PART 1: BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

In 1996, I was invited by George Michael Evica, the co-chair, to organize a symposium on the possibility the Zapruder film may have been subjected to alteration for presentation during the JFK Lancer Conference he was in the process of organizing with Debra Conway. After consulting with David W. Mantik, I replied that this appeared to be an excellent plan and that would recommend having a workshop on 21 November 1996 in preparation for a symposium presentation on 22 November 1996. The workshop would last ten-and-a-half hours and would be followed by a four-and-a-half hour symposium.

The workshop participants included David Mantik, David Lifton, Jack White, Chuck Marler, Noel Twyman, Ron Hepler, Roy Schaeffer, and Robert Morningstar. Martin Shackelford, Art Snyer, and Sherry Gutierrez were present at Debra's request. The public session held the next day included presentations by Jack White, Chuck Marler, Noel Twyman, David Lifton, David Mantik and me. In my capacity as chair of the session, I offered a framework for considering these issues from the point of view of "inference to the best explanantion". The very idea of film alteration proved very controversial.

Perhaps I should not have been surprised, but my impression was that some of the earlier work on this subject -- by Daryll Weatherly, Harrison Edward Livingstone, Alan Eaglesham, Robert Morningstar, Milicent Cranor and others unnamed--had created a prima facie case for film alteration, even if some of the leading authorities on the photographic evidence -- such as Robert J. Groden, for example--were adamantly opposed to the thought. In any case, I was not overly charitable to some members of the audience, such as Hal Verb, who remained strongly opposed to the alteration hypothesis even after sitting through our presentation. I found that difficult to believe.

Indeed, it has always struck me as odd that students of the crime who are strongly committed to the existence of conspiracy and cover-up should have such strong feelings about the non-alteration of the film. The most basic evidence in this case--the autopsy X-rays, the autopsy report, and the autopsy photographs--after all, have all been subject to one or another form of alteration, from fabricating X-rays to rewriting the report to creating, destroying, and altering these photographs. Why the alteration of a film should require such a stretch of the intellect has always baffled me, but I now suspect that it has to do with the presumptive loss of key evidence.

The motion of the President's head under the impact of one of the bullets, after all, has frequently been cited as the most important evidence that we have of a shot fired from in front. The "back and to the left, back and to the left" motion highlighted in Oliver Stone's film "JFK" has often been taken to be THE CRUCIAL INDICATION that not all the shots were fired from above and behind, as THE WARREN REPORT requires. Some argue that, if the film is not authentic, then it is completely useless as evidence, where we cannot pick and choose which parts are authentic and which not. Yet such attitudes overlook ever mounting evidence of Z-film alteration.

Indeed, the idea of not being able to "pick and choose" ignores the findings of X-ray alteration, which were based upon meticulous studies that successfully differentiated between authentic and inauthentic features of those X-rays, suggesting that comparable meticulous studies might successfully differentiate between authentic and inauthentic features of the film. Moreover, there is a strong tendency to fail to distinguish the question of WHETHER THE FILM HAD BEEN ALTERED from the question of HOW, WHY, AND BY WHOM IT HAD BEEN ALTERED, as though, unless we know every detail about the who, what, where, when, and why of alteration, no alteration is possible.

There is an obvious conflation of questions about WHAT IS THE CASE (such as whether the film has been altered) and WHY IT IS THE CASE (such as why it has been altered). Adquate answers to the first question do not have to imply adequate answers to the second. In any case, even though it was my opinion that more than enough evidence had been presented during this symposium to establish that the film had been altered, what we had done was not met with enthusiasm from every quarter. Attacks via discussion groups began immediately (even before the presentation on 22 November), where the most prominent critic of alterationism was Martin Shackelford.

Between the 1996 Lancer Conference and the 1997 Lancer Conference, there was considerable discussion about the very possibility, much of which was focused on the alleged impossibility of its being done along the lines of "If it had been done, why would they leave in the strongest evidence for at least one shot from in front?" and "How could it have been done, given the chain of custody for its possession?" Some of these questions would be difficult to address absent access to the original, which might make it all too apparent why certain kinds of editing was done; and the accuracy and completeness of the chain of custody would soon become suspect.

In any case, for the 1997 Lancer Conference, Debra Conway affored Josiah Thompson and Art Snyder the opportunity to present arguments contrary to those presented at the symposium I had organized a year before. Rather to my surprise, they asked if I could appear in relation to their presentation, discussing certain aspects of the alterationist thesis. I was willing to do so, but prior to my participation, at least three persons warned me that they were "setting me up" in order to attack me during their symposium. But I went along with it anyway, even announcing that I had been so advised during my extremely brief (5 minute) appearance.

Josiah Thompson attacked me in ways that I considered to be very unfair, especially considering that, while I was endorsing, advocating, and promoting the alterationist position, I was not doing so on the basis of my own original research but rather drawing upon the work of others. So I always found it rather peculiar that I should have been the beneficiary of so much critical attention. As the man said after having been tarred and feathered and run out of town on a log, "If it weren't for the honor of the thing, I would just as soon have walked!" That would become very much my attitude, although it was not one that I would publicly express.

The Thompson piece would be smoothed and published in Walt Brown's JFK DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY (April 1999), under the title, "Why the Zapruder Film IS Authentic", which Walt hyped with the heading, "Josiah Thompson Chronlogy Points Up Difficulties in Z Film Alteration". This seemed to me to be a bit much, since Josiah did not actually come go grips with even one example of film alteration that had been produced during the Lancer Symposium of 1996! Indeed, by this point in time, a lot of what we had discovered had been published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), which would itself become the object of Thompson's relentless attacks.

In the meanwhile--between the Lancer Symposium of 1997 and the publication of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE -- I found myself subjected to a barrage of attacks from one source or another, some even unwilling to identify themselves by name. There were so many criticisms from so many parties of such uneven quality that it seemed to me to be a worthwhile project to sort them out into KINDS OF ATTACKS. The levels and types of argumentation and rhetorical technique also impressed me greatly, because it had long since become apparent to me that many of these attacks had to be insincere attempts to distrort, mislead, and confuse readers about the topics of discussion, which qualified as instances of "disinformation".

I therefore began to analyze these attacks from the perspective of the extent to which they reflected the abuse of logic and language in their effort to create false, distorted, or otherwise misleading impressions. I was fascinated to discover that the types of disinformation involved appeared to fall into at least five categories, from the outright fabrication of evidence to selection-and-elimination down to the least significant type, which can amount to no more than difference of opinion. Because I was so familiar with them, I used many examples from the on-going controversy over film alteration and ASSASSINATION SCIENCE itself.

The result appeared on my web site, www.assassinationscience.com, in the form of my DISINFORMATION page. I used samples of my exchanges with Art Snyder and with Josiah Thompson as examples of disinformation of Type I, the lowest level, because it was obvious to me that, however much I might believe that Josiah ("Tink" to friends) was deliberately abusing language and logic, others with less training in logic and language than I, as a professional philosopher, possessed, might be more inclined to treat his criticisms as nothing more than "differences of opinion". Because I did not want to exaggerate the seriousness of our differences, I left it at that lowest level, assuming that this would be obvious from its context.

I could not have been more mistaken. Although our exchange resurfaced in December 2000, it was evident to me -- from close reading of Tink's posts -- that he seemed to think that, in alleging he was practicing "disinformation", I was thereby accusing him of being some sort of government agent, even though that was something I explicitly disavowed in the post I had put up as an example on my web site. Indeed, the first indication I had that he finally understood that I was drawing distinctions between different kinds of "disinformation" occurred in responses that followed this post, which only appeared on 7 January 2001. Prior to that, I surmise, he had not even bothered to read the DISINFORMATION page on my web site.

POST (a): SIX SENSES OF "DISINFORMATION"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 =df 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 "disinformation 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 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 review 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 "equivocation", 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
> 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 undermining confidence in individuals, organizations, or governments -- 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 photographs -- 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 language -- specifically, by committing a fallacy of equivocation -- in order to spread carefully contrived misinformation for the purpose of misleading, deluding, disrupting, or undermining confidence in individuals, organizations, or governments -- 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Once this barrier had been crossed, the situation took a turn for the better. Thompson made belittling remarks about my suggestion that, in discussing "disinformation", I was contributing to something that might be called "the philosophy of disinformation" (because philosophy is devoted to the clarification or disambiguation of vague and ambiguous language), nevertheless, he seemed to better understand the situation in ways that he clearly (in my opinion) had not understood them from the very beginning, at least since my DISINFORMATION page was posted back in 1998. This post thus caused a dramatic increase in communication.

Other members of the forum were suggesting that he and I should bury the hatchet, perhaps by my disavowing the use of the word "disinformation" to describe what he was doing. I was reluctant to do this, however, because--when detached from any implications of government agency or intelligence service involvement--it conveyed exactly what I intended to convey, as, indeed, I had explicitly explained on the DISINFORMATION page itself. I was therefore gratified that at least one member of the forum had understood the situation quite clearly.

POST (b): "DISINFORMATION" vs. "MISINFORMATION"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the meaning of "IS"?

RE:: A Fetzer-Thompson Detente.....? -- R. Charles-Dunne
Posted by jack white , Sun, Jan 14, 2001, 16:12:48

Robert... as usual, I find much wisdom in your above proposal.

However, I must reject your call that Dr. Fetzer APOLOGIZE FOR A PERCEIVED INSULT. By definition, a perceived insult is ONLY in the mind of the insulted. It might be WISE to apologize, but would not change the OPINION. It would be like saying, "I APOLOGIZE FOR THINKING YOU ARE A JERK" when the opinion stays the same.

As is apparent to anyone who has READ (as most of us have numerous times) what Jim ACTUALLY wrote, the gist of it is:

"Dr. Thompson ACTS LIKE an agent of disinformation." This obviously is an OPINION.

He has never said:

"Dr. Thompson IS an agent of disinformation." This obviously would be a statement of FACT.

In my opinion, these are easily understood concepts which have distinct and different meanings. Demanding or offering an apology for an OPINION is a matter which should only involve the participants, and not others. On the other hand, a statement saying "IS" instead of "ACTS LIKE" is clearly a statement of "FACT", and if UNTRUE, it should certainly be withdrawn, altered and apologized for.

In all these discussions, Jim has steadfastly stated (as is obvious from reading it) that his OPINION falls in the category of "ACTS LIKE" and NOT "IS".

Now all of us have an OPINION on this. I certainly do. I would hope that all could get along amicabally. But my opinion cannot be forced on others, unfortunately. If Dr. Fetzer had written an UNTRUTH about Dr. Thompson, he certainly should apologize and alter what he said. But if Dr. Fetzer (perhaps unwisely some think) only expressed an OPINION (which he still holds), I hold that I cannot tell him what to THINK. It might be WISE for Jim to apologize...but that would not change his opinion, would it?

As for the distinctions between MISinformation and DISinformation, here is my belief:

DISINFORMATION is disseminated by agents or conduits of FALSE INFORMATION by persons, witting or unwitting, for compensation or not for compensation, OF A SPECIFIC AGENDA to counter truth. The AGENDA is the true mark of disinformation. Calling someone an agent of DISinformation insults not them as much as their agenda.

MISINFORMATION is spread by persons who usually are ill-informed, ignorant, cognitively impaired, rumor-spreaders or such. Misinformation may actually be DISINFORMATION which is repeated WITHOUT THE ORIGINAL AGENDA. An example
of this would be people who say Oswald was the assassin BECAUSE THE WARREN REPORT SAYS SO. These people spread misinformation which was originally DISINFORMATION, because they are ignorant of the truth. To call someone a spreader
of MISinformation is an insult to their intelligence.

Those are my thoughts, for what they are worth.

For truth...and peace,

Jack
---------------------------------------------------------------

While Jack understood the situation perfectly, I concluded that, since I had never claimed that Thompson was working for a government agency or an intelligence service but, on the contrary, had explicitly disavowed such a claim -- a point other commentators on this matter, including some of considerable prominence within the research community, likewise overlooked -- I thought that it could do no harm and might do some good to emphasis a point that I had already made in that earlier post, which led me to offer further clarification of this crucial aspect of this contentious affair.

POST (c): A "DISINFORMATION" CLARIFICATION
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A "Disinformation" Clarification

Posted by Jim Fetzer , Thu, Jan 18, 2001, 11:43:54

In the spirit of Robert's suggestion, I shall be glad to incoroprate the following clarification in the post in which I discuss Josiah Thompson as an example of "Disinformation of Type I" if it might help to resolve these outstanding issues,
namely:

- - - - - - - - - - - -

[NOTE: Disinformation of many kinds can be disseminated for many reasons, including economic (by businesses), political (by campaigns), personal (by individuals), and so forth. The occurrence of disinformation occurs independently of the reasons it is done. The questions must be distinguished: is disinformation taking
place? and, if so, why?

It follows that, in describing these persons' conduct as the dissemination of disinformation, I am not implying that they are employed by any intelligence agency or government service for that purpose, much less that they work for the CIA, the NSA, or
the FBI. That is not part of what I am asserting here.

I regret if anyone should have misunderstood and mistakenly inferred that I intended to make such claims in the context of my web-page discussion of DISINFORMATION.
And I am indebted to Robert Charles-Dunne for suggesting that a clarification of this point could help those who otherwise might take the wrong impression.]

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Unless dissuaded by members of this forum, I intend to add this clarification immediately after the paragraphs of that post that begin and end as follows:

"Of course, I would not know if the book reviewer, Michael Parks, and Tink Thompson are working for some 'shadowy government agency', but I have not made that claim. . . . I have simply offered my own reasoned opinion that these sources appear to be spreading disinformation for reasons that to me remain obscure."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal was well-received by members of the forum, who endorsed it forthwith. I would hear from Thompson via a personal unpublished message that he thought this clarification afforded a basis for a "settlement" between us. But his proposal for a settlement entailed that I change my use of the word "disinformation" in relation to him and refer to him instead as, say, an agent of "misinformation". After all that had gone before, I felt unjustified in taking that step, especially since, so far as I have been able to discern, nothing I have said about him during this exchange appears to be untrue. Moreover, in those cases where I have become persuaded that clarifications were appropriate, I have introduced addenda.

Ultimately, in a post of 18 January 2001, Robert Charles-Dunne put his finger on a crucial aspect of all of this, which was the extent to which Thompson was trashing the authors and chapters of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, who were not engaged in this exchange with him and who deserved better. As he observed in relation to my proposal,

> I also hope your display of generosity will be matched by Dr. Thompson's
> own. Henceforth, when Dr.
> Thompson posts critiques of your books, perhaps the rest of us who read
> them will do so assured that
> the critiques are motivated by a professional difference of opinion, and
> not a personal vendetta.

I have no idea whether he will continue to offer himself as a reviewer of books edited by someone with whom he has engaged in such acrimonious disputes for such a prolonged period of time. But if he does persist in this behavior, it will be obvious to everyone he has no scruples when it comes to conflicts of interest. Indeed, it would be reassuring to know that his critiques were motivated by professional differences of opinion rather than by a personal vendetta against the editor of these books. I cannot predict what the future will hold, but everyone ought to be able to readily ascertain how he and I conduct ourselves from this point on.