Message #11





Subject: 
             Fetzer does it again! 
        Date: 
             30 Jan 1998 15:30:05 GMT 
       From: 
             howpl@aol.com (Howpl)
Organization: 
             AOL http://www.aol.com 
 Newsgroups: 
             alt.conspiracy.jfk


Subject: Posted at request of Dr. Fetzer IN RESPONSE TO PLATZMAN CHARGES

I'M GOING TO COMMENT ON THESE POINTS AS THEY ARE RAISED BUT THE REAL KILLER
REMARK COMES AT THE POINT WHERE FETZER BEGINS TO TAKE UP THE Z-FILM DEBATE -
THE ONLY ONE I'VE COMMENTED ON. SO, PLEASE, STICK WITH THIS.

Because rational discourse of complex and emotional subjects is difficult
under the best of circumstances, those who specialize in serious analytic
work attempt to avoid sarcasm, abuse, and other linguistic "put-downs" in
order to focus on the issues at hand.

COUNT UP THE ABUSIVE REMARKS IN OUR POSTS AND THEN TELL ME WHO HAS BEEN MORE
ABUSIVE.  I'VE SAID HIS EDITORIAL CHOICES (SOME FLOWING FROM A POWERFUL EGO)
HAS HELPED TO SABOTAGE THE CREDIBILITY OF HIS BOOK.  HE HAS COME BACK AT ME
WITH A HOWITZER.

I thus find it ironic that a former
student of philosophy

I'VE ADDRESSED THIS IN A PREVIOUS POST.  IF I WERE THE KIND OF GUY FETZER IS,
I'D HAVE SIGNED OFF ON ALL MY MANY PREVIOUS POSTS WITH "DR. PLATZMAN." I NEVER
HAVE.

such as Howard P. would disregard its lessons with
respect to research on the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  For
the moment, however, shall igore his abusive manner to comment as follows:

Insofar as Howard P. cares about "credentialed experts", he should agree
that, with respect to the vast majority of findings presented in the book
ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, credentialed experts have made those discoveries.

BUT NOT IN THE FIELDS THEY ARE EXPERTS IN!  EVEN MANTIK, WHO KNOWS X-RAYS,
NEVER GETS TO DEAL WITH DOCTORED X-RAYS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF HIS WORK.  HIS
METHODOLOGY IS INTRUIGING, I DO IN FACT BELIEVE HIS ARGUMENT IS SOUND - BUT
WHERE IS THE TESTING OF HIS HYPOTHESIS WITH THOSE AS EXPERT AS HE IS?  (AND
FETZER AND I ARE NOT)

What is odd to me--and indicates the incoherence of his position--is that
until now, you have heard nothing from him about these results, which are
of enormous evidential importance to understanding the JFK assassination:

BECAUSE MANTIK COMES MUCH NEARER TO BEING AN EXPERT ON FRAUDULENT X-RAYS THAN
ON FRAUDULENT FILM, I DON'T HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF CONCERN.  NOW I'M BEING
ATTACKED FOR NOT REGISTERING UNIFORM DISCONTENT WITH EVERY ARTICLE IN THE BOOK!
IN FACT, I'VE SAID THAT RON WHITE'S ARTICLE IS SO STRONG THAT IT WOULD HAVE
SERVED AS A MUCH BETTER INTRODUCTION THAN FETZER'S.

  * that the lateral cranial autopsy X-rays have been fabricated by the
    use of a patch to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head,
    a discovery of David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., who is board certified
    in radiation oncology and an expert on the interpretation of X-rays;

AGAIN, FETZER HAS PROBABLY NEVER SEEN A DOCTORED X-RAY IN HIS LIFE AND HIS
METHODOLOGY FOR PROVING FRAUD HAS NOT BEEN DUPLICATED BY, OR EVEN, SUPPORTED BY
ANYONE WITH EXPERTISE IN ANY RELEVANT AREA - AT LEAST NO ONE HAS YET POINTED ME
IN THE DIRECTION OF A BURGEONING CONSENSUS ON THE SOUNDNESS OF HIS TECHNIQUES.


  * that the anterior/posterial autopsy X-ray has been altered by the
    imposition of a 6.5 mm metal object in an obvious effort to impli-
    cate a 6.5 mm weapon in the crime, another discovery of David W.
    Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., who is board certified in radiation oncology;

SAME

  * that drawings and diagrams of a brain maintained in the National
    Archives must be of the brain of someone other than John Fitzgerald
    Kennedy, which is the conclusion of Robert B. Livingston, M.D., who
    is a world authority on the human brain and wound ballistics expert;

THIS ONE'S SILLY. LIVINGSTON HAS SAID NOTHING THAT HASN'T BEEN SAID BEFORE, AND
NOTHING, BY FETZER'S OWN ADMISSION, THAT COULDN'T BE SAID BY A RANK NONEXPERT.
WHAT WOULD BE GREAT NOW IS IF LIVINGSTON CAN CONVENE AN EXTRAGOVERNMENTAL PANEL
OF EXPERTS ALONG THE LINES OF THE HSCA PANELS AND PRESENT THIS CONCLUSION AS
COMING FROM THE TOP MEN AND WOMEN IN THE FIELD. WE'VE GOT TOO MANY "LONE
EXPERTS" TO MAKE ANY REAL DENT IN THE QUEST TO OPEN A NEW INVESTIGATION.

  * that the single-bullet theory cannot possibly be true, because it is
    anatomically impossible, a result established by David W. Mantik, who
    holds a Ph.D. in physics and well as an M.D. and is board certified
    in radiation oncology and who has studied all the original materials;

I ASSUME THIS REFERS TO THE SPINAL DAMAGE THAT MANTIK CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE
OCCURRED GIVEN THE OFFICIAL TRAJECTORY.  I'VE HEARD THIS FOR YEARS. I'VE WANTED
TO BELIEVE. BUT REPEATING YOURSELF A SECOND AND THIRD TIME IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO
INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION.

  * that Jack was hit at least four times (once in the throat from in
    front, once in the back from behind, and twice in the head from in
    front and from behind), a result that receives support from many dif-
    ferent kinds of evidence (including the Boswell sketch, the shirt and
    jacket, and the Berkley death certificate) but also from David W. Man-
    tik, M.D., Ph.D., who is board certified in radiation oncology, and
    Robert B. Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain;

NOW LIST ALL THE CREDENTIALS OF EXPERTS WHO DISAGREE WITH THESE CONCLUSIONS.
THEY ARE IN MANY CASES MORE IMPRESSIVE - IS THERE AN ALVAREZ ON THE
CONSPIRACIST SIDE? - AND THERE ARE MORE OF THEM.  YES, I KNOW, THE CREDENTIALED
EXPERTS HAVE MADE A HOLY MESS OF THIS CASE, BUT THERE ARE NEW GENERATION OF
EXPERTS OUT THERE FETZER ET AL. SHOULD BE REACHING OUT TO.  I JUST WONDER TO
WHAT EXTENT THIS REFLECTS HIS DETERMINATION TO TAKE CENTER STAGE.

  * that an absolute minimum of at least six shots had to have been fired
    in Dealey Plaza that day, namely:  four to Jack, at least one (prob-
    ably two) to Connally, and one that missed (striking James Tague), a
    result that follows by addition from the previous finding combined
    with common knowledge about the case that even a professor of phil-
    osophy and former Marine Corps officer such as myself is competent
    to establish on the basis of the assumption that 4 + 1 + 1 = 6; and,

ALL THIS DEPENDS ON OTHER CONCLUSIONS NOT PROVEN.

  * that the famous "backyard" photographs of Oswald, which many others
    have suggested have been faked (see, for example, Robert Groden, THE
    SEARCH FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD), have indeed been faked, as Jack White,
    widely acknowledged as an expert on photographic evidence, has shown.

MARINA OSWALD, WHO IS THESE DAYS TRYING TO ESTABLISH LEE'S INNOCENCE, TOLD TOM
WILSON THAT SHE REMEMBERS TAKING ONE SUCH PHOTO.  IF THE CONSPIRATORS HAD ONE
AUTHENTIC INCRIMINATING PHOTO, WHY BOTHER CONCOCTING ADDITIONAL FALSE ONES? NO
REASON THAT COMMON SENSE SUGGESTS. CREATING FAKE PHOTOS, AND UNNECESSARY ONES
AT THAT, ONLY EXPOSES THEM TO DISCOVERY.

All of these findings, I submit, meet the most stringent standards that
anyone could impose with respect to "credentialed expertise".  (I would
therefore be greatly relieved to learn from Howard P. and others that
they do indeed accept these conclusions as having been establishe.)  Our
other most important findings concern results  that are less clear-cut:

  * that the Zapruder film has been massively edited using highly sophis-
    ticated techniques,

H E R E  I T  I S  F O L K S !!!!!!

JAMES FETZER, Ph. D. AND WORLD-CLASS EXPERT IN LOGICAL REASONING TELLS US THAT
HE BELIEVES HE HAS ESTABLISHED "MASSIVE EDITING" - YET CALLS THIS CONCLUSION
"LESS THAN CLEAR-CUT."  MY GOD, WHAT COULD POSSIBLY RECONCILE THESE TWO
CHARACTERIZATIONS, OCCURRING IN SUCCESSIVE SENTENCES?  HE IS VERY CLEARLY
SAYING THAT HE HAS MASSIVE EVIDENCE OF EDITING BUT STILL HAS ROOM FOR DOUBT.
HOW MASSSIVE DOES IT NEED TO BE?

THE ONLY THING THAT COULD RECONCILE THIS APPARENT "BLUNDER" IS IF HE SAID: "WE
HAVE UNCOVERED A MASSIVE NUMBER OF ANOMALIES, WHICH, IF THEY CAN'T BE EXPLAINED
AWAY AS INNOCENT ARTIFACTS, WOULD CLEARLY ESTABLISH A COVER-UP."  THAT IS HOW
SOMEONE REASONS LOGICALLY ABOUT THIS "EVIDENCE.  ANOMALIES ARE LIKE CLUES IN A
POLICE INVESTIGATION; THEY ONLY BECOME EVIDENCE, AT WHICH POINT THE CASE GETS
TURN OVER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AFTER THEY'VE BEEN CHECKED OUT.

 as Jack White, an expert on photographic evidence,
    particularly still photography, Noel Twyman, and David Mantik, M.D.,
    Ph.D., not previously known for his work in this area, have shown,
    an important point to which I return in subsequent discussion below.

On the basis of these findings by "credentialed experts" and others who
are widely acknowledge as experts in their fields (APART FROM THE LAST,
WHICH IS A MATTER TO WHICH I SHALL RETURN), many inferences have been
drawn by students of the assassination, including, for example, these:

  * that the Mafia, for example, would not have had the power to reach
    into Bethesda Naval Hospital and fabricate X-rays under the control
    of Naval officers, the Secret Service, and the President's personal
    position, an inference drawn by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., a professor
    of the philosophy of science and an expert on critical thinking;

GEE, TELL ME SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW. (YES, THAT'S SARCASM. HE'S EARNED IN
SPADES.)

  * that neither pro- nor anti-Castro Cubans could have substituted dia-
    grams and photographs of someone else for those of John F. Kennedy,
    an inference drawn by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., credentials noted;

DITTO

  * that, even though the KGB may have had the ability, it could not
    have gain possession of the Zapruder film in order to subject it
    to extensive editing using highly sophisticated techniques, an in-
    ference drawn by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., credentials noted; and,

DITTO

  * that neither could any of these things have been done by Lee Har-
    vey Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead, an infer-
    ence drawn by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., credentials noted once again.

A STERLING CONTRIBUTION TO THE LITERATURE!

It follows that neither the Mafia, pro- or anti-Castro Cubans, the KGB
or Lee Harvey Oswald--working alone--could have perpetrated the cover-
up in the ways that "cover-up" has been shown to have been carried out.
None of these inferences, incidentally, are so complex that they require
an expert on critical thinking and scientific reasoning to draw them,

YOU'RE TELLING ME!

if "credentialed experts" make a difference, his credentials fit the bill.

1. OVERSIMPLIFYING AN ARGUMENT SEVERAL TIMES DOES NO MORE TO DEFUSE IT THAN
OVERSIMPLIFYING IT ONCE

2. "HIS" CREDENTIALS: WHY REFER TO HIMSELF IN THE THIRD PERSON?  WEIRD.

So far as I am able to discern, the only case in which the credentials of
those who are undertaking these studies are subject to any question at
all is that of the Zapruder film,

FINALLY TO THE ONLY MATERIAL I'VE WRITTEN ABOUT

in part because Mantik has not previous-
ly done film work and White is an expert on still photography rather than
film.  From the study of Mantik's work, however, it should be obvious he
has done his homework and has become an expert on film editing, not only
by undertaking the study of specific aspects of film editing but also by
consulting others as appropriate.

WHO? WHAT ARE THEIR CREDENTIALS? ANY SPECIAL EFFECTS EXPERTS AMONG THEM?  WILL
THEY COME FORWARD TO SUPPORT HIS THEORY?

  Many of the oddities indicating that
the film has been edited, moreover, are present in individual frames as
still photograph, where Jack White qualifies as an expert.

HOW DO I KNOW THAT STILL FRAMES OF A PHOTOGRAPH ARE COMPARABLE IN EVERY
RELEVANT WAY TO STILL PHOTOS?

  Noel Twyman,
again, appears to me to be completely competent to undertake the kind of
head turn studies that he has conducted with great precision.

LIVINGSTONE AND SHACKLEFORD HAVE ALREADY DEMOLISHED THE GREER HEAD TURN CLAIM.
THE ROTATION WAS SHORTER THAN CLAIMED AND TOOK AS MANY AS FOUR FRAMES, NOT ONE
AS CLAIMED.

  Of course,
it would be great to draw unbiased experts into the study of the assas-
sination, and David and I (as well as Jack and Noel) both hope that this
will happen.

PLEASE, JIM, I WANT YOU TO BE RIGHT - AND I THINK YOU'VE GOT A BETTER CHANCE OF
BEING RIGHT WITH THE AUTOPSY X-RAYS AND PHOTOS, BUT THIS GROUP CANNOT DO IT
ALONE.  IF YOU ARE REACHING OUT, LET US KNOW.

 I personally am convinced that Mantik's thorough and pains-
taking studies will withstand critical scrutiny and that his findings are
going to be replicated by other suitably conducted studies of the film.

FORGIVE MY PESSIMISM - IT NEVER HAPPENED WITH THE NOW 4-PLUS-YEARD-OLD OPTICAL
DENSITY BLOCKBUSTER AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHY.  CAN YOU TELL US WHY THAT FIZZLED?
 COULD IT BE THAT YOU ARE USING THE TACTICS THAT ARE INADVERTENTLY
SELF-DEFEATING.

SOMEONE SENT ME AN E-MAIL SAYING THAT THE Z-FILM TAMPERING MUST BE AN ATTEMPT
BY THE CONSPIRATORS TO TAKE THE HEAD SNAP AWAY FROM US AND THROW THE RESEARCH
COMMUNITY INTO DISARRAY.  I DOUBT IT, BUT IT WOULD BE A BRILLIANT STROKE.

Indeed, I am delighted to report that new discoveries are being made of
other indications of tampering with the film in obvious respects.

ANY BY EXPERTS IN SPECIAL EFFECTS EDITING?

  In my
view, we have turned the corner with respect to understanding the assas-
sination of Jack Kennedy because the work reported in this book "cracks
the cover-up" and provides extremely powerful evidence in support of the
conclusion that JFK was killed as the result of a large-scale conspiracy.

"ODDITIES" BECOME "EVIDENCE" WITH A FEW QUICK KEY STROKES.

Jim

James H. Fetzer
McKnight Professor
University of Minnesota
Duluth, MN 55812
jfetzer@d.umn.edu

- HOWARD P.


> >______________________
> >
> >Since Howard P. is, by his own admission, incompetent to judge the merits
> >of the arguments advanced in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, we shall have to await
> >those who are competent to carry forward the serious discussion of issues
> >involved here, which are cleary not advanced by the hysterical, irrational
> >and irrelevant remarks of his past posts and no doubt future ones as well.
> >
> >James H. Fetzer
>
> Yes, folks, I admit, I don't have specialized training in special effects
film
> editing.  So I take the totally irrational position of waiting to hear from
> those WITH such expertise before I reach any conclusions.  I must be some
kind
> of nut.
>
> All this from an expert in logic who fails to understand that anomalies can
> have evidential weight only if they can't be explained away as innocent
> artifacts.  Fetzer doesn't have the expertise to know what can and can't be
> explained away.
> -Howard
>

DISINFORMATION PAGE