Message #3

Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 23:54:30 EDT
From: Drmantik
To: jfetzer
Subject: The Limo stop, etc.

Dear Jim:

This is just a brief followup on Bradford's comments.

1. Regarding the limo stop, I have never insisted on a full stop, either in my
talks or in the book, although that is probably very close to what happened. I
have always been quite content to accept a dramatic deceleration as being
grossly in conflict with the extant Z film. The point is really quite simple
(see p. 274): the very modest deceleration seen in the extant film hardly
seems likely to have prompted all these eye witness statements. I am not here
making an argument (new or old)--that was done in the book--I am merely
restating a long held position. As you look at pp. 272-276, it should be
evident that I do not insist upon a full stop. I recall being very sensitive
to this issue as I was writing this chapter. See, for example, the first line
(p. 275) under the subtitle "Did the Limo Stop? Arguments Con". If anyone
insists that I have changed my position on this, it is simply not true.

2. Regarding the images I have used in my analysis, I have made it very clear
that I have used only those published by the Warren Commission. I also added
that I had available superior black and white prints of these (obtained from
Tink). Is Bradford really objecting to my use of these?

3. An incorrect citation qualifies as an error, but whether the remainder of
Bradford's items qualify as errors is a matter of judgment. I have already
stated my position on these points as well as I am able. Why is it so
important to decide whether or not they are all errors? If this is really the
focus of the discussion, it begins to appear like an agenda.

4. Whether a movement is too fast cannot be assessed quantitatively merely by
looking at a film or video. This definitely requires a more detailed analysis,
of which frame by frame analysis is critical. If we cannot agree on this
issue, we are oceans apart on proper methods of analysis, and will no doubt
disagree on much else.

5. Groden's copies were not even discussed in my chapter. I don't know why
these were even introduced to the discussion. I used only Warren Commission
copies. I am bewildered by these comments.

6. The slowing of the limousine was only ONE of many arguments for film
alteration. And the points Bradford raises seem rather minor even for this
point--they are editorial in nature, not substantive. I think his points have
been worthwhile but, unless he has something really penetrating to say, they
have been exhausted at this point. Let's move on the bigger issues.