as we will see, no one ever had possession of both the original and its copies and hence no one was ever in a position to alter it.  But before turning to the Zapruder film itself I want to situate what we are talking about under a more general horizon.

      
In this case, a cartridge case was found at the crime scene.  Since no murder weapon was ever found, the investigating officer was in a position where he could fire a semi-automatic and then substitute cases from it in two locations: (1) in the evidence pouch containing the crime scene cartridge case, and (2) at a location where a cartridge case linked to the defendant would later be found.  Once this was done -  and crime lab examination of the two cases showed they were fired in the same weapon -  the prosecution would have a strong argument showing the defendant's guilt.

Whether or not a substitution was made in this case is not the point. 

 
What is the point is the considerations that would make such a substitution plausible. Or, to put it another way, that would make someone even consider trying it:  Note first that the crime scene cartridge case was in the custody of the person carrying out the substitution.  Note second that, since the cartridge case was linked to no other evidence in the case, once the substitution was made there was no way for it to be discovered.  Note third that the person who substituted the cartridge case knew exactly what he had to prove by the substitution.

Now let's try on another hypothetical example for size.  Let's say that a particular letter is found at a crime scene.  Let's say that that letter was the output of a computer at a remote location.  Let's also say that the investigating officer had some incentive to change the wording in the letter.  If you were that investigating officer, what questions would you ask yourself?  Wouldn't you first ask whether there were other copies of the letter?  Had the writer kept a copy in a safe place or given it to someone else?  Was the text of the letter kept on the computer?  Even if it had been deleted from the hard drive of the computer was there a backup somewhere?  The alteration of evidence in a criminal case is a desperate act.  Would you take that chance if you knew that irrefutable evidence of the alteration might turn up somewhere else?  And how could you ever be sure?

Now let's take a photograph of a crime.  First, you'd have to know exactly how you wanted to alter it.  Secondly, you'd have to be sure no other copies - no negative hidden away, no second copy residing in someone else's possession - existed.  Thirdly, you'd have to be sure that no other photographs taken by anyone else later would surface to expose the alteration.

         
With these considerations in mind, consider whether you would undertake to alter the Zapruder film.  First, you'd have to know exactly what you wanted to show in your alteration.  Second, since the film in question was a movie, you might very well have to alter not just one frame, not just one sequence of frames, but many.  Thirdly, what about the other films?  At least thirty-eight people, were taking pictures that day in Dealey Plaza.  Some you might know about.  Some you might not.

At the very least, the Muchmore and Nix films also would have to be altered.  The Muchmore film was purchased by UPI on Monday, November 25th and shown the following day on WNEW-TV in New York City.  On Friday, November 29th the Nix film was also purchased by UPI and shown the next week in theater newsreels.

But the critical problem for anyone thinking of altering the Zapruder film is not the Muchmore and Nix films.  It is all the other films you don't know about...  all the films that later came to light.... the Bell film.... the Hughes film.... the Towner film... the Bond film... all the  films developed outside Dallas by people from out-of-state who just happened by...  or by foreign tourists who would get their films developed in their home countries.  Any one of these unknown films could expose your alteration.

         
If one sat down for a long, long time it would be difficult to come up with a situation where alteration was more unlikely than in a film of the assassination of President Kennedy - a murder occurring at noon in a public square in front of hundreds of witnesses, an unknown number of whom were taking photographs of it.  Unlikely?  Yes.  Foolhardy?  Yes.  Impossible? No.

        What makes it impossible is the actual provenance of the film itself.  Recall above the example which showed the foolhardiness of faking a letter if you were not in possession of all the copies.  This situation is repeated with respect to the Zapruder film.  In the next part, I'll invite you to come along with me as we carefully lay out Zapruder and his film's movements over that crucial weekend thirty-seven years ago.

 
DISINFORMATION SERIES PART III. - CHRONOLOGY: THE PROVENANCE OF THE FILM

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" of 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 of 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. 

As an enlightening example, let me take up the final item in that list more thoroughly.

         
On the afternoon of November 22nd, Abraham Zapruder obtained signed affidavits from the technicians who processed the film at Kodak affirming important facts about the processing of the film and its copies.  I first saw these affidavits in 1968 when they were turned over by LIFE magazine under discovery procedures incident to the lawsuit brought by LIFE against me and my publisher.  Recently, the same affidavits were obtained by ARRB and were used by Roland Zavada in his recent investigation of the film.  He was able to confirm the facts laid out in the affidavits by interviewing the individuals concerned.

        This chronology below is directed towards describing the movement of the film over that crucial weekend.  It has been constructed by many using the raw material a responsible historian would use.  Professor Fetzer means to cast wholesale suspicion on it by calling it "official" since all "official" things are suspect.  In actual fact, most of the material used in constructing this chronology came from "unofficial" or "private" sources as described above.  Once again, Professor Fetzer's rhetorical saber-rattling shows up only his ignorance.  His equally ignorant account of the National Photo Interpretation Center (NPIC) matter will be dealt with in the next part of the "Disinformation Series."

Stolley is waiting at Zapruder's office when Zapruder arrives.  The film is screened for Stolley.  Stolley agrees that LIFE will pay Zapruder $50,000 in two installments for print rights to the film.  Stolley leaves with the original and perhaps the remaining copy.  The original is sent to Chicago where the LIFE editorial staff has assembled to prepare the new issue to be on the newsstands the following Tuesday, November 26th.  During the preparation of black and white copies, the original is broken in several places by photo technicians.  Splices are made.

At some time this weekend, a copy of the film is sent to New York where it is viewed by C.D. Jackson, publisher of LIFE.  Jackson decides to acquire all rights to the film and so instructs Stolley. 

What emerges from this chronology is a single important fact.  At no time during this hectic weekend, did the original of the film ever leave the custody and control of Abraham Zapruder and LIFE magazine.  Two first-generation copies were provided Forrest Sorrels of the Secret Service in the late afternoon of November 22nd .  One of these copies was shipped to Washington that night.  The other was turned over to the FBI and sent by commercial air to Washington the next day.  But the original stayed with Zapruder until the morning of November 23rd when Dick Stolley walked out of Zapruder's office with it under his arm.  Whether an additional copy also left that office under Stolley's arm, we cannot be sure. We can be sure that the original remained under LIFE's custody and control until it was given back to Zapruder's family in the 1970s.

But how do we know that LIFE did not conspire in the alteration of the film?  As it is impossible to prove any negative, so it is impossible to prove this negative.  But there is no shred of evidence that it happened.  On Monday, November 25th many million LIFE magazines went into the mails to subscribers with black and white frames from the film, and, about the same time, copies of the film began appearing in editors' offices. Had the conspiratorial alteration of the film by LIFE and the government already taken place?  If not, it would have been too late.  With unknown copies floating around, the toothpaste could no longer have been put back into the tube.

Recently, another thread in the fabric has become visible.

On Saturday morning, November 23rd , Zapruder sold just print rights to LIFE for $50,000.  Other media were clamoring at Zapruder's heels and two days later he sold additional rights to LIFE for $100,000 more.  Are we to believe that Zapruder - always a shrewd businessman - had let Stolley walk out of his office with both the original and the last first-generation copy?  How would Zapruder be able to negotiate with the media for the remaining rights to his film?  Had he given up his last copy of the film, then Dan Rather could not have viewed the film in the offices of Zapruder's lawyer on the morning of November 25th.  Had he given up the last copy of his film, he could not have shown the film numerous times to Forrest Sorrels and others over that weekend.  Recently, a new fact has come to light via the inquiries of the AARB.  Their report disclosed that "the Zapruder family's company possessed a third, first-generation copy of the Zapruder film."

If Zapruder retained a first-generation copy of the film, then there was no time ever when the toothpaste could have been put back in the tube.  You say that Zapruder and LIFE could both have cooperated with the government in the alteration of the film?  You can say this if you will.  You can believe it, I suppose.  But I can't.  I think it's silly. 

DISINFORMATION SERIES   PART IV. - NPIC, PHOTO CONSISTENCY

Yesterday, Professor Fetzer gaseously emphasized the importance of certain documents published in his latest book concerning the National Photographic Interpretation Center.  As might be expected, he has either not read or not understood the documents he himself published.

Here are the facts as drawn from the Fetzer-published documents.

NPIC

The fact that the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) made enlargements from the Zapruder film for use on briefing boards has been known for some time.  The notes for the making of these enlargements indicate that the frames selected for enlargement are the usual suspects: 188, 198, 206, 213, 217, 222, 225, 226, 230, 239, 242, 246, 256, 257, 266, 274, 289, 290, 291, 292, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 322, 334, 384.  It has also been known for a long time that a copy of the Zapruder film was couriered to Washington, D.C. on the evening of November 22nd.   Since NPIC was housed then at the Washington Navy Yard, there is nothing surprising about NPIC being asked to make enlargements from that copy of the film over that weekend.  It would be extremely surprising, however, if we believed that NPIC had the original of the film in its hands over that weekend. 

In 1997, staff of ARRB interviewed two men who worked on the Zapruder film at NPIC over the weekend of November 22nd to 24th and whose notes had earlier been known.  These two men, Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter, worked with the film and made the enlargements referenced above. [Both the notes of the work and interviews with McMahon and Hunter can be found at pages 311 through 324 of MIDP.] 

McMahon thought he worked on the film on the night of the assassination saying at one point that he started at 1:00 AM and at another that he started at 8:00 PM (312, 321).  Hunter said he thought they did their work either on the night of the 23rd or the night of the 24th (314, 321).  Hunter thought "a Captain Sands" delivered the film to him and McMahon (315).  "Captain Sands," explained Hunter was the NPIC Head of Security (315).  Later Hunter said he believed a Secret Service agent delivered the materials to them at NPIC (318).  McMahon said the materials were delivered to them by a Secret Service agent named Bill Smith who told him that the film had been developed by Eastman Kodak in Rochester, New York and that Smith had couriered the film from Rochester, New York to Washington (312).  Hunter "never did recall the name "Bill Smith" (the Secret Service agent remembered by McMahon), even after discussing the matter with McMahon" (322).  Hunter "agreed that it seemed very likely to him that the copies of the motion picture film would 'probably have been made in Rochester,' but did not independently recall that himself" (322).  McMahon told the interviewers "in some detail health-related memory problems which he claims to suffer from" (319).  Likewise, Hunter "cautioned at the beginning of the interview that his memory of this event was 'extremely hazy'" (314).

Was the film they worked on an original or a copy? 

"Horne [Doug Horne, one of the interviewers] asked [McMahon] whether he was working with the original film or a copy and McMahon stated with some certainty that he was 'sure we had the original film.'  Horne asked why, and he said that he was sure it was the original because it was Kodachrome and because it was a 'double 8' movie.  Horne asked him to clarify whether the home movie was slit or unslit, and McMahon said that he was pretty sure the film was UNSLIT, because 'we had to flip it over to see the image on the other side in the correct orientation'" (312). 

The copy couriered to Washington, D.C. on the night of November 22nd was Kodachrome in a 16 mm. format that could readily be remembered as a 'double 8' movie format.  Was it UNSLIT?  Yes, all three copies made from the original in Dallas were delivered in unslit 16 mm. format.  Hence the Secret Service copy couriered to Washington on the night of November 22nd was also in  unslit 16 mm. format.

Ben Hunter's recollections are even more to the point although they conflict with McMahon's.  "His [Hunter's] impression is that the film was probably in 16 mm. format but was not of an unslit double-8 film.  It was his strong impression that they were working with the original, but when asked whether there were images present between the sprocket holes, he said that it was his reasonably strong impression today that there were no such images present between the sprocket holes in the film he examined at NPIC.  At one point, he described the film as 'not high resolution'" (315). 

PHOTOGRAPHIC CONSISTENCY

It is now important to return to the main thrust of this series.  The new NPIC information does not materially effect the tracking of the original of the film and its several copies over that weekend.  What remains to be pointed out is the remarkable consistency between the Zapruder film and all the other films of the assassination.

Take the Moorman photo which recently has been the subject of intense analysis.  No one has ever claimed that the Moorman photo has been altered.  But note the consistency between what we see in the Moorman photo and what we see in the Zapruder film - the position of JFK and Jackie Kennedy, Governor Connally and Mrs. Connally, Secret Service Agent Kellerman, the position of the motorcyclists, the body position of Emmet Hudson and the others on the steps, the Newmans on the far side of the street, even Abraham Zapruder's and Marilyn Sitzman's position atop the pedestal.  All of these details of an agreed upon authentic photo match exactly the details offered in the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and other films.  Do the same thing with the Altgens photo taken at Zapruder frame 255.  The position of JFK and Mrs. Kennedy, Governor Connally, Secret Service Agents Greer and Kellerman, the motorcyclists, the spectators - their positions and gestures are all synchronized exactly as we would expect them to be shown given what we see in the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Towner, Betzner and other films.  Far from being replete with contradictions, the photographic record of the case paints a seamless web of interconnected people, gestures and positions.  For example, the precise position of President Kennedy in Altgens matches his precise position in Zapruder frame 255 and the corresponding frame of other films.  Each element of the photographic record endorses and corroborates the authenticity of other elements.  The result is a photographic portrait from many points of view of what happened. 

DISINFORMATION SERIES PART V. - THE ZAPRUDER FILM AND WITNESSES

It has been argued that the Zapruder film must have been altered since it does not agree with indisputable witness testimony.  Two kinds of witness testimony have been offered as conflicting with what we see in the Zapruder film:

(1)  Some witnesses say the limousine stopped while the Zapruder film does not show it stopping.

(2)  Parkland and Bethesda witnesses say the back of the President's head was blown out and this does not show on the Zapruder film.

I will take up each contention in order. 

(1)   Many witnesses say the limousine stopped while the Zapruder film does not show it stopping.

Both sides of this particular claim have been argued fully in the past so I will simply sketch the main contours of the argument without going into great detail. 

Most witnesses did not comment on whether the limousine slowed down or stopped.  Some said they thought it stopped.  Others said they thought it slowed down.  The Zapruder film shows the limousine slowing down and this deceleration can be measured.  Because of the angle from which the scene is photographed, the slow-down is much more apparent in the Nix and Muchmore films.  To make the argument for a conflict between witness testimony and the Zapruder film, one has to carefully pick out those witnesses who reported seeing the limousine stop and pay no attention to the great number of witnesses who said nothing on this point and the smaller number who said they saw the limousine slow down.

In her studies of eyewitness testimony, Elizabeth Loftus has pointed out the various factors which degrade the reliability of eyewitness testimony.  If anyone cares to go to her book, "Eyewitness Testimony," you can find these factors described.  Almost all of them were present in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.  Of special interest is Elizabeth Loftus' claim that estimates of the velocity of vehicles are subject to a high degree of unreliability.  Given all these factors plus the fact that the limousine did in fact slow down markedly during the assassination, it is unclear  what we are to make of witness testimony that the car stopped.  Surely reasonable people can disagree on this point.  It seems quite plausible to me, however, that the slowing down apparent in all the various films may well have been translated into a "stop" by certain witnesses given the traumatic quality of the event.  Since all the evidence on either side of this argument has been fully and frequently aired, further discussion is probably unnecessary. 

(2)   Parkland and Bethesda witnesses say the back of the President's head was blown out and this does not show on the Zapruder film.

Various witnesses to the assassination described the wounds to the President's head in terms that fit rather nicely with what we see in the Zapruder film.  Abraham Zapruder, William Newman and several others might be mentioned.  I see no reason to go into detail other than to remark that they recalled seeing what we see in the film.

Gary Aguilar has shown brilliantly the wholesale  agreement between the Parkland witnesses and the Bethesda witnesses concerning damage to the President's head.  There is no doubt these witnesses observed a brutal avulsive wound to the left rear of the President's head.  The exact dimensions and the exact location of this wound may be in doubt.  But that it was avulsive - blowing outwards - and that it was dramatically large is not in doubt.

This wound, we are told, is not visible in the Zapruder film.  Hence, the Zapruder film must have been altered to conceal it.  

Moreover, the Parkland witnesses comment on the fairly massive wound to the back of the head but don't comment on the dramatic more forward wound visible in the Zapruder film.  Hence, the Zapruder film must have been altered.

First, it is very likely that the avulsive wound in the occipital area of the President's head is in fact visible in the Zapruder film.  Frames have been called to my attention in the last week or so which appear to show this.  Within the next month, several of us will be meeting to hash this out.  Since someone else made this significant discovery and I have not been able to confirm it by inspecting high-quality slides whose provenance is known, I cannot say more than that it appears to be the case.  Although the back of the head is in shadow subsequent to Z 313, there are several frames which appear to show the avulsive injury described by the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses.

But why didn't the Parkland witnesses comment on the large wound in the temporal-parietal region of the skull just forward of the right ear? 

Since the Zapruder film shows this wound as being made up of a large section of skull which hinges downward, the closing of this hinged gate and its attendant scalp may have concealed the wound from the Parkland witnesses.  Barb Junkkarinen, who has experience with Emergency Rooms because she worked in one, recently pointed out: "I believe Gary will agree that closing a trap door in the skull... complete with scalp... could easily go unnoticed given what they were doing with/to JFK at Parkland.  I believe that their attention was drawn to the area where the bones were avulsed open.  It's hard to miss an actual hole, easy to miss a closed opening in a bloody scalp unless doing a detailed exam for damage. The scalp is so highly vascularized that even a small wound can produce lots of blood...  and after a short while, that is better than Elmer's Glue!"

The significance of these observations is that there may be no remaining discrepancies between what we see on the Zapruder film and what witnesses later observed in terms of damage to the President's head. 

DISINFORMATION SERIES PART VI. - MOORMAN: THE MEANING OF A FAILED PROOF

For some time, the alleged proof that Mary Moorman took her famous photo from the street has been argued on this site.  As far as I know, the alleged proof was based on two claims.  First, that Mary Moorman and her companion that day, Jean Hill, "have always consistently maintained" that Moorman took her famous photo while standing on Elm Street.  Second, that lines of sight computed from the photograph place the lens of the camera in Elm Street.

Jack White wrote in his photo supplement to MIDP: "Both Mary Moorman and her friend Jean Hill have always consistently maintained that they stepped off the curb into the street to take this photo... From the line-of-sight internal to the photo, it is possible to ascertain whether Mary was on the grass or standing in the street, as she and Jean have claimed." 

As far as I can ascertain, these statements are just plain false.  Mary Ferrell recently sent me a message stating that although Mary Moorman recalled stepping into the street to take her early photos she had always told Mary Ferrell that her famous photo was taken from the grass.  When a 1997 interview with Mary Moorman on KLRD was recently used in MIDP to attempt to show Moorman was in the street when she took her photo, Moorman was called by the man who arranged the interview.  She told him the same thing she had told Mary Ferrell on numerous occasions - she was in the grass when she took her famous photo and was surprised by the controversy.  If you look at the videotape of "The Men Who Killed the President" you will find Mary Moorman standing on the grass telling what it was like to take her famous photograph.  Along with Gary Mack, Jack White was there that afternoon when Mary Moorman took the position in the grass from which her photo was taken.  I have received an email from Greg Jaynes telling me that Jean Hill made clear to him within the last two years that both she and Mary Moorman were standing on the grass when the famous photograph was taken.

Given this welter of contrary evidence, not a scintilla of evidence has been produced that Mary Moorman or Jean Hill ever (not "always consistently maintained," but ever) claimed that Moorman was standing in the roadway at the time she took her famous photograph.  In addition, inspection of the Altgens photo shows that the outboard motorcycle was riding only about forty inches from the curb and would have run down Moorman had she been standing in the roadway.  The Nix and Muchmore films show that nothing like this happened. 

Turning to the line-of-sight argument. 

Careful examination of a copy of the Moorman photo where critical portions were not occluded by lines drawn on the photos, showed that the line-of-sight observed by Jack White was not correct.  The correct line-of-sight placed the camera lens more southerly and higher than it was via Jack White's calculations - that is, closer to the location on the grass where Moorman said she was.   An excellent copy of the Moorman photo made from the original Polaroid in February 1967 was scanned and distributed to show that the earlier claimed line-of-sight from Jack White was incorrect.

I mean to call attention to the response. 

Jack White has never responded to the charge that his statements about Mary Moorman and Jean Hill - namely, that "both Mary Moorman and her friend Jean Hill have always consistently maintained that they stepped off the curb into the street to take this photo..." - are plainly incorrect.   Jack White responded to the second point by saying his line-of-sight was off by "perhaps an inch" but never explained how this figure was arrived at.  Professor Fetzer, true to form, added the helpful suggestion that I should help pay for a surveyor to confirm the line-of-sight already shown to be wrong. 

I mean to call attention to Jack White's response to this. 

He posted a message entitled: "CHALLENGE TO ANTI-ALTERATIONISTS: MOVE ON FROM MOORMAN."  He then stated in his post: "There are several antialterationists here who seem incapable of understanding the simple facts regarding the location of the Moorman camera and are urged to move on to other issues of the film alteration. I challenge these contrarians to offer any reasonable explanation for this image posted below and elsewhere..... So, for a while, please put aside your attempts to theorize about the facts of the Moorman photo, which is seemingly beyond your ability to comprehend, and address this much simpler image. Put your imaginations to work and come up with some explanations for this enlargement of the background. If you cannot come up with a satisfactory rationale for this, I suggest that you admit that the film has been altered." 

Aside from the gratuitous insults, the clear message from Jack White is: "DON'T BOTHER ME WITH YOUR ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE MOORMAN PHOTO.  LET'S MOVE ON!"  With all due respect to Jack White, I want to ask the question, "Why?"  We took your thesis seriously.  We checked it against other factors.  We found difficulties in your thesis and presented those difficulties.  Now, you give us no satisfying answers to our questions but insult our intelligence and tell us to "move on." 

DISINFORMATION SERIES PART VII. - EPILOGUE

I feel that some measure of regret should be verbalized for monopolizing so much of your Forum with my posts "Disinformation Series Parts I. through VII."  As I said, I checked first with Mr. Rich DellaRosa.  Not only did he welcome the idea but he very graciously suggested that the whole series could be made available when finished via one of the white squares at the bottom of the page.

The term "disinformation" was picked to title the series as a way of ironically reflecting the difference Professor Fetzer and myself.   By this time, I imagine you are probably quite tired of the mutual insults and bad blood between us.  I am too.   But I would ask you to consider what you would do if you were in my place. 

Some time ago, Professor Fetzer and I had a vigorous email debate occasioned by my remark to Millicent Cranor that one's ability in assassination research shouldn't be measured by how many initials one could hang after one's name.  Professor Fetzer immediately leaped to the attack.  It reached a climax at the 1998 Lancer conference when I gave a talk outlining certain evidentiary matters which ended with a direct attack against certain tendencies in assassination research that I thought Professor Fetzer exemplified.  That particular meeting ended with Professor Fetzer attempting to tell a bad Richard Pryor joke into a dead microphone after Debra Conway turned off the power to the microphone.

Subsequent to that meeting, Professor Fetzer sent an email to many persons saying "Thompson is not the person he pretends to be" and insinuating that I was in the employ of some intelligence agency.  His "evidence" was silly and I disposed of it in a return email to the persons effected. 

Sometime later, I learned that Professor Fetzer had posted his offensive charges on his own web site while posting only selected portions of my reply.  He had done this under the rubric "disinformation."  As he has done here, he reminded readers of FBI penetration of the Klan and the Communist Party.  He referred readers to additional books on CIA covert tactics and the craft of intelligence.  In short, he attempted a cowardly sort of character assassination by stopping just short of what would be actionable for libel.

I asked David Mantik, a gentleman, to do something about it.  After Professor Fetzer refused to do anything, David Mantik was kind enough to issue a public statement condemning Fetzer's actions.  Cyril Wecht learned of Mantik's statement and wrote to both Mantik and Fetzer.   Dr. Wecht praised Mantik for his courage and condemned Fetzer's action to his face, saying that Fetzer owed Thompson an apology.  Next Dr. Gary Aguilar joined in, telling Fetzer that his "slander" of Thompson was "self-destructive" and hurtful to the whole critical community.  You have read those posts and seen how last evening Professor Fetzer demanded an apology from Wecht, Mantik and Aguilar. 

Yesterday, Bill Kelly posted a definition of "disinformation" as follows:

"The FBI's official intelligence glossary defines DISINFORMATION: 'Carefully contrived misinformation prepared by an intelligence service for the purpose of misleading, deluding, disrupting, or undermining confidence in individuals, organizations or governments.' The International Dictionary of Intelligence." (Mclean, Va., International Defense Consultant Services, 1990, p. 110). Edited by Leo D. Carl. 

The actual term "disinformation" came into the language in the late sixties and early seventies. It came into the language from the Russian "dezinformatsiya," specifically the claim of the Soviet government that western intelligence agencies were planting falsehoods in the media of various countries -  a claim that turned out to be quite true. Hence, when Professor Fetzer uses the term, he invokes not only its past use but its present meaning as false information planted by some intelligence agency.  The planter of that false information is obviously an agent of that intelligence agency - in other words, an agent of disinformation.