Return to JFK Main Page
Return to Zapruder Film Page

By 1996, I had lost all faith in [Fetzer's] integrity. He is a parasite, not a researcher. He tried to ride the medical evidence to fame, but was frustrated by his inability to use Harrison Livingstone. He went on to find others more easily manipulated, and picked Zapruder alteration as his new "cause."

For all of his talk of science, he told one researcher that he begins by deciding what is the truth, and then marshals evidence (selectively) to support that "truth." This is the opposite of scientific method. In my opinion, Fetzer is clearly a quack, using the language of his field to advance fraudulent premises.

Whether his motives go beyond his own inflated ego, I don't know, but he has done considerable damage by his glory-seeking con-artist parody of JFK research.

I would think a serious researcher of the case would be embarrassed NOT to be on Fetzer's "disinformation" list.

Fetzer is a playground bully, using his academic credentials and his aggressive approach to intimidate those who question his "expertise." Like a bully, he responds with assaults, then cowardice when someone refuses to be intimidated, and demolishes his absurd claims.

[Fetzer] seems to have convinced a growing core of people that "he may have something," using his usual smoke and mirrors, and the phony pretense of science. Insane? No. I believe he is an unscrupulous opportunist, a sociopath unconcerned about what damage he does.

Fetzer's article - "Signs of Disinformation" - is a perfect example of Fetzer's tactics:

1) He provides the reader with the Fetzer definition of disinformation, without regard to any form of reality.

2) He avoids direct accusation, but seeks to tar his critics with vague smears: "who may or may not be gainfully employed by some 'shadowy government agency'."

3) He reports their claims are "too strong to be true." In other words, if a position (like "Fetzer is peddling nonsense") is stated strongly, that is a "sign of disinformation." How convenient. You are only NOT a disinformationalist if you are as vague and slippery as Fetzer, apparently.

4) An "unrelentingly negative" review seems to be another "sign of disinformation." If something is crap, an unrelentingly negative review seems like a reasonable response.

5) He describes "The Innocent Man Script" (which I've never heard of) and his own book (without mentioning it is his) as "fascinating works, in my view, that contribute considerably to illuminating" the case...

6) Josiah Thompson's criticism of Murder in Dealey Plaza is characterized as "trashing."

7) He associates himself with the idea of a rear exit wound, as though a great many of his critics don't also believe this, and then adds his own phony conclusions as though they were natural consequences of the first premise: that the brain "cannot be the brain of JFK, and the X-rays from the autopsy must have been fabricated." These are things which don't necessarily follow, but he presents them as though they are inevitable. He then ignores all previous work, and attrubutes all this to his earlier book, Assassination Science (again not identifying it as his own book).

8) He then states triumphantly that "the former has nine contributors, the latter eleven," as though the number of contributors has the slightest thing to do with the credibility of the two books. He compounds this nonsense by asking "How likely is it that noe of the work of these contributors is meritorious, save for that of someone with whom he associates?" In fact, association with Fetzer may be an indicator of "lack or meritorious" work, though he does mix in some good work with the amazing crap. He later addresses this approach as though it were something being done by others, not him. In reality, if ten people write junk articles, and they are collected in a book, the fact there are ten of them has nothing to do with the quality of book. It is still junk.

9) He then says "Consider the source," but proceeds not to talk about any source. Presumably he means the reader to dismiss Josiah Thompson, the "source" previously mentioned.

10) He states that "the object so disinformation is less to convince anyone of the false than it is to create a set of conditions under which everything can be believed but nothing can be known." Fetzer has accused me in the past, after I had stated a string of things that I indicated very definitely could be known, of arguing that "nothing could be known." It had no relation to what I had said, but fitted his image of his critics, so it didn't matter whether I had said anything that supported the claim - he knew it must be true, so he stated it as a fact. It is, in fact, people like Fetzer who are sowing confusion about what can be known, by tossing out cascades of red herrings, resuscitating discredited theories like the Bill Cooper "Greer shot JFK," and manufacturing new nonsense to add to the confusion.

11) He then targets Posner - none easier - and it gives him a chance to imply that all of his critics are "Posners," ... even though most of us dismantled Posner long before Fetzer did.

12) He indicates the need to go back to the basic evidence, but then argues that the basic evidence has been forged. His stated intent is to "reconstruct the case from the bottom up." Without the basic evidence, of course, we are to begin by going back to the basic evidence and throwing it out.

13) He again praises his own books without mentioning they are his books, and proceeds to greatly inflate their importance. They "are threatening to those who oppose the discovery of truth because they take us back to the basics in order to sort out what evidence is authentic and what is not." NOT, it seems, includes the films, photographs and autopsy evidence pretty much in toto." They thereby enable us to know what is credible and worthy of belief" (Fetzer certified) "and what is not" (inconvenient to Fetzer's claims).

14) Although Peter Dale Scott has raised no objection to the name of Walt Brown's journal, Fetzer has the effrontery to do so in Peter's behalf. The journal is critical of Fetzer, and thus tarnishes "the name of Peter Dale Scott."

15) "Notice....." what Fetzer wants you to think. "Notice....." how Fetzer wants you to assume what he's saying has a sinister connotation, such as Tink praising Gary Mack (who Fetzer's crowd wants to paint as an evil tool of The Sixth Floor Museum "crowd") or something by Todd Vaughan (who has done some good work, though we disagree on many things) or encourages Walt Brown (whom Fetzer has already "explained" is peddling disinformation).

16) He then throws out four other names without any details, saying they have "an axe to grind." Notice that, he says. That would be Clint, myself, Barb and Pamela Brown (apparently he doesn't like her exposure of Doug Weldon's sloppy work on the limo). Anyone who doesn't buy his crap has "an axe to grind."

17) "Notice when claims are too strong to be true." After saying disinformation seeks to create "a state of confusion," he now says anyone making a strong claim should be suspected of disinformation. "too strong to be true"? What exactly does that mean? To quote a song, "Absolutely nothing." Fetzer uses a lot of those phrases that sound profound and mean nothing. Something learned in the academic wars, one would assume.

18) "Notice," he says, when "sources are not cited" - an easy way to discredit newsgroup postings, and sources are often not cited - one needs only to apply the criticism to the posts with which one disagrees. If sources ARE cited, Fetzer just ignores them, thus having it both ways.

19) "Notice when....quotations are taken out of context" (as defined by Fetzer) "edited selectively" (ditto) "or words removed" (note that he imples any removal of words is suspicious, though often words are removed to shorten something WITHOUT altering the meaning of what is cited, merely to remove extraneous material). "These are signs," he tells us.

20) Then he backtracks. Wouldn't want anyone to think he was making a libelous allegation: "I am not suggesting that any of them works for the NSA, the CIA for the FBI" and "I have no idea why they are doing what they are doing." They couldn't be criticizing Fetzer because he is totally full of shit, because that's not within the range of acceptable possibilities for him. After all, he's "revealing the truth." If the subject matter were different, this would be a religious cult.

21) Then some more obfuscatory phrasing: "there are ample grounds based on past experience eo believe they are abusing logic and language to mislead and deceive others about the state of research on the death of JFK." What grounds? Whose past experience? Any sources cited? Nope, though failure to cite sources is one of Fetzer's proclaimed "signs of disinformation." Of course, if he cites sources, he has to make specific allegations against people, and perhaps open himself to legal action, something he's careful to avoid. He says only "On the basis of my experience with them, I believe this is deliberate." That must the the "past experience" he mentioned--experience being criticized by the folks mentioned. "Their function appears to me to be obfuscation"--again the careful phrasing, "appears to me to be." No libel there, just an opinion.

22) His next paragraph implies that all of those cited are conspiring against him. "They seem to have a lot of interaction." His evidence? Bradford cited Thompson on his website.

23) Then another wild and spurious accusation: "It repeats the absurd suggestion that those who are most qualified have no more to contribute than those who are least qualified." This claim, previously made on the newsgroups, takes a lot of chutzpah--it is, after all, Fetzer who is making the ridiculous claim that David Mantik (a physician) is "the world authority on the Zapruder film," elevating Jack White (with a background in advertising) to the position of expert photo analyst, and making other such bizarre claims, while dismissing authentic experts like Roland Zavada as lacking in credibility. Taking this baloney as proven simply by being stated, he goes on to draw conclusions from it, and tie it in to the tactics (his own) which he is projecting onto others.

24) "If the least simpleton should be taken as seriously as the most distinguished scholar" (close to Fetzer's own work) "then there is nothing for them to fear." In fact, it is Fetzer who is fleeing from real expertise, and elevating people with llittle or no background in the fields where he proclaims them "leading authorities," with the exception of Robert Livingston. He says "Even the most important discoveries" (presumably the junk science he is championing) "can be readily discounted merely by denial" (a nice way to avoid confronting the fact those claims have been blasted to scrap by the evidence).

25) He then adds the non-sequiter: "But perhaps that's what we ought to expect from someone who graduated from Yale." This is another sleazy Fetzerism. To those who know many CIA people are Yalies, he is impying that Thompson is "one of them."

26) "There is a serious disinformation movement afoot." Yep, he's leading it, and the best defense is a good offense.

27) His ego then soars again, "one that finds the work of those they attack to be to good to ignore." Please.

28) He then cites Tink as "perhaps the best" example of disinformation.

29) He closes with a call to arms against his critics: "Let us all do our best to expose and combat it" (criticism of Fetzer and his claims, that is). "The cause of justice demands no less." Of course it does, Jim. How can "justice" prevail if his bullshit isn't accepted as the received wisdom of the case?

Remove me from you mailing list immediately and do not send any further e-mail to me.

You are a most astonishing combination of lunacy and arrogant pomposity and I am sorry that you hold an academic position which may cause some gullible youths to listen to you.

You only demonstrate that adherence to absurd theories is not the sole province of the uneducated.

[1] - Mantik spoke for himself, of course, and admitted the errors.
[2] - Mantik thought they were important enough to be corrected for future printings.
[3] - By posting what I had permission to post, I am unethical...

I said several times that I have viewed this tape [Groden's THE ASSASSINATION FILMS] several times. I have never had time to make a detailed study of it and compare various copies. My interest is in studying individual frames (still photos), which I have told Mr. Bradford several times, but he will not accept this.

I am not obligated to perform any such tests for anyone, even if it were a polite suggestion.

Geeze...first I'm "unethical" - now I'm a "bully."

We only grow in this endeavor when we honestly (emphasis) dialogue with one another, and avoid such fractious marginalism as has been the case for all too long now; knowing David Mantik as I do, I have no doubt he would second your efforts all the way...So we grow from exchanges...keep up the good work!!

Wow..."grossly exaggerating" and "deliberate exaggerations." Yet the AUTHOR agreed with me...

Now FETZER mis-states Palamara's work...14 witnesses stated "stopped" and 19 (if I recollect properly) stated "slowed down" in Vince's article. We will be posting Vince Palamara's study here soon.

Get a better dictionary, James. "Reasonableness" is an appropriate synonym in Webster's...

Nope. I just want accuracy and meticulous detail in what I read. Assassination Science's Editor obviously doesn't demand such high standards.

Gee, this guy is relentless. My "lapses in reasoning" are admitted errors by one of Fetzer's authors. -I- certainly did not invent them...

Sure wish this was important enough for the Editor of Assassination Science to take into account...a book that was just published in 1997.

Dr. Mantik desires his mitakes to be corrected in future printings, and thought an Errata page on Fetzer's Web site was a good idea. Noel Twyman made sure we all received an Errata page as his book was sold last November...

Then get better Editors.

Anyone else see flaws in this logic??? By the way, I edit texts on a weekly basis professionally. And even edited a published book...on critiquing moral arguments (how ironic, eh?)

Possibly so...maybe you should tighten up your Author Submission Criteria, then, to demand accuracy...

He thinks too highly of himself...JFK/Lancer made this announcement AFTER the publication of Assassination Science...when people started to question out loud, "What in the world are these authors looking at?" as Assassination Science authors claimed, "tampering."

Talk about missing the point entirely...I'm not in this for "publicity." I simply want accuracy and attention paid to the details.