Message #2



Date: Sat, 04 Jul 1998 17:23:03 -0700
From: Clint Bradford 
To: james fetzer 
Subject: Re: Mantik's Mistakes

I do not entirely understand, James. You are now defending Mantik's
assertions raised in Assassination Science?

Dr. Mantik is now changing his tune, according to his message to me
yesterday.
He now states that the presidential limo may not have stopped, but
"slowed  significantly" - and making that point as if it didn't occur in
the Zapruder film. Bewildering.

Although Dr. Mantik has absolutely no background in this type of film
analysis, neither do I. But I sincerely do not believe it takes a
life-long analyst to see rationality and continuity in the copies of the
Zapruder film we currently have.

Dr. Mantik's thesis in continuously "evolving," for lack of a better
term. Remember his claim about the "white spot" being added to the film.
But then it was brought to his attention that it appeared in the Bothun
photo. His response? To
move the thrust of his argument to superhuman, unnatural movements made
by those filmed...and changes in shapes of objects. Some think it's hard
to keep up when the thesis changes its hypothesis ro many times.

I apologize for my error in believing that you had forwarded
Mantik-related critiques to Dr. Mantik as you have become aware of them
the past few months.

I find your letter to me today inrtriguing. Dr. Mantik agreed with the
four errors I wrote to him about, and desires to correct/amend them
either via an Errata sheet, or by chganging the text in a potential
second volume to Assassination
Science. Yet you feel somehow compelled to "step to the plate" for him -
even after his "at bat" was completed to both of our satisfaction.

Oh, well...let's get to your points...

>>The fact that Groden has several consistent copies does nothing to show
>>whether the film has been edited/altered, since they are all copies of
>>what is presumably the edited/altered film.

Entirely incorrect. Groden brings together several versions of the
Zapruder film from several sources.

>> You do not say whether or not you have subjected the film to minute anaysis >>of individual frames or comparison with other films, etc., as David has done, >>so I find only the slightest reason to think that by viewing these films over
and >>over you have a basis for maintaining that the film was not
edited/altered.

I am a professional photographer, and like to think I have a "good eye."
I do not need to blow up individual frames to see that Greer's head
movements are fluid, natural, and are NOT made in 1/18th of a second,
for example.

>> Jack White is a meticulous investigator.  That you and he may or may not
>> have been looking at the same thing is possible, but that does not show
>> that you are right and he is wrong.  That is a presumption on your part.

Jack White offers eight or nine "points that prove tampering" in
Assassination Science. Not a single one is evident in Lifton's Research
Copy nor in any of the renditions on Groden's video. Jack White almost
defines the heritage of what he
is examining - it is a slide set obtained from Groden many years ago.
What Jack refuses to do is (a) tell us what he thinks after viewing
Groden's videotape (Jack DOES have a copy), and (b) compare his slide
set with, say, the "pristine"
copy that Groden offers on the videotape. THAT would be an interesting
article, because I have not met a sole who believes that Jack White is
anything other than an honorable man.

>> See my point above.  Nothing here "demolishes" claims of alteration in
>>ASSASSINATION SCIENCE.

You have authors who don't document the heritage of what they are
examining. I find that nothing short of atrocious and reckless.

>>[...regarding witness statements who were directly behind the limo...]
>>...That is instead a misrepresentation of research...

I would never want anyone to "dismiss without documenting" what these
witnesses stated. I do believe, though, that we need to take reasonable
man perceptions into account.

>>Every critique that was worth passing along was passed along, just as I
>>passed along this latest post of yours.

Passed along...and then what? As "editor" of Assassination Science, you
haven't come across any critique/correction that you would deem fit for
an Errata page on your Web site? Dr. Mantik believes an Errata page is
necessary...

>>A book of 480 pages on any technical or complex subject is unlikely to
>>be flawless.  I consider the points you have noted to be worth making
>>but also incidental to the major conclusions drawn in the book.  They
>>do no have enough significance to alter the findings David has drawn.

Even after Dr. Mantik has altered his hypothesis AGAIN? He used
Assassination Science to state that the limo "stopped." Now he will be
satisfied with "significantly slowed."

>>As I recall, I sent Roy Schaeffer a copy of Lifton's version of the
>> film, whether or not he recalls my having done so.

He uses a Clay Shaw trial-era copy to back his assertion that Greer
killed the President. He never mentioned owning any other copy to me.

>>Are you implying that if anyone has an opinion with which you disagree,
>>that his work on other subjects ought to be discounted?

It's not ME, James...it's every serious researcher of the assassination.
Do you really know of any article touting the "Greer Killed JFK" claim
that you would publish yourself?

>>Since we have lots of evidence the film has been edited/altered...

What? What Assassination Science gives us is authors using very poor
copies to make claims of tampering...authors who refuse to define the
heritage of what they are analyzing...and "points" that no reasonable
person can see in copies of the
Zapruder film that Groden DOES define the heritage of.

>>In a situation where the evidence is inconclusive...

...a responsible "editor" would DEMAND that source material be properly
defined before publishing.

ALL researchers should take the tactic adopted by the JFK/Lancer group
last year: Debra Conway refuses to publish any Zapruder-film analysis
articles UNLESS the author specifically cites the heritage of the
film/slides they are analyzing.
Period.

>>I would have to look back for the post, but I was offering my assistance
>> to you...

If that was the case, I humbly apologize. But I came away from reading
that message with a different "take" of it. (I'll try to dig it up, too,
James...and will apolozige in writing to the original four recipients of
yesterday's emails if I
was incorrect.)

>>...Clint, at least you have taken the time to consider some of these issues >>seriously and in some detail.  That is far more than has been the case with >>certain other critics, whose remarks do not appear to have been motived by >>the
search for truth.

Geeze, THANKS for that, James. This week alone I have received a death
threat from someone who didn't like my Web site on the assassination,
and another mental midget who saw the SAME Web site, and claims I'm a
CIA plant.

Thanks for your time this federal holiday . Now go enjoy the
evening, and let me know next week when we can expect to see an Errate
page on your site!

 - Clint Bradford

P.S. - Hey - is your message to me and my reply above staying between
you and I? Or should copies be forwarded to Dr. Mantik?
DISINFORMATION PAGE