[[ the following was posted in reply for a post of Jim Fetzer's.
Elsewhere in this menu, find Fetzer's note. 10-09-98 ]]
=========================================================================
From: Martin Shackelford
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk,alt.conspiracy.jfk,startext.jfk
Subject: Re: Why I No Longer Believe in Tink
Date: 9 Oct 1998
Jim Fetzer "no longer believes" in Tink Thompson. What a shock! It's
like learning that the attorney for the Easter Bunny has declared that, sadly,
he no longer believes in the Theory of Evolution. It's completely and totally
irrelevant to anything resembling reality. But, then, we've come to expect
that from Jim. Reality is a bit out of his line.
He says that Tink made him an easy target because Mr. Fetzer has
been "formal, exact and thorough." Actually, he made himself an easy target by
being bombastic, vague and long-winded--did I mention arrogant? He is right
about being pedantic, though--in the worst sense of the word. He is operating
on a plane that has lost all touch with the real world of evidence.
Why doesn't he "believe in" Tink Thompson any more? Let's look at
his points:
1) Without much information at all, and contrary to what little he has, he
finds something he dislikes "surely false."
2) He considers it "grossly unfair" that Tink won't provide him with copies of
private correspondence without the permission of the authors of that
correspondence. He himself has violated such confidences in the past, so he
expects Tink to lower himself to the same level.
3) He misrepresents Tink's statements about what he's read. Because Tink read
a draft of Dr. Mantik's alteration chapter rather than the final published
version, he denies Tink the right to have a valid opinion on alteration. I saw
an early version at Lancer 96, and then the final version--the differences
aren't significant. The problem is the serious underlying problems with the
alteration argument, and mountains of trivia, and lists of "anomalies" without
contextual meaning, don't make the case any stronger. Thus, Mr. Fetzer has to
rely on rhetoric and meaningless distinctions to make it appear as though Tink
is in no position to comment. In his words, "discredits his opinion in the
case." He wishes this is so, but it is only another example of how out of
touch he really is.
4) He continues to demand evidence from Tink regarding the Z film's
whereabouts on Friday night, when all of the evidence supports Tink's
statement that it was in Zapruder's hands. Aside from a reference to an
obsolete article by Phil Melanson, obsoleted by the evidence released in the
14 years since it was written, Fetzer offers absolutely no evidence at all for
his claim that the CIA had the film on Friday night. I have looked for such
evidence and found none. I wonder if he has looked at all. I sometimes think
that he finds evidence limiting, an interference with his will to believe.
5) He says that "those who are not qualified only rarely make contributions."
Apparently, he is overlooking the lack of qualifications of many of the
contributors to Assassination Science on the topics about which they are
writing. Dr. Mantik, for example, was declaring lists of "anomalies" in the
Zapruder film (an anomaly being something that isn't typical) when he had
never examined another 8mm film, and didn't have a clue what was typical or
not. Later, he looked at some other 8mm films, but this was far from making
him a "world authority" as Mr. Fetzer's fantasies declared him.
6) At no point did Tink "disparage" research credentials; it is Mr. Fetzer, in
defense of his pseudo-scientific volume, who has had to downplay credentials,
for the reason just mentioned.
7) Tink didn't "ignore" Dr. Mantik's or Dr. Livingston's work in the medical
evidence. The topic of discussion was Zapruder film alteration--the medical
evidence work wasn't relevant to the discussion at all. This is a gross
example of Mr. Fetzer's strawman diversions.
8) In support of the credentials of his book's contributors, he argues that a
PhD. qualifies one "to research on many subjects," gliding lightly by the
question of whether the individual has sufficient background IN THE SUBJECT
MATTER about which he writes.
9) "his deference to Marsh"? Tink referred favorably to Marsh's work, with
good reason. Is it Mr. Fetzer's belief that one can never rely on the work of
those who have studied a particular issue in depth, but must reenact all of
the work himself? If that's true, Mr. Fetzer has a very large amount of work
to do before he talks again about film alteration.
10) Mr. Fetzer attacks Tink again for not violating the confidence of a
correspondent by forwarding a private e-mail to him. I've seen the e-mail.
Tink characterized it accurately. Mr. Fetzer is trying to substitute innuendo
for argument.
11) Tink didn't "evade" Mr. Fetzer's argument about probability, he explained
the rank absurdity of it. Mr. Fetzer makes rhetorical use of Elizabeth Loftus
as he did with Art Snyder, in both cases misrepresenting, or perhaps just
misunderstanding, their work.
12) In another side issue, Mr. Fetzer pretends that what courses Tink taught
as a professor make a difference when it comes to the valid arguments he makes
against alteration. Another gross example of a strawman.
He continues to refer to alteration claims as "discoveries," as
though their validity had been established. Of course, the Easter Bunny's
attorney is not going to question where the chocolate eggs really come from,
either.
The very things which REVEAL the "relative merits" of their
positions, Mr. Fetzer sees as "obscuring" their relative merits. Judging from
the opening of Mr. Fetzer's message, Gary Aguilar knew better, and warned Mr.
Fetzer, but he was oblivious. He was too busy characterizing Tink as a
"continental philosopher" (thus unqualified and not to be considered) and
himself as an "analytic philospher" (which, if true, is bad news for
analysis).
Mr. Fetzer then treads on VERY dangerous ground, questioning Tink's
qualifications to comment on Zapruder alteration. Mr. Fetzer has built his
ENTIRE CASE on "studies" by people with no relevant qualifications, but he
apparently still doesn't know the evidence well enough to realize it.
Then we are "treated" to a long discussion of Kierkegaard, so that
Mr. Fetzer can demonstrate that he's read a book about the subject of an
earlier book by Tink. Nothing in the quoted passages supports Mr. Fetzer's
earlier characterization of Kierkegaard, but he follows the passages by
re-stating his interpretation of them as though it was fact. No one has
accused Mr. Fetzer, of course, of believing in alteration "because it is
absurd." He seems to believe it "despite" its absurdity.
Stepping into quicksand again, he suggests that Tink is unreliable
because his subject, Kierkegaard, believed truth was subjective. Mr. Fetzer's
own highly subjective approach to the JFK assassination evidence may explain
why he doesn't notice himself sinking, even though Dr. Aguilar kindly tried to
point out that he was up to his neck in it.
Mr. Fetzer seems to have developed a sudden appreciation for
credentials, though when someone has relevant credentials to talk about the
evidence in this case and 8mm film, and isn't saying what he wants to hear,
his response is to announce that he will no longer read anything the person
(in this case myself) writes on the subject. He feels that his PhD. in
Philosophy qualifies him to speak as an expert on the case, but my
qualifications aren't adequate. What are they?:
1) A Bachelor's Degree in History, and some graduate studies in the field,
from the University of Michigan.
2) More than three decades of experience with 8mm, Super 8mm, and 16mm
film, and video,including experience shooting footage,editing it, doing special
effects, and frame by frame study of multiple films.
3) Extensive reading over the same period on the subject of the technical and
creative aspects of movie special effects.
4) Twenty-four years of reading and studying the literature and evidence on
the assassination of President Kennedy, with a special emphasis on the
photographic evidence.
I guess it's unfortunate that I haven't bought into Mr. Fetzer's alteration
fantasies--otherwise, he might be touting ME as "a world authority" on
something--like film directing, or something else where I lack real
qualifications.
Given this "Alice in Wonderland" perspective Mr. Fetzer has on
the case and the evidence (what Jim Garrison characterized as "black is white
and white is black), it is not surprising to hear that he concludes Josiah
Thompson, who has forgotten more about the case than Mr. Fetzer will ever
really know "was once a force for good" but "has now become an obstacle." An
obstacle to what? To the triumph of Mr. Fetzer's fantasies.
Of course, Mr. Fetzer knows that his ridiculous diatribe will be
strongly criticized. In his imaginary world, "this will again reflect the
poverty of reason and logic on their side." No wonder his efforts to
understand Tink have ended in "puzzlement." What is even more puzzling is
that he doesn't realize that his efforts to understand the assassination have
ended, to date, the same way.
Martin Shackelford